Lockheed Classified Programs Timeline

Check this out! www.iceaaonline.com...

There was an older poster version floating around but this is a newer updated version.

1985, 1991, 1994, 2004, 2006, 2017, 2019, 2024, 2026, 2031, 2032. A couple might be off by a year or two but you get the idea.

a reply to: BlackDog10

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!

Lemme guess! Lemme guess!!!

1984: Senior Peg/ATA-B. It's been heavily hinted that Northrop flew some sort of B-2 demonstrator, be it the THAP, or whatever, and it would be highly likely in that case that Lockheed had something as well.

1991: Quartz/AARS. It fits the timeline for at least a demonstrator, and it hadn't been canceled yet.

1994: The rumored fastmover/spaceplane/xov/thing making all of those SoCal sonic booms. This could be part of the reason why the USAF stopped using the shuttle around 1994 for NRO payloads. Also why they walked away from SLC-6 without a fuss.

2004: The RQ-170 or something similar

2006: The green lady?

2017: The production LRS-B?

What's the "TBG" slated for 2018?

Lots of different shapes...the hybrid wing-body airlifter and ARES look interesting...are these flying in demonstrator form yet or are they strictly drawing board concepts?

Anyone else notice they have the 2020 mark one year too late?

I know some of the skunks but not all.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Loockheed "Tactical Boost Glide" program.

jamesdrewjournalist.com...

ARES is in at least mock-up (it's been seen in some of LM's promo vids. IIRC) if not working prototype form by now.

a reply to: BlackDog10

Nice find. Thanks.

a reply to: BlackDog10

posting here so i can look back in 2030 and see what was and what was not

But where are all those big black triangles?

Must be made by Boeing?

a reply to: Barnalby

Could 1984 be the F-117 Companion? Maybe a little late on the time line though. I would think that would be an LM project. If anyone wants to correct be on the manufacturer of the Companion that would be great!

originally posted by: Badgermole42
a reply to: Barnalby

Could 1984 be the F-117 Companion? Maybe a little late on the time line though. I would think that would be an LM project. If anyone wants to correct be on the manufacturer of the Companion that would be great!

I think it was hinted in a previous thread that the companion is Northrop's.

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Could be made by the folks who build the subs for the navy. General Dynamics possibly.

a reply to: Northernhollow

That's why I left some of the really big classified platforms out of there, because they could well have been McD/Boeing/Northrop birds.

If I could conjecture at a Northrop "skunk" timeline, it would look something like this:

~1979: XST

~1984: F-117 companion/successor to Tacit Blue/THAP

~1984: Low altitude penetrator/B-2 demonstrator

~1988-90: (and this is a wild guess, but I've got a strong hunch) SR-71 replacement. A low-risk, low-cost, supercruising stealth platform meant to supplement the KH-11 and Quartz/AARS with a quick-responding ISR and possible ELINT/ECM capability. This aircraft was to the YF-23 what the A-12 was to the YF-12, a black project that was brought into the light by a "fighter" variant. It's always seemed fishy to me that Northrop built what was basically a stealth F-111 or A-5 (big, fast, long range, poor maneuverability, awful for a fighter but perfect for ISR/ELINT/ECM work) design to compete for the ATF (where all of the early studies were hypermaneuverables a-la the SU-35 or the Typhoon) when Lockheed built a stealth F-15 with thrust vectoring. This would explain why.

1990's are mostly quiet with B-2 construction/maintenance paying the bills

~1996: The YF-24, or more likely, what it flew against. Lockheed hates the navy, and if the USN had a secret fly-off for either an N-ATF follow-on or a naval JST variant, it would have almost certainly been between Boeing/McD and Northrop.

2007: The RQ-180, which lines up excactly to when that new big hangar was built at Groom

~2013: The LRS-B competitor

a reply to: Northernhollow

I must have missed that, thank you. NG does make sense, I suppose if LM did it's own Companion it would be developed alongside and be similar in appearance (curtain down the middle of the line anyone? Oh, he's gone), unless it was started a few year's later. I always imagine it as a Testors looking critter anyway...and pointy.

a reply to: Badgermole42

Wasn't it more or less determined that the testors craft was based on a description of HAVE BLUE by someone who had only seen it head-on?

2030 looks like the Sr-72 will be all white..That means of another 15 years of getting where they are at now to a fully mature airframe..Is that with the Advent engine or an engine combo that's not even started development yet?

a reply to: Blackfinger

More like that's when they declassify what they have now.

a reply to: Blackfinger

I was always under the impression that the ADVENT engine was purely about fuel efficiency and was aimed at subsonic bombers, transports, etc.

As a variable-cycle engine, it's more or less the turbine equivalent of a V8 with cylinder deactivation and an 8-speed transmission. It can get you the power/performance when you need it I.E. during takeoff with a heavy payload or in hot/high conditions or during a high-subsonic or transonic dash, while reconfiguring itself as a high-efficiency, lower-power engine for the other 98% of the flight envelope where efficiency is all that matters.

a reply to: Barnalby

ADVENT won't do a lot for fighters. It WILL work wonders for larger aircraft, by making them even more efficient. It met or exceeded the 25% fuel burn improvement required, during table tests.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, that's what I heard about it, it seems like it'll be a game-changer for B-2 type aircraft and stuff like that stealth STOL theatre transport that the USAF has wanted to build.

I wonder what it'll do to the commercial aircraft engine market, there already seems to already be a fair amount of pushback against the various design drawbacks of ever-bigger traditional fans that you're seeing in stuff like the Airbus trijet studies, etc. Variable cycle engines could be a magic bullet in the A320->767 size range of airliners.

a reply to: Barnalby

For the kind of improvement that they're seeing, just from the engine itself, the airlines would sell not only their first born, but every one of their families souls. They are willing to pay a lot for a 2% increase, to get something even approaching double digits would send them over the moon.