From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #707 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 19 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 707 In this issue: Message from STEVEM at SJEVM5 re: HAARP Flightline Magazine Army and ASAT Re: uppss Re: uppss Re: uppss Re: uppss F-117/HARM OT(off topic) Douglas Re: F-117/HARM Re: F-117/HARM Re: F-117/HARM Re: F-117/HARM Re: F-117/HARM "XB-70 like" Sighting "XB-70 like" Sighting -Reply "XB-70 like" Sighting X-36 article. "XB-70 like" Sighting Aurora? Not! 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: 13 Sep 1996 21:00:14 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: Kerry Ferrand Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 00:02:47 +1200 (NZST) Subject: re: HAARP Just this past week an excellent BBC "Horizon" programme about HAARP screened on TV here in NZ. Its titled "Masters of The Ionosphere" and has alot of details about the concepts, history and people involved. There was also alot of interesting old footage of upper atmosphere nuclear tests ("Starfish" etc) and so on. I found an almost full transcript of the show online at: http://www.bbcnc.org.uk/tv/horizon/95-96/960212.html Kerry ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 09:03:55 -0700 Subject: Flightline Magazine Just received my latest copy of the infrequently published magazine entitled "Flightline", the personal effort of one Arnold Swanberg from Seattle, WA. While the text is primarily Mr. Swanberg's very own editorial soapbox, the photography is always excellent - imho, the closest thing to Koku-Fan we have here in the States. Each issue even includes a 3-page foldout color photograph of the 'plane of the month', with no staples in the fuselage. ;) This issue (#8, Summer/Fall 96) has an article entitled "Habu Lives, Maybe...". The cover shot shows SR-71B NASA 831 (17956) from the boom operator's seat, and the article includes photos of Beale's 17967 with the Beale "BB" tailcode. The text doesn't offer anything new, but these are the first photos I've seen of the BB-marked tails... Other articles include Boeing's AOA/AST 767, (forest) fire-fighting C-130s and CH-54s, VX-9 at China Lake & Pt Mugu, KC-135Rs at Tinker AFB, Antonov An-2s in the States, F3H Demon, history of Malmstrom AFB, a UH-1 captured and flown by the NVA, Lockheed L-100s (commercial C-130s), and a photo essay on the F/A-18 with lots of color shots of interesting markings and a few words about a list favorite, the E/F... Oh, and the plane of the month is an F/A-18B (161714) of NFWS, in gloss black with white markings. What a babe... I have seen the magazine on newsstands, but it's kind of hard to find. If anyone wants more info, contact me directly. Greg Fieser (it's Sunday, so no standard disclaimers are required...) ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 96 16:26:38 GMT Subject: Army and ASAT Date: 10 Sep 1996 22:28:55 GMT From: Dwayne Allen Day Subject: Sat shot down by aircraft - Any truth in it ? John Pike (johnpike@fas.org) wrote: : The mobility of the MHV ASAT had very little to do with foiling adversary : countermeasures and a lot to do with giving TAC yet another strategic I think the issue would be less to do with foiling countermeasures than with being able to position your ASAT where the target is going to be. It expands your ability to enforce shutter control where you want to. But the countermeasures issue holds some validity. : mission. I don't think that there is much of any evidence to suggest that : the Soviets would have been able to do anything in response to such an : ASAT attack apart from launching a replacement satellite. There is Well, this is generally true for all satellites--defending from attack is virtually impossible. The intel community learned this back in 1962 with some simple physics calculations on the back of an envelope. But it is not _totally_ impossible. You can at least make things more difficult for your attacker in some instances. : certainly nothing to suggest that their missile/space tracking network : would have detected an attack in progress, or to suggest that the likely : targets [RORSAT or EORSAT etc] would have been able to do anything in : response to such an attack other than disintegrate on impact. The key advantage is suddeness--the thing can strike immediately and without warning, so countermeasures are impossible. If it could also strike anywhere (which I'm not sure of), then it would be more difficult by far. : > Yes and no, apparently. I believe that it still relied very heavily on : > ground tracking to localize the target. : Well, what else *could* it rely on?? Essentially all US spacetrack : capabilities are ground-based. I misspoke. It would be more accurate to refer to the degree of localization. You couldn't simply tell the pilot to go up and point his nose on a certain bearing and let him find the target with the F-15's big honking radar--you had to guide him to the precise spot in real time, requiring that he be in the same area as a ground tracking radar. : OTOH, the US spacetrack network is globaly : distributed, and : the Soviet target set was not particularly maneuverable, so in principle the : MHV ASAT could have been launched from a wide variety of bases, and in : principle the thing could have been flown to the southern hemisphere to do : perigee attacks on Soviet early warning satellites ... This is where I am not sure. There are ground tracking sites and then there are ground tracking sites and the places and methods that the US uses to track its own satellites are not always the same as the ones used to track other people's satellites. For instance, the former can be done with a simple receiving station, whereas the latter requires an active station. What sometimes happens when a US satellite suddenly goes off the air is that the station that normally expected to track it has to call up someone else (in some armpit like Hawaii) and ask them to look through the telescope and determineif their satellite is still where it is supposed to be. I believe that, in order to make a kill, the ALMV ASAT had to be in close contact with a ground station and this would have had to be one of the active radar stations. During the test this was not a problem, since the satellite was controlled out of Point Mugu near Vandenberg and the intercept was conducted off the coast of California. I'm guessing that the tracking was done through an active system. I could be wrong in all of this, but my general impression from talking with a few people who had knowledge of the F-15 system was that it was not nearly as flexible as one would have thought. Maybe there's some enterprising soul out there who is willing to try to write a history of the system? : At least part of the difference is that the Army managed to snag the ASAT : mission away from the Air Force, and the Army doesn't fly fixed-wing aircraft : and a helicopter-launched ASAT is a bit hard to envision. Did the Army really snag it away or was it given to them? What are the origins of the program? Why is this an Army program and not an Air Force one? And why : In contrast to the 437 and 505 ASAT programs, the Army's new KE-ASAT program : would have a smallish kill-vehicle on a largish booster, which would give : the thing a pretty heroic footprint over the USofA and ships at sea, so : the latency of the system would be measured in low hours .... Well, what is the footprint of the system? Amd what are any other systems that the US may have in development? D-Day - -- "In Heaven they have British police, French cooks, Italian lovers, and everything is managed by the Germans. In Hell they have French police, British cooks, German lovers, and everything is managed by the Italians." - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:46:09 GMT From: "John T. Beadles" Subject: Sat shot down by aircraft - Any truth in it ? wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) wrote: >I misspoke. It would be more accurate to refer to the degree of >localization. You couldn't simply tell the pilot to go up and point his >nose on a certain bearing and let him find the target with the F-15's >big honking radar--you had to guide him to the precise spot in real time, >requiring that he be in the same area as a ground tracking radar. Just a thought - GPS and a precision differential service delivered by satellite (such as has been discussed by DoD) should make this task much simpler. It would seem that all you'd need to provide the launch aircraft would be an accurate ephemeris for the target. With GPS providing time and position, a precision navigation system on the aircraft should be able to determine an appropriate launch point. The required accuracy would be dependent on the footprint of the weapon. Anybody happen to know what that footprint was? John T. Beadles, N5OOM jbeadles@pobox.com (home) http://www.he.net/~jbeadles/ ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: uppss On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Dean Adams wrote: > > Recently, a friend of mine spoke with a retired pilot of the SR-71. > > What was the pilot's name? > First, sorry about the late respond... no, they didn't adopt me ;) I was upgrating my computer system (the nightmare took me the entire weekend). Well, even I know the name of the SR-71 pilot, I will not going to tell you because: - Just to be in the safe side, I will not going to give him trouble (if he ever told my friend some classified information). If he laid to my friend, so what... You don't need his name. - I believe the only "useful" reason to mention his name, is to proof he was really a SR-71 pilot. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: uppss On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > What does density have to do with the Mach Number? > What I mean is that the SR-71 fly at extremly high altitud so, the density and pressure at that altitud is so low that the airplane can go very very fast. I thing you understand this. An airplane can fly at any speed at any altitude if it has enough thrust to over come the drag. So, at high altitudes, the drag due to skin friction is low compared to the drag at sea level. This is because the density of the atmosphere is low. BUT, P=(rho)RT tells us that, as density decreases, pressure should also decrease (if T is const). So both factors affect the performance. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: uppss > > What was the pilot's name? > Well, even I know the name of the SR-71 pilot, I will not > going to tell you because: > - Just to be in the safe side, I will not going to give him > trouble (if he ever told my friend some classified information). Don't worry, he hasn't! :) > If he laid to my friend, so what... You don't need his name. > - I believe the only "useful" reason to mention his name, is to > proof he was really a SR-71 pilot. Which is exactly the reason why I asked. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 04:59:50 PDT Subject: Re: uppss If there are Blackbird pilots who don`t know the difference between Mach number and true airspeed, I will turn in my wings. Please stick to basket-weaving or whatever "Liberal Arts" crap it is that you study. I really don`t think I need a weird science lesson in gas dynamics. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: F-117/HARM This week, AW&ST has a article about destroying mobile Iraqi SAM using HARM carried by F-117. I was wonder how the F-117 is going to lock on the mobile SAM?? As far as I know, the F-117 does not use radar, only FLIR and laser for targeting. In the article it mention about a "ambush" tactic to locate the target. Anyone know anything about it?? Thanks in advance. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:33:21 Subject: OT(off topic) Douglas A small business press from the Inland Empire (San Bernardino/Riverside,etc) reported Douglas is looking at Norton AFB and other unnamed locations to build a NASA/MCDD private jet named Cloudster. Lockheed Martin may help with the prototype from their Ontario location. NASA is giving a grant of $38 million to "resurrect the private plane industry." Cloudster, in concept, "will upgrade from aging prop planes and shift from expensive executive planes to private turbofan powered planes within the financial reach of many would-be flyers." Initial price: $245,000, crusing speed 250-300 mph at 30,000 feet with a range of 1360 miles. (2 seater) The Business Press Vol. 1/No. 52 September 2-8, 1996 Any private pilots out there interested in flying a jet? ------------------------------ From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:47:26 -0700 Subject: Re: F-117/HARM At 19:03 9/16/96, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > This week, AW&ST has a article about destroying mobile Iraqi SAM >using HARM carried by F-117. > I was wonder how the F-117 is going to lock on the mobile SAM?? >As far as I know, the F-117 does not use radar, only FLIR and laser for >targeting. In the article it mention about a "ambush" tactic to locate >the target. Anyone know anything about it?? > Thanks in advance. A HARM missile simply uses the threat radar's emissions as a homing beacon. No emissions from it or its carrier are required. If they turn their radar off, it just uses the same aim point. Definately hazardous to the health of an un-friendly radar op. If I were the Iraqi's, I wouldn't even turn my radars on. I think the AW&ST article also mentions another non-steath aircraft used as an "exciter". It was not clear to me which platform the HARM was actually fired from. But, if it were not the F117, then why was it required? I will have to re-read the article. TD ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 03:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: F-117/HARM > This week, AW&ST has a article about destroying mobile Iraqi SAM > using HARM carried by F-117. > I was wonder how the F-117 is going to lock on the mobile SAM?? The HARM's seeker takes care of that. > As far as I know, the F-117 does not use radar, only FLIR and laser for > targeting. In the article it mention about a "ambush" tactic to locate > the target. Anyone know anything about it?? The only problem I see with this is that while the F-117 is flying with it's weapons bay doors open and a HARM sitting on an extended launch rail, it won't be especially stealthy. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 04:55:18 PDT Subject: Re: F-117/HARM The HARM mission profile depends on an un-stealthy airframe. The whole object is to get the enemy to light up the targeting RADAR. Using an F117 would, it seems to me, defeat the purpose. The Wild Weasel was effective since the old J-79`s created so much smoke and noise. Who could resist taking a potshot at such a easy target? What commander in his right mind would send an asset like a F117 into a hostile area with its only virtue negated? A HARM will not fit inside the F117. In daylight? Hello. McFly! My 2cents. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: F-117/HARM Chuck wrote: >The HARM mission profile depends on an un-stealthy airframe. The whole >object is to get the enemy to light up the targeting RADAR. Using an F117 >would, it seems to me, defeat the purpose. The Wild Weasel was effective >since the old J-79`s created so much smoke and noise. Who could resist >taking a potshot at such a easy target? I didn't know Fang Songs had sound and smoke detectors! >What commander in his right mind would send an asset like a F117 into >a hostile area with its only virtue negated? A HARM will not fit inside >the F117. If you look at Holloman's web area, you can find the two pictures below, (dated May 8, 1996) showing an F-117A of Det 1, 57th Wing (probably 804 or maybe 813), firing what appears to be 2 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles. The Texas Instruments AGM-88B HARM is 4.17 m long (13 ft 7 in) while the length of the AIM-120A is 3.65 m (12 ft). The GBU-27A/B, which is usually carried by F-117As is about 13 ft 9 in long. I could not find the F-117A weapons-bay dimensions, but I believe they are about 4.4 m (14 ft 7 in), and I am sure, the HARM fits in there quite comfortably. Both missiles are radar guided (AMRAAM active, and HARM passive), but may be cued by off-board sensors. The mission, as I imagine it (I haven't gotten my AW&ST as of yet), is that the F-117A would fly unimpeded (unseen) near the suspected SAM radar sites, while other aircraft (probably HST equipped F-16C/D Block 50/52) fly their official SEAD missions, posing as bait. I believe (no proof whatsoever, just common sense) the F-117As can be data-linked to E-8C Joint-STARS, RC-135W RIVET JOINT, E-3A/B/C AWACS, and probably also to the F-16s. Any data-link or voice-com antenna would be much more stealthy than open weapons bay doors. As soon as the radar gets switched on, the (hopefully) much nearer F-117As will fire their HARMs, provided with off-board data from other assets. Sounds like a pretty good scheme, even if they would have to rely on voice communications only, instead of a data-link. The photos I mentioned of the F-117A firing AMRAAMs are located at: http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_03.gif http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_14.gif - -- 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: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: F-117/HARM On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > The mission, as I imagine it (I haven't gotten my AW&ST as of yet), is that > the F-117A would fly unimpeded (unseen) near the suspected SAM radar sites, > while other aircraft (probably HST equipped F-16C/D Block 50/52) fly their > official SEAD missions, posing as bait. I believe (no proof whatsoever, just > common sense) the F-117As can be data-linked to E-8C Joint-STARS, RC-135W > RIVET JOINT, E-3A/B/C AWACS, and probably also to the F-16s. Any data-link > or voice-com antenna would be much more stealthy than open weapons bay doors. > > As soon as the radar gets switched on, the (hopefully) much nearer F-117As > will fire their HARMs, provided with off-board data from other assets. Sounds > like a pretty good scheme, even if they would have to rely on voice > communications only, instead of a data-link. You are correct. AW&ST mention the mission of F117 together with F-16C/D and using data-link. I believe in Air Power Journal Vol. 2 has a article mentioning the F-117 suspect to have a HARM capacity. Now, we know it is true. Thanks for the replay everybody. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: seacom@dukane.com (Tyler Reid) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:17:05 -0500 Subject: "XB-70 like" Sighting It has come to my attention that an aircraft resembling the XB-70 (and reported in AW&ST in 1992) was sighted in Illinois, earlier last month. From what I understand, this occured during the morning of 8/6 or 8/13, at about 10 am. The aircraft was gray in color, below the clouds, and very large in size. The observer was near Sycamore, Illinois- approximately 70 miles west of Chicago. Has anyone else hear about this? ------------------------------ From: MICHAEL WEATHERSBY Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:32:52 -0500 Subject: "XB-70 like" Sighting -Reply I have heard nothing about this sighting but I seem to remember that there was one sighted in Ohio and the other one was "partially" located out in the desert somewhere. Any other sightings out there?? I, for one, would LOVE to see one in action...it was (is?) an AWESOME A/C. There is my .02 for the week. Mike Weathersby Weather@DHHS.STATE.SC.US >>> Tyler Reid 9/18/96, 09:17am >>> It has come to my attention that an aircraft resembling the XB-70 (and reported in AW&ST in 1992) was sighted in Illinois, earlier last month. From what I understand, this occurred during the morning of 8/6 or 8/13, at about 10 am. The aircraft was gray in color, below the clouds, and very large in size. The observer was near Sycamore, Illinois- approximately 70 miles west of Chicago. Has anyone else hear about this? ------------------------------ From: seacom@dukane.com (Tyler Reid) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:18:21 -0500 Subject: "XB-70 like" Sighting It has come to my attention that an aircraft resembling the XB-70 (and reported in AW&ST in 1992) was sighted near Sycamore, Illinois, earlier last month. From what I understand, this occured during the morning of 8/6 or 8/13, at about 10 am. The aircraft was gray in color, below the clouds, and very large in size. Has anyone else heard about this? ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 14:37:20 EDT Subject: X-36 article. A little off the Skunk Works charter since it involves a product of McDonnell Douglas's "Phantom Works". BUT>> Design News Magazine has a article with photo's of the X-36, 28% scale demonstrator aircraft. The cover photo is of what appears to be the design mockup on a lakebed, then on the feature section pages there are more photos including what appears to be a finished and painted mockup. all told there are 4 pages and 3 photo's. Interesting design features... article sez that flight testing begins this fall, so I assume that the project is well along. Issue is DESIGN NEWS Sept 9/96 pub date. .......................................................................... John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: seacom@dukane.com (Tyler Reid) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:51:51 -0500 Subject: "XB-70 like" Sighting It appears as though the dates indicated in my earlier message were incorrect. The aircraft was actually sighted on 8/20/96. Sorry about any confusion. ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Aurora? Not! While reading Rich Graham's new book on the SR-71, something occured to me. There have been a lot of sightings of "doughnut on a rope" contrails and people have speculated that these were produced by the mythical Aurora aircraft. Graham says that the SR-71 rarely produced contrails and if they did, they just climbed higher to get rid of them. As the Aurora is alleged to fly as high or higher than the SR-71, I think we can conclude that it too wouldn't produce a contrail. Hence, these strange contrails are from something else. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #707 ********************************* 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).