F-19?

a reply to: PhantomTwo

If it was real, the aircraft would be in Type 1000 storage at either Tonopah or Groom (most likely Tonopah with the F-117s). They wouldn't send it to AMARC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, that makes much more sense than it just sitting in the open. As far as fakes go this is one of the best. Kudos to the Photoshop wizard who pulled this off.

Now once and for all, what is/was the Companion & why has it been in the dark for this long? It's from the same era of the F-117, how advanced can it be?

I'm beginning to wonder if 'Companion' isn't/wasn't an operational platform, maybe more like a few different prototypes that would go play in the real world now and again.

Let's be clear here, I know nothing, just what I read on this forum.

a reply to: PhantomTwo

Word I've gotten is that there was another craft flying until at least the same time as the F-117 was retired. Until the Air Force says otherwise no one will say much beyond that. There are some really interesting hints, but they're hard to find now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That kind of hinting makes me really want to be in the know. But I understand your inability to give some info, just wish it were not that way.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This jet, the fabled F-19, is like as old as I am if it's real. It's design stage would be predating me even. I'm 38. So it's around my age.

I have two speculative questions for you (and anyone else that want's to chime in):

1) Why would something like this be kept secret for around 35 to 40 years when it's technology is likely not much different than the F-117 Nighthawk ?

2) Even if it were secret for 20+ years, and no one bothered to file a FOIA request to get it declassified, isn't it possible it just sat there in a pile of papers that no one bothered to touch for decades and so hypothetically couldn't they have just stored it there at the graveyard anyways because it's technology was so far obsolete by the early 2000's?

Good to see you again by the way!

I realize yall are saying it's photoshopped, but that's not how you clarify that properly.

You have to show us how, in a photo editing program, there are visual clues showing it is photoshopped. I could post any photo online and anyone could call it photoshopped. The only way to verify that is to actually load the photo into a program and give expert explanations showing us laymen how you know for sure this is fact.

I've been around ATS long enough to know that an expert with the programs can load that pic up and put it through filters and show definitively that it's a fake. So I'd like to see someone show this is fake, until then I gotta say this looks real to me.

Quick point but only from my point of view.
Even the F-117 Stealth fighter today is stored in a hanger out of view at Tonapah. The SR-71 is completely out of service and can be seen in museums, CIA and bases (static displays) around the country.

The last thing they are going to do is mothball a "Super Secret" aircraft in a desert for all to see. ( hence no A12, SR71, older U2's or F117 night hawks plus whatever else elusive ). They will likely destroy it, gas light it and bury it in the Nevada desert for plausible deniability. I'm sure there are other aircrafts out there, but they aren't going to put it in view of a satellite or eyes nearby.

I was hoping this project was true for decades, but it really is just a work of fiction. It is a bit of a Debbie Downer.

Look at the shadows compared to the surrounding B-52's, B-1's and F-14's...
The shadows are out of place or darn near out of existence to other solid bodies.
Here's the original from the OP.

a reply to: muzzleflash

1. Its technology, if real, was radically different from the F-117.

2. FOIA requests do not release classified info. All classified info is completely redacted from any FOIA requests.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

From what I understand, requesters can ask for declassification through MDR or by filing a FOIA request. I don't know the whole process because I haven't ever filed but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Maybe as a little side project I will see if I can get a MDR and file for F-19 files, and see if I ever get anything back and then if so - I'll make a thread about it.

If anyone else wants to do it and already knows the ropes I'd say do it! It'd make an awesome thread and would be the scoop on all things F-19.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: muzzleflash

1. Its technology, if real, was radically different from the F-117.

Iirc someone here mentioned that it was a shape that ended up being fairly useful as coatings technology improved.

If that's the case, I'd bet it was a contour-based stealth design like Tacit Blue or the B-2, but with an earlier, more "analog" design process, similar to the Boeing Quiet Bird, the SR-71 or that Teledyne-Ryan UAV from the early 70s (AKA: the engineers read up on radio wave behavior, started drawing/sculpting shapes that they thought would minimize reflections back towards a radar source, and through trial and error, someone lucked out with a design that both performed well on the RCS range AND could actually fly pretty well).

Maybe nobody else came up with anything like it and the USAF didn't want to go bragging about their unique innovation. Hell, it's even possible that the opposite is true and the basic design and planform of the companion is still flying today as something else that may or may not be classified, and the USAF would rather keep the fact that its basic design was first dreamt up 40 years ago by guys with horn-rimmed glasses and Burt Reynolds moustaches a fun little secret.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Since the F-19 isn't an actual designation you won't get anything back.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You know it's photoshopped because, among other things, they wouldn't leave a stealth aircraft sitting in the desert like that. Stealth coatings are seriously toxic when they break down, like when sitting in the sun for years. They are only now starting to destroy and demilitarize F-117s, in part because it took years to figure out a relatively inexpensive and safe way to remove their RAM coatings.

Anything that is that toxic, doesn't stay in AMARC long, if it even gets there. The YAL-1A lasted something like 5 years before it was destroyed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

As I stated above.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

Anything that is that toxic, doesn't stay in AMARC long, if it even gets there. The YAL-1A lasted something like 5 years before it was destroyed.

I'd forgotten about that. It's almost criminal that the YAL-1 didn't end up in a museum.

a reply to: Barnalby

Too much of a hassle to clean up.

That sucker carried scary as fsck chemicals to make the beam. Chemical lasers are scary, scary things.

a reply to: anzha

Yeah, I know, and I'm sure there was probably a lot more nasty stuff to clean up in order to get it display-worthy than there was on the F-117 that ended up at Wright-Pat, and without any of the historical significance to justify going through all that hassle.

Still, the YAL-1 was easily one of the coolest aircraft to be built in the past 50 years, even compared to whatever might be rotting away at TTR/in Dyson's Dock/beneath the sands of Groom Lake.

a reply to: Barnalby

It was so contaminated that they didn't even let the AMARC guys near it for longer than a few minutes until they gutted it. After they removed all the contaminated stuff they let them cut it up.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

Since the F-19 isn't an actual designation you won't get anything back.

More to the point, even if it is an actual designation, it's existence is classified, so you won't be getting anything back. So the way they play the game is they will drudge up several boxes worth of relevant mentions of "F-19" depending on how specific your query is. And they will ask you if you'd like to spend the $45,000 to have it all scanned/printed/shipped.

And if you did, it will consist mostly of mentions in the congressional record of "F-19", "stealth fighter", most simple blurbs or contemporary media articles that members had entered into the record, and perhaps a few inter-office USAF/DOD memos commenting about public/media appearances of the "F-19" "stealth fighter" in print or on the news. Some of those might actually be interesting themselves, but you'd spend thousands and thousands of dollars finding anything interesting, and even the interesting bits would only provide additional context to the times and perhaps some speculative between-the-lines reading -- and certainly all would be indistinguishable from oblique references to the actual Have Blue, Senior Trend, and other acknowledged programs-- assuming the F-19 did exist.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

You know it's photoshopped because, among other things, they wouldn't leave a stealth aircraft sitting in the desert like that. Stealth coatings are seriously toxic when they break down, like when sitting in the sun for years. They are only now starting to destroy and demilitarize F-117s, in part because it took years to figure out a relatively inexpensive and safe way to remove their RAM coatings.

Anything that is that toxic, doesn't stay in AMARC long, if it even gets there. The YAL-1A lasted something like 5 years before it was destroyed.

Those are assumptions though and don't indicate anything for sure.

You're assuming it's photoshopped because you're assuming that if it were real, it had such and such technology and that they would do this or that based on a prior assumption.

And then you admit that even if it got there, it wouldn't be there for long. All we have is a *supposed photo*, we don't know the dates or anything for it. It could have been there for 1 day and then been moved elsewhere and we just happened to get the photograph of that 1 day.

I don't know if it's photoshopped or not, and I don't think anyone else does.
The only way to verify if it's photoshopped is to have an expert in photographs put it in a program and then do their magic and show us the visible signs proving it was a hoax.

I'm frustrated because I don't understand how yall aren't getting that.
We need to follow the scientific method here - and assumptions or conjecture are not definitive.