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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

The unclassified UAV fleet anyway. There are several classified systems that have evidence of being out there.




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, you're right of course. I guess I just don't like these UAVs. Maybe because I love the A-10 so much :-)

BT



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Oh you'd like them a lot more if they declassified a couple of them.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee
Yeah well its the airforce, logic and reason only takes so far. The development and procurement process is screwed beyond belief and things didnt look much different decades ago.
Especially when it comes to black projects. The amount of ressources sunk into stuff that didnt result in some sort of operational capability has always been mindblowing.
So yes, while some sort of operational BSAX craft - which may or may not be related to the original escort aircraft for the Nightawk – would be a great asset it doesnt mean it exists.
Based on the myriads of other projects, its far more likey that they managed to f*k it up somehow along the way.

But who knows… if BSAX went anywhere i’d put my money on the Wichita sighting not the Companion.
One thing is certain, Northrop had something going to stay afloat after the B-2 got cancelled and the YF-23 never went anywhere as far as we know. They even aquired Grumman and Teledyne Ryan during the Nineties.


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



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
So you 'think' they've got a VLO UCAV program going?
Besides the 'RQ-180' and the Avenger of course which i suspect is flying for the CIA?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Oh, I know of a few UAV programs. We caught one a couple years ago at Tonopah. I'm pretty sure it's VLO. Only caught it on the ramp and in the afternoon so couldn't get a shot of it through the haze.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph, do you think any manned projects from 80s/90s that are still flying out of Tonopah to this day?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

The F-117s.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
What about that VTOL?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I wondered if they would get the F-117 back to help deal with NK, I suppose it's a nice idea putting them in semi retired storage, but once you start re-certifying and rebuilding them, could you keep this as screw as their production?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

The ones that haven't been flown would need 6-9 months minimum to return to flight status.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: mightmight

Sort of, hey watch this... Gotcha!

BT



Possibly reading too much into your post - but wasn't there a project that was informally renamed "Gotcha" that has something to do with all this?

You also mention something Sneaky....as far as I can tell from interweb research, Sneaky Pete probably did fly and (it or its never revealed successors) would have also potentially been operational in the required timeframe.

a reply to: penroc3

Had a bit of a dig around in VTOL and the trail ran dry after SOFA/SOFTA.
Only additional tidbit I found that isnt already posted on here was a link from secret projects to a pdf of a 1980's study into advancing crew ejection systems using future concepts:




edit on 22-4-2017 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Here is what I have collected over the years..



and this...



Sighting report: rense.com...

then we have another quotes:


originally posted by: GroomLakePolishFAN

You wrote in Aurora thread something about plane which is not as diamondy and it's longer that F-117 but wing span is close to it. So maybe these sightings were to aircraft you described.

originally posted by: boomer135
reply to post by GroomLakePolishFAN
 



Perhaps...



I suppose that "plane that is not as diamondy and is longer than F-117" is mentioned in this post:


originally posted by: boomer135

It's actually kind of funny...it's on the internet today. Just the public doesn't know its real. It is different from the 117 in shape and size. It's not as diamondy (if i can make up a word) as the 117. And I would say that it's longer but the wing span is close to the 117



edit on 22-4-2017 by SpeedFanatic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

I think I've dropped quite a few clues in my posting here as to what the actual designation would be it just no ones really picked up on it lol



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

There have been rumors of a manned version of Boeing's phantom ray. That outline reminds me a ton of what little I've seen about it.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join