This Northrop Grumman Exec Has Some Very Interesting Airplane Models On His Desk

[dark sidius]

33 years old with a lot of question ;D I agree with you , more than sanitized , a design with enormous inlet not realy stealthy and no Exhaust ( public B-21) it look realy basic. For what it is, at each time the debat is passionate and each opinion is interesting.

 

[bipa]

The time that commercial was aired (winter '15) , NG was not allowed by AF to reveal LRS-B real configuration, so they have used abandoned cranked kite NGB configuration.

Which NGB configuration specifically do you recognize in those commercials?

Isn't model on the top is just an J-UCAS where you can't see top inlet due to the angle?"...

I agree that the model could be an X-47B from a slightly unusual perspective and a few details washed out by the bad image quality and lighting.
This possibility would be much more likely than a top secret project (or any random bullshit airshow concept for that matter).
But still, to me the wings seem a little too slender to really fit an X-47B...

 

[flateric]

Which NGB configuration specifically do you recognize in those commercials?

I think it's obvious.

 

[Sundog]

Here's the planform as I see it. YMMV.

 

[flateric]

courtesy @lfx160219 via Stephen Trimble

 

[bipa]

Which NGB configuration specifically do you recognize in those commercials?

I think it's obvious.

Possible, definitely, but not entirely obvious to me:
- the thing under wraps seems to have a rounded nose (or obtuse, rather than pointy)
- the shadow on the clouds seems to be more slender than those NGB pictures

Indeed, the pictures on the patent generally seem to be a better fit (for both the commercials and the desk model).

 

[flateric]

Ad bomber may be even not a product of NG visualization team, but created on the motives by McGarry Bowen agency digital artists.

 

[Mat Parry]

courtesy @lfx160219 via Stephen Trimble

So I'm sure everyone will read the patent... :

Within the detailed description of the embodiments (starting on line 17) I found the following quite amusing:-

"FIG 1 is a top isometric view and FIG 2. is a bottom isometric view of an aircraft 10 including an MSDM system (mini self defense missile)"

"In this non-limiting embodiment, the aircraft 10 is a conceptual futuristic fighter aircraft"

 

[Ogami musashi]

I'm starting to be really fed up with all the sarcasm on this forums... is it possible to have a discussion without whistling emoticons, quotes from movies, questioning others logic.... can't you (not only you Mat parry) state your arguments clearly and nicely?!

What are we supposed to understand from your amusement?

 

[mrmalaya]

I suppose in a way, even with the addition of the patent information, all this thread tells us is that NG really, really like the cranked-kite.

To my mind (he said being brave) the model and the patent look more like the shadow scudding across the clouds in the advert than the X47B/C or the released B21 image.

 

[Mat Parry]

My eye rolling emoticon, represents my frustration that some contributors (some not all) clearly do not read attached links, so in a typically British application of sarcasm I was attempting to encourage posters to read the patent.

I found the patents explicit description of the figures 1 & 2 as a conceptual futuristic fighter amusing as, to my eyes, these drawings are the closest we have come to the unknown model. When I suggested the model could be a Northrop NGAD concept I.e. a futuristic fighter concept one response was "obviously not Matt" (somewhat patronising I thought) another was along the lines of- it can't be a fighter because the model is too big.

 

[Ogami musashi]

My eye rolling emoticon, represents my frustration that some contributors (some not all) clearly do not read attached links, so in a typically British application of sarcasm I was attempting to encourage posters to read the patent.

I found the patents explicit description of the figures 1 & 2 as a conceptual futuristic fighter amusing as, to my eyes, these drawings are the closest we have come to the unknown model. When I suggested the model could be a Northrop NGAD concept I.e. a futuristic fighter concept one response was "clearly not Matt" (somewhat patronising I thought) another was along the lines of- it can't be a fighter because the model is too big.

I said exactly that:

Just look at the NGAD just left of it. You can see the mysterious one is significantly bigger which would be strange for a plane tailored for the exact same mission.

That means considering the NGAD model was just next to this one, and of course assuming the model were to the same scales, it seemed strange to have a plane for the same requirements significantly larger.

I never said this couldn't be a fighter.

Additionally, in the patent it is clearly written, in the same paragraph as the one you quote, that the model is just there for the purpose of the illustration with no reference made to NGAD or 6th generation.
Finally, you hypothesis was that it was a former NGAD model as published some years ago, and as you can see in the patent, this is not the case.

 

[flateric]

Matt, my 5 cents:
a). "In this non-limiting embodiment, the aircraft 10 is a conceptual futuristic fighter aircraft"
b). Model wing has aspect ratio that hardly can be attributed to highly maneuverable a/c.
c). At my desk, I try to place models in equal scale in one place.

 

[Mat Parry]

Yes, for my sins I fully understand patent language, and that the drawing is just a representation of an aircraft. Im not claiming that the model is now identified.

I agree it's not a maneuverable design, however are we certain that a futuristic fighter particularly in the age of DEW, will require maneuverability? As you yourself highlighted in some of the posts I linked earlier in this thread, the NGAD concept had reconfigurabe wings to suit different requirements.

Ogami Musashi, I appologise if you have taken my attempts at humor as a personal atteck. The movie link was certainly not directed at you or anyone in particular, we can all have our opinions and our opinion of others opinions particularly in this speculative area.

 

[flateric]

The main question remains, where's X-47B model in NG VP office? I think it should be there...Then...

 

[Ogami musashi]

Yes, for my sins I fully understand patent language, and that the drawing is just a representation of an aircraft. Im not claiming that the model is now identified.

I agree it's not a maneuverable design, however are we certain that a futuristic fighter particularly in the age of DEW, will require maneuverability? As you yourself highlighted in some of the posts I linked earlier in this thread, the NGAD concept had reconfigurabe wings to suit different requirements.

Ogami Musashi, I appologise if you have taken my attempts at humor as a personal atteck. The movie link was certainly not directed at you or anyone in particular, we can all have our opinions and our opinion of others opinions particularly in this speculative area.

No offence taken

Yes i agree about the maneuverability bit. My remark was more about range, but again that's making the hypothesis that the models are at the same scale which is obviously not the case for all models displayed on top of the shelf.

 

[sferrin]

The main question remains, where's X-47B model in NG VP office? I think it should be there...Then...

My former boss had one so I know they exist.

 

[flateric]

Standard in-house X-47B/J-UCAS desktop models are 1:60 scale AFAIK.

 

[LowObservable]

My impression is that it's a bit like early Revell and Monogram models. The scale may not exactly be determined by a standard box size, but the model is usually sized to be easily mailed or hand-carried.

 

[flateric]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/news-photo-reveals-new-northrop-stealth-design-conce-440900/

News photo reveals new Northrop stealth design concept

06 SEPTEMBER, 2017 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM BY: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC

Northrop Grumman confirms that a previously unpublicised design concept for an apparently stealthy aircraft was revealed in a photograph as part of a Los Angeles Times newspaper article about a top company executive.

The model appears in the background of a photograph published on 1 September showing Chris Hernandez, vice-president of research, technology and engineering for the Aerospace Systems sector, in his office, which is decorated with multiple models of many of Northrop’s most advanced aircraft, including the B-2, Proteus and the RQ-4.

In the upper-right of the photograph, a model atop a bookcase appears similar in some ways to the cranked-kite shape of the unmanned X-47B, but seems to have a significantly longer fuselage and extended outer wing sections.

“It’s a concept model from a few years ago,” a Northrop spokesman confirms to FlightGlobal. No further details about the aircraft’s design or features were released.

A Northrop patent approved earlier this year by the US government uses a design for a similar-looking aircraft. The patent filing involved a claim of intellectual property for a different technology -- an air-launched miniature self-defence munition. The stealthy aircraft design appeared to be incidental to the weapons technology that was the subject of the patent.

The US Air Force has released a rendering of an apparent likeness of the developmental B-21 Raider, but it’s exact design remains unknown. There have also been reports that Northrop developed a secret high-altitude surveillance aircraft for the US Air Force, which has been dubbed at least popularly as the “RQ-180”.

In the previous decade, Northrop also engaged in a long series of design studies for an aircraft concept called SensorCraft, which used load-bearing radar antennas integrated into the aircraft skin to maximise aperture size in proportion to the size of the aircraft. Although Northrop studied multiple concepts and built full-scale component rigs for tests, it’s not clear whether the technology was pursued beyond the demonstration stage.

 

[Mat Parry]

So, taken at face value.

1, Not an X-47B
2, disclosure of a previously unpublicised concept from a few years ago.

Perhaps this was an accidental disclosure?
Whatever this model was, it had clearly earned a place on the "top shelf" of NG's VP for research, technology and engineering so it's unlikely to be an inconsequential design that was kicked about for a week or two somewhere within Mr Hernandez areas of responsibility.

I have to say, as I sit here in Miami supposedly awaiting the hurricane Irma appocolypse, this is a fascinating distraction

 

[Triton]

Is this a clue in the patent?

Non-Patent Citations
Reference
1 Alkire, Brien et al. "Applications for Navy Unmanned Aircraft Systems" Report Document, 2010, 66 pgs.
2 Hackett, Willy, Wing Commander et al. Stealth, Sensor Fusion, Situational Understanding and Precision Attack: Is This the Right Answer to Balance of Force? Air Power, Rush Defense Systems Jun. 2010, pp. 50-55.

Source:
https://www.google.com/patents/US9671200

 

[flateric]

Where have we seen it before? Oh, wait...
http://articles.sae.org/14188/

 

[Flyaway]

So was that an error then & the model should have been removed before the photo was taken?

 

[flanker]

Well, to me the pantent closely matches the model. And if they have the patent out of it - then they clearly dont mind showing how it looks, ie showing the model isnt an issue either.

 

[GeorgeA]

There's nothing secret about this design. ESAV is more than a decade old. The patent is about the self-defense missile and not the vehicle carrying it.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Yes but if this design work well great chance that the B-21 design will be inspired by this. It will be completly mad to have a good design for stealth and don't use it.

There're countless configurations created in any design bureau on a monthly basis, each tailored to specific needs. ESAV studies were, at the acronym implies (Efficient Supersonic Vehicle) geared towards supersonic vehicles at so the B-21 is not concerned. In addition ESAV studies model were baseline models to test some technologies. For example the lockheed martin one was created only because the research team wanted to find the best wing sweeps, forward fuselage height/width ratio for an ESAV mission plane and that their configuration, being modular (you could plug different wings and different noses without altering completely the plane's entire aerodynamics) was adapated to the different studies and formed a common basis for multidisciplinary works. Other than that, the configuration has no operational purpose past those studies.

 

[dark sidius]

This technology surely open the way for the 6th gen fighter or PCA, but I still find very strange that the B-21 picture is in fact the first B-2 shape , ennemy have decade of experience to fight the stealth of the B-2 so building a futur bomber with the same propriety is questionable.

 

[flateric]

Planform view and dimensions in mm of that AFRL studied lamda-wing ESAV bomber configuration.
Note it has tapered wing while model seemingly not. We've seen Boeing and LM EASV bomber white world configurations before, so I may guess that this was a NG proposal.

 

[Ogami musashi]

This technology surely open the way for the 6th gen fighter or PCA, but I still find very strange that the B-21 picture is in fact the first B-2 shape , ennemy have decade of experience to fight the stealth of the B-2 so building a futur bomber with the same propriety is questionable.

Not the shapes themselves. Looking again at LM ESAV example, the model was meant to test aeroelastic wing configurations and novel actuators. About the same period, in 2016 (actually ESAV is not a decade old, it was still going on as 2016, or at least papers were still published about ESAV configurations), you have a paper from LM with the 90's ICE configuration but with different actuators configuration tested. Obviously the ICE shape in itself is not to be reused, but since data was gathered for it in the 90's, it was a good candidate for that new study. You can apply that to past studies as well. Look at all the studies in the 80's pre ATF. None of them has the configurations used, but all of them were about technology that was used (or was planned to be used) in the ATF prototypes later on.

Also i would advise not to do RCS analysis by the eye. That a plane as remotely the same planform than a B2 certainly doesn't mean that is has the same stealth.

 

[Mark S.]

flateric, I'm going to assume the numbers are millimeters? Does the forebody/fuselage contribute to lift? Seems the wings would be vey much aft of the C.G.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the B-21 has markedly different looks than the B-2. It may have the familiar "W" shape but proportions may be different. As for the aircraft in question in this thread it could very well be a "Red Herring."

 

[flateric]

This technology surely open the way for the 6th gen fighter or PCA, but I still find very strange that the B-21 picture is in fact the first B-2 shape , ennemy have decade of experience to fight the stealth of the B-2 so building a futur bomber with the same propriety is questionable.

Damn. You was shown an official rendering of the B-21 by SecAF. I'm fcuking tired of that 'I think it will be supersonic', 'they should have do it the other way' 'I think it will look different etc.'
Please stop this meaningless BS. It would be understandable from a first grade schoolboy, but not from 30+ aviation enthusiast.

 

[sferrin]

You was shown an official rendering of the B-21 by SecAF.

Perhaps this is part of the reason for his skepticism:

 

[Flyaway]

On second thoughts I find it hard to believe that he'd have made an expensive model of just a concept and then place it in pride of place with other active programs.

 

[Ogami musashi]

On second thoughts I find it hard to believe that he'd have made an expensive model of just a concept and then place it in pride of place with other active programs.

He also has two models of the NGAD concept which is, most probably, a placeholder. There's a team responsible for building those models. They may be here just because they show the creativity of NG R&D teams.

 

[_Del_]

Damn. You was shown an official rendering of the B-21 by SecAF. I'm fcuking tired of that 'I think it will be supersonic', 'they should have do it the other way' 'I think it will look different etc.'
Please stop this meaningless BS.

There is little doubt that the planform forwarded is just about as optimal as possible for large VLO aircraft. All the details which are closer to voodoo (inlet design, exhausts, etc) are conveniently obscured. If you want a rangy, subsonic VLO design, that config is basically where it's at (much like airliners haven't changed much in configuration over the years because the design goals haven't changed). That's definitely the safe money based on information so far.
But to be fair to the "schoolboys", without knowing exactly what other properties were desireable and requested (which would possibly mean a compromise and shift away from the ATB planform), can we really say that the render provided accurately reflects the winning submission? I wouldn't exactly be stunned if the eventual unveiling showed something much different and the render was revealed to be "an early submission to the program office" when requirements were still fluid.

 

[Flyaway]

Damn. You was shown an official rendering of the B-21 by SecAF. I'm fcuking tired of that 'I think it will be supersonic', 'they should have do it the other way' 'I think it will look different etc.'
Please stop this meaningless BS.

There is little doubt that the planform forwarded is just about as optimal as possible for large VLO aircraft. All the details which are closer to voodoo (inlet design, exhausts, etc) are conveniently obscured. If you want a rangy, subsonic VLO design, that config is basically where it's at (much like airliners haven't changed much in configuration over the years because the design goals haven't changed). That's definitely the safe money based on information so far.
But to be fair to the "schoolboys", without knowing exactly what other properties were desireable and requested (which would possibly mean a compromise and shift away from the ATB planform), can we really say that the render provided accurately reflects the winning submission? I wouldn't exactly be stunned if the eventual unveiling showed something much different and the render was revealed to be "an early submission to the program office" when requirements were still fluid.

I don't expect it to be supersonic but I do wonder just how representative the official rendering will prove to be when we finally see the B-21.

 

[sublight_]

It would be understandable from a first grade schoolboy, but not from 30+ aviation enthusiast.

You're just now starting to notice the particulars of the user demographics around here?

 

[flateric]

without knowing exactly what other properties were desireable and requested (which would possibly mean a compromise and shift away from the ATB planform), can we really say that the render provided accurately reflects the winning submission? I wouldn't exactly be stunned if the eventual unveiling showed something much different and the render was revealed to be "an early submission to the program office" when requirements were still fluid.

Were ATF, ATB official art much different from the real thing? Weren't there continous wows from AF and legislators that LRS-B should not repeat ATB errors with painful and costly mid-stage redesign?
And then you roll-out something different from the publicity image revealed after long waiting and with much fanfares? Gosh, babies, if I will be senator of congressmen on Boeing/LM election funding or _McCain_, I will eat you with your shit and you even will not be able to prove me that all the changes are for good.

 

[Triton]

What are those two bumps on the rear fuselage of the E-10 MC2A model? Are those antenna pods? This model seems to differ from the previous artist's impressions we've seen of the E-10 MC2A.