From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #569 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 14 December 1995 Volume 05 : Number 569 In this issue: SR-71 spies Whatever happened to the Waverider re: grounding of SR-71s re: grounding of SR-71s Lockheed TV ad re: grounding of SR-71s Re: Waverider [NASP] Re: Mig-25 and Skunk Works Re: Mig-25 and Skunk Works Re: A-12 geneology re: SENIOR CITIZEN unmasked ? Hello Re: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Re: Waverider [NASP] Is this old news? 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: "Joe Pialet" Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 07:09:12 +0000 Subject: SR-71 spies While browsing the Internet I came across a "skunky" item in the July 1995 Intelligence Newsletter. They report thtat Army Intelligence has given the FBI evidence that at least one SR-71 pilot was providing top secret information to the KGB. In 1986 a member of a SR-71 support crew was sentenced to 25 years in jail for trying to sell secrets. He has reportedly told Army Intelligence that one of the SR-71 pilots recruited him as part of a spy ring. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 07:09:33 EST Subject: Whatever happened to the Waverider Forwarded from the Space Tech list-TWC-: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:18:08 -0800 From: Michael Lammers Subject: Whatever happened to the Waverider? David Thomas Richard Given wrote: > > I remember hearing some time ago about a air/space vehicle called a > Waverider. I never found out terribly much about it, but the inital > reports indicated that this thing was astonishingly aerodynamic and was a > very good choice for a reentry vehicle. The phrase `carrot-top' comes to > mind. Has anyone heard of this? > Waveriders, at least in theory, have been around for awhile. There was a short article on them in Aviation Week not to long ago, describing wind tunnel work being done on waveriders at Nasa Ames (I think it was Ames). The testing was at subsonic velocities. At design conditions, the lateral edges of a waverider will ride on a captured shock wave. Waveriders often have lower drag, higher lift, or higher lift/drag ratios than conventional shapes at hypersonic speeds. I guess the key point here is that they only have this performance at very high velocities. From what I understand, the real problem with waveriders is the problem with a lot of high-performance hypersonic designs -- the darn thing has got to fly at subsonic velocities at some point to land. Generating lift at subsonic and supersonic speeds is quite different, and only more complicated when you are riding shock waves. I believe that most of the work being done now is to investigate the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of wave riders, hence the tests at Ames. Most of this was off the top of my head, so I would appreciate it if someone could post more on the subject. I am rather fascinated by waverider designs. Mike - -- Mike Lammers Spacecraft Systems & Operations Laboratory Iowa State University mllammer@iastate.edu ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:57:32 -0500 Subject: re: grounding of SR-71s There is a Japanese proverb that says that "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Just so, the justification for the Blackbird should not be that it is the best tool for every job. Rather, it should be that there are jobs for which it is the only tool. Given the relatively small size of Bosnia (or the area-formerly-known-as-Yugoslavia, for that matter) and the minimal threat environment -- to aircraft -- I have to wonder what advantage there is to using the SR-71 over competing platforms. The SR-71 is a magnificent aircraft with unique capabilties but, it seems to me, those capabilities are not required for this mission. Is there anything that an SR-71 brings to this mission that can not be done as well -- and at lower cost -- by other aircraft? ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:00:46 ÿÿÿ Subject: re: grounding of SR-71s The primary advantages the SR would bring would be the same that it would in any situation: rapid arrival, very high survivability and the ability to survey large amounts of territory in a given amount of time (the data collection rate is at least four times that of a U-2, but the in-area loiter is naturally less). If those abilities aren't needed, then the $35K an hour or so it costs to fly the SR may not be worth it. The actual size of the whole country isn't that important. Art Hanley Despite all appearances to the Contrary, my employers have nothing to do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:19:47 -0600 (CST) Subject: Lockheed TV ad Lockheed is now running an interesting TV ad in which they definitely identify themselves as the good guys and they want the world to agree (which of course I don't take exception to). In the footage are a number of F-117's and something that went by real fast (F-22 maybe???). Could someone who has seen this ad please identify what planes can be seen on it? I think I saw it around Ted Koppel time. I am also curious as to what exactly is the point of running such an ad? TIA if anyone has the info on this. Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:28:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: re: grounding of SR-71s I get a five-week schedule every Monday and there's no sign of any grounding at all. This schedule shows both NASA and USAF flights. My husband also heard one fly over when he was down at Plant 42 Tuesday. I've got to agree with Art's analysis. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Art Hanley wrote: > I, for one, haven't seen anything yet about grounding the reactivated > SR-71s, but I have heard of something that may give rise to such a > story. > > A number of stories in the general press said the SR-71s were being > reactivated in order to be used in Bosnia. This wasn't the case. > The reasons for the SR-71 reactivation were broader than that and the > decision to bring them back had been made before Bosnia had really > taken center stage in the US. However, it made for a good story, so > it kept being printed. > > Recently, the decision seems to be have been made at high level that > the SR will not be detached to Europe for use over Bosnia. This > could be that now that 'peace is at hand' and since everyone over > there now obviously loves everyone else there is not as much need for > the SR's survivability advantage or the enormous amount of data it > can collect in a given time. Also, though it should not be forgotten > that there are still a lot of people in USAF who hate this aircraft > and may have just decided they don't want it to get any favorable > publicity (This is not an uncommon phenomena, many similar examples > come to mind). I don't really know. > > The point is that with the previous stories that the SR was being > reactivated because of the Bosnian situation, news that the SR-71 was > not going to be used there might tend to be interpreted that the > planes were being grounded. Then again, it's not safe to rule > anything out any more... > > Art > > ------------------------------ From: Robin Bjorklund Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:45:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Waverider [NASP] > The Space Plane aerodynamics aren`t a challenge. Its the propulsion that > makes the project unfeasible right now. The lastest research I`ve seen > involves variable area combustion chambers. Yeah, right! And that assumes > the flame impingent issues are resolved. I'm not sure I understand this problem fully. What problems are they (or did they) have with flame impingement inside the engine? I doubt that it was because of the high velocities inside the engine - as a simple bluff body flameholder could be used to keep the flame where it should be. Or, better yet, an aerodynamic flameholder could be used. Thus, the problem with keeping the flame inside the combustor is not really that difficult to solve. If you mean that the flame is impinging on the walls of the combustor/nozzle/etc., why not just build in a secondary airflow dilution zone into the impinged area. This helps to cool the walls of whatever you want, to protect it from the heat of the flame. Thus, what exactly do you mean by "flame impingent issues?" On another note, I would have to say that waverider research is still alive and breathing...just check out the latest issue of the AIAA Journal of Aircraft. It seems like every issue has something about waveriders in it. Most technical libraries will subscribe to this journal. Although this represents academic research, and not industrial research, it still shows that the concept has potential. (a _lot_ of CFD work these days is done on waverider lifting bodies). robin:p +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robin L. Bjorklund Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University | | E-mail: bjorklur@db.erau.edu Humor me, and smile! | | Home Page: http://Bibb.ent.db.erau.edu/~bjorklur | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | There is no knowledge that is not power. | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:27:06 -0600 Subject: Re: Mig-25 and Skunk Works > > > >The Lt. Victor Belinko bird was a FOXBAT A and carried a standard interceptor > >missile configuration. MiG-25MP, Russian designator. > > > >The aircraft was completely exploited on site in Japan (Hokkado Island), > >afterwards it was completly disaaembled and placed in boxes. The Soviets picked > >up the boxes and transported the plane back to Russia by a ship. > > > This corroborates the story I was told by my "boss-in-a-former-life" from Hughes, especially the part about disassembly, boxes and transport... Greg Fieser (since I'm self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 12:40:51 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Mig-25 and Skunk Works Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that the MiG-25 aerodynamic shape closely resembles that of the RA-5, since I don't want to imply that the MiG-25 is a copy of the RA-5. In a related vein, Bill Gunston once described conversations he had in the eighties with Soviet designers of the MiG-29 and SU-27 series. Noting the resemblance between the aerodynamic shape of these aircraft and the F-14/F-15 in the West he asked how much influence the US aircraft design had. According to him, the design of these aircraft were uniquely Soviet. However, these aircraft were not designed by the "old guard" legendary designers but by the relatively "new" people who had risen up to senior positions in the design bureaus. They had a sales job to convince the high ranking and very conservative members of Government that they did know what they were doing. So, although these designs were totally theirs, they were not averse to the aerodynamic shapes resembling the US designs. One of the points they could make to the big wheels was that, 'Our planes look like the Americans, so we must be doing it right'. Totally irrelevant argument, but helped to sell the powers that be. See, marketing is everywhere. Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:17:16 -0600 Subject: Re: A-12 geneology > > But the A-12 Avenger was not made by Grumman??? (now Northop-Grumman). > The A-12 was the winner(?) of the Navy's ATA (Advanced Tactical Aircraft) competition to replace the Grumman A-6. The ATA proposal submitted by the team of McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics was selected over that of the "other" team, of which Grumman and Northrop were members, I believe. The program was cancelled several years ago, supposedly for cost/performance reasons. McAir/GD contended that the contract was cancelled for the convenience of the Navy, and proceeded to sue (take legal action against) the US government. I don't remember the outcome of the legal stuff, but the lone A-12 (mockup) still sits in a hangar at GD's (now Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems - LMTAS) facility in Ft. Worth, TX. Infamous cartoon seen years ago at GD: the A-12's first flight is depicted as resulting in a badly pranged airplane, with a Jay Leno-looking guy saying to the Navy brass, "don't worry, we'll make more..." Greg Fieser (since I'm self employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer...) ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 12:32:36 PST Subject: re: SENIOR CITIZEN unmasked ? In an earlier message, J. Pharabod wrote: >I have just looked at http://www.portal.com/~trader/sc.html and saw >the two drawings of the possible SENIOR CITIZEN (subsonic V/STOL). >What is characteristic is that, in addition to the triangular shape, they >noticed two fins looking very much like the fins on the above drawings of the >SENIOR CITIZEN. >Now I am pretty sure that this SENIOR CITIZEN is the Belgian "UFO". As the creator of that Web page, I guess I should comment, based on my research. (By the way, a reliable source has mentioned seeing a "double delta aircraft" near Tonopah Test Range, Nevada. Since it was his sighting, he'll have to provide the details.) Seeing a black aircraft like the one in the illustrations, capable of vertical takeoffs, could indeed be mistaken for a UFO. I don't know if you've seen the F-117 Stealth fighter flying, but it is also an example of something that looks pretty weird and must have caused UFO sightings when it was tested in secrecy in Nevada in the early 1980s. Since I believe that Boeing is the primary contractor on SENIOR CITIZEN (Program Element 0401316F) and the initial contract was given to them sometime around November 1988, I obtained a copy of their 1994 annual report to their shareholders, and found a few cryptic comments that might interest this group. "To improve the company's ability to respond quickly to customer needs, a new rapid prototyping process has been developed... One such product is Heliwing, an unmanned air vehicle that takes off and lands vertically like a helicopter, flies horizontally like an airplane, and can provide aerial reconnaissance without putting a pilot at risk." "The Defense and Space Group is on the forward edge of military and space technology... Other potential opportunities being pursued include a possible replacement for NASA's aging Space Shuttle fleet." "The current major developmental programs, principally [are] the Space Station, F-22 fighter, V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and RAH-66 Comanche helicopter... the major revenue-producing programs [also] include... continuing B-2 bomber subcontract work, other program support, and classified project activities." Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: Edward_R._Hotchkiss@atlmug.org (Edward R. Hotchkiss) Date: 15 Dec 1995 01:01:19 GMT Subject: Hello Hello from a skunk-works fan. I've been lurking for a couple of weeks. Background---Grew up in the shadow of Lockheed Marietta from the time of the C-5A. Currently a member in the Atlanta 1 squadron of Civil Air Patrol, which meets on the Navy side of the air base. Missed the recent presentation on the C-130J. So I am waiting to see the F-22 come off the runway and head over the house. /Ed Hotchkiss/ edward_r_hotchkiss@atlmug.org ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 17:45:31 EST Subject: Re: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Forwarded message-TWC-: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 14/12/1995 7:47 AM Ted- Don't have any knowledge what they are up to ... I was just forwarding those two items as evidence that, perhaps, the info you presented was OBE ... The articles sound as though G.A. has found customers, in all the services. The leasing deal may be some kind of stop gap while they get their stuff together for a procurement. Or perhaps it is to bridge to a better system that is in the pipeline. I have no idea, I just thought you (and others) would find the articles of interest, particularly in that they are so current. I don't work with the UAV program here at Ft Huachuca, in fact I don't even work with the Intel Center and School. (I work at the Joint Interoperability Test Command.) But I do see the Predator operations. Their ramp is about 40 meters from the building I work in. Last spring they had an open house on the ramp and I was able to tour the Predator control van and watch one being controlled. As a retired Army Aviator I was very interested in the fact that the Predator, as opposed to the other UAVs I am aware of, requires a rated aviator to fly the aircraft. FYI, the first of this week a Marine C-130 showed up and offloaded a bunch of troops and equipment on the Predator ramp. Don't know what they are doing, but I think it concerns Predator. Incidentally, did you find the phrase "over Bosnia's hostile skies" as much of a hoot as I did? Didn't know the Predator could fly that high, did you? Sometimes I wonder about newspaper editors. Other times I know. I suspect that folks who write and edit for the Fort Huachuca Scout didn't place at the top of their classes. Two other examples of gross ignorance that I can think of right off were 1) referring to a 155mm self-propelled howitzer as a tank, and 2) in a photo caption to a saber as a sword. The proof positive of nitwit status in those cases was that the reporters were both active duty soldiers. As a soldier myself, I found that inexcusable. Had to call the editor and complain. Didn't do much good, did it? Hope you didn't think I was trying to shoot you down. Just forwarding more raw data. Didn't I used to see your name on the MILHST-L? Haven't been on there in a while. Regards, Bill Riddle ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 12/14/95 6:36 AM Bill, this one is for you. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Author: VVKW99B@prodigy.com (MR THEODORE CORMANEY) at smtp-fhu Date: 13/12/1995 7:57 PM Dear Colvin: Then why is Genl Atomix, the support contractor and the PM marketing a leasing deal? It's been briefed to the PEO and his dpy and is set for a brief to the USD(A+T) before the end of the year? Huh? Ted Cormaney * vvkw99b@prodigy.com - --[ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ]----------------- Forwarded off-line comments-TWC-: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 13/12/1995 8:30 AM MR THEODORE CORMANEY wrote: > There is an ACTD based on the old Amber design, called Tier Two Medium > Altitude Endurance UAV, marketed as Predator. Tier Two has to exit the > ACTD in June 96 and is seeking a leasing deal with OSD, since the > operations costs of the system are prohibitive and no customer has been > found in the Services. If he is saying that Predator does not have a customer, I don't think this is the latest situation. The following was published in the Fort Huachuca "Scout" of 30 November 1995. Headline: "Predator UAV performs for international audience" By Bill Lopez, US Army Intelligence Center & Ft Huachuca Public Affairs Office "The Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, which impressed U.S. allies with its intelligence gathering missions over Bosnia's hostile skies during the past several months, was demonstrated here Nov. 9 for representatives from 10 countries. "The $3 million Predator is the U.S. military's most capable UAV yet fielded. Made by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., Predator is designed to carry a 450-pound payload, fly 500 miles out and remain over an area for 24 hours. Earlier this year, it set a UAV endurance record of more than 40 continuous hours aloft. "Demonstrations, displays and briefings on the Predator were made by representatives of the Joint Project Office for UAVs, based in Arlington, Va. Representatives from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Korea, and the Netherlands attended. "The Predator has operated on-and-off here for about one year, along with other UAVs supported by the post's Joint Tactical UAV Training Center. Officially, the experimental UAV is an advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program designed to exploit off-the-shelf technology, reduce costs and expedite testing and fielding. "Unlike previous U.S. military UAVs, Predator supports upper-echelon command levels, requires a paved surface for take-offs and landings and pilots require Federal Aviation Administration licensing. "Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force crews are currently training with the Predator." And this was published in "Soldiers" (the official U.S. Army magazine) dated December 1995 What's New section, compiled by Donna Miles Headline: Albania - Predator sent to Balkans "The Army's newest unmanned aerial vehicle recently deployed to Albania. "The Predator aerial reconnaissance system can take sharper pictures, stay aloft longer and avoid detection more easily than most other UAVs. It has a range of 500 miles and can stay aloft for up to 40 hours, sending images directly to a ground station that can pass the information quickly to commanders in the field. "The Predator is undergoing an 18-month field test by the 513th Military Intelligence [Brigade's] MI [Battalion], based in Orlando, Fla., which has been flying the Predator since June. At the conclusion of the test, the Army will determine if it will purchase the Predator and field it to military intelligence units Armywide. "In its first operational deployment, the Predator is based in Albania and is flying missions over Bosnia. It is being used to help NATO monitor the movements of various faction in the Balkan conflict. "Already the Predator is making news; it is the system credited with detecting suspected mass graves in the former Yugoslavia. -513th MI Bde PAO" VR, Bill Riddle -------- Original message header follows -------- From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Wed Dec 13 16:22:35 1995 [PIM 3.2-334.50] Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu (daemon@gaia.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.2]) by pimaia1w.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA173708; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:22:38 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA01842 for skunk-works-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:41:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from birch.ncr.disa.mil (birch.ncr.disa.mil [164.117.176.1]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01811 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:40:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fhu.DISA.MIL (fhu.disa.mil [164.117.176.109]) by birch.ncr.disa.mil (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07092; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:35:49 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by fhu.DISA.MIL id AA818894355; Wed, 13 Dec 95 12:36:27 EST Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 12:36:27 EST From: "Terry Colvin" Message-Id: <9511138188.AA818894355@fhu.DISA.MIL> To: mbme@primenet.com, skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Subject: Re[2]: H.A.L.E. aircraft. Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk -------------- End of message --------------- ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:49:17 -0800 Subject: Re: Waverider [NASP] Steve Schaper writes: >Subject: Re: Waverider [NASP] Small point, NASP wasn't designed to be a waverider. Waveriding is a technique for enhancing L/D for cruise. NASP was originally (too ambitiosly) proposed as an earth to orbit vehicle, known in the hypersonic literature as an accelerator. In an accelerator, vehicle design decisions are made optimizing the acceleration application versus the cruise application. Waveriding for hypersonic cruise is significant. The modern hypersonic waverider broke the previous hypersonic L/D barriers. Steve Schaper writes: >>Actually, if I am not mistaken, there are waverider studies still going on, Terry Colvin wrote: >However, when the NASP program was cancelled, most (if not all) of >waverider-related research went with it. Steve is correct Terry, there is still work going on, and believe me there is still a community of believers in developing this. I know of one Small Business Administration contract at Wright Labs to study low speed characteristics and stability/control of a 1/16 scale Mach 5 hypersonic waverider shape using an 8 ft. long model. The model was built by Accurate Automation Corp., and that model was one of the last articles tested in the (now closed?) Langley 30ft X 60ft full-scale tunnel facility. The tests were significant in that the low speed characteristics of hypersonic waveriders had not been previously tested and was a matter of debate. AW&ST in its 9/4/95 issue reported that the Langley tests indicated that the Mach 5 waverider shape was "aerodynamically sound" within the low speed flight regime targeted by the tests. Steve Schaper further writes: >>though the object is not a manned vehicle, but long-range artillery >>projectiles. I have heard of waverider 'projectiles' too, although I am not aware of artillery applications (interesting shaped shell) being studied and tested. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. However, the above 1/16 scale model tested at Langley had provision for a cockpit. The public published studies that germinated this project always have shown a manned vehicle. Chuck Smith wrote: >The term `waverider" is on of those media names that catches on, but >has no physical relevance. Hmmm. Your "no physical relevance" bothers me. I believe it is relevent: From the standpoint that cruise L/D, for both supersonic (XB-70 made range because of it) and hypersonic vehicles, designed with waverider techniques, is increased. And, to generate a Mach N cruising waverider one generates a Mach N shock cone and draws the leading edge of the vehicle from a section of the surface of the shock wave cone. There may be slight modifications for subsonic performance, but that, as I understand it, is the design approach. To me, both of the above indicate physical relevance. Larry ------------------------------ From: BilBK@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:43:32 -0500 Subject: Is this old news? Mary or anyone else who may know. I got this at work via a long list of forwards. Anything to it or is it just old news? Bill Kunce I try now to speak for even myself. I usually end up eating leather. Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 07:22:00 -0600 > Subject: Interesting note > > > >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 07:09:12 +0000 > >From: "Joe Pialet" > >Subject: SR-71 spies > > While browsing the Internet I came across a "skunky" item in the July 1995 > Intelligence Newsletter. They report thtat Army Intelligence has given the > FBI evidence that at least one SR-71 pilot was providing top secret > information to the KGB. In 1986 a member of a SR-71 support crew was > sentenced to 25 years in jail for trying to sell secrets. He has reportedly > told Army Intelligence that one of the SR-71 pilots recruited him as part of > a spy ring. > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #569 ********************************* 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).