From: owner-skunk-works-digest@ (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #42 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, April 1 1997 Volume 06 : Number 042 In this issue: Re[2]: D-21s on Display Re: D-21s on Display Re: Pharbod Questions Re: D-21s on Display Re: D-21s on Display Re: For Black Triangle/Silent Vulcan fans... Re[2]: Arizona "UFO" Re[2]: Arizona "UFO" Re: D-21s on Display RAF Hawk First D-21 Reportage re: RAF Hawk New Sighting Re: D-21s ... Re: D-21s ... Re: D-21s Re: Re[2]: D-21s on Display Air & Space Company in Area 51 EG&G and X-36 Discovery show X-36 info Air Force reveals black project! 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:59:44 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: D-21s on Display Was there something that was originally planned for them that no longer exists or was it merely the desire to have them in case there was some project in the future? Greg Weigold Columbia,SC ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: D-21s on Display Author: Mary Shafer at INTERNET Date: 3/26/97 4:14 PM Not ours. No way. We actually don't have any plans for them. We only got pushy and asked the Air Force for them because we were starting to worry that they'd all be given to museums before we got the six we'd been allotted. Since we only got four, we obviously started worrying a bit late. Actually, picking them up and bringing them here caused no end of trouble. The C-17 CTF brought them here, as their first non-test mission, and announced this to the world very proudly. Unfortunately, NASA HQ took this as a sign that we had some sort of unapproved program using them in mind and got a bit upset. We spent ages explaining that the only reason we'd gotten them was to be sure they were there when we wanted them, which wasn't any time real soon at all. 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 Wed, 26 Mar 1997 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > There is some talk that one or more of the survivng D-21s (probably the NASA > ones) may be fired off by a contractor. The proposal is that the existing > propulsion asystem would be replaced by some form of rocket propulsion and some > modifiations made to the nose and leading edge, and these puppies would be > boosted up to Mach 8. That's all I've heard, maybe someone else knows more. > > Art Hanley > > If these were my employer's > positions I'd have said so. > > They weren't, so I didn't. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:48:25 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: D-21s on Display >There is some talk that one or more of the survivng D-21s (probably the NASA >ones) may be fired off by a contractor. The proposal is that the existing >propulsion asystem would be replaced by some form of rocket propulsion and some >modifiations made to the nose and leading edge, and these puppies would be >boosted up to Mach 8. That's all I've heard, maybe someone else knows more. For what purpose? HYPER-X will do all this and more! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:25:21 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Pharbod Questions David writes: >"While >>the Northrop YB-49 flying wing did not serve as a model for the new >design, it provided valuable insights and a confirmation of feasibility" >(AIAA paper presented in 1991). Yes, if that paper is the one I'm thinking of, it also has the ONLY photograph of the Northrop XST that I've ever seen! It shows the Northrop XST up on a RCS pylon. It's much more attractive than the painting that appeared in AW&ST several years back (the Northrop XST that is). >With that said, I should note there >is an excellent AIAA book out, written by some of their associates, >recounted the technical details of the projects. I assume your talking about: "Tailless Aircraft in Theory and Practice" Kurt Nickel and Michael Wohlfahrt, University of Freiburg, Germany ISBN 1-56347-094-2 > I should note that Operation Paperclip and G-2 did go in to >Germany and save a lot of the technology that survived. Unfortunately, in >the 1960s/1970s, the collection of these reports was not well administered >and they ended up gettin spread to the winds (whoever wanted one got to >take it - the original that is!). Hence, it is very hard to find them. Yes, some of those papers are in people's basements! I have a copy of Professor Lipisch's interrogation discussing the ramjet engine for the LP-13a. This was a charcoal fuelled ramjet! Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 15:45:06 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: D-21s on Display Larry, I don't know much more than what I heard. Maybe the contract was to do something on the cheap, and they didn't need to recover the vehicles. These are already paid for. I'm hoping to find out more, or even if it's true, that's why I mentioned it. Art Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:53:56 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: D-21s on Display >There is some talk that one or more of the survivng D-21s (probably the NASA >ones) may be fired off by a contractor. The proposal is that the existing >propulsion asystem would be replaced by some form of rocket propulsion and some >modifiations made to the nose and leading edge, and these puppies would be >boosted up to Mach 8. That's all I've heard, maybe someone else knows more. Actually, there is an interesting point that Art raises here. If you were trying to replace the SR-71 on the cheap, one valid proposal would be to modernize the D-21B fleet and use it. Who knows what the result of such a study would be, but if we were in that brainstorming meeting, it would be a valid proposal to explore. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 17:51:09 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Re: For Black Triangle/Silent Vulcan fans... _______________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: For Black Triangle/Silent Vulcan fans... Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 18/03/97 10:54 No ... but I heard them talking about it on KTAR (Phoenix news/talk) on Friday afternoon. They were described as looking not unlike military magnesium parachute flares ... but they said that the lights were seen over a large area (Southern Utah to the Phoenix metro area) ... in a VERY short timespan. Bill Riddle ____________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: For Black Triangle/Silent Vulcan fans... Author: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl at smtp-fhu Date: 17/03/97 20:14 Here is an interesting piece of info from the DRUDGE REPORT, MARCH 17, 1997: >KSAZ-TV in Phoenix ran a segment during weekend news broadcasts purporting >to show a video of a UFO that hovered over the town of Scottsdale, Arizona >on Friday. The station reported in serious tones that there were more than >200 witnesses to the craft described as being a "very large triangular >formation with three lights that slowly moved over the southern Utah - New >Mexico region during several hours." >Many stations throughout the western United States picked up the KSAZ >report. "It's a really good video," a newsroom staffer of KSTU-TV in Salt >Lake City nervously laughed to the DRUDGE REPORT after a Sunday night >airing... Anybody saw that (live or on tv)? - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 18:11:57 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Re[2]: Arizona "UFO" Suspected duplicate... True, the latest round of lights in the sky (LITS) lends nothing to the discussion of stealth aircraft. (Now the other shoe drops...[8>))]. Some reports of strange objects, whether contrails or triangular shaped, DO lend something to the discussion of stealth aircraft. Yes, mailing lists ideally should remain discrete and focus on the topic; however, the nature of the information flow on the Internet (ie the wide range of user backgrounds, personalities, etc.) makes this almost impossible. A moderated list is one answer. Terry W. Colvin Terry W. Colvin < colvint@fhu.disa.mil > "No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees in it first." - Mark Twain ____________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Arizona "UFO" Author: Mary Shafer at smtp-fhu Date: 20/03/97 17:19 WOULD YOU _PLEASE_ TAKE THIS UFO STUFF SOMEWHERE ELSE? UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT LMSW BUILD THE DAMMED THING, IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE AND I'M GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF THE INABILITY OF SOME PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT MAILING LISTS ARE DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC, PREDEFINED AREAS, RATHER THAN ANY NONSENSE A SUBSCRIBER FEELS LIKE BRINGING UP. ...< %>< >... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 18:15:23 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Re[2]: Arizona "UFO" Suspected duplicate... Tom, You must not have much to do in your spare time out there in Guam. Methinks that Mary will wallop you. Your comments on confusing stealth aircraft with unidentified aerial phenomena are on the mark. I agree wholeheartedly. Even UFO groups assume some sightings are American stealth. For example, triangular craft seen over Japan in 1995[?] were labeled as the Aurora or Black Manta. Terry ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Arizona "UFO" Author: "Tom Burnett" at smtp-fhu Date: 21/03/97 1:02 ...< %>< >... Your point is well taken Mary, and in all fairness I would much rather listen to you on your worse day than to any manner of pointless speculation. But I would like to speak for the other side briefly and suggest that if you cannot prove LMSW is NOT producing any given vehicle or propulsion system, then every type of observed phenomenon is a perfectly valid topic for discussion since they MAY be building it. I am perfectly happy not to enter the realm of speculation as long as I have verifiable facts....What, exactly, IS the LMSW producing? If you will be so kind as to inform the general readership, the dreaded UFO menace will surely dissapear from whence it came. ...< %>< >... Tom Burnett non-government employee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 17:29:06 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: D-21s on Display The proposal I was talking about wasn't for a SR replacement. Don't like disagreeing with Larry, but the D-21s wouldn't remotely begin to be able to do the SR's job. Plus, since we'd run out of them fairly quickly, they'd be a lot more expensive to operate (got to buy more). Art Hanley My employers are in no way associated with whatever is written above, much to their relief ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:39:44 -0600 From: wings@sky.net (Wayne Busse) Subject: RAF Hawk Does anyone have further info on the UK RAF Hawk aircraft that has reportedly been reborn as a stealth? Jane's claims that it is being operated as a stealth technology demonstrator out of B.A.'s Wharton plant in the UK. Is this the UK's competition to the JSF VSTOL designed for export for the RAF? Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 97 09:16:53 EST From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Subject: First D-21 Reportage Larry mentioned an early AW&ST story on the D-21. They ran a two-page photo piece in the 31 Oct 77 issue. Jay Miller first ran the photos (credited to "Ben Knowles") and a provisional 3-view in the second issue of Aerophile earlier that fall, and AW&ST picked up the photos from him. But, Jay can speak to all that, I'm sure. George Cully ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 8:15:09 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: RAF Hawk They're probably referring to some equipment, techniques or coatings being tested for the RAF's Future Offensive Aircraft program. Hawk is a subsonic trainer. UK is not competing with JSF, they are a partner in the program. At present, RAF has not indicated that they will buy any STOVL JSFs. The UK participation is for replacements for the Sea Harrier for the RN. JSF is being examined by the RAF in two categories. First, as a Possible candidate for the FOA, if money gets even tighter, and second as a Harrier replcement if the RAF chooses to stay in land based STOVL. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:30:39 -0500 From: "Brian W. Winston Jr" Subject: New Sighting Last week while my son and I were out looking for the Hale-Bopp comet, I saw a very large black plane, flying very high, and very fast. The only reason I even got a look at it was the fact that it flew into my field of view. ( I was using a pair of binoculars) We live about 40 miles east of Cleveland, right on Lake Erie. I can't imagine that we are near any type of military flightpaths, as we are about 200 miles north of Wright-Patterson. After going through some of my own material, the plane looked like the old project Archangel, one of Clarence Kelly's designs leading up to the SR-71. Anybody know anything about this one? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Brian Winston Jr bwinston@interlaced.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:07:17 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: D-21s ... >The proposal I was talking about wasn't for a SR replacement. Don't like >disagreeing with Larry, but the D-21s wouldn't remotely begin to be able to do >the SR's job. Well, that essentially is what they were for. They replaced the SR-71 on missions that were considered high threat (mostly for political reasons I think). >Plus, since we'd run out of them fairly quickly, they'd be a lot >more expensive to operate (got to buy more). There was a plan to explore recovery of the complete drone. They were going to pursue parachute recovery when the program ended. This was told to me by SENIOR BOWL members who came to the party at SMOF for the opening of the MD-21 exhibit. The D-21 was a very impressive system. I wish I could show all of you the briefing video for this system. It takes you on a complete photo intelligence mission over several Pacific islands. The drone flies itself completely autonomously at over 90,000 ft and Mach 3+ taking the photos. It does turns and course changes all under control of its onboard mission computer and INS. With up to date technology in electronics and engines it would work even better. But who knows how much it would cost. I had heard that the B-52 launchers were de-modded. Anyway, no big deal, it's just a thought. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 16:15:11 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: D-21s ... There are probably more knowledgeable folks than me on this but, The D-21s were originally designed to be usd in areas that were considered too hot (politically or defense wise) for the A-12. Although there's no reason why they couldn't be operated from the SR-71, to the best of my knowledge there was never any consideration to do so. It turns out that defensewise, the SR was no more vulnerable than the drone (remember it also carried the DEF), and frankly for those folks who knew we flew the SR over them, there was nothing they could do about it and we didn't care if we ticked them off. Today, there are a few countries we might not want to publicly offend, but they'd be just as mad at the drone as they would at the SR. I think the probable reason the program sorta faded away was that the technology wasn't sufficiently mature to justify its cost. There was indeed some talk about a recovery system for the whole drone, although it would have been quite complex (remember, we didn't have much success recovering even the packages). A big issue, though, was how much redesign you'd have to do to the drones to make it economical to reuse them. There are certain liberties you can take with a design when it only has to work once. Then, of course there's the fact that the SR carries far more sensors than the drone could. Still, it was an impressive system, just like Larry said. It predates Global Hawk by 30 years, and was less vulnerable. I'd like to see a similar system today with more modern technology, but I don't know where we'd get the money for it. Art Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 06:58:17 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Re: D-21s Art wrote..... >The proposal I was talking about wasn't for a SR replacement. Don't like >disagreeing with Larry, but the D-21s wouldn't remotely begin to be able to do >the SR's job. Then Larry wrote.... >Well, that essentially is what they were for. They replaced the SR-71 on >>missions >that were considered high threat (mostly for political reasons I think). I thught I read somewhere that one of the reasons was that after the Powers shoot down, Eisenhower said that there would be no MANNED overflights over the USSR, so then they came up with the D-21.....loopholes, loopholes, loopholes...... 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:03:47 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Re[2]: D-21s on Display No, nothing ever was planned. We just didn't want to find ourselves shut out in the future. 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 Wed, 26 Mar 1997, GREG WEIGOLD wrote: > Was there something that was originally planned for them that no > longer exists or was it merely the desire to have them in case there > was some project in the future? > > Greg Weigold > Columbia,SC > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: D-21s on Display > Author: Mary Shafer at INTERNET > Date: 3/26/97 4:14 PM > > > Not ours. No way. > > We actually don't have any plans for them. We only got pushy and asked > the Air Force for them because we were starting to worry that they'd all > be given to museums before we got the six we'd been allotted. Since we > only got four, we obviously started worrying a bit late. > > Actually, picking them up and bringing them here caused no end of trouble. > The C-17 CTF brought them here, as their first non-test mission, and > announced this to the world very proudly. Unfortunately, NASA HQ took this > as a sign that we had some sort of unapproved program using them in mind > and got a bit upset. We spent ages explaining that the only reason we'd > gotten them was to be sure they were there when we wanted them, which > wasn't any time real soon at all. > > 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 Wed, 26 Mar 1997 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > > > There is some talk that one or more of the survivng D-21s (probably the NASA > > ones) may be fired off by a contractor. The proposal is that the existing > > propulsion asystem would be replaced by some form of rocket propulsion and > some > > modifiations made to the nose and leading edge, and these puppies would be > > boosted up to Mach 8. That's all I've heard, maybe someone else knows more. > > > > Art Hanley > > > > If these were my employer's > > positions I'd have said so. > > > > They weren't, so I didn't. > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:20:00 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Air & Space The cover story of the Air & Space magazine for April/May 1997 is about Stealth aircrafts. A interesting article by Bill Sweetman. BTW, in the article said: "A blend of lines and curves, the B-2 recalls the original Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing but did not evolve from it." May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 17:39:22 -0500 From: Steve Subject: Company in Area 51 A while ago on this list some people mentioned a company that worked in Area 51, but I can't recall their name.. Anyone know what it is? Or even what I'm talking about? :) - -Steve stevek@bmts.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:48:35 -0500 From: Steve Subject: EG&G and X-36 Tom, thanks.. I knew it was E something.. :) I know it isn't from the Skunk Works, but does anyone know where I might be able to find some info on the X-36? Thanks.. - -Steve stevek@bmts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:01:15 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Discovery show >This Discovery Channel is showing a three part series THE CIA: AMERICA'S >SECRET WARRIORS, tonight, tomorrow, and Wednesday nights, at 10 pm >(eastern). Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:13:28 -0500 From: Steve Subject: X-36 info I know it isn't from the Skunk Works, but I need to find info on the X-36.. anything would be helpful, all I have now is a photo of a small model of it.. Thanks.. - -Steve King stevek@bmts.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:08:26 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Air Force reveals black project! Finally a skunky news item: WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Pentagon today lifted the veil of secrecy from one of its most secret or ``black'' aircraft programs ever. Only thirty of the vehicles, known as ``Project Silly Putty'', were ever built. The crafts were designed to ``fly erratically, show blinking lights, hover silently over a spot, suddenly disappear, and display other attributes usually associated with UFOs,'' an Air Force spokeswoman said. Even though many witnesses have seen the vehicles at various times, and photographic evidence existed for years, sightings were usually dismissed as UFOs or attributed to alien spaceships. ``We found that the UFO hysteria was a very effective cover story for our reconnaissance, surveillance and test flights,'' said a source in the Pentagon, who declined to be named. The thirty unconventional vehicles are based at a secret installation on the Tonopah Test Range in southern Nevada, which also served as the former home of the F-117 stealth fighters. They are assigned to the 7014th Psychological Warfare squadron, a unit of the Air Intelligence Agency. The spokeswoman declined to comment on any questions regarding specific capabilities of the crafts or its manufacturer, and referred journalists to the accompanying fact sheet. Rumors that the vehicles are of ``foreign'' design could not be independently confirmed. One aerospace analyst voiced the opinion that the task of the former secret unit was to confuse the enemy as well as the general public, ``to distract attention from other secret air force projects.'' According to another analyst, many of the new technologies developed specifically for Project Silly Putty could be incorporated in new aircraft designs, and ``may very well revolutionize the industry.'' Some UFO enthusiasts took the announcement as confirmation of their believe that the U.S. Air Force has been in the possesion of alien craft since the late 1940s. John P. from the Federation of American Scientists stated: ``The notion that Project Silly Putty refers to Bob Lazar's so called 'Sport Model' is laughable. There is no evidence that any of these craft were imported.'' According to well placed sources, the Air Force is planning to display two of the aircraft at its 50th anniversary air show at Nellis AFB, near Las Vegas, Nevada, later this month. - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #42 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.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@netwrx1.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@netwrx1.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