From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #204 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 14 February 1995 Volume 05 : Number 204 In this issue: Admin-type questions... Re: Aurora - The Evidence Re: Aurora - The Evidence 4/6 Re: Aurora - The Evidence 4/6 Clarification Stealth RVs F-117, radar, and the Royal Navy Re: Triangular Craft Re: PROBLEM Re: Triangular Craft - Belgian Sightings AW&ST February 13, 1995 Aurora Future (fwd) SR71 killed off? RE: SR71 killed off? 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: xibalba@primenet.com (Chris Barrus) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:23:30 -0800 Subject: Admin-type questions... What are the official sub and unsub addresses for the list? I'm in the middle of switching email accounts and need to move things over. Thanks in advance, Chris - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Barrus - '72 Buick Riviera... Peace through superior automotive power! xibalba@primenet.com - http://www.forfood.com/~indieweb/gfrc.html - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:24:51 Subject: Re: Aurora - The Evidence James Thanks for your comprehensive collection of articles on 'Aurora' that some people may have missed - The subject has certainly generated a vast amount of newsprint. I'm still confused as to the nature of this aircraft. One minute it's a little longer than the F-111s seen apparently flying chase to it whilst refueling over the North Sea (Incidentally, I've spoken to Chris Gibson and have no doubt that he saw what he said or that he was an ideal expert witness to the event). Next it's almost as big as a 747- so which is it! I still can't see that the aircraft that Chris saw would be large enough to carry enough fuel to give it the range it needs for SR-though I'm very happy to be proved wrong. Alan Bond, the British rocket engineer and HOTOL designer has a much improved design called Skylon, which I'm sure you're familiar with. For anyone who isn't, Skylon is an unmanned re-usable SSTO Air Breathing Rocket vehicle. His design is a touch longer than a 747,so I can see that a long range hypersonic would need to be that in that order of size. Finally, I don't see why if it exists, it wasn't used in Operation Desert Storm, when it was clearly needed. A cover story about re-activation of an SR-71 would have answered any questions relating to how these images were obtained - which after all is of prime importance to any intelligence operation. Best Regards David ------------------------------ From: Jason Duncan Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 10:24:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Aurora - The Evidence 4/6 > Aurora has other advantages. Most spacecraft carry excellent cameras, rather > than radar, but they cannot see through clouds and their acuity suffers at > night. An airplane can carry a high-resolution radar more easily. In a > crisis, it is hard to increase satellite coverage quickly, because space > launches take so long to prepare. A wing of aircraft simply goes to war > footing. > > More satellites would reduce the need for manned aircraft, but it costs > several hundred million dollars to build and launch a satellite. Satellites > must be replaced every five years or so, while aircraft can last at least 30 > years. The price is high either way. Developing Aurora will have cost close > to $10 billion. Including production, the total program costs will have > nudged $20 billion. Since the Pentagon does not need many Auroras - a fleet > of 20 would be ample - the unit cost would approach $1 billion. It is quite > possible that all the aircraft on order have already been delivered. > What about the need for 'reserve' recon aircraft fleet due to the possible threat of anti-satellite attacks. I mean, I read a book once (forgot the name) about high tech weaponry and they stated that it was very plausible that in the opening days of a possible major global military events that almost all sattelites would be made inperable or destroyed. What would pentagon planners do to conteract such a possiblilty, I mean, am I incorrect to assertain that with such things like the MIR and other soviet space research that they havent at least been able to develope some sort of anti sattelite technology? And what would happen to our ground communications if we lost several major communicaitons platforms??? let alone imaging birds...... -Jason ------------------------------ From: dovergar@nyx10.cs.du.edu (dennis overgard) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 07:47:30 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Aurora - The Evidence 4/6 What about the need for 'reserve' recon aircraft fleet due to the possible threat of anti-satellite attacks. I mean, I read a book once (forgot the name) about high tech weaponry and they stated that it was very plausible that in the opening days of a possible major global military events that almost all sattelites would be made inperable or destroyed. What would pentagon planners do to conteract such a possiblilty, I mean, am I incorrect to assertain that with such things like the MIR and other soviet space research that they havent at least been able to develope some sort of anti sattelite technology? And what would happen to our ground communications if we lost several major communicaitons platforms??? let alone imaging birds...... There are 6 lines left (89%). Press for more, or 'i' to return. Message 15/20 From Jason Duncan Page 3 communicaitons platforms??? let alone imaging birds...... Satellites in geosynchronous orbit would be easy to take out. The trick is to place a satellite in a retrograde orbit at that altitude and release a bunch of plastic pellets that would degrade in a short time from sunlight. These would spread out and smash up all the satellites there. After the pellets disintegrated new satellites could be launched. The lower level satellites could be taken out by a system like the US was developing to be launched from the F-15 or maybe ground based lasers. The trouble with this is that it would take time to kill all the "troublesome" satellites and would provide the US a warning that something was happening. The russians tested a satellite killer that was ground launched and matched orbits with the target and blew up taking the target with it. I suspect NORAD would detect these and send commands to the target satellites to change orbits. Rumor has it that there are replacement satellites for critical missions in parking orbits that can be activated in an emergency. Dennis Overgard @nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III" Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:27:53 -0500 Subject: Clarification A while ago Mary cleared up a few misconceptions about the Tier recon programs and which one was which. One comment she made struck me as extraordinarily interesting, but hasn't generated the response I would have imagined. Regrettably, I've trashed the original, so forgive my paraphrase. Mary commented that the Tier 3 program (or a part thereof) was pronounced in a way that made it sound like "teerthree." Say it aloud a few times and Tier 3 becomes TR-3. Is it possible that what is being called the TR-3 "Manta" (or whatever) is in fact the proposed Tier 3 program? If so, this could account for the denials that there is a TR-3A out there but that there is a platform intended to fill the tactical reconnaissance mission, manned or otherwise. I guess it's natural to want a TR-3A or an Aurora, but that doesn't mean it's out there. Or maybe it is out there but isn't what we think it is. Ah, Orwell.... Robert S. Hopkins, III Corcoran Department of History Randall Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville VA 22906 internet: rsh8s@virginia.edu ------------------------------ From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III" Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:19:49 -0500 Subject: Stealth RVs I would like to learn more about stealth RVs--no, not winnebagos--reentry vehicles. My understanding is that as a way to get around a possible US-built SDI program, the Soviets were testing stealthy reentry vehicles for their ballistic missiles. For example, when testing an SS-18 Mod Y, the Soviets would comply with the requirement to announce the launch in advance. The COBRA observation platforms would observe the reentry of the bus, shroud, and, say, eight or ten objects. These would all be visible to the radar. However, on some occasions, additional objects were detected visually or thermally or spectroscopically but not on radar. These were--potentially--stealthy RVs that would be able to avoid SDI detection. Of course, such testing was a violation of ABM protocols and strategic arms agreements, but may have happened anyway (can you spell Krasnoyarsk?) No doubt the US was equally interested in stealthy RVs. Has anyone done any research into this topic? Robert S. Hopkins, III Corcoran Department of History Randall Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville VA 22906 internet: rsh8s@virginia.edu ------------------------------ From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III" Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:12:16 -0500 Subject: F-117, radar, and the Royal Navy Comments about the RN radars spotting the F-117 shouldn't be too surprising. Although the intent (and success) of stealth technology is to make the airplane invisible to radar (figuratively speaking), it cannot achieve absolute invisibility. Thus, the F-117 may not be detected by a radar (whether RN or Iraqi) until it is too late to do anything about it, e.g., launch missiles or scramble fighters. So, radar can spot the stealth aircraft (or ship, or cruise missile), but by the time it does it is too late. Of course, there are other ways to detect stealth aircraft well in advance, and these have been adequately described (e.g., IR signature, sound, etc). Robert S. Hopkins, III Corcoran Department of History Randall Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville VA 22906 internet: rsh8s@virginia.edu ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:55:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Triangular Craft Following the thread of recent postings on the triangular craft I'd like to add my few pence (or cents) worth. In one of the Sunday papers that I read there was a brief report of the now famous Rendlesham Forest incident that occured in the UK during December 1980. For those that don't know it I'll give a quick overview of it. During late December USAF personnel (including a Lt Col] claim they saw something first hover then land in a forest near their base of RAF Woodbridge and officially recorded it as a UFO sighting in the true meaning of those letters as none of the guys there could identify the craft. I won't go into details unless asked and then I will reply direct to the person so not to waste space on the list. What caught my eye was the fact that the craft was picked up on London Heathrow radars as well as one of the UK Air Defence radars at RAF Watton. The RAF scrambled F-4's to intercept it and the pilots reported a bright light that, in the words of a radar operator at RAF Watton shot upwards at a speed in excess of 1,000mph. The Phantoms lost contact and were ordered to return their base. The object reported by the USAF airmen seen hovering and then landing at RAF Woodbridge was described as triangular and made of a black material. Jjust a coincidence when viewed with other flying black triangle stories and the Belgium Triangle incident or something deeper? John ============================================================================= John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] Compuserve: 10033,3113 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: mangan@edac1.kodak.com (Paul Mangan) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 07:51:05 EST Subject: Re: PROBLEM THANK YOU ...ONE AND ALL! Apparently I am getting through soemtimes and as one of you mentioned it takes between 1 hour and 3 days. My bounces come back after 3 days. Another asked how many responses I received and the answer is 26 and still counting. I received a variety of suggestions as to what address to post to. They include: postmaster@gaia.ucs.orst.edu skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu prm@ecn.purdue.edu mail.orst.edu skunk-works-approval@gaia.ucs.orst.edu skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu I have had success posting for a couple of years and this is the first time I have had problems. Whatever they were they appear to have cleared up. Now if I can just get rid of sem@suny.bufalo.edu I'll be all set. Thanks again. Paul Mangan mangan@kodak.com > From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Fri Feb 10 15:45:25 1995 > Reply-To: mangan@Kodak.COM > To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Subject: PROBLEM > Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Content-Length: 322 > X-Lines: 9 > > I have a problem posting to the Skunk Works mail list. Have I > been inadvertently dropped from the list???? > > I recieve constant replies to my mail that gaia.ucs.orst.edu is down. > But, at the same time I can ftp into it. Any suggestions. > > At least acknowledge reciept of this note if it gets through. > > mangan@kodak.com > ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 16:18:58 MET Subject: Re: Triangular Craft - Belgian Sightings In answer to James Easton (Fri, 10 Feb 95): >>>" Their radars locked on to the object, the diamond shape (on radar - >>>the video was being shown at this point), which suddenly drops 1300 >>>metres in one second. As it dropped below 200 metres it vanished from >>>all radar screens." (J. Easton) >>Not one second, but 3 or 4 seconds. (J. Pharabod) >I would have do disagree with this on the evidence I have. I retained a copy >of the above mentioned documentary and the movement is almost instantaneous. Here is the transcript of the contact (from Belgian military sources): Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet) 00 200 150 7000 01 200 150 7000 02 200 150 7000 03 200 150 7000 04 200 150 6000 05 270 560 6000 06 270 560 6000 07 270 570 6000 08 270 560 7000 09 270 550 7000 10 210 560 9000 11 210 570 10000 12 210 560 11000 13 210 570 10000 14 270 770 7000 15 270 770 6000 16 270 780 6000 17 270 790 5000 18 290 1010 4000 19 290 1000 3000 20 290 990 2000 21 290 990 1000 22 300 990 0000 22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock When you see for example altitude 5000, this means between 4500 and 5500. So 0000 means between 0 and 500. 0 is sea level; mean ground altitude in this area is about 200 feet (therefore 0000 means in fact between 200 and 500). 1,300 meters is 4,265 ft. There is a 4,000 ft drop between time 13 seconds and time 15 seconds (2,000 ft/second, with a big uncertainty because of the +/- 500 feet above mentioned). It seems that this drop is the one quoted in the Paris-Match article: " while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters...in one second!" So, both of us were wrong: it was not 1 second, it was not 3 or 4 seconds, it was 2 seconds! >In view of your welcome comments, I would bring to your attention a summary >of a significant report which addresses many of the points you have raised >and, dare I say, supports my contention that we are not dealing with a >_conventional_ craft, LTA, private jet or otherwise. >The report in question follows: >AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT ON THE RADAR OF AN F-16 >From "Paris Match", (described as a "slick French weekly, something like a classy cross between Time and People Magazine. It is very widely read and >something of a journalistic institution".) >by Marie-Theresa De Brosses This is an old article (Paris-Match dated July 5, 1990, though in fact it was published last day of June). As I said previously, there have been new studies, with different conclusions. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:22:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: AW&ST February 13, 1995 WASHINGTON OUTLOOK: =================== SPY PIX - ------- "THE CIA WILL SOON ASK President Clinton to approve the declassification of vintage spy satellite photos taken during the 1960s. They would be made available through the National Archives. The agency recently declassified many top secret National Intelligence Estimates." FUTILE REFORM - ------------- [House Speaker Newt Gingrich declares that attempts to reform the defense procurement system are futile. He also said that by working the same way the Skunk Works operates, 40% in procurement cost and 80% in weapons, acquisition time could be slashed. Previously he cited the Skunk Works as model for NASA. A real Skunk Works fan, wonder if he is on the list. :)] GENERAL SHREWD and IVY LEAGUE ABSOLUTION - -------------- --------------------- [Retired Air Force General Michael Carns -- nominated as new director of the CIA (DCI) -- wants to "streamline" and "reinvent" the CIA. His resume includes 200-plus combat missions in Vietnam, director of Staff during Operations Desert Shield/Storm and finally Air Force chief of staff. Maybe the CIA will get back into the manned reconnaissance business -- apart from data-relay/drone-control RG-8A motor-glider. :)] B-2 TEAM GETS $94.7 MILLION AS PENTAGON WEIGHS NEEDS ==================================================== [This money is used to keep the production line open, and to study the (possible) need and/or procurement of 20 more B-2. Sixteen of the initial 20 operational aircraft (plus 1 dedicated test aircraft) have been built.] RAIN ERODES B-2 PAINT ===================== "The Air Force will recoat the leading edges of all operational B-2 bombers after finding that light rain eroded a special protective paint more than expected. The aircraft's leading edge coatings are designed to protect the sensitive surfaces from rain, but the paint was "incorrectly applied," an investigation discovered." [Also quotes the reliability during the first operational year as 95%, with 114 out of 120 planned sorties flown. The B-2 was also integrated into Red Flag 95-2, and "first operational bomb deliveries were made in September when a B-2 dropped two Mk. 84 2,000-lb. weapons on a Utah range."] PENTAGON SEES AEROSTATS AS COUNTER-STEALTH TOOL =============================================== by David A. Fulghum, Washington "Pentagon analysts say suspending large aperture radars from balloons at high altitude may be a cheap way of finding stealthy cruise missiles and aircraft. Military aerostat advocates contend that a high-altitude-based combination of radars and other sensors will "facilitate detection and track of low observables in high clutter environments," according to a new Defense Dept. document currently being briefed in the Pentagon. Detractors of the plan point to the historically poor reliability of aerostats -- now used for such things as monitoring drug smuggling -- which are regularly destroyed or disabled by violent weather, lightning and long exposure to sunlight." [...] " Stealth aircraft and cruise missile are built primarily to elude ground- based radar, so engine inlets, cockpits and other hard-to-disguise portions of aircraft are shielded from the ground, but often not from an airborne sensor. Perhaps more importantly, a radar looking down at fixed ground clutter can locate a moving empty spot produced by a nonradar-reflective object." [TCOM, a company from Columbia, Md., contends that "with the improvements in materials made possible by technology in the last decade", "they can place a newly designed spherical aerostat at 65,000 ft., above most violent weather, for at least 30 days at a time." This aerostat would not have tail structures, would carry a large L-band radar, and would cost $10-20 million, including mooring system and ground support vehicles. Operation costs would be $500 per hour, compared with $2,700 for E-2Cs and $8,300 for E-3Cs. The Israeli Defense Force uses (out of cost constrains) increasingly UAVs and other unmanned systems, and since 1981 aerostat-mounted radars to guard against surprise attacks by low-flying aircraft. (If I remember correctly, the Kuwaitis had early warning of Iraq's attack by an aerostat, equipped with a Westinghouse radar (and operated by civilian contractors).) The USN is considering aerostats as Cooperative Engagement Communications (CEC) relays for ship defense, targeting, etc.] "[...] The single-piece [tether] cables are built with high data-rate electro-optical and power cables as an integral part of their structure. They offer a secure data link, immunity from jamming, an uninterrupted power source and relief from frequency allocation concerns." [Aerostats could also be used to: - - monitor North Korea's mobile artillery and missiles (equipped with moving target indicators (MTI) combined with synthetic aperture radars (SAR)); - - serve as a theater air defense by spotting mobile ballistic missile firings or the approach of ground-hugging cruise missiles (using an infrared sensor); - - guide precision munitions or drones much further away as it is possible from ground stations -- replacing manned data relay aircraft.] - -- 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: Lou Dellaverson Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 23:47:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aurora Future (fwd) Hi, There has been alot of talk about aurora on the list lately, and current events will cause it (or its derivatives) to have a brighter future. For those unaware our dearly departed CIA director very firmly beleived that NTM has sufficent for all his needs. He actively suppressed development of airbreathing startegic collection resources. The new director may very well be more disposed to consider such programs as valuable. - ----------------------------------------------------------- Lou Dellaverson lpd@interaccess.com ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 12:34:57 +0000 Subject: SR71 killed off? Hi skunkers, This from Usenet: >From gwis2.circ.gwu.edu!wayneday (Dwayne Allen Day) The Washington Post reported on Saturday, February 11, that the House had recently amended a Clinton administration supplemental defense authorization bill. Clinton wanted extra money for readiness, which suffered when money was borrowed from there to support Bosnia, Rwanda and Haiti operations. The Republicans boosted this request mainly by taking money from other accounts, including $80 million from the SR-71 reactivation funds (which was only $100 million to begin with). This should effectively kill the reactivation of the SR-71.< So what is the story? Is it true? Please someone, help those not in the U.S. keep up to date with how the reactivation is going. Mary, has the B model been used for Air Force pilot training yet? Just a thought but has all this SR71 talk and its eventual non appearance been to take peoples minds off other newer, very black projects? Regards Adrian Thurlow / Det.4 9th SRW \ Technology Integration / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. Adrian.Thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: "Lovelace, Brad" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 08:40:00 EST Subject: RE: SR71 killed off? Yes it is true, the rescission bill takes $80 million from the FY95 Appropriation for the SR-71. The language is as follows. "The Committee (House Appropriations Committee) has included a total rescission of $80,000,000 ($15M from O&M Air Force and $65M from Aircraft Procurement Air Force) from the SR-71 based upon the lack of outyear funding, deficiencies in the industrial base to support SR-71 operations, and the minimal increase in collection capability that would result from the current limited deployment plan." ---------- From: skunk-works-owner To: skunk-works@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: SR71 killed off? Date: Tuesday, February 14, 1995 12:34PM Hi skunkers, This from Usenet: >From gwis2.circ.gwu.edu!wayneday (Dwayne Allen Day) The Washington Post reported on Saturday, February 11, that the House had recently amended a Clinton administration supplemental defense authorization bill. Clinton wanted extra money for readiness, which suffered when money was borrowed from there to support Bosnia, Rwanda and Haiti operations. The Republicans boosted this request mainly by taking money from other accounts, including $80 million from the SR-71 reactivation funds (which was only $100 million to begin with). This should effectively kill the reactivation of the SR-71.< So what is the story? Is it true? Please someone, help those not in the U.S. keep up to date with how the reactivation is going. Mary, has the B model been used for Air Force pilot training yet? Just a thought but has all this SR71 talk and its eventual non appearance been to take peoples minds off other newer, very black projects? Regards Adrian Thurlow / Det.4 9th SRW \ Technology Integration / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. Adrian.Thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #204 ********************************* 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).