Who can identify these models in the Northrop exec's office?

a reply to: Barnalby

It's a cat launched. I was mistaken on that one. The Bat is a no runway, multi sensor, autonomous platform.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So it's basically a Zagi on a light dose of steroids with a slightly nicer GoPro velcroed to it?

a reply to: Barnalby

I wouldn't say that. It's amazingly flexible. You can add fuel tanks to get more range, can do ISR, target acquisition, or comms relay. It's got over 3 cubic feet of internal volume. I added a link to my earlier post.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was bummed that it uses a net for recovery instead of that air lasso thing. But yeah, these sorts of easily portable battlefield UAVs seem to be dripping with potential, especially relative to how little they can cost.

originally posted by: aholic
These guys LOVE to spread misinformation in very sneaky ways. Not saying it's so, in this case, but hasn't been stated yet in the thread. So just adding that to the mix. IMO, much more likely a staffer planted a fake model than forgot to take a classified one down during a press visit. The B-21 isn't going grey quite yet so.

Yes, that's mostly my feeling. However, there have been some aircraft project names in the historical record that I'm still not sure what they looked like, and at the same time, there have been some aircraft projects that we have seen, but not put a name to. There's always a chance that running these models past the experts might cross a few possibilities off the list. More information is always better, in a field characterized by researchers and fanatics being starved for info.

edit: Additionally, while some of these may be purely conceptual, they might offer clues to some of the ideas and planforms and things these guys have been kicking around, giving a possible "missing link" in some aircraft heritage, or showing some general design that might show up again elsewhere in a real craft.

As for me, I don't think the far-right model looks like Amarillo. It's hard to see (of course) but the rear of the craft doesn't look like boomerang-shape (a single concave curve). It looks instead like it has a subtle M shape to it, if that makes sense.

I don't think it could be XST, it looks more like a cranked kite / blended body. Maybe. Who knows?

a reply to: darksidius

The one on the desk looks very much like the 2015 6th gen that was firing a DEW, which I think was an actual Northrop released depiction. I believe another image had more of a front 3/4 view but not sure if that came from Northrop or another artist...anyway the intakes are dead ringers for those on the desk model.

Far right on the top shelf looks more like the "Super Bowl" 6th gen from early 2016. Personally, based on the highly swept shape and what appears to be a larger size, it screams interceptor (PCA).

a reply to: wirehead

Yeah. I mean I include all the superbowl stuff in the misinformation category as well. Those commercials are very misleading as to the actual form and function of these aircraft. In fact a lot of the press material is. But the 6th gen design, they don't have much as stake throwing around models, it's so far off. In fact that's business as usual. But in no way would a Raider or Kansas be shown as a model, I just don't believe that would slip.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
We all remember this...

Models don't mean a whole lot in term of actual flying aircraft. But fun to ponder!

This is just Northrop...Cant forget Boeing and Lockheed as well.

In fact it look logical to see appear model or drawing of plane like B-21 if it is on the way to become grey/white. The flying wing on the side of the Proteus in my opinion could be a link with the LRS-B/21.

originally posted by: aholic
Yeah. I mean I include all the superbowl stuff in the misinformation category as well. Those commercials are very misleading as to the actual form and function of these aircraft.

I just have a hard time believing that engineers at the skunkworks / plant 42 would email an image of their classified configuration to the ad company so that the ad people could hint at it in their renders. Doesn't make sense.

At the same time, it is clear that these companies have a PR department that is partly responsible for generating fantastical renders of things like a 6th gen fighter concept. That stuff would be fair game for throwing around in commercials.

a reply to: mightmight

Yeah, they'd never leave one out for us to see.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Beat me by that much...

Just a concept, huh?

Gotta give the wind tunnel model guys something to work from

Far out, what a gaffe, can you imagine when they saw the article and went, ooops!

Although I am suprised they went to the lengths of creating a desktop model for a 'concept'. Unless you stretch a concept into a testbed that delivered something. Imagine how many desktop models they would have for every concept that had a patent attached, you can only imagine how many weird and wonderful models are on the wall behind the camera guy!

I would say smokescreen, it would obviously have started as a concept so no lying, but ended up more than a concept, possible flying technology demonstrator.

I wonder if there is an unwritten rule about those models, what is the value in having one if it wasnt a successful flying project?

a reply to: Zaphod58
Neat but theres a long way between some concept design and active classified program. Obviously they didnt create the models out of thin air.

These days its grab the STL file off the draughtsman who did the airframe shape,scale it down to model size then put it through a 3D printer.Back in the old days they would be carved out of wood.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Cool, nice find.

a reply to: mightmight

And even then, you don't just leave concept models sitting out, or make models of every concept to have sitting in an office.

Usually only the ones you had a part in.

Don't forget that some of Black plane can start coming to grey . Zaph say that few years ago.