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.
originally posted by: penroc3
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.
originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: gariac
i guess i was trying to say that it could be a watchful eye during and after.
i would imagine something that could loiter around during a mission could also be used before and after.
maybe that is where the mystery craft came from, a recon bird that had potential to assist in EW or what ever and maybe do BDA after.
originally posted by: wileel
I understand that this statement only feeds the idea of a super secret "companion", so even I admit that it is possible...just knowing how we operate I find it very unlikely, a system is one thing but a whole aircraft project is a stretch...there are just too many loose ends to secure.
The Air Combat Command chief, speaking with defense reporters on Friday, said the XXX, which he described as a “partnership platform” with the XXX, could escort strike aircraft going into the most heavily defended enemy airspace as a stand-in jammer.
The Air Combat Command chief, speaking with defense reporters on Friday, said the PEA, which he described as a “partnership platform” with the F-22, F-35, and B-21 bomber, could be “autonomous or semi-autonomous” and escort strike aircraft going into the most heavily defended enemy airspace as a stand-in jammer.
“The Navy is kind of leaning toward a standoff capability” in electronic warfare, “because of the way the fleet operates,” Carlisle noted. “We, in the Air Force, responsible for theater-level airpower, believe we need penetrating as well and so, my guess is, there will be…a synergy there where the Navy concentrates on a standoff capability, we concentrate on a stand-in capability. And then we marry those two together to make the greatest electronic attack capability we can.”
Conley, who’s the deputy director of electronic warfare in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said that while it’s true the PEA will probably “turn into” an Air Force program, the AOA is a joint affair. “We’re answering this question” of stand-in and standoff electronic warfare “holistically, but then it will turn into service-specific investments,” Conley said.
He said he “would personally advocate we move away” from dividing up the mission areas—and responsibilities—for stand-in and standoff EA/EW between the services. He believes it’s likely that tools developed for one mission may work very well in the other, but stovepipes would hinder such applications. The “whole idea … of ‘how dare you come into my cylinder of excellence’ … we need to break away from that,” Conley said.
originally posted by: EViLKoNCEPTz
I know someone who worked with LM on the project really well and I'm much more inclined to believe him than you, or any source on the internet. Considering there was an entire book the size of an unabridged dictionary full of misinformation and disinformation for this project a lot of what is in the public isn't entirely accurate. Even some of the people who worked on the project weren't entirely sure what was true or not. There were even several false airframes built for people to work with to keep the final designs secret. Several of the other prototypes designed in conjunction with the project were classified and put on the backburner until technology had advanced to a point where they could become viable.
originally posted by: EViLKoNCEPTz
Then some of his information has probably come from my relative who worked on the project. He worked on classified aircraft projects from the late 50s to mid 90s. He has a picture hanging in his office of the 2 planes side by side in a hangar during testing with the designers and air crew in for a photo op before a test flight. There is a ton of incorrect information surrounding the entire stealth program, so much so that even the people who worked on them don't entirely know what's accurate and what isn't. There were several airframes built during the same time period as the F-117A that "never existed besides on paper" but there were really flight capable prototypes of them built and tested.
originally posted by: EBJet
a reply to: Barnalby
I think you're the first to point out the other entrant into the ATA competition. Let's not forget there were two entrants in the XST as well..I'm not suggesting the "companion" is a "losing" bid (with the ATA being both proposals!) but it is food for thought ;-) Happy New Year everyone!
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: wileel
hate to break this to ya buddy but people can keep secrets even big ones, known by thousands of people that are in on it.
there have been many aircraft that are classified that have stayed classified even after being decommissioned and have been replaced by newer classified aircraft, also in the same position, and those aircraft not only have managed to stay completely classified they also will never be declassified.