Analysis : RQ-170 drone's dimensions !

[SOHEIL]

Analysis : RQ-170 drone's dimensions !

​

 

[SOHEIL]

The 3D computer graphic model of the drone in the top image has been proportioned carefully using photogrammetry of about 10 different photographs. The model is placed in a carefully scaled 3D model of the Iranian multi-purpose building. The building model was scaled using several images from the Iranian video with photogrammetry techniques applied. The model has then been scaled to have a 13.5 meter (45 foot) wingspan. Comparing these images suggests the 3D drone is still a little too large in scale, by at least a foot in wingspan. By the way, the model had to be rotated nose high with the nosegear wheel off the floor to simulate the attitude of the drone in the video. This strengthens speculation that the landing gear was destroyed in a crash landing​

The drone on the left has a 13.5 meter (45 foot) wingspan. The drone on the right has a 20 meter (66 foot wingspan). Does it look anything like the size of the drone in the images from Iran? No. Now imagine a drone with a 27 meter (90 foot wingspan). That would hardly fit in this building at all!​

This shows the regulation netball (similar but not the same as basketball) and volleyball courts to scale. The brown/tan perimeter is an estimated outlying area of the court, the outer edges representing the walls of the building. It shows the drone with a 13.5 meter (45 foot) wingspan. It also shows a 19.8 meter (65 foot) version and a 27.5 meter (90 foot) version to scale.​

This is a sample of the photogrammetry work I did on this particular image. This is one of the images that caused my work to be deleted from Wikimedia because it is a "non-free" Iran TV image even though it was just shown on a talk page. The floor perspective grid is based on the 3.7 meter (12.1 foot) regulation netball circle (in the X and Z coordinates) and the vanishing point on the horizon determined by the lines on the floor and the centerline of the drone. The vertical perspective grid is fitted to the horizontal but also influenced by the assumption of the height of the drone were it on its landing gear and the height of the two figures to the top of their caps.​

Full article:

https://sites.google.com/site/truthdowsing/home/wikipedia

 

[PeeD]

Great work.
Its interesting that the US.Army visual identification handbook has given the wingspan falsely as 20m but contains the true piece of information that the engine is a electric turbofan.
This is the first aircraft in the world with such a propulsion and they state it in that handbook.

The 13,5m is almost certainly correct and the 20m definitely wrong but they got the electric turbofan piece right.

It seems like this information was seen as already compromised.
Namely there is one short video from the "Area 51" region that shortly shows a RQ-170 flying and it sounds like something else than a jet engine.
Then 5 years ago when the first 1:1 S-171 prototype was shown, some components were shown. One component was a strange looking engine structural part. The part looked like nothing else I had ever seen.

It took me some time to put the dots together and understand what was shown:
The RQ-170 has a revolutionary propulsion that offers two differences:
- IR spectrum suppression was so important for this aircraft that they created a concept of a electrical fan providing most of the thrust. The little that exited the turbojet core was so low on enthalpy, that it would have been on turbo-prop level or lower.
That little heat would then mix with the cold air from the electrical fan to push the IR spectrum released down to a very low level.
- The other innovation was the electrical fan: Due to the variable speed offered by it, the efficiency, the SFC could be immensely optimized compared to even a high bypass turbofan. The generator could also provide high electrical power for the sensors if necessary, by temporarily decreasing fan thrust.
Due to the electrical fan the range/endurance would have been significantly improved.

This formerly "black" propulsion technology, the generator and electrical drive technology can be up-scaled. Hajizadeh's claim of 35 years ahead of what we had is then correct. The highest technology Iran had was the 80's RD-33.
Once Iran has mastered this propulsion technology and also mastered jet engine technology up-scaled variants could come. For subsonic aircraft this technology offers increased range/SFC and suppression of IR signature. It is less suitable for supersonic aircraft where turbofans still are best in wartime operation regimes.

Link-16, advanced optical IIR sensors, SAR, LPI-SATCOM antenna, possibly precise TERCOM maps and now electrical turbofan technology adds up to these items from the capture.

I'm not the biggest believer in stealth survivability to wish a large fleet of enlarged R-170 bomber variants with a up-scaled electric turbofan engine variation. This technology is more or less limited to subsonic applications but many of Irans adversaries could be threatened by such an asset.

 

[VEVAK]

Great work.
Its interesting that the US.Army visual identification handbook has given the wingspan falsely as 20m but contains the true piece of information that the engine is a electric turbofan.
This is the first aircraft in the world with such a propulsion and they state it in that handbook.

The 13,5m is almost certainly correct and the 20m definitely wrong but they got the electric turbofan piece right.

It seems like this information was seen as already compromised.
Namely there is one short video from the "Area 51" region that shortly shows a RQ-170 flying and it sounds like something else than a jet engine.
Then 5 years ago when the first 1:1 S-171 prototype was shown, some components were shown. One component was a strange looking engine structural part. The part looked like nothing else I had ever seen.

It took me some time to put the dots together and understand what was shown:
The RQ-170 has a revolutionary propulsion that offers two differences:
- IR spectrum suppression was so important for this aircraft that they created a concept of a electrical fan providing most of the thrust. The little that exited the turbojet core was so low on enthalpy, that it would have been on turbo-prop level or lower.
That little heat would then mix with the cold air from the electrical fan to push the IR spectrum released down to a very low level.
- The other innovation was the electrical fan: Due to the variable speed offered by it, the efficiency, the SFC could be immensely optimized compared to even a high bypass turbofan. The generator could also provide high electrical power for the sensors if necessary, by temporarily decreasing fan thrust.
Due to the electrical fan the range/endurance would have been significantly improved.

This formerly "black" propulsion technology, the generator and electrical drive technology can be up-scaled. Hajizadeh's claim of 35 years ahead of what we had is then correct. The highest technology Iran had was the 80's RD-33.
Once Iran has mastered this propulsion technology and also mastered jet engine technology up-scaled variants could come. For subsonic aircraft this technology offers increased range/SFC and suppression of IR signature. It is less suitable for supersonic aircraft where turbofans still are best in wartime operation regimes.



Link-16, advanced optical IIR sensors, SAR, LPI-SATCOM antenna, possibly precise TERCOM maps and now electrical turbofan technology adds up to these items from the capture.

I'm not the biggest believer in stealth survivability to wish a large fleet of enlarged R-170 bomber variants with a up-scaled electric turbofan engine variation. This technology is more or less limited to subsonic applications but many of Irans adversaries could be threatened by such an asset.

Electric Turbofan's have been in the works for a long time that said another major plus side is the reduced noise that would allow the aircraft to get within it's line of sight sensor range without anyone on the ground hearing a thing add to that the reduced IR and low RCS and you got yourself a very low signature aircraft although speed is another factor Iran would want to work on with any larger version.

But as for a larger version I totally disagree with you on that I believe it should be a top priority to build a larger more powerful version capable of speed of at least 700kph with two weapons bays each with 1000lb payload capacity that are at least 12ft by 1ft by 1ft or more.

With the right weapons a UCAV like that could give you a wide range capabilities like deploying 4x250lb or 8x120lb or 12x ~60lb self powered highly accurate munitions per each bay (triangular shaped sdb's similar to the US SDB) OR 48 X 20lb dumb bombs per each bay for carpet bombing with destructive power similar to an MLRS but airborne

It's the best way to make up for Iran's lack of an Air Force and rather than paying constant money towards high cost training and maintenance the money can go towards production instead. ​

 

[PeeD]

The point is that you want to use airpower against enemies that also rely on airpower. Stealth is good but you deal with forces that have AEW and many kind of aircrafts. Even with reduced signature in all spectrum, your enemy has large numbers of different air assets that will hunt slow targets down once detected.

I agree on one system: A low risk solution.

- Take two electrofan engines of the RQ-170 for it, the one resources were spend on it for the S-171 project. Don't go for a high risk and difficult upscaling. Hence the bombers size is bound by this limitation.

- Either a AI or a pilot is needed because it needs to avoid enemy active detection measures (radar) without emitting itself. That and the lack of adversary low-band radars may enable sufficient survivability to operate in contested airspace. However the level of ELINT expertise and intelligence data needed, may be out of reach.

Going the stealth path against Irans adversaries, instead of the high-speed evasion path, looks increasingly unrealistic in light of advances in sensor technology.

But if sufficiently low-cost and low-risk or even expandable (S-191), such a bomber variant could make sense, at least for frontline operation within friendly airspace or airspace that has been conquered. I can see a scenario where enemy air assets are sufficiently degraded by attacks of the missile forces against enemy airbases, where such bombers would be able to fly into enemy airspace. Until the threat level is not low enough I see mostly air support operations, within national airspace or a role as a cruise missile carrier.
Hajizadeh already said that we may see a larger, bomber variant. So it seems that there is a need for a cost effective carrier of heavier bombs or CM's but only for low-threat environments.

 

[VEVAK]

The point is that you want to use airpower against enemies that also rely on airpower. Stealth is good but you deal with forces that have AEW and many kind of aircrafts. Even with reduced signature in all spectrum, your enemy has large numbers of different air assets that will hunt slow targets down once detected.

I agree on one system: A low risk solution.

- Take two electrofan engines of the RQ-170 for it, the one resources were spend on it for the S-171 project. Don't go for a high risk and difficult upscaling. Hence the bombers size is bound by this limitation.

- Either a AI or a pilot is needed because it needs to avoid enemy active detection measures (radar) without emitting itself. That and the lack of adversary low-band radars may enable sufficient survivability to operate in contested airspace. However the level of ELINT expertise and intelligence data needed, may be out of reach.

Going the stealth path against Irans adversaries, instead of the high-speed evasion path, looks increasingly unrealistic in light of advances in sensor technology.

But if sufficiently low-cost and low-risk or even expandable (S-191), such a bomber variant could make sense, at least for frontline operation within friendly airspace or airspace that has been conquered. I can see a scenario where enemy air assets are sufficiently degraded by attacks of the missile forces against enemy airbases, where such bombers would be able to fly into enemy airspace. Until the threat level is not low enough I see mostly air support operations, within national airspace or a role as a cruise missile carrier.
Hajizadeh already said that we may see a larger, bomber variant. So it seems that there is a need for a cost effective carrier of heavier bombs or CM's but only for low-threat environments.

That would make sense if Iran was paying an extra cost to make the Simorgh and Saegheh stealthy but they are not.
And you have to realize that low RCS aircraft are still more difficult to target at long ranges. And if ever there is a war Iran would have to produce and deploy them in large numbers along side various other weapons systems for them to be effective and they will be effective even in protected Air Space as long as a significant number is deployed along side other weapons systems from cruise missiles to BM to MALE UAV's to Decoy drones to even fighters if possible,.....

As for a high speed and highly maneuverable drones the problem Iran will have is the lag in coms at long ranges and unless you can address that there isn't much you can do...
There are two ways to get high maneuverability with an Aircraft either you build an unstable platform design with enough thrust and moving surfaces OR you build a stable platform design with thrust vectoring and in both instances the smallest lag or disruption in coms will result in a crash so you'll need a highly autonomous UCAV capable of recognizing various threats and reacting to them which would required a fairly sophisticated AI

Although I agree that a high cost unmanned large bomber version even less than half the size & even 1/4 of the thrust of a B-2 simply doesn't make much sense for Iran because to me Iran simply won't be able to make enough of them for them to matter and even if we build a few of them we won't be able to hide them and they will likely be one of the 1st targets to go in an initial attack

In my opinion at least at Iran's current level of technology any Aircraft that requires engines that cost more than 2 J-85's to produce needs to be manned at least until you can tackle the com problem or develop an onboard AI that can perform better than our pilots

Although if Iran was to build something similar too but superior the D-21 rail launched, capable of cruising at Mach 2 at ~100,000 ft with sufficient range and payload capacity to drop up to at least 1000lb payloads at targets up to 1200km out and turn around and com back home to land no doubt that will also be an effective means of delivery but I wouldn't pick one platform over the other and I'd say Iran should have both

And if putting 2 stabilizer will greatly reduce RCS to a point that will effect an enemy's targeting range from long distances then why not