Pentagon Grounds Secret Spaceplane?

[Lazer-Hound]

From 'Aviation Leak and Space Mythology':

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/ch...s/030606p1.xml

[West Coast]

Just read the article in the magazine along with the accompanying articles. Damn I'd like a few free hours at Groom to snoop around. Arriving SFO from the SE, often times you can see the airport. The routing takes you just outside of the restricted areas. The frequencies for the place are listed, gonna have to listen in next time I'm in the area. If ever I had to have an immediate no **** land now emergency, I'd want to have it there. Sure they would love a planeful of tourists dropping in on them.

Any of you limeys ever go there in your advanced
X whatever?

[ORAC]

Thatīll be the same period all the sightings of the "soap on a rope" contrails were being reported by flights off the west coast wayyyy above them.

[GengisKhant]

Soap on a rope.....

Witnessed the exact copy of the soap on a rope contrails over Barcelona in Oct lsat year. Recognised them as almost identical to the photos that were published in the US. Unfortunately did not see what was pushing out the contrail, as was sandwiched between some tall buildings at the time.... damn....

Still, as I had not seen any additional reports/comments since the earlier US output, put it down to atmospherics/cold air phenomenon....

[West Coast]

C'mon ORAC

You're so smart, I'm surprised you haven't reverse engineered the plane from the diagram and text of the article.

[ORAC]

Iīd tell ya, but then Iīd have to shoot ya....

[Smoketoomuch]

Looks/sounds a bit similar to the UK HOTOL project. The UK government withdrew funding in the 80s and promptly slapped a big Official Secrets Act sticker on its revolutionary engine amidst rumors that the project/technology had been handed to the Americans.

Plus ca change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL

[Onan the Clumsy]

so would that be 'a hotol' or 'an hotol' then?






.....sorry, I thought I was still on JetBlast

[Tim McLelland]

The Hotol project was something entirely different and (according to what I read) is still being developed as a potential future programme (without British backing of course!). The "soap on a rope" business was subsequently dismissed by most commentators as a simple contrail pictures in unsual atmospheric conditions, and having seen very similar contrails myself, they do seem to appear quite readily, which suggests that they're not as unusual as some people suggest.

West Coast; as far as I know, the only British aircraft to have visited Groom Lake was a RAF Phantom which diverted there with a problem, and received suitable nose artwork after the visit.

Hope the Aviation Week story contains some truth as it would be nice to know that the XB-70 "survived" in some form. However, I have to question whether a programme that significant could be around for so long without anyone getting so much as one photograph. Look at how the F-117 was caught near Groom Lake before it was revealed. This is an even bigger aircraft, but mysteriously nobody has ever seen it? I also note that Aviation Week quote various bases where an oribiter has supposedly landed - once again, you have to ask why (whe th even the most insignificant aircraft movement is photographed by an aircraft spotter) nobody has got so much as one picture.

Nice if it's true but you have to be a little er... doubtful!

[DaveW]

The F-117 photos that were published in AvLeak soon after (although possibly taken before?) the Nov '88 Pentagon still was released were taken on approach to Tonopah, not near Groom Lake. Tonopah was where the F-117 unit was operating from, of course.

Love to know what the "suitable art work" was on the RAF Phantom

As I commented to someone today, if (big if) the XB-70 connection is accurate, then perhaps the Tacit Blue and Bird of Prey ex-black projects being displayed next to the the Valkyrie at the USAF Museum is a subtle joke on the visiting public... (Or just maybe, like many people in discussions of this sort, I'm reading FAR too much into things )

[Tim McLelland]

The F-117 photos I was thinking of were shot a good while before the first Pentagon photo was released - I thought they were taken near Groom Lake though, not Tonopah? This was long before the Groom Lake borders were extended of course.
Can't remember what the Phantom art work was now but it wasn't anything very exciting. I seem to recall that the wording was "Don't Ask"

[West Coast]

Tim
I wondered the same. The only answer I could come up with is volume. The 117 was built in numbers and thus had a greater chance of being seen. If the article is to be believed, two of the XB70 look alike were built, one of which may have crashed. In addition, the mission profile of the 117 would lend itself to detection prior to one that spends its time on the edge of and in space. Who knows. The sighting that makes me wonder is the day time sighting in Pennsylvania, down low. I can't believe they would put themselves in a position such as that to be seen. An emergency of course might explain it, but otherwise it doesn't make much sense.
What type of greeting did the Brit F4 crew receive? Wonder how many threats of horrible things they received if they talked about the episode?

[maccer82]

The story i heard was the crew were immediately met by a large security force and thouroughly debriefed about what they saw then sent straight back to blighty, as was the offending a/c, in bits. Not sure if its totally true, as the story was of a Bucc not a Phantom. But anyway, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. And if the story was from a phantom jock, you KNOW it would have been thouroughly exaggerated!

[ORAC]

I also note that Aviation Week quote various bases where an oribiter has supposedly landed - once again, you have to ask why

It will be a glider on re-entry, same as the shuttle and original dyna-soar. Different landing fields will because of weather and different re-entry paths from different orbits - oblique, polar etc.

[Tim McLelland]

The aircraft in question was a Phantom I believe, as I did see a photo of the artwork (and I'm pretty sure it was on a Barley Grey nose) but I honestly can't remember what it looked like - it wasn't anything very exciting.
I don't know what reception they would have received but judging from my experience with the USAF security people, it was probably one of "Dr Strangelove-esque" hysteria. I've had guns waved at me by USAF guards before and they really are quite comical, as they never quite get the grasp of how ludicrous they look waving a gun at you, knowing full well that they've no opportunity to use it. The Phantom crew probably received the same reception and doubtless rolled their eyes skywards and just sighed, in typical British style.
Orac, I think you missed my point - I was pondering on how the orbiter could have supposedly landed at so many bases and yet (inexplicably) have never been photographed by anyone. Frankly I just don't see how that would happen, as virtually every aircraft movement is seen and photographed, and I fail to see how something so significant could go by unnoticed. Okay, it might be possible to fly in and out of Groom Lake without oo much attention (although I still think it strange that approaches or departures aren't photographed at long range), but the other bases? Nah, someone would have got a photo by now. Likewise, what about these fat-cheeked C-5's - how come we haven't seen so much as one photo?

One suspects that if there's any truth in the whole story, then it must have been a rather less ambitious programme which has remained firmly within the confines of Groom Lake, or within the confines of whatever turly-secret base the US Government really uses for such programmes, whilst using Groom Lake as their public facade of supposed secrecy...

[ORAC]

Comment on the story and the C-5s here, Some of this meshes with my own personal experience around the time all of this was going on. Some of it is pretty clearly disinformation. But it is interesting none the less. I will say that if these airplanes are the ones I'm thinking they are, I busted some knuckles and skinned some knees climbing around them while the mods were going on. The airplanes I'm thinking of were two rebuilt C-5As that were designated C-5C after the work was complete. Hereīs a view

C-5C "Spacecraft, such as the space station node, are transported in a special canister, call the Space Container Transportation System (SCTS), which was built to fit into a military airplane, specifically a specially modified C-5C. The C-5C is the only aircraft that this canister will fit into, and it takes almost the entire cargo space. If a mechanical problem arises with the plane making it unusable, there is only one additional specially modified C-5C to use. The C-5C carrying the SCTS frequently arrives late at night, with offload immediately after arrival." 68-0216

[West Coast]

"just sighed, in typical British style"

How very pompous of you.

[BEagle]

.

[DaveW]

Originally Posted by Tim McLelland

The F-117 photos I was thinking of were shot a good while before the first Pentagon photo was released

Ah, we must be talking about different photos, then. I was under the strong impression that no images had published prior to the Pentagon release, which is why it was such a shock and why even then people weren't clear about the actual shape of the thing - that first photo suggested it to be far stubbier than it actually is. Incidentally, interesting and fairly comprehensive F117 timeline here.

Back to Blackstar, though - or rather the C-5C element of the tale. I have my doubts about that part of the story, at least.
This C-5C article describes a far less drastic conversion than the AW&ST article:
AvLeak

Three of the oversized aircraft were modified with 8-ft.-wide "chipmunk cheek" extensions on each side of the cargo compartment aft of the nose hinge point; an extra six-wheel set of landing gear that partially retracts up against the aft fuselage, forward of the ramp; a shortened upper deck, and two internal harness/cradle supports.

GlobalSecurity.org

With the troop compartment removed and modification to their rear loading doors, it has a larger cargo area than other C-5s.

.
This is a picture of one of the C-5Cs (68-0213). No sign of partially retracting six-wheel u/c set there - pic is from 1994, mind.
This is identified as the other C-5C (68-0216) in 2004, whereas this is a C-5B. No apparent 8ft wide "chipmunk cheeks" when comparing the two images. If they were there, they'd be obvious, would they not?

[Tim McLelland]

Interesting ain't it DaveW - you get the impression that Aviation Week is referring to very distinct alterations to the C-5 which surely someone would have seen and photographed, and yet there doesn't seem to be so much as a snapshot. On the other hand, you'd think that a publication such as Aviation Week would be pretty sure of its facts before going to press, but I really can't see how a heavily-modified aircraft the size of a C-5 wouldn't have been caught on camera by now...

Westcoast, the British do "pompous" very well, especially when they're given so many opportunities to practice the skill