From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #97 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 1 June 1994 Volume 05 : Number 097 In this issue: Re: See it and not kill it? Re: See it and not kill it? mixed load out Re: See it and not kill it? Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #95 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #96 CYGNUS/SKYLARK/TAGBOARD Article Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #95 Ahem... I think the point was... B1B vs B2 vs B-52... "Neon Aztec?!" Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #95 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 Regus Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 07:56:20 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? I just wanted to throw out to observations on the discussion about the B2s operational altitude and the Foxbat(Mig-25) that was designed to intercept high flying bombers. How many of you remember when Viktor Beshenko defected to Japan in a Mig-25 back in '74. The technicians sent by the DIA to examine the plane along with the Japanese were walking around scratching their heads trying to figure out the composition of the airframe material when one was looking along the plane of the top of the wing. He saw a fine red tinge. He called for, or was given a magnet, and held it to wing... The magnet stuck...the plane was mostly steel alloy and heavy as can be. The most important thing we learned from this was the Russians had sorry metallurgy but excellent propulsion system technology, afterall they had to push a brick around in the air. True story.... John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE WUI:REGUSHOU | On Mon, 30 May 1994, murr wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 May 1994, Lou Dellaverson wrote: > > > The basis for this unhittable claim works like this: > > Use heat dispresion technology and ircm to reduce the signature. > > Fly above the service cieling of the fighters you wish to avoid. > > > > Example, you fly at 70000 feet against current soviet type fighters > > with a very low ir signature. This would give a fighter vectored to a > > firing position approx. 1.0-1.5 seconds to aquire-lock-fire, before > > he would lose momentum at the top of his arch and drop out of firing > > position. > > This brings two questions. Can the B2 cruise at 70,000 ft? Are there no > opposing fighters that can sustain the cruise height of a B2? The Mig 25 > may be crude, but it was designed to counter high altitude threats (the > Valcurery(sp) ??). The B2 would be a difficult target with conventional > countermeasures. The real question would be, is it more expensive to > build the B2 or the weapons to fight it? The same problem dogs SDI. > > murr ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 08:14:46 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? Just FYI but SDI is now part of the Air Force BMDO. Skunks! How many of you feel that funding should be increased for the DC-X program? John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE WUI:REGUSHOU | ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Tue, 31 May 94 09:33:10 EDT Subject: mixed load out "See it, kill it" sounds good. BUT there are any number of examples where a target can be seen but not killed. Altitude, for one, speed, for another. reduced RCS, for a third. Reduce it enough, put the target in NOE, depending on territory and it can't be seen, for all practical purposes. Or my be visible onley for a fraction of a second. The course in can be plotted to utilize ground features. "all these radars" saw the stealth. Welllll, they think they did. And there are _active_ in addition to passive return enhancers. (review the "quail" drone that went with the B52...). And the exact limits of capability of the F117 are still not (publicly) known. And it is to US Forces advantage to KEEP them unkown (except as to lobbying congress. Sigh.). Let THINK he can find them. In the specific case of the B2 test flights, get the video of the first test series. A _good_ copy. Look carefully. There is a trailing wire. Its part of the air speed test instrumentation. Its not stealthy with the wire. On the other hand. I like neat technolgy as well as the next person. BUT. Fishing madly for a mission for B2 may be a mistake. I should thin the number we have NOW (or comitted now) is a dandy number for an ELINT mission (worldwide) EXCEPT, that the B52s are about slepped out. we need a heavy bomber. ========================================================================= John Kelleher writes: >Between services, there is similar confusion. I once wrote an article for >the US Naval Institute Proceedings where I referred to the chain of command >for ground-based missile launches as including an LCC or Launch Control >Capsule. When they sent the article back for final review, their >translator had turned it into some type of Landing Craft!! Thanks goodness >for final proofs. ho ho HO. An acquantance once looked up, in the official "dictionaries" of each of the US services the phrase: "secure the building" I don't have the whole list handybut at one end, the USAF would: Contact a real estate agent, negotiate a lease for a specified term of years. The USMC would: Assault the building, with maximum available fire power and evitct the enemy. Language is a wonderful thing... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: zoz@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Ten-Tentacled Avenger Of The Deep) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 00:22:42 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? |> Skunks! How many of you feel that funding should be increased for the |> DC-X program? I would hazard the guess that pretty much all of us do. Also given the recent shutdown unless I am mistaken "be increased" should read "exist" :( - -- ______ _____________ ______________________ ______ /\####/\ / / / / /\####/\ / \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \ /____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\ \####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/ \##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/ \/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/ zoz@cs.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------ From: "Brian Christiansen" Date: Mon, 30 May 94 10:59:42 CST Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #95 On Mon, 30 May 1994 00:01:02 -0700, wrote: >From: TRADER@cup.portal.com >Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:25:53 PDT >Subject: For amateur spies... (Project NEON AZTEC) > > WARNING NOTICE - INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED > (WNINTEL) > >About Project NEON AZTEC >________________________ > >NEON AZTEC is the code-name of a project I'm starting to provide information >on the "sources and methods" that can be used to learn about secret U.S. >military programs. I realize the risk I am taking by publicizing this >information -- the U.S. government could decide to close off these sources. Why A few friendly requests: 1) You have made your point ... please keep it on a personal mail basis from here on. 2) You take the risk ... take it alone and, please, do not directly or indirectly involve me - I think the subject of loosing clearances has been discussed at few time here. Regards Brian - --------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Christiansen 070-3142479 SHAPE Technical Centre, P.O.Box 174 +31 70 3142479 NL-2501 CD The Hague, The Netherlands christ@stc.nato.int [ - - - * * * STANDARD DISCLAIMER APPLIES * * * - - - ] ------------------------------ From: Canis_megus Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 12:10:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #96 > > Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 31 May 1994 Volume 05 : Number 096 > > In this issue: > > Re: See it and not kill it? > Re: See it and not kill it? > Re: See it and not kill it? > > 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: Lou Dellaverson > Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 18:28:08 -0500 (CDT) > Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? > > On Sat, 28 May 1994, murr wrote: > > > BaDge writes: > > > > > TITLE Air Force Admits Enemies Can Detect Stealth Bomber.--News. > > > SOURCE Boston Globe: Nov 2, 1989, 9:1 > > > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > > > ABSTRACT The US Air Force has announced that systems and technology > > > exist to detect the B-2 Stealth bomber on enemy radar but that enemies will > > > not be able to destroy the plane. The announcement is the latest in a > > > series that continue to pare back previous claims for the aircraft. > > > > I remember reading this item when it came out. How can this be? Does the > > enemy say: > > > > "That's on of those REAL expensive B2 planes. Let's not destroy it."? > > > > If you can see it you can shoot it. A subsonic plane that big would be a > > fat target. Better part of a giga buck bites the dust. Why are we still > > making `the plane without a mission'? > > > > murr > > > The basis for this unhittable claim works like this: > Use heat dispresion technology and ircm to reduce the signature. > Fly above the service cieling of the fighters you wish to avoid. > Example, you fly at 70000 feet against current soviet type fighters > with a very low ir signature. This would give a fighter vectored to a > firing position approx. 1.0-1.5 seconds to aquire-lock-fire, before > he would lose momentum at the top of his arch and drop out of firing > position. > > Lou > > ------------------------------ > > From: murr > Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 21:44:51 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? > > On Mon, 30 May 1994, Lou Dellaverson wrote: > > > The basis for this unhittable claim works like this: > > Use heat dispresion technology and ircm to reduce the signature. > > Fly above the service cieling of the fighters you wish to avoid. > > > > Example, you fly at 70000 feet against current soviet type fighters > > with a very low ir signature. This would give a fighter vectored to a > > firing position approx. 1.0-1.5 seconds to aquire-lock-fire, before > > he would lose momentum at the top of his arch and drop out of firing > > position. > > This brings two questions. Can the B2 cruise at 70,000 ft? Are there no > opposing fighters that can sustain the cruise height of a B2? The Mig 25 > may be crude, but it was designed to counter high altitude threats (the > Valcurery(sp) ??). The B2 would be a difficult target with conventional > countermeasures. The real question would be, is it more expensive to > build the B2 or the weapons to fight it? The same problem dogs SDI. > > murr > > ------------------------------ > > From: Lou Dellaverson > Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 22:41:27 -0500 (CDT) > Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? > > On Mon, 30 May 1994, murr wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 30 May 1994, Lou Dellaverson wrote: > > > > > The basis for this unhittable claim works like this: > > > Use heat dispresion technology and ircm to reduce the signature. > > > Fly above the service cieling of the fighters you wish to avoid. > > > > > > Example, you fly at 70000 feet against current soviet type fighters > > > with a very low ir signature. This would give a fighter vectored to a > > > firing position approx. 1.0-1.5 seconds to aquire-lock-fire, before > > > he would lose momentum at the top of his arch and drop out of firing > > > position. > > > > This brings two questions. Can the B2 cruise at 70,000 ft? Are there no > > opposing fighters that can sustain the cruise height of a B2? The Mig 25 > > may be crude, but it was designed to counter high altitude threats (the > > Valcurery(sp) ??). The B2 would be a difficult target with conventional > > countermeasures. The real question would be, is it more expensive to > > build the B2 or the weapons to fight it? The same problem dogs SDI. > > > > I wasn't suggesting that the B-2 is good for anything (personal opion > is that it is not). I was just answering the unhittable part. The > stronger the ir signature, the quicker a missile can aquire and lock. > Conventional planes are hot enough to get it in 1 second. The 70000 > foot number comes from some research I did against known opposing > aircraft. > > Lou In fact, the Mig-25 (a crude fighter by our standards) is quite capable of reaching 70,000 ft. On the other hand, is the B-2? Considering the high speeds necessary to provide enough oxygen to power the engines at such altitude, and the low speed of the B-2, I would guess not. ps - it is true that the Mig-25 was designed to counter the high altitude supersonic XB-70 Valkrie. - -Tim ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 10:14:39 -0700 Subject: CYGNUS/SKYLARK/TAGBOARD Article Those of you that are MD-21 TAGBOARD and A-12 CYGNUS/SKYLARK enthusiasts might want to try to see if you can find a copy of the following magazine: Air Enthusiast No. 52, Winter 1993 Of 'CYGNUS' and 'TAGBOARD' by Paul Crickmore Another new MD-21 photo is published for the first time, and there is a photo of a rare CYGNUS project patch that the article claims Jack Weeks had made up. The article seems to have been written just before the last set of disclosures, but it's definitely worth reading. By the way guys. I find the latest set of arguements about B-2 AWACS/ELINT to be MOSTLY useless (except for the B-2 as a possible ELINT platform perhaps). One of the things that I would like to see is more research and less shooting from the hip. Just because you believe something is possible or true doesn't mean that it is. It may still be a useful piece of inspiration but we don't need to discuss it ad nauseum. Those kinds of discussions really belong on rec.aviation.military, in my opinion. We need people to do research about past black projects and not just argue about things that they have not done any research on. Skunk Works becomes more interesting as it's members do active research or work in the field and share the fruits of that work, assuming those fruits can legally be shared, of course. Larry ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 14:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #95 Please leave me out, too. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Mon, 30 May 1994, Brian Christiansen wrote: > On Mon, 30 May 1994 00:01:02 -0700, wrote: > > >From: TRADER@cup.portal.com > >Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:25:53 PDT > >Subject: For amateur spies... (Project NEON AZTEC) > > > > WARNING NOTICE - INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED > > (WNINTEL) > > > >About Project NEON AZTEC > >________________________ > > > >NEON AZTEC is the code-name of a project I'm starting to provide information > >on the "sources and methods" that can be used to learn about secret U.S. > >military programs. I realize the risk I am taking by publicizing this > >information -- the U.S. government could decide to close off these sources. Why > > A few friendly requests: > > 1) You have made your point ... please keep it on a personal mail basis > from here on. > > 2) You take the risk ... take it alone and, please, do not directly or > indirectly involve me - I think the subject of loosing clearances > has been discussed at few time here. > > Regards > > Brian > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > B. Christiansen 070-3142479 > SHAPE Technical Centre, P.O.Box 174 +31 70 3142479 > NL-2501 CD The Hague, The Netherlands christ@stc.nato.int > [ - - - * * * STANDARD DISCLAIMER APPLIES * * * - - - ] ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 14:47:15 -0700 Subject: Ahem... I think the point was... Couple of requests made of TRADER@cup.portal.com may have slightly missed the point. You have to request this via email, it doesn't happen automatically. You should be safe. :} He's not going to be posting anything to the skunk list. Rick kuryakin@halcyon.com ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 15:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: B1B vs B2 vs B-52... the B-52 still has an operational end-of-usefulness time that exceeds the B1 and B2. Using the B-1 and B-2 in a conventional bombing role would be...wasteful, imho. The planes are much more expensive than the B-52 (even with all the mods to the B-52) and there are far fewer of them. Not a good idea unless one has secured air superiority and the risk for AAA is relatively low, since the days of ARC LIGHT are gone. I think the B-52 will be moved towards a more conventional role and the B1/B2 will stay the Nuke Penetration bombers as they were designed. If the USAF re-engines the B-52, its useful life will be extended well past the year 2000. I won't name my sources, but let's just say I trust the info. The BUFF is gonna be around for quite some time... - -Corey Lawson alfalfa@booster.u.washington.edu - ------------------------------------- U U W W W Bothell Campus U U W W W W =================== UUU W W Computer Facilities - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 21:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "Neon Aztec?!" > > >From: TRADER@cup.portal.com > > >Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:25:53 PDT > > >Subject: For amateur spies... (Project NEON AZTEC) > > > > > > WARNING NOTICE - INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED > > > (WNINTEL) > > > > > >About Project NEON AZTEC > > >________________________ > > > > > >NEON AZTEC is the code-name of a project I'm starting to provide information > > >on the "sources and methods" that can be used to learn about secret U.S. > > >military programs. I realize the risk I am taking by publicizing this > CLASSIC WANNABE sounds like a better program name to me. - -- 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: John Regus Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 21:34:32 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #95 I am with Mary and Brian on this. John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE WUI:REGUSHOU | On Tue, 31 May 1994, Mary Shafer wrote: > Please leave me out, too. > > Regards, > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... > > > On Mon, 30 May 1994, Brian Christiansen wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 May 1994 00:01:02 -0700, wrote: > > > > >From: TRADER@cup.portal.com > > >Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:25:53 PDT > > >Subject: For amateur spies... (Project NEON AZTEC) > > > > > > WARNING NOTICE - INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED > > > (WNINTEL) > > > > > >About Project NEON AZTEC > > >________________________ > > > > > >NEON AZTEC is the code-name of a project I'm starting to provide information > > >on the "sources and methods" that can be used to learn about secret U.S. > > >military programs. I realize the risk I am taking by publicizing this > > >information -- the U.S. government could decide to close off these sources. Why > > > > A few friendly requests: > > > > 1) You have made your point ... please keep it on a personal mail basis > > from here on. > > > > 2) You take the risk ... take it alone and, please, do not directly or > > indirectly involve me - I think the subject of loosing clearances > > has been discussed at few time here. > > > > Regards > > > > Brian > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > B. Christiansen 070-3142479 > > SHAPE Technical Centre, P.O.Box 174 +31 70 3142479 > > NL-2501 CD The Hague, The Netherlands christ@stc.nato.int > > [ - - - * * * STANDARD DISCLAIMER APPLIES * * * - - - ] > > > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #97 ******************************** 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).