From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #455 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 11 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 455 In this issue: Hawks Looking for this aviation poem... Aurora Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #450 Re: Shock-Waves as a weapon re: Hawks Re: Altitude and size from sonic booms Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #450 Re: Mach 2-3 over LA Re: Shock-Waves as a weapon Non-airplane research? Re: Shock-Waves as a weapon Weekend Trip Re: Mach 2-3 over LA AW&ST, October 9, 1995 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, 11 Oct 1995 09:30:19 +0100 Subject: Hawks > Yep, I'm familar with the Goshawk, which is such an extensive > change to the Hawk that it took longer to develop and test than the > Hawk did from scratch, but I specified strictly fighter and attack. > The Hawk and Goshawk are trainers. They may be trainers in theory, but Hawks are used as attack aircraft by various unpleasant governments around the world (to whom it would not be possible for BAe to sell them unless they were considered 'trainers'). Nick Barnes, speaking for himself ------------------------------ From: Lambright Christian P Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:20:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Looking for this aviation poem... Hope this isn't too far off topic, but it is aviation related and it occurred to me this might be the perfect place to get some help on this. We've probably all heard the poem that begins "For I have slipped the surly bonds of earth and danced the...etc", but once and once only I heard another poem that really got me. I have not been able to remember much of it except the feeling that perhaps it was more of a poem for fighter jocks and that I *think* the last refrain ended with something about "wings of steel". I wish I could recall more but hope that someone might recognize this and help me out. This was a really good one if someone recalls it. Thanks. - -Chris -=>*<=-=->*<=-=>*<=-=>*< chrisl@jove.acs.unt.edu >*<=-=>*<=-=>*<=-=>*<=- Compuserve 71712,472 _________________________ -=-=> *<>* <=-=- ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.magec.com (Tom Robison) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:22:15 +0500 Subject: Aurora Hi, all, new to this mailing list, am thoroughly enjoying the discussion. Regarding Aurora: I've heard that Ben Rich, in an interview shortly before he died, stated categorically that the Aurora did not exist. Was he just covering for the DOD, or are all these sightings really from another world? What is the educated consensus of opinion, is it is or is it ain't? Tom Robison ------------------------------ From: Mike Beede Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:26:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #450 > Bill Paisley is right about modifying a land based fighter or attack into a > carrier aircraft. It hasn't been successfully done in the West since the F-86 > Sabre became the FJ-2 Fury. My limited understanding (in other words, I read about it in Air International or someplace like that) is that the FJ-2 had pretty much nothing but the look-and-feel of the F-86 left by the time they turned it into a naval fighter. Clearly an expensive proposition. I wonder how much cash Lockheed would need to navalize the F-117, considering that not only do they have to do the aerodynamic and structural stuff, but preserve the stealth property. Mike ------------------------------ From: "David \"Scre^2ch\" Prieto" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 10:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shock-Waves as a weapon Oh heh good point there.. I forgot that it would be kinda difficult to shoot one down at that altitude, plus you will be dead. :) But the main point I meant to say is that it just isn't practical as a weapon. On Tue, 10 Oct 1995, Rick Pavek wrote: > + I did some research on transonics and found out that sometime > +during the design of the F-111 Aardvark it was intended to do low passes > +over enemy troop formations and kill them or seriously injure them using > +Shock-Waves. It would work except for the fact that flying at such speeds > +at such altitudes would require huge amounts of fuel and would expose the > +aircraft to a dangerous amount of ground fire. > > Speaking as one who has watched (and been the target of) F-111's making > low-level high-speed passes in-between the mountain passes at night... by > the time you hear them coming... they're gone and you're dead. There won't > _be_ any effective return ground fire unless there's been someone setup > along the flight path, shoulder-launched missile ready (pointing at where > the Aardvaark's tail 'will be') and given instructions on how many seconds > the aircraft will take to be in position. > > I'll guarantee that from a grunt's perspective it ain't gonna happen. > > Rick > > > ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 9:52:40 ÿÿÿ Subject: re: Hawks Ah, but the Hawk was Designed as a trainer. By the nature of the training biz, many of the features that would be required for carrier ops (slow speed approaches, good over nose visibility, strong internal structure that can take landings with a large downward velocity component) are already built into the basic design. Even starting with all that, the changes to the Goshawk were extensive enough that it is considered virtually a different aircraft. It is said to fly better than the Hawk , but is not as versatile. The Hawk is used as a limited attack aircraft and it is effective and economical in that role. It is nowhere as effective as a purpose-built attack aircraft, nor is it claimed to be. Purpose-built landbased fighters and attack don't have the features mentioned above because they don't need them and trade them off for less structural weight to perform a given task, wings optimized more for the role (accepting a higher approach speed and a higher angle of attack on landing), less strong landing gear and keel and many other differences. These differences in the basic design make it almost impossible to later modify a heavy fighter/attack aircraft for the carrier role without essentially coming up with a new aircraft. You even have to make provisions for a different method of changing engines for a carrier aircraft. The Soviets pulled it off because many of the features they require to satisfy their obsession with bare field operations are the same features that are required for carrier operations. Art Hanley "My employer has nothing to do with this" (keeps the lawyers happy) ------------------------------ From: "Louis K. Scheffer" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:59:53 -0700 Subject: Re: Altitude and size from sonic booms > >Question: How can the recording of a shock wave at the surface be >interpreted to determine the altitude of an aircraft and its size? Imagine the plane is at the vertex of a cone, which it is dragging behind it. The sonic boom is where this cone intersects the ground. So you need to measure exactly when you get a boom at a number of locations - exactly what the seismometer network does. Then the progress of the boom across the ground gives the aircraft speed and direction. The altitude of the plane determines the radius of curvature at any specific moment (low -> small radius of curvature, high = large radius. The exact relationship can be found from the geometry of a cone (the shock wave) intersecting a plane (the ground). ) The size can be estimated once the altitude is known, from two factors - the size of the boom (total air displaced) and the time between the positive pressure boom from the leading edge and the negative pressure boom from the trailing edge. This is not very exact, since it depends on the shape of the plane, but it gives a rough idea. Someone mentioned that they saw the raw data from the siesmometers and did not find it convincing. Is this data available anywhere so people can try their own calculations? All we would need would be (for each station that detected the boom) a latitude, and longitude, and a time of arrival. >With a transponder amd radar augmentation, the plane could fly >safely in commercial airspace and ATC nor anyone else woudln't know that they >were actually observing a return from a secret aircraft. > That depends - if ATC sees an aircraft at mach 5 they could conclude it was a secret aircraft even if it was emitting a perfectly normal return. In the case in question, if the air force has grounded their SR-71 fleet, and the NASA SR-71s are not flying, then any mach 3 return should be a secret plane. Of course, if as people have stated, controllers must hold secret clearances and the radar tapes are classified, then presumably for safety reasons it does show up, and the controllers know about it, but they can't say so. -Lou Scheffer ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 10:31:35 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #450 The first models of the FJ-2 were very similar to the then current F-86, but later models evolved well away from where the Sabre went to the point that they were different aircraft. Art Hanley My employers disavow any knowledge of my actions. This message may self-destruct at a moment's notice. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 10:53:08 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Mach 2-3 over LA Regarding Larry's post, I'd say he is quite correct that if you are talking about a missile you can get very high speeds at low altitude. This is because you can design the structure differently, but most importantly, the thing has only got to last for one flight. Vought was working on a hypervelocity missile a few years back as an anti-armor weapon. It had no warhead, because the kinetic energy of something moving that fast hitting you was damaging enough. Also, it's guidance system was fairly simple (and cheap) because during the period of flight of the missile the target would only have time to move a couple of feet. ASALM was never flight tested at speed, I believe. It would have done a zoom profile similar to Phoenix, I believe. After USAF abandoned it, the Navy showed interest in the missile as a ship launched (with booster), long range anti-aircraft and anti-shipping missile as well as a supersonic target. Nothing ever came of it. Regarding ATC radars, there's nothing from stopping them from seeing above FL600, radar's radar. Generally, though they don't look 'cause there's virtually nothing up there. Art Hanley Not only do my employers not endorse the views above, they aren't even aware of them. ------------------------------ From: Michael G Schwern Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 15:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shock-Waves as a weapon If you're going to be flying very low and supersonic directly over your target risking shoulder-mounted infantry SAMs (if you don't happen to be flying in the mountains, more likely you're conducting ground support in relative open) from those to the left and right of your shock-wave's effective kill-zone (if there is one... anyone try a BOTE calculation of the overpressure for an F-111 doing Mach 1+?), and smacking into a hillside... why not just fly alittle higher and subsonic (saves fuel and the paint on your a/c!) and drop high-drag munitions on the target? I suppose the shock-wave would be a useful weapon if your a/c wasn't carrying any anti-personel weaponry. About that BOTE (Back Of The Envelope... just realized I made the acronym up) calculation... just how low and how fast are we talking to produce an effective overpressure? If you're supersonic at 50 feet... well, I don't think even TFR will save you from smacking into the trees. ...ich sprach Floggo the Stupid http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~msdt msdt+@andrew.cmu.edu All opinions are my own and not of my employ---wait... I'm self-employed. - -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GE/O d--(pu) s+:-->--: a-->? C++@ U P+>++ L>++ E+ W++$ N+++(+) O?>+ K- w-- o? M+(-) V? PS+(+++) PE(-)+ Y+(++) PGP? t+* 5++@ X+ R+ tv@ b+++ Dl+ D++ G e(*) h-- r*(--) y-(!) - ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Blood type: A+ CMU- ... should have known. ------------------------------ From: Robin Bjorklund Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Non-airplane research? Anyone know if LMADC is doing any non-airplane research these days? For example, any work on stealthy submarines/boats, or stealthy torpedoes? I should think that there would be an enormous advantage to making a torpedo stealthy, since under water, sight is 100% acoustic. If you could simply bounce the acoustic signals elsewhere, an enemy ship wouldn't know what hit them. The only problem I could forsee with this idea is masking the sound of the torpedo, since sound travels at enormous speeds in water. Hmmmmmm....ideas? robin :p +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robin L. Bjorklund Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University | | E-mail: bjorklur@db.erau.edu Humor me, and smile! | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Life is a big wild crazy tossed salad, but you don't eat | | it, no sir! You live it! Isn't it great?" --The Tick | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: sschaper@pobox.com (Steve Schaper) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:33:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Shock-Waves as a weapon It was my impression that the supersonic overflights of Nicaragua and Panama (which have since been refuted here) were more on the order of 'gunboat diplomacy' than as a weapon. - --Steve ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Weekend Trip Kathryn and I made a trip to Washington D.C. last weekend to visit the Smithsonian NASM before we move to the West coast. We had the opportunity to attend the lecture of Brigadier General Charles E. 'Chuck' Yeager, USAF (ret.), titled "The Other Side of the Sound Barrier", while we were there. The following things he said are Skunk Works related: * He said the reactivation of the SR-71A is useless and a waste of money, because satellites can do the job better and cheaper. * He flew three times in an SR-71, the fastest at Mach 3.2 and the highest at about 74,000 ft. (numbers from my memory, though). * The future in fighter aircraft lies in BVR. Dogfighting is out. The F-22 should not have a cannon, because if you have to shoot, the carbon residue diminishes your stealth properties, and if the enemy is in visual range, than your stealth didn't work in the first place. * He worked for 14 years on the B-2 bomber, which he is promoting. * He (and all his test-pilot colleagues) never saw something in the sky, that they did not know what it was -- UFOs (I assume allien/extraterrestrial ones) don't exist! The next day I spent in the NASM, while Kathryn visted the Art Museum (across the Mall). The following Skunk Works related aircraft were exhibited: * U-2C, Article 347, USAF serial '56-6680', marked '66680' 'U.S. AIR FORCE' on the tail. The aircraft is painted in the two-tone blue/grey 'Saber' camouflage scheme used in the UK in the 1970's. She features a big sugar scoop, a Radar Homing And Warning (RHAW) antenna (System 191?) in the starboard trailing edge, a long dorsal spine for System 3, 6, and 9, the 'Birdwatcher' data link antenna behind the tail wheel, and a Q-bay hatch with 7 camera windows, but no slipper tanks or underwing tanks. Some airframe history: - seventh U-2 airframe built; - 02/09/1956 delivered to CIA as U-2A; - operated by the CIA from: + RAF Lakenheath, UK, (Det A); + Wiesbaden AB, Germany, (Det A); + Giebelstadt AG, Germany, (Det A); + RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, (Det ?, later OL-OH and Det 3); + Edwards AFB, California (Det G); - first aircraft used to overfly the USSR on 07/04/1956; - modified to U-2C with J75-P-13B engine and enlarged air intakes; - 1969 lent to USAF; - modified to U-2F with in-flight refueling receptacle; - operational over Vietnam; - remodified to U-2C; - 1974 ownership transferred to USAF; - used by 100th SRW for project 'Pave Onyx'; - 1978 retired from active service; - 08/30/1982 given to NASM; * U-2 ejection seat (from '56-6690') with a dummy in an U-2 pilot partial pressure suit. * U-2 Type B camera. * U-2 pilot survival kit. * Skyhook camera, as used in 'Moby Dick' program. * Discover XIII reentry capsule (first capsule recovered). * 1:32 scale (?) models of North American O-47A, Lockheed F-5 Lightning and Lockheed SR-71A. * S901J pressure suit, produced by David M. Clark company, and a photo of the MC-2 pressure suit, produced by the same company. * XP-80, USAF serial '44-83020', nicknamed 'Lulu Belle', marked '78' on the nose and '483020' on the tail. This is the original, first Shooting Star prototype, with which the Skunk Works came into existence. * F-104A, USAF serial '55-2961', marked as 'NASA 818', registered 'N818NA'. The aircraft was built as an YF-104A (the 7th F-104A) and was used by the NACA High Speed Flight Station/NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB. * The Kelly Johnson Award and the Collier Trophy. Then we went to Langley AFB, in Hampton, VA, to their Open House Airshow. The following Skunk Works aircraft were there: * F-117A, Article '811', USAF serial '84-811' (?), marked 'HO' 'AF' '84' '811' and 'Screamin Demons' on the tail, it displayed a 7th FS badge on its side and the name 'Capt. Dave "Woody" Wooden' under the canopy. The following information was gathered: - The aircraft are painted with the new, standard ACC markings since 1992, but probably only when they have to be painted anyway; - The three pilots at the airshow were: + Capt. David M. 'Woody' Wooden, Bandit 378; + Capt. John B. Mills, Bandit 402, who ejected from '802' 'Black Magic' on 08/04/1992 (then 416th FS) near Holloman AFB; + Maj. Garry R. Woltering, Bandit 454; * F-117A, Article '796', USAF serial '81-796' (?), flyby and then departed, not on static display; * T-38A (or AT-38B ? -- no data block), USAF serial '68-8204', marked 'HO' 'AF' '68' '204' on tail, as well as showing a tail band depicting 3 F-117 silhouettes; also from the 7th FS, and also painted black like the F-117As; but not accessible; * U-2R, Article '087', USAF serial '80-1087', marked 'BB' 'AF' '80' '087'. Originally built as TR-1A. This Dragon Lady was flown by the only active female U-2 pilot, Capt. Beth Martin. The following information was gathered: - Capt. Beth Martin will soon (next week or so) deploy to Europe, to fly missions over Bosnia; - She is only the third female U-2 pilot, and the other two, who flew operational missions during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, moved on to other assignments; - The reason why female pilots did not fly before in U-2s is, that U-2s are considered combat aircraft (even though they are unarmed) and female pilots were not allowed to fly combat aircraft till recently; - The (unofficial) reason for the crash of Article '060', USAF serial '68-10338' at RAF Fairford, UK, on 08/29/1995, was that a pogo was stuck, and the aircraft, equipped with C-Span and a full load of fuel was too slow and too heavy to shake it loose. - The modified U-2S and U-2ST (about 10 delivered by now) use Hydrazine for restarting the engine at altitude, which the crew chief I talked with didn't like too much (if he would have to handle it); - Article '087' is currently the best airframe, even though they had to replace the engine, which made her late, and enabled me to see her land; - She had no super pods, and carried only ballast in the nose and Q-bay; - She had a new box-like RWR at the port wing trailing edge, in the same place where the small cylindrical System 20 IR warning sensor is placed on the starboard wing trailing edge -- between the inboard and the outboard flaps. The only photos of this sensor I have seen so far are on page 95 (top) of Jay Miller's Skunk Works book and the same (in color) on page 149 (top) of the Air International Sep. 1995 issue (Vol. 49 No. 3) as part of the 'stealth' article (which are curiously both 'a mirrored image') and another photo of '80-1080'/'BB' seen at RAF Alconbury on 03/15/1995 (with camera hatch in Q-bay and ASARS nose, but without super pods), published on page 2 of the May 1995 (No. 86) issue of the Air Forces Monthly magazine; * B-2A, c/n AV-11, USAF serial '89-0332', named 'Spirit of Washington', marked 'WM' '0332', '80332', from the 393rd BS, static display only; * T-38A (or AT-38B ? -- no data block), USAF serial '62-3690', marked 'WM' 'AF' '62' '690', also from the 393rd BS, and also painted dark grey (glossy) over all, like the B-2As; - - Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 18:24:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Mach 2-3 over LA >ASALM was never flight tested at speed, I believe. It would have done a zoom >profile similar to Phoenix, I believe. After USAF abandoned it, the Navy >showed interest in the missile as a ship launched (with booster), long range >anti-aircraft and anti-shipping missile as well as a supersonic target. >Nothing ever came of it. Correct, it wasn't produced, but it did fly at Mach 5.4 evidently. The Wright Lab WEB sight at http://www.wl.wpafb.af.mil/ indicates this and even has a picture of an A-7 carrying it in flight. >Regarding ATC radars, there's nothing from stopping them from seeing above >FL600, radar's radar. Generally, though they don't look 'cause there's >virtually nothing up there. Interesting. Larry ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 22:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: AW&ST, October 9, 1995 WASHINGTON OUTLOOK, page 23: ============================ REVERSAL OF FORTUNE: "After a budget cut scare, the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program seems to have managed to reverse field and win $708 million more than the Clinton Administration had once planned through Fiscal 2001. And, the program is being recognized as "an aircraft replacement" instead of a technology demonstration. It will become the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). House/Senate conferees had sliced $131 million from JAST in 1996, reasoning the sum could be spared because it would not have been spent until the end of the fiscal year. Contractors were already facing a three-month break in the program and were worried about more disruption, according to Herb Lanese, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace's deputy president. The contract award date had slipped to next September from June. After conferring with Capitol Hill, Deputy Defense Secretary John White agreed to increase total JAST funding to $3.5 billion. Still, the fate of JAST in 1996 remains a mystery. The compromise Defense appropriations bill was rejected, and no one knows in what form it will be resubmitted." BLACK HELICOPTERS: "Small bombs and stealthy helicopters are in McDonnell Douglas' future, Lanese says. Bomb research will spin out of the company's Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) bid. The Pentagon is expected to pick a JDAM winner this week. McDonnell Douglas is encouraged by its ability to decrease projected JDAM cost to one-eighth its original estimate. "We didn't know we could run that fast," Lanese said. The company is looking at a JDAM follow-on with an "anti-jamming device" that would nullify attempts to foil the weapon's GPS guidance. They will also study bombs as small as 250 lb. that could beef up the firepower of stealth aircraft. The company also is looking at low-noise, stealthy helicopters for long-term, strategic growth. They present knotty problems because of the large rotor. But Pentagon "black" helicopter projects are expected to produce lucrative work for the over- capacity sector." COOPERATIVE RECON GAINS MOMENTUM, pages 28-29: ============================================== Several political, military and intelligence officals from many nations, including the USA, Russia, Germany, France, Japan, as well as other NATO countries are considering to pool their highly classified reconnaissance and surveillance data from military and civilian satellites for broader international utilization in crisis monitoring and peacekeeping operations. Classified spacecraft design and performance specifications for US, Russian, and European systems are supposed to stay secret, but imagery assessments and communications pickups would be available in real-time and shared at an initial data fusion center by multinational military services. [How the secret abilities of the space assests stay secret when the resulting data is revealed is not explained, though.] KH-11 RECONS MODIFIED, page 28: =============================== "The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office and Lockheed Martin are modifying an existing U.S. reconnaissance satellite system so it can provide more real- time/broad area coverage than current systems, which provide extremely high resolution pictures, but of only localized targets. The new satellite system will have about eight times the data downlink rate compared with existing systems to ensure more real-time capability. Because of this enhanced data rate figure, some analysts have incorrectly labeled it the "new 8X satellite." It does not, however, go by that designation. The project involves modifications to part of the fleet of advanced versions of existing KH-11 Strategic Response digital imaging satellites. Once operational in the late 1990s, the modified KH-11s should give battle- field commanders a much quicker overall assessment of the situation in their theatre of operation. Advanced KH-11 spacecraft can provide image resolutions of just a few inches. The resolution capabilities of the modified version will still be relatively high -- good enough to determine the specific types of tanks involved in a battle, for example. But the primary emphasis will be to provide both a spacecraft and ground system upgrade that can provide information much faster over broader areas." JSOW DEMONSTRATES POWERED FLIGHT, page 62: ========================================== Texas Instruments has tested a Williams WJ-24-8 jet engine powered version of the Joint Stand-Off Weapon system, which is normally a glider. The project is aimed at the JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), which replaces the now canceled (all-aspect stealthy) TSSAM (Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile), and Britain's CASOM (Conventionally Armed Standoff Missile) competition. JASSM/JSOW is intended for F-117As (2 in bomb bays), B-2A (16 in bomb bays) and JAST (2 in bomb bays). Another option is semi-conformal carriage on JAST and/or F-22, with specially shaped fairings or specially shaped weapons. The first engine run was on Sept. 7, followed by captive-carry flights on F-4 Phantom II carrier aircraft on Sept. 14 and Sept. 26, and the powered flight on Sept. 29, lasting 11 minutes and including launch aircraft separation, climbs, dives, turns, full throttle acceleration and a steep attack maneuver at a simulated target, after which the JSOW test vehicle destroyed itself. Also, the special report on GPS should be of interest to Skunk Works readers, including the following articles: GPS TECHNOLOGY RIPENS FOR CONSUMER MARKET, pages 50-51: ======================================================= GLONASS NEARS FULL OPERATION, pages 52-54: ========================================== NEW GPS 2R SATELLITES TO OPERATE AUTONOMOUSLY, page 54: ======================================================= GPS EXPERTS SUGGEST WAY TO AVOID TERRORISM, pages 56-57: ======================================================== GPS IMPROVES MILITARY WEAPONS, pages 56-57: =========================================== REPORTING VIA SATCOM, page 57: ============================== RESEARCHERS TEST D-GPS APPROACHES, pages 58-59: =============================================== NEW GPS TECHNIQUE AIMS TO CUT INTRINSIC ERROR, pages 58-59: =========================================================== - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #455 ********************************* 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).