skunk-works-digest Saturday, November 8 1997 Volume 06 : Number 087 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** U-2 a sitting duck? Pave Hawks at Area 51 re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: S-37 Re: Pave Hawks at Area 51 Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Re[2]: S-37 Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: Pave Hawks at Area 51 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:21:05 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: U-2 a sitting duck? > Is the U-2 a sitting duck? The newer U-2 is not as vulnerable as the one flown by Powers.Many and various countermeasures have and are being considered. At one point, towed decoys were being tested, and may be in use. But, it gets more difficult when you announce when the aircraft is going to fly over. (Dumb) On another note. Was there ever a name for the U-2? Seems the Air Force has to name everything. i.e. , Blackbird, Raptor/Lightning, etc. Wayne - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:52:38 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: Pave Hawks at Area 51 Pave Hawks don't have skids! If someone put a skid down on you, it was mostly likely a UH-1N, which the USAF owns a few of. The DoE owns some BK117s, which they use for security at the Idaho testing grounds and the USAF might have something similar for Area 51. However... About 3-4 years ago, I went to a AIAA dinner meeting, here in Seattle, where the featured speaker was Bill Sweatman. He started the talk by showing two pictures of the Groom Lake flight line, taken with an astronomy telescope from Freedom Ridge. As would be expected, no aircraft were visible on the flight line, except a UH-60 Black Hawk. I am an ex-Sikorskite, but from the detail on the picture, I couldn't tell if it was a stock Black Hawk or a Pave Hawk. I don't remember seeing the "wings" (store pylons), but these are not permamently installed on Pave Hawks. If I remember right, the UH-60 was facing away from the camera, so I couldn't see if it had a refueling probe. It might have been a Credible Hawk, which were the first UH-60s bought by the USAF. These aircraft were basically stock Black Hawks with USAF paint. They would be a logical aircraft to use as a base rescue helicopter. As an aside, when I worked at Sikorsky, the aero group sat for a while behind an illustrator group. One day, wandering through their area, I came across a guy with drawings of the camo scheme for the HH-53D and basic 5-vues of the UH-60. He told me that he had been assigned to design the camo scheme for the USAF UH-60s and didn't have a clue where to start, as he had never done this before. His boss had told him to put the HH-53D scheme onto the UH-60 and he was trying to figure out how to do this. Being a scale modeler, I jumped into the fray and gave him a couple of suggestions, including some intended to make painting a scale model easier! One other note: I was at the airraces in Lancaster California last weekend, just up the road from Palmdale. One vendor was selling badges labeled "Area 51 Restricted Area Pass" and "Area 51 Test Pilot". Needless, to say, they were very popular with the Skunk Works people in attendance. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 97 13:24:10 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: U-2 a sitting duck? The U-2 is not a pure sitting duck. However, it is slow, not very maneuverable and rather delicate (it has to be to do the remarkable things it does). Someone more knowledgeable than me may have new information, but I'm not aware that towed decoys have been used with the U-2. They would impose drag and aerodynamic penalties, which is why they are only planned for certain aircraft. Their main function is to buy time, in any case. For a relatively slow aircraft as a target, there is an immediate counter to the towed decoy that can be used by someone firing a missile at it, even if the decoy fools the missile. It's two words--"Fire two". It's worthy of note that plans for using the U-2 in combat, like those for JSTARS, envision it remaining over friendly airspace and looking into the hostile areas with its onboard sensors. It is no longer considered a system for penetrating hostile airspace. This doesn't mean it's a bad airplane, far from it. It just reflects the reality of the world today. Art Hanley Don't even think, not for a second, That what I said above has anything To do with my employer's position. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 17:35:12 -0500 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: Re: S-37 That S-37 looks like a cross between the F-18 and X-29. Any one have the stats of those two aircraft to compare to the new aircraft. I'd be interested to see the similarities. Timothy Poole "I am my employer so I say what I want to......" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 16:58:26 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: Pave Hawks at Area 51 David Lednicer wrote: > Pave Hawks don't have skids! If someone put a skid down on you, > it was mostly likely a UH-1N, which the USAF owns a few of. The DoE owns > some BK117s, which they use for security at the Idaho testing grounds and > the USAF might have something similar for Area 51. > > However... > > About 3-4 years ago, I went to a AIAA dinner meeting, here in > Seattle, where the featured speaker was Bill Sweatman. He started the > talk by showing two pictures of the Groom Lake flight line, taken with an > astronomy telescope from Freedom Ridge. As would be expected, no aircraft > were visible on the flight line, except a UH-60 Black Hawk. I am an > ex-Sikorskite, but from the detail on the picture, I couldn't tell if it > was a stock Black Hawk or a Pave Hawk. I don't remember seeing the > "wings" (store pylons), but these are not permamently installed on Pave > Hawks. Right you are. Hawks have wheels, and I knew that, but old habits die hard. Still have Huey's on the mind, I guess. There is no corroboration that there is more than one UH-60G at Area 51, as it is difficult if impossible to see numbers on the craft. One photo supposedly taken of the Pave Hawk buzzing the photographer is available at: http://www.vvcs.com/a51/photos/blackhawk.jpg This Hawk didn't appear to have stores pylons. Wayne - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 97 03:06:43 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Pat and folks at large, I hope I'm not going on too much about this, but I feel quite strongly about this and what's happened. Pat, please don't take this personally, but I think your view of what's happened is a bit too simple. The way you describe it is the way it should be. The President and powers that be cooly and rationally sit down and evaluate the options and decide the best course of action. Unfortunately, that's often not the way it works. Remember, the name of the game is power and image. I'll explain: First off, NSA isn't much of a player in this situation. The roles of the SR and what NSA is primarily concerned with nowadays don't overlap that much, although the SR is still about the best platform around for stimulating someone to light up so that we can analyze their signals. The SR is primarily a tactical platform, although it can perform strategic missions (which sometimes upsets some satellite folks, but they're paranoid). The issue of whether the President is satisfied with what he's getting probably wasn't a driver in this case. After all, if satellites were providing all that we needed, why are so many gazillions of dollars being spent to develop these new UAVs? And if the UAVs are to fill a legitimate need (and I believe they will), what do we do to get the intel until they're ready? We already know that satellites and signals alone aren't providing all we need. That was one of the big complaints that came from the Gulf War. The operating forces have been extremely concerned about this. The thing is, to those who were instrumental in killing the SR before, reversing the decision is simply not going to be considered. Any user requirement that involves the SR will simply go unmet. We saw this in the Gulf War when the SR was specifically requested almost immediately, and the requirement was simply buried at higher levels. The issue of whether the SR is needed now or can do some things that other platforms can't doesn't enter into it. Image does, as well as the desire to eliminate a potential "threat" to other programs. What happened here was skillful maneuvering. When I wrote my article, I had intended to address the possibility of a line item veto, but was asked not to. It seemed that the SR program was going to be left alone. There were plans to deploy it abroad, request were coming in for it (still being blocked but that was expected to fade), and it is quite possible that one or two more would have been brought back, which would have been all the capacity needed for as far out as could be projected. What happened was the people who knew and supported the SR's role were simply outmaneuvered in the bureaucratic chess match. Anti-SR forces (some sources indicate it was one person) inserted the SR in a list of items to be presented to the President to be line-item vetoed. I doubt if Clinton took part in selecting the items and particularly cared what they were. He simply got something that he was told could be trumpeted as "fighting pork", and went along. The fact that they were in Defense was a bonus from his point of view, since he doesn't like that anyway. Once he had been maneuvered into going public, he wasn't about to suddenly reverse himself unless he saw widespread public opposition. There is some talk that he's upset about part of it because the Pentagon (which is not synonymous with "the military") reportedly had given him erroneous information on some of the projects (I don't know if the SR was one of them). This kind of thing happens a lot. For example, last year, when the Armed Services Committee made its recommendations to the floor, a line had been inserted zeroing out all funding for the STOVL version of the JSF. This would have put USMC aviation out of business, cut off major exports, wiped out the Royal Navy's future fixed wing component and eliminated what may be a key part of USAF's future expeditionary forces. It turned out the line had been put in by one staffer who was an ex-F-15E driver who wasn't fond of close air support and didn't like V/STOL. When the committee members realized what happened, they didn't change the language, even though None of them agreed with that line. They felt it would be too embarrassing to admit that they didn't know it was there. They counted on the word being got to the whole floor from other sources and it being fixed in conference (it was). That's how important image is up there. This is the same position Clinton is in. That's why I can't agree with your analysis. The evidence does not indicate that a decision was made that the systems we had now were providing all that we need. What is indicated was that players simply decided that if users needed anything that required the SR to get, they'd just do without. No one has offered any method at the present time for meeting those portions of the intle spectrum the SR did. Proof from a "strategic" aspect no less? --Name a method to determine if North Korea is complying with the nuclear agreement they made with us (they wouldn't permit on-site inspection) without using the SR-71. Predictable satellites can't. I'd love to eat crow if there's some super secret system out there. But if it's so secret that we can't provide its product to those who need it (remember the Iranian rescue attempt?) for fear that its existence might be suspected, then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. The President was ill-served by those who got him to veto the program. Sorry if I went on too long about this, I just think it's really important. Don't feel too smug with a, "That blasted Government" attitude. The exact same thing goes on in large corporations. Ever read "Dilbert"? Wordy Art P.S. Although the Senate voted to reverse the veto, the House is still too exhausted from their last vacation to take it up before they recess for the year. By next year the program will be too far gone to come back without a supplemental appropriation (which he could veto. I'd like to think that the Senate did it because the support the SR (which they do, but not enough to fall on their swords for it), but I fear it's more anger at the way the whole thing was done and the fact that Clinton is only willing to cut Defense. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 15:58:55 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? >On another note. Was there ever a name for the U-2? >Seems the Air Force has to name everything. i.e. , Blackbird, Raptor/Lightning, etc. > >Wayne I don't know if they had an official name, but they were nicknamed "Dragon Ladies" (anyone know the story behind this?). I think that "Blackbird" is an unofficial name too. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:49:55 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) >Sorry if I went on too long about this, I just think it's really >important. Don't feel too smug with a, "That blasted Government" >attitude. The exact same thing goes on in large corporations. >Ever read "Dilbert"? > > > > Wordy Art And, I might add, academia.... quite apart from the infamous courses on sandcastle building. ... and everyone should remember that Franz Kafka's day job was as an insurance clerk... I was wondering if black budgeting has been used to bypass explicit vetoes. Of course that would raise serious constitutional problems, but... Well, I'm curious. - --Brett (It's all irrelevant, but I need to get it off my chest) Davidson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 07:58:38 -0500 From: James Stevenson Subject: Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Brett, The answer is "yes." I just spent over three years writing a book about the history of the Navy's A-12 program. I can assure that there were many violations of the constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 says that no money shall be expended without an appropriation. That was done many times on the A-12 program. There are documents to prove it. Jim Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Brett Davidson wrote: > >Sorry if I went on too long about this, I just think it's really > >important. Don't feel too smug with a, "That blasted Government" > >attitude. The exact same thing goes on in large corporations. > >Ever read "Dilbert"? > > > > > > > > Wordy Art > > And, I might add, academia.... quite apart from the infamous courses on > sandcastle building. > > ... and everyone should remember that Franz Kafka's day job was as an > insurance clerk... > > I was wondering if black budgeting has been used to bypass explicit vetoes. > Of course that would raise serious constitutional problems, but... > > Well, I'm curious. > > --Brett (It's all irrelevant, but I need to get it off my chest) Davidson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:30:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Brent N. Kellogg" Subject: Re[2]: S-37 Has anyone posted the pix? Would love to see, but I don't have access to the current Flight International. Thanks, Brent ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:00:05 -0200 From: Felipe Salles Subject: Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) James Stevenson wrote: > Brett, > > The answer is "yes." I just spent over three years writing a book > about the > history of the Navy's A-12 program. I can assure that there were many > (Snip) Well this is good news! I've been searching the "all-knowing" Web for info on the A-12 and there is nothing on it, as if it never existed.... When will the book be published? Felipe > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:58:14 -0600 (CST) From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Wayne busse wrote: >> Is the U-2 a sitting duck? Of course its a sitting duck. But they say the U2 is going to have fighter cover,and any Iraqi pilot who goes for it has got to know that although he'll be a hero, he probably won't make it home alive. The us will be after him fast. This is really about gamesmanship. If Saddam orders a shoot down, our military then has to go in and bomb the daylights out of him. If we don't then he knows we aren't sincere in the threats we make to try to control him. If he is willing to gamble he may win or lose. But as history has shown, Saddam is always willing to play the game. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:15:03 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? At 02:58 PM 11/8/97 -0600, you wrote: >Wayne busse wrote: > >>> Is the U-2 a sitting duck? > >Of course its a sitting duck. But they say the U2 is going to have fighter >cover,and any Iraqi pilot who goes for it has got to know that although >he'll be a hero, he probably won't make it home alive. The us will be >after him fast. > >This is really about gamesmanship. If Saddam orders a shoot down, our >military then has to go in and bomb the daylights out of him. If we don't >then he knows we aren't sincere in the threats we make to try to control >him. > >If he is willing to gamble he may win or lose. But as history has shown, >Saddam is always willing to play the game. =================== Keep in mind the U-2 flights over Iraq are UN missions, not US. If there is a shoot down it is a violation against the UN Coalition, not the US. Therefore if Clinton wishes to react he must do so in accordance with what the UN allows him to do. This is one reason Saddam is willing to roll the dice. He is confidant Clinton may not get that approval. Egypt, Saudia Arabia, France and the Soviet Union favor an end to further UN military intervention, despite Saddam's antics. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:57:11 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Art wrote: >The U-2 is not a pure sitting duck. However, it is slow, not very >maneuverable and rather delicate (it has to be to do the remarkable things >it does). Someone more knowledgeable than me may have new information, >but I'm not aware that towed decoys have been used with the U-2. They >would impose drag and aerodynamic penalties, which is why they are only >planned for certain aircraft. >Their main function is to buy time, in any case. For a relatively slow >aircraft as a target, there is an immediate counter to the towed decoy >that can be used by someone firing a missile at it, even if the decoy >fools the missile. It's two words--"Fire two". I don't think any U-2s are equipped with operational towed decoys at this time, nevertheless, they are supposed to get them. The following is a press release from Sanders: NASHUA, N.H. -- July 16, 1997 -- Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company, has successfully completed a series of wind tunnel tests which validated the aerodynamic design of special purpose high altitude fins on the Fiber Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD), the off-board component of the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Radio Frequency Countermeasures (RFCM) program. The wind tunnel tests were conducted at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) high speed wind tunnel facility in Grand Prairie, Texas. Earlier aerodynamic design verification testing was completed at the LMAS wind tunnel in Marietta, Georgia. Under a $3 million contract modification received in December 1996, Sanders is now conducting an 18-month Risk Reduction program to validate FOTD aerodynamic and thermal design requirements in the high altitude environment of the U-2 aircraft. Six modified FOTD systems will be delivered to Lockheed Martin Skunk Works in November of this year, and high altitude flight testing will take place in early 1998. Bill Dermody, Sanders FOTD Flight Test Program Manager, said, "Performance in the wind tunnel is a key element in Sanders risk reduction activities for the towed decoys. For the high altitude tests we used a scale model with multiple fin lengths and fin sweep combinations to perform our analysis. Analyzing multiple fin configurations allows us to select the best solution for high altitude aerodynamic conditions with high confidence." Major Verle Johnson, Air Force U-2 Defensive System Program Manager said, "The wind tunnel testing indicates that application of an extended fin kit to the IDECM FOTD will allow us to achieve commonality among high altitude platforms like the U-2 and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, while maintaining maximum commonality with the FOTD being developed for F/A-18E/F, B-1B and F-15C/E." John Watkins, Sanders Business Development Manager for IDECM said, "Our flight test program will utilize two aircraft. The FOTD system will be mounted in the Global Positioning System pod of a U-2 test aircraft. A two-seat U-2 trainer will be used as a chase aircraft." Sanders and ITT Avionics were selected in November of 1995 to develop the IDECM RFCM subsystem, and the initial $49.3 million contract provides for the development of an RFCM system that includes the FOTD. Sanders is an operating unit of the Lockheed Martin Electronic Sector, a leader in the design, development and manufacture of electronics systems for the global aerospace and defense marketplace. Sanders is a major producer of electronic combat and self-protection systems, and is the industry leader in the development of automated mission planning systems. Other major business areas include tactical communications, surveillance and intelligence systems; avionics and space electronics; microwave electronics subsystems; and commercial telecommunications systems. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:03:29 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Pave Hawks at Area 51 Brian D. Liddicoat quoted WAPJ (World Airpower Journal) Volume 30, Fall 1997, page 14: >"USAF operates only 13 MH-60G versions of the Pave Hawk, with 10 assigned to >AFSOC and the remaining 3 officially with the Ogden Air Logistics Center at >Hill AFB, Utah. Despite having been assigned to Ogden since 1993, they have >not been seen at the base and may reside at one of the secret Air Force >facilities in Nevada" The MH-60G and the HH-60G, were both originally designated MH-60G 'Pave Hawk' and are externally virtually identical. The current MH-60Gs were later upgraded under the 'Pave Low III' program with a Hughes AN/AAQ-16 FLIR in a small turret, mounted under the nose, and other avionics. The current HH-60Gs (most without the FLIR) received their new designation in October, 1991. The USAF has received at least 98 MH/HH-60G 'Pave Hawk' Special Operations and CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue) helicopters, 20 of which were converted from earlier UH-60A 'Credible Hawk' Special Ops helicopters (themselves modified ex-US Army UH-60As), and the rest were newly built as MH-60Gs (and later HH-60Gs). I am not sure if the USAF has bought or converted others besides those 98. All Pave Hawk helicopters that I know for sure (57) have US Army Fiscal Year serials rather than USAF FY serials. The USAF has ordered 8 more HH-60Gs in 1997, in a big, $745 million, 5 year contract, together with the USN (42 CH-60) and the US Army (58 UH-60L). The aircraft at Area 51 / Groom Lake, NV, are most likely HH-60Gs (and the photos I have seen of them, seem to indicate that too -- no FLIR turret), and belong to Det 3. of the 412th TG, 412th TW, AFFTC, AFMC, Edwards AFB, CA. Also, the remark concerning "one of the secret Air Force facilities in Nevada" is the typical kind of 'inaccuracy' or 'misinformation' one expects from Internet newsgroup posts or maybe PM/PS rather than WAPJ. I would take that remark with a small salt mine of salt. :) Known (to me) MH-60G/HH-60G 'Pave Hawk' serials include: FY Serial Version Remarks (original Versions, User) ============================================================================ 81-23643 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk' 81-23644 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 512th SOS 81-23645 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk' 81-23646 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 512th SOS 81-23647 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk' 82-23671 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 512th SOS 82-23680 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 512th SOS 82-23689 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 512th SOS 82-23708 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 512th SOS 82-23718 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', converted to HH-60D 'Night Hawk' prototype, converted to HH-60A prototype, finally converted to MH-60G, with 512th SOS 82-23728 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk' 87-26006 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26007 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26008 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26009 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26010 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26011 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26012 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26013 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 87-26014 MH-60G UH-60A, converted to 'Credible Hawk', with 55th SOS 88-26105 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26106 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G, with 210th RQS 88-26107 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G, with 210th RQS 88-26108 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26109 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26110 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26111 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26112 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G, (was 1994 with 56th RQS) 88-26113 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26114 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26115 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G, with 129th RQS 88-26116 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26117 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26118 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26119 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 88-26120 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 89-26204 MH-60G MH-60G, (redesignated HH-60G ?), with 55th SOS 89-26206 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G, (was 1994 with 56th RQS) 90-26222 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26223 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26224 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26225 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26226 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26227 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G, with 305th RQS 90-26228 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26229 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26230 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26231 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26232 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26233 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26234 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26235 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26236 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26237 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 90-26238 HH-60G MH-60G, redesignated HH-60G 92-26404 HH-60G was with 33rd RQS, crashed 10/06/1994 ..-..312 HH-60G with 66th RQS Current xH-60G Units include: ============================= * ACC - AWC, 53rd WG, 79th TEG - 422nd TES, Nellis AFB, NV, HH-60G, "OT" (?) - AWC, 57th WG, 57th OG - 66th RQS, Nellis AFB, NV, HH-60G, "WA" - FWS, Nellis AFB, NV, "OT" (?) - 9th AF, 1st WG, 1st OG - 41st RQS, 'Jolly Green Giants', Moody AFB, GA, "MY" (?) (or still at Patrick AFB, FL, "FF" (?)) - 12th AF, 49th FW, 49th OG - 48th RQS, 'Move the World', Holloman AFB, NM, "HO" (?) * AETC - 19th AF, 58th SOW, 58th OG - 512th SOS, Kirtland AFB, NM * AFMC - AFFTC, 412th TW, 412th TG - Det.3, Groom Lake, NV, (Area 51) * AFRES - 10th AF, 939th RQW - 301st RQS 'Guardian Wings', Patrick AFB, FL, "FL" - 304th RQS, Portland IAP, OR, "PD" - 305th RQS, Davis Monthan AFB, AZ, "DR" * AFSOC - 16th SOW, 16th SOG - 55th SOS 'Night Hawks', Eglin AFB, FL * ANG - AK ANG, 176th WG - 210th RQS 'The Second 10th', Kulis ANGB, Anchorage, AK - CA ANG, 129th RQW - 129th RQS 'That Others May Live', Moffett Federal Air Field, CA, "CA" (?) - NY ANG, 106th FW - 102nd RQS 'ANGs Oldest Unit', Suffolk County APT, NY (or Gabreski Field/APT, Long Island, NY) * PACAF - 5th AF, 18th WG, 18th OG - 33rd RQS, 'Jolly Green Giants', Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan, "ZZ" (?) - 5th AF, 35th FW, 35th OG - 38th RQF (?), Misawa AB, Japan, "MJ" (?) - 7th AF, 51st FW, 51st OG - 38th RQS, 'Jolly Ops', Osan AN, RoK, "OS" (?) Abbreviations: ============== AB = Air Base ACC = Air Combat Command AETC = Air Education and Training Command AF = Air Force AFB = Air Force Base AFFTC = Air Force Flight Test Center AFRES = Air Force Reserves AFSOC = Air Force Special Operations Command ANG = Air National Guard ANGB = Air National Guard Base APT = Airport AWC = Air Warfare Center Det = Detachment FLIR = Forward Looking InfraRed FWS = Fighter Weapons School FY = Fiscal Year IAP = International Airport OG = Operations Group PACAF = Pacific Air Forces PM/PS = Popular Mechanics / Popular Science RoK = Republic of Korea (South Korea) RQF = Rescue Flight RQS = Rescue Squadron RQW = Rescue Wing SOS = Special Operations Squadron SOW = Special Operations Wing TEG = Test & Evaluation Group TES = Test & Evaluation Squadron TG = Test Group TW = Test Wing USAF = United States Air Force USN = United States Navy WG = Wing - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #87 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.com". 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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner