wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (08/14/90)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) >>From: G_AHRENDT@VAXA.CC.UWA.OZ.AU (Gunter Ahrendt) >I read that Lockheed's F-19A Aurora is stationed at the USAF Base Nellis in >Nevada, any confirmation of this? Gunter, Aurora is a very "black" (extremely secret) project. As such, I doubt if it will be seen around Nellis for some time to come. I also doubt very much that it has the F19 designation. So far as what is generally known, the F19 is a non-existant designation, as far as anything operational is concerned. The "F" would indicate a fighter-type of aircraft, while Aurora is supposed to be a dedicated reconaissance platform. The F117a Stealth Fighter (not to be confused with Aurora) HAS been at Nellis, and in fact might have been more permanently assigned there so that the Tonopah Test Range can be used for Aurora....not confirmed, YET. Duane
ZDCA781@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk (03/14/91)
From: ZDCA781@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk
re: AURORA -William Daul
> Does anyone know anthing about project Aurora ?
Yes and NO
A Pentagon P1 weapons procurment budget document release in Feb 1985
accidentally disclosed the existance of a black program code name Aurora cost
$ 2,300 million
The Washington post subsequently reported an unidentifide Pentagon official
saying "Aurora could be connected with ATB (Advanced Technology Bomber [B2])
or at the least stealth technology.
Jan 1988 New York Times reported USAF developing a replacement for the SR-71
(Blackbird) > Performance believed to be in the range of mach 5-6 high alttitude
in excess of 100 000 ft. This aircraft is believed to be Aurora.
Interesting to note here that SR-71 was withdrawn from service in UK towards
the end of last year. Its performance was 3.31-3.35 mach (According to U-2
aircraft personnel at Farnbrough Air Show some of these have been retained in
storage in flyable condition ) {U-2 was actually TR-1 I think}
Just before the end of last year the Daily Mail (UK paper ) reported that
congress had approved funding of $5 bn for Aurora Highly classified high
alttitude high speed aircraft making B-2 redundant??
For more detail:-
RE: stealth by Doug Richardson published by salamander distributed in US by
Orion Books 1990.
Speaking of stealth aircraft can anyone give reason for dropping developement
of IRST (Infra-Red Search & Track) for the ATF " fourth generation stealth
aircraft" other than fiscal ?
Anyone know anything about Model 100 (General Dynamics) ?
Dont look behind because a tear that never dries can only make you blind
Dio
KH14
zdca781@UK.ac.kcloperator@desire.wright.edu (03/15/91)
From: operator@desire.wright.edu Concerning project Aurora, I have seen reference to this project in more than one book on stealth aircraft including J. Jones "Stealth:The Art of Black Magic" and Doug Richardson's "Stealth." Richardson's book includes an artist's conception of the aircraft but both include the story that it is, indeed, the replacement for the SR-71. It is apparently capable of better than Mach 5 and has stealth capability that is well beyond the SR-71. Lockheed is the primary contractor and is built at the skunkworks. Stories say that there are many operational aircraft. Of course, this is basically all speculation but there is a quote in the Jones book, I believe, from an ex-Air Force official who claims that "with the SR-71 they knew we were there but they couldn't touch us. With the Aurora they won't even know we're there." I would also suggest any books on stealth by Bill Sweetman may have some speculation on this aircraft. Also, there is another project in the Air Force currently carrying the code name Aurora and I believe it has to do with detection systems experiments, probably concerned with the Strategic Defense Iniative. Robert Mack, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio
larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) (03/22/91)
From: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) William Daul writes: >I heard this was one of the super-secret black projects. >Does anyone out there know (or think they know) anything >about it? Your comments are always welcome! I won't re-iterate the AW&ST pieces that were already quoted, except to say that you SHOULD read AW&ST 12/18/89, pg. 42; AW&ST 10/1/90, pg. 20-23; and AW&ST 12/24/90, pg 41. These are the important AW&ST articles that talk about these things. NOTE, however, the artist captions on the pictures in the 10/1/90 AW&ST pieces have been reversed. So just reverse (picture 2 caption applied to picture 1, and vice-versa) them and you will read them correctly. Also check out the letter to the editor, on the last page of the AW&ST 1/8/90 issue,pg. 74. These AW&ST pieces talk about several types of high speed vehicles, one of them uses a pulsed propulsion cycle (some type of unsteady combustion). Also there was a piece from Bill Sweetman last year called "The Aurora Enigma". It was to be published in the 11/90 issue of Interavia Aerospace Review. The original is 9 pages in length. I don't know if it was actually published or not. It's interesting, and a good piece of work, but it seems to be (to me) somewhat of a sequel to the Nov, 88 Popular Science cover story on Aurora. We really don't know for sure the details on Aurora (I'll call it that for lack of a better name). All we can say for sure is that the level of technology needed for hypersonic flight (speed > M5, say) is now here, aerospace companies are now conducting studies of hypersonic vehicles (NASP and others), and many people have actually seen unusually fast jet contrails, high speed/high altitude glowing aircraft, or unusual jet propulsion cycles. These sightings have never, to my knowledge, been interpreted as ET-UFO sightings. By this I mean, the people who see these things always believe them to be some advanced U.S. aircraft. In this light we can't ignore what Ben Rich himself (the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works, retired since 1/91) has said recently: 1. Back in Oct., 1986 in a speech to the First High Speed Commercial Flight Symposium, held at Columbus, Ohio. I quote Ben Rich, from the Proceedings of this conference, without permission: "Because of Lockheed's continuing interest in high speed flight, we have over the past decade, conducted a number of studies in support of the USAF and NASA's hypersonic initiatives. One of these efforts is a high altitude Mach 5 penetrator using a dual flow inlet turboramjet. Two of the inlet/engine concepts are an over/under and a wraparound concept. This engine would utilize kerosene fuel for Mach 4 flight but would require liquified methane at Mach 5." Let me emphasize certain words from what Ben said: "Because of Lockheed's CONTINUING INTEREST in high speed flight, we have over the past decade, conducted a NUMBER OF STUDIES in support of the USAF ... HYPERSONIC initiatives". ONE of these efforts is a ...!! 2. Defense News, 6/25/90 issue (pg 38), the subject is recon. vehicles (emphasis added in certain places by me): Rich: "You need satellites and airplanes. Airplanes are much more flexible than satellites. You cannot do one exclusively of the other. So there will be airplanes needed for surveillance - they do not all have to be manned - ...". Defense News: How can the SR-71 contibute to technologies and designs needed for a new spy plane? Rich: "Besides aerodynamics, we have to have thermodynamic balance, and we have to learn to deal with cryogenics. Any new system requires LOTS of volume. You CANNOT replace hydrogen in air, ... Today we CAN DO anything we can afford. If WE WANT to go to anywhere about Mach 6 or Mach 8 we need hydrogen. If you want to stay under Mach 4, you will need hydrocarbon". In this interview, Rich went on to deny any knowledge about "Aurora", but said "there are a whole bunch of programs out there". He implied that the Skunk Works is working on "sensor" programs. A related quote: Defense News interview of Gen. Larry Welch (then USAF Chief of Staff - now retired) in their 6/18/90 issue (pg 40). Quoting General Welch: "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate for the SR-71 mission". So, as you can see there have been some interesting direct quotes from some people that would indicate that at the very least, the time is upon us to evaluate developing something. The key questions are: What is the mission? Is there anything already there? In that light: Duane P Mantick responding to William Daul writes: > We DO know that there are some REAL fast things zipping around the >desert southwest these days....... Based on stories coming from the southwest, (some of which were at least summarized in the Oct 1, AW&ST pieces), I can confirm this. I have a friend that has seen AND heard the pulser (one of the vehicles mentioned in the Oct. 1 AW&ST) on 4 seperate occasions. He was awakened in all these cases at around 3 AM, by the sound of the vehicle, and ran outside. His wife also accompanied him on several of these expeditions. The vehicle flew the same track in every case. The vehicle was loud and sounded very powerful as it pulsed overhead. The vehicle appeared to be flying subsonically, because there was no sonic boom and he could hear engine noise at the same time. He said the impression he was left with was that the vehicle was very powerful and was being held back. On several of the occasions the vehicle was running military aircraft lights as well. In one case the moon had not quite set (which made the unusual sausage-link contrail VERY visible). My friend works in the aircraft industry in Southern CA, and he asked some of his 'neighbors', who work for a military contractor (who shall remain nameless) about his sightings. Several of them responded, "they're flying that thing under a moon now?". My friend and his wife are not the only ones that have seen or heard the pulser either. Larry larry@ichips.intel.com