Aurora Hypersonic Spyplane

[Hadwell]

they try to make a super efficiant airplane that'll skip on the atmosphere like a stone on water, but mostly to use for moving people and stuff long distances in short times with less fuel... key thing being in short times... compared to say a jumbo jet... and with less fuel being... not like a fighter jet that carries droptanks and would still need to be refueled to make a long trip at high speeds...

 

as for a spy plane... totally useless... there's missile that'd shoot down anything like that for one thing, cause it couldn't be stealthy, and yes, satellites are so good that it would be pointless to fly a plane overhead like that just to take pictures...

[Night]

Not sure about an aurora perse, but their is definitely a stealth spy plane flying about, as space spy sats are not as clear as air based spy planes and sats cant see through cloud to get a good picture unless it uses radar or some other trick which wont give you the resolution of an optical air based spy plane, thus for the foreseeable future air based spy planes will still be needed.

 

Imho, their is something out there as spy sats are just not that great for doing certain jobs.

Satellites and a possible Aurora would BOTH have to deal with clouds. Satellites can use infrared and radar as you said, but RADAR would have to be ruled out if you intend to keep it stealthy. The aurora would have to deal with the same issues, thus it still has no benefit and I highly doubt the US government would choose it.

[GC1993]

Note to all who click on the YouTube link for the first time, don't be put off by the author's cliche amateur intro. Skip to around 1:15 where there's a clip of a documentary covering the Aurora.

[Cali]

The only reason we didn't find out about the F-117 earlier was the absence of smart phones and the internet and there were several stories circulating before the Gulf War. The technology in a plane like the Aurora would also have made it onto other things by now.

 

That's not the reason why. They flew ALL their missions at night and had to be in the hangar before sunrise. They did that so they couldn't be seen by people while they were still in the testing phase. They wanted them in the hangars before sunrise so that satellites wouldn't be able to see them. We first heard about the F-117 in 1989, but they were flying for many years before that.

[countto10]

People have infra-red cameras now though. I mean even average Joe has access to them.

 

The bit in video about a vapor trail several thousand miles long from Area 51, across the Atlantic to China simply can't be an aircraft. Nothing can travel that fast for that long unless it's nuclear but I doubt that could transfer energy to the through-air quickly enough and could be a problem if it crashed.

[diveplane]

 

(Skip to around 1:15 for the short documentary clip)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

 

What do we think guys? Real or fake?

 

no solid evidence , it would have been seen by now,

plenty of scopes cameras out there now.

[Cookie]

People who know don´t talk.

People who talk don´t know.

[Yurgon]

Best statement so far. :D

[countto10]

What about mute people who don't know?

[Yurgon]

While knowledge, following this logic, will coincide with absence of communication, absence of communication does not necessarily coincide with knowledge. :smartass:

[PFunk1606688187]

I just want to know how they would manage to hide this thing from budgetary oversight. Even before sequestration this would be one pricey hombre, and with no Cold War threat... I have a hard time believing such a project could even survive its own internal culture.

[Yurgon]

I've read about the Aurora and it's Scramjet a long time ago. Ever since then, I've been keeping my eyes open, looking for those "knot"-like contrails. So far, nothing has come close to that. And more importantly, there are no sonic booms in my neck of the woods.

 

And speaking of sonic booms, wouldn't that alert pretty much anyone that something really fast just went by, even if it's too high up to be seen with the naked eye? The recent meteor shower showed just how devastating (hyper-) sonic booms can be.

 

What do you guys think, would the sonic boom defeat the Aurora's purpose (of spying undetected)? And shouldn't it at least give some very strong pointers towards the plane's existence?

 

Speaking of which, how loud was the Blackbird's sonic boom on the ground when they were around Mach 3 at 60.000+ ft?

[cichlidfan]

 

Speaking of which, how loud was the Blackbird's sonic boom on the ground when they were around Mach 3 at 60.000+ ft?

 

At Mach 3, the boom happened quite some time ago, and someplace else.

[Yurgon]

At Mach 3, the boom happened quite some time ago, and someplace else.

 

I'm not sure what you actually intend to convey by that. Reading up on the topic in Wikipedia, the following seems to apply:

 

It is a common misconception that only "one" boom is generated during the subsonic to supersonic transition, rather, the boom is continuous along the boom carpet for the entire supersonic flight.

 

If, on the other hand, you mean that the boom created by an Blackbird flying directly overhead would "arrive" on the ground with a certain latency, the following table, also from the Wikipedia article, is a little more specific:

 

[TABLE]Aircraft speed altitude pressure (lbf/ft2) pressure (Pa)

SR-71 Mach 3 80,000 feet (24,000 m) 0.9 43

[/TABLE]

 

So, how loud is it? How perceivable is it?

 

In the late 1950s when supersonic transport (SST) designs were being actively pursued, it was thought that although the boom would be very large, the problems could be avoided by flying higher. This assumption was proven false when the North American B-70 Valkyrie started flying, and it was found that the boom was a problem even at 70,000 feet (21,000 m).

 

Apparently, multiple factors play a role on just how loud a sonic boom will be perceived on the ground. Could it be that Aurora designers found a way to nullify this problem? Or does it simply not matter whether there's a sonic boom because the plane isn't supposed to be stealthy anyways? Or does it not matter at all because there is no Aurora? Man, I love conspiracy theories. :D

[bumfire]

Satellites and a possible Aurora would BOTH have to deal with clouds. Satellites can use infrared and radar as you said, but RADAR would have to be ruled out if you intend to keep it stealthy. The aurora would have to deal with the same issues, thus it still has no benefit and I highly doubt the US government would choose it.

 

Planes can fly to the side of the clouds and scan obliquely or they can fly under the clouds aslong as the clouds were high enough, some clouds are higher than passenger jet cruising altitudes so a stealthy fast recon plane could easily fly just slightly below the clouds so long as it was going fast as G2A missiles are practically useless against aircraft travelling at greater than mach3, sr71 demonstrated that.

 

Also plane based optical cameras give a better resolution picture than any sattelite can.

 

Being able to read a newspaper from a space sat ( which is one of the most common misconceptions about spy sats ) is pure hollywood bs, but with a plane with high grade optics its a very real possibility to read the large print headlines from one.

 

Ok sats are good for certain things, but for different targets they have to change orbit which takes time and wastes the precious little amounts of fuel carried on these things.

 

USA Having a secret plane that has taken over the sr71s job is a cert, heck they still use the U2 for intel gathering.

 

I personally believe they have a stealthier faster flying version either already in service or on the drawing board or being tested, whether its manned or a drone is another matter altogether, why do I believe you may ask ? Because america isnt dumb when i comes to aircraft and intelligence.

 

Basically, it would be extremely dumb of america to of not replaced the sr71 with something else and it would be dumb to think that they only use satellites to do the job now.

 

Both planes and sats complement each other and I cant see the US intel agencies just dropping air intel and replacing it with intel purely from space based satellites, especially when its known that planes had the better optical resolution and much clearer photos compared to the sats.

 

As i said earlier, I don't know if their is an actual aircraft thats classed as the aurora, it could of been a cover for the b2 for all i know, but I do believe that their is some type of sr71 replacement, if their wasn't the sr71s would still be flying just like their older brother the U2.

[Night]

Planes can fly to the side of the clouds and scan obliquely or they can fly under the clouds aslong as the clouds were high enough, some clouds are higher than passenger jet cruising altitudes so a stealthy fast recon plane could easily fly just slightly below the clouds so long as it was going fast as G2A missiles are practically useless against aircraft travelling at greater than mach3, sr71 demonstrated that.

Another reason the SR 71 was decommissioned was because an aircraft going mach 3 is every bit as vulnerable to a SAM as an airplane going 200 knots.

 

Second, your Aurora simply couldn't go mach 3 at altitudes lower than clouds, it just wouldn't work. So it still has no advantage over satellites.

 

Also plane based optical cameras give a better resolution picture than any sattelite can.

Sorry, that's just not true. An aircraft flying at 70,000ft just doesn't have any advantage over optics in a satellite.

 

Being able to read a newspaper from a space sat ( which is one of the most common misconceptions about spy sats ) is pure hollywood bs, but with a plane with high grade optics its a very real possibility to read the large print headlines from one.

I didn't say you could READ the newspaper from a satellite photo. But it is getting good enough that you can see pictures and such. It is good enough that there just isn't any benefit to using an aurora.

 

Ok sats are good for certain things, but for different targets they have to change orbit which takes time and wastes the precious little amounts of fuel carried on these things.

If the air force built 30-40 of them, they could cover the globe and would never need to be maneuvered. And if they made them stealthy, that would be a FAR superior solution than an aurora.

 

USA Having a secret plane that has taken over the sr71s job is a cert, heck they still use the U2 for intel gathering.

The U2 is vastly different than an Aurora. I am not saying satellites are better than the U2. I am saying that they would be far more effective than the mythical "Aurora" could ever be.

 

I personally believe they have a stealthier faster flying version either already in service or on the drawing board or being tested, whether its manned or a drone is another matter altogether, why do I believe you may ask ? Because america isnt dumb when i comes to aircraft and intelligence.

 

Basically, it would be extremely dumb of america to of not replaced the sr71 with something else and it would be dumb to think that they only use satellites to do the job now.

 

Both planes and sats complement each other and I cant see the US intel agencies just dropping air intel and replacing it with intel purely from space based satellites, especially when its known that planes had the better optical resolution and much clearer photos compared to the sats.

 

As i said earlier, I don't know if their is an actual aircraft thats classed as the aurora, it could of been a cover for the b2 for all i know, but I do believe that their is some type of sr71 replacement, if their wasn't the sr71s would still be flying just like their older brother the U2.

I just still don't see any advantage that a high-flying high-speed Aurora program would have over a fleet of 30-40 stealth satellites. The only advantages I can see would be for satellites, not the aurora.

[GC1993]

I just still don't see any advantage that a high-flying high-speed Aurora program would have over a fleet of 30-40 stealth satellites. The only advantages I can see would be for satellites, not the aurora.

 

I think that's right, and IF the Aurora existed then I doubt it's intended role was reconnaissance for that long if they realised that Satellites could do it better. So it's possible their role has changed, a SCRAMJET using a pulse detonation wave engine would give unparalleled speed, they might have considered using them on wild weasel missions to provoke SAMs that they couldn't locate and easily bleed off the missile's energy.

Then the dedicated SEAD aircraft would have a location on the sites and be able to get them with HARMS.

 

But this is all hypothetical :smilewink:

[NoJoe]

Sorry, that's just not true. An aircraft flying at 70,000ft just doesn't have any advantage over optics in a satellite.

 

Wait, do you have a source for this? That's a pretty strong statement to make and just expect people to take it as fact.

 

Plus, it'd be interesting to read about. Do you have a link or anything? :)

 

--NoJoe

 

[EDIT] I say this because, according to physics (and an equation on Wikipedia), you'd only need a lens diameter of 9cm to get 16cm resolution from 70,000 feet, compared to a 2.4 meter lens to get the same from a medium Earth orbit (where Hubble is, at 590km). I bet it's no problem to get fit a lens larger than 9cm in a spy plane...

 

Here's the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagery_intelligence

And here's the equation:

 

Image resolution = 1.22 * (wavelength of light / lens diameter) * distance

(all units in meters)

You can do the math from there. :smartass:

Edited August 28, 2013 by NoJoe

[countto10]

So has anyone seen it yet?

[Night]

Wait, do you have a source for this? That's a pretty strong statement to make and just expect people to take it as fact.

 

Plus, it'd be interesting to read about. Do you have a link or anything? :)

 

--NoJoe

 

[EDIT] I say this because, according to physics (and an equation on Wikipedia), you'd only need a lens diameter of 9cm to get 16cm resolution from 70,000 feet, compared to a 2.4 meter lens to get the same from a medium Earth orbit (where Hubble is, at 590km). I bet it's no problem to get fit a lens larger than 9cm in a spy plane...

 

Here's the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagery_intelligence

And here's the equation:

 

Image resolution = 1.22 * (wavelength of light / lens diameter) * distance

(all units in meters)

You can do the math from there. :smartass:

I don't have a source for that statement specifically, I am just saying making a 2.4 meter lens on a stealth satellite would be a LOT easier than developing a hypersonic scramjet aircraft to take the same photos. And the satellite could stay airborne for far longer.

[NoJoe]

I don't have a source for that statement specifically, I am just saying making a 2.4 meter lens on a stealth satellite would be a LOT easier than developing a hypersonic scramjet aircraft to take the same photos. And the satellite could stay airborne for far longer.

 

Ah, I see. I was thinking you were talking specifically about the optics capabilities of each. No prob, carry on. :joystick:

 

--NoJoe

[RIPTIDE]

I don't have a source for that statement specifically, I am just saying making a 2.4 meter lens on a stealth satellite would be a LOT easier than developing a hypersonic scramjet aircraft to take the same photos. And the satellite could stay airborne for far longer.

Here's an honest question.... how stealthy is a 2.4 metre Lens though? Or any lens for that matter? Would it not negate the stealth to some degree?

[RIPTIDE]

 

Basically, it would be extremely dumb of america to of not replaced the sr71 with something else and it would be dumb to think that they only use satellites to do the job now.

 

I haven't read the thread entire, but along with satellites, stealth drones seem the way forward. No pilot to lose, and if you do lose a couple of airframes... so what. Send a few more up,.. no biggie.

[Phantom88]

I haven't read the thread entire, but along with satellites, stealth drones seem the way forward. No pilot to lose, and if you do lose a couple of airframes... so what. Send a few more up,.. no biggie.

 

The only problem with that is a country that doesn't want you spying on them.

-They know your satellites orbits,therefore know when to hide

-Drones are easily shot down

 

**Aurora would be Ultimate Surprise Recon Aircraft**:thumbup:

[Cookie]

So... yeah.....

 

any word on "DCS Aurora" yet?

 

:D