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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

TAGBOARD
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Understood, it seems everyone agrees that the Global Hawk needs to go away.

However, the Global Hawk "Block 50" is just a cover name for a different program. Again, a rumor I have not been able to discredit.
edit on 16-12-2013 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)


Regarding disproving a rumor, "you can't prove a negative." That is, you can only prove things exist.

This is a follow up from Fortune on the RQ-180
CNN/Fortune




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Air Force Magazine posted an article from a member of the USAF Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance group confirming the existence of the RQ-180:

For Those Hard-to-Reach Areas



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

What enemies does the US have where 60kft is not enough "standoff" for real time recon?

I can only think of one: the DPRK.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: TAGBOARD

What enemies does the US have where 60kft is not enough "standoff" for real time recon?

I can only think of one: the DPRK.


China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, DPRK as you said already. I can certainly see the need for this system.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

The use of the RQ-180 is a blatant airspace violation. I don't think the US would use it on China, Cuba, etc. It is really "in your face" spying. But I would add Iran to the list.

The deal is you need to find a target that is a pain in the ass (DPRK and Iran qualify) and has the means to terminate your not so stealthy GH. Iran and the DPRK have the missile capability.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

The thing is the horizon at 60,000' is 300 miles away. A little further for radio wave lengths. Even assuming only 2/3s the area is usefully surveilled, you are still potentially surveilling a large swath of land at 60k feet. And sensors are becoming ever more useful. Increasing your height to 80k, gives you 50 miles further to the horizon. This means I can "stand off" and still see a great deal from well outside your airspace., or in an extreme case, that much farther from your air defense sites while inside it.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

The thing is the horizon at 60,000' is 300 miles away. A little further for radio wave lengths. Even assuming only 2/3s the area is usefully surveilled, you are still potentially surveilling a large swath of land at 60k feet. And sensors are becoming ever more useful. Increasing your height to 80k, gives you 50 miles further to the horizon. This means I can "stand off" and still see a great deal from well outside your airspace., or in an extreme case, that much farther from your air defense sites while inside it.


But you can use the GH for 60kft. So why a new airframe? I believe the RQ-180 is for getting a closer look at lower altitudes, probably under cloud cover.

Besides, your 300 statute mile figure is all slant range. If imagery is involved, you really want to be overhead. The is about 2.5 to 3 miles of breathable atmosphere (depending on the definition of breathable). The reason satellite imagery "works" is there is little loss over the rest of the path. But once you have significant slant, you are viewing though more atmosphere.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Without being terribly specific, you'd be surprised what can be done at at a "slant" from altitude with current optics. In addition, while atmospheric opacity is an issue for visual wavelengths, many other bands of the EM spectrum may treat the atmosphere as transparent. Couple that with a passive ELINT suite who's data is always in demand, and a stealthy standoff platform might be pretty handy for monitoring all sorts of events/regions. Ideally, one might have a payload bay capable of mounting different packages holding various sensor suites as needed.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

Without being terribly specific, you'd be surprised what can be done at at a "slant" from altitude with current optics. In addition, while atmospheric opacity is an issue for visual wavelengths, many other bands of the EM spectrum may treat the atmosphere as transparent. Couple that with a passive ELINT suite who's data is always in demand, and a stealthy standoff platform might be pretty handy for monitoring all sorts of events/regions. Ideally, one might have a payload bay capable of mounting different packages holding various sensor suites as needed.


Except the higher you go, the more QRM effecting your ELINT. And again, they could just put the new hardware in the present day GH if height alone were the answer.

Atmospheric absorption goes down with increasing wavelength. It is a 4th power relationship. However, your resolution goes down with longer wavelength as well, not to mention you need cryogenic or at least cooled sensors.

A different airframe implies a different mission, since you need to sell the program to get it funded.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I dont know how much the QRM issue is negated by higher processing systems, to be honest. Among the things the Global Hawk cannot do is to penetrate defended airspace or loiter off-shore undetected. If the goal is COMINT or ELINT for a missile test, for example, seeing a GH loitering about might result in fewer transmissions or a delay of the test and the resultant loss of opportunity to gather telemetry data, etc. Or during a military exercise, maybe we miss the chance to see the full range of frequencies of the air-defense network and communication of the forces involved. All that is just advantages in the stand-off roll for an ELO platform.

The new mission is for a penetrating ELO platform. Whether that is as an AEA enabler for a strike package or LRS-B, or providing ISR for a strike package or as a SMTI platform, it needs to be survivable in defended airspace. That's one thing the GH is not in a modern defended airspace.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

If you are launching a rocket or piloting a boat in America's cup, COMSEC is expected. Even if you can't see them, assume they are there. Rocket telem is easily done from the ground since the rockets are in the air.

First the RQ-180 was at altitude and sniffing at slant, now you have morphed it in theatre, which is my initial guess. The GH is fine for sniffing with standoff, but you need the low observability (or ELO if you prefer), for close up work.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I was replying to the idea that you presented that we would not penetrate Russian or Chinese airspace and implied a stealthy platform was only useful over the DKRP or Iran.There are peacetime benefits for an ELO platform over GH in the stand off role, as well. The white papers on the need for the last ten years or so have always mentioned the need for ISR and AEA in heavily defended airspace. This is looking toward large scale conflict with major players- whether or not the need is apparent in peacetime. This is going to help keep the LRS-B on the KISS path and hopefully drive down costs.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Aren't there Satellite that can safely reconniter enemy area ? flying an aircraft inside the enemy's border risk technology capture / loss from malfunction or shotdown inside that border..

or at least these spy UAV should fly soo high and soo fast they cannot be attacked..



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: buntalanlucu

And Satellites can be plotted to the exact second that they are overhead.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

And Satellites can be plotted to the exact second that they are overhead.


im sure that's not a problem right ? or do you foresee a problem of satellite reconnaisance that can be tracked exactly and perfectly that the enemy have time to hide / to bluff ?

instead of making all these airplane stealth and stealh spyplane.. why dont they create a 'Stealth Satellite'.. that will solve your statement completely..



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: buntalanlucu

They've hidden classified projects from satellites for decades. As for stealth satellites they're up there and still tracked visually. If you know the launch time, and the direction of the launch, and other ready to get information, then you can figure out roughly where it is and when it will be overhead.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

And Satellites can be plotted to the exact second that they are overhead.


Funny you mention that. Like the last two birds we just launched up there last week. They have very aggressive maneuvering thrusters on board to allow it to change course rapidly. Mostly to spy on other satellites but it would be nice to have something up there that wasn't predictable.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

That's the other problem with satellites. Once they're out of fuel they're useless.
edit on 8/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu
As satellites they're up there and still tracked visually.


Russia & China yes, Iran?

And what if they're dark?

gizmodo.com...


If you know the launch time, and the direction of the launch, and other ready to get information, then you can figure out roughly where it is and when it will be overhead.


If it didn't move. I wonder if the electromagnetic tethers could provide maneuverability without requiring fuel consumption?

www.nbcnews.com...-Av0PldXTo



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Even if you hide them perfectly they will never give you the flexibility an aircraft will. Unless you want to put it in Geosynchronous orbit over a target area they still only give you limited time over an area, every couple of hours. You almost have to get lucky to get a good hit.

Whereas an aircraft, especially working with a SIGINT platform, gives you flexibility to change targets in midflight, as well as being unpredictable.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join