Stealth Bomber Shows Up On Google Map

[spiderman2k1]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Plant+42+in+Palmdale,+California&ll=34.637382,-118.08202...7832&t=k&hl=en

[yoda313]

Hi,

Its not supposed to be invisibile to the eye :P :P :P Just radar....

Kevin

[shelbyGT]

pretty sweet plane, I saw a few fly out of their station in Missouri a while ago, on their way to Afghanistan or Iraq or someplace. A nonstop flight there and back.

There is also another one located here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Plant+42+in+Palmdale,+California&ll=34.622297,-118.09107...6051&t=k&hl=en
That's the more boxy one, whichever one that is (117 or something? I can't recall at all)

[pbhalerao]

pretty sweet plane, I saw a few fly out of their station in Missouri a while ago, on their way to Afghanistan or Iraq or someplace. A nonstop flight there and back.

There is also another one located here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Plant+42+in+Palmdale,+California&ll=34.622297,-118.09107...6051&t=k&hl=en
That's the more boxy one, whichever one that is (117 or something? I can't recall at all)

I doubt that. The direct flight is only possible via mid-air refuelling or stooping at NATO bases. In any case it would be ageing the aircraft engines which is very costly. Most Iraq/Afghanistan missions were/are carried out from US AFB's in Turkey, Diego Garcia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Diego Garcia is base for the B-52's.

[BJ_M]

there have been missions flown out of Missouri in the past - but do require mid air refueling (several times)

[shelbyGT]

there have been missions flown out of Missouri in the past - but do require mid air refueling (several times)

If I had the time, I'd research kcstar.com and find you the link that talked about it, and I'm sure it was a straight shot, no landing. Yes, mid-air refueling. But it was done, and has been (like bj said)

[smearbrick1]

I thought some B-52 missions originated from the states. The bases in Turkey are used for transports and fighter aircraft, I believe.

[ps2daddy]

pretty sweet plane, I saw a few fly out of their station in Missouri a while ago, on their way to Afghanistan or Iraq or someplace. A nonstop flight there and back.

There is also another one located here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Plant+42+in+Palmdale,+California&ll=34.622297,-118.09107...6051&t=k&hl=en
That's the more boxy one, whichever one that is (117 or something? I can't recall at all)

I doubt that. The direct flight is only possible via mid-air refuelling or stooping at NATO bases. In any case it would be ageing the aircraft engines which is very costly. Most Iraq/Afghanistan missions were/are carried out from US AFB's in Turkey, Diego Garcia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Diego Garcia is base for the B-52's.

Yep the main base for them is in Missouri I hve seen them fly over my house also. Quite an impressive site to see. I have also driven about 30 miles from the base on the highway and seen them come in for landings also I wont go into any more detail but they have more t han a few here

Yep it is mid air refueling they have trained to stay mobile in air with refuelng for at least at week if necessary (could be indefinitely but need maintenance) They are very particular where they land these puppies

[pbhalerao]

pretty sweet plane, I saw a few fly out of their station in Missouri a while ago, on their way to Afghanistan or Iraq or someplace. A nonstop flight there and back.

There is also another one located here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Plant+42+in+Palmdale,+California&ll=34.622297,-118.09107...6051&t=k&hl=en
That's the more boxy one, whichever one that is (117 or something? I can't recall at all)

I doubt that. The direct flight is only possible via mid-air refuelling or stooping at NATO bases. In any case it would be ageing the aircraft engines which is very costly. Most Iraq/Afghanistan missions were/are carried out from US AFB's in Turkey, Diego Garcia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Diego Garcia is base for the B-52's.

Yep the main base for them is in Missouri I hve seen them fly over my house also. I wont go into any more detail but they have more t han a few here

Yep it is mid air refueling they have trained to stay mobile in air with refuelng for at least at week if necessary (could be indefinitely but need maintenance)

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

[AlecWest]

Now, if Google could only provide a good satellite view of (woo woo) Area 51! I tried putting in "Nellis AFB, Nevada" ... which it recognized ... but it returned downtown Las Vegas (grumble). Guess they don't want people spying on them at home too much.

[ps2daddy]

I understand what you are saying I saw them the day beforre they announced the this war in Iraq heading out

Check this out

http://science.howstuffworks.com/stealth-bomber1.htm

on the second page

Greater efficiency helps the B-2 travel long distances in a short period of time. It's not the fastest craft around -- the military says it's high subsonic, meaning its top speed is just under the speed of sound (around 1,000 ft/sec or 305 m/s) -- but it can go 6,900 miles (11,000 km) without refueling and 11,500 miles (18,500 km) with one in-flight refueling. It can get anywhere on Earth on short notice.

The distance from Baghdad to St. Louis is 6672.3 miles

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:F2YVIN4sv4MJ:www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-l...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[BJ_M]

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

they have been used in such a manor in certain situations - as have many other aircraft .... in fact, more often than you might realize .... how do you think they get to those other overseas bases anyway ? they fly them over ....

[Forum Troll]

Now, if Google could only provide a good satellite view of (woo woo) Area 51! I tried putting in "Nellis AFB, Nevada" ... which it recognized ... but it returned downtown Las Vegas (grumble). Guess they don't want people spying on them at home too much.

Actually the proper name for "Area 51" is Groom Lake. Plenty of photos exist:

[shelbyGT]

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

Since when has the US government been shy about wasting a few million dollars here and there?
It isn't as common as, say, taking an F-16 from a sea carrier, no. But, they do it, and they have done it, and will continue to do it. They are quite impressive machines.

[AlecWest]

Actually the proper name for "Area 51" is Groom Lake. Plenty of photos exist:

2003 photo. Pretty good. This brings up a question, though. Does Google mention how old their images are?

P.S. I tried "Groom Lake, Nevada" and maps.google.com didn't recognize it. And when you try Rachel, Nevada, it gives you Alamo, Nevada ... and even then only lets you click the zoom-in button twice. Click it a third time and you get this:

[Forum Troll]

Latitude/Longitude Of Area 51 Points of Interest
Rachel, NV (Research Center) 115š44'00"W 37š38'30"N
Groom Lake Base, Bldg 170 115š49'00"W 37š14'00"N
Freedom Ridge 115š38'30"W 37š20'30"N
White Sides Mtn. 115š37'30"W 37š22'00"N
Tikaboo Peak 115š21'30"W 37š21'00"N
Papoose Lake (northernmost shore) 115š51'30"W 37š07'30"N
Groom Lake, center of lake bed. 115š47'30"W 37š16'30"N
Black Mailbox 115š29'00"W 37š27'30"N
Tikaboo Peak 115š22'00"W 37š21'00"N
Janet 737 Terminal (Las Vegas) 115.16450šW 36.09212šN
Area 51 Nightclub (Las Vegas) 115.17714šW 36.12340šN


You are in breach of the forum rules and are being banned. Keep your opinions to yourself.
/ Moderator John Q. Publik

[pbhalerao]

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

they have been used in such a manor in certain situations - as have many other aircraft .... in fact, more often than you might realize .... how do you think they get to those other overseas bases anyway ? they fly them over ....

Correct. The aircraft fly to their bases but that is one time only. Then they are permanently based there and for missions, the nearest AFB is used.

However, under exceptional circumstances, such as a full scale war, all bases come under operation.

[pbhalerao]

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

Since when has the US government been shy about wasting a few million dollars here and there?
It isn't as common as, say, taking an F-16 from a sea carrier, no. But, they do it, and they have done it, and will continue to do it. They are quite impressive machines.

shebyGT, please see my previous post. It is not just question of cost (and I assume that you are referring to fuel costs). Its is a question of reliability also. If missions start taking place from bases in US, the engine and aircraft body wear and tear will be cery heavy. The aircarft ages more quickly and there is a risk of aircraft failure.

For example, in case of surface war too, the armoured vehicles (tanks, etc.) are carried to the nearest safest war front and launched from there. This cause less wear and tear of the tracks.

[BJ_M]

pretty hard to drive armoured vehicles from the USA to a battle zone , unless you are going to attack mexico..

[BJ_M]

Correct. The aircraft fly to their bases but that is one time only. Then they are permanently based there and for missions, the nearest AFB is used.

However, under exceptional circumstances, such as a full scale war, all bases come under operation.

pbhalerao --- they have been flown out of the USA on missions , I have personal knowledge of this .... believe it or not, it is a fact ..

I'm sure you can find info on this somewhere on line ....

[yoda313]

Hi,

I'm sure you can find info on this somewhere on line ....

Yep here it is:

www.militarysecretsrevealedbybj_m.com

Kevin

[thecoalman]

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

You have to consider the way these aircraft are used, first they aren't doing the grunt work but the hard to hit areas in the opening of a conflict. After a week or so it's B-52's flying over not B-2's. Logistically it would make sense to fly them out of there homebases considering the fact that all the equipment and people that would be needed to service them would also have to be moved. Then there's the security aspect that has to be addressed.....

[shelbyGT]

I don't doubt that the main base is in Missouri. What I meant was it is unlikely that Missouri base will be used for sorties/missions to as far as Iraq. This will be flying half way around the world and would be horribly expensive and logistically problematic.

Since when has the US government been shy about wasting a few million dollars here and there?
It isn't as common as, say, taking an F-16 from a sea carrier, no. But, they do it, and they have done it, and will continue to do it. They are quite impressive machines.

shebyGT, please see my previous post. It is not just question of cost (and I assume that you are referring to fuel costs). Its is a question of reliability also. If missions start taking place from bases in US, the engine and aircraft body wear and tear will be cery heavy. The aircarft ages more quickly and there is a risk of aircraft failure.

For example, in case of surface war too, the armoured vehicles (tanks, etc.) are carried to the nearest safest war front and launched from there. This cause less wear and tear of the tracks.

Let's just admit we're both right:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/14/sprj.irq.fighters.return/

The B-2 bombers sent home were flying bombing missions between Diego Garcia -- an island in the Indian Ocean -- and Iraq. Other B-2s flew round-trip missions between their base in Missouri and Iraq.

[pbhalerao]

All of us were right. But earlier too, I was not disagreeing to your statements either.

[shelbyGT]

Well then we're all friends

[BJ_M]

/me cancels bomb run to UK

[thecoalman]

/me cancels bomb run to UK

You mean this guy?




Did youremeber to turn backthe fleet as well?

[BJ_M]

i love that 'coast guard' picture ...

[offline]

Nasa WorldWind
www.worldwind.arc.nasa.gov

Area 51. In urban US areas you can zoom to 15 meters per pixil (ie: see detail on roads)

[badahab]

One day I got bored and google maped a bunch of af bases in the south west. Its always fun comming across a small mountin with a fence around.