From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #36 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Sunday, July 5 1998 Volume 07 : Number 036 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Fw: Re: Super Hornet F/A-18E/F vs. F-14 Re: Super Hornet A-12 Video of crash in the desert Re: Video of crash in the desert Another "borrowed" article from AFNS VG Su-27 Re: Fw: Re: Super Hornet Questions Perseus & Theseus Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto Re:VG Su-27 Re: A-12 Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 02:24:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Super Hornet > Yes, that means that they are both large airplanes, the E/F is as >large as >an F-15E (and probably costs more). However, you don't get nearly the >plane you >get with an F-15E Yes, but you do get one that is carrier qualified, which does tend to get expensive all around. A minor point, but one worth considering. Makes ya wonder what happened to all that F-117X/N money went. But hey, we've got those nifty strategic bombers around, ones that you can't even know are coming, ones we spent a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$ on, and "don't have a real mission anymore". Then again, will we ever use them? Can we *risk* losing a B-2 to even a mechanical failure? > >> As for the AGM-54, what were the maximum number of targets engaged and >> actually >> downed beyond 50 miles? >> > The F-14D is a better fighter even without the AIM-54. In the Gulf >War, USAF >forbade the Navy from using use of the AIM-54. That was the only >opportunity to >use it in combat. Gulf of Sidra, 1986, 1988-89...... Of course, we've never fired an ICBM or SLBM in anger either, >and haven't fired a torpedo in anger since WWII. Officially :) I know a few glowing squids who snicker at such things. Maybe we should never have had a >nuclear deterrent or any submarines. Keep in mind also, that USAF is >trying to >increase AMRAAM's range beyond 50 miles. And the Navy is working on hypersonic airbreathing Standard replacements for several roles (including AA), with ranges over that of the Tomahawk ASM. And there was Have Dash and Have Dash II, which may or may not have produced flight articles, though definitely none in service..... And, well, there's always ABL :) > >Unfortunately, this may well be true, but no one has to like it. However, by >keeping this story out it helps to protect the skunky aircraft we really >need. If >it weren't for a lot of folks both within and without the Navy talking >about this, >the Navy JSF would probably already have been canceled in favor of more >Hornet >E/Fs. > With the F-18 orders USN has already put out, my bet's on anyone *not* working on the Hornet to get the Navy's vote for JSF. It'll always boil down to preseving the skilled aerospace workforce, even with todays aerospace supercorps. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ A weapon of mass creation. t h e L o f t Dan Zinngrabe http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 08:26:24 -0500 (EST) From: ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil Subject: F/A-18E/F vs. F-14 Art's comparison of Super Bug (F/A-18E/F) vs. Bombcat has a couple of minor errors. First, the E/F uses 480-gallon fuel tanks, not the 330s used by the C/D. Second, the F-14 hasn't been cleared to carry more than four Mk 83s at a time (parent carriage on 3/4/5/6). There has been talk, but no action, about hanging bombs from VERs (like those used by the F/A-18 for multiple weapon carriage). I'll stay out of the heart of the discussion about range, etc... The USAF didn't exactly FORBID the Navy from using the AIM-54 during the Gulf War. However the ROE for identifying BVR targets didn't favor its use. In the book 'Wings of Fury' (I think that is were I saw it) is a description of a four-ship of F-14s locked up and ready to fire Phoenix against a four-ship of MiG-21s. However, because of the BVR rules, they needed permission from AWACS to launch. By the time the inept controller got finished with his coffee, donuts, and paper, the situation had deteriorated and a launch was no longer possible--the MiGs escaped. Would have been eye watering though... In talking to the F-14 crews, they much prefer the Phoenix over their other BVR option, the AIM-7M, in virtually all cases. As for the max number launched successfully from one plane, that was six--once, during testing. Like most things, what's possible isn't the same as what's practical. Due to 'bring back' weight limitations, the F-14 during the Gulf War (and in pretty much any other pictures I've ever seen of it) flies with a 2+2+2 load of two-each Sidewinder, Sparrow, and Phoenix. There have been no US kills with Phoenix (or launches in anger for that matter), but I have seen an UNOFFICIAL report that the Iranians scored with it... By the way Art, I was kidding about the SR-71 and the line item veto! (Wish I wasn't.) Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:42:59 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: Super Hornet Thanks to Dan, James, Jay, Sam and Art: Sorry if my questions were dumb, but "I hadda know". Great data, makes the picture clearer. Looks like a compromised aircraft makes for a compromised mission. >Dan Zinnagrabe wrote: >Makes ya wonder what happened to all that F-117X/N money went. The Pentagon has been spending beaucoup bucks on warm and fuzzy since 1992, and it's still going. Here are just some of the airlifts: Provide Comfort in Iraq. Provide Promise in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Restore Hope in Somalia. Support Hope in Rawanda. Operations Safe Haven and Safe Passage in Panama. Uphold Democracy in Haiti. Vigilant Warrior (Kuwait). United Shield (Somalia). Support Hope (). Oklahoma Bombing Support. Environmental issues are on the front burner as well. Former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall said, "Readiness and stewardship are inseparable. ... We cannot, and must not, train in ways that harm rare plants and animals, or destroy sensitive ecosystems. Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Thomas D. White said, "The mission of the Department of Defense is more than just aircraft, guns and missiles. Part of the defense job is protecting the land, the water, timber and wildlife Rodney A. Coleman, assistant secretary of the Air Force said, "... Earth Day is not just a one-day affair. We do business this way every single day." To this tune the Air Force alone is spending billions per year out of an already shrinking budget. Now you know where their priorities are. Thanks, wayne Wayne Busse wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:29:51 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: A-12 I have several friends who worked on the A-12, both from the Mac end and the GD end. In fact, the Mac friend "disspeared" with his family for a year. I immediately guessed ATA (the A-12 back then), and in the limited conversations I had with him, he wouldn't say anything when challenged. He has since confirmed that he was on the joint Mac/GD preliminary design team, down in Texas. Yes, they moved his entire family (4 kids!) down there for a year and they lived covertly, taking all of their mail through a PO box and having their calls pre-screened. Everyone I have met who worked on it, said that it was screwed up from day one. The design was a "management decision" - just like the Thiokol clearance to launch Challenger. The grunt engineers knew better, but they were ignored. Instead, some big time "expert", who didn't have a clue as to how to do it, was allowed to design the airplane. I am told it deserved to die. The only thing the government screwed up on was how they canceled it.. BTW - one of these friends of mine saw the A-12 wind tunnel and RCS models in a junk yard a couple of years ago, in the DFW area. I begged him to go back and buy one of the models for me, but by the time he got around to it, the junkyard was gone. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:35:55 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Video of crash in the desert For a look at a 16 sec. video of something crashing spectacularly in the desert, take a look at http://www.cseti.org/crashes/164.htm I would be interested in any feedback, privately or otherwise. Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:32:49 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Video of crash in the desert At 09:35 AM 7/1/98 -0700, you wrote: >For a look at a 16 sec. video of something crashing spectacularly in the >desert, take a look at http://www.cseti.org/crashes/164.htm > >I would be interested in any feedback, privately or otherwise. > I agree with your conclusions that this was filmed by technicians who were there to do so as it was indeed a known event to them. No comments on your other points. I believe it was filmed at White Sands Missile Range. The area looks like it and WSMR tests there regularly using several film crews per test. I have no idea what the object is. But realize that WSMR conducts 4 or 5 tests per day including ground to air, ground to ground, air to air using flying targets. Highway 70 is a 4 lane freeway going across the range from Alamogordo to Los Cruces. It is shut down at various points on an average of twice a day while misssiles are launched that cross directly over the highway. If your lucky you can spot drone aircraft being intercepted by missiles over the range. My only point is the range itself is impacted daily, several times per day, by a wide assortment of hardware belonging to all the military services and numerous defense contractors both US and foreign. If you want, contact Det 1, 82nd Aerial Target Squadron at Holloman AFB and ask them for a copy of their video. Its an hour long compilation of their finest blow-ups and crashes involving missile intercepts. But why are we subjected to these continued implications of yet another ufo/alien craft making an appearance? I thought this subject was considered off limits for this news list??? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:55:07 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Another "borrowed" article from AFNS 980973. Second F-22 Raptor soars in first flight MARIETTA, Ga. (AFNS) -- The second Lockheed Martin-Boeing F-22 Raptor, the air dominance fighter being developed for the U.S. Air Force, flew for the first time June 29, 11 days ahead of schedule. F-22 Chief Test Pilot Paul Metz flew the aircraft from Dobbins Air Reserve Base here, lifting off the runway at 140 knots with the aircraft's two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines at military power (full power without afterburner). The Raptor flew to an altitude of 20,000 feet at speeds as high as 250 knots (280 mph). Flying chase in an F-16 aircraft for this first flight was Lt. Col. Steve Rainey. Rainey flew chase for the first flight of the first F-22 back on Sept 7, 1997 and was also the first Air Force pilot to fly the F-22. He made that flight on May 17 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Metz performed flying qualities maneuvers during the flight, including bank-to-bank rolls, flight at varied engine settings, and landing gear retraction and extension. He flew in formation with the chase F-16 and found the second Raptor was responsive and rock-solid. The flight lasted one hour and six minutes. "First flight of the second F-22 is testimony to the viability and vitality of this program," said Tom Burbage, F-22 Team Program Office general manager. "We worked hard to incorporate the lessons we learned on Raptor 01, and we succeeded. This airplane was brought to flight much more easily and efficiently than the first. We'll continue to learn and improve through the remaining seven engineering and manufacturing development aircraft as we prepare to enter production next year." The contractor team was able to substantially reduce the labor hours required to assemble the second F-22, and there were significantly fewer open items required to prepare the aircraft for flight after completion of final assembly. After a number of test flights from Marietta, the F-22 will fly to the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards. There, this second F-22 will join the first F-22 Raptor in flight tests. The F-22 is widely regarded as the most advanced fighter in the world, combining a revolutionary leap in technology and capability with reduced support requirements and maintenance costs. It will replace the aging F-15 as America's front-line air superiority fighter, with deliveries beginning in 2002. The F-22's combination of stealth, integrated avionics, maneuverability, and supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburner) will give Raptor pilots a "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" capability against enemy aircraft. The F-22 is designed to provide not just air superiority, but air dominance, winning quickly and decisively with few U.S. and allied casualties. The F-22 also has an inherent near-precision air-to-ground capability. (Courtesy of Air Combat Command New Service) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 17:54:17 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: VG Su-27 Hello all... I was looking through one of my old books, and it had a double-spread of what the Flanker was supposed to look like (completely wrong). It also showed a picture of the first satellite image of the Flanker the West could get their hands on. The comment under the picture said that the first prototype was a swing-wing -- and I must agree that's what it looks like. Does anyone know more about 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/index.html ICQ: 7413754 ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jul 98 17:17:24 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Super Hornet Lessee if I can handle all o' these at once... From Dan: >> However, you don't get nearly the >>plane you >>get with an F-15E >Yes, but you do get one that is carrier qualified, which does tend to get >expensive all around. A minor point, but one worth considering. >Makes ya wonder what happened to all that F-117X/N money went. But we already had a carrier qualified F-15E equivalent, the F-14D. The programming and minor cockpit and stores carriage modifications necessary would have cost 1/30th of what it cost to develop the E/F and would have been available years ago. My point was that we aren't getting that much for what we're paying. Regarding the F-117X (or N), that would have been a superior alternative to the E/F, and USAF was interested in acquiring it (if USN paid R&D). However, the Navy publicly stated in testitestimonyre Congress that it wasn't going to be pursued, not because it would be too expensive, not because it wouldn't be a better strike aircraft, not because it wasn't doable, but because developing it would interfere with buying the F/A-18E/F. This was an inadvertent tacit admission that the goal is not to get the best assets for the job or to perform the mission. The goal is to buy F/A-18E/Fs. Jim, You're right. USAF did not specifically forbid use of AIM-54. However, USAF, which specifically tasked all air (except for the Marines who used a loophole to get the job done right), restricted Navy fighters to strike escort and recon even after the Iraqii Air Force was negated. They were not allowed to go out on pure air-to-air missions. The two Hornet kills resulted from Iraqiis pressing an attack on a strike package. In fact, I think the mission you're talking about is that one. The F-14s, flying fighter escort, in question couldn't get radio contact with the Navy E-2s for permission, and under USAF's ROE they couldn't fire. An ironic note: Leading that Tomcat flight was Commander Brian Fitzpatrick, who in testimony before Congress right after he had been involved in flight testing and evaluating the F/A-18 for the Navy, recommended against acquiring the aircraft. BVR identification, I believe, was one of the excuses excuse USAF used to keep Navair out of the air to air business in that war. Of course, I'm prejudiced (really?), but BVR identification isn't a problem when you already know that everything coming the other way is enemy. An even more obvious example would be during the escape of Iraqii jets to Iran. I would think it would be a safe bet that aircraft tracked lifting off from an Iraqii airfield, flying with other Iraqii aircraft and headed on the same course to Iran that other Iraqii aircraft have flown were Iraqii. F-14s with AIM-54 could have picked off lots of them, but they weren't allowed to fly any of those missions. It's interesting to note that F-15s consistently somehow were allowed to do BVR shots, even though they lacked the F-14's TCS capability for identification. Regarding the F-14 2+2+2 loadout, that's usually optimum for the broad range of threats and conditions. One thing AIM-54 does impose is a weight penalty, so you don't want to be carrying a lot of them unless you expect to be encountering only bombers, cruise missiles or something you know can easily run away from you. Even then, F-14As can only trap with four Phoenix because of waveoff safety conditions. I understand that the B/Ds can come aboard with six. However, flying with six and two AIM-9s would be a very special mission anyway. Basically BARCAP against cruise missile armed bombers. It would not be the loadout I'd pick for going air-to-air with fighters (unless they were Iraqiis fleeing to Iran). This is getting kind of far afield from the goals of the skunk-works list. I would suggest that except for discussion on why the Hornet E/F will keep the USN from seriously getting into stealth or advanced concepts, we take any more of this over to the recently restored Aircraft list. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:05:39 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Questions Can anyone tell me about the AN/ALQ-184 towed ECM decoy slated for the U-2, B1B, F-15 and the (f/a-18e/f) ? Also do the words "Perseus" and "Theseus" mean anything to anyone? Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:35:39 EDT From: CatshotKim@aol.com Subject: Perseus & Theseus Perseus and Theseus are a pair of unpiloted aircraft being tested by NASA for use as sensor platforms. The following information explains them better than I could. It's from the Dryden Flight Research Center website. The "ERAST" program mentioned below is the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology program. The goal is development of long- duration, high-altitude RPVs that could be used for scientific research, communications relay or other civilian projects that require lengthy loiter time. Military recon is not included in the objectives. "At this time, four different vehicles have flown for the Perseus program. The first, a proof-of-concept vehicle to test basic design concepts, flew beginning in 1991. The Perseus A then made its maiden voyage Dec. 21, 1993. Two Perseus A aircraft were flown; AU002 and AU003. AUOO3 later suffered irrepairable damage in a crash November of 1994. The Perseus A had a very unique method of propulsion, known as a closed-loop engine system. This system operated by recycling the exhaust back through the engine after adding more fuel and oxygen from onboard tanks, thereby creating enough pressure to operate. The aircraft, designed to reach altitudes of up to 80,000 feet, didn't need to extract air from the thin upper-atmosphere like most aircraft to operate since it carried its own oxygen. The Perseus A also had a unique method of takeoff and landing. To make the aircraft as aerodynamic and lightweight as possible, designers gave it only two very small centerline wheels for landing. These wheels were very close to the fuselage, and therefore produced very little drag. However, since the fuselage sat so close to the ground, it was necessary to keep the large propeller at the rear of the aircraft locked in a horizontal position during takeoff. The aircraft was towed into the air, where the propellor was then released and the aircraft began flying under its own power. After the crash of AU003 in November of 1994, the second Perseus A went into storage and the B model, AU004, began research flights. The Perseus B, designed for slightly lower altitude flight, and built with a different, relatively more conventional engine and landing gear system, first flew October 7, 1994. Perseus B is a propulsion and performance testbed for the ERAST program. The aircraft is designed to operate in the 65,000-foot (20 kilometer) region and has a duration goal of 8 hours at that altitude. Perseus B's engine, which is double-turbocharged to offset the thin atmosphere, "breathes" air surrounding the vehicle. The aircraft also features tricycle-shaped landing gear, which allows the aircraft to sit higher off the ground than its predecessors. Perseus B will test engine concepts, lightweight structures, science payload integration and a fault-tolerant flight-control system. Perseus B's maiden flight occurred on Oct. 7, 1994." "Theseus was built for NASA under an innovative, $4.9 million fixed-price contract by Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, Manassas, Virginia, and its partners, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, and Fairmont State College, Fairmont, West Virginia. The twin-engine, unpiloted vehicle has a 140-foot wingspan, and is constructed largely from composite materials. Powered by two 80-horsepower, turbocharged piston engines that drive twin 9-foot diameter propellers, Theseus is designed to fly autonomously at high altitudes, with takeoff and landing under the active control of a ground-based pilot in a ground control station "cockpit." With the potential ability to carry 700 pounds of science instruments to altitudes above 60,000 feet for durations of greater than 24 hours, Theseus is intended to support research in areas such as stratospheric ozone depletion and the atmospheric effects of future high-speed civil transport aircraft engines. Instruments carried aboard Theseus also would be able to validate satellite-based global environmental change measurements made by NASA's planned Earth Observing System. " ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jul 98 04:21:59 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto Don't count on it, USAF and the UAV crowd will do Anything to keep the SR down. > Date: 07/01/1998 > USA - SR-71 MAY BE REACTIVATED (JUL 01/AWST) > > AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY -- (JUN 29) -- The SR-71 > Blackbird may be reactivated following last week's US > Supreme Court ruling, 6-3, against the President's line > item veto authority. The Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft > was killed by the veto last year, angering some lawmakers > and military officials. > > > Congress had authorized and appropriated $39 million this > year to operate the aircraft, and now the search will begin > to see what the Air Force has done with the money. The > SR-71's penetrating reconnaissance role was to be taken > over by drones, but those programs are many years behind > schedule. President Clinton vetoed the Blackbird last fall > on grounds there was no military requirement for it, > against a backdrop of long-standing Air Force opposition > tot he program. In total, e vetoed 13 military programs > worth a combined total of $144 million, including $37.5 > million for the Army's kinetic kill anti-satellite > interceptor and $30 million for the Clementine 2 asteroid > interceptor. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:40:26 EDT From: CatshotKim@aol.com Subject: Re:VG Su-27 I checked my copy of "Soviet X-Planes" by Yefim Gordon and Bill Sweetman. The section on Su-27 prototypes and experimental variants makes no mention of tests involving a swing-wing design. Kim Keller ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 08:55:42 -0700 From: G&G Subject: Re: A-12 David Lednicer wrote: > > ...The grunt engineers knew better, but they were ignored.... I've heard much the same from several I knew on the program. > BTW - one of these friends of mine saw the A-12 wind tunnel > and RCS models in a junk yard a couple of years ago, in the DFW area. > I begged him to go back and buy one of the models for me, but by the > time he got around to it, the junkyard was gone. The wind tunnel models and the full scale mockup have been acquired by a group called (I believe) "Aviation Heritage of Texas". They are also the group organizing the construction of a new aviation museum at Alliance Airport north of Ft. Worth TX. The museum will display the A-12 models as well as a B-36 being restored at GD/LMTAS. For pictures of the full scale mockup, see: http://www.cyberramp.net/~habu/avenger2.htm There is a link to Tom Naylor's site with pix of the wind tunnel models. Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 13:48:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto > Don't count on it, USAF and the UAV crowd will do Anything to keep the SR > down. The UAV crowd I can understand. Why is the USAF so opposed to the SR-71A Blackbird? I believe they said it was too expensive to keep active, but I suspect this was just an excuse to kill the program. Is there a reason they wanted to chop the planes to pieces this time around to make sure the venerable Blackbird did not make it back into service? Even if we have a far more capable aircraft already in service to replace the Blackbird there are many reasons to keep the SR active. One reason would be to discourage our enemies from trying to pull a stunt similar to the one India pulled recently. Another has to do with the capabilities of our reconnaissance platforms and the equipment they carry -- we can share intelligence collected by the SR with friends and foes (as we have been doing, according to "Wings" on the Discovery Channel, since the Yom Kippur War of 1973-1974 with the Israelis, the Egyptians and the Syrians under a UN mandate) and we wouldn't have to worry about revealing the capabilities of our top secret platforms, since just about everyone knows about the SR and its capabilities (at least the declassified ones). The rest of the reasons to put the SR back into service are, of course, classified :). > > > > Date: 07/01/1998 > > USA - SR-71 MAY BE REACTIVATED (JUL 01/AWST) > > > > AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY -- (JUN 29) -- The SR-71 > > Blackbird may be reactivated following last week's US > > Supreme Court ruling, 6-3, against the President's line > > item veto authority. The Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft > > was killed by the veto last year, angering some lawmakers > > and military officials. > > > > > > Congress had authorized and appropriated $39 million this > > year to operate the aircraft, and now the search will begin > > to see what the Air Force has done with the money. The > > SR-71's penetrating reconnaissance role was to be taken > > over by drones, but those programs are many years behind > > schedule. President Clinton vetoed the Blackbird last fall They are behind schedule and much less capable than the SR. > > on grounds there was no military requirement for it, > > against a backdrop of long-standing Air Force opposition > > tot he program. In total, e vetoed 13 military programs > > worth a combined total of $144 million, including $37.5 > > million for the Army's kinetic kill anti-satellite > > interceptor and $30 million for the Clementine 2 asteroid > > interceptor. We need both of these systems quite badly. Planetary defense is quite important, let's not forget what happened to the dinosaurs 70 million years ago... We don't need a statistician to tell us what this means -- it HAS BEEN 70million years!!! We also require a system capable of blinding the enemy by destroying their surveilance and communications satellites. Naturally, after the war, we could charge them a few billion dollars to put replacements of the satellites we destroyed in orbit :)). > > Sam ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #36 ******************************** 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