Skunk Works TR-X

www.ainonline.com...

A U2 replacement? Some interesting comments about the RQ-180 as well.

a reply to: BlackDog10

"Missed the opportunity to get it right" sounds an awful lot like "Too expensive", especially when you look at Lockheed's emphasis on making it "Something that could operate on day zero... ...a cost-effective ISR platform for phases two and three" and read the tea leaves.

My money would be on "RQ-180" = class leading stealth and high-altitude capabilities, but with a sky-high cost per flight hour and a maintenance footprint the size of the B-2's.

Lockheed instead seems to be scaling up the "good enough, and cheap too!" design philosophy behind the RQ-170 to produce what looks an awful lot like a General Atomics' Avenger on steroids.

a reply to: BlackDog10
Nothing realy exciting with the TR-X

a reply to: BlackDog10

There's another article on the TR-X at Flight Global.

a reply to: darksidius

Again, you're a part of the team to know this with 100% certainty? Or, let me guess, it doesn't go Mach 5, therefore it's not very interesting.

bleh nevermind

a reply to: darksidius

How is that not exciting? It has Skunk Works and black project in the same breath. That sounds exciting to me.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's NOT pointy...

a reply to: Zaphod58
Yes its that another low flying Platform, where are the promise made ten years ago about a lot of exotic Platform with high speed , stealth and very game changing capacity ???
And what happen to the legendary RQ-180 ?

a reply to: darksidius

Low flying? Really? It's designed to replace two of the highest flying platforms in existence, and it's "low flying". So what, by your standard is high flying then? Orbit?

As for stealth, it will be as stealthy as any other stealth platform in existence, if not more. Probably more. It will have incredible sensor capability, and a lot more.

But because it doesn't go mach 5, it's crap.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Sorry mistake low speed flying

a reply to: darksidius

There are loads of "game changing" capabilities out there that are not attached to anything hypersonic.

If you COULD see the RQ-180, you wouldn't believe your eyes. Personally, I like ninjas over sprinters any day.

a reply to: darksidius

Speed isn't the be all end all. Yes it's cool as hell to have something that goes like a scalded bat out of hell, but for most missions slow is better. It's also cheaper and much easier. You can hide a platform the size of a B-2 or even bigger by going slow. You couldn't even hide an F-22 sized platform going fast.

a reply to: [post=19811178]Zaphod58[/post
what I want to say , it's where are since decade on the same way on the Aerospace technology for instance same engine, same speed for sure I will be die before seeing something realy awesome at this speed, I was very exciting when I saw the first picture of the Lockhhed HTV-3x in 2008 , and after that canceled and 9 years later I saw a new Platform for the same mission , same speed of the U-2, same altitude but ok for that with stealth , where are the promise of technology we saw in 2006 ? Why since the 90 s we don't go on the high supersonic way ? The more beautiful plane for me stay the SR-71 born in the 60 s

a reply to: darksidius

Have you followed the hypersonic tests? Not one that successfully ignited the engine and went supersonic made it past 8 minutes. Over half of them didn't even get flying after launch, or never ignited their engines.

So our choice is to have a plane that goes like a bat out of hell for 8 minutes, falls out of the sky because the engine didn't ignite to go hypersonic, or go slow.

a reply to: Zaphod58
At your opinion , do you think hypersonic is just an engineer dream and may be it never be possible to fly mach 6 in the air because of the law of physics, whith what you say with the 8 minutes ? For sure if after 8 minutes the plane become a ball of light its not realy interesting for mission

a reply to: darksidius

It's entirely possible. The X-15 proved that. Just like with every other major advancement, such as going supersonic, it's a matter of getting things right. You have to find out what you don't know, and then figure out how to make it work.

a reply to: Sammamishman
Why going on the TR-X if the RQ-180 exist ? The two Platform are for the ISR no ? Two project at the actual budget time is a little complicated.

a reply to: darksidius

Because you don't keep all your eggs in one basket. They had the SR-71, and still had multiple other platforms to do the same mission.

a reply to: darksidius

Who's to say the sky scalder you want to see doesn't already exist? There are probably more platforms in the black than there are in the white. As for this new application. Boring a bit, but, probably very needed or LM wouldn't be wasting their time. Also, just an added thought. It always kinda tickles me when the Skunk Works comes out with some sort of "announcement" complete with conceptual drawings etc. Reminds me of a magician when he wants you to keep looking at his scantily clad assistant instead of watching what he's really doing.