Finally unveiled is a photo of the flying wing UAV that has been operating in Afghanistan:
Interesting things to note:
1) A single semicircular exhaust nozzle
2) The main landing gear doors seem to be much longer than they need to be
3) There are faired-in teardrop shaped pods above the left wing root, and presumably also the right
4) There is another pod under the nose
As for 2) and 3), one *possible* explanation is that the landing gear extends out a lot longer than is shown here, for reasons unknown. If that’s the case, then it looks as if landing gear long enough to require the whole length of the landing gear door would also not fit within the wing… and the overwing fairings actually cover the wheels. That seems unlikely to me, though. A perhaps more reasonable solution is that the fairings cover sensors or weapons of some kind… and the landing gear door is so long because it’s also the weapons or sensor bay door. The pod under the nose likely houses sensors or a laser designator for bombing missions.
12 Responses to “The Beast of Kandahar”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Looks like a single-engined version of Polecat.
I’m pretty sure the bumps on top of the wings are the sides of the air intakes for the jet engine.
If this were manned, it would be a good candidate for the Northrop TR-3, as the design looks like something out of that era, using a combo of curved and flat surface stealth.
The sideways retracting nose gear is interesting, as that was also a feature of the Northrop B-35/49.
This grainy photo of it makes it look like the “belly pod” may be related to the nose gear system doors:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y7kQSOBuEJw/ShLNvYSEP9I/AAAAAAAAAig/wCqWB0m6Fk4/s320/KandaharUAV.jpg
How big it is?
It seems quite big (but it is my impression).
Did it could be, in principle of course, an unmanned version of the rumored TR-3?
It might be that the main landing gear wells shares space with the internal bomb bays. A single SDB or SCALPEL may fit in each bay/well but without a viable size comparison….
Still, it would cut down on moving parts and duplicate articulation saving weight, cubic, cost, and maintance. What’s not to like? 😉
It could be that “TR-3” was a manned prototype for this unmanned version to get the aerodynamics right.
The grainy in-flight photo I posted the link to shows the landing gear indeed does have a very long compression stroke, accounting for the size of the main gear doors.
That may be due to the fact that they expect a RPV to make harder landings on average than a piloted vehicle, due to the “pilot” only getting views out of one or more TV cameras as he comes in to land.
The thick wing and single engine (almost certainly a High bypass turbofan, unless they went with a ducted fan concept and used a internal combustion engine to cut down on IR output, though I think that is unlikely, due to the lower thrust) suggest it can carry a lot of fuel and has pretty long range.
There may be a way of determining the size…for the sake of security and to cut costs, they may well have used a existing landing gear and wheels from some other type of operational aircraft rather than developing something new just for it.
The main gear and wheels resembles those off of a F-15: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/001-100/walk004_F-15E/images%20Steve%20Bamford/sheb0715.jpg
This “Beast of Kandahar” or “Desert Prowler” is definitely an interesting beast whose design poses a lot of questions. I get the sense that the DoD agency behind it isn’t going to have any kind of presser to explain it, even though they’re allowing the photos to get out. Previous photos revealed a kink in the leading edge, so its stealthiness is probably a notch below Polecat. But why send a stealthy UAV to Afghanistan? My guess is that the answer starts with the letter “I” and ends in “ran.”
> My guess is that the answer starts with the letter “I” and ends in “ran.”
Or starts with “P” and ends in “stan.”
Clark, standing air guard over and around Pakastains Nukes. Considering what high “officials” in Al Quada have publicly stated about those Nukes and the uses they plan to put them to … I can see us setting up an observation post in the sky. Just to back stop the Pakastainies … because they don’t want Al Quada to get them any more then we do as they’re probably first on the list as any that are captured are smuggled out.
Admin said:
> Or starts with “P” and ends in “stan.”
We are already operating Predators out of Pakistan; someone spotted them on Google Earth: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5762371.ece
RQ-170 Sentinel
Article on “Polecat” that the “Beast of Kandahar” is probably a developement of:
http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/002598.html
Also, with all the talk of the great developments they came up with on how to fast build it, it makes me wonder if the ‘Skunk Works’ got paid for reinventing the ‘how-to build’ part of the NASA Personal Aircraft study that the Facetmobile people did back in Febuary 2004?
http://www.facetmobile.com/
And now the ‘Beast of Kandahar’ is acknowledged as the RQ-170 Sentinel from the Lockhead-Martin Skunk Works:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091208/pl_afp/usaviationmilitarydrones_20091208212912