Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

Byeman said:
Never was used over the Eastern Block or USSR. The primary mission it was designed for.
Click to expand...

It was not used inside the USSR (and China) due to politics. It did perform reconnaissance missions against naval facilities of the USSR.

If the US were at war with either country it would have been used to support SAC on executing that war plan.

It was used to penetrate a number of other countries. North Vietnam, Libya, etc.
 
quellish said:
It was not used inside the USSR (and China) due to politics.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't used inside because it was vulnerable.
we kept flying the U-2 over USSR even though it was detected until it was shot down.
 
Ninja said:
No one is posting misinformation. Also with an multi-billion dollar budget, im sure the Americans found a way to make an hypersonic plane work. Bold of you to assume to new tech is made just because we don't know about it
Click to expand...
Instead of speculating, I recommend taking time to read back through this very thread, as well as searching the forum for info on projects including Isinglass/Rheinberry, Quartz/AARS, and the deep rabbit hole of info on high speed concepts developed by McDonnell Douglas in the 60s and 70s. Scott Lowther's Aerospace Projects Review site is also a great resource, and his inexpensive short booklets on advanced US aerospace projects are phenomenal.

This forum is, by far, the best source of public information on advanced projects, and you won't find better information anywhere online.
Members here include some of today's leading Aerospace writers, engineers who worked directly on some of the most well-known projects from the past 50 years, as well as legendary experts like Quellish and Whisperstream. At one point a few years back, I found over a dozen books written by members of this very forum on the shelves at the National Air and Space Museum in DC.

The truth is actually far more interesting than all of the "Aurora" speculation that has been floating around for the past few decades.
 
Byeman said:
No, it wasn't used inside because it was vulnerable.
we kept flying the U-2 over USSR even though it was detected until it was shot down.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and shortly thereafter it was decided that manned overflights of the USSR would no longer be undertaken. It was a political decision, full stop, that took place before the Blackbird physically existed in any of its forms. As a side effect that decision did lay the groundwork for the TAGBOARD/SENIOR BOWL program(s), which may have been used more effectively had SENIOR BOWL worked right.

Could the SR-71 have survived some sort of USSR or PRC overflight mission?

USSR, maybe, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. Until the first S-300PT battery entered service in the very late 1970s, the USSR's ground-based strategic air defence network consisted of the S-25, S-75, S-125, and S-200. Excluding the obsolete S-25, those would be the same SAM systems the SR-71 was perfectly capable of flying near/over in places such as North Korea and Libya, often fired upon, never successfully. A much more credible threat in the early 70s would've been the MiG-25P, although how credible is open for debate. After that, in the late 70s and into the 80s? Much different equation, with much more capable S-300P series SAMs appearing, as well as MiG-31s.

PRC, much more likely, as there was no significant ground-based air defence system until the 1990s (i.e. after the Blackbird was effectively retired; yes reactivation was attempted later but it didn't last), the only strategic SAM present prior to that date being the HQ-2, an S-75 iteration (the HQ-2 proved capable of shooting down U-2s on occasion, which were flown by Taiwanese pilots, which obviously helped to circumvent US manned overflight restrictions). If the Blackbird could operate in relative ignorance of S-75s in Vietnam or anywhere else, it could most likely do the same to local variants over the PRC. There was also no air interceptor present in the PLAAF at that time capable of representing any threat to a Blackbird whatsoever.
 
I'm going to chime in here. I have a friend that worked on a program in the early 2000s. He worked on the spacesuits for a special access program platform that would operate out of California. It wasn't the U2 or Blackbird. He would not tell me exactly what it was, but he was very clear on what it wasn't.
 
USSR, maybe, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. Until the first S-300PT battery entered service in the very late 1970s, the USSR's ground-based strategic air defence network consisted of the S-25, S-75, S-125, and S-200. Excluding the obsolete S-25, those would be the same SAM systems the SR-71 was perfectly capable of flying near/over in places such as North Korea and Libya, often fired upon, never successfully. A much more credible threat in the early 70s would've been the MiG-25P, although how credible is open for debate. After that, in the late 70s and into the 80s? Much different equation, with much more capable S-300P series SAMs appearing, as well as MiG-31s.
Click to expand...
Three caveats
-1 Wasn't USSR air defense system much "denser" and integrated than any other countries ?
-2 Weren't foreign SAMs downrated, compared to USSR ?
-3 A-12s (flying higher and faster) got a few close calls with SA-2s over Vietnam and North Korea
 
flateric said:
"We didn't want to replicate U-2 capabilities, that was a "loiter system." The SR would be the "denied airspace" penetrator for look-shoot-look -- what every theater commander wants." - Colonel Joe Reich, USAF (Ret), Senior Intelligence Officer, SR-71 Reactivation Team, 1995-98
Click to expand...
That doesn't support any. Then why wasn't a cheaper version of the SR-71 developed if there was such a need?
 
Archibald said:
Three caveats
-1 Wasn't USSR air defense system much "denser" and integrated than any other countries ?
-2 Weren't foreign SAMs downrated, compared to USSR ?
-3 A-12s (flying higher and faster) got a few close calls with SA-2s over Vietnam and North Korea
Click to expand...

1. Technically yes, in certain geographical regions, but strategic SAM deployment did vary considerably. A given city may have had three or four batteries around it, an area like the Kola had several more about given the significance. And Moscow had the pair of S-25 rings, later reinforced by S-75/125/200 batteries and eventually replaced by S-300P/400 batteries. That being said, someplace like Hanoi or Tripoli was certainly very, very densely SAM defended as well, possibly even at or beyond Soviet levels, which was unsurprising given, especially in the case of Hanoi, an actual ongoing conflict. Often the biggest practical difference between the USSR and someplace like Vietnam was that the USSR also had a large number of dedicated interceptors forming another component of the IADS.
2. There may have been fewer radar modes available, or different/reduced ECCM systems, but before more advanced systems appeared I think the main method of holding things back was to simply supply earlier versions of the system. Several clients got the latest versions anyway.
3. OXCART was fired at on several occasions but there was only one incident that could be considered a close call. A single piece of shrapnel, possibly not even a warhead fragment, was found on one airframe. The SR-71, with more advanced ECM systems, was untouched.
 
SOC said:
1. Technically yes, in certain geographical regions, but strategic SAM deployment did vary considerably. A given city may have had three or four batteries around it, an area like the Kola had several more about given the significance. And Moscow had the pair of S-25 rings, later reinforced by S-75/125/200 batteries and eventually replaced by S-300P/400 batteries. That being said, someplace like Hanoi or Tripoli was certainly very, very densely SAM defended as well, possibly even at or beyond Soviet levels, which was unsurprising given, especially in the case of Hanoi, an actual ongoing conflict. Often the biggest practical difference between the USSR and someplace like Vietnam was that the USSR also had a large number of dedicated interceptors forming another component of the IADS.
2. There may have been fewer radar modes available, or different/reduced ECCM systems, but before more advanced systems appeared I think the main method of holding things back was to simply supply earlier versions of the system. Several clients got the latest versions anyway.
3. OXCART was fired at on several occasions but there was only one incident that could be considered a close call. A single piece of shrapnel, possibly not even a warhead fragment, was found on one airframe. The SR-71, with more advanced ECM systems, was untouched.
Click to expand...
It does make one wonder how a B-70 might have faired.
 
Is there a possibility other countries know about Aurora or what it is? Dont know how often adversaries spy on each other's planes though.
 
sferrin said:
It does make one wonder how a B-70 might have faired.
Click to expand...
Deploying the B-70s would have put a much greater emphasis on missiles capable of intercepting a Mach 3, 70+kft aircraft.

But until those missiles were deployed, the B-70 would have done fine enough.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Deploying the B-70s would have put a much greater emphasis on missiles capable of intercepting a Mach 3, 70+kft aircraft.

But until those missiles were deployed, the B-70 would have done fine enough.
Click to expand...
Nah, the bombing accuracy would not have been there.
And there was the MIG-25
 
Byeman said:
Nah, the bombing accuracy would not have been there.
And there was the MIG-25
Click to expand...
While the MiG-25 was designed to intercept B-70s, the Blackbirds demonstrated that it was basically incapable of the job with minimal maneuvering on the part of the intruder.

As to bombing accuracy, 1) the US was using megaton class bombs then, and 2) I don't think there ever was a supersonic bomb drop from the Valkyrie in testing so we don't know what the accuracy would have been.
 
Byeman said:
Just no,
There are no such elevators or underground "hangars". You can't hide excavations of that size. The equipment would be visible from distance and there would large spoil tips of excavated dirt.
Click to expand...
Well. We'll never know until we know about them.
 
C. Spyro said:
Well. We'll never know until we know about them.
Click to expand...
Hiding the construction would require some technology that turns dirt and rocks into vapor at the point of excavation. And such technology doesn't exist in the white world at all.

Because conventional digging techniques require you to move all that dirt and put it somewhere. There has been no signs of such massive earth moving in any satellite footage of Groom Lake, from any source.

Basic engineering principles say that you need to remove enough dirt to equal the weight of whatever you're constructing.
 
sublight_ said:
I'm going to chime in here. I have a friend that worked on a program in the early 2000s. He worked on the spacesuits for a special access program platform that would operate out of California. It wasn't the U2 or Blackbird. He would not tell me exactly what it was, but he was very clear on what it wasn't.
Click to expand...
We're they black or deep blue in color?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hiding the construction would require some technology that turns dirt and rocks into vapor at the point of excavation. And such technology doesn't exist in the white world at all.

Because conventional digging techniques require you to move all that dirt and put it somewhere. There has been no signs of such massive earth moving in any satellite footage of Groom Lake, from any source.

Basic engineering principles say that you need to remove enough dirt to equal the weight of whatever you're constructing.
Click to expand...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zugv1NdMj4


Chris
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hiding the construction would require some technology that turns dirt and rocks into vapor at the point of excavation. And such technology doesn't exist in the white world at all
Click to expand...
In any world. Energy (mass) can not be created or destroyed. It still would have to be deal with and it would have visible artifacts.
 
If you look at all of the photos of A-12/SR-71, HAVE BLUE, F-117A, and MiGs in hangars at Groom Lake, they are all above ground hangars. Why have underground hangars when you would need larger aprons to taxi up and out of hangar spaces or an expensive elevator system to lift aircraft to the surface from a facility, especially one that is already concealed by a hangar. Groom Lake has all of that terrain to build another hangar to the edge of an apron or to a dedicated pad. The scoot and shoot hide shelters are evidence that when programs call for fast pulls/pushes in and out of hangars a rolling mobile hangar or a flow through hangar with doors is your best (economical) option.
 
Dynoman said:
If you look at all of the photos of A-12/SR-71, HAVE BLUE, F-117A, and MiGs in hangars at Groom Lake, they are all above ground hangars. Why have underground hangars when you would need larger aprons to taxi up and out of hangar spaces or an expensive elevator system to lift aircraft to the surface from a facility, especially one that is already concealed by a hangar. Groom Lake has all of that terrain to build another hangar to the edge of an apron or to a dedicated pad. The scoot and shoot hide shelters are evidence that when programs call for fast pulls/pushes in and out of hangars a rolling mobile hangar or a flow through hangar with doors is your best (economical) option.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, underground hangars are no-nonsense in the typical Area 51's environmental scenario.
Area 51 has all the space available for whatever is needed to do.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hiding the construction would require some technology that turns dirt and rocks into vapor at the point of excavation. And such technology doesn't exist in the white world at all.

Because conventional digging techniques require you to move all that dirt and put it somewhere. There has been no signs of such massive earth moving in any satellite footage of Groom Lake, from any source.

Basic engineering principles say that you need to remove enough dirt to equal the weight of whatever you're constructing.
Click to expand...
Well it exists in the black world.
 
It exists in the Big Red World

www.halliburton.com

Cuttings Reinjection

We understand the increasing rigidity of environmental regulations and take pride in offering innovative, reliable, high-performing, and sustainable solutions.
www.halliburton.com www.halliburton.com

If Blofeld/your black aircraft of choice/saucer can fit down a 17 1/2 inch diameter hole.

Chris
 
Last edited:
I suppose that it is possible that the waste from the purported diggings were disposed in the the nearby site of the former Project Tic-Toc (cancelled in mid 1969).
 
Q-nimbus said:
We’re heading into Above Top Secret territory here. This was one of the last few threads about AURORA on the internet that wasn’t hijacked by UFO/conspiracy wackos. Let’s please keep it that way.
Click to expand...
See reply 724. Might be new to young uns, but please just bring the old geezers on here something new aside from laser-cut tunnels and other stuff that were all the rage in the 90s. Our membership is better than that.

Chris
 
Byeman said:
The black world isn't black as you think. A lot of work is done in the open.
Click to expand...
Please, my Dear Byeman, do feel free to provide specific qualitative as well as quantitative information in this August Forum on any and all concrete examples you may feel comfortable sharing. Hic Rhodus, hic salta...
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Please, my Dear Byeman, do feel free to provide specific qualitative as well as quantitative information in this August Forum on any and all concrete examples you may feel comfortable sharing. Hic Rhodus, hic salta...
Click to expand...
Many subcontracts for black programs are not classified.
GRAB satellites were unclassified SOLARAD and Injun spacecraft.
MPEC on STS-39
Titan/Shuttle LaunchDispenser SLD/TLD
Discoverer for CORONA
 
quellish said:
Click to expand...

Note the earliest reference I can find to a "modified C-5" in this context is:

Mark Farmer, "Not So Secret Weapons" , Covert Action Quarterly, Spring 1995, No. 52

• Last year, there were several sightings of a highly modified
C-5 Galaxy airlifter. Tentatively designated C-5C, two aircraft are said to be operated by U.S. Space Command to cany outsized cargo. Under cover of night, these two unacknowledged C-5s are said to have transported unassembled aircraft from the Lockheed Skunk Works to Groom Lake for assembly."
Click to expand...

With a reference to:

16. Interview with John Andrews, Testor Corp., Jan. 1995. Skunk Works is the Lockheed Advanced Development Project, which facilitated the production of classified aircraft and missiles.
Click to expand...

I may be incorrect, but I do not believe that the C-5C modifications are externally visible - an observer would not be able to tell a C-5C from a "normal" C-5.

Throughout the F-117 and other programs C-5s (and later C-17s) were used to transport classified cargo to Groom Lake, but these were conventional transport aircraft without modifications.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom