Mystery aircraft photographed over Texas

[Mat Parry]

I'm struggling to remember a recent low observable design or concept which demonstrated a curved trailing edge...

However, it is entirely possible that my memory is faulty on this matter

 

[quellish]

I'm struggling to remember a recent low observable design or concept which demonstrated a curved trailing edge...

However, it is entirely possible that my memory is faulty on this matter

The physics are straightforward. If you are only able to understand things by looking at past designs rather than the principles that drive them, expect a lot of surprises in the future.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Straight planform edges are good for a spiky RCS where the radar returns are concentrated in lobes. This was one of the major breakthroughs of stealth - you can't actually not reflect anything, so if you try to reflect EVERYTHING in the smallest number of directions the chances of detection are pretty small.

The problem with earlier attempts at stealth e.g. the NAA Flying Banana was that curves give a proportionally smaller radar return but over a much wider range of angles. Its slightly hard to see in all directions rather than (like the F-117) near invisible in all but a few.

Speculation: everything since the F-117 has combined straight edges with some curves, so its not essential to have all straight edges. Presumably at some point, it may be desirable to stop concentrating major returns in a few directions and instead try for minimum returns in all directions to achieve "ultra stealth", assuming the RCS modelling and materials are up to it.

 

[Mat Parry]

The physics are straightforward. If you are only able to understand things by looking at past designs rather than the principles that drive them, expect a lot of surprises in the future.

mmm, I thought my original post made it clear that I was open to the driving principles delivering a new design language that differs from the current edge alignment paradigm

The organic looking curved trailing edge does not fit with current known low observable design principles, from this we could infer either:

• this is a new design language that has replaced planform edge alignment

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Thou shan`t forget that it might be a scale demonstator, which would be a dissapointment for me. Is it a SeniorPeg derivative?Drones- RQ-180, RQ-170 , who knows!?( Chorus) Is it a bird? is it a plane? Is it a birdplane?

 

[sferrin]

Straight planform edges are good for a spiky RCS where the radar returns are concentrated in lobes. This was one of the major breakthroughs of stealth - you can't actually not reflect anything, so if you try to reflect EVERYTHING in the smallest number of directions the chances of detection are pretty small.

The problem with earlier attempts at stealth e.g. the NAA Flying Banana was that curves give a proportionally smaller radar return but over a much wider range of angles. Its slightly hard to see in all directions rather than (like the F-117) near invisible in all but a few.

Speculation: everything since the F-117 has combined straight edges with some curves, so its not essential to have all straight edges.

You'll note that for the very stealthy items (B-2, X-47B, Phantom Ray, etc.) the plan-view is made of straight edges while the profile is where you see the curves.

Presumably at some point, it may be desirable to stop concentrating major returns in a few directions and instead try for minimum returns in all directions to achieve "ultra stealth", assuming the RCS modelling and materials are up to it.

Like the classic Flying Saucer? [/quote]

 

[Stargazer]

Thou shan`t forget that it might be a scale demonstator, which would be a dissapointment for me. Is it a SeniorPeg derivative?Drones- RQ-180, RQ-170 , who knows!?( Chorus) Is it a bird? is it a plane? Is it a birdplane?

But THREE scale demonstrators??

Unless they hid the others, there was only ONE Tacit Blue, only ONE Bird of Prey...

 

[aliensporebomb]

The possible:
-new aircraft design flown when eyes in the sky would be watching?


The unlikely:
-some demonstrators built for a cancelled project gathering dust flown to suggest a fleet of new somethings?


The ridiculous:
-flight proficiency checkout flights for new cadets and no T-33's available on the tarmac so they flew these?


Yes, being April Fool's I have to make some kind of humorous suggestions.


Thinking: my friend just got himself a 500mm lens for his DSLR. You can invade the personal space of a trumpeter swan from hundreds of feet away with that thing. It's ridiculous. He also has a Tamron AF 2x teleconverter and has tried using it with that lens. It's insane since it doubles your power although focusing is a bit challenging.


Douglass was using a 300mm on his Nikon D70. I keep wondering what the pics would have looked like using a more powerful lens than his 300mm. Also, wasn't anyone out taking pictures that day besides Douglass and his friend?


The shot with the three a/c with the contrails would make me go "I have my smartphone, better than nothing" and take a shot.
But I'm an airplane buff. Maybe contrails are overhead all day down there and people don't pay attention to them. But I would.

 

[SOC]

But THREE scale demonstrators??

Unless they hid the others, there was only ONE Tacit Blue, only ONE Bird of Prey...

Yes, but there were two HAVE BLUE demonstrators, which were intended to lead to a production airframe. So there is a precedent for having multiple demonstrators if you intend to actually build something out of the program rather than just evaluate something i.e. Bird of Prey.

 

[fightingirish]

Rossiya Today America: Bill Sweetman on Mystery aircraft over Texas

http://youtu.be/1Rm7okJdrqk

 

[Dreamfighter]

Yes, but there were two HAVE BLUE demonstrators,

Back in the days when there was (relatively) plenty of cash for building more then one (fighter-sized) demonstrator...


IF this sighting is not about B-2(s) but actually about (a) classified aircraft and the spotters' estimates about size are right, imho the available options would be:

a) successor to B-2 and/or demonstrator(s) for LRS-B
b) an ATA-B type of thing; regional/medium bomber(s), somewhat smaller then B-2 but (much) larger the retired F-117
c) successor(s) to U-2 / RQ-4 / SR-71, but not being the (still rumoured/classified) unmanned RQ-180 or (still conceptual) SR-72.
d) large flying microwave-oven(s)
e) airlifter(s)

 

[Stargazer]

c) successor(s) to U-2 / RQ-4 / SR-71, but not being the (still rumoured/classified) unmanned RQ-180 or (still conceptual) SR-72.
e) airlifter(s)

The two *alleged* programs that match these two are the TR-3A (late 1980s) and Senior Citizen (mid-1990s), respectively.

 

[sublight_]

c) successor(s) to U-2 / RQ-4 / SR-71, but not being the (still rumoured/classified) unmanned RQ-180 or (still conceptual) SR-72.
e) airlifter(s)

The two *alleged* programs that match these two are the TR-3A (late 1980s) and Senior Citizen (mid-1990s), respectively.

But why the thinking that only the Air Force is going to have classified things flying around? At the time of the F-117, Ben Rich said he was working on something similar for the Navy, and that an Air Force general barged his way into a classified room and blew his top because it looked like F-117. Rich also said the Navy had way more classified programs than the Air Force.

 

[Stargazer]

But why the thinking that only the Air Force is going to have classified things flying around? At the time of the F-117, Ben Rich said he was working on something similar for the Navy, and that an Air Force general barged his way into a classified room and blew his top because it looked like F-117. Rich also said the Navy had way more classified programs than the Air Force.

You certainly do have a point here. But would the Navy fly its secret aircraft in Texas?

 

[sublight_]

But why the thinking that only the Air Force is going to have classified things flying around? At the time of the F-117, Ben Rich said he was working on something similar for the Navy, and that an Air Force general barged his way into a classified room and blew his top because it looked like F-117. Rich also said the Navy had way more classified programs than the Air Force.

You certainly do have a point here. But would the Navy fly it's secret aircraft in Texas?

Maybe they were headed from NAVAIR west coast to NAVAIR east coast? It wouldn't be completely crazy to assume after all these years that somebody someday was finally going to see some Navy classified airframes....

 

[quellish]

Rich also said the Navy had way more classified programs than the Air Force.

"Classified program" does not equal "exotic aircraft".

 

[sublight_]

Rich also said the Navy had way more classified programs than the Air Force.

"Classified program" does not equal "exotic aircraft".

Naval "Classified program" does not equal "limited to oceangoing platforms".....

 

[Stargazer]

"Classified program" does not equal "exotic aircraft".

Naval "Classified program" does not equal "limited to oceangoing platforms".....

"Classified program" for the Navy does not equal just "exotic aircraft" or "seagoing platforms". It can also be submarine technology, underwater installations, mines, seashore-based tests, normal landbased aircraft used to test secret technology, and so forth...

 

[sallows01]

But why the thinking that only the Air Force is going to have classified
things flying around? At the time of the F-117, Ben Rich said he was working on
something similar for the Navy, and that an Air Force general barged his way
into a classified room and blew his top because it looked like F-117. Rich also
said the Navy had way more classified programs than the Air Force.

I had always assumed, possibly erroneously, that he was referring to the Sea Shadow when he made this statement in his autobiography. Whilst that is obviously a ship you could still definately classify it as similiar in look.

 

[Stargazer]

There were several sightings in the early 1990s of an aircraft that was sometimes called "the Artichoke". While possessing the same general layout as the F-117 it had a little more complicated rear end with a dented trailing edge, if I'm not mistaken. When I read that statement by Ben Rich I thought that might be it. After all, the Artichoke as depicted was not unlike the planned F-117N "Seahawk".

 

[Jeb]

Looks kinda like an H-P Victor, with the rear fuselage/T-tail being obscured by the jet efflux..

And if that's the "looks like" theory, that we're not seeing the tail end, then I'm calling for this to be some development of the Speed Agile concept.


We've got stealthy airlifters, folks.

 

[coach46]

the Artichoke

There were several sightings in the early 1990s of an aircraft that was sometimes called "the Artichoke". While possessing the same general layout as the F-117 it had a little more complicated rear end with a dented trailing edge, if I'm not mistaken. When I read that statement by Ben Rich I thought that might be it. After all, the Artichoke as depicted was not unlike the planned F-117N "Seahawk".

 

[Black Dog]

Looks kinda like an H-P Victor, with the rear fuselage/T-tail being obscured by the jet efflux..

And if that's the "looks like" theory, that we're not seeing the tail end, then I'm calling for this to be some development of the Speed Agile concept.


We've got stealthy airlifters, folks.

Senior Citizen?

 

[Dreamfighter]

Concerning the artistic drawing of Artichoke by Mr. Douglass 2 posts above;
Maybe the mysterious aircraft that drawing was based on was... just a F-117? :-X

We've got stealthy airlifters, folks.

They're being used to airlift the other classified stealth-aircraft.

 

[quellish]

There were several sightings in the early 1990s of an aircraft that was sometimes called "the Artichoke". While possessing the same general layout as the F-117 it had a little more complicated rear end with a dented trailing edge, if I'm not mistaken. When I read that statement by Ben Rich I thought that might be it. After all, the Artichoke as depicted was not unlike the planned F-117N "Seahawk".

During the mid/late 90s I had the opportunity to follow up with several individuals who had seen "The Artichoke". Without going into too much detail, it was sighted in places where F-117s were operating, and in two cases were definitely F-117s that were flying in primer or otherwise altered paint scheme. F-117s could be seen with altered paint schemes a number of times over the lifetime of the program.

"The Artichoke"
- Same leading edge sweep as F-117
- "Slightly larger" (this is very hard for observers to estimate) than F-117
- More serrations on trailing edge than F-117

 

[quellish]

"Classified program" for the Navy does not equal just "exotic aircraft" or "seagoing platforms". It can also be submarine technology, underwater installations, mines, seashore-based tests, normal landbased aircraft used to test secret technology, and so forth...

It can also be....
- Missiles
- Intelligence programs
- Software
- Sensors
- etc.

The Navy has a number of long running classified programs supporting intelligence collection. They also have several that can be best described as software or electronic capabilities.

In the early 70s and early 80s the Navy had several (large) classified programs aimed at developing platforms with reduced observables and/or unique sensing capabilities. The "Quiet Attack Aircraft" is well documented here on the forum, and around the same time the Navy was involved in a similar effort with the Skunk Works. Years later the Navy was very, very interested in ways to deal with Soviet threats to carrier battle groups. The Navy had their efforts in this area, and DARPA had their own - largely separate from the Navy's own work.

DARPA saw the needs of the Navy as well as Air Force and created programs to develop technologies to support both. TEAL RAIN, TEAL CAMEO, and several hypersonics programs were the result of DARPA's work in that area. When these (and other) programs were then turned over to the Navy and Air Force, they died fairly quickly.

For the Navy to have a secret, operational aircraft is another thing entirely. Where would they base it to keep it from being seen? Who would fly it?

 

[Sundog]

For the Navy to have a secret, operational aircraft is another thing entirely. Where would they base it to keep it from being seen? Who would fly it?

On their super secret stealthy submarine aircraft carriers, of course!

Having spewed the snark, do we know of any secret Navy aircraft having flown? Would they be allowed to fly them out of Area-51 (Homey AFB) due to the required secrecy? Of course, if you meant operationally, it seems they would be limited to Diego Garcia, Kwajelin, and any other places with islands that are completely government controlled, which aren't too many and would certainly limit their effectiveness. In which case, it seems it would make more sense to just let the USAF spend their money on those programs. The Northrop X-47B, to me, makes more sense for the Navy.

 

[Black Dog]

Having spewed the snark, do we know of any secret Navy aircraft having flown? Would they be allowed to fly them out of Area-51 (Homey AFB) due to the required secrecy?

Maybe the A-12, but it hasn't been said if any flying prototypes were actually built I believe. Model 100/Sneaky Pete were also related to that I think but they were USAF.

 

[Stargazer]

Having spewed the snark, do we know of any secret Navy aircraft having flown? Would they be allowed to fly them out of Area-51 (Homey AFB) due to the required secrecy? Of course, if you meant operationally, it seems they would be limited to Diego Garcia, Kwajelin, and any other places with islands that are completely government controlled, which aren't too many and would certainly limit their effectiveness. In which case, it seems it would make more sense to just let the USAF spend their money on those programs.

Hence my comment:

But would the Navy fly its secret aircraft in Texas?

I can't really see the USN flying experimentally (let alone operationally) secret aircraft from USAF bases...

 

[quellish]

I can't really see the USN flying experimentally (let alone operationally) secret aircraft from USAF bases...

USN and *other* services/agencies/governments regularly use "secret" USAF bases or participate in programs there. So it's not unheard of. Groom Lake, for example, is considered a national asset. Tonopah is still owned by DoE.
USN, though, does have their own facilities that are a bit less visible.

 

[bobbymike]

I can't really see the USN flying experimentally (let alone operationally) secret aircraft from USAF bases...

USN and *other* services/agencies/governments regularly use "secret" USAF bases or participate in programs there. So it's not unheard of. Groom Lake, for example, is considered a national asset. Tonopah is still owned by DoE.
USN, though, does have their own facilities that are a bit less visible.

What about China Lake NAWS?

 

[Whisperstream]

At the time of the F-117, Ben Rich said he was working on something similar for the Navy, and that an Air Force general barged his way into a classified room and blew his top because it looked like F-117.

The Navy project that Rich was referring to was TACIT GOLD, otherwise known as Sea Shadow. It was a stealth ship, not an airplane, but it did bear a striking resemblance to the F-117A.

 

[Raptor_101]

I think this should be an interesting and fitting addition to the topic.


Back in February an amateur photographer named Jeff Templin while taking pictures of animals spotted odd contrails.


To quote the article:

“Right over the city, clear as a bell,” said Templin. “Anyone that was looking up would have seen it. You don’t usually see military or even civilian aircraft’s jets that leave contrails making those kind of severe departures off of the given route.”
Templin says the aircraft made several; severe 180 degree turns in the sky in the shape of an “S”, even more unusual.

Basically from the image posted on the article page, the aircraft looks to be like the one spotted over Texas with a straight or curved trailing edge (picture quality is low, so I can't pin the shape down). It is of flying wing configuration and there are two closely spaced contrails behind it.


Picture and video report are at this link: http://ksn.com/2014/04/16/wichitas-mystery-in-the-sky/

 

[flateric]

this time it's apparently B-2

 

[Stargazer]

picture quality is low, so I can't pin the shape down

this time it's apparently B-2

Allow me to differ. Maybe it's got to do with my computer screen's brightness settings, but I can clearly see a triangular shape that is almost exactly the same as that of the cancelled A-12.

 

[archipeppe]

this time it's apparently B-2

I don't guess, it seems more like the cancelled A-12....

 

[Stargazer]

Here is a set of three versions of that photo after applying various filters.

 

[J.A.W.]

Bill Gunston wrote that the B-2 incorporated a powerful electromagnetic system,
- could that be causing the 'mirage'-like shimmering/distortion effect captured by the camera?

 

[flateric]

Bill Gunston wrote that the B-2 incorporated a powerful electromagnetic system,
- could that be causing the 'mirage'-like shimmering/distortion effect captured by the camera?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2076.0.html

 

[flateric]

this time it's apparently B-2

I don't guess, it seems more like the cancelled A-12....

light can make interesting tricks on complicated curved surfaces...compare to this shot of B-2