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.

 

Why there probably arn't "hyper-advanced" USAF projects

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Ok - so even Lockheed and other USAF manufacturers admit that a large amount of their RD is on "black projects" and I’m not arguing that there aren't some incredibly advanced military aircraft under-raps.

However - if you've got a spare 20 mins - have a look at this talk on the future of civilian space flight
www.ted.com...

Basically this is a talk about how manned space flight has slowly been going backwards since man landed on the moon, and how both civil and military aircraft design in many ways are also going backwards (both having there Concorde and SR71 moments).

Now I know you'll argue that there have clearly been advances made by the USAF that they want for them selves, however, this talk introduces something I’d not really thought about before: Bang for Buck.

Over the next coming decade Virgin galactic will be offering sub-orbital flights starting at 100k a go, and slowly coming down in price to around 20k. This is probably a conservative estimate as other companies will be starting (and have already started) to compete and market forces will drive both cheaper and "higher" trips E.I. orbital and eventually lunar.

As this video quite rightly states - government run programs massively hinder development and are massively over-priced because they lack (or limit) any competition and are not market driven.
Well, that’s not actually true. Lockheed, Boeing etc ARE market driven in that they are driven by the market to increase share holder profits. As profits are however much the US (or any other government) pays, aircraft costs go up, which means airframes have to become a trade off of cost to effectiveness, which means you get less capable aircraft.

Now consider this when thinking about military aircraft. In a war time scenario costs will be low and development will be fast as there IS competition. The worst kind of competition: the kind that wants to invade your country.
When this isn't the case however, the military becomes just one other government run corporation which will drag its heals and totally restrict innovation and break through ideas.

The F22 is a prime example of this. Yes its a good airframe (and with out a doubt the best in the sky), but at 138 million per unit and massive development costs that are thought to be around 3 times more than the initial budget, you get an aircraft that essentially just integrates an updated F117 and F18 with advanced avionics.

Now considering the black budget is spread around a huge array of different projects, is more than likely far far smaller than that of the F22 development budget and is still subject to the same massive overspending... what exactly would you expect to see if the Aurora was unveiled tomorrow:

A mach 10+ anti-gravity propelled, plasma cloaked, rail gun firing sci-fi space ship
Or
Something that’s probably just a bit better than everything that’s already been demonstrated, produced in small numbers for very specialised roles.

Discuss.




[edit on 16-5-2008 by Polskoo24]




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I think there are many "hyper advanced" projects,alot have that have already been made would make the F-22 look like a Wright Brothers plane.

Your not taking into consideration that at the darkest levels of the government,money is none existant,or not an issue.Especially if all the conspiracy theories are true with alien technology sharing with the government.


Good post though(S and F),just remember the "dark"or "shadow"government does not abide by the rules and limits of money like the public government does.


So to answer your question-I think we have had for sometime antigravity,FTL,plasma stealth ,plasma shielding,particle beam weapons,etc.I think Mach 10 is old news,Im sure we have things that can go Mach 20....in our atmosphere,and likely FTL in space.IMHO



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
And with all this advanced technology, the USA STILL can't find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden, or manage to extricate itself from Iraq and Afghanistan.......Hmmmm

I'll side with the Polskoo24 on this one I think.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I will agree since the moon landing to george bush's announcement that it will take another 10 years to land on the moon again does sum it up.Technology cant remake that specific time even though we as so far advanced now.If we tried to remake the moon landing as they did then it would fail.I do believe they have hypersonic aircraft,and why?Look at the space shuttle that travels at 20,000 mph+ yeah with rocket fuel might i add.Not to mention the scramjets can reach mach 10 and in theory reach mach 15.Easily back as a design in the late 1950's they came up with the concept for the blackbird.First flight was 22 December 1964 and has a top speed of Mach 3.3+ at least they released.Mind you this was over 45 years ago.You have to also think of the plane that is the aurora rumored to go Mach 20(even if there is no proof they have one).So whynot hypersonic?No reason to believe there isnt.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I agree on most points, however, there is no way civilian aviation has been going backwards. Sure a TINNNYY fleet of Concordes have been retired, but with the advent of high fuel prices everything is emphasising on efficiancy. Military may of in some ways gone backwards, however, I'd still say without a doubt, capability is far higher than it ever was.


And don't insult the F-22 by comparing it with a F-18.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


The idea that military technology has been devolving technologically is somewhat true - in that there have been massive losses of technological progress in the public domain.

However, this is only true of the western world - if you look at the Russian Air fleet, they still retain a large number of fighters, enough to make any pilot sitting in his more "advanced" plane quake in fear before the numerical advantage that the Russians can field.

They have the fuel to support that advantage, too.

It has always been the way, in the west, to strive for weapons that will render the opponent's own weapons technologically invalid.

The problem lies within that very premise - we have to retire older models in order to fund newer ones.

There is one thing which supports USAF black projects, and that is the requirement of USAF to continually wow the American public with tales of super-advanced fighter craft capable of speeds of which 30 years ago would seem impossible.

It may well be the case that they possess only one hypersonic aircraft, but these lone aircraft projects are continuously being retired so that the developers can move onto bigger, more ambitious projects.

It may well be the case that technologically, the USAF possesses advantages which dwarf that of other nation's abilities.

However, the one thing we lack is numbers - certainly, having a fighter than can run rings around a MiG in air combat is a marvellous advantage to possess, but against a wall of fighters, literally putting out a stream of firepower the height and width of a football stadium turned on it's side, renders that advantage nearly useless in head-on air combat.

My perspective on the matter is thus; Rather than fielding a fleet of fighters capable of annihilating any force that any nation puts in the skies, what the USAF is doing is designing the blueprints of superiority - in a situation in which it is actually nessecary to field a force with stopping power, those blueprints will be made available to manufacturers - thereby providing the raw manufacturing capabilities to field a fleet of hypersonic aircraft.

A lone hypersonic fighter wouldn't be much good against a wall of firepower, but a squadron?

Even a single squadron capable of hypersonic speeds would be more than enough to stop any force dead in it's tracks.

As for the OP's premise - i actually agree that these "Blueprints of Superiority" are essentially throwing a wrench in the works - These Government projects are diverting attention away from where it's needed.

It is the necessity that is felt towards maintain a technological advantage that, ironically, is restraining technological progress in the domain of the public eye.

How can this be addressed however?

Simple; We return to the days of the space race.



[edit on 17-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Polskoo24
what exactly would you expect to see if the Aurora was unveiled tomorrow:


An empty hangar.



It would be the worst unveiling in the world.






edit: typo... i usse an spelchekor

[edit on 17/5/08 by kilcoo316]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I think that what makes this so exciting..that potentially there could be a Aurora.Just like a bigfoot,lockness,ufos,someone on the grassy knoll,the ark,etc.If it wasnt for dreaming etc this site wouldnt be here.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Think i probably agree with the "blue prints" concept, infact theres plenty of grey/white projects that have displayed new concenepts like forward swept wings, thurst vectoring etc. I'd imagine that black project aircraft are 90% like these projects: Prototypes or technology demonstrator test beds. Of course there will be the remaining 10% or so which will be opperational aircaft...



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Polskoo24
Prototypes or technology demonstrator test beds. Of course there will be the remaining 10% or so which will be opperational aircaft...



Good point - it's likely that they have one or two aircraft which serve an explicit purpose, like for example; a craft which can detect deep-sea submarine activity from the air.

Such technology may be limited to particular projects - there would have to be massive modifications to orthodox design protocol in order to make the use of such technology viable.

Naturally, on the other side of the combat spectrum there may be stealth bombers capable of reaching extreme altitudes, which would be the 'trump' card, or perhaps even may serve some use in some sort of future nuclear false-flag attack.

This is the problem really, once you start speculating, you really start to think about the capabilities available to human kind at this precise moment - Hell, it even makes theories such as moon bases plausible.

And of course, once we get into space with the speculative theorising, then we begin to crack into a true horde of possibilities.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Also to the person who said"With all this technology,you still can't win in Iraq"

Well lets keep this in mind-these aircraft companies(Boeing,Northrop,etc)are making HUGE profits in the war........so it is not economically smart for the US to win-sad,but true-I bring this point up to explain where all this money comes from"It comes from the profits of war,we will not use any of our "black"technology-we need wars to earn money for these R and D companies to thrive and create exotic technology



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Polskoo24
 


"an updated F117 and F18 with advanced avionics."
There is a LOT more in it than just that when one considers all the possible combinations that could have been you will realize that we are way ahead! Cost over runs is one thing that's actually good business if your the CEO and supplier
" Not the tax payer though
" consider the aircraft that was rejected the YF-23

www.flygplan.info...

What the US leaves in the scrap pile is still more advanced than what 98% of the rest of the world has


edited for spelling

[edit on 17-5-2008 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Recent military procurement history tells me that they're developing plenty of promising "pie in the sky" projects and ideas.

And they'll buy one or two of them, for multiple billions; never to be used for fear of loosing a "priceless national asset.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Polskoo24
 


"an updated F117 and F18 with advanced avionics."
There is a LOT more in it than just that when one considers all the possible combinations that could have been you will realize that we are way ahead! Cost over runs is one thing that's actually good business if your the CEO and supplier


[edit on 17-5-2008 by SLAYER69]


But it is pretty much a combination of those two rolls. Whith the exception of thrust vectoring the F22 has only improved and incorperated what was already in the USAF arsanal, it hasn't really brought anything "new" to the table. Actually, i spose you could argue that the "digital battlefield" is a pretty new concept, but thats mostly software and infrastructure.

If i'd put my money anywhere for black projects aircraft it'd be in UAV's. I mean think about it - new flight control systems or even AI based flight could be tested in the field on any current UAV (global hawk etc.) and no one would be any the wiser.
If the future of military aircraft are pilotless and US black projects planes are the planes of tomorrow... Well, you catch my drift.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   

But it is pretty much a combination of those two rolls. Whith the exception of thrust vectoring the F22 has only improved and incorperated what was already in the USAF arsanal, it hasn't really brought anything "new" to the table. Actually, i spose you could argue that the "digital battlefield" is a pretty new concept, but thats mostly software and infrastructure.

One could argue the F-15 is merely an updated F-4, the F-16 just an updated F-100, or the F-35 is mixture between the F-100 and F-117 after all, neither have brought anything 'new' to the table (Despite the fact they're FAR more capable than there predecessors).

[edit on 19/5/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
There has been former skunkworks,area 51,and other black project employees that came forward and stated what we are flying today they came up with the idea 50 years ago and what they are planning today will take us into space.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
I think there are many "hyper advanced" projects,alot have that have already been made would make the F-22 look like a Wright Brothers plane.



Considering that the F-117 first flew in 1981, that was probably Late 60's- early 70's experimental technology, who knows what they have been messing with and testing. A former head of the skunkworks acknowledge that civilian tech was at least 2 decades behind the latest top secret military tech. The SR-71 was bascially mid 50's tech with the first flight in 1962. One just has to wonder what they have been working on.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by pavil]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Exactly...if you have ever played the game spades, then you know you always deal your lowest card in the suit ...unless u need to trump someone's hand...the gov't has a disturbing pattern of following the game's rules...lol



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


If that's the one I'm thinking about it's fake.

Any links?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Lol makes the f-22 look like the wright bros plane..funny stuff.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join