Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-17 On Google Sat Photo At Ashgabat Turkmenistan  
User currently offlinePapoose From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Google map coordinates. -37 59 09N, 58 21 02E- Paste into the "fly to" box in Google earth.
It's couriuos (to me) to see a C-17 catched in that remote country. Surely en route to or from Afghanistan. But I'ts only a technical stop (I don't think is for refuelling given the range of the Globemaster) or there is some kind of military counter terrorism US-Turkmenistan agreement. I have never heard before. With other ex ussr nations but not with this.
Very near to the Iran border...  Wink
Is there a way to know when those satellite photos have been taken.
Interesting, some kilometer west of the Ashgabat airport, the airbase at -38 00 42N, 58 11 40E- with SU-25 on the flightline and Mig-23/27, Mig-25 few if no one in airworty condition.
Cheers.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

Yes were operating in that area. No you don't need to know why. Sorry I can't say more.

-Check


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5058 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
Yes were operating in that area. No you don't need to know why. Sorry I can't say more

Sometimes, it’s just better not to say anything at all to avoid arousing curiosity.  Wink



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlinePapoose From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5054 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
Yes were operating in that area. No you don't need to know why. Sorry I can't say more.

... It's enough for me.  checkmark  In every part of the world you are, I feel mysef more sure. Because you do in the facts what others do only with words...  praise 


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5059 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
Yes were operating in that area. No you don't need to know why. Sorry I can't say more.

'I could tell you but I'd have to kill you.'
 rotfl 
Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinePapoose From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
'I could tell you but I'd have to kill you.'

 scared  Ah Ah.  taekwondo 


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4908 times:

OPSEC prevents further information Papoose. Didn't mean to sound so 007, just meant to be direct and to the point with you. Take care,

Check


User currently offlinePapoose From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
OPSEC prevents further information Papoose. Didn't mean to sound so 007, just meant to be direct and to the point with you. Take care,

Hi Check.
You don't have to give me any explanation. I already did leave the topic.
It's clear: understatement. Anyway, from now, I will take into account your nick...

Papoose


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

I suggest you all look at "KC-135 Catches Fire in Manas" posted at 17:52 today.

User currently offlineQantas767 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 101 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 4765 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
OPSEC prevents further information Papoose. Didn't mean to sound so 007, just meant to be direct and to the point with you. Take care,

Check

If elements of this information was classified maybe you shouldn't have mentioned it on an open internet forum at all...



IF IT DON'T HOVER - DON'T BOTHER
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

Quoting Qantas767 (Reply 9):
If elements of this information was classified maybe you shouldn't have mentioned it on an open internet forum at all...

Who said anything was classified?? Simply said I wouldn't detail any operations due to OPSEC. OPSEC means operational security and covers almost every aspect of anything to do with the military. Thats all.

-Check


User currently offlinePapoose From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
Who said anything was classified?? Simply said I wouldn't detail any operations due to OPSEC. OPSEC means operational security and covers almost every aspect of anything to do with the military

Since the security would have to cover the most part of military operations, is likely that detailed info are impossible to know, at least difficult.
Specific USAF ops in Iraq are classified but we all know they are there.
So, if one did not want other people know that something happened somewhere, could have been better to keep a low profile, maybe saying that this is a quite normal event.
Often, to don't attract much attention is better stay visible than try hard to hide the truth.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4588 times:

Okay...I give up...to many 'experts' here! As stated above...the Air Force fly's in and out of these countries. As to info on a specific mission, if you have to ask then you already should know the answer...You don't need to know. I'm sorry if my replies offend all the 007's on this board, but I really don't care. What I will say is that my knowledge of Air Force Operations and several projects is extensive and I've signed more than one non-disclosure form in my service to my country. For all the military members on the board, they know that the word 'classified' is a term to describe levels of security. Nothing more. As far as the original topic goes...A C-17 only does several missions. I'm sure you could guess what it was doing there.

-Check


User currently offlineIrish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 964 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4552 times:

Well, a search on Google for "C-17" and "Turkmenistan" will turn up several references to operations there, most of which are from official US Government sources. No doubt some activities are secret - others plainly are not.

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Okay...I give up...to many 'experts' here! As stated above...the Air Force fly's in and out of these countries.

Even the post I referred to "KC-135 Catches Fire in Manas" states that the KC was returning to base. It is no big secret that the US in Turkmenistan. However, if i was told not to tell where I was based I would not tell.


User currently offlinePapoose From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Okay...I give up...to many 'experts' here! As stated above...the Air Force fly's in and out of these countries. As to info on a specific mission, if you have to ask then you already should know the answer...You don't need to know. I'm sorry if my replies offend all the 007's on this board, but I really don't care. What I will say is that my knowledge of Air Force Operations and several projects is extensive and I've signed more than one non-disclosure form in my service to my country. For all the military members on the board, they know that the word 'classified' is a term to describe levels of security. Nothing more. As far as the original topic goes...A C-17 only does several missions. I'm sure you could guess what it was doing there.

I'm not an expert of military ops or want to go around to discover goodness know what. I think nothing here won't disclose or put in danger the security of your country. I only feel myself to say that if somebody "have signed more than one non disclosure form for his country" nobody asked him in particular to reveal anything of any level of security. This is an open discussion place with "experts" and non expert. The non experts may always have something to learn from experts... James bonds attend another forum... I think.
As You said C-17 does several mission, who can say of what kind are them... For myself anything is going on there goes well. I'm a supporter...


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4502 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 6):
OPSEC prevents further information Papoose. Didn't mean to sound so 007, just meant to be direct and to the point with you. Take care,

Check

Sorry to join the party late, but:

If security is such a concern, why is the C-17 using a mixed used (civil + military) airfield, where anyone happening to be there can see it -- notwithstanding the far overhead photo -- ? Would it not be better to use a more remote strictly military airfield, of which I'm sure from the former USSR days, there isn't a shortage.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
Who said anything was classified?? Simply said I wouldn't detail any operations due to OPSEC. OPSEC means operational security and covers almost every aspect of anything to do with the military. Thats all.

-Check

By that definition, anything the military does can be covered up (due to OPSEC) -- notwithstanding any detrimental effect it may have to the public at large.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineQantas767 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 101 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 4461 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Okay...I give up...to many 'experts' here! As stated above...the Air Force fly's in and out of these countries. As to info on a specific mission, if you have to ask then you already should know the answer...You don't need to know. I'm sorry if my replies offend all the 007's on this board, but I really don't care. What I will say is that my knowledge of Air Force Operations and several projects is extensive and I've signed more than one non-disclosure form in my service to my country. For all the military members on the board, they know that the word 'classified' is a term to describe levels of security. Nothing more. As far as the original topic goes...A C-17 only does several missions. I'm sure you could guess what it was doing there.

-Check

I have been a military officer for the past 5 years, during that time I have taken part in a fair amount of information security training. During that training the Army was pretty clear that ANY reference to classified material to people who didn't require the information was a no no. (Hence the term NEED TO KNOW). Do a test: 'If my CO/OC saw what I was posting on the internet would he be happy with the content?' I can assure you that if this information is correct, and is in fact OPSEC, you superior would be less than impressed. If I caught one of my soldiers conducting himself on a forum like this he would be in my office so fast his feet would not touch the ground.

Why even say that you are unable to discuss it, other than to make yourself look important? Your posts indicate to everone that reads this forum that there is something occuring in that location that is of a sensitive enough nature that the US Military wants to ensure that the population at large doesn't know about it. On its own, the reference to this fact may be nothing, however what happens if 'the enemy' begin to investigate the claims you have made on this forum by establishing an observation point on that airfield, suddenly this infomation is no longer OPSEC.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
What I will say is that my knowledge of Air Force Operations and several projects is extensive and I've signed more than one non-disclosure form in my service to my country.

I was also told not to 'big note' my security clearence level in public, as it identifies ones self as a 'person of interest' to information gatherers. Perhaps keeping your information to yourself, like your 'non-disclosure forms' tell you to is a better idea.



IF IT DON'T HOVER - DON'T BOTHER
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 4411 times:

I answered the guys question and still get replies like the one above. I also never said anything about my security clearance level (by the way, that is how you spell clearance). I don't care a thing about making myself look important. Bottom line are there C-17's and other Air Force aircraft operating out there? Sure! Does anyone on this board, myself included, need to know what mission they're doing out there? Nope! If this upsets you and apparently several board members are deeply hurt by this, I'm really sorry. If you think I'm trying to boost my ego, your wrong. If you feel I'm stepping on your ego, your wrong. Qantas767...not sure why you would pull someone in your office for officially not disclosing a thing, but then again here in the US many officers overstep their bounds.

-Check

I can't wait to see all the replies! I guarantee someone here will just not let it go.


User currently offlineQantas767 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 101 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 4381 times:

I have said my bit, no use dwelling on things.

By the way I would not be required to have any of my soldiers in my office, as even my most junior soldier knows better than to bring up OPSEC issues on the internet.

That is all Im going to say, no use dwelling on it.



IF IT DON'T HOVER - DON'T BOTHER
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4376 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 18):
clearance level (by the way, that is how you spell clearance).

Oh my....if you're going to correct other people's spelling, please get your syntax and grammar correct:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
As stated above...the Air Force fly's in and out of these countries

It's "flies' young man, not "fly's".

I have no problem with those wearing uniforms declining to discuss whatever the reason may or may not be as to why a C-17A was at Ashgabat at some point in the past. If info (perhaps I should call it intel?) comes my way regarding same, I will feel free to post, or not, as I feel.

I too will not 'big note' my security clearance level. OPSEC, you know.

It's possible, by the way, that the C-17 mission is described here:
http://www.mcchordairmuseum.org/REV%...OUR%20HISTORY%20%20C-17%200168.htm



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

Whatever Connies4ever...or should I call you boy since you refer to me as 'young man'? You have no idea who I am so don't assume. I also never posted my security clearance level so your comment has no relevance to me. Nothing I posted damaged our OPSEC in ANY way so the continued bashing of me is unwarranted. I answered his question straight and to the point and now it seems everyone is trolling here to bash me. Stop it. Thank you.

Quantas767...again, I never posted anything that would damage our OPSEC in ANY way. As an aside, our junior officers are much worse than junior enlisted when it comes to OPSEC breaches. Probably has something to do with the types of people they are letting in the military these days. Matter of fact, my previous commander lost his command of our unit for OPSEC breaches and overstepping his authority. There are many good officers and enlisted folks too, but you know what they say about one bad apple.

-Check


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 2):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
Yes were operating in that area. No you don't need to know why. Sorry I can't say more

Sometimes, it’s just better not to say anything at all to avoid arousing curiosity. Wink

Excellent post, JakeOrion, excellent. Nod and wink.

Check .. you're irritated. Oh, so sad. But, your profile indicates you are between 26 and 35. That makes me old enough to be your father...."Young man" (or lady) I use frequently with new hires and/or students. Gets their attention. Got yours, didn't it ?

As to why USAF is operating anywhere in the world (or CAF for that matter), it _is_ the public's business since civilians are supposed to be in control of the military and be informed about what actions are being done in their name(s). As a 'swivilian', I take great pleasure in revealing interesting factoids like these ones, however minor their importance may be. As the NBC slogan says, "the more you know".

As for me, you can get a taste of what I do at http://www.cathena.aecl.ca ,
some of the site is open to the public.

But let's get back to Military Aviation & Space.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

I'm irritated because of idiots that draw the discussion away from the topic which has happened here for no reason. Civilians have no need to know what specific missions are going on. That itself would violate OPSEC. Civilians most certainly are not supposed to govern the military. They are to govern the law makers and those appointed over the military...ie...the President, SECDEF, Congress...the list goes on. This is a fact.

This thread should be closed and deleted. The answer was given several times and acknowledged by the thread starter. Everone else here has drawn the discussion away for what seems to be personal reasons. I say let it roll off and move on if your offended.

-Check


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 23):
I'm irritated because of idiots that draw the discussion away from the topic which has happened here for no reason. Civilians have no need to know what specific missions are going on. That itself would violate OPSEC. Civilians most certainly are not supposed to govern the military. They are to govern the law makers and those appointed over the military...ie...the President, SECDEF, Congress...the list goes on. This is a fact.

This thread should be closed and deleted. The answer was given several times and acknowledged by the thread starter. Everone else here has drawn the discussion away for what seems to be personal reasons. I say let it roll off and move on if your offended.

I'm neither offended nor irritated, as you seem to be.
I have a suggestion: let's move it to Non-Av.....I'll even start a
thread there for you.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Checksixx : You must not have understood my post...it was the end of the conversation. Trolls like yourself often cannot understand that, so I understand why. Hav
26 Connies4ever : I believe I did understand your post, Check. And I didn't resort to labelling posters as either "idiots" or "trolls". The IMs I've received do not fl
27 Checksixx : Only sent you one IM and it reads... "checksixx 2006-10-07 17:23:12 I went ahead and reported you to the moderator's. You can deal directly with them.
28 Post contains images Gary2880 : accident, sorry fiiiiiiiiiiiiilller[Edited 2006-10-11 00:02:52]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-17 On Google Sat Photo At Ashgabat Turkmenistan
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
YF-23 On Google Earth posted Thu Jun 15 2006 04:54:47 by J.mo
Lancaster Bomber Flying On Google Earth posted Mon Jan 9 2006 18:52:58 by Malaysia
F/A-18's In MSN On Fri/sat posted Sun May 2 2004 19:12:16 by Planespotting
Rcaf Order Status On C-17 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 07:13:19 by ZBBYLW
C-17 At Newport News Airport posted Thu Oct 5 2006 19:11:38 by Checksixx
Unusual Aircraft On Approach At Kdma posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:35:39 by SABE
C-17 At JFK posted Wed Sep 27 2006 18:31:16 by Levg79
Queen's Birthday Flypast - Sat 17 June posted Fri Jun 16 2006 16:47:19 by ZE701
C-17 At FAT 4/12/2006 @ 1630L posted Thu Apr 13 2006 02:27:40 by J.mo
C-17 At SYD. Anyone Know The Reason? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 10:00:08 by Griffs0000
Air Force One At EWR On Sunday 9/04 posted Sat Sep 3 2011 04:59:05 by Alibo5NGN
B-17 Over Chicago On 7/24 posted Mon Jul 25 2011 16:45:53 by Marcus
Five C-17 Globemasters At SFO Today posted Fri Feb 18 2011 19:25:31 by leamside
Usaf C-17 Detained At SAEZ/EZE 2/11/11 posted Fri Feb 11 2011 13:18:39 by LVTMB
C-17 At ORD posted Tue Oct 5 2010 09:23:47 by marcus
Nasa WB-57 Orbiting At FL490 On 9/11 Scares Ppl posted Sun Sep 12 2010 16:14:19 by KDTWflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format