Current mystery aircraft / urban legends

flateric said:
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]
Click to expand...
It seem there is a cover on it... v7Irh1l.png
 
Here is just some further analysis of the post:
-The user's name contains the X-273, plus the "in the know" nature reminds me a lot of Smythers, a former click baiter in DLR. I know Smythers made claims of a secret operational aircraft and claims of what the X-273 aircraft was.

As for the photo:
-The mountains look like squiggly lines, which supports the general idea that this was made by AI.
-The landing gear doesn't look right, as pointed out, specially the front landing gear.
-No ramp/runway? Why is the aircraft parked in the dirt?
-The windows look off to me at least
-The front landing gear upon further inspections looks messy, like an erase mark (further proof this was made by AI)
-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?

Just like everybody else, I wish this was a real photo. It's been some time since something "black" has been unveiled. Ill say this though, the sky looks nice in the photo.

flateric said:
Awaiting TWZ piece with zillion cross-urls in hours
Click to expand...
I wish they would.
 
dark sidius said:
It seem there is a cover on it...View attachment 753132
Click to expand...
What "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
The poster at DLR ran the original grainy image through some "denoising" filter.

Ninja said:
-No ramp/runway? Why is the aircraft parked in the dirt?
Click to expand...
The image is too grainy to make an assumption about the surface to alleged plane is standing on.

Ninja said:
-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?
Click to expand...
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.")


Anyway, someone who is good at using Generative AI, should be able to use this covered shape as a plausible starting point to create an image like the one at hand. Fill the image with some nice background, "noise" it to hide the lack of detail, invent a creative "cover story", make a reference to the leaked "X-273" designation ... and voila, ready is a quite elaborate hoax ;).
 
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!
 
Andreas Parsch said:
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!
Click to expand...
Sorry. I thought you mean original post with unedited pic. Restored your text.
 
I couldn't be bothered playing with AI long enough but the noise is just 25% uniform in photoshop or photopea IMO.

It doesn't have to be AI, it could just by a game called Flyout, It's very popular for fakes atm.
 

Attachments

  • image-proxy.jpg
    image-proxy.jpg
    236.8 KB · Views: 88
OMG Bounce has discovered the X-274! :p

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.
 
Hood said:
OMG Bounce has discovered the X-274! :p

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.
Click to expand...

I could make so many AI images and spam forums with them. It will give us hopium to hopemaxx while the PLAN is busy invading Miami.

"Hey guys I found this image of a Northrop Grumman 69th gen fighter specifically designed to retake Miami, you will see this very soon with President Musk flies it into battle"
 
An often overlooked article from February 1996 Aviation Week:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Other "fun" Black Aircraft trivia/curiosities
-F-117 story being used to cover/hide other classified aircraft
-Tacit Blue's name and existance being mentioned in magazines/news way before its declassification
-Aurora FOIA Glomar Responses
-It's been over 40 years since Frank T. Birk flew his Classified Technology Demonstrator

I wonder if there's more decently documented coverage of still classified aircraft similar to how Tacit Blue was in the late 80s to early 90s, and to what quellish posted above this reply.
 
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.

When we lived in the AV even after I departed NG, I do remember when seeing C-5s parked at either at Skunk Works or at NG Site 4, something was being transported to Groom.
 
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ninja said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would have to look, it was quite some time ago.
 
quellish said:
An often overlooked article from February 1996 Aviation Week:
Click to expand...
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.

I don’t see this article as evidence that there are scores of still classified airframes out there.
 
Q-nimbus said:
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.
Click to expand...

The article describes the two platforms as unmanned and optionally manned.

Q-nimbus said:
The UAV mentioned might be QUARTZ. It might also be a weaponized MQ-1 Predator that was tested at Groom Lake.
Click to expand...

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:
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
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:
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Thank you Quellish. I don’t know the exact timelines of each project I must admit. But I’m not too sure the journalists reporting on this topic back then, and their sources, knew exactly what was going on at Groom.

In any case, I’m skeptical of the amount of classified prototype airframes that were supposed to fly around in the 80’s and 90’s as some people claim. There must have been a few, especially in the 90’s; the UAV stealth drone lineage still isn’t complete.

I wonder how many ‘black manned platforms’ turn out to be F16’s with an experimental coating or an advanced EW-pod.

Difficult to prove either way, though.

That’s not to disprove you or disagree with you @quellish; I think you’re one of the few true experts on this subjects and I value your knowledge and expertise very much!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom