It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


DARPA cancels Blackswift

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:51 PM
Somewhat relate and rational relationship are not interchangable terms.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

How does a ratio make them almost the same plane. By that reasoning the F-15 and F-14 were almost the same plane. And they weren't even close. It doesn't matter if the ratio is the same or not, they're not even close to the same plane.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Sure they are, they are alternatives of the same prototypical design.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:02 PM
No, they are NOT from the same prototype design. If they were then they would look even MORE alike than they do. They weren't even from the same competition! You don't just take one plane and say "Hey, this one worked for us before, let's just cut it down and try it again for this competition!"

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:30 PM
Intelgurl just posted this

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:41 PM
Here's an interesting quote from the program manager, Steven Walker:

"It was a good idea and good ideas have a way of coming back and getting done eventually. Hopefully, the US will do it first, but there are no guarantees," Walker's statement said.

Every major aviation source is saying that it's dead for good. And here we are watching it go deep. These have definitely been an interesting few months.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:53 PM
Yes, as I said, it was black before, it has gone black again.
Goodnight all.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:24 PM
Too bad you aren't even talking about the same projects. Not even close. You are talking about the F-35 JSF, Intelgurl is talking about the "SR-72" Blackswift. The JSF was NEVER black, and is never GOING black, where the Blackswift HAS gone black.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

Neh to your Neh - F-22 and F-35 are completely different from a MISSION perspective and though they share technology (stealth, vectored thrust) this was because the individual missions required these capabilities be common across all airframes for all services.

F-22 is a 'spare no expense Air Superiority Fighter' no other mission, this is why only the USAF has this plane. Conversly the F-35 is by definition a 'multi-role' aircraft and specific variants are being built to supply USAF, NAVY and Marine Corps missions.

Blackswift (aka SR-72) most likely hit a 'technical wall' and has 'gone black' to overcome it [or it has blasted through a technical wall and has 'gone black' to protect this technology].
BlackBird (aka SR-71) was constantly hitting and breaking these 'technical walls' and remained 'black' for most of it's lifespan due to these factors. If you honestly think that the general public knows how fast BlackBird really was you are niave. What it can do and what we are allowed to KNOW it can do are two very different things. (I used to watch night take-offs with military spotter scopes and a stopwatch, I did the math - freaking amazing!!!)

If there is a 'need' for Blackswift, it will get built and perform it's mission and we (the general public) may not know about it for years...Now think about Google Earth - we (the general public) can see EVERYTHING from space now on our home you believe the military (who can see much more than we can) actually needs a hypersonic surveilance plane???

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:38 AM

[edit on 14/10/08 by Harlequin]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

Links not working Har

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

F-22 is a 'spare no expense Air Superiority Fighter' no other mission, this is why only the USAF has this plane.

At this time it is only approved for A2A while it is still in the final testing phase for approval for its A2G role

(I used to watch night take-offs with military spotter scopes and a stopwatch, I did the math - freaking amazing!!!)

Not sure what this proves as the 71's take off speed while high was nothing that crazy its acceleration phase of flight before the recon just after refueling was by far the fastest.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
What is the real problems with hypersonic projects all are a day cancel, X-33,X-30, and now Blackswift, i can't understand why after decade of research we can't build a plane like this. Look the work of Virgin galactic with little budget. Subsonic is not the futur of aerospace. How a subsonic bomber can survive in a fight with futur 5th generations fighter?

To take your points in reverse - a subsonic bomber can defeat any fighter that cannot see it, because if it cannot see it, it cannot kill it.

Using Virgin Galactic as an example of any failure on the part of anyone to develop a hypersonic aircraft is like using your nextdoor neighbours kids go-kart as an example of the motor car industries failure to develop a car that burns no fuel - in short, its ludicrous.

Virgin Galactics offering uses a mothership to take off, a hybrid solid-liquid engine to accelerate, and has a typical flight duration of a few minutes. It is not anywhere close to the design considerations of either a manned or unmanned hypersonic aircraft.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
(I used to watch night take-offs with military spotter scopes and a stopwatch, I did the math - freaking amazing!!!)

Congratulations, you watched an almost completely empty aircraft take off - no wonder the performance was so high...

The SR-71 was only fueled on takeoff for the duration of flight that it took to make a short high supersonic dash (15 minutes or so at Mach 2), which heated the airframe up enough so that the fuel tanks sealed themselves, and then the aircraft would refuel from a tanker to its operational requirement.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:35 PM
This is just my persepctive opinion on BlackSwift,
but Darpa is nortorious for being the white-world
operational front for black-budget projects.

BlackSwift is just what it's project administrators say it is...which is
a research test-bed for many R&D developments in trans-sonic flight
including ram or scramjet systems development, advanced fuels,
wing design technologies, ceramic composites development,
computing systems and flight control development and joint forces R&D.

And this test bed has been VERY SUCCESSFUL and thus is NO LONGER
needed and the hardware & software designed and created from such
a test-bed can now go into operational designs that are now under
final development in the Black-Budget world...ergo we see a simple
adminsitrative cancellation to hide the back-end delivery trucks with
just-finished parts now making their way to Utah, Arizona,
Texas, Dreamland, Puerto Rico and Palmdale.

In short Blackswift is just a fancy name for a wide scale general
research program to develop initial and/or generic technologies
that will now go into more esoteric designs.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by StargateSG7
And this test bed has been VERY SUCCESSFUL and thus is NO LONGER
needed and the hardware & software designed and created from such
a test-bed can now go into operational designs that are now under
final development in the Black-Budget world

Really? it lasted all of 6-8 months as a project and i never saw a single release other then the original press release. please prove me wrong as I would love the info or links you may have.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:22 PM

What you see in one hand is hidden by the movement of the other.
Canceled is for public consumption. The budget for critical defense projects is unlimited and un line item vetoable. This Carrot will grow another body as many carrots do when cut.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by Canada_EH

Blackswift is a duplication of other efforts including
the NASA X-33/X-34 ramjet/scramjet spaceplanes with the
added perogative of creating systems that would allow
in-atmosphere (but high altitude) operations for strike
and recon missions.

And Blackswift R&D, While not under that specific codename
has been under many guises since at least the early 1980's
including R&D results from another program called Blackstar
and the 1987 era Liquid Methane/Oxygen-powered Aurora
and not to mention the 1960's era Lockheed X-24c and
North American Aircraft Corporation XB-70 bomber conceptual
designs for use as a multi-stage trans-sonic delivery system.

Research test beds which research and TEST only specific
parts and concepts of a larger operational system such
as audio/visual stealth, coatings, controlled or active
wing deformation, composite construction, etc. include
and the one I keep hearing about on the Aviation Leak
grapevine which is "Grand Canyon" which could be
the giant Mothership/TR3B craft some keep talking about!

Many of these programs are essentially duplicate efforts
due to varying mission requirements for specific branches
of DOD and varying requirements for tactical and strategic
missions. The NSA (National Security Agency) and
NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) have their own
imagery-oriented desires for spaceplanes while
the Air Force is interested in long-range strategic
strike missions, while the Navy would have a version
to test speceplane platforms delivered from ocean-centric
environments (i.e. carriers/cruisers/subs). The Marines/Army
MIGHT have a version for delivery of special forces at
long ranges in very short periods of times which would
be the spaceplane equivalent of a Pave Low/Black Hawk
SOF (Special Operations Forces) delivery vehicle....and for
the infiltration/testing of enemy defence systems for
tactical mission planning purposes.

There's NO specific source I could (or WOULD!) give for my assertions
BUT I have enough grounding in Defence Tech and Space/Flight Systems
that it allows me access to certain persons who probably know
a lot more than I do.

The key things to remember within the Aviation Leak community,
is finding and listening to a large number of raw discrete/separate
sources who basically all say the same thing (or variations thereof)
and then by doing personal research on specific technologies
(including patent digging) to see if the tech details SUPPORT
specific stories or themes.

The game is called "Connecting the Dots" so that I can answer
the five W's....What, When, Where, Why and Who! ...which I can
then report to the ATS community.

Be forwarned though....SOME of my sources ARE PROBABLY
deliberate DISinformation (by design) to foil detailed
discovery or elaboration of ultra-secret programmes!

Deflection, distortions, re-orientation and even plain old
nastiness are some of the methods used to steer us away from
the truth but in my opinion there's too many of US (i.e. ATS'ers)
to truly and effectively stop ALL or SOME of the REAL information
from getting out...ergo we know of Blackswift earlier than we
probably would have.

I am not disputing that there are SOME legitimate strategic
reasons for keeping SOME secrets within the confines of a
CAP (Compartmentalized Access Program) / SAP (Special Access Program)
cloak of secrecy, BUT i think it's gone too far, for too long and mostly
for the reasons such as Number One: It's a lucrative business
to be in and why rock the boat. Number 2: It's a FUN business
to be in to have your own secret playground that nobody else has!
and Number 3: The Defence of the Military and Political Status Quo!

Our job on ATS is to out any and all evidence that points
to programs that excessively duplicate efforts, waste money
by dis-incentivizing economies of scale and multi-branch
cooperation AND finally blow-off-the-doors of ANY evidence of programs
that would be of FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC BENEFIT to mankind
if the research and/or operational platforms/devices could be applied
to widespread civilian use. Ergo...If THEY have a ZERO-point
Free-Energy module or Lightspeed-capable spacecraft in existence
then it's ATS's job to make sure WE and the rest of the world

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

I highly recommend you read Intelgurl's post on the matter.

You might find what she has to say regarding the SR-72 very interesting. A link to her posts has already been posted on page three of this thread.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:56 AM
Would they rather spend the money on pipe dream, fantasy, flying submarines?

I don't get it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in