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.

 

Photo and drawing of unknown craft over Afghanistan

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Hey Fred
Yeah I think you have valid point about civilian traffic but I have heard stories in documentaries from B-2 pilots about flying by civil traffic on the way to Afghanistan. I don't think they have a base in the middle east because plane spotters would notice the absence of one of the B-2's for an extended time period of deployment to an unknown base. The risk of a middle east base for a 2.2 billion dollar plane isn't worth it and not needed when you are capable of flying 40 hour missions. So at the end of this rant its still 50/50 as to why is it so close to a civil plane but it has been documented as happening before.




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Every military protocol I can think of screams "not a classified aircraft" to me.

1. Classified aircraft do not fly near other aircraft.
2. Classified aircraft especially do not fly near civilian aircraft.
3. Classified, prototype aircraft do not fly in war-zones.

What gets to me is that much of that is true for the current B-2 as well, however it is more likely to be a B-2 pilot screwing up than a polecat spinoff for some reason flying combat missions already.

But here is something to ponder. If the camera has high enough definition to show sharp wing shapes, there is no reason why it can't make out the relatively-far-apart shapes of the rear edge.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by BlackWidow23]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
If they don't fly near other airplanes, or in war zones, what about the U-2s that almost collided with Dark Star type UAVs a couple years ago. It would be very easy for them to unintentionally fly near another plane. This could have been an unscheduled flight, or delayed, or the UAV could have been delayed getting back and low on fuel so had to take the shortest way back.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
1. Classified aircraft do not fly near other aircraft.
2. Classified aircraft especially do not fly near civilian aircraft.
3. Classified, prototype aircraft do not fly in war-zones.


Strictly speaking that's probably true, ideally. In practice I can assure you that all three of them have happened at various times. Even without being specific there are a hundred scenarios that would explain why these might happen.

As for the clarity of the photo. The camera is focused on the wing. Things behind the focal point are blurry. Much like if the camera was focused on the aircraft, the wing would have been blurry.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Here ya go

Look Familiar?

One more for fun

Old Design Old Concept


all I have for now



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by satcom
 


cool pdf's Sat but I don't think that this is what we are looking at exactly. Mind you a good insight into another project that has or could have ties to skunkworks and may have been a part of the idea that may have turned into the plane in this photo. But I stress again it still could be a B-2.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I totally agree with you Canada, I feel it is a B-2 too. Just in case it was not I thought it looked like some of the new unmanned concepts under development. The UCAS, Sensorcraft, Hunter Killer, and the intermeadiate bomber came to mind.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23

1. Classified aircraft do not fly near other aircraft.
2. Classified aircraft especially do not fly near civilian aircraft.
3. Classified, prototype aircraft do not fly in war-zones.

What gets to me is that much of that is true for the current B-2 as well, however it is more likely to be a B-2 pilot screwing up than a polecat spinoff for some reason flying combat missions already.

But here is something to ponder. If the camera has high enough definition to show sharp wing shapes, there is no reason why it can't make out the relatively-far-apart shapes of the rear edge.


Can you reword this? Are you talking about the fact that the camera is focused on the wing of the plane carry the photographer and not the B-2 "ish" plane? because if thats what you mean that has nothing to do with the quality of the camera.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Every military protocol I can think of screams "not a classified aircraft" to me.

1. Classified aircraft do not fly near other aircraft.
2. Classified aircraft especially do not fly near civilian aircraft.
3. Classified, prototype aircraft do not fly in war-zones.

What gets to me is that much of that is true for the current B-2 as well, however it is more likely to be a B-2 pilot screwing up than a polecat spinoff for some reason flying combat missions already.

But here is something to ponder. If the camera has high enough definition to show sharp wing shapes, there is no reason why it can't make out the relatively-far-apart shapes of the rear edge.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by BlackWidow23]


Way too much of a generalization, classified aircraft have often flown alongside nonclassified ones during test programs. They dont just send a test project prototype up by itself.

Care to explain the F-117s crashes outside of the nellis ranges on public land then, when it was still secret?

F-117s were almost used over Lebanon, and Libya, and there have probably been several black UAV/UCAV aircraft used over Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
"Uh huh it does indeed. Add a shielded rear exhaust and intakes, a tiny bit further apart as well and thats bang on the money shape wise. "

I have a theory. What if the Polecat went through changes? It's still a prototype (at least, on the white side) So changes could happen. What if Skunk works changed polecat and put it into action, but made sure that particular version went black?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I'm not sure how this thread managed to drag on for four pages. It was obviously a B-2. The sawtooth trailing edge is barely discernible, even with the poor image quality. For those of us who see B-2s in flight from every conceivable angle on a weekly (and sometimes daily) basis, the airplane is easily identifiable. Even without that advantage it was fairly obvious, and it's no real surprise to see one flying over Afghanistan. I feel that the OP should have identified this as a B-2 straight away.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I agree with you Shadowhawk on it being a B-2 as thats what I saw at first and still see when I look at the image. I said it at the start of the thread and I stick by it. The idea of the polecat going black etc is all possible as we proved when looking into time lines but I do not believe that its the aircraft pictured.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 



Shadow, sorry but your wrong. Am not going to share how I know, but its not a B2 or any derivative there of.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
.... After writing a pretty long post I decided to delete it and say simply this.

If you can't say/show anything to prove those who say this a B-2 wrong why post?

its more then a little frustrating to make a claim like you have. If I'm proven wrong in the future thats fine but until something else other then this image is disclosed its a B-2 in my books.

To build on your question why this thread has went so long Pete its because Dan claims that it is not a B-2 though nothing has shown me why it is not.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Yeah, I have seen a Stealth up close too... and I think it looks an awful lot like one... just my opinion...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
LOL I seen a B-2 real close too.

They do not have curved over inlets, nor do they have curved over exhausts... also the dead give away is that they are manned...unlike what we saw.

Cheers.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 



Shadow, sorry but your wrong. Am not going to share how I know, but its not a B2 or any derivative there of.




It's a B-2.

I live in Pettis County, Missouri - between Sedalia and Green Ridge. The B-2 is more of a nuisance around here than a technological marvel.

Something many tourists find out about the B-2 is that it doesn't like cameras. Most cameras use a form of Infra-red rangefinding to focus their lenses. The B-2 is designed to defeat a wide range of passive and active tracking systems to include the Infra-red spectrum. Thus, cameras often have quite a bit of difficulty getting clear shots of these planes.

This is further complicated by thermal distortions - which are common amongst a number of other aircraft, and exceedingly common in the lower-velocity thrust used by Low-Observable designs.

In looking at the photo, it appears that the edges are quite blurred and I'm quite sure that increasing the contrast of the photo will reveal rather distinct edges consistent with a B-2. The cockpit is also there - it's simply that the B-2 looks rather featureless (this is partially by design and partially as a side-effect of the airframe) - it's designed to be disorientating to look at and to confuse not only radars and IR seekers, but also the human eye. If you're a fighter-jock seeing one of these things for the first time, it's hard to tell if you're looking at the top, bottom, front, back, or side - and your preconceptions will cost you vital seconds in your eyes giving you contradicting images.

Now, not to discredit eyewitness account - but all I have to go off of is the photo - which is clearly of a B-2. It's a very deceptive looking aircraft, and one that you have to watch to really get the hang of how it moves.

There's simply no reason why any other aircraft would exist and be in a combat zone. There's no role for that sort of an airframe to fill that hasn't already been filled. Show me an F/B-23 RTA with Navy markings - and I'd say that has a role to be filled (though carriers aren't ideal places for such novelty aircraft....). But we have so many subsonic, low-observable aircraft that it's disgusting.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join