Pásalo por el traductor o la señorita Rottenmeyer te regañara, esta gente es muy seria.Aún es temprano para el Día de los Inocentes jajaja
Pásalo por el traductor o la señorita Rottenmeyer te regañara, esta gente es muy seria.Aún es temprano para el Día de los Inocentes jajaja
It seem there is a cover on it...I don't see anything non-rationale in design _at first sught_. May be landing gears and their doors look somewhat off-oml, fragile and little bit suspicious.
What we suppose to see here I believe is a scaled prototype of NGB or LRS-B. If this is someone's modelling effort then it's quite plausible again _at first sight_.
Well, I have questions about that hanging control surface and MLG struts. They just don't make sense that's true.
With AI blooming number of those will be raising in exponential scale.
[Awaiting TWZ piece with zillion cross-urls in hours]
corrected... sometimes copy and paste works against you hahahaPásalo por el traductor o la señorita Rottenmeyer te regañara, esta gente es muy seria.![]()
I wish they would.Awaiting TWZ piece with zillion cross-urls in hours
How you explain the cover on the plane if this is a IA picture ? I don't believe in IA picture , it could be some sort of mock up ?It seem there is a cover on it...View attachment 753132
What "cover"??It seem there is a cover on it...View attachment 753132
The image is too grainy to make an assumption about the surface to alleged plane is standing on.-No ramp/runway? Why is the aircraft parked in the dirt?
The OP at DLR (https://dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/62748.html) seems to say, that he intentionally reduced the photo quality ("... they’ll release some photos, including this one but in higher quality.")-Why the film grain? Assuming an NGB/LRSB demonstrator flew in the 2010s, what kind of camera in the same time period would have so much film grain?
Sorry. I thought you mean original post with unedited pic. Restored your text.My preceding posting was edited to remove the link to the source of the "smoothed" version of the image shown in this posting, together with my criticism about not acknowledging image sources. The explanation I got from the Mod via PM is "There is actually a link in the original post". So it seems I made a stupid mistake, but TBH I still cannot find the link here to the source of the smoothed-out image. Can someone clear up my confusion? Thanks!
The DLR post was linked in my postWhat "cover"??
Also, I consider it bad style to post an image without acknowledging the source. Here it is:
https://dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/62781.html
Yes, the original "noisy" one. I referred to the "denoised" version (which is a non-trivial manipulation, introducing further artifacts).The DLR post was linked in my post
OMG Bounce has discovered the X-274!
Why would anyone take these sort of images seriously given how easy it is to fake such stuff these days? It's just not worth the mental effort of trying to analyse these images.
Proof?Hey guys I found this image of a Northrop Grumman 69th gen fighter
GROOM LAKE TESTS TARGET STEALTH
Advanced coatings and unmanned designs appear
to dominate efforts to keep new-generation, low-
observable aircraft unseen both day and night
U.S, military ted afrospace officials contend that tests of improved stealth technologies, which are already under- way and showing success, could make warplanes virtually invisible to radar, in- frared sensors and the human eye. The claim puts an interesting light on a call by top U.S. Air Force scientists for the Penta- gon to push rapid development of a new generation of stealthy, unmanned combat aircraft.
At least two classified aircraft programs, one unmanned and another that can fly with or without a pilot, are involved in cur- rent stealth research, according to a se- nior aerospace industry official.
The projects, reportedly being worked on within a block of each other at the Groom Lake development facility on the restricted government ranges north of Nel- lis AFB, Nev., involve aircraft built pri- marily of composite materials that use the same type engine and employ a special, next-generation stealth coating that limits their visibility in at least two spectrums.
PENTAGON OFFICIALS confirmed last year that there were at least two fixed-wing black aircraft projects at the facility, but denied that either had yet taken to the air. A senior Defense Dept. official echoed that assessment last week by saying, "If it's [al- ready] flying, it belongs to some other agency." The industry official contends that the pure UAV, at least, has flown and evidenced some control or stability prob- lems. These qualified affirmations leave open the possibility that more than two projects are involved.
The manned/unmanned aircraft's coat- ing, considered a forerunner of the smart- skin concept, is activated by a 24-v. charge that helps trigger both radar and visual masking. The electrically charged coating attenuates radar reflections bet- ter than current stealth coatings. Dissipa- tion of 10 dsm. of radio frequency en- ergy can reduce the operating range of an air defense radar by 40-50%. More- over, the coating has properties that al- low aircraft's skin color to be changed to blend the aircraft into the sky if viewed from below, or various hues of earth if seen from above. The aircraft also incor- porates infrared limiting technology for a multispectral signature reduction effect.
Natalie Crawford, a long-time RAND official and chairman of the attack panel for the U.S. Air Force scientific advisory board, said the Air Force must raise the threshold for new stealth technology and pursue an "invisible air vehicle" so that U.S. stealth warplanes can operate in day- light. High visibility and distinctive shapes are a major limitation of the F.117, F-22, and, in particular, the large, black B-2 bomber. But being invisible means con- siderable improvement both in the infrared and visual spectrum.
PARALLEL, ALTHOUGH not necessarily as- sociated research, has shown that aero- dynamic drag can be reduced and shock wave buildup on high performance air- craft delayed by putting an electrical charge on aircraft skins.
Both aircraft being tested at Groom Lake have hard points to carry weapons. Since U.S. combat rules currently do not allow UAVs to drop bombs or shoot missiles, some aerospace officials note that the larg- er aircraft could be flown by a pilot on strike missions and then be operated unmanned on re- connaissance mis- sions, particularly where enemy air defenses are heavy. Air Force Chief Sci- entist Gene McCall predicted that unmanned aircraft and their sensors will be sophisticated and reliable enough to carry weapons within 10-20 years.
Other aerospace specialists suggest that the accommodations for a pilot were made simply to get through the testing more eas- ily and with less fear of a crash that would delay or kill the project. This is a common practice within the UAV community where there often are one or two test vehicles.
An aircraft without a pilot can be ma- neuvered far more violently, thereby mak- ing it harder to shoot down. Both Air Force pilots and scientists concur that an aircraft capable of making 15-20g turns could out- maneuver most enemy missiles.
McCall called for uninhabited combat and reconnaissance aerial vehicles (UCAVs and URAVs) that can endure +10- 20g. The Nellis unmanned/ manned air- craft project is reportedly designed for 12g. U.S. Air Force officials are more demanding, saying they need *15-18- 20g," to ensure they can win aerial fights against newer missiles.
McCall estimates the UCAVs will be demonstrated within 10 years and op- erational within 20 years. Moreover, he predicted that the last aircraft off the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (AST) pro- duction line will likely be built as un- manned vehicles. Air Force officials have suggested that operators on board the larger sensor platforms-such as the E-3 AWACS or E-8 Joint-STARS-will direct the unmanned JAST and reconnaissance UAVs during missions and return them to home base operators for the return flight and landing.
UCAVS, BY ELIMINATING the pilot, could present a completely smooth, seam-free surface to ground-based radars during a flight, McCall said 1. The landing gear, the seams of which are impossible to hide, would be on top of the aircraft. When ready to descend, the aircraft could sim- ply roll over and lower its landing gear, a feat impossible with a pilot on board. McCall noted that stealth shaping has about reached its limits. To make an air- craft truly invisible, the Air Force would need to perfect the ability to repeat and reverse radar signals so that there appears to be no return and to fur- ther improve in- frared signature re- ductions.
I remember an article where a USAF general was interviewed back in the 2000's where he stated at the time there were four classified LO attack/strike type demonstrators flying. The programs only would move out the demonstrator category if they produced significant operational advantages. If not, more than likely would end up in storage.
I would have to look, it was quite some time ago.I'll see if I can find this article. Do you remember any more specifics that could perhaps help me find it a bit easier? Year of article, specific words, etc.
An interesting article. I’m inclined to think that the manned aircraft mentioned is a known platform, probably a F15 or F16, or maybe a F117, on which the stealth coating was applied. It wouldn’t make sense to develop a new platform for such a technology.An often overlooked article from February 1996 Aviation Week:
An interesting article. I’m inclined to think that the manned aircraft mentioned is a known platform, probably a F15 or F16, or maybe a F117, on which the stealth coating was applied. It wouldn’t make sense to develop a new platform for such a technology.
The UAV mentioned might be QUARTZ. It might also be a weaponized MQ-1 Predator that was tested at Groom Lake.
The article describes the two platforms as unmanned and optionally manned.
This article is from 1996.
QUARTZ had been cancelled in 1992.
Darkstar's first flight was a month after this article was published.
The effort to add weapons to the Predator did not begin until 2000.
At the time of the article the Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrop were involved in studies for UCAV designs. Some of these were optionally manned (Lockheed), and some of them flipped upside down after takeoff as the article describes. This doesn't mean the two aircraft programs were UCAV programs, it is just as likely that the author of the article was drawing an inference between the Groom Lake programs and the UCAV work.
You can see one of the Boeing UCAV designs from that period here:
It could be a possibility that what was seen in amarillo and Wichita was the pre-NGAD aircraft that Frank Kendall pointed out a few years ago.Regarding the news of the F-47, and the satellite picture of an unknown airframe at Groom Lake in 2022, I stand by my earlier post that it’s an early NGAD prototype or X-plane. It was/is so sensitive that it was put up in a temporary hangar at the most remote part of the base, with an open/transparant top so that Russian and Chinese sats would catch it. It was so sensitive that it was shielded from almost everybody working at Groom Lake.
It was put there to send out a backdoor diplomacy message on the brink of the Ukraine war to America’s then adversaries China and Russia. It seems it worked a miracle as Russia has now joined the side of the USA in the Ukraine war, or was it the other way around…?
This whole affair does make me rethink the whole Wichita and Amarillo flying triangle affair. I used to think they were either B2’s or an F117/Phantom Ray.
Now that we know the US government is willing to sneak-a-peak classified airframes as a sort of signal (!) messaging, I’m inclined to think that we have to seriously consider that the 2014 black triangles might have been unknown platforms after all.
(@mods: same post in two different topics. I felt it was appropriate, but please feel free to moderate as needed)