From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #201 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 9 February 1995 Volume 05 : Number 201 In this issue: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #177 Re: Sled Driver Re: 3 questions JAST info China Lake EXPOSED!!! Triangular Craft 3 Questions..X-31 Re: China Lake EXPOSED!!! Re: Aurora..In Thrust We Trust..? Ships Radar Summer Lightning Re: Ships Radar Re: Triangular Craft stealth rcs 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: Alistair M Henderson Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 10:21:39 GMT Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #177 >It is not that strange that a USAF plane lands at >Macrahanish.I've twice heard a Special Operations HC-130 wich had >RAF Macrahanish as a destination. The 7th SOS MC-130Hs from RAF Alconbury used to use Macrahanish a great deal for practice of lights-out landings etc. There's a TACAN beacon there which is frequently used by aircraft transitting UK airspace, maybe he was routing via Macrahanish. Ali Henderson. ------------------------------ From: russellk@BIX.com Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 10:35:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Sled Driver > >Can anyone provide me with information on a book titled "SLED DRIVER"? I >saw >it in the bookstore on a base I was staioned on a couple years ago, but I >haven't seen it in any other stores. >The author is a guy who , obviously, was an SR-71 pilot. He also owns/is >part >owner (?) of a photo/camera shop somewhere in California. >The pictures in this book were nothing less than fantastic, to say the >least! > I got Brian Shul's "Sled Driver" for Christmas. I think it is a wonderful book in many regards--the pictures are, of course, gorgeous. There really isn't all that much text, but what there is is *very* well written and quite moving -- enough that I read some of it aloud to my wife (the section about turning off all the cockpit lights and flying by starlight alone). On the other hand, I'm not really sure if I think it's worth the $40 or so cover price. Given the market potential (probably pretty small), the large format, and the high-quality color printing, that's probably a fair price. But I wish the author had written more. And yes, I know there's a follow-on book, "The Untouchables" (?) , about the author's experiences flying the SR-71 during the raid on Libya. I'd love to read it, but I doubt that I'd buy the book. ============================================== Russell Kay, Technical Editor, BYTE Magazine 1 Phoenix Mill Lane 603-924-2591 Peterborough, NH 03458 fax 603-924-2550 ============= russellk@bix.com =============== ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:08:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: 3 questions The X-31 is an experimental aircraft, designed to examine some of the issues involved in high-alpha fighters. It is not a fighter. It's not even a prototype of a fighter. It's an experimental aircraft. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html 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.... ------------------------------ From: Emory Tate Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 11:30:25 -0500 Subject: JAST info A large number of viewgraphs (100+, 6MB+ in PowerPoint 4) and documents from the January JAST Industry Day briefings are available online. Point your browsers at http://www.jast.mil to see the goodies. Briefings from the Program Office, Boeing, Lockheed, McAir, and NG are all included. Emory Tate BDM Federal, Inc. ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 8 Feb 1995 08:39:26 -0800 Subject: China Lake EXPOSED!!! Subject:China Lake EXPOSED!!! A week or so ago, someone mentioned a video about weapons development at China Lake and some purchasing/duplicating sources were mentioned. Here is one I would like to see everyone go to as it needs help. This add is from the 6 June 94 issue of Avleak: The China Lake Museum Foundation introduces a unique historical offering: SECRET CITY A video history of the weapons development at China Lake. The People...The Weapons...The Labs...The Ranges...The Legacy of China Lake A 3-HOUR VIDEO PRODUCTION celebrating 50 years of the Navy's premier weapons research, development, test and evaluation establishment, SECRET CITY traces the history of China Lake from the 1943 founding of the Naval Ordnance Test Station through peace and war and through parties and politics. SECRET CITY is a two volume VHS set for $27.00 (S&H + applicable taxes included) (Overseas orders add $5.00 per order) Make checks payable to the China Lake Museum Foundation. Send to: C.L.M.F.~A/S PO Box 217 Ridgecrest, CA 93556-0217 Sorry for the shameless plug, but I think the money should go to the right place to further the effort. If you like watching things blow up, this is a good video for that. Also, this is the most recent price I've heard of as well. This should also eliminate some of those "prods" about mysterious aircraft hidden here at China Lake. We don't build or test the planes. We design equipment and weapons that we can slap on 'em after they've been built! Not that I wouldn't MIND seeing something like that once in a while... By the way, I like Mary's "postings" as well... - -Clarence "Things are never as easy as they should be." ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 19:24 BST Subject: Triangular Craft Regarding... >From: "J. Pharabod" >Date: Mon, 06 Feb 95 14:35:28 MET >Subject: Triangular Craft (Warning: cold water) [Deletion] >>Defence Department report, Belgium:"On some occasions they described the >>phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200 feet wide with 3 >>downward beaming projectors, hovering at +- 100 m above the ground and >>making only a very light humming noise...On two occasions the BAF >>scrambled 2 F-16's during the evening hours...A total of 9 interception >>attempts have been made. On 6 occasions the pilots could establish a >>lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varied >>between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude >>very quickly and break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds >>varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both F16's registered >>simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. >The above lines, posted by James Easton ( Fri, 3 Feb 95 17:42 BST), are >excerpts from an old "SUMMARY REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990", >written by Col. (now General) De Brouwer. Further studies have been made, >and the conclusions are different. The first "two occasions" were before >the night 30-31 March 1990, and the "laser-beam projector on ground" was >used by a night-club (this was well known, and was what De Brouwer meant >in his summary). Noted. >During the night 30-31 March, the pilot of the second F-16 video recorded >his radar echoes. It apppears now (Gilmard&Lt. Col. Salmon's study) that >the first lock-ons, with speed and altitude varying very quickly, could be >"ground clutter", while the one which lasted for 60 seconds, with nearly >constant altitude and speed, was the first F-16. Now the Belgian military >say "though this is not excluded, there is no proof that we got echoes from >a real object with unusual abilities". Hi Jean-Pierre, Interesting, but somewhat inconsistent with information I have. A recent U.K. documentary featured video of the original radar sighting and commented: "On March 30th, 1990, 2 NATO radar stations at Semmerzake and Glons, simultaneously recorded an unidentified object, passing south of Brussels. The Belgian Air Force scrambled two F-16's for an intercept. Their radars locked on to the object, the diamond shape (on radar - the video was being shown at this point), which suddenly drops 1300 metres in one second. As it dropped below 200 metres it vanished from all radar screens. The Air force had no explanation. One scientist suggested the pilots were chasing a rare atmospheric phenomenon, but the chase lasted for 75 minutes, the object was seen on no less than 5 radar screens and the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses remains." Furthermore, an acquaintance had lunch with two of the F-16 pilots involved with these incidents and reports that they were quite happy to openly discuss their involvement. Apparently, they had been instructed to pursue and attempt to identify the strange craft but were not to engage it unless under direct threat. Each time they came close enough to establish a "lock-on", as soon as they did so, it would instantly move at a phenomenal speed and this happened on several occasions. The pilots were in no doubt that their every move was being monitored by whomever was controlling the craft. Both of the above reports are consistent with the initial report which I mentioned and all three unquestionably rule out a _conventional_ LTA. >On the other hand, the materiality of the Belgian object(s) is not >questioned by any sensible person (BTW, though rather triangular, it was >not exactly triangular or "triangular with rounded corners"). You are indeed correct on both counts. >Whatever it was (and even if it were a NATO craft), it has ridiculed the >NATO defenses during 18 months. Which brings us back to the central question, in keeping with known, suspected or rumoured developments, what could this conceivably be? Cheers, James. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: TEXJE@VAXB.HW.AC.UK Internet: JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 23:19:00 Subject: 3 Questions..X-31 Sorry.. I've lost your name and address so I can't post to you direct. With regard to the X-31, it is an 'Enhanced Fighter Manoeuverability Demonstrator'.'X' is for experimental. It uses thrust vectoring flaps on it's exhaust to control it's pitch (up and down) and yaw (sideways) movement. It can achieve 'High Alpha'i.e. High angles of attack flight I know it's flown at 70 degrees - probably more,which is nothing short of amazing. It's fitted with moveable small canards between the nose and the wing leading edge and strakes beween the trailing edge and the tail.It first flew in 1990. It was designed and built by Rockwell's North American Aviation and Deutsche Aerospace of Germany. Last year it effectively flew with no tail when the onboard flight computers were told to counteract the tail effect. The pilot then made turns using only the thrust vectoring system. Dryden are also investigating thrust vectoring on an F16 and and a High Alpha F18. I hope that's of some help to you..I think it's pretty accurate, though I'm not that up to date on the programme, but that's the background. Best Regards David ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 19:11:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: China Lake EXPOSED!!! On 8 Feb 1995, Clarence Dent wrote: > SECRET CITY is a two volume VHS set for $27.00 (S&H + applicable taxes > included) (Overseas orders add $5.00 per order) > Make checks payable to the China Lake Museum Foundation. > Send to: C.L.M.F.~A/S PO Box 217 Ridgecrest, CA 93556-0217 > Sorry for the shameless plug, but I think the money should go to the right > place to further the effort. If you like watching things blow up, this is a Who produced the film, an independent production, or the Navy? Do you know the production date? How long has the Museum been there? Is it connected with the Site? > This should also eliminate some of those "prods" about mysterious aircraft > hidden here at China Lake. We don't build or test the planes. We design > equipment and weapons that we can slap on 'em after they've been built! A friend of mine asked me to have you send him any extra lasers you have laying around that he could mount on the hood of his car...you know, vaporize those roadhogs? ;-) So you've seen the tape - how up-to-date IS the film, does it trace development into the mid-80s and stop? And does it speculate about the future of the base? > Not that I wouldn't MIND seeing something like that once in a while... Oh, you know you couldn't tell us if there were, right? Of course it'd keep ya busy tryin' to kill us all, eh? > By the way, I like Mary's "postings" as well... Thanks again for the post. BaDge ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:03:18 -0800 Subject: Re: Aurora..In Thrust We Trust..? Since nobody has fielded this yet, and David is wondering if he's going to get a response, I'll take a shot at it. David Windle writes: >As a new subscriber to Skunk-Works, I've been reading some of the >group's thoughts on the aircraft that has become known as Aurora >i.e. a hypersonic replacement for the SR71 with great interest. >I'm a journalist- not an aeronautical engineer - though I like to >get my facts straight, so if I'm wrong please let me know! I began >researching the Aurora story some time ago, and initially the >idea of a faster SR71 replacement seemed like a logical >progression, until I put myself in front of a hypothetical >appropriations committee to argue for the case for a manned, >hypersonic spy plane. I'm not sure exactly, as to the crux of your statement in this post. Are you talking about the feasibility of hypersonic systems in general, or hypersonic systems that are also stealthy? Appropriations committees know nothing about these systems. They rely on expert testimony to inform them. Believe me, there are experts, with excellent track records, who believe, based on their research, that hypersonic systems can be built and flown. These experts would disagree with you. Your opinion, as a journalist, would be discounted. Stealthy hypersonic systems are obviously more difficult than non- stealthy hypersonic systems. > To fly faster or higher than the SR71 in an operational >role the physics start to go against you. It's one thing for the physics to go against you, and another for the physics to say it's impossible. The 'physics going against you' has been a recurring problem in many of the technical things that man does. A few examples with respect to this conversation: The physics start to go against you long before Mach 3.2. For example, the drag rise going transonic. Supersonic airplanes have much lower L/D's than subsonic airplanes, but supersonic aircraft have been very useful, and the lower L/D lived with, quite successfully. The physics also went against us before we developed technology for hypersonic reentry vehicles back in the 50's. Today we have been flying manned and unmanned hypersonic reentry vehicles for decades. The solution was contrary to convention, namely bluntness being better than being streamlined. > The SR71's integration of >airframe and engines is what make it so remarkable- It is a work of >sheer aeronautical genius on the parts of Kelly Johnson and Ben >Rich. True, they did excellent work on these airplanes, but some of the more important techniques were well known, believe it or not. Speaking about propulsion. You can go back, to the early to late 50's (the blackbird began to take shape in 1957), and read technical papers on supersonic inlets say, and you will find the basics of the technology that Lockheed used in the blackbird's inlets! I also posted previously about the excellent French efforts on the part of Leduc and Nord. They built and flew turboramjet powered aircraft before the first OXCART flew. The performance of both the Nord Griffon II at Mach 2.6 and the Leduc 022 at Mach 2.8, was quite close to the blackbird's eventual Mach 3.2. These French aircraft also flew up to 60,000 and 80,000 feet! Again, the blackbird's realm. One can find engineering textbooks, of that era, that have information on bleed-bypass turbojets in them - the kind of turbojet found in the blackbird. So again, more principles were known. Lockheed however succeeded in integrating those principles, developing the material, and getting a successful system built, given all the practical problems involved with that. That's where the genius lies! And today, with all the oversight, and the fact that every new airplane project has to have everybody and their brother involved, I can see why black programs are tempting. So, it isn't a case of not having the technology, it is a matter of having the funds to do it, and keeping politicians away from it, and keeping people who don't believe in it (who just want something to do) away from it. Ben has said as much himself. So when you stand in front of that appropriations committee, ask for money! :) > When they designed the Blackbird family years ago there was a >definite requirement for such an aircraft - if it was possible to >build one, to resolve the shortcomings of the U2 in some >situations. At that time speed was the only way round the problem >of missile attack..The 'In Thrust We Trust' philosophy. Today we >have Stealth technology. A subsonic stealthy aircraft penetrator is NOT the same thing as a SR-71 style of penetration. Many of the people on this list think it is, but it is NOT! A pure subsonic stealthy penetrator is a NEWLY feasible type of penetration technique. When you are discovered, it is not the same. In terms of maximum area covered in minimum time, it is not the same. When you want to do "in your face" diplomacy, it is not the same. When you consider basing of the vehicle, it is not the same, ... . > The SR71's shape had a low RCS for it's >day, but the radar and IR signatures of those J 58s compromised the >overall RCS. Surely a hypersonic spy plane would be even more of a >giveaway, though I accept, difficult to aquire as a target. I personally believe there IS an engineering path to designing a stealthy high Mach spy plane. But assuming that such a path didn't work for a moment, I believe the old saying that 'SPEED IS LIFE', is still true! What is worse? Wreckage of a subsonic stealth airplane scattered all over the target's countryside, or the target's radar center saying, "Did you see that! - What IS that! - ... - It's GONE"! >If you fly at Mach 5+ you immediately tip your hand, because the >enemy can track you and they know that you have a Mach 5+ aircraft. >No radar - as far as I know has tracked a target travelling at that >kind of speed in any "Aurora" contacts. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that since AURORA hasn't been announced by a FAA controller as doing Mach 5 over Montana, that therefore it doesn't exist? >What will you power this hypersonic plane with ? There are LOTS of approaches. Just like the principles behind OXCART weren't magical when the OXCARTs were designed, the SAME thing can be said today of hypersonic technology. > The X-15A-2 >fitted with drop tanks used up 14 tons of rocket fuel in it's 140 >odd second burn. A long time ago admittedly, but even with >unimaginably improved rocket engines you're going to need a very >large aircraft to carry enough fuel to fly a meaningful distance >before re-fuelling. How about air breathing rocket engines? There's >a world of difference between the kind of engine that you'd need >for an SSTO spaceplane and a strategic reconnaissance cruiser. One >is designed for acceleration, the other for fairly constant speed. The same basic technology can be used for a cruiser or accelerator. An accelerator is actually more difficult. The ways that these airbreathing and rocket cycles get combined in a hypersonic engine, creates an engine with more capability, than seperate engines on the same airframe. With your example of airbreathing rockets for a hypersonic cruiser, one could use the ejector (rocket) for acceleration, and the ramjet for cruise. Ramjets have a much higher range capability, in the atmosphere, than rockets. There has been work done integrating fans into the flowpaths of these types of engines as well. The fan can add additional flexibility, as a supercharger for high speed, and low speed. In short, ask for money in front of that committee! :) >Best wishes Best wishes, Larry ------------------------------ From: IAN WRAITH Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 08:27:43 Subject: Ships Radar John Burtenshaw wrote .. >By the way during the Gulf War Royal Navy ships could *see* the >F-117A on their Marconi radars. The report appeared once in the >Guardian newspaper but was never seen again. I guess the folks at >the Ministry of Defence sat on it with a *D* Notice. I also read this in a book by the BBC reporter John Simpson about the Gulf war, the title of which has slipped my mind (but this book is a very good read). I might be wrong here but surely any high powered radar at sea could spot a F117A if it were quite close. As the lack of ground returns means the F117's very small radar return wouldn't be swallowed up in the noise. Am I correct? Ian I.WRAITH@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK PGP public key available on request ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 10:39:55 +0000 Subject: Summer Lightning Hello all I've just checked my local bookshop to see if any of Brian Shul's books are still in print in the UK and they are (thankfully) so I've ordered *Sled Driver*, they also told me that he's written *The Untouchables* (next one on my list to buy) and *Summer Lightning*, it sounds if its another SR-71 book. Is it and has anyone read it, if so whats the opinion of it? TIA 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: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 10:33:55 +0000 Subject: Re: Ships Radar >John Burtenshaw wrote .. >>By the way during the Gulf War Royal Navy ships could *see* the >>F-117A on their Marconi radars. The report appeared once in the >>Guardian newspaper but was never seen again. I guess the folks at >>the Ministry of Defence sat on it with a *D* Notice. > Ian Wraith wrote: > I also read this in a book by the BBC reporter John Simpson about >the Gulf war, the title of which has slipped my mind (but this book >is a very good read). I might be wrong here but surely any high >powered radar at sea could spot a F117A if it were quite close. As >the lack of ground returns means the F117's very small radar return >wouldn't be swallowed up in the noise. > Am I correct? If this is the case won't t it provide a headache for Naval Stealth programs (I'm assuming that there ARE Naval Stealth programs). Anyone on the list care to enlighten both Ian and myself. 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: Thu, 09 Feb 95 15:11:33 MET Subject: Re: Triangular Craft In answer to James Easton (Wed, 8 Feb 95 19:24 BST): >Interesting, but somewhat inconsistent with information I have. A recent >U.K. documentary featured video of the original radar sighting and >commented: >"On March 30th, 1990, 2 NATO radar stations at Semmerzake and Glons, >simultaneously recorded an unidentified object, passing south of >Brussels. The Belgian Air Force scrambled two F-16's for an intercept." Roughly correct. In fact, this was decided because 1) gendarmes reported unusual bright lights in the sky, and 2) the radars had a slowly moving contact which could correspond to these visual observations from ground. >" Their radars locked on to the object, the diamond shape (on radar - >the video was being shown at this point), which suddenly drops 1300 >metres in one second. As it dropped below 200 metres it vanished from >all radar screens." Not one second, but 3 or 4 seconds. >"The Air force had no explanation. One scientist suggested the pilots >were chasing a rare atmospheric phenomenon, but the chase lasted for >75 minutes, the object was seen on no less than 5 radar screens and >the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses remains." Now the Air Force has an explanation: ground clutter. I know of only 4 radars involved (2 on ground, 2 airborne), not 5. There were not hundreds of eye witnesses (this night), only a few gendarmes. Now it is said that what they saw could be stars through unusual atmospheric refraction phenomena. Only one thing remains unexplained. The F-16's took off at 0h 05 local time (= GMT + 2). At 0 h 28, the Semmerzake radar detected an object 2500 ft over the western part of the Brussels agglomeration, moving towards Liege (roughly speaking, towards east) at 450 knots. At 0 h 29, the Glons radar detected it also. From 0 h 29 to 0 h 33, both radars followed the craft, which was going in straight line towards Liege, increasing its speed and its altitude. The Semmerzake radar spotted it again 6000 ft over Liege at 0 h 35, speed 650 knots. The last point was some 12 miles east of Liege, altitude 12000 ft, at 0 h 36. (This craft was not one of the two F-16's, which were flying in complicated loops, followed by the radars on ground). The Semmerzake radar is an array type radar. It is used for military air safety. Semmerzake is about 30 miles west of Brussels. Glons CRC is a part of NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground Environment). There are about 80 NADGE CRC in Europe (including Turkey). Its missions are: 1. detect and follow every flight in the Belgian air space, 2. identify friend or foe, 3. if foe, intercept and/or destroy according to the alert status. The Glons radar is a multipurpose impulsion type radar. Glons is about 6 miles north of Liege. The distance Brussels-Liege is about 60 miles. There is another radar at Bertem, for civilian traffic. The craft passed 5 miles south of Bertem at 0 h 30. The Bertem radar did not see anything (maybe because it looked only for transponders ?). As far as I know, the craft has not yet been identified. Maybe illegal flight of a private jet ? >Furthermore, an acquaintance had lunch with two of the F-16 pilots involved >with these incidents and reports that they were quite happy to openly >discuss their involvement. Apparently, they had been instructed to pursue >and attempt to identify the strange craft but were not to engage it unless >under direct threat. There were only two pilots (1 pilot/F-16). >Each time they came close enough to establish a "lock-on", as soon as they >did so, it would instantly move at a phenomenal speed and this happened on >several occasions. The pilots were in no doubt that their every move was >being monitored by whomever was controlling the craft. I heard that the pilot of the second F-16 said he noticed "nothing abnormal" (but that's just hearsay). >Both of the above reports are consistent with the initial report which I >mentioned and all three unquestionably rule out a _conventional_ LTA. No, since maybe the F-16 radars did not detect any real object. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "Frank Schiffel, Jr." Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 09:47:17 CST Subject: stealth rcs About the F-117s getting picked up by the RN RADAR, does anybody have what ranges and altitudes they were at? I assume they weren't in the sea spray, so there wouldn't be a lot of ground clutter. And, depending on your RADAR, that would produce a lot of UFOs out there (looking at raw RADAR data produces a lot of spurious images that really travel fast and in strange vectors, so I ignore a lot of the UFO stories where there is a RADAR skin track of them. I'll change my mind if there is a good beacon track.) Considering where the F117s were based also makes the story a bit interesting. Given where they went on most of their missions. I'll plug Artech as a good publisher of RADAR material, its in Massachusetts. regards, Frank ps. I'm finally over the laughing spell about Mary's comment on the X-1 on a stick at DFRC (the place on the other end of the flightline at Edwards). I wonder if their B-52 ever got past 10,000 hours yet. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #201 ********************************* 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).