Secret New UAS Shows Stealth, Efficiency Advances

Fnord666 writes in with this link about one the development of a new unmanned toy for the U.S. Air Force. "A large, classified unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman is now flying—and it demonstrates a major advance in combining stealth and aerodynamic efficiency. Defense and intelligence officials say the secret unmanned aerial system (UAS), designed for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, is scheduled to enter production for the U.S. Air Force and could be operational by 2015. Funded through the Air Force's classified budget, the program to build this new UAS, dubbed the RQ-180, was awarded to Northrop Grumman after a competition that included Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The aircraft will conduct the penetrating ISR mission that has been left unaddressed, and under wide debate, since retirement of the Lockheed SR-71 in 1998."

Comments

What about the SR-72

[Anonymous Coward]

What I found interesting about the recent SR-72 "teaser" was that it is essentially what people have rumored for the Aurora for years now. Maybe it already exists, and "announcing" it as a hypothetical is step 1 of the unveiling process?

Re:What about the SR-72

[mrchaotica]

As an American, I'd be fairly pissed off if the military didn't have a secret replacement for the SR-71 already in service (since before 1998).

At what cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

In these times of austerity it is necessary to disguise your pork barrels.

Advanced stealth technology makes this enormous barrel of pork look more like a small can of spam.

Re:At what cost?

[Anne Thwacks]

Pretty much no elected official wants to be seem as "soft on terrorism".

True - most seem much happier to appear "soft in the head".

Pork, pork, pork, pork

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Does anybody really believe there's a "coverage gap" between satellites and (for example) Global Hawks? No, of course not. The SR-71 was retired because it wasn't needed, not with satellites that can read a license plate from orbit in real time. This is just a corporate handout for Northrup Grumman, we can't have them feeling left out, what with Lockheed Martin getting all the F-35 moniez.

Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork

[PPH]

It takes time to reposition a satellite. Even after changing orbits, enemy forces can make reasonable estimates about when there will be coverage gaps and plan operations accordingly.

Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork

[TubeSteak]

The SR-71 was retired because it wasn't needed, not with satellites that can read a license plate from orbit in real time.

The SR-71 was killed because of *budget cuts.
It's a wildly expensive plane to operate and needs a lot of fuel support to go anywhere and come back.

Satellite coverage isn't the panopticon you seem to think it is.
Yes they can read your license plate from space, but only if there's a satellite in the right spot, at the right angle.
Sometimes it's faster to put real eyes in the sky (SR-71 or *U-2) than it is to re-task an out of place satellite.
And despite the magic of satellite imagery, high resolution film from a plane still wins out.

*The military is currently looking at mothballing other types of fleets as a fallout of the sequester. Goodbye A-10 Thunderbolt.
**Yea, we're still using the U-2 spy plane since its introduction in 1957. The Pentagon plans to keep it in service until 2023. They're killing the drone program that was supposed to replace it.

Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork

[AJWM]

Goodbye A-10 Thunderbolt.

The Air Force has being trying to get rid of it forever. It's for close air support, not a role the USAF is fond of. The Army would love to take it over but they're not allowed fixed-wing aircraft.

Stupid turf wars.

Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork

[PPH]

After the missile had been launched and hit the target range, but before our satellites passed over again, they'd move the target closer to the impact point.

In Soviet Russia, target hits you!

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Eternal war...

[spacefight]

... for eternal peace. Those funds --- ah forget it. Nothing going to change anytime soon.

Re:Initial Planning?

[ganjadude]

Unmanned Aerial System Strategy (for) Home Owners (on) Lake Erie?

toasters

[kaoshin]

This one bears resemblance to a cylon raider. Perhaps their plan is a much more sinister one?

Re:toasters

[PapayaSF]

What is the deal with flying wings anyway? It seems like everything these days is a flying wing or close to a flying wing.

Is it more efficient or what is the advantage. As an R/C enthusiast I have flown them and they're not that fun because they really aren't very stable or maneuverable.

Flying wings are good because the entire structure provides lift, and the drag of a fuselage and vertical control surfaces is eliminated. Their shape also makes them more stealthy, even without the use of radar-absorbing materials. The control issue was always the limiting factor and was a major reason why the YB-35/YB-49 didn't succeed. Current flying wings would be unflyable without advanced computer "fly by wire" controls (which your R/C planes don't have). In other words, the pilot's controls aren't directly controlling the aircraft's control surfaces: they are telling the computer what he wants the plane to do, and the computer then moves the split ailerons to make that happen.

UAS?

[odoketa]

Is there a reason we're not calling this a drone? The use of 'UAS' makes me feel like I'm reading propaganda.

Re:UAS?

[Richard_at_work]

The widespread use of the term "drone" is actually fairly new and rather media led, as UAVs, UASs, UCAVs etc have been around for well over two decades and have been referred to in those terms as well. If anything, its the medias use of the term "drone" that is propaganda, as they have managed to equate it with negative usage pretty much universally.

Re:UAS?

[MightyYar]

To keep it neutral I, for one, prefer the term Demoncraft.