Boscombe Down: discussion nearly 23 years after the incident

I decided to make a new thread about this mystery incident that happened in the evening of the 26 September 1994. Because of the fact that there are many hints floating around here on ATS forum in different topics about what crashed there etc. it will be a good place to make some conclusions and put some pieces together.

What we already know:
- the aircraft involved in the incident had nothing to do with YF-23 or THAP;
- it was not 'F-117 Companion';
- it was black world bird that had invard canted tails and forebody chines;
- 737 JANET appeared at Boscombe a few days after the incident had happened;
- the wreck was carried into C-5 and transported to KPMD(Plant 42);
- the bird was manned;
- it was operational by NRO*

Discussion, what it might be? There is rumor that something is going to see light of a day in the nearest future. Any chances that we will know what crashed there??

Any thoughts, suggestions?
Zaph, maybe you

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
I decided to make a new thread about this mystery incident that happened in the evening of the 26 September 1994. Because of the fact that there are many hints floating around here on ATS forum in different topics about what crashed there etc. it will be a good place to make some conclusions and put some pieces together.

What we already know:
- the aircraft involved in the incident had nothing to do with YF-23 or THAP;
- it was not 'F-117 Companion';
- it was black world bird that had invard canted tails and forebody chines;
- 737 JANET appeared at Boscombe a few days after the incident had happened;
- the wreck was carried into C-5 and transported to KPMD(Plant 42);
- the bird was manned;
- it was operational by NRO*

Discussion, what it might be? There is rumor that something is going to see light of a day in the nearest future. Any chances that we will know what crashed there??

Any thoughts, suggestions?
Zaph, maybe you

Here's one story from The Independent in 1997 that reckons the crash did occur for starters, and some witnees reports.
www.independent.co.uk...

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Zaph won't comment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But this thread has some theories.

a reply to: grey580

Yeah, I used this thread to complete my list "What we already know"

Add to the list an interesting report from the University of Southampton's Institute of Sound and Vibration who allegedly recorded several anomalous low frequency events on nights preceding the alleged crash.

Aaaaahhhh you just gotta love how urban legends grow and grow with time!!!!!

The more likely (although way less exciting) answer was that it was a Tornado towing a drogue chute that failed to retract properly,hence the reason the local police closed the road because it had ropes across it.Everything else that allegedly makes it a cover up was just part of the every day business that is Boscombe Down that has been carefully woven into the story to make the conspiracy angle seem more likely.
They had visits from USAF heavy transports at other times and being a test base there was no real 'normal' visitor for BD.Apart from the local spotters and sensation seeking tabloid newspapers who really wanted some top secret black ops aircraft to have crashed there (they can't even agree if it was taking off or landing),the more mundane explanation is the more likely one.

Here's a site with the supposed official story. A tornado towing something classifed.

And the top secret american aircraft with nose wheel collapse.

www.urbanghostsmedia.com...

Also here's a pdf from that site.

www.stealthskater.com...

The aircraft was a "Stealth bomber" when I pressed for details. He stated that it was of a type similar
to the B-2 but about the size of a Tornado. The accident had occurred on landing, and he had overhead a
discussion concerning an electrical and hydraulic failure. On landing the nose gear failed, pushing the
nose into the runway but surprisingly doing little damage to the aircraft. The aircraft had twin tails
located outboard of the top-mounted "lumps", and little else was visible due to coverings on the aircraft
to obscure its shape from view.

On landing the nose gear failed, pushing the nose into the runway but surprisingly doing little damage to the aircraft.

Soft bitumen then or did it land on the lawn..?
B2 shape but with inward canted tails and then leading edge chines?

I wonder whether this aircraft( see link) was a product of an overactive imagination or something glimpsed and possibly linked to the above ?
stealth painting by usafe airman
(sorry Chrome wont let me insert images)

a reply to: Blackfinger

Nose gear failures can produce surprisingly little damage to the airframe. I've seen some that only ended up with damage to the gear doors, and right around them. Even skidding down the runway.

This is the best and most coherent explanation I've read about this incident....

Like all conspiracy theoreis, what starts as one simple incident, gets snowballed out of all proportion due to soemone (generally who desperatly wants to belive something in the first place) adds 2 and 2 togther, and makes a huge number. For what it is worth, and people who believe the conspiracy theory will not believe me, I worked at Boscombe at that time and can perhaps shed sone light on some of the bits of the equation: 1. There was an incident on a Tornado which was doing trilas with a towed decoy, which failed to retract, hence the shutting of the main road outside the base. 2. There are generally American exchange pilots at Boscombe (at the time, it was Rick Husband I think, the shuttle commander during the Colombia accident). 3. A C5 was at Boscombe to take (or bring back) a helicopter from AUTEC. 4. The unmarked Boeing 707 was an Italian Air Force tanker at Boscombe for AAR trials. 5. The Agusta 109 was at Boscombe for trials. 6. The Gulfstream was a VIP aircraft. (Interesting aside. It was Tom Cruise visting Nicole Kidman who was in the local area making a film. Heale House- Portrait of a Lady). 7. The rolling deck was just being delivered from Bedford. Covered in tarpaulin. All of these things happened in the space of a few days. As I said 2+2 is a huge number

www.pprune.org...

As I remember it at the time,the idea that it was some sort of fantastically secret stealth plane didn't start to propagate until some time afterwards.The idea started with 'we couldn't see what they were doing,therefore they must be hiding something' and blossomed into a full blown episode of the X files with the smoking man seen wandering around outside the hangers.

a reply to: Imagewerx

So the MoD just allows anyone to fly in to one of their bases, where one of their big testing companies does a lot of work? We never let just anyone fly in to our bases, because they were famous.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Imagewerx

So the MoD just allows anyone to fly in to one of their bases, where one of their big testing companies does a lot of work? We never let just anyone fly in to our bases, because they were famous.

If I remember correctly,they have a civilian flying club based at Boscombe but they can only fly there at weekends as with quite a few of our MoD airfields.Anyone else is on a PPO basis and aren't automatically granted permission to land there.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Quellish provided analysis of the official story in the piece linked above:

Of course, this story doesn't hold water at all. In 1994, there indeed was a UK aerial decoy program undergoing tests involving the Tornado -- in fact, the UK's ONLY towed decoy (and it is anything BUT secret, and no sources in the US or UK have allu ded to a "secret" decoy). The GEC - Marconi Ariel Airborne Towed Radar Decoy was developed in the 1980s to protect military aircraft against radar threats such as SAMs and air - to - air missiles. In 1991, it was pressed into service on Nimrod aircraft after a short testing period, and at the time had been tested only on the Buccaneer and a Jetstream. In 1994 - 1995, testing on Tornados was conducted. And in 1996, it was tested operationally in Bosnia on Tornados. Interestingly, all of the flight tests on Torn ados were conducted in the U.S. from Holloman AFB and on the Nellis AFB range. So the story of the towed decoy being tested on a Tornado in the UK during 1994 is fishy. But it gets better. Ariel can be attached to aircraft and deployed in several ways, differing with each type of aircraft. Larger aircraft such as the Nimrod are equipped with the means to recover the decoy in flight. Smaller aircraft -- the Tornado in particular -- use a kit to attach the decoy to the existing chaff countermeasures syst em and have no winch system. The decoy is separated by explosives at the end of the mission and is thus disposed of. It is fairly inconceivable how the decoy could remain attached. It can be separated at the end of the cable, two ways at the point which it attaches to the BOZ chaff pod, or the wing mounted chaff pod can be jettisoned entirely. So the Tornado story just didn't make much sense.

Too many things dont add up in the official story if you include the UoS Vibrations, weird flights and the strong possibility that there have been at least a couple of small production run "specials" operating outside of the US in the required time frame.

Not sure I believe the planform descriptions and I certainly dont believe the "flight line" eyewitness account in Quellish's analysis- but how tempting would it have been to make a few mini B2's that do scud hunting/passive recon of enemy positions/whatever you fancy??

Never spotted it before in the above linked doc but the bit about:

"Of course, several people working on the F117A program at the time have conformed privately that there were 2 other types of aircraft allowed "downtown" over the skies of Baghdad during the war." is interesting.

Heard rumour that a RQ3 Darkstar derivative was operating over Baghdad so might just be a couple of early UAV types- which would also make a lot of sense.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Too many things dont add up in the official story if you include the UoS Vibrations...

Perhaps the towed object had the odd bit of aeroelastic flutter.

"Of course, several people working on the F117A program at the time have conformed privately that there were 2 other types of aircraft allowed "downtown" over the skies of Baghdad during the war." is interesting.

Heard rumour that a RQ3 Darkstar derivative was operating over Baghdad so might just be a couple of early UAV types- which would also make a lot of sense.

Fancy that. Hey, there were a few bits of info about, let's say, extremely conductive strands of material just sort of fluttering down onto the power systems as well. Didn't hear a lot about that after, but it elicits the same sort of tight-mouthed reaction.

a reply to: Bedlam

I was rather under the impression that those carbon strand dispensing Tomahawk warheads were common knowledge and not particularly denied. I remember being told at the time about them, and later reading about it. Mind you I was in a particular unit of our services at the time and heard plenty of other things too, some of which turned out to be complete rubbish, some not.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hi Zaph,

Short answer is not just anyone but certain people...yes. Northolt may not host Qinetiq but it's still an active RAF base, and just about anyone can fly in there if you can pay the fees.

I've spent years down in Boscombe, no one there pays much attention to anything other than the Tonka crash explanation. There are some very interesting articles tested out of Boscombe down, but in this case the explanation was much less exciting than some websites would have us believe.

Cheers
Robbie

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: Bedlam

I was rather under the impression that those carbon strand dispensing Tomahawk warheads were common knowledge and not particularly denied. I remember being told at the time about them, and later reading about it. Mind you I was in a particular unit of our services at the time and heard plenty of other things too, some of which turned out to be complete rubbish, some not.

For some reason, it seems to be off limits. I brought it up a few times at 'work' and got whites around people's eyes.

eta: I take it that it's got a bit better than carbon strands.

etaa: I guess technically it's still carbon. Just better conducting carbon.

a reply to: Bedlam

IIRC there have been photos of the aftermath of those strikes with images of charred carbon strands draped over transformers and power lines on the web. So I'm surprised your colleagues/associates were aghast.

I take it you are referring to the kind of carbon that can be made into teeny weeny tubes?

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: Bedlam

IIRC there have been photos of the aftermath of those strikes with images of charred carbon strands draped over transformers and power lines on the web. So I'm surprised your colleagues/associates were aghast.

I take it you are referring to the kind of carbon that can be made into teeny weeny tubes?

or very flat sheets...