It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


no idea what so ever.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:12 AM
Ok so now I'm looking into if this chase plane is in proper position. due to the fact that an airshow case plane ie. the f-15s I showed could be in the wrong spot if this was an actual military ex. Here are some pics ive found so far

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Could the accompying aircraft be there for air traffic control purposes? I mean if you are flying a stealth aircraft through congested airspace it would help if Air Traffic Control had something that would show up on their scopes. I know that transponders are used for this, but if you were trying to keep this secret then having another plane there with a transponder would be the safe way to go, especially if the transponder hasn't been installed in the stealth aircraft yet.

The only time they're stealthy is when they're in "Combat" mode. The rest of the time they have radio antennas, and lights, and all sorts of other things hanging out in the slipstream, and they're just as non-stealthy as any other plane. When they go into a combat zone all the lights and antennas and everything are retracted into the airframe where there is nothing to give of a radar return.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:35 AM
Canada EH, I'm not going to argue the validity of the image until my mate comes back in August and I get to speak properly, face to face, with him. It could well be a fake, I know that. However I was just wondering if a finless UAV based on the B-2 form (IF it proved to be real) that was based at Edwards couldn't also have ED stencilling? Similarly it has been pointed out that the fact you can see 'an oval' underneath it proves its a fake as that is where it was grafted on, however I have also seen a Photo of a B-2 from directly underneath that also has this visible oval and there is no question of that being a fake? If the same basic design and the same features were to be carried over to, or even from, a UCAV design then it would naturally resemble a B-2 in detail areas wouldn't it?

Again I'm not saying this proves it is real, I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily prove that it isn't.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by waynos

[edit on 21-6-2006 by waynos]

I dont see what is left to figure out though waynos. Unless your friend confirms it fake due to the fact that this photo has the EXACT same flap settings and weapon bay doors with the saw tooth edges are the exact same as a B-2's. the only thing was that the doors where closed in another image that was pasted ontop of the bottom of the plane. The ED has beside it "Spirt of ........." the same as anyother B-2. lastly where is the nose landing gear door? its seems to have disappeared.

ps im not arguing the oval as i have seen it too im saying the details of the picture is what i have a problem with. Madgreebo's image is so blurred its hard to say anything like about any details but this is shuch a good image that it gives itself away, say like the 3 cockpit F-14 that was just rehashed here resently.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Canada_EH]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:49 AM
The X-46 UAV:

The X-45C UAV:

[edit on 22-6-2006 by nataylor]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:36 AM
Ok the X-46 pictured first has more of the look of the B-2 with the larger sawtooth pattern. So i researched it a bit.
In this artical i gived the following info on specs.
"Boeing had kept its X-46 UCAV-N activities under wraps, while Northrop Grumman had showcased its work on the X-47 UCAV-N, which the company calls Pegasus. According to one report, the X-46 UCAV-N was to be approximately 34 feet long, with a 44 foot wingspan, and a height of 7 feet. Two large internal bays would allow the stealthy aircraft to carry up to 4000 pounds of munitions up to 650 nautical miles for SEAD or strike missions. Or, equipped with advanced sensors only, the vehicle could perform surveillance missions for up to 12 hours."

Ok so its small compared to the B-2 with its specs being 172 ft wingspan 69 ft of length and 17 ft tall. What about in comparison to an F-16 seeing as thats what Madgreebo's 2nd plane most likely is? Well here are the spec for the 16. The f-16 has a length of 49.5 ft a wingspan of 32 ft and a hieght of 16 ft. hmmmm

So from all of this we are back at the sizing of Madgreebo's planes in comparision to one another. Either that is a manned bomber on the scale of a B-2 seeing as 3 lengths od the 16 fit in that other plane. That would give you a length of 150ish ft the planes were on the same alt. If the mystery plane is at a lower alt then its possible that its a X-46 but due to the research i highly doubt that either of those ucavs are what we are looking for..... so is this even a UCAV?

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:58 AM
I don't think that Greebos plane is an F-16, I think its a T-38.

Since the chase plane is all we have to go on size wise you can get some estimates assuming the planes are at the same height. The T-38 is 46 ft long and has a wingspan of 25 ft which gives the dimensions of the mystery plane to be a length of 80 ft (1.5 T-38 lengths) and a wingspan of 161 ft (3.5 T-38 lengths).

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:04 AM
Don't know whether this is helpful, but:

Budget document discloses existence of secret US Air Force UAV programme

Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works is believed to be developing a high-altitude, stealthy unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for the US Air Force (USAF) under a secret programme, funded with money taken from the terminated Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) project.

The existence of a classified air force UAS project was disclosed in a navy Fiscal Year 2007 budget document, which stated that the Pentagon "directed the J-UCAS programme to split into two separate programmes: one air force classified programme and a navy UCAV [unmanned combat aerial vehicle] programme".

The new UAV, sometimes known as the Penetrating High Altitude Endurance (PHAE), is believed to be capable of operating at the 70,000-80,000 ft altitudes used by the U-2. One report refers to the aircraft using engines from an inventory that has been in storage since the 1970s. This almost certainly refers to the General Electric J97-GE-3 engine for the Teledyne Ryan AQM-91 Compass Arrow UAV (a project terminated in 1971). In 1998, a NASA paper reported that 24 J97 engines were in storage at the agency's Ames research centre. The Compass Arrow exceeded 80,000 ft during tests, the highest unclassified altitude ever recorded for a subsonic jet-powered aircraft. The J97 was rated at around 25 kN and the new UAV is probably a twin-engine design.

The new UAV is much larger than the small stealth UAV that has been evaluated operationally in Iraq. That aircraft - believed to be powered by one or two Williams FJ33 engines - has only eight hours' endurance, like DarkStar, and that is currently seen as inadequate.


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:43 AM
Just thought I'd throw in a picture of a FSM my Dad took at RIAT the other year....

I think it's a X-47B / J-UCAS.

Oh and Canada_EH - did you read my extended first post? I agree about Wayno's pic and Edwards show flyover.

[edit on 22/6/06 by Dew]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:04 PM
[removed Entire quote of preceeding post]

Yuppers i caught that good to know i got support on my theories etc

By the way thats a nice shot too that your dad got. I got to say that I like the simplity of UCAV and the clean lines etc.

[edit on 6/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:23 PM
I see where you're coming from. Its not the same photo as the angles are different but I agree that it looks like the same plane, possibly photographed on the same approach but maybe before the wheels came down. He has been a clever sod hasn't he, wait till he gets home. It seems obvious now that the first two pictures I posted were made in the same way but the third one doesn't quite add up, the one showing upper surfaces I mean.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:11 PM
Wow sarvesh thats a damn cool link.... 80 k operating alt ! now thats gonna smart when it drops a jdam from that height.... unseen then poop goes your night in front of al jazeer tv....

Waynos, with that third image you posted.... could that actually be the tier 3 Quartz? Its identical to the piccie on the web link (Any one know what language it is?) and well, it looks blooming smart to say the least!

But hell, im looking forward to when all this gucci kits rolled out for us to slaver over... UCAV or not im dying to see what it is now!

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:28 PM
Right, I have a question to ask before I get my piccie....

How does an aircraft / company / make an aircraft 'shimmer like a shark underwater?' People im shipping myself with excitment because this is how she described it.

"As it turned away from us, it appeared to ripple and flex like the colours in a shoal of glassy sweepers, all movement and very very hard to concentrate on..."

Ok i have no idea what glassy sweepers are, but I guess its a fish...rofl.. but i am expecting the piccie within minutes so ill post it as soon as i get it.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:01 PM

I wet my pants....

Then i sobbed that i loved her.....

Then I told her I wasn't even drunk ..

Then she told me to stfu because net time is preciouse.:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:32 PM
It looks a bit curvaceous, like the X-48. Is this the same type as your first pic? It might be because of the blurring maybe?

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:41 PM
first -- when were all these pictures taken -- does it not seem odd that these craft are so conveniently flying past a dammed survey boat ????

i only ask this -- because greebo has ..... well to put not to fine a point on it .... i can throw the chuffing boat this girl is alledgedly on further than i trust him and his " sourrces "

as for so called shimmer ---- its the sun

reflective curved surfaces have that effect -- lol

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:49 PM
Waynos, same person, yesterday morning whilst watching the world go by. They were taking piccies of birds sat on the bow, heard an aircraft, and they managed to get this one. The other images are blurred to hell and are really really bad -

Yes the colours seem to make it look all kind of shapes, but I loved the description they gave as it turned into the clouds.....who evers it is, I sure as anything would love a close up.

one thing that strikes me, they cannot be that bothered about boats getting a glimpse of it - but there again its poor fishermen or cruise ships. One sets too poor for a camera the others too busy spending money to give a monkeys about whats in the sky.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:56 PM
Snippity Doo Daa sorry mirthful... sorry ATS site.. I realise it was wrong but now i feel better... Thank you for deleting the offending parts.

[edit on 22/6/06 by MadGreebo]

Oh and for any one whos interested, im mailing both the images to aviation week and flight international for their opinion or use. I trust the images and am happy to stick my neck out over them.

[edit on 22/6/06 by MadGreebo]

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 22/6/06 by MadGreebo]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:06 PM
Good idea, let them have a look at them.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:01 PM

The other image. as I said it is blurry but you get a good idea of the lay still puzzled by the colours though...looks blooming sweet what ever it is.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in