14 ms·

Mysterious aircraft spotted at Area 51 in satellite image

240 points by benlumen 5y ago

WalterGR 5y ago
We came upon this development after doing our regular scans of Planet Labs' low-resolution imagery of various locales of interest across the globe… When glancing at daily 3-meter resolution images of the base Whoa. I didn’t know that daily satellite imagery was available to civilians. How much of the planet’s surface is imaged and available daily? Edit: Ooh, just posted and relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30193804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30193804 . 10cm imagery from high-altitude balloons!
- beerandt 5y ago
  Most users (especially county assessors) of high res imaging use aircraft since it's cheaper. There are other benefits, like smaller path width and reduced angular distortion. And flying when you know there isn't cloud cover, if timing isn't critical. So using a balloon is novel, but using aircraft in general is much more common than satellite. It just isn't all marketed to the public. "Satellite imagery" has had more success as a publicly known term than "aerial imagery", and it doesn't occur to most people that they're different things. >Whoa. I didn’t know that daily satellite imagery was available to civilians. There at least used to be a requirement that imaging satellite operators only release imagery up to a certain resolution, and that anything higher was subject to review/ approval (presumably from NGA). And in exchange for this cooperation, the operator gets a nice federal contract for providing NGA copies of everything imaged, plus they get their launch permit approved. >How much of the planet’s surface is imaged and available daily? I think Planet Labs claims full coverage every three days? But that doesn't equate to 1/3 every day, and coverage that isn't evenly distributed, due to the nature of orbital ground paths.
  - dharmab 5y ago
    It's more frequent than that. From the public image spec: > The complete PlanetScope constellation of approximately 130 satellites is able to image the entire land surface of the Earth every day (equating to a daily collection capacity of 200 million km²/day). Since then the constellation has grown; after last month's launch the contstellation is over 200 satellites: https://www.planet.com/pulse/so-you-launched-a-satellite-now-what/ https://www.planet.com/pulse/so-you-launched-a-satellite-now... Disclaimer: I'm a Planet Labs employee.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Thanks- that's... a lot more than the last time I checked. It's been a few years since my work required me to be up to date with any of this. That's some pretty amazing progress. A quick glance of the site doesn't immediately define med or high res. Do you have frequency of coverage by resolution listed somewhere?
      - dharmab 5y ago
        There is now a tasking product for high resolution imagery, with multiple visits per day capability: https://www.planet.com/products/hi-res-monitoring/ https://www.planet.com/products/hi-res-monitoring/
- asperous 5y ago
  NASA has this site: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ Of course the resolution is very low, it is meant for Earth science monitoring
- bagels 5y ago
  Pretty much everywhere besides the poles.
- marsRoverDev 5y ago
  The US knew when <X> satellite imagery company's satellites were going to go overhead at some US base, waited for the image to be taken and then moved all its aircraft before a missile attack recently by Iran (or Iran proxies). They know 100% who is buying what imagery, and when the satellites will be overhead. There is 0% chance that this is a mistake. I wouldn't be surprised if the US can OK or not OK the images that make their way to Google Maps - in France, every government site gets censored before it makes its way to Google Maps.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nabla9 5y ago
Looks like Saab 35 Draken.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Only if your imaging satellite had X-ray vision. Have a look again. You wouldn't put a no-roof shelter over a plane, and you wouldn't be able to see what's inside. Use common sense.
etempleton 5y ago
Almost certainly a prototype for the NGAD. With rhetoric and now actions from both China and Russia the US is feeling the threat. There is a need. The F35 is really a multi-role fighter/attack jet. F22 reportedly still reigns supreme in air to air combat, but they killed that program and it would apparently be impossible to start back up, so there is incredible pressure to have a new viable air superiority fighter. The F22 is also a short range fighter that the US has too few of to risk losing. It is valuable for domestic defense and NATO defense, but less valuable for defending airspace in places such as Ukraine or Taiwan.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The article mentions the timing and aircraft size being right for NGAD, and take it a step further and suggest Lockheed's loud then quiet marketing of an "SR-72" might also fit. Whether re-purposed/ modified as an NGAD candidate or as a separate program. Regardless of the NGAD program, and knowing F-22 can't reasonably be restarted, I still don't understand why we aren't developing a 2nd iteration of the f-22. Japan's been begging for either an export version the f-22 or that they be allowed to use the technology with a new design since the beginning of the program. A partnership could result in a cheaper, updated generation 5.5 fighter (along the lines of the F/A-18 development into the F/A-18E/F), and would result in a US ally in the western pacific (cough cough china cough) being able to natively host and support the planes.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    > developing a 2nd iteration of the f-22. Because it is completely pointless. It is cheaper to saturate the sky with missile trucks (human or remote driven) and play reverse Space Invaders. Also morale hit if any of "Super Fighters" would be hit would be disastrous and magnitudes worse than F-117 loss.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Same reasoning would apply moreso to NGAD. And I'm suggesting in addition to, not instead of. A second iteration wouldn't necessarily be a "super fighter", but a cheaper, relatively conservative improvement on the existing f-22 and a hedge against NGAD delays or failures. An updated, lower maintenance stealth coating, a slightly scaled up airframe for additional fuel and range, and an updated communications suite (that's compatible with f-35's et al)... just that would be huge. As said, an fa-18ef update. Since the tech is 30+ years old now, it's probably to our advantage to share at least some of it with our allies. Which spreads development costs and lowers $per/jet costs. I don't know how you envision "missile trucks" working against, eg china, but humans on-board requires missile-defeating stealth, and cheap excludes the NGAD version. And the morale argument is what? A reason to never build an awesome fighter jet again? Cool things worthy of national pride experiencing a failure will always hit morale. But a reboot of a 30 year old jet wouldn't be the prime candidate for that, anymore than people would currently think the new fa-18 is. It's an update of what will be a ~2 generation lag behind (publicly known) cutting edge.
pwned1 5y ago
There is no way this isn't on purpose. They wouldn't expose something sensitive to satellite imaging unless they wanted to.
- hnburnsy 5y ago
  Yeah, the article mentions this... >All that being said, we must underscore that spotting a totally new and exotic aircraft design in the open at Area 51 is largely unprecedented, and for very good reason.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Never underestimate how stupid people can be. It might not be likely, but accidents and incompetence aren't impossible.
  - pigbearpig 5y ago
    Accidentally leaving a secret aircraft out during the day at Area 51? I'm fine with leaving that in the impossible category.
    - dkbrk 5y ago
      It's a test facility. They have to take the aircraft out from overhead cover in order to actually test them. Testing only at night would be much too restrictive. They track all observation satellites and meticulously schedule aircraft movements for when they're not observed. The problem is Planet Labs alone has over 200 satellites, and that's in addition to other commercial imaging providers and all the governmental earth observation satellites. That means in recent years the margin for error has become increasingly smaller. Given all that, while it's certainly possible this was deliberate, I don't think it at all implausible for it to be accidental. Some occurrence that delayed them by just a few minutes could potentially have caused this.
      - jmnicolas 5y ago
        > That means in recent years the margin for error has become increasingly smaller. I'm surprised that there are still windows of time where any piece of land isn't "seen" by satellite. I thought there was 24/7 coverage especially on special sites like Area 51.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
unit486 5y ago
Quite a few arms control discoveries have been made by civilians using open source satellite imagery. For example, US citizens discovered the massive new missile silo complexes that China has been building. They have identified rocket motor static test burns in Iran,and preparations for missile test launches at the Novaya Zemlya test facility in Russia.
- zie 5y ago
  I think you meant to add 'public' in there somewhere. I'm sure the large well-funded governments were well aware of all of this stuff before the public, it's their job after all.
Someone 5y ago
So, what’s the chance this is faked (not the photos, but the device) by the US Air Force? It could make others invest in protection against such an airplane, or in copying an ineffective design.
- runjake 5y ago
  We would occasionally pull stunts like this for adversary satellites in the old days. I've never seen a transparent scoot-n-hide, though. And if we had an aircraft break down, we have equipment on base that could move it to a hangar in pretty much any condition -- even crashed. We were always really sensitive to adversary satellite schedules and this would not happen for 5 minutes, let alone a few days. My hunch is that the transparent scoot-n-hide is a custom job, the aircraft is real, and this was a show for some adversary. As for what type of aircraft it is? Can't really tell. I could see it being anything from an F-16XL to NGAD to flat pieces of painted plywood cut out into shapes (it's been done before).
  - riskneutral 5y ago
    > this was a show for some adversary Maybe it's a captured enemy aircraft.
    - runjake 5y ago
      Possible, but it would probably be sitting in another area of base (hint: up north of there).
  - iSnow 5y ago
    But why even have the mobile hangar without a tarp if you want to show off your gear? Just land it and let it sit on the runway for a day or two.
    - runjake 5y ago
      Potential reason: the skin uses Radar-Absorbent Material, which is sensitive to weather and sun. Or they actually have people working on it and they don't want too cook in the sun and aircraft wind/dust/Foreign Object Damage (FOD). Who knows.
aerostable_slug 5y ago
As noted by others, a.) it really looks like a Draken, an old Swedish supersonic jet fighter used by contractors and the National Test Pilot School for a variety of roles, and b.) nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite unless it's the result of a crash (recall the panic over an F-117 going down decades ago because it 'pancaked' in a manner that could reveal its shape). I have had acquaintances and a grad school mentor that worked on projects out at the remote test site (among other facilities). They had very, very good situational awareness about what was overhead and when, and established & practiced procedures on sanitizing things before anything got to where it could image the site. We also have decades of lessons-learned on things like heat signatures where airplanes were parked, such that their shape could be divined even when the test article was safely ensconced in a hanger. We also practiced (and I would assume still practice) a variety of denial & deception activities to foil all manner of collectors and confuse the opposition, from RF to visual to various MASINT measures. One example is the Wet Site at China Lake, which was covertly built to assess the RCS of various maritime platforms (most famously Sea Shadow). When Soviet birds went overhead the radar dishes were pointed in a different direction and radiating on misleading frequences. The dirt spoil and vehicle tracks from the concealed construction of the test facility's saltwater pond was hidden like the tunnels in The Great Escape. Cool stuff.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  divined ensconced
- sjtindell 5y ago
  Do we also have experience seeding forums with comments like yours after mistakes are made? Just kidding…sort of.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    What would be the point? We (HN) could be tricked, but certainly not foreign state analysts. Whatever civilians believe isn't of great importance.
    - 5y ago
sethammons 5y ago
Does the image not look like a printed tarp laid over the hangar? I think it is simple deception
- twobitshifter 5y ago
  Agreed, from this vantage point you couldn’t tell the difference.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Agreed, from this vantage point you couldn’t tell the difference. I mean, you could, because if it was an opaque tarp rather than “uncovered skeleton” like the article claims, it would have a solid shadow visible somewhere when the sun isn't nearly directly behind the satellite, but the “skeletal” beams would not have a shadow on the ground, because you wouldn't see the ground through the tarp. But, that's exactly how this looks, so...
- runjake 5y ago
  Could be, but the shadows and taxiway lines line up perfectly. That would require constant shifting of props to maintain for 3 full days (this is 101 stuff for GEOINT folks). It's also important to keep in mind that spy sats get far better resolution than this publicly-released image would lead you to believe.
  - dharmab 5y ago
    It's also important to note that these images aren't from spy sats, they're from Planet Labs PBC's imaging. Disclaimer: I am a Planet Labs employee.
- MontagFTB 5y ago
  The shadow cast by the tarp suggests it's opaque, not transparent (or even translucent, really.) Combined with the horizontal lines across "plane", it all suggests a weather-beaten opaque tarp that's been painted to conceal its contents and confuse any overhead photographers.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Curious. How do they even know which end is the 'front'? Assumptions being made there.
freeslave 5y ago
That Chinese WZ-8 looks just like the paper airplanes I made as a kid.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  It looks like an accordion of paper dolls because it's a Draken printed on the roof of a movable shelter.
EMM_386 5y ago
They obviously have to surrender to satellites in terms of "hiding things out in the desert", they can't hide things anywhere on the planet anymore. But they seem to have hidden this well enough, it has to come out of a hanger at some point and everyone's obviously looking.
- nexuist 5y ago
  This has been a reality since Sputnik, it's not really a recent concern. The obvious solutions are: - Test at night - Test with clouds overhead - Test indoors Once the aircraft takes off or lands hiding it is easy. It's just for the few minutes that it's out on a tarmac that you have to worry about it being spotted. One possibility is that this is a deliberate misdirection, there is no plane in that hangar or if there is it looks completely different from the one in the picture. The fact that so many people in this thread are going down the NGAD rabbit hole (a program which is barely fleshed out and nearly all of it is open for interpretation) may indicate that this is the path the US wants Chinese and Russian researchers to go towards in order to cover up the "true" path. I'm more willing to believe that than the possibility that they left a billion dollar aircraft out in the open with a publicly tracked satellite directly overhead. It's not like they don't know when Planet or other satellites are going to be photographing the base.
mastazi 5y ago
Can someone explain how those planes work, without a rudder or a vertical stabilizer? The Chinese aircraft depicted in the article has large vertical surfaces on the wing tips, but other prototypes depicted in the same article have no vertical control surfaces whatsoever. I don't understand how you achieve controlled flight without those. Am I being dense? Edit: specifically I don't understand how do you control yaw.
- FredFS456 5y ago
  The B-2 uses airbrakes at the wingtips. Actuate the right airbrake to yaw right, etc. You can also use differential throttle of two engines to achieve the same thing.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    A new generation would likely also include thrust vectoring like on the F-22.
    - avereveard 5y ago
      Eh. Maybe. You get a load of weight in exchange for one good high AOA turn, and then you're slow. If you don't kill the bandit here and there, or if there's another, you're done. Seems great in 1v1 merges, while abetter twr seems better in everything else.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        I meant more left/right thrust to control yaw without sacrificing your stealthy edges, not necessarily the full f-22 capabilities. Ie, not needing to actuate control surfaces on the wings (or minimize the need), in the context of not having a vertical stabilizer. Iirc, the B-2 has to "hide" certain control surfaces momentarily when getting pulsed with radar.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing#Yaw_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing#Yaw_control
vmception 5y ago
Why even still use that base except to troll enthusiasts? At this point, people could have been born anew, grown up with the lore, had a full career and achieved decision making roles in using those bases with no budget oversight whatsoever.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  I assume because it's still a great position for a base (wide stretch of easily defendable flat land) and the infrastructure is already there. Plus, anyone capable of seriously surveilling such a well-positioned base will most likely also be aware of any other "secret" base that's usable for launching stealth aircraft; the space requirements alone make those hard to hide.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  It's a complete flight testing facility with restricted airspace. Why wouldn't they continue to use it?
- lastofthemojito 5y ago
  The airspace managed by the base is larger than the state of Maryland. There aren't going to be too many alternative sites at this point.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Because there are still needs to test secretive aircraft and technology? Just because everyone knows about its general location doesn't mean everything that happens within its borders is known. There's most likely useful work being done there today.
chadcmulligan 5y ago
This reminds me of how they hid the U2 from prying eyes in "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed" by Ben Rich, that I'm currently reading. For anyone who's interested in experimental aircraft, the secrecy and the engineering this is a great read. He talks about the lengths they went to hiding the U2 and the Stealth Fighter from surveillance and everyone else.
Sosh101 5y ago
Reminded me a bit of the F16XL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
sgt101 5y ago
Looks like a D21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21
karlkloss 5y ago
Looks like something that Batman would fly.
rkangel 5y ago
One aircraft that I have always assumed existed was the SR-71 replacement. When they retired it the official story was that it was superceded by satellites, but satellites have a level of predictability and trackability that is best complemented by an aircraft. I have always assumed that they had a replacement with capabilities that were once again classified. That said, I don't think you'd find it at Area 51 given the fact that it would have been in service for a while by now and that Area 51 is more about testing experimental aircraft.
iam-TJ 5y ago
So far I've not seen any comments that consider the wider context of the location in speculating what the aircraft may be. Specifically, this aircraft is on the D1 taxi-way of the isolated EXTREMELY tall hanger 25 (H25) [2] at the south end of the runways, away from almost all other facilities. Hanger 25 and the E1/D1 taxi-ways connecting it can be fully appreciated in aerial photographs [3] looking north published by dreamlandresort (DR). The hanger has direct links to both runways - the primary 14/32 (via taxi-way E1) and the short secondary (unmarked) 12/30 that only serves category A or B aircraft (via taxi-way D1). Back in 2014 as hanger 25 was being constructed there were ground and aerial photographs that revealed the hanger's large size and especially its height which could accommodate a Boeing 747 tail rudder. There was much speculation [4] that it may support a project that has a mothership with 'parasite' aircraft attached. It may be what we're seeing in this new imagery from Planet Labs is a 'parasite' flying-wing aircraft. It's possible, based on remote location on the airfield, that this facility is supporting an ultra-high altitude or space launch system (think Virgin Galactic style). Mothership carries the parasite aircraft to a high altitude (taking off from runway 14/32) before it is released to climb to a higher altitude or possibly into very low earth orbit (100km+ altitude). Note: structure references from page 5 of the Jeppesen HOMEY/KXTA airfield/airspace charts [0] published at dreamlandresort (DR) [1] [0] https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/KXTA.pdf https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/KXTA.pdf [1] https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/index.html https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/index.html [2] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5279/area-51s-massive-new-hangar-shows-up-in-new-google-earth-images-of-the-secret-base https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5279/area-51s-massive-... [3] https://dreamlandresort.com/area51/aerial_1220_07.jpg https://dreamlandresort.com/area51/aerial_1220_07.jpg [4] https://jalopnik.com/new-panoramic-images-show-area-51-s-new-mystery-hanger-1628823466 https://jalopnik.com/new-panoramic-images-show-area-51-s-new...
- beerandt 5y ago
  >Jeppesen HOMEY/KXTA airfield/airspace charts It never occurred to me that these would even publicly exist (unclassified, anyway), let alone that they'd be so complete.
vlark 5y ago
143 comments and not one person has said the obvious yet: it's an alien fighter craft. Duh.

240 points by benlumen 5y ago

We came upon this development after doing our regular scans of Planet Labs' low-resolution imagery of various locales of interest across the globe… When glancing at daily 3-meter resolution images of the base Whoa. I didn’t know that daily satellite imagery was available to civilians. How much of the planet’s surface is imaged and available daily? Edit: Ooh, just posted and relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30193804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30193804 . 10cm imagery from high-altitude balloons!

beerandt 5y ago
Most users (especially county assessors) of high res imaging use aircraft since it's cheaper. There are other benefits, like smaller path width and reduced angular distortion. And flying when you know there isn't cloud cover, if timing isn't critical. So using a balloon is novel, but using aircraft in general is much more common than satellite. It just isn't all marketed to the public. "Satellite imagery" has had more success as a publicly known term than "aerial imagery", and it doesn't occur to most people that they're different things. >Whoa. I didn’t know that daily satellite imagery was available to civilians. There at least used to be a requirement that imaging satellite operators only release imagery up to a certain resolution, and that anything higher was subject to review/ approval (presumably from NGA). And in exchange for this cooperation, the operator gets a nice federal contract for providing NGA copies of everything imaged, plus they get their launch permit approved. >How much of the planet’s surface is imaged and available daily? I think Planet Labs claims full coverage every three days? But that doesn't equate to 1/3 every day, and coverage that isn't evenly distributed, due to the nature of orbital ground paths.
- dharmab 5y ago
  It's more frequent than that. From the public image spec: > The complete PlanetScope constellation of approximately 130 satellites is able to image the entire land surface of the Earth every day (equating to a daily collection capacity of 200 million km²/day). Since then the constellation has grown; after last month's launch the contstellation is over 200 satellites: https://www.planet.com/pulse/so-you-launched-a-satellite-now-what/ https://www.planet.com/pulse/so-you-launched-a-satellite-now... Disclaimer: I'm a Planet Labs employee.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Thanks- that's... a lot more than the last time I checked. It's been a few years since my work required me to be up to date with any of this. That's some pretty amazing progress. A quick glance of the site doesn't immediately define med or high res. Do you have frequency of coverage by resolution listed somewhere?
    - dharmab 5y ago
      There is now a tasking product for high resolution imagery, with multiple visits per day capability: https://www.planet.com/products/hi-res-monitoring/ https://www.planet.com/products/hi-res-monitoring/
asperous 5y ago
NASA has this site: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ Of course the resolution is very low, it is meant for Earth science monitoring
bagels 5y ago
Pretty much everywhere besides the poles.
marsRoverDev 5y ago
The US knew when <X> satellite imagery company's satellites were going to go overhead at some US base, waited for the image to be taken and then moved all its aircraft before a missile attack recently by Iran (or Iran proxies). They know 100% who is buying what imagery, and when the satellites will be overhead. There is 0% chance that this is a mistake. I wouldn't be surprised if the US can OK or not OK the images that make their way to Google Maps - in France, every government site gets censored before it makes its way to Google Maps.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nabla9 5y ago

Looks like Saab 35 Draken.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Only if your imaging satellite had X-ray vision. Have a look again. You wouldn't put a no-roof shelter over a plane, and you wouldn't be able to see what's inside. Use common sense.

etempleton 5y ago

Almost certainly a prototype for the NGAD. With rhetoric and now actions from both China and Russia the US is feeling the threat. There is a need. The F35 is really a multi-role fighter/attack jet. F22 reportedly still reigns supreme in air to air combat, but they killed that program and it would apparently be impossible to start back up, so there is incredible pressure to have a new viable air superiority fighter. The F22 is also a short range fighter that the US has too few of to risk losing. It is valuable for domestic defense and NATO defense, but less valuable for defending airspace in places such as Ukraine or Taiwan.

beerandt 5y ago
The article mentions the timing and aircraft size being right for NGAD, and take it a step further and suggest Lockheed's loud then quiet marketing of an "SR-72" might also fit. Whether re-purposed/ modified as an NGAD candidate or as a separate program. Regardless of the NGAD program, and knowing F-22 can't reasonably be restarted, I still don't understand why we aren't developing a 2nd iteration of the f-22. Japan's been begging for either an export version the f-22 or that they be allowed to use the technology with a new design since the beginning of the program. A partnership could result in a cheaper, updated generation 5.5 fighter (along the lines of the F/A-18 development into the F/A-18E/F), and would result in a US ally in the western pacific (cough cough china cough) being able to natively host and support the planes.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > developing a 2nd iteration of the f-22. Because it is completely pointless. It is cheaper to saturate the sky with missile trucks (human or remote driven) and play reverse Space Invaders. Also morale hit if any of "Super Fighters" would be hit would be disastrous and magnitudes worse than F-117 loss.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Same reasoning would apply moreso to NGAD. And I'm suggesting in addition to, not instead of. A second iteration wouldn't necessarily be a "super fighter", but a cheaper, relatively conservative improvement on the existing f-22 and a hedge against NGAD delays or failures. An updated, lower maintenance stealth coating, a slightly scaled up airframe for additional fuel and range, and an updated communications suite (that's compatible with f-35's et al)... just that would be huge. As said, an fa-18ef update. Since the tech is 30+ years old now, it's probably to our advantage to share at least some of it with our allies. Which spreads development costs and lowers $per/jet costs. I don't know how you envision "missile trucks" working against, eg china, but humans on-board requires missile-defeating stealth, and cheap excludes the NGAD version. And the morale argument is what? A reason to never build an awesome fighter jet again? Cool things worthy of national pride experiencing a failure will always hit morale. But a reboot of a 30 year old jet wouldn't be the prime candidate for that, anymore than people would currently think the new fa-18 is. It's an update of what will be a ~2 generation lag behind (publicly known) cutting edge.

pwned1 5y ago

There is no way this isn't on purpose. They wouldn't expose something sensitive to satellite imaging unless they wanted to.

hnburnsy 5y ago
Yeah, the article mentions this... >All that being said, we must underscore that spotting a totally new and exotic aircraft design in the open at Area 51 is largely unprecedented, and for very good reason.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Never underestimate how stupid people can be. It might not be likely, but accidents and incompetence aren't impossible.
- pigbearpig 5y ago
  Accidentally leaving a secret aircraft out during the day at Area 51? I'm fine with leaving that in the impossible category.
  - dkbrk 5y ago
    It's a test facility. They have to take the aircraft out from overhead cover in order to actually test them. Testing only at night would be much too restrictive. They track all observation satellites and meticulously schedule aircraft movements for when they're not observed. The problem is Planet Labs alone has over 200 satellites, and that's in addition to other commercial imaging providers and all the governmental earth observation satellites. That means in recent years the margin for error has become increasingly smaller. Given all that, while it's certainly possible this was deliberate, I don't think it at all implausible for it to be accidental. Some occurrence that delayed them by just a few minutes could potentially have caused this.
    - jmnicolas 5y ago
      > That means in recent years the margin for error has become increasingly smaller. I'm surprised that there are still windows of time where any piece of land isn't "seen" by satellite. I thought there was 24/7 coverage especially on special sites like Area 51.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

unit486 5y ago

Quite a few arms control discoveries have been made by civilians using open source satellite imagery. For example, US citizens discovered the massive new missile silo complexes that China has been building. They have identified rocket motor static test burns in Iran,and preparations for missile test launches at the Novaya Zemlya test facility in Russia.

zie 5y ago
I think you meant to add 'public' in there somewhere. I'm sure the large well-funded governments were well aware of all of this stuff before the public, it's their job after all.

Someone 5y ago

So, what’s the chance this is faked (not the photos, but the device) by the US Air Force? It could make others invest in protection against such an airplane, or in copying an ineffective design.

runjake 5y ago
We would occasionally pull stunts like this for adversary satellites in the old days. I've never seen a transparent scoot-n-hide, though. And if we had an aircraft break down, we have equipment on base that could move it to a hangar in pretty much any condition -- even crashed. We were always really sensitive to adversary satellite schedules and this would not happen for 5 minutes, let alone a few days. My hunch is that the transparent scoot-n-hide is a custom job, the aircraft is real, and this was a show for some adversary. As for what type of aircraft it is? Can't really tell. I could see it being anything from an F-16XL to NGAD to flat pieces of painted plywood cut out into shapes (it's been done before).
- riskneutral 5y ago
  > this was a show for some adversary Maybe it's a captured enemy aircraft.
  - runjake 5y ago
    Possible, but it would probably be sitting in another area of base (hint: up north of there).
- iSnow 5y ago
  But why even have the mobile hangar without a tarp if you want to show off your gear? Just land it and let it sit on the runway for a day or two.
  - runjake 5y ago
    Potential reason: the skin uses Radar-Absorbent Material, which is sensitive to weather and sun. Or they actually have people working on it and they don't want too cook in the sun and aircraft wind/dust/Foreign Object Damage (FOD). Who knows.

aerostable_slug 5y ago

As noted by others, a.) it really looks like a Draken, an old Swedish supersonic jet fighter used by contractors and the National Test Pilot School for a variety of roles, and b.) nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite unless it's the result of a crash (recall the panic over an F-117 going down decades ago because it 'pancaked' in a manner that could reveal its shape). I have had acquaintances and a grad school mentor that worked on projects out at the remote test site (among other facilities). They had very, very good situational awareness about what was overhead and when, and established & practiced procedures on sanitizing things before anything got to where it could image the site. We also have decades of lessons-learned on things like heat signatures where airplanes were parked, such that their shape could be divined even when the test article was safely ensconced in a hanger. We also practiced (and I would assume still practice) a variety of denial & deception activities to foil all manner of collectors and confuse the opposition, from RF to visual to various MASINT measures. One example is the Wet Site at China Lake, which was covertly built to assess the RCS of various maritime platforms (most famously Sea Shadow). When Soviet birds went overhead the radar dishes were pointed in a different direction and radiating on misleading frequences. The dirt spoil and vehicle tracks from the concealed construction of the test facility's saltwater pond was hidden like the tunnels in The Great Escape. Cool stuff.

birdyrooster 5y ago
divined ensconced
sjtindell 5y ago
Do we also have experience seeding forums with comments like yours after mistakes are made? Just kidding…sort of.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  What would be the point? We (HN) could be tricked, but certainly not foreign state analysts. Whatever civilians believe isn't of great importance.
  - 5y ago

sethammons 5y ago

Does the image not look like a printed tarp laid over the hangar? I think it is simple deception

twobitshifter 5y ago
Agreed, from this vantage point you couldn’t tell the difference.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Agreed, from this vantage point you couldn’t tell the difference. I mean, you could, because if it was an opaque tarp rather than “uncovered skeleton” like the article claims, it would have a solid shadow visible somewhere when the sun isn't nearly directly behind the satellite, but the “skeletal” beams would not have a shadow on the ground, because you wouldn't see the ground through the tarp. But, that's exactly how this looks, so...
runjake 5y ago
Could be, but the shadows and taxiway lines line up perfectly. That would require constant shifting of props to maintain for 3 full days (this is 101 stuff for GEOINT folks). It's also important to keep in mind that spy sats get far better resolution than this publicly-released image would lead you to believe.
- dharmab 5y ago
  It's also important to note that these images aren't from spy sats, they're from Planet Labs PBC's imaging. Disclaimer: I am a Planet Labs employee.
MontagFTB 5y ago
The shadow cast by the tarp suggests it's opaque, not transparent (or even translucent, really.) Combined with the horizontal lines across "plane", it all suggests a weather-beaten opaque tarp that's been painted to conceal its contents and confuse any overhead photographers.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Curious. How do they even know which end is the 'front'? Assumptions being made there.

freeslave 5y ago

That Chinese WZ-8 looks just like the paper airplanes I made as a kid.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
It looks like an accordion of paper dolls because it's a Draken printed on the roof of a movable shelter.

EMM_386 5y ago

They obviously have to surrender to satellites in terms of "hiding things out in the desert", they can't hide things anywhere on the planet anymore. But they seem to have hidden this well enough, it has to come out of a hanger at some point and everyone's obviously looking.

nexuist 5y ago
This has been a reality since Sputnik, it's not really a recent concern. The obvious solutions are: - Test at night - Test with clouds overhead - Test indoors Once the aircraft takes off or lands hiding it is easy. It's just for the few minutes that it's out on a tarmac that you have to worry about it being spotted. One possibility is that this is a deliberate misdirection, there is no plane in that hangar or if there is it looks completely different from the one in the picture. The fact that so many people in this thread are going down the NGAD rabbit hole (a program which is barely fleshed out and nearly all of it is open for interpretation) may indicate that this is the path the US wants Chinese and Russian researchers to go towards in order to cover up the "true" path. I'm more willing to believe that than the possibility that they left a billion dollar aircraft out in the open with a publicly tracked satellite directly overhead. It's not like they don't know when Planet or other satellites are going to be photographing the base.

mastazi 5y ago

Can someone explain how those planes work, without a rudder or a vertical stabilizer? The Chinese aircraft depicted in the article has large vertical surfaces on the wing tips, but other prototypes depicted in the same article have no vertical control surfaces whatsoever. I don't understand how you achieve controlled flight without those. Am I being dense? Edit: specifically I don't understand how do you control yaw.

FredFS456 5y ago
The B-2 uses airbrakes at the wingtips. Actuate the right airbrake to yaw right, etc. You can also use differential throttle of two engines to achieve the same thing.
- beerandt 5y ago
  A new generation would likely also include thrust vectoring like on the F-22.
  - avereveard 5y ago
    Eh. Maybe. You get a load of weight in exchange for one good high AOA turn, and then you're slow. If you don't kill the bandit here and there, or if there's another, you're done. Seems great in 1v1 merges, while abetter twr seems better in everything else.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      I meant more left/right thrust to control yaw without sacrificing your stealthy edges, not necessarily the full f-22 capabilities. Ie, not needing to actuate control surfaces on the wings (or minimize the need), in the context of not having a vertical stabilizer. Iirc, the B-2 has to "hide" certain control surfaces momentarily when getting pulsed with radar.
justsomehnguy 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing#Yaw_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing#Yaw_control

vmception 5y ago

Why even still use that base except to troll enthusiasts? At this point, people could have been born anew, grown up with the lore, had a full career and achieved decision making roles in using those bases with no budget oversight whatsoever.

Sebb767 5y ago
I assume because it's still a great position for a base (wide stretch of easily defendable flat land) and the infrastructure is already there. Plus, anyone capable of seriously surveilling such a well-positioned base will most likely also be aware of any other "secret" base that's usable for launching stealth aircraft; the space requirements alone make those hard to hide.
sidewndr46 5y ago
It's a complete flight testing facility with restricted airspace. Why wouldn't they continue to use it?
lastofthemojito 5y ago
The airspace managed by the base is larger than the state of Maryland. There aren't going to be too many alternative sites at this point.
nexuist 5y ago
Because there are still needs to test secretive aircraft and technology? Just because everyone knows about its general location doesn't mean everything that happens within its borders is known. There's most likely useful work being done there today.

chadcmulligan 5y ago

This reminds me of how they hid the U2 from prying eyes in "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed" by Ben Rich, that I'm currently reading. For anyone who's interested in experimental aircraft, the secrecy and the engineering this is a great read. He talks about the lengths they went to hiding the U2 and the Stealth Fighter from surveillance and everyone else.

Sosh101 5y ago

Reminded me a bit of the F16XL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

sgt101 5y ago

Looks like a D21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21

karlkloss 5y ago

Looks like something that Batman would fly.

rkangel 5y ago

One aircraft that I have always assumed existed was the SR-71 replacement. When they retired it the official story was that it was superceded by satellites, but satellites have a level of predictability and trackability that is best complemented by an aircraft. I have always assumed that they had a replacement with capabilities that were once again classified. That said, I don't think you'd find it at Area 51 given the fact that it would have been in service for a while by now and that Area 51 is more about testing experimental aircraft.

iam-TJ 5y ago

So far I've not seen any comments that consider the wider context of the location in speculating what the aircraft may be. Specifically, this aircraft is on the D1 taxi-way of the isolated EXTREMELY tall hanger 25 (H25) [2] at the south end of the runways, away from almost all other facilities. Hanger 25 and the E1/D1 taxi-ways connecting it can be fully appreciated in aerial photographs [3] looking north published by dreamlandresort (DR). The hanger has direct links to both runways - the primary 14/32 (via taxi-way E1) and the short secondary (unmarked) 12/30 that only serves category A or B aircraft (via taxi-way D1). Back in 2014 as hanger 25 was being constructed there were ground and aerial photographs that revealed the hanger's large size and especially its height which could accommodate a Boeing 747 tail rudder. There was much speculation [4] that it may support a project that has a mothership with 'parasite' aircraft attached. It may be what we're seeing in this new imagery from Planet Labs is a 'parasite' flying-wing aircraft. It's possible, based on remote location on the airfield, that this facility is supporting an ultra-high altitude or space launch system (think Virgin Galactic style). Mothership carries the parasite aircraft to a high altitude (taking off from runway 14/32) before it is released to climb to a higher altitude or possibly into very low earth orbit (100km+ altitude). Note: structure references from page 5 of the Jeppesen HOMEY/KXTA airfield/airspace charts [0] published at dreamlandresort (DR) [1] [0] https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/KXTA.pdf https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/KXTA.pdf [1] https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/index.html https://dreamlandresort.com/maps/index.html [2] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5279/area-51s-massive-new-hangar-shows-up-in-new-google-earth-images-of-the-secret-base https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5279/area-51s-massive-... [3] https://dreamlandresort.com/area51/aerial_1220_07.jpg https://dreamlandresort.com/area51/aerial_1220_07.jpg [4] https://jalopnik.com/new-panoramic-images-show-area-51-s-new-mystery-hanger-1628823466 https://jalopnik.com/new-panoramic-images-show-area-51-s-new...

beerandt 5y ago
>Jeppesen HOMEY/KXTA airfield/airspace charts It never occurred to me that these would even publicly exist (unclassified, anyway), let alone that they'd be so complete.

vlark 5y ago

143 comments and not one person has said the obvious yet: it's an alien fighter craft. Duh.