A return to the Air Force for the sleek Blackbird?

stirling
What we are discussing is a dead aircraft however way you look at it......
I am a believer in the rumoured wedgie hanging off a KC 135 over the North Sea, a few years back....
Then theres the sausage contrail............and strange doings in California skies....
The Unca Sams got hardware even some top brass doesn't know about......

That photo was a hoax and even the creator of it said it was. It was made for a newspaper or something like that.

Originally posted by boomer135

stirling
What we are discussing is a dead aircraft however way you look at it......
I am a believer in the rumoured wedgie hanging off a KC 135 over the North Sea, a few years back....
Then theres the sausage contrail............and strange doings in California skies....
The Unca Sams got hardware even some top brass doesn't know about......

That photo was a hoax and even the creator of it said it was. It was made for a newspaper or something like that.

Sorry off topic
But we are agreed the guy who saw it (Royal Observer Core) actually did see something ?

Just found this ATS post on the subject

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Folks, let recent revelations, if not those earlier, be your guide on what to believe when official government sources want to inform you of what it is doing. A shortcut to that understanding is to believe nothing that they say, nothing about how or why we fight wars, the identity of UFOs or why American is being slowly castrated in dozens of different sly maneuvers.

Rather than think that the old, but wonderful SR-71 Blackbird will be revised, take a leap forward and read reliable reports on the incredible black triangles that have been seen and recorded thousands of times over the US and the UK in the last 20+ years. Take a further leap forward and seriously wonder why the shuttle was not followed up with a far more advanced rocket device. Now drop back a bit and read in the news today about how the venerable old B-52s will be outfitted with new equipment to keep them decent until 2040 or so.

Finally, stop and question the whole scenario. Should you believe what you are being told by official (and unofficial) sources, or should you do some thinking for yourself and wonder about who is flying those marvelous triangles around. Three possibilities toward making a determination:
Triangles are our revolutionary and super-secret devices.
Triangles are alien spacecraft from some distant planet.
Triangles don't exist despite rock-solid sightings, photos and videos.

Finally, a recap: Remember, it will be very helpful if you believe nothing that they tell you. Of course, that requires you then to do some thinking on your own. Can you do that? (Many people can't.)

reply to post by macpdm


There was actually never a photo, what happend was after he had the sighting of the aircraft he drew a picture of what he saw. Any pictures that claim to be a photo from Chris Gibson would be faked.

I'm not sure whether he did or did not see anything but for a high speed aircraft an Ardvark would be a pretty chase plane as they go pretty quick.

reply to post by _Del_

"Multi-frequency" stealth when discussing radar is probably referring to the fact that low-frequency radiowaves act a bit differently than the higher frequencies of search, track and targeting phase of most radars.

This just confuses the subject more. We need the actual term used.

Most radar is a chirp, not a CW pulse, so technically all radar is multifrequency. [You use a matched filter to improve the SNR of the return, essentially a convolution with the chirp itself. The radar folk call it compression, but that is not a term that really describes the signal procession well.] It is possible that is all the article meant by multifrequency. There is always the problem of the press or even the pointy headed bosses (Dilbert reference) talking to the press and presenting THEIR understanding of the issue.

Noise is proportional to the square root of the bandwidth. Wider bandwidth, more noise. [Technically only true for Johnson noise.] This is science. So all you can do is put more information in the bandwidth, typically done with a chirp, though not restricted to that stimulus.

One of the interesting things is that larger aircraft actually defeat low-frequency returns more effectively which at first glance seems counter-intuitive.

Feel free to elaborate.

Of course, at lower frequencies, say targeting, the smaller surfaces are obvious an advantage. Which results in some interesting trade-offs when discussing LO and different wave-lengths.

Feel free to elaborate.

For sure in my opinion there is a plane in the black, what kind? don't know but there is a lot of strange story about hypersonic plane since 2007, and the cancellation of Blackswift. May be a new uav type or a new piloted plane, but in this futur years there is alway a need for a high supersonic ISR plane satellite can't do all the jobs on ISR. The single new program of plane this past years is the LRS-B and there is no information about it

Sorry off topic
But we are agreed the guy who saw it (Royal Observer Core) actually did see something ?

Just found this ATS post on the subject

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 16/8/13 by macpdm because: (no reason given)

I can't even agree to that for a couple reasons. First is he claims to have seen it being refuelled in the sky. Well we refuel usually between 18,000 and FL310 or somewhere in between. Also, if it is the Aurora, they would probably be like the SR-71 and have to refuel at a higher altitute and faster than most fighters. So even though he's an expert at plane identification, could he positively make out a KC-135, two F-111's and the aurora from the ground? Highly unlikely. Not at those altitudes.

Second, the fuel that has been claimed to be used on the Aurora is some sort of liquid methane (janes) or some other exotic fuel. Now in my years of flying, we've used the KC-135T model for the SR-71 and one other project because it has separate tanks for the JP-7 (normal fuel is JP-8). I don't know of any tanker that could carry liquid methane in its forward and aft body tanks. not to mention that the aurora if it exists is supposed to have a 10,000 mile range.

So I don't believe that he saw anything. Or he saw a KC-135 with a couple dots around it.

The point that stands out for me is that the only other aircraft he could liken it to is the HP.115, which an extremely distinctive shape that stands out among all other deltas, therefore he does seem to have seen something out of the ordinary.

Having said that, the only types I have successfully ID'd at over 30,000ft by eyeball alone are the C-17, 747 and A380, with the telezoom on my camera required to distinguish, say, a 737 from an A320 at that height.

I assumed the sighting would be much lower if he is so clear, but your expertise in the field gives me sufficient doubt.

Yes boomer has certainly got me doubting the story but why lie ?

Just for fame or to get some kind of recognition within his group. As I say boomer`s obvious expertise has me doubting the story now too.

reply to post by macpdm


Might be another option. It wasnt Aurora, and it doesnt have a methan fuel system.

Maybe it was another unknown aircraft.

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by macpdm

 

Might be another option. It wasnt Aurora, and it doesnt have a methan fuel system.

Maybe it was another unknown aircraft.

There was a quote, many years ago from a USAF General who said the USAF has an aircraft in a hanger that if people saw it would say 'Aurora' - he went on to say that it looked like the artists impressions but was no where near as high tech.

I totally believe Chris Gibson, as well as other oil workers who saw it on its large circuit being refuelled before moving off.

reply to post by boomer135


I disagree that he saw nothing.

I think there is fairly compelling circumstantial evidence for an exotic to have been flying at that time in and around the North Sea and the Scottish and US coastlines, including radar operator reports, "skyquakes" and Gibson's sightings.

reply to post by neformore


I think the skyquakes were from around the same time there was a high speed aircraft testing out of Edwards or so the ledgend goes..

I also know a RAF Rader operator in scotland who spotted a fast moveing craft at MACH 4+ in the north sea and who got a call soon after right from top to send all data to the MOD and also a call from the American DOD to send the data to them and discuss it with no one.

So something was at least being tested.

But its doesnt nessarly mean it was a Blackbrid replacement.

Could have been some experimental Fighter or a Drone of some sort.

All these reports just say there was "something" not what.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by boomer135

 

I disagree that he saw nothing.

I think there is fairly compelling circumstantial evidence for an exotic to have been flying at that time in and around the North Sea and the Scottish and US coastlines, including radar operator reports, "skyquakes" and Gibson's sightings.

Well your right I shouldn't have said "nothing". But lets think about the sighting for a minute. Chris Gibsons own accord is that he was working on a oil rig in the North Sea inside a building when a co-worker stepped outside the building. He came back in and grabbed Chris to look at a formation of planes flying over the rig. Now, the fact that he was on an oil rig and the fact that this was a "hurried" situation, I doubt he had any bino's or even a telescope. So saying that he was just eyeballing this flight (and I don't doubt his skills as an aircraft spotter), it's unlikely that he could make out that the plane was a kc-135 and less likely that the two chase planes were F-111's.

Lets consider the math a bit. Here's some examples.


Federal Aviation Administration
AIM Section: 8-1-6
Vision in Flight

You may have seen aircraft flying at altitudes of 35,000' to 45,000' above you. What you notice first is the vapor trail, typically only visible at altitudes above 35,000'. Even with a plane at 35,000' or almost 7 miles, it's difficult to detect the plane -- even from the ground, where you're stationary. There are many attributes that reduce the visibility of another aircraft, including the structure of the eye itself. The Airman's Information Manual (AIM) notes, in its recommendations on proper scanning techniques, that "foveal" vision -- the smaller center in the rear of the eye -- provides only about a 10 degree angle for sharpest vision. In warning pilots to set up a series of narrow scan in successive 10-degree arcs, the AIM "An aircraft at a distance of 7 miles which appears in sharp focus with the foveal center of vision would have to be as close as 7/10 of a mile in order to be recognized if it were outside of foveal vision."

I realize that this is for pilots spotting other planes but the math still works for someone on the ground.

And here's something I wrote up for another website. It was for identifying aircraft tails and tailnumbers from the ground, and I don't feel like doing the math again. I know its easier to spot a tanker and some chicks in tow, but it's still a valid point.

If the plane is directly overhead then you aren't going to see the fin to ID the airline. So lets say it's at 45 degrees (because that's easy and you would get some view of the fin.

That aircraft then at 30000ish feet (10,000m) that's about 6 miles high and 6 miles (10km) away along the ground.

Or a slant range of around 8.5 miles (13.6 km) away.

The fin of a 747 is about 30 feet or 10m high. So the fin at 13.6km subtends an angle of arctan(10/13600) = 7.3e-04 degrees = 2.6 seconds of arc.

So to make that appear a decent size (say 10 degrees in AFOV ... about the width of your fist at arms length) you need to magnify it about 13600 times.

Even to make the fin appear 1 degree in size ( a thumb thickness at arms length) you need 1360x. So IDing the airline of a plane is not going to happen.

You can do the same for the wingspan viewed from underneath to get a feel for how much magnification you need to ID the aircraft.

Of course if he had either bino's or a telescope then it's quite possible that he saw something abnormal up there. But everything I've read never mentions them. What I think he saw was probably the formation of three aircraft (tanker and two receivers), which anyone with a little knowldege of aircraft would know that its a tanker and chicks. There was probably a 135 and two 111's, but I don't think there was a triangle aircraft there. Perhaps the boom was stowed and the angle from the ground made the ruddervadors look like a triangle at altitude.

That being said, the name aurora is not the name of an aircraft like that. It never has been. Of course people link that name with a hypersonic aircraft all the time because of the budget item. The plane in question was never massed produced to my knowledge and stayed in the testing phase because of a problem getting the aircraft to perform as specified. This was in the early 2000's though, well after Chris Gibson's sighting.

But who knows, I could be wrong and I hope I am, because new aircraft are exciting as hell to see!

This thread just keeps racing along faster than an SR-71, so sorry if I'm revisiting an older portion of it.

The top speed and altitude capabilities of the Blackbirds have long since been declassified. The aircraft (all variants) had a design cruise speed of Mach 3.2 or approximately 2,100 mph. It would cruise a little faster or slower depending on outside air temperature because it was limited by structural heating factors and compressor inlet temperature (CIT) limitations.

SR-71 pilots and engineers have stated that the aircraft would sometimes slightly exceed Mach 3.2 if the air temperature was cool enough. In higher temperatures, the aircraft was unable to attain design cruise speed due to structural temperature limits.

In 1991, NASA and Lockheed engineers studied the possibility of extending the Mach number capability of the SR-71. They examined the advantages and disadvantages of making the aircraft capable of flying at speeds from Mach 3.3 to as much as Mach 3.8 (the maximum potential of the J58 engine with an extensively modified inlet).

They determined that an enlarged inlet with a water-injection system could provide a large thrust margin increase at Mach 3.5, but there were relatively low benefits and relatively high risks. There were thermal (structural) concerns at speeds of Mach 3.5 and above. Engine compressor inlet temperature was predicted to be marginal at Mach 3.4 and virtually all engine parameters were marginal at Mach 3.5 and unacceptable beyond that speed. Ultimately the Mach extension modifications were not recommended due to the low benefit/cost ratio.

Fastest known Blackbird flights:
YF-12A (60-6936), Mach 3.14 (2,070 mph), 1 May 1965
A-12 (60-6928), Mach 3.29 (2,171 mph), 8 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972), Mach 3.32 (2,193 mph), 27 July 1976

According to SR-71 pilot Richard Graham: "The design Mach number of the SR-71 is 3.2 Mach. When authorized by the Commander, speeds up to Mach 3.3 may be flown if the CIT limit of 427 degrees C is not exceeded. I have heard of crews reaching 3.5 Mach inadvertently, but that is the absolute maximum I am aware of."

The Blackbirds were designed to fly as high as 90,000 feet, but typically operated between 70,000 and 85,000 feet.

Highest known flights:

YF-12A (60-6936) – 80,257 feet, USAF, official, 1 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972) – 85,068 feet, USAF, official, 27 July 1976
SR-71A (61-7953) – 86,700 feet, USAF, unofficial, date unknown (1968) during developmental testing
A-12 (60-6932) – 90,000 feet, CIA, unofficial, 14 August 1965

There was no direct replacement for the SR-71 after it was retired. Strategic and tactical reconnaissance missions are currently conducted by the U-2, satellites, and various unmanned vehicles.

reply to post by boomer135

The fin of a 747 is about 30 feet or 10m high. So the fin at 13.6km subtends an angle of arctan(10/13600) = 7.3e-04 degrees = 2.6 seconds of arc.

I don't know why I try to think after midnight, but I think you did the math in rads versus degrees.

But say we did the small angle approximation using s=r*theta rather than the more accurate arctangent calculation. For s=r*theta, the answer would be in rads. So we have
10=13600*theta, or theta is 10/13600 in rads. Around 7.353e-4 rads.

If I'm right, I hope you weren't thinking of knocking out an incoming meteor. ;-)

Originally posted by gariac
I have to agree with you here. I have print out from an ATC screen and it looks like they are covering at least a 200nm radius. So we're talking 230 statute miles. Take the top speed at 2200mph. Call it 2300mph to make the math easier. So you have 230/2300 which means 0.1hr to cross the screen. Actually twice that since 200mn is the radius. So it would be on the screen for up to 12 minutes. So not only would there not be a sound, but they would have plenty of time to track it.

Depending on where that screen capture was obtained it could be up to 200nmi (or even more depending on what you have a print out of.) Either way, 12 minutes on the scope is not that long. That is almost the same time an airplane is in the terminal environment and they are slowing down, descending, etc.

I just thought it was funny that the person said it made a sound. It conjured up the scene from Spaceballs really. "I lost the bleeps, the sweeps and the creeps".

gariac
reply to post by boomer135

 

The fin of a 747 is about 30 feet or 10m high. So the fin at 13.6km subtends an angle of arctan(10/13600) = 7.3e-04 degrees = 2.6 seconds of arc.

I don't know why I try to think after midnight, but I think you did the math in rads versus degrees.

But say we did the small angle approximation using s=r*theta rather than the more accurate arctangent calculation. For s=r*theta, the answer would be in rads. So we have
10=13600*theta, or theta is 10/13600 in rads. Around 7.353e-4 rads.

If I'm right, I hope you weren't thinking of knocking out an incoming meteor. ;-)

Yeah your probably right. It was way too late. But I don't know any other way to show that your not going to be able to see the type of aircraft with the naked eye at say FL300 or so. I have better than 20/20 vision and I have a hard time spotting F-15's five miles behind the tanker!

There is an interesting video on you tube about the 70 years Skunk Works, and at the end of the video there is a plane look like HTV-3X with a Global Strike slogan, may be a Blackswift revival for the futur years to come.