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 Manta, TR-3

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I was reading a thread in the Ufo section here

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">UFO Thread

It linked to a story here

American ChronicleUFO or Secret Plane Over Tynemouth


In this report it refers to a aircraft named as the BLACK MANTA which apparently has TR-3, tr-3a and tr3-b variants.
I have brought this here to ask the members 3 relevant questions....


1.Does such a project exist (even on the drawing board)?

2.If it does would it be flying above the skies of Northumbria,England)?

3.Do any of the experts here have any specs on such a craft?

I thank you for assistance you can provide in this matter cheers .




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
As far as I know there is pretty much no evidence for the black manta, similarly to the Aurora it has been theorised for ages but nothing has really surfaced. Although people seem to claim to see similar craft flying over Nellis all the time yet no images have really been published.

Theres some info here on FAS.




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Thanks GFAD The pics you linked look a bit like a B-2 bomber.

Thanks for the info aswell GFAD.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Is the TR-3 real? Very hard to say!

Most of what's out there on it is highly circumstantial at best. As far as I know, most of the sighting are unconfirmed, adding to the mystery. However, I tend to lean towards the "Yes" column when asked about the Black Manta. To me many of the scattered peices seem to fit if you look real close.

Here's what I have:

* Sightings over Californa, Nevada, and White Sands NM. While not proof on there own, from what I've read the general discription of that craft is farely consistent. It's a rounded, black, flying wing that is approxatly 60 to 65 feet in span with a length of around 42 feet long.

* A repoted fight profile of flying high and slow. This seems to suggest a mission that involves longer-term information gathering, maybe a SIGINT platform.

* A few unidentifiyed Black Programs at Northrop Grumman, which is well known for flying wing designs.

*An unidentifyed Black Project involving the NSA, which is known to collect SIGINT. We knew it's called Project Aquarius, but almost nothing else is really known. (NOTE: Some people say Project Aquarius deals with UFO's, however, I'm not big into the UFO/ET thing, and a Top Secret NSA SIGINT platform with an unusual shape makes more sense to me) .

Tim



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The TR-3A Black Manta if it exists was probably derived from the HAPB(High Altitude Penetrating Bomber)project which was the starting point for what would become the B-2 under the evolved ATB(Advanced Tactical Bomber)project. The public explanation of why the ATB's devlopment was so costly and toubled was because the B-2 was initially designed under the HAPB for as the name describes for high altitude penetration it was then decided that a low altitude penetrator would be preferable. However alot of cash had been already been spent on the develpoment of HAPB and there is no reason that whatever was developed under the HAPB could be could easily be modified into a recon aircraft. And it would also provide a great cover for the development and deployment of the MANTA.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Kuhl,

The TR-3 is almost certainly the result of a misheard statement in regards to the 'Tier' (stepped levels of development) inherent to the original requirement for a large UAV, with full stealth, intended for the mission which was ultimately spread between the Tier-II+ and the Tier-3- (minus) which later eventuated as the RQ-4 Global Hawk and RQ-3 Dark Star.

My own interpretation is that the /sensor system/ around which any 'TR-3' mission spec was written (and which may indeed be 'Black Manta') was what defined the platform design and likelihood of series production.

Specifically, you _do not_ want to go SLARing up the airwaves with swath coverage emissions having relatively long period dwell and repeat (necessary for doppler and later phase coherent reassembly in advanced SAR systems) from a so called 'stealth' airframe because-

A. You don't have to. Systems like U-2 ASARS and whatever TESAR/MESAR the RQ-4 carry allows for considerable standoff from altitude in trade for antenna increases which are a lot less difficult to provide weight and area and cooling for than full LO design. The E-8 even removing the need for ground processing.

B. You give away your position. Which is not something you can afford to do in any LO platform but particularly one which is intended to loiter for long periods in a small cube of airspace.

At the same time, if you've ever been to Europe and particularly Germany, the weather over there is NOT particularly conducive to laser bombing, with constant low, running, scud even in summer. And in winter often solid overcast that is a pure terror to even operate (takeoff and land) in, let alone fly tactically through.

If you can't get target LOS -any- optical recce system becomes rather pointless.

However; the USAF was also working on a system called 'PLSS' or the Precision Location Strike System which supposedly used a lot of what we would call MASINT as well as conventional mode ELS detection variables to pinpoint threat locations for air defenses and 'other units' with distinct signature/spectrum usage requirements.

This system, while it worked well, did suffer from range and integration issues as a function of needing essentially three airframes to triangulate positions from a fixed reception activity in England.

As such, the F-117, without the radar which it was initially (power and cooling) configured to carry, is going to be just shy of completely worthless. And the AF would know this. Even as they know that a lot of the types utility derives specifically from it's penetration mode which, like the arrowhead it represents is 'all forward', not around and around.

With the cancellation of PLSS in the mid-80s and the effective ending of many of the ballistic (ATACMS) and ground/air launched hunting cruise options (MRASM/MSOW) as well as Assault Breaker technologies (TGSM, Wasp and other brilliant minimissiles), it might be suggested that a manned-system bigoted USAF would instead 'suggest' a platform which could go in and lie among the lions. And thus from highly proximal linear distances if not heights, capture short period/low power SIGINT directly with the intent to locate things like theater missile TELs as well as layered/road mobile SAM systems, using the shorter slant distance variables and a tighter spatial/band coverage design to pass targeting compatible coordinates to other weapons platforms out there (this may have also included an LPI 'spotlight' active targeter/illuminator, I don't know).

In this, the TR-3 design MIGHT stand in particularly good stead because, if it exists, and if it flies in the described mission role, it likely does so as a function of 'taco' shaped orbits like any other SIGINT platform, exposing long baseline antenna suite buried in or along the skin to establish baseline interferometric distance and time collimation with some fairly exotic signal types. Orbits which require a much smaller set of bowtie angle (vulnerable RCS) aspect presentations than a side-on F-117 might present as effectively the asset plays breyr rabbit in the bryar patch rather than hurling weapons and running.

The missing element then being the GBU-15V(2) with the short chord wings. Now, I don't know for sure if this system will fit into the weapons bay of an F-117. But it certainly wasn't necessary to chop the glide range (inherent to the large tailfin group in particular) solely to make it sling under an F-111 or F-4 which were then the period PGM delivery systems.

What is particularly interesting to me is that there was a secondary effort to qualify some GBU-15s with what was called 'DME' or Distance Measuring Equipment and the SUU-54 cluster bus. Functionally a lot like TACAN in terms of radial distance measurement from an offset source, nothing was ever mentioned as to the exact mechanization of the waveform and accuracies but what is known is that system did NOT require a clean-LOS seekerhead to flyout to a known point and attack it.

It is also known that the Israelis used a considerable number of (albeit early model) GBU-15 in 1982's initial Bekaa suppression campaigns BEFORE we bought into the design. And that the GBU-15 and followon AGM-130 were never bought in large numbers, officially because of the high individual munitions cost of around 430,000 dollars each.

Given you are willing to either directly radiate signal for a brief terminal targeting window from your stealth asset to the munition and/or exploit what was, even then, a considerable satellite network to relay coordinates through to a high power standoff platform (the modern day equivalent of Gee or Oboe), the combination of the F-117, GBU-15/DME and a TR-3 like asset which can loiter directly over the threat matrix could leverage the NATO theater mission in ways which would otherwise be next to impossible to reach because most of USAFE would itself be shattered hulks in their hangars if not overrun by the huge FA commitment.

Now, did it happen like this? Dunno. It certainly seems that the acknowledged followon to the cancelled Dark Star has overcome at least some of the fears inherent to radar recce in a new platform with similar design and greater persistence. But I seriously believe that the THAP and/or Manta, **if it existed**, was what Clancy was referring to when he described 'frisbees' instead of 117s in _RSR_. Having been given an insiders view of it's existence and the 'suggestion' that he describe it in a wide ranging operational context other than the highly restrictive role it actually was intended for.

It also would explain a lot in terms of the route the USN took towards the A-12 (literally a total overskinning of deep RAM rather than selective applications on an already composite airframe) in the Gen-2 period of Stealth Design.

And some of the post-cancellation charges that the Government stated but would not provide backing proof for as to why Lockheed did indeed have sufficient independent LO data from it's own Cold Pigeon and Model 100 technology demonstration efforts as to accurately gauge the difficulties inherent to weight and performance issues of both the navalization effort. And the signature driven one. For a flying wing.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Because they were also competitors in an initial high-leverage, rapid prototyping, attempt to exploit ONE mission role which could 'turn the tide' against the Russian ballistic and air defense system advantage held in Europe. The SS-20 and SA-10 in particular.

CONCLUSION:
It seems to me that whatever the mission role, it has since quietly gone dormant in the wake of the cold war ending and what must have been a highly type-specific comms support system (of considerable bandwidth if they wanted to maintain upper echelon control over target selection or secondary realtime exploitation). But it is theoretically possible that the system was still considered as being availabe in the ODS period, simply because the Iraqis used a lot of the same commo and C2 procedures if not gear to the Soviet model system. Given that no stated hits were ever declared from the Great Wombat Hunt that became the SCUD suppression effort. Yet SCUD Alley rapidly depopulated as the TEL force moved farther and farther away from Israel; there should be more than a 'Snake Eaters and and Conventional Recce (Tornado GR.1A, RF-4C, F-14 TARPS etc.)' explanation to what would have otherwise been readily verifiable hard kills. Again, the use of a highly classifed black platform whose presence as much as performance would alter the 'knowns' of TBM hunting could be among the reasons why the U.S. Fed lets the accusations slide without comment (though here too, postwar technical improvements to mobile/fleeting TCT hunting were greatly expanded).

Whether anybody BUT the 117 force could exploit the Manta data remains to be seen. I know that they invented an entire radio network commo system for the B-2 which subsequently had no one to talk to upon completion of the R&D effort because, outside the program compartment, the overarching comms architecture had itself been cancelled 'and nobody knew'. And again, the 1980s were a LONG TIME before the days of bluetooth and bentpipes, let alone CDL and TTNT.


KPl.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
1- If it truly exists (which I believe), it is a black project from the US Air Force, more specifically Area51, so its very existence cannot be confirmed with valuable proofs

2- Sure. Why not?

3- There's many ufological sites over the web with some detailed infos on it. Appearantly, that thing can reduce gravity by something like 89% so it gives it the ability to make drastic movements and speed changes, and this without the crew inside being psycically affected by such unthinkable acceleration and movement. It is based on reversed-engineering of UFO technology but is completely man-made. Its speed is somewhere in the ranges of Mach 5-10, but above some altitude, it can go at something like Mach 20-25. And obviously it is capable of stopping in mid-air and staying still or either flying at very slow speeds without problems. It's been around since 1989.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
3- There's many ufological sites over the web with some detailed infos on it. Appearantly, that thing can reduce gravity by something like 89% so it gives it the ability to make drastic movements and speed changes, and this without the crew inside being psycically affected by such unthinkable acceleration and movement. It is based on reversed-engineering of UFO technology but is completely man-made. Its speed is somewhere in the ranges of Mach 5-10, but above some altitude, it can go at something like Mach 20-25. And obviously it is capable of stopping in mid-air and staying still or either flying at very slow speeds without problems. It's been around since 1989.


Its ridiculous statements like that that reduce the credibility of such a craft existing. If it does exist then it wont be able to reduce gravity because that is IMPOSSIBLE as far as modern physics is concerned.

Even if it could manipulate gravity, then the pilots would still be affected by the unthinkable acceleration and decelleration. These things have NOTHING to do with gravity, its because of Newtons first law. An object will travel in a straight line at constant velocity as long as no other force is acting on it, this is regardless of any gravitational forces.

Planes of this type if they do exist will have been developed by the AF or possibly the CIA and will have come from completely terrestrial origins. Also what do you mean by "specifically Area 51"? The base at Groom Lake is purely for the testing of new aircraft or technologies, if its real then it will have been produced by Skunkworks, Phantomworks or the Northrop equivalent.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
if its real then it will have been produced by Skunkworks, Phantomworks or the Northrop equivalent.


The last one would be the Northrop Owl Works! That why they used this patch:



This paticular patch is from the B-2 program, but that's the Owl Works Logo you are seeing! I don't know why Northrop Grumman doesn't show it off, it's a neat logo.

Tim



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Thanks guys I knew you wouldn't let me down

Speical thanks to ch,ghost and Gfad.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Originally posted by gfad



Its ridiculous statements like that that reduce the credibility of such a craft existing. If it does exist then it wont be able to reduce gravity because that is IMPOSSIBLE as far as modern physics is concerned.

Even if it could manipulate gravity, then the pilots would still be affected by the unthinkable acceleration and decelleration. These things have NOTHING to do with gravity, its because of Newtons first law.


I would like to respectfully submit that this HAS to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever see posted on ATS.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Thanks for your opinion John but I found Gfads contribution to be very concise and informative.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by gfad

Its ridiculous statements like that that reduce the credibility of such a craft existing. If it does exist then it wont be able to reduce gravity because that is IMPOSSIBLE as far as modern physics is concerned.

Even if it could manipulate gravity, then the pilots would still be affected by the unthinkable acceleration and decelleration. These things have NOTHING to do with gravity, its because of Newtons first law.


I would like to respectfully submit that this HAS to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever see posted on ATS.


i would like to respectfully submit that yours is one of the more ignorant statements on ats and certinally far more ignorant than gfads.

i agree compleatly with the first part of the first paragraph which is an opinion and everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express it within reason. the second part of the first paragraph is scientifically true. the second paragraph is scientific fact. his opinion is not ignorant and the second and third parts can't be ignorant, so which bit is?

justin



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Originally posted by kuhl



Thanks for your opinion John but I found Gfads contribution to be very concise and informative.


And thank you for yours, kuhl. I assume then that you are going to go along with Gfads statement:


Even if it could manipulate gravity, then the pilots would still be affected by the unthinkable acceleration and deceleration.


?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
To my certain knowledge, rumours about the TR-3B have been circulating on the web since around 2000.

Back then there was a large and informative website written by a guy called Edgar Fouche who put together visualisations and information about this project from talking to various friends who were involved in the black world. The Manta's existence would explain a large number of the "flying triangle" UFOs which have been seen and filmed all over the world, most notably in Belgium in the late nineties.

Unfortunately this website has been taken down and even the multiple mirror sites that had the Fouche presentation on the Manta have become hard to find. This might mean nothing or it might mean a consistent effort to drive references to it underground, even on the net.

The propulsion system of the Manta is actually a simple reaction jet system. Each of the corner glowing lights on the flying triangle is a vectored exhaust. However, the real trick comes with a system that cancels the inertia of the craft and everything in it by almost 90%. This is why the triangle shape is necessary. The corners of the triangle protrude beyond the range of the inertia-cancelling field, which allows the reaction engines to operate - if you think about it, no advantage would be gained if the exhausts were within the range of the field, as they'd lose 9/10ths of their thrust too.

This inertia cancelling system allows the crew to pull g-forces 9 times more powerful than they could stand in an unprotected craft. This is why those comments earlier were, as John Lear stated, somewhat ignorant.

The inertial cancelling system is reputed to rely on what is becoming known as the Podletnkov effect. (Hope I've spelled that name right!) Mr. P is a Russian scientist who was playing with room-temperature superconductors and who noticed a weight reduction when he rotated one at speed. I doubt that the people who built the Manta refer to the effect as "the Podletnkov effect" because it seems as if they anticipated his discovery by many years, by the way.

According to Fouche, the inertia is cancelled in the Manta by rotating mercury plasma at close to relativistic speeds. The mechanics of doing this are not discussed, but it does explain the signature pattern of lights on the flying triangle as observed in, for example, the Belgian pictures and video - three lights on the corners, and a larger, circular, pulsing light in the middle.

The other thing about the Manta is that it's supposed to have the very latest in stealth coverings, which uses quasicrystals to make the craft invisible to the naked eye. I looked into the field of quasicrystals a little while ago, and it seemed to display the distinct signs of a field of investigation that's gone "black" - there are a very very few projects out there, which looked promising... and then it all goes really quiet.

POSTSCRIPT: Fouche maintained that the nomenclature of the craft had nothing to do with any of the similarly named black projects: this was deliberately done to confuse the issue and make budget appropriations look as if they were for something that was on the verge of coming out of the black world.

Reputedly they are flown from three bases, of which one is in Scotland.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 6-9-2006 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Its ridiculous statements like that that reduce the credibility of such a craft existing. If it does exist then it wont be able to reduce gravity because that is IMPOSSIBLE as far as modern physics is concerned.


The laws of the universe as we undestand them are at best incomplete. We can't even begin to truely explain dark matter nonetheless dark energy. These two "forces" are quite possibly the two biggest players in our universe and we don't even have a clue about their physical nature.


Originally posted by gfad
Even if it could manipulate gravity, then the pilots would still be affected by the unthinkable acceleration and decelleration. These things have NOTHING to do with gravity, its because of Newtons first law. An object will travel in a straight line at constant velocity as long as no other force is acting on it, this is regardless of any gravitational forces.


On the contrary if we could manipulate gravity with precision we could easily rap a craft in gravitational bubble which would cancel out the inertial forces of acceleration and deceleration. The works of Professor Alcubierre which have been subsequently refined by Chris Van Den Broeck have theoretically proven that by manipulating gravity you could effectively "warp" space-time as to create a bubble insulated from the effects of inertia.


Originally posted by gfad
Planes of this type if they do exist will have been developed by the AF or possibly the CIA and will have come from completely terrestrial origins. Also what do you mean by "specifically Area 51"? The base at Groom Lake is purely for the testing of new aircraft or technologies, if its real then it will have been produced by Skunkworks, Phantomworks or the Northrop equivalent.


Spot on. The technology for gravity nulification if not anti-gravity as well has been around since the early 20th century. Scientists like Nikola Tesla, Henry Morey and Thomas Townsend Brown all published works that were then classified by the government then had their careers ruined by the government. If anyone would just sit back and look at the facts you'd see that Roswell was just the beginning of a huge government coverup to throw off the public attention away from the technological capabilties that our government possess and doesn't want to give up.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
And thank you for yours, kuhl. I assume then that you are going to go along with Gfads statement.


Its not so much that they are going along with what I say, people are just more likely to trust reliable, researched and proven scientific theories. I think its pretty ignorant to say that my statement is ignorant with no justification.


Originally posted by rich23
system that cancels the inertia of the craft and everything in it by almost 90%...

This inertia cancelling system allows the crew to pull g-forces 9 times more powerful than they could stand in an unprotected craft. This is why those comments earlier were, as John Lear stated, somewhat ignorant.


I definately dont think its ignorant to state well known scientific fact that has stood for centuries. I would really like to see anything that defies Newtons First law within the boundaries of reliable scientific research rather than fringe science.

I can find NO trace of this Podletnkov effect on google.


Originally posted by rich23
The other thing about the Manta is that it's supposed to have the very latest in stealth coverings, which uses quasicrystals to make the craft invisible to the naked eye.


Thats a ridiculous statement since all the evidence that we have on this supposed craft are eye-witness reports. How can we have the famous belgian triangle photos if it is invisible?

I think we need to clear up which supposed craft we are even talking about here. Supposedly the TR3B is some sort of triangular levitating craft that can change direction quickly without any problem and travel at unheard of speeds whereas the Black Manta is a supposed craft which is much more realistic and is said to resemble the picture and diagrams that I posted above.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
That's cos I spelt it wrong. Sorry.

It should have been PODKLETNOV.

On the other hand, if you had Googled "antigravity rotating superconductor" you'd have got this: which links to all sorts of things.


ts not so much that they are going along with what I say, people are just more likely to trust reliable, researched and proven scientific theories.


Oh dear... philosophical heads up: you can never, ever, prove a theory. You can only disprove a theory. This has been accepted in the philosophy of science since Poppers Logic of Scientific Discovery in the sixties.

No matter how many times you replicate an experiment doesn't mean that the model you use to explain the circumstances of the experiment is necessarily valid. It just means that the combination of circumstances in which that model breaks down has not yet been found.

Try to remember all the time that scientists - experts - have made predictions that turned out to be wrong. "Locomotives won't work because people will not be able to breathe air at such speeds!" "It's impossible to travel faster than sound!" and so on. Yes, they look ridiculous now, but back in the day you'd have been nodding your head sagely in agreement with the men who made these pompous pronouncements.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by gfad

Its ridiculous statements like that that reduce the credibility of such a craft existing. If it does exist then it wont be able to reduce gravity because that is IMPOSSIBLE as far as modern physics is concerned.

Even if it could manipulate gravity, then the pilots would still be affected by the unthinkable acceleration and decelleration. These things have NOTHING to do with gravity, its because of Newtons first law.


I would like to respectfully submit that this HAS to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever see posted on ATS.


No offense, but anti-gravity really shouldn't be possible if you look at the definition of gravity:

Wikipedia- Gravity

Basically what all of the stuff on that page is saying is that Gravity is a basic, or fundimental interaction of objects in nature. It exists as a direct function of mass (the amout of matter in something reguardless of how loosely or tightly that matter is packed. According to the laws of physics, objects of mass will naturally draw toward each other, and the greater the mass, the greater the attraction! If it has mass it both produces and is effected by gravity.

Unless you are sugesting a craft with a Negitive amount of Mass (which is Impossible) you'll never achieve Anti-Gravity!

Bottom Line:There is no such thing as anti-gravity! While it sounds exciting, you have to realise even the most advanced technology will never overcome fundimental laws of physics.

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join