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.

 

Air Force finds 'apparent wreckage' of missing F-22

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Likely flew into a cloud with a granite core. VFR into IMC

Hard Clouds can get the best of pilots.




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
www.cbc.ca...

and yet another crash, at least this pilot was found alive



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Keep your eyes on Alaska in the weeks to come!! There has been a lot of chatter in certain circles regarding the activity of certain countries in remote portions of Alaska and the US has been increasing its Military training in the region for years. There is a lot at stake in Alaska.

gulfofalaskanavyeis.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Wouldn't a pilot have some sort of GPS locator on his person? IDK is why I ask, can any military pilots shed light on this? If a pilots is shot down I would think the military would have a tracking device on the pilot for pilot recovery, it seems to me that would be a no brainer.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeanius
Come on guys, an American fighter pilot probably lost his life and you guys are making operating system jokes.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tell me , is really you on that wheelchair or you just think it's funny?

edit on 18-11-2010 by Sanjaya because:


edit on 18-11-2010 by Sanjaya because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
you don't just loose a $150 million airplane and not have any mayday mesage sent. :


It's not unheard of, imagine flying low and hard, say 150 foot above the deck and you hit a goose or something at 500+mph, or slam into the terrain maybe..... Not even time to put the 'T' on the end of our fav single syllable swear word (hint starts with S and don't rhyme with shizzle) -

You know the F111? Fantastic aircraft in many respects, but they kept on crashing the damn things in Vietnam, usually without a peep over the radio, quite often they did not find the wreckage for a long time if at all.... Now it was not the aircraft, it was the missions they flew, single aircraft, low and hard through the valleys, no set flight path - it's called controlled flight into terrain... In other words straight into a steep hill and high speed, and when you go straight in like that, ,you make a small hole in the trees and that grows over in a short while....

So not unheard of at all.
edit on 18/11/2010 by Now_Then because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
"u know the F111? Fantastic aircraft in many respects, but they kept on crashing the damn things in Vietnam, usually without a peep over the radio, quite often they did not find the wreckage for a long time if at all..."

That was 40 yrs ago. I can almost guarantee the military knew exactly where the F-22 crashed. They can watch people walk out and get the paper in the morning but they can't track a multi million dollar military plane. I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


People do seem to be forgetting the steathy nature of this aircraft... No point spending all that effort making a batman jet fighter hybrid and then have it flashing it's location to everyone able to pick up radio waves! - Seriously is that so hard to fathom? Sure it may have been on a training mission, but they make those things as real as possible many times.... They might have a general idea of what area it should have been in, but Alaska is a pretty big place.

Also regarding your comment about them being able to see a man reading a news paper... I'm assuming you mean from a satellite? - Well 2 things here, 1) Only if the satellite is already trained on that location and 2) It's a common misconception that satellites (or at least most of em anyway) can resolve an image down to that size, and to see a news paper clearly your looking for something like being able to resolve about 10 centimetres or less.... They simply don't do that, I think the most is maybe 1 meter, which would make an open news paper a single pixel. - And before you say 'Google Earth bro!' Well that is actually a composite picture stitched together from sat imagery and aerial photography.


Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.

link

Even kites lol, that's news to me.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by quest4info
www.cbc.ca...

and yet another crash, at least this pilot was found alive


That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


People do seem to be forgetting the steathy nature of this aircraft... No point spending all that effort making a batman jet fighter hybrid and then have it flashing it's location to everyone able to pick up radio waves! - Seriously is that so hard to fathom? Sure it may have been on a training mission, but they make those things as real as possible many times.... They might have a general idea of what area it should have been in, but Alaska is a pretty big place.

Also regarding your comment about them being able to see a man reading a news paper... I'm assuming you mean from a satellite? - Well 2 things here, 1) Only if the satellite is already trained on that location and 2) It's a common misconception that satellites (or at least most of em anyway) can resolve an image down to that size, and to see a news paper clearly your looking for something like being able to resolve about 10 centimetres or less.... They simply don't do that, I think the most is maybe 1 meter, which would make an open news paper a single pixel. - And before you say 'Google Earth bro!' Well that is actually a composite picture stitched together from sat imagery and aerial photography.


Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.

link
Even kites lol, that's news to me.

I can see the patch on my roof I made not long ago from google. If you don't think they can magnify that by x and view it in real time at any time well.............every bit of knowledge or technology
you've explained above is available to the general public and has been for yrs, do have you have insider info otherwise or is your knowledge based on what has been disclosed to the general public? A gyroscopic stabilized camera is about as old tech as you can get IMO especially when you use the word "traditional" to descibe it. There is nothing traditional about our current tech and top secret payloads in space and they are not spelled out on a chalk board to the general public. Very few know the capabilities of our current tech and yes we have tech thats see's well above 30k ft. Are you saying we can view distant galaxies but can not view sea level a few thousand ft above Mt Everest in real time any time we like?

edit on 18-11-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder
Are you saying we can view distant galaxies but can not view sea level a few thousand ft above Mt Everest in real time any time we like?


Not by simply logging onto some classified computer system and seeing real time as simply as you see a picture of your house from a couple of years ago - no, you have to either wait for a satellite to pass within range (maybe 4 or 5 times for each 24hours for most places on the earth) or you have to task an aircraft or a UAV drone, which again takes time unless it's already exactly where it's needed.

(also quoting entire posts is usually not necessary)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I didn't repair my roof yrs ago, that's what got my attention. Point being making assumptions and absolutes based on tech or knowledge that's available to you and I, is absurd. What is the given time line of google images made available to the public? I know there is a time lapse but I don't know what that definitive time line is do you? Tech today has the capabilities of keeping track of every move anyone makes. We can track a UPS package to any given location but we don't have the tech to watch a threatening foreign countries every move? Do you think we need to wait for the next available satellite to cycle around before we can continue to track whatever it is we're tracking?
I'm new here, so go easy on me but I'm not ignorant to the subjects discussed on this forum. I also do not want to create waves as I think you all have a killer forum and would like to be part of. I apologize for posting complete quotes, I didn't know.
edit on 18-11-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Now and then,
Are you saying we can only view a coordinate every 5 hrs?
edit on 18-11-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


The date of the image is given at the bottom right of that image, my house for instance is April 2007.

As for tracking every move, well that really depends down to what level, and that depends on what surveillance assets assets you have available - of course now more and more stuff is connected to the network, so a grunt on the ground can receive images from the last satellite pass or any UAV's in the area, or stored images from hours days months ago... Whatever is available to them.

So just say ICBM launches, well they all give a lovely thermal signature, so a number of satelites can give 24/7 coverage of every past of the planets surface rather easily, they are looking for the infra red... And nuke blasts, they can also do the same, they have a specific short flash followed by a slower glowing one - that stuff you don't need to read the headline on the news paper... But if you do, well you send in a drone, or they still use the U2 spy plane... If you want to see recent troop or vehicle movements, well they get computers to compare 2 or more images taken some time apart - they can come from a pod under a Tornado (they used that to try and catch a gun man on the loose in the UK recently)...

There are many ways and they can look for anything from visible light, radio traffic, radioactive traces in the atmosphere, heat signature that could suggest all sorts of activity and lord knows what else - heck they can even tag individual people and vehicles with special radioactive markers that can be followed from space... But it's not always visible light - for visible light there are physical limitations, like the diameter of the mirror in the telescope and the atmosphere - the Japanese have only just resolved man's activity on the moon, and thats in a near perfect vacume



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
"But it's not always visible light - for visible light there are physical limitations, like the diameter of the mirror in the telescope and the atmosphere"
Agreed and like you mentioned there are many other ways to track x and the combination of all the technologies = I can see you, no matter. We can see more computer generated imagery than we could ever see from a photo by the naked eye. Don't you think we're past the smoke and mirror tech?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
"The date of the image is given at the bottom right of that image, my house for instance is April 2007."
I'll check that out thank's. My pic was in the last yr, going by the roof repair I made, also noticed I wasn't home at time of pic, back in the day when I had a job lol.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I guess the stealth technology worked, It was hidden for a week or so before they found it.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.


Because of course a Sukhoi has never crashed. Unless you count the Salgareda Airshow where the pilot and a spectator were killed in 1990. Or the Sknyliv Airshow crash which killed 85 spectators in 2002. Let's not forget the five that have crashed between Sep 2005 and 20 Sep 2010, killing four pilots.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by erwalker

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.


Because of course a Sukhoi has never crashed. Unless you count the Salgareda Airshow where the pilot and a spectator were killed in 1990. Or the Sknyliv Airshow crash which killed 85 spectators in 2002. Let's not forget the five that have crashed between Sep 2005 and 20 Sep 2010, killing four pilots.


Gee, you don't think I know that? A Russian made all-weather fighter like the SU-27 has a much better track record than our CF-18s. You think I like hearing that our military has already lost two of our fighters just this year?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by erwalker

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


That's not surprising. Should've gone with Sukhoi but instead we still field these crappy American-made fighters and plan to buy more of their crappy hardware. American fighters have no place in our domestic fighter needs- long range interception in Arctic conditions.


Because of course a Sukhoi has never crashed. Unless you count the Salgareda Airshow where the pilot and a spectator were killed in 1990. Or the Sknyliv Airshow crash which killed 85 spectators in 2002. Let's not forget the five that have crashed between Sep 2005 and 20 Sep 2010, killing four pilots.


Gee, you don't think I know that? A Russian made all-weather fighter like the SU-27 has a much better track record than our CF-18s. You think I like hearing that our military has already lost two of our fighters just this year?

In a modern age, what's an all weather fighter? Do the Hornets that Canada relies on lack radar or something?


I haven't seen any indication that the Su-27 is any safer than the F/A-18. There's also the possibility that Russia is not reporting all their crashes, or that you haven't heard of all their crashes. There's also the fact that Russian aircraft do not tend to fly very often. Then there's differences in pilot training, and maintenance qualities...

Also the RCAF received its first CF-18 before the Su-27 even flew, and get real, it's not as if Canada would purchase Su-27s during the cold war.
edit on 19/11/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/11/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join