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: 628
From'Signal Connections' magazine, another Sensorcraft picture with wrap around sensors.
 

Attachments

  • Sensorcraft.jpg
    Sensorcraft.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 673
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: 629
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 ;)
 
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?exactphrase=true&QueryTerm=+project&start=80&rows=20&DocType=Image&Sort=&SortOrder=&startdate=1916-08-01&enddate=2018-09-03&LastViewIssueKey=&LastViewPage=
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    390.8 KB · Views: 515
One of the issues with QUARTZ was noted to be the sensitivity of the technology (especially since UAVs were often considered less reliable than manned aircraft, breaking down and getting lost occasionally).

The RQ 170 is believed to mainly use shaping and "cheap" stealth to minimize the exposure in the event of a shootdown and maybe lower costs, allowing more aggressive use than QUARTZ type UAVs.
 
Matej said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder today if this was describing Lockheed's TEAL CAMEO / ENCHANTMENT rather than an early AARS/QUARTZ design. Lockheed's ENCHANTMENT has been described as a large, rectangular flying wing. The early (pre-Boeing) AARS designs were mostly configurations similar to X-56.
 
And just to clarify/summarize:

The "original" Lockheed QUARTZ design was a swept high aspect ratio flying wing with a pointy nose. This topic, the SensorCraft topic, all have images of the configuration or its derivatives. This design was a dead end:

From https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=127

"I worked on a program in the 1980s where flutter really bit us, and that program was eventually canceled,” recalled Ed Burnett, the X-56A unmanned research aircraft technical program manager for the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. “It became a personal interest of mine ever since then to kill flutter.”
Click to expand...

Flutter issues killed that design. A test aircraft (probably) broke up in flight (around 1986?) Lockheed investigated many other configurations before the customer forced Lockheed to team up with Boeing. Boeing had recent, relevant experience with large RPVs (Condor, others).

The recent Lockheed BFF and X-56 are based on the QUARTZ configuration (QUARTZ was more facted, like the Lockheed ATB and F-117).

The Lockheed/Boeing redesign resulted in the configuration that is more familiar - a B-2 like flying wing, similar to Polecat (but much larger).

After AARS was cancelled the Tier III designs varied from a smaller AARS (i.e. Polecat-like) to a straight wing design. The straight wing design evolved into Tier III- (Darkstar).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi All,

As per my recent tweet, the NRO (U.S. National Reconnaissance Office) has replied to my FOIA request re: QUARTZ, AARS, TEAL CAMEO & TEAL RAIN. While saying they had nothing on the latter 3, they said they could neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records relating to QUARTZ.

I presume that hence means they DO have something on it but won't say.

Under 5 U.S.C. SS 552, I believe I do NOT have the right to ask for a Mandatory Declassification Review, so I am not sure if it is possible to proceed in any useful way. Advice would be appreciated if others do know.

Thanks

Untitled.png
 
illsleymatthew said:
Hi All,

As per my recent tweet, the NRO (U.S. National Reconnaissance Office) has replied to my FOIA request re: QUARTZ, AARS, TEAL CAMEO & TEAL RAIN. While saying they had nothing on the latter 3, they said they could neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records relating to QUARTZ.

I presume that hence means they DO have something on it but won't say.

Under 5 U.S.C. SS 552, I believe I do NOT have the right to ask for a Mandatory Declassification Review, so I am not sure if it is possible to proceed in any useful way. Advice would be appreciated if others do know.

Thanks

View attachment 684436
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Have you requested this from other agencies? Why NRO?

QUARTZ seems to be possibly very generic and could involve one or many other projects over 20 years. I’m not surprised that was the response. Conform nor deny is a yes we have information. Nothing back on AARS is interesting but wasn’t that an Airforce project?

Also DARO was created and I wonder how much was in that pipeline and less though NRO. Seemingly by design.

Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

“The office was a R & D and procurement office, comparable to the National Reconnaissance Office.”

Quellish gave a pretty detailed response of the origins of this and it seems like agency wise, DARPA, USAF and CIA were the major players with consensus being DOD and intelligence agencies need to work together. From there things were spun off in different directions.

 
Last edited:
illsleymatthew said:
Hi All,

As per my recent tweet, the NRO (U.S. National Reconnaissance Office) has replied to my FOIA request re: QUARTZ, AARS, TEAL CAMEO & TEAL RAIN. While saying they had nothing on the latter 3, they said they could neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records relating to QUARTZ.

I presume that hence means they DO have something on it but won't say.

Under 5 U.S.C. SS 552, I believe I do NOT have the right to ask for a Mandatory Declassification Review, so I am not sure if it is possible to proceed in any useful way. Advice would be appreciated if others do know.

Thanks

View attachment 684436
Click to expand...

TEAL CAMEO was the DARPA endurance UAV program of the 1980s. There were different efforts within it and the services participated in it.
TEAL RAIN was a DARPA endurance UAV program that seems to have focused on propulsion for endurance UAVs (solar, turbine, etc.)

QUARTZ was a name the intelligence agencies used for the Lockheed large, stealthy endurance UAV from the early 1980s until the late 80s or early 90s.

In the early 1990s (~1991-1993) that program had broader Air Force participation and was funded as the Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance System, under the DoD Airborne Reconnaissance Support Program. It probably was also being funded through the intelligence community budget.
In FY1993 it was cancelled. The Tier 3 program was started with the same requirements, that went nowhere because of costs, then we got the Tier 3- program.

If you are interested in TEAL CAMEO and TEAL RAIN you will have to request documents from DARPA. They are likely to tell you they don't have anything and to check the national archives - the national archives have collections of DARPA documents from that period that probably contain the TEAL CAMEO and TEAL RAIN documents.

To swing back on topic, this is highlights one of the issues I have with one theory about the "TR-3" name. The Aviation Week article on the "TR-3" was published in 1991. There is a theory that "TR-3" was actually someone mis-hearing "Tier 3". As far as I have been able to tell the "Tier" programs and nomenclature were not in use until at least a year later than the AvWeek article. I suspect the "TR-3" designation was not someone hearing "Tier 3" and interpreting it as "TR-3". It seems more likely that "TR-3" was just... made up.
 
Just FYI FWIW, the NRO responded to a couple of follow up emails from me.

I had asked how could anyone get files released under FOIA or an MDR if the agency in question never confirmed or denied their existence (GLOMAR response).

NRO said:

All agencies with original classification authority must adhere to the Automatic Declassification Review (ADR) Program. The objective of automatic declassification is to declassify information without compromising national security. The presumption is that 25-year-old information is declassified unless it clearly falls under one or more of the 9 exemption categories in section 3.3(b) of the Order and has been specifically exempted by an agency head or senior agency official. The ADR Program is a mechanism that agencies use to declassify records. Please note that the ADR Program happens on a yearly basis. The other option is to resubmit your FOIA request every year and anticipate that the agency will have a different response than the previous one.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom