West Texas Spanloader

a reply to: Bfirez

here is a interesting NASA study on various plan-forms

notreally.info...

a reply to: penroc3

Figure 1.4. The graphic displaying various configurations has been censored on this document (the missing configurations replaced by an X). I have seen the full graphic before. Now I find myself wishing that I paid more attention to it..

a reply to: clay2 baraka

This was made in 1995 and there are some very familer out lines there. so that was 20 years ago, i would love to see the presentation for 2015.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Check out page 48... they seem to have missed this page with the big "X"s

a reply to: penroc3

I thought page 229 or the PDF was rather fascinating "Airframe in flyable storage (mayber in NASA possession)". And no, that's not a typo on my part, it really "mayber". I know the document is from '95, when, and for how long, did the two known 23s go into hiding? Struck me a odd that a NASA report would not be sure if they had the airframe or not, then I noticed it was compiled by someone from Boeing Defense.

Seen this report before..988-122 and 988-123 have always to me been the Wichita bird plantform.You can see the design paths back then heading towards primarily the F22 and F35 as well.A twenty year maturity in tech is a loooong time.During WW2 we went from biplanes to jets in a period of about 5 years..Aerodynamics research is evolving with new fields but air is air...The 23 I think morphed into something Green if you ask me

I wonder if the US has a medium-range stealth fighter/bomber similar to what the Chinese are developing alongside the H-20.

They do enjoy copying the US after all.

a reply to: Masisoar

Now wouldn't that be an interesting twist.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Makes those "some of the F-117s flying now are covering for something else" angle just that much more poetic. As went the A-7, so goes the F-117?

a reply to: Barnalby

I always found it interesting that the AF maintains a growler squadron at Whidbey Island.

I’m guessing the EC-130 is not the only electronic aircraft in the AF’s inventory.

a reply to: Northernhollow

It always pissed me off that they killed the Raven without anything to take over, then went hat in hand to the Navy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good, overt way to train crews for another not so overt platform

a reply to: Zaphod58

How come this one never came to light? Looks like the the thought was the end of 2015 after reading this thread

a reply to: USAFTW

It hasn't even been four years. Declassifying a project, especially an ongoing program, takes awhile.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
reply to post by Laxpla

 

Between six months and a year was the time frame I gave. I don't know the exact day, but I have a good idea of when.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the aircraft that started this thread with the above quote.

a reply to: USAFTW

That was the original, planned timeframe. As with most things involving the military, that went out the window and became "it'll happen when it happens". Which, in this case, is a reason that actually makes a lot of sense.

I wonder what the chances are of the US having a classified LO signals reconnaissance platform?

a reply to: Masisoar

Most ISR platforms have at least limited SIGINT capabilities. Depending on the platform they can adjust the sensor load to carry dedicated systems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Was going to add something... but I'll wait for the topic to present itself (if ever), this thread is all over the place as it is.

originally posted by: Masisoar
a reply to: Zaphod58

Was going to add something... but I'll wait for the topic to present itself (if ever), this thread is all over the place as it is.

I mean, you revived it after 4 years, I think you are safe to post whatever it is you want to post.