Lockheed "Classified Aero Program"

[dark sidius]

Don't forget that there's also the F-55 and F-22 Super.

I think more since years of rumors about something in the strike family.

 

[TMA1]

I said this many pages ago. The Lockheed NGAD demonstrator is being rushed into limited service in an F-117 style program.

The tooling for high production rate often adds many years to the development. This production tooling is a massive investment but it is recovered quickly as it reduces the cost per aircraft. Prototypes and demonstrators can be developed quickly but the cost per aircraft is much higher. The reason I bring this up is because it explains why the USAF would purchase aircraft that are built like expensive prototypes. The USAF would only do this if there is an urgent need and they can't wait 5+ years for all that tooling to be developed.

If the need is urgent it makes perfect sense to then use the NGAD demonstrator and its engines. It could be an unmanned supersonic strike aircraft using the NGAD demonstrator airframe. So when I say the Lockheed NGAD is in low rate production it doesn't mean it is a manned air-to-air fighter.

The late night afterburning take offs out of palmdale are continuing. There are very strict noise rules at palmdale so these flights must be very important and secretive. If we go back 5 years we could have maybe 10 aircraft. 1 or 2 of these would have been the NGAD demonstrator.

The blended wing body designs would be quite wide. The Lockheed NGAD design was meant to be designed for the long range Pacific theatre. I highly doubt it could fit inside a C-5 galaxy and assembled somewhere else. I link each night time afterburner flight to a Lockheed delivery flight.

Insidersource that bespoke prototype purchasing sounds very like what conspiracy guys have been saying for awhile in trying to explain the mythical aurora or rumored black project space planes for some time. Is that now what we are talking about now?

Edit: I want to make it clear I don't believe in these far fetched stories. I am just saying the story above seemed to be particularly, well, speculative.

 

[FighterJock]

It is not the Aurora spy plane TMA1. I am more or less thinking on the same lines as dark sidius that it could well be an advanced strike platform.

 

[FlyGuy369]

What is the likelihood that their NGAD submission was somehow made into a strike platform? Heck maybe even their Navy submission? Ive always loved hearing about the spooky flight programs but on here it looks more and more real everytime. It sounds cool in theory, would just love to know!

 

[quellish]

I said this many pages ago. The Lockheed NGAD demonstrator is being rushed into limited service in an F-117 style program.

There is (still) no evidence to substantiate this hypothesis, and there is a large amount of evidence that refutes it.

The blended wing body designs would be quite wide. The Lockheed NGAD design was meant to be designed for the long range Pacific theatre. I highly doubt it could fit inside a C-5 galaxy and assembled somewhere else. I link each night time afterburner flight to a Lockheed delivery flight.

Neither of the demonstrator aircraft were blended wing body configurations.
If you believe in the large "RQ-180", that is a blended wing body that was transported to Groom Lake. There are many ways to get things to that location that are not a C-5.

Lockheed and Boeing would have received money from the government to build the All-X demonstrators. I haven't seen anyone post a budget document showing payment to Boeing and Lockheed for the All-X demonstrators.

The AII-X contracts were awarded in 2016. This is well documented in public records, many of which have been posted on this forum.

 

[dark sidius]

There is (still) no evidence to substantiate this hypothesis, and there is a large amount of evidence that refutes it.



Neither of the demonstrator aircraft were blended wing body configurations.
If you believe in the large "RQ-180", that is a blended wing body that was transported to Groom Lake. There are many ways to get things to that location that are not a C-5.



The AII-X contracts were awarded in 2016. This is well documented in public records, many of which have been posted on this forum.

The Lockheed contract is since 2018, so what it is ? , it seem to be a very advanced platform, I bet the strike mission over the Pacific, what is here ? B-21 subsonic bomber, F-47 supersonic fighter , F-35 Fighter Bomber, the lack is in ISR and rapid strike. It is surely not a advanced troop transporter. Ithink we must think about the mission.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Aii-X contracts were in 2016, so we know this wasn't/isn't part of that program. Which means it's not the "NGAD prototypes"

At that time (2018) there was a standing need for a supersonic penetrating recon bird to get ahead of the B-21s and go track the Russian mobile ICBMs. I think with the development of ubiquitous orbital surveillance constellations this need has been deprecated somewhat, so the program could have been cut.

Note that I am not exactly thinking "Son of Blackbird" high-supersonic or hypersonic here. Mach 3 gets too hot. I was thinking about something that cruised at around Mach 2.2 (with pretty significant error bars on that, I'm talking M1.8-2.7 for the range), and which might carry a couple of bombs (or missiles).

 

[quellish]

The Lockheed contract is since 2018, so what it is ?

Why not, I dunno, find those contracts?

 

[Brett Davidson]

Don't forget that there's also the F-55 and F-22 Super.

And the battleships.

 

[Reddington777]

I think I'm more interested in the "observed performance degradation" than the "discrete event", as "performance degradation" is unlikely to apply to an entire airframe. I'd suspect that implicates either an engine, a sensor, or a material. A "discrete event" does imply something got seriously damaged, but it doesn't have to be a crash, could be a fire, could be something melted, something got hot enough or stressed enough to fail testing or not be reusable, or whatever. Failing a wing loading test would be a "discrete event", so would a blade off in an engine test, there's no need to invoke something cataclysmic.

If it is indeed something that failed due to heat tolerance, then it might be something hypersonic or space related. I don't imagine LM to have trouble with anything that flies up to mach 5 unless they were going for something extremely cheap as well.

 

[DWG]

I don't imagine LM to have trouble with anything that flies up to mach 5 unless they were going for something extremely cheap as well.

Boeing had a 777X fuselage fail static testing, Airbus had an A380 wing fail static testing, we don't have to get esoteric to have test failures.

 

[Calphor]

LM's description / disclosures so far (non-exhaustive):

1. "Game changing capability"
2. Joint US and international customers (potential)
3. Can't talk about what it is for..'many years to come'
4. Firm-Fixed Price contract from 2018 ('several fixed price performance years ahead for the program')
5. Learnings in recent software & build experience on another program specifically relevant to the program (and cause of delays / charges)
6. 'Observed performance degradation and a 'discrete event' partly led to charge recognition

Just a nit, but he actually referred to “fixed-price incentive fee” contract which is not a firm fixed price contract. Fixed price incentive fee is typically formulated as a price target with a share line on both overrun and under run, with a maximum cost cap for the Gov’t. Any under run is shared with the Gov’t at a predetermined percentage. Firm fixed price is typically a commercial style arrangement where scope and deliverables are defined for a specific price. Any remaining dollars after delivery become profit with any losses born by the contracting company.

The implication in this case is that LM overran the FPIF contract (and likely option phases) and is either into the share line on the overrun, or has exceeded the overrun cost cap.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The implication in this case is that LM overran the FPIF contract (and likely option phases) and is either into the share line on the overrun, or has exceeded the overrun cost cap.

Given Lockheed's performance on F-35, I'm leaning towards "exceeded overrun cost cap"

 

[insidersource]

Note that I am not exactly thinking "Son of Blackbird" high-supersonic or hypersonic here. Mach 3 gets too hot. I was thinking about something that cruised at around Mach 2.2 (with pretty significant error bars on that, I'm talking M1.8-2.7 for the range), and which might carry a couple of bombs (or missiles).

This is exactly the speed, range and payload that members were expecting the NGAD platform to have. Supercruising approximately halves the range relative to a subsonic cruise. A full afterburner sprint will reduce the range to roughly a quarter of the subsonic only range. The 1,000+nm combat radius of the NGAD could be much shorter depending on how fast the mission profile is.

I would assume the ideal high speed strike profile would be to leave the tanker and then do a 200nm subsonic, 200nm supercruise and 200nm afterburner dash for a 600nm combat radius. This would require an NGAD sized 100,000lb MTOW aircraft due to the high fuel consumption.

There is (still) no evidence to substantiate this hypothesis, and there is a large amount of evidence that refutes it.

We also must remember that Lockheed built a hush house on the taxiway half way between their advanced manufacturing centre and the runway. The completed aircraft can be towed into the hush house. The engine tests can then be performed in preparation for the first flight. We then get the noisy afterburner delivery flight.

You have to stretch pretty far to justify that hush house. If the aircraft are leaving inside a C-5 then the engine tests will be performed once assembled at the destination. If it was to do XA100 or XA101 engine testing on the F-35 then surely this would get done in Texas. The NASA X-59 supersonic demonstrator was built at the Skunk Works and it did the engines test 8 months ago in a normal hanger outdoors. Yet you say this isn't allowed. The photos are online. This new hush house is most likely dedicated to this secret aircraft.

For full spectrum stealth I doubt the wings can be unbolted for transport and they fill the joins with putty like in the olden days.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is exactly the speed, range and payload that members were expecting the NGAD platform to have. Supercruising approximately halves the range relative to a subsonic cruise. A full afterburner sprint will reduce the range to roughly a quarter of the subsonic only range. The 1,000+nm combat radius of the NGAD could be much shorter depending on how fast the mission profile is.

True, for the F-22 and F-35.

Not true for Blackbird or XB-70. Or the 2707. (Not sure about Concorde)

I'm talking about an airframe built for sustained supersonic flight like the Blackbird, just not quite as fast.

I would assume the ideal high speed strike profile would be to leave the tanker and then do a 200nm subsonic, 200nm supercruise and 200nm afterburner dash for a 600nm combat radius. This would require an NGAD sized 100,000lb MTOW aircraft due to the high fuel consumption.

My mission profile is sustained Mach 2.2ish with occasionally slowing down to M0.8 to meet up with a tanker.

 

[quellish]

We then get the noisy afterburner delivery flight.

These “noisy afterburner takeoffs” are what your hypothesis seems to hinge on - and they do not exist. There are no late night afterburner takeoffs happening at Palmdale. And if there were it wouldn’t be a SECRET aircraft. Afterburners in an urban area do lend themselves to secrecy. Palmdale is not remote anymore. Plant 42 is surrounded by urban sprawl and homeowners who complain about noise.

Did you request police reports about loud late night flights out of Palmdale? FAA records? Those records might help substantiate your claims - but they do not exist.

You have to stretch pretty far to justify that hush house.

No, you don’t. All of the other Palmdale tenants have done the same or plan to - to comply with the law. The Lockheed hush house isn’t anything special. In 2013 someone tried to make a similar argument for the Northrop engine testing areas - they must be for a new secret aircraft! Nope, just GlobalHawks and B-2s.

On any day you can park within 200 yards of any part of Plant 42 and see for yourself. I have. Even better is the scenic overlook a few miles away that looks directly at it and a few quarters gets you your own telescope.

 

[publiusr]

There are times where I wonder if some assets are in plain sight. Put a nice drone or something in a tent on Area 51 and everyone knows all about it.

In Birmingham, we have tankers. Boom operators probably know more about any classified craft than any other outsider--so why not pair them?

I used to live in Inglenook, not far from the radar...near the "Roebuck" UPS...home of a workplace shooting where an employee messed himself due to bosses laughing at him by refusing bathroom breaks. The Dalai Lama visited a monastery nearby... Coca-cola now has property to either side of the airport (Stockham Valve's old site a recent acquisition.)

Folks used to come from all over to watch airplanes take off and land. No longer.

There is at least one big hanger seemingly disused. If I had something larger... Birmingham would be my home...not Groom Lake.

Fly between 2AM and 5 or so. The only folks nearby are Guardsmen and rental car employees messing around. The Millennium Falcon could fly out without notice.

 

[quellish]

There are times where I wonder if some assets are in plain sight. Put a nice drone or something in a tent on Area 51 and everyone knows all about it.

I would suggest not making statements that might entice someone to break the law or - make certain agencies or components “believe” you are doing so. One of the last times there was a (fraudulent) suggestion that some may do what you describe a DoD “field operating agency” conducted a “non consensual physical search” of a US citizen with no military affiliation in a very direct violation of a number of statues including posse comitatus and related statutes. The persons involved in that search could be under investigation and be responsible for civil and criminal penalties. That whole “detachment” and its parent organization may even be under intense scrutiny by the legislature!

Just suggesting that someone may or should do this may subject you to penalties you cannot understand.

 

[NMaude]

Afterburners in an urban area do lend themselves to secrecy.

I do believe you're missing a word from that sentence.

 

[dark sidius]

These “noisy afterburner takeoffs” are what your hypothesis seems to hinge on - and they do not exist. There are no late night afterburner takeoffs happening at Palmdale. And if there were it wouldn’t be a SECRET aircraft. Afterburners in an urban area do lend themselves to secrecy. Palmdale is not remote anymore. Plant 42 is surrounded by urban sprawl and homeowners who complain about noise.

Did you request police reports about loud late night flights out of Palmdale? FAA records? Those records might help substantiate your claims - but they do not exist.



No, you don’t. All of the other Palmdale tenants have done the same or plan to - to comply with the law. The Lockheed hush house isn’t anything special. In 2013 someone tried to make a similar argument for the Northrop engine testing areas - they must be for a new secret aircraft! Nope, just GlobalHawks and B-2s.

On any day you can park within 200 yards of any part of Plant 42 and see for yourself. I have. Even better is the scenic overlook a few miles away that looks directly at it and a few quarters gets you your own telescope.

Ok so what are you trying to debunk ? Lockheed have something classified in the work since 2018 ( I find it in a Lockheed report ) they lose near to 2 billions dollars about it, despite the lost, the program is still alive , It is named by Lockheed a game changer. It is not the Lockheed CCA counterpart because they show us the Vectis, this is not NGAD , this is not the LRSB , this is not a transport so what else ?

 

[NMaude]

Ok so what are you trying to debunk ? Lockheed have something classified in the work since 2018

Lockheed-Martin NOT Lockheed!

 

[dark sidius]

Lockheed-Martin NOT Lockheed!

Yes Lockheed Martin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1m7160l/lockheed_martin_may_be_working_on_a_massive

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1m7160l/lockheed_martin_may_be_working_on_a_massive/

 

[TMA1]

It is not the Aurora spy plane TMA1. I am more or less thinking on the same lines as dark sidius that it could well be an advanced strike platform.

See above edit to original post

 

[Ninja]

And not like the 1994 crash at Boscome Down that we all know about.

That's been debunked a long time ago.

 

[insidersource]

True, for the F-22 and F-35.

Not true for Blackbird or XB-70. Or the 2707. (Not sure about Concorde)

All aircraft fly further subsonic compared to supersonic including the XB-70. People mistake the XB70 range figure for being it's combat radius because it has relatively short range due to the high speed profile. Similar fuel capacity to the B-52 but less than half the range.

I'm talking about an airframe built for sustained supersonic flight like the Blackbird, just not quite as fast.

My mission profile is sustained Mach 2.2ish with occasionally slowing down to M0.8 to meet up with a tanker.

Again that sounds exactly like NGAD. Designed to fly supersonic for most of the mission profile. NGAD would be optimised for high supercruise speeds. But not built for sustained Mach 3 speeds like the Blackbird.

These “noisy afterburner takeoffs” are what your hypothesis seems to hinge on - and they do not exist. There are no late night afterburner takeoffs happening at Palmdale. And if there were it wouldn’t be a SECRET aircraft. Afterburners in an urban area do lend themselves to secrecy. Palmdale is not remote anymore. Plant 42 is surrounded by urban sprawl and homeowners who complain about noise.

Did you request police reports about loud late night flights out of Palmdale? FAA records? Those records might help substantiate your claims - but they do not exist.

You dont know what you are talking about. I have attached a photo of the NASA X-59 at Palmdale going full afterburner at night in an open hanger. This photo was taken in February and disproves every point you make regarding noise at Palmdale.

These secret aircraft are leaving under their own power at night using afterburner. The local residents aren't calling the police. We are talking a handful of aircraft with a delivery flight every few months. If deliveries become more frequent it is only a matter of time until a plane spotter will witness a takeoff like in 2017.

https://www.techeblog.com/nasa-x-59-quesst-supersonic-research-aircraft-afterburner-test/

 

[Not James Stockdale]

I would suggest not making statements that might entice someone to break the law or - make certain agencies or components “believe” you are doing so. One of the last times there was a (fraudulent) suggestion that some may do what you describe a DoD “field operating agency” conducted a “non consensual physical search” of a US citizen with no military affiliation in a very direct violation of a number of statues including posse comitatus and related statutes. The persons involved in that search could be under investigation and be responsible for civil and criminal penalties. That whole “detachment” and its parent organization may even be under intense scrutiny by the legislature!

Just suggesting that someone may or should do this may subject you to penalties you cannot understand.

I think he's saying that everybody would find out about the Air Force moving a drone into a tent at Area 51 because people keep track from the overlooks.

The idea of doing testing in an unexpected place is interesting, but I would still look for a relatively isolated and controlled airfield. Something like Duke Field might work, without residential facilities for regular Air Force personnel, far away from anybody watching on land, and with access to overland and overwater ranges.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What overlooks remain open to public access around Groom Lake? I thought all those were absorbed by the base?

 

[Whisperstream]

What overlooks remain open to public access around Groom Lake? I thought all those were absorbed by the base?

The close viewpoints were seized but there are still places such as Tikaboo Peak. Sure, it's 26 miles from the base but some of the recent telephoto images have been startlingly clear and detailed.

 

[Scott Kenny]

All aircraft fly further subsonic compared to supersonic including the XB-70. People mistake the XB70 range figure for being it's combat radius because it has relatively short range due to the high speed profile. Similar fuel capacity to the B-52 but less than half the range.

Blackbird travels farther supersonic than it does subsonic.

The whole reason the retirement flight was a record setter is because the Blackbird folks were able to prove that it would be cheaper to do supersonic than subsonic. Blackbird could do that entire flight on one tanker visit off LA supersonic, but would need at least one more tanker over the middle of the country to do it subsonic.

Again that sounds exactly like NGAD. Designed to fly supersonic for most of the mission profile. NGAD would be optimised for high supercruise speeds. But not built for sustained Mach 3 speeds like the Blackbird.

That was a proposed early mission profile for NGAD, yes. Problem is, you can't really interact with planes flying subsonic while you are flying supersonic.

But it works for a recon bird or a bomber. Mach 2ish at 60,000ft doesn't add a whole lot to SRAM ranges, only ~doubles them.

 

[quellish]

All aircraft fly further subsonic compared to supersonic including the XB-70. People mistake the XB70 range figure for being it's combat radius because it has relatively short range due to the high speed profile. Similar fuel capacity to the B-52 but less than half the range.

This is not true for the SR-71. The SR-71 burned more fuel when subsonic. It "fly further" supersonic.

You dont know what you are talking about. I have attached a photo of the NASA X-59 at Palmdale going full afterburner at night in an open hanger. This photo was taken in February and disproves every point you make regarding noise at Palmdale.

These secret aircraft are leaving under their own power at night using afterburner. The local residents aren't calling the police. We are talking a handful of aircraft with a delivery flight every few months. If deliveries become more frequent it is only a matter of time until a plane spotter will witness a takeoff like in 2017.

Hey man, I just collect evidence. Every rumor, every "hypothesis" is a crime scene.

I will refer you to:

- The QueSST Quiet Supersonic Technology Environmental Impact Plan
- California Code of Regulations. Title 21, § 5012
- California Code of Regulations. Title 24
- Palmdale Municipal Code Section 8.28.030
- Palmdale Noise Element Plan (per California Government Code 65302)
- Construction permits for 1011 Lockheed Way and other Lockheed properties within Palmdale, Lancaster, and Helendale
- TO 00-25-172
- UFC 3-260-01
- FA8535-09-H-House Records
- FAA records for aircraft with serial 18-5901

Spoiler

TLDR; The X-59 engine run you are pointing to that you claim was done in the early evening of last February was legal. Your full afterburner mystery plane, or frequent engine testing without a supressor would not be.

It wasn't done in February though. The article you point to was published in February, the article itself states the test was done in January. It helps to read your sources and understand them.

The residents of Palmdale and Lancaster do, regularly, call the FAA, EDW, and local PD for noise complaints when the noise is unusual. I have several close friends who live within the PMD noise footprint (less than a mile away) and they have not heard these late night mystery planes. They've heard F-35s in the evening, but no late night afterburning mystery planes.

But hey, did anyone other than me bother to get those noise report records? Did anyone actually look? Anyone?

What takeoff are you claiming was witnessed in 2017? The first flight of an AII-X demonstrator was in 2018, and it was at Groom Lake. The aircraft was shipped there.


These posts are (almost) humorous, I do enjoy reading fiction about secret aircraft making full after burning takeoffs at night in urban areas, it's very imaginative!
It's also just fiction.


MAN wouldn't this thread be more interesting if someone located some of those 2018 contracts? It wouldn't stop the speculation about hypersonic NGAD ISR fighters being operational and flying out of downtown New York though!

 

[insidersource]

Blackbird travels farther supersonic than it does subsonic.

The Blackbird is irrelevant to the discussion even if this was true. It wouldn't apply to a modern design. The only way the Blackbird could have less range while flying subsonic would be if there was a massive design inefficiency such as the engines or wing stalling at Mach 0.8 cruise condition.

A modern design with a three stream engine would have the engines right at peak efficiency at Mach 0.8 cruise. Even with flawless supersonic aerodynamics this means NGAD and any modern high speed design will fly much further subsonic.

The XB-70 and F-22 are probably the best examples to use.

That was a proposed early mission profile for NGAD, yes. Problem is, you can't really interact with planes flying subsonic while you are flying supersonic.

But it works for a recon bird or a bomber. Mach 2ish at 60,000ft doesn't add a whole lot to SRAM ranges, only ~doubles them.

If I was the manned platform being supported by a dozen subsonic CCAs I would prefer to move around quickly. For instance if threatened the manned platform can retreat quickly behind a wall of CCAs. The F-22 supercruise and maximum speeds are sufficient the design just needs more fuel and to be able to handle the heat from these speeds for longer duration.

 

[aim9xray]

I am wondering if the reported "afterburner" takeoffs at night are based on noise only or accompanied by visual sightings as well. After all, afterburners are pretty spectacular at night, and are easily tracked as moving light sources (which stars are usually not).

If it is detected by noise only, I would posit (from personal experience) that the F118-GE-100 or -101 engines (both used by aircraft flying in and out of there) are pretty darn loud. And without an set of EPNdB readings, I would discount a silent-noisy-silent subjective experience compared to another subjective silent-afterburner-silent experience some unknown time earlier.

Oh and the B-2 has *four* F118s.

In any event I'd like to see some comparative EPNdB data on which to make an opinion. I believe that data talks and bullshit walks.

"He shaves with Occam's razor.
He's the most skeptical man in the world,"

 

[insidersource]

It wasn't done in February though. The article you point to was published in February, the article itself states the test was done in January. It helps to read your sources and understand them.

The exact date is irrelevant. You are now trying to lower my credibility for getting a minor date wrong.

You said there can't be afterburner tests outdoors. I provide proof that there was afterburner tests outdoors. You then shift the goal posts and say that it was a legal test. I never mentioned legal or illegal.

Ok so what are you trying to debunk ? Lockheed have something classified in the work since 2018 ( I find it in a Lockheed report ) they lose near to 2 billions dollars about it, despite the lost, the program is still alive , It is named by Lockheed a game changer. It is not the Lockheed CCA counterpart because they show us the Vectis, this is not NGAD , this is not the LRSB , this is not a transport so what else ?

Quellish has been asked this many times now. It is better for him to say nothing than to take a guess and be proven wrong.

 

[publiusr]

I would suggest not making statements that might entice someone to break the law or - make certain agencies or components “believe” you are doing so.

No private spy drone advocate me. I don't know how to do the Naruto/WEAPONS/anime kind of running without falling face first.

The point is that folks already pay attention to Groom Lake and post pix.

My suggestion is about a way secret aircraft can be tested that *doesn't* arouse suspicion.

Another reason I miss Birmingham's F-4 Phantoms howling around all night.

Back in the 1970's , you could have launched a five core SuperHeavy and no one could have told the difference:

"Hey Ethel! That one sounds like it needs work done!"

" I can't hear anything for your snoring!"

Other than a handful of folks here--people just don't go to airports to gawk at the different kinds of planes anymore--especially now that everything is a 'ruddy twin-jet. A 15 mile wide ID4 saucer can't compete with A.I. slop on everyone's smartphone. Let it fly over here, and I'd be the only one to see it.

So help me, the guys who could tell early MiGs from Sabers would confuse one twin-jet with another.

Let me test an honest-to-god anti-gravity sphere all of two-feet wide at Area 51..and two days later the blueprints of it will be on Coast-to-Coast.

I miss the 70's

 

[flateric]

Numerous first/delivery flights at night with afterburner for a new large sized highly classified platform at PMD with all those BJ's Corner people lurking around. Right from the shop to the dark skies. Without taxi tests seen ever. Very plausible story, yes.

For me current state of things at PMD is symbolized by background car traffic along the fence during Raider rollout ceremony.

 

[quellish]

The exact date is irrelevant. You are now trying to lower my credibility for getting a minor date wrong.

Actually, it is very relevant! The test was conducted at twilight in January. Had you read the references I provided you may realize the significance of that.

You said there can't be afterburner tests outdoors. I provide proof that there was afterburner tests outdoors. You then shift the goal posts and say that it was a legal test. I never mentioned legal or illegal.

If you can point to where I said that, do so.
You said late night after burning takeoffs, so.... yeah, legal issue there. Legal issues surrounding the "hush house"? Yep that too.
Still haven't read the references, huh?

Quellish has been asked this many times now. It is better for him to say nothing than to take a guess and be proven wrong.

And quellish has given an opinion based on the facts available at that time.
As far as "taking a guess" , I don't spout nonsensical speculation. I leave that to others.

Also, quellish will no longer do forum member's homework for them. Gasp! You may have to do your own research rather than wait or goad someone else into posting something. After all, I posted references to many things in my last pos(s)t that have clearly nots been read or understood by forum participants. So what's the point of posting anything?

 

[publiusr]

I read your posts--and with any luck--posterity as well.

Of all the many posts here....the one that stands out most in my mind was by Michel Van... about how a library--in Europe mind you--erased their aerospace library.

There are folks not yet born who would benefit from reading your words...if this site continues.

The past year or so...I try to remind myself to not only speak to others here, but to the camera so to speak. We all get flustered. I try jokes...a little soft shoe... that's all I am good for as a nobody.

But you all have experience the rest of the world needs to hear.... especially since no one seems to look skyward anymore.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Blackbird is irrelevant to the discussion even if this was true. It wouldn't apply to a modern design. The only way the Blackbird could have less range while flying subsonic would be if there was a massive design inefficiency such as the engines or wing stalling at Mach 0.8 cruise condition.

A modern design with a three stream engine would have the engines right at peak efficiency at Mach 0.8 cruise. Even with flawless supersonic aerodynamics this means NGAD and any modern high speed design will fly much further subsonic.

The XB-70 and F-22 are probably the best examples to use.

It is my understanding that the XB-70 was also designed around most efficient cruise at supersonic speeds, just like the Blackbirds.

But it is possible that the aerodynamics and 3-stream engines would allow best efficiency at M0.8 as well as excellent efficiency at whatever supersonic speed. (That's way over my physics paygrade)

If I was the manned platform being supported by a dozen subsonic CCAs I would prefer to move around quickly. For instance if threatened the manned platform can retreat quickly behind a wall of CCAs. The F-22 supercruise and maximum speeds are sufficient the design just needs more fuel and to be able to handle the heat from these speeds for longer duration.

As I understand things, that really just doesn't work. You cannot really interact with anything that isn't moving at your speed.

 

[insidersource]

It is my understanding that the XB-70 was also designed around most efficient cruise at supersonic speeds, just like the Blackbirds.

This is physically impossible.

I think you are misunderstanding the drag coefficient charts. You still need to square the velocity in the drag equation. Double the velocity is then four times the drag while using the same drag coefficient.

D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/drageq.html
The Blackbird using less fuel was actually a joke by the crew.

Also once drag is calculated you still need need determine the fuel consumption of the engines. As soon as afterburner is used the rate of range reduction would also increase.

This is why Tempest 6th gen fighter was quoted to have "Atlantic range" on internal fuel and the Lockheed NGAD design was called a "battlecruiser" due to its large size. These massive fuel capacities are to offset the increased fuel consumption when flying around at supersonic speeds. Tempest "atlantic range" on internal fuel means 3,000nm range but this will be a long range subsonic ferry cruise.

As I understand things, that really just doesn't work. You cannot really interact with anything that isn't moving at your speed.

The speed of the person controlling the drone is irrelevant. You could interact with a drone while sitting at a computer on the other side of the planet. You could interact with a drone while flying at 28,000km/h while sitting on the international space station. A drone controller could be cruising at 30 knots sitting on an aircraft carrier.

Just because a manned fighter is Mach 2.5 capable doesn't mean it has to sit at Mach 2.5 for the entire mission. As threats pop up it makes perfect sense for the manned assets to be able to move faster than the drones.

 

[Tomboy]

This is physically impossible.

I think you are misunderstanding the drag coefficient charts. You still need to square the velocity in the drag equation. Double the velocity is then four times the drag while using the same drag coefficient.

D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/drageq.html

You do literally realise Cd is not a constant right? While also engines are only optimised for a certain range of speeds.