From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #8 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 11 February 1994 Volume 05 : Number 008 In this issue: BBC documentary Re: mystery location in Maryland Re: mystery location in Maryland Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #7 Re: mystery location in Maryland "Wobblin Gobblin" Included Text "Secret" Navy Sub surveillance Off charter but... re: F117-A (other names) Charter Skunk Works Charter Re: Charter 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: I.Wraith@sheffield.ac.uk Date: 10 Feb 94 09:10:39 Subject: BBC documentary Hello I have just seen the BBC TV Timewatch documentary about allied aerial reconnaissance over the Soviet Union in the late 1940's and 1950s it was one of the best documentaries I have seen in ages. The program contained much new (to me!) information including .. It seems in the early 50's a Presidental order stopped USAF making direct overflights into the Soviet Union.So the US chiefs of staff approached the British PM Winston Churchill to ask if the RAF would carry out the over flights instead.This was OKed and the USAF trained some specially selected members of RAF bomber command to fly USAF RB-45 Tornado aircraft from RAF Sculthorpe.The aircraft were then painted in RAF roundels and flew 2 deep night penetration missions (one was to Moscow!).While over the Soviet Union the aircraft flew simulated bomb runs over selected targets to collect radar targeting information.The program contained interviews with USAF trainers, RAF crew who flew on the missions and Mig-15 pilots who revealed they were ordered by ground control to ram the RB-45's but were unable to locate them. Also mentioned was Operation Robin in which a specially modified RAF Canberra made a daylight penetration of the Soviet Union to photograph the missile test range at Kasputin Yar.The program revealed the serial number of the Canberra invlolved but other than this little is known of the mission.There was an interview with a MIG15 pilot who tried to shot it down but could not reach the Canberra's altitiude.(This mission is touched on in Peter Wrights book Spycatcher) For the first time there was an interview with a British U-2 pilot (I have read somewhere there was a second who died in training) who admitted doing overflights but would not say how many.A Soviet air defence General then claimed there had been 18 U-2 over flights before Powers was shot down.A CIA historian was interviewed who claimed to have written a book on the subject but the British government were blocking its publication. Also in the program was an interview with the crew of an RB-47 based at Mildenhall which flew a penetration of the northern Soviet Union under orders from General LeMay (without Presidental permission).The RB-47 was attacked by up to 10 Migs and fought them all of and still returned to Mildenhall. The program then moved onto the subject of possible US MIA's resulting from these overflights.And interviewed members of a Soviet gunnery unit in the Soviet Pacific who saw a RB-50 shot down.Only one member of the crew was recovered alive by the US navy but the Russian interviewed claimed he had seen 7 parachutes emerge from the aircraft.A Russian political intelligence officer was interviewed said he had heard they had been handed over to the KGB.He also said the Russian commission now looking into the fate of the Americans were unlikely to find anything out because the Russians involved were still alive. The final part of the program covered the shot down of the RC-130 over Armenia in 1958.The air defence chief at the time was interviewed along with the Mig-15 pilots involved and gun camera photographs from the Mig-15s were shown for the first time.There was then film of the crash site today (where locals use large parts of the remaining wreckage as fences) and a interview with the sister of a crewmember of the RC-130 who had visited the crash site to talk to locals to see if her brother had survived.None said they had seen parachutes and the ID tags of the womans brother were found at the crash site the day before she arrived (a little suspicious if you ask me!). All in all it was a very interesting 50 minutes viewing. Regards Ian Wraith I.WRAITH@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK PGP 2.x public key available on request ------------------------------ From: Jamie Aycock Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:19:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: mystery location in Maryland On Wed, 9 Feb 1994 TRADER@cup.portal.com wrote: > Can anyone out there shed some light on why the Naval Support Facility > at Thurmont, MD is such a restricted area? (For those of you who are > pilots, Thurmont is the center of prohibited flying area P-40). > > Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com It's spitting distance from Camp David, so that's my vote.. Jamie ------------------------------ From: Bernie Rosen Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 08:25:41 PST Subject: Re: mystery location in Maryland In msg <9402092251.1.23093@cup.portal.com> you wrote: >Can anyone out there shed some light on why the Naval Support Facility >at Thurmont, MD is such a restricted area? (For those of you who are >pilots, Thurmont is the center of prohibited flying area P-40). If memory serves (big-time assumption), that location is very near Camp David, the Presidential Retreat in the Cotoctin Mountains of Pennsylvania/Maryland. Or is it just the NSF that is restricted? Bernie - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - brosen@ames.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames AIS Office 233-7 (415) 604-6558 Moffett Field, CA 94035 ------------------------------ From: Thomas Gauldin Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 14:00:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #7 > > > Tim Gafffney responded to my originaly speculaton with: From Thomas Gauldin > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 > > > Several years ago, my family and I visited the open house at Pope > > AFB in North Carolina. One of the highlights was a fly-by of the > > F117. I recalled that a nickname of the plane was the "wobblin > > goblin." As the plane flew a runway heading at about 500', I was > > surprised to see that the plane continually rolled about +-20 > > degrees around its longituninal axis and seemed to yaw and pitch as > > well, but on a lesser basis. At first I thought the pilot was merely > > doing it for effect and to show the upper and lower surfaces to the > > viewers more clearly. > > > > In retrospect, I wonder if my initial impression was correct. > > > > The plane is actually flown by computer, with the pilot merely > > directing the computer in the desired attitude, direction etc. I > > believe that this is called fly-by-wire with computer override. > > This should result in a very, very smooth flight unless the program > > called for something else. > > > I wonder if the roll/pitch/yaw characteristics of the flight I saw > > weren't part of the stealth characteristics of the plane. In > > otherwords, they were designed in to the flight pattern.... > > > By rolling/pitching/yawing, the program concedes that at some point > > in time that SOME surface would be at right angles to the beam and > > would probably give a return. However, the probablity of this > > occurring two, three or more times in a row are siginficantly > > diminished and thus a "lock" is virtually denied. > > > I really wonder if the well discussed coatings are really effective > > in "trapping" the radar signal of if the real "stealth" features of > > the plane come from simple faceting of the surface (as opposed to > > rounding) and the wobbling flight of the plane. > > I'm no fighter pilot, tactics scholar or stealth expert, but I flew > the F-117A simulator at CAE Link in Binghamton, NY, last year and have > interviewed numerous F-117A pilots. Here are my observations (based on > unclassified information): > > The F-117A is an extremely stable platform. It has a very > sophisticated autopilot system, combined with an autothrottle system, > that lets the airplane fly a preprogrammed course, including altitude > and heading changes, with arrival over the target area timed to the > second. The pilot's main job is to take off and then watch the > computer displays, but he can certainly hand-fly it and reprogram its > flight plan. I wasn't allowed to use the tactical systems, so I don't > know whether the airplane could actually drop the bombs itself, but I > imagine it requires a human to visually identify the target, designate > it with the laser and let the bombs go. > > The autopilot/autothrottle held its settings to the foot and knot, at > least in the sim. > > The autopilot can fly the airplane right down the runway, although I > was told the usual practice is to take over around 200 feet. (If there > are standard IFR procedures involved, I don't know; I'm just a sunny > day pilot.) > > I believe the maneuvering reported at Pope was done by the pilot for > the benefit of the crowd. There would be no reason to program > something like that into the mission planner, and I doubt if such > incidental maneuvering is programmable; besides, I can't imagine any > pilot pushing buttons when he could be flying. > > F-117A pilots I've talked to emphatically deny the airplane was ever > called the ``Wobblin Goblin'' and take offense at the term. > > As a radar evasion tactic, I would think bobbing and weaving would > tend to attract attention. I imagine that even to ground-based radar, > an airplane is presenting a front, side or rear cross-section most of > the time; it would only show its belly as it passes close to the > antenna. > > An interesting note about the F-117: That low wing and delta shape > give the airplane a lot of ``float'' in the landing flare; I kept > bounding back into the air when I tried to land it. > > The sim itself is not a motion-based simulator. The Link system is > used as a system integrator; the operational weapons system trainer is > at Holloman AFB. > > You can find more info, including the most detailed cockpit photos > available, in the September 1993 POPULAR SCIENCE. -- Timothy R. > Gaffney I certainly envy your "ride" in the flight simulator of the F-117. That would be a real thrill. I read the article you mentioned and it added to my speculation on the programmed flight characteristics of the plane. In my layman's terms, let me explain the basis for my speculation: If you were to have a miniature radar set on your desktop, complete with revolving antenna, it would be able to "spot" a sphere hanging from a string somewhere in your office. The reason is that, by a geometric definition, a plane surface tangent to a point on a sphere nearest the observer is at right angles to that observer. Therefore, not matter where the sphere is or how it maneuvers, whenever it is illuminated by the radar, the sphere will return a signal. By the way, the signal will be of constant strength, allowing for the distance to the sphere. Now, if you were to replace that sphere with a disk, the chances of a return signal depend on the orientataion of the disk's X and Y axis. If either the X or Y axis of the disk are not at right angles to the source, the signal will be bounced at an angle away from the disk. Should the disk have a constant motion across the office, it would be possible to extrapolate its future position from as few as two "sightings." However, to get the two sightings, we would have to adjust the disk so that it would be at right angles to the antenna for EACH attempt. Airplanes have many such "disks" on them, such as the wing surfaces, tail surfaces, body and weapons. Likewise, airplanes carry many "spheres" with them as well in fillets, canopys, leading and trailing edges, so to speak. The design of the F-117 speaks well to the designer's attempts to convert as many "spheres" as possible into "disks." After the plane was finally modeled, I can imagine that the designers did quite a bit of testing where the plane was rotated through the X, Y and Z axis to determine its "reflectivity" at every concievable angle- particularly from below and from the side. In fact, I'd bet that folks with better minds than mine have even made up tables of probability concerning the reflectivity of the plane from all angles. Since the plane is flown by computer, it would be within reason to program the plane so that it rolls in flight so that as few as possible reflective surfaces are presented twice to any point on the ground for a reasonable period of time. Sure, a theoretical radar set might be able to extract a vector from two returns 5 milliseconds apart, but that information would be made virtually meaningless by even the slightest adjustment to the plane's direction. Fixes 10 seconds apart would tell a lot more, but the rolling of the plane's flat surfaces away from the radar would make this a moot point, wouldn't it. As far as any "wobbling" interfering with the plane's targeting system is concerned, I am reminded of the image stabilization that is available to consumers in simple and cheap video cameras. You can practically be having a grand mal convulsion while holding the camera, but the image stays steady . Think what our friends at the Skunkworks could do with with image stabilization and imagine using that same technology to "aim" a targeting laser beam. Heck, if it didn't work, just turn the wobble off at the last minute. I have a lot of respect for the materials science folks and materials that absorb or diffuse radar signals. However, I am still suspicious that one of the F-117's real "secrets" is that radar won't reflect back to the receiver worth a darn if the surface is not oriented well. ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 14:45:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: mystery location in Maryland > > In msg <9402092251.1.23093@cup.portal.com> you wrote: > >Can anyone out there shed some light on why the Naval Support Facility > >at Thurmont, MD is such a restricted area? (For those of you who are > >pilots, Thurmont is the center of prohibited flying area P-40). > > If memory serves (big-time assumption), that location is very near > Camp David, the Presidential Retreat in the Cotoctin Mountains of > Pennsylvania/Maryland. > The NSF IS Camp David! > Or is it just the NSF that is restricted? > > Bernie > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > brosen@ames.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames AIS Office 233-7 - -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org Packet: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA P.O. Box 443 C$erve:72571,1005 GEnie:Sneaker AOL:Hooligan MCI: 442-5735 Ypsilanti MI "I'm just an innocent little frog, trying to 48197 hop my way across the Information Superhighway" ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:44:39 MST Subject: "Wobblin Gobblin" My understanding of the name came from, I thought, an early speed test of the "F"-117, in which an early prototype was put into a dive and lost part of its rudder (but returned safely nonetheless). As for the rolling motions observed at an airshow, I would be surprised to learn that this was anything other than the pilot having fun. Attack planes and bombers (anyone for renaming the d*mn thing the B-117, since that's what it is?) require, or are at least significantly more effective if they have, stable behavior for accurate targetting. If in normal flight the plane rolled like that, even under the direction of a flight computer, it would cause significant distractions for the pilot -- increased motion sickness, interference with the pilot's perceptions (the "MK I eyeball" is still a very important part of flying), etc.. Finally, it would seem to me that in the event of an attack involving F-117s, the defender would often have some reason to expect F-117s about, in which case any radar blip would be cause for investigation. Wobbling the plane about erratically would, at least to my intuition, improve the odds of seeing a blip, even if it decreased the odds of seeing multiple blips. - -r ------------------------------ From: Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com (Geoff Miller) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:13:50 PST Subject: Included Text People, Could you please not copy previous mail in its entirety when you follow up? It's a pain to have to scroll down through something we've already read in order to get to the new stuff. Thanks, Geoff ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 13:58:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Navy Sub surveillance Although this isn't airplane-related, this past Monday's NY Times had a front-page article about what the US Navy has been doing for the last 30 or so years with converted missile and attack submarines and deep-sea surveillance, data-gathering, etc. (Think Jason/Argo RPV run from a submarine). One of the highlights was the first of these subs that visited the crashed Russian Oscar-II sub in the Pacific a few years before the CIA's Glomar Challenger did. Other things surveilled (yeah, as if that's a word) include deep-see telecom cables, etc. - -Corey Lawson alfalfa@booster.u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: tslage78@Calvin.EDU (Thomas Slager) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:37:57 EST Subject: Off charter but... Have any of you been to a warbird museum in Orlando? I have a friend who will be down there and he was wondering what they had, and how big the collection was. Any help would be, um, helpful. thanks - -- Would you like me to go sit in a corner | Tom Slager jr. and rust, or just fall to pieces | tslage78@ursa.calvin.edu Where I'm standing? --Marvin | 'Ees just zis guy, You know? ------------------------------ From: edr@lsil.com (Edward Roseboom) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:43:23 PST Subject: re: F117-A (other names) I've also heard the term "wobblin goblin" to describe the F117-A but I think that it was from a novel. I have heard friends in the industry jokingly call the F117, the FART (for Faceted Anti-Radar Technology). ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 00:17:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Charter Maybe I just don't have enough time to read Internet mail as some of you, but I'm really getting annoyed at all these posts that start off with "I know this is off topic, but..." "...but" what? "I know this is off topic, but I don't care" seems to be the answer. I'm interested in 'black' or special aircraft/aeronautical research, design, testing & evaluation --and history-- & that's what I expected to see, & allocated time for, when I subscribed to this. I'm certainly also interested in intelligence collection systems like specially modified submarines, but I think we need to either revise the charter to truly reflect the traffic on this mailing group ('Mailing list discussion group focusing on secret government technology & operations, usually dealing with aviation'), or to get serious about sticking to the current charter. Perhaps another mailing list could be started up for traffic that doesn't fit the criteria of the skunk-works charter. Maybe I'd dubscribe to it, but I'd know in advance what to expect, & there wouldn't be any more "I know this is off topic, but..." Tim - -- Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org Packet: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA P.O. Box 443 C$erve:72571,1005 GEnie:Sneaker AOL:Hooligan MCI: 442-5735 Ypsilanti MI "I'm just an innocent little frog, trying to 48197 hop my way across the Information Superhighway" ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:25:41 -0800 Subject: Skunk Works Charter Tim Tyler indicated quite recently: like specially modified submarines, but I think we need to either revise the charter to truly reflect the traffic on this mailing group ('Mailing list I'd like to take the time to point out that this group has always enjoyed a very loose charter. I've learned many things outside the scope of a literal interpretation of the name (IE Skunk Works) and outside the field of aviation. I think the scope of the list, as we seem to generally use it it more like: Anything related to obscure or present/former classified government weapons systems programs and equipment/installations in any way, is my vote. If they hide it, we talk about it. Perhaps the name of the mailing list SHOULD be changed... :) Rick SR-75/XR-7 _|_*O*_|_ | Rick Pavek \ __|__ / | HA!! kuryakin@halcyon.com \_______/_(O)_\_______/ | Ruby - \___/---\___/ | Galactic Gumshoe ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 23:14:57 -0800 Subject: Re: Charter > Maybe I just don't have enough time to read Internet mail as some of you, >but I'm really getting annoyed at all these posts that start off with "I >know this is off topic, but..." But of course there is nothing MORE off-topic than people sending messages about how "annoyed" they are... I personally happen to think the subject of "black" Navy undersea recon practices sounds pretty interesting, and not too divergant from the realm of this list. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #8 ******************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).