F-19?

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Lockheed had the benefit of having developed a radar cross-section modeling program. Northrop had to pretty much experiment with different shapes. And from my understanding Northrop lost because the side RCS of their XST was worse. So I don't see their design being used for anything.

originally posted by: Drunkenparrot
It would fit that if the Companion rumor is true it is based on Northrops XST entry

It only fits if we ignore everything that has been said about the aircaft.

Northrops XST looks similar to the Have Blue. The Companion doesnt look anything like it. Not similar, completely different. As in not faceted. In fact it has a pretty unique shape.

The official history is just ... incomplete.

a reply to: Masisoar

Yes i completely understand what your saying, and am well aware of the various roles different aircraft play. Its just hard to pin the role, that the companion played, on any one aircraft as many spoken of here can be used in different roles/theatres.

Just to add; my thoughts stray toward the yf -23 'grey ghost' or 'black Widow 2'..... Apparently they first flew in 1990 ( officially)..... I still wouldnt bet any substantial amount on that tho 😁

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: Masisoar
Just to add; my thoughts stray toward the yf -23 'grey ghost' or 'black Widow 2'..... Apparently they first flew in 1990 ( officially)..... I still wouldnt bet any substantial amount on that tho 😁

Fun idea but it seems too new. The description of what companion’s role was fits better with the BSAX program. Time period matches better too.

We know Tacit Blue came out of that program but did anything else?

Aaaaand never mind. Just read that BSAX was a sole source project given to Northrop. I had just figured it was an o pen competition. Guess their demonstrator that lost to Have Blue showed enough promise the govt. decided to throw money at them to see what they could do.

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire

The aircraft discussed there can't go in with an F-117 though. For example, Desert Storm, the F-117 was the only aircraft allowed over Baghdad because of the defenses. So you have to rely purely on stealth. A companion aircraft that could do some of the missions mentioned above would have been invaluable.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Believe me..... Im still looking at all angles lol, ive even pondered Teledyne Ryan as being a contributor around that time..... Had to of done something special for all the mention they get.

XST model 268 was a beauty in her day.

originally posted by: PhantomTwo

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: Masisoar
Just to add; my thoughts stray toward the yf -23 'grey ghost' or 'black Widow 2'..... Apparently they first flew in 1990 ( officially)..... I still wouldnt bet any substantial amount on that tho 😁

Fun idea but it seems too new. The description of what companion’s role was fits better with the BSAX program. Time period matches better too.

Jan 91- feb 91 when the main air campaign happened, would of been exactly on the nail for the yf-23...... If it first flew in 1990.

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire

The Companion is at least as old as the F117. YF-23, BSAX and whatnot dont fit.

I’ve been interested and on the tail or tails you could say of the “Companion” for a long time - even back to the old days of a certain publication. There are a lot of things that are hard to find on the internet anymore - lost to time I guess. What I’ve learned:

1. It was a first generation stealth aircraft - maybe predating the F-117 - but I doubt by much. Only about 30-60 were made (probably on the lower end).
2. It’s name was R-119 Manta, Specter, or Phantasm (probably the first).
3. It was an SEAD/wild weasel/EW aircraft originally designed for a different mission (probably ISR or attack)
4. It was refueled as late as 2015.
5. It was probably retired around that time.
6. The F-35 and it’s networked sensors can pretty much do anything the R-119 could do.
7. It may have had a suppressed IR exhaust profile like the F-117... providing some reason to keep it around with all of Russia’s advanced IRSTs flying around.
8. As far as looks/planform - it’s all over the map but leading contenders were a small triangular craft like the McDonell YF-118a Kestrel on deviant art, a blended manta-shaped thing like exists in some old artwork and not too far the Testers F-19 model, a smaller Lockheed VS-07-type bird, or something very weird like the North American Silent Night.
9. It was used in the first Gulf War.
10. It’s quiet.
11. It’s literally and figuratively black and will stay that way for a while yet due more to the sensitivity of its role than its design being spectacular - remember its a mid 70s to early 80s design approaching 40 - 50 years old.
12. I must add that I was never fully convinced that it existed... it’s a definite maybe.

a reply to: Desertwatcher1

Thank you for all that..... Its made things so much clearer.... Its getting harder to gather information because like you say, its so scattered around the internet.

Has anybody ever made the correct guess regarding the companion, even if those in the know cant say.... Someone must have came up with the right answer.... Surely.

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire

It takes much longer than a year to get to even IOC.

a reply to: Desertwatcher1

The R-119 designation is incorrect. The US hasn't built a straight "R" platform that I can remember off the top of my head, and probably never will.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There is really no difference between"R" and say "S", "O" or "E". Pure happenstance that there never was an aircraft designated R-1 or something.

a reply to: mightmight

No, but they aren't used as stand alone designations either.

TR-3A black manta?? .... or did i just kick a hornets nest 😂.

a reply to: Zaphod58

E-1 Tracer, E-2 Hawkeye, E-3 Sentry, S-2 Tracker, S-3 Viking, O-2 Skymaster...

R-1whatever wannabe - why not

a reply to: mightmight

None of which are combat aircraft used for missions like SEAD/DEAD. And even the S-3 combat use was surpassed by other missions. But for the sake of clarity, those designations are not used for combat aircraft that are going in with a strike package. They are used for support aircraft.

As for "R-1xx", because that's not the designation used.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I won't discuss the actual desgination of the aircraft in th open, i just want to point out how your reasoning sucks

The desgination may very well have been assigned before anyone thought about this aircraft accompanying a strike package. Companion buisness came later as did other assignments.
It may also just be a case of misdirection to obscure the actual mission(s) of the aircraft. Or some other bs reasoning *cough* F-117 *cough*

a reply to: mightmight

Sure it sucks. Ok. Except I've actually seen a Dash One that referenced it. It was buried down the page where if you read too fast you'd skip right over it.