Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil

Drone paranoia? I say the paranoid doomsayers may just be correct. This goes beyond Homeland Security.
The Deadly:

There are 64 drone bases on American soil. That includes 12 locations housing Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, which can be armed

And the Spies:

The medium-size Shadow is used in 22 bases, the smaller Raven in 20 and the miniature Wasp in 11. California and Texas lead the pack, with 10 and six sites, respectively, and there are also 22 planned locations for future bases

Are these bases just for training? Self-defence?
Even I am beginning to wonder, I never thought the American government would go this far.

Link

This really highlights the need for a tech that will render these machines inoperable. An electronic chaff of sorts. This government is far too untrustworthy to have this level of tech in the homeland.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


Just when I thought I couldn't feel any more sickened over the state of things...you post this.

Good find though, thanks for the information.

They have to base them somewhere. A number of them, such as the Global Hawk are capable of flying up to 24 hours, so they will fly from their base to their deployment bases in Afghanistan, or Diego Garcia, etc. Smaller ones, such as the Predator, can be packed up on C-5s, or C-17s and flown from their bases to their deployment bases.

There is a lot of training that takes place at theses bases as well, and some testing that goes on too. The RQ-4 that crashed in Maryland the other night was on a test flight from Pax River, testing the new BAMS setup that the navy is after.

A number of these "drone bases" are also where they have the cockpits to fly the drones, but no physical drones. Some are where they fly micro UAVs, that are only capable of short flights, and a very limited range. Not all of the 64 bases have actual drones based at them.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You may be right, but to me it looks like all the states are being covered (there is one in Hawaii), with only the Northeast US not being covered as densely as the rest of the US, however, the article did say that a further 22 bases are being planned.

The "Bases as Housing for Deployment" argument seems a trifle thin otherwise these bases would be more clustered and less spread out in a classic military "fan-out" pattern which indicates they want the most ground covered.

Originally posted by jcarpenter
This really highlights the need for a tech that will render these machines inoperable. An electronic chaff of sorts. This government is far too untrustworthy to have this level of tech in the homeland.

The Serbs brought down an F-117A with small arms. Or give the Iranians a call. Unless they had help on the American side they seem to have mastered hacking US drones.

reply to post by Zaphod58


There is a link to an Air Force pdf in the article. What it states as an airforce objective does not tally with a deployment/training/testing role as you stated:

Expand collaborative/engagement roles with:
 RPA Task Force, Air Staff, Major Commands
 DoD government services, NTSB, FAA, Department of
Homeland Security, Industry, etc.
 Apply cross-service lessons learned
 Support standardizing operational procedures.
 National Airspace System

AirForce PDF

Industry? What do they mean by industry? Private spying? Private airstrikes?

I don't see the need for these damn things or that many of them.I also haven't seen the price tag either to justify their cost or benefit not to mention all the possible dangers.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


Think of everything that industry does now except passenger service. That is what private industry can do with drones. And in many cases now it is a contractor in the "cockpit" of drones sent to foreign areas. I know this is the case for surveillance. I am not certain, but doubtful about strikes.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


And did you see in the article where it said that 22 of the 64 were micro UAV bases? A micro UAV is usually a hand launched, or launched from a small catapult or gun, and has a loiter time of about half an hour or less. It would be next to useless to use to try to spy on anyone here in the US.

A lot of them are also in the middle of nowhere, well away from any cities, or population areas. And again, a number of them are simply control stations, with no physical UAVs there. The standard operating procedure is to have a pilot in line of sight of the UAV to handle take off and landing, then after post take off checks are done, control is handed over to a pilot that could be halfway around the world for the mission, then control is handed back over for landing.

Creech AFB is a drone base that has physical UAVs, but they've been known to fly missions for aircraft in Afghanistan, or training in other countries. Just because they say it's a UAV base doesn't mean that it has UAVs there, or that the UAVs that ARE there are useful for spying on anyone. You pointed out that Hawaii has them as well, but they are operating Ravens. Those are launched by hand, and have a flight time of 45-60 minutes and a range of a whopping 6 miles.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


Those are the organizations that they will work with. The Industry refers to the groups that create/build the UAVs, so that they know what the AF needs to complete the mission and what they're looking for in the future to advance technology.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I see your point, but the hand launched UAV's are used primarily for ground support purposes. As in support for a commander in the field who would want immediate intel during ground based ops. So I ask again - why Hawaii for this type of UAV.
In the end I hope you are right. Most Americans I have met are awesome people and don't need to be spied on as if they are common Arabs.

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


Because the unit stationed there uses them. A large number of units are using hand launched UAVs now. They have developed the capability to detect IEDs, and other threats in theater, and are incredibly useful. Hawaii has deployed a number of units to Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly. So it makes sense for them to train using them so that when they are in country they know what they are doing with them.

The number of these bases is indeed strange, and the areas. After looking at that map in my local area Los Angeles, I noticed quite a number in close proximity. They are basically based in areas near the skunkworks, Edwards Airbase and other larger training/research bases which actually make sense for them to be.

I will definately keep my eyes peeled for these things flying over my house now. Nice post OP

reply to post by Zaphod58


In the case that you are right, here is a question: I thought your military was scaling back activities in the Middle East (withdrawing from Iraq?)? What, then, is with the large-scale upramping of production/training/deployment facilities. The cost must be enormous. What is the perceived threat?

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


They are scaling back, but they are changing from a mostly manned force, to a mixed force. If you look at even a fraction of our manned force, the aircraft being flown are well over 20 years, and are approaching the end of their useful service life. For what it would cost to develop a new airframe in money and years, they can build a mixed fleet of UAVs and manned aircraft for a lot less in terms of money and time.

Some examples:

The last B-52 was delivered in 1962-63.
The B-2 (the newest bomber in inventory) was delivered in the 1990s.
The average age of the F-15 (still the predominant fighter in the inventory) is over 25.
The average age of the F-16 is 22.

I could go on, but you get the idea. It would be nice if we could rest on our laurels, but anyone that we might end up fighting in the future is doing their best to improve their technology to a level where we were a few years ago, so we have to keep moving forward.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thank you for your input, you have engaged with some intelligent and knowledgeable answers. I hope you are right and perhaps there is no threat on the US domestic front.
I can afford to sit on the fence here and watch what develops - however, my guess is that the average american is genuinely worried about this - a little reassurance and official explanation could go a long way.

Doesn't this worry you?:

The Air Force guidelines permit using drones domestically to assist law enforcement in “investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities , or international terrorist activities.” More vague is language that also allows military cooperation with local law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”

Link

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


That has been going on for a long time, since before the UAVs came along. I've seen U-2s, and RF-4s used for drug hunting in remote areas. I'm less than thrilled with the idea. It may make for good training opportunities, but the military needs to concentrate on their primary mission, not worry about some guy growing something illegal in his back yard.

Not to discount the article. Wired usually vets their sources pretty well. I also do not like the idea of drones over our skies.
However I looked at the existing site in New Hampshire, because I am very familiar with the area, and saw that the location sited was on Mt. Washington. Mt. Washington lacks the necessary terrain for any kind of airstrip. It is located in the middle of the White Mountains. I hike that area regularly among other things and have never seen anything like that. I am not saying that there couldn't be an airstrip in the area. I am saying that their locations are not the most accurate.

Edit: Mt. Washington is a huge tourist area surrounded by touristy towns.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Drone paranoia? I say the paranoid doomsayers may just be correct. This goes beyond Homeland Security.
The Deadly:

There are 64 drone bases on American soil. That includes 12 locations housing Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, which can be armed

And the Spies:

The medium-size Shadow is used in 22 bases, the smaller Raven in 20 and the miniature Wasp in 11. California and Texas lead the pack, with 10 and six sites, respectively, and there are also 22 planned locations for future bases

Are these bases just for training? Self-defence?
Even I am beginning to wonder, I never thought the American government would go this far.

Link

Well when you want to shoot down crowds of protestors you have to have the firepower to do it. Nice and convenient unmanned drone. When SHTF the top brass can hide in bunkers and use these to pick off civilians and even their own troops that turned on them.