From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #60 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 23 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 060 In this issue: U2s RE: F-117 / F-22 Intercepts 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: beagle!chandler@PacBell.COM (Jim Chandler) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:11:57 PST Subject: U2s Mary Shafer writes: > Someone asked whether the US was still flying U-2s (new mail reader, > new problems). > > Well, the answer is yes and no. The original U-2s were replaced > with TR-2s and the U-2s were retired. Then USAF renamed the TR-2s > the U-2. Go figure. Not entirely true. The TR-1 was a U-2R derivative. The U-2A and U-2C models were replaced by the U-2R and TR-1A. All of the TR-1s were renamed to U-2 last year regardless of basing (including the Alconbury birds). > > The TR-2 is bigger than the U-2 and has an improved engine. NASA flies > them as the ER-2 (ER for earth resources, TR for tactial recce). The TR-1 and U-2R are about 1/3 larger than the U-2A/C. The U-2R has the same engine that the U-2C had. Its a J-75. > > NASA also flew the last original U-2. They set a whole batch of records > with it, flying out of Plant 42 and using our range. NASA flew the last original U-2C which set several time to climb and altitude records for its weight class. For obvious reasons, the U-2R has not yet been allowed to set similar records. > > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > ------------------------------ From: gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:41:26 EST Subject: RE: F-117 / F-22 > >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, > > I doubt they stay open very long. Besides, such a random "blip" would > not likely provide much useful information to the potential threat. > Plus they probably maneuver almost immediately after bomb release, > although the DLIR pod still needs to keep the laser on target. > Living in Marietta, GA and going to Georgia Tech have a few advantages. One is the fact that Lockheed sends people over to brief the aerospace and related people on campus. Usually the speaker is Major General Albert L. Logan (USAF ret.). He is director of Advanced Tactical Require- ments and the F-22 Program. A test film we were shown of an AIM-9L Sidewinder launch from the right intake weapon bay was pretty impressive. The doors opened, the missile was ejected approx. 2.5 to 3 ft. from the aircraft before motor ignition and the doors closed. The impressive part was the fact that all this happened in about 1.3 sec or less. The doors literally opened/closed in the blink of an eye. The question of whether or not the fuselage/intakes would interfere with seeker heads is a good one. One major change between the YF-22 and the production F-22's will be the moving of the intakes rearward. Major General Logan explained this was being done to increase the pilot's field of vision downwards and behind him on both sides. Another possible advantage is the fact that this will give the seeker heads a greater field of vision or "cone of lethality". -Michael Michael David Knight gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu * COMBAT AIRCRAFT: A mix of * Georgia Institute of Technology * sharp teeth, cold steel, * Atlanta, Georgia 30332 * cosmic warlords, and evil * Aerospace Engineering (404)676-0520 * spirits. * ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:14:56 PST Subject: Intercepts I just got my copy of Intercepts today and the part that Larry posted (At my request) was only a small fraction of the overview of the mystery a/c story. One thing that really jumped out at me when I read it today was a picture of the FOIA reply that R. W. Koch received on Aug 24, 87. It stated "Our search disclosed no records, or knowledge of, a F-117 Night. Hawk." At this time, F-117's were regularly flying and most, if not all, of the a/c had accumulated over 1000 hours. The public announcement was made in 1989. Now I don't rule out that the Dept of the AF Freedom of Information Manager wasn't able to find references to the a/c, but it's pretty obvious that the information was withheld by someone. To which the obvious question is: What else are they holding back on? The article put it best with one of its concluding paragraphs: "The real reasons behind the secrecy is becoming very clear to the American taxpayer. The cost of these programs must be enormous and the Pentagon is afraid that Congress might suffer an attack of "[author's italics]sticker shock" when they find out how much money the military is vacuuming out of the nation's treasury. It could also be that buried in the budgets of black programs could be evidence of monetary fraud, kickbacks and wasteful expenditures. It seems that many of these programs are designed not to evade radar but to evade accountability to Congress and the American Taxpayer." I remember the interview with the AF General [though I don't recall his name] when the story on the sonic booms made the network. He said something like 'I can say that the money is being spent well and I ask the public to trust us' when asked about the black programs. Yeah. Right. Hope Clinton sees it with a different light. Anybody up for a write-in campaign? Rick Rick Pavek | Never ask a droid to outdo its program. kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com | Seattle, WA | It wastes your time | and annoys the droid. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #60 ******************************** 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).