Originally posted by planeman
All this talk of "TR-3" is complete speculation. In an era where unmanned systems are predominant in tactical reconaissance why would there be a TR-3? My reserved judgement is that TR-3 is a figment of people's imagination until it is proven otherwise. As it is I have seen NO credible evidence to substantiate its existance and no compelling explanation as to why the TR-3 designation even exists as a system -any system.

The "TR" designation is unconventional but it does mean Tactical Recce no two ways about that.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by planeman]

If you had read my previous post, you would have seen that the TR-1 was a version of the U-2 Spy Plane. Clearly the U-2 didn't do tactical reconnassance! Maybe it's a misdesignation to fool people, or maybe we got it wrong. I'm not claiming to have all the answers. All I doing is trying to put together the few peices we have and make an educated guess about what's going on.

B.T.W. Tier 3 isn't a corret designation either it should have been the RQ-? since Darkstar was a drone.

Tim

[edit on 19-5-2006 by ghost]

Originally posted by ghostthe TR-1 was a version of the U-2 Spy Plane. Clearly the U-2 didn't do tactical reconnassance! Maybe it's a misdesignation to fool people, or maybe we got it wrong. I'm not claiming to have all the answers. All I doing is trying to put together the few peices we have and make an educated guess about what's going on.

Yeah, the TR-1 was a tactical reconnaissance version of the U-2, that's why they designated it TR-1. "TR" was at the time a new designator which had as much to do with politics (reinforcing the U-2's role relevance in the face of budget competition from satellites and SR-71 etc), as any vital need to apply a new designator for operational purposes.

The difference between "tactical" and "strategic" is in the application not the range, altitude or image. Tactical systems can be used strategically and strategic systems tactically. For example did China's use of J-8II tactical interceptors to disrupt the strategically important US SIGNIT operations make the J-8II a strategic system?

Thus any argument that the TR-1 designation is a misinformation game, at least to anyone beyond the budget hawks in the Pentogon/Congress, is a non-starter.


You say that you are just trying to make an educated guess as to what is going on. Cool. What is the EVIDENCE that these super secret air vehicles are called “TR-3” any more than they might be called “BZ-1”? Maybe if there is sufficient credible EVIDENCE to support the supposition then the guess may become “educated”. Until then working on the assumption that there is any system called TR-3 is uneducated. IMO.

Originally posted by planeman
Yeah, the TR-1 was a tactical reconnaissance version of the U-2, that's why they designated it TR-1. "TR" was at the time a new designator which had as much to do with politics (reinforcing the U-2's role relevance in the face of budget competition from satellites and SR-71 etc), as any vital need to apply a new designator for operational purposes.

You say that you are just trying to make an educated guess as to what is going on. Cool. What is the EVIDENCE that these super secret air vehicles are called “TR-3” any more than they might be called “BZ-1”? Maybe if there is sufficient credible EVIDENCE to support the supposition then the guess may become “educated”. Until then working on the assumption that there is any system called TR-3 is uneducated. IMO.

In all fairness, I will respectfully withdraw my claim that I have proof of the designation. I carefully revied what I have and matched it up against everything I could Find to the contrary. In the face of all the contrary evidence, what I have is much too flimsy to tout as "CREDIBLE" by any streach. I will not waste time on ATS by posting questionable information which does nothing to aid in Denying Ignorance! SORRY if I got your hopes up or mislead you in anyway!

Most of what I know about the Black Manta leeds me to believe that it is a long range SIGINT platform. If this is accurate, it might infact be a Strategic Reconnassance aircraft and not Tactical at all. I really don't know for sure.

Tim

Can't say how big this one is, but nearby planes are small:


find it at youtube


Quad flat coil electron stream Tesla propulsion system brought to you
by JP Morgan via Germany in WWII then to Roswell, New Mexico.

Those are not wings, how would it land. Well they could but the missile is
flying on edge.
Or.
Forward motion is perpendicular to electron stream. Simple electronics.

Is it time to go electron power.

When I was a kid, a friend said he saw a football field sized craft. Five smaller orange colored orbs came out of the bottom, right in the middle of the thing. He said it blocked out most of the stars in the sky. Just after the five lights took off in all different directions, the larger triangular shaped craft took off, straight up into the night sky. A craft that size, that close, making no noise and then taking off at a velocity high enough to escape our earth's gravity was no pulse jet engine. They still require atmosphere to operate. At the time I didn't believe his story because I hadn't seen it. But when I was a teen, four or five of my friends and I were talking in my back yard when one of the orange colored orbs flew over us and spotlighted the river bottom below my house. As it flew over the mountains beyond the river the spot of light followed the craft as it just cleared the mountain. It was seen hovering over the mountain for several seconds before taking off in a northwesterly direction. Again, totally silent and within a mile of distance from us. After that, I believed my friend's story and am myself a believer that these aren't any technology we are going to obtain in the near centuries. These craft aren't making any noise, and pulse detonation engines are unbelievably loud. PS detonation means explosion.