From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #723 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 5 November 1996 Volume 05 : Number 723 In this issue: Request Gulf War U-2 Tail Art Re: Request Re: Request Re: Request Re: Request re: FI article secret Navy aircraft ?? Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? re: secret Navy aircraft ?? Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? [none] re: re: Secret Navy Aircraft Re: U-2 information Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? i`m not up to date.... SR-71 Re: U-2 Line opening 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: worldnet@gnn.com (JOHN F. REGUS) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:28:44 Subject: Request Last year, someone posted a take off on the Night Before Christmas. Can someone please re-post that for this year. Thanks ------------------------------ From: "Jim E. Rotramel" Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 11:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Gulf War U-2 Tail Art I am helping collect information for a 'Cutting Edge' decal sheet for U-2R/TR-1As used during the 1991 Gulf War. We have photographs of most of the tail art on these aircraft, but still would like to confirm the presence or absence of artwork on some aircraft, including: 68-10331, left tail 68-10338, right tail 80-01068, right tail 80-01070, left tail 80-01076, left tail 80-01086, left tail 80-01092, both tails Several of the aircraft photographed at British air shows following the war had 'kill' markings on the right side of the fuselage. We know what the kill markings look like, but don't know how many were applied to the various aircraft. Some of these aircraft had crew names applied in both English and Arabic, does anyone have a list of these names? In addition, we'd like to confirm which Senior Span aircraft had a Shark's mouth on its 'Polish Drop Tank'. Finally, we'd be interested in finding out more about the following aircraft that weren't used in the Gulf War: 68-10331, right tail of "Toward the Unknown" (not a Gulf War aircraft) 80-01071, left tail of "Jessica Rabbit" 80-01087, right tail of "Pair of Dice" ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:44:28 +0000 Subject: Re: Request >Last year, someone posted a take off on the Night Before Christmas. Can >someone please re-post that for this year. Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the skys, Air defenses were up, with electronic eyes. Combat pilots were nestled in ready-room beds, As enemy silhouettes danced in their heads. Every jet on the apron, each SAM in its tube, Was triply-redundant linked to the Blue Cube, And ElInt and AWACS gave coverage so dense That nothing that flew could slip through our defense. When out of the klaxon arose such a clatter I dashed to the screen to see what was the matter; I dialed up the gain and then quick as a flash Fine-adjusted the filters to damp out the hash. And there found the source of the warning we'd heeded: An incoming blip, by eight escorts preceded. "Alert status red!" went the word down the wire, As we gave every system the codes that meant "FIRE"! On Aegis! Up Patriot, Phalanx and Hawk! And scramble our fighters -- let's send the whole flock! Launch decoys and missiles! Use chaff by the yard! Get the kitchen sink up! Call the National Guard! They turned toward the target, moved toward it, converged. Till the tracks on the radar all finally merged, And the sky was lit up with a demonic light, As the foe met his fate in the high arctic night. So we sent out some recon to look for debris, Yet all that they found, both on land and on sea Were some toys, a red hat, a charred left leather boot, Broken sleighbells, white hair, and a deer's parachute. Now it isn't quite Christmas, with Saint Nick shot down. There are unhappy kids in each village and town. For the Spirit of Christmas can't hope to evade All the web of defenses we've carefully made. But a crash program's on: Working hard, night and day, All the elves are constructing a radar-proof sleigh. So let's wait for next Christmas, in cheer and in health, For the future has hope: Santa's coming by stealth! Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp, Hughes Electronics Corp, General Motors Corp, or God. ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:26:19 -0800 Subject: Re: Request That was my poem, here it is again... ################################################################ Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the skys Air defenses were up, with electronic eyes. Combat pilots were nestled in ready-room beds As enemy silhouettes danced in their heads. Every jet on the apron, each SAM in its tube Was triply-redundant linked to the Blue Cube, And ElInt and AWACS gave coverage so dense That nothing that flew could slip through our defense. When out of the klaxon arose such a clatter I turned to the screen to see what was the matter; I dialed up the gain and then quick as a flash Fine-adjusted the filters to damp out the hash. And there found the source of the warning we'd heeded: An incoming blip, by eight escorts preceded. "Alert status red!" went the word down the wire, As we gave every system the codes that meant "FIRE"! On Aegis! Up Patriot, Phalanx and Hawk! And scramble our fighters -- let's send the whole flock! Launch decoys and missiles! Use chaff by the yard! Get the kitchen sink up! Call the National Guard! They turned toward the target, moved toward it, converged. Then the tracks on the radar all finally merged, And the sky was lit up with a demonic light As the foe met his fate in the high arctic night. So we sent out some recon to look for debris, Yet all that they found, both on land and on sea Were some toys, a red hat, a charred left leather boot, Broken sleighbells, white hair, and a deer's parachute. Now it isn't quite Christmas, with Saint Nick shot down. There are unhappy kids in each village and town. For the Spirit of Christmas can't hope to evade All the web of defenses we've carefully made. For look how the gadgets we use to protect us In other ways alter, transform and affect us. They keep us from things that make life more worth living Like love for each other, and thoughts of just giving. But a crash program's on: Working hard, night and day, All the elves are constructing a radar-proof sleigh. So let's wait for next Christmas, in cheer and in health, For the future has hope: Santa's coming by stealth! -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:40:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Request Many of us who work on aircraft prefer that developement programs not be called "crash" programs. :-) Funny poem, Jay. 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 Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote: > But a crash program's on: Working hard, night and day, > All the elves are constructing a radar-proof sleigh. > So let's wait for next Christmas, in cheer and in health, > For the future has hope: Santa's coming by stealth! > > -- Jay Freeman > ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:04:21 -0800 Subject: Re: Request > Many of us who work on aircraft prefer that developement programs not be > called "crash" programs. :-) Now, here I thought that the phrase "crash program" was merely an ad-hoc acknowledgement of the well-known adage "haste makes waste", in the particular form expected of high-performance aerospace vehicles fabricated on an over-tight schedule... ;-) Perhaps the encounter of technology push with schedule push is one of those irresistable force and immovable object situations. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: PaulMcG@aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 21:51:17 -0500 Subject: re: FI article Kerry Ferrand (kerry@hungerford.chch.cri.nz) wrote: >Interestingly, it also mentions a "New Tactical Transport" described as: > >"a possible successor to the C-130...resembles a scaled-up Lockheed-Martin- >Boeing F-22. This concept combines stealth with speed, range and short-field >/unprepared-airstrip capability." > >I wonder if there's any relation to the mysterious SENIOR CITIZEN Hello Kerry, I'm the guy who first made the claim that SENIOR CITIZEN was a stealthy transport, several years ago, based on my research. (Check out http://www.frogi.org/sc.html) . There have actually been 2 classified transport aircraft programs, that are now considered "historical" by the Air Force because they haven't been funded for more than 2 years. SENIOR CITIZEN (Program Element 0401316F) was one, and the other was code-named THEME CASTLE (PE 0401129F), which I believe was last funded in 1992. The Air Force is still paranoid and both programs are still classified with the Special Access Required designation in addition to their classification level, which means that additional security precautions are taken. (I just got the latest "Future Years Defense Planning" document, DoD 7045.7-H, dated January 1996). Paul McGinnis / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.frogi.org/secrecy.html [military secrecy site] ------------------------------ From: PaulMcG@aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 21:52:35 -0500 Subject: secret Navy aircraft ?? I have been doing the research so that I can put together a list of classified U.S. military programs in the FY 1997 budget -- this should be done in a week or so. In a Department of Defense document, I found an accounting code for a new Navy aircraft I was not aware of. There was a sequence, in historical order, of FRICs (Force Resource Identification Codes) for Navy attack aircraft, part of which looked like this: CODE TITLE - ---- ----- 4064 A-6E 4065 A-6F 4066 A-6G 4068 A-7A 4069 A-7B 4071 A-7C 4072 A-7E 4073 F/A-18 4074 A-12 4075 A-14 Plus So, just what is an "A-14 Plus" ?? This is a designation I've never seen before. The A-12 Avenger II was the Navy's Stealth attack aircraft that got cancelled and resulted in Congressional hearings a couple of years ago. Given the horrible safety record of the F-14, I'm hoping it's not a new attack version of the F-14. (Wouldn't that be referred to as a "F/A-14" ??) Or, is it a new, secret aircraft being flown at a place like Groom Lake, Nevada? Anybody know what aircraft "A-14 Plus" refers to?? Paul McGinnis / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.frogi.org/secrecy.html [military secrecy site] ------------------------------ From: "Frank Markus" Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:12:21 -0500 Subject: Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? > So, just what is an "A-14 Plus" ?? This is a designation I've never seen > before. The A-12 Avenger II was the Navy's Stealth attack aircraft that got > cancelled and resulted in Congressional hearings a couple of years ago. Given > the horrible safety record of the F-14, I'm hoping it's not a new attack > version of the F-14. (Wouldn't that be referred to as a "F/A-14" ??) Or, is > it a new, secret aircraft being flown at a place like Groom Lake, Nevada? > Anybody know what aircraft "A-14 Plus" refers to?? I seem to recall seeing "F-14 Plus" being used to describe a re-engined version of the F-14 proposed by Grumman. The "plus" in the A-14 Plus implies strongly that it is an upgrade of an existing airframe. Based on these considerations, I suspect that the aircraft is a re-engined F-14 that is tasked for bombing and perhaps also undertake "Wild Weasel" missions. ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 07:52:52 -0800 Subject: re: secret Navy aircraft ?? > From: PaulMcG@aol.com, on 11/2/96 9:52 PM: > 4075 A-14 Plus > > So, just what is an "A-14 Plus" ?? I'm just guessing, but I suspect a misprint. I *HAVE* heard of the F-14 Plus once or twice -- seems it was either new engines or new avionics. It's been a while, so I don't remember specifics anymore. 7 3 Earl Needham Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 11:22:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? > 4075 A-14 Plus > > So, just what is an "A-14 Plus" ?? This is a designation I've never seen > before. That is probably the F-14 Plus, which I believe was supposed to be an F-14 augmented for ground attack capability. ------------------------------ From: Gary James Harris Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 22:34:52 -0500 Subject: [none] I ahve heard of an F-14 ground attack variant under development called the "Bombcat." It is intended as an interm replacement for the A6 until the F-18E/F is in production. Gary Harris Gary James Harris JIL Inforamtion Systems (703) 416-8700 ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 9:24:35  Subject: re: Gary, "Bombcat" is the nickname given to all F-14s flying air-to-ground missions, which has been going on for some time. Eventually, enhancements will include LANTIRN shared among squadrons, Night Vision System, some radar upgrades and GPS for those Tomcats meeting the five year rule. A laser spot tracker has been developed, but putting it on the Tomcat is being resisted. the F-14 is being cleared for "dumb" and "smart" weapons. These upgrades use only a fraction of the F-14's air-to-ground capability, but are all that's going to be allowed. The Bombcat will not be all-weather air-to-ground capable, but then neither will the F/A-18E/F. Neither of them will match the A-6's range/payload either, although in most cases the F-14 will come closer. Art "Turkey Lover" Hanley My employer has absolutely nothing to do with any of this and is no doubt glad of that fact ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 9:48:09  Subject: re: Secret Navy Aircraft P. S. The designators for F-14s are: F-14A--original model in production for almost 20 years F-14B--Basically a F-14A with sealed glove vanes, some wiring improvements and GE F110 engines, which finally allow the aircraft to perform as it was designed to do. New production and conversions from As. This model was originally designated F-14A Plus, which may have been the source of confusion in some references. F-14D--F-14 with F110 engines, no glove vanes, much more capable avionics and fire control, revised cockpit and HUD, vastly improved maintainability and reliability, provision for internal carriage of Advanced Self Protection Jammer (which is finally happening), highly effective IRST, improved survivability and provisions for substantial further growth. This is arguably the most effective operational fighter in the West and will probably remain so for the Navy until the arrival of JSF. Delivered ahead of time and on budget, then canceled by DoD. Art "More than you wanted to know" Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ From: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:15:16 -0500 Subject: Re: U-2 information In a message dated 01/11/96 17:04:07, you write: >I've attached a Word 6 document that I hope reflects what we >discussed last week. Can you please review it for accuracy? I have Word 2.0 here, so the document came complete with various hyroglyphics, but I think I got the meat.... Senior Spur isn't relevant to DS cos it came later (1992 trials started, I think, without checking) IRIS III is a panoramic camera, not close-look. The tracker in the nose would be most useful to reference the H-camera, which WAS (IS) close-look, but it's carried for IRIS missions too. Senior Spear pods not purely rounded? eg the canoe on one side? QUOTE however, most aircraft in DS didn't have the four crosses QUOTE well, onbviously, the ones that ca,e from the Alconbury wing didn't cos that wasn't the 9th. On the serials, I've got to call DW and check my fil;es, sorry not time today. >Also, I posted a question on the Shunk works page. However, I >can't seem to find my way onto their bulletin board--any tips? >Assuming I can't get on, can you keep an eye open for any >responses? How did you know you had successfully posted a question to the list, unless you had subscribed, and therefore seen the question posted? I didn't see it in Edition 722 last Friday. Can only repeat what I told you. To subscribe to the list send an email to: Majordomo@mail.orst.edu with the following message: subscribe skunk-works [your address] Then to send messages, send to: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Regards Chris Pocock "Information is useless without Intelligence" UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ From: PaulMcG@aol.com Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:14:19 -0500 Subject: Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? I suspect that those who say the A-14 designation refers to an attack version of the F-14 are correct, but... I guess I should have mentioned in the original posting that I was so puzzled by the term "A-14", that I did a follow-up investigation, which found the following: * I checked with OCLC's "Applied Science & Technology Abstracts" database for the last 10 years and found a number of articles that referred to the ill-fated Navy A-12 aircraft, particularly in Aviation Week, but no article anywhere that used the designation "A-14". * I checked several DoD and Congressional budget documents for F-14 funding, such as those for "F-14 Squadrons" and the 234.6 million dollars in the FY1997 budget for "F-14 upgrades", and the term "A-14" is never used. (The upgrades include the tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS).) So, we are left with a mystery. I'm not going to include A-14 on my FY 1997 "black" budget analysis list, because I don't know whether it is a typo or a real program. I already had a bad experience with the Air Force over a typo, when they listed a classified "special tactical unit detention facility" and I went after them over building a secret jail. It turns out the description should have been "special tactical unit detachment facility" and it was a hangar in a "classified CONUS [continental US] location". Paul McGinnis / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.frogi.org/secrecy.html [military secrecy site] ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 18:58:18 Subject: Re: secret Navy aircraft ?? Possible? According to JANE'S 1995 only 37 of the planned 127 F-14Ds were produced before the program was canceled. 1995 plans were to retrofit 200 F-14A/Bs with some of the F-14D features.(Art detailed them). Close enough to be a typo. Byron >So, just what is an "A-14 Plus" ?? This is a designation I've never seen >before. The A-12 Avenger II was the Navy's Stealth attack aircraft that got >cancelled and resulted in Congressional hearings a couple of years ago. Given >the horrible safety record of the F-14, I'm hoping it's not a new attack >version of the F-14. (Wouldn't that be referred to as a "F/A-14" ??) Or, is >it a new, secret aircraft being flown at a place like Groom Lake, Nevada? >Anybody know what aircraft "A-14 Plus" refers to?? > >Paul McGinnis / PaulMcG@aol.com > http://www.frogi.org/secrecy.html [military secrecy site] > > ------------------------------ From: "j.roby" Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:08:19 GMT+0 Subject: i`m not up to date.... hello, i`ve only just started getting mail from this list so i`m hoping you can put me right on a few things: Whats the latest news about Aurora?? Anybody know anything about PUMPKIN SEED???? (A bit from the point, but...) does anyone knoe anything about the MoD project called HALO (might be a stealth fighter). looks like i`m going to have to read up..... Jon. _____________________________________________________ WEATHER REPORT FOR PRESTON: It`s Preston......Go Figure! Jonathan Roby University of Central Lancashire Preston 2nd year Computing Student ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:07:21 +0000 Subject: SR-71 Yesterday's Aviation Week magazine is reporting that SR-71 operations have resumed. The first flight was a week ago today. The fiscal 1997 budget provides $30 mil for operations, which will result in about 250 flight hours. Three crews are assigned to operations, not known how many aircraft are available. Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp, Hughes Electronics Corp, General Motors Corp, or God. ------------------------------ From: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:41:54 -0500 Subject: Re: U-2 Line opening The stories about more U-2s being produced originated at the Farnborough airshow in UK last September, when the Skunk Works went public on its proposal to meet the Royal Air Force's ASTOR bid. For some added background that may interest readers of this list, I'm posting the story I wrote at Farnborough for AVIATION INTERNATIONAL NEWS. Incidentally, in the first para I should have written that the Skunk Works was invited to provide data to the MoD - it wasn't a firm bid. QUOTE Officially revealed here at Farnborough, Lockheed Martin's bid to sell U-2 spy planes to Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF) is not as speculative as might first be thought. The U-2 has been out of production since 1989, but the Skunk Works was invited earlier this year by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to provide firm prices for a package of six U-2S models and associated sensors and ground stations. Two rival industrial teams are already working on project definition contracts awarded last year by the MoD in connection with the UK's long-standing ASTOR (Airborne STand-Off Radar) requirements. Those teams, led by Raytheon E-Systems and the former Loral (now Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems) will be revealing details of their proposals here during the show. But the Skunk Works is offering an off-the- shelf, turn-key solution to ASTOR that could be in service much earlier, and at roughly a third of the cost. The origins of the ASTOR requirement are lost in the mists of time, but the mission is essentially one that the U-2 has been flying for years with the US Air Force. Using the Hughes Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) data-linked in real time to deployable ground stations, the Dragon Lady quietly provided a high proportion of the target sets for Desert Storm in 1991. Since then the crucial data-dissemination process has been further refined, and the U-2 still flies over Bosnia and other world trouble spots on a daily basis. Because it cruises at over 70,000 feet, the U-2 offers a better side-view across potentially hostile territory than the biz jets that the other two ASTOR teams are expected to choose as their airborne platforms. The so-called grazing angle is important for sensor performance, and that conferred by the U-2 is 5.1 deg, compared with 3.9 deg for a bizjet at 45,000 ft or 2.1 deg for the Boeing 707 used as the JSTARS platform. The drawback is, of course, that the U-2 pilot flies alone, whereas the bizjets can carry processing and display units for its radar sensor, along with a mission crew. But that advantage is being eroded by the latest data-link compression and ground station technology, and miniaturisation of ASARS and other sensors means that the U-2 payload of 5,000 lb is becoming even more effective. In addition to the six airplanes, which would (at least initially) be maintained by the Skunk Works, the U-2 ASTOR proposal includes a Westinghouse ground station, Loral data link, and E-Systems tactical terminal, as well as the Hughes ASARS. RAF pilots flew U-2s continuously from 1958 till 1974 as part of the CIA's covert operations over the Soviet Union and elsewhere. The UK has not subsequently been part of the ongoing U-2 saga, which included production of 37 new aircraft in the eighties. Garfield Thomas, vice-president for reconnaissance systems at the Skunk Works, told Aviation International News that the US Defense Department would likely not clear the U-2 system, which still offers a state-of-the art reconnais sance capability, for export to countries other than the UK. The UK would have to pay the non-recurring costs for putting the U- 2 back into production for an unprecedented third time. However, the US Air Force would also like to replace the five that have been lost in accidents so far this decade. It is following the progress of the ASTOR bid closely. UNQUOTE Regards Chris Pocock "Information is useless without Intelligence" UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #723 ********************************* 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).