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.

 

Odd-looking Military Aircraft in the Alaskan Wilderness

page: 8
44
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
#1 Based on extensive evaluation of Google Imagery, I'm going to call into question the precision of the measurements involved.

#2 This is obviously laid out as a quick alert Air Defense field. Our fighters F-15s and F-22s regularly respond to Russian Strategic Bombers when they fly too close to our Alaskan Air Space and that's what this airstrip is setup for.

#3 Look at Google Imagery of Elmendorf AFB. You'll see several F-15s on the Apron. If you zoom in to the same scale as the OP pictures you'll see that they look remarkably similar. Regardless of what the measurements say these aircraft are obviously either F-15s or F-22s.

#4 Believe me I wish they were some kind of really awesome new secret strike aircraft but it doesn't make sense and it wouldn't be a UCAV because there are obvious arrangements in the layout for a cockpit. UCAVS don't look like that.

#5 Best guess based on the image being takin in 2005, these are F-15s on ready alert (the pilots are hanging out in the ready area nearby) in case a Bear or Backfire bomber strays a bit too close to Alaskan Airspace.

Really cool discussion though.




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#2 This is obviously laid out as a quick alert Air Defense field. Our fighters F-15s and F-22s regularly respond to Russian Strategic Bombers when they fly too close to our Alaskan Air Space and that's what this airstrip is setup for.


How many other quick response fields are out there that have been found?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#1 Based on extensive evaluation of Google Imagery, I'm going to call into question the precision of the measurements involved.

#2 This is obviously laid out as a quick alert Air Defense field. Our fighters F-15s and F-22s regularly respond to Russian Strategic Bombers when they fly too close to our Alaskan Air Space and that's what this airstrip is setup for.

#3 Look at Google Imagery of Elmendorf AFB. You'll see several F-15s on the Apron. If you zoom in to the same scale as the OP pictures you'll see that they look remarkably similar. Regardless of what the measurements say these aircraft are obviously either F-15s or F-22s.

#4 Believe me I wish they were some kind of really awesome new secret strike aircraft but it doesn't make sense and it wouldn't be a UCAV because there are obvious arrangements in the layout for a cockpit. UCAVS don't look like that.

#5 Best guess based on the image being takin in 2005, these are F-15s on ready alert (the pilots are hanging out in the ready area nearby) in case a Bear or Backfire bomber strays a bit too close to Alaskan Airspace.

Really cool discussion though.


No, that it totally incorrect. F-15s do not operate from tundra unimproved strips, with no infrastructure, and no fuel storage.

F-15s did used to pull alert duty from King Salmon and Galena, which were like mini-bases with a few F-15s that would rotate through. And besides, if you would not put alert fighters in the interior of AK between Fairbanks and Anchorage, to protect the western border. That is what places like King Salmon and Galena were fot.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


I have been to alot of US (Guard Base and Elmendorf AFB in Alaska) and Joint Air Force Bases all over the world the last 15 years and the thing that really jumps out on me is how desolate the area looks. There are always trucks and equipment around air craft plus the shelters are not camouflaged at all. Looks like props almost.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensible thought
reply to post by BlasteR
 


I have been to alot of US (Guard Base and Elmendorf AFB in Alaska) and Joint Air Force Bases all over the world the last 15 years and the thing that really jumps out on me is how desolate the area looks. There are always trucks and equipment around air craft plus the shelters are not camouflaged at all. Looks like props almost.


Thats probably exactly what it is. F-15s have a large support infrastructure that is needed, and they are not all terrain vehicles that can fly out of the tundra.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
tbh some of those jets looks like f4 phantoms while others look like f14s



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Just another way to shuttle people to another united states contract accepting company to study another secret that has to be kept under raps.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hi Zorgon,

Since you ask about the strange contrails, yes I have. Down here of course. I took some pics the other day but I did not have my big camera gear that used to take the pic you posted.

They look at you kinda funny when you go to the trunk of the car and pull out the big cannon lens. LOL!



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Just was trying to catch up on the thread as I haven't been around a whole lot these days. But I'll try to respond to what I can for right now.


Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#1 Based on extensive evaluation of Google Imagery, I'm going to call into question the precision of the measurements involved.


The measurements are obviously not meant to be 100% exact, as that would be simply impossible anyway. Instead, they're meant to give a ballpark figure we can work with. To come at those dimensions, I drew a 100''-0" line in google earth. I then insert the image into another program and draw a 100'-0" line. I then scale the image so that the two are 100% identical. There is always a margin of error when you do this kind of thing. But as long as the size of the objects in google earth are close to being the real deal, the margin of error should be small enough that the dimensions I provided are pretty close (I'd guess +/- less than a foot). And even if you consider this when comparing the aircraft to everything else we know of in the inventory, nothing quite matches.

The aircraft in the image appear to have a delta-wing style airframe, twin vertical stabilizers, and, like you said, something resembling a cockpit at the front of the plane. But the dimensions and characteristics of the aircraft are not even close to being anything we know of.


Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#2 This is obviously laid out as a quick alert Air Defense field. Our fighters F-15s and F-22s regularly respond to Russian Strategic Bombers when they fly too close to our Alaskan Air Space and that's what this airstrip is setup for.


Not necessarily. Remember, this area is actually ON a tract of government-owned land we refer to around here as "Donnelly Training Area". The Donnelly Training Area actually extends all the way to the river to the West of the landing strip in the google earth photos I posted. That's one reason people have proposed these are wooden aircraft targets. But why build a landing strip with this measure of complexity, complete with taxiways and parking spots just to turn it into a crater-ridden landscape? Something more is going on here.


Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#3 Look at Google Imagery of Elmendorf AFB. You'll see several F-15s on the Apron. If you zoom in to the same scale as the OP pictures you'll see that they look remarkably similar. Regardless of what the measurements say these aircraft are obviously either F-15s or F-22s.


Yes, F-15's are stationed up here at Elmendorf (Not at Eielson). Eielson is home to the F-16's of the 18th Fighter Squadron and it used to be home to the squadron of A-10's that were flown by the 355th Fighter Squadron. Other than that, it is widely used these days for "Red Flag" exercises and the annual "Cope Thunder" joint training exercise. Eielson is used for these purposes because of the length of the runway, the immense airspace available to pilots up here (which is much larger than what you usually see around other Air Force Bases) and because of the complex system of ranges and training areas that surround the base. I know this because:
1- I was stationed there for 3 years and worked in munitions.
2- I've lived in the area for 10 years.

We've already discussed the possibility of these being F-15's or F-22's and every time someone sais "These are obviously F-15's or F-22's", I feel like pulling my hair out all over again. They are so obviously and absolutely NOT based on what information we have at this point. The dimensions I gave for the aircraft are not going to be 15-20 feet (or more) off the real thing, which would be required for this thing to be an F-15 or F-22. And even if you considered the possibility, if you take an F-15 or F-22 and scale up these jets to match what we see in the image (@ full scale), the characteristics simply don't match. Because

Remember, these are ballpark dimensions..
The aircraft in the photo has

Length: 37'-4"
Wingspan: 28'-0"
Width of Fuselage: 10' including what appear to be dual intakes
Vertical stabilizers canted?: YES

compared to..

F-15:
Length 63.75 ft (19.43 m)
Wingspan 42.81 ft (13.05 m)
Vertical stabilizers canted?: NO. If they are, it isn't anything near what we see in the image.

F-22:
Length: 62 ft 1 inch
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 inches
Vertical stabilizers canted?: YES.

The dimension difference is one major problem that you can't ignore.. Even if my ballpark is off by 5'-10' (Which it most likely is not).

The aircraft in the photo appear to have characteristics of both F-15's and F-22's only at about 5/8 the size..


Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#4 Believe me I wish they were some kind of really awesome new secret strike aircraft but it doesn't make sense and it wouldn't be a UCAV because there are obvious arrangements in the layout for a cockpit. UCAVS don't look like that.


Why doesn't it make sense? This area and those like it are absolutely remote. Noone ever has to see these planes taking off or landing. Plus, given the immense size of the airspace available up here for military aircraft, they have a huge area at their disposal.

Is there a cockpit? The images don't give you a clear answer to that. There does appear to be a raised portion of the fuselage at the front of the aircraft, but to assume this to be a cockpit would be jumping to conclusions. If you saw a predator from this height, you might assume it, too, has a cockpit based on the characteristics of the aircraft. But it doesn't.


Originally posted by Dark Oracle
#5 Best guess based on the image being takin in 2005, these are F-15s on ready alert (the pilots are hanging out in the ready area nearby) in case a Bear or Backfire bomber strays a bit too close to Alaskan Airspace.

Really cool discussion though.


F-15's are already on ready alert at Elmendorf for this purpose though right? All the instances of bear intercepts that I've read about off the Alaskan coast involved F-15's stationed at Elmendorf. Including the most famous one where an F-15 pilot showed the russian pilots a playboy spread through the cockpit in 1982.

-ChriS



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Folks, since the google earth images we're seeing are from years past, some of them may not show what is really there now. Remember, the photo in the google earth image I posted is from 2005 (and I verified that through the company that took it. Please see earlier post on this).

One big problem is access. Blair lakes range complex is a good example. It lies 30-some odd miles south of Fort Wainwright. In google earth it appears, at first, like a giant 1 mile x 1 mile square. Upon closer investigation of the site, you can see what look like H's at the top of this square to the North (see images I posted earlier). If you zoom in on these, the H's actually appear to be recovery nets for UAV's/UCAV's.. The giant poles are spaced about 40' apart with giant nets between them. And if you look even closer you can see where landing markers have been placed in front of these H's, on the ground (most likely, for incomming UAV's landing in these nets).. The complex even has all the infrastructure and vehicles in place to conduct maintenance on these aircraft and refuel them if necessary. This is not classified information, this is just what you can tell from what information HAS come public and what is in google earth.

Kiewit is the contractor that constructed the buildings at this site. To get there, they had to wait for winter and build a 32 mile ice road just to get materials and workers to and from the build site. The site is simply remote and inaccessible, no roads exist for easy access to or from the complex. You can read more about the project on Kiewit's website, actually (which I posted earlier on in the thread).

The good thing about Eielson AFB in particular, is that it is surrounded by a complex road system. Some of it pretty rough, but there nonetheless. This means that these sites could be easily accessed by civilian and military personnel. Some of the rough landing strips are already in place too (if you look in google earth). Also, some of the images used in google earth are years old and don't show everything that currently exists.

This next part is very important..

What I've seen and experienced over the last few months makes it absolutely crystal clear that UAV's are a wave of the future. And this area is going to play an important role in that. Guys, I'm sorry I can't share more.. But my job is my life. I'm not going to risk everything I have just to disclose information not meant to be disclosed (as you can understand, I hope).

What is absolutely clear though, is that a whole myriad of UAV systems are coming into the fore just recently. Some of them have already been used in combat situations, some of them have not. But some of these UAV's are completely secret, completely unknown to the public, and have absolutely no photos of them to prove their existence. We suspected this already too, given what I've read from the posts in this thread and what I personally believe.

U.S. Air Force Confirms 'Beast of Kandahar' Secret Stealth Drone Plane



"The U.S. Air Force has acknowledged that it is developing and testing a new, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) — a drone with a sleek, stealth design that will be deployed for military reconnaissance and surveillance missions.

Aeronautics fans have nicknamed the aircraft "The Beast of Kandahar," as it was apparently spotted over the skies of Afghanistan. Industry observers speculate it is sophisticated enough to gather aerial intelligence over Iran without detection, perhaps keeping track of the Islamic Republic's emerging nuclear program.

"The RQ-170 Sentinel, a low observable UAV, was built by Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs," Major Cristin L. Marposon, a public affairs officer for the USAF at the Pentagon, told FoxNews.com.



The U.S. Air Force has finally acknowledged the existence of a new unmanned aircraft. No photos of it have been released, but the plane is reported to look very different from the Reaper.


This completely backs up everything we've been talking about. There are probably dozens of similar instances in which UAV Research and Development is taking place (in some cases, using black budget funding) and entire airplanes are being built and used on the battlefield without us ever knowing they existed in the first place.

And that really helps support the idea of these planes in google earth being something we weren't supposed to see.

-ChriS



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I was at first anxious to answer this as obvious F-15 aircraft, but there's a whole world of missing support infrastructure, then I remembered a conversation with a fellow student from the Applied Aerospace Dynamics (wind tunnel) Lab not far from the Media Center...

He said that the constraints in designing military aircraft were the human element (and not just the H.E.R.E. type), the body's inability to withstand the wild forces involved in radical maneuvers... and the supporting of the body in the design. else the Super Fighters would be much smaller than the F-15 even with the DFEs -roll rates could exceed the A-4 many times over -turning radiuses could be way inside the Canard equipped Mirage (even to turning while supersonic!) -G loads could far transcend the F-16s -and acceleration -and time to altitude (besides just time aloft and range) could be far and wide multiplied;
That's why those Video-games are a good thing!

I remember when they were designing and testing the Laminar Flow wings for the Global Hawk from the U-2 plans (still top secret!) and had to go to an Alaska an Hawaii SR-71 and U-2 Command for their familiarization with particulars of their manufacture. Maybe these aircraft are a projection of that trend? I know that they were looking at Sukhoi aircraft having ability to fly out of undeveloped strips, as well as vectored thrust, and even STO and VTO capabilities being integrated into higher load bearing designs too... I think there may really be something to this!



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Ok this isn't terriblhy challenging to sort out. We've got a deltawing with about a 30 ft wingspan. The dimensions of the aircraft are small. Very small. My initial thought was an unmanned drone like the AV-3 which matches your configurations/dimensions very closely. But with those dimensions it's either an antiquity, an unmanned drone or an ultralight. Being as we're talking about a military base my money is on the drone.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
It's pretty obvious what happened here. BlasteR came across something he wasn't really supposed to see. CIA or some other military entity found the thread within minutes of the posting (literally), and rushed to create a forum account named "airforcephotographer" to lend themselves credence for the bullsh# story they were going to feed the forum to "debunk" this. This is the post they made:



Sir,

This is all a good theory. But I am an Air Force photographer stationed at Elmendorf Air Force Base. I flew to the above-mentioned location in a C-12 yesterday to take pictures of the C-17's stationed here doing dirt-landings and assisting in an Army Pre-Deployment Training Exercise. All the airstrip is used for is practicing dirt landings. Nothing special about it really. The remote location is only to keep the complaints down from locals on the noise, dust disturbance etc. that this causes with each landing. Also it is close to a sister Army base and gives us a good location in assisting with their many exercises in which they are not equipped to practice air-exercise. Please let me know if you have any other questions on this particular landing strip. Thanks!

SrA Laura ------



Look at airforcephotographer's account here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They joined ATS the same day the post was made, 8/25, made that ONE post to "debunk" the situation by claiming that C-17s have been practicing dirt landings on that strip, and never made ANY other post again. However, they did check back for a week to check to see what the status of the post was. It says they last logged in September 1st, 7 days after their original post (and the date they signed up) Aug 25th.

Furthermore, we know for a FACT that this person was LYING. They claimed that C-17s were practicing dirt landings on this run way. They made this claim because C-17s are the only known US craft to make dirt landings. However, a C-17 has a 170 ft wingspan. Using image analysis it was shown that the observed aircraft were about 30 feet wide. Just using a visual comparison to the width of the runways, we can see they cant be more than 80 ft wide.

There's no way a 170 ft wing could fit in a 80 ft wide slot. Therefor we have PROVEN that this "airforcephotographer" is a LYING, trying to sell us a story to make us forget about this, as if it wasn't apparent enough already.

The sad thing is that judging by the stars next to their post, this person had quite a lot of fools actually buy into this.

Is this what ATS has come to? People buy the first explanation given to them? This is why disinformation and government sanction "debunking" WORKS, even when the conspiracy is real.

Obviously the OP has found something that is not supposed to be public knowledge, and in a hurry to obfuscate the truth, "believable" lies were told to us to keep anyone from investigating more. It didn't work.

Judging from the evidence these are some sort of unmanned fighter jets, that have obviously been in production since at least 2005.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattletruth
snip a rant...
Obviously the OP has found something that is not supposed to be public knowledge, ......some sort of unmanned fighter jets, that have obviously been in production since at least 2005.


Probably just a dummy airfield for the training/testing of operators/drones for the nearby drone facility



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seattletruth
 


Yeah, the powers that be tried to mislead you.
I guess we are all going to have to head on up there and see for ourselves.
Lets bring Jesse Ventura with us!
Conspiracy Theory Episode 8: Secret Airstrip Alaska



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattletruth
There's no way a 170 ft wing could fit in a 80 ft wide slot. Therefor we have PROVEN that this "airforcephotographer" is a LYING, trying to sell us a story to make us forget about this, as if it wasn't apparent enough already.

The sad thing is that judging by the stars next to their post, this person had quite a lot of fools actually buy into this.


Every military airfield that I have been to (and that would include dozens around the world as an aviator myself) have all been 150 or 200 feet wide. Wingspan has little to do with anything. You only have to get the landing gear down on that area. Airfields are built to allow for the wings to extend a large distance beyond the edges of the runway, so your "proof" of a lie is based on incorrect assumptions.

Personally, I think the mods should give you at least a WARN for your public call-out of a fellow ATSer here and in a now-closed thread with no evidence to back it up.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
bagari quoted below:
QUOTE "Every military airfield that I have been to (and that would include dozens around the world as an aviator myself) have all been 150 or 200 feet wide. Wingspan has little to do with anything. You only have to get the landing gear down on that area. Airfields are built to allow for the wings to extend a large distance beyond the edges of the runway, so your "proof" of a lie is based on incorrect assumptions.

Personally, I think the mods should give you at least a WARN for your public call-out of a fellow ATSer here and in a now-closed thread with no evidence to back it up". QUOTE

I agree as my friend's father used to be a small aircraft pilot and he agrees.




[edit on 3-2-2010 by DClairvoyant]



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Its a few F-35's. Quickly browsed thru the photos. Maybe someone already posted this but thats what they are. Sorry for the cropped info pic but the ATS machine did that.



[edit on 5-2-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by seattletruth
 


Yeah, the powers that be tried to mislead you.
I guess we are all going to have to head on up there and see for ourselves.
Lets bring Jesse Ventura with us!
Conspiracy Theory Episode 8: Secret Airstrip Alaska


And also in Alaska..

-HAARP.

-A variety of complex satellite tracking networks (possibly even supporting or observing HAARP operations).

-IMMENSE tracts of government owned land.

-IMMENSE available airspace to military pilots

-A complex system of training areas, ranges, and other infrastructure located "off the beaten path" for military/government use that can also be used for "Alternative" purposes if deemed necessary. If need be, these sites could also be used for launches and recoveries of experimental aircraft without gaining attention to the nearby Air Force Base. (Especially since Eielson's runway is right next to and parallel to the highway).

-Military facilities that operate black programs (Including Eielson AFB). All of the major military facilities in Alaska are growing and expanding at an incredible rate and are becoming increasingly important to the military overall. Especially since we have alot of really important capabilities up here.. Land-based midcourse missile defense, Cold weather research and testing for new military technology, Protecting the airspace from foreign intrusions, Generally just preparing our fighting men/women for war, etc..

-Government-owned land used by the local university and NASA for experimental research into the aurora.

-Whatever else we don't know about.

And all right here in my backyard.

-ChriS



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
While the small jets are to be expected, I took note of the fact that the runway is two miles long. The jets do not need this much runway. The only thing that would need that much runway is something like the Space shuttle. This runway could be an emergency landing site for any number of aircraft, but the runway is way too long for commercial or typical jet military aircraft. However, it's just right for a returning Space shuttle or similar type craft. It is also in a remote area and not in an area where just anyone would see or know what was going on without being there in person. Just an observation.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join