US Air Force works on plan for near-space vehicle

"WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - Top U.S. Air Force officials are working on a strategy to put surveillance aircraft in "near space," the no man's land above 65,000 feet but below an outer space orbit, Air Force chief of staff Gen. John Jumper said on Tuesday. "

cnn.netscape.cnn.com...


I think its about time. I wonder what defensive tech these things would carry other than being stealthy? This is the bridge between where satelites leave off and actual ground based intel.

I also wonder what a country would think about having one of these parked 65,000 feet up, just outside thier airspace? I mean, at that altitude it wouldnt be that hard to simply look into countries without actually violating thier space.


[edit on 14-12-2004 by skippytjc]

Dude...

Think of the black triangles... the so-called 'big, black deltas'. Many have thought they were advanced dirigibles... and that seems to be what jumper is talking about here.

the no man's land above 65,000 feet but below an outer space orbit

Hmm, I guess that a regular operating altitude of angles 65 would be ok... It's about time really. I just wonder why not higher, though, it wouldn�t matter because it would be rare for something like that to be intercepted by the enemy especially if it is stealthy...

To me it just sounds like he is talking about the HAA (High Altitude Airship). Which will be able to stay up for months because it will be solar powered, and will go 65,000ft high, and will be unmanned, and Airships can be made stealthy, but For an airship I would really want visual stealth.

Here are some quick links about the BBD/black triangle theory:

www.klas-tv.com...

www.nidsci.org...

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Essentially... these things have been cited going in and out of military bases for a few years now. Various UFO groups (like the now defunct NIDS) have often suggested that these giant triangles are really giant blimps.

Originally posted by skippytjc

I also wonder what a country would think about having one of these parked 65,000 feet up, just outside thier airspace? I mean, at that altitude it wouldnt be that hard to simply look into countries without actually violating thier space.


[edit on 14-12-2004 by skippytjc]

Francis Gary Powers was shot down from 80,000 ft. This being the case, one can only assume that you have to be in orbit in order to be exempt from traveling over a countries air space legaly without obtaining their permission.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by skippytjc

I also wonder what a country would think about having one of these parked 65,000 feet up, just outside thier airspace? I mean, at that altitude it wouldnt be that hard to simply look into countries without actually violating thier space.


[edit on 14-12-2004 by skippytjc]

Francis Gary Powers was shot down from 80,000 ft. This being the case, one can only assume that you have to be in orbit in order to be exempt from traveling over a countries air space legaly without obtaining their permission.

Who needs permission when you are stealthy? At those altitude aircraft rarely make contrails so it would be hard to detect electronically and visibly.

Who needs permission when you are stealthy? At those altitude aircraft rarely make contrails so it would be hard to detect electronically and visibly.

Stealth has nothing to do with it. In order to over fly a country you need to get their permission, that is the law.

Read this link at the bottom it explains the reasoning.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Stealth has nothing to do with it. In order to over fly a country you need to get their permission, that is the law.

Read this link at the bottom it explains the reasoning.

Once again, who needs permission when you have a stealthy, non-detectible aircraft? What you don�t know can�t hurt you... It's been done before and will be done again.

Originally posted by ChrisRT

Stealth has nothing to do with it. In order to over fly a country you need to get their permission, that is the law.

Read this link at the bottom it explains the reasoning.

Once again, who needs permission when you have a stealthy, non-detectible aircraft? What you don�t know can�t hurt you... It's been done before and will be done again.

I gave you the link that states it is against the international law didn't you read it?

Sure it has been done and again I would point out the plane was shot down and the individual was put in jail for a long long time.

This "near space" aerial vehicle is a part of "Project Alpha" which involves advanced high-altitude platforms, including lighter-than-air systems (balloons), high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and hybrid systems. The system referred to in this speech Gen. John Jumper is a sub program of Project Alpha known as the HALL (High Altitude, Long Loiter) program.


Because geostationary satellites have to be at an altitude of 22,300 miles above the earth
the DoD has an interest in near space platforms that can "station-keep" or stay over an area of interest for a sustained period of time at heights between ten to thirty miles above the earth. Lighter than air systems are therefore being developed that will offer a stealthy but not invisible long loiter surveillance platform.


For your reference here are a few helpful links:

Project Alpha: U.S. Joint Forces Command

"Project Alpha Expedites Search for Ideas for a Changing Military": The Mitre Corporation

A couple of visual concepts

/Below/ The "Dark Sky Station" concept,
hovering over areas of interest
at 100,000 + ft.



/Below/ Ballistically deployed HALL platform
concept would be launched in a missile and
be released during missile's descent.
It would then ascend to it's station
at heights above 100,000 ft.



Intelgurl~






[edit on 17-12-2004 by intelgurl]

Once again, a timely post with great info.

A real contributor to all these tech threads.