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: 9
124
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Intelgurl,
do you think the Blackswift is the same thing than the Hypersonic cruise vehicle, and for the size I think this plane is much bigger than the SR71.




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Intelgurl,
Do you think the Blackswift, is the same plane than the Hypersonic cruise vehicle?
For the size I think it must be much bigger than the SR71.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I may be wrong but i would have thought the only place in the UK that is remote enough to keep this even slightly secret is in the very north of Scotland? almost everywhere else in both England and Wales is pretty close to places of which are pretty well populated?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


Hi Solidshot, hhmm I don't know about that. Obviously there are some extremely remote locations in Scotland, the infamous RAF Machrihanish springs to mind! although this is now semi-civi. But there are some other pretty remote places in England too.
Boscombe Down has long been used as a classified project test site. Warton, even though it's owned by BAE could be another site that would allow a direct landing without much of an overflight of populated areas. There's Qinetiq sites all over the place too.......but my money would be on Machrihanish in Scotland simply because of it's existing ties with the USAF and it's extremely long runway.

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by stratsys-sws
reply to post by solidshot
 

my money would be on Machrihanish in Scotland simply because of it's existing ties with the USAF and it's extremely long runway.

Cheers
Robbie

As long as it's runway is 12,000 feet or more, Machrihanish could be the place.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

As long as it's runway is 12,000 feet or more, Machrihanish could be the place.


Looks too short to me.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Machrihanish runway is 10,000 feet. Although it is has a civil airport I believe the MoD still own the land and can revert it to Military use at any Time.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajsr71
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Machrihanish runway is 10,000 feet. Although it is has a civil airport I believe the MoD still own the land and can revert it to Military use at any Time.

Actually, last I heard it was a 3.2 mile runway, am I wrong?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I dumb question I'm sure but, if they have been reverse engineering Alien Space Carft that is faster, more manuverable etc etc etc, why are we screwing around with winged aircraft? Is it some kind of Pet Project or front to suck many for the "Real Cutting Edge Stuff and other projects? Are these going to be production models or just a few for?

I should know more about this before opening my mouth but that photo reminds me of an Ad; like a 09 Mazaratti they are letting a little bit leak about to get our attention and build interest. Like, OH..that is what they have been spending all that money on. I like planes, don't getme wrong but it just seems like something from some drawing board for the 70s//no doubt it has every bell and whistle nut but is can't make 45 degree turns at 3KPH.

Just some thoughts..



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Hi Intelgurl, no campbelltown (Machrihanish) is 10,000 feet long. The second longest runway in the UK after Heathrow.

Surely in testing you may need a 12,000 ft runway but in operational use restricting the aircraft to only landing on runways above 12,000 ft would be extremely limiting? 10,000 feet is pretty long by European standards.

Cheers

Robbie



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stratsys-sws
reply to post by intelgurl

Surely in testing you may need a 12,000 ft runway but in operational use restricting the aircraft to only landing on runways above 12,000 ft would be extremely limiting? 10,000 feet is pretty long by European standards.

Yes, you're right, I am so immersed in testing - sigh



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Yeah I'll let you off with that one :-)

Keep us posted of any news, I agree with you about the attempt at pushing this into the black, let see if we can avoid that :-)

Cheers

Robbie



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
More news releases on testing related to Blackswift.


To be launched by Orbital Sciences Minotaur solid-fuel rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, HTV-2a will fly in May 2009 and HTV-2b will follow in the October of that year.
While the two flights have separate trajectories they will both impact near the Kwajalein Atoll test site in the Pacific Ocean. HTV-1 was a ground test demonstrator.
The first flight will demonstrate performance characteristics, and the second cross-range manoeuvring as well as thermal protection system performance.


From the sounds of the article these 2 test flights of the HTV-2 testbeds are a run up to the Blackswift project. This may be DARPAs way of proving their worth to be selected for the project. Also a small bit of insight was given into the possible Blackswift design as well.


Walker adds that Blackswift will not have a waverider shape, citing the need for a slimmer configuration to improve performance in transonic flight.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Walker adds that Blackswift will not have a waverider shape, citing the need for a slimmer configuration to improve performance in transonic flight.

www.flightglobal.com...

Good find Canada_EH...
The HTV-2 is a scramjet waverider design whereas the HTV-3 will use a turbine based combined cycle (TTBC) ramjet engine being developed by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne - so naturally HTV-2 and HTV-3 will employ different shapes.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Figured adding an image maybe nice for those of use who like pretty pictures!
-enjoy-


DARPA HTV-2


[edit on 2-5-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 

intelgurl,
Where is GE in all this ramjet scramjet hypersonic talk? I am wondering about FADECs on these type engines..in particular if usual players are providing ala Hamilton Std..
BP



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   


I spoke to an extremely reliable source who told me that the huge new hangar at Groom Lake is for a Mach 6 hypersonic UCAV that has spun off from the hypersonic Falcon project.

The source told me that this is to be a system that will have both ISR and attack versions and it is being made at Lockheed's Skunk Works. Support equipment has already arrived at Groom Lake along with operator flight sim workstations, etc.


Ooooo I hadn't read this thread till now..


The FALCON project, as I understand it, really involved 4 stages:
1) Turbo Jet
2) Ram Jet
3) Scramjet76 (oops where'd the 76 come from?
)
4) Rocketry

This "SR-72" is essentially cutting out the last two stages of FALCON as a Ramjet will work fine for speeds up to mach 5-6. The biggest problem with flying so fast is the heating.



That certainly looks about as aerodynamic as they come! That might resolve alot of heating issues. However those wings hardly look capable of generating much lift. Without the need for an oxidizer or a human, perhaps they'll save enough weight to add features such as retractable wings (used for slower flight, retracted for high speed movement) and weapons payloads??



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
13 years ago they did wind tunnel tests on loflyte. 13 years. Then it did air tests at low speed two years later.

..... and just look at that shape ! beautiful. Could it actually be that this was developed and brought forward and is what is being 'hangered' at groom lake ?

Could dark swift be the flying final development of this craft ? 13 years is one hell of a long time though to develope some thing (unless of course it went very very deep black.



in the tunnel



flying a scale test model



and back on the ground.




Thanks for allowing me to add to this thread, its just i have been reading this and wondering has the project been spread out over many different firms so as to make more chances of a break through in terms of useable technology ?


......and MEGA applause for intelgurl as i re-read this whole thread front to back and found these pics she posted.





Could it be that this is a slow 'leak' of an already operational or nearly operational craft ? as to me it looks like low speed was taken care of over a decade ago ! (in my humble opinion any how) and that loflyte just evolved into a very nice sleek looking bit of hypersonic kit almost ready for roll out ?? The similarities are eerie !




[edit on 2-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
pdf.aiaa.org...

Lockheed Martin may have had a hand in the LoFlyte development prog. Seems like they kept it very quiet as i can find only this pay to view document that even mentions loflyte and lockheed martin in the same breath.First page is readable only for free.



Seems like AA is owned by an ex lockheed man, and may be a company who do the donkey work in the white world under peoples noses because we are all looking at the 'sexy' trio of LM, Boeing and Northrop.

and the more i find the more I think 'hmmmm!'.#



Ok so this shows a cockpit for a manned version ..

Its just such an uncanny match.... Its like looking at the very first flight test models of the YF-22 compared to tadays Raptor.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]



new topics

top topics



 
124
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join