Israeli Stealth???

(JT) wrote in message . com...
Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.

Regards,
-----JT-----

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...

Actually, it's more complicated than that. South Africa's project is
indeed called "Seraph" and is known by the Israelis. However, the
"Seraph" (Fiery Serpent) the IAF is interested in is an aircraft based
on the German "Firefly II" that supposedly was test-flown in recent
years in South Africa at the Overberg range.
The original MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) was a stealth interceptor
remarkably close in resemblence to the early F-117. Supposedly, the US
found out about the aircraft in 1981 and pressured West Germany to
give it up by 1989- project cancelled. However, as MBB became DASA, DB
Aerospace, and now EADS it is said that the Germans never gave the
project up and it evolved into a highly advanced NATO stealth project
known as "Firefly II"- a tailless medium-size black triangle
(powerplant unknown).
Israeli-German military co-operation is increasing, so it is not that
hard to believe that the Israelis were aware of the Firefly II test
flight at Overberg. The Israelis might have even witnessed it.
Anyway, the IAF "Seraph" is related to a stealth aircraft, not South
Africa's project.

Rob

Fascinating stuff, but I have people e-mailing me with all sorts of
conflicting information.

One guy stated that the Seraph was just what the Israelis call the
Longbow Apache helicopter!

Several others mention the South African program or the name of one of
Israel's future missiles.

Now there is this connection to a German/NATO stealth plane?

I get the part about the prototype Lampyridae but like everyone else
just figured the project was cancelled. This new information about a
Firefly II is news to me, although I've read that Bae, Dassault, and
EADs all have their own stealth programs and secret facilities.
Germany with its large population might not be an ideal place to fly
black aircraft- even at night. So, testing a plane in South Africa
might not be out of place.

I did read about the Israeli missile test off South Africa due to the
fact that I find the Dolphin subs quite exciting as I do Germany's
U-31- the first Type 212 sub with AIP.

But I never heard of the Firefly II.

If it exists, what are its dimesions? What powers it? Where else has
it been spotted/reported?

I remember in the '90s all the press about the stealth crash at
Boscome Down, the Bae Warton facility, and the almost near-collision
of the HALO prototype(s) with UK commercial aviation. So, I'm
confident that stealth aircraft really does exist.

But what of the Firefly II? In addition, why exactly would Israel need
such a craft? No AF I know of comes close to challenging the IAF.

Kenneth Williams

On 10 Oct 2003 20:27:59 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

(JT) wrote in message . com...
Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.

Regards,
-----JT-----

This information surfaced a few years back at the time the Germans
helped Israel test fire a cruise missile from one of the Dolphin-class
SSKs Germany sold Israel. The test firing took place off the coast of
South Africa. In the European military journals of the time was also
mention of Germany secretly testing a stealth design at the South
African Overberg test range and that the two test aircraft were part
of a NATO black budget stealth program called "Firefly II".
It gave the history of the original MBB Lampyridae of 1981-89 (which
even Janes did not report until 1995) and the persistant rumor that
Germany never gave the program up and even expanded its stealth
research into the NATO program.
Details of the craft are hard to come by but it is said to be an
equilateral black triangle, undetectable, near silent with the ability
to hover, and utilizing an underneath light system for visual stealth
at night (similar to the starfield type deception the Lockheed Stealth
Blimp is said to use). Propulsion is non-jet and not in any way
related to the older concept Lampyridae, which would have been a
stealth interceptor in the '80s.
Like all world black budget craft, the Firefly II is in the same class
as the Astra, HALO, etc... leaked, unacknowledged, but flying
somewhere... operational status unknown.

Rob

Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

Al Minyard

The breakthrough in non-jet propulsion supposedly came in the late
'80s/early '90s with FFX (Field Effects) but there is still debate
over who invented it- either the British or US. At that time there was

Actually breakthrough should have come in before April 1945.
The Article appeared in Eighth Army News on 28 August 1945 had following title
"Nazis had 10000 mph Atom plane,in theory".
(Apparently before the start of Cold War such things could appear in official
US military papers).

Surely Brits did some very fruitful work of their own in this subject,I could
remember ground breaking research work carried out by Aviation Studies Ltd and
Gravity Rand Ltd. in 50s,but American efforts were almost entirely based on
German studies and scientists.
US companies like Glenn-Martin ,Clark.Lear Inc,North American,Sperry-Rand all
had secretive departments working on electrogravity and all of them had Germans

(many of them were from Kammlers SS Advanced weapons research)

But I tend to rule out the Belgian Wave sightings
because Firefly II didn't fly until recently (at the time of the

I would not be so sure as we know that Germans knew as early as 1945,at least
in theory,properties of "Belgian Triangle?"

Gee, another Aurora, huh? I guess based purely upon faith you have
accept that it is flying... Where is the evidence?


May be among the documents that sealed for 75 long years.

Germany with its large population might not be an ideal place to fly
black aircraft- even at night. So, testing a plane in South Africa
might not be out of place.

Actually South Africa and the seas surronding it were traditional testing
ground for post WWII German advanced weapons.

If you check the news of 70s and 80s,you will find several reports of
unexplainable events taking place in seas off South Africa.

BTW A couple of years ago in very same area an USAF transport plane collided
with a German transport plane.This event was strange enough I guess.

Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?
2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of Harold
Macmillan to US.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?
2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
Harold
Macmillan to US.

Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember correctly
(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound and
stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and supersonic
programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information about
new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

Low-observable isn't a US monopoly, Al, and the US does more
collaboration than you might think (though there are still internal
firewalls; teams working with the US can't then talk to Some Other
Nations or teams working with them...)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

Al Minyard

Al, there you go again with your anti-German rhetoric. Germany didn't
need US help when it comes to stealth since the Germans invented it.
In WW2 they had the G0-229 and radar-absorbing paint
(Shornsteinfeger). They also had anti-sonar Alberich covering for
their schnorkels and Type XXI and XXIII subs.
BTW, the US stole the radar defraction design of the F-117 from the
Russians and the first US stealth aircraft wasn't even the F-117- it
was a Windecker Eagle civilian plane covered in RAM back in the early
'70s.
Russia at this time already was working on the Sukhoi T-60S stealth
bomber (which is still active) and by 1981 when the F-117 became
operational the Germans had the MBB Lampyridae program (which would
have been superior to the F-117 in design with better faceting also
faster and armed). You can't tell me the Germans just bowed to US
pressure and gave it up.
Britain, OTOH, is said to have developed FFX propulsion and shared it
with the US... not the other way around. Bae developed HALO which is
an admitted stealth aircraft prototype and from eyewitness accounts of
the BD crash in the '90s Bae haD at least one other stealth aircraft
that was flying in the '90s (similar in appearance to the cancelled
YF-22). Recently we have seen the Replica design too.
Dassault, SAAB, MiG-MAPO, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and EADS all have their own
stealth aircraft programs without US participation or permission. And
to a lesser extent so do China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel,
and Japan.
The US does not have a monopoly on stealth or anti-stealth. Get over
it.
Two German black triangular craft flew at the Overberg range in South
Africa and you can't handle it. Too bad. Europe has stealth too. Too
bad. Whine about it all you like.

Rob

(Denyav) wrote in message ...
Gee, another Aurora, huh? I guess based purely upon faith you have
accept that it is flying... Where is the evidence?


May be among the documents that sealed for 75 long years.

How convenient.

Brooks