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.

 

Area 51/Groom Lake Research Project

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
You brought up a good point, most caves are not huge. A giant complex seems unlikly, but maybe we need to look for smaller facilites in the mountains. Also, can you find out from those maps about how much area the base itself covers(approxiamte Sq. miles)? You are starting to make me think that if there are undergroud facilities out there, they may have been design for maximum concealablity, not maximum size. My current thinking is that they might have used the mountains to try to hide some of the base's most secret labs. Thanks for helping me stay on the facts intead of chasing the wild roumors. Let's look into labs,maybe we'll get lucky!


Im on it. Re-Reading R. Saunders book on tunnling and underground bases, he mentioned a report by the Corp of Engineers that said to create a 600foot circumference cavity 3-4000 feet deep would generate 80 million cubic yards of muck. Thats alot of muck to try to get trid of.

I will check out the underground lab issue. the ground in the area is well suited for tunnling and underground facilities. THat is one of the reasons they put the Nevada test site out there. They do alot of tunnling there for the underground nuke test (or they did at least).

We really should try to find a overhead of the Groom Range. There MAY be something of interest there.

THe questions I want to know:
How is the base getting power? I have yet to identify a generating plant, nor huge power lines comming to the base.

posted on 5-8-2004 at 07:35 Post Number: 708374 (post id: 729068)
Tim, one other agency we have not looked at is the Army Corp of Engineers. If there are underground structures, I would suspect some involvement. Also, I am wonder about Bechtel and Flour Utah as well. They may also have a hand in the infrastructure aspect of the base.

posted on 6-8-2004 at 06:10 Post Number: 710260 (post id: 730954)
Big Safari?

Another Secret AF group I don't think we have look at is "Big Safari"
They are pretty big on UAV's and UCAVS so no doubt they may spend some time at area 51.. Also, what about the AF's special operations guys that fly the Nightstalker. I can't remeber thier designation. The nightstalked may have spent some time there. And the quiet flying choppers could explain all the black chopper talk comming out of the Antelope Valley??

quote:
BIG SAFARI is the USAF's program office responsible for for sustainment and modification of specialized special mission aircraft. Big Safari is a specialized process of acquisition and contracting management process that supports 20-24 projects at any one time and includes responsibility for logistics sustainment for over 50 aircraft. This process was the basis for the Lightning Bolt Initiatives, and is used to accomplish special projects on a quick-reaction basis. Program management includes Detachment 4, 645th Materiel Squadron, U.S. Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH.

posted on 8-8-2004 at 07:39 Post Number: 713936 (post id: 734630)
Another Detachment and a little History

Detachment 5 was moved from Groom lake to Palmdale between March 25-27, 1991. ITs is the Det used for flight testing system improvements. The aircraft used were 784 and 831

posted on 9-8-2004 at 02:03 Post Number: 715505 (post id: 736199)
I found a map that has some of the "Areas" on it:

The biggest surprise was that none of the areas are really sequential and none are above 20. That leads to more proof that the Area 51 was a name created for the base, not related to fallout grids on a map. For example the land to the west of the base is Area 15. To the NNW of the base is Area 13 that has a circular area labled as Alpha Contaminate Area Not were I want to visit

posted on 9-8-2004 at 02:06 Post Number: 715513 (post id: 736207)
Baja Groom Lake?

In some of the reading I have been doing suggests that the southern half of the base is refered as "Baja Groom Lake" the base fire stations are located there. I a previous post I looked at two ponds that seemed to be near the gravel pit area on the base. I did speculate that perhaps they were leech ponds. However, based on some of the readings I have done, they are more likley water treatment ponds for base sewage.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by ADVISOR]




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The Nightstalkers arn't AF, they're Army. 160th SOAR.

I would like to generate a bit of discussion.

I noticed on the newest overhead that there are a number of either C5 or C141 on the tarmac.

Now, if JANET brings in workers and supplys, what is going into the C5s, and where is it going to or coming from?


FREDT, maybe the base is partially powered by solar? There does seem to be an abundance of sun out there.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
I noticed on the newest overhead that there are a number of either C5 or C141 on the tarmac.
FREDT, maybe the base is partially powered by solar? There does seem to be an abundance of sun out there.


Good Call on the solar, but the size of the array they need for that base would be pretty big. I have not seen anthing near that could do it. That being said, I still want to see a sat shot of the Groom Range to the north. You could place a solar panel farm there. Wind is also a possibility.

We do know that the C-5's have been used to trasnport jets to the base. Most recent in open literature that we know of was the F-117. They could also be used for supply etc, but it seems a C-130 would be better suited for that mission.

Good call on the C-5's C-17's (I think most of the C-141's are in the boneyard now) then that shows clearly that the base is still in use and activly testing new toys. I wonder if they keep a few there on TDY for security reasons. If a new crew flys in all the time, more people may see stuff that they should'nt??



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
That would make sense. One or two crews specially cleared would be much easier than clearing a whole squadron.

Thanks for the solar. I wasn't sure about that.

I notice also there are some AC on the tarmac just north of the C5s, I can't make out type however.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
Thanks for the solar. I wasn't sure about that.
I notice also there are some AC on the tarmac just north of the C5s, I can't make out type however.


Do they look like the Janet 737's? They are pretty hard to make out. What I would not give fror some 0.5 meter imagry and some ground penatrating radar scans



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Mmmmm, .5 imaaageesss LOL.

OK, having another look. The AC to the top of those two are much much smaller, and look to have straight wings, rather than the swept back wings of the 737. Is JANET operation other AC types?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Im still wondering how they get thier fuel.

The tank Farm is pretty big. The C-5's may or may not need fuel esp if it is a short hop from Palmdale / Hellendale / Edwards and Nellis. Assuming the transport craft do not require refueling, the test aircraft would. Depending on the Ops tempo, that Tank Farm may not be enough to go for long without being filled. Lying in fuel is dangerous and costly. i wonder if they have a pipeline, Truck resupply may be possible as well, but the roadway does not seem to be grader for that. But who knos.

They other item:

Some fo the things that have been rumored include methane or cyrogenic type fuels. ANy idea what a Methane Tank would looklike, or cryogenic storage facility?



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
They could have underground tanks for that kind of flammable stuff. I imagine the heat of the desert sun could be a fire risk.

How they get it in though...dunno.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
If there is anything Cyrogenic out at Groom Lake, it would need to be kept underground to keep it out of the heat from the desert sun. The two most likly Cyrogenic fules are Liquid Methane, which boils at -161C and liquid Hydrogen which also has a triple digit SUB-ZERO (I can't find the exact number right now)bioling point. The point is neither would last long in the Nevada sun. If we want to look for Cryogenic fules at Groom Lake, we need to figure out how they might be shipping it and look for that.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
They do use C-5's to ship secret planes to the base, but they make their deliveries at night! The XST(Have Blue), for example showed up around 10:30pm or 11:00pm. they use the cover of night to hide top secret aircraft from some of the spy satellites. Also the planes don't hang around, they make their delivery and get out of there, fast.
Remember: Even though it's known, Groom Lake is still considered a Top Sercet Defense Department facility, you don't hang out there, you do what you came to do and Get Out!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The SAT picture was taken during the day, leading me to believe there is a crew or two on TDY to the base- easier to compartmentalise that way.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Okay the underground cryo tank if they have them make sence to be underground. Now that I have opened that box, do we have solid proof that there is any cryogenicly powerd aircraft undergoing tests? Tim, were'nt you part of the Aurora group? did they have any conclutions in this regard? That being said, they still would need a large infrastructure for this type of fuel.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Are there any docs under FOIA about the building of the base back in the day? There might be a clue there. Being a non US citizen, I can't request anything though.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
Are there any docs under FOIA about the building of the base back in the day? There might be a clue there. Being a non US citizen, I can't request anything though.



I have FIOA request out on the base. However, I never asked about Cryo..... They should have gotten back to me by now???



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
How long ago was it?

A bit OT- apparantly you can get a map of Nellis through FIOA. A bit, huge, detailed map. Now thats cool.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Okay the underground cryo tank if they have them make sence to be underground. Now that I have opened that box, do we have solid proof that there is any cryogenicly powerd aircraft undergoing tests? Tim, were'nt you part of the Aurora group? did they have any conclutions in this regard? That being said, they still would need a large infrastructure for this type of fuel.


Yes, as a matter of fact, we found that the most likly fules for Aroura would either be Liquid hydrogen( base on the fact that Aurora was based off of technology explored in the X-30 National Aerospace Plane) or possibly liquid methane Both Cryogenic fules.

Plus there is a second reason why we Know for sure the base has cryo tanks. The base has been home to high altitude aircraft since the 1950's when the U-2 arrived. Above 50'000 ft. the air is too thin to extract oxygen for a pilot to breath. So all high-altitude planes like the U-2, A-12/SR-71, Aroura, ECT. need to carry Liquid Oxygen onboard for the crew.

Third, it is a matter of public record that the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird carried liquid nitrogen that was used to purge the fule tanks to prevent vapor build up above 100'000 ft. Since the A-12 at Groom Lake for many years, the base needed liquid nitrogen to support the Oxcart program.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

[edit on 19-8-2004 by ghost]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I just found a link that suggests that the YF-23 or a dirivitive of the YF-23 might be flying and have ties to Groom Lake. the sight suggest that there might be a reconnassance version under development as a black project, known as ASTAR (Advanced Stealth Technology Reconnaissance Aircraft) this sound simular to other reports of a secret plane on TDY in England. Check it out:

YF-23 returns

To see the section on the new Reconn aircraft, go down to the section titled: Black Widow II, more advanced than it should have been? read the section carefully! you will find out about the possible spyplane version. Theory: Maybe it's the RF-23A Black Widow II! Let's fallow up on this!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I just found a link that suggests that the YF-23 or a dirivitive of the YF-23 might be flying and have ties to Groom Lake. the sight suggest that there might be a reconnassance version under development as a black project, known as ASTAR


This is an interseting link to say the least. As you know im a BIG fan of the Black Widow and would love to prove this theory.

The Two Test articles are or were on Static Display.
Two years ago I was actually able to view both of them at thier respective museums:

PAV #1 SN87-800 is on static display at the USAF Test Center museum at Edwards AFB

PAV #2 SN 87-801 is on Static Display at the Western Museum of Flight.

However, when i wnet to thier web page I found this



We are sorry, but our YF-23 is currently on loan t loan to Northrop Grumman for refurbishment and will be on display for the Hawthorne Air Faire on August 14th


Interesting No? I have no idea how long it was gone, but it should be back soon. Maybe we can compare some before and after photos to see if mnore than a paint job was done????



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
NASA/Dryden supposetly flew the YF-23's for a while. Take a look. wonder why?

YF-23 at NASA

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 04:28 AM
link   
1.Performance
Both aircraft apparently met the USAF's performance specs. Northrop were a bit faster, longer ranging and stealthier, whereas Lockheed were a bit more manoeuvrable. It appears that the performance margins between both types were not dramatic.

The GE engine performed somewhat better in the trials than the P&W engine, but the final P&W proposal included an enlarged fan and hence higher thrust for production aircraft, presumably equalising the difference.

2.Price
Apparently Lockheed and P&W were cheaper, by how much does not appear to have been published anywhere (anybody know ?)

3.Development Risk
Northrop were penalised in a number of areas. Firstly Lockheed did more aggressive flying (played their politics right by doing it very visibly) during the dem/val program and demoed high AoA manoeuvres and missile launches well in excess of nominal dem/val requirements.

Secondly Lockheed built a very conservative airframe design with very conservative materials, ie an F-15/F-18ish almost hybrid planform geometry using a lot of aluminium and titanium alloys, unlike Northrop who opted for cca 50% empty weight in composites, using a very stealthy airframe geometry, never used before in a fighter.

Thirdly Lockheed did not suffer the development pain which Northrop did with their stealthy exhaust ducts. The lining of the YF-23 exhausts is a laminated alloy structure full of tiny cooling holes fed by engine bleed air. It was apparently rather heavy and may have required major design changes to bring it to production. Also the main weapon bays of the YF-23 apparently stacked the Amraams vertically and the USAF were unhappy about the potential for jams in the launcher mechanism preventing the firing of subsequent missiles.

Northrop, true to their tradition, created a showpiece of the state of the art in technology - ie a high performance truly all aspect stealth airframe with better speed/range performance and bigger weapon bays than its rival. The price of innovation was the loss of the contract, as the YF-23 combines a lot of new ideas which have never been used before. Whereas the Lockheed F-22 is clearly an evolutionary development of current aerodynamic/stealth technology, the Northrop YF-23 is very much revolutionary. Therefore risky.

Similarly, the P&W engine was conservative, whereas the GE engine was a radical variable bypass ratio design never used in production before.

4.Industrial Base
MDC and Northrop have ongoing commitments for the C-17, F/A-18 and B-2 respectively, whereas Lockheed and GD don't really have any real military projects left once the P-3 and F-16 are completely closed. Similarly GE will be building F110s and F404s for F-16 and F-18 production to the end of the decade, whereas P&W only have the F100 for which the biggest user, the USAF F-15 force, is unlikely to seek additional purchases.

Therefore, a decision to buy Northrop/GE could have seen both Lockheed and P&W end up shutting down their military airframe/engine businesses around the end of the decade.

Summary
The US taxpayer is getting the cheaper and more predictable product with some penalty in top end performance and long term performance growth potential.

The USAF however had NO choice in this matter as the Administration killed the A-12 Avenger in January due cost overruns resulting from high risk R&D. By killing off the radical but high performance A-12, the Administration set a clear precedent. The A-12 was considered a very secure project politically because its cancellation would mess up Navy deployment plans for the next decade (the A-6Es are very old, basic airframe design 1958) and cause all sorts of problems.

In comparison with the A-12, the ATF was considered politically expendable as it is seen (incorrectly in my opinion) as a dedicated killer of PVO/VVS aircraft, while the F-15s will remain viable for at least another decade.

As a result, the USAF had no choice than to pursue the lowest risk design options regardless of any other criteria. As it turns out, both Lockheed and P&W were desperate enough to submit lower bids and hence the decision could not have really gone the other way. If the USAF chose the F-23 and it got into difficulties say in 1994 due R&D problems, it would almost certainly die the death of the A-12. Politicians generally seem to have little respect for air warfare strategy.

As for the future of the F-23, it may not end up being adopted by the Navy simply because the Navy is having real money problems, ie buying F-18s instead of its preferred F-14s. Therefore the Navy is unlikely to buy any Naval ATFs until the end of the decade, by which time the Lockheed product will have matured whereas the Northrop one will have sat on the shelf.

Alternative roles for the airframe could be theatre strike and reconnaisance, but it is basically too good an airframe for these jobs and hence cheaper options could be found.

Final Observation: politics is always a stronger decision criterion than technology or air warfare strategy.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join