From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #49 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 27 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 049 In this issue: Speculation at Beale AFB Re: Speculation at Beale AFB Re: Edwards AFB Open House Not all the activity is at Beale... Re>Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #47 unsubscribe Re: Not all the activity is at Beale... unsubscribe Re>Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #47 Re: Air Forcs Withdraws Land Adjacent to Groom Lake 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: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:55:35 MDT Subject: Speculation at Beale AFB Talked with an old "Habu" buddy in Calif. He has a friend in the reserves who says there's a lot of activity at Beale now. Planes landing and unloading stuff at the north end (where the B-52's used to be on alert years ago) and then leaving. Also more hanger activity. When pressed by my friend about the usage, he acknowledged it might be for "Aurora." Take that all with a pound of salt. The reservist flies there but is probably not in a position for other than speculative observation. Still it makes sense. Beale has the facilities sitting empty, why *not* use them? Perhaps they'll be ready within two years (when Groom lake is again "open?"). As we used to say, "only the Shadow knows for sure, and he aint telling." (Mary probably knows what that means if they have as many shadow posters there as we did at Beale!). Cheers, and thanks from a "lurker" Ron ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:26:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Speculation at Beale AFB Ron writes: >Talked with an old "Habu" buddy in Calif. He has a friend in the >reserves who says there's a lot of activity at Beale now. Planes >landing and unloading stuff at the north end (where the B-52's used >to be on alert years ago) and then leaving. Also more hanger >activity. > Beale has the facilities >sitting empty, why *not* use them? Perhaps they'll be >ready within two years (when Groom lake is again "open?"). Interesting, thanks for the info Ron. I'm reminded of the March 9, 1992 AW&ST story, about the alleged AURORA operational test at Beale during one week in Feb. 1992. Along with that story, was a published statement from a high ranking Beale officer that indicated that Beale would be getting a new mission within a few years. That would be Feb. 1994 of course. I only offer this as an interesting data point that may or may not explain what is going on there now. >As we used to say, "only the Shadow knows for sure, and he >aint telling." That is the problem isn't it. We all just sit back here and try to put 2 + 2 together. But after all, if there isn't an SR-71 successor, maybe they're the ones who should be in trouble. We could have built something for a short burst in this speed range in the late 60's. Heck we did - X-15A-2!! The speed range that is being talked about is feasible. If there isn't an SR-71 successor, they're missing out on a big opportunity. And I might add that NASP is as well! What opportunity? The opportunity to comvert public fascination with a subject into congressional support for the development of advanced technology. The DC-X folks know how to push a BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Office) program through funding in Congress via garnering grass roots public support for it. I only wish that the DOD and NASP groups knew how to do this as well. I've been trying to start such a pro-NASP thing, based on the DC-X model for awhile now. If only anyone from the NASP NPO would return my calls! The NASP JPO people are helpful, but they're military and they won't tell me who the road blocks in the Senate are (se we can call them). I need the NASP contractors (the NPO people) to tell me that, and every time I call that number, I get the traditional Black Hole phone response (extension 4593 BEEP!). Great PR! Larry ------------------------------ From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSS) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 14:03:50 EDT Subject: Re: Edwards AFB Open House Mary Shafer writes: #It's quite astounding how wrong people can be, and not just about #short-winged U-2s. Overheard at the McGuire AFB show a few years back: "Gee, Dad, is that a Harrier??" "Yes, it's a Harrier." The plane they were referring to was an F-111F. I didn't say a word, but they couldn't figure out why my cousin Jim (now a 2LT USAF) was laughing so hard. Ed Rudnicki erudnick@pica.army.mil All disclaimers apply Member, Amalgamated Association of Morons, Local 6 7/8 - - Moe Howard, President. ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 11:16:38 -0700 Subject: Not all the activity is at Beale... The Goodall Report... 10/26/93 The Land Grab will not merely be for a two year period, as stated... USAF intentions are to hang onto it at least until 2001 or 2. They are merely being careful since they seem to have much opposition to their grabbing habits now... after all, they can always renew the grab every two years till they are done with it, if ever. Makes you wonder just what the heck they _are_ hiding... - -- Cannon AFB at Clovis NM will be losing all it's F-111D's... don't know where the birds will be going, though. Portland residents were told not to worry about them leaving though... USAF plans to spend 23M on the base for improvements. Hmmm.. that could pay for lots of runways and hangars... - -- There appears to be a base at White Sands other than Space Harbor. It appears on aeronautical charts and is south of 380(?) and off 9(?). Don't have a map and his discription over the phone was a tad unclear, at least to me. Supposedly, an Aurora made an emergency landing there. No word as to what might actually be based there, though. - -- The SR-71 at the Museum of Flight may be mislabeled... the one that plowed the furrow at Beale left major damage to the underside of the nose, and was reportedly buried. *I love how they bury the stuff, have they not heard of recycling?* The one at the MOF is probably the one that burned at Edwards... since the nose of that accident bird was relatively intact. Heck, I dunno... I just read the labels. - -- From the Obituaries Desk... Vincent Price succombed to Lung Cancer today. Why here, you ask? You say he's not a pilot? He is the embodiment of all that is mysterious, secretive and scary. And just what _is_ a Raven? A blackbird. Vincent has more to do with the macabre than any one other person, I think. He loved his work, he loved his fans. I watched many of his movies... And so close to Halloween... I'll miss you Vincent. And sadly the Raven whispered, "Nevermore". - --------- SR-75/XR-7 _|_*O*_|_ | Rick Pavek \ __|__ / | HA!! kuryakin@halcyon.com \_______/_(O)_\_______/ | Ruby - \___/---\___/ | Galactic Gumshoe ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dent Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 13:23:06 -0800 Subject: Re>Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #47 Sean Sullivan stated that: >>Once upon a time Mary Shafer shaped the electrons to say... >>>about a month now. Since they're always telling us that these are just >>>regular aircraft with just (highly trained) regular pilots doing regualr >>>maneuvers, I can't understand why they haven't replaced the lead by now. >(stuff deleted) >> >>They may be normal aircraft, and are apart from smoke systems, and they >>are normal, albeit hight experienced, pilots flying normal manuevers. >I know I'm being really picky here but I was under the impression that the >Thunderbirds also used a modified breather element in the oil tank of their >engines (F100-PW-220s) in order to allow for extended inverted flight time. I'm not sure which generation of F-16 aircraft the Thunderbirds are using, but if they are like the Blue Angels, the aircraft are one step from the boneyard. The Blues commonly use aircraft that are no longer flight certified for carrier landings and are therefore not useful for normal military flight ops. The combat-related electronic equipment is pulled for re-use on still operational aircraft as spares and the planes are relegated to training purposes, the Blues, or the boneyard. The Blues of course get first choice on the planes heading for retirement. It seems to me that the engines are also different and the refueling probes are removed for weight savings. The policy a few years back for long distance flights was to carry fuel tanks. That policy was changed in 1990. I don't know if it has since changed back. Since the F/A-18s have such short legs, they had to refuel more often. The wingtip Sidewinderlaunchers used to be old, but still serviceable models that had been given to the Blues. I've heard since then that the launchers are now welded shut, filled with cement for ballast and obviously no longer useable. I visited their training base at Pensacola, Florida in '90. >Did anyone see the recent NATO Science and Society newsletter that suggested >that Lockheed's Skunk Works will serve as the new research paradigm for >US research policy? I deleted my copy by mistake. How can I subscribe to this newsletter? - -Clarence Dent - ------------------------- "I still maintain that nothing is as easy as it should be-cd" ------------------------------ From: maury@tellabs.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 14:10:38 CDT Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 14:43:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Not all the activity is at Beale... >The Goodall Report... 10/26/93 > >The Land Grab will not merely be for a two year period, as stated... >USAF intentions are to hang onto it at least until 2001 or 2. > >They are merely being careful since they seem to have much opposition to >their grabbing habits now... after all, they can always renew the grab >every two years till they are done with it, if ever. Not surprising unfortunately. This weeks Newsweek also has an article in it on the Groom Lake grab (I'm told in the 'periscope' section). No it's not in the issue dated this week. I believe the issue will be dated with next Monday's date. There is no time limit indicated in that piece on the land grab either. >Cannon AFB at Clovis NM will be losing all it's F-111D's... don't know >where the birds will be going, though. Portland residents were told >not to worry about them leaving though... USAF plans to spend 23M >on the base for improvements. > >Hmmm.. that could pay for lots of runways and hangars... They were ALSO told that they will have a new mission in 2 years. Similar to the Beale folks. This is interesting. I wonder if it has anything to do with those 2 Varks seen with the delta planform over the North Sea? This weeks AW&ST has a short blurb on Cannon as well. If I recall it indicates a successor for the F-111 is being found, or looked for. You see, these days, airplanes just pop out of the quantum foam. >There appears to be a base at White Sands other than Space Harbor. >It appears on aeronautical charts and is south of 380(?) and off >9(?). Don't have a map and his discription over the phone was a >tad unclear, at least to me. > >Supposedly, an Aurora made an emergency landing there. No word as >to what might actually be based there, though. Be careful with this one. It might have been staged and therefore bogus. The complete story on it will come out shortly, I hope. Larry ------------------------------ From: maury@tellabs.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 14:10:38 CDT Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dent Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 13:23:06 -0800 Subject: Re>Re: Skunk Works Digest V4 #47 Sean Sullivan stated that: >>Once upon a time Mary Shafer shaped the electrons to say... >>>about a month now. Since they're always telling us that these are just >>>regular aircraft with just (highly trained) regular pilots doing regualr >>>maneuvers, I can't understand why they haven't replaced the lead by now. >(stuff deleted) >> >>They may be normal aircraft, and are apart from smoke systems, and they >>are normal, albeit hight experienced, pilots flying normal manuevers. >I know I'm being really picky here but I was under the impression that the >Thunderbirds also used a modified breather element in the oil tank of their >engines (F100-PW-220s) in order to allow for extended inverted flight time. I'm not sure which generation of F-16 aircraft the Thunderbirds are using, but if they are like the Blue Angels, the aircraft are one step from the boneyard. The Blues commonly use aircraft that are no longer flight certified for carrier landings and are therefore not useful for normal military flight ops. The combat-related electronic equipment is pulled for re-use on still operational aircraft as spares and the planes are relegated to training purposes, the Blues, or the boneyard. The Blues of course get first choice on the planes heading for retirement. It seems to me that the engines are also different and the refueling probes are removed for weight savings. The policy a few years back for long distance flights was to carry fuel tanks. That policy was changed in 1990. I don't know if it has since changed back. Since the F/A-18s have such short legs, they had to refuel more often. The wingtip Sidewinderlaunchers used to be old, but still serviceable models that had been given to the Blues. I've heard since then that the launchers are now welded shut, filled with cement for ballast and obviously no longer useable. I visited their training base at Pensacola, Florida in '90. >Did anyone see the recent NATO Science and Society newsletter that suggested >that Lockheed's Skunk Works will serve as the new research paradigm for >US research policy? I deleted my copy by mistake. How can I subscribe to this newsletter? - -Clarence Dent - ------------------------- "I still maintain that nothing is as easy as it should be-cd" ------------------------------ From: Paul Rak Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 2:26:36 CDT Subject: Re: Air Forcs Withdraws Land Adjacent to Groom Lake > Well I guess it's official. > > The air Force will "withdraw" an additional 3900 acres of public > land adjacent to the test facility at Groom lake for 2 years (Federal > Register, 10/18/93, page 53745). In Aerospace Daily's (10/21/93) coverage of this "event" it was mentioned that Groom Lake is believed to be the home of the USAF's "Red Stable" of Soviet-built aircraft that have been acquired over time. Though I wouldn't expect the Air Force to come out and publish a complete listing of the inventory, I am curious if anyone can share any details they have, for the types and/or quantities, and if there are other than Soviet-built (such as the Chinese-built MiGs) aircraft in the stable. Thanks, pjr ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #49 ******************************** 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).