America’s stealth aircraft you've never heard of(sandboxx.us)
sandboxx.us
America’s stealth aircraft you've never heard of
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/americas-secret-stealth-aircraft-youve-never-heard-of/
68 comments
"It's morally compromising to treat large scale human-killing machinery as entertainment" is also a good reason.
I don't know about 'morally compromising' but have you ever considered just how much of our entertainment revolves around the story of killing other people? Almost every video game I own is in some way violent. The books I read and the movies I watch are often about people in conflict.
This persists even with people from 'neutral' countries who are explicitly committed to staying out of war (japan, sweden, etc). I don't really judge it, because this is the water we swim in as humanity, but an alien visiting us would conclude we're a very murderous and warlike species.
This persists even with people from 'neutral' countries who are explicitly committed to staying out of war (japan, sweden, etc). I don't really judge it, because this is the water we swim in as humanity, but an alien visiting us would conclude we're a very murderous and warlike species.
Yes. We just can't avoid it apparently. War is just too powerful a concept.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisC...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisC...
Yes I have considered it it is bad.
Sweden though committed to staying out of war is a major producer of fighter jets :)
Can't we all just appreciate how beautiful these aircrafts are? They almost look too good to be real. Like something out of science fiction or an Ace Combat video game. It must feel amazing to maneuver one of these things in the air...
What’s the argument that being entertained by weaponry is morally comprised? The only argument I can think of would be reliant on a belief that human killing is always morally wrong. I’m not sure many people share that belief. But would love to hear an alternative perspective.
They aren't abstractly used to murder hypothetical people. Real humans have had their lives and families and entire countries destroyed by us, using these machines.
We can say we didn't do that, we individually have very little control over who our government kills and how. But as long as we take delight in the implements of that destruction they are right to hate us.
We can say we didn't do that, we individually have very little control over who our government kills and how. But as long as we take delight in the implements of that destruction they are right to hate us.
But there are other cases where peoples’ lives were saved by such machines. E.g. billions of dollars in weaponry has been supplied to Ukraine to defend the country from invasion. Was that immoral too?
Right now I'm not actually arguing against militaries existing or anyone making or controlling military equipment. It's consistent to consider them a gruesome and shameful necessity, rather than to take joy in their prowess and ingenuity which is a bit the norm in the US.
I don't know, it's kinda cool seeing technology pushed to it's limits. I would never join the military and opposed my country's participation in most recent wars but I just like the tech, airplanes in particular.
I know but come on. "They're just so cool though" isn't a very solid defense of finding entertainment in large scale death-dealing machinery. Like truly think of yourself in the shoes of someone who for example had a child killed by one of these things. What would you think about someone "just liking the tech" with no thought given to the intended or actual use?
The problem with your argument is that you’re only looking at the negatives. If you believe that weapons can only be used to kill children, then, yes, your view makes sense. If you’ve been adversely affected by weaponry, you likely hate weapons with every fiber of your being. However, there are others who have used weapons to defend themselves against unjust aggression and those people may view weapons favorably. And finally, there are most people who have never been directly impacted by the machines of war. Those people probably fall around a neutral opinion of weapons. Some may skew towards a positive opinion, some, like yourself, skew negative, but overall largely neutral. Given this sentiment distribution, I don’t think you can make a judgment on whether or not it is immoral to like reading about weaponry.
I'm not trying to make a generalizable philosophical argument about all weapons though. I'm specifically challenging the free pass that american military machines get in techie circles merely because they are technologically sophisticated.
Our tolerance for misery just because something is impressive is a bad thing about us and we should strive to be better than that.
Our tolerance for misery just because something is impressive is a bad thing about us and we should strive to be better than that.
It's complicated... Consider this: I think Ukrainians would be very happy if we'd give them a bunch of fighter jets. Even though they've been on the receiving end of these I'm sure they'd be happy to get some right now.
These machines are not really for dealing death, even though that is what they do. They are just as capable at preventing innocents being killed. They are mainly intended as a defensive tool.
These machines are not really for dealing death, even though that is what they do. They are just as capable at preventing innocents being killed. They are mainly intended as a defensive tool.
I’m pretty certain your hypothetical victims here would hate us for destroying their country and/or killing their family, not for “taking delight in the implements of destruction.”
Yeah we should probably stop that too.
I agree it is a complex topic rife with moral quandaries. Another component of the overall picture is the sobering reality that without the weapons of war and military technology, we wouldn't have a country or government to call our own. Nations are born from the victors of violent conflicts, so it is difficult to grasp that my own distaste for violence and military technology is a direct privilege granted from their previous use by those who came before me.
There's an old lefty joke I believe dating from the vietnam war that I heard many years ago it goes like this:
"Does america need to have the most powerful military in the world?"
"Well it certainly does now!"
Maybe it didn't have to be this way. If it does maybe we should just stand up and bear the consequences of the world we've made. If everyone wants us destroyed so badly they might be on to something.
"Does america need to have the most powerful military in the world?"
"Well it certainly does now!"
Maybe it didn't have to be this way. If it does maybe we should just stand up and bear the consequences of the world we've made. If everyone wants us destroyed so badly they might be on to something.
We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn.
We can't do much about the fact that intraglobal resource competitions have made it necessary to play the game. There is no opting out.
As a consequence, the money and science that is poured into space and military is immense. The products of those energies are technologically interesting, and we'd all be poorer without them.
We can't do much about the fact that intraglobal resource competitions have made it necessary to play the game. There is no opting out.
As a consequence, the money and science that is poured into space and military is immense. The products of those energies are technologically interesting, and we'd all be poorer without them.
> We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn.
Morally impoverished to pretend you can separate them in this way. You're here for the technology despite the murder-porn, so have the spine to stand up and admit that about yourself.
> and we'd all be poorer without them.
You can literally spin up youtube and find videos of children being killed by these tools. Do that, watch a couple. Watch children die, you owe them that at least if you're going to find value and entertainment in these weapons. Would they be poorer? their families? Be honest about whose lives are enriched by these tools and whose aren't, please. You and I might be poorer without them, sure, but that's not a "we all" that I can understand.
Morally impoverished to pretend you can separate them in this way. You're here for the technology despite the murder-porn, so have the spine to stand up and admit that about yourself.
> and we'd all be poorer without them.
You can literally spin up youtube and find videos of children being killed by these tools. Do that, watch a couple. Watch children die, you owe them that at least if you're going to find value and entertainment in these weapons. Would they be poorer? their families? Be honest about whose lives are enriched by these tools and whose aren't, please. You and I might be poorer without them, sure, but that's not a "we all" that I can understand.
I agree that it is not simple, and that the worst consequences are awful.
But unfortunately, opting out is not an option, no matter how distasteful parts of it are. If we don't have competitive or superior tools, we become victimized by those that do. For any definition of "we", where there is not enough social cohesion and control to prevent bad actors (e.g. most obviously: global politics!).
These tools are sometimes used carelessly. Some of that is inevitable, some of it is lack of accountability, some of it is malice. Some of it we can improve on, but some we cannot.
But also, military research is responsible for huge good parts of our lives. Our survival as a (country, yes, but also) species might depend on it. But it's a mixed bag. This mirrors the complexity of life.
The ideal is to have the best tools of competition imaginable, and to never need to use them. We can agree on this at least, I think.
(We can also agree that they are sometimes used unnecessarily!)
But the privilege of never needing to use them comes with the burden of constantly improving them. Fortunately, there are often great benefits to the research even if it's never used for the purpose intended by the party who paid for it.
But unfortunately, opting out is not an option, no matter how distasteful parts of it are. If we don't have competitive or superior tools, we become victimized by those that do. For any definition of "we", where there is not enough social cohesion and control to prevent bad actors (e.g. most obviously: global politics!).
These tools are sometimes used carelessly. Some of that is inevitable, some of it is lack of accountability, some of it is malice. Some of it we can improve on, but some we cannot.
But also, military research is responsible for huge good parts of our lives. Our survival as a (country, yes, but also) species might depend on it. But it's a mixed bag. This mirrors the complexity of life.
The ideal is to have the best tools of competition imaginable, and to never need to use them. We can agree on this at least, I think.
(We can also agree that they are sometimes used unnecessarily!)
But the privilege of never needing to use them comes with the burden of constantly improving them. Fortunately, there are often great benefits to the research even if it's never used for the purpose intended by the party who paid for it.
Especially recycled content blogspam like this article. As an alternative, here is a lengthy monologue by a former Pratt and Whitney flight engineer about the SR-71's engine, the J58.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJrXUh0eZjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJrXUh0eZjw
Mentions Have Blue, but does not include a picture. See it here [0]. Certainly one of the most ungainly-looking aircraft. Eventually led to the F-117A Nighthawk, nicknamed the "Wobblin' Goblin" due to handling characteristics which required computer control to keep it stable.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue
> which required computer control to keep it stable.
I think most modern fighters are like than. The fly-by-wire isn't just an electronic control as with early developments, but basically tells the computer what you want to do and the computer then drives the control sequence to do what you ask.
https://www.eurofighter.com/advantages
> Eurofighter Typhoon has a foreplane delta design, which is inherently – and intentionally –aerodynamically unstable in subsonic flight. This was developed with experienced pilots to provide enhanced manoeuvrability while still being highly intuitive to fly.
> The instability in subsonic flight requires a complex flight control system to support the pilot as the computer systems can react more quickly at lower speeds. When Eurofighter Typhoon crosses into supersonic flight, the point of instability moves behind the centre of gravity, giving a stable aircraft for high performance flight.
> The advantages of an intentionally unstable design include greater agility at subsonic speeds as well as reduced drag and an overall increase in lift for enhanced short takeoff and landing (STOL) performance. Proposed engine enhancements such as vectored thrust will further boost the agility of the aircraft.
I think most modern fighters are like than. The fly-by-wire isn't just an electronic control as with early developments, but basically tells the computer what you want to do and the computer then drives the control sequence to do what you ask.
https://www.eurofighter.com/advantages
> Eurofighter Typhoon has a foreplane delta design, which is inherently – and intentionally –aerodynamically unstable in subsonic flight. This was developed with experienced pilots to provide enhanced manoeuvrability while still being highly intuitive to fly.
> The instability in subsonic flight requires a complex flight control system to support the pilot as the computer systems can react more quickly at lower speeds. When Eurofighter Typhoon crosses into supersonic flight, the point of instability moves behind the centre of gravity, giving a stable aircraft for high performance flight.
> The advantages of an intentionally unstable design include greater agility at subsonic speeds as well as reduced drag and an overall increase in lift for enhanced short takeoff and landing (STOL) performance. Proposed engine enhancements such as vectored thrust will further boost the agility of the aircraft.
Correct. The F-16, dating to the mid 1970s, was the pioneer here and was incredibly maneuverable as a result (certainly for its era but probably for today as well).
Most control system of fighter jets (if not all?) in US operation are designed to be unstable in the Nyquist plot to begin with (layman terms, designed to be unstable like balancing a triangle on its tip). Downside is that your need special on board computers to always actively push the aircraft back into the stable region. Upside is that you maximize frequency response (whatever that means in the block diagram).
I loved this aircraft as a boy. It just screamed future.
A lot of old timers still call the F117 Have Blue from time to time. My grandfather worked on that program at Lockheed in Burbank/Palmdale.
Have Blue and the F-117A are not the same aircraft and they are substantially different planes.
Have Blue is considerably smaller than the F-117A and has a different body design.
Most civilians don’t know this but it’s worth Googling and comparing the two aircraft side by side.
Have Blue is considerably smaller than the F-117A and has a different body design.
Most civilians don’t know this but it’s worth Googling and comparing the two aircraft side by side.
I'm not sure why the massive downvotes. The above is fact.
They are substantially different aircraft, although similar in appearance at a quick glance.
HAVE BLUE is a much-smaller, differently-shaped demonstrator that was a predecessor to SENIOR TREND, which is what the F-117A actually came from (Wikipedia is inaccurate here).
They are substantially different aircraft, although similar in appearance at a quick glance.
HAVE BLUE is a much-smaller, differently-shaped demonstrator that was a predecessor to SENIOR TREND, which is what the F-117A actually came from (Wikipedia is inaccurate here).
If you haven't read Skunk Works, you definitely should. Covers a lot of Lockheed history including the development of the F-117, SR-71 and U2.
Really fantastic read.
Really fantastic read.
“I was in ROTC in college. I was walking across campus and my camouflage instructor said, ‘Emo, I haven’t seen you in class for six weeks,’ and I replied, ‘I guess I must be getting good!’”
"Sandboxx" is the name of the website, not the name of the aircraft.
I'm kinda curious how this ends up in the submission title, if I was submitting I'd be copy-pasting from the article which doesn't have it. Maybe the submitter uses a bookmarklet or extension?
edit: god I hope they do, ~200 submissions in the last 30 days :-O
edit: god I hope they do, ~200 submissions in the last 30 days :-O
Holy. ~2800 submissions in the last year (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...) and ~25,000 since 2008 (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
~7 submissions per day for the last year, seems incredibly high. I'm lucky if I manage to find something interesting enough to be submitted in a week (I'm averaging 0.3 submissions/day for the last year).
I'm hoping for a step further, that it's just connected to some RSS feed and automatically submitted. But that seems bad on a different level.
~7 submissions per day for the last year, seems incredibly high. I'm lucky if I manage to find something interesting enough to be submitted in a week (I'm averaging 0.3 submissions/day for the last year).
I'm hoping for a step further, that it's just connected to some RSS feed and automatically submitted. But that seems bad on a different level.
There's a lot of worthwhile stuff there, so I'm not complaining! I always feel a bit guilty submitting things because I see a lot of "Why is this on HN!?" comments and that puts me off. But maybe I should worry less about those.
Thank you.
I read a lot of stuff - kind of knowing random stuff is part of my job as it allows me to use better analogies to explain things to my stakeholders - and I love to share with this community - the discussions that get sparked are extremely worthwhile. And yes, I use the bookmarklet.
I read a lot of stuff - kind of knowing random stuff is part of my job as it allows me to use better analogies to explain things to my stakeholders - and I love to share with this community - the discussions that get sparked are extremely worthwhile. And yes, I use the bookmarklet.
Hey I feel a bit bad about calling out your submission history like that - it was legitimately just because I wanted to look into the bookmarklet thing (which it turned out I was right about!). As I said, the submissions are up my street, so I hope you didn't take it the wrong way :)
Keep on the good work, looking through your history I find tons of submissions I remember dearly! :)
>But maybe I should worry less about those.
Absolutely you should. If you find it interesting, there's a much >0 chance someone else will as well. People complaining about "why on HN" are just grouches that need to get out of their comfort zone more often. If other people on HN do not find it interesting, it will not get many up votes. Don't let them put baby in the corner.
Absolutely you should. If you find it interesting, there's a much >0 chance someone else will as well. People complaining about "why on HN" are just grouches that need to get out of their comfort zone more often. If other people on HN do not find it interesting, it will not get many up votes. Don't let them put baby in the corner.
He is the top fifth on Hackernews/leaders. 200 Submissions may be his target submission.
My only guideline so far has been "can this trigger a conversation I'd like to read?". If I answer "yes", I post it.
HN is an incredibly diverse and smart audience. It's always a pleasure to engage in discussions here.
HN is an incredibly diverse and smart audience. It's always a pleasure to engage in discussions here.
With all the UFO reports we have had over the years. I always wondered if these sightings were due to test aircraft. This article seems to reinforce my thinking :)
That's the logical conclusion any foreign adversary can make. Problem is, this is why it would be an example of a very very efficient propaganda. It's being uncovered by the public, the government "knows nothing", and the adversary knows it's not them.
[deleted]
One night a few weeks ago I had my first ever UFO sighting. It was a pretty classic scenario of lights hanging in the sky and then suddenly accelerating far more quickly than I thought an airplane would be capable of. I live in the glide path of a medium size airport, so I see a lot of airplanes, and this thing was unlike anything I had seen before. I took out my phone and started recording. 20 seconds into the video, red and green lights appeared on my UFO, and I realized I was looking at an ordinary airplane. It was just flying at an unusual angle relative to where I was and there were a few low wispy, nearly invisible clouds that obscured the plane. I do believe in technologically advanced aliens, but I think they’re many light years away and not cruising around on our planet in their flying saucers.
Interesting. I’ve never heard about them, I wonder how many new planes/weapons that are under test now and we will know about them only in 20/30years!
> Northrop’s Tacit Blue
This really looks like something that went out from Minecraft or a pixelated ‘90 game.
> Northrop’s Tacit Blue
This really looks like something that went out from Minecraft or a pixelated ‘90 game.
Tacit Blue is at the U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright Paterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. Absolute gem of a museum, also free admission last time I went (2019). Plus the XB-70, plus an X-15, PLUS an F-12 or YF-12 (can't remember which), and a stealth fighter, and....just awesome stuff. I haven't even mentioned the 3 other hangars full of planes from every era of aviation, or Memphis Belle, or Bock's Car.
Oh yeah, they managed to fit a B-36 INSIDE a building. :)
Oh yeah, they managed to fit a B-36 INSIDE a building. :)
Can confirm, this museum is huge and a must see if you're interested at all in planes (don't even have to be that interested, there's plenty of cool stuff there). And free admission, also.
I looked it up, and it looks like the Boeing X-36 and Bird of Prey[2] mentioned in the article are in this museum. They have a lot of experimental aircraft there, including a flying saucer[3]. Also you can walk inside four different Air Force Ones[4], which I thought was especially neat and interesting.
[1]: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...
[2]: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...
[3]: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/avrocar
[4]: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Pres...
I looked it up, and it looks like the Boeing X-36 and Bird of Prey[2] mentioned in the article are in this museum. They have a lot of experimental aircraft there, including a flying saucer[3]. Also you can walk inside four different Air Force Ones[4], which I thought was especially neat and interesting.
[1]: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...
[2]: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...
[3]: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/avrocar
[4]: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Pres...
And a B-2 air frame.
Interesting article about Tacit Blue:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41892/new-light-shed-o...
tl;dr from the article: "Tacit Blue's notional concept of operations involved flying over or very near the forward edge of the battlefield at around 25,000-30,000 feet and orbiting overhead at 250 knots or so while its radar scanned the area below."
tl;dr from the article: "Tacit Blue's notional concept of operations involved flying over or very near the forward edge of the battlefield at around 25,000-30,000 feet and orbiting overhead at 250 knots or so while its radar scanned the area below."
> I’ve never heard about them
They are designed to be stealthy, so the fact that they’re not on our radar means they are doing their job!
They are designed to be stealthy, so the fact that they’re not on our radar means they are doing their job!
It'd take me a while to find it, but I remember reading an interview with an engineer about that aircraft. He said it was one of the least airworthy aircraft to ever have flown. It was a technology demonstrator, so that doesn't really surprise me too much.
For anyone interested:
The MBB Lampyridae is also flying very much under the radar:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
The MBB Lampyridae is also flying very much under the radar:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
It seems that tail-less designs is a trend showcased in the article. Article mentions that thrust vectoring and canards are also used for tail/rudder function.
I wonder in such concept, how it's supposed to deal with lack of rudder in event of engine failure? Landing in strong cross winds without rudder is likely impossible.
I wonder in such concept, how it's supposed to deal with lack of rudder in event of engine failure? Landing in strong cross winds without rudder is likely impossible.
Tailless aircraft use wing trailing edge control surfaces (ailerons / elevons / flaperons) to achieve what conventional aircraft do with tails. For example, to yaw to the left the aircraft would extend control surfaces both above and below the left wing thus creating extra drag on that side. Of course the control authority is somewhat limited and sophisticated digital flight control systems are needed to translate pilot control inputs and maintain stability. Some serious failure modes are simply not recoverable, in which case the checklist procedure is to eject rather than trying to land.
So the natural evolution from The Beast of Kandahar? Not exactly guesswork that bigger faster better comes with more money after operational success.
I’m still much more enthralled and amused by the X-37 program and curious how many we might end up with and what they might “accidentally” pluck from orbit and bring back.
I’m still much more enthralled and amused by the X-37 program and curious how many we might end up with and what they might “accidentally” pluck from orbit and bring back.
Wow, that Bird of Prey plane is gorgeous.
Real too, it lives at the museum as above mentioned and is hanging from the rafters.
and the design was featured on a the mission patch years before the project was acknowledged [1]. Trevor Paglen even wrote a book about the patches "I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to be Destroyed by Me" [2].
He's done a few talks: Google on his previous work "Blank Spots on the Map" [3], "Clarice Smith Distinguished Lecture" [4]
[1] https://www.wired.com/2010/08/photog-probes-secret-sites-wit...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2103000.I_Could_Tell_You...
[3] https://youtu.be/mApBa2qKVDM
[4] https://youtu.be/DnwfZOzzyWg
He's done a few talks: Google on his previous work "Blank Spots on the Map" [3], "Clarice Smith Distinguished Lecture" [4]
[1] https://www.wired.com/2010/08/photog-probes-secret-sites-wit...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2103000.I_Could_Tell_You...
[3] https://youtu.be/mApBa2qKVDM
[4] https://youtu.be/DnwfZOzzyWg
One is sitting in a parking lot at zamperini field in torrance, ca
Part of the Western Museum of Flight, but not on any official display
https://www.google.com/maps/place/33%C2%B047'42.3%22N+118%C2...
Puah, incredible! :D
I had heard that the Boeing bird of prey was named after the Klingon bird of prey but hadn't seen a picture. Now I see why.
Makes me think that they would probably account for all UFO sightings !!
[deleted]
Unfortunately it seems to me, that the intersection of people who are qualified to talk about these topics and the ones who are willing and allowed to talk about it is very small.
I feel like to form a qualified opinion on these modern marvels of technology, one needs to have at least an undergraduate understanding of at least one (but preferably a multitude) of the most difficult engineering fields.
Most people don't have that, and this usually results in shallow articles full of factoids that get repeated again and again.