From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #457 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 12 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 457 In this issue: Returned mail: Service unavailable re: Hawks Land-Based Aircraft Modified for Carrier Operations AA-11 off-the-nose capability (Was Re: USAF has head to head with Mig- Re: Weekend Trip Re: Non-airplane research? Re: Weekend Trip Re: My search for a poem.. history Re: Non-airplane research? Reco. plane Re: Non-airplane research? Re: Non-airplane research? Stealth carriers Re: Weekend Trip Re: Reco. plane Re: Weekend Trip 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: Mail Delivery Subsystem Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 04:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable The original message was received at Thu, 12 Oct 1995 04:38:47 -0400 (EDT) from ncrgw2@localhost ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- rpspo2.atlantaga.attgis.com!cfoster (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to rpspo2.atlantaga.attgis.com.: >>> MAIL From: <<< 552 Error in local delivery 554 rpspo2.atlantaga.attgis.com!cfoster... Service unavailable ----- Message header follows ----- Return-Path: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Received: from ncrgw2.UUCP (ncrgw2@localhost) by ncrhub4.attgis.com (8.7/8.7) with UUCP id EAA10658; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 04:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ncrgw2.ATTGIS.COM; 12 Oct 95 04:38:37 EDT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA18518 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 00:06:03 -0700 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA18511 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 00:06:02 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 00:06:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199510120706.AAA18511@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> From: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #456 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk ----- Message body suppressed ----- ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:43:30 -0100 Subject: re: Hawks Hi All Well, as you will probably know the RAF's Red Arrows fly BAe Hawks. The RAF justify the teams existence (and funding) by saying that in wartime the Reds would hang Sidewinder missiles under their wings slap on grey paint and take up a role in air defence. This would make for some interesting air combat if nothing else!! Just my two-pennies (or cents) worth Cheers John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Systems Administrator, The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) CompuServe: 100336.3113@compuserve.com =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 06:49:47 EST Subject: Land-Based Aircraft Modified for Carrier Operations ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: Skunk Works Digest V5 #450 Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 10/10/1995 4:55 PM Terry- You might send this to the list: Art Hanley points out: > 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. When the F-22/F-23 > competition was going on and there was expected to be a naval ATF, > both teams informed DoD that it would not be possible to have the > same plane perform both missions. The above quote is very interesting. Particularly in light of the fact that the three best/most used USAF tactical aircraft in Vietnam were AF adoptions of naval aircraft (A1, A7, and F4). With this in mind, and considering the above quote, one might posit the advisability of having the Navy develop all tactical aircraft for the Marines, Navy, and Air Force. If you can't modify an AF design for naval use, there is certainly no problem going the other way. Bill Riddle riddleb@fhu.disa.mil Amused Army Aviator (Retired) ------------------------------ From: mrousell@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mark Rousell) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 15:19 BST-1 Subject: AA-11 off-the-nose capability (Was Re: USAF has head to head with Mig- In-Reply-To: <199510110025.RAA29561@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> > This one IS operational. It has the AA-11 system on it with the +/- > 45deg. off-the-nose firing capability. The pilot has a "gunsight" on > the helmet. The launcher tracks with head movement, ala gunship mini`s. > Pretty nasty system if your on the recieving end! > I`ve ot some pics that I`ll archive if someone has a site I can PUT them > to. Does anyone know if F-22 will be fitted with such a system? Will it be retrofitted to existing aircraft, e.g. F-16, F-15? - ---- Mark Email: mrousell@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: dsm@iti-oh.com (dsm@iti-oh.com) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 11:04:03 EDT Subject: Re: Weekend Trip Hi Andreas, I've enjoyed all the info from your trips and am green with envy...But, I just got to spout off about some of Chuck's comments coming out of the lecture. :: 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. On what, 90 minutes at a time?? If they have been so successful, the 71's would probably be enjoying a well-deserved retirement. I just have to beleive that there must be a hole that can't be filled with satellites. The only other reason is that someone is getting filthy rich re-activating them. Is there any evidence of this? :: * 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). Now that's having the need....the TRUE need for speed. :: * 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. Ouch! Doesn't this sound familiar....about 30-35 years ago??? Plus, I thought stealth only worked to blind radar....not human vision. If the enemy is in visual range, he has good eyes. I think history proves that the bad guys eventually get the same technology. And usually it's sooner than later. So, if you have stealth aircraft and I have stealth aircraft? How do you get weapons lock at BVR? Or even in close? I'd hate to say that when the furball starts or even if we fail to notice each other BVR and then pass, all I can do is wave. or hope I can snag an IR signature...and get the growl. :: * He worked for 14 years on the B-2 bomber, which he is promoting. So, there you have it.... Just how long will it be before B2's see action in conflicts like Bosnia??? Let's just hope metal fatrigue doesn't ground B-52's anytime soon. What'd he have to say about the F20 Tigershark? I admit I can't hold a candle to Brig. Gen Yeager. I just wonder what cuases him to take those positions. Ciao for Now, Dan - -------------+------------- O-/=\-O Dan McKenney (dsm@iti-oh.com) =====/_\===== International TechneGroup Inc. o ::[_()]:: o 5303 DuPont Circle, Milford, Ohio 45150 i'^`i voice:(800) 783-9199 fax: (513)576-3994 ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Non-airplane research? On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Robin Bjorklund wrote: > 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 | > +-------------------------------------------------------------+ > > No exactly "Stealth Torpedo", but the Russian are doing some reserch in "Rocket Torpedo!!!" which can go much much faster than the normal torpedo because they use rocket fuel. So, this allow fast hit without time for evasive or contra-attack from the target... (scary!!). This type of torpedo has a lot of problem because this make so much noise that the torpedo have to reduce it's speed (therefore the noise) a little bit before it hit the target and then go ahea again... Ben Rich once mention about Stealth Aircraft-Carrier... But I don't thing they are doing anything with it... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Weekend Trip > * He said the reactivation of the SR-71A is useless and a waste of money, > because satellites can do the job better and cheaper. Well, as must of us here know, that is quite clearly not the case. The fact is that the SR-71 co-existed with satellites for virtually its entire operational career. Airbreathing recon platforms provide a vital supplement and a degree of versatility simply not available from the space-based systems. And barring any as-yet unknown aircraft, i'd say the SR-71 is the best airbreathing recon platform ever built! ------------------------------ From: Lambright Christian P Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:13:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: My search for a poem.. Hello all: I swear this will be my last post on this as I was advised that perhaps it was best placed in a specific aviation group..will do. Also, thanks for all the replies I received, I do appreciate it..however..much as I like the poem "High Flight", it's not the one I'm looking for. "High Flight" was the first I came across and is/was used extensively by a TV station here in Texas for quite a few years. But the one I'm looking for is along the same line, but I feel was much more intense..and ended (I'm pretty certain) with the words "..on wings of steel" at the end of the last line(s). Any one recognize this one. Thanks again for the previous and any future help. If anyone cares to know what it is if I find out please let me know..it is a good one. - -Chris -=>*<=-=->*<=-=>*<=-=>*< chrisl@jove.acs.unt.edu >*<=-=>*<=-=>*<=-=>*<=- Compuserve 71712,472 _________________________ -=-=> *<>* <=-=- ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 09:02:03 PDT Subject: history >:: 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. >On what, 90 minutes at a time?? If they have been so successful, the 71's >would probably be enjoying a well-deserved retirement. USAF did not ask for them back. DoD did not ask for them back. There is no indication that the intel community asked for them back. A CongressCritter asked for them back. >:: * 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. >Ouch! Doesn't this sound familiar....about 30-35 years ago??? >Plus, I thought stealth only worked to blind radar....not human vision. Stealth as defined in the popular press, maybe. The working definition is more like low observable & includes: visible (black, on a night intruder), IR (paint again & exhaust treatment) and acoustic/noise (exhaust treatment, mostly) And, IN ADDITION, the RCS is pretty low. >If the enemy is in visual range, he has good eyes. (I tend to concur that taking the guns off is a bad move...) regards ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Non-airplane research? On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > No exactly "Stealth Torpedo", but the Russian are doing some > reserch in "Rocket Torpedo!!!" which can go much much faster than the > normal torpedo because they use rocket fuel. So, this allow fast hit > without time for evasive or contra-attack from the target... (scary!!). Unfortunately the trade-off in speed (which is quoted around 200 knots, by the way) means that some other handy features are left out -- like a guidance system. The flow noise (and I would imagine the control problems of physically guiding a 200 knot underwater target), among other things, make the "Shkvall" an unguided point-and-shoot weapon. According to some discussions on sci.military.naval, offboard wire-guidance is not very feasible because of the problems of making a guidance wire that survives the weapon's rather tumultuous journey to the target. Its range is also severely limited (roughly 7,500 yards). This weapon is mainly effective as an "evasion weapon"; upon detection of an incoming torpedo, one of these things can be thrown up the bearing of the noise signature, forcing a *violent* separation maneuver by the attacker that could snap guidance wires, cause loss-of-contact, etc. Because of its tremendous speed, such evasion maneuvers might not even be enough to clear, leading to a tactical hesitance to approach Shkvall-armed submarines too closely. > This type of torpedo has a lot of problem because this make so much noise > that the torpedo have to reduce it's speed (therefore the noise) a little > bit before it hit the target and then go ahea again... ??? Actually, I understand the rocket to be single-stage; there isn't any "slowing down" and no way to "speed up" again. There's no point to slowing down anyway, since there is no guidance system to have to reduce noise for (and forget about trying to go dead in the water and sneak up on the target, torpedoes don't have the fuel to play cat-and-mouse games like that). What you could be referring to is the initial phase of the weapon. It leaves the tube at about 50 knots and "swims out" some distance before the rocket fires. > Ben Rich once mention about Stealth Aircraft-Carrier... But I > don't thing they are doing anything with it... Now *that* would be a challenge. One estimate of ship RCS puts a 94,000-ton aircraft carrier at between 3 - 10 MILLION square meters (on a scale that puts the B-1B at 1 sq meter). - -Robin. ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com State of the Russian Navy Data Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reco. plane Recently in Aviation Week and Space Technology mention that Taiwan is going to buy a "very fast and high altitud airplane". Who know what type of airplane is it??? I know that during the War of Vietnam, some U-2 used taiwanese airfield. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Non-airplane research? I don't know but this are information that I got from Aviation Week and Space Technology. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Robin J. Lee wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > No exactly "Stealth Torpedo", but the Russian are doing some > > reserch in "Rocket Torpedo!!!" which can go much much faster than the > > normal torpedo because they use rocket fuel. So, this allow fast hit > > without time for evasive or contra-attack from the target... (scary!!). > > Unfortunately the trade-off in speed (which is quoted around 200 knots, > by the way) means that some other handy features are left out -- like a > guidance system. The flow noise (and I would imagine the control > problems of physically guiding a 200 knot underwater target), among other > things, make the "Shkvall" an unguided point-and-shoot weapon. According > to some discussions on sci.military.naval, offboard wire-guidance is not > very feasible because of the problems of making a guidance wire that > survives the weapon's rather tumultuous journey to the target. Its range is > also severely limited (roughly 7,500 yards). > > This weapon is mainly effective as an "evasion weapon"; upon detection of > an incoming torpedo, one of these things can be thrown up the bearing of > the noise signature, forcing a *violent* separation maneuver by the > attacker that could snap guidance wires, cause loss-of-contact, etc. > Because of its tremendous speed, such evasion maneuvers might not even be > enough to clear, leading to a tactical hesitance to approach > Shkvall-armed submarines too closely. > > > > This type of torpedo has a lot of problem because this make so much noise > > that the torpedo have to reduce it's speed (therefore the noise) a little > > bit before it hit the target and then go ahea again... > > ??? Actually, I understand the rocket to be single-stage; there isn't > any "slowing down" and no way to "speed up" again. There's no point to > slowing down anyway, since there is no guidance system to have to reduce > noise for (and forget about trying to go dead in the water and sneak up > on the target, torpedoes don't have the fuel to play cat-and-mouse games > like that). > > What you could be referring to is the initial phase of the weapon. It > leaves the tube at about 50 knots and "swims out" some distance > before the rocket fires. > > > > Ben Rich once mention about Stealth Aircraft-Carrier... But I > > don't thing they are doing anything with it... > > Now *that* would be a challenge. One estimate of ship RCS puts a > 94,000-ton aircraft carrier at between 3 - 10 MILLION square meters (on a > scale that puts the B-1B at 1 sq meter). > > > -Robin. > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com > State of the Russian Navy Data Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ > > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Non-airplane research? It's LMSW now (Lockheed Martin Skunk Works); they've dropped the ADP/ADC. Yes, they're working on an RLS which I don't define as being exactly an airplane, since it goes out of the atmosphere. Their version is a lifting body with a linear aerospike. 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.... On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Robin Bjorklund wrote: > 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: George Allegrezza 12-Oct-1995 1534 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 15:38:27 EDT Subject: Stealth carriers amraam@netcom.com (Robin J. Lee) wrote: >>On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Wei-Jen Su wrote: >> Ben Rich once mention about Stealth Aircraft-Carrier... But I >> don't thing they are doing anything with it... >Now *that* would be a challenge. One estimate of ship RCS puts a >94,000-ton aircraft carrier at between 3 - 10 MILLION square meters (on a >scale that puts the B-1B at 1 sq meter). Unless, of course, it was submersible. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "$1.6 million! How can I get that money Mobile Systems Business | without working for Eisner?" Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- the Brain ------------------------------ From: rakoczyj@agcs.com Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:51:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Weekend Trip On Oct 12, 9:27am, Dean Adams wrote: > Subject: Re: Weekend Trip > > * He said the reactivation of the SR-71A is useless and a waste of > > money, because satellites can do the job better and cheaper. > > Well, as must of us here know, that is quite clearly not the case. > The fact is that the SR-71 co-existed with satellites for virtually > its entire operational career. Airbreathing recon platforms provide > a vital supplement and a degree of versatility simply not available > from the space-based systems. I good friend who planned and flew strike missions in the late 60's early 70's over non-Vietnam air space, used "blackbird" photos (for some detail's), in addition to satellite photos. He was one of the few civilians to have clearance to review the photos. - -- Jerzy (Jurek) Rakoczynski Voice: 602 581 4867 Fax: 602 582 7697 AG Communication Systems Internet: rakoczyj@agcs.com POB 52179 Internet: jurek.rakoczynski@gte.sprint.com Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 GTEMail: j.rakoczynski ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 16:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Reco. plane Wei-Jen Su wrote: >Recently in Aviation Week and Space Technology mention that Taiwan is >going to buy a "very fast and high altitud airplane". Who know what type >of airplane is it??? AW&ST said (in this article): possibly Mirage 2000s or an unarmed recce version of F/A-18 Hornet. Of course, other fighter derivatives are possible too. >I know that during the War of Vietnam, some U-2 used taiwanese >airfield. Quite a few U-2Cs were given (lent) to the CAF (or RoCAF = Republic of China Air Force) in the 1950s/60s, and all, except the 4 or 5 shot down over the PRC (Peoples Republic of China), were given back to the CIA. Later, U-2Rs were also given to the CAF, and flew with their markings and pilots. I believe they are now all returned to the USAF (via CIA). The CIA flew its own missions from Taiwanese bases too, during all that time, and the USAF had U-2Rs in the vincinity (Japan, Korea, Thailand, etc.) too. - -- 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: sschaper@pobox.com (Steve Schaper) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:28:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Weekend Trip The only valid reason to get rid of the SR-71 would be aging of the craft, or replacement by some other system that can image a site within an hour or so, without being in a predicted orbit by the target of opportunity. I took the retiring of the SR-71 to mean that we did have a replacement in operation. Perhaps not. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #457 ********************************* 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).