WTF was that refueling

a reply to: TheHans

mightmight is just telling that it's not a best idea to post undisclosed pics on the net in the open. He is right about it. There was one incident, here on this forum, in the past when a photo(or render maybe) was published along with designator of the aircraft type. User got an ATS warning for posting classified information on the site. Thread was deleted as well as said picture(s). It happened few years ago. But ATS warning isn't the worst thing. Its getting worst and worst when *they* get to poster. NDAs violation isn't anything good.

There are clues and possible info in a few different threads on here regarding Buzzard-like Two-stage system. However I believe it is an operational platform for a while now. Even description of the spaceplane posted by PhotonicsTechnologist match in some degree with what I've heard. Not in a high degree and I'm possibly wrong on it but who knows.

Interesting thing about Wright-Patterson and a classified demonstrator. Can you give more details about it? Like year etc.

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

I was being a bit sarcastic... was surprised that the administration inserted itself/himself and pardoned/granted clemency to Kristian Saucier. But I agree with both mightmight and you that unless I was certain the pictures (if they exist) were taken from a non-military or public place and no NDAs in place, I probably wouldn’t post them.

I believe that the Air Force/gov can issue a notice to the individual with second-hand info ordering them to refrain from discussing or sharing the designated pics under the old secrecy order laws.

Speaking of the topic... the Wright-Patterson incident occurred in the early 2000s. I’ll have to think about whether I can share it or not. The aquaintance may be findable as he got in trouble for basically going to the wrong taxiway and was reported by the vehicle’s pilot! He was basically told not to talk about it, that it was a prototype, etc.

Interesting if the TSTO program is still operational.

We've never had a thread removed at the request of the government. There was an incident where a picture was posted, and the poster got a call, basically saying, "don't do that again". The picture posted was an unclassified system, being mounted on a new platform, but it hadn't been publicly released yet.

originally posted by: TheHans
a reply to: mightmight

I used to have an aquaintence who worked at Wright-Patterson who walked right up on a classified demonstrator out in the open, that’s existence has never even been guessed at or discussed anywhere I’ve seen on ATS (though patent applications and old Northrop artwork in the public domain clearly show it on the net!).

If that artwork and those patents are available on the net would you care to point us in the right direction?

a reply to: PhantomTwo

I’ve always been a huge fan of the Empire Strikes Back. Can you imagine how useful a small stealth snowspeeder would be in an urban or forest battle... especially if silent? You wouldn’t need runways, could escort choppers, hover near buildings, and still zoom in and out at business jet speeds.

www.starwars.com...

patents.google.com...

www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com...

Back to the Super Valkyrie! Ironically, a TSTO concept with its own patent trail is right beneath what I’ll call the snowspeeder in the above image.

I always have to laugh when patents come up. If it's in the public record, it's certainly not classified.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sometimes I think the defense contractors patent things to keep their competitors from using it.

eh. Not a good fit for us right now, but let's make sure locoeing doesn't get it!

a reply to: anzha

Exactly. Boeing and Airbus both do it on the commercial side too, even with things that they know have about a 0% chance of ever being used.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

Exactly. Boeing and Airbus both do it on the commercial side too, even with things that they know have about a 0% chance of ever being used.

Off-topic sorry, but is there a database anyone has compiled on "cool" black/stealth aircraft patents? I've got some free time lately to play around with 3D modelling.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah almost always... I've heard about something what was a part of a different program. The program was later canceled however the patent is still online.

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

No, not "almost always". If it was truly classified it would vanish from the patent office into the black section.

a reply to: E92M3

Probably but I've never really looked.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't know specifics. It is just something I've heard before and seen the the patent.

BTW. There is an issue with PM's button(letter icon). I've sent you a PM, Zaph.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I enjoy the robust discussion on here. All I know is this individual at a bar described seeing a STOL, grey, ultra-quiet single seater that taxied and took off in about three times it’s length. It was described as looking like an hourglass from the front and being small and stubby (low tail, etc.) - as drawn in the patent. That patent cited and was referenced by some interesting projects including Lockheed’s original Have Blue. Perhaps it was a corporate prototype. Intersting that the box wing isn’t used more - pretty cool idea that pops up from time to time.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
We've never had a thread removed at the request of the government. There was an incident where a picture was posted, and the poster got a call, basically saying, "don't do that again". The picture posted was an unclassified system, being mounted on a new platform, but it hadn't been publicly released yet.

Okay. I'm back today from a long weekend. I can answer a few questions right away. My cousin says he and his girlfriend (now wife) were hired as sub-contractors and didn't sign any papers other than detailing their wages, working conditions and dangers they might face and some life, health and dental insurance information. No "Secret Stuff" warnings, secrecy oaths or anything else was given to them to sign. When they got there he said he was warned by the head contractor not to go off-base for any reason because of landmines, kidnappers, bandits and general warfare and local dislike of the US personnel in Iraq. They barely saw or interacted with military officers of any sort and only a few of the fellow sub-contractors "cavorted" with the enlisted personnel. They were hired to cook and serve food, clean and sanitize the place and that's all! It also looks like it was exclusively my cousin who took all the pictures with his Razr phone and not his enlisted buddy.

I already have a few of the photos which definitely need cleaning up because of haze, slightly out-of-focus and some contrast issues. I can fix that up to a point.

I can say that of the five photos I've received one of them -definitely has something interesting- it actually does kinda look like that F-19 image except the wing isn't curved but follows front-to-back a thick tapered wing that's only mildly delta-shaped. It actually looks more like the X-15 rocket plane with those flared chines like the SR71 spy plane has but the rear part that thickens and forms a very thick and narrow delta-wing. It definitely has canted-inward tail fins and the interesting thing about it is the forward canopy with lifts up from the front and not the rear! The canopy tips upward from the front where the front-of-canopy is hinged!

The front of the aircraft looks almost identical to the Black Window YF-23 so much so that it looks like they sawed off the front of the YF-23 and glued it to a tapered delta-wing X-15 rocket plane, so I would have to guess this is a Northrup-built project? It looks a dark charcoal gray and not a true black color. I don't see any canards and I can't even see ailerons! How does this thing fly? Is it a rocket plane or a glider? I think I can see two large vertically-spaced rocket-like nozzles that look like smaller versions of the X-15's nozzles and I think I see a smaller rocket-like nozzles set on either side more into the thick narrow delta wing portion of the craft. That's means there seems to be four nozzles in total with two large ones most likely for pure thrust and two smaller ones for use as steering nozzles?

On the first five photos is a C5A Galaxy parked near a row of 40 foot commercial-looking shipping containers near a building that is hard to tell whether it's a hangar or a simple warehouse. The angle of view is an overhead view about 60 degrees slant onto a row of humvees parked in front of the containers and the "F-19" looks like it is on a metal cradle that's parked or set on the ground behind the containers near a hangar-like building. The containers and C5A seem to hide the craft from view by anyone else. I don't see any "baseball fencing" just containers, some humvees, a parked C5A and a building wall. This thing would -just barely fit- inside of a C5A Galaxy! I can definitely tell this is taken from a roof at, my guess, around 50 feet high off the ground!

I will wait until I have all the photos and clean them up before posting them here. It looks like my cousin has actually delivered something decent but I'm not sure if it's anything really significant though. It doesn't look like anything truly modern and outer-spacish and looks more like something from the 1960's IMHO! I also don't see any XB-70-like carrier craft but I don't have all the photos yet. We'll see about the rest but it does look a bit more promising than last week! I'll try to get the photos up by Thursday July 5 but it may be as late as Friday July 6. Sorry I can't go any faster than that. Photo cleanup takes time and I do have a family life.

a reply to: PhotonicsTechnologist

You don't have to sign a security agreement. If you work on a base, base rules apply, no matter what your job is.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: PhotonicsTechnologist

You don't have to sign a security agreement. If you work on a base, base rules apply, no matter what your job is.

I dunno what applies. All I know is he said they weren't warned by any military personnel, just the head contractor about not going off-base and keeping your wits about you as you get to your muster point in case of attack. My cousin said he didn't barely speak to any officer except at the kitchen when someone complained about the food service which didn't happen that often. Since he was one of the cooks, the head chef took the brunt of that stuff. I don't even think he was hired by the US military because all his pay stubs were from a food services contracting company. He also said he didn't receive any "Rule Book" from anyone, just some pointers from the head guy about things to do an what not to do when it comes to drugs and general on-base behavior which mostly talked about not being a jerk to fellow contractors or other base personnel! A couple of times he said some contractors were just quietly fired, kicked off base and went home on the next personnel transfer flight out for being caught smokin' up or really mouthing off base personnel.

We're talking about a bunch of 19 year old kids who really don't get it. It's not like they're going to listen to what some old-guy base commander tells them. They're not military so they ain't listening anyways. They just want to do their job, get the big-time cash and then get out and go home ASAP!

Is the landing gear arrangement visible at all in the photos? Could be a systems trainer/fire fighting trainer etc (ie not a real plane)

a reply to: E92M3

Or, and I'm just reaching here, there was no plane, because his description of both it being in the open at a FOB, them not caring about people being on the roof overlooking it, and people working at the FOB getting nothing more than a "don't go off base" for their inprocess, to put it politely, makes absolutely no sense.

Just an off-top question. Why I can't put a star on PhotonicsTechnologist posts? Also, there is no(Registered time, Location, Mood, and Member status) in the avatar section of his profile. What all that means? I'm just curious.

I can't find his nick in the members list btw...