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: 93
134
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

More like the usual issues in development.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

The retirement of the A-12 in 1968 and the advent of the KH-11(with its 2m primary mirror and digital imaging system) in ~1978 left the CIA with a 10-year gap during which they had no top-tier asset able to obtain return high-resolution imagery within a 12-24 hour timeframe.

I can buy that the SR-71 did some of that work, but one look at the considerable differences between the imaging systems carried by the A-12 and the SR-71 respectively is enough to suggest that they were built with very different missions in mind.

The "fastmover" sighting from the 90's described on DLR matches a Convair/General Dynamics Super Hustler-family design to a T. Technology-wise, the Super Hustler/Kingfish design was essentially an incremental improvement on the oxcart/blackbird similar to the F-15SE vs the F-15C, and that 1968 A-12 retirement would have matched up perfectly to a reasonable Super Hustler/Kingfish development timetable using the Gary Powers incident as a rough starting point.

As an added benefit, those 6 years of A-12 ops would have been perfect for the CIA in terms of pilot training and practicing the logistics of operating a top-secret high-supersonic platform out of forward bases like Kadena, etc.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So it took longer than expected for the flight control or FADEC software to make it out of the alpha build?

Or maybe an "oh crap, the RAM wasn't supposed to peel at high speed like that. This is gonna get expensive..." sort of situation.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Fairly minor stuff that turned out to be harder than they expected.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
So let me get this straight.

Boscombe Down crash was in 1994.

According to one poster, that's around when the SR-71 was brought back on line for a while.

In 1995 rumors surface of a new test program by lockheed looking into some interesting reduction of certain qualities while in flight.

I don't think Boscombe Down has any thing to do with this, except as a time reference for the other two.

However, 'Usual development issues' Hmmmmmm. What if they wanted to bring back the 71 for a few years cause they......

.......

What was the biggest issue with the SR-71? Unstart at supersonic speeds due to compressor Stall. Whats the solution? Build a better compressor. Along with it a new plane to house different setup. That plane has a weakness too. So "usual development issues??????' And rumored 1995 project comes about? ?????

Weren't Iranian fighters seeing Green Contrails in 2004 over their nuclear power plants? Wonder if there are any similar reports that go back a few farther years or decades that just haven't surfaced? Also, green from boron. Boron makes a great zip fuel. Wonder if it can be alkalyzed too. Kill two birds. Even for a TBCC. Now to go back to reading a interesting PDF written by the good folks over at Anne, Yueler & Hall.


edit on 28-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackfinger
a reply to: penroc3
ARTICHOKE looks very F117 whereas COPPERCOAST has lineage from the Xb-70.



i.imgur.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zapped

You posted before in this thread or Green Flame that if the mystery plane design was posted on this forum that 90% of us would just pass it off or something to that nature.

Does this mean the design is standard, OR does this mean the design is so radically departed from the norm, that we would consider it improbable?

Im leaning towards the possibility that the shape is not necessarily different, but the orientation of the shape is whats intriguing. What if the design is a triangle, BUT instead of the pointy end being in front, the flat face is in front, so it looks like its flying in reverse?

Or the plane has forward swept wings, or the plane has the cockpit underneath and not on top, sort of a hung canopy?

Or the plane has the stabilizes underneath not on top. Thats what I'm leaning towards, then you've got crazy ideas like when we used to make pencils fly by taping paper cylinders to it.....?

Or the plane has something like a open tubular fuselage, think for example a flying pipe.

Or it could just be something that looks like a Bird of Prey, odd, but not radically departed?

Thoughts?



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain






posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zapped

You posted before in this thread or Green Flame that if the mystery plane design was posted on this forum that 90% of us would just pass it off or something to that nature.


Most people would mistake a fast moving ball of green light for a green, nickel meteor..



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain
Looking surely more in the shape of the SR-72, or a derivative of the SR-71, or may be why not like the Hypersonic cruiser shape of the Darpa Falcon program.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zapped

You posted before in this thread or Green Flame that if the mystery plane design was posted on this forum that 90% of us would just pass it off or something to that nature.


I believe that comment was actually in reference to the F-117 companion...



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Yes, it was.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Prolly just an F-117 with different internals then.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

No. It's a completely different aircraft that looks nothing like the F-117.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Part of me always hopes its what Testors thought the Stealth Fighter was going to look like. I always liked that model. If one could get a polecap to fly (I dunno as a blimp or something) wouldn't that be really invisible to radar?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: drwire

That's awesome!!!!!

Always wanted to see her fly. The designs pretty sweet.

Interestingly if any of you guys had a little model of the F-19 do you remember that they had a little piece of glass or lens like aperture at the front. Always wondered whats up with that. Almost like it was meant for a laser, targeter or optics or something.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
They have an F-19 for the combat flight sim Wings Over Europe/Strike Fighters as well. Interesting to fly. A dogfighter it is not. I like the Loral ad design better.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Flipper35

The loral ad was sleeker and had bad ass anhedral wings but there is something about the Testors model that seemed so ...I don't know what the word is. Just I like it better.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

In real life that would be for FLIR, a laser or something along those lines.




top topics



 
134
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join