Lockheed HAVE BLUE demonstrator in flight-RARE footage

reply to post by boomer135


Hey boomer.

Love you posts on here mate! Keep them coming! The aircraft model that's online and looks similar wouldnt happen to be the testors f-19 model would it?

Thanks.

reply to post by boomer135


---

Oops...Sorry that was momentary unintentional dyslexia...yes that should read
X-47b NOT the XB-47 StratoJet medium size bomber....from the late 1940's! OOPS!

---

Here is another interesting tidbit regarding the previous post...from what I understand
there are two more aircraft in the Black World...one a Flattened double-pointy ended
Diamond Shape that possible uses an outer-hull laminar airflow to shape an airstream
that RAMS air into a scramjet at high-speed for Mach 7+ ...AND then a second craft
that looks more like an enlongated Star Wars Movie "Star Destroyer" ship used for
ultra high-altitude near-space flight. ... I DOUBT these were used for ECM (Electronic
Counter Measures) ...BUT the carbon fibre composite hull technology now being used
on the F22 and F35 would make VERY enlongated pointy arrow or pointed diamond
shaped aircraft much more easily manufactured and also HIGHLY STEALTHY to
RADAR and thus VERY USEFUL for ECM purposes. Flying them would be a
nightmare due to their inherent aerodynamic instability but multi-GigaFLOP
(i.e. BILLIONS of Floating Point Operations Per Second) computers would
be doing the heavy lifting for the Fly-by-Wire and Terrain Hugging Software!

So your anecdote is not all that surprising to me since I have heard other
"Noisy Conversations" about such craft....although I DID NOT KNOW they
were ECM oriented.

Again, I still think there IS an "SR-117a" RECON craft out there based
upon the now 35+ year old F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter and I still
think that due to delays in other "Black" programs and Clinton-era budget
cuts to Defence Spending, it's PROBABLY STILL FLYING doing low-level
in-yer-face wide-field optical and/or InfraRed spy photography.

reply to post by boomer135


The first rule behind the existence of any "secret" aircraft is does it have a mission. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we had a UAV version of a Growler or a stealthy Growler. Right now the jammers stay of of theater, but at some point out of theater means orbiting some unfriendly country. You can't jam over the horizon, not at current radar frequencies. While the AWACS can work at some distance (say 200nm at the far end), the jammers need to get closer.

This story I can buy. The low level recon F-117...nope.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by boomer135

 

The first rule behind the existence of any "secret" aircraft is does it have a mission. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we had a UAV version of a Growler or a stealthy Growler. Right now the jammers stay of of theater, but at some point out of theater means orbiting some unfriendly country. You can't jam over the horizon, not at current radar frequencies. While the AWACS can work at some distance (say 200nm at the far end), the jammers need to get closer.

This story I can buy. The low level recon F-117...nope.

Lets not forget that the F-35 is supposed to take on the jamming as well when its fully up and running, if that ever happens. But your right, as of right now they stay too far away sometimes to do any real good.

reply to post by StargateSG7

Here goes my analysis of your last post:

Here is another interesting tidbit regarding the previous post...from what I understand there are two more aircraft in the Black World...one a Flattened double-pointy ended Diamond Shape that possible uses an outer-hull laminar airflow to shape an airstream that RAMS air into a scramjet at high-speed for Mach 7+ ...AND then a second craft that looks more like an enlongated Star Wars Movie "Star Destroyer" ship used for ultra high-altitude near-space flight. ... I DOUBT these were used for ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) ...BUT the carbon fibre composite hull technology now being used on the F22 and F35 would make VERY enlongated pointy arrow or pointed diamond shaped aircraft much more easily manufactured and also HIGHLY STEALTHY to RADAR and thus VERY USEFUL for ECM purposes. Flying them would be a nightmare due to their inherent aerodynamic instability but multi-GigaFLOP (i.e. BILLIONS of Floating Point Operations Per Second) computers would be doing the heavy lifting for the Fly-by-Wire and Terrain Hugging Software!

NASA has had multiple failures trying to achieve hypersonic speed. I doubt it already exists.

Isinglass was our attempt at high altitude recon, but satellites can do that now and if we need to loiter, we have drones.

Gigaflops. Sigh. First of all, it is hard to shake massive physical structures like rockets and aircraft. [To quote one defense contractor I was dealing with: "It is hard to shake a rocket.") The sensors are at best a few KHz these days, and that is overkill. [If you read up on the F-22, the bandwidth of the mechanical elements is in the 10Hz to 20Hz range. ] This is not a light weight speaker cone we are moving. It is a heavy plane. [Not heavy in the wake turbulence sense.] A flap on a plane can be hundreds of pounds.

In digital control systems, you map S plane to Z plane, which in English means you map from an analog domain to a digital domain. In the digital domain, your control algorithm can only effect the system in discrete time steps. [Not to be confused with discrete voltage levels,] In your analysis, you insure the S domain (real life) is stable given the discrete nature of your control system. That is, it does no good to have the analog world blowing up except at the discrete time steps of your control system. But the limited bandwidth of the sensors means this control system is not dealing with a lot of data by today's standards. You don't need gigaflop capability to control a mechanical device.

In the real world, you need to deal with power and heat. Less is more. If your device uses a lot of power, it generates a lot of heat. The controlling equation is P=CV^2F with P=power, C=capacitance, V=voltage, and F=frequency. All things being equal, power is directly proportional to F. [C is process dependent, which is why all the semiconductor manufacturers strive to use finer geometry processes. V is related to the process and noise margin.] The power use in modern fighter aircraft today is at the point where they need to "bingo" not due to lack of fuel to safely return to base, but rather lack of fuel to heat sink the avionics. Thus nobody is going to put a gigaflop computer where one isn't needed.

Now this does depend on if the controls are distributed or integrated. Distributed control means many small processors handling specific tasks under the control of a main processor. Integrated control runs the whole mess of sensors into one box. So if you have integrated control, your are combined the basically KHz sensor streams into MHz of data. That does up the ante on processor requirements, but not gigaflop territory. Also depending on the philosophy of the design team, the operations can be integer, not floating point. All the sensors and servos are integer. So it often comes down to ops, not flops.

Engineering is a matter of designing on the hairy edge of acceptable reliability. For a MP3 player, you don't incorporate triple redundancy. For a computer server, you do incorporate hot swap features in the components likely to fail. Aircraft/aerospace is probably the most difficult of all. You need to design just to the point where it will work (meet design goals). Aircraft wings have an acceptable amount of flex because to make them stronger means more weight, and that in turn effects range and speed. Supposedly people were fired in the 747 design team because the plane was too strong, which in turn means it is less competitive.

reply to post by boomer135

Lets not forget that the F-35 is supposed to take on the jamming as well when its fully up and running, if that ever happens. But your right, as of right now they stay too far away sometimes to do any real good.

"If ever" is right. The F-35 is beginning to look like the son of the F-22. Not FUBAR, but not exactly primo either. As I mentioned on ATC a few times, the book "Boyd" has some great insight into how these aircraft programs are managed. Mission creep for example. [Mission creep is a very common tech term, not just used in aircraft.] Boyd and his acolytes were behind the F-16, F-15, and A-10. Look at how long those designs lasted.

Gone are the days when Kelly Johnson could take the back of an envelope, sketch out the plane, then sell it to the air force. The speed of developing the U2, both plane and recon gear, is just phenomenal. Granted not a lot of stuff went out to bid due to the secret nature of the design.

Originally posted by StargateSG7
reply to post by boomer135

 

---

Oops...Sorry that was momentary unintentional dyslexia...yes that should read
X-47b NOT the XB-47 StratoJet medium size bomber....from the late 1940's! OOPS!

---

Here is another interesting tidbit regarding the previous post...from what I understand
there are two more aircraft in the Black World...one a Flattened double-pointy ended
Diamond Shape that possible uses an outer-hull laminar airflow to shape an airstream
that RAMS air into a scramjet at high-speed for Mach 7+ ...AND then a second craft
that looks more like an enlongated Star Wars Movie "Star Destroyer" ship used for
ultra high-altitude near-space flight. ... I DOUBT these were used for ECM (Electronic
Counter Measures) ...BUT the carbon fibre composite hull technology now being used
on the F22 and F35 would make VERY enlongated pointy arrow or pointed diamond
shaped aircraft much more easily manufactured and also HIGHLY STEALTHY to
RADAR and thus VERY USEFUL for ECM purposes. Flying them would be a
nightmare due to their inherent aerodynamic instability but multi-GigaFLOP
(i.e. BILLIONS of Floating Point Operations Per Second) computers would
be doing the heavy lifting for the Fly-by-Wire and Terrain Hugging Software!

So your anecdote is not all that surprising to me since I have heard other
"Noisy Conversations" about such craft....although I DID NOT KNOW they
were ECM oriented.

Again, I still think there IS an "SR-117a" RECON craft out there based
upon the now 35+ year old F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter and I still
think that due to delays in other "Black" programs and Clinton-era budget
cuts to Defence Spending, it's PROBABLY STILL FLYING doing low-level
in-yer-face wide-field optical and/or InfraRed spy photography.

Well the mach 7 jet, i'm guessing your talking about the Aurora type aircraft, may or may not be built and flying. The absolute weakness to OPSEC with any of the black world planes is that they need to be refueled at some point, until we can build planes so fuel effecient that they don't need to, but that hasn't happened to my knowledge. All I know is what i've seen or heard about in my years as a boom operator, along with flying out of Edwards AFB. One note I would make about an SR-117 is that its got to be either strike or recon and not both. There's not enough room in the bomb bays for recon and to hold a bomb. So the designation would be wrong. There's been talk on here about the possible role of the F-117 post retirement but all we have so far are pictures in the range of them flying after retirement. In 2004 I snapped these pictures one day when an unexpected jet flew up wanting some petro...













I always wondered why they were painting this one grey and I heard it was just to test different paint and schemes on the jet. But it made me semi famous almost overnight on all the aviation sites.

Here's one on final to groom just to wet your lips...




and another with papoose




YF-22 (Raptor 1)

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by boomer135

 

The first rule behind the existence of any "secret" aircraft is does it have a mission. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we had a UAV version of a Growler or a stealthy Growler. Right now the jammers stay of of theater, but at some point out of theater means orbiting some unfriendly country. You can't jam over the horizon, not at current radar frequencies. While the AWACS can work at some distance (say 200nm at the far end), the jammers need to get closer.

This story I can buy. The low level recon F-117...nope.

---

It SOUNDS hard-to-buy, but on a financially EXPEDIENT basis, to me at least
and probably to MORE than a few government GAO-type accountants, using a craft
that ALREADY works, stretching it by 10 feet or so and simply removing any bombs
and replacing with cameras SEEMS TO ME to make perfect sense.
i.e. HAVE NO STRIKE CAPABILITY - RECON ONLY!

You don't have to build 100 of them, three or four will do....and that would have added
at most MAYBE 600 million (today's dollars) to the cost of the original flight test
program F-117 procurement. And after the official F-117 retirement, REMOVING
the bomb bay assemblies and replacing the current F-117 Nighthawk fleet
internals with multiple Motion-Stabilized WESCAM-style cameras would have
been TRIVIAL on a cost-basis...maybe 10 million a plane! That's like a QUARTER
of the cost of a 40 million dollar+ Global Hawk. For the cost of TWO Global Hawks,
you'd have EIGHT reasonably stealthy RECON aircraft. Live Video Download
capability WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY since these craft are for wide area
NON-REALTIME surveillance where longer-term MEASUREMENT and TRACKING
of basic logistics and deployment of enemy forces is more important than
having instant video watch capability. That would reduce the cost significantly
since those EXPENSIVE video transponders and non-stealthy wireless
communications systems could be left out.

The only real cost is EXTRA recon pilot training and some extra support personnel.

On a MISSION designation-basis, an "SR-117a" would be out-of-date for realtime
video download and loitering...BUT... for long-term LOW-LEVEL surveillance over
a wide geographical area, it would be PERFECT for that type of mission!
Predators and Reapers are ACUTE (i.e. Short Term) tactical theatre systems.
They're expensive to operate and COSTLY to defend against counter-measures
BECAUSE they are remotely operated drones with real-time video download capability.

For more long-term RECON where satellites and drones ARE NOT available
due to limited video bandwidth-availability or limited task time-availability, a
PILOTED stealth craft that has ALREADY been PAID FOR many
times over, could (make that SHOULD!) be used.

---

It would not surprise me that somewhere out there in the "Black Budget Spook Space",
a few PHOTOS of the Stealth RECON "SR-117a" might be in circulation and might
somehow find their way to "Aviation Leak" or to ATS to CONFIRM my suspicions.

reply to post by StargateSG7


Since LOS is real life, UAVs have some onboard storage. Further, bandwidth is fungible.

Note Predators and Reapers can use commercial Ku band satellites. That is how the bad guys intercept the video. It is IPTV, but there is a UAV SDK. Troll wikileaks for more detail. So the DoD just buys more bandwidth. (Note IPTV does not imply encryption.)

At one time, they used simple DVB-S. That is how the video from the Balkans was intercepted by people with FTA gear.
There are still companies doing surveillance with DVB-S such a Airscan.

UAV SDK

reply to post by StargateSG7

Originally posted by StargateSG7
It SOUNDS hard-to-buy, but on a financially EXPEDIENT basis, to me at least
and probably to MORE than a few government GAO-type accountants, using a craft
that ALREADY works, stretching it by 10 feet or so and simply removing any bombs
and replacing with cameras SEEMS TO ME to make perfect sense.
i.e. HAVE NO STRIKE CAPABILITY - RECON ONLY!

It would be easier to buy this if we were discussing a different aircraft. Stretching the F-117 would require an entire redesign with the facets to keep them effective; it wouldn't be a simple matter of adding a fuselage plug. I might buy that they took an otherwise stock F-117 and put in a new sensor suite packaged in the bay for tactical recon. I can even see these being outside the listed inventory and acquired quietly under Big Safari. I'd imagine they'd be retired with the rest of the fleet. Logistically it would make little sense to keep them on, and at this point we have LO UAVs for tactical missions with much better endurance.
But a radical derivative of the F-117 would be an entirely new design. Did they design and build one? Maybe, what do I know? There were a lot of hopeless diamond designs batted about. Maybe it was a Senior Peg derivative. That would make more sense if you were going down the strategic recon road. But you'd burn a lot of fuel down low, and you're taking a pretty big risk boring holes in the sky above Soviet territory on a Sunday stroll at high altitude.

You don't have to build 100 of them, three or four will do....and that would have added
at most MAYBE 600 million (today's dollars) to the cost of the original flight test
program F-117 procurement.

That number seems wildly/fantastically optimistic if you're talking about anything other than plugging in a custom pod into the bay.

reply to post by StargateSG7


_Del_ is right. You can't just stretch an F-117 without a total redesign. There was a very precise mathematical formula to those facets. You can't just pull it apart, stretch it 10 feet, and expect it to be just as stealthy. It would cost a lot more than a "mere 600 million" to make a recon version of an F-117.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by StargateSG7

 

_Del_ is right. You can't just stretch an F-117 without a total redesign. There was a very precise mathematical formula to those facets. You can't just pull it apart, stretch it 10 feet, and expect it to be just as stealthy. It would cost a lot more than a "mere 600 million" to make a recon version of an F-117.

---

I am basing my SUPPOSITION (i.e. not substantiated facts) on the basis
that it was LIKELY that the original F-117 designers were tasked with creating
and VERIFYING designs for an aircraft to fulfill MULTIPLE or COMBINED
ROLES ...i.e. Attack/Bomber or RECON only and fit those designs to role
specific parameters. I EXPECT that Lockheed HAD three or more mathematically
VERIFIED and wind-tunnel / radar signature-tested models already constructed
and the final test procurement process was used to whittle it down to one or two
final Full-Flight designs.

This means my 600 million dollar estimate (today's dollars) would probably have
been PRETTY CLOSE to what was expected in terms of producing either one or
two FULL FLIGHT TESTABLE versions or even a three or four craft final procurement.
The math was already DONE...they just had to BUILD
those '"stretched" "SR-117a" designs.

In terms of re-use of the current F-117 fleet, there really is not much else to do
other than REPLACE the bomb-bay interiors with WESCAM-style cameras
and TRAIN your pilots and ground support for low-level RECON operations.

Th "gubermint" can't just BUY extra video feed time, cause the laws of physics
says that TIME IS NOT AVAILABLE. Other users are using those COMMERCIAL
satellite bandwidth slots and either the military data/video feeds have to be
mixed into the commercial feed using Steganographic principles
(i.e. modifying RGB or YUB colour components to encode data symbols
into the underlying commercial video feed frames) ...OR...the MilSat/MilStar
systems have to be re-allocated in terms of bandwidth usage and time-availability.
It's only been in the last 3 years or so that enough COMMERCIAL sats have been
launched that bandwidth is now pretty much a non-issue. BUT in he 1980's or
even up to 2004/2005, communications bandwidth was a REAL BIG PROBLEM!
ERGO...fly an "SR-117a" with NO LIVE video or data feed...fly low and fly slow,
take your photos and then high-tail it back to base...retrieve images and send
data back to NSA/CIA/NRO/DIA offices. THAT WAS THE MISSION!

If they're STILL using the 60+ year old U2 Spy Plane, you can BET two-bits
that they're STILL using re-purposed/purpose-built older craft for RECON
in this 21st century Year 2013!

Regarding the other post about high-overflights over Chinese or Russian territory,
that would have NEVER have happened...all overflights by an "SR-117a" type craft
would have been ground-hugging, tree-top flying incursions to avoid radar and keep
UNDER the MIG fighter patrols. Acoustic stealth would have been your only real
problem but since MOST flight paths towards the final destination would have been
over more-rural/agrarian areas, the locals would have MOSTLY ignored what
flew overhead. The final destination would be timed for a direct overflight right
at DUSK (at the end of the day) when troops would been tired, eating or
otherwise not as alert. MIG fighters may have been sent for intercept
but by the time they arrived, the "SR-117a" would have been long gone
hugging the terrain BACK to base.

---

Today's threat environment is more counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency
in places such as Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and WHATEVER'stan,
so to avoid overcrowding the video/data feed spectrum, means other than
using Predator or RQ-180 drones would be used and since the planes
are already working and the pilots already FAMILIAR with the craft,
use what you've got and save the money YET STILL get GOOD
photo/video intelligence from low-flying STEALTHY craft.

I would ALSO expect those "SR-117a" craft to be performing 3D mapping
to get ULTRA-high resolution, 3D rotatable, moving maps similar
to Google Earth 3D but at MUCH better resolution to be used for
general logistics and special forces operations planning.

The Side-Scan techniques needed for that type of 3D mapping
can't really be done from a satellite at a reasonable 6cm or
better resolution and the Predators/Reapers are too busy
finding and killing insurgents to be bothered with that sort
of boring-old geographic-mapping/terrain surveying task.

The grey F-117 was done to experiment with the use of grey RAM coating, and it's effect with daytime operations/lower visibility against a blue or grey sky.. As opposed to a black plane, which somewhat sticks out like a sore thumb, against a lighter sky/clouds.

Notice how the F-35 and F-22's are done in the same grey RAM coating as the F-117 'grey dragon'?

reply to post by weavty1


The F-22 is hard to spot in the distance with that grey color. Even getting the tail number isn't all that easy since it is low contrast. [If you read up on the "modulation transfer function", low contrast has less resolution.] I shot this at Nellis during Red Flag 2013-2.
F-22

For daytime visual stealth, more along the line of pink works better, but the USAF will not have a pink plane. It just isn't going to happen. Still for night flying, you would think black is the way to go.

I have a photo of a white F-117a, but not mine. It is out of a magazine scan so that wouldn't be cool to post. You can also find a green F-117a, which turns out to be a primer color.

reply to post by StargateSG7

If they're STILL using the 60+ year old U2 Spy Plane, you can BET two-bits that they're STILL using re-purposed/purpose-built older craft for RECON in this 21st century Year 2013!

The U-2 exists. It is designed for recon (recce). There is zero evidence of a RF-117a. Hence your argument makes no sense. Centuries after the invention of the hammer, we still use them today, but hey, a hammer was made for hammering, right?

Th "gubermint" can't just BUY extra video feed time, cause the laws of physics says that TIME IS NOT AVAILABLE. Other users are using those COMMERCIAL satellite bandwidth slots and either the military data/video feeds have to be mixed into the commercial feed using Steganographic principles (i.e. modifying RGB or YUB colour components to encode data symbols into the underlying commercial video feed frames)

The government buys time on Ku band satellites all the time. Most often, Telstar 11N.
Intercepted video

These recordings are floating around the internet. Though the article is old, they still use this satellite without encryption. I can't say anymore than that. ;-)

There is plenty of available bandwidth on Ku band. Some transponders are dedicated for distribution, but you can rent time as well. This is common in electronic news gathering. While the Deep Water Horizon oil spill happened, I had a satellite feed 24 and 7, well if I wanted to watch it. The news services just bought some time on the bird.

There are programs that blind scan satellites to look for undocumented feeds.
Easy Blind Scan
There are also Linux hacks to find streams on satellites. Do you think the "insurgents" are the only people looking for this kind of stuff?

There are websites that indicate what satellites cover what regions:
Satbeams

There are websites where the parameters to decode detected streams are published.
Lyngsat
There are forums as well for the "better" stuff.

Once again, your arguments really make no sense. There is no need for the RF-117a to do low level recon. Further, I can't imagine needing 6cm elevation data. We're talking the height of a small rock. If you are flying that low, I think you have other problems, such as FOD!

reply to post by gariac


---

That is a very AWESOME response with more information than I ever knew
about multi-band satellite transmissions and intercepting them...THANKS.

While your statements are TRUE TODAY, I still have doubts that during the 1980's
that such video capacity was available for purchase on a last-minute basis like
what the US does today. In those early days, they would have had to do it the
hard way, sent tapes back to the mainland which means using non-realtime
photo RECON aircraft....aka my personal favorite, if un-verified... "SR-117a" spy plane!

reply to post by StargateSG7


Here are a few places your idea falls apart.

1. If it was so easy and cheap to stretch it, why not do it to them all? An F-117 that can carry four bombs instead of two is immensely more flexible. You would have only needed 10 to go over Baghdad in 91, instead of 20. Your other 10 could have been hitting other targets.

2. Sensors. If you stretch the weapons bays, and you put the cameras inside the bays, you have to open the bays to get pictures. Once the F-117 opens the bays, it looks like a B-52 on radar. If you mount them inside the fuselage, you lose stealth. The F-117 was designed with gaps between the outer skin, and inner structure that allowed radar to be trapped there (so I've heard), put a camera there, and you lose that ability, and your camera can bounce radar back out, so you're less stealthy.

3. F-117 stealth has reached as far as it can go. It would be insanely expensive to try to upgrade the RAM and make it stealthy enough to not be noticed by current weapons systems. The threat outgrew the weapons system. So what would be the point of continuing to fly it now? Unlike the U-2 which can still be upgraded with new cameras, and new sensors, your "tree top level SR-117" would be detected, and would lose the ability to gather useful intel.

reply to post by StargateSG7

While your statements are TRUE TODAY, I still have doubts that during the 1980's that such video capacity was available for purchase on a last-minute basis like what the US does today.

Ku band was around in the 1980s. It wouldn't be a stretch for the military to use it (and they do) since they have much in-house skill with X band, which is below Ku band. The military does a lot of C band comms, but C band is tricky since it is near aviation frequencies, especially radar altimeters. You have to watch your power on C-band, or at least how you aim it. [Groom Lake has a C-band link between Bald Mountain and Haligan Mesa.]

SNG (Satellite News Gathering) was a business in the 1980s. It was done on a buy on demand basis since nobody knew exactly where the next "hot spot" would be. (Who would have thought they would attack the Falklands?]

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by weavty1

 

I have a photo of a white F-117a, but not mine. It is out of a magazine scan so that wouldn't be cool to post. You can also find a green F-117a, which turns out to be a primer color.

Here's the whitey!