Mysterious flying wing over the Philippines ?

Looks like a 180 to me...

Thanks Nat! a reply to: intelgurl

a reply to: intelgurl

Do you thing RQ-180 have a stealth attack capacity ? nice to see you again

a reply to: intelgurl

A legend returns...

The question is whether or not the 180 is a cranked kite or not. if it's not, this seems wildly likely to be. If it is a cranked kite, as has been reported, then this is some sort of Polecat derivative.

Just IMO, of course.

a reply to: anzha
Yes on the grainy picture of Philippines it seem to be a cranked kit.

a reply to: darksidius

I'd call it a strong maybe. It also looked amazingly like the very much a Polecat but not a Polecat spotted flying in the Mojave.

a reply to: anzha

www.youtube.com...
May be at the end of the video it wasn't the B-21, but the manned/unmanned RQ-180 in fact there is no mention of B-21 in the video.

a reply to: darksidius

The rumors are the 180 is a cranked kite. Our guys here think they spotted it a while back. Pictures were posted here.

The Northrop commercial is a commercial. I'd not put too much stock in it. The image shown in the NG commercial is clearly a manned aircraft, not an UAV in it, too. The B-21 is definitely not a cranked kite. So either there's another aircraft or...the folks doing the commercial were doing a commercial and not expected to be kept to a high level of fidelity.

a reply to: anzha

Which pictures/thread are you referring to ? If i may ask

a reply to: Ghoul

We caught something out at Edwards a few years back. It was said that a B-2 was out that night, but more than one behind the scenes reaction was a bit excited for it to be a B-2, so we never really confirmed what it was publicly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I remember the picture and the talks about it, and there was a lot of differences with the B-2 for my opinion it wasn't a B-2.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I remember the Edwards sighting. It was definitely a B-2. The infamous picture of South Base, when compared to a confirmed photo of a B-2 taken from approximately the same angle, showed clearly that the two aircraft were identical. The so-called "mystery airplane" was parked in the usual spot for the B-2 assigned to the 419th Flight Test Squadron. More important, it remained there throughout that night and into the next morning. I saw it when I walked to my office shortly after sunrise. I was close enough to clearly see that it was a B-2.

All the excitement about a possible sighting of something more exotic was nonsense, and the subsequent publicity burned any chance of actually seeing something interesting in the foreseeable future.

a reply to: Shadowhawk
How you explain the difference on the Edwards picture with the weapon bay and the different wing tip ? , it is easy to have a exotic plane on park for few hours and just after park a B-2 on the same place. And the bulky nose don't match with a B-2 and different lenght of wings. At each time this is B-2 , Alamo sighting B-2, Kansas sighting B-2, Edwards picture B-2 and now Philippines ? B-2 too ? I don't want to see black aircraft everywhere but this time in Philippines this is something different...

theaviationist.com...< br />

a reply to: darksidius

The South Base B-2 image was affected by atmospheric distortion, having been taken from a great distance. When compared to a similarly angled but closer image of a B-2, it is obviously the same. Also, remember that the aircraft in question was parked in the open under bright lights. The other program at South Base it has been reported, operated exclusively under blackout conditions.

The Philippine sighting was obviously not a B-2. Why would anyone suggest such a thing? As has been pointed out, the planter looks identical to that of the California City sighting. I agree with observers who think it looks like the Northrop Grumman SensorCraft concept, and that it is likely to be the so-called RQ-180.

As for the alleged Kansas City sighting, the jury is still out. I have always found that single image to be highly suspect. It doesn't help that a well-known "repeater" (as they would be known in UFO circles) recently submitted some pictures that appeared to have been altered. I experimented with these images, reversing the process to see how easily it might be accomplished. It wasn't difficult.

I have learned to look upon all such photos with a skeptical eye because on more than one occasion there has been misinterpretation and even outright fakery. In a few cases overzealous individuals have enthusiastically "enhanced" images to the point of creating elements that didn't exist in the original pictures. A famous example of the latter is the Russian satellite image of the Area 51 North Parking Ramp featured in "Electronic Spies" (Time-Life, 1993) that supposedly showed a B-1 bomber and a couple of C-130 transports parked by the hangars. The original image had very poor resolution but someone retouched it until it looked clear and sharp. In the process they eliminated a number of existing buildings and half of one hangar, and turned an indistinct smudge on the parking apron into a small fleet of aircraft. Much clearer aerial photos taken around the same time show that the smudge was just a stain on the concrete, possibly the result of spilled fuel or maybe a fire.

a reply to: Shadowhawk
I take your analyze, so Edwards south picture solved , now it stay the Philippines one and the another black program who need a blackout

a reply to: darksidius
Maybe the wings are removable to change the mission from mid altitude to ultra high...There was a big push for things to be modular for mission capability..

a reply to: Blackfinger

That remind me a comment from Astr0 where he said the 180 could have different wing configuration depending on the mission.

originally posted by: Ghoul
a reply to: Blackfinger

That remind me a comment from Astr0 where he said the 180 could have different wing configuration depending on the mission.

Do you think they would just manufacture them differently, a bit like (maybe not) the F-35 that has 3 different configurations from the same design?

I note the Aussie loyal wingman has different forward fuselage for different missions but interchangeable wings, is that heard of in a production aircraft?

a reply to: Forensick

I don't know but having a main body with removable wing with different wing for a specific type of mission wouldn't sound impossible. Like perhaps longer wings when it comes to flying very high and for a long time and wings with a higher sweep angle if the priority would be to get there faster.
I precise that it is just speculation so it might be wrong.

a reply to: Forensick

If you compare for example the X-47A and X-47B, we can see the main body is very similar but only the wing configuration really change.