Pentagon releases results of 13,000-mph test flight over Pacific

reply to post by Aim64C


Is that a bad joke to claim that the Auorora was really all about the subsonic B-2?
(It is to me!)

Warfare is becoming more and more of a push-button way to settle differences. In WWI, the subs were a key instrument, In WWII, it was the flattop. In WWIII it will be the mysterious triangle carft and munitions fired from space.

I see many postings such as yours that ignore two facts. One is the proven existence of the mysterious triangles that supercede any and all AIRcraft. They don't move via air or thrust. As I say constantly on ATS, I've seen one, a huge one, moving low, slow and silently over Laramie. (About 20 others people with me also witnessed it.) (Yes, they come from our re-engineering UFO systems of movement.)

Second, the blueprint for strategy for the next world war is set forth in the 1989 book Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years by John M. Collins and Commissioned by the US Congress for the dumber of their members. It details, beyond the useless fluff that Collins was forced to include, exactly how the US Space Force was to be formed and its growing duties across all of the services.

You would do well in heeding the reports that the English hacker Gary McKinnon did encounter data on the USSF fleet. Finally, also considering that the highly touted F-35 is nothing but a product for export to our "friends" that lack the treasure to build triangles let alone being allowed to know the secrets of them. That about sums it up, except what are we going to do about acknowledging the aliens?

reply to post by Aim64C


Short of total economic calamity, or a miracle Ron Paul victory, do you really think they're going to bring everything home and shut down all the overseas bases if they spend a few trillion on an armada of these? Not even if they get their space beams.

Read the military websites and DARPA papers.

reply to post by Aliensun

Is that a bad joke to claim that the Auorora was really all about the subsonic B-2?

Listen carefully, triangle-boy. I'm only going to say this once more.

The "Aurora" got its name from the spillage of a project, code named "Aurora" during the late 80s, within a listing of defense appropriations (spending).

At the time, reports were also appearing of a very high performing hypersonic aircraft being tested (donuts-on-a-rope contrails and the like).

People took the Aurora project name and appended it to the hypersonic aircraft (because "aurora" sounds like a go-fast name... despite the fact that project code-names are deliberately chosen to be deceptive or to have no discernible value or relation to itself or other projects... Germany gave their projects clever little names and it greatly aided our espionage efforts against them).

The "Aurora" project was later revealed to be the B-2's code name. So, what has been popularly called the "aurora" was not ever operating under that name. However, there is considerable evidence to show that a hypersonic research prototype did exist and was being evaluated - hence the sightings.

I see many postings such as yours that ignore two facts.

One advantage of being a reservist - and one that isn't picky about assignments, is that I brush shoulders with people from a lot of different communities. From sonar techs to patrol-boat operators to people from Special Development Group Six. I haven't seen it all - but I've seen a considerable amount.

I've had lunch with the Commander of Naval Reserve Forces (VADM Debbink) and talked to him about where the Reserves and the Active Duty military are going (eventually, to being one in the same) on multiple occassions. I've seen the progression of the military over the past six years and the direction we are heading. It's not all what I would like to see - but the trend is away from "gold fish/birds/ships/etc." The advances in networking and portable technologies make it insanely cost-effective to equip the standard military with, essentially, modified smart-phones and projection displays (and do similar networking gimmicks in existing surface, air, and other platforms).

Numerous studies have been done - and a billion dollars spent to equip a division of infantry with combat awareness networks is not only more effective than a billion dollar super-plane, but more applicable to the type of engagements we are experiencing now and expect to experience over the next 15 years.

Second, the blueprint for strategy for the next world war is set forth in the 1989 book Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years by John M. Collins and Commissioned by the US Congress for the dumber of their members.

The problem is that there is no industry within the U.S. to hide such a massive, secret space project within. Forecasts from the 80s and early 90s often take for granted the expansion of the space program and expected the industry to grow and be the next export haven of the U.S. Economy. Something that never happened.

If you are going to develop a whole wing of aerospace assets and keep it secret - you need an aerospace industry to hide it in. Otherwise; the logistical complications, alone, will give away the existence of the project. Which is the ultimate litmus test of any "secret squadrons" - whether or not the logistical footprints can be detected (because you cannot practically hide the traces from effective auditing processes - but auditing something when you aren't sure what you are looking for is a very ineffective method of auditing).

This is why aircraft, like the F-117 and B-2 were all talked about well before their release by aviation enthusiasts and experts who picked up on the chatter from within the industries responsible for contracting and subcontracting the production of serviceable numbers of aircraft. They may not have had many specifics - but they could tell you exactly what contractors and subcontractors were involved in developing the aircraft before the existence of it was declassified.

Whatever it is that people are seeing in the sky - the assertion that it is part of some secret-squirrel squadron of aerospace vehicles is just silly.

A very limited number of research platforms (less than 4) - maybe (though we tend to test our equipment in places that won't be seen... not creek beds in people's back yards - that tends to conflict with the goal of remaining secret). So - I'm not trying to tell you that "triangles" don't exist... but that we don't have the capability to field them in the numbers you assert... nor do we have the stupidity to fly them around foreign, hostile nations to stir up media reports. Something else is the cause of the triangle phenomena you are so fixated upon.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Short of total economic calamity, or a miracle Ron Paul victory, do you really think they're going to bring everything home and shut down all the overseas bases if they spend a few trillion on an armada of these? Not even if they get their space beams.

I said a draw-down. Not a complete removal of presence.

But, yes, they will. The overall idea is to... more or less... do away with the Active Duty military. It has proven to be quite an inefficient manpower system. The military will still pay to bring in Reservists, train them, and drill them - but they will also be allowed to take up billeting related to their civilian careers and/or college education outside of the military. Rate/MOS-locking will, theoretically, become a thing of the past. Surge-Main units are a perfect example of this in the Reserves. People with construction and metallurgical experience (whether in the military or not) are mobilized for short periods of time to handle maintenance, repairs, and upgrades of naval ships in the yards. Then they come back and resume their civilian careers.

It's much the same with the security detachments. We mobilize for a while to go babysit some ships in port and come home - rotate out with other units if it's a long-term mission (we have a few of those ongoing in places you wouldn't really expect).

That is the way the military will be operating in the future. When ships come back for maintenance and upgrades - that will also be the end of the active duty billets for a large portion of the crew (which would, currently, remain on active duty getting full BAH and Per-Diem to stay in hotels - effectively twiddling their thumbs for six to nine months while waiting for the ship to be worked over by a combination of military and civilian personnel involved). It's silly. Clear them out of there - send them off to other billets if they wish to remain active, and bring in only who you need to carry out the required operations aboard the ship (which may be some of the crew members - but certainly not all of them).

From a budget standpoint - we have to draw down our active forces and mothball a lot of our arsenal. In the coming years, I expect a very thorough shake-down of defense spending and a lot of debate over what our goals should and should not be for the military (at the foreign policy level). We will be forcing a rehash of our defense allocations in accordance to the mission of the military (which has suffered from Mission Creep, substantially, over the past 60 years).

I'll admit. I'm a fan of the military. I love military hardware and the platforms it produces. But at the same time - I'm also keenly aware of the problems this country faces. The largest problem we have is that, for the past 60 years, we've decided the solution to debate over whether or not to fund a project is to propose another project be funded, as well. It's impulse-buy syndrome on the national government's level. And it's time we stop and figure out whether or not we really want our national government to be spending money on these things (from healthcare to military spending - and every sub-category within the spectrum).

I have no illusions disregarding that, when we do that - we'll find the military is being used in a lot of ways that it shouldn't (as a civil police force in Afghanistan, for instance... let someone else do that job - send us in to route the bad guys and make them go away). We can still accomplish our missions on a much smaller budget and with a much more focused role.

We either do that... or go the way of Rome.

There really aren't a lot of other options available - spare entertaining notions of zombie viruses or alien invasions.

Originally posted by Aim64C
I said a draw-down. Not a complete removal of presence.

But, yes, they will. The overall idea is to... more or less... do away with the Active Duty military.

Oh dear, this might be the first online debate I've been drawn into in over a year. If you're not familiar with my material you might get lost but I'll try to keep it within your contexts as I presume them to be.

Yes, perhaps, especially with robotic seabases left in the stead of the carrier groups which we havent gotten to yet and most dont realize their being on the drawing board.

Still I dont see this as 'drawback'. Of humans, maybe, and thats a big maybe. Theres always justifications of new spending and other potentially diabolical undertakings. A good example is various mad science sorts of scientific work, which when it reaches headlines for an instant they just have to mention how people with say parkinsons disease will be cured when the real motivations behind the system and people that orchestrate that system are far mor elikely about their goals of becoming gods with indefinite lifespans. Or more in your language might be how when DARPA says oh we're developing sophisticated brain implants for soldiers. You might percieve that as another tool to increase their odds of survival while missing the concept that these same advances also promise to enable TPTB to turn them into robots initially and us total mind controlled slaves in the long run.

It has proven to be quite an inefficient manpower system.

It's so inefficient that the US rules the world. If only they can make it better and bring forth faster crafts the universe awaits...

It's much the same with the security detachments. We mobilize for a while to go babysit some ships in port and come home - rotate out with other units if it's a long-term mission (we have a few of those ongoing in places you wouldn't really expect).

What about the oil platforms? Those workers go on like 3 month rotations. I had a friend who went on 1 month tugboat bridge-building rotations and damn was he looking for a brothel when he got home. My old roomate is a firefighter-paramedic. If only these workers especially soldiers could be automaton robots drizzled in a reality land of exstacy in their minds while their bocies work all day everyday all year every year. Nanobots that cost their builders costing only pennies to infect people with are on DARPA's todo list. REJOICE!

I'm getting outta control I apologize. Lets...

I'll admit. I'm a fan of the military. I love military hardware and the platforms it produces.

ME TOO !!!!! "SUPER" Aircraft carriers, which the US has about 12 of (forward deployed), when no other nation on earth has more than 1 at all, are AWESOME! Our stealth plane armada, which poopoos any other nations aspirations, DOPE! Military forces trained as standing armies of police squads (which get instant hiring in police stations when they come home), FRESH! Trillions of dollars in black budget funding into mad science programs of mind control and cognitive artificial intelliegence... ORGASM!!! Auh.. auh... auh... oh yea! Get me a towel!

Oh wait I apologize, I was saying "lets" actually skip right to the rhino in the room: What was all of this for again??? Oh, defense, thats right. Most of our military hardware forward deployed really protected the US on 9/11, you know, that day that made it where the US 'needs' to be forward deployed and invading everybody and threatening the rest of the fodder.

So you might say 'well with these new planes we'll get those forces back here "again". But the question still lurks why does the "freedom loving US need to be forward deployed as the modern era's EMPIRE"? This year on the 4th of July ask yourself what empires meant to the US and how did the US become the modern day earthly nemesis when you pat yourself on the back for being so cool and being under the domain of the greatest military archipeligo of human history under the pretense of celebrating "freedom".

Right at that moment, I beg you to ask yourself: 'Is this concept of freedom they tell us we fight and dominate the earth for really about grandmas freedom to choose which church she goes to or is it the "freedom" of our masters to plunder, rape, pillage, dominate, control and exert power over the world???

Saying we need to forward deploy the military in every possible fashion is like saying we need to nuke "enemies" evrytime they get out of line. Oh but you might respond that having all of that keeps "US" from having to nuke everyone. The funny thing is that there are a great many nations now that dont have all of these US's gaggle of instruments of empire yet dont nuke their neighbors. And many of them []btruly hate each other and for good reason.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Oh dear, this might be the first online debate I've been drawn into in over a year.

It shows.

Yes, perhaps, especially with robotic seabases left in the stead of the carrier groups which we havent gotten to yet and most dont realize their being on the drawing board.

We have carrier task forces forward deployed as reactionary forces to events like, say, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan - or we get intel revealing that some renegade former-soviet nation is about to launch ballistic missiles at some other nation.

There are a lot of rapid-response missions we carry out that no one ever really hears about. Not because they are ultra-top-secret, but because they are small little events that aren't in the media's "sweet zone" of gray-area ethics.

Still I dont see this as 'drawback'. Of humans, maybe, and thats a big maybe. Theres always justifications of new spending and other potentially diabolical undertakings.

You're rambling, and missing the point. I just told you why we -cannot- continue to spend the way we are. It will lead to hyper-inflation and collapse of the fiat currency system we use. ... You know - where people are bringing in wheelbarrows full of dollar bills to buy a loaf of bread - crazy # like that.

You might percieve that as another tool to increase their odds of survival while missing the concept that these same advances also promise to enable TPTB to turn them into robots initially and us total mind controlled slaves in the long run.

That doesn't resolve the logistical support issue.

Though I do appreciate your the cute theory you have about cybernetic implants being used to turn people into robots. You're really missing the forest for the trees with that one. Hitler, for example, was able to execute thousands of Jews while keeping it largely from the mind of the average citizen and soldier... and keep them believing they were doing the right thing.... all without cybernetic implants.

It's so inefficient that the US rules the world. If only they can make it better and bring forth faster crafts the universe awaits...

Your car is only about 15-20% efficient. Yet it's enough to drive you to work and back on $30/week (assuming a smaller sedan and a relatively short commute of 15 miles or less with notional amounts of city driving).

Right at that moment, I beg you to ask yourself: 'Is this concept of freedom they tell us we fight and dominate the earth for really about grandmas freedom to choose which church she goes to or is it the "freedom" of our masters to rape, pillagee, dominate, control and exert power over the world?

There's a reason I'm in the 99 percentile of intellectual metrics. I insist that only I am capable of speaking for myself and capable of analyzing the situation.

As such: I am not blinded to the fact that our military is utilized to secure economic advantages and exploits. I have, on numerous occasions, put forth the argument that our military should be a contract service (able to accept bids like a PMC - only falling under DoD guidelines and the UCMJ). May as well be honest about it and not try to obfuscate the fact under tax revenue.

However, comma, I have not seen any evidence that there are grave disservices being done to the affected populations by our presence (as a matter of policy). I'm not saying we always do everything right, or that everyone always behaves like they should - but that your terms of "rape" and "pillage" simply do not apply. In many cases - the populations largely benefit from our presence... spare for the fact that the nature of their society is to solve things at the barrel of a gun - and their internal disputes were often suppressed by the authority we ousted (so they start killing each other, again - instead of the dictator killing them... can't win for losing).

But that's all kind of diverging from the point that we are exploring hypersonic craft, once again, because it holds the potential to launch strikes in reaction to global events from centralized locations (possibly even with standard ordnance or modification kits to standard warheads). That reduces the need for forward deployed assets and allows for a more cost-effective force allocation.

I've been reading over this thread, and actually find a lot of what your saying to be fairly sensible. However, *comma*, I feel I must address a couple of your points.

First off:

There's a reason I'm in the 99 percentile of intellectual metrics. I insist that only I am capable of speaking for myself and capable of analyzing the situation.

I'm skeptical of most people who feel the need to specifically advertise their intelligence. You may very well be gifted, but I've found that most people who do feel that need are hiding something - either a lack of intelligence or an insecurity about it. Either way, it's unnecessary, and regardless of your intentions makes you come off as patronizing.

As such: I am not blinded to the fact that our military is utilized to secure economic advantages and exploits. I have, on numerous occasions, put forth the argument that our military should be a contract service (able to accept bids like a PMC - only falling under DoD guidelines and the UCMJ). May as well be honest about it and not try to obfuscate the fact under tax revenue.

This might actually be fairly effective at exposing just how corrupt the true intentions of our military operations are (thanks to our ''representative government''), but the idea of turning our nation's military into a mercenary force is both immoral and sickening.

However, comma, I have not seen any evidence that there are grave disservices being done to the affected populations by our presence (as a matter of policy).

Let me stop you right there. Take the Iraq sanctions for example:
link
I forget, what did this accomplish again?

Or the Al Qaeda cell that moved into Iraq after we invaded:
link
Drawing your enemies into a fight on someone else's soil will inevitably produce collateral damage.

Or the Japan fire-bombings:
link
Necessary? We might never know. Horrific nonetheless.

Point is, whether the effects were intentional or not, the claim that our occupations/operations abroad don't have any negative side-effects is wildly inaccurate.

At that speeds this... vehicle would be moving 3.61 miles per second....

That is a ton faster than any bullet on earth...

In other words it would be heard... but not seen..

Originally posted by petrus4
Another reason for wishing you were a billionaire.

Breakfast in front of the pyramids, lunch in New York, and dinner in Alice Springs.

Who the heck would want to stop in NY or the Poconos for that matter,lol
How about Savannah? Charlston? lol

reply to post by CaptainIraq

Either way, it's unnecessary, and regardless of your intentions makes you come off as patronizing.

That was my intention.

but the idea of turning our nation's military into a mercenary force is both immoral and sickening.

Why?

You are not going to put a stop to contracted conflict by refusing to participate in it. You can, however, become very effective at it while maintaining standards of conduct - thereby changing the face of the issue.

Take the Iraq sanctions for example:

You're getting a tad distracted, here. Please enlighten me as to how this is relevant to Post-Saddam Iraq (with U.S. Presence). Or, more interestingly - let me ask you how effective the invasion was at addressing Saddam's regime by comparison to the sanctions (and their impact upon the population at large)?

Or the Al Qaeda cell that moved into Iraq after we invaded:

How was this our mistreatment of the Iraqi population?

Or the Japan fire-bombings:

Touche - however, one can hardly overlook the fact that the Japanese would use women and children as combatants (possibly quite willingly - though I'm sure that varied from individual to individual). By that point in the war, we'd learned that the Japanese were disturbingly open and accepting of attrition.

When they have demonstrated a completely different value of human life... it gets more difficult to uphold your own values with respect to their population.

That... and strategic warfare is very eerie in that the targets are always civilian assets and infrastructure (because, ultimately, the civilians are the square-one logistical backing for a war effort).

Point is, whether the effects were intentional or not, the claim that our occupations/operations abroad don't have any negative side-effects is wildly inaccurate.

Young sir, would you please indicate where, in any of my posts, I made this claim.

This is why I often take a patronizing tone. Many people are ignorant to the irrelevance of their genius.

And I'm not immune to it, either.