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.

 

"Black" Aircaft List

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   


Enjoy, I thought this photo-shop was rather interesting.


[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
The Boeing rumour was dispelled.


when did this happen? that article was out of aviation weekly, right? i thought that it was not a rumor, but a stated fact that they were researching anti-grav propulsion?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

west point
Enjoy, I thought this photo-shop was rather interesting.

yeah, you gotta give those photo-shoppers there props...they do a pretty good job on making em look real.

Boeing DarkStar UAV



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by templar8
Murcielago,

What (credible) sources did you use to assemble this list of black projects and can you attribute specific projects/propulsion systems to specific defense contractors? Do you plan to update this list which is incomplete by nature of the subject? Also, the designation of TR for the Astra implies Tactical Recon. - why not SR (strategic recon) for a vehicle that is massive in size and no doubt in development and operational budget, logistical support requirements, etc.?


Well, According to what I've read, TR, and SR are not really valid designations. think about where you have heard them before: TR-1 and SR-71. In reality, both of these aircraft gather Strategic Intelligence. The TR-1 is really an enlarged U-2 with a lot of new sensor systems in it. It gathers the same kind of intellegence information that the origional U-2 collect.

I think they use SR and TR to confuse people about what the planes are used for. This wouldn't be the first time. (HINT: Have you ever asked yourself why a spyplane would be called the U-2? U means utility.) According to stardard designation TR would really mean a reconnassance aircraft conveted for training.

Tim



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Here is a list of real "black" aircraft.

There have been at least 7 to 11 classified manned aircraft flown at Groom Lake since the mid 1980s that have yet to be unveiled. These are the ones we need to fin out about, not to mention all of the unmanned aircraft. This doesn't include the modified aircraft, foreign aircraft, or ordinary platforms (C-130, F-16, etc) carrying experimental avionics.

In 1985, Frank Birk made the first flight of a "classified technology demonstrator." He won the Bobby Bond Memorial Aviator Award for his work on this project.

Since 1982, Dan Vanderhorst has flown at least seven classified aircraft, described as mostly "one of a kind demonstrators." One was TACIT BLUE. Another had internal weapons bays, suggesting stealth characteristics (Vanderhorst "holds the altitude record in this aircraft" according to his unclassified biography).

During the last part of a 20-year Air Force career, Doug Benjamin flew four classified aircraft. One of these was Bird of Prey (declassified a few years ago).

In the early to mid 1990s, Dennis Sager commanded the classified flight test squadron at Groom and became the first Air Force pilot to fly the YF-113G, a "classified protoype" that he helped shepard from development to first flight.

During the late 1990s, Joe Lanni flew first flights of two classified prototypes, including the YF-24. (That is not a typo)



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Hmm, for the YF-24, would that be the "Invisible Plane" Project?


Yea well, when I did research on the YF-24, YF-25(X-02 Which later appeared that the organization AESA was made up and the X-02 was only made into a model and put into the video game Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies) and all I got from the YF-24 designation(And that information alone) were rocket designations under the chinese and the proper designation for the X-32 and X-35 demonstrators. From both those aircraft, which ever one would win would go into YF-?? and become a prototype. However for some odd reason it was changed to F-35 as the final designation for the aircraft.

Do you have any information for your Prototype of the YF-24?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Off_the_Street - I would just like to point out that i'm not "sold" on anti-grav, I too have my doubts of its existance. and who says that (if they have it) there not using it? They can still use antigrav without the need to make it public knowledge.


I agree with you there, you ever see the first episode of robotech?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
To "Shattered Skies":

Most of what you find on the Internet when you search for "YF-24" is rubbish. The designation has been used by game designers and others because they think it's not a real designation.

I did find one posting on a site guest book from someone who claimed to have built parts for a secret aircraft called the YF-24. He said it was suuposed to be unveiled in a few years. There were no wild claims about fantastic technologies or anything like that. he didn't even claim to know what it looked like.

On the other hand, check out Col. Joe Lanni's official USAF biography on the Edwards AFB web site. He commanded the "Classified Flight Test Squadron" (it's the Special Projects Flight Test Squadron at Groom Lake), "conducted first flights of two classified prototype aircraft" (his list of aircraft flown includes the YF-24), and was later vice commander of Det. 3, AFFTC (the Groom Lake facility).

www.edwards.af.mil...

Col. Lanni can't discuss the YF-24 or the other "classified prototype" he flew. I have no idea how long we will have to wait for them to be unveiled.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Could this be the ellusive new and improved YF-23 derived project? remember that the YF-17 turned into the F-18



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
i wish they would declassify something, its been ages since they declassifed a plane which makes me wonder why did they come out with the f22 and f35 "before" they were in service? it doesnt seem to fit the pattern, maybe they are covers for other planes.

I want to see some of the new toys



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
i wish they would declassify something, its been ages since they declassifed a plane which makes me wonder why did they come out with the f22 and f35 "before" they were in service? it doesnt seem to fit the pattern, maybe they are covers for other planes.

I want to see some of the new toys


Because the F-22 and F-35 were never black projects, they were simply replacement programmes for current front line equipment and, in the guise of ATF and JSF, were publicly acknowledged from the day the requirement was drafted. Likewise the ATB which was revealed on its roll out, like the F-22, but its existance had also been acknowledged from day 1 of the programme.

Also the F-117 was known to exist as far back as 1980, only its appearance was secret. The interesting thing (maybe worrying thing ) about now is that nothing else is even acknowledged to exist at all, so maybe there is nothing to decassify?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Could this be the ellusive new and improved YF-23 derived project? remember that the YF-17 turned into the F-18


Intresting thought on the F-24. If the F-24 is a dirivitive of the YF-23, they would need to have build a third prototype. Back when we did the Groom Lake Research Project, FredT tracked down the two known YF-23's. Both prototypes are accounted for: PAV-1 is at the US Air Force museam in Daton, OH; PAV-2 is at Northrop undergoing restoration. It is scedualed to go back to the Western Museam of Flight(I don't have the date).

Do you Know of a way to fallow up on this? I'd love to take a look if you have a starting point we can use! Feel free to U2U me if you get any ideas!

Tim



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Anti-grav would devistate our economy, companies would go bankrupt very quickley, why fly on a jet when there an anti-gravity craft that can take you to your destination, so goodbye Boeing/Lockheed/Airbus/Northrop/etc. Then people think, why not just buy a personal anti-grav craft, goodbye Ford/Chevy/Dodge/Nissian/Toyota/Lamboghini/ etc. Because now people can go where ever they want, when ever they want, they can hop in there craft and pick up some burger king, and a half minute later be watching the sunset from space eating a burger.


Um. No. If anti-gravity is ever proven to exist, or a force that accomplishes a similar form of propulsion, you would very quickly see other companies releasing new products with this technology into the market.

The economy wouldn't collapse. Companies wouldn't go out of business (not more than they do currently). Life would go on.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Because the F-22 and F-35 were never black projects, they were simply replacement programmes for current front line equipment and, in the guise of ATF and JSF, were publicly acknowledged from the day the requirement was drafted. Likewise the ATB which was revealed on its roll out, like the F-22, but its existance had also been acknowledged from day 1 of the programme.


How right you are! Many people have confused Special Access Programs with Black Programs over the years (I have been guilty of this at times myself).

The Trick is: All Black Programs Are Special Access, but not all Special Access Programs are black. It was Only last week that I realized that the Special Access Program SENIOR ICE, which is the B-2 was never really Black.

Special Access means that you need a special security clearanece to get Access to the technical data of a Program. The B-2 is a good example of this. Everyone know that the B-2 exists, and what its mission is. However, you need SENIOR ICE Clearance to get access to certain technical aspects of the B-2 such as: RCS Data, Avionics Capibilities, Mission Planning and Penatration tactics, weapons envelops, ect. This information IS Classsified.

Black Means that the Pentagon won't admit that something even exists. A great example of a Black Program is the Manhatten Project. Until the first Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, the US government would Not even admit to our closest allies in a secret meeting that Nuclear Weapons were even possible to build, let alone that we had tested one in New Mexico.

Tim



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Tim,

The terms you are searching for are "Acknowledged Program" and "Unacknowledged Program".

In Acknowledged Programs, most administrative details of the program, such as basic program objectives, budgets, schedules, lists of participants, etc., are not classified. Acknowledged Programs typically use a two-word project nickname, such as SENIOR TREND, COPPER CANYON, or PAVE TRACTOR. If you know the sysyem, you can look at the first letter in each word of the nickname and figure out which government agency is funding the program, as certain letters are assigned to specific parts of the government. Nicknames are supposed to be Unclassifed, and can be published with the government sponsor's permission (which is why you often see these names in congressional documentation).

In Unacknowledge Programs, all aspects of the program are classified, including its existance to non-briefed personnel. The government does not deny the existance of these programs, however, as the name implies, they will not publicly acknowledge or confirm their existance. Most unacknowledged programs are very high risk technologies, superior military systems that give the US a 20+ year advantage over our adversaries, or involve some level of political sensitivity. Unacknowledged Programs typically
use a single, classified codeword to identify the project. Codewords are never published and are classified when associated with the project or technology. If you see a published codeword, rest assured that it has been changed and is no longer in use.

Additionally, there is even a third level of SAP called a "Waived Program", where things really get wierd..................

P



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Additionally, there is even a third level of SAP called a "Waived Program", where things really get wierd..................


What is a Waived Program? I've never heard of this before!

Tim



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
A Waived Program is a specially-authorized SAP with limited government oversight. Normally, special access programs have a multi-level review process before they are officially approved for operation. The Special Access Program Oversight Committee (SAPOC) is a group of four-stars that work at the Pentagon, and they are responsible for reviewing all technology programs and assigning the proper level of SAP security, if warranted. They also implement policy and reduce the possiblity that there could be two identical programs being worked on in two separate Unacknowledged compartments (the government really doesn't like to have to pay for the same product twice).

Waived programs also have greatly reduced congressional oversight. For most SAP, there can be anywhere from 20-50 congressmen (not including their staffers) who are briefed. In a waived program, only the chairpersons of the defense and intelligence committees are accessed.

Also, Waived Programs generally have no pre-defined budget restrictions (!) when it comes to security oversight and infrastructure. The government program manager is given a free hand to implement whatever security mechanisms he sees fit to protect the integrity of the program, irregardless of the budget.

Less than 1% of all SAPs are waived programs.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Pyros,

You got one of my way above votes for the month for that explanation. Thank you for shedding light on a topic that causes many of us confusion and bureaucratic Alphabet soup syndrome.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by apex
Just out of interest, when was the AURORA project cancelled?

I would have expected to see it more on this site at least, if it was.


cancelled? i dont think it was ever cancelled. i remember hearing sombody saying that the Aurora is obsolete for the introduction of recon satellites.


I doubt that very much, they gave us that same line about satellites when they retired the SR-71. Then they brought it out of retirement heck we still fly the U-2 and that thing is really old.

Now we have the new gen of recon UAVs like the global hawk. Satellites are great buts its clear they cant do everything or we wouldnt be flying old U2s for recon still.

But its easier to say satellites can do the job when they retired the SR-71 then to say the SR-71 was replaced by a top secret plane



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom

Originally posted by Murcielago
Anti-grav would devistate our economy, companies would go bankrupt very quickley, why fly on a jet when there an anti-gravity craft that can take you to your destination, so goodbye Boeing/Lockheed/Airbus/Northrop/etc. Then people think, why not just buy a personal anti-grav craft, goodbye Ford/Chevy/Dodge/Nissian/Toyota/Lamboghini/ etc. Because now people can go where ever they want, when ever they want, they can hop in there craft and pick up some burger king, and a half minute later be watching the sunset from space eating a burger.


Um. No. If anti-gravity is ever proven to exist, or a force that accomplishes a similar form of propulsion, you would very quickly see other companies releasing new products with this technology into the market.

The economy wouldn't collapse. Companies wouldn't go out of business (not more than they do currently). Life would go on.


I kinda agree with you...Because theres ALWAYS 2 sides to every coin, but I think at this day-and-age it would do more bad, then good.

If you disagree, then tell me.....What would be your plan to stop a terrorist in an anti-grav vehicle heading straight to New York at mach 500?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join