From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #38 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 16 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 038 In this issue: Dryden Family Day Re: Dryden Family Day Re: Aurora (?)/Joshua Aurora Bib. Part 1 Aurora Bib. Part 2 Re: Dryden Family Day Defense Support Program Office Re: DSP See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 12:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Dryden Family Day I've had a couple of inquiries about a Dryden Family Day this year. I'm sorry to telly you that it looks like we won't have one this year. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: naa2254@dsacam.dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 14:03:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Dryden Family Day In reply to the mail from ... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I've had a couple of inquiries about a Dryden Family Day this year. I'm > sorry to telly you that it looks like we won't have one this year. Gawsh, Mary!!! I guess I'll have to hold off another year before asking you to adopt me! ;-) Tom Ohmer, Computer Specialist, DSAC-AAA 1 614 692 8059 DLA Systems Automation Center, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 tohmer@dsac.dla.mil ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer "Sorry, we're closed." -- Sam Malone ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 11:46:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Aurora (?)/Joshua Well Joshua, I'll bet you never thought your question would provoke so much activity! Anyway, I've received over 30 requests now for the verbose Aurora bib. (it's not a FAQ). I sent about 10 out yesterday, but late last night, after reviewing it, I added more detail and a few more articles. I believe this bib is now highly significant to people interested in the truth on this subject. It definitely (or its contents) deserve a discussion. Since the bib. is now over 15000 bytes in size I intend to send it out in two pieces. The story it tells is this: There was or maybe still is at least 2 very classified aircraft out there. There was a U-2/TR-1 follow on that was planned, and of course, based mostly on independent sighting reports, the XB-70 similar aircraft. Also there are is good indication that our satellites cannot replace the SR-71, as stated in the SR-71's retirement. In fact this is stated and implied by the programs acknowledged in these stories, and summarized in the bib.. It is also stated that a SR-71 replacement is desired, from the acknowledged attempts to replace it. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 11:55:02 -0700 Subject: Aurora Bib. Part 1 Paul Michael Keller and Larry Smith put this Aurora Bib. together. Aurora Bib. Part 1. Feb.. 4, 1985: "Procurement Programs (P-1); Department of Defense Budget For Fiscal Year 1986; February 4, 1985" Exhibit P-1; "Strategic Reconnaissance" Section; "Other Aircraft" Category. Line No. 28: Aurora Ident Code: B No Procurement (dollars) in FY 1984 No Procurement in FY 1985 In 1986: No number under 'quantity' but 80.1 million dollars under 'cost'. In 1987: No number under 'quantity' but 2,272.4 million dollars under 'cost'. Line Nos. 29 and 30 are both TR-1/U-2 Procurements with aircraft quantities written in under the 'quantity' columns. Oct., 1986: in a speech to the First High Speed Commercial Flight Symposium, held at Columbus, Ohio. I quote Ben Rich, from the Proceedings of this conference, without permission: "Because of Lockheed's continuing interest in high speed flight, we have over the past decade, conducted a number of studies in support of the USAF and NASA's hypersonic initiatives. One of these efforts is a high altitude Mach 5 penetrator using a dual flow inlet turboramjet. Two of the inlet/engine concepts are an over/under and a wraparound concept. This engine would utilize kerosene fuel for Mach 4 flight but would require liquified methane at Mach 5." Early 1988: New York Times. The first 'article' from an inside source that we are developing something for the Mach 5 regime (I have a copy of this article - but the person who sent it to me neglected to date it). It WAS mentioned in a later article. I'd be willing to copy it for the group here. The NY Times source indicated that the USAF has been working on this capability for some time. Contrast this with what Generals Dugan and Randolph say below in Defense News, 4/24/89. Los Angeles Times Jan 14, 1988 (I have not seen this but I've seen it referenced). Maybe a duplicate of the NY Times article. Nov. 1988 Popular Science cover story: The first 'noticed' introduction to the general public of the 'waverider', and it's application to an 'Aurora'-like mission. Good hypersonic sources were quoted. And the cover story vehicle was an actual optimized Mach 5 design. The thesis of a C-5 launched 'Aurora' actually was a possible reference to possible C-130 based Lockheed model drop tests conducted earlier and also the launch out-the-back of a C-5 in the late 70's or 80's (I have a picture of this somewhere with a good date) of a miniteman ICBM. Of course, the Aurora C-5 launch story-concept was fun but silly. BUT! It may have been a hint from an inside source of what we now suspect the B-70-like aircraft is for. Armed Forces Journal International, Jan. 1988, pg. 40: "Is Lockheed Building A Super-Stealth Replacement for USAF's Mach 3 SR-71?" This article tracks Lockheed spending and the dollar ammounts in classified aircraft program categories. It mentions F-117 Nighthawk as the designation of the Lockheed Stealth Fighter BEFORE the F-117A was announced! Defense News, 4/24/89, pg 4: "AF Pushes for New Stealthy Spy Vehicle; Blackbird Replacement Is a Decade Away". A replacement for the Air Force's U-2 and TR-1 spy planes is likely to be fielded for SAC long before a follow-on to the SR-71. General Michael Dugan, former Deputy Chief of Staff for plans and operations, says "We're looking at U-2-like capabilities ... but they're expensive". According to Gen. Dugan, the new platform would be small and stealthy bu extremely expensive to operate and maintain. Gen. Bernard Randolph. commander Air Force Systems Command told Defense News that his command is involved in efforts pertaining to a possible unmanned strategic reconnaissance vehicle. Service and congressional sources indicate that secret USAF development of secret strategic reconnaissance vehicles has focused on unmanned platforms. Gen. Dugan stressed that ongoing USAF research in strategic reconnaissance has not included a replacement to SAC's fleet of SR-71s, slated for deactivation in October. Gen. Randolph, Referring specifically to a SR-71 replacement, insisted that all efforts are currently relegated to very early stages of discussion. According to congressional intelligence sources as well as government intelligence agencies, an SR-71 replacement is almost 10 years away. I do believe that Gen. Randolph said something different from Gen Dugan here! Aviation Week (AW&ST) Dec. 18, 1989, pp. 42-43, A VISTA issue, discussion of 'pulser' sightings and of possible Mach 6 aircraft program named 'Aurora.' This is the first AW&ST reference to Aurora. This is also the first AW&ST report of the 'pulser'. It also displayed a drawing of the shoulder patch of a secret former Lockheed program known as UAB. The patch showed a Blackbird planform with a crossed-out pilot figure in the center. AW&ST, Jan. 8, 1990, p. 74, letter to the editor reporting alleged sighting of a Mach 6 aircraft off California Coast. AW&ST, Jan. 22, 1990, cover story: "SR-71 Operational Assignment Ends". Nice article on the carreer of the Lockheed Mach 3+ Blackbirds. However there was mention of the following regarding a possible new system: The Senate Armed Services Committee was supporting [the continued funding] of thw SR-71 program, but the House Armed Services Committee wanted to phase it out and proceed with a classified airborne reconnaissance program. The two committees could not agree when meeting in conference for the authorization bill, and so decided to cancel both programs. The classified program was in the early stages of development at best, and would not be available for years, if at all. (see Defense News 4/24/89 above, and Defense News, July 29, 1991 below and Aerospace Daily, January 13, 1993 below) Defense News 6/18/90: interview of Gen. Larry Welch (then USAF Chief of Staff - now retired) (pg 40). Quoting General Welch: "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate for the SR-71 mission". Defense News 6/25/90: (pg 38), the subject is recon. vehicles during an interview with Ben Rich. Rich: "You need satellites and airplanes. Airplanes are much more flexible than satellites. You cannot do one exclusively of the other. So there will be airplanes needed for surveillance - they do not all have to be manned - ...". Defense News: How can the SR-71 contibute to technologies and designs needed for a new spy plane? Rich: "Besides aerodynamics, we have to have thermodynamic balance, and we have to learn to deal with cryogenics. Any new system requires LOTS of volume. You CANNOT replace hydrogen in air, ... Today we CAN DO anything we can afford. If WE WANT to go to anywhere about Mach 6 or Mach 8 we need hydrogen. If you want to stay under Mach 4, you will need hydrocarbon". In this interview, Rich went on to deny any knowledge about "Aurora", but said "there are a whole bunch of programs out there". He implied that the Skunk Works is working on "sensor" programs. Interesting negation of mid-air refuelling with hydrogen. The 3/93 Popular Science story disagrees with it. AW&ST, Oct. 1, 1990, pp. 20-23, two articles dealing with technology and possible sightings of 'black' aircraft, with artist's conceptions. The phraseology of this article is quite interesting. Interavia Aerospace Review, Nov. 1990: There was supposed to be a Bill Sweetman piece entitled: "The Aurora Enigma", to be published in the Nov., 90 issue of Interavia Aerospace Review. AW&ST, Dec. 24, 1990, pp. 41-43, a VISTA issue, article on advanced air- craft technology. The diamond shaped AURORA concept was introduced in this piece. I have just heard in 10/93, that Some black aircraft watching authorities now think that the vehicle that may be carried on the back of the XB-70 similar aircraft, is a similar shape - a pumpkin seed shape. See shape drawn in Oct 1, 1990 AW&ST above. Defense News, July 29, 1991, pg 11: "Panel Seeks End to Secret Spy System". Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has recommended cancellation of a secret airborne spy system, developed under the highly classified Airborne Reconnaissance Support Program (ARSP). Congressional staffers declined to describe the new airborne reconnaissance system rejected by the panel. The new system is a highly classified aircraft. The ARSP's program element number shows that the spy aircraft has passed the research and development phase. Among the aircraft managed under ARSP are the U-2 and TR-1 systems. The article mentioned a SIGINT system named SENIOR SMART also managed by ARSP. The article mentioned that an effort to transfer ARSP's assets to the General Defense Intelligence Program was recommended by SASC. AW&ST, October 28, 1991, pp. 68-69, article on pulse detonation engine engine technology (possible Aurora propulsion). AW&ST, Nov. 11, 1991, pp. p. 15, News Breaks Dep't, short report on accoustic/seismic tracking of two high speed aircraft at mach 3 over coastal S. California. - -- End of part 1 of 2 parts. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 11:55:23 -0700 Subject: Aurora Bib. Part 2 Aurora Bib. Part 2 of 2 parts. Popular Mechanics, December 1991: Cover story (cover was the TR-3 but Aurora was discussed inside the article). The Scotsman; Feb. 18, 1992: "Hot on the Trail of America's Biggest Flying Secret". Reports of a ~ Mach 3 aircraft seen on RAF ATC radar emerging from the joint NATO-RAF station at Machrihanish Scotland during November 1991. Ben Rich tells Janes Defense Weekly "There is a need for some vehicle - I didn't say SR-71 - to complement the satellites. I won't tell you what it is, but there is a need." Jane's Defence Weekly (JDW), Feb. 29, 1992, report of RAF ATC radar tracking an aircraft departing RAF-NATO Machrihanish, Scotland at mach 3. AW&ST, March 9, 1992, pp. 66-67, report of sighting of possible 'black' aircraft near Beale AFB, Calif. An interesting possible 'Aurora' operations test at Beale AFB in the end of Feb. 92? AW&ST, May 11, 1992, pp. 62-63, Photographs of 'donuts-on-a-rope' contrails that were made by a loud and very fast pulsed sound aircraft as it flew over Amarillo Texas. AW&ST, July 6, 1992, p. 13, Industry Observer Dep't, more reports of sightings of 'donuts-on-a-rope' contrails. AW&ST, July 20, 1992, p. 13, Industry Observer Dep't, report on 'impulse motors,' another possible Aurora propulsion mechanism. This engine is believed to be a combined cycle engine composed of airbreathing and rocket cycles. Flight International, July 22-28, report of possible magnitude of Lockheed Advanced Development Company's (aka Skunk Works) revenues derived from 'black' programs. AW&ST, Aug. 24, 1992, pp. 23-25, report and technical analysis of XB-70-like aircraft sightings in Edwards AFB area. Includes artist's conception of aircraft. This issue also contains on p. 24 a widely-quoted report of a near-collision of a UAL 747 with a mysterious supersonic aircraft. Also a story of an observed late night 1/91 rollout, at Lockheed Burbank, of a SR-71 like nose section (perhaps the XB-70's nose section). The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 4, 1992, p. B6 (Midwestern Edition), summary of to-be-published JDW article on possible 1989 sighting over UK North Sea waters. Includes artist's conception diagrams. Janes Defense Week V18 No24-25; December 12, 1992: "The Aurora File" This piece talked about the Chris Gibson sighting of a 75 degree swept delta shaped planform over the North Sea. This design is tied into past hypersonic studies at McDonnell Douglas. Sweetman also believes that AURORA's propulsion cycle is a airbreathing rocket + ramjet combined cycle plant. (See 7/20/92 AW&ST) Washington Post Dec. 1992: This one caused a steamy response from then Air Force Secretary Donald Rice. This article's foundation was the JDW 12/12/92 article, but it was a different article written for the Washington crowd. Less technical detail, more about the "Black" world and how funding for black projects seems to violate the spirit of democracy. Aerospace Daily, January 13, 1993: This article was a classic 'debunking' of a hypersonic AURORA in the complete spirit of UFO debunking from the 50's on. This article appeared to be part of the fallout over the Sweetman Washington Post 12/92 article. However there was 'useful' information in this article. The article for the first time indicated that the USAF gave up on a 1980s attempt to develop a follow-on to the SR-71. The technology was out of reach according to Pentagon and industry sources. The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71 in the 1990 timeframe, was being developed at least in part by Lockheed's Advanced Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank, Calif., but was canceled about 1986, sources said. The aircraft, of which only drawings and small models were made, was to have been capable of sustained speeds of about Mach 4-5 with an intercontinental range. It would have been a large aircraft, about the size of the B-1B bomber, with a long, tapered fuselage. The USAF indicated that an aircraft could be more responsive than a satellite if imagery was needed of a location faster than a satellite could be positioned over it. This argument "still holds", a Pentagon source said. (See above what Ben Rich has said and also Generals Dugan and Randolph above). "Let me put it this way," an ex-Pentagon official said. "Many of the same people working on NASP (also) tried to make this thing work. While the hypersonic "Aurora" is not a reality, sources and independent evidence suggest that the AF may indeed operate secret aircraft unfamiliar to the general public. The Pentagon revealed the existence of one of these aircraft in a synopsis of a classified Inspector General audit released last year. The IG is required to summarize audits that it isn't permitted to publish. The audit, labeled simply "Report No. 92-110 - Top Secret," was ordered "to determine if the Program was responsive to contingency requirements and to evaluate the overall management of the peacetime program." The synopsis described "the Program" as needing "improvements ... in procedures for transitioning from peacetime (to wartime) operations and for approving peacetime reconnaissance flights." In addition, it said that "the Air Force budget for one aircraft type was overstated by $14.4 million for the six-year period ending in FY 1997." Pressed repeatedly to explain this secret aircraft, since it would, at first glance, suggest an "Aurora," a Pentagon official would only advise the questioner to "think lower-tech." March 1993 Popular Science cover story: A synopsis of the Sweetman and AW&ST stories. Nice artwork of the Sweetman + McDonnell Douglas influenced hypersonic design. July 15, 1993: Bill Sweetman publishes an interesting book on AURORA entitled "Aurora - The Pentagon's Secret Hypersonic Spyplane" through Zenith Books (1-800-826-6600). Sept, 1993: Testors a plastic scale model aircraft company, releases 3 AURORA models: TS0567 XR-7 Thunder Dart (Expected in early Nov/93) TS0568 SR-75 Penetrator (Mother Ship) (Expected in early Nov/93) TS4078 SR-75 Penetrator (In Flight Model) (Released in Sept/93) They also reproduce two satellite photos taken right over Groom Lake, 20 years apart (1968, 1988), on the model instruction sheet. This shows two things. The location exists and it has been developed quite a bit since 1968. The SR-75 shape is very close to the shape in the Aug. 24, 1992 AW&ST mentioned above. Insiders have mentioned: "that's it" and "that is much closer than the F-19 model was". - -- End of part 2 of 2 parts. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 15:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Dryden Family Day On Fri, 15 Oct 1993, Tom Ohmer wrote: > Gawsh, Mary!!! I guess I'll have to hold off another year before asking > you to adopt me! ;-) I just tell people I have a _lot_ of cousins. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: Christopher Paul Diehl Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 23:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Defense Support Program Office Hi Everyone, This evening I was catching up on my reading and I came across an interesting little tidbit in an article entitled "USAF Stresses UAVs for Recon" in the September 27, 1993 issue of AvWeek. The quote that caught my attention is the following: "[Defense Support Program Office] sets requirements for Defense Department and CIA satellites and manages advanced airborne reconnaissance systems such as classifed, 'unmanned SR-71 follow-ons' and the now-canceled Amber and Condor long-endurance UAVs, Defense and industry officials said." The reason this caught my attention was because of the possibility that this explains why all the services, the NRO etc. were saying that they had no such program for an SR-71 follow-on. Maybe they were telling the truth. Maybe what they all were trying to say is the above. Does anyone know where the DSPO fits in the overall scheme of things? Who do they report to? Chris Diehl ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 00:55:53 MDT Subject: Re: DSP Christopher Paul Diehl says... >This evening I was catching up on my reading and I came across an >interesting little tidbit in an article entitled "USAF Stresses UAVs for >Recon" in the September 27, 1993 issue of AvWeek. The quote that caught >my attention is the following: >"[Defense Support Program Office] sets requirements for Defense >Department and CIA satellites and manages advanced airborne >reconnaissance systems such as classifed, 'unmanned SR-71 follow-ons' >and the now-canceled Amber and Condor long-endurance UAVs, Defense and >industry officials said." Another interesting UAV/recon item in AWST recently was a story about some 100ft/200ft electric motor powered "flying wing" UAVs. The article has a photo of one slated for testing out at Dryden shortly, but they also mention there had been some classified flight tests done with these vehicles in the early 80s. This might possibly have been responsible for some of the "giant, silent, flying wing UFO" reports from a while back... >The reason this caught my attention was because of the possibility that >this explains why all the services, the NRO etc. were saying that they >had no such program for an SR-71 follow-on. Maybe they were telling the >truth. Maybe what they all were trying to say is the above. Does >anyone know where the DSPO fits in the overall scheme of things? One of the main jobs for DSPO is the missile early warning and nuclear blast detection business. NORAD is naturally one of their main customers. The primary system they use for this is a fleet of DSP satellites, located in geostationary orbit. These birds have a large infrared telescope to spot missile launches, and an array of sensors for nuclear detection. There is also a Defense Support Program Follow-On satellite system currently on the drawing board... Something else that could tie-in DSPO is that "Aurora" supposedly can carry an instrument package capable of detecting nuclear warheads. - -dean ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #38 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).