Northrop Grumman "RQ-180"

[Dreamfighter]

Q-nimbus made an unfortunate typographical error. He meant to type VIII.

I thought so. One 'X' was also absent though, which changed '32' into '22'.

The numerals on the artwork do indeed convert to 8-832, which represents the serial number of the second air vehicle: 08-0832. The first air vehicle was 04-0831. There's a complete list of the nine preproduction articles in Dreamland: The Secret History of Area 51.

Thanks, unfortunately I don´t have y... the book (yet).

 

[Whisperstream]

Cute. I see what you did there.

Seriously though, in a effort to nudge the thread back on track...

This is an interesting subject. The Northrop Grumman "RQ-180" is currently the most interesting aircraft I've never seen. I say that as someone who remembers when the Lockheed "F-19" was the most interesting aircraft I'd never seen.

In both cases you have unacknowledged special access programs with sight-sensitive assets that operated for quite a few years without being declassified. By the time the "F-19" was officially revealed to be the F-117A, the aviation press had already amassed a considerable amount of surprisingly accurate information about it. I feel that this is also true of the "RQ-180." As with the F-117A, it is sufficiently large program that it has a detachable "footprint" that may be analyzed.

Thus far, reporters from Aviation Week & Space Technology have made the greatest strides toward unlocking the mysteries of the "RQ-180," owing, no doubt, to the magazine's extensive network of government and industry sources.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's a complete list of the nine preproduction articles in Dreamland: The Secret History of Area 51.

That's what surprises me: 9 preproduction articles. Isn't that more than either F-117 or B-2?

Which then implies a rather large intended production run?

 

[NMaude]

That's what surprises me: 9 preproduction articles. Isn't that more than either F-117 or B-2?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some or all of the test articles were upgraded to operational airframes after testing was completed.

 

[Whisperstream]

That's what surprises me: 9 preproduction articles. Isn't that more than either F-117 or B-2?

Let's use the Global Hawk Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) for comparison. There were seven preproduction Global Hawk airframes (later designated YRQ-4A) built for the DARPA-sponsored evaluation effort. Due to a high demand for Global Hawk's capabilities, the preproduction aircraft were pressed into active service in support of the war in Afghanistan. In an unusual move, the aircraft entered initial low-rate production while still in engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase.

I imagine the story of the P-ISR or "RQ-180" is similar. Perhaps the marginally larger number of EMD airframes was necessary due to a perceived high risk level, technologically speaking. The Dragon or White Bat (both nicknames are valid) seems to be a cutting-edge design. It's likely that at least some of the EMD models were upgraded to operational status, or at least used for operational test and evaluation and continued developmental testing. Some of the preproduction airframes are likely retired and one reportedly crashed in 2016. I hope the first one has been put aside for eventual display in the National Museum of the US Air Force. That would be highly appropriate.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Let's use the Global Hawk Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) for comparison. There were seven preproduction Global Hawk airframes (later designated YRQ-4A) built for the DARPA-sponsored evaluation effort. Due to a high demand for Global Hawk's capabilities, the preproduction aircraft were pressed into active service in support of the war in Afghanistan. In an unusual move, the aircraft entered initial low-rate production while still in engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase.

I imagine the story of the P-ISR or "RQ-180" is similar. Perhaps the marginally larger number of EMD airframes was necessary due to a perceived high risk level, technologically speaking. The Dragon or White Bat (both nicknames are valid) seems to be a cutting-edge design. It's likely that at least some of the EMD models were upgraded to operational status, or at least used for operational test and evaluation and continued developmental testing. Some of the preproduction airframes are likely retired and one reportedly crashed in 2016.

Right, but there have been at least 42 Global Hawks made, not counting MQ4 Triton BAMS (another 70something).

So I'm expecting a fairly similar number of RQ180s.

I hope the first one has been put aside for eventual display in the National Museum of the US Air Force. That would be highly appropriate.

So do I!

 

[Dreamfighter]

The Northrop Grumman "RQ-180" is currently the most interesting aircraft I've never seen. I say that as someone who remembers when the Lockheed "F-19" was the most interesting aircraft I'd never seen.

I fully agree with regard to "F-19" times. With regard to the present, besides "RQ-XXX" (180) I´m (probably like most people) also very curious about the PCA / NGAD-manned (technology) demonstrators. But of course those haven´t lead to any production program (right now).

 

[Josh_TN]

That's what surprises me: 9 preproduction articles. Isn't that more than either F-117 or B-2?

Which then implies a rather large intended production run?

To me it implies a more iterative program or problems with the initial design. I think B-2 had a half dozen pre production airframes, including four EMD aircraft updated to production standard (which seems to be the same numbers for B-21).

 

[Scott Kenny]

To me it implies a more iterative program or problems with the initial design. I think B-2 had a half dozen pre production airframes, including four EMD aircraft updated to production standard (which seems to be the same numbers for B-21).

Both programs are talking about 100+ units made, too.

 

[Josh_TN]

Both programs are talking about 100+ units made, too.

Indeed, but I doubt the number of production units has a direct bearing on the number of development aircraft. A half dozen seems to be enough for anything from 20-200. Nine pre production aircraft to me implies a certain amount of evolution in the design during pre production, particularly for an unmanned system. I suspect some of those were raised to production standards and used and perhaps several others largely discarded (or ideally saved for museums and such).

 

[Whisperstream]

Indeed, but I doubt the number of production units has a direct bearing on the number of development aircraft. A half dozen seems to be enough for anything from 20-200.

Agreed. The number of development airframes has no bearing on the number of production units. I would not expect to see the same number of RQ-180s as RQ-4s because I'm guessing the per-unit cost is significantly higher. Just speculation; I haven't followed the money.

The first flight of the RQ-180 was in August 2010 and by the end of 2016, nine EMD models had flown. The first production airframe joined the fleet in early 2017. By the end of 2019, there were at least four more. There have been some credible rumors that one pair of aircraft made their first flights in 2020 and another pair in 2021, and possibly more after that. So, by mid-2022 we're looking at around 20 airframes built and perhaps more on the way. Who knows? All things considered, it seems like a respectable rate of production.

 

[B2Blain]

I would assume the "180" would have a weapons/payload bay and I think the 180 and B-21 share a lot of DNA. I was asked in the 2006-2007 time frame if I would interested in returning to NG to support engineering and flight test for a new program but would take too long to get my clearance re-instated.

Agreed. The number of development airframes has no bearing on the number of production units. I would not expect to see the same number of RQ-180s as RQ-4s because I'm guessing the per-unit cost is significantly higher. Just speculation; I haven't followed the money.

The first flight of the RQ-180 was in August 2010 and by the end of 2016, nine EMD models had flown. The first production airframe joined the fleet in early 2017. By the end of 2019, there were at least four more. There have been some credible rumors that one pair of aircraft made their first flights in 2020 and another pair in 2021, and possibly more after that. So, by mid-2022 we're looking at around 20 airframes built and perhaps more on the way. Who knows? All things considered, it seems like a respectable rate of production.

If the RQ-180 is a large aircraft - and likely expensive - I really don't see how there would be more than 20-30 airframes. Maybe less.

 

[quellish]

If the RQ-180 is a large aircraft - and likely expensive - I really don't see how there would be more than 20-30 airframes. Maybe less.

What if it is not a large aircraft?

 

[Josh_TN]

If the RQ-180 is a large aircraft - and likely expensive - I really don't see how there would be more than 20-30 airframes. Maybe less.

Some of those first nine likely never made the cut to operational status. On the other hand, if production has been going on for a half dozen years, it would not be surprising if a dozen or more production models were built. RQ-180 probably is not cheap, but it also probably can skip a lot of the overhead of a B-21 since it can skip the weapons package and the people. That probably saves a lot of weight and volume and dramatically lowers the power plant requirements. I would assume however the avionics are super pricey.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What if it is not a large aircraft?

I find it hard to believe that it isn't at least U-2/Q-4 sized, just to have enough range to take off from the US and go "wherever the area of interest is." Yes, I'm assuming global or near-global range.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was B-21 sized. Not due to payload, due to fuel load.

There's ~50ish U-2Rs made and 31 of those were converted into U-2Ss. (104 total U-2s built of all types)

I would not expect to see the same number of RQ-180s as RQ-4s because I'm guessing the per-unit cost is significantly higher. Just speculation; I haven't followed the money.

Well, RQ4s run about $131mil in 2013 dollars, I'd expect the "stealth RQ4" to have probably two or three times that price. Less than the ~$500mil in 2016 dollars for a B-21, however.

 

[dark sidius]

What type of engines it can use , some sort of F-135 derivative like the B-21 ? The Philippines one look more like cranked wings....

 

[Josh_TN]

What type of engines it can use , some sort of F-135 derivative like the B-21 ? The Philippines one look more like cranked wings....View attachment 734762

It is not clear that B-21 uses a F135 derivative. We do not even know for sure how many engines it has. But given that the B-21 almost certainly has a much greater MTOW, I think we can rule out whatever powers B-21, unless it is using four engines instead of two in the "RQ-180".

As too shape, yes, the PI shot makes me think cranked kite, though the details in all photography are sufficiently low that I would say the jury is out.

 

[dark sidius]

It is not clear that B-21 uses a F135 derivative. We do not even know for sure how many engines it has. But given that the B-21 almost certainly has a much greater MTOW, I think we can rule out whatever powers B-21, unless it is using four engines instead of two in the "RQ-180".

As too shape, yes, the PI shot makes me think cranked kite, though the details in all photography are sufficiently low that I would say the jury is out.

I read somewhere that the concept of cranked kite is to have a centrale fuselage and different wings planform easy to adapt ? May be the RQ-180 could adapt different shape of wings ? A central fuselage and different wings for different missions could be possible ?

 

[flateric]

It is not clear that B-21 uses a F135 derivative. We do not even know for sure how many engines it has.

why 'we don't know'? we know. two

 

[flateric]

The Philippines one look more like cranked wings....

it does not

 

[Josh_TN]

why 'we don't know'? we know. two

Everything seems to indicate two. USAF has not explicitly stated two.

In any case I doubt “RQ-180” could have any direct propulsion lineage given the huge time discrepancy between the two projects.

 

[RavenOne]

Fairford, apparently. Back in 2021 or 2022, Chris Pocock pointed reported the construction of new, secure hangars there to support "an emerging requirement for military aircraft, including Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), to operate regularly from RAF Fairford." He noted that one of the relevant environmental impact documents specified that certain RPAS operations would take place only during nighttime hours. This is similar to descriptions of alleged RQ-180 operations at Edwards, protocols that have successfully kept the mystery aircraft out of the public eye since it was based there in 2014.

The new hangars have been constructed, my photos from last years Royal International Air Tattoo 2023 up on post #599.

Anyhow heading back there tomorrow for the air tattoo this weekend.

cheers

 

[Foo Fighter]

Hope you have a great weekend, weather looks to be fair for it too.

 

[Josh_TN]

The new hangars have been constructed, my photos from last years Royal International Air Tattoo 2023 up on post #599.

Anyhow heading back there tomorrow for the air tattoo this weekend.

cheers

Good hunting.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is not clear that B-21 uses a F135 derivative. We do not even know for sure how many engines it has. But given that the B-21 almost certainly has a much greater MTOW, I think we can rule out whatever powers B-21, unless it is using four engines instead of two in the "RQ-180".

U.S. F-35 chief expects savings after Pratt's B-21 bomber win

The selection of Pratt & Whitney to build the engines for the new Northrop Grumman Corp <NOC.N> B-21 bomber should help Pratt lower the cost of its F135 engines that power the Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> F-35 fighter jet, a top Air Force general said Thursday.

web.archive.org

Makes it sound like the B-21 is using F135 engine cores with new fan sections.

 

[Josh_TN]

U.S. F-35 chief expects savings after Pratt's B-21 bomber win

The selection of Pratt & Whitney to build the engines for the new Northrop Grumman Corp <NOC.N> B-21 bomber should help Pratt lower the cost of its F135 engines that power the Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> F-35 fighter jet, a top Air Force general said Thursday.

web.archive.org

Makes it sound like the B-21 is using F135 engine cores with new fan sections.

I think the general expectation is what PW presented as "PW-9000", rumored to be a hybrid of a military core with some civilian higher bypass characteristics. But Eric and others would know more. Certainly the B-21 program and "RQ-180" occurred nearly a decade apart, with very different power requirements, so it is hard to imagine the engines of either program have anything in common with each other.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think the general expectation is what PW presented as "PW-9000", rumored to be a hybrid of a military core with some civilian higher bypass characteristics. But Eric and others would know more. Certainly the B-21 program and "RQ-180" occurred nearly a decade apart, with very different power requirements, so it is hard to imagine the engines of either program have anything in common with each other.

Not that hard. One engine has a higher bypass, larger fan, than the other. Both share the same core.

 

[Q-nimbus]

I think the general expectation is what PW presented as "PW-9000", rumored to be a hybrid of a military core with some civilian higher bypass characteristics. But Eric and others would know more. Certainly the B-21 program and "RQ-180" occurred nearly a decade apart, with very different power requirements, so it is hard to imagine the engines of either program have anything in common with each other.

I’m not too sure whether there are very different power requirements. What the B-21 carries as payload to drop on enemies, the RQ-180 carries as fuel for endurance.

 

[flateric]

I think the general expectation is what PW presented as "PW-9000", rumored to be a hybrid of a military core with some civilian higher bypass characteristics.

"The PW9000 integrates the high-pressure core of the commercial PW800 engine and the low-pressure section of the F135."

 

[Scott Kenny]

"The PW9000 integrates the high-pressure core of the commercial PW800 engine and the low-pressure section of the F135."

Huh. That's the reverse of what I expected.

 

[Josh_TN]

Huh. That's the reverse of what I expected.

Me as well, but he is generally far better informed than I.

 

[bobthemonkey]

This debate is probably better in the B21 thread, but the conversation linked below is interesting as to why this approach may have been chosen. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/logic-behind-pw1120.19561/post-601051