About Tonopah Test Range

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah OK. I was trying to figure out how you could tell this from Brainwash Butte! I'm guessing the construction was road repair.

For those that haven't driven around the NTTR, road repair can mean 30 minutes of going nowhere. Turn off the engine...get out and stretch.

a reply to: gariac

They had about a 5 or 6 mile stretch that was using a pilot car. The trucks and escort pulled up to the side that was closed, and basically told the construction crew they were going through, stop the pilot car.

Here's a question I have about KTNX... north east of the base proper, there's weapons storage area, detailed in the screenshot images in the link below:

imgur.com...

Note: if you have a look at the 3rd to the last image, just outside (west) of the double perimeter fence, rotate your head 90° to the left (orienting the image at a 90° clockwise view to the original), there appears to be a couple of tall moveable structures... similar to those found at some vertical launch orbital vehicle facilities.

What are these two facilities? (third to last image, and second to last & last images)

Regarding the F-117s still being flown, it doesn't actually have to mean anything special. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for them to keep one or two airworthy just for the test pilots to have some fun in. I've read it's a fairly challenging plane to fly. It could be used informally among the test pilots as a proof of skill/earning your mettle type of thing, like an initiation. Or they just fly it for #s and giggles.

As for it still being in the 135's manuals, that doesn't surprise me at all since they're being kept in "technically retired" condition. If it got called back into active duty, you wouldn't want to have to scramble to get all the TOs and checklists updated. Our Ground Servicing TO had info on a number of "retired" airframes, for example the C-141, up to the point where I got out (earlier this year).

a reply to: face23785

Normally I'd agree with you, but the trucks that we saw with an unknown cargo were at the hangars for them, with a lot more activity around the hangar for just a hop around the range for training. The amount of activity we saw at their hangars was unusual for routine operations. And there's no reason to change an antenna to a new one on a retired aircraft that's only flying around the range. If it was bad, they would have just taken one from another aircraft and put on it, not one that looked this different.

a reply to: face23785

I thought about 40 Star-lifters were mothballed in a manner that they could be quickly brought back into service.

I know they actually did bring a B52 back in just this last Spring.

That would be an interesting tidbit to know. How many of the air frames in the boneyard actually are in condition to be quickly (say 30 days) be brought back into service. I wouldn't think its all that many, but who knows.

a reply to: SrWingCommander

The only ones that can be quickly brought back are the ones that haven't been there long. It took something like 19 months at Tinker to restore Ghost Rider to be able to make the first flight, before they painted it. They flew from DM gear down, at low level, using visual navigation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

Normally I'd agree with you, but the trucks that we saw with an unknown cargo were at the hangars for them, with a lot more activity around the hangar for just a hop around the range for training. The amount of activity we saw at their hangars was unusual for routine operations. And there's no reason to change an antenna to a new one on a retired aircraft that's only flying around the range. If it was bad, they would have just taken one from another aircraft and put on it, not one that looked this different.

The NDAA calls for some F-117 to be in type 1000 storage. I wouldn't exactly call flying them training. They fly a few just to keep the flyable.

The truck probably had spare parts, though given the nature of the plane, some security would be appropriate.

a reply to: gariac

Type 1000 storage does not call for aircraft to be kept flying. It means they have to be kept in a condition to be quickly returned to service, meaning they can't be stripped for parts. Im They're losing part of their budget keeping them flying if that's all it is, and right now they're fighting for every dollar.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

Type 1000 storage does not call for aircraft to be kept flying. It means they have to be kept in a condition to be quickly returned to service, meaning they can't be stripped for parts. Im They're losing part of their budget keeping them flying if that's all it is, and right now they're fighting for every dollar.

Per Congressional direction within the FY07 National Defense Authorization Act the aircraft were placed in Type 1000, flyable storage for potential recall to future service.  In order to confirm the effectiveness of the flyable storage program, some F-117 aircraft are occasionally flown.

www.tampabaydefensealliance.com...

a reply to: gariac

Flyable storage requires the aircraft to be in a condition to be returned to flight quickly. They can't strip parts from it for other aircraft. It does not require the aircraft to be flown.

Type 1000 Aircraft stored in near-flyaway condition. Can be stored without re-preservation for a period of 4 years. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 2000.

www.amarcexperience.com...

Funny that the aircraft that are flying are coming from the same hangars if all they're doing is checking that they're still flyable. All that would tell them is that the same aircraft can still be flown.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Type 1000 is a soft definition.

You realize most of the F-117 in storage don't have wings. That makes flight difficult. ;-)

a reply to: gariac

Yes I do. But the point of them flying, according to that article, is to ensure they're still flyable. Flying the same four aircraft proves that those four are flyable, it doesn't prove the rest of them are. If they were flying them to ensure they were still flyable, they'd pick random aircraft, return them to flyable condition, and fly them not just fly the same aircraft over and over again.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

Yes I do. But the point of them flying, according to that article, is to ensure they're still flyable. Flying the same four aircraft proves that those four are flyable, it doesn't prove the rest of them are. If they were flying them to ensure they were still flyable, they'd pick random aircraft, return them to flyable condition, and fly them not just fly the same aircraft over and over again.

Basic statistics in play here. Someone has done the computation of what sample size insures the rest of the fleet can be flown at an acceptable confidence. No need to do 100% sampling.

Change the situation to ordnance. If you tested 100% of your ordnance stockpile, you would have nothing left to er um deliver with extreme prejudice.

a reply to: gariac

You don't test 100%, and I didn't say test 100%. But testing the same four aircraft over and over again doesn't give you a sample, beyond that those four were stored correctly and are flyable. When you test an ordnance stockpile, you take a random sample. The key word there is "random". Testing the same four aircraft over and over again isn't random.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

You don't test 100%, and I didn't say test 100%. But testing the same four aircraft over and over again doesn't give you a sample, beyond that those four were stored correctly and are flyable. When you test an ordnance stockpile, you take a random sample. The key word there is "random". Testing the same four aircraft over and over again isn't rando
m.

The four planes were chosen at RANDOM as in RANDOM sample. Hence the testing is statically significant.

I suspect the nuance about 100% sampling of ordnance went over your head. If you reread it, you might see I was joking.

originally posted by: weavty1
Here's a question I have about KTNX... north east of the base proper, there's weapons storage area, detailed in the screenshot images in the link below:

imgur.com...

Note: if you have a look at the 3rd to the last image, just outside (west) of the double perimeter fence, rotate your head 90° to the left (orienting the image at a 90° clockwise view to the original), there appears to be a couple of tall moveable structures... similar to those found at some vertical launch orbital vehicle facilities.

What are these two facilities? (third to last image, and second to last & last images)

Here is a map of that area. Obviously the document is old. If you think this is useful, I can provide more detail.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I remember Have Blue 001 & 002 had different antenna systems.
Would that have anything to do with these odd security measures?

a reply to: HomeyKXTA

Our theory was some kind of LPI system being tested. Possibly a datalink.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If I understand what your hypothesis is on the new antenna, then that would make quite a bit of sense.
side thought: I don't know if the Vindicator project is still active, but could that technology be implemented with such an LPI?