From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #418 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 13 September 1995 Volume 05 : Number 418 In this issue: Nimrod Crash in Toronto Bombers, F-117s & TLAMs Re: Does a small space glider exist? 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: Doug Geddes Date: 13 Sep 1995 03:49:17 GMT Subject: Nimrod Crash in Toronto >At 03:56 12/09/95 GMT, you wrote: >Stuff deleted >> >>Some have said that the Nimrod is the most sophisticated anti-submarine patrol >>plane in the world. Does that mean it has better Japanese electronic >>equipment than the Americans. Grin. > >No - better British electronic equipment. Bigger Grin. > Laughing. Touche >My ex-brother-in-law used to be an avionics tech on the Nimrod when he was >in the RAF. He told me that the weapons officer uses a Space-Invader type of >display to track and destroy Subs. The WO can estimate the next position of >a target where the Nimrod lies in wait for it. The Nimrod can also loiter on >two engines to save fuel. As far as the skunky stuff is concerned, I have >heard that crews fly them as low as possible to hid in sea-clutter returns >on radar. There are also three ECW Nimrods (two now as one crashed in the >North Sea recently during an air test) which are used to collect Elint data. > >Regards > >John > >=========================================================================== >John Burtenshaw > Thanks for the response John. Latest update on the recovery. Divers report that the pieces of wreckage are razzor blade sharp and poor visiblity makes work on the recovery a dangerous and slow process. The plane, all several thousand pieces, is going to be gathered (almost said assembled) in a Toronto airforce base ("Downsview", same location as the Bombardier/DeHavilland plant) for investigaters. Doug ------------------------------ From: Doug Geddes Date: 13 Sep 1995 03:48:30 GMT Subject: Bombers, F-117s & TLAMs >:MISSILES SENT SERBS A MESSAGE > > WASHINGTON -- Beyond the physical damage it did, NATO's >Tomahawk missile attack in Bosnia escalated the psychological war by >bringing into play one of America's most sophisticated weapons. U.S. >officials hint that other high-tech arms such as the F-117 stealth >fighter may join the fray. > There was a straightforward military logic to adding >computer-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles to the mix of NATO attacks: >They can hit targets without putting allied pilots at risk in a >heavily defended area, and their accuracy isn't affected by bad >weather. > But equally important was the psychological effect. NATO hopes the >Bosnian Serbs, in considering the allies' demand that they pull their >heavy weapons away from Sarajevo, will think harder about the cost of >continued defiance now that they know NATO is willing to go beyond >conventional air attacks. > The head of NATO air operations in Bosnia, British Group Capt. >Trevor Murray, said Monday that the Tomahawk attacks may not be over. And, he told reporters in Naples, Italy, "we may use o>ther elements >of our armory." >Bosnian Serb's integrated air defense network. > Murray said Monday that although the 13 Tomahawks launched against >parts of the air defense network near Banja Luka in northwestern >Bosnia inflicted "severe damage" on some targets, the air defenses >still pose a danger to NATO pilots. > Until the Tomahawks were launched from the Navy cruiser USS >Normandy on Sunday, NATO's attacks in Bosnia, which began Aug. 30, >had been carried out by U.S. and allied airplanes launched from bases >in Italy and from the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Adriatic >Sea -- and by British and French artillery guns. > Murray and other NATO officials insisted that adding Tomahawks to >the mix did not mean NATO was widening the war in Bosnia. It was >simply using another means of attacking the same kinds of targets, a >means that posed less risk to NATO pilots. > Some observers said that while the Tomahawk attack served a >psychological role, it may take a lot more to persuade the Serbs that >NATO is serious about ending the stanglehold on Sarajevo. Hi all. Those who think the mighty NATO war machine, using mostly air power can have a substantive enough effect on the Serbs to get them to submit to UN wishes are dreaming. There is a big difference between an educated determined army that believes in what it is doing in the mountains, from a bunch of uneducated ineffective fighters, fighting a war they don't give a dam about in a wide open desert. U.S. military analysis have determined that it would take an army of 2.2 million on the GROUND to beat the Serbs into submissiveness. Where are the lessons we have learned in every war this century, that air power cannot hold or take ground - but it is sure convenient to have. The Serbs will have the last laugh again, and they know the US does not have the will power to send ground troops. And all we are asking them to do is accept 1/2 of the country they have conquered. Why not all of it? Why didn't we ask Iraq to return only half of Kuwait? Because Bosnia has nothing the West wants and the West wanted all of the oil, and a third world army in a wide open desert is a turkey shoot for any modern nation. Just the opinion of an opinionated Canadian. Just realized that I may have continued and off-topic post. Sorry about that guys and gals. I am new here and will try to behave better in the future. Regards Doug ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 02:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Does a small space glider exist? NASA Langley proposed a crew transport vehicle for the space station that they called the HL-20 (because it was about twice the size of the HL-10, which is the plane that you see come off the hooks in the opening to the Six Million dollar Man) and this got sufficiently far enough that they built a mockup. The X-33 will be a little lifting body reentry vehicle, too. Check AvLeak for artist's impressions. We're testing one proposal on the back of the SR-71--that's the Aerospike I keep talking about. 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.... ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #418 ********************************* 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).