From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #34 Reply-To: skunk-works Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Friday, June 26 1998 Volume 07 : Number 034 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Fw: Re: Off-topic questions Re: Black Colt Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions Re: Off-topic questions Re: Off-topic questions SR-71 & Line Item Veto Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions Somthings flying which can do Mach 6+ *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 98 04:47:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions - --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ On 6/25/98 2:43PM, in message , Wayne Busse wrote: > > > >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? > > They turn their transponer on, and they do mount the removable reflectors which > are available for just this purpose > >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? > > The F100 has never been as reliable as was originally planned or as the Air Force wanted. In fact, in its early years of service, it was derated from 25,000 to 23,000 lbs. of thrust to get sufficient life and reliability out of the engine. It wasn't until USAF started giving GE money to finish development of their initially company funded F110 engine that Pratt really got on the ball. The GE engine, in addition to being more powerful, was more reliable. Although Pratt improved the F100, once the F110 was available somewhat more USAF F-16s were built with F110s, even though DoD preferred that it would be 50/50. For export F-16s, where the customer can get whichever engine they want, the choice has been overwhelmingly F110. Putting the F119 into the F-15 isn't really feasible. The changes to the engine and the aircraft would be too extensive and expensive, it would really screw up the logistics, the engine isn't even available yet, and we don't know how reliable it will be. There is a solution=, which looks like it might come to fruition. Although an F-15 was flown in the '80s with F-110s, this was done more for possible export sales, and USAF never qualified the F110 on the F-15 (even though later F-15 bays will accept either engine). However, USAF has recently decided to fund the remaining demonstrations to qualify the F110 on the F-15. Maybe Pratt will sit up and take notice again. > > >Q3: > >I've been hearing and seeing a lot of the X-33 recently, it appears that > > > > >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? > Originally, the F-22 was supposed to be built in a variable sweep version for the Navy as the NATF. Navy pulled out when its budgets started getting cut. Navy also realized that the US really needed was not a super ultra fighter with very limited attack capability, but a very good strike aircraft that only had to better than, not necessarily light years beyond other fighters in air-to-air. You could build the rest of the performance into the missile (this was to have been the AAAM). This was the A/FX (there was an F-22-based proposal for that, as well). Navalized F-15 would be better plane than F/A-18E/F, but an even better plane, less expensive and available sooner would have been simply to do minor modifications to the F-14D for all-weather strike. Also, USAF would not permit any further improvements to the F-15, lest they threaten funding for the F-22. > The Navy is committed to the F-18E/F Super Hornet to fill both missions, > until their > version of the JSF is delivered. > F/A-18E/F was imposed by DoD, and nothing until this past year has been allowed to threaten it. A/FX was abandoned to save Super Hornet, and the plan was to only buy enough JSFs to "complement" Hornet E/F. > >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. > AAAM would have been Phoenix replacement as well as doing most of AMRAAM mission. Could have been carried by F-14 (which it was designed around), F-15 and F-18. Super Hornet of 2003 will not be as good a fighter as F-14D of 1993 was. Less agile, slower, less range-payload, lesser avionics, fewer weapons in number and type. Hornet E/F will not be able to guide or even carry Phoenix. Will also not be as good a strike aircraft as modified F-14D. The word has come down from above: Any mission the Hornet E/F is not capable of performing will simply be abandoned by the Navy. > >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? > > > Something else to keep in mind: The ABL isn't covered by teh ABM treaty. > Besides, teh nation we signed the ABM treaty with (which they violated) no > longer exists! Art > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 98 05:52:29 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Black Colt To read the latest on this concept and its derivatives, the web site is www.rocketplane.com Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:57:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions > --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ > On 6/25/98 2:43PM, in message , Wayne Busse > wrote: > > > > > > > >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? > > > > They turn their transponer on, and they do mount the removable reflectors which > > are available for just this purpose > > > >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? > > > > > > The F100 has never been as reliable as was originally planned or as the Air > Force wanted. In fact, in its early years of service, it was derated from 25,000 > to 23,000 lbs. of thrust to get sufficient life and reliability out of the engine. > It wasn't until USAF started giving GE money to finish development of their > initially company funded F110 engine that Pratt really got on the ball. The GE > engine, in addition to being more powerful, was more reliable. Although Pratt > improved the F100, once the F110 was available somewhat more USAF F-16s were built > with F110s, even though DoD preferred that it would be 50/50. For export F-16s, > where the customer can get whichever engine they want, the choice has been > overwhelmingly F110. > > Putting the F119 into the F-15 isn't really feasible. The changes to the engine > and the aircraft would be too extensive and expensive, it would really screw up > the logistics, the engine isn't even available yet, and we don't know how reliable > it will be. > > There is a solution=, which looks like it might come to fruition. Although an > F-15 was flown in the '80s with F-110s, this was done more for possible export > sales, and USAF never qualified the F110 on the F-15 (even though later F-15 bays > will accept either engine). However, USAF has recently decided to fund the > remaining demonstrations to qualify the F110 on the F-15. Maybe Pratt will All right! Let's use the F110 then for all F-15's and F-16's. > sit up > and take notice again. If Pratt is unwilling or unable to stand behind their engines then perhaps we should stop buying engines from them. > > > > > >Q3: > > >I've been hearing and seeing a lot of the X-33 recently, it appears that > > > > > > > > >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? > > > > Originally, the F-22 was supposed to be built in a variable sweep version for > the Navy as the NATF. Navy pulled out when its budgets started getting cut. Navy > also realized that the US really needed was not a super ultra fighter with very > limited attack capability, but a very good strike aircraft that only had to better > than, not necessarily light years beyond other fighters in air-to-air. You could > build the rest of the performance into the missile (this was to have been the > AAAM). This was the A/FX (there was an F-22-based proposal for that, as well). > > Navalized F-15 would be better plane than F/A-18E/F, but an even better I think the USAF should keep the F-15 production line open and purchase additional F-15E's which may not be very stealthy but make great air superiority and heavy precision strike aircraft. The F-22 is an awesome air dominance fighter but has limited strike capabilities. The Navy should also seriously consider purchasing F-14D+ aircraft and a navalized F-15E and a navalized F-22. The F-22N would handle air dominance, the F-14D+ would handle ultra long range interdiction and strike and the F-15EN would complement the F-14D+ in both roles. Incidentally, the Navy desperately needs a new utility aircraft to replace the E-2A Hawkeye AWACS, the C-2A Greyhound Transport, the ES-3 Shadow ELINT/SIGINT/EW, the S-3B Vicking ASW, the KA-6 (tanker version of the A-6 intruder), and the EA-6B Prowler (EW version of the A-6 intruder). > plane, less expensive and available sooner would have been simply to do minor > modifications to the F-14D for all-weather strike. Also, USAF would not permit > any further improvements to the F-15, lest they threaten funding for the F-22. The Tomcat-21 proposal (improved F-14D) from North-Grum would have been a great F-14 replacement but apparently the Pentagon wanted to bury the program and scrap the planes. The way this is going for the Navy they might have to start selling all our carriers for scrap... since they don't have very many good planes left. > > > The Navy is committed to the F-18E/F Super Hornet to fill both missions, > > until their > > version of the JSF is delivered. > > > F/A-18E/F was imposed by DoD, and nothing until this past year has been > allowed to threaten it. A/FX was abandoned to save Super Hornet, and the plan was > to only buy enough JSFs to "complement" Hornet E/F. > > > >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. > > > > AAAM would have been Phoenix replacement as well as doing most of AMRAAM > mission. Could have been carried by F-14 (which it was designed around), F-15 and > F-18. Super Hornet of 2003 will not be as good a fighter as F-14D of 1993 was. > Less agile, slower, less range-payload, lesser avionics, fewer weapons in number Precisely! This is what I've been trying to tell everyone all along. If I remember correctly this is how the Super Hornet compares against the F-14D+/Tomcat-21 F-14D+ F-18E/F g load +9g -4g +7g -3g Speed Mach 2.5+ Mach 1.8+ Range 3,000+nm 1,400-nm AAM 12 8 ASM 10 4+ AGM 10+ 8 Payload 16,000+lbs 13,000lbs Radar AN/APG-71 AN/APG-73 RdrRange 300+nm 100+nm AIM-54C Phoenix YES NO Nuclear capable YES NO LANTIRN YES ? LaserDesignator YES ? Cost $40+mil $40+mil (officially $35+mil) > and type. Hornet E/F will not be able to guide or even carry Phoenix. Will also > not be as good a strike aircraft as modified F-14D. The word has come down I agree with you 100%. from > above: Any mission the Hornet E/F is not capable of performing will simply be > abandoned by the Navy. This is absurd! Are they brain-dead or what? The Navy seems to be losing most of it's best aircraft which are being replaced by less capable aircraft which are going to cost the taxpayer more. Does this make any sense? What will it take to get these people to wake up? WWIII? Every time we decide that we are safe and that no one is even capable of challenging us and we start cutting back on military spending, some dictator somewhere decides to start a war and millions of people have to die before we finally got around to winning the war. > > > >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? > > > > > > Something else to keep in mind: The ABL isn't covered by teh ABM treaty. > > Besides, teh nation we signed the ABM treaty with (which they violated) no > > longer exists! I hope you are right, but I think we are still bound by that treaty, or one of the treaties that succeeded it. According to AW&ST in an article about the ABL not too long ago we are only allowed to deploy the ABL to a single Air Force base in North Dakota, if I recall correctly. They also mentioned that we would not have sufficient coverage to protect all our territory from that location. > > > Art > > > > > > Thanks everyone, let's keep this up. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:35:17 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Off-topic questions >> >> 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. >> > >It wasn't ATC I was worried about; an enemy operative on the ground with the >right electronic equipment could also receive the transponder signals and >relay >that information to enemy forces so that they would know to expect us and >would >have time to set up a welcoming committee. It's much easier to sit at the end of the flightline at Holloman with binoculars, and that would tell you more :) > >I suspect you are absolutely correct. If the Aurora does in fact exist then it >would be "Twice the plane and" would have "twice the speed." of the SR-71A >Blackbird, but would probably cost considerably more than the SR-71. $ = (BlackBirdFlyawayCost/3.14)Mach^2 :) >Exactly the point I was trying to make. The Super Hornet lacks a powerful >radar. >If we could fit it with an AN/APG-70 or AN/APG-71 it might become an F-15E or >F-14D class fighter although, it would still lack their range and speed. Yes, but even the JSF has little or no sensor suite- it's all beamed into the cockpit by DBS (DirecTV for the warfighter!), with data supplied by either C3I aircraft or satellites. Nose radomes are so passe these days! It doesn't matter where the radar is anymore, you can guide an AMRAAM from an AWACs or a HARM from a Jumpseat, which lmits you pilot's exposure to the Evil Bad Guys with guns. If you really want standoff anit-air, go with an SA-5 fitted with those snazzy nuke warheads. Crude, but effective. > >> correctly the Phoenix production line is shut down. Sole source > >This was a mistake. > >> 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 :) > >That would not go over very well with our domestic missile manufacturers. So we let them set up the deal, and we buy through them. It happens all the time- ever hear the one about the Hughes exec in a 3rd world country who bought an AMRAAMski with his AmEx to bring back to the US? The Nellis range isn't all freebies from the Israelis :) Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Develop Your Software. The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D, interactive About Boxes. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the Mac OS. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:18:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Off-topic questions > >> 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. > >> > > > >It wasn't ATC I was worried about; an enemy operative on the ground with the > >right electronic equipment could also receive the transponder signals and > >relay > >that information to enemy forces so that they would know to expect us and > >would > >have time to set up a welcoming committee. > > It's much easier to sit at the end of the flightline at Holloman with > binoculars, and that would tell you more :) > USAF security forces are supposed to take care of that, after all they are the USAF equivalent of the Navy SEALs. No one allowed anywhere near the base for 200miles! Doesn't matter if there are civilians in the area we would just shoot them... -- Just kidding. > > > > >I suspect you are absolutely correct. If the Aurora does in fact exist then it > >would be "Twice the plane and" would have "twice the speed." of the SR-71A > >Blackbird, but would probably cost considerably more than the SR-71. > > $ = (BlackBirdFlyawayCost/3.14)Mach^2 > :) > :)) > > >Exactly the point I was trying to make. The Super Hornet lacks a powerful > >radar. > >If we could fit it with an AN/APG-70 or AN/APG-71 it might become an F-15E or > >F-14D class fighter although, it would still lack their range and speed. > > Yes, but even the JSF has little or no sensor suite- it's all beamed into > the cockpit by DBS (DirecTV for the warfighter!), with data supplied by Do you get Comedy Central with that? :)) > either C3I aircraft or satellites. Nose radomes are so passe these days! It > doesn't matter where the radar is anymore, you can guide an AMRAAM from an > AWACs or a HARM from a Jumpseat, which lmits you pilot's exposure to the > Evil Bad Guys with guns. > If you really want standoff anit-air, go with an SA-5 fitted with those > snazzy nuke warheads. Crude, but effective. Ah, well I was thinking of something which could "surgically remove" threat aircraft without destroying everything within a five gazillion mile radius. > > > > >> correctly the Phoenix production line is shut down. Sole source > > > >This was a mistake. > > > >> 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 :) > > > >That would not go over very well with our domestic missile manufacturers. > > So we let them set up the deal, and we buy through them. It happens all the > time- ever hear the one about the Hughes exec in a 3rd world country who > bought an AMRAAMski with his AmEx to bring back to the US? The Nellis range > isn't all freebies from the Israelis :) Say, where can I get me a few of these? > > Dan > > > > > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > Develop Your Software. > The software you were born with helps you outthink > Marketing (while making less money), induce > migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, > 3-D, interactive About Boxes. It deserves the > operating system designed to work with it: the Mac OS. > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:05:06 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: SR-71 & Line Item Veto Gee, now that the Supremes have declared the line item veto unconstitutional, does that mean the the USAF will 'unkill' the program that they killed illegaly? vis a vis the A-6/F-14 replacement questions: The F/A-18F will replace the F-14. However, the AIM-54 capability will die with the Tomcat. (Forget about F-22 and carrier ops/Phoenix--that won't happen.) The F/A-18 and F-14 BOTH have PGM capabilities. The F/A-18C/D (the A/Bs are pretty much out of the active inventory and have somewhat less capability) uses the AAS-38 'NightHawk' pod. Many F-14s are now capable of employing the AAQ-14 LANTIRN pod. Both pods have self lasing capabilities. Both aircraft are cleared to employ the GBU-10, GBU-12, and GBU-16 PAVE Way II LGBs as well as the GBU-24 PAVE Way III. The F/A-18C/D can also employ the Walleye, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-84E SLAM, and AGM-154A JSOW. The real limitation is not what they can do, but how far away from the boat (esp. the F/A-18) they can do it. (I'm sure Jim Stevenson will have something to add about this!) The F/A-18Es will eventually replace the F/A-18Cs, and at some point JSF will enter the mix. I'm too far down the food chain to know just what that mix will look like--but, from what I gather reading the press, it doesn't sound like the people making the decisions are quite sure themselves at this point... One more thing, the F-117 DOES have bolt-on external radar reflectors for peacetime ops. IFF is standard on all USAF aircraft, and, unless things have changed A LOT since 1991, NECESSARY for going to war. The civilian Mode III gets turned off in combat, but the military Mode IV is a go-no go item. It's always a good thing to let the Eagles and Tomcats know you're not a bad guy. Remember the UH-60s that got hosed by the Eagles over Iraq? They didn't have their Mode IV turned on... Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:44:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 betnal@ns.net wrote: > The F100 has never been as reliable as was originally planned or as the Air > Force wanted. In fact, in its early years of service, it was derated from 25,000 > to 23,000 lbs. of thrust to get sufficient life and reliability out of the engine. > It wasn't until USAF started giving GE money to finish development of their > initially company funded F110 engine that Pratt really got on the ball. The GE > engine, in addition to being more powerful, was more reliable. Although Pratt > improved the F100, once the F110 was available somewhat more USAF F-16s were built > with F110s, even though DoD preferred that it would be 50/50. For export F-16s, > where the customer can get whichever engine they want, the choice has been > overwhelmingly F110. > Hmmm... I though PW makes better engines than GE for fighter aircraft. A USAF pilots told me that the GE engines is less reliable than the PW (I don't know which model of engines he was talking about, but he flies F-16 and F-15), and everytime when a GE engines is damage beyond repair, they reemplace with a PW one. Also, GE engines need 15 min. to warn up before take off, but a PW engine can fly the aircraft inmediately. Maybe I am wrong. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > Incidentally, the Navy desperately needs a new utility aircraft to replace the > E-2A Hawkeye AWACS, the C-2A Greyhound Transport, the ES-3 Shadow > ELINT/SIGINT/EW, the S-3B Vicking ASW, the KA-6 (tanker version of the A-6 > intruder), and the EA-6B Prowler (EW version of the A-6 intruder). I know from Grumman (well... I don't know what I should call it now, Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin) in Long Island that they are working on Hawkeye 2000. For the rest of the aircrafts, I remember reading from AW&ST about several proposals of single frame to reemplace most of the aircrafts above. And yes, I am one of those whom hate the F-18E/F because they spend the same amount of money in Research and Development for F-18E/F compare with the YF-22. I wonder what will happen if goverment didn't kill the A-12 and the Navy now has a stealth strike aircraft and didn't waste millions of dollars in bunch of other projects to match their needs. Eventually, with more works, the A-12 price will get lower if they continue the funding. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:49:03 -0600 From: Brent Clark Subject: Somthings flying which can do Mach 6+ As a result of previous discussions on "security clearance" requirements for Air Traffic Controllers working "classified projects", I thought I would bring the subject up with a couple of controller friends. They work the Los Angles (Palmdale) and Salt Lake Centers. Both said that they we're briefed about some "unusual" things that they would see on their scopes and not to be concerned with it. They routinely worked Sr-71's when they we're flying missions as well as the ongoing U-2 flights. The Sr-71's once above FL 600 (60,000 feet) would turn off their transponders and proceed without further radio calls or ATC assistance. The U-2's, callsign "Pinion", still utilize their transponders while transiting US airspace above 60,000 feet however.. My friends said that they elect to do so because they are transonic and this gives controllers a "Tag" to see while the U2 transitions across their airspace. Leaving their Transponders on is not necessary until descending through 50,000 feet because they "own" the airspace above 60,00 feet, but the crews elect to do so. According to my friends, controllers are "cleared" to work "classified" flights. Of coarse they thought that the night flights originating out of Tonopah Test Range years ago we're A-7's instead of F-117's on night training flights. They still don't have a "need to know" about what type of aircraft they are tracking. Basically the aircraft is there doing its own thing. My friends did mention that they have seen some pretty "unusual" things on their scopes in the Edwards and Groom Lake complexes.. Things that they said are "unbelievable". Fast moving targets and ones with extremely high climb rates. One of the controllers said that they have a friend which is working on a new radar for the military at the Idaho Test Facility in the Arco desert in central Idaho. He says that they have tracked a " target" moving across the state of Idaho at speeds in excess of mach6+. The target was above 100,00 feet. They tracked it a couple of times a few months back. Interesting! Brent. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #34 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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