From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #620 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 13 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 620 In this issue: [none] Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Re: 2 serious questions... (Fwd) F-16 Bumper Stickers Re: Patents Rocket Belts... An Article Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Killing Scuds in the Gulf Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf Re: 2 serious questions... Broken Arrows. Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Broken Arrow "The Movie" Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. UCAVs and such Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. 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: Robert.Herndon@Central.Sun.COM (Robert Herndon) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:47:46 -0700 Subject: [none] Secrecy & Patents & Microprocessors Charles Smith wrote: > Lets face it, the microprocessor is the most important technology > to be developed in many years, but the gov doesn`t regulate them. Charles Smith is certainly wrong, though perhaps less so now than in the past. For many years it was (legally) difficult to get modern uPs (e.g., 68020s) exported even to friendly countries. Even VAX 780s (regularly described as "missile computers" on national news), much less Crays, required hoop-jumping for export. I don't know what it takes now, but I suspect that off-shore assembly makes it easier for companies and more difficult for the U.S. government to interfere. Then there's the incident with Ken Thompson (of Unix fame) and Belle, his Chess-playing computer. It comprised an LSI-11, a modest amount of TTL logic, some resistors and an A/D or two. (Even at the time, this was two or three generations behind "state of the art" in microelectronics.) When he went to tour the USSR, he got there to find that the U.S. Government (State Department?) had impounded it, and it was being kept somewhere in New Jersey. Apologies if this is off-charter. /r ------------------------------ From: dsm@iti-oh.com (dsm@iti-oh.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 16:34:34 EST Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Andreas, :: :: Source (2) in my previous post (which I regard as less reliable) says the :: name of the pilot was Henemann, and the two post war kills were on February:: 20 and 22, each one SU-22, aircraft and pilot unknown (besides other :: obvious inaccuracies in this book). :: :: Source (1) spells his name as Hehemann, in several locations through-out :: the book, and has the March 20 kill as an SU-22, by Capt. John T. Doneski, :: in F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0014', also 53rd TFS, also with AIM-9M. :: :: For March 22 there are two kills listed, the first by Dietz, an SU-22 using :: an AIM-9M, flying F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0010', and the second a 'maneuver :: kill' of the accompanying Pilatus PC-9. The pilot bailed out, even though :: he was not shot at. This kill is credited to Hehemann, flying F-15C-37-MC, :: serial '84-0015'. :: I can give you a copy of a recent newspaper article on Hehemann. (Spelled correctly by source 1). Bob is a local from western Cincinnati. His exploits with 'Vegas' Dietz are documented nearly identically as you have posted them. It appeared in a Saturday edition of Cincinnati Post just about 2 weeks ago! What timing for this thread. I'll try and dig [ no pun on Hehemann's callsign intended :) ] out the article and could scan and post it for your detractors...But, one thing is for certain, he flew an F15C, NOT and E model. If memory serves me, there are several Gulf pictures of him by his plane in the article. (I don't think military intelligence is trying to deceive us, so I presume they are not doctored photo's ) If I remember, the Feb. 6 encounter was quite hairy. There were 4 bogies sent up after them. Hehemann had to make close-in kills because only one Sparrow would launch, and he either didn't have a lock or it simply went wacko. The 3 others failed to cook off. Something to due with moisture and/or temperature. (He said it wasn't ground maintenance fault). I'll have to re-read it to be sure. Anyways, just thought you'd like to know. Regards, Dan - -------------+------------- O-/=\-O Dan McKenney (dsm@iti-oh.com) =====/_\===== International TechneGroup Inc. o ::[_()]:: o 5303 DuPont Circle, Milford, Ohio 45150 i'^`i voice:(800) 783-9199 fax: (513)576-3994 ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 18:01:48 EST Subject: Re: 2 serious questions... > 2) There has been any case that a foreing reconnaissance aircraft > that fly over a USA terrirory without autorization? A) Would the Air Force admit it if it did occur? B) If someone outside the AF knew it happened, the AF could just claim it was our recon plane, not theirs - you couldn't prove it. Neil ------------------------------ From: "Steve Caldwell" Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:23:41 GMT+7 Subject: (Fwd) F-16 Bumper Stickers Hello, Here's some proposed F-16 bumper sticker ideas that promote the most postive attributes of the F-16 fighter. :^) Enjoy. Steve Caldwell caldwels@det5wg57.barksdale.af.mil [begin forwarded msg] If you have a F-16 fighter pilot in your organization, he'll understand these slams. ---------- Lean, Mean, Flameout Machine. I SHALL RETURN...Well, I might. Mach Nix. The F-16. Takes a licking, and takes a licking. Have you hugged your chute today? This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops. I came. I saw. I bingo'd. No deposit, no return. We've spent so much money on this thing that we can't afford to admit we were wrong. A triumph of style over substance. The best damn second place fighter in the world. Instead of a CAS mod, we're going to install a roll bar. And now with this LANTIRN thing and our new Block 40's, we can hit the ground at NIGHT! We cover the target like a thong bikini. And BINGO is my Name-O. We crash more airplanes before 9 O'clock than most people crash all day. Your courtesy appreciated. Please replace your divots. A war record exceeding even the B-1. Last in the talent show, but first in the swimsuit competition. Lose a few, lose a few. Feet and knees together, eyes on the horizon... Designated no-hitter. Everything you wanted in a fighter and less. Optimist: F-16 pilot who's worried about dying from cancer. Only Michael Jackson is more manly. Hey, today we didn't lose a single jet. This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you. user friendly...if you ve got three hands. If we have a war with BDUs, we've got 'em beat. Careful badguys...I'm carrying BOTH bombs today. I'm talkin wall-to-wall MK-82's Pal. If I carried more weapons, and if I had enough gas, and if I could actually hit the target, and if I had some more REALLY expensive electrons so I could find you, and if My motor didn't quit, and if My wings didn't crack, Boy, I'd really teach you a lesson! [end forwarded msg] ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:21:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Patents A few comments regarding patents and trade secrets: Trade secrets work better for such things as chemical formulas and manufacturing processes than physical inventions such as I don't know if there's any case challenging a secrecy hold on a patent on 5th amendment grounds, but I can think of one argument why such a challenge might fail. Congress has the constitutional power to grant artists and inventors rights to their creative works. Since Congress has the power to determine which works are entitled to patet protection, Congress can carve out an exception for those inventions which might violate national security. But even if your invention is held up for secrecy reasons, you still have a good reason to patent it. Patent protection not only establishes the date of the invention, but also the priority of inventors. In other words, If I submitted an application in 1985, even if my application was held up for secrecy reasons, my application would still control over one filed in 1986. Even if part of your time is effectively useless due to secrecy reason, you still have the opportunity to enjoy exclusive rights after the secrecy is lifted - or more importantly, you can guarantee that you won't have to pay royalties to someone else. Also, you have to file your application within a year of inventing the item. Let's say your application is held up for 10 years for secrecy reasons, I believe your protection runs from the date the patent is granted, so if you were held up for 10 years, you would essentially enjoy defacto trade secret protection for 10 years, then a full 17 year patent term. I think, but am not positive, that patents can actually be granted yet still be classified. Edward Teller and spy Klaus Fuchs had a joint patent on a lens design for the fat man atomic bomb. This patent was granted before the USSR tested its first a-bomb. (According to the book Dark Sun, the Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, by Richard Rhodes), and I can't imagine the U.S. letting out the secret of imploding plutonium. - -Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 18:50:42 EST Subject: Rocket Belts... An Article The current, Spring, 1996 issue of American Heritage Invention & Technology Magazine Has an extensive article on the history & fliers of Rocket belts. It can be a tad hard to find, many newsstands don't carry it. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:10:16 -0800 Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf > What timing for this thread. I'll try and dig [ no pun on >Hehemann's callsign intended :) ] out the article and could scan and post >it for your detractors...But, one thing is for certain, he flew an F15C, >NOT and E model. Personally, I don't think I need to know if it was an E or a C. The motivations of those who find themselves in combat are somewhat different than those who need historical detail. I think both sides of this argument have done admirable jobs in presenting their positions! Larry ------------------------------ From: Mike Freeman Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:13:44 -0500 Subject: Killing Scuds in the Gulf Everyone always talks about our planes killing Scuds in the desert. All of that was just war hype. Yes we had planes looking for mobile Scud launchers, but the Air Force has said that we probably didn't kill one mobile launcher. We killed a lot of tanker trucks hauling oil to Jordan, but no Scuds. Mike !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TRACKED ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! < > < Mike Freeman > < 825 Hubbard South > < East Lansing, MI 48825 > < > < Email: freema22@pilot.msu.edu > < > < Big Brother is watching > *********************************** begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(CL$`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````$``0`!!) &`#@!```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```%$`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!S:W5N:RUW;W)K``(P`0````4```!33510`````!X``S !````&@```'-K=6YK+7=O`' ``0```!H```!+:6QL:6YG(%-C=61S(&EN('1H M92!'=6QF`````@%Q``$````6`````;KYR:I@`+# $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0```!<```!FL"@P!0`O()`@!C: K R`H,U$L<1=3 4MBY]"H (SPG9.QG?,C4>-0* M"H$-L0M@;F Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 02:17:03 -0800 Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf At 11:13 PM 2/12/96 -0500, Mike Freeman wrote: > Everyone always talks about our planes killing Scuds in the desert. All of >that was just war hype. Yes we had planes looking for mobile Scud >launchers, but the Air Force has said that we probably didn't kill one >mobile launcher. We killed a lot of tanker trucks hauling oil to Jordan, >but no Scuds. Minor nit, of which most of the readers on the list are no doubt already aware (but repetition is good for the...something): there is a difference between "not killing any Scuds" and "not killing any mobile Scuds." Iraq had a significant Scud launch capability invested in fixed sites, as well, and all of the fixed sites were stomped into the dirt by airpower in the first twenty four hours. Going after the (mobile) transporter-erector-launchers (MOTELs, ) was another matter entirely, which yielded relatively poor results while involving such exotic measures as SOF teams crawling all over western Iraq. We got Scuds all right, but we (probably) didn't get the ones that were being trucked around not only on specialized TELs, but on a variety of home-built versions of the vehicles as well. I'm not entirely sure that the overestimation of the effectiveness of the Great Scud Hunt was simply "war hype". Even during the war, there was a huge spitting match between the theater intelligence types (CENTCOM's people) and the national intelligence types (CIA, mostly) over precisely this issue. I guess this is understandable: the theater staff is closer to the pilots who ran the missions, and probably relied more heavily on pilot debriefings and soforth for their assessments. Of course, the pilots knew they blew up something that definitely absolutely positively without-a-doubt was a Scud TEL (perfectly understandable), and that put its own spin on things. But the national intel people, more distant from the scene of operations, were more inclined to look for "hard evidence" -- and with the lack of reliable Scud BDA, could find none. So, CIA refused to endorse CENTCOM's reports on Scud Hunt effectiveness, while CINCCENT fumed and grumbled about the desk jockeys who were nowhere near the action yet dared to argue with those who had actually been there. It's not so much hype as it is people -- with their own biases -- trying to make sense of the fog of war. An interesting thing about the Scud Hunt was that the Iraqis did operate under some restrictions which should have narrowed down their launch sites considerably. For instance, it was reported that the Scud launches were all done at maximum range -- with the Al-Hussein mods to the original Scud design, the rocket fuel had to be burned off completely or the missile risked "tumbling" on the downward arc. This, combined with the requirement that one pre-survey a limited number of launch sites (no terminal guidance on a Scud, so better shoot it right), made things tricky for the Iraqis. To their credit, they made up for it by drilling their missile teams well, using decoys effectively, and being clever with their TEL-shuffling. The US probably could have been more successful in the Scud Hunt with the proper application of enough air-mines on all roads and highways in Western Iraq-- true, the TELs can still roll over terrain, but that would have put another limitation on Scud operations, limited their range and area of operations, and allowed them to be more easily picked out by J-STARS and such. However, there were political limitations on the extent to which this was actually done because of concern for collateral damage -- sure, you can kill everything in Iraq to get rid of the Scuds, but... One last thing: the Great Scud Hunt may not have been successful in a destructive sense, i.e. in terms of hard numbers killed. But to judge its value as a suppressive campaign, look to the launches *prevented* as a result of all those F-15Es and SAS teams over and in Western Iraq. A Scud TEL that can't launch (and which we know can't launch) is the same as no Scud launcher at all. ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row World Wide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 6:38:52 EST Subject: Re: 2 serious questions... > > > 2) There has been any case that a foreing reconnaissance aircraft > > that fly over a USA terrirory without autorization? > > A) Would the Air Force admit it if it did occur? > > B) If someone outside the AF knew it happened, the AF could just claim > it was our recon plane, not theirs - you couldn't prove it. I agree totally. Besides, I don't think anyone is arrogant enough to think that we are the only country to have recon planes. - -- 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: mjm@wru.org (Michael Masterson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:59:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Broken Arrows. I'm sorry, but could the person that posted the information about nuclear incidents, listing which were 'broken arrows' and which weren't, please forward a copy to me? I foolishly didn't keep it, now I've got friends, after seeing the movie "broken Arrow" that are wondering about the reality of it... (grins) - -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Michael Masterson mjm@wru.org ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:45:56 -0800 Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" What a movie. I was sitting there watching the very cool (special effects) close-ups of the stealth bomber thinking to myself "look at that Bad Mother F------!" When my wife uncharacteristically leaned over and whispered "Look at that Bad bady!" Also, the bomber was referred to as a B3 in the movie. - -Jerry - ----- Begin Included Message ----- From skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu Tue Feb 13 10:35 PST 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 12:16:04 cst From: "Arif, Rahan" Encoding: 115 Text To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Subject: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Has anyone seen the movie "Broken Arrow" yet? Any thoughts on the unusual crash of the B-2 stealth? - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: "Arif, Rahan" Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 12:16:04 cst Subject: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Has anyone seen the movie "Broken Arrow" yet? Any thoughts on the unusual crash of the B-2 stealth? ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:53 PST Subject: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. You will all soon be hearing that an airborne missile was destroyed by a laser late last week. I`ll be damned, it works! Chuck ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 12-Feb-1996 1302 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 13:56:33 EST Subject: UCAVs and such Regarding the New World Vistas report, let's remember that this is a discussion of *potential* technologies for the Air Force THIRTY fiscal years in the future. No one is (yet) seriously contemplating a force structure based on hypersonic UCAVs and directed energy weapons. These are promising avenues of research, but not yet, we assume, ready for widespread white world deployment. Neither are these research programs expensive, in the context of the defense budget or the US GDP, over the period in question. Since we do not know the threats that will face the United States in that period, we cannot say for sure that such a research program (or a even a plan for research funding) is extravagant, ill-conceived, or unnecessary, without reference to realistic assessments of the military situation the United States may be faced with in 2025. Speaking specifically of the inverted takeoff and landing UCAV, remember that this concept was discussed in the seminal black aircraft stories in the 10/1/90 issue of Aviation Week. Whether it was then a concept or a prototype is open to speculation, but this idea has been around for a while. So, in reference to R&D, this type of vehicle may have been prototyped already, which would reduce development time should the powers that be decide to produce it in quantity. Some of the other technologies in the report may have reached the prototype stage as well, which would again reduce the time to IOC should such a decision be necessary. If I may switch gears here, relevant to the earlier discussions of Aurora, I have always thought that any high-speed recon vehicle would look more like X-20 than X-30. To amplify that thought a bit, as Larry Smith and others have stated on the list, we have had hypersonic flight capability since the 1950s, with solid- and liquid-fueled rockets. The X-20, a boost-glide vehicle, was intended, among other things, to provide very high speed reconnaissance. Because it became wrapped up in McNamarist foolishness over "manned space flight", and because history is written by the victors, we sometimes forget that X-20 was the descendent of a long line of USAF proposals for rocket boosted recon. It seems logical that the US had the capability to develop a non-airbreathing hypersonic system, manned or unmanned, 30 years ago. Like X-20, this system could have taken advantage of the massive investment in rocketry and missile technology made by the United States in the 1950s and 60s. The only real difference between an X-20-like recon system and a runway-laucnhed recon system of higher performance than the SR-71 would be the need for fixed launch sites, and the (very likely) much longer cycle time between sorties. On the plus side, the vehicle would have much higher performance than any realistic airbreathing system and would have been nearly immune to post-boost phase interception well into the 1980s. It's development budget could have been buried in any number of missile, engine, guidance, sensor, and R&D programs of the period. It could have provided recon over any spot on the globe, with essentially global range. Whether such a system existed is pointless speculation. It could have existed, and it might have provided key information during a number of international crises over the past 25 years. And if it never existed, but if we in later years wanted to build a high-speed recon system, it might have been advantageous to dust off those old "hypersonic boost glide" studies to look at what solutions might have been overlooked. There are a number of items in the literature of 1963-66, showing an SR-75-like mothership, with an X-20 like manned vehicle boosted by a simple solid or liquid 2nd stage, intended for high-hypersonic research or minimal orbital flight. If I were tasked with building Aurora, and I needed to avoid the high-speed airbreathing problem (for reasons of politics, engineering fashion, finances, or whatever), I'd look at rockets. We know how to do them, and well, and in terms of security would attract less attention than a sophisticated airbreathing propulsion project. Given that there might have been a SR-75 like prototype, and given that we may have seen a couple of hot, high-speed glides into the Edwards/Groom neighborhood, I suspect that an Aurora of two- or three-stage, boost-glide configuration might have been at least tested in the early 1990s. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Oh, and you *blend*." Connectivity Software Business | Littleton MA USA | -- Joe Pesci allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:48:51 -0800 Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" I thought it took a while for the aircraft to explode, and once so, the debris seemed to be composed of pieces that were a bit large. But maybe composite aircraft don't blow into little bitts when they explode(?). You have to consider that the director was John Woo, (Hong Kong style director). Some style differences include: - - The hero uses two handguns and sprays bullets haphazardly. - - Guns don't run out of bullets unless it serves the plot (This drives me nutts, as I am compelled to count every shot up to 6 and then expect a re-load scene). - - People jump through the air and land on their bellies as they discharge their handguns. - - High tech aircraft don't explode until total discombobulation is complete. Even then, there remains enough large pieces for 'Revell' to build a 1/25 scale model within 5% accuracy of the original. 8^) - ----- Begin Included Message ----- From skunk-works-owner@mail.orst.edu Tue Feb 13 10:35 PST 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 12:16:04 cst From: "Arif, Rahan" Encoding: 115 Text To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Subject: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Has anyone seen the movie "Broken Arrow" yet? Any thoughts on the unusual crash of the B-2 stealth? - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 13-Feb-1996 1605 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 16:11:40 EST Subject: Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. Chuck Smith scribed: >You will all soon be hearing that an airborne missile was >destroyed by a laser late last week. I`ll be damned, it works! TRW did this around 1980-81, smoking a TOW with a chemical laser at San Juan Capistrano. The old USAF C-135 airborne laser laboratory accomplished the same feat as well, around the same time, knocking down a Sidewinder. The Army CO2 land-mobile prototype laser shot down a drone helicopter in 1979 at the Redstone Arsenal. What's different about this op? George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Focus, Pinky, focus!!" Connectivity Software Business | Littleton MA USA | -- the Brain allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #620 ********************************* 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).