From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #621
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu
Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu
Precedence:
Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 14 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 621
In this issue:
Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
Re: SW/NASA?
Re: SW/NASA?
Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #619
Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked.
aerodynamics of explosions "The Movies"
Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Operation ARGUS film.
Re: Operation ARGUS film.
Broken Arrow - Readdressal
Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
Ben Rich's book out in paper
Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #619
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: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:01:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
Once upon a time Arif, Rahan shaped the electrons to say...
> Has anyone seen the movie "Broken Arrow" yet? Any thoughts on the
> unusual crash of the B-2 stealth?
Yes, a *classic* John Woo action film - gotta love slow-mo.
Don't see it for accuracy.
For one, it wasn't a B-2, it was a B-3 - a fictional craft. It was
obviously a smaller ship, looked like a medium bomber. Twin engined
instead of 4. They did a pretty good job on the design, believable
enough for a film.
There really isn't anything skunky about the film, just a decent action movie
as far as action films go.
- -MZ
- -- megazone@world.std.com 510-527-0944
MegaZone's Waste Of Time
Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works;
rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to
majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body.
------------------------------
From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:47:26
Subject: Re: SW/NASA?
>On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Byron Weber wrote:
>>
>> Roaming a bookstore I came across a title something like, "One Of A
>> Kind;" all about experimental planes. The majority seem to have
>> been built for NASA. Question: Has the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works
>> done any projects for NASA?
>>
>> Byron
>>
>The Linear Aerospike Reuseable Launch Vehicle proposed by Lockmart
>is a Skunk Works design. Starfighters have been used as chase planes, and
>there are SR-71s being used which you can ask our esteemed Ms Shafer
>about.
>--Brett
>
Thank you
The definitive answer came from the esteemed Mr. Miller, "...none
dedicated.." The operative word being "dedicated." The
referenced projects are adapted from other dedicated projects.
Byron
------------------------------
From: Mary Shafer
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 23:52:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: SW/NASA?
I don't quite understand your last sentence there, but many of the
aircraft mentioned in that book were not dedicated aircraft. Rather, they
were testbed aircraft, used for a variety of experiments. For example,
we've used the SR-71 937 (sometimes called a YF-12C) for studying
low(ish)-L/D approaches, engine-inlet interaction, stability and contro,
high-supersonic heating, and a number of other experiments. This is ot
exactly what I'd call a dedicated aircraft.
For what it's worth, I mentioned this book before Christmas, as 937 and
the F-104s made it list-relevant. Ditto, I think, the Jetstar, which I
believe came out of the Skunk Works. As I mentioned then, the authors are
not entirely au courant with the Blackbird, but it's an extremely good
book (of course, I have to tell you that they quoted quite a lot of one of
my papers in it, so I'm a little biased).
Regards,
Mary
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end....
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Byron Weber wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Byron Weber wrote:
> >>
> >> Roaming a bookstore I came across a title something like, "One Of A
> >> Kind;" all about experimental planes. The majority seem to have
> >> been built for NASA. Question: Has the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works
> >> done any projects for NASA?
> >>
> >> Byron
> >>
> >The Linear Aerospike Reuseable Launch Vehicle proposed by Lockmart
> >is a Skunk Works design. Starfighters have been used as chase planes, and
> >there are SR-71s being used which you can ask our esteemed Ms Shafer
> >about.
> >--Brett
> >
> Thank you
>
> The definitive answer came from the esteemed Mr. Miller, "...none
> dedicated.." The operative word being "dedicated." The
> referenced projects are adapted from other dedicated projects.
>
> Byron
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Wyatt Earp
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:58:53 -0800
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #619
At 04:25 PM 2/12/96 -0800, mcnuttrt@MIT.EDU (Ross T. McNutt) wrote:
>UAV Operations Thread
> As for destroying the satellites that is unnessecary and rather
>impractical for most (all) countries. First, they would have to have an
>active anti-satellite program that could reach geostationary orbit (no
>such system exists today). Second, in order to be effective they must
>be able to take out all the possible satellites that would be used. For
>military and commercial communication systems this is a significant
>number. During the Gulf War I believe we had on the order of 6 to10
>satellites servicing the area, including DSCS, Intelsat, Inmarsat, and
>skynet systems, all of which could be used to command UAV systems. Today
>we have even more satellites.
You think taking out 10-20 satellites would be difficult? If we don't have
the much-talked about directed-energy weapons, (which we don't...) we could
just equip the space shuttle with some laser guided missiles. Or we could
grab a few with the robot arm and take prisoners. If the pilots are feeling
a bit energetic, they could chase a few down and try to 'swat' them into a
lower orbit with the arm!
This assumes you have handy access to an orbiter... not everyone does.
Wyatt
------------------------------
From: BaDge
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:45:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
If you've seen the 'making of' the Sly Stallone mountain climbing movie
that's been on HBO, then you probably heard them describe why the 'explosion'
aspects of the special effects is not so easy to cause to resemble the 'real'
look of a crash-induced explosion.
They're all done using scale models, some large and some small, and they have
a formula with which they must pair the camera speed and the size of the
model to get a final cut that seems 'realistic'.
Also what's realistic on screen may bear little relationship to what a real
explosion looks like in real life. What they're looking for is the correct
'impresson' or 'expectation' that the audience requires to believe the
resultant effect.
I hope this bears a slight resemblance to an answer for you. ;-)
regards,
________
BaDge
------------------------------
From: Brett Davidson
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 20:59:46 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, BaDge wrote:
> Also what's realistic on screen may bear little relationship to what a real
> explosion looks like in real life. What they're looking for is the correct
> 'impresson' or 'expectation' that the audience requires to believe the
> resultant effect.
Do you notice that on the screen, small arms tend to produce the deep
sound of heavy artillery instead of their real firecracker sound?
- --Brett
------------------------------
From: "Art Hanley"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:13:15 +0700
Subject: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Jumping back into this:
While it's true that Saddam no doubt didn't get to launch all the
Scuds he wanted to, his Scud operations would have to be judged
one oof his few successes in the war. Why? Because he succeeded in
tying up an enormous amount of Coalition assets hunting them. What
he forced us to expend on attempting to kill them was all out of
proportion to their actual military threat, assuming he didn't use
biologicals (and we know now that he didn't use them on Scuds for
fear we would retaliate with nuclear weapons). He succeeded in
diverting strike and recon assets from more worthwhile targets
because of two fears. One, if he could succeed in getting Israel
to take action against him, he might very well succeed in splitting
the Coalition and forcing an end to the war on terms more favorable
to him. Second, what if he "got lucky" and one or more of his Scuds
came down in a heavy concentration of US troops or hit some ships in
a harbor? He, like many people, believed that the US will not
tolerate taking a significant amount of casualties. The impact of
four or five hundred US dead or wounded in one stroke, he believed,
may have dramatically lowered US will to stay the course, especially
if those losses came not in battle, but in a rear area with people
just doing non combat operations. He may have been right, he may
have been wrong. The point is that while we probably limited where
and how often he could fire, it doesn't seem likely there ever
was a time when he couldn't launch at least some Scuds whenever
he chose to.
As mentioned by me and others, the problem wasn't killing mobile Scud
launchers when we could find them, the problem was finding them in
the first place, and then getting a strike package there in time to
hit them before they could be moved far enough that the arriving
attack aircraft couldn't locate them before having to turn back for
fuel. There also was an identification problem, since some of what
had been identified from the air as fresh mobile launchers turned
out to be something else. The most successful locaters and
designators apparently were SOF forces, some of which would enter a
village and then hide under cover for days on end observing and
locating launchers. They'd then feed the locations back to our
forces and sometimes would actually designate the targets for our
aircraft. In fact, the last action involved a massive air assault
against multiple launchers. It was believed that Saddam was
planning a "go for broke" launch in a final attempt to bring Israel
into the war. From what I've been able to pick up, All the actual
launchers that were attacked in that assault were located and
designated by SOF forces.
There is a direct relevance to this list. We often tend to think of
stealth and/or very high speed in a strategic sense, but it can be a
great tactical asset. If an airborne recon platform locates a
launcher, but is itself observed, the recon platform becomes a
target. The RA-5C during the Viewnam war suffered the highest rate
of combat losses. That's because the N. Vietnamese knew they'd
always be coming right after a strike and would put everything they
had in the air against them. Similary, recon could expect to be a
target if it appears to be on the verge of locating a launcher. This
didn't happen in the Gulf War because of the destruction of a lot
of the AA defense. However, if a launcher thought it had been
located by a recon asset it saw, it could relocate before the strike
package could arrive. If we had truly stealthy recon, be it UAV or
manned, the mobile launcher would not know anything was in the area,
let alone that it had been located, and would stay put. This was one
of the big contributors to SOF success. The Iraqiis didn't know they
had been seen. Alternatively, if the recon asset could detect from
very high altitude and could move very fast, like the SR-71, there
wouldn't be time for the launcher to get away, even if it realized it
had been targeted. Also, if we could get the info back really fast,
and/or cover a very large area, we could afford to have large strike
packages in the air (I know we did that sometimes with AWACS
searches, but AWACS could only see what happened after launch),
ready to react.
Now add in a stealth strike aircraft, and the launcher wouldn't even
have warning that the strike was on the way...
Art
------------------------------
From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:46:28 PST
Subject: Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked.
George,
Yep, your right but those were contrived demonstrations ala
Sgt. York. This is a real, producable mobile system that
you can buy today if you have the dust. I think the
mid-east countries are placing the first orders.
Chuck
------------------------------
From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 04:00:09 PST
Subject: aerodynamics of explosions "The Movies"
If you have a keen eye and a knowledge of turbulence
you can always spot a fake. If you ever watch an explosion
in slow-mo, you will notice rotation cells in the propogating
flame. The size of the these cells will decrease as the energy
cascades down and outward.
You can really see this phenomina in a fresh, growing cumulus
cloud. While not an explosion, the same mechanics are at work.
With a model explosion, the gasses involved are still 12 inches
to the foot scale, so they still behave normally. The result is
that the flames will be "out of scale." The best place to
see this is in the Godzilla movies, were everything blows up.
When Godzilla uses the fire-breath on the tanks this is clearly evident.
The flames are single cells about 30 feet long!
Chuck
------------------------------
From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 07:37:39 EST
Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
Art says:
> and/or cover a very large area, we could afford to have large strike
> packages in the air (I know we did that sometimes with AWACS
> searches, but AWACS could only see what happened after launch),
> ready to react.
According to written resources (and we know them not
to be always accurate) the AWACS can see on the ground
activity also. Vehicle and troop movement was tracked
and when vehicle movement looked suspicious, it was
investigated. -Paul
>
> Now add in a stealth strike aircraft, and the launcher wouldn't even
> have warning that the strike was on the way...
>
>
>
> Art
>
------------------------------
From: BROWN A <92913938@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:37:47 GMT
Subject: Operation ARGUS film.
On Monday night, the BBC TV series "Horizon" had a programme
about ionospheric research (mainly HAARP), which featured some GREAT
footage of the operation ARGUS tests (covered by Andreas last June)
as well as film of one of the Dominic 1 Starfish launch failiures
(an on-the-pad explosion). I know this is off-charter, but seeing as
we had a full programme summary from Andreas, I hope no-one will mind
me bringing it up again. I don't know if you can get it in the
States, but if you can, watch out for it, as its very good. The
actual prog title is "Masters of the Ionosphere"
------------------------------
From: BaDge
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:25:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Operation ARGUS film.
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, BROWN A wrote:
> On Monday night, the BBC TV series "Horizon" had a programme
> about ionospheric research (mainly HAARP), which featured some GREAT
Sounds really interesting. Will it be on again?
> States, but if you can, watch out for it, as its very good. The
> actual prog title is "Masters of the Ionosphere"
Hah, that's a laugh. Who the heck thinks they are Masters of the
Ionosphere. Not those semi-furry bipeds that think they run the planet,
eh? ;-)
regards,
________
BaDge
------------------------------
From: "Terry Colvin"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 08:30:58 EST
Subject: Broken Arrow - Readdressal
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Now with the John "Revolta" in the movie release of *Broken Arrow*, the
information below may be of some interest.
Terry
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Bill, this came over the net on 29 August 1995 thru Skunk Works:
Dean W. Smeaton wrote:
>We all probably know what the code words 'Broken Arrow' mean- a nuke
>'incident'. If Uncle Sam has code words for a nuke incident, do they have
>words to describe the magnitude of the incident? If anyone knows these
>designations, or can suggest where to conduct research, I'd appreciate it.
I don't know about the equivalent code words for incidents and accidents
involving biological and/or chemical weapons/materials, but here is a
description of the 4 categories/classes of incidents/accidents concerning
nuclear weapons/materials/facilities (or components of such):
'Dull Sword'
- ------------
Incident that (could) lead to uncontrolled reactions of nuclear material
with danger for life, health or materials.
'Faded Giant'
- -------------
Uncontrolled chain-reaction in nuclear-reactor with damage of reactor-core
or contamination of atmosphere or environment.
'Bent Spear'
- ------------
Incident with (component of) nuclear weapon leading to:
* heavy damage of weapon, remanufacture, replacement or new (AEC/NRC/DNA)
approving necessary;
* immediate counter-action necessary for security reasons;
* possibility of negative publicity or loss of secrecy;
* possibility of (partial) activation of nuclear weapon;
* possibility of accident, which [has] to be told to the IAEA;
'Broken Arrow'
- --------------
Accident or incident with (component of) nuclear weapon like:
* nuclear explosion;
* conventional explosion or burning of weapon;
* radiological contamination;
* hijacking, thievery or loss of weapon or components;
* real or possible danger for people;
There have been at least 32 reported 'Broken Arrow' incidents over the past 50
years, and several others are probably still classified. I suspect that even
more incidents, belonging to the other categories have also taken place. --
Andreas
- ---
Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Paul 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: ahanley@usace.mil
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 8:49:58
Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
AWACS, like the E-2C, is designed to find and track airborne targets. As such
it is optimized for that role, which it does quite well. One of the features
built in, which gives it the ability to look down and pick things out of ground
clutter, is that it normally will reject a return from anything moving slower
than a certain speed. A stationary or slow moving vehicle is something it
doesn't see very well, if at all. You can turn the moving target indicator
off, but then you also get ground clutter and a stationary launcher probably
won't be visible. This is one of the big reasons JSTARS was developed, sort of
an AWACS for ground targets. That's also one of the reasons JSTARS was rushed
to the Gulf even though it was in early development. You'll note how
dramatically different the antenna configuration is. An AWACS might be able to
theoretically find mobile launchers that haven't fired, but I wouldn't depend
on it too much.
On the other hand, as soon as a Scud is launched and accelerates above 60 knots
or so, it's going to be visible to an AWACS, if there's one in range. Given
the position and course of the missile, the AWACS should be able to determine
the launch point. If strike assets are close by, they can be dispatched to the
location and hopefully arrive before the launcher has time to move. The
problem here remains, though, that to use this technique the launcher gets to
fire at least once. Our results on finding launchers indicates that we had
severe problems in the before launch phase.
Keep in mind also, that the Scud and its launcher was fairly primitive by
current standards. The Soviets, and no doubt others, has developed some very
effective mobile launchers that would be much harder to locate than Scud
launchers were. That's one of the reasons there's such a push on improved
recon and identification technology now, preferably the kind that doesn't let
the target know it's been found or allow it time to react.
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: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:13:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
Sorry, I forgot to specifiy that I begin counting
when I see someone grab a revolver.
I too have a Glock (22) chambered in .40 S&W,
15 in the clip one in the pipe.
- -J
- ----- Begin Included Message -----
From dadams@netcom.com Wed Feb 14 01:24 PST 1996
From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie"
To: Gerald.Welch@Corp (Gerald Welch)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 01:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> - 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).
6?? Where have you been hiding? :)
I have 19 and 30 round magazines for my Glock.
Most decent handguns will hold at least 15 rounds.
- ----- End Included Message -----
------------------------------
From: russellk@BIX.com
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:22:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ben Rich's book out in paper
For those who didn't know, Skunk Works, by Ben Rich and Leo Janos, is now
out in a trade paperback edition at $12.95. If you haven't read this,
here's your chance at a more reasonable price. I'm only partway through,
but there's some really fascinating, wonderful stuff inside.
============================================
Russell Kay, Technical Editor, BYTE Magazine
1 Phoenix Mill Lane, Peterborough, NH 03458
603-924-2591; fax 603-924-2550
russellk@bix.com
============================================
------------------------------
From: Wei-Jen Su
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:34:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Art Hanley wrote:
> There is a direct relevance to this list. We often tend to think of
> stealth and/or very high speed in a strategic sense, but it can be a
> great tactical asset. If an airborne recon platform locates a
> launcher, but is itself observed, the recon platform becomes a
> target. The RA-5C during the Viewnam war suffered the highest rate
> of combat losses. That's because the N. Vietnamese knew they'd
> always be coming right after a strike and would put everything they
> had in the air against them. Similary, recon could expect to be a
> target if it appears to be on the verge of locating a launcher. This
> didn't happen in the Gulf War because of the destruction of a lot
> of the AA defense. However, if a launcher thought it had been
^^
It is not because most fighter is flying at night? During
vietnam, most of the fighter are flying day light mission.
May the Force be with you
Su Wei-Jen
E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu
------------------------------
From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:39:50 PST
Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long)
>It is not because most fighter is flying at night? During
>Vietnam, most of the fighter are flying day light mission.
>
> May the Force be with you
> Su Wei-Jen
> E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu
Agreed. Flying a 117 or a B2 over enemy territory in daylight
would certaintly require nerves of steel.
Once a B2 is located, its dead. Period. It can`t shoot back, it can`t evade,
and it can`t outrun.
Chuck
PS, heard a new nickname for F16:
"Bottle Rocket"
It was explained to me that they go ssswwwwiiiishhhhhh.........Poof!
------------------------------
From: ahanley@usace.mil
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 13:21:07
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #619
RE: UAV thread...
Actually, you don't need to knock down the sattelites, just jam the commo form
the sattelites, then you get to play the came of ECM, ECCM, CECCM, Son of ECM,
The Return of ECM, ECM-5: The Final Chapter, The Search for ECM, etc...
Also it's funny that using the Shuttle's mobile arm to snag sattelites in LEO.
When the Shuttle first started flying, the Soviet propaganda machine cranked up
saying that it was really just an anti-sattelite weapon. As "proof", they
cited the manipulator arm which they said was obviously designed to grab the
simple peace-loving unmanned orbital scientific research stations heroically
lofted into the cosmos by the Worker's Paradise.
Obviously, they were right...
Art Hanley
Don't even think, not for a second,
That what I said above has anything
To do with my employer's position.
------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #621
*********************************
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).