It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

5th Sept 2017 Nevada crash

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: C0bzz

The F-117s are used in tests to support the F-22 and F-35, and probably some risk reduction activities for the B-21.


Do you have evidence of the F-117 flying with the F-22 or F-35? The DNAA only funds the F-117 as flyable storage.

The USAF trains like they fight, so if they are training with the F-117, then the plane is not retired.




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Are they flying the B21 demo or the prototype?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger
I hope its not a B-21 in test




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The LRSB isnt a black world program. At least the more visible parts of it arent. The DoD has admitted more than once to the existence of flying demonstrators/prototypes/risk reduction platforms for the program.
The LRSB is a public and politically sensitve program. Covering up a crash is very risky and could result in much greater political damage in the long run.
Also, i dont think it adds up. Why would the Air Force Material Command own a LRSB related aircraft at this point? Why would an active duty test pilot fly it? The competition is over, this should all happen in house.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I don't believe they're flying them with them, just using them to support the program. Having them in flying storage works out perfectly for that. They occasionally take them out and fly them, and put some new tech onto them to support upgrades for the F-22 and F-35, and possibly something for the B-21.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

I don't believe they're flying them with them, just using them to support the program. Having them in flying storage works out perfectly for that. They occasionally take them out and fly them, and put some new tech onto them to support upgrades for the F-22 and F-35, and possibly something for the B-21.



SEC. 133. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVE F–117 AIRCRAFT IN RECALLABLE CONDITION. Section 136 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2114) is amended by striking subsection (b).


I doubt they added anything to the F-117. That wasn't the plan. In the current NDAA, they no longer require the F-117 to be "recallable."



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Just because that wasn't the public plan doesn't mean that they didn't see advantages to it. They have an aircraft flying that's already stealthy, so why wouldn't they take advantage of having it around until they finally get rid of it? They're going to pay to do the R&D anyway, and this way they get a real world test and can find any problems before it's already installed on whatever it's going onto. They'd be crazy to not take advantage of that while they could.


edit on 9/10/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Caughtlurking
Maybe we should have some civilian oversight for these fly boys gone wild. Who's to say these aircraft are safe to fly in our skies for their pilots or people on the ground.


There is civilian oversight. First, Secretary of the Air Force, is a civilian. Her boss, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, is nominally a civilian. His boss, the President, is most certainly a civilian, having run away on his bone spurs from military service.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Pure speculation but the pilots bio mentions a good bit about astronaut qualifications etc...

Wondering if that would indicate he may have been flying some kind of super high altitude / speed capable platform...

No matter - rest in peace. It's test pilots like this who risk their lives to keep our tech state of the art.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight


The DoD has admitted more than once to the existence of flying demonstrators/prototypes/risk reduction platforms for the program.


No they haven't.

If they have, can you please provide a source.

The NTTR press release indicated it was a "training flight". A training flight of a classified aircraft, with a test pilot. Weird. Do demonstrators usually fly on "training" flights, or only operational aircraft? Then again, if it were a test flight with a classified aircraft, I think they would be less likely to call it a test flight in the press release. On the other hand, why would a test pilot be flying on a "training" flight, is that normal? Apparently Janet flights were cancelled that day due to testing. I don't know where I'm going with this, just trying to figure out exactly what a "training" flight can entail.

I still think it was a Sukhoi that crashed.
edit on 10/9/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

I thought he had ambition to become an astronaut, but had no astronaut training?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: mightmight


The DoD has admitted more than once to the existence of flying demonstrators/prototypes/risk reduction platforms for the program.


No they haven't.

If they have, can you please provide a source.


www.airforcemag.com...

The competition phase has not been limited to “paper studies,” he [service acquisition executive William LaPlante]allowed, but includes flying demonstrators or better. “We will have variants of technical articles … if you want to call them ‘prototypes,’” he said, and this fact, though previously undisclosed, should be no surprise because the program is “relying on relatively mature technologies,” LaPlante explained.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz
I don't know why making a mystery if it was a Sukhoi , classified a Sukhoi make no sens everybody know that USAF have some of them , it make more sens of a classified craft operational or near to be.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Because the Air Force classifies random things. They always have.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darksidius

Because the Air Force classifies random things. They always have.


www.nytimes.com...

We can look at General Bond's death as an example. Nice of the NYT to have this link. Finding the original USAF press release would be better. But the NYT article kind of indicates they didn't want to admit he was flying a MIG in the initial release, but eventually they admitted it.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Ok , and with your experience have you the feeling it may be the case for this crash ? Foreign fighter .


edit on 10-9-2017 by darksidius because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2017 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

I'm not ruling it out. It might have been something else, but it wouldn't be the first time that a foreign fighter crash killed a pilot on the range. It certainly makes sense.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darksidius

Because the Air Force classifies random things. They always have.


I can testify to this. Without getting into details, there was a certain report we used to have to run at times and most of the report was unclassified except for a certain key number which was classified supposedly for strategic value. It made little sense though, since the unclassified portion of the report contained all the values you need to compute the classified number, and it was not high-level math either. Anyone could do it.

They don't always think things through when they choose what to classify.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If you read the mission briefing for strike packages, even the weather report is classified, since it falls into a classified briefing.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I find that exceptionally easy to believe haha there's so many little quirks to it. Not necessarily classified but we weren't even allowed to take pictures of the flightline, even though anyone can jump on Google maps and look at the layout from the satellite pics and anyone could hang out just outside the fence and see what airframes were on hand at the time, what kind of activity was going on, etc, depending on the base. When Pope got absorbed onto Fort Bragg, now our base had Army rules, meaning anyone with a driver's license that was willing to submit their vehicle to inspection could get on the base and drive around, including right around the outside fence of the air field.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join