Northrop Grumman "RQ-180"

Scott Kenny said:
So I'm feeling a number somewhere between ~9 and ~24 as the likely number of RQ-180s in service.
Click to expand...
There were nine preproduction airframes. One crashed in December 2016 and some have likely been retired. I wouldn't be surprised to find that one was relegated to the FTU ("schoolhouse") at Beale for ground training and familiarization purposes. The first production model joined the fleet in January 2017 and by late 2020, there were supposedly five or six more with others on the way.

Developmental testing took place at Groom Lake and apparently continued long after operational testing began at Edwards AFB in 2014.
 
I was asked by a former NG colleague if I was interested in returning to the company around the 2007 timeframe to work flight test on a new program but my clearance had expired, but I was working on the Phase I of Stratolaunch Roc (Lofty) at the time. I left NG in 1996.
 
Q-nimbus said:
Why the UAV improvements at TTR for the RQ-170 if it’s largely based at Creech Afb? Or is it merely being controlled at Creech and are the aircraft themselves based at Tonopah?
Click to expand...

RQ-170 was originally based entirely at TTR until the move to Creech in 2009-2011
There is still a detachment at TTR
 
quellish said:
RQ-170 was originally based entirely at TTR until the move to Creech in 2009-2011
There is still a detachment at TTR
Click to expand...

As far as I can see both squadrons (30th and 44th) that operate the RQ-170 have moved back to Creech. But you’re better at this stuff than I am, so I’m happy to be corrected.

I also wonder why the USAF would want RQ-170’s at both TTR and Creech. It doesn’t make sense logistics wise. The only reason I can think of if there are other RQ-170’s based at TTR is that those are operated by the CIA.

Based on the numbers of cars parked, a lot seems to be going on at the two buildings on the north side at TTR between the Blue and White hangars, next to the massive UAV mast.

The hangars next to the tower also seem UAV-related. They’re big, too.

Some shadowy UAV is flying out of Tonopah. It might be the RQ-180, or something new. I’ll go for the latter as it has long been said that the RQ-180 is based at Edwards. Existing hangar space and the new hangars they’ve built seem suitable for an RQ-180.
 
Q-nimbus said:
Why the UAV improvements at TTR for the RQ-170 if it’s largely based at Creech Afb? Or is it merely being controlled at Creech and are the aircraft themselves based at Tonopah?
Click to expand...
Or RQ-180 is retire it could be possible , or never become operational it could explain why we see nothing on it.
 
Whisperstream said:
There were nine preproduction airframes. One crashed in December 2016 and some have likely been retired. I wouldn't be surprised to find that one was relegated to the FTU ("schoolhouse") at Beale for ground training and familiarization purposes. The first production model joined the fleet in January 2017 and by late 2020, there were supposedly five or six more with others on the way.

Developmental testing took place at Groom Lake and apparently continued long after operational testing began at Edwards AFB in 2014.
Click to expand...
I always thought that was a lot of preproduction airframes for a program that was not going to be that large in terms of aircraft. Most of those preproduction airframes likely were modified into operational aircraft. The transition to a supposed faster ISR aircraft suggests that the RQ-180 is likely at the end of it production run. B-21 production is going to be ramped up also on supposedly the same production line.

If there is anywhere near a squadron they are doing a good job of keeping it under wraps.
 
B2Blain said:
I always thought that was a lot of preproduction airframes for a program that was not going to be that large in terms of aircraft. Most of those preproduction airframes likely were modified into operational aircraft.

If there is anywhere near a squadron they are doing a good job of keeping it under wraps.
Click to expand...

We don't really know how many RQ-180 airframes were ordered. As for the number of preproduction vehicles, remember that the first seven Global Hawk aircraft were built under a DARPA-sponsored Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program. Some of those ACTD prototypes were used operationally. The same approach may be true for the RQ-180.

Operating units for the RQ-180 include:

427th Reconnaissance Squadron, Beale AFB (operational reconnaissance, aircraft may not be collocated)
74th Reconnaissance Squadron, Beale AFB (Formal Training Unit)
Det. 2, 9th Operations Group, Edwards AFB (OT&E)
417th Test & Evaluation Squadron, Edwards AFB (OT&E)
Mad Hatters, CTF at Groom Lake, NV (DT&E)
Det. 4, 9th Operations Group, Andersen AFB, Guam (deployment support)
 
NMaude said:
Northrop merged with Grumman in 1994 so were you originally working for Grumman or Northrop?
Click to expand...
I started when it was Northrop (ASD, Pico) in 1986 then left Northrop Grumman at the B-2 CTF EAFB in 1996 (B-2 flight testing was coming to an end and no new programs until the 2000's). So with my time at N/NG, I was involved with B-2, ATA, YF-23, TSSAM, a couple others.
 
B2Blain said:
I always thought that was a lot of preproduction airframes for a program that was not going to be that large in terms of aircraft. Most of those preproduction airframes likely were modified into operational aircraft. The transition to a supposed faster ISR aircraft suggests that the RQ-180 is likely at the end of it production run. B-21 production is going to be ramped up also on supposedly the same production line.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, I'm the only one assuming that there will be both a subsonic penetrating ISR (either RQ-180 or that plane's successor) and a supersonic penetrating ISR ("son of Blackbird") to support the B-21 program.

But the issue of P-ISR flight time was noted clear back in B-2 development.
 
It seems to me having a long loiter time inside the target area is going to be more advantageous, especially if your penetration bomber is also subsonic. But there likely is a use case for a supersonic recon capability as well for the most contested airspace. Surveillance vs reconnaissance, as was discussed earlier or in another thread.
 
Hydroman said:
I started when it was Northrop (ASD, Pico) in 1986 then left Northrop Grumman at the B-2 CTF EAFB in 1996 (B-2 flight testing was coming to an end and no new programs until the 2000's). So with my time at N/NG, I was involved with B-2, ATA, YF-23, TSSAM, a couple others.
Click to expand...
The YF-23 was the most beautiful and high tech fighter ever built .
 
Scott Kenny said:
As far as I know, I'm the only one assuming that there will be both a subsonic penetrating ISR (either RQ-180 or that plane's successor) and a supersonic penetrating ISR ("son of Blackbird") to support the B-21 program.

But the issue of P-ISR flight time was noted clear back in B-2 development.
Click to expand...
There is some rumors about a supersonic B-21 companion it would make a some sens , a strike family like that could open a dominance strike mission.
 
dark sidius said:
The YF-23 was the most beautiful and high tech fighter ever built .
Click to expand...
The basic YF/F/FB-23 design opens up possibilities. Look at the Su-27 and the new European fighter platforms, each has a little bit of the 23 in them. Just like Donald Douglas Sr stated many decades ago at a symposium with some of the aerospace industry big boys in attendance that every airplane flying during that time period had some Jack Northrop in it, kind of rings true today involving N/NG, primarily the NG flying wing family (B-2, B-21, X-47A/B) as examples. You never know if the USAF NGAD and USN F/A-XX (if they get built) at least may capture some of the 23 design features, you never know.
 
Hydroman said:
The basic YF/F/FB-23 design opens up possibilities. Look at the Su-27 and the new European fighter platforms, each has a little bit of the 23 in them. Just like Donald Douglas Sr stated many decades ago at a symposium with some of the aerospace industry big boys in attendance that every airplane flying during that time period had some Jack Northrop in it, kind of rings true today involving N/NG, primarily the NG flying wing family (B-2, B-21, X-47A/B) as examples. You never know if the USAF NGAD and USN F/A-XX (if they get built) at least may capture some of the 23 design features, you never know.
Click to expand...
I hope so, in fact with actual avionics an YF-23 like could be the famous 6th gen fighter we need.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As far as I know, I'm the only one assuming that there will be both a subsonic penetrating ISR (either RQ-180 or that plane's successor) and a supersonic penetrating ISR ("son of Blackbird") to support the B-21 program.

But the issue of P-ISR flight time was noted clear back in B-2 development.
Click to expand...
I think there is definitely a need for a persistent, stealthy, ISR platform that can also serve as a network node. This will help the B-21 to hunt down mobile IRBMs and air defense systems.
 
B2Blain said:
I think there is definitely a need for a persistent, stealthy, ISR platform that can also serve as a network node. This will help the B-21 to hunt down mobile IRBMs and air defense systems.
Click to expand...
agreed. Whether that's the RQ-180 or the successor to it doesn't really matter at this point.
 
B2Blain said:
I think there is definitely a need for a persistent, stealthy, ISR platform that can also serve as a network node. This will help the B-21 to hunt down mobile IRBMs and air defense systems.
Click to expand...
The B-21 still do that it don't have a need for that .
 
dark sidius said:
The B-21 still do that it don't have a need for that .
Click to expand...
Disagree. B-2 recognized a need for persistent stealthy target finders separate from the bombers. There has been considerable talk about CCAs for the B-21s, but an unmanned bomber or other aircraft that size doesn't save any money compared to a manned plane.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Disagree. B-2 recognized a need for persistent stealthy target finders separate from the bombers. There has been considerable talk about CCAs for the B-21s, but an unmanned bomber or other aircraft that size doesn't save any money compared to a manned plane.
Click to expand...
Isn't this what the space stuff is for?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom