Heres a fairly good picture: http://img.timeinc.net/popsci/images/2006/09/blackairplanes_ss_4.jpg
just look up aurora on google images if you want more.

BloodPhoenix123 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2007 at 4:29pm:


I don't care if Aurora exists or not, if someone made a model like that I'd fly it with joy 

I read in a recent aviation magazine that Congress recently gave some money for development of a new spyplane to replace the (now defunct I believe) SR-71. Maybe it already exists or is in a late state of development if this is true and they are getting ready to announce it to the public....

It may exist, in fact it probably does...
They break between the military's current day tech and the press is 12 years. The press is way behind.

The aurora is real, but it is neither a supersonic aircraft, nor is it a reconnaissance aircraft.

"The funding for the [Stealth Bomber] competition came out of the Air Force budget. A young colonel working in the Air Force 'black program' office at the Pentagon, named Buz Carpenter, arbitrarily assigned the funding the code name Aurora. Somehow this name leaked out during congressional appropriations hearings, the media picked up the Aurora item in the budget, and the rumor surfaced that it was a top secret project assigned to the Skunk Works -- to build America's first hypersonic airplane. That story persists to this day even though Aurora was the code name for the B-2 competition funding. Although I expect few in the media to believe me, there is no code name for the hypersonic plane, because it simply does not exist. "

Ben Rich is the former CEO of Lockheed-Martin's Skunk Works. The above quote is from his book Sunk Works, pages 309 and 310.

The U2 and SR-71 are only good when it is not cloudy as well. Almost all clouds are at less than 70,000 feet.

At the moment, the U-2 is the only active dedicated optical reconnaissance aircraft. We have many ELINT aircraft, but only one designed for taking pictures.

True... but they aren't real aircraft.

Project Aurora is scaring the crap out of New Mexico... some math tells you that all the sightings are in the Mach 10 turn path from Area 51.

Main reason for me that it does exist: why else did they stop flying the SR71...

Motivation: Ground guys need imagery at the moment the sattelites are below the horizon too... and everyone that is in the sattelite path knows exactly when to put their trucks back in the sheds to avoid being seen.

elite marksman wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 11:03am:

U2s are too fragile... OK for someone that doesnt have reasonable a reasonable anti-aircraft defense but not what you want to fly with a bunch of SA-300s on the ground. Another Gary Powers isn't an option in the current area of operations.

F-14s were phased out because of Iran. You dont want to have to press the IFF button on your F-22 when you want to sneak up on someone as you are lit up like a christmas tree when pushing that button. So they decided to get rid of the distraction and put another set of Superbugs on the carriers just in case...

SR-71 was phased out because
1: Its too slow... MiG-31s can take shots at it (dont believe the public Fairford specs... it has a fuselage designed for Mach 3 and over and the engine power to reach that speed)
2: A good photo-recon plane is never too expensive. Every photo that thing has taken is worth at least double the amount of money needed to service the thing after it returns from a mission.

Ivan wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:55pm:



Nothing to do with the fact that given the time it would take to plan and prepare for manned SR-71 or U-2 missions etc, a satellite or UAV can do virtually the same job in less time, use less manpower, put fewer pink bodies on the line and cost half as much to operate...

Quote:


Nothing to do with the fact they were obsolete (despite a mid life upgrade) and there replacement was already in service (despite being mega slow as someone decided to put some toe-out on the wing pylons!)?

I thjoguht american got rid of there black birds because A) They continusley crashed because they where ram jets

B) START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Im not big on military jets but is that not why?

Another question if we have planes going at mach 10 wouldnt someone hear a noise and it would have to be what basically is space operating as a ram jet.

Also can someone tell me this supposedly Area 51 and Area 19 have runways which disappear unless sprinkled wiht water and runwyas whihc are 25 and 4 miles long. What kind of plane has to have that kind of runway (well my landings do in a cessena but im not professional).

Quote:

Not what it says here. http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/losses.php

colsie123 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 3:37pm:


You are making a mess of a few things here

From what i do understand about what you said here you are wrong on the following points.

START treaty is nukes... Bones, B-2s, Bears, Backfires and silos. No recon planes.

The airplane that blows the engines at high speeds is the MiG-25RB. Thats because the air isnt slowed down in the intakes as (for example) on Concorde. This was fixed on the MiG-31. SR-71 had moving intake cones from the start because that is the only way to make the engines work af 80.000ft.

I believe this tells tells you of the aircraft experienceing the engines not functioning failing the way I said here.

"This aircraft disintegrated on 25 January 1966 during a high-speed, high-altitude test flight when it developed a severe case of engine unstart. Lockheed test pilot Bill Weaver survived although his ejection seat never left the plane! Reconnaissance System Officer (RSO) Jim Zwayer died in a high-G bailout. The incident occurred near Tucumcari, New Mexico."

Facts about the blackbird 20% of the thrust comes form the planes engines 80% comes form nowhere at all?
Answer: Weel, in essence Those big pointy things that stick out of the intakes steer most of the air into escape channels that never go anywhere near the blades. The air is simply compressed and then, as it gets to the exhaust ignited, And simple physics the more air you push in the faster you go. Basically the jet gets you to the mach and from then on theres no moveing parts at all. You simply burn the air and wathc the speedo climb. Quite literally, the fatser you go the fatser it goes.

OK heres the info on an unstart for those who dont know what it is.

One engine works backwards basically ejecting air form the front the other ejects form the back basically it burps. This is bad full thrust one side full drag the other. This results in an unrecoverable spin most of the time you hardly have time to eject infact many dont. The result is quiet and undisnified end for both pilots because how cna a plane crash if it doesnt excist hmm... And its undignified because you dotn so much bury the remains as hose them down a drain sadly. Before an unstart there is tiny hardly audible noises which makes it an uncomforting aircrftaa s your ocnstantly diligant to any noise that the aircrfta might decide to break wind. And many blackbird crashes are still classed as unoffical or as F-105 crashes.

Out of the 40 blackbirs 20 survived and 20 crahsed offically the figure is actually reconed to be more. Luckily thoguh not onje USAF pilot has died in it yet or offically.

A crash not listed on that site was a blackbird that was being used ot launch a pilotless drone that then feel bakc on the blackbird in other words a giant hole at what is 90000ft. What caused this is basically the sound barrier of air was a wall and it hit that and fell bakc onto the blackbird. Noone took into account why launch a drone for spying form the perfect spyign tool developed alreayd and how was this mini blackbird suposed ot penetrate the shockwave comeing fomr it mothers nose.

Another factoid the plane grows by 1ft inflight and the engines are wider and broader than the fuesladge (sorry useless with that word). And another after two hours of flight the gorund crew had to iron out the nose creases usieng blow torches .

And sadly now its a plane wiht no purpose where does it go.

Thanks for listening.

colsie123 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 1:54pm:


And what grounds do you base that on?

If anything, if it was travelling at Mach 10 and at those sorts of extreme altitudes, you wouldn't hear a thing until long after it passed by.

Oh yeah just noticed what vapour posted its not right as british army tradition is never too hide but to face and protect. Too me thats hiding away from other aircraft. Spell chekced checked even

Touche my kind friend I was going by its size. You put forward good points have a cookie on me.

I think your mistaken are you not my science teacher spent time explaining that too me. I just transferred it into laemans terms(sorry not sure how to spell that word). What im trying to explain at speeds above mach 3 you don't have a normal supersonic engine bacause for it too work, to bring that air in would destroy the blades thats why the engine funnels it through intakes out the back 80% of the air, whilst the engine through its on power it creates (tyhe air it brings out the back made by itself. Sorry not good explination hopefully you know what I mean) only produces 20% of that speed above mach 3 below mach 3 it operates like concordes engines I believe. Hope that gives a better explaination of what I was trying to explain.

But thanks for point out what you did in your last post. Did I explain the rest of it better. Or could it have been improved to a better understanding for people. Is it too simple for people in an airplane forum. Our teacher mainly explained it like that, because well Im the only one who like planes in a  class of about 30.

Sorry about spelling mistakes in last post it was nearly one in the morning and I was falling asleep. Didn't put all my concentration into it.

Im 14.  Yes. english is my first language I live in Glasgow, Scotland If anyone else here is from Scotland  Glasgow I live in the Drum. My teahcer is technically a biology teacher but she shares the class with a physics and chemistry teacher.

May I ask what gives you the impression that the Queens language is not my first language. I did just get my results through for my Standard grade english and Maths and I got a 3 for english which is a very good mark. I do understand how a jet engine works. Ive really not made clear what I was puting forward 'slaps self over head'. I would like to answer to you putting "Also, no engine design that I have ever heard of would behave in two different ways depending on the airspeed.". Can you make that a tiny bit clearer and I will defienetly give you an answer. I think you may be refering to the engine unstart phenomon (another word im useless at spelling hopes its correctly spelt).

So if you can clear that up and anything else that ive not made clear again just post it.

Read the posts after that please it revelas something.

No probs I do it my self a lot. Thanks. Is there anything else you dont undertsand that I have typed and maybe I could if I can be bothered type it up again.

Yes because I misspelt reveals doesn't mean im a bad speller it just means im lazy. And if I possibly stopped typeing like a crazed maniac we would all be better off.

Your point may be proven there or maybe it was me jokeing.

colsie123 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 6:31am:

That's true. If you take a little more time & trouble over what you post we might be able to understand what you're gabbling on about.

It won't improve your grammar but a spell checker on your browser might come in very handy. They're available for most browsers including IE & Firefox.

PS. It's possible to edit your posts to correct any glaring errors.

Xyn_Air wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 6:35am:

colsie is from Scotland which (at the moment anyway) is part of the UK. Contrary to popular belief their native language is English.

Yeah thats because of our accent. Such as if I typed the way i talk you widnae hive a hop in the bog a figirnin it oot ya mad gony swines. If you understand that your from Glasgow if you dont your with the majority.

And yes most people in Glasgow speak suprisingly enough

'drum role'

ENGLISH DUM DE DUM

I can start posting in Glasgwegian confuse you all. Ill make one post in the future in Glasgwegian thatll be funny to see everyones reactions,

I can to an extent but can I ask why you call football strips the dicky-dirt. I was in london and you use words like trot what ever happened to glesgaw sayings like I u hive yerself ane hell a walk there yer a crazy b###### whi the hell is rang wiy you. Theres a lot more its nice to know the aurora is into languages. people say the UK isnt multicultural I present you our languages  

I put basically operating in space as a ram jet im saying it may as well be one. Its useful to have invisible r/w ? no idea to stop commericals etc from getting near it or wanting to land on it. Quicky to you all would they accept a commerical emergency there if it was truely life threatning or something as well.

Jayhawk Jake wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:52am:

I think you answered your own question Jacob. Quote:

The government originally denied the existence of the Blackbird in the same way. The first A-12 to crash (24 May 1963) was officially identified as an F-105 & witnesses were 'requested' to sign secrecy agreements. Another A-12 was lost during the last operational mission on 5 June 1968. The official news release identified the lost aircraft as an SR-71 and security was maintained. This is exactly what causes all these conspiracy theories. Nobody in authority will deny it so it must be true.

The Aurora may or may not exist. Nobody will know for certain unless the government confirms it.

Wow, for like 2 pages it was about Spelling and Grammar.
I too am 14 in the UK, I used to not be able to spell and use grammar but I grew out of it

lets be honest there the ones who become LAWYERS and like to point out mistakes or cant come up or have anything better to do.

See charlie agress sorry for the mistake writeing about mistakes I meant suprme court Judges and Lawyers and the spelling thingy it fixed now or is it thats the question.  

Yay, I'm 13, I...don't know. Mature for my age.

@ Spelling: My eyes, they hurt!

Back on topic...

Do I think Aurora exists? Possibly, but then again, the years in which "Aurora" was spotted, were the years during which the B-2 was being developed. Codename, possibly? Triangular shape, elongated, possibly a prototype for the B-2? And at any rate, it would take YEARS worth of technology to design an engine that could propel a conventional aeroplane to speeds of Mach 6/20+, unless it was supposed to propel itself to an altitude beyond the atmosphere, take photos, and re-enter, reaching speeds of Mach 20 on descent, in order to make a high speed get away. No one knows its been there, if they do know, they cannot identify which faction it belongs to.

Boy, I hope I'm wrong with this theory...do I now know too much? 

Quote:


Many such aircraft exist, and are in fact in the public domain, such as "Have Blue" (a proof of concept aircraft for the F-117a) and "Tacit Blue", a technology demonstrator for the B2, which flew from 1982 to 85, but was not revealed publically until 1996 (it's now on public display!).

My own personal view is that Aurora is a name that has been continually over used over the years, genarally by UFO enthusiasts and "plane spotters". I expect several projects that have been "called" Aurora over the past 30 years have appeared under "real" code names, such as those above.

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/index.html

Boy oh boy, there is a lot of information / disinformation in this thread. As far as question of if a still classified super/hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft has been or is still being used, I cannot say one way or the other. I can say that the days of manned aerial reconnaissance are fast drawing to a close. Modern UAVs have several advantages that make them more appealing for these types of operations. I won't get into too many details on that end because it would get too long and boring.

Now something I can talk is the specifications listed in the original post (I do have a degree in this sort of thing):

Mach 20? I don't think I've seen the (unclassified) speed of a SAM above Mach 10. The extra weight from airframe, engines, and fuel requirements to run at that speed would really not buy you anything extra as opposed to running at lower speed. Mach 6-8 would really make the most sense for this type of aircraft.

LH2/LOX is rocket fuel. It's what the Space Shuttle engines use. That fuel is totally incompatible with any air breathing engine design (hence the requirement for liquid oxygen). In addition rocket engines are good for making things go fast for a shot period of time. They are not really a good choice for cruising an aircraft for an extended period of time.

Engines:
Lots of choices out there, a lot of them have some significant problems with practical implementation in an operational aircraft. The hybrid turbo/ramjet would probably be my choice because of previous experience with the technology on the SR-71.

I seriously doubt the government would be this inept at keeping something secret....

Felix/FFDS wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 8:02am:



If you can remember the "Not The Nine O'clock News" version, then yes you are 

Matt

Ashar wrote on Sep 19^th, 2007 at 11:28pm:


It must be real, Hollywood has made a movie about it 

Matt

No, not a bomber, it is supposedly a spy plane.
Another reason why I don't think it exists is that its capabilities are no longer what is required of a reconnaissance aircraft. Due to the nature of current conflicts, a plane that that watch an area of a long period of time is much more valuable to us than a plane that can take a few photos and leave (possible one reason that the -71 was retired). Because of this, UAVs like the Predator and Global Hawk were developed because they can sit over a target for 12-24 hours continuously taking and transmitting real-time video... and they don't get tired.

Also, I find it highly unlikey that any manned aircraft could hit Mach 6, or anything even remotely close. The X-43 hit approximately Mach 10, but that was basically an engine with wings. I think it is impossible with current technology to achieve Mach 10 with an aircraft of significant size.

elite marksman wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 10:24pm:


Another reason the SR-71/ A-12 was retired was due to increasing numbers of spy satilites that could do many times more work.

Maybe we are being mislead to think it is a spy plane, maybe its just a cover story for a new long range, high speed, high altitude, bomber???



Then again, it may just be a hoax...

I'm not sure if the X-15 was considered an aircraft or a space ship.  It did hit Mach 6.5, but was nothing more than a ballistic missile with a person strapped to the nose.

The SCRAM jet powered X-43A managed around Mach 5 in tests.

The project stopped I think... Because of lack of funding or something.

But if research had continued, the developers believed it would've achieved at least Mach 7-8.

SCRAM jets are awesome...

And now all this pulse detonation engine and stuff comes up...

They're both extremely similar, but still, not quiet the same.   It is worthy to note, that a Sr-71c, nick named 'the bastard', was made from the forward section of a static SR-71, and the aft of a YF-12 damaged in a landing accident.  

Would of been cool if the YF-12 became the F-12 and entered service. Only problem is the exhaust reflected radar, every Tom, Dick, and Harry could see it coming!




Quote:

http://blogs.jobdig.com/wwds/2007/11/19/sr-71-now-that-was-some-airplane/

I always liked skunk works, they come up with some pretty neato stuff.