From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #517 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 21 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 517 In this issue: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Air Force News Service Re: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Air Force News Flying Wings Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #516 RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 Re: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 AW&ST November 13, 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: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 05:55:35 -0500 Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 > >> From what I've heard on this incident, the mystery plane was most probably >> a F-111 with its wings swept. The planes were probably not line abreast, >> but one refueling with the other 2 at a lower flight level, but next to >> each other. This isn't an odd formation. >> >Although I'm not an expert on F-111s, it seems unlikely that a F-111 would >attempt refueling with wings in the swept position. At the relatively slower >speeds at which refueling is done, a wing swept configuration would seem to >be inappropriate, if not impossible. Also, the posting seems to infer that >the two "identified" a/c were F-111s with wings swept forward. This in itself >would suggest that the "proper" configuration for F-111s refueling is in the >swept forward position... Could the F-111 have been experiencing wing positioning problems, (I'm just guessing). What is the slowest that a F-111 can fly with the wings in the swept back position? Perhaps someone else has that info (Hello Art Hanley.......!). Later, John Stone | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@iglou.com U-2 and SR-71 Web Page http://wl.iglou.com/blackbird/ ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:28:40 Subject: Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Clyde wrote: >I'm also sorry to see it dwindling to almost nothing since >advanced research detracts from near term profits, and thus >impacts stock prices. Only wild-cat businesses, such as >pharmaceuticals, which can reap fantastic returns seem to be >keeping their R&D healthy. Sad. It's the same sad story in the UK. Every day I talk to engineers and scientists who can't get funding for their projects, because the 'suits' on the top floor often know more about accountancy than engineering. Doesn't seem to be such a problem in Germany and Japan, where money men have their input of course..but they don't have the omnipotence that usually causes the inertia you describe...can we draw any conclusion ? There aren't enough Johnsons and Richs out there..I wonder how the SW approach this short-termism pressure from 'suits ?'..I can imagine what Kelly would have said to them :) Best D ------------------------------ From: Daga1@aol.com Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:47:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Okay, I don't know if I should get involved in this one or not. Here goes: When you use the word "decisive" do you mean to imply that air power must be judged by whether is can attain victory all by itself, without any collateral support from other forces? Assuming we are speaking of conventional forces, who is proposing this? So far as I know, miltary planners view air power as a vitally important element within an integrated force structure. It's effectiveness must be viewed within this context, and, with the understanding that the machines, no matter how well designed and built, fly at the direction of human beings who are subject not only to misjudgement, but also, to the concerted efforts of an enemy to confuse them. Such fallibility carries through to all elements of a military force structure, including ground combat soldiers and their leaders. This is an old argument, and not one we are likely to solve anytime soon. I doubt, however, that you would want to be engaged in ground combat with a enemy that has the benefit of tactical air support while purposefully denying your own troops the same advantage. Nor would you want to engage fresh divisions of an enemy knowing that other branches of your force structure could have weakened them before they got to the battlefield to fight you, but didn't. Consider, as just one example, just how decisive the Israeli Air Force was to the overall campaign in 1982 when IDF ground troops were getting into serious trouble with the Syrian army; the conflict in that theater was decided in a matter of hours. Was air power decisive there? But in that case, as in all others, the outcome was determined by the quality of planning and decision-making. With hindsight, it is easy to say that, well, those B-17's, B-29's and P-38's ( :) ) were ineffective because German production was higher at the end of the war then it was in the beginning. Let's not forget that there were other factors at play -- like, to paraphrase Moriarity: "A war has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind (especially when it's your country about to be burned, and there all these homicidal NAZIs running around 'motivating' people)"; and, also, it's perhaps a bit too easy to criticize the potential of the strategic air arm of a campaign (just 40 years after the invention of the airplane) when military planners decided on a bias towards the wrong targets -- the production of bullets at the end of the war by Germany may have been up, but their production of petroleum products was, well -- empty. Had the allied air forces concentrated more heavily on POL facilities, and less on ball bearing plants, we might have had a different calandar of events. (For those concerned, I do not mean to suggest that I have forgotten or that I want to minimize the contribution of those flyers who struggled and died over Romania and other fields -- it was clear that planners wanted to hit these sites from the outset of the war, but it is also clear that later planning favored war production facilities and cities.) Let us agree on this, though: There was that one clearly decisive air campaign in 1945. To speculate that such a camapign a few years earlier might not have achieved the same result seems rather unproductive to me. We can come to our own conclusions, but neither of us could prove our theories. What we have is the fact that the campaign that was, had, shall we say, a direct and positive causal relationship with the intended result. In other words: It worked. Andy ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 06:02:09 PST Subject: Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE This makes good technospeculation, but doesn`t make much sense in reality. The biggest problem turbulence creates is that purturbations in the flow which cause the flow along a surface (such as a wing skin) to transition from laminar to turbulent. The momentum flux acoss the turbulent boundary layer, naturally, results in higher drag, since the air`s momentum is changed from linear to angular. Any movement of the surface, such as vibration, will add energy to the flow. A good experiment to try if you are at university would be to go to a Reynold`s pipe, get the flow just transitional, and put you Walkman headphones on the pipe, near the entrance. Turn up the volume and see what happens........ Anyway. in aerodynamics nothing is free. If you moved part of the surface to control the boundary layer of one differential section, you negatively affect the ajoining sections . You would have to rotate the flow somehow. This is exactly what vortex panel methods teach (hopefully). The only way to control the boundary layer is to take energy from it. If you make the wing a sink it will stay pretty darn laminar! Suction is the only method I`ve ever seen work. Problem is the weight, complexity, and sucked in bugs don`t make up for the performance gain. If you could come up with nearly instantaneous cooling you could divide the wing into little refrigeration cells and cool the flow to sink it, but that would be a pretty neat engineering trick! In the real world, you`ll do a lot better just doing two things. 1) come up with methods to keep the wings as smooth and clean as possible. 2) come up with materials and methods which allow higher aspect ratios for low speed craft (M<0.65). Notice how steps 1 and 2 are SOP for sailplanes. Intersting, it is the apsect ratio more than the airfoil choice which affects L/D on sailplanes. The airfoil selection seems to more affect "handling" than performance. Chuck PS learned much about VISTA controls this weekend. I will entertain questions, but don`t feel comfy openly posting some of the stuff. BTW- if you are thinking about a career change, the VISTA pilots cost $2000/Hr. Not bad, the A/C costs $16000/hr to fly. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 06:13:03 PST Subject: Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 The effectiveness of air power depends on the severity of the confrontation. If yu really get down it will be ICBM`s and boomers that make the difference! Chuck ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 9:53:37 EST Subject: Air Force News Service One other point we should consider is that this article is going to be slightly biased. I fully expect it to be. After all, it's the AIR FORCE NEWS. They're going to write up a news letter and distribute it to give their people incentive and pride. I wouldn't expect to see anything of this nature in the Navy News Service. They will write their article and point out the relevant information. No offense meant to anyone, this is just my $0.02. - -- 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 Windle Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:03:59 Subject: Re: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 John wrote: >Could the F-111 have been experiencing wing positioning problems, (I'm just >guessing). No it couldn't John. The reason I say this is that in 'clean' config, the F-111 does not make a perfect black,isoceles triangle, which is what Chris saw. We must bear in mind that he wasn't looking for a secret a/c..he was just looking up at the sky and saw what he saw. He's as perplexed as the rest of us last time I spoke to him, which was last year when researching an Aurora update story...Bill Sweetman was good enough to give me his number and Chris put up with the sort of questions that he's been asked before, along the 'Come on..are you SURE you saw what you saw..couldn't it have been..' lines. As I said, he's a very informed, pragmatic witness. Thanks to everyone who answered my re-fuelling pattern question. We're talking about more than a/c with these triangular sightings. But the UK angle bugs me..Nevada yes..but why here..it's so open ? Best D ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:35:12 Subject: Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Chuck Thanks for your detailed comments on the micro-flap idea for turbulence control...I'll pass them on to the Professor who's conducting the research programmes. How do you feel about MCD/NASA BWB Commercial Flying Wing programme where they intend to ingest the boundary layer into the engines ? In case anyone doesn't know what the BWB programme is...it's a design proposal for a Very Large Passenger a/c..around 800 seats, with a Blended Wing Body. I think NASA Advanced Projects Home Page has details. Thanks again for your input. Best D ------------------------------ From: Bob Clements Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 09:55:06 -0500 Subject: Air Force News - -- [ From: Bob Clements * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- After 40 years in the Air Force, from the bottom to near to the top, I always thought it was a joint effort. The decisiveness came when people stopped getting killed and peace prevailed. One of my best buddies was the director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Whenever I went to see him, on official duty, I was always impressed with the diversity of uniforms, the full significance of joint planning and that I was part of a great team filled with common resolve to do but one thing....... win the war. Just my .02 cents check6 Bob B/Gen USAF (ret) - -- B/G USAF (ret) "there are no fighter pilots down in hell" ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:32:51 PST Subject: Flying Wings Yep, Flying wings are my private passion. Perhaps you will also point your professor to my homepage. I have added a brief historical essay explaining the range controversy of the flying wings. It proves out that, for large aircraft, the convential design is about 25% more efficient. I have listed several resources and papers, two of them by Northrop people. check it out! (http://www.vivanet.com/"csmith9/index.html) I could get into details but remember, for a tailless aircraft, Cl of alpha must be negative and that goes opposite all conventional airfoils. What your prof. is doing is quite likely valid scientific research, but the difference between science and engineering is that the engineer is usually handcuffed by the constraints of practicality. and economics. (I`m sure this is why the Wright Brothers were homebuilders!!) About boundary layer.... Suction is as old as I am. There have been numerous protoypes built and flown, but no practical system yet. If you are a pilot or mechanic you know aircraft spend 99.9 % of the time covered with dust, raindrops, birdshit, leaves, grease, mud, bugs.... etc. The polished pictures are for "buffs" (and a few sailplanes and racers.) Boundary layer control needs a surface as clean as my bank account. Aircraft and cleanliness don`t go together very well. Its been the problem since day one. The coolest thing would be 1) engine intakes through wing skins. 2) exhaust out TE, steerable. ( a jet of air works just as well as a control surface, better actually.-see the NACA films on this) BUT- (1) Overall loss of efficiency because no diffuser effect, -> loss of compression and lower TSFC. 2) Engine out performance seriously impared? :-) -Probably a weight thing, I should think. (BTW this is why airliners have several small flaps instead of one big one. The "jets" of air leaving one help the next. The hottest boundary layer control stuff is not on airplanes, but race cars. Check it out. What seems to work best to date is to intentionally trip the flow, but with the induced vorticity normal to the surface. This results is angular momentum, but slows the boundary layer growth and hence the momentum flux. Chuck ------------------------------ From: joe.sylvester@ti.com (Joe Sylvester) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 12:48:49 CST Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #516 > > >From: "Terry Colvin" >Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 11:12:51 EST >Subject: Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 > > > >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Air Force News Service 15nov95 >Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 >Date: 11/17/95 2:08 PM >Douglas J. Tiffany posted the following > > > I received this from the Air Force News Service today: >> "... those who fly the sleek, black bomber say critics are forgetting > > that, like the bombers that brought the Third Reich and Japan to > > their knees in World War II..." > > To which I must respond "Pardon me while I puke." > > The Strategic Bombing surveys proved, to anyone not wearing an AF blue > uniform, that this is not true. One need only consider the fact that > German war production was higher at the end of the war than it was at > the beginning. > > The bombers were important, but not decisive. The infantryman and his > rifle was the decisive weapon system in WWII, not the B-17 or B-29. > In spite of all the claims, there has only been ONE decisive bombing > campaign, and that one consisted of only two missions: Hiroshima and > Nagasaki. And even that one was dependent on the infantryman to > provide the necessary bases. Also, I wonder if it would have been as > decisive in 1942 as it was in 1945? > > > > Bill Riddle > Army Aviator (Retired) and > Graduate of the Ft Benning School for Boys > > Except that all those folks manning the flak batteries and makeing Me's and FW's weren't shooting at the guys with the M1's. Nor were those in the A/C works making panzerfaust. It takes a team to win a war, not just guys wearing green. Even the squids occasionaly contribute. :) In fact I would say that the submarine's contributed much more the defeat of Japan than the B-29s ever hoped to, except Enola Gay and Bock's Car of course. I would also mention that the Desert Storm air action lasted alot longer than the ground war. Would this have been the case if the air war hadn't severly weakend the bad guys before the ground war began? The opinions above are mine alone. Joe Sylvester USAFR(ret) - -- Joe Sylvester Phone 214/956-6579 (@Love Field Temporarily) Texas Instruments ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 12:57:39 ÿÿÿ Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 John Stone: I'm not that knowledgeable about F-111s in particular, but I would imagine that the principles are similar to the F-14, of which I'm somewhat more knowledgeable. A Tomcat can refuel with the wings full aft, in fact it can land on a carrier that way, it's not considered a mandatory go to the beach situation. As the wings sweep aft drag goes down but stall speed goes up (as you approach a delta wing), but you also start losing the ability to use trailing edge lift devices. This means flying at a higher angle of attack than normal for lower speeds where the wing would ordinarily be swept more forward, and admittedly higher stall speeds. A Tomcat or Aardvaark would be capable of refueling with the wings fully aft, because even though the stall speed would have risen, you'd still be above that when refueling from a KC-135. It would be trickier, because you'd have lost use of some of your control surfaces, but within the envelope. Obviously I didn't see what the observers saw, but didn't they remark that the aircraft being refueled appear to be somewhat larger that the F-111s? Here's another interesting thought: I mentioned last week that the Northrop-MDD plan for a Navy ATF may have been variable sweep. It has been brought to my attention that the final configuration of this bird would have been a canard-equipped delta. Now, like many people who have heard of this incident and seen the artists' concepts I assumed that we were really seeing (if this aircraft is also the "A-17" that supposedly crashed last year) was a variable sweep aircraft with the wings swept aft. However, if canard configuration was involved, this aircraft really could be a delta, with the canard not being that noticeable from the angle from which the operation was observed. Art Hanley Despite what you might want to Believe, none of any of the above Even remotely has anything to do With my employer. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 13:05:10 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 David: Just read your post. Regarding why UK, why not? Would depend how far along whatever it was is in development, or maybe even in service. Also, if there had been some kind of malfunction, maybe there was a need to refuel it so that it wouldn't be necessary to land early (which would make it a Lot more visible). Art Hanley My employer has nothing to do with anything in this message [except to make me write this] ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 18:28:14 -0600 Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 On 21 Nov 95 ahanley@usace.mil shaped the electrons to say: Tomcat can refuel with the wings full aft, in fact it can land on a carrier that way, it's not considered a mandatory go to the beach situation. As the wings sweep aft drag goes down but stall speed goes up (as you approach a delta wing), but you also start losing the ability to use trailing edge lift devices. This means flying at a higher angle of attack than normal for lower speeds where the wing would ordinarily be swept more forward, and admittedly higher stall speeds. A Tomcat or Aardvaark would be capable of refueling with the wings fully aft, because even though the stall speed would have risen, you'd still be above that when refueling from a KC-135. It would be trickier, because you'd have lost use of some of your control surfaces, but within the envelope. Art - If the wings were swept, thus reducing the amount of control surface available, wouldn't this mean the aircraft was having some difficulty and if this is true, why would any other aircraft want to be on both sides of it during a re-fueling maneuver, rather than some place where they could get out of the way in case the plane started to get weird? Does anyone remember the dimensions of the aircraft sighted? If memory serves me correctly, it was much larger than the two other planes. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + John F. Regus + SYS/370/390 SYSTEMS SOFTWARE ENGINEERING ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + internet: wizard@sccsi.com + internet: jregus@aol.com + voice : (713) 960 0045 + data : (713) 960 0015 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:54:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: AW&ST November 13, 1995 INDUSTRY OUTLOOK, page 13: ========================== Three interesting paragraphs: * The Fractal Pixon Basis image restoration and reconstruction technique, which allows optimal image extraction. Performance in astronomical imaging trials indicates three times greater resolution and a sensitivity improvement of as much as two magnitudes over previous methods. * A new 1.8-Teraflops-capable supercomputer, consisting of 9,072 parallel P6 processors, was built by Intel for the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, for $46 million. [Good job, Larry :)] * A novel carbon foam material has been developed by Ultramet Inc., Pacoima, CA, which has application as insulation, re-entry protection and others. NEWS BREAKS, page 17: ===================== "U.S. Air Force researchers are considering using Boeing 747s fitted with a classified new radar developed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency to find targets for its proposed fleet of airborne laser aircraft. Quizzed about the concept, Gen. Joe Ralston, head of Air Combat Command, agreed that ABL needs some kind of cuing, but much of the data could be provided by satellite- mounted sensors, he said. However, "I wouldn't rule [airborne platforms] out, but neither would I say that it's a requirement," he said. Researchers said the sensor could be placed on board wide-body aircraft at a cost of about $500 million per system or for considerably less on tethered balloons, a low cost technology that won the support of Adm. William Owens, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Aerostat supporters worry, however, that enthusiasm for the balloons will wane when Owens retires next year." "A two week suspension of NASA's X-34 program was lifted Nov. 3 after one day at "encouragement" of the White House. NASA and contractors Orbital Science and Rockwell were still trying to iron out a dispute last week over a contractor demand that the reusable winged booster use Rocketdyne's RS-27 engine instead of the Russian RD-120 originally planned." WASHINGTON OUTLOOK, page 19: ============================ "Stall Speed Indicator: The Pentagon's short-range and low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs are in disarray and stalled. In an attempt to start anew, Pentagon Acquisition chief Paul Kaminski is to be briefed Nov. 22 on the renamed Tactical UAV program. Kaminski may dub the program an advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), clearing the way to build and field a small number of the UAVs for operational evaluation and use. Key members of the successful, long-endurance Predator UAV program will take on responsibility for the tactical project. Both the Army and Navy need an inexpensive UAV, but their requirements are wildly different. The Army only needs about a 30-mi. range, while the Navy requires 165-mi. A Navy UAV also would have to fly up to 25,000 ft. to preserve line-to-sight communications which, in turn, would require a bigger, more expensive camera. Program officials are quizzing industry to see what can be bought for $300,000, but insiders worry that the new Navy needs could drive the UAV's cost into the $750,000-$900,000 range." "One Stop Shopping: A new Central Imagery and Mapping Agency may be unveiled as early as this week by Defense Secretary William Perry and CIA director John Deutch. The new agency would consolidate all imagery collection, analysis and distribution activities under one roof. The work is now handled by myriad defense and intelligence agencies, such as the Defense Mapping Agency and the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. The consolidation plans call for the new agency to be run by a three-star general with two deputies, one from the DMA." HOUSE, SENATE AT ODDS OVER INTEL SMALLSATS, pages 24-25: ======================================================== While most defense contractors say that smallsats (for reconnaissance and intelligence purposes) are still four to six years away, and may never be able to replace the big, expensive, multi-purpose spacecrafts used now, the House Intelligence Committee wants to order the NRO to develop smaller, cheaper and less sophisticated satellites. One argument for the smallsats is their lower cost ($240-250 million for development, with half of that for a recurring unit cost versus $1 billion for current satellites -- excluding the development costs), another the faster technology turnaround of maybe 24-48 months, commpared to current development cycles of five to ten years. RUSSIAN SPACE MISSIONS READIED, page 26: ======================================== Russia's space launches decline, from 43 in 1993 (Jan. 1 to Nov. 9) to 35 in 1994 (same time frame), and 27 during this year. Currently operating Russian intelligence spacecraft are: * two digital imaging satellites, 1 of which is Cosmos 2,320, launched Sep. 29, 1995, the other was launched over a year ago; * two Eorsat elint ocean surveillance spacecraft; * three or four operational advanced broad-area elint satellites, including the newest one, Cosmos 2,322, which was launched on Oct. 31, 1995, by a large SL-16 Zenit booster from Baikonur; * Only two film-return photographic reconnaissance satellites were launched this year, and the most recent one, Cosmos 2,314, was returned on Sept. 6, 1995, after a 70 day flight; LIDAR SYSTEM TO DETECT BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS, page 44: ========================================================== LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) and LNL (Livermore National Laboratory) are developing an airborne lidar system to detect BW (biological warfare) agents on a battlefield at ranges up to 100 km (60 miles). The system will be placed in standard Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. Two prototypes and seven operational CP (Counter-Proliferation) systems are planned. LANL develops the system, and Livermore is developing the eye-safe 1.5-micron, 100 Hz pulsed, 0.5 joule per pulse laser. A 1,000 lb. prototype system using a commercial 1.06-micron laser and Sun workstations was testflown on an UH-60 over the Army's Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, and demonstrated the detection of aerosols at a range of 53 km (33 miles). A ground-based Biological Identification System will be carried by a Humvee. GROUND FACILITY TESTS MISSILE SEEKER AT MACH 15, pages 46-47: ============================================================= The CUBRC (Calspan-University of Bufalo Research Center, NY) operated LENS (Large Energy National Shock tunnel) has tested an IR (InfraRed) seeker head for McDonnell Douglas under the US Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command AIT (Airborne Interceptor Technology) program. Lens is the only realistic ground-based test facility for hyper velocity tests, simulating not only the high speeds, but also the high temperatures, high pressure, chemical reactions and turbolent flow, even so only for about 10 milliseconds. Lockheed Martin is also working on the ATI program, and their seeker will be tested in Lens early next year. A full-size scram jet engine was previously tested under conditions resembling 100,000 ft. altitude and a speed of Mach 12. FILTER CENTER, page 47: ======================= "Litton Data Systems is developing a low-cost, optical processor-based target recognition system to be used with an airborne laser radar in smart weapons. The configuration is based on ring laser gyro technology, and uses two specialized digital signal processing chips to prepare data for the optical correlation. The optical correlator performs the equivalent of 10 giga ops in a 0.15-cu.-ft. unit weighing less than 5 lb. and consuming about 100 w. Using pattern recognition techniques, it can operate with any imaging sensor, according to Litton. Flight tests with a Loral Vought laser radar are slated at Eglin AFB (Fla.), in the winter of 1997-98. A future company goal is an optical processor target recognition system that will perform a trillion operations per second and sell for about $10,000 per unit, in quantities." Recon/Optical Inc. commercial on page 48: ========================================= Advertising their KS-87 Electro-Optical camera system, currently tested on ANG F-16s. X-33 RISKS CITED, page 66: ========================== All three of NASA's X-33 industry partners, LMSC (Lockheed Martin Skunk Works), MDC (McDonnell Douglas Corporation) and RSSD (Rockwell's Space Systems Division) say that it is very risky to only build one X-33 SSTO technology demonstrator, especially without funding reserves for mistakes or delays. For them the most pressing issue is not the technology, but how much money the government is willing to invest in an operational RLV. The concepts calls for a private sector sponsored development of an RLV starting in 2000, after X-33 test flights are conducted, which would start for its own test flights in 2004 and would enter service nine month later. LMSW's president Jack S. Gordon estimates the cost at $5 billion, MDC's chief of new space and defense programs Charles A. Ordahl figures $8 billion, while RSSD's president Robert G. Minor belives the project could be privately financed if the cost stays below $10 billion for development an about $20 million per flight. Ray Williamson of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute estimates $6-12 billion. PREDATOR BOUND FOR BOSNIA SOON, pages 72-73: ============================================ Last week, the three remaining of the five originally deployed Tier 2 Predator UAVs came back to the El Mirage, CA, facility from their deployment to Albania. The UAVs flew 80 missions and 750 hours during the 120-day deployment, during which one was shot down, while another crashed after an engine failure. The intelligence data gathered by those flights were not only provided to NATO for their planning of strikes on Bosnian Serb targets, but also to the Croat-Muslim government coalition, for their major offensive. The basic aircraft cost about $1.5 million each, and when equipped with the new SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) goes for about $3.2 million. While the USAF is lobbying to get the remaining 8 Predators (and probably 2 attrition replacements) as soon as possible to equip their newly formed 11th RS (Reconnaissance Squadron), the Predator team wants to test first the SAR and continue the current ACTD (Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration) program until it runs out in June. Late last week, Predator program officials gave a demonstration of the UAV's capabilities at Ft. Huachuca, AZ, to a group of allied military officials representing Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Egypt, Germany, Israel, Italy and the Netherlands. The SAR-equipped Predators may return to Bosnia in February, when the weather will be better, and may be stationed at Tuzla, Bosnia, or Zagreb, Croatia, where also the CIA-operated Tier 1 (Gnat 750s) were based. The program is currently under the aegis of the UAV JPO (Joint Projects Office) and the DARO (Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office), while future acquisitions of UAVs will be controlled by the ASC (Aeronautical Systems Center) at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH, which just recently established the Joint Endurance UAV SPO (Systems Project Office) under their RASG (Reconnaissance Aircraft Systems Group). The LMSW Tier 3- DarkStar program is apparently experiencing some problems which led to personnel changes. The taxi tests, which were originally planned for July/August, are re-scheduled for December, with the delayed first flight now expected by February 1996. - -- 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 #517 ********************************* 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).