From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #61 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, July 7 1997 Volume 06 : Number 061 In this issue: Re: CSETI Congressional Briefing Mail Me New and Interesting Aircraft testing - please ignore Re: testing - please ignore "The New Area 51" re PM article Re: "The New Area 51" Re: "The New Area 51" RE: New ARea 51 Discovery Channel 7/3/97 Lockheed + Northrop Black Dawn updated ER-2 needed MODIFICATIONS to get to 68,000 feet? MISC ODDS AND ENDS 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: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:13:37 -0700 (PDT) From: dadams@netcom.com Subject: Re: CSETI Congressional Briefing ... > >You're not the only one! What I also can't quite fathom is how > >someone sees a listname like "skunk-works" and repeatedly interprets > >it as meaning "new-age-wacko-lunacy-list". Oh, well...! > > Now there's a conundrum! ... > And some want to keep their heads firmly in the sand. So... either your "head is in the sand", or you believe like CSETI and your esteemed Dr. Greer that he and others routinely meet and communicate telepathically with space aliens visiting the Earth. Facinating. > Is the Internet great or what? It would be even greater if you learned how to use it properly and directed your space alien posts only to appropriate forums. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:24:18 -0500 From: Alan Lloyd Subject: Mail Me New and Interesting Aircraft I am always interested in new designs. Our ORG is Vintage Aero Institute. I am particularly interested in any WWII restorable Aircraft' One in particular is the (TREKKER ROYAL GULL) Piaggio P.136 L-1 or P.136 L-2. a 1957 5 place amphibian taildragger w/ GSO 480 Lyc Pusher Engines. Also have 3 real sponsors to restore any WW II medium Bombers. B-25s, A-26s, Fighters, etc. Thank you Alan Lloyd Gen Mgr ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:23:45 -0100 From: John Burtenshaw Subject: testing - please ignore Is this list still active. Cheers John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:56:58 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: testing - please ignore >Is this list still active. > >Cheers > >John I thinbk everyone on the Skunk list is in stealth mode for the summer... Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:23:06 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: "The New Area 51" I just browsed the paper issue of Popular Mechanics for July. There was an article, which has already been mentioned here, claiming that Groom Lake had shut down and that the X-33 was actually a USAF wonderweapon that would be based in "The New Area 51" in Utah. Apart from the fact that the author appears, to even my untutored and hasty eye, to have a tenuous grasp of logic and causality at several major and minor points, would anyone who is better informed than I care to refute/elaborate/corroborate? Points I noted first: The logistics of such a base would be as bad or worse than Groom Lake. Groom has had a substantial investment of funds and building in recent years, shutting it down now would be foolish. I do realise, however, that stupid decisions do get made in the real world... The Utah and associated sites are described as having short runways. The X-33 is a lifting body having a high landing speed and would require a long runway, would it not? NASA is supposed to be using one of these bases as an abort option landing strip or something?? The article implies that the new site will be devoted exclusively to the military spaceplane and yet will also be a replacement for Groom after 1999 (despite claiming that Groom has already shut down). Groom Lake has been used as a testing ground for a tremendously wide range of aircraft. The "replacement" claim makes no apparent sense in this context. There are other trivial points. I only browsed, not having any spare change or much respect for PM in any case, so I may have got some points wrong, but that is my interpretation. Any comments? - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 00:58:36 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: re PM article Here's a selection of messages from the area-51 list showing the general reaction to the "new area 51" article back in May: From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 17:12:25 -0800 Subject: Popular Mechanics Article: Total Rubbish I finally got a copy of the June "Popular Mechanics" article on "the new Area 51." I have never seen such garbage in a national magazine! In nearly every paragraph there is a major glaring factual area. Doesn't Popular Mechanics have editors? Nearly everything mentioned about "Area 51" is false. There is no obvious change of activity here. The same number of workers park at the Janet terminal. There are no locked gates anywhere, except for remote dirt roads that no one uses and that have always been locked. The rest of the article sounds mighty weak, too. The "Area 6413" mentioned is an AIRSPACE not a ground area. I looked up R-6413 on a recent air chart. It isn't even restricted except by 48-hour NOTAM (advanced notice to pilots). In other words, before you could launch or land a secret craft there, you would have to tell the world, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS AIRSPACE IN TWO DAYS. Is that any way to run a secret base? On the land use maps I have, the land under the airspace looks open -- mostly BLM and state land. You could go there to look around if you wanted, but it seems to me it isn't worth the effort. What's the best way to find out what R-6413 is used for? CALL UP WHITE SANDS AND ASK THEM -- something the author apparently never tried. (My guess is that it is a rarely used missile launching area.) I wish I had time to list all the errors in the article -- but the list would be as long as the article itself, It is a follow-on to the previous article on Area 51 in Popular Mechanics. I "helped" on that one, but it was clear from the beginning that it would be a cheap rip-off of articles by Popular Science. This latest article can't even aspire that high. As the name implies, Popular Mechanics aims for the downscale lawnmower market, so who cares about facts? Glenn - ---- From: "Dale Punter" Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 00:58:18 -0000 Subject: Gate to Area 51 photo (Popular Mechanics) The photo of Jim Wilson at the gate to Area 51, has a problem. The reason that he found no guard shack or Cammo-Dudes, is because he was at least 10 miles from the actual Groom Lake road borderline. The actual location of the photo is the north perimeter fence of Range 61 in R-4806W. The photo is facing south, away from Area 51, and Groom Lake road has not vanished, in fact it is very hard to miss. I am not sure which Area 51 info Mr. Wilson read on his flight to Las Vegas, but it sure was not the "Area 51 Viewer's Guide"! The entire article reeks something awful to me. May I suggest that the author spend a little less time at the buffets and blackjack tables, and a bit more time in the field! - ---- From: groomwatch@aol.com (GroomWatch) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51 Subject: Nellis AFB 'ROFL'ing over PM article Date: 19 May 1997 15:47:12 GMT The June issue of Poplular Mechanics magazine may have suddenly become an unexpected "bounty" to the Air Force, particularly to those folks at Nellis AFB who are, no doubt, rolling on the floor laughing over the article on AREA 51, which was for the most part filled with factual errors to their absolute delight!! Sheila Widnal (Secretary of the AF) must also be 'ROLF'ing, too. It is my hope that this type of apparently misinformed article may not serve to curtail the general public's interest and scrunity of AREA 51 (Groom Lake), particularly for those issues concerning alleged infractions of environmental statutes. The article, written by Jim Wilson, infers that "the Air Force has abandoned top-secret testing at its once most secret test site". Then Wilson comes to the conclusion and states that "we know why and we know where they moved it to (i.e., Utah)". Nothing is farther from the truth than that overly generalized inference. Jim Wilson, despite his probable sincerity and good intentions, obviously missed the entire picture. To begin with, he obviously took a wrong turn on 'Groom Lake Road' and went to the wrong location. It is apparent from the photo that what he did was go south on the 'Mail-Box Road', crossed the 'Groom Lake Road' and went further south all the way till he encountered an old, poorly maintained wind fence, believing that he had arrived at the back gate of AREA 51. There he decided that nothing was happening at AREA 51, and makes a statement, saying "the 'cammo dudes' are no longer patrolling the perimeter of AREA 51" and further declares that "what we found was a securely locked wind fence that appears to have been undisturbed for months". He further comments that even though he had arrived at the back door to AREA 51, there was "no guard post". Brilliant! He also states that the "warning signs flanking the gate aren't very threatening either", and comes to the conclusion that "AREA 51 has shut down". Again, brilliant conclusion! I suggest next time that he go to the right location....towards the real Guard Shack area....where he may encounter the 'cammo dudes' and perhaps a military chopper to welcome him. >From what I understand from several reliable sources, Groom Lake has not had a major lessening of activity whatsoever. In fact there may be more going on at Groom Lake than before. New testing of "skins" for the outer coating of stealth technology is going on, just to mention one example. It is reported that major components of a new prototype of (small-scale) VTOL produced by Lockheed have recently been transferred to Groom from Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif. Moreover, most sensitive programs have always been conducted below ground level at Groom. The Popular Mechanics article is in such a drastic contrast to the more well-researched article that appeared in the May issue of Popular Science in which Groom Lake was mentioned several times, with an inference that there is still plenty of activity at Groom. Another erroneous fact Wilson mentioned was that there is an "officially named AREA 6413" in Utah. There is no AREA 6413. What he meant was Restricted Air Space 6413 in Utah. Sure, there may be some new programs going on in Utah, but to infer that AREA 51 moved to Utah is totally suspect. Norio Hayakawa - ----- From: Steve1957@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Intercepts Net News: Deductive Reasoning By Popular Mechanics Area 51 closed and I missed the garage sale? Comments on the Popular Mechanics story on Area 51. By Steve Douglass I turned on the tube the other day. It was time for my favorite show to come on. To my dismay as I flipped through the channels I found only snowy static. I checked every channel. Everyone was gone! What had happened? My mind began to race as I began to ponder the possibilities. Maybe EMP ( electro-magnetic- pulse) the kind generated by the release of nuclear weapons had triggered a massive blow out off all the TV stations. Maybe megatons of missiles were raining down from the skies at that very moment! A cold sweat and sweeping fear gripped me. I tried to calm myself. Maybe it was something else. Maybe for some reason only the TV stations were knocked out. I turned on the radio. I was relieved to hear the local oldies station still on the air. There was no need to panic.. well at least not yet. I sat down and calmly tried to deduce what had happened. As I was thinking, I picked up a copy of Popular Mechanics. Inside I found an article on HD TV. According the article once all TV stations converted to the new high definition standard old analog TV's would no longer work. They would be worthless. That must have been what happened. They converted to HDTV overnight and now my new 37 inch Sony was just a big paper weight. I unplugged it and carted it down to the trash, smashed it with an axe and went shopping for a new TV. At the local electronics store I couldn't find any HD TVs. I deduced they must have been out , because of everyone rushing to convert. I chuckled to myself when I saw a stupid man buy an old analog set. Hadn't he heard? I went home empty handed. The clerk promised me they would have some new HDTV sets in the future. I wasn't too dissapointed considering the alternatives, being fried by nuclear weapons. As I walked in the front door of my apartment, I noticed a piece of paper taped to mailbox. It was a note from the cable company. Apparently I had forgotten to pay my bill and they turned it off. Oh well, I didn't need it anyway, at least until I got my new HDTV. - -Steve Douglass - -------- K ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 12:56:52 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: "The New Area 51" Brett Davidson wrote: > > I just browsed the paper issue of Popular Mechanics for July. There was an > article, which has already been mentioned here, claiming that Groom Lake had > shut down and that the X-33 was actually a USAF wonderweapon that would be > based in "The New Area 51" in Utah. Apart from the fact that the author > appears, to even my untutored and hasty eye, to have a tenuous grasp of > logic and causality at several major and minor points, would anyone who is > better informed than I care to refute/elaborate/corroborate? In my opinion, except for thinly linked suppositions and WAG's it's pretty much a crock. > Points I noted first: > > The logistics of such a base would be as bad or worse than Groom Lake. > > Groom has had a substantial investment of funds and building in recent > years, shutting it down now would be foolish. I do realise, however, that > stupid decisions do get made in the real world... True, there's little reason to move from the Groom facility, unless conflicting projects would complicate testing. The Groom facility is just a very short ride from Las Vegas, Palmdale or even L.A., and shuttling workers to Utah on a daily basis, would eat up precious funding that could be spent on research. > The Utah and associated sites are described as having short runways. The > X-33 is a lifting body having a high landing speed and would require a long > runway, would it not? NASA is supposed to be using one of these bases as an > abort option landing strip or something?? Michael Field in the Dugway Proving Ground, is listed as a shuttle abort landing site, and is around 12,000ft long. Along with several other less sensitive locations, the Dugway location is has been slated as a test site for the X-33. Since the X-33 is not a secret project, why compromise other sensitive programs at the Groom facility by mixing the programs? > The article implies that the new site will be devoted exclusively to the > military spaceplane and yet will also be a replacement for Groom after 1999 > (despite claiming that Groom has already shut down). Groom Lake has been > used as a testing ground for a tremendously wide range of aircraft. The > "replacement" claim makes no apparent sense in this context. Again supposition. Even though Groom is more widely known than before to the public, security has been tightened, and sensitive programs continue to operate at the location. > There are other trivial points. > > I only browsed, not having any spare change or much respect for PM in any > case, so I may have got some points wrong, but that is my interpretation. > Any comments? > > --Brett Yeah, I think you are right on with this one. Wayne - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:12:35 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: "The New Area 51" Brett writes: >I just browsed the paper issue of Popular Mechanics for July. There was an >article, which has already been mentioned here, claiming that Groom Lake had >shut down and that the X-33 was actually a USAF wonderweapon that would be >based in "The New Area 51" in Utah. Apart from the fact that the author >appears, to even my untutored and hasty eye, to have a tenuous grasp of >logic and causality at several major and minor points, would anyone who is >better informed than I care to refute/elaborate/corroborate? Sure! Thanks for asking for discussion on this as I think I'm the only one with a positive opinion on this article. First off, I haven't read the article in awhile, but I believe I still recall the kew points. I'll reread it to be able to discuss details next week perhaps. Regarding the Groom Lake is closed point. I gave Jim Wilson, the author, the benefit of the doubt on this one. In fact I thought the image of him going to a gate near the range and finding it locked with no evidence of cammo dudes, and then standing back dusting his hands off and declaring well, it must be closed, to be pretty funny! In other words, I read it as a joke that Wilson made! I admit that I'm the only one so far, that I've heard of, that read it as a joke. But the conclusion was made, I thought, in a humorous manner as it was obviously made with no real research, and I felt that it merely served to introduce the main part of the article, which is some informed conjecture on where USAF Space may operate its future fleet of spaceplanes. Now I happen to know spaceplanes ARE coming eventually and USAF is doing several internal studies right now on how they will organize/develop/deploy spaceplanes in the future, and X-33, or whatever X-33 technology gets developed, is one current forseen technology base for such a system. > >Points I noted first: > >The logistics of such a base would be as bad or worse than Groom Lake. > >Groom has had a substantial investment of funds and building ... > >The Utah and associated sites are described as having short runways. ... These are all good points Brett which I wouldn't discuss without a reread of the piece, so let me do that first before comenting on these points. >The article implies that the new site will be devoted exclusively to the >military spaceplane and yet will also be a replacement for Groom after 1999 I took this part as not so much that Groom would close (remember I thought that assertion was really a joke) but just that USAF Space would operate spaceplanes from this new base. >I only browsed, not having any spare change or much respect for PM in any >case, so I may have got some points wrong, but that is my interpretation. >Any comments? I actually have respect for PM as they haven't gotten sucked into the black aircraft craze as badly PS has, for example. They have proven that they attempt to be critical thinkers instead of believing every black aiplane claim that is made by one of the 'official' black airplane writers. In fact, it seems the loudest complainers about this piece are the writers with a vested interest in the black aircraft status quo. These guys prefer to write articles about sightings that they believe hook line and sinker, instead of doing research that might get technical. This spaceplane base piece by Wilson is a case in point. I found it fresh in that it didn't just reiterate the probably nonexistant "artichoke" or "A-17", or "F-19", or "subscale B-2 demonstrator" crap. It attempted to propose some new ideas backed up by some credible research. Now, I didn't find myself convinced by the piece, but I found myself fascinated by the research, For example, I'd like to learn more about these "Pop-up" studies. Time will tell if PM is correct about the base, but for a change, we have a complete trail of logic associated with a claim! What a concept! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 03:15:24 -0500 (CDT) From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: New ARea 51 The writer of the article made a big boo-boo, the gate he is standing at is not the entrance to Area 51 where all the activity is. If he had taken the road that everyone else takes he would have seen teh cammo dudes and the signs and all the rest. They still patrol, but not apparently on the wrong road. He apparently made a wrong turn and got lost. And apparently doesn't know it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 10:22:37 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Discovery Channel 7/3/97 On Discovery Channel tonight, 10pm EDT, the A-10 Warthog, F-117 and attack helicopters. Might be worth a watch, even though I'm sure its stuff we've already seen. Have a good weekend and a safe Fourth. Greg Weigold Columbia, SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:09:47 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Lockheed + Northrop Lockheed, Northrop to Merge in $12 Bln Deal By Mark Egan LOS ANGELES (Reuter) - Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. on Thursday announced plans to acquire Northrop Grumman Corp. in a blockbuster $11.6 billion deal, the latest in a series of defense industry mergers in the post-Cold War era. Lockheed-Martin produces the F-16 fighter, the C-130 cargo plane and the F-117 stealth fighter, while Northrop makes the B-2 stealth bomber. Combining the two would create a defense powerhouse with 230,000 employees, annual sales of about $37 billion and the firepower to take on Boeing Co., whose $14 billion acquisition of McDonnell Douglas Corp. has been approved in the United States but still faces stiff opposition in Europe. It also comes as defense spending in the United States continues to fall, putting pressure on companies to combine forces to remain competitive. This year, the Pentagon is expected to spend around $260 billion, down from $370 billion in 1987, the height of the Reagan-led military buildup. "We're building for the future ... to be more competitive in the global marketplace," said Lockheed Chairman Norman Augustine, who will lead the new Lockheed Martin. The deal surprised industry analysts because Northrop Chairman Kent Kresa, who will be vice chairman of the merged company, had repeatedly said Northrop was not for sale. As recently as May, Northrop bought Logicon Inc. for $740 million. "Everything that Northrop has bid on in the past couple of years, Lockheed has bid on, too, and so you would have thought if (Lockheed) wanted to do this deal, it would have done it a few years ago and taken a competitor out of the marketplace," said Jon Kutler, an investment banker specializing in the defense industry at QuarterDeck Investment Partners. However, with Raytheon Co.'s proposed acquisition earlier this year of Hughes Aircraft and the planned merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, Northrop had few alternatives. "The McDonnell deal made Boeing significantly stronger there, so I think this deal is somewhat in reaction to that," said Mark Biagetti, an analyst at First Equity. Kresa said Lockheed approached Northrop in the second quarter about a merger and negotiations became serious in the past month. Experts said the proposed deal could generate intense scrutiny among federal regulators, who this week quashed the proposed $4.6 billion merger of Staples Inc. and Office Depot Inc. on antitrust grounds. "Regulatory bodies have been under heavy criticism for being too easy and they have been rather nasty lately ... so I certainly expect they'll give a good hard scrubbing to this deal," said Paul Nisbet of equity research firm JSA Research. Analysts say the firms will likely face divestiture in the lucrative area of electronic countermeasures -- the ability of airplanes to send false signals that foil the radar on incoming air-to-air missiles and dozens of other ways of fooling the enemy. But in the end, he said, it will probably be the Pentagon recommendation to antitrust authorities that determines the outcome of the merger. Earlier this year, Raytheon agreed to buy Texas Instruments Inc.'s defense electronics business for $2.95 billion, beating rival bidder Northrop. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said Raytheon could proceed with the deal if it sells some of the business' radar systems assets. However, Lockheed's Augustine expects the deal will be approved. Boeing said Thursday the deal would have little effect on its relationship with either company. Under the deal, Northrop shareholders would receive 1.1923 shares of Lockheed for each share of Northrop. At current stock prices, the merger values Northrop Grumman at about $118 per share, based on early stock activity, a premium of about 33 percent from Wednesday's closing price of $88.875. On Thursday, Northrop stock soared $21.125 to $110 and Lockheed fell $4.875 to $99.125, both on the New York Stock Exchange. The deal, which includes a breakup fee of about $200 million, is expected to close by the end of the year pending approval by shareholders and regulators. Relations between Lockheed and Northrop grew closer in May when Northrop joined in Lockheed's bid to build the Joint Strike Fighter. The contract, which is the subject of a head-to-head battle between Lockheed and Boeing, is seen as the last mega-contract of the century, worth about $170 billion before spare parts and services are factored in. Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., was once 17 separate companies. Over the last 20 years, the aerospace giant acquired the aircraft segments of General Dynamics, creator of the F-16 fighter jet and Loral, a group of companies specializing in electronics. The 1995 merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta formed by far the nation's biggest defense contractor, but the proposed merger of McDonnell and Boeing poses a challenge to Lockheed's standing. Northrop Grumman, based in Los Angeles, was formed by the union of Northrop Corp. and Grumman Corp. in 1994. It employs more than 45,000 people and had 1996 sales of $8 billion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:08:33 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Black Dawn updated Black Dawn http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish has been updated. The interface has been completely redesigned and the Tier 3 and UFO pages have been added, while others have been revised and edited. More easter Eggs have been added as well. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." (New York Times) ---------------------------------http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 13:51:13 -0400 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: ER-2 needed MODIFICATIONS to get to 68,000 feet? >Recent modifications to the NASA ER-2, sponsored by NASA's Mission to Planet >Earth program, increased its altitude capabilities, allowing it to reach >easily those altitudes where the High-Speed Civil Transport will fly. >The High-Speed Civil Transport, a conceptual supersonic airliner, would >carry 300 passengers at 2.4 times the speed of sound, at altitudes of up >to 68,000 feet. > Modifications? I thought the U-2 was already capable of flight considerably HIGHER than 68,000 feet? Timothy Poole ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 14:38:54 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: MISC ODDS AND ENDS If you're not spending all of your spare time looking at Mars Pathfinder news, here are a few bits of news and supposition. The space station site has been updated, with a section on the X-38. Not much information beyond what has already been released, but some pretty pictures. http://station.nasa.gov/ Flight International 2-8 July reports that ESA will decide in mid-'98 whether to proceed with cooperating on an X-38-derived crew return vehicle. It could be launched unmanned from Ariane 5, and the suggestion that it could be developed into a vehicle that could be launched manned, thus giving Europe an independent human launch capability, is only tentative. The project would draw on Hermes minishuttle development work already dne, but is in competition with a capsule design that ESA is already working on (but not commited to). Article on page 23 includes CGI of it on an Ariane 5. In the same issue, an article on Northrop UCAVs, p 20. Brief, says little other than that N-G is doing it too. Small illustration of one proposed design. An ugly lttle bastard, suddenly I love the Boeing JSF entry. It looks like a fat manta ray on its back, with its wings kinked into a gull-wing shape: up inboard, down outboard. Plan view is the usual delta with serrated trailing edge, and very small canards or strakes at the nose. Single B-2 type inlet over nose. 10 metres more or less long, it appears to show area ruling and could be supersonic? email flight.international@rbi.co.uk I wonder what the proposed Lockheed Martin - Northrop Grumman merger will result in? Try saying LMNG three times quickly: "A Lemon Gee!" Janes Defence Weekly, 11 June (it takes a while to get here) reports on the recent 2015 study. Lots of talk about the importance of information warfare, stealth and airpower in general. One of the authors of the Janes report, Nick Cook seems to mix in a lot of his own suppositions and outlines a scenario in which the (probably mythical?) "A-17" is used. If it exists, it's secret and it wouldn't be mentioned in official studies. Take with a grain of salt, then. Some of the ideas about power-draining robot insects and the like remind me of some satirical essays by Stanislaw Lem, particularly "The Upside-Down Evolution." That was anthologised in "One Human Minute" or "Imaginary Magnitude." His early sf novel, "The Invincible," outlines similar basic concepts, if anyone's interested. The original document (which I haven't had time to read, so no comments), unless there are two "2015" studies around, is at: http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/books/2015/cont.html Thanks for the responses to my "The New Area 51" queries. - --Brett ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #61 ******************************** 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