From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #185 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 20 January 1995 Volume 05 : Number 185 In this issue: RE: SR-71's (fwd) Forwarded mail... Doug Nelson The Aurora - Hit or Myth X-30 NASP & HySTP Re: The Aurora - Hit or Myth Roving Sands Re: The Aurora - Hit or Myth X-30 NASP & HySTP Aurora description Aurora, maybe so? MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions Re: Aurora, maybe so? Re: NASP and HySTP Re: Aurora, maybe so? 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: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 06:29:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: SR-71's (fwd) Once upon a time Roger Alan Tetzlaff shaped the electrons to say... >JOHN said: >> 13 A-12'S for the CIA Single seaters, smaller than the SR-71, lighter - believed to have higher performance. >> 2 M-12 drone carriers converted from A-12's (to carry the D-21 drone) Converted from A-12s, had a backwards facing rear seater to control the launching of the D-21. >> 3 YF-12 Interceptors for the AF Chopped chines, ventral fins - including one large fin that had to folde for takeoff and landing, carried the AIM-47 missile that evolved into the AIM-54 Phoenix and the radar evolved to be the AWG-9 from the F-14. >> 29 SR-71 A models The well known, 2 seat recon Blackbirds. >> 2 sr-71 B models A variant of the A model with a raise rear cockpit for training. >> 1 SR-71 C Model Similar to the B - I believe this was built from a technology demonstrator mockup and a crashed YF-12... or was it an A... I forget at the moment. >Please excuse more of my ignorance, but could someone please fill me in on >the differences between these models? Hope that helps. - -- megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.gweep.net (508) 752-2164 "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories Geek Code 2.1: GTW/H d-- H+>++ s++:++ !g p? au+ a24 w++@ v++@ C++(++++)$ UU+$>UL++++ P+ L>++ 3 E N+++ K+++ W-- M- V-- -po+ Y+>++ t+@ 5@ j@ R@ G' tv@ b++(+++) D+@ B--- e++ u** h- f+ r@ n+(----) y++@(*) ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 06:33:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Forwarded mail... Once upon a time Joseph W. Coulbourn shaped the electrons to say... >Is there anyone out there who could tell a layman about the difference >between a YF22,YF23 and F117? That would fill volumes... For starters the YF-22 and YF-23 are a generation later than the F-117. MAJOR differences there, only the driving principles are the same. And the missiosn are completely different - there really is very little the same other than it is a single seat stealth aircraft with two jet engines. The 22 and 23 and closer - being built for the same contest, but there are still major design differences. There *are* books on the topic, and really, it takes a book to cover the pertinent points. - -- megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.gweep.net (508) 752-2164 "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories Geek Code 2.1: GTW/H d-- H+>++ s++:++ !g p? au+ a24 w++@ v++@ C++(++++)$ UU+$>UL++++ P+ L>++ 3 E N+++ K+++ W-- M- V-- -po+ Y+>++ t+@ 5@ j@ R@ G' tv@ b++(+++) D+@ B--- e++ u** h- f+ r@ n+(----) y++@(*) ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 12:32:48 +0000 Subject: Doug Nelson Hi skunkworkers, Going through the WWW site at Dryden, which is very good, I noticed that the curator of the Blackbird Airpark is Doug Nelson. Is this the same Doug Nelson who, then a Col. was the first commander of the 9th SRW? In view of the recall to service of the SR71 and the popular, and probably correct opinion that the original retirement was extremely premature, is the person or persons who took responsibility for that action still in a job? If so WHY? Or this deemed to be the reponsibility of politicians in office at the time? When Mary last posted a message on this topic she stated that the USAF should fly there first flight in the SR71 just before Christmas. Did this happen? Regards 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: Jay.Waller@analog.com Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 07:58 EST Subject: The Aurora - Hit or Myth Steven Barber wrote: Sighting from a commercial airliner of an XB-70 style aircraft with smaller aircraft carried piggy-back (somewhere near California, wasn't it?). I take it that's what Testor's based their "SR-75" model on. Does anyone have any more specifics on this ? ------------------------------ From: Emory Tate Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 08:48:06 -0500 Subject: X-30 NASP & HySTP Several of you have commented on the X-30 NASP program and its "unfortunate" conversion to the HySTP technology testbed program, and tried to relate NASP to current speculation about Mach 6+ aircraft. NASP was to be an SSTO platform, with the X-30 as its testbed. That means Mach 25, because, as the Chief Engineer for the NASP Joint PMO told me, "If you're going Mach 20, you're just going real damn fast!" In short, they're not gonna fly a scramjet on an old MMIII to Mach 15 just to see if they can go Mach 10-15. The main reason the X-30 program was halted was a perception of woefully insufficient progress toward Mach 25. Besides, I've been led to believe (and no, don't ask me) that Mach 8-10 is well within current capabilities. There were a couple of other basic flaws in the NASP concept. One, they had no clue as to how they were actually gonna do the nosegear. Two, have you heard a description of the slush hydrogen concept? (1) Plane is fueled with slush H2 (50% solid/50% liquid) because that is the only way to stuff enough aboard to get to orbit - the old 20lbs of %^&* in a 10lb box trick. (2) Plane is connected to a refrigerator cart via an umbilical line to keep the H2 suitably cold. (3) Plane taxis, with cart, to the end of the runway. (4) Plane disconnects from cart just prior to takeoff, after completing all checks. (5) Plane has 20, count 'em, 20 seconds to begin the takeoff roll after disconnecting from the cart before the H2 warms to the point that H2 begins outgassing from the vents in a big way. Can you say "hydrogen fire", boys & girls? Sure, you can! That concept alone had my Wright Lab clients tearing their hair out. C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc. Program Manager 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA Next Generation Aircraft Firefighting ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 06:46:19 -0800 Subject: Re: The Aurora - Hit or Myth Jay.Waller@analog.com says: >Steven Barber wrote: >>Sighting from a commercial airliner of an XB-70 style aircraft with smaller >>aircraft carried piggy-back (somewhere near California, wasn't it?). >I take it that's what Testor's based their "SR-75" model on. Yep. Its almost identical to the artist's conception drawing that appeared in the AW&ST article. BUT, there was no sighting or drawing of any "piggyback" craft, only brief speculation. The "XR-7" design would appear to be entirely Testor's creation. > Does anyone have any more specifics on this ? I don't believe there was any other info on the "XB-70 like" Aurora concept besides what was in that one AW&ST article. Not much else was said about it until the model came out. ------------------------------ From: CircusMan@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:37:27 -0500 Subject: Roving Sands Message I picked up from Steve 1957, wish I could rove the sands there. Thought I should share this with you Skunkers. - ---------------------------------------------------------- Subj: Roving Sands Date: 95-01-17 18:10:34 EST From: Steve 1957 From the many E-mail and Snail- mail messages I have received, many of you are interested in attending this year's Operation Roving Sands military exercise. For those of you who may not know what Roving Sands is, it is the largest Navy/USAF combined wargame that takes place in New Mexico every spring. I have attended it for the past three years and have had a great time watching the great military action and monitoring it as well over the military airwaves. What's really great about the exercise is that the major units are based at publicly accessible airports such as the Roswell industrial Air Center and the El Paso International airport. The Red forces (based at Roswell) are a combined USAF/NAVY task force consisting of gound attack and bomber aircraft such as the B-52, B-1B, A-10, F/A-18, EA-6B, Apache helicopters, and F-14s (for fighter support) deployed against the Blue forces ( Army and Marine Corp Patriot, Hawk batteries, tanks from Fort Bliss , and anti -aircraft emplacements dug into the White Sands Missile Range. The Blue forces are also protected by F-15s, F-16s, T-38s, F-4s directed by AWACS and Navy E-2C Hawkeyes. Extensive use of ground based, jammers , radars and EW are also used as well to protect the Blues. Other aircraft and units from throughout the U.S., such as F-117s from Holloman AFB, F-111s and EF-111s from Cannon AFB, B-52s from Barksdale, E-3 AWACS from Tinker, KC-135s (from all over) and fighter groups from both services also participate and fly out of their own bases. Roving Sands will take place this year in the last week of April and the first week in May. For the first time, the B-2 and the Tier 2 Recon RPV will both be used in the exercise. It is also possible that the Pentagon may take the opportunity to use some of their "black" aircraft during the exercise to see how well they can intergrate these hidden assets into their war plans. Two years ago I was able to capture on video tape (albeit a poor quality one) image of what might be the TR-3A. (still unconfirmed.) In any event, you'll never know what you'll see criss-crossing the New Mexico skies. During the two weeks over five thousand troops descend on the area, along with the mega-tons of equipment (from tents to FLTSATCOM gear) used during the exercise. The Roswell airport is taken over and converted (almost over night) into a land -locked aircraft carrier complete with optical landing system and cable arrestors. Anyone can wander around the airport, observe the military as they go about launching aircraft, directing rescue operations and conducting their mini war , as long as you respect the security restrictions and don't get in the way. It's a great opportunity for military radio hobbyists to listen in on the hundreds of combat sorties, dogfights and AWACS traffic that fill the military airwaves (almost non-stop) during the exercise. Aviation photographers get the opportunity to photograph almost every type of aircraft in the military inventory including F-117s and B-2 stealth bombers. On one day during the wargames, a Community Appreciation Day, is held so the public can come in and talk to the pilots, by some Roving Sands souvenirs (patches and shirts) and get a close look at the equipment and aircraft. Last year I got to take pictures inside a B-52 and take a Humvee for a quick spin around the base. In any event, it is a real event for military enthusiasts. If you are interested in attending and want to know more about Roving Sands, drop me a line. I will also be producing a guide for those interested that will contain more information, including the availability of accomodations, (motels), travel considerations and other Roving Sands information. Keep in mind that if you do plan to attend, you'll have to make your plans early. Finding a room during the exercise can be tough. - -Steve ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 18:00:51 MET Subject: Re: The Aurora - Hit or Myth I have tried to elaborate a bit more about what the Russians could have done (I hope that this is not off-topic and that I will not be filtered). According to R.A. Belyakov and J. Marmain in "MIG 1939-1989", Editions Lariviere, Paris, 1991, the Soviet knew of the Lockheed A-11 program as soon as in 1960, though this program was started in 1959. The A-11 program gave birth to the interceptor YF-12A and to the SR-71A (first flight April 26, 1962). President Johnson made this program public on February 21, 1964. Hence in 1960, the Soviet began to design a plane Ye-155 against the A-11 program. This plane eventually became the MiG-25. The first flight was on September 9, 1964, but there were several difficulties and the standard plane appeared only at the beginning of the 70's. The MiG-25P is an interceptor. Max Mach 2.83. There is a recce MiG-25R. Max Mach 2.83 also. Max practical altitude 21,000 meters. Max flight distance 2,130 km (supersonic) or 2,400 km (subsonic). (I think this could be increased by refueling in flight?). This plane is almost as old as the SR-71 (and not as good). They don't say anything in the book about a more advanced Soviet/Russian recce plane - but maybe it's "black". Hypothesis: those who tried to make a recce plane flying at Mach 6 met very big problems, but others who decided to stay around Mach 4 succeeded. Is this a stupid hypothesis ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 19 Jan 1995 13:21:13 GMT Subject: X-30 NASP & HySTP Date: Thursday, 19 January 1995 1:20pm ET To: Internet, * From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: X-30 NASP & HySTP Please excuse the de-lurking but, The discussion about the NASP using "SLUSH" hydrogen was very interesting and anybody who took chemistry knows about the joy of dealing with hydrogen gas, but the idea of a power cart device having to trail the aircraft all the way to the runway seems a bit much. APUs have been around on larger aircraft for a long time and an APU driven refrigeration system would seem to be the appropriate mechanism for fuel temprature control. I'm no expert, just a private pilot and software janitor. Oh well, I'll wake-up and go backup to work now. RE-LURKED. Keep-em flying. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia DOAS ------------------------------ From: Anthony Rheaume Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:00:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Aurora description I have heard many descritions on the Aurora. What is the real description of the "Aurora"? Anthony ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:51:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Aurora, maybe so? Larry presented us with an excellent list of sightings and literature sources, supporting the existence of a very unique, Mach 6 Lockheed aircraft. I have to say, that this sounds quite convincing! I am usually skeptical -- as with UFO sightings -- I only hear and read that someone saw something. I don't know if a story is true, fiction, or something between. I have both versions of Rene Francillon's book, but I would have never dared to call him to ask him about it! For me it was just another, somehow self- contradicting piece of information. Actually, I am only here in the USA for a mere 2 years, and have internet (skunk-works list and r.a.m) access for not even a year. I assume that the information flow here is much better than back in Germany -- especially in "well informed circles". So it is not easy for me to take any reported sighting at face value. OTOH, if you read the descriptions in the 1982 version, and later in the 1987 version of Francillon's book, also the information printed over time in AW&ST and other magazines, it seems that the rumors and bits of information about "Have Blue", "XST", "Stealth Fighter", "F-19" and so on, were quite true, regarding several interesting aspects of development, production, performance and design. If you now extrapolate these F-117 related rumors with the newer "Aurora", "TR-3A Black Manta" and nowadays "A-17" rumors, sightings and so on -- one could come to the conclusion that at the end (in two to five years, maybe) the truth will validate most of the speculation. I sure hope so! And here is another possibility about why the SR-71 will be recommissioned: Some USAF planner came to the conclusion that it made much more sense to have a low(er) flying, super stealthy UAV for long endurance (strategic) reconnaissance, and decided to cancel the concept of a "higher and faster SR-71 follow-on", killing the Mach 6 concept aircraft. Than the costs increased until the Tier 3 became as expensive and difficult to manage as the B-2, and was finally also canceled. That left only the SR-71 as a suitable replacement for the SR-71. And soon they fly again... - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 15:40:17 MET Subject: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions I think there is a bug in the book "MiG 1939-1989" by Belyakov and Marmain. They always speak of the Lockheed A-11 program. In my opinion, it was A-12. On the other hand, Doug Richardson, in his book "Stealth", says that the MiG-25 was conceived against bombers flying at high altitude. But Belyakov and Marmain affirm that "contrary to what has often been put forward, this program was not launched to counter the threat which the Mach 3 bomber XB-70 'Valkyrie' could represent [...], but, as we have already said, the Lockheed A-11". They say also that, though in theory the MiG-25 maximum Mach is 2.83, sometimes it went at slightly more than Mach 3, without deterioration. Finally, they speak of an advanced version, the Ye-266M, which has (had?) the absolute record in altitude: 37,650 meters (A.V. Fedotov, August 31, 1977). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "Christian Jacobsen" Date: 20 Jan 1995 08:50:24 -0800 Subject: Re: Aurora, maybe so? Subject: Time:8:39 AM OFFICE MEMO RE>Aurora, maybe so? Date:1/20/95 Here I go again... One of Ben Rich's final comments in his "Skunk Works" book is that the name "Aurora" was used for assesing the budget for a new program. It was determined unsuitable, and the "Aurora" budget was cancelled, never having been so much as blueprints for a plane. He is very vehement in this assertion. So, I assume that this list, when referring to the hypothetical new plane that is supposedly being designed to replace the SR71, uses the name "Aurora" out of convenience rather than accuracy. Am I right? Are we all in agreement that the name "Aurora" is just the name we are attaching to whatever "black" plane is currently being tested? Just curious. If anyone has any reason to think that 'ol Ben was pulling the wool over our eyes and the sightings have been of something called "Aurora", please let me know why! Any monitors pick up pilot-to-tower communications using that name? Anyway, input is requested... - - Xtian - -------------------------------------- Date: 1/20/95 7:57 AM To: Christian Jacobsen From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Larry presented us with an excellent list of sightings and literature sources, supporting the existence of a very unique, Mach 6 Lockheed aircraft. I have to say, that this sounds quite convincing! I am usually skeptical -- as with UFO sightings -- I only hear and read that someone saw something. I don't know if a story is true, fiction, or something between. I have both versions of Rene Francillon's book, but I would have never dared to call him to ask him about it! For me it was just another, somehow self- contradicting piece of information. Actually, I am only here in the USA for a mere 2 years, and have internet (skunk-works list and r.a.m) access for not even a year. I assume that the information flow here is much better than back in Germany -- especially in "well informed circles". So it is not easy for me to take any reported sighting at face value. OTOH, if you read the descriptions in the 1982 version, and later in the 1987 version of Francillon's book, also the information printed over time in AW&ST and other magazines, it seems that the rumors and bits of information about "Have Blue", "XST", "Stealth Fighter", "F-19" and so on, were quite true, regarding several interesting aspects of development, production, performance and design. If you now extrapolate these F-117 related rumors with the newer "Aurora", "TR-3A Black Manta" and nowadays "A-17" rumors, sightings and so on -- one could come to the conclusion that at the end (in two to five years, maybe) the truth will validate most of the speculation. I sure hope so! And here is another possibility about why the SR-71 will be recommissioned: Some USAF planner came to the conclusion that it made much more sense to have a low(er) flying, super stealthy UAV for long endurance (strategic) reconnaissance, and decided to cancel the concept of a "higher and faster SR-71 follow-on", killing the Mach 6 concept aircraft. Than the costs increased until the Tier 3 became as expensive and difficult to manage as the B-2, and was finally also canceled. That left only the SR-71 as a suitable replacement for the SR-71. And soon they fly again... - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- - ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by qmgate.arc.nasa.gov with SMTP;20 Jan 1995 07:55:41 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id GAA03491 for skunk-works-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 06:00:01 -0800 Received: from umcc.umich.edu (root@umcc.umcc.umich.edu [141.211.206.17]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA03485 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 05:59:56 -0800 Received: by umcc.umich.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0rVJrK-000ANTC; Fri, 20 Jan 95 08:58 EST Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:51:43 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Aurora, maybe so? To: Skunk Works List Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:04:41 -0800 Subject: Re: NASP and HySTP Emory Tate writes: >Several of you have commented on the X-30 NASP >program and its "unfortunate" conversion to the >HySTP technology testbed program, and tried to >relate NASP to current speculation about Mach 6+ >aircraft. > >NASP was to be an SSTO platform, with the X-30 as >its testbed. That means Mach 25, because, as the >Chief Engineer for the NASP Joint PMO told me, "If >you're going Mach 20, you're just going real damn >fast!" > > In short, they're not gonna fly a scramjet >on an old MMIII to Mach 15 just to see if they can >go Mach 10-15. The main reason the X-30 program >was halted was a perception of woefully >insufficient progress toward Mach 25. Yea but, I think this was part of the problem, namely trying to do too much on NASP. In my opinion, and from what I've heard talking to these guys myself, we should have set the goal for airbreathing to Mach 15+. Once you start to get above that mach number, factors that make the scramjet want to look like a rocket start to take over. So you have this interesting airbreathing, supersonic combustion engine, that starts to want to get more and more thrust contribution, from the kinds of things that a rocket does. Seamlessly blending those two together was the fascinating trick. One could have also just switched on a seperate rocket, but the desire to meet fuel fraction meant you had to to things much more cleverly, integrating the rocket in the airbreather's flowpath - a combined cycle engine. The inlet variable geometry needed for a pure airbreathing accelerator, coupled with the base volume problems of the high speed, high altitude nozzle, at low speeds, can also be solved with the services of a rocket integrated into the flowpath. I might add that takeoff roll can be shortened as well. These hypersonic shapes don't have a good subsonic L/D. VTO has even been discussed for some of them. A Mach 15+ NASP, with rocket, ramjet, scramjet, rocket would have been a useful first step, IMHO. > Besides, >I've been led to believe (and no, don't ask me) >that Mach 8-10 is well within current >capabilities. That echoes what I've been told. >There were a couple of other basic flaws in the >NASP concept. One, they had no clue as to how >they were actually gonna do the nosegear. Interesting. What aspect of the nosegear? > Two, >have you heard a description of the slush hydrogen >concept? (1) Plane is fueled with slush H2 (50% >solid/50% liquid) because that is the only way to >stuff enough aboard to get to orbit - the old >20lbs of %^&* in a 10lb box trick. (2) Plane is >connected to a refrigerator cart via an umbilical >line to keep the H2 suitably cold. (3) Plane >taxis, with cart, to the end of the runway. (4) >Plane disconnects from cart just prior to takeoff, >after completing all checks. (5) Plane has 20, >count 'em, 20 seconds to begin the takeoff roll >after disconnecting from the cart before the H2 >warms to the point that H2 begins outgassing from >the vents in a big way. Nice description! I'll have to add that to my NASP flight sim I'm coding! :) Another interesting hypersonic/fuel concept are endothermics. A good paper is: "Thermal Management for a Mach 5 Cruise Aircraft Using Endothermic Fuel", by Petley and Jones, AIAA 90-3284. I enjoyed your comments Emory, any comments on endothermics? How about the BxHy's, the Boro-hydride combos? Regards, Larry ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 12:21:52 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: Aurora, maybe so? I am very interested in knowing how you Andreas, having come from Germany merely two years ago have become so well versed in U.S. top-secret aircraft. John F. Regus | (713) 960-0045 | SYS/370/390 SYSTEM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WUI:REGUSHOU | On Fri, 20 Jan 1995, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > Larry presented us with an excellent list of sightings and literature sources, > supporting the existence of a very unique, Mach 6 Lockheed aircraft. I have > to say, that this sounds quite convincing! > > I am usually skeptical -- as with UFO sightings -- I only hear and read that > someone saw something. I don't know if a story is true, fiction, or something > between. > > I have both versions of Rene Francillon's book, but I would have never dared > to call him to ask him about it! For me it was just another, somehow self- > contradicting piece of information. > > Actually, I am only here in the USA for a mere 2 years, and have internet > (skunk-works list and r.a.m) access for not even a year. I assume that the > information flow here is much better than back in Germany -- especially in > "well informed circles". > > So it is not easy for me to take any reported sighting at face value. > > OTOH, if you read the descriptions in the 1982 version, and later in the > 1987 version of Francillon's book, also the information printed over time in > AW&ST and other magazines, it seems that the rumors and bits of information > about "Have Blue", "XST", "Stealth Fighter", "F-19" and so on, were quite > true, regarding several interesting aspects of development, production, > performance and design. > > If you now extrapolate these F-117 related rumors with the newer "Aurora", > "TR-3A Black Manta" and nowadays "A-17" rumors, sightings and so on -- one > could come to the conclusion that at the end (in two to five years, maybe) > the truth will validate most of the speculation. > > I sure hope so! > > And here is another possibility about why the SR-71 will be recommissioned: > > Some USAF planner came to the conclusion that it made much more sense to > have a low(er) flying, super stealthy UAV for long endurance (strategic) > reconnaissance, and decided to cancel the concept of a "higher and faster > SR-71 follow-on", killing the Mach 6 concept aircraft. Than the costs > increased until the Tier 3 became as expensive and difficult to manage as > the B-2, and was finally also canceled. That left only the SR-71 as a > suitable replacement for the SR-71. And soon they fly again... > > -- Andreas > > --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software > 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org > Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 > --- --- > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #185 ********************************* 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).