AARS, Lockheed QUARTZ, Tier III, Frontier Systems W570, Arrow, Shadow

I think sensor placement is as good a guess as any, physical separation of identical or complementary sensor packages can provide some advantages.... well that's David Attenbrough tells me about the hammerhead shark ;D (although at > 70,000 ft, the degree of "depth perception" this sensor separation may provide could be limited at best).

All speculation without knowledge of the operating altitude of the concept that gave birth to this model, assuming it even was a concept?
 
circle-5 said:
Does anybody know what this is? I've never seen it before. Not even sure if I'm in the right topic...
Click to expand...

Still no takers on this one??? Somebody always has a good explanation around here....
 
Having an indication of the source document for that picture might be a good start... ::)
 
As with most things posted by Circle-5, its a photo of an original manufacturers model, likely one of his own collection or a photo he took of someone else's model. Presumably there's no documentation or information on the model itself.
 
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: 477
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...
 
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...

Exact quote from International Air Power Review is:

Lockheed had unveiled a concept for a giant HALE UAV in 1983. Spanning 267 ft (81.4 m), it would have had an endurance of 24 hours and would have been propelled by 47-ft "turbojet/turboshaft engines' driving immense (14.32-m) diameter two-bladed propellers. The dual-cycle engines were necessary because the propellers would be locked in a horizontal position for take-off and landing.

While it was similar in size to the final Quartz design, it was not yet stealthy. Lockheed and Boeing were selected to develop concepts for Quartz in 1983. Studies and some technology demonstations - possibly including Condor - continued through out the 1980s. The most challenging problems were its size, driven by endurance, range and the need to carry a large payload - some concepts had wingspans of 250 ft (76.2 m) the advanced stealth technology required to survive during long missions over denied airspace, and the consequently enormous cost of the vehicle.
Click to expand...
 
quellish said:
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.
Click to expand...
Any drawings / renders of this “ENCHANTMENT” RPV?
 
Uuuuiiiuu said:
Any drawings / renders of this “ENCHANTMENT” RPV?
Click to expand...

Boeing's Condor UAV (code name FENNEL) underwent two flight-test series. The first involved developmental test and evaluation under the name ADMIXTURE. The second test series was tasked with evaluating mission systems and performance under the name ENCHANTMENT.
 
Can someone please refresh my memory as to what the different Tiers were supposed to be capable of?

===========

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...
The Glomar Response is pretty suggestive that there probably is such a program, but do remember the other half of that. Saying that we don't have anything like what you're asking about is also an important detail.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Can someone please refresh my memory as to what the different Tiers were supposed to be capable of?
Click to expand...

As originally planned:
1. Tier I, Low Altitude Endurance
2. Tier II, Medium Altitude Endurance
3. Tier III, High altitude endurance, survivable / low observable

The original requirements for QUARTZ/AARS were used to define Tier III with little modification.
The CIA GNAT750 LOFTY VIEW was the basis for Tier I.

As thing evolved, Tier III was still too darn expensive and was separated in the Tier II+ (High altitude, long endurance, no low observables) and Tier III- (High altitude, low observable, not so long endurance)

1. Tier I, GNAT750 (?) (At this point Tier I seems to have run its course)
2. Tier II, competition resulted in Predator ACTD
3. Tier II+, competition resulted in Global Hawk ACTD
4. Tier III- , no competition, contract was given to Lockheed/Boeing (LoBo) as Darkstar ACTD

Scott Kenny said:
The Glomar Response is pretty suggestive that there probably is such a program, but do remember the other half of that. Saying that we don't have anything like what you're asking about is also an important detail.
Click to expand...

I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but at some point soon it can be discussed in the SCIF.
 
quellish said:
As originally planned:
1. Tier I, Low Altitude Endurance
2. Tier II, Medium Altitude Endurance
3. Tier III, High altitude endurance, survivable / low observable

The original requirements for QUARTZ/AARS were used to define Tier III with little modification.
The CIA GNAT750 LOFTY VIEW was the basis for Tier I.

As thing evolved, Tier III was still too darn expensive and was separated in the Tier II+ (High altitude, long endurance, no low observables) and Tier III- (High altitude, low observable, not so long endurance)

1. Tier I, GNAT750 (?) (At this point Tier I seems to have run its course)
2. Tier II, competition resulted in Predator ACTD
3. Tier II+, competition resulted in Global Hawk ACTD
4. Tier III- , no competition, contract was given to Lockheed/Boeing (LoBo) as Darkstar ACTD
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
fightingirish said:
It remembered me of reading a few years ago of an article in AirInternational, where a USAF U-2 pilot reported seeing an flying higher as himhelf during his sorties over Iraq during 2003.

Another source:
Aviation week - 6th July 2003 - A Classified Lockheed Martin Unmanned Reconnaissance Aircraft Was Used in Iraq - By David A. Fulghum
Click to expand...

pg 44

Current link to AWST article

A Classified Lockheed Martin Unmanned Reconnaissance Aircraft Was Used in Iraq | Aviation Week Network

Not a lot has been written about new products from Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works during the last couple of years, but aerospace officials say the advanced projects company has produced prototypes of a classified, unmanned aerial vehicle--built strictly as an intelligence-gathering aircraft--that...
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
quellish said:
pg 44

Current link to AWST article

A Classified Lockheed Martin Unmanned Reconnaissance Aircraft Was Used in Iraq | Aviation Week Network

Not a lot has been written about new products from Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works during the last couple of years, but aerospace officials say the advanced projects company has produced prototypes of a classified, unmanned aerial vehicle--built strictly as an intelligence-gathering aircraft--that...
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
Quellish, is this Quartz, AARS, or something else? These are definitely the same craft.

1698936614533.png
1698936654815.png
 
sublight_ said:
Quellish, is this Quartz, AARS, or something else? These are definitely the same craft.
Click to expand...

The Northrop model is very similar to their losing QUARTZ design. Not the same but similar. The model is probably a SensorCraft design
 
Yes, this is a model of one of the dropped SC designs - and this is not the same thing shown on the drawing.
 
Last edited:
Well since nobody has a proper catchy nickname for the craft that was used operationally, can we call it "sky blazer"?
 
sublight_ said:
Well since nobody has a proper catchy nickname for the craft that was used operationally, can we call it "sky blazer"?
Click to expand...

If you mean the mystery aircraft over Iraq, Steve Douglass called it Blackstar in 2003/2004
 
sublight_ said:
Yes, it does look like Steve Douglass literally copied the Lockheed LM SC006.
Click to expand...

Douglass’s drawing beats little resemblance to that sensorcraft configuration.
SC006 was several years AFTER Douglass published the drawing.
 
It looks pretty darn like hundreds (or thousands) cranked kite configurations studied by Boeing, LM and NG in decades. And Steve knows what is wing sweep angle.
 
I could talk about how unlikely it is that a U2 flew at 90.000ft which is so much higher above it’s ceiling altitude of about 70.000ft.

Or why a drone or whatever reconnaissance aircraft would need to fly above, say, 60.000ft.

But no U2 pilot would be allowed to take an photo camera with him on an actual reconnaissance or intel mission.

There might have been some interesting stuff flying around in the first and second Gulf War.

But most reports were probably of the F117A, which even today is still a very exotic aircraft, and whatever else there was, it surely wasn’t flying at FL1000.
 
Q-nimbus said:
There might have been some interesting stuff flying around in the first and second Gulf War.
Click to expand...
jalopnik.com

Confessions Of A USAF KC-135 'Flying Gas Station' Boom Operator

It is one of the coolest jobs in the entire U.S. military, "Booms" as they are affectionately called, are the folks who directly provide sustenance to America's thirsty air power as the gas station's of the sky. From flying over war zones to fueling top secret experimental aircraft, being a Boom...
jalopnik.com jalopnik.com

During this time period I remember a squadron meeting where the Operations Group Commander told us to "be careful what you say over the phone, and pay no attention to the black, pointy shaped aircraft and "others" that were coming to the base."
Click to expand...
 
quellish said:
…

O hai

View attachment 710817
Click to expand...
This wasn’t a secret intel or recon mission. In fact, the whole world was watching. But, yes, things might be a bit easier now with cell phones.

The ceiling is quite a bit above your "about" number.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it is. But almost 30% higher than what we publicly know? I doubt it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom