It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Say Hello to the RQ-180

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by reject
 


Don't put too much into the pictures. The descriptions I've heard don't match to the drawings released. As for size, it's fairly large from what I hear, but I don't have exact dimensions.


yeah the design is off.




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Why do you think that I do it to other people? It's finally my chance to what was done to me!


Of course what was even funnier was when *I* told YOU some of the details you hadn't shared.

edit on 12/7/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

darksidius
reply to post by gariac
 

Is it can be possible that the plane in the new Groom hangar is a big project that the three company are working on it together?
There is great chance that Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop have the same similary projects and finaly works together, in the futur projects instead of competing.


I don't think they are in the same hangar. Everyone likes to keep their secret sauce to themselves. But your best clue is to study the past. How have they cooperated in the past? I think between aviation competitors, the jet engine companies probably have a better record of sharing, if you consider cross licensing sharing.

Generally companies share technology on basic components, usually after a bit of patent litigation. On subsystems, there is often only one right way to do something, and engineers come up independently with the same design. The patent system is supposed to negate patenting anything obvious to one skilled in the art, but that rarely happens. So a great number of components end up getting cross licensed. The idea is you don't sue me, I don't sue you, but we both sue the new guy that tries to enter the market.

Aircraft themselves have so many engineering compromises that you could give the same objective to two different companies and get two very different designs. The old PBS special "The Battle of the X Planes" showed this well.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Sounds like next years news is going to be like my Christmas morning.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


I suspect we're going to end up having two come out sometime in the next twelve months.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

PRS395
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Our government from the top is good at flying our top secret technology to other countries (Iran) so they can catch them on purpose.

No grounds for impeachment either.


Anyone can design an aerodynamic airframe. The hard part is going to be designing the low power systems, reliable communications to satellite, the satellite communication network, the control software and hardware. The last two will probably self-destruct on crash.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


NG's LRS-B possibly? I'm sure Boeing doesn't want to be left out of the party either.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Rumor is that something will be at Edwards sometime next year, which if it is for one of the upcoming competitions, means that chances are we'll see the competing entry come out as well.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   



Look carefully. Northrop Grumman sent this out a long long time ago. The development path of 'sensorcraft'. Note the second from last.

# Note - go to Lockheed Martin and they claim the second craft in as one of theirs on their promotional posters. Interesting


edit on 7-12-2013 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Astr0
 


I'm leaning more towards the first one being the right one personally. The second one is out there I'm sure though. Interesting that they both claim it. I didn't hear about them doing a joint program.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Could they possibly of declassified it after the crash as a way of not killing the program because of the crash?

I'm not sure how along this A/c is and if it's operational but if it's not this could be a way.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


Oh it was pretty safe. There are a few of them flying around out there (don't believe what you read though).



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


First one on the left or the right?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Think about it.
What is the description again?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Like this I think:



Closest to the theme seemed to be by Northrop Grumman, which has worked on a flexible Conformal radar antenna under the LOBSTAR (Low-Band Structural Array). This should form a sort of flat panel (with the possibility of shaping into the airfoil), the radar waves to rely solely on its leading edge open. The fact that it was a low-frequency system, it was possible the actual radar beam quite easily be directed to the sides and cover so large an area of ​​land and airborne targets. Similarly, incorporation of electronics into a sandwich composite allowed to use the antenna itself as a leaf surface and thus save a substantial part of the parasitic weight. Although the first draft quite logically based on the formulation developed by the RQ-4 Global Hawk, will soon have also been developed process to the final version of the flying wing.

Northrop Grumman SensorCraft ISR intelligence reconnaissance surveillance UAV AFRL unmanned aerial vehicle platform airplane stealthy high aspect ratio flying wing

The resulting design with a wingspan of 62.5 meters and a maximum take-off weight at 57 tons is quite similar to the initial study bomber B-2, but with a shorter length. Is driven by two engines, which allow the life in the air for up to two days without refueling in the operating height of 18 km. Due to the large margin must in this case totally flexible wing, while in the outer parts to be placed too high frequency radar to detect airborne targets at long distances. Conformal X-band radar for serving primarily the accurate detection of targets located closer to the fuselage on the leading and trailing edge. Considerable bending wings and thus substantially changed the entire shape of the radar antenna must be compensated by software very powerful computer with a capacity of the order of TeraFLOPS. As part of the award of contracts built by Northrop Grumman and a scale model of the wings and the central part of the fuselage for the total bending tests and structural integrity.









Source
edit on 7-12-2013 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Nice find. You don't see that one out there much.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Rumor is that something will be at Edwards sometime next year, which if it is for one of the upcoming competitions, means that chances are we'll see the competing entry come out as well.

Yep, South Base, more specifically..

Should be ready for receiving by May '14, from what I've heard



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weavty1
 


A UAV or a manned plane this time ? in Edwards.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by darksidius
 


Now now, that would be telling. You'll just have to wait.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join