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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Thank you for providing amazing links.
And yes, you have to have minimum 30 posts to be able to send PMs. But you are on a half way now so keep posting


a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

Why you suggest that timeline don't match up? It was admitted that they tested Quiet Boom aircraft for awhile now, so I thought that it was tested in the 90s.

General question: Is it possible that there were/are two different Quiet Boom aircraft? One would be Lockheed, the other would be Boeing.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The A-12 vs Kingfish story is almost more about how much better Lockheed's Skunk Works PR department was than Convair's.

Then you delve into all of the Convair Super Hustler concepts, especially the stealthy ones, and even further into the Johnson-era stealth flying wings that they evolved into. After that, you dig into North American/Rockwell's forays into high speed aerodynamics and some of the crazy concepts that eventually took them from the XB-70 to the Space Shuttle (I remember once, stumbling across the technical drawings for a North American/Rockwell sub-orbital spaceliner that was basically the Lockheed Star Clipper scaled up to the size of the largest Boeing 2707-200 iterations, with F-1's or something similar in place of the SSME's.), and you see stuff like Pye Wacket. Then, you dig into Isinglass and see just how advanced McDonnell's forays into hypersonics were (know-how that eventually led to the Delta Clipper, just about the closest anyone's ever come to making the SSTO concept "work").

And suddenly, the relatively well-publicized stuff that the Skunk Works were doing at the same time stops being quite so impressive in comparison.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I would imagine that the Kingfish's crazy ceramics would have done a killer job at keeping surface temps and radar returns low as the airframe heated up. Remember that every single edge of that bird was going to be made of the stuff, which was as close to a RAM-style material as anyone got in the 60's.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

IR mitigation....restrain yourself bass....i must not post....must .....not....post....

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



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
@mightmight - question to you.

When project element number '0305142F' appeared for the first time? I was looking at it and the earliest year I was able to find was 1993... I wonder if it would have its first flight in 1986(as it was stated by 'Wolfbane'). Do you think that Chris Gibson and Swiss guys saw the same aircraft?

What is your view on it, mightmight?





posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic
The oldest reference i found is for FY89. Might be older though, might be worth to keep looking.

Its certainly possible Gibson saw the same aircraft as the Swiss guys. I know Gibson claims otherwise, but IMO some swept wing aircraft (F-111, F-14, Tornado) is the easiest explanation. Maybe the craft had an emergency and couldnt deploy the wings correctly anmore, maybe it had to decent because of that etc.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Could you link a reference you've found for FY89?



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Its certainly possible Gibson saw the same aircraft as the Swiss guys. I know Gibson claims otherwise, but IMO some swept wing aircraft (F-111, F-14, Tornado) is the easiest explanation.



I've read all of Chris' public posts and watched all the video...to this day (or within the last few years) he is still adamant it was not an F111 or a Vulcan.
The guy was under constraint of the OSA at the time so even revealing what he saw was a potential grey area in terms of ongoing relationship with the MOD.


Hasn't cashed in, is credible in all other areas - rather than him a making a mistake I'd be more willing to entertain the (very unlikely) possibility he got a brown envelope to participate in an ongoing ruse to overstate US capabilities.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Thanks


What do you think about this idea? Look:
We know that original Convair Kingfish was lost for A-12 in 1959. We know that it was better design than the Lockheed plane but despite this Kingfish "failed"...

OXCART was CIA program and CIA took A-12 as their choice. Central Intelligence Agency is complately different agency than National Reconnaissance Office and has a different mission. NRO was established in 1961. Why NRO would operate only satellites when there are other unchosen fast birds there? People here suggested that NRO operates "not too many platforms" what, for me, is a clearly tip that they operate some undisclosed things other than just satellites...

Then we have USAF "U-2 Companion" acknowledged by director of DARO in 1998. [Similar situation to F-117 Companion thing - F-117 is Lockheed baby so F-117 Companion is most probably Northrop or Boeing.]
If U-2 is Lockheed then its Companion would be made by other manufacturer for ex. General Dynamics. Sound similar? Yeah... "F-121 NRO"... admitted by "Wolfbane". I'm sure "F-121" isn't proper designator but just an IDer.

I bet progression would look like this:
A-12 --> CIA(1959)
Convair Kingfish --> NRO(about 1960)
"U-2 Companion" AKA 'F-121 NRO' ---> joint USAF/NRO

You know it is speculation but it fits pretty well at least for me



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: mightmight

Then we have USAF "U-2 Companion" acknowledged by director of DARO in 1998.


Source?



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Thanks for that. I literally LOLed.

a reply to: BASSPLYR



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackDog10

@mightmight gave us this link which is pretty interesting.

The page is archived. You can view it by quoting my post and copying content(link).
web-beta.archive.org...://idr.janes.com:80/samples/idrsample4.html

Here you have screenshot

edit on 29-4-2017 by SpeedFanatic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I posted this when SpeedFanatic ask me about me mentioning the possibility of a black component of the U-2 program.
Its not as clear cut as it looks though. The article may be bs / speculation of the author.
The other link i posted -www.dtic.mil... - is much more intersting. I guess this is the orignial source of the article, it seems to establish the Air Force Special Platform and the U-2 program are separate programs.

Others - prominently Quellish / Dan Z. from secretprojects.uk (he knows stuff)- argue that this is all wrong/made up and AFSP is just another name for the U-2 program. Quellish had an article an old defunct website in which he references two quotes from some air force budget a couple of years back. FY2000ish i think, dont have the link available atm, but i can provide it next week. The article is still archived as well.
Anyway, the quotes from the budget show that in the first year it mentions the AFSP, while in the next year, they just replaced it with U-2 while the rest of the line stayed the same.
To him this is proof that AFSP and U-2 are identical. I disagree with this viewpoint, the orignial paper from Maj.Gen. Israel plainly reads 'U-2 and AFSP'.
Also, if AFSP is just another name for the U-2 program, the name would show up much more. Yet it doesnt, you barely find anything on the web mentioning the AFSP. And if you think about it, why would they have another name for the program in the first place?



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I agree with you. In the case when AFSP is just another name for the U-2 it would show more frequently in articles about U-2. If the AFSP=U2 the original paper from Maj.Gen. Israel wouldn't state 'U-2 and AFSP' but more like 'U-2 or AFSP'.

'U-2 or AFSP' would mean that it is the same but 'U-2 and AFSP' means for me two different platforms.

Maybe they tried to cover AFSP and they replaced it with U-2 later. It reminds me similar situation from the past - in the Colonel bio there was YF-24 listed in his biography but was erased later. It just provided too much speculation so they decided to delete it.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

As far as the Special Projects forum is concerned, if there's not a budget line item, in the public budget, and you can't show where the money is coming from, it doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you talking about that uk aviation forum? I forget their name but basically their modus operandi is to be ignorant and arrogant at the same time.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
You should try the British Historic forums...
Problem with Darkstar was it was on its limits for aerodynamic stability before its crash and redesign but then financially it was on its last legs from the government.
Forunner to the Rq170/180 is my guess.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

I figure dark star had a more interesting service record than most people would think.


Plus they had bright star around same time. Lockheed for all your isr needs.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
FASTMOVER!!!
Here is a radio transcript of the "fastmover" seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999.
The tape was running from 5:50 to 8:45 AM that day(8 September 1999).



The "fastmover" used a callsign with "...745"-end. Then there is a communication starting with words "Four Five... I've got your numbers for Silverbow.." I wonder if it is a communication related to "fastmover" or not because "Four Five" is not the same as "...745". If it would be the same it means that "fastmover" headed to TTR.

What are you thinking about this radio communications? Any clues, ideas??
@mightmight





top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join