From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #687 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 31 July 1996 Volume 05 : Number 687 In this issue: I'm paranoid: list status? A/F-117X and JSF Bomber Payloads NASA Re: NASA Re: Senior Citizen Nautical Mile, Knots, and Mach re: Bomber Payloads A deal's a deal! What Happened? re: A deal's a deal! RE: What Happened [none] [none] [none] Re: A deal's a deal! Re: A deal's a deal! Re: Bomber Payloads Still Up? Re: Senior Citizen Re: NASA Re: Senior Citizen 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: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:59:56 +1200 (NZST) Subject: I'm paranoid: list status? Hello, haven't had much lately. Has the list crashed again? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 03:55:26 GMT Subject: A/F-117X and JSF Here's some news on the naval A/F-117X that was proposed for the Navy strike role in lieu of the abandoned A/FX. On April 30, the Navy reportedly indicated that it did not want the aircraft, desiring instead to pour the money into the development and acquisition of Yesterday's plane for Tomorrow's mission, the F/A-18E/F. One other tidbit that came out of this was that according to press accounts, USAF would have been willing to buy 200 of these more capable F-117s, if the Navy developed the aircraft (some may also have been sold to Britain). Also, I asked a while back if anyone could explain why the House had directed in their version of the Defense Authorization Bill that no money be spent of the Marine version of JSF, the Marines being the largest customer for the plane after USAF. Here's an explanation from a recent press report: A ex-USAF pilot is now a Congressional staffer. He doesn't like the HArrier, and by extension STOVL. Of course, without JSF, Marine Air goes away in about 15 years, which means a bigger role for USAF, but that's probably incidental. He inserted the language in the Bill being marked up. No one in the Research and Development Subcommittee of the House National Security Committee noticed it was there, nor did the full Committee. When it reached the full House floor, what had been done was realized and a number of members were going to act to take the destructive language out, but were talked out of it because, "it could embarrass the Committee". And that, folks, is how the game is played in Washington. Hopefully, when the House and Senate reconcile their Bills, this will be fixed. Art "Safe at Home" Hanley ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 5:27:38 EDT Subject: Bomber Payloads One quick question, When different reports I've read talk about bombers carrying weapons, they sometimes mention that they can carry conventional or nuclear. As far as a bomber is concerned, what's the difference? I assume that some bombers can not carry nuclear weapons.....why? - -- 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: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 5:20:12 EDT Subject: NASA > NASA and the Air Force will unveil a jet-powered test > aircraft built to demonstrate technologies that will allow an > aircraft's flight control system to learn by mimicking the > pilot's flight inputs. The eight-foot-four-inch remotely- > controlled aircraft is a Mach 5 "waverider," a hypersonic > configuration that will be flown subsonically in flight tests > this August. I received this from NASA this morning. Any idea who built the aircraft? - -- 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 05:09:46 PDT Subject: Re: NASA Sounds like Batman built it. ------------------------------ From: Nicholas.BANFIELD@DG11.cec.be Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:01:18 +0200 Subject: Re: Senior Citizen Can anyone tell me something about a Mach many reconnaissance aircraft which folks over Scotland (UK) see every now and the? According to a newspaper report some while ago (the Guardian, I believe), the aircraft has the code name 'Senior Citizen' and tends to glow as it flies by ... Thanx. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 08:37:26 GMT Subject: Nautical Mile, Knots, and Mach Date: 30 Jul 1996 13:15:12 GMT From: Graydon Subject: Orbital Mach No. mancus@@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com wrote: : In <4t9hsg$acv@knot.queensu.ca>, saundrsg@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes: : >And, well, the entire world *except* the US uses metric. : Not for navigation. Nautical miles and knots are an international standard. : They are not considered Imperial units. And, strictly speaking, they aren't - the international nautical mile is 1 852 m, the British nautical mile is 1 853.18 m and I doubt that's exact; the nautical mile got changed to something that was an even number of meters. It's a pity that one knot isn't a little closer to .5 m/s, come to that - 51 makes '2 knots, 1 m/s' conversions somewhat too error prone. I still think neither knots nor nautical miles are particularly appropriate for *anything* but surface navigation, and that mostly dead reckoned. Then again, I wish car spedometers read in m/s, too. :] Anyone care to propose what sort of co-ordinate system people in an L colony are going to use to put transmitter dish pointing information into the reply-to: header in their email messages? - -- saundrsg@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar. ------------------------------ From: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 08:42:56 PDT Subject: re: Bomber Payloads Comments by : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Date : Wednesday, July 31, 1996 8:42:39 Forwarded to : internet[skunk-works@mail.orst.edu] -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- To : smtp@SPKSYS12@Servers[skunk-works@mail.orts.edu] From : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Subject : re: Bomber Payloads Date : Wednesday, July 31, 1996 at 8:40:44 am PDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doug: For a bomber to carry nuclear weapons, it needs special equipment and safeguards aboard. It also must be EMP hardened as well as able to operate in a nuclear/biological environment. It will probably have to fly against the most intense defenses imaginable. On the other hand, since nuclear weapons are the only things besides horseshoes where near misses count, they don't have to have the absolute precision of weapons on target that the conventional bomber does. To effectively carry conventional weapons, a bomber has to have more and different sensors. It also will have to be able to handle different kinds of weapons with very differing characteristics. It may have to operate from deployed airfields. It also will have to be capable of more rapid turnaround. For example, the B-1A was a more versatile bomber than the B-1B. It didn't have as much range and couldn't lift as much weight, but it was faster, had more sensors and was easier to load. It may also have done terrain following flight somewhat better. This is because it was designed as a nuclear/conventional bomber from the get-go. When the B-1B was brought forward, in order to reduce R&D costs a lot of the conventional capability was deferred and is only now being reintroduced. Some of the features never will be installed. Also, the redesign of the B-1s weapons bays optimized them for nuclear ordnance. A B-1B takes a loooonnnng time to load with conventional weapons, and is just now starting to be equipped to drop other than your basic dumb bomb. This isn't a "dump on the B-1" note, it is a much better plane than the press makes it out to be, just an illustration of some of the differences between a conventional a nuclear bomber. Art "Kaboom" Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 09:09:21 GMT Subject: A deal's a deal! ______________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Author: forteana@lists.primenet.com at smtp-fhu Date: 31/07/96 09:16 'SPOOF' OR NOT, HE WANTS JET Pepsi Ad 'Promised' to Award Harrier, Lynnwood Man Says -- by Ferdinand M. De Leon, Seattle Times Staff Writer A promise is a promise: That's John Leonard's point. Now the 21-year-old Lynnwood man expects PepsiCo Inc. to live up to an offer it made in one of its ads. Even if, as the company maintains, the offer was intended as a joke. Even if the proposed giveaway is a $70 million Harrier fighter jet. If they don't, Leonard says he plan to sue. It all began last October when Leonard saw an ad as part of a Pepsi Stuff promotion in which customers who's racked up points on beverage containers could claim a variety of prizes. As a joke, the company also "offered" the jet for 7 million points. At first Leonard thought of doing it the hard way by collecting the required proofs of purchase. But although he's a 10-can-a-day guy, he soon realized it would take too long to get to his goal that way. He called the company and found out that he also had the option of buying Pepsi points for 10 cents each. "It was a pretty clear offer they made, and I thought they'd uphold it," he said. Leonard, who once flew a Cessna with an instructor, said he's always been interested in flying and has considered becoming a pilot. Mostly he saw in the plane a good entrepreneurial venture, possibly hiring it out for thrill rides. "It looks like it could be a great business," he said. And getting a $70 million jet for $700,000 would, Leonard acknowledged, "be a good turnover on my investment." Leonard, a business student at Shoreline Community College, put together a business plan and began approaching contacts he's made while working as an assistant guide for a mountain-climbing company. The project consumed Leonard for the next few month. He said he put in 40 to 60 hours a week researching existing case law -- particularly those about firms living up to their offers -- and making copies of the commercial and explaining his plan to potential backers. Five individual investors from the East Coast committed to put up the $700,000 he needed to claim the prize with Pepsi. The investors, some of whom he met mountain climbing, wanted to remain anonymous. For his trouble, the company sent him a series of angry letters and coupons for three cases of pop. "They said they were joking and I had already gone through six months of work and raised the money," Leonard said. "I sent the coupons back to them and said it wasn't what I was looking for." Leonard who said he has already sunk about $3,000 to $4,000 into his quest, eventually talked to his Florida attorney, Larry Schantz, and asked him to draw up a lawsuit for making a fraudulent offer and breach of contract. A copy went to Pepsi. The company responded with a pre-emptive suit filed in federal court in New York. The suit sought to have Leonard's claims declared frivolous and sought reimbursement for the company's attorney fees. "The (commercial) itself and the Harrier at the end is clearly a spoof, and I think everyone knows that, but I think Mr. Leonard is clearly getting carried away," said Brad Shaw, a Pepsi spokesman. Leonard said he's intent on seeing through his suit. He denied it was a publicity stunt or a scheme to get Pepsi to settle out of court. "I didn't want any publicity on this," he said. "THEY brought the public light on this. My sole intention was to get the plane. I'm not trying to make a statement. I'm not looking for a settlement. I just want a plane." He may not have the jet yet, but this member of the new generation has got Pepsi's attention. Last week, the day after the company filed suit, Leonard was invited to New York to talk with company officials. A meeting has been set for next Friday, where it's unlikely they'll be promising him the moon. ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 12:57:34 EDT Subject: What Happened? I made two postings this morning and I haven't received either of them. I did, however, receive a reply. Did the list blow up again? - -- 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 11:06:20  Subject: re: A deal's a deal! This could get interesting. Although it's not likely Pepsi could get its hands on an AV-8B (which go for $28 million, not $70 million), I wonder if they could get their hands on a AV-8C either going to or already at the Boneyard. After demilitarizing it, they could truck it out and leave the 8 ton behemouth on his driveway. Heck! Why not go a step further? Get permission for one last ferry flight after demilitarization. Fly the thing out to his house, land in his yard and as the police come screaming up and stare at the torn up lawn, dirt encrusted house and furious neighbors holding their ears, walk over and give the keys to Leonard and say, "Talk to him-- It's his plane, we were just delivering it"! Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 14:47:53 EDT Subject: RE: What Happened Reference Dougt's post, I "WHOed" the majordomo and it shows the list is still intact. So everyone should get this post. sorry for the mail box clutter, but strange things appear to be happening. ------------------------------ From: Mathew Etherington Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:59:25 +1000 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: Mathew Etherington Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:57:31 +1000 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: Mathew Etherington Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:58:31 +1000 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: A deal's a deal! ... > Fly the thing out to his house, land in his yard and as the > police come screaming up and stare at the torn up lawn, dirt encrusted house > and furious neighbors holding their ears, walk over and give the keys to > Leonard and say, "Talk to him-- It's his plane, we were just delivering it"! Works for me! I'll take furious neighbors, a torn up lawn, and a HARRIER, any day!! :) ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: A deal's a deal! I believe it was actually a mockup of an AV-8B, similar to the ones used in "True Lies", and I would say that Leonard has a pretty sure case against Pepsi, to win this $700,000 movie prop. :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Bomber Payloads Doug asked about the differences between conventional and nuclear capable bombers, and the reason why some aircraft can't carry nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons require aircraft and systems equipped with special arming and safety devices, and each aircraft must be specifically certified and tested for each specific nuclear weapon. Also, nuclear capable weapons are subject to different and more stringent requirements in respect to safety, maintenance, handling, security, export and other issues, like international treaties. Making a difference between nuclear and conventional aircraft, missiles, ships and weapons in general, has usually more to do with politics, than with anything else. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com (Cyro Lord) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 20:39:11 MDT Subject: Still Up? Is this list still active? - -Cyro ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Senior Citizen Nicholas asked about the "Senior Citizen". The code name "Senior Citizen" belongs to a STOL transport, probably a stealthy Special Operations Forces aircraft, possibly built by Boeing. The "high speed reconnaissance aircraft", which once in a while is reported by observers in the US and Europe, is usually referred to as "Aurora", but its purpose, among other things, is mainly speculation, and the real code name of the project is of course not publicly known. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: NASA Doug asked who built the NASA's low-speed waverider aerodynamic testbed. This UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or RPV = Remotely Piloted Vehicle, or drone) was built by Accurate Automatic Corp., TN, for NASA LaRC (Langley Research Center), as a follow on to an 8 ft. long, 1/16th scale model, LaRC tested at their 30 ft. x 60 ft. Full-Scale Wind Tunnel facility, according to AW&ST from September, 4, 1995, pg. 21. I am not sure if it is the same model, or a new one. It looks pretty neat, anyway. I wonder if NASA will call it X-37. They lately like to use semi-military designations like X-33 (unmanned RLV demonstrator), X-34 (unmanned small LV demonstrator), X-35 (space station crew evacuation lifting body project) and X-36 (unmanned, tailless, Fighter Agility Research Vehicle), none of which should bear a military X-plane designation, because they are NASA and not DoD funded. This one is a NASA-USAF joint project, so it would deserve the X-37A designation. It is especially confusing, because the X-32 is supposed to be the first JAST/JSF candidate, while the second JAST/JSF candidate is supposed to be designated X-35, duplicating NASA's designation. HiMAT, DC-X/DC-XA and other NASA-DoD programs didn't/don't get military designation, though -- I wonder if this is not just a fashion. On the other hand, pure military test, evaluation and research vehicles like Have Blue, Tacit Blue, Predator (Tier 2), Global Hawk (Tier 2+), DarkStar (Tier 3-) and Outrider (tactical UAV) are only known by their popular names or project designations. Others like the O-5A and EO-5B are only referred by with their project name (ARL) or an obscure company designation 'RC-7B', based on the model name DHC-7 Dash 7 of the basic airframes. (That is the same as calling an E-8C J-STARS an RB-707C). Another example of this designation confusion is the Schweizer RU-38A Twin Condor of the USCG, which should use official US DoD designations instead of company model names. (Maybe they are pissed that the USAF named the TTTS aircraft 'Jayhawk', which was already the name for the USCG HH-60J version of the Black/Sea Hawk series -- which is besides the fact, that the T-1A designation was already assigned in 1962 to the T2V SeaStar, the navalized version of the T-33 'T-Bird'/'Shooting Star'). By the way, does anyone know what the O-4 in the Observation series is/was? The other O-Planes are as follows: O-1 - Cessna Model 305, Bird Dog, ex L-19 (USAF) and OE (USMC): 2426 O-1A (ex L-19A, Model 305A, including 66 L-19A-IT trainer, 6 MAP) ? TO-1A (modified O-1As) 60 O-1B (ex OE-1, Model 305A, plus 2 ex L-19E, Model 305C) 27 O-1C (ex OE-2, Model 321) ? O-1D (modified TO-1Ds) 310 TO-1D (ex TL-19D, Model 305B) 3431 O-1E (ex L-19E, Model 305C, including MAP) ? O-1F (modified TO-1Ds, Model 305E) ? O-1G (modified O-1As, Model 305D) O-2 - Cessna Model 337, Skymaster, to USAF: 501 O-2A (Model 337M, plus 12 for Iran, MAP, Model 337F); 31 O-2B (Model 337); O-3 - Lockheed (Lockheed Missiles and Space), to US Army: 14 YO-3A; O-4 - ? O-5 - California Microwave RC-7B, based on DeHavilland Canada DHC-7 Dash 7, also known as project ARL (Airborne Reconnaissance Low), to US Army: 1 O-5A (ARL-I = IMINT), to be modified to ARL-M (EO-5C ?); 2 EO-5B (ARL-C = COMINT/SIGINT), to be modified to ARL-M (EO-5C ?); 3 EO-5C (ARL-M = Multifunction), plus 9 more EO-5C sought; (all six are civil registered, rather than having military serials) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Senior Citizen On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > Nicholas asked about the "Senior Citizen". > > The code name "Senior Citizen" belongs to a STOL transport, probably a > stealthy Special Operations Forces aircraft, possibly built by Boeing. I wonder if the US Navy Seal and others military special forces will be the primary users of the "Senior Citizen". May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "During the war (Desert Storm), I ate, I slept, and I flew. You couldn't go to town or off to the mountains. Not allow to do that. We had a joke back then: 'The only time they let you off base is to go bomb Baghdad.'" Capt. Matt Byrd (F-117 pilot) ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #687 ********************************* 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).