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.

 

Aurora is useless

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
You don't just hide a nuclear test site. The only objects that a Mach 6 spy plane could be useful for are mobile rocket launchers and new planes, like Russia and China have, but it is doubtful the US would risk diplomatic incidents to actually overfly the latter two, as they likely have the technology to detect them on IR and Russia probably to shoot them down. So that leaves just mobile rocket launchers.


Sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about here.

Sufice it to say that you CAN hide just about anything, and at the very least try to make it look like something else. A spy plane gives you the element of surprise when snapping pics of the intel target, and that is a huge advantage.




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
No you can't. You just resort to "you don't know what you're talking about" because you want it to be true for patrotic/nationalist reasons. And like I said, finding new planes is only worth something for China or Russia and it is dubious the US would risk political incidents overflying those two and concerning mobile rocket launchers, it only gives you an idea they actually exist, not of their number nor location since they're after all mobile, so again the value of that is limited.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Actually, at the altitude most of the US spy planes fly at, the cameras are looking at several hundred miles at a detail level you probably wouldn't believe. They have side scan cameras that were in use on the SR-71s so that they wouldn't have to overfly the countries they wanted to look at, that would look 2-300 miles and still take pictures detailed enough that they could tell what type of planes were sitting parked on the ramp.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
QUOTE :"And about it's usefulness, relying on satellites has proven to be a mistake. Just remember how sat surveillance fell to find India's and Pakistan nuclear programmes... "

at the risk of rehashing

satelites WILL NOT detect a nuclear weapons program , nor for that matter will recce aircraft

hi level photo recon will tell you that the target has a reactor , and give you info on its size , type , capacity , output , oporational status etc

hi level photo recon will tell you where the target has his technology parks and labs are - pluss size , type , capacity , output , oporational status etc


photo recon - will not tell you anything about the actal work therin - you may know the size and shape of everything that us built in the open or entering / leaving

but " cratology " is easy to spoof - and very few components of a weapons program are unique and instantly identifiable AND un hidable


its very easy to become fixated on hi tech toys , when HUMINT is what you really need

that is why the american monitoring of the indian atomic weapons program failed so spectacularly

they had no idea what the scientists were actially doing - theier work / publications / communications were not tracked

THUS ASLONG AS THEY KEPT EVERY THINK THAT COULD ONLY BE USED FOR WEAPONS DEVELOPENT " UNDER THE ROOF " THEIR ACTIVITES REMAINED SECRET

YRS - APE



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
UAVs are cheaper and safer than Aurora would be. I'd say probably quicker to upgrade with leading edge optical/surveillance equipment too.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
They probably have the same system they did with the Blackbird. The whole nose/sensor package came off, and was replaced with the new sensors.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
No you can't. You just resort to "you don't know what you're talking about" because you want it to be true for patrotic/nationalist reasons. And like I said, finding new planes is only worth something for China or Russia and it is dubious the US would risk political incidents overflying those two and concerning mobile rocket launchers, it only gives you an idea they actually exist, not of their number nor location since they're after all mobile, so again the value of that is limited.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Simon666]


Sorry, you are just completely wrong. Use google. Look up the types of things that the Blackbird was spying on. Mobile launchers were one of THOUSANDS of things they spied on.

Educate yourself, then U2U me with an apology.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
The number of things doesn't remotely matter with regard to this thread, only the nature - whether they can or can't also be spied on using satellites instead - does. Fixed structures for example ain't going anywhere.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Assuming that the US operates a multi-mach, low observable recce aircraft, popularly referred to as "Aurora", I would add the following comments:

First of all, manned recce aircraft will always be a part of the military inventory. That is, until the day comes when UAVs have enough computing horsepower for AI, and miniaturization of electronic components will allow for the powerful surveillance sensors required to be put in a drone-sized airframe. But that day isn't coming anytime soon.

High-speed, high altitude aircraft offer one thing the neither drones nor satellites can offer - flexibility.

Drones have some negative features that have yet to be overcome: they are susceptable to ground fire, they are (generally) pretty slow, they (currently) cannot carry larger sensors that have the best range and resolution, they are susceptable to ECM, and it takes them quite some time to get on station, once you even get them in-theatre. Also, changing their tasking during a mission is more complex than you might imagine.

Satellites experience some difficulties, in that their orbits are known factors and can be dealt with, they are vulnerable to weather and atmospheric events, and (despite popular opinion) space-based sensors are not always the best way to image a potential target.

An Aurora-type aircraft would not have most of the above-mention problems. It would only be vulnerable to the most advanced and well-trained air defense forces (if even detected). It would be large enough to carry good sized sensors with long ranges. It would be fast enough to get on station in a matter of hours after receving orders. The man-in-the-loop control of this system also allows for flexibility of flight planning and mission planning, with the ability to adapt to negative factors such as weather, strong AAW, or newly-prioritized targets. Here is a fake scenario:

"General, we've just received some hot intel that Al Queda operatives are in the process of loading a commercial cargo ship with a large amount of either high explosives, or possible chemical weapons. All we know is that they are using a small port somewhere in Sumatra".

"What do we have for recconassainse assets in the area"?

"Well, there is a carrier air group on ops south of Okinawa, but it will take some time for them to transit into range. And then you would be asking tactical aircraft to fly awfly close to soverign airspace to get good imagery. And by the way, that alot of shoreline to cover. If we have any UAV units deployed in that area we could use them, but we don't. A Keyhole satellite is scheduled to pass through those areas in 12 hours, but it will be night time locally, and we will have to rely on IR, which will not provide any conclusive evidence. They will be finished loading their ship by then, and we will not have any evidence, nor will we have been able to pinpoint which ship is the potential bomb".

"OK. I've heard enough. Alert the 9th SRW to have the alert aircraft fueled are ready for flight. Have CIA and NSA liazons patched into the 9th's ops center. Call out to Hickam and have the in-flight refueling aircraft ready. Might want to also get on the horn with the Australians, just in case we can't get the refueling set, in case we have to set an Aurora down in their back yard. I want that aircraft airborne in 2 hours - we'll fill in the pilot and up-link the mission data while he transits......get moving".



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
The number of things doesn't remotely matter with regard to this thread, only the nature - whether they can or can't also be spied on using satellites instead - does. Fixed structures for example ain't going anywhere.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Simon666]


No a fixed structure isn't going anywhere, but the things IN the structure are. That's why every country in the world knows when the sattelites are going over. Groom Lake has operation restrictions for certain hours of the day when sattelites are even close to going over. If the Russians had a Mach 6+ spy plane, they sould haev had a much better chance of seeing what some of our black projects were, by flying overhead in a high speed dash and catching them unaware until it was too late.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Wait wait wait. You guys are actually answering this crackhead?

Okay, we're talking US GOVERNMENT. They probably have hundreeds of scientists, advisers, and thousands of people working on secret aircraft. PRIOR TO EVEN CONSIDERING THE DAMN PLANE I THINK THEY'D SEE IF IT'S EFFECIENT AND USEFUL PRIOR TO BUILDING IT.

You're not going to debunk a whole team consisting of thousands of people who have carefully planned everything.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No a fixed structure isn't going anywhere, but the things IN the structure are.

The interesting ones in the structure are, planes - only the Russian and Chinese ones are interesting enough to spy on, plus see remark below. So your point is pretty moot.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
If the Russians had a Mach 6+ spy plane, they sould haev had a much better chance of seeing what some of our black projects were, by flying overhead in a high speed dash and catching them unaware until it was too late.

No they wouldn't, since that would cause a serious diplomatic incident with the US and vice versa the same applies. Violating sovereign countries airspace is a cause for war. I doubt any US planes have overflown Russia some time after Gary Powers was shot down.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
America and Russia in a war...The two biggest holders of nuclear weapons. I say we move to Alaska and watch. Or Canada, Alaska sounds safer.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
America and Russia in a war...The two biggest holders of nuclear weapons. I say we move to Alaska and watch. Or Canada, Alaska sounds safer.


I dont know about that...Its the US to ya know, it would also get nuked in a full on onslaught, at least the radar stations anyway.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No a fixed structure isn't going anywhere, but the things IN the structure are.

The interesting ones in the structure are, planes - only the Russian and Chinese ones are interesting enough to spy on, plus see remark below. So your point is pretty moot.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
If the Russians had a Mach 6+ spy plane, they sould haev had a much better chance of seeing what some of our black projects were, by flying overhead in a high speed dash and catching them unaware until it was too late.

No they wouldn't, since that would cause a serious diplomatic incident with the US and vice versa the same applies. Violating sovereign countries airspace is a cause for war. I doubt any US planes have overflown Russia some time after Gary Powers was shot down.


The point I was ATTEMPTING to make was that with a high speed high altitude spy plane, that could take pictures at LEAST several hundred miles inland, if not farther, is that while you could hide your projects from sattelites, because you know when the sattelite is coming overhead, you DON'T know when there will be a recon flight in the area until it's too late. The SR-71/U-2 flew/fly at 80,000 feet. At that altitude you can see probably a thousand miles or more, and can take ultra high resolution pics at LEAST 3-400 miles, with enough detail to tell what equipment is sitting out.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
The number of things doesn't remotely matter with regard to this thread, only the nature - whether they can or can't also be spied on using satellites instead - does. Fixed structures for example ain't going anywhere.


OK genius...

I will try one more time. A building doesn't always tell you everything you need to know about it's self. Often times what is around the building can tell you much more. A big building doesn't always tell you a lot by it's self. If you can get pics of the PEOPLE at the building, or the types of equipment coming in and out, it makes it relatively simple to figure out what is going on there. A strategic recon aircraft is a very valuable tool to any intel gathering group.

An example:

With a sat, you take a photo of a big warehouse type building. You don't see anything outside. You see a bunch of chain fences with barbed wire, some bunkers around it. What is it?

You don't know of course. Maybe you have intel that says it is a research center (for instance) but you don't know exactly what for. You can't get any more clues because the enemy knows EXACTLY WHEN you can take pics, so all you are ever going to see wit a sat taking pics is the damn building.

Now, with an Aurora or Blackbird, it is a totally different ballgame. You can surprise them. You can take pictures when they don't expect it. You can catch them with cars in view for instance. You get a plate number that turns out to be a note worthy scientists car. He happens to be, say, an aerospace engineer. You also happen to get a bunch of plate numbers for trucks making a delivery.

You then later find out through a contact or perhaps the Aurora that these trucks originated from a depot where a particular material was being held say RAM for this situation.

Now it becomes pretty obvious that there is stealth work going on at the warehouse.

Of course this is a very simplified situation, but I think you get the point (well, at least my 4 year old godson probably could).

If you don't understand how a strategic recon aircraft covers for the weaknessess of sats, well my friend, I give up - you clearly just don't want to believe the undeniable truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The SR-71/U-2 flew/fly at 80,000 feet. At that altitude you can see probably a thousand miles or more, and can take ultra high resolution pics at LEAST 3-400 miles, with enough detail to tell what equipment is sitting out.

It can merely give you the shape of larger objects, not their function unless it is obvious (cylinder may be pipe or rocket), and I'd change that to 100 miles or so and at that distance with a resolution of around 10 cm or so at most.



Originally posted by American Mad Man
If you can get pics of the PEOPLE at the building, or the types of equipment coming in and out, it makes it relatively simple to figure out what is going on there.

You watch too much bad Hollywood movies. The cameras of high altitude spy planes and satellites aren't remotely good enough to identify people or license plates and only allow identification of some larger structures in case of a characterizing, obvious shape.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
After the overflights stopped, the SR-71 used a side scan camera to fly along the border of the USSR. It was capable of high resolution, to the point they could tell what tanks and planes were sitting out exposed at an admitted range of approximately 300 miles.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

It can merely give you the shape of larger objects, not their function unless it is obvious (cylinder may be pipe or rocket), and I'd change that to 100 miles or so and at that distance with a resolution of around 10 cm or so at most.


Once again, if it gives the "shape of larger objects" it does not serve a purpose. Therefore, the Aurora would be rendered useless. ONCE AGAIN, They have a team of a thousand people working on such vessels, I'M SURE, pretty sure, that it's not useless.

Oh, and you're just assuming they're using the most advanced cameras...that you know of. They can shoot a rocket down a vent of a building. In the 60's the NRO built cameras on satelites which could photograph in, not GREAT detail, but good enough. Take a look:






posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Oh, and you're just assuming they're using the most advanced cameras...that you know of. They can shoot a rocket down a vent of a building. In the 60's the NRO built cameras on satelites which could photograph in, not GREAT detail, but good enough.

You're assuming that over time linear or better improvements can be made to cameras without limits. Not so, there are on theoretical grounds limits to the resolution of telescopes, look it up, it is known as the diffraction limit. The main way that cameras could have been improved, is by allowing them to have larger lenses or mirrors, but in planes the dimensions of these are quite obviously limited, as well as some other techniques I'll mention below. The diffraction limit already allows you to calculate the maximum resolution with a mirror or lense of a certain diameter, do this exercise yourself once with realistic values and you'll find that reading license plates is a little far fetched.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

If we take light with a wavelength of 500 nm for example (blue light) and suppose a diameter of the iris of half a meter (which would be pretty big for something to fit somewhere in your spy plane), your solving resolution at a distance of 100 km is 12.2 centimeters. Keep in mind that due to atmospheric disturbances, you will NEVER reach this theoretical limit and you'll experience more of these bad effects if you look under a more shallow angle (=more atmosphere, which is why spy satellites preferentially look straight down). This is why from a certain size on, larger mirrors have no increased resolving power within our atmopshere. At best you can use techniques to have less of these effects, such as mirrors adapting their shape according to the atmospheric disturbance and computer image enhancement techniques, but this won't get you that much further. These recent techniques have allowed to achieve a resolution better than in the 1960s, but only as in closer to their theoretical limit. There is no Moore's law for telescopes.

So please, inform yourself once about these basic physical principles before you buy this crap of cameras able to read license plates from space or from high altitude spy planes.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Simon666]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join