Lockheed Martin SkunkWorks P-175 Polecat UAV

Matej said:
Hi elider, here is the picture and here is the web. ;)

http://members.macconnect.com/users/q/quellish/Tier/Tier.html
Click to expand...

IF I ever find the original model I'd be happy to post it for whoever may be interested.
 
Very interesting Polecat footage/photos inside, including production process and murky official 3-view fragments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnRWnf2mVt8
 
elmayerle said:
"An irreversible unintentional failure in the flight termination ground equipment,..."
Click to expand...

Sinkhole in the runway ? ;D

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
 
flateric said:
Very interesting Polecat footage/photos inside, including production process and murky official 3-view fragments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnRWnf2mVt8
Click to expand...

Cool separation footage of the D-21 :)
 
Did Lockheed actually start the UAV revolution? I thought there were unmanned drone ideas prior to the D-21
 
The UAV revolution was REALLY started by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems....

in the mid 1990's... even before there were suitable payloads.... they were testing the Predator A's in the balkens....

I have been in the UAV racket for 21 years.... and it was basically mediocre except for a few science projects...
It was not until Adm Thomas Cassidy at the helm of GAASI pushed the UAV's in washington that they became
used on a large scale....

Now there are like 40 to 50 Predator UAV's flying 24/7 somewhere around the globe....

It was basically a form of punishment in the USAF to be a drone pilot..... until they got missles...
now people are seeing it as a career path.... was not like that 10 years ago....

"No Grieving Widows"
 

Attachments

  • 000_anything004.jpg
    000_anything004.jpg
    185.3 KB · Views: 187
Mithrandir said:
Now there are like 40 to 50 Predator UAV's flying 24/7 somewhere around the globe....
Click to expand...

Not enough :p

But seriously, that's still a small fleet given how much time has passed, especially when you compare to, say, the number of Cessna Skyhawks or even ultralights that may be flying around the world at any given time doing the exact same missions the Predator is doing.

I've expunged on my ideas of UAVs elsewhere on this forum and others.
 
Just call me Ray said:
..........of Cessna Skyhawks or even ultralights that may be flying around the world at any given time doing the exact same missions the Predator is doing...........
Click to expand...

Ahhh ha ha ha ha

yeah.... right
 
Mithrandir said:
Just call me Ray said:
..........of Cessna Skyhawks or even ultralights that may be flying around the world at any given time doing the exact same missions the Predator is doing...........
Click to expand...

Ahhh ha ha ha ha

yeah.... right
Click to expand...

If you disagree, say why. This is not a useful response and is definitely not appropriate behaviour for the forum.
 
Mithrandir said:
The UAV revolution was REALLY started by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems....

in the mid 1990's... even before there were suitable payloads.... they were testing the Predator A's in the balkens....
Click to expand...

Which is a typical 'the world is only America' view point. Who designed the Predator? Or the Amber (aka Gnat) on which it was based on? An Israeli-American... or Abraham Karen to be precise and he didn't learn the UAV business in America... GA-ASI has not revolutionised UAVs they have simply provided an avenue for American level scale to be applied to UAVs. Considering that most GA-ASI UAVs are remotely piloted rather than autonomous (an option chosen by the customer for cost and cultural reasons) you could consider many of their products retrograde.

However I do agree that comparing a Predator mission to a Cessna/Ultralight mission is ridiculous. A flight time of four hours is a world away from 20+ hours. No matter how similar the air vehicles may look from the outside (size, weight).
 
Didn't the Brits use modified SSMs for photorecon in Mesopotamia in the '20s?
The missiles in question were prop driven radio controlled affairs.

There were some US and German projects for radio controlled aircraft from WW1 too, but I think they would all be classed as missiles.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Mithrandir said:
The UAV revolution was REALLY started by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems....
Click to expand...

Ummm... there's a mister "Ryan Firebee" on the line, he'd like to have a word...
Click to expand...

Yep. I've seen pics of Firebees carrying Mavericks and guided bombs. There are even a few pictures out there of C-130s packing FOUR of them.
 
Matej said:
AeroFranz said:
Cool separation footage of the D-21 :)
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I wanted to point out. First time that I saw something like this.
Click to expand...

I have a clip from the M-21/D-21 midair. I thought it was relatively common (pretty sure it's a youtube vid. . . . hell this is even better than the one I was thinking of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMyC2urCl_4 )
 
Abraham Gubler said:
However I do agree that comparing a Predator mission to a Cessna/Ultralight mission is ridiculous. A flight time of four hours is a world away from 20+ hours. No matter how similar the air vehicles may look from the outside (size, weight).
Click to expand...

I mean in terms of performing light observation and even civilian roles (pipeline inspection for example). I believe the Iraqis are using Cessnas for unarmed patrol missions. Of course I am not trying to insinuate that ultralights are firing Hellfires at enemy positions or staying up in the air for 20 hours, but the basic idea is still the same, having a pair of eyes in the air.

EDIT: for example here's a photo of a Moroccan Air Force ultralight I got from MilitaryPhotos.net

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/151/cnahx6oq.jpg

and here's another article, even mentioning Cessna Caravans being equipped with some of the same sensors from the Predator:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bird-dogs-for-the-iraqi-air-force-03578/
 
sferrin said:
Matej said:
AeroFranz said:
Cool separation footage of the D-21 :)
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I wanted to point out. First time that I saw something like this.
Click to expand...

I have a clip from the M-21/D-21 midair. I thought it was relatively common (pretty sure it's a youtube vid. . . .
hell this is even better than the one I was thinking of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMyC2urCl_4 )
Click to expand...

...Regretably, the schmuck who uploaded the clip also flagged it so that it can't be embedded. Personally, anyone whoo flags their YouTube clips so that you have to surf to their page in order to see them should be banned from the Internet for life. And if I bothered myself with having a YouTube account, I'd post there and let the guy know what a jerk he is for disabling embedding.

On the other hand, I did find this interesting clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP52txSyd3w
 
Mithrandir said:
"No Grieving Widows"
Click to expand...

On the side with the video controllers at least (assuming whoever is being slaughtered doesn't find some way to bring the war home to the UAV operating side). Note: I'm certainly not advocating attacks against the United States. War is a slaughter and its just useful to remember that there are always consequences for someone (even if the war is being fought from far away using modified video-game controllers)
 
Brickmuppet said:
Didn't the Brits use modified SSMs for photorecon in Mesopotamia in the '20s?
The missiles in question were prop driven radio controlled affairs.
There were some US and German projects for radio controlled aircraft from WW1 too, but I think they would all be classed as missiles.
Click to expand...

Jane's pocket book of RPV attributes the invention of the UAV to one Professor A.M. Low at RFC works in Chiswick, England, during WWI, but it's hard to see whether it was a cruise missile he designed or a UAV. It was called the A.T. (Aerial Target) as a way of concealing it's purpose (same thing happened to the "Tank"), which I find ironic given later developments.

The US experimented with what were called "aerial torpedos" built for the Navy by Curtiss (1917). the Army's counterpart was the Kettering bug, but these were definitely missiles and not UAVs.

In 1929, a somewhat successful experiment was carried in Iraq at RAF station Shaibah, when a Larynx UAV was catapulted pointing towards the desert. The launch was successful and the plane was never seen again.


sferrin said:
Yep. I've seen pics of Firebees carrying Mavericks and guided bombs. There are even a few pictures out there of C-130s packing FOUR of them.
Click to expand...


DC-130s were the mother ships. Good description in "Firebees and other UAVs", by Wagner. The BGM-34A and -Bs Firebees could be armed with HOBOS TV missiles, Mavericks, 500lbs bombs, shrike. THe -C could apparently carry 4 Mavericks!
I think the program name was Have Lemon.
 
I know Abe.. I worked with him for a few years at LSI... I worked with him at GAASI developing the Predator....
No doubt ABE had the technical talent to make it happen... Abe is a smart guy and great at putting together technically superior teams...
Abe failed to gain legitimacy in Washington DC.
That is Where Thomas Cassidy Adm Ret. had the Juice. THIS is what made UAV's a widespread and accepted military
asset/resource. ... UK or Israel or some other country with a population smaller then the state of California, though they
may have been pioneers in UAV technology/use, did not make UAV's a household name!
The US congress & AF and General Atomics with the Predator are specifically the reasons UAV's have gained acceptance particularly in the US.... and likely in other NATO countries....

The technical challenges needed to build a UAV with an intended life span of 1 1/2 flights (Target Drone) is substantially simpler then a long endurance Recce/Armed UAV. Though no doubt, the Teledyne UAV's used in vietnam equipped with cameras were an awesome achievement, they were not intended or expected to have 5000 hours of useful life span... there are Predators that exceed this.

We have not lost a single pilot yet, to enemy fire, while flying a UAV....
 
overscan said:
Mithrandir said:
Just call me Ray said:
..........of Cessna Skyhawks or even ultralights that may be flying around the world at any given time doing the exact same missions the Predator is doing...........
Click to expand...

Ahhh ha ha ha ha

yeah.... right
Click to expand...

If you disagree, say why. This is not a useful response and is definitely not appropriate behaviour for the forum.
Click to expand...

Cessnas and ultralights are not watching Insurgents plant IED's, following them after they plant it to where ever they go, monitoring who they talk to, monitoring the places they go to for 20 hours at a time and then putting metal on targets of opportunity...... from 15 to 30 thousand feet....
THAT is what I meant...

sorry...

I thought it was obvious
 
Mithrandir said:
Cessnas and ultralights are not watching Insurgents plant IED's, following them after they plant it to where ever they go, monitoring who they talk to, monitoring the places they go to for 20 hours at a time and then putting metal on targets of opportunity...... from 15 to 30 thousand feet....
THAT is what I meant...

sorry...

I thought it was obvious
Click to expand...

The article I posted, along with this article seems to imply that, despite the decreased loiter time, manned aircraft like the Cessna Caravan and Beech 350ER are watching insurgents, following them, and if need to, are equipped to take them out. The main point of the article being that manned aircraft are still an option for smaller airforces, like the Iraqi Air Force, that do not have access to UAVs.
 
Just call me Ray said:
Mithrandir said:
Cessnas and ultralights are not watching Insurgents plant IED's, following them after they plant it to where ever they go, monitoring who they talk to, monitoring the places they go to for 20 hours at a time and then putting metal on targets of opportunity...... from 15 to 30 thousand feet....
THAT is what I meant...

sorry...

I thought it was obvious
Click to expand...

The article I posted, along with this article seems to imply that, despite the decreased loiter time, manned aircraft like the Cessna Caravan and Beech 350ER are watching insurgents, following them, and if need to, are equipped to take them out. The main point of the article being that manned aircraft are still an option for smaller airforces, like the Iraqi Air Force, that do not have access to UAVs.
Click to expand...

Our sister companies have developed recce payloads that are flying on twin turboprop planes.... specifically for IED detection....

"are exportable with fewer ITAR issues than an MQ-1 or MQ-9,"

Bingo... he he he he
 
OM said:
...Regretably, the schmuck who uploaded the clip also flagged it so that it can't be embedded. Personally, anyone whoo flags their YouTube clips so that you have to surf to their page in order to see them should be banned from the Internet for life. And if I bothered myself with having a YouTube account, I'd post there and let the guy know what a jerk he is for disabling embedding.

On the other hand, I did find this interesting clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP52txSyd3w
Click to expand...

Let's try not to be too hard on this guy because let me tell you, if this is the accident scene, there
was a guy who lost his life as a result of this. There is just something that feels important about
not letting this just circulate to get seen by everyone who don't understanding what happened soon
after that mid-air. Personally, I don't think it should be shown. But that's just me.
 
If nothing else, you can still click on the video directly and view the original video on YouTube.
 
shockonlip said:
Let's try not to be too hard on this guy because let me tell you, if this is the accident scene, there
was a guy who lost his life as a result of this. There is just something that feels important about
not letting this just circulate to get seen by everyone who don't understanding what happened soon
after that mid-air. Personally, I don't think it should be shown. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

...There's two reasons why YouTube posters make their clips unavailable for embedding: a misguided belief that it helps protect their copyright on the clip and its contents, or the lame desire to force people to visit your YouTube page in order to view the clip. Either reason is about as bogus as they come, and shouldn't be allowed excuse.

Needless to say, I used YouTube Downloader to get a copy of the clip for myself, which is another great way to thwart retards like this... ;D
 
Dunno if this was posted somewhere else...but it could be useful to someone who wanted to do a three view (too bad it's missing the side view). It's from a Skunkworks brochure some CalPoly student brought back from a trip to Palmdale.
 

Attachments

  • Polecat_Page_1.jpg
    Polecat_Page_1.jpg
    346.2 KB · Views: 382
  • Polecat_Page_2.jpg
    Polecat_Page_2.jpg
    462.4 KB · Views: 509
bunch of thanks for these!
 
Two more views...
 

Attachments

  • P-175 Polecat.jpg
    P-175 Polecat.jpg
    881.4 KB · Views: 283
  • P-175 Polecat-3-small.jpg
    P-175 Polecat-3-small.jpg
    482.9 KB · Views: 304
Steve, it was great pre-Xmas surprise. Bunch of thanks as always.
 
Why do I feel like I already knew two of the three pics? Were they published somewhere before on the web?
 
yes, but variations (I don't remember "Howard is my co-pilot" on Polecat AWST cover photo)

and yes, a little difference - they were tiny as cigarette pack
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom