62 lines
3.3 KiB
Plaintext
62 lines
3.3 KiB
Plaintext
UFO INFORMATION SERVICE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
|
||
________________________________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
COMPLAINT FORM
|
||
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
|
||
|
||
DATE TIME
|
||
14 Aug 80 0730
|
||
KIRTLAND AFB, NM 13 Aug 80, Possible
|
||
Hostile Intelligence Intercept Incident, PLACE
|
||
Frequency Jamming. AFOSI District 17,BID,
|
||
KIRTLAND AFB, NM
|
||
|
||
SOURCE AND EVALUATION
|
||
1960th Communication Officer
|
||
|
||
RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS ADDRESS
|
||
1960 COMMSq KAFB, NM
|
||
|
||
PHONE
|
||
4-5098
|
||
________________________________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
REMARKS SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. On 13 Aug 80, 1960 COMMSq Maintenance Officer reported Radar Approach
|
||
Control equipment and scanner radar inoperative due to high frequency jamming
|
||
from an unknown cause. Total blackout of entire radar approach system to
|
||
include Albuquerque Airport was in effect between 1630-2215hrs. Radar Approach
|
||
Control back up system also were inoperative.
|
||
|
||
2. On 13 Aug 80, Defense Nuclear Agency Radio Frequency Monitors determined,
|
||
by vector analysis, the interference was being sent from an area ( V-90 degrees
|
||
or due East ) 0n DAF Map coordinates E-28.6. The area was located NW of Coyote
|
||
Canyon Test area. It was first though that Sandia Laboratory, which utilizes
|
||
the test range was responsible. However, after a careful check, it was later
|
||
determined that no test were being conducted in the canyon area. Department of
|
||
Energy, Air Force Weapons Laboratory and DNA were contacted but assured that
|
||
their agencies were not responsible.
|
||
|
||
3. On 13 Aug 80, Base Security Police conducted a physical check of the area
|
||
but because of the mountainous terrain, a thorough check could not be completed
|
||
at that time. A later foot search failed to disclosed anything that could have
|
||
caused the interference.
|
||
|
||
4. On 13 Aug 80, At 2216hrs,. all radar equipment returned to normal operation
|
||
without further incident.
|
||
|
||
5. CONCLUSION: The presence of hostile intelligence jamming cannot be ruled
|
||
out. Although no evidence would suggest this, the method has been used in the
|
||
past. Communication maintenance specialists cannot explain how such
|
||
interference could cause the radar equipment to become totally inoperative.
|
||
Neither could they suggest the type or range of the interference signal. DNA
|
||
frequency monitors reported the interference beam was wide spread and a type
|
||
unknown to their electronical equipment. Further checks of the area was being
|
||
conducted by Technical Services, AFOSI.
|
||
|
||
6. High command interest item. Briefings requested IAW AFOSIR 124-4 be
|
||
completed at HQ AFOSI/IVOE. HQ CR 44 and 51 items.
|
||
________________________________________________________________________________
|
||
|