RQ-180 speculative thoughts.

I scry with my beady eye - Crystal ball time here.


Twin engine main 'body', three distinctive mission specific wing configurations.

1) Beastly long thin straight wings for 'peace time ultra long loitering at high altitude' Think U2 style here and, I suspect this is the first we will 'see of it'.

2) Shorter, more swept, but still efficient for loitering at altitude coupled with better high speed dash capability (Armed and wet wings). Efficient and effective for 'moderate threat' environments.

3) Full high threat day 1 hour 1 ISR set. Shorter still, deeper sweep, aggressive signature reduction. The Daddy. Wings not wired for fuel or external stores.

I see this as being a spin off of several technologies that have been used and abused in the skies over many a test centre in years gone by. Now that the computing power and more importantly, size reduction of electronics has 'come of age', we will see a craft that with a short turn around go from a peace time uber altitude crawler to a penetrating strike asset.

They said it was athe size of a b2. And I'm almost positive its already air to air refuelable. So the only "range" it has is the limits of the engine, probably the oil part.

originally posted by: boomer135
They said it was athe size of a b2. And I'm almost positive its already air to air refuelable. So the only "range" it has is the limits of the engine, probably the oil part.

I do not doubt or dispute the size of it at all, nor a UCAVs ability to tank in the air from either manned assets or other unmanned types.

What I am trying to say is 'dammit, they either building three different airframe configurations with a common body or they can swap the wings around'.

Here's your Drone Survival Identification pull-out section of the Daily Mail:

i.dailymail.co.uk...

Anything like those CG photos that were shown a while ago?

a reply to: stormcell

Here is a larger, PDF version.

dronesurvivalguide.org...

originally posted by: Astr0

I scry with my beady eye - Crystal ball time here.


Twin engine main 'body', three distinctive mission specific wing configurations.

1) Beastly long thin straight wings for 'peace time ultra long loitering at high altitude' Think U2 style here and, I suspect this is the first we will 'see of it'.

2) Shorter, more swept, but still efficient for loitering at altitude coupled with better high speed dash capability (Armed and wet wings). Efficient and effective for 'moderate threat' environments.

3) Full high threat day 1 hour 1 ISR set. Shorter still, deeper sweep, aggressive signature reduction. The Daddy. Wings not wired for fuel or external stores.

I see this as being a spin off of several technologies that have been used and abused in the skies over many a test centre in years gone by. Now that the computing power and more importantly, size reduction of electronics has 'come of age', we will see a craft that with a short turn around go from a peace time uber altitude crawler to a penetrating strike asset.

Variable wing or three separate craft?

Bolded emphasis below mine, leading me to leave this link:

Lockheed Martin X-56

originally posted by: Astr0

originally posted by: boomer135
They said it was athe size of a b2. And I'm almost positive its already air to air refuelable. So the only "range" it has is the limits of the engine, probably the oil part.

I do not doubt or dispute the size of it at all, nor a UCAVs ability to tank in the air from either manned assets or other unmanned types.

What I am trying to say is 'dammit, they either building three different airframe configurations with a common body or they can swap the wings around'.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

They have the RQ-170 Sentinel way too big in that depiction.
I think the RQ-180 looks a little like:




(about the right size)

a reply to: Sammamishman

I would say that is a good post.

Do you think with wings like that it would give it enough lift?

a reply to: boomer135

I would think it would, if those dimensions in the drawing are close to accurate it has a longer wing span than a B2. The whole body plus the wings act as a lifting area and it's not designed to carry heavy loads like a B2.
It actually reminds me of the U2's long slender wings for high altitude work.
I got the pic from a site talking about wings that have no mechanical moving flaps to control pitch and roll, instead it used distort-able flexing wings for flight control, decreasing any radar return while actuating traditional flaps.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: boomer135

I would think it would, if those dimensions in the drawing are close to accurate it has a longer wing span than a B2. The whole body plus the wings act as a lifting area and it's not designed to carry heavy loads like a B2.
It actually reminds me of the U2's long slender wings for high altitude work.
I got the pic from a site talking about wings that have no mechanical moving flaps to control pitch and roll, instead it used distort-able flexing wings for flight control, decreasing any radar return while actuating traditional flaps.

Loved the MAW work of days gone by.

wonder where all that effort went to once it was 'cancelled'?

Those flying wings are good for high altitude, because as you increase altitude, your Reynolds number decreases (temperature drop) and you start to lose aileron effectiveness - think stall rolloff. But, the flying wing trims out at CL = 0.6 max, so your stall speeds are higher, thus increasing your Reynolds number above threshold again - giving you continued aileron effectiveness.

In other words, if you can handle the lack of vertical tail (through split ailerons way outboard - to counter yaw moments from the aileron deflections) you can fly higher - assuming the engine gives you enough thrust.

originally posted by: Astr0

originally posted by: boomer135
They said it was athe size of a b2. And I'm almost positive its already air to air refuelable. So the only "range" it has is the limits of the engine, probably the oil part.

I do not doubt or dispute the size of it at all, nor a UCAVs ability to tank in the air from either manned assets.

Hmm air to air refueling, seems dangerous flying two aircraft in close proximity to each other. More likely to crash..

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Hmmm, now if only I could get myself to NM.