Odd-looking Military Aircraft in the Alaskan Wilderness

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
While I can appreciate the immense work you've put into this I feel it is nothing more than a mock up for pop up airfield attacks.

1. Those "blast shields" appear to be nothing special.
2. Those AC are too small to be anything except mock ups. UAVs, perhaps but I doubt it.
3. There are no support facilities.
4. There are other more suitable airfields in the region for flying whatever out of.

That points, to me at least, to a practise airfield for F-16s et al.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
my first assumption was that it was an f-22



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
While I can appreciate the immense work you've put into this I feel it is nothing more than a mock up for pop up airfield attacks.

1. Those "blast shields" appear to be nothing special.
2. Those AC are too small to be anything except mock ups. UAVs, perhaps but I doubt it.
3. There are no support facilities.
4. There are other more suitable airfields in the region for flying whatever out of.

That points, to me at least, to a practise airfield for F-16s et al.



The airstrip is remote and it was apparently built for the purpose of pilot and aircrew training although it may have other purposes. I also pointed out earlier that there don't seem to be any support facilities of any kind which tells me it is used for practice takeoffs and landings just like some of the other airstrips in the vicinity are used for assault-takeoffs and landings (see my earlier photos of the C-17 at the Fort Greely "Assault Strip"). The strips are primarily used by the Air Force but on occasion they're probably used by the Army too.

Some of them are used for UAV's and we know this from the information I posted earlier. It is not classified or otherwise sensitive information. This information is in the public domain even if it can be hard to find sometimes.

The Air Force's civil engineers are very good at constructing and creating simulated targets for pilot training. But there are alot of problems with this idea..

1)Sullivan airstrip is an active airstrip used for real aircraft training takeoffs/landings. Primarily, by the Air Force. The "Mississippi" and "Washington" impact areas in Donnelly Training Area are further to the East/Northeast (You can see the craters in google earth) and from what I understand these are used primarily for artillery training by the Army.

2)This particular airstrip is not a bomb or target range of any sort. Eielson AFB has other bomb ranges specifically for this purpose. Donnelly Training Area (which is the government land that encompasses this area) is used primarily for Army training and perhaps sometimes other branches that can use this vast wide open area for cold weather training and other purposes under programs run out of the Northern Warfare Training Center. (see their website HERE).

Because this part of the world is ideal for cold weather training, not only do our own armed forces train here but sometimes other foreign militaries will send people here to recieve that same training.

3) This airstrip is still in use by the Air Force. The following is fromTHIS PDF file (Page 73, section D-4, B) entitled "United States Army Alaska Regulation 95-1":



b. The areas listed below have been surveyed for use by military aircraft:
(1) Donnelly Assault Airstrip (vicinity WF625784).
(2) Beales Landing Area (vicinity WF594917).
(3) Bolio Landing Area (vicinity WF573906).

(4) Sullivan Airstrip (vicinity WF298995).
(5) Delta Assault Airstrip (vicinity WF301095).
(6) Observation Point 26 Landing Area (vicinity WF365984).
(7) Bennett Airstrip (vicinity WF255754).
(8) Black Rapids Airstrip (vicinity WF576454).
(9) Gulkana/Isabell Airstrip (vicinity WF750085).
(10) Gerstle Landing Site (vicinity WF971753).

Why would the government spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to construct an active airstrip complete with alternate landing strips, complex taxiways, thrust deflectors, etc. and then suddenly turn it into a crater-ridden hellscape?

Besides, it is right next to the River and could possibly contaminate it with UXO's, debris, shrapnel, etc.. This is why the Air Force uses its own ranges for this purpose and the Army uses the impact area further to the Northeast.

This is a real airstrip used by real aircraft.

-ChriS



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I was doing somemore research tonite and I discovered a bit of information within this PDF file:

Areas Off Limits to Recreation

The file goes through and describes all the areas considered government/military reservations that are considered "off-limits" for recreational use.

I read through the documentation about Donnelly Training Area and then I saw this gem on page 2!!!


Army lands are open to “ALL” users when training is not occurring.


I knew that Donnelly Training Area wasn't exactly a closely-guarded piece of property but I didn't feel like getting "jacked up" by SP's or MP's either.

I also knew that Fort Greely and Donnelly Training Areas were considered two completely separate tracts of government land. But I did not know that you could just drive up on in there whenever you wanted so-long as training is not underway (which is denoted by the red flags. See PDF).

Anybody wanna go on a roadtrip?


I'll keep you posted!

-ChriS



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I apologise, I wasn't clear enough about what I was thinking about. I was thinking for simulated attacks. Not actual.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I agree with Delta Nine.

Not every mock-up target is out there to be directly attacked.

Consider the fact of the number of these aircraft that you can see on the images. If the aircraft were unknown active and classified aircraft do you really think that they would be out in the open and easily visible to the likes of Russian satellite reconnaissance during daytime? Such a number of classified aircraft would be provided with scoot and hide type protection in order to deny intelligence gathering capability.

This is standard operations procedures drummed into every US Government facility and even covers the Open Skies Treaty.

What we have here is simply mock-targets and individuals running wild with conspiracy theories. Every armed forces worth its salt, and has something classified to hide, operates basic satellite denial procedures.

TJ



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo

What we have here is simply mock-targets and individuals running wild with conspiracy theories.


You cannot know that. Don't pretend like you do.

Anyhow, your theory is plausible.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
What we have here is simply mock-targets and individuals running wild with conspiracy theories.


Individuals running wild conspiracy theories on the worlds #1 conspiracy site?



Say it ain't so....

But you are correct, wouldn't want them Chinese seeing our current hottest new super secret flying toys..

So yes they would be covered... like they are at Area 52 (near Tonopah) something like this..




Tonopah Test Site
Airfield and Main Facilities
Nellis Bombing Range
37°48'05.51"N 116°46'31.92"W





..

[edit on 28-8-2010 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


look like mig 29s / 31's first impressions of the first pictured shouted F22 Raptor

Wee Mad



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


they are not harriers, or jsf's look like Mig 29 just google the images

Mig Image

the tails fins and twin engine spec's match the image you given

Wee Mad



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
back when uranium mining was in very high demand didn't they use to have runways like this one put up all over the place to make transport easier????...maybe this is something along that line...now they are just used for landing exercises and things like that....



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Sorry if these points have already been made, but this is a very long thread and if i'm repeating information then my bad. Anyways i'd lie to start by making a point about Sullivan airstrip.


I think people are mixing up Sullivan airstrip with this new "pop up field", if you go back to 2005 images on Google Earth and cross-reference that to the purported size and location of Sullivan airstrip, it is clear that it is not the new airfield at all. Check out 64°01'14.95" N 146°23'27.32" W for the real Sullivan's field (make sure to set the year to 2005). This smaller field matches with the GE map posted a few pages earlier and is the real Sullivan Field imo.




As you can see this new airfield is literally brand new, having not appeared in google imagery before 2005. Going back to 1996 all that is there is forest...



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
hey man the haarp installment is very close to that and there a millitary base around there cant say where
but ya id say its a test range and a place to get to haarp and the way out



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Hi everyone, I'm new. I have 22 years as a USAF aircraft crew chief, numerous bases, and aircraft. If this is a non paved runway, no F-22's, F-15's, F-16's, F-18's (and similar aircraft) will ever land there. These will only land on improved landing surface only. Also if you look close at the pic's, these are not blast shields (look at the shadows). They appear to be about 15 to 20 feet high with a flat roof. And a little larger than the aircraft. My guess is a small hanger. A blast fence for a fighter is only used for maintenance engine runs (and dosen't look like that it's a fence), and if so then the aircraft is chained down in front of it. And they are not at every parking spot, usually 2 per base at most. Large cargo and bomber aircraft are a differant story. They have them because it takes a lot of throttle to get heavys moving, and this can cause damage hundreds of feet behind them. Since we bought a whole squadron of Mig 29's in 1997, and have been since, I would bet these are Mig 29's. They were built to land and takeoff from unimproved airstrips like this. Think of the training possibilities if you have a Mig base of your own when they have Cope Thunder exercises. And they really look like them to me. I know that dosen't fit your measurements, but those pic's are very blurry, and maybe the measurements were off a little.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Not the most knowledgeable on such things . . .

however . . .

IIRC . . jets and unpaved runways are not very compatible in terms of stuff that gets sucked in to the engines doing lots of damage.

Curious. I wonder if there's some surface that's equal to paved but looks more natural somehow.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
This one has been beat to death - but I honestly have to say that first impressions had me seeing an F-15. However, a MiG-29 would fit better with the wing root and intake on the satellite image.

There's not much resemblance to any other aircraft out there - it's clearly a twin engine with port and starboard engines placed inboard of vertical stabilizers and immediately outboard of the centerline. The wing root obviously leads right up to intakes or a 'chin' (F-18, F-16, Mig-29 style) and the vertical stabilizers appear to be perfectly perpendicular to the fuselage and wing assemblies. The wing is also clearly a modified delta design (F-15, Mig-29, Su-25/27/35/etc, MiG-25/31).

As someone before me mentioned, the runway fits more with a Mig-29 rather than an F-15 (about the only two options - the profile is wrong for a Mig-25 and a Sukhoi). The profile of the elevators and engines relative to each other also fits more in line with a Mig-29 as opposed to an F-15.

Or, hell, it's a flying saucer in disguise - why not. How else could one justify an airplane sitting at an airport on a Google Earth picture? Suspicious, I tell you!



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I can tell you it's not a bunch of MiG29s.

Why would you put your special squadron (let's face it, they wouldn't be just a bunch of F15s that are easily replaceable) on a dirt field in the middle of nowhere with no support facilities? It doesn't make sense. Besides, the MiG29s the USAF bought back in...97 I think it was have all been disposed of. I suppose a couple would have gone to the Red Hats but for the most part they're in museums or the petting zoo now.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Look like F-15's to me. A few of the images give the impression of an F/A-18. I think after looking carefully, they seem to all be F-15's however.

It's not the F-35, the trailing edge of the wings are not swept in either direction.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Considering the state of the runways it's not likely to be anything jet related.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I would go with decoys. The USAF use decoys at Avon Park bombing range, Florida.

The decoy shapes are not perfect and I think that is confusing people trying to analyse the Alaskan images.

Decoy images at Avon Park, Florida.

I haven't found the following decoys at Avon, but you can imagine what they look like from a sat image?

i.pbase.com...

Decoys that you can see at 27°42′22.00″N 081°17′23.33″W

i.pbase.com...

www.pbase.com...

Copy and paste the following coords into Google Earth for the decoys at Avon Park, Florida.

27°42′22.00″N 081°17′23.33″W

Inflatable F-15 and F-16s are also produced in the US.

www.aerostar.com...

TJ
edit on 16-11-2010 by tommyjo because: Additional info added
edit on 16-11-2010 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join