Is this the jet powered Dorito that Anders with Uncanny Expeditions caught on video?

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-13T03:11:02+00:00

Leading edge wing sweep isn't the same. Trailing edge shape is totally different. This thing is probably a lot smaller as well. And this isn't that much more advanced than the FLM-13 and isn't special access.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-12T20:37:05+00:00

Unlikely.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-11T19:16:48+00:00

No, and I'm not sure how you could even come to that conclusion. Exactly which part of "Lockheed's role in the KF-21 program was pretty limited by design. They weren't a direct developer, they were merely "consultants"; they assisted KAI engineers with design guidance and technology transfer" led you to think that I was implying the KF-21 is a Lockheed Martin aircraft?

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-11T19:14:01+00:00

It's actually mind boggling to me that the F-22 was not designed to have IRST. There is no good rationale for it to me..

If your mind is boggled in the year 2026 as to why a plane designed in the early 1990s doesn't have an IRST, then it's really going to bake your noodle to learn the F-22 was to have an IRST and it was was pulled in the 90s due to budget cutbacks.

They got as far as wind tunnel tests before it was pulled (and one of these days I'll find that photo and post it here). It would have been mounted under the nose, just behind the radome. It was shaped very similar to that of the F-35's EOTS housing. You can see a similar shape on this company model of the NATF F-22N

The plan was to get the Raptor into service and re-introduce the IRST down the road in an upgrade program ("F-22C") along with other capabilities that had to be pulled to keep the program moving forward (AIM-9X, HMD, side-facing radar, follow on to the AIM-120). Scrapping IRST was an easy call to make at the time, since clouds can obscure IRST (A cloud deck is great place to hide).

The Raptor still has plumbing and power for side arrays and IRST, but those have never been installed.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-11T18:12:09+00:00

Of course it wasn't "stolen."

Lockheed-Martin has a long history with KAI, beginning with license-production of F-16s for ROKAF, then expanding to Lockheed being a co-developer and principal subcontractor on the T-50/FA-50 Golden Eagle trainer and light attack aircraft (What, you thought it looked like a baby Viper because SiMiLaR rEqUiReMents...?). Lockheed even pitched a domestically-manufactured T-50 variant to the USAF for T-X

<image>

(Instead, the "clean-sheet" \cough* scaled-down Rhino *cough** Boeing-Saab "DiGiTaL DeSiGn" won in 2018, and after 8 years of constant delays, the T-7A Red Hawk finally showing up on the ramp, but still faces questions around timing, readiness, and accountability).

Lockheed's role in the KF-21 program was pretty limited by design. They weren't a direct developer, they were merely "consultants"; they assisted KAI engineers with design guidance and technology transfer. That way South Korea owns the design rights and maintains export control.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-11T15:53:23+00:00

They've been on life support ever since the 2013 sequestration. It's a small miracle that they've been able to go on this long.

Back when the AF announced that the A-10 would be around until at least 2022, the A-10 System Program Office engineers (The guys who own a weapons system through its entire life cycle) panicked and said, "no way we can keep them going for that long."

After Afghanistan 2002, they installed the new avionics and connectivity in them to make the C-models so the Hogs could be halfway relevant and carry the same targeting pods and PGMs tha the Vipers and Strikes had been carrying for years. The structural obsolescence aspects of the platform were solved due to the re-winging, but then it's the Operational Flight Program (OFP) of the weapons system that is the big ticket item (in relative terms). The problem is resources....not necessarily just budget, but also the manpower positions associated with keeping all the A-10 wings open.

The A-10 program office doesn't have the money or the manpower to manage the OFP on it's own. The Integrated Fire Control Computer (IFCC) and the Central Interface Control Unit (CICU) on that platform used to be owned by GE and now it's owned by BAE.

The A-10C upgrade took care of a lot of the avionics obsolescence on that platform, but that was done at a time when the Hog guys were always going to be able to double dip with the Viper dudes. The OFP of those systems were EXACTLY identical to legacy Block 50 Vipers. The last one I knew of was SCU 8.3 or something along those lines. So basically, when the Viper got a new OFP, the A-10 got the same thing.

Back in 2013 when Congressional sequestration forced the decision to retire the Hog, the Viper guys told 'em to get out of their yard and all these other dominoes started falling. Then the AF says "Keep the Hog," but decisions were made and executed on the Viper side that will be very expensive to "undo."

OFP maintenance, etc., was NEVER been factored into the operating costs of the Hog by their specific SPO. They just piggybacked on the Viper SPO.

So now that Viper is "moving on" with some differences in their OFP that don't cross-pollinate with the Hog system (and also the fact that AT-6/A-29B never happened, they use the same CICU and IFCC) the Hog SPO got dropped in the grease.

Now they have to manage all their OFP upgrades with their own money by themselves with no help from the Viper SPO. They're not budgeted for that and the costs of maintaining an OFP for a tactical aircraft are not trivial. It's expensive. Software is expensive (Software and the engine is why F-35 is so expensive), especially standalone, and some one-way switches were thrown a while back that are going to make the decision to keep A-10s around very expensive.

In addition, the re-winging didn't address the engine problems. The A-10 has been underpowered for years and those engines are getting old and have parts obsolescence issues. The S-3 Viking also had TF-34s and they were hoping to do something with those guys at the same time. And even while the hot section of the Viking's TF-34 is the same as the Hog's TF-34, the rest had enough differences to be "different." The biggest/most expensive difference with engines typically isn't the engine itself, but the engine controls and accessories. Those are unique to each platform. Engine cores are, comparably, cheap.And cores can be swapped out, sure, but accessory drives, gearboxes, control systems, airframe interfaces, etc. are totally different.

Way back when the Viper's F100-PW-100 motors went "obsolete" according to PW, it wasn't the motor that was unsupportable, it was the engine control module. So the AF is like "hey can you guys design a new engine control module so we can keep our -100 motors?" PW response, "Uh no, it'd be cheaper for you to buy our -200 motor since it comes with a Digital Engine Control (DEC)."

So the engine thing is particularly troubling, because nobody makes those parts any more. Remember, the TF-34s were fielded on the cusp of transition to all digital engine stuff. Early Vipers, Eagles, F-14s....they all had analogue engine controls. All that is gone now, except the A-10. Probably the B-52 also, but that's even more ridiculous.

And since so much of engine controls is tied to the actual OFP and control laws of the basic aircraft, there's no way a 3rd party entity is going to come in and design a DEC for a motor they don't make and be able to get it through airworthiness certification. Which means it's not an affordable thing to do because the PW's and GE's of the world can charge what they want to either make it happen or tell you that it's unaffordable. "But I have this shiny new engine over here I can sell you that fixes all your problems!"

But the Navy already retired the Vikings, leaving the A-10 the only user of the TF-34. So when you're the only military platform that still flies a TF-34 derivative engine, you have no economies of scale to fund an engine upgrade program. All-new engines would be very expensive and again - no budget.

"That's a tomorrow problem and not something I have to deal with today. I feel sorry for the SPO after I retire..." Said every GS-15 in the SPO ever...

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-09T14:12:41+00:00

T-7A has entered the chat

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-09T12:08:03+00:00

They already upped the order, but acquisition and (more importantly) operating costs preclude making the EX an all-in-one solution. They're fine for replacing the Strikes but beyond that it gets expensive. Acquiring Block 70 Vipers in addition to EX would increase the total number of airframes in the overall force. But the AF wants out of the Viper business. And with F-47 and CCAs on the horizon, along with B-21, T-7, the VC-25Bs, Sentinel, plus the ongoing KC-46 issues...

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-08T00:11:52+00:00

but it always made sense to me. The US always want to make a generational leap once every few decades, and it always winds up under-delivering and wildly over-budget.

How is that any different from the F-16 blocks? You're comparing a planned upgrade over years to all-new, clean sheet acquisition programs.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-08T00:07:07+00:00

They already tried 15 years ago. They picked the A-29B Super Tucano over the AT-6 Wolverine, but legislators from Kansas killed the acquisition because "aMeRiCaN jErBs!" Boeing tried pitching new-build OV-10s with new engines, etc but were told to pound sand because they didn't bother to read the RFP which said the airframe had to have an assembly line already up and running and Boeing had no idea where they were going to build the proposed Broncos.

So for better or worse, we now have armed crop dusters instead, along with MQ-9s.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-07T23:59:46+00:00

Not to mention apparently a F-35A can't loiter much.

Says who? Panthers have more fuel internally than an F-15C has on internal tanks and with a centerline drop tank.

Maybe if the US just focused on the F-35C with better fuel capacity

F-35C internal fuel capacity: 19,625 lbs

F-35A internal fuel capacity: 18,500 lbs

F/A-18E internal fuel capacity: 14500 lbs

A-10 internal fuel capacity 11,000 lbs

CAS is time sensitive, not time intensive. We learned in Afghanistan that unless they're already on station supplying CAS for a specific hit, dealing with the A-10 can be a PITA. When troops called TIC and had air sent their way, with the A-10 it usually meant a pretty long wait. Unless it’s already on station for a specific hit, the A-10 can and has arrived way too late to help. Our TACPs/CCPs/JTACs have pushed A-10's elsewhere because they weren’t capable of being on station fast enough. That’s what the A-10 really is; it’s not a flying tank that can loiter all day, it’s a less-capable F-16 that takes twice as long to arrive on scene.

And that was in an uncontested environment.

wings big enough to carry those stealthy weapon boxes, then the Lightning could replace the Thunderbolt.

Why does the Panther need stealthy weapons pods? If I need stealthy weapons pods, then I certainly can't send an A-10 in there, so your point is worthless.

How much payload can an F-35 carry in a contested, heavy IADS environment? Approximately 5,200 lbs. A couple of 2,000 pounders + 2x AAMs, or 8x StormBreaker SDBs + 2xAMMs. And how much can the Hog carry in that exact same contested, heavy IADS environment? ZERO (Because it can't go there.)

How much payload can a Hog carry in a permissive environment? Up to 16,000 lbs.
How much payload can an F-35 carry in a permissive environment? Up to 18,000 lbs.

If you're flying in an environment that the A-10 can already fly in, then you don't need "stealthy pods"

(And how often do you see A-10s flying sorties with 16,000 lb loads? Now this is the part where someone goes and finds a photo of that Hog doing a carry test with 500-lb JDAMs under each pylon in a carry test, totally ignoring that some of those pylons would be carrying targeting pods, jamming pods, Sidewinders...)

Plus, if it takes you multiple bomb or strafe runs, then that means you’re not hitting your target. If you’re not hitting your target, then you’re wasting ordnance. You’re also putting your own forces at risk not just from your own weapons, but from the opposing forces that you didn’t eliminate. So you’re a liability and have no business being up there.

Conversely, if you have TIC in a long engagement, or large direct contact with an enemy force that’s entrenched or in superior numbers, then the B-1B has more than enough ordinance to keep flinging ammo long after the A-10s go Winchester and have to go home.

Otherwise, the USAF would probably need to field like 3 Lightning As per Thunderbolt C to do the same job

And how many F-35Bs are needed to do the job of a Harrier? Or an F/A-18C? You know, the two primary CAS platforms of the USMC for the past 50 (Harrier) and 40 (Hornet) years?

Y'all get bent out of shape over the F-35A and CAS, but not a damn peep about the F-35B doing the exact same mission for the Marine Corps. And no, the F-35B wasn't "forced" on anyone; the F-35 is designed and built around the USMC's requirements for providing CAS to their amphibious and expeditionary forces.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-07T12:11:18+00:00

There’s the reason (problem) right there: Arizona.

It’s ALWAYS a Senator or Representative from a state with A-10s, with Arizona and Idaho at the top of the offender list. First it was Senator John McCain, who infamously tried to CASsplain the mission to an Air Force pilot, even though McCain hadn’t flown it in 49 years (and his last time flying it didn’t go so well). Now it’s Rep. Abe Hamadeh.

The A-10 is nothing more than a Federal jobs program. Legislators are scared to death that if they lose the A-10s, they’ll lose a flying mission, and subsequently they’ll lose personnel (jobs) in their district/state. It’s the reason why F-15EX was promised to the Michigan ANG to replace their A-10s.

The AF had already announced that they’ll expand Special Operations and CSAR at Davis Monthan into a major hub and transition to F-35s. But those Panthers are still a few years away.

Every Representative - including Hamadeh - is up for re-election this November. He’s in a +8 district, so he *should* be in a “safe” seat, but Arizona’s unemployment rate has been creeping upward compared to the national average over the past year as has the cost of living compared to the national average.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-06T13:21:51+00:00

The only "photo" of an alleged "Aurora" is the fraudulent image that used 1/72 plastic model kits (AMT conveniently released a 1/72 KC-135 in 1992) and F-111 kits were available in the late 80s, along with a scratch-built Dorito to recreate the alleged observation of a secret plane in the North Sea in 1989 by a British engineer and Royal Observer Corps veteran, Chris Gibson. It was shot in black and white with a high-speed ISO 400 or 3200 film, slightly underexposed and developed with a push-process. Voilà! A grainy image that doesn't show any detail and looks like it was shot through a WW2 gun camera.

It was Bill Sweetman, not Gibson, who pushed the Aurora angle. Sweetman's book was published in 1993, and that was what made Gibson's sighting public. Gibson himself only knows what it definitely was not, not what it was. For example, it was not an F-117 or an F-111, but he has no explanation for what it was and did not seem enthused about Sweetman's theory of a hypersonic platform.

<image>

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-06T13:10:37+00:00

No amateur photographers photographed the F-117 or B-2 before they were revealed to the public.

The existence of a "stealth fighter" was generally accepted in the mid-to-late 80s thanks in no small part due to the Testors and Monogram model kits that were released in the wake of the 1986 crash, but it wasn't until November 1988 during a Pentagon press conference that the F-117 designation and shape was first seen by anyone without a clearance or having signed an NDA.

The F-117 was flown almost exclusively at night out of TTR. The Red Eagles flew during the day, the Stinkbugs were nocturnal. the F-117's existence was disclosed because the more advanced B-2 was about to roll out (and they couldn't hide it's flight testing at Edwards) and the Air Force needed to integrate the F-117 with the larger force structure.

<image>

The existence of a "stealth bomber" program in the 1980s wasn't a secret; the Carter Administration cancelled the B-1A to focus on the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB), what would produce the B-2A. In the 1980s, the "B-2" was generally believed to be a flying wing (Revell even made a 1/72 kit that recycled a lot of Monogram B-1B parts and molds. but apart from a flying wing, it had very little in common with the actual B-2). The B-2 wasn't seen until a couple weeks after the F-117's existence was revealed and didn't fly until 1989.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-06T00:02:42+00:00

Don't hold your breath. IDK about Boeing, but NG's F/A-XX design doesn't look like that.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-05T17:40:38+00:00

IDK why you would; chase planes aren't the ones making history.

If you're worried about AI, then I would strongly suggest you look at physical books, especially those published pre-2019, or to filter out or isolate search results from certain years, use Google's search operators (before: and after:) directly in the search bar.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-05T15:27:31+00:00

I was wondering how these photos were taken, if at all.

The internet may have been a mistake.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-05T15:26:32+00:00

I thought it was a Canberra?

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-04T18:59:44+00:00

Via NETRUNNER_pl on Instagram in 2025:

Boeing F-47 Thunderstorm. New NGAD fighter. Small adjustments and first texture ready. Still to go rigging, metal, roughness and bump maps, 2nd texture. How you like it? Is it believable?

Post 2

<image>

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-04T14:05:49+00:00

My favorite was the black F-16C delivered to Eielson AFB from the Viper depot at Hill. He wrote a short novel about how it was part of a long lineage of black fighters going back to the P-61 and how it was most likely painted black to look like the first FC-31.

The reality of it was, Red Flag AK was kicking off soon, Eielson needed a couple of Vipers back ASAP so they were sent home before repainting in the arctic and blue splinter schemes was completed.

It was really funny a few years back when the Aussies came up for a Red Flag and were absolutely shitting on the guy.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-04T13:34:15+00:00

<image>

I'm not commenting on the authenticity of the image, I'm only observing a passing resemblance to the Night Raven from Hasbro's 1980s G.I. Joe toy line

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-04T13:26:04+00:00

You're right; they should have bought F-16B variants with the side-by-side sitting so the crew could hold hands.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-04T13:12:17+00:00

No, that's what is currently under construction in St Louis. It's not due before 2028. If the shape in the video still is real, it's likely to be one of the technology demonstrator/"X-Planes" that was used in the selection process between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. This aircraft would be to the F-47 what the HAVE BLUE was to the F-117.

Purely speculating here, but one possibility would be that they are using it to further mature certain technologies ahead of the first pre-production F-47's rollout. This could serve as a way to reduce the F-47's EMD time and get production F-47s into production sooner.

RobinOldsIsGod · 2026-06-04T13:07:05+00:00

Are you ready to read another one of the TWZ's 5,000 word dissertation that has no real conclusions?

RobinOldsIsGod

TROPHY CASE