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.

 

Another "F-117 Companion" thread and a bit of history!

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I ain't getting into it but there's ways around that.




posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Even downloading code to or resetting sets requires radiation.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: E92M3

the doors would have to be modified to allow transmissions in/out without having to open the doors, but i could see how it would be a simple/elegant tweek


It isn't the doors, it is the antenna(s) itself. I'd have to dust off a radar RCS book, but a narrow strip of metal is a broadband radar reflector. If the antenna uses any ground plane or patch, that would be narrowband reflector. That is why curvy shapes are better stealth than the F-117. But given the computer power at the time, the F-117 RCS was very predictable.

In its simplest form, an antenna is a monopole over a ground plane. The ground plane will be a reflector. A dipole means no ground plane, but the thin wires of the dipole will be a broadband reflector. Patch antenna looks like a reflector. That leaves a slot antenna, which is really a reflector with a hole in it.

A dish is a funny kind of reflector. At first glance, you would think it is awful for RCS. But a dish just concentrates the RF at a focal point, and beyond the focal point the RF spreads. So the flat panel is actually worse.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: RadioRobert

I ain't getting into it but there's ways around that.


You do realize this kind of non-answer is basically useless.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: RadioRobert

I ain't getting into it but there's ways around that.


You do realize this kind of non-answer is basically useless.


He right, there are ways around it...one example would be to think of radar behind a ray dome on the front of an aircraft. Materials can be engineered to permit passage of different freq and not others... There is a lot more to this but the good parts cant be discussed.

If this "companion" existed it was not a 117 carrying a package. The 117 was a one hit wonder...carry a couple bombs stealthily to target choosing your route very carefully to maximize your capabilities and exploit the deficits or the bad guys. Popping the doors open on this airframe was not something you wanted to do as it opened you up to detection. Not just the BIG bay doors hanging down but the bays themselves. There is a reason why 5 gen aircraft weapons bay/gun doors are popped open and slammed shut in a couple seconds.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 11:38 PM
link   
So the way around radiating is radiating...



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: gariac
But if you are doing EW, by definition you are transmitting and thus not stealthy.

When you look at the F-117 as a system or maybe a philosophy, it makes no sense for it to have a companion.

:

I can see a use for realtime BDA and designation to keep workload down for pilots and minimize time in the target area. Also might let you keep the F-117's a little farther out from the danger domes.


Similarly tasked aircraft, e.g. A-6, FB-111, F-15SE and even F-14 as often used in GW1: two people.



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: wileel

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: RadioRobert

I ain't getting into it but there's ways around that.


You do realize this kind of non-answer is basically useless.


He right, there are ways around it...one example would be to think of radar behind a ray dome on the front of an aircraft. Materials can be engineered to permit passage of different freq and not others... There is a lot more to this but the good parts cant be discussed.

If this "companion" existed it was not a 117 carrying a package. The 117 was a one hit wonder...carry a couple bombs stealthily to target choosing your route very carefully to maximize your capabilities and exploit the deficits or the bad guys. Popping the doors open on this airframe was not something you wanted to do as it opened you up to detection. Not just the BIG bay doors hanging down but the bays themselves. There is a reason why 5 gen aircraft weapons bay/gun doors are popped open and slammed shut in a couple seconds.


Let's say this magic radome exists. So it passes the jamming frequency. Fine, except that means it will also reflect radar at that frequency off the radiating element behind the radomes.

Are you implying a Luneburg?
edit on 17-1-2018 by gariac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to explain the nuances of the engineering, even if I could this wouldn't be a good place to discuss it. Tech like this has always amazed me.... This was an example to show the tech and its possibilities, along with LO systems/design that absorb/redirect energy comes the challenge of receiving what you are sending but we do it.

Under normal circumstances there isn't a huge need for super stealthy BDA or designation nowadays, even the 117 had capability for painting way back in the day. I'm still not seeing the need for a "companion", but lots of great discussion here!



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: wileel

FSS

I looked at papers relative to what you were suggesting. I hoped you had one particular paper in mind. Anyway, this one is typical. If you examine the return loss, that is inversely related to the reflectivity of the radome. But the problem still exists that the radiating element will still be reflective to radar. Assuming frequency agile radar (a real thing), you just sense the EW signals, then tune your radar to that frequency and paint the target.

Obviously I wasn't in the room when the F-117 was spec'd, but I suspect there were a few hard nosed take no prisoners types that simply insisted on no RF emissions period end of story. I suspect (with no evidence of course) that the F-117 had state of the art internal navigation. Documents just say "Honeywell. It wouldn't surprise me if the F-117 reset the initial point just before leaving the tanker. Internal navigation error is cumulative, so the less traveled from the initial point the better. Supposedly the upgrade used a laser ring internal navigation, which was (and might still be) state of the art.
F-117 upgrade



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Well you have proved to be way smarter than me, I was lost once they started doing math with letters. I wasn't referencing any papers, just giving insight from knowledge/experiences gained throughout my career. That being said, these are still a great read and definitely adds value to the discussion.

I think your probably right, there had to be someone in the program who wanted the impossible, there always is...and has to be so we can push the envelope. That plane was tossed together with a bunch of leftovers, bits and pieces from other airframes so its hard to say how "advanced" it was for the time, esp in the avionics dept. The cutting edge part (pun intended) was the shape and methods for reducing RCS...the rest...meh. Don't get me wrong...there were plenty of innovations that made it as successful as it was, but consensus is (in my circles) that is was a place filler and technology demonstrator for developing projects.

Can someone recap the reasons they think or feel there was a "companion" here so we can make sure the threat doesn't creep too far off topic...



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 06:18 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: wileel

Frankly, I don't think there was an F-117A companion. As I have pointed out before, there is no evidence or reason to believe that such a plane exists. The operational concept for the F-117A Nighthawk didn't require a companion. None of the F-117A technical manuals or training instructions suggest any interaction with a companion aircraft. None of the numerous F-117A program personnel that I have spoken with, or any that have commented publicly, have ever mentioned or hinted at a companion.

After nearly four decades from the F-117A first flight, there is no convincing anecdotal, documentary, or physical evidence that such a plane was ever produced. Even a small fleet of companion aircraft would have required an assembly and production line (and associated personnel), would have required routine depot maintenance (resulting in the discard of scrap materials), and would have been based alongside the F-117A (yet was never seen or photographed stateside or overseas). I'm just not convinced.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

there are many manuals both public and secret.

you think the USAF would release all of the technical data in public data?

nuclear weapons are over 60 years old and we have almost zero true technical data, only a rough idea.


i believe the nighthawk could utilize a sister craft in high threat areas for may reasons



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wileel

But it wasn't the impossible. They built a plane that didn't use radar. They kept radio silence. Remember stealth is a practice, not just a technology.

There are enough books out there from F-117 drivers that basic operations are explained. For one thing, there was significant reconnaissance prior to the flight, at more so than normal. Never fly the same route twice unless some idiot from NATO makes you. Don't fly in a straight line, though notching is typical for military operations.

I assume all books by pilots are cleared by the DoD, but much of the flight procedures are not general knowledge if you newer flew for the military. Case in point, I never knew tankers had a TACAN on board until I read about it in one of these pilot "my story" books.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Shadowhawk

there are many manuals both public and secret.

you think the USAF would release all of the technical data in public data?

nuclear weapons are over 60 years old and we have almost zero true technical data, only a rough idea.


i believe the nighthawk could utilize a sister craft in high threat areas for may reasons


Some people believe in Bigfoot. Others require proof.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

you said that they used significant recon before and after flights, why not during?

the two aircraft wouldn't have to fly from the same base as im sure you are well aware.

i personally think the companion was a EW and battle damage assessment after, maybe it had the capability to direct fire by supplemental targeting.

there are many black projects we have nothing but stories for, doesn't mean they dont exist.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Back in the early 90s BSAX could fly behind enemy lines at 35,000' undetected with its radar active.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Flipper35

There was LPI work done back to the 70's, but for EW work, you don't get to pick your own frequencies. It's the nature of the beast. It doesn't work the same way.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: wileel

Frankly, I don't think there was an F-117A companion. As I have pointed out before, there is no evidence or reason to believe that such a plane exists. The operational concept for the F-117A Nighthawk didn't require a companion.
None of the F-117A technical manuals or training instructions suggest any interaction with a companion aircraft.

Did you read the arguments made in the opening post? The Companion was never built to compliment the F-117, it had an entirely different original mission. The aircraft just evolved into the Companion role.



None of the numerous F-117A program personnel that I have spoken with, or any that have commented publicly, have ever mentioned or hinted at a companion.
Except boomer and a couple of others you seem to ignore. I just cant wrap my mind around this. I ask you this before somewhere, do you think boomer made it all up just because or ? Do you think reputable members on this board just flat out lie about seeing his photos?
What more do you need?


After nearly four decades from the F-117A first flight, there is no convincing anecdotal, documentary, or physical evidence that such a plane was ever produced. Even a small fleet of companion aircraft would have required an assembly and production line (and associated personnel), would have required routine depot maintenance (resulting in the discard of scrap materials), and would have been based alongside the F-117A (yet was never seen or photographed stateside or overseas). I'm just not convinced.

And where is the assembly and production line, associated personnel, depot maintenance and home base of the odd dozen black projects we do know exist? Can you point me to the Bin Laden Stealth Helicopters? The LRS-B Prototypes? Lockheeds Blackswift follow on, the 'RQ-180', the Amarillo and Wichita sightings? Thats just some stuff that came out during the last decade.

And as far as basing goes, either Baja Hangars at Groom or one at TTR. I fail to see why that would be inconceivable.




top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join