From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #694 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 13 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 694 In this issue: Auto Reply from Watch_Mail for 9-AUG-1996 18:00 to 26-AUG-1996 08:00 A funny SSN-21 anecdote Russian Stealth (was Unusual designations) Re: Unusual designations Brit Designations Re: Brit Designations Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Re: Russian Stealth Re: Russian Stealth (was Unusual designations) 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: Mark A Buda DTN 381-1969 11-Aug-1996 0630 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 96 06:30:08 EDT Subject: Auto Reply from Watch_Mail for 9-AUG-1996 18:00 to 26-AUG-1996 08:00 I will be out of the office until August 26, 1996 and will respond to your mail when I return. - mark ------------------------------ From: csmith9@vivanet.com (Chuck Smith) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 11:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: A funny SSN-21 anecdote This SSN stuff reminds me of my old days at UFO Systems, inc. The USN came to us and asked if we could come up with a system to plot "unusual" dwg sizes. Not A, B, C...... We ended up using a roll-stock laser printer (Xerox 8840D if memory serves) and halving to decompress the images on the fly. This way, we could print an 11inch by n-inches long dwg. Of course, the USN has its own compression, and it took one of our best engineers a while to figure out the header, and come up with "steady state" if you will, decompression system. We built it using a PC ( a new 286 -12! -press the TURBO button and hang on) and our own ISA bussed processor (a Cirrus Logic, sorry Larry) and put it all together. The USN gave us an image file they wanted, and after a few tries we hit the button and out rolled a 15 foot long print, marked "Confidential:US NAVY Sea Wolf Submarine Program" at the boundaries! Given this was a few years ago, we all kind of looked at each other and then just busted up laughing. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:25:18 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Russian Stealth (was Unusual designations) Relying entirely upon my anecdotal store of knowledge, Caveat Lector etc... On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > "Seawolf"??? Well... they built only three if I am not wrong. Two Seawolf-class vessels are under construction, methinks, the third had its funding cut. There is a proposed Centurion-class sub that is supposed to be considerably... moderately... slightly... not really ... less expensive (sorry, just being sarcastic here). Someone else will know more about this. > I found a very nice article in the internet. It is from Sunday > Times (London): http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/tekspy.txt > In the first article it said: "The latest Russian submarine, the > Akula II class, is designed to be larger, quieter and more deadly than > anything western navies can put to sea. Last year (1995) an Akula II > sailed virtually undetected as fas as the American east coast." Take everything that appears in the Sunday Times with more than a grain of salt. Ever since Rupert Murdoch (the writer Dennis Potter named his cancer "Rupert" in his honour) bought it, journalistic standards have dropped considerably. This is the publication that brought us the "Hitler Diaries" "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" and "Michael Foot is a KGB agent" fiascos. It's a wonder this paper doesn't have Page Three Girls. > Just wonder why the Russian wasn't in hurry to build a Stealth > aircraft. I think the Russian thinks that they can handle with Stealth > Subs. The reasons I heard for the Soviet/Russian reluctance to use stealth are as follows: 1. Lack (until recently?) of computer aided design and manufacturing ("CAD/CAM") systems of the requisite level of sophistication. I do not mean to disparage Russian ingenuity, but sophisticated computers are an essential for stealth, and they didn't have them. 2. Strategic differences. The Warsaw pact had a wide range of radar and SAM/AAM missiles, NATO, the USA had a much narrower range. Stealth was more to the advantage of the West than it was to the East... not absolutely, but economics and development costs come into this - the Soviets didn't see the need to spend the money for something that would offer less of an advantage than the same money spent on greater numbers of conventional aircraft. In short, the Soviets preferred quantity, while the Americans preferred "silver bullets." 3. Tactical differences. Stealth treatments and coatings are very delicate, requiring precise maintainence. Russian aircraft design emphasised ruggedness and the ability to operate from isolated airfields with poor support. This has lead to the misaprehension that their design was "crude" - this is not the case at all, but it is a design philosophy that leads away from the "silver bullet" concept. 4. Pyotr Ufimtsev (sp?), who wrote the original paper on stealth techniques, when he moved to the USA, said that he was ignored in his homeland. His paper was spotted by Denys Overholser at the Skunk works, who brought it to the attention of Ben Rich (I'm refering to Rich's memoirs here). I don't know what the case was with Northrop... There has been "intuitive" stealth since the First World War (the Germans tried translucent cellophane-clad bombers!) and the SR-71 was a prime example of it... but there was no scientific follow-up in the Soviet Union. 5. Finally, there were belated attempts to begin stealth projects recently, but they seem to have succumbed to the Russian economic crisis. MAPO-MiG and Tupelov were developing proposals over the last few years, with Tupelov having the contract to replace the unreliable "B-1ski" Tu-160 (if something that doesn't work can be "replaced"). I don't know what the Tupelov design looks like, but according to a postage-stamp sized illustration I saw once, the MiG proposal was a blended-wing design that looked like a cross between the B-2 and YF-23, with a trapezoidal wing/canard combination, canted-in tailfins and serrated inlets flanking the cockpit like grotesquely flared nostrils. I think that Russias money troubles have put an end to them: the all-new follow on to the Su-27- Article 1.42, the MiG 31M and a number of other aircraft also seem to have been cancelled. > Somebody post in this list times ago about having a submarine > that can open the haul and launch a VSTOL aircraft. I read the same think > in Buckminster Fuller book. He said that the reason that the Soviet (by > that time) never built a aircraft carrier, is because they have > submarine(s) with VSTOL aircraft(s). But with all the reference I have, I > never found something similar. Does anyone on this list know anything > about it?? Well... anyway, now the Russian have their aircraft carrier. Much as I respect Buckminster Fuller as an engineer, architect and all-round interesting person, I don't take him as an authority on Warsaw Pact strategy. My interpretation is that they saw less strategic need. The Soviet Union had a number of allies spread over the world, rather than concentrated in North America and Europe and had therefore either overseas air bases or the uses of bases. Also, historically, despite Peter the Great's initiative, Russia has not been historically a naval power, preferring to concentrate on land forces. Their naval emphasis during the Cold War was on submarines and anti-submarine warfare... but in reference to the above report from the "Sunset Times", their subs have usually been big and fast, but noisy. IMHO a submarine-launched aircraft would be (ahem) neither fish nor fowl: In order to fit inside a submarine in significant numbers, it would be so compromised as to be far inferior to a conventional carrier-based or long-range land-based strike aircraft. Of course, I'm no expert on military history or strategy and there'll be someone who can correct me. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@usa.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:12:52 GMT Subject: Re: Unusual designations The reason that the Soviets could build state of the art stealthy submarines but not equivilant aircraft was that the Walker spy ring did not traffic in aircraft secrets. See, "Stealth At Sea" by Dan Van Der Vat (Houghton Mifflin, 1995) ------------------------------ From: Hank_Lapa_at_PO-PLAZA1@SIGNALCORP.COM (Hank Lapa) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:24:17 -0400 Subject: Brit Designations All, Lest anyone be misinformed by a recent post, a given Mk. numbered aircraft type can indeed have more than one mission symbol, depending on mission specialization and use. The example that leaps to my mind is Shackleton MR.2 and Shackleton AEW.2. Others include Lancaster B.III and MR.3; B.X and MR.10), Warwick (various), Gnat (F.1 and T.1), Victor (B.2 and K.2)..... I'm sure there are many further (and more current) examples, including amongst Canberras. Though the systems are different and not connected, the Americanized analogy to the post's argument would be that one cannot have a TA-3B because the "B" was already used for EA-3B or KA-3B, or RA-3B, with the type/model info "A-3" pretty much corresponding with "Shackleton" or "Canberra" in the Brit system. Of course, the series identifier ("B") and the Mk. number generally refer to a certain airframe/engine combo. When the modification to that combo is considered significant enough (and it's a widely varied judgement call), it changes, independent of mission symbol. So it is indeed possible that the paper designation "Tornado F.1" may have been legitimately used in the past to refer to an obviously never-built variant. Used to be tempted to paint "SP-3C" on my sqdn acft, Hank ;-) ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Brit Designations Hank Lapa wrote: >Lest anyone be misinformed by a recent post, a given Mk. >numbered aircraft type can indeed have more than one mission >symbol, depending on mission specialization and use. The >example that leaps to my mind is Shackleton MR.2 and >Shackleton AEW.2. Others include Lancaster B.III and MR.3; >B.X and MR.10), Warwick (various), Gnat (F.1 and T.1), >Victor (B.2 and K.2)..... I'm sure there are many further >(and more current) examples, including amongst Canberras. I stand corrected! There are apparently several cases of Mk. numbers with different mission symbols. Sorry for the misinformation! - -- 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: jetguy1@ix.netcom.com (BRENT CLARK ) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 19:20:23 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced - ---- Begin Forwarded Message 220 14284 <839885415.16818.0@oook1.demon.co.uk> article Path: ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net! usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!oo ok1.demon.co.uk From: (Joe Wildish) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51 Subject: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 05:29:06 GMT Lines: 184 Message-ID: <839885415.16818.0@oook1.demon.co.uk> References: <839804217.10959.0@oook1.demon.co.uk> <4um15v$7jl@primus.ac.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: oook1.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: oook1.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 >>Anyway, I read in the Sunday Times this morning that a new >>hypersonic.triangular plane had been announced by the American >>military. Anyone know anything about it? >What paper was this? If true, was this an operational aircraft being >procured currently, a tech validation/demonstrator. Could this simply >be the "white world" waverider project, or the "black world's" so >called "Aurora" or pulse wave detonation engine powered aircraft. Or >for that matter could this be in any way related to the NASA/Lockheed >X-33 Venture Star? The paper was the Sunday Times, of England. However, I don't think there is a great deal to get excited about, as the other responses to my post seam to have cleared things up. However, here a copy of the article for you to read: - ----------- Articles taken from the following sites: www.sunday-times.co.uk / www.the-times.co.uk - ---------- Hypersonic waveriders take off A PROTOTYPE aircraft that learns to fly itself at five times the speed of sound was unveiled last week in America. Its futuristic shape has led to speculation that a secret full-size version of the plane could be responsible for UFO sightings. The wedge-shaped LoFlyte (low observable flight test experiment) model is a product of joint research by Nasa and the US Air Force into fast planes capable of more than 3,000mph, a speed that would enable them to fly from New York to London in an hour. The LoFlyte's design is known as a "waverider". Its wedge-shaped profile and sharp leading edges wrap the shockwave generated by high-speed flight around the fuselage while trapping a cushion of air below it. This design prevents air building up in front of the craft and slowing it down. The aircraft then "surfs" on a stream of air rather than having to plough through it. The LoFlyte model has been designed to test the principle of the waverider design. Its flight-control software has been dev eloped by Accurate Automation Corporation of Chattanooga. This will teach the aircraft to fly itself after basic instruction from a pilot. Robert Pegg of the hypersonic vehicles office at Nasa's Langley research centre says the software is needed to control a craft that could eventually travel at more than 3,000mph. "At those high speeds, things happen so quickly that the pilot cannot control the aircraft as easily as at subsonic speeds," he says. The aircraft's neural networks are designed to have more in common with the human brain than with computers. They consist of many separate chips that communicate with one another at high speed so they can learn, or be taught, how to react to varying situations. John Pike, director of space policy at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington DC, closely follows developments in high-speed aircraft and believes that last week's unveiling could lead to an admission that a top-secret full-scale version of the plane is in operation. "I continue to be puzzled by the vast number of theoretical studies into the waverider configuration that apparently have no basis in existing hardware," he says. "The public showing of the LoFlyte vehicle is very odd. It leads me to the conclusion that there may well be classified work going on in which that hardware exists." Reports of unidentified, triangular aircraft have risen in the past few years, leading some aviation experts to a similar conclusion to Pike's. These reports fall into a category of their own, quite separate to the vague "lights in the sky" variety. Last year, a British Airways Boeing 737 flying from Milan to Manchester was involved in a near collision with a fast moving, triangular object over the Pennines. Captain Roger Wills and first officer Mark Stuart ducked as the UFO passed within feet of their aircraft. Radar operators on the ground were unable to track the second aircraft, but both men decided to file an official "air near miss" report and also made sketches of the mystery plane. The wedge-shaped aircraft they described and drew looked very much like a waverider. If that is what it was, the nationality of the craft reamains a mystery because all American stealth aircraft are required in non-combat flight to carry radar beacons to allow air-traffic controllers to identify them. There have been numerous sightings of triangular aircraft in a corridor that stretches from the Midlands, northwards. In Los Angeles and Holland, a very fast moving triangular aircraft is alleged to have caused "skyquakes", presumably as it punched through the sound barrier. Manned, hypersonic flight was proved possible in 1961, during a test flight of an American research aircraft, the X-15. Six years later it achieved almost seven times the speed of sound and became the world's fastest aircraft. The following year the X-15 programme ended and with it, manned hypersonic flight. The waverider concept was first proposed by a British scientist, Terrence Nonweiler, in the early 1950s while at Queens University, Belfast. Since then, the only full-scale aircraft known to have used the principle was the experimental 2,000mph XB-70 bomber, flown in the late 1960s in America. AND Is it a bird? Is it a UFO? No, it's a waverider... CLOSE the X Files and cancel that trip to see Independence Day. Those UFO sightings may have a simple explanation after all: a secret, triangular-shaped aircraft that can fly at more than twice the speed of Concorde. The plane ­ which resembles a flying manta ray ­ is the product of joint research by Nasa, the space agency, and the US Air Force. A prototype model was unveiled last week and has led to speculation that a secret full-size version may already have been built and be repsonsible for countless UFO sightings. Since 1990 there have been unexplained reports of flat, wedge-shaped objects seen by pilots near air force bases in California and as far afield as Belgium. Last year a British Airways Boeing 737 flying from Milan to Manchester was involved in a near-collision with a triangular UFO over the Pennines. It was so fast that the air crew ducked as it passed within feet of their aircraft, but radar operators on the ground were unable to track it. Aviation experts believe a full-grown version of the LoFlyte (low observable flight test experiment) plane could reach speeds of more than 3,000mph and cut the journey time from New York to London to an hour. The design is known as a "wave rider" because it surfs on a stream of air rather than ploughing through it. Air bounces off a conventionally designed aircraft such as the Harrier jet, capable of 700mph, creating irregular drag. However, the wedge-shaped body and sharp leading edges of the LoFlyte wrap the shock-wave generated by the high speed around the fuselage while trapping a cushion of air below it. It is so fast that computer software is needed to teach the aircraft to fly itself after basic instruction from a pilot. John Pike, director of space policy at the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists, said a full-sized version could be flying. "The public showing of the LoFlyte vehicle is very odd. It leads me to the conclusion that there may well be classified work going on," he said. After days of speculation about life on Mars, the LoFlyte could also explain the epidemic of UFO sightings since 1990. In Belgium there have been up to 2,000 sightings in a single year. Two F-16 aircraft from the Belgian air force were sent to intercept one craft; the resultant radar tapes showed the triangular shape descending from 10,000ft to 500ft in 5 seconds, about 2,000mph. Graham Birdsall, editor of UFO magazine, which charts sightings, said: "There have been numerous reports of triangular-shaped UFOs over several years. If this is a covert aircraft it could explain the sightings in America but I would find it extraordinary that it would be flying in British air space. However, we do know that the RAF is the only overseas air force allowed to fly the Stealth bomber." The wave rider concept was first proposed by a British scientist, Terrence Nonweiler, in the early 1950s, but the only full-scale aircraft known to have used the design was an experimental bomber flown in the late 1960s in America. - --------------- As you can see, the articles are about a possible covert craft, but what drew my attention in particluar was the reference to the sonic booms over Orange County, and the sighting by the BA pilots. The plane that The Times makes reference to sounds just like Aurora to me... On a related note, I was in California recently (LA), and there was a sonic boom reported over Orange County. They seemed to think it was a metorite hitting the earth somewhere! Yeah, course... Joe - ---- End Forwarded Message ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:10:05 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Just to clear up any misconceptions that may arise, what the newspaper articles failed to mention was that LoFlyte is hardly a "prototype." It is a very subscale, very subsonic *model* that will be used to demonstrate that the neural net concept will work for waverider-type vehicles. The waverider form was chosen because it was believed to be the most difficult to control at low speeds. There may be compelling evidence for an "Aurora" type vehicle (and alright, I think that at least a prototype/demonstrator was/is flying), but LoFlyte can not be said to have any direct connection. I think that the reporter's interpretation that the "odd" unveiling of LoFlyte could somehow lead to a full public announcement of some other programme by *another agency* is just naive conspiracy theory. If "Aurora" does exist, what compelling reason *in the eyes of those concerned* would lead to the unveiling of an important covert asset? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 06:18:13 GMT Subject: Re: Russian Stealth On 8/11/96 6:12PM, in message <199608120112.BAA16489@pipe5.t2.usa.pipeline.com>, Frank Markus wrote: > The reason that the Soviets could build state of the art stealthy > submarines but not equivilant aircraft was that the Walker spy ring did > not > traffic in aircraft secrets. See, "Stealth At Sea" by Dan Van Der Vat > (Houghton Mifflin, 1995) > I would maintain that the reason the Soviets didn't go in for stealth aircraft as much as we did in the past is lack of manufacturing capability (it takes great precision in airframe and engines), not really believing in it and it not being worth as much to them as to us. NATO air defences were never as extensive as the Soviet Union's. In fact, in North America they were essentially non-existant since the early 1970s. That's why in the 1980s the Soviets could quite reasonalby produce a new cruise-missile carrying version of the Bear Bomber that required penetration into Canadian airspace to hit its targets. When there's little or no defense, you don't need to be that good. They chose to concentrate their limited technology elsewhere, in submarines for example. I have not had the chance to read Mr. Van Der Vat's book, and he may make some convincing arguments. However, it seems a bit complacent to attribute the Soviet's submarine success mainly to the Walker spy ring, damaging as it was. For one thing, did the people involved have access to our technology on sub design? Even if they did, that often just saves the other guys money, by telling them where and where not to research. They've still got to get there on their own. Another important factor to consider is that the LOS ANGELES class subs (which, by the way, were not meant to be an operational class) were at least 15 years ahead of what teh Soviets generally had. The problem was we kept building them for 25 years, so it's not surprising that the Soviets might catch up, because they kept building new types. The original AKULAs were quite scary because they had a level of quieting unexpedted from the Soviets, and we considered that our province, as tradeoffs for some of their advantages. Much has been made of what the Soviets coudl get from the numerical machining technology sold to them by Toshiba, but what was really scary was that when the AKULAs entered service, it was too early for them to take advantage of this technology, and they were Still Really Quiet. The AKULA IIs do use these technology, supposedly. The Soviets also developed technologies well in advance of the West, including hull coatings for noise and signature reduction as well as reduced drag. Fruther, they were building submarines out of titanium when we didn't even know how to rework it (it took us a long time to believe they were actualy doing this despite all the indications because how could the "bumbling" Soviets do it when we "advanced" types couldn't?). The US Navy has never before been willing to say that someone has something better than ours. Ego is involved, as well as differing assessments. It's alwasy, "... if present trends continues", or "... in the future it's possible...". For the first time in history, the USN is actually saying that the latest operational Soviet subs are quieter than the latest operational US ones (imporved LA class). As part of our exchanges of info with Russian counterparts, we are getting details of Akula Is tracking LA class subs at length without being detected. Thes stories have surfaced before (especially at budget time), but now they're being looked at more seriously. I am not privy to any inside info on these tales, but it seems that the newer stories have enough corroborating info to really upset people high up. Compared to our Improved LAs, it appears that the latest Russian SSNs are superior in speed, operating depth, maneuverbility, active sonar and weapons load. They can also fire faster and are more survivable. It appears that they're also quieter. Relative performance of torpedoes is probably a matter of conjecture. Theirs are probably faster, ours ar rpobalby "smarter". The I-688s are better able to process passive sonar data, but that may not be sufficeint anymore if the latest boats are so quiet you've got to go active. The I-688s are probably also more reliable. ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 06:25:17 GMT Subject: Re: Russian Stealth (was Unusual designations) I would maintain that the reason the Soviets didn't go in for stealth aircraft as much as we did in the past is lack of manufacturing capability (it takes great precision in airframe and engines), not really believing in it and it not being worth as much to them as to us. NATO air defences were never as extensive as the Soviet Union's. In fact, in North America they were essentially non-existent since the early 1970s. That's why in the 1980s the Soviets could quite reasonably produce a new cruise-missile carrying version of the Bear Bomber that required penetration into Canadian airspace to hit its targets. When there's little or no defense, you don't need to be that good. They chose to concentrate their limited technology elsewhere, in submarines for example. I have not had the chance to read Mr. Van Der Vat's book, and he may make some convincing arguments. However, it seems a bit complacent to attribute the Soviet's submarine success mainly to the Walker spy ring, damaging as it was. For one thing, did the people involved have access to our technology on sub design? Even if they did, that often just saves the other guys money, by telling them where and where not to research. They've still got to get there on their own. Another important factor to consider is that the LOS ANGELES class subs (which, by the way, were not meant to be an operational class) were at least 15 years ahead of what the Soviets generally had. The problem was we kept building them for 25 years, so it's not surprising that the Soviets might catch up, because they kept building new types. The original AKULAs were quite scary because they had a level of quieting unexpected from the Soviets, and we considered that our province, as tradeoffs for some of their advantages. Much has been made of what the Soviets could get from the numerical machining technology sold to them by Toshiba, but what was really scary was that when the AKULAs entered service, it was too early for them to take advantage of this technology, and they were Still Really Quiet. The AKULA IIs do use these technology, supposedly. The Soviets have also developed technologies well in advance of the West, including hull coatings for noise and signature reduction as well as reduced drag. Further, they were building submarines out of titanium when we didn't even know how to rework it (it took us a long time to believe they were actually doing this despite all the indications because how could the "bumbling" Soviets do it when we "advanced" types couldn't?). The US Navy has never before been willing to say that someone has something better than ours. Ego is involved, as well as differing assessments. It's always, "... if present trends continues", or "... in the future it's possible...". For the first time in history, the USN is actually saying that the latest operational Soviet subs are quieter than the latest operational US ones (improved LA class). As part of our exchanges of info with Russian counterparts, we are getting details of Akula Is tracking LA class subs at length without being detected. These stories have surfaced before (especially at budget time), but now they're being looked at more seriously. I am not privy to any inside info on these tales, but it seems that the newer stories have enough corroborating info to really upset people high up. Compared to our Improved LAs, it appears that the latest Russian SSNs are superior in speed, operating depth, maneuverability, active sonar and weapons load. They can also fire faster and are more survivable. It appears that they're also quieter. Relative performance of torpedoes is probably a matter of conjecture. Theirs are probably faster, ours are probably "smarter". The I-688s are better able to process passive sonar data, but that may not be sufficient anymore if the latest boats are so quiet you've got to go active. The I-688s are probably also more reliable. It's worthy of note that before the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the criticisms of the SEAWOLF class was that it wasn't advanced Enough given what the Soviets were working on for the next 15-20 years. The SSN-21 class is being terminated at three units. SSN-21, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as a "Cold War" design and not having the versatility needed for the "New World Order". It is also expensive. The reasons that even Clinton is favoring finishing the third one are threefold: First, it takes at least three of a class to have a viable operational capability. Second, the third boat was sufficiently far along that by the time you figure in cancellation penalties, shutdown and scrapping expenses and the like it would cost considerably more to cancel the unit than to finish it. Third, if SSN-23 wasn't built, there would be such a gap between SSN-22 and construction of the next class of submarines that the US would be out of the nuclear submarine construction business, essentially permanently (there is No civilian use for a lot of the technologies and manufacturing skills needed in SSN construction to tide over the plant and workforce). The Centurion design has been abandoned. The planned next class of subs is presently the NSSN (New Attack Submarine). They are to have the same degree of stealth as the SSN-21s, but will be slower and not able to dive so deep. They will also have fewer torpedo tubes and will carry fewer weapons internally. On the other hand, they will have non-reloadable vertical launch missile tubes. Their design is supposed to be more flexible and compatible with SEAL operations. One primary criteria carried over from the Centurion design is that they will have facilities aboard to carry women as part of the crew. They are supposed to be cheaper than the SEAWOLFs, but as pointed out that may not come to pass. This isn't surprising. Inflation alone between the late '80s, when SEAWOLF started and the late '90s is going to eat up a lot of cost reduction through reduced capability. For that matter, if we attempted to restart LA class construction they'd be more expensive than the NSSN. Congress, though, is going to solve all problems by fiat. They have written language into the initial versions of the Defense Bill that directs the Navy to start work on another class of SSNs that are "more capable and more affordable". Oh, and while they're at it, maybe they can direct the end of world hunger too. Congress has voted for contracts for four SSNs to be let between 1998 and 2002. Not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration is only planning to award for two. Something better shake out soon. Subs are our best and most effective stealth product. Although I love aircraft, keeping a viable sub force is far more important than more B-2s or the F-117X (or B) or even the F-22 [note that I'm not ragging on the F-22, just saying that if we decided that we couldn't afford both, save the subs]. Art "I thought You were going to close the hatch!" Hanley ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #694 ********************************* 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).