From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #52 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, April 12 1999 Volume 08 : Number 052 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] B-52 Losses During Linebacker Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] FWD: (TLC-Mission) RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam Forwarded mail.... Re: More F-117 Re: Forwarded mail.... Re: More F-117 Re: More F-117 Re: TLC-Mission: FWD: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam Re: TLC-Mission: FWD: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam Russian ships Re: Russian ships Stories of two stealth aircraft show down *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 17:24:01 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] At 11:15 PM 4/9/99 GMT, "BUF Art" wrote: > > I should point out that USAF tactical aircraft often had to operate under the >same restrictions during most of the war when repeatedly attacking Hanoi/Haiphong >and other similar areas. > Why weren't KC-135's allowed north of the DMZ? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 20:48:10 -0400 From: Sheila and the GeeSer Subject: Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] Art, you are exactly correct. hmmm is that the light of an Arc? betnal@ns.net wrote: > > On 4/8/99 1:38PM, in message > <000101be8201$b0e4b7b0$0300a8c0@liden2.cleancrunch.demon.co.uk>, > gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > 10 of them big buggers is a hell of a lot to lose. What was the main cause > > of them being downed? > > Gavin > > > > There were actually 15 lost. That sounds like a lot, but it was a shade over > 2%, lower than loss rates of bombers in previous wars. USAF says all were lost to > SAMS, while the N. Vietnamese claim two were downed by MiGs (B-52s also shot down > two MiGs). > > The main cause of the losses was, IMHO, the inflexible tactics imposed by > PACAF, which controlled all Air Force ops. USAF until the late '80s was dominated > by SAC and SAC's types of thinking in many ways set tactics. In Vietnam, PACAF > was often accused of still fighting the air war against Germany with massed > formations in static cells. Before the 36 hour Christmas standown in 19872, The > B-52s were directed to fly the same routes, same headings, same altitudes weather > permitting same turns over the same points at the same turn rates each time they > attacked a particular target. Maneuvering or evasive action was not allowed, > because that's not the way strategic bombing is supposed to be done. > > A corridor of chaff was laid down first, and the direction and location of > this corridor basically told the N. Viets what the target would be. When the > B-52s would appear, the gunners could essentially take out their stopwatches and > predict where the B-52s would be at any given moment of the attack. This > minimized the effectiveness of jamming, because the N. Viets could fire their > missiles unguided at a particular point in space timed to arrive when the B-52s > would fly into them. They could use proximity or altitude fuses, the latter being > set for the known altitude or, if weather made for slight variations, the altitude > could be relayed from Migs sent up to shadow the bombers. It got so bad that > there were some jokes (only half in jest) that a MiG pilot could know when to > climb in his jet, takeoff, fly a wide downwind, fire and just go back and land in > one big circle. Also, when the B-52s made their predictable sharp turn after > bombing, this pointed their on-board jammers outward, away from the enemy radars. > Since it could be reliably predicted when and where this turn would occur, this > would be the time that guided SAMs would be launched for maximum effectiveness. > The peak losses were six B-52s on the night of Dec. 20-21. > > USAF officially says. "The losses, which to the aircrews seemed to result > from rigid adherence to flawed tactics, dealt a numbing, though not crippling, > blow to morale...". I have heard unofficially that there was a near mutiny > amongst bomber crews. In any case, after the standown, tactics were changed into > something more effective and losses dropped dramatically. In fact, by the final > days of Linebacker II US forces were roaming more or less at will over N. Vietnam, > their air defense system having been destroyed and their SAMs used up. With the > mining, there was no way to resupply the SAM sites, even if they could have guided > them. > > I should point out that USAF tactical aircraft often had to operate under the > same restrictions during most of the war when repeatedly attacking Hanoi/Haiphong > and other similar areas. > > Art > > Art - -- real address is shsrms at erols dot com The Herbal Gypsy and the Tinker. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 21:29:38 -0400 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: B-52 Losses During Linebacker You might want to John t. Smith's new book, "The Linebacker Raids" froms Arms & Armour Press. It reviews both Linebackers and gives a pretty good account of the B-52 raids. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 99 06:29:50 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] On 4/9/99 5:48PM, in message <370E9FC9.D27425AB@erols.com>, Sheila and the GeeSer wrote: > Art, > you are exactly correct. > hmmm is that the light of an Arc? > > Could be. Might also be the roll of some thunder. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:00:43 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] At 06:29 AM 4/10/99 GMT, you wrote: >On 4/9/99 5:48PM, in message <370E9FC9.D27425AB@erols.com>, Sheila and the GeeSer > wrote: > >> Art, >> you are exactly correct. >> hmmm is that the light of an Arc? >> Wait a minute. I think we are on to something here. I always equated Arc Light with the arc lights used in 35 mm movie film projectors. But clearly as stated above it has some very heavy religious implications. I cannot help but wonder now what sort of Messianic complexes Nixon may have had with these startling Revelations! Hmmmm........... Purety of Essence, patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:34:20 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (TLC-Mission) RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] Hi, Everyone, Terry's posting reminds me of long conversations I have had with my friend, George Golding, who's first love in life (almost) is the B-52. Some aspects of his story are a bit fuzzy, but here's how I remember it. I believe he was talking about the 3rd night of B-52s going to Hanoi the same way they had the two previous nights. I assumed this is the night of December 20-21 with the 6 reported losses. George said the predictability had allowed the North Vietnamese to set up a SAM site below the turning point coming off the target, and SAMs had gotten the 2 B-52s ahead of his. He said part of the problem was an error in the computer program for the ECM so that during the turn, the ECM didn't adjust its orientation to keep jamming directly below the aircraft. So, the B-52s offered a better target during that turn. During his turn off the target, George's Buff had a SAM detonate along side and put approximately 500 holes in the bird. The blast essentially flipped them causing the roll to continue. As the B-52 continued into a barrel roll, George remembered his experiences in toss bombing in the B-47. He said one of the sayings in those earlier days was One a Day in Tampa Bay. The saying reflected that in many practice toss-bombing maneuvers, the pilots didn't keep positive G's on the B-47. In many cases when they started pulling and reloaded the airframe, the wings came off, and the B-47 went into the bay. The point of that digression was that George knew he didn't have a choice about continuing into the roll. He did keep positive Gs on the B-52 and completed a barrel roll about 11,000 feet lower than when he started. I don't remember how many engines he lost: seems like maybe two or three. Everything combined for virtually a complete electrical failure except for the emergency bus, which probably powered a couple of lights and a few basic instruments. George got the B-52 headed south and wanted to make an emergency landing at Danang. They didn't want him. Sometime prior, a B-52 had overshot and ended up in the minefields, causing general disruption for most everyone. George caught a tanker and headed for U-Tapao. Much of the fuel pumping in was flowing back out through the many holes in the fuel system. I believe George said he used five tankers to return to U-Tapao, disconnecting from the last tanker on final approach. George returned his bird to U-Tapao, but it never flew again. Perhaps some of you U-Tapao troops may have some recollection of that incident during Linebacker II in December 1972. Jimmie H. Butler Nail 12 NKP Feb 67 Jan 68 - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99 01:50:48 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam On 4/10/99 11:34AM, in message <370F99AC.A338B1F6@primenet.com>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > . I > believe he was talking about the 3rd night of B-52s going to Hanoi the same > way they had the two previous nights. I assumed this is the night of > December 20-21 with the 6 reported losses. > The B-52s started going downtown the night of Dec. 18-19, so that's about right. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 00:14:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Forwarded mail.... More about the F-117... I don't know how reliable the source is... "Thrust No One". - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:13:32 +0200 From: Agent X To: wsu@cco.caltech.edu 21:50 GMT, 990410 - The Czech News agency CTK on Thursday hinted at one possible explanation for Yugoslavia's downing of a U.S. F-117 Stealth Fighter. The agency cited Czech Army officer Petr Svoboda as saying that "even if" Yugoslavia had the Czech produced Tamara radar - which is claimed to be able to track stealth aircraft - Czech Army experts are certain that the Yugoslav Army has not received the specialized training to be able to use it. Svoboda notably did not deny that Yugoslavia could have the Tamara, instead of arguing "it is very improbable that Tamara has been fully integrated into the system of anti-aircraft protection" in Yugoslavia. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su (Recently recluted by Section 31) E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "But airplanes are like peoples. They tend to gain weight as they get older." Ben Rich ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 09:03:26 -0500 From: Dave Bethke Subject: Re: More F-117 Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > More about the F-117... I don't know how reliable the source is... If that's the famous Agent X, very reliable. In this mornings NY Times -- ----- WASHINGTON -- Ever since a U.S. Air Force F-117 was downed over Yugoslavia on March 27, Pentagon officials have puzzled over what could have brought down one of the world's stealthiest warplanes. Two weeks later, after extensive interviews with the pilot, a review of technical clues and an analysis of how the Serbian air defenses have been operating, a secret Air Force inquiry now believes a combination of tactics, quick learning and luck came together in one brilliant moment to shoot down the premier attack jet in America's arsenal. ----- Complete article at http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosovo-stealth.html. (You'll have to sign up to access it, but its free.) - -- Dave Bethke ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:48:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Forwarded mail.... > More about the F-117... I don't know how reliable the source is... > "Thrust No One". > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:13:32 +0200 > From: Agent X > To: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > 21:50 GMT, 990410 - The Czech News agency CTK on Thursday hinted at one > possible explanation for Yugoslavia's downing of a U.S. F-117 Stealth > Fighter. The agency cited Czech Army officer Petr Svoboda as saying > that "even if" Yugoslavia had the Czech produced Tamara radar - which IIRC: Tamara is NOT A RADAR! It is simply a passive system which detects, analyzes and classifies emissions from a potential target. I also believe this system is quite old. If memory serves me, an article in AW&ST pointed out that the F-117A Nighthawks operate in total electronic silence which would make Tamara totally useless. There is also speculation (again in AW&ST) that the F-117 might have been detected electro-optically rather than using radar. Some sources indicate that the Nighthawk CAN be detected using bi-static radar, and that the USN was tracking -117s in the Golf War using the radar systems of multiple warships. Please don't tell the Serbs! Sam > is claimed to be able to track stealth aircraft - Czech Army experts > are certain that the Yugoslav Army has not received the specialized > training to be able to use it. Svoboda notably did not deny that > Yugoslavia could have the Tamara, instead of arguing "it is very > improbable that Tamara has been fully integrated into the system of > anti-aircraft protection" in Yugoslavia. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > (Recently recluted by Section 31) > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > "But airplanes are like peoples. They tend to gain weight as they > get older." > Ben Rich > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:17:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: More F-117 > Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > > More about the F-117... I don't know how reliable the source is... > If that's the famous Agent X, very reliable. > > In this mornings NY Times -- > ----- > WASHINGTON -- Ever since a U.S. Air Force F-117 was downed over Wait a minute! We still don't know exactly what happened. We don't know if it was really downed or if it went down for some other reason. > Yugoslavia on March 27, Pentagon officials have puzzled over what could > have brought down one of the world's stealthiest warplanes. Hype! Not TRUE! The F-117 is NOT "one of the world's stealthiest warplanes"! It's stealthy, but not THAT stealthy, and stealth can be defeated if you have the right equipment -- but I really doubt the Serbs have the right equipment. > > Two weeks later, after extensive interviews with the pilot, a review > of technical clues and an analysis of how the Serbian air > defenses have been operating, a secret Air Force inquiry now believes a Ok, if this is "a secret Air Force inquiry" who leaked it to the NY Times? Whoever it was needs to be court-marshaled, unless of course the USAF wanted this report leaked to the press. > combination of tactics, quick learning and luck came together in one > brilliant moment to shoot down the premier attack jet in America's Again NOT TRUE! The F-117 is not and has never been "the premier attack jet in America's arsenal". > arsenal. > ----- > Complete article at > http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosovo-stealth.html. > (You'll have to sign up to access it, but its free.) > > -- > Dave Bethke > Sam (Jim Stevenson's Proxy) -- just kidding ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:51:45 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: More F-117 At 09:03 AM 4/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >Wei-Jen Su wrote: >> >> More about the F-117... I don't know how reliable the source is... > If that's the famous Agent X, very reliable. > > In this mornings NY Times -- > ----- >WASHINGTON -- Ever since a U.S. Air Force F-117 was downed over >Yugoslavia on March 27, Pentagon officials have puzzled over what could >have brought down one of the world's stealthiest warplanes. > >Two weeks later, after extensive interviews with the pilot, a review >of technical clues and an analysis of how the Serbian air >defenses have been operating, a secret Air Force inquiry now believes a >combination of tactics, quick learning and luck came together in one >brilliant moment to shoot down the premier attack jet in America's >arsenal. > ----- >Complete article at >http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosovo-stealth.html. >(You'll have to sign up to access it, but its free.) > =-=---=-=-=-=-=-=- There is no conclusive answer or even the official theory in this article. It talks about a task force formed immediately to answer the question and report to the Joint Chiefs. The meetings have been taking place at ACC Hq. at Langley AFB, Virginia. In fact it mentions the report was sent back to committe for more questions to be answered. So obviously somebody wants answers now. The well known vague theories are mentioned......the pilot chose to drop below 15,000 feet to get under the clouds. This made the plane optically visible to ground observors......the open bomb door was able to be tracked on radar......a SA-3 or even -6 was fired without the aid of ground radar. If you are a conspiracist you will like the theory that "spies" hiding in the mountains around Aviano time the takeoffs and report back to Yugoslavia where the flights are timed so they know when to expect them over the targets. Quite amazing if you consider this was a workable plan conducted on only the fourth night of attacks and without knowledge of possible refuelings, which zig zag tracks the plane followed or even which target could be expected to be hit. I suspect this is a case of a falsely assigning superhuman powers to your enemy to account for something we cannot explain. The article quotes again from the pilot who remembers the incident but not ejecting from the aircraft. "It must have been God's hands who pulled the ejection seat handles" I would argue that God does not manipulate controls in warplanes. Not ejection seat handles, not bomb toggle switches, no radio buttons, nothing! Anyways the article mentions a secret report will be issued soon but this implies we still won't have the actual answer. But it should leak out eventually. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:21:40 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: TLC-Mission: FWD: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam Terry, This is about the point, in my shakey memory, that we basically had won the war militarily. I may be mistaken, but I believe we had established control over most provinces in SVN by then, too. Do you know the truth of this, and of the timing and name of the bill that terminated all military expenditure and gave the victory away? This final, sad, aspect of the SEA conflict is the one I wish I could pin down better. I don't think the general public ever understood what they had their Congress do. Or maybe they did, then. Nobody does now. Bill Tilton - --------------------- Terry W. Colvin wrote: > In fact, by the > final days of Linebacker II US forces were roaming more or less at will over N. > Vietnam, their air defense system having been destroyed and their SAMs used up. > With the mining, there was no way to resupply the SAM sites, even if they could > have guided them. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 02:02:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: TLC-Mission: FWD: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam On 4/11/99 5:21PM, in message <37113C94.2553FF4E@primenet.com>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > Terry, > > This is about the point, in my shakey memory, that we basically had won > the war militarily. I may be mistaken, but I believe we had established > control over most provinces in SVN by then, too. Do you know the truth > of this, and of the timing and name of the bill that terminated all > military expenditure and gave the victory away? This final, sad, aspect > of the SEA conflict is the one I wish I could pin down better. I don't > think the general public ever understood what they had their Congress > do. Or maybe they did, then. Nobody does now. > > Bill Tilton > > --------------------- > Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > > In fact, by the > > final days of Linebacker II US forces were roaming more or less at will over N. > > Vietnam, their air defense system having been destroyed and their SAMs used up. > > With the mining, there was no way to resupply the SAM sites, even if they could > > have guided them. > -- > Actually, I wrote the above. Since your question about the ground in SVN was to Terry I'll bow out,.since I was talking strictly about Linebacker. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:21:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Russian ships Hmmm... Do you guys things that the Russian ships has to do something with the downing of the F-117? Multiple radars or something similar to the US Navy radars systems... May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su (Recently recluted by Section 31) E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "But airplanes are like peoples. They tend to gain weight as they get older." Ben Rich ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:30:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Russian ships > Hmmm... Do you guys things that the Russian ships has to do > something with the downing of the F-117? Multiple radars or something > similar to the US Navy radars systems... The Russians moved their intelligence gathering and combat vessels into the area a few day after the F-117 went down. > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > (Recently recluted by Section 31) > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > "But airplanes are like peoples. They tend to gain weight as they > get older." > Ben Rich > > Sam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:11:50 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Stories of two stealth aircraft show down Downing a Stealth Jet: Shrewd Tactics or a Lucky Shot? By ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON -- Ever since a U.S. Air Force F-117 was downed over Yugoslavia on March 27, Pentagon officials have puzzled over what could have brought down one of the world's stealthiest warplanes. Two weeks later, after extensive interviews with the pilot, a review of technical clues and an analysis of how the Serbian air defenses have been operating, a secret Air Force inquiry now believes a combination of tactics, quick learning and luck came together in one brilliant moment to shoot down the premier attack jet in America's arsenal. The culprit, they believe, is an SA-3 surface-to-air missile. But it probably was not used in the normal fashion, with its operators relying only on their own local radars to detect the target. Instead, Air Force and other military officials now believe that Serbian spotters in Serbia, and perhaps in Bosnia and along the Montenegrin coast, may have patched together enough quick glimpses of the warplane from scattered radars to track the elusive aircraft, however briefly, to fire a missile from a battery near Belgrade. The Serbs used their radar sparingly in order to avoid a counterattack by the NATO fighter. For the Serbs, it was a longshot, low-tech solution to a challenge posed by one of the most sophisticated warplanes in the world, Pentagon officials said. In the end, it may have been tactics aided by a lot of luck, and not technology, that brought down the F-117 and gave Belgrade a propaganda windfall. "We think whoever did this won the lotto that night," said one senior American officer. NATO and Pentagon officials have such respect for Yugoslavia's air defenses that low-flying attack planes have flown only a handful of strike missions. But shooting down an F-117 showed unusual skill. In addition to its radar-absorbing skin and radar-scattering angles, the Nighthawk, as the F-117 is called, typically flies a zig-zag pattern to avoid tracking. The F-117 is not invisible, but barely visible to most radars. It is most vulnerable when turning suddenly at low altitudes, which can reflect radar beams to receivers, or when opening its bomb bay door. What American military officials now suspect is that Serbian spotters, perhaps starting with spies in Italy watching the F-117s take off, were able to determine a rough schedule of how long it took the planes to cross the Adriatic, and how long to fly to Belgrade. Knowing this, Serbian radar operators would have a better sense of when and where to watch. Once a shadowy figure crossed their screens, they would alert the operator down the line. The downed F-117 had already dropped at least one of its laser-guided, 2,000-pound bombs near Belgrade, so that was another clue. Analysts are unsure now whether Serbian gunners were able to integrate this net of far-flung radars to feed the location of the plane to a missile launcher, or to cue up the SA-3s own radar so the operator had only to briefly flip it on to track and fire. Since the stealth plane went down, other planes on bombing runs have recorded instances when the Serbian forces lobbed surface-to-air missiles at them without radar guidance. This is clearly less reliable, but it lets the Serbian missile sites avoid counterstrikes by NATO's fighters, whose own missiles can home in on the beams of Serbian ground radars. "Given the limited air space over there and the sophisticated air defense system they have," the senior American officer said, "there's always the possibility of a kill." Officially, the Pentagon says the cause of what downed the plane is still under investigation. But military officials familiar with the inquiry say this account is emerging as the most likely explanation of what caused the first-ever F-117 lost in combat, and the only manned aircraft felled so far in the aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia. After the crash, the Air Force assembled a secret team of experts in air defenses, stealth technology and other technical areas, and dispatched them under strict security to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to figure out what happened. Gen. Michael E. Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff, recently reviewed a draft of the team's report and sent it back to answer additional questions, a senior Pentagon official said. The final report is expected to be forwarded soon to Ryan and Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon refused Saturday to comment on any detail of the F-117 downing to avoid tipping off the Yugoslav military. "The Yugoslav air defense system is both sophisticated and adaptable," Bacon said in an interview. "The Yugoslav forces are attempting to make rapid adjustments in the way they use their air defenses to shoot down U.S. planes while protecting their radars and missiles from allied attack." Here is the account that experts now say is the most likely scenario. The F-117s, operating out of the Aviano air base in northern Italy, typically were flying missions at medium altitude, between 15,000 feet and 25,000 feet: close enough to drop their payloads with near pinpoint accuracy, but out of reach of most of Yugoslavia's anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missiles. At about 8:45 p.m. in the Balkans on March 27, the fourth night of the air war, an F-117 Nighthawk was heading back to base after dropping at least one of its 2,000-pound, laser-guided bombs on a target near heavily defended Belgrade. Bad weather, which had forced scores of missions canceled, did not hinder the Nighthawk, two senior Air Force officers said. Suddenly, with little or no warning, an SA-3 missile streaking at three times the speed of sound and guided by an improvised network of Serbian radars, exploded in a blast of fragments a few feet from the bat-winged plane, slamming it into an uncontrolled dive. The anti-aircraft missiles have warheads with 130 pounds of high explosives that are designed to detonate when the projectile gets within about 20 feet of its target. Alarms in the radar-evading F-117's cockpit usually warn a pilot when a SAM radar is homing in, or painting, his plane. But the Yugoslav military so fears the anti-radiation missiles that NATO warplanes launch at these radars, it has largely turned them off. It is unclear whether the pilot got any warning of the missile bearing in on him. If he did, it was probably too late. Stunned by the explosion, the veteran pilot struggled against pressure five times the force of gravity to yank the handles below his seat to eject from the crippled warplane. "The one fragment of this whole event I can't remember is pulling the handles," the pilot said in an account the Air Force released this week, withholding his name at the aviator's request. "God took my hands and pulled." Seven hours later, a daring commando team snatched the downed pilot from the hiding place to which he parachuted behind enemy lines, and whisked him back to allied hands, first in Bosnia, then in Italy. With the wreckage of the $43 million plane now in Yugoslav hands, some questions may never be answered satisfactorily. And, of course, there are competing theories of what happened: That a barrage of ground fire or an SA-6 missile, not an SA-3, scored a lucky hit. All would have produced what look like bullet holes in the wing wreckage that was shown on Serbian television. That the pilot, frustrated by dense clouds, took a chance and flew his jet-black plane under 15,000 feet, only to be silhouetted against the dull gray evening sky by an eerie glow from ground fire reflecting off the cloud ceiling. Or that a bomb-bay door stuck open, making the F-117 vulnerable to radar. But officials closest to the investigation have discounted or ruled out these theories. A malfunction seems unlikely, industry officials say, because the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, and its fabled Skunk Works development center in Burbank, Calif., have not yet been consulted by the Pentagon. Lockheed referred all questions to the Air Force. Some Air Force officers are also upset that NATO did not bomb the wreckage to prevent the plane's secrets from falling into hostile hands. Pentagon officials have tried to discount this fear, saying the F-117's technology is more than 20 years old, and less sophisticated than that of its larger cousin, the B-2 bomber. Some experts say that it appears the F-117 may have flown on autopilot after the pilot ejected, and made a more or less controlled landing, pancaking into a field. That may be why such large portions of the plane, including its wing, were visible. If the Nighthawk had landed nose first at high speed, it would have been a smoldering ruin, these officials say. In any event, Air Force and NATO commanders do not appear overly concerned. After the downing, commanders issued stern verbal warnings to F-117 pilots to keep alert. But Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the Supreme Commander of NATO forces, requested, and was granted, an additional 13 F-117s. "When flown in its operating envelope, above 15,000 feet and outside of huge acquisition radars, the F-117 is still difficult, if not impossible, to see on a SAM radar until it's too late to do anything about it," said Gen. John Michael Loh, who was the Air Force vice chief of staff during the 1991 Gulf War. Indeed, the fighter has assumed an almost mystical reputation since the war, when F-117s flew more than 1,250 missions, including all the riskiest runs over downtown Baghdad. None of the Nighthawks suffered even a scratch. And in the skies over Yugoslavia, the F-117s have even more help than they did in the gulf. The plane's angular design and composite skin are meant to deflect or absorb searching radar beams, and offset its relative lack of speed (it's subsonic) and maneuverability. Besides the anti-radiation missiles, the Air Force is for the first time using a new, advanced radar-jamming system. Unlike conventional electronic jammers, which radar operators can detect, the new technology remotely injects signals into the radar that are not evident to the operator on the ground, and can hinder the missile's accuracy. For these reasons, senior Pentagon officials say Yugoslav forces are essentially using a point-and-shoot method for firing missiles now, rather than risk turning on their radars. ================================================ SUBJ: AIR-DEFENSE REPORTEDLY DOWNS TOMAHAWK MISSILE AT KRALJEVO REF: 1. AU0804020399 BELGRADE TANJUG DOMESTIC SERVICE SERBO-CROATIAN 080059 - -- NATO AIRCRAFT AGAIN ATTACK BOGUTOVAC, NEARBY FUEL DEPOT 2. AU0404052499 BELGRADE TANJUG DOMESTIC SERVICE SERBO-CROATIAN 040448 - -- NATO ATTACK IN BOGUTOVAC DESTROYS OIL FOR SPRING SOWING 3. AU0404023099 BELGRADE RTS SAT TELEVISION SERBO-CROATIAN 040200 -- NATO MISSILES HIT FUEL STORAge FACILITY NEAR KRALJEVO SOURCE: BELGRADE RADIO BEOGRAD NETWORK IN SERBO-CROATIAN 1300 GMT 8 APR 99 TEXT: [FBIS TRANSLATED TEXT] LAST NIGHT, THE SURROUNDINGS OF KRALJEVO WERE AGAIN RAIDED BY THE WESTERN VANDALS. LIKE ON PREVIOUS DAYS, THE ENEMY'S TARGETS WERE THE AIRPORT AT LADJEVCI, WHICH WAS HIT BY AT LEAST SIX MISSILES, AND THE BOGUTOVAC BEOPETROL WAREHOUSE, WHICH WAS HIT BY 11 MISSILES. TWO MISSILES FELL ON THE WELL-KNOWN BERANOVAC SPORTS CAR RACE TRACK ON THE ROAD LEADING OUT OF KRALJEVO TOWARDS VRNJACKA BANJA. WE HAVE LEARNED UNOFFICIALLY THAT OUR ANTI-AIR DEFENSE DOWNED A TOMAHAWK MISSILE, WHICH CRASHED SOMEWHERE IN ZICKO POLJE. ALL THESE FACILITIES WERE TARGETED AFTER THE ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLEW OVER. THE DAMAGE TO HOUSES, SCHOOLS, AND OTHER CIVILIAN FACILITIES IS HUGE, BUT, FORTUNATELY, THERE ARE NO CASUALTIES. [DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE: BELGRADE RADIO BEOGRAD NETWORK: GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED STATION; REFLECTS VIEWS OF THE MILOSEVIC REGIME] Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #52 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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