This is gonna be a long one - sorry if I bore anyone...
Originally posted by spear
No offense taken........the specifics of IFF(indentification friend/foe) and how they relate to a less than perfect missle system im afraid are beyond
my level of knowledge, all I can say is that even the F-117 and B2 have transponders so they show up on radar...so in my (VERY humble) opinion it is
entirely plausible, and very probable that secret aircraft utilise IFF transponders as a matter of course.
The current crop of publicly acknowledged
US stealth aircraft use the Northrop-Grumman AN/APX-108 Mark XII IFF Diversity
...(Friend or Foe Identifier) There are other military aircraft in US inventory that use this unit also but not with the software
package and additional tweaks that the stealth aircraft use, (this software is constantly updated by the way...).
One note concerning this IFF beacon and secret aircraft...
A co-worker of mine was doing some installs on a Destroyer sitting in Chespeake Bay a few years ago. There was a training session going on in the
radar room and at the time this ship had the 48Echo radar system, (it has since been upgraded).
The officer in charge of the training session was away from the screen when one of the guys at the screen said something about, "here's something
coming out of Langley...". My "fly on the wall" friend was in close enough proximity to see the screen also - as the trainees were discussing the
information coming out on the info screen positioned above the radar screen and commenting on it being a military aircraft, possibly stealth because
of the lack of information available on the screen, and how you can tell and all that... typical trainee conversation.
Once the plane was out over the Atlantic, two or three of the guys at the screen said something like, "What th' F@#k is that!?" Everyone was
pointing at the screen and the speed tail on the triangle that indicates an aircraft. The speed tail kept getting longer and longer and at one point
one of the guys exclaimed "That's over Mach 4! What th' hell is that?"
Another trainee said something like, "It's getting faster! Look at that motherf@#er go!"
About that time the training officer came over, looked at the screen, stepped over to the wall and hit the big red button that has the instructions
over it that say, "Do not Push!"... suddenly all gear in the room went dark, computers, everything.
The training officer then announced, "Gentlemen, you are to forget what you saw here tonight... is that understood?" There was a chorus of "aye
aye" and after the officer made a phone call they powered everything back up.
As I said, a co-worker who is also a close friend related this story to me and he has always been a pretty straight-shooting guy
and not prone to tell exagerated tales - so I believed him and would not relay this story to you if I considered him unreliable.
Originally posted by DarkStar
American scientists have recently announced that "one wing" aircraft designs are far more efficient. This in itself leads me to beleive that the
"aurora" is active.
But the things that people say about, god some of it is total #.
Mach 8?? Gimme a break. Nothing can travel that fast within atmosphere without burning to a crisp. And "pulse engine"? Who the hey? A pulse of what
may I ask?
Engines that use air to squeeze burning fuel out of the back are very inefficient as far as fuel goes, but by the sound of things, chucking pulses of
plasma out of the back isn't exactly "going for green" either.
Now I'm not an expert on this, but I do know how physics works, and to do what this plane does, you would need a material that defy's friction.
Simply to avoid it burning up.
And I don't beleive this pulse engine crap, because I have a photograph here of the aurora being refilled by tanker plane.
OK, You seem to like the idea of a "one wing" aircraft design, but you have problems with hypersonic speeds (you said Mach 8), "pulse engines" and
atmospheric friction burning up the hypersonic vehicle and lastly the picture of the "Aurora"...
Let's see if these issues can be adequately addressed.
One Wing" aircraft designs are more efficient:
You are correct, for hyperspeed air vehicles a shape known as a lifting body or waverider design is very efficient. The Hyper-X (X-43 I believe) is
one such design for public viewing.
Hyper-X (aka the X-43) Hypersonic technology demonstrator
Hypersonic speed is a speed defined as being over Mach 5, which is equivalent to about one mile per second, or 3,600 miles per hour at sea level.
X-15 with chase plane
years ago, the first manned vehicle hit hypersonic speeds, that was the X-15, attaining a speed of Mach 5.27 on June 23, 1961, and in fact
later the X-15 went on to Mach 6.7, or 4,520 mph at sea level.
That was FORTY THREE years ago.
Has our technology been stagnant or gone backwards over the last 4 decades?
By the way, the X-15 didn't burn up in the atmosphere...
SR-71 Blackbird - Mach 3.2
The X-15 weighed 34,000 pounds at launch. The rocket engine developed 60,000 pounds of thrust. Contrast that with the SR-71 weighing in at 140,000
pounds with a full belly of JP-7 and 2 High-bypass-turbojets with 34,000 pounds thrust each, the Blackbird's official top speed was Mach 3.2.
Since the X-15 other technology demonstrators have been researched and/or flown, such as the Dyna-Soar (X-20) spaceplane, X-24, X-33, X-34, X-37,
X-38, X-40, X-41, the Hyper-Soar, Hyper-X and even the Space Shuttle.
The Space Shuttle enters the atmosphere at speeds of nearly Mach 30
... And somehow it
survives with 1970's aerothermal technology.
I submit to you the following:
43 years ago hypersonic speeds were made possible,
40 years ago the DynaSoar spaceplane was designed and nearly ready for production,
36 years ago the X-24 spaceplane was under R&D (albeit cancelled),
23 years ago the Space Shuttle took off for Earth's orbit, with re-entry speeds closing in on Mach 30,
what has been developed in the last nearly quarter of a century?
(The Space Shuttle is after all 1970's technology...)
The Space Shuttle re-enters the Earth's atmosphere at speeds nearing Mach 30
Pulse engine crap:
The concept behind the Pulse Detonation Engine (PDE) is simple. There are two kinds of combustion: the familiar, slow kind of burning, called
deflagration, and another, much more energetic process called detonation, which is a different animal entirely.
Imagine a tube, closed at one end and filled with a mixture of fuel and air. A spark ignites the fuel at the closed end, and a combustion reaction
propagates down the tube. In deflagration—even in "fast flame" situations ordinarily called explosions—that reaction moves at tens of meters per
second at most. But in detonation, a supersonic shock wave slams down the tube at thousands of meters per second, close to Mach 5, compressing and
igniting fuel and air almost instantaneously in a narrow, high-pressure, heat-release zone...
This type of propulsion could propel an aerospace craft to speeds way over Mach 8
and also could explain the pulsating thunder heard on desert
bases at night, sonic booms refered to as "skyquakes" by the US Geological Survey folks rumbling over california in the early 90's and just
recently a new crop of skyquakes being felt over Utah as well as the famed "donuts on a rope" contrails.
A simple web search will get you all kinds of good material on this technology - I must admit that I personally feel that what is operational on the
"black" aircraft in question is possibly either a hybrid PDE or an aicraft with 2 seperate types of propulsion onboard.
Pulse Detonation Engine at China Lake Naval Research Lab
Picture of Aurora?
Unfortunately the grainy black and white image circulating around the internet is bogus, not to mention the aircraft pictured there is probably not
streamlined enough to be a hypersonic vehicle.
X-15 running away from a chase plane - circa 1961
[Edited on 9-1-2004 by intelgurl]