skunk-works-digest Wednesday, November 12 1997 Volume 06 : Number 088 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Edwards AFB airshow (again) Re: U-2 a sitting duck Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Re: U-2 a sitting duck Re: U-2 a sitting duck Re: Eurostealth Re: U-2 a sitting duck Pave Hawks at Area 51 Re: U-2 a sitting duck SR-71 Demise Re: U-2 a sitting duck re: SR-71 Demise Re: Pave Hawks at Area 51 Re: SR-71 Demise Re: SR-71 Demise Re: U-2 a sitting duck [Fwd: MILINET: Navy Protects U-2 Flights] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 21:24:09 -0800 From: Speed Racer 71 Subject: Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR (long again) Felipe Salles wrote: > 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.... Wel, it's not "all-knowing", but it may do until then... :) http://www.why.net/home/habu/avenger2.htm Greg Fieser (Doritos 'R' Us) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 21:28:40 -0800 From: Speed Racer 71 Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > The wind tunnel tests were conducted at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautical > Systems (LMAS) high speed wind tunnel facility in Grand Prairie, Texas. I've been to this wind tunnel, and it is indeed "high speed" - not Mach 1, not Mach 2, not Mach 3, but *much* higher (you'll understand if I don't say more...) I don't see this as a test for anything related to U-2s... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 07:26:28 GMT From: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? patrick wrote: >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. Not entirely true. According to the - I believe - UN spokesman on NPR News on Friday. Yes, the U-2 carries UN markings, and is tasked by the UN, but the operational aspects are taken care of by its' owner. Furthermore, if it _was_ shot down, the owner would decide upon a course of action. The spokesman was _very_ specific about who's in control in the event of an attack. Furthermore, US gov't spokesman have stated that an attack or radar lock on the aircraft will be considered an act of war. Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:30:52 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Wayne Busse wondered: >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. And Brett Davidson answered: >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. Both, "Blackbird" and "Dragon Lady" are nicknames and not official. The USAF and the rest of the US military very often (but not always) give aircraft a so-called 'Popular Name'. Quite a few aircraft had no Popular Name throughout their whole operational life, but were known only by a nickname (like the F-111 'Aardvark', a nickname which was finally made 'official' at their retirement). Others are known more widely by their nickname rather than their Popular Name, like the Warthog (A-10 Thunderbolt II), BUFF (B-52 Stratofortress), or Viper (F-16 Fighting Falcon), while others are best known by an acronym, like AWACS (E-3 Sentry) or J-STARS (E-8). Specific versions of an aircraft are sometimes known by a Project Name, like "PAVE LOW" (HH-53J Sea Stallion) or "COMBAT TALON" (MC-130E/H Hercules), and some don't even have a designation, and have to use their Project Names, like "HAVE BLUE" and "TACIT BLUE". The origin of the nickname 'Blackbird' seems obvious, and the 'Dragon Lady' traces her name back to a comic figure (just like the Skunk Works). Chris Pocock writes in the beginning of his book "Dragon Lady", the following: Author's Note: The Deuce and the Dragon Lady [...] But of all the nicknames which have been applied to the aircraft, the one which has gained the greatest currency is 'The Dragon Lady'. Very early in the U-2 programme, someone in the US Air Force had the idea of giving the aircraft a codename based on a memorable character from a long-running comic strip. The Dragon Lady was a mysterious oriental who appeared in 'Terry and the Pirates', a newspaper series drawn originally by Milton Caniff, who has been called the Rembrandt of the comic strip artists. When it began in 1934, the series was set along the coast of mainland China, and the Dragon Lady was a pirate warlord who frequently frustrated the law-abiding endeavours of the youthful Terry Lee and his guardian Pat Ryan. [...] - -- 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 23:41:41 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Edwards AFB airshow (again) I noted that my Edwards AFB air show list was not included in Digest 6-085, so I made my own, additional, Digest 6-085a, including my post and one from Wei-Jen Su. If anyone wants it, I can forward it. Also, here are some additions and corrections to that list, and if anybody archives it, just replace the affected original lines with the following, new ones: - -- Andreas St. Type Serial Registr. msn Markings User Rem. ============================================================================ FS YF-117A FY 79-10783 ? -- 783 79 783 ED (6) FS YF-117A FY 79-10784 ? -- 784 79 784 ED (6) (42) FV JUH-1C FY 66-15223 -- 1951 03 (36) (43) S RQ-3A FY 95-2001 -- #1 952001 (19) (53) S X-31A BN 164585 -- #2 131 (2) (74) User List: ========== (16) Det 2, 9th RW, 12th AF, ACC, Edwards AFB, CA (17) 1st RS, 9th RW, 12th AF, ACC, Beale AFB, CA (deployed to Det 2, Edwards AFB, CA) (18) 11th RS, 57th OG, 57th WG, AWC (Air Warfare Center), ACC, Nellis AFB, NV / Indian Springs AAF, NV (22) 475th TSS, 475th WEG, 53rd WG, AWC, ACC, Tyndall AFB, FL (?) (25) USAF ADS (Air Demonstration Squadron), "Thunderbirds", AWC, ACC, Nellis AFB, NV (27) 60th AMW, 15th AF, AMC / 349th AMW, 4th AF, AFRES, Travis AFB, CA Remarks List: ============= (20) "Travis" (color ?) on tail, "60/349 AMW" on nose (74) USN, NASA and Luftwaffe markings, the '131' is its 1995 Paris Air Show number (77) TTC (Tactical Training Center) badge on tail, only foreign military plane at show (besides the 4 Canadians and some warbirds)! - --- --- 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: Sun, 09 Nov 97 04:59:54 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck Aside from the 14 F-14As on the NIMITZ, I doubt if we have anything over ther right now with the range to run interference (the U-2 flies higher) for the U-2, and there's still the tanker question. However, Sadaam would probably use SAMs anyway. The U-2s may be flying under UN colors, but there's an American in the cockpit. If he did shoot one down, what's the UN going to do: Have a debate on whether or not to take a vote on forming a committee to plan drafting a sternly worded protest note? Remember that although the UN gave "permission" to use force against Sadaam, the Coalition was not a UN operation, but a coalition of interested parties. Andreas' information is extremely valuable as always. In the case of the U-2, I wonder how effective towed decoys are going to be. The U-2 is a fantastic craft, but maneuverability and agility are not its strong points, unlike the fighters that will be using these. After the towed decoy is destroyed by the SAM it diverts, what do you do about the second SAM five seconds behind it? Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 02:50:26 -0600 From: Bill Hansen Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck? Wayne Busse wrote: > > > 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 I'm wondering if there is some regret about the recent re-cancellation of the SR-71 in light of requirement for U-2 flights. With the SR-71 use, Iraq's threat to shoot town recce flights can probably remain just that--a threat. On the other hand SR-71 use cannot be used as a reason for a confrontation, and Saddam wins on most of the other issues. So perhaps, for geopolitical reasons, it is better to not have the SR-71 available. (Back to lurking.) __Bill Hansen bhansen@io.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:31:35 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck Hello All, >Andreas' information is extremely valuable as always. In the case of the >U-2, I >wonder how effective towed decoys are going to be. The U-2 is a fantastic >craft, >but maneuverability and agility are not its strong points, unlike the >fighters >that will be using these. After the towed decoy is destroyed by the SAM it >diverts, what do you do about the second SAM five seconds behind it? I agree with this, how important can a towed decoy be after the first launch! Are we sure that it's a towed decoy or is it another sensor package? Just a thought. Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:17:01 -0200 From: Felipe Salles Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck Well people, here is a question that has bugged me for some time and has a lot to do with the current thread: If a SAM battery fires TWO rounds at a bogey doesn't the first one's explosion and it's debris tend to destroy or confuse the second one. Correct me if I'm wrong: a SAM detonation fills the sky with a HUGE cloud of very fast-moving pieces of shrapnel right into the path of the second missile? In reality, how effective are SAM salvo shots? Felipe John Stone wrote: > Hello All, > > >Andreas' information is extremely valuable as always. In the case of > the > >U-2, I > >wonder how effective towed decoys are going to be. The U-2 is a > fantastic > >craft, > >but maneuverability and agility are not its strong points, unlike the > > >fighters > >that will be using these. After the towed decoy is destroyed by the > SAM it > >diverts, what do you do about the second SAM five seconds behind it? > > I agree with this, how important can a towed decoy be after the first > launch! Are we sure that it's a towed decoy or is it another sensor > package? > > Just a thought. > > Best, > > John > > John Stone > jstone@thepoint.net > U-2 and SR-71 Web page: > http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:59:50 +0000 From: 11506@aquinas.ac.uk Subject: Re: Eurostealth With all the info on British Stealth in #86, I just thought I'd add what I know. I don't know if any of you have heard of a "UFO" sighting at Manchester Airport in January 1995. The crew of a 737 coming in to land were passed by what they described as a "Wedge-shaped" aircraft. It did not show up on air or ground radar. The pilot described it as having a Dark Stripe down the side. Sounds like HALO to me, which, by the way, I've heard, is a Joint US/UK programe. Check out the HALO page on my Website at: http://www.Geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5106 Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England P.S. I must apologise for any mistakes in my "Hypersonics" message. All the info came from an article in 'The Sunday Times'. Thanks for correcting me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:46:25 -0500 From: James Stevenson Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck Yes, And the same problem happens when one LGB bomb goes off and the second one attempts to guide on the target. The smoke and dust obscures the targets. Jim Stevenson Felipe Salles wrote: > Well people, here is a question that has bugged me for some time and has > a lot to do with the current thread: > > If a SAM battery fires TWO rounds at a bogey doesn't the first one's > explosion and it's debris tend to destroy or confuse the second one. > > Correct me if I'm wrong: a SAM detonation fills the sky with a HUGE > cloud of very fast-moving pieces of shrapnel right into the path of the > second missile? > > In reality, how effective are SAM salvo shots? > > Felipe > > John Stone wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > >Andreas' information is extremely valuable as always. In the case of > > the > > >U-2, I > > >wonder how effective towed decoys are going to be. The U-2 is a > > fantastic > > >craft, > > >but maneuverability and agility are not its strong points, unlike the > > > > >fighters > > >that will be using these. After the towed decoy is destroyed by the > > SAM it > > >diverts, what do you do about the second SAM five seconds behind it? > > > > I agree with this, how important can a towed decoy be after the first > > launch! Are we sure that it's a towed decoy or is it another sensor > > package? > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Best, > > > > John > > > > John Stone > > jstone@thepoint.net > > U-2 and SR-71 Web page: > > http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:55:43 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: Pave Hawks at Area 51 > One photo supposedly taken of the Pave Hawk buzzing the photographer is > available at: > > http://www.vvcs.com/a51/photos/blackhawk.jpg I spent some time examining this photo and the companion shot on this page. The aircraft is definitely a HH/MH-60. It is equipped with the Hover IR Suppressor, refueling probe, rescue winch and "towel bar" antenna on the rear fuselage. The lower nose is in shadow, but I think I can see a FLIR dome, which would make it a MH-60G. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:55:30 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck >Felipe Salles wrote: > >> Well people, here is a question that has bugged me for some time and has >> a lot to do with the current thread: >> >> If a SAM battery fires TWO rounds at a bogey doesn't the first one's >> explosion and it's debris tend to destroy or confuse the second one. >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong: a SAM detonation fills the sky with a HUGE >> cloud of very fast-moving pieces of shrapnel right into the path of the >> second missile? >> >> In reality, how effective are SAM salvo shots? =================================================== Jay Miller in Skunk Works, The first 50 Years" quotes from "The Penkovsky Papers", written by a Soviet KGB officer Oleg Penkovsky. Penkovsky claims they fired a 14 missle salvo of SA-2's at Francis Gary Powers. The plane was apparently destroyed by shock waves alone as it showed no contact with a missile nor any damage from shrapnel. The plane shed its wings and went into a flat spin. Powers was finally able to climb out of the airplane near 15,000 feet. And the rest, as they say, is history. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil Subject: SR-71 Demise Forgetting all the (considerable--esp. compared to UAVs) technical capabilities the SR brought to the table, consider this: Wouldn't it have been cool if our mindless blowhard could have reminded the Iraqis' mindless blowhard of 'who has the hammer' by letting the citizens of Baghdad hear the 'Sound of Freedom' everyday right after their 'news' report threatened to shoot down any American reconnaissance jets 'violating' Iraqi airspace? Instead: We threaten to 'unleash' Tomahawk missiles. Oh boy, that will really scare Saddam--especially in conjunction with another 'stongly worded' UN resolution "with teeth in it"--God, I am aquiver just thinking about it. Of course, with our unilateral disarmament of the 'outdated' A-6 and F-111 fleets, we have no ability to deliver meaningful ordnance deep into Iraq anyway. (Don't get me started there!) Because our current blowhard's predecessor didn't have the stomach to finish the job he started, we now have our combat aircrews wasting their lives in 90-day increments first in Saudi, then home, then Turkey, then home, then Italy, then home, then back to Saudi... No wonder so many are deciding that if they're going to bore holes in the air like an airliner, they might has well be actually flying an airliner and getting to know their families. Guys are so desperate for stability in their lives that they are VOLUNTEERING for Korea and taking their families along, at their own expense, just to have some semblance of stability in their family lives. Pilot (and Nav) training was cut back to support a reduced force structure based on what we now know were wildly optimistic retention projections. The result, we can't train replacement aircrew (forgetting about experienced aircrew--I'm just talking warm bodies here) fast enough to replace those leaving in disgust. Even if we could train more people, the fact remains that we would have to have planes for those individuals to fly, and that ain't going to happen. The truth can't be spoken: we've cut our forces so deeply that too few are being asked to do to much with too little. Not to mention that much of what force remains are combat ineffective aircraft that can't reach the fight without tankers to actually take them into 'Indian country'. (If you think Baghdad is a problem, just wait until they start asking tanker crews to volunteer to penetrate Iran so F-16s can reach Terhan--with two 500-lb bombs.) In short, if you look at the Gulf War as that relatively brief action fought in the first couple of months of 1991, we won. If you look at it as a long term war of attrition (aided and abetted by the Pentagon's efforts to hobble its own warfighters), then the issue is still very much in doubt. Sorry. Off topic a bit, but I had to vent. What do you want to bet that Peter Jennings won't do an 'expose' on how we sure could use the SR-71 now, being that he was calling it worthless just a day or so before Clinton line-itemed it. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 12:58:36 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck My point in saying that o the U-2 a toweddecoy could be defeated by firing more than one missile is that the U-2's prefromance, relative to modern SAM's is such that the enemy could launch one SAM, wait 10 sec or so, and then launch another. Even if the towed decoy suckers the first SAM, it'll be destroyed. At that point, there's nothing up there for the second SAM to home on but the U-2 itself. 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: Mon, 10 Nov 97 13:20:50 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: SR-71 Demise Oh, c'mon Jim, don't be so subtle. Tell us what you Really think. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:34:34 -0600 From: vidoq@juno.com Subject: Re: Pave Hawks at Area 51 On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 18:02:21 -0800 Lee Watters writes: >It also happened to me. Girlfriend and I were on Freedom Ridge (while >it was still accessible, obviously) late one afternoon. We had >played >cat-and-mouse with the white Jeep guys all afternoon and were heading >back toward the road. > >As we crested the ridge, we came face to face with the sucker. At eye >level. Way too close for comfort. It hung there long enough to get >me >back in touch with a higher spiritual power real fast. > >Then it blew over our heads, low enough that we could feel it, and >crossed the border. Thank heavens we had the presence of mind not to >stumble backwards inside the perimeter. > >Very effective piece of deterrent hardware. > Wow! What a woman! She sounds like a keeper. I am sure a visit to Freedom Ridge beats the hell out of a Tom Cruise movie and dinner. Thanks, Fade P.S.- One suggestion- marry that girl. Any person with that much sense of adventure, curiosity, concern for government secrecy, spending, or what ever is not your run of the mill person. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:12:57 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: SR-71 Demise WOW, Jim, you got me all fired up.... Wonder if they'll retread a 52 year old, with a Private Pilot ticket, to fill the voids left by all the fleeing mil. pilots. Gimme one o' them F-16's! Seriously, the SR-71 is cool, but it ain't sexy to pilots used to a glass cockpit. Who wants a '68 Hemi, when they can have a '98 'vette. A lot of the guys running the Air Force today, were in High School when the Blackbird was a decade old. Wayne - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:27:22 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: SR-71 Demise >Wonder if they'll retread a 52 year old, with a Private Pilot ticket, to fill >the voids left by all the fleeing mil. pilots. Gimme one o' them F-16's! HEY! I'M WITH YOU WAYNE!!!! Did you guys see those great shots of the F-22A in the 11/97 Air Force magazine? WOW! I love that cockpit shot with Paul Metz. Hey, he's in my seat! >Who wants a '68 Hemi, when they can have a '98 'vette. I got a chance to drive a 98 vette roadster last weekend! AWESOME! Back to work. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:33:28 -0500 From: Frank Markus Subject: Re: U-2 a sitting duck At 09:55 AM 11/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Felipe Salles wrote: >> >>> Well people, here is a question that has bugged me for some time and has >>> a lot to do with the current thread: >>> >>> If a SAM battery fires TWO rounds at a bogey doesn't the first one's >>> explosion and it's debris tend to destroy or confuse the second one. >>> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong: a SAM detonation fills the sky with a HUGE >>> cloud of very fast-moving pieces of shrapnel right into the path of the >>> second missile? >>> >>> In reality, how effective are SAM salvo shots? >=================================================== >Jay Miller in Skunk Works, The first 50 Years" quotes from "The Penkovsky >Papers", written by a Soviet KGB officer Oleg Penkovsky. Penkovsky claims >they fired a 14 missle salvo of SA-2's at Francis Gary Powers. The plane >was apparently destroyed by shock waves alone as it showed no contact with >a missile nor any damage from shrapnel. The plane shed its wings and went >into a flat spin. Powers was finally able to climb out of the airplane >near 15,000 feet. And the rest, as they say, is history. > >patrick cullumber >patrick@e-z.net > I seem to recall that it came out that "The Penkovsy Papers" was a piece of CIA disinformation. Penkovsky was, of course, very real ... and a great CIA coup. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:21:09 -0500 From: James Stevenson Subject: [Fwd: MILINET: Navy Protects U-2 Flights] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------5B1A1F9A3BC4983D722F6C74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those who have speculated on whether or not the U-2 was a sitting duck, I offer the following. Jim Stevenson - --------------5B1A1F9A3BC4983D722F6C74 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mrin42.mx.aol.com(198.81.19.152) by mailgate31-hme2 via smap (KC5.24) id Q_10.1.1.24/Q_15639_1_3469afe4; Wed Nov 12 05:32:20 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin42.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id IAA16771; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:30:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:30:29 -0500 (EST) From: MAJUSMCRET@aol.com Message-ID: <971112083028_-1107219861@mrin42.mail.aol.com> Subject: MILINET: Navy Protects U-2 Flights Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5am -- Novmeber 12, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.washtimes.com Naval commanders protecting U-2 warn Saddam not to attack - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Sabet el-Masri AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ The U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf is on high alert and has massive firepower ready to ward off any Iraqi attempt to shoot down U-2 reconnaissance flights, U.S. naval commanders warned yesterday. . . . . Rear Adm. John D. Nathman told reporters aboard the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz that its planes provided cover for the U.S. spy plane to fly a mission over Iraq on Monday despite Iraqi threats to shoot down the U-2. . . . . "We supported the U-2 flight yesterday. We are in a high stage of readiness. We have no intention to put in danger our U-2," said Adm. Nathman, commander of the carrier group. . . . . He said Iraq was notified ahead of the flight, which followed a weeklong suspension during a U.N. diplomatic mission to Baghdad. "Our determination is to protect those flights, and we do have the capabilities," he said. . . . . "We have a message to [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein that we have a tremendous combat capability," the admiral warned. . . . . The commander of U.S. forces in the Gulf, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, arrived in Kuwait yesterday for meetings with U.S. allies about the situation. . . . . Capt. Isaac E. Richardson, commanding officer of the Nimitz, which was about 100 miles south of Iraq, said no U-2 mission was scheduled for yesterday. On Monday, the U-2 was backed by F-18 Hornets and F-14 Tomcats as well as Hawkeye radar planes. . . . . The officers stressed their normal mission was to patrol a "no-fly" zone over southern Iraq and keep out Iraqi aircraft. But "we will protect the U-2 and, if necessary, we will take military retaliation," Capt. Richardson said. . . . . The Nimitz captain warned that "if the U-2 is shot down, the chance of confrontation will be very high." . . . . Adm. Nathman said the showdown since Baghdad imposed a ban on U.S. weapons inspectors working for the United Nations on Oct. 29 was "not between the U.S. and Iraq, but between the U.N. and Iraq." . . . . "Iraq is the one who is breaking its mandate and not abiding by the U.N. resolution," he said, referring to the disarmament terms for a cease-fire in the 1991 Gulf war over Kuwait. . . . . The Nimitz, which carries about 77 aircraft, including 14 F-14 fighters and 36 F/A-18Cs, is leading a 17-ship battle group inside the Gulf. Seven of the ships are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. . . . . The Pentagon said about 200 U.S. warplanes are based in the region, most of them in Saudi Arabia. Of the 18,500 U.S. military personnel in the area, about 12,500 are sailors and Marines. . . . . The Nimitz returned to the Gulf on Oct. 12, a few days ahead of schedule, following Iranian cross-border air raids into Iraq and Iraqi violations of the southern exclusion zone. Copyright (C) 1997 News World Communications, Inc. - --------------5B1A1F9A3BC4983D722F6C74-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #88 ******************************** 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