Northrop Grumman "RQ-180"

Q-nimbus said:
Thank you for your information, I trust you have very good sources.

Do you have any idea where they do their first flights? The NG hangar at Groom seems quiet, with no more than 25 people working there based on the number of cars (and I’m generous at assuming 2 persons per car - unlikely in the USA). I guess that could be enough for a flight test team, but then they would have to do the complete assembly in Palmdale and do first flights out of there.
Click to expand...

People do not generally commute to Groom in their own cars. Most of them come in on aircraft or buses, not personal vehicles. Vehicle locations at Groom are generally not a good/reliable indicator of activity or staffing.

Q-nimbus said:
I also think regular C-17 or C-5 flights from Palmdale to Groom Lake would be noticed.
Click to expand...

They are noticed, they get noise complaints.
Palmdale is very accustomed to military aircraft noises, and many of the people who live there are in some way connected to the aerospace industry.
 
In_A_Dream said:
During this conflict? I'm not so sure about that, Iran already struck Nakhchivan and it might have prompted a move.

Larissa underwent infrastructure upgrades over the last couple years, including adding two shelters at the east end of the base that are a fair bit bigger than the MQ-9s deployed there. Not out of the realm of possibility.

View attachment 805934
Click to expand...
It could be, but it seems these shelters are easily accessible and do not have additional security as we’ve seen with other suspected RQ-180 hangars. Of course, that might have changed if they deployed there recently.

Still, Greece to Iran is still quite a distance, and the Greek government said they did not support the war. All in all, I think it’s unlikely it’s an Israeli aircraft.

Unlikely, but yes, possible.
 
Q-nimbus said:
The Israeli’s are known to operate the RA-01, which they almost certainly could not develop themselves
Click to expand...
What makes you believe that a country who pioneered the military usage of drones in the 21st century, has a robust tech sector, established MIC and unprecedented access to confidential US material couldn't develop something as basic as a stealthy, flying wing ISR drone?

Everyone and their mom developed at least a prototype of similar drones since the 2010s.
 
EmoBirb said:
What makes you believe that a country who pioneered the military usage of drones in the 21st century, has a robust tech sector, established MIC and unprecedented access to confidential US material couldn't develop something as basic as a stealthy, flying wing ISR drone?

Everyone and their mom developed at least a prototype of similar drones since the 2010s.
Click to expand...
Our esteemed member Quellish claimed, to my surprise, that the Israeli’s did not have the infrastructure, and probably not the technology for low observable aircraft.

While I don’t know about the technology, they definitely don’t have ranges to develop stealth technology.

I was reinforced in this belief when I saw video footage of the 2024 Masyaf strike. I had long suspected Israel to use stealth helicopters, but if this raid didn’t justify their need, I think it’s safe to say they don’t have them.

So, even a country as advanced as Israel has its limitations.

And a stealth drone is far from ‘basic’.
 
Q-nimbus said:
Our esteemed member Quellish claimed, to my surprise, that the Israeli’s did not have the infrastructure, and probably not the technology for low observable aircraft.

While I don’t know about the technology, they definitely don’t have ranges to develop stealth technology.

I was reinforced in this belief when I saw video footage of the 2024 Masyaf strike. I had long suspected Israel to use stealth helicopters, but if this raid didn’t justify their need, I think it’s safe to say they don’t have them.

So, even a country as advanced as Israel has its limitations.

And a stealth drone is far from ‘basic’.
Click to expand...
They don't need the infrastructure to develop it domestically. They can utilize US infrastructure and ranges to aid in their design processes. A stealth helicopter is something that's cost prohibitive and overly expensive for major players like the US as well, abandoning the RAH-66 and only having had an alleged small number of modified UH-60s. A helicopter is an entirely different undertaking than a medium sized ISR drone. The US, Russia, UK, France and others like the less established Turkey have produced similar craft. Not to mention the elephant in the room that's China which has several dozen different low observable drone designs. Developing such a system, with access to US infrastructure and possible various pieces of intel (obtained consentually or not) should make it fairly easy for a country like Israel to develop such an aircraft. Especially as they have the sensor and avionics side of things nailed down all by themselves anyway. Which leaves just the airframe, the easier side of things.
 
Whisperstream said:
Don't be distracted by the color. That's a rookie mistake.
Click to expand...

It's not like we haven't seen the RQ-170 in multiple colors or anything!

What is curious to me though is that the shading on the California City photo seems to indicate a beer belly. Other photos of aircraft that have been associated with the "RQ-180" do not have anything like the beer belly.

There is so far not much of a reason to think that all of these photos are of the same aircraft type. Again, anyone who is trying to create a 4-spike configuration will end up arriving at a configuration like this. These may be multiple different aircraft types.
 
EmoBirb said:
They don't need the infrastructure to develop it domestically. They can utilize US infrastructure and ranges to aid in their design processes.
Click to expand...

Not without a lot of public paperwork like export licenses. Giving a foreign company or organization access to sensitive export controlled data is a big deal, and cannot be done secretly AND legally. LO observable testing facilities are considered very sensitive and export controlled. As far as sharing VLO technology, I know of only 2 countries the US has shared with, and in both cases it has been very restricted and controlled.
 
some of the outer mechanical anatomy clearly visible.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    239.4 KB · Views: 133
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    230.4 KB · Views: 138
With a F35 hit by the Iranians, and the Americans actually using probably their most advanced stealth drone, it seems that despite claims, absolute air superiority over Iran has not yet been established.

Unless the RQ-180 is the communications hub that some people have said it’s true purpose is.

Edit: typo
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
Not without a lot of public paperwork like export licenses. Giving a foreign company or organization access to sensitive export controlled data is a big deal, and cannot be done secretly AND legally. LO observable testing facilities are considered very sensitive and export controlled. As far as sharing VLO technology, I know of only 2 countries the US has shared with, and in both cases it has been very restricted and controlled.
Click to expand...
I think you got the power dynamics at work reversed, but that's okay.
 
Q-nimbus said:
With a F35 hit by the Iranians, and the Americans actually using probably their most advanced stealth drone, it seems that despite claims, air superiority over Iran has not yet been reached.

Unless the RQ-180 is the communications hub that some people have said it’s true purpose was.
Click to expand...
If it's the RQ-180, why shouldn't it be used? The RQ-170 was deployed during "peace time" and conventional ISR and strike UAVs like the Reaper, Heron, Hermes etc. have been proven extremely vulnerable with unacceptable rates of attrition. So utilizing a much more survivable and persistent drone ultimate seems logical.
 
Q-nimbus said:
With a F35 hit by the Iranians, and the Americans actually using probably their most advanced stealth drone, it seems that despite claims, air superiority over Iran has not yet been reached.
Click to expand...
Depends on what "air superiority" definition one has in mind, and what does it in practice actually mean. It's unlikely for anyone to accomplish a total control of a given air & ground space (with respect to GBAD), creating risk-free environment. One hit out of thousands of sorties doesn't necessarily invert the narrative (implying the battlespace is suddenly hotly contested).

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/commentary-airpower-attrition-air-superiority-iran-war/
As Lt. Gen. David Deptula (Operation Desert Storm planner) put it:

High-end combat against a capable, integrated air defense system has always entailed risk, and historically, that risk has translated into significant aircraft losses. What is remarkable in the current Iran war is not that a U.S. aircraft was hit—but that combat losses to date have been all but nil, and with no friendly manned aircraft losses at all to enemy action.

What makes the current campaign particularly significant is the scale of operations relative to the absence of losses. U.S. Central Command has stated that coalition forces have struck thousands of targets inside Iran—exceeding 7,800 aimpoints over the course of the campaign to date. This level of activity necessarily implies thousands of combat sorties flown within range of Iranian surface-to-air missile systems.

The key takeaway is not that modern air warfare is risk-free. There is always a risk when you fly into a war zone. Rather, it is that the United States and its allies have fundamentally changed the cost calculus. Where previous generations accepted high attrition as the price of access, today’s force is engineered to minimize losses while maximizing operational effect.

The damaged F-35 is a reminder that the threat is real. The absence of losses, however, is a testament to just how far airpower has advanced—and how decisive true air superiority remains.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
As far as sharing VLO technology, I know of only 2 countries the US has shared with, and in both cases it has been very restricted and controlled.
Click to expand...

I can tell I'm going to regret bringing this up, but I feel I have no choice. You've decided that this cannot be, because you aren't aware of it. That's... an interesting entitlement or sense of authority. All due respect.
 
zebra159357 said:
Depends on what "air superiority" definition one has in mind, and what does it in practice actually mean.
Click to expand...
A LOT of people, not just here, are either willfully or innocently unable to distinguish between air superiority and air supremacy as terms of art, similarly unable to grasp that you can have superiority or supremacy in a particular corridor or block without blanket domination of an entire national airspace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Q-nimbus said:
With a F35 hit by the Iranians, and the Americans actually using probably their most advanced stealth drone, it seems that despite claims, absolute air superiority over Iran has not yet been established.
Click to expand...
When's the last time an Iranian aircraft took to the air? Exactly.
 
VishnuOsiris said:
I can tell I'm going to regret bringing this up, but I feel I have no choice. You've decided that this cannot be, because you aren't aware of it. That's... an interesting entitlement or sense of authority. All due respect.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate.

The hypothesis being presented by other posters is that the US assisted Israel in developing VLO technology by providing access to technology and facilities such as RCS test facilities, etc.

My assertion here is that if this had been done in a *legal* way, a way that complies with US law, there would be a lot of public paperwork for it that is easy to find. That paperwork does not exist. There is no way to make it "secret" and still comply with US law.

Which means that if this did happen, it would be at the least a significant export control issue. Because of the particularly sensitive nature of this technology and the classification levels associated with it, it would be a much bigger issue.

If some (unknown) US persons participated in providing Israel with VLO technology it would be treated as a set of criminal acts - export control and *treason*.

Which in the US is (usually) handled very seriously.

I am not arguing that "this cannot have happened, because I am not personally aware of it, I am arguring that there is no way this could have happened without very serious criminal acts having been committed. Which itself is possible, but pretty unlikely.

I have actually looked for the export control documentation that could confirm or refute any of this, as well as requested any formal or informal memorandums of understanding / cooperation and other documents. These do not exist with any of the agencies or components that would be legally required to maintain them.

It is more likely that if Israel developed "VLO" technology on its own that it did so without the required testing facilities, verification, or validation. For example, they may have used commercial, low precision software to create a design that "looks stealthy" but is not VLO because of the limitations of the software.

....But this is the "RQ-180" topic. There are separate topics for Israeli stealth designs.
 
raptor82 said:
https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...lady-larissa-adds-details-classified-uas-lore
Click to expand...

First, a paint change from white to black represents a minor modification, even if it invalidates Shikaka’s nickname. Second, the extended outboard wing sections align more closely with the previous imagery of Northrop’s aircraft, not RA-1. Third, the “RQ-180” likely features weapons bays, as Aviation Week has previously reported, which also aligns with the deep internal bays shown in the configuration of the Lady of Larissa.
Click to expand...

Aircraft trackers noted that two Air Force C-17s operated unusual flights on Feb. 25 and March 9 from Edwards AFB, California, to Larissa Air Base. The flight in February flew to the Greek base via Gander, Canada, and Ramstein Air Base, Germany, while the recent flight also routed via Gander with a stop at Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. Perhaps more significantly, a larger Lockheed C-5M, which is thought may be capable of transporting the “RQ-180” in one piece, also flew to Larissa on Feb. 25 in company with the first C-17, routing from Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, via Spangdahlem.
Click to expand...
 
“…a larger Lockheed C-5M, which is thought may be capable of transporting the “RQ-180” in one piece”

Wait, what?
 
Josh_TN said:
“…a larger Lockheed C-5M, which is thought may be capable of transporting the “RQ-180” in one piece”

Wait, what?
Click to expand...
Well consider how big some classified satellites are believed to be.
 
raptor82 said:
https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...lady-larissa-adds-details-classified-uas-lore
Click to expand...
From the quoted link:
• A highly loaded airfoil with extended, slender outboard sections, the hallmarks of a wing capable of handling large aeroelastic deflections.
Click to expand...
IMOHO, a very lightly loaded wing resulting from a low mass/high span aircraft ;)

The bulged center body indicates a mass distribution axially maximized to have wing straight deflection (hence better RCS capability). See Northrop/Scaled Composite test a/c that exactly used that configuration, but with a manned tubed fuselage.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
From the quoted link:

IMOHO, a very lightly loaded wing resulting from a low mass/high span aircraft ;)

The bulged center body indicates a mass distribution axially maximized to have wing straight deflection (hence better RCS capability). See Northrop/Scaled Composite test a/c that exactly used that configuration, but with a manned tubed fuselage.
Click to expand...

As Lockheed well knows, configurations like these tend to have body freedom flutter issues, especially at high altitudes
 
Q-nimbus said:
Our esteemed member Quellish claimed, to my surprise, that the Israeli’s did not have the infrastructure, and probably not the technology for low observable aircraft.

While I don’t know about the technology, they definitely don’t have ranges to develop stealth technology.

I was reinforced in this belief when I saw video footage of the 2024 Masyaf strike. I had long suspected Israel to use stealth helicopters, but if this raid didn’t justify their need, I think it’s safe to say they don’t have them.

So, even a country as advanced as Israel has its limitations.

And a stealth drone is far from ‘basic’.
Click to expand...
I would argue that a stealth helicopter is one of the single most complex things to develop. Arguably more complex than nuclear submarines.

While a MALE or HALE drone is relatively simple.
 
Sandboxx has uploaded a video concerning the Larissa stealth UAV:


America’s most highly classified spy plane — an aircraft so secretive we don’t even really know what it’s called — seems to have just broken cover over Greece, potentially making an emergency landing at Larissa National Airport and air base.
Click to expand...
 
There could be more than one variant or maybe also LM is and has been in the game with NG or independently. A larger Polecat variant could have been resurrected.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom