Almansur Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/030606p1.xml Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Neat article, thanks for posting. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Fun article. Aerospike engines huh? Hmmm... I may have to build those into my "SR-75" kit. Link to post Share on other sites
Justin Davenport Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I saw that....my mind's been a buzzing ever since. I'd love to learn more about this. I remember seeing an Aviation Week a while back with pictures of a smoke trail very high over CA and speculation about a space shuttle like vehicle being tested. Man....if this technology ever becomes practical for civil use....I would give up my bowling arm and a whole LOT else to get on board one of those things. Justin Link to post Share on other sites
steamjet58 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) Interesting article ... The 30th Recon Squadron recently reactivated at Tonopah .. The aircraft if any operated by them is unkownb in the article I read and the unit is atatched to the 57th Ops Group and supposedly has been tasked to undertake OT&E duties for what ever sysytem they are involved with .. Myabe it is this ... RJ Edited March 6, 2006 by steamjet58 Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Cool article, but the journalism may not be of the best quality. There are no named sources, a lot of claims without attribution and in many cases they're just reaching. It just sounds like it's a bit far fetched. Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 There are no named sources because the contributors don't want to expose their sources, lest they lose their trust. I can say that because I happen to know one of the contributors (and no I am not naming them). Also, I thought it was well known the 30th now operates the Predator. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) There are no named sources because the contributors don't want to expose their sources, lest they lose their trust. I can say that because I happen to know one of the contributors (and no I am not naming them). How does that bode for the validity and accuracy of the article? Also, I thought it was well known the 30th now operates the Predator. You're right, that's been public knowledge for a while now. Edited March 6, 2006 by Trigger74 Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 How does that bode for the validity and accuracy of the article? Trigger it's not surprising, and I wouldn't let that bother you. Av Leak is not above errors, but it is pretty thorough when it makes a claim like this. After seeing articles about the Aurora, Area 51 flying saucers, etc... this is one of the few I find believable. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
DPD1 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 The only thing that makes me think there was something like this at least being tested for a while, is the unexplained shock waves in the 90s... Some officials have admitted as much. But I have a hard time believing they have done as much as they are claiming. They make it sound like there's a fleet of them, and numerous sightings have been made at various bases around the world. With all that alleged activity, it seems like there would be a little more hard evidence. Dave http://www.dpdproductions.com - Featuring the NEW 'Military Aircraft' Photo CD - Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Trigger it's not surprising, and I wouldn't let that bother you. Av Leak is not above errors, but it is pretty thorough when it makes a claim like this. After seeing articles about the Aurora, Area 51 flying saucers, etc... this is one of the few I find believable.Regards, Murph That's right - it reads very well. Before, it was eyewitness accounts of strange flying jets from Joe Public and a Russian satellite photo of Area 51 with a long runway. Now, this article is attributed to those in the industry, it provides information on how the project was funded and organized and provides a few new details about the system. And because of that, it does sound plausible. I think you answered the question I wanted to ask, but couldn't ask. Personally, I gave up on "Aurora" way back in college but I still find this subject both fasinating and entertaining. I know that before he died Ben Rich said "we are not stagnating" when it comes to advanced aircraft. This is a good check in the yes column but I'm not going to get back that old level of enthusiasim until something more concrete is made public. Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm with you on this one, triiger. It's better than some of those earlier articles, but I need more concrete informatin before I'd buy into this. Link to post Share on other sites
dscttyd Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I would have to say it sounds very plausable, but the C-5c stuff is a little inaccurate. The C-5c is a A model with different aft doors and the troop compartment removed. It also has some extra power reciptacles for ( SCTS) power. SCTS refers to space container transportation system.Called SCUM birds by the crews. We used it for hauling NASA space payloads. The 2 aircraft are in fact tail 68-213 and 216. Both old A models that are used mainly as pattern birds here at Travis, although one is always on call to NASA. The extra wheels and bulges and tail numbers are not true at least for the C-5C that I have flown. the 2 tail numbers they give do not match up to any C-5 unless they have always been black birds. There were c-5bs at dover that were soll 2 aircraft but they did not have any changes from a standard b model Scott 101.7 in the super Cs Link to post Share on other sites
Mark S. Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Gents: From an auto industry engineering perspective. The best auto "rags" only got what we kept hiddened right at most 40% of the time. There are two more in-depth articles within the magazine on this topic. Does it suprise anyone? To think that we haven't kicked technology in the rear since the late 70's has been too hard for me to believe! Wonder what else is out there? Hope it sees the light of day. A read of the technology would be interesting. Mark Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Fleming Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 It raises a question that I've thought about for some time - how much of 'black' or classified programs are known within the military at large. For example, how widely known was the F-117 in the USAF before it was made public? Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 "Need to know" is an inherent part of any security classification. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 It raises a question that I've thought about for some time - how much of 'black' or classified programs are known within the military at large.For example, how widely known was the F-117 in the USAF before it was made public? Well, truth be known, the -117 was one of the worst-kept secrets in the USAF...EVERYONE and their dog knew the existence of the "stealth fighters" based in Nevada built by Lockheed powered by F404 engines...the only thing that was a successful secret was the actual appearance/shape. THAT came as a total shock to most. I actually have a huge binder in which I accumulated throughout the 80's every article mentioning the then-supposedly-nonexistent stealth fighter; it's AMAZING how much stuff was out about it...Ben Rich called Aviation Week & Space Technology "Aviation Leak." So if that much info was readily available to the civilian public, then it was common knowledge in the AF. Link to post Share on other sites
Vince Maddux Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Well, this could explan something I found while playing with Google earth a couple of months ago. I was looking at the Area 51 imagetry and found this. Could it be part of the Blackstar project? Granted the image is grainy,but it makes since. Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Uh oh, I wouldn't answer my door for a couple of days if I were you. Link to post Share on other sites
Vince Maddux Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm sure that "they" know of that it was in the statallite photo and probley thought nothing of it. IF it was an ultra top secret project, they would have edited it out. Vince Link to post Share on other sites
DPD1 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm sure that "they" know of that it was in the statallite photo and probley thought nothing of it. IF it was an ultra top secret project, they would have edited it out. Or most likely never left out in daylight in the first place... But that doesn't mean it isn't something interesting overall. Dave http://www.dpdproductions.com - Featuring the NEW 'Military Aircraft' Photo CD - Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 IF it was an ultra top secret project, they would have edited it out. IF it was an ultra top secret project, it would never have been out of the hangar during daylight. Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Uh oh, I wouldn't answer my door for a couple of days if I were you. Avoid contact with all people wearing plain black suits driving plain looking black or dark blue four-door cars (or vans with no windows for that matter :D ). Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Indeed a interesting article. Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Fleming Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 "Need to know" is an inherent part of any security classification.Regards, Murph A subtle non-answering of the question Murph! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts