Aurora
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aurora
Hello all, whilst reading (i think) the Daily Mail today there was an article which seemed to suggest that the fabled "Aurora" actually exists and is to be wheeled out in the near future...and used. The artivel was accompanied by an illustration (grainy air to air photo?) of something resembling a squashed, flattened and triangular SR71. Anyone else read this - and lend it any likelihood of being true? There was also a claim that someone in RAF ATC had witnessed it depart Macrahanish at Mach 3 or faster and was told to forget they saw it in a hurry.
What else might suddenly emerge i wonder. Anything that gets our collective people home from wherever they are sent is clearly good news.
What else might suddenly emerge i wonder. Anything that gets our collective people home from wherever they are sent is clearly good news.
It might fall down on the fact that it was in the Mail, but...
The Aurora stories have been going on for years now. The most recent and authoritative line from a commentator (although annoyingly I forget who) was that the programme did not exist in the form that the press claimed - i.e. it was not a hypersonic SR-71 replacement, but a convenient cover for a variety of 'black' projects. Of course, this was far too boring an explanation, so the stories about Aurora range from:
1. A stealthy F-111 replacement
2. A subsonic stealthy Recce platform
3. A UAV of some kind
4. A hypersonic recce plafrom that arrives home before it's cleared for take off.
5. The code name for a UN-driven conspiracy that covers up the fact that JFK was assassinated by John Lennon (or similar type story).
Problem is that a number of the papers are now desperate to provide a new angle on 'gosh, haven't the Americans got an awful lot of kit', so have dug something out of the archives that they run every so often.
Personally, I'm sure that the USAF will let us know if there's anything to the story in their own good time and am quite happy to wait...
The Aurora stories have been going on for years now. The most recent and authoritative line from a commentator (although annoyingly I forget who) was that the programme did not exist in the form that the press claimed - i.e. it was not a hypersonic SR-71 replacement, but a convenient cover for a variety of 'black' projects. Of course, this was far too boring an explanation, so the stories about Aurora range from:
1. A stealthy F-111 replacement
2. A subsonic stealthy Recce platform
3. A UAV of some kind
4. A hypersonic recce plafrom that arrives home before it's cleared for take off.
5. The code name for a UN-driven conspiracy that covers up the fact that JFK was assassinated by John Lennon (or similar type story).
Problem is that a number of the papers are now desperate to provide a new angle on 'gosh, haven't the Americans got an awful lot of kit', so have dug something out of the archives that they run every so often.
Personally, I'm sure that the USAF will let us know if there's anything to the story in their own good time and am quite happy to wait...
USAF - probably not. Which is why the statement made some years ago which said that 'the USAF does not possess a Mach 6 platform' was probably quite correct.
But what about somebody else? The National Reconnaissance Office for example.
Sorry Echelon!!
But maybe the whole thing is just so much maskirovka??
Who knows?? The truth is out there.....
[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
But what about somebody else? The National Reconnaissance Office for example.
Sorry Echelon!!
But maybe the whole thing is just so much maskirovka??
Who knows?? The truth is out there.....
[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
I refuse to believe that the US gave up a hugely important capability with the death of the Blackbird. Satellites are very good but very predictable..
Lets face the fact that SR-71 first flew in 1959 for heavens sake.
It took roughly 15 years for the Nighthawk and the Spirit to become public. SR71 went in 1989..........
But what the hell do I know.
WWW
Lets face the fact that SR-71 first flew in 1959 for heavens sake.
It took roughly 15 years for the Nighthawk and the Spirit to become public. SR71 went in 1989..........
But what the hell do I know.
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those with nothing better to do(or if you're looking for who really killed JFK/ John Lennon etc etc)try http://aurorapage.tripod.com/
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points
1. The A-11/SR-71 first flew on the 26th April 1962, as far as I know.
2. This aircraft (Aurora)is acquirable, visually, so from where does it operate? Please don't say AREA-51 or S-4.
3. We all know the vast number of sub-contactors for Euro-fighter, so where are they for this project.
4. The B-2 was wheeled out and shown to the press before it's first flight, in 1988 and the project was made public in 1981.
5. The USAF did this because they said they had no way to "Covertly test fly and aircraft of that size." - How big is Aurora?
1. The A-11/SR-71 first flew on the 26th April 1962, as far as I know.
2. This aircraft (Aurora)is acquirable, visually, so from where does it operate? Please don't say AREA-51 or S-4.
3. We all know the vast number of sub-contactors for Euro-fighter, so where are they for this project.
4. The B-2 was wheeled out and shown to the press before it's first flight, in 1988 and the project was made public in 1981.
5. The USAF did this because they said they had no way to "Covertly test fly and aircraft of that size." - How big is Aurora?
I hate to rain on this parade, but .....
If it's a recce programme, where's the recce product? Why was there such a shortfall of recce imagery in Desert Storm (for example)? How come we can reliably account for where the recce imagery comes from?
We knew that 'something was out there' long before -117 was officially revealed, but there's no credible evidence of Aurora's existence yet, and its credibility is flawed by the way in which the 'conspiracy nuts' and UFOlogists have taken it to their hearts.
But, I do believe that there may be something out there - which perhaps debuted as a stealthy high level laser designation platform during Desert Storm, mostly operating in conjunction with F-117As. It would explain certain inconsistenceies in the way some of the -117 missions were conducted.
If it's a recce programme, where's the recce product? Why was there such a shortfall of recce imagery in Desert Storm (for example)? How come we can reliably account for where the recce imagery comes from?
We knew that 'something was out there' long before -117 was officially revealed, but there's no credible evidence of Aurora's existence yet, and its credibility is flawed by the way in which the 'conspiracy nuts' and UFOlogists have taken it to their hearts.
But, I do believe that there may be something out there - which perhaps debuted as a stealthy high level laser designation platform during Desert Storm, mostly operating in conjunction with F-117As. It would explain certain inconsistenceies in the way some of the -117 missions were conducted.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko:- I'm staggered! What an intelligent observation! 
As you know, you answer your own question. Any source of imagery would be disguised.
What I would suggest is that IF Aurora exists (and I doubt it) it may gather product and data, not in the visual spectrum. Sorry if this sounds obvious.
Doesn't F-117 self designate?
And BTW - has anyone spotted the contradictions in the conceptual idea of HIGH, FAST, LARGE and STEALTHY?
As you know, you answer your own question. Any source of imagery would be disguised.
What I would suggest is that IF Aurora exists (and I doubt it) it may gather product and data, not in the visual spectrum. Sorry if this sounds obvious.
Doesn't F-117 self designate?
And BTW - has anyone spotted the contradictions in the conceptual idea of HIGH, FAST, LARGE and STEALTHY?
Guest
Posts: n/a
JN - the article suggested an offensive capability, although as you rightly point out perhaps a recce platform (ELINT or visual) is more likely? California was also named as the origin of "Aurora" ops. As with the Tornado force in the Gulf and their hastily shipped designating kit, I wonder what we'll see suddenly appear in the hands of those who need it most. One would hope of course that it won't be needed at all, although this seems increasingly unlikely.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aurora does exist, it was researched and built by Northrop and I'm pretty sure that you have all seen some pretty high quality, glossy pictures of its proto-type. . .to correct a point made by Low and Slow, the B2 was actually rolled out early to encourage/justify further funding 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scarab dear boy,
Thanks for the correction, and it pretty much proves my point.
BTW I know of no other item ever needed to be displayed publicly to get more funding, but there you go.
You state Aurora exists as a matter of fact. Have you any proof or credentials in this regard?
(I've just re-read your post YES- I'm A MUPPET! ARE YOU SAYING AURORA IS THE B-2?!!)
I have been chasing Aurora for about six years and every peice of evidence I have yet seen is very doubtful. -including the sightings-
The Dough nut contrails, and Siesmic evidence are pretty strong though, -except they are recorded NO WHERE else in the world, that I am aware of. other than the US and California.
I'm not saying "Aurora" does not exist", but what do you know that we don't and why state your assertion as fact on an unclas forum. Just curious.
edited because I can't read
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]
Thanks for the correction, and it pretty much proves my point.
BTW I know of no other item ever needed to be displayed publicly to get more funding, but there you go.
You state Aurora exists as a matter of fact. Have you any proof or credentials in this regard?
(I've just re-read your post YES- I'm A MUPPET! ARE YOU SAYING AURORA IS THE B-2?!!)
I have been chasing Aurora for about six years and every peice of evidence I have yet seen is very doubtful. -including the sightings-
The Dough nut contrails, and Siesmic evidence are pretty strong though, -except they are recorded NO WHERE else in the world, that I am aware of. other than the US and California.
I'm not saying "Aurora" does not exist", but what do you know that we don't and why state your assertion as fact on an unclas forum. Just curious.
edited because I can't read
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]
Low/Slo
Yes the F-117 can self designate. But at the time of the Gulf War (with the original IRADS kit), it was said by some that the narrow 'handover' window between the FLIR (which acquired the target) and the DLIR imposed enormous restrictions on attack profiles (the aircraft had to be flown virtually straight and level for an extended period, with a precisely flown and timed shallow dive mid-way), while co-operative designation between F-117s was impossible for much the same reasons. The replacement kit apparently had wider look angles, removing this limitation. But hence the speculation about third-party targeting for the -117 in some circs.
Interestingly the most reliable TR-3 reports tended to describe the aircraft as a recce/targeting platform for the F-117A.
I'm unconvinced that anything has actually been deployed however, though I can believe that some 'black' prototypes or sub-scale demonstrators may have flown.
Yes the F-117 can self designate. But at the time of the Gulf War (with the original IRADS kit), it was said by some that the narrow 'handover' window between the FLIR (which acquired the target) and the DLIR imposed enormous restrictions on attack profiles (the aircraft had to be flown virtually straight and level for an extended period, with a precisely flown and timed shallow dive mid-way), while co-operative designation between F-117s was impossible for much the same reasons. The replacement kit apparently had wider look angles, removing this limitation. But hence the speculation about third-party targeting for the -117 in some circs.
Interestingly the most reliable TR-3 reports tended to describe the aircraft as a recce/targeting platform for the F-117A.
I'm unconvinced that anything has actually been deployed however, though I can believe that some 'black' prototypes or sub-scale demonstrators may have flown.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff Jacko - as always, so:-
Wouldn't the best targeting platform be another F-117?
Why would you want a hypersonic targeting platform?
It’s the logic of Aurora I have the greatest problem with. Why would you want a very fast hi-alt recce platform that requires huge amounts of GSE and specialist facilities - and is thus less flexible than a KH-11/12. - which can acquire any target on earth, within 90mins to 3 hours
I cannot think of one sensor technology that benefits from whizzing around hypersonically. -Anyone know different?
Also Hypersonics defeats the object of stealth.
I have to agree with Jacko (oh God!) At best Aurora is a test bed.
Wouldn't the best targeting platform be another F-117?
Why would you want a hypersonic targeting platform?
It’s the logic of Aurora I have the greatest problem with. Why would you want a very fast hi-alt recce platform that requires huge amounts of GSE and specialist facilities - and is thus less flexible than a KH-11/12. - which can acquire any target on earth, within 90mins to 3 hours
I cannot think of one sensor technology that benefits from whizzing around hypersonically. -Anyone know different?
Also Hypersonics defeats the object of stealth.
I have to agree with Jacko (oh God!) At best Aurora is a test bed.
