From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #98 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 2 June 1994 Volume 05 : Number 098 In this issue: Re: B-2 as AWACS... Re: Auroa and mothership Tier III and Tier II plus Re: Auroa and mothership Re: Auroa and mothership Re: Auroa and mothership 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: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 08:33:52 EDT Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... Bruce says: > > Me thinks this is not quite right. 10 to 20 AWACs aircraft in the same battle > area sounds like a big mess to me. Remember the modern war is executed with > information. Maintaining a link with that many active command nodes would be a > real problem. Remember each AWACs usually needs at least 2 CAPs (usually 15s). > Or say 6 over the length of a normal patrol. They are pretty easy targets for > a real air forces, and they usually hang around well back of the action. I respond: The number of AWACS in the Gulf war approached the 10 mark. They set up a picket 5-6 AWACs and then had 1-2 AWACs behind them to take the place of an AWACs that needed to refuel. The CAP planes were normally F15s (F15Es) out of Rome,N.Y. There were 4 planes normally assigned to an AWACs and the AWACs was never left with less than 2 except during an unusual combat situation. ( ie. The shootdown of 4-7 enemy aircraft by 2 F15Es happened when 2 of the F15s were refueling and my son spotted 7 aircraft take off from a base north of Bagdad. He had our F15s shutdown there radar and then guided our F15s in behind them. He was the CAPs officer on the AWACs.) Missions from briefing to debriefing lasted approximately 24 hours. Air time was about 14-17 hours. AND NO I am not giving any secrets out that my son may know. I gleaned the majority of this info from Air & Space Leak plus a book on Electronic Surveilance plus TV and News reports. I also noticed that someone indicated that AWACs weren't used for ELINT......WRONG! . > > The real nifty stuff research wise is along the lines of a passive AWACs > system, using RPV or UPVs as radar xmitters, and allowing the AWACs bird to > enhance its range with the radar transmitter on the RPV/UPV. Remember in radar > the range is usually a factor of the size (watts) of the pulse you are willing > to create along with the sensitivity of your receiver. The AWACs receiver is > pretty good, but there is just so much power you can generate, because it > dissipates logarithmicly in relation to the distance from the transmitter (if I > remember my radar theory). > > Bruce > ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 10:32:14 EDT Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Clarence writes: " > > It was an AWACS plane than vectored (and granted firing permission too by the > way) those F-15s to shoot down the two NATO helicopters in northern Iraq. > What type information gathering was that if it wasn't ELINT? There were no > ground operatives relaying that data. The AWACS plane was so far away that > it couldn't make positive id based on the signature. I respond: FACT: The UN helicopters would normally be squaking their ID automatically so loud that every one in the area would have known they were there. FACT: Furthermore they are required to file a flight plan with the powers of the day (ie USAF) to let them know they were entering the area. My perspective: I don't blame the AWACS or the F15s, but they will be used for a scapegoat coverup. There was a lot more to this incident than will be ever released to the public. My best guess: CIA ------------------------------ From: Urban_Fredriksson@ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 18:17:57 MET DST Subject: Tier III and Tier II plus Lockheed and Boeing has teamed to develop a stealthy, high altitude, long-endurance UAV called Tier III. It will complement Tier II plus, a more capable UAV already under development, which will cruise for 30 h at 19800 m. Unit-cost goal for both is USD 10M. It's assumed that ten Tier II pluses will be purchased. - -- Urban Fredriksson urf@icl.se ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:10:18 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership There was no CIA personnel on those helicopters. None. This is not a flame Paul, just a matter-of-fact. John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Wed, 1 Jun 1994, Paul Mangan wrote: > Clarence writes: > " > > > > It was an AWACS plane than vectored (and granted firing permission too by the > > way) those F-15s to shoot down the two NATO helicopters in northern Iraq. > > What type information gathering was that if it wasn't ELINT? There were no > > ground operatives relaying that data. The AWACS plane was so far away that > > it couldn't make positive id based on the signature. > > I respond: > > FACT: > The UN helicopters would normally be squaking their ID automatically > so loud that every one in the area would have known they were there. > > FACT: > Furthermore they are required to file a flight plan with the powers > of the day (ie USAF) to let them know they were entering the area. > > My perspective: > I don't blame the AWACS or the F15s, but they will be used for a > scapegoat coverup. There was a lot more to this incident than will > be ever released to the public. > > My best guess: > CIA ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 15:49:06 EDT Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership > > There was no CIA personnel on those helicopters. None. This is not a > flame Paul, just a matter-of-fact. > > John F. Regus | > (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING > WUI:REGUSHOU | > Thanks for the feedback John, I did not mean to start a fire but I am curious how you knew that there were no CIA on board. The following is a note I sent another person who seemed to think I wrote more than I did. Perhaps you will see where I am coming from on this issue: I care, but more importantly my son cares....he was an AWACs CAPs officer during the Gulf War. He has talked to some of the AWACs guys about it and they are all deeply upset. Their feeling is that multiple failures had to occurr or it was flown in there quiet mode intentionally. No, not to intentionally cause this situation but intentionally quiet for some other reason. My personal best guess is still CIA. You never know who is or isn't CIA. When my daughter applied she could talk about anything up to a certain point. After that she was quiet. I honestly don't know if she is or isn't. I was recently in a class with various people from a variety of "companies" only to find out that quite a few were CIA regardless of title. I feel bad for the loss of any American but this was a tragedy built on multiple failures. Perhaps one helo' was screwed up but two ??????????? It just don't fit. I still don't believe we will ever know. ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Yes, but weren't there some non-US personnel on the helicopters, like two or 3 Turkish military types? The thought had crossed my mind that someone wanted those people off'd, and the Americans were simply sacrificial. But not much else has been said on this. The CIA spin fits that. And were the helicopters really flying under UN auspices? What about a Special Forces/CIA insertion or extraction that someone in the Army or wherever forgot to tell the flyboys about? Remember the Iraqi HINDs that flew out and defected during Desert Shield, and wasn't that one revealed to be a goofed-up SF team insertion that the press found out about and had to be covered up? (I remember someone from the US Information Service or whatever it's called being interviewed and talking about the propaganda/disinformation that was being spewed by everyone, this being one of them). But I give that about as much weight personally as I do UFOs and aliens consulting presidents. It *could* be, but seems highly unlikely. One thing a friend of mine brought up, and that regards psychological phenomenon. Let me describe... 1. AWACS gets two bogeys. Someone on the AWACS makes a judgement call and decides they could be HINDs. So, got to send in the CAP to make visual contact on two possible HIND helicopters in the unauthorized zone. 2. A seed is planted in the pilot's heads unconsciously, possible conflict could erupt, the mind is at a higher pace, unconsciously looking for signs that could be recognized as HIND helicopters and justify the prepared mental state. We ALL do it. (watching a scary movie alone, notice how little, typical noises around the house seem slightly amplified?) 3. Visual sightings made. How close were the planes? 1/4 Mi? UH-60s were probably in the typical US Army heli camo pattern, and in this case it seems like it did its job, unfortunately. What were the light conditions? Were the helos in silhouette (sp) with the sky? What angle were they viewed from? Why didn't they get even closer? What about the typical HIND and its camoflage? Sort of looking at an optical illusion and you can't figure it out. Someone else tells you what to look for, and BANG! there it is. Same kind of phenomenon. 4. So, did the pilots try to make contact on GUARD freq? Did the AWACS plane try? Why was the helos IFF not working properly? Had the pilots ever flown with Army helicopters before? Were the helicopters under US control? (OK, conspiracy material here.) The authorization came from the AWACS, as I recall. So an AMRAAM and a Sidewinder were fired, two bogeys down. High-5's for the pilots until they RTB. So, there are lots of areas for potential screwups. Some could be to sheer negligence, others could be to human tendancies given lack of information and speculation by others. Who knows? The Air Force and Army will cover their asses as well as they can, and we'll never hear what the dead pilots have to say... - -Corey Lawson alfalfa@booster.u.washington.edu - ------------------------------------- U U W W W Bothell Campus U U W W W W =================== UUU W W Computer Facilities - ------------------------------------- On Wed, 1 Jun 1994, John Regus wrote: > There was no CIA personnel on those helicopters. None. This is not a > flame Paul, just a matter-of-fact. > > John F. Regus | > (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING > WUI:REGUSHOU | > > > On Wed, 1 Jun 1994, Paul Mangan wrote: > > > Clarence writes: > > " > > > > > > It was an AWACS plane than vectored (and granted firing permission too by the > > > way) those F-15s to shoot down the two NATO helicopters in northern Iraq. > > > What type information gathering was that if it wasn't ELINT? There were no > > > ground operatives relaying that data. The AWACS plane was so far away that > > > it couldn't make positive id based on the signature. > > > > I respond: > > > > FACT: > > The UN helicopters would normally be squaking their ID automatically > > so loud that every one in the area would have known they were there. > > > > FACT: > > Furthermore they are required to file a flight plan with the powers > > of the day (ie USAF) to let them know they were entering the area. > > > > My perspective: > > I don't blame the AWACS or the F15s, but they will be used for a > > scapegoat coverup. There was a lot more to this incident than will > > be ever released to the public. > > > > My best guess: > > CIA > > > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #98 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).