my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » Aurora?

   
Author Topic: Aurora?
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 10-17-2000 09:17 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Maybe this is what it looks like...
http://members.nbci.com/aurora113/designs/a.htm

Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 10-17-2000 09:21 PM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
the_conquerer_cgi
Member
Member # 7046

posted 10-18-2000 10:08 PM     Profile for the_conquerer_cgi     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I personaly don't see the need for such an Aircraft. Satelites do a good job of basic recon and more detail would have to be done by a low, slow to medium speed AC. Of course I'm not fully knowledged of the lore that is the Aurora...
Posts: 299 | From: Ft. Myers, Fl, US | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 10-20-2000 02:10 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by the_conquerer_cgi:
I personaly don't see the need for such an Aircraft. Satelites do a good job of basic recon and more detail would have to be done by a low, slow to medium speed AC. Of course I'm not fully knowledged of the lore that is the Aurora...


Well, you know when a satellite is going to come over, and you can hide from them pretty easily. A slow aircraft is more vulnerable. Besides, somethinhg like the aurora would make a good nuclear strike platform, if it had the range.


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 10-21-2000 06:35 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If you saturate the sky with satellites, there would be no window in which to do secret things.
With the increasing miniturisation of things, I'm sure that we will see "spy" sats becoming cheaper and smaller. Maybe small enough that a single launch could orbit a dozen small sats with the resolution of the US Keyhole series sats.

------------------
Up there, where the air is rare...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 10-21-2000 06:41 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Oh, I've looked at the Aurora renderings now.
Why the windows?
During all phases of the flight, the crew would hardly see anything but the sky, which is probably pitch black then anyway...
You don't fly this kind of A/C manually much, and high-res radars and external cameras would be a better option than a window when you do.

------------------
Up there, where the air is rare...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 10-21-2000 06:42 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Oh, I've looked at the Aurora renderings now.
Why the windows?
During all phases of the flight, the crew would hardly see anything but the sky, which is probably pitch black then anyway...
You don't fly this kind of A/C manually much, and high-res radars and external cameras would be a better option than a window when you do.

------------------
Up there, where the air is rare...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 10-22-2000 04:31 AM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Of course they must have windows!
Otherwise they won't see the aliens when they come to abduct them.

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: PiteŚ, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Timbo
Member
Member # 1789

posted 10-23-2000 02:48 PM     Profile for Timbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
According to Ben Rich's book, "Skunk Works" he says the Aurora was the codename for the B-2 program.
For you who don't know who Ben Rich is, he was in charge of the Skunk Works after Kelly Johnson left. He worked on such programs as the U-2, SR-71, and F-117. Anyone know if he is still alive? His book is from 1994 and I saw him in an F-117 show from 1992 but haven't heard about him much since then.

-Tim

Tim's USAF Page - Click Here to Visit!

[This message has been edited by Timbo (edited 10-23-2000).]


Posts: 709 | From: Palatine, IL, USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Avatar
Member
Member # 4363

posted 10-23-2000 05:21 PM     Profile for Avatar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Ben died shortly after the book came out.
Posts: 175 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Viper18372
Member
Member # 6383

posted 10-24-2000 07:53 PM     Profile for Viper18372   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bogey:
If you saturate the sky with satellites, there would be no window in which to do secret things.
With the increasing miniturisation of things, I'm sure that we will see "spy" sats becoming cheaper and smaller. Maybe small enough that a single launch could orbit a dozen small sats with the resolution of the US Keyhole series sats.



Do you have any idea how much that many satelites would cost???

Also, I'm sick of people saying we don't need new warfare equipment. Would you believe how many people oppose the F-22.

The Aurora would be capabily of hyper-sonic speeds (Mach 5) and altitudes above 100,000 feet (rumors of 150,000 feet). It would be unable to be shot down as the fastest air-to-air missile goes a little bit less then Mach 5 and there is no other plane that can go higher than 70,000 feet (exept the SR-71). Think of it you can photograph anywhere anytime.

Here is an artists idea of what it looks like:

~VIPER OUT


Posts: 171 | From: NY, USA | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
the_conquerer_cgi
Member
Member # 7046

posted 10-24-2000 07:57 PM     Profile for the_conquerer_cgi     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Gee... wonder why?

I could say something about this, but I don't want to share his fate...


Posts: 299 | From: Ft. Myers, Fl, US | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 10-24-2000 08:19 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bogey:
Oh, I've looked at the Aurora renderings now.
Why the windows?
During all phases of the flight, the crew would hardly see anything but the sky, which is probably pitch black then anyway...
You don't fly this kind of A/C manually much, and high-res radars and external cameras would be a better option than a window when you do.




I mean, for refuelling, taxi/takeoff/landing (I wouldn't trust a video screen, personally), just looking at the stars

Also, as stated above, reconsats are expensive. It is harder to retask one of them, and impossible to blanket cover the sky (when they can easily be soft-killed by an EMP blast from a nuke).


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 10-25-2000 01:04 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
And what about ionisation?
I've read that at M5 or so, the ionisation makes photo and signal recon impossible.
Whether this is true or not, I don't know.

"I mean, for refuelling, taxi/takeoff/landing (I wouldn't trust a video screen, personally), just looking at the stars"

The refueling is most likely handled entirely by computers.
It's unlikely that this kind of aircraft would even be manned.

"Also, as stated above, reconsats are expensive. It is harder to retask one of them, and impossible to blanket cover the sky (when they can easily be soft-killed by an EMP blast from a nuke)."

I said that sats are likely to become smaller and cheaper which would make saturation possible.
Preferably, these sats should be controlled by a stronger UN, for the safety of the world.
Lastly, no-one's going to use a nuke to keep its stuff secret. Not in peace time.

Anyway, I personally don't think that this aircraft exists, and if it does, then only as an experimental vehicle.

------------------
Up there, where the air is rare...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 10-26-2000 06:22 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

"The refueling is most likely handled entirely by computers."

I don't know of any UAV that can hold formation good enough to be air-refuelled. And all USAF booms are man-controlled.


"I said that sats are likely to become smaller and cheaper which would make saturation possible."

"Preferably, these sats should be controlled by a stronger UN, for the safety of the world."

Don't start on that one...

"Lastly, no-one's going to use a nuke to keep its stuff secret. Not in peace time."

I'm talking wartime here... also, there have been attempts to make weapons that produce an EMP but without the blast of a nuke.


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Storm
Member
Member # 1480

posted 10-28-2000 02:14 PM     Profile for Storm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Go to this URL and you can read some things on it.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com

and you can do a yahoo search for "aircraft black projects" and you get some more sites.

HIH,
Storm


Posts: 606 | From: Crestview, Florida USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 10-28-2000 04:36 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Those guys at aboveetopsecret are even more cracked up than I am!
Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved