Msg#:13387 *AVIATION*
12/15/91 22:11:31 (Read 0 Times)
From: IVAN BAIRD
  To: ALL (BLACKBIRD FANS)
Subj: OXCART
Blackbird Fans,

I am at least one person who is extremely intrested in Aviation (especially
'Black Stuff') and who gets his information, not only from this echo, a mailing
list on the Internet called Skunk-Works.  Recently there has been a lot of
interest generated by a recently declassified document on the Oxcart Project.
I thought this might also be of interest here, and so I am writing this note.
Here is part of the preamble to the actual document, to give you some idea of
what is in it:

"This document only talks about OXCART, or what evolved into the A-12 Blackbird
program.  The M-12/D-21 programs and the SR-71 programs are not talked about in
this document at all, except in cases where to keep OXCART secret, they blamed
certain A-12 incidents (ex: crashes) on SR-71s."

This is a fairly large document (about 26-27 pages), and about 95k saved in a
text only format.  This seems a little large to generally release on the echo,
so I am reluctant to do so.  If anybody has any good ideas (I will talk to my
Boss Node and see if it can be made Freq'able) to get this to the people who
are interested, without using all the extra $$$ involved for those not
intrested, please let me know.	Also, let me know if your intrested in getting
this info, I'll compile a list and attempt to make sure everyboby intrested
gets a copy!
 * Origin: Sea King Surgeon (1:255/3.300)

Msg#:14427 *AVIATION*
12/17/91 21:56:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: OXCART HISTORY...
Here is the first part of a 25 page document written by the CIA, about the
development of the A-12 Blackbird and it's early operational history.
If enough people are interested, I can keep posting it...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Each paragraph is prefixed with the abbreviation of the highest level
of classified information contained.  These are identified by:
    (U)  unclassified	     (S)  secret
    (C)  confidential	     (T)  top secret

Oxcart -- Record of a pioneering achievement

Document downgraded to < Unclassified >   25 Feb 91
IAW Senior Crown Security Class Guide, dated 11/01/89
-------------------------------------------------------
			  (S) THE OXCART STORY
			   Thomas P. McIninch

(S) One spring day in 1962 a test pilot named Louis Schalk, employed by the
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, took off from the Nevada desert in an aircraft
the like of which had never been seen before.  A casual observer would have
been startled by the appearance of this vehicle; he would perhaps have noticed
especially its extremely long, slim, shape, its two enormous jet engines, its
long sharp, projecting nose, and its swept-back wings which appeared far too
short to support the fuselage in flight.  He might well have realized that this
was a revolutionary airplane; he could not have known that it would be able to
fly at three times the speed of sound for more than 3,000 miles without
refueling, or that toward the end of its flight, when fuel began to run low,
it could cruise at over 90,000 feet.  Still less would he have known of the
equipment it was to carry, or of the formidable problems attending its design
and construction.

(U) There was, of course, no casual observer present.  The aircraft had been
designed and built for reconnaissance; it was projected as a successor to the
U-2.  Its development had been carried out in profound secrecy.  Despite the
numerous designers, engineers, skilled and unskilled workers, administrators
and others who had been involved in the affair, no authentic accounts, and
indeed scarcely any accounts at all, had leaked.  Many aspects have not been
revealed to this day, and many are likely to remain classified for some time
to come.

(S) The official designation of the aircraft was A-12.	By a sort of inspired
perversity, however, it came to be called OXCART, a code word also applied
to the program under which it was developed.  The secrecy in which it was so
long shrouded has lifted a  bit, and the purpose of this article is to give
someaccount of the inception, development, operation, and untimely demise of
this remarkable airplane.  The OXCART no longer flies, but it left a legacy of
technological achievement which points the way to new projects.  And it became
the progenitor of a similar but somewhat less sophisticated reconnaissance
vehicle called the SR-71, whose existence is well known to press and public.

(S) Sequel to the U-2

(S) The U-2 dated from 1954, when its development began under the
direction of a group headed by Richard M. Bissell of CIA.  In June 1956, the
aircraft became operational, but officials predicted that its useful lifetime
over the USSR could hardly be much more than 18 months or two years.  Its first
flight over Soviet territory revealed that the defense warning system not only
detected but tracked it quite accurately.  Yet, it remained a unique and
invaluable source of intelligence information for almost four years, until
on 1 May 1960, Francis Gary Powers was shot down near Sverdlovsk.

(U) Meanwhile, even as the U-2 commenced its active carreer, efforts were
under way to make it less vulnerable.  The hope was to reduce the vehicle's
radar cross-section, so that it would become less susceptible to detection.
New developments in radar-absorbing materials were tried out and achieved
considerable success, though not enough to solve the problem.  Various far-out
designs were explored, most of them seeking to create an aircraft capable of
flying at extremely high altitudes, though still at relatively slow speed.
None of them proved practicable.

Msg#:14428 *AVIATION*
12/17/91 21:55:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
(S) Eventually, in the fall of 1957, Bissell arranged with a contractor for a
job of operations analysis to determine how far the probability of shooting
down an airplane varied respectively with the plane's speed, altitude, and
radar cross-section.  This analysis demonstrated that supersonic speed greatly
reduced the chances of detection by radar.  The probability of being shot down
was not of course reduced to zero, but it was evident that the supersonic line
of approach was worth serious consideration.  Therefore, from this time on,
attention focused increasingly on the possibility of building a vehicle which
could fly at extremely high speeds as well as great altitudes, and which
would also incorporate the best that could be attained in radar-absorbing
capabilities.  Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and Convair Division of General
Dynamics were informed of the general requirements, and their designers set
to work on the problem without as yet receiving any contract or funds from
the government.  From the fall of 1957 to late 1958 these designers constantly
refined and adapted their respective schemes.

(S) Bissell realized that development and production of such an aircraft
would be exceedingly expensive, and that in the early stages at least it would
be doubtful whether the project could succeed.	To secure the necessary funds
for such a program, high officials would have to receive the best and most
authoritative presentation of whatever prospects might unfold.	Accordingly,
he got together a panel consisting of two distinguished authorities on aero-
dynamics and one physicist, with E. M. Land of the Polaroid Corporation as
chairman.  Between 1957 and 1959 this panel met about six times, usually in
Land's office in Cambridge.  Lockheed and Convair designers attended during
parts of the sessions.	So also did the Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force
and Navy concerned with research and development, together with one or two of
their technical advisors.  One useful consequence of the participation of
service representatives was that bureaucratic and jurisdictional feuds were
reduced virtually to nil.  Throughout the program both Air Force and Navy gave
valuable assistance and cooperation.

(S) As the months went by, the general outlines of what might be done took
shape in the minds of those concerned.	Late in November 1958, the members
of the panel held a crucial meeting.  They agreed that it now appeared feasible
to build an aircraft of such speed and altitude as to be very difficult to
track by radar.  They recommended that the president be asked to approve in
principle a further prosecution of the project, and to make funds available
for further studies and tests.	The president and his Scientific Advisor,
Dr. James Killian were already aware of what was going on, and when CIA
officials went to them with the recommendations of the panel they received a
favorable hearing.  The President gave his approval.  Lockheed and Convair were
then asked to submit definite proposals, funds were made available to them,
and the project took on the code name GUSTO.

(C) Less than a year later the two proposals were essentially complete, and
on 20 July 1959, the President was again briefed. This time he gave final
approval, which signified that the program could get fully under way.

(C) The next major step was to choose between the Lockheed and Convair
designs.  On 20 August 1959 specifications of the two proposals were submitted
to a joint DOD/USAF/CIA selection panel:

			      LOCKHEED		 CONVAIR
     Speed		       Mach 3.2 	  Mach 3.2
     Range (total)	       4,120 n.m.	  4,000 n.m.
     Range (at altitude)       3,800 n.m.	  3,400 n.m.

     Cruise Altitudes:
     Start		       84,500 ft.	  85,000 ft.
     Mid-range		       91,000 ft.	  88,000 ft.
     End		       97,600 ft.	  94,000 ft.

     Dimensions:
     Length		       102 ft.		  79.5 ft.
     Span		       57 ft.		  56.0 ft.
     Gross Weight	       110,000 lbs.	  101,700 lbs.
     Fuel Weight	       64,600 lbs.	  62,000 lbs.
     First Flight	       22 months	  22 months

Msg#:15642 *AVIATION*
12/20/91 09:46:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: FRANK WALTERS
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14427 (RE: OXCART HISTORY...)
DA> Here is the first part of a 25 page document written by the CIA...

"   (U)  unclassified        (S)  secret
    (C)  classified	     (T)  top secret"

Already I found an error. "(C)" stands for Confidential, not "classified".
There is no such security category as "classified".  It refers to one or all of
the security classifications.  I know you didn't write it, Dean, I just wanted
to give you an accuracy perspective. If the writer can't get the classification
categories correct, how many other errors does it contain? Take it with a grain
of salt.  It may be largely true.  On the other hand, it could be total B.S.
(especially if it was "written by the CIA").

Msg#:15769 *AVIATION*
12/20/91 02:29:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART...
[ MORE of the declassified OXCART history ]

(S) The Lockheed design was selected, Project GUSTO terminated, and the
program to develop a new U-2 follow-on aircraft was names OXCART.  On 3
September 1959, CIA authorized Lockheed to proceed with antiradar studies,
aerodynamic structural tests, and engineering designs, and on 30 January 1960
gave the green light to produce 12 aircraft.

(S) Pratt and Whitney Division of United Aircraft Corporation had been
involved in discussions of the project, and undertook to develop the
propulsion system.  Their J-58 engine, which was to be used in the A-12,
had been sponsored originally by the US Navy for its own purposes, and
was to be capable of a speed of Mach 3.0. Navy interest in the development
was diminishing, however, and the Secretary of Defense had decided to withdraw
from the program at the end of 1959.  CIA's requirement was that the engine
and aircraft be further developed and optimized for a speed of Mach 3.2.
The new contract called for initial assembly of three advanced experimental
engines for durability and reliability testing, and provision of three
engines for experimental flight testing in early 1961.

(S) The primary camera manufacturer was Perkin-Elmer.  Because of the
extreme complexity of the design, however, a decision was soon made that a
back-up system might be necessary in the event the Perkin-Elmer design ran
into production problems, and Eastman Kodak was also asked to build a
camera.  Minneapolis-Honeywell Corporation was selected to provide both the
(S)inertial navigation and automatic flight control system.  The Firewell
Corporation and the David Clark Corporation became the prime sources of
pilot equipment and associated life support hardware.

(U) Lockheed's designer was Clarence L. (Kelly) Johnson, creator of the U-2,
and he called his new vehicle not A-12 but A-11.  Its design exhibited many
innovations.  Supersonic airplanes, however, involve a multitude of extremely
difficult design problems.  Their payload-range performance is highly sensitive
to engine weight, structural weight, fuel consumption, and aerodynamic
efficiency.  Small mistakes in predicting these values can lead to large
errors in performance.	Models of the A-11 were tested and retested, adjusted
and readjusted, during thousands of hours in the wind tunnel.  Johnson was
confident of his design, but no one could say positively whether the bird
would fly, still less whether it would fulfill the extremely demanding
requirements laid down for it.

(U) To make the drawings and test the model was one thing; to build the air-
craft was another.  The most numerous problems arose from the simple fact
that in flying through the atmosphere at its designed speed the skin of the
air-craft would be subjected to a temperature of more than 550 degrees
Fahrenheit.  For one thing, no metal hitherto commonly used in aircraft
production would stand this temperature, and those which would do so were
for the most part too heavy to be suitable for the purpose in hand.

(S) During the design phase Lockheed evaluated many materials and finally
chose an alloy of titanium, characterized by great strength, relatively light
weight, and good resistance to high temperatures.  Titanium was also scarce
and very costly.  Methods for milling it and controlling the quality of the
product were not fully developed.  Of the early deliveries from Titanium
Metals Corporation some 80 percent had to be rejected, and it was not until
1961, when a delegation from headquarters visited the officials of that
company, informed them of the objectives and high priority of the OXCART
program, and gained their full cooperation, that the supply became consist-
ently satisfactory.

(S) But this only solved an initial problem.  One of the virtues of titanium
was its exceeding hardness, but this very virtue gave rise to immense
difficulties in machining and shaping the material.  Drills which worked well
on aluminum soon broke to pieces; new ones had to be devised.  Assembly-line
production was impossible; each of the small OXCART fleet was, so to speak,
turned out by hand.  The cost of the program mounted well above original
estimates, and it soon began to run behind schedule.  One after another,
however, the problems were solved, and their solution constituted the greatest
single technological achievement of the entire enterprise.  Henceforth it
became practicable, if expensive, to build aircraft out of titanium.

Msg#:16306 *AVIATION*
12/20/91 21:44:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 4th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Since every additional pound of weight was critical, adequate insulation
was out of the question.  The inside of the aircraft would be like a moderately
hot oven.  The pilot would have to wear a kind of space suit, with its own
cooling apparatus, pressure control, oxygen supply, and other necessities for
survival.  The fuel tanks, which constituted by far the greater part of the
aircraft, would heat up to about 350 degrees, so that special fuel had to be
supplied and the tanks themselves rendered inert with nitrogen.  Lubricating
oil was formulated for operation at 600 degrees F., and contained a diluent in
order to remain fluid at operation below 40 degrees.  Insulation on the plane's
intricate wiring soon became brittle and useless.  During the lifetime of the
OXCART no better insulation was found; the wiring and related connectors had
to be given special attention and handling at great cost in labor and time.

(S) Then there was the unique problem of the camera window.  The OXCART was
to carry a delicate and highly sophisticated camera, which would look out
through a quartz glass window.	The effectiveness of the whole system depended
upon achieving complete freedom from optical distortion despite the great
heat to which the window would be subjected.  Thus the question was not simply
one of providing equipment with resistance to high temperature, but of
assuring that there should be no unevenness of temperature throughout the
area of the window.  It took three years of time and two million dollars of
money to arrive at a satisfactory solution.  The program scored one of its
most remarkable successes when the quartz glass was successfully fused to
its metal frame by an unprecedented process involving the use of high
frequency sound waves.

(S) Another major problem of different nature was to achieve the low radar
cross-section desired.	The airframe areas giving the greatest radar return
were the vertical stabilizers, the engine inlet, and the forward side of the
engine nacelles.  Research in ferrites, high temperature absorbing materials
and high-temperature plastic structures was undertaken to find methods to
reduce the return.  Eventually the vertical tail section fins were constructed
from a kind of laminated "plastic" material-the first time that such a
material had been used for an important part of an aircraft's structure.
With such changes in structural materials, the A-11 was redesignated A-12,
and as such has never been publically disclosed.

(C) To test the effectiveness of antiradar devices a small-scale model is
inadequate; only a full-size mock-up will do.  Lockheed accordingly built one
of these, and as early as November 1959, transported it in a specially
designed trailer truck over hundreds of miles of highway from the Burbank
plant to the test area.  Here it was hoisted to the top of a pylon and looked
at from various angles by radar.  Tests and adjustments went on for a year and
a half before the results were deemed satisfactory.  In the course of the
process it was found desirable to attach some sizable metallic constructions
on each side of the fuselage, and Kelly Johnson worried a good deal about the
effect of these protuberances on his design.  In flight tests, however, it
later developed that they imparted a useful aerodynamic lift to the vehicle,
and years afterward Lockheed's design for a supersonic transport embodied
similar structures.

(S) Pilots for the OXCART would obviously have to be of quite extraordinary
competence, not only because of the unprecedented performance of the aircraft
itself, but also because of the particluar qualities needed in men who were
to fly intelligence missions.  Brigadier General Don Flickinger, of the Air
Force, was designated to draw up the criteria for selection, with advice from
Kelly Johnson and from CIA Headquarters.  Pilots had to be qualified in the
latest high performance fighters, emotionally stable, and well motivated.
They were to be between 25 and 40 years of age, and the size of the A-12
cockpit prescribed that they be under six feet tall and under 175 pounds
in weight.

Msg#:16307 *AVIATION*
12/20/91 21:50:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 5th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Air Force files were screened for possible candidates and a list of pilots
obtained.  Psychological assessments, physical examinations and refinement of
criteria eliminated a good many.  Pre-evaluation processing resulted in sixteen
potential nominees.  This group underwent a further intensive security and
medical scrutiny by the Agency.  Those who remained were then approached to
take employment with the Agency on a highly classified project involving a
very advanced aircraft.  In November 1961, commitments were obtained from
five of the group.  The small number recruited at this stage required that a
second search be undertaken.

(S) When the final screening was complete the pilots selected from the
program were William L. Skliar, Kenneth S. Collins, Walter Ray, Lon Walter,
Mele Vojvodich, Jr., Jack W. Weeks, Ronald "Jack" Layton, Dennis B. Sullivan,
David P. Young, Francis J. Murray, and Russell Scott.  After the selection,
arrangements were made with the Air Force to effect appropriate transfers
and assignments to cover their training and to lay the basis for their
transition from military to civilian status.  Compensation and insurance
arrangements were similar to those for the U-2 pilots.

(U) One thing to be decided in the earliest stages of the program was where
to base and test the aircraft.	Lockheed clearly could not do the business at
Burbank, where the aircraft were being built, if for no other reason that its
runway was too short.  The ideal location ought to be remote from metropolitan
areas; well away from civil and military airways to preclude observation;
easily accessible by air; blessed with good weather the year round; capable
of accommodating large numbers of personnel; equipped with fuel storage
facilities; fairly close to an Air Force installation; and possessing at
least an 8,000 foot runway.  There was no such place to be found.

(S) Ten Air Force bases programmed for closure were considered, but none
provided the necessary security, and annual operating costs at most of them
would be unacceptable.	Edwards Air Force Base in California seemed a more
likely candidate, but in the end it also was passed over.  Instead a secluded
site in Nevada was finally picked.  It was deficient in personnel accomodations
and POL storage, and its long-unused runway was inadequate, but security was
good, or could be made so, and a moderate construction program could provide
sufficient facilities.	Lockheed estimated what would be needed in such
respects as monthly fuel consumption, hangars and shop space, housing for
personnel, and runway specifications.  Armed with the list of major
requirements, Headquarters came up with a construction and engineering plan.
And in case anyone became curious about what was going on at this remote
spot, a cover story stated that the facilities were being prepared for
certain radar studies, to be conducted by an engineering firm with support
from the Air Force.  The remote location was explained as necessary to reduce
the effect of electronic interference from outside sources.

(S) Excellent as it may have been from the point of view of security, the site
at first afforded few of the necessities and none of the amenities of life.
It was far from any metropolitan center.  Lockheed provided a C-47 shuttle
service to its plant at Burbank, and a chartered D-18 (Lodestar) furnished
transportation to Las Vegas.  Daily commuting was out of the question, however,
and the construction workers arriving during 1960 were billeted in surplus
trailers.  A new water well was dug, and a few recreational facilities
provided, but it was some time before accomodations became agreeable.

Msg#:16308 *AVIATION*
12/20/91 21:54:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 6th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Among the lesser snags, one existed because the laws of Nevada required
the names of all contractor personnel staying in the state for more than 48
hours to be reported to state authorities.  It was generally felt that to list
all these names and identify the companies involved would be likely to give
the whole show away.  The Agency's General Counsel, however, discovered that
Government employees were exempted from these requirements.  Thence forth
all contractor personnel going to the site received appointments as Government
consultants, and if questions were asked the reply could be that no one but
government employees were at this site.

(C) Construction began in earnest in September 1960, and continued on a
double-shift schedule until mid-1964.  One of the most urgent tasks was to
build the runway, which according to initial estimates of A-12 requirements
must be 8,500 feet long.  The existing asphalt runway was 5,000 feet long and
incapable of supporting the weight of the A-12.  The new one was built between
7 September and 15 November and involved pouring over 25,000 yards of
concrete.  Another major problem was to provide some 500,000 gallons of PF-1
aircraft fuel per month.  Neither storage facilities nor means of transporting
fuel existed.  After considering airlift, pipeline, and truck transport, it
was decided that the last-named was the most economical, and could be made
feasible by resurfacing no more than eighteen miles of highway leading into
the base.

(C) Three surplus Navy hangars were obtained, dismantled, and erected on
the north side of the base.  Over 100 surplus Navy housing buildings were
transported to the base and made ready for occupancy.  By early 1962 a fuel
tank farm was ready, with a capacity of 1,320,000 gallons.  Warehousing and
shop space was begun and repairs made to older buildings.  All this, together
with the many other facilities that had to be provided, took a long time to
complete.  Meanwhile, however, the really essential facilities were ready in
time for the forecast delivery date of Aircraft No. 1 in August 1961.

(S) The facilities were ready, but the aircraft were not.  Originally promised
for delivery at the end of May 1961, the date first slipped to August, largely
because of Lockheed's difficulties in procuring and fabricating titanium.
Moreover, Pratt & Whitney found unexpectedly great trouble in bringing the
J-58 engine up to OXCART requirements.	In March 1961, Kelly Johnson
notified Headquarters:

  (U) "Schedules are in jeopardy on two fronts.  One is the assembly of the
      wing and the other is in satisfactory development of the engine.
      Our evaluation shows that each of these programs is from three to
      four months behind the current schedule."

(S) To this Bissell replied:

 (U) "I have learned of your expected additional delay in first flight
      from 30 August to 1 December 1961.  This news is extremely shocking
      on top of our previous slippage from May to August and my understanding
      as of our meeting 19 December that the titanium extrusion problems
      were essentially overcome.  I trust this is the last of such
      disappointments short of a severe earthquake in Burbank."

(U) Realizing that delays were causing the cost of the program to soar,
Headquarters decided to place a top-level aeronautical engineer in residence
at Lockheed to monitor the program and submit progress reports.

Msg#:16310 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 04:37:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 7th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(C) Delays nevertheless persisted. On 11 September, Pratt and Whitney
informed Lockheed of their continuing difficulties with the J-58 engine in
terms of weight, delivery, and performance.  Completion date for Aircraft
No. 1 by now had slipped to 22 December 1961, and the first flight to 27
February 1962.	Even on this last date the J-58 would not be ready, and it was
therefore decided that a Pratt and Whitney J-75 engine, designed for the F-105
and flown in the U-2, should be used for early flights.  The engine, along with
other components, could be fitted to the A-12 airframe, and it could power the
aircraft safely to altitudes up to 50,000 feet and at speeds up to Mach 1.6.

(S) When this decision had been made, final preparations were begun for the
testing phase.	In late 1961 Colonel Robert J. Holbury, USAF, was named
Commander of the base, with the Agency employee as his Deputy.	Support
aircraft began arriving in the spring of 1962.	These included eight F-101's
for training, two T-33's for proficiency flying, a C-130 for cargo transport,
a U-3A for administration purposes, a helicopter for search and rescue, and a
Cessna-180 for liaison use.  In addition, Lockheed provided an F-104 to act as
chase aircraft during the A-12 flight test period.

(S) Meanwhile in January 1962, an agreement was reached with the Federal
Aviation Agency that expanded the restricted airspace in the vicinity of the
test area.  Certain FAA air traffic controllers were cleared for the OXCART
Project; their function was to insure that aircraft did not violate the order.
The North American Air Defense Command established procedures to prevent
their radar stations from reporting the appearance of high performance
aircraft on their radar scopes.

(S) Refueling concepts required prepositioning of vast quantities of fuel at
certain points outside the United States.  Special tank farms were programmed
in California, Eielson AFB Alaska, Thule AB Greenland, Kadena AB Okinawa,
and Adana, Turkey.  Since the A-12 use specially refined fuel, these tank
farms were reserved exclusively for use by the OXCART Program.	Very small
detachments of technicians at these locations maintained the fuel storage
facility and arranged for periodic quality control fuel tests.

(S) At the Lockheed Burbank plant, Aircraft No. 1 (serially numbered 121)
received its final tests and checkout during January and February 1962, and
was partially disassembled for shipment to the site.  It became clear very
early in OXCART planning that because of security problems and the inadequate
runway, the A-12 could not fly from Burbank.  Movement of the full-scale
radar test model had been successfully accomplished in November 1959, as
described above.  A thorough survey of the route in June 1961, ascertained
the hazards and problems of moving the actual aircraft, and showed that a
package measuring 35 feet wide and 105 feet long could be transported
without major difficulty.  Obstructing road signs had to be removed, trees
trimmed, and some roadsides leveled.  Appropriate arrangements were made
with police authorities and local officials to accomplish the safe transport
of the aircraft.  The entire fuselage, minus wings, was crated, covered, and
loaded on the special-design trailer, which cost about $100,000.  On 26
February 1962, it departed Burbank, and arrived at the base according to plan.

(S) First Flights

(U) Upon arrival reassembly of the aircraft and installation of the J-75
engines began.	Soon it was found that aircraft tank sealing compounds had
failed to adhere to the metals, and when fuel was put into the tanks numerous
leaks occurred.  It was necessary to strip the tanks of the faulty sealing
compounds and reline them with new materials.  Thus occurred one more
unexpected and exasperating delay in the program.

Msg#:16311 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 04:42:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 8th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(U) Finally, on 26 April 1962, Aircraft 121 was ready.	On that day in
accordance with Kelly Johnson's custom, Louis Schalk took it for an
unofficial, unannounced, maiden flight lasting some 40 minutes.  As in all
maiden flights minor problems were detected, but it took only four more
days to ready the aircraft for its first official flight.

(U) On 30 April 1962, just under one year later than originally planned, the
A-12 officially lifted her wheels from the runway.  Piloted again by Louis
Schalk, it took off at 170 knots, with a gross weight of 72,000 pounds, and
climbed to 30,000 feet.  Top speed was 340 knots and the flight lasted 59
minutes.  The pilot reported that the aircraft responded well and was
extremely stable.  Kelly Johnson declared it to be the smoothest official first
flight of any aircraft he had designed or tested.  The aircraft broke the sound
barrier on its second official flight, 4 May 1962, reaching Mach 1.1.  Again
only minor problems were reported.

(S) With these flights accomplished, jubilation was the order of the day.  The
new Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. John McCone, sent a telegram of
congratulation to Kelly Johnson.  A critical phase had been triumphantly
passed, but there remained the long, difficult, and sometimes discouraging
process of working the aircraft up to full operational performance.

(C) Aircraft No. 122 arrived at base on 26 June, and spent three months in
radar testing before engine installations and final assembly.  Aircraft No. 123
arrived in August and flew in October.	Aircraft No. 124, a two-seated version
intended for use in training project pilots, was delivered in November.  It was
to be powered by the J-58 engines, but delivery delays and a desire to begin
pilot training prompted a decision to install the smaller J-75's.  The trainer
flew initially in January 1963.  The fifth aircraft, No. 125, arrived at the
area on 17 December.

(S) Meanwhile the OXCART program received a shot in the arm from the Cuban
missile crisis.  U-2's had been maintaining a regular reconnaissance vigil
over the island, and it was on one of these missions in October that the
presence of offensive missiles was discovered.	Overflights thereafter became
more frequent, but on 27 October an Agency U-2, flown by a Strategic Air
Force pilot on a SAC-directed mission, was shot down by a surface-to-air
missile.  This raised the dismaying possibility that continued manned, high-
altitude surveillance of Cuba might become out of the question.  The OXCART
program suddenly assumed greater significance than ever, and its achievement
of operational status became one of the highest national priorities.

(S) At the end of 1962 there were two A-12 aircraft engaged in flight tests.
A speed of Mach 2.16 and altitude of 60,000 feet had been achieved.  Progress
was still slow, however, because of delays in the delivery of engines and
shortcomings in the performance of those delivered.  One of the two test
aircraft was still flying with two J-75 engines, and the other with one J-75
and one J-58.  It had long since become clear that Pratt & Whitney had been
too optimistic in their forecast; the problem of developing the J-58 up to
OXCART specifications had proved a good deal more recalcitrant than expected.
Mr. McCone judged the situation to be truly serious, and on 3 December he wrote
to the President of United Aircraft Corporation.

  (U) "I have been advised that J-58 engine deliveries have been delayed
      again due to engine control production problems....By the end of
      the year it appears we will have barely enough J-58 engines to
      support the flight test program adequately....Furthernore, due to
      various engine difficulties we have not yet reached design speed and
      altitude.  Engine thrust and fuel consumption deficiencies at pres-
      ent prevent sustained flight at design conditions which is so
      necessary to complete developments."

(U) By the end of January 1963, ten engines were available, and the first
flight with two of them installed occurred on 15 January.  Thenceforth all
A-12 aircraft were fitted with their intended propulsion system.  Flight
testing accelerated and contractor personnel went to a three-shift work day.

Msg#:17129 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 20:20:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 9th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(U) With each succeeding step into a high Mach regime new problems presented
themselves.  The worst of all these difficulties-indeed one of the most
formidable in the entire history of the program-was revealed when flight
testing moved into speeds between Mach 2.4 and 2.8, and the aircraft
experienced such severe roughness as to make its operation virtually out of
the question.  The trouble was diagnosed as being in the air inlet system,
which with its controls admitted air to the engine. At the higher speeds the
flow of air was uneven, and the engine therefore could not function properly.
Only after a long period of experimentation, often highly frustrating and
irritating, was a solution reached.  This further postponed the day when the
A-12 could be declared operationally ready.

(U) Among more mundane troubles was the discovery that various nuts, bolts,
clamps, and other debris of the manufacturing process had not been cleared
away, and upon engine runup or take-off were sucked into the engine.  The
engine parts were machined to such close tolerances that they could be ruined
in this fashion.  Obviously the fault was due to sheer carelessness. Inspection
procedures were revised, and it was also found prudent at Burbank to hoist
the engine nacelles into the air, rock them back and forth, listen for loose
objects, and then remove them by hand.

(S) While on a routine flight, 24 May 1963, one of the detachment pilots rec-
ognized an erroneous and confusing air speed indication and decided to eject
from the aircraft, which crashed 14 miles south of Wendover, Utah.  The pilot
Kenneth Collins, was unhurt.  The wreckage was recovered in two days, and
persons at the scene were indentified and requested to sign secrecy agreements.
A cover story for the press described the accident as occurring to a F-105, and
is still listed in this way on official records.

(U) All A-12 aircraft were grounded for a week during investigation of the
accident.  A plugged pitot static tube in icing conditions turned out to be
responsible for the faulty cockpit instrument indications-it was not some-
thing which would hold things up for long.

(S) Loss of this aircraft nevertheless precipitated a policy problem which had
been troubling the Agency for some time.  With the growing number of A-12's,
how much longer could the project remain secret?  The program had gone through
development, construction, and a year of flight testing without attracting
public attention.  But the Department of Defense was having difficulty in
concealing its participation because of the increasing rate of expenditures,
otherwise unexplained.	There was also a realization that the technological
data would be extremely valuable in connection with feasibility studies for the
SST.  Finally, there was a growing awareness in the higher reaches of the
aircraft industry that something new and remarkable was going on.  Rumors
spread, and gossip flew about.	Commercial airline crews sighted the OXCART in
flight.  The editor of Aviation Week (as might be expected) indicated his
knowledge of developments at Burbank.  The secrecy was thinning out.

(S) The President's Announcement

(U) In spite of all this, 1963 went by without any public revelation. President
Johnson was brought up to date on the project a week after taking office, and
directed that a paper be prepared for an announcement in the spring of 1964.
Then at his press conference on 24 February, he read a statement of which the
first paragraph was as follows:

  (U) "The United States has successfully developed an advanced experi-
      mental jet aircraft, the A-11, which has been tested in sustained
      flight at more than 2,000 miles per hour and at altitudes in excess
      of 70,000 feet.  The performance of the A-11 far exceeds that of any
      other aircraft in the world today.  The development of this aircraft
      has been made possible by major advances in aircraft technology of
      great significance for both military and commercial applications.
      Several A-11 aircraft are now being flight tested at Edwards Air
      Force Base in California.  The existence of this program is being
      disclosed today to permit the orderly exploitation of this advanced
      technology in our military and commercial program."

Msg#:17130 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 20:28:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 10th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(U) The president went on to mention the "mastery of the metallurgy and
fabrication of titanium metal" which has been achieved, gave credit to
Lockheed and to Pratt & Whitney, remarked that appropriate members of the
Senate and House had been kept fully informed, and prescribed that the
detailed performance of the A-11 would be kept strictly classified.

(S) The President's reference to the "A-11" was of course deliberate.  "A-11"
had been the original design designation for the all-metal aircraft first
proposed by Lockheed; subsequently it became the design designation for the
Air Force YF-12A interceptor which differed from its parent mainly in that it
carried a second man for launching air-to-air missiles.  To preserve the
distinction between the A-11 and the A-12 Security had briefed practically all
witting personnel in government and industry on the impending announcement.
OXCART secrecy continued in effect.  There was considerable speculation about
an Agency role in the A-11 development, but it was never acknowledged by the
government.  News headlines ranged from "US has dozen A-11 jets already
flying" to "Secret of sizzling new plane probably history's best kept."

(U) The President also said that "the A-11 aircraft now at Edwards Air Force
Base are undergoing extensive tests to determine their capabilities as long-
range interceptors."  It was true that the Air Force in October 1960, had
contracted for three interceptor versions of the A-12, and they were by this
time available.  But at the moment when the President spoke, there were no
A-11's at Edwards and there never had been.  Project officials had known that
the public announcement was about to be made, but they had not been told
exactly when.  Caught by surprise, they hastily flew two Air Force YF-12A's to
Edwards to support the President's statement.  So rushed was this operation, so
speedily were the aircraft put into hangars upon arrival, that heat from them
activated the hangar sprinkler system, dousing the reception team which awaited
them.

(S) Thenceforth, while the OXCART continued its secret career at its own site,
the A-11 performed at Edwards Air Force Base in a considerable glare of
publicity.  Pictures of the aircraft appeared in the press, correspondents
could look at it and marvel, stories could be written.	Virtually no details
were made available, but the technical journals nevertheless had a field day.
The unclassified Air Force and Space Digest, for example, published a long
article in its issue of April 1964, commencing: "The official pictures and
statements tell very little about the A-11.  But the technical literature from
open sources, when carefully interpreted, tells a good deal about what it
could and, more importantly, what it could not be.  Here's the story ..."

(S) Going Operational

(U) Three years and seven months after first flight in April 1962 the OXCART
was declared ready for operational use at design specifications.  The period
thus devoted to flight tests was remarkably short, considering the new fields
of aircraft performance which were being explored.  As each higher Mach number
was reached exhaustive tests were carried out in accordance with standard
procedures to ensure that the aircraft functioned properly and safely.
Defects were corrected and improvements made.  All concerned gained experience
with the particular characteristics and idiosyncrasies of the vehicle.

(S) The air inlet and related control continued for a long time to present the
most troublesome and refractory problem.  Numerous attempts failed to find a
remedy, even though a special task force concentrated on the task.  For a time
there was something approaching despair, and the solution when finally
achieved was greeted with enormous relief.  After all, not every experimental
aircraft of advanced performance has survived its flight testing period.  The
possibility existed that OXCART also would fail, despite the great cost and
effort expended upon it.

Msg#:19658 *AVIATION*
12/24/91 18:47:00 (Read 1 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALBERT DOBYNS (Rcvd)
Subj: RE: OXCART PART 11?
 AD> Dean, I was rereading your OXCART files and noticed that part 10 is
 AD> followed by part 12.  But no part 11?!  Naturally I wouldn't want to
 AD> miss even a single sentence of this stuff so I thought I'd let you know.

That one went out with the others.  I guess Fido could have eaten it.  Here is
another copy, let's hope no more get lost as well...
[ the 11th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) A few dates and figures will serve to mark the progress of events.	By the
end of 1963 there had been 573 flights totalling 765 hours.  Nine aircraft were
in the inventory.  On 20 July 1963 test aircraft flew for the first time at
Mach 3; in November Mach 3.2 (the design speed) was reached at 78,000 feet
altitude.  The longest sustained flight at design conditions occurred on 3
February 1964; it lasted to ten minutes at Mach 3.2 and 83,000 feet.  By the
end of 1964 there had been 1,160 flights, totalling 1,616 hours.  Eleven
aircraft were then available, four of them reserved for testing and seven
assigned to the detachment.

(C) The record may be put in another way.  Mach 2 was reached after six months
of flying; Mach 3 after 15 months.  Two years after the first flight the
aircraft had flown a total of 38 hours at Mach 2, three hours at Mach 2.6, and
less than one hour at Mach 3.  After three years, Mach 2 time had increased to
60 hours, Mach 2.6 time time to 33 hours, and Mach 3 time to nine hours; all
Mach 3 time, however, was by test aircraft, and detachment aircraft were still
restricted to Mach 2.9.

(S) As may be seen from the figures, most flights were of short duration,
averaging little more than an hour each.  Primarily this was because longer
flights were unnecessary at this stage of testing.  It was also true, however,
that the less seen of OXCART the better, and short flights helped to preserve
the secrecy of the proceedings.  Yet it was virtually impossible for an
aircraft of such dimensions and capabilities to remain inconspicuous.  At its
full speed OXCART had a turning radius of no less than 86 miles.  There was no
question of staying close to the airfield; its shortest possible flights took
it over a very large expanse of territory.

(S) The first long-range, high-speed flight occurred on 27 January 1965, when
one of the test aircraft flew for an hour and forty minutes, with an hour and
fifteen minutes above Mach 3.1.  Its total range was 2,580 nautical miles,
with altitudes between 75,600 and 80,000 feet.

(U) Two more aircraft were lost during this phase of the program.  On 9 July
1964 Aircraft No. 133 was making its final approach to the runway when at
altitude of 500 feet and airspeed of 200 knots it began a smooth steady roll
to the left.  Lockheed test pilot Bill Park could not overcome the roll.  At
about a 45 degree bank angle and 200 foot altitude he ejected.	As he swung
down to the vertical in the parachute his feet touched the ground, for what
must have been one of the narrower escapes in the perilous history of test
piloting.  The primary cause of the accident was that the servo for the right
outboard roll and pitch control froze.	No news of the accident filtered out.

(S) On 28 December 1965 Aircraft No. 126 crashed immediately after take-
off and was totally destroyed.	Detachment pilot Mele Vojvodich ejected safely
at an altitude of 150 feet.  The accident investigation board determined that a
flight line electrician had improperly connected the yaw and pitch gyros-had
in effect reversed the controls.  This time Mr. McCone directed the Office of
Security to conduct an investigation into the possibility of sabotage.	While
nothing of the sort was discovered, there were indications of negligence, as
the manufacturer of the gyro had earlier warned of the possibility that the
mechanism could be connected in reverse.  No action had been taken, however,
even by such an elementary precaution as painting the contacts different
colors.  Again there was no publicity connected with the accident.

(S) The year 1965 saw the test site reach the high point of activity.
Completion of construction brought it to full physical size.  All detachment
pilots were Mach 3.0 qualified.  Site population reached 1,835.  Contractors
were working three shifts a day.  Lockheed Constellations made daily flights
between the factory at Burbank and the site.  Two C-47 flights a day were
made between the site and Las Vegas.  And officials were considering how and
when and where to use OXCART in its appointed role.

Msg#:17131 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 20:31:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 12th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Targeting the OX

(S) After the unhappy end of U-2 flights over the Soviet Union, US political
authorities were understandably cautious about committing themselves to
further manned reconnaissance over unfriendly territory.  There was no serious
intention to use the OXCART over Russia; save in some unforseeable emergency it
was indeed no longer necessary to do so.  What then, should be done with this
vehicle?

(S) The first interest was in Cuba.  By early 1964 Project Headquarters began
planning for the contingency of flights over that island under a program
designated SKYLARK.  Bill Park's accident in early July held this program up
for a time, but on 5 August Acting DCI Marshall S. Carter directed that
SKYLARK achieve emergency operational readiness by 5 November.	This involved
preparing a small detachment which should be able to do the job over Cuba,
though at something less than the full design capability of the OXCART. The
goal was to operate at Mach 2.8 and 80,000 feet altitude.

(C) In order to meet the deadline set by General Carter, camera performance
would have to be validated, pilots qualified for Mach 2.8 flight, and
coordination with supporting elements arranged.  Only one of several equip-
ments for electronic countermeasures (ECM) would be ready by November, and a
senior intra-governmental group, including representation from the President's
Scientific Advisory Committee, examined the problem of operating over Cuba
without the full complement of defensive systems.  This panel decided that the
first few overflights could safely be conducted without them, but the ECM would
be necessary thereafter.  The delivery schedule of ECM equipment was compatible
with this course of action.

(S) After considerable modifications to aircraft, the detachment simulated
Cuban missions on training flights, and a limited emergency SKYLARK capability
was announced on the date General Carter had set.  With two weeks notice the
OXCART detachment could accomplish a Cuban overflight, though with fewer ready
aircraft and pilots than had been planned.

(S) During the following weeks the detachment concentrated on developing
SKYLARK into a sustained capability, with five ready pilots and five
operational aircraft.  The main tasks were to determine aircraft range and
fuel consumption, attain repeatable reliable operation, finish pilot training,
prepare a family of SKYLARK missions, and coordinate routes with North American
Air Defense, Continental Air Defense, and the Federal Aviation Authority.  All
this was accomplished without substantially hindering the main task of working
up OXCART to full design capability.  We may anticipate the story, however, by
remarking that despite all this preparation the OXCART was never used over
Cuba.  U-2's proved adequate, and the A-12 was reserved for more critical
situations.

(S) In 1965 a more critical situation did indeed emerge in Asia, and interest
in using the aircraft there began to be manifest.  On 18 March 1965 Mr. McCone
discussed with Secretaries McNamara and Vance the increasing hazards to U-2
and drone reconnaissance of Communist China.  A memorandum of this
conversation stated:

  (S) "It was further agreed that we should proceed immediately with all
      preparatory steps necessary to operate the OXCART over Communist
      China, flying out of Okinawa.  It was agreed that we should proceed
      with all construction and related arrangements.  However, this
      decision did not authorize the deployment of the OXCART to Okinawa
      nor the decision to fly the OXCART over Communist China.	The decision
      would authorize all preparatory steps and the expenditure of such
      funds as might be involved.  No decision has been taken to fly the
      OXCART operationally over Communist China.  This decision can only
      be made by the President."

(S) Four days later Brigadier General Jack C. Ledford, Director of the Office
of Special Activities, DD/S&T, briefed Mr. Vance on the scheme which had
been drawn up for operations in the Far East.  The project was called BLACK
SHIELD, and it called for the OXCART to operate out of the Kadena Air
Force Base in Okinawa.	In the first phase, three aircraft would stage to
Okinawa for 60-day periods, twice a year, with about 225 personnel involved.

Msg#:17132 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 20:35:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 13th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S)After this was in good order, BLACK SHIELD would advance to the point of
maintaining a permanent detachment at Kadena.  Secretary Vance made $3.7
million available to be spent in providing support facilities on the island,
which were to be available by early fall of 1965.

(S) Meanwhile the Communists began to deploy surface-to-air missiles around
Hanoi, thereby threatening our current military reconnaissance capabilities.
Secretary McNamara called this to the attention of the Under Secretary of the
Air Force on 3 June 1965, and inquired about the practicability of substituting
OXCART aircraft for U-2's.  He was told that BLACK SHIELD could operate over
Vietnam as soon as adequate aircraft performance was achieved.

(S) With deployment overseas thus apparently impending in the fall, the
detachment went into the final stages of its program for validating the
reliability of aircraft and aircraft systems.  It set out to demonstrate
complete systems reliability at Mach 3.05 and at 2,300 nautical miles range,
with penetration altitude of 76,000 feet.  A demonstrated capability for three
aerial refuelings was also part of the validation process.

(S) By this time the OXCART was well along in performance.  The inlet, camera,
hydraulic, navigation, and flight control systems all demonstrated acceptable
reliability.  Nevertheless, as longer flights were conducted at high speeds and
high temperatures, new problems came to the surface, the most serious being
with the electrical wiring system.  Wiring connectors and components had to
withstand temperatures of more than 800 degrees Fahrenheit, together with
structural flexing, vibration, and shock.  Continuing malfunctions in the inlet
controls, communications equipment, ECM systems, and cockpit instruments were
in many cases attributable to wiring failures.	There was also disturbing
evidence that careless handling was contributing to electrical connector
failures.  Difficulties persisted in the sealing of fuel tanks.  What with one
thing and another, officials soon began to fear that the scheduled date for
BLACK SHIELD readiness would not be met.  Prompt corrective action on the part
of Lockheed was in order. The quality of maintenance needed drastic improve-
ment.  The responsibility for delivering an aircraft system with acceptable
reliability to meet an operational commitment lay in Lockheed's hands.

(S) In this uncomfortable situation, John Paragosky, Deputy for Technology,
OSA, went to the Lockheed plant to see Kelly Johnson on 3 August 1965.	A frank
discussion ensued on the measures necessary to insure that BLACK SHIELD
commitments would be met, and Johnson concluded that he should himself spend
full time at the site in order to get the job done expeditiously.  Lockheed
President Daniel Haughton offered the full support of the corporation, and
Johnson began duty at the site next day.  His firm and effective management got
Project BLACK SHIELD back on schedule.

(S) Four primary BLACK SHIELD aircraft were selected and final validation
flights conducted.  During these tests the OXCART achieved a maximum speed of
Mach 3.29, altitude of 90,000 feet, and sustained flight time above Mach 3.2 of
one hour and fourteen minutes.	The maximum endurance flight lasted six hours
and twenty minutes.  The last stage was reached on 20 November 1965, and two
days later Kelly Johnson wrote General Ledford:

   (S) " ... Over-all, my considered opinion is that the aircraft can be
       successfully deployed for the BLACK SHIELD mission with what I
       would consider to be at least as low a degree of risk as in the
       early U-2 deployment days.  Actually, considering our performance
       level of more than four times the U-2 speed and three miles more
       operating altitude, it is probably much less risky than our first
       U-2 deployment.	I think the time has come when the bird should
       leave its nest."

Msg#:17133 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 20:39:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: MORE OXCART
[ here is the 14th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Ten days later the 303 Committee received a formal proposal that OXCART be
deployed to the Far East.  The Committee, after examining the matter, did not
approve.  It did agree, however, that short of actually moving aircraft to
Kadena all steps should be taken to develop and maintain a quick reaction
capability, ready to deploy within a 21-day period at any time after 1 January
1966.

(S) There the matter remained, for more than a year.  During 1966 there were
frequent renewals of the request to the 303 Committee for authorization to
deploy OXCART to Okinawa and conduct reconnaissance missions over North
Vietnam, Communist China, or both.  All were turned down.  Among high officials
there was difference of opinion; CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
Presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board favored the move, while Alexis
Johnson representing State, and Defense in the persons of Messrs. McNamara and
Vance, opposed it.  The proponents urged the necessity of better intelligence,
especially on a possible Chinese Communist build-up preparatory to intervention
in Vietnam.  The opponents felt that better intelligence was not so urgently
needed as to justify the political risks of basing the aircraft in Okinawa and
thus almost certainly disclosing to Japanese and other propagandists.  They
also believed it undesirable to use OXCART and reveal something of its
capability until a more pressing requirement appeared.	At least once, on 12
August 1966, the divergent views were brought up to the President, who
confirmed the 303 Committee's majority opinion against deployment.

(S) Meanwhile, of course, flight testing and crew proficiency training
continued.  There was plenty of time to improve mission plans and flight
tactics, as well as to prepare the forward area at Kadena.  New plans shortened
deployment time from the 21 days first specified.  Personnel and cargo were to
be airlifted to Kadena the day deployment was approved.  On the fifth day the
first OXCART would depart and travel the 6,673 miles in five hours and 34
minutes.  The second would go on the seventh and the third on the ninth day.
The first two would be ready for an emergency mission on the eleventh day, and
for a normal mission on the fifteenth day.

(S) An impressive demonstration of the OXCART's capability occurred on 21
December 1966 when Lockheed test pilot Bill Park flew 10,198 statute miles in
six hours.  The aircraft left the test area in Nevada and flew northward over
Yellowstone National Park, thence eastward to Bismark, North Dakota, and on to
Duluth, Minnesota.  It then turned south and passed Atlanta en route to Tampa,
Florida, then northwest to Portland, Oregon, then southwest to Nevada.	Again
the flight turned eastward, passing Denver and St. Louis.  Turning around at
Knoxville, Tennessee, it passed Memphis in the home stretch back to Nevada.
This flight established a record unapproachable by any other aircraft; it began
at about the same time a typical government employee starts his work day and
ended two hours before his quitting time.

(S) Shortly after this exploit, tragedy befell the program.  During a routine
training flight on 5 January 1967, the fourth aircraft was lost, together with
its pilot.  The accident occurred during descent about 70 miles from the base.
A fuel guage failed to function properly, and the aircraft ran out of fuel
only minutes before landing.  The pilot, Walter Ray, ejected but was killed
when he failed to separate from the ejection seat before impact.  The aircraft
was totally destroyed.	Its wreckage was found on 6 January and Ray's body
recovered a day later.	Through Air Force channels a story was released to the
effect that an Air Force SR-71, on a routine test flight out of Edwards Air
Force Base, was missing and presumed down in Nevada.  The pilot was identified
as a civilian test pilot, and the newspapers connected him with Lockheed.
Flight activity at the base was again suspended during investigation of the
causes both for the crash and for the failure of the seat separation device.

(S) It is worth observing that none of the four accidents occurred in the
high-Mach-number, high-temperature regime of flight.  All involved traditional
problems inherent in any aircraft.  In fact, the OXCART was by this time
performing at high speeds, with excellent reliability.

Msg#:18396 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 01:47:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18392 (MORE OXCART)
[ here is the 15th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) * Neither on this nor on other flights was there much trouble from sonic
boom.  To be sure, the inhabitants of a small village some 30 miles from the
site were troubled as the aircraft broke through the sound barrier while
gaining altitude.  A change of course remedied this. At altitude OXCART
produced no more than an ominous rumble on the ground and since the plane
was invisible to the naked eye no one associated this sound with its actual
source.

(S) BLACK SHIELD

(S) About May of 1967 prospects for deployment took a new turn.  A good deal
of apprehension was evident in Washington about the possibility that the
Communists might introduce surface-to-surface missiles into North Vietnam,
and concern was aggravated by doubts as to whether we could detect such a
development if it occurred.  The President asked for a proposal on the matter;
CIA briefed the 303 Committee and once again suggested that the OXCART be used.
Its camera was far superior to those on drones or on the U-2, its vulnerability
was far less.  The State and Defense members of the Committee decided to
re-examine the requirements and the political risks involved.  While they were
engaged in their deliberations, Director of Central Intelligence, Richard
Helms, submitted to the 303 Committee another formal proposal to deploy the
OXCART.  In addition, he raised the matter at President Johnson's "Tuesday
lunch" on 16 May, and received the Presidents approval to "go."  Walt Rostow
later in the day formally conveyed the President's decision, and the BLACK
SHIELD deployment plan was forthwith put into effect.

(S) On 17 May airlift to Kadena began.	On 22 May the first A-12 (Serial No.
131) flew nonstop to Kadena in six hours and six minutes.  Aircraft No. 127
departed on 24 May and arrived at Kadena five hours and 55 minutes later.
The third, No. 129, left according to plan on 26 May 1967 and proceeded
normally until in the vicinity of Wake Island where the pilot experienced
difficulties with the inertial navigation and communications systems.  In the
circumstances, he decided to make a precautionary landing at Wake Island.  The
prepositioned emergency recovery team secured the aircraft without incident and
the flight to Kadena resumed next day.

(C) Arrangements were made to brief the Ambassadors and Chiefs of Station in
the Philippines, Formosa, Thailand, South Vietnam, and Japan, and the High
Commissioner and Chief of Station, Okinawa.  The Prime Ministers of Japan and
Thailand were advised, as were the President and Defense Minister of the
Republic of China.  The Chiefs of the Air Force of Thailand and the Republic
of China were also briefed.  Reactions were favorable.

(S) On 29 May 1967, the unit at Kadena was ready to fly an operational mission.
Under the command of Colonel Hugh C. Slater two hundred and sixty personnel had
deployed to the BLACK SHIELD facility.	Except for hangars, which were a month
short of completion, everything was in shape for sustained operations.	Next
day the detachment was alerted for a mission on 31 May, and the moment arrived
which would see the culmination of ten years of effort, worry, and cost.  As
fate would have it, on the morning of the 31st heavy rain fell at Kadena. Since
weather over the target area was clear, preparations continued in hopes that
the local weather would clear.	When the time for take-off approached, the
OXCART, which had never operated in heavy rain, taxied to the runway, and took
off while the rain continued.

(S) The first BLACK SHIELD mission followed one flight line over North Vietnam
and one over the Demilitarized Zone.  It lasted three hours and 39 minutes,
and the cruise legs were flown at Mach 3.1 and 80,000 feet.  Results were
satisfactory.  Seventy of the 190 known SAM sites in North Vietnam were photo-
graphed, as were nine other priority targets.  There were no radar signals
detected, indicating that the first mission had gone completely unnoticed by
both Chinese and North Vietnamese.

Msg#:18397 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 01:53:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18396 (MORE OXCART)
[ here is the 16th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Fifteen BLACK SHIELD missions were alerted during the period from 31 May to
15 August 1967.  Seven of the fifteen were flown and of these, four detected
radar tracking signals, but no hostile action was taken against any of them. By
mid-July they had determined with a high degree of confidence that there were
no surface-to-surface missiles in North Vietnam.

(C) All operational missions were planned, directed, and controlled by Project
Headquarters in Washington.  A constant watch was maintained on the weather in
the target areas.  Each day at a specified hour (1600 hours local) a mission
alert briefing occurred.  If the forecast weather appeared favorable, the
Kadena base was alerted and provided a route to be flown.  The alert preceded
actual take-off by 28 to 30 hours.  Twelve hours prior to take-off (H minus 12)
a second review of target weather was made.  If it continued favorable, the
mission generation sequence continued.	At H minus 2 hours, a "go-no-go"
decision was made and communicated to the field.  The final decision, it should
be noted, depended not solely on weather in the target area; conditions had to
be propitious also in the refueling areas and at the launch and recovery base.

(C) Operations and maintenance at Kadena began with the receipt of alert
notification.  Both a primary aircraft and pilot and a back-up aircraft and
pilot were selected. The aircraft were given thorough inspection and servicing,
all systems were checked, and the cameras loaded into the aircraft.  Pilots
received a detailed route briefing in the early evening prior to the day of
flight.  On the morning of the flight a final briefing occurred, at which time
the condition of the aircraft and its systems was reported, last-minute weather
forecasts reviewed, and other relevant intelligence communicated together with
any amendments or changes in the flight plan.  Two hours prior to take-off the
primary pilot had a medical examination, got into his suit, and was taken to
the aircraft.  If any malfunctions developed on the primary aircraft, the
back-up could execute the mission one hour later.

(S) A typical route profile for a BLACK SHIELD mission over North Vietnam
included a refueling shortly after take-off, south of Okinawa, the planned
photographic pass or passes, withdrawl to a second aerial refueling in the
Thailand area, and return to Kadena.  So great was the OXCART's speed that
it spent only 12 1/2 minutes over North Vietnam in a typical "single pass"
mission, or a total of 21 1/2 minutes on two passes.  Its turning radius of
86 miles was such, however, that on some mission profiles it might be forced
during its turn to intrude into Chinese airspace.

(S) Once landed back at Kadena, the camera film was removed from the aircraft,
boxed, and sent by special plane to the processing facilities.	Film from
earlier missions was developed at the Eastman Kodak plant in Rochester, New
York.  By late summer an Air Force Center in Japan carried out the processing
in order to place the photointelligence in the hands of American commanders
in Vietnam within 24 hours of completion of a BLACK SHIELD mission.

(S) Between 16 August and 31 December 1967, twenty-six missions were alerted.
Fifteen were flown.  On 17 December one SAM site tracked the vehicle with its
acquisition radar but was unsuccessful with its Fan Song guidance radar.  On
28 October a North Vietnamese SAM site for the first time launched a single,
albiet unsuccessful, missile at the OXCART.  Photography from this mission
documented the event with photographs of missile smoke above the SAM firing
site, and with pictures of the missile and of its contrail.  Electronic
countermeasures equipment appeared to perform well against the missile firing.

(S) During the flight of 30 October 1967, pilot Dennis Sullivan detected radar
tracking on his first pass over North Vietnam.	Two sites prepared to launch
missiles but neither did.  During the second pass at least six missiles were
fired at the OXCART, each confirmed by missile vapor trails on mission photo-
graphy. Sullivan saw these vapor trails and witnessed three missile detonations.
Post-flight inspection of the aircraft revealed that a piece of metal had
penetrated the lower right wing fillet area and lodged against the support
structure of the wing tank.  The fragment was not a warhead pellet but may have
been a part of the debris from one of the missile detonations observed by the
pilot.

Msg#:18398 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 01:58:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18397 (MORE OXCART)
[ here is the 17th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(C) Between 1 January and 31 March 1968 six missions were flown out of fifteen
alerted.  Four of these were over North Vietnam and two over North Korea.  The
first mission over North Korea on 26 January occurred during a very tense period
following seizure of the Pueblo on the 23rd.  The aim was to discover whether
the North Koreans were preparing any large scale hostile move on the heels of
this incident.	Chinese tracking of the flight was apparent, but no missiles
were fired at the plane.

(C) The Department of State was reluctant to endorse a second mission over
North Korea for fear of the diplomatic repercussions which could be expected
if the aircraft came down in hostile territory.  Brigadier General Paul Bacalis
then briefed Secretary Rusk on the details and objectives of the mission, and
assured him that the aircraft would transit North Korea in no more than seven
minutes.  He explained that even if some failure occurred during flight the
aircraft would be highly unlikely to land either in North Korea or in China.
Secretary Rusk made suggestions to alter the flight plan, thus becoming the
projects highest ranking flight planner.  Between 1 April and 9 June 1968 two
missions were alerted for North Korea.	Only the mission which flew on 8 May
was granted approval.

(S) The SR-71

(S) All through the OXCART program the Air Force had been exceedingly helpful.
It gave financial support, conducted the refueling program, provided
operational facilities at Kadena, and air-lifted OXCART personnel and supplies
to Okinawa for the operations over Vietnam and North Korea.  It also ordered
from Lockheed a small fleet of A-11's, which upon being finished as two seated
reconnaissance aircraft would be named SR-71.  These would become operational
about 1967.

(S) The stated mission of the SR-71 was to conduct "post-strike reconnais-
sance," that is, to look the enemy situation over after a nuclear exchange.
The likelihood of using the aircraft in the capacity hardly appeared great, but
SR-71 was of course also capable of ordinary intelligence missions.  For these
purposes, however, the OXCART possessed certain clear advantages.  It carried
only one man, and largely for this reason it had room for a much bigger and
better camera, as well as for various other collection devices which at the
time could not be carried by the SR-71.  It was certainly the most effective
reconnaissance aircraft in existence, or likely to be in existence for years to
come.  Also it was operated by civilians, and could be employed covertly, or at
least without the number of personnel and amount of fanfare normally attending
an Air Force operation.

(S) The fact the SR-71's were ordered eased the path of OXCART development,
since it meant that the financial burden was shared with the Air Force, and the
cost per aircraft was somewhat reduced by producing greater numbers.  In the
longer run, however, the existence of SR-71 spelled the doom of OXCART, for
reasons which appear to have been chiefly financial and in a manner now to be
related.

(S) Ending

(S) During November 1965, the very month when OXCART was finally declared
operational, the moves toward its demise commenced.  Within the Bureau of the
Budget a memorandum was circulated expressing concern at the costs of the A-12
and SR-71 programs, both past and projected.  It questioned the requirement for
the total number of aircraft represented in the combined fleets, and doubted
the necessity for a separate CIA (OXCART) fleet.  Several alternatives were
proposed to achieve a substantial reduction in the forecasted spending, but the
recommended course was to phase out the A-12 program by September 1966 and stop
any further procurement of SR-71 aircraft.  Copies of this memorandum were
sent to the Department of Defense and the CIA with the suggestion that those
agencies explore the alternatives set out in the paper.  But the Secretary of
Defense declined to consider the proposal, presumably because the SR-71 would
not be operational by September 1966.

Msg#:18399 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 02:02:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18398 (MORE OXCART)
[ here is the 18th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Things remained in this state until in July 1966 the Bureau of the Budget
proposed that a study group be established to look into the possibility of
reducing expenses on the OXCART and SR-71 programs.  The group was requested to
consider the following alternatives:

      1. Retention of separate A-12 and SR-71 fleets, i.e., status quo.
      2. Collocation of the two fleets.
      3. Transfer of the OXCART mission and aircraft to SAC.
      4. Transfer of the OXCART mission to SAC and storage of A-12 aircraft.
      5. Transfer of the OXCART mission to SAC and disposal of A-12 aircraft.

(S)The study group included C. W. Fischer, Bureau of the Budget; Herbert
Bennington, Department of Defense; and John Paragosky, Central Intelligence
Agency.

(S) This group conducted its study through the fall of 1966, and identified
three principal alternatives of its own.  They were:

      1. To maintain the status quo and continue both fleets at current
	 approval levels.

      2. To mothball all A-12 aircraft, but maintain the OXCART capability
	 by sharing SR-71 aircraft between SAC and CIA.

      3. To terminate the OXCART fleet in January 1968 (assuming an
	 operational readiness date of September 1967 for the SR-71) and
	 assign all missions to the SR-71 fleet.

(S) On 12 December 1966 there was a meeting at the Bureau of the Budget
attended by Mr. Helms, Mr. Shultze, Mr. Vance, and Dr. Hornig, Scientific
Advisor to the President.  Those present voted on the alternatives proposed in
the Fischer-Bennington-Paragosky report.  Messrs. Vance, Schultze, and Hornig
chose to terminate the OXCART fleet, and Mr. Helms stood out for eventual
sharing of the SR-71 fleet between CIA and SAC.  The Bureau of the Budget
immediately prepared a letter to the President setting forth the course of
action recommended by the majority.  Mr. Helms, having dissented from the
majority, requested his Deputy Director for Science and Technology to prepare
a letter to the President stating CIA's reasons for remaining in the
reconnaissance business.

(S) On 16 December Mr. Schultze handed Mr. Helms a draft memorandum to the
President which requested a decision either to share the SR-71 fleet between
CIA and SAC, or to terminate the CIA capability entirely.  This time Mr. Helms
replied that new information of considerable significance had been brought to
his attention concerning SR-71 performance.  He requested another meeting after
1 January to review pertinent facts, and also asked that the memorandum to the
President be withheld pending that meeting's outcome.  Specifically, he cited
indications that the SR-71 program was having serious technical problems and
that there was real doubt that it would achieve an operational capability by
the time suggested for termination of the A-12 program.  Mr. Helms therefore
changed his position from sharing the SR-71 aircraft with SAC to a firm
recommendation to retain the OXCART A-12 fleet under civilian sponsorship.  The
Budget Bureau's memorandum was nevertheless transmitted to the President, who
on 28 December 1966 accepted the recommendations of Messrs. Vance, Hornig, and
Schultze, and directed the termination of the OXCART Program by 1 January 1968.

(S) This decision meant that a schedule had to be developed for orderly
phase-out.  After consultation with project Headquarters, the Deputy Secretary
of Defense was advised on 10 January 1967 that four A-12's would be placed
in storage in July 1967, two more by December, and the last four by the end
of January 1968.  In May Mr. Vance directed that the SR-71 assume contingency
responsibility to conduct Cuban overflights as of 1 July 1967 and take over
the dual capability over Southeast Asia and Cuba by 1 December 1967.  This
provided for some overlap between OXCART withdrawal and SR-71 assumption of
responsibility.

Msg#:18400 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 02:04:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18399 (MORE OXCART)
[ here is the 19th installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) Meanwhile until 1 July 1967 the OXCART Detachment was to maintain its
capability to conduct operational missions both from a prepared location
overseas and from the US.  This included a 15 day quick reaction capability for
deployment to the Far East and a seven-day quick reaction for deployment over
Cuba.  Between 1 July and 31 December 1967 the fleet would remain able to
conduct operational missions either from a prepared overseas base or from home
base, but not from both simultaneously.  A quick reaction capability for either
Cuban overflights or deployment to the Far East would also be maintained.

(S) All these transactions and arrangements occurred before the OXCART had
conducted a single operational mission or even deployed to Kadena for such a
mission.  As recounted above, the aircraft first performed its appointed role
over North Vietnam on the last day of May 1967.  In succeeding months it
demonstrated both its exceptional technical capabilities and the competence
with which its operations were managed.  As word began to get around that
OXCART was to be phased out, high officials commenced to feel some disquiet.
Concern was shown by Walt Rostow, the President's Special Assistant; by key
Congressional figures, members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board, and the President's Scientific Advisory Committee.  The phase-out
lagged, and the question was reopened.

(S) A new study of the feasibility and cost of continuing the OXCART program
was completed in the spring of 1968 and four new alternatives were proposed:

     1. Transfer all OXCART aircraft to SAC by 31 October 1968; substitute
	Air Force for contractor support where possible; turn the test A-12
	aircraft over to the SR-71 test facility.

     2. Transfer OXCART as in alternative 1, above, and store eight SR-71's.

     3. Close the OXCART home base and collocate the fleet with SR-71's at
	Beale Air Force Base in California, but with CIA retaining control
	and management.

     4. Continue OXCART operations at its own base under CIA control and
	management.

(S) Mr. Helms expressed his reactions to these alternatives in a memorandum to
Messrs. Nitze, Hornig, and Flax, dated 18 April 1968. In it he questioned why,
if eight SR-71's could be stored in one option, they could not be stored in all
the options, with the resultant savings applied in each case.  He questioned
the lower cost figures of combining the OXCART with the SR-71's and disagreed,
for security reasons, with collocating the two fleets.	Above all, however, he
felt that the key point was the desirability of retaining a covert reconnais-
sance capability under civilian management.  It was his judgement that such a
requirement existed, and he recommended that OXCART continue at its own base
under CIA management.

(S) In spite of all these belated efforts, the Secretary of Defense on 16 May
1968 reaffirmed the original decision to terminate the OXCART Program and
store the aircraft.  At his weekly luncheon with his principal advisors on 21
May 1968, the President confirmed Secretary Clifford's decision.

(S) Early in March 1968, USAF SR-71 aircraft began to arrive at Kadena to take
over the BLACK SHIELD commitment, and by gradual stages the A-12 was placed on
standby to back up the SR-71.  The last operational mission flown by OXCART was
on 8 May 1968 over North Korea, following which the Kadena Detachment was
advised to prepare to go home.	Project Headquarters selected 8 June 1968 as
the earliest possible date to begin redeployment, and in the meantime flights
of A-12 aircraft were to be limited to those essential for maintaining flying
safety and pilot proficiency.  After BLACK SHIELD aircraft arrived in the US
they would proceed to storage.	Those already at base were placed in storage by
7 June.

Msg#:18401 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 02:07:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18400 (MORE OXCART)
[ here is the 20th/LAST installment of this declassified OXCART history ]

(S) During its final days overseas the OXCART enterprise suffered yet another
blow, as inexplicable as it was tragic.  On 4 June Aircraft No. 129, piloted
by Jack Weeks, set out from Kadena on a check flight necessitated by a change
of engine.  Weeks was heard from when 520 miles east of Manila.  Then he
disappeared.  Search and rescue operations found nothing.  No cause for the
accident was ever ascertained, and it remains a mystery to this day.  Once
again the official news release identified the lost aircraft as an SR-71 and
security was maintained.  A few days afterwards the two remaining planes on
Okinawa flew to the US and were stored with the remainder of the OXCART family.

(S) Postscript

(S) In summary; the OXCART Program lasted just over ten years, from its
inception in 1957 through first flights in 1962 to termination in 1968.
Lockheed produced 15 OXCARTS, three YF-12A's and 31 SR-71's.  The 49 supersonic
aircraft had completed more than 7,300 flights, with 17,000 hours in the air.
Over 2,400 hours had been above Mach 3.  Five OXCART's were lost in accidents;
two pilots were killed, and two had narrow escapes.  In addition, two F-101
chase planes were lost with their Air Force pilots during OXCART's testing
phase.

(U) The main objective of the program-to create a reconnaissance aircraft of
unprecedented speed, range, and altitude capability-was triumphantly achieved.
It may well be, however, that the most important aspects of the effort lay
in its by-products--the notable advances in aerodynamic design, engine
performance, cameras, electronic countermeasures, pilot life support systems,
antiair devices, and above all in milling, machining, and shaping titanium.
Altogether it was a pioneering accomplishment.

(S) In a ceremony at the Nevada base on 26 June 1968, Vice Admiral Rufus L.
Taylor, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, presented the CIA Intelligence
Star for valor to pilots Kenneth S. Collins, Ronald L. Layton, Francis J.
Murray, Dennis B. Sullivan, and Mele Vojvodich for participation in the BLACK
SHIELD operation.  The posthumous award to pilot Jack W. Weeks was accepted by
his widow. The United States Air Force Legion of Merit was presented to Colonel
Slater and his Deputy, Colonel Maynard N. Amundson.  The Air Force Outstanding
Unit Award was presented to the members of the OXCART Detachment (1129th
Special Activities Squadron, Detachment 1) and the USAF supporting units.

(U) Wives of the pilots were present and learned for the first time of the
activities in which their husbands had been involved.  Kelly Johnson was a
guest speaker at the ceremony, and lamented in moving words the end of an
enterprise which had marked his most outstanding achievement in aircraft
design.  His own awards had already been received: The Presidents Medal of
Freedom in 1964, and on 10 February 1966, the National Medal of Science,
from President Johnson, for his contributions to aerospace science and to
the national security.
			      UNCLASSIFIED

Msg#:18402 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 02:13:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: ALL
Subj: NO MORE OXCART!
OK...  Now you have it ALL!   This document took -20- Fido messages to post in
it's entirety, but I think it was worth it...  Enjoy!
 * Origin: SLC-6 Western Spaceport in Simi Valley, CA (1:102/1006.4)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ
Msg#:17119 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 21:58:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: FRANK WALTERS
Subj: RE: OXCART HISTORY...
 DA>> Here is the first part of a 25 page document written by the CIA...
 FW>	 (C)  classified	  (T)  top secret"

 FW> "(C)" stands for Confidential, not "classified".

Yes, you are correct.  I should have noticed that when I stuck that
note into the beginning of the file...

 FW> I know you didn't write it, Dean, I just wanted to give you an
 FW> accuracy perspective. If the writer can't get the classification
 FW> categories correct, how many other errors does it contain?

Rest assured!  THAT "definition" listing was *NOT* in the original document.
I picked it up during some early discussions about this, and added it to the
beginning of the text.	EVERYTHING -after- that part is a verbatim transcript
of the original document.  When this was first coming out, someone else with
experience in classifications already made the same correction you did, almost
word for word, but I must have only saved the original version of that note
and forgot to change it.

 FW> Take it with a grain of salt. It may be largely true.  On the other
 FW> hand, it could be total B.S.

NO.  It has been "verified" by SEVERAL people in official capacities.
Including some from the 9th SRW, and others such as someone from NASA who
obtained a copy of it from their own sources, and who has the same "Senior
Crown" security clearance this document was originally classified under...

 FW> especially if it was "written by the CIA".

That was also verified by some people who should know.	The document was
described as a "CIA history", and the man who wrote it Thomas P. McIninch
is/was an author for the CIA.  There have already been quotes from this same
document appearing in Aviation Week.  It is very definitely "real"...

BTW, here are a few more items of detail from the cover page:

CLASSIFIED BY: SR CROWN SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION ?U? , 25 MAY 87
 DECLASSIFY ??:  ??? 3

DON: < SC-86-010115 >
COPY NO. < ?01 >
TOTAL PAGES < 25 >

On the front and back covers, the document is marked with the highest security
classification contained within the entire document.  Each page is also marked
with the highest level contained on the page.

Msg#:17181 *AVIATION*
12/22/91 23:15:57 (Read 0 Times)
From: ALBERT DOBYNS
  To: ALL
Subj: AF SERIAL NUMBERING
Several years ago I read in a book on USAF planes 1945-1956 that the Air Force
has a numbering scheme that goes something like this: the number that appears
on the tail usually starts with the last digit of the year it was made followed
by the rest of the number.  The full number is usually painted on in small
numbers near the cockpit and it contains the year in 2 digit form plus the
remainder of the number.  For example a YF-12 with a tail number of 06935 would
have a full number of 60-6935 where 60 is the year is was built (after adding
1900 to it of course!).  Looking at SR-71 numbers on the tail one would/could
expect the same thing to apply.  SR-71B has a tail number of 17956 which led me
to believe that its full number would have been 61-7956.  But all the books I
have list the full numbers as 64-179xx.  OK so I got used to thinking of it
that way.  Then I happened to notice in a few pictures that have those red
protective covers on the cockpit windows that the number painted on it is
61-7956 for example.  Now I'm confused.  Can any of our resident military
flyers make sense out of this?	Perhaps the AF decided to change the SR-71s
number to have it start with 64 but didn't want to spend money changing items
that had the old numbering scheme on them.  ps: many thanks to Dean Adams for
posting that Oxcart info!  After all his info is on the network, I promise I'll
try to get Dean (and myself) to write a note that doesn't talk about the
Blackbirds! <grins>

Msg#:17332 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 13:43:25 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: IVAN BAIRD
Subj: OX S(OMETHING?)?
 IB> I am at least on person who is extremely intrested in Aviation (especially
 IB> 'Black Stuff') and who gets his information, not only from this echo, a
 IB> mailing list on the Internet called Skunk-Works.
 IB>			 ^^^^^^^^	 ^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not familiar with "that". Is it Aviation related?  Flying Saucer? Science
Fiction? Trekkies?

 IB > ..a recently declassified document on the Oxcart Project.

Why do you think there ever was a classified CIA document of the nature you
indicate?  How do you know there was an "Oxcart"?  How do you know the document
was declassified?  Anyone seen it?  Isn't it strange that no reputable or
scandalous radio, TV, Cable, program nor newspaper, flyer, scandal sheet,
magazine, or book published this inside story?	Did anyone try to find the
originator of first BBS disclosure of this _______ ?  Does anyone ever consider
authentication from a reliable person?	In case you hadn't guessed, I think
this is a hoax.

Msg#:17333 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 13:44:49 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17332 (OX S(OMETHING?)?)
 DA > Here is the first part of a 25 page document written
 DA > by the CIA, about the development of the A-12 Blackbird and
      ^^^^^^^^^^
 Why do you think so?
 Who authenticated? Does typing on an echo make it true?

 DA > Document downgraded to < Unclassified >	25 Feb 91
 DA > IAW Senior Crown Security Class Guide, dated 11/01/89
 DA > -------------------------------------------------------
 DA >				(S) THE OXCART STORY
 DA >				 Thomas P. McIninch

Has anyone even questioned the format or manner of expression?	Is "Senior.....
Guide" the senior class at Oxford University?  Who is Thomas P. McIninch?
Everybody in Govt has a title.	It is my opinion this document was written by
some college kids who are unfamiliar with US Government grammar, use of
acronyms, stilted manner, etc.	There are several gross errors in the parts
so far posted.	If this were a real CIA document, we would all probably be
speaking Russian long ago due to their ineptness.  By the time you have posted
the whole thing, I think it will be evident to all (at least those over 30) it
is a hoax.  If there are still some believers left, I will compose a 100%
genuine placebo message regarding this OxS.. message.  Author will be Lt.Gen.
P.T.Barnum who was CIA Director of USAF affairs.  Date will be 1 Apr 1991 and I
will declassify it from Top Secret crypto Eyes Only to Before Secret (BS).  It
will say whatever it takes to convince the believers that they were taken in.
Like Frank said.  You didn't write it.  You are just distributing it as asked
here.

Msg#:17334 *AVIATION*
12/21/91 13:47:50 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: MIKE LECLAIR
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 16432 (SR-71 BLACKBIRD)
 In a 20 Dec message to Bob Cadwalader:
 ML> I don't follow you when you say my assumptions on the YF-12A are unfounded
 ML> .....It WASN'T designed or developed to be an interceptor or fighter...

Are you mistaking YF-12A for SR-71?  Ever hear of the A-11?  Ever hear of the
"Improved Manned Interceptor" program?  "...A-11 originally designed as follow
on to U-2..the three A-11s, (sn 60-6934 to 6936)....Later they were completed
as YF-12A research aircraft in the Improved Manned Interceptor program,
carrying Hughes ASG-18 pulse doppler radar, infra-red sensors and eight Hughes
AIM-47A large long-range air-to-air missiles in an internal bay."
[Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft, Bill Gunston]

"The original A-11 shape.....The first three aircraft (60-6934/6) were built as
YF-12A research interceptors, with a pressurized cockpit for a pilot and air
interception officer.  Hughes ASG-18 pulse-doppler radar,...tandem missile bays
for (usually) eight AIM-47 AAMs...." [Modern US War Machine]

These were both written before latest release of a lot of previously classified
information but I do remember the A-11 and IMI program.  You can't lump the
SR-71 (RS-71) in with YF-12, A-11/A-12 any more than you can lump the B-707,
C-135, KC-135, VC-137, and E-3A together as "designed as a......." and have it
cover all.

Msg#:17610 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 08:48:20 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: RE: SR-71 BLACKBIRD
Dean, all of the basic performance, production, etc., facts about all of the
three "Blackbird" aircraft have been available for some years now.  All that
remains a secrect are the actual missions of both aircraft.  The only aircraft
in the series that is partially shrouded in secrecy is the D-21 drone - which
the CIA (in typical head in the sand style) insists does not exhist.
  Bob the Pilot

Msg#:17611 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 08:51:41 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: EDWARD RICE
Subj: RE: SR-71 BLACKBIRD
Edward, kindly define your source for "200 mile turning radius".  While the
turn radius of the SR-71 was large at Mach 3+, they are quite capable of
turning within the boundries of Palmdale.
	In addition, should a rapid turn become necessary at speed, the pilot
can slow very dramatically by pulling power back.  The largest drag item on the
series was the bypass air dumped out of the nacelle just beind the inlet.  This
would cause a very rapid deceleration, then a quick turn would be available,
followed by remarakable acceleration.
	Bob the Pilot

Msg#:18388 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 18:39:30 (Read 0 Times)
From: ELVIS HARGROVE
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17333 (OX S(OMETHING?)?)
 BH> In case you hadn't guessed, I think this is a hoax.

     Now _why_ does that not surprise us?

  ^..^
 * Origin: Rio Grande Valley Texas, Brush-Country Paradise (Quick 1:397/2.5)

Msg#:18392 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 01:45:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: PETER MARSHALL
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 17133 (RE: MORE OXCART)
 PM> This is really interesting stuff.	Is it possible to request a
 PM> copy from CIA based on "Freedom of Information"?

Maybe...  It's been declassified since February, but i'm not quite just where
you would go to get an original copy.  The one that made these postings
possible was given as a "gift" to someone, for spending time helping to restore
an A-12 at a museum.

 PM> how can I get a complete copy from you?

If you save all the sections i've been posting, then you -will- have a complete
copy...

Msg#:18734 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 22:48:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: RE: OX
 DA>> Here is the first part of a 25 page document written
 DA>> by the CIA, about the development of the A-12 Blackbird and

 BH> Why do you think so?

The "CIA" part I am not that concerned about, BUT the events described in GREAT
and very accurate detail are all about the project which WAS under CIA control.
Who else should write a history about it?

 BH> Who authenticated?

Quite a few people with the ability to know.

 BH> Does typing on an echo make it true?

No, that lets more people benefit from reading it.  This copy originated from
people connected with setting up the A-12/D-21 exhibit at the Seattle Museum of
Flight.  I believe the man who gave it out was Ben Rich, but also in attendance
were: Keith Beswick (Bill Park's LCO on many D-21A drone launches), Brigadier
General Buck Adams (a former SR-71 pilot), Jerry Miller (First Marquardt
representative for the D-21A and D-21B programs at Groom and Beale), James
Walborn (Honeywell Flight Systems, was involved in the flight systems for the
A-12's at Groom), etc...

 BH> Has anyone even questioned the format or manner of expression?

Such as?  It is clearly a general historical summary, certainly not any kind of
technical document.

 BH> Is "Senior.....Guide" the senior class at Oxford University?

Funny.	"Senior Crown" *IS* a valid classification level.  This was confirmed
by a person who HAS the same clearance and currently works at NASA Ames-Dryden.

 BH> Who is Thomas P. McIninch?  Everybody in Govt has a title.

He is -supposed- to be an author for the CIA, but I don't have any more
information about that.  This is a HISTORICAL SUMMARY, not some "cloak and
dagger" type junk...  What does a "title" matter?

 BH> It is my opinion this document was written by some college kids

That is virtually impossible, considering the sources involved, and those who
have confirmed it's authenticity.  Does AW&ST publish verbatim exerpts from
something as "phony" as you seem to think it is?

 BH> There are several gross errors in the parts so far posted.

Then by all means pass that on to me in as much DETAIL as possible!  I will be
more than happy to relay it to the Internet and get a response for you.

 BH> If this were a real CIA document, we would all probably be speaking
 BH> Russian long ago due to their ineptness.

That makes ZERO sense as far as i'm concerned.  Damn silly thing to say.

 BH> By the time you have posted the whole thing, I think it will be evident
 BH> to all it is a hoax.

Hardly...  It seems to contain a VAST amount of explicit detail which does not
sound anything even remotely close to any "hoax".

 BH> If there are still some believers left, I will compose a 100%
 BH> genuine placebo message

Gee, if you have nothing better to do with your time then feel free.  I
certainly don't have any idea what your point would be though...

 BH> Author will be Lt.Gen. P.T.Barnum who was CIA Director of USAF affairs.

More real funny stuff...  What is your problem, anyway?

 BH> It will say whatever it takes to convince the believers that
 BH> they were taken in.

So far all you have "convinced" me of is that you can write a rather obnoxious
and insulting message, and for no apparent reason.  And what does YOUR ability
to create a "hoax" have to do with ANYTHING?

If you want to write something coherent and SERIOUS, I will pass it along to
those who can reply to it and relay the response back here.  But if it's
-anything- close to what you have written here, then i'm sure they would just
get a laugh out of it...  Since this is a very professional and serious group,
if all you can write is another flame then it would probably not be appropriate
for me to even pass it along in the first place.

It sounds to me like YOU have been reading too much fiction, since there is
nothing obviously wrong with this document, and all the facts presented conform
to the historical references currently available.
 * Origin: SLC-6 Western Spaceport in Simi Valley, CA (1:102/1006.4)

Msg#:18735 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 22:41:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18734 (RE: OX)
 IB >> mailing list on the Internet called Skunk-Works.

 BH> I'm not familiar with "that".

Your loss, but ignorance is no excuse to start a flame campaign.

 BH> Is it Aviation related?  Flying Saucer?  Science Fiction?	Trekkies?

You are really going off the deep end, aren't you?   Wow...
The Internet is a network between Universities, researches, government, and
technology oriented corporations.  Skunk-works is a small net of people
interested in just what it implies, and participants include
those from NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, and others.

 BH> Isn't it strange that no reputable or scandalous radio, TV, Cable, program
 BH> nor newspaper, flyer, scandal sheet, magazine, or book published this
 BH> inside story?

I guess you don't like AW&ST then, either.

 BH> Did anyone try to find the originator of first BBS disclosure

YOU are seeing the first "bbs disclosure"!!   This is IT!  The original paper
copy was given to someone who helped to restore A-12 (60-6940), with countless
reputable people involved in the project.  He then typed it in a page at a time
EXACTLY as on the official report, and sent it out to the interested parties
over the Internet skunk-works mailing list. Just because you are "not familiar"
with such things, is no reason to start making TOTALLY baseless insults.  If
you have something SERIOUS to say, than by all means lets hear it. Also include
information about YOU, so those who read it will not just automatically think
it's just a "hoax" or trouble maker.

 BH> Does anyone ever consider authentication from a reliable person?

I certainly do...  And numerous "reliable person's" have said this document
was authentic.	You just seem to be getting wildly carried away with the fact
it was posted as a "CIA History", and ignoring the great detail and accuracy
contained after that point...  For what reason, I can't imagine.  I'm as
"skeptical" as anyone, but not to the point of being blind to even the clearest
facts.

Msg#:19660 *AVIATION*
12/24/91 20:37:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BOB CADWALADER
Subj: RE: SR-71 BLACKBIRD
 BC> all of the basic performance, production, etc., facts about all of
 BC> the three "Blackbird" aircraft have been available for some years now.

That is generally correct, what about it?  There has always been quite a bit
of reluctance to release the specific maximum performance figures though.

 BC> All that remains a secrect are the actual missions of both aircraft.

It would seem that some of the 20 year old A-12 operational history is coming
out...	I have read quite a few accounts now, and there are supposed to be
several new books in the works.

 BC> The only aircraft in the series that is partially shrouded in secrecy
 BC> is the D-21 drone - which the CIA (in typical head in the sand style)
 BC> insists does not exhist.

There is now new film and photos of the M-12/D-21 becoming available, also
several museums (including SMOF), have requests in for D-21's.  One of the
responses I heard they received is that the drones were still considered
"operational" hardware.  That seems unlikely, but who knows they will say.
It does seem that some D-21s may be soon be released for exhibit...

Msg#:17612 *AVIATION*
12/23/91 08:59:15 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST
Dean, your post on the canted tail fins on the A-12 caused me some minor
confusion.  Please reference the possibility of some "plastic" material in the
tail fins. They were made out of titanium alloy (same as the rest of the plane)
in all of the instances of which I am aware.  (including photos of the aircraft
with no paint)
	Second, the confusion over A-12/A-11 was caused by a muffed comment
made by then President Johnson.
	Please document, thanks.
	Bob the Pilot

Msg#:19661 *AVIATION*
12/24/91 20:46:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BOB CADWALADER
Subj: RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST
 BC> your post on the canted tail fins on the A-12 caused me some minor
 BC> confusion. Please reference the possibility of some "plastic" material
 BC> in the tail fins. They were made out of titanium alloy (same as the
 BC> rest of the plane) in all of the instances of which I am aware.

The only info I have on that subject is in reference to the original
prototype development.	It was said that the vertical stabilizers were
not meeting the desired RCS specifications, and some alternate material
was needed.  Considering all the "firsts" associated with this aircract,
the use of some sort of early composite material for such control surfaces
does not seem that extraordinary.  But, it is certainly possible that some
other means was later found to meet the desired RCS goals.

 BC> the confusion over A-12/A-11 was caused by a muffed comment made by
 BC> then President Johnson.

That has certainly been the generally presumed story, but some other informa-
tion has said that the initial Lockheed design proposal had the designation of
"A-11", but after winning the contract away from Convair, various design
changes resulted in renaming it to "A-12".  That certainly makes as much sense,
if not more, than Johnson simply misreading his speech back in 1964...

Msg#: 8249 *AVIATION*
12/25/91 19:50:04 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 7571 (RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST)
 Dean, the fact that there may have been composites does not suggests plastics,
however.  Most of the composites with which I am familiar in aviation use are
ceramic or fiber glass or similar material.  I doubt whether there was a high
tenperature plastic sufficient to meet the stress and temp profiles of the
"black bird" aircraft.
   In another message to me you mentioned that there are A-12 and other mission
profiles being released in books, etc.	I am suspicious of such reports for the
most part, as they are often taken from other than reliable sources.
   We had an argument some months back from a guy who claimed to have tracked
an SR-71 at better than mach 4 (can't remember the exact but ridiculous speed).

   Also confusing the issue are the "never had the throttles all the way
forward" statements from many quarters.  So what?  If you push the throttles
all the way forward on a number of Lear models while in level flight you will
break up the aircraft.
   You have a good, reasoned attitude toward your posts.  It is always a
pleasure hearing from you.
   Bob the Pilot

Msg#: 9294 *AVIATION*
12/27/91 20:27:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BOB CADWALADER
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8249 (RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST)
 BC> the fact that there may have been composites does not suggests plastics,
 BC> however.  Most of the composites with which I am familiar in aviation
 BC> use are ceramic or fiber glass or similar material.

Yes, and graphite types and such.  My guess would be that the word "plastic"
was being used in a very generic sense, or perhaps selected for some kind of
security reasons.

 BC> I doubt whether there was a high tenperature plastic sufficient to
 BC> meet the stress and temp profiles of the "black bird" aircraft.

It does seem unlikely.

 BC> In another message to me you mentioned that there are A-12 and other
 BC> mission profiles being released in books, etc.  I am suspicious of such
 BC> reports for the most part, as they are often taken from other than
 BC> reliable sources.

I was mainly thinking of things currently in development...  I have been
reading excerpts from presentations by various former Blackbird people,
and more and more operational details seem to be coming out all the time.
At least about the earlier stuff.  One book that i've heard may be nearing
completion is called: "Inside the Skunk Works", by Ben Rich with the
co-author Leo Janos (who also worked on Yeager's book).  Sounds interesting.

 BC> We had an argument some months back from a guy who claimed to have
 BC> tracked an SR-71 at better than mach 4 (can't remember the exact but
 BC> ridiculous speed).

That doesn't sound very likely to me either, although the D-21s were
said to have been able to reach speeds above Mach 4.

 BC> Also confusing the issue are the "never had the throttles all the way
 BC> forward" statements from many quarters.  So what?  If you push the
 BC> throttles all the way forward on a number of Lear models while in level
 BC> flight you will break up the aircraft.

Right.	With the kind of speeds and aerodynamics involved with this type of
flight profile, it is the limits of the airframe and controllability that are
the most critical.  Still, I would not be all that surprised if a Blackbird
pushed all the way at FL 900+ could exceed Mach 4, but whether it could be
safely controlled at that speed and return for a safe landing is another
question.  I'm sure nothing like that was part of any operational flight
plan...  Although I have read a couple of recounts of missions over Hanoi
during the war, where a pilot found himself accidentally pushing his SR-71
a little too high and fast while trying to keep above the SAMs.

Msg#: 9367 *AVIATION*
12/29/91 16:18:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: ROBERT FIELDS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6551 (OX S(OMETHING?)?)
BH> Why do you think there ever was a classified CIA document of the nature
  > you indicate?  How do you know there was an "Oxcart"?  How do you know the
  > document was declassified?	Anyone seen it?  Isn't it strange that no
  > reputable or scandalous radio, TV, Cable, program nor newspaper, flyer,
  > scandal sheet, magazine, or book published this inside story?

I was just at the Pima Air Museum, here in Tucson, and they had three excellent
books on the SR-71, et. al.  There was a whole chapter in one of them (Lockheed
SR-71 Blackbird published by Motorbooks) on Oxcart. I just thumbed through them
and didn't find indexes in the other two to see if they had Oxcart sections.
You say no reputable book published the story.	Motorbooks seems to think it
existed.  I can only assume that you would have checked the literature and
researched the issue before making such a strong statement. Do you not consider
the Motorbooks publication to be reputable?

Msg#:11593 *AVIATION*
01/01/92 11:49:02 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6564 (RE: MORE OXCART)
Dean, after reading all of the alleged "Oxcart File" I must say that most of
it sounds like an amateur on the aircraft making up stuff to sound neat.  There
are a number of glaring errors which could not have been written by any person
familiar with or close to the A-12 or SR-71 projects.  While the document is
cute fiction, and may actually contain a few nuggets of truth, I would not want
to quote any of it to my friends.

Msg#:11401 *AVIATION*
12/31/91 22:10:00 (Read 1 Times)
From: ALBERT DOBYNS
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: PART
Well, I found out an interesting tidbit related to the lack of top
secret marked paragraphs.  My source says info that is tagged as top
secret isn't downgraded to unclassified directly.  It has to have been
downgraded to secret or lower before it can be reduced to unclassified level.
No wonder we never saw any (T)s!!! :)

Msg#:11749 *AVIATION*
01/01/92 11:06:47 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11591 (RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST)
 Dean, the D-21's did routinely run in excess of Mach 4.  Additionally, the
A-12's were redlined at Mach 3.6 at roughly 93,000 feet.  They were lighter
than the SR-71's and thus slightly higher performing.  The sole, and phoney,
YF-12C (which was merely a much lightened SR-71) was also capable of near Mach
3.6 speeds at slightly above 90,000 feet.

Msg#:11958 *AVIATION*
12/31/91 16:29:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: JIM SANDERS
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: OXCART MESSAGES
Dean,
I have carefully reworked your OXCART messages to Amiga format and added to my
archives.  I find the report very interesting.	Especially the "fight by
committee" attitude that came out of Washington at that time.

I quote:
OXCART-> On 29 May 1967, the unit at Kadena was ready to fly an OXCART->
operational mission.

This was almost TWO YEARS after we in the 7th Bomb Wing flew our first ARCLIGHT
MISSION which was directed by the same "Committee" and not in accord with sound
Military or Air policy.

OXCART -> Seventy of the 190 known SAM sites in North Vietnam were photographed
OXCART -> as were nine other priority targets.	There were no radar signals
OXCART -> detected, indicating that the first mission had gone completely
	  unnoticed.....

Had we gone to North Vietnam in March of 1965 according to SAC planning, there
would have been very little if any SAM activity.  Had Vietnam Airwarfare been
carried out as in "Desert Shield", that war would have lasted no longer.

OXCART -> All operational missions were planned, directed, and
OXCART -> controlled by Project Headquarters in Washington.

The same was true of ARCLIGHT in 1965.	By the time battle orders reached Guam,
the enemy knew WHEN, WHERE, WHAT and HOW MANY.

OXCART-> Once landed back at Kadena, the camera film was removed  from the
OXCART-> aircraft, boxed, and sent by special plane to the processing
OXCART-> facilities.  Film from earlier missions was developed at the Eastman
OXCART-> Kodak plant in Rochester, New York.  By late summer an Air Force
OXCART-> Center in Japan carried out the processing in order to place the photo
OXCART-> intelligence in the hands of American commanders in Vietnam within
	 24 hours.....

This would not be considered very good.  Even in World War II, Each unit had
photographic processing capability.  Facilities should have been provided to
travel with the aircraft, even if it meant special air transport.  Much of the
info would be too old to be much use to a field commander.

Your OXCART article mentions a 14 day reaction time for reflex (SAC term) to
any point in the world.  This is almost a joke.  As the contingency wing for
SAC, the combat crews of the 7th Bomb Wing had to be ready for reaction on 24
hour or less notice.

OXCART -> The Department of State was reluctant to endorse a second mission
OXCART -> over North Korea for fear of the diplomatic repercussions which could
	  be expected...

The State Department and Administration were RELUCTANT to do anything to end
the conflict in a hurry.  This "NO WIN" attitude caused many of us take early
retirements rather than continue to fight that kind of war.  Though, I only saw
one man refuse to fly a combat mission during the months I flew on ARCLIGHT.  I
never did see this refusal in WW II or Korea.  I did see some refuse any type
of flying during re-training for the Korean Conflict.  Most of these were
Ex-POWs and Combat Fatigue cases recalled involuntarily for Korea.

Linebacker II took place SEVEN years after we of the 7th Bomb wing had returned
to the U.S.  By this time, The SAM defenses of Hanoi were estimated to equal
that of Moscow.  Over 1,000 SAM missles were said to have been launched.  15
B-52s were lost whereas it is believed that NONE would have been in 1965.  Ten
of these over North Vietnam proper.

I was one of the few Radar-Navigators who dropped bombs in support of his son's
Marine unit.  There was one support mission where I refused to drop and brought
the bombs back to Guam.  Needless the say, the board of inquiry had been
selected and ready to meet when I landed.  We had been briefed NOT TO DROP
unless certain conditions were present. They were not.	When the Board
announced their results, it was officially stated that I was RIGHT and the
other 29 crews WRONG.  Hard to show but you can't court martial 29 of your 30
crews.	(If there is doubt of this story, I can easily PROVE by certain retired
military including the commander of the Wing at that time, Col. Donald Bailey.)
No further mention was ever made of that mission.  Thankfully, none of our
ground troops were hit.

If you ever get a chance to talk to any 1st CAV. Div. member who was in the Ia
Drang (spelling varies) Valley 1965, ask about our close support.  I guess this
is enough comment on the article.  I fully believe the article is authentic.
No outsider could have know of all the red tape and "committee" actions that
took place.

Thanks for the time you spent typing all this and sending to the conference.
Jim Sanders

Msg#:20050 *AVIATION*
01/03/92 18:20:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BOB CADWALADER
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18735 (RE: OX)
 BC> most of it sounds like an amateur on the aircraft making up
 BC> stuff to sound neat.

Well... i'm sure you know I don't agree.  Everything I read leads me to believe
it is all very accurate.  As far as the author goes, he may very well have been
an "amateur on aircraft".  This is not supposed to be a -technical- document,
but rather a general narrative history of this particular stage of the program.

 BC> There are a number of glaring errors which could not have been written
 BC> by any person familiar with or close to the A-12 or SR-71 projects.

Then I would encourage you to write up a detailed description of exactly what
you refer to, and either post it here or netmail it to me.  I'll be more than
happy to pass it along to the other net and get a response back for you.  Be
sure to include the reasons for your opinion, and perhaps something about
yourself so they know who they are talking to.

 BC> document is cute fiction

I don't see that at all.  Just because a couple of "pet theories" might be
contradicted, is no reason to discount an entire very detailed history.

 BC> I would not want to quote any of it to my friends.

Sorry, but that is exactly what I wanted to do...

Msg#:20152 *AVIATION*
01/04/92 20:29:32 (Read 0 Times)
From: ALBERT DOBYNS
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 20053 (RE: SR-71)
True!!	And you can't beat an offer to sit in the cockpit!  Maybe I could get a
chance to check out the tail fins' material.  If some kind of composites were
used I assume it would be bonded to a titanium frame. Possibly they used the
same non-metallic material they used to fill in the sawtooth leading edges.  I
read in one of my books that something called Kingfish or Kingfisher was
proposed.  It was to be built from mostly pyroceramic material (I think that's
the term used).  Also was supposed to go faster than the Blackbirds by a
significant margin.

Msg#:19790 *AVIATION*
01/03/92 15:53:11 (Read 1 Times)
From: PAUL STAHL
  To: ALBERT DOBYNS (Rcvd)
Subj: AIRPARK INFO!
 > the info on which ones are at the Airpark!  I've updated my list to
 > show 2 SR-71s as maybe being in storage at Palmdale.  I plan to call
 > them next week to see if someone there can tell me for sure if those
 > 2 (or any others) are in storage.  One of the latest books on the

That would probly be the best guess for where those two are.  Seems like it
wouldn't be any secret to identify where all of them are.  BTW has the AF
offically owned up to building only 32 SR's????  If they haven't then that
might be part of your problem in finding out where they all are.

 > That info you mentioned about the Airpark's SR-71 being retired due
 > to overtressed structure is an interesting bit of info!!  I wonder
 > how it happened and who the crew were.  I saw a reference in another

The volunteer that was on duty when I was there didn't know, in fact the guy
hadn't even worked on them....but that info was on there fact sheet..so maybe a
little probing will get an answer.

 > number of the Airpark for me.  I should call them and see if they take
 > long distance orders. :-)

At the Airpark itself, they didn't have any souvieneer items for sale, but
since it is an extension of the AFFTC Museum at Edwards.....I would imange that
they would have something to satisfy your plastic.

I'll be getting the pictures tomarrow......if it doesn't snow.....we're due for
two storms back to back thru Monday and the promise of snow is there....BTW an
inch or two of snow paralizes this valley..its just not that common and nobody
knows how to drive in it.

Msg#:20471 *AVIATION*
01/05/92 18:36:07 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 18735 (RE: OX)
Dean, since I reply in real time, and did not bother to capture all of the
document (though I read it page by page on the screen) I will only pick on one
error. The author made mention of the lack of second cockpit on the A-12 due to
a "larger camera" installed than was installed on the SR-71.
	First, the large camera bay, used most often for a wide angle Itek and
other such cameras.  The nose on the SR-71 is detachable, and there were at
least 6 different nose sensor/camera combinations available.  The aft sensor
bays were located off the centor line of the fuselage, three on each side.
	Second, the aft bay in the A-12 was used as an equipment bay since the
earlier internal structure of the craft did not allow as much room elsewhere in
the fuselage.  There was no second person (RSO), except in the two drone
carrying ships (sometimes referred to as M-12's) where the aft bay was equipped
with a cockpit for the drone launch officer.
	Third.	The internal structure of both the A-12 and SR-71 would not
allow a camera sufficiently large that the aft bay was used for at least part
of it.
	Fourth, I have flown high altitude photo missions with a variety of
very large format cameras (9 x 9 negative and larger).	None required more than
three feet of vertical space or two feet square of horizontal space at the film
magazine.
	I appreciate your effort to pass on what seemed to be a neat,
declassified document.	But it is not completely accurate - there are
significant flaws which would not have been placed into such a document written
by anyone connected in any way with the original OXCART program.  Unless it was
written as deliberate disinformation to release to the other side.  And I doubt
that as it's language sounds like someone trying to write like a government
agency rather than the agency itself preparing the material.
	Rather it sounds like someone who has read alot about the early A-12
program and filling in details that they assume no one will be able to
contradict.  Some of us are.
	If you can obtain the original document which was used to enter the
material in the first place I will take some time and point out other errors,
but that would probably be counter productive.
	I'm not, by the way, pot shotting at you, just the document.

Msg#:20618 *AVIATION*
01/05/92 09:24:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: FRANK WALTERS
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 20471 (RE: OX)
BC> most of it sounds like an amateur on the aircraft making up stuff to sound
BC> neat.

DA> Well... i'm sure you know I don't agree.  Everything I read leads me to
DA> believe it is all very accurate.

Dean, as you may recall, I was skeptical about the OXCART message from the very
beginning.  But it stemmed from the innacurate security classification, not
anything within the message itself.  I'm not a Blackbird expert but I do know
that (C) stands for 'Confidential', not 'Classified', when found at the
beginning of a paragraph.

Here in the AVIATION echo over the past few years, I have found that Bob
Cadwalader has been extremely reliable in his comments on the A-12/YF-12/SR-71
series.  His message to you tended to enforce my own doubts as to the
authenticity of the OXCART messages.  You may be entirely correct about it, but
I would suggest that a little healthy skepticism might be in order until its
veracity can be established. i.e.  I wouldn't make any substantial wagers based
on anything I read in the OXCART file.

Msg#:22018 *AVIATION*
01/06/92 23:37:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: FRANK WALTERS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 20618 (RE: OX)
 FW> But it stemmed from the innacurate security classification, not anything
 FW> within the message itself.

Right, that WAS an error, but like I said before that "definition" section
was NOT a part of the actual OXCART history document...

 FW> His message to you tended to enforce my own doubts

Except as you said, your "doubts" had nothing to do with the actual text.

 FW> You may be entirely correct about it, but I would suggest that a little
 FW> healthy skepticism might be in order until its veracity can be established.

I am always "skeptical" about such things, but I have seen quite a few reasons
not to feel that way in this case.  I've passed on some of that info...  In a
way I think the text speaks for itself.  The main thing though, is that I have
yet to see anyone post any kind of serious rebuttal to it...  I'd certainly
like to hear one.

Msg#:22530 *AVIATION*
01/07/92 22:16:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BOB CADWALADER
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 22018 (RE: OX)
 BC> one error.  The author made mention of the lack of second cockpit on the
 BC> A-12 due to a "larger camera" installed than was installed on the SR-71.

Here is that paragraph:

>The stated mission of the SR-71 was to conduct "post-strike reconnaissance,"
>that is, to look the enemy situation over after a nuclear exchange.  The
>likelihood of using the aircraft in the capacity hardly appeared great, but
>SR-71 was of course also capable of ordinary intelligence missions.  For these
>purposes, however, the OXCART possessed certain clear advantages.  It carried
>only one man, and largely for this reason it had room for a much bigger and
>better camera, as well as for various other collection devices which at the
>time could not be carried by the SR-71.  It was certainly the most effective

All that is saying, is that since it only has a single pilot, all the other
space, systems, and weight considerations could be devoted to the mission
rather than a second crew position.  It did not actually say that the second
cockpit was replaced with a camera.

 BC> First, the large camera bay, used most often for a wide angle Itek and
 BC> other such cameras.  The nose on the SR-71 is detachable, and there were
 BC> at least 6 different nose sensor/camera combinations available.

The ones I have seen mentioned were the 'dummy' nose with just ballast, an OBC
(optical bearing camera), and an SLR (side looking radar)...  I'd think that
most ELINT sensors would have gone in the side bays.

 BC> the aft bay in the A-12 was used as an equipment bay since the earlier
 BC> internal structure of the craft did not allow as much room elsewhere
 BC> in the fuselage.

And with only a single pilot, there would more room for such things, which is
what the text said...

 BC> There was no second person (RSO), except in the two drone carrying
 BC> ships (sometimes referred to as M-12's) where the aft bay was equipped
 BC> with a cockpit for the drone launch officer.

Quite right...

 BC> it is not completely accurate - there are significant flaws which would
 BC> not have been placed into such a document written by anyone connected
 BC> in any way with the original OXCART program.

Well, i'm sure the person who wrote it was not.  It was a historical summary,
and such things are often written by people going through various source
material and other records.

 BC> Unless it was written as deliberate disinformation to release to the
 BC> other side.

I can't imagine what purpose there would be for "disinformation" about a
20-year old program...

 BC> Rather it sounds like someone who has read alot about the early A-12
 BC> program and filling in details that they assume no one will be able to
 BC> contradict.

I think the extreme detail and factual content make that very unlikely.

 BC> Some of us are.

I was hoping for something a little more.  All you really had here was about
the "second cockpit" thing, which was not exactly in conflict with the text.

 BC> If you can obtain the original document which was used to enter the
 BC> material in the first place I will take some time and point out other
 BC> errors, but that would probably be counter productive.

I don't think so, i'd like to hear it.  BUT, the text you saw was VERY
carefully typed in -exactly- like the original.  What you got would have been
no different from the hard copy.  Jim Sanders has said the complete text is
now available from his BBS, so why not get a copy there and have another look
at it.	The way I originally received it, the text was all entered a single
page at a time in 25 installments.  It was arduously typed in over several
weeks and distributed page by page via the skunk works mailing list on the
Internet.  By eliminating all the page breaks, I was able to squeeze the text
into a more Fido-compatible format.

Msg#:20472 *AVIATION*
01/05/92 18:38:23 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: JODY WEBER
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 20131 (RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST)
Jody, while I am glad that NASA will be flying some airvcraft, I temper that
with the memory of NASA breaking two of the four aircraft they had in their
hands some years ago.  I am personally not overly impressed with the quality
of NASA pilots.  SOme are good, some are mediocre and some are very poor pilots
indeed.

Msg#:23553 *AVIATION*
01/09/92 17:24:41 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: GARY VETETO
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 22530 (OX)
 GV > I think I still have some old TDY orders with "Senior Crown" stamped on
 GV > them. Want a copy?

I posed a question.  Rather than sending me a copy of your orders, if you would
tell me your understanding of what "Senior Crown" and "Senior Crown Security
Class Guide" is, it would be helpful.  If you have those orders handy, you
might re-check for that stamp  though.	I was not aware that was put on orders.

 GV > Lighten up, Gary Veteto

My attempts at humor regarding a document were too heavy for you?  Sorry, but I
don't think it warrants your issuing me personal orders.  Your arguments were
not enough to convince me that THE document is of US Govt origin.  I feel even
more certain that it is not a former CIA document or of CIA origin.

Msg#:23554 *AVIATION*
01/09/92 17:25:35 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: ROBERT FIELDS
Subj: OX S(OMETHING?)?
 RF > ...You say no reputable book published the story. Motorbooks
 RF > seems to think it existed......

The story I referred to was "(S) THE OXCART STORY by Thomas P. McIninch", a
"CIA declassified document".  Are you saying Motorbooks published this
document?

Msg#:23555 *AVIATION*
01/09/92 17:26:43 (Read 1 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: ALBERT DOBYNS (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 23554 (OX S(OMETHING?)?)
 AD > I'm checking with someone I know in Wash,DC who is going to
 AD > see if he can find out it the OXCART document is truly a
 AD > declassified CIA document.

 ---- In a later message ---- :
 AD > My source says info that is tagged as top secret isn't
 AD > downgraded to unclassified directly.  It has to have been
 AD > downgraded to secret or lower before it can be reduced to
 AD > unclassified level. No wonder we never saw any (T)s!!! :)

That would not be applicable in this case according to the quotes from document
presented here.  Did your source comment on the questionable classifications?
It was like someone was in a hurry and used a "salt shaker" of Cs, Us, Ss and
we see result.	Public award ceremonies classified Secret?

What did your source say about "Senior Crown"?  Had he ever heard of it?  Did
he tell you that it is not a US Govt security classification like Secret, Top
Secret, Crypto etc.?  Did he tell you it read unlike any Government document
he'd ever seen?

Msg#:24014 *AVIATION*
01/10/92 14:37:14 (Read 0 Times)
From: ALBERT DOBYNS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 23555 (OX S(OMETHING?)?)
Well, perhaps I mislead you that my source has seen the document.  As far as I
know he hasn't seen it.  I gave him info that was contained in the front..
author's name (which I'm sure isn't his real name), title and a discussion
about each paragraph having a security code.  In a later conversation I told
him about the part that said Senior Crown and the line that starts with DON:.
I haven't talked with him since so I don't have any new info for you yet.

Msg#:24793 *AVIATION*
01/11/92 02:01:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 24014 (RE: OX S(OMETHING?)?)
In a message to Robert Fields, on 09 Jan 92 (17:25), you said:
 RF >> ...You say no reputable book published the story.  Motorbooks seems
 RF >> to think it existed......

 BH> The story I referred to was "(S) THE OXCART STORY by Thomas P. McIninch",
 BH> a "CIA declassified document".  Are you saying Motorbooks published this
 BH> document?

Aviation Week published a short excerpt from it...

Msg#:24794 *AVIATION*
01/11/92 06:01:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 23553 (RE: OX)
 BH> Public award ceremonies classified Secret?

If they are awards for classified missions, and the event was conducted at
Groom Lake, then i'd say they might be.  When the text in question contains a
list of CIA pilot's names who are being awarded for their intelligence service,
then i'd say it HAS to be classified.  Don't you see that?

 BH> What did your source say about "Senior Crown"?  Had he ever heard of it?
 BH> Did he tell you that it is not a US Govt security classification like
 BH> Secret, Top Secret, Crypto etc.?

Senior Crown is NOT a "classification", is a security clearance access list.
Security clearances are divided into two parts; the classification level
like Secret, and the access list, like Senior Crown.  You must have both
to read certain documents.  The validity of this designation has been
confirmed repeatedly by many people with the ability to know, including the
connection to the Blackbird program...

Msg#:24818 *AVIATION*
01/11/92 09:50:20 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 24794 (OX)
Bill, every once in a while we end up on the same side of an argument.
  Bob the Pilot
 * Origin: Harvester Balitmore HST (410) 828-4572 (8:7001/2)

Msg#:24897 *AVIATION*
01/11/92 09:23:45 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 24818 (OX)
 Dean, since you tend to take things in my messages out of context let's try
again.	I did not capture the "OXCART" document - I read it as it ran past
screen by screen.  I recall in detail only the one commment about cameras. It
is false.  The A-12 did not have sufficient load capability that the loss of a
single pilot with associated ejection seat would have made a significant
difference in onboard equipment.  In fact the A-12's load carrying ability was
markedly lower than that of the SR-71, as was the internal load SPACE.
   There was no place in the A-12 for a "much bigger and better camera" - no
matter who you did away with.
   The document gives no comment on the most serious shortfall of the A-12 -
the pilot workload.  With less sophisticated instrumentation as well as a lack
of shockwave sensors and automatic spike movement controllers, the A-12 was an
extremely demanding aircraft to fly - so much so that it was nearly impossible
for the pilot to fly AND operatce the surveillance gear.  That single factor,
as much or more than any other item, grounded the fleet as soon as the SR-71
was operational.
   Back to the camera - I quote the "OXCART" document - "It carried only one
man, and largely for this reason it had room for a much bigger and better
camera."  Not weight, but "room". Not so. All ELINT, SIGINT, etc., bays aft of
the detachable nose are well to one side or the other of the center line of the
aircraft.  The Nose is the location for any large cameras - not any space left
by taking out another man.
   As for extreme detail and factual content - since much of the factual
content was false or distorted, and the rest available from other sources (such
as Lockheed build lists, and the like) (remember how the Navy was upset when
Tom Clancy's "Hunt For Red October" seemed to indicate security leaks) I don't
believe that this is a legitimate document.
   I don't really want to start another peeing match here, you think the
document is good, I think it reeks.  So what.  Nice talking to you.
   Bob the Pilot

Msg#:24898 *AVIATION*
01/11/92 09:37:33 (Read 0 Times)
From: BOB CADWALADER
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 23946 (RE: BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST)
 Dean, try to read my messages more clearly so that I don't waste time
explaining them when I reply.  I replied to a message commenting that NASA had
received three SR-71's.  The SUBJECT: was (and is) BLACKBIRD LOSS LIST.  I
commented that NASA had broken two of the four aircraft they had in their hands
some years ago.  I assumed that most readers would be able to follow the thread
and realize that I was speaking of the BLACKBIRD aircraft.
   In fact I was.  NASA took the three YF-12's (serial numbers 60-6934 through
60-6936) on lease as well as the sole (and as I have noted before, phoney)
YF-12C.  This latter aircraft was the second SR-71 built and it was
significantly lightened through removel of a number of items of military
hadware.  It was also given a phoney serial number, 60-6937, which duplicated
an A-12 already in storage at Palmdale at the time.
   Because of the lighter weight of the YF-12C it was capable of slightly
higher speeds than the YF-12 or SR-71 at a slightly higher altitude.  Remember
that the A-12's could cruise at roughly Mach 3.6 at a max altitude of roughly
93,000 feet (when down on fuel and even lighter) while the SR-71's were
restricted to Mach 3.4 with an operating altitude of roughly 87,000 feet.
   The NASA managed to break two of the three YF-12's, although 6934 was
partially salvaged as the rear half of "The Bastard", an SR-71B which was half
YF-12 and half engineering mockup.
   The sole YF-12C was returned to the USAF after the test series by the NASA
and was put into storage at Palmdale.
   Bob the Pilot

Msg#:19542 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:41:11 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: OX
 DA > Still won't accept it, eh?
 Seven weeks ago you started posting messages regarding a document
 you claimed was a declassified US Govt CIA document.  I do not recall
 any supporting evidence.  Soon you posted a reproduction claimed to
 be "EXACTLY as on the official report" and obtained from "someone"
 on a private, college? net.  For proof, you refer to "some people on
 the Internet", "some people who should know", "people with the
 ability to know", "people connected with setting up the A-12/D21
 exhibit", "person who has the same clearance", "reputable people",
 "interested parties", "reliable person's","several sources confirm",
 "many different and credible sources".  For this to be valid, your
 judgement must be relied on.  Since you have not mentioned having
 years of personal experience with US Govt, Govt documents, US Govt
 classification procedures, USAF, DoD etc, nor any other expertise
 that would make your judgement more reliable than many others on
 this echo, I don't think you should expect everyone here to accept
 your judgement..right or wrong..when you haven't even seen document.

 Without seeing a real COPY of the document, you say the electronic
 reproduction is "-exactly- like the original.  What you got would
 have been no different from the hard copy."  You have no first hand
 knowledge to make that statement.... and it is incorrect.  As the
 first person I questioned about this document said, "You can not
 judge it by an electronic reproduction.  Let me send you a copy and
 you'll see what I mean.  It is evident it is not a CIA document."
 He was correct.

 I raised several questions, knowing enough of the answers to feel
 anyone who found answer would see it was not CIA/Govt document.
 No/bogus answers was all I got.  By this time, I had expected your
 "source" to confess knowingly trying to add glamor, mystery, and
 drama by deliberate mis-labelling it as a declassified CIA document
 authored by a CIA writer.  I don't know his name but I was told it
 could only have been one of two people.  One is KNOWN for his
 sensationalism......sorta like supermarket tabloids.  I was told
 "....they both know it was NOT a CIA or US government document."

 Everyone has their special interests and their own idea of who
 or what they want to believe.	Some would rather trust astrology
 (hi Nancy), an actor, sci-fi writers, etc. than the dull scientific,
 engineering, or operating personnel.  I would hope that on echoes
 like Legal, Science, Aviation, etc., the focus would be different
 than on Debate, UFO, Trek, Witchcraft, Occult, SciFi type echoes.
 I had never heard of Jim Goodland but you evidently respect him as
 an authority.	He caters to a different type following than those
 who would be interested in Ben Rich's (future) book on Lockheed's
 activities.  If I get him to tell you that the document was a
 Lockheed internal document, will you believe him?

 Jim has provided information and photographs for some books but I
 don't know extent of his published WRITINGS.  Personally I am more
 impressed by the only real writer/author we have on this echo that
 I am aware of........Bob Cadwalader.  He writes aviation columns for
 periodical and is respected for his opinions and knowledge by those
 who know him.	I think you could profit from respecting him more.  I
 feel you are well-intentioned but have little evidence to support
 your position and certainly no reason to personally attack those
 who disagree with your opinion of the origin/accuracy of "ox" doc.

Msg#:19543 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:42:21 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: ALL
Subj: OX
 ----- Part 1 of 2 -----
 Dean Adams posted messages in early December about a supposed CIA
 declassified document known as "The Oxcart Story" by Thomas P.
 McIninch, a purported CIA writer/author.  Dean posted a claimed
 "verbatim transcript" but it did not include everything written,
 typed, stamped, or printed on the paper in addition to what he
 posted here.  For instance, some omissions (not all) are:

     (1) Imprinted in italics "Record of a pioneering achievement"
	 on first page.  As one might expect in a PR document
     (2) Imprinted in italics "Oxcart" on all pages but 1st.
     (3) 1st page stamped with Lockheed name and address.
     (4) All of the (S), (U), etc. are handwritten additions.
     (5) Control document stamp and blanks filled in as mentioned
	 but date was 15 Dec 1986.
     (6) Classification stamp iaw.  "CLASSIFICATION GUIDE, 25 MAY 87"
	 (appears classified 1986 iaw instruction guide dated 1987)
     (7) Highest classification Secret (not Top Secret as suggested)
     (8) Stamp saying declassified 2/25/91 iaw guide dated 11/1/89.
     (9) Pages appear originally (typed) numbered 25-29 but ink
	 renumbered with circled 1-25

 I have made inquiries of various people including personnell at CIA,
 Lockheed, museums, etc.  Only one expressed the CIA document theme.
 When asked why, it seems it was an ASSUMPTION because CIA was once
 involved.  That person contacted his "expert" who also had made an
 ASSUMPTION only.  Today, this is best scenario I can put together
 based on evidence I received.	Part is fact, part is educated guess.
 Throw rocks if you like but I'm going to make it hard for you by
 not identifying which is which.  Aim and fire at your own risk.

 Once upon a time a very few people were engaged in a secret A-12
 project.  CIA had an input in conjunction with DoD, USAF, Lockheed.
 Project name = Oxcart, 1957-1968.  The SR-71 project was a separate
 program with its own name issued by USAF.  That name was "Senior
 Crown", 1962-1991.  Normal security procedure, even with a Top
 Secret personal security clearance is that you don't see even
 Confidential documents unless you have an authorized "need to know".

 Project name "Senior Crown" was not a level of security but merely
 says the info is related to SR-71 project.  A "Senior Crown"
 authorization was needed to see any classified project documents
 and even then, an engine man might not be allowed access to wing,
 landing gear, control system, etc. documents/info.

Msg#:19544 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:43:18 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: ALL
Subj: OX
 ----- Part 2 of 2 -----
 Sometime between 1968-1986, a Lockheed VIP ordered a "history" of
 all projects be written and put together in one reference volume.
 The A-12 project was given to a middle aged PR guy, McIninch, whose
 knowledge of aviation was questionable.  Once "The Oxcart Story"
 was complete, it was put in loose leaf notebook with all other
 project "histories".  It was not classified iaw any system.  Appeared
 same as any unclassified document if you picked it up.

 In 1986, all heck broke loose over Lockheed's handling of classified
 material.  DoD and USAF all over Lockheed.  A crash program to get
 all documents cataloged, classified, and access controlled.  Single
 volume "Project Histories" book had to be broken up into individual
 documents and classified iaw guidelines associated with the specific
 project.  Someone took "Oxcart Story" and decided to put it under
 "Senior Crown" (SR-71) and classify/control iaw that guide.  Then
 someone scanned the "new" 25 page document and put (U), (C), or (S)
 where he thought appropriate, probably in haste, since control
 date in 1986 and instructions were dated in 1987.

 When SR-71 project ended, a lot of extra parts and pieces were sold
 through USAF surplus procedures.  As A-12/SR-71s were sent to various
 sites there was a flood of requests for data, pictures, blueprints,
 manuals, and anything else pertaining to "Blackbirds".  Most of data
 was declassified and that included "Oxcart Story".  Lockheed was
 overwhelmed and hired a retired employee to search for things for
 PR etc. to give away.	One of items was the 25 page ox document.  The
 proper way would have been to retype but that would have taken more
 time and money.  It was copied and at least 6,000 handed out all
 over US as a Lockheed document.

 I could not find anyone at Lockheed that would vouch for accuracy of
 contents nor exact job of McIninch, who is no longer around.  I was
 told to take everything in it with a grain of salt......a suggestion
 Frank Walters also made, long ago.  There are places where it appears
 author did not understand what he was talking about or he would
 never have said what he did nor left out what he did.	This is giving
 benefit of doubt that it was an honest attempt to be a history.

 I was assured by CIA personnel that it was not their document.  Had
 it been, it would have been marked, controlled, classified, etc. in
 a different manner according to different procedures.

Msg#:19545 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:44:18 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
  To: ALBERT DOBYNS
Subj: OX
 My opinion or best info on several points you have raised:
 ( 1) Never saw a TRADE-A-PLANE ad but surplus A-12/SR-71 project
      surplus parts, equipment, etc. were put in normal USAF
      disposal system for surplus public auction.
 ( 2) If your friend in Washington is familiar with CIA procedures
      and understands "Senior Crown" use, he will know document
      is not US Govt or CIA...........or should.
 ( 3) The lack of Top Secret marked paragraphs as nothing to do
      with your "source"'s info.  "Ox" was never classified by US
      Govt.  A "clerk" at Lockheed wrote (S), (U), (C), where he
      wanted to.  He couldn't spell (TS) (and wasn't authorized).
 ( 4) AD > don't see why the AF won't release some more of them.
      This project was over 23+ years ago and Lockheed wanted PR.
      There were political pressures for release of SR-71 data
      since airplanes were now being given to public.  Different.
 ( 5) AD > [talked to] Jim Goodall....He has also seen the document
      AD > when it was not stamped although the person who showed
      AD > Jim the document had a letter from the CIA that the
      AD > document was declassified......Jim is working on two more
      AD > Blackbird books.  One will be mostly text and will
      AD > incorporate the CIA document.

      Albert, this prompted me to call Jim a couple weeks ago because
      it sounded like he had solid evidence.  He told me he had ASSUMED
      it was a Govt CIA document because of CIA involvement in program
      etc.  I asked him to confirm the existence of any letter from
      the CIA regarding the classifying/declassifying of document.
      He denied knowledge of any such letter.  I read your statement
      to him.  Jim said you must have misunderstood him.  He remembered
      telling you Dennis Sullivan had told him of seeing document
      without any classified markings but nothing about a letter.
      He confirmed he had planned to include document in a book but
      was now questioning origin and would investigate.

 About a week ago, Jim Goodall called me back and said he was
 determined to find McIninch and determine true origin of document.
 No one has gone to trouble yet to check each and every point in
 document and probably never will.  Jim told me who he contacted at
 Lockheed to get REAL TRUTH.  That person told Jim that he had also
 just always ASSUMED it was a CIA document.  I found some humor in
 that because that individual was one of a group at Lockheed that
 confirmed to me that it WAS NOT a CIA document but only an in house
 Lockheed document.  Jim says he is determined to get answers and
 will let me know when he has results.	I appreciate your posting the
 contact and figure maybe "ox believers" will believe one of their
 revered? if he says its not a US Govt/CIA document.  Jim said he
 didn't remember any "ox" mention of Doolittle at first flight
 and thought it worth mentioning in a "history".

Msg#:23999 *AVIATION*
01/31/92 22:33:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: RE: OXCART
* Forwarded from: le01167@portal.decnet.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
* Originally to:  Dean Adams

After reading your note by this Hodges character, I went straight to the
horse's mouth, and sent your communications with Hodges to a personal friend
of mine who, as a young engineer, personally worked on OXCART and Crown
projects and was close with Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich (still is), this
person has also had a chance to read the OXCART mailings.  No longer with
the Skunk Works, this person is, however, still with Lockheed.	This is a
completely reliable source.  To give you an indication of this sources's
placement: when "all heck broke loose" (to quote Hodges) this person was
CO-LEADER of that entire investigation effort (I worked with this individual
at that time so I know it's true).  Some interesting information on that
subject refutes Hodges, as you will see.  Another contradiction: Hodges says
of the A-12 program that the CIA "had input", according to my source, they
were the CUSTOMER!    Ron Nadel, Lockheed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To  : Ron Nadel
Subj: OXCART and CROWN

First, the original A-12 Program had an internal and a customer code name.
The customer was the CIA, the same as the origninal customer for the U-2.  The
customer code name was Oxcart.	The internal (Lockheed) name was Arc Angel,
which is where the "A" came from (the U-2's were called Angel).  When the Air
Force got into the business,it was decided that a 2-place aircraft was needed.
This lead to the development of the SR-71, which was supposed to be called RS
for recon-strike.  The AF program evolved with time into a Top Secret program,
while the A-12 remained very "Black".  Many classified Air Force programs are
given code names that begin with "Senior",and the SR became the "Senior Crown"
Program.  The U-2's had the code name "Senior Year".  Most often, programs that
were non-AF or other military, and/or were prototypes/demonstrators, etc.,
were given different type code names.  Hence, Oxcart.

In the late 60's, we at Lockheed were told to destroy anything that told about
the A-12's -- they "didn't ever exist".  In fact, when the program was grounded
the aircraft were seceretly stored in a building in Palmdale where they
remained for many years until the agency admitted to their existance.

Regarding the "all heck" breaking loose over Lockheed's handling of classified
documents in 1986, that had nothing to do with the A-12's.  It was a result of
some "old" methods for accounting/destroying documents (that were acceptable
to the "old" agency-type customers) that were still being used but did not
comply with DoD regulations.  The whole deal blew up during a probe by the
Dingle committee, and actually put our Chairman, Larry Kitchen, on the stand
before the committee in Washington D.C.  We had to dig into lots and lots of
old stuff, do lots of research to see what happened to certain documents that
did not have official "destroyed" records, etc., and go thru EVERYTHING wall
to wall.  Dingle did not know anything about the A-12's, and the internal
searches and investigations did not turn up anything about the A-12's.
I OUGHT TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THIS DEAL, AS THE EFFORT WAS CALLED THE
"CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, (CAP)" AND I WAS CO-LEADER OF THAT EFFORT!!!

From my perspective, the question of whether or not the "document" in question
is an official CIA piece or not if of little interest.	Lots of the stuff done
in the early days for that customer was done in a very low key, minimal
documentation, low visibility sort of way.  In fact, sub contractors for
Lockheed were known as Company X, etc., and we had special non-Lockheed
telephones (internally) that were to be answered "hello" only.  We had mailing
addresses that were non-Lockheed.  We travelled as non-Lockheed.  There were
no real regulations or restrictions regarding "allowable" expenses, and things
were paid into and out of special and private accounts.  The aircraft were
built without virtually any of todays "checks and balances" and rather
excessive oversight and reports.  Basically, the agency just cut a deal with
Kelly to produce the things at a certain price, dropped off the money, and
asked to be called when they were ready......simple and efficient.

So, as I said, it may be difficult to tell whether this was an "official"
document of the agency, or some form of internal document, or whatever.
But, for the most part, the information seems quite accurate.  I was there.

Msg#:24000 *AVIATION*
01/31/92 22:40:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 23999 (RE: OXCART)
* Forwarded from: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith)
* Originally to:  Dean Adams

The CIA nature of the document was my opinion after considering the tone of the
document and the standpoint from which it is written.  I might be wrong that it
is a CIA document.  Ben Rich also told me that it was a CIA document.

Lets approach this from two standpoints:

1. Use names (because I'm willing to use hard names that any of you can
   verify).  I have used HARD names up to this point.  I intend to continue
   to do so.  Why not, this stuff is declassified and it's a very positive
   success story.  Also use document names/nos.
2. Lets go after facts reported in the document.  Lets not say "a Friend
   says this section is wrong".  I think you should say, this section is
   wrong.  Here is the truth.  And optimally, here is the name of the guy
   that says it's wrong, and why he knows what he's talking about.  We can
   then call him and verify.  Or the document source that comflicts with
   OXCART History along with document nos.

We might find sections of the document that are wrong, but that still doesn't
say the whole document is wrong.  If we find lots of sections that are wrong,
then I would agree the document is suspect.  This shouldn't be hard to verify
because the document reports lots of previously unknown factual information.
For instance, the names of the original OXCART Test Pilots is mentioned.  This
should be easy to verify.  Some of these guys are probably still living.

Also there DOES appear to be several different versions of this document.  The
one I have has all the security stamps on it.  Other versions have been sent
to aviation authors.  These versions are devoid of the classification stamps,
but best that I've been able to determine so far, they say the same thing,
although I haven't been able to do a word-for-word comparison.

As far as it being evident that when one reads the real manuscript or a copy
thereof, that the document is obviously not CIA, please inform me how this is
so obvious?  I am not aware of the standards by which CIA documents are judged
authentic.  Any help in this matter would be appreciated.  You still have to
read the document though and judge for yourself what standpoint the document
is written from. IMHO, it is written from a CIA perspective.  I might be wrong.

 BH> those who would be interested in Ben Rich's (future) book on Lockheed's
 BH> activities.  If I get him to tell you that the document was a Lockheed
 BH> internal document, will you believe him?

Well lets have Ben Rich be the authority.  He claimed that it was real and
that it was a CIA history.  I not only was there, but he was talking to me.
Because I dove across the room when I saw him waving the document.  I wanted
to know from him whether it was authentic.  Gen. Doug Nelson USAF (ret) also
wanted to know if it was authentic.  Ben was answering him and me.  So there's
another name for you!

 BH> Only one expressed the CIA document theme.  When asked why, it seems
 BH> it was an ASSUMPTION because CIA was once involved.

As I said above, it was my opinion after reading the position of the document.
Just read the document and what it says about the SR-71!  The position of the
document is from a pro-CIA position, IMHO.  Also as stated earlier, Ben Rich
said it was a CIA history.  Forget all other sources.  I'm giving you a BIG
source here.  Just photocopy the cover page and write him a letter via
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Div.  Very easy to do!

 BH> Today, this is best scenario I can put together based on evidence I
 BH> received.	Part is fact, part is educated guess.  Throw rocks if you like
 BH> but I'm going to make it hard for you by not identifying which is which.

Well this is NOT a very good way to argue!  I am willing to argue with:
1. Hard Names
2. I'll indicate my opinion where it is my opinion because I WANT the
   collective intelligence of the enthusiasts on skunk.works to analyse this.
   I'm not the only mind that's interested in this.  The collective thoughts
   of everyone on skunk.works that has something to say here is VERY valuable!
   I want analysis of this to occurr.  But lets not call analysis FACT.  The
   CIA doesn't even do this!
3. Where I find out statements made by 'experts' I will indicate that as so
   and I will use their names.	I won't argue someones point that won't let me
   use his/her name.  The UFO people do this and it means next to nothing!
   You get nowhere with this!

If we have to figure which of your statements are your opinions and which are
fact I think we should ignore you!

Msg#:24001 *AVIATION*
01/31/92 22:57:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
  To: BILL HODGES
Subj: RE: OXCART <CON'T>
* Forwarded from: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith)
* Originally to:  Dean Adams

 BH> Sometime between 1968-1986, a Lockheed VIP ordered a "history" of
 BH> all projects be written and put together in one reference volume.
 BH> The A-12 project was given to a middle aged PR guy, McIninch, whose
 BH> knowledge of aviation was questionable.

Again let's speak from the facts of the document.  Let's not accuse Mr McIninch
of being middle-aged and therefore wrong (is that what you were implying?),
and of being incompetent without HARD opposing facts.  So just where is Mr.
McIninch's errors?  Lets hear where in OXCART History he is incorrect.  What
are your sources sir!

 BH> Lockheed was overwhelmed and hired a retired employee to search for
 BH> things for PR etc. to give away. One of items was the 25 page ox
 BH> document. The proper way would have been to retype but that would have
 BH> taken more time and money. It was copied and at least 6,000 handed out
 BH> all over US as a Lockheed document.

Retired employee is Ben Rich!  Ben and other Lockheed Blackbird veterans are
helping more than one museum with their SR-71 or A-12 restoration or D-21
drone procurement.  This comes from Mark Smith SMOF A-12 exhibit curator.
If you don't believe me, call him.

 BH> I could not find anyone at Lockheed that would vouch for accuracy of
 BH> contents nor exact job of McIninch, who is no longer around.

Two points.
1. Where did the Lockheed employees say the document is wrong?
2. I think I can say that a Lockheed employee usually tells you nothing.
We have several on this mail list who are Black project types and they are
very uninformative.  Why is this?  Because they are working or have worked
Black Programs and they're not about to tell you anything over the phone or
the Net.  They are used to not telling people anything about what they do.
Others like them will outright lie about what they do!	Not because they're
bad people, but because they're trying to protect classified information.
This is the nature of the world in which this stuff goes on.

However when you have high-up Black World types like Ben Rich or even Keith
Beswick talking about OXCART and M-12 history, then you listen because you
know that information has been approved for release and these guys are the
dissemination vehicles for some of it.

I suppose that Ben Rich could give out a bogus document for disinformation
purposes, but if that's the case, then I give up!  Because at that point we've
all had it in terms of what can be believed and what can't!

 BH> I was told to take everything in it with a grain of salt.	There are
 BH> places where it appears author did not understand what he was talking
 BH> about or he would never have said what he did nor left out what he did.

Well we need specific places where McIninch is wrong, or I would suggest
that your comments be ignored.	Sorry!	We need why it's wrong as well!

 BH> I was assured by CIA personnel that it was not their document. Had
 BH> it been, it would have been marked, controlled, classified, etc. in
 BH> a different manner according to different procedures.

Well, we'll find out.  Because I sent the first 3 pages of the document to
CIA asking for more information on the Lockheed A-1 thru A-11 GUSTO
proposals AND the Convair GUSTO proposals.  I also mentioned that I was told
this was their history and I offered them a complete copy of the document
should they desire one. I've had a CIA FOIA about this going on since August
30, 1991.  My CIA FOIA number is: F91-1464.

I recently ammended it with the OXCART History.  Lets talk hard names, facts
that are wrong, and document nos.!