I believe they are F-15s fro Elmendorf AK.

To me they look like F-16's but i could be wrong.

Originally posted by network dude
I believe they are F-15s fro Elmendorf AK.

*nod*

That came up in the original thread, but the measurements don't appear to match - the F-15's are well over 60ft in length..

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
To me they look like F-16's but i could be wrong.

Closer in size, but still too big by about 10ft, and the unknown a/c appear to have twin tails?

Yeah, I'm leaning towards mockups due to the small size

TomCats maybe? Don't know much about sizes but some of them look like F-14's with retracted wings.

I did have a look at the most obvious suspects, but the shortest of them is hovering around 50ft, but those only scrape 40ft in length - hence why I was pondering 3/4 scale mockups - perhaps MiG 25/29?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Stoo]

Originally posted by Stoo

Using the GE measure tool, it looks to be around 40ft nose to tail, with a wingspan of about 30ft

Any ideas folks?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Stoo]

I really wouldn't be confident relying on those measurements - a 10 foot margin of error would be nothing at those calibrations.

In my opinion, they look like F-16s.

Yeah, it may not be 100% accurate, but measuring other aircraft (such as the F-15's at a couple of the nearby bases) it's not far off the published specs?

In fact, in GE measuring the F-16's at Eielson AFB comes out at around 50ft, the published specs are 49.5ft, so I don't think the accuracy is in the order of 10ft out?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Stoo]

Originally posted by Stoo
Yeah, it may not be 100% accurate, but measuring other aircraft (such as the F-15's at a couple of the nearby bases) it's not far off the published specs?

That does not mean anything at all for the given pictures - if the plane doing this survey had its calibration off by so much as 0.1% then theres your difference in size. Comparing other places means nothing.

In fact, in GE measuring the F-16's at Eielson AFB comes out at around 50ft, the published specs are 49.5ft, so I don't think the accuracy is in the order of 10ft out?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Stoo]

Again, the accuracy of one set of photos means sod all for the accuracy of another set. Google Maps is a conglomeration of hundreds of thousands of different surveys, taken by thousands of different companies, from planes and satellites.

hey does anyone remember a couple years ago a post put out here about some papers called ...the blue planet project??, i need to talk to the person who has that...

Originally posted by RichardPrice
That does not mean anything at all for the given pictures - if the plane doing this survey had its calibration off by so much as 0.1% then theres your difference in size. Comparing other places means nothing.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Again, the accuracy of one set of photos means sod all for the accuracy of another set. Google Maps is a conglomeration of hundreds of thousands of different surveys, taken by thousands of different companies, from planes and satellites.

I do understand how GE imagery is created, but I've now measured a lot of aircraft at a lot of different bases, over the time periods available in GE, and all of the aircraft I've found so far is within a foot or so of the published specs..

Given that, the odds of that one photo being that far out seem to be unlikely, try it yourself, it's surprisingly accurate if you can get a fairly high-res image

ajsr71 has come across some information which seems to point out that these are indeed mock-ups, so it's more likely the mock-ups aren't 100% scale rather than GE measurements being vastly out..

Cheers for the assistance though peeps

F-16s? Are you kidding me? The above profile looks NOTHING like the aircraft in the image! F-14 Tomcat is out of the question too, although a much closer guess than an F-16. At least the Tomcat has the right number of Vertical Stabilizers!

I personally don't think they look like F-15s either. The shape of the wings is too different, and the Vertical Stabilizers are too angled.

My guess would be a Lockheed F-35 Lightning, F-22 Raptor, Mikoyan MiG-29 (although I thought all of the ones we had were at Wright Patterson AFB, but that might just be the working ones...apparently of the 21 we purchased some were not flight worthy and were immediately moth-balled), or a Sukhoi SU-27 of which our Military currently owns four for Aggressor Training. They all have very similar silhouettes from Satellite view.

There are F-22 Raptors stationed as part of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.

You stated that the estimate would be a 28ft wingspan, 31ft length, 12ft width between Vertical Stabilizers.

F-35 35 wingspan, 51.4 length
SU-27 48.3 wingspan, 72 length,
Mig-29 37.3 wingspan, 57 length
F-22 44 ft 6 wingspan, 62.1 length

Assuming your calculations are correct, there isn't many things with a 31 ft length and 28 ft wingspan. The only type of aircraft with the dimensions you have given would have to be pilot-less. Even the tiny F-5E is going to be 27 wingspan x 47 length...and those have nothing close to the silhouette shown in those photos (same for the T-38 Talon Trainers). To meet the specifications you obtained from the GE Tool, the planes would have to be Drones (but why would they have cockpits if they were).

If you ignore the dimensions given by the GE Tool, I'd go back to my list of F-35/SU-27/Mig-29 or F-22...the F-22 and Mig-29 being the most likely.

EDIT: I wrote this and got distracted from posting it. I didn't see all the other posts since when I originally started the post. If it is a Scale Mock then that would make sense. It wouldn't make a good satellite decoy, but it may be part of the Bolio Lake Range Complex for testing of Military Equipment. These could be targets for 30km and 50km test firing of weapons.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by fraterormus]

Most likely is target ranges for Red Flag Alaska, either retired aircraft or mockups.

Originally posted by Stoo
I do understand how GE imagery is created, but I've now measured a lot of aircraft at a lot of different bases, over the time periods available in GE, and all of the aircraft I've found so far is within a foot or so of the published specs..

Given that, the odds of that one photo being that far out seem to be unlikely, try it yourself, it's surprisingly accurate if you can get a fairly high-res image

All I am saying is you are relying completely on something you cannot rely on - correct calibration in one area does not correlate to correct calibration in another.