Musings on the "F-117 Companion"

[Ravinoff]

Okay, noticed the TR-3 thread was bumped again, and I was gonna make this a post there, but as it concerns a bit of a broader spectrum than just the (probably fictional) TR-3, I may as well make a thread out of it. I've been doing some thinking on the whole concept of the F-117 Companion and its supposed role of lasing targets for Paveways, and something sort of occurred to me.

What's a role that a stealth aircraft is inherently suited for, where a noticeable capability gap has existed since the early stealth era, but has never been even considered in open literature (that I know of, at least)? Suppression of enemy air defenses. Yeah, the F-4G was around until '96, and the AGM-69 SRAM and AGM-86 ALCM cover similar territory, but think for a moment about the advantages a "Sneaky Weasel" would bring to the table, from the perspective of a Cold War Air Force planner. Sure, those new Rockwell B-1Bs are neat and have a slightly reduced RCS, and the rumor going around is that somebody is working on a real stealth bomber, but the SAC workhorse is still the good old B-52. But the Soviets are getting damn good at building SAMs, and it's starting to look like they could even shoot down the new ALCM standoff missiles (though by pure weight of numbers the cruise missile bus still should work).

And then the eureka moment hits. This new stealth thing...what if we built a low-flying stealth penetrator that's nearly invisible to radar and loaded to the gills with Shrikes/Standard ARMs/HARMs and even SRAMs? Send them in ahead of the B-52 fleet who'll be launching hordes of decoys, and as soon as the Soviet radars start lighting up the Sneaky Weasels blast them off the map. So a few of these get built, budgets being what they are and the political turbulence of the time. Fast forward ten years or so, and they're sitting around mothballed since the war everyone planned for never happened, but it's starting to look like this Saddam Hussein guy is going to be trouble. The Iraqis are impressive on paper and we don't know how this is going to play out, so hell, dust off those Sneaky Weasel prototypes and we'll rig them with PAVE SPIKE pods to lase priority targets for the heavy hitters.

Thoughts/ideas/reasons I'm an idiot and this wouldn't work, anyone?

 

[Ravinoff]

Just a quick note, the F-117A had a laser designator in the nose of the aircraft.

If a "Companion" did exist, it would have more than likely fulfilled an EA role as it's an integral part of SEAD missions.

Lasing targets was the rumor I've always heard, don't know enough about those systems to say whether a secondary low-flying spotter bird would be useful.

And I'm mildly clueless on the acronyms, what's EA? I know EW (which, come to think of it, is also a good possibility for a Companion), but EA doesn't sound familiar.

 

[Arjen]

On the other hand, you could simply explain what EA stands for. AYBIU.

 

[TsrJoe]

im assuming EA is a not widely used acronym in this context for Electronic Attack

 

[Arjen]

There I was, mistaking it for Environmental Awareness.

 

[sferrin]

Never heard it called "EA" either. ECM, ESM, elint, electronic attack, yes. "EA"? No.

 

[_Del_]

It's a newish acronym for all the things that used to be covered by EW. Not sure why it has gained traction other than marketing and an institutional need for staff officers to keep rewriting "the book" to show evolutionary progression. I suppose some aspects of current EW capability are indeed closer to an "attack" than simple " counter-measures". But "warfare" seemed to cover this just as well.

 

[kaiserd]

There I was, mistaking it for Environmental Awareness.

Electronic Arts

 

[marauder2048]

It's a newish acronym for all the things that used to be covered by EW.

Things like anti-radiation missiles and directed energy weren't really covered by EW.

 

[_Del_]

Even SEAD/DEAD and such is now broadly covered by EW. The new breakdown is Attack, Protection, and Support (sometimes "Support Measures"). It all falls broadly under EW. The buzzword is "dominance" now. So you "Attack"-ing the enemies Electronic systems and suppressing his defenses, you "Protect" your own ability to make war electronically, and "Support" is everything covered in earlier acronyms like ESM, ELINT, etc to provide information. If you do this, you "dominate" EW, or acheive "EM spectral dominance" , or "multi-spectrum dominance" or whatever buzzword is in vogue.
"Attack" to deny the enemy access to the EM spectrum. "Protect" our own ability to use it. "Support" conventional decision-makers with information gathered via the EM spectrum.
You see them in staff work, RFI/RFP, occasional industry comments (and even ads). The only one that is relatively common in the wild is EA, and like EW, it is usually used in the broadest, least precise manner possible.

 

[marauder2048]

Even SEAD/DEAD and such is now broadly covered by EW.

Not really since SEAD/DEAD has to cover non-emitters and/or sensors that don't operate in the electromagnetic spectrum.
No one regards an ATACMS attack on a AAA site as EW or EA.

The new breakdown is Attack, Protection, and Support (sometimes "Support Measures").

If by new do you mean at least 25 years old?

 

[_Del_]

If by new do you mean at least 25 years old?

If you say so. I just know that despite working in the defense industry, I've only seen it in the past 10 years perhaps, and I haven't seen EA in trade mags and the like until the past five or so. And even now, it is infrequent. I'm not directly involved in EW efforts, but I've also been around. I've never seen EP or ES or ESM in a trade mag or other media that I can recall. I've only seen them in think tank "white papers" and the occasional staff paper or RFI. Conversationally, I don't know anyone who uses those acronyms even when discussing EW.
I'm not an encyclopedia; I can only relate my experience. If you've been using those terms for 25 years, you're ahead of the Del Curve.

 

[marauder2048]

FM 34-1 from 1994. There were earlier doctrinal publications on "electronic attack" but it was more along the lines of non-lethal jamming.

 

[RetiredAFGuy]

Would the "F-117 companion aircraft" be the "star shaped aircraft" reported over Iraq by US pilots and also be related to the "pointy things" referred to in the "boom operator's" stories about flying with classified aircraft during OIF?

 

[sublight_]

Would the "F-117 companion aircraft" be the "star shaped aircraft" reported over Iraq by US pilots and also be related to the "pointy things" referred to in the "boom operator's" stories about flying with classified aircraft during OIF?

That sounds like "the artichoke", which has been seen quite a few times flying with F-117.

 

[RavenOne]

Would the "F-117 companion aircraft" be the "star shaped aircraft" reported over Iraq by US pilots and also be related to the "pointy things" referred to in the "boom operator's" stories about flying with classified aircraft during OIF?

Are you on about this article?

Confessions Of A USAF KC-135 'Flying Gas Station' Boom Operator

It is one of the coolest jobs in the entire U.S. military, "Booms" as they are affectionately called, are the folks who directly provide sustenance to America's thirsty air power as the gas station's of the sky. From flying over war zones to fueling top secret experimental aircraft, being a Boom...

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

And the paragraph about OIF

”Refueling The F-117's & "The Others" At Night, With No Lights On & Radio Silent...”

Then further down he’s on about he is on about rotational duty at Edwards

Where it says ‘Secret Aircraft Needs Gas Too

‘I was actually part of a lucky crew that flew into "a test facility in the center of the Nellis Range Complex" for a SCI briefing on a particular jet I would be refueling. It was a first actual offload to said jet ever. So it was pretty cool to be able to do the honors.‘

cheers

 

[RetiredAFGuy]

Yes. That's the article about the boomer and his reference to "pointy things" and "unique aircraft". My reference to "a star shaped aircraft" seen over Iraq was from an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology over a decade ago.

Since then I've noticed some Boeing "swag" jewelry featuring a stylized star that caught my eye due to its resemblance to an aircraft silhouette (main body, nose, wings, horizontal tail surfaces). I think the star shaped aircraft is/was a Boeing product or a McDonnell Douglas product now claimed by Boeing.

Only time will tell. That is if there is ever any move to bring classified projects into the open.

 

[royabulgaf]

Yes. That's the article about the boomer and his reference to "pointy things" and "unique aircraft". My reference to "a star shaped aircraft" seen over Iraq was from an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology over a decade ago.

Since then I've noticed some Boeing "swag" jewelry featuring a stylized star that caught my eye due to its resemblance to an aircraft silhouette (main body, nose, wings, horizontal tail surfaces). I think the star shaped aircraft is/was a Boeing product or a McDonnell Douglas product now claimed by Boeing.

Only time will tell. That is if there is ever any move to bring classified projects into the open.

Star shape? Now bear with me. Take an F-18 pointing up. You have the nose, two sort of straight wings, and two largish horizontal stabilizers pointing outward and down. Sort of star shaped. putter around with the aircraft's attitude a bit. That might be the source of the reports.

 

[sublight_]

Artichoke.

 

[RetiredAFGuy]

Star shape? Now bear with me. Take an F-18 pointing up. You have the nose, two sort of straight wings, and two largish horizontal stabilizers pointing outward and down. Sort of star shaped. putter around with the aircraft's attitude a bit. That might be the source of the reports.

My take on the star shape aircraft silhouette was of a long-nose F-15 (think current U-2 nose) with very long wings, at least 3x normal F-15 wingspan. And the sightings were said to be of the aircraft flying over Iraq at very high altitudes, well above the US aircraft that reported them.

I think someone saw a need for a new high-altitude aircraft and did what Kelly Johnson did with the F-104 to create the U-2. And foreign F-15 operators should be included in a list of who might be operating such an aircraft.

 

[Q-nimbus]

There have been plenty of sightings and reports about the ‘Artichoke’, which could explain all the talks about the F117 companion.

If it exists, or has existed, even when merely as a prototype (and I’m very skeptical that if it existed, then certainly not as an operational type), why would it still be classified?

 

[sublight_]

There have been plenty of sightings and reports about the ‘Artichoke’, which could explain all the talks about the F117 companion.

If it exists, or has existed, even when merely as a prototype (and I’m very skeptical that if it existed, then certainly not as an operational type), why would it still be classified?

Because its a gigantic expensive bundle of regulatory landmines to get something declassified. Its easier for the Air Force to literally do nothing with classified records and materials than spend a really large amount of time and money to declassify them. Just look at how the Navy handled the USS Thresher records, they got sued until they released them.

If you did know in fact the Starfish existed, you'd have to know details about the program, then drag the Air Force into court and force them to release those records. The only way the truth is ever coming out is long after our deaths or somebody stumbles across some records while dumpster diving.

 

[Sundog]

See the design at the lower left from this tweet. It sure seems to me to be the flying artichoke.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1425113333686890509

View: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1425113333686890509?s=20

 

[flateric]

Eric Watanabe of LMSW produces these designs by hundreds

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Eric Watanabe of LMSW produces these designs by hundreds

Yes, the chances of LMSW revealing a still-secret program in the wall artwork is pretty low, assuming they want to remain in business.

 

[X-39]

Really?...

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/secret-behind-best-ever-ufo-sighting-revealed/news-story/105a08c1a7caf70f6f41c477a563fd3a

A former defence intelligence officer has revealed the secret behind the “world’s best” UFO photo, claiming the massive, diamond-shaped vehicle captured in the image was a top secret US aircraft.

Dr Clarke revealed to The Sun that his team has its strongest lead on the photograph to date. They believe the object may have been a piece of top secret and experimental US technology.

This is based on the testimony of a former UK Defence Intelligence officer who revealed, unprompted, that he was tasked with investigating the incident at Calvine.

The defence official, whose credentials were verified by Dr Clarke and his team, explained the UFO was believed to have been a “target designation companion” for F-117 Nighthawk stealth bombers.

The so-called “Calvine Vehicle” was understood to have been unmanned, very large and equipped with a high tech ground-mapping laser.

It was estimated to be between 100ft and 130ft long (30-40m) according to photo analysis by Sheffield Hallam University.

The “Calvine Vehicle” is understood to have been deployed from the US facility at RAF Machrihanish.

It was spotted and photographed just two days after Saddam Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait, sparking the first Gulf War.

 

[Bounce]

I firmly believe people are looking too far into it, if the there was such a thing as a companion there's a million reasons a modfied F-117 would have done the job such as being an already existing flying stealth platform with plenty of space to fit whatever sensor gizmo they needed in the bay. They already had the pilots / training / maintence knowledge etc.

Why go to all the effort to come up with an entirely secretive separate airframe.

 

[Hansblix]

Why go to all the effort to come up with an entirely secretive separate airframe.

I believe the idea was that the aircraft speculated to be the companion was built in tandem, possibly related to the XST program. It’s been said it was either:

A: a submission that lost in XST
B: something related to the Navy more than USAF
C: something involving nuclear proliferation monitoring

The aircraft wasn’t originally designed to be a companion for the F-117 and was more adapted out of necessity, repurposed for a role focused on ECM/Wild Weasel.

I would agree with you if it wasn’t for a few reputable people with proven track records on another forum that have said it exists. I believe they also said that if it was revealed that most would be very underwhelmed which leads me to believe that it’s a more traditional design that McD or someone of that era may build or submit.

Also don’t forget the F-117 was rumored to still be operational in 2008 going up against Russian radar and tech from the 70s-90s. The F-117 is a very specific tool that does one role very well. Pre-planned flights and greatly reduced heat and IR. That also means means it doesn’t do well with other roles but why it may have been used more recently compared to an F-22 or F-35. That being said it seems very plausible that the F-117 did fly with a companion.

 

[Whisperstream]

The concept of operations for the F-117A Nighthawk never required a companion. None of the available technical manuals or operational supplements suggest any need for a companion, nor do they have any conspicuous deletions that would suggest a shadow program. As a program, the F-117A had a huge footprint that was detectable in many ways: personnel and manpower movements, organizations, logistics, sightings, and crashes. There are no unit patches for mystery squadrons based with F-117A units. No surplus hardware or crash debris. None of the official USAF histories for F-117A units and organizations has even a hint of a companion. The Nighthawk community has a robust presence in terms of retired personnel from design and construction through the airplane's operational lifespan. There seems to be no comparable "companion" community. I'm just seeing no convincing evidence for a companion.

 

[Hansblix]

There are 2 patches in particular. Maybe looking at EW/ECM patches are more relevant than looking at a direct intersection with the F-117.

There are for sure manuals that have been sanitized for release with deletions regarding aircraft.

The U-2 never flew with a companion until we found out it did. Decades later. That’s still unclear.

Warfare and technology is an ever changing game of cat and mouse. Were talking about an aircraft designed and developed in the late 70s and operational publicly in the early 90s. The idea of the companion was something produced in low numbers, adapted to a mission set and used for a specific role that it wasn’t originally intended for possibly because it had stealth or LO characteristics where the area it was operating was highly sensitive in nature.

Tacit Blue was declassified only because of internal pressure and has quite a lot of hours in flight. Otherwise it would be buried in an unmarked grave. It’s not insane to say that there are aircraft developed and flown that are still unknown.

The Serbian F-117 shoot down was due in part to 2 EA-6Bs being grounded due to weather that normally accompanied an F-117 as that was SOP. I suppose you could call them…companions…

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force - The Aviation Geek Club

An In-Depth Analysis of how Serbs Were Able to Shoot Down An F-117 Stealth Fighter during Operation Allied Force

theaviationgeekclub.com

“It is important to note that the F-117A is a very lean aircraft. It has no radar of its own. When flying for penetration all of its antennas are retracted. It had a single system that could function as a radar warning receiver, but the antennas are not exposed during a strike mission. As such it has no way of detecting search and track radar on its own. Simply put, operating alone, it is effectively blind.“

“Unfortunately, on the day Vega 31 would be taken out of the sky, the Prowlers were grounded due to weather. The decision was made for the F-117s to fly their strike mission unsupported. Worse yet, the Yugoslavian anti air forces knew that the Prowlers were grounded”

To me a LO EW/ECM aircraft taking the place of a very non-LO aircraft(s) to operate in contested airspace or something needing a great deal of deniability doesn’t seem too far fetched.

Similar to flying some low production number/conceptual LO/Stealth helicopters into Pakistan around 2011. That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

 

[Whisperstream]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

 

[martinbayer]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

Would you care to elaborate a little bit more without perhaps using some arcane puerile boy scout code? Now I fully understand the risk of you or some other sinister USG agent showing up in front of my rapacious sprawling beachfront villa down in SoCal, but until that fateful day arrives, I'd really like to ask you to spill the beans on whatever landscaping measures you allude to have to do with any F-117 companion, if you please?

 

[Hansblix]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

That was sarcasm and a bit of humor. We can’t be too serious. But please continue on SOP and an F-117 not needing support. Let me know if you need any more sources.

 

[Hansblix]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

Would you care to elaborate a little bit more without perhaps using some arcane puerile boy scout code? Now I fully understand the risk of you or some other sinister USG agent showing up in front of my rapacious sprawling beachfront villa down in SoCal, but until that fateful day arrives, I'd really like to ask you to spill the beans on whatever landscaping measures you allude to have to do with any F-117 companion, if you please?

A good garden rake and some top soil usually makes it go away.

 

[martinbayer]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

Would you care to elaborate a little bit more without perhaps using some arcane puerile boy scout code? Now I fully understand the risk of you or some other sinister USG agent showing up in front of my rapacious sprawling beachfront villa down in SoCal, but until that fateful day arrives, I'd really like to ask you to spill the beans on whatever landscaping measures you allude to have to do with any F-117 companion, if you please?

A good garden rake and some top soil usually makes it go away.

I see. All hat and no cattle then.

 

[Whisperstream]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

Would you care to elaborate a little bit more without perhaps using some arcane puerile boy scout code? Now I fully understand the risk of you or some other sinister USG agent showing up in front of my rapacious sprawling beachfront villa down in SoCal, but until that fateful day arrives, I'd really like to ask you to spill the beans on whatever landscaping measures you allude to have to do with any F-117 companion, if you please?

A good garden rake and some top soil usually makes it go away.

I see. All hat and no cattle then.

This has nothing to do with the mythical "companion." In an earlier post, Hansblix was obliquely referencing the 1986 crash of an F-117A near Bakersfield, California, where the government supposedly sanitized the site and salted it with parts of another wreck (the actual disinformation story said it was an F-101). Complete bollocks!

My comment about the government spending God only knows how much to cleanse and restore another crash site was merely illustrative of how difficult it is to remove every trace. Shades of Roswell!

 

[Hansblix]

That time we didn't have the opportunity to remove cubic tons of earth then fill it back in with A-7 parts scattered about in case someone went looking.

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha! That's hilarious. You know, back in 1986 they didn't remove cubic tons of earth and fill it back in, nor did they scatter A-7 parts about either. That little story was pure disinformation, easily disproven.

Even at more recent sites where the government paid to have upwards of 12,500 cubic yards of earth removed and replaced with clean fill, restore the original landscape contours, and re-plant native vegetation (poorly!), they still left thousands of bits of debris.

Would you care to elaborate a little bit more without perhaps using some arcane puerile boy scout code? Now I fully understand the risk of you or some other sinister USG agent showing up in front of my rapacious sprawling beachfront villa down in SoCal, but until that fateful day arrives, I'd really like to ask you to spill the beans on whatever landscaping measures you allude to have to do with any F-117 companion, if you please?

A good garden rake and some top soil usually makes it go away.

I see. All hat and no cattle then.

This has nothing to do with the mythical "companion." In an earlier post, Hansblix was obliquely referencing the 1986 crash of an F-117A near Bakersfield, California, where the government supposedly sanitized the site and salted it with parts of another wreck (the actual disinformation story said it was an F-101). Complete bollocks!

My comment about the government spending God only knows how much to cleanse and restore another crash site was merely illustrative of how difficult it is to remove every trace. Shades of Roswell!

It was reported as an F-19! But for obvious reasons.
I was being a bit cheeky regarding crashes being sanitized.

“It is clearly the F-19 that crashed,” said an investigator on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations subcommittee.”

Stealth Jet Believed to Have Crashed : AF Seals Off Site Where Pilot Died Near Bakersfield

An Air Force plane, believed to be one of Lockheed's top-secret stealth jet fighters, crashed and burned in rugged terrain 15 miles northeast of here early Friday, killing the pilot and prompting authorities to impose an extraordinary news blackout.

www.latimes.com

 

[Whisperstream]

It was reported as an F-19! But for obvious reasons.
I was being a bit cheeky regarding crashes being sanitized.

“It is clearly the F-19 that crashed,” said an investigator on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations subcommittee.”

Stealth Jet Believed to Have Crashed : AF Seals Off Site Where Pilot Died Near Bakersfield

An Air Force plane, believed to be one of Lockheed's top-secret stealth jet fighters, crashed and burned in rugged terrain 15 miles northeast of here early Friday, killing the pilot and prompting authorities to impose an extraordinary news blackout.

www.latimes.com

Yeah, I hadn't wanted to make this into a whole "thing," and drag the thread off-track. It's just that the "Government cleaned up every trace" trope always makes me laugh.

Then, too, I suppose we can consider that some people have taken that spurious "F-19" designation to mean the Bakersfield crash actually involved the rumored companion. (See what I did there, bringing the thread back into alignment.) Spoiler alert, the 1986 mishap was just a regular F-117A. I say "regular" but it was sure exotic at the time!

News coverage of the Bakersfield accident and another on the Nellis Air Force Range the following year contained many factual errors, but they got a surprising number of details right including manufacturer, base of operations, and number built. Aviation Week & Space Technology had a pretty good handle on the program, which was unacknowledged at the time by both Lockheed and the DoD.

 

[quellish]

The "F-117 Companion" legend began with articles in the October 1, 1990 issue of Aviation Week. The articles described sightings of a quiet triangular craft flying with F-117s (the sightings occurred in 1989).

in 1991 another article was published describing the "TR-3" as a tactical recon aircraft that found targets and lased for the F-117. This seems to have been speculation based on the earlier sightings of something triangular flying with F-117s in 1989. The TR-3 article/concept itself has been covered in a separate thread here.

In the many years since 1990 I have not seen anything that suggests another aircraft "buddy lased" for F-117s, or that another aircraft worked with them in a role like what was suggested in the "TR-3" article.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Who needs a LO EW platform anyways?