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.

@richardduncan9740

Жыл бұрын

That and "non-operational prototype" is a perfect designator for a one-off, mission-capable, top secret vehicle

@jamesc.5761

Жыл бұрын

There more than one there now 300

@jeffrymilton1093

10 ай бұрын

I would be shocked if there were less than six still active.

@chrisburns143

10 ай бұрын

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

@chrisburns143

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@MattyJ55046

Жыл бұрын

They made one in the 80. It was a prototype X- something

@williamdrijver4141

Жыл бұрын

Add lots of noise, easy to spot on radar, immense cost and risk etc etc. A failed program, but interesting technology.

@Anarchy_420

Жыл бұрын

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!!

@aliensporebomb

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@you5711

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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’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.

@jj4791

9 ай бұрын

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.

@garyhill2740

8 ай бұрын

​@@jj4791Satellites 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.

@trolleriffic

8 ай бұрын

@@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.

This was a fun and interesting 2 episode series. Thanks for the coverage.

Alex, thanks for getting this out quickly.

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.

@swaghauler8334

Жыл бұрын

This.

@pk7056

Жыл бұрын

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.

You never cease to produce amazing videos in so little time, it amazes me.

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 worked as an electronic engineer for weapons development and I think your videos are great. Keep up the good work.

Love this stuff, Alex. Thanks so much for sharing.

Really enjoyed. Bringing good research and discussion to long debated topics is fun.

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.

Good work! These 2 vids got u a sub after futzing around the edges of your channel for a couple years👍🏽

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.

Fantastic work Alex this one was great!

I enjoyed this video a lot and look forward to any and all followups. Thanks you.

Great video, Alex. This is the common sense approach and exactly what I’ve always thought.

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.

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.

Loved this Alex!

Please do TR-3B next. Loved this series!

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. 😉

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?

@cahg3871

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

@almostcrazy4347

Жыл бұрын

Its unusual to see/hear someone say "biological father". Why not just say, "father"?

@Istandby666

Жыл бұрын

@@almostcrazy4347 TMI

@PrezVeto

Жыл бұрын

@@almostcrazy4347 Presumably she has at least one other "father" in her life, but if she wanted to go into that, she would've.

@Delgen1951

Жыл бұрын

@@almostcrazy4347 That Ms. Brooks is an adoptive child.

@NeroontheGoon

10 ай бұрын

Whatever she is, she’s a hot mess!

I’m so glad someone is making high quality videos like this for free. Unbelievable journalism and research undertaken. Thank you!

Great video. Thanks for taking on this topic and being reasonable and logical about it.

There was images from a weather satellite that captured contrails leaving Area 51 and going out over the Atlantic, Middle East and toward China. The vehicle was estimated to be travelling in the area of ~ 8000 mph. This was reported on by Nick Cook, he was an investigator/journalist for Janes defence weekly. The retirement of the SR-71 left a gap that needed to be filled (and no satellites could not bridge that gap completely) it makes perfect sense that the us would have been developing a successor to the sr-71.

@smokeylovesfire1589

Жыл бұрын

I saw the video as well.

@brianvosburgh1720

9 ай бұрын

​@@smokeylovesfire1589link please?

@trolleriffic

8 ай бұрын

It makes no sense to develop a hypersonic successor to the SR-71 because that kind of speed causes far more problems than its solves. Contrail-like features are created by all kinds of phenomena and those from an aircraft wouldn't be expected to show up at all on the low resolution images from a weather satellite. Such a flight would also produce sonic booms that would be heard across the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia and while there has been work done to reduce sonic booms by specially shaping aircraft, the boom is still there and easily heard but not as loud and annoying. Also, the aircraft shape modifications required to reduce audible boom are very different from proposed vehicle designs for hypersonic flight. As far as the reasons why an SR-71 successor isn't worth the effort, I'll copy a comment I posted earlier. A manned recon aircraft isn't a necessity when a drone could do the job just as well - there isn't the same need for a human in the loop as with combat aircraft. People focus on the headline figure of the speed of Aurora/SR-72, assuming that it's necessary for survivability while missing the downsides - hypersonic flight means that stealth isn't possible because the plane will be lit up like a Christmas tree in IR and leave an ionised trail in the atmosphere that will stand out on radar. You can make the plane as stealthy as you like but it won't change those issues and it'll be trivial for enemies and friends alike to track the Aurora which massively reduces its utility as a recon platform, even if it can't realistically be downed by any existing SAM. A plane that fast also can't loiter like a subsonic aircraft or drone could do, and it's not going to remain in flight anywhere near as long between refuelling which complicates logistics and planning. This last point was one of the reasons the SR-71 was retired while the U-2 and other recon platforms took over the job - the Blackbirds required special JP-7 fuel that only they used which had to be specially provided to any airbase they operated from and needed to be loaded on tankers to refuel them in flight. Getting all this organised took a lot of time and money and meant that those fuel tanks and tanker aircraft couldn't be used by anything other than the SR-71 - compare that to the U-2 which used standard jet fuel and required far less preparation work ahead of their arrival at an airbase. Hypersonic aircraft would likely rely on cryofuels such as liquid methane or liquid hydrogen. The infrastructure for these fuels would have to be very different to that for JP-8 or avgas with specially insulated tanks with visible venting or active systems to capture, cool, and re-liquify boil-off. No existing tanker aircraft could carry these fuels without being extensively modified, and for liquid hydrogen especially the enormous volume required for operations would likely need entirely new and very different looking tankers to be constructed. Satellites are higher resolution than high altitude aircraft-based imaging systems and the fleet of recon satellites operated by the US provides unparalleled coverage of any nation on Earth without the problem of having to violate anyone's airspace to obtain it. The popular perception of a satellite needing to be overhead to image its target is wildly inaccurate - they have an enormous slant range that means they could be imaging anything across a swath of the Earth's surface hundreds of miles wide. The SR-71 used the same technique when observing targets in the USSR or China because it never performed overflights and mission planners were extremely careful to avoid airspace violations so it would fly along the borders and use its side-looking cameras, radars and other sensors. A huge issue which always seems to get missed is that the faster you go, the less you can manoeuvre - SR-71 had a turn radius of 85 nautical miles at operational speed and altitude so a hypothetical Aurora would be impossible to operate in many parts of the world without violating sovereign airspace of friends and enemies alike. Blackbirds were operated with great care along flight routes that skirted but never violated Soviet or Chinese airspace which was hard enough to do with a Mach 3 aircraft, but a Mach 6+ Aurora would make operations vastly more difficult, and in many regions it couldn't be flown because the US is very careful to avoid airspace violations and even if the Air Force was willing to take the risk, it couldn't do it without being found out.

@sprre3899

8 ай бұрын

@@trolleriffic Thanks for the in-depth response, I can see where you are coming from. Definitely food for thought 👍

@stephenhood2948

8 ай бұрын

@@trolleriffic Satellites should be considered sitting ducks in a time of war. It would make sense to have a backup plan, should it be needed.

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).

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”

@keirfarnum6811

Жыл бұрын

Sssshhhhh...! Don’t let Pooty know. 😉

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

@n111254789

Жыл бұрын

No that would be the sr-72 and that is real.

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.

Superbly argued Alex. Well done!

Thank you Alex. This is more or less what I have suspected for a long long time.

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 do recall a lecture I saw on KZread 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.

@trolleriffic

8 ай бұрын

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.

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! 😳

@williamcollins4082

Жыл бұрын

Yeah kinda reminded me of the old westerns where the 6 gun never runs dry an needs refilled !!!

Just found your channel you did amazing job. I really do like your channel keep it up

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.

Very relevant historical review for sure. Very enjoyable. . . .

Nice always wanted to know what was up with the "Aurora". Thx for shedding some light.

Love this channel

If I hadn't already been subscribed, this series would have made me subscribe. Thank you.

Probably... 25 years since first hearing of Aurora from Coast to Coast AM, the mystery of the legendary hypersonic aircraft is made clearer to me. I'll be on the lookout for more info, but this answered questions I hadn't even considered. Thanks!

Good work!

Great job, love the video. Would love to hear about other less known aircraft. Things like X-Planes & other unusual drones. thanks in advance. 🖖👽🤘

What a fantastic analysis

Great vid. I appreciated your analysis. I just wanted to feed the algorithm.

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😂

Nice, compelling analysis.

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.

Fantastic video sir

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.

Excellent research.

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?

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!!

Well done, I can't believe you don't get more views.

Great investigation.

Your narration is less strained this week, Alex - and is the better for it.

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.

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?

Poem from the 90s: "Auroura flies low orbit clean, and talks on ELF to submarine."

Great video.

Excellent intelligence over the info available. Really congrats!

Great Video!! Tr-3b Next !!! There is some patents for this which is interesting 🤔

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.

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

@zazugee

Жыл бұрын

why not a pulse EXPLOSION!! engine xd makes me remember those experimental rocket explosion engines to test future nuclear rockets

@Ionizap

Жыл бұрын

@@zazugee Did you see this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iqerxJqdddyohto.html

@tech-comindustries4409

Жыл бұрын

or it rides in the back of a plane like the SR-71 drones did

@Anarchy_420

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@zazugee There's Rotation Detonation Engine

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 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

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?

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.

great video

Good analysis. Also recommend author and former Aviation Week editor Bill Sweetman's 1992 book: "Aurora: The Pentagon's Secret Hypersonic Spyplane".

The SF chronicle published the Aurora budget line item. Pretty sure it showed a photo of the actual budget line.

Do you have an explanation for the pulse engine high altitude trails photographed?

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

Probably part of the "woo" ufology & conspiracy theory world, I would love it to be real tho

@cold3341

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@williamcollins4082

Жыл бұрын

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 ...

@dmacpher

Жыл бұрын

Some interesting patents around it

@maeton-gaming

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

I'm impressed how many times Alex managed to say "Aurora" without flubbing :D

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?

@williamdrijver4141

Жыл бұрын

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.

@trolleriffic

8 ай бұрын

@@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.

@williamdrijver4141

8 ай бұрын

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

Thanks Alex, as they follow the money and you find what you need. You to have done that. There could be a lot answers to some of questions people see and hear. For example my son was fishing in a lake Idaho when B2 Spirit did a low level flight over them (low level, most likely around 1000 ft) and scared the hell out they thought saw new type of aircraft. So I sent them photo of one and sure enough it was a B2. That was in the early 2000. There's an Air Force Base in Idaho. So you see people may think they see some different when it's not and very correct about our memory.

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.

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

@weedfreer

Жыл бұрын

404 my friend

@trickn2819

Жыл бұрын

@@weedfreer So what's a good free image posting site??

@weedfreer

Жыл бұрын

@@trickn2819 insta

Good update. I worked secret programs in aerospace. Lots of what you said is true. There is more but....

How about doing a video on whether pulse detonation engines or rotary detonation engines could cause the contrails described in Aurora sightings?

@williamdrijver4141

Жыл бұрын

Good suggestion, many photos of such contrails, worth a video!

I don’t exactly expect a guy like the former head of Skunk Works to admit that an experimental research vehicle existed and I would fully expect that he would try to attribute it to something else. In other words, if he knew about any sort of hypersonic aircraft, I would fully expect him to say that he doesn’t.

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 was surprised that there were no mention of the RQ-170

I cannot believe the research that went into this story. But I think you are right.

Great story about the "Aurora". Please do a story about the "TR3B" even if it was only research. Thank You

interesting food for thought. maybe not necessarily a fleet of aircraft but perhaps a proof of concept or a prototype. does seem more plausible than operational aircraft. also interesting to think of "aurora" as another way of saying "ufo" without being associated with a tinfoil hat. i love these more investigative pieces. I still love the more news, documentary style, but these take us into the realm of speculation, rumors and inference without going down the rabbit hole. great work

Could these projects be a cover up for an even more exotic air craft? I think it is very possible.

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 think the spottings over Texas are the most compelling evidence to me that there are so many things we haven't seen.

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

I watched both of them and liked them. I thought it was a fun subject

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.

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.

@Spermwhales93

Жыл бұрын

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.

@rafaelbenitez7825

Жыл бұрын

The US has the TR3 and a prototipe that use the air preure as conbustion engine. But its make damege to the aircraft.

@misdangered4326

8 ай бұрын

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.