From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #166 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Monday, 14 November 1994 Volume 05 : Number 166 In this issue: trip report - SR-71 flight simulator [SR sim] my piloting background quote for the day trip report-ARPA symposium Re: Project Oxcart OXCART apology Re: Still more Black Balloons Re: eb's (not an eb-52, but Re: OXCART Re: Oxcart Story Re: eb's (not an eb-52, but Re: Oxcart Story 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: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 21:42:02 -0800 Subject: trip report - SR-71 flight simulator On Wednesday, November 9th, I drove to the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center [DFRC] in the high desert of southern California, at Edwards AFB, to watch the SR-71 fly (and to do some other stuff, too). On the way down, I broke the camshaft in my car [$1100]. On top of that, the weather scrubbed the SR flight. My gracious host(ess) felt sorry for me, and arranged for me (details deliberately glossed over here) to have a time slot in the SR-71 flight simulator. This is the story of my rather eventful flight. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my host(ess). I have left their names out so they are not deluged with requests to fly the sim, since there were certain special circumstances with my visit. The simulator room is on the ground floor of the main building (I forget the number; sorry). You have to walk through the SR hangar, which is restricted, and down a hallway to get to it. Then you have to be buzzed in. It appears to be a room full of computers, but at the back there's a fire door. If you go through, you're in a room roughly two stories high. There is a balcony area covering about half the room, with access to the simulator catwalk, the RSO simulator (which is stationary), and the operator's consoles. The door comes out onto the balcony, which is about 1/3 of the way up the wall. The cockpit section of the simulator, which is black and looks a lot like the cockpit section of the SR-71B, is on hydraulics at the same level as the balcony. The cockpit section moves to simulate flight motion. There is a short metal catwalk out to the cockpit. At the rear of the cockpit section is the instructor's station. It has a VDT nav display and simulator controls. The pilot's seat rolls back on a track, since the canopy does not open. Once the pilot is in the seat, the instructor pushes it all the way forward. At that point, the pilot (me! :-) is encased in the cockpit. The stick is well positioned and is twisted for a right-handed pilot to grasp comfortably. Instrument layout is good (except where noted below). Major flight instrumentation is on the front panel in front of the pilot, as well as important engine controls. These instruments include gear controls, attitude indicator (artificial horizon), backup attitude indicator, vertical speed indicator, fuel quantity and take selection, triple display (KEAS, altitude, and mach number). Also on the front panel are the altimiter, machmeter, KEAS indicator (knots equivalent airspeed), cip guage (compressor inlet pressure), spike position guages and knobs, inlet pressure, exhaust gas temperature, and all the caution and warning lights. On the right hand panel there's nav equipment, autopilot, some stuff I don't remember. On the left panel there's circuit breakers, environmental controls, radio, and throttle quadrant. I know this isn't everything, but I don't have the flight manual in front of me. The "windows" on the simulator are translucent plastic with lights behind them. We took off in daylight, then transitioned to night flight. In other words, the operator turned off the window lights. :-) For this reason the flight starts sitting on the runway with engines at idle. [switch to pilot report mode] I was running about 15 minutes late for a 1300 hours scheduled takeoff. Engine runup on the runway, full military power with toe brakes applied, was normal. Engine rpm came up, at which point I released the brakes and advanced the throttle past the gate into afterburner. The burners kicked in with the usual thump [you actually feel and hear it in the sim]. All systems were nominal as I rolled down the runway. At 175 knots I rotated the aircraft. I left the ground at 210 knots and began my climbout. The first thing I did after takeoff was raise the gear. At this point, my nose was a bit high, as KEAS was not climbing. I reduced the angle of climb to 15 degrees and the airspeed increased appropriately. I took a gentle turn to the West and continued around Palmdale, settling eventually on an Easterly course towards Las Vegas, NV. A few minutes after takeoff I executed (poorly :-) a dip to push through Mach 1. Airspeed increased rapidly (as did altitude) after the A/C went supersonic. Flight time from takeoff to Las Vegas was 12 minutes. I was over Mach 2 when I executed a 90 degree turn to the North after passing Las Vegas. I trimmed the aircraft and engaged roll and pitch autopilots, maintain KEAS autopilot, and the autonavigation system. At that point the aircraft continued a 10 degree climb to FL 800 (80,000 feet). The normal flight profile calls for a KEAS of approximately 450. At approximately 74,000 feet and Mach 3.1, somewhere over Colorado, I believe, I experienced an unstart in the left engine. It was a relatively gentle unstart, and I was able to control the fast roll to the out engine with relative ease. The computer immediately advanced the spike to spike station 0 and reaquired the shock wave. The engine was operating normally seconds after the unstart. The SR-71 yaws and rolls immediately to the out engine side when experincing an unstart. This requires quick response from the pilot. At these speeds, it is important not to pull the nose up while recovering from an unstart, as the plane will break in half from aerodynamic forces at an alpha (angle of attack) of 8 degrees. I continued North while climbing. During the time I approached the Canadian border, I experienced three more unstarts, two in the port engine and one in the starboard engine (sympathetic unstart during a port engine unstart). Each time, the autopilot stayed engaged and the computers reset the inlet spikes. The only pilot input, other than maintaining the aircraft's attitude (which requires a bit of work, I'll tell ya), is to rearm the derich system. Just before reaching the Canadian border, I experienced a violent unstart in the port engine (strong enough to bash my head solidly against the cockpit window). The unstarts are accompanied by an unsettlingly loud "bam" from aft in the aircraft, followed by a rapid roll. There is a laser-projected artificial horizon across the front instrument panel. This is very convenient, because during an unstart the pilot needs to pay attention to the attitude indicator, the CIP guage, and the spike position guages. It is distracting to look from the lower-left front panel (CIP and spike guages) to the ADI at the top-center panel. The laser artificial horizon allows the pilot to look at the spike controls while recovering the A/C's attitude with peripheral vision. As the computers were attempting to recover from the unstart, the left nacelle fire indicator lit. Shortly thereafter, I lost the port side turbine. At that point, I initiated a gentle westerly turn to return to base and pulled the port throttle to idle. The aircraft at this point (about Mach 3 and 78,000 feet) was difficult to control, and was rolling from side to side as I attempted to maintain control. Over Idaho, in the middle of my turnaround, the warning light for left generator lit, indicating that the port side generator had failed. As I continued my turn, I experienced an unstart in the starboard engine. Much to my concern, this was followed almost immediately by a right side turbine failure and right nacelle fire. I reduced the throttle and brought the nose down to maintain approximately 368 KEAS. The SR-71 does not make an impressive glider, even at Mach 3, and I began rapidly losing altitude. Unfortunately, at that point I lost the right side generator, and along with it, the majority of the cockpit instrumentation. The only instruments I had in my glider at that point was the TDI, backup attitude indicator, and a compass. Losing altitude, airspeed, and control (the stability augmentation computers were lost along with the right side generator) rapidly, I "ejected" at 47,000 feet and mach 1.2, somewhere over southern Utah. [end pilot report] I climbed out and my jaw muscles were sore from clenching my teeth, my head hurt from the unstart that slapped me into the cockpit window, and I was dripping sweat. I was also in heaven, just from the opportunity to fly the simulator. What an experience! Let me know if there are any questions.... Cheers, Phil ------------------------------ From: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 11:06:19 -0800 Subject: [SR sim] my piloting background Jay Freeman suggested that I post my experience as a pilot, to provide a frame of reference for my experience in the simulator. I have flown planes, in the course of working towards my license, but I've never had the money to "go all the way." I probably have 18 hours or something like that. Plus lots of riding time. The simulator operator said I did a "surprisingly good job" on my flight. He also said he's seen SR pilot-trainees do worse. I guess that's a compliment.... :-) Cheers, Phil ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 13 Nov 94 15:11:08 PST Subject: quote for the day "There is no question that we have not yet found the end of the road of what stealth technology can do for the Department [of Defense]" - Dr. John Deutch, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, taken from testimony before Congress, May 6, 1993. (Dr. Deutch is now the Deputy Secretary of Defense) Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 13 Nov 94 14:13:46 PST Subject: trip report-ARPA symposium A visit to the 17th ARPA symposium __________________________________ by Paul McGinnis, November 13, 1994 After deciding that I needed a vacation, I decided to spend October 25 to October 27, 1994 at the 17th ARPA Symposium in San Francisco, CA. ARPA is the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, the people who gave the world both the Stealth fighter aircraft (HAVE BLUE program) and the Internet. I went for 2 reasons -- to learn about new technologies (I'm an engineer) and to see if there would be any leaks about classified military programs, that would help in my fight against excessive military secrecy. The first session started off with various ARPA officials explaining ARPA's mission, followed by 2 senior Department of Defense officials, Dr. Paul Kaminski, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), and Dr. Anita Jones, DoD's Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Dr. Kaminski talked about dual use technologies that could be used for both military and commercial uses, and increasing DoD's use of off-the-shelf commercial technology. Dr. Jones discussed developing new technologies to protect soldiers in urban environments. She had some interesting charts that showed that in 0602xxx and 0603xxx Program Elements in the RDT&E (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation) budget, 6% was spent for aerospace vehicles, and 6.5% was spent for electronic warfare and directed energy weapons (such as lasers). After their presentations, questions were taken from the audience. I stunned Dr. Jones and the crowd, by asking the question that no one else there would have dared to ask -- Why does DoD still have so many classified Special Access Programs, after the end of the Cold War? After an awkward silence, she answered that "there are so many because of the technologies involved." She expects the number to decline as more commercial technology is used by DoD. It is accepted by people in Congress that security costs for classified programs account for 14% of their cost. This question led to a conversation with ARPA's security director, Matt Donlon, who wanted to know why I was interested in classified programs. I explained some of my activities trying to reform excessive secrecy. There was an interesting disclosure - I mentioned Lockheed's secret radar cross section (RCS) facility north of Helendale, CA, and he admitted that he had been there and it "was a nice facility." Since he hasn't been in this job for long, one wonders what ARPA has up its sleeve that requires the presence of its security director at a remote airfield in California's Mojave Desert. Perhaps this ties in with something mentioned during an ARPA presentation on composite materials for aircraft, where the speaker mentioned that Lockheed's Skunk Works (Lockheed Advanced Development Co.) was a key provider of composite materials for a project. Composite materials can be used in low-observable (Stealth) aircraft, and typically consist of fibers (such as carbon-carbon or fiberglass) aligned in the same direction in a matrix of material, such as epoxy resin. The next day produced some more valuable information, during programs on the recent ARPA/CIA Tier 2+ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program and a program code-named WAR BREAKER, for locating and destroying mobile ballistic missile launchers, like those used for Scuds. The Tier 2+ program had a great emphasis on price, with Harry Berman from ARPA stating, "if you turn the engine off at 65,000 feet, everything that hits the ground must cost less than 10 million dollars." It was also revealed that the Tier 2+ aircraft will produce 50 megabits per second of digital data, and that needs to be compressed so that the aircraft only needs to transmit at 1.5 megabits per second. Another goal is to use artificial intelligence based software for automated target recognition and detection, with an error rate of less than 1 error per square kilometer. The WAR BREAKER program is a response to the inability of the U.S. to locate Scud missile launchers during the war in Kuwait. One of the speakers made a statement that would have made a great line in the Peter Sellers' movie "Dr. Strangelove", by saying "we have to find the target before we can put metal on it!". It was revealed that at any point in time, the U.S. has 5 to 10 imaging satellites in orbit, with a spatial resolution better than 1 meter, that image 40,000 square nautical miles [137,200 sq. km] per day. Several imagery programs were also revealed, such as DRAGNET (imaging of moving targets), EXPOSE (attempts to "see through" foliage" with UHF signals), and MONITOR (automated target recognition). Since I've been studying imaging techniques, for my own purposes, the material presented during the WAR BREAKER program was quite interesting. For example, I've been tinkering with digital airborne radar. Among the data sets that I have is a SLAR (Side Looking Airborne Radar) set that covers a 1 degree by 2 degree section of southern Nevada, including part of the Nevada Test Site. One of ARPA's digital radar programs involves signal processing of the data to give a pseudo three-dimensional image. This could be useful in making certain man-made features stand out. The ARPA symposium discussed a number of advanced technologies, including "Scalable High Performance Computing", "Mobile and Wireless Technology", "Electronic Packaging & Interconnects" (ARPA is putting multiple ICs in the same physical package), "Operations Other Than War" (the military is developing technology to help the police, such as wall-penetrating radars and a miniaturized solid state audio recorder for surveillance), "Uncooled & Novel Infrared Detectors" (a vast number of military devices use cryogenically cooled IR sensors - this area has a lot of potential), and "Micro-Electromechanical Systems" (tiny valves and actuators embedded in integrated circuits). However, they didn't discuss ARPA programs that I know about, such as BLACK LIGHT (PE 0605114E, a classified program with an unknown purpose), HAVE FLAG (PE 0208042F, a tactical missile developed with the Air Force, now going into production), or "Advanced Submarine Technology" (PE 0603569E, that aims to make stealthy submarines through the use of active impedance modification (AIM), special materials such as SUPRELITE, and the SDW (Stealth Designer's Workbench) software. It was an odd experience, being in "the belly of the beast" amongst all the people in expensive suits. Like other subcultures, they have a jargon all their own -- "leverage" and "paradigm shift" seem to be ARPA's favorite buzzwords. I was also informed that I should be grateful for being allowed to attend, since this was the first unclassified ARPA symposium. (The next one will be in about 18 months.) These people don't see the threat to the United States in realistic terms. They seem to have the view that if the U.S. has a particular advanced weapon system, so will every other country. For example, there was discussion about the threat of low-observable (stealth) aircraft from foreign countries, while the U.S. is the only country that has fielded such aircraft. I realize that the French and Russians are working in this area, but it will be a long time before they go into production. Stuck in the Cold War, they fail to see that the biggest threats to the U.S. at present are not military, but economic, in areas such as foreign trade, and the massive federal deficit. I wonder if they think about the damage they've done to national security by adding at least a trillion dollars to the deficit during the arms build-up of the 1980s. While I gained a lot of technical information at the ARPA symposium, I have to admit that the members of "the military industrial complex" started to really get on my nerves. In some ways, it was like sitting among Pavlov's dogs -- the audience would start to fall asleep during the presentations, but as soon as ARPA mentioned that they would provide money, the audience would snap to attention. Instead of salivating when Dr. Pavlov rang a bell, the audience would salivate when ARPA would say something like "we expect to spend $42 million next year..." I came away convinced that defense contractors and the Pentagon are one of the biggest special interest political groups in the United States. A MIT study suggested that the U.S. defense could cost $70 billion per year, instead of $270 billion per year, if our foreign allies would pay for their own defense and waste and unnecessary spending were eliminated in the Defense budget. A prime example of waste can be seen in the Navy's spending more than $1 billion for 24 new Trident-II submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) in 1994, that would probably have to be scrapped as part of the START arms control treaty. I was disgusted by a conversation during lunch, where people from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were moaning about the decline in inflation adjusted dollars spent on military procurement, and someone said, "What we need is a good war!" My past experiences with the U.S. military, have convinced me that they don't think I should raise these kinds of issues, because I'm just a taxpayer. But, to use a line from California's anti-tax measure Proposition 13 a number of years ago, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" I intend to put more pressure on the military for accountability to the taxpayers. Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com ********************************************************************** Anonymous FTP access to files dealing with excessive military secrecy is available from Internet host ftp.shell.portal.com (IP address 156.151.3.4) in the /pub/trader directory. ------------------------------ From: Steve Birmingham Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 20:40:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Project Oxcart I have found my on-line copy of "The Oxcart Story." As others have responded as well, I will also offer to e-mail copies directly to those that request it of me. Send me an e-mail at the address in my .sig and I will oblige. It is too large to post to the list...unless there is enough of a demand, of course! ;-) Regards, Steve Birmingham E-mail: smb@odo.cypress.ca.us Phone: (714) 826-4433 On Thu, 10 Nov 1994 DWalizer@aol.com wrote: > In the November issue of "Air Force" Magazine is an interesting article on > the CIA A-12 program (A-11,YF-12, SR-71). The article is condensed from a > secret study of the A-12 program that was first published in the Winter > 1970-71 issue of "Studies in Intelligence", a classified internal publication > of the CIA. It was written by CIA analysts under the collective pseudonym > "THomas P. McIninch". The document was recently declassifed. Anybody have > any idea how to go about getting the original report? > ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 08:52:47 MST Subject: OXCART apology Folks, I'm REALLY SORRY for offering to send copies of OXCART to those who requested. Listing the file, it looked about the right size, but after perrusing (sp?) it again, I see I'm missing chunks. I don't know if it's due to a crash, or improper build or what. In any case, perhaps we could persuade Larry to repost, or someone else that has an intact copy? Again, sorry!!!! Ron ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:54:36 MET Subject: Re: Still more Black Balloons >I remember an article a few years ago in either Pop. Mech. or Pop. Science on >Black Aircraft that may be along this line. It mentioned reports of a VERY >large,slow moving aircraft seen near Groom Lake. From what I can remember,it >said it had randomly placed lights (to simulate stars ?) and made no noise. >Does anyone remember this or have any speculation to what the purpose of such >a craft could be ? It sounds pretty far out to me. >Jay Waller (Thursday, 10 November 1994 11:25am ET) It was not near Groom Lake, it was near Edwards (see below). J. Pharabod ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. "America's New Secret Aircraft", Popular Mechanics, December 1991: ''[...] The big wing. Meanwhile, several Antelope Valley residents say they've seen a craft that simply strains credulity. According to reports over the past two years, a vast black flying wing, estimated at between 600 and 800 ft. in width, has passed silently over city streets, empty desert and rural freeways. The craft moved so slowly one observer said he could jog along with it. A pattern of seemingly random white lights on the vehicle's black underside provided "constellation camouflage" against the starry sky. Observers who followed the craft long enough detailed unlikely maneuvers in which the vehicle stopped, rotated in place and hovered vertically, presenting a thin trailing edge to the ground. Although such sightings encourage those who link the military with unearthly technology, a mammoth, quiet flying wing may have a conventional explanation: It could be a lighter-than-air craft pushed by slow-turning propellers. Certainly, such a vehicle could elude Doppler radar by slowing to a crawl. Alternatively, the fact that the craft holds station vertically suggests that it might serve as a huge reflector for a bistatic radar system. Other possible missions include troop delivery or covert surveillance. [...]'' ------------------------------ From: "Christian Jacobsen" Date: 14 Nov 1994 08:47:47 U Subject: Re: eb's (not an eb-52, but Subject: Time:8:42 AM OFFICE MEMO RE>eb's (not an eb-52, but eb-47's Date:11/14/94 OK. I hate to be a Newbie(tm), but I have to ask. What does "ELINT" stand for? Flame away, I've got my flame suit on...but I have been reading for several months now and I have seen ELINT hundreds of times, and no one ever spelled it out... 'preciate the help, - - Christian - -------------------------------------- Date: 11/11/94 9:47 AM To: Christian Jacobsen From: Frank Schiffel, Jr. ok, so an EB-52 as written by Dale Brown pretty much was a fun read. though the B-1 was really under played. question, with the EB-47, EB-57 and all the other ELINT bomber variants, was there ever a consideration to produce an ELINT B-52? Seems it would be a decent ELINT platform for flying along the borders of a hostile nation. If nothing else, the electronic guys would have had a lot more room than they did in the EB-47 (there were 3 people in that bomb bay area). Or did the C-135 really preclude this option of bomber conversions as a much better platform. In any case (here's the sales pitch, nothing is free)...I'm working on a political science article (yeah, thats what the PhD study is for) on the retirement of the SR-71 and the satellite systems that were to replace it. This being a Skunk works list, I'm in favor of the manned, aerial platform. Its more versatile. I'd be interested in unclassified comments on this area. If there's an interest, I'll post or share my list of sources on this work. I've seen some material that there was an interest in bringing back the Blackbird in Desert Storm as there was a need for good BDA, but as the retirement was a political decision, we used U-2s, RF-4s, and anything else we could hang a recon pod on. thanks in advance, Frank - ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by qmgate.arc.nasa.gov with SMTP;11 Nov 1994 09:46:34 U Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id HAA14861 for skunk-works-outgoing; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 07:50:45 -0800 Received: from MIZZOU1.missouri.edu ([128.206.5.3]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA14853 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 07:50:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199411111550.HAA14853@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> Received: from MIZZOU1 by MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8616; Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:48:23 CST Received: from MIZZOU1 (C626283) by MIZZOU1 (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 0975; Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:46:34 CST Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:37:52 CST From: "Frank Schiffel, Jr." Subject: eb's (not an eb-52, but eb-47's To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu X-Acknowledge-To: Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:32:15 -0800 Subject: Re: OXCART >perhaps we could persuade Larry to repost, or someone else that has an >intact copy? I can certainly repost it, but maybe it makes sense for me to send Ron a complete copy and then people can ask him or me for a e-mail copy. If I were to post it, I notice from the sizes of the files that I could do 2 pages per post, which would require 13 posts to complete. I would expect that there may be more problems with 13 posts, and people getting incomplete files than if we just emailed the entire thing to people who wanted it. Some of the guys here also have FTP sites we could put the document on, and some of those FTP sites have some pretty neat Blackbird stuff on them already that people might want to look at anyway. So, I'll send a complete copy to Ron, and you can either ask him for it or me. if those who have FTP sites want a copy too, then that might help. I might add that back in 1991 George Allegrezza did a postscript version of the text file. This version measures 239159 bytes in my directory. I've forgotten what it looked like, butall I can find is the original. Anyway, if someone wants to take a look at this one, I'll send that one along. Larry ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 18:07:04 +0000 Subject: Re: Oxcart Story Larry writes: >Hey, this may settle the debate that raged here and on other Net groups >back in 1991 when I posted the THE OXCART STORY by McInInch (humorous name!). >Yes, I posted it in 25 installments. By the way, THE OXCART STORY came from >a larger document, the rest of which, at the time, remained classified. William R. Carroll writes: >>It was posted to this list (in several parts) in November 1991 by >>larry@ichips.intel.com. I would think it would be in the list archives. >Thanks for remembering! yes. I still have all the installments, plus a >concatenated total document, that indicates 96547 bytes in my directory. Now does this mean that the complete works, "a larger document, the rest of which, at the time, remained classified" has now been de-classified and is available? If so can it be posted in a series of installments in a similar manner as before? If not, is the previous work available at some ftp site or can it be re-posted as I have not been a subcriber to this list for that (1991) long. Very much enjoyed Phil's report on his visit to the simulator, green with envy!. The report helps to explain away confusion caused by the previously published photos of the sim. Such access would seem to confirm that the ECM control panel(s) has not been re-installed and, therefore, the simulator is not being used to train potential pilots/RSO's for the 3 retired 'birds. Phil did you see the RSO simulator cockpit or simultor control, you state that the RSO station is separate and stationary? Or was this not possible?!? This is assuming that all the reports stating that only one simulator exists is correct. Adrian Thurlow / Det.4 9th SRW \ Technology Integration / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. Adrian.Thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:14:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: eb's (not an eb-52, but On 14 Nov 1994, Christian Jacobsen wrote: > > OK. I hate to be a Newbie(tm), but I have to ask. > > What does "ELINT" stand for? > > Flame away, I've got my flame suit on...but I have been reading for several ELINT is what you find in the pocket of an _EL_ectronic _INT_elligence officer, when his pants come back from the dryer. :-) BaDge ------------------------------ From: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 15:42:39 -0800 Subject: Re: Oxcart Story >published photos of the sim. Such access would seem to confirm that the ECM >control panel(s) has not been re-installed and, therefore, the simulator is I did not look closely in the RSO simulator section. >not being used to train potential pilots/RSO's for the 3 retired 'birds. It is my understanding that this simulator (at DFRC) *will* be used by the AF for their pilots/RSOs. >Phil did you see the RSO simulator cockpit or simultor control, you state Yes, I looked at it briefly. >that the RSO station is separate and stationary? Or was this not possible?!? This is correct. The RSO station is mounted on the (stationary) balcony. >This is assuming that all the reports stating that only one simulator exists >is correct. I have no information about that. Cheers, Phil ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #166 ********************************* 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).