Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aurora project just a cover up?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   



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.


Except it's not the same as the F-117, not even the body style
. And I would think that since the F-117 had internal bomb bay doors for bombs, why couldn't a counter part have them for missiles?





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?


Two reasons. One, if it is launching nano's to collect good stuff from old satellites, it would need a transporter to get it home. So let the orbiter orbit while it does its work, and 270 days later collect the "trash" from the nano's. 2nd is they have two built already, with a third on the way. So it's being prepped while the other is in space.



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


Yes I've been pretty avid as of recently on the F-35 not being the fighter of the future. It's gonna cost too much. I'm willing to bet that it's always been the plan.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted 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...


Now that one thinks about it, target designation would be an appropriate job. F-117's are one meatbag a pop, but usually most attack missions are two, one to fly and one to locate and bomb.

Of course being an active EM emitter isn't very stealthy now is it? How does that work? Standoff and jam, or go in and designate. Can't really do both at once, right?
edit on 21-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
From the defenceaviation link:



I've not seen this video posted before but does anybody have any background
on it? Thoughts, opinions?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Remember folks, the UK government redacted a paper of two photos to spare the blushes of the Americans. These two aircraft were as a matter of routine active in the UK skies, and could of been mistaken for triangle UFOs.

Now, when the F-117 book is finally written warts and all, i'm wondering if any pilots would like to state how it was to take off into the winds of the north sea from a cold dank north east Scottish airbase in the pitch black accompanied by their unknown buddies for destinations unknown.

Gulf War 1 was an eye opener.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135




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?


Two reasons. One, if it is launching nano's to collect good stuff from old satellites, it would need a transporter to get it home. So let the orbiter orbit while it does its work, and 270 days later collect the "trash" from the nano's. 2nd is they have two built already, with a third on the way. So it's being prepped while the other is in space.


That still doesn't justify 270 days, just a sample return capability. Why not 10 days? What exactly is the "good stuff'"?

The 270 days seems to imply some kind of longer-term surveillance, but in that case, why spend so much mass on the carrier craft? just put up your payloads. It's verhy hard to think of unmanned missions which require both long term in orbit and return capability. If you want to scoop up something, and it's so important you are willing to spend $150 million to get it, then why wait 9 months to take it home?

Radiation testing new instrumentation can be done in the lab as it has been for decades. I made the joke that it's collecting antiprotons from the southern magnetic anomaly or something crazy like that.

Only other options are crazy too. Like a nano-satellite which tags along "somebody else's" reconaissance platform and vacuums up all the comms and saves it into a hard drive for sample return and later analysis. As if it were too risky to transmit directly. And even with that, why not do what they did for CORONA and HEXAGON and return a sample capsule with known technology? Why such a big orbiter?

Again, 270 day missions and spending so much mass on reuse+return don't add up to me.
edit on 21-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   



That still doesn't justify 270 days, just a sample return capability. Why not 10 days? What exactly is the "good stuff'"?

The 270 days seems to imply some kind of longer-term surveillance, but in that case, why spend so much mass on the carrier craft? just put up your payloads. It's verhy hard to think of unmanned missions which require both long term in orbit and return capability. If you want to scoop up something, and it's so important you are willing to spend $150 million to get it, then why wait 9 months to take it home?

Radiation testing new instrumentation can be done in the lab as it has been for decades. I made the joke that it's collecting antiprotons from the southern magnetic anomaly or something crazy like that.

Only other options are crazy too. Like a nano-satellite which tags along "somebody else's" reconaissance platform and vacuums up all the comms and saves it into a hard drive for sample return and later analysis. As if it were too risky to transmit directly. And even with that, why not do what they did for CORONA and HEXAGON and return a sample capsule with known technology? Why such a big orbiter?

Again, 270 day missions and spending so much mass on reuse+return don't add up to me.
edit on 21-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


Oh I agree with you 100 percent. Actually wasn't the second one over 400 days up there? I'm by no means saying thats the only mission going on up there. But while the nanos are doing there job, the spacecraft can focus on its real mission be it spying on the enemy, tinkering with foriegn spy satellites, or always on alert to launch weapons of some sort, probably energy based.

Sorry for not linking but Google nano sats and DARPA and it shows the good stuff to be things like the solar array, various electronics and components that the US is trying to reuse and recycle instead of building more. Now it sounds good on paper if thats the case, but until we can verify we are capable of taking off from a runway and single stage to orbit somehow, is an expensive trash truck. Don't forget that allot of satellites are ran from some sort of nuclear power so maybe we're getting that material from the satellites before the space craft destroys the satellites!

Whatever is mission, it's been through the ringer with the different agencies. At least DARPA has a plan for its use.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by brace22
 


No one can catch the black triangle, so who is worried about lights.
If they hover or go slow we see lights around the ship.
Otherwise they dip thousands of feet in altitude away from Belgian jets.
There are quantum effects on air gases lighting them up due to support
and propulsion vibrations. Thats all we know.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135
Two reasons. One, if it is launching nano's to collect good stuff from old satellites, it would need a transporter to get it home. So let the orbiter orbit while it does its work, and 270 days later collect the "trash" from the nano's. 2nd is they have two built already, with a third on the way. So it's being prepped while the other is in space.

Hey Boomer, the concept of nano satelites is an interesting one, i'm not saying it is plausible, however, as for interceptng/retrieving information/transmissions from adversarial satellites? I am of the belief we have many land based technologies that already do a fine job in accomplishing this. Just MO. But, the Nano-satellite concept is interesting, something similar could be going on beyond just following foreign satellites and extracting data (however being able to identify the land based facilities where this data is being transmitted to, makes that more interesting). I actually think it is something more.


Originally posted by mbkennel
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?

Two reasons. One, if it is launching nano's to collect good stuff from old satellites, it would need a transporter to get it home. So let the orbiter orbit while it does its work, and 270 days later collect the "trash" from the nano's. 2nd is they have two built already, with a third on the way. So it's being prepped while the other is in space.,,,,,,,,,,,That still doesn't justify 270 days, just a sample return capability. Why not 10 days? What exactly is the "good stuff'"?

The 270 days seems to imply some kind of longer-term surveillance, but in that case, why spend so much mass on the carrier craft? just put up your payloads. It's verhy hard to think of unmanned missions which require both long term in orbit and return capability.


Hey mb, I think that observation of the XR-37 being in orbit for 270 days and then another orbit lasting over 400 days raises the question(s) Do these missions have dual or multiple objectives?
First to put an umanned manueverable space vehicle in more than one orbit has tremendous benefits. No need to worry about the human aspect of being in Space if it can all be monitored and choreographed from multiple bases on the ground. The payloads I am betting are 1.) experimental technology, but my gut tells me, 2.) that these deployments are utilizing the most advanced Information gathering, Surveillance and Reconaisance technologies which include next gen of optical penetration. We have satellites, yeah. But, this platform can be directed to any orbit and provide details real-time while at the same time monitoring transmissions that are pinpointed directed as well on a broad spectrum. IMHO
The duration periods enable anomalies of on ground topographical changes with optical clarity unlike anything we have been known to exist....alluded to, but, nothing has leaked out regarding this latest advancement. So the long term orbit 'watches' specific and broad points of interest with never before transparency. Transmission is another test to send undetected real-time information to multiple land-based facilities worldwide which includes detailed optical and data retrieval. If something looks suspicious, the orbit and maneuverablity gained by the XR-37 is unmatched.

With that platform increasing the advancements in intelligence gathering, in virtually a stealth deployment (sure we see them being launched, but after that, virtually unseen) then opens up a multitude of other classified ISR experiments. So the length of orbit is not the question, the question is what and where are they receiving data on, and then secondly and thirdly, what other deployments (satellites, new technology (optics/comm) are being tested or actually being used in conjunction with the length of its mission? To have the capability to 'see' better, intercept with greater specificity of communications, while controlling the orbit, specific target area, tells me to guess that we are now playing with some very powerful next gen advancements.

That could explain the duration question, they don't need to come back with the data, they already have it, and they go back and recheck, verify, record topographical changes real time, as well as targeted communications supported by existing satellite and stealth UAV's. Just my speculation.

Peace!! ID


















edit on 21-1-2013 by ItDepends because: restructured content



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by brace22
 


Great thread Brace22 -

I have been an avid airplane/astronaut enthusiast since a very young age,
and although I have only flown once in my life.. ..my passion is building
balsam airplanes and.. ..I have redesigned todays airplane.

Northrop/Grumann stole their plans for the B-2 from Hitler's Horton 229.
(no contest on that one)
The Horton 229 from what I can discern is what actually crashed in
Roswell N.M. in 1947.

A few years ago (maybe longer) Area 51 added to their longest runway an
additional undisclosed length to that particular runway which now today
stands as the worlds longest runway - which tells me that they have a plane
that travels at a high speed from an incredible height thus needing such a long
airstrip for landing...hence no hover landing method as understood with UFO's.

I have not yet learned to post pics, for the next I am about to mention does really
need a pic to do it justice.

The "Bird of PREY"

I happened on it once years ago. What a magnificent plane!!!
I have not seen anything in comparison..and this is a declassified project that
the American Government says "they did not build" other than a proto~type.
This plane flew exceptionally well and did not consist of any HUDS display or
over amplified wiring system.
It was built on yester~years technology and flew like a dream, and yet the
U.S. Government would have us believe they built it with no need and no intention
of building more than the proto types.

The TR-38 picture that was posted -
How eerily it looks like the 'Jump Jet' that was concepted in the late 1950's
by the now defunct Canadian Arrow project.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


The B-2 had nothing to do with the Horton brothers designs. Jack Northrop was building and flying the flying wing design at the same time or before they were. The 229 was a nice design but ultimately a failure.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


The B-2 had nothing to do with the Horton brothers designs. Jack Northrop was building and flying the flying wing design at the same time or before they were. The 229 was a nice design but ultimately a failure.


That is absolutely correct, Zaph. In fairness to HumAn, it is understandable why it could possibly be thought that way........but, no, the B-2, is uniquely advanced.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


The B-2 had nothing to do with the Horton brothers designs. Jack Northrop was building and flying the flying wing design at the same time or before they were. The 229 was a nice design but ultimately a failure.


We agree that Northrop designed a "all wing" plane but it was riddled with complications
and didn't compare to Horton's design.
While Northrop was having complications flying his wing with propellers, the Horton's
had already test flew their 229 with jet engines.
Horton's 229 was far superior and of course - all the information on both planes are available
for all to investigate.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


Zaphod58 and I were discussing the "flying wing" platform that was designed in
the late 1930's and was a fore runner to todays B - 2 Stealth Bomber.
edit on 22-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: spelling correction



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


The N-1M had made 28 flights by November 1941, and had all the major problems basically worked out of it. Yes it was propeller driven, but the test program developed several aspects of design that are still used today in flying wing designs.

The H.1X didn't make a flight until 1944, and then as an unpowered glider. The Ho 229 didn't make its first flight until March 1945

What's interesting is that Northrop went to the Smithsonian to study the only surviving Ho 229, and built a mock up of it to study the RCS, and see how effective it really would have been in the war. They did it on their own time and with their own money during down time between projects.
edit on 1/22/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135
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.


The RQ-170 was never meant for large numbers. They only bought 20 as it was an interim platform until the new ISR platform (probably the NG one that's under development) is flying and in service. It was never designed to do much more than fly over Afghanistan and Iraq, and doesn't have the capabilities to cover the Pacific the way they need to.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by ItDepends
 


Zaphod58 and I were discussing the "flying wing" platform that was designed in
the late 1930's and was a fore runner to todays B - 2 Stealth Bomber.
edit on 22-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: spelling correction


Yes, thanks HumAnnunaki. I understood your point and can see where you could maybe connect the dots, the Nazi flying wing certainly was an engineering advancement ahead of its time. Was it a contributing vision in the development of the B-2? I guess that could be a real possibility. We know that after the war the U.S. was extremely interested in ALL of the german technology, I'm sure the engineering plans of the 'flying wing' were disseminated to all our military aerospace companies to back engineer.


Peace!! ID



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


History states that the Horton bros designed this type of craft from the early 1930's and also
claims the 229 to be the first 'Stealth Bomber Fighter'.

Northrop designed a similar model flying wing platform.

Knowing what we know about governments and espionage, which government
infiltraded and stole the others project..?
Do you think it is possible for two people on the opposite sides of the planet to
have the same exact thought and desgn and build such a craft simultaneously..?

You do know that the 229 was extensively researched and the findings were
incorporated into the build of the B-2 Spirit..?

I would say the Americans stole the German engineering with final renderings
culminating in Operation Paperclip.
We know from Operation Paperclip that the Germans were years ahead in their
technological findings.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


History states that the Horton bros designed this type of craft from the early 1930's and also
claims the 229 to be the first 'Stealth Bomber Fighter'.

Northrop designed a similar model flying wing platform.


Jack Northrop was already trying to design the cleanest plane possible, with no protruding surfaces well before the Horton design in the 1930s. He was designing a tailless glider as early as 1923-24, but never completed it because of lack of funding. He designed the Vega as a compromise between an aircraft with no protruding surfaces, and a conventional design. In 1929, after he started the Avion Corporation, he was working on an all metal flying wing design.


You do know that the 229 was extensively researched and the findings were
incorporated into the build of the B-2 Spirit..?

I would say the Americans stole the German engineering with final renderings
culminating in Operation Paperclip.
We know from Operation Paperclip that the Germans were years ahead in their
technological findings.


It was not extensively researched for the B-2. It was a project that the engineers decided to research the 229 to see how it would have affected the war, and if it was truly stealthy. They built a mock up of it and put it on their RCS cross section tester to and then modeled what would have happened if the Germans had it earlier in the war. It's a common myth that it was for the B-2. National Geographic even taped the building of and testing of it, as well as the results. They took precise measurements so that they could get it all right, and model it accurately.


Engineers of the Northrop-Grumman Corporation had long been interested in the Ho 229, and several of them visited the Smithsonian Museum's facility in Silver Hill, Maryland in the early 1980s to study the V3 airframe. A team of engineers from Northrop-Grumman ran electromagnetic tests on the V3's multilayer wooden center-section nose cones. The cones are three quarters of an inch (19 mm) thick and made up of thin sheets of veneer. The team concluded that there was indeed some form of conducting element in the glue, as the radar signal slowed down considerably as it passed through the cone.[3]
In early 2008, Northrop-Grumman paired up television documentary producer Michael Jorgensen, and the National Geographic Channel to produce a documentary to determine whether the Ho 229 was, in fact, the world's first true "stealth" fighter-bomber.[3] Northrop-Grumman built a full-size reproduction of the V3, incorporating a replica glue mixture in the nose section. After an expenditure of about US$ 250,000 and 2,500 man-hours, Northrop's Ho 229 reproduction was tested at the company's classified radar cross-section (RCS) test range at Tejon, California, where it was placed on a 15-meter (50 ft) articulating pole and exposed to electromagnetic energy sources from various angles, using the same three frequencies in the 20–50 MHz range used by the Chain Home in the mid-1940s.[3]
RCS testing showed that a hypothetical Ho 229 approaching the English coast from France flying at 885 kilometres per hour (550 mph) at 15–30 metres (49–98 ft) above the water would have been visible at a distance of 80% that of a Bf 109. This implies an RCS of only 40% that of a Bf 109, from the front at the Chain Home frequencies. The most visible parts of the aircraft were the jet inlets and the cockpit, but caused no return through smaller dimensions than the CH wavelength.[3]
With testing complete, the reproduction was donated by Northrop-Grumman to the San Diego Air and Space Museum.[3][7] The television documentary, Hitler's Stealth Fighter (2009), produced by Myth Merchant Films featured the Northrop-Grumman full-scale Ho 229 model as well as CGI reconstructions depicting a fictional wartime scenario where Ho 229s were operational in both offensive and defensive roles.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Seems we are at a crossroads -

You wish to believe the Northrop history and I choose to believe which of
the two aircraft actually did what it was suppose to do in the early 1940's.

I guess the real question is - is Northrop and Horton a double helix
of todays B-2 Spirit..?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


Except both did what they were supposed to do. The N1M was quite a nice plane to fly once they worked the bugs out, which they did. But it's not so much a choice of choosing who to believe. It's well documented that Jack Northrop was interested in flying wing designs from very early in his career, and thought they were the way to go in the future.

As for the B-2, they already had all of Jack's information, as well as information from other stealth programs, so there was no need to copy the 229.









 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join