# Airforce Develops Mach 10 Fighter in "Area 51"! How Long Till **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413 "2005-01-24T15:20:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/21 "2005-01-25T15:39:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > …the giant, stealthed, heavy lift balloons > [@toadspittle](#): > > … or the infamous heavy lifters/“black triangles” So THAT’S what that damned thing was! BIG mo-fo; maybe a few hundred yards long. Unconscionable number of unlit (could’ve been black–it was night so color didn’t matter 😉 ) helicopters around it. (I counted nine from the sounds–mo-fo was big enough you could hear individual escorts.) And I’ll assume the feeling of an upward pull was because I was woken from a sound slumber when the power went out and the tornado sirens started going off. I’ll even assume that the power going out was because the local transformer was in lousy shape and liked to do that. AND I’ll assume the tornado sirens going off in four towns in sequence as it passed over them was a coincidence (the newspaper said authorities couldn’t explain it). But what the hell was it doing over west-suburban Chicago? ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/22 "2005-01-25T19:24:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m not sure what a hypersonic jet would get the military. Certainly it will get where it is going very quickly but it doesn’t seem as if that is much of an issue today with modern jets. Of course nothing would catch one of these (missile or normal plane) but again one would suppose it’d have to slow down to drop bombs or otherwise fight at which point it’d become vulnerable (I cannot imagine what opening bomb bay doors would do to a plane going that fast but doubt it’d be wise). As I understand it the issue with hypersonic planes is not so much that we can’t make engines to push one fast enough but that they get extremely hot (think of the space shuttle on re-entry). As a result they must fly at the edge of space to minimize this issue so again, not sure what a plane would do all the way up there except drop bombs or take pictures…an awful lot of trouble to drop a bomb that BUFFs still do just fine with today (or B1s or B2s). The idea behind some of these programs is to be able to rapidly strike at targets anywhere in the world within a very short time, using aircraft based in the US. Currently we can strike pretty much anywhere from the continental US (with B-52’s or B-2’s), but it takes time. We can also strike quickly with forces based around the globe, sometimes at the cost of having to deal with/prop up unsavory regimes. (Of course any such hypothetical vehicle might be a teeny bit more expensive than conventional equipment.) If you search for the DARPA FALCON program (Force Application and Launch from the CONintental US) there should be at least some teaser propoganda out there. As you note, materials are the key. (At least the key to figuring out what the next set of problems are, gosh darned false summits). It only becomes really freaking hard once you start getting much past Mach 5 or so. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/23 "2005-01-26T01:41:47Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I was under the impression the SR 71 flew higher and faster than any other aircraft. As CynicalGabe pointed out, missles make that impossible now. It still holds sustained altitude, sustained speed, and closed course speed records for manned air breathing aircraft. At the time it was introduced it was capable of entering and exiting Soviet airspace without getting shot down. That’s quite an accomplishment. But Russian technology has certainly caught up to it. The current horizontal altititude record is 85,135 ft ([SR-71](http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/spd_run001.html)) but the absolute altitude record is held by a [Mig 25](http://www.spaceadventures.com/steps/edge) at 123,524 ft. It wouldn’t take much to shoot one down today. There was a time when radar wasn’t exact enough to direct an intercept fighter. After the US was caught using U2’s, England ran bomber sorties into the Soviet Union to map out routes. The Soviet Union could not could not direct a fighter close enough to them to shoot them down. They were instructed to ram them if visual aquisition was attained. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/24 "2005-01-26T02:22:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > But Russian technology has certainly caught up to it. The current horizontal altititude record is 85,135 ft ([SR-71](http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/spd_run001.html)) but the absolute altitude record is held by a [Mig 25](http://www.spaceadventures.com/steps/edge) at 123,524 ft. I would imagine the ceiling of both aircraft is still secret. > [@Magiver](#): > > They were instructed to ram them if visual aquisition was attained. Yeah, right. 🙂 If you are close enough to ram them, you can shoot them. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/25 "2005-01-26T03:05:51Z")
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant] I would imagine the ceiling of both aircraft is still secret. No not really. Talk to an SR71 pilot and you’ll understand that they fly at the very edge of the plane’s capability. If I remember correctly it took less than 1/2 deg of trim to cause a lot of problems. The Mig 25 record was set with an airplane that had larger engines installed. It was a ballistic record (the altitude was the result of thrust) and not a sustained altitude record (which the Mig couldn’t touch). ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/26 "2005-01-26T21:18:57Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Yeah, right. 🙂 If you are close enough to ram them, you can shoot them. You might want to think about the speed of bullets there. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/27 "2005-01-26T22:05:29Z")
I’ve read seismologists have been claiming that somebody has been flying a hypersonic aircraft over the Great Basin deserts for years. I don’t know if this in any way corroborates the “Aurora” stories, but the seismographic data isn’t the product of crackpots, at any rate. I think I’ve read elsewhere of rumors of traingular hypersonic drones being developed by the AF, which wouldn’t surprise me. The future of fighter tech is unmanned aircraft, which lack some of the limitations imposed by keeping a pilot protected and conscious during high-altitude FTS flight, and high-g-force maneuvers, among other things. As soon as the avionics technology is up to the challenge, the next fighter jocks will never leave the base. Why not small hypersonic concepts? It’s a far cry from the lunatic-fringe speculation about anti-gravity propulsion and somesuch. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/28 "2005-01-26T23:09:07Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I’ve read seismologists have been claiming that somebody has been flying a hypersonic aircraft over the Great Basin deserts for years. If not the seismographs, then surely the infrasound detectors should be picking up the booms: [`Infrasound’ array of instruments picks up meteor’s kiloton blast over the Pacific](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5863) [The Pinon Flat Observatory](http://www.igpp.ucsd.edu/research/ocean_acoustics/) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/29 "2005-01-27T01:03:22Z")
Again, the Pentagon has stated that the next generation of Air Force craft will be ‘edge of space’ types. We’ve seen theoretical designs for skip-bombers since, well, the 40s. It’s probably a good thing, it’s the only way we’ll get reliable shuttlecraft, anyhow, thank you NASA. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/30 "2005-01-27T01:29:27Z")
[An abstract](http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN000111000001000614000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) apparently referencing the suspicious seismic data I spoke of. Also, it’s actually hard to search the web on the subject without bringing up gazillions of links to UFO fruitbats. Wading through the mess, I have gleaned that “Aurora” is supposed to be a spy plane, replacing the SR-71. Who knows? Unfortunately, you can’t take denials from the USAF seriously (e.g., the Stealth Fighter), nor can you take the ravings of the Area 51 crackpots seriously either. Beyond that, you’ve got some suspicious vibrations, and sightings of black triangles going like hell. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if “Aurora” is real. Nor would it surprise me if it’s a big joke. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/31 "2005-01-27T01:35:09Z")
i just finished a book yest. (icefire) that had a mach 10 jet in it. the idea is out there, and has been out there. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/32 "2005-01-27T02:03:06Z")
Hmm. Found a link that lets you download a pdf of the paper I referenced. I’m no seismologist, so I can’t really comment on its quality one way or another, except to say it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal. Here’s a relevent exerpt: > [@](#): > > n the latter-half of 1991 and early 1992, the U.S.G.S. office in Pasadena > received a number of calls from the general public concerning “mystery > booms” heard in Southern California. Initially the events were assumed to > be earthquakes, but further analysis of the seismograph records suggested > sonic booms as the most-likely source. An initial analysis of the seismic sig- > nals by the U.S.G.S. by attempting to fit hyperbola to the arrival time data > for 25 sites near the coast attributed the sonic booms to a source flying at > high altitude and high Mach number. These reports were picked up in the > popular press and attributed to a top-secret hypersonic Aurora spyplane…The analysis of the complete set of data eliminates both of the early the- > ories for the source of the mystery booms. The lack of characteristic N-wave > signatures and the fact that no booms were detected on the northwestern > sites rules out the original theory of a high-speed aircraft flying north off > the coast. At the speeds predicted (Mach 5-6), one would expect to see > strong N-wave signatures with high amplitude near the coast, as with the > shuttle reentry booms…From the complete analysis, all the observed booms appear to be indirectbooms from a source offshore propagated inland by high winds. Southern California typically has strong jet stream winds and stratospheric winds > blowing from west to east. Such anomalous sound propagation is well- > known, and mystery booms attributed to aircraft are not a new phenomenon. So much for the “seismic evidence” I heard about and, quite mistakenly, took to have some validity. I’m a little ashamed of myself now for having lent the original accounts that I read (I think in Popular Mechanics, or some such mag) any credence. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/33 "2005-01-27T02:10:45Z")
Thanks for digging that up **Loopydude**. It’s good to see those mystery booms laid to rest. Here’s a bit on **E-Sabbath** ’s skip bomber: [Der Silbervogel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel) > [@](#): > > Silbervogel, German for Silverbird, was a design for a rocket-powered sub-orbital bomber aircraft produced by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt in the late 1930s. It is sometimes referred to as the Amerika Bomber, although it was only one of a number of designs considered for this mission. ---
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/34 "2005-01-27T02:18:49Z")
> [@glee](#): > > You think US senators don’t want to know about where the tax dollars are spent? Or on what? Or whether it works? > OK. Considering that government budgets run 4,000-5,000 pages, it’s not really that far-fetched to think you could hide funding if you really wanted to try. I’m not saying I think there **are** lots of “black ops” on the books, but it’s certainly possible. Being a senator doesn’t give you automatic security clearance and even then “need to know” procedures would limit access. If there were a dedicated committee that looked into the matter they could probably find out, but they’d need the interest and the time to penetrate the bureaucracy. Frankly, it’s probably not that high a priority for most of them. Secrecy on special projects is probably preserved mostly because nobody really cares all that much except the people involved in the project and enthusiasts who want to find out about something like that. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413/35 "2005-01-28T11:09:26Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s good to see those mystery booms laid to rest. Are they? It seems to say: > [@](#): > > From the complete analysis, all the observed booms appear to be indirectbooms from a source offshore propagated inland by high winds. Without actually identifying the “source offshore.” I’m not saying they’re aircraft-produced, but it sounds like the original source of the sound was far away from California, but still a mystery. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airforce-develops-mach-10-fighter-in-area-51-how-long-till/286413.md?page=1)