From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #619 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 12 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 619 In this issue: 2 seriuos question... Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Re: Patents Re: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Re: Patent and secrecy Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #617 Re: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Stealth Craft? FW: Top Ten Rejected Book Titles - by Scott O'Grady PBS U-2 program Feb 26 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:07:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: 2 seriuos question... 1) I was checking the Aviation Week and Space Tech. of January 8, 1996 issue. In page 228 mention that there is a Su-32 Stealth fighter. Anyone know additional information about this aircraft? I know that there is a Project 1-42/1-44 Stealth fighter from Mikoyan, but never heard a Stealth fighter from Sukoi. 2) There has been any case that a foreing reconnaissance aircraft that fly over a USA terrirory without autorization? I will appreciate your answer. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 07:50:56 EST Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf > From skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu Fri Feb 9 22:00:40 1996 > X-Sender: amraam@netcom.com Paul writes: > >I have always respected your sources of data. However, this time > >I will stand beside my Son, General Swartzkofp(?sp) who talked about ^ and > >I'm from NYS and we refer to it both ways. However in this case you The pilots were from Rome not the aircraft according to my Son....my error! > >are wrong about this particular incident which involved SU-27s, and Strictly a typo SU-25s > >Mig 21s. Excuse me, I meant to say your data source is wrong. > Robin writes: > The Iraqi Air Force had no Su-27s in the inventory. ^^^^^^^ Correct see above I believe that you may > be thinking of Su-25s, ground-attack aircraft which have been often compared > to the A-10. Indeed, four air-to-air victories against a mix of MiG-21s and > Su-25s were indeed recorded on the same day, during an incident in February > -- I believe that this is probably the even to which you refer. > > This particular incident took place on February 6, 1991, and involved "ZEREX Nope it happened in January and was written up in January AV LEAK <- (The name my Son uses.) > in the classified version of the Gulf War Air Power Survey, but lacking > access, I only saw a few blank pages with "FIGURE DELETED". :) Anyway, in Funny you should mention this but so is the incident my Son was involved with. Primarily the range that AWACS has vs the advertised range. > the end, two MiG-21s went to Dietz, and two Su-25s went to Heineman My Son said I used the wrong terminology: I should have written that it was 4 confirmed, 2 unconfirmed because they would have officially entered Iranian air space and 1 probable because it was smoking pretty heavily when it "landed". ADDITIONALLY: F16E's flew with them regularly C's & E's would fly caps together and depending who was on station and who was refueling, targets would be assigned. E's were the SCUD killers and flew mostly at night with them. The write ups say the missions were 16 hours long but according to my Son they were more like 24 hours long.....departure to debrief. > >I stand by my story right > >or wrong as written because that is the way it was told to me at the > >time without revisionist writing. If it discredits me I still stand > >by it. > ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:24:22 Subject: Re: Patents Steve wrote : >Speaking of things like this, how about the case of the engineer who >invented some of the key concepts behind the HOTOL aerospace plane (a >single stage to orbit design for British Aerospace, using an engine that >went from airbreathing to rocket mode in flight)? The Ministry of Defence >ruled it a national secret (I forget the exact terminology) so neither he >nor BAe could use it in commercial designs but refused to release any funds >for military development. The last interview I saw with the engineer, he >was surprisingly unbitter (if there is such a word). Alan Bond..the HOTOL engine designer set up a company..Reaction Engines..to develop and improve the HOTOL concept. His SSTO is called Skylon and uses Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engines (SABRE) to supply the thrust. Skylon is a much improved version of HOTOL with horiz t/o & landing. It uses a ceramic composite aeroshell made from System 2..an AEA developed material. I keep in regular contact with him, and you're right he is 'Unbitter.'because (IMHO) he's a realist as well as being a first class engineer. If you want any info on Skylon I'll do my best to fill in the blanks. D ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 05:16:42 PST Subject: Re: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" Su Wei-Gen writes >Hey Skunkers... a crazy idea... how about become a Skunk-Hunters. >Let's find the two "Have Blue" prototype (HB 1001 and HB 1002) that was >crashed andburied it deep beneath a remote spot in the desert of >Nevada... hehe, of course, you can not use a metal detector trying to >find the Stealth aircraft... Why not? Should work just fine. Chuck ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 08:38:24 EST Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf > From skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu Sat Feb 10 01:38:19 1996 > X-Sender: schnars@umcc.umcc.umich.edu he post-war shot downs was the fact, that the ceasefire > conditions included a flight-ban for Iraqi fixed wing aircraft. > > None of my sources give call signs, though, and I would appreciate a list, if > it would be available. :) Call signs change depending on whether they are in the USA or not as well as for assigned crews or assigned aircraft. There was a call sign monitored in RED FLAG that was mentioned here. I called my Son and told him about it (he was there) and he said he had used it either in RED FLAG or from his base but I can't remember. The important thing is that he didn't always use the same call sign. - - Paul > > The reason for t > > -- 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: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 08:27:00 EST Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf > From skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu Fri Feb 9 22:51:38 1996 > X-Sender: schnars@umcc.umcc.umich.edu > > Paul, > > I believe that your son directed F-15 Eagles to intercept Iraqi aircraft, > what I dispute is: > a) that they were of the F-15E version, rather than the F-15C version; Please notice that the write ups of this particular incident in AV-LEAK and other areas don't mention whether they are C's or E's ;) > b) that they were from Griffis AFB, NY; My son corrected me this weekend: The pilot was from Rome not the aircraft....definitely my error! > c) that any SU-27 were shot down. This was a typo they were definitely SU-25's and MIG-21's My previos posts always stated SU-25's and MIG-21's My Son refused to elaborate stating that there was a lot that was clasified about his missions and particularly this one and that is why the AV-LEAK story was so sketchy. They weren't given a lot to work with intentionally. ADDITIONALLY: He helped me with a small area of my hobby room where I have an AWACS, an F-16, an F-15E, a MIG 21 and an SU-25 modeled appropriately. > All USAF air-to-air kills of fixed-wing aircraft were accomplished by F-15Cs > during (and shortly after) Desert Storm. I still stand by my story with the above addition and corrections which are soley my fault. > Please provide me with the unit at Griffis AFB, NY, which deployed F-15s As stated above My error...the pilot not the plane (of > any kind) during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and or the name of pilot and/or Do you notice that I don't give my Son's name or where he lives now....there is a reason for that. None of the officers or pilots that I have talked to want thier name in print. Even our General's never mentioned a person by name even though they knew them. I will respect their wishes. > Because I had no specific date, I had to assume it was the January 27 Interesting but it was in print before that. > incident, generally being quoted as "the largest Iraqi loss during a single > engagement". > > My 'revisionist' :) sources are: ----------- :) > > (1) Title: Gulf Air War Debrief -- Described by the pilots that fought > Editor: Stan Morse > Publisher: World Air Power Journal, > Aerospace Publishing, London, UK ^^^^^^^ This just reminded me of a cute story that my Son told me. His aricraft was ordered to England at one point for an "Air Show". While there he left the base without permission with his pilot. They went to see the Tower of London and the crown jewels. What he didn't know was that the Air Force had arranged for members of the Royal Family to meet him and to congratulate him on his experiences. Needless to say he got in a lot of trouble over this. They did let him off the hook eventually. > Airtime Publishing, Westport, CT, USA > Year: 1991 > ISBN: 1-880588-005 > > (2) Title: The Fury of Desert Storm -- The Air Campaign > Author: Bert Kinzey > Publisher: Detaol & Scale Inc. > TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA > Year: 1991 > ISBN: 0-8306-3078-3 > > As well as others, including the Internet-published F-15 article(s) of Joe > Baugher , available on the WWW at URL: > Well, all I can say is my Son was there and he was the CAPS officer and if you want to narrow it down a little more he was also the officer on duty that had to call all the pilots and tell them it was a "go" for the first attack. AND I still stand by my story. -Paul > > - 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 05:53:40 PST Subject: Re: Patent and secrecy > So if I understand Joe correctly, you don't even have to be on contract, > or working for the gov't. They can hold up your patent anytime, and take > it for themselves as a Nat. Def. app.?? > > Gee, that's really nice of them. Do they pay you anything for it? I'm > getting confused. Not exactly. The US Gov. cannot stop a patent, since it infringes on your `inalienable rights" to life, liberty, and happiness. Killing a patent could be the greatest "taxation without representation" that ever existed. Since your idea is unique, you would still have the option of moving to Russia, and patenting it there! Not very effective for the US Gov. (Because freezing a patent renders it open to anyone.) Pissing off inventors is not exactly in the public interest. Most of the really forward defense oriented research is done under the guidance (spelled research grants) of the gov. To get such a grant you must sign a non-disclosure agreement. In essence, the gov. is paying you to invent for them. Lets face it, the microprocessor is the most important technology to be developed in many years, but the gov doesn`t regulate them. I have a GPS receiver on my bass-boat. Used freely. This discussion is the result of the US gov decentralizing C&C via the ARPA net. Usually when a technology is "dark" its because it really doesn`t work (see stealth!) and someone`s got a juicy contract. Chuck ------------------------------ From: mcnuttrt@MIT.EDU (Ross T. McNutt) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 12:54:39 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #617 UAV Operations Thread As for destroying the satellites that is unnessecary and rather impractical for most (all) countries. First, they would have to have an active anti-satellite program that could reach geostationary orbit (no such system exists today). Second, in order to be effective they must be able to take out all the possible satellites that would be used. For military and commercial communication systems this is a significant number. During the Gulf War I believe we had on the order of 6 to10 satellites servicing the area, including DSCS, Intelsat, Inmarsat, and skynet systems, all of which could be used to command UAV systems. Today we have even more satellites. As for the idea of defeating UAV via jamming or spoofing there are several issues and several potential counter measures to mitigate the effect. COMSEC, Autonomous Operations, jam resistant systems design, and atlernative communications paths are all critical to successful operation of future unmanned systems. COMSEC - First, a good comsec system similar to those used on current satellite systems providing one-time-use encryption codes can ensure that no one can command or spoof your system with out authorization. Such system are used extensively in current military and commercial satellites. Autonomous Control - UAV systems can and are being designed with autonomous control as opposed to remote control. These systems do not rely on constant communications. They are told what to do and then they do it. Self defense operations for different types of threats can be preprogrammed and executed when onboard sensers indicate the need. This also is similar to todays satellites although development of the emergency procedures probably differs significantly. Bombing and attacking of real-time targets many require more human control not from a technical stand point but from a political stand point. Target identification is a critical problem for both manned and unmanned systems but will be made easier as a highly accurate GPS based targetting and mapping systems come on-line. Remote percision bombing is accomplished today by number of cruise missiles systems. Target identification is increasingly being accomplished not by pilots in the cockpit but by staff targetters as stand off weapons and high threat levels are keeping pilots further from the targets. Jam Resistant Systems - Jamming the signals can be reduced throught the use of many techniques especially spread specrum code division multiple access schemes that provide the security for tactical communications and is now available for cellular and portable telephones. This allows the information to be spread over a large amount of frequency space and extracted from high back ground noises (jamming) using the proper codes with very high gains. Jamming such a signal would require significant amounts of power and RF energy that would surely expose the jammer to rapid antiradiation missile attack either from the UAV itself or from the current systems such as HARM. Additionally one of the Talon (shooter?) programs provided satellite queing to an over the horizon anti-radiation missile attack from a stand off F-16 to demonstrate long range HARM capability. Such a system would work well for a high power jammer required to disrupt UAV commanding. Other methods to reduce suseptibility is to use highly directional antennas that have low side lobes or nullable antennas that reduce the signal received from a particular direction. Highly directional antennas are size and frequency dependent. The higher the frequency the smaller the antenna. Ka band frequencies can and are being used for commercial and military purposes and could provide highly directional antennas from antennas that would fit inside or on todays and tommarows UAV systems. The normal Ka band suseptability to water absorption is not a problem for aircraft flying at altitudes above 40,000 ft as their is little chance for a down pour at those altitudes. The Ka Band is expected to be used for the satellite based internet in the sky systems being proposed by Bill Gates and many other companies. While there are many other techniques to reduce suseptability to jamming and interferance, satellite based signals will continue to be suseptable because of their low power levels. A determined enemy could possibly jam signals given enough power and energy because satellites are power limited and are a long way away. The satellite based systems are not without other weaknesses, the most glaring weakness that I can see is the possibility to jam the forward uplink from the ground station to the satellite on its way to the UAV or the return uplink from the UAV to the satellite. Since most satellites are simple repeater systems, any signal received is simply amplified and returned, a signal only has to be received by the satellite and interfere with the downlink. If a satillite has a wide uplink antenna pattern the jamming system could be located anywhere in its foot print and could be hard to find and destroy. New systems use encoding and decoding on the satellite that can seperate the information from the noise (jamming) and only rebroadcasts the authorized signals, but such systems require significant on board processing at the satellite and are more expensive. Alternative Communication Links - Even if satelltie signals could be jammed or denied in some way, it would be realitively easy to set up an alternative communication path based on either airborne or tethered systems. Direct line of sight system can have extremely long ranges from high altitudes. A relay UAV at 65,000 ft could relay signals to another UAV over a thousand of miles away and could cover an entire theater of operations. Similar systems could be included in existing platforms such as AWACS, Joint Stars or the u-2/TR1s providing multipath communication links. Several such systems located around a conflict area could provide multiple potential links and minimize the effect of any attempted jamming much as todays long distance telephone networks work around a cut fiber. These techniques combined with high freqencies, high power levels, spread spectrum technologies, and highly directional antennas could allow highly survivalbe commuinication links that could give any such UAV systems a fairly good chance of accomplishing its mission. Just a few thoughts. Any comments? Ross McNutt ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:11:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > Su Wei-Gen writes > > >Hey Skunkers... a crazy idea... how about become a Skunk-Hunters. > >Let's find the two "Have Blue" prototype (HB 1001 and HB 1002) that was > >crashed andburied it deep beneath a remote spot in the desert of > >Nevada... hehe, of course, you can not use a metal detector trying to > >find the Stealth aircraft... > > > Why not? Should work just fine. > Chuck > We don't know how deep the aircraft was buried. Maybe as deep as the center of the Earth :) Most of the metal detector are used for find surface mine. Does anyone know if the RAM can absorb the metal detector wave? I was thinking about that but since the aircraft is all destroy and mix up with others metal parts, it will be possible. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:30:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Curious as I am, I was looking through my old AW&ST, to find the article with the information Paul indicated, and I believe I found the answer: Robin wrote: >>This particular incident took place on February 6, 1991 Paul answered: >Nope it happened in January and was written up in January AV LEAK Andreas wrote: >Because I had no specific date, I had to assume it was the January 27 Paul answered: >>Interesting but it was in print before that. * January 21, 1991: the first AW&ST issue mentioning the war. It contains information about the 1st allied air victory of an F-15C over a Mirage F1. [The 'official' 1st kill was a MiG-29 by Capt. Jon K. Kelk, though.] * January 28, 1991: this issue brags mainly about the formidable [imagined] success of Patriot missiles against SCUDs. It also says 19 Iraqi aircraft (8 MiG-29s, 2 MiG-25, 1 MiG-23, 8 Mirage F1), were shot down in air-to-air engagements in the first week. A specific incident is quoted as follows: "As of last week, there had only been one major air battle involving multiple aircraft. Four to six USAF F-15 fighters knocked down three Iraqi MiG-29 and got a probable kill on another during the dogfight." * February 4, 1991: this issue has an account of the Saudi F-15C air victory over two Mirage F1s, and also mentions the 3 confirmed + 1 probable MiG-29 incident again (see above), in an article about AIM-7 vs. AIM-9 vs. AIM-120 usage. * February 11, 1991: mentions 33 Iraqi aircraft downed, and 95 fighters and 25 transports 'defected' to Iran. It also says: "The allies now have begun combat air patrols over Iraq to intercept these fleeing aircraft before they cross the Iranian border. Two U.S. Air Force F-15 crews on one such patrol shot down two Iraqi Su-25s and two MiG-21s on Feb. 6. The Iraqi aircraft took off from a base near Baghdad and were headed northeast toward Iran at low altitude." * February 18, 1991: this issue finally describes the shootdown of 3 MiG-23 and one Mirage F1 by 2 F-15(C)s by annonymous pilots from the 53rd TFS on January 27, 1991. The version (F-15C) is indicated by the unit and the fact that no WSOs are mentioned. No mention of more than the 4 enemy aircraft here, either. The same issue has the (now proven wrong) headline "U.S. Army Patriot Proven in New Role As Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile Weapon", on pages 49-51, and another article, titled: "USAF F-15Es Lead Night Attack Effort Against Scud Launchers", pages 61-61. * February 25, 1991: no air-to-air combat articles, concentrates instead more on the ground war. * March 4, 1991: mainly ground war, but also article about E-3/E-2/RC-135, with another reference to the Saudi shootdown. * March 11, 1991: with the war over, this issue wraps it up, stating 42 Iraqi aircraft were shot down (8 MiG-29, 9 MiG-23, 2 MiG-25, 2 MiG-21, 3 Su-22, 2 Su-25, 9 Mirage F1, 1 transport, 1 Bo-105, 1 Mi-8, 4 other helicopters), 81 destroyed on the ground, and 137 flown to Iran. AW&ST was/is not always correct, and one should not expect different. Now my assumption: Paul mixed up somehow two incidents: * the January 26, 1991, shootdown of 3 MiG-23 by 3 F-15C, mentioned in the January 28 issue (as MiG-29s, though), and * the February 6, 1991, shootdown of 2 MiG-21 and 2 Su-25 by 2 F-15C, described in the February 11 issue. The January 26, 1991, incident involved 4 F-15Cs, flying HAVCAP (High Asset Value Combat Air Patrol), protecting an E-3, which vectored them toward 4 Iraqi aircraft, which took off from H2 (at this time some 100+ miles away). The Iraqis did not head for Iran (which was too far for them), and the F-15s were still 80 miles away and ready to turn back, due to the fuel situation, when 4 more Iraqi aircraft took off from H2. The first group of 4 bogies (presumably MiG-23s) went out of range of the F-15s and even the E-3, while the F-15s engaged the 4 later MiG-23s. While still 40 miles away, one of the MiG-23 turned back and landed on H2, while the F-15s closed on to the remaining 3 MiG-23s, which flew on the deck, below 1,000 ft. The incident resulted in 3 F-15Cs scoring each one kill with AIM-7M Sparrows: Capt. Rhory R. 'Hoser' Draeger (2nd kill), call sign apparently 'CHEVRON 1', in F-15C-40-MC, serial '85-0119', Capt. Anthony E. 'Kimo' Schiavi, call sign apparently 'CHEVRON 2', in F-15C-39-MC, serial '85-0104', and Capt. Cesar A 'Rico' Rodriguez (also 2nd kill), in F-15C-40-MC, serial '85-0114', all from the 58th TFS, 33rd TFW, based at Eglin AFB, FL, and deployed to Tabuk AB, north Saudi Arabia. A detailed account of this incident can be found in source (2), as told by Captain Anthony Schiavi. All the names of the pilots (and EWOs/RIOs) who shot down enemy aircraft, or were shot down by enemy fire, are known, and well documented, and an educated guess about the name of your son, Paul, would be.... Lt./Capt. Mangan? :) Anyway, I could not find any published source for an incident as described by Paul, not in my books, AW&ST and other magazines, nor Gulf War/F-15 videos. Now that's a skunky incident! ;) - -- 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: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 13:02:24 EST Subject: Stealth Craft? From: "Corinne.Owen@QEH.OX.AC.UK" From: Martin Adamson Souce: The Times newspaper. Date: February 2nd, 1996. UFO `BUZZED' AIRLINER AT MANCHESTER AIRPORT By Harvey Elliott, Air Correspondent A British Airways passanger jet had a close encounter with an unidentified flying object while landing at Manchester Airport, an official report disclosed last night. The Boeing 737, with 60 people on board, was overtaken at high speed by a wedge-shaped craft as the plane descended through 4,000ft on the final stages of a journey from Milan. Captain Roger Wills reported that the UFO, which was emblazoned with small white lights and possibly a black stripe down its side, flashed silently down the side of the jet so close that his co-pilot, First Officer Mark Stewart, involuntarily ducked as it went by. There was no sound and no wake but both pilots were so concerned that they filed a formal `airmiss' report. The Civil Aviation Authority launched an investigation, the fourth such incident since 1987, and after a year-long inquirey concluded yesterday that they could find no likely explanation. The three previous reported sightings also baffled the CAA experts. The incident happend at 6:48pm on January 6 last year with the aircraft just above the clouds and visibility was at least ten miles. Then air traffic controllers had the following conversation with Flight 5061: B737: `We just had something go down the right hand side, just above us very fast.' Machester: `Well there's nothing seen on the radar. Was it an aircraft?' B737: `Well it had lights, it went down the starboard side very quick.' Captain Wills and First Officer Stuart are certain that the object was solid and not a balloon, a model aircraft or even a military 'Stealth' aircraft which the captain had seen before and would have recognised. Both pilots should be commended for their courage in submitting a report, the investigators said. ------------------------------ From: "Steve Caldwell" Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:27:42 GMT+7 Subject: FW: Top Ten Rejected Book Titles - by Scott O'Grady Hello, Here's some more humor for the list. Enjoy. Steve Caldwell caldwels@det5wg57.barksdale.af.mil [begin forwarded msg] TOP TEN REJECTED BOOK TITLES - BY SCOTT O GRADY 10. Return With Your Jet - A Lesson in Radar Warning Receiver Use 9. Medium Altitude SAM Defense - My Personal (0 Step) Technique 8. An American Hero - Just Like Kato Kalin 7. Return to the AF Reserve - Sharing My Combat-Honed Skills with Airline Pilots 6. Ambushed!! How Mobile SAMs Can Actually Move 5. Return With No Kills - My Use of Detached Mutual Support During the Serbian Galeb Shootdown 4. The Glib, Too! - It's Not a SAM Defense, It's An Attitude! 3. Anyone Can Be An Ace, But Real Men Get Shot Down 2. Alone In the Bosnian Bush - The Hanoi Hilton Was a Vacation 1. Return With Offer - Lose a $25 Million Jet, Sign a $500,000 Book Deal! [end forwarded msg] ------------------------------ From: jdonoghue@cclink.draper.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:33:00 EST Subject: PBS U-2 program Feb 26 Chris Pocock asked me to post his notice regarding the upcoming U-2 program on PBS's The American Experience. The PBS advance notice is available at: http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/amex/aeu2.html File item: spies.txt 2/4/96 11:13A "SPIES IN THE SKY" comments by CHRIS POCOCK,author of DRAGON LADY-THE HISTORY OF THE U-2 SPYPLANE A documentary on the early history of the U-2 will be shown on public television February 26th. It's part of The American Experience series made by WGBH, Boston. I was a consultant to the program, helping to suggest interviewees, and story lines, and doing some fact-checking on the script. I also arranged a filming session at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford, UK where we have Article 359/56-6692 preserved. That's the black airplane which is shown on the ground at various times during the 50-minute show. Watch out for a fleeting glimpse of Yours Truly in the cockpit, pretending to be a U-2 pilot! The show doesn't contain any great revelations, but does tell a good story. There is some new footage unearthed from Lockheed/CIA archives, though not as much as the producer had hoped. For that reason, too, the narrative is more "political' and less "technical' than I had hoped. Many of you will spot chronologically-inaccurate flying footage of U-2R models - which wasn't my idea! One highlight is the first public appearance of one of my personal heroes from the U-2 program, CIA pilot Bob Ericson. Bob was the first pilot to successfully bailout of a stricken U-2; the one who strapped Frank Powers in at Peshawar on that fateful MayDay 1960; the pilot of the flight that discovered the first SAMs in Cuba; and a key player in the early overflights of China. He later flew many hours for NASA. My own research into U-2 history continues, though at a slow pace. I've learnt quite a bit from the Russian side; finally unearthed the 'mystery' of the U-2B; and generally filled in a lot of gaps in the records. Official co-operation on the US side in releasing archives has been patchy, though I shouldn't sound ungrateful. After all, the Air Force did fly me in the Dragon Lady last year! Please send any comments on the above, or the program itself, via Joe Donoghue, who kindly posted this for me. END OF CHRIS POCOCK'S MESSAGE. PLEASE E-MAIL ANY COMMENTS TO THE ADDRESS FOLLOWING AND I'LL SEND THEM ON TO THE NOT-YET-NET-ENABLED AUTHOR. jdonoghue@draper.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #619 ********************************* 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).