ATS Air Force

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I don't understand why we include planes that might not even exist, it doesn't make sense, why is it that Aurora and Black Manta have made people's list when we could incorporate practical REAL aircraft?
Shattered OUT...

ShatteredSkies,

I honestly believe that the TR-3A Black Manta Exists. Everything I have seen leads me to believe that this aircraft is "Black" counterpart of the RC-135 Rivet Joint Spy Planes. The suggested shape for the aircraft is a flying wing with similarities to the B-2 Spirit. I base my conclusion on the fact that I have a collection of reported sighting of the TR-3 in the Anthelop Valley area of California, Near Air Force Plant 42, where most secret aircraft are built.

Tim

No matter what you say though, you can go on and on forever on why you think it's real, but if someone asked you "Show me." You wouldn't be able to provide any fool-proof evidence of it's existence, not like you can walk up to an airbase and say "Hi, I would like to take photos of your TR3-A Black Manta."

Anyways, you have your own reasons and beliefs as to the existence of the TR3-A as I do have my beliefs and reasons for the existence of the TR3-B, doesn't mean that it's real though, as much as I would like to incorporate the TR3-B, it just isn't reasonable enough to make anyone's list.

And yes, I've known about the TR3-A for a few years now, did a bit of research into it, posted my findings on a thread a while back.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
No matter what you say though, you can go on and on forever on why you think it's real, but if someone asked you "Show me."
Shattered OUT...

That is the nature of Black Programs! Unless information in declassified, we will never really know for sure. If looking looking for proof that will stand up in court, you won't get it!

Tim

Keeping A-4 Skyhawks and A-7 Corsairs as Attackers, Still not sure about Attack Choppers, May just use all three of them, Guess im sorted.

This roumoured TR-3 Black Manta could be used as one of our black projects apart from the ATS-1 and 2

Is the TR-3 Black Manta Supersonic?



How about using the F-121 Sentinel, A-17 n stuff?









[edit on 29-1-2006 by Browno]

Hi nice thread but i have a bad news for you bad boys!
while you are planning to strike the other boards with
your ats air force... i thinked "too easy" and i push
one of my red key with "EMP Weapon" on it.
Now yours nice toys are still at ground...on the air field
you can try to push it but they wouldn't fly...all the
electronic is gone,burned out, your radars are blind,
spy satellites only garbage on orbit, your pc/max/unix
are dead...no more music, no more google, no more ats...
no more wall street, no more ipod,no tv, no cnn and mtv...
no vibro,no cofee machine, no digital photos,all device using
electronic are gone,your electricity is gone...
yours are in the dark,cold dark.

you can try to fight now...

ps: i forgot my destroyer is on the other side of the moon and i still watching!

ps2:sorry for the off-topic and for the errors, bonne journée!

GothicDj

Originally posted by Browno
This roumoured TR-3 Black Manta could be used as one of our black projects apart from the ATS-1 and 2

Is the TR-3 Black Manta Supersonic?

How about using the F-121 Sentinel, A-17 n stuff?

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Browno]

I think the TR-3 might have low supersonic capability. As for the top speed, I have no idea. The reports I have on the Black Manta mainly point out it's bizzare abiliy to fly very slow and hover silently. I had intended it to be a Black Project.

Side Note: The ability to fly extreemly slow and hover would make the Black Manta ideal for communications intelligence and spying on missile and nuclear testing.

The F-121 and A-17 are both good ideas. I never though of them. Thanks Browno!

Tim

Well Browno, I believe that the TR3-A was high subsonic.

I thought of the F-121 and A-17, I've included the A-17 and AX-29 as SAP's but left the F-121 out, decided it just wasn't needed.

Those are my two cents.

Shattered OUT...

Interceptor:
Corsair

Spy/Recon:
X-15

Attack:
Cessna

Bomber:
(Converted) Sr-71
Space Shuttle

Cargo:
Spruce Goose

Inflight refueling:
Zeppelins

In case we cannot afford the F-22A Raptor, Howabout installing Vectored Thrust nozzles on the F-15 Eagles?

It would then be a 'Bargain ATF'

Will there be a future for Naval ATFs in our force or will the F-35s do that job?

The F-35s may eventually replace the A-4 Skyhawks and A-7 Corsairs later on in service and will be used for 'Thud' style missions.

The VTOL Variant could be used in the ATS Marines?

Are VTOL Fighters more expensive to run?

Here's a decent site.

www.combataircraft.com...






[edit on 31-1-2006 by Browno]

You mean like the F-15 ACTIVE?

And the F/A-18 HARV?

Shattered OUT...

Then we will be makng the same mistakes tha Russia. Copying all the X planes projects 10 years later and sell them as cutting edge tech, without finding out if they actually work. E.g. Su-47's FSW

Not only is that comment on the Su-47 incorrect, but it is also straight out absurd(in my opinion).

The Su-47 only came to be as a designation since as early as 2003 since the Russians decided that instead of spending alot of money on a new airframe, they'll just make the current experimental testbed a production craft. The reason for this is because the S-37 airframe has been in the testing phase for atleast a decade up until then.

Shattered OUT...

It would be a good idea becouse it would be a 'Bargain ATF' as i said before but i dont think i would add the front canards becouse it would affect the Vulcan Gun Port and they look quite 'feeble' for the aircraft.

I did see a photograph of the F-15 Active in standard grey paint scheme but when i seen the first one in its red,white,blue colours, It had afterburners instead of the square shaped Vectored Thrust(VT) nozzles.

They may be VT Nozzles but round shaped ones like on the Sukhoi 37.

Would the F-15 be slower with VT nozzles or is it faster with its Afterburners?, I found out the newer F-22 Raptor is actually slower than the F-15 Eagle.

ALSO Thinking about using the CH-46 Sea Knight, It has a greater range and speed than the Pumas,Super Frelons but on the other side it had some teething problems. Will still use Pumas, Super Frelons but add the
CH-46 on the chopper list

You're comparing Apples to orange for lack of a better analogy.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The reason for this is because the S-37 airframe has been in the testing phase for atleast a decade up until then.

Shattered OUT...

The biggest reason (not the only) I fully agree with this comment is the Russians seem to have a tendancy to continue improving the same design, (not just upgrading, improving), untill it becomes completely obsolete. While the US on the other hand seems to prefer continuous upgrades to it's current aircraft, until an all new aircraft can be built to replace it. The Super Hornet is the obvious exception to this.

Yes well the Russians are not improving upon an airframe, they're keeping it, only with a different name.

If it works, why fix it?

Shattered OUT...

i say that we include the F-16 Fighting Falcon. After all its 1 of americas favorite planes.

Falcon out

Well, there's a difference between 1 of America's most produced fighter and favorite fighter. Now it is a favorite, but there are others in front of it.

And I believe I included the F-16 in my list.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by carcharodon
What about KC767 tankers / Awaks they have more range and better avionics than the KC10 and KC135

Hm ...

maximum fuel payload:

KC-10A Extender 160200 kg
KC-135R Stratotanker 92210 kg
KC-767A 91600 kg

maximum range

KC-10A Extender 18507 km
KC-135R Stratotanker 17766 km
KC-767A 12200 km