From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #706 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 13 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 706 In this issue: Message from STEVEM at SJEVM5 Message from STEVEM at SJEVM5 Re: HAARP Misc Ramblings Re:HAARP Re: Anti-gravity ??? Re: Misc Ramblings\[2 Re: TLAM F-22 Pictures and info Re: TLAM uppss Re: TLAM Re: uppss Re: uppss Janes: Eurostealth 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: SJEVM5 Date: 10 Sep 1996 14:55:54 Subject: Message from STEVEM at SJEVM5 I will be on vacation the remainder of the week - please see Brian Gross for CMVC issues The mail you sent has arrived. This message was sent by the SAFE automatic machine: do not reply. ------------------------------ From: SJEVM5 Date: 10 Sep 1996 14:55:48 Subject: Message from STEVEM at SJEVM5 I will be on vacation the remainder of the week - please see Brian Gross for CMVC issues The mail you sent has arrived. This message was sent by the SAFE automatic machine: do not reply. ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:21:19 Subject: Re: HAARP Charles Smith said: >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! In the dozen or so articles I've read about HAARP, only one mentioned a possible weapons application. It is hoped the system will allow operators to alter local weather patterns. They could muddy (create storms) the approach of an advancing enemy army, slowing their progress. By coincidence, I had been just reading Searching for Certainty by the ex-RAND and well respected mathametician John L. Casti in which he devotes a full chapter to weather. He referenced a declassified CIA (through FOIA) report titled, "Study of Climatological Research as It Pertains to Intelligence Problems," CIA Office of Research and Development, August 1974 which can be found in the appendix of The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age A Report of the Impact Team. New York: Ballantine, 1977. I found a copy in my local used bookstore. The short summary: weather is a serious defense issue since the great weather we have had for the past 100 years may give way to a "little ice age" resulting in significant loss of agricultural lands, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Worse, the Wheeler/Maxwell Drought Clock indicates we are at the end of 510 year/170 year/100 year (three) weather cycle pattern which may have catastropic effects on our ability to produce food. Needless to say, if these predictions are accurate, we may be looking at world anarchy in the very near future. Might HAARP be addressing this issue? If the predictions are accurate, I hope so. Byron ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:59:55 -0700 Subject: Misc Ramblings A few miscellaneous comments... I met Richard Graham last Thursday night at the Aero Club of Texas' monthly meeting. He kindly autographed a copy of his book "SR-71 Revealed - The Inside Story". I'm already halfway through it, and I highly recommend it. It's not a picture book (plenty of those have already been done), and it's not necessarily a history of the aircraft, but more of a description of the plane, it's subsystems, and how the crews remembered different aspects of the airplane. Definitely told from the viewpoint of an SR-71 pilot (and squadron commander), I find it a refreshing change from other books on the subject. The next two meetings of the aforementioned Texas Aero Club will be: 1) a tour of the B-36 restoration project and the A-12 (Avenger II) mockup at the Lockheed Martin facility in Ft. Worth (ex-GD plant, aka Air Force Plant #4). Access to the A-12's restored cockpit is promised, but since this is an active facility, no cameras will be allowed; and 2) a tour of Herb Tischler's Texas Airplane Factory at Meacham Field, also in Ft. Worth. Mr. Tischler is currently building *from scratch* flying replicas of Me-262s. He has obtained an actual aircraft from the Paul Garber facility to use as a template (promising to return it in better shape than he received it!), and I believe a total of five aircraft are being built. The Me-262s will be powered by GE J-85s, which will be inside replica shells of the original Jumo engines. His last project was a 'fleet' of Grumman F3F-2 biplanes (three F3F-2s and one G-32). That project took almost five years, and he has been working on the Me-262s for at least two years now. Anyone wanting more info on these tours can contact me directly. Finally, I remember a posting some time ago that mentioned the A-12 (the original one) was originally powered by an engine from a failed Navy program - was this a reference to the J75 used in Chance Vought's F8U-3 Crusader III? I wouldn't call the F8U-3 a failure, though it did lose out to the F4H-1 (Phantom II) as the Navy's new interceptor... Enough rambling - lurk mode ON... Greg Fieser "although I'm no longer self-employed, it's a safe bet my employer has no idea what I'm talking about..." ------------------------------ From: Dennis Lapcewich Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:24:31 +0930 Subject: Re:HAARP Here in Australia is a publication known as NEXUS, a ufo-ghost-government conspiracy-"consumer" magazine. They also have a web page at ... http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/ and a North American mirror at ... http://www.icom.net/~nexus/ They devoted a recent article to HAARP, which is also on their web site at ... http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/HAARP.html I found their site a while back surfing during lunch and they provide an "alternative" (my quotes) to what they consider important. I offer no opinion on the magazine other than another viewpoint to consider. Some of the web articles I have read do provide an extensive footnote and bibliography for those who may wish to verify the opinions and conclusion raised. DL ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 11:48:19 SET Subject: Re: Anti-gravity ??? Well, this anti-gravity story is vanishing even faster than I thought. Petri Vuorinen, whose name appears on the paper as co-author, disclaims any involvement. And E. Podkletnov does not want anymore his paper to be published! Jack Sarfatti has just reposted the following to different newsgroups: >[...] >8. MONDAY 9 September: Dr Podkletnov has today contacted the IoP editorial >offices, and requested that his paper be withdrawn from publication in JPhysD >next month. His request has been accepted, and the IoP is taking no further >action on this matter. >Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph In any case, Podkletnov is now well known. Just try a search on altavista or dejanews... J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:14:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Misc Ramblings\[2 >The next two meetings of the aforementioned Texas Aero Club will be: >1) a tour of the B-36 restoration project and the A-12 (Avenger II) >mockup at the Lockheed Martin facility in Ft. Worth ... Ohh! I'd love to see both! >2) a tour of Herb Tischler's Texas Airplane Factory at Meacham Field, ... ALso interesting! >Finally, I remember a posting some time ago that mentioned the A-12 >(the original one) was originally powered by an engine from a failed >Navy program - was this a reference to the J75 used in Chance Vought's >F8U-3 Crusader III? No. They weren't talking about the J-75 but what became the J-58. As to what Navy airplane they were talking about, factual information is sketchy. Some talk about an unnamed Mach 3 aircraft, others mention that it was intended for the A3J Vigilante (renamed A-5 in 1962, eventually RA-5). I've never been convinced that we know the exact answer. >I wouldn't call the F8U-3 a failure, though it did >lose out to the F4H-1 (Phantom II) as the Navy's new interceptor... I agree. The F8U-3 was a VERY COOL aircraft. It's sad that they were all scrapped. At least they completed a few Crusader 3's, unlike others which were in the prototype phase but got cancelled (like the XF-103 (another favorite)). Larry ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:25:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: TLAM Even though 8 F-117As were deployed to Kuwait, lately, the Skunk Works List is somewhat dead. Here is a (not too skunky) post: Tony Dinkel asked about the "Tomahawk": >What authority does the GPS have over the overall flight path? The GPS is used to update the INS during the flight, and for easier mission planning/programming, especially for missions, requiring precisely timed arrival over the target(s). GPS, TERCOM, and INS should be well integrated, but apparently the complex and protracted programming of the INS, TERCOM, DSMAC and GPS guidance system resulted in several missiles not being ready for launch in time for the second attack. All the remaining TLAM-C/TLAM-D Block 2 and Block 2A missiles were supposed to be updated to Block 3 standard, when going through periodical maintenance, but funding is as usual in question. All Desert Storm TLAMs were Block 2 versions, while all Desert Strike missiles where apparently Block 3 versions. >At what point does the TLAM become supersonic, if at all? The video we >recently got from the Gulf showed a rather slow departure. None of the versions of the M-109 are supersonic. Most older BGM-109s (models A through G) are equipped with Williams International (Rolls-Royce) F107-WR-400 (Block 3 have F107-WR-402) turbofans, while most of the later AGM-109 versions (H through L) have Teledyne (CAE/Continental) J402-CA-401 turbojets. The Land-, Ship- and Submarine-launched versions also have a rocket booster (USN Type 106, or newer (Block 3) Type 111) for the launch phase. Cruise speed (in either high-altitude or terrain-following mode) is probably well below the maximum speed of Mach 0.7 (550 mph). >Is the INS turned on and calibrated prior to launch or does it use the GPS? I guess the INS needs to be calibrated (maybe directly from the submarine, surface vessel or launch aircraft), before the flight. The old Tomahawks use only TERCOM to update their INS periodically, while the newer ones also use GPS, maybe even for calibration. >Can the TLAM tell if it is being tracked by an unfriendly radar? Can it >take evasive action? No. The BGM-109 relies 100% on terrain following, low level flight and the evasion of known AAA/SAM sites in the flight planning phase. >Is there a guidance protocol for reacquiring the terrain profile if it is >lost during an evasive maneuver? Because they are not supposed to make 'evasive maneuvers', it's probably not a problem. The most advanced versions have several programmable waypoints, periodic terrain contour mapping for mid-course updates, and DSMAC and/or IIR for terminal-phase guidance. The anti-ship version uses ARH to locate its (possibly) moving target and flies a search pattern in the target area. There are several different terminal attack maneuvers possible, depending on the warhead, guidance options and, of course, the target. I know of the following Tomahawk versions, several are actually not deployed operationally, and there are also sub-versions (Block 1, Block 2, Block 2A, Block 3, etc.) with different capabilities. All Tomahawks were originally designated as BGM-109s (Multiple-launch environments, Ground-attack Missile), but later the specialized sub-types were designated AGM, RGM, and UGM, depicting their actual launch environment (Air-launched, Surface-Vessel/Ship- launched, and Underwater/Submarine-launched): Version Name Acronym Warhead Launch Guidance IOC ======== ============ ======== =========== ========= ================= ===== BGM-109A Tomahawk TLAM-N W80 Mod 0 A/G/SLCM INS/TERCOM 06/84 (~200 kt) BGM-109B Tomahawk TASM WDU-25B A/G/SLCM INS/ARH 08/82 1000 lb (Bullpup) ARH from Harpoon BGM-109C Tomahawk TLAM-C WDU-25B A/G/SLCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC 08/84 1000 lb (Bullpup) time delay fuze AGM-109C Tomahawk TLAM-C WDU-25B ALCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC 12/84 1000 lb (Bullpup) RGM-109C Tomahawk TLAM-C WDU-25B SLCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC 08/84 1000 lb (Bullpup) AN/DSW-15(V) BGM-109D Tomahawk TLAM-D dispenser A/G/SLCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC with 168 BLU-97/B bomblets (in 7 packs of 24) RGM-109D Tomahawk TLAM-D dispenser SLCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC with 168 BLU-97/B bomblets (in 7 packs of 24) UGM-109D Tomahawk TLAM-D dispenser SLCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC with 168 BLU-97/B bomblets (in 7 packs of 24) BGM-109E Tomahawk Reactive A/G/SLCM INS/TERCOM Chase HE BGM-109F Tomahawk dispenser A/G/SLCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC BGM-109G Gryphon (Griffin) 1000 lb GLCM, TEL INS/TERCOM 06/84 conventional AGM-109H Tomahawk AF MRASM dispenser ALCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC-2 Medium-Range, Air-Launched, Airfield-Attack Cruise Missile with TAAM AGM-109J Tomahawk 1000 lb ALCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC 04/85 conventional AGM-109K Tomahawk WDU-25A/B ALCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC Medium-Range, Air-Launched, Land-Attack/Sealane Control Cruise Missile AGM-109L Tomahawk USN MRASM WDU-7B ALCM INS/TERCOM/DSMAC-2/IIR Medium-Range, Air-Launched, Land/Sea-Attack Cruise Missile (Block 4) (WDU-188, from Harpoon, ~500 lb ?) Block 3 standard usually includes an update to the F107-WR-402 engine, the Type 111 booster, new software, GPS and DSMAC-2A, a smaller, but more lethal 700 lb WDU-36B warhead, and more fuel. IOC was in May 1993. PST software update for USN, replacing Block 3 software, IOC was 1995 (?). Block 4 standard (called T-BIP or TMMM) includes a passive IIR for terminal guidance, improved INS and GPS, and may get rid of TERCOM, as well as a two-way datalink for in-flight retasking. A 'Bunker-Buster' sub-version with a different, new warhead is called the THTP. Block 4 is now in the EMD phase. It is planned to modify up to 560 TSAMs to Block 4 TLAMs. The current (Block 3) Hughes-built, ship-based TLAM costs about $600,000 each (originally built by General Dynamics and later McDonnel Douglas) and cost $1,000,000 a shot during Desert Storm. The current Tomahawk inventory of the US military comprises about 3,300 missiles, including several TLAM-N, according to AW&ST. Abbreviations: ============== * AF ==> (United States) Air Force * A/G/SLCM - ALCM ==> Air-Launched Cruise Missile (BGM/AGM) - GLCM ==> Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (BGM) - SLCM ==> Sea-/Ship-Launched Cruise Missile (BGM/RGM) - SLCM ==> Sea-/Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile (BGM/UGM) * ARH ==> Active Radar Homing * DSMAC ==> Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator DSMAC-2 ==> DSMAC II, DSMAC-2A, second generation DSMAC * EMD ==> Engineering and Manufacturing Development * IIR ==> Imaging Infra-Red * INS ==> Inertial Navigation System * IOC ==> Initial Operational Capability * MRASM ==> ??? * PST ==> Precision Strike Tomahawk * TAAM ==> Tactical Airfield Attack Munitions * T-BIP ==> Tomahawk Baseline Improvement Program * TEL ==> Transporter Erector Launcher * TERCOM ==> TERrain COntour Matching * THTP ==> Tomahawk Hardened Target Penetrator * TLAM ==> Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile TLAM-N ==> TLAM, Nuclear warhead TLAM-C ==> TLAM, Conventional warhead TLAM-D ==> TLAM, submunition Dispenser warhead * TMMM ==> Tomahawk Multi-Mission Missile * TSAM ==> Tomahawk Ship-Attack Missile * USN ==> United States Navy Nothing of the above is classified, otherwise I wouldn't know about it. :) Any corrections and updates are very welcome! - -- 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: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:26:00 -0500 Subject: F-22 Pictures and info This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------6AF76F11715 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey Skunkers... here is one of the best F-22 homepage I ever found: http://www.dragonfire.net/~ares/ It will be nice if you look at it in a computer with audio. - -- May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net - --------------6AF76F11715 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Base: "http://www.dragonfire.net/~ares/" F-22 Pictures and info

      F-22 Lightning Fighter

Everything at this page is

Detailed Information on the F-22 Lightning

Pictures of the F-22 Lightning

Movies of the F-22 Lightning

Information on NovaLogic's new game, F-22 Lightning II

There have been visitors since September 11th

*This page was lasted updated September 11th

Visit my other web page: Star Wars Update Page+

Visit my very small tribute to Team Canada

Links 'a Plenty

Aircraft Related Links

Lockheed Martin

Boeing

NASA's Dryden Research Center

Other Links

Paladin's Game Page

    This page developed and maintained by Rene Valen

If you have any questions or comments, e-mail me at aries@fox.nstn.ca

    This page is best viewed with

    Microsoft or Netscape

    (But why would you be using anything else!?)

    If you are thinking about sueing me, please read the disclaimer first.

    All other stuff is Copyright (c) 1996 Rene Valen

    Webcounter says you are actual visitor number:

- --------------6AF76F11715-- ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 15:16:13  Subject: Re: TLAM Here's an interesting question: Under the existing contract, by 1998 brand new Block III Tomahawks will have dropped to a unit price of under $500K. That's under the price of JASSM and Harpoon, both of which have much less range. They go way up after that. Why aren't we buying evry Tomahawk we can lay our hands on, instead of only 100? Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: uppss Sorry about the stupid mistake from my previou post. I only wanted to post the new unofficial homepage of the F-22 (http://www.dragonfire.net/~ares/). Recently, a friend of mine spoke with a retired pilot of the SR-71. I don't think the following information is very reliable because it is hard to believe. Or my friend was having fun with me or the SR-71 pilot was having fun lying. But... who knows... The SR-71 pilot told to my friend that the maximun ceiling of the Blackbird is higher than 100,000 ft. The maximun speed of the SR-71 is Mach 9 (since there is almost no density up there). I don't remember if he told me that it was the first design or the first prototype of the SR-71 was flown (or designed) as early as 1945. Well... this will warm up the traffic of the list ;) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:35:53 -0700 Subject: Re: TLAM Thank you very much for a very detailed reply to my query. Several other people also responded but neither was as detailed as yours. I realize my question was not "skunky" but I appreciate your handling it here. TD ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: uppss > Recently, a friend of mine spoke with a retired pilot of the SR-71. What was the pilot's name? > I don't think the following information is very reliable because it is hard > to believe. Or my friend was having fun with me or the SR-71 pilot was > having fun lying. But... who knows... > The SR-71 pilot told to my friend that the maximun ceiling of the > Blackbird is higher than 100,000 ft. The maximun speed of the SR-71 is > Mach 9 (since there is almost no density up there). I don't remember if > he told me that it was the first design or the first prototype of the > SR-71 was flown (or designed) as early as 1945. > Well... this will warm up the traffic of the list ;) Well... clearly this guy was either never an SR-71 pilot, or he was having a hell of a lot of "fun". The references to Mach 9 and 1945 are obviously nothing but pure nonsense. The design process for the Blackbird started around 1958, and the first flight of the A-12 was in 1962. The usual top speed for the SR-71 is Mach 3.2, but theoretically that could probably be expanded to around Mach ~3.5 - 4. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 04:34:02 PDT Subject: Re: uppss What does density have to do with the Mach Number? ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:32:45 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Janes: Eurostealth Janes Defence Weekly, week ended Sept 4, '96 has a briefing on the Future Offensive Aircraft proposed for the RAF. A good series of articles, it covers a number of related issues. 1. The RAF will need Tornado (and possibly Harrier) GR replacements about 2015. It would have bought the A-12 off the shelf, had it not been cancelled. JSF Navy version is a possibility, tho' there are doubts about it having only one seat, one engine. Unmanned vehicles possible, but unlikely, except perhaps at the end of the purchased series. Thick-wing version of EFA considered, but most likely decision is a multi-nation new aircraft project. 2. Struggles in the fighter business. The EFA is an example how not to do things. USA Department of Defense and UK Ministry of Defence have maintained the "special relationship" that began with the Manhattan project etc etc with stealth technology... however, while the MoD knows everything, a lot of the tech is kept there- British Aerospace doesn't get all of it and is forbidden to share it with foreign companies. BAe did announce a joint stealth strike project with Dassault and ran smack up against this wall. They are still working on other areas of compatibility. BAe is working on the Macair-Northgrum JSF, but still doesn't get to involve itself much in the stealth side of it. Britain doesn't have a formal "Black programmes" or SAR system, but one does appear to be evolving (BAe Warton has a sort of skunk works recently completed). Near future stealth will be models and simulation, manned demonstrator will probably fly around 2000. Co-operating with German or French partners will be very troublesome because of security restrictions, this has lead to frustration and my guess is that something will give somewhere... probably there will be an independent and commercial European black system... but this will depend on the evolutioon of European defence R&D and procurement and whether the national governments involve themselves less in the details. Notes on German Lampyridae (Firefly) stealth fighter. Never left wind tunnel. Not because of political pressure from America(& UK?), but money. Would have been supersonic in level flight, unlike F-117 (tho' the comparison is perhaps unfair, Firefly being an interceptor and F-117 a strike aircraft). 3. Article on UK-USA Stealth relationship. UK informed from a VERY early stage. RAF evaluated F-117 in a variety of versions, including tactical recon, but eventually declined to buy (?). WWII German research was largely collected by the British after the war and shipped to America, thus explaining the closeness of the relationship... this is historically quite important. Brief speculative mention of possibility of covert F-111 successor, the "A-17." BAe stealth project is named HALO "High Agility Low Observability" and will be a more "balanced" design than a pure stealth plane. This is a demonstrator, not a prototype, but will be closely linked to production... how this gets done is tricky, BAe can't afford to produce it on its own for just the RAF... may be RAF-USAF? Britain-Europe collaboration... well, see above... 4. Industrial and business analysis of JSF, sorry, my fingers are sore.... - --Brett ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #706 ********************************* 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).