I agree with the conclusion. A 'fleet' of hypersonic aircraft? Nah. But a single vehicle for research and development? Sure. Maybe even a few different, single airframes over the years, being lumped together simply because we don't know enough about them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if there has not been at least one hypersonic R&D plane flying around.
Satellites are only able to view in area during certain times, and they are not easy to move. Most surveillance is done by remote drones, but we do have man planes that can are 100 years past the sr-71
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking. I think it’s totally plausible there was a hypersonic plane that was purely a technology demonstrator that flew in the late 80’s through the early 90’s, only one of which was made, and it was scrapped due to the lack of need and/or the technology not being mature enough to make mass production possible. One problem with a hypersonic plane is the heat buildup would be immense, which would likely require a massive amount of maintenance and may even limit it to a short service life. If this was the case, they almost certainly just buried it in the desert.
I live in Northwest Indiana and back in the early 2000's I was awoken late at night by a VERY loud sounding jet and the ground actually shaking like a small earthquake! I ran outside and could see a very large contrail in the night sky... The contrail was unusual as it was very large for how high up it was! Another unusual thing is the contrail seemed to spanned across the entire sky, it took me seconds to run outside and I didn't see an aircraft, and no sonic boom that I remember! Which is all quite confusing... I've had Military and commercial Aircraft fly frequently around my house and they've flown rather low, so I kno the difference between a low flying Plane shaking the house and this was very different again bc the ground was actually shaking!!
@@MattyJ55046 1976 Lockheed Annual Report to Investors indicated they had flown a manned Mach 6 test craft. This was corroborated in early editions of René J. Francillon "Lockheed Aircraft since 1913" book. He was asked by (by whom I do not know) to have this removed so subsequent editions of his book do not state this. It is also not possible to get a PDF of the annual report from that year from the Lockheed website as it was too long ago.
Today, in 2022, four decades since the 1980s, we have even more materials that can easily withstand the heat generated from hypersonic flight--these materials would laugh in the face of 2000 F (1100 C) heat, not to mention that the leading edge of the wing with the highest heat gradient could be designed to be replaceable for easy maintenance.
Excellent video. It avoids the usual clickbait nonsense you find in over 90% of videos of "Aurora" and such here on YT. Just trying to think logical and get to the facts is very refreshing, well done!
In 1976 Lockheeds Kelly Johnson was asked what his next project was. He declared that mach 6 was in the planning. If we take 1976 as a theoretical starting point Aurora must have flown by 1985 at the latest. There have been several sightings of these planes. In 1990 the Blackbird was withdrawn. The USAF has never withdrawn a plane without having something to replace it.
From my understanding most programs in general are concept testing platforms: they aren't meant to be the end product but merely to test an aspect of an end product.
yes and many hit dead ends moneywise so the data n tech gets shelved and with compartmentalization and classification it goes dark unless the same company can use it in a later project. Like hypothetically if Boeing develops something then the project gets scraped its rare for it to be shared with Lockheed or visa versa. who knows maybe there is a secret tech vault. Kinda reminds me of the Nazis A bomb project. They at least would of had enough Uranium for one in 44 or 45 but they had competing teams/companies and if they pooled their resources they would of had plenty to make a little boy uranium type bomb. at that point it wouldn't help em much but would do some damage.
I’m reminded of the Stealth Blackhawk’s that never existed on anyones radar, yet were operational aircraft just waiting for a purpose. I also suspect we need high speed aircraft to research hypersonic technology. The Sr-71 and it’s piggy back drones were a perfect test bed for such technology demonstrations, it is hard to believe we would abandon such a testing setup without a suitable replacement.
Satellites replaced the SR-71. They travel at mach-25 at an altitude so high that they have zero drag and zero friction heat, and don't require refueling or put any pilot in danger.
@@Triple_J.1Satellites have predictable orbits an enemy has some ability to prepare for. It is also neccesary to wait until they pass over the area to be surveilled. There are definite reasons a hypersonic aircraft would be useful, particularly if it had a multirole capability and could also function as a strike craft.
@@garyhill2740 Hypersonic aircraft have predictable and highly visible flight paths and in many regions the enormous turning circle of a plane travelling at those speeds would make it impossible to operate without violating the airspace of friend and foe alike which the United States is very careful to avoid when conducting air operations. You can't hide something flying at that speed - no matter how stealthy the aircraft, it's going to be lit up like a Christmas tree in IR and leave an ionised trail that will show up on every radar for hundreds of miles around. Hiding from satellites is also much more difficult than people imagine - a satellite can image targets at enormous slant ranges so as it makes each orbit it could be looking at anything across an enormous swath of ground with the old KH-9 Hexagon covering a 720 mile wide strip with each orbit. Enemies would have to hide every potential target within hundreds of miles of the ground track of a satellite and do it for every single 90 minute orbit. Going back to tech-comindustries4409 post, it's much easier to conduct test flights of a stealth helicopter which would be quieter than a normal bird than it would be to test fly a hypersonic vehicle without anyone noticing. One problem is where do you fly it? A helicopter doesn't need a particularly large amount of airspace to conduct a worthwhile testing program, but the enormous turn radius of a hypersonic jet would make it impossible to conduct flights without leaving restricted airspace as well as being visible on rader, in infrared and audible from its sonic booms.
But the stealth Blackhawks were just Blackhawks with modified exterior and rotor blades. That's a far cry from developing a hypersonic aircraft in the 1980's.
The fast thing that I saw had the same silhouette as the fuzzy black triangle at 15:10 on the right. That's about all I saw, is the silhouette. It was at night, and very clear out, so the silhouette was easy to spot against the clear summer sky. The stars were very bright back then. Its silhouette was much darker black than the sky. I suppose I might be wondering what it was for the rest of my life. The weird part is that it made no sound that I could hear, and it was moving fast enough, that it should have either been loud, or very, very big, and very high. At least it's an interesting memory, but maybe just has to be a mystery too.
Great series sir. Your conclusions Are logical and well thought through. Having worked in defence for BAE Systems in Australia, I think you are 100% correct.
You've done lots of research, nice piece. The fly in the ointment for all this is that we have no visibility into the Black Budget....estimated somewhere north or $50B. The three stream adaptable engine effort has nothing to do with Mach 5. The AETP introduces a third stream of air in fighter class turbo fans to increase efficiency and power. The big reason for AETP is the tyranny of distance in the Pacific. BTW, the F-35 would melt at Mach 5.
I do recall a lecture I saw on UA-cam years ago. The retired aerospace engineer said we have obtained speeds that are classified but much higher than most people think possible. Something along those lines.
Unmanned flight at Mach 20+ was achieved way back in the 1960s but that was with boost-glide vehicles, not aircraft flying under their own power. Without further clarification from said aerospace engineer, his comments could just be referring to those programs.
Awesome explanation. Truly well thought out and considered. One thing that DOES confirm the previous presence of a demonstrator is a thought by someone who does 3d printing. A person who develops planes has said something along the lines of "3d printing is allowing us to achieve what couldn't be done before to make hypersonic possible". The person talking about this said the following thought: If they didn't know what the difference was, why would they say this? A very intriguing idea, indeed.
I'm sure nobody will believe me, but my grandfather retired as a relatively senior engineer (he was the Cheyenne Program Manager before its cancellation), and he had (that we got) a "Yearbook in Flight-type picture book from 1979ish. It had a picture of an Aurora (just an isosceles triangle, longer than it was wide), with the classic knots-on-a-rope exhaust. Sadly my folks sold the book (without knowing what was in it) in a garage sale with the rest of their excess furniture when they retired.
Another program my biological father worked worked on while at Edwards Air Force Base and Groom Lake (Area 51). Including other programs you showed such as the F-117 program, the B-2 program, Tacit Blue program, and YF-118 Bird of Prey program.
Aurora was actually multiple top secret government projects being thought of as far as the mid sixties, which included hypersonic, stealth and a nuclear power spacecraft. The name started with the spacecraft itself. The nuclear spacecraft was kill off by a treaty. Other top secret programs under the Aurora project continue on.
I'm a Principal Serospace Software Engineer with a clearance. I like your stuff BTW... Think about this. Just because the Military is letting new contracts for a given technology, does not necessarialy mean that technology in necessarialy new. As you pointed out in another video, and used the word "palatable". Often a problem hgas been "solved" but the solution is not "palatable" and another way to implement that is desired. (I have also seen just freaking duplicate tech from competing branches of the Military). For example, the Harrier was a VTOL aircraft, but the F-35 solved the sme problem in a different way. There is a lot of money right now going into lighter than air technology. Hmmmm... I thought The Hindenberg already solved that? Maybe that solution was not "palatable" to the public. So yea, they colud have had all sorts of planes that did what you are assuming couldn't have been done at the time, but maybe they only fley for 10 minutes? Who knows. Thisnk about the 007 Rocket pack that used H2O2 but flew for 45 seconds. No you have guys flying with small jet engins for many minutes... Definately more "palatable". 🙂 BTW One thing I have learned from working in Defense is that the Govt and Military spend money like unemployed fat women on scooters shopping in Walmart the day after they get their Earned Income Credit Tax "Refund" from uber thrifty Uncle Sam! Be careful to apply too much logic to this.
All I know is that there WERE regular sonic booms across So Cal during the years in question that were never explained or accounted for by anyone. SOMETHING was making a regularly patterned super/hyper sonic transit. We simply don’t know what that may have been.
Hey Alex, since you've done episodes on Aurora, the B21, the YF12 and other stealth technology aircraft, how about doing an episode on the SR72 - what we know, or can expect and perhaps some of the relevant technology developments since the SR71?
When you said said “why is the government spending money to fund the development of hypersonic engines in the current time if they supposedly already had one?” That line hit hard. Boom it all makes sense. For me that line is the one thing I’ll need to confidently say “the hypersonic aurora aircraft is a myth”
The most glaring issue with a hypersonic spy plane is plasma. Any object moving through the air at that speed will turn the air into a plasma, just like the Space Shuttle on reentry. That plasma blocks visible light and radio waves from penetrating it, we still haven't solved that issue today. The plane would have to slow down and cool down before it could do any actual "spying" which makes a hypersonic spy plane completely pointless.
Anyone else have to rewind the video, when footage of that B-2 dropping bombs started, due to being impressed by the two very long salvos (?) released....... only..... to get entranced by the fact it continued to dribble out a few more.... before starting _another two long salvos,_ which then *continued* to dribble more out for a like 7 more ! 🤣 No lie, I have NO idea what he talked about during that footage, and will indeed be rewinding.... so that I can shut my eyes and play attention solely to what he says! lmao I mean, I knew they could pack _a lot_ in there, and even have rotary launchers for some munitions (must be for vastly larger JDAMs [+"smart" or nukes]), but never imagined they could store quite *_THAT_* much! 😳
I don’t think Aurora necessarily needs a dual cycle scramjet, It wouldn’t be practical but I think rocket based takeoff and accelerating to cruise could still make sense for a experimental aircraft, and it could glide back to the runway like the Space Shuttle There could also be something like a X-15 with extra fuel and taking off from a runway Maybe even an air-breathing rocket engine like the SABRE could be involved
I live in Northwest Indiana and back in the early 2000's I was awoken late at night by a VERY loud sounding jet and the ground actually shaking like a small earthquake! I ran outside and could see a very large contrail in the night sky... The contrail was unusual as it was very large for how high up it was! Another unusual thing is the contrail seemed to spanned across the entire sky, it took me seconds to run outside and I didn't see an aircraft, and no sonic boom that I remember! Which is all quite confusing... I've had Military and commercial Aircraft fly frequently around my house and they've flown rather low, so I kno the difference between a low flying Plane shaking the house and this was very different again bc the ground was actually shaking!!
We might have had a particular technology at some point in the past, but it was too expensive for operational use, and the new programs are for figuring out if there is another way to achieve that capability for much cheaper using more modern materials and computerized design methods. That would explain large procurement programs for technologies that already exist.
Well phooey... lol I was pretty confident in my notion last week, that Aurora was a tie-in/sister-project to the Borealis detonation engine program (also mentioned in that video), but which had been canceled due to it being determined early on that it wouldn't be feasible. Would've been on the books, but would've explained why we never saw or heard from it again. But... Maybe that's indeed a bit *_too_* logical. Oh well, it's *always* fun to speculate! That being said.... I am envious of whatever archeologist gets to unearth all the prototypes (intentionally) buried around Groom Lake! Relics, by then, but to a historian it'll be quite the treasure!!
The turbine based combined cycle engine was appearing on industry promos in the late 90's and early oughties, called the Pyrojet. Observers thought it was also utilized in the Darkstar air launched orbital vehicle. Using borane based fuel additives to boost Isp as well.
I knew a retired engineer for locheed skunkworks, one of the best things I remember him saying is that he said that the names projects are givin in correspondence to what they do, project aurora creates auroras, project thumper thumps and project darkstar would be a darkstar black star if you could see a blackhole
THANK YOU for digging into the facts on this one. The Aurora myths needs to be laid to rest after decades of nonsense. As Ben Rich stated, "Auora" was the code name for the stealth B2 competition which included research on stealth technologies, electronics, propulsion, etc. I don't know why people keep holding onto old debunked mythos on this.
Ben Rich would not of been allowed to disclose anything that wasn’t first reviewed by the American security services.But I do agree,there was possibly a few experimental aircraft that would fall under an Aurora type aircraft description,just not a fleet.
Thanks for saying right up front this is part 2! I was so puzzled since I was certain I had watched your video on Aurora, but it wasn't upvoted (and I ALWAYS upvote).
If “Aurora” was for stealth development and the B-2 was already well past development; perhaps it was early funding for the YF-22/23 proposals that were in competition in the late 80s and early 90s?
A guy I knew worked at Macrihanish said he didn't see it 4 times in the late 80s early 90s, but the afterburners were impressive , did a fly over the runway once near speed of sound before disappearing almost vertical , very loud.The airfield at the time was the longest in Europe used as a staging post for the Aurora, if needed the shuttle could land there.
i would like a video on the tr3b legend because there are a lot of misconceptions about it . people forget that TR-1 was used for a short period of time for the u-2 and tr-2 for the black bird…. however in the 90s they were reports of a tr-3 (A) that was used in the gulf war to laser target for the f117 in some aviation newsmagazine… this tr-3a was just a stealth tactical reconnaissance aircraft without any fancy engine or ant gravity. There are reports from the time that suggested there was another black aircraft in the gulf war other than the f117. In the early 2000s the Name Tr-3B apparently appeared out of nowhere and claimed that it was an anti gravity aircraft. the original text was used many times in articles and doesnt have a clear source. i would like to know if anyone knows something about that topic or where the B version came from.
@@ImperatorSomnium mhh but the TR-3A has some evidence… there are some credible sources like one tanker pilot who was in the gulf war. he reported that there was another black aircraft that wasnt the f117 or B-2 . Also the Tr-3A would just be a stealth battlefield observation platform with limited or non offensive capabilities
Then there's reports from soldiers having personal equipment consfcated... They discribed a hovering craft at a comand post which upon leaving dissapeared... Because it accelerated so quickly ...
A flying triangle absolutely is a thing. Its just probably a black ops / clandestine group craft of which the light of day will never touch, this century at least.
I get the feeling the Aurora name was working so well at hiding so many different experimental craft the air force just ran with it as a blanket term for classified projects. So aurora is "real", its just not a single plane.
I would say your assessment of this technology is very good. Things are always being tried and tested, and often do not become operational. As for a mach 6+ aircraft, one can only wonder what good it would be. To be able to fly at over 1 mile per second, you need to be way up in altitude (80,000+ feet?). And what exactly can you do way up there and at that speed? Take a few pictures? Whoopee!!! In a highly dynamic environment, this is of limited value. In a more static environment, satellites are probably good enough. But what if you have technology that blows away anything that can be powered by a scramjet? Would you still waste money developing something like this?
A small unmanned stealthy drone can operate in contested aerospace for hours without being noticed. Such a high speed spy plane is only a minute over the target, and the enemy knows it.
@@williamdrijver4141 Hit the nail on the head - subsonic stealth drones make sense because they can loiter for hours over the target area without being noticed. A Mach 6+ jet is going to do one pass and it's gone, violating the airspace of a bunch of nearby countries because it can't steer enough to avoid them and it's going to be easily visible on radar, with IR sensors and most likely produce an audible boom.
Even worse: to keep such a SR-71 successor secret you can only fly it from remote airbases in the dark. Such bases have become scarce in Europe after the fall of the iron curtain. So the mach 6 or 7 plane will have to be refuelled 3 or 4 times for a mission over say Iran. It will burn loads of fossil fuel, with a presumably huge IR signature. Even a Chinese spy balloon will be able to get better results for a fraction of the money. Although that will take a lot of time, but they can loiter over huge areas for weeks or months.@@trolleriffic
I recall an ad in the LA Times back in the mid 70’s. There was an ad in the business section of the paper one Sunday. It showed an artist rendition of a “Liquid methane, Mach 5” aircraft being developed. Unfortunately, I can not faithfully recall the manufacturer’s name. I think it was Lockheed, but I cannot be assured that this is correct.
Among the talk of secret 80s stealth funding, surprised you didn’t mention the A-12 Avenger? There’s a (disappointingly rare) book called “The $5 Billion Misunderstanding” that makes for fascinating reading on this subject
Great analysis (as always). /cheer Also, thank you for not saying that the Hollywood Aurora is not being worked on since it probably IS, just under a different--and likely secretive--name altogether.
I’ve watched old videos on the “aurora” and how in Texas a military aircraft called “darkstar” was heard from a guy on his radio who heard a sonic boom, the video is on line. Now in the new top gun the hypersonic aircraft is called Darkstar. I feel like I’m being played with from this coincidence.
Pratt Whitney developed the engines for this program in 1987. I literally listen to reach give a presentation/speach about the B2 and f117 platforms on the LOR signatures. He also discussed they were working on a new platform that is 50yrs ahead of its time! Aurora does exist and was the precursor for the sr72 platform.
I have always seen there is a problem with mach 5+ aircraft that being surface heat at high speed. the other issue is stealth coating and heat. Yes, there may have been a prototype 'aurora' aircraft but only to test aircraft flight and only at lower mach 3 plus speeds with experimental stealth coating. When the stealth coatings failed, the project was mothballed until better coatings are found. I believe there is one test aircraft, and it's stored and rarely used for testing. Something is using JP7 fuel
After reading all of what I could on the OXCART program, the cameras, engines, issues and such .. and the fact that those engines were more powerful than the airframe could manage... i extrapolated that the US could have built an improved airframe that was more capable to managing the J58s full power. Not having the full specs and the stories around the flight over Libya where the SR flew at numbers the Pilot and RSO had ever seen before... yes I think the US could have had a plane that went over 3.2, when in fact all of the OXCART were likely able to go over that for brief time periods... but just how much over that were/are those J58s capable of. Again the air frame was the limiting factor. MACH 5 is the base of hypersonic... so were they ever able to build the airframe for the J58s is the real question and were they able to get close to MACH 5? Could PW have made them better as again the OXCART could not handle any additional performance.
I do actually wonder if you're right here. What if a new, better airframe was built for the J58 engines that could allow for their full power? It wouldn't be a hypersonic aircraft, but it would certainly be faster than the Blackbird. At least Mach 3.5 at the same kind of altitudes as the Blackbird. If that's the case and it was operating during the 80s and 90s and potentially even into the 00s, we'll probably be told about it soon enough.
Easy way to see if the engines went into another airframe would be follow the fuel trail. As far as everyone seems to know, the fuel ended, as did the fleet of specific refuelling tankers needed.
The other factor that's not mentioned much about such extreme-performance aircraft is that they equally would require a huge amount of energy to go fast. That would have to create a huge infra-red signature in the sky and it can't be hidden. Even if it were flying very high it'd also still leave a pretty reasonable sonic boom at ground level as well. I don't think anyone's reported such things much up until now, which does make me sceptical of any hypersonic aircraft flying around.
I did an A page / update of classified To’s in 1981. On one page it listed all aircraft that we’re receiving certain upgrades. The name Aurora was listed alongside other aircraft
When I was a child, in the 80s, we had this UFO program here in Finland. In one of the reports they showed had a British Airways pilot talk about a UFO being escorted by fighters and that escorted plane almost hit his plane. The thing is, I've always been fascinated with aviation. He drew this triangular plane and it looked like the X-30 Scramjet plane. I wonder if this is the "Aurora". A scramjet demonstrator that wasn't talked about. However, this was over UK.
Interesting video. I suppose many of the same theories could also be applied to the alleged existence of the Blackbird successor, the SR-72...If such a thing actually exists
Best hypothesis I've read is that some "Aurora" sightings were an operational derivative of Tacit Blue, designed to replace the SR-71. Hitches in the program - possibly including the mystery crash at RAF Boscombe Down in September 1994 - led to the brief reactivation of the SR-71 from 1995 to 1999. Tacit Blue Two (for lack of a better name) would eventually be replaced by the elusive RQ-180. The key to this is understanding that Tacit Blue was not a testbed for the B-2. Sure it was useful to prove their 3D stealth design techniques, but its real main purpose - and this is verified information now - was to test new battlefield surveillance technologies: a low probability of intercept radar and real-time communication of reconnaissance data to field command. Tellingly, one of the US military's cited reasons for the initial retirement of the SR-71 was the time delay between starting an SR-71 mission and getting the gathered data into the hands of field commanders.
The entire AW&ST archive is available online to subscribers so if you'd didn't find the article it probably doesn't exist. Also, the adaptive engine program is for a dual stream turbine engine and is different from a combined cycle SCRAMJET engine.
I live in Northwest Indiana and back in the early 2000's I was awoken late at night by a VERY loud sounding jet and the ground actually shaking like a small earthquake! I ran outside and could see a very large contrail in the night sky...
Another unusual thing is the contrail seemed to spanned across the entire sky, it took me seconds to run outside and I didn't see an aircraft, and no sonic boom that I remember! Which is all quite confusing... I've had Military and commercial Aircraft fly frequently around my house and they've flown rather low, so I kno the difference between a low flying Plane shaking the house and this was very different again bc the ground was actually shaking!!
@@Anarchy_420 Sounds like a very large meteor. They produce booms and noises that can sound like earthquakes as well as leave very visible contrails at incredibly high altitudes which can last for ages.
Love your stuff! You should make a video over the YAL-1. It’s such a cool aircraft even though it’s not widely know. Granted, I really don’t know how much information there is out there on the thing😂
Lol at 15:08 the photo marked "AURORA en approache A Groomlake (1992)" is mine. One photo of many that I took. I was approached by England's Aviation magazine and was paid to write an article for them. The main problem researching Aurora is that journos universally head straight for the Lockheed alter, but consider these facts: McDonnell Douglas had experience building ramjet engines for it's antiship missiles. McDonnell Douglas also had tinkered with something like RBCC engines and said they "ran like scalded apes". McDonnell Douglas had experimented with a DC-10 tanker carrier hauling liquid methane for transfer, they said it posed no problems. And (if I can find it later ) I will post a picture for a McDonnell Douglas proposal for a Mach 12 !!!!! Semi trans-atmospheric reconnaissance aircraft that was wedge shaped and faceted. SO, if you're looking for Aurora, the backlots at LockMart are not the place to be. My OPINION is that MacAir built "Aurora", it MAY have been operated by the CIA to more easily hide it, and that it worked but there were problems. Maybee the advanced engines consumed themselves far faster than expected. Maybee it was brutal on pilots, maybee the recon package never worked right. Aviation history is FILLED with aircraft that were ALMOST great, but never worked out. Lets see if this works: photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNyJNBeikd8iY1-BAo7ceyALtHQx_8eY-6ZXcGf/photo/AF1QipOJLjdlHFRXSV6oHuE7AXNqpFOrGYCLr6kwItZv
I agree with the conclusion. A 'fleet' of hypersonic aircraft? Nah. But a single vehicle for research and development? Sure. Maybe even a few different, single airframes over the years, being lumped together simply because we don't know enough about them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if there has not been at least one hypersonic R&D plane flying around.
That and "non-operational prototype" is a perfect designator for a one-off, mission-capable, top secret vehicle
There more than one there now 300
I would be shocked if there were less than six still active.
Satellites are only able to view in area during certain times, and they are not easy to move. Most surveillance is done by remote drones, but we do have man planes that can are 100 years past the sr-71
@@jeffrymilton1093the new planes fly in the atmosphere, and make the Sr-71 look like a Mig 17 vs a F-16.
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking. I think it’s totally plausible there was a hypersonic plane that was purely a technology demonstrator that flew in the late 80’s through the early 90’s, only one of which was made, and it was scrapped due to the lack of need and/or the technology not being mature enough to make mass production possible. One problem with a hypersonic plane is the heat buildup would be immense, which would likely require a massive amount of maintenance and may even limit it to a short service life. If this was the case, they almost certainly just buried it in the desert.
They made one in the 80. It was a prototype X- something
Add lots of noise, easy to spot on radar, immense cost and risk etc etc. A failed program, but interesting technology.
I live in Northwest Indiana and back in the early 2000's I was awoken late at night by a VERY loud sounding jet and the ground actually shaking like a small earthquake! I ran outside and could see a very large contrail in the night sky...
The contrail was unusual as it was very large for how high up it was! Another unusual thing is the contrail seemed to spanned across the entire sky, it took me seconds to run outside and I didn't see an aircraft, and no sonic boom that I remember! Which is all quite confusing... I've had Military and commercial Aircraft fly frequently around my house and they've flown rather low, so I kno the difference between a low flying Plane shaking the house and this was very different again bc the ground was actually shaking!!
@@MattyJ55046 1976 Lockheed Annual Report to Investors indicated they had flown a manned Mach 6 test craft. This was corroborated in early editions of René J. Francillon "Lockheed Aircraft since 1913" book. He was asked by (by whom I do not know) to have this removed so subsequent editions of his book do not state this. It is also not possible to get a PDF of the annual report from that year from the Lockheed website as it was too long ago.
Today, in 2022, four decades since the 1980s, we have even more materials that can easily withstand the heat generated from hypersonic flight--these materials would laugh in the face of 2000 F (1100 C) heat, not to mention that the leading edge of the wing with the highest heat gradient could be designed to be replaceable for easy maintenance.
Excellent video. It avoids the usual clickbait nonsense you find in over 90% of videos of "Aurora" and such here on YT. Just trying to think logical and get to the facts is very refreshing, well done!
I worked as an electronic engineer for weapons development and I think your videos are great. Keep up the good work.
In 1976 Lockheeds Kelly Johnson was asked what his next project was. He declared that mach 6 was in the planning. If we take 1976 as a theoretical starting point Aurora must have flown by 1985 at the latest. There have been several sightings of these planes.
In 1990 the Blackbird was withdrawn. The USAF has never withdrawn a plane without having something to replace it.
This was a fun and interesting 2 episode series. Thanks for the coverage.
You never cease to produce amazing videos in so little time, it amazes me.
From my understanding most programs in general are concept testing platforms: they aren't meant to be the end product but merely to test an aspect of an end product.
This.
yes and many hit dead ends moneywise so the data n tech gets shelved and with compartmentalization and classification it goes dark unless the same company can use it in a later project. Like hypothetically if Boeing develops something then the project gets scraped its rare for it to be shared with Lockheed or visa versa. who knows maybe there is a secret tech vault. Kinda reminds me of the Nazis A bomb project. They at least would of had enough Uranium for one in 44 or 45 but they had competing teams/companies and if they pooled their resources they would of had plenty to make a little boy uranium type bomb. at that point it wouldn't help em much but would do some damage.
I’m reminded of the Stealth Blackhawk’s that never existed on anyones radar, yet were operational aircraft just waiting for a purpose. I also suspect we need high speed aircraft to research hypersonic technology. The Sr-71 and it’s piggy back drones were a perfect test bed for such technology demonstrations, it is hard to believe we would abandon such a testing setup without a suitable replacement.
Satellites replaced the SR-71.
They travel at mach-25 at an altitude so high that they have zero drag and zero friction heat, and don't require refueling or put any pilot in danger.
@@Triple_J.1Satellites have predictable orbits an enemy has some ability to prepare for. It is also neccesary to wait until they pass over the area to be surveilled. There are definite reasons a hypersonic aircraft would be useful, particularly if it had a multirole capability and could also function as a strike craft.
@@garyhill2740 Hypersonic aircraft have predictable and highly visible flight paths and in many regions the enormous turning circle of a plane travelling at those speeds would make it impossible to operate without violating the airspace of friend and foe alike which the United States is very careful to avoid when conducting air operations. You can't hide something flying at that speed - no matter how stealthy the aircraft, it's going to be lit up like a Christmas tree in IR and leave an ionised trail that will show up on every radar for hundreds of miles around. Hiding from satellites is also much more difficult than people imagine - a satellite can image targets at enormous slant ranges so as it makes each orbit it could be looking at anything across an enormous swath of ground with the old KH-9 Hexagon covering a 720 mile wide strip with each orbit. Enemies would have to hide every potential target within hundreds of miles of the ground track of a satellite and do it for every single 90 minute orbit.
Going back to tech-comindustries4409 post, it's much easier to conduct test flights of a stealth helicopter which would be quieter than a normal bird than it would be to test fly a hypersonic vehicle without anyone noticing. One problem is where do you fly it? A helicopter doesn't need a particularly large amount of airspace to conduct a worthwhile testing program, but the enormous turn radius of a hypersonic jet would make it impossible to conduct flights without leaving restricted airspace as well as being visible on rader, in infrared and audible from its sonic booms.
But the stealth Blackhawks were just Blackhawks with modified exterior and rotor blades. That's a far cry from developing a hypersonic aircraft in the 1980's.
I’m so glad someone is making high quality videos like this for free. Unbelievable journalism and research undertaken. Thank you!
Alex, thanks for getting this out quickly.
The fast thing that I saw had the same silhouette as the fuzzy black triangle at 15:10 on the right.
That's about all I saw, is the silhouette. It was at night, and very clear out, so the silhouette was easy to spot against the clear summer sky. The stars were very bright back then. Its silhouette was much darker black than the sky. I suppose I might be wondering what it was for the rest of my life. The weird part is that it made no sound that I could hear, and it was moving fast enough, that it should have either been loud, or very, very big, and very high.
At least it's an interesting memory, but maybe just has to be a mystery too.
Great series sir. Your conclusions Are logical and well thought through. Having worked in defence for BAE Systems in Australia, I think you are 100% correct.
Please do TR-3B next. Loved this series!
You've done lots of research, nice piece. The fly in the ointment for all this is that we have no visibility into the Black Budget....estimated somewhere north or $50B. The three stream adaptable engine effort has nothing to do with Mach 5. The AETP introduces a third stream of air in fighter class turbo fans to increase efficiency and power. The big reason for AETP is the tyranny of distance in the Pacific. BTW, the F-35 would melt at Mach 5.
I do recall a lecture I saw on UA-cam years ago. The retired aerospace engineer said we have obtained speeds that are classified but much higher than most people think possible. Something along those lines.
Unmanned flight at Mach 20+ was achieved way back in the 1960s but that was with boost-glide vehicles, not aircraft flying under their own power. Without further clarification from said aerospace engineer, his comments could just be referring to those programs.
Awesome explanation. Truly well thought out and considered.
One thing that DOES confirm the previous presence of a demonstrator is a thought by someone who does 3d printing. A person who develops planes has said something along the lines of "3d printing is allowing us to achieve what couldn't be done before to make hypersonic possible". The person talking about this said the following thought: If they didn't know what the difference was, why would they say this?
A very intriguing idea, indeed.
I'm sure nobody will believe me, but my grandfather retired as a relatively senior engineer (he was the Cheyenne Program Manager before its cancellation), and he had (that we got) a "Yearbook in Flight-type picture book from 1979ish. It had a picture of an Aurora (just an isosceles triangle, longer than it was wide), with the classic knots-on-a-rope exhaust.
Sadly my folks sold the book (without knowing what was in it) in a garage sale with the rest of their excess furniture when they retired.
Another program my biological father worked worked on while at Edwards Air Force Base and Groom Lake (Area 51). Including other programs you showed such as the F-117 program, the B-2 program, Tacit Blue program, and YF-118 Bird of Prey program.
Its unusual to see/hear someone say "biological father". Why not just say, "father"?
@@almostcrazy4347 TMI
@@almostcrazy4347 Presumably she has at least one other "father" in her life, but if she wanted to go into that, she would've.
@@almostcrazy4347 That Ms. Brooks is an adoptive child.
Whatever she is, she’s a hot mess!
Aurora was actually multiple top secret government projects being thought of as far as the mid sixties, which included hypersonic, stealth and a nuclear power spacecraft. The name started with the spacecraft itself. The nuclear spacecraft was kill off by a treaty. Other top secret programs under the Aurora project continue on.
I'm a Principal Serospace Software Engineer with a clearance. I like your stuff BTW... Think about this. Just because the Military is letting new contracts for a given technology, does not necessarialy mean that technology in necessarialy new. As you pointed out in another video, and used the word "palatable". Often a problem hgas been "solved" but the solution is not "palatable" and another way to implement that is desired. (I have also seen just freaking duplicate tech from competing branches of the Military). For example, the Harrier was a VTOL aircraft, but the F-35 solved the sme problem in a different way. There is a lot of money right now going into lighter than air technology. Hmmmm... I thought The Hindenberg already solved that? Maybe that solution was not "palatable" to the public. So yea, they colud have had all sorts of planes that did what you are assuming couldn't have been done at the time, but maybe they only fley for 10 minutes? Who knows. Thisnk about the 007 Rocket pack that used H2O2 but flew for 45 seconds. No you have guys flying with small jet engins for many minutes... Definately more "palatable". 🙂 BTW One thing I have learned from working in Defense is that the Govt and Military spend money like unemployed fat women on scooters shopping in Walmart the day after they get their Earned Income Credit Tax "Refund" from uber thrifty Uncle Sam! Be careful to apply too much logic to this.
Good work! These 2 vids got u a sub after futzing around the edges of your channel for a couple years👍🏽
Great video! But damn it, Alex, I chose to keep my head in the sand and believe the Auora was flying at Mach 10 all over the world. 😉
Great video, Alex.
This is the common sense approach and exactly what I’ve always thought.
All I know is that there WERE regular sonic booms across So Cal during the years in question that were never explained or accounted for by anyone. SOMETHING was making a regularly patterned super/hyper sonic transit. We simply don’t know what that may have been.
Hey Alex, since you've done episodes on Aurora, the B21, the YF12 and other stealth technology aircraft, how about doing an episode on the SR72 - what we know, or can expect and perhaps some of the relevant technology developments since the SR71?
The SR 72 will be the beast of all beasts.I’m guessing it will have the capability to fly in excess of Mach 5 to 6 for extended periods of time.
The podcast 10 percent true has a hour plus interview with head of the have blue/tacit blue program Denny Jarvis. Great stuff.
When you said said “why is the government spending money to fund the development of hypersonic engines in the current time if they supposedly already had one?” That line hit hard. Boom it all makes sense. For me that line is the one thing I’ll need to confidently say “the hypersonic aurora aircraft is a myth”
Sssshhhhh...! Don’t let Pooty know. 😉
The most glaring issue with a hypersonic spy plane is plasma.
Any object moving through the air at that speed will turn the air into a plasma, just like the Space Shuttle on reentry.
That plasma blocks visible light and radio waves from penetrating it, we still haven't solved that issue today.
The plane would have to slow down and cool down before it could do any actual "spying" which makes a hypersonic spy plane completely pointless.
Real or not we tricked the Chinese into believing that the plane is real and was used while filming Top Gun 2 and that makes me happy
No that would be the sr-72 and that is real.
Great vid. I appreciated your analysis. I just wanted to feed the algorithm.
Anyone else have to rewind the video, when footage of that B-2 dropping bombs started, due to being impressed by the two very long salvos (?) released....... only..... to get entranced by the fact it continued to dribble out a few more.... before starting _another two long salvos,_ which then *continued* to dribble more out for a like 7 more ! 🤣
No lie, I have NO idea what he talked about during that footage, and will indeed be rewinding.... so that I can shut my eyes and play attention solely to what he says! lmao
I mean, I knew they could pack _a lot_ in there, and even have rotary launchers for some munitions (must be for vastly larger JDAMs [+"smart" or nukes]), but never imagined they could store quite *_THAT_* much! 😳
Yeah kinda reminded me of the old westerns where the 6 gun never runs dry an needs refilled !!!
I enjoyed this video a lot and look forward to any and all followups. Thanks you.
Superbly argued Alex. Well done!
I don’t think Aurora necessarily needs a dual cycle scramjet,
It wouldn’t be practical but I think rocket based takeoff and accelerating to cruise could still make sense for a experimental aircraft, and it could glide back to the runway like the Space Shuttle
There could also be something like a X-15 with extra fuel and taking off from a runway
Maybe even an air-breathing rocket engine like the SABRE could be involved
why not a pulse EXPLOSION!! engine xd
makes me remember those experimental rocket explosion engines to test future nuclear rockets
@@zazugee Did you see this: ua-cam.com/video/Xswb8dEyBVw/v-deo.html
or it rides in the back of a plane like the SR-71 drones did
I live in Northwest Indiana and back in the early 2000's I was awoken late at night by a VERY loud sounding jet and the ground actually shaking like a small earthquake! I ran outside and could see a very large contrail in the night sky...
The contrail was unusual as it was very large for how high up it was! Another unusual thing is the contrail seemed to spanned across the entire sky, it took me seconds to run outside and I didn't see an aircraft, and no sonic boom that I remember! Which is all quite confusing... I've had Military and commercial Aircraft fly frequently around my house and they've flown rather low, so I kno the difference between a low flying Plane shaking the house and this was very different again bc the ground was actually shaking!!
@@zazugee There's Rotation Detonation Engine
Loved this Alex!
We might have had a particular technology at some point in the past, but it was too expensive for operational use, and the new programs are for figuring out if there is another way to achieve that capability for much cheaper using more modern materials and computerized design methods. That would explain large procurement programs for technologies that already exist.
Fantastic work Alex this one was great!
Thank you Alex. This is more or less what I have suspected for a long long time.
Well phooey... lol
I was pretty confident in my notion last week, that Aurora was a tie-in/sister-project to the Borealis detonation engine program (also mentioned in that video), but which had been canceled due to it being determined early on that it wouldn't be feasible. Would've been on the books, but would've explained why we never saw or heard from it again.
But... Maybe that's indeed a bit *_too_* logical. Oh well, it's *always* fun to speculate!
That being said.... I am envious of whatever archeologist gets to unearth all the prototypes (intentionally) buried around Groom Lake! Relics, by then, but to a historian it'll be quite the treasure!!
Very relevant historical review for sure. Very enjoyable. . . .
The turbine based combined cycle engine was appearing on industry promos in the late 90's and early oughties, called the Pyrojet. Observers thought it was also utilized in the Darkstar air launched orbital vehicle. Using borane based fuel additives to boost Isp as well.
I knew a retired engineer for locheed skunkworks, one of the best things I remember him saying is that he said that the names projects are givin in correspondence to what they do, project aurora creates auroras, project thumper thumps and project darkstar would be a darkstar black star if you could see a blackhole
Really enjoyed. Bringing good research and discussion to long debated topics is fun.
Love this stuff, Alex. Thanks so much for sharing.
Imagine the former head of a top secret facility deflecting away from a test programme he may have been running. Would never happen, would it?
Nice always wanted to know what was up with the "Aurora". Thx for shedding some light.
If I hadn't already been subscribed, this series would have made me subscribe.
Thank you.
THANK YOU for digging into the facts on this one. The Aurora myths needs to be laid to rest after decades of nonsense. As Ben Rich stated, "Auora" was the code name for the stealth B2 competition which included research on stealth technologies, electronics, propulsion, etc. I don't know why people keep holding onto old debunked mythos on this.
Ben Rich would not of been allowed to disclose anything that wasn’t first reviewed by the American security services.But I do agree,there was possibly a few experimental aircraft that would fall under an Aurora type aircraft description,just not a fleet.
I was surprised that there were no mention of the RQ-170
Your narration is less strained this week, Alex - and is the better for it.
Thanks for saying right up front this is part 2! I was so puzzled since I was certain I had watched your video on Aurora, but it wasn't upvoted (and I ALWAYS upvote).
How about doing a video on whether pulse detonation engines or rotary detonation engines could cause the contrails described in Aurora sightings?
Good suggestion, many photos of such contrails, worth a video!
If “Aurora” was for stealth development and the B-2 was already well past development; perhaps it was early funding for the YF-22/23 proposals that were in competition in the late 80s and early 90s?
Good work!
A guy I knew worked at Macrihanish said he didn't see it 4 times in the late 80s early 90s, but the afterburners were impressive , did a fly over the runway once near speed of sound before disappearing almost vertical , very loud.The airfield at the time was the longest in Europe used as a staging post for the Aurora, if needed the shuttle could land there.
Nice, compelling analysis.
Great video. Thanks for taking on this topic and being reasonable and logical about it.
I am a member of the saw a black triangle. Saw it around 1989/1990 over kent in England
20+ later I found a white triangular aircraft in Sheffield August 11th 2023
@@manzoorhussain2520 white triangle? Cant help wonder if they doing secret tests in places not expected so for me the b2 for you the b21
i would like a video on the tr3b legend because there are a lot of misconceptions about it . people forget that TR-1 was used for a short period of time for the u-2 and tr-2 for the black bird…. however in the 90s they were reports of a tr-3 (A) that was used in the gulf war to laser target for the f117 in some aviation newsmagazine… this tr-3a was just a stealth tactical reconnaissance aircraft without any fancy engine or ant gravity. There are reports from the time that suggested there was another black aircraft in the gulf war other than the f117. In the early 2000s the Name Tr-3B apparently appeared out of nowhere and claimed that it was an anti gravity aircraft. the original text was used many times in articles and doesnt have a clear source. i would like to know if anyone knows something about that topic or where the B version came from.
Probably part of the "woo" ufology & conspiracy theory world, I would love it to be real tho
@@ImperatorSomnium mhh but the TR-3A has some evidence… there are some credible sources like one tanker pilot who was in the gulf war. he reported that there was another black aircraft that wasnt the f117 or B-2 . Also the Tr-3A would just be a stealth battlefield observation platform with limited or non offensive capabilities
Then there's reports from soldiers having personal equipment consfcated...
They discribed a hovering craft at a comand post which upon leaving dissapeared...
Because it accelerated so quickly ...
Some interesting patents around it
A flying triangle absolutely is a thing. Its just probably a black ops / clandestine group craft of which the light of day will never touch, this century at least.
What a fantastic analysis
I get the feeling the Aurora name was working so well at hiding so many different experimental craft the air force just ran with it as a blanket term for classified projects. So aurora is "real", its just not a single plane.
Great job, love the video. Would love to hear about other less known aircraft. Things like X-Planes & other unusual drones. thanks in advance. 🖖👽🤘
The SF chronicle published the Aurora budget line item. Pretty sure it showed a photo of the actual budget line.
I would say your assessment of this technology is very good. Things are always being tried and tested, and often do not become operational. As for a mach 6+ aircraft, one can only wonder what good it would be. To be able to fly at over 1 mile per second, you need to be way up in altitude (80,000+ feet?). And what exactly can you do way up there and at that speed? Take a few pictures? Whoopee!!! In a highly dynamic environment, this is of limited value. In a more static environment, satellites are probably good enough. But what if you have technology that blows away anything that can be powered by a scramjet? Would you still waste money developing something like this?
A small unmanned stealthy drone can operate in contested aerospace for hours without being noticed. Such a high speed spy plane is only a minute over the target, and the enemy knows it.
@@williamdrijver4141 Hit the nail on the head - subsonic stealth drones make sense because they can loiter for hours over the target area without being noticed. A Mach 6+ jet is going to do one pass and it's gone, violating the airspace of a bunch of nearby countries because it can't steer enough to avoid them and it's going to be easily visible on radar, with IR sensors and most likely produce an audible boom.
Even worse: to keep such a SR-71 successor secret you can only fly it from remote airbases in the dark. Such bases have become scarce in Europe after the fall of the iron curtain. So the mach 6 or 7 plane will have to be refuelled 3 or 4 times for a mission over say Iran. It will burn loads of fossil fuel, with a presumably huge IR signature. Even a Chinese spy balloon will be able to get better results for a fraction of the money. Although that will take a lot of time, but they can loiter over huge areas for weeks or months.@@trolleriffic
I recall an ad in the LA Times back in the mid 70’s. There was an ad in the business section of the paper one Sunday. It showed an artist rendition of a “Liquid methane, Mach 5” aircraft being developed. Unfortunately, I can not faithfully recall the manufacturer’s name. I think it was Lockheed, but I cannot be assured that this is correct.
Fantastic video sir
Good analysis. Also recommend author and former Aviation Week editor Bill Sweetman's 1992 book: "Aurora: The Pentagon's Secret Hypersonic Spyplane".
Excellent research.
Great video.
Just found your channel you did amazing job. I really do like your channel keep it up
Among the talk of secret 80s stealth funding, surprised you didn’t mention the A-12 Avenger? There’s a (disappointingly rare) book called “The $5 Billion Misunderstanding” that makes for fascinating reading on this subject
I cannot believe the research that went into this story. But I think you are right.
I'm impressed how many times Alex managed to say "Aurora" without flubbing :D
Great analysis (as always). /cheer Also, thank you for not saying that the Hollywood Aurora is not being worked on since it probably IS, just under a different--and likely secretive--name altogether.
I’ve watched old videos on the “aurora” and how in Texas a military aircraft called “darkstar” was heard from a guy on his radio who heard a sonic boom, the video is on line. Now in the new top gun the hypersonic aircraft is called Darkstar. I feel like I’m being played with from this coincidence.
Excellent intelligence over the info available. Really congrats!
Good update. I worked secret programs in aerospace. Lots of what you said is true. There is more but....
Great story about the "Aurora". Please do a story about the "TR3B" even if it was only research. Thank You
I think the spottings over Texas are the most compelling evidence to me that there are so many things we haven't seen.
Nice balanced presentation. I'm sure we'd all agree there's probably stuff at Area 51 that would blow our minds!!!
Pratt Whitney developed the engines for this program in 1987. I literally listen to reach give a presentation/speach about the B2 and f117 platforms on the LOR signatures. He also discussed they were working on a new platform that is 50yrs ahead of its time! Aurora does exist and was the precursor for the sr72 platform.
I have always seen there is a problem with mach 5+ aircraft that being surface heat at high speed. the other issue is stealth coating and heat.
Yes, there may have been a prototype 'aurora' aircraft but only to test aircraft flight and only at lower mach 3 plus speeds with experimental stealth coating.
When the stealth coatings failed, the project was mothballed until better coatings are found.
I believe there is one test aircraft, and it's stored and rarely used for testing.
Something is using JP7 fuel
Great Video!! Tr-3b Next !!! There is some patents for this which is interesting 🤔
Aurora Project was mentioned as early as the 50's as part of T T Browns story and noted on Lockheed's wall of history I think .
Great investigation.
After reading all of what I could on the OXCART program, the cameras, engines, issues and such .. and the fact that those engines were more powerful than the airframe could manage... i extrapolated that the US could have built an improved airframe that was more capable to managing the J58s full power. Not having the full specs and the stories around the flight over Libya where the SR flew at numbers the Pilot and RSO had ever seen before... yes I think the US could have had a plane that went over 3.2, when in fact all of the OXCART were likely able to go over that for brief time periods... but just how much over that were/are those J58s capable of. Again the air frame was the limiting factor. MACH 5 is the base of hypersonic... so were they ever able to build the airframe for the J58s is the real question and were they able to get close to MACH 5? Could PW have made them better as again the OXCART could not handle any additional performance.
I do actually wonder if you're right here.
What if a new, better airframe was built for the J58 engines that could allow for their full power? It wouldn't be a hypersonic aircraft, but it would certainly be faster than the Blackbird. At least Mach 3.5 at the same kind of altitudes as the Blackbird. If that's the case and it was operating during the 80s and 90s and potentially even into the 00s, we'll probably be told about it soon enough.
The US has the TR3 and a prototipe that use the air preure as conbustion engine. But its make damege to the aircraft.
Easy way to see if the engines went into another airframe would be follow the fuel trail. As far as everyone seems to know, the fuel ended, as did the fleet of specific refuelling tankers needed.
The other factor that's not mentioned much about such extreme-performance aircraft is that they equally would require a huge amount of energy to go fast. That would have to create a huge infra-red signature in the sky and it can't be hidden. Even if it were flying very high it'd also still leave a pretty reasonable sonic boom at ground level as well.
I don't think anyone's reported such things much up until now, which does make me sceptical of any hypersonic aircraft flying around.
I did an A page / update of classified To’s in 1981. On one page it listed all aircraft that we’re receiving certain upgrades. The name Aurora was listed alongside other aircraft
When I was a child, in the 80s, we had this UFO program here in Finland. In one of the reports they showed had a British Airways pilot talk about a UFO being escorted by fighters and that escorted plane almost hit his plane. The thing is, I've always been fascinated with aviation. He drew this triangular plane and it looked like the X-30 Scramjet plane. I wonder if this is the "Aurora". A scramjet demonstrator that wasn't talked about. However, this was over UK.
Interesting video. I suppose many of the same theories could also be applied to the alleged existence of the Blackbird successor, the SR-72...If such a thing actually exists
Well done, I can't believe you don't get more views.
Best hypothesis I've read is that some "Aurora" sightings were an operational derivative of Tacit Blue, designed to replace the SR-71. Hitches in the program - possibly including the mystery crash at RAF Boscombe Down in September 1994 - led to the brief reactivation of the SR-71 from 1995 to 1999. Tacit Blue Two (for lack of a better name) would eventually be replaced by the elusive RQ-180. The key to this is understanding that Tacit Blue was not a testbed for the B-2. Sure it was useful to prove their 3D stealth design techniques, but its real main purpose - and this is verified information now - was to test new battlefield surveillance technologies: a low probability of intercept radar and real-time communication of reconnaissance data to field command. Tellingly, one of the US military's cited reasons for the initial retirement of the SR-71 was the time delay between starting an SR-71 mission and getting the gathered data into the hands of field commanders.
Good post. What made you think to connect the derivative of a Tacit Blue with the Boscombe incident? A hush hush information or purely a guess?
@@RallyRacingVideo Very detailed blog post I read years ago. The author has since gone on to write for The War Zone.
The entire AW&ST archive is available online to subscribers so if you'd didn't find the article it probably doesn't exist. Also, the adaptive engine program is for a dual stream turbine engine and is different from a combined cycle SCRAMJET engine.
Could these projects be a cover up for an even more exotic air craft? I think it is very possible.
I live in Northwest Indiana and back in the early 2000's I was awoken late at night by a VERY loud sounding jet and the ground actually shaking like a small earthquake! I ran outside and could see a very large contrail in the night sky...
The contrail was unusual as it was very large for how high up it was!
Another unusual thing is the contrail seemed to spanned across the entire sky, it took me seconds to run outside and I didn't see an aircraft, and no sonic boom that I remember! Which is all quite confusing... I've had Military and commercial Aircraft fly frequently around my house and they've flown rather low, so I kno the difference between a low flying Plane shaking the house and this was very different again bc the ground was actually shaking!!
@@Anarchy_420 Sounds like a very large meteor. They produce booms and noises that can sound like earthquakes as well as leave very visible contrails at incredibly high altitudes which can last for ages.
@@trolleriffic no sonic boom...
Love your stuff! You should make a video over the YAL-1. It’s such a cool aircraft even though it’s not widely know. Granted, I really don’t know how much information there is out there on the thing😂
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this but did you look into a funding shift from Aurora to NASA and it’s Orient Express X-30 plane.
What an excellent video!!! How about the StealthCat? A supposed retrofitting of the F-14 to be stealth and come back at the late 90s?
Lol at 15:08 the photo marked "AURORA en approache A Groomlake (1992)" is mine. One photo of many that I took. I was approached by England's Aviation magazine and was paid to write an article for them.
The main problem researching Aurora is that journos universally head straight for the Lockheed alter, but consider these facts:
McDonnell Douglas had experience building ramjet engines for it's antiship missiles.
McDonnell Douglas also had tinkered with something like RBCC engines and said they "ran like scalded apes".
McDonnell Douglas had experimented with a DC-10 tanker carrier hauling liquid methane for transfer, they said it posed no problems.
And (if I can find it later ) I will post a picture for a McDonnell Douglas proposal for a Mach 12 !!!!! Semi trans-atmospheric reconnaissance aircraft that was wedge shaped and faceted.
SO, if you're looking for Aurora, the backlots at LockMart are not the place to be.
My OPINION is that MacAir built "Aurora", it MAY have been operated by the CIA to more easily hide it, and that it worked but there were problems. Maybee the advanced engines consumed themselves far faster than expected. Maybee it was brutal on pilots, maybee the recon package never worked right.
Aviation history is FILLED with aircraft that were ALMOST great, but never worked out.
Lets see if this works:
photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNyJNBeikd8iY1-BAo7ceyALtHQx_8eY-6ZXcGf/photo/AF1QipOJLjdlHFRXSV6oHuE7AXNqpFOrGYCLr6kwItZv
404 my friend
@@weedfreer So what's a good free image posting site??
@@trickn2819 insta
Also to add on my other comment what do you think about Bob lazar's tail on the S4??