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.

 

DARPA cancels Blackswift

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Actually flying submarines aren't that much of a fantasy:

www.popsci.com...

and

en.wikipedia.org...(aircraft)

and this website which has a both a HISTORICAL VIEW
AND A FUTURE-POSSIBILITY VIEW of submersible aircraft platforms:

www.combatreform2.com...

And since The Commorant was disclosed in 2006 it means they've
been working on versions of it for at least 5 to 10 years earlier.
It also means the Commorant is the publically disclosed
Limited-performance version of a larger and/or more powerful
Black-Budget sub-surface & air-capable capable craft.

I think we'll call that black-budget version BlueFin, SkipJack, Marlin
or Pelican...Hmmm.....what do YOU think we should call it?




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I'd probably get flamed for this but the -35 isn't exactly very stealthy. Its just got a pretty low RCS. Small enough you won't get it on radar until its really near you.

A B-1B spirit isn't stealthy but its a low-observable aircraft with a RCS far smaller than its size. But ofcoz the -35 is far more efficient at this. It is not stealth. I don't think the US would be so kind to share cutting-edge stealth tech with so many countries.

As for -35 and -22 being the same? Well, they are about as similar as dad and son.

Lockheed took the technology of the -22 and designed the -35. Saves cost but in many aspect, the -35 is a watered down version of the -22's tech. I believed its basically the core components that stays the same except perhaps the LPI radar and maybe the computing core. But i assume that the -35 will also use a LPI radar that's not the same one as the -22, which in my opinion is a far superior plane to the -35 despite its age gap.

Boeing's -32 was built from scratch incorporating some tech from off the shelves but otherwise its pretty much a brand new craft of its own with no predecessor that I know of. I don't think it has tech from YF-23 but its just my assumption. The YF-23 is pretty much left to rot.

Pity, such a beautiful craft. If only it went into small scale production even. It'll be like a flying art piece. =)



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The only reason the Gov kills projects is that there is a better one waiting in the shadows...


If Blackswift is dead.....then they have something better to develop.





posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prometheus Ascendent
I'd probably get flamed for this but the -35 isn't exactly very stealthy. Its just got a pretty low RCS. Small enough you won't get it on radar until its really near you.

A B-1B spirit isn't stealthy but its a low-observable aircraft with a RCS far smaller than its size. But ofcoz the -35 is far more efficient at this. It is not stealth. I don't think the US would be so kind to share cutting-edge stealth tech with so many countries.


If you count flaming as someone bringing up a counter point to yours then sorry thats what I'm about to do
Don't get all defensive before you even know if what you saying was worded correctly or is even correct in the first place. Basically what you just said in describing stealth is what stealth is. Stealth is not Invisibility. Stealth is


Stealth aircraft are aircraft that use stealth technology to make it harder to be detected by radar and other means than conventional aircraft by employing a combination of features to reduce visibility in the visual, audio, infrared and radio frequency (RF) spectrum.


So to be clear a B-1B does employ some stealth as it is low-observable and a F-35 is stealthy as a RCS which is REduced to the point of anything less then its size is stealth. To further the point the 35's RCS is classified which leads me to believe that is quite low just like the 22's. (layman's explanation I realize there is more detail to this)



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by StargateSG7
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.

......................(read very long post)............................

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
KNOWS ABOUT IT!!!!!!


While I agree with a lot that you said Stargate the fact is you can't provide a source to why the "test bed has been VERY SUCCESSFUL and thus is NO LONGER needed". My point is I don't see how this could of been tested in the white world with cameras and video footage in the past 6-8 months with out making the news in someway. Yes we need to keep our ears to the ground. Yes this could of be testing other developed tech, but I don't see that being the case as the most I can see is nothing happened. If you have sources which you can't share and you can only say this and that happened and we can't check any of this claim that it was highly successful then can you expect me to just accept what you claim to be true?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

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

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


I still can't get over this lol espesially when the 71 couldn't even break mach 1 unless it was in a dive. Or to say it another way


Performance at low speeds was anemic.



[edit on 17-10-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


RE: OTHER RESPONSE TO MY ORIGINAL QUOTE:
-----
While I agree with a lot that you said Stargate the fact is you can't provide a source to why the "test bed has been VERY SUCCESSFUL and thus is NO LONGER needed".
-----

Actually you are correct in that I need to be MUCH MORE CAREFUL
in my use of language...

It should be read as..."The test bed has been LIKELY VERY SUCCESSFUL and thus is PROBABLY NO LONGER needed".

I have NO DIRECT ACCESS TO or DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of a ANY
maturation of the Blackswift style of SAP programs OTHER THAN
specific "Aviation Leak" (ergo Aviation Week magazine) readings
illustrating specific programs in related technologies that would
support MY PERSONAL ASSERTION that Blackswift was cancelled
because it did it's job very well as a test bed of new-fangled technologies.

You would be surprised at what patent searches turn up and that
by connecting the dots, there is SUPPORT (but NOT direct PROOF) that
other more secretive programs are LIKELY using the technologies
within operational/advanced testing programs.

Again, I apologize for making blanket statements when I should preface
them with the words LIKELY, POSSIBLY and PROBABLY. My research
unfortunately does not delve into absolutes, but rather anecdotes,
educated guesses and amorphous correlations that give a foggy
view of what is LIKELY happening but it is at least SOME SORT of view
rather than having NO information at all.....

SOMETIMES....we get it right....and SOMETIMES....a tricky photo
or drawing or memo does come to the surface from the more
covert and clandestine side of the business, which in my opinion,
confirms that SOMETHING is happening.

On the Blackswift side, the largest confirmation is NASA's own research
into Scramjet/ramjet engine production/testing and some large
deliveries/purchases by certain ceramics/composites manufacturers
of materials and components that suggest a rather large NEED for
aerospace capable materials which could be used in the manufacture
of high-tech spaceplanes.

i.e. certain sports manufacturers have indicated to me that
they can NO LONGER get carbon-fibre/composite twine or cloth
for their skis, tennis rackets, golf clubs, etc. from certain suppliers
who are KNOWN to supply the same materials to the LMCO's, Boeings
and Northrups of the world.

Also, certain manufactures in car/boat-building/engine shops can't get
certain high-temperature ceramics from certain manufacturers
due to an unidentified series of clients buying up entire runs
at inflated prices.

Also certain manufacturers of water-cutters, CNC machines,
and laser-cutters/welders have had mysteriously LARGE purchases
made within the last 5 to 7 years being shipped to specific regions
of the USA known to have nothing larger company-size-wise
than certain well-known aerospace developers.

I could give you a few more connect-the-dots correlations,
but I can definitely tell you that something is going down BIG
and it's likely a PRODUCTION or at least an advanced testing stage
model of an active and secretive SAP/CAP aircraft.

I know that my assertions are AMORPHOUS and CLOUDY....BUT...that
is the price we have to pay when we are NOT truly in the know!
Basically I DO NOT have ANYTHING concrete, just a bunch of
sticky notes and by-the-ways that separately don't mean much,
but when catalogued and correlated, signify that SOMETHING is
going on in specific areas of manufacture/testing/deployment.

---

On a slightly different tack....

Some UFO/Sightings reports from ATS users and other
"Sightings-style"websites and my own digging into such phenomena
indicates in my opinion that something OPERATIONAL FROM THE USA
has been deployed within the northern and western portion of Britain
and is being used/tested as a stealthy recon type craft of immense
performance capabilities.

Reports of lights, radar returns and other wishy-washy "STUFF"
that in themselves have little hard data, but when connected together
make up a map of "Happenings" that lend general support to my
assertions and indicates to me that British/American airbases
in mainland Britain AND Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean) are
being used as bases for recon/testing operations for a very
high-performance aircraft that may be used for overflights
of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and possibly even China!

Again, I have NO DIRECT PROOF, only connect-the-dots anecdotes
which put some extra spring in my step !!!!

Any Comments?



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by StargateSG7
 


Haha Thanks for the reply Stargate it does help to clear up what you meant. I guess what I'm trying to get you to say is do you think they could build and test a demonstrator in the time given from project announcement to cancellation. Also since it was a white world project why wouldn't we see it being tested or developed in the open? My thought that they only way this could of work is announce and show a model do nothing with the money and let the program die. But my problem with that is why bother saying anything white world at all.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by StargateSG7
 


Haha Thanks for the reply Stargate it does help to clear up what you meant. I guess what I'm trying to get you to say is do you think they could build and test a demonstrator in the time given from project announcement to cancellation. Also since it was a white world project why wouldn't we see it being tested or developed in the open? My thought that they only way this could of work is announce and show a model do nothing with the money and let the program die. But my problem with that is why bother saying anything white world at all.


-------

I'm going to answer your questions in order and outline some reasons
why it's done the way it is.

1) The fastest I've every heard of a project from initial design to prototype
rollout is 15 months via the Burt Rutan-built prototype of the X-47B
large scale autonomous UAV combat aircraft

en.wikipedia.org...

and even the SR-71 Blackbird was done in less than 3 years
and that was in the late 1950's/1960's so YES it is possible to
design and prototype an aircraft in the timeframe indicated.

Today it's even more possible because of
CNC (Computerized Numerical Control) machines that can cut out
very complex parts of titanium and ceramic in less than a day.
And with CAD/CAM software and Finite Element Analysis a whole
airplane could be prototyped and analyzed on a computer
using computational fluid dynamics to ascertain flight performance
profiles within various scenarios such as low-altitude, high wind,
sandy dusty high-heat environments, high-altitude freezing cold
and other computerized simulations of where a plane would be flying
and this could be done within 3 to 6 months depending upon the
available computer horsepower.

Once the body has been designed and refined, the engines are also
tested for burn rate, heat management, vibration and noise testing,
power output profiles, load conditions, and bird/sand ingestion
damage mitigation all on a computer and ONLY THEN is a prototype
sent to a CNC machine to "Print" out the 2000 to 3000 parts needed
for the engine within four to six weeks.

Then it takes about three to four months to actually put the parts
together and then another 3 to 6 months of flight simulator testing
for the pilots before the first prototype is engine tested and then
flown for real, so in an accelerated program one year to 18 months
is a REALISTIC possibility.

2) The NASA X33/X34 programs ARE the whiteworld portions of Blackswift
but are likely used for OPERATIONAL TESTING of specific portions
of specific technologies such as engine inlet duct design or airflow testing
over machined composite structures which will be used IN PART within
a larger but more covert testing program such as Blackswift.

There are two reasons for doing what they do in terms of keeping secrets.
In the western world we not only have to keep secrets from potential
rivals such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc. BUT ALSO keep
secrets from people like US at ATS who CAN BE very GOOD at acting
like spies...therefore there are specific internal programs in place
to allow publically-funded scientists who are working in the White-World
of public knowledge projects to still contribute their significant expertise
but who cannot be brought into the Black Budget world because
of certain rules such as non-citizenship or foreign-born status
or familial relations/family status or financial/criminal record status.
These scientists can also be used as cover to hide the real design team
from people like us!

Since Black-Budget programs that are SAP (Special Access Programs)
or on a Compartmentalized Need to know basis, groups members are
required to meet certain personal, political and military requirements
that are very strict and not anyone can just "Join The Club".

So white world projects are setup to allow identified EXPERTS to work
on specific applications or perfrom certain segments of
Research & development that will be used in more secretive
black budget programs. Basically these techs don't KNOW that parts
of their work will be used in more advanced systems.

The white world project is also used as a cover for us ATS'ers and to
fool/misdirect Russia and China on specific aspects of an SAP program.
The best way to hide a secret project is to keep it out in the open
obfuscated by lots of whiteworld projects that have too many things to
keep effective track of and then let the Black Budget people Cherry-Pick
the best parts for themselves.

Since our society is very open, we can use front companies
and warehouses in Sacramento to put all the cherry picked designs
and parts to work as a flyable prototype that gets shipped in pieces
via a household-moving oriented Allied Van Lines tractor trailor
to a non-descript warehouse in Austin, Texas for final assembly
and systems testing before being put on a Hercules C130, C17
or C5a Galaxy transport craft to be flown to Australia, Diego Garcia,
England, Utah, Alaska or Area 51 for operational flight testing.

The general reasons for this secrecy is really more to do with
keeping budgets intact while a program is still in design and test stages
until Congress or the President can approve a budget allocation
for an operational program that gets assigned to a specific arm
of the Defence Department. If we disclose a specific program
to Congress while its still in it's infancy, some congressman might
get all pissy that it's NOT in his home state and thus move to
kill it or if the higher ups don't like the people involved for whatever
reason, they might ALSO want to kill an infant program...ergo...
the favorite toys of certain boys will be kept secret until a
working prototype is flying in the wild blue yonder or until the program
is so big and important it CAN'T be politically killed without severe
hits to a political or military career. Keeping secrets from
Russia and China is really a mere after thought since most black-budget
programs have political/financial goals rather than pure military aims.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join