Foxtrotalpha's report on new hanger construction at groom lake

Just released today, Tyler Rogoway wrote a report on a new hanger being built, with updated sat imagery of area 51. (No not the hanger with the big berm). Pretty interesting piece to say the least....

Thoughts?
New Hanger


Gariac, been up to tikaboo recently?

Sweet...


Sweet...


Super sweet...

a reply to: boomer135

We all know anything we see above means NOTHING. And they wont USE it either for anything. The very thought about a new hanger being built is obviously a cover. Give the public something to focus on. It really doesnt matter what you see on the surface at 51-Groom-Papoose Lake. With all the trillions and billions of $$ theyve spent for those projects? Its pretty safe to assume a tarp and a couple poles is just for show.

We've been following this place for 50 years...and runways, and buildings and new "JANET" flights and more white pickups and black "camo" dudes and stuff....means zip in regards to the reality of what going on there.

Over the last 10 years or more, theyve been saying Area 51 moved to another location anyway. Everyone knows that. If you had a top secret facility...the only thing built out in the open would be fake. Thats just plain logic. If Im worng? Why dont they just open the gates, take a few photos inside for everyone to see.They wont, because theres nothing.

For you guys to think something awesome is being built above ground and in plain site at a location where everything is underground if at all, supposedly moved awhile back and denied anyway...is silly. And illogical.

Yep. Lets build some runways and huge hangers...so the enemy satellites will know our every move. IF there a big hanger being built? Its probably for the garbage trucks to park since they got in all that trouble from a few sick former employees a few years ago for illegally burning hazardous waste.

a reply to: mysterioustranger


While I respect your opinion I've physically seen secret aircraft take off out of groom so I know its not just for show. But you may be right in regards to some stuff being moved to a different location. I'm almost positive that there's an island in the pacific that black aircraft are flying out of. Who knows for sure. But it's fun to theorize about anyway.

a reply to: boomer135

Nevada is currently in monsoon season with a dash of lightning storms, so negatory to being on top of Tikaboo lately. I was just out there for the Red Flag and didn't climb more than 200ft AGL. I was going to shoot the TTR, but the conditions were a combination of lighting and virga.

That article has so little actual new information in it. It is like the guy got paid by the word and thus wrote about every rumored black project a Google search would dredge up.

And for being an expert, well it is Edwards "south base", not "east base." I mean, when they take you there, that is what they call it, usually in a sentence like "No photography of south base!" [Not "the south base", but just "south base", FWIW.) That is really annoying since they have all those old aircraft back there waiting for restoration, and those aircraft are not secret.

Regarding the location of the new Groom hangar being handy for a quick takeoff, well I just don't know about that. The rule is when landing or taking off, you do so into the wind to get the lift. But I don't know how necessary that really is. You hear a lot of 32 landings then followed by a 14 takeoff. I think in general aircraft don't like making the arc that is required in a 14 landing and 32 takeoff. In fact, for ILS, there is only instrumentation for a 32 landing. If a plane wants to ILS a 14 landing, they ILS to the north as if doing a 32 landing, then make an arc and VFR for the 14 landing. Perhaps a pilot could shed more light on this.

I don't even think the fact the hangars have two doors is all that big of a deal. I've seen such hangars for non-black projects.

I think I mentioned the story that when I had a media pass for one of the EDW open houses, not only were the instructions not to photograph south base, but specifically not to photograph the large tank (as in vacuum, not the kind the army uses). Of course that lead everyone to research the use of the tank, which the consensus was it was used to create the conditions similar to what the ABL would be operating in.

a reply to: boomer135

I can say it isn't for the same system as the 2007 hangar, but perhaps a family of systems.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

The trouble is none of what you say is true. For instance we know Polecat was tested at Groom in the last 10 years, which blows a hole in your theory.

Lots of people say they moved Groom Lake. Lots of people say we never landed on the moon. I put them in the same category.

a reply to: gariac

Yeah we used to practice those landings quite a bit. Something to the effect of "cleared ILS rwy 32 approach circle vfr rwy 14". It always pissed off a lot of other aircraft in the pattern because they had to hold somewhere while that aircraft was going against traffic so to speak. And who knows it could just be a spot to park the aircraft ready for takeoff to check it out and wait for the SATs to pass by.

a reply to: boomer135

Two doors...here is a theory. It is hot in the desert. Two doors means cross ventilation. ;-)

Nellis had a number of their "sunshades" collapse a few years ago.
Nellis sunshades damaged

a reply to: gariac

Most hangars have doors on both ends if there is access to a parking apron. It allows for easy "drive through" access. The cross ventilation is a nice side effect (though occasionally a detriment in windy conditions, like the time NASA's Pathfinder UAV was blown into the B-2 at Edwards after an air show). The new hangar at Groom looks more like a Scoot-N-Hide that anything, fulfilling the role that Hangar 19 has had previously. I always wondered why they didn't have one on the southern end of the runway since most of the flying activity seems to originate there.

Lockheed's P-175 Polecat was not tested at Groom Lake. Photos and video from its brief test program clearly show it taking off and landing from Yucca Dry Lake in Area 6. I asked a Skunk Works employee with extensive (and current) blackworld experience why and he said, "Because Lockheed Martin didn't have a government customer."

a reply to: Shadowhawk

The only other recent project that made it to the white world I can recall at Groom is the Boeing "Bird of Prey", which ended flying there in 1999. So do we have any officially acknowledged project at Groom in the last decade?

a reply to: gariac

I have no theory. Not to say there isnt anything there, but I suggest whatever it is, common sense says it won't be anything top-secret or used to hide some overly large or technical vehicles. The U.S. has moved beyond "parking things out at on the tarmak in some "hanger".

I propose it may be "cool", "large"...attached to a 50 mile-long "runway" or whatever...but its most likely...irrelevant overall to the whole "Area-51" saga. Due to satellite covers, new ways of enemy surveillance and recon...if somethings in plain site...its nothing really...

My "theory" that supposedly I have, is not based on opinions to "blow holes in" but the multitudes on past and recent data suggesting the really important stuff these days...is elsewhere. And if its some hanger? That hanger will be blended in with a cliffside or mountain...and we wont see it.

Folks will still in 50 years be grabbing binoculars and going "Wow! Look it that!" around Area 51 because of all of the history. No one is looking in the RIGHT areas wherever the good stuff is being tested and flown these days.

The government has done a really great job getting that to happen.

a reply to: boomer135

In response to this post...I propose if YOU...average everyday person...says you saw a top-secret test....that it couldnt have been anything really significant (otherwords..."NOT top-secret"), if it wasnt protected from anything and anyone observing it. Then is was not so "top-secret" as you claim. Understand?

The odds of seeing something protected and ultra top-secret is not impossible by any means. Its just not likely by nature just becasue you said it was "top-secret". Says you.

*Elsewhere...we did land on the moon

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Um, he saw it because he was refueling it.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Your three dot writing style is difficult to parse.

Nobody said anything secret at Groom Lake will be in clear sight, be it satellite or people on Tikaboo. That doesn't mean secret projects are not believing evaluated there.

I've only seen one test at Groom, and it was on a moonless night. This was viewed from Tikaboo.

But why do you feel it necessary to hijack a thread about the new hangar to talk about your theories regarding Groom Lake. You could just as easily start a new thread on the subject without hijacking an existing thread.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: boomer135

In response to this post...I propose if YOU...average everyday person...says you saw a top-secret test....that it couldnt have been anything really significant (otherwords..."NOT top-secret"), if it wasnt protected from anything and anyone observing it. Then is was not so "top-secret" as you claim. Understand?

The odds of seeing something protected and ultra top-secret is not impossible by any means. Its just not likely by nature just becasue you said it was "top-secret". Says you.

*Elsewhere...we did land on the moon

When it comes to this I'm not an everyday average person as you say. Being a boom operator has its privileges, even top secret aircraft need to be refueled. And yes I've seen them take off from groom. Here's a view that most people don't ever get a chance to see...

so mysterious... so.... wrong!

originally posted by: boomer135
Sweet...

What is this a future transport or something? Looks cool though, possible STOL/VTOL given the odd engine placement. (or am I wrong)

a reply to: Guyfriday

The image looks CG, so it probably has no basis in reality. On non-stealth aircraft, i.e. the kind where you just hang an engine on an airframe, the engines are usually a bit in front of the wing due to constraints from the "area rule." You really notice this on a C-17.

Most STOL are just props, maybe due to the need to work on dirt. I'm having a hard time thinking of a STOL jet without thrust vectoring.

This isn't to say they won't use jets on dirt, but it has to be hard on the engines.
MAFEX

a reply to: boomer135

I agree with you.