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.

 

SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

page: 12
124
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
This is a critical piece of information:



Blackswift reportedly doesn’t have the backing of the Air Force at this time, which will obviously be crucial to the project reaching maturity.


Source

Couple of thoughts:


  1. "Fighter" sized - this could mean almost anything. Are we talking Harrier little or F-22 hugeness?
  2. Fighter sized? How could this size body hold enough fuel for both types of engines and the payload?




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 




A friend of mine recently retired from Space Command related this...

Hill AFB, Utah 1988

During war games at Hill AFB, Utah, I was standing out on the flightline, guarding the perimeter, the entry-access control point.


Was it routine for Air Force officers in the "Space Command" to pull flight-line guard duty?

So, Gomer Pile was taking a break from the rigors of "Space Command", decided to hop a plane, fly several states away from his duty station and help out his buddies with flight-line guard duty?

It turns out I have a friend, who was at Hill AFB during the late 80's, was an MP, remembers the exercise in question and said no such thing happened.

See what I did there? Anyone can be a "source", if you're willing to make them and the "information" up.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Otherwise, it's pure fantasy. I don't think there is anything wrong with kicking around ideas and discussing what might be. However, I raise a skeptical eyebrow when extraordinary claims are based on an unnamed "friend".

After all, the difference between fantasy and reality is proof.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I would be surprised if such an aircraft was bigger than your kitchen table. Why would it need to be? With microscopic nano technology, this thing could be tiny, less mass, less complications. For all we know the propulsion system is an electro/chemical device using solid metallic’s for fuel.
The launching system could be an under ground superconducting magnetic rail, getting it up to the speed required for the engines to kick in.
The cameras could be as small as the optics on your CD player. One thing for sure, it’s about 15 years more advanced than we know or think it is.
mach3ti.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
An attempt by the military to turn Blackswift or the SR-72 from the white world to the black??

Blackswift hyperplane hits trouble in Washington

The way I see it is:

A) You can believe they scratched the program altogether when such a severe budget cut takes place.
B) You can believe they want the public to think the program is dead.




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
It's been hinted that the program is farther along than stated, and that you are seeing the program turn into a SAP. I'm reasonably certain it was stated in this thread, but it may have been another.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Was it routine for Air Force officers in the "Space Command" to pull flight-line guard duty?


I don't suppose it occurred to you he wasn't space command back then? No of course not...

:shk:



It turns out I have a friend, who was at Hill AFB during the late 80's, was an MP, remembers the exercise in question and said no such thing happened.


Quite likely because he didn't think YOU could be trusted with the info



However, I raise a skeptical eyebrow when extraordinary claims are based on an unnamed "friend".


Good for you
and as long as you keep that up you will never have a friend that will tell you anything




After all, the difference between fantasy and reality is proof.


YOUR fantasy... my reality... even if I were to give you his whole history, name and job description... it would do nothing for you

Now if YOU were 'on the inside' I could give you his name and you could look him up on the global... but since your not...



Personally... I have zero interest in proving anything to you



[edit on 1-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Couple of thoughts:


  1. "Fighter" sized - this could mean almost anything. Are we talking Harrier little or F-22 hugeness?
  2. Fighter sized? How could this size body hold enough fuel for both types of engines and the payload?



I tend toward Vigilante or perhaps B-58 size in my mind's eye. This means nothing of course, but that's the size I picture it.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Here some more info: www.foxnews.com... 6d927c7bb152d9988581



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
What is Hypersonic?

Can someone give me a brief yet informative answer.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by CommanderSinclair]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CommanderSinclair
 



Hypersonic is the speed realm after supersonic. it is not clearly defined like the speed of sound is, but generally accepted to be MACH 4 - 5 and above.

I.e. 4 or 5 times faster than the speed of sound. Thats what hypersonic is... fast, real fast.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


Thanks Dan Tanna!



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Never posted before but read when i have time...

In terms of keeping this thing stealthy, The SR-71 ran into trouble due to its massive heat signature. What are the general thoughts on using Plasma shielding to reduce friction at Mach 6 100 000ft and to increase defensive potential?

see link:

blog.wired.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Thats what hypersonic is... fast, real fast.


Yup and I suppose you would be pretty 'hyper' flying at those speeds...

I have heard a few people comment that they would like to sit in that seat..

But from what I am seeing in the docs.... they have no plans to include the pilot in this one...

UAV's, NAVY ships, Spacecraft like Progress and Jules Verne all robotic or remote controlled

Maybe people will be obsolete in the next war... save as targets?




[edit on 13-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

No formal agreement yet, but Boeing and Lockheed Martin - partners in a study of the USAF's next bomber - are also talking about joining forces on the USAF/Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Blackswift hypersonic demonstrator project.


Aviationweek

Looks an interesting development? but also surely could lead to corporate ego's clashing harming the project in the process?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
Looks an interesting development? but also surely could lead to corporate ego's clashing harming the project in the process?


Now that IS an interesting development. If they need both Skunk Works and Phantom Works teams on this project that would mean something really big is in the works....

I wouldn't worry about the egos... not with these two companies...

Certainly will be worth watching... and for me its great... because I have contacts in Boeing... but only retired ones at Lockheed



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It is puzzling to me that Northrop is letting this one go by... I mean no one would want to miss out on a contract like this unless your crazy busy. But if your working on building a secret bomber prototype in the black project with a 2 billion contact you may be secure enough to let this appear to slip by to your competition.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
no PDEs, give it a rest. the pictures of the wide, flat waverider shape are out-of-date. the latest config. is much different. i've seen photos of it floating around in the public domain, but can't find them at the moment. this project is in the white. the transonic performance of the waverider is too poor for a re-usable, CTOL hypersonic cruise vehicle. too much fuel (a precious commodity when you're using it for thermal mgmt) burnt getting to M3+ where the rams can take over.

as you can see by following the link, it's just a demonstrator

www.darpa.mil...



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
although for the time being it's still in the white, there's been talk that the project could go black very soon.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



Flat waveriders are out of date? BS, total BS.

India, China, UK, OZ, USA and the Russians are ALL using waverider shapes.

There are other designs of course ala the RATTLRS model and other mach 4+ missile designs, but saying the wave riders out the window? thats just plain silly.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
It is puzzling to me that Northrop is letting this one go by...

Northrop has too many irons in the proverbial fire already. They're working on a black project bomber, remember?



new topics

top topics



 
124
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join