Odd-looking Military Aircraft in the Alaskan Wilderness

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by airforcephotographerPlease let me know if you have any other questions on this particular landing strip. Thanks!


Well thank you very much for that first hand report. That is why we post this stuff here. For you, actually involved it is 'nothing out of the ordinary' but for us armchair conspiracy nuts its monumental


One question comes to mine

Can we have some of your pictures? Provided they are not {classified} of course...


OH and a name of the location?
I hate using 'unknown'

Thanks for your service



I just noticed you only logged on to make that one post... curious
I was going to write you a private message re looking at your portfolio but you can't answer yet. Welcome to ATS and thanks for the intel


PS I don't see any C-17's in those pictures...


[edit on 25-8-2009 by zorgon]




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Dirt runway testing increases C-17 safety, agility


11/24/2006 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFPN) -- In an effort to expand the capability of the C-17 Globemaster III, about 40 people from the C-17 Integrated Test Force are in the midst of a four-phase test program to determine the C-17 takeoff and landing performance on non-paved surfaces.


www.af.mil...

This is a C-17 landing on dirt



But those are not C-17's sitting on that dirt runway in front of the jet blast shields



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
C-17 Globemaster III 4 engine Turbofan/jet 174.00 feet long 169.80 wingspan.




[edit on 25-8-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
AH!!

Here we are

C-17s in Alaska Ramp Up to Go Operational


ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska, Aug. 21, 2007 – Long-range, heavy airlift resources for wartime and humanitarian efforts across the globe will be a day’s flying time closer to the need in less than a month.
he 517th Airlift Squadron, a former C-130 Hercules unit, is in the process of becoming operational as a C-17 Globemaster III unit. C-17s provide longer range and capabilities to carry larger loads than C-130s. Placing the capabilities of the C-17 in Alaska means war support and humanitarian aid can be anywhere in the world a day sooner.

Since the first C-17 touched down in Alaska in June, the unit has been readying itself to become operational next month, flying missions across the state and training crews and maintainers.




Besides its strategic location, Almand said, Alaska allows for training that is afforded nowhere else. The base is next door to Fort Richardson and the 67,000-square-mile Pacific Alaskan Range Complex, which offers training in a simulated combat environment and is home to the Red Flag-Alaska exercises.


www.defenselink.mil...

Well that gives us the dirt landing strip..

But it still doesn't explain THESE



So where is out airforcephotographer... I have questions Laura






[edit on 25-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


In the late 80's they could count the dimples on a golf ball.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Here is something... tied into the Red Flag operation..


You mentioned MIG's, I have been captivated by these Russian planes for many years and have had the opportunity to cover MIG-29's that participated in Red Flag at Nellis Air Base and also did an in-flight profile on a MIG-17, totally fascinating. They all take off and land from dirt runways, are suitable for extreme weather, etc. None of our planes are as capable in those areas. I think we have much to learn, hopefully the new Joint Strike Fighter will change things, and if I'm not mistaken, the Marines will get the aircraft too, that is good, they always get the least.


www.salem-news.com...





[edit on 25-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Remember that "alien" airport in Inca, Peru? Some of those pictures sort of remind me of them. Maybe the govt picked up some ideas frm them. But whats weird about the Jet? it looks like a regular 1 to me



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker718But whats weird about the Jet? it looks like a regular 1 to me


Which 'regular 1'would that be? What's weird is that they are one DIRT runway. Which of our regular fighters can do that



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


While I was in the Air Force I was involved with a couple of the "Cope Thunder" exercises at Eielson. It involved aircraft from multiple different countries and U.S. service branches. To my knowledge, Red Flag used to be held at Nellis, however.

Since I've worked there, Eielson has been re-structured. The 355th fighter Squadron no longer flies sorties that I know of. They used to have a squadron of A-10's that flew daily training sorties along with the 18th Fighter Squadron of F-16's. The A-10 hangars probably sit empty for right now, probably being used for other purposes. I also think the 18th Figher Sqaudron has drastically decreased its number of aircraft and daily sorties (though the F-16's are still there).

A few years ago, Eielson was slated to be closed altogether. But because of public outcry and support of the local communities the decision was reached to keep the base open. It was a good decision. Eielson has one of the longest runways in the world. It is one of the alternate landing sites for the space shuttle and its infrastructure is immaculate compared to other nearby military facilities (though that is changing as more and more for a variety of reasons). The only catch was.. The mission changed along with the decision to keep it open. It is mostly used for training purposes now because of the vast, unheard-of size of the military airspace surrounding the base.

These days, Eielson hosts its own "Red Flag" exercises. I'm not even sure if Cope Thunder is still being held there, but it would make sense.

But there is one aspect of Eielson that is not ideal from a standpoint of testing military aircraft. It isn't so remote. However, that doesn't mean the airspace can't still be used. Any aircraft taking off or landing from Eielson can be seen by a family passing by the highway in an RV. Occasionally, during large exercises, there used to be a line of cars and RV's half a mile long to check out the parked aircraft and watch the jets take off. The base is even more exposed now since they've completely de-vegatated the trees and shrubs along the highway on the Southern boundary of the base (the highway being parallel to the runway). They did this because of the bird problem they were having and still have.

Fort Greely is extremly remote in comparison. And when you combine that with the fact that they built this airstrip just outside the Western edge of the Donnelly Training Area, the military can ensure the remoteness of the site. Other than trudging through military land to get to the site, the only other access point would be across the river (and they would see you coming anyway). Besides, the military uses technology these days for security that boggles the mind. They even have disguised equipment that can literally hear and smell you coming (and that was 10 years ago).


-ChriS



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ashnomadonte
 


There are only half a dozen F35s built. I don't think they would haul the fleet to Alaska.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Looks like a target range for Red Flag Alaska exercises. F-15s obviously can not operate from a tundra airstrip that has no infrastructure, nor do you see evidence on the surface of any aircraft movement.



Exactly..

The dimensions of the aircraft aren't even close to being the size of an F-15 anyway. F-15's from Elmendorf land and take off from Eielson all the time. The military wouldn't operate F-15's from such a remote location anyway while they have the manpower and infrastructure in place to support just that kind of mission at Elmendorf and, occasionally, Eielson. They don't have to keep the aircraft secret either. Everyone knows about it. The F-15's already have a permanent facility they operate from in Elmendorf AFB.

Besides, The dimensions of an F-15 are completely different than the dimensions of these aircraft..

F-15 Dimensions:
Length........63 feet, 9.5 inches
Wingpsan...42 feet, 9.5 inches

F-35 Dimensions:
Length....... 50 feet, 6 inches (a couple inches larger for the C variant)
Wingspan...35 feet for A and B variants
43 feet for C variant (29.83 feet folded)

F-22 Dimensions:
Length.......62 feet
Wingpsan...44 feet, 6 inches

Dimensions of the aircraft at this remote landing strip (give or take about a foot):
Length.......37 feet
Wingspan...28 feet

These jets aren't close to being the F-15, F-22, or even the F-35 given the dimensions. And apart from the dimensions, these couldn't be F-15's anyway because of the geometry of the back end in particular. F-15's have vertical stabilizers that are near vertical (if not perfectly). The aircraft parked along this landing strip DO have 2 vertical stabilizers but they are canted at an upwards angle much like the F-35's. Except the F-35 is over 13 feet longer than these aircraft.

Red Flag training exercises being hosted by Eielson (as they now are) involve military aircraft temporarily stationed AT EIELSON. There is a reason for that. Let's say the Navy wants to fly F-18's for a specific Red Flag exercise being hosted by Eielson AFB. They're going to send all their support hardware, all their maintenance personnel, all their tools, etc... TO EIELSON for the specific purpose of flying sorties out of that location.

They're not going to fly their jets to a remote airstrip in the middle of nowhere where they can't maintain their aircraft, While at the same time taking the risk of damage to their aircraft by flying sorties to and from a remote location with a landing strip made up of grass and dirt. And while you can't completely eliminate the possibility that such a facility might be used occasionally for training purposes in particular, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend this kind of money to build an elaborate, remote landing strip while we already have the facilities and infrastructure to host the Red Flag exercises..

NO, this looks to me like this particular facility was constructed for a very specific mission involving a very specific type of aircraft. They didn't want to gain attention to this mission and thats why they needed a remote location to operate from. These aircraft never have to land at any other military facility if they don't absolutely have to and this was the perfect location to operate such a facility from and support such a secretive mission. This is a remote airstrip built and designed for a very specific purpose that doesn't necessarily involve training missions of any kind. Other bases and facilities in the area are designed for hosting training exercises. This one is definately not.

I'm still at a loss for what these aircraft really are. The dimensions don't match up even close to anything I've seen yet. And that makes them much more interesting.

-ChriS



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Seen any interesting contrails in the area lately?




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Precisely!
Please see my last post in the thread.

When you really get down to brass tax here and look at the numbers, none of the dimensions or characteristics of any known aircraft in the inventory match up with what we're seeing here in the google earth satellite photos.

At least nothing I've seen yet.

Not to say these couldn't be some kind of new, experimental UAV.. Or something else..

Think about it though. Geopolitically, the far east is slowly destabilizing over time. Granted, some American facilities in South Korea already have spy planes and reconnaissance aircraft of their own. But what a perfect location to launch recon sorties from with a new, state of the art aircraft. Noone ever has to see them coming or going. In fact, noone even has to know they were even there.

With the right technology, you could fly aircraft right over China or any other country without any country having to ever see you. And with technology like pulse detonation, you could have an aircraft there in no time if Lil kim starts threatening a nuke strike or if Russia decides to send a few Bear bombers our way with the idea of giving us a really bad day.

Even a U-2 landing at a base in South Korea can be seen by the entire base (and city/towns surrounding the base). With such a remote landing site, noone ever has to see these jets. The aircraft can fly quick-reaction sorties if they need to and the very existence and technology of the planes can be kept entirely secret (at least until they're caught on google earth). It's almost like they've been prepositioned just in case. They could also have a nuclear and/or missile defense related mission (but of coarse we have no way of knowing that for sure). But think about the precise location of the airstrip with relation to the missile defense site at Fort Greely and the airstrip's location with relation to Fairbanks, AK and Anchorage, AK.. Prime ground for a missile-defense related mission too. Lots of possibilities here and they're all open for speculation.

But what is still more interesting to me than what the mission might be are the dimensions of these jets. Very different. I'm definately no self-proclaimed expert in military aircraft but this is appears to be a very special, very unique kind of airplane. It's fascinating stuff.

-ChriS



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
So call up the base and ask for Air Force Photographer Laura and see if you can get the pictures



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Precisely!
Please see my last post in the thread.

When you really get down to brass tax here and look at the numbers, none of the dimensions or characteristics of any known aircraft in the inventory match up with what we're seeing here in the google earth satellite photos.

At least nothing I've seen yet.

Not to say these couldn't be some kind of new, experimental UAV.. Or something else..

-ChriS


Could they not just be target mock-ups? Built out of cheap materials to act as visual targets? No point making them bigger than the real thing, that would be too easy, make them smaller to make the training harder.

Cheers

Robbie



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by stratsys-sws


Yeah I recall those Inflatable tanks you Brits had last war




But those blast sheilds look real



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


When a bunch of us were kids we were out on Dartmoor hiking, we went to go into a small valley and we suddenly saw 3 tanks!!

We panicked a little bit - got the maps out to check we wern't in the live ranges, then we backtracked about 500 meters so we could see the automatic flags (red flags with a weight that can pop up - if the flag is up you don't cross the line!) No flags, we continued on our planned route, with a little detour to get closer to the 'tanks'.

We had to get pretty darned close to realise that they were made of canvas and built like tents staked out to the ground - we still got out of there pretty quick though - we didn't want to get mortared or something
- these were well before the days of sigital cameras though, we got snaps on 35mm film but no one believed us till the phots came back.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Mock-ups? Possibly. Also possibly an error in topographical projection on the part of Goggle. Finding a 53 foot tractor trailer somewhere in the area might help to verify the dimensions. (53 feet is one of the standard sizes...a 10 or 20 foot containerized cargo box would serve the same purpose)

A while back.. in either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, I read an article about some prototype UCAV layouts. One model had roughly a common central body with various wing configurations... depending on how it was ultimately built.

This is one of the shapes. Dunno if this is just EADS' version, or a US version. EADS does a lot of collaborative work with the remaining non Boeing US manufacturers.

Not exact... but:

Length: 27 feet
Wingspan 23.7 ft



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Don't know if anyone looked at this but there are 40 F-22s stationed at Elmendorf, presumably to intercept Russian bombers.

Wikipedia



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 


Fail

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





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join