• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
579
Reaction score
304
Any guess, bet or suggestions?

1 - Advanced Unmanned Remotely Operated Reconnaissance Aircraft
1 - Advanced Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft
Just to tinfoil this further, if AURORA was such, and it was the eyes in the Hunter -Killer package with the ATB program (similar or concurrent in mission to Tier III, QUARTZ, only focusing on rapid penetration rather than relying on persistent ISR), then it could explain the appearance next to the TR-1 in the budget -- and saying AURORA budget line-items were "just" spending related to the classified B-2 program, would technically be true.
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
251
Reaction score
109
Any guess, bet or suggestions?

1 - Advanced Unmanned Remotely Operated Reconnaissance Aircraft
1 - Advanced Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft
Just to tinfoil this further, if AURORA was such, and it was the eyes in the Hunter -Killer package with the ATB program (similar or concurrent in mission to Tier III, QUARTZ, only focusing on rapid penetration rather than relying on persistent ISR), then it could explain the appearance next to the TR-1 in the budget -- and saying AURORA budget line-items were "just" spending related to the classified B-2 program, would technically be true.

The US was pushing hard to have unmanned penetrating ISR for a very long time, wouldn't be out of the question.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
marauder2048 said:
* ICBM delivered MaRVs guided in the terminal phase by a sensor equipped PBV
* ICBM delivered long-loiter, subsonic cruise missiles


Neither of these things made it much past wind tunnel models.

Funny how the recently revealed post-Cold War approach to the SRT threat, Vintage Racer, is pretty
much exactly like the known, well documented late-Cold War approach to the SRT threat.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
And some were FOG missiles from B-52!
 

Attachments

  • saic-srt0-05.png
    saic-srt0-05.png
    402.1 KB · Views: 140
  • saic-srt0-06.png
    saic-srt0-06.png
    505.3 KB · Views: 62
  • saic-srt0-17.png
    saic-srt0-17.png
    508 KB · Views: 61
  • saic-srt0-18.png
    saic-srt0-18.png
    506.4 KB · Views: 64
  • saic-srt0-19.png
    saic-srt0-19.png
    674.6 KB · Views: 62
  • saic-srt0-20.png
    saic-srt0-20.png
    1 MB · Views: 56
  • saic-srt0-21.png
    saic-srt0-21.png
    406.3 KB · Views: 51
  • saic-srt0-22.png
    saic-srt0-22.png
    439.8 KB · Views: 43
  • saic-srt0-23.png
    saic-srt0-23.png
    613.6 KB · Views: 35
  • saic-srt0-24.png
    saic-srt0-24.png
    435.6 KB · Views: 37
  • saic-srt0-25.png
    saic-srt0-25.png
    551.4 KB · Views: 36
  • saic-srt0-26.png
    saic-srt0-26.png
    298.7 KB · Views: 177

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
All from the J. Robert Beyster (SAIC founder) collection.

The penetrating sensor architecture was satellite based.
The shooters are strategic bombers, ICBMs and cruise missiles.
 

Attachments

  • saic-srt0_compressed.pdf
    2.9 MB · Views: 46
  • saic-srt1_compressed.pdf
    3 MB · Views: 32

Hanz2k

The truth is grey...
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Folks, some time ago (2-3 years) on other forum there was grainy pictures done in the morning around Scotland of aircraft pretending to be Aurora (showel nose, thermal management system etc.) Author claimed it was powered by jet and rocket engine.
1. Does anybody have link to the pictures?
2. Any follow up info if this was debunked?
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
97
Reaction score
53
I'd like to re-direct this thread back to exo-atmospheric vehicles that may or may not exist.

I have stumbled across this particular Web page recently. It originally was posted in April 2018.

I am intrigued by the upper 50% of this Web article (flying triangle/pyramids don't interest me, which is lower 50% of the blog article).

I would like some feedback from you guys as to what might be accurate, versus fiction, versus something else. It also includes alleged "eyewitness drawings" too.

Of course, Michael Schratt wrote the piece. But I don't want to dismiss this out of hand if there are any real items in this we should be taking notice of in regards to possible US black projects that were aerospace vehicles under test.

Schratt's drawings and CGI paintings look nice, but I find them troubling.

Please let me know your reactions to this.

 

Fluff

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
485
Reaction score
267
Base station, call sign, earth.

brilliant, that should fool everyone.....
 

Agent A

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Schratt's drawings and CGI paintings look nice, but I find them troubling.

Please let me know your reactions to this.

What was your reaction that made you find them troubling?

Looking at the C-5C illustration, two things (only two?...), well the first two things that stood out:
1. Can you imagine the 'sub-scale demonstrator' dropping without striking the adjacent engine or fuselage (just physical room, let alone aerodynamic effects)?

2. Look at the front/back cargo doors and how the cheeks bulge outwards between the door apertures, can you see how a one-piece, outsized cargo that required the cheeks would actually access/reach/fit into the widened section? (If this is not clear, look-up a picture of the Airbus Beluga with cargo door open)

FWIW, I'd always pictured 'cheeks' as a swelling in both the front cargo door and aperture to accommodate the widest part of the load, imagine a 'space shuttle' shaped craft being loaded nose first through the front cargo door, and the cheeks accommodating the [widest] wing section, the remainder sitting within the regular hold.
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
97
Reaction score
53
While it is obvious that Schratt has learned mechanical drawing and cad-cam (and these drawings are quite nicely done), some of the very things that others have brought up I had noticed myself. Additionally, the two alleged "eyewitness drawings" may have been done by the same hand and not by two separate people. By that I mean (outside of the written text and words which are different) the presentation of the two drawings look very similar in drawing approach. Only one of the eyewitnesses seems to be aerospace oriented (the alleged F-15 pilot).

The CGI paintings are nice too, but I question what is claimed as being the exit point(s) for the claimed (alleged) "exhaust ports" for claimed linear aerospike engines. From open source material, that is not what the "butt end" of a linear aerospike engine looks like. It just doesn't look like that.

If anyone has better information, please hold forth.

Also: Recently, Schratt has posted a video to Youtube, which is chock full of misleading, and false information. Posted in November.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwIhNzwZW-g


For an example of which I speak, there is a segment on the Buran Shuttle program, and all you have to do is see that section and know this guy isn't meticulous at all. And by which I mean, if there is egregious error in one part of the proffer, there is likely egregious error in other parts of the presentation as well--even if the person reading/watching the material isn't versed in the topic.

On this topic of 1980s/1990s stuff about exo-atmospheric black programs, I would like to see data and information that isn't sourced to Michael Schratt. If anyone has found such information, I would be very greatly appreciative if you would post those URL links or book titles.

I am not ruling out that there were some black projects that reached flight test in this genre. However, I am saying that whatever Schratt is purveying, he is the wrong messenger to provide this stuff.
 
Last edited:

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
396
Reaction score
556

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,789
So nothing new at all.

Its a pity they went into protective over-drive by flying in squads of SAS. Had they just treated it like any other emergency landing nobody would have raised an eyebrow and they could have shuttled it back home with no questions asked.

It does beg the question though, if this secret aircraft really was being tested at Boscombe, then surely there would already have been tight security in place? No eyewitnesses seem to have glimpsed it before the accident so presumably it was being kept under reasonably good cover.
 

antigravite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
746
Reaction score
96
What do people think about the September '94 Boscombe Down incident speculated to involve the Aurora?

The Drive has revisited the incident today


cheers

Hi. My 2 cents, here.

I remember looking into that incident a long time ago.
What really struck me a lot a completely escaped The Drive's attention is the following.

1. Classified or not, something crashed.
2. Three issues were possible: a) human/pilot erro/mistaker b) a purely technical issue c) kinda mix of both
3. I was really surprized to see that a surge of open lit reports on so-called "PIO" (Pilot induced Oscillations) appeared a few years after this Boscombe-Dawn incident and for some reasons connected the dots.

Whatever happened ar BD, could have originated from a PIO, meaning better design (lessons learnt) for next-gen classified aircraft.

Hope this helps.

A.
 

Q-nimbus

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
13
Reaction score
6
A SR-71 or F-117 seems the most plausible possibility, as it seems higly likely it involved an American airframe (if the stories of USAF C-5's etc. are true)

But then I'm reasonably sure that if that was the case, we would have known about it by now, 27 years later. There is no need to keep it secret - both airframes were declassified by then, and there have been plenty of crashes that have been declassified. So that makes me think that there might have been something strange going on back then; if not an exotic aircraft, then certainly a highly, highly sensitive and classified mission by a known aircraft.

The one big problem with this theory is that hunderds, or maybe even thousands of non-Americans must have been involved or have been a witness. That Americans can keep their secrets that long, unlikely, but well, maybe. But it's strange that not a single Brit has spilled the beans over what he or she saw that day, something I consider unlikely if an exotic highly classified aircraft was involved. People like to talk, you know.

Also, one of the big guys who dug into this story is Nick Cook, you know, the guy who thinks the Nazi's were onto anti-gravtiy propulsion, and that the Americans perfected it.... well...

So my guess is a SR-71 or F-117 at best, but quite probably something much, much more mundane and ordinary.
 

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
396
Reaction score
556
(
So nothing new at all.

Its a pity they went into protective over-drive by flying in squads of SAS. Had they just treated it like any other emergency landing nobody would have raised an eyebrow and they could have shuttled it back home with no questions asked.

It does beg the question though, if this secret aircraft really was being tested at Boscombe, then surely there would already have been tight security in place? No eyewitnesses seem to have glimpsed it before the accident so presumably it was being kept under reasonably good cover.

or could it be a case of people putting together 2 plus 2 equals five point four, as in then 8 Flt A109 turned up in transit or pilot do some training and stopped off at BD for pit stop.

cheers
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,789
(
So nothing new at all.

Its a pity they went into protective over-drive by flying in squads of SAS. Had they just treated it like any other emergency landing nobody would have raised an eyebrow and they could have shuttled it back home with no questions asked.

It does beg the question though, if this secret aircraft really was being tested at Boscombe, then surely there would already have been tight security in place? No eyewitnesses seem to have glimpsed it before the accident so presumably it was being kept under reasonably good cover.

or could it be a case of people putting together 2 plus 2 equals five point four, as in then 8 Flt A109 turned up in transit or pilot do some training and stopped off at BD for pit stop.

cheers

I am surprised that nobody has speculated that the aircraft was actually a Senior Citizen carrying a squad of SAS and the Chinook arrived to take them home after the accident.
Not that Senior Citizen would be fighter-sized or fit into a C-5, but hey we might as well kickstart some fresh theories.
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
251
Reaction score
109
I would assume it was a classified a/c working with the F-117s during our '94 Bosnia campaign. Whatever it was, it was operational.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
542
Reaction score
212
I am surprised that nobody has speculated that the aircraft was actually a Senior Citizen carrying a squad of SAS and the Chinook arrived to take them home after the accident.
Not that Senior Citizen would be fighter-sized or fit into a C-5, but hey we might as well kickstart some fresh theories.
Maybe Tony Stark was having suit problems.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
241
So nothing new at all.

Its a pity they went into protective over-drive by flying in squads of SAS. Had they just treated it like any other emergency landing nobody would have raised an eyebrow and they could have shuttled it back home with no questions asked.

It does beg the question though, if this secret aircraft really was being tested at Boscombe, then surely there would already have been tight security in place? No eyewitnesses seem to have glimpsed it before the accident so presumably it was being kept under reasonably good cover.

It is important to remember that prior to that AFM article the general consensus was that it was a "TR-3" or similar. There had been no Aurora connection before that (and I still don't know what "ASTRA" is, I had not heard of it before the article).

Over the years I had tried many times to confirm or substantiate parts of the Boscome Down story. The C-5 flights, the other American aircraft, etc. I was never able to. As far as I could tell there was not a C-5 there, and there was no C-5 flight into Palmdale around that time.

IIRC the official story at the time was an accident involving a Tornado and a towed decoy.
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
5,219
Reaction score
3,255
2024/2025 would see the papers for that time period declassified under the 30 years rule, but I wouldn’t hold my breath being as some papers can remain classified for 50 or even 100 years in the U.K.

I suspect this has already been posted here as it’s quite old.

 

bob225

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
121
Reaction score
84
I just don't get it.

Why fly into or out of Boscombe? if it's an emergency RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall or Fairford would be available, the heath especially is reasonably remote, with easy to close roads, secluded HAS sites and big enough hangers to hide most things, plus it's USAF ran, and there not that far away for a fast mover.

If it's an operational vehicle why use Boscombe, there's plenty of remoter places use.

I guess it could be a foreign a/c being delivered, sounds a bit like firefox!

More likely it's 2+2 = 100.

Just my five pence worth
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
828
I always wondered - why Boscombe?

The only reason I could think of is that The Hall, The Heath and Fairford have pretty much round-the-clock spotter cover.

That might explain Boscombe.

Chris
 

CiTrus90

Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
433
Reaction score
594
Maybe it has the longest runway in the UK and the least ground overflight for an aircraft that deviated from a corridor passing over the Channel?
 

bob225

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
121
Reaction score
84
I always wondered - why Boscombe?

The only reason I could think of is that The Hall, The Heath and Fairford have pretty much round-the-clock spotter cover.

That might explain Boscombe.

Chris
They certainly do now, but not sure about 94?

Never been to Boscombe so not sure what you can see / get at from outside the wire?

I think you're right Boscome's run way may be a bit longer, RAF Lakenheaths, not far off though. (I think Macrihanish was still open then, with a 3 mile runway??)

A quick google maps measure, both Boscome & Lakenheath are about 50 miles fro the coast so equal.

Although according to the report Boscome were using runway 23, so lots more land to fly over and turn around, whilst lakenheath would use 24, which lines up nicely in from the wash / north sea (not many people around in north norfolk).

I guess the only risk then is someone on an oil rig spotting something, like that would ever happen!
 

Similar threads

Top