"UFO" / US Stealth Jet

First, let me just say that I'm not at all into "conspiracy" type things involving UFOs but I do like to follow the stories. I know what I know and I am happy enough with it. I noticed that there were some names being thrown around on ATS that I'd sworn I had heard "around the coffee table" in years past, so I decided to check out what everyone was talking about.

First name that came to mind was this other ex-personnel at Lockheed who had done an interview recently (Boyd Bushman) and so I pulled up a photo of his. In it, he was describing an aircraft from years back by a different name than the following gentlemen had, but the similarities are fairly obvious. (He simply called it an "anti-gravity test craft")


This other gentleman, Ed Fouche, I vaguely recall as being kind of a goofy fellow. One of the renderings on a site that explained his story caught my attention however. (He called it the SR-75)


I'd like to point out to members here that our current stealth technology uses fielding and various methods of "anti-gravity" even now. For years we have, actually. Google it, ask another researcher or military personnel, it doesn't matter. It's common enough information to find.

The purpose of this thread is simply to point out the evolution of this so-called "black project" aircraft before too much speculation got out of hand. Latest released "public-safe" rendering of our latest bomber will show striking similarities to the previous two. Again, bear in mind not just the shape but the technology being used as well. One of the last great things to come out of "area 51" before base operations are moved into Utah. Well, that and various Northrop locales. Collaboration between corps. Anyways, enjoy.

reply to post by SoulVisions


Are you trying to tell us that this:



Is the next generation bomber?

You do realise that it is drawn by this guy, right?

Nick Kaloterakis

www.kollected.com...

Nick Kaloterakis has worked as a senior 3D/VFX artist for 12 years in post production and is currently based in Sydney, where he runs his own design studio, "kollected".

“I draw inspiration from a keen interest in photography, drawing and graphic design to provide the realistic intricacies required to deliver an exceptional piece of work.

I am passionate about perfecting the aesthetic as well as technical value of my work, constantly challenging myself to take ideas to the next level.

I have extensive experience in animation, compositing, hard and soft surface modeling, vfx, CGI with live action, specialising in lighting TD and have used this in tvc, broadcast, film and print.

My work has been featured on the cover of Popular Science magazine for the past four years and also has been featured in campaigns by Sony, Qantas, Foxtel, New York Times, National Geographic, Australian TV networks, Saatchi & Saatchi, Discovery Channel.

Kollected has afforded me the opportunity to extend my skills and vision into a variety of areas and to work with young designers and artists keen to challenge traditional theories and explore the infinite possibilities of digital art."

reply to post by Chadwickus


Explanation: Uhmmm?

The Successor to the B2 Stealth Bomber (David Hamblingat 02:03 AM 05 Jan 2012) [popsci.com.au]

CUSTOM COATINGS
Most stealth coatings consist of a radar-absorbing material, typically a form of iron, suspended in paint. But they are heavy (which lowers fuel efficiency), need to be reapplied frequently, and don't absorb all radar frequencies. Ceno Technologies, a particles-science company in Sanborn, New York, has developed a lighter, more durable coating that uses hollow ceramic spheres, called cenospheres. Because the spheres can be covered in carbon, silver or other metals that absorb slightly different wavelengths of radar, the coating can be customised to deceive specific radar systems.

SMOOTHER SHAPE
The B2 has two semi-flush air-intake vents, the hard edges of which can reflect radar. In one design seen in a patent from Northrop Grumman, the new bomber has four small vents rather than two large ones. The smaller vents can be buried more deeply in the wing, reducing the possibility of radar returns.

SMARTER DECOYS
To confuse radar defense systems, the new bomber will probably carry something like the Miniature Air Launched Decoy made by Raytheon. The modified drones use radar reflectors to create bomber-like signatures that divert attention from the actual bomber. The decoys fly on a preprogrammed course for up to 925 kilometres and may carry radar jammers to further confuse air defenses.

RETRACTABLE WING
In one design from Northrop Grumman, engineers included a canard wing on the plane's nose, which would provide extra lift during takeoff and flight, allowing a smaller bomber to carry a heavier weapons payload. Because its straight lines and hard angles would reflect radar, the canard wing will most likely be designed to fold flush with the bomber's body as the craft comes within range of defense systems.

HEAVIER WEAPONS
The new bomber will most likely have a single weapons bay, as opposed to the twin bays on the B2. It will still be able to carry conventional GPS-guided JDAM missiles, nuclear warheads and even the new 14,000-kilogram, bunker-busting Massive Ordnance Penetrator, but a single bay would reduce the cost of manufacturing-a major concern for designers on a relatively tight budget.

Personal Disclosure: Focus on the facts ok!

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

Are you trying to tell us that this:

Is the next generation bomber?

It's a rendering. No, I'm not saying this is it's exact and verifiable visual configuration. Not the intention of the post. Focus was on the evolution of the aircraft's general design and the reason it evolved thus so. Elements were taken from Lockheed and used by Northrup along with fine-tuning added on from private sector and pre-existing military designs.

reply to post by SoulVisions


Good.

It sounded as if you were.

No problems then, was just making sure.

The aircraft in the first photo was a proposed nuclear powered bomber that was never built:

NX-2 - Swing-wing canard design for nuclear-powered bomber, with two tail-mounted GE X211 (modified from J87) pushers, was deemed unrealistic because of radioactive exhaust and cancelled in 1956. No production.

aerofiles.com...

Oh, and the SR-75 artwork is from a Revell model kit from back in the late 80's. I remember wanting to buy that kit as a kid.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


This thread has no relationship to UFOs or stealth technology.

We tried that big bomber method once, actually had a prototype that fly and was destroyed by another pilot accidently turning into it rather than away. Certainly, that incident would not have been enough to kill the project. It went for other reasons, some of which Boeing and company never got into Concorde-style a/c.

The F-117A was/is a joke as is the B-2. Both subsonic craft from an era long since gone. The name of the game is not "stealth." Heat-seeking defense systems may be line-of-sight but they work wonderfully well for catching up to tail pipes of slow targets!

As there is no successor to the shuttle, there is no successor to the old concept of "bomber." Just as there is no successor to the concept of sea-going "battleship" and even, OMG, "flat tops." Those concepts simply don't work anymore when long-standoff missiles are--and will be--the norm for battles.

Please study the thousands of reports about triangles in the last thirty years and you will understand where modrn weaponary has advanced. The high ground is space these days, and UFO-like vehicles.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by clay2 baraka

 

The F-117A was/is a joke as is the B-2. Both subsonic craft from an era long since gone. The name of the game is not "stealth." Heat-seeking defense systems may be line-of-sight but they work wonderfully well for catching up to tail pipes of slow targets!

You couldn't be more wrong regarding your stealth comment here.

As there is no successor to the shuttle, there is no successor to the old concept of "bomber." Just as there is no successor to the concept of sea-going "battleship" and even, OMG, "flat tops." Those concepts simply don't work anymore when long-standoff missiles are--and will be--the norm for battles.

No successor? What kind of aircraft do you think the new "bomber" is then? Even the new battleships being produced right now prove your statement invalid. Newer projects such as designs using pulse engines or other "mach space planes" were not brought up. While future designs do focus on sub-orbital heights, aircraft will continue to be in production for decades to come.

Please study the thousands of reports about triangles in the last thirty years and you will understand where modrn weaponary has advanced. The high ground is space these days, and UFO-like vehicles.

No need. I have first-hand knowledge.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
[
Even the new battleships being produced right now prove your statement invalid.

there are new battleships being built?? I know this is an aviation forum - but I link would be wonderful thanks

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
there are new battleships being built?? I know this is an aviation forum - but I link would be wonderful thanks

I can't "link" to classified material, obviously. But I can share some things that you can research yourself if so inclined. Years back the Navy worked out an assignment with Basaran regarding the creation of electric warships. The following photos outline progress and potential of the endeavor.

The things I can't show you involves the design of such ships, stealth capabilities, their weapons (most know about whats upcoming anyway- HELs, rail-guns, etc), and such. But I can say that they work in a way where they will be compatible with any future technologies by using a "Lego block" type of system. Whenever a specific area of operations on the ship needs upgrading, it's entire "compartment" is disconnected from the ship and then re-fitted with a newer section of ship. This applies to submersibles also. To illustrate, again think of 4 Legos stacked. One in-between needs to replaced, so it's taken out and a new section is placed there instead.

Here are some images taken from a presentation mid-last year.