From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #157 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 24 September 1994 Volume 05 : Number 157 In this issue: Re: High-tec Senior Citizen Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #156 B2, 28 Sep, LA Re: Glomar Explorer Re: Glomar Explorer Nuke threat launching... Russian Stealth Re: Glomar Explorer Re: Glomar Explorer GLOMAR EXPLORER Re: Glomar Explorer Re: Glomar Explorer North Korean Agent Ordered Deported Re: Glomar Explorer re: Senior Citizen 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: John Regus Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 22:24:37 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: High-tec Zoz at Oz; Actually when I was in graduate school we discussed proposing a proton bomb as a counterpoint to the neutron bomb, which you may remember destroyed human life but left physical building standing,etc. Our proton bomb would leave people alive but knock down buildings.... This is probably why I did not graduate magna cum laude, summa cum laude or cum laude...rather thank de lordy. Regards, John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Thu, 22 Sep 1994, Kaishakunin wrote: > Phil sez: > |> >Perhaps because I am French, I feel a bit dissatisfied with the > |> >above list. May I suggest a minor correction: > |> >IRBM => USA, North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran > |> >ICBM=> USA, PRC, Russia, France > |> >(it seems that you forgot also India and Pakistan) > ... > |> > |> If you're talking about tossing nukes, then I disagree that the USA is > |> most likely to throw one. In the case of first-use, I would rate them much > |> differently (mostly due to the possession of IRBMs by the republics in the > |> CIS). > > I don't think that J. Pharabod was listing these countries in sorted order > of likelihood to first strike - I think he was just making the valid point > that the original poster left out one of the more trigger-happy nations > that also possesses nukes. > > Speaking of nukes, and considering that this is the skunk-works digest - > does anyone know of any research that was done into making nukes stealthy? > We have MIRVs, and we have multiple decoys, but nukes seem in general to be > fairly un-stealthy - missile launches are easy to detect, and warheads > can be tracked. Did anyone do any work on making ballistic missile type > nukes stealthy, or did people just rely on sub-launched/air-dropped nukes for > the element of surprise? [Not that this is necessarily a good thing... > Anything that might tempt someone into launching a first strike is probably > best left alone.] > -- > ______ _____________ ______________________ ______ > /\####/\ / / / / /\####/\ > / \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \ > /____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\ > \####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/ > \##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/ > \/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/ > > zoz@cs.adelaide.edu.au > http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zoz/ > > If you see a blind man, run up and kick him. > Why should you be kinder than God? > > -- Old Iranian Proverb ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 03:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Senior Citizen Here are some facts and some speculation about the Senior Citizen aircraft. Fact 1: Senior Citizen is a "tactical airlift aircraft". (According to DoD document DoD7045.7-H, "FYDP Program Structure", October 1993 -- program element PE0401316F - SENIOR CITIZEN) Fact 2: All other SENIOR programs (I know about) have 3 things in common: a) they are all USAF programs b) most (or all?) of them are Lockheed built aircraft c) they are either intelligence gathering or stealth related programs - Senior Book ==> U-2R for (remote controlled) ELINT/SIGINT - Senior Bowl ==> D-21 reconnaissance drone (ELINT/SIGINT/PHOTINT) - Senior Citizen ==> tactical transport aircraft - Senior Crown ==> SR-71 PHOTINT/SIGINT reconnaissance aircraft - Senior Hunter ==> C-130 support aircraft for EC-130E Volant Solo - Senior Ice ==> ? (I still don't have the 9/94 AirInternational) - Senior Lance ==> U-2R with Goodyear SAR in inflatable dome - Senior Open ==> U-2R with rotating LOROP camera nose system - Senior Prom ==> ? (cancelled stealthy cruise missile?) - Senior Ruby ==> U-2R with E-Systems ELINT/SIGINT gear - Senior Sky ==> F-22 (ATF) stealthy fighter - Senior Span ==> U-2R 'C-Span' with satellite data link - Senior Spear ==> U-2R with ELINT/SIGINT pods - Senior Stretch ==> U-2R with data link, now Senior Span - Senior Trend ==> F-117A stealthy attack aircraft - Senior Year ==> U-2R PHOTINT/SIGINT reconnaissance aircraft Fact 3: The designation C-16 in the United States Joint Designation system is not used. All other designations from C-1 to C-31 -- with the exeption of C-13 -- are used. Fact 4: The USAF (and other services) used several transport aircraft -- notably versions of the Douglas C-47, the Lockheed C-130 and the Boeing C-135 -- for several classified missions like: a) ELINT/SIGINT ==> EC-xxx b) Special Ops ==> MC-xxx c) PHOTINT/ELINT ==> RC-xxx Fact 5: These converted freighter are big and totally non-stealthy. To evade detection or shoot-down, these aircraft (like the EC/RC-135s) have to stay way out of harms way, or (particulary MC-130s) depend on their camouflage, flying by night and at very low altitude. But they are still loud, and relatively big and slow targets for the incidental overflown unfriendly forces. Fact 6: Lockheed has experience in all kinds of low observability: low RCS (mak'em stealthy), low visibility (paint'em black), and also sound suppression (muffel'em). Especially the QT-2 (Quiet Thruster), X-26 and YO-3A aircraft of Vietnam vintage come into mind. Speculation: Senior Citizen is the Lockheed C-16A (or EC/MC/RC) stealthy transport aircraft, used for direct overflight of hostile airspace to either: a) insert or replenish Special Operations Forces or Agents deep inside hostile teritory; b) gather electronic inteligence (ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT); c) or fly photo or electronic reconnaissance or surveillance missions (PHOTINT/ELINT); Depending ont the mission, it might have STOL capabilities, might be able to operate from remote locations, should be very quiet and should be comparable in size and capabilities to an 'stealthy MC-130H Hercules with mute turbofans'. :-) Someone might have seen something like what I just described, or it was an special silent B-2: I quote from alt.conspiracy.area51: (<== that is no joke, but funny :-)) ---START OF ARTICLE--- Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy.area51 From: stoner@netcom.com (Kenneth Allen Stoner) Subject: Aurora In my dealings with the military, I was rarely told that cliche phrase "This does not exist and you were never here." Actually, I was never told anything of the sort. The things that were said to me were along the lines of "This material is classified as XXXXXX. It has a codeword YYYYY. This code word is also classified YYYYY." This usually got the point across that I wasn't supposed to talk about whatever it was I was doing. Its the things that happened to me that no one EVER told me anything about that have me curious about A51. While on West-Pac in the Arabian gulf during an Operation called "Nautical Swimmer" I observed something fly extremely low and fast past our ship. NO-ONE in CIC mentioned it before it flew by. In fact the captain was pretty pissed off at the CIC watch officer for not detecting it sooner. As it was, even after the lookouts spotted and reported it, it was still not detected on either the SPS-49 or the 48. The TAO ordered a SPG-55 trained in the general direction of the "Bogey" and still nothing was detected. This is unsurprising though. The SPG is a fire control radar. It has a hard time finding objects without the help of a search radar. Anyways, to make a long story short, the captain was pissed off and it made quite a little stir aboard ship. Shortly thereafter, while I was in radio, a message came in that required me, and another 3d class to leave radio while it was handled. (I wasnt actually in Radio, I was in another *electronic* space, but we'll call it radio for now.) This was pretty unusual because my buddie and both had SBI's done on us. The ONLY thing we werent cleared for was Code word/Compartmentalized. Of course as my old RMCM used to say, "Need to know is the determining factor for access". The Captain seemed to immediately calm down about the whole incident, and no one ever said another word about it. What was it we saw? Well, it was dark. As dark as it gets at sea on a clear night, anyways. It was pretty big. It was very fast, and very quiet. The only sound it made at all was its "prop" wash moving over the superstructure of the ship. Yes, it was THAT close. Anyways, I would be very interested in taking a trip up to A51 and taking a little looksey around. Doubt if Ill see anything though. Regards, Kenneth Allen Stoner ---END OF ARTICLE--- Maybe it is even called "Vindicator". (Didn't someone try to find out, which Lockheed project might have used this (code) name?) Any thoughts? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "David B. Serafini" Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 15:52:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #156 > From: Jeff Sollee > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 07:22:11 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re:High Tec and ABL >[stuff deleted] > Many basic problems exist with the ABL. [...] Second, the > jitter caused by normal airplane vibrations would cause the > beam to smear at distance, requiring much more power to affect > a kill. In the interest of technical accuracy, I disagree with this point. NASA has a project to mount a 1-meter infared telescope inside a 747SP (SOFIA). The control system doesn't have to be particularly fast to keep it focused. The Kuiper Airborne Observatory (which is a C-141 I believe) manages pretty well with technology that's at least 10 years old and probably much older. I believe the target speed for the control system for SOFIA is around 100HZ (I don't remember exactly - it might be a little faster). I conclude from this that aircraft motion will not be a problem for keeping the laser focused (air distortion is a much bigger problem). In a past life, I was a consultant to Rose Engineering and Research, the company chiefly responsible for the SOFIA wind tunnel tests at NASA. - -David ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 19:21:58 EDT Subject: B2, 28 Sep, LA >From: buenneke@rand.org (Dick Buenneke) >Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics >Subject: Northrop B-2 Bomber Talk in L.A. -- 28 Sep 92 >Date: 21 Sep 1994 16:41:49 -0500 >[Moderator's note: The wide distribution is my fault, not the >poster's. MFS] >American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Los Angeles Section >"The B-2 Stealth Bomber" >C. Wayne Staley >Chief Test Pilot >Northrup Grumman B-2 Division >Wednesday, 28 September >Social 5:30 p.m , Dinner 6 p.m, Presentation 7 p.m. >The Proud Bird Restaurant >11022 Aviation Blvd. (between Century and Imperial Blvds.) >Los Angeles >This presentation will introduce the B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber, discuss >the challenges of its development, and review mission requirements and >capabilities. The stringent total system requirements for the B-2 weapon >system place a premium on innovative techniques in design, manufacturing >and system support. The B-2, a revolutionary advanced aircraft, is proving >to be a highly reliable weapon system in operation with the USAF at >Whiteman AFB, Mo. Many aspects of the B-2 Program continue to be >classified. However, enough information has been released by the USAF to >permit discussion of some of the capabilities of the "Spirit." >AIAA members with reservations -- $19.00 >Members without reservations -- $23.00 >Non-members with reservatoins -- $23.00 >Non-members without reservations -- $25.00 > >For reservations, call 1-800-683-AIAA (2422) > >Reservations must be received by Thu, 22 Sep >Richard H. Buenneke Jr. Tel: (310) 393-0411, Ext. 7382 >RAND Graduate School Fax: (310) 393-4818 > of Policy Studies Internet: buenneke@rand.org >1700 Main Street >P.O. Box 2138 "All opinions are mine alone >Santa Monica, Calif. 90407-2138 All facts speak for themselves" ------------------------------ From: Erik Hedberg Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu wrote: > From: murr > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 12:21:31 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: off-topi - Glomar Explorer > > On Wed, 21 Sep 1994, Philip R. Moyer wrote: > > > Would someone please tell me the current location of the Glomar > > Explorer? > > Just a guess, but I would bet she has been decommissioned by now. Seems > like she was brought out 20 or 30 years ago. Many (most?) ships that age > have been put to rest. Last I knew she was moored in Suisun Bay just east of the I-680 bridge between Martinez and Benicia (California). The Glomar Explorer was the lone ship beetween the bridge and the mothball fleet. When I flew over last Monday (Sept 19th) evening I could barely see the ground (it was exactly sunset, the ground was dark but the plane was illuminated), I could see a ship there but can not swear it is the Glomar Explorer. Erik ------------------------------ From: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 08:52:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer >Last I knew she was moored in Suisun Bay just east of the I-680 bridge >between Martinez and Benicia (California). The Glomar Explorer was the >lone ship beetween the bridge and the mothball fleet. When I flew over >last Monday (Sept 19th) evening I could barely see the ground (it was >exactly sunset, the ground was dark but the plane was illuminated), I >could see a ship there but can not swear it is the Glomar Explorer. Yes, that was her. I will be photographing her soon. I'll scan in a picture of her if anyone's interested. Philip R. Moyer Bits: prm@netcom.com Managing Partner Voice: 510-606-9875 Information Security Engineering Associates Fax: 510-606-9875 48 2E 4C 36 9A 3F F9 1E 74 77 18 E4 2C DB F0 5F ------------------------------ From: phil@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org (Phil Verdieck ) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 08:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Nuke threat launching... > >Back to #1, I rate the following countries as high-threat, hostile > >missle launch candidates against another country. > >IRBM => North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran > >ICBM=> PRC, Russia, France > >John F. Regus (Tue, 20 Sep 1994 15:20:51 -0500 (CST)) > > Perhaps because I am French, I feel a bit dissatisfied with the > above list. May I suggest a minor correction: > IRBM => USA, North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran > ICBM=> USA, PRC, Russia, France > J. Pharabod Well, I'm American and I am highly dissatisfied with your list. how about IRBM => France, France, France, France, USA, North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran ICBM=> France, France, France, France, France, France, USA, PRC, Russia, After all, what can you say about a country whose government was so out of touch with the people that it refused overflight to U.S. F-111's. Or is that just the generic European lay over to terrorists mentality? Putting the U.S. in front of barely stable, high tempered religions zealots like Iran appears to be a fundamentally flawed view of the world. Then again it depends under what conditions this launch would occur. Out of the blue, or after provocation? In any case, the only topic more off charter than this would be basketweaving. Phil V. ------------------------------ From: phil@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org (Phil Verdieck ) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 08:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Russian Stealth > From: ConsLaw@aol.com > Subject: Russian Stealth > > In the Popular Science excerpt from his book, Ben Rich said that the computer > program they used to test stealth designs was based on theories from a > Soviet research paper. Perhaps we were able to put the ideas into practice > earlier because of our more advanced computer technology. Perhaps the > Soviets have also had some secret stealth weapons, but they are still secret. > If the Russians did have functional stealth weaponry, there would be a fire sale going on to bring in hard (non Russian) currency, with the condition their economy is in. Phil V. ------------------------------ From: Legalize Adulthood! Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 14:10:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer In article <199409231552.IAA12795@netcom16.netcom.com>, "Philip R. Moyer" writes: > Yes, that was her. I will be photographing her soon. I'll scan in a > picture of her if anyone's interested. Yes, please put the picture on the FTP site if its not too much trouble! I missed the beginning of this thread, but as I recall the Glomar was contracted by the military (Navy?) to Howard Hughes in order to recover a sunken Russian sub. This is what I remember from reading some "unauthorized biographies" of Howard. Is that correct, and are there any more details to the story? What happened to the sub? Was the recovery successful? With all the ROV deep sea exploring going on now, I think there wouldn't be time to construct a ship specifically for salvaging. By the time the ship was built and arrived on the scene, ROVs would've recovered all the sensitive material, I would think. Are there any "skunky" stories relating to this type of use of ROVs? I can't imagine that ships carrying secret stuff haven't sunk since the days of the glomar. -- Rich - -- http://www.xmission.com/~legalize Legalize Adulthood in Utah! legalize@xmission.com ------------------------------ From: kallista@netcom.com (Christopher Barrus) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 14:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer > I missed the beginning of this thread, but as I recall the Glomar was > contracted by the military (Navy?) to Howard Hughes in order to > recover a sunken Russian sub. This is what I remember from reading > some "unauthorized biographies" of Howard. Is that correct, and are > there any more details to the story? What happened to the sub? Was > the recovery successful? The recovery was only partially sucessful. As the Glomar was raising the sub (according to all reports), part of the Glomar's claw gave way and a good half of the sub broke away. The remaining third (?) of the sub was recovered. Spooky story actually. When the sub initially sank, the interior bulkheads in the stern gave way and squished upwards toward the bow sandwiching everything in between. So even though only a third of the sub's exterior was recovered, well over half of the sub's interior was squashed into that third. There's a pretty good book about the Glomar Explorer and the sub recovery mission entitled "A Matter Of Risk." Author's names escape me right now since I'm at work, but it should be locatable. Chris ========================================================================== Chris Barrus - kallista@netcom.com | "Route 66 is a giant chute down which | everything loose in this country is '72 Riviera - Peace through | sliding into Southern California." superior automotive power! | - Frank Lloyd Wright ========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 18:55:16 EDT Subject: GLOMAR EXPLORER >I missed the beginning of this thread, but as I recall the Glomar was >contracted by the military (Navy?) to Howard Hughes in order to recover a >sunken Russian sub. Yup. It may have been CIA.... >This is what I remember from reading some "unauthorized biographies" of Howard. See also a book onthe operation, i think its called: A Matter of Risk About 10-15 years old. May or may not be totally true. But seems very plausible. >Is that correct, and are there any more details to the story? What happened to >the sub? The book sez that they grappled it, got it most of the way up and it broke up. Only the bow was recovered. Later reports are that we got it all, and the break up story was disinformation. In either case the sub was left on the bottom. (Fer one thign their subs run a LOT hotter radiologically than ours. Unless we were going to deep bury the thing, that is arguably the safest place for it. >Was the recovery successful? If the reports are true, somewhat to totally. >With all the ROV deep sea exploring going on now, I think there wouldn't be >time to construct a ship specifically for salvaging. This all happened about 20 years back. And success depened on knowing where to look, courtesy the hydrophone arrays. > By the time the ship was built and arrived on the scene, ROVs would've >recovered all the sensitive material, I would think. Maybe. It was deep. Not just deep, but DEEP. Lots of those do not have utter deep capability. And most of them are in reasonably friendly hands. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Legalize Adulthood! Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 17:27:08 -0600 Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer Thanks for the little summary, Chris. Here's the author of that book you mentioned: -- Rich Author: Varner, Roy. Title: A matter of risk : the incredible inside story of the CIA's Hughes Glomar Explorer mission to raise a Russian submarine Edition: 1st ed. Published: New York : Random House, c1978. - -- http://www.xmission.com/~legalize Legalize Adulthood in Utah! legalize@xmission.com ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 18:28:47 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer You need to get a copy of the book "The Jennifer Project." It tells about the whole mission from beginning to end, which had its roots right here in Houston. There are pictures,etc. John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Fri, 23 Sep 1994, Legalize Adulthood! wrote: > > In article <199409231552.IAA12795@netcom16.netcom.com>, > "Philip R. Moyer" writes: > > Yes, that was her. I will be photographing her soon. I'll scan in a > > picture of her if anyone's interested. > > Yes, please put the picture on the FTP site if its not too much > trouble! > > I missed the beginning of this thread, but as I recall the Glomar was > contracted by the military (Navy?) to Howard Hughes in order to > recover a sunken Russian sub. This is what I remember from reading > some "unauthorized biographies" of Howard. Is that correct, and are > there any more details to the story? What happened to the sub? Was > the recovery successful? > > With all the ROV deep sea exploring going on now, I think there > wouldn't be time to construct a ship specifically for salvaging. By > the time the ship was built and arrived on the scene, ROVs would've > recovered all the sensitive material, I would think. Are there any > "skunky" stories relating to this type of use of ROVs? I can't > imagine that ships carrying secret stuff haven't sunk since the days > of the glomar. > > -- Rich > -- > http://www.xmission.com/~legalize Legalize Adulthood in Utah! > legalize@xmission.com ------------------------------ From: wizard@sccsi.com (Stratacom Worldnet) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 09:25 CDT Subject: North Korean Agent Ordered Deported Houston, Texas, 9/24/94 "A Federal immigaration judge Friday ordered the deportation of an accused North Korean intelligence agent, an aerospace scientist, who had worked for a NASA contractor at the Johnson Space Center. The judge, Michael Suarez, cited indications that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons as part of his declaration, that Dr. Jong-Hun Lee of Clear Lake, Texas is a national security risk. Suarez also cited Dr. Lee's technological expertise acquistion while working at JSC could be used to develop missles that carry nuclear warheads for North Korea." ------------------------------ From: Jason Duncan Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 13:05:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Glomar Explorer Could Someone please re-explain the significance of the Glomar Explorer.... It sounds VERY fimmiliar, but I cant think of it off hand...... Thanks.... _______________________________ | Jason T. Duncan | WHY ASK WHY?. . . . |_____________________________| ===||=== || // //===\\ | jduncan@indy.net | /||\ || // || || Indiana | jtduncan@indyunix.iupui.edu | <<||>> ||<< ||<===>|| Chi Rho | Purdue School of | \||/ || \\ || || Chapter | Computer Science | ===||=== || \\ \\===// |_____________________________| . . . It Starts With Phi! ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 11:34:10 PDT Subject: re: Senior Citizen In an earlier Skunk Works message, Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >Here are some facts and some speculation about the Senior Citizen aircraft. > >Fact 1: Senior Citizen is a "tactical airlift aircraft". > (According to DoD document DoD7045.7-H, "FYDP Program Structure", > October 1993 -- program element PE0401316F - SENIOR CITIZEN) As the source of the FYDP information, the only other classified transport aircraft I can specifically identify as such is THEME CASTLE, PE 0401129F. This FYDP handbook was prepared for fiscal year 1994. There is a (H) in the program name for THEME CASTLE, indicating that it is more than 5 fiscal years old, i.e., a "historical program". There is also an indication that THEME CASTLE was partially funded by the unidentified contractor. >Fact 2: All other SENIOR programs (I know about) have 3 things in common: > a) they are all USAF programs > b) most (or all?) of them are Lockheed built aircraft > c) they are either intelligence gathering or stealth related programs [impressive list of SENIOR programs removed to keep this message small] SENIOR CITIZEN probably is a Lockheed aircraft, but there are other designators, such as HAVE that have been used for Lockheed aircraft. An example was HAVE BLUE, the Stealth fighter demonstration/validation aircraft, prior to the F-117 program. (HAVE means that the Advanced Research Projects Agency is behind the program. HAVE programs are not necessarily aircraft -- for example, ARPA is currently working on HAVE DUNGEON which is an electronics package to detect mobile cruise missiles and their launches). There is an Air Force program with the HAVE designator that I think could possibly be an aircraft: HAVE DJINN (PE 0603437F) . Again, this program is considered to be "historical". >Speculation: Senior Citizen is the Lockheed C-16A (or EC/MC/RC) stealthy > transport aircraft, used for direct overflight of hostile > airspace to either: > a) insert or replenish Special Operations Forces or Agents > deep inside hostile teritory; > b) gather electronic inteligence (ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT); > c) or fly photo or electronic reconnaissance or surveillance > missions (PHOTINT/ELINT); It's hard to say what SENIOR CITIZEN will transport. I obtained the Fiscal Year 1995 Special Operations Command RDT&E budget summaries and went looking for aircraft programs. There are a number of projects in PE 1160404BB, "Special Operations Tactical Systems Development" for aircraft, but they all involve modifications to existing aircraft. (There are no clues that Special Operations Command is directly funding a new clandestine aircraft.) They are funding programs like IR jamming equipment and terrain following radar for aircraft such as the MH-60, MH-53, & MH-47 helicopters and AC-130, HC-130, and MC-130 airplanes. >Maybe it is even called "Vindicator". (Didn't someone try to find out, >which Lockheed project might have used this (code) name?) Some time ago, if my memory is correct, someone mentioned a Lockheed aircraft known as "Enforcer". I did some checking and found the following entry for an Air Force demonstration aircraft: PE 0603234F Enforcer Aircraft (H) Includes funds for the design and fabrication of the prototype Enforcer aircraft. Initial tests will flight qualify the aircraft, evaluate handling characteristics, and certify the aircraft for weapons carriage/release. Tests will evaluate the capability of the aircraft to perform in a close air support role, survive in a high threat environment, and kill armored targets. One wonders what happened to this program and the prototype Enforcer... Perhaps it is in storage in a hangar at Groom Lake. Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #157 ********************************* 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).