From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #58 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 21 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 058 In this issue: Re: Group Patch Sub-hypersonic exotic propulsion, the FAS, and the sick depraved people who subscribe to skunk-works :-) Tomahawk Cruise Missile Engine Oh. We're batty. F22 Question F22 Question (fwd) F-22 & Sidewinders Sub-hypersonic exotic propulsion, the FAS, and the sick depraved people who subscribe to skunk-works :-) Books for sale Re: F22 Question Books for sale NOT Re: Sub-hypersonic exotic propulsion, the FAS, and the sick depraved people who subscribe to skunk-works :-) Re: F22 Question See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 05:46:46 MST Subject: Re: Group Patch Duane writes: >I still have my purloined and enlarged skunk (took it off the >cover of Crickmore's book with Mr. copy machine) Nice... i've been wanting to do exactly that. >that I want to make straight skunk t-shirts with. It's possible that Lockheed already sells something like that. >Actually, we could also put the same thing in a simplfied flag form, >so that the guards at Groom can see it more clearly. :-) I'd certainly would feel *very* proud to be Aurora-watching under such a banner... :-> - -dean ------------------------------ From: Inhale to the Chief. 20-Jan-1993 1130 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 11:30:24 EST Subject: Sub-hypersonic exotic propulsion, the FAS, and the sick depraved people who subscribe to skunk-works :-) In relation to a thread on USAF denials of Aurora-class aircraft, Larry wrote: >If the story had been as I said, it would have made me wonder because >we might have been looking at, for example, a PDE powered U-2 follow on, >(manned/unmanned) for example. In fact, it still does make me wonder. To alter the direction of the discussion a little bit, do some of the exotic propulsion schemes we have discussed for hypersonic aircraft appear useful for non-hypersonic applications, like Larry's comment on a PDE-powered super U-2? I wonder if, say, a PDE would be useful for stealth reasons in the sub-Mach 2.5 regime where turbojets/turbofans have been dominant. Would IR/acoustic signatures be lower, or lend themselves to simpler suppression techniques? Alternatively, would specific fuel consumption be improved, enabling you to build a smaller vehicle for a given range/payload? It seems that conventional gas turbine technologies can be extrapolated to cover most of the needs in the current speed regime, but I'm inviting correction here. Don't forget that the U-2 was flying from Pakistan to Norway on a single J75 over 35 years ago. And wouldn't THAP/TR-3A cover the U-2 penetrating recon mission? In the civilian arena, perhaps one of these exotic propulsion technologies would be applicable to an SST in the Mach 2-4 regime. Getting back to Aurora, Larry writes: >Maybe you now evolve something out of SR-71 technology, or maybe in the >35 years since the SR was designed, plus certain results from key >programs like NASP, NASA programs (X-15 + lifting bodies say) and internal >Lockheed development programs, you have already evolved SR or developed >totally new technology that you are now comfortable with. >There have been LOTS of studies about airplanes like this since the >late 50s. I think that SUNTAN would even help here. For those who don't know, SUNTAN was the USAF program to develop liquid hydrogen for air-breathing engines in the 1950s. The Lockheed CL-400 Mach 2.5 recon aircraft was intended to use LH2, but was canceled when the technical problems couldn't be solved quickly. It was replaced by the A-12 Oxcart, essentially. Don't make the same mistake as the Federation of American Scientists did in their recent rant in Smithsonian Air and Space, and equate SUNTAN with the CL-400. CL-400 used SUNTAN technology, but SUNTAN wasn't limited to CL-400 propulsion issues. For more on SUNTAN, see the fascinating NASA SP-4404, "Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel," by John Sloop. Speaking of the FAS, Malcom W. Browne wrote an article on Aurora in the 19 January 1993 NY Times, "Rumors of Mystery Superplane Appear Unfounded." In the article, the learned Dr. John Pike of the FAS claims that we skunkers are suffering from severe wishful thinking/denial. Sez the savant, . . . it looks in this case as if Aurora may be nothing more than wishful thinking. Dr. John Pike . . . wrote that "an understanding of the mystery aircraft phenomena is impossible outside the context of the UFO phenomena." "Belief in the existence of marvelously capable and highly secret aircraft resonated with some of the deeper anxieties of contemporary American society . . ." ". . . it would be comforting [for those people] to believe that the decline of America and American aerospace was more apparent than real." (Reprinted without permission.) So you can all stop wondering about exotic aircraft. According to the good Doctor Pike, it's all a scam. Not only that, we skunkers are all suffering from suppressed anxiety abut the future of America. He probably suspects us of beating our kids and cheating on our taxes, as well. Interesting that the NY Times was, to my knowledge, the first general-interest news outlet to publish a story about the AF developing Aurora, in January 1988. Rgds, George George Allegrezza "The fuel gauge shows how much fuel is Digital Equipment Corporation in the tank." Littleton MA USA -- 1993 Mazda RX-7 owner's manual allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ From: gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 11:43:33 EST Subject: Tomahawk Cruise Missile Engine ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 09:13:37 PST Subject: Oh. We're batty. George writes: So you can all stop wondering about exotic aircraft. According to the good Doctor Pike, it's all a scam. I reply: Who was it that said that man would never fly? It was in July or August of 1903. You know, about six months before Kittyhawk? ;-) Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. The difference between UFO's and Exotic a/c is that photographic and video evidence exists. Not as much as we'd like, but it's there. And up until the cover of AWST, there were no shots of the F-117, either. At least, in civilian hands. Let's see what the Clinton administration will say. Rick "The Undaunted" Pavek ------------------------------ From: ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 12:04:22 CST Subject: F22 Question The F22 is an air superiority fighter with stealth capabilities. Consequently, the munitions are carried internally to keep the stealth profile. How does the F22 use a short range missile like the Sidewinder without exposing itself to radar? The usual method for engaging a target is to allow the Sidewinder seeker to acquire lock on the target and then releasing the missile. To do so with the F22 would require dragging a missile from under the stores bay under the F22 and then trying to seek lock. This should impair not only the stealth qualities of the aircraft but also the flight qualities. There is likely to be a blind spot where the missile can't see because of the F22 fuselage. Does anyone know how they're planning to overcome these problems? Have I missed something somewhere? Dennis ------------------------------ From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (B Bikowicz) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:57:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: F22 Question (fwd) Once upon a time Dennis Ferguson shaped the electrons to say... >stealth profile. How does the F22 use a short range missile like >the Sidewinder without exposing itself to radar? The usual method If you are using a Sidewinder, sometimes called a dogfighting missile, you will be so close that the enemy will probably know your there. Unless you are sneaking up behind him, in which case you won't be in his radar's arc anyway. >only the stealth qualities of the aircraft but also the flight I don't think the flight qualities will be much affected. The F-22 was designed from the start to use the bay and I would certainly hope firing a missile was taken into account. From what I understand, to fire a Sidewinder a trapeeze is extended from the bay, placing the missile well outside the aircrafts boundary layer, the 'winder is a rail-launched missile. On the other hand the Sparrow and AMRAAM are ejected out of the bay. (Well, the AMRAAM can also be rail-launched....) >qualities. There is likely to be a blind spot where the missile >can't see because of the F22 fuselage. Yes there will most likely be a blind spot, the upper arc of the seeker will probably be shadowed by the fuselage. I'm not sure what the off angle viewing degree of the head is, did the F-15s body get in the way of the inboard Sidewinders? ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 11:14:56 PST Subject: F-22 & Sidewinders I've been under the assumption that the philosophy has been that the 'stealth' capability is primarily to get you to target. Once you're there, and you open your stores or, as in the case of the strike aircraft like the F-117 or the B-2, your weapons bays, then it's too late for the target to do anything. Sure, you want to close the doors soon after to improve your chances of egressing the area, but it's a given that during the delivery the stealth qualities are reduced. Hopefully, the insides of the bays are coated with RAM and iron ball paint. Rick ------------------------------ From: Inhale to the Chief. 20-Jan-1993 1130 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 11:30:24 EST Subject: Sub-hypersonic exotic propulsion, the FAS, and the sick depraved people who subscribe to skunk-works :-) In relation to a thread on USAF denials of Aurora-class aircraft, Larry wrote: >If the story had been as I said, it would have made me wonder because >we might have been looking at, for example, a PDE powered U-2 follow on, >(manned/unmanned) for example. In fact, it still does make me wonder. To alter the direction of the discussion a little bit, do some of the exotic propulsion schemes we have discussed for hypersonic aircraft appear useful for non-hypersonic applications, like Larry's comment on a PDE-powered super U-2? I wonder if, say, a PDE would be useful for stealth reasons in the sub-Mach 2.5 regime where turbojets/turbofans have been dominant. Would IR/acoustic signatures be lower, or lend themselves to simpler suppression techniques? Alternatively, would specific fuel consumption be improved, enabling you to build a smaller vehicle for a given range/payload? It seems that conventional gas turbine technologies can be extrapolated to cover most of the needs in the current speed regime, but I'm inviting correction here. Don't forget that the U-2 was flying from Pakistan to Norway on a single J75 over 35 years ago. And wouldn't THAP/TR-3A cover the U-2 penetrating recon mission? In the civilian arena, perhaps one of these exotic propulsion technologies would be applicable to an SST in the Mach 2-4 regime. Getting back to Aurora, Larry writes: >Maybe you now evolve something out of SR-71 technology, or maybe in the >35 years since the SR was designed, plus certain results from key >programs like NASP, NASA programs (X-15 + lifting bodies say) and internal >Lockheed development programs, you have already evolved SR or developed >totally new technology that you are now comfortable with. >There have been LOTS of studies about airplanes like this since the >late 50s. I think that SUNTAN would even help here. For those who don't know, SUNTAN was the USAF program to develop liquid hydrogen for air-breathing engines in the 1950s. The Lockheed CL-400 Mach 2.5 recon aircraft was intended to use LH2, but was canceled when the technical problems couldn't be solved quickly. It was replaced by the A-12 Oxcart, essentially. Don't make the same mistake as the Federation of American Scientists did in their recent rant in Smithsonian Air and Space, and equate SUNTAN with the CL-400. CL-400 used SUNTAN technology, but SUNTAN wasn't limited to CL-400 propulsion issues. For more on SUNTAN, see the fascinating NASA SP-4404, "Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel," by John Sloop. Speaking of the FAS, Malcom W. Browne wrote an article on Aurora in the 19 January 1993 NY Times, "Rumors of Mystery Superplane Appear Unfounded." In the article, the learned Dr. John Pike of the FAS claims that we skunkers are suffering from severe wishful thinking/denial. Sez the savant, . . . it looks in this case as if Aurora may be nothing more than wishful thinking. Dr. John Pike . . . wrote that "an understanding of the mystery aircraft phenomena is impossible outside the context of the UFO phenomena." "Belief in the existence of marvelously capable and highly secret aircraft resonated with some of the deeper anxieties of contemporary American society . . ." ". . . it would be comforting [for those people] to believe that the decline of America and American aerospace was more apparent than real." (Reprinted without permission.) So you can all stop wondering about exotic aircraft. According to the good Doctor Pike, it's all a scam. Not only that, we skunkers are all suffering from suppressed anxiety abut the future of America. He probably suspects us of beating our kids and cheating on our taxes, as well. Interesting that the NY Times was, to my knowledge, the first general-interest news outlet to publish a story about the AF developing Aurora, in January 1988. Rgds, George George Allegrezza "The fuel gauge shows how much fuel is Digital Equipment Corporation in the tank." Littleton MA USA -- 1993 Mazda RX-7 owner's manual allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ From: durway@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Lindsey Durway) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 13:26:40 CST Subject: Books for sale Someone in my net.neighborhood appears to be selling off some used books. As an (unsolicited) favor to him and particularly to my friends on skunk-works, I thought I'd let you know. The books are: >"The Great Book of Modern Warplanes" >"Modern Air Combat" >"Hitler's Luftwaffe" >"The World's Military Aircraft" >"Great Fighting Planes, World War I to the Present Day" >"CV: Carrier Aviation" >"Red Flag: Air Combat for the 80's" >"Top Gun: The Navy's Fighter Weapons School" >"F4U Corsair in Color" >"F4U Corsair in Action" >"F-14 Tomcat in Action" >"F-14 A & B Tomcat in Detail & Scale" >"F-4 Phantom II in Detail & Scale" >"F-15 Eagle in Detail & Scale" >"Sherman in Action" He named some very reasonable prices. I have more info if you like, or you can write him yourself: >Mike Ruff >UT Austin >mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Take care, Lindsey - -- Lindsey Durway durway@mpd.tandem.com; Tandem Computers, Inc., Austin; (512) 244-8355 I can neither confirm nor deny that Tandem Computers, Inc., is developing a hypersonic fault-tolerant computer system. ------------------------------ From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 10:58:46 PST Subject: Re: F22 Question On the other hand, the act of firing a missile would expose the plane's position because of the missile's heat signature and the point of origin of its flight path. As for aerodynamics, maybe that's just an unavoidable part of the design challenge. - --Geoff ------------------------------ From: durway@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Lindsey Durway) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 14:24:13 CST Subject: Books for sale NOT The fellow selling the aviation books tells me they're already gone. Sorry about that! Lindsey - -- Lindsey Durway, a guy. durway@mpd.tandem.com "Don't worry about the missed free throw, Christian. We all make mistakes." --Richard Nixon to Christian Laettner ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:02:38 -0800 Subject: Re: Sub-hypersonic exotic propulsion, the FAS, and the sick depraved people who subscribe to skunk-works :-) I wrote re. the USAF denials in the Aerospace Daily piece: >>If the story had been as I said, it would have made me wonder because >>we might have been looking at, for example, a PDE powered U-2 follow on, >>(manned/unmanned) for example. In fact, it still does make me wonder. Geo. writes: >To alter the direction of the discussion a little bit, do some of the >exotic propulsion schemes we have discussed for hypersonic aircraft appear >useful for non-hypersonic applications, like Larry's comment on a >PDE-powered super U-2? I wonder if, say, a PDE would be useful for stealth >reasons in the sub-Mach 2.5 regime where turbojets/turbofans have been >dominant. One property of a PDE that would make it useful to a U-2 follow-on would be it's lighter weight over a turbine based cycle of the same thrust level. This could translate into a higher altitude. Also it's simplicity and it's small size are important factors. The small size of a PDE could also be used to make AAM's much more deadly. It seems that rocket engines can't maintain the thrust levels for long enough to take advantage of the very advanced seeker electronics that can be put into an AMM these days. A PDE is an interesting candidate for this role. But a BIG PDE (make sure you see the word BIG) should be a real LOUD sucker! I would think you might want a nice high altitude or a big lonely mountainous desert, to hide this (read U-2/Aurora/NASP/XB-70 launcher) :) . So who knows :) . Regarding the U-2 idea. Several years back, there was a piece in Defense News (I have it somewhere) quoting some USAF general, about how people should be looking more for a successor to the U-2 instead of an SR-71 follow-on. The ending Aerospace Daily comments could be interpreted as hinting in the same direction. However, the original Defense News comments could be a cover for a real SR-71 follow-on. I was also thinking the other night about that "think lower tech" quote at the very end of the Aerospace Daily piece. I wonder, could a Mach 3, XB-70 like aircraft that could launch satellites from 100,000 ft at Mach 3 be considered "lower tech" relative to the Mach 5-8 hypersonic aircraft we've been thinking of? I think so. Such an airplane would be a direct descendent of the Blackbird, and could use much of the SR's technology. I can't help but recall Kelly's comments about the XB-70 project in his book. This is the kind of twisting of the truth that is sometimes done. In other words, Aurora doesn't exist (our vision of Aurora) but there is a lower tech, but nonetheless very sophisticated, follow-on mission aircraft system that does what SR did and more. Geo. writes: >... . For more on SUNTAN, see the fascinating NASA SP-4404, >"Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel," by John Sloop. If you can find it. It is fairly rare now. It's a big piece. Maybe we should key that one in over time as well (the SUNTAN chapter, not the whole book). I particularly like the "classified above top secret" thing at the beginning of the SUNTAN piece. SUNTAN is being referenced, at least in NASP circles. Some of the key SUNTAN people are still around and they are being used from time to time against the hydrogen paranoia. The SUNTAN project actually staged many experimental catastrophes at the Skunk Works to see if H2 was more dangerous than hydrocarbon based aviation fuel. They found out that it was not. The NASA SP report George named has information on these tests. There is even an amusing one where one night at 2-3 AM at the Skunk Works in Burbank, there was a fire near one of the H2 storage tanks, and they weren't allowed to call the fire department, because the fire department wasn't cleared to the project. Geo writes: >Interesting that the NY Times was, to my knowledge, the first >general-interest news outlet to publish a story about the AF developing >Aurora, in January 1988. Yes, that's correct! The DOD P-1 document was dated Feb. 5, 1985 NY Times ran their short article in Jan. of 1988 (an insider was quoted). Popular Science ran their cover story in Nov. of 1988 Loud pulsed engine sounds started to wake people up in the Mojave in July of 1989. Rick wrote: > >>George writes: >>So you can all stop wondering about exotic aircraft. According to the good >>Doctor Pike, it's all a scam. >Rick replies: >Who was it that said that man would never fly? It was in July or >August of 1903. You know, about six months before Kittyhawk? ;-) > ... >The difference between UFO's and Exotic a/c is that photographic and >video evidence exists. Not as much as we'd like, but it's there. Well, I think Dr. Pike was referring to the really exotic reports that have been coming out of aircraft groups, that sound more like UFO reports. When we talk about exotic, let's make sure hypersonic airplanes with PDE's and ramjets or scramjets aren't included in that category. And yes. There are certain loose ends. Certain respected aerospace journalists do get these hints from time to time from insiders. There should also be lots of skepticism, especially when one considers disinformation. But, when Goodall or AW&ST write about this stuff, it makes you wonder. I asked Goodall about this stuff (you were there Rick) and he told us a little about his sources and what they said. I asked him if he was a UFO enthusiast. He said no. I then inquired as to why he had been speaking to the Forteans. He told us that when he talked to them last, he told them straight off that he's not a UFO person. Goodall told us that he's a weapons systems freak. That's where he's coming from. It seems that if one were to track just military stories since the late 40's, there's lots of loose ends. But the UFO thing is a religious thing with most people. They either are interested or believers or are not. And many of the ones that are curious, are in the closet. So if you're not interested, then just forget it. It doesn't matter. > ... >Let's see what the Clinton administration will say. Well, I wouldn't hold my breath. Both Ford and Carter, who were sympathetic to the UFO movement, for different reasons, did nothing about it after becoming President. I'm not saying that Clinton is sympathetic. I have no idea. Larry ------------------------------ From: gwh@lurnix.COM Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 12:10:55 -0800 Subject: Re: F22 Question The F-22 (and F-23) both fired missiles from extendable rails that are extended clear of the bay and doors after the weapons bays are opened. They have to open a bay door to fire. This is somewhat stealth-degrading (quite a bit if you have a clear look at the inside of the weapons bay, though I suspect that detail design has minimized frontal reflections from open bays...). It does, however, avoid having to design missiles that can achieve a lock-on after launch (which IR missiles can't do now). On the whole, I think that the benefits from having the weapons inside and the door closed 99%+ of the time outweigh the potential problems during firing. You can use existing ordinance, and nearly all the time you get a massive stealth signature improvement. - -george william herbert ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #58 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).