Groom Lake flight test Feb 2011

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Callsign is Clover 65. This is claimed to be a Groom Lake flight test and sounds like one to me. It is 15 minutes long and all on this test. Note when they say "large cargo", that is a Janet 737.

Four voices heard. As it goes, there is always one voice in the air and one of the ground (pilot and controller). If you have a third voice, that would be the chase plane. I'm not sure why there are four players.

At one point (4 minutes 40 seconds) the test article wants to do an orbit, to kill some time. When asked why, the answer is
basically "take a guess." Piddle pack? Who knows.

Joker and Bingo are fuel level estimates warnings. The "large cargo" mentioned is code word for Janet 737.

I'm still digesting this person's audio, but it sound to me like it was done near the beginning of the last Red Flag based on the other audio that was uploaded.

This person has a youtube site:
www.youtube.com...




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Hey everyone.

First post here, been reading this site for a long time
I did a little research on the net and it seems 'clover'
Callsign is used by various aircraft from dugway for
Test and training control.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealthbomber
Hey everyone.

First post here, been reading this site for a long time
I did a little research on the net and it seems 'clover'
Callsign is used by various aircraft from dugway for
Test and training control.


Hello S.B....it is nice to meet you....and Welcome. This is a very good Board and I myself have found it a source of relaxation. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do.

Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Thanks splitinfinity,

I think I will enjoy it. I mainly read the aircraft and area 51 forums as I'm an aircraft enthusiast
Love reading the content on here about them.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Thanks on the Clover callsign. Of course, I wish it was anywhere but Dugway, since that will just revive the rumors that Dugway is the new Area 51. ;-)

This next bit of audio probably doesn't warrant a new thread since it borders on the uber-geeky. This is audio of a Janet landing.
www.lazygranch.com...
Yeah, no big deal, but this solves a question I had for a long time. If you look at the navigation aids at Groom Lake, you can see they have a VOR and one localizer for landing on 32. [They probably have a glideslope, though I'm not sure it could be spotted on google earth.] Most airports have localizers for both directions. You can see the localizer at
37°17'11.09"N 115°49'13.64"W
[Groom Lake is full of google earth community markers from the experts, but they seemed to miss this gear.]
Now normally the Janet flights come from the south west, so they have a fairly long time to use the localizer. But sometimes you have to land on 14, depending on weather and I presume load. So this pilot used the localizer on 32 to find the base, then made a loop to land on 14. I presume once you are that close, instruments are not required.

So the assumption here is given the traffic patterns, they only need a localizer in one direction.

And is it me, or does that pilot sound like Bill Clinton?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Its hard to believe that one popsci article could cause such a stir and have some many
people thinking that the US government are flying in so many people, building new
runways and hangars just as some sort of elaborate cover up to test more planes lol
edit on 5-4-2012 by Stealthbomber because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Well that may just verify to us that Bill Clinton has been to Area 51 more than once.


Regarding the original post with the audio. I listened to it several times, thought this through a bit, and here's my analysis:

The dialogue appears almost rehearsed without any hiccup, corrections or surprises - indicating an unmanned aircraft. The timeline has been compressed as clued by the cutouts and faint squelch sounds between test card times. The fast nature of the test card command to the operator/pilot response may also indicate an automated aircraft that is run from a control station. It also appears they intend on post-processing the flight telemetry data once back on the ground, as the timelines are too fast to analyze data real-time.

I would guess the requested 360 orbits are not for aircraft issues, but for a routine external issue such as prying eyes (JANET passengers, satellite overpass). This would tell us the asset, or what it is carrying externally, is sight sensitive. There would seem to be more discussion on the air during the orbit if it were due to onboard concerns. Or, perhaps they are flying the DYCOMS range and waiting for test personnel to catch up to the test cards. Also, it may be the chase pilot is having trouble keeping up, keeping visual or heeding a collision warning from the EROS pod system with the test article (FMI goo.gl...).

The dialogue also seems to indicate this aircraft has a tail or canard, since a spanloader (flying wing configuration) would be ill-advised to trim in pitch so quickly by > 10 degrees. Flying wings trim out at around CL = 0.6 or so and don't travel much through the ranges of pitch, except as a response to changes in weight or dynamic pressure (slowing down/climbing). Those levels of AoA could put a spanloader into a stall and spin quickly. The roll commands (i.e. to 15 deg) indicate there is an aileron component to this as well, as you would not be able to control this loop closely, without these control surfaces. Also, flying wings don't have a vertical stabilizer, but rather split slot deflectors or elevons. These would not seem to control the headings as precisely as needed to keep "card heading 072". This also indicates to me it is a UAV in operation. The lack of strain in any of the voices, due to inertial loading (g's), may tip us off to the "pilot" who is really at the control station, sitting at a console, and not in a cockpit.

Would they be checking stability and control data or GNC algorithm performance of the airframe at various conditions? Much of the latter can be run in a 6-DoF simulation with GNC algorithms in the loop. Flight testing would just be verification of the 6-DoF at this point in development. Perhaps what is more interesting is RCS of the aircraft. Could they be running an airframe past the DYCOMS base? Perhaps there is a way one could dead reckon the ground path of the flight trajectory timeline, based on the dialogue in the audio. This would give us an idea of the location the test cards, in relation to ground based testing areas such as DYCOMS.

This is not a missile as "stand by for ramp" and "RTB" indicate a CTOL aircraft, as a missile would unlikely recover in this way. Toward the end, they mention "Clover 65 is to the northwest 10 miles...want to come straight in to runway 32" - Shouldn't they say they are 10 miles southeast wanting to come into runway 32 heading northwest? This would put them inside R-4808 and indicate the location of their test flights. Also shows us they tend to stay "inside the box" based on their quick dialogue since it is not a lot of space to run at 440 knots indicated. At that speed, you could travel the length of R-4808 in 2.5 minutes. So, the rapid pace of the test cards would also support locating the test within R-4808. They say "runway 32" at 14:28, indicating runway 32 at NCTF, which can be verified on sat images. Landing temp was 3 deg C - could look at past data and match up the day it was that temp and during a new moon.

This is not a propeller driven aircraft. They seem to be running a turbine engine at subsonic speeds (M ~ 0.9 which is 440 kias at 15,500 ft MSL). Based on discussion of gas levels and the indicated airspeeds requested. I think this may be a turbofan driven, canard or conventional configuration aircraft with at least one vertical stabilizer. This would fit the description of the F-22, F-35 or a surrogate simulation platform by Calspan? At 6:14 one commenter says "one minute...#### looks good..." I could not make out what he's saying, but if we understood it, it may be a clue as to what they're doing.
edit on 5-4-2012 by TAGBOARD because: 120405D



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Reviewing the 15 minute youtube audio, I think you are right about the orbit being used to either keep the aircraft out of view, or perhaps just for safety. The orbit occurs with the sighting of some "cargo" planes. Still you have to wonder why the pilot had to be so snarky about the reason for the loop.

Tell ya what. I've been slowly going through this person's youtube audio to harvest scanner frequencies.I caught a bit of a similar test which I have uploaded here:
www.lazygranch.com...
Since this is not my audio, I'm not going to put it on my website permanently. I suggest anyone who wants it grab it for their personal use and not upload it elsewhere. In the form the audio is presented (youtube), it is impossible to analyze, especially when offered in 8 hour chunks. I pulled this test out of hour 3 of what is called NTTR 2. I suggest Audacity if you want to examine it packet by packet.

Now listening to this audio, two players are changing signal strength. While it is possible one is the voice of a pilot on the ground being relayed from a UAV, both the signals that are varying signal strength sound to me like piloted aircraft. I will agree the pilot in the plane seems way too relaxed for doing all these maneuvers.

Dynamics RCS was my guess. They could be using the Dycoms, the triangular tower, or N105TB. Note that the base tests friendly and enemy aircraft, so the test could be one of ours or theirs!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
The other thing to note is the "bingo" limit on fuel. Does 1500lbs make sense for a UAV?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


The only case where I could see the pilot's voice relaying through a UAV is for working in FAA airspace and coordinating with local air traffic control. Maybe this is protocol and is what is really happening for this test.

Thanks for grabbing the other audio file for us. You make a good point with the excercise perhaps being an acquired foreign aircraft flying against DYCOMS or N105TB. The bingo fuel level for an F-16 or larger airframe may be more inline with the 1,500 lb range. It would also make sense that they would be interested in keeping the aircraft sight sensitive, as indicated by their orbits and avoiding "large" and "small cargo".

It seems they're running through some regular testing, such as characterizing RCS of vehicles. If it was a newer airframe (basic or sw), I'd imagine the audio would not have nearly the rhythm of these tests. However, it could be a UAV that is well-along in the development stages and operation is routine now. If it was the case, I'd imagine it would be hangared at Tonopah (like RQ-170) and flown to R-4808 for the test and and not land there. Both seem to indicate they are landing at 32R with the test article.

I'm still confused about their positioning "from the northwest, picking up the localizer for runway 32". Would they not be coming in from the southeast to land at 32? Perhaps they are on the downwind leg, prior to base and final approach.
edit on 6-4-2012 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


After listening more to the second audio link, it does seem like they are flying a test article against a radar with increments of roll and pitch in 2.5 deg increments. Perhaps they are lining up and flying toward the radar the same way each pass and then pitching and rolling quickly to present a particular aspect of the airframe to the radar.

This is similar to characterizing a 6-DoF wind tunnel model by rolling and pitching the test model across a range of mach numbers, to fill in a database. They'd just run a 4-dimensional lookup table as a function of speed, altitude, roll and pitch. The results would be interpolated or extrapolated into a symmetrical table and fed into the BRAWLER or equivalent war games simulations to help mission planners.
edit on 6-4-2012 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TAGBOARD
 


There does seem to be a high degree of "boredom" in this test.

Since this is a daytime test, I suspect the test article is not a secret, but it could still be foreign. They flew the SU-27 in public many times.

Making a table of radar return versus position is likely. Possibly after reviewing the data, they go back and zoom in on the most reflective positions. Since they made an attempt to hike the plane from the base workers, I lean towards a foreign asset test.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Well then, testing during the daytime indicates that they're not operating the test at an elevated security level. To me the orbits may because they're not wanting to make a stir with anyone and trying to deconflict the airspace.

I was just thinking that we have had LPI comms since the 1980s, so it makes little sense that any high security test would broadcast their ops over the unencrypted airwaves. Just speculation.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TAGBOARD
 


Link-16 (aka TIMBER) is LPI, but it is also a lot of work to coordinate. Also, and don't quote me on this since I have no first hand knowledge, but looking at Link-16 protocol, I don't think you can have multiple link-16 systems running within earshot of each other. That is, if Red Flag or NFWS wants to use Link-16, then Groom would have to be using the same implementation. Basically it is a lot of work. Also for safety reasons, there is nothing like simple AM radio for comms. So I assume the base knows their comms can be intercepted, but believe they are cryptic enough that no intel is leaked. Remember, COMSEC is the duty of those doing the commo. This most assuredly has been discussed by the base.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
One more obscure navigation detail. After listening to 8 hours of that person's youtube audio, one little detail I was always curious about was leaked. Groom Lake use the aviation fix SHOWW. You can see it in the flightaware.com routings. Well one of the NFWS pilots was having trouble with SHOWW fix since it is unpublished. That is, the FAA doesn't have it, though I assume it is in the Nellis FLIMSY. So the controller stated that SHOWW is the same as JAYSN. It never occurred to me that Groom/Nellis would use real FAA aviation fixes with code names.

Thus SHOWW == JAYSN = 36-34-25.4800N 116-02-26.6200W

Here is the audio:
www.lazygranch.com...

This is a bit off topic, but I plan on reworking my Nellis navigation page with a few more tidbits like this and will start another thread so that the data gets indexed appropriately.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Link 16 isn't anything special. KC-135's had them installed on the jets circa 2005 or so. First hand knowledge. But all it was was basically a repeater that if say an F-16 is out of range of AWACS they could "link" off of the tanker and connect to the AWACS.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Bingo fuel of 1500 seems a little high for a UAV especially working in the NTS. I would say that if an F-16 was flying out of Groom and staying in the area, their bingo would be around 3,000 pounds or so.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
[They probably have a glideslope, though I'm not sure it could be spotted on google earth.]


VASI's but no PAPI's.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Link-16 can't be monitored with a simple AM radio. It uses a hopping scheme. Otherwise it is not very special since NATO can use it. But my comment was regarding the base coordinate their tests using link-16 rather than an open radio frequency. Clearly they don't care since they know the base radios are monitored.

Regarding your post about a glideslope, I assume that if 32 has a localizer, it also has gldeslope. But there is no localizer for 14, so the planes fly IFR to 32, then do a visual to 14.

I won't rule out marker beacons to Groom since I see something just before the planes hit 32. But it is hard to tell. There are google community marks to what people believe are marker beacon,s but I doubt their accuracy give that the planes don't fly where people think the markers are located.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by boomer135
 


Link-16 can't be monitored with a simple AM radio. It uses a hopping scheme. Otherwise it is not very special since NATO can use it. But my comment was regarding the base coordinate their tests using link-16 rather than an open radio frequency. Clearly they don't care since they know the base radios are monitored.

Regarding your post about a glideslope, I assume that if 32 has a localizer, it also has gldeslope. But there is no localizer for 14, so the planes fly IFR to 32, then do a visual to 14.

I won't rule out marker beacons to Groom since I see something just before the planes hit 32. But it is hard to tell. There are google community marks to what people believe are marker beacon,s but I doubt their accuracy give that the planes don't fly where people think the markers are located.


You are correct with the Link 16. It's a hopping scheme. When they first wanted to install this on -135 with the GATM block 40 upgrade we, as booms, got pissed because we had to preflight this thing and it was a pain in the arse. The equipment started out as two pallets on the plane and eventually scaled down to about a 4x4x5 set of boxes in the back. still had to preflight it but it became easier as it went farther into production. The system was all automatic though so as soon as you preflighted it and turned it on you didn't have to touch it again.

As far as the localizer and glideslope is concerned, I know for a fact that they had a VASI light system in the early 2000's but I'm not sure not what they could have. Maybe updated the glideslope to PAPI's but it wouldn't make much sense there because of the weather for one, and I would assume that most planes besides the Janet flights wouldn't need to fly the localizer and just do visuals all the time. Fighter pilots are cocky like that!





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join