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.

 

'Fastmover' seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999: discussion

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Do you think that the "Fastmover" that was seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999 was NRO project??? Maybe Green Lady replaced aircraft that Swiss guys saw? What do you think?




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I'd bet he was as well. I'd imagine that one of the biggest lies ever propagated by the intelligence community was the idea that airborne ISR craft could be replaced by satellites. I'd imagine that the biggest accomplishment that lie achieved was in getting our adversaries to do their nefarious stuff on a schedule dictated by our satellite passes, so that we'd know exactly when to send the airborne ISR system to photograph the good stuff.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic
Maybe, maybe not, i dont know.

If you dig deeper, there was a user called wolfbane on dreamlandressort some 15 years ago. He claimed its the "F-121" and yes, NRO.
I dont put much credibility on this, he claimed lots of things. But its always fun to dig. One tidbit i find particularly intersting though, is his claim that this craft is essentially a U-2 companion, developed from Model 100/Sneaky Pete.
I read about this somewhere else, not about the F-121/U-2 connection but about the possiblity of the U-2 program having a classified / black world component. I dont kow if there is any truth to this, but when i hear about the same random outlandish stuff from multiple sources its a red flag for me.
Interesting about the "F-121" - its alleged name 'Centennial' didnt come out of nowhere, it was a codeword for some sort of strategic program with element number 0305142F. 'Centennial' went away during the early Nineties, but the number didnt. Its still on the books today, called 'Applied Technology and Integration'. Far less.. flashy, see what they did there? Guess 'Aurora' thaught them a thing or two.
If you look it up in the Future Years Defense Program Structure, its says Special Acces Program - Access will be granted on a strict need-to-know basis. Neat.
'Omega' 0207591F is very interesting as well, its still active as "advanced program evaluation".
You can google the rest. Lots of stuff outthere, just no way to know whats true.
edit on 25-4-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I learn something new every time when I'm reading your posts! Thanks!


I have come across wolfbane posts many times before. We will never know how many of his claims are true, probably.
A Few members here agreed that the white aircraft seen at Groom(www.dreamlandresort.com...) was probably Lockheed Quiet Boom testbed and was flying for awhile now. Then we have wolfbane posts about this white aircraft and he had claimed that this was Lockheed Quiet Boom aircraft aswell. Wolfbane admitted that it was contractor-owned aircraft. He had claimed that it caused those "skyquakes" in California during the early 90s.

Yes, I will definately google for element numbers you listed.
Thanks again!



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Connecting the dots Fastmover is a variation of the F121 ,Sentinel,Centennial,Switchblade airframe..Nothing has been photographed of it yet,just sightings and various artist renderings.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Let's check your PM



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Hows a quiet boom platform going to cause sky quakes again?



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

According to Wolfbane, "skyquakes" in California during the early 90s were caused by the aircraft seen here:
Experimental Aircraft Sighting in 1995

Here is his post from Dreamland Resort forum:
Wolfbane DRL post 1

and here is a real photo of this aircraft. The photo is under 'Bright Star' section:
www.dreamlandresort.com...

EDIT: I've just re-read his post and he claimed that it is ONE OF the mystery aircraft that caused "skyquakes"...

edit on 26-4-2017 by SpeedFanatic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

The point of a quiet boom design is to prevent sonic booms from reaching the ground, or for them to reach the ground at such a low frequency they aren't noticed.

In other words, a quiet boom aircraft wouldn't cause skyquakes.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

I've been away a few days and see that Jukiodone asked: "Why did you choose that tag 1947Boomer??"

Because I had no idea that, when I chose my ATS identity, I would be discussing aviation topics with a bunch of aerial refueling boom operators.

I am a "baby boomer", born in 1947.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Let's check your PM

sry cant answer pm, probably not enough posts

pm system ate my answer, here is the short version:
www.dtic.mil...
,Integration for "Plug and Play" with U-2 and Air Force Special Platform'

Also:
web-beta.archive.org...://idr.janes.com:80/samples/idrsample4.html

You'll find others who argue that U-2=AFSP, i dont think so. The name would show up much more regularly (it doesnt at all really) if that was the case.
edit on 27-4-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

Regardless of your name and the reasons behind it. I still enjoy your posts and am happy to see you posting here again.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

F-121 is a road to nowhere.
Although many people disagree, I reckon Chris Gibson did see something similar to Sentinel/Centennial from that oil rig.

The probability that a world class observer mistook a Vulcan (USAF off the record explanation) for something that exactly matches several, well regarded design concepts of an (obvious by its absence) SR71 replacement must be quite low.

edit on 27-4-2017 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

My hunch is that he saw a Kingfish, as I'm fairly certain she flew and was accepted​ into CIA service around 1968, replacing the A-12.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Hm, what is it with Kingfish? Sry but i don’t see it.
The design lost to the A-12, why would the CIA pick it up again a decade later? Even if the Kingfish would have been able to fly a bit faster/higher than the Oxcart, it wouldn’t have solved the fundamental problem - high end Soviet Air Defense. For everything else the SR-71 did well enough.
That’s why the known follow on programs, Isinglass/Rheinberry focused on Mach 20+ boost glide vehicles, truly untouchable, even by todays standards.
www.thespacereview.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Probably not the quiet boom demonstrator. The timelines don't match up and the last I heard it was being tested in Utah.


originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: mightmight

I learn something new every time when I'm reading your posts! Thanks!


I have come across wolfbane posts many times before. We will never know how many of his claims are true, probably.
A Few members here agreed that the white aircraft seen at Groom(www.dreamlandresort.com...) was probably Lockheed Quiet Boom testbed and was flying for awhile now. Then we have wolfbane posts about this white aircraft and he had claimed that this was Lockheed Quiet Boom aircraft aswell. Wolfbane admitted that it was contractor-owned aircraft. He had claimed that it caused those "skyquakes" in California during the early 90s.

Yes, I will definately google for element numbers you listed.
Thanks again!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Kingfish was actually marginally slower and lower flying​ than the A-12 (the way the SR-71 was slower and lower).

Where the Kingfish utterly eviscerated the A-12 was on the RCS pole, but with all the complex inlet geometry required to hide the fan discs and the brand-new materials like Pyro-Ceram that were needed to achieve the low RCS (on top of the already untested J58/JP-7 powerplant), the A-12 was seen as the simpler, less risky design (with acceptable RCS management elements) at a time when height and speed were seen to be the gold standard for evading SAM's.

That was in 1959.

Then, Gary Powers happened.

1960 was a rude awakening as to the real power of modern SAM systems, and suddenly the real strategic advantages offered by low-RCS designs began to show themselves, as the US realized that they would never be able to out-fly a good missile. That doctrine has lived on until today, and it shows no signs of changing.

That's why, in the 60s, you began to see the beginnings of true stealth​ experimentation with designs like the Boeing Quiet Bird or the Teledyne-Ryan low-RCS drone designs.

Now, my hunch is that the CIA decided to greenlight the Kingfish with its much lower RCS sometime in the very early 60s, but also opted not to cancel the A-12, which was then undergoing a very smooth development process, as a hedge against all of the new technologies that were integral to the Kingfish's mission advantage. So in a way, the A-12 could have very well been a testbed of sorts to evaluate the J-58/JP-7 combo as well as the rigors of maintaining OpSec while operating and forward-basing an aircraft that didn't officially exist. That last bit is especially important, as by all accounts, the USAF/CIA/NRO doctrine on black aircraft, all of which are stealth designs, is to keep their very existence a SAP-level secret so that the state actors on the receiving ends of such birds don't even know what to look for.

The decision to hand the A-12 program's scraps over to the USAF as the YF-12 and the SR-71 likely came around the time that the Kingfish and he new technologies were coming together, to create another level of OpSec by now having a true white world craft to attribute any sightings/booms/whatever to, and I would bet that Kingfish was taking her first flights around the time that the YF-12 and SR-71 went white in 1964, with it hitting IOC in 1967 or so.

It's all conjecture, but it fits beautifully with what we know about the A-12's timeline.

As a coda, I'll add this: The Kingfish was a roughly 70 degree delta design with a very short nose, and for all intents and purposes, would have resembled a black triangle from below. At 73 feet long, it would have been more or less the exact same length as an F-111. Sound familiar?
edit on 27-4-2017 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I dont think so, sorry.
Speed and stealth doesnt go well together. Never has, never will. IF they realized back then that Stealth was the way to go, they wouldnt try their luck on an hybrid design but go all the way in either direction. Thats why they had a Mach 20+ Boost Glide program.
Maybe they had a VLO effort too, but stealth was in its infancy back then. Sure, Kingsfish had a lower RCS than the Oxcart. But probably not low enough to matter. Its far more likely they realized this and never adopted a marigal more suitable design instead of a radical solution.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Word is that kingfish did win. It was the better bird. Lockheed got the contract because it was feared corsair was too large a contractor and that they wouldnt be able to keep opsec as easily as the smaller skunk works.

Then the word is that kingfish was developed shortly after the sr71 and operated around the same time but for a different agency.

As for quiet boom demonstrator in utah. I think thats a smaller bird than what you guys are talking about.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Why cant stealth and speed go together. Too loud with the sonic booms? Too hot? Radar? Whats the problem?
edit on 27-4-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join