It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lockheed HAVE BLUE demonstrator in flight-RARE footage

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I should clarify....they WERE in their own hangars (wasn't Afghanistan -
was in Uzbhekistan or one of those more U.S. friendly 'stans!) and they
WEREN'T just transiting though...BUT...from what I was told no special
ultra secretive protocols were followed other than general base security
and even then, the "journalists" access was actually pretty LAX although
they weren't allowed up-close but WERE allowed a more distant view
of the F117's. The "official" explanation was testing of new pilot-oriented
electronics ... which are code words to me for newer glass-panel cockpit
and flight control upgrades...which ain't cheap...and it PROBABLY
includes new ECM (Electronic Counter-Measures) software and hardware!

Testing in a 'stan? Get-Outa-Here! That area is full operations territory!
Testing would NORMALLY be done in Utah, Nevada, Texas and Arizona
NOT in some middle eastern country! Something's Up! And it's the CIA
that would do something like this. It's basically using journalists as a
duck & cover for the more "Secret" operations by intentionally ALLOWING
press people almost all-access to misdirect them so that something
NEW or old could go in under the cover of darkness. To put it another way,
they're doing real-world "testing" by letting those craft do the job they
were reconfigured for and using that KNOWN system (i.e. repurposed craft)
to cover up something else...aka OTHER super-secret F117's or even that
mystical favorite-of-mine moniker of an old-but-still-secret "SR-117a".


My earlier comments about the fantastical Aurora, Black Diamonds,
Globalstar or Space Plane are mere suppositions with NO basis in PROVEN
fact...they're just estimates and rumours....BUT....some of those rumours are
pretty strong and come from some pretty reliable people in "Spook Space".
The USAF doesn't have the money to do four "Black Budget Aircraft"
research programs at once. There's probably ONE active "Black Budget"
craft used for Near-Space or Low-Orbit capabilities such as a Black World
version of the X-37b Space Plane (i.e. GlobalStar?) and another craft in
a technology evaluation stage which is probably more like a combined
role aircraft ... likely a quick-response SOCOM (Special Operations Command)
CARGO/LOGISTICS/TROOP transport (i.e. Black Diamond?)

Anything for secret RECON is funded and operated by CIA/DIA/NRO
and not the USAF. If you're interested in such stuff, look for the guys
in the scruffy long beards and tanned, wind-cragged faces in jeans,
sandals or more local attire...those are the CIA or SOCOM guys.

Look at their cameras...if you see a bunch of Canon 1Dx's or
high end video-capable Sony's or Nikons then that's a dead
giveaway that they're HUMINT (Human Intelligence) guys sent
out for GROUND operations. The pilots will be more clean-cut
in green or grey overalls like mechanics but their ruggedized
PDA/Smartphone-like gadgets give'm away!


It's not really a time of WAR, but rather a time of low-level
police actions where INTELLIGENCE is the higher priority
than military strategy. Most of the recon efforts are aimed
at finding the local Middle-Eastern warlords, drug-and-weapons
runners, general goods smugglers and other "boring" counter
insurgency tasks. This isn't about Cold War China or Russia!
With them we're doing strategic-level work in board-rooms,
consul lunches and secret attaches and mid-level spy
personnel. With the Middle East countries, a NEW approach
has been and IS being followed...recon with repurposed and/or
older gear and recon/spec ops using CIA HUMINT and
"SpecOps operators" in mountainside villages and
dirt roadways allying and literally bribing village elders
and young but greedy "Ahmed" and "Salima"-types
for local intel and logistics/storage/base camp info.
It's a SECRET war by attrition, where the thumbscrews
are being tightened until the enemy old-and-new guys
die off or get out from age, accident or "takeout"!

We'll be there for the NEXT THIRTY YEARS in
my estimate...this is how long it will take until
enough money and infrastructure gets dumped
into those MANY'STANS so that the young people
will no longer JOIN or be part of an insurgency.
For an example of what's going to happen look
at the island of Ceylon (i.e. Sri Lanka) and the
Tamil Tigers took 40+ YEARS
until the locals finally had enough of the
horse manure! Today, that area is almost
fully rebuilt and the young have almost no real
memory of the MANY troubles that happened
from 1960 to 2008...THIS is what will
happen in the 'STANS and why the
USA will be there for the NEXT 30 years
using recycled spy planes and civvy gadgets
doing a job no-one else will or is ABLE to do!

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Your claim that the government wouldn't pay to maintain F-117A fleet through retirement is ridiculous. The Air Force got three good years out of the new coatings before the fleet was mothballed. Your assertion that "something else has to be going on" because surely the government wouldn't waste that much money of a plane that was just going to be put in storage in a few years only shows how naive you are with regard to how government entities operate. The actual amount of inefficiency and waste is frightful.

If any journalists had actually seen F-117A aircraft deployed in Southwest Asia, it would have been newsworthy. So far, the only reported post-retirement activity involving the F-117A has taken place in Nevada.

Actually, the Air Force is currently funding a fair number of Special Access ("black") Programs. The USAF budget easily accommodates more than four selectively manned, presidentially directed SAPs in Nevada alone, to say nothing of the other aircraft, weapon, and space projects.

Again, reading through your posts, I don't believe you have thoroughly considered your claims.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by Shadowhawk


I can't MAKE any claims of fact, only claims of supposition!

I would say these are reasonable guesstimates, indirect pointers, inferences
and other nebulous terms. All i've got are anecdotes, some rumours and other
unsubstantiated inquiries.....BUT....when you take the COMBINED data from
a bunch of "reporters" who KNOW something about how many aircraft LOOK
...some tech-heads who KNOW something about flight software systems...
some logistics and maintenance specialists who know the difference between
a flight control module and an ECM box....and finally some video experts who
know what a camera control unit and gyroscopic-stabilized camera system looks
like...THAT I SAY is pretty good evidence to me that something is UP!

I WELL KNOW about the absolutely horrendous waste of monies that
HAS occurred in past SAP/CAP (Special Access Program and
Compartmentalized Access Program) projects...BUT...I should also
mention that those entities have ALSO benefited from the use of
Microsoft Project (project timeline management software) and militarized
versions of ACCPAC (high level accounting software) so the tightened
funding and scheduling of programs since the year 2001 have been
SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded to such a point that the incidence of $600
hammers and $75,000 nuke-war survivable coffee makers HAVE BEEN
REDUCED to a miniscule amount compared to what it used by be like
in the 1970's to late 1990's!

I do understand your TECHNICAL reservations as to the usefulness
of the F-117 as a STEALTH RECON aircraft....BUT....we ARE talking
about the CIA/DIA/NRO here, where the CIA is ESPECIALLY noted
for scavenging "obsolete" junk for their own uses...those guys even
"buy-out" confiscated drug-running Cigarette Boats (i.e. fast deep
V-hull race boats) for offshore operations and they've bought and
networked Sony Playstation 3's to use as imaging supercomputers.

The CIA during the period 1992 to 2000 was nearly run into the ground
on a financial and personnel many people were leaving
that operations were put into jeopardy...SO...the people that were
left HAD TO MAKE DO...with whatever they could get their hands
on and that meant re-using, re-purposing and just thinking outside
of the box for anything they could get the hands onto, so as to
do their jobs AND to justify their large-scale public existence!

And if that meant scamming some old F-117's and the odd F-111b
off of the USAF and putting a bunch of WESCAM's in them...that's
what they'll do! (and probably DID DO!) ERGO what are four or more
F-117's on some base in some Middle East-a-'STAN with a bunch of
free-talking camera techs and a few twenty foot containers doing there?!
Why are a bunch of defence magazine "reporters" being given almost
unrestricted carte blanche access to a forward operating base?
What are a bunch of scruffy guys with pro-level Canon 1Dx Still
and HDTV-capable cameras and some AK-47's doing out there!
AND WHY are those craft STILL THERE after 6 months in a
basically OPEN and UNHIDDEN state? You Tell Me?

NOW OF COURSE all this could be part of some other
"White Budget" test system but I highly doubt it...ergo
STEALTH RECON and probable counter-insurgency any of you who want to goto some
blindingly sunny hot, mountainous middle east-a-stan
country...NOW IS THE TIME! No Billion Bucks budget
like the's Best Buy/Home Depot gadgets
and 35 year old airplanes and even a few HORSES....
but it WILL BE a heck of a lot of fun dealing with your
local warlords, drug lords and village elders along with
the odd charging wild goat or flash flood!


Now to answer the WHY of all's actually pretty simple!

The USA has overlap in many areas...Intelligence Gathering,
Warfighting, Logistics and even SpecOps. Military personnel,
private contractors i.e. Blackwater (or Acedemi/Xe Services now!)
plus civilians all vie for a piece of the 600+ Billion Dollar DOD Budget
and each must JUSTIFY their existence, so we now have a hodge-podge
of either competing service branches OR services that normally were
antoganistic to each other COOPERATING on operations so as to keep
the money and jobs flowing in. Their ACTUAL mission is almost
an afterthought...I say follow the M-O-N-E-Y!

And in that sphere of competing money interests, you also get the global
strategy players...the POLITICOS who are STILL in the Cold War era
of which there are only two types --- HAWKS and SUPER HAWKS
-- NO DOVES in this group! These guys are Anti-Russia and Anti-China
and ANYTHING that even remotely looks like Chinese or Russian influence
just grates on their Ronald Reagan-era One-For-The-Gipper nerves...ergo...
so much HUMINT and other SpecOps to wrest control away from the
incoming hordes of COMMIES!

AND FINALLY...a bunch of Oil, Gas and Mining interests that are just
ITCHING to take advantage of plots to gain control of a potential
TWO TRILLION DOLLARS OR MORE of stuff in the ground
and who better to do that sort of "Gunboat" and "Chopper GunShip"
diplomacy than the already bought and paid for U.S. Military!

edit on 2013/3/7 by StargateSG7 because: xtra info...

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

The CIA during the period 1992 to 2000 was nearly run into the ground on a financial and personnel many people were leaving that operations were put into jeopardy...SO...the people that were left HAD TO MAKE DO...with whatever they could get their hands on and that meant re-using, re-purposing and just thinking outside of the box for anything they could get the hands onto, so as to do their jobs AND to justify their large-scale public existence!

The USAF retired the F117a to SAVE money. Your argument makes zero sense. As you have been told half a dozen times, stealth aircraft are expensive to maintain. With minor damage to the body, they aren't even stealthy. You haven't addressed the need for qualified pilots. You haven't address the need for a qualified ground crew and facilities. Most of all, you never stuck to one mission for the plane. Every post was a different story. Sometimes the plane was one elongated aircraft, other times it was a fleet of 20.

Now the latest story is "some reporters" saw the plane. Well they don't seem to be very good at reporting if they only told you and not the general public. Nor did they produce a decent photograph. Are we talking NYT style section reporters or Aviation Leak? You have a great difficulty naming names.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

They're there in a "free and open state", and yet not one blogger, who at the RUMOR of an unknown UAV flying over the area had five posts, and not one reporter that knows that the F-117 has been retired has said a word about them being there? You're the only one that knows they're there, and the only person that has put together that they're being used for recon?

You haven't answered anything about how the camera would seriously degrade an already fairly weak stealth signature. The F-117 being a first generation stealth system had weak stealth, even after all the upgrades. The cameras you claim are mounted on them now would further disrupt that, as I stated in an earlier post. Either they are mounted under the skin, which was where radar was trapped, and bounce radar back, or they're in the bays, which means the doors have to be open, which increases the RCS to that of a B-52. Either of which is like lighting up a neon sign saying "Here I am! Come and get me!" And if the doors are open the low level flight characteristics are disrupted, because now you have a huge drag source.

Yes, UAVs are politically unpalatable, which is why the CIA spent so much money on the Sentinel in a joint project with the USAF to buy 20 of them, until the new UAV for both can come online. That's why they have been flying the Sentinel on missions.

Your supposed system would ONLY work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there would be rumors flying. There were rumors for years about the Sentinel, odd sightings, and reports of unusual aircraft. The entire aviation world knows the F-117 is retired, so you don't think them flying around out of an allied country in that part of the world would raise flags?

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58


Unfortunately this is getting to be a circular argument.
I can't really DISAGREE with Geriac or Zaphod's statements
since in almost any other military force, the amount of money
needed for upkeep, pilots and ground support is normally
substantial and time-consuming and MAYBE not worth it.
...BUT....this IS the USA --- land of Big Kahuna Burgers,
600+ Horsepower Mustangs and babes with honkers
the size of Manhattan...who's to say what the CIA
or any other U.S. force wants or needs.

If some guy buys a '63 'Vette for 1.5 million
and doesn't sweat it...why not keep a 120 mil
plane around for old-times sake!

Regarding my sources, didn't Janes Defence Weekly recently
have an article pretty much verifying what I just said? Using old
aircraft in new ways...they may not have mentioned the F117
specifically BUT I could take that to mean almost anything
up to and INCLUDING using repurposed F117's. I'm also
NOT the source for the F117 reports in the 'STANS...that's
Jane's and Aviation Leak's job!


In terms of technical ability, WHO CARES that a
WESCAM-style motion-stabilized camera is EXPOSED
during low-level flight over a target? Like any other
bombing run, the bay doors MUST BE OPENED!
In this case, a multi-camera system would be
BRIEFLY exposed, take some photos and then
closed again for the return to base. The only threat
in the Stan's is small arms fire and MAYBE still
unaccounted for Stinger shoulder-fire missiles.
At dusk, you'd still get good photos and your
exposure to small arms or Stingers is reduced
due to less technical warfighting capabilities
of the locals.

During the flight to the target the bay doors are closed
and the stealth is many 'Stans have
highly-advanced Russian or Chinese radar technology?
ALMOST NONE! Maybe Pakistan - That's about it!

The repurposed F-117 is good enough for that type of task....AND...for
good measure I am STILL sticking to my ORIGINAL SUPPOSITION that
a stretched variant of the F-117 Airframe WAS produced in the Early 1980's
and is possibly STILL being used as a secret Stealthy RECON aircraft.

And since y'all say the USAF don't want the F-117 airframes anymore,
whose to say the CIA/DIA/NRO don't want them either?...Betcha two-bits
they'd LOOOOVE to have'em! Pilots? Offer some good money to the
ORIGINAL pilots and send em over as "Company Men". Ground Support
and mechanics? Use the original ones too! Anyways, the CIA has it's
OWN force of maintenance techs and ground support.


Reports from the 'Stans --- I say talk to some "Spook Space" guys over
a beer or five and see what they have to say about the OLD DAYS...which
will THEN point to some possibilities in the TODAY! I'm not the only one
whose heard of the recent 'Stan-based F-117's...where there's smoke
there's usually fire --- Phone Jane's and ASK -- It's probably THEIR
"reporters" that are on the ground in the friendly-stans!

I'm extrapolating data I'm hearing on some pretty
deep-rooted grapevines, so while I CANNOT BE ABSOLUTELY SURE
of what I hear, I'm going to give some pretty high-level credence as
to what they're saying. My only reservation is the relative YOUTH of
the people I usually talk to--with their tendency to forget how the
Reagan-era Black Budget World worked and how STAGGERINGLY
HUGE on an inflation pro-rated basis those 1984 to 1988 defence
truly done at LMCO, Northrup, Boeing, Raytheon, etc during
those heady days of the Cold War that is STILL being kept secret!

Those days WERE the Good Ole Days in the Black Budget World!
No matter how crazy the design or the technology! It was funded
without oversight and regard to American taxpayer desires!
Once in a while a BIG HOME RUN was hit...and THAT is what
I'm talking about here...A bunch of modern day spooks using
tech and tactics from the 80's adapted for the NEW
threat environments of TODAY!

ERGO...They're still using 35+ year old Stealth Planes!
Two Bits is my bet on that!

Maybe the spooks will take pity on me and
finally provide PROOF of my suppositions
just so I can win this now-circular argument!


To: ZAPHOD58 -- Secret Question For You If You're the Person I Think I Know:

What were you doing on Frank O's Boat June 21, 1987 --- Think of what Helleigh wanted!

AND finally...Is Mr. M.G. Martin Still Alive?
edit on 2013/3/7 by StargateSG7 because: Spelling and Grammar fixes

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Pilots are very careful about what they are qualified to fly since unless you are a test pilot, you are only allowed to be qualified on two airframes at a time. Don't quote me on the exact number, but there is a limit. This is because in an emergency, you want to react like you trained, and you can't have your head on autopilot in too many airframes. The airframes are be derivatives, so more like two families of aircraft. Thus using one "slot" for a F117a is a career limiting move.

There was an accident around New York City where the pilot stuck to the two airframe rule, but zigged when he should of zagged and damaged the rudder control. This really is real life. Flight safety is built from studying accidents.

If you read "Red Eagles", there was a lot of USAF grumbling about these MIG pilots flying 3 to 4 airframes, one of which was the commuter aircraft from Nellis to Tonopah. There was supposed to be a second edition of that book coming out soon, but it might have been cancelled when Peck's book was released. Ive read Red Eagles and recommend it. I haven't read Peck's book, but here is the link:
Constant Peg

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by gariac


Unfortunately I'm not privy to flight qualifications, since I'm more on the
Intelligence side of things...But on a civvy note I'm going for my single
rotary Robinson 44-type qualification and then a single engine/multi-engine
fixed wing qualification for personal enjoyment reasons not military ones
and while they're not combat craft, I don't see why I can't fly qualify and
fly 3 or more types of aircraft?

I can see that too many spoons doesn't allow for a good military cake mix
but that issue may be fairly moot soon since I'm STARTING to see the Boeing-ization
of EVEN military cockpits where if you're qualified on one cockpit you pretty much
know most of the other models example: i.e. 767, 777, 747, Dreamliner, are mostly
the same flight systems.


On a more political note, I'm kinda curious if the recent sequestration cuts will have
ANY effect on the spy agencies ...OR...the USAF! I can't see any fat being cut from
those agencies because of modern day internet-lobbyists and state governors
lobbying against the JOB-killer DC'ers! - NOT GONNA HAPPEN IMHO!

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Fighters aren't like commercial planes. They use a lot of the same screens, and displays, but they have vastly different sensors, and emergency procedures. You can transfer from an F-15C to an F-15E fairly easily (at least as far as systems go, flight envelope and target recognition are a totally different story, but we're only talking about the cockpit here), but going from an F-15 to an F-22, or even from an F-15 to an F-16 is a different story altogether. Similar displays, even some in the same places, vastly different radar images, datalinks, etc. It's not like a 757 and 767 where they had almost the exact same cockpit and you could qualify for both.

As for flying to the target with doors closed, that's one thing. As soon as you open those doors they're going to know you are there, and they'll be looking for you. The one thing that the F-117 wasn't good against was long wave radar, as has been pointed out several times. You don't need to have a super top of the line radar to detect them once you know they are there. Then it's just a matter of directing something in to the area and with some luck, finding them. The F-117 is not a good platform for the recon mission. It's slow, and not very maneuverable.

(And sorry, different person than you are thinking I am.)

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

There is quite a difference between flying for yourself and flying for somebody else. If someone is paying the freight, they will tell you what to do. The commercial airlines have insurance, and insurance means you need to follow best practices. The insurer will dictate how many airframes one person will handle. The government self insures because they have deep pockets, but they will still follow best practices. As I said, I don't know the hard number of airframes the USAF allows one to handle.

Also note that each government entity has their own financial turf. If the CIA is using Base Camp, you can be sure some funny money is changing hands with the USAF, even if only on paper. At the end of the day, every organization has to show now the money was spent. Thus just because the USAF has XYZ gathering dust, it doesn't mean the CIA can go use it. You may also recall that to fly for the CIA, you had to quit the USAF.

Note that Peck (commander of Constant Peg) will be giving a talk at the USAF museum.
National Museum talk

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by gariac

AFMC is two (although with the exception of one pilot they generally stick to one). ACC and other commands it's one. There have only been two dual qualified pilots lately (one if AFMC, and one that just qualified in KC-135s in January). As you said, test pilots will multiqualify, but combat rated pilots are generally only qualified in one airframe at a time.

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Thanks. Is the airframes per pilot written down somewhere, or it is just one of those things that everyone knows. There are a lot of "rules" you can never actually find the source. For example, you can only eject from a plane 3 times. Ejection is hard on the spine, but it is also hard on the pilot who has two ejections under his belt knowing one more "ride" and they retire.

It is not that I doubt your information, but rather I wonder where to find it documented.

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by gariac

I don't think it's documented anywhere online, but it's kept in records at higher headquarters. You can pick it up from quotes from various pilots in interviews.

"Outside of Air Force Materiel Command, it would be almost unheard of to have a fighter and tanker dual qualification," said Spinelli. "Generally, in the Mobility Air Forces and Combat Air Forces, the pilots are qualified in only one aircraft, and become experts in their particular airframe. Within AFMC, there is only one other pilot I am aware of that was dual-qualified in the KC-135 and F-16: Lt. Col. William Peris, a former 445th FLTS Director of Operations during the 2007-2008 timeframe. Of note, Mr. Wayne Ringelberg, a civilian Test Pilot assigned to the 445th FLTS, is currently dual-qualified in the KC-135 and T-38, which is very similar to a KC-135 and F-16 dual-qualification."

Even civilian pilots generally only qualify in one at a time.

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58


Hmmm...Some Yemeni phototgapher snapped this still which looks
JUST A TEENY BIT like a Northrup Switchblade Aircraft!
And northern YEMEN IS one of the interesting places
that the U.S. government LIKES to spy on for
counter-insurgency operations.

See this "UFO" photo link:

See Northrup Switchblade link:

Looks like a delta wing aircraft with low-and-slow capabilities IS out there.
The delta wing I see would allow for lower stall speed while being inherently
unstable but the flight computer will be able to compensate.

Could this be the infamous "SR-117a"?

I cannot tell of course whether its a drone or manned aircraft

To me the craft looks like at banking steeply almost upside down
and NOT moving skyward like some have surmised...but that's just
my eyes maybe playing tricks on me. That Why I'm thinking variable
wing configuration secret Switchblade aircraft rather than a FULLY
FIXED configuration delta-wing

edit on 2013/3/14 by StargateSG7 because: more info

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

That looks nothing at all like an F-117. IF that is an aircraft (which I'm not entirely sure it is), it's a delta wing. The F-117 in any form doesn't qualify as a delta wing.

Ok, first you say it might be an "SR-117A" then you say it's possibly the Switchblade. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

The way the image blends with the clouds, I'd say that looks like a reflection off a window.

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by gariac

That's what I was thinking too. Either way, it doesn't fit an "SR-117A" or even come close to it.

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58


Actually I DO KNOW it looks NOTHING LIKE an F-117...and that "SR-117a" title
is just a cool sounding name I made up..I just REALLY LIKE that moniker so
I keep repeating it just because I like the sound of it. Whether it really exists
is really up in the air. All I can say is that it is LIKELY a second version of the
F-117 was created in the late 1970's/early 1980's for some purpose and was
PROBABLY used for stealthy ECM or stealthy RECON purposes.

This "aircraft photo" could be interpreted as a reflection but that is of course
based upon the credibility of the photographer. I make an ASSUMPTION that
is is "real", and thus I am going to say that the photo seems to represent a
delta-wing configuration craft, while likely a drone, just gives me a gut feeling
that it's based upon "Switchblade" variable configuration wing technology.

...ASSUMING the photo is real of course!

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

There's a lot of assuming there. Why would they continue to use an aircraft that is expensive to operate, requires a hangar everywhere it goes to keep the stealthiness up, is difficult to maintain, and can only operate in areas where there is essentially zero threat? That's beyond asinine.

A second platform for ECM or for recon would not be based on the F-117. It would use a totally different platform as the F-117 is entirely unsuited for either role.

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:16 AM
I've mostly stayed out of this conversation for some reasons of my own but it's gotten to the point of someone hoping for some x-302's in the airforces arsonal. First off, there are no other aircraft that look like an sr-117 ever developed. I've refueled every aircraft we have developed and most that were in development (now non-classified YF-22, f-22a, YF-23, x-32, x-35) up through 2006. If I didn't see it personally I was briefed about the possibility of seeing it for gas. Some people on ATS have even been priveledged enough to see some pictures that don't exist, maybe. But I can assure you that there is no sr-117, or any other faceted aircraft ever developed.

What I can tell you is there was another aircraft developed around the same time as the f-117 and was designed to "fill in" where the f-117 lacks. This is one of those rare times J.L. was correct (I won't say his name anymore). To my knowledge, they never retired them with the f-117s a few years back. But they don't look like -117s at all. And no their designator wasn't f-19. They have been shown to have flown in the gulf war and the first few nights of OIF.

The truth is you, mr stargate, have a decent argument for another craft or two being designed for a role other than strike, ie recon, ECM, etc. Where your story lacks creedence, and as shadowhawk, gariac, and zaphod have explained several times, is the need for a sr-117. Your thinking is close to what you want the aircraft to be, but far from reality.

As for the RAM, I'm no expert but I believe that a RAM upgrade prior to 2003 allowed the F-117s to ditch the high tech hangers the b-2s use still because during OIF they were basking in the heat like the rest of us did in Qatar. They had semi-constructed roofs, but def no hangers.

As for the switchblade, talon, whatever you want to call it, only time will tell what gets released out of Edwards and groom. Guess some will have to wait and see.

Another note, zaphod is correct in that pilots in the airforce are usually only qualified on one aircraft at a time, but can be "rated" on as many aircraft as they qualify on. Pilots who have attended test pilot school an some IP's are qual'd on as many planes as they get to fly. One or two exceptions to this. B-2 pilots are dual qual'd in the B-2 and usually the T-38 (zaphod/gariac correct me if I'm wrong on the -38) because of how much money it takes to fly the B-2. So they keep sharp on flying by using less expensive aircraft per flight hour.

On a personal note, boom operators can be dual qualified on the kc135/kc10 and MUST be dual qualified in both to be a flight test boom

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in