The longest runway at Edwards Air Force Base is an unpaved strip marked on the dry lakebed. Runway 17/35 has a length of 7.5 miles and was used for some of the early space shuttle landings.

The Groom Lake facility has two active paved runways and one that is now closed, as well as two dry lakebed runways.

The closed runway was originally built for the OXCART program in 1960. This is the one that people frequently mistake for “the world’s longest runway.” According to Area 51 Standard Operating Procedures, Landing Area Rules, dated 1 December 1968, runway 14/32 was 8,625 feet long with a 6,000-foot asphalt extension to a concrete turnaround pad followed by another 5,000 feet of asphalt. The asphalt overrun was not lighted, and therefore not considered "remaining runway" during hours of darkness. During daylight hours, aircraft on runway 14 could be cleared for a takeoff roll to the southeast starting from the mid-lake turnaround pad. If you want to count the additional section as active runway, it only bumps the total length up to 14,625 feet.

The southern extension on the old runway 14/32 (later 14R/32L) added about 5,000 feet just below the turnoff to the South Trim Pad. The extension was necessary due to damage from flooding on the north end. Also, alkali from the soil was damaging the concrete. These factors eventually led to construction of a new airstrip, runway 14L/32R. Runway 32R is considered the "calm wind" runway for use when surface wind velocity is less than 10 knots. When surface wind velocity is 10 knots or more, the runway most aligned with the wind will be selected.

In 2001, South Delta Taxiway became Runway 12/30. It is approximately 5,420 feet long and is easily accessible from the Southend ramp.

The lakebed runways 03/21 and 09/27 are used when strong crosswinds prohibit a landing on the main runway. A satellite image acquired on 29 June 2009 shows that Runway 03/21 has been moved south about one mile so that it now crosses runway 09/27 at midfield.

I have 2 naive questions, and some outrageous speculation

Was the B2 tested at dreamland? I genuinely don’t know... If it was, do we know which hanger it was housed in? The point being, why build a new jumbo sized hangar, why not re-use the old B2 hangar for the similarly sized NGB?

Huge hangar = huge aircraft?? Why would hypersonic aircraft be huge? (For fuel demands right?) but wouldn’t a two stage system be more aerodynamically efficient? A piggy back system may require a tall hangar to allow the sub orbital craft to be craned onto the back of the bus / mothership.

Originally posted by Catalytic
I have 2 naive questions, and some outrageous speculation

Was the B2 tested at dreamland? I genuinely don’t know... If it was, do we know which hanger it was housed in? The point being, why build a new jumbo sized hangar, why not re-use the old B2 hangar for the similarly sized NGB?

The B-2 was not developed at Groom, and was in fact not a true “black aircraft,” since it was displayed to the public approximately eight months before its first flight.

Originally posted by Catalytic
Huge hangar = huge aircraft?? Why would hypersonic aircraft be huge? (For fuel demands right?) but wouldn’t a two stage system be more aerodynamically efficient? A piggy back system may require a tall hangar to allow the sub orbital craft to be craned onto the back of the bus / mothership.

huge hangar probably ='s multiple projects... but you may have answered your own question to a certain degree.
Also if a B-2 sized bomber is being built there the facility would have to be rather large.

At last, a big sexy hush hush(-ish) aircraft that will probably see the light of day!

I realise that to hit the timelines for delivery, this aircraft will be state of the art i.e. it will use the best (relevant) technology available today and it will not depend on technologies and fabrication techniques that 'have not yet been invented'. A welcome outbreak of common sense!

I wonder though, does this pragmatic approach allow us to speculate on the capabilities of this aircraft??

1/ It is similar in size to the B2, so probably will have a similar payload?

2/ I don’t have a clue how many will be built, lets suppose a full, airframe for airframe replacement of 76 B-52s and 20 B-2s? I hope this beast is cheaper than the B2!!!

3/ Reduced RCS becomes a game of diminishing returns! (the cost of significantly reducing the RCS vs. B2 will likely be far too expensive to be worth doing? so similar RCS to the B2?

SPECULATION on other goodies in the mix....

The second link in Intelgurl's post above ("AFA's 2007 Air Warfare Symposium Transcripts" - The Air Force Association Magazine, February 2007) is illuminating! especially the 6th question to General Keys from the symposium floor...

To paraphrase this question r.e. LRS, "Why is another subsonic night-only solution the right answer?"

4/ The person who asked that question assumes visible stealth is not an option... I myself would not, however lets not get too carried away on the level of visible stealth that could be delivered.

5/ Subsonic? Almost certainly unless unspeakable (unfeasible) exotic technologies do exist in the industry and can be cost effectively applied. Reality check… the X-47B does not look like a supersonic airframe to me.

Treasure from General Keys answer…

6/ He was reluctant to call it a ‘son of B2 aircraft’ which implies in his mind there will be significant difference between the capabilities of the LRS when compared to the B2. My initial bias was that the LRS would be more capable than the B2, however my logic also allows that the LRS could be less capable? He did talk about LRS being part of a system of sytems, not the type of aircraft that could attack China alone (With tanking support I guess the B2 could do this?)

7/ subsonic vs. supersonic? I would paraphrase the General’s response as ‘we have a target range and payload and sensor mix, if the industry can deliver a supersonic solution we’ll take it but if not, subsonic is fine BUT we want it by 2018!

8/ The most exciting thing for me was the implication that a single airframe was at least under consideration which could operate in both manned roles (nuclear role) and unmanned roles (reconnaissance and persistent strike options).

Being male and visually orientated, for me the most exciting thing about a new secret aircraft is it’s unveiling so I can see what it looks like, unfortunately the X-47B has spoilt Christmas morning for me :-(


[edit on 21-2-2010 by Catalytic]

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Catalytic]

Thanks for all the updates.

One aspect to consider is that IF the bomber is to be part of the SIOP then some missions will have to be manned. The go/no go option will for now and the foreseable future have to have a human in the loop precluding unmanned nuclear bombers

Originally posted by FredT
Thanks for all the updates.

One aspect to consider is that IF the bomber is to be part of the SIOP then some missions will have to be manned. The go/no go option will for now and the foreseable future have to have a human in the loop precluding unmanned nuclear bombers

I think the manned/unmanned option is off the table with the 2018 bomber. No one in the industry that I'm aware of actually thinks this will be the case.
There will be some smaller bombers of the X-45/X-47 lineage that will have to be well proven in combat before you see a manned/unmanned large capacity strategic bomber.

Originally posted by HatTrick
Intelgurl, do you follow reinhardt at enterprisecorruption.com?

just wondering.

No I do not. Sorry...

A little more fuel to conjecture of a Next Gen Bomber that could be underway at A51/Groom Lake:

Boeing and Lockheed have now officially dissolved their Next Gen Bomber development alliance, stating that "The teaming agreement (between Lockheed and Boeing) now is on hold until we understand where the government is headed".

Interestingly enough this announcement comes at the same time as Northrop Grumman officially bows out of the KC-X tanker competition. Could there have been a back office agreement between Boeing and Northrop?

This on top of the already proven fact that Northrop is making billions on un-named black project(s), and Northrop is according to many insiders the USAF's favorite in any future bomber project.
as well as...
Th new huge hangar surrounded with Earth berms at A51. The berms obviously being there to thwart any attempts to see what could be going on at ground level around the hangar.

Interesting at the very least... what do you guys say?

Natalie~

[edit on 3-10-2010 by intelgurl]

I understand things are unlikely changing at Skunk Works in Palmdale. What does that mean? Likely will remain on a trajectory we've read about in the past 5 to 10 years. A few stories about studies (TOPCOVER, SSBJ, FALCON, MINION, MQ-X, STUAS), some demonstrators (P-791, ACCA, P-175, RQ-170) - but little in the way of fielded operational systems, like U-2S, JASSM and what RATTLRS is to become. Lockheed seems to be preoccupied with keeping JSF sold in Fort Worth and may be finding it difficult to pick up additional USAF (or DoD) funding in SAP programs.

The stories we've read about the reported classified programs in 2007/2008, could be considered speculative. But, Northrop did undeniably go on a hiring spree, of TS cleared personnel, starting in late 2007 and wrapping up about mid-2008. I'd say that a critical mass of sensitive activity may have shifted from Lockheed toward Northrop. If there's a way we could review the job postings from Northrop (or Lockheed) during this period, like using "The Wayback Machine", we may be able to wrap our heads around the magnitude and type of work hired and verify what we're hearing.

My guess is that Boeing has been behind in the area of black programs. Although, there was a surge of job openings based in Dallas under their "Boeing Military Aircraft/Global Strike" line of business in spring of 2009. Something may be brewing there. I drove the surface streets of greater Dallas, while in the area last spring on a month-long engineering test trip. I could not find a trace of this activity. I asked around in my circle and was told that something in the Dallas area was afoot but was "...fascinating, but not necessarily new development." I still find it interesting and am not certain they were discussing the same program in question.

My personal belief on this is that the military has no need for these kinds of large fast stealth aircraft and they may be disinformation.

I believe they have gone completely into high altitude stealth blimps with high powered lasers or rail guns as weapons.

Originally posted by TAGBOARD
Northrop is unquestionably one of the more recent black program prime contractors. One may speculate the effort was a USAF program (NGB), but disguised as Army-funded to throw investigators "off the scent".

More likely the money was related to SMDC and Prompt Global Strike, imo.