skunk-works-digest Wednesday, October 15 1997 Volume 06 : Number 082 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** And another magazine... VZ-10 serials Land Speed Record (off-topic) funding cuts Re: A-12 and flying prototype Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) Re: funding cuts re: Funding cuts RE: funding cuts Re: funding cuts Flying Prototype of Navy's A-12 Avenger II Re: PC soapbox Re: funding cuts RE: funding cuts Re: funding cuts Re: funding cuts Re: funding cuts Re: funding cuts Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) Re: Flying Prototype of Navy's A-12 Avenger II Hypersonics Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) They did it! Re: They did it! SR-71 funding deletion (long venting) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:58:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: And another magazine... Another magazine that I just picked up, which covers some Skunk Works-related material, is the October 1997 'Special Issue' of Scientific American, which covers, besides LMSW's X-33 and Venture Star, also Bell/Boeing's V-22 and Model 609, as well as both Land Speed Record/Mach 1 competitors and several other transportation topics. They also mention at the end of the Venture Star article, that a hyperlinked version is available at their web site at: www.SciAm.com - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:23:44 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: VZ-10 serials Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:04:01 -0700 (PDT) David Lednicer "Two Long EZs were built at Fort Lewis,...One of the two (serial 84-1240, N1253) was also extensively flight tested..." For the record, I show 84-1240 as one of a block of 35 F-16C-25Cs running from 84-1212/-1246. BTW, PBS's Nova on Oct 14 will feature "previously unknown details about attempts to break the sound barrier." Also, PBS is carrying "Stephen Hawking's Universe" over six consecutive Mondays starting Oct 13. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:49:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Land Speed Record (off-topic) They finally broke the sound barrier on land. But, it is still un-official because they miss the second round by one minute. http://cnn.com/TECH/9710/13/land.speed.record/ May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:35:02 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: funding cuts Just caught the end of a news item about President Clinton exercising his veto powers..mentioned was that further USAF SR-71 operation funding has been nixed, along with military spaceplane research, Clementine-2 space probe and a bunch of other stuff. How long til the current Air Force SR-71 funding runs out? will it be back to mothballs for those aircraft or will they be handed back to NASA to use? K ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:30:29 -0700 From: Speed Racer 71 Subject: Re: A-12 and flying prototype I'm forwarding this to the list - any replies should copy the individual and the list (if deemed on-topic...) Greg Fieser James Stevenson wrote: > > Dear sir: > > I have been working on a history of the Navy's A-12 for over three > years. I am almost finished with the manuscript which will be published > by the Naval Institute Press. The book will be similar in scope to my > previous book, The Pentagon Paradox. > > I have recently received information from a very credible source that > there was a flying prototype of the A-12 located in Area 51 that arrived > in the fall of 1988. > > Might you have any information on this? > > Sincerely, > > Jim Stevenson > (301) 530-4241 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:52:08 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) Su Wei-Jen wrote: > > They finally broke the sound barrier on land. But, it is still >un-official because they miss the second round by one minute. I don't think the supersonic runs are unofficial, simply the new world land speed record that they represent. Hats off to them, it's a fantastic achievement. Having had a look around Thrust SSC a while ago anyone who drives it deserves a medal..that's a scary piece of machinery ;) I understand that the SOA team allowed the Brits to take up some of their allocated time to conduct the second run, which shows real sportsmanship on behalf of the US team who must be disheartened at losing the sound barrier. Here's to an 800 mph World Record the SSC team believe is within the car's capability. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:40:51 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: funding cuts Not being too familiar with congressional processes in the US, how final is a presidential veto in this case? I'm aware that a 60%+ (or whatever) vote can overide it... is it also possible to continue funding for specific items under different legislation? I seem to remember that some years ago Dick Cheney was able to axe the A-12, but despite his opposition, the V-22 has survived. Not being a US citizen, may I say that your President is being an idiot? - --Brett At 12:35 15/10/97 +1300, you wrote: > >Just caught the end of a news item about President Clinton exercising his >veto powers..mentioned was that further USAF SR-71 operation funding has >been nixed, along with military spaceplane research, Clementine-2 space >probe and a bunch of other stuff. >How long til the current Air Force SR-71 funding runs out? will it be >back to mothballs for those aircraft or will they be handed back to NASA >to use? > >K > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:35:43 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: re: Funding cuts erm well not *my* President Brett..me being in the same .nz domain as you:) I understand Mr. Clinton was excercising his (new?) "Line-item veto" powers where he can refuse to pass little "hidden" bits added on to an often unrelated bill (by congressmen all trying to get something for their local region) rather than throwing out the whole thing. He seems to be enjoying this new found power... K ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:06:42 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: funding cuts > ---------- > From: Brett Davidson[SMTP:Brett.Davidson@vuw.ac.nz] > Reply To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 1997 13:10 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: funding cuts > > Not being too familiar with congressional processes in the US, how > final is > a presidential veto in this case? I'm aware that a 60%+ (or whatever) > vote > can overide it... is it also possible to continue funding for specific > items > under different legislation? I seem to remember that some years ago > Dick > Cheney was able to axe the A-12, but despite his opposition, the V-22 > has > survived. > > Not being a US citizen, may I say that your President is being an > idiot? > > --Brett > Traditionally, the President could only veto an entire bill. Congress, in turn, could only over-ride a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress (Article I, Section 7). (See http://www.csusm.edu/A_S/History/docs/constitution/usacon1.html). A rule of thumb of whether Congress would have the votes to over-ride a potential veto is to look at the final passing vote in both houses prior to the original submission of the bill to the President. If this final vote taken is less than a two-thirds in favor in both houses, the subsequent veto by the President would most often not be over-ridden. With this in mind developed the fine art of pork-barreling (see http://www.interlog.com/~hmarsh/pork.html). A member of Congress could attach an amendment to a bill (say, food aid for Whatzitland) and attach an amendment for a multi-million dollar project in their district or state. The President is faced with a dilemma of vetoing a good bill because of the amendment he dislikes (not a good move) or signing it into law and the member of Congress gets his/her pet project. The line-item veto has been used by most state governors for years to much success (most states operate at a budget surplus or budget neutral, as opposed to the federal government). Successive presidents for the past 200 years have all petitioned Congress to give the President a line-item veto. Since the enacting of the federal line-item veto (see http://www.house.gov/rules_org/97-38.htm), a few narrow court decisions have neither fully supported (http://www.nando.net/redesign/newsroom/ntn/top/081197/topstory_27589.ht ml) nor struck down (http://the-tech.mit.edu/V117/N18/dveto.18w.html) the new law. As to whether my president is being an idiot remains to be seen. If you use the word in the general discussion of the line-item veto I do not think you have much to stand on, considering us taxpayers (yes, the long arm of the IRS reaches here, too!) have watched our money go down the tubes for pet projects for too long. If you use the word in the general discussion of what he actually vetoed (see http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/971014/news/stories/veto_2.html), (1) the amount vetoed isn't really worth a discussion considering the US military has more than enough similar projects (public and hidden) to keep them busy, and, (2) do we _really_ need what was vetoed in the first place. (Oh, I can feel the heat of flame wars already. If so, take it off-line please.) Or, has Eisenhower's farewell speech regarding the military industrial complex proved itself true (see http://hs1.hst.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html) with this line-item veto? Apologies to all if this appears so off-topic, but a discussion without financing is just a pipe dream. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------ Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds ... - Albert Einstein - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ----- Dennis Lapcewich - HelpDesk Administrator University of South Australia - Adelaide, Australia Email: Dennis.Lapcewich@UniSA.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:26:42 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: funding cuts Brett Davidson wrote: >Not being a US citizen, may I say that your President is being an idiot? How dare you call him an idiot? Only we can call our idiot an idiot! ;>) Tom Robison ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:19:14 -0400 From: James Stevenson Subject: Flying Prototype of Navy's A-12 Avenger II Dear All, I recently heard from a very reliable source that there was a flying prototype, delta wing in shape, that arrived in Area 51 in the fall of 1988. My source saw the subsequent mock-up and said they looked alike. I am just finishing three-years on a manuscript on the history of A-12. I would appreciate any help on this. Jim Stevenson (301) 530-4241 jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:02:03 -0400 From: Eric Rebentisch Subject: Re: PC soapbox Art said: > My Personal belief is that the Administration's well-known >unfamiliarity with >military operations and people and possible even dislike for same means >that these >issues aren't getting the attention they need. What's happening now is very >similar to what happened during the Carter years, for much the same reasons. I agree with your prognosis, but think, from a procurement budget and DoD topline standpoint, we are actually worse off now than in the late 1970s. We also have the unbudgeted overseas adventures now that we didn't have then. The bottom line is that most acquisition programs are eating a 5-10% tax every year to pay for O&M and other budget shortfalls. At the end of the 1970s, Reagan was able to reverse the trend in the "hollowed out" military on the basis of the threat from the "evil empire" and hocus-pocus budgeting. Neither are likely to come to the rescue this time around, and in fact, the DoD budget will be lucky if it can hold its own against inflation for the foreseeable future. There are lots of people who can share blame for this, but DoD has to take its lumps too. The QDR hardly laid out a visionary strategy for coping with a significantly changed environment. Until DoD takes a serious look at its roles and missions and force structure, acquisition programs are going to suffer (as well as sustainment and logistics, training, morale, and all the other ills you mentioned). On another note, patrick asked: >I heard a TV news report claiming that the "significant defect" noted above >was in fact several loose and/or missing bolts and/or other fastening >hardware. I heard from a fairly reliable source that some bolts were missing from an actuator assembly in the wing - resulting in the flutter and structural failure. The concern now is to find why that maintainance was not performed correctly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:08:46 +0200 From: Samuel Sporrenstrand Subject: Re: funding cuts But do the US really need the SR-71 now that the UAV's have been so successful?? Kerry Ferrand wrote: > > Just caught the end of a news item about President Clinton exercising his > veto powers..mentioned was that further USAF SR-71 operation funding has > been nixed, along with military spaceplane research, Clementine-2 space > probe and a bunch of other stuff. > How long til the current Air Force SR-71 funding runs out? will it be > back to mothballs for those aircraft or will they be handed back to NASA > to use? > > K - -- Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ / *URL: www.aircraft.base.org _\_/_ *E-Mail: alltech@swipnet.se *----/_(.)_\----* *Contact: Samuel Sporrenstrand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 9:09:58 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: RE: funding cuts Dennis, Actually the discussion of this subject is very germane to this list, given some of the items vetoed. It would not be appropriate for me to make detailed commentary on this subject from this account, but my position on the SR-71 is well known. I will say that the possibility of a line-item veto of the program was something that was originally in the initial draft of my article that appeared in Airpower, but I was asked to take it out as it might be used as ammunition by the anti-SR faction. Regarding NASA and the SR: NASA's operations are separately funded so what happens to the A they have and the B comes under that budget. They do not have the money to run three As. If the situation remains as is, the USAF SRs will have to be parked and abandoned, just like they were before. Art Hanley My views are definitely my own and do not represent my employers in any way, shape or form (They made me say that) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 10:21:41 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: funding cuts Sam, There are only a few short range, limited endurance, low payload UAVs operational. Any UAV that can carry even some of what the SR-71 (or U-2) can carry is probably 8 years away from full operational capability. When they are, they are not designed to be rapid response, no-notice vehicles. It is assumed that they will already be in place when needed. Aviation Week also carried an item a few weeks back noting that unless additional ground stations that aren't even in the budget are aquired, the upcoming UAVs will not be able to be used in most areas of the world, including parts of Europe itself. Art Hanley My employer has nothing to do with anything in this message [except to make me write this] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 12:33:16 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: Re: funding cuts > But do the US really need the SR-71 now that the UAV's have been so > successful?? > > Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand That depends on what you term as "successful", while the UAV's have proved to be very handy for use in Bosnia, the UN is on the ground there or a short distance away in Italy. or they can be launched/recovered from ships off the coast. The SR-71's have the range and speed that most of the UAV's don,t, true, if and when the "NEW" UAV's come on line, they will have the range needed to replace the Blackbird. Darkstar is still not proven, time will tell. IMHO: Our "Idiots" in Washington ( and yes I can call our idiot an idiot, I live here) did,nt learn anything from the 1991 gulfwar, and its lack of assets. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com DISCLAIMER: My Employeer sez: WHO HE ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:22:58 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: funding cuts Kerry Ferrand writes: >Just caught the end of a news item about President Clinton exercising his >veto powers..mentioned was that further USAF SR-71 operation funding has >been nixed, along with military spaceplane research I really hope some day in the not too distant future that a civilian who is bored to death with the perpetual high speed fundng cuts, blows the doors off an F-22A in a vehicle of his own design! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 14:46:48 EDT From: "Jay Waller" Subject: Re: funding cuts Anyone know if Bill Gates is a high speed nut? Maybe now that his house is being finished he'll want another personal project. Jay - ------------- Original Text From: larry@ichips.intel.com, on 10/15/97 11:22 AM: To: Kerry Ferrand writes: >Just caught the end of a news item about President Clinton exercising his >veto powers..mentioned was that further USAF SR-71 operation funding has >been nixed, along with military spaceplane research I really hope some day in the not too distant future that a civilian who is bored to death with the perpetual high speed fundng cuts, blows the doors off an F-22A in a vehicle of his own design! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:27:24 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) It seems we..or certainly I have overlooked the fact that Hal Needham broke the sound barrier with his rocket powered car, aptly named 'Budweiser Rocket' in December 1972 at EAFB, but failed to make the second run. So it looks like the Americans beat us Brits to it in the air and on land. At least the UK has the first official supersonic world land speed record. Good work On the subject of supersonics: according to a recent(ish) TV documentary Bell and the Miles Aircraft Company in Reading UK had what the Miles engineers understood to be a reciprocal agreement to exchange data on their supersonic a/c programmes. The chief designer at Miles said the Bell people came over and took away lots of paperwork and details on the M52, but when they tried to get some info. out of Bell they were refused on grounds of national security..doesn't sound much like cricket to me ;) As usual HMG pulled the plug on the British supersonic plane, though Miles flew an unmanned sub-scale test a/c at Mach 1+. Oddly Yeager was interviewed saying the Brits didn't have the all moving tailplane for several years after the X-1 which was came as quite a shock to the Miles designers whose design featured...an all moving tailplane..quite a gaff from the someone like him. I promise this isn't a swipe at my US pals, but I would be fascinated to hear another side of the story. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:49:55 GMT From: mustang@peganet.com (H) Subject: Re: Flying Prototype of Navy's A-12 Avenger II Hi All, I have a personal sighting to report of an airplane that may fit you pistol. A few years ago (not sure when but am in the process of pinning date down) I was visiting Ohio to help a friend move to Xenia, Ohio. Whlie outside at midday I herd a jet engine approaching. Being so close to Wright Pat I was watching for anything I might see when much to my surprise a small (single seat maby) black flying wing flew directly over us, low altitude and low speed. It was tiny compared to the B2 but similar in shape.It had NO vertical structures and as I was under it then behind it as it passed over I could see it perfectly,except from the front. We'll I was besidemyself because no one around me realized the signifigance of seeing something in the middle of the day in the middle of a busy area that was so unknown . This was more than 6 years ago and maby several more (I am calling the people I helped move to get date, they will know when they moved as I am not sure). As soon as I get date I will post it here. Hope this helps,( not sure anyone I know ever believed me besides the guy standing beside me carring a couch!) Harry mustang@peganet.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:18:36 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Hypersonics Thanks for the replies all. AvWeek has a cover story on developing hypersonic technology - mainly for use in missiles. It can be accessed at their site at http://www.awgnet.com/ I THINK that it was in that issue (scratches head)... a comment that there were some advanced weapons available in the Gulf War, but conversations went a bit like this... A: We have this terrific system! B: What does it do? A: I'm sorry, I can't tell you. B: How do I use it? A: I'm sorry, I can't tell you that either. B: What do I use it with? A: Er... that's also secret. B: How about it's general capabilities? A: Er... Nope, sorry. B: Anything?! A: Well, no... they didn't tell me either. Interests of national security apparently. B: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to kill you. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:20:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stan Brown" Subject: Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) > >Su Wei-Jen wrote: > >> >> They finally broke the sound barrier on land. But, it is still >>un-official because they miss the second round by one minute. > >I don't think the supersonic runs are unofficial, simply the new world >land speed record that they represent. > >Hats off to them, it's a fantastic achievement. Having had a look around >Thrust SSC a while ago anyone who drives it deserves a medal..that's a > scary piece of machinery ;) > >I understand that the SOA team allowed the Brits to take up some of their >allocated time to conduct the second run, which shows real sportsmanship >on behalf of the US team who must be disheartened at losing the sound >barrier. > >Here's to an 800 mph World Record the SSC team believe is within the car's >capability. > Do you have a web sit address handy for this team? - -- Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 770-996-6955 Factory Automation Systems Atlanta Ga. - -- Look, look, see Windows 95. Buy, lemmings, buy! Pay no attention to that cliff ahead... Henry Spencer (c) 1997 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:08:55 -0300 From: Felipe Salles Subject: Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) Stan Brown wrote: > > >Here's to an 800 mph World Record the SSC team believe is within the > car's > >capability. > > > > Do you have a web sit address handy for this team? http://thrustssc.digital.co.uk > > > -- > Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com > 770-996-6955 > Factory Automation Systems > Atlanta Ga. > -- > Look, look, see Windows 95. Buy, lemmings, buy! > Pay no attention to that cliff ahead... Henry Spencer > (c) 1997 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is > prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:26:22 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Land Speed Record (off-topic) http://www.thrustssc.digital.co.uk > Do you have a web sit address handy for this team? > >-- >Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 770-996-6955 >Factory Automation Systems >Atlanta Ga. >-- >Look, look, see Windows 95. Buy, lemmings, buy! >Pay no attention to that cliff ahead... Henry Spencer >(c) 1997 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited. > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:41:48 -0700 From: patrick Subject: They did it! They did it. 759 mph at 1.015 Mach and 55 minutes later 763 mph at Mach 1.020. Both runs flawlessly done. They broke out the champagne and made plans to return home and put the Sonic Thrust in a museum. I was kinda hoping they would fall short. This would have required them to pull the small engines and reengine the Sonic Thrust with the back up motors that pumped out 25,000 lbs. of thrust versus the smaller "22,000 lb." motors. Erf Erf!! More Power (Craig Breedlove are you listening? I know where you can buy some good cheap motors.) Jolly good show lads, all your efforts were spot on! patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:52:45 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: They did it! At 18:41 15/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >They did it. > >759 mph at 1.015 Mach and 55 minutes later 763 mph at Mach 1.020. Both >runs flawlessly done. They broke out the champagne and made plans to >return home and put the Sonic Thrust in a museum. Really? I did hear talk that the car could go for a nice round 800 mph... >I was kinda hoping they would fall short. This would have required them to >pull the small engines and reengine the Sonic Thrust with the back up >motors that pumped out 25,000 lbs. of thrust versus the smaller "22,000 >lb." motors. Erf Erf!! More Power (Craig Breedlove are you listening? I >know where you can buy some good cheap motors.) All credit to Craig Breedlove too - he's only lost by a patch of bad luck - and it was his effort that the Noble team took seriously enough to get their own effort under way. You know, I admire the less-is-more approach, and with his lighter car and single engine, CB would get my support... but supersonic cars are irrational and Britain is the country that makes Bentleys! Hmmm.... now there's a thought: if they put a winged "B" on the nose and outfitted the cockpit with wood and leather, do you think they could sell many? >;-) >Jolly good show lads, all your efforts were spot on! > >patrick cullumber >patrick@e-z.net > So what if it's off topic - it's jet-powered and painted black! - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 97 04:26:38 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 funding deletion (long venting) Some thoughts on the end of the SR-71 program: What you saw yesterday was a classic example of the way the game is played in Washington, and I imagine other countries are no different. Clinton himself probably had no interest one way or the other in the program, he's made no secret of the fact that Defense is really not one of his primary concerns. He was just presented with a recommendation to kill some programs and the SR was one of them. I am no fan of Clinton's but I don't blame him for this. The opponents of the program put the paper before him and he signed it without too much concern. I am no fan of Clinton's but I don't blame him for this. This was standard political maneuvering. The timing was quite well done (although there were some leaks and glimmers from some hostile pieces on ABC last week). The President is in Brazil, so supporters of the program couldn't get to him in time to make a case if word leaked out what was going to happen. In addition, it's announced quietly on the 50th anniversary of supersonic flight. What's the big (and naturally only) aviation story that the news is going to play up that day? Chuck Yeager's flight. The SR cancellation doesn't get much play because the news has already got its "airplane story" for the day. Clinton, because he signed it, now has a vested interest in the cancellation going forward, because if this action was reversed he would lose face, and that's something you can't do in D.C. To draw a parallel, when Dick Cheney canceled the V-22, it was immediately apparent that this was a catastrophically wrong decision. The analysts he hired to confirm his action came back and said he made the wrong choice. Even the person that originally recommended the cancellation to him came back and said it was wrong and that it should be reinstated. However, to do so would involve a loss of face and so he steadfastly refused to continue the program even when Congress voted the money. It wasn't until he was out of office that the Administration could reverse the action and restart the program (otherwise it would be showing a lack of confidence in their own guy, which would be a loss of face to the Administration). Clinton is now in a similar position. Although we're going to hear some posturing from Congress, even though the program enjoys wide support they're not going to override Clinton. The SR-71 is not important or big enough that Congress is going to get in a major fight or spend a lot of political capital to save. That's the way it is. Cost was really not the reason the anti-SR forces wanted the program killed. Keep in mind for the cost of putting one satellite into orbit, you could run the SR program at its present levels for over 25 years (if I used non DoD examples I could make that even more dramatic), longer than it was planned to keep the aircraft around. To my mind the SR went down for three reasons: First, the fact that the SR was back was embarrassing to those who killed it. This had to be dealt with. Second, the name of the game is power. The SR is a mature system. No one's going to make General or GS-17 working on that program. However, killing it shows you have power and can help you get your pet programs through. Finally, the UAV folks wrongly perceived it as a threat. In order to insure that their big programs remain secure any perceived competition must be eliminated. Even though the SR program was never planned to eliminate the need for big UAVs, some of their supporters thought of it as such. UAVs are where the power is right now, their programs are in a bit of trouble, and so they did not want the SR around. Make no mistake. Barring a miracle, I feel the SR-71 in USAF service is dead. I'm afraid if a supplemental appropriation is voted in the Spring, it'll be too late. The unit will be disbanded and the personnel disbursed (and that could get line item vetoed as well). There is no contract for FY98, so there's no money to pay contractor personnel. In fact, conceivably the contractors may not get paid for the first 14 days of this FY. That's uncertain. The contractor personnel have already been pulled and for some of them, their jobs are over. This poses a problem as USAF has sitting in its hangar two fully functional aircraft in prime shape with sensors sitting in them. What's going to happen to them and who's going to do what is unknown. Obviously, the hoped-for revival of 968 is off. 971, 967 and 968 may get towed back in the desert, as may 962. One may go back to NASA (if they get funding). Any or all of the rest may be left sitting or go to museums. No one knows yet. We've lost a valuable asset. The UAVs which are intended to replace the SR (and the U-2) are a long way off. Even when they finally arrive we were accepting the fact that when the SR (and U-2) then went away we were going to have to give up some capabilities in sensors and responsiveness. Now we're not going to even have that. For example, if Libya or North Korea really want to hide something from us, we no longer have anything that get the information. If a Marine Command needs large scale multi-sensor intelligence, especially in an arena where we haven't had a lot of time to preposition assets, we can't do it any more (come to think of it, in some cases we won't be able to do it even when the UAVs arrive). That's what we've lost... Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #82 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner