From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V3 #28 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 28 April 1993 Volume 03 : Number 028 In this issue: Re: Sea Shadow? TARAN ramming? what a technique..... Re: TARAN RE: Sea Shadow? Non-aircraft stealth vehicles Re: Aurora's heat insulation Re: Any more info on the `Stealth Ship?` Re: Sea Shadow Re: Sea Shadow? Re: Sea Shadow TARAN Lockheed Sea Shadow other stories Re: TARAN SR-71 as a telescope platform. NASA SR-71 press release Interactive Air Combat (i.e., Ramming) Sea Shadow Sea Shadow Re: Sea Shadow PDW-engines 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: Mon, 26 Apr 93 03:01:05 MDT Subject: Re: Sea Shadow? davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: I wrote: >> In fact, the Navy has a turbine powered class of hydrofoil ships >>(built by Boeing), which are of a similar size to the Sea Shadow... >The Boeing hydrofoil was based in part on the FHE 400 (Fast Hydrofoil Escort) >prototype that was built for evaluation by the Canadian Navy in the late >1960's. It was claimed that HMCS Bras d'Or (sp?) handled more like an >airplane than a ship!! Right! Both the pilot controls and control surfaces used are very much like that of an aircraft... but then of course the whole idea behind a hydrofoil is that you are essentially "flying" through water. According to my Jane's, the U.S. models have a top speed of about 50 kts. I've seen video of these things, and they really are flying! :-) >Sadly, the prototype was mothballed and four conventional ships (the >DDH 280 class destroyer escorts) were built instead. The U.S. commissioned six hydrofoil Costal Patrol Boats from 1977 to 1982, but I believe there was another batch built within the last several years. >I would sure like to know more about the Sea Shadow! Yep! Unfortunately we won't likely have AW&ST hot on the trail of this sucker, they way we did with the F-117... but hopefully we'll be seeing more before too long. - -dean ------------------------------ From: naughney@nmrc.ucc.ie (Niall Aughney) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:41:19 +0100 Subject: TARAN Can any of you guys enlighten me on an incident which happened the 28/11/1973 ov er southern russia in which an RF-4 was rammed by a MiG-21 while trying to ta ke a sweep over Baikomor. The first TARAN jet victory? what happened to the pilot and rio? Niall ------------------------------ From: Sam <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:WHITEMAN@IPFWVM> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 10:37:14 EST Subject: ramming? what a technique..... >naughney@nmrc.ucc.ie (Niall Aughney) writes: > >Can any of you guys enlighten me on an incident which happened the 28/11/1973 o > er southern russia in which an RF-4 was rammed by a MiG-21 while trying to t > ke a sweep over Baikomor. >The first TARAN jet victory? what happened to the pilot and rio? There is a 'letter to the editor' in the Talkback section of the April 1993 issue of Air International, Vol 44 No 4, page 206, left column. Apparently there is a poster at 20 Gv IBAP in Templin, ex East Germany?, detailing the event. This is the first ramming 'shoot' down of the jet age. Also in the same 'museum' there are details of 20 other ramming 'shoot' downs during WW II. I guess when all else fails ram the SOB.... Sam ------------------------------ From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 11:03:47 CDT Subject: Re: TARAN > > Can any of you guys enlighten me on an incident which happened the 28/11/1973 ov > er southern russia in which an RF-4 was rammed by a MiG-21 while trying to ta > ke a sweep over Baikomor. > The first TARAN jet victory? what happened to the pilot and rio? > Niall > What is TARAN? And I thought the Soviets stopped ramming attacks after World War II... Simon ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 10:00:45 -0700 Subject: RE: Sea Shadow? Dean said: A majority of modern (non-nuclear) warships use gas turbine powerplant(s). In fact, the Navy has a turbine powered class of hydrofoil ships (built by Boeing), which are of a similar size to the Sea Shadow... That's had (well, how about "will have for a little while longer..."). Clinton's getting rid of them. Rick :-( ------------------------------ From: urf@ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 19:34:34 MET DST Subject: Non-aircraft stealth vehicles sp2stes1@caligula.his.se (Stefan Skoglund) writes: >The Swedish Navy has a project along the same lines called >Smyge ( Smyge = Stealthy.) The ship has only robot armament. Not quite, it's actually got a little of everything: Missiles, torpedoes, mines and a gun. >I think it is a try to build a replacement for the current >line of Warships in the Navy. It's a test rig, to learn useful things to know when our next "large surface combatant" will be designed. For most of the time, it has been camouflaged to be non-stealthy with a removable mast in order to allow it to be tested in public. Our latest MICV's are also designed with stealth as a high priority. - -- Urban Fredriksson urf@icl.se ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 11:02:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Aurora's heat insulation Chris writes: > >Recently I was assigned a heat transfer project in one of my engineering >classes. I jump at opportunities like this ... >... The >goal of my research has been to determine the temperature distribution >in the aircraft skin and structure with some cooling due to fuel heat >absorbtion. Now the big question. >What type of heat resistant coating would such a vehicle require >and what would it be made of? > Most of the information is just >qualitative stuff. I need something a little more solid - even some >real numbers if possible. Get your hands on a copy of: "Thermal Management for a Mach 5 Cruise Aircraft Using Endothermic Fuel" by Petley and Jones. The above article appeared in AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol 29, No 3, May-June 1992. There is a LOT of great stuff in there that is right up the alley in terms of what you're interested in. It also looks like you'll be able to get numbers on the coolant used as well, if you look in the 'References' section of the paper. I would also suggest the latest published study by some of the same people as applied to a waverider. Its AIAA document number is: 93-0401: "Design of a hypersonic waverider-derived airplane" by Hunt, Pegg, Petley, Burkhardt, Stevens, and Moses. Perhaps a little phone call to one of the authors or even the company supplying the information on the coolant used, can even gain you a little direction towards a successful project. I'd check my local engineering library for a copy of these publications, perhaps your library can get them from a larger library or call AIAA in NYC and ask for the library. They will charge a small fee for duplication and mailing. Larry ------------------------------ From: gtephx!rakoczynskij (Jurek Rakoczynski) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 10:49:25 MST Subject: Re: Any more info on the `Stealth Ship?` Mary Shafer wrote: > Looking at the markings on the side of the Sea Shadow ship in Defense > News, it's about 140 ft long and about 40 ft wide. from the front view, > I'd say it's 20 or so ft above the waterline. It's obviously from the > F-117 faceted school of stealth _and_ the B-2 faired school. Flat topped, > with ogival sides, and the bow and stern are two faceted ogives. The only > windows are on the bridge, in the bow. It's a catamaran, of course. [stuff about scanning deleted] I think they were also using water cooled exhaust stacks to reduce the heat signature. (or was that a differant ship???) The "F-117 faceted school of stealth" was obvious. If you could get the radar returns down to something less than B-52, and combine this with an EM emission quite ship, like using airborn radar transmiters, ECM's would be more effective and perhaps avoid dependances on antimissle-missles. Imagine ... even changing your ships radar profile to fool future image recognition software on antiship missles. - -- Jurek Rakoczynski, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix, AZ. 85072 UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!enuucp | att}!gtephx!rakoczynskij Voice: +1 602 581 4867 Inet: gtephx!rakoczynskij@att.com Fax: +1 602 582 7111 Inet: JUREK.RAKOCZYNSKI@gte.sprint.com | gtephx!rakoczynskij@enuucp.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ From: gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 14:36:39 EDT Subject: Re: Sea Shadow > > > > While I find the idea of a stealthy suface ship interesting I don't > > understand what the need is. I mean the Navy already has stealth ships. > > They are called submarines. > > It seems likely that the Sea Shadow is intended mostly for use in coastal > waters and harbour approaches where a submarine would be constrained by > the relatively shallow water. > > I would expect that the Sea Shadow is very fast and highly maneuverable. > I'll wager a guess that the Sea Shadow has a gas turbine engine for use > in "combat" situations... Can anyone confirm this? > > - -- OK, here's what's up. A surface ship of the size of the Sea Shadow usually is intended as a fleet defense ship or convoy escort or something of that nature. It's primary mission in this case would be to attack incoming targets such as missiles or aircraft with it's missiles (Sea Sparrows) and Close in Weapon System (CWS). If a surface ship is stealthy (or stealth), it can then devote more of it's ordinance to defense of other ships and less to itself. Most cruise missiles and other Anti-ship weapons use radar to home in on the target. If a missile cannot "see" the ship, so much the better. One other possible advantage would be for cargo escort. Think of it: a hostile reconnaisance platform of some sort picks up a convoy on radar and feeds that information to a ground station. If it cannot determine if the convoy is escorted or not or how many and what type of escorts are present, one of three things could happen: 1. An attack is decided against and none is carried out. 2. An attack is carried out but fails miserably because of an overwhelming number of defensive escorts. 3. An attack is carried out and succeeds but the number of attacking forces was deemed overkill (say 150 bomber and escort aircraft sent to attack 3 merchant ships and 2 escorts), which pulls available aircraft and resources from other places and puts them at risk on a mission that they really weren't needed for in the first place. These are some of the possibilities that I see. Should anyone find fault with what I said, feel free to correct me. -Michael COMBAT AIRCRAFT: A mix Michael David Knight | of sharp teeth, cold Georgia Tech (404)676-0520 /O\ steel, cosmic warlords, Aerospace Engineering \_______[|(.)|]_______/ and evil spirits gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu o ++ O ++ o ------------------------------ From: gwh@lurnix.COM Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 11:01:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Sea Shadow? >Bill.Ranck@vt.edu writes: > >I would expect that the Sea Shadow is very fast and highly maneuverable. > >Since the bulk of the ship is entirely out of the water, supported only by >the narrow port/starboard pylon structures, *and* the fact that the stealth >shape has none of the normal aerodynamic drag features found on ships, i'd >say it has the potential of being very fast! Ah, to clarify something here it's not a hydrofoil, though you could build a hydrofoil sort of like that. It's a SWATH vessel, Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull. At the bottom of those pylons are two long cylindrical hulls; SWATH stay up by bouyant force, not hydrodynamics like hydrofoils. It has about as much drag in the water as a equivalent-mass conventional monohull vessel. This makes it hard to go _real_ fast in a SWATH, though they're moderately good at speeds comperable to hull speed and slightly beyond (hull speed is Vh(knots) = 1.3 (LPP(feet))^0.5 ) with LPP being maximum immersed length for a SWATH, or waterline length for conventional ships. See sci.military on usenet for more details ... - -george william herbert ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 16:21:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Sea Shadow In your message dated: Mon, 26 Apr 93 14:36:39 EDT you write: > >One other possible advantage would be for cargo escort. Think of it: > > a hostile reconnaisance platform of some sort picks up a convoy > on radar and feeds that information to a ground station. If it > cannot determine if the convoy is escorted or not or how many and > what type of escorts are present, one of three things could happen: > >1. An attack is decided against and none is carried out. Maybe, but in war time (WW III), why not just lob a few nuke-tipped cruse missles (or conventional ones). Not much to lose, and a good probability that something could be gained. > >2. An attack is carried out but fails miserably because of an overwhelming > number of defensive escorts. Possible. > >3. An attack is carried out and succeeds but the number of attacking > forces was deemed overkill (say 150 bomber and escort aircraft sent to > attack 3 merchant ships and 2 escorts), which pulls available aircraft > and resources from other places and puts them at risk on a mission that > they really weren't needed for in the first place. If you're talking merchants only (which the platform could see), then this outcome is unlikely. I think it's pretty unusual for merchants to be escorted by more than their number of escorts. It's simply a matter of numbers. There are and probably always will be more merchant ships than escorts available to escort them. For ops against a task force, however, things probably would be a lot different. Cheers, - --Lee > >These are some of the possibilities that I see. Should anyone find fault >with what I said, feel free to correct me. > > -Michael > >COMBAT AIRCRAFT: A mix Michael David Knight | >of sharp teeth, cold Georgia Tech (404)676-0520 /O\ >steel, cosmic warlords, Aerospace Engineering \_______[|(.)|]_______/ > >and evil spirits gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu o ++ O ++ o ------------------------------ From: naughney@nmrc.ucc.ie (Niall Aughney) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 20:22:16 +0100 Subject: TARAN Simon, As far as I know taran seems to some sort of a name for mid air ramming ( why th ey dont say collision is beyond me ). Sam -- thats where I found it, any more stories like it ? Niall ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 02:53:21 MDT Subject: Lockheed Sea Shadow AW&ST didn't let us down! This week's issue has a whole page+ article on the LOCKHEED Sea Shadow... yes, as if the photos weren't proof enough this craft is definitely a product of the Skunk Works! Although the marine systems and final construction was done by the Lockheed Missiles and Space division in Northern California. Here is the main new info from the article: Lockheed also built and tested several smaller craft with the same general configuration. USN and LADC started work on the stealth ship concept back in the late 70s. Sea Shadow was a USN/DARPA/Lockheed project. The smaller craft previously tested are still classified, and may include a model intended for covertly transporting SEALS and other Special Ops forces. Lockheed created several new test facilites for this program, including a water tank based radar/RCS range, and a radar instrumentation site on Santa Cruz island (part of the Channel Islands, off Ventura/Santa Barbara). The Sea Shadow was first tested in 1985-86 (another well-kept secret!), and then mothballed until recently due to funding problems. It was stored all that time in a covered floating drydock in the Bay Area. The current round of (unclassified) tests are of the non-stealth variety, and are being done using facilities at Point Mugu. Sea Shadow specs: 160 ft long, 70 ft wide, 14 ft draft. 560 tons displacement welded steel construction no weapons or radar systems crew of four (cdr,nav,helm,engineer) diesel-electric propulsion 13 kt speed (slow! :) $50 million ship cost No production versions of Sea Shadow were built, it was only a research program. (A production model would almost certainly need to be faster) Also, a crewman can operate the S.S. with a "remote control box", while standing outside the top hatch. - -dean ------------------------------ From: Sam <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:WHITEMAN@IPFWVM> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 10:02:22 EST Subject: other stories >naughney@nmrc.ucc.ie (Niall Aughney) >Sam -- thats where I found it, any more stories like it ? Sure, did you notice page 163 of the same issue that an ultralight aircraft was shot down in the former Yugoslavia. It is believed to be the first reported ultralight shoot down. As it turned out the pilot was lobbing hand grenades at the Serbs. Geeees that takes stones........ BTW can anyone tell me how I can sub to sci.military? I can't seem to get through the gateway at att.att.com. Sam ------------------------------ From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 11:15:14 CDT Subject: Re: TARAN > > Simon, > As far as I know taran seems to some sort of a name for mid air ramming ( why th > ey dont say collision is beyond me ). > Sam -- thats where I found it, any more stories like it ? > Niall > I was just wondering, since I hd never seen the word 'Taran' before, perhaps is is simply Russian for 'ram'. I seem to recall reading that WWII Soviet fighters were ruggedly built, almost suited in a bizarre way for ramming attacks. One plane that comes to mind is the Il-2 ground attack plane (can't spell the name for it though!) Simon ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 12:53:53 -0400 Subject: SR-71 as a telescope platform. The June issue of Sky & Tel has a two-page article on some of the astro uses that NASA is putting the SR-71 to. I thought that some of you would be interested in the cost comparison given: "...NASA spends about $100,000 for a typical 2-hour-long SR-71 mission. Compare that to the cost of a sounding rocket --- nearly 10 times that amount for a program that provides only about five minutes of data..." So it seems the Blackbird might be cost-effective for something after all! Cheers, - --Lee ________________________________________________________________________________ R. Lee Hawkins lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Department of Astronomy lhawkins@lucy.wellesley.edu Whitin Observatory Wellesley College Ph. 617-283-2708 Wellesley, MA 02181 FAX 617-283-3642 ________________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 10:57:35 -0700 Subject: NASA SR-71 press release This was on sci.space.news (yes, most of you get this, or can, but since it is directly related to some of the recent posts, I'm posting it to the list (like, I don't always have sci.space.news turned on and miss things.) So in case you haven't been monitoring s.s.n. here it is: Drucella Andersen Headquarters, Washington, D.C. April 20, 1993 (Phone: 202/358-4733) Don Nolan Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif. (Phone: 805/258-3447) RELEASE: 93-071 NASA SR-71 NOW A FLYING OBSERVATORY NASA has modified a former Air Force reconnaissance aircraft to conduct high- altitude astronomy studies at three times the speed of sound. The SR-71A "Blackbird," based at NASA's Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif., made its first science flight on March 9. In the plane's nose bay was an ultraviolet video camera that studied stars and comets. Future flights will carry a variety of instruments, including a fiber optics device and an ultraviolet spectrometer. "This really is a case of turning swords into plowshares," said Jacklyn Green, Project Scientist for the SR-71 science research platform project at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., which developed the experiments. "We are taking what was once a spy plane and transforming it into a useful, cost-effective science platform. This opens up a new ultraviolet window for research." During its first mission, the SR-71 climbed to just above 83,000 feet (25.3 kilometers), where scientists can observe stars and planets at ultraviolet wavelengths that are blocked to ground- based astronomers. The SR-71 could perform several other experiments now in the planning stage, such as infrared studies of the Aurora Borealis by the University of California, Los Angeles Physics Department and atmospheric science studies of specific pollutants in the stratosphere. "It's significant to the SR-71 program that the unique capabilities of the aircraft are being viewed by the science community as a platform for gathering data at high speeds and altitudes. The SR-71 is the only aircraft that can meet their needs," said Dave Lux, SR-71 Project Manager at Dryden. NASA's three Blackbirds also may serve as platforms for aeronautics studies in NASA's High-Speed Research Program. "Boeing is investigating the possibility of using the SR-71 for inlet testing with a subscale engine and supersonic riblet testing, and McDonnell Douglas is interested in conducting sonic boom studies," said Neil Matheny, Dryden point of contact for the program. The High Speed Research program is researching and developing technology for a future environmentally friendly, economically feasible high-speed civil transport. The program is a joint NASA- industry effort led by NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. - - end - NOTE TO EDITORS: Video and still photos of the SR-71's first science flight are available to media representatives by calling the NASA Headquarters Broadcast and Imaging Branch on 202/358- 1900. Color: 93-HC-94 93-HC-95 B&W: 93-H-106 93-H-107 =============== Rick kuryakin@halcyon.com ------------------------------ From: rbarton@trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 16:29:07 -0500 Subject: Interactive Air Combat (i.e., Ramming) I remember from reading brief histories of the Northrop XP-79 that ramming was considered to be a primary means of attack in its role as an interceptor. I don't have the books here at school, but one of them (by Lloyd S. Jones) explains that the craft's magnesium structure was designed to withstand the impact as it attempted to sever the tail off of the targeted aircraft. As I recall, the P-79 was one of Northrop's wings, variously powered by rockets or jets in its purely prototype lifespan. Designed as a point defender, the aircraft also featured a prone pilot position (ostensibly to withstand the g's of impact) and four-point landing gear. Incidentally, the Ilyushin aircraft mentioned earlier - wasn't it called the Stormovik or somesuch? Again, I apologise for any detail mistakes, my texts are all five hours south so I'm running on my faulty longterm memory here. regards Ran _____________________________________________________________ | | | | Ran Barton, III '93 | | | | rbarton@trincoll.edu | /O\ | | Trinity College-Box 955 | \_______[|(.)|]_______/ | | Hartford, CT 06106-3100 | o ++ O ++ o | | | | | A year passes apace and proves ever new; | | First things and final conform but seldom. -The Gawain Poet | |______________________________|______________________________| ------------------------------ From: rossix!philmc@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Phil Mcintosh) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 17:42:07 -0700 Subject: Sea Shadow >this craft is definitely a product of the Skunk Works! Although the >marine systems and final construction was done by the Lockheed Missiles >and Space division in Northern California. >Sea Shadow was a USN/DARPA/Lockheed project. >and then mothballed until recently due to funding problems. It was >stored all that time in a covered floating drydock in the Bay Area. Shunkers, I think I know where the Sea Shadow was docked for the last few years, and it was right outside of my office window. I work in Redwood City Ca, and Lockheed has a Marine Division in the harbor here. There is a large covered barge, Hughes Marine Barge (HMB-1) that has been an area fixture here for years. The barge was built to containe a large claw that was used in conjunction with the Glomar Explorer, a ship built by Howard Huges(the CIA) in the mid 70's to raise a sunken Soviet submarine off of the Hawaiian islands. The operation was partially sucessfull and the ship and barge were mothballed.(The Glomar Explorer is still mored off of the Susune Bay about 50 miles from here). A book called A Matter of Risk was written about the operation, and but I cannot remember the authors name. I would drive over to were the barge is and there was appearntly work being preformed inside of the barge. This has gone on for years and I could never find out what was going on. Last July a friend was skating in the area and a tug was there to move the barge. The odd thing was the flood lights, remote video camers, M-16s and military police types all over the area. Pretty strange for a scrap barge. It reappeared about two weeks later. It disappeared about 4 weeks ago, and has yet to return. So based on the information already submitted, the Sea Shadow has appearently been out my window, and I have been with 50 feet of it, and never knew. (To quote Homer Simpson "D-oh!"). Phil Mcintosh philmc@rossinc.com ------------------------------ From: johngm@BIX.com Date: 28 Apr 1993 01:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Sea Shadow According to the article in this week's AvWeek the Sea Shadow travels at a speedy 16 knots. Not exactly fast if its the truth. I must admit the first thing I thought of when I saw it was the Merrimac (sp) from the Civil War. I looks almost exactly like it except there is no stack. Which now that I think of it there isn't any obvious large air intake so the turbine probably isnt' very large. One more thing, this thing is UGLY! Not that it matters when it comes to warships but God its nothing to look at. John Miller johngm@bix.com ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 00:02:14 MDT Subject: Re: Sea Shadow rossix!philmc@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Phil Mcintosh) writes: >>the marine systems and final construction was done by the >>Lockheed Missiles and Space division in Northern California. >> mothballed until recently due to funding problems. It was stored >> all that time in a covered floating drydock in the Bay Area. > I think I know where the Sea Shadow was docked for the last few > years, and it was right outside of my office window. Wow, pretty cool! >I work in Redwood City Ca, and Lockheed has a Marine Division >in the harbor here. Yes!! You are correct, sir. Lockheed/Redwood City is exactly the place! >There is a large covered barge, Hughes Marine Barge (HMB-1) that >has been an area fixture here for years. Hmmm... since around 1986? :-) > I would drive over to were the barge is and there was appearntly work > being preformed inside of the barge. This has gone on for years and > I could never find out what was going on. So just what all sort of facilities does Lockheed have there? >Last July a friend was skating in the area and a tug was there to >move the barge. The odd thing was the flood lights, remote video camers, >M-16s and military police types all over the area. Probably some "Use Of Deadly Force Authorized" signs around as well. :-> >Pretty strange for a scrap barge. >It reappeared about two weeks later. So it was GONE for 2 weeks? Any idea where it went? > It disappeared about 4 weeks ago, and has yet to return. I would expect it is now somewhere around Point Mugu, which strangely enough happens to be my nearest military base and a place i've been to many times. Time to give the PAO a ring I guess... > So based on the information already submitted, the Sea Shadow has > appearently been out my window, and I have been with 50 feet of it, > and never knew. Phew... thats something to tell the grandkids about. :-) Thanks for the report, and feel free to fill us in on any other details you happen to think of! Such as... just what does this barge/drydock look like? And what sort of security measures have been in place around it all these years? - -dean ------------------------------ From: peterk@stack.urc.tue.nl (Peter Krijnen) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 08:55:33 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: PDW-engines Hello, I recently heard of a so called "Pulse Detonation Wave Engine". Does this have anything to do with the "Aurora"-project ? A picture showed a very strange cloud-trace; not a continuous line but small puffs in a row. Comments anyone ? Greetings, Peter |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Peter J. Krijnen | Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. | | E-mail: peterk@stack.urc.tue.nl | Tomorrow I'll probably still be a dog. | | Snail-mail: Pater Pirestraat 39 | Sigh! | | 5051 WG Goirle | There's so little hope for advancement. | | The Netherlands | -- Snoopy | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V3 #28 ******************************** 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).