5th Sept 2017 Nevada crash

a reply to: E92M3

Does one always assume that we havent perfected visual stealth?

Its been my assumption since the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator, that we have had that technology and were working to perfect it. No you wont see it in the museum piece. But I feel like it would likely surface eventually.

The stealth we use now was born of thoughts from the 1960s and 70s' .

If we didnt have the answer for thermal, audible, or visual stealth . I dont feel like we would even begin to talk about 6th gen figthers without it. We would just load up on AI and droneships with minimal stealth, but high numbers of production.

a reply to: ChrisM101

They tested it on an RC plane around 06. Theb paper and article about it are in one of the threads stuck to the top of the list in the forum. It works great on slower platforms, but tended to debond at higher speeds.

a reply to: Zaphod58
But 10+ years later..... now what do we have available that solved those issues.

a reply to: ChrisM101

That was the test on a small scale. They probably didn't work up to a full scale test until after 2010. It was a 2 meter RC plane in 06. They might have solved it, but as of three or four years ago they hadn't. They may have also gone ahead with using it on subsonic platforms that don't generate as much heat.

Be ideal for slow long loiter UAVs though.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Wouldn't it though? The test article had pictures of it off and on, and at something like 2,000 feet you couldn't even see the damn thing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Any indications that it was a LRSB related vehicle?

a reply to: Bfirez

There's a whole lot of nothing on this one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

How does that compare to the rumored LRSB/Scotland incident?

a reply to: Bfirez

What LRSB / Scotland incident? That they might have flown there?

a reply to: Bfirez

There's rumor, and speculation, but no one is confirming much of anything right now. There was a little bit of chatter about Scotland, more than this.

a reply to: Forensick

They did fly there and almost lost one on takeoff.

I was reading the article and the only thing that piqued my interest was that Air Force Materiel Command was one of their projects.

Could they have been testing something new that goes onto aircraft? Not necessarily a new aircraft?

a reply to: grey580

AFMC does pretty much all R&D for the Air Force. That means it could be anything from a new engine to a new aircraft, and anything in between. It's almost certainly an aircraft of some sort however.

Update in this saga:

Fatal Nevada Crash Involved Foreign Aircraft Type

Given the approximate location provided by the Air Force, it appears the accident occurred midway between Groom Lake and Tonopah Test Range airfield, both of which are operated by Detachment 3, Air Force Test Center (AFTC). The site is responsible for test and evaluation of classified “black” aircraft as well as foreign types which are flown by the Red Hats for tactics assessment and dissimilar training against front line Air Force units.

Sources indicate Schultz was the Red Hats squadron commander at the time of his death. The Red Hats became an unnumbered unit within the Detachment 3, AFTC test wing after the 413th flight test squadron (formerly 6513th test squadron) was deactivated in 2004. Over recent years the unit has operated a variety of Russian-developed combat types, including the MiG-29 and several Sukhoi-developed models such as the Su-27P, one of which was recently observed flying in the vicinity.

aviationweek.com...

Pretty much nails it..

According to what I've heard there was a stand down at Groom afterwards. Only essential personnel were told to report, which goes with the Janet reduction.

theaviationist.com...

More evidence / speculation that Lt. Col. Eric Schultz was flying a Su-27

a reply to: Zaphod58

Why would you stand down an entire base for this?

BTW Zaph, wheres the B-21 roll-out? You said that was October of 2015 and that you were gonna be on hand. What happened?

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why would you stand down an entire base for this?
?

You stand down to review safety procedures and processes to make sure everybody is up to speed and knows them. If there are deficiencies in knowledge / training / materials you want to identify those BEFORE you resume operations. It also serves a period for people to reflect and grieve so that it does not effect operational performance.

In the medical transport world, whenever we lose a patient etc, we have a system of Hot Debriefs (Minutes after the event) / Cold Debriefs (day or so after the event) to talk about it. We also do a Root Cause Analysis where we pick apart the event (Its protected from both legal discovery and its 100% confidential) to identify systemic issues and problems that could have been prevented. Kind of like a retrospective Crew Resource Management etc. These also serve to identify fellow crew members that needs assistance coping with the incident.

You really never know how a loss will effect an entire team................