From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 14 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 461 In this issue: Re: Rocket torpedo re: Cannons Re: Rocket torpedo Re: Chuck Yeager's Comments Re: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. Re: Cannons Re: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. Re: Rocket torpedo Re: Rocket torpedo Operation of the list Proprietary: The Skunk Works Re: Recon requirements Anyone? Re: Cannons Re: Rocket torpedo Help on X-plane info ? 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: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 13:30:07 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo Robin's points are good. I think you could use a rocket torpedo in an anti-ship role, with decent range. In fact, you could sink the escorts first (consider the kinetic energy involved in impacting with a ton and a half projectile with 800 lbs of high explosive and traveling at 200 knots)! Without being too paranoid,we only Assume that because the Soviets liked to use active sonar a lot, they are at a passive disadvantage. It's worthy of note that for the first time in history, the U.S. Navy acknowledges that the Russians have SSNs at sea quieter than our best operational subs (the improved 688 boats). Also, last year a great uproar came about because of an article written published in the US NAVAL INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS by a (ex) Soviet SSN skipper. In relating some of their patrols he described holding track for an extended period on a Los Angeles SSN, while remaining undetected himself. Assuming he wasn't lying, this is not calculated to give our ASW folks a warm fuzzy feeling. I know, I know, this is getting off the list's subject; Maybe it's an Air-Launched torpedo? Art Hanley These views are only my own and do not represent my employer's (Whew! Stayed out of jail again!) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 13:38:02 ÿÿÿ Subject: re: Cannons Here's the real question on cannons on fighters, to my mind: Assuming you'd never be in a situation that you'd have to strafe someone (A big and probably false assumption I'll grant you), which would you rather have for air-to-air: A cannon or: A better radar and/or passive sensors plus at least an additional two of whatever dogfight missile you carry? 'cause that's about the tradeoff in weight, internal structure, vibration dissapation, shell and gas disposal, etc. My 1 1/2 cents 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: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 14:21:03 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo Reply by : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Date : Friday, October 13, 1995 14:20:43 Reply to : , smtp@SPKSYS12@Servers[skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu] Reply: No, the rocket torpedo wouldn't hear the sub, but if you fire a second conventional torpedo behind it, it will home on the sub that is now making noise as it speeds up trying to dodge the rocket torpedo. BTW, for anti-surface use, I'll bet a rocket torpedo would be able to home on a ship's wake if you had teh right guidance system aboard. Art Hanley My employer has nothing to do with anything in this message [except to make me write this] -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- To : From : dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Subject : Re: Rocket torpedo Date : Friday, October 13, 1995 at 12:11:42 pm PDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Chuck Yeager's Comments On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Mary Shafer wrote: > 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. > And he really broke a altitud record in that unauthorize fly??? And then the NF-104 had a accident that burn him out when he ejected??? Or it was another fly... > 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.) Without college education... he is a dawn good pilot... Very precise pilot and he can make the "airplane talk". But as he said: "He is just a man in the right place in the right time..." May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that post, and I usually don't mind forwarded messages, but this one should have been forwarded to a trashcan. Really, not only was it full of orthographical and grammatical errors, but also technical, historical and logical flaws, and did not provide a single piece of useful information. - -- 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Cannons 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. To add something in support of having a cannon in the F-22. After the first days of a war, when the Stealth is no more necessary, the F-22 will have a secondary mission which will carry external weapons. So, there is a risk that a dogfight will happen. Of course, if the enemy airplane still can operate efficiency after the attack... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: UFO-like secret U.S. aircraft. On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that post, and I usually don't > mind forwarded messages, but this one should have been forwarded to a > trashcan. Well you have to admit, the poster stumbled onto our secret, no, make that top secret "Ornithopter": >The aircraft is so light and the motors so powerful that the aircraft >can fly upwards to an altitude of 100,000 feet without using its wings ...of course afterwards it must flap them vigorously... ;-) regards, - -B ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:31:37 -0600 Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo The U.S. Navy acknowledges that the Russians have SSNs at sea quieter than our best operational subs (the improved 688 boats). Dear Art - Simply put...never happen, G.I. Our L.A. class boats were far quiter than any of the Sov Alpha, Victor I, Victor II, November, or Echo blue water SSNs because their screws caused so much cavitation that they sounded like a whale with a belly full of Mexican food. Regards, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + John F. Regus ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + internet: wizard@sccsi.com + internet: STRATACOM_WORLDNET@msn.com + internet: jregus@aol.com + voice : (713) 960 0045 + data : (713) 960 0015 + "Computer Scientist to the Stars" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 16:08:52 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo Dear John, Everything you're saying is true. However, we're not talking about VICTOR I or IIs (or even the III) or any of the other even older boats. We're talking about the newest AKULAs and that follow-on SSN class that is already at sea (I'm sorry, the name escapes me). This has been reported in Defense News and elsewhere, and the USN is reportedly briefing Congress in open sessions that these boats are quieter than our 688Is. Our 688s are magnificent boats but their basic design dates back to the '60s. You can be 20 years ahead of someone, but if you use the same design for 30 years, they catch up. I doubt if these new boats are as quiet as the SEAWOLF or CENTURION (or whatever they're calling it this month), but no SEAWOLFS are in service and we haven't even finished designing the other one yet. As my old Chief used to remind me (when he wasn't yelling, "You did WHAT, Hanley??!!!"), there's a danger in getting complacent by believing, "They best they have isn't as good as what we haven't got". This was usually followed by another, "You did WHAT...". Art Hanley Despite all appearances to the Contrary, my employers have nothing to do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 16:16:36 ÿÿÿ Subject: Operation of the list Here's a couple of operational questions from the new guy.. 1. Does anyone know how to set mailings from this list to "Digest"? When I'm away from the office I find this list fills up my mailbox real fast and I'd rather just read what I missed as one message and set it back to interactive when I return. The Listserv doesn't seem to recognize the QUERY or SET commands. 2. Speaking of Digests, does anyone know why I can't ftp the latest ones so I can catch up? I can view them remotely, but they won't come over. Not a problem with the older ones? 3. Out of idle curiosity, what is that other skunk-works address I see o some people's posts? 4. Where should I really be asking these questions so I don't bore everybody? thanks in advance Art Hanley These views are only my own and do not represent my employer's (Whew! Stayed out of jail again!) ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:11:57 Subject: Proprietary: The Skunk Works As an annual subscriber to a So. Cal. Fictitious Business Name index on cd-rom, I receive quarterly updates. I just received my Summer 1995, installed it and ran it through it paces. For fun I put in Lockheed as owner and got the following business names not previously filed. The Skunk Works, owner-Lockheed Corporation Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, owner-Lockheed Corporation Lockheed Martin Systems, owner-Lockheed Systems Company, Inc. Lockheed Martin Services, owner-Lockheed Services Company, Inc. Lockheed Martin Technical Operations, owner-Lockheed Technical Operations The filings were done May and June 1995. By filing the fictitious names the owners secure some protection against use by other individuals or corporations in the county where they were filed. The filings were obviously initiated after the merger. Byron ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 16:37:36 EST Subject: Re: Recon requirements In 1977 I was the signal officer of the intelligence group at XVIII Airborne Corps. One of the exercises which I supported had our imagery interpreters (and their communicators) in the field at Ft Hood, TX. During that exercise we did an evaluation of SR-71 imagery for use in ground operations planning. It was very educational. I learned more about the SR-71 than I ever thought I would be privy to. The bottom line of our evaluation was that, from a ground tactical viewpoint, SR-71 imagery was great stuff ... for historical purposes. It just wasn't timely enough for operations planning. That said, I support the reactivation. I can foresee many scenarios where its flexibility could make the difference. And, as a soldier, I have a tremendous reluctance to put all my eggs in one basket. Bill Riddle ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Recon requirements Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 10/13/95 12:22 PM 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: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:47:43 Subject: Anyone? Help! Working on a project (slightly off topic, sorry), but does anyone know of an aerospace historian named Curtis Peebles? I contacted Berkley Publishing in New York after reading one of his books, asking for biographical info. The editor said they had none. The book was previously published by the Smithsonian. The editor's only explanation for having no information was "he only did one book for us." Anyone who's tried to publish a book knows the publisher usually requires the life history of the author and touts his or her accomplishments. He believes he lives in California, but wasnt positive. The book was written by a pro, well educated based on its logical format and very complete Source Notes and Index. Anyone? Thanks Byron ------------------------------ From: hoar@agdis01.newark.af.mil ( Stephen Hoar) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 22:27:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Cannons Here we are 30+ years later and the gun debate again surfaces. Remember how the F-4 firstcame out without guns or cannons? Even back then the rationale was that since missiles had become so good with such long ranges that guns were no longer necessary. Wars and weaponry are not perfectly predictable. If anything, we must be ready for the unpredictable. As we cannot predict all the uses to which the aircraft might be put, lets not limit its capabilities. Steve in Newark L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R In your message of 13 Oct 1995 at 1622 EDT, you write: > > 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: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Rocket torpedo On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 ahanley@banyan.usace.mil wrote: > Everything you're saying is true. However, we're not talking about > VICTOR I or IIs (or even the III) or any of the other even older > boats. We're talking about the newest AKULAs and that follow-on SSN > class that is already at sea (I'm sorry, the name escapes me). Minor nit: the boats at sea are in fact the latest Akulas, some of which may now be classified as Akula II (I think that the hull is lengthened on the IIs, but there may be "improved Akulas" based on the old hulls...wasn't sure whether the Navy release referred to one or the other.) The follow-on is Severodvinsk, and she's still at the Sevmash yard, nowhere near completion. Scheduled commissioning is at the turn of the century -- this one is something to watch, since it has been modeled to be quieter than Seawolf in certain areas of the acoustic regime. Exactly how quiet she will be is a matter of debate in some areas -- critics say that naval intelligence is skewing the estimate to push Seawolf/NSSN, and some experts fear that the quieting curve is going to continue to drop as it did between Victor-III and Akula II (that was a pretty steep segment of the curve). This is particularly true since Severodvinsk is of slightly newer design than Seawolf. (Of course, whether Severodvinsk is going to commission on time is another question. Keep in mind that one of these wonderful Akula-IIs (which are quieter than 688Is) was barricaded in the yard two months ago by angry shipyard workers who hadn't been paid in four months...) ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com State of the Russian Navy Data Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: HMURDOCH@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:27:21 -0400 Subject: Help on X-plane info ? I don't know if this is off-charter for this group - if anyone knows of a more appropriate list, please e-mail me and I'll try there. In the meantime, I'm looking for information on "X"-vehicles, such as the X-15, X-31, etc. and figure someone on this list probably knows where I can find it. I'm trying to find the definitive word on how many of each series were built, and how many were damaged or destroyed during their flight test programs. For example, I believe there were 2 X-31's built, and one lost in an accident. I think there may have been 3 X-15's built with one destroyed, one moderately damaged in a landing accident, etc. Please forward any information of this sort to me at my e-mail address - and especially the addresses of any newsgroups or Web sites that might have more details on the various programs. I need the information in the near future in order to prepare arguments for increasing the funding for an X program sufficiently to allow building more than one flying vehicle - the better to avoid disaster in case that vehicle should meet with an 'anomaly'. Reply to : hmurdoch@aol.com Thanks. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #461 ********************************* 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).