Aviation Week Unveils Secret Space Plane

[FlyingSkip]

Lear Dude---total agreement. I was buds with an Intel guy on the Boat and after Desert Storm he was showing me pics of things that would have been REALLY REALLY REALLY handy to know before we flew into Kuwait. I got indignant and asked why the pilots hadn't seen the stuff. His answer? "We couldn't risk the enemy finding out that we knew about it if you got shot down." Well DUH! Maybe if we knew about this crap (AA, etc) we wouldn't have quite so much risk of getting shot down!

I used to love when the I would see things that were literally QUOTED to Jane's, showing the page and year of publication, and then were classified SEC or TOPSEC! OMG! That still makes me laugh---take a public source and classify it after you quote it! Almost as good as the story the other day on AvWeb about NORAD having the minutes of the public commentary on the DC ADIZ declared secret in the interests of National Security and having them pulled----a week or more after they were publicly disseminated! HAHAHAHA!!!!

The only thing better was when I was told while on TAD at Osan AB in Korea that the Owner's (Operating) Manuals for the US-manufactured vehicles on base had been declared classified and removed from the glove compartments. Don't know if it was true or not, but the story was they were afraid they'd be stolen and used to help the Korean car manufacturer's make better (read that more competitive) models. And they couldn't just get one out of a Hertz rental in St. Louis any day they wanted????

It's the same kind of bullying power that kids show with the "I've got a secret that you don't know" taunt---mindless mid-level bureaucrats making themselves feel important by keeping things away from others.
Your tax dollars at work!

 

[Fox-Tree]

Seems like so many around here missed their calling. We sure do have a lot of english teachers on this board. Guess I better spell check for now on.

Fox-Tree, seems you might still be suffering from your military induced brain washing. Let's not turn this into a pissing match, OK? But how much 'Classified" stuff were you privy to? I bet a lot. Looking back, what precentage do you think really was that big of a deal? Now I am a civilian, but I have done a lot of things in and around the military that most civilians never get to do or see. Have accidentally been shown "classfied", well lets just say stuff, on numerous occasions. Everytime, I thought to myself what is the big deal. Seems the other folks thought the same thing. I was never subject to a debrief with a bunch of "suits" and sworn to never tell anybody. The thing that cracked me up the most was when I got to fly the F-18 and F-14 sims. Only ever got guns and rockets. Now come on, every magazine out there will tell you how far a AIM-7 or AIM-9 will go. Or how far off bore sight you can shoot. They also guard the top speed of fighters as one of their best kept secrets (mach 2.5 for the F-15 is advertised). Is that close and did you ever really get to find out? Well, nobody cares how fast they go at altitude. The key is how fast they can go while hugging the ground. Maybe some brilliant enemy can work it backwards and figure that out. I don't know.

Anyway, yes DETERRENT! And we are not only talking about spy planes.

Let’s not turn this into a pissing contest – by the way – You’re a “brain washed” member of the military. Nice job with the diplomacy.

I’m not going to tell you some things that are still classified haven’t been released or maybe were over-classified to begin with.

I can’t comment on what you were accidentally shown. If it was classified, it certainly couldn’t have been at a very high level. TS and higher, compartmentalized or other special stuff does not get “accidentally” :erm: shown to anyone without some consequences and debriefs. Some of the lower classification stuff does make you say “What’s the big deal?” I’m not an expert on the “whys”. You might not have been debriefed by “suits” – but you would have if someone who cared knew someone without a clearance had access to classified – no matter how trivial it seemed.

Part of it may have to do with the sources. Something that seems trivial may only have been known by a small cadre of people to start with. If one of them gave it to us before it became more widely known, it may stay classified for a while to protect them. A country in cooperation with us, may not want their involvement known to the world. So details of their help may stay under wraps, even though the details seem like no big deal. It also can be a result of the fact that it’s one part of the puzzle. By itself it’s no big deal but when put together with a few other no big deal things (that might be in the same source book), it forms a big deal. Sometimes it’s just being ultra-conservative and maybe unnecessary.

Smart people outside the military (that work for Aviation Week or some other magazine) that understand a weapons system, aircraft design or whatever can probably speculate with some degree of accuracy. Just because they get close or hit a bullseye, doesn’t mean the military is going to throw up their hands and de-classify that system/program. There is always deniability. If they over-estimate the capabilities, that can be good for the military. Now our enemies may make poor decisions based on that bad info. It’s not like the military is going to get them to publish a retraction. Let them think we’ve got something better than it is.

There is a lot more to an AIM-9 or AIM-7 Weapons Engagement Zone (WEZ) than just a max range number. Jane’s or Aviation Leak can publish all the max range or off-boresight numbers they want. That one number doesn’t come close to telling the whole story or give away much, if any, of the actual capabilities of the missile. Plus, just because they publish something – what makes YOU think they got it right? :laugh: I’ve seen some stuff in Jane’s or AW about the F-15 that made me laugh out loud.

I’ve yet to see something that classifies the max speed of the F-15. It’s not “guarded” in the USAF. Yes, it’s 2.5 Mach and I’ve been there exactly zero times. 2.1 was my fastest (on an functional check flight – totally stripped down). Why is the low altitude speed somehow more critical or need to be classified? I don’t really care what the max speed of a fighter I’m facing – no matter what altitude he’s at. I’m sure a smart aero engineer can figure out ballpark top speeds for conventional fighter aircraft at any altitude. Who cares? If I’m running away, I either get away or eventually have to turn and fight. If I’m chasing him, I either kill him or he gets away. If we’re going to dogfight, neither one of us is going to be close to max speed (or we’ll lose).

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Foxy...

Lets see, your argument is certainly valid and I can certainly understand your point of view. I can also see it from the other side as well. So don't get me wrong, I am all for keeping our country and troops safe and "loose lips do sink ships" as they say. However, eventually it is time to let the cat out of the bag. I always figure that when they release something, that just means there is something better out there. The F-117 for instance. If we had stealth technology for 10+ years prior to them releasing the program to the public, then it would not be beyond reason that they were using stealth on some other aircraft. Most likely case would be on a spy aircraft. I know they were using it on some ships as well. The one that comes to mind is the ship in San Francisco Bay (?) that was always undercover, but Popular Mechanic had gotten a few photos of.

I have been out of the military loop for over 10 years now, but speeds were always a big thing. F-15 mach 2.5, F-14 mach 2.34....was always a big deal and nobody would ever give a hard figure on that. The down low speed would be to help anti-aircraft defenses. But they are all pretty close, right? Give or take a 100 knots or so. So maybe nobody really cares.

I don't really want to talk about stuff that I know I saw, for the same reason you stated above. However, most of it I felt was trivial and just kind of had a good laugh about. One thing I will mention is that when I was on an aircraft carrier (underway) they have a rather big office called Combat Information Center (CIC). Perhaps you guys have something similar in the AF. Anyway, as the name indicates, there is a lot going on in there in regards to tactics, mission, where we are going, when we will get there as it pertains to the Battle Group. They also have information on other Battle Groups as well. The entrance to this room has the sign about no admittance, classified area, blah, blah, blah. I have been in there on at least two occasions on two different aircraft carriers. You might say, well it is just a room and you don't really know what you are seeing anyway. But when someone explains it to you and shows you a bunch of cool systems, well lets just say I feel privileged. Also, in CIC there is a lot of brass and it sure did not seem like it was ever a big deal. Only even realized it was a problem when another higher up officer I was with said, "what do you like best about the boat?" I mentioned one of the things I saw in CIC. He quickly told me not to repeat that to anybody as I was not suppose to be in there.

You know, thinking about it, I am surprised about one thing they have mentioned about the SR-71. Perhaps you know and can explain it to me. But I am surprised they talked about the fuel that the SR-71 used. JP8 I think it was. I remember it was a lot thicker than other fuels, had a much higher flash point, and there were only a couple KC-135s that could refuel the SR-71. Not only did they talk about it, but the AF bragged about that fuel. I remember seeing them drop matches in a bucket of fuel and saying, look it put the match out (not all that uncommon). Now I have no idea what made the SR-71 such an awesome airplane. But certainly one of the things was the engines and then the fuel they used to run those engines within the parameters that they did. Only thing I know is the fuel did not leak out of the plane like other fuels would have. This they needed since the plane expanded so much when flying their missions. So, it really surprises me that they talked about it when just about everything else about that 1950s bird is still secret.

 

[Lead Sled]

Give Rutan and his guys $25 million and they'll build one for you now.

'Sled

 

[414Flyer]

The same author of this article, wrote some pretty bad articles about other supposed black projects in the early 90s. He always seems to use bad or really improbable eyewitness accounts, combined with some unlikely "inside" info.

While AvWeek itself has a pretty good record, this author does not. AvLeak and Spy Technology has made some pretty big blunders before too. But the configuration as drawn is impossible.

The "Brilliant Buzzard" aircraft may exist, or existed. There are still several black programs that have not been acknowledged yet, besides F-117A (better include the A, once you change that letter, you start getting into other airframes), TACIT BLUE, McD BoP.

Oh and I think this same guy made the "TR-3" error, by getting confused over the mention of the Tier-3 program.

 

[Fox-Tree]

……I have been out of the military loop for over 10 years now, but speeds were always a big thing. F-15 mach 2.5, F-14 mach 2.34....was always a big deal and nobody would ever give a hard figure on that. The down low speed would be to help anti-aircraft defenses.

“Nobody would give a hard figure?” Who were you asking? I’ve been in the Eagle since 1989 and the max speed hasn’t been “guarded” at least that long. When we go to air shows, we put a big placard next to the jet with max speed, altitude, and weapons load info on it. It clearly states “Max speed M2.5”. Sounds like you were talking to a self-important idiot who wanted to make something seem more important that it was.

I’ve been in the CIC of a ship underway. Most classified areas can be “sanitized” for tours and non-cleared visitors. Your presence there in itself was probably not a big deal. If they did a poor job concealing classified, maybe there was an issue there. Maybe a Navy person can chime in on what problems/issues might arise with a civilian in the CIC. My impression of it was there was a lot of “real time” information available. Most of what you could see would change days or even hours later and not be relevant or a big deal even if you were to release it.

……….You know, thinking about it, I am surprised about one thing they have mentioned about the SR-71. Perhaps you know and can explain it to me. But I am surprised they talked about the fuel that the SR-71 used. JP8 I think it was. I remember it was a lot thicker than other fuels, had a much higher flash point, and there were only a couple KC-135s that could refuel the SR-71. Not only did they talk about it, but the AF bragged about that fuel. I remember seeing them drop matches in a bucket of fuel and saying, look it put the match out (not all that uncommon). Now I have no idea what made the SR-71 such an awesome airplane. But certainly one of the things was the engines and then the fuel they used to run those engines within the parameters that they did. Only thing I know is the fuel did not leak out of the plane like other fuels would have. This they needed since the plane expanded so much when flying their missions. So, it really surprises me that they talked about it when just about everything else about that 1950s bird is still secret.

Since the early the early 1990s, everyone in the USAF (and maybe the military) uses JP-8 for conventional jet fuel. Prior to that, the stateside USAF used JP-4. Nato and US forces in NATO had converted to JP-8 already. I think the big thing was JP-8 had a lower flash point. I think you can drop a match in a bucket of that too.

The SR-71 used JP-5 and yes, there were special KC-135Q aircraft to carry it. I think you’re right about the fuel thickness. It had a higher viscosity to reduce leaking until the aircraft was at speed and began to expand. Apparently it still leaked like a sieve prior to takeoff.

Actually there are several books out that detail specifics of previously classified SR-71 missions. There are also cutaway pictures showing the engines and one book (Maybe called “Sled Driver”??) went into pretty good detail of the hybrid ramjet type engine operations. Very good book with plenty of former "secrets" for inquiring minds like yours.

 

[JimNtexas]

I don't think the basic flight manuals ('dash one' in the USAF) which contain the operating envolopes of our non-stealth fighters have ever been classified. The fact that an F-15 has the same top speed as the F-111 isn't really that helpful to the bad guys. It's not like straight line speed is the Eagles real claim to fame.

On the other hand I know the SR-71 dash one was classified, but its not any more:

SR-71 Online Flight Manual

One interesting thing about this manual is that it revels the SR-71 program's basic code name.

 

[AIR2MUD]

The key is how fast they can go while hugging the ground.

Wow. Spoken like a true, self-proclaimed expert.

He knows all - just ask him, he'll tell you.

 

[Russ]

http://media.fastclick.net/w/pc.cgi?mid=91072&sid=8866

They seem to pooh pooh the idea. People far smarter than me, but I dunno.

 

[FastCargo]

The SR-71 used JP-5 and yes, there were special KC-135Q aircraft to carry it. I think you’re right about the fuel thickness. It had a higher viscosity to reduce leaking until the aircraft was at speed and began to expand. Apparently it still leaked like a sieve prior to takeoff.

Actually, the fuel is JP-7. JP-5 is (was?) used by the USN for their aircraft.

FastCargo

 

[Fox-Tree]

Actually, the fuel is JP-7. JP-5 is (was?) used by the USN for their aircraft.

FastCargo

Thanks for the correction. Sorry, I guess I killed that braincell sometime last weekend at drill.
:beer:

 

[PAA744]

Do YOU have a NEED to know

Fox-3 (Guns)

Thanks for your "awareness" concerning this issue.

Me thinks we are pi$$ing in the wind - trying to explain these issues to anyone that has NOT had some dealings with "the things at hand."

If someone does not have a need to know, Then they do NOT have a need to know.

It really is that simply - sorry, but you (& me) are not that important...

 

[Fox-Tree]

Fox-3 (Guns)

Thanks for your "awareness" concerning this issue.

Me thinks we are pi$$ing in the wind - trying to explain these issues to anyone that has NOT had some dealings with "the things at hand."

If someone does not have a need to know, Then they do NOT have a need to know.

It really is that simply - sorry, but you (& me) are not that important...

Okay, maybe I killed more that just that one braincell.

Why are you thanking me for my "awareness" (in quotes). I don't really get that.

Have I given the impression that I AM important? WTF? Most of your post went over my head. I did fly all night so maybe I'm just a little slow.

BTW, Fox-3 ain't for Guns anymo' - Years and years ago it was listed in brevity code as a call for a gun shot but no one ever used it. Other NATO guys clung to it for a while. It's been brevity for an Amraam shot since about 1992 - welcome to the 21st century!!

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Was it also what the Navy guys flying F-14s called when shooting an AIM-54? Not that the Tomcats ever shot any AIM-54s, at least at the bad guys.

 

[SIG600]

Was it also what the Navy guys flying F-14s called when shooting an AIM-54? Not that the Tomcats ever shot any AIM-54s, at least at the bad guys.

Not that you know about....