Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

a reply to: Stealthbomber



Lol I haven't heard a close one yet...

a reply to: boomer135

I bet I can guess.

originally posted by: boomer135
I don't know where you get your info Zaph, but damn. Very few people even knew about the existance of a stealth tanker being tested. And it was roughly 10-12 years ago. The problem was trying to hide the booms RCS from radar. Yes they experiemented with RAM and a faceted ruddervator system. They got the RCS down pretty low but not low enough to make it worth while for a strike package to go undetected. For example flying a package of F-22's and a tanker into a heavily defended area would just give up the fighters too easy. So as far as I know it never went past RCS testing inflight.



But Air Force generals have wanted some sort of stealthy tanker for a while now, and it was rumored for a long time that after the KC-Y competiting, the KC-Z would focuse on stealth technology. Were not going to be bombing Iraq and Afghanistan anymore. We will be out in the pacific ocean focusing on mainland China and the likes, a place where a stealthy tanker would work. Just how far do you think an F-22 or F-35 can fly into mainland china in its current state of fuel load?



If we had a tanker that could fly with fighters undetected it would be a game changer for sure. March 2003 was the first time a tanker officially was "in country" during a war. We went from air refueling tracks in Saudi to mirror tracks in Iraq. We went from combat support flights to combat flights. But that was after the initial strike packages took out what was left of iraq's SAM's and possible air force. In a battle with China, they have weapons that could reach out into the ocean hundreds if not thousands of miles and hit tankers, AWACS, JSTARS, etc.



I agree that the need for a stealth tanker is there, but i doubt that its gone anywhere in the last ten years, and if it has i don't know about it. As for the F-117 companion, its still operational as of Janurary of this year

. But i could see these new triangles as being a replacement for them, although they themselves are not triangles.

OK, I am seeing the benefits - thanks ATSers!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Text me. Lol

originally posted by: boomer135
a reply to: Stealthbomber

Lol I haven't heard a close one yet...

I have a couple of 'clear out from left field' thoughts on possible designations...

EF-22
EF-23 (damn, now that sure would be kinky.. wouldn't it?!)

EB-1?

Just thinking about possible existing stealth platforms that they had available during that time frame, where they could've retrofitted its platform for EW mission capabilities, without going and developing an entirely new airframe, to keep costs down.

a reply to: weavty1

Were talking about a time frame that the f-117 was built. So it wouldnt be based off the 22 or 23...

a reply to: boomer135

So that part of the legend is true then? That it really was developed alongside the F-117..? Wow.

Now that's incredible!

a reply to: weavty1

I couldn't tell you if it was built at the very same time but within years of each other. The info is out there if you know where to look. There's an AWACS recording on the dark web of it talking clearly to the stealths and also talking targeting information with another aircraft during desert storm. Not to mention just about any boom operator that was in the start of the Iraq war in 2003 knows about it. Hell the instructor booms had to take mission booms up at night in Qatar just to qualify them on it. Probably the two hardest planes to refuel at night in our inventory.

I may or may not have a pic of one and some members on here may or may not have seen it in person

a reply to: Zaphod58

I bet this must have flown over Texas, at some point? . .

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Nope. Texas was something different.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AFewGoodWomen

I've been told some things.

Spill the beans man! Isn't that what ATS was for at one point? Whistleblowers and insiders? Common!

Also, I love this thread. It's so amazingly informative. I'll be around....lurking...

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Ok, you talked me into it. It's a....dammit, there's a knock at the door again. Hold on while I see who it is....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Ok, you talked me into it. It's a....dammit, there's a knock at the door again. Hold on while I see who it is....

Well it was worth a shot. U2U? if the Men in Black haven't already buried you in the desert somewhere of course...

a reply to: boomer135

Someone may or may not have the pub for of aswell

2 different classified airframe it will be Christmas soon.

Hows about EF- designation? The Raven flew under the 'E' prefix and had SEAD capability.

The optimised EW escort F-117 never went further than paper design, Cold Pigeon / Sneaky Pete didn't take an inservice prefix much like the RQ-170 they were company funded for 'the man'...

So, 119 was available, 121 wasn't...

I'd say if there was a need, i'd keep it at say E/F-119. SEAD escort, with an air to air capability through passive IRST / IR missiles for fighter sweeps. one large mid body bay for HARM, two.smaller bays a la.F22 for sidewinder.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Wishful thinking..

a reply to: Stealthbomber

Black Manta?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Stealthbomber

Black Manta?

The TR-3A just doesn't seem to go away does it? no matter how hard the world tries to tell us all that the TR-3 'was a misheard and / or misunderstood 'Tier 3' UAV reference.

Personally, the TR-3A for me holds a hell of a lot of water. Hell of a lot. One angle to look at is the possibility is that should it be revealed, should its materials and other systems become known, the US government will be in hot water and facing a law suit regarding another, separate triangle shaped manned asset that never got to massed production.

a reply to: Stealthbomber


Wait, huh? How did you....