From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #195 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 1 February 1995 Volume 05 : Number 195 In this issue: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #194 Re: UFO Sighting?? Visual Stealth Re: UFO Sighting?? (fwd) Re: UFO Sighting?? Radar limitations UFO? Re: SR unstarts Foward Swept Flying Wings Re: UFO? Re[2]: UFO Sighting?? (fwd) Re: CLE ATC UFOs A-12A Avenger II (Flying Dorito) Photographs AW&ST Jan. 30, 1995 Re: CLE ATC UFOs RE: Two different craft? Re: Where's Marquardt? Stealth.... active camo 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: Nick Barnes Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:43:05 +0000 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #194 > From: "J. Pharabod" > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 15:33:47 MET > Subject: Re: SR unstarts > > The discussion about the shock wave(s) the SR-71 engine J-58 is > dealing with was quite impressive. Are there now engines better > than the Pratt&Whitney J-58 (14,700 kg thrust - sorry for the > metric units) Please don't apologize (although I think maybe you meant 144kN thrust?) :-) Nick Barnes. ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 6:25:20 EST Subject: Re: UFO Sighting?? Jack-Lee Gibbons writes: > > The fact that the pilots reported a "brightly lit mystery craft" lends me to > believe that this was a UFO in the alien sense and not in the black aircraft > sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian > transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a > good way to keep a secret to me. What if they're experimenting with using lights on the front of aircraft for visual stealth? If so, it sounds like they had a very successful test. - -- Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) Varco-Pruden Buildings Northern Division Van Wert OH. (419) 238-9533 ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 11:16:13 +0000 Subject: Visual Stealth Hi Following the thread of craft appearing to vanish into thin air. A couple of years ago BBC TV's science and technology series *Horizon* had a program on military deception technics. In one scene they showed a British Army battle tank covered in lightbulbs and as the intensity of the luminance increased the tank appeared to vanish against the sky ( it was sitting on top of hill). The Officer in charge of the demo added that it was copied from the technique that the RAF/USAAF/USN used in the Pacific and Atlantic areas of operations during WW2 against enemy shipping and submarines (whilst they were on the surface). Apparently bombers would have lights attached on the leading edges of their wings and the nose of the fuselage, when the lights were set correctly the airplane would *disappear* into the background of the sky thus allowing an attack in safety. He also said that applying it to an armoured vehicle would be impossible due to the fact that it would require a generator to be towed behind it and that the lightbulbs could be easily smashed in a battlefield environment. This he add would not apply to an aircraft and wondered why the technique was still not be used. Just thought that maybe someone has re-invented the wheel? John ============================================================================= John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] Compuserve: 10033,3113 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 14:30:32 MET Subject: Re: UFO Sighting?? (fwd) >Active camo - bright lights on the airframe in the daylight make it hard to >see the size, shape, and detail of the craft. And at any distance, it >causes the aircraft to blend into the sky. >Megazone (Tue, 31 Jan 1995 19:25:45 +73900 (EST)) Doesn't pm mean "post meridian" ? According to the _Manchester Evening News_: >>Despite the drama, which the passengers knew nothing about, the plane >>landed safely at Ringway at 7pm on January 6. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 15:11:38 MET Subject: Re: UFO Sighting?? Sorry to throw cold water, but couldn't this "UFO" be an ordinary private or military plane, which had no right to be there, and no transponder functioning ? I have heard that civilian airport radars usually follow only transponders (am I wrong ?) J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 08:07:40 MST Subject: Radar limitations >Sorry to throw cold water, but couldn't this "UFO" be an ordinary >private or military plane, which had no right to be there, and >no transponder functioning ? I have heard that civilian airport >radars usually follow only transponders (am I wrong ?) > >J. Pharabod As far as it not showing up on radar, you're right that it didn't necessarily have to be "stealthy." I once visited Denver's ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center) that covers a 7 state region. The controller's displays are of course computer-generated. They can filter their display to show only those returns in a specific altitude range (another controller might have the airspace above or below), specific aircraft under their control etc. If this was the case it's possible the plane was "filtered" out due to not having a transponder on, it wasn't being tracked by the system, or it just plain didn't show up if they switched to 'primary mode.' If the display was put in 'primary mode' (I believe that's the term used by the person giving us the tour) then it would display "raw radar" blips and an aircraft w/o a transponder probably would show up, but as mentioned, that's not normal procedure. In addition, in my years of flying, more than once I've asked "for traffic" after seeing someone come close and the ATC folks said they didn't have anything out there. Taught me a good lesson to always keep alert. Ron ------------------------------ From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:19:05 -0500 Subject: UFO? I'd like to throw some cold water on this UFO thread! I've been an air traffic controller at Cleveland Center for the past 24 years. Not once have I, or any of my 400+ co-workers at CLE, had a pilot report an incident involving "UFO's". Our airspace covers approx. 186,000 sq. miles from just East of Ft. Wayne In. to just West of Syracuse, Ny. John - -- "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full!" ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 16:49:18 MET Subject: Re: SR unstarts >>The discussion about the shock wave(s) the SR-71 engine J-58 is >>dealing with was quite impressive. Are there now engines better >>than the Pratt&Whitney J-58 (14,700 kg thrust - sorry for the >>metric units) >Please don't apologize (although I think maybe you meant 144kN >thrust?) :-) >Nick Barnes (Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:43:05 +0000) In the French translation of Doug Richardson's "Stealth", it's "14 700 kg de poussee" (= 14,700 kg thrust). In "MiG 1939-1989" they use both units for the D-30F: 15,190 daN (i.e. 151.9 kN) = 15,500 kgp ("kg de poussee"). I agree that N is better than kg, but it's an old habit (and a metric one). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 01 Feb 1995 11:06:11 GMT Subject: Foward Swept Flying Wings Date: Wednesday, 1 February 1995 11:06am ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Foward Swept Flying Wings Please forgive the ravings of a software type but this thought has been in the back of my tiny little mind for some time, so here goes, 1. With the advantages of foward swept wings in supersonic flight (as shown with the X-31 project) and, 2. The aerodynamic and RCS advantages of a flying wing type aircraft (as in the YB-35, YB-49 and the B-2), Has the concept of a foward swept flying wing ever been proposed or investigated ? Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia DOAS ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 17:34:01 MET Subject: Re: UFO? >I'd like to throw some cold water on this UFO thread! >I've been an air traffic controller at Cleveland Center for the past >24 years. Not once have I, or any of my 400+ co-workers at CLE, had a >pilot report an incident involving "UFO's". Our airspace covers approx. >186,000 sq. miles from just East of Ft. Wayne In. to just West of >Syracuse, Ny. >John Dill (Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:19:05 -0500) Since I was the first who threw cold water on the UFO-or-secret-plane hypothesis, I allow myself to reheat it. I have seen on TV some apparently serious pilots (often retired) who said "I saw one (or more) UFO(s), but I did not report, as I feared being ridiculed". Also, if traffic controllers look only for transponders, they will not see illegal or weird stuff. Hence more skunk-works related questions: are "black" planes with or without transponders ? If with, when do they use those ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: jackg@holobyte.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 09:31:24 -0800 Subject: Re[2]: UFO Sighting?? (fwd) Active camo is fine for aircraft that have to fly at altitudes or in areas where they will be seen by ground forces or other aircraft. For example a ground attack aircraft or airdrop cargo/transport planes that will be flying close to the ground over hostile areas. But a reconnaissance plane has altitude and speed to use for camouflage There would be no reason to spend the money and time trying to incorporate a lighted camo system into an aircraft that would be flying so high and so fast over the target area, nobody would ever see it, at least visually. Even if they did, at 100,000+ ft. and Mach 3+, what are they going to do about it. If they don't already know it's coming, by the time someone sees it, it's too late to do anything about it. The point I'm making is that there doesn't seem to be any real justification to implementing an active camouflage system on the type of high speed, high altitude aircraft that we are talking about here. But let's say for argument's sake that the aircraft that we're talking about here doesn't fly fast and high but has flight characteristics similar to the F-117. Paint it black and fly it at night. I doubt that anyone will be able to see it and if this plane is supposed to fly in support of the F-117, as some people have suggested, it only needs to have the same camouflage and stealth characteristics of the F-117. All of the sightings, save for the one made in the desert near Groom, have involved an aircraft flying very close to civilians. This is not the way to keep a secret and I'm sure that if they know how to do anything, the Air Force knows how to keep a secret. I don't remember hearing about sightings of the F-117 flying past airliners and over peoples houses back in 1984. Why should the Air Force treat this plane any differently. The Air Force wouldn't fly a plane near civilian aircraft, so close as to endanger both aircraft, if they wanted to keep it secret. They only explanation that the Air Force could have for this type of activity is that it's trying to stir up the public with UFO sightings. But then again, you have to subscribe to the conspiracy school of thought to believe this is true. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: UFO Sighting?? (fwd) Author: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) at Internet Date: 1/31/95 7:25 PM Once upon a time Jack-Lee Gibbons shaped the electrons to say... >sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian >transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a >good way to keep a secret to me. Active camo - bright lights on the airframe in the daylight make it hard to see the size, shape, and detail of the craft. And at any distance, it causes the aircraft to blend into the sky. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:05:52 -0800 Subject: Re: CLE ATC UFOs >I'd like to throw some cold water on this UFO thread! > >I've been an air traffic controller at Cleveland Center for the past >24 years. Not once have I, or any of my 400+ co-workers at CLE, had a >pilot report an incident involving "UFO's". Our airspace covers approx. >186,000 sq. miles from just East of Ft. Wayne In. to just West of >Syracuse, Ny. Oh really? You guys weren't involved on Oct. 18, 1973 on the incident over Mansfield Ohio? If I could go back past 1971, I bet I could find others. Larry ------------------------------ From: Frank Markus Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 15:12:23 -0500 Subject: A-12A Avenger II (Flying Dorito) Photographs The new issue of Air International dated February 1995 has on page 105 two photographs of the mockup of the cancelled A-12A which was officially nicknamed the Avenger II (and informally known as the "Flying Dorito.") The photographs show the mockup from directly ahead and from above looking down from ahead of the midpoint of the port wing. The photgraphs are sharp and in color; however, by use of very intese spotlighting in dark hanger much of interest is left in shadow. The area behind the cockpit is completely obscured (apparently with the aid of a bit of judicious airbrushing.) The rear edge of the aircraft is also obscured and it is impossible to make out the outlines of the control surfaces. Neither picture shows the engine exhausts. The caption to the photograph describes the cancelled aircraft as a two seat, low observables attack aircraft that was to have been powered by two 60-65kN (13,500-14,600 lb) static thrust non-afterburning GE engines (model F412-400) derived from the F404. The aircraft was a pure delta with no dorsal control surfaces [and apparently no ventral surfaces either] with a 45 degree sweep and folding wings. - -- Frank - ========================================== "What if they take genetic material from wet noodles and blowfish and splice it into politician chromosomes and create a Clinton administration?" -- P.J. O'Rourke ========================================== ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 15:46:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: AW&ST Jan. 30, 1995 Paraphrased and quoted (without permission) from the last AW&ST: WASHINGTON OUTLOOK (page 21): - ----------------------------- "RECCE REVERSAL" "REVERSING A 1993 DECISION, U.S. Air Force panners now hope to reinvigorate the service's reconnaissance capabilities. Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald Fogleman wants to buy two new RC-135 signal intelligence- gathering aircraft, re-engine the fleet's other 14 aircraft and review sensor upgrades for the service's high-altitude U-2 aircraft. After the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office scooped up many of the Air Force's reconnaissance programs and much of its funding in late 1993, the Air Force said it was out of the manned, tactical reconnaissance business. Now it is headed the other way. If for example the Marine Corps can reduce the cost of its Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System to under $3.5 million per pod, the Air Force may buy back into the program." INDUSTRY BASE FACES 20% CUT (page 22/23): - ----------------------------------------- [...] " Another element in the Pentagon's formula for cost cutting is to shift the emphasis from "performance as the sine qua non" for new military equipment to a nearly equal balance of tradeoffs between performance and cost, Kaminski said." [Paul Kaminski is the Pentagon's chief of acquisition and advanced technology for the last four month -- Andreas] "He pointed to the Tier 2+ unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as a "perfect example" of balancing "up-front trades on performance" and sensor packages to maintain a $10-million per aircraft, target flyaway cost. The Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing the UAV, sensors and ground stations for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office." [...] " He predicted the Pentagon will invest less in huge, expensive new production efforts and more in Lockheed F-117-type projects that resulted in fielding a single wing of operational aircraft. By careful study, U.S. planners were able to understand the F-117's strength and overcome its weaknesses. "Believe me, there were severe operational limitations [during Desert Storm]," but careful planning made it appear the aircraft "could go every- where and do anything," he said. Kaminski said there will be more programs in which a limited number of lower cost aircraft with less than perfect performance will be used operationally "until we find something better." Moreover, the Pentagon "probably will not have one-for-one replacement of current [aircraft] platforms."" That sounds like we will get more projects like the "Northrop TR-3A 'Black Manta'" and the "Lockheed 'Senior Citizen' triangular, invisible, stealthy, silent LTA transporter" in the near future to speculate about! :) [...] "He [Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R.-Calif.) -- Andreas] also predicted an extra $55.4 million will be put into reconnaissance projects and that Congress will move to cancel funding for restoring three SR-71a to service (AW&ST Jan. 9, p. 22). "There's no way to justify [spending] $500,000-600,000 per [SR-71] flight," Dornan said. "The best way to go is to ask for a rescission of the money " and use the funds to move the Mach-3 aircraft's reconnaissance technology to UAVs. In discussing sustained support for classified programs, Dornan advocated a submarine-launched UAV for gathering intelligence." [...] The article also includes a picture of black, diamond shaped aircraft model, with the following caption: "McDonnell Douglas' Phantom Works is flying this 10-ft wingspan design in an experiment dubbed Project Diamond to test new maneuverability concepts and joined-wing technology. Flying models early in a research project is considered a technique for cutting wind tunnel costs and shortening the developmental cycle for new aircraft. Control surfaces are located on all four wings. The model also was flown without a tail as part of the company's research into tailless designs." NASA BOARD PROBES X-31 CRASH (page 68): - --------------------------------------- Not much new information, but a photo of the crash site is included. BOEING SIKORSKY JOINS COMANCHE FUSELAGE SECTIONS (page 69): - ----------------------------------------------------------- The first flight is scheduled for November 1995 (even though the production contract is canceled). A photo is included. - -- 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: Jay.Waller@analog.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 15:14 EST Subject: Re: CLE ATC UFOs Larry wrote: Oh really? You guys weren't involved on Oct. 18, 1973 on the incident over Mansfield Ohio? Forgive me but,what happened on Oct. 18 '73 ? ------------------------------ From: KELLEHER@calvin.consilium.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 15:45:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: Two different craft? Robert Herndon writes: >... given the hypothesized >mission of the TR-3, it would be a substantial asset to be able to hover. [...] >Such data as it could >provide, in helping attack aircraft avoid AAA, missiles, etc., in >redirecting routes, in taking pictures and doing damage assessment >after an attack, in re-routing subsequent attack craft if a target >was missed, etc., would be of superlative value. As a former reconnaissance (imagery interpretation) instructor, I have to disagree. The mission you are discussing here seems to be a cross between battlefield management, weapons control, and BDA (bomb damage assessment). While it might be useful to use near-real-time imaging in support of a battlefield, a hovering aircraft would not offer any particular benefit that's not available through stabilized sensors on a moving aircraft. > I also must take exception to "you can take as good a picture at >mach3 as you can hovering". [...] I've never seen imagery taken from an aircraft hovering at 25,000 meters, so I can't really tell on this one. But imagery from an SR-71, a satellite, an RF-4, or a drone can be useful. The numerous available imaging systems must be married to the right platform to get the best shot. It all depends on what you are trying to do. >... pictures taken from 25,000m cannot >have near the quality of pictures taken from 5,000m or less. Wrong. It depends on the purpose of the image. For detailed technical assessment, a Kodak from 20 meters is ideal; low altitude shots can be quite useful as well. But broad area/panoramic shots give much more information during a battle regarding the constitution of hostile forces. Right up close I could tell you if the weapon was 23mm or 30mm, but I couldn't tell if you were dealing with a rogue tank or a reinforced tank-heavy Operational Maneuver Group. Tack on the fact that these days you are dealing with lots more than mere optical imaging sensors and you find that low altitude - even slow speed - can be a detriment to what you are doing. >I very much doubt that nobody has done anything in this field for 40 >years. Might the TR-3 have more modern active camouflage to help >it hide against day or night skies? Right you are! There are quite a few studies on D&D (Denial and Deception) techniques. But to be honest, it would be interesting to see who gets first crack at these technologies. Although Recon occasionally gets a wonder bird of its own, fighter and bomber crews like to disappear also, and they often have more power behind them to get the new capabilities. John Kelleher ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 15:57:00 -0800 Subject: Re: Where's Marquardt? I wrote: >>Then there are the Mach 6 to Mach 8 engines rusting out behind >>Marquardt in Sunnyvale! Phil Mcintosh responds: >I'm about 20 minutes from Sunnyvale. Where Marquardt located ... Joe Lurker responds: >Where is Marquardt in Sunnyvale? ... Geoff Miller responds: >I didn't know that Marquardt was located in Sunnyvale. Whereabouts? OK, I'm an idiot!! The silicon mixed with the JP-7! Sorry about that! Marquardt was/is in Van Nuys (I think that's correct). Much farther away. Why do I want to say Van Nuys and say Sunnyvale instead? I have met 3 people who have taken the 'tour' and seen these engines. I also know a Marquardt guy who took at least one of these people on the tour to show them these rusting engines. I also have photos of some of them from technical papers that they were featured in. I've always wanted to get down there and see them myself. Evidently some rather interesting 'pieces' of very interesting things are down there as well. For example, pieces of the Convair ramjet for the OXCART bid. Larry ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 20:45:34 EST Subject: Stealth.... >Such as M4 or so with maybe 90kft and a lot more stealth and ECM. Unpossible, under the laws of physics. M4 means its hot (approaching glow in the dark). Hot means not stealthy. All the radar stalth in the world is no good if the a/c glows like a comet. IR detectors are better (lots) than the human eye... And at some speed the surrounding ionization starts degrading sensors, both "visible" and "radar". regards dwp ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 20:57:56 EST Subject: active camo >>Active camo - bright lights on the airframe in the daylight make it hard to >>see the size, shape, and detail of the craft. And at any distance, it >>causes the aircraft to blend into the sky. > >Doesn't pm mean "post meridian" ? According to the _Manchester Evening >News_: >>>Despite the drama, which the passengers knew nothing about, the plane >>>landed safely at Ringway at 7pm on January 6. "active camo" can mean many things. The original Yehudi used leading edge lights to "lighten" an ac against a light(daylight) sky. A hypothetical pattern of small lights woulc eliminate reduce the "hole in the sky" of a "black" 8)>> a/c after dark. ===== Many a/c types are discussed here. at M3 an IR detector WILL see the a/c, so active camo is pointless. Other recce a/c, lower/slower ARE more vulnerable and could well use active camo by day or by night. The most telling arguement is that "the military" (nor its contractors) would belikely to be testing against civil a/c, or near them. Lotsa more private spaces, with trained eyes to test against... regards dwp ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #195 ********************************* 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).