AARS, Lockheed QUARTZ, Tier III, Frontier Systems W570, Arrow, Shadow

Matej said:
Page 151:
Manned alternatives to AARS emerged. One proposal would put a sophisticated target aquisition system on the B-2 stealth bomber - the so-called RB-2 configuration. The proposal had value as a terminal tracking system, but the RB-2 lacked a method of off-board cueing to direct it to a search area.
Click to expand...

LACROSSE was able to identify *large* search areas for SRTs. Areas the size of states. The hard problem here was narrowing that down to an area a B-2 could search in a short period of time. You either need a high speed tool to quickly cover a lot of ground, or a lot of forewarning and a persistent platform. An RB-2 and the large AARS aircraft would have had some of the same shortcomings for this mission, which was one of the things apparently driving the long range high speed component of AARS.
 
Nice illustration... but the W570 is a Loral design, not a Lockheed one...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Safari

Big Safari is a United States Air Force program which provides management, direction, and control of the acquisition, modification, and logistics support for special purpose weapons systems. The program itself receives some direction from NASIC[1]. It is headquartered in Greenville, Texas and has facilities at Hanscom AFB and Wright-Patterson AFB. The program operates, among other aircraft, the RC-135 and EC-130 aircraft as well as unmanned aerial vehicles. The Air Force has referred to Big Safari as a "rapid procurement force," which tests the fielding of new weapons systems, sensors, and platforms. By some accounts [2], the program has been operating since the late-1950s, when the BQM-34 Firefly drone was procured and evaluated. This effort led to the first operational unmanned reconnaissance vehicle, the redesignated Ryan Aeronautical AQM-34 Lightning Bug.
Click to expand...
 
BAROBA said:
seruriermarshal said:
BIG SAFARI had their finger in the pie too ?
Click to expand...

What or who is Big Safari?
Click to expand...

From R-2 Exhibit for PE 0305207F COBRA BALL May 2009:

"These activities are managed by the Air Force through the 645th Aeronautical System Group (645th AESG, a.k.a. BIG SAFARI Program Office), 303rd
Reconnaissance System Wing, Aeronautical Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright Patterson AFB, OH. BIG SAFARI manages engineering, ground
and support system modifications, integration, flight testing, product assurance, acceptance testing, logistics, and training activities."
"The world-wide challenge of keeping pace against technologically agile targets used by both nation and non-nation-state adversaries and the rapid evolution of COTS
technologies demands a responsive and adaptive acquisition strategy for fielding 'baseline capabilities' that are logistically supportable at all locations. The BIG
SAFARI program office uses an incremental 'baseline' strategy to mitigate risk, find affordable solutions and field needed capabilities. Obsolescence and diminishing
manufacturing sources (DMS) are addressed with each baseline upgrade as well as annually as part of the sustainment responsibilities. Activities also include studies
and analysis to support both current program planning and execution and future program planning."

And from R-2 Exhibit PE 0305221F: Network Centric Collaborative Targeting Feb 2010:
"The NCCT capability is maintained and baseline / incremental upgrades plus any quick reaction capabilities (QRC) developments are acquired through the 645th
Aeronautical System Group (BIG SAFARI Program Office) in accordance with the BIG SAFARI Program Management Directive (PMD) and the BIG SAFARI Class
Justification and Approval (J&A) document for acquisition of supplies and services using other than full and open competition criteria. The supplies and services
procured by the 645th AESG under their J&A to satisfy National Security (FAR 6.302-6) or Unusual and Compelling Urgency (FAR 6.302-2) requirements are supported
by the BIG SAFARI Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) across the full spectrum of system life cycle management from developmental engineering to system
retirement ("craddle to grave" support). Due to the rapidly changing threat environment encountered during our prolonged commitment to Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), the acquisition program manager has the authority to redirect funding as necessary to meet current stated and emerging Combatant Commander
requirements.
645th Aeronautical Systems Group (645 AESG) at Wright Patterson AFB OH, manages the Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract used to develop the NCCT Core Technology.
645th AESG will provide NCCT software and common hardware to systems and platforms designated to field this ISR capability. Individual program management
offices may contract directly with their prime contractors or through the 645th AESG for integration of this ISR capability on their respective systems and platforms"

Think of BIG SAFARI as a super duper management/procurement office. There is another, similar management organization that handles the programs of the classified flight test squadron at Groom Lake.
 
Not sure of connection (i.e. one of many designs or 'the' design), but this photo of a model was listed as AARS.
 

Attachments

  • QUARTZAARS.jpg
    QUARTZAARS.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 619
From'Signal Connections' magazine, another Sensorcraft picture with wrap around sensors.
 

Attachments

  • Sensorcraft.jpg
    Sensorcraft.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 665
Dynoman said:
Not sure of connection (i.e. one of many designs or 'the' design), but this photo of a model was listed as AARS.
Click to expand...

That's a Boeing/Lockheed NGB concept, there should be more photos earlier in this thread. This configuration evolved from AARS/QUARTZ - they are essentially the same thing.
 
Dynoman said:
Not sure of connection (i.e. one of many designs or 'the' design), but this photo of a model was listed as AARS.
Click to expand...

As quellish said. I only add that it is from my web: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/UAV02.htm


BTW do you know how disappointing it is that when I seach for the info of some project and the only one that I am able to find is my own web page? :-\ :D It happened to me many times.
 
quellish said:
So AARS comprised:
...
High Speed Long Range: There was a term for this, which I have since forgotten. AWST mentioned it a few times in the late 90s. In the late 70s an air launched boost glide vehicle was looked at for essentially the same mission but discarded.
Click to expand...

I know I'm a bit late, but do you (or anyone) have anything more on this late 1970s vehicle? It sounds like Isinglass revisited some ten years later?
 
Dual cycle turboshaft/turbojet engines and propellers? YAY!

The requirement for a 24-hour endurance and low-observability tested the limits of aerospace technology of the day. In 1983 Lockheed and Boeing were selected to develop concepts for the Quartz program. Lockheed's initial design was a giant aircraft with a 267-foot wingspan propelled by two turboshaft engines driving massive 47-foot propellers. The engines were actually dual-cycle turboshaft/turbojet engines, with the engines operating as jets and the two-bladed props locked in horizontal for takeoff and landing. Once at cruise altitude, the engines shifted into turboshaft mode to drive the large props.
Click to expand...

Source: International Air Power Review, Volume 15. AIRtime Publishing, 2005, "Focus Aircraft: HALE/MALE Unmanned Air Vehicles Part 1: History of the Endurance UAV" by Bill Sweetman, p63-69.
 
Cute ;)

I would put more structure around those shafts, a la B-35. A more segmented trailing edge, similar to the B-2, would let you bring the props closer to the fuselage and avoid long shafts. Just a thought :)

EDIT: On second thought, the props are in the exhaust of the gas generator, which may not be desirable. A more sensible layout would be a tractor, but that's hard to do with a medium-sweep flying wing. You would have to unsweep the wing quite a bit. There are some technical reports on NASA's NTRS on "convertible" engines, which involve TF-34s. They were originally considered for compound helicopters.

I think the advantage of the convertible engine is that it lets you optimize the propeller geometry for the high altitude case (low air density, big diameter, slow turning) without having to compromise for the takeoff/climb segments.
 
What a pity :-\ But I am a bit curious - how can the aircraft, designed to penetrate and stay for the days in the heavily defended airspace be not LO? In other words, was there any requirement in the AARS that defined conventional (meaning non-stealthy) HALE UAV?

Now as my pure speculation - hypothetically if I want to combine the jet engine and the pusher propeller in a superstealth design, I should use RIVET installation (developed by Lockheed).
 

Attachments

  • RIVET.jpg
    RIVET.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 620
I don't think you can make a stealthy prop - not one that actually does a good job at producing thrust. But maybe Lockmart engineers know something we don't ;D.

As for RIVET, I don't mean to diss Raymer (hell, i bought two of his books), but I never thought that was one of his proudest moments. He proposed it for a V/STOL platform, because it allowed him to put the engine in the back and the exhaust on the cg. Clever, but complication seldom pays, especially in V/STOL design (the Harrier is the triumph of simplicity in that regard).
On an efficiency-conscious, long endurance surveillance platform, you can hardly accept the penalties of increased weight and volume (more ducting, more wetted area) and increased SFC (poor pressure recovery at the fan face).
 
The prop-to-fan design was a non-stealthy predecessor to Quartz. The quote above got mangled somewhere between the author's modem and this forum.
 
Matej said:
Cant resist :) Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In the early 80s Lockheed had several long endurance RPVs on the drawing boards. At the time the acronym used was something like "HAPP" rather than today's "HALE" (HALE has been in use since the 70s though).
One project was ENCHANTMENT, a rectangular Navy RPV with ginormous wingspan (300' IIRC) - this was to serve the same mission that CONDOR was made for. As far as I know, the large prop AARS/TEAL CAMEO/TEAL RAIN vehicle mentioned in this thread was also large and rectangular, though I have never heard definitively wether it was a flying wing like HALSOL, etc. or not.

The vehicle Matej has drawn is very close to the 92-93 design for AARS/QUARTZ, minus the props :) The aspect ratio may have been lower, but the general configuration should be right on other than the beaver tail.
 
Small summarization (of everything): http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/UAV02.htm

Note: because of the length of the text, probably you will need to to push the refresh button on your browser a few times to get the google translation till the end of the page.
 
Matej said:
Small summarization (of everything): http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/UAV02.htm

Note: because of the length of the text, probably you will need to to push the refresh button on your browser a few times to get the google translation till the end of the page.
Click to expand...

Awesome page, Matej! But Google Translation doesn't do Sloven language properly from the French interface. However if I click on your "English" button then scroll to select "French" and click, it works pretty well...

Why select French, and not stick to English? Because I find latin languages translate much better into other latin languages... ;)
 
Funny that nobody ever talks about the payloads ;)
 
Does anybody know what this is? I've never seen it before. Not even sure if I'm in the right topic...
 

Attachments

  • High Altitude UAV sml.jpg
    High Altitude UAV sml.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 878
Matej said:
I have no idea but to me it does not look very stealthy against standard 1 - 5 GHz radars.
Click to expand...

No, especially not the air intake.
 
looks like something from Firebee era...but I may be plain wrong
 
circle-5 said:
Does anybody know what this is? I've never seen it before. Not even sure if I'm in the right topic...
Click to expand...


If you look closely you can see a square leading edge. I'd say it's a really small kitbash model - or the air force has finally begun issuing their own line of Batman's Batarangs.
 
The leading edges are normal. What you're probably seeing is my poor setup in Photoshop edge detail, when I removed the background.

The model's provenance is US military. Other models in that group included a Douglas MOL, a Titan IIIA and a Hughes kinetic energy (SDI) weapon, all original manufacturer models. In addition, the model is a solid resin casting, nearly two feet across, which requires mold fabrication, as opposed to the "kitbash" you describe.
 
circle-5 said:
The leading edges are normal. What you're probably seeing is my poor setup in Photoshop edge detail, when I removed the background.

The model's provenance is US military. Other models in that group included a Douglas MOL, a Titan IIIA and a Hughes kinetic energy (SDI) weapon, all original manufacturer models. In addition, the model is a solid resin casting, nearly two feet across, which requires mold fabrication, as opposed to the "kitbash" you describe.
Click to expand...
You can ship me the model and I'll do a really good photospread of it..... :)
 
Do we know the dimensions or the scale? This will be kind of wild speculation, but what about air launched HALE?

For sure it does not fit to AARS/Tier III specifications. The only similarity that I can see is the Loral/Frontier Systems style aft fuselage with exhaust, but it can be seen on other aircrafts too. For example Global Hawk has the similar one, so this is not a right way to identify it.
 
Matej said:
Do we know the dimensions or the scale? This will be kind of wild speculation, but what about air launched HALE?
Click to expand...

I wish knew the scale. Whenever a model like this gets separated from its stand, it becomes very difficult to identify. I have others that have puzzled me for years. This is obviously some kind of long-range, single-engine, high altitude UAV, not particularly stealthy and of American origin. If nobody knows, I might just put a Batman logo on it anyway...
 
circle-5 said:
Matej said:
Do we know the dimensions or the scale? This will be kind of wild speculation, but what about air launched HALE?
Click to expand...

I wish knew the scale. Whenever a model like this gets separated from its stand, it becomes very difficult to identify. I have others that have puzzled me for years. This is obviously some kind of long-range, single-engine, high altitude UAV, not particularly stealthy and of American origin. If nobody knows, I might just put a Batman logo on it anyway...
Click to expand...
I am quite confused, the members here usually go COMPLETELY apesh*t for something new like this. Could be they are actually out getting some sun on their pasty skin. Maybe somebody will have something constructive by Monday....
 
I think it looks very cool. I'm trying to figure out what the bumps in the wingtips are for; Aerodynamic control or to place sensors in?
 
I think sensor placement is as good a guess as any, physical separation of identical or complementary sensor packages can provide some advantages.... well that's David Attenbrough tells me about the hammerhead shark ;D (although at > 70,000 ft, the degree of "depth perception" this sensor separation may provide could be limited at best).

All speculation without knowledge of the operating altitude of the concept that gave birth to this model, assuming it even was a concept?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom