It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
I decided to make a new thread about this mystery incident that happened in the evening of the 26 September 1994. Because of the fact that there are many hints floating around here on ATS forum in different topics about what crashed there etc. it will be a good place to make some conclusions and put some pieces together.
What we already know:
- the aircraft involved in the incident had nothing to do with YF-23 or THAP;
- it was not 'F-117 Companion';
- it was black world bird that had invard canted tails and forebody chines;
- 737 JANET appeared at Boscombe a few days after the incident had happened;
- the wreck was carried into C-5 and transported to KPMD(Plant 42);
- the bird was manned;
- it was operational by NRO*
Discussion, what it might be? There is rumor that something is going to see light of a day in the nearest future. Any chances that we will know what crashed there??
Any thoughts, suggestions?
Zaph, maybe you
The aircraft was a "Stealth bomber" when I pressed for details. He stated that it was of a type similar
to the B-2 but about the size of a Tornado. The accident had occurred on landing, and he had overhead a
discussion concerning an electrical and hydraulic failure. On landing the nose gear failed, pushing the
nose into the runway but surprisingly doing little damage to the aircraft. The aircraft had twin tails
located outboard of the top-mounted "lumps", and little else was visible due to coverings on the aircraft
to obscure its shape from view.
On landing the nose gear failed, pushing the nose into the runway but surprisingly doing little damage to the aircraft.
Like all conspiracy theoreis, what starts as one simple incident, gets snowballed out of all proportion due to soemone (generally who desperatly wants to belive something in the first place) adds 2 and 2 togther, and makes a huge number. For what it is worth, and people who believe the conspiracy theory will not believe me, I worked at Boscombe at that time and can perhaps shed sone light on some of the bits of the equation: 1. There was an incident on a Tornado which was doing trilas with a towed decoy, which failed to retract, hence the shutting of the main road outside the base. 2. There are generally American exchange pilots at Boscombe (at the time, it was Rick Husband I think, the shuttle commander during the Colombia accident). 3. A C5 was at Boscombe to take (or bring back) a helicopter from AUTEC. 4. The unmarked Boeing 707 was an Italian Air Force tanker at Boscombe for AAR trials. 5. The Agusta 109 was at Boscombe for trials. 6. The Gulfstream was a VIP aircraft. (Interesting aside. It was Tom Cruise visting Nicole Kidman who was in the local area making a film. Heale House- Portrait of a Lady). 7. The rolling deck was just being delivered from Bedford. Covered in tarpaulin. All of these things happened in the space of a few days. As I said 2+2 is a huge number
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Imagewerx
So the MoD just allows anyone to fly in to one of their bases, where one of their big testing companies does a lot of work? We never let just anyone fly in to our bases, because they were famous.
Of course, this story doesn't hold water at all. In 1994, there indeed was a UK aerial decoy program undergoing tests involving the Tornado -- in fact, the UK's ONLY towed decoy (and it is anything BUT secret, and no sources in the US or UK have allu ded to a "secret" decoy). The GEC - Marconi Ariel Airborne Towed Radar Decoy was developed in the 1980s to protect military aircraft against radar threats such as SAMs and air - to - air missiles. In 1991, it was pressed into service on Nimrod aircraft after a short testing period, and at the time had been tested only on the Buccaneer and a Jetstream. In 1994 - 1995, testing on Tornados was conducted. And in 1996, it was tested operationally in Bosnia on Tornados. Interestingly, all of the flight tests on Torn ados were conducted in the U.S. from Holloman AFB and on the Nellis AFB range. So the story of the towed decoy being tested on a Tornado in the UK during 1994 is fishy. But it gets better. Ariel can be attached to aircraft and deployed in several ways, differing with each type of aircraft. Larger aircraft such as the Nimrod are equipped with the means to recover the decoy in flight. Smaller aircraft -- the Tornado in particular -- use a kit to attach the decoy to the existing chaff countermeasures syst em and have no winch system. The decoy is separated by explosives at the end of the mission and is thus disposed of. It is fairly inconceivable how the decoy could remain attached. It can be separated at the end of the cable, two ways at the point which it attaches to the BOZ chaff pod, or the wing mounted chaff pod can be jettisoned entirely. So the Tornado story just didn't make much sense.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
Too many things dont add up in the official story if you include the UoS Vibrations...
"Of course, several people working on the F117A program at the time have conformed privately that there were 2 other types of aircraft allowed "downtown" over the skies of Baghdad during the war." is interesting.
Heard rumour that a RQ3 Darkstar derivative was operating over Baghdad so might just be a couple of early UAV types- which would also make a lot of sense.
originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: Bedlam
I was rather under the impression that those carbon strand dispensing Tomahawk warheads were common knowledge and not particularly denied. I remember being told at the time about them, and later reading about it. Mind you I was in a particular unit of our services at the time and heard plenty of other things too, some of which turned out to be complete rubbish, some not.
originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: Bedlam
IIRC there have been photos of the aftermath of those strikes with images of charred carbon strands draped over transformers and power lines on the web. So I'm surprised your colleagues/associates were aghast.
I take it you are referring to the kind of carbon that can be made into teeny weeny tubes?