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.

 

Is the Aurora spy plane retired or was it just a myth?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

I've had fighter jets dog fighting LOUDLY over head on a medium lite cloudy day and they weren't exactly easy to spot especially if they got altitude.. Pretty much disappeared. A spy plane going full tilt wayyyy up would probably be tough to spot.

If it was high and fast enough by the time the sound hit people the plane could probably be out of visual range. Sound travels much slower then light and it would be very much compounded over 100,000 feet or so.

Just my 2 cents.
edit on 19-11-2014 by mindseye1609 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

It wasn't over LA per se, but a bit to the North...Way too high and fast to see, and it would not be leaving any sort of contrail, no matter what altitude..



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: gfad


High speed is very stealthy??

If you didn't know exactly where to look and you sat in your back yard with a 360 degree view of the sky, appropriate camera and waited lets say 8 hours ; what are the chances of capturing something at altitude that flies at over 4500 MPH?


It would be pretty difficult. If you had a purpose built wide-angle optical telescope, perhaps multi-spectral filters, with many full-frame CCD's, lots of computational power backed by multi-TB stoarge, and a few years to work on sophisticated image processing algorithms, and automatic classification vs known commercial flights, and the labor to sort through hundreds of other cases identified by your methods, then maybe a few of the many thousands of moving black pixels over a year might be something interesting you didn't know about before, and now you know it's a moving black pixel.
edit on 19-11-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Something interesting to think about. The KC-135Q was designed to refuel the SR-71, and carried JP-7 fuel in the body tanks. After being reengined with the CFM-56 engines, they were redesignated KC-135T (the 8 or so that are capable of in flight refueling are RTs).

Now the SR-71 has been retired since 1990, so why are all the KC-135Ts still flying around, and why did the Air Force buy a huge amount of JP7 to be delivered around 2010? And why do they still list prices for it in 2013?



To answer your first question the Kc-135T is nothing more than a KC135R with a couple extra switches to prevent mixing the body tanks with the other fuel burned through its own engines. Oh and a nice spotlight on the tail that would illuminate the SR71. So we still fly them because there's nothing about them that cant be used on a regular mission. They act as R models all the time except with the switches are flipped.

Your second question I may have an answer for soon...waiting for conformation to get back to me but Edwards has had quite a bit of T models TDY there for a certain reason



The real person here who probably knows is boomer as i bet he's pretty much seen everything slurping on his extra long hose


I had an awesome joke for that one but didn't want to risk being banned, but it involved paper bags lol. But I will agree with zaph on this one. The Aurora does not exist. Its a line on a B-2 budget that some people decided to have fun with. I'm not saying an aircraft that fits the description doesn't exist, cause believe it or not the US has hid the existence of a lot of damn aircraft for decades. From my own personal recollection there may have been a technology demonstrator or two that "looked" like what we all think the aurora type aircraft would look like but as for building a squadron or even a few full production models? I doubt it.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Back in I think 2007 I was chatting with some pilots about how the 135T works when compaired to the Rs. (Pilots might know the operation of systems and perameters but they dont always know the components) and they let slip a rumor about a UAV/manned aircraft at the time that "Might" (wink) be using JP-7. Which is a bit before the 2010 delivery of JP-7. They said nothing more and we didnt push them. So I have nothing more.

Another 2007 rumor, this one is pretty dumb but not impossible, was that 135Ts would take off from Manas AB and fly off to a "unknown base" in the region. They would offload in-route/dumb/defuel at the base and then fill with JP-7 and refuel a special aircraft. Finally returning home without a hint of JP-7 in them. They would do this all in a 12 hour mission. I dont for a second think this rumor is true but its something I heards about.

As for the 135Ts fly as a normal tanker like boomer135 said and can be interchanged for normal flight missions. Everything is the same short of some fuel plumbing and a couple things to help with the SR-71 like an extra antenna and lights. Bt if you can get 2 fuel trucks on them or a duel pit for fueling they do fill faster then an R model since they have 2 SPRs. Which we loved when deployed for faster turns. 180k lb of fuel takes a bit of time to refuel.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Always used to love getting the E-4s in, because it was one of the few multi-SPR aircraft that you could dual pump. We ran into the problem with several aircraft that if you tried to pump more than one at a time, it cut your rate in half. So we'd have one on one wing, with another on the other wing. As soon as one was done the other would start. Then the first truck cleared off and the next one came in and waited.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: boomer135

Back in I think 2007 I was chatting with some pilots about how the 135T works when compaired to the Rs. (Pilots might know the operation of systems and perameters but they dont always know the components) and they let slip a rumor about a UAV/manned aircraft at the time that "Might" (wink) be using JP-7. Which is a bit before the 2010 delivery of JP-7. They said nothing more and we didnt push them. So I have nothing more.




Another 2007 rumor, this one is pretty dumb but not impossible, was that 135Ts would take off from Manas AB and fly off to a "unknown base" in the region. They would offload in-route/dumb/defuel at the base and then fill with JP-7 and refuel a special aircraft. Finally returning home without a hint of JP-7 in them. They would do this all in a 12 hour mission. I dont for a second think this rumor is true but its something I heards about.

This is somewhat true. Only difference is Manas had a supply of JP-7 not alot of people knew about and yes we refueled an aircraft that used JP-7. But we didn't land at another base to refuel on the ground and take off again to refuel said aircraft.


As for the 135Ts fly as a normal tanker like boomer135 said and can be interchanged for normal flight missions. Everything is the same short of some fuel plumbing and a couple things to help with the SR-71 like an extra antenna and lights. Bt if you can get 2 fuel trucks on them or a duel pit for fueling they do fill faster then an R model since they have 2 SPRs. Which we loved when deployed for faster turns. 180k lb of fuel takes a bit of time to refuel.


We loved flying T models just for the extra spotlight on the tail that shined down. but when my time was coming to an end in the Air Force they started getting rid of them for some reason.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Speaking of Edwards... Anybody know what's on the back of the trailer being towed by the pickup? I'm sure it's benign since it's on Google Earth, but certainly looks interesting.




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CessnaKC

I'm looking at it on my phone so I can't blow it up much, but it looks like an X-36. Maybe being moved to a display area.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CessnaKC



Rockwell HiMAT: one of them is on display at the Armstrong Flight Research Center (Edwards AFB).

Most probably the one in the foreground of this picture with the black wings:




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Right on. Appreciate the reply. reply to: Zaphod58




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Gracias! a reply to: CiTrus90




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Himat with wingtips removed for transport. That's why it looked like an X-36.
edit on 11/23/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Rest Assured there was follow on Program to the SR-71. It doesn't take some back door meet and greet with trickling down information to prove that this plane or platform is out there.

Chuck Clark got it on Tape, the Swiss Mountain Bat saw and describe it, and the Sky Quakes of the early 90's prove "something" was moving fast.

While it can or cannot be said if it was one plane or many, What I truly do believe is you are seeing the Very Bottom of the Black World Aircraft. Meaning, this plane or platform has technology so great its worth keeping very hidden! With everything that is going on right now, I'm all for Keeping some Aircraft Secrets secret!

If you think about it for a moment, it is Not the Concept or Ideas that is new, But that We made these concepts and idea Truth and made them Succeed! Most other countries know about Pulse Detonation and Hypersonic Speed, but putting the whole package together and making it work, is where the real Secret's start.

just my two cents.......



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: themadgenius

Except for missiles a pulse detonation engine is overrated.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: themadgenius
Rest Assured there was follow on Program to the SR-71. It doesn't take some back door meet and greet with trickling down information to prove that this plane or platform is out there.

Chuck Clark got it on Tape, the Swiss Mountain Bat saw and describe it, and the Sky Quakes of the early 90's prove "something" was moving fast.


I think it's definitely possible that some technology demonstrator was built but never went into production, perhaps that is what the Swiss Mountain Bat saw from Tikaboo that day. I have to say I think that report was the most credible (and exciting) sighting until the mysterious triangles spotted this year. I'm surprised the remote control camera at Tikaboo didn't appear sooner after those drawings and recordings came out!!

Re: the skyquakes of the 90's I hear a lot of people talk about them, and I've seen people mention contrails on NASA satellite images leading to Groom etc. etc. but never seen any solid evidence/source/data regarding the skyquakes. Does anyone know more apart from anecdotal evidence?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
What kind of tech can propel a plane over mach 2.5 ? I don't think scramjet is the good engine, too difficult to ignite and realy too risky for a manned Platform, in my opinion, its more on a turbine enhancement , pulse detonation must have a serious problem of noise and vibration for a viable plane with this kind of engine.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Scramjets work just fine.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

We didn't remove the wingtips or anything else while transporting the HiMAT. They just are not particularly noticeable in the image. The airplane was being repainted prior to being put on outdoor static display. Unfortunately, the new paint job is also succumbing to the elements. It should really be indoors.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

I saw another picture of it on a trailer with the tips laying on the front of the trailer. With the angle of them in that picture, and on a phone screen, I figured they did the same here.

That's always the problem with outdoor displays. We had a couple that needed repainting every three years at most. If it went longer it was so faded you could barely see the markings.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join