From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #695 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 14 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 695 In this issue: Re: Subs and stealth Re: SSN-21,22,23 etc. Re: SSN-21,22,23 etc ... Re: LOFLYTE; was: NASA to Hold Briefings at Oshkosh Air Show Re: SSN-21,22,23 etc ... further submarine/stealth info Re: further submarine/stealth info HALO Article Suppressed? Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Re: HALO Article Suppressed? Design differences Re: Design differences Re: further submarine/stealth info Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced Re: Design differences Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced 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: Timothy Riley Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 11:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Subs and stealth Art Hanleys comments regarding subs and stealth are right on target. Some additional comments of my own: 1. John Walker gave the Soviets specific information regarding the machinery and waterflow noise sources used by the USN to track and identify submarines. A lot of this information was unique to a specific submarine (hull number such and such) This allowed them to enhance their already aggressive program of general silencing by focusing their efforts on these sources. An example from my personal experience for your consideration: a Victor III class attack sub entered the refit yard, gets "Walkerized" and also equiped with with "Toshiba" propellers. The sub later deploys to the Med and is known to drive through several sonobouy barriers undetected by Orion aircraft or the shorebased ASW center. Later analysis of the tapes shows that over 95% of the hull specific noise sources are gone and those that are left have been reduced by large decible numbers. We used to hear it at X distance, now we might hear it at 1/x. Think about how this changes tactics! 2. The Akula class is VERY quiet. Everything thing that you can think of (and then some) has been done from doublecoating double hulls to pumpless circulation systems. To get our sub people to speak about others equipment as better than ours is quite an accomplishment. It has been a long time since I've heard any remarks which give clear advantage to our side. 3. Soviet/Russian military equipment has been designed with the attitude of "Better is the enemy of good enough" and the knowledge that large quantities often have advantages over high quality. The designers also knew that Private Ivan the wrenchturner was a draftee and usually not well trained or dedicated. We like the single bullet style of combat. Overwhelming force concentrated on a specific objective is their plan for ground warfare. This is hard to do to a fleet at sea and almost impossible when hunting a sub so their submarine force is the exception with high quality equipment, selected enlisted crews and a very high officer/enlisted ratio. This is reasonable since most of the detailed repair and maintenance tasks are performed by officers. The Alpha class attack subs were supposed to have one enlisted man in the crew - the cook. Thanks for your attention, back to lurking. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:29:48 -0700 Subject: Re: SSN-21,22,23 etc. Interesting comments about attack subs! So, where is SSN-21 (SEAWOLF) today? I know she launched. Has she been to sea yet? Has she joined her sub group, or whatever it's called yet, in other words, gone operational? Where are SSN-22 and SSN-23 in terms of status? What are they going to call these boats? I think subs are cool too! Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:19:59 -0700 Subject: Re: SSN-21,22,23 etc ... I can answer some of my own questions? In case others are interested, according to the Navy Public Affairs Library: The Navy's newest attack submarine, Seawolf (SSN 21), completed its initial sea trial, July 5, and returned to Electric Boat Division in Groton, Conn. The test program included first underwater submergence, acoustics trials, engineering inspections and at-sea training for the crew. Representing the Navy's most advanced technology, Seawolf is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy and commissioned this fall. I'd still like to know what the status on the other 2 boats is as well as what they're going to call them. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:12:26 -0700 Subject: Re: LOFLYTE; was: NASA to Hold Briefings at Oshkosh Air Show I was on vacation the week you all were talking about this. I have a paper reference for those of you who are interested in the neural network aspects of LOFLYTE. This paper reference comes from the Wright Lab. Propulsion Directorate Home Page in the AF96-177 Hypervelocity Vehicle Technology section, so I'm fairly sure it's related, although it's an older paper. If others have additional references I'd like to hear them. Leving, A. U. and Narendra, K. S., "Control of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Using Neural Networks: Controllability and Stabilization," IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 4, No. 2, pp 192-206, March 1993. Additionally, AW&ST this week (8/12/96) has a nice color photo of the LOFLYTE vehicle. Cool high viz colors! I'll have to check the angles, it looks too swept for Mach 5, maybe it's just a photo effect. Also those tiny verticals! I guess you can see some of the job ahead for the neural net flight control system! Larry ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 14:37:32  Subject: Re: SSN-21,22,23 etc ... Larry, I believe SEAWOLF was commissioned in late May-early June. SSN-22 has been named CONNETICUT, which is Another new naming scheme for SSNs. She is over 50% complete and may be scheduled to have her Satcom equipment installed by early 1997. SSN-23 is still unamed and is under construction. She commissions late this decade. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ From: Brentley Smith Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:05:38 -0400 Subject: further submarine/stealth info The recent discussion here of the assumed relative superiority of the Russian sub technology has caught me by surprise. We (USA) are all led by the media and/or party propaganda to believe, or at least expect, that our stuff is better than anyone elses. I'd like to think that I'm at least somewhat sucessful at seeing through this blind wall of faith in "The American Way" or whatever to see what's really going on and how it stacks up with the rest of the world. It seems that I have failed in respect to the subject at hand. Can any of you suggest further good reading to remedy this situation? Are there particular newsgroups or mail-lists that have discussed this subject, in brief or at length? Any other suggestions? Ever curious, Brentley Smith bsmith@zippynet.com ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:07:31 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: further submarine/stealth info On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Brentley Smith wrote: > Russian sub technology has caught me by surprise. We (USA) are all led by > the media and/or party propaganda to believe, or at least expect, that our > stuff is better than anyone elses. I'd like to think that I'm at least > somewhat sucessful at seeing through this blind wall of faith in "The > American Way" or whatever to see what's really going on and how it stacks up What do you mean "we"? :-) (I'm not American) Well, my very subjective impression of the case of the MiG-25 may have some bearing on this. To begin with, there is the story of a conversation between Andrei Tupelov and Kelly Johnson (which Ben Rich recounts in his memoirs): Tupelov said, essentially, that Americans built planes like fine watches - very precise, but delicate. Russians on the other hand, built them like alarm clocks - clunky, but you could knock it off the table and it would still wake you up. The Foxbat, when it first appeared, was presented in the West as a super-plane, an ultra-sophisticated aerial battleship. When Belenko defected in 1976 (?) and his plane was taken apart, everyone was surprised at how "ordinary" it was. It was made of steel, not titanium, the radar had vacuum tubes in it, it couldn't manoeuvre well, it couldn't endure long Mach 3 cruises, the engines had a short lifespan and so on. The MiG-25 was immediately demoted from terror weapon to turkey (a slight exaggeration, I admit). The mistake that Western analists made was to assume that MiG set out to design another SR-71/YF-12. The Foxbat was meant to be a sturdy, easy to maintain long range interceptor. It didn't have to cruise at Mach 3, only accelerate to that for intercepts under guidance from ground stations and so it didn't have the Blackbird's sophisticated heat-control systems; it didn't have to engage in dogfights and so it wasn't agile, but it was very tough nonetheless (a lot stiffer than a Blackbird longitudinaly); its radar was intended to burn through jamming by brute force, and only vacuum tubes could handle the power densities at that time (and were easy to replace when they failed); Russian engines are generally used and replaced rather than complexly maintained; steel was prefered over titanium because of the availability of people with the right skills... and so on. Basically, the aircraft is an "alarm clock." Different design philosophy, different intentions. Naturally it would fail by the criteria of, say an F-15 or SR-71, but those planes would be fragile and temperamental "hangar queens" in a Siberian winter with untutored repair crews. I don't want to offend anyones patriotic instincts here, but it is very easy to get caught in binds that project the worst possibilities onto a vaguely-defined enemy and then also exaggerate ones own relative abilities to counter that insecurity...its human nature. For an insight into Soviet v American design approaches, Andrei Gretchkines (spelling? Sorry..) Russian Aviation Page has an archive of discussions on rec.aviation.military. The address for the specific postings was http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html. The Russian Aviation page has moved, but you can try the old address and there is a notice telling you where its gone... come to think of it, you can get there from our very own hosts' page... :-) Books: Belyakov and Marmain's "MiG: Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design" has an excellent run-down on the design processes of many classic MiGs. Jay Miller has also written a book, which I assume is very good (I'm afraid that I don't have a copy myself) and Ben Rich and Leo Janos' "Skunk Works" has Ben Rich's own thoughts on how aircraft should be built. - --Brett > > Can any of you suggest further good reading to remedy this situation? Are > there particular newsgroups or mail-lists that have discussed this subject, > in brief or at length? Any other suggestions? > > Ever curious, > > Brentley Smith > bsmith@zippynet.com > > ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 18:02:40 GMT Subject: HALO Article Suppressed? ____________________ Forward Header __________________________________ It has recently come to the attention of the media that Graeme Nicholson's forthcoming article on the alleged British-made HALO aircraft may have been suppressed by an, as yet, unknown source. Nicholson, 19, apparently had enough requests on his beloved Internet mailing list, "Forteana", to persuade him to put together an informative article about this incredible aircraft. After he had done most of the work, he was left with several dates and quotes which needed to be verified. The night he attempted to gather this information from the "World Wide Web" he found that his "Web access" was down. Government plot? Private business throwing it's weight around? We can't say. But we can say that we consider it possible that someone wanted to shut this noisy kid up, before too much was said about the British Aerospace "High Agility Low Observable" craft, the UK's shot at stealth technology. BAe would like us to believe that HALO is simply being researched and planned, merely something they are "looking in to," at their Warton factory. But this would be extremely favorable in the light that a HALO aircraft is atop the suspect list for the now famous Manchester Airport near miss which took place on January 6th last year. Mr. Nicholson faxed us the details from a secret location in the south of France, where he is staying with friends. He says he now fears for his life, but is determined to carry on what he repeatedly calls "The Big Search." (AP) ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:10:45 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 As I recall, the last great unveiling was the F-117. The occasion: War No, no, I dare not think such things. Wild speculation. Only god and the NSC know the future. Byron ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:46:09 -0700 (PDT) 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. Exactly. There have been some strange over-reactions to this story. > >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. I am at a loss to even understand what they consider "odd" about it. The vehicle was "unveiled" because it was just built and is about to enter it's intended flight test program. > As I recall, the last great unveiling was the F-117. > The occasion: War Note quite. The last "great unveiling" was TACIT BLUE, without any particular occasion/reason. The F-117 was unveiled not because of war, but because they wanted to start flying it during the day and as a prelude to moving to a more open base at Holloman. ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:01:34 -0100 Subject: Re: HALO Article Suppressed? At 18:02 13/08/96 GMT, you wrote: >____________________ Forward Header __________________________________ > It has recently come to the attention of the media that Graeme >Nicholson's forthcoming article on the alleged British-made HALO aircraft >may have been suppressed by an, as yet, unknown source. > Interesting programme on BBC TV about U**'s which interviewed the British Airways pilot who reported the near miss at Manchester Airport. The investigator asked British Aerospace about HALO and sent drawings to them of the craft involved at Manachester. British Aerospace replied to the effect that it did not match anything on their product list. To me that implies that it did not match anything in production e.g. not in research? Also regarding British Stealth there was a report in Aviation Leak that mentioned a "British Stealth" aircraft being tested at Area 51. Anyone recall that article - it was posted on this list. It would make sense for us to test it in a "secure" environment - the UK is so small that nothing really secret could fly here. Regards John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Internet Applications Developer The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595293 Fax: 01202 513293 Mobile: 0850 240931 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:01:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Design differences Brett Davidson raises an important point in distinguishing American and Soviet design philosophies. Just because the Foxbat did not meet with U.S. exaggerated expectations of its capabilities does not mean it was ineffective then or now for that matter. Twenty years after its introduction, the MiG-25 is still making a name for itself. Although the U.S. Navy will not admit it publicly, during DESERT STORM the first U.S. aircraft lost (Spiecher's F/A-18) was shot down by a Foxbat, and an F-14 was _probably_ lost to a second Foxbat. There are two lessons for skunkers here: first, U.S. intelligence assessments of Soviet capabilities have been notoriously bad. For every success there are even more bomber gaps, missile gaps, and Foxbats. Second, the technology inherent in stealth, although not stealth per se, does not guarantee improved survivability in the face of hostile action. Despite the apparent successes of steapth and Western "hi-tech" systems in the 1991 Gulf War, the idea of stealth as a "silver bullet" has become lost on senior military officials, especially in the Air Force. As every airplane and weapons becomes stealthy, the cost to produce them necessitates fewer to be built. With a shrinking budget and finite dollars to spend, the USAF is left with a handful of B-2s, for example, whereas Iran or PRC or DRK buys and operates hundreds of F-5s, MiG-19s, and A-5s. If and when the shooting starts, there is no reason to believe that quality will always win out over quantity. The U.S. attempted to redress that problem with the LWF competition, buying the F-16. Stealth and high technology weapons systems are not the panacea they're made out to be. Soviet designers have incorporated that thinking into the limits inherent in their economy and industry, and come to the conclusion that it is better to have several thousand MiG-29s, covered with rivets that look as if they come from a Flash Gordon rerun, than 442 F-22s. Dr Bob ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:42:41 +0000 Subject: Re: Design differences Dr. Bob wrote: >Stealth and high technology weapons systems are not the panacea they're >made out to be. Soviet designers have incorporated that thinking into the >limits inherent in their economy and industry, and come to the conclusion >that it is better to have several thousand MiG-29s, covered with rivets >that look as if they come from a Flash Gordon rerun, than 442 F-22s. Was it not Stalin himself who said "Quantity has a quality all its own"? Tom Robison _|_ tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net :or: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com --X-X-(o)-X-X-- Herky Nut! ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 16:42:14  Subject: Re: further submarine/stealth info Brently, One thing also to keep in mind is how long it takes us in the West to develop something and then how long we keep it around before we go to something new. It's such a fight to get funding and authority to develop something. Even then it can be the best there is, be on budget and meet all its objectives and still get canceled (the F-14D, AAAM missile, AIM-9R and V-22 come to mind). As a result, there is a tendency to keep things around for a long time rather than go after something new. You can only upgrade so much before you have to start over, but sometimes we don't "bite the bullet" when we should. Even though it wasn't meant to enter production, the LA class submarine was unquestionably better than anything the Soviets had at the time in most areas, by a lot. However, it is a late 1960s design, and we're still building them in the 1990s. It took the Soviets over a decade to match that technology, even with "inside" assistance. Eventually, they did. Their subs weren't as good as what could have been produced in the West if the West had designed and built a sub at the same time as the AKULAs. It could even be argued that the Soviets subs of the mid to late '80s were equal to what the West could have produced in the late '70s. The problem was that we were building what we designed in the late '60s. What make us so nervous is that our next generation is not being designed from the point of a large lead, but being designed with the potential adversary at a level of parity, which takes away your margin of error. For example, if the Improved AKULAs are as good as some say, what does that indicate for the all-new new SEVERODVINSKs which are due to enter service in 1998? Similarly, the F-15 was much better than anything the Soviets had in the mid '70s. The SU-27/MiG-29 represents a technology probably equal to the West's early to mid '80s capabilities. Not as good as what we could have built had we designed it then, but equal to or better than what was in the F-15, except in fire control computers. AMRAAM was better than anything Soviet at the time we started it, but now...? AAAM was beyond what they were capable of, but we abandoned it. Eurofighter is better than SU-27, except for weapons, but it won't be here for at least four years. Will it be better than what is deploying then? What you're capable of is always important. However, even more important is what you actually supply to the folks in the field. We often forget that by reassuring ourselves, "The best they have is not as good as what we haven't got". That can come back and bite you. Art Hanley Looking for my employer's views? Look somewhere else 'cause they won't be found here. ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 19:00:00 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. > >Exactly. There have been some strange over-reactions to this story. > >> >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. > >I am at a loss to even understand what they consider "odd" about it. >The vehicle was "unveiled" because it was just built and is about >to enter it's intended flight test program. > > > As I recall, the last great unveiling was the F-117. > > The occasion: War > >Note quite. The last "great unveiling" was TACIT BLUE, without any >particular occasion/reason. The F-117 was unveiled not because of >war, but because they wanted to start flying it during the day and >as a prelude to moving to a more open base at Holloman. > Thank you Dean. I stand corrected. No flaming or hostile response. I want to assure you there are those of us who consider you an informed and rational contributor to newsgroups. With respect to my post, it was only a bit of inept sophistry, for effect mind you, just for effect. Although, whether or not TACIT BLUE was a "great" unveiling, what, in the hundreds of millions and canceled, hum, I wonder? Byron ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:26:31 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Design differences On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Tom Robison wrote: > Was it not Stalin himself who said "Quantity has a quality all its own"? Possibly, I seem to remember that it was Lenin, Stalin tended more to sarcasm (a la Doug Piranha...): "The Pope! How many battalions has he got?" and so on. In any case, it is an impeccably Marxist strategic statement. DINSDALE!! DINSDALE!! - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:38:54 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: New triangulare hypersonice plane announced On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Byron Weber wrote: > Thank you Dean. I stand corrected. No flaming or hostile > response. I want to assure you there are those of us who consider > you an informed and rational contributor to newsgroups. With Bob Lazar! UFOs! Aliens speak to me through my fillings! Roswell! Cover up! Now let's see what happens ;-) I used to wonder if Dean wasn't just a little unkind towards UFO enthusiasts... until I started reading a few postings, and a few more... How the hell do you explain something to these people? Gandhi would start to foam at the mouth after a while. - --Brett ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #695 ********************************* 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).