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: 3
124
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Any availability of underbelly pictures?
I am very curious about the intakes.
The turbine engines coupled with the supersonic airflow engines..




posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Thanks Nat!

It does look like "Aurora" was a pre-cursor/test bed for the tech, especially given your sources confidence that the programme is a lot more advanced than the official time-scale..

Which, at a rough guess would give it 10-15 years development before initial deployment, and about 10 years operational use before it's officially shown to the public (by which time they're already working on the replacement..)



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Check my previous post for links to underbelly shots.

Thats the best we have so far. Follow the links in intelgurls first post and follow those links to and beyond the Danger Room blog for more info on the intakes.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso

Check my previous post for links to underbelly shots.

Thats the best we have so far.


Ahh yes! I didn't notice the jet on the side. Was wondering what that engine was for

Thanks,
very insightful!



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Quote intelgurl

an extremely reliable source who told me that the huge new hangar at Groom Lake is for a Mach 6 hypersonic UCAV


Here is an image of the new hanger under construction. Seems it was taken during an expedition in June '07, and first written about here. Its possible that one of our own ATS members may have captured and posted this image to the website. I'll U2U and ask.

There is also a new satellite image from July '07 of the new hanger posted here.

There was also an article published in July, authored by George Knapp discussing the possibility that the new hanger at Groom Lake is for the SR-72.







[edit on 8/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
What is the point of a vehicle like this? Why not just deliver a payload by ICBM?
And if it is for taking reconnaissance photos then why not use slower (perhaps still supersonic) cheaper aeroplanes and satelites?

I am an Engineer and should find this sort of vehicle really interesting, but I keep asking myself why bother? Why make what is in affect a really intelligent and expensive missile for delivering a payload and then returning to base when an ICBM is a brilliant design for doing that task?

Personally, I think the only real point of such a project is dick waving by the military bigwigs. Spending the money on developing a new generation of ICBM would have made so much more fiscal sense.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing Intelgurl.

This obviously throws up a million questions regarding construction, materials, engines etc... I wonder how stealthed up it is and how they'll avoid infra-red detection at those speeds. Although I suppose there is a speed where stealth is irrevlevant since nothing can catch you!


On the photos of the model you can see the Skunkworks logo on the wing which confirms the link to Lockheed but it bears more than just a passing resemblance to these patent drawings filed by Northrop Grumman in 1994, dont you think?




Now the spotters finally know what to look out for!!



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It seems that this website (blog.wired.com...) has chased DARPA regarding Blackswift and have made some breakthroughs confirming the dual-purpose engine. It also states that HTV-3X discussed on another thread on this board and Blackswift are one and the same DARPA project, when questioned a spokes-person said "Originally the program planned an HTV-3 that would be boosted by a rocket, but the program is currently developing a concept design for an HTV-3X, which would be powered with a combined cycle engine instead of using a rocket booster, meaning that it would take off and land like an aircraft and cruise at speeds of approximately Mach 6."


Aviation Week also seem to think the "[k]ey to its operation will be an inward-turning inlet that forms the basis for the axisymmetric scramjet flowpath design just evaluated in the recent test in Australia."


Finally though, if this aircraft is only fighter size why do they need the MASSIVE new hangar at Groom Lake?



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Here's some gen..


SR-71 successor? Or Aurora? Or are both the same?
Image courtesy: FAS IRP



Reports of plans for a high-performance piloted replacement for the SR-71 date back more than a decade. In 1979 it was reported that a

"... Mach 4, 200,000-ft.-altitude aircraft that could be a follow-on to the Lockheed SR-71 strategic reconnaissance vehicle in the 1990s has been defined by the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division and Lockheed."

As previously noted, reports of the existence of a successor to the SR-71 surfaced repeatedly during the debate over termination of the SR-71. Subsequent observations of mysterious aerial phenomena have been connected with the 1988 reports that Aurora was a Mach 6 stealthy reconnaissance aircraft that was being developed to replace the SR-71.
www.fas.org...


Cheers!



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CarlosG
What is the point of a vehicle like this? Why not just deliver a payload by ICBM?
And if it is for taking reconnaissance photos then why not use slower (perhaps still supersonic) cheaper aeroplanes and satelites?

I am an Engineer and should find this sort of vehicle really interesting, but I keep asking myself why bother? Why make what is in affect a really intelligent and expensive missile for delivering a payload and then returning to base when an ICBM is a brilliant design for doing that task?


An ICBM looks like, well, an ICBM to everybody's early warning systems, including those of people the sender isn't attacking. That will tend to really annoy people and present a high profile.

Simple assumption, so far correct: ICBM == nuclear attack. The US would assume so as well. A one-shot ICBM is much too expensive, and potentially inaccurate, for a conventional warhead. The CEP of a modern ICBM is good enough for 200kt, but not necessarily good enough for 0.002 kt conventional.

There doesn't exist any such thing as a reconaissance ICBM. Presumably the reconaissance ability of such an aircraft would be used far more times than the attack. Let's hope the ratio stays that way.


Personally, I think the only real point of such a project is dick waving by the military bigwigs. Spending the money on developing a new generation of ICBM would have made so much more fiscal sense.


But not necessarily strategic or operational sense. The attack function may be a penis size competition, but the recon function probably isn't.

Also consider that the recent NRO boss recently canceled (due to major project screwups) a major black satellite program.

Likely the two are connected: lack of progress/overruns on one, and success on another.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Here's some gen..

SR-71 successor? Or Aurora? Or are both the same?
Image courtesy: FAS IRP


Cheers!



Come on there is no way that this new "Blackswift" can look anything like that computer gen Aurora image. That was created on the principle that Aurora was a wave-rider which the mock-up sugests Blackswift isnt. It also has an engine which isn't a jet/ramjet combo.


I think its vital that we avoid references to Aurora in this thread. Lets be honest none of us is certain that Aurora exists! Yes, something called Aurora appeared on the 1986 budget but no one knows exactly what it was. And yes there was the infamous Chris Gibson sighting and yes there were suspect sonic booms across Nv and Ca but that is no definate evidence for anything. Aurora is nothing but a name attached to a collection of suspicious pieces of evidence, its a touchstone for all aviation enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists but thats all it is, a touchstone, not a real craft but a fictional element that encompasses different characteristics depending on which theory is being championed at the time. Mach 12? Its aurora. Pulse Detonation? Its aurora. A two-stage space weapon? Its aurora. I genuinely believe that screaming Aurora every time a new aerospace techonlogy comes to light s hampering genuine research into black projects.

Lets just focus on the evidence we have, not muddying the water with 20 years of collective theories.

And Im done...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Hmmm how many failed wars is it going to take to convince America that rapidly dropping bombs on the far side of the world is no substitute for boots on the ground.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dunnie
 



yes a great looking bird thats for sure





posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
WHOA 3x3!!! What is THAT?? It's beautiful!! I've never seen anything quite like that, here or anywhere. Where'd you get it? It looks like a model done in a graphics program to illustrate the concept, but it's still awesome.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Can we stay on topic? We're talking about black aircraft not fantasy planes from games etc.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
gfad,

We can call it "concept art", can we not? To me, it's all one in the same anyway. As far as I know, no actual images of the aircraft have surfaced yet. It's possible that I've missed one, but I doubt it. Besides, designs change on a dime during development anyway to cater to new technology, or new technical specs that the designers want. It's all subjective at the moment, and will remain so until the plane rolls out onto the tar mat.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Can we stay on topic? We're talking about black aircraft not fantasy planes from games etc.



are not all black project aircraft fantasy planes? to us the general public..ie we no nothing about them until the powers at be show us.

i did not mean to go off topic ,i just replied to the poster that expressed an interest in what i posted,and then borg replied to my last post.

i apologise if i have upset this thread



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 3x3cut3d
 


I would think that someone has used photoshop, or even paintshop on a number of different aircraft including the F-14,16 and 23. Also te prefix is all wrong, as unless this is simultaniously an aircraft in the same class as the proposed V/A-22 Osprey it seems unlikely. Lastly if this was not actually a real picture but a composite to show how the aircraft would look, it is unlikely, nay impossible that the USAF would build such a un stealthy new combat aircraft.

Jensy



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 
Firstly thanks for an excellent post intelgurl. It dovetails nicely with that discussion we had on Black programs in your recent post "So whats going on at Groom Lake?". I was offline for a day and when I returned I saw 3 pages of replies, wondering what the fuss was all about I looked. What I saw first reminded me of that line in 2001, "my god it's full of stars!"
. I dont think I have seen so many stars in any post.

Second, and more in line with this reply. This is a good breakdown of how you (and others) approach and analyse the release of information on sensitive subjects. May I humbly suggest that you add this basic synopsis to your profile so any other posters (new or old) unfamilliar with your work better understand the process you use to decide what is and is not fit to release. This may serve as a template for others in sensitive parts of the aerospace industry who wish to post and are not sure what is ok or how to go about doing it.

Once again thanks for the post as it would seem to possibly answer the mystery of the Groom Lake hangar construction.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I'm wondering how accurate that image from Dailytech is.

Why encase the engines in 2 bubbles and not extend the structure around the upper fuselage for payload space?



I guess its a mockup of an early concept model, and may have little in common with a finished product... maybe.



new topics

top topics



 
124
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join