If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Classified" supersonic aircraft?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" wrote in message ... If the pilot was above 60,000, would he even need to be making such notifications? What notifications? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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/milita...ve_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: 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |