WTF was that refueling

a reply to: 1947boomer

I'm not saying it couldn't be. But her or another bird using the same type of fuel could be testing near there. For 5 days in a row, a greenish streak moving very fast and very high in a straight line has been seen in the area.

Im guessing the conversation was something like this.

So I'm just shooting the breeze with my enlisted mate who was on cooking duty in Iraq but was not allowed any sharp objects so just made jelly.

Sup Cuz, I saw it with my own eyes, it was like the size of a passenger jet but it was carrying a flying saucer on its back, I don't know if they captured it or or was ours and they launched it from the back.

Did it look like this? (Shows photo of AWACS)

Damn cuz!!! You seen it too....

People here need to be aware that there are at least two different kinds of flight systems being reported here, and it is important to not confuse the two.

First, the aircraft seen while refueling near Knoxville (and which supposedly resembles one of the Schenkenberg illustrations and/or a super XB-70) is-assuming it's real-clearly just an airplane. Obviously, a very fast airplane; it could probably cruise at speeds between Mach 3 and 6, depending on the propulsion system. I have argued elsewhere that an airframe like the XB-70 or SR-71, which we know can cruise at Mach 3+ with 1960's era turboramjets, could cruise at Mach 5 to 6 with the same wing loading and L/D at higher altitudes with engines that had about twice the specific thrust. Using Borane zip fuels is an obvious and relatively easy way to do that, assuming you're willing to pay a higher price for fuel.

So that's why I say the Knoxville aircraft could conceivably be the Green Lady that just happened to be caught cruising subsonically while refueling.

Or not. It could be a different airplane altogether. I'm not sure how many secret, black program aircraft we have flying at any given time, so I was just applying Occam's razor and suggesting we could explain two different sightings with one airframe.

On the other hand, we have the Brilliant/Black Buzzard (BBB). Given that it exists, it is IMHO, NOT a "super XB-70". The BBB would need to be a trans-atmospheric vehicle (TAV). Various NASA studies have shown that in order to be of any use for a Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO) system, the first stage (the booster) needs to get up to about Mach 10 to 12 AND it needs to get the second stage above as much of the atmosphere as possible before separating from it. That means that when it is launching the second stage, it is not cruising; it is zooming to its maximum speed (M ≈ 10) and separation altitude (≈ 100,000 ft) and then pickling off the second stage. After that, it coasts to its maximum altitude (≈ 200,000 ft.), re-enters the atmosphere, decelerates, and then cruises back to its landing site under turbojet power. Again, NASA studies have shown that you could do that with a turbo-ram-rocket propulsion system. LOX-Methane would be a good combination for that.

An XB-70 type configuration would be crappy at re-entry from Mach 10. Thin wings with sharp leading edges are really efficient for cruising at Mach 6, but would have to be made from unobtainium to avoid melting off at Mach 10. Also, at 200,000 ft. altitude wings and tail fins are useless. A smooth underbody is required-no underbody nacelles. A TAV would have to maintain attitude control at very high angles of attack (≈ 45 degrees) the same way the Space Shuttle did-with reaction control thrusters and body flaps. A double-delta planform was chosen for the Space Shuttle for exactly this reason.

For all of those reasons, the left hand configuration shown at the Dreamlandresort.com site

www.dreamlandresort.com...

makes a lot of sense. It has a double delta planform. It has relatively large radius wing leading edges. It has segmented heat resistant tiles on the leading edges. It has twin tails on the wing tips where they are not shadowed by the body at high angles of attack and where they would not interfere with the second stage separation. It also appears to have a lot more wing area than it needs to just carry its own weight, suggesting that it has excess lift capacity for an external payload.

Given that you have a reusable first stage booster capable of getting to Mach 10 and 200,000 ft., you could use it in several different ways. For example, you could use it as an ISR platform. You could put a weapon pod on top and use it as a quick reaction weapon delivery system, by itself. You could put a rocket stage on top and go all the way to orbit with it. Or, you could put a hypersonic glider on top.

For that reason, the vehicle sketch shown in

files.abovetopsecret.com...

and described as being seen at an FOB in Iraq could also make sense. It basically shows a high L/D, high speed lifting body. It doesn't have enough internal volume to contain enough fuel to get to high speeds by itself so that suggests that it is a glider when at high speed. However, the stealthy inlets and exhaust imply that it is capable of flying under its own power, at least for short durations, presumably for recovery and landing. A vehicle like this could perform some of the same missions as the single stage, Prompt Global Strike hypersonic glider that was sighted off the coast of Wales and England, about 8 or 10 years ago.

For example, flying over Iran.
a reply to: ridgerunner

a reply to: 1947boomer

So are you telling me this two-plane gadget-thingy was in Iraq being tested or made ready to bomb Iran? Wouldn't they use drones instead? It seems all pretty expensive to make a big airplane carry a small airplane just to be upstaged by a bunch of low-cost USAF drones. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be the equivalent of a spy satellite with big cameras. Seventy feet long would be about right for a spy plane to carry a decent size camera IMHO!

In terms of that double-delta carrier plane, i'm pretty sure he said it was long and pointy with only a single large delta wing, some canards and looked more like the XB70/supervalkyrie. When I think about it more, I am also pretty sure that he said the carrier aircraft did have a two-tones paint job. That means he must have seen it from on high at least 40 feet up, which means my cousin actually was with his enlisted buddy seeing it together. IMHO it also means that they were in a "restricted area" and probably shouldn't have been where they were which is why the enlisted buddy told him to keep his mouth shut! And when you take it further with all the extra pay my cousin and his buddy were getting, I think they were told not to play around in the area but I guess they wanted a closer peak at a big bird and were hiding themselves in a high viewpoint probably from the roof of the mess hall that was probably near the runways and hangars.

I dunno about the real story because I wasn't there but i'm thinking my cousin and his buddy saw something they were told not the look closer into but they did it anyways by going in for a closer look-see!

a reply to: 1947boomer

1) Ridgerunner might have seen the Mothership as well.

2) The Mothership / *BBB* wouldn’t not need to be a trans atmospheric vehicle to achieve the speed necessary for the alleged mission requirement. As said before, stop thinking X-37.

3) The speed you’re suggesting (Mach 10 - 12 for the Booster Aircraft) is neither realistic for an allegedly Reagan era craft, nor is it necessary for its alleged mission.

This is a good paper on the subject: www.dtic.mil...

Go to page 195 of the paper, you can see the proposal for a Turbine – Rocket Combo with Booster speed of Mach 4. The resulting orbiter is absurdly large of course (B-52 range in itself).

But if you push the speed into the Mach 5-6 range (which maybe wouldn’t be impossible even in the 80s) and stop thinking about super secret space programs, you have a very interesting trans atmospheric craf offering a unique niche capability.

You asked:

"So are you telling me this two-plane gadget-thingy was in Iraq being tested or made ready to bomb Iran?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if there was a mothership with a thin, high L/D lifting body vehicle on top of it that apparently didn't have enough internal fuel volume or a big enough propulsion system to attain high speeds by itself, it was most likely a glider. In the context in which it was reported, a hypersonic glider would serve no valid military purpose inside Iraq, since US/Allied forces already had air superiority and could fly anywhere they wanted with conventional aircraft. In the timeframe of the sighting, I happen to know--from other projects I was working on--that the main strategic worries of the national security community were not Russia and China; while those two near-peer adversaries both had large nuclear arsenals, relations with them were considered stable and manageable through mutual deterrence. Likewise, non-peer states like Iraq,or Afghanistan did not pose any strategic threat. The main worry was states that either had just obtained or soon could obtain nuclear weapons in significant numbers. That included Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. All those regimes had/have very capable SAM systems that could threaten conventional ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) overflights. Given a two-stage hypersonic glider on the ground at a remote
airfield in Iraq, I conjecture that either Iran or Pakistan could have been the targets for ISR overflights. It could have been there either because it was on its way from or on its way to, either of those locations. My first guess would be Iran, just because it was much more closed to outside inspection and was a bigger worry, at the time. I think the two stage system was on an intelligence gathering mission, not a bombing run.
a reply to: PhotonicsTechnologist

a reply to: 1947boomer

The thingy that was supposedly seen at a FOB looks more like to me something that's a F-117A companion, R-118 or whatever, i.e. subsonic.

no knowledge, just gut feeling.

a reply to: mbkennel

Ive heard of a C-118, the Douglas Liftmaster but not the R-118. Can you elaborate a bit on that designation?

Fantastic love this thread I only wish I had some input except to pore forth my admiration.

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: mbkennel

Ive heard of a C-118, the Douglas Liftmaster but not the R-118. Can you elaborate a bit on that designation?

I think mbkennel is referring to the rumored F-117 companion aircraft. There are several threads and articles about it. Depending on who/what you believe, it’s either a triangle, flying wing, c-shaped (google silent night model), pointy thing, star-shaped, bat-shaped, frisbee-shaped, smaller Lockheed VS-07-shaped, Loral F-19 model-shaped, Micro Machines F-19-shaped, football-shaped, Boscombe Down crashed aircraft-shaped, Tacit Blue-shaped, like nothing you’ve seen before-shaped, or nonexistent stealth aircraft designed in the mid 70s to early 80s that accompanied the F-117 on missions as a target designator, battle damage assessor, electronic warfare, or tactical recon bird.

Rumored designations include YF-113G, YF-116, RF-117, R-118, RF-118, RF-19, RF-119, TR-xx, ASTRA, Phantasm, Black Manta, and just about anything else you can think of. Nearly everyone agrees it’s either subsonic or low-Mach capable. It could be an EF-xxx anything too. Allegedly it was designed for a different role.

I can conceive of no reason it would be carried, transported, or launched from the back of a large supersonic plane such as the rumored Brilliant/Black Buzzard. Also, I doubt it was called R-118, as I think YF-118G was the Boeing Bird of Prey designation. Who knows though?

Cool thread with some reported actual sightings.

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: mbkennel

Ive heard of a C-118, the Douglas Liftmaster but not the R-118. Can you elaborate a bit on that designation?

Entirely a w.a. guess, if it came out of the 117 project era & presumed use.

a reply to: mbkennel
check your PMs in an unrelated matter

@TheHans

a reply to: mightmight


I'm not sure how to use PMs on here? Where is that feature?

a reply to: TheHans

Thanks man, Ive been a long time enthusiast of whatever the "companion" and related black craft are and have read nearly everything posted on ATS about them but have never heard of that particular designation.

I never thought what the OP saw was it either and dont want to derail to much talking about another secret aircraft. But I do hope to see what it is someday, sentimental reasons.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: 1947boomer

The thingy that was supposedly seen at a FOB looks more like to me something that's a F-117A companion, R-118 or whatever, i.e. subsonic.

no knowledge, just gut feeling.

I agree, and it’s clearly capable of flying subsonic, what with the upper surface intakes and exhaust.

The two features that are puzzling are (1) the very small twin canted tailplanes, which could be optimized for high speed cruise at high angle of attack (I.e., supersonic glide) and (2) the fact that it’s transported on the back of a Mach 3+ carrier aircraft. (That would seem to imply that it’s launched from the carrier; if there were no need to launch it at high speed, you could just fly it to/from the theater of operations under its own power or inside a C-5. High speed launch seems to be an intrinsic part of its mission.)

I was talkin with a friend at work the other night about seeing fighters refueling when the guy at the next table asked us if we had seen the Klingon plane.Yep, I sure did.Whatever she is,it seems several people have seen her and everybody describes it as big and looking like the Klingons.So far every sighting I`ve heard about is late in the day,near dusk

a reply to: ridgerunner

I can only think it must be an awesome sight. Any thoughts about making a rough sketch and scanning it for us to see. Just a thought

a reply to: ridgerunner

This interesting old article has a few eye-witness accounts of what I think you saw, and I’m guessing I saw:

www.airspacemag.com...

Interestingly, one of the most well known XB-70-like sighting occurred in Georgia, where Lockheed has a significant presence. The description of classified aircraft hiding from overflying satellites under tankers is interesting, as well as the “dripper” (what a name). This plasma bird would explain a lot of UFO sightings if real.

Anyways, back to the Buzzard: There were some old articles out there on the web that described a land satellite image of Area 51 with three large, white triangular deltas on the tarmac. Perhaps these were the wing sections of the Brilliant/Black Buzzard/Mothership/XB-176/Blackstar, whatever it’s called.

I can’t imagine there being a lot of these birds. There is not an infinite supply of hangers at Edwards, Nellis, or Area 51 that will hold and hide a fleet of 200 foot-long aircraft.

Did it resemble either of these two photos at all?

goo.gl...

www.google.com...

I find this Wikipedia article on the Blackstar project interesting - it also references the Buzzard: en.m.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)


I wonder what an assisted SSTO is?

I’d seriously consider taking a camera jogging with me with all of the overhead activity in your area.

a reply to: StratosFear

I’ve been a big fan of this website for a while now as well and would love to see some of these birds declassified someday. There seems to be some common themes (aircraft) that emerge from the myriad sightings and reports people make. The lack of quality photos of anything really suggests the tremendous lengths the Air Force and others must go to in hiding these aircraft from the general public and foreign nations.

originally posted by: TheHans

I wonder what an assisted SSTO is?

fancy term for TSTO