Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

a reply to: ionwind

From what I've been told, this one isn't either of those. It's something that hasn't been leaked anywhere yet. I can't get details about it, just that it's something totally new.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm sure you must know just how frustrating it is to know you know the answer but not spill the beans. If only we could digitally torture you.

a reply to: sputniksteve

It's as bad for me sometimes too. I'd love to tell you guys some things, but I just can't. And then when I give hints and someone figures it out, and then talks themselves out of it, I'm like "NOOOO!"

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sputniksteve

It's as bad for me sometimes too. I'd love to tell you guys some things, but I just can't. And then when I give hints and someone figures it out, and then talks themselves out of it, I'm like "NOOOO!"

I knew it was the TR-3 Manta!

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Don't make me break my crow bar over your computer.

I will say that someone, somewhere on ATS got pretty close. I just won't say who or what.

For what it is for ? recce, strikker or transport ? what is the size of the triangle plane ?

After reading the plethora of posts I go with re-vamped A-12 Avenger II, the plan form is a perfect match. The materials tech has matured enough to easily build these since the program cancellation. It'd be an easier ID if there was something to scale to for sure.

a reply to: Phoenix

While it looks like the A-12, it has nothing to do with that program.

Follow the fuel...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phoenix

While it looks like the A-12, it has nothing to do with that program.

That doesn't mean it has nothing to do with that mission, right?

Seems like the flying triangle is a natural function of engineering solution to a problem & mission, not a particular fashion.
Why do Su-27 and F-15 look like brothers?

Reiterating my suggestion: air-to-ground attack in denied areas, and Zaphod says it's AF and not Navy. Not as expensive and not as long range as B-2 or LRS, but a whole lot better than the dog of the F-35.

My reasoning: looks like A-12 and similar planform as in NASA study for the same mission. Also, follow the gaps. FB-111 retired. A-6 retired. F-117A retired. A-10 soon to be retired. No movement to make a Strike Raptor out of the F-22 the way the Strike Eagle was made out of the air-to-air 15. Increasing capability of opposition SAMs. No loud overt whining by DoD about how we need something for this mission, but a blandishment that the F-35 will be the answer despite a far too poor range and payload.

In any case, what is the point of the F-35 again? Predator avenger and this triangle is better for ground attack and probably ECM. Non-stealthy A2A the '16 has a good life with new electronics and it's so much cheaper.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phoenix

While it looks like the A-12, it has nothing to do with that program.

Ah.. Pretty sure I know what it is now.

DESIGN OPTION 3 “KC-NGB:” This is more of my own idea, but I think it deserves serious thought by those who are guiding the USAF’s future requirements. This option would start as a stealth transport with a similar payload as the A-400M. From this design the USAF could evolve a stealth bomber and “sensor truck” with great range and payload and a stealth tanker which would be a massive game changing capability when it comes to an air war above the Pacific. If the USAF is hell-bent on fielding hundreds of fighters with about a 600mi combat radius, than this means USAF tankers will be pushed to their absolute limits when it comes to creating an affective “sky-bridge” for fighters to make their way into the combat zone and back. Subsequently these tankers will be vulnerable to enemy attack, especially against long-range low-observable aircraft like China’s emerging J-20 series interceptor/fighter. Having low observable tankers would solve much of this vulnerability. Further, special operations command could do amazing things with a stealth transport capable of penetrating deep into enemy airspace with a viable payload, the KC-NGB would provide for this pivotal capability. Finally when it comes to large aircraft with lots room and weight margin for adaptation and design changes, commonality between the tanker-transport and bomber variants would be outstanding and totally viable. Although this concept is unorthodox, in many ways it may be the best way for the DoD to spend their ever more scarce funds. It literally kills three birds with one stone and when these three variants are integrated into the USAF’s total force it would result in a compound leap in overall combat capability.

aviationintel.com...

May be a new modern way F-111 like aircraft in the order of the same size and weight ? less bigger than a B-2 but larger than a F-35. Follow the fuel ? hmmmm ??

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phoenix

While it looks like the A-12, it has nothing to do with that program.

Ah.. Pretty sure I know what it is now.

DESIGN OPTION 3 “KC-NGB:” This is more of my own idea, but I think it deserves serious thought by those who are guiding the USAF’s future requirements. This option would start as a stealth transport with a similar payload as the A-400M. From this design the USAF could evolve a stealth bomber and “sensor truck” with great range and payload and a stealth tanker which would be a massive game changing capability when it comes to an air war above the Pacific. If the USAF is hell-bent on fielding hundreds of fighters with about a 600mi combat radius, than this means USAF tankers will be pushed to their absolute limits when it comes to creating an affective “sky-bridge” for fighters to make their way into the combat zone and back. Subsequently these tankers will be vulnerable to enemy attack, especially against long-range low-observable aircraft like China’s emerging J-20 series interceptor/fighter. Having low observable tankers would solve much of this vulnerability. Further, special operations command could do amazing things with a stealth transport capable of penetrating deep into enemy airspace with a viable payload, the KC-NGB would provide for this pivotal capability. Finally when it comes to large aircraft with lots room and weight margin for adaptation and design changes, commonality between the tanker-transport and bomber variants would be outstanding and totally viable. Although this concept is unorthodox, in many ways it may be the best way for the DoD to spend their ever more scarce funds. It literally kills three birds with one stone and when these three variants are integrated into the USAF’s total force it would result in a compound leap in overall combat capability.

aviationintel.com...

I think Boomers comment could have been "leading" but I cant understand why you would need a stealth refueller or transport, happy to listen to Conops.

It would also be a pretty niche aircraft to deliver paratroopers by stealth and you really dont need to refuel over contested airspace so it doesnt matter if refuellers are flying around.

Of course I think I may have put words in your mouth, it could be a large aircraft flying wing and not stealth, I thought commercial businesses would lead this type of design though, much more money in moving massive payloads and people in the commercial world than in the military, then you militarize it..

By "follow the fuel " I understand more the type of fuel it use no ?

Yeah I think what Boomer was getting at is follow the fuel like you said as in what type of fuel. That will tell you what type of engine it uses. And what the envelop for performance is expected to be due to the type of engine/fuel. Sorta. Like if it uses Jp7 or something it might have a different type of engine and be a totally different aircraft than say something that uses jp5 or whatever. Ie. if the fuel is seemingly normal jet fuel it's probably being used on a jet that will replace the f-35 or something. If it uses something like JP7 which is intended for supersonic speed etc. It might be for the new LRS (maybe) or for some new recon plane. I think he was saying you could theoretically get clues about the plane by how its getting served by the tanker.

a reply to: darksidius

a reply to: BASSPLYR

yes its my opinion too, but the question is the same what kind of fuel ????

Hell if I know. I saw something similar a while ago that didn't even appear to be using fuel so I'm not in the loop with that sorta stuff and am just as lost and confused as the rest of the gang. But I think you're spot on with the post you made.

a reply to: darksidius

Hypothetically, if something uses JP7, do you think it's going to use the same model tanker as something that doesn't? Or would it have to be modified to carry JP7?

think they would just put different fuel in the tank and maybe swap out the hoses running through the boom so the fuels don't mix. But I would think you could put the fuel in the same tanker as usual, unless the craft you're refueling can't slow down to a comparable speed for the refueling. Then you might need some really fast traveling tanker, a new design, that can keep speed with the aircraft using the jp7.

But i reality I know jack when it comes to this stuff. SO hypothetically speaking only you boomer and a very few others on this site could answer that question. Me I'm just a curious spectator.

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: BASSPLYR

But how would you keep the tanker from using the fuel? JP7 doesn't do well in a JP8 engine, and the tanker feeds of the same tanks as the boom uses.