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.

 

my thoughts

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
the "aurora" or what ever the code name is might not be what you think it is. Look at the f-117 and the bird of prey. the f-117 was originally thought to be the f-19, used curved surfaces to achieve stealth, and was tasked with destroying enemy aircraft (read red starom rising. Now we no that none of the above are true. The Bird of prey was thought to have ben called the switchblade and was a stealth high speed fighter bomber with swingable forward sweeeping wings. Only the stealth part was true because the bop was a stealth tech demonstator like the have blue and never carried bombs, never broke the sound barrier, and didnt have any swing wings.




posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
i wonder if the pix of the 'manta' that are available on the net could be lockheeds' b-2 competitor - just redsigned for recon work?
is it possible?
does anyone know how big the manta is compared to the b-2?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
hhhmmm... posssibly, but the b-2 competitor was suppossed to have benn based heavily in have bule design



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
It can be said that the B-2 actually derives more from the Horten brothers' flying wing designs and prototypes of late WWII - there are many design similarities, and although the concept of radar absorption and deflection away from the transmitter/receiver was initially fully explored by the Have Blue, the initial aircraft project itself was almost entirely German in origin. There is a clear line of design philosophy from the Horten IX through to the B-2. (The Northrop flying wing, in my opinion, was not the predecessor of the B-2).

Anyway, that's my 2 fenig for today.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
the "aurora" or what ever the code name is might not be what you think it is. Look at the f-117 and the bird of prey. the f-117 was originally thought to be the f-19, used curved surfaces to achieve stealth, and was tasked with destroying enemy aircraft (read red starom rising. Now we no that none of the above are true. The Bird of prey was thought to have ben called the switchblade and was a stealth high speed fighter bomber with swingable forward sweeeping wings. Only the stealth part was true because the bop was a stealth tech demonstator like the have blue and never carried bombs, never broke the sound barrier, and didnt have any swing wings.

Roniii brings up a very good point.

A counter that you'll find to that line of thought is the assertion that there are cover programs that are announced to point the public in a different direction from what is actually going on.

Take the Bird of Prey for instance. Basically described as Boeing's announcement that they have come of age in stealth development. However the amount of money spent on the project (I forget the numbers - will try looking it up) is way beyond what you would expect for a one-off prototype single turbo-fan, subsonic stealth design - even if it doesn't use the usual rear stabilizer configuration... It probably took more resources to write the program that would keep it stable in flight than it did to build the thing. (half joking there)

I am not much of a conspiracy theorist much to the chagrin of many members here, but that said I must express my belief that there are aerospace projects that have been in the works for years and have not been revealed yet...

It is therefore still logical to conclude that programs such as Bird of Prey and Dark Star are the white world mask for a black world program. There certainly are sound reasons to assume that there is at least one prototype swing-wing stealth intermediate bomber in existence... the design is in the patent office along with many other designs, (search for Northrop design, U.S. patent No. 5,984,231).

As for any aerospace vehicle eminating from the "Aurora" DOD line item, one must not discount the sightings, etc already discussed here and other threads...



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
It can be said that the B-2 actually derives more from the Horten brothers' flying wing designs and prototypes of late WWII - there are many design similarities, and although the concept of radar absorption and deflection away from the transmitter/receiver was initially fully explored by the Have Blue, the initial aircraft project itself was almost entirely German in origin. There is a clear line of design philosophy from the Horten IX through to the B-2. (The Northrop flying wing, in my opinion, was not the predecessor of the B-2).

Anyway, that's my 2 fenig for today.


OMG! I thought you had fallen off the earth or something! Glad to have you back!
Natalie



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
It can be said that the B-2 actually derives more from the Horten brothers' flying wing designs and prototypes of late WWII - there are many design similarities, and although the concept of radar absorption and deflection away from the transmitter/receiver was initially fully explored by the Have Blue, the initial aircraft project itself was almost entirely German in origin. There is a clear line of design philosophy from the Horten IX through to the B-2. (The Northrop flying wing, in my opinion, was not the predecessor of the B-2).

Anyway, that's my 2 fenig for today.

tnorthrop's b-2 was developed on its own, not from the wing or german plane, the stealth in the german plane was crude and radars were crude then so it couldnt have descended to the b-2, the desighns and performances r the same thats all.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259

Originally posted by Lampyridae
It can be said that the B-2 actually derives more from the Horten brothers' flying wing designs and prototypes of late WWII - there are many design similarities, and although the concept of radar absorption and deflection away from the transmitter/receiver was initially fully explored by the Have Blue, the initial aircraft project itself was almost entirely German in origin. There is a clear line of design philosophy from the Horten IX through to the B-2. (The Northrop flying wing, in my opinion, was not the predecessor of the B-2).

Northrop's b-2 was developed on its own, not from the wing or german plane, the stealth in the german plane was crude and radars were crude then so it couldnt have descended to the b-2, the desighns and performances r the same thats all.


The Northrop B-2's design originally came from a "form follows function" philosophy, and indeed is claimed by the Chief Designer of Northrop's B-2 (Irv Waaland) to have originated on Northrop's ATB drawing boards after 6 weeks of design analysis to meet the requirement of both stealth, heavy lift capabilities and low altitude penetration.

The claim not only disassociates Northrop's B-2 from the Horten designs but also from the Northrop YB-49 designs - with the small exception that the YB-49 test pilots were questioned about YB-49 flight test experiences and ground handling... but this came after the B-2 design was decided upon.

Some in the aerospace engineering community find this a hard pill to swallow seeing how it was known at the end of WW2 that the Horten and subsequent Northrop YB-49 flying wing designs were stealthy to radar signals.

The reality seems to be that the B-2A design developed at Northrop's own version of Skunkworks, known as the Advanced Design Area is probably influenced by all, but not developed from or based on any of the earlier flying wing designs... but that is conjecture.

In fact the original drawing-board concept of the B-2 was actually diamond shaped, but it underwent a major re-design to the now familiar "ww" trailing edge bat-shape due to a change in USAF stated mission profile requirements from high altitude target ingress to low altitude TFR ingress.

Two other factors to consider that are key to the B-2's design, that were for all intents and purposes non-existent during the days of Horten's and Jack Northrop's early 'wings', are digital computers and composite material technology. These, combined with the tail-less planform, make the B-2 what it is - stealthy.

One additional note in a book by Jay Miller on the B-2 the following touching anecdote is mentioned:

"Jack Northrop was still alive but in poor health early in the ATB/B-2 program.
He was around 86 years old. He was not consulted on the ATB/B-2 design, but
Northrop corporate management requested special clearance for Jack to see the
B-2 design. The USAF granted this request as an honor to Jack. In a small
luncheon in the Hawthorne Advanced Design Area, they showed Jack Northrop a
small model of the ATB/B-2 design. He of course was quite touched and he asked
lots of questions about the ATB/B-2 and people were impressed as he contrasted
it with the details of the YB-49, which he still remembered. Jack said that
now he knew why he had been kept alive all these years. He died one year later."

intelgurl



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
the "aurora" or what ever the code name is might not be what you think it is. Look at the f-117 and the bird of prey. the f-117 was originally thought to be the f-19, used curved surfaces to achieve stealth, and was tasked with destroying enemy aircraft (read red starom rising. Now we no that none of the above are true. The Bird of prey was thought to have ben called the switchblade and was a stealth high speed fighter bomber with swingable forward sweeeping wings. Only the stealth part was true because the bop was a stealth tech demonstator like the have blue and never carried bombs, never broke the sound barrier, and didnt have any swing wings.

maybe someone didnt tell you this yet but ummmm,

the F-117 CANNOT attack air, hence no air to air missles, it is a strike bomber ment to take out ground

targets at night.

o and i dont know much on the Bird of prey, but i think it looks hot! good grab!

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
the F-117 CANNOT attack air, hence no air to air missles, it is a strike bomber ment to take out ground

I knew that, but before the f-117 was revealed the f-19 was BELIEVED to attakc airborne targets just like the f/a-22 will, but odviously they were wrong.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Dude the F-19 was BELIEVED to be the F/A-117 Night hawk. Incorrect though, if that is true then wut is the whole deal about the Aurora? What were those aircraft ppl were seeing at night?

Unexplainable you say? I think not!



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
the aurora if real would be a reconnaisance plane and not a fighter, so the f-19 couldnt be the aurora



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
the aurora if real would be a reconnaisance plane and not a fighter, so the f-19 couldnt be the aurora
true, and yes the aurora was meant to replace the Sr-71 but also the become the first hypersonic intercepter.
Am i right? I probably am not, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
The Aurora was definately manned, but it was not an interceptorn and it isn't even clear if it did recon.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   
it could have started as a manned prototype but ened up a uav, and how do u Know ther is an interceptor version?



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
it could have started as a manned prototype but ened up a uav, and how do u Know ther is an interceptor version?

Regarding the "aurora" being a UAV....Are you stating that as fact or opinion?
I know you have a friend in Navy intel but bear in mind there could be others here who have heard from people who could also be considered more than just reliable sources who may have a "need to know" level of information.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
acually im guessing, but it does seem to make sense. The "aurora" or whatever it is really called is probably not what we think it is, so I posted thsi idea to demonstrate a possible alternative.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
it could have started as a manned prototype but ened up a uav, and how do u Know ther is an interceptor version?


Why would there be an interceptor version, basically what would be the need?

It is "possible" that there was an unmanned version IF it's role was recon, but there is no evidence suggesting that's what the intent of the project. On the other hand there is evidence for it being piloted.



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   
i dont know why, i was wonderin the same thing



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by intensity

Originally posted by roniii259
it could have started as a manned prototype but ened up a uav, and how do u Know ther is an interceptor version?


Why would there be an interceptor version, basically what would be the need?

It is "possible" that there was an unmanned version IF it's role was recon, but there is no evidence suggesting that's what the intent of the project. On the other hand there is evidence for it being piloted.

Dont mean to be mean, but ya from what i heard the Aurora is to replace the blackbird and the YF-12, both recon and interceptor for long range bombers like the TU-160.

Also there was controversy(not here) that the Aurora was to be a strike bomber, total bs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join