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.

 

Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Hubby saw a huge huge "flying" thing in the air over Hill AFB in Utah, back before 1996. It was sailing gracefully over the flight line. He said it was totally silent, moved incredibly slow, almost hovering, was black,
triangular, and smooth, like it was all one piece, no visible seams or wheels or wheel wells.

(career Air Force) So perhaps IT is the F-19.
[edit on 30-3-2007 by undo]


undo,

What you are desribing here doesn't sound like the F-19 description I'm familiar with. To be honest with you, unless I'm misunderstanding your description, I would say that sounds like an A-12. The only two problems with that are:

1. The A-12 is supposed to have been cancelled back in 1991!
2. I heard they were going to be painted Ghost Grey, not Black!

Despite these differences, I would love to find out more about your husband's sighting. Anything more you could share would be most welcomed!

Tim




posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by firepilot
Range is about 5000 NM, has 4 turbine engines.


Or what types of turbine engines for that matter. It would really help create some stats to go on other then 2 unsupported statements.


I heard the turbines were made by Allison.

Also they have been used in Persian Gulf area in recent years, mostly for sensor capabilities, but does retain some PGM capability for A/G weaponry.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by undo
Hubby saw a huge huge "flying" thing in the air over Hill AFB in Utah, back before 1996. It was sailing gracefully over the flight line. He said it was totally silent, moved incredibly slow, almost hovering, was black,
triangular, and smooth, like it was all one piece, no visible seams or wheels or wheel wells.

(career Air Force) So perhaps IT is the F-19.
[edit on 30-3-2007 by undo]


undo,

What you are desribing here doesn't sound like the F-19 description I'm familiar with. To be honest with you, unless I'm misunderstanding your description, I would say that sounds like an A-12. The only two problems with that are:

1. The A-12 is supposed to have been cancelled back in 1991!
2. I heard they were going to be painted Ghost Grey, not Black!

Despite these differences, I would love to find out more about your husband's sighting. Anything more you could share would be most welcomed!

Tim


A-12 was conventionally powered, so would have sounded like a normal jet engine, and I also do not think it would have been "sailing"

Something like this, while possibly, would have had hundreds, if not thousands of people probably see it.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I think the A-12 can be ruled out since it never flew!

Even if it did I'm sure it would have made its covert flights at a more secretive location.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I agree with you on that George! I was only pointing out that the A-12 design sounds like what he was expliaining. If you notice I spacifically pointed out that the A-12 was cancelled for the Reason.

Tim



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
You may have said it was cancelled but you didn't say anywhere that the plane never even existed. I was just making that clear to people unfamiliar with the A-12.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
he who? he me? or he somebody else? cause me no he. me a she.


I was not familar with the A-12. I asked hubby about it and he wasn't familar with it either.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
You may have said it was cancelled but you didn't say anywhere that the plane never even existed.


Good catch George! It never donned on me that I forgot to point that out. For those who aren't familiar with the A-12, it was a Navy attack plane that was intended to repalce the A-6. However, the first prototype was Incomplete when the project was cancelled by then Defense Secratary Dick Cheny (our VP). Therefore the A-12 never Flew as gfad pointed out.

Tim



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Well Tim, it never flew as far as we know.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The A-12 was a neat plane but it couldn't of been what undo's "hubby" had seen. The thing was no where near the scale he described and the almost vertical levitation up out of the airfield makes it a hard pill to swallow as I'm pretty sure the control of the A-12 was still convential in that where the nose pointed (espically) in a climb.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Back on the subject of the F-19, the National Museum of the AF website has, on its list of fighter aircraft, a plane called the "F-19 CSIRS" followed by the note (see F-117).

CSIRS stands for Covert Survivable In-weather Reconaissance Strike, and was used to refer to a rumoured stealth aircraft before the declassification of the F-117.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Back on the subject of the F-19, the National Museum of the AF website has, on its list of fighter aircraft, a plane called the "F-19 CSIRS" followed by the note (see F-117).

CSIRS stands for Covert Survivable In-weather Reconaissance Strike, and was used to refer to a rumoured stealth aircraft before the declassification of the F-117.


So basically they where in the same boat as the model companies and mag's when they weren't sure the classification of the new stealth plane so they assumed like the rest that it would be the next in the F for fighter line after the hornet.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I think the Air Force Museum got its "F-19 CSIRS" information from the same 1986 issue of Gung Ho Magazine that spawned much of the early speculation. I don't believe they got it from any official DoD sources.

Too often, bad data gets adopted by official agencies and pollutes the historic record. That is why some Air Force displays incorrectly list the SR-71 with a Fiscal Year 64 prefix in the serial number, and why records at the Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center at Davis-Monthan AFB list the A-12 as an "A-11."



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I have just discovered another interesting piece of evidence, in 1985 the CIA published a document titled "Soviet Reactions to Stealth", the document is available HE RE on the CIA website.

On page 8 of the document is an image showing an aircraft identical in appearance to the model that someone posted on the first page of this thread. This is referred to on the following page in the sentence "Figure 1 illustrates some of the desirable features of a stealth vehicle". A close look at the source of the image show it is from the magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Large sections of the document, in some places entire pages, have been censored yet the CIA felt no need to remove this image. Maybe this was because the image was already in the public domain but maybe it was because the image was pure fantasy and bore no resemblance to any current designs.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk

Too often, bad data gets adopted by official agencies and pollutes the historic record. That is why some Air Force displays incorrectly list the SR-71 with a Fiscal Year 64 prefix in the serial number, and why records at the Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center at Davis-Monthan AFB list the A-12 as an "A-11."




Please elaborate on your A12/A-11 theory Shadowhawk. I had a copy of the original paperwork ordering the airplane "per Col. Brewer." Thanks.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
What theory? All he is saying is that the records are wrong, and instead of showing it in storage as an A-12, it shows it in storage as an A-11.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What theory? All he is saying is that the records are wrong, and instead of showing it in storage as an A-12, it shows it in storage as an A-11.





And I am saying his theory about the designation is wrong. Thanks for your input Zaphod58 and it always helps when you can follow along.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
So, you've seen the records from Davis Monthan's storage facility that show it as an A-12 and not an A-11? It was an A-12 in service, we all know that, but what would keep them from screwing up at DM and putting it in storage on the records as an A-11?



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So, you've seen the records from Davis Monthan's storage facility that show it as an A-12 and not an A-11? It was an A-12 in service, we all know that, but what would keep them from screwing up at DM and putting it in storage on the records as an A-11?





Zaphod58, please try and follow along. No. I have not seen the storage records at Davis Monthan. But if they list the airplane as an A-11 they are correct. Not incorrect. The airplane was originally ordered as the A-11 and as I mentioned, I had a copy of the original order from Pentagon paperwork. The original order was for 12 or 13 A-11's and signed off "per Col. Brewer.

Now if anybody is trying to say that the A-12 was not originally ordered as the A-11 then they are not informed. The original order was for 12 or 13 airframes desginated as the A-11.

Unfortunately my entire SR-71 file was misplaced several years ago. I just went out into my garage and looked through the files to see if I had accidentally placed it there and I couldn't find it. It had many pictures and articles about the SR-71. Perhaps I'll come across it some day. There was nothing all that secret about the file so I don't believe it was stolen like some of my UFO stuff but you never know.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
According to Kelly Johnson's Archangel Project Log, A-11 was the design prior to the final, A-12 series that resulted in the airplane we now know as the A-12 Blackbird. The A-11 did not have a sufficiently small radar cross-section (RCS), hence the need to create the new (A-12) design.

The CIA kept the OXCART program "in the black" as long as they could, but knew that eventually it would be exposed. The easiest solution was to surface the AF-12 (later designated YF-12A) interceptor variant beacuse it lacked many of the anti-radar refinements of the A-12 and because it would serve as an excellent cover for the A-12. If any unauthorized persons saw an A-12 in flight, they would assume it was the YF-12A since, from a distance they looked nearly identical.

The public first became aware of the aircraft on 29 February 1964, when President Lyndon B. Johnson announced its existence. By agreement with Kelly Johnson, the President intentionally misidentified the aircraft as an “A-11.” The President asked Kelly Johnson for advice regarding a proposed public announcement of the Blackbird program. On 25 February 1964, Johnson wrote in his personal log: “Plans going forward for surfacing of AF-12 program. I worked on the draft to be used by President Johnson and proposed the terminology ‘A-11’ as it was the non-anti-radar-version.” That terminology was used in the president's annnouncement and, unfortunately, found its way into other official documents.

The A-12 remained hidden until 1981 when the airframes in storage at Site 2 in Palmdale, California, were moved outdoors. They were nearly exposed in 1977 when plans were made to move them from Site 2 to Davis-Monthan AFB near Tucson, Arizona. In the summer of 1976, the Air Force started moving D-21B drones from Norton AFB, Calif., to Davis-Monthan and planned to truck the A-12 airframes there in the fall.

In anticipation that these aircraft would be seen by uncleared military personnel and the general public, the Air Force prepared a "Public Affairs Guidance" statement. It was "to be used only in response to query from the news media or general public." The order from the office of the Secretary of the Air Force stated that "under no circumstances should this information be used to whet media or public interest in the aircraft."

The statement described the "A-11" as a predecessor to the SR-71 and said "the A-11 fleet was placed in reserve to serve as attrition replacements for the SR-71." The decision to use the term "A-11" was based on the term's prior use in president Johnson's February 1964 announcement, the April 1964 edition of Air Force Space Digest, and Jane's 1974-75 Yearbook.

The A-12 airframes, however, were never moved to Davis-Monthan. They remained at Site 2. In 1982, after they were moved outdoors, Lockheed released photos and information, revealing for the first time the A-12 designation.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join