From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #77 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, 30 November 1993 Volume 04 : Number 077 In this issue: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? About the landgrab French stealth planes ? French stealth planes ? Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Re: What's wrong with the land grab? 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: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 01:41:42 -0800 Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Gavin Adams says... >Is this a bad thing? I, for one, think that the Air Force has the right >to ask for the land if they feel that this would enhance their security >at the Groom Lake site. The problem is that all it really does is enhance their ability to keep U.S. citizens/taxpayers in the dark. Rick says... >Any time the government hides its actions from public view, no matter the >reason or the rationale, it has the opportunity to abuse the trust that we, >the people, place in its hands. And unfortunately that has been proven all too many times in the past. >There are suspicions that some of the projects currently under development >abeing done so outside of Congressional oversight, and outside normal, >approved methods. It seems to me that much of what has been going on at Groom Lake is made up of special access and/or "waived" programs... all of which can be considerably removed from the majority of democratic "oversight". >I feel we have the right to see what is at Groom Lake. How about starting with the right to even be told it EXISTS! :-> tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) says... > The government has a duty to protect the nation. A good part of > that protection stems with the Department of Defense, and for various > reasons, certain DOD assets need to remain as secret as possible from all > people without the need to know. There are plenty of good reasons for secrecy, especially when it comes to issues like technical details, operations and methods data, etc. etc. But it is just plain silly to keep Groom Lake ITSELF "secret", and to annex a whole mountain in order to try and keep the facade alive today. > I certainly would love to see the neat stuff at 'Dreamland,' but I > also relize & support the fact that certain assets can lose their > effectiveness once they become known. How about when the only people being kept from "knowing" are U.S. citizens? > Would the U-2 program have been so successful, if a bunch of >'skunk-works' nerds (myself included) had been tramping around Groom >back in the 1950s? Well, as much as we may like it, I don't think anyone here is demanding a "grand tour" of the place... we'd just like to see this issue of secrecy dealt with a little more realistically. Especially now. > If they're going to spend X million dollars trying to protect the > operational security of a particular project, Make that X *BILLION* dollars... exactly how much we may never know, since of course those are all very BLACK funds. > they have the duty to spend an additional Y million dollars > to improve the security, when possible loopholes are found. Thats another thing... they just now found out about this "loophole"? What about the fact that we WON the cold war? Shouldn't they have been more concerned with such "loopholes" back when there were KGB agents behind every rock? Now days the KGB is selling their files to ABC and NBC news, just to try and stay in business. The Russian Air Force now sells rides in MiGs, to help pay their fuel bills. WHO are they trying to keep these loopholes from NOW? US it seems. >The philosophy that 'we must oversee the government' is a bunch >of crap. Who appointed Rick Pavek to do that? heh, heh. I think its something called the Constitution. :> >The assumption that other countries have satellite imagery >of Groom Lake means nothing. Its no assumption, and it means a LOT. The USSR probably knew just about everything there was to know about Groom Lake, a long time ago. I think its a pretty sad situation when the only way for a U.S. citizen to see where countless Billions of their tax dollars have been spent over the past 40 years is to buy a RUSSIAN satellite photo! >Should we be able to buy KH-11 manuals at Border's or Waldenbooks, >just because we have evidence suggesting that the Russians >already have a copy? NO, but how about openly admitting they EXIST (and how much they COST). > That is always a risk that the government runs in testing & developing > 'black' projects, & the USAF is doing its best to mitigate that risk > by buying up the parcel of land. What "risk" are you referring to? One major risk of such programs is building up HUGE budget overruns, due to the fact that there may not be proper oversight or direction involved. Perhaps with a little less "secrecy", the GD A-12 program might have survived? Instead, it exploded out of the black and was canceled. The B-2 also came close to that, but *SO* much black money was spent it was too big to cancel. Those seem to be the only risks they are trying to "mitigate". By just about every indicator (including the GAO's), the 1980s were marked by a bastion of OVER classification and an explosive growth of the black budget. Much done for the specific purpose of avoiding sanctioned congressional oversight. We are no longer fighting a cold war with the USSR, but it sure seems like some factions in our government are still trying to fight one with US. My point is that I think there is a lot of room for "reform" today. Annexing MORE land around Groom Lake is an example of the exact *opposite* mentality, and something totally out of place as far as i'm concerned. What they should be doing INSTEAD is producing a highly-sanitized "this is Groom Lake" media release, and attempt to satisfy some of the curiosity that has been making people climb that mountain in the first place. - -dean ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 12:49:42 +0100 Subject: About the landgrab Hi! I talk to someone last night (Ok leser du dette??) about the landgrab and some of the reasons. There seems to be no reason to keep the people furter away from any "rumored" airplane than a couple of feets. The reason for this is that the russian inspector can say "We have reson to belive that this airplane exist, and we will inspect it under blah, blah, blah to verify if it have military purposes." I dont remember the actual paragraphs. To not respond to this, or deny it and if it later pops up, is *very* serious. Such an inspection is about the capability of the airplane as it can be seen from outside of the plane. There should be possible to get the correct paragraphs if necessary, I think its covered under CFE. With reference to CFE most bases of military interest can be inspected, that is any area accesible tru doors wider then 2 meter. If Aurora exist (I dont know) it is very unlikely it stays in a hangar with doors of this size. One interesting point is that an inspection might be classified of both parts. So even if KGB knows it all, and the NSA/CIA/USAF/NRO knows the russian knows because they follow them on the inspection, there is not much chance you guys will know about it. The main reason is simple, the community shall not know what the money goes into. John No one is responsible for this, not even myself. Sorry for the grammer. Okey, I gess NSA knew my shoesize now.. ------------------------------ From: PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 15:59:25 MET Subject: French stealth planes ? According to rumors coming from the U.S.A., France recently admitted to have its own stealth programs. I tried to check that in more or less specialized reviews and could find only a couple of articles: 1) In the weekly _Air&Cosmos_ (our little _AW&ST_), 14-20 June 1993, the article "L'ONERA expose son savoir faire en terme de furtivite", by Christian Tardif (p. 29). It is said that 40 people work on that stuff. They use two different experimental methods for measurements: - - they put a radar and a model inside an anechoid chamber, and they measure the RCS of this model; - - they use also infrared thermography. 2) Rather surprisingly, in the library of the Ecole Polytechnique, anybody can freely read and xerox _Chocs, Revue scientifique et technique de la Direction des applications militaires_. This is a review made by this part of our "Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique" which builds and tests nuclear weapons. I found articles about stealth, but it seems that they are interested only in stealth nuclear warheads: - - "Materiaux pour la furtivite", December 1992 (pages 14-29); - - Four articles about hyperfrequence measurement of stealthiness, September 1993 (pages 49-74). Contrary to these U.S. rumors, it does not seem that we have operational or prototype stealth planes, which would have been tested over France or neighbouring countries. But maybe you Americans know more about our own black programs, owing to Aurora and/or your fantastic spy satellites ? Any information ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 17:18:53 +0100 Subject: French stealth planes ? Hi! What rumors?? I gess a project with 40 people is a small project, but if they all work with stealth tech.. Can it be a stealth-version of Rafaele(sp??). I know there is a stealth sub-muntion dispenser made in France or Italy, that is also developed in a cruisemissile configuration. It looks like the Teldyne UAV with a more square nosecone if I dont remember wrong. Perhaps I do and just inserting more rumors! John ------------------------------ From: steveje@redeye.wv.tek.com Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 11:13:38 -0800 Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? > From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.COM (Doug Tiffany) writes: > Everybody wants to see the deficit go down.... > but nobody wants to pay taxes. > > Everybody wants to put their trash out by the curb.... > but nobody wants to live by a landfill. > > Everybody wants to go to heaven.... > but nobody wants to die. > Everybody wants us to have the latest technology.... > but nobody will let it be developed. > > > I agree totally....be patient, we'll hear about it. > > I have to agree also... In the final analysis--- we have to wait to see. Steve Jensen =========================================== E-Mail: steveje@pogo.wv.tek.com US Mail: Stephen P. Jensen Graphics Printing & Imaging Division Tektronix, Inc. P.O. Box 1000, M/S 63-424 Wilsonville, OR 97070 ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 18:42:23 -0800 Subject: Re: What's wrong with the land grab? Rick writes: >> ... >> I feel we have the right to see what is at Groom Lake. >> ... Tim Tyler responds: > ... > The philosophy that 'we must oversee the government' is a bunch of >crap. Who appointed Rick Pavek to do that? Boy Tim! You've got to be kidding! Rick appointed Rick to do that! That is his right. It's an American tradition. It goes way back to some people with a certain government problem! Kind of a similar problem maybe to the way our money can go into a black hole these days! Never thought about it that way before! > I suppose that if I get pulled over for driving down the freeway at >120MPH, I'll tell the officer that I was just doing my civic duty, >overseeing their effectivness in traffic enforcement. The cop will then >think of me as a model citizen & let me go. Bad example! Rick has never broken the law in his pursuit of information about black projects. The enthusiasts down in the Groom area, with a few unusual exceptions (the ones I know about weren't 'enthusiasts'), have not penetrated the restricted area. They have not broken any law. That's the problem the security guys are having! The reason for the land grab! These outlooks were ALWAYS there!!!! Even during the cold war!!!! In public land!!!! Legal!!!! > It is the same thing with Dreamland. Anyone with a camera who gets >lucky & takes a photograph of something not seen before is going to run off >with dollar signs in their eyes & fame in their mind to AW&ST, Newsweek, ABC >News, etc. without stopping to think that the unauthorized disclosure of >certain information might end up causing a lot of damage to *our* national >security and interests. Yea, dollar signs in their eyes, ... signs of THEIR dollars! The government will just deny it anyway! The witnesses run to AW&ST, Newsweek, and ABC because they're excited! Is that still allowed? Why should a few guys at Groom Lake, or wherever, be the only ones allowed to display their excitement over these technical achievements when they see them? If they're going to fly them over the public, then they better expect the public to react! > The assumption that other countries have satellite imagery of Groom >Lake means nothing. Should we be able to buy KH-11 manuals at Border's or >Waldenbooks, just because we have evidence suggesting that the Russians >already have a copy? That's not the way things work. No I don't expect the NRO to sell copies of it's sat. manuals at Borders. But, what if the Russians publish their copy at Borders? Hmmmm ... ! Or a U.S. researcher in a Russian archive!! Holy .... ! The most insidious thing to me is when a government Groom Lake contractor tells us that 'the place (Groom Lake) doesn't exist'! And you hear this and don't have questions? This doesn't worry you? See what I said? They'll just deny it anyway! Buildings and all! What buildings? ... I don't see any buildings! Those right there on the film! Where? Oh ... that lens flare there? > We've seen the U-2, the SR-71, & the F-117A, and I trust that we'll >eventually see whatever our government is working on in Dreamland. Let's see ... We ACCIDENTLY saw the D-21's at Davis Monthan, the HAVE BLUEs are buried out there on the test range somewhere (according to reports - well actually we told you about the HAVE BLUE, but we can't tell you the real reason why it's buried), men and women who worked black programs in their careers long ago, die every day disappointed that the information on what they did never came out, the oldest classified document in the National Archives is about WWI troop movements, I can't get my hands on 30 year old reports on old old hypersonic concepts because they're still classified, and ... we could go on and on. Tim, I think you're trust is misplaced! We HOPE they will tell us, ... in our lifetime! No guarantees! How will historians ever get it straight? By the time the COMPLETE story comes out, we'll never be able to read about it anyway. Ah, ..., we're just mushrooms! > I just hope that we see it as a result of the government deciding to >make the project's existence public, and NOT as the result of some eager >guy with either a warped sense of 'civic duty,' or trying >to make a buck, regardless of whether it is to make a buck off the media, or >a foreign intelligence agency. People I know that research black projects want to find out what's going on, not preserve their ignorance! >P.S. If anyone has any evidence of fraud, waste, or wrongdoing at Groom Lake >or any other government location, I'll be happy to try to put you in contact >with the appropriate investigative agency. Fairly close, from a section of the U.S. Constitution: "The government shall from time to time publish an accounting of monies spent ... ." Evidently, the Supreme Court, by one vote, interpreted this to say that Congress was the agency to which such a report needed to be sent. Yea, Congress, which has enough to do already, and which some people, who are from the black world, indicate isn't even informed about the most secret programs. Such a decision causes the public to loose a little of it's liberty! Eventually, after the whole world is classified, people will start to object! I hope! But I exagerate, of course. Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #77 ******************************** 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).