Aurora project just a cover up? , page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 01:08 PM by jimmyx

i've often wondered why a person with alot of time on hand, and gen2 night goggles or better...hasn't camped out near edwards air force base in southern california, and just did some passive observing?....or the same around area 51, or dugway?... and, if they could get one that attached to a hi-def camera, that would be some fantastic footage.

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 01:14 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by jimmyx

Edwards doesn't do a whole lot of black stuff, because of how visible it is. Area 51 has been tried many times, but they've extended the borders of the area out so far you can't see much.

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 01:37 PM by ItDepends

Originally posted by JimTSpock
I think there seems to be some merit to the SR-91 Aurora myth. Is it a cover up?
www.defenceaviation.com...

Good link Spock!! Well, let's just say, it is/was not a myth, but it (craft)(not saying your link photo is real or not

) is not known as the Aurora. As far as it being or not being a cover-up, lol, if you are calling it a secret or purposely created deception, then yeah, but that is the nature of covert, black ops projects. They let you see what they want you to see, including our adversaries, to mislead, deceive and make them spend lots of money chasing unknowns. hmm, I hope that makes sense.

Peace!! ID

edit on 17-1-2013 by ItDepends because: added comment

edit on 17-1-2013 by ItDepends because: grammatical

edit on 17-1-2013 by ItDepends because: mistake

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 02:53 PM by framedragged

reply to post by Bedlam

Mmmm, chicken.

The other time I saw that patch led to me being ... frustrated.

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 04:41 PM by brace22

reply to post by jimmyx

Yes why can't someone do that!

Don't you think its weird though that every time someone has a pic of a "ufo"... it's always been taken on something that produces image quality of a .000000001 MP camera?

It's odd if you ask me...

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:33 PM by boomer135

Well you want to talk about hiding in plain sight........and as you said Boomer, there are things on the internet that are in plain sight. "WHEN" they want this craft to be seen, you can be sure, they have replacements already 20-30 years ahead of These Beauties from LM

As an example: here is a long range bomber by LM

Peace!! ID
edit on 17-1-2013 by ItDepends because: grammitical

Nice link there. I will venture a guess and say that out of all the concepts in that link, there are two that were flying in the early 2000's in there. Well more than two but two specific ones that the public only thinks is on paper. venture a guess which ones of course. I'll tell you this: It's not the B-2 refueling a ucav

Although I have heard about the kc-z plan calling for some stealthy tankers in the future. I also find this notable. airforce-magazine.com has a new article dated January 2013 about ISR after Afghanistan. An interesting quote here: www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/January%202013/0113ISR.aspx

As a result, priorities have changed. The service has slowed its pursuit of the MQ-X, a putative stealthy successor to the MQ-9 Reaper. It has proposed retiring the Block 30 version of the Global Hawk fleet of remotely piloted aircraft and has openly debated whether it should go forward with its stated commitment to building 65 CAP's worth of remotely piloted aircraft

Why is the Air Force all the sudden not even fighting the retirement of certain aircraft? Perhaps cause they know that there is something a little better in the pipeline???

EDIT: Oh and the LM concept bomber IMO looks nothing like that drawing.

edit on 17-1-2013 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 09:37 PM by boomer135

Originally posted by ItDepends

Originally posted by JimTSpock
I think there seems to be some merit to the SR-91 Aurora myth. Is it a cover up?
www.defenceaviation.com...

Good link Spock!! Well, let's just say, it is/was not a myth, but it (craft)(not saying your link photo is real or not ) is not known as the Aurora.

I agree, it looks nothing like that and isn't called the Aurora.

reply posted on 17-1-2013 @ 10:38 PM by ItDepends

Originally posted by boomer135

Well you want to talk about hiding in plain sight........and as you said Boomer, there are things on the internet that are in plain sight. "WHEN" they want this craft to be seen, you can be sure, they have replacements already 20-30 years ahead of These Beauties from LM

As an example: here is a long range bomber by LM

Peace!! ID
edit on 17-1-2013 by ItDepends because: grammitical

Nice link there. I will venture a guess and say that out of all the concepts in that link, there are two that were flying in the early 2000's in there. Well more than two but two specific ones that the public only thinks is on paper. venture a guess which ones of course. I'll tell you this: It's not the B-2 refueling a ucav

Although I have heard about the kc-z plan calling for some stealthy tankers in the future. I also find this notable. airforce-magazine.com has a new article dated January 2013 about ISR after Afghanistan. An interesting quote here: www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/January%202013/0113ISR.aspx

As a result, priorities have changed. The service has slowed its pursuit of the MQ-X, a putative stealthy successor to the MQ-9 Reaper. It has proposed retiring the Block 30 version of the Global Hawk fleet of remotely piloted aircraft and has openly debated whether it should go forward with its stated commitment to building 65 CAP's worth of remotely piloted aircraft

Why is the Air Force all the sudden not even fighting the retirement of certain aircraft? Perhaps cause they know that there is something a little better in the pipeline???

EDIT: Oh and the LM concept bomber IMO looks nothing like that drawing.
edit on 17-1-2013 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)

Well actually, yes, more than two of LM's designs on that page are/have been in use for the last decade, some a little longer. And yes....lol, "It's not the B-2 refueling a ucav".

Why is the Air Force all the sudden not even fighting the retirement of certain aircraft? Perhaps cause they know that there is something a little better in the pipeline???

As deep as our pockets have been, there does exist expenditure limits. As you know, and as stated in the article you referenced in AFmagazine, the contemporary battlefield had a 'gold class' investment in ISR platforms. This advanced electronic surveillance has evolved very quickly, and although initially utilized in Mideast/Asia geography (consider Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan as areas of interest

) There is significant ISR applications in the Pacific closer to Western and Northern Asia. So, previous expenditures, existing applications.....'may' slow retirement of certain aircraft, but, getting back to LM, applications are being used which in fact are next generation, or as you say ,,,,,a little better in the pipeline??? Yes, and as former tanker man that you are, you know the originating platforms are virtually limitless.....I am talking more broadly than specifically ISR technology.

Would you not agree with that, from personal observations? (you don't need to confirm/deny if prudent) But, there is another component: U.S Airforce Space command:

"Operate and sustain global missile warning and space control capabilities and installations to dominate the high ground for America and its allies"

, which can be researched a little more by looking at Peterson AF Base.

I can not say, but perhaps, some advancements/technologies are available at higher levels?

Peace!! ID

reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 01:05 AM by Bedlam

Originally posted by framedragged
reply to post by Bedlam

Mmmm, chicken.

The other time I saw that patch led to me being ... frustrated.

The patch actually tells you a lot, like any number of unofficial mission patches, or coffee mugs, a few of which ended up having to be recalled due to TMI. A mug you have to keep in a safe doesn't do you a lot of good, IMHO.

The sad part is, "ya had to be there" or they don't make sense. In this case, the plane tells you what, the sigma and the graph behind the plane tells you something (too much, imho) and the fork and knife are indicative of something. The alien is a bit obscure, but has to do with someone commenting on enhanced handling. Ahem.

You should note the knife has a star on its point. That means something, knives cut through things with less effort. That is a project indicia. Knives with stars signify something like little wizards with hats. A lot of times repeated symbology tells you what general project class the patch refers to, although there's no published guide.

Think wires. Further deponent sayeth not.

reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 01:20 AM by Bedlam

Originally posted by ItDepends
Well you want to talk about hiding in plain sight........

Well, the purloined letter maneuver is the best. A lot of people don't pay attention to small details, and sort of bin things together in their minds. If it looks sort of F-117'ish, it's an F-117 even if it isn't. Or other planes like that, a lot of designs seem sort of similar so if you're not an aficionado of such things, you just don't see them as being what they are, or were, even if they drop the occasional hint as a signature.

I mean, look at the SR71 and the A12. Obviously, the Agency wants neat toys, too. And they're going to come from the same guys making the neat military stuff. Why re-invent the wheel, when you can take a basic plan and modify it to be more useful for other things?

Also, heck, how many SR71's were built? It's almost a prototype anyway in terms of production count. You could "prototype" a dozen really nifty aircraft and that be all you need, later you could get paid twice for designing and producing it as a line item, if it pans out. It would even come in on time and under budget.

btw, EC from 83 to 90 was one of those hidden in plain sight things, although no details would be put on ATS, as it doesn't really affect things one way or another.

edit on 18-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 01:22 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by Bedlam

And the pig Latin translates as "Tastes Like Chicken".

reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 01:23 AM by Bedlam

Originally posted by ItDepends
I can not say, but perhaps, some advancements/technologies are available at higher levels?

Peace!! ID

Ah, jeez, move this to RATS where it can't be indexed, guys.

(runs from room with fingers in ears going LA LA LA LA)

reply posted on 18-1-2013 @ 11:48 AM by ohanotherone

I live in the (aerospace valley) Antelope valley California, near edwards afb and work in the aerospace industry, I have worked in it all my life and learned from my father who worked in it since 1947 after leaving the military shortly after WW2. My military aviation knowledge is probably without equal. I know things about the SR-71, the U-2 and other aircraft from first hand hands on experiance with these aircraft.With that said, I have seen aircraft that i can not identify and spoken with pilots of some of these aircraft who confirmed many supsicions I had about them. As to the so called Aurora program, I believe that is was a prototype aircraft because there were numberous eye witness accounts of the aircraft including the tell tale doughnut ring exhaust clouds which I my self witnessed, and the hyper speeds that itwas capable of then nothing.. Poof like it never existed for a long time, then al of a sudden something new came along with a whole different shape to the fuselage than what the original aircraft was like so I believe we are talking two totally different aircraft now.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 12:01 AM by mbkennel

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by framedragged
reply to post by Bedlam

Mmmm, chicken.

The other time I saw that patch led to me being ... frustrated.

The patch actually tells you a lot, like any number of unofficial mission patches, or coffee mugs, a few of which ended up having to be recalled due to TMI. A mug you have to keep in a safe doesn't do you a lot of good, IMHO.

The sad part is, "ya had to be there" or they don't make sense. In this case, the plane tells you what, the sigma and the graph behind the plane tells you something (too much, imho) and the fork and knife are indicative of something. The alien is a bit obscure, but has to do with someone commenting on enhanced handling. Ahem.

You should note the knife has a star on its point. That means something, knives cut through things with less effort. That is a project indicia. Knives with stars signify something like little wizards with hats. A lot of times repeated symbology tells you what general project class the patch refers to, although there's no published guide.

Think wires. Further deponent sayeth not.

wdtprs.com...

Sigma is obviously radar cross section.

The curved lines: this is the hard one. "think wires"? Isobars of electric potential? Or, in the TMI category, is the cross section actually equal to that of a conductive disc/sphere with an outer arc which matches the curve above the "509" on the actual patch?

Pressure isobars hinting at undisclosed transonic performance?

I never knew it was a "fork" and "knife". "Eating up" the miles, cutting through air with less effort? Or is the lightning on the knife referring to enemy radar, which this craft can 'cut through' with ease?

(are wizards with hats=ECM?)

edit on 20-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 12:15 AM by mbkennel

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ItDepends
Well you want to talk about hiding in plain sight........

Well, the purloined letter maneuver is the best. A lot of people don't pay attention to small details, and sort of bin things together in their minds. If it looks sort of F-117'ish, it's an F-117 even if it isn't. Or other planes like that, a lot of designs seem sort of similar so if you're not an aficionado of such things, you just don't see them as being what they are, or were, even if they drop the occasional hint as a signature.

I mean, look at the SR71 and the A12. Obviously, the Agency wants neat toys, too. And they're going to come from the same guys making the neat military stuff. Why re-invent the wheel, when you can take a basic plan and modify it to be more useful for other things?

Also, heck, how many SR71's were built? It's almost a prototype anyway in terms of production count. You could "prototype" a dozen really nifty aircraft and that be all you need, later you could get paid twice for designing and producing it as a line item, if it pans out. It would even come in on time and under budget.

btw, EC from 83 to 90 was one of those hidden in plain sight things, although no details would be put on ATS, as it doesn't really affect things one way or another.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

So, there is a tactical reconaissance version U-117R or something.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 08:54 AM by XxAcidxBurnxX

edit on 20-1-2013 by XxAcidxBurnxX because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-1-2013 @ 12:32 PM by boomer135

Well actually, yes, more than two of LM's designs on that page are/have been in use for the last decade, some a little longer. And yes....lol, "It's not the B-2 refueling a ucav".

No it's not but there are some pretty cool tanker stealth ideas floating around the internet. Pretty cool to check out!

Why is the Air Force all the sudden not even fighting the retirement of certain aircraft? Perhaps cause they know that there is something a little better in the pipeline???

I can not say, but perhaps, some advancements/technologies are available at higher levels?

Peace!! ID

Well see we are talking about two different environments here. The mid east and the pacific are two different dogs when it comes to ISR aircraft. If your flying ISR missions in the Pacific watching shall we say China, you gonna need more that some drone that has the RCS of a school bus. Sure the RQ-170 is out. But they didn't build that many and obviously, in my opinion, they wanted Iran to have that aircraft, but that's a whole other thread.

Looking back at the cold war we had the ultimate recon weapon, the SR-71. No missile could catch it given enough reaction time. It was free to take pictures as needed for its mission. Then, you have Aurora show up as a budget line underneath SR-71 and the U-2. I still think it belonged to the B-2 but lets just say it's the third bird in the picture. What could it do that the Sr-71 couldn't? Leak fuel?

Hypersonic? I doubt it. We are still trying to get it to work in another platform. But what about a companion aircraft? The SR-71 did have some stealth features, call it first gen stealth if you will, but what if we had a plane that was just as stealthy as the F-117 or the B-2 being built in the 80's or 90's? What if this plane flew missions right along side the F-117 using EW and perhaps A/A missiles that the F-117 lacked? Why not send in the 117's with a speedy, stealthy, ISR aircraft to make a one two punch? I believe it was LM that had like a 9 billion dollar budget gap that they couldn't account for publically. That's enough for R&D on a new aircraft and at least a few demo aircraft...

OK, don't shoot me, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this and it will be the last time it ever comes out of my mouth or off of my fingers, I promise. But maybe, just maybe, JUST MAYBE John "the liar" Lear was correct (or maybe lucky) when he speaks of the F-19 being produced alongside the F-117. Think about this for a second and let it soak in before the bashing. Instead of trying to debunk the theory, try to prove it. I think I can, except for the time frame, and a lot of others like myself can as well. Pictures are worth a thousand words...

A quick comment on your question. My personal observations don't mean anything unless pictures or some other proof is involved. I could go on all I want about black world aircraft, but who would believe me? Don't get me wrong, I've posted some pretty iffy pics here on ATS, but I think that they are ok for release. I don't think I would go to jail for them. But if I was to confirm the existence of aircraft we currently have, well, then, Leavenworth is 40 minutes from here

. Thats why anything I post is considered speculation and allows the reader to make up his/her own mind about the things I say.

A quick note on the space command. We as an Air Force recently started to get heavily involved in the space aspect of our mission. Basic Training slogan changed when I was midway through to "Air Power, Space Power, AEF!!!" Having said that, there's more to our space mission than we know. This next part is just my personal feelings about things, not anything I've witnessed myself.

Our little space plane floating around in orbit is definitaly up to something up there. The payload bay is small, but not too small to launch the newest little buggers: nano satellites. These small satellites could be launched from that bay and deploy without effort. Now what is the reason for them? Who knows. DARPA's Phoenix program is still alive and running as far as I know. That's where they send these nano satellites to broken or retired orbiting satellites to get the good stuff off of them. Maybe that's what that orbiter is doing up there. Maybe it's spying. Or maybe they really are just testing it for future c model astronaut use. But whatever its doing, the Air Force slowly changed from an Air and Space Force, to a Space and Air Force. I would guess we have tons of toys up there orbiting the earth that are classified.

Oh and look the F-35B is grounded. Speaking with some other members on ATS, I think that we will never see the 2000 plus fighters from the F-35. Not even close. A new jet will take its place soon. Remember computers double in technology every 18 months...

reply posted on 21-1-2013 @ 12:43 PM by Zaphod58

Originally posted by boomer135
OK, don't shoot me, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this and it will be the last time it ever comes out of my mouth or off of my fingers, I promise. But maybe, just maybe, JUST MAYBE John "the liar" Lear was correct (or maybe lucky) when he speaks of the F-19 being produced alongside the F-117. Think about this for a second and let it soak in before the bashing. Instead of trying to debunk the theory, try to prove it. I think I can, except for the time frame, and a lot of others like myself can as well. Pictures are worth a thousand words...

He may have been right about something being produced alongside the F-117, but the rest, I think he was way off base. I've always heard rumors about there being a target lasing aircraft that flew with the Nighthawk, but never really put much stock in it until recently, when I started to make some more contacts, and have some interesting discussions.

reply posted on 21-1-2013 @ 12:51 PM by mbkennel

Originally posted by boomer135 But what about a companion aircraft? The SR-71 did have some stealth features, call it first gen stealth if you will, but what if we had a plane that was just as stealthy as the F-117 or the B-2 being built in the 80's or 90's? What if this plane flew missions right along side the F-117 using EW and perhaps A/A missiles that the F-117 lacked? Why not send in the 117's with a speedy, stealthy, ISR aircraft to make a one two punch? I believe it was LM that had like a 9 billion dollar budget gap that they couldn't account for publically. That's enough for R&D on a new aircraft and at least a few demo aircraft...

OK, don't shoot me, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this and it will be the last time it ever comes out of my mouth or off of my fingers, I promise. But maybe, just maybe, JUST MAYBE John "the liar" Lear was correct (or maybe lucky) when he speaks of the F-19 being produced alongside the F-117. Think about this for a second and let it soak in before the bashing. Instead of trying to debunk the theory, try to prove it. I think I can, except for the time frame, and a lot of others like myself can as well. Pictures are worth a thousand words...

It seems logical that there would be a reconaissance/electronic countermeasures version of the F-117, especially for the "finding targets to bomb' part of the job.
Probably not A2A---could it have internal missile stores at that time?

There's precedent for this exact combination before:

Base attack craft:
en.wikipedia.org...

Electronic warfare version:
en.wikipedia.org...

And it's likely to me that this version is still operational, just as the EA-6B stayed on-line after the A-6 was retired, and is still with the MC. Also, the F-18E + F-18G growler.

And I once remember seeing a F-117 fly over me straight out of MCAS Mirimar, except it just somehow looked a bit different, the shape wasn't quite the same.

Our little space plane floating around in orbit is definitaly up to something up there. The payload bay is small, but not too small to launch the newest little buggers: nano satellites. These small satellites could be launched from that bay and deploy without effort. Now what is the reason for them? Who knows. DARPA's Phoenix program is still alive and running as far as I know. That's where they send these nano satellites to broken or retired orbiting satellites to get the good stuff off of them. Maybe that's what that orbiter is doing up there. Maybe it's spying. Or maybe they really are just testing it for future c model astronaut use. But whatever its doing, the Air Force slowly changed from an Air and Space Force, to a Space and Air Force. I would guess we have tons of toys up there orbiting the earth that are classified.

The #1 mystery is why it has to stay in orbit for 270 days. If you're launching nano satellites (tactical comm and recon, e.g.) why wouldn't you want it to deorbit so it can be prepped quickly for the next round?

Oh and look the F-35B is grounded. Speaking with some other members on ATS, I think that we will never see the 2000 plus fighters from the F-35. Not even close. A new jet will take its place soon. Remember computers double in technology every 18 months...

So, the Navy has Raptor-envy and wants a Tomcat II, not the dog of a Lightning II?

What poor schmucks will end up buying the F35? Seems as though it's nothing but enormous corporate welfare. Even Canada says no. Marine Corps gets the short end of it once again?

Oh yeah, the Chinese stole the plans. They will have 2000+ of them, on time and under budget.

edit on 21-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-1-2013 @ 01:50 PM by boomer135

He may have been right about something being produced alongside the F-117, but the rest, I think he was way off base. I've always heard rumors about there being a target lasing aircraft that flew with the Nighthawk, but never really put much stock in it until recently, when I started to make some more contacts, and have some interesting discussions.

What you don't believe that the moon has bases on it and an atmosphere???

I never thought about the target lasing aspect of another aircraft. However since it's rumored that the 117 doesn't have EW capabilities, another part of the tag team would be the best bet. Aircraft can only jam so far...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^