RADAR Development

[Robert McLean]

The gate was not manned. Steffen and I were on patrol and spoted the lights and reported them.

John, did you or Steffens see anything that appeared to fall down into the forest, or was it the radar reports that made people think that something may have crashed?

[robert]

[url][URL=http://imageshack.us][/url][/url]


Project Trust. Initially a Russian program as shown here. Later a joint Russian USA development in 1993 called project Trust.
Specifically designed to knock out Missiles and other low trajectory space junk.
Note the grid pattern on the ground,.The same grid pattern on the deck of the Ship. The receiver and the transmitter. The ELF grid radar would direct the EM pulse at the object and the plasma weapon would be guided alomg the radar beam that was locked on to the target.
Robert

[puddlepirate]

And a much earlier version of a similar thing used by the Luftwaffe in WW2: http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Tactics/X_gerat.php

[robert]

Interesting find Puddle. Particularly in that the Guy who invented or re invented the EM system was German and around in the 40's.

Below is the write up for the Drawing above. Previously mentioned in the Larry King string on the Rendlesham forum as well.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2545&catid=329

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=494&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=russian+EM&start=0

I would think prior to this joint co operation there would have been a lot of development work by the Boffins on both sides as soon as they were able to control the equipment with the advent of the computer and satellite technology of the late 70's, early 80's. Lets face it, as has been suggested, it was going to be a damn sight cheaper to use than knocking out the gear with ABMs and so would be of interest to everyone just from an economic point of view.
Robert

Plasma weapons

The Radio Instrument Building Research Institute under the supervision of Academician A. Avramenko developed a plasma weapon capable of killing any target at altitudes of up to 50 kilometers. Engineers and scientists of the institute in cooperation with the National Research Institute of Experimental Physics (Arzamas-16), Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, and Central Machine Building Research Institute prepared a concept of the international experiment Doverie (Trust) for testing of the Russian plasma weapon at the American ABM testing ground in the Pacific Ocean together with the US. The cost of the experiment was estimated at $300 million. According to Academician Avramenko, the plasma antimissile weapon would not only cost tens times less than the American SDI, but would also be much simpler in development and operation. The offered joint project could save expenditures on development of its own plasma weapon for the US. The plasmoid based on the energy of ground super-high frequency generators or laser (optical) generators creates an ionized territory in the trajectory of a warhead and in front of it, and completely disrupts the aerodynamics of the object's flight, after which a target leaves its trajectory and is ruined by monstrous overloads. The killing effect is delivered to the target at the speed of light. [..]

For practical purposes plasma weapons have already been created in Russia. Their action is based on focusing beams of electromagnetic energy produced by laser or microwave radiation into the upper layers of the atmosphere. These beams would be able to defeat any target flying at supersonic or near-sonic speeds in the near future. A cloud of highly ionized air arises at the focus of the laser or microwave rays, at an altitude of up to 50 kilometers. Upon entering it, any object--a missile, an airplane, is deflected from its trajectory and disintegrates in response to the fantastic overloads arising due to the abrupt pressure difference between the surface and interior of the flying body. What is fundamental in this case is that the energy aimed by the terrestrial components of the plasma weapon--lasers and antennas--is concentrated not at the target itself but a little ahead of it. Rather than "incinerating" the missile or airplane, it "bumps" it out of trajectory.


The press reported in very considerable detail on the April 1993 meeting of the presidents of the USA and Russia in Vancouver. But one thing remains not entirely clear: Had Boris Yeltsin proposed to his American friend the idea of carrying out the major experiment "Doveriye" ("Trust") in the vicinity of Kwajelein Atoll, initiating a joint effort to create a global antimissile defense system. It was not until summer of that year that 21ST CENTURY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, the well-informed journal of the American military-industrial complex, finally informed us that there had in fact been a conversation on this topic between the presidents. What did the politicians talk about? What kind of experiment is this?


Academician Ramiliy Avramenko, the chief designer of the Scientific Research Institute of Radio Instrument Making and the scientific director of the efforts to create plasma weapons in Russia, feels his brainchild--the plasmoid--to be invulnerable. Besides that, in his opinion plasma ABM weapons will not only cost several orders of magnitude less than SDI, but will also be many times simpler to create and control.

A plasmoid has a dual purpose. Such a unit can be used to "patch" ozone holes in the atmosphere, and to knock space garbage out of orbit.

According to dependable information our scientific proving ground has already conducted tests in which a projectile flying through plasma discharges was deflected from its normal trajectory and self-destructed.

Tests on a Russian plasma weapon run jointly with the USA against real targets--ballistic missiles and supersonic airplanes--were initiated by Russia's most prominent scientists--Nobel Prize recipient and creator of lasers Academician Aleksandr Prokhorov, Russian Academy of Sciences President Yuriy Osipov, and plasma researcher Academician Andrey Gaponov-Grekhov. That is the "Trust" experiment. Scientists from the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics at Arzamas-16, the Central Institute of Aerohydrodynamics, the Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building in Kaliningrad, in the Moscow vicinity, and the Scientific Research Institute of Radio Instrument Making took part in its development.

Russia would be able to deliver components of the plasma weapon to the USA's ABM test range in the Pacific: microwave generators and a few tens of thousands of phased arrays. The United States would supply its electronics and computers, in which it has the lead. The missiles could be launched both from our country and from American missile test ranges.

In the opinion of our scientists the experiment could cost around $300 million. This by the way is four orders of magnitude less than what was planned in the USA's budget for creation of its own plasma weapon. Russia doesn't have this kind of money now. That's why our country suggested to the United States back in 1993 that we join efforts to create a global ABM system. Experts also feel that were the USA to continue working on this problem on its own, the expenses would total $30 billion, with no firm certainty of success. As far as we know, Bill Clinton hasn't yet communicated with Boris Yeltsin regarding the "Trust" experiment. Possibly because the Russian plasma weapon is based on discoveries in several areas of science that are deeply developed in Russia but have not yet been sufficiently studied in the USA. And no politician or scientist likes to show his ignorance.

[puddlepirate]

That technology involving radio beams, advanced radars even experiments with magnetic forces (e.g. if true, the Philadelphia Experiment) has been part of weapons development since before WW2 is not disputed. The issue is how far advanced was that technology in Dec 1980. If it was sufficiently advanced to be used in a black op some kind, then would the operational theatre have been eastern Europe (for 'blue') or over East Anglia (for 'orange)....or neither of these, with East Anglia simply being drawn in by chance. In a spy vs spy scenario did blue shoot down something belonging to orange or vice versa. Given the fuss, I tentatively suggest that blue shot down something belonging to orange ((I use the term 'shot down' in a generic sense). And if that were the case, then what was it that blue did not want orange to see? Or was it simply a blue on blue proof of concept exercise where by simple misfortune the target happened to land in the forest? Although the symbols as noted by Sgt Penniston did not, apparently, conform to any known language perhaps they could have been Russian and were simply copied incorrectly due the stress of prevailing circumstances?

The best deceptions are usually based on elements of truth and with regard to the RFI we have elements of what is known to be true, what could be true and what is almost certainly false. Added to which is the controversy over the existence of an underground facility. There is no evidence that such a facility exists at Bentwaters but it is known that chemical weapons were stored near the twin bases during WW2 and it is also known that a line of equally spaced access shafts run eastwards, through the forest from the end of Woodbridge runway towards the coast. Given that the chemical weapons would almost certainly have been stored below ground and that the access shafts must have been built for a purpose, then something must exist underground - not within the perimeters of the bases but in the forest itself. That suggests that a small service tunnel might link the chemical weapons store to the airfields simply because if the weapons were needed, the armourers would want to be able to access them via the shortest possible route.

Given the proximity of the bases to the 'ness and the employment of ex RCA technicians from the 'ness at Bentwaters in 1973, could it be that the labs the tecchies used were actually under the forest but accessed from somewhere within the twin bases? After all, if they were taken into Bentwaters then they must have been engaged in similar work and would have needed a lab to work in - and there doesn't appear to be a lab facility above ground at either base. Was the old chem weapons store converted to a lab? Were the access shafts simply vents to the tunnel leading to the lab or if they led down to some kind of cable chamber, then what were the cables being used for?

Radar experiments, approx 40 ex 'ness technicians employed at Bentwaters , known existence of EM technology, known use of spy satellites and stealth aircraft, personnel wearing overall patches with odd emblems, weird symbols seen on parts of a strange craft, appearance of a specialised team transported in a C5, odd lights and a memo sent two weeks later.......

Could it be that by Dec 1980 it was possible to bring down a Soviet spy satellite by the use of EM technology and that RCA technicians working in a lab at Bentwaters did just that? Did they do that because (think of the trucks with the fake missiles made from oil drums) Cruise missiles were being deployed - or perhaps just off loaded into a temporary store in the WSA before being transported down to Molesworth once the storage areas there were ready - and it was known the Soviets had photographed them? Perhaps it was strategically important to deny the Soviets access to the images?

All pure conjecture of course but who knows.......

A poke around the National Archives down at Kew might reveal more about the WW2 chem weapons and how they were stored. Knowing that would be useful.

[Observer]

Puddle
For what its worth, a friend of mine who lives locally to RAF Woodbridge and is a member of an aviation historical group said the tunnel with access shafts that runs from the base eastwards towards the coast was probably the main fuel supply line [from the base fuel depot] to set the sea on fire. He said that there were 'spurs' running off the main pipe line to Shingle Street, and other vulnerable areas along that coast line and this was from their research. Their research also revealed that this was because that piece of cost line was considered by the British Government as the most likely area that the Germans would try to come ashore during an invasion. Shingle Street was evacuated for this reason plus they had a disaster there with the sea fire but the facts have never been released.

He also knew of the wartime plans to store Chems along the coast line and preferably under forests near air fields. He said that from their research, they could not find any evidence [even though there may have been facilities] that chems were actually stored there.
Just thought i would mention it.
Obs

[puddlepirate]

Take a look at the National Archive website and search the catalogue for 'chemical weapons' 1939 - 1945. There is a whole raft of stuff.....and for info there is this on Cruise missiles:

File ref: Description
AT 29/569 More information. Crown development proposals involving national security:
basing of US ground launched cruise missiles in the UK; planning applications
for storage and maintanance
Date range: 1978 Jan 01-1980 Dec 31

DEFE 31/2 More information. Advanced technology: cruise missiles
Date range: 1977-1979

DEFE 68/240 More information. Development of cruise missiles programme: policy
Date range: 1977 Nov 01 - 1981 Dec 31

Note the dates - what's the odds on CM's being in the UK before the summer of 1980.

[Observer]

Puddle
Your are probably right re the cruise missiles and the dates. I just cannot get my head round where they may have been stored at the twin bases other than some where in the WSA. They would require bunkers as i saw at Greenham Common [i was stationed there for a week] and had to be loaded on to a firing platform, some were static and some were mobile but all would have been launched within the secure confines of the base. I find the idea of some sort of storage out side a secure base a bit hard to believe. I do know that the US was shit scared of what CND might do as seen a GC.

As for chems, don't doubt you for one moment. The aviation society that i mentioned looked at the archives and could not come to any conclusions. There is no 'admittance' in the archive files relating to specific areas. Based on Government policy at the time, they concluded that there may have been.

However, i find the connection to the RFI a bit thin.

My money is on a surveillance op.
Obs

[puddlepirate]

Just to bring my posts into perspective. I am only making suggestions as to what might have been underground beyond the twin bases and why, I'm not putting forward a new theory as such, just trying to make the pieces fit. The witnesses appear to be convinced they were taken underground but nothing exists within the perimeter at either base. However, it is known that Churchill wanted chem weapons stored near airbases that were close to woodland. These weapons would not have been stored on the surface so there must have been some kind of underground storage facility. Why would it be necessary to have access shafts to a fuel pipeline? The fuel lines laid from as far away as Liverpool down to the south coast (after D-Day - Op Pluto; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto) didn't, so why would would a pipeline running little more than six miles need substantial access shafts every 150yds or so? Note also how Pluto used discreet cottages, barns and so forth to hide the pumping stations. Nothing fancy, just discreet and unobtrusive.

Cruise was a US missile, not British. They were under total US control, HMG would not have had a look in. Authorisation to store the missiles on UK soil was given in July 1980 - yet on 7th April 1980 almost 400 people demonstrated against cruise being stored in the UK (source: http://www.napierchronicles.co.uk/1980.htm). Why? Who organised this demo? What did they know? This was approx three months before permission had been granted so cruise should not have been here - or was it? Take a look at Hansard for 13 May 1980 (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... missiles-1 ). Read also this excerpt from 'The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier' (http://www.operationphoenixrecords.com/ ... rticle.pdf). US bases on UK soil were nothing to do with the defence of the UK - they were forward positions for the defence of the US, nothing more. The UK was expendable. Note also that the protection of US bases was a UK responsibility. If that was so, then why were USAF personnel deployed to the forest? That was unequivocally UK responsibility. Was it because they were playing with something that should not have been here, at least not in a forward position without proper UK authorisation? Apparently, in 1980 there were 160 Cruise missiles stored in the UK (source: http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/institut/ ... ut%204.doc). If they didn't arrive until after Francis Pym had granted permission it means they were here before the storage facilities had been completed.....or was it a case of retrospective permission?

Lastly, where did forty RCA radar technicians / scientists brought behind the Bentwaters wire in 1973 work? Where was their lab? What did they do?

It seems possible that there was some kind of off base underground facility. Access shafts were not needed for other, longer and possibly more important pipelines of the same era so why, if indeed it was a pipeline that lay beneath them, did a short pipeline from RAF Woodbridge?

Where did the radar tecchies and scientists work and what did they do?

Why were 400 people demonstrating about cruise missiles being ON UK soil in east Anglia in April 80 when permission to bring them here was not granted until July, the storage facilities were nowhere near complete and the nearest storage site would have been at RAF Molesworth some 90 miles from the twin bases?

Why was the USAF involved in a policing activity off base when this was clearly a UK only function?

Sorry guys but it seems to me that the USAF cocked up big time whilst playing with something that shouldn't have been here and had the UK population, probably including HMG, found out about it there would have been absolute uproar. Whether that something was a highly classified weapon developed by the tecchies working at Bentwaters that was used against a Soviet spy satellite to force a re-entry or a weapon, either nuke or cruise, I have no idea but I favour the latter simply because it is more likely and there is supporting evidence for the existence of such weapons. Also, the US was known not to keep HMG informed of what the US was really up to on UK soil (note the comment and denial about US aircraft flying sorties armed with nukes when nukes weren't supposed to be here....)






.

[Observer]

Peter we all get your point, what i suggest you do is instead of guessing about under ground facilities in the forest, take your crow bar and rope ladder with you next time you go to Rendlesham and have a look.

I'm being flippant but it may be the only way to resolve this nonsense once and for all.
Seeing is believing as they say.

From all the cold war exercises i did, US bases in the UK were under NATO and were directed by NATO, the US being a co founder.
They were part of an over all strategic plan as were RAF bases and all the rest in NATO. Of course the US was over here to protect the US but it was only part of the over all NATO strategy.
The UK would be sacrificial only because it was so heavily armed with bases and so near to Russia.
Obs

[John Burroughs]

Two things I would like to add. One there was a WSA at Woody while the F-4 were there if you look at the base from overhead there was a alert area on the west end. Silver can you post that picture. What do you think was on alert and where did they store them? Also there was a hanger on Woody that had a underground hanger.. Saying where is the proof well they can seal up certain things if they dont want them found. Puddle all I can say about your missle therory is dont quit looking we had certain protester that tried and wanted to protest at Bentwaters in the spring of 1980 if you know what I mean. And last but not least Silver will be posting the article and picture. Take a look at the lockheed x-24b Blackstar. The picture is a Nasa picture from 1973. It could be deployed by a SR-71 it was manned could land on its own and you will see how close it looks to Penniston picture. They also were working on anti gravity in the middle 70 so take a look and then let me know what you think!!!

[puddlepirate]

Obs..

NATO and US national defence were / are two entirely different animals. Whilst all US bases in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe) would have been involved in various NATO exercises at one time or other, defence of western Europe was not their primary reason for being on UK soil.

The fact remains that the access shafts are there for all to see. Pluto was real - and didn't need access shafts every 150 yds or so. Buncefield (the oil depot at Hemel Hempstead that blew up a couple of years ago) supplies avcat to Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and so forth via underground pipelines. There are no access shafts to the pipelines - at least, not brick built protrusions standing about two feet high and capped with a thick concrete lid. If there were, Hemel and the surrounding area would be peppered with the things and it isn't. If Churchill ordered chem weapons to be stockpiled, then there had to be somewhere to store them. It could be they were placed within the brick built compound that somebody posted an image of some months back and covered them with a cam net or canvas sheet. There is a similar construction in the woods up the road from me and in WW2 De Havilland had an airfield at their Hatfield factory, about three miles away. I am not saying something definitely exists underground but there are a couple of things that indicate something might.

Remember also that the US flatly denied having nuclear weapons in the UK when in reality they had aircraft flying over our heads armed with the things....

And why did the lads in the workshops bother to make mock missiles out of white painted oil drums, mount them on the back of a truck then park the truck(s) around the airfield? Who were they trying to kid? More than one truck was so fitted, apparently. A mock missile stuck on the side of a building as if it had crashed through the wall is fair enough but to go to the bother of making several and putting them on trucks? Sounds like something beyond a prank. Cardboard dummies, toe 'tector boots tack welded to benches, bikes welded to stanchions 30ft off the ground.....all good fun and require very little effort. In my humble experience pranks tend to be instantaneous, spur of the moment things quickly executed and with minimal risk of discovering the perpetrators. Pranks that require a lot of repeated effort cease to be pranks and become hard work....

[AdrianF]

Buncefield (the oil depot at Hemel Hempstead that blew up a couple of years ago) supplies avcat to Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and so forth via underground pipelines.

The GPSS fuel supply line seems like it could run through the area and might explain some of the anomalies in the forest.
http://www.linewatch.co.uk/network.htm

Secret bases has a lot more info on this, as well as some specifics to BW, you'll just need to read ( or scroll ) through a lot of stuff.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan-turnbull/secret2.htm

Adrian

[Observer]

Puddle
My question is, are these alleged under ground bunkers in Rendlesham forest relevant to the RFI? If so, in what way?
From your very lengthy explanations of US policy during the cold war, i'm beginning to have a little sympathy for the Russians.
Obs

[puddlepirate]

My only reason for mentioning this is because the witnesses seem convinced they were taken underground at some point. There is, apparently, nothing within the perimeter of the bases but there is evidence to suggest something existed outside the perimeter. Also, the ex-Cobra Mist RCA scientists and technicians who were taken into Bentwaters in 1973 had to work somewhere, yet there is no apparent evidence of any radar labs within the twin bases - so where did they work? What did they work on?

A search of The Times archive for 1980 throws up some interesting stuff... in early 80 there was mention in the House of Commons of siting further cruise missiles on UK soil. The use of the word 'further' has to mean that cruise was already in the UK in early 1980 - possibly an airborne version at Lakenheath. In Apr 80 400 people demonstrated against cruise being sited in east Anglia - and in July this increased to 900. In Jun 80 there were three incidents in as many days, where a computer malfunction within the US Air Defence System (in the UK) triggered an alert, with nuclear armed aircraft ready to roll. The UK govt was not told of these events until AFTER they had happened. Washington stated categorically that cruise missiles in the UK would come under the direct control of Washington. Whilst the missiles would be stored at Greenham Common and Molesworth they would be transported to secret launch sites within an approximate 50 mile radius of the storage sites. Further to that, the cruise missiles in the UK had two interchangeable warheads - nuclear and chemical and they could not be detected by radar. The missile would be armed only when it neared the target so an accident immediately after launch would not cause a nuclear explosion. In Nov 80 two A10's collided whilst on a training exercise and an RAF SAR crewman in a Sea King died when his winch cable snapped after becoming entangled with the parachute wires of one of the A10 pilot's parachutes - so accidents with USAF aircraft were not exactly unknown.

On top of all this, the Soviets were delivering one operational SS20 every five days and in Nov and early Dec 80, had issued a threat to invade Poland and could do so at a moments notice. The threat was high and NATO was getting very twitchy indeed. Whilst the delivery of the ground launched version of cruise was not supposed to start until 1983 and would take five years to complete, I suspect that with the Soviets ranged along the Polish border and SS20's being brought into service at the rate of one very five days, the US would not have waited three years for cruise to arrive at its most forward European bases. The Dutch had decided not to take cruise and the Belgians were hesitating. Only the UK had agreed. Therefore I strongly suspect cruise was already here in its airborne form. Whether or not an aircraft armed with cruise flew into a radar experiment being conducted by the Benwaters techies at a time of no flying and as a result dropped a weapon with a chem warhead into the forest, I have no idea but certain things seem to be fitting into place...

Did whoever it was who went to see the Watton radar tapes do so because they wanted to make sure nothing was visible to radar? Did the odd symptoms experienced by the witnesses result from a chem warhead spillage? Were the witnesses taken to the underground facility (if such existed) used by the ex RCA scientists/technicians? Were the injections given to them not some kind of truth serum but an antidote to the chem?.....One thing is for sure, the fact that cruise was coming to the UK was deeply unpopular and already protests were taking place on a substantial scale. To admit to an accident with one would have been political suicide for president elect Reagan and PM Thatcher.

[Observer]

Puddle
I like your last paragraph.
I have have also found out that when cruise [land launched] were to be deployed away from their storage units, and as puddle said up to 50 miles away, they were escorted by special units of the British army who would reconnoiter the routes and launch areas first. They were also to cordon off the launch areas with armed guards as they were 'off' base and on British sovereign territory. Apparently only the Chief Constables of the respective counties would be informed who's forces would conduct covert anti demo patrols.
Had lectures on this one.
Obs

[robert]

I am sure it will all have been covered before but for those who haven't seen it or are not as familiar as some with the area here are a few items of interest from the cold war period for general Interest in and around Sunny Suffolk. Just hit the link for photos.

Robert

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/m/m ... index.html
US forces' communications site. Housed Autovon military telephone exchange. Derelict 1997.

Aces High
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/features/ ... ndex4.html
The station noted as Martlesham Heath (Suffolk) has nothing to do with the BT research station but was at the USAF base along the Foxhill road; it had local microwave feeders to/from Great Bromley & RAF Bentwaters.



http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/i/i ... index.html
AUTOVON was until the early 1990's, the United States' Department of Defence Military Voice Communications System. AUTOVON stands for AUTOmatic VOice Network. The system dates back to 1940's, it has now been deactivated and replaced with DPSN (Defence Packet Switched Network).

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/b/b ... index.html
RAF Bawdsey R7 Radar Bunker

RAF Bawdsey R3 Rotor Radar Bunker
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/b/b ... dex12.html
Site Name: 'RAF Bawdsey' ('PKD') R3 GCI ROTOR Radar Station
Ferry Road
Bawdsey
Suffolk
OS Grid Ref: TM346388
The upper floor plan shows the layout of a typical R3 bunker during the ROTOR period, the lower floor plan shows Bawdsey as it appears today.
Survey by Bob Jenner Drawn by Nick Catford

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/b/b ... dex70.html
Photo: Looking north along the upper spine corridor
Photo by Nick Catfor

[Observer]

Re the Coms site [Martlesham Heath] entrance off Foxhall Road, Part of it has been renovated and is or already has been opened up as a museum.
Obs

[Problemchild]

Here is a translated Soviet document discussing US/Nato military programs in the 1980's. It has some interesting info on Over the horizon Radar and combating Stealth tec.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA343548&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Also in this thread Puddlepilot discussing acesss shaft's is this the kind of thing?



This one is at Woodbridge.