From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #20 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 24 February 1997 Volume 06 : Number 020 In this issue: F-111 Replacement Re: F-111 Replacement Re: "Take-off gear" Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18 Re: Silent Vulcan Ben Rich comments Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #19 Re[2]: Skunk Works Digest V6 #19 Re: Silent Vulcan Re: "Take-off gear" Re: The Boscombe Down incident Re: F-111 Replacement contrail 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: ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:14:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: F-111 Replacement Reference the comment about 'then 27 TFW' deploying to Boscombe Down. The 27th FW still exists--sort of, now flying 'lawn darts'. It's the Varks that are gone. Why the Air Force would develop a replacement for an airplane the 'single seat, single engine' boys detested and worked for thirty years to get rid of is a mystery to me. As it was, they had to get rid of the F-111 before it became widely known just how capable it had become with the Pacer Strike avionics upgrade. Otherwise, they would have been 'stuck' with an airplane with range, payload, and speed well into the next century. To relate this a little more to Skunk Works products, quite a few of my Vark brethern went to fly Stink Bugs before they were even acknowledged to exist. Back around '85, Chris Pocock called and asked if I knew anything about some A-7Ds that had just shown up at Bentwaters with some kind of strange pod under the wing. I didn't, but by then it was pretty common knowledge that the only active duty SLUFs belonged to the 4450th. A couple of nights later, one of our former-Vark buds showed up in the bar at Lakenheath. I wish I had a picture of his face when I casually asked if he was flying one of the A-7s with the special pod... Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ From: "Randal L. Marbury" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:00:56 -0600 Subject: Re: F-111 Replacement ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil wrote: > > Reference the comment about 'then 27 TFW' deploying to Boscombe >Vark brethern went to fly Stink Bugs before they were even acknowledged to > exist. Back around '85, Chris Pocock called and asked if I knew anything > about some A-7Ds that had just shown up at Bentwaters with some kind > > Jim Rotramel I'm sorry, was that..."Stink Bugs"?!? I'm assuming that's the "in" appellative for an A-7 (by the context). SLUF, 'Vark, and "lawn dart" make sense, but is there a story behind "Stink Bug"? (And if they were from Louisiana, would they be...dare I write it: "Mud Bugs"? ) - -- Randal Marbury AeroSpace Technical Research Associates Watauga, TX, USA http://ASTRA.home.ml.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + "No good deed ever goes unpunished." + + -Unknown + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ============================================ "No job is too big; no *fee* is too big!" -P. Venkman (GhostBusters) ============================================ ------------------------------ From: Jon Jenkins Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:00:16 -0800 Subject: Re: "Take-off gear" >> From: Jon Jenkins , on 2/22/97 11:27 AM: >> Sorry, Jay. Guess while I was being flip I wasn't being too clear. My >> off-topic point was that the nuclear-delivery mission of the B-2 does not >> involve the return of the aircraft to any base. Not to mention that if >> they did get to a base, odds are it's already gone anyway. Whoops! >From: Earl Needham > You mean the aircrew is ordered to commit suicide? I don' tthink so! > Earl, I'm not sure how or why you surmised that. Certainly not from what I said (hopefully!) Maybe I'm still not being clear. While the actual mission profile, of course, would include several landing, refueling, alternate landing, etc... scenarios, it is highly unlikely that any nuclear-delivery bomber on a nuclear weapons delivery mission (during what we will might call "full-scale nuclear conflict") would survive. No, I cannot reference any public documents regarding this because I haven't done any research. It wasn't something we (contractors) thought about much. To simplify it completely, imagine World War III with lots of nasty thermo-nuclear devices being surgically delivered by various air, water, and land based resources while the Earth is "softened" up by the ICBM carried MIRVs. Ever see "Wargames?" Does that help explain it, Earl? I'm certain that it isn't my place to be talking to whether or not this means that "...the aircrew is ordered to commit sucide" or not. Better a member of the aircrew answers that question. I have nothing but respect for the people who do that job. Jon ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:07:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18 We gave it back, once we discovered we didn't have the money to cut it apart, testing as we did so. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 betnal@ns.net wrote: > Mary, > > I was at Edwards Thrus and Fri of last week, and I saw the YF-23 sitting way > out on the apron down towards the Air Force side. They trying to take it back? > > Art > > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:42:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Silent Vulcan The Tier III- doesn't look much like a B-2. It does have the humpy fuselage, but it's got long, slender, high aspect ratio unswept wings. How do I know? They're flight testing it here at Dryden. Not only that, but it's only flown twice. The first flight was no where near long enough for it to get anywhere that's not used to weird planes coming out of EDW and the second lasted a few seconds, ending when the plane nosed over and crashed and burned on the EDW main runway right after takeoff. By the way, there was no way that there was a YF-23 flying in 1994. I knew where both airframes were that entire year and they not only had no engines but were not flyable otherwise. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > Here's the *short* list of _suspected_ projects that could match the > "Silent Vulcan" profile, from my own research (yes, I have far too much > free time), as well as that of others > > *Tier-3 Prototype. Aka "Q" (for "Quantum leap in technology"), Ghost. Looks > like a B-2, though with one sawtooth on the trailing edge. Roughly B-2 > size, though sweep angle is not quite as great and may be a scaled down > prototype. Can be manned, possibly capably of EXTREMELY slow flight for > extended overhead coverage. Primary contractor Lockheed ADC/Loral, based on > Lockheed ADC Advanced Technology Bomber design. > > *Navy UAV. Only know by brief mention in AvWeek and E-ring Pentagon rumors, > a 200 foot span high endurance UAV for over the horizon targeting- > essentially a replacement for 1980s airship missions. Internal politics > killed it. Configuration is thought to be a large "all wing" aircraft with > high aspect ratio. > > *Senior Citizen. SpecOps V/STOL transport. Probable contractors > Lockheed/Boeing. Not much is know of the aircraft, though there has been > one possible sighting in the PacNorthwest last year. Generally thought to > be a triangular aircraft with planform similar to that of the Boeing JAST > design, which checks with sightings of VSTOL vehicles seen operating in and > around Groom Lake, Nevada. Northrop Hawthorne competed for the contract > with a diamond-shaped B-2 derivative aircraft (ostensibly to cut costs). > > *Northrop "TR-3". Well, you're all probably pretty familiar with this one. > Also known as Tactical Survivable Aircraft. Though smaller than the > reported size of Silent Vulcan, it is very possible that it may be the > cause of some of the sightings. Published photos and eyewitness accounts of > SV have shown remarkable similarities to the TR-3. One photograph taken in > Belgium is almost certainly a "TR-3". > > Hopefully soon I'll have some web space to assemble a lot of the data I > ahve into something digestable, but until then I'll post periodically to > the list as threads warrant- ie I won't post a long dissertation on the > "Aurora" here is people are discussing the F-117! > Dan > > > ------------------------------ From: "A.J. Craddock" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:04:04 -0800 Subject: Ben Rich comments Some interesting comments made by a dying Ben Rich to a CSETI member were discussed by Dr. Steven Greer, International Director of CSETI (http://www.cseti.org), during Friday night's Art Bell Radio Show. The entire show can be played back from the Website. Tony Craddock ------------------------------ From: George de Peyster Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:10:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #19 Could you please arrange your e-mail system so that I receive only one issue of each digest? I received two copies of Vol 6, Number 16 ; 3 of Vol 6 Num 17; three of Vol 6, Num 18; and today [Monday, 24 February 1997], I received two copies of Volume 06: Number 019 -- in each case the copies were exact duplicates. Thank you, George de Peyster ------------------------------ From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:16:27 -0500 Subject: Re[2]: Skunk Works Digest V6 #19 Yeah, I get dupes of almost everything coming off the list. Anybody have an idea why? Greg Weigold, Columbia, SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #19 Author: George de Peyster at Internet Date: 2/24/97 11:10 AM Could you please arrange your e-mail system so that I receive only one issue of each digest? I received two copies of Vol 6, Number 16 ; 3 of Vol 6 Num 17; three of Vol 6, Num 18; and today [Monday, 24 February 1997], I received two copies of Volume 06: Number 019 -- in each case the copies were exact duplicates. Thank you, George de Peyster ------------------------------ From: Dan Zinngrabe Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:31:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Silent Vulcan Mary, you're thinking of the Tier 3- ("Darkstar"), whereas I was referring to it's big brother, the Tier 3. Tier 3 was cancelled because of it's high cost, and Tier 3- and Tier 2+ were started to replace it. Dan ****************************************************************************** Strategic Consultant, 21's Picks- Macintosh Artist, Misery Loves Co. Independant Author of Korn Fiction and Nonfiction Penal Colony ______________________________________________________________________________ Closed systems are destined to fail by their own nature. ****************************************************************************** _______________________________Windoze95(tm)(R)_______________________________ - ---------------------------The Ultimate Sleep Aid----------------------------- - -----------------------From The Makers of Office(tm)(R)----------------------- Simply insert floppy disks, run the installer, and in seconds your insomnia is cured! *WARNING!* Do NOT install Microsoft(R) products while operating heavy machinery, running Microsoft(R) or other applications or extensions, eating, debugging, "surfing" the internet, or living in the continental United States. ______________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:37:38 -0800 Subject: Re: "Take-off gear" > From: Jon Jenkins , on 2/24/97 8:00 AM: > I'm certain that it isn't my place to be talking to whether or not this > means that "...the aircrew is ordered to commit sucide" or not. Better a > member of the aircrew answers that question. I have nothing but respect > for the people who do that job. Well -- I originally worded it that way because that's the way teh aircrew I asked worded it a few years ago. A B-52 pilot, BTW, although I think and hope and pray the philosophy is still the same. Earl ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:07:04 -0800 Subject: Re: The Boscombe Down incident >Hi all > >Following on from Larry's comments on the above which happened from >an oil platform in the North Sea, the answer is no - BARG have never commented >on the matter (I should know, I'm on of the editors and now the Chairman!!!). Thanks for the reply Mike. My interest was in getting any _informed_ skeptical opinion regarding Gibson's sighting. >With our so-called knowledge of a possible stealthy F-111 replacement (A-17, Omega >or whatever its called this week), and considering the triangle was seen in company with >two Aardvarks, do the list members now believe that it was actually something like >this as opposed to an "Aurora" for want of a better name? Personally, regarding Gibson, I currently believe him and consider him a good witness, primarily because he sounds like he should have been able to notice the difference between an F-111 and the unknown (given his 12 year ROC involvements), and also, another member of this list, namely David Windle, has also talked to him personally, and David regards him highly, with respect to this incident. Now, this doesn't mean Gibson didn't make a mistake, only that the probability of it is 'lower' than if others had been placed in the same position. At the time Sweetman wrote his piece, the hypersonic Aurora was hot, and I always thought Sweetman molded Gibson's sighting to fit. As you might recall, Sweetman attempted to pull a wing sweep angle out of Gibson's sighting "a perfect 75 deg swept triangle" and use that, along with hypersonics researcher Paul Czysz's (formerly of McDD) expert opinion, to conclude a hypersonic aircraft. At the time, I argued, that there were other non-hypersonic aircraft with a similar sweep, (the F-111 itself, with wings swept, and the HAVE BLUE, just to name two). To Sweetman's credit, he shared the name and background of his witness, so that others could check it out. Now, the point of all this, is to point back at Gibson, and say to people, that, assuming Gibson didn't make a mistake, there is an anomoly here, and leave it at that. Nobody, in the absense of official announcements, can say anything more than that. The rest is just conjecture. Time may tell if Gibson was correct. Regarding Boscombe Down then, in my opinion. the quality of the witness is the important thing. And since I know nothing about the witness, indeed I have seen nothing about the witness(es), my personal opinion is that it may have happened as said, but I can't consider it a good 'sighting'. I'm anxiously awaiting the March, 1997 AFM here at my local bookstore. Perhaps they'll say more about the witness(es). Jim Rotramel replies: >... > To relate this a little more to Skunk Works products, quite a few of my >Vark brethern went to fly Stink Bugs before they were even acknowledged to >exist. Back around '85, Chris Pocock called and asked if I knew anything >about some A-7Ds that had just shown up at Bentwaters with some kind of >strange pod under the wing. I didn't, but by then it was pretty common >knowledge that the only active duty SLUFs belonged to the 4450th. A couple of >nights later, one of our former-Vark buds showed up in the bar at Lakenheath. >I wish I had a picture of his face when I casually asked if he was flying one >of the A-7s with the special pod... Yes, exactly. Your point is a good one. Assuming a new unknown aircraft, pilots (flight crews) need to maintain proficiency. The 4450th used A-7's during their 'black' phase. Again, if Gibson was accurate, then the aircrews flying the unknown might have used F-111's for proficiency and training. It's just a hypothesis. That's all. Those of you who would like to test it, have at it! Larry ------------------------------ From: Stephen F Donnelly Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:18:38 +1300 Subject: Re: F-111 Replacement Randal L. Marbury wrote: > > Jim Rotramel > I'm sorry, was that..."Stink Bugs"?!? I'm assuming that's the "in" > appellative for an A-7 (by the context). SLUF, 'Vark, and "lawn dart" > make sense, but is there a story behind "Stink Bug"? (And if they were Yes, I assumed the 'Stink Bug' part, but I'm afraid the 'Lawn Dart', and SLUF bits got past too. Not being in the states, and without 'contact' with the US military people, I have no idea what the nicknames are. Anyone care to explain it to the poor foreigner? Stephen Donnelly (delurking for a brief moment) ------------------------------ From: Tom Robison Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:31:55 +0000 Subject: contrail What's the lastest theory/opinion on the "donuts on a rope" contrail? Has anyone reported one recently over CONUS? The reason I'm asking is, I think I just saw one... over NE Indiana! I have no idea of the altitude, and I didn't have binoculars to study it closer, nor a camera to photograph it. There was no sight or sound of an aircraft, just the contrail... atmospheric anomaly? Too much coffee? Psychotherapy in order? Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of whoever might own me at the moment. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #20 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@pmihwy.com". 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@pmihwy.com" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "georgek@netwrx1.com". 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 e-mail request by sending a message to majordomo@pmihwy.com with no subject and a line containing "get skunk-works-digest vNN.nMMM" (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). You can get a list of all available digests by sending the one line command "index skunk-works-digest". If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R, Kasica