Head of the Ministry of Defence's UFO desk speculates over Aurora

Hi,

In the newly declassified UFO reports, published by the UK government this weekend, the head of the Ministry of Defence's UFO desk details a 1993 report to the Assistant Chief of Air Staff speculating whether or not recent sightings are anything to do with Aurora! He was then told to drop the subject!

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6039934/UFO-files-secret-US-spy-plane-Aurora-could-be-behind-sightings.html]Source[/u rl]

"You may wish to be aware of a recent particularly unusual incidence of UFO sightings over Britain, involving descriptions that match some of the reported characterisations of the so-called 'Aurora'."

The letter was returned with another handwritten note scrawled at the top which stated: "Thank you. I suggest you now drop this subject."

Up until this point I believed Aurora was just a budget code for the U2 program, but hearing an extremely senior military chief tell a sub-ordinate to 'drop' questions surrounding the program following several qualified sightings is extremely interesting!

Cheers

Robbie


[edit on 17-8-2009 by stratsys-sws]

reply to post by stratsys-sws

That sounds interesting, stratsys-sws.....

Can you see if you can re-post the link to the source?

It won't work for me.

Kind regards
Sam60

Here's the link redone.

Telegraph report

Hope that helps..

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
Here's the link redone.

Telegraph report

Hope that helps..

Thanks UKWO1Phot

The Aurora budget entry was apparently for the B-2 stealth bomber, not the U-2. The Aurora name is not a whole lot more than a nickname from this and it pretty much encompasses any secret hypersonic aircraft or sighting.

here is another good link.
Bill Sweetman - Aviationweek

[edit on 18/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Why would they need a spy plane when they have satelittes that can see a huge portion of the earth in real time and read a car's license plate from 200 miles up? It's interesting to think about, but money, man and material resources out weigh any project where there is an easier way.

reply to post by RyanLA123


The idea is that satellites are very predictable and also cannot be everywhere at once.

Yup, and it also takes time to re-task a satellite if there won't be one in a specific area at a certain time.

But I guess high altitude UAV's with loiter capability could fill in the role, and I suppose if there is a secret space program, there's nothing to say that there aren't satellites with better manoeuvrability than we currently see already up there?

I don't have the actual figures, however adjusting the orbital plane is very delta-v intensive. The Space Shuttle only has a 10 minute launch window because outside that it doesn't have enough fuel to match the ISS's orbital plane. And on top of that space satellites are not equipped with propulsion outside basic hydrazine RCS thrusters. Simply put - spy satellites are in fixed orbit and ion thrusters are too weak.

[edit on 19/8/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Hi Cobzz,

Yeah apologies, I typed U2 rather than B2, my mistake.

The B2 was declassified in 1988, the sightings mentioned here occurred in 1993, therefore I doubt that military staff would refer to a current operating aircraft by it's development codename/budget code 5 years after it was declassified.

If you read on within the reports it seems the UK government were getting concerned that the US was indeed flying development/classified aircraft within UK airspace without seeking approval.


Cheers

Robbie

Originally posted by stratsys-sws
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Hi Cobzz,

Yeah apologies, I typed U2 rather than B2, my mistake.

The B2 was declassified in 1988, the sightings mentioned here occurred in 1993, therefore I doubt that military staff would refer to a current operating aircraft by it's development codename/budget code 5 years after it was declassified.

It is unlikely that the 'head of the Ministry of Defence's UFO desk' is aware of every single internal project name, and as the term 'Aurora' was the commonplace label for the legendary hypersonic aircraft, he would have referred to it as such.

The reply does not commit to anything, and it certainly does not confirm or correct the usage of the term 'Aurora', it simply dismisses the topic.

Plus, of course, the B-2 was not declassified, it was moved from a black project to a standard USAF project - it was still heavily classified, and still is.

[edit on 19/8/2009 by RichardPrice]

reply to post by RichardPrice


Hi Richard,

Yeah I agree, that post would not likely be privy to all codenames.

However, what I am suggesting is that the MOD were aware of multiple reports pertaining to an aircraft with the codename Aurora, and with the B-2 making regular flights from UK RAF stations, airshows etc, that any sighting that matched the description of a B-2 would be put down to being a B-2 and not Aurora! If it matched the description of a B-2 and he wasn't privvy to the codenames why would he call it Aurora? There are several possibilities

1. The official identified an aircraft matching the B-2's description by it's codename Aurora - Highly unlikely and not the type of thing you would put in a memo to the assistant chief of air staff.

2. The official collated several sightings of an aircraft that matched descriptions of an unknown airframe and that of the Aurora and made the leap that it may be the same thing. - These guys aren't paid to guess, and certainly not in reports to officers that are only a couple of ranks below The Queen!

3. The official was privvy to MOD intelligence regarding a project called Aurora, and that Aurora was clearly different from the B-2. He reported sightings of the aircraft and linked the two in a report to a senior defence chief who then hushed him.

As for the dismissal of the topic, I highly doubt that is the case. It was this guys job to report this, to dismiss it off hand like that would not happen unless the ACAS wanted to send a message without saying as much. To do so would be like telling the guy not to do his job and then not give a reason.
A far more appropriate response in that case would have been "the MOD has no interest in these reports, the witness accounts are clearly unsupported and we know of no such aircraft/project". Saying it the way he did was a clear indication that the official must simply drop the subject and that the ACAS did not want to explain why.

And you're right of course, the technology used on the B-2 is still classified, however it's existance was declassified in 1988.

That all sounds terribly discombobulated :-) apologies it's hot in the office!

Cheers

Robbie

reply to post by stratsys-sws


In answer to your points:

1. No, he didn't identify anything by a codename, he likened some reports to the reported abilities of the 'Aurora'. He basically said 'hey, this sounds a lot like what the press are calling Aurora, thoughts?'

2. They aren't paid to guess, but they also are not automatons - he put two and two together and thought someone might be interested. It looks like either they were and he was on to something, or he was being slapped down for wasting time.

3. Uhm, no. From everything linked, the bloke was simply collating hearsay and saying 'thats interesting'. There is no indication he was aware of anything other than standard media reports.

Thats how it all reads to me. The bloke was no more in the know than anyone else who had read the media reports on Aurora, and put forward a comment to that effect.

You forget that 'Aurora' was heavily mentioned in the British press around the time of the first Gulf War - there were multiple pictures, the usual blurry as hell stuff, in multiple newspapers and followup stories. Its certainly not beyond reason that a military man would have read some of those reports, I know I did...

There is no indication that this bloke knew anything. What brings me to that conclusion is his wording - he uses the term 'reported characterisations', along with 'so-called', and he puts the term Aurora in quotation marks. All of that screams to me that he was no better informed than Joe Public on the matter.

reply to post by RichardPrice


I do agree with you Richard, and up until this point I had 100% dismissed the Aurora theories, I still do agree that Aurora was the budget code for the B-2. I also agree that the official was not 'in the know'.

My interest in this article was the response from the assistant chief of air staff. Forget about codenames, the fact is that several reports were made of an aircraft in british airspace that did not look like an official airframe, and that they were taken seriously and reported up the chain of command. Surely the ACAS would not acuse someone who's job is was to collate and report such data of wasting time....it's his job!

I do remember the tabloid reports of 'aurora' during GWI and realise that may have bearing on this use of the name.

I read this as the ACAS knew of a classified aircraft operating in UK airspace matching the descriptions seen in the press and did not want his subordinate to look in to it any further. regardless of the suggested codename.

Cheers

Robbie

reply to post by stratsys-sws


The juniors job is to collate data, not to speculate. Its very possible that he went outside of his pervue and involved a senior when that was not appropriate.

It doesnt mean that anything untoward is going on.