From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #54 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 Wednesday, August 26 1998 Volume 07 : Number 054 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Aerosonde Re: Radar Tracking Stealth Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Recon asset mix Re: Recon asset mix Re: Recon asset mix Re: Recon asset mix Re: Recon asset mix Re: Recon asset mix That's how to get rid of those terrorists - scary democratic thou ght process !!!! Re: Recon asset mix [none] Re: Recon asset mix RE: Recon asset mix - Sigh *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:30:13 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Aerosonde August 24th, 1998 Aerosonde has become the first unmanned aircraft to cross the Atlantic. The aircraft, named Laima ,flew over 3200 kilometres from Bell Island Airstrip, St. John's, Newfoundland to South Uist Island, Outer Hebrides, Scotland. The Aerosonde crew in Scotland made contact with the aircraft offshore and took manual control when it came into visual range, making a safe landing shortly after. The 29 pound, 10 foot wingspan aircraft flew across the Atlantic on less than two gallons of aviation fuel, and was out of radio contact except for launch and recovery. The aircraft left Bell Island, at around 10 UTC on Friday. It moved out of radio contact at 10:37 UTC and conducted a specified flight plan entirely on its own until it arrived off Benbecula, coming back into contact at around 1230 UTC on Saturday. It is believed to be the longest continuous flight time, roughly 26 hours, for an Atlantic crossing attempt. Three aircraft started, one crashed on takeoff because of a software failure, and one aircraft was lost somewhere in the North Atlantic. The Aerosonde is a miniature robotic aircraft for long-range environmental monitoring. It has been developed specifically for meteorological and environmental reconnaissance over oceanic and remote areas, for which its economy will allow routine operations on a much wider scale than has been affordable in the past. It has the potential to fill gaps in the global upper-air sounding network, and to conduct systematic surveillance of tropical cyclones and other severe weather. It can also be adapted to other applications requiring lightweight payloads; one example is geomagnetic survey. Aerosonde development has been underway since 1992. To date the developers have built and demonstrated the components necessary for long-range autonomous operations. Phase I Aerosondes were given their full operational trial by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in early 1998 and passed all objectives. In addition, several missions have been conducted in Australia, Taiwan, Canada and the United States, including flights of over 30 hours and 5 km altitude, and completely autonomous missions including takeoff and landing. The development target is for the Aerosonde to extend this range to 7000km, up to 5 days and 14 km altitude (Phase II Aerosonde). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:38:11 +0100 From: Steven Barber Subject: Re: Radar Tracking Stealth And if you were concerned about people using such weapons to attack you without warning or knowing where they came from, wouldn't your first line of defence be to leak information saying that you could now detect such weapons, regardless of whether you could or not? Martin Hurst wrote: > 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. > ------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:45:33 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage At 10:20 AM 8/25/98 -0400, Martin Hurst quoted: >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" Martin Hurst wrote: >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? > > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Martin- The DarkStar was designed per DARPA specs to fly at +45,000 feet. I think we will see that Lockheed/Boeing will be able to deliver that performance. The article you quoted from according to the way I read it implies that a future requirement of DARPA may be a UAV capable of twice that altitude. This would only be accomplished by the design of a completely new aircraft. To imply Lockheed is slipping because the DarkStar doesen't meet a new changed requirement is not a logical assessment of the DarkStar program nor of its manufacturers. The complete Av Week article: 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. Many insiders foresee the appearance of a compromise aircraft that would offer some stealth and an air-refueling capability for multi-day operations. This UAV wouldn't have to be as stealthy as DarkStar, but it would have to carry a payload comparable to Global Hawk. Built by Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, Global Hawk has a defensive system that includes towed decoys. It will fly at 65,000 ft. and bank 15 deg.--which is "very effective against a missile at high altitude," the USAF official said. Instead of trying to build larger UAVs to house more equipment for much-desired multispectral sensing, the Air Force's emphasis will shift to miniaturizing payloads. Even after many airborne radar programs migrate from aircraft to space, 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. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Martin Hurst wrote: > 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. Haven't seen a UAV doing air-refueling yet. Anyone know how it is done? What type of guiden system they use? > Has Lockheed lost its superior technological touch, of "quickly, > quietly, and within budget"? Well, we have to wait a while to know if Skunk Works lost the touch... Today, we have news of non-classified projects only... Maybe all the "quickly, quietly, and within budget" projects are all black. But I know that Skunk Works changed a lot since the days of Kelly and Rich. 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: Wed, 26 Aug 98 03:23:43 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Keep in mind that both of these programs are vastly over R&D budget, are years behind schedule and haven't flown much. In order to keep the flyaway costs within promises, it is rumored that the capabilities of both aircraft have been reduced. If Darkstar goes away it's not because Lockheed isn't competent. No doubt both UAV camps are lobbying to get the business of the other, and the Global Hawk group has more pull. Also, by canceling one of them (if it happens) that restructures the other program to "pick up the slack". This delays the program so that really big money and decisions don't have to be dealt with until after th 2000 elections. Remember, since 1993, virtually all large military programs have been restructured to this kind of timeline. As for Hawk survivability; 15 whole degrees of bank! Wow! That'll certainly be of a lot of use against a missile that can make 25g turns. That's one of the ironies of these two programs. You really can't use Hawk over defended airspace, and you really can't use Darkstar except when you're actually at war (a stealthy UAV at 45,000 feet is an air traffic hazard). Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 03:37:10 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Recon asset mix The current world situation gives a good idea of how a mix of assets are necessary to give us the whole picture and how we're giving that up. Secretary of Defense Cohen publicly stated that they had to wait days for weather to clear before satellites could provide information on whether the missile strikes worked. This is another indication that there probably ins't a SR-71 replacement around. If there was, they could have used it and made the assessments without disclosing what information they had and how they got it. The UAVs are years from being operational, and they probably couldn't be used in this situation anyway. Global Hawk would take too long to get there, and Darkstar couldn't fly far enough to do the job without being based close enough to the target areas. Since it's doubtful that we could have gotten basing or overflight rights in the area (the reason why once again USAF wasn't in a position to be a player) we couldn't have used them anyway. Moving the UAVs and their control gear to the area would have tipped our hand anyway. In addition, this kind of requirement wouldn't need their excellent loiter characteristics. If there wasn't so much gamesmanship going on, and SR-71 could have gone in right behind the missiles, gotten all the information needed (including whether a second strike was needed), and in a few minutes the data would have been anywhere desired worldwide. [sigh] Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:51:49 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Recon asset mix >The current world situation gives a good idea of how a mix of assets are >necessary >to give us the whole picture and how we're giving that up. > > >Secretary of Defense Cohen publicly stated that they had to wait days for >weather >to clear before satellites could provide information on whether the missile >strikes worked. This is another indication that there probably ins't a SR-71 >replacement around. If there was, they could have used it and made the >assessments without disclosing what information they had and how they got >it. As we saw in the last round of Tomahawk and ALCM strikes in Iraq, satellites and high altitude a/c aren't well suited to doing BDA for these particular kinds of surgical strikes. In Iraq, the two different types of munitions used (bomblets and conventional HE warheads) produced conflicting BDA reports. IMINT guys said things wre dead, while the Lacrosse type assest said that it was merely a flesh wound (to quote monty python). Neither assest produced any conclusive data, and having both added to the chaos. Why they aren't putting video datalinks on the last few Tom's to go in is beyond me. A low, kinda slow pass is exactly what's required, though it would be even better to use something like a Chukar after the smoke clears. > >The UAVs are years from being operational, and they probably couldn't be >used in >this situation anyway. Global Hawk would take too long to get there, and >Darkstar >couldn't fly far enough to do the job without being based close enough to the >target areas. Since it's doubtful that we could have gotten basing or >overflight >rights in the area (the reason why once again USAF wasn't in a position to >be a >player) we couldn't have used them anyway. Moving the UAVs and their >control gear >to the area would have tipped our hand anyway. In addition, this kind of >requirement wouldn't need their excellent loiter characteristics. One of the reasons LockMart etc. are pitching ideas for "airborne carriers" that arethe whole UAV/UCAV package- C3I, tanker, ground crews, etc. An airborne base of sorts. > >If there wasn't so much gamesmanship going on, and SR-71 could have gone >in right >behind the missiles, gotten all the information needed (including whether >a second >strike was needed), and in a few minutes the data would have been anywhere >desired >worldwide. Still, a man on the ground beats two at 45,000' any day. The nature of the targets, the ordinance used, the timing, and other things make you wonder if there was someone down there with a radio and a GPS receiver in the days before collecting data and sending in those final waypoints for the missiles. "That's the trouble with terrorists- they have no respect for people's schedules" Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ As the Lighthouse keeper climbed the stairs, the keeper knew that future generations would benefit from today's work. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 04:23:06 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Recon asset mix On 8/25/98 8:51PM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > > > > > > As we saw in the last round of Tomahawk and ALCM strikes in Iraq, > satellites and high altitude a/c aren't well suited to doing BDA for these > particular kinds of surgical strikes. In Iraq, the two different types of > munitions used (bomblets and conventional HE warheads) produced conflicting > BDA reports. IMINT guys said things wre dead, while the Lacrosse type > assest said that it was merely a flesh wound (to quote monty python). > Neither assest produced any conclusive data, and having both added to the > chaos. > We didn't have the SR-71 then, either. Its sensors would be able to do this job, but it wasn't there. > Why they aren't putting video datalinks on the last few Tom's to go in is > beyond me. A low, kinda slow pass is exactly what's required, though it > would be even better to use something like a Chukar after the smoke clears. > Tomahawks aren't that versatile (can't fly that profile and are not controllable in flight), we don't have enough to spare and the field of view would be too narrow, I guess. > > > > > > One of the reasons LockMart etc. are pitching ideas for "airborne carriers" > that arethe whole UAV/UCAV package- C3I, tanker, ground crews, etc. An > airborne base of sorts. > Wasn't one of the justifications for these things was that they were supposed to be cheap? > > > > > Still, a man on the ground beats two at 45,000' any day. Amen! Apparently we did have folks on the ground before hand, but naturally had to pull them out prior to the strike. > The nature of the targets, the ordinance used, the timing, and other things > make you wonder if there was someone down there with a radio and a GPS > receiver in the days before collecting data and sending in those final > waypoints for the missiles. Tomahawks are wonderful, but they aren't that smart yet. Once they're gone, they don't get updated. The technology to do that would be very new (and expensive) and we aren't buying many new Tomahawks any more. > "That's the trouble with terrorists- they have no respect for people's > schedules" > Dan > No cooperation at all. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:37:36 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Recon asset mix The Navy recently did complete some tests where a sub launched cruise missile did a photo pass with a r/t data link to a satellite and then came back for its coup de grace. Took place at China Lake. Maybe it would be handy to reconfigure a cruise missle into a recon mission. After several passes it could self destruct. Evidently the bad guys have recovered an intact cruise missile that didn't go boom. Reminds me of the V-2 rocket that landed in Poland during WW2. The locals rolled it into a river to hide it until the Allies could fly in with a DC-3 several days later to fly it back to London. I would think we know where the bad guys live in Afghanistan. Ask the CIA who helped set up the camps to train the Mujahadeen. Once again we shoot ourselves in the foot. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:29:43 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Recon asset mix >The Navy recently did complete some tests where a sub launched cruise >missile did a photo pass with a r/t data link to a satellite and then came >back for its coup de grace. Took place at China Lake. > >Maybe it would be handy to reconfigure a cruise missle into a recon >mission. After several passes it could self destruct. Rumor has it that there was a Recce Tomahawk test program in the late '80s and a limited production run resulted in fewer than 20 being produced, with equal numbers at Seal Beach and New London (or was it Norfolk?) in storage. The only time I'd ever heard of them outside of aero-geek circles was while talking to someone doing things in Bosnia in the '93-'94 timeframe. > >Evidently the bad guys have recovered an intact cruise missile that didn't >go boom. that happened on one of the Iraq stikes as well- some genius at DMA or wherever decided to route a bunch of the vampires through Iran, one came down, and it was on the Iranian news pretty much intact. Reminds me of the V-2 rocket that landed in Poland during WW2. >The locals rolled it into a river to hide it until the Allies could fly in >with a DC-3 several days later to fly it back to London. > >I would think we know where the bad guys live in Afghanistan. Ask the CIA >who helped set up the camps to train the Mujahadeen. Once again we shoot >ourselves in the foot. But we don't know who's there, when, where in the camp to hit, etc. Numbers only tell you so much, HUMINT is much more valuable. sure, fiding the camps is easy, but you can't find out who's a bad guy, which bad it is, etc. etc. from an overhead. Besides that, Mujahadjeem were rarely trained in camps- we went to them. They are more or less nomads, after all- which proved to be a deciding factor in that war. We also funded Saddam for quite a while. During the Gulf War it was determined that he was a legitimate military target- that going after him would *not* be assassination, which would violate Exec. Order 12333. There were a number of plans set up to take him out, but gee, we didn't know where he was and when he was there. Now, if one of his bodyguards was on our payroll, or better yet, his personal assistant..... One less dictator aspiring to be a Major Attack Option in our SIOP. I can't wait to hear what Greenpeace has to say about the US burning tons and tons of toxic substances in the Sudan. 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: Wed, 26 Aug 98 08:53:39 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: Recon asset mix Can't any of these UAV's operate off of a carrier? This might seem like a stupid question, but wouldn't that allow them to be close enough that they could follow the missles in? Or maybe even be launched first and be loitering when the attack occurs? ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Recon asset mix Author: at INTERNET Date: 8/26/98 3:37 AM The current world situation gives a good idea of how a mix of assets are necessary to give us the whole picture and how we're giving that up. Secretary of Defense Cohen publicly stated that they had to wait days for weather to clear before satellites could provide information on whether the missile strikes worked. This is another indication that there probably ins't a SR-71 replacement around. If there was, they could have used it and made the assessments without disclosing what information they had and how they got it. The UAVs are years from being operational, and they probably couldn't be used in this situation anyway. Global Hawk would take too long to get there, and Darkstar couldn't fly far enough to do the job without being based close enough to the target areas. Since it's doubtful that we could have gotten basing or overflight rights in the area (the reason why once again USAF wasn't in a position to be a player) we couldn't have used them anyway. Moving the UAVs and their control gear to the area would have tipped our hand anyway. In addition, this kind of requirement wouldn't need their excellent loiter characteristics. If there wasn't so much gamesmanship going on, and SR-71 could have gone in right behind the missiles, gotten all the information needed (including whether a second strike was needed), and in a few minutes the data would have been anywhere desired worldwide. [sigh] Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:06:55 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: That's how to get rid of those terrorists - scary democratic thou ght process !!!! Maybe a little off topic, but you can have all the best high tech intel-recon in the whole world, But it all boils do to "manned" informants, operatives, etc. to get the real intelligence to make planned specific attacks against each and every terrorist- not mass bombing runs, that wastes a lot tax payer's money AND still does NOT deal with the real issue - and that's killing the actual terrorist himself !!!! so he can't do it again. The following: That's how to get rid of those terrorists - scary measures for a so-called democratic society. - --------------------------------------------------- http://newsworld.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/go.pl?1998/08/25/blair980825a.html Harry Forrestall reports for CBC TV Britain draws up new anti-terrorism laws Posted Aug 25, 1998 08:48 PM EDT ... Britain ... crack down on guerrilla groups in Northern Ireland. ... Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the new anti-terrorism proposals... Blair calls the steps "draconian." ...People can be convicted on the word of one police officer, suspects who refuse to answer questions will be assumed guilty, and phone taps will be admitted as evidence... Sinn Fein ... says the laws could be abused by Protestant-dominated police forces. [I would say so !!!!] - -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 06:07:09 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Recon asset mix At 01:29 AM 8/26/98 -0700, Dan wrote: >We also funded Saddam for quite a while. During the Gulf War it was >determined that he was a legitimate military target- that going after him >would *not* be assassination, which would violate Exec. Order 12333. There >were a number of plans set up to take him out, but gee, we didn't know >where he was and when he was there...... In lamenting how difficult it was to "hit" a single person with a cruise missile an AF official mentioned the failed strikes on Khaddfy's tent living quarters and the 9 missions hurriedly scrambled when they thought they had a good location on Saddam during the Gulf War. Maybe this is one of those laws that gets suspended during wartime. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:19:00 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: [none] Martin Hurst wrote: 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 lost that miracle touch. Could it be that they have become human like the rest of the aerospace industry? ======================== Kelly Johnson hisself wrote: "There is a tendency today toward design by committee; reviews and recommendations, conferences and consultations, by those not directly doing the job. Nothing very stupid will result, but nothing brilliant either. It is in the brilliant concept that major advances are made." Perhaps the Skunk Works has fallen into this mode. Or perhaps, as someone else suggested, SW is still performing as efficiently as always, but out of the public eye (as usual). Do I recall someone here recently saying that the parking lot at SW is much too full to support the known contracts they're working on? Tom _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:23:11 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Recon asset mix Art wrote: [sigh] I couldn't agree more... Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:47:32 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Recon asset mix - Sigh Sssssssiggggghhhhh - me three \:-( They have the SR-71 bought and paid for which can do stuff (rain or shine, nigh or day) that [ironically] they can't seem to duplicate now in the nineties with present operational platforms - errrrrrggggg !!! Just venting ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom C Robison [SMTP:tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 9:23 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Recon asset mix > > Art wrote: > > [sigh] > > I couldn't agree more... > > Tom > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #54 ******************************** 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