From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #11 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Monday, 14 February 1994 Volume 05 : Number 011 In this issue: Camoflage schemes Crash F-14 lost in crash Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #10 Skunk Works Digest V5 #7 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: John Erling Blad Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 12:17:03 +0100 Subject: Camoflage schemes As I recall from some basic military manuals, the most effective paint schemes seems to be to destroy lines and edges as the eyeball, human, mark I scans the lines and edges. From this information, and the local "pictures" along the edges, the brain will ring a bell if it finds something interesting. If this information (the lines and edges) are removed you will have less or incomplete information to detect the object. Most often this information is removed by soft tones of gray to remove "internal edges", by "splinter painting" to introduce false edges, or by ordinary cammopainting to blend in with the background. On planes the soft tone paint scheme seems to be fairly common. Splinter painting is common on ships which operate in coastal waters, esp on MTBs. It is also used on vehicles. Basic technology as I recall it is to paint the object in darker diagonal lines, and with dark corners. With additional cammoflage such a vehicle is extremly difficult to detect. While I was in the RNAF (Royal Norwegian Air Force) there was a story about a large unit (somewhere around 5-7000 soldiers with logistic) that totaly disappered on a aerial photo, even if the reccon people knew where it was. Finely they found an ambulance because the unit where not allowed to cammoflage the red cross atop the vehicle. Ordinary cammo painting works by blending in with the background. There are some not trivial problem with this, you need for example finer structure at close range than at longer range. So you have to choose, at what distance are the observer? In a jungle there is a high probability to run into other units at close range, so you need a fine structure. But if you operate in a open area, as in norwegian mountain or in the taiga in the north you will be exposed at much longer ranges so you need a larger structure. Thats why Norway and Sweden have adopted a rater stupid cammo suit compared to the american one. But if you check it out in the actual operating environment you find out that the ordinary american ones is as easy to detect as a "one-tone" suit, because there are no visible lines at some distance. John ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 12:22:10 +0100 Subject: Crash I dont know where Saratoga is docked, but I assume they continue the operation. John ------------------------------ From: John Erling Blad Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 12:36:46 +0100 Subject: F-14 lost in crash The actual source for this is a person, probably a liaisonofficer, which is connected to "US 6. fleet in Gaeta near Napoli". John ------------------------------ From: Jack-Lee Gibbons Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 03:47:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #10 In response to Dave Jordan's message, I think you need to review your constitution. As a midshipman I'm sure that at some point in your publicly funded education, one of your instructors has mentioned it. Do the words "by the people, for the people." mean anything to you? The Air Force is not the government, we are the government. The Air Force is part of the Department of Defense which falls under the direction of the Secretary of Defense who is appointed by the President who is elected by the people of the United States so in essence, the public is the only group that has any rights at all to that or any other publicly held lands. Since the cold war is over, what is the point of having secret bases to develop billion dollar aircraft that won't be any more effective by being secret. The F-117 was not a secret by the time of the Gulf War and we had absolutely no difficulty at all in penetrating enemy air defenses without being detected. Maybe if the B-2 hadn't been so secret it wouldn't have been developed because people would wonder what in the heck we need a strategic nuclear bomber for when we have no major nuclear capable power threatening us. From what I have heard, the first B-2 cost over 3 billion dollars and there has yet to be any conclusive evidence that it is undetectable on radar. A number of scientists, including one that worked on the project, claim that it is completely visible on primitive radar systems. My third reason for the Air Force not grabbing up the 3000+ acres is that public lands all over the United States are dissapearing and even with all of the proposed base closings, the military still owns a huge amount of land that could be used by the public, seeing as how we pay for it! If we don't take an interest in the use and control of public lands, we might as well just give it all away to whomever asks for it. Not to mention, the Air Force has already broken the law by planting magnetic anomoly transmitters all over public lands. Since they have shown that they have a blatant disregard for the land, why should they be given rights to it?! I'm sure you're young and full of beans right now but as you get a little older and more experienced, you will become a little more dissillusioned, and the Navy will definately help you with that, and you will not blindly accept as gospel whatever you are told. That is what the Air Force in this case wants us to do. They want us to give them that land, for a base that doesn't even exist, without any questions asked. Jack >:-[ Here thar be monsters! "Hey ho! Let's go!" lumber@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Matthew_Williams@empyr.dircon.co.uk (Matthew Williams) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:47:07 GMT Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #7 From: Thomas Gauldin > >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. I don't think that the "wobble" would be random, to chance/change away any radar signals. Infact I would say that it would be calculated based on the available information on which radar signals are present at any one time. If there are simply too many signals coming in from too many directions - it would be impossible to wobble faster and faster, so the calculation would be a probability of the best anti-reflect angle. I therefore agree with your point above that this unlikely because if the F117a wasn't fully Radar sheilded, there wouldn't be much point in sending it up on the mere hope it wouldn't be detected. After all, it's not the fastest thing in the sky - although it's suppposed to be quite manouverable. My speculation is that the F117a is totally radar proof. It simply flies in, smacks em and wanders off - no problems, no worries. I do wonder though, the people who do the servicing on these things would have to be very careful indeed. If one item was put back on a couple of millimeters out - might this make the craft detectable. It must be a pain having to do a full radar signature check every time you do repairs on it? - -- Via DLG Pro v1.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "THERE ARE MONKEY BOYS IN THE ___/\___ " Salutations FACILITY" /________\ Great Buckaroo Matthew_Williams@empyr.dircon.co.uk _/ \_ Banzai! " ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #11 ******************************** 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).