From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #519 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 22 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 519 In this issue: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane Re: Air Force News Running out of fuel Air power is all that's needed!!! Re: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane AFNS: F-22 assembly begins AFNS: F-117 pilot logs 1,000 hours Re: BLC History Plane Re: Mystery plane Re: Mystery plane 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: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:26:35 GMT Subject: Mystery plane Why would the US want to keep an F111 replacement secret? The F14, F15, F16 and A10 programs were all out in the open, weren't they? On the other hand, the U2, SR71 and F117 programs were black and either stealth or recce programs. Both the SR71 and F117 operated out of Macharanish (sp?) in Scotland *before* they were publically announced (I don't know if the U2 was flown from the UK before being announced). We've also heard about the strange, loud rumbling engine noises from near that airfield a couple of years ago, together with the report of a Mach 3+ radar trace that ATC were subsequently told they hadn't seen, which is part of the Aurora folklore. I've also heard a report of a 'strange-looking' aircraft that wasn't an F117 making a diverted landing at RAF Valley during Desert Storm, possibly due to fog and/or fuel shortage. The person who made this claim *still* hasn't processed his film (Aaaargh!) from that date (he takes a lot of photos and has moved house twice since the incident and has a box "somewhere" with several rolls of undeveloped film in it, one of which has the photos of this aircraft). Plus there is the Boscombe Down incident. So it seems safe to assume that USAF 'exotics' do have test runs over or around the UK prior to any public announcements. Also, it seems reasonable to assume that if the North Sea sighting report is accurate, the aircraft spotted there also counts as 'exotic' ie either recce ('spy') or stealth or both. As for why this might be, I don't know. The SR71 I can understand - better placement for runs around the coastline of the USSR to gather intelligence ie genuine operations. The F117? Does anyone think the USAF would *really* fly an F117 near USSR airspace to see if it got spotted, prior to announcement? I suspect that it's more likely to be tests in either different weather conditions or against different *friendly* radar sets that aren't available in the continental USA. Those would also be valid reasons for flying an F111-replacement *or* a Black Manta over here. Regards, Steve Opinions? All my own, of course. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 15:03:36 MET Subject: Re: Mystery plane > . Both the SR71 and F117 operated out of >Macharanish (sp?) in Scotland *before* they were publically announced >seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) (Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:26:35 GMT) This is Machrihanish. It is located in the Kintyre peninsula, SW Scotland. I suspect that seb@tadpole.co.uk is the same user as seb@tadtec.co.uk, which would mean that Steven Barber knows a lot about it. Here is an old skunk-works posting: ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. From: Simon Storry Date: Tue, 11 May 93 19:44:34 +0100 Subject: Recent Aurora Article (was Re: Another Aurora Question) Ran, Here's another Aurora story which appeared in the May 9th 1993 edition of the Scottish "Sunday Post", (The Sunday Picture Post Insert, Page 1). It's not what I'd call the most stunning piece of Journalism I've ever encountered - but then the guy hasn't got much *real* info to go on has he:-) -------------- "Golfers stroll across the course which stretches past the end of the runway at RAF Machrihanish near Cambeltown, not far away from the tip of the Kintyre penisula on the west coast of Scotland. An innocent scene. But above them flies America's top secret new spy plane - our artists impression of drawings by American defence experts. First spotted flying high over the North Sea in 1989, the plane's existence has never been oficially admitted by the American authorities. They were equally secretive when the slealth bomber also used Machrihanish for secret trials before it took part so devistatingly in the Gulf War. The `New York Times', `Jane's Defence Weekly' and the US Magazine `Aviation Week' have all reported that the aircraft exists. It's known as Project Aurora. Oil rig engineer Chris Gibson claims to have seen the aircraft from the rig Galveston Key. Gibson, a part-time member of the Royal Observer Corps, saw the dart-shaped plane taking on fuel from a US Air Force tanker. First word of it using Machrihanish came when a report filtered out about an RAF radar man picking up an unidentified craft travelling at three times the speed of sound near the Kintyre peninsula. Locals started querying terrific sonic booms ripping through the sky near the base. Then the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute investigated earth tremors and strange shock waves across the Friesian coast - and said the probable cause was the sonic boom from an aircraft flying at a speed of 4000mph. Machrihanish has the longest military runway in Europe and the US is to invest another 7 million pounds in the base. Moreover, the US's secret or "black" budget has pumped $8 million into the Lockheed Corporation's ultra-high security Skunk Works in the California Desert, believed to be for Project Aurora. Aurora's task would be to fill in fine detail of observations by the spy satellites the US uses for routine reconnaissance. Like the Stealth bomber, it would be capable of defying almost any radar system. Add it all up and there's little doubt about the most curious birdie at Machrihanish golf course these days." -------------- [end of posting] ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Now here is another posting which questions the statement "Machrihanish has the longest military runway in Europe": ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. From: seb@tadtec.co.uk Date: Thu, 13 May 93 13:51:32 BST Subject: Landing strips & Aurora Ian Woodrow kindly provided the following data earlier: RAF Valley (on the island of Angelsey, Wales) r/w 14 TORA 7520 ft TODA/ASDA 7662 ft LDA 7515 ft r/w 32 TORA/ASDA 7520 ft TODA 7552 ft LDA 7518 ft - - --------------------------------- That's no big deal compared to other fields RAF Macrihanish (near Cambeltown (southern tip of Kintyre peninsula), Scotland) r/w 11 TORA/ASDA 10003 ft TODA 10462 ft LDA 9439 ft r/w 29 TORA/ASDA 10003 ft TODA 10029 ft LDA 8684 ft The abbrevs mean:- TORA Take-off run available TODA Take-off distance available ASDA Accelerate stop distance available LDA Landing distance available So, does the claim recently circulated from the Press re Mac. having one of the longest military landing strips in Europe stand up? Secondly, is it feasible for Aurora to have landed at Valley, given the kind of configurations we've been discussing here? Does the SR-71 Pilot's Manual give figures for how much runway the Blackbird requires, and if so, how do they fit in with this? Regards, Steve [end of posting] ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Hope this helps, J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:20:55 -0100 Subject: Re: Mystery plane Hi Steve At 12:26 22/11/95 GMT, you wrote: >Why would the US want to keep an F111 replacement secret? The F14, F15, >F16 and A10 programs were all out in the open, weren't they? Only if it contained technology that *they* want to to keep secret e.g. stealth. >On the other hand, the U2, SR71 and F117 programs were black and either >stealth or recce programs. Both the SR71 and F117 operated out of >Macharanish (sp?) in Scotland *before* they were publically announced (I >don't know if the U2 was flown from the UK before being announced). We've >also heard about the strange, loud rumbling engine noises from near that >airfield a couple of years ago, together with the report of a Mach 3+ radar >trace that ATC were subsequently told they hadn't seen, which is part of >the Aurora folklore. And, also according to a report on BBC radio a few years ago, that an amateur photographer taking photos of wildlife took some pics of a strange looking aircraft on the runway at Macharanish. He claioms that the guys guarding the base confiscated his film so we still have no firm evidence. > >I've also heard a report of a 'strange-looking' aircraft that wasn't an >F117 making a diverted landing at RAF Valley during Desert Storm, possibly >due to fog and/or fuel shortage. The person who made this claim *still* >hasn't processed his film (Aaaargh!) from that date (he takes a lot of >photos and has moved house twice since the incident and has a box >"somewhere" with several rolls of undeveloped film in it, one of which has >the photos of this aircraft). Never heard of this one before - please can you send any more details that you have? >Plus there is the Boscombe Down incident. This is probably the best evidence of something strange flying about the UK. The official line is that a Tornado was testing a towed infra-red decoy which could not be reeled into its underwing pod. The RAF do in fact have such a thing so that's not a complete lie. The civil police closed the road which runs pass Boscombe Down and sent the aircraft spotters who frequent the area away under the threat of the Official Secrets Act if they did not move. The road was closed during the rush hour which caused traffic chaos. The road was not opened until the aircraft crashed at which time the spotters were allowed into the area and whose reports have subsequently been posted. This plus the *eye witness* account of a retired senior ranking Army officer who saw an aircraft (which he failed to identify as a Tornado) that appeared to be in trouble over the Exmoor National Park shortly before the incident at Boscombe Down indicates to me that was something strange happening on that day. Finally, I don't know if the names of the crew who were killed were ever released to the press. If they were not it may indicate that they were not RAF personnel. >So it seems safe to assume that USAF 'exotics' do have test runs over or >around the UK prior to any public announcements. Also, it seems reasonable >to assume that if the North Sea sighting report is accurate, the aircraft >spotted there also counts as 'exotic' ie either recce ('spy') or stealth or >both. As for why this might be, I don't know. The SR71 I can understand - >better placement for runs around the coastline of the USSR to gather >intelligence ie genuine operations. The F117? Does anyone think the USAF >would *really* fly an F117 near USSR airspace to see if it got spotted, >prior to announcement? I suspect that it's more likely to be tests in >either different weather conditions or against different *friendly* radar >sets that aren't available in the continental USA. Those would also be >valid reasons for flying an F111-replacement *or* a Black Manta over here. I agree that our Northern European weather is *different* than anything that the US can generate and the changes in climate vary considerably, but I would think that the US would have enough different types of radar sets to not make it necessary for them to test outside the US. The other possibility is to try it at non-US bases and within differing ATC regions for operations outside of the US. One final possibilty is that it is so fast that it uses (used) the UK as a turning point before heading back to its US base ;-). Sorry about the last bit I promise I won't mention hypersonics etc.. Regards John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Systems Administrator, The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) CompuServe: 100336.3113@compuserve.com =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 08:37:36 EST Subject: Re: Air Force News Well, I was wondering what response my comments about the AF News Service assertion would elicit. Some of the respondents seem to have felt that my position was that the Army could go it alone ... nothing could be further from the truth. You will not find anyone, ANYONE, who thinks more purple than I do. I was in the Marine Corps Reserve while in college, spent my first six years of active duty in the Navy (two years on a joint assignment) and spent the last 14 in the Army (in two of those years I was providing support to the Air Force). As an Army Aviator I am certainly air-minded. I was very gratified that no one attempted to reaffirm the position that bombers could do it alone. This was first posited between WWI and WWII, and was most recently voiced during and shortly after Desert Storm. That is the attitude that I object to. My statement about the decisive weapon system being the infantryman with his rifle reflects what I feel is obvious: the decision hasn't been reached until the grunt is on the ground and the enemy has ceased operations. This is true no matter how stealthy (list tie-in) or long ranged the bomber in use is, how big its bomb-load, or how many of them you have. I think the air war in Desert Storm is a good model (perhaps in spite of the bomberists). It was very joint. The proof is that the first ordnance to impact was delivered by Army Aviation, guided to their target by the Air Force. It was my impression in Vietnam that, at the planning level, the Air Force tried to ignore our existence. At the warrior level we didn't have that attitude. I remember in Da Nang in 1972 we had AF AC-119s on our air cavalry troop's night recon frequency. The cav would find the target, get clearance to fire from the Vietnamese (they carried a VN liaison officer in the aircraft), mark the target for the AC-119, and then get out of the way. But, as I recall, this was the result of conversations in the club, not by the air staff. General Clement's comments are right on target, it is and must be a joint effort. But then he is a fighter pilot, by definition a warrior. Here is a salute to all warriors, whatever the color of their uniform: :-) \ Bill Riddle PS: One person referred to the submarine campaign against Japan. I almost brought that up myself. Now there was a bunch of REAL warriors. They certainly took the war to the enemy. BTW, I understand they had the highest casualty rate of any organization in WWII, 23% never returned from patrol. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Air Force News Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 11/21/95 5:04 PM - -- [ From: Bob Clements * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- After 40 years in the Air Force, from the bottom to near to the top, I always thought it was a joint effort. The decisiveness came when people stopped getting killed and peace prevailed. One of my best buddies was the director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Whenever I went to see him, on official duty, I was always impressed with the diversity of uniforms, the full significance of joint planning and that I was part of a great team filled with common resolve to do but one thing....... win the war. Just my .02 cents check6 Bob B/Gen USAF (ret) - -- B/G USAF (ret) "there are no fighter pilots down in hell" ------------------------------ From: celestine@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Stockton) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 16:19 GMT Subject: Running out of fuel Su Wei-Jen wrote:-- <> The same applied to Japan basically...no ships afloat to transport any fuel. Apart from the two mortal nuclear blows that is>>>>===>>>>zap May the Force be with you too! Grahame Stockton celestine@compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: celestine@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Stockton) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 16:19 GMT Subject: Air power is all that's needed!!! sschaper@pobox.com (Steve Schaper) wrote:- The Panzer columns were out of fuel and virtually sitting ducks for when the boys in blue could eventually get at 'em. We can all get caught napping....a lot did in the Ardennes offensive...could have done with Blackbird then....whether she would have seen through that appalling weather front I don't know. Grahame Stockton celestine@compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Daga1@aol.com Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:34:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Mystery plane Well, here's some wild speculation (if someone else has covered this previously, let me apologize in advance -- I have been caught up in a project and haven't been able to read every posting)... First, we have continuing reports not only from the US but from the North Sea and Scotland that seem to suggest a new a/c, possibly Aurora. The witnesses are now inclusive of a plurality of experts and credible observers (as opposed to people who sell stories to tabloid newspapers). Second, the pattern of reported sightings, and of speculative newspaper articles, seems rather consistent with the pattern of emergence of other prior black programs. Indeed, there seems to be a growing sense of "well, we really don't care if they see us anymore" on the part of those charged with protecting the secret a/c (if it exists, that is). Third (and I realize that this is controversial): I would argue that we have a political situation in the US which would, at least, favor the development of such an aircraft, if not the acceleration of its deployment. I am certain that this view is not universal, but I would estimate that a critical political mass exists, even among political contenders, that favors the deployment of a new recce platform. So, if Aurora (or some other program) exists, are we somewhere between Neither Confirm Nor Deny and The Paris Airshow? And if so, what precipitating factor or event is likely to create an environment which would lead to a nearer-term disclosure of the program? A conflict, perhaps? So let me add to the above list one further intangible: We have a president who seems not to be reticent, but eager, to involve US and NATO troops in Bosnia -- and to do so as the year leading up to the 1996 election begins. Now, I know it's a big stretch, but perhaps allowable for this group, but consider: Would the (at first) secret deployment of an (or several) operational Aurora a/c provide NATO forces with an enhanced capability to track the various combatants in the rugged terrain of Bosnia and related areas? If equipped with the latest troop-movement tracking gadgets, would it not allow commanders to literally watch the movement of the various forces in ways that satellite systems are not yet capable of? Would such gadgets work more effectively in the winter than during other seasons (IR contrast?), thereby lending further impetus to deploying the technology sooner rather than later? Such an advantage might lend a considerable degree of confidence to NATO planners -- and White House Planners. So, as we saw in Panama and then later in the Gulf with respect to the F-117, I wonder if Bosnia might not provide the venue where the formal revelation of a new black a/c happens. Just a thought. Andy ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 11:36:54 EST Subject: Re: Mystery plane John Burtenshaw Writes > > I agree that our Northern European weather is *different* than anything that > the US can generate and the changes in climate vary considerably, but I > would think that the US would have enough different types of radar sets to > not make it necessary for them to test outside the US. The other possibility > is to try it at non-US bases and within differing ATC regions for operations > outside of the US. One final possibilty is that it is so fast that it uses > (used) the UK as a turning point before heading back to its US base ;-). > Sorry about the last bit I promise I won't mention hypersonics etc.. Could it be that their (USAF) motive is that if people witness a secret aircraft that the USAF won't admit exists, then people scream about wanting to know where their tax dollars go. If it's seen in another country, no one screams about wanting to know where someone elses tax dollars go. Again, just my $0.02. - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:28:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: AFNS: F-22 assembly begins 1290. F-22 assembly begins MARIETTA, Ga. (AFNS) -- Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems here marked a major milestone on Nov. 2 as it began assembly of the forward fuselage of the first F-22 fighter. This first assembly is the nose landing gear wheel well, a box-like structure that the nose landing gear retracts into when the aircraft takes off. "We are starting assembly operations on schedule," said Randy Simpson, manufacturing program manager for the Lockheed Martin-Boeing team developing the F-22 for the Air Force. "It is exciting getting to this point. We are not just doing design anymore--this is the real thing." The first F-22 is scheduled to be flown from the runway at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, which adjoins Aeronautical System; in May 1997. After several functional check flights, the aircraft will be ferried to the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., where the F-22's flight test program will take place in earnest. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:27:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: AFNS: F-117 pilot logs 1,000 hours 1284. F-117 pilot logs 1,000 hours HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- A member of the 49th Fighter Wing here made aviation history Nov. 2 when he became the first operational Air Force pilot to log 1,000 hours in the F-117A Nighthawk. Lt. Col. Greg Feest, 9th Fighter Squadron commander, is a senior pilot with 3,350 total hours in the F-117, F-15, A-7 and AT-38, including 130 combat flying hours in the F-117. Beyond attaining the flying-hour milestone, he has achieved two other notable feats in five-plus years of flying the stealth fighter. Feest flew the opening missions of both Operation Just Cause, the 1989 U.S. military action in Panama, and Operation Desert Storm, where he led the first air strike on Baghdad, Iraq, in January 1991. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:32:35 -0800 Subject: Re: BLC Chuck writes: > >About boundary layer.... >Suction is as old as I am. There have been numerous >protoypes built and flown, but no practical system yet. Although you were talking about lifting surfaces, don't forget the many successful boundary layer bleeds done via suction on supersonic inlets. The SR in fact employs such a device on the inlet spike to remove the spike BL (Boundary Layer) upstream of the throat of the inlet. >The coolest thing would be >1) engine intakes through wing skins. Again, depending on what is done with the BL bled air (add heat say), such an effect has already been achieved, although it is not the primary propulsion inlet flow. There are also hypersonic inlet concepts that in fact intentionally add heat (via fuel) to the BL air removed from the inlet path to get additional thrust out of it before exhausting it, similar to what you are talking about. > The hottest boundary layer control stuff is not on airplanes, but >race cars. Check it out. Race cars are definitely interesting, but boundary layers have been a critical issue with supersonic inlets since day 1. There is a definite mass of important technology in this area that has been developed over the years, and if you don't do it correct or you ignore it, the inlet won't work, so it's critical. Larry ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:58:35 PST Subject: History Plane >Both the SR71 and F117 operated out of Macharanish (sp?) in Scotland *before* >they were publically announced. SR71 was publically announced in 1963 ish. Were they in Macharanish before that? regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:20:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mystery plane Steven Barber wrote, and nobody has debated it: >Both the SR71 and F117 operated out of >Macharanish (sp?) in Scotland *before* they were publically announced (I >don't know if the U2 was flown from the UK before being announced). I would like to point out, that the SR-71 was publicly announced (by President Johnson on July 24, 1964) before she even flew for the first time (on December 22, 1964, at Palmdale, CA). The CIA-operated A-12s were first deployed to Kadena AB (starting with article 131) on May 22, 1967, and were (as far as officially known) never deployed to any other place outside of CONUS. I have also seen no evidence yet, that any SR-71s were deployed to RAF Machrihanish, or even that they made any stops there. The F-117 was officially also never deployed/used abroad before Panama (during Operation 'Just Cause' in December 1989) and I have not seen any evidence yet, suggesting that the F-117 was ever deployed to Machrihanish, either. The U-2 was definitely deployed to the UK and then Germany before being publicly announced (at least as reconnaissance plane), but was never kept secret at the level of "no comment", (first introduced by the F-117A), but flew with the cover story of being a NASA-operated weather reconnaissance plane. The first U-2s deployed abroad went to RAF Lakenheath as WRSP-1 (Det A), but were soon moved to Wiesbaden AB and then to Giebelstadt AB, both in Germany. The reason was not the weather (which is often pretty crappy in Germany too, as well as here in Michigan, I must say), but because of political reasons. I don't know if any other black aircraft projects were tested or deployed in the UK, but of course the RAF had always a special relationship with the USAF regarding black projects -- as evident by RAF pilots flying U-2s and F-117s. The USA has so many climatic regions on its own, that I don't believe there is any reason to test "secret" hardware in Europe for the weather reason alone. The only conceivable reason would be operational necessity. If there is any evidence (not newspaper article speculation) that SR-71s or F-117s were deployed at Machrihanish, that I am not aware of, I would be happy to hear about it. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:53:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Mystery plane On 22 Nov 95 Daga1@aol.com shaped the electrons to say: >First, we have continuing reports not only from the US but from the >North Sea and Scotland that seem to suggest a new a/c, possibly Aurora. >The witnesses are now inclusive of a plurality of experts and credible >observers (as opposed to people who sell stories to tabloid newspapers). I think the U.K. is probably one of the better places to test black projects...the press is to damn busy chasing after Charles, Di, Fergie. >Second, the pattern of reported sightings, and of speculative newspaper >articles, seems rather consistent with the pattern of emergence of other >prior black programs. Indeed, there seems to be a growing sense of >"well, we really don't care if they see us anymore" on the part of those >charged with protecting the secret a/c (if it exists, that is). There is the other side, which is, "I hope they see us and they will know what we can do, and their is no way they can build anything as sophisticated as this.... >Third (and I realize that this is controversial): I would argue that we >have a political situation in the US which would, at least, favor the >development of such an aircraft, if not the acceleration of its >deployment. I am certain that this view is not universal, but I would >estimate that a critical political mass exists, even among political >contenders, that favors the deployment of a new recce platform. Well, I for one hope not.... I think what is needed is a slow constantly orbiting recon platform. >Neither Confirm Nor Deny and The Paris Airshow? And if so, what >precipitating factor or event is likely to create an environment which >would lead to a nearer-term disclosure of the program? A conflict, >perhaps? A Lotus spreadsheet that could be shown to the American taxpayer indicating the program was not as costly as can be imagined. In summation, Andy, there are a lot of slow movers, with look down, count-em capability, that would preclude the use of something as high-tech as a new hiperspace spy plane. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + John F. Regus + SYS/370/390 SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, DATA AND + TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + internet: wizard@sccsi.com + internet: jregus@aol.com + voice : (713) 960 0045 + data : (713) 960 0015 (SECURED) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #519 ********************************* 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).