From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #92 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 27 May 1994 Volume 05 : Number 092 In this issue: Re: Aurora - 2 planes Re: B-2 as AWACS... Re: B-2 as AWACS... U.S. Air & Trade Show Re: Auroa and mothership SR-71 comeback studied Re: Auroa and mothership radar, etc... SR-71 May Launch Missile Defense Tests resubscribe Re: U.S. Air & Trade Show Re: B-2 as AWACS... Re: SR-71 comeback studied Re: Auroa and mothership Re: SR-71 comeback studied 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: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 26 May 94 8:04:24 EDT Subject: Re: Aurora - 2 planes > drawings have already been released! You could get (maybe still can) drawings > of the aft end of the ABR from NASA via public FTP. The linear aerospike is depicted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Larry Larry, Do you have access to this information? Unfortunately, the only way I can receive this would be FTP by mail. I've had as much luck with that as I have with the lottery. If you had the time to get it and forward it to me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank-you. - -- Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 09:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... On Wed, 25 May 1994, Corey Lawson wrote: >...negated by having this very bright neon sign on top of the plane that > is radiating "Shoot Me!" to the world. For another, it's too expensive. One thing I have noticed about the AF R&D is that they try to go to the next level of the paradigm, rather than just make [it] "smaller and faster". I think your idea of a networking system being synergistic, and giving a better total picture of the ELINT. More virtuality, faster real time delivery, etc. I think the sticking point now is not More images, but only the best images, which would decrease analytic time. What I would caution the "pro-stealthers" to remember is that in look down radar, and other types, stealth in it's current incarnation is already defeated. (see the Falkland war, British detection, and as well in D-S, numerous allied detections > Wouldn't it be better to develop a new suite of electronics and stick it on > a Boeing 757/767/777? Wouldn't it be better to develop a new suite of > anti-radiation missile countermeasures? Or, what if one could develop a Perhaps a future direction of such countermeasures is in not so much 'cloaking-stealth', but scattering and a 'can't-pin-me-down' effects. > suite of electronics that provides about half of the power of the existing This has already happened. Saw it in an issue of JDW, I believe. > AWACS plane, but through satellite networking and cheap costs, lets one > fly about 10 or 20 of them for the same cost as an existing AWACS plane > at the same time providing 5-10x the processing power and coverage as 1 > AWACS? > > At the $500-750 Million cost for each B-2, I think one could come up with > a much better system based on satellites or non-stealthy planes. My point exactly. - -regards - -BaDge ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 07:59:27 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... I think we can all agree on the existence (sp) of passive intercept technology of an airborne objects signature. Secondly, the size of the electronics has drastically been reduced. On Thu, 26 May 1994, John Erling Blad wrote: > > > I don't think a B-2 is very attractive as an AWACS platform, but there are a > number of other technologies that can be used (and are used) to spot other > aircraft. Many of those are stealty. > > John > > (Direct correction of spellings to trash@local.cylinder.archive) ------------------------------ From: naa2254@dsacam.dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) Date: Thu, 26 May 94 09:23:37 -0400 Subject: U.S. Air & Trade Show I was out of the office for a few days, to return and find that my mail server/software satisfied its appetite for the contents of my incoming mailbox/folder. If any of you said/sent anything to me over the last several days, I never saw it. :-[ While I'm at it, anyone else from this list going to the 20th Anniversary of the United States Air and Trade Show this year? I got details, if anybody needs them. - -- Tom Ohmer, Computer Specialist, DSAC-AAA 1 614 692 8059 DLA Systems Automation Center, PO Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 tohmer@dsac.dla.mil DoD #1436 ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer "Sorry, we're closed." -- Sam Malone ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 26 May 1994 07:44:21 -0800 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Subject:RE>>Auroa and mothership Dear Lee, and other "skunkers", I'll try to keep this short, but I apologize in advance for the bandwidth. Emotion incites thought, and I'm glad to see you people getting worked up over something. It shows you care. Now, to the heart of the matter: I wrote (about stealthy AWACS): ">I disagree. I've listened to the hashing during the last few weeks and I >still see the need to have a stealthy spy aircraft. The Soviets have been >using fishing trawler-type surface vessels to monitor ALL of our testing Lee Hawkins wrote: >"You obviously don't understand the mission of an AWACS platform then." Wrong. >"AWACS stands for Airborne Warning and Control System (or something >close), meaning essentially that it is a airborne battlefield 'control >tower' for combat air support, strike missions, and the like for areas >where we don't have friendly ground facilities for those jobs." Agreed. Your thoughts are right on the money. That is exactly one half of the AWACS job function. But what is the other half? >"To the best of my knowledge, its mission is not and has never been >'spying' or elint. Those things are currently done with EA and EC platforms >in >various configurations. >Cheers, >--Lee" Oops! This is where you stray Lee. I have to question what the basis of your understanding of the mission of the AWACS platform is then, since your address denotes the educational net and I am unfamiliar with Wellesley. Perhaps it is one of the schools somehow tied closely with the military? My understanding of the mission of combat command centers (like the AWACS) is that elint would be a vital asset to perform the function of "control tower" because without it, they're just shooting in the dark. Now they may in fact currently be tied to EA and EC platforms to provide the data and my last message was simply to propose that a stealthy aircraft out there collecting that information to feed the AWACS could be of tremendous benefit in making command decisions. Understand, that I do not agree with the cost of building a stealthy B-2 type aircraft only to make a radio beacon that can be seen thousands of miles away. ALL of our electronic surveillance aircraft are either too small to carry much payload, or obvious in multi-spectral wavelengths for hundreds of miles. Giant radar blips on any radar screen! C-130s (monster radar returns), E-series (or JSTARS) airliners(!!!), fighter planes with overgrown wings (sorry U-2 fans)! Good. Needed. But not what I propose. Satellites perform valuable surveillance functions during the minutes they are available over a potential hot spot. But satellites are too expensive to be orbited in geo-stationary postions over every hot spot that occurs. What I'm referring to is a large, stealthy aircraft like the B-2 (cheaper airframe somehow), that serves as the passive half of a bi-static radar-like application where the big mama AWACS (high visibility!!!) sends out a radar signal from approx. 200 miles away, and a passive receiver mounted on a similarly configured, but stealthy aircraft receives the same reflections off of potential targets from a range of less than 50 miles. The "stealthy AWACS receives a MUCH LARGER radar return and therefore more positive id of the targets. While the adversary is watching and hoping for a missile opportunity at the AWACS Radar Beacon 200 miles away, the stealthy AWACS (maybe another name is more appropriate) monitors all activity from maybe 10 miles away and relays the data back to the "mother ship" by covert means. Bruce Henderson wrote: "The real nifty stuff research wise is along the lines of a passive AWACs system, using RPV or UPVs as radar xmitters, and allowing the AWACs bird to enhance its range with the radar transmitter on the RPV/UPV." Yes, but then you can use the passive (stealthier) technology to monitor from a safe distance. Opposite in application to my thoughts, but the same result-a bigger radar return hence better id of the adversary. >"Remember in radar the range is usually a factor of the size (watts) of the >pulse you are willing to create along with the sensitivity of your >receiver. The AWACs receiver is pretty good, but there is just so much >power you can generate, because it dissipates logarithmicly in relation to >the distance from the transmitter (if I remember my radar theory). >Bruce" Right on the money my friend! But size (hence onboard processing and power output) limitation is still a problem with RPV/UAVs. And an AWACS generates so much power, it is a hazard to any aircraft flying near it. Use what we have, and add a stealthy listening post at much shorter ranges. More later if you're still interested. Keep thinking and reasoning! - -Clarence Dent "Nothing is as easy as it should be!" ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 08:29:23 -0700 Subject: SR-71 comeback studied AW&ST 5/23/94, pg17 - HIP POCKET ONLY This week's AW&ST had a short blurb in the Washington Outlook column about a recent Lockheed study, requested by Pentagon policy analysts, that concluded that reactivating 3 USAF SR-71's, and operating them for one year, would cost $79.8 million. Three to six months would be needed to reactivate the three aircraft in storage at Palmdale (I assume these 3 birds are: 64-17962, 64-17967, and 64-17968). Interest in this arose in February while North Korea was a hot topic, when the Clinton administration learned that an SR-71 could take off from Palmdale, gather intel. of all Korean nuclear sites and land at Kadena 5 hours later. Lockheed had studied reactivation in the past, but this last time in February, the study went into greater detail, locating all the sensors to equip 3 aircraft. The article went on to indicate that emotions still run strong both for and against the SR-71 in the Pentagon. An official stressed that the Lockheed study was "hip-pocket" only - to weigh options available with low budgets and to facilitate rapid decisions if a crisis occurred. ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Thu, 26 May 94 11:22:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership In your message dated: 26 May 94 07:44:21 -0800 you write: >Subject:RE>>Auroa and mothership >Dear Lee, and other "skunkers", > >I'll try to keep this short, but I apologize in advance for the bandwidth. > >Emotion incites thought, and I'm glad to see you people getting worked up >over something. It shows you care. Now, to the heart of the matter: > >I wrote (about stealthy AWACS): >">I disagree. I've listened to the hashing during the last few weeks and I >>still see the need to have a stealthy spy aircraft. The Soviets have been >>using fishing trawler-type surface vessels to monitor ALL of our testing > >Lee Hawkins wrote: >>"You obviously don't understand the mission of an AWACS platform then." > >Wrong. Right. See below as to why I think you *still* misinterpret what AWACS means. > >>"AWACS stands for Airborne Warning and Control System (or something >>close), meaning essentially that it is a airborne battlefield 'control >>tower' for combat air support, strike missions, and the like for areas >>where we don't have friendly ground facilities for those jobs." > >Agreed. Your thoughts are right on the money. That is exactly one half of >the AWACS job function. But what is the other half? AWACS *may* recieve and relay info from EC-135's, for instance, but I remain to be convinced that an AWACS actually does the primary gathering for this type of mission... > >>"To the best of my knowledge, its mission is not and has never been >>'spying' or elint. Those things are currently done with EA and EC platforms >>in >>various configurations. > >>Cheers, >>--Lee" > > >My understanding of the mission of combat command centers (like the AWACS) is >that elint would be a vital asset to perform the function of "control tower" >because without it, they're just shooting in the dark. Now they may in fact >currently be tied to EA and EC platforms to provide the data and my last >message was simply to propose that a stealthy aircraft out there collecting There is no such thing as a stealthy aircraft that is operating a transmitter. If you're transmitting (except perhaps via laser beam com.), then you can be found. Quite easily, with 1920's (or earlier) technology. >that information to feed the AWACS could be of tremendous benefit in making >command decisions. Understand, that I do not agree with the cost of building >a stealthy B-2 type aircraft only to make a radio beacon that can be seen >thousands of miles away. ALL of our electronic surveillance aircraft are >either too small to carry much payload, or obvious in multi-spectral >wavelengths for hundreds of miles. Giant radar blips on any radar screen! >C-130s (monster radar returns), E-series (or JSTARS) airliners(!!!), fighter >planes with overgrown wings (sorry U-2 fans)! Good. Needed. But not what I >propose. See above. It doesn't matter how small your radar sig is, if you're operating a transmitter, you're a target. > >Satellites perform valuable surveillance functions during the minutes they >are available over a potential hot spot. But satellites are too expensive to >be orbited in geo-stationary postions over every hot spot that occurs. Agreed. > >What I'm referring to is a large, stealthy aircraft like the B-2 (cheaper >airframe somehow), that serves as the passive half of a bi-static radar-like >application where the big mama AWACS (high visibility!!!) sends out a radar >signal from approx. 200 miles away, and a passive receiver mounted on a >similarly configured, but stealthy aircraft receives the same reflections off >of potential targets from a range of less than 50 miles. The "stealthy AWACS >receives a MUCH LARGER radar return and therefore more positive id of the >targets. While the adversary is watching and hoping for a missile >opportunity at the AWACS Radar Beacon 200 miles away, the stealthy AWACS >(maybe another name is more appropriate) monitors all activity from maybe 10 >miles away and relays the data back to the "mother ship" by covert means. Most of my disagreement with you stems from your calling a B-2 an 'AWACS' platform. I agree (problems with transmitters aside) that it might make a great elint platform. The term AWACS, however, defines a very specific type of aircraft, however, so unless you put a big radome with active radar on it, it ain't an AWACS. You can argue with this all you want, but it won't change what the acronym AWACS means. Cheers, - --Lee ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 26 May 94 06:26:33 PDT Subject: radar, etc... The other magic factor is altitude, altitude,altitude. Commonly used radar frequencies are Line of Sight. By putting the radar at 30,000 feet (say) the range goes up. With proper design, the look down ability gets better as one can see into the "valleys". TO reiterate what others have said: AWACs is a radar station in the sky. It is inherently non stealthy. (skipping the bi/multi static possibilities...) Ferret flights, on the othe hand, electronic recce, that is another whole area, where B2 (or similar) would be VERRRRRRRRY INNNTERRESSSTING. AWACS is not Ferret/Ferret is not AWACS. (Tho AWACS equipment can probably do some ferret tasks. And some ferret tasks "need" a "visible" target to bring on the radar being sniffed.) One thing that seems to get lost is a hyoersonic a/c is inherently not stealthy. At that speed, as an _air_craft, it will be HOT. Period. Looking up it will be seen against almost_absolute_zero of space. It WILL be seen by any IR detector, ground or a/c mounted. radar range: The classical is "falls of as the square of the distance". (twice as far, 1/4 the power.) That is the base case. In radar, the signal has to go AND return. The return is ALSO subject to fall off. (Fall off is strictly beam spreading, NOT atmospheric absorption. That is a separate, added, loss.) BUT. The inverse square rule ASSUMES that the outgoing wavefront is omnidirectional, spreadingtiself thinner and thinner as it gets out. Radar, as commonly employed collimates (techie word) the energy into a beam (or beams, or.....). In the ideal case it doesn't spread. SO NO FALL OFF WITH DISTANCE. In the real world, even "the military" cannot afford an ideal case. SO there is some spreading, and some fall off. Ferret Flights, data recovery. Some comes back on tape, or whatever. Thes days, some can be cryptoed, uplinked to satellites (can you say TDRS?), then downlinked some place secure. The uplink could be highly directional, so the folks on the ground, under the ferret cannot "hear" it. And its cryptoed. The downlink is "friendly" (and cryptoed). regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Rick Lafford Date: Thu, 26 May 94 12:36:51 EDT Subject: SR-71 May Launch Missile Defense Tests SR-71 May Launch Missile Defense Tests High speed target vehicles air launched from NASA-operated SR-71 Blackbirds may provide new options for conducting realistic tests of next-generation theater missile interceptor systems. Preliminary studies by NASA indicate that the SR-71 could essentially function as a relatively inexpensive first stage of the target vehicle. A Minuteman 1 third-stage booster and a Coleman Research HERA Target system would be mated to the blackbird and launched at approximately 80,000 ft and Mach 3. Aerotherm Corp. (Mountain View, CA) is the subcontractor responsible for the Hera reentry vehicle. In addition to lower cost, the air launch option would avoid some of the flight profile limitations experienced with ground-launch sites. SOURCE: Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 21, 1994. - -------------------------------- Rick Lafford Eastman Kodak Co. lafford@clpd.kodak.com =========================== ------------------------------ From: "Thomas A. Gauldin" Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 13:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: resubscribe My username was recently changed from tgauldin to scoundrl to better reflect my personality and nickname over the past 30 or so years. Please change the address on my subscription from tgauldin to scoundrl@jabba.cybernetics.net. Thank you. Thomas A. Gauldin Here's to the land of the longleaf pine, Raleigh, NC The summerland where the sun doth shine, BSRB45A on Prodigy Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great, FAX (919) 676-1404 Here's to Downhome, the Old North State. ------------------------------ From: brndlfly@MIT.EDU Date: Thu, 26 May 94 14:00:17 EDT Subject: Re: U.S. Air & Trade Show I definitely plan to be there on at least one day. Dayton has become sort of an annual pilgrimage for me recently, and I'm definitely including it on my airshow list for this year. Perhaps we should arrange a time and place for skunkers to get together there, if there be enough interest... -T T Velazquez MIT Aero & Astro brndlfly@athena.mit.edu "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... And the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." -Wernher von Braun ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.com (Neil Galarneau) Date: Thu, 26 May 94 14:40:16 EDT Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... > From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Thu May 26 14:14:53 1994 > Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 09:33:50 -0400 (EDT) > From: BaDge > Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... > To: Corey Lawson > Cc: Skunk Works mailing list > [snip] > What I would > caution the "pro-stealthers" to remember is that in look down radar, and > other types, stealth in it's current incarnation is already defeated. > (see the Falkland war, British detection, and as well in D-S, numerous > allied detections > References please (not rumor). [snip] > -regards > -BaDge Neil neil@progress.com ------------------------------ From: naa2254@dsacam.dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) Date: Thu, 26 May 94 14:30:59 -0400 Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback studied In reply to the mail from ... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >[...] >The article went on to indicate that emotions still run strong both for and >against the SR-71 in the Pentagon. An official stressed that the Lockheed >study was "hip-pocket" only - to weigh options available with low >budgets and to facilitate rapid decisions if a crisis occurred. I'm recalling that Mary said something about cracks in the tires grounding the NASA SRs. Would the tires on the Palmdale SRs be in any better shape, and if not, where would they get new ones? - -- Tom Ohmer, Computer Specialist, DSAC-AAA 1 614 692 8059 DLA Systems Automation Center, PO Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 tohmer@dsac.dla.mil DoD #1436 ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer "Sorry, we're closed." -- Sam Malone ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 26 May 1994 14:10:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Subject:RE>>Auroa and mothership Hi Lee, You wrote: >"AWACS *may* recieve and relay info from EC-135's, for instance, but I >remain to be convinced that an AWACS actually does the primary gathering >for this type of mission..." It was an AWACS plane than vectored (and granted firing permission too by the way) those F-15s to shoot down the two NATO helicopters in northern Iraq. What type information gathering was that if it wasn't ELINT? There were no ground operatives relaying that data. The AWACS plane was so far away that it couldn't make positive id based on the signature. If they could fly closer to the target area with less of a risk from SAMs, that accident might have been prevented. (Oh ya, there were other ways to avoid it also.) It was also an AWACS that vectored in those F-16s that took out the fighter planes in Bosnia/Herzkovenia (sp). That was intelligence gathering also. Just using active radar to do so... >There is no such thing as a stealthy aircraft that is operating a >transmitter. If you're transmitting (except perhaps via laser beam >com.), then you can be found. Quite easily, with 1920's (or earlier) >technology." Agreed, but see below... >The "stealthy AWACS >>receives a MUCH LARGER radar return and therefore a more positive id of >>the targets. While the adversary is watching and hoping for a missile >>opportunity at the AWACS Radar Beacon 200 miles away, the stealthy AWACS >>(maybe another name is more appropriate) monitors all activity from maybe > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"Most of my disagreement with you stems from your calling a B-2 an >'AWACS' platform. I agree (problems with transmitters aside) that it >might make a great elint platform. The term AWACS, however, defines a >very specific type of aircraft, however, so unless you put a big radome >with active radar on it, it ain't an AWACS. You can argue with this all >you want, but it won't change what the acronym AWACS means." AWACS may not be the name/acronymn of choice, but it presents a type of technological capability unmatched on any other aircraft, hence my usage of it. My apologies if it confused you. I don't want to see stealth design and dollars waisted on a flying radio beacon, but on an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft that works in conjunction/close cooperation with an AWACS. The use of a "pancake" on the roof would lend itself easily to the stealth design, except when the dish is facing you. But since it would be operating in a passive, stealthy mode, it would/could be intermittent in its rotation. >>miles away and relays the data back to the "mother ship" by covert means. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ I did caveat my statement. There are ways to transmit while screening the signal from adversaries that have been in use since the need arose... Maybe the aircraft I'm describing here already exists and is/has been in use for years. I don't know. That's not my category of expertise. I couldn't state that even if it was. What I know is what I read in Avleak and other related media. Cheers, and back to you... - -Clarence "My opinions are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer." "Remember, nothing is as easy as it should be..." ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 22:14:22 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback studied Why operate out of Palmdale when SR-71s routinely ran out of Okinawa, where they would have more fuel to linger in the area? On Thu, 26 May 1994 larry@ichips.intel.com wrote: > > AW&ST 5/23/94, pg17 - HIP POCKET ONLY > > This week's AW&ST had a short blurb in the Washington Outlook column > about a recent Lockheed study, requested by Pentagon policy analysts, > that concluded that reactivating 3 USAF SR-71's, and operating them for > one year, would cost $79.8 million. > > Three to six months would be needed to reactivate the three aircraft > in storage at Palmdale (I assume these 3 birds are: 64-17962, 64-17967, > and 64-17968). > > Interest in this arose in February while North Korea was a hot topic, > when the Clinton administration learned that an SR-71 could take off from > Palmdale, gather intel. of all Korean nuclear sites and land at Kadena > 5 hours later. > > Lockheed had studied reactivation in the past, but this last time in > February, the study went into greater detail, locating all the sensors > to equip 3 aircraft. > > The article went on to indicate that emotions still run strong both for and > against the SR-71 in the Pentagon. An official stressed that the Lockheed > study was "hip-pocket" only - to weigh options available with low > budgets and to facilitate rapid decisions if a crisis occurred. > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #92 ******************************** 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).