FAS | Intelligence | Mystery Aircraft | Index | Search | Join FAS

SEARCHING FOR MYSTERY AIRCRAFT

As the preceding section illustrates, black programs have been part of the history of aircraft development -- not some recent aberration. Recently, however, the SR-71 Blackbird termination, coupled with a spate of sightings of "lights in the sky," has led to considerable speculation both in the trade and popular press about the existence of new secret aircraft.

Suggestions of the existence of a successor to the SR-71 appeared in print simultaneously with the initial Air Force moves to terminate SR-71 operations.<1> These reports suggested that the SR-71 follow-on had been flying since early 1987. The assumption of the existence of a more capable successor would have made the proposed termination of the SR-71 readily understandable.

However, the existence of such an SR-71 follow-on is fairly difficult to accept, if one credits at face value the evidence of the public record of the debate over the SR-71 termination decision. Some of the statements made during this period may be viewed as what would be expected of an effort to protect the existence of a classified program, and other statements and actions may be understood as deriving from self-interested motivations. But the sum totality of the record from 1988 through 1990 is not easy to reconcile with the existence of a near term replacement for the SR-71.

First, shortly prior to the decision by the Air Force to retire the SR-71, a $900 million update program had been completed to keep the SR-71 in service through the year 2010.<2> Over $350 million had been spent on a new Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS-1) for the plane, and more than $1 billion in spare parts were on hand. These activities are difficult to reconcile with the simultaneous existence of a replacement for the SR-71.

Second, a number of public statements directly assert that there is no such project. General Michael Dugan, then serving as commander of US Air Forces in Europe, stated:<3>

"... if you're thinking of looking at something that resembles the SR- 71, forget it... That kind of vehicle, absent the SR-71, is not on the horizon."

Under Secretary of the Air Force James McGovern also stated:<4>

"There is no plan at the moment in the Air Force to replace the SR-71 with a manned reconnaissance aircraft."

Another Air Force spokesman stated that:<5>

"The service currently has no plans for an SR-71 follow-on..."

And Lockheed Chairman Daniel Tellep also denied the existence of such a program.<6>

During the course of hearings in mid-1989 on the SR-71 termination, Senator John Glenn decried the end of the program, expressing concern about the absence of a near-term replacement. Addressing the status of the SR-71 follow-on, he noted:<7>

"... what you are talking about on that system, I know what you are talking about. That is many years down the road and it is still a very speculative system..."

And in mid-1992, the House Appropriation Committee noted that:<8>

"With the retirement of the SR-71... DOD has a greatly reduced capability to acquire and disseminate near-real-time broad area search imagery to tactical military forces. There is no other current DOD or intelligence program to adequately address this requirement."

Third, the case for retiring the SR-71 was explicitly predicated on the assumption that improved space capabilities, such as the new Lacrosse imaging radar satellite, had rendered the SR-71 superfluous.<9> And House Armed Services Committee Chair Les Aspin wrote:<10>

"Air Force and Defense officials did not believe they could afford to continue operating these aircraft during a period of restrained resources when, in their view, surveillance satellites could perform the required missions."

Given the traditional sensitivity concerning even the existence of satellite reconnaissance systems, it is somewhat difficult to imagine that such explicit reference would be made to these satellites merely to obscure the existence of an SR-71 follow-on.

Fourth, it is difficult to understand how the Air Force and Defense Department could be publicly making the case against aircraft reconnaissance in the form of the SR-71, while secretly making the case for aircraft reconnaissance in the form of an SR-71 follow-on. It is equally difficult to understand how the Congress could accept the case against in public, and accept the case for in secret.

Fifth, those who were skeptical of the potential of satellites to fully replace the capabilities of reconnaissance aircraft appeared to view the continuation of SR-71 operations as their only recourse. Senate Intelligence Committee staff member James Currie lamented of the SR-71:<11>

"There's nothing else that can replace it."

Thus it is somewhat difficult to understand highly a visible political struggle waged by the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees to continue or restore the SR-71, unless there were no SR-71 follow-on.

Finally, it is difficult to understand the behavior of the Air Force and Defense Department in the face of these efforts to defend the SR-71. The proponents of the SR-71 would have been disarmed in the face of a simple announcement by the Defense Department to the effect that:

"A replacement for the SR-71 capability is presently under development, and further details will be released at an appropriate time."

Such a statement would have avoided considerable political grief without compromising the security of the program.

It might be thought that the proponents of the SR-71 were acting out of ignorance of the existence of an SR-71 follow-on. But it is somewhat difficult to imagine that senior members of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, who presumably would have been informed about such a program, even if only in general terms, would have allowed the charade to play out in such a public fashion.

One might also engage in conjecture, speculating that the entire SR-71 episode was little more than a cover and deception exercise to provide a plausible cover story to hide the existence of the SR-71 follow-on. But it is difficult to imagine so many members of Congress allowing themselves to be cast in such a role.

SENIOR GUARDIAN

The persistent reports of the existence of some intelligence aircraft that would do some of the work previously assigned to the SR-71 require some explanation. While this replacement is frequently thought of in terms of a high-speed piloted vehicle, there is clear evidence that a new low speed unmanned air vehicle (UAV) intelligence aircraft is under development.<12>

"Airframes being considered for the classified project... include three UAVs: Boeing's Condor, the Amber, which is under development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and a Lockheed candidate."

This effort may also be related to a joint German-American project:<13>

"The program is known as Senior Guardian in the United States, and as LAPAS (Airborne Stand-off Primary Reconnaissance System) in Germany... Senior Guardian is based on an airframe known as the Egrett, a high-altitude, long endurance manned aircraft made out of composites. Powered by a single turboprop engine, it has a wingspan similar to that of a commercial Boeing 737."

Although the mission of the Senior Guardian project is publicly portrayed as focused environmental monitoring and treaty verification, a similar cover story was used during the early years of the U-2 program. While there are a number of observer reports of advanced aircraft that are obviously inconsistent with such large, slow-flying vehicles, other types of evidence, notably Congressional testimony and budgetary and financial data, are consistent with the interpretation that the SR-71 follow-on is a large unmanned air vehicle.

MYSTERY AIRCRAFT CLUES

In spite of these questions, a body of "knowledge" does exist concerning the possible existence of other, high performance mystery aircraft, based on a mosaic of three types of data:

The Public Record - Stealthy or hypersonic aircraft don't just spring full-grown from the forehead of Zeus. Advanced aircraft programs come to fruition only after extensive research, proofs of concept and prototypes. The Pentagon has been funneling money into black research programs since the 1950s, and continues to do so today. While knowledge of the nature and extent of a particular research program may not prove the existence of a black aircraft, it does provide useful insight into the direction of aviation development and gives an indication of a particular secret aircraft's technical plausibility.

Fiscal and Budget Data - A range of budgetary and financial clues suggest the existence of one or more mystery aircraft. Analysis of classified funding line items in the Defense procurement budget provides one source of evidence. Analyses of corporate finances and cash flow accounts provide supporting evidence.

Observer Reports - As early as October 1990, star gazers began reporting an increased number of unexplained lights in the California sky, as well as unexplained noises. While one might make tongue-in- cheek comments about the proclivity of those on the western side of the San Andreas fault to see mystical bodies, the number of reports and their consistency suggest that there may be some basis for these sightings other than hallucinogenic drugs. Though the many reports of sightings of Elvis Presley remain controversial, some observers attach more substance to these sightings of unidentified lights in the sky.

REFERENCES

<1> Schemmer, Benjamin, "Is Lockheed Building a Super-Stealth Replacement for the USAF's Mach 3 SR-71?" Armed Forces Journal International, January 1988, page 40.

Halloran, Richard, "US Is Developing Surveillance Jet That Eludes Radar," The New York Times, 10 January 1988, page 1.

"AFJ - News and Insight Ahead of the Pack," Armed Forces Journal International, February 1988, page 62.

<2> Tyler, Patrick, "SR-71 Plane Roars Into Retirement," Washington Post, 7 March 1990, page A4.

<3> Amouyal, Barbara, "AF Pushes for New Stealthy Spy Vehicle; Blackbird Replacement Is a Decade Away," Defense News, 24 April 1989, page 3.

<4> "Stealth Recce," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 28 November 1988, page 19.

<5> "Debate for Follow-on to SR-71 Ignites," Defense Daily, 10 April 1989, page 4

<6> ibid.

<7> United States Senate Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Strategic Forces and Nuclear Deterrence, 101st Congress, 1st Session, Part 6, page 291.

<8> United States House of Representatives Appropriation Committee, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 1993, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, 29 June 1992, page 15.

<9> Brodie, Lonnie, "Can the US Afford to Retire that SR-71 Blackbird," Defense Electronics, September 1989, pages 57-60.

<10> McCune, Timothy, "Aspin Won't Back SR-71," Defense Week, 23 October 1989, page 7.

<11> Horgan, John, "R.I.P. Blackbird," Scientific American, February 1990, pages 12, 16.

<12> Callen, Jane, "Air Force Battle Brews Over Using Unmanned Vehicles for Coveted Spy Mission," Inside the Pentagon, 9 June 1989, pages 1, 8.

<13> Silverberg, David, "Future of Spy Plane May Hinge on German EFA Decision," Defense News, 29 June 1992, page 46.

FAS | Intelligence | Mystery Aircraft | Index | Search | Join FAS