It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weird California sighting

page: 45
134
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Barrenero

Ahh another mention of energizing leading edges with plasma. Amazing how many aircraft programs use that tech isnt it? its like its a precursor of whole airframes using that to make corridors to travel through.




posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SirDrinksalot

I think they might have been trying to pitch the VARIOUS platform the brass that have their eyes on NK. It looked like the terrain was set in NK as well, definatelly not the middle East.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Slowly picking my way through the thread so sorry if this question means absolutely nothing. A few pages back there was mention that this aircraft, once leaving it's home would stay near it's target area. If it's to stay near it's target is it a case of air to air refuelling or would it land at and undisclosed base near it's target. If it's using a new propulsion can it air to air refuel or is this fuel that good it doesn't need refuelling . Sorry if this is stupid to ask



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No, it uses air to air refueling. It burns conventional fuel, for at least some of the flight, and then switches over for other parts of flight.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Nope, it’s not fantastical; it’s the truth. Actually it’s more accurate to say that High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) aerial platforms hosting boost phase interceptors (or directed energy weapons) are the most cost effective approach. It’s not that the other approaches are physically impossible, just a lot more expensive. I think this same conclusion was obvious at least as long ago as the mid-1980s, when we were doing the mission analysis studies for Reagan’s SDI program. In general, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is a crappy place to locate weapons systems (the possible exception being if you’re going after a target that is also in LEO.)

Everybody has this idea that storing stuff in the weightlessness of space and then bringing it down on your enemy’s head when you want to is free and easy. Everything in near space travels in orbits, and the orbits constantly move relative to targets on the surface of the Earth (cities, missile silos, and the places nuclear warheads can come from in large numbers). Suppose you were storing a ballistic missile interceptor on orbit and you decided to deorbit it and intercept a warhead midway on its course. The normal time interval to deorbit something in LEO is ½ an orbit, or about 45 minutes and it only takes a rocket burn of maybe 300 meters per second to do it. 45 minutes is way too slow. In order to affect the outcome of a ballistic missile exchange, you have to have mass (or energy) on target within about 15 minutes or less. That means that you have to have an interceptor that is just a small fraction of an orbit away, ready to go. Actually, you have to have more than one interceptor per target, if you want to have a high probability of doing an intercept. Then, if you want to be able to intercept something within about 10 or 15 minutes from the time you detect it, you have to go like hell to arrive at the right spot, in time. The rocket burn required to get from a storage depot in LEO to an intercept can be nearly the burn required to get from the surface of the Earth to orbit (keep in mind--the target will rarely be directly in front of you). So Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) interceptors have to be very high performance rockets. And there have to be a lot of them. In order to be able to put hundreds of interceptors on to any particular entry corridor at any time, within a 15 minute period, you have to store thousands of them on orbit. It requires an entire constellation of interceptor depots in LEO, continuously maintained. As I said, not physically impossible, just expensive. Brilliant Pebbles in orbit (as this idea was named) never made sense, economically, but we were playing a Poker game with the Soviets, and sometimes a bluff can carry the day.

A much more cost effective approach was RAPTOR TALON, in which the interceptors were carried on HALE aircraft capable of loitering between 60,000 and 80,000 ft near the boost-phase corridors, 24/7, indefinitely. I see that back in June, this idea was being revived by Henry Cooper, who was one of the directors of SDI back during the first George Bush presidency. (I don’t know how to imbed a link in these posts, but if you go to highfrontier.org and search back to June 5, you’ll go right to the article.)



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: cosmicts

I've been told that the military has done a number of studies, and come to the conclusion that the only way to insure that a ballistic missile strike against the US could be thwarted is if the "counter-measure" was already place in the upper atmosphere.

Not in obit

Not on a sub.

And certainly Not sitting on the ground, even with hypersonic capability.

But on-station at an altitude above 65,000FT.


Seems a bit fantastical to me, but that's the story I was told.


I believe it's true, as it makes sense. Many laymen radically underestimate the velocity of incoming ICBM warheads. They go from stratospheric level to ground in maybe 5 seconds. They are a very fast meteorite, purposely shaped to go straight.

Consider this attempt at a terminal ABM capability:

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

Accelerated at 100g, reaches a spead of Mach 10 in 5 seconds, fitted with a neutron bomb nuclear warhead. First stage of the rocket blew for 1.2 seconds. It has to be because of the incoming speed of warheads.

Astounding engineering, but in the end still strategically ineffective.

But in orbit, you can't distinguish real from the many clones, and only when the incoming warheads start to hit the top of the atmosphere again can you distinguish them---real ones are heavy and less affected by air resistance.

So it makes sense to start from the upper atmosphere---much of the thick atmosphere is below you and an interception rocket could be smaller or get there faster. Still, serious ICBM missile defense seems almost impossible economically and strategically.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Thanks again. I've got a day off tomorrow and if the weather is right and I'm not busy I'm gonna be drinking rum and come in a hot tub and have a good read on this thread and try my best to get an idea of what this may be. Has this craft been discussed on this forum or had the aircraft been spoken about on here ?

I've got an idea but I think it's a silly idea of what it may be



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

It was discussed previously. No one believed me about it though.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer


I gotta say its nice to have a fresh face in the aviation forums here. Thanks again for your great, detailed posts.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

I agree completely. It's always great when new folks come in and start posting great posts like that. Really informative, and well thought out.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58 was it only you who discussed it ? Damn this is gonna be a nightmare to try n find what you said.
Thanks again guys gonna disappear back into the shadows



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No there were quite a few people involved. But I said a few things that had people saying I was either wrong or nuts. lol



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
You're not nuts ? Damn .. Learn something new every day. You're lucky to have such sources .. Not as lucky as the people flying whatever it is though



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I'm the sanest person I know thankyouverymuch.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Thread here.

It is a little 'out there', and I'm pretty dubious, but generally when browsers go down, they do so en masse, not one random page out of seven. Perhaps reading too much into it lol, just seemed curious at the time.

Unfortunately it was closed for review and is yet to be re-opened.

Keep an open mind.

edit on 28/7/2014 by 74Templar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

I believe it's true, as it makes sense. Many laymen radically underestimate the velocity of incoming ICBM warheads. They go from stratospheric level to ground in maybe 5 seconds. They are a very fast meteorite, purposely shaped to go straight.

Consider this attempt at a terminal ABM capability:

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

Accelerated at 100g, reaches a spead of Mach 10 in 5 seconds, fitted with a neutron bomb nuclear warhead. First stage of the rocket blew for 1.2 seconds. It has to be because of the incoming speed of warheads.

Astounding engineering, but in the end still strategically ineffective.

But in orbit, you can't distinguish real from the many clones, and only when the incoming warheads start to hit the top of the atmosphere again can you distinguish them---real ones are heavy and less affected by air resistance.

So it makes sense to start from the upper atmosphere---much of the thick atmosphere is below you and an interception rocket could be smaller or get there faster. Still, serious ICBM missile defense seems almost impossible economically and strategically.


So how would either a land based or even 'intercept' style aircraft be able to catch an ICBM after launch by comparison?

Logically, wouldn't it make sense to keep some kind of high speed UAV in low earth orbit and have it basically hot all the time so if it does happen it can simply detach and take out the incoming missiles?

Or alternatively have some kind of EMP style weapon in LEO to render them useless as they came up or even before they were launched.

The other question it raises is if the the ICBM is knocked out mid-air, what happens to the payload and indeed the warhead? Be kind of an issue having a nuclear warhead randomly crashing down in someone's backyard.

edit on 28/7/2014 by 74Templar because: quotes all wrong



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
A isoceles triangle ship

this might be of interest. its not black though.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Don't different materials sometimes dictate the color? As in perhaps black wouldn't be feasible if something gets too hot?



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

edit on 7/28/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

The eye witness report mentions it being "dark in the night time" and had a "pale pearly metallic color, which may be attributable to the reflection of lights underneath the craft."
While it isn't reported as jet black like some of the other reports of triangle craft, if the conjecture about it's surface is correct it may have been an attribute of the active cloaking on the exterior skin that made it look the way it did. It is supposed to be able to change it's appearance to match the back ground and it may have not had that system active at the time or calibrated correctly.



new topics

top topics



 
134
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join