Another "F-117 Companion" thread and a bit of history!

I was trying to find a comment about the companion and couldn't find it or I might have been thinking about the green lady.
I thought i remembered a comment about the companion having a inward canted twin tail and it was amongst a few designs in a patent or technical drawing? I know the prototype 117 had inward canted twin tail, I've seen the pics.

The satellite photo of Plant 42 hanger, under close examination looks to be something with temporary shields or walls hiding it from view from those inside the hanger, as the tarmac is visible along many area's within the triangular shape.

It is known that with most of these "classified" projects that there is such compartmentalization, not even people that have the same security clearance but are working on different projects get to see each others work.

Could be part of an assembled airframe, or part of one going testing (engine related).

a reply to: BoutThere

They like to use those fences there. They had the streetside doors of the Skunkworks hangar open one day with the fence up. You could just make the the curve of the top of a fuselage, but that's it behind it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

When it's a nice day out, people shouldn't be stuck in smelly, stuffy hangars just because a few lookyloos want to ruin it for everyone else

a reply to: Zaphod58

Now would the top of the fuselage be distinguishable in terms of where they were at construction wise on said aircraft/airframe, as with RAM/IR coating these days being difficult to apply they tend to wait until the central airframe is practically complete.

Getting back to the F-117 Companion,

Could it be at all possible that it was designed for a specific environment and locale in mind, and based off of its testing was leaps and bounds more capable, and therefore provided a substantial opportunity for the manufacturer to win funding for at least two decades?

We do know that its obviously used tactically, and therefore "could" be smaller than most other aircraft of the time period, as technology development during the time period managed to get the actual F-117 radar signature down to a small bird, size of the airframe became a principal factor with radar detection.

During development the companion (if it was principally developed within late 60's), and not into production until the late 70's early 80's, around the same time as the F-117, and kind of just fell into place as such. Another method of obtaining radar/SAM site data from anywhere around the world (in combination with signal and radar collection from a satellite).

Any thoughts?

a reply to: BoutThere

We do know that its obviously used tactically, and therefore "could" be smaller than most other aircraft of the time period, as technology development during the time period managed to get the actual F-117 radar signature down to a small bird, size of the airframe became a principal factor with radar detection. 

a reply to: RadioRobert

--- was talking about the F-117 Companion aircraft---

i'm principally basing it off of what others have stated, what's been observed and acknowledged, as nothing has been flat out denied as possible.

Size of the aircraft is never the principal factor in signature.

a reply to: RadioRobert

it "became" such after faceting removed all other methods of radar deflection/absorption, could have happened, we don't know for certain.


the whole point i'm getting at is in order to be a magnitude or so under the F-117, only so many other options are left on the table, maybe a different Ram coating.

Look at the Lampryide prototype experimented by the Germans. A scaled flyable aircraft that was faceted, and had such low radar cross section during testing, that the design and specifics are still classified... (and this was in the early mid 80's).

originally posted by: humanoidlord
if its old and isnt declassified yet
then it doesnt exists
very simple

said everyone about the SR-71 until '64

a reply to: BoutThere

If you could see any detail it would have been. But all you could see was the line of the fuselage. It was probably something that was flying, or close to flying.

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: gariac

What was seen on CNN live news during Desert Fox is certainly NOT Companion.
I don't know what were the things seen during CNN live but I remember that there were two other scenes showing this thing above the Gulf. One shot was taken when air vehicle(I think it is safe to name it like this) was doing fast bypass over city and another scene was taken when the thing was hovering above the city. Companion does not have hovering capabilities. Companion is conventional aircraft. So things taken by CNN cameras weren't Companion at all.

Both scenes mentioned by me are still on YouTube to this day. Scenes looks real but you never know.

Does anyone have links to the scene described here? I don't think I've ever seen what you're referring to and am very curious to see what they accidentally recorded.

a reply to: BoutThere

Different people tell different things. Some people suggest that Companion is very similar to Testors F-19 model(boomer and at least one other member suggest it) while others agree that Companion is more curved shape, a typical design for 70s era. Like it was said in the original post here in this thread there is strong possibility that Companion was designed for a compaltely different role and was used as a F-117's supplement while Aardvark's went sleep.

Companion is about the same size as F-117 but is longer.

originally posted by: StratosFear

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: Badgermole42

There is one comment left on The Drive(it is the one that mightmight posted few posts above) that refers to Testors F-19 model and there is one comment here on this forum that clearly says the same. I'll quote it now.

originally posted by: trueknowledge
The F117 program was actually 2 different aircraft. The F117 was only part of the program and it was what was revealed to the world. The second part is an aircraft with a twin engine, single pilot design that was flying in the mid 70s. It was more rounded shape and looked very close to mock ups of the F19. This is the aircraft that boomer135 is referring to. It does not look like the F117 at all, and it much more along the lines of the SR71 design with the engines being mounted internally. From what I understand it was not originally designed for ECM, but it would make sense to use it for this. The reason people can not talk about it is because it is still classified to this day and is still in use as far as I know.

Mid 70s design would match the timeline perfectly but the idea that F-117 program was two different aircraft really makes me think... That would mean that Companion is strictly related to Nighthawk which doesn't seem right. I may be wrong of course.
Good guess would be the idea that Companion was designed pre 1984(trueknowledge and EBJet posts matches perfectly). It was designed and waited few years to born. It could have the first flight as a "classified advanced technology demonstration prototype" in August 1983.
F-117s were tested at Groom around the same time so 1983 is good for a Companion to flew together with it.

Made me think of this image I picked off a Russian site years ago. No story to go with it and never saw it anywhere else.

Interesting partial translation on this one though...

a reply to: parad0x122

Here is one video I was talking about:
youtu.be...

It starts at 4:22 and lasts to 4:32. This is the first clip.

The second video: youtu.be...
look into 1:07.

Definately not the Companion. The first video shows hovering capabilities, Companion doesn't have it. Companion is conventional take off&landing plane.

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

that second video looks like cgi to me

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Both are rather interesting clips, thanks for posting them so quickly!

The hovering in that first one is pretty wild, and you'd think that you'd be able to see at least some sort of piece of the air frame wouldn't you? Or was night vision not-so-great back then? If it was...are we potentially looking at some sort of jamming/active camo?

I'm with you bass, that second vid looks like CGI big time.

One other thing, why would a combat aircraft, stealth or not, enter contested airspace with any lighting?

If AFV crews don't use light, then I can't imagine that a multi million dollar aircraft is going to advertise themselves over a high-threat area with light - IR or otherwise.

a reply to: parad0x122

Thats the one problem with such degraded video, it'd be easy to manipulate and place in different CGI elements that would otherwise make it appear realistic

Another is that Nightvision quality back they, especially at a distance was sub par at best and they were susceptible to light and sensor aberrations.

what is interesting in the first video at 4:22-4:27, you catch a glimpse of something moving dramatically.... but again... could easily have been an added CGI element.

Moving back to the Companion aircraft, wouldn't it be safe to assume that NG was the primary contractor, as LM was already successful with other projects (hence did not really need funding at the time). A way to keep the MIC "healthy" with competition, even though the projects shared some capabilities.

It had already been under development for some time as a testbed for low RCS and as an initial strike platform that could easily slide into enemy AA defense and radar systems. In doing so making it easier for the F-117 and cruise missiles to find and strike secondary targets.

Or was it just that a testbed that "never" saw combat so to speak, and will never come into the light as a result?

a reply to: parad0x122

I found it googling Hustler pics, but my search prediction always takes me to airplanes instead. Hey-Oh!