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.

 

Missions Over U.S. Slated for Global Hawk

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Big Brother will soon be watching us even more closely, by remote control from 65,000 feet via high resolution cameras aboard the U.S. Air Force's domestic fleet of Global Hawk UCAVs. It all begins Monday, when the first Global Hawk is scheduled to land at Beale Air Force Base in northern California.

 



www.acc.af.mil
11/13/2006 - Beale AFB, Calif. -- Beale's second RQ-4 Global Hawk Remotely Piloted Aircraft arrived here Nov. 3 at 4:51 p.m., landing directly on the center line of the flight line.

The Global Hawk, designed and manufactured by Northrop-Grumman, provides Air Force and joint battlefield commanders near-real-time, high-resolution, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance imagery to fight the Global War on Terror.

"The Air Force's fleet of Global Hawks will eventually reach 54 aircraft," Ted Ross, Northrop-Grumman Beale site manger, said. "The majority of those aircraft will be stationed in forward-deployed locations."

The remainder of the Global Hawk fleet will split between Beale and Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D., said Mr. Ross.

The new aircraft is scheduled for its first flight from Beale this winter.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


"This landmark flight has historic implications since it the first time a Global Hawk has not only flown from Beale, but anywhere in the United States on an official Air Combat Command mission," base spokesman Capt. Michael Andrews said in a statement.

I find the above statement bothersome. Why does the Global Hawk need to fly within the U.S. on an "official Air Combat Command mission?"

Is the U.S. now officially at war with itself? The article I took the above quote from is the one that got my attention on this issue, and it is so far only available on my homepage. I will post a link to the original article as soon as it is available on the web.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

I find the above statement bothersome. Why does the Global Hawk need to fly within the U.S. on an "official Air Combat Command mission?"


Well, there are several reasons I can think of. One would be to help out in disaster and emergency situations, think Katrina or wildfire. And the second is to provide security for high profile events and areas within the US. Operation Noble Eagle has proven useful so far so I see no reason to get excited over this.



[edit on 19-11-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Of course you would see no cause for alarm at the increasing military activity within U.S. borders, WP23. You support it. No offense. It may turn around one day and bite us on the hindquarters, though, imo.

The water just got a couple degrees hotter, and the frog still hasn't noticed his sauna is starting to boil.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Umm... so are you're against it based on pure prejudice for the military? And yeah I see no reason to fear a military concerned about the CONUS itself rather than always looking at and protecting outside places.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
No, not prejudice for the military, respect for the Constitution, and concern about increased military activities within CONUS. If it is border security they are to be used for, then detail them to DHS and INC. Air Combat Command has no business running ops in CONUS. Period.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Well, there are several reasons I can think of. One would be to help out in disaster and emergency situations ...And the second is to provide security for high profile events and areas within the US.


And which of these is happening Monday?

The article says they're for fighting the "GWOT". Hurricanes aren't exactly terrorist-caused. I thought we were "fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here." Looks like we're fighting them over here anyway.

And if it's for specific events, what do we need 54 of them for?

This is Big Brother, clear as day.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Firstly, the Global Hawk will be based at Beal AFB. This fact does not translate into “ will be operating over “ the CONUS, so why are you claiming any special significance to this? The B-2 Spirit Bomber fleet is primarily based at CONUS bases, should we take that as proof that the USAF intends to bomb American cities?

The “global hawk “ is just that, according to Jane’s it can fly 3000NM from its home base, loiter “on station” for 24hours, and safely return to home base. That puts a lot of the Globe within range of Beae & Grande Forks.

Secondly, there are a multitude of missions that a system like Global Hawk can fly from Mainland US bases , including but not limited to :

Border security
Drug interdiction
Maritime security
Preventing light aircraft flying “ below the radar “

Those are all missions that do not require them to aim any surveillance system on any US citizens homes , these are in addition to WestPoint’s perfectly valid points.

The claim that “ big brother will be watching US citizens “ in the CONUS via global hawk is pure fabrication on your part, your bias is showing.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

The first Global Hawk, which arrived in October of 2004, was used as a maintenance trainer for the past two years. With the arrival of the second production model, both aircraft will eventually become trainer models.



Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything about running operations over America. You have to have training for any new platform.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
link


the Air Force's Global Hawk has never flown a mission over the United States.

That is set to change Monday, when the first Global Hawk is scheduled to land at Beale Air Force Base in northern California.

I'm not biased, just concerned at the possible misuse of military hardware. The potential is there, you must admit. How do you know how, and for what purpose, the Hawk will be deployed in CONUS? You don't. You can blindly trust this government, and this administration in particular, but I don't. That isn't bias. That is the fact of the matter after being lied to repeatedly about stated missions and their intent.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I'm biased.

What I've seen over the past 5 years has formed that bias.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Air Combat Command has no business running ops in CONUS. Period.


It's that type of thinking that led to everyone blaming the military for it's slow response on 9/11. ACC and NORTHCOM have every right to exercise and train in the US. Like I said before Operation Noble Eagle has made our skies much more secure.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And if it's for specific events, what do we need 54 of them for?


The USAF will get 54 total, most of these will be based and used in foreign areas but a handful will be based in the CONUS. The military has had hundreds of fighters, bombers, tanks and ships based in the US for decades, so why are you crying wolf?

[edit on 19-11-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Why does the Global Hawk need to fly within the U.S. on an "official Air Combat Command mission?"


Perhaps they are looking for the enemy.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Is it so outlandish that our planes are based in our own country? Where else should homebase be? Seriously, I think you're reading something into this that isn't there.

For that matter, why would they need planes? Satellites could watch you quite efficiently already.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Hmmm... so how long before skynet becomes self-aware and launches a pre-emptive strike? Frog legs taste like chicken and they're almost ready... yum!
.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Umm... so are you're against it based on pure prejudice for the military? And yeah I see no reason to fear a military concerned about the CONUS itself rather than always looking at and protecting outside places.


Yeah... other than it violates the Pose Comitatus, denying the military from doing cop jobs. Another step towards Big Brother and the police state.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
No it does not, the police are incapable of stopping certain threats, IE civilian aircraft. As such there are provisions that allow the military to respond in those situations.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   


It's that type of thinking that led to everyone blaming the military for it's slow response on 9/11.

This isn't true, and you know it. The military, and FEMA for that matter, were running exercises on 9/11, and there is more to the "stand down" order given to NORAD (was it done by Cheney?) than any of you guys are willing to talk about to this day.

Why bring a comment like that into a discussion like this unless you are trying to confuse issues and muddy waters all over again?



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
This isn't true, and you know it.


Actually it is very true, the military had always trained to respond to foreign forces attacking the CONUS. The procedures and tactics for a domestic response were not as clear. This is why you had the confusion between the FAA, ATC's and the military, why you had pilots flying outward towards the sea and why you only had four planes on ready stand by at any given time to defend the entire Eastern Coast. You're using some "stand down" BS to cover for the fact that our military was unprepared for that scenario.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
A lack of preparation the attackers were well aware of, and skillfully exploited. Further evidence of an inside job on 9/11, but hardly relevant to this discussion.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I wouldn't mind having a fleet of these keeping an eye on our fishing zones.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join