From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #460 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 13 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 460 In this issue: Re: ATC Radar Range UAV recons Recon requirements Re: ATC Radar Range Re[2]: Land-Based Aircraft Modified for Carrier Operations Re: Chuck Yeager's Comments Cannons CIA entrance atrium, new building Cannons Re: Rocket torpedo re: Stealth carriers Re: Rocket torpedo Re: Cannons UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. Re: Rocket torpedo 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 05:25:57 PDT Subject: Re: ATC Radar Range Pulse length and width affect resolution. Power affects range. Power requirements are frequency dependent. Chuck ------------------------------ From: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 10:57:56 EDT Subject: UAV recons We recently had the director (from ARPA) of the Tier II+/III- UAV development programs come here to talk about their development histories. He mentioned briefly the tradeoff studies that went into the decision to go with those systems. Without going into too much detail, he made a few specific points: - - Satellites can do a lot of what they want to do already, but they aren't around always at the right place at the right time. - - The SR-71 is a fine plane, but it is much too expensive to operate on a routine basis (which is why it was congress and not the intelligence community that reactivated it). - - U-2s are also expensive and limited in their operational capability, relative to UAVs. Just to start up the production line at Lockheed to produce more U-2s would cost almost as much as the development of the Tier II+ (let alone that the airframe is about 5x more expensive than a UAV). He thinks that over time, as more UAV capability comes online and matures, they will become the preferred operating system (he didn't mention any specific time frame for that to happen, though). This is certainly a biased source, but it suggests something about the current thinking in the defense community about sensing platforms. Given that the first flights of the new UAV systems are still a few months away, it will be interesting to see how things evolve. Eric ------------------------------ From: rons@ctg (Ron Schweikert) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:51:07 -0600 Subject: Recon requirements Lurk mode off... sschaper@mo.net said: >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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's probably the key isn't it? because the SR-71 can't "image a site within an hour or so" either (depending of course what exactly you mean by that). I was working on the SR at Kadena during the Panmunjom(sp?), Korea incident. We were placed on our highest alert so that we could send a jet out as soon as possible after we were requested to. This alert was a *4 hour* alert. For something like 3 days we kept a plane fueled (and fueled, and fueled (leak, leak, leak)) and serviced so that we could just "add a crew and go." Add to those four hours a flight profile of 1hr+, then recovery, then retrieval of film...so even at highest readiness profile it would be at least 6 hours (?) or more before anyone could get data back. Perhaps that's just not good enough anymore -- even with sensors that send back real-time data. Satellites are also limited: the enemy knows where they are, it takes time to reposition them (which uses up limited fuel)... Perhaps Predator et. al really make the most sense. Less costly, more responsive... Of course, that's a different mission than the SR. Battlefield recon. requires one type of information (and therefore platform) while "cold war" recon doesn't need the real-time data (the SR would do nicely for this but is incredibly expensive). There are most certainly many different recon requirements, each perhaps that would require a different type of platform. BTW, I'm not cutting down the SR, it served it's country well, but perhaps it doesn't fit into the changing dynamics of the world situation and current technology. Cheers! Ron Ah..rambling off.. time to get that third cup of coffee! Lurk mode on... ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: ATC Radar Range I know, from reading Air Force and FAA publications, that FAA personnel are regularly informed of SR-71 fllight when the Air Force operates the aircraft and I know, from being in the room when the phone calls were made, that NASA spent a great deal of time coordinating air-space clearances and usage, even when we are going to be flying at 80,000 ft, well above the FAA's control. No one ever sorties a Mach 3 plane over the FAA's airspace with out letting them know about it (mostly because there will be hell to pay if you don't). That story about decending to FL600 is apocryphal, by the way. An urban myth, as it were. 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 Fri, 13 Oct 1995 BilBK@aol.com wrote: > Regarding ATC radar (Art help me here is I'm wrong.): > The range of ATC radar is dependent (as told to me by our FAA Airways > Facility Technician [when I was a controller - don't call me an air > controller like newspeople do: I don't work the thermostat]) upon the > pulse rate frequency of the radar. The radar transmits a signal then > pauses to 'listen' for the return. The pulse length and listening > period determine the radar range (as does Amana). Terminal (approach > control) radar has a range out to 100 to 150 miles, Enroute (Center) > radar is somewhere in excess of 200 to 300 miles (which is a straight line > distance over 60,000 ft). The terminal radar I worked with in the '80s > (ASR-15) could pickup a/c in excess of FL330 (33,000 feet) within a 5 mile > radius of our radar site (we could see up almost as well as out). > The point? ATC radar doesn't stop at 60,000 ft. However, I would expect > the pilot to disengage his transponder above 60,000 ft if on a classified > mission. > > Bill Kunce > (If I don't speak for myself,) > (who will speak for me when) > (they come to take me away?) ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 09:23:45 EST Subject: Re[2]: Land-Based Aircraft Modified for Carrier Operations John Burtenshaw commented on my earlier post: "...wouldn't inter-service rivalry and pride get in the way..." Actually that is the whole point ... The AF spent untold wealth developing its vaunted "century series" of fighters, but when the bullets started flying they were forced to look around for aircraft better suited to their real needs. And lo and behold they found them already available in the Navy. And now they are at it again. Having finally developed a good ground support platform in the A10, they want to get rid of it. (I think there are two basic reasons: they don't want to have anything specialized in support to ground forces and it is not sexy looking.) They will perform the mission with a dual role fighter. Huh! Of course I have to admit that the Army engages in a little of that appearances stuff from time-to-time. I understand that the M-16 was originally rejected by the Army because it did not "look military." Bill Riddle Unimpressed Army Aviator (Retired) ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Land-Based Aircraft Modified for Carrier Operations Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 10/13/95 8:01 AM At 06:49 12/10/95 EST, you wrote: > > 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. Good point but going by the British experience wouldn't inter-service rivalry and pride get in the way. It certainly affected the our industry and service for a long while and in fact the only BRITISH naval aircraft to find its way into RAF service was the Buccaneer which had been rejected numerous times before but it was forced on the RAF due to the TSR-2/F-111 cancellations of the 1960's. Of course the F-4 saw service with both British services but again that was forced on the us due to the cancellation of our supersonic VTOL project Hawker P.1154 by the Labour Government of Mr Wilson. BTW I'm an F-4 freak and was really glad to see it flying in British colours. Regards 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: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Chuck Yeager's Comments Chuck got censured by a labor court when he got into an argument with a contractor guard and the guard got disciplined after Chuck complained. Chuck and his passengers had been drinking. The labor judge said that the guard had behaved improperly, but that Chuck had greatly provoked that behavior by his own bad behavior and a retired general should have known better. The guard was reinstated with back pay. I read this in a labor-law newsletter. He had a very bad reputation here at NASA--my husband started at FRC in 1962 and there were still a lot of people around who had been NACA employees, working on the X-1. No one admired Chuck and many actively disliked him. That episode in "The Right Stuff" about taking the NF-104 without authorization is true. That incident is part of the reason that Edwards has the ops number system (you can't even taxi without having an ops number, which has to have been obtained from Base Scheduling ahead of time), as the Air Force wanted no repeats of such behavior. I also always thought he had a real chip on his shoulder because he didn't have a college degree. (Remember that back in the '40s and '50s college education was much rarer than it is now, and much more special--more of a class issue, too.) On the other hand, I have always found him to be very charming and gentlemanly, but I never worked with him. All our meetings have been more social (I've been a host at various Shuttle landings that he was at, for example). I'll give you an example--I had some friends up for one of the ALT landings. We were out in front of Dryden, looking at the X-1E. One of my visitors asked if that were the plane that Chuck Yeager had broken the sound barrier in. As I started to say no, a voice from over my shoulder chipped in, "No, this wasn't my plane--it's in Washington." Chuck proceeded to chat with us very gracefully for quite some time, asking me what I was working on at the time (he knew what it was about, too) and asking my guests if they had enjoyed the landing, etc. Typical human nature--not all good, not all bad. 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 Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Paul Mangan wrote: > I, too, have great respect for Chuck Yeager. > I met him when I was about 9 or 10 (1952/1953) at our home > near Niagara Falls, New York. He was working for/with Bell > Aircraft at the time. I was never allowed near the people at the > picnic tables except to deliver beer and snacks but I do remember that > I overheard some people talking one day and they said > that "he was a hothead" that rarely changed his position even if it > was wrong. I didn't even understand how important Chuck Yeager was > at the time so I just filed it away as nothing, but your comments > jogged my memory and I now wonder if that was one of his long term > characteristics and if that is why he didn't get involved in the > Space shots. > Paul > mangan@kodak.com > hsapiens@clark.net said: > > From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Thu Oct 12 22:49:10 1995 > > > > Greetings, folks. > > > > I, too, was at General Yeager's talk at NASM and listened carefully to > > what he had to say. While I have respect bordering on awe for his flying > > ability, I must confess that my respect for his reasoning powers has been > > on the wane over the years. He seems to form opinions quickly without > > deep thinking and then is very reluctant to change those opinions when > > presented with alternative viewpoints. (Perhaps that is effective command > > mentality?) > > > > He made the argument that we need to maintain our military might because > > one never knows who tomorrow's enemies will be, yet he seemingly fails to > > consider how priceless the data gathered by unpredictable overflights by > > a blackbird (or equivalent) could be in keeping tabs on those potential > > enemies. > > > > And what about satellite vulnerability? In spite of mentioning an F-15's > > ability to destroy a satellite in a 300-nautical-mile orbit (and probably > > even higher), he still doesn't think it's prudent to maintain a piloted > > aircraft for anytime/anyplace surveillance? Hmm. > > > > Then again, he holds a higher security clearance than I and is certainly > > aware of things that I am not. And he has enough charm to make you wish > > he were right even if he isn't. :-) > > > > [Next post will be entirely skunky, I promise.] > > -- > > | $ | > > |---. ,---. ,---. ,---. . ,---. ,---. ,---. | "Most people would sooner die > > | | `---. ,---| | | | |---' | | `---. | than think; in fact, they do." > > ` ' `---' `---^ |---' ` `---' ` ' `---' | -- Bertrand Russell > > | hsapiens@clark.net | > > > > ------------------------------ From: dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dean Osgood) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:24:35 +0027 Subject: Cannons >:: * 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. Another issue is mission adaptability and flexability. without a cannon of some sort a combat aircraft cannot provide full support to ground-pounders, "beat up" a cluster of tanks/trucks , etc. While some may say the day of a cannon on a fighter aircraft is over, another perspective is that , like a shotgun, for some "jobs" it is still the "tool of choice". Dean ------------------------------ From: "Philip R. Moyer" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:32:15 -0700 Subject: CIA entrance atrium, new building Just a quick note here. Hanging in the entrance atrium to the new CIA headquarters building are two interesting 1/6 scale models. The first is a wind-tunnel model of a U-2, and the second is an SR-71 built specifically as a companion to the U-2. Both were donated to the Agency by Lockheed-Martin. Cheers, Phil ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 13 Oct 1995 13:42:13 GMT Subject: Cannons Date: Friday, 13 October 1995 1:41pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Cannons Along the line of the thread about guns on fighters, I remember hearing Gen. Robin Olds, USAF(Ret.) talking about flying an F-4? over North Vietnam and not having a gun on the aircraft and just as he was about to get into a furball with a Mig, telling his WSO that what they were about to do was not supposed to happen, according to the experts in the pentagon. Who was it that said "He who does not learn from the past, is doomed to repeat it" Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia, DOAS ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 10:53:51 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo A couple of thoughts: 1. During WWII, warships weren't particulary slower than they are now, but torpedoes were. Yet, a lot of ships were sunk by non-guided torpedoes that were aimed at a ship's projected position. A 200+ knot torpedo is going to do a lot of damage guided or not, and it's going to be relatively cheap, so you can fire more of them. Even in ASW, imagine that Sub A detects Sub B in whatever manner. Sub B is doing 4 or 5 knots in order to be as silent as possible. A 200 knot torpedo is going to get there real fast before the targe sub can move very far. Of course, if the target sub does speed up, it provides a signal for the second, conventional torpedo that was just fired to home on. 2. Don't count the Russian out in guidance either. I have no idea how they'd do it, but they've surprised us before. After all, we didn't think it was possible to build a SAM with an integral rocket/ramjet engine. Then, in 1973, the Israelis captured some SA-6s. We didn't think you could rework titanium, then the Soviets started building submarines out of them, We didn't think you could build a high speed aircraft mainly out of stainless steel, and then a defector flew a Mig-25 to Japan. Just for what it's worth. Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 11:00:20 ÿÿÿ Subject: re: Stealth carriers I think Ben Rich was probably meaning that there are applications fo sltealth techniques that could be used to reduce the RCS of a carrier, certainly not eliminate it. Of course, those have to be traded off agains the operational needs of the ship. As one person pointed out, though, there is already a warship that has demonstrated stealth capabilities well beyond anything projected by these exotic programs; It's called a submarine. Art Hanley Don't even think, not for a second, That what I said above has anything To do with my employer's position. ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 15:11:42 EDT Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo Art Hanley writes: > can fire more of them. Even in ASW, imagine that Sub A detects Sub B in > whatever manner. Sub B is doing 4 or 5 knots in order to be as silent as > possible. A 200 knot torpedo is going to get there real fast before the targe > sub can move very far. Of course, if the target sub does speed up, it provides > a signal for the second, conventional torpedo that was just fired to home on. But, wouldn't the rocket torpeo be making so much noise that it wouldn't hear the sub? - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: "David \"Scre^2ch\" Prieto" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Cannons Guns still account for approximately 1/3 of all aerial victorys. I think that the gun is still a major weapon in air combat. For ground combat it is also still an effective weapon... ***************************************************************************** David "Scre^2ch" Prieto 14/3 dpriet01@barney.poly.edu screech@cnct.com TIP#814 ***************************************************************************** On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Dean Osgood wrote: > >:: * 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. > Another issue is mission adaptability and flexability. without a cannon of > some sort a combat aircraft cannot provide full support to ground-pounders, > "beat up" a cluster of tanks/trucks , etc. While some may say the day of a > cannon on a fighter aircraft is over, another perspective is that , like a > shotgun, for some "jobs" it is still the "tool of choice". > Dean > > > ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 12:39:24 EST Subject: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. UFO-LIKE secret US aircraft ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` TR1 ~~~The Lockheed TR1 was developed from the old u2, which dated from 1955. It has a single engine and one pilot, and at a length of 103' looks more like a glider than a military aircraft. Amongst the secret gear on board is a synthetic aperture radae system, a device for scanning the ground in high detail. The advance tactical fighter series includes the YF22, YF23 and the F117 Nighthawk. YF22 ~~~~The YF22 prototypes were built by lockheed and tested with Pratt & Whitney and General Electric engines. They are 63' long, about the length of an F-15. This aircraft can cruise for up to an hour at supersonic speed without the use of afterburners. It is shaped like a huge triangular glider. At the tail are four smaller wings, being a pair of tailplanes that give it a clawlike appearance and a pair of slanting rudders. Between the tailplanes is a distinctive zigzag. It carries a long needle nose with structures mounted around it. There has been speculation that the needle nose generates ions that stream out behind the aircraft giving it silent lift. On the front of a prototype is the Logos "YF22" in shadow-writing. If glimpsed from a distance it would appear very "alien". The YF23 ~~~~~~~~~The YF23-a was extensively modified from the YF22. The most striking difference is that there are only two tail surfaces. These fulfill the roles of tailplane and rudder. Computer-controlled, they move independently. The prototypes also carried both Pratt & Whitney amd General Electric motors. Twin square exhausts may be seen at the tail of the aircraft, which is so configured as to conceal the motors from radar. The motors are further apart in a flattened fuselage and the entire craft is 6' longer than the YF22. The aircraft is so light and the motors so powerful that the aircraft can fly upwards to an altitude of 1OO,OOO feet without using its wings. This is the craft I believe I saw. It carries an intense flashing strobe light on the centre of its belly just forward of the leading edge of the wing. When the bomb bay doors are open, this light reflects off them and illuminates the vertical fuselage. I am left wondering why its bomb bay doors were open. Perhaps it carries detection gear, hence the steep cant the aircraft displays as it scans the countryside in flight. Or perhaps it was releasing equally stealthy unmanned mini-aircraft. The weapons it is designed to carry include AIM 120 advanced medium range air to air missles and trusty old a-9 sidewinders. Another unusual feature is the metal frame windscreen, perhaps it is a safety measure or maybe the modificaton is necessary because of the nature of the propulsion system. During rapid maneuvres distinct "vortex" trails are seen from locations about one third of the way in from each wingtip. I wondered if they were not in fact small engines, perhaps using something like the hydrazine propellant used to stabilize spacecraft. A-12 Avenger ~~~~~~~~~~~~~This is an attack aircraft designed for the navy with a view to replacing the A-6 Intruder for carrier-based attack squadrons. It is a pure flying wing similar in design to the Northrop B-2. It would have a very low radar signature and this writer can see no reason why such an aircraft fitted with SRB's could not function as a spacecraft. Officially, the project was cancelled in 1991. F-117 ~~~~~The F-117 Nighthawk has similar characteristics to the above aircraft, including the ultra-light design and ability to travel very slowly. One noteworthy characteristic of the F-117 is its curious noise signature - from the front only a faint whine is heard, while from the rear there is a rumble. The information in this file came from a video called "Stealth" in the Great Fighting Jets series put out by Time/Life [V648-01] available from: Time-Life Video 61 Lavender St Milson's Point NSW Australia 2061. The material came from Military archive and research services of the Museum of like name at Braceborough, Lincolnshire in 1990-91. Producers were Command Vision Limited Box 393 7-11 Britannia Place Bath St St Helier Channel Is. Original sources of the footage provided included several U.S. Government instrumentalities and the various companies involved in the production of these aircraft. Lawrie Williams - --------------------------phial sperator-------------------------- From misc@interport.net Tue Oct 3 06:00:50 1995 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 95 15:49:51 To: FocusUFO-L recipients Subject: ATFs From: Jay.Waller@interport.net On Sat, 30 Sep 95 Paul Carleton wrote: > Perhaps its common knowledge but I'm not familiar with 'YF-22A, YF-23 > and YF-23A'... > Is there a source (preferably on the net) for more information... Paul, The YF-22A, YF-23,and YF-23A were the prototypes for the Air Forces' Advanced Technology Aircraft (ATF) fighter planes. The YF-22 was built by Lockheed and the YF-23s were built by Northrop. The YF-22 was chosen by the Air Force as the next generation fighter (F-22). I'm not familiar with the photos mentioned. Some of the WEB sites that carry aircarft pics will probably have general photos. Regards, Jay [Thank you. / P.C.] - --------------------------nuther pyle sepperattor----------------- From misc@interport.net Wed Oct 4 03:03:46 1995 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 95 13:03:09 To: wlmss@peg.apc.org Subject: Submission declined > From: wlmss@peg.apc.org > Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 21:45:07 +1000 > Subject: UFO-like Secret US Aircraft. Mr. Lawrie Williams: As similar article was previosly posted to FocusUFO-L: >Date: Mon, 02 Oct 95 15:49:51 >Subject: ATFs >From: Jay.Waller >Reply-To: misc@interport.net Thank you for your submission. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 ahanley@banyan.usace.mil wrote: > 1. During WWII, warships weren't particulary slower than they are now, but > torpedoes were. Yet, a lot of ships were sunk by non-guided torpedoes that > were aimed at a ship's projected position. A 200+ knot torpedo is going to do > a lot of damage guided or not, and it's going to be relatively cheap, so you > can fire more of them. Even in ASW, imagine that Sub A detects Sub B in > whatever manner. Sub B is doing 4 or 5 knots in order to be as silent as > possible. A 200 knot torpedo is going to get there real fast before the targe > sub can move very far. Of course, if the target sub does speed up, it provides > a signal for the second, conventional torpedo that was just fired to home on. Good points. I don't believe the 200-knot thing has an antiship role, but it could be devastating employed in that manner (although the range means that you have to crawl under the escort screen...yipes) As for ASW, most of this relies on passive detection, a field in which the Russians have the marked disadvantage. This really hurts when one considers the precision in contact information one needs for an unguided weapon. At any rate, the scenario is that first contact goes to the American (and even in cases when the Russian gets contact first, it won't be enough to shoot on); hence the 200-knot torpedo in a defensive role. Incidentally, the Russian response is interesting. They don't think it's that big of a deal at all, and claim that the June Jane's article on the weapon is merely to boost Western defense budgets since it's that time of year. :) > 2. Don't count the Russian out in guidance either. I have no idea > how they'd do it, but they've surprised us before... To underscore your words, there are reports that work is indeed ongoing on a guided rocket-torpedo. Unquestionably, the Russians have some of the most innovative weapons designs around. If they had the industrial and technology base to support it...well... Just my random thoughts... ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row Worldwide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #460 ********************************* 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).