Next generation of black aircraft: after the Aurora.

As we all know the history of the U.S. black military projects to be progressive, to say the least. They have produced the SR-71 in the 1960s which is still the fastest and highest flying aircraft to this date this is still not classified. We also know of the existence of a still classified aircraft called the "Aurora", when information was leaked in the 1980s. this aircraft is said to be much more capable then the renown SR-71 in all aspects. So my question to me fellow ATSers is: "Whats next?" but to be more accurate is to ask "Whats in development or flying now?" If you look at the time line, a new generation of aircraft came along ever 20 years or so. So the reasonable conclusion is that the U.S black military has now (or very shortly) an aircraft that will make the "Aurora" as obsolete as the "Aurora" made the SR-71.

SR-71 Stats:

Build in early 1960's
Propulsion: Turboramjet
Top speed: mach 3.3 to 3.5
Max level altitude: 100,000- 120,000 feet (maybe up to 125,000)
Mission: reconnaissance

Aurora Stats:

Build in the late 1980's
Propulsion: PDWE or ramjet
Top speed: mach 6-10 (most estimates) but some say up to mach 20
Max level altitude: 160,000-200,000 feet (most estimates) but some say up to 300,000
Mission: reconnaissance

As you can see all flight envelopes have been at least doubled with the next generation. So my conclusion is that in between 2000-2010 the next generation of reconnaissance craft would fly (if it isn't flying already). My calculations concluded that this generation of craft would fly high enough it could exit the atmosphere (above 400,000 feet or space) and fly atleast fast enough to achieve orbit (around mach 20-25). The propulsion for this craft has me guessing though ... although a PDWE would be able to achieve this. Though at this point the mission of this aircraft would probably be to deliver weapons, not to gather information since flying would be useless since a satellite could to the job. Then again if somehow they have created an antigravity engine, then they would have technology more advance then probably most of us can imagine.

What do you guys think? Does it make some sense?

[edit on 18-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

wouldn't want it to travel too high, be no better then Sattilites (except you can't track them)

Maybe, but at this point in history, information gathering is not too hard for the U.S. government. So I was thinking that by this point in aircraft/spacecraft development by the black military the next generation of "Aurora" would probably used for a different purpose, like weapons delivery. A craft traveling at mach over 20 and at over 100 km it could get to any place in the world in under an hour. This would be a good enough reason for the government to make such a craft.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

perhaps it will be a lil faster than the aurora but way more stealthier or perhaps remote controlled.

Well the TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle seems to be the next one. www.abovetopsecret.com...

No it probably is not, its build at the wrong time. If it uses lifter tech its not useful at all... Lifters ionize the air around it and cause it to be directed downwards for thrust. So its not antigravity... more like a simple toy then anything else.

you will still need recon aircraft. satallites are in a pretty much trackable orbit give or take a nudge here or there. both russia and the usa move things in and out of cover according to satallite orbits as do many other nations. recon aircraft such as the replacement for the SR-71 ( what ever it may be called ) gives you the advantage of catching things that satallites with their fixed orbits can't and at much shorter notices than what the Blackbird did

I agree on the advatages of recon craft vs sattilites.

The probly is, there comes a point when you get so much speed, and max altitude, the High tech recon craft is no better then a sattilite as far as abilities and details.

At high MACH speeds you dont have much manuverbiity and rely on Electronic warefare to evade AA missiles

Originally posted by Jehosephat
I agree on the advatages of recon craft vs sattilites.

The probly is, there comes a point when you get so much speed, and max altitude, the High tech recon craft is no better then a sattilite as far as abilities and details.

At high MACH speeds you dont have much manuverbiity and rely on Electronic warefare to evade AA missiles

To further on the other posts, a recon aircraft will ALWAYS be better than a satilite - why? because you can get one on target when YOU want, without decreasing the life of the system.

Satilites are in certain orbits, which can be tracked (any radar system can detect satilites, they just need to be pointed upward) and predicted. To alter these orbits, either more north or south, or to appear ahead of or behind time, you need to use fuel to alter the orbital inclination, attitude or speed. Each time you do this, you take a concious decision to shortern the life of the satilite, as that fuel is also needed to maintain the standard orbit. Also when you change the orbit of the satilite, you need to make sure that its in an orbit that will be longterm useful to you - its no point putting the satilite into an orbit that will get you one set of shots and then be useless.

As I mentioned before, you can put a recon aircraft on the target during a tight windowframe, you can also cover more territory with aircraft, and one mission can include 20 or 30 targets that arent at all related - a satilite cannot do that, you can only have so many up at once, and you cant put more up quickly. If you loose one, youve lost the capability until you can replace one.

You forget than an aircraft can slow down, it doesnt always have to be at high mach numbers - the SR-71 for instance used to be at high mach over enemy territory but slow to subsonic when over friendly territory, mainly to turn onto a new target.

So we established that recon airplanes have many advantages over satellites. What do you guys think is flying now, since my theory is that the "aurora" is getting old and something new has to emerge? I already stated that I think its performance stats I think it has, but I would like to hear you guys have to say. Maybe the craft does not have to be so fast or high flying, maybe it can over and be fully stealthy including optically. Any ideas?

[edit on 21-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

Maybe the answer is a return to the future, the TR-1 is the modern equivelent of the U-2 with stealth coating on the airframe and probably active stealth componants as well, and isn't "above top secret" but out in the open.

I read on Jane's defense (a publication on military advancement) and saw on a documentory were a Janes editor was interviewed and he spoke of a plane that was equiped with a visual stealth technology just like the Klingon Cloaking devise.

As soon as I find the article I will let you know.

I think the next generation plane will be as you said, much more advance and both radar and visual stealth technology.


Here is the link : www.janes.com...


[edit on 21-2-2005 by bpletcj]

I wouldnt be surprised at all. The military as stuff over 75 years more advanced then the technology available to the public. I'll even go as far as say that they have probably mastered interplanetary if not interstellar travel...

Originally posted by bpletcj
I read on Jane's defense (a publication on military advancement) and saw on a documentory were a Janes editor was interviewed and he spoke of a plane that was equiped with a visual stealth technology just like the Klingon Cloaking devise.

As soon as I find the article I will let you know.

I think the next generation plane will be as you said, much more advance and both radar and visual stealth technology.


Here is the link : www.janes.com...


[edit on 21-2-2005 by bpletcj]

Boeing Unveils Bird of Prey Stealth Technology Demonstrator
Oct. 18, 2002
News Release
The Bird of Prey technology demonstrator pioneered breakthrough low-observable technologies and revolutionized aircraft design, development and production. Developed by the Boeing Phantom Works advanced research-and-development organization, the Bird of Prey was among the first to initiate the use of large, single-piece composite structures; low-cost, disposable tooling; and 3-D virtual reality design and assembly processes to ensure the aircraft was affordable as well as high-performing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You can copy this low-resolution image to your hard drive by right clicking on it, and selecting "Save Image As..."
Download high-resolution image (for media)
Select the link to download the high-resolution image above. Please note that it may take several minutes to download. Once the image has completely loaded, right mouse click on it; select Save Image As; chose directory for downloaded photo; select Save.

This image is also available for editorial use by news media on boeingmedia.com



[edit on 21-2-2005 by bpletcj]

[edit on 21-2-2005 by bpletcj]

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
I wouldnt be surprised at all. The military as stuff over 75 years more advanced then the technology available to the public. I'll even go as far as say that they have probably mastered interplanetary if not interstellar travel...

I hope thats sarcasm, because Ive heard this 'claim' many times, and i totally disbelieve it each time I hear it. Military stuff is often no further advanced that stuff being dveloped in the private sector, and if it is ahead, its ahead by months or weeks, not years.

img156.exs.cx...ℑ=23triangle7za.jpg

intersting craft

I suspect that the next "Black" spy plane might combine advanced stealth, longer range and endurance, and Revolutionary sensors. The reason I didn't mention speed, is because I believe that too much speed would be Counter-Productive! Think about it Spying is about gathering information from an enemy to use to your advantage. The faster you are flying, the less time you have to collect information. Common scense tells you there is a point at which you no longer have enough time to gather anything useful. At this point, speed becomes a Disadvantage not an advantage. Second, The enemy and the battle feild are changing, their aren't as many surface targets to photograph. Most reconnassance missions consist of Servallence and Tracking or SIGINT (intercepting and Analyzing electronic signals, and interceting communication). Both of these missions require endurance, not speed.

At home I have an old Popular Mechanic artical about the TR-3 spy plane. In the artical, it talks about a top secret plane that could fly slow enough for a jogger to keep pace with it with little effort. If this report is accurate, I think a plane like that makes more scense then a mach 5 plane, if you are trying to fallow a Terrorist on a camel through the desert. Technology has to adapt to match the threat or it will become obsolete before it ever enters service!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by ghost
The faster you are flying, the less time you have to collect information. Common scense tells you there is a point at which you no longer have enough time to gather anything useful. At this point, speed becomes a Disadvantage not an advantage.

I disagree - whatever speed you will be going at, radar waves and light waves are orders of magnitudes faster, you arent going to miss the data by speeding past it (think of the data satellites can gather while travelling at 17,000mph or Mach 25 in Low Earth Orbit). Speed means you can be over a spot when YOU want, and within very tight deadlines.

Second, The enemy and the battle feild are changing, their aren't as many surface targets to photograph. Most reconnassance missions consist of Servallence and Tracking or SIGINT (intercepting and Analyzing electronic signals, and interceting communication). Both of these missions require endurance, not speed.

This is why you have multiple methods of gaining data. This thread seems to be under the impression that theres only room for one single recon aircraft - there isnt. You have aircraft capable of longrange deep entry reconnaisonce, you have aircraft capable of loitering for long periods of time. You have aircraft capable of sustaining heavy damage.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by ghost
The faster you are flying, the less time you have to collect information. Common scense tells you there is a point at which you no longer have enough time to gather anything useful. At this point, speed becomes a Disadvantage not an advantage.

I disagree - whatever speed you will be going at, radar waves and light waves are orders of magnitudes faster, you arent going to miss the data by speeding past it (think of the data satellites can gather while travelling at 17,000mph or Mach 25 in Low Earth Orbit). Speed means you can be over a spot when YOU want, and within very tight deadlines.

You right About radar travling at the speed of light! I didn't explain my point well. Let's say you want to listen in a phone converstion between Bin Laden and one of his operatives in Iraq. The radio waves that carry the Cell phone conversation travle at the speed of light, but the conversation itself doesn't. If you want to hear what they are discussing, you need to hang around for a while and listen!

Second, The enemy and the battle feild are changing, their aren't as many surface targets to photograph. Most reconnassance missions consist of Servallence and Tracking or SIGINT (intercepting and Analyzing electronic signals, and interceting communication). Both of these missions require endurance, not speed.

This is why you have multiple methods of gaining data. This thread seems to be under the impression that theres only room for one single recon aircraft - there isnt. You have aircraft capable of longrange deep entry reconnaisonce, you have aircraft capable of loitering for long periods of time. You have aircraft capable of sustaining heavy damage.


I agree with you! My point is that as the threat changes, you primary method of gathering intelligence needs to change. More of today's targets are moble then ever before. Back in the cold war, you were mapping a lot of stationary targets. With moble targets you need to track it, not just locate it once and take a picture. I Agree that you need more then one type of spy plane. I only ment to say that most most of the intelligence missions we are flying now, greater speed would be more of a disadvantage then an advantage, because of the type of threat we are facing today.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by ghost

You right About radar travling at the speed of light! I didn't explain my point well. Let's say you want to listen in a phone converstion between Bin Laden and one of his operatives in Iraq. The radio waves that carry the Cell phone conversation travle at the speed of light, but the conversation itself doesn't. If you want to hear what they are discussing, you need to hang around for a while and listen!

Interesting point, but recon aircraft are rarely used for that specific purpose (the NSA and the UK GCHQ have huge listening posts around the globe which catch these conversations, and they are also intercepted by satellites).

Signals Intelligence is covered by passive capture - you dont actually have to have anything in the field, signals bounce all over the place thanks to the ionosphere, and can be picked up from quite a distance away.

Granted, a fast aircraft might not be able to catch something in the act, like troop movements on camel back, but then you still have to have the aircraft over the area at the precise time that something happens, and that you cannot guarantee - the slower aircraft takes time to get there! Only if you saturated the area with recon aircraft capable of loitering for hours on end until they are relieved by another aircraft will you gain the ability you are talking about - and if that happens you might as well launch a spy sat into geosync orbit (tho what sort of data you get from that far out - 35,000miles - is debateable - top range optics shopuld be able to get usable data, but you are subject to scatter and weather patterns).

I agree with you! My point is that as the threat changes, you primary method of gathering intelligence needs to change. More of today's targets are moble then ever before. Back in the cold war, you were mapping a lot of stationary targets. With moble targets you need to track it, not just locate it once and take a picture. I Agree that you need more then one type of spy plane. I only ment to say that most most of the intelligence missions we are flying now, greater speed would be more of a disadvantage then an advantage, because of the type of threat we are facing today.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

There are positives and negatives to each arguement - I personally think theres still a market for both aircraft - with UAVs handling the loitering since they can be on station for days without flinching from the risk or having to pander to human weakness (sleep, peeing etc)