Odd-looking Military Aircraft in the Alaskan Wilderness

page: 12
42
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Where I live and play. Look around here, it’s Skunk works.
34 degrees 37’06.91N 118 degrees 06’55.14W elev 2578ish
Do you think it’s one of these?




posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by retiredusaf
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.


I have tried to post the same thing, but some people live in this fantasy of F-22s flying out of mushy tundra strips, with zero nearby infrastructure such as start carts, fuel trucks, mechanic facilities, etc.

However, for the same reasons, I really doubt they are basing MiG-29s out there too. Those Moldovan planes were mostly mothballed just to keep them out of the hands of other countries since they were wired for dropping Soviet nukes. Now a couple of those could have ended up at the petting zoo or at groom..

I think they already have F-16 aggressors up there for Red Flag Alaska



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The aircraft look awfully like F-18 Super Hornets to me.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


have you seen some mig 29s, some have plants and stuff growing in them as they were kept in fields, they are still airworthy and able to fight.

Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
It really doesn't matter what state they could be in to fly, do you really think the USAF would allow any of their aircraft- foreign or not- to get into that state?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by firepilot
 


have you seen some mig 29s, some have plants and stuff growing in them as they were kept in fields, they are still airworthy and able to fight.

Wee Mad


Most likely, if there are plants and stuff growing on them, the jet fuel would not be any good either, and the electronics could be shot. Modern jet aircraft have a big need for dedicated instrastructure and facilities. And having flown in Alaska, a jet out there sitting in the tundra, would be deep into the tundra soon.

Anything out there that looks like a fighter aircraft out in AK parked on dirt or near a dirt runway, is either going to be part of a practice target of some kind. If they really needed to deploy F-15s or F-22s outside of Eielson or Elmendorf, they could reopen Galena or King Salmon.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by retiredusaf
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.


I have a couple things to point out in response to your post..

1) The area is open to civilian access when training operations are not underway (denoted by a flag system at the entrance(s) to Donnelly Training Area). Anyone entering the site would be able to tell whether or not anything "secret" is on that site or anywhere near it. How would they keep civilians out while the planes are there? Military and Security Police. The site is used by the Army and Air Force but other branches probably use the site for training purposes from time to time. Especially since Donnelly is home to the Arctic Warfare Training Center. Civilian access to DTA is strictly prohibited when the red flags are up. Plus, If you wanted to hide such an aircraft while it's being tested in Alaskan airspace it would be the last place anyone would think to look. The site is extremely remote. It is virtually inaccessible by land because the road sucks. Keep in mind that this is the exact reason Area 51 ended up where it did.

2) If any other government would happen to notice said aircraft on the runway, so be it. The aircraft are small enough that they could easily be dubbed "mock-ups" since the measurements don't match anything in the inventory. Look how much trouble we've had trying to figure out what kind of aircraft these are (and this is ATS for crying out loud!). Even if China, Iran, or NK were to discover these aircraft in google earth, they would never be able to figure out what they were.

3) The photos provided are grainy enough to ensure the government can maintain deniability. This particular photo in google earth was taken by a private company. Also, the U.S. military isn't the final authority on when or where civilian-operated satellites take their photos. There's like a million photos of Area51 for pete's sake and it's the most secret military installation in the world! My point - It wouldn't be unheard of for the aircraft to be caught out in the open. If they were, it's not like China's gonna pick up the red phone and ask us whether or not we have super-secret planes in google earth. Everyone already knows what the answer would be!

-ChriS



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by firepilot
 


have you seen some mig 29s, some have plants and stuff growing in them as they were kept in fields, they are still airworthy and able to fight.

Wee Mad


Most likely, if there are plants and stuff growing on them, the jet fuel would not be any good either, and the electronics could be shot. Modern jet aircraft have a big need for dedicated instrastructure and facilities. And having flown in Alaska, a jet out there sitting in the tundra, would be deep into the tundra soon.

Anything out there that looks like a fighter aircraft out in AK parked on dirt or near a dirt runway, is either going to be part of a practice target of some kind. If they really needed to deploy F-15s or F-22s outside of Eielson or Elmendorf, they could reopen Galena or King Salmon.




The airstrip these aircraft are parked on is not a bomb or impact range of any sort. It is an active runway that is used primarily for training purposes. It is an active airstrip used by the military for a wide variety of purposes. The impact areas of Donnelly Training Area are the sites used for bomb or artillery practice/training by the Army and Air Force. This is established not only from me but from information online within the public domain that comes directly from the military. The runway isn't located on any of these impact sites either.

On occasion, this site is used for UAV activities. Some of the airstrips in the Donnelly Training Area and elsewhere are used solely for UAV takeoffs and landings. Originally, I knew all this already but didn't want to disclose it (see previous posts). Then we actually found additional online documentation directly from the military in the public domain that proved all of this and it is not classified or otherwise sensitive in any way.

The length of the airstrip is exactly the minimum takeoff distance of the F-15 as we've previously discussed too, though it is important to note that the aircraft are WAY too small to be an F-15 or any other aircraft we've compared it too. The characteristics are unique.

IMO, it is not possible for the dimensions in google earth to be off by 20-30 feet which, if I remember correctly, would be required for these aircraft to be the size of an F-15 or mig. Nor does it explain one very important fact.. Which is the dilemma of the aircraft's characteristics. The characteristics of these aircraft are completely different than a Mig, F-15, F-16, or anything else we've been able to compare it to. And we've compared it to just about everything, even UCAV's used by certain European nations and the UK (with no luck).

Plus, there are many up-close photos online of what aircraft targets and mock-ups look like after they've been constructed. These aircraft in no way resemble the mock-ups in those images (which have also been previously posted and discussed in this thread).

-ChriS



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DeltaNine
 


I don't see an issue with the runways. In the colorized section of the photos you can see that it is paved with concrete. The discoloration of the areas where we are viewing the jets makes it look much worse than it is, I think.

Run of the mill stuff imo. Jets stationed in a cold weather environment, small hangers to give the jets protection from weather when it gets to nasty for the equipment.

Various images give the impression of F/A-18's, F-15's or possibly another type that I am not grasping, but they don't seem to be exotic, nor are they hidden from prying eyes.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I recently saw the site from the air. It was actually by accident but it was pretty amazing, nonetheless.

I was able to see the landing strip in question and many of the landing strips and training areas surrounding it within Donnelly Training Area.

There were no aircraft parked on any of the sites but they aren't always used.

I had planned on accessing the site last fall but that was delayed for a variety of reasons and the next thing I knew there was snow everywhere.

I plan on visiting the site in the near future.

The site is open to recreational access on a permit system but certain areas may not be accessible depending on whether or not training is underway (denoted by a sign and a red flag).

However, it is pretty easy to coordinate your recreational activities around the training schedule by using the access hotline.

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Um couldn`t they have painted the tarmac in a camo scheme, long grey airstrips are easy to spot and if you have lights on the runway aiding in landing it would make since, it up in alaska. Any one thats knows anything about fighters would know those are F-15`s the shape of the wing, the straight line at the front of the intake, the way the engines recess inward of the tail, F-15`s



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Fail

That's an F-22. Look at the diamond shaped wings.


I agree and those runways could be painted to look that way as this really looks like a base for emergency war. Notice how the aircraft parking slots have a lot of different taxi ways to hit the runway in case one is bombed. The blast shields are a dead give away but maybe they just had set them up for painting. Or this whole thing could be a distraction to have Russia include it in its war plans.

Its been a long time since I have seen our government get serious about air defense here at home.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Fail

That's an F-22. Look at the diamond shaped wings.


I agree and those runways could be painted to look that way as this really looks like a base for emergency war. Notice how the aircraft parking slots have a lot of different taxi ways to hit the runway in case one is bombed. The blast shields are a dead give away but maybe they just had set them up for painting. Or this whole thing could be a distraction to have Russia include it in its war plans.

Its been a long time since I have seen our government get serious about air defense here at home.


You cant just paint a runway and fool modern multi-spectral satellites. some of you are letting your imaginations get a bit far. Putting F-22s someplace is not like basic prop planes out in the wilderness.

If they were really looking to remotely sophisticated aircraft at other places, they would not be tearing down the last of the infrastructure at King Salmon and Galena AFS.
edit on 14-7-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


You're exactly right.

First of all, these are training "assault" strips designed for practice takeoffs and landings. At least that's what the military sais. There are many different landing strips and runways in the vicinity that are used occasionally for UAV's and exercises.

That's why I was confused when I saw this image in google earth.

Keep in mind, this is an area across the highway from Fort Greely called "Donnelly Training Area". It is part of an immense tract of government land and it's primary purpose is training. What is strange is how all those aircraft are parked at that airstrip with no support facilities, support vehicles, no nothing whatsoever other than the aircraft. We know that it is an active airstrip based on the information I provided earlier on in the thread.

This particular landing strip is designed to reflect the design of an active combat airstrip. Perhaps one that is already in use overseas.

If you measure the length of the landing strip in google earth you will find that it is approximately the minimum takeoff length of an F-15 and that makes complete sense (see my earlier post on this). The issue is that the aircraft in the image are so extremely small that it couldn't possibly be an F-22 or F-15. At least based on the data gathered on this so far.

Also, keep in mind this satellite image is from 2005. Elmendorf didn't have a full squadron of F-22 raptors until 2007...

Elmendorf welcomes F-22 Raptor

Plus, an F-22 wingspan is 44'-6". The wingspan of an F-15 is 42'-10". The wingspan of these aircraft is approximately 28'...

That's a pretty huge margin of error for the dimensions of the runway to be just about exactly the minimum takeoff distance of an F-15. Why would the runway length be nearly perfectly accurate but the aircraft dimensions are 12' off?

Plus, the characteristics of the aircraft differ from an F-15 or an F-22. F-15 vertical stabilizers on the rear of the plane are near vertical. The vertical stabilizers on these aircraft are canted similar to an F-22 but much too small in size to match. The intakes resemble those of an F-15 but are also way too small.

Those are the only two aircraft in the inventory that even remotely resemble what we're seeing but they in no way match the characteristics or overall size.

This area of Alaska is expanding it's infrastructure and ability to provide training for UAV/UAS related activities. All that information is publicly available and I posted it earlier. Interior Alaska has an immense volume of military airspace that is unmatched anywhere else in the U.S. That is why Eielson AFB is used for Red Flag exercises.

That also means that this specific kind of training can be conducted in total secrecy. I think the company took the photo with the satellite not knowing anything was wrong. There are military aircraft in this area but it is no known for being a testbed or anything like that. The aircraft could've been caught out in the open by complete accident.

There are many other airstrips nearby built specifically for handling UAV's. Perhaps they used that airstrip for the purpose of gathering them up like this and preparing for an exercise utilizing an entire squadron. It's not like you could land them at Fort Wainwright or Eielson AFB because everyone would see them for crying out loud!

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I used to fly out of Ft Wainwright myself. Lets not forget there are mockups of combat aircraft (Su-27 Flanker series) out of Creech AFB too.

Modern combat aircraft require a lot of infrastructure and ground handling equipment. The fact that you do not see all this, is pretty good evidence that these are not actual military fighter aircraft based out in the wilderness. Even at the height of the Cold War, there was not any such thing. Yes they would deploy F-15s out to remote stations, but there were still hangars, ramps, concrete runways, maintanance equipment, fuel farms, all the things that you do not see in those other photos.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I have an update for you all..

SO... I've been continuing my research on this. Still no clear culprit as to what these are exactly.

It is an active runway and it is not part of the main bomb range complex. They are aircraft of some kind but - who knows what.

Something pretty disturbing happened to me today which I wanted to tell you about.

This morning I turned on my monitors and I believe I caught someone in the act of hacking my computer. Whoever did it was only interested in my ATS research material.. Particularly the material involving my research related to this thread.

Someone was able to use a browser to remotely access certain folders on my computer. My research related to this thread was open in the browser but only as a toolbar (didn't even know that was possible). That was on the left hand side of the screen - as if someone put it there temporarily while sifting through everything else.

In the middle of the screen was a folder showing thumbnails of the contents in that folder. Whoever did this also rearranged a few of the icons on my desktop. Still unsure why.

It was a completely obvious, blatant intrusion - something that has never happened to me before. This is with active security suite and a password protected network. There isn't even anything in the event log in my security suite related to this event.

What they DID leave behind is a browser history in my own internet explorer where it is logged that they accessed a folder containing my research related to this thread - AND ONLY THIS FOLDER. In my internet history, no other logged traffic occurred on my computer with relation to this intrusion.

As it turns out not alot of people jump at the chance to help when something like this happens.

Anyway, is it just me or does this seem absolutely bizarre? What do they think I know?

-ChriS



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Well, that was an interesting read. Sorry I can't help identifying the planes. I just find digital maps fascinating, that was a great find. Funny that the resolution falls away halfway down the runway, It doesn't on Bing but the images are from before the runway was constructed. Hopefully the images will be updated soon.

As for your computer "anomaly", I worry when Firefox decides to update itself. I'm sure if "they" wanted to hack you they would and wouldn't leave any clues. Still a bit suspect.

After all the research you've done a camping trip up there (when there's no red flags) would be a good idea. However, you could get a straight "No!" 20 miles away or find a huge dirt runway and a couple of empty containers. Those planes could have been there for 24 hours, who knows. The emergency landing strip for the shuttle theory made me smile, why not?

Anyway, thanks for the read.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I read about six pages of this so if it's been mentioned sorry, long night. My personal opinion is F-15's at first glace. But has anyone thought about the T-38? The dimentions, if accurate from google earth, are much closer to a twin engine T-38 than any other plane. However, it the measurements are wrong from google, Ill stick to my first choice. I wonder if they try to teach fighter pilots using the T-38 to land in rougher terrain than normal and that's why they are there.....



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


hate to jump into a 4 yr old discussion but just found this website and find this thread interesting and enjoyed reading it and others... while people seem to make out like there is something secret going on there there, imho, it's a training / gunnery range.

The airfield in the 1st post appears to be a mock up airfield for training. Nothing flys in or out of there i bet. And if you search some where in the middle east or former soviet union bet you can find a similar 'real' airfield. The aircraft are most likely mockups of non-US a/c....

The post with the pic of the UAV catchers - 2-35 ft poles with something strung between them - is an air to ground gunnery target. Ripples on right side are berms to catch rounds. Aircraft approaches left to right.

yep radars, cameras, telescopes etc all around to track what happens to provide post flight feedback accounts for trailers, vehicles etc.

take a look at the old avon park gunnery range - see an similarities. Look at the airfield.... zoom in on runway - plane taking off in 2007 images... now look at the 2010 or 2004... either this plane has a slow take off roll or is parked on the runway. and to the west you see some circles - bomb targets and then to circular sand pits flanking 2 rectangular sand pits - those are air to ground target ranges - i've watch A-10s strafe them and walked them and picked up shells and rounds... heck there's even a star of david sam site. 27°42'7.47"N 81°18'38.24"W

you can see similar dirt airfield layouts at on the NV test range like the one here with it's a/c on it. 37°25'53.86"N 116°51'31.88"W

so i think it's just a training / gunnery / exercise range - nothing more.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by soarer
 


You are correct. That dirt air strip at Fort Greely is a targeting range. Those aircraft are mock-ups of Mig-29s which are built and maintained by the Air Force 354th Civil Engineering Squadron. They also do hangars, tanks and vehicles.

The last time I know they worked on that air strip was around February, 2011.
edit on 15-12-2013 by allenidaho because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join