From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #612 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 1 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 612 In this issue: Re: Flying wing range and drag. Re: Self-destruct devices Re: Flying wing range and drag. Re: Self-destruct devices Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-tech Another interesting Press Release Re Tonapah base(?) Re: Self-destruct devices RE: self-distruct devices Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #610 RAF [ATC] Report Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-t Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo Friday WINGS 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: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 14:24:25 MET Subject: Re: Flying wing range and drag. >And for more controversy: >After talking with friends, reveiwing data, and pushing the pencil >around... >I`m going on record as saying it appears that the B2 is a descendant >not of the Northrop XB/YB/YRB program - but of the Horton >jet powered flying wings. I`ve even had three people offer up an >opinion the the F117 is derived from the same lineage after I bounced >the idea off them. > >What it appears to me is the B2 is based on Horton planforms with the >"scoop" rudders replaced by the spit airbrakes ala Northrop. i.e., a >"traditional" Northrop control system. >Charles E. Smith (Thu, 1 Feb 1996 04:18:20 PST) Is it Horton, William (USA) or Horten, Walter and Reimar (Germany) ? The Ho IX - 1944 - the first combat-intended Horten design, was jet powered (Junkers Jumo 004B's), with metal frame and plywood exterior (due to wartime shortages). First flew in January 1945 (BaDge, thanks!). The William Horton's plane I know of flew only during 20 minutes on September 29, 1954, and was not jet powered. But maybe this Horton built other planes ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: jgregor@bitbucket.engr.sgi.com (John Gregor) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 05:46:58 -0800 Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices > On a different tack, I've been thinking recently, if an IR linescan can > show you where recently departed aircraft have been parked from the > slight temperature difference of the tarmac, then an imaging IR seeker > should have no trouble locking-on to a stealth plane, no matter how > diffuse the jet efflux is. Some of the Russian AAMs especially have the > body diameter to accommodate a really large imaging seeker, enabling > lock-on at fairly long range. What do you think, is this a valid > approach or not? > > Adrian Brown (92913938@mmu.ac.uk) Seat of the pants mode... The nose of a missile gets pretty warm. Warm enough that an ultra-sensitive IR seeker would be overwhelmed by the IR glow in the optics and the boundary layer air. You could possibly chill the optics with enough power or a big enough heat sink (like a few liters of LN2), but your S/N would still be crummy. - -JohnG ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 15:50:31 MET Subject: Re: Flying wing range and drag. More info on the Horten wing(s) can be found at: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html It begins like that: "The Gotha Go229 was the first turbojet-driven warplane of pure flying wing configuration. Although flown for the first time in 1945, the aircraft looks surprisingly modern --- almost like a small version of the Northrop B-2 stealth bomber". A photo of (probably) the same plane is at: http://torgo.astro.ucla.edu/JetsHTML/ho229.html J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:10:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices There are less aggressive methods for protecting secret electronics devices than blowing them up. One that springs to mind was employed by Audio Research (a high-end audio products manufacturer) to protect the secret of its first solid state devices. The circuits were packaged so that any attempt to open the devices, released acid that erased the circuits within. The advantages of this passive protection over active (and dangerous) devices that have to be triggered are obvious. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:45:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-tech And another fascinating press release, I stumbled across -- not really skunky, but... :) - -- Andreas Whittaker Corporation "Electronic Umbrella" to protect U.S. Army soldiers deployed in Bosnia; electronic system will automatically provide silent and invisible protective shield against attack by enemy artillery and mortar shells fitted with proximity fuses SIMI VALLEY, Calif. -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Jan. 30, 1996 -- U.S. soldiers and equipment deployed in Bosnia will be protected from enemy artillery and mortar shells employing proximity fuses by an "electronic umbrella," which detects and prematurely detonates the weapons during flight rendering them virtually harmless. This is the first time in the history of warfare that a system of this type has been used. The U.S. Army will position the electronic countermeasures units throughout Bosnia with the 20,000 U.S. forces stationed in the country as part of the NATO peacekeeping effort. Developed by Whittaker Corporation (NYSE:WKR) here, the portable and silent system dubbed Shortstop is "a life saving system" which is virtually 100 percent effective against artillery and mortar shells fitted with proximity fuses. Whittaker built the Shortstop system for the U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (PEO-IEW), Fort Monmouth, N.J., during the Gulf War in response to the then massive artillery threat posed by Iraqi forces; however, the Gulf War ended and Shortstop was not deployed. Artillery and mortar weapons were used extensively by all sides during the Balkans War. It is estimated that deployment of the Shortstop system could reduce casualties to ground troops by as much as 50 percent or more during the initial stages of an enemy attack. The U.S. Army has plans to mobilize and position the Shortstop systems in various locations throughout Bosnia. They will be used to protect U.S. forces as well as to shield airfields, command posts, barracks, and other facilities against enemy artillery and mortar attacks. "Whittaker is proud to provide our American forces in Bosnia with a system that will give them protection against these types of weapons," said Thomas A. Brancati, Whittaker's president and chief executive officer. "Shortstop is a one of a kind electronic survivability system designed to save lives on the battlefield. It can automatically detect and defeat a wide range of weapons, protecting our soldiers in ways that we never envisioned." Packaged in a suitcase-size enclosure and fitted with a small multi- directional antenna, the Shortstop system can be activated and operational within seconds. A single Shortstop system can protect against single shot or barrage attacks. The system's passive electronics and operational features make it impervious to detection by enemy signal intelligence sensors. "The Army's Shortstop system will provide our soldiers in Bosnia with an added level of security that was never dreamed possible should they come under artillery fire," said Brig. Gen. David Gust, program executive officer for Intelligence and Electronic Warfare for the Department of the Army. "While it is our hope that American forces do not come under attack, based on extensive testing against many types of proximity fused weapons, we have confidence in the ability of the Shortstop system to defeat an attack thus deterring that possibility," Gust added. Tests against more than 5,000 live artillery and mortar rounds were conducted by the U.S. Army since 1991 proving the system essentially foolproof and 100 percent effective and reliable against selected weapons. Of the millions of artillery and mortar shells in service worldwide today, the greatest threat to soldiers and vehicles are those fitted with proximity fuses. As the name denotes, proximity fuse weapons are programmed to explode several feet above the ground to gain maximum damage. Utilizing Shortstop the weapon is detonated many meters above and away from the intended target. Weighing about 100 pounds, the Shortstop system is operated by battery or remote power and may be positioned in a fixed location or on military vehicles such as HMMWVs, trucks, and armored personnel carriers. Shortstop systems deployed in Bosnia are first generation units Whittaker produced and delivered to the U.S. Army in quick response to Desert Storm needs. The Army has designated these Shortstop units with the nomenclature AN/VLQ-9 and AN/VLQ-10. Success of that development resulted in Whittaker receiving a contract from the Army's PEO-IEW in July 1994 to develop advanced versions of the system which will be smaller and more lightweight and packaged in three versions. Later this year, Whittaker will deliver Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS) units to the Army in three configurations: a lightweight manpack set, vehicle mounted sets, and a stand-alone unit fitted on a tripod. Whittaker Corporation is a global, customer-driven company providing products and services with a high technology or engineering content to the aerospace and communications markets. Founded in 1942, the company employs approximately 1,000 people in offices around the globe. Further information on Whittaker may be obtained by contacting the company's Internet Home Page at URL address http://www.whittaker.com. - --- --- 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:44:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Another interesting Press Release This is not completely skunky, but I would be interested to know who the "major aerospace vendor" and their "major program" is, and which "major classified program" they are referring to. Just call me curios. :) - -- Andreas CONCURRENT SHIPS NEW 16-PROCESSOR REAL-TIME COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR MAJOR AEROSPACE PROGRAM; New High Speed System Interconnect, System Executive, and Reflective Memory Support MAXION Configurations with up to 64 Processors and 2.1 Gigabytes of I/O Bandwidth OCEANPORT, N.J. -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- January 30, 1996 -- Concurrent Computer Corporation (NASDAQ: CCUR) announced that it shipped a new 16-processor configuration of its MAXION(TM) real-time computers to a major aerospace vendor. The system is the first for a major program that is expected to be awarded and funded by mid-year. The new configuration is also being evaluated to meet expansion requirements for a major classified program that recently selected Concurrent MAXION computers. In addition, a number of government programs using existing MAXION computers are actively considering the new configuration option to expand the capabilities of installed systems. The new Concurrent MAXION cluster configuration option uses a high speed (136 Mbit/s) system interconnect, reflective memory, and a new system executive to support a single cluster with up to 64 processors and 2.1 Gigabytes of I/O. This architecture has the potential to support an even larger number of processors in the future. According to Concurrent CEO, John Stihl, "The new multiprocessor technology is an exciting opportunity for us in the simulation, C4I and multimedia markets. The new MAXION configuration is an ideal hardware platform to meet the demanding requirements of these markets. This technology also offers our existing customers a clear upgrade path for their MAXION systems." Existing MAXION users can add up to 60 additional processors to their configurations. Inter processor communications is supported by the 1.2 Gigabyte/sec MAXION Crosspoint System Interconnects and the 136 Mbit/sec system interconnect. Reflective memory allows the developer to coordinate data used by multiple processes. The new system executive coordinates all system resources throughout the cluster. Concurrent's MAXION Performance Tuner is an ideal tool to simplify the complex task of configuring software in a large multi-processor system. With MAXION Performance Tuner, the system developer can dynamically allocate processors and system resources using a real-time, point-and-click graphical display. The Performance Tuner application allows the user to eliminate performance bottlenecks and optimize overall system performance. MAXION cluster configurations are ideal for sophisticated government and commercial applications requiring large numbers of processors, but not able to tolerate the performance degradation typical when that number of processors share a single system bus. Competitive systems' bus-based architectures often result in processor contention that degrades system performance. Because the MAXION cluster supports multiple high performance system interconnects and I/O buses, contention is eliminated. Adding additional processors results in a near linear increase in system performance. The US list price for a 16-processor configuration begins at $400,000. Upgrade configurations for adding up to four additional processors to an existing four processor MAXION system begin at $39,000, US list price. The new systems are shipping now, and are available, 30 days after receipt of order. Concurrent Computer Corporation is the leading supplier of high performance, real-time computer systems based on 1995 net sales of companies focused on providing real-time systems. Applications for Concurrent computers include: development and training simulation, measurement and control, C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence), wagering and gaming, and multimedia. The company provides sales and support worldwide from offices throughout North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as through authorized distributors. The company headquarters are in Oceanport, New Jersey, USA. MAXION is a trademark of Concurrent Computer Corporation. - --- --- 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: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:52:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re Tonapah base(?) This is something I received in e-mail, pertinent to our discussion. Joe gave me permission to pass it on. 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.... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 mccusker@un.org wrote: > > Mary, > Here's a little bit of information on the AAF/USAF installations in the > vicinity of Tonopah town. I hope it is interesting to you. I have enjoyed your > many posts to the skunkworks list. > Tonopah's civil airport is the former Tonopah AAF. A main use was training > B-24 crews during the war. The base inactivated when the war ended, but the AAF > held on to it (and many others). > When the Air Force became a separate service in September 1947, the inactive > base may have been designated Tonopah Air Field (some AAF's did). It > subsequently became Tonopah AFB, probably in January 1948, according an April > 1948 USAF station list, The AFB--like Pocatello AFB and Datelan AFB--was > evidently never activated. Eventually--probably before mid-1948--it was > declared excess and turned over to the town. > Later there was a Tonopah AFS near the town--perhaps on part of the airfield. > It was an ADC site with perhaps some responsibilities for some range. > Neither of these places have any connection with Tonopah Test Range Airfield. > > I can't participate on the list from work--the United Nations-- so sent you > e-mail instead. My legally separated--as of today--spouse got the computers at > home. > Best regards > Joe McCusker > ____________________________ Reply Separator > _________________________________ > Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) > Author: Mary Shafer at INTERNET > Date: 1/30/96 7:17 PM > > > Er, there is no such place as "Tonapah"--I've just looked through three > good atlases, including the National Geographic's latest, and there is no > place, lake, mountain, etc with that name. > > Tonopah (note spelling) is a small town in Nevada. It's not now, nor > was it ever, owned by the Department of Defense. Nor was it a base. > Calling Tonopah a base is a little like calling Merced a SAC base with > B-52s, when you mean Castle AFB. > > Tonopah is more like Mountain Home or Los Angeles. There is a facility > near the town that has the same name, but context will let you know when > someone has dropped the AFB or AFS from the military facility. > > The Tonopah Test Range, marked as private on my 94 sectional, is about 25 > mi from the town, although it's much further by road. The Test Range is > in R-4809, which is a piddly little restricted area, about 15 nm by 20 nm. > > How about if we add TTR, meaning the Tonopah Test Range, to our > vocabularies and keep Tonopah (spelled correctly) to refer to the town? > I think that we refer to both the town and the Test Range often enough and > ambiguously enough that we need to make the distinction clearer. > > 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.... > > > > ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:14:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Self-destruct devices On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Frank Markus wrote: > There are less aggressive methods for protecting secret electronics devices > than blowing them up. One that springs to mind was employed by Audio > Research (a high-end audio products manufacturer) to protect the secret of > its first solid state devices. The circuits were packaged so that any > attempt to open the devices, released acid that erased the circuits within. > The advantages of this passive protection over active (and dangerous) > devices that have to be triggered are obvious. Good point, Frank, but as we've seen, these methods are often easily overcome, the U2 example, and we can all think of ways to overcome an acid release, such as freezing, and rapid neutralization. Makes ya wonder what the State of the art failsafe methods are today. [Perhaps a Gerald Ford module, so that any attempt to fool with the technology, and you get hit in the head with a golfball.] regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:33:43 EST Subject: RE: self-distruct devices > "baj7d@galen.med.virginia.edu" "BaDge" >re: Subj: Re: Self-destruct devices > > Good point, Frank, but as we've seen, these methods are often easily > overcome, the U2 example, and we can all think of ways to overcome an > acid release, such as freezing, and rapid neutralization. > > Makes ya wonder what the State of the art failsafe methods are today. > > [Perhaps a Gerald Ford module, so that any attempt to fool with the > technology, and you get hit in the head with a golfball.] > ________ > BaDge > I don't mean to be a kill joy, but can we keep the binaries - albethey as uuencoded mail items - out of this group, please? If there isn't, there should be, a place to put that stuff - where is it I hear you cry - I do not know comes the immediate response! I would like to know!! I pay for each character, and would like the option of deciding if I want to get the image... I'm prepared to gamble on the text - coz most of it is interesting, but pictures........ I'm not flaming anyone here, simply registering a request... Arthur ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 13:53:50 EST Subject: RAF [ATC] Report Note: Dave Pollard is apparently an air traffic controller for the Royal Air Force [UK]. Date: 1/02/1996 1317 From: Dave Pollard - Pollard@zetnet.co.uk Taken from alt.ufo.reports UK.UFO.ML says "We do not quite understand Dave's description of time and date. He has been mailed to see if he can elaborate." Here's another UFO report that was passed to myself whilst I was duty the other night. The report comes from Bampton, West Swindon, Wiltshire. The incident was reported at 052145z Oct 95, and was witnessed by herself and her elderly mother who was staying the night with her. Neither sounded drunk or under the influence of medication. At 1945z, she was outside bringing in the washing off her clothes line, when she observed a single bright light hovering in the far distance. At first she though it to be a bright star. However, whilst watching this "star" it suddenly moved quickly in a Westerly direction, and the opposite side to the direction appeared to have a red glow. At first she though it was the local Police helicopter, which often transits along the M4, which is not too far away. Whilst trying to make out the shape of the object, it rapidly changed direction again, flying extremely fast to the East. It was at this point she called for her mother to come outside and to witness what was happening. When she returned outside, the object was still in the same location, on the Horizon to the NW of her home. With both people watching, it then sped to due West before flying to the South, passing above her home at approx 2nm range. Whilst at that location it appeared to split into two separate sources of white light. The two lights then slowly accelerated to the West before disappearing over the horizon. Again, red light was visible from the trailing side of the objects. The weather on the night in question was relatively clear, with only 1 Oktas cloud cover. Nothing was apparant on the Radar screen at RAF Lyneham, and the base only had a single aircraft airborne, working to the South West (Night Vision Training Exercise, and would have been operating without lights) The report was passed along official channels, as always, to the MOD reporting controller. (Number available to others on request) Note: Dave has since replied with the following. > I imagine that you are in the services or involved with ATC. I > could not fully understand your description of times and date as > quoted below. I wonder if you could elaborate for me. Gladly, You're right on both accounts. I'm in the RAF in ATC. In the forces, and many civilian organisations, time is often written using a standard format. That being six numerics, three digit month followed by a two numerical date. The small 'z' after the six numerics, represents that the time is infact written in 'Zulu'. Zulu is the name given to GMT worldwide. This way, when a vessel, whether it be an aircraft, ship or whatever, crosses a time zone, its estimated time of arrival never changes. The two other common letters used are 'a' (alpha) or 'l' (local). These two represent the same, by indicating that the time is written in the regional time zone. eg. At the time of writing, 'l' is one hour ahead of 'z' Thus, at nine pm on the 16th October 1995, the date time group (DTG) would be written as 162100a Oct 95 or 162000z Oct 95. I hope that explains things. ___________________________ ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 17:06:19 EST Subject: Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-t Forwarded message from a reader not subscribed to Skunk Works: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Electronic shield against artillery -- more SF-like hi-t Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 1/02/1996 1655 Yes, the article that Andreas forwarded was indeed fascinating. Now consider this related tidbit: According to a recent Army Times article (an interview with a Field Artillery battalion commander in the 1st Armored Division), the US Army has fielded, in Bosnia, "Counter Battery" radar systems. These systems detect incoming artillery/mortar projectiles and extend their track - very accurately - back to the firing location. They work so efficiently that the US Army firing batteries can have return fire on the way before the incoming rounds even impact. According to the same article there is one small fly in the ointment. When incoming rounds are detected, the firing battery commander must check with the battalion commander, who must check with the brigade commander, who must then check with the division commander, before any return fire can be cleared. As an old-soldier my assessment of this procedure is "Why bother?" Given the inevitable delays, there won't be any bad guys around when your rounds finally impact. If you ever do fire. In actuality, the bad guys will probably set up next to someone's house, or a school, or perhaps a hospital, therefore you will never get the clearance to fire. This situation gives the bad guys impunity. But it is PC. Any one who served in Vietnam will be familiar with this "system." "Seems like deja vu all over again." Not at all "skunky," but Andreas did open the door. Thanks, Andreas, I needed to ventilate. :-) \ Bill Riddle MAJ, AUS (Retired) ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 19:09:56 Subject: Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo >At 15:43 31/01/96 -0500, you wrote: >>On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Dean Adams quoted a quote by Terry Colvin: >> >>> > In Mailing List #32 Dave commented the odd picture taken at the >>> > Aviano air base >>> > (Italy) and published by Fortean Times 84. The first reaction I had >>> > was: "God, that's just a classic Area51 / Meier disc !". >> >>Jeeze, I'm ashamed to even be associated with an interest in these things >>if that's the kind of conclusion they're jumping to these days. > > >Ok, >De-lurk mode on. If any of you guys have seen the >magazine "Fortean Times " you wil note it does not claim >these photos show a UFO (Sorry "Flying Saucer") The actual caption to >the picture reads: > - ---snip----- >Andy Cobley >acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk >http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk > > Okay-so what is it then? The Aurora or TR3? Something else? Maybe Dean would like to speculate for us, please. Byron ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 21:48:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Friday WINGS Well, gang, not much on WINGS, just some 'Air War in VietNam' (1800), but The Learning Channel is having a neat "Future Flights", at 2000 EST, called the top ten Air and Space accompl. of the 20th Century. Then on A&E, 2100-2300 EST, there's some cool Submarine stuff, "Nautilus", scientific and military applications of those Tubular dudes. ;-) regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #612 ********************************* 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).