McDonnell / Teledyne Ryan Model 268 XST & Ryan's Stealth UAVs

overscan (PaulMM) said:
Dew said:
Not sure if this should go here or the 262 thread (or neither!) :

View attachment 701665

Compare with the patent sketch in first post. It was from LaRC image library
Click to expand...
URL?

Given the date in the filename and how generic the shape is, not sure if its related.
Click to expand...
The date in the filename is a red herring. It's from a series of pictures prepared for "Langley Artifacts for HQ Code R - Aerospace Design - exhibit". A series which contains all manner of interesting models and such from various projects and eras.
 
Dew said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Dew said:
Not sure if this should go here or the 262 thread (or neither!) :

View attachment 701665

Compare with the patent sketch in first post. It was from LaRC image library
Click to expand...
URL?

Given the date in the filename and how generic the shape is, not sure if its related.
Click to expand...
The date in the filename is a red herring. It's from a series of pictures prepared for "Langley Artifacts for HQ Code R - Aerospace Design - exhibit". A series which contains all manner of interesting models and such from various projects and eras.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the source, helpful.

So the photo was taken in 2002, but the model could be any age up to then.
 
Fat boi.. Possibly Model 262 related, possibly not.

https://flic.kr/p/UxHAkA
View: https://flic.kr/p/UxHAkA


Model 262 - wingtips are different I guess.

6691140331_e5483661c3_o-jpg.379209
 

Attachments

  • 34489478416_c8cb23e278_o.jpg
    34489478416_c8cb23e278_o.jpg
    163.7 KB · Views: 33
  • 34145121250_9b6a0a5c1d_o.jpg
    34145121250_9b6a0a5c1d_o.jpg
    138.3 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
Hey, funny thought. doesn't the description of the Ryan model 268 kinda match up with the sketches of the alleged TR-3?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hey, funny thought. doesn't the description of the Ryan model 268 kinda match up with the sketches of the alleged TR-3?
Click to expand...

The Ryan Low RCS Vehicle and the AFDDL THAP design are very similar. There are design features on THAP that appeared on the Low RCS Vehicle, and THAP began right after the Ryan study ended. But there is no real connection between THAP and a "TR-3".
 
Dew said:
This one is interesting also:

https://flic.kr/p/UbPmby
Click to expand...

I believe this is from the post-LONE EAGLE/COMPASS ARROW period where Ryan was experimenting with different configurations for reducing RCS. These experiments lead them away from wing-body-tail to flying wing/blended wing body configurations.
 
quellish said:
Scott Kenny said:
Hey, funny thought. doesn't the description of the Ryan model 268 kinda match up with the sketches of the alleged TR-3?
Click to expand...

The Ryan Low RCS Vehicle and the AFDDL THAP design are very similar. There are design features on THAP that appeared on the Low RCS Vehicle, and THAP began right after the Ryan study ended. But there is no real connection between THAP and a "TR-3".
Click to expand...
Right. But what I'm saying is that, couldn't it be possible that the Ryan LRV and/or THAP flights were responsible for the sightings?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Yes, LRV didn't progress beyond model tests. It was basically subsumed by the XST program.
Click to expand...

Sort of.
The RPV SPO and other organizations at Wright Patterson were aware of the Ryan Low RCS Vehicle work. People from the RPV SPO were involved in the DARPA Mini-RPV efforts and Ryan was given the STAR portion (Model 262) and the Mini-RPV program explored low RCS in general. The low rcs features of the Low RCS Vehicle did not scale down to the Model 262 well, primarily because of materials. At the time, only Lockheed had the materials experience to make that possible.

The Mini-RPV program, with Ken Perko (formerly of the RPV SPO) explored the utility of low RCS in general. DARPA / USAF ran a series of tests at Eglin using a low-RCS RPV provided by McDonnell Douglas, see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mcdonnell-douglas-mark-ii-batwing.40148/post-554542 , which was a descendant of AQUILINE. DARPA had a ZSU attempt to engage the low RCS RPV, the ZSU lost. That lead directly to the start of XST.

During the XST program McDonnell Douglas could not come close to the RCS goals and was partnered with Ryan. Still, they could not get close to the RCS results of Lockheed and Northrop and did not progress in the competition.

Ryan had been doing well selling drones during Vietnam, but by the mid-1970s that business was declining. The Air Force wanted out of (tactical) drones. Ryan's low RCS work was a huge step forward, but not enough for USAF to get over their resistance to drones.

The Ryan RCS work was critical to convincing the right people that a low RCS aircraft could work and be useful, and many of those people started the XST program.
 
VERY LOW RCS VEHICLE - The Very Low Radar, Cross-Section Vehicle is small. Its total weight is only 3,000 pounds and it is not manrated in this configuration. If the low radar cross-section is achievable, any known radars will have extreme difficulty acquiring and tracking the vehicle. We have already demonstrated the technology on a laboratory mock-up and need to proceed to flight demonstration for verification.
Click to expand...

Air Force Advanced Prototype Program Plan (U)
  1. Program Element Number: 63XXXF
  2. Project Title; Very Low Radar Cross Section Test Vehicle (U)
  3. Program Summary
    a - Objective: To verify the capability of achieving extremely low radar cross-sections in an airborne vehicle by full-scale flight tests.
    b. Description:
(1) Background: The capability to achieve extremely low radar cross sections has been demonstrated by large scale, non-flying, test models. This capability has significant application to many strategic and tactical systems. The capability to remain "invisible" to radar so radically changes the posture of most offensive and defensive systems and that prototype testing to confirm this capability is warranted, in addition, the evaluation of the impact of this technology on the U. S. air defense system is necessary.

(2) Program Brief; Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical has proposed to design, manufacture and flight test three (3) unmanned, Very Low Radar Cross Section (RCS) Vehicles with the following characteristics:
  • Approximately 3,000 pounds gross weight
  • Very low radar cross section
  • Very high altitude capability
  • Subsonic speed
  • Air launched from a C-130
  • Recovered with the existing Mid-Air Retrieval System (MARS)
The vehicle will make maximum use of existing equipment in the areas of propulsion, avionics, launch, recovery and fuel systems.


(3) Technological Assessment; Measurements made at U. S. Government radar range facilities have verified that the technology to achieve extremely low radar cross sections is available. These tests have reached a limit where the radar return from the range is significant, compared to the return from the vehicle. The next step in verifying this technology is through a flying prototype. The airframe will use conventional construction techniques and presents minimum technological risk. Maximum use will be made of existing flight control guidance, engine and recovery systems, thus reducing
the risk factors in these areas.

k. RDTS-E Funds: ($ Millions)
FY-72 FY-73 FY-74 Total at Completion
Proposed 5.0 8.0 6.8 19.8
FYDP (F&FP) 0 0 0 0
Net Change 5.0 8.0 6.8 19.8

5. Fundinq Level
a. FY-72
(1) RCS optimization testing
(2) Complete preliminary design
(3) Initiate structural and system design

b. FY-73
(1) Wind tunnel testing
(2) Complete full scale RCS model edge treatment testing
(3) Soft tooling complete and initiate manufacture of
vehicles I, 2 and 3
Flight test planning
c. FY-74
(1) Ground RCS testing first article
(2) Structure testing
(3) EMI testing
(4) Flight testing
6. Program Management Plan: The management approach for this project will be in accordance with the adaptive management concept defined in Appendix 2.
7. Procurement Approach: It is anticipated that due to the uniqueness of this project a sole source contract with Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical will be implemented.
8. Program Schedule and Milestones:
Jan 72 - Start
Preliminary design complete
Design complete
Full scale RCS model test complete
Manufacture first article starts
RCS test first article (ground test)
Start flight test
Complete flight test
Apr 72
Nov 72
Nov 72
Dec 72
Aug 73
Dec 73
Jun 74
Support:
a. GFE:
(1J Three sets of 147 SO avionics
(2) Three J-100 engines and controls
(3) Three sets of 147 SO fuel system equipment
(4) Fifteen sets of 147 SO parachute recovery systems (MARS)
(5) One set of 147 SD AGE

Services:
(1) Wind tunnel
(2) Radar cross section test range
(3) AFFTC facilities, launch and recovery aircraft
Click to expand...

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil apps.dtic.mil

h/t @Dynoman
 
Last edited:
Wait, so Ryan was teamed with MDD, for XST ? and they were soundly beaten by Northrop and Lockheed.
Good to know. I knew that Ben Rich and Johnson compared their past stealth work - D-21B - with the new one: Hopeless Diamond and derivates. But I wondered about that other stealth drone connection to XST: Ryan AQM-91, Model 154 COMPASS ARROW.
Well those stealth drones are part of the lineage. And Ryan teaming with MDD for XST complete the story.

Edit: according to the NRO archive Ryan SANDY HOOK / PINE TREE got $30 million funding between 1968 and 1971 - when they asked $500 million. The thing was never build - it would have been 30 ft wide, subsonic, stealth; to fly at 125 000 ft. Its engine was to run on hydrogen slurry (or slurry hydrogen).

I did a little search related to that fuel and found this tantalizing bit. Seems that USAF - its APL research lab - thought about slurry hydrogen fuel a few years before Teledyne - Ryan and their drone.


Slurry.png
 
Last edited:
1. As you recall, the EXCOM was briefed on the PINE RIDGE proposal on 29 January 1971, and funds were requested to initiate a radar cross section (RCS) feasibility test program. That request for funds was disapproved. Since that time, however, we have continued to examine the broad reconnaissance problem because of the continuing need to acquire strategic intelligence on a covert basis. Radar CrOSS section work in other projects and a recent informal study concerning alternatives in event of the denial of reconnaissance satellites clearly point up the potential of a low RCS vehicle.

2. We now understand that DOD plans to continue examining the potential of a low RCS vehicle, such as PINE RIDGE, by requesting open proposals within the next few weeks and subsequently continuing with **white" contracting. We believe that this work may lead to a vehicle which can operate covertly and thus fulfill the need in procuring strategic intelligence in an environment in which a U.S, presence is not known. However, we also believe that open requests for proposals will simply broadcast U.S. intentions and effectively negate use of this system a8 a covert vehicle, It would also precipitate early countermeasures development which would considerably detract from its capability in any environment.

3. As there is a continuing requirement for a covert strategic intelligence vehicle, we believe that open proposals should not be solicited and that funds for "black" contracting should be reallocated from DOD to the NRO. Our in-house technical talent and management procedures would preserve the maximum potential of such a system. Finally, as in the past, we would make all technology available to other users for whatever benefits they might derive and we could effect additional covert procurement that is required.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • F-2023-00034_C05143280.pdf
    79.2 KB · Views: 42
quellish said:
Interestingly enough, the CIA records retirement request lists several other projects:
"COMPASS HAT", may be a different program or the USAF name for SANDY HOOK or PINE RIDGE.
"AXUMITE" , given the naming convention and time period I suspect this was a small RPV program.
Click to expand...

AXUMITE was a miniature spysat air launched from a Phantom. The mission was called "crisis reconaissance" and drones competed with spysats. COMPASS ARROW & TAGBOARD versus SPIN SCAN, AXUMITE FASTBACK PINTO and a few others.

Sticky point: it took a week or more, via film bucket, to retrieve pictures from CORONA and GAMBIT spysats. As such they were good "only" for strategic reconnaissance. But not responsive enough for tactical and crisis reconnaissance (the latter: 6 days war, Yom Kippur...)
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
AXUMITE was a miniature spysat air launched from a Phantom. The mission was called "crisis reconaissance" and drones competed with spysats. COMPASS ARROW & TAGBOARD versus SPIN SCAN AXUMITE FASTBACK PINTO and a few others.

Sticky point: it took a week or more, via film bucket, to retrieve pictures from CORONA and GAMBIT spysats. As such they were good "only" for strategic reconnaissance. But not responsive enough for tactical and crisis reconnaissance (the latter: 6 days war, Yom Kippur...)
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that there aren't more programs for NIRTSSats. "Need It Right This Second Satellites," (thank you Dale Brown for the concept name) launched on short order directly over the area of interest.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
https://flic.kr/p/UemTRT
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34281743081/
Click to expand...
I am surprised nobody in this august group has remarked on the pattern of white dots.

The ref in an NRO document to a $500m development cost.

The performance claims and slurry (slush) LH2. As Quellish indicates, this thing had to be huge, and would also have been ultralight. Would a pressure-stabilized structure be a possibility?

Large, slow-flying rounded triangle, probably very quiet and with counter-illumination?

That way madness lies...
 
LowObservable said:
Large, slow-flying rounded triangle, probably very quiet and with counter-illumination? Would a pressure-stabilized structure be a possibility?
Click to expand...

No, that sounds like a stealthy recon airship. There is just no way that could be possible..... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
LowObservable said:
I am surprised nobody in this august group has remarked on the pattern of white dots.

The ref in an NRO document to a $500m development cost.

The performance claims and slurry (slush) LH2. As Quellish indicates, this thing had to be huge, and would also have been ultralight. Would a pressure-stabilized structure be a possibility?

Large, slow-flying rounded triangle, probably very quiet and with counter-illumination?

That way madness lies...
Click to expand...

The NRP (National Reconnaissance Program, parent to the NRO and its CIA & USAF "branches") was utterly determined to create the ultimate crisis reconnaissance system.
-invulnerable (almost) like spysats
-flexible like drones
They were willing to push the technological edge to get that. The sky was the limit: 100 000 feet or more. Stealth or ultra fast or both. Whatever can penetrate the PRC and even USSR airspace without getting detected nor risking a pilot life. Their foes: SA-5 GAMMON (SAM) and A-135 (ABM).
That was paramount. They really reviewed the full and entire bag of aerospace tricks: whatever hare brained flying contraption they could think off. Most "productive" era was 1958-1973: between U-2 and KH-11.
 
LowObservable said:
The performance claims and slurry (slush) LH2. As Quellish indicates, this thing had to be huge, and would also have been ultralight. Would a pressure-stabilized structure be a possibility?
Click to expand...

I would have to find the reference, but SANDY HOOK was described as having "radar transparent" wings. I would assume the wings would hold the fuel, I wonder how the sloshing "slurry" would affect the RCS of the wings.
 
quellish said:
I would have to find the reference, but SANDY HOOK was described as having "radar transparent" wings. I would assume the wings would hold the fuel, I wonder how the sloshing "slurry" would affect the RCS of the wings.
Click to expand...
"We are detecting no aircraft, Comrade, but two pools of semi-solid hydrogen are flying over us at 36000m height."
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
"We are detecting no aircraft, Comrade, but two pools of semi-solid hydrogen are flying over us at 36000m height."
Click to expand...

More or less.

From "Reduction of Radar Cross Section of Large High Altitude Aircraft" by Kelly Johnson, in reference to some of the GUSTO studies:

A substantial amount of effort went into development of all plastic designs, inflated Mylar and rubber aircraft and combinations thereof.
Some interesting results were obtained in these tests. It was found for instance, that when the plastic parts, such as those that might be designed in wing beams, or heavy structural rings exceeded 1I4 or l /2 inch in thickness, these members might just as well be metal. An unexpected result showed up in one model (which used very thin plastic for wing panels) which proved to be totally useless in the fuel tank region. A vibrating tank created a strong radar return from the surface of the fuel itself. It be- came obvious also that if a plastic fuselage which would be transparent to radar was used, the radar beam saw the engine and its associate accesso- ries, plumbing, et al, which then provided hundreds of corner reflections and provided large radar returns.
Click to expand...
 
So, the Low RCS Vehicle was a Air Force Avionics Laboratory project with Ryan as contractor. William F. Bahret in The Beginnings of Stealth Technology https://doi.org/10.1109/7.259548 discusses it:

We had demonstrated that almost any “conventional” system design could have its’ signature reduced by proper use of different techniques.However, we no longer considered this to be a major achievement, since absolutely no concern had been given to signature in the first place. What we had to do was show that minimum RCS could only be achieved by designing it in from scratch.This led to a program in the mid 60s whose objective was to demonstrate, to the degree that an under-funded laboratory program could, what could be done if a flying vehicle was designed to have low RCS, as well as the normal aerodynamic, structural,and environmental, capabilities. We assumed that the non-electromagnetic members of the community, who were so necessary to any further use of the technology in operational vehicles, would only be impressed if this “demonstration” vehicle had some useful mission capability, as well as low RCS. This demo vehicle would combine all the lessons we had learned over the previous ten years or so of research on reducing RCS - that shaping was the most important first step because it has major broadband effectiveness, that right angle junctions only created RCS problems, that transparency had to be used carefully lest something of even greater echo be exposed in the process, that apertures like engine inlets and exhausts had to be treated and hidden as much as possible, etc. The result was the unmanned aircraft shown in Fig. 7.

The range (1500 nautical miles), speed (Mach 0.8), altitude (above 67,000 feet), and payload capability (400 Ibs/10 cubic feet) were chosen for a surveillance application, which was only a convenient example of a mission for a low RCS vehicle. The methods used to minimize RCS included a top-mounted engine, to“hide” it from radars below the vehicle, augmented by RAM treatment and selected transparency where useful. The entire body was shaped to provide least possible echo in the horizontal plane and below, at all azimuth angles. This critical part of the design was based on careful analysis of the most probable viewing angles available to “threats” during operational use. After the shape was chosen, the RCS was further reduced by applying an absorptive edge treatment and again, selective transparency, around the entire body.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't see any evidence of that in this article at least.

This led to a program in the mid 60s whose objective was to demonstrate, to the degree that an under-funded laboratory program could, what could be done if a flying vehicle was designed to have low RCS, as well as the normal aerodynamic, structural,and environmental, capabilities.... This demo vehicle..... The result was the unmanned aircraft shown in Fig. 7.
Click to expand...
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I don't see any evidence of that in this article at least.
Click to expand...

It’s mentioned in the 2nd interview

And a number of projects like this were done along the way. We did one with the Flight Dynamics Laboratory. They wanted to design and build and fly a very low signature vehicle. So we collaborated to build it; did the ground tests on it to see that it was working properly. And when the Pentagon saw the report with the numbers they said "thou shalt not publish that report." And so it went into somebody's archives, but I don't know where.
Click to expand...

Someone may have found the desk drawer that report disappeared into

In the 2nd interview he also talks a little more about their work with Ryan. He specifically points to the Manta Ray, probably because some of the other programs he isn’t comfortable talking about.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom