skunk-works-digest Monday, December 15 1997 Volume 06 : Number 096 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? Re: re: LO by speed ? re: Tu-160 [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report Program... Re: Need a hand with this Re: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report Re: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report Re: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report Re: An alternative thread OT: Index Project Re: An alternative thread Re: OT: Index Project Re: OT: Index Project Re: OT: Index Project SR-71 reactivation... Re: SR-71 reactivation... HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:48:36 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: FWD: Re: LO by speed ? George wrote: >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'? Yes, that was a fascinating concept and yes, it went very quiet.I wonder... >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. The specialised vehicle I was musing over would fly low and slow and as with all specialised assets, its mission would be strictly defined. >Personally,I'd rather take my chances at mach 10... You'd have to fight Larry to get to into the driver's seat :) Best David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:30:11 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: re: LO by speed ? Art Hanley wrote: > 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. Thanks for the reply,I appreciate it. I wasn't thinking of a fixed wing, which as you say would be flying close to stall speed. I was thinking of an LTA/hybrid vehicle, flying at night on special ops. Hypothetical case of course. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:53:44 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: re: Tu-160 On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > 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. Another "bed time story" :). Well, I am not sure if it was true, but during the Cold War, US spy satellite took pics of a new Soviet submarine than is much much bigger than the Typhoon... later on, a storm was in the vecinity and pics from the same submarine showed that the submarine was broken in half!!! They found it was a decoy... a ballon made submarine. 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: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:21:24 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report Associated Press, 12/12/97 10:02 MIDDLE RIVER, Md. (AP) - An F-117 stealth fighter crashed during an air show in September, damaging several homes, because technicians forgot to install four wing fasteners, Air Force investigators said today. The wing snapped off as the plane was flying over the show at Martin State Airport, crashing into a residential area in suburb Baltimore. No one on the ground was hurt and the pilot, Maj. Bryan Knight, escaped with minor injuries after ejecting from the aircraft. Several homes were extensively damaged, however. A monthlong Air Force investigation found that the wings were removed and reinstalled in January 1996, according to an Air Force report released today. That's when four of five fasteners were apparently left off. Two other maintenance checks, including one prompted by a pilot's complaint about too much ``flex'' in the left wing, failed to detect the problem, the report said. The Air Force has inspected the entire fleet of F-117s and found no other fighters with the same problem, the report said. K ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:01:03 +0900 From: "Darryl Matthews" Subject: Program... This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_01BD0762.958EE000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not very skunky...but about the digest: I was thinking of making a program to create a library of all the Skunks Works Digests, so that you can search by word or volume. Would anyone by interested in a program like that? The program would be DOS-based, so the reason I am asking is if I get some response, I'll make it a bit more user-friendly, add documentation and put it on my webpage... E-mail me...or post something. Thank you. James. ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.attnet.or.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2/html ____________________________________ - ------=_NextPart_000_01BD0762.958EE000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Not very skunky...but about the = digest:

I was thinking of making a program to create a library of = all the Skunks Works Digests, so that you can search by word or volume. =  Would anyone by interested in a program like that?  The = program would be DOS-based, so the reason I am asking is if I get some = response, I'll make it a bit more user-friendly, add documentation and = put it on my webpage...

E-mail me...or post = something.

Thank = you.

James.
____________________

James = Matthews.
E-mail (family):    matthews@tkb.attnet.or.jp
E-mail (private):  james_matthews@hotmail.com

Homepage:  http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2/html<= font color=3D"#000000">
____________________________________

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BD0762.958EE000-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:52:26 EST From: SR71T Subject: Re: Need a hand with this lizard ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 07:15:51 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report At 02:21 PM 12/13/97 +1300, Kerry Ferrand wrote: >The wing snapped off as the plane was flying over the >show at Martin State Airport, crashing into a residential area >in suburb Baltimore. I know Kerry is simply relaying information, and is not the source, so this is directed solely at the investigation team. Can so many people be wrong? I distinctly seeing teh AILERON come off the wing (on CNN), but the rest of the wing was still there. Is someone trying to pull our collective legs? Or are they a bit confused? Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Commercial Pilot Airplane, Single Engine Land Instrument Airplane Private Priveleges, Airplane Single Engine Sea ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 07:19:09 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report At 02:21 PM 12/13/97 +1300, Kerry Ferrand wrote: >The wing snapped off as the plane was flying over the >show at Martin State Airport, crashing into a residential area >in suburb Baltimore. I know Kerry is simply relaying information, and is not the source, so this is directed solely at the investigation team. Can so many people be wrong? I distinctly seeing teh AILERON come off the wing (on CNN), but the rest of the wing was still there. Is someone trying to pull our collective legs? Or are they a bit confused? Earl Needham, KD5XB mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Clovis, NM Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 (That was Texas A&I University.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 06:49:16 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: [NEWS]F-117 Crash Report >At 02:21 PM 12/13/97 +1300, Kerry Ferrand wrote: > >>The wing snapped off as the plane was flying over the >>show at Martin State Airport, crashing into a residential area >>in suburb Baltimore. > > I know Kerry is simply relaying information, and is not the source, so >this is directed solely at the investigation team. > Can so many people be wrong? I distinctly seeing teh AILERON come off the >wing (on CNN), but the rest of the wing was still there. Is someone trying >to pull our collective legs? Or are they a bit confused? > ======================================================== Earl- I saw the report given on the CBS news tonite and later choked on the AP Story. It was obviously written by whatever line editor was on duty and as usual they feel totally unabashed about writing a story with little technical awareness. But I guess that is their job. According to the CBS version it refers to not the wing being detached in flight but part of the wing referring to the elevon. The wing attachments were in reference to the hardware attaching the outer elevon assembly to the wing. If this had actually been a case of 4 out of only 5 bolts holding on the left wing assembly since early 1996, I am sure that wing would would have come off over your ranch a long time ago. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:07:10 -0500 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: An alternative thread Continuing the thread, then....... it sounds like we are talking about both satellite and airborne systems which for a variety of reasons will be most used and useful for strategic and theater level reconaissance/intelligence objectives. Partly because they will be scarce, costly, and controlled by top levels of a force. Partly because of their technical and logistic limitations. Partly because their greatest value may be the uncertainty they create for an adversary. (If the bad guys "think" we could/might see what they are up to, that ought to influence their deployments and movements, and thereby their initiatives and their effectiveness.) And partly because it may force an adversary to divert strategic resources to defences and countermeasures instead of field forces. That certainly isn't a bad picture. It is just more realistic than the implied prospect of near real-time, near total intelligence. It's also a very powerful argument for maneuver doctrine, in the sense of transferring the onus for resolving uncertainty to the adversary. So far so good, but I could still use some elaboration on one further point. Military and paramilitary forces worldwide are moving rapidly away from the models for which our systems seem to be most useful. I raised the example of nasties who develop crude NBC weapons , where production and delivery systems can be small, decentralized, and readily confused with and disguised among legitimate civilian activities. However, conventional forces are also moving toward smaller, more dispersed, harder to find and hit units of maneuver that may only be massed in terms of convergent weapons delivery. How are we matching our systems against these different sorts of threats? Ron ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:00:37 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: OT: Index Project On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:01:03 +0900, you wrote: >Not very skunky...but about the digest: > >I was thinking of making a program to create a library of all the Skunks >Works Digests, so that you can search by word or volume. Would anyone by >interested in a program like that? The program would be DOS-based, so the >reason I am asking is if I get some response, I'll make it a bit more >user-friendly, add documentation and put it on my webpage... > >E-mail me...or post something. > >Thank you. > >James. James: Sounds great, but do you have a good idea of the size of all the digests?? its quite extensive. Here is the listing including the latest addison of V06.n095 today: George ===[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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 19:16:39 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: An alternative thread A.J. Craddock wrote: [copy of Ron's response to Art's response to Ron's inquiry deleted] >That of course is what the Intelligence community's Remote Viewing >Program is all about. Slight correction here: "WAS all about" seems more accurate, even though I would call it "a desperate measure" at best. :) Ron followed up with: [...] >That certainly isn't a bad picture. It is just more realistic than the >implied prospect of near real-time, near total intelligence. It's also a >very powerful argument for maneuver doctrine, in the sense of >transferring the onus for resolving uncertainty to the adversary. >So far so good, but I could still use some elaboration on one further >point. Military and paramilitary forces worldwide are moving rapidly >away from the models for which our systems seem to be most useful. I >raised the example of nasties who develop crude NBC weapons, where >production and delivery systems can be small, decentralized, and readily >confused with and disguised among legitimate civilian activities. >However, conventional forces are also moving toward smaller, more >dispersed, harder to find and hit units of maneuver that may only be >massed in terms of convergent weapons delivery. How are we matching our >systems against these different sorts of threats? I do wonder why we (or anybody but dictatorial despots and control freaks) need (or want) "near real-time, near total intelligence" in the first place. IMHO, that sounds like living in an Orwellian Police State, where you give up personal freedoms and rights for the fantasy (or pipe dream) of safety and security -- and that is besides the point that I think it would be neither practical nor affordable. Anyway, terrorists are basically a Law Enforcement problem, rather than a military one, if you ask me. Limited to a more conventional, military scenario, and some OOTW (Operations Other Than War) like Peace Keeping/Enforcement, the War on Drugs, etc., I would think the current, more conventional form of strategic and tactical reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence gathering should be quite sufficient. I can see the need for improvement in several technical areas, though, but those will probably not help much against the above mentioned threats (like terrorists), including: * Cheaper systems (for obvious reasons); * Autonomous systems (for longer loiter times, and safety of personnel); * Multispectral Sensors (for long distance detection of NBC materials, buried mines, or targets under a thick forest canopy, etc.); * Low-Observability or High-Speed systems (to protect those systems from detection and/or from counter measures or attacks); If UAVs like Outrider, Predator, DarkStar, Global Hawk and others can really fulfill all or some of those expectations, we will have to wait and see. But there are so many other assets available, from all sorts of satellites to the array of USAF, US Army and US Navy planes with primary or secondary intelligence gathering roles, that the military has probably more data available right now, then it can handle. IMHO, the integration and dissemination of intelligence data is a much bigger issue at this point, than the collection of additional data. If all the currently available information on the battlefield (or theater of operations) could be utilized and would reach the 'end user' in a very short time, presented in a very easy to use, and integrated form, I assume that even small and highly mobile forces (like Commandos or Guerrillas) could be detected and engaged right now, without additional sensors. The SR-71, especially with its new data link, would have perfectly fit in this scenario, and its cancellation is one of those idiotic political decisions (like the cancellation/destruction of all B-35/B-49, CF-105, TSR-2 and F-12B) which will probably be still discussed and contemplated 50 years from now. - -- Andreas PS: I know the B-35/B-49 was probably not the best bomber of its time, but a piece of aerospace history, which should have been preserved. - --- --- 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, 14 Dec 1997 19:24:50 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: OT: Index Project Darryl Matthews wrote: >I was thinking of making a program to create a library of all the Skunks >Works Digests, so that you can search by word or volume. Would anyone by >interested in a program like that? The program would be DOS-based, so the >reason I am asking is if I get some response, I'll make it a bit more >user-friendly, add documentation and put it on my webpage... I currently use either the DOS programs 'TS' (Norton Text Search) or 'GREP' (from Borland, which is similar to the UNIX program), to search in my archived Skunk Works Digests (or other files) for any word or sentence I like, with very good results. Will your program create an index (file) or just search the existing files at runtime? Will it display the text (in context) or just tell you where to find it (Volume, Number, Subject, Line, etc.)? There are currently nearly 1200 digests, using about 16+ MB (in my own, slightly edited format), as follows: * 2-001 - 2-088 (88) [apparently, 2-001 was the very first digest] * 3-000 - 3-066 (67) * [3-067] (1) [missing] * 3-068 - 3-084 (17) * 4-000 - 4-135 (136) * 5-000 - 5-084 (85) * [5-085] (1) [missing] * 5-086 - 5-089 (4) * [5-090] (1) [missing] * 5-091 - 5-096 (6) * [5-097] (1) [missing] * 5-098 - 5-100 (3) * [5-101] (1) [missing] * 5-102 - 5-104 (3) * [5-105] (1) [missing] * 5-106 - 5-109 (4) * [5-110] (1) [missing] * 5-111 - 5-148 (38) * 5-148a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-149 - 5-207 (59) * [5-208] (1) [missing] * 5-208a (1) [added by me instead of missing 5-208] * [5-209] (1) [missing] * 5-209a (1) [added by me instead of missing 5-209] * [5-210] (1) [missing] * 5-210a (1) [added by me instead of missing 5-210] * [5-211] (1) [missing] * 5-211a (1) [added by me instead of missing 5-211] * [5-212] (1) [missing] * 5-212a (1) [added by me instead of missing 5-212] * 5-213 - 5-596 (384) * 5-596a (1) [renumbered, was also 5-596, contained other 5-596] * 5-597 (1) * 5-597a (1) [renumbered, was also 5-597, contained other 5-597] * 5-597b (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-598 (1) * 5-598a (1) [renumbered, was originally also 5-598] * 5-599 - 5-601 (3) * 5-601a (1) [renumbered, was originally a second 5-600] * 5-602 - 5-603 (2) * 5-603a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-604 - 5-607 (4) * 5-607a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-608 - 5-681 (74) * [5-682] (1) [missing] * 5-682a (1) [added by me instead of missing 5-682] * 5-683 - 5-736 (54) * 5-736a (1) [renumbered, was also 5-736, from new list] * 5-737 (1) * 5-737a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-738 - 5-750 (13) * 5-750a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-751 (1) * 5-752 (1) [renumbered, was originally also 5-750] * 5-753 (1) [renumbered, was originally 5-752] * 5-754 (1) * 5-754a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 5-755 - 5-759 (5) * 6-001 - 6-031 (31) * [6-032] (1) [missing] * 6-032a (1) [added by me instead of missing 6-032] * 6-033 - 6-067 (35) * 6-067a (1) [renumbered, was originally also 6-067] * 6-067b (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 6-068 - 6-081 (14) * 6-081a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 6-082 - 6-085 (4) * 6-085a (1) [added by me as additional digest] * 6-086 - 6-095 (10) ========================== Together: (1173) Digests, of which (17) were added by me. There are also (14) digests missing, and (8) had to be renumbered because they had re-used already existing numbers. I edited most of those digests a little bit, by removing some "white space" and several copies of quoted posts added to the end of later posts. I also replaced all "digests inside of digests" and bounced messages with a note in "[]", like: [copy of 5-596]. All (but most of my additional) digests are available in their original form on the internet at two different sites: * the old Skunk Works List site, containing Volume (XX) 02, No. (YYY) 001, up to Volume 05, No. 207 (that are 515 files + 7 empty ones) at: ftp://ftp.orst.edu/pub/ailing-lists/skunk-works/digest/vXX.nYYY * the new Skunk Works List site, containing Volume (XX) 05, No. (YYY) 213, up to the current Volume 06, No. 095 (that are 633 files, including some additional ones from me, post-fixed 'a' or 'b'), at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/vXX.nYYY The other 25 are currently only in my own archive at home, and some of my numbers are different. Under any circumstances, if you write such a program, I would like to get a copy (preferably with source code), and if you need any assistance, just send me an email, or post a request to the list. I think this is on topic, or at least administrative. - -- 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, 14 Dec 1997 19:44:28 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: OT: Index Project Small correction: I wrote: >ftp://ftp.orst.edu/pub/ailing-lists/skunk-works/digest/vXX.nYYY but meant: ftp://ftp.orst.edu/pub/mailing-lists/skunk-works/digest/vXX.nYYY - -- 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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:17:56 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: OT: Index Project >There are also (14) digests missing, and (8) had to be renumbered because >they had re-used already existing numbers. I edited most of those digests a >little bit, by removing some "white space" and several copies of quoted posts >added to the end of later posts. I also replaced all "digests inside of >digests" and bounced messages with a note in "[]", like: [copy of 5-596]. > >All (but most of my additional) digests are available in their original >form on the internet at two different sites: > >* the old Skunk Works List site, containing Volume (XX) 02, No. (YYY) 001, > up to Volume 05, No. 207 (that are 515 files + 7 empty ones) at: > > ftp://ftp.orst.edu/pub/ailing-lists/skunk-works/digest/vXX.nYYY > >* the new Skunk Works List site, containing Volume (XX) 05, No. (YYY) 213, > up to the current Volume 06, No. 095 (that are 633 files, including some > additional ones from me, post-fixed 'a' or 'b'), at: > > http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/vXX.nYYY > >The other 25 are currently only in my own archive at home, and some of my >numbers are different. Andreas: I took some action on your note here. I've just finished retrieving and reposting ALL the digests from the ftp.orst.edu site onto the ftp://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works site. So now all the ftp-able digests are located in 1 place for ease of access and future preservation. Could you (or anyone on the list) provide me with any digests that ARE NOT currently on the site so we have a "complete" set??? Thanks and enjoy the digests, George ===[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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:59:49 -0200 From: Felipe Salles Subject: SR-71 reactivation... Found this in the on-line version of AWST (http://awgnet.com/aviation/avi_int.htm)... Comments?! Hopes?! FS KEEP ALIVE They're still howling about President Clinton's Oct. 14 line-item veto of SR-71 operations. Some Pentagon and Hill types say events in Iraq ought to be proof enough that the Mach 3 recce aircraft is still needed. The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office explained the aircraft's state-of-the-art capabilities and invulnerability Nov. 26 to new Pentagon acquisition honcho Jacques Gansler. Allowing for crew requalification, the Black Bird could fly operationally within 10 days. Retaining the small trained team is the most critical aspect of SR-71 viability. Speaker Newt Gingrich, reflecting broad House sentiment, wrote to Clinton Nov. 18, endorsing the "proven strategic reconnaissance asset that reduces the risk to U.S. pilots." No response yet. The U.S. Central Command's months of pleading for an SR-71 for a classified mission falls on deaf ears. CENTCOM raised the stakes last week by questioning the USAF brass' commitment to supporting the theater. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:05:13 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: SR-71 reactivation... Regarding the general issue of the line-item vetoes, I would think that more attention should be also paid to the other major deletions: the military spaceplane and Clementine II. The development of the sort of capability that the former represents should be considered vital to the future of the USAF, and as C II was to test technologies that could be used for asteroid defence, I would think that that cancellation was also particularly idiotic. Clinton claims to be concerned by his "legacy", but he seems to have a singular lack of vision beyond grandstanding. Fingers crossed for the SR-71, of course. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:42:04 +0000 From: 11506@aquinas.ac.uk Subject: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? I've been reading a report on the web that said that: "Reports in the American aviation press during 1996 mentioned a British-Built Stealth Demonstrator undergoing tests at the Groom Lake facility in Nevada." Can anyone confirm this? Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:19:06 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Stephen O'Brien wrote: >I've been reading a report on the web that said that: > >"Reports in the American aviation press during 1996 mentioned > a British-Built Stealth Demonstrator undergoing tests at the Groom > Lake facility in Nevada." > >Can anyone confirm this? According to a program on the Discovery Channel last night, Groom Lake, aka Area 51, doesn't exist anymore! Tom Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Home e-mail: tcrobi@mindspring.com Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #96 ******************************** 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