‘Black’ Bomber Underway? New hangar at Groom

The platform could also be the basis for a future recce bird and may have the option of being manned or unmanned.

Another partial or full anti grav platform perhaps too? Wolf in sheeps clothing...?

reply to post by GhostR1der

---

Would they really put something like that in a hanger (albeit a secretive one) a hanger in Groom Lake? Surely something like that would be in an ultra ultra secret place if it ever existed at all? - Everyone and their dog expects something like that to be at Groom Lake.

A massive UAV with an incredible range, stealth capabilities and the ability to carry a wide range of weapons sounds about right... Maybe something that can stay up for days (a week?) at a time...

Maybe a jet bomber that can reconfigure into a massive high altitude glider? That could be cool!

My source at Nothrop is telling me they are working on something big that is going to be unmanned but thats all he said. He said he will tell me as much as possible in April when I see him I know thats a long time away but this is a great source that has his hands on the drawing board.

Something like this has to be done in secrecy, cause congress would kill it in a heartbeat.

@Now_Then - Just because everyone knows where groom lake is doesn't mean anything. The site is still VERY remote.

This is actually scary to read.

First off:
Everyone knows that Groom lake (Area 51) has the worlds longest airstrip.
So testing any plane here is idealy due to the extrem remote location and the strong gard points around that place.

second: a B2 version of a UCAV, I'm thinking "Global bomber"...Think a fleet of these, allways airborn, with air fuel capability...thats some scary # right there..

I'm thinking sci-fi action here, i know, but it's stil scary to think that US might have a fleet of planes, we can't spot or see, circling the earth, never to land exept for rearment.

And i guess that they are even designing a UCAV-airfueler aswell, imagine, crews need's to be replaced on ground only, and the plane, if the engine is of high enough standard, could be up indefinetly...scary #..

gives the name "Global hawk" a hole new meaning....

Both Edwards and Nellis AFB have longer runways, significantly longer at that -

Groom Lake 23,270ft
Nellis AFB 24,085ft
Edwards AFB 39,097ft (yes, not a typo)

Actually, most of that stuff is not secret:

en.wikipedia.org...

Visit Jane's to keep up to date on this sort of thing.

That said, I certainly don't like this trend: it makes for too much power in too few hands, under the control of too few minds.

reply to post by lspilot6946

---

There should be more than one project ongoing in the new hangar at Groom.

Northrop is definitely working on the interim bomber/NGB, all you gotta do is follow the money trail. The most notable conjecture says that it will be manned as it will be able to drop nukes and it is arguably politically necessary to have a manned platform for delivery of such weaponry.

Of course the other project I believe ongoing at Groom is the hypersonic low orbit attack/isr aircraft project by Lockheed.

The one thats been booming the Northwest USA perhaps?

Just a thought

reply to post by RichardPrice

---

Didn't I read recently of activity in one or more remote overseas or remote island base(s) regarding expansion of facilities (Pacific/Indian Ocean?).

I think it may have also been inferred that it may have been seeing recent test program or at least (unusually) highly secretive activity as well?
I wonder whether there may be any similar correlations regarding non-mainland US sites?

reply to post by intelgurl

---

I'm not so convinced, how, if they decided it has been politically OK to fly/deliver nukes on guided missiles for years, can it all of a sudden not be politically OK to fly/deliver them on a guided jet plane with a slightly different delivery/release mechanism?

This level of concern about overseas PR delicacies from a military/intel service that was allegedly OK with Guantanamo and invisible rendition of suspects for torture in black ops sites, and with a black bomber project they are successfully keeping secret for years anyway (i.e. like they managed to with F117 etc...)

Anyway, as ATS is disclosing more and more, pilots in planes was not guaranteed to prevent nuke-loaded bomber crashes, or mishaps, anyway

[edit on 16-1-2010 by curioustype]

[edit on 16-1-2010 by curioustype]

[edit on 16-1-2010 by curioustype]

A few things to speak into this...

USAF officials understand that there are obvious drawbacks to unmanned aircraft, among which is their vulnerability to interruption or disruption in electronic links between an aircraft and its controller. Another is the remote pilot’s relative lack of situational awareness, caused by limitations of aircraft sensors.

Although hijacking via hacking a control signal is virtually imposible, jamming a signal is possible. No one wants an out of control nuclear bomber flying around.
ICBM's are autonomous with a hardcoded trajectory and target.
Unmanned aircraft so far are not.

reply to post by Now_Then

---

You know there are plenty of "Islands" in the Pacific. That are 1000's of miles away from the nearest glass of beer that the US just so happens to control.

You just never know.

Oddly enough, this is one area where we've worked backwards: from completely autonomous "drones" to "remotely-piloted" (or "unmanned-" as in vogue now) aircraft.

Well, sort of but not really. Remember the D-21 drone that launched from SR-71's was autonomous - i'm sure thats what you were referring to.
But today, remotely piloted vehicles as well as piloted vehicles are advantgeous where nukes are concerned because you can call them off at a moments notice.

Actually, I was referring to some of Ryan's old beasts. I'm not sure I'd trust weapon delivery (special-, or otherwise) to what was little more than a gyro-compass and a wristwatch in those days.

reply to post by intelgurl

---

Good points. Makes me wonder though, what happens if the comm's and/or navigation links to manned delivery aircraft/platform get blocked in midst of mission at critical moment(s)? *edit* I mean, wouldn't you then lose operational effectiveness just like the blocking with an unmanned vehicle, except perhaps not lose nukes due to pilot error. Plus, surely it is possible with modern technology to build in programs/engineering to return an unmanned 'bird' to some kind of 'safe; altitude/trajectory/ditching/re-connecting position some distance from the theatre/blocking zone, via internal (satellite/gps free?) systems - like an advanced auto pilot?

[edit on 18-1-2010 by curioustype]

reply to post by intelgurl

---

Also, thinking about it, some of the largest unmanned (USAF) vehicles, that I have seen on the web, are already pretty big - say fighter jet size, so if hostile jamming and crashing of such vehicles is recognised by the USAF as a real threat in their operation of such vehicles, shouldn't we also be concerned about what happens if one of the other non-nuke laden vehicles suffers from being jammed and crashing in for instance a populated area, school, or hospital, or worse in some form of hazardous environment think oil/gas storage, nuclear plant, or into other nuclear laden aircraft? It could still make quite a nasty bang and impact on PR - no?

*edit* My point is - you say 'nobody wants an oout-of control nuclear bomber flying around' - surely nobody wants any kind of USAF jet plane flying around out-of-control - how can that be desirable?

[edit on 18-1-2010 by curioustype]

reply to post by intelgurl

---

Another thought whilst I'm here, I would love to know, what the real reason is for not using another delivery option for such a nuke strike? I mean why use any/this type of plane at all when you have various different (missile) delivery options?

Is it time sensitive - in what scenario could it take too long to relay/reload co-ordinates into a missile - is it really problematic/that slow in this day and age? Would you need to deploy a nuke based on chatter between a pilot and remote commander - why? You can't use ICBMs - perhaps due to fear of retaliatory measures/enemy scanning/defence sensitivity (thinking of recent discussion re: Russian monitoring/counter-measure reliability concerns), so why not use a more local (sub/ship) cruise missile? Can anyone explain?

*edit* Could it be something about an envisaged scenario where both ICBMs (possibly for reasons stated above) are ruled out, as are cruise missiles due to inability to get navy close enough, or to missile counter-measure threat, so therefore stealthy air strike/patrol incursions are last resort - I wonder?
[edit on 18-1-2010 by curioustype]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by curioustype]