TR3B possible naval version?

I talked to an old friend of mine about his visit to a naval base situated somewhere in the desert. From what he told me it seems like he went to a naval avaiation testing ground (basically an Area 51 for the navy)

He talked about his friend having access to a classified aircraft project he couldn't know what it was called but he was able to get some hands on info about what it looked like and one of its abilities. One being a very tough but lightweight matereal used to build the aircraft.

The aircraft itself was a solid black triangle. Which had me thinking TR-3B. The material the craft was made of seems to be incredably sturdy and light weight. He was able to see him take a sample of the matereal and hit it several times with a 5lb sledge as hard as he could without making a single dent. I trust him pretty well and I've known him for years. So I think his story is pretty credible.

a reply to: paranormal78

Considering the TR3B, if it actually existed, is supposedly several hundred feet long, it would be too big to fit on a carrier. Naval platforms, with a small number of exceptions, operate off carriers. The exceptions are all naval related missions, such as ASW.

The alleged TR3B doesn't make sense for the navy. There are several other platforms quietly being developed that do make sense, and make use of a triangle shape.

Triangle =/= TR3B, although some insist it does (not saying you are one of those, just some do).

a reply to: paranormal78

China Lake is a Naval Station located in a desert.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm somewhat ignorant when relating to the the Navy, even more so Naval aircraft. Could that type of Platform be useful to the Naval Space Command, or does NSC even exist?

Are you thinking he could have been witness to another maybe smaller more Naval friendly project? One of those lighter than air jobs, maybe a Phantasm on it's wheels?

Or could be, the substance is being looked at for maybe Sub tech or a new surface water craft...

a reply to: wastedown

There are three aircraft under development for the UCLASS program. This will put unmanned aircraft on carriers. We have information on two of the three, but the third hasn't even released a full picture really of it. Two of the three are triangle shaped.

Triangles were found to be inherently stealthy from the early days of radar. Until a computer came along that could help fly them they were also dangerous as hell. They're naturally extremely unstable.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey,

I have always wondered this.

Woukd space fall under the navy or airforce or something different?

If a single ship or a small fleet existed or was built who would operate it / them?

Would an existing space command operate them, be created or would the navy.

I am talking MASSIVE ships....the navy would make sense IMO.
Thoughts?

a reply to: tadaman

From my understanding the Navy has always had platforms in space, including and not limited to satallites, recon platforms (eyes in the sky) and possibly defense oriented platforms. Theres also NAVSPACECOM (Naval Space Command) which doesn't have a lot of info available, aside from some assumtions and small articles that can be found on google.

In my mind it makes sense that the navy would not only be interested in space, but have platforms there already... especially for the joint operations arena and spy sats. On a speculative note, if there was something to the McKinnon story about non terrestrial officers, and a fleet of space ships, it would make sense that the navy headed it up since all of the vernacular around piloting a ship in space would be the ssame as piloting a large naval vessel at sea.

The Army, and the Air Force also have space command divisions. The Army's is primarily for missile defense. The Air Force has much cooler toys would imagine, like the X-37B, for example, is managed by the AF Rapid Capabilites Office.

Submarines are a lot more like a space craft than an airplane. A submarine has to have life support systems and airlocks.

NSC (Naval Space Command) Wiki

Naval Space Command, a component of USSPACECOM, operates assigned space systems to provide surveillance and warning, and provides spacecraft telemetry and on-orbit engineering support. In addition, Naval Space Command serves as the Alternate Space Control Center [AASC] for USSPACECOM's primary centers located at Cheyenne Mountain AS.

From Wikipedia, so take with a pinch of salt. Wiki has been a lot better about cracking down on trolls, and not posting blatant false information. This page reads as though it's accurate enough, imo.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: paranormal78

Considering the TR3B, if it actually existed, is supposedly several hundred feet long, it would be too big to fit on a carrier. Naval platforms, with a small number of exceptions, operate off carriers. The exceptions are all naval related missions, such as ASW.

The alleged TR3B doesn't make sense for the navy. There are several other platforms quietly being developed that do make sense, and make use of a triangle shape.

Triangle =/= TR3B, although some insist it does (not saying you are one of those, just some do).

Zaphod has the ticket OP.
Navy = smaller lighter but still Graphene and Aerogel.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I beg to differ with you on a couple of points and agree with you on one point (more or less). Yes, there will no need for a triangle to be based on a carrier. But I'll add, true, they could land on one because they apparently can land on a space no bigger than their own size, but there is no reason to assume that they have the need of an a/c carrier for support.

Zaphod58, sometimes you try too hard to ignore the existence of the triangles that many people, including myself, have witnessed that obviously are powered by some other manner than conventional engines and airfoils. Why is that?

From some of your own work and from some of my postings and threads I'm sure you are aware that the US Space Force has the US Navy as a major component, not to mention also the Marines and the US Army. I've repeated pointed out that fact from the book Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years, 1989, (ISBN 0--8-037432-8). Plus, the stated plan in that book created expressly for ignorant congresspersons is for the US Space Force to control all space out at least to the Moon. (I think they made a terrible error in being so open about that plan because it certainly is not common knowledge and it violates the so-called UN space treaty.)

And we don't want to forget what the hacker Gary McKinnon told us about the names of the vehicles in space that bear names similar to US ocean-going ships. Names which he tried to check out but could not equate with any US water ships.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe this may have been a smaller test vehicle designed to be more carrier friendly. The navy almost always takes the less capable aircraft for one reason or another. When the F-15 came out they wanted F-18s instead of a navy F-15. When the F-22 came out they tried a navy version but it didn't work out so they chose to wait till the F-35 was completed. I believe the navy would consider a smaller re-designed TR-3B.

a reply to: paranormal78

Except for the minor fact that there is no TR3B.

There were valid reasons for those choices though. Prior to the E, the F-15 wasn't a very good ground attack aircraft. And that wing is a horrible design for a carrier in terms of space.


As for the F-22, the cost of making it carrier capable was prohibitive. Just look at the F-35 costs by model. For LRIP 8, the A is $94M, while the C, with the carrier equipment installed, is over $115M. Even if the Navy had ordered F-22s, they would never have gotten the cost low enough for it to make sense.

originally posted by: paranormal78
a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe this may have been a smaller test vehicle designed to be more carrier friendly. The navy almost always takes the less capable aircraft for one reason or another. When the F-15 came out they wanted F-18s instead of a navy F-15. When the F-22 came out they tried a navy version but it didn't work out so they chose to wait till the F-35 was completed. I believe the navy would consider a smaller re-designed TR-3B.

AHh another person falling for the propagandized black triangle. The designation is made to throw people off by directing searches to it so they will see that instead of searching for the correct thing.

If i remember the f-15 and f-14 are similiar in look for a reason but i cant recall what it was.

ALso I agree with other posters the material used is Graphene.

a reply to: tadaman If the ship was massive enough, I suggest it would be Navy. They have the expertise to handle large crews. Air Force does not have the background needed to run something that big. Remember the biggest thing the Air Force has are B-52 bombers.

a reply to: Ceeker63

They have bigger.

The reason the Navy is better is experience. Air Force missions last 40 hours at a time, tops, and they're in radio contact, or at least have the ability to radio in, the whole time.

The Navy on the other hand, has ships that operate for months at a time on their own, out of contact for days at a time, having to deal with emergencies with bubble gum and safety wire.

Sound familiar?

a reply to: Zaphod58

F-35C wingspan 43ft.

F-22 wingspan 44.5 ft.

The F-22 is already big and powerful enough at low speeds for carrier ops, unlike the F-35A which had to be widened (and weighed down) to make F-35C.


Speaking of AF, what's bigger than the B-52? C-5? Anything else?

a reply to: mbkennel

Look at the wing shapes. That big diamond on the F-22 is lousy for a carrier.

I hate to break it to you, but a navalized F-22 would have to be heavier too. Heavier landing gear, heavier tail hook, heavier frame in places, more weight for the hydraulics, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah... I don't think a TR-3B would necessarily have a naval version.

The whole point of basing aircraft off of a carrier is force projection, giving you the opportunity to use a relatively shorter range craft much more quickly and flexibly in a combat situation without having to consider the need for a pre-built land base.

A craft with what I'm certain would be phenomenal range and speed, as well as being shrouded in such secrecy as a TR-3B, would not reasonably have any need to be carrier-based.

That said, if they were basing it on land here in the US (because you KNOW they aren't basing it anywhere else), I don't know why the Navy would need such a craft.

We need a auto word censor and or changer so whenever some one types TR-3b it automatically changes it to BLACK TRIANGLE.WE have told people many many times the designation is not correct and its propaganda to get you to search the wrong things.