New imagery at the Lockheed Martin Yucca Lake facility

reply to post by DesertWatchdog


I emailed a request to get the FONSI for the AOF. It went into the infinite bit bucket.

The problem with Yucca Lake is it was an airport for a long time. But they essentially added a new airport to the old airport, so search engine results are mighty confusing. But remember the old Yucca runway was never paved, so there is a comment regarding paving, it should refer to the new runway.

This is a link I found to price lighting for the new (I assume) runway.
www.fbo.gov...

In theory, any work completed on the test site is subject to FOIA request. That is, if you bid a government project and lose the bid, it is common to FOIA what you can about the completed work so you can bid the next job more effectively. Occasionally the FOIA is for a lawsuit to determine why your company didn't get the bid. [When I see for example L-3 FOIA SAIC contracts, you can read between the lines as to why they are doing it.

To elaborate a bit, FOIA requests are not private. There are lists on government websites of FOIA requests. Often from well known investigative reporters. This is the first hit I got of such a list. It is from the State Department, but is representative of lists of FOIA requests:
www.state.gov...
Better yet, here is one from the DoD:
www.dod.gov...

Quick thought,

Whatever is being kept inside that hangar is either in the latter stages of development or has been fully constructed and is now in the testing stages. The hangar is pretty much isolated in the desert with only a few buildings and a run way surrounding it, there is not enough resources or enough room for personnel to be developing whatever is being kept inside.

let's see.....hmmm.... rectangular hangers usually house tubular fuselage crafts with a variety of wings extending from either side


So, a bull-nose entry of this hanger is designed for a circular, saucer shaped craft....?

That seems to be a dead give away for such a stealth project


perhaps the design has a secondary purpose as a 'Band Shell' for the weekends....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(theater)
In theater, a shell (also known as an acoustical shell or bandshell) is a curved, hard surface designed to reflect sound towards an audience.

what about the other Mojave test site they use, out in no man's land in the desert?

Desert, UAV test facility near Mojave, CA 93501
Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
1001 Lockheed Way, Palmdale, CA
(661) 572-4153 ‎ · lockheedmartin.com


thanks

Originally posted by St Udio
let's see.....hmmm.... rectangular hangers usually house tubular fuselage crafts with a variety of wings extending from either side


So, a bull-nose entry of this hanger is designed for a circular, saucer shaped craft....?

That seems to be a dead give away for such a stealth project


perhaps the design has a secondary purpose as a 'Band Shell' for the weekends....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(theater)
In theater, a shell (also known as an acoustical shell or bandshell) is a curved, hard surface designed to reflect sound towards an audience.

what about the other Mojave test site they use, out in no man's land in the desert?

Desert, UAV test facility near Mojave, CA 93501
Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
1001 Lockheed Way, Palmdale, CA
(661) 572-4153 ‎ · lockheedmartin.com


thanks

edit on 25-4-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

The shape of the hangar doesn't necessarily allude to the shape of the aircraft, something they wouldn't try and point out. Just a ruff idea of its size. I've seen that style of portable hangar before, blueprints with the RQ inside for size reference even, nothing too special. Its configurations however is interesting, its complex appendages is something I haven't seen much of, at least that elaborate.

I agree they don't do too much fabrication there, and most restricted projects Lockheed builds, do come from the Palmdale plant, but is not limited to UAV production.

Possible craft contained in the hangar

www.lockheedmartin.com...

www.lockheedmartin.com...

www.lockheedmartin.com...

If it's anyone of the above vehicles, modern warfare is about to take a big leap forward technologically.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by DesertWatchdog

 

I emailed a request to get the FONSI for the AOF. It went into the infinite bit bucket.

The problem with Yucca Lake is it was an airport for a long time. But they essentially added a new airport to the old airport, so search engine results are mighty confusing. But remember the old Yucca runway was never paved, so there is a comment regarding paving, it should refer to the new runway.

This is a link I found to price lighting for the new (I assume) runway.
www.fbo.gov...

In theory, any work completed on the test site is subject to FOIA request. That is, if you bid a government project and lose the bid, it is common to FOIA what you can about the completed work so you can bid the next job more effectively. Occasionally the FOIA is for a lawsuit to determine why your company didn't get the bid. [When I see for example L-3 FOIA SAIC contracts, you can read between the lines as to why they are doing it.

To elaborate a bit, FOIA requests are not private. There are lists on government websites of FOIA requests. Often from well known investigative reporters. This is the first hit I got of such a list. It is from the State Department, but is representative of lists of FOIA requests:
www.state.gov...
Better yet, here is one from the DoD:
www.dod.gov...

Well I know that Yucca has had a dry lake runway for a long time, IATA Code: UCC, ICAO Code: KUCC, FAA LID: NV11, which is no longer on charts (still in the FAA databases?), however the spot of the AOF does show up. So if the AOF is directly connected to that and is the replacement of the dry lake runway, then why not use the same set of codes for the new facility? Also if I remember right, at one time there were two lake bed strips, one on the west side, the larger runway, and at one time on the east side next to where the new facility is. I don't know if you can still make out its outline.

The exact spot of the facility had already been a heliport for a while (I call it that because of the fact that it had a hangar, which is still there, directly connected to the helipad), and after you found the NVH1 listing, and I finally remembered about the helipad, the odd NVH1 code made more sense to me. But why NVH1 would be used for an airfield is strange, informal or not.

I had always found that heliport interesting because of it's large circular security fence, which was kept for the AOF. But I never managed to find anything about it. Did you ever run across it in your digs?

Originally posted by TheGreatest
Possible craft contained in the hangar

www.lockheedmartin.com...

www.lockheedmartin.com...

www.lockheedmartin.com...

If it's anyone of the above vehicles, modern warfare is about to take a big leap forward technologically.

Documents have specifically mentioned UAV flights. The small hangar at the AOF and the lack of space would make me doubt testing of LTA vehicles. My favorite fun guess is the HWS Falcon. Simply because I noticed that the main hangar was listed as "Falcon Hangar" in one of the docs that G dug up.

reply to post by DesertWatchdog


Here is what I could find on that helicopter facility prior to the AOF:
www.nv.doe.gov...

Airborne Response Team (ART) Hanger located at the northeast corner of Yucca Lake . The ART hanger was used to station a Messerschmitt helicopter and members of the Wackenhut Services, Inc., Airborne Response Team (ART), so they could quickly respond to any security incident on the Nevada Test Site, e.g., infiltrators attempting to halt underground nuclear tests. The ART program ended on July 24, 1991, with the tragic crash of the helicopter and the loss of the two pilots and three ART Wackenhut Security Officers.

Originally posted by gariac

Back to this new Lockheed facility, I'm stumped as to the design. So we have small hangars that lead to a large hangar with a curved door. What does a curved door buy you?

The material looks accordionish and flexible. It appears that the center line opens up and maybe it just squeezes up against the sides, or possibly slides under the other part.

If it were a flat sliding door, it would have to "go somewhere". Maybe this design is cheaper and easier to get a larger aperture at a low cost?

If you had a flat sliding door then you could get an opening at best of half of the building width. (door has to go somewhere on a track). The opening here is greater than half the building width.

Also, the location right inside the building (a circular area) might be pretty good for rotating the Item, which may have some pointy bits, 180 degrees so it can go back out again.

Why are the buildings interconnected?

Don't know. Air conditioned offices/labs vs a big non-AC hangar?

The "Bull Nose" hangar fronts remind me of the old (and huge) hangars built for dirigibles (blimps). The one's that held the USS AKRON and USS MACON in NAS Lakehurst, NJ, as well as NAS Squantum and NAS South Weymouth in MA, (now defunct and torn down. They had half circle railroad type door tracks so they opened radially and the doors went into the hangar in a protective shell, much like a pocket door.

Some images....

The tracks left when old doors removed....


These things were huge....




The doors on these things need giant diesel motors to open and close them. I wonder how it is being done in those new bull-nose hangars shown in this post

So what would be the official ICAO code were the strange looking hangar is?
The recent image on Google Earth that I noticed, that the RQ1 UAV is not there anymore.

So does anyone know the ICAO code for this mystery airfield?

reply to post by darpa999


I'm going to guess it doesn't have an ICAO code or it is secret. Certainly not NVH11 since the FAA website only accepts four digits. NV11 is still valid, but it is the old dirt runway with the 14/32 orientation.

If you think about it, the planes landing within the NTTR only have to deal with Nellis and the DOE. They really don't need to be very public. I never really understood why the TTR came out of the closest with its data, other than the airport ICAO showed up in so many public documents that it made sense just to stop trying to hide it.

As of 2009, the latest year I have the IFR/VFR from the FLIP, only KL23 and NV11 are listed.

I'm assuming the Honeywell database put the airport in the database (wichman) with a fake name because it needed some kind of name. Or they asked the USAF want name do you want. For instance, Groom Lake is called Home Plate on the radio, so they gave it the name HOMEY in the database. If they didn't names in the general database, then the planes that needed the information would need a special database, which would be a lot of work to maintain.