LOCKHEED MARTIN'S SKUNK WORKS New Sleath UAV

[MtnGoat]

Report by LOCKHEED MARTIN on LM's SKUNK WORKS REVEALS HIGH ALTITUDE UNMANNED (UAV) (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17787&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400)SYSTEM

Seems that Lockheed Martin has pulled the lid off of a stealthy secret, high-flying UAV drone. This comes from their Skunk Works Division, this will become one of the newest UAVs to be flown to provide long range INTEL for the Military from targets most likely halfway around the world.

Reading this report by Lockheed Martin, this UAV is the HEAT. Its taken two subsonic flights at around 15,000 ft, and broke the sound barrier and NO contrails don't form at the level it can fly. SO no tell-tell signs. With this UAV being a fully autonomous flight control and mission-handling system I see that AC from that Movie about UnManned AC coming true. I know I'll read, but could find it. From what I remember is that a Company already made a Armed UAV fighter that is like the F22. It was the new in the movie, "Stealth" that will allow future UAVs to conduct their missions, from take-off to Target(s) to landing, without the intervention of human operators.


I really gald to see this working, Shunk Works comes out with the best stuff. No worries from them on making it happen. I really surprise that is has taken this long for a large UAV and also for a "Stealth" UAV. Remember its just now released... So how long has it been flying.

Just like what DARPA is trying to do with the UGVs. Transportation Vehcile to move supplies to personnel to MEDEVACs. Great Idea, but I feel the funding to DARPA for these type of UV or outdated. Try again in 5 Five Years and then maybe we can see.

This goes back to those Pet-Rock project Companies. Lets give a company that can make a itty-bitty, teeny-weeny UAVs, or Darpa giving Lockheed $1.5(+) million, to build a drone "similar in size and shape to a maple tree seed." WTF, Don't we have that in the form of the Dog/Cat tracking chip? Now we want to make it fly?? DARPA can be a big JOKE with Money and all - Pet Rocks!!

I wish the Gov't would just give the Military a drop in that R&D Money for SOCOM/USASOC/USASFC/ 82nd ETC to use it the way the see it as the End-users. Look I know SOCOM/JSOC/USASOC all get there $$ for R&D, but how about from DARPA side of the $$ pile. But, let us (USASOC) use it and as we see we want new items. Hell, look at JSOC and the like Equipment that is used with 75th/TF/USASFC. Why doesn't USASFC get the same items as them or 75th or TF or SEALs? Well we do by the Paperwork, but USASFC size of manning is 9X bigger. So we never get the all of the "new" Eqiupment by the time they get theirs.

Off my box. Hope you enjoy the report by M-L.

[Slantwire]

This goes back to those Pet-Rock project Companies. Lets give a company that can make a itty-bitty, teeny-weeny UAVs, or Darpa giving Lockheed $1.5(+) million, to build a drone "similar in size and shape to a maple tree seed." WTF, Don't we have that in the form of the Dog/Cat tracking chip? Now we want to make it fly?? DARPA can be a big JOKE with Money and all - Pet Rocks!!

Look I know SOCOM/JSOC/USASOC all get there $$ for R&D, but how about from DARPA side of the $$ pile.

A lot of people around here don't like to work with DARPA. All the money is in the big procurement projects for Big Army or the AF. I worked DARPA programs for four years and they were always small team, smaller budget, lots of unpaid overtime. There was even debate about not bidding on more DARPA work, since it's basically impossible to make the profit percentage that corporate insists on.

Maybe we were just dealing with the wrong part of DARPA. :D

We did actually develop something pretty cool with FCS-Comms, and it's supposed to be handed over to Ft. Bragg pretty soon. I just wish DARPA had either provided funding to build them right the first time, or delivered on the promised redesign funding. As it is, "five month lifespan" demonstration units pushing two years of use might not survive an 18-B. :D

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

[QUOTE=Pinhead]Maybe we were just dealing with the wrong part of DARPA. :QUOTE]

By passed them all the time. They were too slow and often immaterial to the needs at hand. They were good at providing technology looking for missions, I had missions that needed technology to work and it was often easier, more cost effective, and a whole lot more responsive to get stuff off the shelf from CONUS and OCONUS and then tweak it in my own skunk works and get into the hands of the troops when they needed it.

[Huey14]

UAVs are a pet hobby of mine. This one would have to one of the more interesting ones I've seen. The design would seem to be going in a differant direction to *most* designs.



PS: Sorry to bring up an old thread, had no net access for some time.

[Slantwire]

By passed them all the time. They were too slow and often immaterial to the needs at hand. They were good at providing technology looking for missions, I had missions that needed technology to work and it was often easier, more cost effective, and a whole lot more responsive to get stuff off the shelf from CONUS and OCONUS and then tweak it in my own skunk works and get into the hands of the troops when they needed it.

I think it's a case of completely different mandates, sir. You needed tools to do an immediate job. DARPA is supposed to be an incubator for the wild stuff that sets the tin-foil hat crowd abuzz; every now and again, they'll come up with something really worthwhile, like the internet. But even though it's understood that most DARPA programs will fail, every DARPA PM wants to be "the guy" who has a winner, so they definitely run around trying to find a place to shoehorn their new tech.

As far as us contracters go, we try to cater to both. (Naturally, the company's trying to make money on both sides, but what company isn't?) In a building like mine, the different business units develop personalities based on their specialty - you have engineers who like slow steady long-term work doing "Big Army" procurement programs, guys who want to be bleeding-edge tech servicing DARPA, and guys who want to make a difference trying to deliver for the black world.

Our customers are procurement types, their customers are end-users. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if our customers even know what their customers really need. We have to operate in an OPSEC information vacuum, trying to build a tool to meet your needs without knowing what your needs really are. We just hope we get close enough that y'all come back to us. (Whoever "us" and "y'all" might be, naturally!)

[jfhiller]

Speaking of UAV's, I ran across this video that's pretty remarkable. Looks like the SOAR of hobbyists or something.

http://www.extremefunnyhumor.com/movie.php?id=99

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

every now and again, they'll come up with something really worthwhile, like the internet.

I didn't know Al Gore worked for DARPA:D

I understand your frustration. However it is possible to get your procurement types in bed with the end users and I would almost guarantee that if you did not there is/has been a huge waste of time and money. The other aspect is to know how to manage the various "colors" of money. If you have good money folks you can accomplish some amazing stuff, regardless of things like the FAR and interagency & intra-agency idiocy. The key is often making sure that their piece of the pie is included in the effort and that they see a return on their investment. I know that this might sound a little confusing, but there is a whole science to bureaucratic illusion that allows things to get done, folks to be happy, and the troops to be taken care of. Unfortunately it is outside the scope of this forum to go into any more detail. Off course, the basic food group for the person pulling this off is not beer but tums.:D

[Slantwire]

I understand your frustration.

Just trying to offer a view from the other side, sir. Lots of good people trying to do good things, but a few well-placed idiots, lots of miscommunication, and organizational missions not being aligned all combine to make the whole thing a mess.

it is possible to get your procurement types in bed with the end users and I would almost guarantee that if you did not there is/has been a huge waste of time and money.

Sir, I've seen it run both ways and have seen nothing to refute you.

I understand your frustration.