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.
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]
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.
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.
originally posted by: ghost
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]