From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #730 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 27 November 1996 Volume 05 : Number 730 In this issue: Re: ABL defense Re: JSF/TFX? Concussive force of Laser radiation (re:ABM) Re[2]: JSF/TFX? Lasers - concussive power Buzzard roosting in FL? re: Re[2]: JSF/TFX? Re: Buzzard roosting in FL? laser-radar Another URL Re: US Aircraft Carrier Fleet Re: A new designator Re: F-117 crashes Re: A new designator Re: A new designator New home needed for the skunk-works mailing list AW&ST:JSF re: AW&ST:JSF Forwarded mail.... Question of Name 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: "Frank Markus" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:34:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ABL defense [Substantial deletion] >While most of this discussion is rightly aimed at > boost phase interception, terminal interception is also viable and > perhaps even more effective (as the warhead is in ballistic flight). [Another deletion] > darknite Is this true? I was under the impression that modern warheads steer themselves on the way down -- or is this only true of MIRVs? ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:29:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: JSF/TFX? On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Felipe Salles wrote: > engineers had available to them during the project stage. Even with all > the wind tunnel experience available in the early 60's it would be all be > unbelievably crude compared to today's reality. Digitaly one can better > attempt to conciliate all conflicting requirements and be realy able to > adopt a 'modular' solution from the drawing board (or should I say the > CAD Station ;). Last but not least it is clear that manufacturing > processes were improoved by leaps an bounds in the last three decades, > allowing the single line to pump out all the diferent models at the same > time. I am one of these people that still don't believe the computer simulate better than wind tunnel. The good things about the computer are: cheaper, more flexible to modified the conditions (aircraft, and the atmospheric condition,etc.), faster... hmmm... sound familiar these words... from NASA maybe :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: darknite@juno.com (*********** * *************) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:20:14 PST Subject: Concussive force of Laser radiation (re:ABM) > >Focus the beam? Concusive force? We're talking about a laser here, >aimed >at a target probably several hundred kilometres away. I'm not at all >certain how or why a focussed laser beam should create a concussive >force. > First, focus of the beam is essential especially if we are aiming at a target "several hundred kilometres away", to counter atmospheric distortion/diffraction and inherient beam-spread. Second, a few minutes in any laser lab are all that are required to demonstrate the "concussive" qualities of focused laser radiation. Even low powered laser systems are capable of demonstrating this effect. Basically, the beam is brought to a focal point, where the air super-heated into a rapidly expanding plasma (an explosion by any other name). A continuous beam laser of even modest power quickly initiates a staccatto popping when brought to focus (rather like a string of firecrackers). Viewing any of the Higher powered laser tests, the concussive effects (resulting from the near instantaneous vaporization target material) also quickly becomes apparrent. In an ABM system, where the power level is magnitudes greater than any of these, the concussive force becomes one of, if not the, dominant destructive quality of these weapons. Darknite ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 96 09:25:38 GMT Subject: Re[2]: JSF/TFX? ___________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: JSF/TFX? Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 21/11/96 18:23 Art Hanley said: "A better historical reference would be the F-4. It was designed for the Navy mission. Even with the carrier compromises in the design, it was far better than anything the Air Force had. As a result, it was already capable of performing the Air Force roles as designed. It simply isn't true that a landbased plane will always outperform a ship based one. The F-4 is one example, and another is the F-8. You can see this today in the F-14B/D (which have engines with the thrust and performance the plane was designed for)." I have always found it amusing that, all the money spent on R&D not withstanding, the three best fighter types (at least from an Army point of view) the Air Force flew in Vietnam were Navy designs: the F4, the A7, and last but certainly not least, the A1. Bill Riddle ------------------------------ From: "A.J. Craddock" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:35:48 -0800 Subject: Lasers - concussive power Can someone provide me with information about a project called, I believe, "Measles"? This was I think a covert space based anti-satellite laser attack system whose development was supposed to have been discontinued under arms control treaty agreements. However rumor has it that it was then "morphed" into another covert program. Tony Craddock ------------------------------ From: Dan Zinngrabe Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 02:18:24 -0500 Subject: Buzzard roosting in FL? There have been a number of not-too-widely publicized "skyquakes" in Florida recently (in fact, even extending slightly north and west along the coast- LA - SC), and at least one "expert eyewitness" has reported an unusually configured aircraft taking off from Patrick AFB (a stone's throw away from KSC) along with an F-16 chase aircraft. Now, that, with the "XB-70" sightings recently in MD (I've confirmed two more in addition to the one already discussed on the list) and the fact that a friend at Wallops in VA (not far from where I am now- 45 minute drive) reported tracking of a "very fast aircraft on the range" would seem to indicate that the "buzzard" is TDYing on the Atlantic missile ranges........ Which may confirm the TSTO booster mission theory. Any thoughts on this? Any people in FL heard things about the booms? Dan Z ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Sat, 23 Nov 96 14:07:38  Subject: re: Re[2]: JSF/TFX? Bill: Don't forget the H-3 and H-53, both of which started out "feet wet". USAF unquestionably had bettter golf courses, though. Art Hanley "Remember, Grasshopper: The views above are not one with those of my employer, but like the butterfly go where they will, with each not representing the other. Therein lies the path of true wisdom and continued employment". Art Hanley "Remember, Grasshopper: The views above are not one with those of my employer, but like the butterfly go where they will, with each not representing the other. Therein lies the path of true wisdom and continued employment". ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:39:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Buzzard roosting in FL? Dan Zinngrabe wrote: >There have been a number of not-too-widely publicized "skyquakes" in >Florida recently (in fact, even extending slightly north and west along the >coast- LA - SC), and at least one "expert eyewitness" has reported an >unusually configured aircraft taking off from Patrick AFB (a stone's throw >away from KSC) along with an F-16 chase aircraft. Now, that, with the >"XB-70" sightings recently in MD (I've confirmed two more in addition to >the one already discussed on the list) and the fact that a friend at >Wallops in VA (not far from where I am now- 45 minute drive) reported >tracking of a "very fast aircraft on the range" would seem to indicate that >the "buzzard" is TDYing on the Atlantic missile ranges........ Which may >confirm the TSTO booster mission theory. >Any thoughts on this? Any people in FL heard things about the booms? A friend of mine that lives in Reston, VA spotted the same thing last week, several contrails surronding a "donut on a rope" contrail, all aircraft fairly fast moving, but were too high to make out any details on aircraft. Best, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 17:33:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: laser-radar Question to the list: Today's technology, there is a type of radar call: laser-radar, which is the use of laser scan that act as a radar. Anybody knows if Stealth aircrafts like F-117, B-2, F-22, etc. will be "invisible" for this type of radar??? Thanks in advance. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Sun, 24 Nov 96 21:14:41 EST Subject: Another URL Pushing the edges of the charter again. ;) I've stumbled on another "store" on-line, the site is the Vulcan Restoration Trust in the UK, While most items are Avro Vulcan related, they also list books, several of which, I have been trying to find a source for. Example: Wrecks & Relics 15th Edition (Ken Ellis). The essential guide to the UK's preserved and derelict cost s&s airframes. 350 pages and 200 photos. Hardback. Midland 14.95 2.50 Publishing. Warbirds Directory 3rd Edition. The international survey of the World's jet and piston warbirds. More than 180 different types listed, including the Vulcan. Over 700 29.99 2.50 pages. Laminated cover. Warbirds Worldwide Ltd. BTW: prices are in British Pounds. - ---------------- URL is http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homespages/gpenn/vulcan.htm John Szalay *----------------------------laser driver------------ jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com Warning: Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye ! ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:46:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: US Aircraft Carrier Fleet The URLs I posted were both wrong! Thanks to Bill Riddle, here are the correct ones: http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/vulrow.html http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/navy/ - -- 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:44:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: A new designator Art, Thanks for the reminder. I remember reading something about that competition (more C-17 vs. C-5D vs. C-33 == Boeing 747), and also, that the C-33 designation would apply to the CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) aircraft, only that this would include more than 1 type (Boeing 747, DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, Boeing 737, and several others). I doubt, though, that CRAF aircraft are given any military designations. Dan, The aircraft I have the least information on is neither the X-36 nor the X-38, but the X-37. I haven't seen anything about the X-37 but two small paragraphs in 2 AW&ST issues. I assume the X-37 is related to Hyper-X or LoFlyte, but I am not sure of this. Any additional info is 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:45:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: F-117 crashes David, I doubt very much that the first production F-117A would not have had a construction or article number, even thogh it is possible that the USAF Fiscal Year Serials were assigned retroactively (but even that is unlikely), and as far as I know, all sources on that matter are speculative at best, which makes my speculations as valid (or invalid) as other (published) ones. Peter, Of course, you're right about '801' instead of '802'. I used an older list for the post, and not the latest one, which had that fact already included. Also thanks for the update on '843' and the Have Blue relics. - -- 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: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:12:07 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: A new designator On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > The aircraft I have the least information on is neither the X-36 nor the X-38, > but the X-37. I haven't seen anything about the X-37 but two small paragraphs > in 2 AW&ST issues. I assume the X-37 is related to Hyper-X or LoFlyte, but I > am not sure of this. > Hmmm, aren't the two competing JSF prototypes to be designated X-35 and X-37?? (the X-CRV "space lifeboat" was designated X-35 briefly). - --Brett ------------------------------ From: PaulMcG@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:56:52 -0500 Subject: Re: A new designator Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >There were also some other new designations added lately Remember that military document I sent you Andreas, with all the aircraft and missile designations? I received a notice telling me that the new (1996) edition of the DoD's "Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles" is now available. The item number is AD-A309 868/8LEU, and military users can get it from DTIC. Civilians like us would have to pay $35 for a copy (but it is only 165 pages long!) through the government's NTIS (National Technical Information Service). If you would like to order, contact NTIS at 1-703-487-4650 or by mail at: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 USA. NTIS also has a $6 handling fee (U.S., Canada, or Mexico), $8 (everywhere else). The nice thing about government documents is that they can be freely photocopied, without any copyright enfringement. Paul McGinnis / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.frogi.org/secrecy.html [military secrecy site] http://members.aol.com/paulmcg/ [home page] ------------------------------ From: Kean Stump Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:25:56 PST Subject: New home needed for the skunk-works mailing list It's been a good few years running the list, but my work load combined with some policy decisions here dictate it's time to pass the list and the digest off to someone else. So, any volunteers? The list has 265 members, the digest has 564 and I think y'all got a good idea of the traffic flow 8) The end of December is the cut-off that's been handed me, so this is a bit timely. skunk-works@mail.orst.edu and skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu will stop working as mailing lists as of 31 December 1996. Kean Kean Stump Network Engineering kean@nws.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (541)-737-4740 ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:33:19 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: AW&ST:JSF I notice that the latest AvWeek has an article on the JSF decision, explaining why the Boeing and Lockheed Martin proposals were selected. See http://www.awgnet.com/aviation "Headline News" L-M was selected for relatively conservative low-risk approach, and the reputation of the Skunk Works for economy and efficiency. Boeing for the promised high performance and low cost of their proposal, plus the application of their commercial manufacturing techniques, despite the higher risk of their design. McAir eliminated because of relatively low level of innovation and doubts over two-engine layout - it couldn't idle without melting the runway, and maintainence on board ship would be too complex. Air Force may buy four squadrons of Stovl versions. If the Stovl version is REALLY good, it may be used by all services - the Navy may be under pressure to buy it and eventually do away with big, expensive carriers. That is a bit optimistic, I think... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 12:19:14  Subject: re: AW&ST:JSF The thing to keep in mind about the STOVL version (and I think STOVL is a wonderful thing) is that it is very similar to the USAF version, but with less range (which you don't need when you're flying STOVL anyway). It isn't designed to be able to do what the Navy wants their version to do, which is why the USN model costs more. If USAF buys the STOVL version as well, reversing a long-standing Air Force position on STOVL, it would be because they want to forward deploy aircraft like the Marines do. This would be an acknowledgement of the realities of CLose Air Support requirements since Vietnam. Although STOVL technology offers a number of advantages to shipboard operations (independence of relative wind, simplified launch and recovery gear, easier to operate off ships, etc.), one thing it does Not offer is the ability to reduce the size of carriers. An aircraft is going to take 100 meters or so to get airborne, whether it does it using its STOVL capabilities or whether it gets flung off the front and waist ends of the ship. The area that has to be dedicated for landing operations is about the same if you want to recover multiple aircraft rapidly, whether they land vertically or get yanked out of the sky by a wire. STOVL makes both operations easier and often safer, but not smaller. What sizes a carrier is how many aircraft you want to carry and maintain, how capable you want the ship to be, how well armored and survivable you want to make the ship (bigger is better) and the laws of hydrodynamics. If you want to carry 80 aircraft aboard ship, you're going to need a NIMITZ-sized ship, no matter how they takeoff and land. If you only want 20, you can make the ship smaller, but it will cost more to put the same number of aircraft over target (four small carriers cost a lot more than one large one, and their support and protection requirements would be much higher). I think STOVL hasn't yet been recognized for all the good things it can bring to the table, but we shouldn't hang our hats on much smaller ships, unless we're willing to give up a lot. Art "Not a Commentary" Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:57:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Forwarded mail.... One of my friend wrote me this e-mail... I thougth it may be interesting for this list since it has been discuss before. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:22:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Frank Y. Wang" There was a British TV program over the weekend about all the international politics and intelligence war behind the making of "Koncorski" - the Soviet TU144... and the incident which occurred in the 1973 Paris Airshow. It was very very interesting. I also saw the footage of the TU144 "crash" which I had never seem before. Actually it did not "crash" (well, it was a crash in the sense that it ended up on the ground)... it tried to pull up from a dive and just broke up and exploded in mid-air. Both the French and the Soviets were very quiet ever since... and the crash investigation report remains classified in both France and Russia (apparently Britain was kept out of this completely). To my great surprise, only the French engineers and the then French government officials interviewed kept on insisting that TU144 is nothing more than a western copy. However, the British Aerospace and Tuplov guys gave a very different account. It is recognized that USSR did set up an espionage network to collect information related to the Concorde, but many of the TU144 parts had to be resigned (not copied) out of necessarity... so in a sense, it did benefit from the technical information of the Concorde, but it was not a direct copy... The British Aerospace guys gave the example of the wing design (did BAe design the wing?)... the Concorde wing was designed to have strong and controllable vortices (i.e., vortex-lift) throughout its flight range which was why it had such a complicated surface geometry. When a copy of the Concorde wing design got to Tupolov, it was decided that such a wing could not be made in the USSR because the manufacturing technology simply did not exist. Therefore they resigned the wing... After many attempts, TU was unable to control the leading-edge vortices of the wing at high angles of attack, which was why the final design (i.e., production version) of the TU144 had these big canards in front so that the main wing would not go to the extremely high alpha as the Concorde did in landing. Back to the "crash"... As the international tension is reduced, people started to talk... It is alleged that the TU144 did not have the entire airspace of the airshow site to itself as it should... A French Mirage actually took off from a nearby military base on a photo reconnaissance mission, with the intention to get detailed top views of the TU144 canards and the wing geometry. Of course, the TU144 crew was not informed of this. The then air traffic control people at the airshow recalled that the Mirage suddenly appeared above the TU144 as it was doing a climb. This unexpected encounter forced the TU144 into a sudden negative 1G dive so as to avoid the collision, and most likely had stalled a couple of its engines... The TU144 pilot most likely then took the aircraft intentionally into an even steeper dive (which it did do) attempting to restart the engines. As the TU144 restarted the engines, it ran out of space... and in an attempt to avoid the crash, the TU144 then did a 5G+ pull up (and one can see on the footage that the airplane did do a high G pull up), then broke up in flame... most likely due to structure failure. ------------------------------ From: WELLS Robert Date: Wed, 27 Nov 96 17:01:00 PST Subject: Question of Name G'day everyone, I've seen references to photos of "donuts(sic) on a rope" contrails and was wondering if any were available on the 'net? TIA, Rob W. (-: ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #730 ********************************* 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).