home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
- Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
- Subject: Classified Aircraft and UFOs
- Date: 19 Oct 93 14:00:01 GMT
- Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
-
-
- Hello all,
-
- Here is an ongoing discussion from the Skunk Works mailing
- list.....interesting stuff.
-
-
- From: larry@ichips.intel.com
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 14:31:13 -0700
- Subject: Classified Aircraft and UFOs
-
- Dean Adams responds:
- >Another interesting UAV/recon item in AWST recently was a story about
- >some 100ft/200ft electric motor powered "flying wing" UAVs. The article
- >has a photo of one slated for testing out at Dryden shortly, but they
- >also mention there had been some classified flight tests done with these
- >vehicles in the early 80s. This might possibly have been responsible
- >for some of the "giant, silent, flying wing UFO" reports from a while back...
-
- It's easy to say that word 'some' Dean, but I think we need to clarify
- when such a thing MIGHT be true. This type of thing is not being done,
- probably because the UFO ridicule factor says we sweep these things
- under the rug. But, if you're attempting to track classified
- aircraft, you need to be able to discern and categorize such things
- more precisely. That's why I really believe that such an endeavor
- requires one to be knowledgeable about both! So let me attempt a
- start.
-
- General Michael Dugan, in the often quoted (by me lately) April 24,
- 1989 Defense News article, mentioned that the mission requirement of
- long endurance surveillance aircraft was 'A platform that can hover
- for extended periods at high altitudes.'
-
- Since we're talking about high altitude, and stealth, and about a
- program that is still classified, I don't see the tie-in in all cases.
- I realize you said 'some' cases. But in an attempt to clarify:
-
- In my opinion, the security restrictions on classified aircraft alone,
- preclude the most spectacular sightings of these large UFOs being
- classified military vehicles. Many of these spectacular sightings
- occurred over many nights, and at VERY close range.
-
- I suppose you could be right that 'some' of these long endurance
- aircraft could have been sighted during testing, and mistaken for
- UFOs, but I would suggest that such sightings should place the subject
- aircraft in a situation consistent with program mission requirements
- and security rules.
-
- If the most spectacular of these UFO sightings was indeed a classified
- long duration vehicle, would such a ruse, if intentional, work during
- a conflict?
-
- Christopher Paul Diehl wrote:
- >>The reason this caught my attention was because of the possibility that
- >>this explains why all the services, the NRO etc. were saying that they
- >>had no such program for an SR-71 follow-on.
-
- Well as the Aurora Bib. says, there WAS such a program! And, some high
- ranking officers indicated that was so! It's important to remember
- that because it says that the system IS needed!
-
- Going over some of the references again:
-
- The source for the early 1988 NY Times article indicated that this
- type of capability (Mach 5 reconnaissance aircraft) had been on the
- drawing board for some time.
-
- Gen. Randolph (4/24/89), Referring specifically to a SR-71
- replacement, insisted that all efforts are currently relegated to very
- early stages of discussion.
-
- General Welch (8/18/90): "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate for the
- SR-71 mission".
-
- In the 1/13/93 Aerospace Daily, the USAF debunked the reported AURORA
- by saying: The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71
- in the 1990 timeframe, was being developed at least in part by
- Lockheed's Advanced Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank,
- Calif., but was canceled about 1986, sources said.
-
- Sorry to nit-pick, but there is so little that has actually been
- admitted about an SR-71 successor, that we should't forget it.
-
- Larry
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 23:57:33 MDT
- Subject: Re: Classified Aircraft and UFOs
-
- Larry says...
- >It's easy to say that word 'some' Dean, but I think we need to clarify
- >when such a thing MIGHT be true. This type of thing is not being done,
- >probably because the UFO ridicule factor says we sweep these things
- >under the rug.
-
- OK, just a short bit of my own "clarification" :), a particular "some"
- I had in mind when writing that previous note is a sighting mentioned
- in (I think) the Popular Mechanics cover story, about a "large, silent,
- flying wing" seen around the Edwards area...
-
- ...
- >General Welch (8/18/90): "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate
- > for the SR-71 mission".
-
- And if that was a true statement, then there would likely be
- a "better" follow-on vehicle operating performing the mission!
-
- >In the 1/13/93 Aerospace Daily, the USAF debunked the reported AURORA by
- >saying: The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71 in
- >the 1990 timeframe,
-
- Which "coincidentally" is precisely when the SR-71 was retired...
-
- >was being developed at least in part by Lockheed's Advanced
- >Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank, Calif., but
- >was canceled about 1986, sources said.
-
- Hmmm... just like the A-11 was "canceled", and became the A-12? :)
- Or perhaps something was canceled in BURBANK, and moved out to
- Palmdale and Groom Lake?
-
- >Sorry to nit-pick, but there is so little that has actually been
- >admitted about an SR-71 successor, that we should't forget it.
-
- Even just the retiring of the SR-71s alone says a lot about the
- existance of a "successor". And I certainly agree 100% that these
- high-altitude, lightweight, "loitering" UAVs are definitley not
- successors to the SR-71.. at least not in any meaningful sense of
- the word.
-
- - -dean
-
-
- Rod
-
- --
- Rod Beckwith |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| The
- Datacom I/S |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,| Nite
- rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge." | Net
- |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| Knight
-
-