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

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: sqd5driver
Thoughts?

correct in principle

Right idea, wrong organization?

a reply to: sqd5driver
You're correct in assuming the Air Force most likley is not the driving player behind certain fastmover efforts. But you're thinking is still too linear.
IMHO

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: sqd5driver
You're correct in assuming the Air Force most likley is not the driving player behind certain fastmover efforts. But you're thinking is still too linear.
IMHO

Roger that. I’ll need to spend some time thinking a little more sideways...but i’ll sort this one out eventually.

**Will Work For Hints**

Been following the threads on here about the F-117 companion for years, but not really participated because I did not really have anything to add.
However when I read the latest article on The WarZone about the X-32 test pilot Philip Yates and read the following quote from him and saw the picture below it of the Boeing X-32 demonstrator from the rear side view something clicked.

“When I entered the program, they were pretty far along in the design process,” Yates said, adding that the initial X-32 design was a derivative of a secret, stealthy aircraft concept from a “black program” Boeing had in their portfolio and that the company “made the decision to leverage that design for their X-32.” Philip Yates.

The shape of the X-32 demonstrator just seems very familiar when thinking back on all the clues in the F-117 companion threads...
Could this black program Philip refers to be the companion or at least be related to it?

I am by no mean sure and don't have any collaborating evidence, but I just wanted to throw it out there for consideration.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: spaceman42

Probably talking about their pre-ATF and ATF studies. Maybe they did more than study.

Lots of good info here:
Boeing early stealth/ATF

a reply to: spaceman42

I recall that Boeing leveraged technological lessons from the company's earlier Bird of Prey demonstration when developing their JSF entry. Perhaps that was the classified program to which Yates was referring.

Saw this elsewhere an thought I'd add it to the thread.

a reply to: grey580

The artichoke illustration strikes me as the plausible product of someone drawing from a word-of-mouth description and getting a lot of fine details wrong while still conforming to the overall gross details.

a reply to: spaceman42
I personally see a lot of similarity between the X-32 and the Model 24F of Boeing that was studied in the 90's.



The X-32 just really looks like a model 24 with a bigger intake for the VTOL part.
And there's been talk on an other thread about the possibility that the model 24F didn't just remained a paper concept. So maybe a demonstrator of some kind flew back then and they used the feedback from it as a baseline for the X-32.
I have no evidence tho, I'm just speculating and giving my own opinion.

a reply to: Ghoul

The end result of the design looked even more like the model 24 than the original X-32 did.

a reply to: Ghoul

I noticed how similar the x-32 and the Model 24F were as well but was too lazy to dig through the link to post photos. Earlier in the thread it was said the test pilot claimed that Boeing had borrowed from previous projects for the X-32. I also wonder if Model 24F flew and if those timelines match up with the Companion?

Here's my problem. I want Companion to be real and to have the excitement of a previously unknown, possibly radically different stealth design revealed but the more I've followed the Companion thread the more I'm beginning to believe it's another Aurora. We've never seen Aurora as it had long been imagined (super cool fast mover) and a lot of signs point to Aurora being nothing more than cover for B-2. Could Companion be much more boring than we've been thinking all this time?

a reply to: PhantomTwo

The difference between the two is that Aurora was a line item in a classified budget that became a classified Mach 50, PDE equipped stealth aircraft. There has never been anything that could be pointed at, other than rumors from some very good sources, that a companion exists.

This is from a thread on another board that wouldn’t be conducive to asking this question there.

www.secretprojects.co.uk...-538610


The F-19 is speculated not to be an LM design and possibly a stop gap between Tacit and YF-23.

This thread discusses designations and possibly a stealth fighter platform is addition to this image I’ve never come across in years of research. Additionally from what I interpreted. Working began in late 70s which seems to be in the timeline of development for an f-117 companion.

SHARC which is direct lineage to YF-23 was a Northrop designed stealth fighter designed to accompany Tacit Blue. Which seems interesting if Tacit never was operational and another aircraft say the f-117 might need something to fill that role.


imgur.com...

As stated, SHARC is related to the YF-23. However, SHARC was an earlier design, and the YF-23 design was derived from it, though scaled-up and twin engined. Northrop design, Advanced Project (AP-2), begun August 1978, was for an advanced fighter to accompany Tacit Blue on missions. Late 70s/early 80s, Northrop RCS testing involved several different models of different designs - Hawk (ATB/AP-4/& 10), Manta, Whale (AP-1 / aka Shamu / Tacit Blue), and Shark (AP-2).

In this case, there would have been at least 4 prototypes in this Advanced Projects series:
AP-1 — Whale or "Shamu" — TACIT BLUE demonstrator — work begun 1978 — flown February 1982. More: www.secretprojects.co.uk...
AP-2 — Shark (SHARC) — LCF/ATF demonstrator — work begun 1978 — flown late Summer 1981. More: www.secretprojects.co.uk... and www.secretprojects.co.uk...
AP-3 — unidentified vehicle — presumably unmanned (as it was a Ventura Division product) — flown circa 1982?
AP-4 — Hawk— ATB demonstrator — flown?Nothing here to purport the existence of this one.

a reply to: Hansblix

AP-3 is almost certainly Tacit Rainbow, which was definitely not a stealth fighter. They're using SHARC and Shark interchangeably, but there's no evidence they were the same program. SHARC was a NASA program for a subsonic attack aircraft, while Shark was apparently the nickname given by Northrop for a Northrop program.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Hansblix

SHARC was a NASA program for a subsonic attack aircraft, while Shark was apparently the nickname given by Northrop for a Northrop program.

Agreed. I think considering Tacit Blue was internally known as Whale it seems Shark would be plausible for a fighter or similar role.

Definately could be confused with the F117.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I came across this. I believe it’s MCD but possibly NG and as boomer referenced the F-19/EF-119 looked like the Lockheed VS-07. I’ve been looking into MCD and NG in particular for awhile after coming across this:



MCD or NG Concept



“Harnessing the power of state-of-the-art computer technology to calculate the RCS of stealth aircraft design concepts, both Lockheed and Northrop put forward promising designs and were selected to move to the next phase of the XST competition.226 McDonnell Douglas, however, took a different approach and was eliminated as they leaned too heavily on previous designs and relied on ECM—the opposite of what the XST program was about.”

apps.dtic.mil...