From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #41 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 19 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 041 In this issue: Long Endurance - SR-71 mission? Classified Aircraft and UFOs Re: Classified Aircraft and UFOs AURORA Spin Doctoring 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 13:32:51 -0700 Subject: Long Endurance - SR-71 mission? Christopher Paul Diehl writes: >>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." You obviously are a little ahead of me in my reading. The little blurb back in the Sept 13, 93 issue, that mentioned 'an unmanned SR-71 follow-on' ie: the GNAT 750, also is applicable. Thanks to Randy Gresham and George Allegrezza for bringing that to our attention. Special thanks to Dr. Pope for the explanation of what the GNAT 750 was! By the way, this whole application of the term 'SR-71 follow-on' to long endurance UAV(s) is a misnomer. I currently don't know who is responsible for this misnomer, but lets set the record straight! I can't explain this any better than General Michael Dugan, former USAF deputy chief of staff for plans and operations. In the April 24, 1989 Defense News article which interviewed him and General Bernard Randolph regarding new USAF Strategic Spy Vehicles, Gen. Dugan compared the mission of a long endurance vehicle and an SR-71 vehicle: The USAF requires 3 types of strategic reconnaissance, according to Dugan (back in 1989). A platform that can hover for extended periods at high altitudes. Surgical strike platforms in which high-speed stealthy vehicles are employed with other military operations for immediate surveillance. Cyclical reconnaissance performed by satellites. He said, and I quote: "The things we're looking at don't perform in the way an SR-71 does. There are drones that do a kind of mission [that requires high altitude surveillance over an extended period of time] ... You won't capture a great deal of geography; they have different characteristics. [So], if you're thinking of looking at something that resembles the SR-71, forget it ... That kind of vehicle, absent the SR-71, is not on the horizon." So, an SR-71 type platform is different and it allows one to cover a lot of geography quickly. Perhaps the second item in the list above includes the SR-71 mission. It depends how one reads it. So you have Gen. Dugan saying long endurance vehicles ARE NOT SR-71 follow- ons, and someone (it's unknown who) saying today that long endurance vehicles ARE SR-71 follow-ons. You can't have it both ways! Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 14:31:13 -0700 Subject: Classified Aircraft and UFOs Dean Adams responds: >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... It's easy to say that word 'some' Dean, but I think we need to clarify when such a thing MIGHT be true. This type of thing is not being done, probably because the UFO ridicule factor says we sweep these things under the rug. But, if you're attempting to track classified aircraft, you need to be able to discern and categorize such things more precisely. That's why I really believe that such an endeavor requires one to be knowledgeable about both! So let me attempt a start. General Michael Dugan, in the often quoted (by me lately) April 24, 1989 Defense News article, mentioned that the mission requirement of long endurance surveillance aircraft was 'A platform that can hover for extended periods at high altitudes.' Since we're talking about high altitude, and stealth, and about a program that is still classified, I don't see the tie-in in all cases. I realize you said 'some' cases. But in an attempt to clarify: In my opinion, the security restrictions on classified aircraft alone, preclude the most spectacular sightings of these large UFOs being classified military vehicles. Many of these spectacular sightings occurred over many nights, and at VERY close range. I suppose you could be right that 'some' of these long endurance aircraft could have been sighted during testing, and mistaken for UFOs, but I would suggest that such sightings should place the subject aircraft in a situation consistent with program mission requirements and security rules. If the most spectacular of these UFO sightings was indeed a classified long duration vehicle, would such a ruse, if intentional, work during a conflict? Christopher Paul Diehl wrote: >>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. Well as the Aurora Bib. says, there WAS such a program! And, some high ranking officers indicated that was so! It's important to remember that because it says that the system IS needed! Going over some of the references again: The source for the early 1988 NY Times article indicated that this type of capability (Mach 5 reconnaissance aircraft) had been on the drawing board for some time. Gen. Randolph (4/24/89), Referring specifically to a SR-71 replacement, insisted that all efforts are currently relegated to very early stages of discussion. General Welch (8/18/90): "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate for the SR-71 mission". In the 1/13/93 Aerospace Daily, the USAF debunked the reported AURORA by saying: 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. Sorry to nit-pick, but there is so little that has actually been admitted about an SR-71 successor, that we should't forget it. Larry ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 23:57:33 MDT Subject: Re: Classified Aircraft and UFOs Larry says... >It's easy to say that word 'some' Dean, but I think we need to clarify when >such a thing MIGHT be true. This type of thing is not being done, probably >because the UFO ridicule factor says we sweep these things under the rug. OK, just a short bit of my own "clarification" :), a particular "some" I had in mind when writing that previous note is a sighting mentioned in (I think) the Popular Mechanics cover story, about a "large, silent, flying wing" seen around the Edwards area... ... >General Welch (8/18/90): "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate > for the SR-71 mission". And if that was a true statement, then there would likely be a "better" follow-on vehicle operating performing the mission! >In the 1/13/93 Aerospace Daily, the USAF debunked the reported AURORA by >saying: The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71 in >the 1990 timeframe, Which "coincidentally" is precisely when the SR-71 was retired... >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. Hmmm... just like the A-11 was "canceled", and became the A-12? :) Or perhaps something was canceled in BURBANK, and moved out to Palmdale and Groom Lake? >Sorry to nit-pick, but there is so little that has actually been >admitted about an SR-71 successor, that we should't forget it. Even just the retiring of the SR-71s alone says a lot about the existance of a "successor". And I certainly agree 100% that these high-altitude, lightweight, "loitering" UAVs are definitley not successors to the SR-71.. at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. - -dean ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 23:21:03 -0700 Subject: AURORA Spin Doctoring Larry Smith wrote: >>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. Dean Adams responded: >Hmmm... just like the A-11 was "canceled", and became the A-12? :) >Or perhaps something was canceled in BURBANK, and moved out to >Palmdale and Groom Lake? What I also like about this is that in the Jan. 13 1993 Aerospace Daily the 'sources' (spin doctors) said the SR-71 follow-on program was cancelled around 1986, but on April 1989, in Defense News General Randolph referring specifically to a SR-71 replacement, insisted that all efforts are currently relegated to very early stages of discussion. So the program was cancelled in 1986 but was in the early stages of discussion in 1989, per official sources. Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #41 ******************************** 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).