From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #649 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 19 April 1996 Volume 05 : Number 649 In this issue: [none] [none] Re[4]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Aviation military spending and the "black" budget Re: Re[2]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? [none] Re: military spending and the "black" budget Re: Why? Airspeed Meter question... Darkstar Update Re: Airspeed Meter question... Why keep programs black? Secrecy and stuff Re: Why? Spy Satelite Images 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: buzzahd@bluefin.net Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:54:10 -0400 Subject: [none] suscribe buzzahd@bluefin.net skunk-works@mail.orst.edu ------------------------------ From: Rolling Thunder Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:25:30 CDT Subject: [none] unsbscribe tekiya@iastate.edu skunk-works@mail.orst.edu ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:19:57 GMT Subject: Re[4]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Forwarded "AS IS" private e-mail: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[4]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 15/04/1996 1006 Yes, Mr Duncan, I think Dr Korb truly is naive. And your comments about the CH-46 are right on target. I have it on good authority that the CH-46 was not of much use when it was new. (An SF officer left sitting in the bush, repeatedly, because the CH-46 was unable to operate in the high density altitude typical of western I Corps for much of the year. It might have been OK at sea level, but sucked in the mountains.) My earlier quote of the East German couple ("Now is not the time for the US Army to get small.") Did not mean that I - or they - did not think that adjustments could be made in the Defense Budget. And those adjustments may very well have led to reductions in overall spending. (Grunts come cheaper than airmen.) However, you point out the problem. The constituency for what is really needed in this world is not large enough to bring home the bacon. What is really needed? Not fewer but more divisions, and their support slice. So we get more uncalled for bombers and attack subs, while solutions to REAL requirements are cut back or eliminated. Cutback: The Osprey (The Marines always were better at lobbying than the Army.) Eliminated: The Armored Gun System - the only truly air deliverable tank. The solution to that problem seems to be elimination of the armored battalion in the 82d. Also, convert the light armored cavalry into semi-heavy armored cavalry. "If you can't satisfy the problem - eliminate the need." Eliminated in all but name: The Comanche helicopter. A lot of future planning - part of the "Bottum's Up Review" - was built around this aircraft. And now I read where the Army is alerted to an additional 20k man cut. That's a division plus. Some one ought to check the optempo in the Army and Marine divisions. I believe that it has gone up while force level has gone down. Some "peace dividend." Oh well, "Shut up and soldier" as my platoon sergeant used to say. Bill Riddle My opinion - not "necessarily" my employers. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Re[2]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 4/15/96 9:06 AM FYI ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: RE: Re[2]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? Author: "Murrell, Duncan V." at smtp-fhu Date: 14/04/1996 1748 "If Paul is naive, then he is in good company: "With the demise of the Soviet threat and the emerging consensus on the need to deal with the deficit, one might have expected defense spending to bear some portion of the reductions, or at least not be increased." -- from _Foreign Affairs_, Nov.-Dec. 1995, by Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense (Reagan administration), former director of defense policy studies, American Enterprise Institute (not exactly a bunch of bleeding hearts), former vice president of Raytheon." ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 13:01:50 GMT Subject: Aviation Internet "aviation": ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ *AVIATION--------------------------------------------------------------------- -Avion Newspaper http://avion.db.erau.edu/ The 1st online Aviation/Aerospace paper, includes pics, stories & graphics. -Aviation Gophers/Web gopher av.eecs.nwu.edu gopher gopher.unomaha.edu (Select UNO Student Org...) gopher gopher.db.erau.edu (Select: Aerospace/Aviation) gopher gasnet.med.nyu.edu (Select: Aviation/) http://aviation.jsc.nasa.gov http://acro.harvard.edu/GA/ga_info.html http://www.aviation.span.ch/ [European] http://usis.com/~rcecil/ [Aviation Digest] http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/rec/air/air.html offers: Acts as a repository for things on rec.aviation. (pics, stories...) -Avi. Weather Reports gopher geograf1.sbs.ohio-state.edu and select: Aviation -DUATS telnet duat.gtefsd.com or telnet 131.131.7.105 offers: Aviation weather, flight planning. (Login: ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 13:44:28 PDT Subject: military spending and the "black" budget Since some people on this newsgroup didn't quite understand why I have been so opposed to secret U.S. military spending, i.e., the "black" budget, I chose today, April 15, 1996, "Tax Day" to provide a response. The "black" budget for classified military spending is part of a larger problem of wasteful spending of the taxpayers' money by a bloated U.S. government. While various groups have challenged the huge sums of money that are spent in other areas, such as social programs, few people question defense spending. That is one of the reasons I felt I had to do something. (This mailing list does not know the full extent of my campaign, through means such as the Freedom of Information Act, forcing bureaucrats to answer embarrassing questions, etc.) So, my motivation is to try and reform a military system that added more than 1 trillion dollars to the budget deficit over the last 20 years, by spending billions of dollars apiece on unnecessary weapons that were never used, and in the case of nuclear weapons, unlikely to ever be used. I suppose someone reading this will defend practices such as buying 24 new Trident II missiles in 1996, each with multiple nuclear warheads. Does the U.S. think they will be useful in places like Bosnia? It seems that far too much of our military spending is done to keep politicians and their corporate donors happy with fat contracts, without considering whether the program really helps defend the United States. So, why I do feel that classified spending is wrong? Why am I opposed to secret programs that the taxpayers are not allowed to know about? * It's a symptom of the larger problem of the military and the defense industry conspiring to waste billions of dollars on unnecessary programs. Since the American public is not allowed to know where the money is going on "black" programs,the temptation is for those involved to pad costs, commit fraud, and evade detection because of the classified nature of the program. This has been borne out by several General Accounting Office (GAO) audits, and FBI investigations such as "Operation Ill Wind". * The technologies that are developed in "black" programs are not made available to American industry. Even though a classified program may develop a technology that would help U.S. industry compete against other nations, particularly the Japanese, because of its sensitive nature, it can not be released. The Pentagon forgets that the results of their research and development belong to all Americans, and not exclusively to the military. know where there money is going to. * There is an explicit Constitutional ban on secret spending by the U.S. government in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. This part of the Constitution is in keeping with the wishes of this country's founders who felt that government derived its authority from the informed consent of the governed. How can I, or my elected officials give their informed consent when there are special access programs that only 4 people in the Congress who are even allowed to know about them (see Title 10, United States Code, Section 119 for further information.) * Currently, even historical "black" programs are still kept classified, so that their effectiveness can not even be examined. For example, try to get the military to reveal programs from the 1980s, such as HAVE DJINN, ISLAND SUN, or GENTRY, as I have attempted and you will find they are still classified for reasons of "national security". The cynics, myself included would contend that the real reason is to hide the military's mistakes and prevent embarrassmment to government officials, something that was explicitly prohibited by both President Reagan's Executive Order 12356 and President Clinton's Execuitve Order 12958, on classified information. Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:51:04 Subject: Re: Re[2]: contract for classified SENIOR CITIZEN aircraft? > >On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Byron Weber wrote: > >> >> Todays NY Times reported the US Military is asking for an additional >> $15 billion in next years budget for weapons and "other items." >> Apparently President Clinton promised to increase weapons spending >> every year for five years until it reached $60 billion by 2001. By > > etc. > >Are these figures for the total budget or procurement only? >--Brett > The $60 billion, promised by Clinton by 2001, represents new weapons only. Last month he requested $242.6 billion for defense for the coming fiscal year. The military wants an additional $15 billion, next year, for new weapons. That would increase it to $257.6 billion. The breakdown of the $15 billion is interesting. Army, $7.14 for 314 separate spending requests (including several classified programs), Air Force, $2.84 billion including 2 JStars aircraft, F-15s and F-16s and Awacs engines, Navy, $3.01 billion-new attack submarine and 3 destroyers and Marines, $2.1 billion-V22s, 155mm howitzers and upgrades. Byron ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:16:17 -0400 Subject: [none] question regarding why the secrecy of the X-36 program, Mary Shafer wrote: "Proprietary advantage, probably. Companies are not obliged to tell the world how they're spending their IR&D money, after all. It's only the gummint that has to account to the taxpayers." Proprietary advantage may be good for the contractors, but it was no advantage to the U.S. taxpayers in the cancelled A-12 project. McDonnell Douglas claimed it couldn't meet the technology targets assigned because its competitors would not release technical information (paid for by tax dollars) as the A-12 contract provided. MD won the multi-billion dollar lawsuit. AND now the Air Force is scrambling to use the F-15E a make-due replacement for the F-111, and the Navy is doing the same with the F/A-18E/F. Neither aircraft has the range of the plane it is replacing. Neither is particularly stealthy. Thus both services are coming up short in the most important tactical role, AND ongoing secrecy is blurring the extent of the problem and may doom us to repeat it. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:42:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: military spending and the "black" budget On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 TRADER@cup.portal.com wrote: > * The technologies that are developed in "black" programs are not made > available to American industry. Even though a classified program may develop > a technology that would help U.S. industry compete against other nations, > particularly the Japanese, because of its sensitive nature, it can not > be released. The Pentagon forgets that the results of their research and > * Currently, even historical "black" programs are still kept classified, so > that their effectiveness can not even be examined. For example, try to > get the military to reveal programs from the 1980s, such as HAVE DJINN, > ISLAND SUN, or GENTRY, as I have attempted and you will find they are still > classified for reasons of "national security". The cynics, myself included > would contend that the real reason is to hide the military's mistakes and > prevent embarrassmment to government officials, something that was explicitly > prohibited by both President Reagan's Executive Order 12356 and President > Clinton's Execuitve Order 12958, on classified information. Paul, I am quite agree with you. But, I think all we know that the whole point of having a classified program is the element of suprise to the enemy. For example, the F-117. If we keep it in secret and use it during the war... No one will know what the hell hit the enemy target. You know that for all offense weapon there is a contra-offense. So, if the enemy knew about the F-117 program, they may start to develop a system that contra-attack the Stealth. Some other program that as you said you think it is outdated, it still contain some important value. Technology from the past are technology that we are using today... I got some "classified" information of the latest technology develop during the early 70's and hell... You don't ever thought that we have that kind of technology in that time... not even today. Stealth and visual invisibility that we are talking today are coming from the research during the early 70's. Hope you find more classified program's "leaks" :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 02:20:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Why? > >From: David Lednicer > >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) > >Subject: Why? > ...... > >example - the X-36 was a deep dark secret until the day they rolled it out. > >What was gained by keeping it secret during the time they were building it? > ...... > > Yes. Would anyone care to offer an explanation of what was conceivably > gained by keeping this thing under wraps?? > > ____________________________ > > John Pike > Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects > Federation of American Scientists > 307 Massachusetts Ave. NE > Washington, DC 20002 > V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/ > One of the "UCAV" demonstrator aircraft flying out at Groom may very well be the "flip side" of the X-36 project. The X-36 is to examine the manueverablity of a stealthy, no vertical tail aircraft. The wing that McDD is *probably* flying out at Groom might be to see how stealthy a tailless unmanned aircraft could be. I've got a database of 14 sightings of what I think is the McDD UCAV a/c.... something like the pre-83 B-2 design and with the X-36 platypus nozzle. There is a lump where a cockpit should be, and there are conflicting reports as to wether it is clear or opaque. Datalink blist maybe, ala Predator and GlobalHawk? ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Airspeed Meter question... Hello Skunkers... I have a question... maybe some Aerospace Eng. in the list can answer me... Relative with airspeed, what is the meaning of KIAS? There is any relation with Knots or Mach number? The reason is that in the SR-71 Pilot's Manual said: "The limit hand of the airspeed-mach meter is set to indicate 460 KIAS at sea level" Somebody told me that KIAS is Knots Indicate Air Speed. SO, if it is Knots.. The speed of the sound at sea level in a standard atmospere condition is 1116.4 ft/s which is 661.45 Knots. Therefore, 460 Knots is less than Mach 1. If we take in consideration that teh typical mission of the SR-71 will fly higher than 70,000 ft. The speed of the sound in that altitud is 968.08 ft/s which is 573.57 Knots. 460 Knots still is less than Mach 1!!! As we know, the SR-71 fly faster than Mach 3... Anyone can answer my question and confusion??? May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Darkstar Update DarkStar makes 'picture-perfect' first flight WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) -- The Tier III DarkStar Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) successfully completed its first flight March 29. Taking off from the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., at 6:25 a.m. (PST), DarkStar achieved an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet and completed pre- programmed, basic flight maneuvers, according to Maj. Mark Mattoon, flight test director. "It was flawless...picture-perfect," he said. "The system successfully executed a fully autonomous flight from takeoff to landing, using the differential Global Positioning System." DarkStar has a short, disk-shaped body and 69-foot wingspan. It is capable of flying 500 nautical miles from its base at altitudes as high as 45,000 feet, and to loiter above highly-defended, reconnaissance sites and most airborne radars for more than eight hours. With its wings off, the craft can be carried aboard a C-130 transport. "Designed to take American fighting forces out of harm's way while giving them more accurate battlefield data via three different types of sensors that can transmit data real-time, DarkStar will operate within the current military force structure, and with existing command, control, communications, computer and intelligence equipment," said UAV SPO director Lt. Col. Thomas J. DiNino. "Once this flight test program is completed, DarkStar will join its companion program, the Tier II PLus Global Hawk, as a critical part of the Air Force's future vision for improved tactical reconnaissance." DarkStar's flight test program is geared to evaluate basic system performance, including a Synthetic Aperture Radar and electro- optical payloads. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Dryden Flight Research Center, also located at Edwards, is conducting DarkStar's test flights, which are scheduled to continue through September l997. Once the tests are completed, DarkStar will undergo technical demonstrations for military applications. The UAV program is managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on behalf of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, and due to transition to the Air Force's Joint Endurance UAV System Program Office at Aeronautical Systems Center here. (Courtesy of AFMC News Service and Aeronautical Systems Center Public Affairs) * ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:17:17 PDT Subject: Re: Airspeed Meter question... KIAS is indicated airspeed in knots. An airspeed indicator uses the difference between dynamic and static pressure to determine the velocity of a fluid. From thermodynamics: DeltaV = SQRT((2deltaP)/density)) Energy equation with V1 and h1 and h2 = zero, solve for V2. But notice that the density term is constant. This causes problems since the our knowledge of gas kinetics and the Ideal Gas Law(s) tell us the density of the atmosphere changes with altitude. If the density gets smaller (as it does with altitude) the solution to the above will increase in magnitude. The result is the airplane is flying faster than indicated. The dynamic pressure, however, is the same. The airspeed, corrected for density change, is called the "True Airspeed". This is the "speed" that the airplane actually moves through the air. Next- add the effects of the air`s movement, and you can compute the groundspeed. This is the speed the airplane makes good over the ground, and is what determines time enroute. If you want to get going really fast (faster than Mach 4) things get more complicated. An airplane flying "straight and level" is really flying neither straight nor level. It flys a circular path and at the same time rotates around the axis aligned with its wingspan. Aircraft that fly this fast have T/W rates greater than unity in the "cruise" mode. This creates a flight control problem since the rate of rotation must match the flight path for the given velocity to keep the thrust vector properly aligned. The pitch rate for cruise becomes nontrivial at hypersonic velocities. All of this is very controllable, but I thought some might enjoy a little peek into the secret life of the thunderbirds. Contrary to popular belief, two similar airplanes at the same dynamic pressure but at different altitudes will not act the same. The effects of aero-damping and temperature will sometimes cause wildly different behaviors. Roll damping for example, is very density dependent. And more deadly, flutter. A Mach meter uses the Raleigh formula. It gives you non-dimesionalized velocity as a ratio of the speed of sound. The formula is past discussion here but Roskam or Nelson should have it. Perhaps Anderson developes it in his gas dynamics text. Lots of (gamma - 1) in there! Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:31:43 PDT Subject: Why keep programs black? Sometimes very mundane "products" are kept black This is hard for the unitiated to understand. I`ll try to explain. Often, the technology of the finished goods is not the secret. It might be the hardware, software, or process used to develope the otherwise unordinary machine is the experiment. A non-tech might look at the UAV and say "big deal" , but the project just might have been used as a trial run for a breakthrough technology in design, materials, or the most often overlooked- manufacturing process which allows new shapes and materials to be used. The SR71 is a prime example. The Lockheed team had to invent the tools and processes to build it. The aircaft design is otherwise pretty simple (a Johnson trademark- KJ never had design breakthroughs as far as aero was concerned , he just figured out how to build the airplanes that the competition was dreaming of.) My $0.02 Chuck ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 16-Apr-1996 1355 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 14:04:08 EDT Subject: Secrecy and stuff ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: >Proprietary advantage may be good for the contractors, but it was no >advantage to the U.S. taxpayers in the canceled A-12 project. McDonnell >Douglas claimed it couldn't meet the technology targets assigned because its >competitors would not release technical information (paid for by tax dollars) >as the A-12 contract provided. Which means the government defaulted on the contract. This has little to do with secrecy and a great deal to do with how the single buyer in a monopsony environment deals with its suppliers. The government lied to GD/McD-D about various aspects of the A-12 program. A Federal judge has ruled in favor of the contractors. >MD won the multi-billion dollar lawsuit. AND >now the Air Force is scrambling to use the F-15E a make-due replacement for >the F-111, and the Navy is doing the same with the F/A-18E/F. Neither >aircraft has the range of the plane it is replacing. Neither is particularly >stealthy. Thus both services are coming up short in the most important >tactical role, AND ongoing secrecy is blurring the extent of the problem and >may doom us to repeat it. Disagree strongly. In the current administration, no one wants to say the tactical attack aircraft problem is critical and can only be repaired by designing and procuring a suitable aircraft for the 21st century, not a 1970s fighter respun as an attack aircraft. No one wants to say it because the answer is a new tactical procurement program, and that would require billions of $/yr that aren't going to appear. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "If you die, you lose a very Internet Software Business | important part of your life." Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- Brooke Shields ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:15:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Why? On Apr 16, 1995 02:20:10, 'quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe)' wrote: >> >From: David Lednicer >> >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) >> >Subject: Why? >> ...... >> >example - the X-36 was a deep dark secret until the day they rolled it out. >> >What was gained by keeping it secret during the time they were building it? >> ...... >> >> Yes. Would anyone care to offer an explanation of what was conceivably >> gained by keeping this thing under wraps?? >> >> ____________________________ >> >> John Pike >> Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects >> Federation of American Scientists >> 307 Massachusetts Ave. NE >> Washington, DC 20002 >> V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/ >> > >One of the "UCAV" demonstrator aircraft flying out at Groom may very well >be the "flip side" of the X-36 project. The X-36 is to examine the >manueverablity of a stealthy, no vertical tail aircraft. The wing that McDD >is *probably* flying out at Groom might be to see how stealthy a tailless >unmanned aircraft could be. I've got a database of 14 sightings of what I >think is the McDD UCAV a/c.... something like the pre-83 B-2 design and >with the X-36 platypus nozzle. There is a lump where a cockpit should be, >and there are conflicting reports as to wether it is clear or opaque. >Datalink blist maybe, ala Predator and GlobalHawk? > > > I still don't get it. If the X-36 is the cover for a black program, what purpose is served for keeping it secret? ------------------------------ From: tomas@medialab.ericsson.se (Tomas Stephanson) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:15:47 +0200 Subject: Spy Satelite Images Hi I am looking for images from a spy satellite. The images more specificly are the images of the Soviet Aircraft Carrier Minsk? (is that the name) taken from a American Spy Satellite. The images very unique in the way it was the first time images showing the capabilities of modern satellites where shown (the pictures where not "officaly" publicized but where leaked from somebody who has later fired for it (if I remember correctly). I think they where printed in the Scientific American in the Early 80's. Anybody have them online? Thanks Tomas ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #649 ********************************* 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).