Register here

Author Topic: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter  (Read 94517 times)

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #150 on: April 07, 2015, 01:04:27 am »
It's very likely that this document was just repeating what was being reported in the popular press at the time.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10306
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #151 on: April 07, 2015, 01:22:46 am »
The Loral/Northrop F-19 Specter may or may not have been considered for prototyping at some point...

One thing for sure though, the design must have been a little more than PR/disinformation material since it featured prominently as an example of a fighter design with desirable stealth characteristics in a once top secret CIA report that was partially "sanitized" for public release...

As for the elusive "TR-3/Black Manta" being the same as "CSIRS", you may find this excerpt from the same CIA document (dated 1985) worthy of interest. It states that CSIRS was in effect simply what was later known as the F-117. This seems to be confirmed by the second document which calls it "F-19" in quotes for lack of a better designation.

Quote
The Lockheed Company, using the experience it gained in designing its SR-71 and A-11 aircraft, is at present building 29 reconnaissance aircraft which have received the designation CSIRS. Their construction is being financed by the project for designing the future ATF fighter aircraft.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_43.PDF
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_45.PDF

Disagree on this.

1) There is no evidence there was such a design beyond a concept design for a Loral advert.

2) It fundamentally fails to adhere to the rules of stealth.

3) The report you link to is about Soviet Stealth. It doesn't disclose anything about US stealth beyond public speculation of the time. In lieu of a picture of the F-117 or ATB, which could not be included due to its classification, and which the report authors probably had no access to, they used a well known image instead.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline xstatic3000

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #152 on: April 07, 2015, 08:17:26 am »

Paul brings up a very important point - a CIA analyst preparing a largely open-source intelligence report on Soviet Stealth would almost certainly not have access to or a "Need to Know" about the configuration of the F-117. That's not how classification rules work.




As for the elusive "TR-3/Black Manta" being the same as "CSIRS", you may find this excerpt from the same CIA document (dated 1985) worthy of interest. It states that CSIRS was in effect simply what was later known as the F-117. This seems to be confirmed by the second document which calls it "F-19" in quotes for lack of a better designation.


Here is our thread on CSIRS, which has no connection with either the F-117/Senior Trend or the nonexistent "TR-3/Black Manta":


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20795.0.html
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 08:24:18 am by xstatic3000 »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #153 on: April 07, 2015, 03:01:07 pm »
Here is our thread on CSIRS, which has no connection with either the F-117/Senior Trend or the nonexistent "TR-3/Black Manta":

I know that thread, thanks, I even wrote in it...  ;)

Since CSIRS has never been clearly explained, what exactly makes you assert so positively that "CSIRS has no connection with (...) the F-117/Senior Trend"?

The not-yet-designated F-117 was a covert reconnaissance-strike type, and the fact that 29 were said to have been produced thus far by Lockheed makes it pretty obvious to me that the author is talking about the same aircraft.

You're entitled to disagree of course, but what bugs me is that we have a document here that is official, from that era, clearly asserting that Lockheed has produced 29 aircraft for the CSIRS program, but you'd like to think there is more to CSIRS than that. Inasmuch as I'd LOVE to hear there were plenty more secret types in the works or in testing, I can see no reason not to take this particular assertion at face value.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #154 on: April 08, 2015, 03:29:03 pm »

Since CSIRS has never been clearly explained, what exactly makes you assert so positively that "CSIRS has no connection with (...) the F-117/Senior Trend"?


CSIRS never existed as a program.
The phrase "Covert, Survivable In-Weather Reconnaisance/Strike" made it into the press sometime in the early 80s (probably from the Senate proceedings Overscan posted), and was shortened by the press to "CSIRS". In the absence of real information on the rumored stealth fighter program those terms took on a life of their own.


The reality is that "Covert, Survivable In-Weather Reconnaisance/Strike" was a phrase often used in the descriptions of elements of the Covert Strike programs. Covert Strike was a set of programs with the intent of developing and demonstrating new radar concepts that would not reveal the attacking aircraft's position. This involved a remote radar illuminating (ground) targets for the attacking aircraft, which would remain passive. It also involved newer LPI radar techniques and munitions that could take advantage of the new capabilities. Some currently fielded systems have "Covert Strike" radars.


The only connection between Covert Strike and the F-117 program was a short demonstration of a Hughes radar system fitted to an F-117. IIRC that was done in 1986.

The not-yet-designated F-117 was a covert reconnaissance-strike type, and the fact that 29 were said to have been produced thus far by Lockheed makes it pretty obvious to me that the author is talking about the same aircraft.



It still seems to me that the author was speculating or repeating what was reported in the press at the time. The F-117 was never intended to perform reconnaissance.
The Aronstein, Piccirillo F-117 book has a survey of some of the press reports of that era as an appendix. Though not detailed, it should give the reader some idea of how the legend of the F-19 evolved over time.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 12:58:06 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 629
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #155 on: April 09, 2015, 05:49:43 am »
Here is a UPI example of the press calling it CSIRS in 1986.


WASHINGTON -- Information shut off so quickly it seemed as if Martians had landed in California, but defense experts say the Air Force merely was hiding the crash of its supersecret F-19 Stealth fighter. Conceived as being invisible to hostile radar, the $150 million Stealth fighter presents no more than a ghostly image to the American public. Yet the fiery crash of a plane 12 miles outside of Bakersfield, Calif., on July 11 not only ignited a brush fire that consumed 145 acres, it reawakened interest in the F-19, as the Stealth fighter has been dubbed.
The Air Force -- indeed, the entire Defense Department -- denies the existence of what has become the most pursued and elusive aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, a recluse at a desert base familiar only to its pilots, maintenance crews and others elsewhere charged with the ``need to know.``But snooping by experts in and out of government who make it their business to learn about military technology and its price tag has lifted corners of the veil dropped over the F-19. The plane also is known as the Covert Survivable In-Weather Reconnaissance Strike aircraft. Emphasis has been put on ``covert`` because the CIA may find uses for the plane, one source said. The F-19 fits into C-5A Galaxy transports, which means it can be ferried to U.S. air bases anywhere.
In piecing together reports from publications and sources, which the Air Force refuses to confirm, the F-19 emerges as a major secret weapon with a possible role in a nuclear war -- either for suppressing Soviet air defenses or slipping through them to attack mobile targets with atomic weapons. After several prototypes of the plane were built by the Lockheed Corp. in the late 1970s, the F-19 went into full production in 1981 at a company plant in Palmdale, Calif., the sources said.


Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #156 on: April 09, 2015, 12:04:46 pm »
Thanks a lot, sublight is back.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10306
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #157 on: April 09, 2015, 12:41:21 pm »
The CSIRS=Stealth fighter thing was probably caused by a single journalist making a wrong association (probably in AWST) which was repeated ad infinitum by other sources. We now know what program  "Covert Survivable In-Weather Reconnaissance Strike" actually referred to.  I would suggest that, possibly, there is a connection between  "Covert Survivable In-Weather Reconnaissance Strike" radar technologies and Northrop's Tacit Blue program, but that is the extent of the truth here.

There is simply zero evidence of a "Loral-Northrop F-19".
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10306
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 12:58:10 pm by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10306
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #159 on: April 09, 2015, 12:57:55 pm »
And this 1976 report correctly uses "XST" as the designation for Lockheed's "Stealth Fighter".

 https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%202367.html
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9812
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #161 on: April 09, 2015, 02:12:58 pm »
I would suggest that, possibly, there is a connection between  "Covert Survivable In-Weather Reconnaissance Strike" radar technologies and Northrop's Tacit Blue program, but that is the extent of the truth here.



There is, BSAX was part of the larger group of Covert Strike programs and participated in some of those tests.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 629
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #162 on: April 09, 2015, 03:09:06 pm »
And this 1976 report correctly uses "XST" as the designation for Lockheed's "Stealth Fighter".

 https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%202367.html

Wow, I am quite surprised at the mention of XST, even though they got the acronym wrong. I guess they got REALLY serious about classification once the RCS results starting piling up?

Offline JimK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #163 on: December 03, 2015, 03:34:37 pm »
The artwork you are showing was done by an artist named Atilla Hejja.  The configuration was purely his invention and has no basis in any actual program that I'm aware of.  If I remember correctly, he actually did a cutaway illustration of the airplane which had no fewer than 4 engines.  Indeed, looking at the design, except for the canted verticals and top mounted intake, it bears little homage to low observable aircraft design.

Just for completeness of this discussion, here is that cutaway from the October 11, 1982 issue of AW&ST.  It is interesting to see what an aviation artist considered relevant to a "stealth" design a third of a century ago:  Upper surface inlet and exhaust. Check! Internal weapons bay. Check!  SR-71 fuselage sections. Check!  IRST sensor. Check! Canted verticals. Check! (Although of ridiculous planform and poor location.)  But what are those pipes in the wing leading edge and why the large holes in the weapons bay aft bulkhead? And that canopy: fifty percent larger that an F-16's!  How much elevon power it would take to lift that nose about the apparent main gear location.  Ahh.  That's what that canard is for!  It does show that some thought went beyond the external shape.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2015, 02:36:53 pm by JimK »

Offline Vladimir

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 322
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #164 on: December 05, 2015, 07:21:16 am »
Hi, when i was a boy i think that F-19 real plane...according to this "Turbo" chewing gum  ;D