From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Sun Dec 30 16:45:51 2001 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:53:17 -0600 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #37 skunk-works-digest Sunday, December 16 2001 Volume 10 : Number 037 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs Re: UCAVs Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Photo. Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs Re: Photo. Re: Photo. Re: UCAVs Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Marilyn pic M.M. Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis News: JSF! Chinese Embassy redux? (slightly OT) Re: News: JSF! plane spotters Happy Thanksgiving! FA: SR-71 Researchers Handbooks A-11 Astra Re: A-11 Astra Anti-stealth Re: movements Re: movements Cammo dudes walk off SR-71 on Diego Garcia, 1978-79 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:32:48 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend! > >Got this from a friend? Get your own by becoming a member! > > http://www.stratfor.com/COMPANY/info.htm > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >George (and others) - thumbs up or down? > >Erik > >BTW - I am a subscriber/member of Stratfor; nothing more. As I said in private e-mail, Post away :) George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com/georgek Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:28:47 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: UCAVs At 07:17 PM 10/24/01 +0100, you wrote: >"Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" > > >I seem to recall seeing a photograph of Marilyn Monroe on a production line, building small UAVs in the late 30s / early 40s. I think it may have been at Radioplane. > >Even before that was the Kettering 'Bug' - a precursor to the cruise >missile - goes back to WWI timeframe. > >Remarkable engineering. > >Best >D > I,ve got a .JPG of that image if anyone wants it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:34:13 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: UCAVs At 07:17 PM 10/24/01 +0100, you wrote: > >I seem to recall seeing a photograph of Marilyn Monroe on a production line, >building small UAVs in the late 30s / early 40s. I think it may have been at Radioplane. > >Even before that was the Kettering 'Bug' - a precursor to the cruise >missile - goes back to WWI timeframe. > >Remarkable engineering. > >Best >D > On second thought , I posted that .JPG to the usenet group alt.binaries.pictures.aviation That way everyone can see it..now.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:59:35 -0500 From: "Dave Bethke" Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Hill" > [snip] > I understand that weapons systems like Phalanx can be programmed to monitor > and react to detected threats that fulfil predetermined criteria (speed, > direction of approach, and so on). Is there still a human operator on hand > to press a safety switch or dead-man's handle to abort or confirm a live > fire event? And even if there is, how soon would it be that this kind of > human-in-the-loop delay would prove unacceptable to ensure a prompt response > to an incoming threat? Even if you could accept the human error risks. > I asked my daughter this evening. She's an FC2 in the US Navy specializing on the CWIS (Phalanx). She said they run it with human intervention required to fire. While the radars and their control computers acquire, track and report the type of threat and also suggest when to fire, the Fire Controlman must push the button and also select the type of fire. (length of burst) It can be programmed to fire automatically, but she said they don't as there's to much chance of locking on and shooting the wrong thing. - -- Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:58:48 -0700 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" Subject: Photo. I'd like a copy of that. Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:14:05 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Dave Bethke wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robin Hill" > > > [snip] > > > I asked my daughter this evening. She's an FC2 in the US Navy specializing > on the CWIS (Phalanx). She said they run it with human intervention > required to fire. While the radars and their control computers acquire, > track and report the type of threat and also suggest when to fire, the Fire > Controlman must push the button and also select the type of fire. (length of > burst) It can be programmed to fire automatically, but she said they don't > as there's to much chance of locking on and shooting the wrong thing. > > -- > Dave That actually happened. In the '90s a Japanese destroyer inadvertently armed their Phalanx when they shouldn't have. An A-6 (I believe participating in target towing for tracking exercises) came within its range and it automatically opened up and shot it down. That incident led to the manual intervention requirement, at least in peace time. The original rationale for Phalanx was as a last-ditch defense against incoming antiship missiles. There wouldn't be time to verify IFF or make a determination. Once armed, it was to shoot Anything that came within range. The idea, though is not to arm it except when you expect or are under attack. Frankly, given its range, in a shooting situation if one waits for manual confirmation, the incoming missile will have already hit. It's nice to know they've added some manual control. Not only as an added safety, which would be good in many situations, but hopefully in order to increase the system's versatility. Phalanx is an ideal anti-small boat weapon, but when it was a full auto system only couldn't be used for that. The Soviet equivalent, by the way, always had the ability to be manually targeted so it could be used against close-in and smaller targets. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:02:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis On 24 Oct 2001 gregd@habu2.net wrote: > On Wed, 24 October 2001, "David" wrote: > > that since the B-2 mission profile - especially the weapon delivery part - is pretty > much a "hands off" affair. While one could assume an error in target programming > there was also talk (at the time) that the building in question was the source of > certain intelligence operations and therefore was a legitimate target, if not a politically > correct one. I believe that the Chinese Embassy bombing was not an accident, it was a legitimate target. I read somewhere that the Chinese was helping the Yugoslavia Government with some anti-stealth system (and the probably cause of the downing and clipping of the two F-117). The three bombs that hit the Chinese Embassy hit in the same room, which was the "military room". Chinese government claimed that the deaths are news reporters... Question what the hell are Chinese reporters doing so late in the Chinese Embassy?!?! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:17:50 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: UCAVs From: "John Szalay" David win@dircon.co.uk wrote: > >I seem to recall seeing a photograph of Marilyn Monroe on a production line, > >building small UAVs in the late 30s / early 40s. I think it may have been at Radioplane. > > > >Even before that was the Kettering 'Bug' - a precursor to the cruise > >missile - goes back to WWI timeframe. > > > >Remarkable engineering. > > > >Best > >D > > > > On second thought , I posted that .JPG to the usenet group > > alt.binaries.pictures.aviation > > That way everyone can see it..now.. Thanks for posting that John - it's a great picture - I wouldn't have known who it was if I hadn't been told ! Best D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:41:21 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Photo. At 07:58 PM 10/24/01 -0700, you wrote: >I'd like a copy of that. > >Kurt > >--- >Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division >Rosetta Proving Grounds > Before she was a star. Norma Jean [demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of 038kmm~1.jpg] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:57:20 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Photo. At 07:58 PM 10/24/01 -0700, you wrote: >I'd like a copy of that. Sorry bout that , list, did,nt look at the address first. \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | john.szalay@att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) I yam whaddIyam. No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, However, A rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced. Friends, don't let friends do AOL! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:17:54 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: UCAVs Hey John.... our firewall here at work is filtered to prevent access to usenet groups.... they want us to work or something... Can you email it to me privately? Thanks Greg W On second thought , I posted that .JPG to the usenet group alt.binaries.pictures.aviation That way everyone can see it..now.. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:19:13 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis At 08:14 PM 10/24/01 +0100, you wrote: >Dave Bethke wrote: > > > That actually happened. In the '90s a Japanese destroyer inadvertently >armed their Phalanx when they shouldn't have. An A-6 (I believe >participating in target towing for tracking exercises) came within its >range and it automatically opened up and shot it down. That incident >led to the manual intervention requirement, at least in peace time. The >original rationale for Phalanx was as a last-ditch defense against >incoming antiship missiles. There wouldn't be time to verify IFF or >make a determination. Once armed, it was to shoot Anything that came >within range. I talked to a good friend of mine that works at the ordinance center that rebuilds/modifies them and he said that the A-6 "fit" the parameters programmed into the system. IE: speed, angle of approach and therefore was engaged by the computer. the problem was, the officer in charge of the weapon, enabled the firing circuit too soon. The aircraft was supposed to be past the ship with the towed target approaching. If he had waited, the A-6 would have been seen by the computer as NOT a Threat, since it would have been on a departing track. As to the new block series of the weapon, they do have a manual targeting mode with optics and sensors to be useful against small craft. \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | john.szalay@att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) I yam whaddIyam. No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, However, A rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced. Friends, don't let friends do AOL! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:26:07 -0400 From: "Tom" Subject: Marilyn pic Hi Greg, I found the website,but not the Marilyn pic. Can you send me a link?-Tom - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weigold, Greg" To: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:17 AM Subject: Re: UCAVs > Hey John.... our firewall here at work is filtered to prevent > access to usenet groups.... they want us to work or something... > > Can you email it to me privately? Thanks > > Greg W > > > > On second thought , I posted that .JPG to the usenet group > > alt.binaries.pictures.aviation > > That way everyone can see it..now.. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:42:56 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: M.M. [IMAGE] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:26:57 -0500 From: "Dave Bethke" Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Art Hanley" > ..............The idea, though is not to arm it except when you expect > or are under attack. Frankly, given its range, in a shooting situation > if one waits for manual confirmation, the incoming missile will have > already hit. Not necessarily. Daughter has one confirmed missle kill during Kosovo. Her comment was, "Big Deal. All I did was push a button." > It's nice to know they've added some manual control. Not only as an > added safety, which would be good in many situations, but hopefully in > order to increase the system's versatility. Phalanx is an ideal > anti-small boat weapon, but when it was a full auto system only couldn't > be used for that. You're right about that. I never heard it directly, but from general conversation while visiting the ship it would seem they are now capable of, and used for that job also. And that was before the Cole attack. - -- Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:34:05 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis At 07:26 PM 10/25/01 -0500, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Art Hanley" > >> ..............The idea, though is not to arm it except when you expect >> or are under attack. Frankly, given its range, in a shooting situation >> if one waits for manual confirmation, the incoming missile will have >> already hit. > > Not necessarily. Daughter has one confirmed missle kill during Kosovo. >Her comment was, "Big Deal. All I did was push a button." > >> It's nice to know they've added some manual control. Not only as an >> added safety, which would be good in many situations, but hopefully in >> order to increase the system's versatility. Phalanx is an ideal >> anti-small boat weapon, but when it was a full auto system only couldn't >> be used for that. > > You're right about that. I never heard it directly, but from general >conversation while visiting the ship it would seem they are now capable of, >and used for that job also. And that was before the Cole attack. > >-- >Dave > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:51:38 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis John Szalay wrote: > > At 08:14 PM 10/24/01 +0100, you wrote: > >Dave Bethke wrote: > >a Threat, since it would have been on a departing > track. > As to the new block series of the weapon, they do have a manual > targeting mode with optics and sensors to be useful against small craft. --Sometimes we did learn from the Soviets Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:18:53 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: News: JSF! Hiya! Congrats to Lockheed-Martin for Winning the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) contract(s)!!! It was the X-35 - Will it now become an F/A-35A? (I never thought the hideous Boing 'Guppy' job could ever win through - it just looked so flippin' AWFUL!!!) Onward & Upward! - --------------------- Regards, Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:46:34 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Chinese Embassy redux? (slightly OT) This sounds awfully familiar. I wonder who's targeting the JDAMs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59499-2001Oct26.html Pentagon: U.S. Planes Mistakenly Bomb Red Cross Compound By Vernon Loeb and Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, October 27, 2001; Page A16 [EXCERPT] The Pentagon confirmed last night that U.S. warplanes mistakenly dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs on a warehouse compound in Kabul used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to store and distribute food and supplies. The raids marked the second time in less than two weeks that errant U.S. munitions hit the ICRC facility and apparently resulted from "human error in the targeting process," according to a statement released by the U.S. Central Command in Tampa. It said the mistaken raids began about 8 p.m. Thursday -- 4:30 a.m. Friday in Afghanistan -- when two Navy F/A-18C Hornets each dropped one 2,000-pound bomb on the warehouse compound. Those bombs were guided by signals from Global Positioning System satellites, the statement said. The statement did not explain how the target had been selected. At about the same time, another Navy Hornet fired a 500-pound laser-guided bomb at the compound but missed, apparently because its guidance system malfunctioned. The bomb landed in a residential area 700 feet south of the ICRC warehouses. Those strikes were followed eight hours later by attacks from two B-52H bombers, each of which dropped three 2,000-pound GPS-guided bombs on the compound. The Central Command statement said that "details are still being investigated" and noted that "U.S. forces intentionally strike only military and terrorist targets." No one was killed or injured inside the compound, and there were no immediate reports of casualties in the nearby residential area. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:12:26 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Re: News: JSF! Did Lockheed ever design a bad looking aircraft? Like the old saying goes - if it looks right, it is right. Just hope that lift-fan/gearbox system works... Adrian Mann www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk On 27/10/01 2:18 pm, "SecretJet@aol.com" wrote: > Hiya! > Congrats to Lockheed-Martin for Winning the new > Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) contract(s)!!! > > It was the X-35 - Will it now become an F/A-35A? > > (I never thought the hideous Boing 'Guppy' job could > ever win through - it just looked so flippin' AWFUL!!!) > > Onward & Upward! > --------------------- > Regards, > Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. > http://www.secretjet.net > Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. > Near London Heathrow, UK. > http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html > Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:17:57 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: plane spotters This is a funny article dedicate to many of you in the list (include Andrea) :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1651000/1651459.stm May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 17:52:20 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Happy Thanksgiving! Greetings, Colonial Cousins! Although we in the UK have little to compare it with, we'd still like to wish you a 'Very Happy Thanksgiving Day'! - Have a Great One!!! Best Wishes from Bill T. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:49:53 -0800 From: "Jon Price (PJ)" Subject: FA: SR-71 Researchers Handbooks If anyone is interested, I placed these on E-bay today. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1490016528 Thanks, PJ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:17:16 +0100 From: Andreas Parsch Subject: A-11 Astra Hello, the following was posted on another discussion forum. It may be old news to many people on this list, but just in case (it was new to me, anyway ;-)) ... "[...] who was the guy that saw the 'new stealth aircraft' that looked like a large F-117 (June 2001)? Anyway, let him (or them) know that what they saw was the USAF/ Skunk Works, A-11 Astra. An attack aircraft that replaced the F-111 'Vark.' The USAF was saying loud and clear - 'TAKE THE PICTURES ALREADY.' The Astra designate is not an acronym, its the aircraft's name. Its the same aircraft type seen so often by Steve Douglass. And, yes it is operational." Finally, a _real_ "A-11" from the Skunk Works !?! Regards Andreas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:30:03 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: A-11 Astra > "[...] who was the guy that saw the 'new stealth aircraft' that > looked like a large F-117 (June 2001)? > Anyway, let him (or them) know that what they saw was the USAF/ > Skunk Works, A-11 Astra. An attack aircraft that replaced the F-111 > 'Vark.' The USAF was saying loud and clear - 'TAKE THE PICTURES > ALREADY.' The Astra designate is not an acronym, its the aircraft's > name. Its the same aircraft type seen so often by Steve Douglass. > And, yes it is operational." > > Finally, a _real_ "A-11" from the Skunk Works !?! I have to think that if something like that were posing for pictures since early summer, we'd have seen some by now. A quick google turns up nothing. BTW, in James Stevenson's new A-12 book, there's mention of an air-to-air ARM called SENIOR BLUE that's supposed to have been used in Desert Storm (p.71). Anybody know more about this? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:45:36 -0800 From: "Kevin Klapperich" Subject: Anti-stealth I wanted to submit these links for anyone interested http://www.popsci.com/space/01/10/18/antistealth/ http://www.popsci.com/space/01/10/18/antistealth/exclusive.html Kevin Klapperich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:23:55 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: movements On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, S M Bishop wrote: > Hello List, > This is the first time I have posted, although I have been lurking > for a while (so please be nice!!) > First of all, condolences to all US listmembers at this time of > tragedy and heartache. > A couple of questions, > Does anyone know (or are you all avidly looking!) if any of the > remaining SR's have made any "unscheduled" moves over the past > week?. Would this be at all likely in the near future (I suppose the > commentary would be "er, you know those nice black aeroplanes > we gave you to play with, can we have them back please!") > I know that several of the SIGINT and imaging satellites have now > been retasked over Afghanistan, but we all know the limitations of > orbits and timings. > If there aren't any obvious movements, does this finally mean that > there IS a SR replacement flying from Groom or Nellis (or anywhere > else!!), seeing as the comment of "All available resources" has > been made. > Oh for some Afghan radar tapes!!! (sorry, forgot that the new ones > are totally invisible to everything ;-) I'm kind of late in replying here, but no, none of the SR-71s in flyable storage went anywhere. They did get dragged away from the road and parking lot for a few days, I'm told, but they're back behind the RAIF again, now that we have our roadblocks in position. No one has asked to have them back, no one has tried to borrow the only working hot gig or start carts, nothing. I've just assumed the U-2s are out in force, but not on the basis of any specific information. It's just that that's the kind of problem they were acquired to handle, so I assume they're handling it. I also assume that every friendly country with satellite coverage is sharing all the imagery they have. Again, that's just an assumption, not from any information or anything. I'm still so far behind in reading the trade magazines that it's almost laughable; I can just barely manage to keep up with the Los Angeles Times, between working at home and going to physical therapy two or three times a week and doing the exercises at home on the days I don't go--however, my knee is greatly improved, so it's all been worth it. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:59:03 -0800 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" Subject: Re: movements On Ave. P? Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds - ----- Original Message ----- They did get dragged away from the road and parking lot for a few days, I'm told, but they're back behind the RAIF again, now that we have our roadblocks in position. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:47:20 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Cammo dudes walk off Sigh... http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Dec-11-Tue-2001/news/17638293.html Tuesday, December 11, 2001 Copyright ) Las Vegas Review-Journal Security guards for 'nowhere' strike for contract, higher pay By KEITH ROGERS [EXCERPT] A group of 70 security guards known as the "camo dudes" walked off their jobs Monday in Las Vegas and at the covert military installation known as Area 51, a place they said they can't talk about. "Use your imagination," union President Vernell Hall said when asked where he worked as he and more than a dozen other striking security officers displayed "On Strike" signs on Haven Street near McCarran International Airport. That is where nondescript passenger jets, known as Janet planes, routinely take the guards and other workers to the installation on the dry bed of Groom Lake, 90 miles north of Las Vegas, a place they referred to only as "nowhere" and "out of town." Hall, leader of the Security Police Association of Nevada, an in-house collective bargaining unit, said the association's members decided to go on strike after three months of negotiations for a new contract with their employer, EG&G Technical Services Inc., ended in a stalemate. Hall said the issues include lack of adequate wages and benefits. "There's been too much overtime since Sept. 11. Overtime on top of overtime," Hall said. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:52:07 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: SR-71 on Diego Garcia, 1978-79 Anybody have more information about what this deployment was for? http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/dg001.html ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #37 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to 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