Home Forums Discussion and Speculation The Bar The North Sea Aurora sighting overscan (PaulMM) 25 May 2009 Not open for further replies. New postsSearch forums 27 December 2005 Messages:18,581 Reaction score: Administrator Staff member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting I think you're mixing Have Blue and Tacit Blue here Abe. Joined:1 April 2006 Messages:11,952 Reaction score: ACCESS: USAP Staff member Top Contributor Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting Abraham Gubler said: Well, remembering Flying Dorito...that have the same trailing edge configuration...that didn't disturb Fort Worth guys so much The Gibson Delta is very unlikely to be an advanced stealth aircraft because of its planform. The 90 degree to the boresight rear is not very stealthy. Any radar with some look up or look down would get very strong returns from this trailing edge unless it was dripping in RAM. Log inRegisterHomeForumsWhat's new Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting overscan said: Right! You should just have edit function of my posts... But Have Blue was clearly intended to be developed into a useable combat aircraft - the F-117A. So liek Tactic Blue (Assault Breaker) it had a practical intention not just be a technology demo... But of course the Quartz as detailed would appear to have been a stealth technology demonstrator. I think you're mixing Have Blue and Tacit Blue here Abe. Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting flateric said: Yeah and look where the A-12 got... But it was designed to be a low level penetrator where the idea was that any RF would hit it from the front where the tail would be blocked by the airframe. Like the Northrop ATB low altitude penetrator. If Quartz was to be a stealth technology demonstrator why limit it to low altitude only thanks to the planform? Would make for very limited demonstration opporunities and be counter to USAF's preferred use of stelah (medium and high altitude). None of this is logical for a 1980s advanced stealth technology demonstrator. More so for a low altitude stealth demonstrator hence my earlier suggestion that the Gibson Delta is a prototype or sub-scale Northrop low altitude penetrator. Well, remembering Flying Dorito...that have the same trailing edge configuration...that didn't disturb Fort Worth guys so much Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting Published sources indicate that QUARTZ was a high altitude, long endurance stealthy recce platform. Its close relationship with Tier III UAV, DarkStar, Sensorcraft and NGB all indicate a high aspect ratio wing with nothing to do with the Gibson Delta. Joined:1 April 2006 Messages:11,952 Reaction score: ACCESS: USAP Staff member Top Contributor Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting it's been numerously said that Lockheed/Boeing NGB is a manned Quartz 6 August 2007 Messages:4,282 Reaction score:8,410 I dont read The Drive. The Drive reads me. Top Contributor Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting Bruce Johnson said: Well, no. HAVE BLUE was a tech demo, not intended to be an operational aircraft. They took the Hopeless Diamond and made it into something flyable and testable. It did well enough that SENIOR TREND followed it to evolve HAVE BLUE into an operational capability. QUARTZ was designed for specific requirements rather than being a tech demo. There were tech demos surrounding QUARTZ and the requirements it was to satisfy. TEAL CAMEO, TEAL RAIN, and several other programs were DARPA projects aimed at developing a range of technologies to enable UAV platforms like QUARTZ. There were other programs - we think - around the same time that were more closely related to QUARTZ. (the white aspects of the TEAL programs Yes, I suspect that the Quartz program was similar to Have Blue in scope and operation. By around 1980, Have Blue was well over, and the F-117A was in full development. Lockheed wanted to stay out front and take stealth technology to the next level. So, they proposed a flying testbed project to produced AMBER, CONDOR (indirectly, sort of) and the reciprocating engines to power them). Back on topic, one reason that the Gibson sighting is associated with AURORA is that at the time that was really the only known or rumored program that would produce a shape and size like what he saw. Even now, the only things I know of that could match something like that are an AURORA or an "A-17". In 1989 there were a lot of things flying.... but nothing with that kind of sweep. I do not think Chris would mistake a Dorito for what he describes. There was a cruise missle program that would have looked similar, but would have been much smaller and did not likely produce anything flying. 1 September 2007 Messages:259 Reaction score:51 ACCESS: Secret Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting Northrop's "Low-Altitude Penetrator" concept for the ATB would be a good fit for the Gibson sighting, and it would certainly explain why it would be flying with F- 111's. Only problem with this explanation is whether the aircraft would match the size of Chris Gibson's mystery plane. Were the F-117's ever deployed abroad when that program was secret? I'd think the risk and security expense of an overseas deployment would rule out the Gibson sighting as a secret US aircraft. Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting See earlier in this thread for pictorial sizing of the Northrop ATB LAP with the Gibson Delta. As to why was a US secret plane in Europe I've made some conjecture earlier in this thread. In particular the dates of the sighting coincide with the beginning of the successful Communist rejection campaigns in East Europe. There is an argument you can make for the need for operational reconnaissance missions at Northrop's "Low-Altitude Penetrator" concept for the ATB would be a good fit for the Gibson sighting, and it would certainly explain why it would be flying with F-111's. Only problem with this explanation is whether the aircraft would match the size of Chris Gibson's mystery plane. Were the F-117's ever deployed abroad when that program was secret? I'd think the risk and security expense of an overseas deployment would rule out the Gibson sighting as a secret US aircraft. this time. Non operational needs could include some kind of peculiar testing regime only available in Europe or a familiarisation campaign. See how your secret penetrator performs against British defences and give your special relationship allies a taste of something different. Due to the context of the company: KC-135 and F-111s the Gibson Delta has to be a US aircraft. If it was British it would be flying with a Tristar and Tornados... You don't just send your top secret aircraft into the air with other countries providing IFR and tail chasers. Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret Senior Member Re: Chris Gibson - the man behind North Sea Aurora sighting quellish said: The pictorial representations of both Aurora and "A-17" are not based on any real information, just conjecture. As I've pointed out a few times and drawn the pictures to show the Gibson Delta is a near perfect match for the planform of the Northrop ATB low altitude penetrator option (what became the B-2 was the high altitude penetrator option). This was a 'real' aircraft in the sense that the design came out of a USAF funded project and an image of it was declassified. Wether it progressed any further than a paper plane we don't know. But the Gibson sighting is a possible confirmation. That is if we can set aside the Aurora wish fulfillment. Attachments Even now, the only things I know of that could match something like that are an AURORA In 1989 there were a lot of things flying.... but nothing with that kind of sweep. I do not think Chris would mistake a Dorito for what he describes. There was a cruise missle program that would have looked similar, but would have been much smaller and did not likely produce anything flying. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Accept Learn more... Joined:27 April 2007 Messages:372 Reaction score:32 ACCESS: Secret 17 October 2006 Messages:2,396 Reaction score:1,265 LowObservable ACCESS: Top Secret Top Contributor Senior Member The Gibson planform could be a subsonic low-altitude penetrator except for one glaring issue, which is that you're going to get seen from behind and shot in the butt. The question of the rear-aspect signature (how LO you had to be from what angle) had already been crucial in the Have Blue competition, 15 years earlier. On the other hand, something that goes as fast as a lot of missiles doesn't have to worry about a rear-aspect signature. Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret Senior Member LowObservable said: I'm not applying my conjecture as to how or why Black Project aircraft were designed in the 1980s. The identity of the Gibson Delta will not be determined by what is the 'best' or whatever capability solution to fit the evidence. But rather based on forensics principles. The planform as presented by Gibson aligns with only one actual, verifiable, real, confirmed, declassified aircraft design: the Northrop ATB low altitude penetrator bomber. Wether it was good, bad, indifferent, or whatever does not come into it. The pure delta or 'Dorito Chip' planform was the low altitude stealth state of the art of the 1980s. We have two declassified aircraft designs to confirm this (including the A-12A). They don't need to be good or effective designs, they just had to exist. Hypersonics clearly has survivability (from speed and angels) and timeliness advantages which is why the technology is being pursued. I wouldn't be so keen on trading away LO for speed in a world where air to air lasers have been demonstrated as highly lethal. Can't outrun light. The Gibson planform could be a subsonic low-altitude penetrator except for one glaring issue, which is that you're going to get seen from behind and shot in the butt. The question of the rear-aspect signature (how LO you had to be from what angle) had already been crucial in the Have Blue competition, 15 years earlier. On the other hand, something that goes as fast as a lot of missiles doesn't have to worry about a rear-aspect signature. 29 January 2008 Messages:605 Reaction score:78 shockonlip ACCESS: Top Secret Abraham Gubler said: The "B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study" you are relying on, says this of the Northrop Low Altitude Penetrator (NLAP): "See Figure 3-5, again duplicated from the original 1980 study, and shown with the low altitude concept as illustrative of a HI-HI-LO-LO mission". So per the above, the document calls the NLAP a "concept". And the NLAP is not the only actual, verifiable, real, confirmed, declassified aircraft design that is a delta. A good many hypersonic design "concepts" are also deltas along with many real supersonic and subsonic designs - as you know. Also the "B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study" you quoted earlier, discusses the study of low altitude penetrators and discusses that they were inferior for the job: "Request to the RFP was issued in April 1981 to request a study for the impact on the design to include a significant low altitude penetration capability, beyond the fallout capability from the high altitude designs. The scope of the request was to examine completely new designs, in addition to studying a modification to proposal baseline of a high altitude cruise design approach currently favored by each contractor and the primary Air Force user, the Strategic Air Command (SAC)". LowObservable said: The planform as presented by Gibson aligns with only one actual, verifiable, real, confirmed, declassified aircraft design: the Northrop ATB low altitude penetrator bomber. ... The pure delta or 'Dorito Chip' planform was the low altitude stealth state of the art of the 1980s. We have two declassified aircraft designs to confirm this (including the A-12A). They don't need to be good or effective designs, they just had to exist. The Gibson planform could be a subsonic low-altitude penetrator except for one glaring issue, which is that you're going to get seen from behind and shot in the butt. The question of the rear-aspect signature (how LO you had to be from what angle) had already been crucial in the Have Blue competition, 15 years earlier. On the other hand, something that goes as fast as a lot of missiles doesn't have to worry about a rear-aspect signature. "The combined contractor/Air Force team jointly examined the trade-off between survivability, low altitude penetration speed and altitude, and the impact on the range and cruise performance of the primary high-altitude design point. The resultant design that emerged from this integrated systems engineering activity was a modification to the baseline high-altitude design approach. The structure was beefed up by about 10,000 pounds but the basic structural design approach was retained". "A clean sheet analysis examined many alternatives to optimize low altitude penetration capability (which had originally been examined in the ASPA studies), but in every emphasizing the low altitude mission drastically reduced high-altitude mission range. Most of the configurations required afterburners to meet takeoff requirements and extensive refueling to meet the defined penetration missions. All new designs were discarded as poor candidates for an optimized strategic bomber. The study confirmed it was most cost effective and operationally effective to modify the high altitude design to perform the low altitude mission than to design for only low altitude and try to extend the range by making a larger aircraft". The above is important as it indicates the shortcomings of a low altitude penetrator. Indeed, it also indicates that other designs besides NLAP were looked at. So if they constructed a real NLAP, it would have been a waste of money and would have taken funds needed for the winning I still think your idea that Gibson's airplane may be NLAP is clever, but I don't agree on you're dismissing of all other deltas as the Chris Gibson delta, based on just Fig 3.5 in "B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study". Abraham Gubler ACCESS: Top Secret shockonlip said: The above is important as it indicates the shortcomings of a low altitude penetrator. it also indicates that other designs besides NLAP were looked at. So if they constructed a NLAP, it would have been a waste of money and would have taken funds needed for the Messages:3,529 Reaction score:1,144 Senior Member As to the validity of the Northrop ATB low altitude penetrator I would not be trying to suggest that the slides featured in the B-2 study are somehow a weak link. They are the actual real deal from the early days of the B-2 project. The planform for purpose is also strongly supported by the ATA A-12A aircraft as I pointed out above. These are real aircraft in the sense that someone(s) with a security clearance up the wazoo and working on the dime of the USG with access to the most advanced engineering of their time designed them to be low altitude, low RCS penetrators. It may not be as good a concept as the other concept in those slides that became the B-2 but that doesnt mean USAF wouldnt build one. Especially if like the USN leadership at that time you were a crusty old bomber General who knew that the only way to go downtown to Moscow was so low you were frying the chickens in their chicken coops and relying on this fancy stealth technology and God forbid new ways of doing things was not what got those stars on your shoulders... The idea that the US leadership at the peak of the Reagan arms build-up decided to put all their eggs in the high altitude stealth basket without investigating in more solid detail the low altitude path is actually far more unlikely than they built a secret aircraft that only Chris Gibson and his rig mates have seen unencumbered by a security clearance. Further a repeat of the point I made above: there is no determining the nature of this aircraft by applying analysis of what would be the BEST aircraft. Hypersonic may be better, low altitudes may be a waste of money but it doesnt add up to anything. There are many, many, many examples of Governments spending money badly so the turkey argument is not strong enough to affect the forensic analysis of what the Gibson Delta was. shockonlip said: I have also used other actual verifiable evidence to support this analysis that the Gibson Delta is a low altitude penetrator. Including picking it out of a line up of real aircraft, the nature of the chase aircraft and the altitude of the IFR that support it being a low altitude penetrator aircraft. I have even generated a plausible scenario for why it would be in the North Sea. Why on earth would the US test a black aircraft project in Europe? They have absolutely no need... If they were using it operationally and it was a high altitude hypersonic vehicle then there would be a lot more evidence by radar plots and seismic readings. That is a few streams of real evidence compared to the completely hypothetical, hypersonic Aurora delta design. With the argument for the existence of that but I don't agree on you're dismissing of all other deltas as the Chris Gibson delta, based on just Fig 3.5 in the "B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study". aircraft being conjecture of multiple disparate events linked together by hypothesis. It may have sold lots of magazines but its very weak stuff. Sure there could be some completely different and totally secret delta aircraft produced by the USA and flown over the North Sea in August 1989. It could have even been Clint Eastwood flying the Firefox back from the Soviet Union. But testing based on actual evidence is supporting my hypothesis. If anyone has any more evidence then please present it and we can reassess. 17 October 2006 Messages:2,396 Reaction score:1,265 LowObservable ACCESS: Top Secret Top Contributor Senior Member You're getting all excited. The North Sea sighting could have been all sorts of things. Basically, though, there have been two seriously studied classes of vehicle that look like that: hypersonics and a couple of stealthy low-altitude penetrators. As someone pointed out above, though, the slender-delta subsonic low-altitude aircraft have their own problems, like needing lots of power for take-off and not having a lot of places to put effective flight controls. The A-12, with lower sweep and higher aspect ratio, was a different kettle of fish. The hypersonic theory was attractive at the time because something