Lockheed Martin RQ180 Confirmed

originally posted by: milomilo

originally posted by: boomer135


I'm not sure where your getting your info but the rear of the f-22 is still way stealthier and any other plane in the world. It's thrust vectoring nozzles are a huge part of the planes design and shields the aircraft from the rear. That's ones of the reasons it's known as all aspect stealth.

You should really read and understand the basics of LO before repeating the lies from lockheed martin advertisement. Many Fighters got other means of detecting hostiles , for example using IRST.

The rear aspect of F22 is highly visible in IRST sensor, and the steath shaping wont save it from IR missile attack from behind.

Really? I flew on KC-135's for six years and by no means is our radar better than some fighters out there, it was still good enough to see a B-2 slip in and out of radar on its way to refuel. Even when the F-22 was in front of us, even on training missions, our radar couldn't pick the aircraft up. Theres a reason they designed the trust vectoring nozzles with stealth features. They hide the exhaust of the raptor better than having it come out of bell nozzles.

Stick to the stories you read online. Our information comes from credible sources and first hand knowledge.

Oh, and as for credibility, I was one of a few boom operators who did the initial in-flight refueling tests on the YF-22, F-22A and the X-35. So my knowledge of stealth technology is good enough to know what im talking about.

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: milomilo

originally posted by: boomer135


I'm not sure where your getting your info but the rear of the f-22 is still way stealthier and any other plane in the world. It's thrust vectoring nozzles are a huge part of the planes design and shields the aircraft from the rear. That's ones of the reasons it's known as all aspect stealth.

You should really read and understand the basics of LO before repeating the lies from lockheed martin advertisement. Many Fighters got other means of detecting hostiles , for example using IRST.

The rear aspect of F22 is highly visible in IRST sensor, and the steath shaping wont save it from IR missile attack from behind.

Really? I flew on KC-135's for six years and by no means is our radar better than some fighters out there, it was still good enough to see a B-2 slip in and out of radar on its way to refuel. Even when the F-22 was in front of us, even on training missions, our radar couldn't pick the aircraft up. Theres a reason they designed the trust vectoring nozzles with stealth features. They hide the exhaust of the raptor better than having it come out of bell nozzles.

Stick to the stories you read online. Our information comes from credible sources and first hand knowledge.

Oh, and as for credibility, I was one of a few boom operators who did the initial in-flight refueling tests on the YF-22, F-22A and the X-35. So my knowledge of stealth technology is good enough to know what im talking about.

Just because you ride on a flying gastank didnt mean you know anything about LO , and based on your statement you dont even knew anything about radar and LO shaping. and why would F-22 going for refueling go in front of the tanker aircraft anway ? and if you are a boom operator your place is in the tail end and you are not qualified to read the radar upfront. But assuming you are telling the truth, what kind of radar (other than weather radar) would a tanker carry up-front ?

Please dont start pretending to be something you are not capable of proving.. there's already so many internet warriors / internet Marines that it outnumber the real serving military men from all the world's military lol

a reply to: milomilo

And you're not a keyboard expert? What makes you such a military genius that you know everything about everything.

Just because you ride on a flying gastank didnt mean you know anything about LO , and based on your statement you dont even knew anything about radar and LO shaping. and why would F-22 going for refueling go in front of the tanker aircraft anway ? and if you are a boom operator your place is in the tail end and you are not qualified to read the radar upfront. But assuming you are telling the truth, what kind of radar (other than weather radar) would a tanker carry up-front ?

Please dont start pretending to be something you are not capable of proving.. there's already so many internet warriors / internet Marines that it outnumber the real serving military men from all the world's military lol

oh boy here we go....

For this little exercise I'm going to assume you know a little bit about air refueling. Now taking off out of Edwards, where we did the F-22 training back in the early 2000s was a bit different that normal flights. We would take off, go to where the fighters were, and circle over them until they got thirsty. They would be behind us, to the sides of us, IN FRONT OF US, wherever their training wanted them to go. So yes I have seen just about every single aircraft in our inventory from the rear as well as the front. And that's not all....

In air refueling we have something called a point parallel rendezvous. Here's what it looks like:

This is the most common air refueling "meet up" we have. We also have whats called an Overtaking Point Parallel rendezvous. That's when either the receiver gets to the air refueling track before the tanker or the receiver is flying faster than they should be. The result is the receiver being IN FRONT of the tanker, instead of behind. Well basically the procedures for this are: the tanker speeds up, and the receiver slows down. Eventually they end up behind us and start their climb up to our position. So, yes, I've seen the rear of aircraft several times in my years of flying.

As for the radar it has, like I said its not the best out there and certainly not what the other fighters are using nowadays, but if you want the exact model then its the Collins WXR-700X forward looking predictive radar with integrated flight management system with built in Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and an enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS). Again its mostly for weather, but we were able to pick up the B-2s going in and out of radar with it before, and had F-22's right in front of us that never even showed up on it. It would pick up and track every other commercial airliner in pretty big radius for avoidance purposes.

And yes, being a boom operator, we were trained on how to use and read the radar along with all the other systems in the cockpit. When we lost the navigator to PACER CRAG, the boom operator basically became the flight engineer, third officer, whatever you wanna call it. If the pilots got too busy up there, we had our own flight management screens and computers and we could fly the autopilot from our seat behind them if we wanted to. Our place in the jet is not in the back of the aircraft. Our place in the jet is from the shoulders of the two pilots to the rear of the aircraft and everything in between. That's what we trained to do. We were even trained to land the jet in case of an emergency.

And last but not least, I don't have to prove who I am to anyone because most of the people who hang out in the aviation forums here know who I am. But I'll give you a little backround...

I'm a Flight Check Evaluator, Combat Flight Instructor Boom and Instructor Test Boom. I have over 2500 hours flying on KC-135s and KC-10s, with over 1000 hours of that in over 200 combat flights over Iraq and Afghanistan. I was one of a handful of boom operators at Edwards to do the initial air refueling tests and support for the YF-22, YF-23, F-22A, and X-35 (didn't get to refuel the X-32). I've refueled aircraft that are still not in the publics eye to this day. People on this website have seen pics of them. Because of having to refuel stealth aircraft still in test phase, I've had to attend many classified meetings in which the LO characteristics of the receivers were discussed in detail. On the F-22A I even had input on redesigning the air refueling receptacle door to keep the LO stealth and minimize vibration of the door during air refueling. I may not know a lot about stealth and LO features, but I sure as hell know more than the average non-military person out there.

But pictures are worth a thousand words right?
Here's a few I took....

Here's some more...

all your pictures cannot be viewed.. all blank..

but

even if you really what you said you are , a guy who refuel aircraft in the sky , you still do not have more knowledge in regards to LO , no more than standard ordinary person because it is not your speciality. After all your admitted skill is to refuel hungry planes. Now if you are AWACS radar operator you should know all about LO , but then you wont be able to talk about it since it will be classified information.

a reply to: milomilo

But it's your specialty right? Because obviously you know all about it since you're stating as fact that the F-22 isn't stealthy from all aspects. That means that you know all about stealth, right? Even the classified stuff.

a reply to: boomer135
Beautiful pictures Boomer, flying over Groom hmmm great chance you have , a picture of a new demonstrator will be great too
( Its a joke)

MiloMilo surely Boomer say you about the stealth is the truth , a guy working all the days with the better need a respect and have nothing to proof , just look the pictures its better than a lot of words

a reply to: milomilo

Dude just submit. Your nonsense is making you look like a complete fool. They've both made accurate points backed up with real life exp and yet you sit at your keyboard I'm sure wikiing away with things you have no real first hand knowledge on.

i thought ATSer should use their brain and not accepting every claim from anyone ?

the point here is why would you believe an aircraft refueler / boom operator would have inside knowledge on LO technology just because he used to refuel a few of them ? Just because he is a real deal boom operator then you just accept everything he said as gospel ? i find that amusing and hilarious.

That's why so many people in ATS got taken in by the lies and fairytales from people like John Lear , who have extensive experience as pilot and once worked as CIA trashhauler.

Another example should be that Canadian Defense minister who keep saying UFO and ALIENS is real, people in ATS said because he is a minister what he said must be true ergo UFO/ALIENS really exists.. But where is the people who used their brain and thinking cap here ? did being in ATS should mean Question Everything and Deny Ignorance ? whats more ignorant than being an unthinking sheep ?

In reality , no one outside the insider in Aerospace companies and military personel with clearance have a true knowledge on the extend of LO technology. Certainly an airplane boom operator no matter how long the experience wont have clearance for that knowledge. If he have clearance he wont be talking in here and risking classfied information breach.


IF NO ONE KNEW ABOUT LOW OBSERVABLES EXCEPT SELECT PEOPLE , WHY WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ?

Because the facts remains that IRANIAN with their technology , Detected and Downed (Hacked) a supposedly secret Stealthy Drone to the suprise of the Americans who think Iranian cannot even detect their stealth. This is the reason why American military lose faith in Stealth and delay their invasion to Iran.

Low Observable is not invisibility like some of commenters here think it is. Even Lockheed Martin said that LO Shaping and Materiel will reduce the detection range on CERTAIN RADAR FREQENCY BAND. It is not a silver bullet that can destroy any target in the world with impunity undetected..

a reply to: milomilo

Where has anyone said stealth makes you invisible. Quote it from this thread. That argument went out a long time ago.

Stealth has gone into all aspect, all frequencies since at least 2009. There are white papers discussing it. Some even posted on ATS.

It always amuses me how the anti-US/stealth/whatever crowd are experts and know everything there is to know, while people that have actual first hand knowledge are dismissed as irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for you to answer what makes you such an expert that you can dismiss everything said.

What is so hard about these deluded americans to accept that 'Stealth' is not created from single element that is the fighter aircraft ?

Stealth or Low Observable LO is a combination of Aircraft Shaping, Aircraft Material, Tactical decision to select optimal ingress & egress routes , ECM Jammers (off board), Deception , NoE flight profile and many other stuff that these air force dudes usually do when they want to deliver the good news.

If you refer STEALTH as if one aircraft using it's special shaping and materiel can penetrate any modern air defense network, you are just parroting the propaganda from US goverment regarding their military superiority MYTH.

I was perlexed that with all the amount of publicly available knowledge regarding LO , you still have a hard time understanding these. This is not some super secret info available for only select people..

i rest my case

a reply to: milomilo

Tell the F-117 pilots that flew over Baghdad that stealth has nothing to do with shaping or the aircraft.

Oh wait, they're lying too, because you have such expertise that you know better than everyone.

And which is it? First it was shaping that only works from certain angles, now it has nothing to do with the aircraft itself. You're contradicting yourself.

And once again stealth doesn't work, but almost every country out there is spending billions on it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh wait, they're lying too, because you have such expertise that you know better than everyone.

Kind of gave it away with his deluded Americans remark. He doesn't have anything except what he reads online and even then I wonder if he actually understands it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And once again stealth doesn't work, but almost every country out there is spending billions on it.

Didn't you know countries spend billions on technology that is useless...It's the new in thing to do.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Zaphod58

And once again stealth doesn't work, but almost every country out there is spending billions on it.

Didn't you know countries spend billions on technology that is useless...It's the new in thing to do.

you mean like the JSF ?

originally posted by: JJRichey
Just saw this...

June 19, 2014: The U.S. Air Force recently announced that the long rumored RQ-180 UAV did indeed exist and was still in development. The RQ-180 is a large (over 12 tons) and stealthy UAV designed to survive in heavily defended air space. The earlier RQ-170, which first saw service over Afghanistan and South Korea in 2010 is a similar, but smaller and earlier design. The U.S. Air Force had already admitted that the RQ-170 was a high altitude reconnaissance UAV developed in secret by Lockheed-Martin during the previous decade. It has a 12 meter (40 foot) wingspan. The RQ-170 is believed to be a replacement for some of the U-2s and a supplemental aircraft for the larger Global Hawk

More here: SOURCE

I'm currently trying to find just where the Air Force had reveled this?

Seems I'm a little behind on the news actually...

Speaking at an aerospace industry event in Virginia on June 9, Air Force surveillance chief Lt. Gen. Bob Otto said the RQ-180 would give the Pentagon “better access to contested airspace,” according to John Tirpak, a reporter for Air Force magazine who was at the event.

source

I thin the event itself was the Lockheed Martin Media Day 2014, held in Arlington VA on June 9.

Hidden in plane (pun intended) site perhaps? Lockheed Skunkworks Magic

instead of UAV that can be hijacked or spoofed by clever enemy like Iran, wouldnt it be better to have manned aircraft like a stealth version of U2 ? of course this risk a pilot capture when the craft got shot down but at least no one can hijack it.

a reply to: buntalanlucu

The newest generation of UAV will be almost impossible to spoof. New data links, and new communications systems will make getting access to them from the outside as close to impossible as it can be.

The RQ-170 was always a filler aircraft so it didn't have top of the line technology when it was built.

RQ 180? That is old news lets talk about RQ 210.... At least we will be in this decade of technology....

a reply to: boomer135

One of the best post I've seen about credibility! Great way in verifying who you are and what you did! I think this forum would be even more interesting if more people did that.