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.

 

A few hidden secrets of the government...why we are blind.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlescott
Can anyone tell me what base this is. Is it military? I found this browsing google local in the gray shadowed areas of Nevada. There are some very interesting things around the base also if you look. Just probably nothing.

Google link


TTR - Tonopah Test Range


Sarge




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
B-2 a big piece of junk, dam man, that was a smart quote.

Train



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
B-2 a big piece of junk, dam man, that was a smart quote.


Come on! How did you come up with this #?

Here are some real stats on the B-2:

*Near invisibilty to all know air defense systems!
*40'000 Lbs. Payload.
*Range of 6'000 NM unrefuled.
*Can Drop 16 2'000Lbs. JDAM (Smart Bombs) on one pass.
*AQL-181 Radar with the most avanced Air to Ground capibilty currently deployed.
*First operational Aircraft with a composite airframe.
*First bomber with a GPS targeting system.

Sources:
USAF B-2 Facts Sheet
FAS B-2 Facts Sheet
Air Force Technology- B-2
www.vectorsite.net...
The Stealth Bomber

Above is a short list of some of my sources on the B-2. If you want to make a claim about the B-2's Effectiveness as a weapon system, Please sight your sorce!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Wasnt the B2 also the first plane that took advantage of fiberoptics and fly by wire to help cut down on EM emissions since fiber hardly generates any? THe B2 is far from a piece of junk



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Although i agree that the B-2 is anything but a piece of junk but just because an aircraft was the first to do anything (GPS, fly-by-wire, etc.) does not make any difference to how good it is. The X-1 was the first aircraft to pass the sound barrier but that doesnt mean any air force would want to fly it.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Tim, I wasnt saying the B-2 is a piece of junk, i was quoting that other person who said it, I was being like, COME ON DUDE! I was blown away they would even say that. B-2 is quite possibly completely invincible.

Train



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Can anyone find a highway in Alabama on Google maps that goes from 2 lanes to 8 to 2 in 2 miles? I can't.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
What's up with the SR-71? Are they using another plane? Or replacing it with satellites?

And the B2 is nice, but a stealth bomber can be cheaper to make, more manueverable, and more fuel effiecient.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
The use of satellites has taken over the many surveillance and intelligence gathering tasks that the SR-71 once did since it was retired.





seekerof



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Sure satellites are very good observation platforms, but not all the time. The U-2 Blackbird can hang around over a target for hours and hours at a time, gliding if necassary, constantly taking digital photos in both visible light and infra-red, and is a very good ELINT platform. And they are getting better everyday. A satellite can't compete with that.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
It costs millions and sometimes billions to put up a new sat. Often spy sats must orbit around to take pictures again. Geo Sync sats cost even more, and have to worry about fuel ( By the way, who refuels top secret space sats' repositioning engines...? ) too. A air craft however, can loiter for hours and even days if its a UAV.

If you have a hyper sonic high altitude air craft, you could keep one over the battle field constantly, out of reach, and real time information. Simply send the 2nd one out ans the 1st returns for fuel. Sats cant loiter over an area unless they are geo sync', and as I said, those are costly to put into space AND fix if they break. A plane is easily fixed if an issue occures, a sat is not (thanks to Shuttle being grounded, its even harder). Do you really think the US would ask the ESA or RSA to help a NASA astronaught leave the ISS or a Soyuz to fix a high tech, high secret sat?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I agree that planes would be a little better, but not by much. A satellite can be equiped with the same practical resolution. A plane would use more fuel than a satellite. A satellite can hang around a target for hours too.

I don't know what the U2 is called, but the SR-71 is the Blackbird. A plane will almost always get to a site before a satellite can. I don't work for intelligence, but I'm sure most images could wait a few hours for a satellite instead of an hour for a plane (decent conditions for both).

It's not usual to refuel satellites, they just let (or make) them fall and then launch a new one. All that is really lost is the cost of a new satellite.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Paralaxx]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
True, but atleast one or two types of planes would be useful for real time on the spot views. EG: Where a enemy tank group is at that time, on the move.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   


I also found out that yes, the USAF and NASA still flys the S/R-71 Blackbird.


Even though most of the people here think it is'nt, I think theres a chance that what was just quoted could be true.




Up in Alabama, there is an interstate that is out in the middle of nowhere and opens up into 8 lanes across for about 2 miles then goes back down to 2 lanes. There is a missile silo, and weapons and supplies underground there. And under all of the interstates, there are hidden missile silos.

That would not surprise me, for the government to hide supplies underneath things that people would not think of. I do remember reading somewhere that back in 60's, the gov. were thinking about testing putting weapon systems in/under freeways, the kind that are above the ground level.




He also told me that the B-2 is nothing more than a piece of junk.

Well, I would'nt call it a piece of junk, it is moderately advanced, but what I got from this, is that the new plane in comparison would make the B-2 look like a piece of junk.




And that Area51 is keeping nothing. He told me that it was definantly a distraction.

That really would not surprise me.

And I read everyone elses posts, so I'll say this, so youi dont have to repeat yourselves. True, there is still activity and construction out there, but it is a distinct possibilitie that it's all a facade, that theres nothing really there except buildings and people.




The good stuff is being hidden in Edinburg, Austrailia.

That's really the only thing that I outright don't believe, I mean, no offense to Australian's, but I don't think the U.S. gov. would hide all it's cool new toys in Kangaroo land.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei



The good stuff is being hidden in Edinburg, Austrailia.

That's really the only thing that I outright don't believe, I mean, no offense to Australian's, but I don't think the U.S. gov. would hide all it's cool new toys in Kangaroo land.


Now that I come to think about it, it may have not been Edinburgh as I was told. I probably heard wrong. By the way, I did not say that I THOUGHT the B-2 was a piece of junk, I think it is a highly awesome airplane. I am just quoting what this man told me



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei



I also found out that yes, the USAF and NASA still flys the S/R-71 Blackbird.


Even though most of the people here think it is'nt, I think theres a chance that what was just quoted could be true.


Bear this in mind: from NASA Dryden Fact Sheet:


The SR-71 last flight took place in October 1999.

SR-71 NASA-Dryden Fact Sheet

Decommissioned by the US Air Force in 1998:
USAF SR-71 Program Closes Down





seekerof

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   


I did not say that I THOUGHT the B-2 was a piece of junk, I think it is a highly awesome airplane. I am just quoting what this man told me


You should'nt even have to say that, I mean you did say quite clearly, that what you wrote was what your source told you.





Decommissioned by the US Air Force in 1998.
The SR-71 last flight took place in October 1999.


Ok, those are the public official dates, and documents, but it's possible that the government still flys them in secret.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Ok, those are the public official dates, and documents, but it's possible that the government still flys them in secret.



That may well prove to be true, iori_komei, but I tend to avoid, as much as feasibly possible, conjecture.

And without asking for sourcing, I will simply be resolved to believe otherwise till sourcing indicates otherwise.





seekerof



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Ok, those are the public official dates, and documents, but it's possible that the government still flys them in secret.


I was thinking about this also, espically on that one part in the beginning where it talked about production. It never said anything about "stopping production", so this gives me the idea that it is "public records".


Mod Edit: Big Quote

[edit on 25-11-2005 by kinglizard]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
All the Blackbird tools and stamps were destroyed years ago thanks to Macnamera. If they were still flying it would be pretty hard to hide it. The sonic booms, and obvious activity at the bases that they fly from would give it away pretty quick. I can't see them being able to hide it for this long. If nothing else the ATC guys would have noticed it. They ALWAYS knew when the Blackbirds were in the air. While I'd love to see them still flying, I just don't see any evidence that they are. They haven't even been flying the Q (although they changed to T when they got new engines) model KC-135 tankers that refueled them around much in the last few years. Those were the only ones that could refuel a Blackbird.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join