Current mystery aircraft / urban legends

[RavenOne]

Thats just the way it is.


The YF-43B is most like a typo of the HH-43B aircraft, an unclassified helicopter. The RQ-180 is part of the 1% that are real, there's a reason I said 99, not 100 percent. The Texas sighting has been debunked as B-2's.


Thank you for explaining the Ghost Hawk. I was referring to this exactly. I was in no way saying the Stealth Blackhawks from Neptune Spear weren't real.


I've said this twice already. Those are real aircraft as mentioned in official material, we know they're real. The list above is dedicated PURELY to aircraft that are just legends/rumors. I included the RQ-180 in that list because its still rumoured, but we know its real, and even then I said while replying to you that it isn't the same as the others.


Some of the info here is outdated/incorrect. For example: Birk flew his wonder plane in 1983. Vandershorst didn't flew 7 classified aircraft, it was a misunderstanding. For the updated version, check this page.

Black Projects at Groom Lake: Into the 21st Century

Nice to refer back to this article from a Kc-135R boom operator whose TDY to Edwards 2 decades ago, saw him and his crew detached to the box and refuelling stuff he couldnt talk about. Even getting the patch and cert to say they were cleared to support whatever Det 3 did, was locked up in his squadron's safe.

Confessions Of A USAF KC-135 'Flying Gas Station' Boom Operator

It is one of the coolest jobs in the entire U.S. military, "Booms" as they are affectionately called, are the folks who directly provide sustenance to America's thirsty air power as the gas station's of the sky. From flying over war zones to fueling top secret experimental aircraft, being a Boom...

jalopnik.com

Even the heading of the paragraph about refuelling missions over Iraqi Freedom, hints not only about refuelling B-2, F-117A but 'others'

cheers

 

[Ninja]

Nice to refer back to this article from a Kc-135R boom operator whose TDY to Edwards 2 decades ago, saw him and his crew detached to the box and refuelling stuff he couldnt talk about. Even getting the patch and cert to say they were cleared to support whatever Det 3 did, was locked up in his squadron's safe.

Honestly, Im unsure on my position regarding this article, mostly because of the author. The mention of the refueling of "others" is head-scratching. I believe it could have been referring to RQ-170 missions before it was acknowledged. Its hard to believe there were other secret operational aircraft at the time, which didnt leave any detectable footprints.

 

[serg.gonzp]

Honestly, Im unsure on my position regarding this article, mostly because of the author. The mention of the refueling of "others" is head-scratching. I believe it could have been referring to RQ-170 missions before it was acknowledged. Its hard to believe there were other secret operational aircraft at the time, which didnt leave any detectable footprints.

and the rq-170 has the capacity to be refueled??

 

[Ninja]

and the rq-170 has the capacity to be refueled??

It does now.

Jokes aside, that's my bad. I still don't believe the Jalopnik article.

 

[Q-nimbus]

Thats just the way it is.


The YF-43B is most like a typo of the HH-43B aircraft, an unclassified helicopter. The RQ-180 is part of the 1% that are real, there's a reason I said 99, not 100 percent. The Texas sighting has been debunked as B-2's.


Thank you for explaining the Ghost Hawk. I was referring to this exactly. I was in no way saying the Stealth Blackhawks from Neptune Spear weren't real.


I've said this twice already. Those are real aircraft as mentioned in official material, we know they're real. The list above is dedicated PURELY to aircraft that are just legends/rumors. I included the RQ-180 in that list because its still rumoured, but we know its real, and even then I said while replying to you that it isn't the same as the others.

Ah I thought the list was supposed to include aircraft that more or less have been confirmed. Perhaps it’s an idea to make a second category of the list with mystery aircraft that we do know about?

YF-43B and HH-43B seems a bit of a stretch for a typo, especially since typically you’re either fixed wing or rotary wing, and then you’re stuck with that for the rest of your life. I’m not saying it’s impossible or that it doesn’t happen, but it’s very unlikely a jet test pilot would get to fly a helicopter.

 

[Q-nimbus]

As described by Pfarrer, nope.

Osama bin Laden: The truth behind the SEAL raid? Five bombshells.

Osama bin Laden was killed in a May raid by Navy SEALs, and Chuck Pfarrer, a former Navy SEAL, commanded the “same outfit” that carried out the strike on the Al Qaeda leader. Mr. Pfarrer targets some myths in his book, “Seal Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden.”

www.csmonitor.com

Pfarrer contends that the "ghost hawk" was a "3rd generation" stealth Black Hawk that is more classified / more advanced than what crashed in Pakistan during Neptune Spear, and existed at the time of that operation.

I have a very hard time believing Pfarrer’s story.

Operation Neptune Spear was the USA’s most important raid. It literally was the raid of the century. If that doesn’t justify using their top tier stuff, then I don’t know what does.

Furthermore he discredits his story by claiming things that we know are simply untrue. Zawahari betraying Bin Laden? Come on, if he knew the courier was compromised, then Zawahiri himself was also compromised.

Lastly, the fact that the DoD had no issues with Pfarrer’s book whereas they redacted a lot in No Easy Day by Mark Owen is quite telling. They redacted half his book whereas Pfarrer can casually drop the existence of an even more secret Stealh Hawk including it’s name? Really?

All in all, I’m skeptical of Pfarrer’s claims. Some are no doubt true, whereas some other are definitely not true. Therefor we have to take all his claims with a very large bag of salt.

Moderators: perhaps the wrong thread. Please move accordingly if you think so.

 

[quellish]

Honestly, Im unsure on my position regarding this article, mostly because of the author. The mention of the refueling of "others" is head-scratching. I believe it could have been referring to RQ-170 missions before it was acknowledged. Its hard to believe there were other secret operational aircraft at the time, which didnt leave any detectable footprints.

The boom operator that is the subject of that article was posting.... claims... on ATS, which is what prompted the "interview". IIRC these claims included that he refueled the RQ-170, as well as the "YF-24". He said photos of the "YF-24" existed on the internet.

Some of the things the guy said were probably true, others not so much. The Iranian "dissection" of the RQ-170 showed no in flight refueling receptacle and no room for one to be installed. Clearly fake photos of an RQ-170 behind a boom showed up after these boom operator claims were made.

 

[RavenOne]

Honestly, Im unsure on my position regarding this article, mostly because of the author. The mention of the refueling of "others" is head-scratching. I believe it could have been referring to RQ-170 missions before it was acknowledged. Its hard to believe there were other secret operational aircraft at the time, which didnt leave any detectable footprints.

RQ-170 has aerial refueling capability? – Alert 5

Cheers

 

[Stargazer]

YF-43B and HH-43B seems a bit of a stretch for a typo, especially since typically you’re either fixed wing or rotary wing, and then you’re stuck with that for the rest of your life. I’m not saying it’s impossible or that it doesn’t happen, but it’s very unlikely a jet test pilot would get to fly a helicopter.

My reasoning too. It still could be a typo, but for another class of aircraft.

Unfortunately, the only ones that have gone as far as the number 43 are the "C for Transport", "T for Trainer" and "X for Experimental" ones. While the allocation of "C-43" is still unknown to this day, it seems unlikely that a transport could be used as a combat aircraft (of course, the YFC-36A was an exception, but even so, was soon redesignated otherwise). Same remark for T-43, which is also a transport (albeit used for various experiments as the NT-43A). What remains, therefore, is the X-43B, which was to be a version of the Orbital Sciences Hyper-X vehicle. We know the prefix "Y" is never used with the X- category, so IF (and that's a big "if") the X-43B had been proceeded with and redesignated in the F- category, like X-32 and X-35 became F-32 and F-35, it could indeed have been a "YF-43B". But it makes little sense for many reasons, not the least of which is the notion that a hypersonic vehicle could be used as a fighter!

There is still another possibility for the typo: that the problem might lie with the "43" bit, and that it was, in fact, YF-23B! In that case, it would be perfectly consistent.

 

[RavenOne]

Thats just the way it is.


The YF-43B is most like a typo of the HH-43B aircraft, an unclassified helicopter. The RQ-180 is part of the 1% that are real, there's a reason I said 99, not 100 percent. The Texas sighting has been debunked as B-2's.


Thank you for explaining the Ghost Hawk. I was referring to this exactly. I was in no way saying the Stealth Blackhawks from Neptune Spear weren't real.


I've said this twice already. Those are real aircraft as mentioned in official material, we know they're real. The list above is dedicated PURELY to aircraft that are just legends/rumors. I included the RQ-180 in that list because its still rumoured, but we know its real, and even then I said while replying to you that it isn't the same as the others.


Some of the info here is outdated/incorrect. For example: Birk flew his wonder plane in 1983. Vandershorst didn't flew 7 classified aircraft, it was a misunderstanding. For the updated version, check this page.

Black Projects at Groom Lake: Into the 21st Century

The Amarillo sightings are most not assuredly B-2

I’ve been informed through sources that crews from a particular community disappear for weeks, few months don’t bother with a cover story when back with their squadrons. The points lead to an optionally manned platform which is linked to flying triangles.



2 decades ago I was loosely involved ( the helicopter maintenance and aerospace composites company I started my career with) on manufacturing several flying wings, or should I say blended wing scale demonstrators. If i can locate my old hard drive around my folks place, I can find my photos of these 5 blended wing bodies below my office on the hangar floors. Shipped to our customer (famous aerospace academia and research foundation here in UK) and shipped to states. Within two years they were tested in Mojave from Edwards / Armstrong.

cheers

cheers

 

[Q-nimbus]

There is still another possibility for the typo: that the problem might lie with the "43" bit, and that it was, in fact, YF-23B! In that case, it would be perfectly consistent.

Occam’s Razor tells us that the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

This might very well be true, but we can verify it. I’m traveling at the moment, but I’m sure someone has the resumé in question at hand and can check one thing: the YF-23B has been declassified, so if it was a typo I’m sure his resumé has been updated accordingly and YF-43B has become the YF-23B then we can strike one more mystery aircraft of the list.

If YF-43B has disappeared from his resumé then I reckon it’s more likely that it’s a classified type.

Lastly, something I can personally attest to: it would be very unlikely for a pilot to make an error while writing down the aircraft types you’ve flown for your resumé. Maybe if somebody else’s wrote your resumé, but not if you do it yourself.

As a pilot myself I’m sure me or my fellow pilots would never write down ‘730’ or ‘360’ where they would mean a ‘737’ and ‘350’. You would immediately see it.

Edit: typo’s

 

[Q-nimbus]

The Amarillo sightings are most not assuredly B-2

I’ve been informed through sources that crews from a particular community disappear for weeks, few months don’t bother with a cover story when back with their squadrons. The points lead to an optionally manned platform which is linked to flying triangles.

The Amarillo sightings were F117’s or, what I think is most likely, the Boeing Phantom Ray (although I haven’t been able to find much about flight testing the Phantom Ray by that time).

I’m aware of the story on PPRUNE about pilots rotating to black programs for a few months.

But I don’t believe it. Pilots need months of training for an aircraft type, so the story would suggest that by the time they were ready for operational duty they would be rotated back to their original units. In this way you would also need a lot more pilots for your program which doesn’t help if you want to keep something secret - the less people know, the better.

Seems to me they were to perform a classified mission, or, to my mind even more likely, something more mundane but from a classified location.

 

[TsrJoe]

Re post 610, Cranfield University was involved with BWB. research at that time, the models of which did indeed go to the US. for further testing, unfortunately nothing I'd consider as 'secret' tho

 

[Ninja]

The Amarillo sightings are most not assuredly B-2

It was debunked in this very forum, I am on page 4 of the thread and I can already see there isn't much hope for a super duper cool secret aircraft that is making its way out of the "black".

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mystery-aircraft-photographed-over-texas.21745/

I’ve been informed through sources that crews from a particular community disappear for weeks, few months don’t bother with a cover story when back with their squadrons. The points lead to an optionally manned platform which is linked to flying triangles.

What community? We know who is flying the RQ-180, so what unit is flying these doritos that flew in bright daylight?

There was nothing to cover.

Once again, point to me evidence of this secret platform that somehow has no footprint. We knew the RQ-170, "180", and Stealth Choppers were and are active. So, why is there inconclusive proof of 3 literal secret planes that flew in daylight, in a crowded city, far from any operation or test site?

 

[Ninja]

YF-43B and HH-43B seems a bit of a stretch for a typo, especially since typically you’re either fixed wing or rotary wing, and then you’re stuck with that for the rest of your life. I’m not saying it’s impossible or that it doesn’t happen, but it’s very unlikely a jet test pilot would get to fly a helicopter.

Unfortunately, the only ones that have gone as far as the number 43 are the "C for Transport", "T for Trainer" and "X for Experimental" ones. While the allocation of "C-43" is still unknown to this day, it seems unlikely that a transport could be used as a combat aircraft (of course, the YFC-36A was an exception, but even so, was soon redesignated otherwise). Same remark for T-43, which is also a transport (albeit used for various experiments as the NT-43A). What remains, therefore, is the X-43B, which was to be a version of the Orbital Sciences Hyper-X vehicle. We know the prefix "Y" is never used with the X- category, so IF (and that's a big "if") the X-43B had been proceeded with and redesignated in the F- category, like X-32 and X-35 became F-32 and F-35, it could indeed have been a "YF-43B". But it makes little sense for many reasons, not the least of which is the notion that a hypersonic vehicle could be used as a fighter!

Occam’s Razor tells us that the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

There is no real reason to overthink an explanation of such a designation. The "YF-43B" has never been mentioned in any official material. There are only three plausible explanations: Either a typo, misunderstanding or someone attempting to start their own aircraft legend. The earliest mention of the YF-43B I could find was on ATS. Nuff' said.

 

[CJGibson]

Re: that big list

I've only skim-read this thread (seems to be a repeat of stuff discussed decades ago) but this does spring to mind.

Older readers might recall from the mid-90s, an author (might have been Peter Merlin, I'm away from home, so can't check), who described the list of projects at the time (possibly less than six, definitely less than ten) as 'an embarrassment of riches' that couldn't all be funded.

What do we have now?

Chris

 

[Scott Kenny]

Re: that big list

I've only skim-read this thread (seems to be a repeat of stuff discussed decades ago) but this does spring to mind.

Older readers might recall from the mid-90s, an author (might have been Peter Merlin, I'm away from home, so can't check), who described the list of projects at the time (possibly less than six, definitely less than ten) as 'an embarrassment of riches' that couldn't all be funded.

What do we have now?

Chris

While it's not the same, my mom spoke of "creative accounting" to pay for projects that had effects on lots of different parts of the US Forest Service. Trail maintenance could come out of a half dozen different budget accounts, not just "Trails".

"We stopped people from stomping through some steams, so the fish habitat is better, so "Fisheries" can cough up some cash for this project. That same project also improved water quality in general, so Hydro can cough up some cash, too."

Makes me wonder how many projects have been "recovered" after they were "officially" canceled under one name.

 

[quellish]

Re: that big list

I've only skim-read this thread (seems to be a repeat of stuff discussed decades ago) but this does spring to mind.

Older readers might recall from the mid-90s, an author (might have been Peter Merlin, I'm away from home, so can't check), who described the list of projects at the time (possibly less than six, definitely less than ten) as 'an embarrassment of riches' that couldn't all be funded.

What do we have now?

Chris

I think it may have been Peebles.

One of the problems here was that many of the rumored fantastic projects would have cost many billions of dollars. Aurora, "Blackstar", etc. would have each cost billions to develop, much less operate.

These were fantastic claims (i.e. "Blackstar") which, because of the experience with the F-117, many assumed lead to some kind of operational "silver bullet" force. Like every "black project" was a super secret airplane with 50 of them hangared at Groom Lake.

That definitely was not the case.

That said, there definitely were a number of programs in the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in technology demonstrations. There were also VERY large aircraft programs - like QUARTZ - that were assumed to be something else or multiple programs in the 1980s. In the 80s there were a number of articles about financial analysis of Lockheed earnings pointing to Aurora, 200 stealth fighters, etc. when the bulk of that money was probably QUARTZ.

There was also much more money flowing into these programs than had been understood at the time. The Air Force was creative with their accounting for programs like the B-2, and other funding that some assumed was for the B-2 was not (the B-2 money came out of other places such as "other procurement charges", potentially illegally).

[Slide 2]I would like to talk about the account. Its size, first of all, in FY 1988 is $8.5 billion. Virtually 58 percent of this account is a classified area over which my people, have no direct programming responsibility.

In making the point, I would like to say to you gentlemen,as you deliberate potential cutbacks and affordability in this budget,if you were to make an undistributed cut against the total account and we are to pick this number of $8.5 billion and state that perhaps a three percent reduction from real growth would be appropriate, it would be most likely that the three percent cut of that number,which is $250 million,would be applied against the very critical equipment programs.
I ask that you be aware ofthe classified programs that are in our account,Mr. Chairman.

The General here is saying that someone has put classified money in his budget to hide it, and he has no authority over that money. Cutting back his budget because of that classified money will affect his program, not the classified ones, more than Congress will think it will. And this was in 1987.

 

[quellish]

While it's not the same, my mom spoke of "creative accounting" to pay for projects that had effects on lots of different parts of the US Forest Service. Trail maintenance could come out of a half dozen different budget accounts, not just "Trails".

So if Congress gives, say, the Air Force $1m for a specific purpose, that budget is law. Using the money for something else would be illegal (this is called "changing the color of money"). People like to think that the government can just take money out of one program and put it into another as it wishes, this is simply not true. It can only do that under special circumstances (reprogramming) with the permission of Congress.

In fact you can frequently find reprogramming actions that involve classified programs where money was shifted around. Not like you read about in Dale Brown novels or in bad movies or websites.

Examples:

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2023/ir1415s/23-28_IR_Classified_Programs_01_signed_20230620.pdf

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2022/prior1415s/22-02_PA_October_2021_Classified_Request.pdf

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2024/ir1415s/24-13_IR_Classified_1_signed_20240212.pdf

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2012/ir1415s/12-28_IR_Classified_Programs.pdf