SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

reply to post by Ribox12


Um probably not. Skunks might be

reply to post by boomer135


Hmmm are we to think that the HTV Falcon test flights were more successful than reported?

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Blackswift was so called cancelled in 2008. I. E. it went blackworld in my opinion. There has been numerous sightings of it going back to 1995. Well at least something that looks like it. The best ones were from tikaboo peak in 1999 by the Swiss guys. You can find the audio and story at dreamland resort dot com. I'm on my phone or else I would link it. Look under black projects.

reply to post by boomer135


Swiss fastmover 1999

Here you go

reply to post by Stealthbomber


Thanks!

reply to post by boomer135


That's alright,

Do you think 'Fastmover' would be sort of too obvious a callsign to have for a high speed aircraft? Seems a bit silly to me lol

reply to post by Stealthbomber


The fact that they saw this amazing airplane, and didn't bother to grab a single recording device, other than a tape recorder is what I find silly. I'm sorry, but if you see some incredible black project, no one knows about, you're going to get photos, or video. Especially if you have a 500mm lens with you.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yeah that's true, I won't even go to the airport to drop someone off without at least bringing my camera with me, and you can bet that if I was at tikkaboo peak and saw a test in progress the first thing I'd be doing is getting a photo.

Ah we'll we can only hope that one day the blackswift comes out of the black.

I don't get it.

This reminds me of the race back in the 50's and 60's for the fastest plane. As a fighter, they were worthless due to lack of manuverability, as a bomb delivery vehicle, they are obsolete. We have ICBM and cruise missles. We have sattalites for survellance.

So what's the point behind the fast plane?

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
reply to post by boomer135

 

That's alright,

Do you think 'Fastmover' would be sort of too obvious a callsign to have for a high speed aircraft? Seems a bit silly to me lol

Fastmover isnt the callsign, its a designation for an aircraft that travels above mach 1. Slow mover would be your janet flights.

I for one know this sighting was legit from what I know.

Originally posted by davjan4
I don't get it.

This reminds me of the race back in the 50's and 60's for the fastest plane. As a fighter, they were worthless due to lack of manuverability, as a bomb delivery vehicle, they are obsolete. We have ICBM and cruise missles. We have sattalites for survellance.

So what's the point behind the fast plane?

Satellites are on a predicted path so if you had to hide something it would be easy to just push it back into the barn when the satellites are overhead. The Air Force wants a Mach 25 aircraft capable of delivering a nuke to anywhere in the world in 2 hours. It's called a Global Strike Vehicle. You do make a good point about ICBM's and cruise missiles, but the satellites are only good for when they are overhead. This plane can be anywhere in the world in a few hours if not less than an hour taking pics of whats going on.

reply to post by davjan4


Satellites are also very predictable, amateur astronomers can track spy satellites and know when they are going to fly over, a stealthy fast aircraft can fly over and take pics before the other guys get a chance to put away there toys

Beat me to it with a better response lol

reply to post by boomer135


Why not just have a network of satellites with nukes hidden inside them?

The Russians have already put weapons in space before with their Almaz space station program:

Almaz was equipped with a unique 23mm Rikhter (factory index 261P or 225P) rapid-fire cannon mounted on the forward belly of the station. This revolver cannon was modified from the tail-gun of the Tu-22 bomber and was capable of a theoretical rate of fire of 1800-2000 (up to 2600) rounds per minute. Each 168 gram (ammo 23-OFZ-D-R ) or 173 gram (ammo 23-OFZ-G-R) projectile flew at a speed of 850 m/s relative to the station. The cannon had supply of 32 rounds and was tested at the end of the mission, when station work in unmanned mode. To aim the cannon, which was in a fixed mounting, the entire station would be turned to face the threat. Salyut 3/OPS-2 conducted a successful test firing remotely with the station unmanned due to concerns over excessive vibration and noise. OPS-4 was to have featured two rockets instead of the aircraft cannon, but this system has not been shown publicly and may have never been fully manufactured despite it being used experimentally.

Wikipedia Link

That was surprising news to learn the other day!

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Contrary to Hollywood, explosions don't do well in space. You'd have to be right on top of the target. A gun/missile system is a much better system.

Dont you need oxygen for most of our weapons systems to work in space? I'm no expert but I think we would need the oxygen to get a combustion.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I think you misunderstand, have ICMB's in orbit ready to be fired at any target at a moment's notice.

I'm not sure the logistics of the reentry of an orbiting ICBM -- I would imagine it would require some form of heat shielding?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


They already have shielding on them. But as pointed out earlier satellites are predictable. It would easy for someone to kill the garage the warheads are in.

reply to post by boomer135


Well, we don't need oxygen to fire thrusters and rockets in space -- so I would assume some kind of normal rocket powered missile would work fine in space?

Edit: Now about the detonation in space...that might be where oxygen would be required. I have no idea if exploding ordinance in space has been tested. I've always thought it would be cool to take a bunch of nukes and have a "nuclear fireworks show" up in space someplace.

Obviously not in orbit...maybe between Mars and Earth. I want to see what a nuclear explosion would look like in space!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

They already have shielding on them. But as pointed out earlier satellites are predictable. It would easy for someone to kill the garage the warheads are in.

Very true! However...you could disguise them as commercial communication satellites.

The only unexplained thing I have seen in the skies involves what I thought was a satellite:

I remember very clearly years ago sitting in a hot tub at night looking at the stars. I saw what I thought was a satellite (predictable as you said) and watched it go from one horizon to the other. I've seen countless satellites and it was behaving normally, until it made a perfect 90 degree turn on a dime. My father was with me at the time and saw it too.

To this day we still both don't know what could be moving so fast and pull off a manuver like that!