Cheyenne Mountain Facility to be moved

Yes Granoladude! That's the one... It then kind of lead me to look into Mount Weather bunker. It is so bizarre the administrations before this one kept building all of these secret and public bunkers and yet they are too dated for the current administration...Not deep enough or safe enough to insure Continuity of their Family Gene pools!!! How do I get tickets for my kids to enter the 2,400 foot deep bunker when the mexican, russian and chinese, and middle eastern aliens invade???

Again, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I muse inquire...

Antar, what are your thoughts/confidence level in that list? I have looked it over a bit and it certainly is extensive and thorough for many areas, but some just seem a bit far fetched. It would be interesting to hear your input as we've both been using the same list

But, back to the Cheyenne Mountain topic. Does anyone actually know when they last updated the tech down there? I mean if its a 24/7/365 watch center, when would they have a chance to upgrade? Could we still be running Apple II's down there, with a pixelated map of the world!? do we need to insert floppy disks the size of legal paper just to just to turn the lights on!?!?

"Would you like to play a game of chess?"

(I almost wrote "cheese" :lol

It's been awhile since they upgraded the computer system at Cheyenne Mountain. The last time was in the early 80s from what I can remember off the top of my head.

By 1994 the NORAD CMU (Cheyenne Mountain Upgrade) Program was 8 years behind, and $792 million over budget. It was slated for completion by 1987, at a cost of $968 million.

From a Nov 1999 Wired Magazine:

The US Air Force, which runs Cheyenne Mountain, invited me here because it wants to show off its new computer system, the result of a $1.8 billion overhaul that may be the most expensive and nightmarish upgrade ever attempted. One general compared the process to changing the engines of a jet in flight. Another likened it to turning a black-and-white TV into a color one without switching the set off.

The upgrade was outrageously tough because Cheyenne Mountain was burdened with a formidable legacy problem. Its Systems Center, in charge of the complex's hardware, networks, and software, maintains more than 12 million lines of code on 34 separate systems written in 27 languages. The site's array of machines, many of which survived this upgrade, encapsulates a history not just of the Cold War but of modern computing. Bearing old nameplates from companies like Honeywell and Data General, hardware that uses the hoary technologies of core memory and magnetic tape is still whirring away in there.

"We've even got one of those washing-machine computers somewhere," says Dean.

Washing-machine computers?

"The ones with the big tape reels that look like washing machines."

The upgrade started more than two decades ago, mainly to address Cheyenne Mountain's inability to process the increasing amounts of information fed into it. Despite this system weakness, the mountain has kept us safe since its inception - and the official word is that this latest upgrade makes us that much safer. But today, safety seems slightly beside the point. The Cold War is over. Despite its brass and bustle, Cheyenne Mountain has become an anachronism.

As far back as 1980, the Pentagon's assumption was that all the bunkering-in here was for naught - that Norad couldn't last more than half an hour or so in a targeted nuclear exchange. Although the mountain is the ultimate monument to "command and control" as an idea, in a real nuclear war the action would quickly switch over to mobile hubs. The president has a 747 called the National Airborne Operations Center, as well as the Commander-in-Chief Mobile Alternate Headquarters, a fleet of mysterious truck-based units that roam the nation's interstates. The Air Force maintains the Post Attack Battle Management Aircraft - better known as "Looking Glass," a flying duplicate of the mountain's systems - fueled and ready to go at all times.

www.wired.com...

A bit off topic but does anyone have any info on

Commander-in-Chief Mobile Alternate Headquarters, a fleet of mysterious truck-based units that roam the nation's interstates

Thanks.

CT

Actually, the only other thing used for the President (Commander In Chief) for a command post is NAOC, and it's a plane.

The E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) for the National Command Authorities. In case of a national emergency or destruction of ground command control centers, the aircraft provides a modern, highly survivable, command, control and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities.

Background

The E-4B evolved from the E-4A, which had been in service since late-1974. The first B-model was delivered to the Air Force in January 1980, and by 1985 all aircraft were converted to E-4B standard. These aircraft are assigned to the 55th Wing, Offutt AFB, NE.

In August 1994, the E-4B assumed an additional role. With the approval of the JCS chairman, the E-4B will support the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) request for assistance when a natural disaster occurs. The E-4B would be tasked to fly the FEMA Emergency Response Team to the disaster site, and become the FEMA command and control center until the emergency team's own equipment and facilities can be set up. With E-4B support, the emergency team's response is a matter of hours, as opposed to days.

www.theaviationzone.com...

Putting the President in a truck and driving around would be too risky IMO. E-4 or Air Force One is much safer.

ETA: Ah I see what you're talking about now. The CinC mobile headquarters. That's for the Commanders of the services, etc. Here's some more for you.

The CMAH Program Office is
responsible for management and support of the Mobile Consolidated Command
Center (MCCC) systems. These systems are configured as mobile survivable
back-up Command, Control, and Communications centers for fixed primary
facilities employed by Commanders- in-Chief(CINCs) of US Strategic Command
and US Space Command. The MCCC's mission is to provide an enduring mobile
command center from which to operate during the tran-and post-attack phases
of a nuclear attack agains the continental United States. The MCCC systems
consist of a series of EMP hardened shelters mounted on semi-trailers.
Depending on the site configuration, these shelters may be joined in pairs
to provide functional workspaces for the command element, war planning,
intelligence, and communications capabilities. An RF cable distribution
system provides the internal communications capability for voice (telephone
and radio), serial data, and Ehernet local area networks (LANs).
Communications systems include various land line connections, HF radio,
VHF/UHF radio, AFSATCOM, and MILSTAR terminals. Finally, a group of
trailers and vehicles support the system. These include supply trailers,
fuel and water tankers, HVAC systems, and Reverse Osmosis Water
Purification Units.

www.fas.org...

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And they didn't say it could be reopened in "20 minutes". They said it was in warm standby, and could be reactivated in "a matter of just a few hours."

[edit on 6/7/2007 by Zaphod58]

A matter of hours?!

Do they realize how much damage an enemy could do in a "few hours"? In my oppinion, this just goes to show why Moving NORAD out of Cheyenne Mountain. Think about Gulf War 1 back in in 1991. How much damage did we do to the Iraqi military in a few hours?

Or think back to 9/11. What would have happened if it had taken a few hours to scrable fighters in reponse. What are they thinking? Do they expect the next opponent to call and give them a 4 hour notice of a pending "Surprise Attack"?

I never though our military could be so stupid!:shk:

Tim

Except that NORAD was only in charge of the initial response. That's what Looking Glass was for in the 80s, and NAOC is for now. So that we have a mobile command post that's hard to take out. So you'd rather have Cheyenne Mountain, with it's 20+ year old systems that are starting to have problems running our response, just because it's harder to damage? Do you know how many times we almost had a nuclear attack launched because of those old computer systems in the 1980s? And that was when they were NEW. It's time to shut down and replace those systems, and the only way they can do that is to move the Mountain.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except that NORAD was only in charge of the initial response. That's what Looking Glass was for in the 80s, and NAOC is for now.

Looking Glass was built in 1961! Also, Looking Glass and NAOC are two different systems both of which are operational. These aircraft still play a critical role in the defense of our country. NAOC was flown on 9/11 as part of the response.
E-4B NAOC


Looking Glass

So that we have a mobile command post that's hard to take out. So you'd rather have Cheyenne Mountain, with it's 20+ year old systems that are starting to have problems running our response, just because it's harder to damage? Do you know how many times we almost had a nuclear attack launched because of those old computer systems in the 1980s? And that was when they were NEW. It's time to shut down and replace those systems, and the only way they can do that is to move the Mountain.

I never said I preferred one over the other. The two systems compliment each other. The trick is in today's time, you have to be worried about surprise attack. Right now Looking Glass does not fly all the time. What do you do if we get caught on the ground?

As for upgrading NORAD, I believe we should do that. However, I see no reason why they can't do that with NORAD still at Cheyenne Mountain. The Pentagon has computers and electronic systems built into it, and it was built during World War 2. Do you really think the main command center for the US Department of Defense is still using computers and equipment from the 1940's?

You're welcome to your views, but I'll stick by mine. Thank You!

Tim

That's why I said "Looking Glass in the 80s" which, btw, it was STILL the primary airborne command center with E-4 to back it up, and NAOC now.

As for the computer systems, the last major computer upgrade was in 1981. So no, they're NOT using 1940s computers anymore. But I DO believe the people that work there with the computers when they say "We still have tapes to run the computers". There was SUPPOSED to be an upgrade program running since 1994, but it was constantly behind schedule and WAY over budget.

Wow. That's kind of scary to think that someone could jeopardize national security not by building a bomb or hijacking an aircraft..... but by waving a magnet over a few of the tape driven computers.

However, this doesn't surprise me that they are still using this (now) ancient technology. Doesn't it always seem like EVERY plan always goes over budget or takes a tremendous amount of time more than what was originally planned? You'd think we could get some decent contractors and advisers for these sorts of things by now!

Gghost01 correct about the amount of damage sustained in a matter of a few short hours.

Zap. I have to understand your point as far as the outdated equipment yet I suspect that we are in a lot better shape than you your research can detail.
Your post lead me to look into some of our Government and Military DOD assessments. What I found was that there has been a tremendous amount of restructuring and realignment for several years now.
They fully acknowledge the fact that most of the allocated funds rarely make it to their destination due to decentralization. Without placing blame or finger pointing, it is simply a reality. Once the moneys are released it must travel through so many channels there is not enough left for the upgrades and renovations.
In the past much of the money has been aided by our own resources and that has changed greatly in the past couple of years. We count more on outside sources to fund our projects, and that means even more hands it must pass through. As well as the admitted outsourcing when they deem it beneficial to continued funding. I could not even gain access to those amounts in today's records, or should I say post 911.
One of the most interesting findings was the DOD's 67 year goal. Well I do not need to tell you we are there now. Many of these changes are to create a more strict chain of command in all matters foreign and domestic within the constraints of our economic capability. And a sound resolve to bring this infrastructure into the immediate and future changes that can only be accomplished through these seemingly radical changes. This is evident in the restructuring , abandonment and realignment of existing facilities and non necessary personnel. I had mentioned before about how the Restructuring starts at the top Governmental levels and then works it way down to the Military and their Families and then finally the Civilian population. I found that to be abundantly clear.
I do not know what they expect to be our future beyond the next couple of years but they are gearing up for something big and for big changes. I did notice that many of the open plans were slated from 2006-2011. That gives us close to 5 years to get it together. For what I don't know...yet.

This is an interesting report, however if you go down to the conclusion, it makes me ask why they do not have definitive answers to simple questions , like how many personnel will stay or go, what are the vulnerabilities, why are they still commenting on the financial savings of this move when it has been proven to be false. They do not mention the fact that the equipment is the reason yet state that they will be taking equipment with them(of course). Why separate the command center? It also says that the main reason for this split is because we are no longer in danger of incoming missiles. It was created for more than just missiles. I feel more of a world threat than ever before in my life! We are far more vulnerable now than 10 even 20 years ago.I do not trust this not one bit, I think it spells disaster for America. On a positive note for them, Homeland defence, FEMA and the existing Gov. rep's . and their kids will be safe when the bombs start flying.

There ARE a lot of threats, but you have to look at the threat NORAD was created for. NORAD was created to help fight the Soviet Union and be a command center for a nuclear attack. It's not that great for tracking terrorists, or something like that. Everything in NORAD is geared towards a major event like a nuclear launch, or a major attack from another country.

Hi Zap, yes but what about North Korea, China, Iran, the Middle east, and Yes Russia who is not happy with us, never have we been more hated and disrespected. It is not a lesser threat now don't you agree? P.s. I saw a plane the other day and was hoping to ask you what kind it is, I have lookeed all over and found nothing like it. It was Gov.

None of those have the capability to hit the US mainland with a massive attack like the Soviet Union could have when NORAD was created. With the exception of China, and Russia, none of them have the capability of even hitting the US mainland. They have nuclear weapons yes, but the reason for NORAD was to be a command center in event of a MASSIVE nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.

If you have anything on it send me a U2U. I'll be out of town until Sunday night, but when we get back I'll try to figure out what it was for you.

Zaphod,
What you said in the post above is not completely correct. Yes Norad was built during the time what a massive missile attack was the threat. However Norad's purpose was air defence command. Meaning all air defence. For instance consider what the name stands for, North American Air Defence Command.

Yes, Air Defense against a massive attack by nuclear missiles, or by waves of bombers. Who besides the Russians have bombers or missiles with enough range to even reach the US? Almost no one. The new threat isn't something that NORAD was created for, or is CURRENTLY well equipped to handle, with the technology that they have in the mountain. Their equipment is getting old, and the decision was made to move them instead of replacing it. In fact the NORAD commander doesn't even stay in the mountain all the time. He works at Peterson AFB, which is one of the bases they're moving to.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

originally posted by Red Golem
Zaphod,
What you said in the post above is not completely correct. Yes Norad was built during the time what a massive missile attack was the threat. However Norad's purpose was air defence command. Meaning all air defence. For instance consider what the name stands for, North American Air Defence Command.

Zaphod58
Yes, Air Defense against a massive attack by nuclear missiles, or by waves of bombers. Who besides the Russians have bombers or missiles with enough range to even reach the US? Almost no one.

Zaphod, I am particularly interested in the tag line "almost no one." Considering that you may know what other threat NORAD was created for (that is, other than nuclear missiles and waves of bombers) but you just haven't said it yet, I am going to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

So, since you didn't expressly say 'no one', who else might be out there other than 'nuclear missiles' and 'waves of bombers'?

Originally posted by johnlear
Zaphod, I am particularly interested in the tag line "almost no one." Considering that you may know what other threat NORAD was created for (that is, other than nuclear missiles and waves of bombers) but you just haven't said it yet, I am going to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

So, since you didn't expressly say 'no one', who else might be out there other than 'nuclear missiles' and 'waves of bombers'?

John,

I know you and I have had our problems, but I'm going to try to help you here. Zaphod isn't saying there is or isn't another threat besides missles and bombers. What he is trying to tell everyone is that only the Russians have any real ability attack the US with missiles and bombers at this point in time.

He's addressing the issue of who could pose That type of Threat to the USA. The theat of someone flying a suicide attack with an airliner, or an explosive-packed Cessna is very different them a TU-160 Blackjack Launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles and therefore requires a very different type of response!

Hope that helps!

Tim

[edit on 6/16/2007 by Ghost01]

me thinks, the best way to confuse your enemies is to say you are moving...but not really move at all! This way your enemies are wasting time and resources on a wild goose chase. And you can say you are still leaving a skeleton crew behind, this way when there is activity there it wont give your secret away.

Dis-Mis-Information at its finest!