From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #668 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 22 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 668 In this issue: Re: Some "official" numbers Re: Some "official" numbers Re: Some "official" numbers Re: Some "official" numbers George Bush Comment Read My LIps F/A-18 Crash SAC Recon Conference Re: George Bush Comment Re: Some "official" numbers Re: Some "official" numbers Re: F/A-18 Crash re: F/A-18 Crash Re: Some "official" numbers Re: Some "official" numbers Thanks Re: George Bush Comment Re: George Bush Comment 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 02:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 drbob@creighton.edu wrote: > Although it's been a while since we've discussed SR-71 operating costs, I > came across a reference today that may offer some "official" fuel to the > fire. > > In a presentation given during the May 1996 Strategic Air Command > Symposium held at Offutt AFB, Dr. Vance Mitchell discussed, inter alia, > SR-71 and U-2 recon operations. Concerning the Sled, he said that the > weaknesses of the airplane included "its limited overflight potential, Typical mission of SR-71 is flying in the border of URSS and using her side view camera to take pictures all the way in the deep territory. I don't know if the SR-71 have ever flow inside of the URSS territory (Does anyone in the list know???), but in her time, there is no way you can ever shoot her down!!! period!!! The closest possibility to shoot the Blackbird down is by our F-15 (the best fighter in her time). As Jim Norris said, referring to the Blackbird: "Her enemies will never be natural". > short flight times (less than two hours between take-offs and landings or > inflight refuelings) and sky-high operating costs (as much as seventy I hear of SR-71 missions that last for 11 hours. U-2 can last for 12 hours in cruise condition. Seen pretty high flight times for me. But, of course, compare with the new generation of UAVs, it has short flight times and it is expensive. > thousand dollars per flying hour)." Mitchell's source for the operating > costs was Dr. Coy Cross, the 9th SRW historian. > It is not Dr. McCoy from Star Trek??? :) > Mitchell also indicates that as of the late 1970s, the hourly operating > costs for the U-2 was "only about fifteen hundred dollars." > > Just thought you'd like to know. > > Dr Bob > May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers > On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 drbob@creighton.edu wrote: > > In a presentation given during the May 1996 Strategic Air Command > > Symposium held at Offutt AFB, Dr. Vance Mitchell discussed, inter alia, > > SR-71 and U-2 recon operations. Concerning the Sled, he said that the > > weaknesses of the airplane included "its limited overflight potential, That seems like a strange thing to say, since what other aircraft has better "overflight potential" than the Mach 3+, 85,000+ ft Blackbird? Certainly not the U-2. About the only aircraft I can imagine that might have better overflight potential would be the mythical "Aurora". Could this be a semi-offical acknowledgment of it's existance? :) ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 20:44:33 +1000 Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers >> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 drbob@creighton.edu wrote: >> > In a presentation given during the May 1996 Strategic Air Command >> > Symposium held at Offutt AFB, Dr. Vance Mitchell discussed, inter alia, >> > SR-71 and U-2 recon operations. Concerning the Sled, he said that the >> > weaknesses of the airplane included "its limited overflight potential, > >That seems like a strange thing to say, since what other aircraft >has better "overflight potential" than the Mach 3+, 85,000+ ft >Blackbird? Certainly not the U-2. > >About the only aircraft I can imagine that might have better >overflight potential would be the mythical "Aurora". > >Could this be a semi-offical acknowledgment of it's existance? :) > :-) That'd be something, wouldn't it? Well said, my friend :-) ********************************************************************* * * * "You don't know the half of it" * * -- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs * * * * "The truth is out there ... But so are lies." * * -- Dana Scully * * * * "Is it a game, or is it real?" * * -- David Lightman * * * * ------------------------------------------------------- * * * * Matthew Etherington * * * * =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) * * * ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 20:44:33 +1000 Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers >> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 drbob@creighton.edu wrote: >> > In a presentation given during the May 1996 Strategic Air Command >> > Symposium held at Offutt AFB, Dr. Vance Mitchell discussed, inter alia, >> > SR-71 and U-2 recon operations. Concerning the Sled, he said that the >> > weaknesses of the airplane included "its limited overflight potential, > >That seems like a strange thing to say, since what other aircraft >has better "overflight potential" than the Mach 3+, 85,000+ ft >Blackbird? Certainly not the U-2. > >About the only aircraft I can imagine that might have better >overflight potential would be the mythical "Aurora". > >Could this be a semi-offical acknowledgment of it's existance? :) > :-) That'd be something, wouldn't it? Well said, my friend :-) ********************************************************************* * * * "You don't know the half of it" * * -- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs * * * * "The truth is out there ... But so are lies." * * -- Dana Scully * * * * "Is it a game, or is it real?" * * -- David Lightman * * * * ------------------------------------------------------- * * * * Matthew Etherington * * * * =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) * * * ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 21:11:43 +1000 Subject: George Bush Comment Larry wrote : > >>"You don't know the half of it" >>-- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs > >Where did you get that comment. I've never heard it before. > >Larry > >larry@ichips.intel.com > This quote came to my attention in the June 10, 1996 issue of Australian Woman's Day. It has an article entitled "War of the Worlds", which contains information from Timothy Good's book, "Above Top Secret." One paragraph in the article reads - " "You don't know the half of it," was all former US President and director of the CIA George Bush could say when asked by a campaign committee member about the UFO secrecy during his first presidential election bid. " What one can gather from this is that he knows somewhat more than most about the UFO phenomenon, and almost certainly knows more about it than any other US President ever did. ********************************************************************* * * * "You don't know the half of it" * * -- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs * * * * "The truth is out there ... But so are lies." * * -- Dana Scully * * * * "Is it a game, or is it real?" * * -- David Lightman * * * * ------------------------------------------------------- * * * * Matthew Etherington * * * * =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) * * * ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 21-Jun-1996 0928 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 09:33:41 EDT Subject: Read My LIps Matthew Etherington wrote: >Larry wrote : > >>"You don't know the half of it" >>-- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs > >Where did you get that comment. I've never heard it before. > >Larry > >larry@ichips.intel.com> > This quote came to my attention in the June 10, 1996 issue of > Australian Woman's Day. It has an article entitled "War of the > Worlds", which contains information from Timothy Good's book, > "Above Top Secret." One paragraph in the article reads - > " "You don't know the half of it," was all former US > President and director of the CIA George Bush could > say when asked by a campaign committee member about > the UFO secrecy during his first presidential > election bid. " > What one can gather from this is that he knows somewhat more than > most about the UFO phenomenon, and almost certainly knows more > about it than any other US President ever did. Or, that he was having a little fun with a particularly gullible reporter. This is assuming he (Bush) even said this. George ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:04:19 -0700 Subject: F/A-18 Crash Okay, I know this is waaaaaay off topic, but the local news here really sucks! No mention of it on tv (which I rarely watch) and only a 1 inch blurb in the paper, so I thought I'd ask here: Was Tuesday's (?) crash of an F/A-18 in St. Louis (?) one of the new F/A-18E/F models or the current C/D series? Can someone direct me to a good info source on the web? (url or mail-list?) Does anyone happen to know MDD's url? (heresy, I know...) Private replies are fine - thanks in advance. Greg D. Fieser "since I'm self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer..." ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:04:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: SAC Recon Conference Skunk Works fans may be interested to learn of the forthcoming Strategic Reconnaissance Reunion to be held 4-7 September 1996, in Omaha, Nebraska. Most of the activities are intended for "grip and grin" purposes, i.e., to renew old acquaintances, but on Saturday 7 September there will be a number of semi-official briefings on a variety of recon related topics. Looking at the list of who's coming, I recognize a few Sled crewmembers and a couple of U-2 pilots. Persons interested in attending should write to Colonel Harlon Hain (ret.), 212 Bellevue Blvd North, Bellevue, NE, 68005, for more information. Here's your chance to meet with and talk to the largest group of Skunk Works recon users! Dr Bob ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: George Bush Comment > >Where did you get that comment. I've never heard it before. > > This quote came to my attention in the June 10, 1996 issue of > Australian Woman's Day. It has an article entitled "War of the > Worlds", which contains information from Timothy Good's book, > "Above Top Secret." One paragraph in the article reads - > > " "You don't know the half of it," was all former US > President and director of the CIA George Bush could > say when asked by a campaign committee member about > the UFO secrecy during his first presidential > election bid. " > > What one can gather from this is that he knows somewhat more than > most about the UFO phenomenon, Not really, since Timothy Good has been known to repeat a lot of unsubstantiated tabloid-level material in his UFO books. Also that article you are talking about sounds like just another tabloid fluff piece. > and almost certainly knows more > about it than any other US President ever did. Where in the world did you gather that from? ------------------------------ From: Ian Webster Simpson Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers >About the only aircraft I can imagine that might have better >overflight potential would be the mythical "Aurora". >Could this be a semi-offical acknowledgment of it's existance? :) Heh. I think that a lot of the SR71's "limited overflight potential" is due more to political limitations than military ones-- intrusion into someone's airspace can be rather bad press, even if they don't bring down the aircraft. Recon satellites have better overflight potential in that regard (but limitations of their own, of course). - --Ian ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:01:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers >> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 drbob@creighton.edu wrote: >> > In a presentation given during the May 1996 Strategic Air Command >> > Symposium held at Offutt AFB, Dr. Vance Mitchell discussed, inter alia, >> > SR-71 and U-2 recon operations. Concerning the Sled, he said that the >> > weaknesses of the airplane included "its limited overflight potential, Dean responds: >That seems like a strange thing to say, since what other aircraft >has better "overflight potential" than the Mach 3+, 85,000+ ft >Blackbird? Certainly not the U-2. > >About the only aircraft I can imagine that might have better >overflight potential would be the mythical "Aurora". > >Could this be a semi-offical acknowledgment of it's existance? :) That's funny! Yes. When the shooting starts, speed is life! That was one of the key points of why the A-12 was designed to replace the U-2. Since then these assets have been recognized as falling into different categories and therefore comparing them is really like comparing apples and oranges. This was brought out as early as 1989 when Generals Randolph and Dugan were interviewed by Defense News (Defense News, 4/24/89, pg 4: AF Pushes for New Stealthy Spy Vehicle). Defense News summarized their comments by saying that a replacement for the Air Force's U-2 and TR-1 spy planes is likely to be fielded long before a follow-on to the SR-71. We of course are seeing that come true today with all these new UAVs. High speed platforms have different strengths. I've gotta get off my butt and post the beginning of this nice little Mach 5 turboramjet inlet study I found, that Lockheed did in 1980 as part of a Mach 5 Penetrator Study, which they actually tested in NASA wind tunnels (Lewis for example) in the late 80's and early 90's. Larry ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: F/A-18 Crash It was an F-18C, practicing for an airshow. Try rec.aviation.military for more info. The pilot was ex-Navy, callsign "Crutch": as I recall. Folks who knew him said he was a great pilot and a wonderful person. 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 Fri, 21 Jun 1996, habu wrote: > Okay, I know this is waaaaaay off topic, but the local news here really > sucks! No mention of it on tv (which I rarely watch) and only a 1 inch > blurb in the paper, so I thought I'd ask here: > > Was Tuesday's (?) crash of an F/A-18 in St. Louis (?) one of the new > F/A-18E/F models or the current C/D series? Can someone direct me to > a good info source on the web? (url or mail-list?) > Does anyone happen to know MDD's url? (heresy, I know...) > > Private replies are fine - thanks in advance. > > Greg D. Fieser > > "since I'm self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer..." ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 12:28:20  Subject: re: F/A-18 Crash MDD's web page is www.mdc.com, but they're just starting it and there's virtually nothing on it yet. Art Hanley These thoughts, such as they are, do not represent the thoughts of my employers, if in fact they choose to have any ------------------------------ From: Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 12:26:07 PDT Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers Comments by : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Date : Friday, June 21, 1996 12:25:58 Forwarded to : internet[skunk-works@mail.orst.edu] -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- To : smtp@SPKSYS12@Servers[wsu02@barney.poly.edu] From : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Subject : Re: Some "official" numbers Date : Friday, June 21, 1996 at 12:25:06 pm PDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regarding the SR-71 vs. the F-15, exercises were run on this and it became apparent that the Eagle's capability against a SR-71 at cruise was essentially zip. A F-14 equipped with Phoenix would have a much better chance If (and it's a big if) the Tomcat had sufficient warning to position itself for the shot and if the SR did not determine the location or at least the bearing of the Tomcat prior to coming within range. Art Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:46:37 Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers >High speed platforms have different strengths. > >I've gotta get off my butt and post the beginning of this nice little >Mach 5 turboramjet inlet study I found, that Lockheed did in 1980 as >part of a Mach 5 Penetrator Study, which they actually tested in NASA >wind tunnels (Lewis for example) in the late 80's and early 90's. > >Larry > Maybe Larry or someone else can tell me what exactly are the "strenghts" of high speed platforms, that is, beyond the capability of the Blackbird. The air force is taking proposals for speeds up to Mach 8, but I just dont see the benefit. Is it like climbing the mountain because its there? I recall an SR-1 pilot saying direction changes have to be initiated up to 20 minutes beforehand. Imagine the difficulty at Mach 8. Missile speeds are already so much greater than planes, I thought subsonic stealth was the answer. Byron ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 22:43:28 -0700 Subject: Thanks Thanks to all who replied to my request for F/A-18C & MDD info. Hope to be able to respond in kind some day. Greg ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:17:28 +1000 Subject: Re: George Bush Comment >> What one can gather from this is that he knows somewhat more than >> most about the UFO phenomenon, > >Not really, since Timothy Good has been known to repeat a lot >of unsubstantiated tabloid-level material in his UFO books. >Also that article you are talking about sounds like just >another tabloid fluff piece. > Fair comment, but I of course meant that one could gather this on the assumption that the quote is accurate ... or must we explicitly qualify our statements on this mailing list? > > and almost certainly knows more > > about it than any other US President ever did. > >Where in the world did you gather that from? > Seems like a fair assumption, based on his (alleged) quote, and the fact that he's an ex-director of the CIA. Can you name a former US President who would have known more, or been in a position to know more, about UFOs than Bush? If so, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Keep in mind that I live in Australia, so my grasp of US politics and politicians is cursory at best :-( ********************************************************************* * * * "You don't know the half of it" * * -- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs * * * * "The truth is out there ... But so are lies." * * -- Dana Scully * * * * "Is it a game, or is it real?" * * -- David Lightman * * * * ------------------------------------------------------- * * * * Matthew Etherington * * * * =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) * * * ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 03:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: George Bush Comment > >> What one can gather from this is that he knows somewhat more than > >> most about the UFO phenomenon, > > > >Not really, since Timothy Good has been known to repeat a lot > >of unsubstantiated tabloid-level material in his UFO books. > >Also that article you are talking about sounds like just > >another tabloid fluff piece. > > > Fair comment, but I of course meant that one could gather this > on the assumption that the quote is accurate ... or must we > explicitly qualify our statements on this mailing list? Information is only as good as it's source. I prefer to reserve such assumptions when the source is below a certain level of credibility. > > > and almost certainly knows more > > > about it than any other US President ever did. > > > >Where in the world did you gather that from? > > > Seems like a fair assumption, based on his (alleged) quote, and the > fact that he's an ex-director of the CIA. Every President is essentially the "director" of the CIA. > Can you name a former US President who would have known more > or been in a position to know more, about UFOs than Bush? No, because there is no way to know that Bush knew anything "more". > If so, I'd like to hear what you have > to say. Keep in mind that I live in Australia, so my grasp of US > politics and politicians is cursory at best :-( Don't worry, you're not missing much! :) BTW, what does this have to do with skunk-works?? ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #668 ********************************* 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).