Mystery aircraft photographed over Texas

[John21]

not the same boom operator guy who has posted some pic of refueling over Groom Lake and was forced to remove them afterwards?

I don't know, maybe? I know he posted a lot of photos of refueling of various air planes.

I don't want to get him in trouble, he basically said that he could go into general small details but could not give an aircraft designation or provide specific info without "getting locked up in Leavenworth for 20 years". He retired in 2009-2010 I think.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Not the same guy: you are right to be wary.

Hinting and smugness is easy and it gets lapped up over there... But (as has been implied already in this thread) as each of these "*wait till next week/month/year and you'll see what I already know*" deadlines runs out: Nothing...

 

[lowchi]

Hi,

the initial report that the wichita sighting happend in february is wrong.
in fact the photo was taken on the 16th of April 2014.

http://merhlin.kinja.com/

so whe have two possible sightings in three weeks by two different photographers in
different locations.

things are getting interesting.

more analyzed from steve douglass:
http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.co.at/2014/04/kansas-mystery-aircraft-analyzed.html

 

[sferrin]

Not the same guy: you are right to be wary.

Hinting and smugness is easy and it gets lapped up over there... But (as has been implied already in this thread) as each of these "*wait till next week/month/year and you'll see what I already know*" deadlines runs out: Nothing...

I'm still waiting on AvWeek's infamous "Blackstar". LOL

 

[blackstar]

Hinting and smugness is easy and it gets lapped up over there... But (as has been implied already in this thread) as each of these "*wait till next week/month/year and you'll see what I already know*" deadlines runs out: Nothing...

Well, sometimes it is real (heck, I've done it myself when somebody who knows tells me that something is about to happen and I like to tip people off).

But I think that most of the time it's just BS, done by people who want the readers to think that they know something and are therefore authoritative on the subject. But when it doesn't happen, then people are right to call them on it.

I'd note that back around 2007 or so William Scott claimed that he finally had photos of the Blackstar orbital vehicle that would shut up all his critics, and then he never produced them.

So this guy said up to a year--come back in a year and if it has not happened, call him out on it.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I call BS on the WHOLE issue! It's a B-2!

 

[Stargazer]

This image from Flickr (original, left/enhanced on right) shows more detail of the rear part of the airframe. I definitely see a triangular aircraft here and a black area which could be the exhaust area:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/10341736@N00/13923168506/sizes/o/in/photostream/

 

[J.A.W.]

Still looks to me - to be a B-2, with overlay of atmospheric/angle effects..

Has any US taxpayer straight out requested an aircraft ID of the photo subject from the Pentagon?

It surely cannot be simply blown off as 'Request Denied - Operational Security Matter' - can it?

If so - ask your local Congressman to put it to 'em..

 

[TomS]

It surely cannot be simply blown off as 'Request Denied - Operational Security Matter' - can it?

Of course it can. DoD routinely declines to talk about the operational movements of aircraft, even ones that are well known in the white world.

 

[J.A.W.]

It surely cannot be simply blown off as 'Request Denied - Operational Security Matter' - can it?

Of course it can. DoD routinely declines to talk about the operational movements of aircraft, even ones that are well known in the white world.

Movements/routes/tasks - are indeed operational matters, but ID?

If the aircraft is flying 'in clear'..
- & has been captured in a snapshot - then why not correct speculation about its specific ID?

What purpose does it serve to be evasive?
In a 'free country' - ought not citizens/voters/taxpayers have their reasonable info requests met?

 

[Dragon029]

Because confusion aids to the strategic defence of the US; if they tell the truth and say it's either a B-2 or not a B-2, they're either giving info on the movements of B-2's (which can be used [for example] to extrapolate the paths taken in and out of the US), or they're confirming the existence / planform of a black program, giving the Chinese, etc additional lead-time to counter the program.

 

[blackstar]

Zactly.

Several years ago there was a fire on a B-2. The plane was severely damaged and out of service for years. The Air Force didn't say anything about its status, not wanting to reveal that the B-2 bomber fleet was down an airplane:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c1-rebuilding-billion-dollar-bomber-20140320-dto,0,285088.htmlstory#axzz2zZd8z3Ts

So they don't have to tell anybody what they're doing, and they don't do it.

 

[J.A.W.]

Somehow I think the Red Chinese intelligence agents with responsibility for such matters..
.. would be chuckling about that while reading this thread..

Will one of them kindly logon on & provide the definitive B-2 or not (to) B-2 answer, please?

With a nice hi-def' pic as proof, natch..

That the US Gov't wont, or is playing psy-ops games is a.. bit of a.. tease too..

 

[Sundog]

The funny thing here is that many people think because we didn't know about it foreign governments don't know about it. It's one of the greatest logical fallacies around here.

 

[Dragon029]

Nonetheless, it's impossible for militaries around the world to know exactly what the others know, and so it's standard policy to work off the assumption that they don't (know).

 

[blackstar]

The funny thing here is that many people think because we didn't know about it foreign governments don't know about it. It's one of the greatest logical fallacies around here.

But it is not necessarily wrong.

Just because China _might_ know about something does not mean that the U.S. government should stop trying to keep things secret. The Chinese may not know, so why give them any additional information?

 

[bring_it_on]

Keeping something dark is a process that ranges from not letting the adversary know of a project's existence, to limiting his knowledge on the product. It all boils down to how much the services want to protect and to what degree.

 

[Sundog]

Well, here's the kicker. When the Chinese hacked the info on the F-35, they weren't looking for info on the F-35. They were looking for info on another classified Lockheed aircraft program. The simple facts are foreign intelligence usually knows a hell of a lot more about these programs than we the citizens do. It's highly doubtful revealing a picture of them, not necessarily up close, is going to reveal too much information that our enemies don't already know. Or even acknowledging the existence of the program. Secrecy is somewhat out of control in this country and from my perspective, has more to do with paranoia and power than anything to do with security.

 

[Mat Parry]

It all boils down to how much the services want to protect and to what degree.

Or to what degree the services can afford to protect...


e.g. F-117 squadrons hidden at a secret base, could the US afford this level of secrecy anymore?

 

[sferrin]

Well, here's the kicker. When the Chinese hacked the info on the F-35, they weren't looking for info on the F-35. They were looking for info on another classified Lockheed aircraft program. The simple facts are foreign intelligence usually knows a hell of a lot more about these programs than we the citizens do. It's highly doubtful revealing a picture of them, not necessarily up close, is going to reveal too much information that our enemies don't already know. Or even acknowledging the existence of the program. Secrecy is somewhat out of control in this country and from my perspective, has more to do with paranoia and power than anything to do with security.

I don't know, Gates certainly didn't impress by telling us all we could cancel the F-22 because China wouldn't have a stealth fighter for 20 years. Only to have them roll one out what, less than a year later, while he was visiting. Or did he just lie to us to justify killing the F-22?

 

[quellish]

Or to what degree the services can afford to protect...


e.g. F-117 squadrons hidden at a secret base, could the US afford this level of secrecy anymore?

Yes. The RQ-170 has been operating that way for quite a while.

 

[bring_it_on]

Well, here's the kicker. When the Chinese hacked the info on the F-35, they weren't looking for info on the F-35. They were looking for info on another classified Lockheed aircraft program. The simple facts are foreign intelligence usually knows a hell of a lot more about these programs than we the citizens do. It's highly doubtful revealing a picture of them, not necessarily up close, is going to reveal too much information that our enemies don't already know. Or even acknowledging the existence of the program. Secrecy is somewhat out of control in this country and from my perspective, has more to do with paranoia and power than anything to do with security.

I don't know, Gates certainly didn't impress by telling us all we could cancel the F-22 because China wouldn't have a stealth fighter for 20 years. Only to have them roll one out what, less than a year later, while he was visiting. Or did he just lie to us to justify killing the F-22?

I think he may have meant "operational"..The Navy inteligence had reported of a chinese stealth fighter years if not a full decade earlier..I'd have to dig up the exact year but it was way back..

 

[Mat Parry]

Q


Very happy to be proven wrong, my analogy was trying to illustrate a situation more akin to the Tonopah/Nighthawk combo pre 1988.

You are of course correct that the Wraith operates out of Tonopah and did so secretly for a period of time:

• I'd imagine however this current situation is cheaper than building up a new Tonopah
• there are indications that size of the RQ-170 fleet is smaller than that of the Nighthawks
• I'd imagine that, in a like for like cost comparison, the wraith is a cheaper platform with lower operating costs

So to my mind ~ 20 wraiths at a known location is not going to be as expensive as ~60? contemporary manned stealth fighters at a clandestine location.

Anyway, a question (which is probably irrelevant):
A sight sensitive operational platform must be an exceedingly expensive problem, once it is seen (and no longer sight sensitive) does it become cheaper (and more useful) to operate?

The origin of this thought relates to this thread (reply #200)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11250.msg215187.html#msg215187


but rather than my speculated retirement hypothesis, could a downgrade in security (and therefore operating costs) drive a move from black to grey?

FWIW, I'm still open minded on the B-2 vs. new aircraft debate

 

[Moose]

Steve Douglas, who spotted the mystery aircraft, has posted a fairly comprehensive response to the criticism/trolling he's gotten since the story popped. While the SP forum hasn't been part of that trolling, I'm linking the article because it includes his re-affirmation that what he saw did not appear to him or to other experienced aviation spotters to be B-2s.
http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/of-flying-triangles-and-internet-trolls.html

 

[quellish]

You are of course correct that the Wraith operates out of Tonopah and did so secretly for a period of time:

• I'd imagine however this current situation is cheaper than building up a new Tonopah
• there are indications that size of the RQ-170 fleet is smaller than that of the Nighthawks
• I'd imagine that, in a like for like cost comparison, the wraith is a cheaper platform with lower operating costs

So to my mind ~ 20 wraiths at a known location is not going to be as expensive as ~60? contemporary manned stealth fighters at a clandestine location.

TTR is still a clandestine location, at least as much as it was during the SENIOR TREND program.
ISR UAV operations are fundamentally different than manned fighter operations. At the time of the SENIOR TREND program manned fighters were already operating out of TTR. TTR was expanded as part of SENIOR TREND to serve the needs of that program and to a lesser extent CONSTANT PEG.

TTR and another facility were both expanded to support the Sentinel program. TTR did not have existing infrastructure to support UAV operations, and some of the facilities to support previous programs needed upgrading. The other facility has had major upgrades and improvements - even recently completing a new, secure 41,000 sq ft $20m facility to support the Sentinel program exclusively. The total costs for facilities supporting CONUS Sentinel operations isn't that far from SENIOR TREND.
That is just an example. The footprint in terms of personnel is also similar, as are a number of other things.

A sight sensitive operational platform must be an exceedingly expensive problem, once it is seen (and no longer sight sensitive) does it become cheaper (and more useful) to operate?

The driving reason behind the declassification of the F-117 was that it had to operate with other units. It could not effectively do that if those other units were not familiar with it, or could not train with it. F-117 operations were to that point largely restricted to the western testing ranges. Once the program was declassified the squadrons could train with other units in exercises and travel to other training facilities without problems.



It wasn't flown in daylight over Kansas until after it was declassified.

 

[J.A.W.]

So, if openly flying in daylight - in sashaying formation aint 'coming out', - just a 'tease'.. what's the point?

& why so coy on ID/type confirmation, officialdom-wise?

Another case of 'don't ask , don't tell/neither confirm , nor deny'-type shenanigans?

 

[Byeman]

Well, here's the kicker. When the Chinese hacked the info on the F-35, they weren't looking for info on the F-35. They were looking for info on another classified Lockheed aircraft program. The simple facts are foreign intelligence usually knows a hell of a lot more about these programs than we the citizens do. It's highly doubtful revealing a picture of them, not necessarily up close, is going to reveal too much information that our enemies don't already know. Or even acknowledging the existence of the program. Secrecy is somewhat out of control in this country and from my perspective, has more to do with paranoia and power than anything to do with security.

Nah, the issue is they don't know what they know, so you keep from confirming any of it. Secrecy is not out of control, quite the opposite. It is much less than in the past.

 

[Mat Parry]

Q

Very happy to be proven wrong

As is often the case, your knowledge has made me happy

 

[J.A.W.]

As for the concept of China being any more than a remote prospect of being any serious military 'enemy'..

I'd reckon that given the economic lock-step/financial integration on a globalisation level..
.. it makes a 'hot' shootin' scenario, rather doubtful..

I think it is more of a ploy to evade hard questions in Congressional hearings..

(If the 'mystery ships' are indeed the new-gen bomber).

"It costs HOW much per unit?"

 

[Byeman]

I think it is more of a ploy to evade hard questions in Congressional hearings..

wrong. Secrecy does not keep congress in the dark. They have access. Don't speculate about things you don't know about, especially US gov't

 

[aliensporebomb]

If you look at the Douglass photos from Texas and the photos from Kansas it appears to be two different airframes.
The shape is different. It doesn't appear to be an artifact of camera angle either.


And the shape of the aircraft over Kansas is all wrong to be an SR-72 or other hypersonic platform.
Not enough wing sweep.


As an aside I don't think the SR-72 is even a flying aircraft at this point.


Given Douglass' audio recordings of the radio transmissions of the Texas aircraft indicates likelihood of manned platforms not drones (and certainly larger in size than drones we usually see) it certainly is intriguing.


The subsequent B2 drills over his area was almost a "plausible deniability, you saw a B2". So, who was the message for if they indeed did fly new craft over Texas? Putin & Co? Kim Jong Il's folks?


I like the phrase "backchannel threat diplomacy" someone here stated.

 

[flateric]

'Backchannel threat diplomacy' is a BS. what if Steve has a dinner while they were flying over?

 

[CJGibson]

Very true. Graeme Winton had gone out for a slash when he saw the North Sea Delta and called me out to "Have a look at this". (the aircraft, not...)

Chris

 

[GTX]

"Have a look at this". (the aircraft, not...)

;D

 

[aliensporebomb]

I think it was more directed towards overhead satellites, not guys with commercial photography equipment having a dinner somewhere.


That being said - we just have to wait.


I can see it now "those were special Cessna Skymasters painted gray with new kite appendages. At 37k feet."

 

[quellish]

I think it was more directed towards overhead satellites, not guys with commercial photography equipment having a dinner somewhere.

Those countries do not use overhead reconnaissance like the US does . US reliance on overhead reconnaissance is the result of years of collecting intelligence on countries that were closed surveillance states. That forced the US to develop those capabilities.
In contrast, those adversary nations could just read Aviation Week. Or AIAA journals. Or sit outside secret air bases with cameras. So they do, in fact, rely very much on guys with commercial photography equipment.

 

[J.A.W.]

I think it is more of a ploy to evade hard questions in Congressional hearings..

wrong. Secrecy does not keep congress in the dark. They have access. Don't speculate about things you don't know about, especially US gov't

Yeah, right..

One of my favourite Congressional hearing scenes - is the footage of Howard Hughes sticking it to them..

Addit, sorry that was a Senate hearing that H.H. hammered..
& sure, I don't know much 'bout US Gov't.. ..its fairly difficult to comprehend IMO..

 

[Orionblamblam]

Secrecy does not keep congress in the dark.

Maybe, maybe not. But their own mind-boggling stupidity can keep them in the dark. See: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=16416

 

[Static]

This is Steve Douglass - one of the photographers who shot the mystery aircraft over Texas. I've been reading the commentary (lurking) and I'm here now to answer and questions about the sighting.

 

[J.A.W.]

With regard to this thread subject..
-Is it likely, or even conceivable, that the US DoD could learn something from the NYPD, openness-wise?