From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #33 Reply-To: skunk-works Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Thursday, June 25 1998 Volume 07 : Number 033 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Quiet quiet list Speculations about Lockheed X-22 Darkstar Re: quiet list Re: Summer doldrums Re: Speculations about Lockheed X-22 Darkstar Comic relief? Re: Comic relief? Re: Comic relief? Re: Comic relief? Amelia Earhart Black Colt Re: Comic relief? Re: Off-topic questions Re: Off-topic questions Re: Off-topic questions *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:04:06 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Quiet This list is getting so stealthy, I can't tell if I'm even here. Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 20:14:55 -0700 From: dsklvm4@ix.netcom.com Subject: quiet list I think we are just in the summer doldrums. With the El Nino winter, everyone is probably out in the sun having fun. Thellist also seems to go through phases where it sits silent for awhile and then bursts forth with new energy. jaz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:36:32 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Speculations about Lockheed X-22 Darkstar This should liven things up a bit. Tony Craddock ************* Apollo X Gets Glimpse Of An Extraterrestrial Monolith In Space; Later A Secret Military Space Shuttle Retrieves the Monolith By Richard Boylan, Ph.D. - ------------------------ This reports comes from a very close relative of a former division head of CIA. This informant, whom I shall call "Jesse", has over 40 years of his relative's notes. Jesse says that these notes will be disseminated directly through me or through National Security Council scientist Dr. Michael Wolf. I have talked with Dr. Wolf about the notes' author, Jesse's relative. Dr. Wolf said that CIA official "was like an uncle to me. "When asked for his motivation in releasing his relative's notes, Jesse answered, "For posterity reasons, let's say." According to "Jesse", in 1969 the Apollo 10 astronauts were the first to get a glimpse of an extraterrestrial Monolith, somewhat like, but smaller than, the one in Arthur C. Clarke's book/ movie "2001". Apollo 10 went to it, and filmed it from every angle. The Monolith acted like a communication beacon. Jesse says, "It sort of acts like the message received in the movie "Contact". It had a message on it, in addition to a map of the [extraterrestrial civilization which placed it there], and how to get to them." Astronauts Stafford, Cernan and Young brought back the message captured on film. The Monolith affected Apollo 10's instrumentation, so that Apollo 10's crew almost didn't get back. The government then used an early secret military version of the Space Shuttle to go get the Monolith. Years before the first "official" Shuttle's public flights, which started in 1981, this covert Shuttle flew, operated by a secret military astronaut program out of Vandenburg Air Force Base, California among other locations. The second flight mission of this unacknowledged military Space Shuttle retrieved the Monolith, using the shuttle arm, and brought it back to Earth in 1972 for study. [Jesse provided additional comment on the successor craft to the secret military Space Shuttle. "Matter of fact, it (military Shuttle) was replaced in '85 with Aurora up to '92", thus indicating that the oft-rumored Aurora hyperfast aerospace vehicle not only is operational since 1985, but is already obsolete. Jesse says that its successor "followed on with DarkStar's retro-fit." This, according to the late USAF Colonel Steve Wilson, is the Lockheed X-22A DarkStar, a two- man discoid craft, which uses antigravity technology on an airframe perfected on Lockheed's "cover" program, a conventional unmanned reconnaissance drone, the X-22, also called DarkStar. Jesse tantalizes with a hint about the antigravity DarkStar's having becoming obsolete by "another [craft] in '01." Yet another exotic space vehicle! Jesse added, "The [Cape Canaveral] Shuttle stuff you see is for Hollywood to direct."] But already the Intelligence compartments which deal with UFOs were busy poring over information on the Monolith gleaned from the films Apollo 10 took. After being retrieved, the Monolith was then transferred to a secret research facility. Jesse says, "It has a sound to it, like it talks. It also gives off a light show." Among the scientists who worked on it were: famed astronomer Dr. Carl Sagan, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command General William Stubblebine,(ret.), National Security Council consultant Dr. Michael Wolf, and a former division head of CIA. Everyone who had prolonged close physical contact with the Monolith got cancer, Jesse says. "And those who tried to dissect it [the Monolith] died right there on the spot." The CIA Counter-Intelligence official and Dr. Wolf got colon cancer. The CIA man required surgery, but Dr. Wolf's cancer later went into a spontaneous remission. Dr. Sagan eventually died of his cancer. Subsequently, scientific analysis of the Monolith was conducted at an underwater biosphere located north of the Abaco, the northernmost of the Bahamas Islands. RCA Corporation is in charge of that experimentation research, Jesse says. "They did it underwater, after they saw people dropping like flies. They figured that there would be better containment [of the Monolith's suspected energy emanations] underwater." Jesse feels that there are many more Monoliths out in space, acting as "postcards". "I'm sure Mother Russia had one," he added. And the apparent coincidence of Arthur C. Clarke writing in "2001"about a Monolith discovered by astronauts turns out not really to be a coincidence at all. Jesse revealed that Clarke has been in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, and thus could well have heard about the non-fiction Monolith. ************************************************************* The following report also comes from the very close relative of a former division head of CIA. This informant, whom I shall call "Jesse", has over 40 years of his relative's notes. By Richard Boylan, Ph.D. This report also comes from a very close relative of a former division head of CIA. This informant, whom I shall call "Jesse", has over 40 years of his relative's notes. Jesse says that these notes will be disseminated directly through me or semi-retired NSC scientist Dr. Michael Wolf. I have talked with Dr. Wolf about the notes' author, Jesse's relative. Dr. Wolf said that CIA official "was like an uncle to me." When asked for his motivation in releasing his relative's notes, Jesse answered, "For posterity reasons, let's say." Jesse told me, "Here is the 1973 formula for what we discussed [gravity control formula used by the military to construct antigravity aerospace vehicles]: phi(x) =<0lphi(x) l0 > + &phi(x), where <0lphi(x)l0> is the vacuum expectation value, and m2^<0lphi(x)l0>^2 represents the particle's density of the ground state in the non-realtivistic limit. The action of this field in the presence of gravity is...intrinsic gravitational cosmological constant Lambda/ 8piG receives a contribution (1/2) m2^<0lphi(x)l0>^2." Jesse mentioned that the noted quantum physicist Jack Sarfatti of the San Francisco Bay Area was in a position to be familiar with this classified government gravity formula. Jesse observed, "With regard to Sarfatti, as I can determine it [from the notes], he was on site doing work on the relationship between downed UFO's and back-engineering, to the degree that he assisted in the gravity makeup formulae." And Jesse added that Sarfatti noted that the captured UFO's field propulsion guidance was focused on the ET pilot. "[The UFO pilot console] had the hand placement with micro holes and light-emitting senses [sensors] to feel the impulse of the sudden hand movement; hence it [pilot and UFO] became as one. The driver always feels the outer skin's 'road feel', so it [the UFO] can handle better than a Corvette at 125 mph in fifth gear in the big curve." Jesse added, "Then again, Sarfatti has these numbers...he can attest to the numbers and even affirm that it is in use today! Matter of fact, formulae even tell a story of the skin association between flyer and craft. It depends on the vacuum expectation value to go particle ground state, and with this you time travel on a wave. They [ET pilots] think it...and go. Sort of like...point- click and ship! Boom...you're there." I would observe that, perhaps as a consequence of his exposure to this extraterrestrial mind-matter connection, Dr. Sarfatti co-founded a Physics/ Consciousness Research Group,1974. Apollo 14 Mission astronaut Edgar Mitchell, a Navy Commander, walked on the Moon in 1971. About a year later, government UFO specialists were analyzing the Monolith filmed by Apollo 10, as well as ongoing analysis of UFO crash retrievals. Jesse revealed that after the astronaut's return to Earth, "Edgar Mitchell was a part of the briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff I group, who at that time told them about the known [gravity-control] formulae. RAND Corporation (CIA think tank) holds the key to the formulae." Jesse went on to add, "Our Navy even set up the United Earth Space Naval Forces. I believe this group to be in existence today." Jesse says that Dr. Wolf was at the RAND Corporation at one point in his career, and developed an 18-foot-wide torus-shaped antigravity field, using counter-rotating magnets. Dr. Wolf was quite familiar with the government gravity-control formulae, being involved in UFO research as a member of NSC's MJ-12 [UFO information control] Committee. END OF POST. Richard Boylan, Ph.D., LLC 2826 O Street, Suite 2, Sacramento, CA 95816, USA. (916) 455-0120 E-mail: rich.boylan@24stex.com ; Primary website: http://www.ufonetwork.com/boylan/ Author of: "Close Extraterrestrial Encounters", "Labored Journey To The Stars" and "Project Epiphany". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98 05:18:11 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: quiet list On 6/23/98 8:14PM, in message <3.0.5.32.19980623201455.007b23e0@ix.netcom.com>, dsklvm4@ix.netcom.com wrote: > I think we are just in the summer doldrums. With the El Nino winter, > everyone is probably out in the sun having fun. Thellist also seems to go > through phases where it sits silent for awhile and then bursts forth with > new energy. > > jaz > There is something wrong at the Aircraft List server. The Majordomo is functioning and will respond to direct queries or commands, but no postings to the list are appearing. A few of us got ahold of Wes some days back. He didn't realize anything was wrong. Hopefully, he's working on it. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:37:15 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: Summer doldrums In response to "Summer doldrums", Art wrote: > There is something wrong at the Aircraft List server. The Majordomo is > functioning and will respond to direct queries or commands, but no >postings to the > list are appearing. A few of us got ahold of Wes some days back. He didn't > realize anything was wrong. Hopefully, he's working on it. Well, then. Next time we might be dealing with Captaindomo. Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:33:56 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Speculations about Lockheed X-22 Darkstar At 09:36 PM 6/23/98 -0700, Tony Craddock you wrote: > >Subsequently, scientific analysis of the Monolith was conducted at an >underwater biosphere located north of the Abaco, the northernmost of the >Bahamas Islands. RCA Corporation is in charge of that experimentation >research, Jesse says. "They did it underwater, after they saw people >dropping like flies. They figured that there would be better containment >[of the Monolith's suspected energy emanations] underwater." > - ---------------------------------------------- You forgot about the part where the "monolith" detected the presence of dolphins and began to communicate directly with them. This proves that aliens have really inhabitated the Earth in earlier times and lived in the lost city of Atlantis where the dolphins befriended them. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:08:45 EDT From: CatshotKim@aol.com Subject: Comic relief? Due to a transmigrational anti-gravity time phase gradient vortex, this list has been connected to the sci-fi list. Please do not adjust your computer. The control voice is making adjustments. Reference the last two posts. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:58:02 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Comic relief? >Due to a transmigrational anti-gravity time phase gradient vortex, this list >has been connected to the sci-fi list. It aint even good sci-fi! >Please do not adjust your computer. The >control voice is making adjustments. Ah, thankyou control voice! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:15:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Comic relief? #Begin Intragalactic Subspace Transmission Thanks, we needed that. I would like to present some irrelevant thoroughly off-topic questions to the "sci-fi list" if I might. Q0: AW&ST speculated in last week's issue "that impulse radars based on ultrawideband techniques could detect low-observable or \"stealthy\" vehicles" (AW&ST June 15, 1998, p. 26). Is this true? How would this impact current and future skunk works designs (F-117A, F-22, X-35, etc.)? What about the rumors that former Warsaw Pact countries have radar technology which makes "stealth" aircraft visible to radar at extreme ranges? Q1: What happens when the USAF wants to make stealth aircraft visible to ATC? Does the F-117A really have special radar reflectors which make it detectable? What about the F-22 and the X-32/X-35? Do they have a similar device? Q2: The F-15E has been having trouble with the PW F100-229. Would it be a good idea to see if we can have it re-engined with a modified PW F119 engine, from the F-22 Raptor, which might also give the F-15E supecruise capability? What about the F100-229 powered F-16s which are not having problems yet, but are likely to develop problems in the future? Q3: I've been hearing and seeing a lot of the X-33 recently, it appears that LockMart is pushing it really hard. For a skunk works aerospace vehicle it seems to be receiving a whole lot of publicity. What was the extent of their involvement in the project? Is the X-33 related to the SR-142 Aurora? Can you neither confirm nor deny the existence of the SR-142? Did the USAF scrap the SR-71 Blackbird because of the fact that the SR-142 Aurora was already in service? Q4: The USN could desperately use an A-6 and an F-14 replacement. Could the F-22 Raptor be quickly modified for carrier operations and catapulted into service to cover the gap until the F-32/F-35 is put into service? Would it be possible to navalize the F-15E and put it on carrier decks within a couple of years instead? Q5: What is the USN going to do when they retire the F-14 and lose the AIM-54C Phoenix and its ultra long range capability? Are there any plans to certify the Phoenix on the JSF(yeah, right!)? The AIM-120 AMRAAM is awesome, but we still need the Phoenix or at least a Phoenix derivative or replacement with a 200+nm range. I'm sure we could certify a navalized F-15E or F-22 to carry the AIM-54C. Q6: Can we contact our Russian friends and modify the SALT treaties so that we would be allowed to deploy more ABL aircraft to more bases and also deploy other advanced anti-balistic missile weapons (land, air and space based) in exchange for offering them protection? Could we form a GDI (Global Defense Initiative) organization to protect ourselves as well as our friends against balistic missile (both theater and ICBM) threats and share the cost of deploying the system? Our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Israel, our Russian friends and several other countries would be interested in having some insurance given all the nuclear proliferation problems we have had recently (India, Pakistan and their friends like Iran, Iraq, North Korea and others). The nuclear anti-proliferation treaty is quite unenforceable and we know it. Biological and chemical threats are also a major problem we are faced with. We have to do something about it before something very nasty happens and we have major loss of life. The recent currency crisis in Asia has further disstabilized the region (as if the India - Pakistan problem wasn't bad enough) and some dictator somewhere may do something stupid. Does anyone know if any Skunk Works aircraft were used recently to keep an eye on India, Pakistan or their neighbors? Please pardon all the dumb questions, but it would be nice to get some responses even if people just want to yell at me. Let's hope this gets the list started again. Please be kind. Sam #End Intragalactic Subspace Transmission ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:37:12 -0400 From: Brentley Smith Subject: Re: Comic relief? On 6/24/98, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > >Can you neither confirm nor deny the existence of the SR-142? Did the USAF >scrap the SR-71 Blackbird because of the fact that the SR-142 Aurora was already >in service? > Maybe I've missed seeing this before, but I find "SR-142" rather amusing. Twice the plane and twice the speed. If it could only be had for twice the money.... BSmith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:45:21 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Amelia Earhart Since the Aircraft list still appears to be down, I'll send along this info to y'all, even though it is wildly off topic for this list. Please forward to whomever might be interested. ABC will be rebroadcasting their documentary about the 1997 expedition to Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island to search for Amelia Earhart, on Thursday, July 2nd (the 61st anniversary of the disappearance). It'll be in primetime but check your local listings for the exact time in your area. > >The Discovery Channel will air a similar show on July 7th. _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 16:10:46 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Black Colt Here's a good question for a slow list. What is your take on Mitchell Clapp's paper on Single-stage to orbit vehicles? It was published a couple of years ago, but I suspect it's older than that. "Black Colt", would certainly be a close match for what everyone has called "Aurora" ; Smaller than the shuttle, but similar in mission. Would not be recon, like everybody figures, but a quick way to place a camera or sensor in a suborbital trajectory, or a higher orbit via kickmotor. The NRO could position a cheaper recon satellite almost on demand, and eliminate the need for manned overflight. ? Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:17:39 -0700 (PDT) From: dadams@netcom.com Subject: Re: Comic relief? > Due to a transmigrational anti-gravity time phase gradient vortex, this list > has been connected to the sci-fi list. Please do not adjust your computer. If only that were the case! Unfortunately all too many of these UFO religious fanatics actually believe that kind of idiocy. > The control voice is making adjustments. Reference the last two posts. Anyone who considers that lively definitely needs an "adjustment". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 16:43:57 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: Off-topic questions I'm bored, so I'll guess; wouldn't be the first time I looked dumb in public. Sam Kaltsidis wrote: >Q0: >AW&ST speculated in last week's issue "that impulse radars based on >ultrawideband techniques could detect low-observable or \"stealthy\" >vehicles" >(AW&ST June 15, 1998, p. 26). Is this true? How would this impact current and >future skunk works designs (F-117A, F-22, X-35, etc.)? What about the rumors >that former Warsaw Pact countries have radar technology which makes "stealth" >aircraft visible to radar at extreme ranges? What, like detecting an aircraft against a backscattered signal from the ionosphere? Maybe someone else knows? >Q1: >What happens when the USAF wants to make stealth aircraft visible to ATC? >Does the F-117A really have special radar reflectors which make it detectable? >What about the F-22 and the X-32/X-35? Do they have a similar device? Transponders send out an active signal, most all aircraft have them. >Q2: >The F-15E has been having trouble with the PW F100-229. Would it be a good >idea >to see if we can have it re-engined with a modified PW F119 engine, from the >F-22 Raptor, which might also give the F-15E supecruise capability? The F119 engine a LOT bigger, if I'm not mistaken. >What about the F100-229 powered F-16s which are not having problems yet, but >are likely to develop problems in the future? Don't know. >Q3: >I've been hearing and seeing a lot of the X-33 recently, it appears that >LockMart is pushing it really hard. For a skunk works aerospace vehicle it >seems to be receiving a whole lot of publicity. What was the extent of their >involvement in the project? Skunkworks is involved in a lot of non-black projects too. Gotta put meat on the table. >Is the X-33 related to the SR-142 Aurora? >Can you neither confirm nor deny the existence of the SR-142? Did the USAF >scrap the SR-71 Blackbird because of the fact that the SR-142 Aurora was >already >in service? What is the Aurora? >Q4: >The USN could desperately use an A-6 and an F-14 replacement. Could the F-22 >Raptor be quickly modified for carrier operations and catapulted into >service to >cover the gap until the F-32/F-35 is put into service? Would it be possible to >navalize the F-15E and put it on carrier decks within a couple of years >instead? The Navy is committed to the F-18E/F Super Hornet to fill both missions, until their version of the JSF is delivered. >Q5: >What is the USN going to do when they retire the F-14 and lose the AIM-54C >Phoenix and its ultra long range capability? Are there any plans to >certify the >Phoenix on the JSF(yeah, right!)? The AIM-120 AMRAAM is awesome, but we still >need the Phoenix or at least a Phoenix derivative or replacement with a 200+nm >range. I'm sure we could certify a navalized F-15E or F-22 to carry the >AIM-54C. Not sure, but I think the Super Hornet has been modified with bigger wings and additional hardpoints for this. >Q6: >Can we contact our Russian friends and modify the SALT treaties so that we >would >be allowed to deploy more ABL aircraft to more bases and also deploy other >advanced anti-balistic missile weapons (land, air and space based) in exchange >for offering them protection? Could we form a GDI (Global Defense Initiative) >organization to protect ourselves as well as our friends against balistic >missile (both theater and ICBM) threats and share the cost of deploying >the system? Who knows? That's a political question, that depends on which way the wind is blowing. Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:00:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Off-topic questions > I'm bored, so I'll guess; wouldn't be the first time I looked dumb in public. > > Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > >Q0: > >AW&ST speculated in last week's issue "that impulse radars based on > >ultrawideband techniques could detect low-observable or \"stealthy\" > >vehicles" > >(AW&ST June 15, 1998, p. 26). Is this true? How would this impact current and > >future skunk works designs (F-117A, F-22, X-35, etc.)? What about the rumors > >that former Warsaw Pact countries have radar technology which makes "stealth" > >aircraft visible to radar at extreme ranges? > > What, like detecting an aircraft against a backscattered signal from the > ionosphere? > Maybe someone else knows? I do not know anything about UWB radars, this is why I asked. The rumors may just be rumors... > > >Q1: > >What happens when the USAF wants to make stealth aircraft visible to ATC? > >Does the F-117A really have special radar reflectors which make it > detectable? > >What about the F-22 and the X-32/X-35? Do they have a similar device? > > Transponders send out an active signal, most all aircraft have them. I believe all comercial aircraft are required by law to have transponders. I think the military is not required to have them on unless they are flying in ATC controlled airspace, but wouldn't secret operations be compromised by having the transponders on, which make you visible to everyone within range of your transponder signal, even if you are flying in FAA controlled airspace? > > >Q2: > >The F-15E has been having trouble with the PW F100-229. Would it be a good > >idea > >to see if we can have it re-engined with a modified PW F119 engine, from the > >F-22 Raptor, which might also give the F-15E supecruise capability? > > The F119 engine a LOT bigger, if I'm not mistaken. This is why I suggested a modified F119, perhaps the JSF version of the F119 which I believe is smaller. > > >What about the F100-229 powered F-16s which are not having problems yet, but > >are likely to develop problems in the future? > > Don't know. > > >Q3: > >I've been hearing and seeing a lot of the X-33 recently, it appears that > >LockMart is pushing it really hard. For a skunk works aerospace vehicle it > >seems to be receiving a whole lot of publicity. What was the extent of their > >involvement in the project? > > Skunkworks is involved in a lot of non-black projects too. Gotta put meat > on the table. > > >Is the X-33 related to the SR-142 Aurora? > >Can you neither confirm nor deny the existence of the SR-142? Did the USAF > >scrap the SR-71 Blackbird because of the fact that the SR-142 Aurora was > >already > >in service? > > What is the Aurora? Perhaps a precursor to the X-33 or an SR-71 replacement or both. > > >Q4: > >The USN could desperately use an A-6 and an F-14 replacement. Could the F-22 > >Raptor be quickly modified for carrier operations and catapulted into > >service to > >cover the gap until the F-32/F-35 is put into service? Would it be possible > to > >navalize the F-15E and put it on carrier decks within a couple of years > >instead? > > The Navy is committed to the F-18E/F Super Hornet to fill both missions, > until their > version of the JSF is delivered. The F-18E/F though very capable lacks the speed, power and range of the F-14 has a less powerful radar and, as far as I know, cannot carry the AIM-54C. It is very well suited for strike missions but lacks the precision strike capability of the A-6. > > >Q5: > >What is the USN going to do when they retire the F-14 and lose the AIM-54C > >Phoenix and its ultra long range capability? Are there any plans to > >certify the > >Phoenix on the JSF(yeah, right!)? The AIM-120 AMRAAM is awesome, but we still > >need the Phoenix or at least a Phoenix derivative or replacement with a > 200+nm > >range. I'm sure we could certify a navalized F-15E or F-22 to carry the > >AIM-54C. > > Not sure, but I think the Super Hornet has been modified with bigger wings and > additional hardpoints for this. I believe you are quite correct, however it has not been certified to carry the Phoenix. > > >Q6: > >Can we contact our Russian friends and modify the SALT treaties so that we > >would > >be allowed to deploy more ABL aircraft to more bases and also deploy other > >advanced anti-balistic missile weapons (land, air and space based) in > exchange > >for offering them protection? Could we form a GDI (Global Defense Initiative) > >organization to protect ourselves as well as our friends against balistic > >missile (both theater and ICBM) threats and share the cost of deploying > >the system? > > > Who knows? That's a political question, that depends on which way the wind > is blowing. > > > Wayne > > Wayne Busse > wings@sky.net > > Thanks for all the responses. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:32:37 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Off-topic questions >> I'm bored, so I'll guess; wouldn't be the first time I looked dumb in >>public. >> >> Sam Kaltsidis wrote: >> >> >Q0: >> >AW&ST speculated in last week's issue "that impulse radars based on >> >ultrawideband techniques could detect low-observable or \"stealthy\" >> >vehicles" >> >(AW&ST June 15, 1998, p. 26). Is this true? How would this impact >>current and >> >future skunk works designs (F-117A, F-22, X-35, etc.)? What about the >>rumors >> >that former Warsaw Pact countries have radar technology which makes >>"stealth" >> >aircraft visible to radar at extreme ranges? >> >> What, like detecting an aircraft against a backscattered signal from the >> ionosphere? >> Maybe someone else knows? > >I do not know anything about UWB radars, this is why I asked. The rumors may >just be rumors... Yes, a UWB radar could easily detect most LO aircraft. Why? Most of an aircraft's stealthiness comes from little thing that add up, like coatings, inlet grilles, etc. , all of which are designed for specific freq. ranges- which, of course, doesn't include UWB *or* millimeter wave. The radars that make stealth aircraft visible at extreme ranges would probably be over the horizon backscatter radars, which aren't good for much besides early warning- just ask anybody in Customs :) They can't give you reliable data, so you know something's there, but not how high or hwo fast, all you can do is send in additional assests that probably *aren't* capable of detecting a LO aircraft. Besides, no Warsaw Pact nation I know of operates a OTH-B, you need a LOT of area to do it. Russia, maybe, but anything else is just too small a country. Example- an OTH-B in the UK would probably cover the southern part of Saudi, nothing closer, nothing farther away. OTH-B is good for extreme ranges, but has *no* capability close in. They're good for finding pesky cruise missiles and drug runners though :) > >> >> >Q1: >> >What happens when the USAF wants to make stealth aircraft visible to ATC? >> >Does the F-117A really have special radar reflectors which make it >> >> detectable? >> >What about the F-22 and the X-32/X-35? Do they have a similar device? >> >> Transponders send out an active signal, most all aircraft have them. > >I believe all comercial aircraft are required by law to have transponders. > >I think the military is not required to have them on unless they are flying in >ATC controlled airspace, but wouldn't secret operations be compromised >by having the transponders on, which make you visible to everyone within range >of your transponder signal, even if you are flying in FAA controlled airspace? Well, the ATC controllers are all cleared to handle classified aircraft one way or another. And if the US was running a "secret operation" in US airspace with US assets, ATC would be the least of their worries. Posse Comitus, etc. would be high on their list. >> >> >Is the X-33 related to the SR-142 Aurora? If the Aurora exists, the X-33 is almost certainly related. X-33 grew out of several previously classified programs- SCIENCE REALM, SCIENCE DAWN (look! a dawn reference! what was Aurora's role in mythology, hmmm?), HAVE REGION. etc. >> >Can you neither confirm nor deny the existence of the SR-142? Did the USAF >> >scrap the SR-71 Blackbird because of the fact that the SR-142 Aurora was >> >already >> >in service? Somebody's been reading too many spy novels :) If anyone could confirm or deny anything about such an aircraft, it wouldn't be on this list :P Where is the "SR-142" designation coming from? 71*2? >> >> What is the Aurora? A Canadian version of the Orion, made by Lockheed :) >> >> Not sure, but I think the Super Hornet has been modified with bigger >>wings and >> additional hardpoints for this. > >I believe you are quite correct, however it has not been certified to carry >the Phoenix. It doesn't have the radar necessary to guide a Phoenix, and if I recall correctly the Phoenix production line is shut down. Sole source procurement, something like that. We could always buy some AA-9's (? the thing the Foxhound carries) from Boris, upgrade the software, and fit them on Hornets :) > >> >> >Q6: >> >Can we contact our Russian friends and modify the SALT treaties so that we >> >would >> >be allowed to deploy more ABL aircraft to more bases and also deploy other >> >advanced anti-balistic missile weapons (land, air and space based) in >> >> exchange >> >for offering them protection? Could we form a GDI (Global Defense >>Initiative) >> >organization to protect ourselves as well as our friends against balistic >> >missile (both theater and ICBM) threats and share the cost of deploying >> >the system? >> >> That kind of solution would be more for countering an ICBM-type threat, and most of the people making decisions these days don't seem to think there ever will be again. Of course, India and Israel have satellite boosters.... they have nukes.... a ICBM is basically a satellite booster.... Ah well, you can't convince everybody, right? Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ It's not how fast your computer is, it's not who makes it, it's not wether you're "wired". It's what you *do* with it, how you change the world with it, that matters. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #33 ******************************** 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