"Classified" supersonic aircraft?

[Scott Ferrin]

This from the latest AW&ST

"SECRET STREAKER?

On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
Amarillo, Tex."


Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
how high they were.

[EB Jet]

It reminds me of a radio transmission sometime in the mid 90's when an
aircraft,callsign Gaspipe,was cleared by Joshua Control(Edwards) to descend
from FL 760..No idea where it was going :-) That was back in the days of the
so-called skyquakes that would happen every Thursday morning...I LOVE this
stuff..

[dirtypurplesawc13]

Aircraft flying that high are basically operating under VFR rules anyway and
don't have to talk to anyone. Once he decsended below 50,000 he would need
more than just "flight foillowing" ... he'd need a full IFR clearnce. My
guess is that this was an F-35 or F-22 departing Cannon's electronic ranges
for Nellis. Sounds kind of bogus. By the way, 351.7 is indeed a local
frequency for those ranges.
"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> This from the latest AW&ST
>
> "SECRET STREAKER?
>
> On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
> 2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
> somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
> flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
> the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
> queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
> responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
> altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
> frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
> ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
> somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
> super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
> portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
> controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
> response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
> recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
> Amarillo, Tex."
>
>
> Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
> special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
> BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
> how high they were.

[TJ]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> This from the latest AW&ST
>
> "SECRET STREAKER?
>
> On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
> 2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
> somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
> flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
> the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
> queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
> responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
> altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
> frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
> ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
> somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
> super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
> portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
> controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
> response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
> recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
> Amarillo, Tex."
>
>
> Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
> special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
> BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
> how high they were.

I agree, same goes with his very dodgy "TR-3" video. Wasn't his excuse that
his batteries ran out as he was filming it? Steve Douglass lost all his
credibility when he got involved in reporting on the Kosovo crisis. Douglass
gave an interview on the Jeff Rense radio show and revealed that "22 NATO
fixed wing air craft were shot down by the Serb defense, about 10 of those
U.S. planes." These were in reference to manned aircraft. Strangely enough,
Douglass has failed to back up the claims that he made in his radio
interview.

TJ

[Ron]

>> On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
>> 2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
>> somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
>> flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
>> the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
>> queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
>> responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
>> altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
>> frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
>> ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
>> somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
>> super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
>> portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
>> controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
>> response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
>> recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
>> Amarillo, Tex."
>>
>>
>> Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
>> special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
>> BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
>> how high they were.
>
>I agree, same goes with his very dodgy "TR-3" video. Wasn't his excuse that
>his batteries ran out as he was filming it? Steve Douglass lost all his
>credibility when he got involved in reporting on the Kosovo crisis. Douglass
>gave an interview on the Jeff Rense radio show and revealed that "22 NATO
>fixed wing air craft were shot down by the Serb defense, about 10 of those
>U.S. planes." These were in reference to manned aircraft. Strangely enough,
>Douglass has failed to back up the claims that he made in his radio
>interview.
>
>TJ
>
>
>

If the pilot was above 60,000, would he even need to be making such
notifications?


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Air Force Jayhawk]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:39:02 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>
>
>This from the latest AW&ST
>
>"SECRET STREAKER?
>
>On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
>2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
>somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
>flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
>the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
>queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
>responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
>altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
>frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
>ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
>somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
>super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
>portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
>controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
>response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
>recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
>Amarillo, Tex."
>
>
>Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
>special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
>BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
>how high they were.

No person operating a classified aircraft would be so stupid as to say
so over the air. Those issues are always coordinated in advance and
identifed by the cvall sign so the controller knows better than to
ask.

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> This from the latest AW&ST
>
> "SECRET STREAKER?
>
> On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
> 2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
> somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
> flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
> the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
> queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
> responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
> altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
> frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
> ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
> somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
> super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
> portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
> controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
> response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
> recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
> Amarillo, Tex."
>
>
> Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
> special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
> BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
> how high they were.
>

Sounds flaky to me. Flight following above FL600 (I assume "Flight Level
60" is a typo), would be theoretically available, but not particularly
useful. But a descent to 30,000 feet would require an IFR clearance, and
simple flight following would not be available at that altitude.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the pilot was above 60,000, would he even need to be making such
> notifications?
>

What notifications?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"dirtypurplesawc13" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Aircraft flying that high are basically operating under VFR rules anyway
and
> don't have to talk to anyone. Once he decsended below 50,000 he would
need
> more than just "flight foillowing" ... he'd need a full IFR clearnce.
>

He'd need an IFR clearance a bit higher than 50,000 feet, Class A airspace
exists between 18,000 MSL and FL 600.

[Mike Marron]

>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote:

>This from the latest AW&ST

>"SECRET STREAKER?

>On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
>2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
>somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
>flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
>the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
>queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
>responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
>altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
>frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
>ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
>somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
>super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
>portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
>controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
>response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
>recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
>Amarillo, Tex."

>Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
>special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
>BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
>how high they were.

Reminds me of the following famous SR-71 story...

Los Angeles Center reported receiving a request for clearance
to FL 600 (60,000 ft). The incredulous controller, with some disdain
in his voice, asked, "How do you plan to get up to 60,000 feet?"
The pilot (obviously a sled driver), responded, "We don't plan to go
up to it, we plan to go DOWN to it." He was cleared.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:25:46 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote:
>
>>This from the latest AW&ST
>
>>"SECRET STREAKER?
>
>>On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
>>2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
>>somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
>>flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
>>the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
>>queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
>>responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
>>altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
>>frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
>>ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
>>somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
>>super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
>>portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
>>controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
>>response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
>>recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
>>Amarillo, Tex."
>
>>Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
>>special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
>>BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
>>how high they were.
>
>Reminds me of the following famous SR-71 story...
>
>Los Angeles Center reported receiving a request for clearance
>to FL 600 (60,000 ft). The incredulous controller, with some disdain
>in his voice, asked, "How do you plan to get up to 60,000 feet?"
>The pilot (obviously a sled driver), responded, "We don't plan to go
>up to it, we plan to go DOWN to it." He was cleared.
>
>


LOL. I thought about that one :-) There's another one about speeds
being called out:

"In his book, Sled Driver, SR-71 Blackbird pilot Brian Shul writes:
"I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occurred one day
as Walt (my backseater) and I were screaming across Southern
California, 13 miles high. We were monitoring various radio
transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles airspace.
Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our movement
across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its
groundspeed."

"90 knots" Center replied.

"Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same."

"120 knots," Center answered.

"We weren't the only ones proud of our groundspeed that day as almost
instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, 'Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests
groundspeed readout.'

"There was a slight pause, then the response, 525 knots on the ground,
Dusty".

"Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a
situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission
coming from my backseater. It was at that precise moment I realized
Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in
unison." "Center, Aspen 20, you got a groundspeed readout for us?"

There was a longer than normal pause.... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots"

"No further inquiries were heard on that frequency""

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> LOL. I thought about that one :-) There's another one about speeds
> being called out:
>
> "In his book, Sled Driver, SR-71 Blackbird pilot Brian Shul writes:
> "I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occurred one day
> as Walt (my backseater) and I were screaming across Southern
> California, 13 miles high. We were monitoring various radio
> transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles airspace.
> Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our movement
> across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its
> groundspeed."
>
> "90 knots" Center replied.
>
> "Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same."
>
> "120 knots," Center answered.
>
> "We weren't the only ones proud of our groundspeed that day as almost
> instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, 'Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests
> groundspeed readout.'
>
> "There was a slight pause, then the response, 525 knots on the ground,
> Dusty".
>
> "Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a
> situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission
> coming from my backseater. It was at that precise moment I realized
> Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in
> unison." "Center, Aspen 20, you got a groundspeed readout for us?"
>
> There was a longer than normal pause.... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots"
>
> "No further inquiries were heard on that frequency""
>

Nice story, but the groundspeed wouldn't show 1,742 knots. Groundspeed
readouts are to the nearest ten knots.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote
>>
--cut--
>>
>> There was a longer than normal pause.... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots"
>>
>> "No further inquiries were heard on that frequency""
>>
>
>Nice story, but the groundspeed wouldn't show 1,742 knots. Groundspeed
>readouts are to the nearest ten knots.
>
Just 'pilot's license', quite acceptable in this circumstance!.

;)
--

-Gord.

[BUFDRVR]

>When a center controller
> queried, "Say aircraft type,"

The only reason I can think of, and the only times flying in the CONUS I've
been asked this question, is if I'm going to be passing closely to another
aircraft so they can be given the heads up; "United 2440, you'll be passing
under a B-52 at 33,000 feet, report traffic in sight". Who's the conflict with
"above FL600"? And I'm assuming his ridiculous comment about not reporting his
"true altitude" implies he stopped sqawking Mode C?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
> The only reason I can think of, and the only times flying in the CONUS
I've
> been asked this question, is if I'm going to be passing closely to another
> aircraft so they can be given the heads up; "United 2440, you'll be
passing
> under a B-52 at 33,000 feet, report traffic in sight". Who's the conflict
with
> "above FL600"? And I'm assuming his ridiculous comment about not reporting
his
> "true altitude" implies he stopped sqawking Mode C?
>

Mode C altitude above FL600 reads out as FL600 regardless of actual
altitude.

[BUFDRVR]

>Mode C altitude above FL600 reads out as FL600 regardless of actual
>altitude.

Interesting. I did not know that.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting. I did not know that.
>

Probably few do. About fifteen years ago I was a controller at Chicago
Center working traffic in the Madison, WI, area. A NASA ER-1 departed MSN
requesting an unrestricted climb to FL610. I coordinated with the high
altitude sector and issued the climb. He went up like a rocket! The Mode C
readout couldn't keep up with him. Shortly after he reported out of FL600
and cancelled IFR, the Mode C read FL600. I asked a Data Systems Specialist
about it and he told me that FL600 and higher will read out as FL600.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Interesting. I did not know that.
>>
>
>Probably few do. About fifteen years ago I was a controller at Chicago
>Center working traffic in the Madison, WI, area. A NASA ER-1 departed MSN
>requesting an unrestricted climb to FL610. I coordinated with the high
>altitude sector and issued the climb. He went up like a rocket! The Mode C
>readout couldn't keep up with him. Shortly after he reported out of FL600
>and cancelled IFR, the Mode C read FL600. I asked a Data Systems Specialist
>about it and he told me that FL600 and higher will read out as FL600.
>

Sounds like another 'mechanic to pilot answer' "That's the way
it's made sir" :)

(just kidding)
--

-Gord.

[Ron]

>>Probably few do. About fifteen years ago I was a controller at Chicago
>>Center working traffic in the Madison, WI, area. A NASA ER-1 departed MSN
>>requesting an unrestricted climb to FL610. I coordinated with the high
>>altitude sector and issued the climb. He went up like a rocket! The Mode C
>>readout couldn't keep up with him. Shortly after he reported out of FL600
>>and cancelled IFR, the Mode C read FL600. I asked a Data Systems Specialist
>>about it and he told me that FL600 and higher will read out as FL600.

The pilot mentions FL60 in the audio clip, also mention of a supersonic run in
Pecos MOA though, I am not sure how high Pecos MOA goes up to, but I doubt its
that high. the FL60 comment is strange too.

I would not be suprised if it was someone pulling a prank on Mr Douglas
though.
Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> The pilot mentions FL60 in the audio clip, also mention of a supersonic
> run in Pecos MOA though, I am not sure how high Pecos MOA goes
> up to, but I doubt its that high.
>

MOAs are established outside of Class A airspace, but they frequently have
ATCAAs with the same lateral limits established above them.

[James Goodwin]

(Ron) wrote in message >...
> >>Probably few do. About fifteen years ago I was a controller at Chicago
> >>Center working traffic in the Madison, WI, area. A NASA ER-1 departed MSN
> >>requesting an unrestricted climb to FL610. I coordinated with the high
> >>altitude sector and issued the climb. He went up like a rocket! The Mode C
> >>readout couldn't keep up with him. Shortly after he reported out of FL600
> >>and cancelled IFR, the Mode C read FL600. I asked a Data Systems Specialist
> >>about it and he told me that FL600 and higher will read out as FL600.
>
> The pilot mentions FL60 in the audio clip, also mention of a supersonic run in
> Pecos MOA though, I am not sure how high Pecos MOA goes up to, but I doubt its
> that high. the FL60 comment is strange too.
>
> I would not be suprised if it was someone pulling a prank on Mr Douglas
> though.
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

My take on the supposed classified planform flying at 60,000 feet and
going supersonic for 10 seconds would be a newly assembled MIG-25 from
Iraq. It was one of 8 Mig-25's dug out of the desert and airlifted to
Tonopah along with 3 Mig-23's, 2 Mig-21's and a Mirage F-1. Barring
that, it could be a newly acquired Mig-25 from a nation that just
retired the type recently and sold it to the US in exchange for
defense equipment considerations.

If there was something like Aurora, it would have long ago being
released and shown to the world as an example of aircraft design
achievement especially on the 100th Anniversary of the Wright Brothers
flight. We cannot rule the possibility of a covert stealth prototype
program with a contractor making a handful of aircraft destined to be
tested behind closed doors and then kept behind closed doors for years
until fit to be released. Recent example was the Bird of Prey
released to the WPAFB Air Force Museum last August and displayed along
Tacit Blue which first flew in 1982 and then was put in the garage
until cleared for display in 1998.

It could be a FB-22 prototype created from the F-22 program for a long
range strike bomber or a stretched version of a F-117 into a two seat
aircraft with long range fuel tanks incorporated in a stealth airframe
with carriage for 4 2000lb bombs. Or even something new and exotic
with limited supersonic speed flying on an exotic type of fuel.
Anything is possible and we will not know until they release the
prototype sometime in the future.

In the black world, creativity runs rampant until new inventions are
created. This secrecy is the price we pay in order to acquire cutting
edge technology.

Goodwin

[Keith Willshaw]

"James Goodwin" > wrote in message
...
> (Ron) wrote in message
>...
> > >>Probably few do. About fifteen years ago I was a controller at
Chicago
> > >>Center working traffic in the Madison, WI, area. A NASA ER-1 departed
MSN
> > >>requesting an unrestricted climb to FL610. I coordinated with the
high
> > >>altitude sector and issued the climb. He went up like a rocket! The
Mode C
> > >>readout couldn't keep up with him. Shortly after he reported out of
FL600
> > >>and cancelled IFR, the Mode C read FL600. I asked a Data Systems
Specialist
> > >>about it and he told me that FL600 and higher will read out as FL600.
> >
> > The pilot mentions FL60 in the audio clip, also mention of a supersonic
run in
> > Pecos MOA though, I am not sure how high Pecos MOA goes up to, but I
doubt its
> > that high. the FL60 comment is strange too.
> >
> > I would not be suprised if it was someone pulling a prank on Mr Douglas
> > though.
> > Ron
> > Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
> My take on the supposed classified planform flying at 60,000 feet and
> going supersonic for 10 seconds would be a newly assembled MIG-25 from
> Iraq. It was one of 8 Mig-25's dug out of the desert and airlifted to
> Tonopah along with 3 Mig-23's, 2 Mig-21's and a Mirage F-1. Barring
> that, it could be a newly acquired Mig-25 from a nation that just
> retired the type recently and sold it to the US in exchange for
> defense equipment considerations.
>

Why bother ?

The Mig-25 is very much a known quantity.

>
> In the black world, creativity runs rampant until new inventions are
> created. This secrecy is the price we pay in order to acquire cutting
> edge technology.
>

Maybe but its more likley to be associated with testing of either F-35
or F-22. Anything really black is harly going to be announced to a
civil air traffic controller

Keith

[James Goodwin]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "James Goodwin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Ron) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >>Probably few do. About fifteen years ago I was a controller at
> Chicago
> > > >>Center working traffic in the Madison, WI, area. A NASA ER-1 departed
> MSN
> > > >>requesting an unrestricted climb to FL610. I coordinated with the
> high
> > > >>altitude sector and issued the climb. He went up like a rocket! The
> Mode C
> > > >>readout couldn't keep up with him. Shortly after he reported out of
> FL600
> > > >>and cancelled IFR, the Mode C read FL600. I asked a Data Systems
> Specialist
> > > >>about it and he told me that FL600 and higher will read out as FL600.
> > >
> > > The pilot mentions FL60 in the audio clip, also mention of a supersonic
> run in
> > > Pecos MOA though, I am not sure how high Pecos MOA goes up to, but I
> doubt its
> > > that high. the FL60 comment is strange too.
> > >
> > > I would not be suprised if it was someone pulling a prank on Mr Douglas
> > > though.
> > > Ron
> > > Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
> >
> > My take on the supposed classified planform flying at 60,000 feet and
> > going supersonic for 10 seconds would be a newly assembled MIG-25 from
> > Iraq. It was one of 8 Mig-25's dug out of the desert and airlifted to
> > Tonopah along with 3 Mig-23's, 2 Mig-21's and a Mirage F-1. Barring
> > that, it could be a newly acquired Mig-25 from a nation that just
> > retired the type recently and sold it to the US in exchange for
> > defense equipment considerations.
> >
>
> Why bother ?
>
> The Mig-25 is very much a known quantity.
>
> >
> > In the black world, creativity runs rampant until new inventions are
> > created. This secrecy is the price we pay in order to acquire cutting
> > edge technology.
> >
>
> Maybe but its more likley to be associated with testing of either F-35
> or F-22. Anything really black is harly going to be announced to a
> civil air traffic controller
>
> Keith

Keith

The F-35 is scheduled to fly first prototype in 2006 so it cannot be
the secret aircraft as the two examples of an experimental plane X-35
were retired from flight display on conclusion of the fly off.

Raptors fly in test duties and it is not a classified program as it is
flying out in the open. The only things classified are the radar,
subsystems and these are not reported in open publications.

It could be the Raptor or just any other military type still under
secret development and kept away from prying eyes.

Goodwin

[[email protected]]

Lurking is so much fun. You get to read so much stuff made up about
one's self ! It's my turn to set the record straight.

Yes, I know the intercept sounds dubious. It's one of the strangest
I've encountered. Lockheed call-sign sounded funky to me.. and the
altitude mistake was glaring, however I only reported what I heard
VERBATIM and thought the intercept was interesting enough to post to
Bill Scott at AVWK who wrote the blurb that appeared in the magazine.

Be that what it may, I knew I would draw a lot of flack personally for
posting it but I also knew it would generate a lot of discussion..
which I applaud!

I'm aware I have enemies out there who'll say anything to make me look
like a flake. That's what happens when you are out front . People
like to throw tomatoes . So Be it.

However there are some out-and out lies being posted about me. I
could take them on one by one but it would be a waste of your time and
mine. You can't change the minds of those who hate you no matter
what you do.

However if anyone has a tape of me on the Jeff Rense show I'd like to
hear it.

Here's what I've posted concerning the "Secret Streaker Heading To
Groom" article on the Dreamland Resort forum and a few replies that
may clear things up.

"Maggo" writes: OK, at the risk of being labelled a "debunker", I have
a few questions regarding this story and with the actual transmission.

>"On the morning of Jan.7 an aircraft using the call sign "Lockheed
Test
>2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
>somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It
was
>flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico

FL six zero is 6,000 feet, not 60,000. Assuming the transmission has
been recorded in full or hasn't been altered, it clearly says "six
zero". To back this up, the Pecos MOA has a ceiling of 17,999 feet MSL
(see link, page 3).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/enviro/DTI_EA/04_Executive_Summary.pdf

>When the center controller queried, "Say aircraft type," the
unidentified >vehicle's pilot responded, "We are classified type and
cannot reveal our
>true altitude".

>After consulting with several informed sources in both the US and
Australian Air Forces, the general consensus appears to be that there
is absolutely "NO WAY" an aircrew member would transmit the fact that
they are a "classified type" over an open frequency in a non-emergency
situation. If he had said what has been alleged, then he would be in a
whole lot of trouble. Additionally, if flying in an MOA that has a
ceiling of 18,000 feet, why would he not be able to state his true
altitude?

>About 15 min. later the same pilot - on a different frequency
(351.700 MHz) –
>requested permission for a descent to 30,000 ft. and flight-following
to
>"Las Vegas with final destination somewhere in the Nellis Range"
complex.

>There was also consensus amongst my sources that the pilot is
unlikely to have said "final destination somewhere in the Nellis
Ranges". Again, why reveal something like that if it were unnecessary.
By the time the aircraft would have reached Vegas it would have been
speaking to the Nellis range controller anyway who would have then
cleared them into TTR or Groom or wherever they were going, so why
tell Albuquerque on an open channel something as mysterious as this.

>It would be interesting to hear a full, unedited copy of the alleged
transmissions for analysis before jumping to the conclusions that seem
to have been thrown around. In the meantime, I think we are selling
short the professionalism of flight test pilots and air traffic
controllers by indulging in this type of speculation and spreading of
unsubstantiated single source information.

>If you have a reliable military (aircrew) or ATC source, by all means
double check this story with them and THEN form an opinion as to
whether it actually happened or not.


-----my reply -----



I'm the first to admit the intercept is unusual. First, I have never
heard a test aircraft using the call sign "Lockheed" and the fact that
it is a 4-number suffix is unusual as well.

Most "secret" test aircraft assume call signs of already recognized
aircraft such as the F-117 program did ( using an established A-7 call
) with the only exception being the "Goat Sucker" call sign which I
think was a veiled reference to the Chupacabra ( a mythical night
beast) which the stealth fighter surely was for a time.

I'm sure monitors around test bases such as Edwards AFB have heard
many more test call signs and could tell us if they have ever heard
"Lockheed" used.

It seems to me (from Magoo's post) that he thinks the report and .wav
file is bogus. What would that serve? Why create something that on the
surface seems phony only to have it shot down in forums like this? (
added for emphasis) > Money Fame.. women? If so where's my share!

Then again ... who really knows anyone's motives?

Consider this. I have been listening and recording military radio
communications for over the 20 years. I write a monthly column on
communications for a national magazine. I have even written a
published a book on the subject. (which some love and some hate)

If I wanted to fake something like this I could have done a much
better job and there would be no nagging questions about the validity
of the post.

Rest assured, what you hear is what I got. There was no editing other
than removing the some of the dead air between transmissions. The rest
of the transmission was NOT recorded because the weaker (although
perfectly audible to me) signal strength of the rest of the
transmission that did not trigger the cheap VOX feature on the
micro-cassette recorder attached to my Uniden BC-780XLT. I was very
irked to hear I hadn't captured it all.

I gave posting the .wav file a lot of thought. I knew it was strange
and would draw fire, however I thought it was (no matter what it turns
out to be) important enough event to share with others and see what
their reaction would be.

In retrospect, it wouldn't be the first time I had intercepted
communications that seemed .. "abnormal" Maybe the pilot made a
mistake in reporting his altitude? Just maybe he was so engaged in
what he was doing he made a slip of the tongue?

Although I don't have the rest of the transmission to back up what I
am about to say, from the tone of voice (sort of tongue in cheek) of
the Alb. Ctr. controller, it seems he probably already knew the
aircraft type and altitude before he asked the pilot and therefore saw
no need to correct the pilot's report .. or even yet .. maybe he knew
his true altitude and didn't realize the mistake in the pilot's
report?

As in your post (Maggoo's): > After consulting with several informed
sources in both the US and Australian Air Forces, the general
consensus appears to be that there is absolutely "NO WAY" an aircrew
member would transmit the fact that they are a "classified type" over
an open frequency in a non-emergency situation. If he had said what
has been alleged, then he would be in a whole lot of trouble.
Additionally, if flying in an MOA that has a ceiling of 18,000 feet,
why would he not be able to state his true altitude?"

This is not the not the first time I have heard a pilot say he was a
classified type and couldn't reveal his true type and altitude.

As for why he would state he was a classified type is beyond my
thinking as well unless he has to due to FAA rules.

Risking at sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, maybe we were
supposed to hear this transmission. It wouldn't be the first time the
existence of a classified aircraft was leaked to gauge the American
taxpayers interest ( and I'm just spit-balling here) or to trick an
eavesdropping foreign adversary into thinking we had expensive
technology they would have to spend millions of dollars to counter.


In closing I think it is great that we ALL question anything we see
posted on the Internet. I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say"
Why take anything at face value?"

Another stealth watcher "RICH" who I don't know replieD:

Subject: Re: AW&ST Reports

>Couldnt of put it better myself.

>And it does not matter if you are in an MOA or not, you have no
choice to tell the controller you're actual altitude, its for safety
reasons and i dont think, even in the interests of classified
aircraft, no test pilot (the best of the bunch) would be irresponsible
in going against FAA regulations, especially when talking to a
controller who will for sure, report it.

Same went with SR71 pilots and still with U-2 pilots, even though they
fly above all known other traffic they still have to report their
altitude on ATC.

>In the meantime, i think we should all shift our eyes and ears to New
Mexico and camp out on Steve's garden because it seems over the years,
all the aircraft out of Groom etc are flying over New Mexico, even
Black triangles in full view of the public during a multi-national
exercise of Roving Sands..... and now, all those poor people camping
around Groom Lake, climbing Tikaboo and all the monitors inbetween New
Mexico and Nevada do not seem to get any luck...

>Someone else must of heard this chap on his test flight, theres
plenty of monitors inbetween each area and no one has seemed to have
posted anything backing up the 'edited' audio (as usual).

>So, why go to the base and see nothing for years, when you can go to
New Mexico and see/hear 'it all'.... yeah right!

Rich

My guess is AVWK posted my report is because I have had a
long-standing \reputation with the magazine for many years. They know
I'm a good source of reliable information. They know I'm a good
researcher and I provide evidence to back up my reporting.

I showed Magoo's remarks to William Scott, the editor who approved the
item.

Bill replied: "Nobody uses flight levels unless you're above 18,000
ft. anyway, so if the pilot said 60 instead of 600, then the pilot
screwed up."

As for this skeptic, who seems to think he knows a lot about flight
testing, maybe he oughta know I am a grad of the USAF Test Pilot
School and tested airplanes for 12 years, both in and out of the Air
Force. I know damned well what is and isn't said over a test
frequency--and I didn't see anything so unusual about this
transmission/radio interchange."

He went on to say: " Another possibility: The "pilot" was on the
ground or on another aircraft was controlling a high-altitude UAV, not
a manned bird. In that case, the ground operator may or may not have
been a true "test pilot." hence the mistake.

So there it is.. from AVWK itself.

I'd like to point out that the article isn't flawed at all, but an
honest transcript of what I intercepted. Like myself, Bill (and
obviously the Albquerque Center controller because he didn't call the
pilot in his altitude mistake) logically concluded the pilot didn't
mean 6,000 feet! Duh!


"nuff said"


-Steve Douglass





"TJ" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > This from the latest AW&ST
> >
> > "SECRET STREAKER?
> >
> > On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test
> > 2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic
> > somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was
> > flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at
> > the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller
> > queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot
> > responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true
> > altitude." About 15 min. later, the same pilot--on a different
> > frequency (351.700 MHz.)--requested permission for a descent to 30,000
> > ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with final destination
> > somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's
> > super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest
> > portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center
> > controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no
> > response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were
> > recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in
> > Amarillo, Tex."
> >
> >
> > Couldn't this just be a plain old F-22? Going over 60k is nothing
> > special. The part about "can't reveal our true altitude" sounds like
> > BS. If they can see them on radar I'd think they'd be able to tell
> > how high they were.
>
> I agree, same goes with his very dodgy "TR-3" video. Wasn't his excuse that
> his batteries ran out as he was filming it? Steve Douglass lost all his
> credibility when he got involved in reporting on the Kosovo crisis. Douglass
> gave an interview on the Jeff Rense radio show and revealed that "22 NATO
> fixed wing air craft were shot down by the Serb defense, about 10 of those
> U.S. planes." These were in reference to manned aircraft. Strangely enough,
> Douglass has failed to back up the claims that he made in his radio
> interview.
>
> TJ

[BUFDRVR]

>FL six zero is 6,000 feet, not 60,000.

And does not exist in North America. In some countries in Europe and Asia? Yes,
North America, no.

>Additionally, if flying in an MOA that has a
>ceiling of 18,000 feet, why would he not be able to state his true
>altitude?

He may have been in the ATCAA on top of the MOA.

>There was no editing other
>than removing the some of the dead air between transmissions.

Perhaps a "zero" was not recorded at the end of "Flight Level six-zero"?

>I know damned well what is and isn't said over a test
>frequency--and I didn't see anything so unusual about this
>transmission/radio interchange."

Hmm, you should have, there's no such Thing as a "Flight Level" until 18,000'
MSL (over Canada, the US and Mexico) and then there are occasions where FL180
doesn't exist either.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[TJ]

wrote in message >...
> Lurking is so much fun. You get to read so much stuff made up about
> one's self ! It's my turn to set the record straight.
>
> Yes, I know the intercept sounds dubious. It's one of the strangest
> I've encountered. Lockheed call-sign sounded funky to me.. and the
> altitude mistake was glaring, however I only reported what I heard
> VERBATIM and thought the intercept was interesting enough to post to
> Bill Scott at AVWK who wrote the blurb that appeared in the magazine.
>
> Be that what it may, I knew I would draw a lot of flack personally for
> posting it but I also knew it would generate a lot of discussion..
> which I applaud!
>
> I'm aware I have enemies out there who'll say anything to make me look
> like a flake. That's what happens when you are out front . People
> like to throw tomatoes . So Be it.
>
> However there are some out-and out lies being posted about me. I
> could take them on one by one but it would be a waste of your time and
> mine. You can't change the minds of those who hate you no matter
> what you do.
>
> However if anyone has a tape of me on the Jeff Rense show I'd like to
> hear it.
>


Maybe it is time to clear up a few things then Steve. Did you give a
radio interview on the Jeff Rense show, or not?

The audio originally appeared on this now dead link in 1999:

http://www.audionet.com/shows/endoftheline/9908/end0816.ram

A person named as yourself claimed various things in that audio.
BUFDRVR would certainly, I expect, certainly like to continue with the
conversation.

BUFDRVR posted in 1999 after hearing the audio:


"Oh my god was that a riot ! Thats proof huh ? Some guy (Jeff Rense)
talking to
some other guy who claims all these aircraft were lost ? That guy was
an idiot.
He claims an SA-10 can explode *1 mile* from my jet and blow it into
such small
pieces that theres no proof. If your going to use these people as
"proof", then
you'll be able to "prove" that people around the US have contact with
space
aliens, I've heard numerous "experts" talking about this on late night
AM
radio.


BUFDRVR"

If it wasn't you Steve then you should be taking Jeff Rense all the
way court.

TJ