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.

 

Groom Lake rumor regarding Northrop in Aviation Week

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   


How long will it take for the Pentagon to release something official on the ultra-stealthy long-range unmanned air vehicle that (according to intel, and reasonable analysis of the open-source tea-leaves) Northrop Grumman is building and preparing for flight test at Groom Lake




The classified UAV is believed to be about the size of a Global Hawk but with Northrop Grumman’s trademark “cranked-kite” shape, It has been described as incorporating both a high degree of stealth and a very efficient aerodynamic design.


Really long link

You may recall I did a post on ATS about one of the Google Earth imagery sets showing a Beechcraft "commuter plane" near the new hangar. While it could be a Janet Beechcraft, it is possible that it was a Northrop Beechcraft. Lockheed uses PC-12s, which incidentally exposed the new hangar at Yucca Lake to be for their use.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
It does look that way. Perhaps it would be disappointing to finally hear the hangar was built to house the Northrop platform and not an exotic SSTO airframe with a hybrid ducted rocket/ion wind jet powerplant, variable aspect ratio wings and feathering atmospheric reentry system.
edit on 24-4-2013 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TAGBOARD
 


One of the mailing lists I'm on has a person from the Palmdale area trumping up the B-3, which I presume to be the LRS-B. The rumor mill has been busy with that project too:
LRS-B
This person posted that the moon phase was good last week to move the B-3 to the big hangar, but it has been my experience that the window starts about 3 days after the full moon, not before.

If you were around when the "Bird of Prey" patch was making the rounds, it was clear that none of these gurus had a clue about the project, based on what finally was made public.

Aviation Week is kind of compromised. You may recall the got an exclusive look at the RQ-170 when it was made public, which I presume was to buy their silence. [No evidence of course.]

So this stuff is interesting to post, but impossible to confirm.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I agree with some of the comments in the other forum such as - Why on a moonless night? Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps they're just loading the aircraft parts inside the hangar at Site 10:

Large Turbofan Aircraft Inside Building 602

I don't think Lockheed is doing MRO on C-5s in 602. Plus, why are the doors nearly closed?

Interesting theory that AvWeek may've been silenced about RQ-170.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe that this plane would be stationed in area 51 because that place
has gotten too much public attention in the last few years.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black121
I find it hard to believe that this plane would be stationed in area 51 because that place
has gotten too much public attention in the last few years.


Climb Tikaboo peak. To get a good image, you are looking at a 120 to 200mm scope, with camera and mounts.

If you think your approach and climb isn't fully monitored, then I guess you missed the new camera up there. You are not going to see anything, not even lights at night anymore due to that installation.

My thoughts are: Northrop ISR platform, Lockheed / Boeing LRS B, Lockheed UCLASS.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Astr0
 





Climb Tikaboo peak. To get a good image, you are looking at a 120 to 200mm scope, with camera and mounts. If you think your approach and climb isn't fully monitored, then I guess you missed the new camera up there. You are not going to see anything, not even lights at night anymore due to that installation.


You need more like 2000mm equivalent focal length to photograph Groom Lake from TIkaboo. This is done by adding a barlow to the telescope (typically Televue Powermate) or with eyepiece projection.

They still turn on the lights at the base after the DRI camera was installed. Further, there are viewing locations where they can't see you easily with the camera. There is a false summit just prior to your ascent of Tikaboo that can view the base quite well. Not as good as Tikaboo, but good enough.

Not to encourage such nonsense, but the DRI camera is served via Verizon cellular link. They have a yagi pointing westward. You could hang a cell phone jammer on the fencing if you wanted privacy. A microwave link would be much more secure, but Groom Lake needs to pretend that they have nothing to do with this camera, which is ("ahem") owned by the Desert Research Institute.

spy camera



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
There have been various rumors that both the LRS-B and the new ISR platform have flown already, and may be close to, if not already operational. I would put more stock in the Boeing or NG UCLASS platform flying out of there than the LM bird. Lockheed has put out quite a bit of information about their bird, including pictures of what the design looks like. NG, and Boeing have been said to be competing in the program as well, but neither has said much about their designs (although NG may just offer the X-47B in that role, instead of a new aircraft)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   



You need more like 2000mm equivalent focal length to photograph Groom Lake from TIkaboo. This is done by adding a barlow to the telescope (typically Televue Powermate) or with eyepiece projection.


Sorry I meant a five to eight inch to see with the naked eye not photograph.


They still turn on the lights at the base after the DRI camera was installed.


I meant 'lights' as in airframes flying about if they know you are up there. I shall promise to be more precise in my language in future.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TAGBOARD
 

Correcting my earlier post. Apparently Skunk Works is performing MRO on C-5s in 602. We can only take them at their word.

‘C’ the Galaxy at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
edit on 28-5-2013 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TAGBOARD
 


The SOF uses C-5s on their missions occasionally. They may be getting an upgrade for performing those missions.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The C5-C is the satellite transport version. I don't know if the C5-M will have the same roll.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


The C is also being converted to the M standard, and will be going away from that mission apparently.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So exactly what aircraft is going to transport the satellites???? I can't see this being contracted out to the A124s. I mean we like the Russians, but not that much!



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Something is not checking out. If you review the comment from user "Galaxy5007" on the Flickr website:

‘C’ the Galaxy at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works



Galaxy5007: Okay....so why are they showing a C-5M....? 68-0213 and 68-0216 are the C models...this pic shows C-5M 69-0024!

Also, why would Lockheed put the MRO work in building 602 and not 601? Combine the comment from Galaxy5007 about catching the error in Lockheed's statement about labeling the picture wrong.

What is really happening here?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TAGBOARD
 


The C models ads being refit to M standard. with the push towards smaller satellites and clusters there isn't as much needa large satellite hauler.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


The Cs will still be available for the few and far between times they're needed. They're updating them, but from what I've heard they're leaving the pax deck off as it would be cost prohibitive to put it back in. The problem is that the military and just about everyone else is pushing for smaller clusters of satellites to do the same missions, so they don't need one large airframe that can carry huge satellites anymore. There may still be a few large satellites that will have to be hauled every once in awhile, but for the most part the ones that will be transported anymore will fit into regular C-5s or in some cases even C-17s.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Ive seen this on jesse ventura show seems liegiet



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Still don't understand what is really happening.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join