Stealthiest yet : RQ-180 Revealed

[colay]

AvWeek reports it's the size of GlobalHawk and is the stealthiest bird in the sky, besting the B-2, F-22 and F-35. This makes it suitable to,carry out the penetrating ISR mission. It's built by Northrop-Grumman and presumably bolsters the Company's chances should it compete
for the LRS-B bid.
Secret New UAS Shows Stealth, Efficiency Advances

EXCLUSIVE: Secret New UAS Shows Stealth, Efficiency Advances

December 06, 2013

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.

Neither the Air Force nor Northrop Grumman would speak about the classified airplane. When queried about the project, Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy said, “The Air Force does not discuss this program.”

More,at the link.

 

[firebreather]

Forget Amazon delivery drones; the US Air Force’s latest unmanned stealth craft has reportedly already taken to the skies, potentially capable of mounting clandestine electronic warfare in enemy territory. The drone, believed to be the RQ-180 and made as part of a potentially $2bn project by Northrop Grumman, is already running test flights ahead of full operations by 2015, it’s reported, and be focused on missions in airspace where the US Air Force’s existing, less stealthy unmanned craft cannot go.

rq-180_drone_concept


Currently, Aviation Week reports, the Air Force primarily uses Global Hawk and Reaper drones, in less contentious airspace such as Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the military has supposedly been shopping for a less obvious craft which could slip unnoticed through the skies above countries where an American presence is less welcome.

Neither the Air Force nor Northrop Grumman would comment on the RQ-180 project, though the contract is believed to have been inked as far back as 2008. Financial reports from the manufacturer suggest small-scale production of a new aircraft program began earlier in 2013.

Technical details are scant, though the RQ-180 is believed to be considerably larger than Northrop Grumman’s other recent unmanned project, the X-47B drone that was mistaken for a UFO last year. That has an extended wingspan of around 62 feet, whereas aerial photography of shelters said to be for the new stealth drone suggest a potential wingspan of more than double that.

X-47B

Despite the increase in size, it’s not known whether the RQ-180 will undertake strike missions. Instead, it may be more focused on stealth and electronic attacks, piloting a new radar-reducing cross-section design that can not only minimize the chance of discovery but allow the drone to fly higher, longer, and further afield. The image above is a concept, since the actual appearance of the craft has not been revealed.

As for payload, according to an unnamed defense official, the RQ-180 carries active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar which is known for allowing precise tracking but still being difficult to detect over background noise, along with passive electronic surveillance measures.

While the Air Force may not be commenting on specifics, it has not shied from admitting in the recent past that it is aiming for greater clandestine abilities. “We are over-invested in permissive ISR and we have to transform the force to fight and win in contested environments” Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) Lt. Gen. Robert Otto said back in September. “We will seek a more balanced fleet of both manned and unmanned platforms that are able to penetrate denied airspace and provide unprecedented levels of persistence.”

 

[RobWilliams]

Do not copy and paste entire articles, and if you do want to enter articles then please can you pick out a couple of details which you're interested in and talk about it. Basically, discuss the article's content.

Plus by not citing the source of the article you're contradicting rule 21 of the rules of this forum, so please don't do it again.

www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

There is no need to reply to this post, just bear it in mind in the future.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Could this be the first step towards reducing reliance on ISR systems with high RCS values i.e. E-3, JSTARS etc..? I must admit, an LO AWACS sounds very interesting.

 

[gf0012-aust]

ISR is not about single solution platforms, they're complimentary systems - and each subset of the ISR solution has a point in time utility, be it redundancy, or capability overlap etc.....

a good example of this is airborne ASW ASuW,

BAMS UAS can carry limited ISR gear - so will be tasked to do vanilla work - but its the manned assets (P8's) that will do the heavy lifting - and carry literally 5-6 times more systems on board and are therefore in absolute terms, the more useful platform when it comes to crunch time

there's a need to understand the differences between, roles, taskings, mission reqs etc as each has different demands and those demands can mean using different assets for a point in time - but they may not be the only available asset that can do the job....

 

[ADMk2]

Or Bill Sweetman aka "Low Observable" just pulling his pud over his beloved "black" programs...

Meanwhile telling all and sundry "stealth" doesn't work on F-35...

 

[colay]

Tasking the RQ-180 for the EW role to complement LRS-B would be key to help keep the new bomber affordable i.e. @ $500M a pop. Offloading comprehensive EW kit results in a lower LRS-B cost which should translate into billions saved for a planned fleet of 100 aircraft. For the most challenging missions, a RQ-180 could escort LRS-B helping clear a path through defenses. The RQ-180 can also do the penetrating ISR mission cheaper and without the risk of using a manned platform.

 

[bdique]

The RQ-180 has been in development for some time and capabilities-wise it seems to surpass the RQ-170.

I have a hunch this is why the US response to the capture of the RQ-170 by Iran felt quite low-key to me.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The RQ-180 has been in development for some time and capabilities-wise it seems to surpass the RQ-180..

?? Do you want to have another crack at this statement?

 

[swerve]

Ah. Finger/brain disconnect, I'd say.

 

[bdique]

Finger/Brain disconnect indeed :Þ

?? Do you want to have another crack at this statement?

Edited, I have no idea how on earth that happened...

 

[SpudmanWP]

A while back there was news of airborne bistatic radar developments.

Do you think that the RQ-180 (or something like it) could be used as VLO receivers for this to provide AWACS coverage in denied airspace?

 

[gf0012-aust]

A while back there was news of airborne bistatic radar developments.

Do you think that the RQ-180 (or something like it) could be used as VLO receivers for this to provide AWACS coverage in denied airspace?

VLO aircraft are already a flying array - and conceptually its always been a consideration that future VLO UAS would be able to form part of a larger sensor array....

 

[bdique]

A recent interview with Gen Mike Hostage seems to imply that U-2s are going to be phased out and more Global Hawks will be purchased, but that would not be an ideal arrangement. I'm speculating: could the RQ-180 then be seen as the successor of the U-2?

Q. ISR is another area that has been politically difficult in the past. Is that impacting your plans?

A. Well, we are being driven by politics to take on a weapon system that is very expensive, the Global Hawk. It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk. I will likely have to give up the U-2. What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment. It will change how I am able to employ that airplane in a high-end fight or a contested domain.

Link here: Air Combat Command's challenge: Buy new or modernize older aircraft | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com