Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pictures requested by popular demand of planes in Groom and the NTS

page: 7
83
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Even without the ED tail code on the F-16, Haystack Butte is clearly visible in the distance. This video was shot at Edwards.




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


And of course now I remember where you find red tailed aircraft:

Pretty bad since I took the photo.

This all makes sense now. The RC-135 was taxiing down the eastern ramp for a 22 departure. That taxiway points right at Haystack. I think if I had a decent view of south base, I would have guessed it, but the video to was jumpy and wide angle.

Incidentally, south base is the place they always tell us not to photograph if you have media access. Of course from the main base, you can photograph south base during an open house, so I'm not sure what the restriction is all about. The other thing they don't want photographed is the butt end of the B-2 during taxi. In the air is fine. Then I was at the Nellis air show and the rear end of the B-2 was visible in the static display.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Why wouldn't they want you to photograph the end of the B-2 on the ground do you think?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


No explanation for the photography restriction was given. Now why it is fine to photograph it in the air but not on the ground is your only clue.

It can't be the landing gear since you can see that at air shows when it is parked on the ground. (Supposedly the B-52's steerable landing gear was a secret at one time. )

The shape of the rear of the plane certainly can be seen in the air. Maybe something with the IR signature suppression.

There are a few other restrictions. You can't photograph the planes behind south base (on the south side) that are waiting to be restored for the museum. You also couldn't photograph the vacuum tank used to simulate high altitudes in laser weapon testing. It is clearly visible on google earth. This was when the ABL (airborne laser) was still an active project. South Base was a test area for directed energy weapons. Again not a secret since there were environmental reports that indicated this.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Even without the ED tail code on the F-16, Haystack Butte is clearly visible in the distance. This video was shot at Edwards.


Very nice! I took the video of the F-22 and the chase plane, an F-16 taxiing and takeoff, then took off behind them for the mission of the day.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


And of course now I remember where you find red tailed aircraft:

Pretty bad since I took the photo.

This all makes sense now. The RC-135 was taxiing down the eastern ramp for a 22 departure. That taxiway points right at Haystack. I think if I had a decent view of south base, I would have guessed it, but the video to was jumpy and wide angle.

Incidentally, south base is the place they always tell us not to photograph if you have media access. Of course from the main base, you can photograph south base during an open house, so I'm not sure what the restriction is all about. The other thing they don't want photographed is the butt end of the B-2 during taxi. In the air is fine. Then I was at the Nellis air show and the rear end of the B-2 was visible in the static display.


Close! Only difference was it's us in a KC-135, not RC-135.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


RC-135 versus KC-135...
Brain fart!

What is the deal with the callsign written on the glass? Is this common?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Na just new co-pilots. lol they forget the call sign sometimes.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Sometimes the callsign goes with the pilot, and other times it goes with the mission. Needless to say this can get confusing.

At Travis, the FRED training callsign number seems to be related to the day of the week. I'd have to dig up my logs, buy GUCCI (as in high fashion) comes to mind. Not nearly as cool as being SNAKE or VIPER.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by boomer135
 


Sometimes the callsign goes with the pilot, and other times it goes with the mission. Needless to say this can get confusing.

At Travis, the FRED training callsign number seems to be related to the day of the week. I'd have to dig up my logs, buy GUCCI (as in high fashion) comes to mind. Not nearly as cool as being SNAKE or VIPER.



Yeah it was the same at Grand Forks. We were known as RAID. On monday it would start with a 1 like RAID 15. On tuesday it would start with a 2 like RAID 27 and so on through the week. We had three more RAID 01, 02, and 03. RAID 01 is the wing commander on board or flying. RAID 02 is the Vice Wing Commander and 03 was the Ops Group Commander. Didnt matter what day of the week those were on. And the RAID callsign was only used to do round robins. If we went TDY, then we would use whatever callsign the guys running that mission gives us.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


It has to do with the exhaust and some of the antennas on the aft fuselage. We had to stop them where they could block the aft end and secure the antennas before they could park. Usually took about twenty minutes.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thats what I heard too, just didn't know if it was true or not and the classification level to say it.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
boomer135

Nice photos!!! From which year are photos of Groom taken from air? I mean about this one: i799.photobucket.com...

And do you know something about Super Sized F-117? There were some raports from late 1999... rense.com...

Was it flying in and out of Groom?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GroomLakePolishFAN
 


I seriously doubt a plane scaled 3x the F-117a exists. For one thing, if the basic shape were larger, the plane wouldn't need a tail. It would be more like a B-2.

Note I photographed a F-117a at Groom from Tikaboo. Based on the physics of the telescope, it was just a stock F-117a.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GroomLakePolishFAN
boomer135

Nice photos!!! From which year are photos of Groom taken from air? I mean about this one: i799.photobucket.com...

And do you know something about Super Sized F-117? There were some raports from late 1999... rense.com...

Was it flying in and out of Groom?


That photo was in either 2003 or 2004, dont want to get too specific. My first flight out of Edwards was in 2002 and the last one was in 2006.

As for what's flying in and out of there? I won't comment too much on what i've seen until it's been released somewhere. But a supersized F-117? I doubt it. That was like generation 1 stealth and we don't use faceted diamond shaped aircraft anymore. I would say that of course there are stealth aircraft being developed and tested during the time frame of that 1999 report. But if you read some of my other posts about the security and crap put on our aircraft to keep the pilots from seeing what we were refueling, you can venture a guess that I signed several Non-Disclosures during my time. So what I saw or refueled, if anything, and when I saw it, if ever, will be published here first when it's declassified or known to the public or internet as fact, if ever...

On that note, I just released info regarding the refueling of UAV's in the NTS. That's because of all the information coming to light from DARPA and other agencies about UAV's and refueling. If they are releasing information about it, then so am I. I stated elsewhere that the RQ-170 has a receptacle, and we did air refueling practice with the navy ucav (also the air force version back in the day). By practice I mean that they would come up to the pre-contact position about fifty feet behind the boom, and see how the bow wave effected them. Another note, the Navy UCAV has both a receptacle and a probe for refueling.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Thanks for reply. Excellent photos. So, can you confirm that at Groom Lake was tested new stealth aircraft in 1999?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GroomLakePolishFAN
 


Nope. Didn't start flying there til after. But most likely there was.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135
reply to post by GroomLakePolishFAN
 


Nope. Didn't start flying there til after. But most likely there was.


So, do you think that the plane was in Groom in some hangar but it wasn't tested there in 1999?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 





Another note, the Navy UCAV has both a receptacle and a probe for refueling.


I would assume the probe is composite. A chuck of metal wouldn't be very stealthy. ;-) I searched the interwebs a bit for how this is handled on the F-35, but there is no mention of the probe being stealthy, nor is it retracting into an internal chamber. But you would think this problem is so obvious that it has been thought out.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


The F-35B/C probe retracts like the probe on the F-14 did. Here is the video of a B refueling from a KC-130 that shows it.
the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com...






top topics



 
83
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join