A return to the Air Force for the sleek Blackbird?

reply to post by boomer135


I'd consider the F-111 being spotted far more likely than any test article. The thing about the F-111 is you don't see it often, so it could confuse a witness. Similarly, there are a number of spiny looking aircraft that people think are UAVs, such as the LongEZ. If there isn't a photograph, I zero out the report. Eyewitness testimony is usually terrible.

Naked eye spotting is pretty bad. Sometimes you see what you are used to seeing, in my case a C-130 rather than a P-3, based on what is commonly flying in your area. Basically you can count the engines and see if it is a jet or prop. Beyond that, your chances of getting it wrong are pretty good. The US Army has a spotting guide. I also have a deck of the spotting cards. The goal of the army document is to classify the aircraft by recognizable elements first, then conclude from that the type of aircraft.

Something like this, but my deck isn't suitable for playing card games:
aircraft recogniion flash cards

This guide shows how to break down the elements a bit more, such as are the wings swept, location of air intake, etc.
Army Guide in power point

Now with binoculars, it is a different story. When camped out near the TTR in the hills, you can see the logos on aircraft about 25 miles away with binoculars. Certainly UPS. Most aircraft at cruising altitude in the area are flying to or from the Coaldale VOR. There is so much air traffic north of the TTR that you wonder how they can keep anything a secret. Worse yet Base Camp, where the aircraft often go directly over it.

Originally posted by gariac
Basically you can count the engines and see if it is a jet or prop. Beyond that, your chances of getting it wrong are pretty good.

Not for some people. I know quite a few spotters (myself included) that have almost no problem telling you what kind of plane it is at some wild distances. I used to win bets by identifying the type and airline as they went overhead on Oahu, before descending down and circling onto final approach.

For most people, yes, they're going to have trouble identifying the type at any kind of range, but for the serious spotter, or people with a lot of experience, they can usually identify the type. They might not be able to tell a 747-400 from a 747-300, but usually can tell an A330 from an A340.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Why did I think I would see a post like this. ;-)

Like I said, ignore all eyewitness accounts. Only trust physical evidence, such as photography. Even then, use forensics to insure it isn't faked.

Originally posted by crazyewok
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.

edit on 17-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

And you have subpenaed the radar logs? Good. Lets see the evidence.

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
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..

My thread on skyquakes:
skyquakes

There are a lot of problems with using skyquakes as evidence. Breaking the sound barrier over water isn't all the uncommon. It sure gets you in less trouble than breaking it over land!

The USAF has paid out claims for property damage in Central Nevada where sonic booms are quite common. Broken glass I understand, but some claims were for foundation damage. So if you don't have a training range in the desert, i.e. Edwards or the NTTR, you are more likely to be doing your supersonic flight over water, presumably in a W area. I witnessed a sonic boom over Rachel (the so-called quiet zone on the NTTR map) that knocked a shingle off the Little Aleinn.

To top this all off, you can break the sound barrier with a mach 1 plane. It doesn't have to be anything special beyond that. There are civilian owners of supersonic aircraft like the Viggen.

reply to post by gariac


I don't trust eyewitnesses as far as I can throw my truck with a loaded trailer. But to lump everyone into the same "you can't tell at that distance" category isn't right either. Just because you don't believe eyewitnesses, doesn't mean that no one can tell something. You don't have to believe them, but don't tell me that I can't sit here and tell the difference between two planes at distances I used to routinely do it at. I had to play spotter on the ramp to watch for when birds were coming in, so we'd be aware and ready for them before they were touching the runway.

Also note that I wasn't saying I could tell the airline while the plane was at 30,000 feet. I'm talking 15K max, usually not even that high. I can usually tell the type higher than that, but I'm not super human, and I can't tell you what airline or anything like that.

reply to post by gariac


Well seeing as its sitting in the heart of the MOD files under classified............

I was just saying what I was told. Dunno why a RAF radar guy would lie. Maybe he did? Dunno why he would.

Dont know why its a strecth of the imagination. Hes hardy claiming anything sensational.

We know classified aircraft and projects exist. The sceintists at Lockheed Sunk works and Area 51 are not paid to sit on there arses.

I reeeeeaaaaallly hope this will be true!! The SR-71 is my favourite of all favourite planes and seeing it fly would be the highlight of my life

On the subject of the "black triangles", even if they're being flown, it could just be being tested and in that case, it might not be in service for any number of years so it wouldn't necessarily be the replacement for the Blackbird.

Also, this thread has made me realise that everyone believes what Zaphod + Boomer say!! I don't mean this offensively in any way, I have massive respect for you guys, but you could be anyone + if you even slightly hint at a top secret plane existing, everyone instantly believes you... It amuses me

You know, I don't think anyone is really intentionally lying or trying to fool someone. I just think it's a natural tendency to want to come up with an answer that seems to fit. Saying "I couldn't tell" when you're supposed to be knowledgeable about a subject is a difficult thing to do. Your reputation is at stake.

There's also a natural tendency to fill in details with what you think ought to be there. None of this is an intentional criticism of anyone; it's the nature of the beast when you're dealing with the physical extremes of the human eye and perception.

When people claim to be able to perform extraordinary feats of perception, I tend to smile and nod affirmatively and go about my business. There's not much else you can do.

Originally posted by boomer135
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!

I see no reason for Gibson to lie. He's made no money out of it at all, nor would he have.

Again, the circumstantial evidence I'm compiling places an exotic flying at least mid-90's. One of these days I'll write a thread on it

Originally posted by Florasaurus
Also, this thread has made me realise that everyone believes what Zaphod + Boomer say!! I don't mean this offensively in any way, I have massive respect for you guys, but you could be anyone + if you even slightly hint at a top secret plane existing, everyone instantly believes you... It amuses me

Over the years they have established some street cred. Those who follow these threads on a regular basis know that from previous threads and posts. Compare that to someone new who comes on here posting what looks like technical stuff, but we really don't know who they are or where they come from. THOSE are the people you don't know anything about. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but there is no context.

About the only thing you can do is apply your own information and see where it fits best. When I read these guys I look for stuff I know from my own experience to be true. When I find that sort of thing it makes me more inclined to believe the rest of what they say about which I don't have any information. Over time you build a level of trust. I would hope that when I start talking about carriers, Zaphod & Co are more inclined to believe what I say than some newbie who comes on here and declares all carrier are obsolete.

This is not mathematics with its levels of proof. It's a highly speculative and subjective, a field where facts are elusive. We're just doing the best we can. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but to say you are "amused" carries with it a somewhat superior aura that I'm not sure is justified. Just sayin....

Originally posted by schuyler
Over time you build a level of trust. I would hope that when I start talking about carriers, Zaphod & Co are more inclined to believe what I say than some newbie who comes on here and declares all carrier are obsolete.

Funny you should say that. Just the other day I was talking about That Thread (you know the one I mean), and how some of the ideas being tossed around made me want to beat my head against the wall. I said that when you pop in, and start talking carriers, I always take the time to read it, because I may learn something I didn't know, and at the very least, find out where they are, and what they're up to.

As for people believing me and Boomer, it has to do with the fact, that with the exception of one thread, I have tried my damndest to not post purely speculative topics, or posts when it comes to aviation. If I can't confirm it with a second source, or it's not from a source that I have known for awhile and has a record for giving me good information, then with very very few exceptions, I don't post it. I may go into another thread and speculate about whether something exists or not, but I'm not going to read something online that I can't confirm, or doesn't come from a trustworthy source, and run to ATS and post it. And when I do speculate, I do my best to give solid reasons as to why I think that way.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Boomer has physical evidence for much of what he says. That certainly seals the deal for me.

Florasaurus

Also, this thread has made me realise that everyone believes what Zaphod + Boomer say!! I don't mean this offensively in any way, I have massive respect for you guys, but you could be anyone + if you even slightly hint at a top secret plane existing, everyone instantly believes you... It amuses me

A lot of it has to do with our backrounds as well. Zaphod grew up around the air force and navy, and we've met several times before face to face to share information. Gariac is well known from his investigative skills and all the stuff on his website, basically he's lived the life so far. Shadowhawk wrote the book on the SR-71 (I have a signed copy ) among other books he's written. I don't know much about carriers and the navy, but every time schuyler writes I always take the time to read. There are others out there that are relatively new to ATS like stealthbomber who has good information and is making a name for himself as well. I'm sure I'm missing some, but there are a bunch of people that I take the time to read what they say. But yes it does help to have physical evidence when posting stuff on the web. Thats why I made it a point to show a couple people on here the pictures that would get me in trouble to post online at the moment.

But anyway, shadowhawk got my hopes up with the news that south base is increasing the security in the near future. That can only mean that a new project is coming out of the black world and at least going grey. I can only speculate about which one, but with the b-2 crap there I wouldn't be surprised if it was the lrs-b project.

I see no reason for Gibson to lie. He's made no money out of it at all, nor would he have.

Again, the circumstantial evidence I'm compiling places an exotic flying at least mid-90's. One of these days I'll write a thread on it

Well I somewhat agree with your first sentence in that, yes he didn't make money on his story, but if someone wanted to make up a story about seeing an exotic aircraft, who better than a world class airplane spotter? Having said that, it's entirely possible he saw something cool, but without proof, it's just another spotting, with a little credibility.

And I have no doubt in my mind that there is an exotic aircraft that was flying in the mid 90's and the early 2000's for that matter. But I'm about 95% sure its not a hypersonic aircraft. Just look at the two known hypersonic aircraft that have been tested. The X-43 was flown between 2001 and 2004 and had somewhat good success. However it only flew three times before it was cancelled and replaced with Boeings X-51 Waverider. They've had problems with this aircraft as well, as the scramjet technology is still being fine-tuned. They've had successful tests, however, and the X-51 was supposed to be the stepping stone to the blackswift aircraft. They also plan on using the X-51 for the High Speed Strike Weapon being developed for use in the 2020's.

But all these experimental planes have one thing in common: they are all unmanned. So if Aurora does exist and was flown in the 1990's, and does go hypersonic, then why are we still flight testing hypersonic scramjet articles? It's my belief that aurora is nothing more than a line item on the budget for the B-2 program. Were a little off topic I know, but going back to the story I "believe" there was a replacement for the SR-71, however it's not hypersonic.

neformore
Again, the circumstantial evidence I'm compiling places an exotic flying at least mid-90's. One of these days I'll write a thread on it

I'm definitly looking forward to that! Start writing! lol

reply to post by boomer135


Thanks Boomer, really means a lot

Back onto topic, Lockheed Martin Skunkworks released a promotional video about a week ago showing the future of their designs.

The first few aircraft are ones they've designed such as F-117, Sr-71 etc. but then they show a 'global strike' and 'tomorrow's fighter' concept aswell.

The Global Strike looks pretty similar to the rumored fast movers.

The image doesn't seem to work so here's the link to the article aswell.

Skunkworks

Stealthbomber
The image doesn't seem to work so here's the link to the article aswell.

Skunkworks

Can't get the video to work either. Maybe its just my tablet

reply to post by boomer135


Could be the tablet, it works on my iPhone.

Here's a link for you to copy and paste into your browser and see if that works.

youtu.be...

Originally posted by schuyler
This is not mathematics with its levels of proof. It's a highly speculative and subjective, a field where facts are elusive. We're just doing the best we can. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but to say you are "amused" carries with it a somewhat superior aura that I'm not sure is justified. Just sayin....

I wish I had a "superior aura", as a 21 year old student, I'm not superior to anyone... I have huuuuuge respect for these guys, and gariac, they're obviously really intelligent, I'm not doubting that at all. All I was saying is that people are very trusting of others and I as a suspicious person, I don't really understand that (I was raised that way...)

Anyways, I'm really not here to make any enemies, and thanks Boomer for the explanation about everyone, I have to admit that before reading that & Zaphod's post earlier in this thread I had no idea about anyone's background which might be what made me a bit wary

reply to post by Stealthbomber


I like the Global Strike, it looks good and quite different from other rumoured concepts I've seen. Is there any definite news on who's competing for the LRS-B??

As for "tomorrows fighter", I'm not convinced... It just looks like an F-22 that's been sat on by an elephant. Although going from cars, apparently that's whats cool now