skunk-works-digest Wednesday, February 25 1998 Volume 07 : Number 009 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Land speed record and Edwards AFB Ben Rich Ben Rich's book + Downed recon aircraft Aurora S-37/Winmail.dat Su-37 and winmail.dat Re: Su-37 and winmail.dat Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... Re: Ben Rich Re: Ben Rich Re: Ben Rich and U-2 shootdowns Re: Ben Rich Re: Ben Rich and U-2 shootdowns Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... More BlackJet related news Discovery channel Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news... Re: Blackjet news.... *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:34:55 GMT0BST From: "Dr H.N.S. YOUSEF" Subject: Land speed record and Edwards AFB Hi Everybody, Several weeks ago afetr the Britons smashed the sound barrier on ground, I read some postings about an American attemp in late 70s at, I think, Edwards AFB where a rocket powered car travelled at speeds higher than the sped of sound. Where can I get more detailed information about this topic. Also, any new news about the Aurora hypersonic plane? Have a nice day. Haitham ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:53:05 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Ben Rich Hi, Skunkers- Finally got around to reading Ben Rich's book *Skunk Works* last week. A fascinating read, but I have a couple questions. He said that during the early U-2 flights over Russia (1956-1960), they only flew 30 missions during that period. Is that correct? Only 30 in four years? He also mentioned that there had been dogfights between Russian and U.S. fighters over the Sea of Japan in the '50s. Is this true? Do we know how many times this happened? Is there a list on the web of all the recon aircraft that were lost in or near Russia and China during the '50s and '60s? Or is that info still classified? Thanks. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:08:11 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: Ben Rich's book + Downed recon aircraft Hi, I read Ben Rich's Skunkworks book last week and think its one of the best books I'll ever read. How does "SR-71 Revealed" compare? With regard to aircraft lost over Russia, I think the book tells about all of them. There weren't actually "that" many flights over Russia. It was more of a propaganda stunt than a great intelligence gain after a while. The first few flights took them to new places, but it was possible to monitor what they needed to from outside their airspace. The little they gained from actually overflying Russia didn't pay off politically, so 30 sounds about right. I still believe that the Blackbird never actually overflew Russia, however it did overfly Hanoi and North Korea. Never though, has one been downed on an operational flight in a sensitive area, if at all. Therefore, as the Blackbird never got shot down and the U-2 only made the 30 or so flights so I would believe that Gary Powers was the only one shot down. Critical technical faults are very rare in the U-2 after take off. The greatest problem is the detachable wheels. The D-21 though is another story!! I think all of them were lost over China, at least one went up into Russia before crashing. Gavin - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:08:15 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: Aurora According to Ben Rich's book, Aurora was the codename for the Skunkwork's design for the B-2 stealth bomber. - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:36:16 +0900 From: "Darryl Matthews" Subject: S-37/Winmail.dat Hello, I haven't posted for quite a while for two reasons. 1.) I have had a lot of comments on some file that gets attached to my posts called winmail.dat. I obviously don't attach it automatically, so if it appears with this post as well could someone tell me how to get rid of it. 2.) My monitor broke, Gateway sent me another, and this monitor has broken as well...I am typing blind, so excuse all the typo's that I'm bound to make :) Now onto something Skunky... I saw an article in the latest (well, latest for Japan) edition of either Ait International or Air Forces Monthly on the S-37. A forward-sweep wing cross between the Su-27 and the F/A-18. The photo was a rather deceptive one, so I couldn't get too much from the picture. From what I can gather, the aircraft is a jet slightly larger than the Su-27, with twin canted tails, canards, FSW. The engine intakes and LERX's are like those of the F/A-18. Anyone have anything to add to this? James. ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ICQ: 7413754 ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:00:00 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: Su-37 and winmail.dat Hi, I use Microsoft Exchange/Outlook too and I haven't found a way of stopping it attaching winmail.dat when you reply to someone either!! The Su-37 I "think" is a twin seater version of the current range of models based on the Su-27. It does have Eurofighter style Canard wings at the front. It also has a pressurised cabin (like the F-111), so I imagine it uses an ejection module instead of seats too? The two crew also sit next to each other instead of one behind. Its a multi-role fighter, with thrust vectoring. Gavin - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:24:47 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: Su-37 and winmail.dat On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Gavin Payne wrote: > > The Su-37 I "think" is a twin seater version of the current range of models > based on the Su-27. It does have Eurofighter style Canard wings at the > front. It also has a pressurised cabin (like the F-111), so I imagine it > uses an ejection module instead of seats too? The two crew also sit next > to each other instead of one behind. Its a multi-role fighter, with thrust > vectoring. > You have things a little askew...the previous message was about the S-37 (Not *Su*-37). The *Su*-37 is the ultimate Su-27 fighter variant..so far - its essentially the single-seat Su-35 (upgraded Su-27) with thrust vectoring nozzles. The one with the pressurised side-by-side cabin is the Su-34 multi-role aircraft..it doesnt have thrust vectoring. (also has been called the Su-32FN) The S-37 (thats the company's internal design number) is a new design roughly the same size as a SU-27..its currently thought to be just a technology demonstrator (although the company likes to say it will go into production tommorrow) with a single example flying. In its current configuration its seems to use several Su-27 components (tails and cockpit etc) and the massive MiG-31 engines. Its assumed that new engines and inward canted tails will be added later. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/s-37.html has some of the first photos of it. there's a little article on it at: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html hope this helped Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:22:01 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Blackjet news... - --=====================_888294234==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" - --=====================_888294234==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In the event that you don,t receive the AFNS, here's to-days "bucket" of whitewash. :) An awful lot of words to state the obvious. That the F-117 has evolved, and matured... But atleast its good press. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- & 980216. Air Force Nighthawks -- back and better by Staff Sgt. Michael Dorsey Air Force Combat Information Team AL JABER AIR BASE, Kuwait (AFNS) -- It's the air superiority asset that delivered lethal power to Iraq in 1991. Now the F-117 is back -- and it's better. When the commander of the 8th Fighter Squadron, flying F-117s in Southwest Asia, describes how the Nighthawk is the model aircraft to lead a potential air strike, he delivers convincing blows. "We bring to the fight, another asset of precision-guided munitions, but more than that, we can go places other airplanes can't go and make it a lower threat environment," said Lt. Col. Gary Woltering, in describing the F-117's abilities to destroy Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, should President Clinton give the approval. "It is extremely important that we do this as safely as possible for our own troops. Peaceful resolution to this crisis would benefit everyone, however if that is not possible, we are ready and willing to go do whatever is necessary. We've got the assets, the people, the morale, and the equipment and we are ready to do our job." The presence of the F-117 in theater brings precision engagement capabilities that meet Air Force Global Engagement priorities. And while Woltering says that this is the highest operations tempo he has ever seen in his years with the stealth, his confidence in the Nighthawk carrying out air strike missions extends beyond the aircraft's prowess. "My faith in my plane is not as great as it is in those who maintain it," said Woltering. "I have total confidence that our pilots will come home." In relation to the risk of lives lost during military combat, a critical concern back during the Gulf War as it is today, the colonel believes times have changed for the better. "The jets on the line now are radically different from the ones in Desert Storm. They have more capability.... We are different. We may look the same, but we are more qualified and the planes are better than the ones in Desert Storm." One reason for this is the addition of the GBU-27 missile, a hard target guided bomb that has a massive range of attack depending on the configuration. Hussein's refusal to let the United Nations inspect Iraq, an agreement Hussein made seven years ago that led to ending the Gulf War, prompted President Clinton's recent military buildup to prepare for a possible air strike. Designed to penetrate dense terrain and attack high value targets with its accuracy, the F-117's fighter/bomber prowess can hit targets above, on and below the ground with its weaponry. The Nighthawk's nocturnal assault on Iraq in 1991 all but helped obliterate Hussein's equipment resources. The Nighthawk first saw action in 1989 during Operation Just Cause in Panama. The 12 F-117 Nighthawks deployed to Kuwait are from Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - --=====================_888294234==_-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 05:31:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Blackjet news... Rah Rah is always good to pump the troops up, and the F-117 is a highly effective system...unless there're fog or clouds in the target area. GPS-guided munitions may help that, if they can get around the jamming problem. Art "I wish they had built an A/F-117X" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 04:14:14 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Blackjet news... At 05:31 AM 2/24/98 GMT, you wrote: >Rah Rah is always good to pump the troops up, and the F-117 is a highly effective >system...unless there're fog or clouds in the target area. GPS-guided munitions >may help that, if they can get around the jamming problem. > > > > Art "I wish they had built an A/F-117X" Hanley > > >Art, that is always an interesting discussion until it reaches discussing that fatal qualifier. Money. If in fact we never built F-117A's and instead built the A/F-117X , the numbers would be so low that each task force would end up receiving a handful of airplanes. Well we can build more. Course we need a number of trainer aircraft to so as not to jeopardize the few on board. And now we are going to have to stock spare parts in 15 locations. (I'll give you credit for having the similar engine as an FA-18) But the RAM is the real sticky issue. It may decide not to stick! But the A/F-117X is a "way cooler" looking design! patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:29:57 -0600 (CST) From: drbob@creighton.edu Subject: Re: Ben Rich Fellow Skunkers--- Forgive the delay in replying to this. Former CIA director John Deutch announced in 1995 that there were 24 U-2 overflights of the USSR. This figure is within 3 or 4 of estimates compiled by Chris Pocock (who is best qualified to discuss this) or myself. Please note that this figure does NOT include overflights of any other country, communist or not. There is a growing body of literature on cold war aerial losses, especially reconnaissance losses. The last web site that I saw which listed all losses (and I can't recall if it was up to date) was at a site called "Silent Warrior" (I don't recall the URL, so use your browser's search feature). The US DoD released a list in 1994 or 1995, and it covered them all. The only U-2 lost to hostile action is Powers on 1 May 1960. If anyone needs further information, feel free to contact me privately. Robert Hopkins On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Tom C Robison wrote: > Hi, Skunkers- > > Finally got around to reading Ben Rich's book *Skunk Works* last week. A > fascinating read, but I have a couple questions. > > He said that during the early U-2 flights over Russia (1956-1960), they > only flew 30 missions during that period. > Is that correct? Only 30 in four years? > > He also mentioned that there had been dogfights between Russian and U.S. > fighters over the Sea of Japan in the '50s. Is this true? Do we know how > many times this happened? > > Is there a list on the web of all the recon aircraft that were lost in or > near Russia and China during the '50s and '60s? Or is that info still > classified? > > Thanks. > Tom > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:58:50 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Ben Rich drbob@creighton.edu on 02/24/98 11:29:57 AM Please respond to skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com cc: Subject: Re: Ben Rich Dr. Bob wrote There is a growing body of literature on cold war aerial losses, especially reconnaissance losses. The last web site that I saw which listed all losses (and I can't recall if it was up to date) was at a site called "Silent Warrior" (I don't recall the URL, so use your browser's search feature). And as ususal Dr. Bob is correct. The URL is http://www.harborside.com/home/a/aowens/warriors.htm Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:17:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Subject: Re: Ben Rich and U-2 shootdowns DrBob said "The only U-2 lost to hostile action is Powers on 1 May 1960" This is correct if the modifying phrase "over Soviet territory" is added to the sentence. I'm sure he is aware of the Anderson shootdown over Cuba in October 1962 which definitely qualifies as a Cold War action as a Soviet battery and Soviet command were responsible. There were also 5 U-2s shot down over China between September 1962 and September 1967.As far as is known, all 7 combat losses of U-2s were caused by the SA-2 missile or Chinese-produced versions of the SA-2. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:11:44 -0800 From: "Roff Johannson" Subject: Re: Ben Rich - ---------- > covered them all. The only U-2 lost to hostile action is Powers on 1 May > 1960. If anyone needs further information, feel free to contact me > privately. > > Robert Hopkins Excuse me, but wasn't a U-2 shot down over Cuba in the middle of the Missile Crisis? roff@direct.ca RoffJohannson@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:57:25 -0600 (CST) From: drbob@creighton.edu Subject: Re: Ben Rich and U-2 shootdowns I am grateful for the numerous and quick reminders that a U-2 was shot down over Cuba and there were U-2 losses over China. I should know better and should not have limited my reply to thinking only in terms of US-Soviet relations. DrBob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:07:34 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Blackjet news... I have accessed my cache and come up with a miss! OK, what is a A/F-117X? Larry Never too proud to ask! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:18:59 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Blackjet news... It was, among other things, Lockheed's attempt to replace the A-12. Jim Stevenson Larry Smith wrote: > > I have accessed my cache and come up with a miss! > > OK, what is a A/F-117X? > > Larry > > Never too proud to ask! - -- ************************************ James P. Stevenson E-mail:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Office:301-254-9000 Home: 301-530-4241 FAX: 301-530-6923 ************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:57:11 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Blackjet news... At 02:18 PM 2/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >Jim Stevenson wrote: >It was, among other things, Lockheed's attempt to replace the A-12. > >>Larry Smith wrote: >> >> I have accessed my cache and come up with a miss! >> >> OK, what is a A/F-117X? >> >> Larry >> >> Never too proud to ask! > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I will try to extricate myself from this with the least amount of damage. From various authors: The F-117A+ is a completly reworked version of the existing F-117. A Super upgrade of present aircraft. Status unknown. The F-117N was a vague proposal to build a joint AF/Navy version. One of the selling points being a lower cost if they shared a new required production line. Not too many nibles on this one. And the third known proposal is the A/F-117X. This was supposedly was the come back offer to the Navy after it rejected the "N" model and a replacement teddy bear after losing the A-12. Lockheed presented this new super whiz bang version with all the bells and whistles. Twice the range, twice the load, Sidewinder or AMRAAM equipped, F-14 undercarriage. It was also proposed again to build an Air Force version on the same cost saving production line. Status unknown. Art, or anyone else, please add your own spin to this. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:09:57 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Blackjet news... >The F-117A+ ... >The F-117N ... >And the third known proposal is the A/F-117X. This was supposedly was the >come back offer to the Navy after it rejected the "N" model ... What did the A/F-117X look like? Was it a F-117N derivation, or something totally different like the Lockheed AX (I think that's right, or was it AFX) pictured in Miller's first edition of the Lockheed 50th Anniv. book (near the back). VERY COOL design, very blended, swing wings (I think), raw sex! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:57:19 -0500 From: Frank Markus Subject: Re: Blackjet news... Unfortunately the proposed L-M F-117 follow-ons are in direct conflict with the JSF program. Given the current financial and political climate there is probably about zero possibility of a competing strike aircraft being undertaken or funded. Based on what I understand of the potential usefulness -- and cost -- of the JSF, it would seem to be a better aircraft than a revamp of the F-117. While mediocre follow-ons to existing aircraft so sometimes win contracts (the Navy's beloved F/A 18E&F program is a prime current example), it is usually because the proposed new aircraft ran into development trouble (as did the A-12.) Both JSF programs seem to be on track and on budget. They are much newer and more capable. Their VTOL versions are unique and valuable. They employ full three-dimensional stealth geometry. And, most important, JSF already has large constituencies in the Pentagon (all three services simultaneously!) and even abroad. Whatever its virtues, a F-117 follow-on would seem to offer too little too late. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:10:54 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: More BlackJet related news - --=====================_888379968==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" - --=====================_888379968==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" More BlackJet related PR from AFNS - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 980229. Keeping munitions on target, on time by Staff Sgt. Michael Dorsey Air Force Combat Information Team AL JABER AIR BASE, Kuwait (AFNS) -- Dropping bombs that explode underneath the sand begins from a temperature controlled "igloo" inside a maintenance bay. Keeping munitions cool before an F-117 weapon is built, then loaded, takes time and confidence from aircraft maintainers. The Nighthawk unit deployed at Al Jaber Air Base has both qualities. Senior Airman Nate Pittman is one of those weapons systems specialists responsible for upholding the unit motto "Bombs on Target, On Time." It defines his mission -- where falling short of that motto is not an option. If a weapon is not put together correctly, precision engagement does not exist. "Precision engagement is the number one mission over here," Pittman said. "If something happens we'll probably be the first ones in and it's absolutely important that the bombs hit the targets." As potential airstrike days count down, the weapons systems specialists are feeling the pressure. Pittman said that keeping his cool along with keeping the munition fuses cool is top priority. And he says it's all about fuses when it comes to configuring a bomb. "It [the fuse] determines whether it operates above the ground, on the ground or below the ground," said Pittman. "The GBU 27 is the one I like to build the most." The GBU (Glide Bomb Unit) 27 is the new penetrator weapon that wasn't used the first time Nighthawks launched a nocturnal assault and showed the strength of precision bombs during Desert Storm seven years ago. The newer bomb increases capability and confidence in the F-117 by maintainers. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --=====================_888379968==_-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:23:29 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Discovery channel In the event you did,nt check the TV section lately..... To-morrow (Wed) the discovery channel is doing a segment on the winged products of the Skunk-works as part of their week long series on SPY-TEK, check your local TV listings for time.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 18:18:31 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Blackjet news... ey > > > > > >Art, that is always an interesting discussion until it reaches discussing > that fatal qualifier. Money. If in fact we never built F-117A's and > instead built the A/F-117X , the numbers would be so low that each task > force would end up receiving a handful of airplanes. Well we can build > more. Course we need a number of trainer aircraft to so as not to > jeopardize the few on board. And now we are going to have to stock spare > parts in 15 locations. (I'll give you credit for having the similar engine > as an FA-18) But the RAM is the real sticky issue. It may decide not to > stick! But the A/F-117X is a "way cooler" looking design! > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net > Patrick, Seems like there might be a slight disconnect here. The A/F-117X was never in competition with the basic F-117. In fact, there couldn't have been a conceptual A/F-117X if there hadn't been an F-117. The A/F-117X was a proposal for a naval strike variant of an evolved F-117. It was also known in an earlier version as the F-117N (without air-to-air capability). It was proposed as an alternative to the F/A-18E/F. As a strike aircraft, it would offer better payload/range than the Super Hornet, be more survivable, have all-weather capability and certainly wouldn't cost more to develop than the E/F. There were strong indications from USAF that if the USN paid for the R&D, they'd be interested in 200 of them (possibly designated F-117B). There was also some talk that Great Britain would be interested as well. It all came to nought because the Navy admitted that they weren't interested in looking at the A/F-117X because it might interfere with the development and procurement of the Hornet E/F. [sigh] Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 18:55:16 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Blackjet news... On 2/24/98 11:07AM, in message <199802241907.LAA30894@pdxcs199>, Larry Smith wrote: > I have accessed my cache and come up with a miss! > > OK, what is a A/F-117X? > > Larry > > Never too proud to ask! > When the A-12 died, Lockheed proposed a navalized F-117, sometimes called the F-117N, which formed the basis for later design proposals. There was little interest because the AX (A/FX) program was starting out at that point, which would have been a much more capable aircraft. When the A/FX died and the Super Hornet was ordered into production, a number of high-ranking Navy officials revisited the concept of an evolved F-117 as a moe capable strike alternative. This ended up getting a number of designations as it evolved and also kind of cross-pollinated with proposals for enhanced F-117s for USAF and Britain, sometimes called F-117B. A navalized F-117B derivatives with greater air-to-air capability (primarily in weapons) became the A/F-117X. Compared with the F-117A, as I remember it the changes included: corrosion protection (possibly the most technologically risky part of the program); revised internal structure including structural redesign for carrier operations; main gear probably based on the F-14's (which was based on the A-6's); new nose gear; new wing with more area, less sweep, folding outer wings and provision for pylons; new horizontal stabilizer for improved control, especially at low speeds; double-slotted trailing edge flaps; greater internal and external weapons capacity; new and improved sensors (probably including one of the Low Probability of Intercept radars that were being worked on); MTOW of 68,750 lbs. (F-117 is 52,500, I believe); revised cockpit with new clear canopy; new engines, probably an F414 derivative. There was some talk that either the Navy or the Air Force model might have afterburning engines, although they wouldn't use the 'burners when trying to be stealthy. Some sources say that the A/F-117X was proposed as an alternative to JSF, but that's not really accurate. JSF is a more versatile design, but it is also further down the pike than when the A/F-117X would have come on line. Besides, JSF ha a much bigger profit potential, because of a much larger market. Lockheed wouldn't want to risk that. A/F-117X's relationship to JSF was that it would buy time for the Navy. With the loss of the A-6 and F-14, the Navy's need for JSF is so critical that it'll have to accept compromises in some of its specifications in order to get it here in time. Had there been an A/F-117X, some of that pressure would be off. The A/F-117X was really an alternative to the Hornet E/F, and had the advantages over it that I mentioned in my message of a little while ago. One example: carrying a 6,600 lb. payload, the Hornet E/F is hoped to achieve a 470nm radius of action. Under the same conditions, the A/F-117X was expected to have a 700 nm radius Like I said, nothing ever came of it because the objective of the exercise all along has really been to buy the best aircraft for the job as long as it was the F/A-18E/F. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:00:51 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: Re: Blackjet news.... Well I wanna see the stealth boat get into service. That I did love. Anyone who hasn't seen pictures of it should, just for the humour side :) Gavin - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #9 ******************************* 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