skunk-works-digest Thursday, December 11 1997 Volume 06 : Number 095 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: FOAS re: FOAS Re: An alternative thread Tu-160 (fwd) Re: (fwd) Fastmover sighting during Roving Sands 97 in New Mexico Need a hand with this RE: Need a hand with this LO by speed ? Re: LO by speed ? unsubscribe Re: LO by speed ? Re: re: FOAS Re: An alternative thread re: LO by speed ? FWD: Re: LO by speed ? Re: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? And For You Hi-Speed Aficionadoes... re: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? re: Tu-160 Re: An alternative thread *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 20:03:20 +0100 From: Samuel Sporrenstrand Subject: Re: FOAS 11506@aquinas.ac.uk wrote: > > I've read that the BAe's Future Offensive Air System is to replace > the Tornado GR 4, but why: surely the Eurofighter is to do that? If > FOAS becomes operational in 2010, then Eurofighter will only have > been in service about eight years. Is there an explanation for this? > > Stephen Dear Stephen, I'm not an expert on these things, but isn't the EF2000 designed to be a Air Combat or Air Defence fighter only? In that case, the Eurofighter is to replace the Tornado F.3's and the Tornado GR.3/4 will be the main Strike aircraft until the FOAS comes around. - -- Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ / *URL: www.aircraft.base.org _\_/_ *E-Mail: alltech@swipnet.se *----/_(.)_\----* *Contact: Samuel Sporrenstrand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 97 11:45:41 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: FOAS Eurofighter is a fighter aircraft optimized around the air-to-air mission, with a secondary ground attack role. It is to replace the F-4 (in the UK that's already gone), the F-104, the Mirage F.1, eventually the Jaguar, and the Tornado ADV, which was a flop. It may also supplement the Tornado IDS, due to declining numbers of Tornados being available, but it is not the Tornado replacement. FOA is the Tornado replacement. It is a stealthy strike system (there is some talk that it may be a UAV if they ever get those to work). Originally, the specification was written around the USN's A-12, and later the A/FX. JSF is a candidate for the FOA, but other solutions are being looked at. Art Hanley I'm the only one responsible for the opinions above, not my employer. (I get beat up if I don't say that) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:02:29 -0500 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: An alternative thread ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > > Ron, > > I can give you some input to your question. Based on what unclassified > information is known from historical experience watching the former Soviet > Union, I believe you'll find that although satellites did many wonderful tings, > they never were able to uncover a major Soviet weapons system or troop or fleet > deployment until they were eady to show it to us or it has already occurred. (snip) That agrees with everything I have read. How much better do we do with aircraft? And under what conditions? And how much is the new generation of hypersonics and stealthy UAV's likely to help? Take a hypothetical example. Suppose that we were to encounter an ambitious and intransigent despot whose ideas of hospitality reportedly include building nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons of mass destruction in the spare rooms of his collection of presidential palaces. We know their exact locations, and the owner-operator has thoughtfully put them in open spaces that have excellent viewing conditions for much of the year. We are, of course, remonstrating with the despot for ground access and full disclosure. However, our hypothetical commander is less than sanguine about those prospects. As no US elections were held last week, an election is clearly looming, and the hypothetical powers that be want to demonstate a diplomatic achievement - soon. Assuming that we have full command of the air, is there anything that we can learn without performing explosive and possibly unhealthy modifications to the architecture? Can we learn enough that we might not have to undertake the far more difficult task of tracking down finished ordnance later on? Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:40:08 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: Tu-160 Along the lines of the "alternative thread", Paul Duffy's new book on Tupolev has some interesting commentary on the famous, first, satellite picture of the Tu-160. According to the book, the picture was taken the day the first airframe was rolled out. When the KGB saw the picture in Av Week or Flight, they couldn't figure out how it had been taken. No US satellites had been overhead, so they first suspected it had been taken from a building nearby. Eventually, they came back to the satellite theory and concluded that this is how it had been taken. However, the book doesn't explain the "how". I suspect that it was an extreme oblique camera - Flight International originally suspected that it had been taken with a huge telephoto from an airliner. If you haven't seen this book, it is excellent. It even has year-by-year production stats for most Tupolev aircraft, with a breakdown by factory too. There is even a list of every Tu-134 and Tu-154 built, with their current disposition indicated. BTW - only 29 Tu-160s were built. Many are no longer flyable, as they were in the Ukraine on 12/25/91, when the USSR broke up and the Ukraine has been unable to maintain them. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:13:59 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: (fwd) Re: (fwd) Fastmover sighting during Roving Sands 97 in New Mexico On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:58:02 -0500, "Meinrad J. Eberle" wrote: [Hi George: Please be so kind as to post the following to SWML, ok? Many thanks -ME] At 05:55 PM on 11/25/97, Samuel Sporrenstrand wrote: >But why are there NEVER any videocameras at these occasions?? Our group out at RIAC that night was equipped with [at least] two video cameras: One was a Sony , the other an image-stabilized Canon UC-X2 Hi with 40x digital zoom. The Discovery Channel team had a big tripod-mounted camera at the site, with night vision lens already stashed away in relevant equipment box. Our photo cameras were lying in my Explorer's trunk [my Canon Eos 5 mounted with an image-stabilized 300 millimeter lens of the same brand]. Three of us had their binoculars ready (mine were a STEINER Admiral 7x50 and a VIXEN 30x80 [right, 30x80]). Call it an overkill in optical firepower on our side, but theirs was the element of surprise: The USAF, NRO or whatever agency operating that craft that night ain't no buncha bubbas, right? IMHO, NOT having managed to shoot any footage of any sort of that Fastmover is not too bad after all. If we had succeeded in doing so, strange folks would come creeping out of the woodwork to link a craft with such performance to those UnFunded Opportunities. And all you would see in such footage would be lights, just lights, anyway.... Meinrad Eberle Switzerland, 12/2/97 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:32:06 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Need a hand with this Hello: I know this is OT for the list but I thought with all the aircraft knowledge here someone could help. I need to know what OTHER terms are there to refer to a target aircraft besides BOGEY? I'm drawing a complete blank. Thanks, and sorry to waste our bandwidth ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:21:38 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: RE: Need a hand with this > Hello: > > I know this is OT for the list but I thought with all the aircraft > knowledge here someone could help. > > I need to know what OTHER terms are there to refer to a target > aircraft besides BOGEY? I'm drawing a complete blank. > Bandits, Gomers, Badguys Of Course, you have to allow for the Hollywood influence. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:58:27 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: LO by speed ? As it's gone a little quiet, I wonder if I could get some input on whether it would be be possible to reduce an a/c's 'visibility' to radar by having it move so slowly that it might be filtered out by software that 'sees' it as too slow to be a threat ? I seem to remember reading that certain radars have software that ignores very high and very low velocity targets that would fall outside the performance envelopes of a/c. I wonder how common this system is.. I'm assuming that a very fast a/c is likely to produce a strong IR signal that would be picked up by other sensors..but a slow moving craft with IR supression factored in as a critical design feature..Hmmm Comments welcomed with open arms :) D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 01:16:18 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: LO by speed ? On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, David wrote: > I seem to remember reading that certain radars have software that ignores > very high and very low velocity targets that would fall outside the > performance envelopes of a/c. I wonder how common this system is.. I don't know about slow, but talking about fast "aircraft"... I have a friend whom fly the F-14 Tomcat, he commented me that one day he was flying in a Fleet Defense mission, he detected a UFO and tried to target it, but suddenly, the UFO accelerate so fast that the doopler system of the F-14's radar doesn't work anymore... When a object fly faster than Mach 25, the F-14's radar doesn't work. Oh well... just a bed time story :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "No. I am not dead because I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you (Q). The universe is not so badly designed." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (ST TNG) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:33:37 +0100 From: per.hoffmann.olsen@ecsoft.dk Subject: unsubscribe Per Hoffmann 11-12-97 09:33 unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:25:38 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: LO by speed ? Su Wei-Jen wrote: >I have a friend whom fly the F-14 Tomcat, he commented me that one day he >was flying in a Fleet Defense mission, he detected a UFO and tried to >target it, but suddenly, the UFO accelerate so fast that the doopler >system of the F-14's radar doesn't work anymore... When a object fly >faster than Mach 25, the F-14's radar doesn't work. You've really done it now :) 1...You mentioned the U** acronym. 2...You've let any potential enemy of the US know that all they have to do to evade a Tomcat is to develop a mach 25+ aircraft. Have you never heard of National Security ! Wasn't quite what I was looking for, but thanks for the entertaining reply. David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:03:20 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: re: FOAS Art Hanley wrote: ..... >FOA is the Tornado replacement. It is a stealthy strike system (there is some >talk that it may be a UAV if they ever get those to work). Originally, the >specification was written around the USN's A-12, and later the A/FX. JSF is a >candidate for the FOA, but other solutions are being looked at. Interestingly the name of the programme has been changed to Future Offensive Air System, to indicate an expansion of the study to include potential UCAV or Carrier a/c with s/o weapons. The number of good quality sightings of fighter sized, triangular a/c..not EF2000s over here, leads one to suspect that either the A-12 based a/c or something similar is flying already. BAe's Warton, Boscombe Down and West Freugh in Scotland seem to be the bases they operate from. Of course these don't include the large, slow moving triangular vehicles, but that's another story. David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:08:35 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Re: An alternative thread At 03:02 PM 12/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >ahanley@usace.mil wrote: >> >> Ron, >> >> I can give you some input to your question. Based on what unclassified >> information is known from historical experience watching the former Soviet >> Union, I believe you'll find that although satellites did many wonderful tings, >> they never were able to uncover a major Soviet weapons system or troop or fleet >> deployment until they were eady to show it to us or it has already occurred. >(snip) > >That agrees with everything I have read. How much better do we do with >aircraft? And under what conditions? And how much is the new generation >of hypersonics and stealthy UAV's likely to help? > >Take a hypothetical example. Suppose that we were to encounter an >ambitious and intransigent despot whose ideas of hospitality reportedly >include building nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons of mass >destruction in the spare rooms of his collection of presidential >palaces. We know their exact locations, and the owner-operator has >thoughtfully put them in open spaces that have excellent viewing >conditions for much of the year. We are, of course, remonstrating with >the despot for ground access and full disclosure. However, our >hypothetical commander is less than sanguine about those prospects. As >no US elections were held last week, an election is clearly looming, and >the hypothetical powers that be want to demonstate a diplomatic >achievement - soon. Assuming that we have full command of the air, is >there anything that we can learn without performing explosive and >possibly unhealthy modifications to the architecture? Can we learn >enough that we might not have to undertake the far more difficult task >of tracking down finished ordnance later on? > >Ron > > That of course is what the Intelligence community's Remote Viewing Program is all about. Read David Morehouse's "Psychic Warrior", Jim Schnabel's "History of Remote Viewing" (much CIA "spin") or check out http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/psispy1.html or http://www.ameritel.net/lusers/rviewer/ Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 11:27:51 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: LO by speed ? Modern fighters have Moving Target Indicators that are used to reject anything moving below a certain speed. This is how ground clutter is eliminated when looking down. It's not that the object isn't seen, it's that it is not processed or displayed. Representative speeds are 60, 80 or 110 knots (for a while German cars on the Autobahn would get picked up until the MTIs were adjusted). JSTARS does not use a low speed MTI, because you want to pick up the stuff moving on the ground. It uses more sophisticated (and heavier and more expensive) technology to get rid of the ground clutter. Flying slow enough in a fixed-wing to fool the MTI would be dangerous, and would make the aircraft very vulnerable ot other threats, plus would leave it in a low energy state should it suddenly need agility. Art Hanley Those that seek to find a relationship between what I've written here and what my employer may believe, seek something that can't be found. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:14:11 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:08:00 +0000 From: Steven Barber Subject: Re: LO by speed ? David wrote: > Su Wei-Jen wrote: > > > >I have a friend whom fly the F-14 Tomcat, he commented me that one day he > >was flying in a Fleet Defense mission, he detected a UFO and tried to > >target it, but suddenly, the UFO accelerate so fast that the doopler > >system of the F-14's radar doesn't work anymore... When a object fly > >faster than Mach 25, the F-14's radar doesn't work. > > You've really done it now :) > > 1...You mentioned the U** acronym. > > 2...You've let any potential enemy of the US know that all they have to do > to evade a Tomcat is to develop a mach 25+ aircraft. > > Have you never heard of National Security ! > > Wasn't quite what I was looking for, but thanks for the entertaining reply. > > David Not only that, but now it's out that the Tomcat is using the new, ultra-secret doopler radar! You've had it for sure, Wei-jen! On a more serious note, there was an article in the UK several years ago about Ferranti having found a way of identifying 'atmospheric channels' which an aircraft could then fly in and radar wouldn't find them, akin to thermal layers & sonar. It was mentioned once in the Daily Telegraph and then everything went *very* silent. Can you say 'D Notice'? Also, air-air radar used to have some problems over Germany, as traffic on the autobahns was sometimes fast enough to show up through the filters... So it depends upon the type of radar. If anyone is looking for helicopters, your potential stealth a/c is going to have to travel *very* slow and low to be filtered out - and then they'll be spotted by the AWACS monitoring troop movements. Personally, I'd rather take my chances at mach 10 and 120,000'+ Sorry about pulling your leg, Wei-jen but I think your friend started it. How would he know that anything had accelerated to that sort of speed? If it did, he's just lose it off the screen and so wouldn't be able to tell how fast it was going. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:54:24 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? > Sorry about pulling your leg, Wei-jen but I think your friend started > it. How > would he know that anything had accelerated to that sort of speed? If He didn't. He don't know what speed the U** accelerated. He just told me that technically, the F-14's radar can't work for a object flying beyond Mach 25. BTW, I don't remember quite well about the limit speed that F-14's radar will work... So, don't think that Mach 25 is the limit. Anyway... In today's economy, I believe the only nation that can afford to build a new Mach 25+ aircraft is USA. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "No. I am not dead because I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you (Q). The universe is not so badly designed." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (ST TNG) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:21:27 -0800 From: patrick Subject: And For You Hi-Speed Aficionadoes... >From: USAFnews >Subject: 12 Dec 97 AFNS >971581. X-33 space plane to call Edwards home >by 1st Lt. Chris Hemrick >Air Force Flight Test Center Public Affairs > >EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- Imagine a future where there is >a space plane that lifts off from Edwards Air Force Base and flies to >Malmstrom AFB, Mont. -- a trip of 950 miles -- in approximately 20 >minutes. > >Now imagine that future is within two years. > >Edwards AFB organizations are teamed up with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works >to develop and test the X-33, which is a 53 percent scale model of the >future Reusable Launch Vehicle, called VentureStar. > >Through flight and ground demonstrations, the X-33 will provide >information necessary to allow the Lockheed Martin Corporation to make a >decision on whether to proceed in the development of the full-scale, >commercial single stage to orbit RLV. > >If created, the VentureStar would eventually replace the space shuttle >as the next generation space transportation system. "The goal is to >lower costs from approximately $10,000 per pound down to around $1,000 >per pound to get into orbit," said Chuck Rogers, Air Force Flight Test >Center X-33 launch integration engineer/manager, 412th Test Wing 'Access >to Space' Office. > >Members of Team Edwards who are assisting the Lockheed Martin Skunk >Works and the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (the program head) with >this program include the AFFTC, the Air Force Research Laboratory >Propulsion Directorate (AFRL/PR) and the NASA - Dryden Flight Research >Center. > >"It's a real paradigm shift that the industry pays the government for >products, services and facilities, as a subcontractor to the >contractor," said Rogers. "We actually prepared proposals and made >proposal presentations, in competition with White Sands, N.M. and the >Kennedy Space Center, Fla., to be the X-33 launch site, like a >contractor competing for a contract. > >"Edwards was selected to be the X-33 launch site because of the >excellent launch corridor available for launches toward the northeast, >and our extensive flight test infrastructure and experience, which makes >this an ideal place to test experimental vehicles," said Rogers. >"Between Edwards and Utah, and Edwards and Montana are some of the most >sparsely populated areas in the United States. That's very advantageous >for launching a vehicle like this, since we want the program to be as >safe as possible. > >"We now have task agreements where we are actually a subcontractor to >the contractor through our launch site and flight planning task >agreements." > >The X-33 will blast off from the site near Haystack Butte, located at >the eastern edge of Edwards. A 15-flight program is planned for the >X-33 from the launch site now under construction. The X-33 Team has >already defined the first seven flights that will, if successful, >provide the data needed to provide the confidence for a decision to >proceed with the full scale VentureStar. > >Construction has already begun on the X-33 and major components are >already taking shape. The large tank that will contain the liquid >oxygen has been completed and will be delivered soon. The final >assembly jigs are already in place at the LMSW facility at Palmdale. > >The X-33 is an unmanned, autonomous vehicle that uses differential >Global Positioning System with a radar altimeter for navigation and >landing. "The differential GPS will guide it through its flight and >down the runway for landing," said Rogers. "Some commands can be sent >up to the X-33 from the ground, but the X-33 will operate as an >autonomous vehicle during normal operations. The uplink to the X-33 >would only be used if the vehicle deviates significantly from its >planned flight path." > >The X-33 preflight and flight operations will be monitored and >controlled from a refurbished operations control center located in >Haystack Butte. There will also be range safety officers at the >downrange sites, according to Rogers. > >The X-33 is designed to travel at a top speed of Mach 15 (15 times the >speed of sound), which is approximately three miles a second. The >prototype will not achieve orbit, which would require a speed of more >than Mach 25. > >Once the X-33 is readied for flight, the engines will be fired two times >on the launch pad, with the second firing having a duration of 20 >seconds. The longest flight will be approximately 20 minutes at an >altitude of about 55 miles. The plan is to demonstrate a 2-day >turnaround for the vehicle, said Rogers. > >On Nov. 14, ground was broken for the launch site near Haystack Butte. >Maj. Gen. Richard L. Engel, Edwards AFB commander, predicted that the >X-33 would be a world-class vehicle that researchers will use to learn >incredibly important lessons. > >If the venture is a success, a permanent launch facility could be built >in the Edwards area. From here, vehicles could be launched in nearly >any direction except south, with some launches going to equatorial >orbits and some to polar orbits, returning to the central site (Edwards) >to be launched again. This would allow a fleet of RLVs to be based at >one site, according to Rogers. > >The X-33 is expected to affirm new technology, such as the linear >aerospace engine, a large composite liquid hydrogen tank and the >spacecraft's lifting body design. The engines compensate for altitude >and are believed to be more efficient and a better fit for the >wedged-shaped aircraft than conventional bell nozzle rocket engines, >according to NASA officials. > >Landing sites include Michael Army Air Field at Dugway Proving Ground in >Utah, and Malmstrom AFB near Great Falls, Montana. One of NASA's 747s >will be used to carry the X-33 from its landing destinations back to >Edwards, said Rogers. > >The projected date for the X-33 rollout is May, 1999, with its first >flight planned for that July. The program is scheduled to be completed >by the year 2000. > >Once the X-33 demonstrates the technology, the contractor will look for >private investors for the RLV, said Rogers. > >"If the X-33 program proves successful, there's going to be a >competition for the RLV launch site. The Edwards area will definitely >be a competitor," said Rogers. > >"The selection of Edwards for the X-33 launch site is a win-win for both >the program and Edwards, as well as the Antelope Valley," said Johnny >Armstrong, acting chief of the AFFTC Access to Space Office. "AFFTC >participation in the X-33 program provides the opportunity for our >personnel to hone their skills toward support of space-related programs >that could provide valuable payoffs in the future, as the Air Force >transitions into a Space and Air Force. >& ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 16:49:51 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? Personally, I see no reason why the AWG-9/APG-71 (depends on which F-14 model) would have any problem detecting a Mach 25 target. Of course, since that's about orbital speed I would imagine that the IR signature would be enormous if this puppy was in the atmosphere. If this was an F-14D, the IRST would track it easily. The only reason I could see not establishing a track within range would be if the software was programmed to ignore those speeds as being a false return. However, you'd still have raw radar to work with and you could manually start a track for the limited time it's in range. On the other hand, this could be, putting it delicately, "disinformation". Art Hanley In compliance with the Full Employment For Lawyers Act, I must state that the Above does not represent my employer's Views, only mine ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 16:50:38 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Tu-160 According to what I've heard, the Soviets deliberately brought it out so it could be photographed (they've done that plenty of times before). They parked it next to a TU-144, whose dimensions are known, so that we would be able to cscale it. They wanted us to see it. Art Hanley My employer has nothing to do with anything in this message [except to make me write this] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 17:01:42 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: An alternative thread Ron, In answer to some of your questions, first we have to get the stealthy UAVs to work befre we know how much we can use them for. Also, they will not be capable of carrying as much of a sensor load as the U-2 or SR-71. There ae also some reports that, due to cost considerations, the sensors they do carry will not be as capable as those on the Dragon Lady or Blackbird. Aircraft, especially the SR-71, bring in the consideration of surprise. That is, often the subject can't hide the thing before the recon platform gets there. Should we ever develop a hypersonic vehicle, this would be even more so. The aircraft could also react to changing situations. On the other hand, aircraft do put aircrews at risk, which is probably the biggest advantage the UAVs have. Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #95 ******************************** 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