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.

 

The Aurora Top-Secret Hypersonic Spy Plane

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
flying buzzard or the mothership is the aircraft that is carrying the aurora model which would of been based off the info that was considered current in late 80's early 90's




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


It certainly would fit the description of what the buzzard was suposed to be wouldn't it. However in that model, it resembles more of the SR-71, than the XB-70 (which is what the Buzzard was supposed to be based on?)



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by macthistle
This plane exists! The technology exists and it’s been about for a while and this plane has existed for a number of years. The existence of this plane was even leaked by an American general in a press conference a few years a go. It was spotted in the North Sea because the American military uses the British air strips in Scotland because of the remoteness of the area. There are probably now planes the American military have developed that are even faster than the Aurora. THIS PLANE EXISTS!


[edit on 2-4-2006 by macthistle]


it doesnt exist...first of all theres no proof second of all the generals who said it exists can be just saying that to gain government funding lol or popularity. if it did exist then the b2-bomber would have been this fast..but it wasnt.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RussiaUSA
 


May I suggest to rethink blasting in here with no real proof yourself. A Generals word can't be trusted if your asking about black projects so why even bother as it doesn't secure funding to spread a rumor, trust me black projects that do exist are above that. 2nd the B-2 bomber was developed during the time the the mythical aurora was "supposedly developed" the tech that is involved in low RCS at that time wasn't transferable to high speed flight. At hypersonic speeds that speed is your stealth as you dam easy to track unless your plasma wake is somehow helping you.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by RussiaUSA
 


May I suggest to rethink blasting in here with no real proof yourself. A Generals word can't be trusted if your asking about black projects so why even bother as it doesn't secure funding to spread a rumor, trust me black projects that do exist are above that. 2nd the B-2 bomber was developed during the time the the mythical aurora was "supposedly developed" the tech that is involved in low RCS at that time wasn't transferable to high speed flight. At hypersonic speeds that speed is your stealth as you dam easy to track unless your plasma wake is somehow helping you.


the more faster you go..the less stealthy you are..... im assuming.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RussiaUSA
 


You just sorta proved my point R/U. please if your not sure please say so and don't come across as a know it all which we get some of on these forums. We all have something to learn here. And the Answer to your question is yes. As far as we/I know in the white world the heated up trail in the atmosphere that a hypersonic plane would leave would be highly trackable. Its a matter of seeing it coming early enough and then trying to intercept something that fast that can pose a problem.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
You might want to flip on the NASA station for more in depth history ... I just finished watching a 2 or 3 hour history with some really good rock and roll tunes.

It was mentioned that Langley gets to test a lot of fun flying machines ... one was the X-48 which did manage to fly at Mach 10.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Skydancer
 


The X-48 most certainly did not make it to Mach 10.

You're thinking of the X-43 Falcon.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
unless plasma wake is somehow helping you.


I can't think of a reason it wouldn't. In addition, some of the shaping beneficial at hypersonic speeds just might be beneficial to your RCS. And some of the materials just might be capable of being used as RAM in certain situations. Add to that available active measures. I don't know how you'd be able to make it VLO really, especially at all wavelengths (especially IR!), but I think you're likely overstating the visibility of the final product.




[edit on 16-10-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Canada_EH
unless plasma wake is somehow helping you.


I can't think of a reason it wouldn't. In addition, some of the shaping beneficial at hypersonic speeds just might be beneficial to your RCS. And some of the materials just might be capable of being used as RAM in certain situations. Add to that available active measures. I don't know how you'd be able to make it VLO really, especially at all wavelengths (especially IR!), but I think you're likely overstating the visibility of the final product.
[edit on 16-10-2008 by _Del_]


It has more to do with what happens when you're going that fast - namely, the heating of the air. There's no real way to counteract the friction of moving that quickly. Not only to you light up on infra-red, but the temperature differential (the "fireball") actually will allow for a radar return. In short - going that fast completely defeats most existing forms of "stealth" design.

We found this out with the SR-71. While it had very small returns (for its size) at subsonic and low supersonic speeds - once it got up to its cruising speeds, it had a much stronger radar return that was caused by the difference between the hot air being generated by moving that fast and the ambient cold air.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 



Speaking of which - hot wind tunnel test of the X-43 air frame.

Didn't know they had taken it even this far.



Mach 7 wind-tunnel test of the F-S X-43A model in Langley's 8-foot High Temp tunnel

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...



The experimental X-43A hypersonic research aircraft, part aircraft and part spacecraft, will be dropped from the wing of a modified B-52 aircraft, boosted to nearly 100,000 feet altitude by a booster rocket and released over the Pacific Ocean to briefly fly under its own power at seven times the speed of sound, almost 5,000 mph.

The flight is part of the Hyper-X program, a research effort designed to demonstrate alternate propulsion technologies for access to space and high-speed flight within the atmosphere. It will provide unique "first time" free flight data on hypersonic air-breathing engine technologies that have large potential pay-offs.

The $250 million program began with conceptual design and scramjet engine wind tunnel work in 1996. In a scramjet (supersonic-combustion ramjet), the flow of air through the engine remains supersonic, or greater than the speed of sound, for optimum engine efficiency and vehicle speed. A scramjet operates by supersonic combustion of fuel in a stream of air com,pressed by the high forward speed of the aircraft, as opposed to a normal jet engine, in which the compressor blades compress the air. Scramjets start operation at about Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. There are few or no moving parts in a scramjet engine, but achieving proper ignition and combustion in a matter of milliseconds proved to be an engineering challenge of the highest order.

Researchers believe these technologies may someday offer more airplane-like operations and other benefits compared to traditional rocket systems. Rockets provide limited throttle control and must carry heavy tanks filled with liquid oxygen, necessary for combustion of fuel. An air-breathing engine, like that on the X-43A, scoops oxygen from the air as it flies. The weight savings could be used to increase payload capacity, increase range or reduce vehicle size for the same payload.



Posting this as humor:
"NASAnews-2010 - NASA reports their fleet of ScramJet F-43s had plans to deliver packages to distant locations in unheard of time frames.
Elsewhere, AP wire - Environmental groups gasped for air as they reported on strange drops of O2 concentration in certain areas of up to 4% below 1993 levels"





[edit on 16/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
We found this out with the SR-71. While it had very small returns (for its size) at subsonic and low supersonic speeds - once it got up to its cruising speeds, it had a much stronger radar return that was caused by the difference between the hot air being generated by moving that fast and the ambient cold air.



I think you might be overstating the SR-71's stealth characteristics abit.
You may be referring to the exhaust plume though (not a fireball due to speed) which would be something altogether different (you'd be able to track the expansion due to temperature difference and the presence of water vapour in the exhaust with Doppler). It'd definitely show up on Doppler.
And because you're talking about hypersonic speeds, there's not too much you can do about the IR visibility or the ability to cool the efflux to minimize the Doppler return. Perhaps some additives may help as in the case of the SR-71?

You might be able to get a HF echo off the ionized air surrounding the vehicle (after determining background scatter or bot-clutter, etc --depending on how large the vehicle is you could almost certainly paint the aircraft itself with an OTH), but nothing above 45MHz. There are ways to play havoc with bistatic recievers as well, but they depend on active transmission of CW omnidirectionally, and I'm not sure that's feasible during hypersonic flight.
At anyrate, you might be able to get a return on HF, but there is a reason that guidance is done at the much higher microwave frequencies. Namely rayleigh scattering. Any clouds/rain between you and the transmitter/receiver are attenuating the signal, and not trivially as is the case in the microwave bands. That's why we primarily use the microwave bands for tracking and guidance. And here the ionization is aiding you quite a bit -- and I mean alot.
You might be able to track with a passive multi-static collection system which looks for disturbances to background noise (like cell tower emitters, TV/Radio waves, etc), but again this is more of a "heads up" method of early warning and less a means to directly track the flight. I'll be honest and say that this is something relatively new, made possible only relatively recently and not an area I'm terribly familiar with.

But installing new systems and arrays that would give you usable data isn't a trivial obstacle.

I'm sure the customer was smart enough to look at survivability before funding the project. I'm inclined to believe that the speed and altitudes involved would massively increase your survivability even if you had a transponder on that wasn't shielded by the plasma sheath.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I guess I need to ask something simple flat out and see what others think as this question is bothering me. How can something that hot around the 230 degree Celsius mark on say the 71 be untrackable to IR missiles? (higher temps if we talk hypersonic)


the SR-71 was still easy to track by radar and had a huge infrared signature when cruising at Mach 3.2 or more



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I don't think you can. If there's a good way to do it, I don't know about it. The problem would be tracking the vehicle quickly enough, with enough accuracy to put IR missiles in a position to track and intercept this thing going Mach 6, or there abouts, at altitudes which are probably a good clip higher than the SR-71.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I guess I need to ask something simple flat out and see what others think as this question is bothering me. How can something that hot around the 230 degree Celsius mark on say the 71 be untrackable to IR missiles? (higher temps if we talk hypersonic)


It depends on how you dump the heat off the airframe - mix it with enough air and it lowers the temperature significantly, in exactly the same way as the F-117 lowers the heat from its engine exhausts.

Plus IR based missiles act on significantly greater temperature differences than 200 degrees or so - you are talking a significant proportion of a thousand degrees or more.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I'd suspect that mixing airflow like that isn't really feasible in this instance.

Richard, you might know more about this than I do (which isn't much): As far as IR, won't most seeker heads reject signatures that are too hot and/or too bright (the sun, a decoy, etc)? Could this help your hypersonic vehicle? Are certain parts of the spectrum ignored to find the typical spectrum that includes jet efflux? And if so can you purposely manipulate your IR emission to parts of the spectrum ignored (like that of the sun, for instance)?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


One thing as well I recall reading in regards to RCS issues is that the shock diamonds created by the afterburner also show up on radar



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Good information thanks so far guys


I wasn't aware how hot the seeker had to be for an IR missile and that may put a loop of some sort in tracking/homing in on a high alt-speed plane. I recall hearing about the shock-diamond RCS thing as well Fred from somewhere. I'm sure they could do something to eliminate them which would be pretty similar to the chemicals injected to the B-2 exhaust to eliminate contrails.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'd suspect that mixing airflow like that isn't really feasible in this instance.


Its quite feasible actually - only certain parts of an airframe get really hot, and thats the leading edges. Transfer that heat to other parts of the airframe and have the airflow cool it and you achieve the same effect.



Richard, you might know more about this than I do (which isn't much): As far as IR, won't most seeker heads reject signatures that are too hot and/or too bright (the sun, a decoy, etc)? Could this help your hypersonic vehicle? Are certain parts of the spectrum ignored to find the typical spectrum that includes jet efflux? And if so can you purposely manipulate your IR emission to parts of the spectrum ignored (like that of the sun, for instance)?


IR systems are very intelligent, and most ignore the sun because of doppler shifting and other effects sunlight has inherently. There is a set range within an IR system will work, which is why the F-117 (and to a lesser extend the F-22) only needs to cool its exhaust to a certain extent and not to the ambient temperature of the surrounding air.

It would take something extremely special to be able to pass your aircraft off as the sun...



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The Arora does exist and was stationed at Machrihanish AFB in Scotland (now closed down) The plane was seen by locals on the neerby golf course and an article apeared in the Scottish Sunday Post A few years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join