# Secret Aircraft



## StarHalo

We had a pretty happening secret aircraft thread that was lost in The Great Deletion, and there's been no shortage of unique and interesting articles on the subject since then, so this thread will pick up where the last one left off. 

This landed in California today:







It's the Air Force's X-37B unmanned spacecraft, which was sent into orbit (via rocket) from Cape Canaveral on March 2011 - it was in orbit for 15 months. No other details were given.


----------



## EZO

I was surprised when I saw the size of the X-37B. It's tiny!
And the hazmat suits these guys were wearing after the landing are certainly interesting.
Maybe it has something to do with the brownish stains on the craft that one of them is pointing to.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

I love me some X-37B. I've read everything I could find on it and it's very interesting *in a between the lines sort of way.* Remember when the old, dead, Sov spy sat collided with another sat a year or so ago? The Russian military accused the US of using the X-37 to autonomously capture the dead spy sat and then purposely put it on a collision course with the live one. I don't believe it but it would seem to show that the Russians have done their homework on this and have come to the conclusion that this thing can operate autonomously out to the Clark Belt and they (and nearly everyone else) can't see anything that it does beyond NEO.

IMO this is all about servicing high endurance sats. A De-facto case could be made for that. Sat watchers were keenly aware that the Shuttle was all about re-fueling and upgrading sats-- the ISS was PR. Now that the shuttle is gone it becomes apparent that there has been a *very quiet paradigm shift in satellite maintenance...* Recent experimental autonomous maintenance systems launched for sats have had nearly spectacular outcomes so I would fully expect the X-37B to be a follow-on, which is sort of in line with it's mission statement.

Having said that, this is the blackest of the black. Early on it becomes a thought problem, because it's capabilities are some of the most dearly held secrets... Sussing out nuggets on this is just like trying to find out about sats. It ends up being a counterintuitive process where the answers sometimes lie in the empty spaces between the facts. Patterns...

BTW-- On HAZMAT suits, if it was refueling sats with hydrazine it would have to be cleaned up before human contact.


----------



## Steve K

Interesting stuff! 
I agree with Sub Umbra regarding the hazmat suits... hydrazine is a common fuel and extremely nasty stuff. I can't imagine what other sort of hazardous material you'd expect to see on a spacecraft.

Refueling and upgrading sats seems like a necessary task, but does it require a vehicle that can fly back to earth? The only good reason for a lifting body spacecraft is for returning fairly fragile cargo back to earth. For anything else, just throw a heatshield and some parachutes on it.

Did a lot of satellite maintenance every occur? I spent a little time working on modular power systems for satellites. Some were NASA science satellites, and some were black hole programs. The satellites would routinely work for 10 years or more, like the UARS that returned last year. They never were fixed up or refueled, to my knowledge, despite being built for easy module replacement. The Hubble is the only one that comes to mind. My impression was that a repair mission was as expensive as launching most satellites, so there wasn't much point in going up just to fix one. .... sort of like how it's not practical to fix most consumer electronics nowadays.

regards,
Steve K.


----------



## BVH

It came down about 25 miles south of my location. Didn't see it though!


----------



## 127.0.0.1

hazmat is for the monopropellant used in thrusters...highly toxic


----------



## Illum

127.0.0.1 said:


> hazmat is for the monopropellant used in thrusters...highly toxic



Hydrazine [N2​H4​] is my guess, down here at the cape they use it as a low power monopropellent more often for thrusters than peroxide


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Steve K said:


> ...Did a lot of satellite maintenance every occur?...


 Do you remember the classified Shuttle missions *with only military crew members?* They were refueling Keyhole birds. (Allegedly, Keyhole12 (aka Misty?) and it's decendants are refuelable) Money may be saved by having the capability to refuel sats built for long service life. One Keyhole sat costs about what a modern aircraft carrier costs: $1 billion. It is definitely cheaper to bring up some more fuel than to design, build and launch another billion dollar satellite. We've been plodding in this general direction for years. Decades...

How many times has *just* the Hubble been upgraded? Many times.

For some time now the US has been trying to standardize two things: refueling ports on sats designed for refueling by an autonomous ship and bays for sats that will accept upgrades in standard form factors, again, to be delivered by and swapped out by autonomous ships.

It's all a very big deal. If they screw up on the design and the sat is delivered to orbit Dead On Arrival or just Fuzzy On Arrival (like the Hubble was) it's a great time, money and face saver to be able to have the tools to fix it. Also many of our sats have service lives long enough that upgrades will be planned even far before initial launch.

There was a program called *NEXT* (for Next Generation Sat). Unfortunately, I no longer remember the name of the second half of the program.

Along these lines we also have a sat delivery bus. Once loaded onto the bus, sats for more than one destination may be launched into a parking orbit for a few days of post-launch testing before final autonomous delivery to their individual stations. The bus will deliver multiple sats much more cheaply than using two or three stages for each. 

Previously our only course for refueling and repairs/upgrades was the Shuttle. If we did not see these very same abilities live on in other systems we would have *never* retired any Shuttles as long as we had some still flyable.

My own conclusion is that this is a very versatile ship. *The X-37B already far enhances the capabilities of the defunct Shuttle* in regards to upgrades and refueling. And even the ongoing developmental costs of these types of *unmanned ships* are dirt cheap when compared to flying Shuttles around. Of course, having the ability to do meaningful work way, way, *way* outside the Shuttle's confined environ within NEO is what really makes this thing cook...that and all the black stuff inherent in a vehicle with the range and endurance of the X-37B.


----------



## Imon

I love super secret space technology!
It was great when the Russians finally admitted that they mounted an autocannon to one of their old spacecrafts and test fired it. Wondered if we've done something similar...


----------



## EZO




----------



## LEDAdd1ct

Here's the deal: 

The brown goo is mud. We were on the verge of war with an alien race, and rather than duke it out with lasers and bombs and space grenades, NASA and the alien's equivalent, being scientists and not soldiers, decided to settle things with an old fashioned mud fight. 

We're not sure who won, but the fact is, we're still here, so I can only assume a truce or outright win for the peoples of Earth. 

You have a beautiful planet, by the way!


----------



## Steve K

neat video. 
Always fun to see what parts get hot, etc. It has me wondering why the rudders look hot, and not just the leading edges.

The soundtrack has me confused too, as it sounds like a jet engine. Might be chase planes? It's certainly not the X-37B itself!

Steve K.


----------



## Th232

Steve K said:


> Always fun to see what parts get hot, etc. It has me wondering why the rudders look hot, and not just the leading edges.



Given how far they stick out, if it's descending then I expect the outer/underside of the tails would come up against a lot of air like the nose and underside of the body & wings would.


----------



## orbital

EZO said:


> ....



+

_*"Hey Larry, look what's inside this thing!"*_


----------



## AZPops

I've got a quick question. If this suppose to be a "secret", how come there's photos of it?


----------



## AnAppleSnail

AZPops said:


> I've got a quick question. If this suppose to be a "secret", how come there's photos of it?



It can't be completely hidden, but we don't know what it did. One thing that we CAN guess is its ability to redirect orbits.

Changing orbital inclination costs incredible fuel, so crashing satellites into one another is tricky. Knowing its size (And guessing at fuel contents) and rough engine performance, we can start to guess its ability to nudge other things. But testing imaging systems, detection systems, and maybe even some weapon systems would be harder to detect.

One could go all star-wars and try to think of how to detect X-ray laser tests and so forth. Honestly, the stuff in orbit is so far away it's hard to see what it's up to. And even harder to know what's inside it. Spaceplanes are nothing new, though. Chuck Yeagar flew sub-orbital spaceplane flights around the time my dad was born - and the Air Force was working on orbit-capable spaceplanes then.


----------



## EZO

AZPops said:


> I've got a quick question. If this suppose to be a "secret", how come there's photos of it?



I had the same thought. Obviously, the "real" secret stuff is still secret and the X-37B is something the Air Force is willing to go public with now.
Remember when the futuristic looking Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft started making its way into the public consciousness back in the late 80's and early nineties and everyone was in awe of the thing? 
It had been a black project already in service since 1964 before anyone knew about. And the SR-71 was preceded by the Lockheed A-12 reconnaissance aircraft and the YF-12 interceptor which started development in the late 50's. 

So, I wonder what ever happened to the Aurora?


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

This looks very similar to the "lifting body" designs of the mid to late 90's, perhaps the reason they went with that instead of a stronger, recoverable capsule is that maybe it was easier to make larger, or perhaps the drawbacks of having to transport wings and fins, reducing the available cargo space, outweighs the benefit of the extra space. 

Either way, I can't wait to see more test launches, and no more sinking sick stomach feeling should this one explode on launch. I like that this appears to be intended for more standard design rockets.


----------



## StarHalo

AZPops said:


> I've got a quick question. If this suppose to be a "secret", how come there's photos of it?



The average Space Shuttle mission was seven days in length. The craft above was in space for roughly 450 days. You know how much a Shuttle crew can accomplish in a week, so what went on for over a year on the X-37B?


----------



## Cyclops942

StarHalo said:


> The average Space Shuttle mission was seven days in length. The craft above was in space for roughly 450 days. You know how much a Shuttle crew can accomplish in a week, so what went on for over a year on the X-37B?


The world may never know.


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> The average Space Shuttle mission was seven days in length. The craft above was in space for roughly 450 days. You know how much a Shuttle crew can accomplish in a week, so what went on for over a year on the X-37B?



well, without the need to sustain the parasitic life form on the spacecraft, it has the freedom to hang around in orbit for quite a while. Maybe they were evaluating how long you can leave a craft with that sort of fuel system parked in orbit w/o things breaking down? Of course, satellites probably already have a similar fuel system, so this seems unlikely. 

Personally, I'm still scratching my head over why they need a vehicle that can fly back to earth when it clearly isn't intended to transport humans. I'll just assume that it brought back valuable cargo of some sort.... spy satellite parts? Parts scavenged off of other countries' satellites? Space mushrooms grown in orbit??

Steve K.


----------



## Imon

Steve K said:


> ...
> 
> Personally, I'm still scratching my head over why they need a vehicle that can fly back to earth when it clearly isn't intended to transport humans. I'll just assume that it brought back valuable cargo of some sort.... spy satellite parts? Parts scavenged off of other countries' satellites? Space mushrooms grown in orbit??
> 
> Steve K.



Maybe they're trying to gather helium in anticipation for our upcoming helium shortage. :laughing:


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I'm glad they are not just throwing away the vehicles. Hopefully, they even recover the booster stages' gas tanks too. I've always wondered if that is practiced or not.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I'm glad they are not just throwing away the vehicles. Hopefully, they even recover the booster stages' gas tanks too. I've always wondered if that is practiced or not.



SpaceX is working on doing so. It isn't standard practice right now.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

> The average Space Shuttle mission was seven days in length. The craft above was in space for roughly 450 days. You know how much a Shuttle crew can accomplish in a week, so what went on for over a year on the X-37B?



We have to look at this differently than manned flight. Lots and lots and *lots* of the time was spent *in transit* from one far flung place to another. I think it's important to realize that even with no fragile humans on board the X-37B still must use *extreme measures* to conserve fuel for it's extended missions. That means using tiny amounts of propellant to nudge the ship onto courses where they slowly fall onto slingshots and other effects. These kinds of energy savings are *impossible* to pull off if you're also trucking huge humans that must eat, drink, stay warm and eliminate waste. More fuel may be saved by catching up with moving objects more slowly than one would have to with humans aboard.

I'd imagine that an approach that slowly uses gravity and miserly amounts of fuel to propel a ship would also be more stealthy.

Waiting to slip into a slingshot with humans on board is a nonstarter.

IMO it may be that if we did know exactly where it went and how many stops it made we may be impressed with *how little it seemed to do* when compared to the manic activity skeds of manned space missions of the past. This is all about economy and doing things in the most thrifty manner. To that end, at one point in the mission the ship may just be put into a parking station for 3.5 months to wait for a better time to use it's fuel. Can't really do that with humans on board.


----------



## Patriot

Sub_Umbra said:


> One Keyhole sat costs about what a modern aircraft carrier costs: $1 billion.



Today's carriers are in the $5-7 billion range not including Air Wing but that's a small point. Really enjoyed all of the information in your posts and in this thread. I grew up as a young boy with my face buried in Jane's Military Encyclopedias so this stuff always fascinates me.


----------



## TedTheLed

LEDAdd1ct said:


> .......
> 
> You have a beautiful planet, by the way!



you should have seen it 2 centuries ago!


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Patriot said:


> Today's carriers are in the $5-7 billion range not including Air Wing but that's a small point. Really enjoyed all of the information in your posts and in this thread. I grew up as a young boy with my face buried in Jane's Military Encyclopedias so this stuff always fascinates me.


 That's true but when the KH12 was launched a carrier cost a billion... Of course, a billion isn't what it used to be...

A new KH bird today would probably still cost about the same as a carrier. Some things never change.

In the 1870s if you had a US $20 gold piece to spend you could buy a really nice suit or you could buy a Colt Peacemaker 45. It turns out that today if you have *the same coin* you may still buy a very nice suit and on most days it's still worth enough to buy a Colt Peacemaker 45.


----------



## Patriot

Steve K said:


> neat video.
> Always fun to see what parts get hot, etc. It has me wondering why the rudders look hot, and not just the leading edges.




Yeah, that's very interesting. I'm not sure why the center of the diagonal stabilizers would be indicating that high a temp. unless it's just acting like a big heat sink due to significant required structure. I imagine there's a lot of load on control surfaces as they have to handle pitch roll and yaw.




> *LEDAdd1ct*
> You have a beautiful planet, by the way!





TedTheLed said:


> you should have seen it 2 centuries ago!


 
Meanwhile, Ted's doing his part by living in grass huts and burning zero coal, oil, or wood... Just giving ya a hard time buddy!


----------



## StarHalo

Looking around military airbases and what they've left parked outside is half the reason to have Google Earth; a screencap at the Skunkworks facility reveals a covered craft that hasn't been announced to the public yet:


----------



## Sub_Umbra

I think it's a Papier-mâché model built to fool Google.


----------



## orbital

Sub_Umbra said:


> That's true but when the KH12 was launched a carrier cost a billion... Of course, a billion isn't what it used to be...
> 
> A new KH bird today would probably still cost about the same as a carrier. Some things never change.
> 
> In the 1870s if you had a US $20 gold piece to spend you could buy a really nice suit or you could buy a Colt Peacemaker 45. It turns out that today if you have *the same coin* you may still buy a very nice suit and on most days it's still worth enough to buy a Colt Peacemaker 45.





...question is,, to get _*more*_ coins, do you need the Colt Peacemaker or that really nice suit??

>>


----------



## EZO

Steve K said:


> neat video.
> Always fun to see what parts get hot, etc. It has me wondering why the rudders look hot, and not just the leading edges.
> 
> The soundtrack has me confused too, as it sounds like a jet engine. Might be chase planes? It's certainly not the X-37B itself!
> 
> Steve K.



You know Steve, I agree that it does indeed sound like a jet engine and when I read your post I thought, yeah, chase planes. But I just watched the video again and the sound corresponds directly with the deceleration of the X-37B and stops precisely when it does, so apparently whatever is causing the sound is emanating from the craft itself! Chase planes would have continued their fly-by. I wonder if the two holes above the rear rocket nozzle have anything to do with it. Perhaps the side vents are air intakes of some kind.


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Looking around military airbases and what they've left parked outside is half the reason to have Google Earth; a screencap at the Skunkworks facility reveals a covered craft that hasn't been announced to the public yet:



It's fun to look at the parts pile by the former McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) radar cross section test range at Smart Airfield in St Charles, MO (just north of St Charles, and the SE corner of the airport area). There are also a couple of pylons that they put small scale models on and check the radar return. Bits of F-15 laying around, and something that looks like chunks of a stealth UAV.

Steve K.


----------



## Kilted

orbital said:


> ...question is,, to get _*more*_ coins, do you need the Colt Peacemaker or that really nice suit??
> 
> >>



Easy, you can steal more money with a really nice suite than Colt Peacemaker these days.

=D~~Kilted


----------



## Patriot

EZO said:


> You know Steve, I agree that it does indeed sound like a jet engine and when I read your post I thought, yeah, chase planes. But I just watched the video again and the sound corresponds directly with the deceleration of the X-37B and stops precisely when it does, so apparently whatever is causing the sound is emanating from the craft itself!



Since it's directly linked to the speed and got quieter as it slowed, until silent, I suspect it's related to wheel speed. Sounds like friction associated brakes, wheels, tires or a combination of all.


----------



## EZO

Patriot said:


> Since it's directly linked to the speed and got quieter as it slowed, until silent, I suspect it's related to wheel speed. Sounds like friction associated brakes, wheels, tires or a combination of all.



I certainly considered that but the sound is very reminiscent of a turbine engine spinning down and I don't recall hearing other similar landing gear make so much noise. Then again, the sound does stop as soon as the craft does, so you are probably right.
I still wonder what those holes above the rocket nozzle are for.


----------



## JemR

Sub_Umbra said:


> We have to look at this differently than manned flight. Lots and lots and *lots* of the time was spent *in transit* from one far flung place to another. I think it's important to realize that even with no fragile humans on board the X-37B still must use *extreme measures* to conserve fuel for it's extended missions. That means using tiny amounts of propellant to nudge the ship onto courses where they slowly fall onto slingshots and other effects.
> 
> IMO it may be that if we did know exactly where it went and how many stops it made we may be impressed with *how little it seemed to do* when compared to the manic activity skeds of manned space missions of the past. This is all about economy and doing things in the most thrifty manner. To that end, at one point in the mission the ship may just be put into a parking station for 3.5 months to wait for a better time to use it's fuel. Can't really do that with humans on board.



Yes, I think you are spot on Sub_Umbra. The OTV is said to “loiter” in orbit. Probably while it recharges from it's solar array, performs very small course change manoeuvres and does many, many other things unknown to us. Maybe, as you say, just simply waiting for the next job *to come to it*, thus saving precious fuel. That must take up lots of time, has to. But, No humans = No hurry, just sit and wait. Loitering some where near the Tiangong-1 maybe. Oops, No. Just kidding. It will be very interesting to see the next one go up around the middle of October though.


----------



## Steve K

EZO said:


> .....I still wonder what those holes above the rocket nozzle are for.



They make me think of the Space Shuttle's "Orbital Maneuvering System", which were a set of smaller engines used for.... well, I don't have to tell you. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System

Steve K.


edit:
Looking at the How Stuff Works page on the OMS, it mentions the fuel that is used:
"The OMS engines burn monomethyl hydrazine fuel (CH3NHNH2) and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer (N2O4). "
It also mentions that the OMS is used to slow the craft for re-entry. After each use, the fuel lines are purged to get that stuff out of the lines:
"When the engines shut off, the nitrogen goes from the valves into the fuel lines momentarily to flush the lines of any remaining fuel and oxidizer; this purge of the line prevents any unwanted explosions."
Seems like that might result in some being on the exterior of the craft, which might explain why the ground crew for the X-37B were wearing hazmat suits. .... just a theory...


----------



## Lips

Patriot said:


> Since it's directly linked to the speed and got quieter as it slowed, until silent, I suspect it's related to wheel speed. Sounds like friction associated brakes, wheels, tires or a combination of all.







I was on a trip a few years ago (summer 2004 (8 years ago)) to Tuscon, Arizona ( I think - in Kelly & Patriots back yard! ) and got to touch a SR71 Titanium skin at an air museum, awesome! I did lean over the rope! No security what so ever on the old technology (Too old to even secure) - so I believe the *Aurora* is alive! If I remember correctly there was a bone yard full of Military Aircraft in the desert dry air nearby...




http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson090.jpg





TITANIUM 

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson091.jpg








http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson060.jpg







http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson092.jpg






http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Aurora-SPFX.jpg








http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/images4.jpg






*President Lyndon Johnson Air Force One!*



http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson086.jpg







*Not what you see today!* 

]http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson076.jpg





*SECRET!*

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson081.jpg





http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson078.jpg




http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson077.jpg



http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson079.jpg


*
Was not much room at all! I was shocked thinking what a piece of junk for 2004 ( 20 year old plane ) i.e. We have come a long way since the SR71 Black Bird... * *To the right the National Security Adviser Station!*

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson080.jpg





http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson083.jpg


*
Cockpit (looked like a damn crop duster!!!)*

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a369/vdcjr/Tucson085.jpg






Cheers




Edit: The prop plane is older than the jet plane in photos. They would not let us on the jet plane. The prop plane would have been early LBJ or John F Kennedy...



Your images are *WAY* too large and have been replaced with links
See Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels. - Norm



.


----------



## EZO

Very cool photos Lips!


----------



## EZO

Steve K said:


> They make me think of the Space Shuttle's "Orbital Maneuvering System", which were a set of smaller engines used for.... well, I don't have to tell you.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System
> 
> Steve K.
> 
> 
> edit:
> Looking at the How Stuff Works page on the OMS, it mentions the fuel that is used:
> "The OMS engines burn monomethyl hydrazine fuel (CH3NHNH2) and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer (N2O4). "
> It also mentions that the OMS is used to slow the craft for re-entry. After each use, the fuel lines are purged to get that stuff out of the lines:
> "When the engines shut off, the nitrogen goes from the valves into the fuel lines momentarily to flush the lines of any remaining fuel and oxidizer; this purge of the line prevents any unwanted explosions."
> Seems like that might result in some being on the exterior of the craft, which might explain why the ground crew for the X-37B were wearing hazmat suits. .... just a theory...



I came across this NASA sourced graphic of the X-37B. It shows a hydrogen peroxide tank and a JP-8 kerosene based jet fuel tank. Hmmm. Well, it's was "secret" project that apparently dates all the way back to 1999 or before, so who knows. Curiously, the graphic doesn't show any engines other than the rear nozzle. Maybe it really runs on vinegar and baking soda? 







I also came across a couple of other good photos of the craft. One featuring a good view of the heat tiles and a nice thermal image.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Every time I see a windowless drone I can't help but think of *GIGER'S EYELESS ALIEN.* The Globalhawk is a good example of a Gigeresque look.


----------



## EZO

Sub_Umbra said:


> Every time I see a windowless drone I can't help but think of *GIGER'S EYELESS ALIEN.* The Globalhawk is a good example of a Gigeresque look.



Funny you should mention a creature. The photo in my previous post #42 of the nose of the craft showing the heat tiles reminded me of the scales of a reptile like in my avatar photo.


----------



## blasterman

Given the technology that was available at the the time the SR-71 in my book is an astounding example of what good engineers can come up given solid direction and resources. Kelly Johnson an Co built one helluva aircraft that looks faster standing still in a hangar than most aircraft at Mach 1.2 I remember when I was a kid watching the nightly news and seeing reports of the mysterious sonic booms off the East Coast as SR-71's headed over to Asia for recon flights. More than a few transcripts out there from air traffic controllers monitoring SR-71's that were coming in from their retirement flights and flying faster than their scopes could register over the Western US.

I've known a few people that worked out at Area 51 and related facilities. They laugh when they hear the UFO stuff and say "If you knew what really goes on out there and what we do, you'd be really, really bored". 

Rather that put a tarp over secret U.S. test aircraft the DoD should just straddle them with a mannequin of Vladimir Putin


----------



## JemR

blasterman said:


> Given the technology that was available at the the time the SR-71 in my book is an astounding example of what good engineers can come up given solid direction and resources.



Sorry to go a little off topic, but. You are quite right blasterman. I saw Concorde flying many times. It's from the same era. And every time it was a wonder. It came over my neighbourhood escorted by the Red Arrows Display Team one time, very low on their way to Central London for a Royal flypast. Takes you breath away.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

blasterman said:


> More than a few transcripts out there from air traffic controllers monitoring SR-71's that were coming in from their retirement flights and flying faster than their scopes could register over the Western US.



The pilots tell good stories:

Clicky


----------



## StarHalo

Lips said:


> got to touch a SR71 Titanium skin at an air museum, awesome!



I got to play underneath one and even stick my head in the landing gear bay - lots of NASA-esque gold foil in there. Pretty much all of the SR-71 program is now declassified (minus details on navigation equipment), you can Google its project name, "Senior Crown", and there are a few books that have been written by former captains, detailing missions and adventures..


----------



## fyrstormer

My guess re: the X37B is that it's used to retrieve classified materials from spy satellites, among other servicing operations. Sure, the old Hexagon satellites used to drop their film canisters in re-entry modules, but a remote-controlled reusable vehicle can land in precisely the same location each time -- or conveniently explode if something goes wrong.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

fyrstormer said:


> My guess re: the X37B is that it's used to retrieve classified materials from spy satellites, among other servicing operations. Sure, the old Hexagon satellites used to drop their film canisters in re-entry modules, but a remote-controlled reusable vehicle can land in precisely the same location each time -- or conveniently explode if something goes wrong.



My knee-jerk reaction is "Satellites don't use film anymore!" but then my photography spoke up. Film can do things digital sensors can't practically do, such as year-long exposures. Satellite service makes sense - if lifting 100 kg of hydrazine, replacement battery modules, and film / etc saves a 1000kg satellite that cost a pretty penny, then money is saved. 

Interestingly, there are some extremely-low-fuel-use methods to change orbit. They are not used in the space shuttle because of the time involved. One can generate an electric field that pushes or drags on the Earth's, allowing slow orbital changes. One way to de-orbit satellites is to pay out a conductive tether and wait. Without using any power, the wire is charged by the Earth's magnetic field and produces a small drag, pulling the orbit lower and lower. Robots can wait for months while this happens - humans cannot.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

EZO said:


> Funny you should mention a creature. The photo in my previous post #42 of the nose of the craft showing the heat tiles reminded me of the scales of a reptile like in my avatar photo.


 Yes. I thought the nose photo looked like an anaconda....without any eyes.


----------



## F250XLT

I could get comfortable, crack a beer, start the slide show, and listen to you guys talk for days...This really is interesting stuff, stuff that I know absolutely nothing about.

So a few stupid questions, if I may...

In a nutshell, what is the X37B used for?

What is the hydrogen peroxide tank for?

How does this thing get into space, via rocket type enclosure?


----------



## Sub_Umbra

It rides into space on a booster. Unlike the shuttle which was confined to the lower half of Near Earth Orbit, the X-37B is operational in orbits *forty times farther out*. It is a test bed for autonomously servicing sats (IMO).

It is so tiny that it is virtually unobservable in space. It is also virtually untrackable. 

It's the coolest black hardware out there right now, that we know about.

It's also a thought problem. A puzzle.


----------



## Launch Mini

I too am enjoying this thread.
We drove around Area 51 year ago ( on our way to Vegas), that was kind of freaky seeing all the security cameras in the desert miles away from the actual Area 51.


----------



## Launch Mini

Just my thought, if they use this drone to collect & return "Data" there is a lower chance the data can be intercepted ( ie vs radio signals back to earth).
So not only film, but digital data could be collected & returned to earth.
Now that I have typed this, I am sure they going to monitor my computer now.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Things are so complicated today. In the last century the capabilities of space borne assets was always held close to the vest. They were special secrets so very little solid info existed on them. Still, *the effects* of these black assets *do* trickle down and impact our lives in places where we may see it. The problem is, will we recognize it when we see it?

In the second half of the 20th century you could pretty much figure out spy sat resolutions just by reading signed missile treaties. It was a closely held secret but the silo diameter stipulations in the treaties told the story about how well our sats could see. While the tells for the X-37B won't be that easy, it does exist in the physical world and as such it must obey some rules.

With something as obscure as the X-37B we just have to take the very few things we do know and then plug in different things into the blank spaces that are possible in physics until we figure it out.

I think that there's a lot of knowable stuff in the holes between the facts.


----------



## blasterman

> The pilots tell good stories:



Always a good read. Thanks for linking this awesome story.

Saw a few Concords' take off at Heathrow. Besides shaking the entire airport you always worried it would be able to clear the roof tops because the Concord had a climb ratio marginally better than a flock of geese.

Actually knew one of the Engineers who worked on the Keyhole Sat program, and it was surprising how much he was willing to yack about.


----------



## TedTheLed

I saw two Auroras fly over head chaparoned by F 18s, they were black isosceles triangles, about 2 or 3 times the length of the F18s.. they flew in tight 'tandem' formation (if that is the right term) towards edwards..never saw them again..


----------



## fyrstormer

F250XLT said:


> What is the hydrogen peroxide tank for?


Peroxide is physically stable, but chemically *un*stable, and so it makes a convenient, dense, easy-to-use liquid oxidizer for rocket fuel. I believe Russian liquid-fuel rockets run on jet fuel (i.e. purified kerosene) and peroxide. Torpedoes also use it as an oxygen supply for their tiny diesel engines. (or at least they used to, they might be electric now.)


----------



## fyrstormer

Launch Mini said:


> Just my thought, if they use this drone to collect & return "Data" there is a lower chance the data can be intercepted ( ie vs radio signals back to earth).
> So not only film, but digital data could be collected & returned to earth.
> Now that I have typed this, I am sure they going to monitor my computer now.


They have bigger fish to fry. Even if they noticed your post they'd get two sentences in and skip to the next one harvested off the internet without a second thought.


----------



## JemR

Launch Mini said:


> Just my thought, if they use this drone to collect & return "Data" there is a lower chance the data can be intercepted ( ie vs radio signals back to earth).
> So not only film, but digital data could be collected & returned to earth.
> Now that I have typed this, I am sure they going to monitor my computer now.




I think you need not worry to much. I mentioned China's new Tiangong-1 Space Station, in a previous post. And there I go again. Twice now.


----------



## Steve K

Launch Mini said:


> Just my thought, if they use this drone to collect & return "Data" there is a lower chance the data can be intercepted ( ie vs radio signals back to earth).



I would have thought they would be using lasers by now. They were experimenting with lasers for communications between satellites 20 years ago, as well as green lasers for submarine to aircraft (or maybe satellite) communications in that same time period. 

While there are issues with getting the photons through the turbulent atmosphere, you could at least send a plane up to 30,000 feet to pick up the signal. There's certainly no need to send a vehicle up to space to get that data.

Steve K.


----------



## Launch Mini

My comments about them tracking my computer were all tongue in cheek.
I read a post about the "Privacy" issues on the Web, just tying in two conspiracy threads.


----------



## JemR

Launch Mini said:


> My comments about them tracking my computer were all tongue in cheek.
> I read a post about the "Privacy" issues on the Web, just tying in two conspiracy threads.



Mine too about the secretive Tiangong-1 Space Station, Launch Mini. Oh no, I did it again. That three times now.:laughing:


----------



## Launch Mini

I have some spare tin foil, we can both make matching hats if you wish. lol


----------



## JemR

Launch Mini said:


> I have some spare tin foil, we can both make matching hats if you wish. lol



:tinfoil: :tinfoil: Oh no! What has become of us?


----------



## TedTheLed

LEDAdd1ct:
You have a beautiful planet, by the way!


Originally Posted by TedTheLe:
you should have seen it 2 centuries ago!


Patriot:

Meanwhile, Ted's doing his part by living in grass huts and burning zero coal, oil, or wood...Just giving ya a hard time buddy!


nah, back then we made do with methane only, and we liked it that way!


----------



## Sub_Umbra

The last week or so there have been runs spraying for mosquitos along waterways in South Louisiana. A C-130-H isn't a secret plane but nearly everyone who sees the monster flying *at treetop level from horizon to horizon* is mystified by it.

Heck, when I first saw one making passes after Katrina I thought they were spraying Febreze...


----------



## angelofwar

I wonder if any of these X-37's have anything to do with DARPA's proposed Space Delivery Vehicle? Got a hot spot flaring up somewhere in the world? We'll have some marines there in about 2-hours. I read about it a while back, but I never heard if the idea got scrapped. BUT, I DID see a UFO on the base I work at. And no, I'm not crazy, cause my coworker saw it with me as well (or maybe we were hallucinating after being in MOPP-4 for 3 hours??? LOL!). It was PROBABLY an UAV, but, I didn't think we had any where I am at, and haven't seen one in my 7 years here. Plus, it was flying a little too close to the flight line.


----------



## Steve K

angelofwar said:


> I wonder if any of these X-37's have anything to do with DARPA's proposed Space Delivery Vehicle? Got a hot spot flaring up somewhere in the world? We'll have some marines there in about 2-hours. I read about it a while back, but I never heard if the idea got scrapped. ....



I'm not sure about a modern DARPA project, but the whole thing reminds me of the very old X-20 Dyna-Soar project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar

It was a military project, with a lot of pie-in-the-sky sorts of applications, but the manned intercontinental bomber app seemed to me to be the most likely or desired. The development of ICBMs probably caused a loss of interest in the Dyna-Soar. Back in those days (late 50's), there was a big competition among the US military forces to be able to deliver nukes all around the world, as well as a lot of funding for these projects.

Anyway... the wiki page has an interesting paragraph that may address why the X-37 is built with wings:

"A drawing in Space/Aeronautics magazine from before the project's cancellation depicts the craft dipping down into the atmosphere, skimming the surface, to change its orbital inclination. It would then fire its rocket to resume orbit. This would be a unique ability for a spacecraft, for the laws of celestial mechanics mean it requires an enormous expenditure of energy for a rocket to change its orbital inclination once it has reached orbit. Hence the Dyna-Soar could have had a military capacity of being launched into one orbit and rendezvousing with a satellite, even if the target were to expend all its propellant in changing its orbit. Acceleration forces on the pilot, however, would be severe in such a maneuver."

I hadn't considered the convenience of using the atmosphere to move to a different orbital inclination! Getting rid of the pilot means that the acceleration forces are no longer such a big issue too. Very interesting stuff.

Steve K.


----------



## march.brown

TedTheLed said:


> LEDAdd1ct: back then we made do with methane only, and we liked it that way!


 Didn't that come out (noisily) from cows backsides ? 

I don't fancy standing in a field of cows with a polythene bag , trying to collect it ...





.


----------



## h_nu

X37B team, thanks for the ion beam implanted, microgravity alloy key fob. It's wicked, awesome, baaaad!


----------



## TedTheLed

march.brown said:


> Didn't that come out (noisily) from cows backsides ?
> 
> I don't fancy standing in a field of cows with a polythene bag , trying to collect it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



hey, dont knock it, ... and if you do, put a bag over it.. moo.


----------



## StarHalo

Next, we race..


----------



## TedTheLed

imagine the sound of that? two stealth fighters flew over me once, and it has been the loudest thing I have ever heard. 

I was going to say photoshopped but I guess the shadows are ok... 

I saw the auroras, two flying together flanked by jets...when they landed them at edwards, in 95 or 6 or there abouts..looked something like these, but were perfect isosceles triangles..


----------



## StarHalo

It's Lockheed-Martin's photo; what really verifies it are the puddles of leaking fuel.

And there are a lot of triangular aircraft at Edwards, I'd wager that's where this pic was taken..


----------



## ElectronGuru

StarHalo said:


> what really verifies it are the puddles of leaking fuel.



Gotta love that! The skin gets so hot at mach 3, that the expansion joints were wide enough on the ground to leak fuel. Easily the wickedest plane ever built.


----------



## HighlanderNorth

I'm surprised that thing in the OP picture can even glide with its tall, wide fuselage and tiny wings!


----------



## blasterman

This is what happens when you gave Kelly Johnson a slide rule, a really big black budget, and 60's technology . Easily the most sinister thing that's every flew. I remember listening to the news in the 70's as a kid and network anchors reporting sonic booms all along the east coast as SR-71s transitioned from suborbital speeds on their way to Eastern Europe over-flights. So many engineering miracles performed on this beast. Lots of control tower transcripts on the web as various SR-71's made their retirement flights very well known. Good stuff - wicked machine.


----------



## jtr1962

While on the subject of the SR-71, its maximum _sustained_ speed is Mach 3.2, but the maximum speed is still classified (and rumored to be well in excess of Mach 5). I would imagine heating of the fuselage would be the biggest issue keeping the plane from maintaining >Mach 3.2, but it wouldn't prevent brief forays to Mach 4 or perhaps even Mach 5.

Somewhat related to this was Project Pluto. Although intended for cruise missiles, a nuclear-powered ramjet would probably have found its way into the SR-71 had Project Pluto succeeded. In fact, there were rumors that Project Pluto was merely a cover to develop nuclear-powered ramjets for the SR-71.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

jtr-- Thanks for posting that. Years and years ago I had a great documentary on Project Pluto. I got rid of it a long time ago _when I dumped my VHS tapes._ I wanted to see it again a couple years ago but I couldn't remember the project's name.

IMO Project Pluto is one of the *weirdest* aviation stories of all time.


----------



## moldyoldy

blasterman said:


> Given the technology that was available at the the time the SR-71 in my book is an astounding example of what good engineers can come up given solid direction and resources. Kelly Johnson an Co built one helluva aircraft that looks faster standing still in a hangar than most aircraft at Mach 1.2 I remember when I was a kid watching the nightly news and seeing reports of the mysterious sonic booms off the East Coast as SR-71's headed over to Asia for recon flights. More than a few transcripts out there from air traffic controllers monitoring SR-71's that were coming in from their retirement flights and flying faster than their scopes could register over the Western US.
> 
> I've known a few people that worked out at Area 51 and related facilities. They laugh when they hear the UFO stuff and say "If you knew what really goes on out there and what we do, you'd be really, really bored".
> 
> Rather that put a tarp over secret U.S. test aircraft the DoD should just straddle them with a mannequin of Vladimir Putin



Ref the Kelly Johnson and Co quote above: When an SR-71 came in to Washington area for a flyby before landing and being trucked off to the museum, it came in relatively low over the crowd, then the pilot lit the burners, stood it on it's tail and left. After the noise subsided, one of the design engineers on the ground pulled out his slide-rule and said something to the effect of "and we designed that with these". The SR-71 certainly could be noisy, but even the U-2 was rather noisy at takeoff over my head as compared with the usual fighters.


----------



## moldyoldy

jtr1962 said:


> While on the subject of the SR-71, its maximum _sustained_ speed is Mach 3.2, but the maximum speed is still classified (and rumored to be well in excess of Mach 5). I would imagine heating of the fuselage would be the biggest issue keeping the plane from maintaining >Mach 3.2, but it wouldn't prevent brief forays to Mach 4 or perhaps even Mach 5.
> 
> Somewhat related to this was Project Pluto. Although intended for cruise missiles, a nuclear-powered ramjet would probably have found its way into the SR-71 had Project Pluto succeeded. In fact, there were rumors that Project Pluto was merely a cover to develop nuclear-powered ramjets for the SR-71.



The problem with the SR-71 was not necessarily the possible speed, but if the pilot performed a zoom-climb. the SR-71 was capable of going sub-orbital, but would not have sufficient control or control surfaces for the re-entry. Even the F-15 has performed a zoom climb and hit a satellite with a missile. The preferred method is to launch a missile from a Navy ship, and was once shown on the Military Channel.


----------



## moldyoldy

TedTheLed said:


> imagine the sound of that? two stealth fighters flew over me once, and it has been the loudest thing I have ever heard.
> 
> I was going to say photoshopped but I guess the shadows are ok...
> 
> I saw the auroras, two flying together flanked by jets...when they landed them at edwards, in 95 or 6 or there abouts..looked something like these, but were perfect isosceles triangles..



once upon a time in a place far far away, a B52 flew over me on takeoff with full water injection. It seemingly covered the sky and I had to cover my ears, or rather, squeeze my muffs tighter against my ears. The only noisier aircraft was a C-130 with JATO assist. The high-pitched exhaust from the JATO units was really penetrating! However standing behind a pair of large fighters as their full afterburners kick in really squeezes/thumps a persons chest cavity, the noise is almost unnecessary.


----------



## moldyoldy

perhaps an fyi would help out CPF members as to some of the nuances of speeds at an altitude, especially when discussing fast aircraft such as the SR-71, Aurora, and beyond. 

Using a Mach number to describe a flight speed is deceptive, and valid only for that aircraft at that altitude nominally as determined inside the aircraft. For most of the ground-based purposes, speeds are cited in a distance covered in a short period of time, such as 1.6 miles per sec (SR-71), or a named ground speed in conventional units which can be used for speed record purposes. Nevertheless, a Mach number is dependent on the altitude, temperature, density of the air, etc. Here are some links to help out the discovery process:

---------------------

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml

---------------------

There is a calculator in the following link that is quite useful.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/mach.html

--------------------

Flying supersonic at low level is a feat of power. The B-58 Hustler was designed to fly supersonic at low level (over Moscow) and was equipped with 4 after-burning engines. At higher altitudes, the B-58 Hustler at Mach 2 was a challenge to the fighters of it's time and set many records! The F4 Phantom could achieve Mach 2.2 and was considered a good example of if you mounted big enough engines on a rock, it would fly. The SR-71 is listed only as Mach 3+. Modern A-A missiles fly around Mach 5. The US Space Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere at about Mach 25 and comes out of the ionization layers at about Mach 23. 

Flying supersonic at high altitude requires less power as compared with low level supersonic flight from an air-breathing engine. However, how that air-breathing engine is designed varies widely between nominally supersonic aircraft. 

The SR71 uses turbo-ramjets with an inlet cone or spike that moves back in the housing with increasing speed. The MiG-21 has an inlet cone that moves forward with increasing speed. The MiG-25 Foxbat was supposed to be a competitor to the SR-71 and uses a totally different type of air intake. For the English speakers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone

In all cases, the engine design controls the airflow in to the engine such that a supersonic shock wave does not reach (too far) into the air-breathing engine where the goal is to avoid supersonic flow inside the engine such as a scramjet. ie: The SR-71 engines are mounted farther out on the wings to avoid the shockwave from the nose. A more critical factor in the SR-71 is that the shock wave from the inlet spike nominally ends at the outer shroud and should not penetrate (too far) in to the engine. At max speeds, the inlet is fully back against the stop. Those shock waves vary with the various altitude related factors. Which means that a "max" speed at one altitude is not the same "max" speed at another altitude. Which is one of the reasons why the MiG-25 and the SR-71 traded off setting speed records.... 

Here is a link to the SR-71 manual opened to the engine page showing the air flow and shock waves. Notice that the bottom image stops at Mach 3.2 with a fully retracted inlet cone. That means a specific Mach number at flight altitude - leaving some wiggle room for the many rumors of how fast the SR-71 could fly 

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-33.php

In my mind, the SR-71 is truly the last of it's kind, meaning very fast with air-breathing engines, no matter at low or very high altitudes. Beyond the SR-71 are other interesting aircraft with a ramjet/scramjet, or the rumoured Aurora with maybe a pulse-jet,..... At my former work, I had a full-screen photo of the SR-71 in flight on my home screen. The SR-71 was truly impressive in so many ways!


----------



## Flying Turtle

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the education.

Geoff


----------



## StarHalo

My favorite part of the SR-71 - who can name this device?


----------



## moldyoldy

Is that the rear view periscope, handle included? With the rear-view periscope the pilots could visually check on the engines, etc.


----------



## StarHalo

rolling bump


----------



## Pinetreebbs

StarHalo said:


> My favorite part of the SR-71 - who can name this device?



Titanium O hammer?


----------



## firelord777

StarHalo said:


> Nope, it's the DINGHY STABBER - one of the early SR-71s had an incident where the emergency survival raft inflated itself in the cockpit mid-flight, so after that, all SR-71s came with an icepick-type weapon that would allow the crew to frantically stab the sh*t out of a wayward dinghy if it were to happen again, then carry on their mission unabated. Some quality Soviet-style engineering thinking :thumbsup:



LOL!!! Imagine a pilot and his boat inflates! He'll be like "who put this piece of fart here!"


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> Is that the rear view periscope, handle included? With the rear-view periscope the pilots could visually check on the engines, etc.





Pinetreebbs said:


> Titanium O hammer?



Nope, it's the DINGHY STABBER - one of the early SR-71s had an incident where the emergency survival raft inflated itself in the cockpit mid-flight, so after that, all SR-71s came with an icepick-type weapon that would allow the crew to frantically stab the sh*t out of a wayward dinghy if it were to happen again, then carry on their mission unabated. Some quality Soviet-style engineering thinking :thumbsup:


----------



## moldyoldy

StarHalo said:


> Nope, it's the DINGHY STABBER - one of the early SR-71s had an incident where the emergency survival raft inflated itself in the cockpit mid-flight, so after that, all SR-71s came with an icepick-type weapon that would allow the crew to frantically stab the sh*t out of a wayward dinghy if it were to happen again, then carry on their mission unabated. Some quality Soviet-style engineering thinking :thumbsup:



chuckle! No report I ever read mentioned that little piece of equipment! did the SR-71s ever have another inflating raft incident?


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> chuckle! No report I ever read mentioned that little piece of equipment! did the SR-71s ever have another inflating raft incident?



Only happened the one time. As far as I know, the Blackbird was the only military aircraft that had an edged weapon as standard interior equipment.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

StarHalo said:


> Only happened the one time. As far as I know, the Blackbird was the only military aircraft that had an edged weapon as standard interior equipment.



I would insist on training day that this icepick is strictly for repelling boarders in flight.


----------



## moldyoldy

AnAppleSnail said:


> I would insist on training day that this icepick is strictly for repelling boarders in flight.





and the rear view periscope is to check 6 - where are those fighters getting on our tail...


----------



## StarHalo

Say hello to the Boeing CHAMP - Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project, better known as the "Flying Blackout"; this EMP-generating guided cruise missile was successfully tested last week when it flew a predetermined route over a Utah desert testing area and shut down all the computers located at seven target areas - it also inadvertently killed the cameras at those sites that were meant to monitor the event.


----------



## moldyoldy

heheh, lots of publicity... but, anything that is goes public already existed in various forms for quite some time before this particular test. Not far from where we tested our howitzers in the desert SW, there is an EMP test facility. What impresses me is that the power generation to penetrate buildings was shrunk to a missile size. One of the reasons that the Soviets still designed A/C electronics with electron tubes in some of their advanced fighters is because electron tubes are very resistant to EMP or the very strong radars as found on some other aircraft. meaning that a fighter pilot really should not want to fly in front of some theoretically unarmed aircraft. In any case, rad-hard chips are difficult to design and build with a very low yield. read: expensive! nuff said.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

moldyoldy said:


> What impresses me is that the power generation to penetrate buildings was shrunk to a missile size.



Doing it once is easy. You move something through a high-voltage coil with explosives. Doing it multiple times, though...that's impressive.


----------



## Steve K

Was there someplace authoritative that said that the CHAMP generated an EMP? The two Boeing press releases that I checked just said it used microwaves to take out specific targets. In that way, it remind me of most ECM (electronics countermeasures) aircraft, such as the EA-6B Prowler or EA-18 Growler. 

There is one site that specifically indicates that it is not an EMP type device:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/25/boeing_champ_missile_microwave_attacks/

"Boeing announced the plans for CHAMP back in 2009, as part of the US Army's continuing quest for a weapon that can knock out electronics easily. You can do this with the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) produced by a nuclear explosion, but those tend to be somewhat messy as they produce rather too much "collateral damage." "

As a guy who does EMC work, I'd be interested in hearing about the power generated, the fields produced, etc. In general, commercial electronics is not designed to tolerate much of an electromagnetic field. Automotive stuff is generally around 30v/m, I think, and mil-spec aircraft is in the range of 200v/m. The stuff I work with is more in the 100v/m range.


----------



## moldyoldy

AnAppleSnail said:


> Doing it once is easy. You move something through a high-voltage coil with explosives. Doing it multiple times, though...that's impressive.



ref the one-time EMP event, soooooo you have heard the vague rumors about the EMP hand grenade? the link above refers to that at the end. it's supposedly about a German potato masher size.... :tinfoil:


----------



## moldyoldy

Steve K said:


> Was there someplace authoritative that said that the CHAMP generated an EMP? The two Boeing press releases that I checked just said it used microwaves to take out specific targets. In that way, it remind me of most ECM (electronics countermeasures) aircraft, such as the EA-6B Prowler or EA-18 Growler.
> 
> There is one site that specifically indicates that it is not an EMP type device:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/25/boeing_champ_missile_microwave_attacks/
> 
> "Boeing announced the plans for CHAMP back in 2009, as part of the US Army's continuing quest for a weapon that can knock out electronics easily. You can do this with the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) produced by a nuclear explosion, but those tend to be somewhat messy as they produce rather too much "collateral damage." "
> 
> As a guy who does EMC work, I'd be interested in hearing about the power generated, the fields produced, etc. In general, commercial electronics is not designed to tolerate much of an electromagnetic field. Automotive stuff is generally around 30v/m, I think, and mil-spec aircraft is in the range of 200v/m. The stuff I work with is more in the 100v/m range.



Correct. good catch. The terminology is actually HPM = high power microwaves and comes in pulses. Quite a few press blurbs quoted this weapon as an EMP-based weapon. However it still appears to be a challenge for sufficient microwave power output:

http://defense-update.com/20110922_boeing-tests-champ-hpm-missil.html

The original technology comes from a company Raytheon purchased just last year: Ktech has microwave generators which output an EMP-like microwave field. IOW, a big magnetron?

This is not the same as a magnetic flux-compression generator (MFCG) bomb which does produce Megajoules of energy in microseconds. That is a directed EMP pulse.

There is also the ASEA or active electronically scanned array which is a radar that can focus all of it's energy to a beamed point. The result is the same - fried electronics. The smaller ones can be fitted to fighters. the larger versions mount on the EA-18G Growler (FA-18 modified)

In one location to remain unnamed, we had some homeless people sneak up to the operating radar domes and go to sleep under the dome. why? because the radar kept them warm......


----------



## AnAppleSnail

moldyoldy said:


> In one location to remain unnamed, we had some homeless people sneak up to the operating radar domes and go to sleep under the dome. why? because the radar kept them warm......



Google: Naked man tower brings up lots of examples. No small number of people die after climbing them, feeling "too warm," and stripping. On top of the tower, the RF is quite high. Even if your body only intercepts 1% of it, it's still a megawatt antennae. They die of overheat, and require tricky "vertical extractions" where climbers go up and lower the body.


----------



## moldyoldy

fyi: this is going off the direct topic of "Secret Aircraft", but is perhaps pertinent to understand why that CHAMP missile was able to kill the computers or displays and cameras at some distance.

The voltages induced in electronics or wires will vary by the type of pulse. Identifying a volts per meter of induced voltage is an insufficient root cause for electronics failures. The rise time and duration of the induced disruption is very significant. IOW, the pulse time-profile is what usually kills electronics.

In a nuc-based EMP, there are E1, E2, and E2 field "pulses". Lightning has E1 and E2 components. Lightning effects research resembles nuclear EMP research. A rad-hard device has additional circuitry to mitigate ionizing radiation on/in the chip. At the end of the production line in some labs, the radiation level used to test a rad-hard device would kill a human in less than a minute.

E1 is similar to "prompt" radiation and has a risetime of nanoseconds and decays in milliseconds. E1 couples well to short cable runs, such as 1-10 m. Using various EMI protectors/shielding/filtering is useful, but not complete. Surge protectors are usually inadequate because of the fast rise-time of the pulse. E1 will kill computers, cell phones, etc. a low yield nuc would generate an E1 from 5kV-10 kV / m. The sharp leading edge of the pulse is what latches up IC gates, especially in the range of 10^-9 or 10^-8 seconds. E1 does not couple very well to long lines.

Note: Even static electricity can blow the diodes across most IC gates causing a latchup of the gate. Leaving the device sit for a few days is sufficient to allows the charge to dissipate - which is why HP received so many HP-41 CMOS-based calculators back under warranty when in Corvallis they all functioned OK.

E2 couples to longer conductors such as vertical antenna towers and aircraft with trailing wires (see sub-chaser A/C such as the Orion). E2 is longer and can last up to a second. The usual lightning protection provides a measure of protection.

E3 is a problem because it can penetrate the ground with a frequency of less than 1Hz. The pulse rise can be 20 sec to a peak (as reported) and then decay over a minute or longer. An E3 pulse is dangerous for electric power systems even with buried cables because the very low frequency makes shielding extremely difficult. The end result would be transformer saturation and subsequent winding failure (all as observed), possibly delayed. Auroral EMP causes similar effects although primarily because of volts / meter EMF generation over many kilometersl.

Note: power companies have had major problems with auroral flux. ie: in Minnesota, an NSP power dispatcher told me that some days he cannot draw any power from Canada because of the voltage buildup on the lines. Those lines run N-S and the Earth rotates E-W, thus the classic voltage generation of a wire cutting flux. Instead he has to purchase the more expensive TVA power since those lines run E-W and are not affected by auroral flux. 

Back on topic: The probable key to the missile test was both the rise-time and intensity of the microwave pulse which was sufficient to kill the electronics. ie: Even relatively small low-power devices at the EMP test range could kill a car ignition or flying model electronics w/in range of the pulse. No spectacular pyrotechnics were necessary.


----------



## moldyoldy

slowly homing back in on the title... 

As a retired EE and ex-mil zoomie, I stand in awe of the design of the SR-71. I bow in deepest appreciation of what the U2 pilots dealt with on their long flights. I listened to one U2 pilot describe his operations for 2 hours - for which he received a long standing ovation. The rumored Aurora will remain an enigma wrapped up in a mystery (except for the "popcorn on a string" contrails...) until maybe some years hence. Even the flight manual of the SR-71 was eventually declassified. Nevertheless, there are areas of endeavour that will remain in varying shades of black permanently. No Freedom of Information Act will ever touch those. 

Drone aircraft are a continuing evolution of electronics and long-duration power plants. They will grow in size and capability, or shrink - and therein lies a fascination for me.

I am intrigued by the _very small_ aircraft and choppers. They are small enough to barely be heard or seen. Usually with electric drives. enter the flashaholic and modeler experiences with various battery chemistries.  The use of super small A/C with cameras is already being explored by the military as well as local/state police in the US or Europe. With a camera on board, these A/C will save lives in stand-off situations. They will also increase the societal neurosis of being watched. From the military standpoint, if spotted, micro-A/C are difficult to hit even with an automatic weapon. A shotgun with bird-shot might have a chance. But very small flying objects with remote piloting are here and now. The only real question is - what are the rules governing their use?

Are there any super small aircraft or choppers in routine use even now?


----------



## AnAppleSnail

My college roomie developed autonomous quad-copter software. That's like four n helicopters stuck together, and can fly in any direction. Not fast, and not efficient, but agile. Check out your local autonomous/unmanned (aerial/ground/water/underwater) vehicle club st colleges near you.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Interesting posts.


> ...The only real question is - what are the rules governing their use?...


I think the only rule is don't get caught but that may even be too optimistic... It would seem that anything in use by our military today will be cheap enough to be purchased by our city governments tomorrow.


> ...Are there any super small aircraft or choppers in routine use even now?


Two interesting Google queries are:

micro-uav

and

"perch and stare"

Creepy.


----------



## moldyoldy

The "perch and stare" term I knew about, but in my Google searches, a couple levels down I discovered a British blog where the commentator used the term "Gargoyle" mode. Exactly what it implies. The A/C lands on a building and sits there watching whatever it wants. Since normal flight times seem to be less than an hour, with ~45 min having been reported in a DARPA flyoff , a Gargoyle mode would lengthen the deployment time significantly. As Sub_Umbra wrote - creepy! but already here...


----------



## SemiMan

moldyoldy said:


> The "perch and stare" term I knew about, but in my Google searches, a couple levels down I discovered a British blog where the commentator used the term "Gargoyle" mode. Exactly what it implies. The A/C lands on a building and sits there watching whatever it wants. Since normal flight times seem to be less than an hour, with ~45 min having been reported in a DARPA flyoff , a Gargoyle mode would lengthen the deployment time significantly. As Sub_Umbra wrote - creepy! but already here...



Sounds like a good target for a directional EMP generator


----------



## moldyoldy

Bump. Still a valid recurrent topic. This time the BBC takes a guess at the X-37B, launch #3.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121123-secrets-of-us-military-spaceplane


----------



## idleprocess

I would not be surprised if numerous militaries have non-nuclear EMP weapons. Designs like the explosively pumped flux compression generator are old hat by now - odds are that there are more powerful EMP bombs out there now with more focused pulses.

One suspects that the Boeing weapon is a scaled-up version of the various directional electronic disruptor plans that have been publicly available for years.


----------



## moldyoldy

Bump. Our understanding of secret A/C will have to be adjusted to the realities of technology. The B-58 Hustler (Mach 2+) & the SR71 (Mach 3+) are gone. Now the secret is launched in to orbit, or flies quietly over our heads..... Our obsession with "speed" is obsolete. The new secret is drones and their relative invisibility, whether because of size or stealth characteristics.

BTW, a piece of trivia: The B-58 was not only the first A/C faster than Mach 2, but reputedly also faster than the later fighters of that era. Ground crews for the B-58 Hustler could guess the achieved flight speeds quite closely after landing by looking at the extent of scorched paint on the fuselage. That is what 4 large afterburning engines can do!

--------------------------------
For model aircraft/helicopters, here is a link to the news Artikel from Die Welt:

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwe...m-gefaehrdet-Privatsphaere-der-Deutschen.html

Model aircraft/helicopter drones are landing underneath the Christmas tree. HD Camera included. Drones for "household use" start at 100 Euro. A Quadrocopter with HD camera costs 300 Euro. A Zephyr (wingspan 1.5 meters) costs ~1910 Euro and has flown over the Matterhorn. Youtube has many videos of flights of the "Zephyr drone" or "Black Sheep drone". The heaviest "model aircraft" can be up to 25 Kilo. Model aircraft up to 5 Kilo do not require flight permissions. Controlled airspace begins above 1000 feet. Supposedly the drones are to be flown w/in visual range - but what happens if a camera in the nose is used to guide the drone? The Zephyr has flown up to 90KM and at altitudes up to 5.6KM, including over the Matterhorn.

For the non-German speakers, at least click on the video and watch the flight of the French Parrot Quadrocopter in front of the "Welt" building in Berlin. Usage? Drone pilots can use their Smartphone to guide the helicopter, receive video via WLAN, store that video on their Smartphone. Then they can click on "Like" and something is uploaded to Facebook. sooo, who is watching whom and where? and what will they do with that info? Aua! Ouch! 

---------------------------------
For EMP afficiandos:

The Welt Artikel describes the offensive use of pulsed microwave generators as weapons.

http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article112021103/Wie-man-ein-Land-mit-einer-Blitzwaffe-lahmlegt.html


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> Drones for "household use" start at 100 Euro.



They sell drones at the local Barnes & Noble 

Also, the X-37B is in orbit again..


----------



## Sub_Umbra

StarHalo said:


> ...Also, the X-37B is in orbit again..


A Misty (KH13) probably needs a scheduled refueling sometime during the planned flight window. The KH12s were the first in the Big Bird line that were refuel-able. We all remember Top Secret shuttle missions with MIL only crews. The Russians probably won't fuel the Mistys for us. /sniff The grounding of the Shuttles was a dead giveaway that we had another way in place that could reliably refuel the late model KH birds.

IMO refueling Mistys is a handy, yet unmentionable cover that glosses over the fun experiments an X-37 may be up to. I doesn't take nine months to refuel a Misty. Even if most of the payload were hydrazine there would still probably be room left over for the X-37 to poop out an experimental pico satellite or two (each the size of a deck of playing cards) for a special mission when the right conditions back on earth arose...


----------



## EZO

It is interesting that the latest launch of the X-37B happens to have been on the very same day as the North Korean launch of their first ever successful ICBM "satellite" orbital insertion. Perhaps it is a just coincidence as the X-37 had been previously "scheduled" for a launch around this time window. ..........Just sayin'.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Sounds like a great mission for a pico satellite -- or a herd of them... Flock? Pod? Group.


----------



## moldyoldy

EZO said:


> It is interesting that the latest launch of the X-37B happens to have been on the very same day as the North Korean launch of their first ever successful ICBM "satellite" orbital insertion. Perhaps it is a just coincidence as the X-37 had been previously "scheduled" for a launch around this time window. ..........Just sayin'.
> <snip



yup, and if someone happened to figure out the flight parameters of both missions, one might find that the X-37B just happens to match an insertion in to the orbit of the NK launch. however, in the correct parlance: confirmation of intellligence IS intelligence!

and if anyone noticed, the news clips showing the pickup of the first stage (or more....) of the NK launch vehicle on board a SK ship, buried in the text was the comment that US "specialists" joined the SK specialists in investigating the capabilities of the NK launch vehicle. That is the same process as when a Mig-25 left Soviet airspace and the pilot defected. In that case, the US completely dismantled the Mig-25 and shipped it off for lots of examination and sort of returned it... The Cold War may be officially over, but the ghosts are very much alive!


----------



## moldyoldy

Sub_Umbra said:


> A Misty (KH13) probably needs a scheduled refueling sometime during the planned flight window. The KH12s were the first in the Big Bird line that were refuel-able. We all remember Top Secret shuttle missions with MIL only crews. The Russians probably won't fuel the Mistys for us. /sniff The grounding of the Shuttles was a dead giveaway that we had another way in place that could reliably refuel the late model KH birds.
> 
> IMO refueling Mistys is a handy, yet unmentionable cover that glosses over the fun experiments an X-37 may be up to. I doesn't take nine months to refuel a Misty. Even if most of the payload were hydrazine there would still probably be room left over for the X-37 to poop out an experimental pico satellite or two (each the size of a deck of playing cards) for a special mission when the right conditions back on earth arose...



As you stated, it does not take nine months to refuel a Misty. but some of that hydrazine and time can be used to routinely change orbits to take nice close photos of all the interesting satellites up there........


----------



## AnAppleSnail

moldyoldy said:


> As you stated, it does not take nine months to refuel a Misty. but some of that hydrazine and time can be used to routinely change orbits to take nice close photos of all the interesting satellites up there........



Regardless of time, it's fuel-intensive to change orbital inclination. There are some tricks you can play with that much time, picking an orbit that will go near the target of interest later, and carefully timing several quick photos as you scoot past... But it's tough to see more than several thousand meters. But a robot with solar panels has nothing but time.


----------



## Steve K

AnAppleSnail said:


> Regardless of time, it's fuel-intensive to change orbital inclination. There are some tricks you can play with that much time, picking an orbit that will go near the target of interest later, and carefully timing several quick photos as you scoot past... But it's tough to see more than several thousand meters. But a robot with solar panels has nothing but time.



In an earlier post, I mentioned some info on the Dyna-Soar that suggested that the craft's aerodynamic features allowed a method to significantly change the vehicle's vector...

"A drawing in Space/Aeronautics magazine from before the project's cancellation depicts the craft dipping down into the atmosphere, skimming the surface, to change its orbital inclination. It would then fire its rocket to resume orbit. This would be a unique ability for a spacecraft, for the laws of celestial mechanics mean it requires an enormous expenditure of energy for a rocket to change its orbital inclination once it has reached orbit. Hence the Dyna-Soar could have had a military capacity of being launched into one orbit and rendezvousing with a satellite, even if the target were to expend all its propellant in changing its orbit. Acceleration forces on the pilot, however, would be severe in such a maneuver."

This is certainly something that a plain satellite cannot do, and provides all sorts of options for maneuvering. 
It would be very interesting to know what the mission of the X-37 is, and it would be very surprising to see that info be made public.


----------



## moldyoldy

our collective observations seem to be correct. Source: Kopp-Verlag website. The hypothesis of multiple orbital changes has been confirmed by amateur observers. During the first flight (OTV-1) of the X37, it started out from an orbit of 400KM and made multiple orbit changes, step by step. The observers lost track of it for several days. They found it when the X37 was down to a level of 282KM or so and traveling over Australia with a velocity of 7.38KM/second! However on 9 August 2010 the X37 fired it's rocket to climb to a higher orbit. Orbit observations indicate that the X37 flies over the same multiple points on the earth every 2 to 4 days. Another X37 is being built. 

My comment to the above is - all this for repeat observations of objects/sites on Earth? Yes, initially a satellite or two could be inserted in to some specific orbit in the course of multi-spectral photography. However I still believe that photographing other satellites is one of the missions of these flights.

However on another topic - this looks like the LM RQ-170 Sentinel. and being prep'd for a night mission. but at which base? 

Edit: could not paste the image. see the link above.


----------



## ToyTank

Did you guys read about those NRO surveillance satellites being given to NASA? They are 10 years old and apparently higher tech than the stuff NASA is making using now...


----------



## EZO

*X-47B land based catapult launch.*
The X-47B is designed to demonstrate new technology, such as fully automated takeoffs, landings and refueling and has a fully capable weapons bay with a payload capacity of 4,500 pounds.


----------



## StarHalo

Declassified this weekend: An entire flight manual for the U2 spy plane. A remarkably thorough and complete book which even includes data on the surveillance equipment, something which has not yet been released for the SR-71.


----------



## firelord777

ToyTank said:


> Did you guys read about those NRO surveillance satellites being given to NASA? They are 10 years old and apparently higher tech than the stuff NASA is making using now...



Whats NRO?


----------



## moldyoldy

firelord777 said:


> Whats NRO?



National Reconnaissance Office that is in charge of all recon satellites.

http://www.nro.gov/

I am still amazed at what is published on some of these orgs.


----------



## moldyoldy

StarHalo said:


> Declassified this weekend: An entire flight manual for the U2 spy plane. A remarkably thorough and complete book which even includes data on the surveillance equipment, something which has not yet been released for the SR-71.



Just in case, here is the SR-71 flight manual. However, the interesting sections are not present, still classified.............

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/


----------



## BVH

Speaking of secret aircraft, last week in Pismo Beach in the morning, I was inside the house when it started to "sound" like an earthquake. The same identical noise a house and the earth itself sound in so make quakes I've witnessed. Something like you might hear is a 5.0 to 5.5. I then stood perfectly still so I could feel the quake but to my surprise, there was absolutely no movement. The noise continued for about 7-10 seconds. It must have been at a low frequency because I could "feel" the noise inside me. About 10 minutes later, the same thing and twice more before the half hour was up. The next day on the news, it was explained away as a "sonic boom" from an F22 out at sea. It was an "unusual one" because of special "atmospheric conditions". Yeah, sure and if I believed that, I'd be buying prime development land in the Florida Everglades. Sonic booms are pretty recognizable, even the Shuttle with it's double but distinctive, short booms. This sound progressively rose, was sustained for the 7-10 seconds and then ramped back down. I'd suspect some type of sonic weapons test.


----------



## moldyoldy

BVH said:


> Speaking of secret aircraft, last week in Pismo Beach in the morning, I was inside the house when it started to "sound" like an earthquake. The same identical noise a house and the earth itself sound in so make quakes I've witnessed. Something like you might hear is a 5.0 to 5.5. I then stood perfectly still so I could feel the quake but to my surprise, there was absolutely no movement. The noise continued for about 7-10 seconds. It must have been at a low frequency because I could "feel" the noise inside me. About 10 minutes later, the same thing and twice more before the half hour was up. The next day on the news, it was explained away as a "sonic boom" from an F22 out at sea. It was an "unusual one" because of special "atmospheric conditions". Yeah, sure and if I believed that, I'd be buying prime development land in the Florida Everglades. Sonic booms are pretty recognizable, even the Shuttle with it's double but distinctive, short booms. This sound progressively rose, was sustained for the 7-10 seconds and then ramped back down. I'd suspect some type of sonic weapons test.



Well, the source and timing of the sound could also be from the overflight time for a flight vehicle moving rather quickly. ie: Draw a short line from Area 51 past Bakersfield over Pismo Beach and out over the ocean and away from ears and eyes... "Pumpkin Seed" and other such rumors come to mind. The "Aurora" it probably was not - not a pulse jet sound.


----------



## Burgess

Not exactly *secret* . . . .


Today's news showed a " Blimp / Airship " type flying craft (filled with Helium)

called the *AerosCraft* .


While we don't know much about the military Stealth Blimps,

this is something we CAN relate to.



http://www.aeroscraft.com/


----------



## idleprocess

Burgess said:


> Not exactly *secret* . . . .
> 
> 
> Today's news showed a " Blimp / Airship " type flying craft (filled with Helium)
> 
> called the *AerosCraft* .
> 
> 
> While we don't know much about the military Stealth Blimps,
> 
> this is something we CAN relate to.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aeroscraft.com/



Interesting - some of those photos of the airship appear to have been taken in the Tillamook blimp hangar - which I recall is one of the largest wooden structures in the world. I've visited twice - once when I was a very young kid in the 1980's before the destruction of one of the hangars (I recall that a company was working on airships way back then) and the air museum, once a few years back during a west coast vacation.


----------



## firelord777

moldyoldy said:


> National Reconnaissance Office that is in charge of all recon satellites.
> 
> http://www.nro.gov/
> 
> I am still amazed at what is published on some of these orgs.



Thanks man!


----------



## EZO

One of the problems inherent in a thread about secret aircraft is that if said aircraft are in fact secret, we would not be able to discuss them other than to speculate. At best we can talk about the "secret" aircraft that are just now coming into public awareness but that have been in development for quite some time now or ones we've known about for a long time. Of course, that is where there can be something interesting to consider. I remember one of the things that most astonished me about the SR-71 Blackbird was that it had already been in service since the 1960s before any of us had even heard of it many years later.

Lately, I've been thinking about the amazing rise of unmanned drones (UAVs) and wondering what is really out there today in actual deployment that we don't even know about or that are just beginning to creep into public awareness. In fact, it is scary to think about just what society will be like say, ten or 15 years from now when a wide variety of drones with unimaginable capabilities will be ubiquitous. I've been thinking that unmanned drones could make for an interesting thread topic in itself but for the time being I will post about it here since I am talking about cutting edge or speculative flying devices. Drones will be everywhere, not just in the sky and some form of the technology will eventually be in our hands as well in governments, as is the case even now on a rudimentary level. The question really, is just how weird is this unmanned drone thing gonna get? One thing for sure, they are going to get very tiny! And these tiny drones will take many forms like snakes, birds, crawling bugs etc., but of course, this is a thread about aircraft, so we'll stick with that for now. One thing we know, things will certainly get interesting.

So, this post was prompted by the fact that I've been thinking of this subject lately, like I've said, but also that I just learned of The Black Hornet Nano Unmanned Air Vehicle which is currently being used by British forces in Afghanistan. It is a fairly standard surveillance drone, only it measures around 4 inches by 1 inch and weighs about 16 grams. Oh, and it costs around $125,000 for a single unit with portable base station. I definitely want one but I think I'm going to have to wait for awhile, at least until I can buy one from DX for around 30 bucks! (Actually, you can already buy stuff like this now but the range is quite limited, and they really just amount to being fancy toys. Still, there are drones available that can be controlled and viewed on an iPhone, including some GPS mapping functions but certainly not with the speed, agility, range, data transmission density, programmability, durability or other capabilities of the Black Hornet.)

*Black Hornet UAV* *Specs*
• Rotor Span 120 mm, Mass 16 gr including Camera 
• Maximum Speed 10 m/s, Endurance up to 25 minutes 
• Digital Data Link, Range 1000 m Line-of-Sight 
• GPS Navigation or Visual Navigation through Video 
• Autopilot with Autonomous and Directed Modes 
• Hover & Stare, Automatic Search Patterns, Preplanned Routes *Sensors* 
• Steerable EO Camera (pan/tilt) 
• Live Video and Snapshot Images 

*Base Station* 
• Mission Planning, Execution and Analyses 
• Display connections, Functions and System Controls 
• Storage of Mission Data including Video and Images 
• Connections to PC, Network and other Peripherals 
• UAVs housed inside for Protection and Support



















And how about a drone that looks, acts and sounds like an actual mosquito and can "bite" you to extract DNA after it's flown through your window?
"It can be controlled from a great distance and is equipped with a camera, microphone and can land on you, and use it’s needle to take a DNA sample with the pain of a mosquito bite."

There is also a similar type of nano drone allegedly under development that will inject a lethal dose of poison into a victim (excuse me...an enemy combatant) rather than extract DNA. The idea is to have the capability to take out a terrorist or other individual with a precision that makes armed Predator drones look downright clumsy by today's standards and that can completely avoid collateral damage or the killing of innocent civilians.

Here is a photo of one.........and a blog post about it.





Some others:





 





Oh, by the way, speaking of technology we never knew about, the CIA has been working on insect-like drones since the 1970's such as this "Insectothopter".


----------



## Sub_Umbra

I would expect that insects will be *fully* backwards engineered on a genetic level for tomorrows UAVs. Stock up on Black Flag...


----------



## EZO

It may be awhile yet before insects are "fully" genetically backwards engineered for military purposes but they are already being turned into controllable "bionic cyborgs" using neural implants and other "enhancements".

see: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...ct-cyborgs-50-robot-50-insect-100-terrifying/

also: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ate_cyborg_moths_for_surveillance_video_.html


----------



## Burgess

Very Interesting Thread !

Thank you to ALL for your contributions and comments.


----------



## idleprocess

I expect the domestic use of drones by military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies to become an increasingly contentious issue in coming years due to their increasing intelligence, shrinking size, decreasing cost, and the willingness of their producers to promote them to anyone in government that will listen.


----------



## StarHalo

I'm surprised there wasn't drone coverage at the recent CES; I wouldn't really be surprised to see a quadrotor going overhead at an electronics gathering..


----------



## idleprocess

StarHalo said:


> I'm surprised there wasn't drone coverage at the recent CES; I wouldn't really be surprised to see a quadrotor going overhead at an electronics gathering..



Suspect that some of the R/C segment was well-represented ... the more frightening autonomous stuff isn't quite so _consumer_-oriented.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

A thermoelectric energy harvester on a cold-blooded bug? Their muscles generate heat, but not much... Although I can't think of many better ways to get a few microamps for free. I'm surprised they don't consider consuming bug blood sugar.


----------



## EZO

Some more examples of insectoid drones:


----------



## EZO




----------



## Steve K

that's very impressive stuff! Sure beats sticking your head over a wall to see if the enemy sniper is still there.


----------



## EZO

I've known for a long time that miniature remote control helicopters are available but since learning of the Black Hornet copter I've become aware that there are entire websites and hobby groups dedicated to these things. Of course, now that I think about it, how could there not be? In any case, there are a lot of tiny FPV cameras available that are sold for these little helicopters and quadrotors and I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to mimic some of the capabilities of a Black Hornet on a simple level including wireless remote video and even automated "return to base" functions. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Raspberry pi put to use soon in a home made mini spy copter now that they include H.264 video capabilities. My point here, is that if these types of highly sophisticated miniaturized drones are being deployed in combat zones and featured in news articles I wonder what is out there that we don't know about yet? It is interesting to ponder. Perhaps unique sensors and other ultra-miniaturized capabilities or even weapons. Sure beats an old fashioned periscope, in any event.

It is fascinating how consumer technology is being incorporated into military use and military technology is making its way into consumer products. The time for these things to converge seems a lot shorter than it used to be. I understand that an iPhone was used to photograph the face of the just killed Bin Laden and that photo was immediately networked wirelessly back to Langley and the White House. It could just as well have been posted to Facebook, although probably not on the secure satellite up-link. I see that the Black Hornet's specs include networking capabilities, so video shot from these little copters can do the same thing in real time.

Going a little off topic here, I love the soldier's accent in the video and his thoroughly up to the minute military garb. I wonder though, about the wisdom of wearing a fluffy red and white feather on your head in a combat zone when your uniform and everything else around you, including the tablecloth is camo? :ironic:


----------



## mightysparrow

This is a very interesting thread, but as I read the posts I have one concern that tempers my enthusiasm for the technological wonders described. It's not a concern about privacy being somehow breached in the US, as there aren't many situations in which one can reasonably expect privacy while outside of one's home. The concern I have is that it does not take very long for armed terrorists to begin to use our new technologies against us to kill unarmed civilians. As we develop these cool new surveillance capabilities, we will have to simultaneously develop defenses against their use, or we will soon suffer terribly from the technology we find so exciting today.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

The police anticipate a STUNNING number of video-capable drones to be used in America soon.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Some of these tiny UAVs reveal an astonishing *dexterity.* The video linked to below was a real shocker the first time I saw it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nHWvND-8qQ

Nowhere to hide...


----------



## EZO

mightysparrow said:


> This is a very interesting thread, but as I read the posts I have one concern that tempers my enthusiasm for the technological wonders described. It's not a concern about privacy being somehow breached in the US, as there aren't many situations in which one can reasonably expect privacy while outside of one's home. The concern I have is that it does not take very long for armed terrorists to begin to use our new technologies against us to kill unarmed civilians. As we develop these cool new surveillance capabilities, we will have to simultaneously develop defenses against their use, or we will soon suffer terribly from the technology we find so exciting today.



It has always been the case that one form or another of weaponry or surveillance technology gets turned back against itself. Google Earth and satellite mapping is a recent example of "look down from above" technology that is open to everyone world wide and in fact, certain sensitive locations have been obscured but anyone could use the technology to gain information to plan an attack. Unmanned drones can be used by anyone as well and they are being developed and deployed all over the world. Nevertheless, this has been going on for a long, long time now, beginning with the first demonstration of the first hot air balloons in France in 1783, an invention which began to be militarized for surveillance almost immediately. The same concerns were expressed back then as you express in your post and they were at least as valid then as they are now.


----------



## idleprocess

AnAppleSnail said:


> The police anticipate a STUNNING number of video-capable drones to be used in America soon.



I foresee a renewed interest in handheld electronic "disruptors" capable of frying solid-state electronics by generating a focused pulse.


----------



## SemiMan

I beat you to it one or two pages ago 

Semiman


----------



## idleprocess

SemiMan said:


> I beat you to it one or two pages ago
> 
> Semiman



Seemed obvious to me, so clearly someone that _might have some idea how to construct such a thing_ clearly thought about it already.


----------



## EZO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20944726


----------



## idleprocess

Somewhat tangential to the subject at hand...

It has occurred to me that with the ever-increasing surveillance of the American public via electronic - and largely automated - means that perhaps a new branch of government is needed. The Sci-fi author Greg Bear performed a cursory exploration of the concept in his books _Queen of Angels_ and _Slant_ - both set in the near-future United States - with a government agency known as *Citizen Oversight*. This agency, which had semi-judicial powers, methodically collected all kinds of information on people and only released it to interested parties - such as law enforcement - that demonstrated a compelling need for such information. In the books, the agency was thoroughly independent of law enforcement and very routinely declined requests for information for lack of solid evidence or a compelling argument that releasing such information was necessary. Achieving this kind of separation and independence in reality would be extremely difficult, however.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

The last thing we need on this would be more "Government Over-site".

I would hearken back to the 1970s for a better example in this regard -- but it's never going to happen.

In the 70s scanner radios were hot and all kinds of people could tune in to where the crime was and listen (and record) at will. We had all kinds of folks listening and it wasn't bad. Citizens actually highlighted where crime was happening and where attention was needed.

If we are going to put up millions of cameras at the taxpayers expense we should definately not give the govt the monopoly on the fruit. Each crime cam should be a web cam where anyone who "has skin in the game" may watch their own corner and record the atrocities -- whether committed by rabble *or cops. *

There are over 4 million crime cams in the UK and crime just grows and grows. Giving the police a monopoly on the cameras output has not helped them at all -- it has only eroded their freedom.

If the cops want a camera on each corner I understand -- I just don't want them to be *the only filter *of what is captured. Anyone who has been paying attention to what has been going on in the UK over the last two decades *will be able to see what does not work...*

The people are not a danger to the public...


----------



## idleprocess

Sub_Umbra said:


> The last thing we need on this would be more "Government Over-site".


Ideally, the government would end what seem to be increasingly low-effort fishing expeditions against the mass public and nothing that I mused about in my previous post would come to pass.

However, if there must be routine automated surveillance of everything and everyone by the government - which seems to be how things are going given that it's a non-issue for most voters - remove that function from law enforcement and stick it into an independent agency _not answerable to the constabulary_ nor terribly close to it either. A clear set of openly discussed and negotiated rules would be a good starting point.


----------



## StarHalo

Google "Room 641A". And my emphases is Homeland Security; the issue of how intelligence is handled and processed is completely unresolveable at this point. That's all for another thread though, on with the aircraft..


----------



## idleprocess

StarHalo said:


> Google "Room 641A". And my emphases is Homeland Security; the issue of how intelligence is handled and processed is completely unresolveable at this point. That's all for another thread though, on with the aircraft..


I was trying to recall the innocuous-yet-ominous name for that location. Thanks.


----------



## moldyoldy

bump. This was bound to happen sooner or later. 

In German:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/student-will-notgelandete-drohne-versilbern-a-886672.html

In Italian:
http://bologna.repubblica.it/cronac...o_e_lui_tenta_di_rivenderlo_su_ebay-53659847/

It seems that a student discovered a quadrocopter on his balcony, complete with camera, etc. So he immediately posted it for sale for 1000 Euro. The Italian company Start-up Eye-Sky lost control a 40K Euro quadrocopter while on a demonstration mission during the Semester Almafest in Bologna. When the quadrocopter lost radio contact, it functioned per programming and landed safely - on the students balcony. The Italian police evidently matched up the for sale quadrocopter with possible locations, incognito, found a match and retrieved the chopper. The student is in legal trouble now. TBD.\


----------



## EZO

moldyoldy said:


> This was bound to happen sooner or later.



How true. It makes me think of the RQ-170 Sentinel drone that ended up in Iranian hands virtually intact. Whatever the actual reasons were, it "lost radio contact" and ended up in someone else's possession.


----------



## Steve K

moldyoldy said:


> ......It seems that a student discovered a quadrocopter on his balcony, complete with camera, etc. So he immediately posted it for sale for 1000 Euro. The Italian company Start-up Eye-Sky lost control a 40K Euro quadrocopter while on a demonstration mission during the Semester Almafest in Bologna. When the quadrocopter lost radio contact, it functioned per programming and landed safely - on the students balcony. The Italian police evidently matched up the for sale quadrocopter with possible locations, incognito, found a match and retrieved the chopper. The student is in legal trouble now. TBD.\



Is this like the high-tech version of the neighbor kid getting his frisbee stuck up on your roof? Except that the kid didn't know which roof it was on, I guess. If the kid doesn't show up at your door asking to get the frisbee back, are you restricted as to what you can do with it?

Or, in a slightly more stretched analogy, when I'm bike riding and find a decent set of vice-grips (TM) lying along the shoulder of the road, can I keep them, or do I have to give them to whoever says "hey, those are mine" a few weeks later?
For some reason, I keep finding the cheap Chinese vice-grip knockoffs and not the real ones....


----------



## Cyclops942

Steve K said:


> Is this like the high-tech version of the neighbor kid getting his frisbee stuck up on your roof? Except that the kid didn't know which roof it was on, I guess. If the kid doesn't show up at your door asking to get the frisbee back, are you restricted as to what you can do with it?
> 
> Or, in a slightly more stretched analogy, when I'm bike riding and find a decent set of vice-grips (TM) lying along the shoulder of the road, can I keep them, or do I have to give them to whoever says "hey, those are mine" a few weeks later?
> For some reason, I keep finding the cheap Chinese vice-grip knockoffs and not the real ones....


Maybe that's because if you've lost a pair of real Vise-Grips (TM), you look for them until you find them.


----------



## Empath

They could mark them like they used to mark Post Office pens with "Property of the U.S. Government. Theft is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or one year's imprisonment". Probably, not many here remember that.


----------



## EZO

These days "secret aircraft" (and weapons systems) seem to come with their own high production value commercials.


----------



## Steve K

ooohhh!! I want one!! How much does it cost?? 

the part about a laser weapon was new to me. Is this just the presumed advanced version of the Advanced Tactical Laser that the USAF was messing around with on a C-130? I can't imagine that a modest sized drone like this would be able to power that sort of laser.


----------



## EZO

Steve K said:


> the part about a laser weapon was new to me. Is this just the presumed advanced version of the Advanced Tactical Laser that the USAF was messing around with on a C-130? I can't imagine that a modest sized drone like this would be able to power that sort of laser.



This is apparently the new generation HELLADS (*High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System)* that is currently in late prototyping (2012) and early testing (2013). This has been called the "shrink-to fit" laser system that puts a ~150kW laser into a pretty small package.

_"HIGH-powered, lightweight laser weapon that can be fitted to fighter aircraft to destroy missiles tens of kilometres away has been designed by DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the US. __Until now, lasers powerful enough to blow up missiles have been so big they can only be carried by large aircraft such as jumbo jets. For example, the Advanced Tactical Laser being developed by the US's Missile Defense Agency is designed to fit onto a Boeing 747 freighter aircraft to track and destroy ballistic missiles during their boost phase, although the weapon has yet to undergo flight tests. But now DARPA says it has managed to shrink all the hardware for such a weapon so that it can fit under the wing of a fighter jet or piggyback on a vehicle to zap anything from ground-to-air and air-to-air missiles to rocket-propelled grenades." _

If you watch the video again, you'll notice that in describing the features and weapon systems of the new Predator C Avenger, at 2:11 on the video the narrator mentions, "additional fuel for the HELLADS solid state laser weapon". Since this is the first turbo fan powered jet speed Predator, I'm guessing that some of the dramatic increase in power this engine provides is being siphoned off to power the HELLADS. 

More info HERE.


----------



## Steve K

wow... who knew?

150kW is a lot of optical power to be cranking out, although the wiki page says it weighs 1650 pounds, so I guess they are spreading that power out over some good sized optics and such. The wiki page also says it is a "liquid laser", which apparently means that they are using a liquid that fluoresces, and pumping it like you used to do with a ruby rod. My question is.... what are they using to pump it with? My mind starts to boggle at the thought of a 150kW flash tube or whatever. Maybe they pump it with a big bank of Cree LEDs?? 
In any case, it does make you appreciate the elegant simplicity of a nice solid state laser! 

Next question: does the second amendment cover the personal use of 150kW lasers?? And can you conceal-carry them? (just kidding.. don't want to get the thread closed)


----------



## EZO

Steve K said:


> Next question: does the second amendment cover the personal use of 150kW lasers?? And can you conceal-carry them?


----------



## moldyoldy

interesting photo - from "Space Family Robinson" perhaps?

In any case, a bit of trivia: one of the Laser diode types is an edge-emitting device and derives its' power from the jump/drop in energy levels between the levels of orbit. The illumination LEDs that flashaholics get excited about are surface emitting devices. back in the early 70s, I saw edge-emitting laser diodes at Bell Labs Murray Hill where the scientists were adjusting the power levels. Those laser diodes were not the normal/present multi-mode or single-mode communication laser diodes used in fiber optic comms. I had no idea if the edge emitting device could be up scaled, but Bell Labs was working on exactly that. Maybe some of that research gave rise to this result?


----------



## Steve K

I hadn't considered the possible benefits of using that high power laser when set on "faze". It's a nice non-lethal option to using hellfire missiles, eh? 

and am I the only person who looks at this fazer (on the left side, on the top) and sees a knob for a multi-turn potentiometer?? Like in this Bourns catalog on page 11?
http://www.bourns.com/pdfs/bourns_prec_pot_short_form.pdf


----------



## EZO

It's an early model Star Trek phaser, not a Space Family Robinson artifact, and yes that does seem to be an old calibrated standard electronics knob. (I'll bet it goes to eleven.) The prop guys in those days would often get creative with any old thing they had lying around. Call me crazy but part of this phaser looks a lot like the case from a vintage electric razor and the muzzle of this thing looks suspiciously like the business end of a ketchup squeeze bottle, don't it?


----------



## EZO

moldyoldy said:


> In any case, a bit of trivia: one of the Laser diode types is an edge-emitting device and derives its' power from the jump/drop in energy levels between the levels of orbit. The illumination LEDs that flashaholics get excited about are surface emitting devices. back in the early 70s, I saw edge-emitting laser diodes at Bell Labs Murray Hill where the scientists were adjusting the power levels. Those laser diodes were not the normal/present multi-mode or single-mode communication laser diodes used in fiber optic comms. I had no idea if the edge emitting device could be up scaled, but Bell Labs was working on exactly that. Maybe some of that research gave rise to this result?



A little more back on topic here.............Admittedly, I know nothing about this stuff but in reading up on the HELLADS system I keep seeing references to Diode-pumped solid-state lasers as compared with diode lasers. The wiki article states, "DPSS and diode lasers are two of the most common types of solid-state lasers. However, both types have their advantages and disadvantages. DPSS lasers generally have a higher beam quality and can reach very high powers while maintaining a relatively good beam quality."

Regarding the HELLADS weapon, here's a quote from an article I've linked below.

"General Atomics calls its HELLADS design a distributed-gain liquid laser. “It is inherently a combination of a solid-state and a liquid laser. It has attributes of a solid-state laser combined with the efficient cooling of a liquid laser. Liquid is an integral part of the laser itself, and also is the coolant,” Perry explains. In developing the HELLADS prototype, one of the biggest challenges involved balancing output power with the needs for a laser pump system, laser power supply, and ability to cool the laser by removing waste heat. “Eighty percent of your size and weight is taken up with the *diode pump system*, power supply, and thermal management," Perry explains."

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2011/06/general-atomics-to.html

also: http://www.rp-photonics.com/diode_pumped_lasers.html


----------



## Steve K

EZO said:


> ..... “Eighty percent of your size and weight is taken up with the *diode pump system*, power supply, and thermal management," Perry explains."



yeah.. but are they using Cree LEDs or not??? 

Pretty neat stuff, and I'm continually amazed at what folks manage to build. I miss working around solid state lasers, but I get to be in proximity of a laser radar gadget at work.. so that's kinda fun. Honestly, it's probably just as well that I'm not working around a 150kW laser. Can you imagine the results of a little mistake with that?


----------



## Nastytang

StarHalo said:


> We had a pretty happening secret aircraft thread that was lost in The Great Deletion, and there's been no shortage of unique and interesting articles on the subject since then, so this thread will pick up where the last one left off.
> 
> This landed in California today:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Air Force's X-37B unmanned spacecraft, which was sent into orbit (via rocket) from Cape Canaveral on March 2011 - it was in orbit for 15 months. No other details were given.




Looks a little ruff 4 the ware!! I was not happy when the shuttle was retired. I feel we`ll fall behind now....Wonder who will be on the moon first??


----------



## moldyoldy

back to surveillance and drones: 

http://www.wimp.com/nextsurveillance/

Yes, this is an advertising video, but notice the obvious actions that the speaker left out, although some of his words made a clear reference to such capabilities. In particular, the tracking resolution. Some of these scenes remind me of the military videos from Iraq/Afghanistan, which YouTube has many of, albeit not the "best" videos the military recorded. The DEA is right up there with the military when it comes to tracking surveillance. 

and all of this coming to the skies right over you..... oo:


----------



## moldyoldy

On the side of small drones, quadrocopters specifically, check out the development work at the UPenn GRASP laboratory. 

In particular, the link below, in the right column, there is a "TED Talk" video by Dr. Vijay Kumar: Robots that fly ... and cooperate. He gives the physics/dynamics associated with autonomous operation of these Quadrocopters. At the end, he shows how a Quadrocopter can map out the inside of a building it has never been inside before - autonomously. The possible military or SAR applications have to be attracting attention!

https://www.grasp.upenn.edu/


----------



## idleprocess

moldyoldy said:


> On the side of small drones, quadrocopters specifically, check out the development work at the UPenn GRASP laboratory.


One wonders if there will be some development on the hardware/software front analogous to the rapid development 3D graphics and the unexpected secondary applications where capabilities expand considerably while cost drops precipitously, making them cheap enough to be deployed in quantity and pseudo-disposable. 

I read an article last year that covered how current higher-end drone AI works - a lower flight-function lower layer and higher route-planning layer ... typically implemented with two separate computers. With the rapid expansion of mobile chip capabilities, one could perhaps see some breakthroughs in adapting these chips for quadrotor operation doing some of the surprising things that smartphones are doing when packed full of sensors and smart software to interpret their inputs. With accelerometers, mics, cameras, magnetometers, speakers, lights, satnav receivers (GPS/GLONASS), and increasingly agile transceivers you can do a lot of highly autonomous things with a high-mobility platform while keeping touch on its activities.

This is both fascinating and frightening of course. One suspects that surveillance drones of varying flavors will be used by individuals, corporations, and government (civil agency, law enforcement, military, intelligence) in great numbers in the future. The protocols, regulations, and countermeasures that are developed will be interesting...


----------



## moldyoldy

Since I am going to be over there in a bit, I was browsing the BBC website and found this:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130404-invisible-weapons-go-into-battle

For more mundane activities: 
"For example, the US military has funded a Radio-Frequency Vehicle Stopper - a satellite dish sized weapon that can be mounted on top of a jeep that can be used to disable enemy vehicles at a distance. "

hmmm, now that would be useful if the OPFOR did not shoot at the "satellite dish". I wonder what the presumed size of the dish is.

In particular, click on the photo links on the left side - rather interesting.


----------



## Burgess

Hmmm . . . .


That device to disable vehicles

reminds me of " The Day the Earth Stood Still " (1951).


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/?ref_=sr_3


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Ah, the wonders of the modern battlespace. All that will be left operable will be the PLA's *Cavalry* and *'Reserve Pigeon Army'*. It's a stealthy lot, too.


----------



## moldyoldy

Sub_Umbra said:


> Ah, the wonders of the modern battlespace. All that will be left operable will be the PLA's *Cavalry* and *'Reserve Pigeon Army'*. It's a stealthy lot, too.



Stealthy? yup, animals show up as a ghostly image in the M1 IR scope. Actually at the Battle of 73 Eastings, or shortly thereafter, a major standstorm blew in and everyone had to hunker down during the night. A group of M1s saw these ghostly images drifting across their IR scopes - no ID, no friendlies in the area. Also no Bradleys to help out with an ID - the Bradley IR sight was much better than the M1 IR sighting system. So they opened fire. The next morning they ventured out to see what they hit. I will leave it to your imagination what happens to a camel when hit by a 120mm HEAT round....


----------



## moldyoldy

Back to the Star Wars phasors: This phasor below was auctioned off for ~177K Euro in LA. Purchaser unknown. From the film Captain Kirk (William Shatner, now 82) in 1966 in a „Star Trek“- Film „Where No Man Has Gone Before". Captain Kirk's command chair went for 233K Euro some 5 years ago.


----------



## moldyoldy

ok, back on topic, sort of, the topic of stealth drones and how they navigate:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_01_2013_p24-563496.xml

This opens up further the idea that an autonomous drone can make a kill decision. hmmmmm.


----------



## EZO

More on highly capable miniature drones; this time open source, with increasingly sophisticated capabilities for the size/weight ratio. The Crazyflie Nano Quadcopter development kit opens up a lot of possibilities. It is an open source nano quadcopter kit designed for development and hacking. It's quite small, weighing only 19 grams and measuring 9 cm motor to motor. It is fascinating to consider how fast this technology is evolving and advancing and interesting to ponder where this will lead in say, ten years time. Also interesting to consider what is in development on a government level considering recent hobbyist/enthusiast/university work. I imagine there will be advances in range, run times, sensor technology, stealth, etc, along with offensive capabilities. In fact, considering the agility of this platform my guess is that we will be seeing rather large ones being developed as well as increasingly tiny ones.


----------



## moldyoldy

on the subject of increased capabilities for these multi-rotor 'copters, I skimmed thru an article in the latest model-flight magazine at the Fitness Center which reviewed a 6 rotor chopper. Other than an increased weight-lifting capability, I wonder what the use of more rotors offers? better control in a smaller space because of decreased rotor sweep with the same lift? A "limp-home" or fail-safe mode with one motor gone? 

All the multi-rotor specs identify flight time. However the Gargoyle mode is of greater concern for eavesdropping. Think about it this way: If a X-rotor flight vehicle can park close to a monitor, like on the outside of the building next to the window of the executive suite, the emanating signals from that monitor can be picked up and relayed to a ground station. This is the equivalent of picking up the Local Oscillator frequency from the street below, but w/o a parabolic antenna pointed in obvious directions. There are very few laptops/desktops outside of the military or certain Gov agencies with TEMPEST certification which would block that emission. Meaning that real-time computer activities of competitors could be monitored.... Now there is a danger!


----------



## EZO

moldyoldy said:


> on the subject of increased capabilities for these multi-rotor 'copters, I skimmed thru an article in the latest model-flight magazine at the Fitness Center which reviewed a 6 rotor chopper. Other than an increased weight-lifting capability, I wonder what the use of more rotors offers? better control in a smaller space because of decreased rotor sweep with the same lift? A "limp-home" or fail-safe mode with one motor gone?
> 
> All the multi-rotor specs identify flight time. However the Gargoyle mode is of greater concern for eavesdropping. Think about it this way: If a X-rotor flight vehicle can park close to a monitor, like on the outside of the building next to the window of the executive suite, the emanating signals from that monitor can be picked up and relayed to a ground station. This is the equivalent of picking up the Local Oscillator frequency from the street below, but w/o a parabolic antenna pointed in obvious directions. There are very few laptops/desktops outside of the military or certain Gov agencies with TEMPEST certification which would block that emission. Meaning that real-time computer activities of competitors could be monitored.... Now there is a danger!



Moldy, your mention of local oscillator frequencies and parabolic antennas got me thinking/remembering about another surveillance technique that has been in use for quite some time that has rendered some aspects of what you describe as obsolete in regard to audio surveillance. I'm referring to the Laser Microphone that can monitor sounds in a room stealthily from great distances with minimal chance of detection. Basically, a laser interferometer is directed into the room through a window, reflects off an object or the window itself, measures subtle oscillations in sound pressure waves and returns to a receiver that converts the beam to an audio signal. No parabolic antennas are part of the equation for audio surveillance. Monitoring computers is a different kettle of fish though and that is perhaps more of what you are referring to. I'm sure what you are describing is in the works. Perhaps a drone could plant a tiny receiver on window sill and then retreat to a nearby building to sit and wait for a signal.

Edit: After looking it up I've learned that TEMPEST certification refers to any unintentional emanations, electrical, mechanical, or acoustical. Interesting.

Interestingly, the current ability to ultra miniaturize lasers combined with miniature quad-copter drones raises some new possibilities. Park a laser microphone equipped drone on a window ledge across the street and you don't even have to go near the target's building.

On the subject of 6 rotor drones, one of the biggest obstacles at the moment for tiny quadcopters is run time, so my reaction to hearing about them is that any added capabilities they would provide would be a double edged sword as one would need additional power for the extra two rotors.


----------



## moldyoldy

ahhh, but laser mics have an easy counter - ie: a very unsophisticated form would be a tiny oscillating weight on the end of a small electric motor, barely audible in the room, and so affixed to each window pane. They are similar in philosophy to those used for mole repelling & stuck in to the ground. Those vibrating devices of appropriate displacement amplitude are already installed somewhere on each window pane of interesting buildings, if there are even windows. The sneakier trick is to _focus_ the laser beam thru the window to bounce off a pane of something thin inside the room and pick up the return. Lots of "noise", but ...


----------



## EZO

You are quite right, there is always a countermeasure.


----------



## moldyoldy

ROFLMAO! Touché!


----------



## moldyoldy

A short story in reference to picking up local oscillator signals: Once upon a time, I lived in Germany in a small village. Several times I observed a Bundespost panel truck with a parabolic antenna on top which was being pointed at various floors of all buildings and slowly driving thru the village checking for radios and TVs. At that time, ALL radios and TVs in Germany still had to registered and a fee was assessed, if the receiving device was allowed. There were limits! Fortunately any radio I had was always turned off, otherwise I would have had to "pull rank" as a member of an "occupying force". Now the fee ("Rundfunkbeitrag") is being assessed in a general fashion since the assumption is that many citizens are switching to the Internet as a means to read/listen to news/musik. This fee is what funds public radio/TV with no commercials. As you might suspect, there is a rather warm debate about the usefulness of both the fee and the public institutions given that every family and business supposedly has to pay the fee now.

back to LO detection: There have been several tests in Manhattan where a person in a car/van on the street pointed his parabolic antenna up at a specific room in the building, found a desktop monitor and was able to reproduce exactly what was being displayed on that person's monitor, albeit not at the same resolution. Of course being a test, both parties were in full agreement with the test.


----------



## EZO

moldyoldy said:


> back to LO detection: There have been several tests in Manhattan where a person in a car/van on the street pointed his parabolic antenna up at a specific room in the building, found a desktop monitor and was able to reproduce exactly what was being displayed on that person's monitor, albeit not at the same resolution. Of course being a test, both parties were in full agreement with the test.



I believe what your are referring to is known as Van Eck Phreaking. It was a major part of Neal Stephenson's novel Cryptonomicon. (a good read!)
This technique gives a whole new meaning to the term Wardriving or perhaps it is just a different form of the same thing!

Here is a screen capture obtained with this method.





Edit: If anyone is interested, here is one of the original research papers on this subject and the source of the above screen capture.


----------



## EZO

*Micro Air Vehicles*

Back on the topic of aircraft, here is another defense contractor promotional infomercial, this time from General Dynamics via the AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory).
It's really rather creepy to consider where this technology is heading. It's perhaps even creepier that these things are being promoted almost like the latest car models.
It wouldn't be much of a stretch for micro air vehicles to be deployed with Van Eck phreaking technology along with everything else they will be able to do.


----------



## moldyoldy

Thanks for the reminder of the name "*Van Eck phreaking"*, the reference to the novel and the LCD display study! Note that one level of defense for just about any EMI, etc., is to use signal/Ethernet cables with a very high shield % - and very expensive! I am appalled at the low shield percentage coverage found in commonly sold "shielded" cable, or how those shields are terminated!

As for MAVs, that was an interesting video! I have written before that I continue to be amazed at the information released to the public. Of course, what is not released is ....


----------



## Steve K

when I was working for a defense contractor, the idea that someone could sit in the parking lot and reconstruct the info on a computer monitor was pretty common. Same for using a laser to pick up audio from a window. Lots of windows had the little vibrators installed. Not sure what they were doing for the computers, but most of the office areas that I was in weren't secured areas. The sneaky or black projects all took place in buildings that had no windows and were shielded. 

To keep this on topic, this was an aircraft company that did develop some secret aircraft, such as the A-12 Avenger back in the late 80's. The project was cancelled, though... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II


----------



## EZO

It really is mind boggling to think about the myriad possibilities for how remote controlled drones could be deployed. No doubt, there is much we are not privy to and that won't soon be promoted in videos with dramatic voice overs and sound tracks. One example might be magnetic quadcopters of various sizes that could be surreptitiously flown out to ships that could attach to the hull and go quiet. They might sit there engaging in various forms of surveillance and then be exploded at will when the timing is right. Drones in different sizes could change warfare as we know it. You could fly one of these things right down the barrel of a tank if you wanted to or attach one to any vehicle before exploding it. Swarms of them could be equipped with human seeking sensors and velcro like hooks that would attach to clothing before they explode. The new battle cry might be, *"Get that thing off of me!!*"

And then there would be the inevitable countermeasures.


----------



## moldyoldy

guess who is requesting regulation of "mini-drones"? just that he is even requesting regulation of something is amazing!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22134898

I suspect that regulation of mini-drones is a case of shutting the barn door after the horse bolted. way too late. 

and check out some of the other links on that page as well.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Google/Pot -- Kettle -- Black


----------



## moldyoldy

Sub_Umbra said:


> Google/Pot -- Kettle -- Black



Great comeback!  :bow:


----------



## EZO

Eric Schmidt, the front man for such products as Google Street View, satellite maps/images and enthusiastic proponent of ubiquitous user tracking said. *"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." *Perhaps it has suddenly dawned on him that he is as vulnerable to having someone fly a drone over the back yard of his mega-mansion in Atherton CA as anyone else. For an interesting read and some evidence of this man's hypocrisy check out this brief article at The Electronic Frontier Foundation, wherein he "dismisses the importance of privacy". Here is a revealing snippet from the article about how this man operates, "Schmidt blacklisted CNET reporters from Google after the tech news company published an article with information about his salary, neighborhood, hobbies, and political donations -- all obtained from Google searches." Also interesting to note is that apparently, since the publication of that article Google has been swept clean of any mapping references or personal information searches regarding Mr. Schmidt. 

To keep this thread on topic I sent one of my drones up to snap a shot of his modest crib. :devil:


----------



## moldyoldy

Now the EU itself is investing in drone projects:

http://www.aeroceptor.eu/docs/About_the_project.pdf

The original intention by the EU appears to be only another form of stopping fleeing vehicles. However the German website where I first noticed the reference wrote about more nefarious activities that could be conducted w/o the affected people knowing about the drones presence. 

The quote comes to mind: "All paths lead to Rome". Whether legally or illegally, large and small drone usage is here to stay and no signature on a piece of paper is going to stop them.

Edit: A request was made of the EU commission as to what activities they were thinking about. The answer included electromagnetic disruption (of the vehicle), a sticky foam sprayed on the vehicle which would gradually harden, means of poking holes in the tires, etc. The EU commission is focusing on Quadrocopter-style RPAS (Remotely Piloted Air Systems).

The obvious thought is why limit these RPAS activities to vehicles?


----------



## AnAppleSnail

EZO said:


> Eric Schmidt, the front man for such products as Google Street View, satellite maps/images and enthusiastic proponent of ubiquitous user tracking said. *"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."*



That's a very unhealthy attitude, and it becomes clear the moment you realize that you have things to hide. We just aren't adjusted to transparent society.

I don't see practical drones feasibly intercepting cars. Just the payload necessary to do much to a car is prohibitive. Really, anything short of a decent-sized bullet won't harm tires. And it takes a LOT of sprayfoam to do more than cover a windshield. Some people will do anything for a headline.


----------



## markr6

EZO said:


> Edit: If anyone is interested, here is one of the original research papers on this subject and the source of the above screen capture.



I started reading some of this...my brain hurts :huh:


----------



## idleprocess

The problem with cheap capable drones is the same as the problems with technology simultaneously getting more powerful, cheaper, offering ever-expanding capabilities, and easier to deploy - surveillance that once took concerted effort to conduct can now be done cheaply, and largely automatically. As government and companies like google are discovering, huge compilations of data about individuals can prove valuable or useful both immediately and later down the road with more data when you can build more complete profiles of them and who knows what else with future analytical tools. I wonder if we will have to go the way of making personal information something you have some degree of control over and unauthorized possession of said information carries some sort of liability sufficient to dissuade holding it.

I do wonder if we'll be seeing remote power for some of these autonomous surveillance drones via directed microwaves so that these things can be recharged. Perhaps they'll go so far as to improvise their own recharging somehow via plugging in or something more discreet such as inductive coils over power mains...


----------



## EZO

An interesting alternative, non-surveillance, non-military application of quadcopter drone technology. Eventually, we may see them used in many interesting and unanticipated ways.
(Actually, I'll bet this thing will have a camera to help assess and aid the rescue, now that I think about it.)


----------



## EZO

EZO said:


> Eric Schmidt, the front man for such products as Google Street View, satellite maps/images and enthusiastic proponent of ubiquitous user tracking said. *"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
> 
> *
> 
> 
> AnAppleSnail said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very unhealthy attitude, and it becomes clear the moment you realize that you have things to hide. We just aren't adjusted to transparent society.
Click to expand...


It's not a question of "having something to _hide_". It is a question of *privacy*. Someone searching for answers about a health issue, like herpes or cancer deserves privacy. A teenager who is concerned about a possible pregnancy or maybe wants to learn about something he or she doesn't quite feel comfortable talking to their parents about, or anyone wanting information about _any_ personal matter for that matter, deserves privacy.........*period!*

One time, I was chatting with a fellow who showed up to join our Sunday hiking group. Out on the trail, when a discussion about privacy on the internet arose he made the same argument, saying, "Hey, I've got nothing to hide". I asked him to hand me his wallet so I could look through it and he froze in his tracks and said, no way!! Why the hell do you want to look through my wallet or think you have a right? Just curious, I said,............"I thought you said you have nothing to hide?"

I apologize if this post seems to veer further off topic, although with the rise of low cost ubiquitous drone technology and the potential for it to be linked to the networks, perhaps discussions about privacy can no longer be disconnected from the topic of _secret_ aircraft.


----------



## Steve K

something to hide?? Nope, not me... other than the stealth aircraft I've been working on in the basement....


----------



## Steve K

idleprocess said:


> I do wonder if we'll be seeing remote power for some of these autonomous surveillance drones via directed microwaves so that these things can be recharged. Perhaps they'll go so far as to improvise their own recharging somehow via plugging in or something more discreet such as inductive coils over power mains...




From an EMI standpoint, directing high power RF at the drone can't do much for its circuits to operate, or for its ability to communicate via a RF link. Same for hovering near a power wire.... Perhaps good shielding would be sufficient, or good filters?


----------



## EZO

That video I included in post #119 re: *Micro Air Vehicles* (at 0:57) says, in regard to low power extended surveillance mode: "This may require the MAV to harvest energy from environmental sources, such as sunlight, or wind, or from man made sources such as power lines and vibrating machinery".


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> From an EMI standpoint, directing high power RF at the drone can't do much for its circuits to operate, or for its ability to communicate via a RF link. Same for hovering near a power wire.... Perhaps good shielding would be sufficient, or good filters?



Powering it "wirelessly" would interrupt communication, but if one did that at intervals while it held a pattern and didn't need to communicate, it could be viable.

An inductive coil over a power line need not be a multi-kV transmission line - just anything it can reasonably get to. Perhaps a residential distribution line would be less troublesome.


----------



## Steve K

idleprocess said:


> An inductive coil over a power line need not be a multi-kV transmission line - just anything it can reasonably get to. Perhaps a residential distribution line would be less troublesome.



hmmm.... now I have a mental image of a small drone roosting on the power wire, sitting next to the pigeons.... 

on a practical note, extracting 60hz power out of the field around a residential power wire will be difficult in a small lightweight drone. The microwave beam method has much better prospects.


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> on a practical note, extracting 60hz power out of the field around a residential power wire will be difficult in a small lightweight drone. The microwave beam method has much better prospects.


What are the limitations? Power available to siphon off? 60Hz would need physically large components / size limitations for a small drone?

One suspects that truly small drones (insect-sized) would have a short operational lifespan and generally be single-use devices... and likely cheap enough that recovering them after use would not be a significant priority.


----------



## Steve K

idleprocess said:


> What are the limitations? Power available to siphon off? 60Hz would need physically large components / size limitations for a small drone?



For a lot of different fields of physics, higher frequency means more energy and smaller size. For simple things like transformers, the voltage induced in a loop is proportional to the change in flux divided by the change in in time. i.e. the faster the magnetic flux changes, the greater voltage and power. This is why aircraft use 400Hz AC power instead of 60Hz, for example. It saves weight in the transformers, motors, etc (although this was more critical before electronic inverters and high power mosfets & IGBT's were invented).


----------



## EZO

Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences announced today that after about a decade of development their tiny insect sized flying robot, Robobee is finally airworthy and can perform in controlled flight, albeit tethered for now. Future development will involve a "brain", self contained power, colony coordination and fully autonomous behaviors.


----------



## idleprocess

EZO said:


> Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences announced today that after about a decade of development their tiny insect sized flying robot, Robobee is finally airworthy and can perform in controlled flight, albeit tethered for now. Future development will involve a "brain", self contained power, colony coordination and fully autonomous behaviors.



Impressive - ornithopters have been a holy grail of aeronautical engineering for decades now.

"Self-powered" and "onboard brain" are ambitious milestones - suspect that the weight/power margins are vanishingly small.

Interesting that they have landing legs, but in the demo it just drops out of the sky and lands randomly.


----------



## EZO

idleprocess said:


> Impressive - ornithopters have been a holy grail of aeronautical engineering for decades now.
> 
> "Self-powered" and "onboard brain" are ambitious milestones - suspect that the weight/power margins are vanishingly small.
> 
> Interesting that they have landing legs, but in the demo it just drops out of the sky and lands randomly.



Indeed, you are correct in pointing out the miniscule weight/power margins, but who knows? I have an old, rather large and heavy 400 MB SCSI hard drive kicking around that I bought back in the mid 1990's for several hundred dollars and I am sitting here looking at a 32 GB (class 10) MicroSD card I bought about a week ago for 27 dollars. Every time I hold one of these on the tip of my index finger I marvel at how much memory - read/write speed is now available in such a tiny package at such low cost. Given some time those ambitious milestones may seem trivial in the not too distant future. I suspect nanotechnology will play a role.

It looks as though those "landing legs" are really "take off" legs for the time being.


----------



## idleprocess

EZO said:


> Indeed, you are correct in pointing out the miniscule weight/power margins, but who knows? I have an old, rather large and heavy 400 MB SCSI hard drive kicking around that I bought back in the mid 1990's for several hundred dollars and I am sitting here looking at a 32 GB (class 10) MicroSD card I bought about a week ago for 27 dollars. Every time I hold one of these on the tip of my index finger I marvel at how much memory - read/write speed is now available in such a tiny package at such low cost. Given some time those ambitious milestones may seem trivial in the not too distant future. I suspect nanotechnology will play a role.
> 
> It looks as though those "landing legs" are really "take off" legs for the time being.



Sadly, energy-storage technology isn't progressing so rapidly as we'd like.

Computing seems to be making some pretty solid advances in processing-power per watt, so I think some sort of rudimentary onboard "brain" will come before onboard power. But even that's going to be some ways off - it takes a surprising amount of modern computing power to simulate insect behavior... even without all of the various non-motion components of insect intelligence (finding food, social behaviors, reproduction) there's still a lot of ground to cover with movement, sensor processing, and added command+control overhead. One likely important function that will be needed for micro drones is some sort of predator evasion/countermeasures since insect drones may prove attractive - if inedible - targets for predators.


----------



## EZO

idleprocess said:


> Sadly, energy-storage technology isn't progressing so rapidly as we'd like.
> 
> Computing seems to be making some pretty solid advances in processing-power per watt, so I think some sort of rudimentary onboard "brain" will come before onboard power. But even that's going to be some ways off - it takes a surprising amount of modern computing power to simulate insect behavior... even without all of the various non-motion components of insect intelligence (finding food, social behaviors, reproduction) there's still a lot of ground to cover with movement, sensor processing, and added command+control overhead. One likely important function that will be needed for micro drones is some sort of predator evasion/countermeasures since insect drones may prove attractive - if inedible - targets for predators.



These devices are coming. Ray Kurzweill, the noted inventor and futurist predicted recently that in 20 years or less computing devices will be a million times more powerful than they are now and will be the size of blood cells........"Technology is shrinking at an exponential rate, which I’ve measured at about 100 in 3D volume per decade. At that rate, we will be able to introduce blood cell-sized devices that are robotic and have computers that can communicate wirelessly by the 2030s." This may be only partially true, time will tell, but certainly past advances seem to support this trend. Think about the amount of computing power, sensors, cameras, battery life and connectivity in the average smart phone and consider that this would have been unimaginable not all that long ago. Tiny millimeter sized computing devices (including the battery) are already in successful development. In fact, atomic scale memory is under development as well, and has been achieved to some degree. (see also)

I think insect sized drones will have some form of on board power storage but will most likely draw power from their environment, such as sunlight, wind, power lines, vibration or artificial photosynthesis.












128 GB NAND flash memory chip


----------



## ToyTank

The advances that will allow untethered power are progressing quickly. 

Chemical cells won't be the replacement, it will be either ultra capacitors or fuel cells IMO. 

Fuel cells are now available for charging consumer devices.

Nano tech will increase the surface area of both capacitors and fuel cells increasing potential. 

LENR (the infamous cold fusion) could also create either heat or hydrogen for a new generation of energy storage/generation devices. The Navy thinks there is something there...


----------



## EZO

ToyTank said:


> The advances that will allow untethered power are progressing quickly.
> 
> Chemical cells won't be the replacement, it will be either ultra capacitors or fuel cells IMO.
> 
> Fuel cells are now available for charging consumer devices.
> 
> Nano tech will increase the surface area of both capacitors and fuel cells increasing potential.
> 
> LENR (the infamous cold fusion) could also create either heat or hydrogen for a new generation of energy storage/generation devices. The Navy thinks there is something there...



I would agree about the fuel cells. In fact the artificial photosynthesis devices I mentioned in my last post are just that....fuel cells that use nickel and cobalt to photo-catalytically split water into oxygen and hydrogen. Dan Nocera, Phd. the Patterson Rockwood Professor of Energy at Harvard University (also MIT) is the guy behind most of the research into this and is founder of Sun Catalytix, a company that is working to commercialize this potentially game changing technology. Here's an interesting (3 year old) video about it.


----------



## idleprocess

ToyTank said:


> The advances that will allow untethered power are progressing quickly.
> 
> Chemical cells won't be the replacement, it will be either ultra capacitors or fuel cells IMO.
> 
> Fuel cells are now available for charging consumer devices.
> 
> Nano tech will increase the surface area of both capacitors and fuel cells increasing potential.
> 
> LENR (the infamous cold fusion) could also create either heat or hydrogen for a new generation of energy storage/generation devices. The Navy thinks there is something there...



Fuel cells have been coming Real Soon Now (R) for decades. Short of large stationary generating applications, exotic "cost is no object" alternatives to nuclear reactors, the space program, and some battery alternatives targeted at pro users who don't want to deal with stacks of costly proprietary li-ion cells, fuel cells simply haven't delivered. The last category usually relies on direct methanol or some other hydrocarbon - and the system energy density doesn't compete well with batteries (but is far cheaper for long duration operation).


----------



## EZO

While Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences' RoboBee (also known as MoBee - Monolithic Bee) flying insect sized drone is a remarkable engineering achievement, the laminate "Pop-up" folding manufacturing process they've developed to produce it is even more groundbreaking and is likely to have a greater and more far reaching impact in the future development and mass production of complex micro sized electromechanical devices than the initial device prototype itself. The technique was inspired by Pop-up books and Origami.


----------



## moldyoldy

bump:

It seems that the German Railway system "Die Bahn" will start using small "camera drones" with IR cameras to combat graffiti and general surveillance over various Bahn facilities. The intent is to produce sufficiently clear evidence to convict the thieves:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/un...iti-sprueher-mit-drohnen-filmen-a-901973.html

The drones will be marked with the Bahn logo, cost about 60K Euro, fly at about 150 meters altitude for about 80 min at a speed of 54 KPH. The Bahn believes that a 40KM section can be surveilled with each device.

Alternatively,on the same webpage, there is an video link showing the German Telekom practicing using drones to combat thieves ripping out the copper communication cables. It seems that the Telekom will mark the cables with a special substance containing an artificial DNA.


----------



## idleprocess

moldyoldy said:


> Alternatively,on the same webpage, there is an video link showing the German Telekom practicing using drones to combat thieves ripping out the copper communication cables. It seems that the Telekom will mark the cables with a special substance containing an artificial DNA.


I have no idea what it will cost them to mark installed cables with "artificial DNA", but replacing copper with fiber has a host of benefits to the operator in addition to removing most of the incentive to steal it.


----------



## EZO

Not exactly secret but interesting nonetheless. It was kept "quiet" until it was ready to show off...... Project Zero, an "all" electric Tilt Rotor Technology Demonstrator.
As is so often the case these days, the fly in the ointment is the need for higher energy density lithium-ion batteries, so this version has an electric-hybrid diesel powered propulsion system.

This thing brings to mind the tilt rotor 'copters from Avatar, only in a more futuristic and less military looking package.

AgustaWestland


----------



## Burgess

Very interesting !

I noticed * THIS * youtube video, right next to it.

Overly Simplified, to be sure.
But still worth a look.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUgsyYotLkQ


----------



## IlluminatedOne

This Moller skycar has been around for a while and i hope one day we can have something like this. IIRC 8 rotary engines driving 4 fans for redundancy.


----------



## Steve K

Paul Moller has been working on that flying car for a number of decades now, and still hasn't made an untethered flight. On the wiki page for him, there is mention of him being in trouble for fraud:

"In 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Moller for civil fraud (Securities And Exchange Commission v. Moller International, Inc., and Paul S. Moller, Defendants) in connection with the sale of unregistered stock, and for making unsubstantiated claims about the performance of the Skycar. Moller settled this lawsuit by agreeing to a permanent injunction and paying $50,000.[1]"

So... I wouldn't say that this was a secret aircraft. Honestly, it's much more of a descendant of the similarly failed Avro Avrocar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Avrocar


----------



## idleprocess

I do not anticipate aircraft (flying cars or otherwise) displacing personal ground transport anytime soon due to the far greater energy consumption, greatly reduced margins for error, greatly increased maintenance requirements, and subsequent immense increases in cost.

Or, to put it more simply - _"as bad as the average motorist drives and as poorly as they maintain their vehicles, I surely don't want them piloting aircraft"_.


----------



## Cyclops942

idleprocess said:


> Or, to put it more simply - _"as bad as the average motorist drives and as poorly as they maintain their vehicles, I surely don't want them piloting aircraft"_.


Amen!


(And I fully realize that I must include myself in the group of less-than-stellarly-maintaining, imperfectly driving auto owners...)


----------



## StarHalo

Lockheed Martin SR-72 concept; edge-of-space hypersonic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platform, top speed of Mach 6 and armed for strike capability. Planned for production as a demonstrator in 2018.


----------



## Steve K

I saw a newspaper article on the SR-72 within the last week. Pretty interesting. Makes you wonder why there is a need for the SR-72 when there apparently wasn't a need for the SR-71 for a few years. 

The technology reminds me of the National Aerospace Plane that was supposed to revolutionize intercontinental air travel back in the early 90's. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30

The big questions of "can it be built?", "can we afford it?", and "why do we need it?" seem appropriate. It certainly doesn't appear useful for our current threats. Must be for the days when another superpower pops up?


----------



## moldyoldy

The development of the SR-72 is interesting for two reasons. I do not believe the supposed delivery date - too far away. The proposed engines that operate with turbines that then convert to ramjets is something that the engineers and pilots noticed with the SR-71 itself, just not to the Mach 6 level. Most of the challenge is metallurgy (airframe/engine) for strength and heat resistance. Mach 6 means NY to London in about an hour. 

However the perceived need for the SR-72 means that the X-37B unmanned shuttle that very frequently changes orbit to inspect this or that satellite (speculated) or this or that point on Earth (speculated) is inadequate to answer a need. I suspect that the X-37B uses the on-board fuel at a rather impressive rate to change orbits. Yes, the X-37B has flown at least 3 times in a couple years (?), but that is not a very operational system. 

The Colonel that first piloted and then commanded several SR-71s stated that the primary advantage of the SR-71 was quick reaction to requests. ie: During the Yom Kippur war, the US President wanted to confirm that both sides had withdrawn to their stated positions. An SR-71 was dispatched to photograph the necessary areas. The photos confirmed that combatants had not withdrawn as promised. So the President called each of them up and stated that he had proof that they were still in a combat position and to cease/desist and withdraw. They did, and that was the end of the war.


----------



## EZO

moldyoldy said:


> The development of the SR-72 is interesting for two reasons. I do not believe the supposed delivery date - too far away. The proposed engines that operate with turbines that then convert to ramjets is something that the engineers and pilots noticed with the SR-71 itself, just not to the Mach 6 level. Most of the challenge is metallurgy (airframe/engine) for strength and heat resistance. Mach 6 means NY to London in about an hour.
> 
> However the perceived need for the SR-72 means that the X-37B unmanned shuttle that very frequently changes orbit to inspect this or that satellite (speculated) or this or that point on Earth (speculated) is inadequate to answer a need. I suspect that the X-37B uses the on-board fuel at a rather impressive rate to change orbits. Yes, the X-37B has flown at least 3 times in a couple years (?), but that is not a very operational system.
> 
> The Colonel that first piloted and then commanded several SR-71s stated that the primary advantage of the SR-71 was quick reaction to requests. ie: During the Yom Kippur war, the US President wanted to confirm that both sides had withdrawn to their stated positions. An SR-71 was dispatched to photograph the necessary areas. The photos confirmed that combatants had not withdrawn as promised. So the President called each of them up and stated that he had proof that they were still in a combat position and to cease/desist and withdraw. They did, and that was the end of the war.



One of the problems inherent is a thread discussing secret aircraft is that they are, umm.......secret. The SR-71 began early concept development in the 1950s and was finally put into service on December 22, 1964 literally decades before its existence was made public. It ultimately served until 1998. The development of the SR-72 is all well and good and indeed very interesting but I think we should all assume that there are aircraft in service today, especially in the area of reconnaissance but perhaps also multi-tasking craft that we will not know about until a great many years from now. The SR-72 may even be just a red-herring.


----------



## mattheww50

EZO said:


> One of the problems inherent is a thread discussing secret aircraft is that they are, umm.......secret. The SR-71 began early concept development in the 1950s and was finally put into service on December 22, 1964 literally decades before its existence was made public. It ultimately served until 1998. The development of the SR-72 is all well and good and indeed very interesting but I think we should all assume that there are aircraft in service today, especially in the area of reconnaissance but perhaps also multi-tasking craft that we will not know about until a great many years from now. The SR-72 may even be just a red-herring.



Hate to disillusion you but the SR71 was annoucned by Lyndon Jojhnson February 29th, 1964. While it's exact capabilities are still secret, even then it was known to be capable of at least Mach 3, and flight up to 80,000 feet. That certainly was a lot sooner thatn decades before its existence was made public. However I will concede that the SR72 is probably a pie-in-sky idea from Lockheed, who specializes in ways to obtain vast amounts of tax payer dollars for gold plated weapons systems that are largely useless against today's threats. Please tell me useful the F22 or F35 is against the Taliban? I've have estimated the tru operating cost of the B2 at about $200,000 per hour! The Pentagon regards a $20,000 bomb as cheap these days...


----------



## EZO

mattheww50 said:


> Hate to disillusion you but the SR71 was annoucned by Lyndon Jojhnson February 29th, 1964. While it's exact capabilities are still secret, even then it was known to be capable of at least Mach 3, and flight up to 80,000 feet. That certainly was a lot sooner thatn decades before its existence was made public. However I will concede that the SR72 is probably a pie-in-sky idea from Lockheed, who specializes in ways to obtain vast amounts of tax payer dollars for gold plated weapons systems that are largely useless against today's threats. Please tell me useful the F22 or F35 is against the Taliban? I've have estimated the tru operating cost of the B2 at about $200,000 per hour! The Pentagon regards a $20,000 bomb as cheap these days...



You are quite correct about President Johnson announcing the existence of an aircraft with these capabilities in 1964, which he did so under political pressure after accusations from Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Presidential election cycle that the United States was losing its military prowess against the Soviets. The plane Johnson announced was actually the initial A-12 reconnaissance variant not the craft that continued in secret development by the CIA, although the distinction may not be relevant. I think perhaps the important factor is that no further details and specifically, no photographs of the airplane were released to the public until _many_ years after 1964.


----------



## SemiMan

Yes but all this was before the internet and other countries with advanced tech. Much harder to hide real hardware now .... But you can simulate a lot


----------



## Steve K

moldyoldy said:


> The development of the SR-72 is interesting for two reasons. I do not believe the supposed delivery date - too far away. The proposed engines that operate with turbines that then convert to ramjets is something that the engineers and pilots noticed with the SR-71 itself, just not to the Mach 6 level. Most of the challenge is metallurgy (airframe/engine) for strength and heat resistance.



What is/was the name of the small test vehicle that was flown in the last year or so? It was supposed to operate at very high Mach number... higher than Mach 6, I think. 
edit: it's the X-43....
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html
end-of-edit
I saw something on Modern Marvels (IIRC) that looked at the aircraft, and they mentioned that the leading edges were made of "carbon carbon". 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon–carbon

Pretty interesting stuff, but I think it means that we can't just talk about metallurgy when it comes to high temperature materials.
Shoot... the wiki page says "It has been used in the brake systems of Formula One racing cars since 1976", so I guess it's not at all new.


----------



## RTR882

Since the SR 71 was retired, I'd bet that something else (better) replaced it.


----------



## Steve K

I was assuming that a Global Hawk was loitering over all of the places that we cared about, and got fast downloads of the data. If you aren't trying to get a look at stuff far into Russia (or China?), there's not much need to get in and out quickly.

The SR-72's ability to carry a payload adds a whole new range of possible missions, and that does intrigue me. I also wonder what sort of payload can be deployed at Mach 6.... probably the same payload that can tolerate delivery on an ICBM?


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> The SR-72's ability to carry a payload adds a whole new range of possible missions, and that does intrigue me. I also wonder what sort of payload can be deployed at Mach 6.... probably the same payload that can tolerate delivery on an ICBM?



Perhaps a pure kinetic weapon - I hear that tungsten has excellent properties in this regard. Or maybe a more conventional guided weapon with a heat shield that jettisons once it has slowed to a reasonable speed.


----------



## Steve K

idleprocess said:


> Perhaps a pure kinetic weapon - I hear that tungsten has excellent properties in this regard.



aha!!! I've figured it all out... incandescent bulbs have been banned in order to save valuable tungsten for the manufacture of kinetic weapons for the SR-72!! It all makes sense now! (I'm so clever that I amaze myself.  )


----------



## orbital

+


----------



## moldyoldy

Perhaps a couple off-topic comments on the ""can it be built?", "can we afford it?", and "why do we need it?"" questions that arise in the US from time to time. I often hear the same sentiments in other European countries. 

With deference to dictionary definitions, "reconaissance" is used to establish 'fact', "intelligence" is used to establish 'intent'. Furthermore, confirmation of 'intelligence' _is_ intelligence. 

Even the US in it's current world power position still has a need for both. The US is ramping down it's armed conflicts, yet there are significant shifts taking place in the international power structure around the world, hence the reduction of recon missions and the increase of intel efforts. Various aerial missions such as the SR-71/xx/72 and satellites or X37 represent recon. Electronic eavedropping represents intel gathering. 

Recon is often used to establish force structures or capabilities of active combatants (between each other), which in turn could assist Gov leaders to a decision to intervene or not intervene in an active combat situation. ie: the US intervened in Libya, but not in Syria. 

In the minds of many European Governments, certain US Intel agencies went far beyond what was 'politely' expected for a 'defense of the US', and that in spite of the continuing revelations of the intel activities of those same European Governments. The current political climate and active terrorism demonstrates that any gov will inherently have difficulties in limiting it's recon or intel gathering activities. Yet isolationism persists as an ideology.

Coming back on topic: 

Ref high-tech against low-tech: Recon missions of various types with drones, choppers, etc. are widely used to detect the soil disruption or heat differentials due to IEDs planted in roads. The largest IED recorded was composed of a triple-stacked 155MM howitzer shells that were detonated next to a passing M1: After the detonation, the M1 turret was laying upside down next to the hull. The crew was dead. The hull was not penetrated. VBIEDs were usually carried by large trucks and were otherwise detectable by the driver's behaviour. On YouTube there is a video of a large VBIED going off which shows a large truck driving towards the center of the road thus slowing down a short convoy of military vehicles behind it, whereupon the truck pulled over to the side of the road to let the convoy begin passing, and detonated. The shockwave was visible as it knocked down people standing at some distance from the truck before it reached the surveillance camera. 

The SR-71 was still flying missions when there were signs of other similarly fast/faster A/C in the sky. Even though many experimental missions are flown at night to conceal identification, when the atmospheric conditions are suitable, contrails leave behind remarkable evidence of the flight. Normally when afterburners are lit, the contrails disappear - also an indicator for any opposing pilot. ie: some years ago, there were contrails of 'popcorn on a string' observed near Bakersfield,CA and over England at certain times. That evidence suggests use of pulse-jet propulsion which would have the same contrail effect. Whether this was the rumored 'Aurora' A/C or not is debatable. There have been other phenomena at interesting visible/non-visible wavelengths that suggested various design features. 

In general there is a stream of experimental A/C that traverse the corridor from a certain 'lake' in Nevada over Bakersfield out to sea and back. Sonic booms and contrails cannot be easily hidden. Interested observers only need to set up some triangulation points (binocs w/azimut+elev) in the different states and comms with cell phones to establish height and speed of the A/C leaving the contrails. Of course there are those personages that are willing to lay on the desert floor bundled up to prevent I/R detection for many many hours to glimpse landings/departures from that 'lake'.

Various articles on the SR-72, including the Aviation-Leak article, contain Lock-Mart comments that there was a 'break-thru in engine technology, specifically some combination of turbine with ramjet functionality. Hmm, some combination of those two technologies has already taken place in past experimental flights. 

In any case, the point of the SR-72 is that speed is stealth. There is no need to undertake extensive stealth techniques to 'hide' an A/C if the Opfor is unable to react fast enough to do anything about that 'incoming' at Mach 6. No current detection/reaction/release delay combined with a peak flight speed of a missile of only about Mach 6 is adequate to respond to an incoming target at Mach 6. and the SR-72 is at which altitude?  zero chance! Which is probably why Lock-Mart keeps mentioning that the SR-72 is supposed to be armed, unlike the SR-71. Notably one article did suggest a year of 2018 for a test A/C and flight. The speed regime of Mach 6 has been repeatedly demonstrated with current metallurgy. The shuttle enters the atmosphere at Mach 24-25 and needs those wonderful ceramic tiles. I look forward to an SR-72 or better.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

moldyoldy said:


> ...Sonic booms and contrails cannot be easily hidden...


I recall a couple of decades ago there was much speculation about sonic booms coming into California from objects originating over the pacific. Much talk of Aurora. Mil claimed it was just fighter jets. 

Some enterprising soul obtained copies of *seismic data* from a handful of locations in the region for the evening in question, extrapolated the real courses, speeds and altitudes and blew the fighter jet story out of the water.


----------



## StarHalo

Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter, the coming replacement for the Mig-29 and Su-27:


----------



## Steve K

I saw some photos of the T-50 in a recent issue of Air International magazine. It certainly looks impressive! The airframe appears to incorporate good stealth design features, but the engines don't appear to be doing anything to reduce the IR signature. Maybe they don't worry about being stealthy from the rear? 

Is it really replacing both the MiG-29 and Su-27 families? They were significantly different in size and presumably in how they were used.


----------



## moldyoldy

Good photo!

Ref the T-50 (from Pravda in Englisch):
"Unlike the F-22, which uses stealth technology, 85 percent of the surface of Russian T-50 is covered with unique nanotechnological materials that decrease both the visibility of the plane and the air drag. The technical specifications of the missiles for the jet exceed the analogues of the US aircraft. In addition, the T-50 can fire the missiles hidden in internal departments at hypersonic speed. The US fifth-generation aircraft can not do this and has to decelerate for the purpose." 

Eh, some excessive wording, such as 'hypersonic' - rather overdone. however the high-thrust engines of the T-50 reportedly can drive the T-50 above Mach 2 w/o afterburners - Supercruise! 

The Soviet T-50 and the US F-22 are both considered 'supermaneuverable'. That ability requires performance of the Pugachev Cobra Maneuver and the Herbst Maneuver. Arguably non-supermaneverable A/C might be able to perform the Pugachev Maneuver. However the Herbst Maneuver is considered impossible w/o vectored thrust.

For this person who routinely watched U-2s, F102s and F106s and others take-off & land with a few rolls or other such simple maneuvers thrown in, the demonstrated (Youtube) acrobatics of the SU-30 & variants are truly impressive. ie: pitching up to a vertical stall, falling on it's tail for some time - nose vertical, then flipping backwards back to normal flight, or maybe repeating the back-flip. Aua!!! Unreal! Presumably the T-50 builds on that experience.


----------



## Vinniec5

moldyoldy said:


> Perhaps a couple off-topic comments on the ""can it be built?", "can we afford it?", and "why do we need it?"" questions that arise in the US from time to time. I often hear the same sentiments in other European countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Various articles on the SR-72, including the Aviation-Leak article, contain Lock-Mart comments that there was a 'break-thru in engine technology, specifically some combination of turbine with ramjet functionality. Hmm, some combination of those two technologies has already taken place in past experimental flights.
> 
> In any case, the point of the SR-72 is that speed is stealth. There is no need to undertake extensive stealth techniques to 'hide' an A/C if the Opfor is unable to react fast enough to do anything about that 'incoming' at Mach 6. No current detection/reaction/release delay combined with a peak flight speed of a missile of only about Mach 6 is adequate to respond to an incoming target at Mach 6. and the SR-72 is at which altitude?  zero chance! Which is probably why Lock-Mart keeps mentioning that the SR-72 is supposed to be armed, unlike the SR-71. Notably one article did suggest a year of 2018 for a test A/C and flight. The speed regime of Mach 6 has been repeatedly demonstrated with current metallurgy. The shuttle enters the atmosphere at Mach 24-25 and needs those wonderful ceramic tiles. I look forward to an SR-72 or better.



The J58s in the SR-71 are a Hybrid Turbojet-Ramjet, In the 80s it was determined that Ben Rich's inlet design was capable to at least Mach 6 and from that SR-72 design it looks as if they are sticking to the Kelly Johnson - Ben Rich Stealth-Speed and Aerodynamic Bible


----------



## moldyoldy

Vinniec5 said:


> The J58s in the SR-71 are a Hybrid Turbojet-Ramjet, In the 80s it was determined that Ben Rich's inlet design was capable to at least Mach 6 and from that SR-72 design it looks as if they are sticking to the Kelly Johnson - Ben Rich Stealth-Speed and Aerodynamic Bible



which is why so many SR-71 pilots in open presentations have made only diffuse comments about 'going faster than they thought possible', but never gave any numbers. Even in the few written acton reports I read from SR71 pilots they did not give their peak observed speeds. maybe in their verbal mission debriefs. Even in the Far East, if a carrier CIC plotter happened to start plotting an SR71 making a run and let slip a comment like: "Wow - look at the distance between those plots!". The response from the head CIC officer was to spin around, look at the board, and order the sailor to erase that plot and ignore that track. 

I listened (in person) to a U2 pilot describe his long missions in a cramped cockpit with very few human amenities - at the end he was given a standing ovation from a lot of weapons designers! Notably whenever the U2 pilot referred to the SR-71, it was with words of awe,,,and then he stopped before he went back to his own non-trivial experiences.

A pilot once told me that in his mind, the SR-71 was the pinnacle of fast A/C design. Moreover it would take many years before any manned A/C achieved the same performance and reliability during missions. The SR71 was far faster than the Mig-25 which did try to catch it more than once - not a chance.


----------



## moldyoldy

an interesting aspect of SR-71 missions that an ex-mil told me about was that the SR-71s in a certain part of the world would take off and even before the end of the runway was reached, the SR-71 stood on it's tail and bored a hole in the sky. A couple other pilots told me that the ATCs like that since it quickly clears that flight from their controlled airspace. Once clear of ATC, the A/C has to use it's own radar to determine what is ahead. Of course the number of aircraft flying above 60K ft are rather few & far between.

Edit: *Class A Airspace - All 18,000-60,000 feet. (Flight Level 180-600). *


----------



## moldyoldy

The latest A/C out of the black - the RQ-180:






http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_06_2013_p0-643783.xml

Still not the SR-72 though - which I am still looking forward to! The spy satellites expend too much fuel to change orbits in a hurry - hence their poor response time. The U2 is still in service, but too slow for self-defense. Yes, pilot life-support needs are a systems load. However the flexibility of a human being response to unexpected/unpreditable situations is beyond most electronic systems.


----------



## Vinniec5

The J58s were designed for Mach 3.2 cruise and I think the MIG-25 was M2.8 with short bursts to Mach 3-3.2 but with turbine damage. The SR-71 just gets going when the ramjets are clearing their throats and actually was more fuel efficient as it went faster. I'd bet Mach-4 was actually closer to the normal speed limit with no one will admit to it jumps to Mach4-5 speed when they needed it. If you take notice of the X-15 rocket plane, I believe it was a cover for the 71 since it used the nose of the SR-71 to test mach5 plus speeds. They were testing the upper limits of the chines and nose to see how big a hole they could punch in the sky


----------



## moldyoldy

Part of the difficulty in assessing the actual speeds the SR-71 achieved is related to the altitude it flew at. Janes 'All the World Aircraft' some years back wisely listed the SR-71 flight regime only at Mach 3+ and 100,000+ ft. 

I posted these links earlier, but a bit of experimentation will assist the reader in delving in to certain flight characteristics at altitudes that only the very privileged will reach. More than a couple SR-71 pilots said that to fly the SR-71 was almost a religious experience!

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/mach.html

and here is the pertinent section from the SR-71 flight manual:

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-33.php

Keep in mind that like all good manuals, what it does not say is just as significant as what it does say.


----------



## moldyoldy

Back to the Sukhoi T-50 5th Generation fighter. This link contains a rather long video of an hour 14 min with an excellent history of US and Soviet fighters of the later generations, especially the 4th and 5th generations, admittedly with emphasis on the T-50. 

The video is only in Russian. However with a bit of recognition of what is going on in the testing or flight scenes, the video sections can stand alone. The personal developer/pilot interviews are only in Russian. If you do not understand Russian, this is the sort of video that you simply let run in one section of the screen while you work on something else. Then if you notice something interesting, reselect that section. I found most of the interviews to be relatively honest statements of activities. One primary test pilot sounded a bit rehearsed, but the developers were relatively open.

The video shows the development of the T-50 including CAD/CAM features as well as various static or taxi testing. Although this video is obviously intended as propaganda for the Soviet Union, er, Russia, I am amazed at the detail in demonstrating the operation of the T-50, including the vectored nozzles and other features. Russia must be thinking about exporting this A/C.

Some interesting points were mentioned: The T-50 has fully vectorable nozzles whereas the F-22 can only vector in the vertical plane. The advantage of the F-22 nozzles was better stealth, but reduced maneuverability. The announcer suggested that at some point the T-50 may also be fitted with production vertically vectored nozzles. Only one vertical vectored test nozzle paired with a normal all-direction nozzle was shown in flight.

Another point was that the F-35 cannot achieve supercruise w/o afterburners (Forsazh), only the F-22 and T-50. Hence the designation of the F-35 as generation 4 plus, but not gen 5. I did notice that the T-50 often took off w/o afterburners.


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> The T-50 has fully vectorable nozzles



So I wonder if you vector the nozzles to one side with full rudder if the plane basically does a donut - an enemy in pursuit would witness the Russian whip around on its axis and instantly each has crosshairs on the other..


----------



## moldyoldy

StarHalo said:


> So I wonder if you vector the nozzles to one side with full rudder if the plane basically does a donut - an enemy in pursuit would witness the Russian whip around on its axis and instantly each has crosshairs on the other..



correct, although I suspect that is the point of the J-turn which requires vectorable nozzles. Notably with left/right nozzle vectoring that maneuver can be flattened rather than a climbing flip. Actually, with all aspect targeting & AA launching, the pilot only has to be able to swing his targeting helmet far enough around to see the other fighter to fire a missile.

I recall that there was a USAF study done when the SU-27 (?) came online that conceded that in certain flight regimes, the SU-27 (?) could take out an F-15 in 1:1 dogfight.


----------



## StarHalo

Drone spotter's guide


----------



## idleprocess

StarHalo said:


> Drone spotter's guide


I can see that guide being popular in Colorado, perhaps updated with "recommended sight picture" silhouettes.


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Drone spotter's guide



you can download your own copy here:
http://dronesurvivalguide.org/DSG.pdf

They also offer versions in other languages than English, such as Pashto or Arabic....
http://dronesurvivalguide.org/
(at the bottom of the page)


----------



## StarHalo

Warheads from Russian R36 ICBM reentering the atmosphere over the Kura test range; no payload so nothing happens, but this is what the last moments over a city would look like if it were the real thing..


----------



## moldyoldy

From StarHallo: "but this is what the last moments over a city would look like if it were the real thing.." 

and as a kid in the early '50s, I practiced diving under my school desk and avidly read the many Civil Defense brochures about building fall-out shelters. sigh. those brochures were plausible only for the uninitiated. For the people who understood what was 'in-play', they hoped that they would be at Ground Zero. About the only possible counter - mostly ineffective - were the Nike-Zeus missile launches that I watched in-person lifting off and streaking out of sight in Alaska.


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> and as a kid in the early '50s, I practiced diving under my school desk and avidly read the many Civil Defense brochures about building fall-out shelters. sigh.



Our last thread about nuclear conflict was frightening enough that it got closed, but it's there for viewing and even includes a full-length movie, enjoy.

And speaking of fear and Nike/ABM defense, the missile in the above video actually got the NATO nomenclature "Satan"; aside from its payload of 10 warheads, it also carries *40* decoys - a single missile will fill a NORAD operator's screen with crap completely saturating the atmosphere, with no clue as to what's a threat and what isn't..


----------



## ganymede

Very informative and interesting thread!

On the lighter side, here's my contribution:







Happy New Year!


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

^ Thomas the Terminator. 

~ C.G.


----------



## Vinniec5

StarHalo said:


> Our last thread about nuclear conflict was frightening enough that it got closed, but it's there for viewing and even includes a full-length movie, enjoy.
> 
> And speaking of fear and Nike/ABM defense, the missile in the above video actually got the NATO nomenclature "Satan"; aside from its payload of 10 warheads, it also carries *40* decoys - a single missile will fill a NORAD operator's screen with crap completely saturating the atmosphere, with no clue as to what's a threat and what isn't..



If you want a cold war flick that'll show the younger generation what might have happened, look for the BBC film "Threads" makes The Day After(I liked the SAC footage from "SAC The Global Shield" and "First Strike") look like Mayberry RFD

You like the NIKE ABM System? (Definitely cool) take a look at the Safeguard System (HOLY S&IT) The Spartan and Sprint Missiles are incredible feats of engineering


----------



## moldyoldy

I watched the movie "Shields" shortly after release and thought that it had everything that I had been taught to fear, be it as a civilian or as military. 'Shields' was designed for a visual shock and it delivered! The only aspect that was missing was the mental anguish of slowly dying from radiation poisoning over years. That mental aspect was covered quite well by 'On the Beach'. At the height of the Cold War in the miiltary we understood that if the Soviets decided to come thru the Fulda Gap with their vast numerical superiority in tanks and weapons, that the Western powers had no choice but to release 'tactical' nucs, and everyone understood what the escalation was from that. "Shields" personified! My orders 'in case of' were to 'walk West down the Autobahn' (sic). There would be no hope for anything more coordinated. MAD deserved it's designation!

Nuclear Winter is real! There are plenty of near examples in nature. Witness what happened when Krakatoa in the South Java Sea blew up (sea water reached the main magma chamber) with an estimated force of 200 MT and the shock wave was recorded on barographs going around the planet some 7 times. The Tsar Bomba 50-60Mt over Novaya Semlya (off the North Coast of the Soviet Union) shock wave circled the planet only 3 times => and I saw pressure wave #2 be recorded on the barograph in my school. The main Krakatoa explosion propelled some 21 cubic Kilometers or 5 cubic miles of rock straight up and first darkened and then only colored the skys even over London for years! 

Back on topic: This is a site that lists all of the A/C that were produced by the Skunkworks and with comments on the impressive SR-71:

http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/archives/11123

A recent Military channel segment that included the SR-71 stated that more than 4000 missiles were fired against the SR-71 - no hits. If the SR-71 needs to crank up the speed, Mach 3 was evidently not a barrier. That video segment pointed out that the bypasses in the engine that ensured that the ramjet took over when the turbine could not keep up. 

I am looking forward to the SR-72 which is rumored to fly in 2018, although Skunkworks A/C have a historical habit of flying well before predictions since the news media is excluded.


----------



## moldyoldy

on the other end of the size spectrum of secret flying vehicles: Although there have been posts on CPF about these bugbots before, notice who is the developer, who is the sponsor and the date of the video entry in Design World. It would seem that deployment is not far away. hmmmmm. 

http://designworldonline.magnify.net/video/Air-Force-Bugbots;search:US Air Force - MAV's

Edit: Ooops, the video was already posted in this thread. Interesting that Design World decided to pick up on the subject. I wonder why.


----------



## moldyoldy

Here is a TED video demonstrating Quadrocopter agility that I do not believe was already posted on CPF: (ignore the Chinese)

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/zh-tw...astounding_athletic_power_of_quadcopters.html


----------



## moldyoldy

EZO said:


> Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences announced today that after about a decade of development their tiny insect sized flying robot, Robobee is finally airworthy and can perform in controlled flight, albeit tethered for now. Future development will involve a "brain", self contained power, colony coordination and fully autonomous behaviors.
> 
> <snip>



here is the latest contribution from a German company as produced by the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140124-incredible-flying-robot-animals

I wonder why the German engineers are paying attention to flapping actions for flight? curious.


----------



## nbp

I had always skipped past this thread as I don't have much knowledge of aircraft, but I finally read all the way through it. Very interesting! Some very informative discussions (some a bit scary too!). I am amazed at what these aircraft designers can do! Thanks for all the great posts.


----------



## idleprocess

moldyoldy said:


> here is the latest contribution from a German company as produced by the BBC:
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140124-incredible-flying-robot-animals
> 
> I wonder why the German engineers are paying attention to flapping actions for flight? curious.


That 3' dragonfly is positively terrifying.


----------



## idleprocess

OK, now for a more meaningful response.



moldyoldy said:


> I wonder why the German engineers are paying attention to flapping actions for flight? curious.



Economy and versatility. Animals such as birds and - at smaller scales - insects can handle a huge variety of flight conditions with efficiency of energy and construction. 

Birds in particular are of interest in aircraft design due to their convenient scale (conventional aerodynamics work down to about a 6" wingspan) and ability to manage everything from a sunny windless day to near hurricane conditions. It's been postulated that birds present a near-perfect airfoil for what they are trying to accomplish (lift, thrust, attitude control) throughout their wing-flapping cycle. Ornithopters might one day be practical aircraft since flapping wings is more efficient than conventional aircraft design with fixed wings, fixed control surfaces, and an engine that generates thrust. Building ornithopters is - as the video demonstrates - now within our capabilities.

Insects are interesting due to their small size. They operate at a level below conventional aerodynamics where they are less flying through air and more _swimming_ through an extremely low-viscosity _fluid_. Building ornithopers modeled on insect flight is possible using current technology as the video demonstrates, but doing so at the same _scale_ as insects has proven elusive due to power, weight, and construction technology limitations.

Of course, like much cutting-edge aerospace research, there's a military application. I believe a few pages back there was a US Air Force video showing potential clandestine-operations applications for some of these robots. Of course, there are plenty of civillian uses as well along the lines of whatever else you might want to use an RC aircraft or drone to do - surveying land, monitoring crops, securing facilities, search and rescue, etc.

I expect that the technology of flight will begin to mimic nature. Ornithopters will be powered not my electric motors and servos but by something more analogous to muscles. Bird-like ornithopters' outer surfaces will be less rigid sheets of metal or plastic and instead be something far more dynamic like feathers. Building materials will be both lighter and stronger. The overall aerodynamics design will be adaptable to far more conditions that present aircraft. Power sources will need to improve significantly - especially for compact insect models.


----------



## moldyoldy

an interesting discussion! A couple thoughts jump at me about ornithopters: 
1. no vortex in the wake. I was taught to always be careful about taking off behind a larger aircraft. The vortex can sweep my A/C in to the ground faster than I can react.
2. ornithopters might be able to mimic the V-formation used by migrating birds to reduce power consumption. Conventional A/C have no hope of that.
3. I wonder if the ornithopters are more resilient to random damage than conventional A/C? especially the multi-wing forms.


----------



## Steve K

ornithopters... more complex than fixed wing, but not as complex as helicopters? 

Perhaps ornithopters would be fine for unmanned craft, but the complexity compared to fixed wing strikes me as being a less optimal choice for manned aircraft. Unless it has a valuable attribute, similar to how helicopters are unique in that they can hover, it won't be used. I've seen some tiny aircraft modeled after flapping insects that can hover, so perhaps that is the targeted application?


----------



## EZO

Steve K said:


> Perhaps ornithopters would be fine for unmanned craft, but the complexity compared to fixed wing strikes me as being a less optimal choice for manned aircraft. Unless it has a valuable attribute, similar to how helicopters are unique in that they can hover, it won't be used. I've seen some tiny aircraft modeled after flapping insects that can hover, so perhaps that is the targeted application?



Manned ornithopters don't seem like a very efficient or comfortable approach to human flight, but apparently it has been done.



And sometimes just attempted:



Some efforts have been more successful than others:


----------



## Steve K

now that you mention it... I have seen something on TV about the ornithopter featured in the first video. Seemed to work well enough. It didn't appear to have any capabilities beyond a conventional aircraft, other than getting rid of the risk of walking into a propeller (not insignificant when working on an aircraft carrier or other crowded busy area). Probably not as noisy either?? There are ways to reduce the noise generated by propellers. 

the cyclic loads on the ornithopter structure seem like they would require a stronger structure than on a fixed wing aircraft. Maybe that's partly why they haven't caught on?


----------



## moldyoldy

Introducing the "Taranis", <Keltic God of Thunder>, a new British unmanned stealth A/C that flys "twice as fast as anything we've flown before". hmmm, manned or unmanned? To date, unmanned drones have been rather pedestrian. This armed drone is intended to fly in to harm's way. Test flights supposedly have been out in the Australian desert. However U2 pilots have reported multiple instances of an A/C flying _above_ them when they were at mission altitude, or either ingressing or egressing. Usually by the time any military releases a video, the system has been in operation for some time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26052931

edit; I believe that mission altitude for the U2 is normally 70K ft.


----------



## moldyoldy

If there is any doubt about the pervasiveness of those mini-copter-style drones, from quadrocopters to octocopters, this was posted on the BBC images recently as photographed during the Olympics with the caption: 

"All-skiing eye 
A camera-equipped octocopter is seen behind Finland’s Janne Korpi during the men's snowboard slopestyle semi-final at the Sochi games. (Reuters) "







http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140214-most-stunning-images-of-the-week


Hmmm, given the location of the Olympics this year, that means that even the Soviets, er, Russia, are/is not immune to the lure of multi-copters. 

which gives rise to a rhetorical question: If these multi-copters are used in the open in an event like the Olympics in the FSU, I find it rather interesting that there is very little information about these multi-copters on Russian-language websites! Admittedly I do not search for hobby websites in Russian. I read them only if I happen across them. Fonarik & Fonareveka are the exceptions.


----------



## EZO

Not all drones are sinister. The ones at the Olympics are being used to film the athletes in ways never before possible. Previously, this was done with helicopters, cranes and blimps at much higher costs and with lower safety. The drones used at Sochi are the top of the line Ikarus models made by Heliguy in the UK and they sell for around 37,000 USD fully outfitted. They can get in much closer than any other camera system and they are relatively quiet so not to be distracting to the athletes. They can go higher than any crane and carve angles and arcs of flight during shooting never before achievable. This will probably become the De facto method for shooting sporting events in the future and is also becoming widely used in major motion picture production and TV. This exact system was apparently also used in making this seasons episodes of Game of Thrones.

I read for the Sochi Games, Olympic Broadcasting Services had to file a flight plan with the Russian civil aviation authority and needed permission from local Russian police and the FSB, the successor to the KGB.

The Russian government got interested and bought a fleet of drones to be operated by its security services to help spot terrorists or troublemakers in the Sochi area.


Here's a better photo of the unit.


----------



## moldyoldy

I am impressed with the Ikarus system for several reasons:

1. the video camera is a digitally stabilized gimbaled system. very professional, as visible here. I will certainly look at any videos from the Olympics with a very different understanding!

2. the Ikarus system as sold by that website is evidently custom built. From the link provided by EZO:

"All rigs are built to specification by our resident technician and as a result, prices will vary."

3. That the FSB did not already have these deployed. Were they 'behind the times'?


As an aside, remotely controlled video/control programming evolved from Charles Moore's FORTH programming language (1958), first used for directing astronomical telescopes, then for driving the little cameras suspended above sports arenas for the aerial view. The advantage of FORTH is the extensibility and very compact/concise programming language. My first real progamming language way back when was FORTH. FORTH is still widely used today because of it's compactness, flexibility, and speed of real-time execution. none of the vagaries of _exactly_ when a routine is executed as in UNIX.

Thank you EZO for the octocopter info! Very interesting!


----------



## EZO

Ikarus competitor - The DJI Spreading Wings S1000 


Ikarus competitor #2 - the DJI S800 - Includes demo of very cool control station and gimbal


Ikarus competitor #3 - the Versadrones Heavy Lift Octocopter


Ikarus Heavy lift camera platform


----------



## moldyoldy

Now that I have been educated as to the octocopters used at Sotchi, I am noticing those pervasive octocopter shadows nearly everywhere at the Olympics on sunny days. Admittedly I do not routinely watch the Olympic videos, but with this Octocopter education I am spending more time looking for the Octocopters....  I wonder how many channels are avaible for the controllers since I often see more than one Octocopter shadow in close proximity, especially at the Snowboard competition. The sophistication of the mutl-copter market is a bit surprising considering how fast the designs developed from what originally seems to have been a University design exercise in controls. Thanks EZO!


----------



## EZO

I know what you mean moldyoldy. I find that I too have become an octocopter shadow spotter and now I'm always watching the Olympics with an awareness of drone footage. Let's just hope that pervasive octocopter shadows remain confined to sporting events rather than our backyards.


----------



## Steve K

I just noticed an octo-copter (or quad copter?) shadow on Motorweek, a car show on PBS. Nice footage, and a better point of view than usual. Just an odd little shadow on the ground now and then.

I had found myself wondering about the method of controlling yaw on these copters, and was pleased when the Wiki page confirmed my theory on props spinning in two directions and the use of differential torque to yaw. Pretty amazing stuff, and it does a nice job of eliminating the complex linkages found in helicopters. It does still require the use of electric motors, so it doesn't seem likely that the technology will scale up to large helicopters. 

By the way... the recent 60 minutes program had a story on the problems of the JSF... the F-35. It was interesting to hear the comments that our current main line fighters would be quickly destroyed by the latest Russian or Chinese fighters (the T-50 and ??, respectively). Considering that the F-15 dates back to the early 70's, and the F-18 dates back to the very early 80's, it's not surprising that they are outdated. It's amazing that they could still be in service 30 or 40 years after entering service! Same for the A-10, the F-16, etc??


----------



## moldyoldy

Amazing? yes, what is especially amazing are the retrofits and powerplant upgrades for many "old" A/C: 

The B-52 started out in 1952. Yet the B-52H still flys today with considerable credibility as to offensive/defensive capabilities. It is the authoritative large bomber, yet not with the cost of the B2.

The F-16 has evolved thru quite a few modifications and upgrades such as vastly improved avionics and increased engine thrust at all attitudes.

The F/A-18 Hornet started out overweight, too slow, with myriad of problems. In the current F/A-18E/F Super Hornet version, it is rather good.

The F-15 Eagle evolved thru versions to reach the F-15E Strike Eagle model which is one of only two A/C to fly barefoot over Baghdad on the first night. To be fair, the F15E had the jamming pod mounted. The F-117 was the primary A/C over Baghdad with no jamming, only stealth. Now there is talk of an F-15E Silent Eagle with stealth features such as radar absorbing paint, etc.

The F-35 has a long list of the usual premie problems. More serious is the inability to launch missiles while in supersonic flight. and technically the F-35 cannot supercruise, at least not for very long/far, meaning fly faster than sound w/o afterburners. Hence the F-35 is considered to be in the 4-1/2 generation whereas the F-22 is a full 5th generation A/C.

The point is that ALL military weapon systems only reach their full potential years after the initial release, which, in the words of Shakespeare - is of "much sound and fury signifying nothing". Well, maybe not quite that bad, but definitely lacking.

FWIW, the Indian Gov. rejected the Russian Sukhoi T-50 as possessing unsuitable avionics package. well, no reason why the Soviets would sell their best system to them anyway.

Probably the only weapons system that came close on the first try was the A-12 plus the YF-12A, the predecessor to the SR-71. but that A/C was Kelly J. and Ben Rich's baby - and wow'd all of the pilots that flew it!


----------



## Steve K

I did a little bit of avionics design work on some gear for the F-15E, so I have a very good feel for just how long it's been in service (and how many design changes took place in that avionics in the early days too! remarkable!). The F-15E was already a mature platform, so the E version was a relatively trouble free change.

I also did some avionics for the C-17 when it was born, and they did have some trouble with keeping the fuel in the wings. Congress got their knickers in a twist and cut the number of planes to be built, etc. It was all fixed and the aircraft has done quite well, as far as I know. Watching the aircraft fly (when possible) always gives me warm fuzzy feelings. 

It'll be interesting to see how the F-35 works out. Considering how old our current fighters are, and how long it takes to develop a new fighter, it appears that we've got to make the F-35 work. I just hope it doesn't get too expensive, or end up like the F-111, the last "one plane does everything" aircraft.


----------



## moldyoldy

Steve K said:


> I did a little bit of avionics design work on some gear for the F-15E, so I have a very good feel for just how long it's been in service (and how many design changes took place in that avionics in the early days too! remarkable!). The F-15E was already a mature platform, so the E version was a relatively trouble free change.
> 
> I also did some avionics for the C-17 when it was born, and they did have some trouble with keeping the fuel in the wings. Congress got their knickers in a twist and cut the number of planes to be built, etc. It was all fixed and the aircraft has done quite well, as far as I know. Watching the aircraft fly (when possible) always gives me warm fuzzy feelings.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how the F-35 works out. Considering how old our current fighters are, and how long it takes to develop a new fighter, it appears that we've got to make the F-35 work. I just hope it doesn't get too expensive, or end up like the F-111, the last "one plane does everything" aircraft.



Ref the C-17: Even though I left the military and no longer cross the ponds via MAC A/C, I also was happy to see that the C-17 problems were rectified. The C-17 replaced the C-141, barely in time. The military flew the wings off the C-141 Starlifters trying to supply the VN conflict. The C-141 was commonly so heavily loaded for a flight across the Atlantic that a stop in the Azores for refueling was required. Sitting in the back on canvas jump seats looking at all that tarp'd gear made me hope that nothing failed since our glide path would have been worse than a rock with a headwind.

Ref the F-35. Yes, there are fears of another F-111 fiasco, some of which might still be flying (ie: Australia). With 3 versions of the F-35: conventional takeoff, VSTOL and VTOL, and a carrier version with strengthened landing gear, I wonder. 

The F-111 was a wonder - when all systems were properly functional. A common 'nerve' test for new pilots was to set the TFR to a hard ride and altitude to a 'minimum', and go for a ride over the high desert in the SW of the US. Then the trainer would aim the F-111 at a butte and challenge the newbie-trainee NOT to touch the yoke and let the electronics pull up the A/C. no newbie passed. All pulled up manually. The design problem is that the electronics had clear dry air in the desert SW and the systems functioned as designed. They tried TFR in VN and lost several F-111s that became confused by the high humidity or rain - and made a rather deep hole in the jungle floor.

Ref nerve tests for pilots: In the Navy, landing on a moving postage stamp in the middle of a dark night over the ocean is rather a challenge. So when a pilot thinks he is losing his nerve, he heads down to the catapult room and stands just beyond the end where the catapult is supposed to stop during launches. If he can keep from stumbling backwards with that piston coming at him, then he regained his nerve and is good to go again.


----------



## moldyoldy

fyi: On the NPR news today @ 1701, the report is that the US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, wants to kill two 'cold-war' aircraft, the A-10 Warthog and the U-2. He wants more drones.

The A-10 is not a spectacular A/C in terms of fast and high. But no one under any armour or in any tank wants to be on the receiving end of that 30mm rotary cannon! and no replacement. sad.

As for the U-2 being taken out of service: When the SR-71 was taken out of service, what replaced it? supposedly satellites. Although satellites provided good sensor resolution, satellites were too slow to change orbits, and changing orbits burned up precious fuel in these reconnaisance satellites. The answer was what? More U-2 flights. Now the U-2 is supposed to be killed. so what is the answer for strategic recon - drones? Drones can conduct tactical recon, maybe if the enemy is unsophisticated with old aircraft and missiles. However what about strategic recon? The announced SR-72 is supposedly a few years away yet. or is it? Thoughts?


----------



## Steve K

As a guy who worked on attack aircraft in the Marines, the A-10 certainly has some appeal to me. Low tech, able to carry huge amounts of ordnance, excellent for close air support, and able to loiter over the battlefield for a very long time. Sort of the successor to the Douglas A-1 Skyraider from the Vietnam era. 

I suppose the prevalence of small shoulder fired heat seeking missiles would be one weakness of the A-10. Not sure how much it actually mattered in recent conflicts.

As for the U-2, doesn't the Global Hawk pretty much meet the same requirements? The U-2 was shown to be vulnerable to surface to air missiles quite a while ago, so it surely doesn't take a sophisticated missile to bring it down. The Global Hawk has the advantage of not having the pilot captured and paraded in front of the world. It can also loiter for a long time and is able to download data in real time.


----------



## idleprocess

moldyoldy said:


> fyi: On the NPR news today @ 1701, the report is that the US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, wants to kill two 'cold-war' aircraft, the A-10 Warthog and the U-2. He wants more drones.


Most analysis I'm reading is that the A-10 and U-2 are being retired in order to preserve the delayed, laughably over budget, not meeting requirements - _but oh so-versatile_ - F-35. I'm sure the Army would be glad to take those A-10's off the Air Forces' hands and relieve them of the close air support role they seem to detest. While the need to annihilate massed T-72's in the Fulda Gap isn't what it used to be, the A-10 excels at close air support unlike anything else in the arsenal (or R&D pipeline that we know about).

Several decades ago there was another experiment with "one combat airframe for all branches" that didn't work out - the F-111. It eventually found a place in the inventory in a much narrower role than anticipated. One wonders if we'll realize the folly of the old joke about a duck - _(it can walk, fly, and swim - *none of them particularly well*)_ like the Chinese did, or keep going down our present path at great expense.


----------



## StarHalo

I'm crossing my fingers that this is just a play to rally popular support for a popular plane so more money will pour in - not that the F-35 deserves it. 

Fun fact: The amount of money that will be spent on the F-35 program is more than the total net worth of the Third Reich at its peak, after it had looted its territories.


----------



## idleprocess

StarHalo said:


> I'm crossing my fingers that this is just a play to rally popular support for a popular plane so more money will pour in - not that the F-35 deserves it.


As am I, but our military brass and politicians are always gearing up to fight the last war or the enemy of their fantasies rather than those that exist in reality.


----------



## moldyoldy

Steve K said:


> As a guy who worked on attack aircraft in the Marines, the A-10 certainly has some appeal to me. Low tech, able to carry huge amounts of ordnance, excellent for close air support, and able to loiter over the battlefield for a very long time. Sort of the successor to the Douglas A-1 Skyraider from the Vietnam era.
> 
> I suppose the prevalence of small shoulder fired heat seeking missiles would be one weakness of the A-10. Not sure how much it actually mattered in recent conflicts.
> 
> As for the U-2, doesn't the Global Hawk pretty much meet the same requirements? The U-2 was shown to be vulnerable to surface to air missiles quite a while ago, so it surely doesn't take a sophisticated missile to bring it down. The Global Hawk has the advantage of not having the pilot captured and paraded in front of the world. It can also loiter for a long time and is able to download data in real time.



I absolutely concur with and support your view of the A-10. The pilot (military/airline) who taught me more than a bit about flying, also flew the A-1 Skyraider. The Bird-Dogs in VN loved the A-1: Able to loiter for hours, the 20mm cannon made mince-meat of any area so targeted, etc. He said that the huge capacity in various compartmenets was often used to ferry purchases between the land bases and a carrier....

=================

Ref the RQ-4 Global Hawk: The best response to Mr. Hagel's contentions is outlined in the following article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth...ones-arent-the-answer-to-every-military-need/

My own commentary about drones, the Global Hawk in particular:

The Global Hawk is intended for long-range, long endurance missions, which it does perform fairly well. Flight durations up to over 30 hours is something that ordinary lone pilots would have difficulty dealing with. Notably by some accounts, the U-2 sensor package is better than that of the Global Hawk. Nevertheless, a paper evaluation by think tanks came to the conclusion that the Global Hawk is a better solution than the U-2 for recon missions. So the U-2 is being "retired" in favor of a drone. 

Unfortunately think-tanks do not normally have good solutions when there are copious releases of kinetic energy - meaning, when hostilities are initiated with live weapons. I personally have participated in discussions with think-tank dreamers about the reality of artillery missions. Nevertheless for our little discussion, I am referring to potential hostitilies initiated by a capable SAM site firing missiles of recent production. IOW, not the usual Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan morass. 

Any discussion about recon A/C has to address the question of mission altitude. in this case, high altitudes, and therein lies the issue. The Global Hawk flies at altitudes up to 65K ft (NASA), or military (<60K ft). The U-2 mission altitude is 70K ft and can fly higher. By comparison, the SR-71 mission altitude is 80K ft and can fly (much) higher. The OPFOR is currently presumed to be the Soviet S-300 system in some variation. The S-300 variations are important. At least one of them is actually an ABM system. 

One of the keys is the reaction time of the SAM system. From target detection to missile system ready time to launch initiation to flight time to the A/C altitude, the overall reaction time of any single S-A system is at best questionable for targets at 60K ft and above. SA-2 missiles have been launched at the U-2 at 70K ft with none reaching the area of the U-2, save for one, and that near 'hit' was lower than 70K ft. As for the many different SAMs launched against the SR-71 at 80K ft - there was demonstrably no chance of any of them even coming close. Not even the Israeli attempts came close. As one US colonel said, the only system that had a possible chance of hitting an SR-71 at mission altitude of 80K ft and at 'at speed' would be a fully operational and alerted ABM system with early-warning adar somewhere painting the incoming target. However if the SR-71 put the pedal to the metal at that or higher altitude, no chance.

A sign over the door in an SR-71 ops read (or paraphrased): "Yea, though I fly thru the Valley of Death, I will fear no evil, for I am at 60,000 ft and climbing". There is a LOT of truth in that slogan!

Regarding the single shoot-down of a U-2 over the Soviet Union: on that particular CIA-operated mission, the U-2 had come down from it's mission altitude for reasons not released to the public. Quite a few Migs were launched to intercept the U-2. The Soviets acknowledged that no MIG came close to the U-2's altitude at any point. However at least two SA-2s were fired at the U-2. One SA-2 exploded below/behind the U-2 and fragments damaged the U-2. One SA-2 destroyed a MIG-19 attempting to intercept the U-2. The rest is history. The point of the rebuttal: If the U-2 had remained at it's mission altitude, this flight would have been like so many other U-2 flights: A frustrated Soviet PVO Strany (air defense) and a U-2 pilot landing at the mission-intended base.

As for stealth A/C and their reputed invulnerability to ground-air defense systems: On 27 March 1999, A Soviet S-125 SA system tracked and shot down a F-117A over Jugoslavia. The pilot bailed out and was picked up by US Forces later. Other radar operators have reported that if they knew an F-117 was flying, they could find and track it. Is stealth invincible? no. Is it good? Yes. However I worry about the F-35. not sure about that one.

I still wonder about that 'cranked-wing' A/C reported by U-2 pilots to be flying ABOVE them. The reports were quickly suppressed, but a few leaked out. hmmmmmmmmmmm...........


----------



## mattheww50

idleprocess said:


> As am I, but our military brass and politicians are always gearing up to fight the last war or the enemy of their fantasies rather than those that exist in reality.



It wouldn't be so bad if it was the last war they were gearingup to refight. The problems is that it has become the war before the last war. The F35 would have worked pretty well in the skies over North Viet Nam. However with the plan grounding of the A10, and the last war being Iraq/Afghanistan, the F35 would be pretty useless in those conflicts. The reality is the F35 is pretty worthless in asymetric combat.
You'd think our military and political leadership would have learned something from Afghanistan and Iraq, obviously they haven't. 

The way to bankruptcy is to take out jihad's with weapons that cost 6 figures each. My thumbnail calculation says that when the costs are all added up, each bomb dropped by a B2 costs a million dollars! Our current military budget spends almost $1 million per active service member!


----------



## moldyoldy

idleprocess said:


> Most analysis I'm reading is that the A-10 and U-2 are being retired in order to preserve the delayed, laughably over budget, not meeting requirements - _but oh so-versatile_ - F-35. I'm sure the Army would be glad to take those A-10's off the Air Forces' hands and relieve them of the close air support role they seem to detest. While the need to annihilate massed T-72's in the Fulda Gap isn't what it used to be, the A-10 excels at close air support unlike anything else in the arsenal (or R&D pipeline that we know about).
> 
> Several decades ago there was another experiment with "one combat airframe for all branches" that didn't work out - the F-111. It eventually found a place in the inventory in a much narrower role than anticipated. One wonders if we'll realize the folly of the old joke about a duck - _(it can walk, fly, and swim - *none of them particularly well*)_ like the Chinese did, or keep going down our present path at great expense.



+1 !! 

I lived the "Fulda Gap" question. My location would have been quickly overrun. although the A-10 was not developed at that time, the A-10 of today is the only weapon in any military inventory at any time that would have prevented use of tactical nucs back then 'in case of'. A true tank killer.


----------



## firelord777

Id rather keep the A-10, it's simply amazing and our troops love them. 

The F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all very old, but they'd are very useful and beautiful aircraft


----------



## idleprocess

mattheww50 said:


> It wouldn't be so bad if it was the last war they were gearingup to refight. The problems is that it has become the war before the last war. The F35 would have worked pretty well in the skies over North Viet Nam. However with the plan grounding of the A10, and the last war being Iraq/Afghanistan, the F35 would be pretty useless in those conflicts. The reality is the F35 is pretty worthless in asymetric combat.
> You'd think our military and political leadership would have learned something from Afghanistan and Iraq, obviously they haven't.
> 
> The way to bankruptcy is to take out jihad's with weapons that cost 6 figures each. My thumbnail calculation says that when the costs are all added up, each bomb dropped by a B2 costs a million dollars! Our current military budget spends almost $1 million per active service member!



Truthfully, the A-10 happens to be one of the _better_ tools we happen to have lying around when it comes to close air support for asymmetric warfare. The various incarnations of the AC-130 may well be _best_ since they carry more ordinance, mount heavier weapons, and can loiter for even longer.

I've heard the "Russian design philosophy" (make something that performs acceptably under the worst possible conditions) jars with the "American design philosophy" (make something that performs exceptionally well under the best possible conditions). One makes for weapons systems like the A-10 that outlive their intended use; the other facilitates the sale of expensive weapons systems every decade or so.


----------



## moldyoldy

idleprocess said:


> Truthfully, the A-10 happens to be one of the _better_ tools we happen to have lying around when it comes to close air support for asymmetric warfare. The various incarnations of the AC-130 may well be _best_ since they carry more ordinance, mount heavier weapons, and can loiter for even longer.
> 
> I've heard the "Russian design philosophy" (make something that performs acceptably under the worst possible conditions) jars with the "American design philosophy" (make something that performs exceptionally well under the best possible conditions). One makes for weapons systems like the A-10 that outlive their intended use; the other facilitates the sale of expensive weapons systems every decade or so.



+1 on the Russian design philosophy! 

said differently, the first issue of the Soviet weapon works reasonably well. the first issue of an American weapon needs several revisions to become useful. eg: Compare the AK-47 with the early AR-15 experience in VN. or the first Soviet rockets (Big Dumb Booster) with the American Vanguard rockets. Only when the Saturn V was launched did the US designers finally achieve a true heavy lift capability. On that note, one engineer who was present at the launch of a Saturn V said that he felt (not heard) the most fundamental vibration from the SaturnV engines that he could imagine, and he was almost a mile from launch point. Probably about the same feeling I had, albeit very brief, when 2 F106s lit their burners for takeoff and I was w/in a couple hundred feet behind them.

Ref the A-10: Some troops that inspected the "Highway of Death" out of Kuwait City said that they could tell which weapon killed which vehicle. The 30mm cannon shells on the A-10 left holes in any armour, including tank armour, that whistled in the desert wind. I recall that those A-10s were using tungsten rod penetrators. The penetrators punched holes thru both sides of the tank. The inside of the tank looked as if someone sandblasted it - no evidence of any crew left yet the hatches were closed.... That effect is about what I would have expected on massed Soviet T-72s in the Fulda Gap.

Ref the USAF and ground support: Which is why the Marines took over their own ground support.

Ref the AC-130; back when the AC-130 was being developed from the AC-123 Provider, the AC-130 was initially equipped with 7.62mm Gatling guns. A test was conducted to determine the density of fire. The early AC-130 configuration could place 1 bullet in every square foot of a foot-ball field every second. No wonder the AC-130 has never received any return fire from any targeted area. Now the AC-130 uses 20mm gatling gun cannons (tree trimmers), and a 105mm cannon... 

Edit: The 105mm cannon on the AC130 is primarily for armour killing, specifically with the KE round. For a non-explosive round, it makes quite a show when it hits!


----------



## Steve K

moldyoldy said:


> ..... he felt (not heard) the most fundamental vibration from the SaturnV engines that he could imagine, and he was almost a mile from launch point. Probably about the same feeling I had, albeit very brief, when 2 F106s lit their burners for takeoff and I was w/in a couple hundred feet behind them.



There was a deployment of some AF Guard or Reserve F-106's at my Marine base for a short while, and those afterburners produced one heck of a "thump" when they lit! Much much louder than F-4's or other aircraft of that era (1980 or so). They were interesting aircraft, so I took pictures....









moldyoldy said:


> Ref the USAF and ground support: Which is why the Marines took over their own ground support.



the USMC did develop their own close air support in the early days of aviation. Seems to have been pretty popular with the guys on the ground. The Marines always train all of their troops that they are all grunts at their core, which makes air wing guys like me much more sympathetic with our infantry guys. Plus, our air bases are not always separated from the forward edge of the battle area! As such, we place a high priority on keeping our infantry supported.

The Army Air Corps (and subsequently USAF) seems to have a different philosophy, and have drawn a sharp line between them and the Army. It always struck me as a rather disfunctional relationship. The Army is currently prohibited from having fixed wing ground support aircraft (they have to use helicopters), and can't even have their own cargo aircraft for support. Very weird.




moldyoldy said:


> Ref the AC-130; back when the AC-130 was being developed from the AC-123 Provider, the AC-130 was initially equipped with 7.62mm Gatling guns. A test was conducted to determine the density of fire. The early AC-130 configuration could place 1 bullet in every square foot of a foot-ball field every second. No wonder the AC-130 has never received any return fire from any targeted area. Now the AC-130 uses 20mm gatling gun cannons (tree trimmers), and a 105mm cannon...
> 
> Edit: The 105mm cannon on the AC130 is primarily for armour killing, specifically with the KE round. For a non-explosive round, it makes quite a show when it hits!



just for fun, a couple of pics of the AC-130 at the USAF museum at Wright-Patterson in Dayton Ohio.....

the 105mm cannon/artillery:





and the front half of the aircraft where the 20mm gatling guns are:


----------



## moldyoldy

Wow! talk about memory jogging! 

In the first AC-130 photo, is that a BLU-82 back of the AC130 that I see? A BLU-82 was used as an instant LZ-cut bomb. However as one former chopper pilot (now a 2-star) told me, much of the time after one of those went off, the choppers could not fly in that area for over a day because of all the dust and whatever kicked up. amazing what maybe 12,000 lbs of Octol (in a 15K lb bomb) will do. Octol has a flame front of ~~8000ft/sec which sheared off all trees w/in a few feet of the ground.

The other memorable sight was an Arc Light mission: Under a program to modify the B52Ds of that day, each B52D was able to carry some 30 tons of bombs. and then several B52s would fly formation and drop their bomb load. Watching the intersecting shock-waves from those rolling explosions made me very happy I was only watching...

Ref the F106 photos: Those were the fastest point interceptors the US had at the time, and the last B-58 version with all 4 burners lit could pull away from the F106....


----------



## Steve K

yep, that's a BLU-82, a.k.a. "daisycutter", as I understand it. If you haven't been to the USAF museum, you really should stop in and plan to spend a couple of days there. All sorts of interesting stuff! 






To stay on topic, they have just about every USAF aircraft that ever existed on display, including most of the surviving experimental aircraft. Very cool! This includes sneaky formerly secret aircraft like the YF-12, the Darkstar drone, the very stylish Boeing Bird of Prey, etc. 

here's a shot of the Boeing Bird of Prey. Don't recall any details on if it flew or how much...


----------



## StarHalo

About that building collapse in Harlem today: Rumors abounded that there was a quadcopter-type drone hovering around the aftermath, and after a while it was definitively photographed circling around the area. This set off rounds of phone calls of people trying to discern which organization it belonged to; the NYPD stated plainly that they have no such drones. It turns out it belonged to this guy:







And he is ..some guy. A bystander/civilian using his drone to capture images that could be sold to news outlets. The police officer in the photo is reminding him that drones are illegal in Manhattan and forcing him to ground it. 

So we're actually at the point where average Joe can bring his own technologically superior air resources to an event and then turn a profit from it..


----------



## orbital

^

A drone bill was passed here in WI last month,, would make it tricky/illegal to do something like this.

_... will we see drone police chases in the sky?_oo:


----------



## Steve K

orbital said:


> ^
> 
> A drone bill was passed here in WI last month,, would make it tricky/illegal to do something like this.
> 
> _... will we see drone police chases in the sky?_oo:



and we wouldn't want people using drones to rustle dairy cattle... 

I'm still not clear on why drones are treated any differently than remote controlled model aircraft. Most of them are already restricted to defined areas, aren't they? I know the local RC guys have a few local fields they fly at. Or is there a certain size or power limit pertaining to RC aircraft regulations?


----------



## orbital

^

The Wisconsin drone bill = cameras mounted on r/c stuff is VERY limited 
_(except for specific police emergency situations)_

It's a privacy bill basically


----------



## fridgemagnet

From the post by Idleprocess:

"Insects are interesting due to their small size. They operate at a level below conventional aerodynamics where they are less flying through air and more _swimming_ through an extremely low-viscosity _fluid"_.

What about the prehistoric dragonfly 'Meganeura' - over 2 foot wingspan -hardly below conventional aerodynamics...that would scale up ok.

As regards obsolete, but still very useful aircraft, how about the Bronco?


----------



## moldyoldy

fridgemagnet said:


> <snip>
> 
> As regards obsolete, but still very useful aircraft, how about the Bronco?



I worked with a Slow-FAC after the VN conflict. He flew first the O-1 Bird-Dog. He survived long enough to fly the O-2 Skymaster and eventually the OV-10 Bronco. He was the most controlled level-headed person I ever knew. As a slow-fac, he commanded very destructive power. If he decided that a section of jungle needed attention, he marked it with his Zuni rockets and the fighter-bombers swooped in and obliterated that part of the jungle. The bad guys learned not to fire at his O-1 from either of the front quarters due to his sensors and the eventual indirect answer from him they could not outrun. Unfortunately the rear 2 quarters were relatively unguarded and FAC losses forced the transition to ever faster A/C. However as he put it, the O-1 Bird-Dog as an A/C was very forgiving to fly. The OV-10 Bronco was not as forgiving, but was fast enough to avoid being so much of a target. Oddly enough, I do not recall him saying anything about flying A/C once he exited the military. Now a drone would take over his FAC job.


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> the O-2 Skymaster and eventually the OV-10 Bronco.



Can't count the number of Skymasters I've seen, and yet I've still never seen a Bronco..


----------



## moldyoldy

The German news service Spiegel is reporting this evening that the Russian Defense Firm Rostec alleges that it has managed to break the comm link to a US drone identified as a MQ-5B Hunter at some 4000 meters over/near the Crimean peninsula and take it over. The drone is now in the hands of the 'self-defense' forces in the Crimea and 'nearly intact'. Hmmm, if true, so much for the US belief that all opponents will be low-tech combatants. 

This is supposedly different than the recent claimed shoot-down of a recon 'aircraft' over Crimea.

Also, North Korea has evidently successfully copied a US drone shot down in their territory. Their version is supposed to be armed.


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Can't count the number of Skymasters I've seen, and yet I've still never seen a Bronco..



The USMC was flying them when I was enlisted, but can't say that I've seen one flying since then.

This is a Marine Bronco that stopped by the base where I was stationed...





and by chance, I spent the day at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. Yes, they do have a Bronco on display, along with a remarkable collection of common and uncommon aircraft. Not sure if any secret aircraft were on display, but there were a number of formerly secret aircraft. If you haven't been there, you really should find time to visit!


----------



## moldyoldy

Steve K said:


> The USMC was flying them when I was enlisted, but can't say that I've seen one flying since then.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> and by chance, I spent the day at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. Yes, they do have a Bronco on display, along with a remarkable collection of common and uncommon aircraft. Not sure if any secret aircraft were on display, but there were a number of formerly secret aircraft. If you haven't been there, you really should find time to visit!



I may have to do that! An engineer acquaintance of mine recently took a job at Wright-Patt, so I have more than one reason to stop by Dayton. From the photos everyone has shown just on CPF, I understand that I need more than one day to wander thru my memories in person. Kind of the same way I felt when I walked thru the Deutsches Museum in München and kept thinking: "I worked with this a lot of this gear, and they already have it in a German Museum?". Ouch!


----------



## Steve K

The USAF museum is very large, in a way that I can't describe. I'd say that it is divided into roughly 3 main sections/hangar areas. Each of these is large enough that they can easily swallow up a B-52 or B-36 or B-29 so that you can't see it a modest distance away. Big.

There is also a hangar across the runway where previous presidential aircraft, the various Air Force One aircraft are on display, as well as a few dozen experimental and research aircraft. You can only get there by taking a short bus trip there, and you need to sign up for the bus trip early in the day. If you ever wanted to see an XB-70, an X-15, the X-1B, a YF-12, etc., then this is where you have to go.

If you want to take pictures, I recommend bringing a tripod. The lights are relatively dim in the museum, and it's difficult to handhold the camera. Even at ISO 400, some pictures can take a second or two.


----------



## Steve K

back to the USAF museum and formerly secret aircraft.... the Boeing Bird of Prey (again). A few new photos from the recent visit. Yeah... I do think it's about the coolest looking thing in the museum.


----------



## StarHalo

The funny bit about the Bird Of Prey program was the patch - the plane itself was hidden on it the whole time..


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> The funny bit about the Bird Of Prey program was the patch - the plane itself was hidden on it the whole time..



that is clever! 

Do many black projects have project patches?? My short career at McDonnell Douglas didn't include any black programs, which I'm happy about. Too many hassles.


----------



## moldyoldy

The SR-71 acquired the name "Habu" and patch after the existence of the SR-71 became public.






Reportedly only pilots that flew an operational mission were allowed to wear the Habu patch.


----------



## moldyoldy

Ref the question about black projects with project patches: yes and no. Maybe there were patches, but the denizens of the project would never have been allowed to wear them in public as long as the project was in the black.


----------



## idleprocess

The "NOYFB" mission patch allegedly worn by the transport aircraft crews that supplied Groom Lake serves as the unofficial mascot for my work group because we get it done and you really shouldn't ask how...

http://www.bellwethergallery.com/images/artwork/large/2006-NOYFB-patch-lg.jpg


----------



## moldyoldy

A great patch! I always appreciated the effort that went in to designing our patches, even if they could not be worn.....


----------



## moldyoldy

Back to aircraft: I find it somewhat curious that the BBC website is posting articles about former US aircraft, usually the high & fast type:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140325-the-fastest-plane-ever-flown

the simple data about the X-15 from Wiki: 
"...As of 2014, the X-15 holds the official world record for the highest speed ever reached by a manned, powered aircraft. Its maximum speed was 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h).[1]​ During the X-15 program, 13 different flights by eight pilots met the USAF spaceflight criterion by exceeding the altitude of 50 miles (80 km) thus qualifying the pilots for astronaut status."


----------



## Steve K

just for fun, a shot of the X-15 at the USAF museum at Wright-Patterson AFB:






I love the fact that this part of the museum allows the visitor to walk up to the aircraft and look at all the details. 

And speaking of fast planes, you'll notice that the X-15 is parked under the wing of the XB-70. The XB-70 is the remaining prototype of the Mach 3 bomber. Very cool plane! Not especially practical, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## fridgemagnet

Extremely cool plane - maybe one of the most beautiful aircraft ever.


----------



## EZO

Defense technology blog Ares reports on a mysterious flying object—most certainly a military classified aircraft—flying over the skies of Amarillo, Texas, on March 10. Aviation Week's defense expert Bill Sweetman says this is unprecedented but he's convinced it's real. "This sort of thing has happened only once since 1956".

Interesting.......an actual secret aircraft to discuss!


----------



## StarHalo

EZO said:


> Interesting.......an actual secret aircraft to discuss!



Hm, but it's the middle of the day; I've seen manned craft do some funky things over the desert, but I don't know that they'd fly the secret stuff in the light of day..


----------



## EZO

StarHalo said:


> Hm, but it's the middle of the day; I've seen manned craft do some funky things over the desert, but I don't know that they'd fly the secret stuff in the light of day..


I wouldn't have posted this if the source wasn't a well known authority at Aviation Week.


----------



## moldyoldy

heheh, Aviation Week is referred to as "Aviation Leak" for a good reason! Besides, remember that some reports surfaced very briefly from U-2 pilots about a cranked-wing A/C *above *them, and their mission altitude is 70000 ft. Also, remember that the popcorn on a string contrails showed up over England and over the SW of the US such as the flight track from that lake out to sea over Bakersfield.


----------



## StarHalo

EZO said:


> I wouldn't have posted this if the source wasn't a well known authority at Aviation Week.



Not questioning the source or post, but you have to eliminate what it isn't before you can say what it is.. It's obviously not a silhouette of anything known, but could it be a paint job on a larger plane? The outline is certainly stealthy, but are we still testing new manned designs in the drone age?


----------



## EZO

StarHalo said:


> Not questioning the source or post, but you have to eliminate what it isn't before you can say what it is.. It's obviously not a silhouette of anything known, but could it be a paint job on a larger plane? The outline is certainly stealthy, but are we still testing new manned designs in the drone age?



Anything is possible regarding what it "could be" StarHalo but this is very different than your previous post which frankly comes across as being rather dismissive of both the post and the source. Your post here kind of sounds like you haven't bothered to look at the link I provided either. The speculation is that it is indeed a piloted craft and the blog post goes on to say, "The photos tell us more about what the mysterious stranger isn't than what it is.", whereas your comments seem to imply that some sort of conclusion was made as to what it is beyond being an unidentified military aircraft.


----------



## StarHalo

I did look at the link, that's what's throwing me off; it's obviously jet engines, not small, and according to the link, manned, so what new manned aircraft would be tested when all we've seen for the past decade are drones?


----------



## EZO

StarHalo said:


> I did look at the link, that's what's throwing me off; it's obviously jet engines, not small, and according to the link, manned, so what new manned aircraft would be tested when all we've seen for the past decade are drones?



Oh, I see. 

According to Bill Sweetman there were two more planes and, after listening to the radio chatter, they believe the aircraft was _not _a drone. It seems there was a pilot in there. He also doubts "that you'd dispatch three large, classified unmanned aircraft anywhere in formation." He speculates that this could be a replacement for the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, a stealth ground-attack aircraft that was retired six years ago.

Edit: That last paragraph in the blog is a little thick to decipher but that's what he seems to be saying. "_One avenue of speculation is to look at gaps in the USAF's line-up. One obvious example is high-precision stealth attack."_, he says.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

moldyoldy said:


> The SR-71 acquired the name "Habu" and patch after the existence of the SR-71 became public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reportedly only pilots that flew an operational mission were allowed to wear the Habu patch.



My family lived on Okinawa for three and a half years during the mid-60's. My father was in the Air Force, stationed at Naha. Once when I was about six or seven, Dad and I drove to Kadena to see a friend of his. I called him "Uncle Ben". Uncle Ben worked at the airfield and took us to watch an SR-71 coming in for a landing. We were in his work truck, and parked right next to the runway. It was an awesome sight to see the SR land. A few seconds later we drove onto the tarmac and I got to help pick up the rubber bands from the SR-71's parachute. 

~ Chance 

Edit: The Rest Of The Story. 

Almost forgot, another thing I witnessed on Okinawa, a Habu vs Mongoose fight. It wasn't something a young child should have seen. Dad showed poor judgment on that one.


----------



## StarHalo

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> I got to help pick up the rubber bands from the SR-71's parachute.



Ha, that's awesome. You get to keep them?

I've stuck my head into the wheel well of a parked SR-71, lots of NASA-esque gold foil in there..


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

Yep. But being only six, I didn't appreciate what I was witnessing, or what I had. Rubber bands don't last long when you're a kid. Probably shot them at my sister, then had em taken away. 

~ Chance


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

StarHalo said:


> I've stuck my head into the wheel well of a parked SR-71, lots of NASA-esque gold foil in there..



I saw one up close and personal at McChord AFB here in Parkland. Maybe five years later. It was during a public air-show, and I was amazed they let people walk right up to it. I still thought it was a big secret. 

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo

The guy who photographed/listened in on Ezo's mystery aircraft above posted a more lengthy commentary post today, where he goes into the logic of a daytime flight. This is becoming better than a Coast to Coast segment..


----------



## EZO

StarHalo said:


> The guy who photographed/listened in on Ezo's mystery aircraft above posted a more lengthy commentary post today, where he goes into the logic of a daytime flight. This is becoming better than a Coast to Coast segment..



Good link StarHalo! Very interesting to read more about this story and about Steve Douglas. If anyone would know what he's looking at vis-à-vis a black budget military aircraft it would be him which is probably the reason this story is garnering attention. You know, correct me if I am wrong but I believe in the entire history of this thread this is the only "real time" reporting to surface about a secret aircraft. We usually learn about these things years after the fact. Of course, we don't yet know what it is but we know it exists.


----------



## Burgess

VERY interesting Link, StarHalo !

Thank you to everyone here, for your postings !

lovecpf
_


----------



## moldyoldy

Mr. Sweetman evidently became tired of the USAF stonewalling his credible observations, so he raised the anti and took his observations on the 'new' black A/C out of the blog and put them on the front page.

BTW, the continuing difference between the US and Soviet A/C philosophy of fighter A/C design continues to be a subject of discussion. Ignoring who is making the points, the point is that the US advantage in stealth fighters is, in this pilot's mind, overemphasized. eg: Any fighter that can drastically change it's speed/direction can break the lock of most fighters/missiles (true). Furthermore, studies by US pilot tacticians admit that the supermanueverability demonstrated by the Soviet fighters starting with the SU-27 and thru the latest SU-35 have the ability to take out the best US fighters. It all depends on the initial engagement distance. I do agree that the supermanueverability demonstated by the latest Soviet fighters is awe-inspiring! Normal fighter A/C are simply not able to manuever like that, not even the US F-22!


----------



## StarHalo

Crashed drone in South Korea, believed to be from North Korea (how could they tell..)


----------



## StarHalo

The DoD has a project called "Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System" that is planned to be an install on any helicopter that effectively turns it into a drone; current key applications focus on cargo, so that a cargo copter could be loaded, then someone on the ground would use an app that already has the flightplan ready. The operator just clicks and away goes the chopper on its mission, autonomous sensors on the chopper itself handle inclement or hazardous conditions.


----------



## StarHalo

About those drone hunting licenses; Several machine guns (sounds like there's even a Ma Deuce in there) and several thousand rounds of ammo versus one "drone" r/c aircraft. Turns out you not only need a lot of money, but a lot of time:


----------



## Steve K

just to make it fair, there ought to be a couple of armed drones for AAA suppression. 

speaking of aerial targets, the photo below is an aerial gunnery target dart. This is used for training pilots to shoot at other aircraft without actually shooting at an aircraft. Not sure if it is still used, but it was common in the 70's and 80's time frame. It is attached to a tow aircraft by a spooled cable, and extended once over the gunnery range. Not exactly a secret aircraft, but not well known. 
This photo is from the USAF museum at Dayton OH.


----------



## Steve K

speaking of semi-secret aircraft at the USAF museum in Dayton, here's a shot of the Teledyne-Ryan AQM-91A Compass Arrow. Perhaps the most amazing thing about it is that it was developed in the late 60's (assuming that the museum isn't just feeding us misinformation!!) 
I may have to poke around the web and learn a little more about it.


----------



## StarHalo

Photographer Jeff Templin, in Wichita, Kansas:








> "Right over the city, clear as a bell. Anyone that was looking up would have seen it. You don't usually see military or even civilian aircraft's jets that leave contrails making those kind of severe departures off of the given route.
> 
> [It was] Absolutely silent, no sound.
> 
> When I put it on my computer and processed them, I was surprised to see this triangular shape that is not like anything you typically see. It was one of ours or at least man made for sure, so unidentified yes, but alien, no."


----------



## StarHalo

StarHalo said:


> The DoD has a project called "Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System"



Guy in the center is directing this empty Blackhawk roping a two-ton block of concrete:


----------



## EZO

StarHalo said:


> Guy in the center is directing this empty Blackhawk roping a two-ton block of concrete:



Some of the RC helicopter and quadcopter guys I know would wet their pants if they saw the above photo! :laughing:


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Guy in the center is directing this empty Blackhawk roping a two-ton block of concrete:
> 
> (image deleted)



just to show you how slow I am... my first thought was "what if that block of concrete falls on you?"
Then I realized the proper question is "what if that helicopter falls on you?".

I wonder how much training you have to have before they let you operate it? I'm assuming that you would have to already be a fully qualified helo pilot.


----------



## EZO

Steve K said:


> I wonder how much training you have to have before they let you operate it? I'm assuming that you would have to already be a fully qualified helo pilot.



You know, the fact is that any highly experienced young guy who has spent a lot of time behind the thumb operated controls of a higher end RC helicopter could probably pilot one of these things as well as or even better than an actual UH-60 Black Hawk pilot.


----------



## idleprocess

EZO said:


> You know, the fact is that any highly experienced young guy who has spent a lot of time behind the thumb operated controls of a higher end RC helicopter could probably pilot one of these things as well as or even better than an actual UH-60 Black Hawk pilot.


One suspects that the power-to-weight ratio is a _bit_ different on a large military utility helicopter vs one of those RC jobs that can pull multiple G's at will in almost any direction.


----------



## ganymede

Talking about 3D RC Heli flight, don't mess with this guy:


----------



## EZO

idleprocess said:


> One suspects that the power-to-weight ratio is a _bit_ different on a large military utility helicopter vs one of those RC jobs that can pull multiple G's at will in almost any direction.




"One suspects" that you are completely missing the point, my friend. No one is suggesting such wild maneuvers with a full sized aircraft; rather just the skill and dexterity of an operator who understands the remote control flight dynamics of such a vehicle.

Edit: Here's perhaps a better example of a hobbyist operating a military style helicopter in normal maneuvers expected from such a craft.


----------



## orbital

+
_
some more *X-37B* info_

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...have-no-clue-what-its-actually-doing-up-there

&

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheet...rticle/104539/x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle.aspx


----------



## StarHalo

Laser Phalanx bakes drone in flight:


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Laser Phalanx bakes drone in flight:



350 degrees for one hour? 

well, it just seems like it takes a long time to get that drone to start coming apart. I wonder how far away it was at the time? 

I'm guessing that this is the replacement for the Phalanx anti-missile ship protection system that used a radar guided/aimed M61 20mm gatling gun? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

Man... the difficulty of spotting a 12 inch diameter anti-ship missile from a distance, and then knocking it down with either 20mm rounds or photons seems daunting. 20mm rounds seem like they would have an immediate effect, but you have to let the missile get in range. 

Maybe the Laser Phalanx is to take care of the missiles at a distance, and the 20mm Phalanx is going to be delegated to the "oh my god.. it's almost here!" missiles?


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> 350 degrees for one hour?
> 
> well, it just seems like it takes a long time to get that drone to start coming apart. I wonder how far away it was at the time?
> 
> I'm guessing that this is the replacement for the Phalanx anti-missile ship protection system that used a radar guided/aimed M61 20mm gatling gun?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
> 
> Man... the difficulty of spotting a 12 inch diameter anti-ship missile from a distance, and then knocking it down with either 20mm rounds or photons seems daunting. 20mm rounds seem like they would have an immediate effect, but you have to let the missile get in range.
> 
> Maybe the Laser Phalanx is to take care of the missiles at a distance, and the 20mm Phalanx is going to be delegated to the "oh my god.. it's almost here!" missiles?


I gather that the CIWS is being supplemented / replaced with the SeaRAM (Rolling Airframe Missile), which seems to perform better at point defense.

The demonstrations of these laser weapons are unimpressive - perhaps due to power limitations, atmospheric issues, or the desire to keep their true capabilities secret.


----------



## StarHalo

Steve K said:


> Maybe the Laser Phalanx is to take care of the missiles at a distance, and the 20mm Phalanx is going to be delegated to the "oh my god.. it's almost here!" missiles?



Drones and small boats, equipped on the USS Ponce which is somewhere in the Persian Gulf. ~30Kw of cooking power, with the goal of eventually getting it up to 100Kw.


----------



## Steve K

are there any tech details on the Laser Phalanx? i.e. chemical laser? solid state? IR? 

I worked with solid state lasers a couple of decades ago <..sigh..> so this sort of stuff is always fascinating.


----------



## StarHalo

Steve K said:


> are there any tech details on the Laser Phalanx? i.e. chemical laser? solid state? IR?



Kratos solid-state IR. Uses approximately $1 of electricity to fire.


----------



## StarHalo

New Brimstone missile for use with the Reaper drone; fire-and-forget at any target within ~7 miles, can also be armed without a warhead to surgically strike individuals.


----------



## Steve K

yeah... that's gonna leave a mark....

That piece of ordnance hitting the truck doesn't look exactly like what I saw on this site:
http://brimstonemissile.com/brimstone/

Still, pretty slick. Radar guidance and semi-active laser guidance. I'm not familiar with the meaning of semi-active laser guidance. My assumption is that it was the basic laser spot tracking technique. 

Who's in charge of naming missiles?? Now a drone can literally rain down hellfire and brimstone upon a target. Quite biblical.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

Steve K said:


> yeah... that's gonna leave a mark....



~ C.G.


----------



## orbital

+








Drones under wing -^-()-^-


----------



## Steve K

I'm going to just guess that those drones aren't delivering pizzas. 

Those are the D-21 drones, according to Wikipedia....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21/M-21

It doesn't appear to have had a distinguished career.


----------



## orbital

^

I snatched the photo from here..http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ow-with-color-screens-and-wireless-networking



__


----------



## StarHalo

There's usually a D-21 or two storage parked off a side taxiway if you poke around Edwards Air Force Base on Google Earth.


----------



## Steve K

I've spent a while poking around Edwards via Google's satellite view. Don't recall seeing a D-21, but did find an F-16XL and a F-15 STOVL aircraft. (edit: that should be "STOL"... there was never any way to make a vertical landing in an F-15 .. and walk away from it)

That's a big base too... lots of hangars and flight lines to be examined. Sort of like playing Where's Waldo, but you don't know what Waldo might be, or if there's even anything to find.


----------



## StarHalo

Yeah, every time they update the imagery, almost all of the storage planes have been moved around, so you have to check it often. I don't see a D-21 there now, but there are a trio of Global Hawk drones parked out in the open; you used to only see those covered if they appeared at all..


----------



## gadget_lover

StarHalo said:


> Yeah, every time they update the imagery, almost all of the storage planes have been moved around, so you have to check it often. I don't see a D-21 there now, but there are a trio of Global Hawk drones parked out in the open; you used to only see those covered if they appeared at all..



If you zoom in and out you often see that the closer photos were taken at a different time. I looked at some jets at Miramar. As I zoomed in, they changed to Ospreys. As I got closer they disappeared, leaving only the oddest oil stains that I'd ever seen. The pictures at different altitudes were taken on at least 3 different days.

Daniel


----------



## StarHalo

Encountered in the Amazon warehouse: You can now own your own quadcopter for *under $40*, it even has LEDs..


----------



## Essexman

Just found this on the BBC website, nice 5 minutes of SR-71 Blackbird: How to fly the world's fastest plane

[video]http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130701-flying-the-worlds-fastest-plane[/video]


----------



## StarHalo

Incom X-Wing MkII (that's JJ Abrams assisting the pilot):


----------



## orbital

+







___________ ^ Landing this Tues_data_

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/x-37b-...eturn-from-22-month-orbital-mission-1.2796724


----------



## Steve K

wow.. it is completing a 22 month mission! 
Too bad it doesn't have a facebook page so we could keep track of what it has been doing for those 22 months.


----------



## StarHalo

*$2.99* Amazon Kindle digital copy, until midnight:


----------



## orbital

+

*Aerial drone aircraft carrier*

..don't laugh, DARPA wants it


----------



## Steve K

that brings to mind the Navy airships that could carry a few aircraft internally. The aircraft would launch and recover on a small "trapeze". That would have been fun to watch. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

"The US Navy experimented with the use of airships as airborne aircraft carriers, developing an idea pioneered by the British. The USS Los Angeles was used for initial experiments, and the USS Akron and Macon, the world's largest at the time, were used to test the principle in naval operations. Each carried four F9C Sparrowhawk fighters in its hangar, and could carry a fifth on the trapeze. The idea had mixed results. By the time the Navy started to develop a sound doctrine for using the ZRS-type airships, the last of the two built, USS Macon, had been lost. The seaplane had become more capable, and was considered a better investment.[63]"

I'm not sure about having a drone carrier for manned aircraft. It would only make sense if the aircraft were drones too.... If the drone carrier was a B-52 and the drone aircraft were the size of the Quail drones that the B-52 used to carry as decoys, it might be viable. Or maybe the drone aircraft are just cruise missiles and glide bombs??

An actual navy carrier supported by giant ducted fans and with the typical aircraft and crew does raise some interesting questions. Would the deck crew stop wearing life preservers and instead wear parachutes?? Or would they just be tethered to the carrier so they could be hauled up in the event of going over the edge of the deck?


----------



## StarHalo

I picture a flying battery bank with repeaters and ECM on it, with a handful of small drones. The carrier flies a holding pattern near a hot area, the drones can go in, come back nearly depleted, recharge, and head back in, nonstop 24 hours a day until the carrier needs charging, maybe days later. The whole thing wouldn't need to be larger than a small private aircraft.


----------



## FroggyTaco

Here is a flash based cockpit tour of the SR-71 that was fun to explore.

There's so many mini circuit breakers in the cockpit of this thing.

http://nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/068/SR-71A Front Cockpit.html


----------



## moldyoldy

FroggyTaco said:


> Here is a flash based cockpit tour of the SR-71 that was fun to explore.
> 
> There's so many mini circuit breakers in the cockpit of this thing.
> 
> http://nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/068/SR-71A Front Cockpit.html



Just returned from the "Old World" temporarily and noticed this entry. 
FWIW, here is the rear cockpit tour of the SR-71. Notice the empty panel locations... 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/068/SR-71A Rear Cockpit.html


----------



## orbital

+

Couple days ago I was driving east,, right in front of me was something truly unusual.

At very first, I thought it was a drone of some kind,,
it was low flying & had *unusually short wings*, but it was jet shaped

can't say for sure what I saw oo:


F-104 Starfighter??












add:: I live in under the path of many EAA Fylin crafts,, so I'v seen lots of different stuff over the years 
this one actually caught me off guard a bit..


----------



## Steve K

If not an F-104, the only other aircraft with fairly stubby wings that I can think of would be the Northrop F-5 (or T-38):











Does NASA still fly any F-104s? I know that the USAF still flies T-38s, and the Navy/Marines are using F-5s for aggressor aircraft (in really cool camo paint schemes).

The 104 is still one of the coolest looking aircraft, IMHO. Too bad it couldn't carry much, or turn well, etc.


----------



## orbital

^

Steve, it had to have been a F-104 because I got a clear look at the wings.
it was banking about 1/4~1/2mi directly in front on me,,, low'ish to the ground
then heading then due south

edit: just got back from having to drive that same route,
the distance had to be closer to 1/4~1/2 mi


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> FWIW, here is the rear cockpit tour of the SR-71. Notice the empty panel locations...



Pretty much every square inch of the SR-71 is declassified with the sole exception of the actual reconnaissance hardware. Word has it that just prior to retirement, it was 2 *giga*pixels..



orbital said:


> Couple days ago I was driving east,, right in front of me was something truly unusual.



Check for local airshows/events, that's it 90% of the time. 

A few years ago I was out at Hearst Castle/San Simeon and saw a Cobra gunship fly over, banking hard and in a hurry; I told the wife it might be best if we got to a radio quickly - turns out the President was in town, just a bit of his security out and about.


----------



## NoNotAgain

A little SR71 camera information.

http://www.velocityreviews.com/thre...igital-vs-sr71-reconnaissance-cameras.248258/

I found this declassified CIA document online which talks about
various aspects of the SR71 reconnaissance plane, including the
cameras and optics: http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/successortou2.html
Evidently several interesting cameras were built for this project,
including: 1) A Perkin Elmer camera capable of resolving 140 lp/mm on
6.6" film (2.2 gigapixels), and 2) A Hycon camera with a lens designed
by James Baker capable of resolving 100 lp/mm on 9.5" film (2.3
gigapixels).


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> The 104 is still one of the coolest looking aircraft, IMHO. Too bad it couldn't carry much, or turn well, etc.


It was an interceptor. Its mission was to take off, vector to intercept, smash the gas to make it to the intercept point, then splash the hostiles before they could deliver their payloads.



StarHalo said:


> A few years ago I was out at Hearst Castle/San Simeon and saw a Cobra gunship fly over, banking hard and in a hurry; I told the wife it might be best if we got to a radio quickly - turns out the President was in town, just a bit of his security out and about.


Watched the president's detail roll in sporting some V-22's and CH-53's in Dallas last year - flying from DFW airport to Love Field might seem extravagant, but probably required less police presence and fewer closed streets. They were flying a tad low and I knew to look when I _heard_ them.


----------



## Steve K

idleprocess said:


> It was an interceptor. Its mission was to take off, vector to intercept, smash the gas to make it to the intercept point, then splash the hostiles before they could deliver their payloads.



Very true... I didn't mean to imply that the team at Lockheed didn't do a good job. The interceptor role was the main focus in the post-war years, where the big threat was bombers coming over the horizon. The main virtues for aircraft were the ability to go fast in a straight line and to unleash some large rockets or missiles at the bombers. I think some of the missiles even had nuclear warheads(?).

There seems to be a desire to use a specialized aircraft for multiple purposes, and the F-104 just wasn't good at other missions. It did seem to do well as an inexpensive export fighter. The Germans flew them for quite a while. I seem to recall something about them doing well as low level attack aircraft, as the high wing loading made them less sensitive to the turbulence at low altitudes. Since the mission included repelling Soviets coming across the German border, there wasn't a requirement for a large combat radius, so no need to use up hard points on fuel tanks.

Anyway.... the F-104 never had a glamorous career in the USAF, which is a shame. It was developed in the "adolescent" years of jet design, and was the first really design to place high speed as the top design priority. 

As a side note, the wing design for the F-104 was derived from (or inspired by?) the wing on the X-3 Stiletto, designed by Douglas Aircraft. While the F-104 was long and slender, the X-3 was even moreso. 






The X-3 is at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. Along with the other experimental aircraft, it is crowded into a hanger that is separate from the rest of the museum. There are no ropes around the aircraft, which is great, but they are so tightly packed that it is hard to get a good photo.


----------



## Steve K

just saw this article in the Washington Post about the Navy's X-47B drone being refueled in flight. Kinda cool..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...04941f10-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e&hpid=z10

The article includes a video of the refueling...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOU9iJZuoFc&feature=player_embedded

I was surprised that they used the usual naval "probe and drogue" method. That makes the aircraft being refueled responsible for getting the probe into the basket at the end of the hose. This is in contrast to the USAF's preferred method where the refueling aircraft must stick the probe into the aircraft receiving the fuel. Both make sense for their respective missions. 

This must still be in the early phases.. I didn't see any way for the X-47B to retract the refueling probe.


----------



## idleprocess

I believe that the X-47's are being retired, so the jury-rigged look is probably reflective of the program coming to a close.


----------



## NoNotAgain

Steve K said:


> just saw this article in the Washington Post about the Navy's X-47B drone being refueled in flight. Kinda cool..
> 
> I was surprised that they used the usual naval "probe and drogue" method. That makes the aircraft being refueled responsible for getting the probe into the basket at the end of the hose. This is in contrast to the USAF's preferred method where the refueling aircraft must stick the probe into the aircraft receiving the fuel. Both make sense for their respective missions.
> 
> This must still be in the early phases.. I didn't see any way for the X-47B to retract the refueling probe.



Naval asset, naval refueling probe.

The idea is to keep it simple. Retractable probes are heavy and take up space. It's not like the X47 is a high speed aircraft. Frequently refueled via EA-6B Prowler. One of the navy's slowest and stable aircraft still in use.


----------



## Steve K

NoNotAgain said:


> Naval asset, naval refueling probe.
> 
> The idea is to keep it simple. Retractable probes are heavy and take up space. It's not like the X47 is a high speed aircraft. Frequently refueled via EA-6B Prowler. One of the navy's slowest and stable aircraft still in use.



well, the X-47 is a stealth aircraft, and a big exposed probe is not stealthy. Exposed refueling probes went away when the F-18 was introduced in the 80's. Even the F-18 has been upgraded to be sort of stealthy (the E/F models).

As an experimental aircraft, it's not all that old.. the first flight was in 2011. 

I do have a fondness for simple naval aircraft. I spent four years working on A-4 Skyhawks (also equipped with a fixed refueling probe)


----------



## DUQ

orbital said:


> +
> 
> Couple days ago I was driving east,, right in front of me was something truly unusual.
> 
> At very first, I thought it was a drone of some kind,,
> it was low flying & had *unusually short wings*, but it was jet shaped
> 
> can't say for sure what I saw oo:
> 
> 
> F-104 Starfighter??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> add:: I live in under the path of many EAA Fylin crafts,, so I'v seen lots of different stuff over the years
> this one actually caught me off guard a bit..



Maybe it was an F-35?

http://natocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/v31882_f35-joint-strike-fighter.jpg


----------



## Steve K

I know that there are F-35's at MCAS Yuma in Arizona. Are there operational F-35 squadrons at other bases?

There's a Flickr group for aircraft at MCAS Yuma, where you can see pics of the F-35...
https://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/

It will be interesting to see how well the F-35 functions in the variety of missions that it is being used in. The VSTOL mission in particular, seems poorly suited to the airframe. 

The AV-8 design was the only VSTOL jet that was really successful, despite many aircraft companies trying different configurations. The only thing that the AV-8 can't do is go supersonic, due to that large fan at the front of the engine. The F-35 does achieve supersonic flight, but only by taking the large fan disc and mounting it horizontally in the fuselage. This eat up a lot of space in the fuselage, adds complexity with the drive shaft and various doors needed to cover the fan in horizontal flight, etc. 

There may be problems making the AV-8 design stealthy too... due to the large fan at the front of the engine. It's pretty hard to cover that up so it doesn't make a huge radar reflection. 

Anyway, it'll be interested to see what we learn as the F-35 starts being used by fleet squadrons.


----------



## StarHalo

I'd wager all the manned aircraft introduced after the F-117 will be viewed as a mistake..


----------



## magellan

StarHalo said:


> I'd wager all the manned aircraft introduced after the F-117 will be viewed as a mistake..



I guess things have changed since, "No buck. No Buck Rogers."


----------



## idleprocess

StarHalo said:


> I'd wager all the manned aircraft introduced after the F-117 will be viewed as a mistake..



I would not bet against future manned stealth _control aircraft_ running something like line-of-sight distances from the unmanned air-to-air and fighter-bomber craft not tasked with close air support. This will eliminate satlink latency and liability. This seems likely since AI doesn't seem to be up to the task of full-on autonomous combat.


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> The AV-8 design was the only VSTOL jet that was really successful, despite many aircraft companies trying different configurations. The only thing that the AV-8 can't do is go supersonic, due to that large fan at the front of the engine. The F-35 does achieve supersonic flight, but only by taking the large fan disc and mounting it horizontally in the fuselage. This eat up a lot of space in the fuselage, adds complexity with the drive shaft and various doors needed to cover the fan in horizontal flight, etc.


If your requirements are VSTOL first and everything else second, then the Harrier was a success. But when you look at the overall utility it was worse than pretty much every other combat aircraft. Vertical takeoff requires terrific amounts of fuel, the aircraft can't carry many weapons, can't carry much fuel, and its survivability was poor. Other than the fact that it allows amphibious assault ships to carry fixed-wing aircraft, the benefit is marginal.



Steve K said:


> Anyway, it'll be interested to see what we learn as the F-35 starts being used by fleet squadrons.


Hopefully we'll learn that no matter how much you polish it, a turd is still a turd.

I hear the J-31 is a good indicator of what the F-35 could have been since it's based on the F-35 plans that hackers absconded with.


----------



## moldyoldy

StarHalo said:


> I'd wager all the manned aircraft introduced after the F-117 will be viewed as a mistake..



An Air Force General told me that he views all fast/high manned aircraft as anacronysms. Endurance of manned recon flights are limited no matter how fast or high they fly. High unmanned recon flights are up to 24hrs now.

However the winner of unmanned flight duration is the X-37B: now set for launch #4 on 20 May. More importantly, the USAF is progressively giving away some of the X-37B testing involved, other than recon. specifically, thruster experiments involving electric propulsion, eg: ION propulsion already deployed in the very latest recon satellites. This translates to a much longer operational life for those very expensive recon satellites (usually the KH series). 

If anyone is interested, here is a 262 page PDF on an early series of those KH satellites. Of course, the NRO is the sponsoring organization.

Also, if anyone remembers, the presumed "Aurora", or whatever real name it had we will never know - an early follow-on to the SR-71 - evidently used pulse-jet (popcorn-on-a-string contrails) propulsion and was rumored to employ ionic/plasma flow enhancement on the leading edges to enhance the speed well beyond the SR-71. At least two deployments of this A/C series were noted by observing the unique contrails. Both deployments ceased some years ago.

Now the long-expected SR-72 is showing up in the news again. This time rather than a 2-stage engine (turbo + ramjet bypass) of the SR-71, the SR-72 is rumored to be designed with a 3-stage engine (turbo + ramjet + scramjet). Mach 6 has been the stated design speed. Most air-to-air missiles have a max speed of Mach-5, some of the fastest might make it to Mach 6. However the altitude difference would render the SR-72 even less challenged than the SR-71 was by air-to-air missiles. 80K feet is still evidently the mission altitude, same as the SR-71. Even though many A-A missiles & SAM missiles were launched, none even came close to the SR-71. As the SR-71 pilot of the last speed-setting event stated, (paraphrased) 'we flew fast enough to break the old record, not as fast as we could'. 

side note: FAA control ceases at flight level FL 600 (60,000 feet). After that, any pilot up there is on his own. Recent reports of contrails well above FL 800 have been reported. Go figure.


----------



## orbital

+

Fourth mission of the X-37B set today,
small vid on its lift sequence 


http://www.space.com/29442-x37b-space-plane-fourth-mission.html


----------



## moldyoldy

FWIW: These A/C are certainly not classified, rather low tech, although what/where they are doing up there is very high-tech.

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-behind-my...raft-over-us-cities-070836765--politics.html#

The DEA has used some similar A/C system for years.


----------



## MrJino

I work as a sushi chef and often talk to old retired air force and navy pilots who flew test crafts. Of course they don't bring pictures but what they say blows my mind.
We won't see the planes they test for decades, if not more.


----------



## moldyoldy

Bump! no secret any more: The TR-X

oddly enough, German web-sites are reporting the info slightly differently. TBD on how the 'can we afford it' argument plays out.


----------



## StarHalo

Boeing Model 853 "Quiet Bird" half-scale radar cross section mock-up, 1962. Gun-slit engine intakes nestled well inboard and behind the canopy section, and exhaust buried deep within the butterfly tail, pure stealth design.


----------



## FroggyTaco

very impressive


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Boeing Model 853 "Quiet Bird" half-scale radar cross section mock-up, 1962. Gun-slit engine intakes nestled well inboard and behind the canopy section, and exhaust buried deep within the butterfly tail, pure stealth design.



pretty neat! Probably still constructed with standard materials? 

How long have aircraft manufacturers been measuring radar cross section, or at least had small models set up on pylons so that it could be empiracally measured? I know that McDonnell Douglas in St Louis had a facility at the Smartt airport in St Charles, MO for this purpose. You can take a look at it via Google maps... just check out the southeast corner of the airport property. Lots of interesting little chunks of aircraft and models in their storage area. 

Speaking of which, there was some work to make the F-15 a bit stealthy. Something called the "Silent Eagle". I don't think it got much traction, though.


----------



## StarHalo

Steve K said:


> pretty neat! Probably still constructed with standard materials?
> 
> How long have aircraft manufacturers been measuring radar cross section, or at least had small models set up on pylons so that it could be empiracally measured?



There's no record of Quiet Bird existing, so there's no evidence of radar-absorbing material, but now we know there was a completed stealth aircraft design a full two years before the Gulf of Tonkin, so who knows. The nutty bit about the radar pylon: this plane exists prior to any form of computer-aided design that would help provide info on what's stealthy and what's not - the model you see was designed and built with slide rules and educated guesses, then stuck on a pylon to see what happened. It makes me wonder if the pylon came into use right around the same time as this plane..

Someone on another form said of the release of these pictures, "like finding a motorcycle on a cave drawing." Very astute..


----------



## Steve K

People were working on electronic counter measures as soon as radar was developed. Chaff was used in WW II. As such, people were aware of the value of a low radar cross section and were presumably busy learning about how to achieve it. The later development of radar guided SAM's probably accelerated the work. 

I notice that wiki tells me that Francis Gary Power's U-2 was shot down in 1960, so the impetus to develop a stealthy aircraft was presumably quite significant.

The Quiet Bird is subsonic and hides the IR signature of the engine exhaust, so it's not a prototype for the SR-71 that ended up taking over the U-2's mission of flying over the Soviet Union. Maybe it was intended for use in Vietnam?? ...although the U.S. wasn't suffering losses to SAMs in the 1962 timeframe, were we?


----------



## more_vampires

> Maybe it was intended for use in Vietnam?? ...although the U.S. wasn't suffering losses to SAMs in the 1962 timeframe, were we?


My understanding of the Nam was that the US absolutely dominated the air, shooting down the majority of NVA's air force in a single air battle. The airspace domination was almost totally one sided, with NVA getting their most damage in with traps and b*mb satchels.

NVA was not really a player in EW or AAA, afaik. It'd be like sending a F117 against cavalry.


----------



## Steve K

the NVA was pretty well equipped with radar guided SAMs, though, especially later in the war. This is where the US developed anti-radiation missiles like the Shrike and had dedicated anti-radiation aircraft like the Wild Weasels. 

The North's air force was relatively limited. The MiG-17 and MiG-21 were fairly lethal against the strike aircraft, but had a tougher time against F-4 Phantoms, and definitely had a tough time against the F-14 (although that didn't get into the fight until the latter years) (IIRC, of course).

Anyway... a low radar signature would have been helpful to the strike aircraft going after heavily defended targets in the north. It was a SAM that hit John McCain's A-4 Skyhawk and led to him being held as a POW for many years.


----------



## mattheww50

The USA has essentially no air activity over North Vietnam in 1962. That doesn't happen until the aftermath of the Gulf of Tonkin incident (if it really happened), with is summer of 1964


----------



## mattheww50

more_vampires said:


> My understanding of the Nam was that the US absolutely dominated the air, shooting down the majority of NVA's air force in a single air battle. The airspace domination was almost totally one sided, with NVA getting their most damage in with traps and b*mb satchels.
> 
> NVA was not really a player in EW or AAA, afaik. It'd be like sending a F117 against cavalry.



Ah Revisionist history. The NV were so unsuccessful that they held literally hundreds of US serviceman who were shot down over North Viet Nam. We never shot down the majority of the NVA in a single batter or EVER. The NVA like the Russians/North Koreans in the Korean war got to pick and choose the targets. Whatever we managed to shoot down, the Russian were only too happy to replace immediately. I don't think the US government ever furnished an official count, but my guess is upwards of 500 jet aircraft were lost over North VietNam to either gunfire or SAM's.

If the F4's did such a fabulous job, why was the kill ratio so poor? It was bad enough to force the Navy to start teaching air to air combat again (Top Gun is very real), and Radar Guided Air to Air missiles were a dismal failure (and generally have been disappointing in just about every engagement since). Couple that will very low gimbal G limits on the early Sidewinders, and US Air to Air Missiles were shockingly easy to evade. (a maneuver exceeding 3G against a 1965 vintage sidewinder) would break lock, and that was that. With the Radar Guided missiles, you were lucky if they all would even fire, let along hit anything. I believe the kill ratio for Radar Air to Air Missiles over Vietnam was about .09 (11 firing to down one aircraft).

Viet Nam was an important warning about what happens when you think you are technically superior to everyone else. There would never be a need for guns again, so no frontline US Fighter of the era had a gun. 

Every US fighter since Vietnam has had a gun. Most F4's were fitted with guns by the end of the Viet Nam war. Much of air to air combat in Viet Nam was fought at such close range that missiles were useless.


----------



## Steve K

mattheww50 said:


> ......
> If the F4's did such a fabulous job, why was the kill ratio so poor? It was bad enough to force the Navy to start teaching air to air combat again (Top Gun is very real), and Radar Guided Air to Air missiles were a dismal failure (and generally have been disappointing in just about every engagement since). Couple that will very low gimbal G limits on the early Sidewinders, and US Air to Air Missiles were shockingly easy to evade. (a maneuver exceeding 3G against a 1965 vintage sidewinder) would break lock, and that was that. With the Radar Guided missiles, you were lucky if they all would even fire, let along hit anything. I believe the kill ratio for Radar Air to Air Missiles over Vietnam was about .09 (11 firing to down one aircraft).



I'm not sure if this critique was aimed at anyone in particular. In case it was aimed in my general direction, I'll say that I never said that it did a fabulous job. It did do better than F-105s or the other strike aircraft pressed into service as bomb trucks. 

The F-4 was a result of the trend towards interceptor aircraft that were supposed to stop Ruskie bombers coming over the horizon. The mission was to fly at high speed towards the bomber and unleash a load of rockets or missiles at the bombers. It was a popular concept and survived at least until the F-14, which existed primarily for fleet defense and to carry the Phoenix missile. I'm not sure why guns were ignored as part of this mission, though. The Soviets were happy to put some frighteningly large cannons on their aircraft during that era.

A few US airmen/naval aviators were still studying air combat, even if the services ignored it. Randy Cunningham and Steve Ritchie managed to become aces flying the Phantom, so it had some virtues. Eventually people figured out that air to air maneuvering was still important. John Boyd had been studying air to air combat and making something of a science out of it. He helped in the design of the next generation of fighters that were actually designed to excel in air to air. There's a nice biography of John Boyd written by Robert Coram (ISBN 0-316-88146-5). A fascinating book (at least to a nerd like me).

edit: wiki says that Ritchie was an instructor at USAF Fighter Weapons School in 1970, after his first tour in Vietnam. It looks he benefited from the appreciation for air combat skills... when did Fighter Weapons School start?


----------



## more_vampires

mattheww50 said:


> If the F4's did such a fabulous job, why was the kill ratio so poor? It was bad enough to force the Navy to start teaching air to air combat again (Top Gun is very real), and Radar Guided Air to Air missiles were a dismal failure (and generally have been disappointing in just about every engagement since). Couple that will very low gimbal G limits on the early Sidewinders, and US Air to Air Missiles were shockingly easy to evade. (a maneuver exceeding 3G against a 1965 vintage sidewinder) would break lock, and that was that. With the Radar Guided missiles, you were lucky if they all would even fire, let along hit anything. I believe the kill ratio for Radar Air to Air Missiles over Vietnam was about .09 (11 firing to down one aircraft).



From my understanding, answer is in the statement. It wasn't the F4 being bad per-se, but pilots having to "ripple fire" that is to say, fire more than one missile to do the job. US missles were junk in the 60s like US torpedoes were junk at the start of WW2.

Hope I am recalling things correctly.


----------



## mattheww50

The F4 wasn't really designed for close in air to air combat. It performed very well at high altitudes, but it was no match for even a Mig 17 below 25,000 feet. the Migs weren't as fast as the F4's, but they were much smaller, and MUCH MUCH more maneuverable at low and mid altitudes. The Russians built really good 'gun platforms'.


The NVA were smart enough to try to make most of the engagements in places where the F4 didn't perform as especially well.

In the mid 1980's I did some work for the Air Force where they had two seat simulator for simulate Air Combat. It was told that flying the Mig 21 in those engagements was a lot of fun, because if they ever got behind the F4 in gun range, the F4 was toast. I still remember a rack of disk packs marked 'classified'. They were the Simulator configuration for several East block fighter aircraft. Put the Mig 21 disk pack in the simulator, and it simulated the flight behavior of a Mig 21.

The secondary issue with the missiles was it took a very long time for them to 'program' for the target. So by the time they could be fired, the target could easily have moved away from a 'firing' solution. Add that to the really poor kill rate, and there were an awful lot of NVA pilots who must have thought they had 9 lives. 

An embarrassing number of missiles didn't even leave the rail when they were fired. My recollection was that if you fired one, there was only about an 85% chance it even left the rail!


----------



## StarHalo

Images from a county/local mapping service of the USAF’s Aerospace Maintenance And Regeneration Group's outdoor storage area, Pima, Arizona. Aircraft are models of varying scale.


----------



## FroggyTaco

You gotta wonder how much of this stuff is out there to simply screw with whomever has satellites flying overhead...


----------



## WarRaven

There's pictures of Edward's AFB with netting over the top of the entire thing from WW2. Fake buildings, roads etc laid on top.
People were paid to walk or ride bikes on special sections, I was told.
I had a couple pictures of it, sorry I'm not sure where they got to.
Though, it gives you an idea of the lengths gone to protect against birds in the sky.


----------



## more_vampires

FroggyTaco said:


> You gotta wonder how much of this stuff is out there to simply screw with whomever has satellites flying overhead...


It arguably won WW2. Arguably.

https://slindonatwarmyblog.wordpress.com/ww2-decoy-airfield/


> During the Second World War a secret department was formed at Britain’s Air Ministry to co-ordinate a strategy to defeat German bombing by deception. With the help of leading technicians from the film industry, ingeniously designed decoy airfields, towns and military bases were built throughout the island. This campaign of illusion, masterminded by the charismatic Colonel John Fisher Turner, did more to protect Britain’s forces and civilians from the Nazi threat than, at the time, they were allowed to know.


IIRC, the US pulled this as well to sucker punch the 3rd Reich just before Operation Overlord.

D-Day would have failed had the Nazis been positioned properly.


----------



## Steve K

StarHalo said:


> Images from a county/local mapping service of the USAF’s Aerospace Maintenance And Regeneration Group's outdoor storage area, Pima, Arizona. Aircraft are models of varying scale.



okay.. there's a handful of minutes that got dedicated to using Google's satellite view to roam the USAF's boneyard looking at aircraft baking in the desert. It's amazing to see the variety and quantity of aircraft out there by Davis-Monthan AFB!

I didn't find this mysterious aircraft shape, but considering the huge amount of storage space out there, it's not surprising.
The shape may or not be a stealth aircraft. To me, rudders and shape remind me of an F-18 with the wings removed. ... although there are conical extensions where the F-18 exhausts would be, and it looks too short. Weird.

I appreciate having the A-4 Skyhawk sitting next to it as a reference. The A-4 is 40 feet long, 15 feet tall, and has a wingspan of 27.5 feet (I used to work on these), and an F-18 is significantly larger. This makes my theory of a clipped F-18 a bit harder to justify. 

Anyway... it's an intriguing photo, and certainly makes me wish I could hear the story behind it!


----------



## moldyoldy

update on stealth A/C: The F-15E Silent Eagle will probably be built - a squadron for the Israelis. 

The F-15E SE is perhaps a more practical stealth A/C than a pure-stealth design since the F-15 itself is a very capable fighter and with sufficient room to mount interesting hardware.


----------



## Steve K

The news on the Silent Eagle is very interesting. I didn't realize that it had gotten this far. 

A quick check of the wiki page on the Silent Eagle answers a few questions that I had... it is replacing the conformal fuel tanks of the F-15E with conformal weapons bays. This gets the weapons off of the hard points under the wings and into a stealthy package. The rudders are being tilted 15 degrees away from vertical, presumably to not create such a nice corner reflector with the horizontal stabilizer. There is mention of the use of radar absorbing material too. 

I wonder what they are doing about the intakes?? They are built with 90 degree angles and don't do much to hide the engine blades. Maybe a treatment similar to what was done on the F-18E/F Super Hornet?


----------



## dpadams6

Sub_Umbra said:


> I love me some X-37B. I've read everything I could find on it and it's very interesting *in a between the lines sort of way.* Remember when the old, dead, Sov spy sat collided with another sat a year or so ago? The Russian military accused the US of using the X-37 to autonomously capture the dead spy sat and then purposely put it on a collision course with the live one. I don't believe it but it would seem to show that the Russians have done their homework on this and have come to the conclusion that this thing can operate autonomously out to the Clark Belt and they (and nearly everyone else) can't see anything that it does beyond NEO.
> 
> IMO this is all about servicing high endurance sats. A De-facto case could be made for that. Sat watchers were keenly aware that the Shuttle was all about re-fueling and upgrading sats-- the ISS was PR. Now that the shuttle is gone it becomes apparent that there has been a *very quiet paradigm shift in satellite maintenance...* Recent experimental autonomous maintenance systems launched for sats have had nearly spectacular outcomes so I would fully expect the X-37B to be a follow-on, which is sort of in line with it's mission statement.
> 
> Having said that, this is the blackest of the black. Early on it becomes a thought problem, because it's capabilities are some of the most dearly held secrets... Sussing out nuggets on this is just like trying to find out about sats. It ends up being a counterintuitive process where the answers sometimes lie in the empty spaces between the facts. Patterns...
> 
> BTW-- On HAZMAT suits, if it was refueling sats with hydrazine it would have to be cleaned up before human contact.


I would venture to guess, that we don't even know anything about the "blackest of the black" projects.


----------



## moldyoldy

From Sub_Umbra: "I_t ends up being a counterintuitive process where the answers sometimes lie in the empty spaces between the facts. Patterns.."

+1.

Remember the adage from the Cold War: What was *not* said is just as important as what was said. or written, or somehow made known.... patterns!

_


----------



## moldyoldy

If anyone is interested in a true story of an SR-71 pilot by the name of Brian Shul, here it is in the first person, ~50 min long but well worth your time. Very motivational! This is probably the best SR-71 pilot talk I have ever heard! His talk is actually rather funny as well because of the direct references to other A/C or services. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3kIMTJRgyn0

a couple worthwhile data points: U-2 mission altitude was 70K ft. SR-71 mission altitude was 80K ft. FAA flight control ends at FL 600 (Flight Level) or 60K ft. any A/C above FL 600 are on their own. As with all SR-71 pilots, Brian Shul neatly avoids mentioning certain aspects of the SR-71 or it's missions. The best paraphrase is from the pilot who flew the last SR-71 to Dulles to go into the museum: approximate quote: "We flew fast enough to break the old record, but not as fast as we could". and the old record was set by another SR-71.....


----------



## Steve K

that's a really good talk/presentation! 

I've seen him providing commentary on one of the Wings programs about the SR-71. Nice to get the whole story, and learn that he's the origin of the story about pilots bragging about their airspeeds. 

Maybe we've already discussed this in the past, but one of the things I really enjoy about going to the EAA's Airventure in Oshkosh is getting to hear various pilot and industry folks tell stories about their life and experiences. Some are well known, such as Chuck Yeager or Burt Rutan. Others are less well known, such as **** Rutan or Bud Anderson, and some are unknown, such as the F-22 test pilot who gave a really great presentation last year about the F-22 flight test program.


----------



## YAK-28

thank you for the link to the video. i read his book "sled driver", but i got more of his humor from the video.


----------



## StarHalo

I was out back shooting the sunset when I heard some sort of plane fly by to the south; it sounded like a cross between a military plane and a helicopter. Did my best to sight it by the eye, but it was several miles out, just looked like a two-prop private plane. Maybe some engine trouble? A couple of minutes later, another one was right behind it, so I knew I had to at least snap a pic and see if I could make anything out despite the distance. I got this:







Cross between a military plane and a helicopter indeed; Mr. Osprey must be moving marines to Temecula..


----------



## FroggyTaco

Good 'ole V-22 Osprey & yes they sound very different than most metal birds...


----------



## Steve K

neat! There are a few CH-47's locally, and the sound is quite distinctive.

I've only seen the V-22 at airshows, although it is impressive. The ability to hover like a CH-47 and fly in level flight like a ... small cargo aircraft (I can't think of a good example.. a C-12?) is quite an achievement. I don't think I want to know what the cost is, though.

here's a shot of a MV-22 flight demo at Airventure in Oshkosh Wisconsin...


----------



## orbital

+

DARPA wants an autonomous spaceplane
(I picture late 70's video games..)

XS-1


----------



## idleprocess

Steve K said:


> I've only seen the V-22 at airshows, although it is impressive. The ability to hover like a CH-47 and fly in level flight like a ... small cargo aircraft (I can't think of a good example.. a C-12?) is quite an achievement. I don't think I want to know what the cost is, though.



A flight of around 4 flew low over the office building I was in sometime in mid-2014 along with some Black Hawks and was was presumably Marine One ferrying the President and his entourage from DFW Airport to Love Field for an event. The V-22's made a very distinct sound flying some 30 seconds ahead of the rest of the formation and I got the impression that they had made and orbits around the rest of the formation in order to deal with the disparities in cruising speed.

Based on what I've heard about the power-split gearbox in the V-22, the avionics that blend flight modes, and other complexities the V-22 is quite expensive; about $60M per unit vs large helicopters with larger carrying capacity (such as the CH-53E) that run around $25M.


----------



## Steve K

A few years ago, I got to walk through a MV-22 at an airshow. The interior looked like a lot of helos and cargo aircraft.. i.e. wires and hoses and stuff running all over the place. However, one unique detail was at the rotating joint where the wing joined the fuselage. There was what appeared to be a bit of a rat's nest of hoses and wire bundles that branched upwards into the joint, making me wonder what exactly happened to all of them when the wing rotates 90 degrees for shipboard storage. 

Here's my snapshot of the interior, just aft of the rotary joint and looking forward. If you look just below the red box, you'll see all of the hoses and stuff bending upwards...






sorry for the large image, but it's hard to make it out.

and if you haven't seen the MV-22 with the wing and rotors stowed, here's a shot of it in that configuration.


----------



## moldyoldy

Ref stealth A/C: Here is probably the best tutorial I have read on modern stealth techniques, both in detecting the A/C or in hiding the A/C.
Look/read thru the "Photo Gallery of How Not to be Seen" from Aviation Week & Space Technology. 
noting that Aviation Week has been referred to as 'Aviation Leak'.

Some of the tricks are were known before, but to highlight a few:
1. eg: using VHF AESA radar to detect stealth A/C. or ultra-wide band Impulse radar. 
I recall that even the Germans in WWII speculated about using VHF for radar.
2. Contrail suppression via chemicals injected in to the exhaust when a sensor indicates contrails are forming.
3. "onboard electronics detect a radar signal, locate the emitter and transmit a signal that exactly matches the echo received by the radar—but exactly half a wavelength out of phase, so that the radar sees nothing" 
This is stealth 'voodoo'!


----------



## moldyoldy

Ref the frequently speculated replacement for the U-2, which were upgraded and are still flying:

From Aviation Week. Complements of Lockheed TR-X Recon A/C.






Yes to read the rest of this article requires a free subscription, easy enough to sign up.


----------



## StarHalo

Flying over my house just after sunset, just as I am of course carrying the wrong camera; a radar-something-or-other..


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Grumman Hawkeye 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye


----------



## StarHalo

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Grumman Hawkeye
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye



Ah ha, ty; there's an air museum/field nearby that often flies WWII-era warbirds so I wasn't sure if that what it was, makes sense if it's been in service since nearly then..


----------



## Steve K

The E-2 is certainly one of the more "quirky" looking aircraft in current service. The big saucer on top is a major factor, but the odd rudder arrangement is another factor. 

These have shown up at a few airshows that I've attended, and it was a chance for me to get a close look at the details....


----------



## roger-roger

Vintage secret aircraft.


----------



## StarHalo

Prototype civilian three-seat trainer, made locally:


----------



## moldyoldy

roger-roger said:


> Vintage secret aircraft.
> 
> <<snip>>



Thanks! This is actually a good video representing some of the better Soviet propaganda. The modifications to the MiG-25 in the process of developing the MiG-31 were interesting. However, the MiG-31 is better compared to the F-15 Eagle which was developed slightly earlier. 

Two Mig-31 concepts were interesting: The idea that a General had to be in the back seat (WO) to make decisions - classic Soviet leadership thinking and quickly dropped but still mentioned; The other was that a group of Mig-31s with a lead Mig-31 that would decide on how to allocate targets between them for their long-range missiles - another aspect of Soviet leadership theory. Said differently, independent thinking in the Soviet system is strongly discouraged. 

FWIW, The USAF also had the theory that A-A battles would be fought with long-range missiles - rather quickly disproved by actual A-A combat. Even during VN when short-range A-A missiles were failing rather badly, the F4s were retro-fitted with cannon to deal with MiG-21 dog-fights. 

Another problem even w/in the Soviet propaganda message: the video claims that the MiG-31 is better than the F-22 Raptor. uh, well, the current Soviet inventory has the Su-35 which is super-maneuverable and designed to deal with the F-22 Raptor. The Su-35 has 2 independently variable all-axis nozzles whereas the F-22 Raptor nozzles vary only up/down. Evidently the Soviet designers opted for better maneuverability vs better stealth. The F-22 Raptor has distinctly better stealth characteristics than the Su-35. As one USAF General told me - it all depends on the range of engagement. Frankly, with relatively modern avionics and super-maneuverability, the Su-35 represents a real challenge to Western fighters.

Here and here are a couple references to the next-gen Soviet fighter with a return to high-Mach speeds. 

As always, we can only speculate on what the new hangers next to that Lake out west contain....

Edit: Depending on who/what is read, the Soviet MiG-35 is supposed to compete with the US F-35.


----------



## roger-roger

Good post moldyoldy.

Of course BVR A2A missiles have come a *long* way since VN. As you probably know the F35 is basically a replacement for the F16--hard to compare the former to the SU30, SU3x, although we'll have to do that due to Gates curtailing F22 production. Seriously bad move on his part, turning his back on Russia.

Advanced networking ability is an F35 strength, but is reportedly showing exceptional high angle of attack capabilities. We still know very little of its full capabilities, and the basic tactics that will come out of it will be in development for a long time. The new helmet seems to be a game changer in WVR combat. 

I'm pretty optimistic of its chances. Its already planned to have a new generation engine in ∽10 years, that will take advantage of R&D coming out of B21 development. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then there's the CH53K, a significant upgrade probably bigger than the Hornet to Super Hornet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion


----------



## StarHalo

Had to look it up: a "motor glider", which I only caught because I was looking in that direction, there was nothing to hear otherwise..


----------



## moldyoldy

StarHalo said:


> Had to look it up: a "motor glider", which I only caught because I was looking in that direction, there was nothing to hear otherwise..
> 
> <snip>



These are quite popular in Germany especially in the more mountainous regions with wide valleys and longer upslopes. There are several different types of Motor Gliders, some with a prop on the top, some with a prop in the nose, many have retractable or foldable props. The advantage of any self-launching Motor Glider is avoidance of the cost of a towing A/C w/pilot, and if the lift dies in one area, turn on the engine/prop and head to another area. With better batteries, electric engine advantages are outweighing the cost of a small internal combustion engine.

FWIW, my daughters and I were hang-gliding (rigid wing) in tandem with instructor over Innsbruck, I was amazed at how fast the uplift decreased to nearly nothing. Also, hang-glider pilots with rigid wings often forget, or never knew, about the fighter-pilot problem of a steep bank at low speed => snap-roll and auger in!


----------



## roger-roger

I had about 15hr in a glider trainer from high school as a CAP cadet, from an airfield situated alongside a 800-1000' cliff-like face. A beautiful experience--which came real close to sucking me in. The bottom line then unfortunately was when the surf was up, all other activities took a backseat.


----------



## StarHalo

China brought a surprise (two of them) to their International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition; the J-20 Stealth fighter, which is clearly operational:


----------



## moldyoldy

The Wehrmacht Luftwaffe "HO 229" lives on in this modern form - in the planning stages at this time by NASA. ironically fitting that I type this post from near Nürnberg... In spite of the aspirations of flight on MARS, the potential for a very long flight time in the Earth's atmosphere is obvious.


----------



## orbital

+

..a couple _flashaholics_ in action


----------



## moldyoldy

During the Thanksgiving break, for a reasonably good review of recon or spy flights and or aircraft, start reading here. 

Notice the left column with many more options to browse. I have always found it sobering to read historical accounts that I also lived thru. or to go to a German museum (eg: in München)and see comm gear on display that I used in the US military.....hmmmmm.


----------



## moldyoldy

or to live with a German couple, Oma und Opa, where the Opa was a Wehrmacht veteran of both WWI and WWII. he had a WWII battery charger down in his basement: selenium rectifiers and a long sliding contact on an open power resistor to control the charge rate. Used to maintain the batteries in Autos and Trucks.


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> for a reasonably good review of recon or spy flights and or aircraft, start reading here.



Ha, I didn't know the C-130 Hercules flew around Iraq during Desert Storm and basically took over all broadcast media and communications, clever..


----------



## roger-roger

The CH53K is definitely a go for the US Marines, with substantially improved operational capabilities over the E.

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/ch-53k-helicopter.html


----------



## moldyoldy

Get ready for some interesting developments in penetrating stealth ISR: Per the Daily Digest from Aviation Leak Network, er, Aviation Week Network, we have the following statements:

=> *USAF Reaching For Stealthy Surveillance Drones*

=> The U.S. Air Force is “aggressively” pursuing a long-range, stealthy unmanned surveillance aircraft to go places its high-altitude Lockheed Martin U-2S and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk cannot,

=> Despite talking freely about the non-stealthy U-2S and RQ-4, the Air Force refuses to comment on known classified programs such as mid-size Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 and larger Northrop Grumman’s RQ-180—which had been due to enter service in 2015.

That last quote is more than interesting. of course the real developments are never publicized. we only find out via statements like "what was that?", especially double and triple sonic booms. noting that the SR-71 had a double sonic boom.


----------



## KITROBASKIN

moldyoldy said:


> ...noting that the SR-71 had a double sonic boom.



Probably not new to many of you, but this 'lady in the long black dress' continues to inspire.

http://newatlas.com/brian-shul-interview-sr-71-blackbird-pilot/46821/


----------



## moldyoldy

going off-topic just a bit - this is a really interesting photo. Take a guess as to what was photographed... The photo is probably too large for CPF and I have no method on this laptop to reduce the size.

Image:
https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2017/1/148787098/images/co-sp-2017-001-0098-01-229777-bi.d73bc84.jpg

Article:
https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2017/1/148787098/index.html


Short answer: It is the image of the __residual gases__ from a Sojus launch in Baikonur, 1 second exposure, long after the rocket lifted off. I did not realize that the heated gases could persist that long.


----------



## FroggyTaco

moldyoldy said:


> going off-topic just a bit - this is a really interesting photo. Take a guess as to what was photographed... The photo is probably too large for CPF and I have no method on this laptop to reduce the size.
> 
> Image:
> https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2017/1/148787098/images/co-sp-2017-001-0098-01-229777-bi.d73bc84.jpg
> 
> Article:
> https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2017/1/148787098/index.html
> 
> 
> Short answer: It is the image of the __residual gases__ from a Sojus launch in Baikonur, 1 second exposure, long after the rocket lifted off. I did not realize that the heated gases could persist that long.



Very cool.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## KITROBASKIN

A link with a fascinating New Atlas story of some of the tech on the SR-71 Blackbird:

http://newatlas.com/how-to-fly-sr-71-blackbird/46366/


----------



## moldyoldy

+1 An excellent article! Thank you!

some additional info may be insightful:

President Eisenhower was the president who commissioned the SR-71 design - after having to admit that the U-2 that the Soviets shot down belonged to the US. (General) President Eisenhower got what he demanded and much more. President Reagan understood the psychological effects of the SR-71 perhaps the best of the presidents.

Ref speed: the pilots have been quite careful about not divulging top speed info. eg: the last SR-71 flight from California to a Washington museum broke the then current speed record. and after landing some engineers held up their sliderules and said "we did that with these". a rough quote of that last SR-71 pilot: we only flew fast enough to break the existing speed record, not as fast as we could. <<which was set by another SR-71>>. There is a lot of anecdotal information in the military about the SR-71 going in on a mission, either on takeoff or carrier or ground GCI plotting. Pilots have commented on how many inches of throttle travel is left when flying at Mach 3. 

ref altitude: The FAA stops controlling any A/C above FL600 (60K ft). any A/C up there is on it's own. the mission altitude of the U-2 is 70K ft. the mission altitude of the SR-71 is 80K ft at Mach 3. the SR-71 obviously flew higher at times (sic). Janes All-The-Worlds Aircraft listed the SR-71 as Mach 3+ and 100K ft+. actuals were always classified to protect the SR-71 or the design. The original SR-71 carried relatively conventional hi-res cameras. but the final version used at least one 'giga-pixel' camera. as for the future, well, there have been reports of U-2 pilots observing contrails far above their mission altitude. 

refueling: the AF normally launched two tankers that flew in fairly wide-spaced tracks. The AF could not afford to allow an SR-71 to run out of fuel. that allowed the pilot to find a tanker more easily since post-mission navigation at Mach 3 could be a real challenge. eg: you have never been lost until you have been lost at Mach 3.

ref stealth design: besides the fuselage/wing contours, Cesium in the exhaust is a trick used by other stealthy A/C. noting also that the ability of the SR-71 to quickly change speed when already at high speeds confounded most ground or radar fire-control systems. 

ref J-58 power in the SR-71: One of the pilots (Shul?) commented that the SR-71 had to run up the engines one at a time. both engines on full AB could push the SR-71 in spite of locked wheels. Ben Rich was the designer of the SR-71 J-58 engines: the combo turbine/ramjet design was his genius! as one aero engineer put it: about the time the turbines were gasping, the ramjets were clearing their throats. which is why the top speed was faster than the theoretical 3.2 Mach. also, the J-58 engine was distinctly more efficient at high Mach speeds than at slower speeds. The SR-71 was designed to fly on AB normally - something no other A/C could accomplish. As for the future, the proposed SR-72 is following in the SR-71 flight path by using a combined turbine-ramjet system, but this time focused on a much higher speed than the SR-71 design. 

The reason the U-2 was upgraded and is still flying is because satellites simply could not provide answers quickly enough, besides burning up too much fuel changing orbits to move into position. Some of the high-flying stealth drones were too slow to launch a mission. An AF General told me that the future is unmanned ISR A/C. Why? Support systems for humans represent an excessive space and support equipment claim inside the A/C. The military is developing higher-flying longer-endurance ISR drones. However, the upgraded U-2 did offer some significant advantages. I listened to a U-2 pilot describe missions at our site - an upgrade was needed!

all of the fighter or airline pilots that I talked to said that the SR-71 was an incredible design accomplishment. To quote one military pilot who converted to airlines: "some of what we saw up there we would never dream about reporting" => referring to flying at 40K ft and above. and no, his sightings at 40K+ ft were not of 'swamp gas' either. he admitted that atmospheric lensing was a possibility, but ..... 

Finally, nearly all SR-71 pilots have stated that flying the SR-71 is nearly a religious experience. Having been up to only 45K ft, I bow to their experiences!


----------



## moldyoldy

odd. the RQ-170 is kinda old, but recently has been sighted more. 
point: Aviation Leak recently provided a number of flying photos of the RQ-170.
You may remember that an RQ-170 crashed in Iran some time back.

however the follow-on RQ-180 is still maintaining it's 'darkness': much larger, 24hr endurance, penetrating ISR, etc.

as always, these A/C are known. what is not known? 

The LRS-B prototype (?) is rumored to be flying already.

the missions of the USAF orbital bird X-37B (unmanned mini-shuttle) will probably always remain in the dark. Observers have spotted it at many altitudes.
some observations about what the X-37B is testing, aside from the intel side of operations.

I am waiting patiently for the SR-72, in spite of the manned aspect which seems anachronistic. 
at the proposed Mach numbers, stealth is unnecessary. 
but when push comes to shove, humans can adapt, computers cannot.


----------



## RedLED

StarHalo said:


> I was out back shooting the sunset when I heard some sort of plane fly by to the south; it sounded like a cross between a military plane and a helicopter. Did my best to sight it by the eye, but it was several miles out, just looked like a two-prop private plane. Maybe some engine trouble? A couple of minutes later, another one was right behind it, so I knew I had to at least snap a pic and see if I could make anything out despite the distance. I got this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cross between a military plane and a helicopter indeed; Mr. Osprey must be moving marines to Temecula..



They sometimes use Osperys to move the press pool around, I've been on them, and they also have used Boeing CH 47 Chinooks on occasion. Both loud inside. They used to use Sikorsky Sea Kings like POTUS has, however, they have been using these on some of the trips I go on. I don't go on all of them.

Speaking of helicopters, a coupe of times, years ago there was a rumble like before a quake, however, instead as the noise grew louder and louder the sky darkened with choppers flying over the Coachella Valley late afternoon, very low, to Twenteynine Palms USMCAGCC. UH 1 Huey's, Sea Hawks, CH 53 Sea Stallions, you name it it was amazing hundreds or more of them. I loved it! The noise was unbelievable!

A CH 53 is another one I flew on way out to sea for a carrier landing. For a while I was a Mil. Contractor for taking training mission photos. But after the war ended, not so much. I have my most hours on HU1 Huey's, the best helicopter ever. And, some were civilian/private operations. 

I can can hear a Huey miles away! And about a month ago I heard one and went outside before I could even see it. It then hovered above our house, so low our palm trees swayed and I could smell the jet fuel, then, it landed a short distance away at Bermuda Dunes airport, UDD, odd not slow the RPMs down one bit, on the ground like 40 seconds, must have dropped off some spook, and lifted off back toward LA. For a VIP they would have shut down the rotors.


----------



## StarHalo

No markings, no tail number, guess we don't need to know..


----------



## Offgridled

StarHalo said:


> No markings, no tail number, guess we don't need to know..


Kinda scary really.


----------



## FroggyTaco

StarHalo said:


> No markings, no tail number, guess we don't need to know..



That's not just a render?


----------



## StarHalo

No, it flew over my house from the direction of Ontario heading southeast, Mexico way..


----------



## moldyoldy

ref all-white twin usually w/o windows and no markings: either JPATS for transport of high-value convicts. or w/windows as a transport of high-level gov officials, eg: C32B (757). JPATS == Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System.

Otherwise I have no idea which US Gov. service the above-referenced A/C belonged to.

however, unmarked A/C in grey are usually mil-A/C on missions - unmarked so as to not upset the locals..... Once upon a time, I happened to be at a small regional airport in Germany and heard a strange jet sound. looked up and it was C-17 landing. relatively huge A/C compared to the few passenger A/C on the tarmac. It parked off in a non-descript part of the airport. almost no markings save for one small word low on the tail...belonged to an airlift command.


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> ref all-white twin usually w/o windows and no markings: either JPATS for transport of high-value convicts



Ah, totally missed the missing windows, good call on identifying my Con Air..

Here's another one that could use an educated guess; this C-130 probably figured no one would see him as it was an overcast day, but there was a break in the clouds and I was paying attention - it has two tanks on one side but only one on the other, and the one has some sort of black stuff on it that's gone all over the wing and engine:


----------



## moldyoldy

hmm, not really sure. The KC-130J has hard points for 4 external tanks (tanker duties) Otherwise the Marines also fly the KC-130J.
also not sure what the black smudge next to port external tank would be, other than a long time between maintenance...


----------



## FroggyTaco

StarHalo said:


> Ah, totally missed the missing windows, good call on identifying my Con Air..
> 
> Here's another one that could use an educated guess; this C-130 probably figured no one would see him as it was an overcast day, but there was a break in the clouds and I was paying attention - it has two tanks on one side but only one on the other, and the one has some sort of black stuff on it that's gone all over the wing and engine:



That's the chemtrail plane!


----------



## Offgridled

FroggyTaco said:


> That's the chemtrail plane!


Oh no not the chemtrail: yikes.. lol


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> hmm, not really sure. The KC-130J has hard points for 4 external tanks (tanker duties) Otherwise the Marines also fly the KC-130J.
> also not sure what the black smudge next to port external tank would be, other than a long time between maintenance...



Yeah, I was thinking they refueled off that one tank and maybe some drippings made the mess. 



FroggyTaco said:


> That's the chemtrail plane!



It can lay down more than a bit of smoke [not my picture, darn:]


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

Uh-oh. ^ That's not gonna be good for anybody. :shakehead 

~ Chance


----------



## moldyoldy

bump: no one happened to post this and I was on travel, so a bit late with the intel, but...

The mini-shuttle X-37B recently returned from a 2 year mission. The USAF of course will say nothing about it's mission, nor should they!

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...a-cape-canaveral-mission-secret-a7723976.html


----------



## StarHalo

I still like the idea that it just has a jaws-of-life deal on a boom arm; float up to a satellite and snip off a solar panel..


----------



## moldyoldy

I do fully agree that the X-37B is floating up to satellites. exactly what happens then is admittedly speculation for us normal mortals. However, photography of the target satellite would be expected. 

additionally, based on ground observer sightings of the X-37B at widely varying altitudes, from geosynchronous down to NEO ... repeatedly ... I would have to believe that alternative propulsion systems are also being tested. why? the bane of spy satellites is being forced to repeatedly change orbits for ISR. far too much fuel such as hydrazine or any propulsion chemical is expended with conventional satellite propulsion methods. one reason why the U-2 was upgraded and is still flying. 

as for the shuttle arm snipping off a solar panel, how about a localized EMP pulse? Even artillery shells are being worked on for EMP rather than an explosive.


----------



## StarHalo

Not a secret now, but here's what's been going on in the desert; the Stratolaunch has a wingspan longer than the height of a Saturn V rocket (which makes it larger than the Spruce Goose)


----------



## vadimax

StarHalo said:


> No, it flew over my house from the direction of Ontario heading southeast, Mexico way..



Narco ferry


----------



## vadimax

StarHalo said:


> Not a secret now, but here's what's been going on in the desert; the Stratolaunch has a wingspan longer than the height of a Saturn V rocket (which makes it larger than the Spruce Goose)



Well, very contradictory design. This plane, if real, is capable to destroy itself in a horizontal flight by applying rudders or elevators in opposite directions. The central wing section will fail for sure.


----------



## StarHalo

vadimax said:


> Well, very contradictory design. This plane, if real, is capable to destroy itself in a horizontal flight by applying rudders or elevators in opposite directions. The central wing section will fail for sure.



The central spar holds the missing piece - the spacecraft. This is all to get 1000 lbs of payload into orbit.


----------



## moldyoldy

bump:

Update on the X37B: 
will fly the next mission a bit later this year, but be launched on the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle.
this 5th mission is to carry the USAF Research Lab's ASETS-11 experimental payload into orbit.
ASETS == Advanced Structurally Embedded Thermal Spreader......!
<<plenty of internet hits available -> need to spell it out>>

however that was not the notable aspect of the report. 
the last paragraph indicated that the Boeing was selected for the DARPA XS-1 experimental spaceplane project. 
The intent of that system is to demonstrate rapid delivery of payloads into space on a quick turn-around basis. 
<<noting that phase 2 was already awarded.>>

And Lock-Mart has also reported progress on an SR-72 replacement. 
L-M and Aerojet Rocketdyne have teamed since 2006 on a turbine and a scramjet combo to accelerate the future twin-engined SR-72 to "Mach 6+" 
<<eg: twin turbines and twin scramjets>>. 
The proposed SR-72 is evidently about the same size as the SR-71. 
The basic propulsion system is evidently functional (?). other aspects of the design are being worked on.
<<2006 to 2017 is a lot of development time. any bets that a some form of an FTV has already flown?>>


----------



## Offgridled

This intrigues me


----------



## FroggyTaco

Well that's either great misinformation marketing right there or that thing is highly toxic to humans


----------



## idleprocess

FroggyTaco said:


> Well that's either great misinformation marketing right there or that thing is highly toxic to humans



Hydrazine is nasty stuff. Purportedly, the X-37B uses it in its thrusters:


> The X-37 for NASA was to be powered by one Aerojet AR2-3 engine using storable propellants, providing thrust of 6,600 pounds-force (29.4 kN).[42] The human-rated AR2-3 engine had been used on the dual-power NF-104A astronaut training vehicle, and was given a new flight certification for use on the X-37 with hydrogen peroxide/JP-8 propellants.[43] This was reportedly changed to a hypergolic nitrogen tetroxide/hydrazine propulsion system.[20][44]



Nitrogen Tetroxide exposure is also problematic.


----------



## Offgridled

Now i understand . Crazy stuff right there..


----------



## moldyoldy

ref the photo of the back end of the X37B: Space.com and spaceflight101 have more photos of the X37B.

my first thought upon looking at the photo(s): how were these released into the open? it appears that Boeing itself released these photos.







my next thoughts: 
there are several orifices in the rear bulkhead. the obvious thruster engine not-withstanding. what are they used for? exhausts? from what using which energy source?
I wonder about ion thrusters, etc. 
for that matter, the thruster engine does not appear to be centered even though two large opening above it are centered. 
maybe the engine is shiftable for maintenance, but then that begs more questions.

curiouser and curiouser.....


----------



## StarHalo

The back of the space shuttle is tiled, the X's isn't. We need somebody who knows shuttle design..

I took this photo btw, it's among my favorites as it's a funny angle you wouldn't think to look at the shuttle at, and even here there's just so much engineering to marvel at:


----------



## Offgridled




----------



## moldyoldy

fwiw: 

the current Fortune magazine for 15 June 2017 has a photo on pg 44 of Clarence "Kelly" Johnson - Creator of the Skunk Works - and Ben Rich his successor - not incidentally the primary genius behind the SR-71s turbine/ramjet design. I do not know of more significant/influential aircraft designers than these two!

Here is a historical article from 1991 (no photos) on the Skunk Works and it's specialty of stealth. the article more than a bit dated since the U-2 was upgraded and still flying. however some of the F-117A details are interesting.


----------



## Offgridled

Good read here moldy. Thanks!!


----------



## moldyoldy

bump update on SR-72, complements of Lockheed and Skunkworks:

a Flight Research Vehicle about the size of the F-22 is planned for next year as a start. propulsion will be the combined cycle turbine + scramjet. the combined cycle engine development has progressed to the FRV level. The actual SR-72 size is planned to be about the same as the SR-71. Planned velocity is Mach 6+. No comment on altitude.


----------



## FroggyTaco

Wouldn't that speed essentially require low earth orbit altitude to avoid becoming an in flight fireball?


----------



## moldyoldy

ummm, the A/C would certainly be hot, and the leading edges may even glow, but a fireball? probably not. The Space Shuttle reenters at about Mach 25 and ensuing ionization blacks out comms. Hence for the SR-72 as an ISR aircraft at the planned Mach 6 speed will not black out comms. The question of altitude vs speed vs resolution of cameras and sensors has yet to be resolved.

More info on hypersonic reentry here. 

However the recent Aviation Leak article did not mention heating resulting from the Mach 6+ speeds.

The rumored Aurora was faster than the SR-71 and reportedly used a form of pulse-jet propulsion,,,,resulting in a string of popcorn puffs as the contrail.

while Cesium in the exhaust will tend to hide the exhaust signature and was used on the SR-71, I am not sure if the same trick is valid for a scramjet.


----------



## moldyoldy

fwiw: Here is a link to a Podcast discussion of *Inside Infrared and the Future of Stealth Technology. 
*
The link should be live w/o any login.


----------



## StarHalo

You'd need a car that can keep up with a jet to assist the pilot of a two-wheeled U-2 on takeoff and landing, thank goodness there's a car manufacturer with an entire lineup of jet-performance-comparable vehicles.. (Royal Air Force U-2S takeoff in Gloucestershire, England)


----------



## FroggyTaco

Why didn't you link/embed the video SirHalo?


----------



## vadimax

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Uh-oh. ^ That's not gonna be good for anybody. :shakehead
> 
> ~ Chance



Those are nothing more but thermal flares to divert possible heat seeking missile attack:


----------



## moldyoldy

for those interested in stealth, check out this link.

there are several additional photo galleries to read/look thru. Galleries 1-4
some reasonably good explanations of the 'why' of the designs.


----------



## scs

StarHalo said:


> You'd need a car that can keep up with a jet to assist the pilot of a two-wheeled U-2 on takeoff and landing...


 I thought on takeoff the wings rested on temporary and reusable wheel assemblies, which effectively give it 4 wheels, so it didn't need the guidance from the car.


----------



## StarHalo

FroggyTaco said:


> Why didn't you link/embed the video SirHalo?



Didn't want the post moved to Interesting Videos, but due to popular demand:



scs said:


> I thought on takeoff the wings rested on temporary and reusable wheel assemblies, which effectively give it 4 wheels, so it didn't need the guidance from the car.



It does, but if the car can keep up, why not:


----------



## Empath

StarHalo said:


> Didn't want the post moved to Interesting Videos, but due to popular demand:



For clarity, *topical* videos posted in this thread, are expected and encouraged.


----------



## moldyoldy

in case anyone missed it, the X-37B was launched again, but this time by SpaceX rocket, the lower stage of which landed safely again.

of course, no word on what the X-37B assignment was for this flight either.

not incidentally, the Sun launched it's own solar flares. The Aurora should be quite visible in the northern hemisphere, if a couple Cat 4 hurricanes are not clouding the sky.


----------



## ElectronGuru

RedLED said:


> Speaking of helicopters, a coupe of times, years ago there was a rumble like before a quake, however, instead as the noise grew louder and louder the sky darkened with choppers flying over the Coachella Valley late afternoon, very low, to Twenteynine Palms USMCAGCC. UH 1 Huey's, Sea Hawks, CH 53 Sea Stallions, you name it it was amazing hundreds or more of them. I loved it! The noise was unbelievable!
> 
> A CH 53 is another one I flew on way out to sea for a carrier landing. For a while I was a Mil. Contractor for taking training mission photos. But after the war ended, not so much. I have my most hours on HU1 Huey's, the best helicopter ever. And, some were civilian/private operations.



I've been seeing more an more of the new S97 helicopter platform. It erases helicopter speed limits by doubling the number of blades from 4 to 8 (slower blades don't end up going faster than sound) and the rear propeller (possible because of counter rotating blades) is now devoted exclusively to propulsion. For stopping and starting without leaning forward and back and a high cruising speed. Its also being arranged like the JSF to replace both the hawk and apache lines:







​


----------



## StarHalo

An Air Force pilot died after a crash last week at the Nevada Testing Range, with details on the aircraft involved listed only as "classified"; Aviation Week is positing that the flight was for something similar to the Air Force's Red Hat unit, in which Air Force pilots would fly Russian aircraft to gather information.


----------



## moldyoldy

^ StarHalo scooped me. I opened my Aviation Leak infomail a day too late or I would have posted the same info. 

however, this incident is generating a lot more than casual interest. 

even the German press is reporting on this event.

the video is mildly interesting, not just that video was also recording that Photography is prohibited in this closed area
note also the large alien in front of a Quonset hut...

for those of you who do not read German, here are a couple highlights:
The aircraft that crashed was avowedly NOT an F-35, but no statement as to which aircraft type was involved.
speculation is that it was the Su-27 Flanker-B.
obviously the Soviet Union does not sell it's latest fighters to the US. possibly "acquired" from the Ukraine, or White Russia.
evidently the US uses an Su-27 for training fighter pilots, including flying against F-16s, probably the latest block.

The entire incident becomes curiouser and curiouser.........


----------



## moldyoldy

Here is the Military.com version of the same mysterious crash in Area 51.


----------



## moldyoldy

Update on the Hypersonic SR-72.

from Aviation Leak infomail, some article highlights:

"Amid SR-72 Rumors, Skunk Works Ramps Up Hypersonics"

... technology demonstrator flew in late July <<2017>> with T-38 escorts in to USAF Palmdale Plant 42, HQ of Skunkworks.

... "Security classification guidance will only allow us to say that the speed is greater than Mach 5"

... full size roughly same proportion and size as SR-71. full flight testing in 2020

... flight research vehicles (FRV) will be flying earlier, about the size of an F-22, powered by full-scale combined cycle engine. FRV development starts next year.

... progress towards an *optionally piloted* SR-72 precursor flight research vehicle (FRV) was proceeding on schedule. <<highlighting mine>>

... however partial testing of different developmental technologies will take place before the FRV flights.

..."hypersonic technology is clearly becoming apparent to everyone as a game changer"

========

waiting impatiently!


----------



## vadimax

If the test pilot has died, most likely he was flying some rare and/or expensive sample. And as every test pilot he was trying to recover control to the last moment clearly putting his life into the equation...


----------



## moldyoldy

not all 'secret' aircraft need to be fast or stealthy. from Aviation Leak: This Bombardier Global 6000 broke cover in the UK on 27 April at Cambridge Airport. an aircraft enthusiast noticed the strange A/C and took a good photo. obviously modifications in progress and testing. The Bombardier Global 6000 can reach FL500 (50K ft). 6000NM range. notice the number of blanked-out windows - lots of equipment in that A/C!


----------



## StarHalo

I see you back there..


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

StarHalo, You keep posting those kinda pictures and all too soon these guys are gunna show up in your driveway. 

~ Cg


----------



## moldyoldy

^^ Amen and ^ Amen!

I am honestly impressed with StarHalo photos. 
Makes me wonder how StarHalo can be in the right place at the right time so often.........

as for the black SUVs and black choppers, et al, or perhaps better as et alia, an old Russian expression comes to mind: 
the old Secret Service of the Soviet Union was designated as the NKVD.
properly known as "Народный комиссариат внутренних дел",
in English as "People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs".
however, the Russians of that era had their version of the initials: "I do not know when I am coming home".


----------



## StarHalo

That plane is 75 years old (photo #1,) it technically predates the concept of "secret aircraft" 

This was developed even before the Germans' Ho229 flying wing fighter; when [what was assembled of] that Nazi plane was confiscated by victorious Allies, it was handed over to Jack Northrop, the guy who was working on the plane afore-pictured. It didn't come to anything during that era, but the idea was revisited later shortly before his death, when he was shown the secret plans for a new flying wing, the B-2, which shares some of the engineering updates introduced by that plane flying around my neighborhood.


----------



## moldyoldy

From Aviation Week, and several other techie sites:

Sierra Nevada Corp announced the successful drop/landing test of the "Dream Chaser" spaceplane.
The Dream Chaser is intended for missions similar to the Space Shuttle, but launch on an Atlas V rocket.
Resupply missions to the Space Station are included.







edit: hmmmm, that image is kinda large. not sure which CPF rule I violated with that size, but am unable to downsize that photo. apologies.
The original image is here.

second edit: the Dream Chaser can be crewed or un-crewed. Un-crewed for max payload to the Space Station.

third edit: per Sierra Nevada Corp website. "The Dream Chaser spacecraft is 30 feet, or 9 meters, long which is roughly ¼ the total length of the Space Shuttle orbiters. The spacecraft can carry the same crew size as the Space Shuttle and can remain docked to the ISS considerably longer."


----------



## StarHalo

moldyoldy said:


> "The Dream Chaser spacecraft is 30 feet, or 9 meters, long which is roughly ¼ the total length of the Space Shuttle orbiters. The spacecraft can carry the same crew size as the Space Shuttle and can remain docked to the ISS considerably longer."



I wonder if that's how small a craft you get if you just remove the open cargo area; the original Shuttle is huge..

Other news: Anyone know what plane this is? Fascinating design..


----------



## NoNotAgain

StarHalo said:


> I wonder if that's how small a craft you get if you just remove the open cargo area; the original Shuttle is huge..
> 
> Other news: Anyone know what plane this is? Fascinating design..



Looks like a Diamond DA42 Twin Star.


----------



## StarHalo

NoNotAgain said:


> Looks like a Diamond DA42 Twin Star.



You're right, good eye; very impressive little plane, seats four in a two-seat size body, but still has the safety of two engines. Weighs no more than an SUV fully loaded and cruises at ~220 mph, I know what I'm getting if I win the lottery..


----------



## NoNotAgain

StarHalo said:


> You're right, good eye; very impressive little plane, seats four in a two-seat size body, but still has the safety of two engines. Weighs no more than an SUV fully loaded and cruises at ~220 mph, I know what I'm getting if I win the lottery..



Save your lottery money and get the Pilatus PC12 or the TBM910/930. 

A single turbine engine is more fuel efficient, flies further, is quieter and has much more internal room. 

A new TBM is covered by a 5 year/ 2000 hour warranty including annual inspections.


----------



## BVH

Twins with single engine out can be extremely challenging to get down in one piece. Rather lose an engine in a single and take my chances on the glide. The Pilatus and TBM's are a dream!


----------



## moldyoldy

FWIW: a bit of old news, but not that old. The Soviets flew their SU-57 in public. claimed to be a 5th Gen stealth A/C to compete with the F-22. well, claimed.

from the Soviets themselves (propaganda included) here.

Depending on which sources you read, this 'new' fighter is either a renamed SU-50 or an upgrade of the SU-35.

However, the latest seems to indicate that the Soviets understand that there are limitations to the SU-57 and want to upgrade it to a 6th Generation, fielded in 2019 or so.

a casual perusal of just the planform of the F-22 vs the SU-57 indicates that the F-22 is stealthier, but the SU-57 is more maneuverable with both nozzles independently vectorable.

however in the words of an USAF general to me, if these fighters ever get close enough to dogfight, many failures have already taken place.

as always, YMMV.


----------



## StarHalo

NoNotAgain said:


> Save your lottery money and get the Pilatus PC12 or the TBM910/930.





BVH said:


> Twins with single engine out can be extremely challenging to get down in one piece. Rather lose an engine in a single and take my chances on the glide. The Pilatus and TBM's are a dream!



Huh, good to know I'm still young enough to be a complete noob at something, ty for the info.



moldyoldy said:


> FWIW: a bit of old news, but not that old. The Soviets flew their SU-57 in public. claimed to be a 5th Gen stealth A/C to compete with the F-22. well, claimed.



Since they're openly advertising that they can fly it as a drone, then I wonder how many of the fighters we already have can now be retro-fitted to do the same..

In other news: Some patchy overcast today, guess this guy figured if he was high enough, nobody would notice:


----------



## NoNotAgain

StarHalo said:


> In other news: Some patchy overcast today, guess this guy figured if he was high enough, nobody would notice:



Star, it's hard not to notice an F16. 

The ANG base that was located next to where I worked housed A10's and C130J models. Every once and a while, they'd fly in a C5 with some heavy cargo. The police would have to shut dow the roadway for the take off roll due to the engine thrust. 

Interesting fact for the Diamond DA42. The engines used are a diesel 4 banger making 170hp each. The DA42 has a sale price of $700k depending on avionics options.


----------



## StarHalo

NoNotAgain said:


> Star, it's hard not to notice an F16.



That's a strong crop from a 300mm view, he's ~40k feet up. But I'm seeing a pattern with military aircraft taking advantage of overcast conditions..



NoNotAgain said:


> Interesting fact for the Diamond DA42. The engines used are a diesel 4 banger making 170hp each.



And it's a carbon frame, so the whole thing weighs ~4,000 lbs ready to go; it's basically a flying sport SUV. But I thought the point of redundant engines was safety, if that's not the case then one'll do..


----------



## moldyoldy

the Soviets restarted the TU-160 production line, but modified the bird heavily. now designated the TU-160M2. 
check here for photos and commentary.

a possible comparison would be against the US B-1B bomber since they sort of have a similar planform.
both carry cruise missiles and both are "bomb trucks", but that is about the end of meaningful similarities.
the current B-1B was significantly downgraded from the B-1A which originally would have been closer to the TU-160M2 "Белый лебедь" 'White Swan'. because it is colored anti-flash white.
The TU-160M2 has a much higher supersonic speed and is nuclear capable. 
apples and oranges.


----------



## Ken_McE

Not sure if this is related to Starhalos post #459:

[h=1]Mystery Aircraft Spotted Over Oregon:
[/h]It could be a page out of a Tom Clancy novel. Mysterious, reportedly high performance aircraft spotted cutting through commercial flight lanes near Oregon/California border. Ground control has trouble keeping it on radar, resorts to calling passing airliners and asking them to look out the window. F-15 Cs' scramble out of Portland to force it down, can't find anything.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-encounter-with-mystery-aircraft-over-oregon


----------



## moldyoldy

^ thanks for the article link!

and embedded within the linked article, was another link that led to a site featuring a heavily modified B-737, jokingly referred to as a 'flying Tylenol capsule'.

and that modified B-737 has capabilities vaguely analogous to the RC-135E, Rivet Amber, aka Lisa Ann, lost on 5 June 1969 over the Bering Sea with all crew.
That RC-135E was soley dedicated to the largest phased array radar every flown: 7MW, 
the radome was structurally integrated into the fuselage forward of the starboard wing.


----------



## moldyoldy

In honor of the crew that perished in the Bering Sea. a sad day for us:

the Lisa Ann (Rivet Amber) with the 7 Megawatt phased array radar could track a soccer ball at 300 NM in 1967 or so. one of a kind! Tracked Soviet re-entry vehicles in the bad days of the Cold War.


----------



## moldyoldy

coming to the coastal skies near you: the Boeing MQ-25, stealth version.
The Boeing video is intentionally cryptic, but tantalizing with detail.

the rumor from AW is that with the buried inlets, the turbines were difficult enough to start that the tarmac crews would park a C-130 in front of the MQ-25 so that the prop-wash would push enough air into the engine inlets. not quite the starting cart that these crews are used to.... !


----------



## NoNotAgain

I've been around and worked on most turbojet, turbofan and ramjet engines and have yet to find an engine that requires the fan to start pushing air into the compressor before the engines can fire off. 

Engines that start from 28 volts use this current to run the starter/generator to generate enough temperature in the compressor to ignite fuel. 

Air start engines use compressed air from a cart or bleed air from a running engine to spin the engine to develop the required heat to introduce fuel for light off.


----------



## moldyoldy

^^

umm, well, here is the link to the pertinent AW article on the MQ-25.

and here is a quote from that article:

"Tacit Blue’s top-mounted flush inlet may have been stealthy, but it was hard to start, the flight-test crew at one point parking a C-130 in front of the aircraft so that its propwash would help start the airflow into the buried engines. There was also some flow separation in the inlet duct."

obviously a design in progress....


----------



## StarHalo

Not necessarily secret, but once again merely documenting the strange things you can see standing in your yard with a long lens; I heard a louder-than-usual plane coming from the East, he was up quite a ways but I could tell once he was closer that it was a Skymaster in a snazzy red paint job. Got a shot, reviewed it real quick and saw something on the plane, a gray thing, next to the port/left spar. So got another couple shots as he was receding to see if I could see anything more, which revealed that the object took up quite a bit of space, was roughly the size of say an oil barrel on the exterior of the fuselage. Any ideas?


----------



## gadget_lover

That thing on the skymaster looked really odd. First thought was some sort of camera equipment. Second was a seat for one more passenger.

Seriously I can't imagine a piece of equipment that I'd strap to the outside like that. If nothing else, it will play hell with the air flow.


----------



## StarHalo

*Solved:* The mystery Skymaster flew closer to my house yesterday, close enough that I could make out the registration on its tail; it's registered as an _Aerial Surveying_ craft, as revealed in others' Flickr photos of the plane (credit), the gear on the side of the fuselage is for surveying:


----------



## gadget_lover

Dad was a civil engineer. One childhood memory that stands out is standing at a huge table with a stereograph of the area around the Oakland Airport. We were able to pinpoint the top of a telephone pole using a special microscope. Once in focus you could tell it's exact height. It was amazing.


----------



## StarHalo

Well let's hope it's not important.. (1200 hrs today, S of my position, moving W to E)


----------



## StarHalo

vadimax said:


> Well, very contradictory design. This plane, if real, is capable to destroy itself in a horizontal flight by applying rudders or elevators in opposite directions. The central wing section will fail for sure.



And now we know for sure:


----------



## thermal guy

WOW! What is that? And what’s its intended purpose? I’m guessing long flight and high weight capacity?


----------



## thermal guy

Ok Curiosity got the best of me and looked it up. Amazing what it could do.


----------



## id30209

Nightshift...


----------



## idleprocess

id30209 said:


> Nightshift...



The Beluga was borne mostly out of necessity, but also out of a dependence upon the then-ancient Boeing 377-based Super Guppy:

_When Airbus started in 1970, road vehicles were initially used for the movement of components and sections; however, growth in production volume soon necessitated a switch to air transport. From 1972 onwards, a fleet of four highly modified "Super Guppies" took over. These were former Boeing Stratocruisers from the 1940s that had been converted with custom fuselages and the adoption of turbine engines to carry large volume loads for NASA's space program in the 1960s. Airbus' use of the Super Guppies led to the jest that *"every Airbus is delivered on the wings of a Boeing"*_


----------



## NoNotAgain

The reason behind the Beluga based on the Airbus A300-600 was three fold.

I was working in Toulouse France in the early 1990's at the Airbus facility at Blanac Airport. Airbus had made a decision to built most of their aircraft in Toulouse with the exception of the ATR42 and ATR72 turbo props. Wings for the A320, A330, A340 were all built in England and the A320 fuselage was built in Germany. A320 production was increasing from 10 aircraft a month to 25 per month.

The Super Guppies were a very old design being mechanical cable driven for all control surfaces. The nose of the aircraft took 6-8 hours to open since it was bolted on and the control cables had to be re-rigged each opening and closing.

Back then Airbus was known as Aerospatiale, Airbus Group and there were a number of companies operating within. Sergoma was the fabricator of the Beluga. I witnessed Sergoma removing the vertical and horizontal stabilizers and then cut the top off the A300-600 aircraft. Over a period of 7 months, they installed new ribs for the cargo bulb, shinned the bulb, then finally installed the hinge assembly and large door. 

The three reasons for the Beluga and now the Beluga XL are first, reduced load and unload times. Secondly, the Super Guppies all have well over 80,000 flight hours and were suffering from numerous fuselage cracks. Third, the Beluga and Beluga XL were required to meet the supply chain of centralized manufacturing. Most of their suppliers are attached to the airport property where parts are received until needed for build.


----------



## StarHalo

You guys might recall me posting images of this flying wing plane, the 1944 Northrop N9M; it was the only surviving copy of four made as a reduced-scale prototype for a planned WWII bomber, house and operated out of the Planes of Fame air museum in neighboring Chino airport after a lengthy 15 year restoration. This plane crashed into a prison yard in Norco yesterday afternoon killing the pilot and disintegrating the plane entirely, though no one on the ground was injured. So this photo is among the last ever taken of the plane in public:


----------



## id30209

Oh my god...
What could be possible cause of the crash?


----------



## StarHalo

id30209 said:


> Oh my god...
> What could be possible cause of the crash?



An eyewitness said the plane dipped left and right, then went nose-first into the ground. Unless the pilot radioed something, I don't think there'll be any evidence from the crash scene:


----------



## StarHalo

The BAE MAGMA, a plane without moving control surfaces - just replace all the hydraulic valves/cylinders/pulleys with small engine vectoring ducts that similarly alter the airflow over the wing:


----------



## id30209

StarHalo said:


> The BAE MAGMA, a plane without moving control surfaces - just replace all the hydraulic valves/cylinders/pulleys with small engine vectoring ducts that similarly alter the airflow over the wing:



Now that could be improvement over heavy hydro plumbing. Nice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mightysparrow

^^ Cool technology! Have you ever seen the Gotha 229 flying wing-type aircraft designed by the Horten brothers for Germany during World War 2? It was a frighteningly good design. It only made it to the prototype stage before the war ended, fortunately for the USA, Great Britain, France, etc. According to William Green, Goering and the upper echelon of the Luftwaffe only became interested in funding development of the design when they found out about the work Northrup was doing in the USA on a flying wing design. The German manufacturers would not have had the ability at that stage of the war to produce a lot of them, but they would have caused a lot of problems for the aircraft opposing them (and prompted the USA to get more P-80's to Europe in a hurry).


----------



## StarHalo

mightysparrow said:


> ^^ Cool technology! Have you ever seen the Gotha 229 flying wing-type aircraft designed by the Horten brothers for Germany during World War 2? It was a frighteningly good design.


 
Both the Northrop and the Ho 229 were technically small scale prototype models for what were to be large bombers; the Nazis approved the Hortens' bomber design (the Ho 16) in early 1945, and were specifically told it needed to be ready in early 1946 to drop a nuclear bomb on New York. Aside from that, the 229 would have had the speed to make it across the English Channel so quickly that despite being completely visible to British radar, they'd be able to strike the RAF before they ever got off the ground, meaning Britain could have been lost the same day the plane was introduced. So the incomplete remains of the Ho 229 are basically an indicator of how close the allies came to losing the war. 



mightysparrow said:


> It only made it to the prototype stage before the war ended, fortunately for the USA, Great Britain, France, etc. According to William Green, Goering and the upper echelon of the Luftwaffe only became interested in funding development of the design when they found out about the work Northrup was doing in the USA on a flying wing design.



As referenced in the previous page in this thread, I had spent some time around the Northrop wing, and was among the last to ever photograph it.


----------



## mightysparrow

StarHalo said:


> Both the Northrop and the Ho 229 were technically small scale prototype models for what were to be large bombers; the Nazis approved the Hortens' bomber design (the Ho 16) in early 1945, and were specifically told it needed to be ready in early 1946 to drop a nuclear bomb on New York. Aside from that, the 229 would have had the speed to make it across the English Channel so quickly that despite being completely visible to British radar, they'd be able to strike the RAF before they ever got off the ground, meaning Britain could have been lost the same day the plane was introduced. So the incomplete remains of the Ho 229 are basically an indicator of how close the allies came to losing the war.
> 
> 
> 
> As referenced in the previous page in this thread, I had spent some time around the Northrop wing, and was among the last to ever photograph it.



Interesting predictions, but I think it’s an exaggeration to say that the Horten bomber would have been able to strike the RAF before they got off the ground, or would have neutralized or knocked Great Britain out of the war the first day it was used. One has to keep in mind that the proposed bomber was a long way off. The fighter was only test-flown up to around 400mph before the testing facilities were overrun. The projected top speed was around 600 mph, if all went according to the designers' hopes. However, as you know, a large jet aircraft at that time that was loaded with bombs and fuel would not have been able to approach its top speed while it was so loaded. The British and the US already had aircraft operational that could have challenged such an aircraft - especially a bomber large enough to carry the enormous amount of jet fuel that would have been necessary to carry the required payload and fly all the way to the US and back again with very inefficient jet engines. And the US and Britain were improving their interceptor and anti-aircraft weapon designs at the same time Germany was working on the Horten aircraft designs. 

With regard to losing the war for the US and Britain, I doubt it. Germany was working on a long range bomber with piston engines to attack the US mainland for the entire war, and they couldn’t get it together and in production. The US defenses would have been very formidable against such an attack. The bomb load would have to be very small, and the jet engines would have to be much more reliable, much more efficient, and less prone to fire than the Jumo 004 they had in 1945. The amount of jet fuel needed to get a jet bomber to the US would be enormous and very heavy. 

And don’t forget that the US had considered the possibility of using atomic weapons against Germany, even without Germany using one first. If Germany even tried or was preparing to use such a weapon imminently, the US would have retaliated in kind. As you know, by mid-1945, the US already had atomic weapons and was quickly getting adept at making and using them. And, as the Historian Barton Bernstein pointed out, the US had also considered using radioactive waste to poison the German fresh water supplies, among other ideas for hastening the war's conclusion, if deemed necessary. Hitler might have been crazy enough and mean enough to use nuclear weapons out of spite, but he could not hope to win the war with them, even with the Horten-designed aircraft.


----------



## orbital

+

Sunday evening June 9th, the History Channel is _airing_ a 2hr special on *Skunk Works.







---^---


*


----------



## vadimax

StarHalo said:


> The BAE MAGMA, a plane without moving control surfaces - just replace all the hydraulic valves/cylinders/pulleys with small engine vectoring ducts that similarly alter the airflow over the wing:



If you have nothing in common with aviation this design might look revolutionary to some extent, but... When engine thrust is not available what will happen to the plane?  Any stupid engine failure will turn this construction into a brash on the ground. And this is having in mind that this kind of flying wing scheme features very high aerodynamic quality (it glides very well).


----------



## mightysparrow

orbital said:


> +
> 
> Sunday evening June 9th, the History Channel is _airing_ a 2hr special on *Skunk Works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---^---
> 
> 
> *



A little history programming on the history channel? Thank you for the tip - I have not been checking their schedule lately, given as they are to fill their time slots with programs about "mermaids," ancient alien visits, and similar stuff.


----------



## mightysparrow

vadimax said:


> If you have nothing in common with aviation this design might look revolutionary to some extent, but... When engine thrust is not available what will happen to the plane?  Any stupid engine failure will turn this construction into a brash on the ground. And this is having in mind that this kind of flying wing scheme features very high aerodynamic quality (it glides very well).



Not a problem. Each aircraft is supplied with a gerbil, a small wheel, and rubber bands, in case the main engine fails.


----------



## StarHalo

Imaging satellite company: "Check out our image of the Iranian launch site."
Larger imaging satellite company: "Our image of the Iranian launch site has significantly higher resolution."
US Government: "You call that high res.."


----------



## id30209

StarHalo said:


> Imaging satellite company: "Check out our image of the Iranian launch site."
> Larger imaging satellite company: "Our image of the Iranian launch site has significantly higher resolution."
> US Government: "You call that high res.."



Oh man...LOL


----------



## StarHalo

Guess who's back; landed at Kennedy this morning after *780 days* in orbit..


----------



## StarHalo

The knowledgeable Scott Manley discusses the X-37B, lots of info:


----------



## id30209

Oh man, 700+ days?????


Sent from Tapatalk


----------



## orbital

+

On the Science Channel there's a new series called *Black Files Declassified

*Episode 1: _Secrets of the Space Force_ 
It goes into the early stages of the US Space Force & now that it's officially labeled as an arm of the Military (although why it's officially labeled is another question)
then it talks quite a bit on the undocumented satellite :::: X-37B

worth a looksee


----------



## id30209

Sweet! Thx for the info[emoji106]


Sent from Tapatalk


----------



## orbital

+

Saw a commercial for the _*US Space Force*_ last night; _like other military commercials, but very tech..
_


----------



## vadimax

id30209 said:


> Oh man, 700+ days?????
> 
> 
> Sent from Tapatalk



Perhaps, they were testing sun radiation effect on some equipment.


----------

