From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #705 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 10 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 705 In this issue: M-12 cockpit F-18E/F cancellation costs Re: M-12 cockpit Re: M-12 cockpit Optical Stealth Re: M-12 cockpit Re: M-12 cockpit Military Surplus Re: Optical Stealth re: F/A-18E/F cancellation costs Tomahawk guidance system Re: Tomahawk guidance system Re: Optical Stealth Re: HAARP HAARP TLAM re: HAARP Article in Sept./Oct. BAS magazine Re: HAARP Re: HAARP Re: HAARP RE: HAARP 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: Jeff H Clark Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:39:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: M-12 cockpit I was wondering if, now that the M-12 is in Seattle, there are any photos available of the rear cockpit for the drone launch officer? Or, did the USAF take all the neat stuff out before they let it go? Just wondering, Jeff Clark ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: F-18E/F cancellation costs With some people talking about it being a Good Thing to stop the F18E/F program, I wanted to know, if the program got cut today, would the government be liable for a breach-of-contract payment to McDonnell-Douglas and/or Northrop? I thought I remember this payment being one of the reasons why more B-2s were produced past the first few $2 billion-each aircraft (ie cancelling after a few was more expensive than cancelling after 20 or so). Any thoughts? I know the whole cost thing is slightly off-charter, but traffic is low and the topic is interesting. Jeff Clark ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:08:19 -0700 Subject: Re: M-12 cockpit Jeff Clark writes: >I was wondering if, now that the M-12 is in Seattle, there are any photos >available of the rear cockpit for the drone launch officer? Or, did the >USAF take all the neat stuff out before they let it go? > >Just wondering, Since I helped restore M-21 60-6940, I can answer your questions. The front cockpit was in very good condition. As I recall, there were only a few instruments missing. Those have since been replaced. So the front cockpit should be complete now. The rear cockpit or LCO's (Launch Control Officer's) cockpit was in poor condition when the M-21 was received. Most of the panels had been removed. Based on photographs and videos, the rear cockpit was to be restored by SMOF. Last I heard, work was progressing well on its restoration. I have some photos of each cockpit that I took right after the airplane arrived. if I can get them scanned I'll share them. I took one of the front cockpit as I sat in it (and visualized I was pitching out over Groom - I could really see it - thank God for those C-150 lessons!) :) Larry ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: M-12 cockpit I read a post by Mary Shafer that said NASA borrowed the drone pylon from the M-12. What is the drone attached to now? Did SMOF make up a dummy pylon or is their drone just sitting next to it? Jeff Clark ------------------------------ From: Matthew Wherry Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 18:22:13 -0500 Subject: Optical Stealth I read an article in Aviation Week a few years ago that piqued my interest, and I was wondering if anyone has any more information. The article dicussed an A-10 that had been fitted with liquid crystal panels on the upper surfaces. From what I remember, the panels had a limited palette of dark reds and greens to match the ground below. One interesting feature was the ability to display the darkened silhouette of an F-16 as a kind of scare tactic. The plane was to be tested at China Lake, but I haven't heard anything about it since. Reducing an aircraft's visual signature seems to be the next frontier beyond RF and IR stealth - and there seem to be a number of ways to do it. The LCD panels would not be effective at altitude, since matching the luminosity of the sky is more important than any color matching. One example I am familiar with is a tank that had been rigged with a wall of floodlights, and when seen against the horizon from a mile away, it was almost impossible to see. Has this every been tried with an aircraft? - -Matt ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:47:00 -0700 Subject: Re: M-12 cockpit Jeff Clark writes: >I read a post by Mary Shafer that said NASA borrowed the drone pylon from >the M-12. What is the drone attached to now? Did SMOF make up a dummy >pylon or is their drone just sitting next to it? I have no idea if you're getting these responses. I haven't seen Mary's post. To answer your next question, SMOF constructed their own post and pylon. SMOF borrowed the original pylon so that they could construct a copy of it. SMOF then returned the pylon to NASA. The pylon really doesn't do much as far as load. It is just an aerodynamic fairing around the post, and it also contains a rear attachment point to attach to the drone. The real post carries the weight of the drone and it also contains a fuel line up from the M-21's rear fuselage fuel tank. There is a saddle in the M's rear fuselage tank that the post sits in. Yes, the D-21 and M-21 use the same fuel. Yes, they tried to run the D-21's ramjet while mounted to the M to attempt to achieve adequate transonic acceleration. It didn't work well. A steep dive is what they ended up using to go transonic. SMOF modelled the post with a donated solid billet of stainless steel, very thick and strong of the appropriate dimensions to fit in the saddle and through the pylon, and up into the D. When the post is properly seated in the saddle, there is a slight forward cant to it. Therefore, the D-21 is mounted on the back of the M-21 at the museum. I was there for the mating ceremony in fact. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:54:37 -0700 Subject: Re: M-12 cockpit If you'd like to see SMOF's MD-21 exhibit, look at: http://www.airfax.com/mof/photo8.html Larry ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 18:42:50 Subject: Military Surplus Last note, (from me-I promise) on this none skunky topic. What happens to excess military hardware is described in an article by Lora Lumpe in Vol. 52, No. 5, September/October 1996, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled: Costly Giveaways. Byron ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:47:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Optical Stealth Using lights for optical stealth, among other efforts, includes the well-documented Project YEHUDI. Dr Bob ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Sat, 07 Sep 96 19:31:14 GMT Subject: re: F/A-18E/F cancellation costs Since I'm one of those who think the E/F should be canceld, I'll take a stab at answering Jeff Clark. For those of you that don't have anything better to do, I've thrown in a description on how things get canceled. If you just want to cut to the chase, skip everything between the two rows of ******* (how the heck do you pluralize that?). ***************************************************** I'm not an authority on this, but having watched some of this, here's my understanding of cancellation penalties work: There are 3 1/2 basic ways the Government can cancel a contract. One is non-performance--the contractor didn't deliver what was ordered or didn't deliver it when it was agreed upon. The second is outright fraud. This is when it is said the contractor deceived the Government as to performance, quality, terms or data that "had the Government known" it wouldn't have awarded or continued the contract. When either of these happen, the contract can be terminated, cancellation penalties aren't necessarily due and the Government can even sue to get back the money it had already paid. Sometimes the Government does this, sometimes it doesn't. Something to keep in mind is that if a product doesn't perform up to specs, the Government can choose to lower the specs if it wants the product badly enough. If it does this, it can't go back later on and terminate the contract because the product didn't meet the original specs. This is what is widely reportedly happened with the F/A-18 A through D models. It can also, when it becomes aware of problems, tell the contractor to keep on going because the product is so vitally needed, and then can try and ask Congress for more money. If it says keep on going, it usually can't then come back and terminate for cause on those problems. The third way is "convenience of the Government". This means that the product performs to specs, was delivered on time, etc., but the Government decides it doesn't want what is on the balance of the contract. In this case, payments can be made to enable the contractor to shut down production. The contractor can also claim monies for expenses incurred so far in performing or preparing to perform on the contract that haven't yet been paid (advance materials, rental of production space, building tooling, etc.). If they are written into the contract, the contractor can also claim cancellation penalties. This ties into the list, because when the Government decided to sue (which may have been a mistake) over the cancellation of the A-12, it alleged the first two cases had occurred. The Government not only wanted to cancel, it wanted the contractors to reimburse back everything the Government had paid them so far. The contractors counter-sued claiming the third case had occurred. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the case, but the Government consistently lost the case and each appeal. It appears that the Government lost the first argument because the termination was premature (It's been alleged that Secretary of Defense had larger agendas involving Naval Aviation in total than simply the performance of the A-12 contract when he terminated the program). The first aircraft was going to be overweight, but the A-12 team was not required to deliver a fully on-weight aircraft until number 37. There would almost certainly have ben carrier compatibility and other problems, but since the first aircraft hadn't even flown it was hard to prove this if the contractor was claiming the problems would have ben solved in time to meet requirements. So, the Government lost on those grounds, I think. The other big claim was that the problems were concealed from the Government and that a lot more money was going to be needed to bring the plane up to spec (a little aside here: the extra money expected to fix the A-12 was much less than what the R&D on the F/A-18E/F which is a massively inferior strike aircraft is going to be). The contractors claimed that they had kept the Government informed, and if it did or didn't get passed all the way up the line, that wasn't their fault. The courts agreed with the contractors on this case too, in fact stopping the trial of the final appeal in the middle because the contractors reportedly had so massively proved their case. The contractors now get to ask for gazillions in reimbursements and penalties, and they are. The final (1/2) case is rare, but not unheard of. In each contract there is a phrase that says, "subject to the availability of funds". What that means is that despite all the signatures, oaths sworn and hostages exchanged, if Congress in its infinite wisdom chooses not to appropriate and authorize money for the contract, that's the way it is. ********************************************************************** The big consideration is how much has actually been signed for. Contracts are let for more than just airplanes, they're let for advance materials, for actions in preparation for aircraft to be ordered later, etc. The B-2 situation was determined by what number would be a viable force and how much advance procurement had been done for aircraft for which contracts existed or contracts for advance procurement had begun. The issue arose as to how much the Government was already committed for and what penalties would be due on already existing contracts that would be terminated for the Government's convenience. The third SEAWOLF submarine is an exact parallel. At least three were needed for a viable force and so much had already been done that to cancel it (aside from wiping out the US nuclear submarine building industry) would cost more than just finishing it. In the case of the Super Hornet, it depends on how much has been signed for. If you're a Hornet pusher, you want to get as many as possible actually ordered as early as you can so that the penalties are higher. Remember, though, we order them in annual lots, so if the Government just says "We aren't going to buy any more than are already ordered", I would guess there are no penalties as long as all existing contracts are honored. If the Government said "Whoa, stop everything Right Now", the contractors could ask for reimbursement and penalties on existing terminated contracts. Even so, it would be far less than continuing with the program (and, in my opinion better for the Navy). Also, if the contractors get other work that could net them as much or more profit, they may choose not to ask for penalties at all (look back at what happened when the C-17 program was set back a decade so that the C-5 could be reinstated). Art "Where's a can of Raid?" Hanley ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:08:51 MGT-200 Subject: Tomahawk guidance system What guidence do tomahawk missiles use? ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm(temporarily down) oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Tomahawk guidance system > > What guidence do tomahawk missiles use? > The basic TLAM uses INS and TERCOM for in-route guidance and DSMAC for the high-accuracy terminal phase. The Block III version has GPS to improve reliability and ease mission planning requirements for in-route guidance, and an enhanced DSMAC for better accuracy. Block IV includes a FLIR to improve accuracy even more over DSMAC, and an enhanced jam resistant GPS upgrade. - --- TERCOM = TERrain COntour Matching, using a radar altimeter. DSMAC = Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator, which uses an optical sensor to match target images stored in memory. ------------------------------ From: jwp@lubrizol.com Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 06:55:58 +0000 Subject: Re: Optical Stealth Matthew Wherry wrote: > > Reducing an aircraft's visual signature seems to be the next > frontier beyond RF and IR stealth - and there seem to be a number of > ways to do it. The LCD panels would not be effective at altitude, since > matching the luminosity of the sky is more important than any color > matching. One example I am familiar with is a tank that had been rigged > with a wall of floodlights, and when seen against the horizon from a > mile away, it was almost impossible to see. Has this every been tried > with an aircraft? > > -Matt I believe the British tried the idea on some of their sub hunting aircraft early in World War II. It was fairly effective but radar eliminated most of the advantage. It might work better with a stealth aircraft. Joe ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 96 12:14:21 GMT Subject: Re: HAARP _________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: HAARP Author: "Eric Hebert" at smtp-fhu Date: 30/08/96 08:18 Hi all, If i remember correctly, they are running tests on this somewhere in Canada's Northwest territories or Alaska. A canadian television show (W5 or The fifth estate) aired a while ago (4-6 months) trying to find out what the tests and the installation were all about. They didn't find out much. Again if memory serves me, the tests had something to do with Tesla's experiments on high voltage electricity transmitted through the atmosphere. I have an article somewhere on this albeit from a possibly unreliable source. I'll check if i still have it and post it if i find it. I'm probably walking on eggshells here so correct me if i'm wrong. Eric G. Hebert - ---------- > From: Gero von Randow > To: c4i-pro@azure.stl.nps.navy.mil > Subject: HAARP > Date: Friday, August 30, 1996 7:40 AM > > A german publisher is printing a book by Jeane Maning and Nick Begich on > a weapon they call HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research > Project), claiming it to be the most environmentally dangerous > R&D-project on earth. The whole thing smells fishy (i.e. > parascientific), but I would like to know why. > Anyone out there with any information? > > Thank you > > Gero von Randow ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 96 12:13:05 GMT Subject: HAARP Forwarded from the C4I-Pro list: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: HAARP Author: Gero von Randow at smtp-fhu Date: 30/08/96 04:42 A german publisher is printing a book by Jeane Maning and Nick Begich on a weapon they call HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project), claiming it to be the most environmentally dangerous R&D-project on earth. The whole thing smells fishy (i.e. parascientific), but I would like to know why. Anyone out there with any information? Thank you Gero von Randow ------------------------------ From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:39:53 -0800 Subject: TLAM I have some additional questions about the "Tomahawk" What authority does the GPS have over the overall flight path? At what point does the TLAM become supersonic, if at all? The video we recently got from the Gulf showed a rather slow departure. Is the INS turned on and calibrated prior to launch or does it use the GPS? Can the TLAM tell if it is being tracked by an unfriendly radar? Can it take evasive action? Is there a guidance protocol for reacquiring the terrain profile if it is lost during an evasive maneuver? If any of this information is classified please let me know. I am an engineer specializing in RF systems and have an extreme interest in modern weapons systems. If these questions are beyond the charter for this list, let me know where I can go. Thanks, Tony Dinkel ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 22:09:44 -0700 Subject: re: HAARP If you can pick up a copy of the September issue of QST, there is an article explaining how HAARP does what it does and future plans for same. QST is the "Official Journal of the American Radio Relay League, which is located at 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494. They'll probably send you the issue for a couple of bucks if you're interested. 7 3 Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84) Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) > From: "Terry Colvin" , on 9/9/96 12:13 PM: > Forwarded from the C4I-Pro list: > > ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ > Subject: HAARP > Author: Gero von Randow at smtp-fhu > Date: 30/08/96 04:42 > > A german publisher is printing a book by Jeane Maning and Nick Begich on > a weapon they call HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research > Project), claiming it to be the most environmentally dangerous > R&D-project on earth. The whole thing smells fishy (i.e. > parascientific), but I would like to know why. > Anyone out there with any information? > > Thank you > > Gero von Randow > > > > ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 04:27:05 GMT Subject: Article in Sept./Oct. BAS magazine You know, I've actually read that article. While some of it is valid, parts of it make me wonder if Mr. Rourke and Tattoo have found another career since their show went off the air. (sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself) ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:15:57 PDT Subject: Re: HAARP I was not aware that this is a weapons system. I thought it was a high energy physics project. Since the descriptions I `ve seen show it to be a mostly passive system- I doubt it will do much damage. There is enough energy in the Aurora Borealis to begin with I doubt anyone could make enough difference with the entire world`s manmade output! Chuck ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 7:25:34 EDT Subject: Re: HAARP Charles_E._Smith writes: > > I was not aware that this is a weapons system. I thought it was a > high energy physics project. Since the descriptions I `ve seen show it > to be a mostly passive system- I doubt it will do much damage. > There is enough energy in the Aurora Borealis to begin with > I doubt anyone could make enough difference with the entire > world`s manmade output! > Myself and the billions of other insignificant people hope you're right! - -- Hope for the best, expect the worst, and take what God gives you. Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) | I shaped the electrons this Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio | way, not my employer. ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 06:55:39 -0700 Subject: Re: HAARP From the article in QST, you are correct. HAARP is a tool for studying the ionosphere and radio propagation. 7 3 Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84) Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) > From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com, on 9/10/96 4:15 AM: > I was not aware that this is a weapons system. I thought it was a > high energy physics project. Since the descriptions I `ve seen show it > to be a mostly passive system- I doubt it will do much damage. > There is enough energy in the Aurora Borealis to begin with > I doubt anyone could make enough difference with the entire > world`s manmade output! > > Chuck > > > > ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 11:31:50 GMT Subject: RE: HAARP _____________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: RE: HAARP Author: "Betty G. O'Hearn" at smtp-fhu Date: 2/09/96 23:21 HAARP has a homepage http://server5550.itd.nrl.navy.mil/haarp.html Lots of information. You may also connect with kennedy@itd.nrl.navy.mil I have done a fair amount of research both on the pro and con side of HAARP. If anyone needs it... please e-mail me but give me a week. Betty G.O'Hearn Information Warfare and InfoSecurity Assistant to Mr. Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty@infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #705 ********************************* 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).