skunk-works-digest Wednesday, December 17 1997 Volume 06 : Number 097 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re:re FOAS/HALO at Groom Lake? Re:re FOAS/HALO at Groom Lake? Re:re FOAS/HALO at Groom Lake? Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Wings Of Fame #8 Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: Wings Of Fame #8 Groom Lake? Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? F-117 Press release AFNS Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake?/Recovery from the sea RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:10:10 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? >I've been reading a report on the web that said that: > >"Reports in the American aviation press during 1996 mentioned > a British-Built Stealth Demonstrator undergoing tests at the Groom > Lake facility in Nevada." > >Can anyone confirm this? In March there was supposedly a British contingent from BAe Warton visiting Groom during weekday operations, though they were also supposedly observing a US program under test. While it is possible that the UK would work jointly with the US at Groom on an aircraft program (there have been joint weapons and avionics programs at Groom), something more or less indigenous like FOAS would most likely be tested on British soil- there is no shortage of test facilities and operating areas in the UK, and UFO/black aircraft/etc. sightings in the UK and over the North Sea in the past few years is indicative of UK low observables technology advancing at a fast pace- which could point to joint US/UK stealth programs. And, of course, there are still a number of rumors of UK pilots flying F-117s in the 1980s while they were TDY in Europe, and foregin visitors at the TTR. Though to examine the above quote more closely, I've never heard of an American journal mentioning UK LO tests at Groom, much less in 1996. PopMech, perhaps? :P Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:56:16 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Dan Zinngrabe: >And, of course, there are still a number of rumors of UK pilots flying >F-117s in the 1980s while they were TDY in Europe, and foregin visitors at >the TTR. > I have heard rumors the F-117 was tested in England and can find no evidence that the airplane ever left this country before it was revealed to the public and subsequently put on the air show tour. There has been a British connection with RAF pilots being transferred into the unit and becoming operational with the Stealth squadrons. One flew actively in Saudia Arabia during the Gulf War. Another one recently completed his tour as a flying member of the executive staff of the 9th FS at Holloman. I believe the US wanted to use Britain as a forward base during its early contingency planning and got involved with the RAF in this manner. They were invited to test the aircraft and since then a working relationship has been established. Tom Robison- >According to a program on the Discovery Channel last night, Groom Lake, aka >Area 51, doesn't exist anymore! I saw the show too, and found Jim Wilson's comments to be even more implausible then his magazine article, "The New Area 51" in Popular Mechanics, June 1997. It is his claim alone that the Groom Lake Facility has been closed down. And he wants us to believe that because he see's no evidence of activity there. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:21:53 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? I wrote >>According to a program on the Discovery Channel last night, Groom Lake, >>aka Area 51, doesn't exist anymore! then Patrick wrote: >I saw the show too, and found Jim Wilson's comments to be even more >implausible then his magazine article, "The New Area 51" in Popular >Mechanics, June 1997. It is his claim alone that the Groom Lake Facility >has been closed down. And he wants us to believe that because he see's no >evidence of activity there. Do you mean to tell me that we are being mis-lead and mis-informed by the print-media???? Why, I can't imagine such a thing. What can possibly be their motivation? ;>) Tom Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Home e-mail: tcrobi@mindspring.com Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:33:20 +0000 From: 11506@aquinas.ac.uk Subject: Re:re FOAS/HALO at Groom Lake? What? - surely Area 51 never existed in the first place! :) Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:22:19 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re:re FOAS/HALO at Groom Lake? On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11506@aquinas.ac.uk wrote: > What? - surely Area 51 never existed in the first place! :) > Talking about the acknowledge of Area 51, I bought a book from Barnes & Nobles called "Smart Weapos" by Hugh McDaid and David Oliver. In page 141 there is a picture of Kelly Johnson writting on the blackboard providing that Area-51 does exist. The picture quality looks like from a old TV film. I haven't read the book yet, but in general it looks OK. Does not provide new information but it has small conclusion of everything. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "No. I am not dead because I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you (Q). The universe is not so badly designed." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (ST TNG) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 07:13:39 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re:re FOAS/HALO at Groom Lake? At 12:33 PM 12/16/97 +0000, 11506@aquinas.ac.uk wrote: >What? - surely Area 51 never existed in the first place! :) > > >Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England Neither did Roswell. That town down there is just a suburb of Clovis! ;-) Earl Needham, KD5XB mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Clovis, NM Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 (That was Texas A&I University.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:06:18 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Dan wrote: >While it is possible that the UK would work jointly with the US at Groom on >an aircraft program (there have been joint weapons and avionics programs at >Groom), something more or less indigenous like FOAS would most likely be >tested on British soil- Yes, the North Sea is as good a place as you'll find on or near this small island to test aspects of a classified a/c's flight envelope without causing too much attention. There's also a base in S.Africa, the name of which escapes me for the moment where such tests are conducted. FWIW, I'm not sure that these sightings are FOAS related as they go back some years. Given the rather negative attitude that exists in the UK with regard to our ability to do anything on our own, I feel you're right and it's possible or even likely that these sightings are products of joint US/UK projects. When I look at some of the a/c the UK has designed in the past and what it's doing now, it makes me want to..... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:01:53 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Wings Of Fame #8 I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone post this yet. Ayway, checkout this issue. It has an SR-71 on the cover so you won't miss it. It has many of the old photos we've seen before plus some new ones I've never seen before. Also has a engineering drawing of the proposed SAC B-71 Mach 3 bomber derivative of the SR-71. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 01:07:43 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? At 08:06 PM 12/16/97 +0000, you wrote: >Dan wrote: > >Yes, the North Sea is as good a place as you'll find on or near this small >island to test aspects of a classified a/c's flight envelope without >causing too much attention. Course the BIGGEST problem with testing a "new" aircraft over water, is there is little room for error in design, atleast over a deserted area, you can pickup the pieces if the worst happens. at the very least it gives the pilot a chance to recover, over water, just hope the depth is shallow enough for recovery of the little bits. Remember the've only recovered 95% of TWA800, still looking for some parts of the center tank. As someone, who has spent 30 years in the design/development/ prototype game, it always helps to be able to look at the failures modes and the little pieces. can,t begin to tell you the number of prototypes and field-returns we have a autopsied for failure anys. Always like the successful designs, but it helps to see the failures too. Keeps you honest........ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:39:02 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: Wings Of Fame #8 On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Larry Smith wrote: > > Also has a engineering drawing of the > proposed SAC B-71 Mach 3 bomber derivative of the > SR-71. > Hmm I think I recall that drawing appearing on the inside cover of one of the Crickmore books..side view showing a load of SRAMs in an internal bay..or am I imagining things? K ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 01:45:54 -0600 (CST) From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Groom Lake? Tom Robinson wrote >According to a program on the Discovery Channel last night, Groom Lake, aka >Area 51, doesn't exist anymore! > Maybe Area 51 doesn't exist but its still gaurded and the air force wtill won't acknowledge its there. Its still a very sensitive place. I may have more on this later. JZ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:05:01 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? John wrote: >At 08:06 PM 12/16/97 +0000, you wrote: >>Yes, the North Sea is as good a place as you'll find on or near this small >>island to test aspects of a classified a/c's flight envelope without >>causing too much attention. > > > Course the BIGGEST problem with testing a "new" aircraft over >water, is there is little room for error in design, atleast over >a deserted area, you can pickup the pieces if the worst happens. >at the very least it gives the pilot a chance to recover, over >water, just hope the depth is shallow enough for recovery of the >little bits. Remember the've only recovered 95% of TWA800, still >looking for some parts of the center tank. > > As someone, who has spent 30 years in the design/development/ >prototype game, it always helps to be able to look at the failures >modes and the little pieces... Thanks for your comments. No-one could disagree with what you say about performing a 'post mortem' on a failed machine. I feel that by the time the a/c enters the North Sea test phase, it's been pretty much de-bugged by flying over land elsewhere. It's fine testing an a/c in Nevada, S.Africa or Australia, but eventually you have to test it in the kind of weather conditions in which it will spend most of its service. That was the aspect of envelope expansion I meant to imply. David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 03:26:58 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: F-117 Press release AFNS - --=====================_882340021==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" - --=====================_882340021==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I sent this AF Press release out earlier, but it appears it went to the bit bucket. - --------------------------------------------------------------------& 971596. F-117 accident investigation report released LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFNS) -- Air Combat Command released the accident investigation report Dec. 12 on the F-117A stealth fighter from Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., that crashed Sept. 14 near Baltimore, Md. The aircraft had just completed its third pass during an air show flyover at Martin State Airport. The pilot was initiating his climb out for departure when he felt the aircraft shudder and the left wing broke off. The aircraft crashed into the residential area of Bowley's Quarters, Md., and caused extensive fire damage to several homes and vehicles. There were no fatalities or serious injuries. The pilot, Maj. Bryan K. Knight, ejected and received only minor injuries. The accident investigation report concluded that the cause of the accident was structural failure of a support assembly, known as the Brooklyn Bridge, in the left wing due to four missing fasteners of the 39 in the assembly. The Brooklyn Bridge assembly was apparently improperly reinstalled during a scheduled periodic inspection in Jan. 1996. The entire fleet of 53 F-117 Nighthawks was inspected during a command-directed precautionary stand down and none were found to have the same defect. (Courtesy of ACC News Service) & - --=====================_882340021==_-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:00:13 +0000 From: Steven Barber Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? David wrote: > Thanks for your comments. No-one could disagree with what you say about > performing a 'post mortem' on a failed machine. > > I feel that by the time the a/c enters the North Sea test phase, it's > been pretty much de-bugged by flying over land elsewhere. It's fine testing > an a/c in Nevada, S.Africa or Australia, but eventually you have to test > it in the kind of weather conditions in which it will spend most of its > service. That was the aspect of envelope expansion I meant to imply. > > David 8^)Remember the Tornado that came down into the sea when it passed close to Radio Caroline & got too much interference on the fly-by-wire system? That was the first flight-test of a piece of equipment a friend of mine had been working on. I don't think they ever recovered that... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:20:08 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? I once read that there is an American base on the northern part of Scotland that is well deserted and it is rumoured to have been used for a forward operating base during the testing of several black projects. Maybe this can explain the reported sightings over the North Sea. On the subject of Area 51 officially existing, well we all know what the official comment is (There is no such place), unless of course you want to claim damages from the disposal of toxic waste, or want to keep people out. I think it exists, for the purpose of black project testing. I doubt there is any UFO connection with the place. I once heard Arthur C Clarke say that if UFOs landed on Earth, then that would be one secret that someone somewhere couldn't keep for more than 24 hours. GP - --------------------- Gavin Payne G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - --------------------- - ---------- From: John Szalay[SMTP:john.szalay@postoffice.worldnet.att.net] Reply To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sent: 17 December 1997 01:07 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? At 08:06 PM 12/16/97 +0000, you wrote: >Dan wrote: > >Yes, the North Sea is as good a place as you'll find on or near this small >island to test aspects of a classified a/c's flight envelope without >causing too much attention. Course the BIGGEST problem with testing a "new" aircraft over water, is there is little room for error in design, atleast over a deserted area, you can pickup the pieces if the worst happens. at the very least it gives the pilot a chance to recover, over water, just hope the depth is shallow enough for recovery of the little bits. Remember the've only recovered 95% of TWA800, still looking for some parts of the center tank. As someone, who has spent 30 years in the design/development/ prototype game, it always helps to be able to look at the failures modes and the little pieces. can,t begin to tell you the number of prototypes and field-returns we have a autopsied for failure anys. Always like the successful designs, but it helps to see the failures too. Keeps you honest........ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:22:55 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake?/Recovery from the sea Although it is possible to recover aircraft that have gone down in water, I think that the chances of recovering an aircraft that didn't officially exist would be pretty slim. If the recovery guys aren't told what they're picking up from the sea bed, they are going to notice sooner or later that its not a regular aircraft. GP - --------------------- Gavin Payne G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - --------------------- - ---------- From: Steven Barber[SMTP:s.barber@xpedite.co.uk] Reply To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sent: 17 December 1997 11:00 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? David wrote: > Thanks for your comments. No-one could disagree with what you say about > performing a 'post mortem' on a failed machine. > > I feel that by the time the a/c enters the North Sea test phase, it's > been pretty much de-bugged by flying over land elsewhere. It's fine testing > an a/c in Nevada, S.Africa or Australia, but eventually you have to test > it in the kind of weather conditions in which it will spend most of its > service. That was the aspect of envelope expansion I meant to imply. > > David 8^)Remember the Tornado that came down into the sea when it passed close to Radio Caroline & got too much interference on the fly-by-wire system? That was the first flight-test of a piece of equipment a friend of mine had been working on. I don't think they ever recovered that... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:58:36 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? >I once read that there is an American base on the northern part of Scotland >that is well deserted and it is rumoured to have been used for a forward >operating base during the testing of several black projects. Maybe this >can explain the reported sightings over the North Sea. Is this the base known as Macrihanish, or whatever the spelling is? >On the subject of Area 51 officially existing, well we all know what the >official comment is (There is no such place), unless of course you want to >claim damages from the disposal of toxic waste, or want to keep people out. We all know it's there, we were just commenting that a recent TV show here in the colonies gave voice to an opinion by a writer that Groom Lake has been closed and all the operations were moved to bases in Colorado and Utah. His basis for making that statement is that he has seen no traffic, air or ground, into our out of the place over an unspecified time period. Perhaps it has become so toxic and ad/or irradiated that it simply isn't habitable any more... or that's what they'd like us to believe. When I was on Guam (in another lifetime) we were all told that old Northwest field had been abandoned, hadn't been used since WWII, etc. Funny that an old abandoned WWII bomber base should light up the night sky like a small city on some evenings. A drive up to the place revealed bright and shiny chain-link fence, and at the only area viewable from the road, one could see well-maintained runways, taxiways, and buildings. Someone suggested it was used as a turn-around base for SR-71's, but why would they fly to Guam from anywhere? Yet I await a rational explanation of what that old abandeoned bomber base was being used for in 1971. Perhaps it is still in use now? Tom Tom Robison, tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Airborne Communications Systems, Hughes Defense Communications, 1010 Production Rd. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (219)-429-5589 Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp., Hughes Electronics Corp., General Motors Corp., Raytheon Corp., God, or my wife. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:06:11 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? At 01:20 PM 12/17/97 -0000, Gavin Payne wrote: >I once read that there is an American base on the northern part of Scotland >that is well deserted and it is rumoured to have been used for a forward >operating base during the testing of several black projects. I've heard the same thing about an old base on Guam. supposedly deserted, and even abandoned, a fellow I know tried to go out there and found all kinds of fences and guards. Earl Needham, KD5XB mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Clovis, NM Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 (That was Texas A&I University.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:36:37 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? >I once read that there is an American base on the northern part of Scotland >that is well deserted and it is rumoured to have been used for a forward >operating base during the testing of several black projects. Maybe this >can explain the reported sightings over the North Sea. > >I once read that there is an American base on the northern part of Scotland >that is well deserted and it is rumoured to have been used for a forward >operating base during the testing of several black projects. Maybe this >can explain the reported sightings over the North Sea. Machrahanish is probably the base you're thinking of. There's another base: West Freugh in Scotland that seems to be on the 'Most Likely To': list. >On the subject of Area 51 officially existing, well we all know what the >official comment is (There is no such place), unless of course you want to >claim damages from the disposal of toxic waste, or want to keep people out. This belief that Groom Lake doesn't officially exist is badly out of date. For some time now..years in fact, the USAF has acknowledged the fact that it has a secret test site in the Groom Lake area, but that it does not have a name. I think what's being discussed is the notion that it's been closed down and the black projects moved elsewhere..and idea that was floated a while ago in a Pop-Mech article and expanded on a TV show. > >I think it exists, for the purpose of black project testing. I doubt there >is any UFO connection with the place.... I don't think anyone seriously holds any doubts on what you say. It really depends on what you mean by U**s :) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #97 ******************************** 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