ARPV Advanced RPV Program (1975 -1977)

[Stargazer]

In 1975, the U.S. Air Force was trying to determine what the capabilities of the next generation of drones should be and how such a vehicle — designed specifically for the task — would accomplish these objectives. While the Air Force's then current inventory of remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs) had been continually improved, they were still basically the same airframe design used for the Firebee target drone since the 1950s. Consequently, around the time that the Compass Cope program was canceled, the Air Force had three aerospace companies (Boeing Aerospace, Northrop Corp. and Rockwell International) study an Advanced Remotely Piloted Vehicle or ARPV. This was to be a "mid-sized" RPV with limited stealth features and missions including reconnaissance, early warning, and strike.

Northrop Corp. submitted a preliminary design for a high-wing vehicle with multimission capabilities. Powered by a version of the General Electric J85 turbojet engine, the vehicle was to be about 30 ft. long with a wingspan of about 15 ft. A quarter-scale model was built by Northrop to demonstrate the concept. Here is a picture taken from Aviation Week & Space Technology dated February 6, 1978, illustrating the article "Remotely Piloted Vehicle Effort Pressed", from which I also retrieved most of the above information. Second picture has been enhanced from one that was originally published here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/7659

Soon after the contractor studies were complete, the Air Force ended the ARPV program, and nothing ever came of these very interesting designs (although Northrop's ARPV eventually evolved into TSSAM). Likely the USAF must have changed their minds and concluded that, however old it might be, the Firebee and its derivatives still fit the bill for most of its RPV needs.


Rockwell's own ARPV design can be seen in much more detail in the following topic, which also adds some information about the ARPV program:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/9994

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Quarter-scale models show three contenders in USAF's Advanced Remotely Piloted Vehicle study to define a midi-size future replacement for the Teledyne Ryan BGM-34C, capable of performing multi-missions, including weapon delivery (strike), reconnaissance and electronic warfare. USAF program officials are pleased that the three contractors came up with considerably different vehicle designs and launch/recovery concepts. The Advanced RPV is to be capable of both ground and airborne launch and recovery. Rockwell‘s more conventional airframe employs (top) retractable tricycle landing gear for runway launch and recovery. During ground launch. the vehicle nose wheel would ride in a trough to provide longitudinal stability until the RPV reaches approximately 50 kt. The vehicle also could be launched using "zero-length" RATO (rocket-assisted takeoff). Landing would be on a short runway equipped with arrestment cables. Model is shown with both wingtip chaff dispensers and underwing air-surface missiles although both would not normally be carried on the same mission. Boeing's Advanced RPV model employs short stubwings and a canard control surface designed to provide pitch stability and control (middle). The Boeing vehicle would use RATO zero-length launcher and parachute recovery with an inflatable air bag to cushion touchdown. After touchdown, wheels can be inserted to elevate the RPV for servicing and mobility. Northrop’s entry (bottom), with its vertical stabilizer and rudder mounted near the mid-section. is designed for catapult launch and arrester-cable/hook recovery. similar to technique used for Navy carrier launch and recovery. As an alternative. Northrop also has proposed the use of a RATO zero length launcher. Northrop’s RPV would be about 30 ft. long with a wingspan of about 15 ft. Powerplant is a version of the General Electric J85 turbojet.

Aviation Week 27th May 1976

 

[quellish]

ARPV System/Design Trade Study. Volume IV. Launch and Recovery.

On the basis of trade-off analysis of Launch and Recovery Systems for ARPV, the conventional take-off and landing method using high lift wing STOL technique, own thrust and arresting gear system emerged as the undisputable leader among the candidate systems. The next system in succession is the...

apps.dtic.mil

 

[Graham1973]

I remember reading somewhere that the testing program culminated in a 'live fire' simulation of a SEAD mission carried out by drones and that one of the reasons it was not pursued further was reliability/weatherization issues with the drones themselves/the opposition of the USAF.

 

[aim9xray]

That comment would apply more to the Ryan BGM-34A/B/C program - the ARPV never made it to downselect and hardware.