Weird California sighting

a reply to: weavty1

No, it was only there for a specific reason, short term. It's long gone from there by now.

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: boomer135

VARIOUS?

No. Its not operational yet I don't think

I do think various will be a game changer though. Check out the video on this page. That gun is pretty bad ass.www.lockheedmartin.com...

In the video, what does it mean when they say that the uav is "survivable"?

a reply to: keeley

It means that it can go into areas with active defenses and either get back out, or survive long enough that it can perform its mission before being shot down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks. I kind of figured it was the obvious answer, but I just wanted to make sure I was following the sales pitch right.

a reply to: boomer135

I found it interesting they creators of the video decided to use T-34 tanks as the enemy combatants.

Pretty much the only countries to use those WWII tanks are in Africa...Oh and North. Korea.

a reply to: keeley

That's the current problem with the Pacific right now. The UAVs with enough range to get to target areas near China and North Korea, and other areas aren't survivable enough to last long. The ones that are survivable and can last long over those areas don't have the range to get there.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: keeley

That's the current problem with the Pacific right now. The UAVs with enough range to get to target areas near China and North Korea, and other areas aren't survivable enough to last long. The ones that are survivable and can last long over those areas don't have the range to get there.

Wierd to think that the selling point for a uav is that it is not disposible.

I think the Astr0 enigma is still stuck in my head... but consider the idea of smaller planes joining to a "mother ship".

If the future LSB/other future craft had smaller drones that could attach to it for the trip to the target area and then detatch and deploy when ready, it would solve the range issue. If the uav were built with the same stealth characteristics of its host craft, I imagine survivability would not be an issue.

a reply to: keeley

That's one option that has been looked at. As well as the X-47, and carrier based UAVs, although they've demolished the UCLASS to the point that it's almost pointless to even go forward with it.

a reply to: yuppa

I'm not familiar with the SHARPS program. Could you give me a pointer to it?

a reply to: Zaphod58

If I'm reading in between the lines correctly that last post tells me something.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: yuppa

I'm not familiar with the SHARPS program. Could you give me a pointer to it?

near the bottom sharps program

there ya go. thr start of another rabbit hole.

Great thread, it took me me a while to read the whole thing, but I'm up to date on this and the other one.

I have a question: How many of you would relate modern UFO sightings to Black Terrestial Projects, as opposed to off-world tech? Just curious.

I've been learning loads simply by reading, and thought I'd toss that question out there.

a reply to: Druid42

I'm willing to bet that a huge percentage of UFO sightings are black projects in testing.

a reply to: yuppa
Not a rabbit hole.. Easily explainable.

Slender Hypervelocity Aerothermodynamic Research Probe

Read:

www.coe.montana.edu...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Druid42

I also second Zaphod's response.. I'll even go all in and say 100% of actual triangular craft spotted, are SAP assets or mistaken identity of publicly-known birds, such as the F-117, B-2, Typhoon, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok, so then reverse engineering or simply tecnological advancement?

I only remotely grep the technical stuff, aviation is not my specialty, but I can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. You guys know your stuff, and is the aviation advances 100% our own creation?

a reply to: weavty1

yeah but the concepts of the sharp are surely transferable to other platforms with a little tinkering. could be a very useful technology.

a reply to: Druid42

There's a fairly logical progression for those that sit and study this a lot. You can see, not easily, the linear progression starting from the Wright Flyer up through WWII, and after. There were a few jumps that were unexpected, such as going from breaking the sound barrier in 1947, to the SR-71 cruising at Mach 3 just a few years later, but nothing that says there was an outside source that added to our knowledge, that I have ever seen.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of 60 years from Kitty Hawk to the Moon. That's within one lifetime. All mankind's doing? No help?

a reply to: weavty1

I concur. We got some cool stuff. Any significantly advanced technology will look like magic isn't that the general saying. So if something is really advanced and exotic there is a good chance people that don't know what they are looking at will believe its a alien vehicle. I think we had a break through with some novel ideas that after all the years of R&D (still ongoing) worked waaay better then they imagined. Now what to do with it is probably the real question.