From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #205 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 17 February 1995 Volume 05 : Number 205 In this issue: Re: SR71 killed off? Re: SR71 killed off? Re: SR71 killed off? SR-71 Killed Off Re: SR71 killed off? SR-71 gone Triangles - Aerostats? Re: SR71 killed off? Re: SR71 killed off? Re: SR71 killed off Admin stuff archive? revised classified programs list available Re: SR-71 Killed Off LTA/tooling re:Two questions New SR-71 book available Journal of Electronic Defense Homepage 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: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:11:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? I hate to tell you all this, but we're desperately hoping that the recission goes through in about 3 months--right after they've ordered everything, but before they can use up all the spares doing something that the Air Force has stated time and time again that they don't want to do. 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: Adrian Thurlow Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 17:19:35 +0000 Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? Hi shunkers, Mary writes: >I hate to tell you all this, but we're desperately hoping that the recission goes through in about 3 months--right after they've ordered everything, but before they can use up all the spares doing something that the Air Force has stated time and time again that they don't want to do.< Now I understand your desire to acquire lots of spares etc. at no or little cost but I fail to see why the air force do not want to fly this aircraft/mission. I was under the impression that flying the SR71 was the best, most desired, posting in the air force until it got wrapped up in politics. Something here still stinks. Please explain if you can. 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: "Lovelace, Brad" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 13:49:00 EST Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? In response to Mary's comments on the SR-71. The rescission will go through much quicker than 3 months. Now it is possible that the SR-71rescission may not make it through the House floor and the Senate. The question of what the Air Force wants at this point is irrelevant. The rescission is driven by Congress not the Air Force. ---------- From: skunk-works-owner To: skunk-works@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? Date: Tuesday, February 14, 1995 5:19PM Hi shunkers, Mary writes: >I hate to tell you all this, but we're desperately hoping that the recission goes through in about 3 months--right after they've ordered everything, but before they can use up all the spares doing something that the Air Force has stated time and time again that they don't want to do.< Now I understand your desire to acquire lots of spares etc. at no or little cost but I fail to see why the air force do not want to fly this aircraft/mission. I was under the impression that flying the SR71 was the best, most desired, posting in the air force until it got wrapped up in politics. Something here still stinks. Please explain if you can. 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: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 14 Feb 1995 15:11:15 GMT Subject: SR-71 Killed Off Date: Tuesday, 14 February 1995 3:10pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: SR-71 Killed Off I was in Washington DC in 1992 and was told by a Air Force full bird that back during the late 1980's the attitude of the Air Force senior staff was that " If it don't shoot or drop bombs" then they didn't want it. This attitude still seems to be the norm up at the puzzle palace. Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia DOAS ------------------------------ From: MP%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 14 FEB 95 13:15 Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? >The rescission will go through much quicker than 3 months. Now it is >possible that the SR-71rescission may not make it through the House floor >and the Senate. The question of what the Air Force wants at this point is >irrelevant. The rescission is driven by Congress not the Air Force. Yup, I can see it now: General Afterburner: Senator, we really don't need 20 more B-2 bombers but we really could use a few re-activated SR-71s. Senator Porkbarrel: General, you are out of line. Congress is the one that decides what you need. After all, we are the government and we are here to help you! _____________________________________________________________________ Mark Perew (714)380-5484 | Faith's what you find Unisys Mission Viejo, CA | when you're alone mp@mpa15c.mv.unisys.com | and find you're not. perew@kaiwan.com | -- Terry Anderson, "Den of Lions" ============= "All opinions are mine," sayeth the poster ============ ------------------------------ From: JOHN Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 16:53:02 EST Subject: SR-71 gone Subj: Re: SR71 killed off? Hi shunkers, > I hate to tell you all this, but we're desperately hoping that the > aircraft/mission. I was under the impression that flying the SR71 was the > best, most desired, posting in the air force until it got wrapped up in > politics. Something here still stinks. > Please explain if you can. > Regards > Adrian Thurlow The Air Force BRASS have said that " If it does,nt drop bombs or shot missiles, then I don,t want it" Personal observation here: After reading numerous documents about the Military intel "game". I see that if you are in the intel. community, your chance for advancement is nill. The rank and the command advancements go to the fighter crowd. and a little (very little) goes to the bomber crowd. there is no future for a Blackbird type, because of the "blackness" of the program. (not enough glory?) this appears to be true of all services. not just the AF. and it all goes back to politics too. -SOAPBOX MODE ON- Why do you think the AF wants to get rid of the A-10 ? Not enough "FLASH". they plan to put the F-16 in a CAS role, right ! how close do you think that fighter jock is going to come, to help the grunts, I owe MUCH to the F-4 drivers in the 60,s, they were,nt afraid of coming down in the leaves with us, what with 2 engines and a rugged airframe. try that with a single engine and a "fighter mentality" a see what it gets you. same goes for the sled, not enough flash for them. - -SOAPBOX MODE OFF- john szalay Louisville Ky 101st Airborne 65-68 Pathfinders jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com DISCLAIMER: GE & I rarely see eye to eye; therfore; Why should I attept to speak for them? ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 01:15:55 -0800 Subject: Triangles - Aerostats? This week's AW&ST (2/13/95) paints a different picture of aerostats than that painted by some who believe these vehicles have been barnstorming in recent years. In "Pentagon Sees Aerostats As Counter-Stealth Tool" by David Fulghum, L-band packing, blimp-like balloons, that can hover at 65,000 ft (as long as they're tethered to the ground) and look down on fixed ground clutter to detect movement of shadows created by stealth aircraft flying below, are mentioned. Previous technical problems encountered by these LTA aircraft (now reportedly resolved by one aerostat vendor) also paint a somewhat more primitive picture of this technology than previously thought (the article mentions historically poor reliability due to susceptibility to long exposure to sunlight, lightning, and material problems that limit heavy payload endurance). The article however does mention a new application that could explain their appearance in unlikely places, namely looking for illegal drug traffic. There is also an interesting new Navy application as a high altitude communications agent. However, the balloons in this article are tethered. In fact, me-thinks AeroStat may imply a fixed position aircraft! (I've wondered about that before)! Could it be that we've been misusing it all along! Probably! Aerostat manufacturer TCOM, of Columbia, Md is mentioned. Some interesting new materials technology is mentioned. Incredible payload numbers are mentioned for future aerostats. The tethering cable technology is interesting (high data rate electro-optical (jam proof, secure link), power conduits, strength functions for tethering, and don't forget that 100,000 AMP grounding cable for those lightning strikes! - I wonder how stealthy the cable is?). Unfortunately, no triangle-shaped aerostats are mentioned. The only shapes mentioned or pictured are the regular blimp shape or the also traditional spherical shape. Definitely no mention (or even vague impression) here of an LTA aircraft, wing-shaped, that can station keep with its own propulsion and guidance electronics (become aero-static?). Also, this stuff is high altitude, not low altitude. Larry ------------------------------ From: Frank Markus Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:01:47 -0500 Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 Mary Shafer said: >I hate to tell you all this, but we're desperately hoping that the >recission goes through in about 3 months--right after they've ordered >everything, but before they can use up all the spares doing something that >the Air Force has stated time and time again that they don't want to do. - -- Two questions: (1) Since the tooling for the SR-71 has been destroyed, how can there be new spares? (2) Why does the government so often order that the tooling for aircraft be destroyed at the end of the order that they believe should be the last? Of course, the manufacturers and suppliers should be free to do it if they want to but why is is required? - - 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: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 14:51:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR71 killed off? It's pretty obvious to me that people here have forgotten the history of this reactivation. The Air Force did NOT ask Congress to fund reactivation of the SR-71. Rather, Congress decided that the SR-71 needed to be reactivated. They then voted the money and ordered the Air Force to have three aircraft flying by some deadline. The Air Force testified repeatedly before Congress that this was unnecessary and undesirable and a waste of money, but Congress went ahead and voted to fund it. It has been my experience that when someone (an individual or an organization) is _ordered_ to do something that they really, really don't want to do, that it frequently just doesn't happen (one might consider the term passive-aggressive in this context). This isn't a case of the Air Force convincing Congress to let them do something that they want to do and feel is necessary; this is a case of Congress ordering the Air Force to do something that don't want to do and that they feel is unnecessary. Besides, Congress only funded _one_ year of reactivation. Now if you consider these two facts, you'll understan our concern. 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: Adrian Thurlow Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 20:52:37 +0000 Subject: Re: SR71 killed off Hi Skunkers, Mary Shafer writes: >It's pretty obvious to me that people here have forgotten the history of this reactivation. The Air Force did NOT ask Congress to fund reactivation of the SR-71. Rather, Congress decided that the SR-71 needed to be reactivated. They then voted the money and ordered the Air Force to have three aircraft flying by some deadline. The Air Force testified repeatedly before Congress that this was unnecessary and undesirable and a waste of money, but Congress went ahead and voted to fund it.< No, those who have been subscribers for sometime should know the story fairly well. My question is why the air force doesn't want to do this? Most people who enjoy their work and have pride in it also want to do it. Therefore surely the air force wants to fly. From what Mary has written I can only conclude that the air force has got out of strategic rec. or has replaced the SR71 with some other platform allowing the same results. The reactivation is undesirable because the USAF is not in this business anymore or unnecessary because the data is being secured by some other means. BTW. I do not believe in anything until I see it with my own eyes or it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, at this stage I do not believe in 'Aurora'. Regards 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: Kean Stump Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:15:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Admin stuff > I received a variety of suggestions as to what address to post to. > They include: > postmaster@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu > prm@ecn.purdue.edu > mail.orst.edu > skunk-works-approval@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu > > I have had success posting for a couple of years and this is the first > time I have had problems. Whatever they were they appear to have > cleared up. Now if I can just get rid of sem@suny.bufalo.edu I'll > be all set. > The authoritative submission address for the list is skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Administrivia requests (add/delete, who's on this list, etc) go to majordomo@mail.orst.edu Stuff that needs a human goes to skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu. We're within a few weeks of moving mailing list services off of gaia.ucs.orst.edu to the new box. The addresses at mail.orst.edu will *always* (lead with chin here) work. You might see other machine names in the headers, ignore them. I will tell y'all before I move the list. Honestly. Kean ------------------------------ From: Dave Wagner Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:27:47 -0500 Subject: archive? Hi, all! I just subscribed to this listserver, and looked for the archive at the site indicated in the welcome message. It's not there! What gives? Also... I heard that some magazines have published pictures of a contrail (speculated to be that of an Aurora) which looks like a string of "doughnuts on a rope". Sounds cool, and I'd like to see it... has anyone uploaded a jpeg of this picture? Thanks, ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 22:30:11 PST Subject: revised classified programs list available I just updated my FY 1995 classified programs list with some changes, such as the Air Force's 7 million dollar "special tactical unit detention facility" tha t I missed when I created the list in September 1994 (FY 1995 started in October 1994) and the cancellation of the Air Force special access program code-named MERIDIAN. You can use FTP to transfer the file from my Internet site. Connect to host ftp.shell.portal.com and retrieve the file: /pub/trader/secrecy/FY95-classified-programs 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. Read the 00readme files for descriptions of the files. Writings from Glenn Campbell, author of the "Area 51 Viewer's Guide" are available in /pub/trader/secrecy/psychospy. (Web users can use URL ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/trader/ ) ------------------------------ From: Frank Markus Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:20:15 -0500 Subject: Re: SR-71 Killed Off On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 Mary Shafer said: >I hate to tell you all this, but we're desperately hoping that the >recission goes through in about 3 months--right after they've ordered >everything, but before they can use up all the spares doing something that >the Air Force has stated time and time again that they don't want to do. - -- Two questions: (1) Since the tooling for the SR-71 has been destroyed, how can there be new spares? (2) Why does the government so often order that the tooling for aircraft be destroyed at the end of the order that they believe should be the last? Of course, the manufacturers and suppliers should be free to do it if they want to but why is is required? - - 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: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 14:19:06 EST Subject: LTA/tooling >AeroStat may imply a fixed position aircraft! (I've wondered about that before)! >Could it be that we've been misusing it all along! Probably! Aero Stat derives from the fact that they were capable of staying aloft statically (at zero speed) as opposed to an "aerodyne" (airplane) which requires motion to stay airborne. >Aerostat manufacturer TCOM, of Columbia, Md is mentioned. Some interesting new >materials technology is mentioned. Incredible payload numbers are mentioned >for future aerostats. The tethering cable technology is interesting (high data >rate electro-optical (jam proof, secure link), power conduits, strength >functions for tethering, and don't forget that 100,000 AMP grounding cable Maybe so, maybe no. A modest conductivity may well drain off the charge, preventing strikes. >for those lightning strikes! - I wonder how stealthy the cable is?). If they would skip the power, it could be straight fiber_plus_strength. very stealthy. If power conductor included, a suitable RAM coating would be indicated. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: JOHN Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:34:41 EST Subject: re:Two questions > Two questions: > > (1) Since the tooling for the SR-71 has been destroyed, how can there > be new spares? I think the spares she is refering to are anything but the airframe and the engine cores themselves, everything else can be pretty much tooled up for with minor adjustments. (relative minor) Its all a matter of cost and time. > (2) Why does the government so often order that the tooling for > aircraft be destroyed at the end of the order that they believe should be > the last? Of course, the manufacturers and suppliers should be free to do > it if they want to but why is is required? > > - Frank - One word. POLITICS From what I have read in Ben's Rich's book and other place's the tooling for the Blackbird's was ordered destoryed after the production run was completed, because the sled in the form of the YF-12 and perhaps other other varients could have been a threat to MacNamara's pet project the F-111. Another example of this type of thinking, was the destruction of Northrup's flying wing because it threatened the B-36 project as well as Jack's refusal to be merged with Convair/etc: IMHO: :And no I don,t believe in big-foot or UFO's or the Stone's JFK. theory, but I sure as hell believe that TPTB would and have destoryed projects because of conflicts of interest: John Szalay Louisville ,Ky jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com DISCLAIMER: GE & I rarely see eye to eye. therefore; WHY should I attempt to speak for them ? ------------------------------ From: Michael Alan Hobart Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:30:37 -0700 Subject: New SR-71 book available I may have missed earlier messages about this book, but there is a new book on the SR-71 which has just been published: Goodall, James, "SR-71 Blackbird", Squadron/Signal Publications, #6067, 80 pp., 1995. ISBN 0-89747-338-8 $10.75 Squadron/Signal Publications, 1115 Crowley Dr., Carrollton, TX 75011-5010 available from Squadron Mail Order, same address, phone 214-242-8663, fax 214-242-3775. I just got a copy yesterday and it's lavishly illustrated, mainly in B&W but with some color. It's pretty up to date, as it discusses the Congressional appropriation to re-activate the Blackbirds. As the other posts have indicated, that's now up in the air . Who knows what the final defense bill will look like or IF one can be put together which the House/Senate/President can agree on... Cheers, Mike - ----------------------- Michael A. Hobart Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah 717 W.C. Browning Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84112-1183 (801) 585-5328 (801) 581-7065 fax mhobart@mines.utah.edu - ----------------------- ------------------------------ From: Michael Alan Hobart Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:52:06 -0700 Subject: Journal of Electronic Defense Homepage This may be of interest to skunk-works readers. It showed up in the Comp.infosystems.www.announce newsgroup. Mike In article ehm@alfa02.Medio.Net, "Don Herskovitz" writes: > The Journal of Electronic Defense (JED), the official publication of the > Association of Old Crows, is now available online. > > URL: > Location: Norwood, Massachusetts, USA > Summary: JED is the premier publication of the military electronics > specialist. Our Web site offers next month's contents, an > encyclopedia of electronic warfare systems and providers, > video clips, upcoming conferences and links to a host of DOD > organizations. > Professionals are invited to register to view these and many > other features. > - ----------------------- Michael A. Hobart Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah 717 W.C. Browning Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84112-1183 (801) 585-5328 (801) 581-7065 fax mhobart@mines.utah.edu - ----------------------- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #205 ********************************* 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).