by

Staff Sergeant Kirk W. Clear, USAF

and Steven E. Block

by

Staff Sergeant Kirk W. Clear, USAF

and Steven E. Block

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

U.S. Department of Defense

Signed in Helsinki,

Finland on March 24,

1992, the Open Skies

Treaty has contributed to

broader openness,

cooperation, and mutual

trust across the world.

Although the treaty has

not yet been ratified by

all signatory nations, the

United States, under the

auspices of the Defense

Threat Reduction Agency,

has participated in more

than 30 international

joint trial flights.

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

U.S. Department of Defense
The Treaty

on Open Skies

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

U.S. Department of Defense

by SSgt Kirk W. Clear, USAF

and Steven E. Block
ii

Published by the

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Office of History

45045 Aviation Drive

Dulles International Airport

Dulles, VA 20166-7517

U.S.A.

April 1999

Telephone: (703) 810-4433/4333

FAX: (703) 810-4654

E-mail: history@dtra.mil

Director

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Dr. Jay Davis

Publisher

Dr. Joseph P. Harahan, Historian

Layout and Design

Tom Pearlman

Cover Photograph:

Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, Florida. Image taken using an AFA

4110 Framing Camera from a Russian An-30 during a Russian-U.S. Joint

Trial Flight on August 1, 1997.
iii

Foreword

As the Cold War drew toward an end in 1989, and the Berlin Wall

finally came down, there was still a feeling of distrust among the former

adversaries of the East and West. In 1992, a major barrier in this distrust

was lifted when 27 nations signed the Treaty on Open Skies. This unprecedented display of openness has allowed former military enemies to

conduct aerial observations over each other’s territories. Although the

treaty has yet to enter into force (as of this writing), it has already proven

successful through the benefit of joint trial flights.

President George Bush assigned the oversight and implementation of this

treaty to the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA). On October 1, 1998,

OSIA was disestablished, and it’s functions transferred under the control of the newly-created Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

However, from a mission standpoint, nothing has changed in how the

Open Skies Treaty is implemented. Under DTRA, the On-Site Inspection

Directorate, and furthermore the Open Skies Division, continues to oversee the treaty on behalf of the United States. We hope that you enjoy

reading and learning about “The Treaty on Open Skies.”

C. Duane Heughan

Captain, U.S. Navy

Chief, Open Skies Division
iv
v

Contents

Section 1 Treaty Background 1

Section 2 Treaty Negotiations 7

Section 3 Treaty Signing 13

Section 4 United States Senate Ratification 17

Section 5 Defining the U.S. Roles, Missions, and Equipment 21

Section 6 Observation Flight Quotas: Active and Passive 29

Section 7 A Typical Open Skies Mission 31

Section 8 U.S. Open Skies Airfields 39

Section 9 Training of DTRA Open Skies Personnel 43

Section 10 Costs and Funding for Open Skies 47

Section 11 Future Possibilities 49

Section 12 Notes 51

Appendix A: Treaty Members Ratification Status

& Annual Passive Quotas 55

Appendix B: OC-135B Aircraft Arrangement 57

Appendix C: U.S. Joint Trial Flights 61

Appendix D: Glossary of Terms 63
vi
1

1

S

igned in Helsinki, Finland on March 24, 1992, the Open Skies

Treaty seeks to build an international regime based on mutual trust

and a growing confidence in regard to military forces and activities

of concern across the world. By definition, “The Open Skies Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire

territory of its 25* signatories (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies, Eastern European members of the former Warsaw Pact, and Russia,

Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia).”1

A Ukrainian An-30 aircraft arrives at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia for a joint trial flight

with the United States, April 16-24, 1997. This Ukrainian aircraft was the first former Warsaw

Pact military aircraft to fly over the United States.

* After Czechoslovakia split, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia signed as

separate entities on January 1, 1993. Kyrgyzstan signed on December 15, 1992.

Those signings raised the number of signatories up to 27.
2

The Treaty

on Open Skies

Signatories:

Belarus

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Kyrgyzstan

Luxembourg

Norway

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Slovakia

Spain

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

The Open Skies Treaty includes the broadest geographical expansion of

any previous treaty, stretching the area from Vancouver, Canada, eastward across the entire northern hemisphere to Vladivostok, Russia. There

are very few flight restrictions as to the aerial observations. A claim of

national security, for example, is not an acceptable restriction to preventing an overflight. As such, all areas of the United States may be overflown, including military installations, industrial sites, and even the White

House.

Treaty Background

The idea of Open Skies was first proposed in 1955 by United States

President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Originally intended to be a bilateral

agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, it allowed

for aerial observation over each nation’s territory. However, the proposition was rejected by Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev, who was concerned that the United States would use Open Skies as a spy mechanism.2

Thirty-four years after Eisenhower’s initial proposal, U.S. President

George Bush revived the Open Skies idea in a speech on the campus of

Texas A&M University on May 12, 1989. As in 1955, the new proposal

was intended to be a bilateral agreement between the United States and

the Soviet Union. However, acting on the advice of Canadian Prime

Minister Bryan Mulroney and Canadian Secretary of State for External

Affairs Joe Clark, the United States transformed the proposal into a

multinational framework. Now, the goal of Open Skies, according to

Bush, “would be to increase the transparency of both sides’* military activities and thereby strengthen the emerging cooperation between East

and West and enhance the security of all participating states.”3 Soviet

General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the principle of an aerial

overflight regime and agreed in 1989 to begin multinational negotiations on an Open Skies treaty.

Why Open Skies?

By 1989, the Cold War was coming to an end. New arms control and

reduction treaties were being implemented, or were in the final stages of

negotiations. Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet

* Reference to NATO and Warsaw Pact nations.
3

Union was growing stronger with Gorbachev’s glasnost and the effective

implementation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty,

signed in December 1987. Changes in Gorbachev’s foreign relations policies, brought many new arms control proposals to the forefront. At times,

these Soviet initiatives seemed to overshadow those of the Bush administration. Consequently, revitalizing the concept of Open Skies contained

an element of a political maneuver along with an arms control initiative.

In his 1989 speech at Texas A&M, Bush stated, “now it is time to move

past containment” and to “seek the integration of the Soviet Union into

the community of nations.” Bush continued, “As the Soviet Union...meets

the challenge of responsible international behavior-we will match their

steps with steps of our own.”4

 Consequently, the Open Skies Treaty from

the very beginning was meant to be a confidence building international

agreement.5

Not only was Open Skies a political initiative to recapture momentum in

the area of arms control, it was also a political test. The Bush administration, weary of Soviet pronouncements, wanted to see if the ideas of

glasnost and peristroika were genuine. During early negotiations in 1989

and 1990, several NATO nations became concerned Gorbachev’s stance

seemed to “contradict his declared support for glasnost and openness in

international affairs and may mean that he is positioning himself to break

off negotiations in a showdown with the West.”6

 Consequently, success

in treaty negotiations signaled the Soviet Union’s commitment towards

openness and confidence-building between nations. During the first

round of negotiations, representatives from 16 NATO countries and seven

Warsaw Pact countries participated.

During a speech at Texas A&M

University in 1989, U.S. President George

Bush revived the open skies idea that

was initially proposed by President

Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955.
4

Possible Alternatives

One of the most commonly asked questions in the United States when

trying to explain the concept of Open Skies is ‘Can’t our satellites do the

same thing?’ When satellites were first developed, they were revolutionary. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world’s

first satellite.7 Knowing that this scientific and military technology was

in the works might have caused Nikita Krushchev to reject President

Eisenhower’s 1955 Open Skies proposal. Meanwhile, a year prior to his

proposal, Eisenhower had approved the development of a new highaltitude reconnaissance aircraft–eventually called the U-2. In July 1956,

the first long-range U-2 mission flown over the USSR resulted in the

U.S. obtaining, through optical imagery, key Soviet strategic information. During the next four years, the U.S. conducted 23 more U-2 missions over the Soviet Union.8

 In May 1960, U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers

was shot down over the Soviet Union and tried as a spy. Consequently,

the United States ended all U-2 aerial observations over the USSR. However, that same year (1960), the first United States’ intelligence-gathering satellite program, CORONA was initiated. The birth of

reconnaissance satellites gave the world’s two superpowers the capability

to obtain more information than aerial observation flights would have

given. By the late 1960s, the technology of satellites made them more

effective than fixed wing aircraft, and they did not pose any potential

political repercussions.9 But, was this still the case by the late 1980s?

By that time, several arguments emerged for the potential advantages of

aerial observation instead of satellite reconnaissance. Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs Joe Clark took the stance that satellites

were inadequate for the verification needs of the future. Aircraft were

able to fly lower, below clouds, while satellites could be hindered by overcast weather. Strategically, the fixed orbits of the satellites posed problems. The fixed orbits made the satellites’ position predictable. Some

analysts believed that the combination of satellite reconnaissance, aerial

observation, and on-site inspection would provide a much stronger detection system. Air Force Brigadier General Frank A. Partlow stated that

when the three monitoring systems are “applied in combination, it is

much more difficult for a participation state to achieve any significant

advantage undetected.”10 Consequently, Open Skies could have many

purposes, such as monitoring troop maneuvers, arms build-ups, and possibly in the future, environmental conditions.11
5

Even though aerial observation might be useful for strategic intelligence

purposes, it is not the Open Skies Treaty’s primary objective. The purpose is to build confidence through unarmed aerial observation flights

among the nations of the international community. U.S. Secretary of

State, James A. Baker, claimed that Open Skies could be the “most important measure to build confidence ever undertaken.”12 Canada’s Joe

Clark also pointed out that nations had no choice about satellite surveillance–they couldn’t stop it, so they accepted it.13 Open Skies offers Canada

and the smaller European nations an independent verification method.

These same nations knew that the Soviet Union and the United States

were acquiring information about them through satellite imagery, they

just could not do anything about it. Open Skies gave countries, other

than Russia and the United States, a chance to have a treaty-sanctioned

aerial observation system. This is significant. First, it gives all signatory

states the tools to observe another country’s military-related activities.

Secondly, it allows countries the chance to trust the motives of others

overflying their territory.
6
7

Treaty Negotiations

In late September 1989, General Secretary Gorbachev agreed to negotiate President Bush’s Open Skies Treaty proposal. This decision initiated

two years of negotiations during four separate conferences. Canadian

Prime Minister Mulroney offered Ottawa as the first site for negotiations. This was followed by three other conferences over a three-year

period, and finally concluding with the treaty signing in Helsinki, Finland in March 1992.

Ottawa Conference:

February 12-24, 1990

The Ottawa Conference, attended by all the member states of NATO

and the Warsaw Pact, was held during a very historic period. The beginning of the conference was dominated by talks on the fate of German

unification, rather than Open Skies. The Bush Administration was advocating a united Germany as soon as East Germany established a democratic government in its upcoming elections in March 1990. There was

also an issue of whether a united Germany would take West Germany’s

place in NATO. While the Soviet Union saw the reunification of Germany as inevitable, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Viktor Karpov said

that “what we are really against is including East Germany in NATO.”14

Western leaders contended that Germany would be both united and remain within NATO, but that there would not be any NATO forces stationed in East Germany. After the Germany question was resolved, Open

Skies took center stage. The hope was that the treaty would be completed in three months, by May 1990. The negotiators would not be so

lucky, as many disagreements slowed progress. The first objection came

from the Soviet delegation regarding sensors. While all sides agreed that

sensors which could monitor communications would not be allowed on

the aircraft, the United States and the other NATO countries wanted

optical sensors on the planes with enough resolution to be militarily useful. The Soviet Union wanted low-capability sensors that were less intrusive and less costly. They also believed that the information gathered

2
8

from the observations should be shared among all signatory nations. The

Soviets stated that if their proposals were not implemented, western nations would use their technological advances to gather intelligence information over the former Warsaw Pact countries.15 These issues were

not resolved by the end of the conference in Ottawa; they would wait to

be addressed again when negotiations resumed in Budapest, Hungary.

Budapest Conference:

April 23-May 10, 1990

When talks reopened in Budapest two months later, high hopes for a

quick agreement never materialized. Many of the complications involved

technical aspects of the treaty. United States delegate, John Hawes,

claimed that the signing deadline of mid-May was unrealistic because

he, and other American diplomats, believed that the Soviet Union would

not budge on any issue. However, the Soviets did concede that some

equipment would be necessary for military reconnaissance, such as synthetic aperture radar and certain types of cameras.16 On the issue of data

sharing, it was the United States who held firm. John Hawes stated that

the United States rejected the Soviet proposal on data sharing because it

Hungary uses an An-26 aircraft for its

Open Skies mission.
9

Russia’s An-30 Open Skies aircraft.

The United Kingdom uses a British

Andover aircraft for its Open Skies

mission.

would encourage countries to improve their camouflage, which would

completely defeat the principle of Open Skies.17

Camera resolution also became a major topic of debate. The Soviets and

the Eastern European countries wanted a maximum resolution of 30

centimeters, while the United States and the NATO countries stipulated that they would accept no less than 15 centimeters of resolution.18

The United States, as in Ottawa, refused to accept the lower-quality

resolution. The two sides agreed to disagree, which meant that the issue

would be discussed at a later date. There would be another conference in

the near future. The outlook was not very optimistic after Budapest. Viktor

Karpov, the Soviet delegate, proclaimed that “plans to sign a treaty on

May 12 [1990] were not realistic.”19
10

Vienna Conference I:

November 4-18, 1991

The next conference in Vienna would not be held for a year and a half.

This was because of several factors, but mainly the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 and the Gulf War in early 1991. When talks finally

opened on November 4, 1991, both the Soviet Union and the United

States were surprisingly cooperative at this third conference. The Soviets

agreed to open their entire territory to overflights authorized by the treaty

while the United States agreed, in part, to the Soviet proposed “taxi option.” The taxi option provides the observed nation with the option of

requiring the use of its aircraft and equipment by an observing State

Party, if they so desire. The United States continued to argue that the

country conducting an overflight should be allowed to use its own aircraft if it so chooses.20

With major concessions being made by both sides, the first Vienna Conference on Open Skies was a major success. The American delegation

characterized this Vienna Conference as a turn around in Soviet policy

toward aerial observation.21 The chief Soviet delegate, Yvgeny Golovko,

told members of the conference that the first Vienna Conference marked

the moment when both East and West displayed a “common approach”

to Open Skies.22 Consequently, a draft treaty was sent to each nation for

final review. However, the treaty could not be signed due to technicalities regarding sensors. Representatives agreed to finalize the treaty in a

fourth conference to be held again in Vienna in January 1992. The delegations also agreed that the treaty would most likely be signed in late

March of 1992 in Helsinki, Finland.

Bulgaria’s An-30 Open Skies aircraft.
11

Vienna Conference II:

January 13-20 1992

Just as the first conference on Open Skies came during a historical period, so did the last. In December 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and

the Cold War ended. Fifteen new countries emerged. A new era in foreign relations was born. The second Vienna Conference opened on January 13, 1992, but with a couple of changes. Ukraine and Belarus were

allowed to sit in on, however, their participation had not yet been granted.

For convenience sake, Russia occupied the former Soviet Union’s seat.

The second Vienna Conference could be seen as the “cleaning up conference.” This time the parties tied loose ends, making sure that the final

product would benefit all equally. However, there was one issue that was

brought to the floor at the first Vienna Conference that was still controversial. The taxi option was again proposed by Russia, and finally the

United States agreed to it. A few minor matters were left open, but all

agreed that the signing of the treaty would go ahead as planned in March

in Helsinki, Finland.23

Open Skies aircraft for the United

States and Germany sit on the tarmac

at Dulles International Airport.
12
13

Treaty Signing

Shortly after the Vienna Conference, former Soviet states were granted

the privilege to be initial participants in the Open Skies Treaty if they

signed before the treaty entered into force. Representatives of 24 nations

initialed the treaty on March 21, 1992, including two former Soviet republics, Belarus and Ukraine. They formally signed the treaty on March

24 in Helsinki, Finland. Georgia, another former Soviet state, also signed

the treaty on that same day, making 25 original signatories. These were:

Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France,

Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the

Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.24

Another former Soviet state, Kyrgyzstan, signed the treaty on December

15, 1992. On January 1, 1993, Czechoslovakia formally separated into

two countries–the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Both were considered

an initial signatory states; the total was now 27 participating nations in

the Open Skies agreement. Of these 27, only four have yet to ratify:

Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.* Upon entry into force, the

ratified signatories will have agreed to:

• enhance security by means of confidence and security-building

measures;

• extend security covering all territory from Vancouver, Canada

to Vladivostok, Russia;

• contribute to strengthening peace, cooperative security, and stability in the area created by Open Skies;

• attempt to improve openness and transparency, and to facilitate the monitoring of compliance with existing or future arms

control agreements and to strengthen the capacity for conflict

prevention and crisis management in the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and in other

relevant international institutions;

• recognize the impact to security and stability that Open Skies

could have on other parts of the globe;

3

* As of October 31, 1998.
14

• be open to the possible extension of the Open Skies regime into

additional fields, such as the protection of the environment;

• seek to establish agreed procedures to provide for aerial observation of all the territories of States Parties, with the intent of

observing a single State Party or groups of States Parties, on the

basis of equity and effectiveness while maintaining flight safety;

• note that the operation of such an Open Skies regime will be

without prejudice to States not participating in it; and

• meet periodically to evaluate the treaty, which is of unlimited duration.25

The Open Skies

Consultative Commission (OSCC)

In order to facilitate implementation and promote objectives, the signatory states, in the Open Skies Treaty, created the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC). The commission is comprised of one delegate

from each State Party. These representatives meet four times a year in

Vienna and operate on the basis of consensus. Essentially, the OSCC is

a governing consortium which ensures that the treaty runs smoothly.

Upon entry into force, the commission will assist in resolving compliance issues. However, to this date, the commission has dealt with interUkraine uses an An-30 aircraft for its

Open Skies mission.
15

nal treaty issues, namely costs and sensor proposals. Some responsibilities of the OSCC include proposing amendments to the treaty, improving the distribution of active quotas, considering updates and additions

to sensor capabilities, sharing costs, handling mission reports, and other

aspects of Open Skies.26 According to Article X of the treaty, the purpose of the Open Skies Consultative Commission is to:

• consider questions relating to compliance with the provisions

of this Treaty;

• seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretations

that may become apparent in the way this Treaty is implemented;

• consider and take decisions on applications for accession to this

Treaty; and

• agree as to those technical and administrative measures, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, deemed necessary following

the accession to this Treaty by other States.27

Germany initially modified and used

the former East German presidential

aircraft, a Tupolev (Tu-154), for its Open

Skies mission. Pictured here arriving at

Dulles International Airport in

Washington, D.C., this was the first

foreign aircraft to overfly the United

States during an Open Skies joint trial

flight (June 1995). However, this aircraft

was lost when it collided with a U.S.

C-141 over the South Atlantic Ocean in

September 1997, killing everyone

onboard both airplanes.
16
17

United States

Senate Ratification

“The Open Skies Treaty represents an important advance in international cooperation in the security field and responds especially to the

new demands of the post-Cold War world,” said Robert L. Gallucci,

Assistant Secretary for Politico-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State

in 1993.28 Canada was the first country to ratify the treaty in July 1992.

It took the United States nearly 18 months to deposit its instruments of

ratification. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on September 22, 1992, and again on March 11, 1993.29 Because

the treaty was not extremely pressing, the Senate was in no rush to ratify

Open Skies. Since many of the decisions by the Open Skies Consultative Commission were made after the treaty was signed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was waiting to see how these resolutions would

hold with the other nations before recommending ratification to the full

Senate.30 After deliberation, the United States Senate Foreign Relations

Committee approved the Treaty on August 6, 1993, with two conditions

and one declaration.

The first condition dealt with changes to sensors, and the second dealt

with the number of observation flights and aircraft required by the United

States. The Senate stipulated that should sensor capabilities be changed

by the Open Skies Consultative Commission, the president must submit

a report to the Senate outlining any legal, financial, and national security

implications. Additionally, the Senate required 30 days to consider the

proposed changes.31 In regard to the second condition, the Senate required the president to submit a report after the treaty’s first year, analyzing any problems, estimating the number of overflights the United

States would conduct, and assessing the number of aircraft needed to

conduct these observation flights. More specifically, the Senate required

the report to include:

• an analysis of the first year of operation of the treaty, highlighting any ambiguities, differences or problems that arose in the

course of implementation, as well as any benefits that have accrued to the United States by its participation in Open Skies;

4
18

• a determination of the estimated number of observation flights

to be conducted annually by the United States for the duration

of the Treaty; and

• an assessment of the number of observation aircraft required by the

United States to carry out the observation flights, taking into consideration the potential utilization of non-United States aircraft.32

In addition to the two conditions, the Senate’s approval of Open Skies

was also made subject to one declaration. In that statement, the Senate

declared that the U.S. Government must interpret the treaty “based on

the Treaty Clauses of the Constitution,....”33 With the above mentioned

conditions and declaration, the United States Senate ratified the Open

Skies Treaty on December 3, 1993.

The United States modified three OC135B aircraft for its Open Skies mission.

The aircraft pictured here (tail number

61-2674) was the first to be completed

in April 1993.
19

The remaining two aircraft (61-2670 and 61-

2672) were ready to fly in June 1996.
20
21

Defining the U.S. Roles,

Missions, and Equipment

On January 15, 1988, President Ronald Reagan issued a decree for the

Secretary of Defense to establish an organization to accomplish inspections for the newly signed Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)

Treaty. This action was the authorization that created the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA). Since then, the agency’s responsibilities had

grown considerably. Over its 10 years of existence, OSIA gained responsibility for inspecting and escorting under nine treaties including the

Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT), Conventional Armed Forces in

Europe (CFE) Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START),

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty (CTBT).34 In November 1992, President Bush assigned OSIA

the mission and responsibility of ensuring that all the United States’ rights

were honored within the parameters of the Open Skies Treaty.35 OSIA

was disestablished on October 1, 1998, but its missions were absorbed

under the newly-created Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

DTRA, through its Open Skies Division, continues to be responsible for

treaty training, coordination, support, management, and leadership of

the Open Skies Treaty on behalf of the United States. DTRA provides

the observation crews, mission commanders, and the escort observers

who accompany other States Parties observing the United States. The

U.S. Air Force provides the aircraft (OC-135) used for observation, along

with the flight and maintenance crews. Other direct support for the treaty

comes from the various Open Skies Airfields across the United States.

DTRA’s observation crews are trained to be multi-capable individuals.

For example, the sensor operators are Russian linguists as well. The deputy

mission commander is not only the number two person behind the mission commander, but also the flight director during active missions. The

mission commanders are not only in charge of the mission, but they are

also the senior government official speaking on behalf of the United States.

Air Force and DTRA crews also ensure that all flying procedures during

the missions are safe and done in accordance with the treaty.

5
22

Aircraft and Sensors

All observation flights are conducted using aircraft of the observing country, unless the observed country exercises its right to a taxi option. In that

case, the observed country would provide the aircraft and flight crew.

The observing party would then be required to reimburse the observed

party certain goods and services related to the observation aircraft.* The

type of aircraft used differs from country to country, however, the capabilities of the sensors onboard are strictly limited by the treaty. There are

four different categories of sensors used: optical panoramic and framing

cameras, video cameras with real-time display, infrared line-scanning

devices, and sideways-looking synthetic aperture radars (SARs). The

treaty limits these sensors to specific maximum allowable resolutions.36

The optical cameras are allowed no better than 30 centimeters of resolution. This optical imagery can be obtained by no more than one panoramic camera, one vertically-mounted framing camera, and two

obliquely-mounted framing cameras. In the case of the video cameras,

the resolution is also limited to no better than 30 centimeters. For the

infrared line-scanning devices, a ground resolution of no better than 50

* See Decision Number One in the Treaty on Open Skies for the distribution of

associated costs.

A sensor control station on the OC-135B

aircraft.
23

centimeters is the limit. And, a ground resolution of no better than three

meters (300 centimeters) is allowed for the synthetic aperture radars.

Detailed procedures on the use of these sensors are described in Article

IV of the treaty. Additionally, all sensors must be commercially available

to all other treaty signatories.37

The United States developed three OC-135B aircraft for conducting its

observation flights. These were reconfigured Air Force WC-135B weather

aircraft.38 The first of the modified airplanes was not available until mid1993.39 Until these modified airplanes were available, the United States

used a Convair CV-580 on training missions to collect optical and synthetic aperture radar imagery.40

In the meantime, the Air Force began modifying the first of three WC135B aircraft (tail number 61-2674), in December 1992.41 The work was

done at a special Air Force modification facility in Ohio.* This was the

first phase of the overall Open Skies modification. This work included

installing a KA-91 panoramic camera, two KS-87B oblique-mounted

framing cameras, and a KS-87B vertical-mounted framing camera. The

panoramic KA-91 is used for wide-area imagery from high-altitudes of

Examples of imagery taken from a KS87 framing camera at a ground

resolution of 30 centimeters. As these

pictures show, at this resolution,

aircraft types can be distinguished, but

even when enhanced, the exact make

or model can not be determined.

* The Aeronautical Systems Center’s Developmental Manufacturing and Modification Facility (DMMF), located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, actually

performed the modifications.
24

27

up to approximately 40,000 feet above the ground. The vertical KS-87B

camera is used for low-altitude photography, approximately 5,000 feet

above ground. The two oblique cameras, also KS-87Bs, provide lowaltitude photography in conjunction with the vertical framing camera.42

A Data Annotation/Recording and Mapping System (DARMS) was

also installed on the aircraft as well as Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)

navigation equipment, flight following stations, and an upgraded cabin

The U.S. Open Skies aircraft being

modified in a hanger at WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Sensor control stations onboard the

U.S. OC-135B Open Skies aircraft.
25

(galley, latrines, and seating). Additionally, the aircraft’s avionics were

upgraded and new storage and maintenance areas for the film canisters

were constructed. The cost of this first phase also included the Open

Skies Media Processing Facility (OSMPF). The Air Force spent approximately $11 million on this initial phase.43 All modifications for the first

OC-135B aircraft were completed by April 1993. A series of flight tests

followed, which included an airflow evaluation, a flight systems operations check, camera testing and calibration, and optical sensor resolution

tests. All testing was completed by June 30, 1993, and the aircraft was

declared ready to conduct treaty overflights.44

The second phase of the modification began in March 1994 and included everything needed to meet full operational capability status.45 This

included modifying the remaining two OC-135B aircraft (61-2670 and

61-2672), and upgrading the first aircraft. However, shortly after this,

projected budgetary reductions led to an Air Force decision to place the

first aircraft (61-2674) in reserve status. This meant that it was removed

from operational status, but could be brought back on-line if required in

the future. When completed, the two remaining reconfigured aircraft

would have all of the initial modifications plus one synthetic aperture

radar (SAR), one infrared line scanner (IRLS), and one video camera.

This phase also included funding for an engine hush kit (developed, but

dropped when production money was pulled) and upgrades to the media

processing facility. The final phase was completed in June 1996 at a cost

of $51 million. This was broken down as $7 million for the upgrade to

aircraft 61-2674, $18 million each for the remaining two aircraft, and $8

million for the hush kit preproduction.46

The video sensor control station on the

OC-135B aircraft.
26

Aircraft Crew

The aircraft used for Open Skies missions are assigned to the Air Force’s

45th Reconnaissance Squadron, located at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.* The 45th, an element of the 55th Wing, also provides the flight

crews for all Open Skies missions.47 The OC-135B is designed to support a crew of up to 36 people. Typically, an Open Skies mission has 15

people who comprise the flight and maintenance crews from the Air

Force’s 55th Wing. The crews consist of three pilots, two navigators, two

sensor maintenance technicians, and eight maintenance personnel. The

maintenance crew consists of a supervisor, two crew chiefs, and one individual for each of the five specialty areas: communications/navigation,

jet engines, electronics, hydraulics, and guidance and control. The DTRA

team consists of a team chief (referred to as mission commander), a deputy

team chief, and two to four linguist sensor operators. There are also seats

for flight monitors from the observed country and other U.S. Government representatives that frequently fly on missions.48

During a foreign overflight of U.S. territory, treaty-knowledgeable DTRA

flight monitors will fly aboard the foreign aircraft during its observation

flight. The actual number of DTRA

treaty/flight monitors will vary in accordance with the treaty, and will depend upon the size of the observing

nation’s aircraft. DTRA will usually

have at least four officials onboard a

foreign aircraft while it is flying on

treaty missions over the United States.

The treaty sets a minimum number for

representatives from the observed

country onboard, but it also grants

waivers for smaller aircraft. In the case

that the observing country uses its own

aircraft, the observed party is authorized two flight monitors and one

interpreter, as well as one flight monitor for each sensor control station,

unless otherwise mutually agreed upon.**49

A view of the camera bay under the OC135B.

* Initially, the aircraft were assigned to the 24th Reconnaissance Squadron. The 24th

was inactivated on June 30, 1994. Its assets and mission were assumed by the

reactivated 45th Reconnaissance Squadron.

** See Article VI, Section III of the treaty for a list of these and other guidelines

outlining the number of representatives onboard observing aircraft.

A U.S. Open Skies official describes

features of the OC-135B to foreign

observers during a partial aircraft

certification at Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base in August 1995.
27

A U.S. Open Skies official gives a

briefing onboard the OC-135B aircraft

to foreign observers during a mock

certification at Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base, Ohio.

Observers from Germany and Russia inspect

the SAR antenna assembly on the OC-135

during the aircraft certification process.

A Canadian official inspects a sensor

during a mock certification.
28
29

Observation Flight Quotas:

Active and Passive

An observation flight under the Open Skies Treaty is called a quota.

Each State Party, or group of States Parties, is assigned a certain number

of observation flights that they must accept each year. These are called

passive quotas. States Parties with a large geographical area, such as the

United States or Russia, are given more passive quotas than those with

less terrain, such as Portugal or Iceland. However, each signatory nation

has at least one passive quota during the first year of the treaty. The number of observation flights a State Party is allocated to conduct are called

active quotas. Active quotas directly correspond to the number of passive

quotas. Each member nation has the right to conduct a number of observation flights over any other State Party equal to the number of flights

which that other State Party has the right to conduct over it. The distribution of active quotas are reviewed and determined each year by the

Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC).50

The Open Skies Treaty will enter into force 60 days after 20 States Parties have ratified, including all 10 having eight or more passive quotas.

Those 10 countries are: Belarus, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia,

Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States. (See Appendix A for a listing of State Party quotas.) Three of the four countries that

have not yet ratified-Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine-have eight or more

quotas and must ratify for the treaty’s entry-into-force (EIF) phase to

begin. Belarus, itself, does not actually have eight separate passive quotas. Its quotas are counted together with Russia as one State Party, however, Belarus is still required to ratify for treaty EIF.51

6
30

10
31

A Typical

Open Skies Mission

When a State Party wants to conduct an observation flight, it is required

to give 72 hours notice to the country they wish to observe. They send a

message, called a Format 12, to the hosting country with its arrival time

and a list of the people who will conduct the mission. The host nation

must respond with a Format 13, an acceptance reply. The observed country

quickly acquires visas, sets up lodging, and gets everything in place for

the observing nation’s arrival.52

Upon arrival, the observing State Party has 96 hours to complete the

observation mission. Immediately after arrival, the visiting nation’s team

will go through point of entry procedures–a variety of briefings required

by the treaty. These include weather updates, safety hazards, and any

other special rules or information. The teams then travel to the Open

Skies Airfield, if different than the entry point. An initial inspection of

the observation aircraft is then conducted at the Open Skies Airfield.

During a passive quota in the United States, inspection of the foreign

aircraft will be conducted by DTRA’s Technical Equipment Inspectors.

7

A Russian An-30 arrives at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C. for a Russia–U.S.

joint trial flight, July 28-August 4, 1997.
32

They look to ensure that the aircraft and sensors comply with those previously certified in accordance with the treaty. A technical equipment

inspection can last up to eight hours, but it must be completed at least

four hours prior to the scheduled commencement of an observation

flight.53

Next, the observing nation’s team chief, or mission commander, submits

his mission plan to the other country. This is done at least 24 hours

before the scheduled takeoff. The observed country reviews the plan to

make sure it fully complies with the treaty. They have four hours to review the plan and accept or propose changes. If there are any major concerns, the two parties have up to eight hours to reconcile the flight plan.

In the unlikely event that the two parties can not reach agreement, the

observing party may cancel the mission. They must then file and submit

a written explanation to all other States Parties. A demonstration flight

could be flown after the pre-flight inspection. A demonstration flight

consists of the observing party flying a racetrack pattern over a target,

operating the cameras and equipment to be used for the actual mission

flight. If a demonstration flight is added, the observing State Party is

given an additional 24 hours, on top of the 96 hours, to complete the

mission.54

Left: A United Kingdom sensor

operator changes the film onboard

the British Andover as an American

Open Skies official observes the

process during a joint trial flight

over Scotland in 1996.

Bottom: The U.S. observer initials

that he had witnessed the changeout of film.

Open Skies Mission

TIMELINE

72 hr Notice,

24 hrs to Reply

Arrival

Procedures

Submit/

Negotiate

Mission Plan

(8 hrs Max)

Conduct

Observation

Flight

Depart within

24 hrs from

Mission

Completion

96 Hours to Conduct Mission

Upon Arrival

(May Add 24 hrs if Observed Party

Requests a Demonstration Flight)

Technical

Equipment

Inspection

(8 hrs Max)

Demonstration

Flight

(if requested)
33

Top: A U.S. Open Skies team reviews

and discusses a flight plan for a mission

over the United States.

Middle: U.S. and the Czech Republic

crews pose with the Czech An-30 aircraft,

preparing for a demonstration flight over

the Czech Republic in July 1996.

Left: U.S. technical equipment inspectors

layout their equipment which will be

used to inspect the Bulgarian An-30

aircraft prior to a trial flight.
34

The actual mission consists of flying the accepted route and altitude. In

some of the larger countries such as Russia and the United States, the

mission may require several takeoffs and landings from pre-designated

Open Skies refueling airfields to complete the total mission. Such cases

may take two or more days of flying. The maximum flight distances of

observation flights commencing from Open Skies airfields varies, depending on the size of the observed nation. For example, the maximum

A U.S. official greets members of the

Ukrainian Open Skies crew after

arriving at Robins Air Force Base,

Georgia, in April 1997.

A Ukrainian technician operates a

sensor onboard an An-30 aircraft, while

a U.S. Open Skies team chief looks on

during a joint trial flight over Ukraine

in June 1998.
35

distance you can fly from declared airfields in Bulgaria during one mission is 660 kilometers, while in Russia, flights up to 6,500 kilometers are

allowed.55 Typically, most European nations will require only one day of

flying. The 96 hours allowed provides extra days for multiple flights in

the larger countries. Additionally, if the weather on the scheduled flying

day is not suitable for acquiring the desired imagery, the observing nation may use the extra days to wait for better weather.56

Upon landing after an observation flight, the parties might go immediately to process the film and make duplicates–the treaty requires that a

copy of the imagery will always be provided to the country being observed. The observing country has the option of processing the film back

in its own country. If this option is chosen, the observed nation is authorized to send two people back with the team from the observing nation

to monitor the processing of the film, the duplication process, and then

take copies back to their country. For processing in the United States,

DTRA uses the Open Skies Media Processing Facility (OSMPF) located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio.57

U.S. officials observe a Bulgarian sensor

operator at a sensor control station

onboard an An-30 aircraft during a

demonstration flight over Dayton, Ohio,

July 27, 1998.
36

Joint Trial Flights

Joint Trial Flights ( JTFs) are

Open Skies missions conducted

between two or three States Parties outside the normal quota of

either country. While awaiting

entry-into-force (EIF) of the

treaty, JTFs are routinely being

performed between the signatory nations. These flights are

designed to look exactly like

Open Skies Treaty missions. The

most significant difference is in

the detailed mission planning

stage. During a joint trial flight, there is more planning and discussion

between the participating countries. Before each flight, DTRA will generally send the designated team chief and two other representatives to

the country that the U.S. intends to fly with. There, they sit down with

that country’s representatives and develop the plans and schedules for

the mission. The mission dates are set; all the payment rules are established such as who pays for hotel rooms; how jet fuel will be purchased;

and how the aircraft will be serviced. Visas and customs are also discussed in these planning sessions. By contrast, in an actual treaty mission

the observing country is only required to give 72-hour notice prior to

arriving.58

Planning usually happens months ahead of the actual joint trail flight.

Then, about four weeks before the mission, the combined U.S. mission

A Ukrainian An-30 Open Skies aircraft

on the tarmac at Borispol in Kiev,

Ukraine in June 1998.

German officials, and a Belgian

observer, watch operations at a sensor

control station onboard the OC-135B

aircraft during a U.S.–Germany joint

trial flight, July 14-25, 1995.
37

The Russian Open Skies team stands

beside their An-30 aircraft shortly after

arriving for the first time in the United

States for a joint trial flight, July 28–

Aug 4, 1997.

planning team finalizes the route to fly and areas to be

imaged. Alternate routes are also developed in case of bad

weather or if other circumstances arise. Well before 72 hours

prior to arriving, the observing party will send a message

to the hosting country listing arrival times and mission personnel. The rest of the JTF mission is conducted like an

actual Open Skies Treaty mission. One other difference is

that after a joint trial flight, only the two nations involved

share the imagery produced. For actual quota missions

under the treaty, any signatory nation of the treaty can request a copy of the imagery.

On July 10-12, 1993, the United States flew its first joint

trial flight. Conducted over Hungary, and with 12 nations observing, the

U.S. Convair CV-580* conducted two flights over several Hungarian

CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty sites.59 During the

mission, the U.S. collected mostly optical images, however, some synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging was also captured. Since then, while

awaiting the treaty’s entry-into-force, the United States has conducted

34 JTFs with other nations.60 Eleven of these have been flown over the

United States, while 23 have been over foreign territories. (See Appendix E for a detailed breakdown of these JTFs.)

U.S. and Russian officials greet each

other after the United States Open

Skies team arrives at Kubinka for a joint

trial flight, August 1997.

* This was the only JTF conducted in which the United States used the CV-580.

After this mission, the U.S. began using the OC-135B aircraft.
38
39

U.S. Open Skies Airfields

Since the United States is a geographically large country, there are several airfields across the country designated for the Open Skies mission.

There are two point of entry and point of exit locations for all observing

nations arriving in the United States. One is at the Washington-Dulles

International Airport near Washington, D.C., and the other is at Travis

Air Force Base (AFB), California. There are three designated Open Skies

Airfields (OSAs). They are located at Travis AFB, Wright-Patterson

AFB in Ohio, and Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. These are the only places

within the United States that Open Skies observation flights can start

and end. Finally, there are four Open Skies Refueling Airfields (OSRAs)

in the United States. These are located at Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota, Tinker AFB in Oklahoma, Robins AFB in Georgia, and the Honolulu International Airport in Hawaii.61 For conducting active quota

missions in Europe and Asia, the United States has two staging bases.

One is at Royal Air Force (RAF) Station, Mildenhall, England, and the

other is Yokota Air Base (AB), Japan. The OC-135 is flown to one of

those sites and the aircraft is checked over by U.S. Air Force personnel

and any needed maintenance is performed. The crew uses this time to

rest and adjust to the time change.62

8
40

United States Open Skies Airfields
41
42

A
43

Training of DTRA

Open Skies Personnel

Personnel in the DTRA Open Skies Division are required to have certain base-level qualifications before they are even assigned to the organization. Basically, there are three different categories of Open Skies

personnel: team chiefs, deputy team chiefs, and linguist sensor operators

(LSOs). The Open Skies Treaty is unique because it is the only treaty

that requires the use of an aircraft. As such, each member of the DTRA

Open Skies team has to come from a flying career field and have ample

experience as aircrew members. Utilizing highly-experienced aircrew personnel reduces the amount of training time required when new personnel are assigned to the division.63

The linguists, which are all enlisted personnel, are also the sensor operators. Since they perform both duties, this reduces the manpower required

for missions. In addition to being flyers, before the linguists are assigned

to the Open Skies Division, they have to be level-3 Russian speakers.

The deputy team chiefs are all pilots or navigators who have had extensive flight experience. Deputies are very familiar with air traffic control

(ATC) procedures, because while flying aboard foreign aircraft in the

United States, they need to be able to relay or explain ATC instructions

to the flight crews. The team chiefs also have to be aviators, but their

main focus is on treaty knowledge, leadership, and people skills. They

also need a general knowledge of all the aspects of the linguist sensor

operators’ and deputies’ duties. The team chiefs must have a thorough

knowledge of all aspects of the Open Skies Treaty as they are the senior

United States Government representative on treaty missions.64 They have

to be able discuss specifics of a mission, protect U.S. treaty rights, and

negotiate contentious issues within the treaty guidelines.

As far as specific training is concerned within DTRA, linguist sensor

operators are given a list of items to read and study when they are initially assigned to the Open Skies Division. They first need to learn the

basics of the treaty. Then, they extensively study all the technical aspects

of the cameras and sensors. This is paramount because they will not only

be operating the sensors on the OC-135B aircraft, but may be required

9
44

to interpret certain specifics of the equipment or aspects of the processes

to foreign aircrew members. Again, since they may be needed to interpret, the linguists are required to have a knowledge of the aircraft systems itself, as well as a more detailed knowledge of flying procedures.

DTRA personnel are also trained on film processing procedures at the

Media Processing Facility at Wright-Patterson AFB. The team chiefs

and the deputies are required to have a basic knowledge of the process, but the linguist sensor operators are required to know

more specifics, again, because they will have

to explain to the foreign team what the processes are while they are going through it.

Altogether, the linguists will go through language training, ground training, and flying

training, and then be evaluated.

The team chiefs and deputies also have required reading and study materials. Additionally, to be considered a fully qualified

team chief or deputy team chief, they must

undergo formal flight and ground training,

which includes the successful completion of

an initial in-flight evaluation. There is also

continuation training for the whole team,

usually every other week on a different aspect of the treaty. During these training sessions, an instructor, with thorough

knowledge on a particular topic, will put together a lecture and presentation on the subject matter. After that, the

linguists accomplish specific treaty language training on that particular

subject. Another aspect of training for Open Skies personnel is to keep

everyone current in their flying continuation training and qualifications.

This includes a requirement for all team members to complete periodic

in-flight and ground evaluations. Because of the personnel turnover rate

at DTRA, every couple of years experts from the different sensor manufacturers are invited to give instruction on the particular sensor their company built and has onboard the OC-135. These lectures and presentations

are also placed on video for newly assigned personnel to study.

Ukrainian officials inspect the

American’s technical equipment that

will be used for inspection of the Open

Skies aircraft, during the point-of-entry

procedures. (Ukraine–U.S. joint trial

flight, April 16-24, 1997.)
45

Training for the Flight Crew

The flight crew of the 55th Wing, which operates the United States’

OC-135B Open Skies aircraft, are also required to undergo certain treatyrelated training. Since they also fly other missions out of Offutt AFB,

they get their flying training from Air Force military commands. However, to qualify to fly an Open Skies mission, the 55th flight crew personnel are required to first take the formal treaty course given by DTRA.

Additionally, together with DTRA personnel, the 55th flight crews will

fly training sorties that are similar to Open Skies missions. This is so

they can get used to the profiles and type of flying required under the

treaty.65

The framing camera onboard the

Bulgarian An-30 aircraft.
46
47

Costs and Funding

for Open Skies

Funding for the Open Skies Treaty comes out of several different budget

allocations. Part goes to DTRA for implementing the treaty. The Air

Force gets a large portion of the funding, mainly to operate the OC135B treaty airplanes. Other portions go to the Open Skies Media Processing Facility at Wright-Patterson AFB and to the Open Skies

supporting airfields. The costs of each observation mission varies, depending on where the mission is taking place, what nation’s aircraft and

equipment is being used, where the media processing will be performed,

and several other factors. Just to operate the OC-135B aircraft, it costs

the Air Force about $2,500 per hour. The United States has been flying

joint trial flights (JTFs) routinely since 1994. From 1994 to 1997, the

total Open Skies budget has been approximately $7 million a year.66

10

It costs the United States Air Force about $2,500 per hour to operate the OC-135B aircraft.
48
49

Future Possibilities

Although the Open Skies Treaty has not yet entered into force, through

the benefit of conducting numerous multinational and bilateral joint trial

flights, it has already been a success and appears to have overwhelming

support of the participating nations.67 In some cases, when these overflights have occurred, it has marked the first time a particular nation’s

military aircraft has overflown a former adversary’s territory. This display

of openness, cooperation, and trust is unprecedented. When the governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine ratify the treaty and deposit their

instruments of ratification, the treaty will enter into force 60 days later.

During the next six months, any other nation participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe may apply for accession

into the treaty. In fact, several countries, such as Sweden and Finland,

have shown interest in participating in the treaty and conducting overflights.68

Other possibilities for the Open Skies forum have also been addressed

and discussed. These include observation flights to monitor the environment, to facilitate compliance with existing or future arms control agreements, or to strengthen the capacity for conflict prevention and crisis

management.69 In fact, some of this has already been tested. In November 1997, the United States was an observing party as the Russian Federation overflew Bosnia with their An-30, observing peacekeeping

operations in the region. There has also been considerable talk about

using the Open Skies platform in a similar fashion over the country of

Kosovo. In December 1998, the U.S. Open Skies team also overflew

Central America to collect imagery for assessing and analyzing damage

incurred from Hurricane Mitch, which struck the region in November

1998. Along with these ancillary missions, the signatory nations continue to conduct trial flights while awaiting the entry into force of the

Treaty on Open Skies.

11
50
51

Notes

1 Treaty on Open Skies, U.S. Senate Treaty Doc. 102-37, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, 1992.

2

 Kevin Ruffner, editor, CORONA: America’s First Satellite Program, History Staff,

Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, D.C.,

1995, p. xi.

3

 Jonathan B. Tucker, “Negotiating Open Skies: A Diplomatic History,” in Krepon and

Smithson (eds.), Open Skies, Arms Control and Cooperative Security, St. Martin’s Press,

New York, 1992, p. 5.

4

 David Hoffman, “Bush Urges Soviets to Broaden Reforms,” The Washington Post.

May 13, 1989, Front Page.

5

 Ibid.

6

 Paul Lewis, “Soviet Position at ‘Open Skies’ Talks Puzzles West,” New York Times,

February 25, 1990, p. 11.

7

 Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961, University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, 1989, p. 464.

8

 Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-

1974, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, D.C., 1998.

9

 David Thomson, “Treaty on Open Skies,” Center for National Security Studies, Los

Alamos National Laboratory, July 25, 1994.

10 Frank A. Partlow, “The Verification Triad: National Technical Means, On-Site Inspections, and Aerial Inspections,” in Krepon and Smithson (eds.), Open Skies, Arms

Control and Cooperative Security, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1992, p. 52.

11 Joe Clark, “Don’t Dismiss Open Skies,” New York Times, June 5, 1989.

12 Paul Lewis, “U.S. Presents Plan for German Unity,” New York Times, February 13,

1990, p. A10.

13 Clark, New York Times, June 5, 1989.

14 Lewis, New York Times, p. 11.

15 Ibid.

16 Celestine Bohlen, “‘Open Skies’ Talks Hit Snag, Cutting Chances of Pact in May,”

New York Times, April 26, 1990, p. A14.

17 Ibid.

18 Mark David Gabriele, “The Treaty on Open Skies and Its Practical Applications and

Implications for the United States,” RAND Graduate School, 1998. p. 3. During the

12
52

Ottawa Conference, the Soviets stated that they would accept a no better resolution on

cameras than two to three meters. The United States, unwilling to accept that proposal,

held off on the resolution issue until the second conference in Budapest.

19 Clestine Bohlen, New York Times. (Quoting Viktor Karpov), p. A14.

20 Treaty on Open Skies, p. 11.

21 Michael Z. Wise, “Soviets Back ‘Open Skies’ Pact, Hi-Tech Flights,” New York Times,

November 6, 1991, p. A20.

22 Ibid.

23 Thomson, “Treaty on Open Skies,” p. 3. The two questions left to be resolved after

the Vienna talks included: (1) the degree of sensor capability and; (2) the costs associated with observed parties aircraft. NATO members did not want to pay when a nation

forced the “taxi option” upon them. Russia disagreed. A follow-on negotiation rejected

Russia’s plea for shared costs on that matter.

24 Ibid, p. 3,12.

25 Treaty on Open Skies, pp. x, 2.

26 “Treaty on Open Skies,” U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report, Executive Report 103-105, August 2, 1993.

27 Ibid., p. 26.

28 Ibid., p. 7.

29 Thomson, “Treaty on Open Skies,” p. 6.

30 Interview with Francis X. Stenger, Deputy Chief, Open Skies Division, by SSgt Kirk

W. Clear and Steven E. Block, Historians, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1998.

31 “Treaty on Open Skies,” Resolution of Ratification, United States Senate in Executive Session, Congressional Record, S10800-10804, August 6, 1993.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 MSgt David M. Willford, USAF, “A Brief History of the On-Site Inspection Agency,”

OSIA, U.S. Department of Defense, 1997, pp. 39-43.

35 Interview, Stenger.

36 Treaty on Open Skies.

37 Ibid., Article IV.

38 Fact Sheet, “Open Skies OC-135B Observation Aircraft,” OSIA Public Affairs,

May 1996.

39 Interview with Lt Col Scott Simmons, Open Skies Team Chief, by SSgt Kirk W.

Clear, Historian, Washington, D.C., July 7, 1998.

40 Report, “United States of America Open Skies Imagery Portfolio,” OSIA, November 1994, p. i.

41 Fact Sheet, “Open Skies OC-135B Observation Aircraft,” May 1996.

42 Aeronautical Systems Center History Office, Against the Wind, February 1994, p.

143; Fact Sheet, “4950th Test Wing Modifies Open Skies Aircraft,” Aeronautical Systems Center Public Affairs Office, 1993.
53

43 Against the Wind, p. 143.

44 Fact Sheet, “OC-135B Modification Testing Completed,” ASC Public Affairs Office, 1993; Fact Sheet, “Open Skies Aircraft Modification,” ASC Public Affairs Office,

Aug. 1994; The Arms Control Reporter, Institute for Defense & Disarmament Studies,

1993, sec. 409.

45 Bobbie Mixon, “Second Open Skies aircraft undergoes conversion here,” Skywrighter,

April 8, 1998, p.7.

46 E-Mail, R.K. Price to SSgt K.W. Clear, “Open Skies Mod Cost,” August 14, 1998.

47 Interview, Simmons.

48 Fact Sheet, “Open Skies OC-135B Observation Aircraft,” May 1996; Fact Sheet,

“Open Skies Aircraft Modification,” August 1994.

49 Interview, Simmons; Treaty on Open Skies, Article VI, Section III.

50 Treaty on Open Skies, Article III.

51 Ibid.; Thomson, “Treaty on Open Skies,” pp. 12-13.

52 Briefing, “Treaty on Open Skies,” Capt. P. Callahan, OSIA, c. 1992; Briefing, “Active

and Passive Notifications,” OSIA, March 1998; Interview, Simmons.

53 Briefing, “Treaty on Open Skies,” c. 1992; Treaty on Open Skies; Briefing, “Pre-Flight

Inspection,” OSIA, Oct. 1997.

54 Briefing, “Treaty on Open Skies,” c. 1992; Interview, Simmons.

55 Treaty on Open Skies.

56 Interview, Simmons.

57 Ibid.; Briefing, “Media Processing, Duplication, Process Monitoring & Dissemination,” OSIA, October. 1997.

58 Interview, Simmons.

59 The Arms Control Reporter, Institute for Defense & Disarmament Studies, 1993, sec.

409.

60 Chart, “Open Skies History,” OSIA Open Skies Directorate, August 1998.

61 Briefing, “Treaty on Open Skies,” c. 1992.

62 Interview, Simmons.

63 Interview, with Lt Col Mike Bridges, OSIA Open Skies Training Officer, by SSgt

Kirk W. Clear, OSIA Historian, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1998.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Interview, with Lt Col Bill Milot, OSIA Interagency Affairs, by SSgt Kirk W. Clear,

OSIA Historian, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1998; Interview with Capt. Daniel

Mosqueda, OSIA Open Skies, by SSgt Kirk W. Clear OSIA Historian, Washington,

D.C. August 24, 1998.

67 Interview, Stenger.

68 Interview, Milot.

69 Treaty on Open Skies.
54
55

Appendix

Treaty Members Ratification Status & Annual Passive

Quotas (as of October 31, 1998)

Germany yes January 27, 1994 12

United States Of America yes December 2, 1993 42

Russia/Belarus - 42

Benelux* yes June 28, 1995 6

Bulgaria yes April 15, 1994 4

Canada yes July 21, 1992 12

Denmark yes January 21, 1993 6

Spain yes November 18, 1993 4

France yes July 30, 1993 12

United Kingdom yes December 8, 1993 12

Georgia** yes June 19, 1998 0

Greece yes September 9, 1993 4

Hungary yes August 11, 1993 4

Iceland yes June 24, 1993 4

Italy yes October 28, 1994 12

Kyrgyzstan*** -0

Norway yes July 14, 1993 7

Poland yes May 17, 1995 6

Portugal yes January 22, 1994 2

Romania yes June 5, 1994 6

CzechRepublic & Slovakia**** yes December 21, 1992 4

Turkey yes November 30, 1994 12

Ukraine - 12

* For the purposes of the Open Skies Treaty, Belgium, the Netherlands, and

Luxembourg are considered one State Party, referred to as Benelux.

** Georgia was not an original signatory; signed Treaty on March 24, 1992.

*** Kyrgyzstan was not an original signatory; signed Treaty on December 15, 1992.

**** Czech and Slovak Republics each signed after separating January 1, 1993.

State Party Ratified

Treaty

Deposited

Instrumentsof

Ratification

Passive

Quota

A
56
57

Appendix B OC-135B Aircraft Arrangement
58

OC-135B Aircraft Arrangement
59

OC-135B Aircraft Arrangement

Diagram Key

1. Aft Latrine

2. Center Mounted KS-87

3. Camera Magazine Rack

4. Oblique Camera (2 Places)

5. IRLS Receiver

6. IRLS Pallet

7. APU

8. Film Changing Table

9. Sensor Maintenance

Station Seats

10. Deputy Mission Commander

11. Interphone Junction Box

(4 Places)

12. Mission Commander Seats

(2 Places)

13. Passenger Seats (18 Places)

14. Life Raft (2 Places)

15. Data Annotation, Recording

and Mapping System

(DARMS) Rack

16. Power Junction Box

17. Sensor Operator Station

18. Film Cooler Rack

19. Escape Slide

20. Small Parts Storage

21. Center Mounted KA-91

22. Vertical Looking Video Camera

23. Oxygen Rack

24. Camera Bay Doors (2 Places)

25. Aft Storage Area

26. Water T.O. Storage

27. Oil and Hydrolic Fluid Storage

28. Tool Box

29. Aircraft Tail Stand

30. Cargo Pallet

31. Galley

32. Forward Latrine

33. Electronic Equipment Rack

34. SAR Rack

35. Baggage Compartment

36. Aircraft Spare Parts

37. Crew Bunks

38. Aircraft Battery

39. SAR Air Conditioner

40. Forward Looking Video Camera

36

11

26

13

37

36

35

27

28

29

30

39

34

11

31

33

32

38

40

11

16

15

18

19

13 13

12

11

10

9

8

8

7

5

4

3

2

1

14

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

17
60
61

Appendix C

Dates Observing Nation Observed Nation Aircraft1

1993

10-12 Jul 93 United States Hungary CV-580

1994

4-12 Feb 94 United States Germany 61-2674

20-25 Mar 94 United States Canada 61-2674

14-22 Apr 94 United States Greece 61-2674

11-17 Jul 94 United States Ukraine An-30

24 Aug - 1 Sep 94 Ukraine United States 61-26742

4-9 Dec 94 United States Canada 61-2674

1995

23 Feb - 6 Mar 95 United States United Kingdom 61-2674

17-23 Jun 95 Germany United States Tu-1543

14-25 Jul 95 United States Germany 61-2674

1996

22-27 Apr 96 United States Canada 61-2674

5-17 Jul 96 United States Czech Republic 61-26724

27 Jul - 3 Aug 96 United States United Kingdom Andover

11-24 Oct 96 United States Ukraine 61-2672

25 Oct - 2 Nov 96 United States Hungary 61-2672

United States Joint Trial Flights (JTFs)

(as of October 31, 1998)

1

 If one of the U.S. OC-135B aircraft was used, the tail number is listed.

2

 Ukraine used the OC-135B for this first JTF in the United States.

3

 First foreign Open Skies aircraft to overfly the United States.

4

 First JTF using OC-135B, tail number 61-2672.
62

Dates Observing Nation Observed Nation Aircraft1

1997

3-8 Feb 97 Poland United States 61-2672

9-16 Mar 97 Slovakia United States 61-26705

16-24 Apr 97 Ukraine United States An-30

9-20 May 97 United States Poland 61-2670

28 May - 3 Jun 97 Hungary United States 61-2672

5-21 Jul 97 United States United Kingdom 61-26726

28 Jul - 4 Aug 97 Russia United States An-30

15-27 Aug 97 United States Russia An-30

22 Aug - 2 Sep 97 United States Slovakia 61-2672

21-28 Sep 97 Turkey United States 61-2670

1998

10-17 Jan 98 United States Turkey 61-2672

1-7 Feb 98 Czech Republic United States 61-2672

17-26 Apr 98 United States Czech Republic An-30

21-29 May 98 United States Georgia 61-2672

29 May - 6 Jun 98 United States Bulgaria 61-2672

12-28 Jun 98 United States Ukraine 61-2672

26-31 Jul 98 Bulgaria United States An-30

10-15 Aug 98 Canada United States C-130

2-9 Oct 98 United States Germany 61-2672

United States Totals:

(as of October 31, 1998)

“Active” JTFs (flown over foreign territories) 23

“Passive” JTFs (flown over the United States) 11

Total JTFs 34

5

 First JTF using OC-135B, tail number 61-2670.

6

 Time frame for this mission was so long because after the JTF in the United

Kingdom, the OC-135 flew to Denmark to participate in an air show as a static

display.
63

Appendix D Glossary of Terms

AB Air Base

AFB Air Force Base

ATC Air Traffic Control

CFE Conventional Armed Forces in Europe [Treaty]

CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

CWC Chemical Weapons Convention

DARMS Data Annotation/Recording and Mapping System

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency

EIF Entry-Into-Force

GPS Global Positioning Satellite

INF Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces [Treaty]

IRLS Infrared Line Scanner

ITP Interim Training Platform

JTF Joint Trial Flight

LSO Linguist Sensor Operator

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NTM National Technical Means

OSA Open Skies Airfield

OSCC Open Skies Consultative Commission

OSIA On-Site Inspection Agency

OSMPF Open Skies Media Processing Facility

OSRA Open Skies Refueling Airfield

POE Point of Entry

POX Point of Exit

RAF Royal Air Force

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar

SFRC Senate Foreign Relations Committee

START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

TEI Technical Equipment Inspector

TTBT Threshold Test Ban Treaty

US United States
64
65

Further References

Aeronautical Systems Center History Office. Against the Wind: 90 Years

of Flight Test in the Miami Valley. Ohio: Air Force Materiel Command,

1994.

Hewitt, Richard G. and Jack M. Holl. Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-

1961. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989.

Krepon, Michael and Amy E. Smithson (eds.). Open Skies, Arms Control

and Cooperative Security. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.

Thomson, David B. “The Treaty on Open Skies.” Center for National

Security Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory. New Mexico: 1994.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Treaty Document 102-37: Message from the President of the United States Transmitting the Treaty on Open Skies: 102d Congress, 2d Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1992.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Executive Report 103-105. “The Treaty on Open Skies.” Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, August 2, 1993.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Congressional Record. 10800-10804. “Treaty on

Open Skies.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

August 6, 1993.
66
67

DTRA Web Site

For more information on the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, visit

the DTRALink, the Agency’s web site on the Internet.

The address is http://www.dtra.mil.
68
69

DTRA History Publications

In addition to this report, the following publications may also be obtained from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency History Office:

• On-Site Inspections Under the INF Treaty (Washington D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1993)

• On-Site Inspections Under the CFE Treaty (Washington D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1996)

• Russian-language edition of On-Site Inspections Under the INF Treaty

(Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997)

• A Brief History of the On-Site Inspection Agency (Washington D.C.:

On-Site Inspection Agency, 1998)

• Russian-language edition of A Brief History of the On-Site Inspection Agency (Washington D.C.: On-Site Inspection Agency, 1998)

To request copies, please contact:

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Office of History

45045 Aviation Drive

Dulles, VA 20166-7517

Phone: (703) 810-4433

E-mail: history@dtra.mil
70