West Texas Spanloader

a reply to: howmuch4another

Perhaps too many coincidences. I'm interested in the forum's take on the analysis below:

ATS Thread: Selected Activities of Interest

Could the Wichita bird be the remnant of the "5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding"?

Seems to be pointing towards something already discussed

Still not found one instance of information making it onto an untrusted network ( such as the internet) and then being successfully suppressed.

I guess it would be an oxymoron if anyone could actually provide evidence so I'll leave it at that.

Should have said that the ITK critique didn't apply to all ITK's as some are clearly well informed and use their interest in Defence SAP's in a generally positive way.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Still not found one instance of information making it onto an untrusted network ( such as the internet) and then being successfully suppressed.

Seems like a self-defeating criterion.

I've seen a guy post screen caps of his Intelink-S signon and home page screens. Posted it on Fark, lasted a good 30 minutes. Thread gone.

Should have saved it, but geez, I didn't expect it to be caught quite that fast.

originally posted by: TAGBOARD
a reply to: howmuch4another

Perhaps too many coincidences. I'm interested in the forum's take on the analysis below:

ATS Thread: Selected Activities of Interest

Could the Wichita bird be the remnant of the "5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding"?

Man I totally missed that thread. I am reading it today. Boeing 119? Whoa. I can't wait to dig into your links. I was aware of the the MD 119 but it was pretty much history after LM produced the Jetstar as you mentioned in that thread.

a reply to: nelloh62

I may have.

And my initial thoughts on this.

We are seeing a troop transport.

Something that socom will putting in that giant hangar they are building in florida.

Hey Zaph, or any other expert. On the discussion of aircraft coming out soon, will the Green Lady be coming out of the black any time soon, or is it going to stay dark for quite a long time

a reply to: nelloh62

Probably never come out of the dark.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zaph

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nelloh62

Probably never come out of the dark.

That's a real kick in the nuts I was looking forward to the day the green lady appeared infront of normal eyes so to speak. On the keeping dark topic I presume there have been more than one aircraft that's stayed dark over the years of aviation, a real interesting subject it certainly makes you wonder what's been developed that we know nothing about

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Although the green lady may never reveal herself in all her naked glory. Some of the tech used to make her do what she does might someday find its way into something we might actually get to see.

At least I hope it does.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What exactly would be the reasoning for keeping her dark forever? Does it have to do with the technology involved (eg: environmental headaches from all that TEB and other exotic fuel additives) or is it because of something to do with the missions that it has flown?

For example, I firmly believe that Senior Citizen, or something close to it was developed in the black alongside the V-22 and achieved some sort of operational status, to replace the C-130s used by SOCOM and the CIA on sensitive missions and in case they ever needed to pull another Operation: Eagle Claw. But we'll likely never hear about it because it's intended purpose was to violate sovereign airspace undetected to drop off and recover personnel, which would be a diplomatic nightmare to declassify.

a reply to: nelloh62

The way I understand things is there is still a predecessor to come out before we get to the Green Lady that has been seen by some observers around Groom Lake. Described with features resembling "Brilliant Buzzard" or the model kit "SR-75 Penetrator". Googling "Super Valkyrie" may yield some interesting leads.

The issue is we only "really want to know" rather than "need to know", so in all likeliness we wont know, but we can believe those who choose to drop hints and form our own picture.

a reply to: Barnalby

The same reason other programs have been kept in the dark. The technology behind it is too valuable to let loose.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But is it the entire integrated system that's so valuable? Or is it some sort of specific technological workaround or cheat?

The way I understand it, true hypersonics (read: scramjets) have been the flying equivalent of fusion tokamaks, they've been "5-10 years away from operational status" since Nixon was president.

In that light, I could see some sort of fuel additive breakthrough that could squeeze another 500-1000 MPH out of a conventional turboramjet or simple ramjet, however toxic it might be, being such a game changer that they'd want to keep a lid on it until airliners were practically flying on the stuff.

As to the "super-valkyrie" rumors, I wonder what the over/under on it being a research testbed vs a high-speed carrier aircraft would be.

a reply to: Barnalby

Both.

As for the alleged Super Valkyrie, if it existed it wasn't related in any way to any platform that I've ever heard of.

a reply to: Zaphod58

More hot air and wishful speculation, then?

I'd also wager that as far as a hypothetical high-speed carrier aircraft went, it would make far more sense to take a page from Convair's hustler concepts and belly-launch from a heavily-modified B-1A, than it would to whip up a new airframe more or less from scratch.

With the original Bone, you had an off-the-shelf solution with a bigger potential payload than a B-52, that would have been more than capable of a Mach 3 dash with minor tweaks. As an added bonus, it would be easy to hide in plane sight, as it would resemble an existing operational aircraft in satellite photos, and you wouldn't even need to hide it!

a reply to: Barnalby

It may have existed and been flying around, but if it was, it was either a one off technology demonstrator, or a failed concept.

a reply to: Zaphod58

My biggest gripe about the super valkrie is the whole launching stuff from the top of an aircraft. Mainly cause i wonder just how safe it would be to launch something into the airstream at those speeds that can just as easily nose down into the craft and wreck them both.

Would you really want to risk to that degree either of the super expensive and exotic aircraft involved in the launch.


That being said there are reports (not sure how good they are) where people claim to have seen something that looks like the sr-75 descriptions near Edwards back in the 90s.

Also I've always wondered the name "brilliant buzzard" - ref. boron light show instead of white tiles?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I always saw the "Brilliant" designator as placing it alongside Brilliant Pebbles as a late Reagan/Bush I-era project, just like the Have- and Senior- designators were tied into related early 80s projects.

Although given the SDI origins of the Brilliant Pebbles projects, the Brilliant- designator for the alleged buzzard could also suggest a decidedly space-oriented intent for the aircraft. As I've said before, I find it very fishy that the USAF walked away from the SDI potential of the shuttle and those Vandenberg launches without so much as a whimper, just as SDI was heating up, no less, with no replacement in sight. A modest TSTO could have filled that role nicely.