From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #53
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      Tuesday, August 25 1998      Volume 07 : Number 053



     Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???
Re: Global Hawk - SR-71 in a fraction of time
Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ...
Re: Globalhawk
Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???
Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon.
Re: F-117 static display
Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon.
Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ...
ER-2
Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???
More Greenamyer
DET4-645MC-WPAFB
Re: DET4-645MC-WPAFB
Re: ER-2
Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???
Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ...
Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon.
Re: ER-2
UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage
Radar Tracking Stealth
***************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 19:12:09 -0700
From: patrick <patrick@e-z.net>
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???

At 08:02 PM 8/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
>David wrote:
>
>> Taking the Skunk Works as just one example, the folks there haven't been
>> playing cards or resting on their laurels since the F-117s were built.
Sure
>> they've been upgrading TRs and some will have been working on X-33, could
>> some have been working on next generation a/c ? - you can bet on it :)
>
> Well one of their current programs is "updating" A-4 Skyhawks for the
> Argentines.  Basically an avionics update, with an export version of the
> APG-66 and the F-16's MMC.  I think they inherited the program when LM
> closed the Ontario facility, I'd hardly call it "skunky"...
>
>	Greg Fieser

I think the Skunk Works gets handed several projects which are easy for
them due to their style.  Not necessarily secret but for small one time
projects they are set up for economic reasons to do them efficiently for
the company.  

I wish I could take a monthly tour of the RCS ranges at WSMR.  They are
also working on state of the future art flying machines.

patrick cullumber.
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 02:20:31 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Global Hawk - SR-71 in a fraction of time

On 8/20/98 6:29AM, in message <199808201329.OAA22464@ukcs1>, Steven Barber 
<s.barber@xpedite.co.uk> wrote:

> I  feel I'm responding to a troll but ...
> Our beloved Blackbird may be able to cover the ground in a fraction of the time 
> taken by Global Hawk but surely the Hawk is designed to loiter over the target 
> and provide continous real-time covert intelligence (sorry, that should read 
> 'data' <grin>), something that is impossible for the Blackbird.  They might not 
> be able to shoot an SR71 down but, by God, they know when one is up there!
> 
> Steve
> 
> ~
> 


Steve,

     It is true that Global Hawk will loiter.  It will have to, given how slow it 
flies.  It is designed for a somewhat different purpose than the Blackbird.  The 
point I was actually alluding to is that discussions of range of Global Hawk (such 
as flying across the Atlantic) aren't really relevant.  Its "range" is more for 
how long it can stay over a target area.  It will be good for looking at a fairly 
small area for a long time.  I brought in the SR because often it's brought up how 
much area can be imaged due to its endurance.  I wanted to show, though, that if 
you use the range to describe a large area (which means you're not looking at a 
particular point), there are better and probably cheaper ways to do it. 

     One other note:  Global Hawk is not covert.  That's Darkstar.  Enemies will 
know it's up there.  Global Hawk is counting on its altitude to help it survive.  
Problem is, that altitude is within the range of SAMs and fighters.  We won't be 
able to use Global Hawk in an area where we can't use U-2s.  In fact, that may be 
one of the reasons it looks like the U-2 is going to be retained instead of phased 
out.  The U-2 (and SR-71) can carry more and better sensors than Global Hawk. 


                                        Art  

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 02:23:04 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ...

Actually, billing back on the SR has been proposed any number of times.  There 
have also been proposals to treat the SR as a national asset that would not be 
controlled by any particular service.  USAF has opposed all those, because they 
would then no longer control the asset.  It's more or less similar to their 
traditional view on Close Air Support:  They aren't particular y interested in the 
mission, but by God the Army's not going to do it instead of them!


Regarding being a very expensive duplicate of other assets, remember the SR is not 
all that expensive.  For example, you can run the program for an entire year for 
less than it cost to send Clinton to China.  The other thing to keep in mind is 
that if these other assets existed, there would be indications of their products, 
even if no one knew where they were coming from.  


                                        Art

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 02:31:49 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Globalhawk

Eric, 

     Your points are well-taken.  SR proponents don't see the two products as 
being competitive, although many UAV supporters act as if they are.  Regarding 
weather, one of the technological advances of Global Hawk over previous 
generations is that it's not going to be in constant control of ground stations as 
the older RPVs were.  Given the aircraft's slow flight time, unexpected weather is 
going to pop up over ocean.  Extensive weather monitoring will have to be in place 
throughout the route.   Also, given the need to have ground stations in place and 
fully up (and so far there aren't plans to buy enough ground stations that we'll 
be able to operate G. Hawks worldwide unless we disassemble ground stations 
elsewhere), it would make more sense just to fly the whole thing over in a C-5.  
Faster and safer.  


                                   Art


                              Art

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 19:35:07 -0700
From: patrick <patrick@e-z.net>
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???

At 02:02 AM 8/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
>I work in the engineering development field, and we too are currently 
>in a state of lack of work, but it appears that our storm is about to
>break out, company has placed ads for 350 engineers, to replace those
>that retired and left when the slack period started over 2 years ago.
>during the slack time we took in any work we could get, even if it was 
>outside our normal field of expertese, just to keep the skills up.
>we are still short our goal by 80 engineers.  it takes time to get
>and train good help to meet the design cycles.
>and it really hurts when when you can,t get up to speed because you let
>your staff leave or get out of practice.
>
>
>
>Good point John.  Some companies take in work at cost or even below cost
during slow economic times.  First off they must be able to as surely the
LADC is being smaller and autonomous.  It has many advantages such as
retaining key people who might find work elsewhere during a layoff.  Key
could mean all your hi tech welders or LO engineers that would be difficult
to replace for whatever reason.  It provides security and establishes
confidence and long term relationships in keeping all employees.  And most
importantly ramp up time to production is minimal which would be
advantageous in earlier contract delivery dates versus a competitor.  

patrick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 02:46:21 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon.

One note that might prove interesting;  In discussions I've had with Lockheed and 
other folks, almost universally they state that if they were building an aircraft 
today to do the SR mission, it would probably be unmanned.  The thing is, the SRs 
are already paid for, and it's hard to compete with that.


                              Art

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:19:00 EDT
From: Xelex@aol.com
Subject: Re: F-117 static display

The amount of security on F-117A static displays varies.  Sometimes single
ropes, sometimes double.  The Van Nuys, CA airshow usually has one.  Sometimes
they set up a workstand behind it, so photographers can get a good view of the
exhaust "platypus" section.

Peter W. Merlin

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:57:56
From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David)
Subject: Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon.

Art writes:
 
>One note that might prove interesting;  In discussions I've had with Lockheed and 
>other folks, almost universally they state that if they were building an aircraft 
>today to do the SR mission, it would probably be unmanned.  The thing is, the SRs 
>are already paid for, and it's hard to compete with that.

I've had similar conversations, but I still find it hard to accept given
the progress of UAVs. I just don't see them being able to perform the SRs'
missions for quite some time, though there's clearly been a paradigm shift
at the DoD in favour of removing pilots from the 'loop' for a variety of
missions including recon.

To replace the SR, wouldn't a UAV need to:

Fly as high/ higher (no UAV that I know of does that. Even the GH is
'only' around 65k is it not ?)

Fly as fast/faster ( again I'm not aware of one and it would need to
operate a high altitude). 

Be very stealthy like DS. (though it's altitude of around 45k would still
make it vulnerable during daytime missions).

I've no doubt that UAVs and UCAVs will become major players in the future,
but in the meantime a manned LO recon. platform seems the most obvious
application of the technology. The move from a two place SR to a UAV seems
like there's a evolutionary link missing, as if we've skipped a chaptert.
Perhaps an optionally manned a/c. 

David

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:17:52
From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David)
Subject: Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ...

Art writes:
 
>Actually, billing back on the SR has been proposed any number of times.  There 
>have also been proposals to treat the SR as a national asset that would not be 
>controlled by any particular service. 

Makes perfect sense. Why have uniquely capable a/c in museums when they
could be doing what they were designed for and there was still a
pressing need for the data they can supply ? 

>........ USAF has opposed all those, because they would then no longer
>control the asset. 

But surely, they don't want it anyway and the acquisition of strategic
recon. should be more important to the US (and its allies) than the
feelings or internal politics of any one agency, even one as important as
the USAF. 


>......The other thing to keep in mind is that if these other assets
>existed, there would be indications of their products, even if no one knew
where they were coming from. 

Point taken. But for the sake of argument; if high altitude recon. imagery
etc. is ascribed to a known asset, if there anything that would
intrinsically show that the intel. was gathered from a classified system.

I wonder if any A-12 data was ever ascribed to a U-2 ?

Again, I'm not suggesting that a 'black' recon. a/c exists, I'm just
trying to get a feel for why LO would not be applied to recon. when it's 
applied to fighters, bombers and missiles.

David

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:41:19 -0500
From: "Tom C Robison" <tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com>
Subject: ER-2

Just learned that a NASA ER-2 is flying recon of Hurricane Bonnie,
overflying at 65K.

Does anyone here know what sensors the ER-2 carries? I assume it has more
than
cameras.

Tom
_________________________________________________
Tom Robison
tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:18:46 -0600
From: Brad Hitch <hitch@tda.com>
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???

patrick wrote:
> 
> At 02:02 AM 8/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
> >I work in the engineering development field, and we too are currently
> >in a state of lack of work, but it appears that our storm is about to
> >break out, company has placed ads for 350 engineers, to replace those
> >that retired and left when the slack period started over 2 years ago.
> >during the slack time we took in any work we could get, even if it was
> >outside our normal field of expertese, just to keep the skills up.
> >we are still short our goal by 80 engineers.  it takes time to get
> >and train good help to meet the design cycles.
> >and it really hurts when when you can,t get up to speed because you let
> >your staff leave or get out of practice.
> >
> >
> >
> >Good point John.  Some companies take in work at cost or even below cost
> during slow economic times.  First off they must be able to as surely the
> LADC is being smaller and autonomous.  It has many advantages such as
> retaining key people who might find work elsewhere during a layoff.  Key
> could mean all your hi tech welders or LO engineers that would be difficult
> to replace for whatever reason.  It provides security and establishes
> confidence and long term relationships in keeping all employees.  And most
> importantly ramp up time to production is minimal which would be
> advantageous in earlier contract delivery dates versus a competitor.
> 
> patrick

In a perfect world.  Unfortunately, in many large companies the
accountant-types run the show and are only interested in getting their
year-end bonuses - to hell with actually accomplishing something.  To
these people "long term" means quarterly profits.  GE Aircraft Engines
laid off half their engineering workforce in the downturn around 1992 at
the behest of Jack Welch.  Many more left on their own after the first
couple of layoffs, so many in fact that at least one planned layoff
ended up being cancelled.  Head count was reduced across the board even
in areas that already had too much work and not enough qualified people
to do it.  The people who make these decisions are usually "Fast Track"
types who won't be around for the repurcussions.  If this description
matches your management, be warned.  They actually decided they had
mistakenly laid some people off and asked them to come back - some did,
but how hard would you work after you had just been emphatically told
you were expendable?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lednicer <dave@amiwest.com>
Subject: More Greenamyer

> Is this the same F-104 which was co-operated by Ed Browning of Idaho
> Falls Idaho? 

	Ed was Greenamyer's sponsor, hence the -104 had "Red Baron" on the
side in Gold Leaf (not paint!).

> I know that he had Greenamayer do some flying with his race
> planes at Reno.

	Darryl flew the RB-51 at Reno and won (in 1978?).  Mac Maclain had
been pilot, but he was dying of cancer, so Darryl filled in.  Steve Hinton
took over the next year.

> Ed also owned the Red Baron P-51 Mustang which was unique in that it
> was fitted with an Griffin engine-counter rotating  propeller. The P-51
> was once the fastest piston engine driven airplane in the world until is
> was lost in an air race accident  at the Reno Air Races.

	This is not the only P-51 that has been reengined with a Griffon.
There is one down in Florida, owned by World Jet (the guy's name escapes
me at the second) and now Bill Rodgers has one.  Bill's is sponsored by
Garry Levitz and is named Miss Ashley II.  I should note that Bill's
fuselage was built up from scratch, using the drawings available from the
National Air & Space Museum!  Bill's airplane has Learjet 23 wings and
horizontal tail.

	The RB-51 was lost at Reno (in 1979?) when Steve Hinton had the
supercharger gears let loose on the last lap.  The prop went to flat pitch
and he went down in Lemmon Valley.  Luck was on his side and he managed to
survive the crash.  Just previous to this, Steve had broken the prop speed
record, flying up at Tonopah.  His speed was 499 mph and Shelton broke the
record with Rare Bear about ten years later.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:21:22 -0500
From: Wayne Busse <wings@sky.net>
Subject: DET4-645MC-WPAFB

AFESC has turned out some interesting variants of the
RC-135, including the OC-135 Open Skies.

Here are (2)  -135 variants...

ARIA
http://www.sky.net/~wings/aria.jpg
Big Crow
http://www.sky.net/~wings/bigcrow.jpg

....and here is an EC-141.
http://www.sky.net/~wings/ec141.jpg

Other projects that may be attributed to Det 4, but unsubstantiated.

COBRA BALL
COBRA EYE
COBRA TALON
PACER COIN



Wayne Busse
http://www.sky.net/~wings
wings@sky.net

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:23:44 -0700
From: patrick <patrick@e-z.net>
Subject: Re: DET4-645MC-WPAFB

At 04:21 PM 8/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
>AFESC has turned out some interesting variants of the
>RC-135, including the OC-135 Open Skies.
>
>Here are (2)  -135 variants...
>
>ARIA
>http://www.sky.net/~wings/aria.jpg
>Big Crow
>http://www.sky.net/~wings/bigcrow.jpg
>
>....and here is an EC-141.
>http://www.sky.net/~wings/ec141.jpg
>
>Other projects that may be attributed to Det 4, but unsubstantiated.
>
>COBRA BALL
>COBRA EYE
>COBRA TALON
>PACER COIN
>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That 141 is sporting a 70's vintage paint job!  

We have the best source of info on these aircraft in good old Dr. Bob who
lurks on this frequency.  You might give him a call if you want more
specifics on the Cobra programs.  (Or go buy his book!)

patrick cullumber

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 20:55:24 -0300
From: "Kim Keller" <kekeller@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: ER-2

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BDCFA1.83F074A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I watched the NASA ER-2 take off yesterday (Sunday) from Patrick AFB, =
followed by the NASA DC-8. The ER-2 is equipped with a doppler radar. =
The a/c flew over Hurricane Bonnie at 65000 and used the radar to map =
the winds while the DC-8 flew into the storm at 35000 with a load of =
scientists and their toys.

The ER-2 made a wonderful noise during takeoff/climbout!

Kim

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BDCFA1.83F074A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I watched the NASA ER-2 take off =
yesterday=20
(Sunday) from Patrick AFB, followed by the NASA DC-8. The ER-2 is =
equipped with=20
a doppler radar. The a/c flew over Hurricane Bonnie at 65000 and used =
the radar=20
to map the winds while the DC-8 flew into the storm at 35000 with a load =
of=20
scientists and their toys.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>The ER-2 made a wonderful noise =
during=20
takeoff/climbout!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Kim</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BDCFA1.83F074A0--

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:57:28 +0000
From: John Szalay <john.szalay@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???

At 10:18 AM 8/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
>patrick wrote:
>> 
>> At 02:02 AM 8/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
>> >I work in the engineering development field, and we too are currently
>> >in a state of lack of work, but it appears that our storm is about to
>> >
>In a perfect world.  Unfortunately, in many large companies the
>accountant-types run the show and are only interested in getting their
>year-end bonuses - to hell with actually accomplishing something.  To
>these people "long term" means quarterly profits.  GE Aircraft Engines
>laid off half their engineering workforce in the downturn around 1992 at
>the behest of Jack Welch.  Many more left on their own after the first
>couple of layoffs, so many in fact that at least one planned layoff
>ended up being cancelled.  Head count was reduced across the board even
>in areas that already had too much work and not enough qualified people
>to do it.  The people who make these decisions are usually "Fast Track"
>types who won't be around for the repurcussions.  If this description
>matches your management, be warned.  They actually decided they had
>mistakenly laid some people off and asked them to come back - some did,
>but how hard would you work after you had just been emphatically told
>you were expendable?
>

 Yep  Same company, same CEO  same BAD management decsions.
sure wish they would teach how to make GOOD decisions in school.
Glad to see someone else has seen the "Fast Track"  view.

I keep a framed copy of the WSJ article on "our" $400 Million "management
decision" on how NOT to run a business, on the wall above my desk.
Every time a fast track type attempts to "push" a project thru
the system, I point the WSJ out,  it does not make a difference, 
but it makes me feel better, if nothing else..

 So, if taking in "un-Skunky" work helps to keep the Skunk Works stay
in the running and up to speed, I say  more power to them...

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 04:56:50 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Just Think, SR-71 Costs Paid for by who uses it ...

On 8/24/98 3:17AM, in message <2119@writer.win-uk.net>, David 
<win@writer.win-uk.net> wrote:

> Art writes:
>  
> 
> Makes perfect sense. Why have uniquely capable a/c in museums when they
> could be doing what they were designed for and there was still a
> pressing need for the data they can supply ? 
> 

Amen!
> >........ USAF has opposed all those, because they would then no longer
> >control the asset. 
> 
> But surely, they don't want it anyway and the acquisition of strategic
> recon. should be more important to the US (and its allies) than the
> feelings or internal politics of any one agency, even one as important as
> the USAF. 
> 
     One point for clarity:  The SR is equally capable in tactical or strategic 
recon roles.  In fact, in some ways it's even better in tactical.  

     Regarding your observation of "...more important to the US (and its allies) 
than the feelings or internal policies...".  You're right.  That's the way it 
should be;  But in the real world, politics and bureaucratic power plays often run 
everything.  Face saving is very important.  This isn't unique to the US.  With no 
slight intended, let me give you an example from the UK.  Next time you see a 
Harrier GR5 or 7, look at the fuselage gun pods (if they're carried).  You'll see 
that they're either faired over or only one pod has an opening.  [This info is now 
two years old, but I don't think it's changed]  Now, the British specified gun's 
barrel would actually stick out of the pod and would be clearly visible, yet you 
won't see it.  Why?  Because the gun doesn't work!  What's the obvious solution?  
Mount the same cannon the USMC uses on the AV-8B.  It's not done.  The official 
reason is that the British gun is more versatile.  It is, except for the drawback 
that it doesn't work on the Harrier.  Rather than lose face, advanced Harriers are 
simply denied any gun at all.  

     Same principle on the SR-71:  "We don't want it, but dammit, no one else is 
going to have it either".  Of course "competing" programs also play a part.  

> 
> 
> 
> Point taken. But for the sake of argument; if high altitude recon. imagery
> etc. is ascribed to a known asset, if there anything that would
> intrinsically show that the intel. was gathered from a classified system.
> 

     Valid agrement.  The thing is, the data from the field seems to indicate that 
data of this type in the kind of scenarios where an SR (or a black successor) 
would be used isn't showing up at all.  As late as Jan '98, three months after the 
veto, there were still inquiries on the availability of the SR-71 specifically.   

> 
> 
> Again, I'm not suggesting that a 'black' recon. a/c exists, I'm just
> trying to get a feel for why LO would not be applied to recon. when it's 
> applied to fighters, bombers and missiles.
> 

     LO absolutely would be applied to recon, it would be a valuable capability, 
when used with passive sensors.  However, LO precludes the use of certain sensors, 
and does impose penalties in performance and response time.  The SR is part of a 
mix, it does things nothing else can, by virtue of its speed, range and altitude.  
Other requirements generate other capabilities, better performed by other systems. 
 The thing is, those other systems are years from being deployable and what do we 
do in the meantime?  Even when they're here, what do we do in situations when we 
can't wait 30 hours to find out where the tanks are?

               Art

> 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 04:59:50 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon.

On 8/24/98 2:57AM, in message <2118@writer.win-uk.net>, David 
<win@writer.win-uk.net> wrote:

> To replace the SR, wouldn't a UAV need to:
> 
> Fly as high/ higher (no UAV that I know of does that. Even the GH is
> 'only' around 65k is it not ?)
> 
> Fly as fast/faster ( again I'm not aware of one and it would need to
> operate a high altitude). 
> 
> Be very stealthy like DS. (though it's altitude of around 45k would still
> make it vulnerable during daytime missions).
> 
> 

     What they were talking about was a high speed recon vehicle.  They said that 
technology now is to the point where they would use a UAV, but in the '50s the 
technology wasn't there.  Remember, if you fly high and fast enough and have good 
ECM, LO isn't as important.  The targets often know the SR is up there, there's 
just nothing they can do about it, and there isn't time enough to hide.  


                    Art

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wei-Jen Su <wsu@cco.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: ER-2

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Kim Keller wrote:

> 
> The ER-2 made a wonderful noise during takeoff/climbout!
> 

	But nothing compare with the sound of a P-51 Mustang full power
flying at tree level 50 ft. in front of you!! Really wonderfull engine...
They nickname "Cadillac of the sky", I will say is more like a "Ferrari of
the sky" because of the sound :) Just imagine how the allies troops feel
when one of those Mustang come to rescue during the WWII :) (like in
Saving Private Ryan or The Empire of the Sun).

					May the Force be with you

					Wei-Jen Su
					E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu

"Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life."
								Confucius 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:20:41 -0400
From: Martin Hurst <mhurst@voice-tel.com>
Subject: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage

A updates from AW&ST:
http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_wash.htm
"Pressure to cut military high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle programs
from two to one will continue to grow, according to a senior Air Force
official. Lockheed Martin's stealthy DarkStar has a disadvantage because
its top altitude of 45,000 ft. will be "only about half as high as it
needs to be," he said. "
Also, "UAVs will continue to be the platform of choice for detailed
analyses through multispectral sensing; they can get closer to targets
and observe them longer"
It appears that DarkStar may not be shaping up to be the UAV it was
expected to be. The article goes on to state that comprise UAV's may be
created that will not carry as much sophisticated sensory payload, but
achieve a higher altitude and able to do air-refueling for multi-day
operations.
Has Lockheed lost its superior technological touch, of "quickly,
quietly, and within budget"?
Back in the days of Kelly/Rich and company, they achieved impossible
techno miracles and breakthroughs. 
Now a-days it seems that Lockheed has last that miracle touch. 
Could it be that they have become human like the rest of the aerospace
industry?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:58:46 -0400
From: Martin Hurst <mhurst@voice-tel.com>
Subject: Radar Tracking Stealth

FYI - I guess it was just a matter of time when even stealth wouldn't be
enough to defend ourselves, and to attack the enemy.
From: AW&ST Aug 24,1998
partial quote:
- -------------------
Secret Upgrades Target
Stealthy Cruise Missiles 
With low-observable cruise missiles due on world market soon, U.S. must
mount a defense against stealth weapons 
After scrambling for the last several years, the U.S. Air Force has now
pieced together a system to locate and shoot down stealthy cruise
missiles. 
It is based on a series of upgrades to the E-3 AWACS and E-8 Joint-STARS
aircraft and the AIM-120 Amraam air-to-air missile. 
Since the Persian Gulf war, allied intelligence analysts have contended
that countries searching for an affordable weapon to exploit chinks in
U.S. defenses will turn to stealthy cruise missiles which are far
cheaper and technically less complicated than strike aircraft or
ballistic missiles. 
The search for an antidote to cruise missile attacks began in 1992-93,
in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war, when a classified document
began circulating in the Pentagon predicting the appearance of stealthy
cruise missile technology on the international market by 2005.
- ------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of skunk-works-digest V7 #53
********************************

    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