How do we know Aurora is real?

a reply to: expatwhite

shhhhh...

It's real as far as I'm concerned... lol

a reply to: Flipper35

Are you talking serious? Haven't been here for a few days and just noticed your post today.

What timeframe(decade) your friend saw the plane landing at the base?
Was it night? Any more details you would tell?

Cheers!

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Yes, serious. I know some of the above was April 1 tomfoolery, but not what he told me.

It was at night and at least a couple decades ago. One of the guys thought he was maintenance (he was, but for F16s and not that aircraft) and talked briefly before they figured out they shouldn't be talking to each other about it. They did not call it Aurora, or any other name for that matter, so he has no clue what the designation is/would have been. The way he described the looks it would be a cross between the pic in this thread and the Testors F-19 but he never got a great look at it. They did tell him it was fast and had different engines than my friend was used to working on before they got all hushy, but that doesn't say much really. Just like the Advent is different than the F100 or TF30 engines.

This is all from memory from a couple years ago, I can ask him again to refresh my memory.

a reply to: Flipper35

If it is possible, try ask him about more details. And by saying that your friend described the plane as a cross between the pic in this thread and Testors F-19, are you saying about the pic from this link: hushkit.net... or something else?

originally posted by: Flipper35
A friend of mine was stationed in AK when an aircraft similar to that picture flew to the base.

While saying 'that picture' are you saying about the picture from this link: hushkit.net... ?

Did you get any more info?

That’s an April fools joke

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet.

Yes, that Hushkit is an April Fools joke, but the picture is what I was referencing that my friend saw. It was similar, more rounded.

a reply to: Flipper35

Did your friend ever mention anything about dimensions etc.?

a reply to: Flipper35

You have a PM, Flipper35. Check out letter icon in the upper right corner, please.

originally posted by: Flipper35
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet.

Yes, that Hushkit is an April Fools joke, but the picture is what I was referencing that my friend saw. It was similar, more rounded.

Was it Eielson AFB where your friend saw it? Did you hear anything about dimensions from him?

U.S. IS DEVELOPING SURVEILLANCE JET THAT ELUDES RADAR
By RICHARD HALLORAN and SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
JAN. 10, 1988

The Air Force is secretly developing a long-range reconnaissance aircraft that will incorporate technology designed to permit the plane to evade detection by radar, Defense Department officials say.

The plane is being designed to fly at about five times the speed of sound, or more than 3,800 miles an hour. It will fly higher than 100,000 feet and, with aerial refueling, will be limited in range only by the crew's endurance.

The plane is the third being built with the Stealth radar-evading technology. The others are the B-2 bomber, scheduled to go into operation in the early 1990's, and the F-19, designed to be used as a fighter or for short-range reconnaissance, which is reported to be in flight testing now. Replacing Aging Aircraft

The new plane is intended to replace the SR-71 Blackbird aircraft, of which only 9 of the original 30 are in service. The SR-71, which can fly at three times the speed of sound at altitudes above 80,000 feet, is based on technology that is 25 years old.

Beyond speed and altitude, officials said, the advantage of the new plane will be its ability to remain undetected. ''With the SR-71, they know we're there but they can't touch us,'' said one official. ''With the new technology, they won't even know we're there.''

[...]

The officials said the new plane was being developed to fill a gap in photo intelligence caused by the aging of the SR-71's and their scarcity. The officials said some of the planes had been lost in crashes while others had simply worn out from extensive flying.

Although satellites are now used to gather large amounts of photographic intelligence, the officials said some things could not be done by unmanned spacecraft. Satellites follow a predictable course, are difficult and expensive to maneuver and pass over given points on schedule. Anyone wanting to hide something need only wait until the satellite has passed. On-the-Spot Decisions

In contrast, the officials said, reconnaissance planes are more flexible. The crew of two can be given a mission on relatively short notice and can have their tasks modified while in flight. With a pilot at the controls, decisions can be made on the spot, such as circling over a target until the weather clears so photographs can be taken.

''We can tell the plane to go take a picture of something we want to see when we want to see it,'' said one official.

[continued...]

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Masisoar

Developing and developed are two vastly different things.

Yes a long way between a set of plans to a wind tunnel model to a flight tested prototype.

U.S. IS DEVELOPING [...] - The Air Force is secretly developing

on the wrong track since 88'

If only they did develop something to replace the Blackbird. I'll never forgive them.

China's "Aurora" - does that deserve its own thread?

a reply to: Masisoar

China's fast mover, In the 3 - 5 range?

a reply to: Flyingblind

Based on engine technology levels, China is in the same boat as Russia was with the MiG-25. The longer they go fast, the more the engine suffers damage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought the Chinese fastmover already had a code name in the US: Tic Tac.

a reply to: anzha

It was flying cover for the super secret Chinese missile test off LA.