It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'F-117 Companion' data

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Well, according to the article, the sketch (drawn by Mark McCandlish) was made from a pilots description of what he saw in the air close to Area51 in 1979. The pilot was also, allegedly, a former SR-71 pilot, so he would then probably know how to describe what he saw.

I guess the point is that for the sketch to have any value, this has to be something that really flew in 1979, or the whole thing falls apart.

BT




posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

That's where I take issue with the story. Blackbird pilots are almost as bad a submarine guys when it comes to talking about secret stuff. Those that tend to talk out of school don't make it long. Even after they're out they tend to not talk much.

Any former Blackbird pilot knows that anything near Groom isn't in the public eye, and that they don't need to talk about it.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
A commercial pilot yes but an ex Blackbird pilot I doubt as well..



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A good point. This is allegedly in 79, so a bit back, but still. I don't know any SR-71 pilots, of course, so I have to take your word for it :-)

According to the story there was also pretty clear instructions to shut up about it after it happened, so there was really no doubt that this was not ment to be seen (if it happened).

The only "motivation" I can think of for someone to "spill a few beans" would be if your baby project was scheduled to be buried without a trace, and would never be allowed to even figure in aviation history.

Maybe that could cause a few hints to be dropped? For posterity, as it were.

It doesn't really apply in this case though, since the witness didn't fly it. He just saw it. So it wasn't his baby to begin with.

I don't know. It's a cool sketch, in any case :-)

BT
edit on 20-4-2017 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Most of the stories by Blackbird pilots start with "so there we were, over an undisclosed country". You can find a few stories that include where they were at the time, but they're few and far between, and usually public knowledge already.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

2 - the cruncher - why has a " companion " to a platform retired 8 years ago never ever been made public ?


They're probably still using it with F-22.

They might have used it on the raid to whack Osama.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I was always under the impression that there was a connection between the blackwidow and the companion. I don't believe the companion was a fast mover, at all. Faster than the nighthawk, sure, but not F-111 fast. I also don't believe it came out of the XST program but out of Tacit Blue. It was also younger than the F-117 by a good many years and had better evolved radar absorption. It never went into a production like the F-117, from my understanding there where only supposedly three airframes or something along those lines. Fairly experimental. I also don't know if it's still around, but most likely in a similar storage as the F-117. As we know, it's replacement is flying around Syria right now.

Have other's been under this similar impression?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

I'm still wondering to what aircraft member is referring to in this quote:


But I'm gonna say that there's more than 3 of them made. Probably closer to ten. And they were operational and still are to this day. However they are not called tr3b and aurora. Sorry


If it is 'F-117 Companion' then we are talking about 7 airframes of this type. That would match with description 'more than 3 of them made, closer to ten'.

But there is other interesting quote aswell:

During this time period I remember a squadron meeting where the Operations Group Commander told us to "be careful what you say over the phone, and pay no attention to the black, pointy shaped aircraft and "others" that were coming to the base."


On the other note, according to second quote, more than one type to not pay attention to?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Since the F19 has come up, and we are looking for a potential "pointy aircraft", I went and looked a bit at that on the interwebs. Now, you guys are probably familiar with these photos already, but I found these on the blog of Keith Thomson.

This is closer to the Testors kit, perhaps?

This is an alleged Northrop-Loral advert that allegedly got pulled from a Magazine:



Then there is this alleged refueling picture:



And, finally (and a bit sad) there is this alleged Arizona boneyard google earth picture:



Now, this seems closer to the Testors kit, and seem to allude to the same "pointy" aircraft. I have no idea as to the validity of any of these pictures, of course.

Mr Thomson has quite a few musings about the F-19 on his blog so well worth a read if you haven't read it.

Shapewise, this is quite different from the sketch I previously posted, so not the same aircraft it would seem.
But it is, at least, pointy.

BT



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

They're probably using the F-117 to test with the **19 aswell, one flys outta tph the other out of groom.

Probably



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

I have read it before. While scan of a magazine is just scan of a magazine the other two images are fails. This refueling picture is most probably a fail as well as GE boneyard photo.

a reply to: B2StealthBomber
I haven't seen you posting for a long time. Nice to see you again, keep posting



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   
That Mccandish drawing always makes me think of the 1979 B2 LAP concept drawings if viewed from that above, off set angle.






edit on 21-4-2017 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

I'd honestly be shocked if the companion isn't a kissing cousin of the LAP. It might be a tenuous relationship, like the F-117 and the ATA-B or Senior Peg, but if (and a big "if") the companion is a Northrop bird, there are just too many similarities between the Companion's mission profile and the LAP's for the two designs to not be related.

Basically, my hunches about the companion break down into two possibilities: One, is that it's a sort of "missing link" between the XST design and the LAP design. In this case, it almost certainly is a subsonic craft like the F-117, and would be more or less to the XST design what the F-117 was to Have Blue.

The other, is along the lines of aholic's musing, that the companion is related to the Tacit Blue and the YF-23. It's pretty clear that both designs were from the same shaping data, as they both had dorsally-mounted engines, trapezoidal wings, butterfly tails, and both of them relied on pronounced chines to shield the RCS's of their fuselages. The only significant (morphological) difference between Tacit Blue and the YF-23 is that the -23 had her intakes relocated from a dorsal location to a ventral one for better performance under high-alpha conditions. Again, if the Companion was a Northrop bird, I could see it being a sort of midway point between the two, possibly with non-afterburning engines but able to hit a low supercruise nonetheless.
edit on 21-4-2017 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Strange a stealth would have the outlets on the bottom of the craft.

Those tiles on the outlets would be very bright to any IR seekers

Cool picture
edit on 21-4-2017 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

The LAP design was from when Northrop was considering a terrain-hugging mission profile for the ATB, sort of like a subsonic F-111 or B-1A. Think of the LAP as an upside-down stealth aircraft, with anything that might cause an RCS spike or IR lock on the ventral aide of the aircraft, which would never be more than 500' above the deck, while presenting a completely clean top surface that would make it all but invisible to AWACS and look down, shoot down radar/missile systems.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: penroc3

The LAP design was from when Northrop was considering a terrain-hugging mission profile for the ATB, sort of like a subsonic F-111 or B-1A. Think of the LAP as an upside-down stealth aircraft, with anything that might cause an RCS spike or IR lock on the ventral aide of the aircraft, which would never be more than 500' above the deck, while presenting a completely clean top surface that would make it all but invisible to AWACS and look down, shoot down radar/missile systems.


Which is what Northrop did in a sense by flipping the Tacit Blue over, and creating the TSSAM...Quite a bit more complicated than that, but you get my drift.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think now we are close to 'F-117 Companion'





posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Thats a Skunk on the tail... Companion isnt Lockheed.

@aholic
I imagine the companion as rather slow moving, loitering craft, not a fastmover at all. Something comparable to AARS, just manned with a larger focus on ECM.
But if speed is of he ticket, it rules out any particular resemblance to the YF-23 IMO. Much like the Raptor, the YF-23 cell is a compromise between stealth and speed. Why would you take a loitering craft and change it to a high speed Mach 2.5+ platform?
Tacit Blue – sure there are some glaring similarities as far as proposed capabilitys go, but look at the timing. The Whale flew first in 1982 and wasnt retired until 1985 while the Nighthawk went FOC in 1983. It would imply that the Companion wasnt devloped alongside Senior Trend at all but much later. Even at black world development speeds we are talking late eighties, possible even early ninties for FOC, meaning the craft was rushed into service for Desert Storm?
Not the impression i got at all.
But who am i, pretty much all i have is this quote from boomer:


weavty1: I have a couple of 'clear out from left field' thoughts on possible designations... EF-22 EF-23 […]

boomer135: Were talking about a time frame that the f-117 was built. So it wouldnt be based off the 22 or 23...

weavty1: So that part of the legend is true then? That it really was developed alongside the F-117..? Wow. Now that's incredible!

boomer135: I couldn't tell you if it was built at the very same time but within years of each other. The info is out there if you know where to look. There's an AWACS recording on the dark web of it […]

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Between ‚it would make sense and be cool‘ and boomer135, i put my money on boomer.
And if hes right and the thing is much closer in timing to the F-117, developed in the early eighties, Northrop is out, Tacit Blue or no Tacit Blue.
I keep telling you, Boeing or Teledyne

@beetee
The boneyard and refeuling picture are photoshopped. But it would be hilarious if it had an EF-19 designator…


edit on 21-4-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight


originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: mbkennel

They're probably using the F-117 to test with the **19 aswell, one flys outta tph the other out of groom.

Probably


I wonder if this ' **19 ' includes dash ' - ' or not?? Maybe B2StealthBomber would tell us



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I have a soft spot for Northrop and the Tacit Blue technology demonstrator.

It is such an ugly duckling, but I cannot shake.the feeling it gave birth to some beutiful chicks. I will it to be so.

There is also something amiss with the current picture when you think about one of the key points of the whole BSAX program was a sensor platform with high survivability.

Say what you like about the current drone fleet but unless you operate in a permissive environment, it is pretty much a sitting - ah - duck. Against a more capable enemy they will hardly manage to survive long in the forward line of battle. Well, the pilot would, but not the asset. Isn't there something missing here?

They are great in permissive skies, of course. But it's almost as if they are there to draw attention away from something more much more sneaky.

Sort of, hey watch this... Gotcha!

BT
edit on 21-4-2017 by beetee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join