From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #75 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, November 18 1998 Volume 07 : Number 075 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: SR-71 Production Resumed not quite LADC, nevertheless... Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... RE: SR-71 Production Resumed Re: F117 used for recon? Re: NASA SR-71 RE: SR-71 Production Resumed Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... RE: F117 used for recon? RE: F117 used for recon? RE: SR-71 Production Resumed Re: F117 used for recon? Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... Re: F117 used for recon? Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX RE: F117 used for recon? RE: not quite LADC, nevertheless... *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:29:25 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: SR-71 Production Resumed - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE122E.4CAAA540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey stop playing with my emotions !!! That's a real sore point with me, and no doubt with many others. \:-| As far as I'm concerned, there is only one such designation for the SR-71 Blackbird, and only one, and that's at Mach 3.2 ... ... faster than a speeding bullet ... - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE122E.4CAAA540 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhsSAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE0AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQBTTVRQAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEu Y29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAYAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4 MS5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAGgAAACdza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNv bScAAAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlNLVU5LLVdPUktTQE5FVFdSWDEuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAA CwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADATsBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90 ZQAxCAEEgAEAHQAAAFJFOiBTUi03MSBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIFJlc3VtZWQAZwkBBYADAA4AAADOBwsA EQANAB0AGQACADYBASCAAwAOAAAAzgcLABEADQAVABQAAgApAQEJgAEAIQAAADcwQTA5RTdERUI3 REQyMTE5NkEyNDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAO8GAQOQBgD4AgAAEgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkA AAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AMCRGDRYEr4BHgBwAAEAAAAdAAAAUkU6IFNSLTcxIFByb2R1Y3Rpb24g UmVzdW1lZAAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvhJYNA99nqBxfesR0paiREVTVAAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUA AABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFgAAAG1hcnRpbmhAaXgubmV0Y29tLmNvbQAAAAMABhCWIbsWAwAH EMkAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABIRVlTVE9QUExBWUlOR1dJVEhNWUVNT1RJT05TVEhBVFNBUkVBTFNP UkVQT0lOVFdJVEhNRSxBTkROT0RPVUJUV0lUSE1BTllPVEhFUlM6LUFTRkFSQVNJTUNPTkNFUk5F RCxUAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAcgEAAG4BAAAyAgAATFpGdSfrrR7/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNo CsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoEN sQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRQQvxIEhleSATwG+UcCALUXkLgGcgA/AwdGggbRrQE+BvdLZpAiAEICEc 0AqFVBGA5HQnBCBhIBYQB0Aa4HUFsGUbMG8LgAVAG8RlAiwd0G5kIG5vIHpkCGBiHuYAcBrQHGBo GQSQcy4KhQqGXDotqnwhfEEEIGYKwWEEIJBJJ20gBaBuYwSRPwmAH3AhEh6ABAAg8G5sdyDhJMAa 4HURcB/wB5Bp/GduHZAcgSOgBbEhEQYAQFItNzEgQgtgY/hrYmkLIB90JaYfdBvgmx2UBUBNANAb 8DMuEeD+LisgIXwrISOhE8EnYgORKR3gc3AJ4GQbgmJ1vGxsEcArHyHWFTEAMBAAAAMAEBAAAAAA AwAREAMAAABAAAcwgN/hElcSvgFAAAgwgN/hElcSvgEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAAAHW/ - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE122E.4CAAA540-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:16:58 -0800 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: not quite LADC, nevertheless... Anyone aware of an "advanced remotely piloted vehicle airframe" developed at Lockheed Missiles and Space in the mid '70's? The responsibility for the design and development of this aircraft are listed on the resume of the Senior Design Engineer who held that position from 4/'74 to 11/'78. That's all it says though; anyone know what it is? Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:19:01 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... > Anyone aware of an "advanced remotely piloted vehicle airframe" > developed at Lockheed Missiles and Space in the mid '70's? The > responsibility for the design and development of this aircraft are > listed on the resume of the Senior Design Engineer who held that > position from 4/'74 to 11/'78. That's all it says though; anyone know > what it is? > > Ryan It could be related to the Q-Star, which was one of their primary RPV-related focus areas (that's in the public domain, of course!) during that time period. Then again, RPVs were hot for a while, you never know what might have gotten $$$ that we don't know about, the line between RPV and standoff missile was blurry back then, etc. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ lead, follow, or get out of the way. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:31:36 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: RE: SR-71 Production Resumed On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Martin Hurst wrote: > > As far as I'm concerned, there is only one such designation for the SR-71 Blackbird, and only one, and that's at Mach 3.2 ... > Well, as Mr. Robert Gilliant (first to fly the SR-71) said: "the maximun cruising speed that I can mention is Mach 3.2" The speech of Mr. Gilliant was one of the coolest lecture that I have ever been. Making a lot of jokes during his time in Skunk Works and working with Kelly Johnson. As you know, the first fly of the SR-71 was in Dec. 22 1964, and Mr. Gilliant asked to Kelly if they can delay the first fly after X-mas. And Kelly yell: "NO!" as typicall of him Another joke he told us is what Ben Rich once said: "Why they call missiles? Because they miss" (refering about SR-71 overfly in enemies territory). When someone asked how many SR-71 have been crashed. He said that the total number is still classified, but there was a lot. Mostly by pilot error. I just wonder how many SR-71 they built... Well... this is some of the cool things that Mr. Gilliand tell us... The best thing is I got an autograph from him :) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "The only people who never fail are those who never try." Og Mandino ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:09:39 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? At 01:09 PM 11/17/98 -0000, you wrote: >I read on the milnet website, that the F117 is used for overhead-recon, >using its stealth properties to get to places others can't. Anyone else >heard anything about this? > >Gavin > > >Haven't read the article but will offer my two bits......Anything is possible. Any plane can do many things if necessary. The IRADS system is sometimes used for viewing runways and taxiways at night time while crossing an airfield at night moving from the hangar to the runway. Althought they aren't suppose to. Hell, they look at women sunbathing at White Sands National Monument located on the edge of Holloman AFB. But to fly a highly valued asset into harm's way when it really isn't equipped to do any serious monitoring is doubtful. They prize the F-117 as a unique and valuable weapons platform and are hardly going to look for doubtful missions for this airplane. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 01:04:04 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: NASA SR-71 >Presently we have mounted a scale model of the AeroSpike ( X33 access to space vehicle engine ) rocket engine on the top of the SR71 This project is now cancelled. The hot firing has been delayed for a very long time, and was impacting the X-33 flight schedule. Lockheed feels confident that the X-33 can safely fly without the data that would have been provided by the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE). NASA 844 has been the only flying SR-71A since the Air Force Blackbirds stopped operating. The SR-71B is in storage, drained of fuel, and missing some parts. There is no funding at NASA Dryden to fly the SR-71 in FY99. There are some projects in the works for 2000, but what will happen in the meantime? Will we still have anyone qualified to fly and maintain a Blackbird by then? Peter Merlin NASA Dryden History Office ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 98 06:27:40 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: SR-71 Production Resumed On 11/17/98 10:29AM, in message <01BE122E.4CA17D80@clv-oh43-38.ix.netcom.com>, Martin Hurst wrote: > > As far as I'm concerned, there is only one such designation for the SR-71 > Blackbird, and only one, and that's at Mach 3.2 ... > > ... faster than a speeding bullet ... > I believe that when you convert max lbs. of thrust to horsepower you'll find it's also more powerful than a locomotive. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 98 06:28:41 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... I beleive Q-Star was manned. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 98 06:36:50 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? On 11/17/98 10:19AM, in message <01BE122D.0A318B80@clv-oh43-38.ix.netcom.com>, Martin Hurst wrote: > That was one of my sugestions a while ago on this list. > The only limitation that it might have, is that it has a small gas tank, and > probably couldn't loiter for 8 hours at a time, like Darkstar is supposed to be > able to do, and could only be used at nighttime with no full moon in the night > sky. > This would probably make the F117 an multi-purpose assest to the AirForce, > or will the AirForce consider the F117 getting to old as well and decide to > retire it !?!?! > (...who mentioned the SR-7, not I,...) > > U ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 98 06:40:55 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? On 11/17/98 10:19AM, in message <01BE122D.0A318B80@clv-oh43-38.ix.netcom.com>, Martin Hurst wrote: > That was one of my sugestions a while ago on this list. > The only limitation that it might have, is that it has a small gas tank, and > probably couldn't loiter for 8 hours at a time, like Darkstar is supposed to be > able to do, and could only be used at nighttime with no full moon in the night > sky. > This would probably make the F117 an multi-purpose assest to the AirForce, > or will the AirForce consider the F117 getting to old as well and decide to > retire it !?!?! > (...who mentioned the SR-7, not I,...) > > > USAF has already indicated that it will probably retire F-117 in favor of a strike version of F-22, assuming such a version gets funded. This isn't as crazy as it sounds. F-117's truly remarkable characteristic is its stealth, which in theory the F-22 will match with an internal load. Take away its stealth, and the F-117 is not that impressive a strike aircraft, and an F-22 derivative would be more versatile. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 98 06:44:49 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: SR-71 Production Resumed On 11/17/98 7:31PM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > When someone asked how many SR-71 have been crashed. He said that > the total number is still classified, but there was a lot. Mostly by pilot > error. I just wonder how many SR-71 they built... > Well... this is some of the cool things that Mr. Gilliand tell > us... The best thing is I got an autograph from him :) > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > There are a number of excellent sites, including John Stone's and www.habu.org, that will tell you how many SRs were built and how many crashed. I suspect that one of the reasons that this info is now available is that it's kinda contradictory for USAF to say on the one hand that the SR is not needed and not all that impressive and on the other hand keep information like this classified. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:42:19 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? >patrick writes: >But to fly a highly valued asset into harm's way when it really isn't >equipped to do any serious monitoring is doubtful. They prize the F-117 as >a unique and valuable weapons platform and are hardly going to look for >doubtful missions for this airplane. Ah come on Patrick, why not accept that a classified LO recon a/c exists :) Harm like Stealth is a relative term. There are plenty of a/c equipped with sensor payloads for the run-of-the-mill recon. sorties. A stealthy recon. a/c will be tasked only when its needed. If Powers' slow moving U-2 could be downed in 1960, why not almost forty years later ? The modern U-2 is clearly a more advanced design, but then so are SAMs etc. I've clearly missed a page or two ! Best wishes David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:13:27 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Ryan Kirk wrote: >Anyone aware of an "advanced remotely piloted vehicle airframe" >developed at Lockheed Missiles and Space in the mid '70's? The >responsibility for the design and development of this aircraft are >listed on the resume of the Senior Design Engineer who held that >position from 4/'74 to 11/'78. That's all it says though; anyone know >what it is? LMSC (Lockheed Missiles & Space Company) built quite a few RPVs/UAVs in the 1970s, but the Q-Star/Quiet Star/PRICE CREW/YO-3A series of aircraft were all manned. LMSC first built the company funded Tuboomer, also known as RTV-1 and RTV-2, which flew in 1972/1973, and led to contracts under the FASTAR (Family of Army Surveillance and Target Acquisition Requirements) and RPAODS (Remotely Piloted Aerial Observer and Designator System) for the US Army and finally the USAF HAV (Harassment Air Vehicle) or LCEHV (Low-Cost Expendable Harassment Vehicle) project. This was followed by the USAF/DARPA Aequare project in mid-1975, which flew in 1978. Another company funded project of 1976 was the RSVP (Rotating Surveillance Vehicle Platform), an egg-shaped helicopter-like UAV. The most successful UAV from LMSC was the US Army sponsored MQM-105A Aquila, of which at least 30 XMQM-105A and YMQM-105A test vehicles were procured. It was ultimately way to complex and expensive, and therefore finally cancelled in the late 1980s, after an exhaustive test program lasting nearly a decade. A low-cost version of the Aquila, known as Altair, was also unsuccessful. If I would have to guess, he most likely worked on the Aquila. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:47:57 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... > Anyone aware of an "advanced remotely piloted vehicle airframe" > developed at Lockheed Missiles and Space in the mid '70's? The > responsibility for the design and development of this aircraft are > listed on the resume of the Senior Design Engineer who held that > position from 4/'74 to 11/'78. That's all it says though; anyone know > what it is? Can you say Aquila???? Thought you could... :) Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:57:29 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: not quite LADC, nevertheless... Welcome back, Andreas! Your presence has been missed on the list for the last few months... hope all is well. This is the Aquila RPV I referenced in the previous post. I worked on the Aquila simulator back in the early '80s. IIRC the whole program died of *massive* gold-plating... Greg Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > The most successful UAV from LMSC was the US Army sponsored MQM-105A Aquila, > of which at least 30 XMQM-105A and YMQM-105A test vehicles were procured. It > was ultimately way to complex and expensive, and therefore finally cancelled > in the late 1980s, after an exhaustive test program lasting nearly a decade. > > -- Andreas %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 06:59:44 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? At 09:42 AM 11/18/98, David wrote: >>patrick writes: > >>But to fly a highly valued asset into harm's way when it really isn't >>equipped to do any serious monitoring is doubtful. They prize the F-117 as >>a unique and valuable weapons platform and are hardly going to look for >>doubtful missions for this airplane. > >Ah come on Patrick, why not accept that a classified LO recon a/c exists :) > >Harm like Stealth is a relative term. There are plenty of a/c equipped with >sensor payloads for the run-of-the-mill recon. sorties. A stealthy recon. >a/c will be tasked only when its needed. > David, we have been down this road before. You insist that a classified LO recon a/c exists and I concur that it is certainly possible. I would love to see or know that the AF has such an aircraft. But it is still my belief that it probably isn't going to be an F-117. Anything is possible so to speak including my being wrong. But from my studies of the program as an outsider I have never seen any evidence of this airplane being used as anything but a weapons platform. The F-117 was designed to drop bombs on high valued targets and is able to do so under very harmful conditions. In my humble opinion it is what the they train to do and is their sole mission. All Lockheed's efforts and the AF's appear to go into refining this mission only. They never built this plane in a large enough quantity to allow for other variations. This isn't an A-6 or F-111 program. I think the AF would love to have a 2 seat trainer converted from an existing airframe but they just can't spare one of the existing planes for a conversion. They have reconfigured the 49th FW into two squadrons. Each squadron is now required to do its own training. The 9th FS is assigned any duty to the east and the 8th FS has responsibility for duty to the west. There aren't any planes left over for much else. The lone exception is the 837 aircraft which is assigned to Det 1, 79 TEG (out of Eglin AFB) at Holloman. They are responsible for all flight testing of weapons system done at WSMR. Now if someone has evidence to the contrary I would be the first to want to see it. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:28:21 -0500 From: "Kim Keller" Subject: Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE12DE.2A9685E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks to computer problems, I just caught up on the list after a week = in limbo. I read about the C-17 showing up the day after the unusual = light display. I live near Patrick AFB, which sees a lot of C-17 = traffic. I have seen Globemasters fly over my house at night, with their = landing lights on, and they don't appear much different from any other = large aircraft.=20 Don't know what was seen down there, but it wasn't a C-17. Regards, Kim=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE12DE.2A9685E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks to computer problems, I just = caught up on=20 the list after a week in limbo. I read about the C-17 showing up the day = after=20 the unusual light display. I live  near Patrick AFB, which sees a = lot of=20 C-17 traffic. I have seen Globemasters fly over my house at night, with = their=20 landing lights on, and they don't appear much different from any other = large=20 aircraft. 
 
Don't know what was seen down there, = but it=20 wasn't a C-17.
 
Regards,
 
Kim 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE12DE.2A9685E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:44:56 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE12E2.1C551740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable - ------------ Art Wrote: theory the F-22 will match with an internal load. Take away its = stealth, and the F-117 is not that impressive a strike aircraft, and an F-22 derivative = would be more versatile. - -------------------- Yeah but at what cost. If the F-22 does make it to production and = operational status, it may be considered too expensive to used at the = risk of loosing it, albeit shot down, captured, etc.. This would then limit the F-22 usefulness in the AirForce's mind and = strategy, fearing this and not using it in heavily defended attacks, = recon, etc. I believe the B-2 Bomber because its high price tag has the same limited = use imposed on it. Whereas the Comeezes made their fighter aircraft with not as much high = tech as the U.S. ones, and therefore the risk and cost of loss duration = war is greatly reduce (from their point of view and military strategy). - -Martin - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE12E2.1C551740 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiQPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE0AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQBTTVRQAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEu Y29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAYAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4 MS5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAGgAAACdza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNv bScAAAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlNLVU5LLVdPUktTQE5FVFdSWDEuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAA CwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADATsBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90 ZQAxCAEEgAEAGQAAAFJFOiBGMTE3IHVzZWQgZm9yIHJlY29uPwB+BwEFgAMADgAAAM4HCwASAAoA LAA4AAMAYwEBIIADAA4AAADOBwsAEgAKACwAOAADAGMBAQmAAQAhAAAAQjlGNzYzRDRCNDdFRDIx MTk2QTI0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAA5wYBA5AGAMAEAAASAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAA AwA2AAAAAABAADkA4L4VZAoTvgEeAHAAAQAAABkAAABSRTogRjExNyB1c2VkIGZvciByZWNvbj8A AAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAb4TCmP71GP3vH60EdKWokRFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAA AAAeAB8MAQAAABYAAABtYXJ0aW5oQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20AAAADAAYQr/9UtAMABxDKAgAAHgAI EAEAAABlAAAALS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tQVJUV1JPVEU6VEhFT1JZVEhFRi0yMldJTExNQVRDSFdJVEhB TklOVEVSTkFMTE9BRFRBS0VBV0FZSVRTU1RFQUxUSCxBTkRUSEVGLTExN0lTTk9UVEhBVAAAAAAC AQkQAQAAAD8DAAA7AwAA0wQAAExaRnXed/fN/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcG AAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEw MxRQCwoUUeUL8mMAQCAtGvkKhQcQ7QVAVwNgE9A6CocZ6xNQRRyBYwVAdGhlBbB5YR6SIEYtMhHg A/BsuwMgAMB0EXAfkR6gIAORLwuAE9AEoAdAIBWgYWRALiAgVGFrHzBh/HdhHvAgYAQgE8EHQB6g OiwgkWQekgqFH1AxMfY3IMAEIG4cgB6RIAAgwO5tE1AHkACQdiIBIqEFEOkh8mlyBQBhAYAjJAOR Xx9TBIElsCAAJbJ3CGBs3SNgYiOmBGAWECAlwBGg8SgxbGUuHM8abxr/BcDNCoVZItAgMGJ1BUAl EZ53JQIFoBPAIaBJZh8IfGRvB5EAwCHxIGAekG/SIB4hZHUecGkCICMz/G9wBJAoMQIgITETwCAA /HVzIyAxAQDAHvAo8C8xnwCBBIEJgDEhMUBleDJg/wCBJcExMTNQNLElER8SBRB8c2syQC+wFaAv UAuAZ5siYSMhbCjwMQFzaCTByTBgd24jIGNhBTAIcCcJgCMgEcBjLipmVGjvJIEolB6hA6BsB3Ax Ah8mdTXxZiiwbiWBIMEfA0HFJpBGBbBjZScwkQuAjydCI2AmESAAZWd5IyD+ZiLQBRA3gR6gJIEj QiSyzzNQN3Q9Ah6wYXYDEB7wnw2xCfANsDYiAZBjazNhbxYQNDE5lAqFSSjhO3Bl+zWSHyFCH2BF AANwKPAFwN8o8DkQNfEiYzqAZyAwE1D2aT3gHpBhN5ARgAQgHxL/KgAHgDtkNLFGAyVQL1A0se8x 4SBgKmYKhVcesBYQR4XzCFAHgGV6MIMNsB6SJpB/P1BGkSDxJncgRCSyR4FtPzGgIDBGgx5RIIFH lFUu/lMhoAIgB5AjJxYQAhApof82dyNCL0I29AQRMZAyhB+Q/wrBJIEJwSAAQcEWETGgHzD+KANS TFVJICDRNvJBoAfRvyNCO5A7cAGQHuE+xilJ3WwtTQrAKEBuCoUVMQABWiAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQ AAAAAEAABzCgehUwCRO+AUAACDDgvhVkChO+AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAALlQ= - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE12E2.1C551740-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:54:46 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: not quite LADC, nevertheless... - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE12E2.205B0F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable - --------------- Wrote: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl[SMTP:schnars@ais.org] The most successful UAV from LMSC was the US Army sponsored MQM-105A = Aquila, of which at least 30 XMQM-105A and YMQM-105A test vehicles were = procured. It was ultimately way to complex and expensive, and therefore finally = cancelled in the late 1980s, after an exhaustive test program lasting nearly a = decade. - --------------------- My case in point. It seems that if these brilliant engineering and = specialists, are unable to develop at cost effective operational UAV = now, then what is there in the foreseeable future to replace the SR-71 = (the Recon Platform of [my] choice). What really is the AirForce's intel/recon strategy. It seems that they = are going backwards instead going forward in advanced technology !!! If they have some secret new advanced platform that they using, then = find, its ok to retire the Blackbird, BUT, I don't see any evidence of = such a thing. - -Martin - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE12E2.205B0F20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IioPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE0AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQBTTVRQAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEu Y29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAYAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4 MS5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAGgAAACdza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNv bScAAAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlNLVU5LLVdPUktTQE5FVFdSWDEuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAA CwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADATsBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90 ZQAxCAEEgAEAJAAAAFJFOiBub3QgcXVpdGUgTEFEQywgbmV2ZXJ0aGVsZXNzLi4uAKwLAQWAAwAO AAAAzgcLABIACgA2AC4AAwBjAQEggAMADgAAAM4HCwASAAoAMAAJAAMAOAEBCYABACEAAABCRkY3 NjNENEI0N0VEMjExOTZBMjQ0NDU1MzU0MDAwMAD0BgEDkAYAOAUAABIAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAA AAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQAAZ5fDCxO+AR4AcAABAAAAJAAAAFJFOiBub3QgcXVpdGUg TEFEQywgbmV2ZXJ0aGVsZXNzLi4uAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG+EwvDl9Rj98B+tBHSlqJERVNUAAAA AB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAWAAAAbWFydGluaEBpeC5uZXRjb20uY29tAAAA AwAGEEt4EPQDAAcQEQMAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLVdST1RFOktBVEhSWU4m QU5EUkVBU0dFSFJTLVBBSExTTVRQOlNDSE5BUlNAQUlTT1JHVEhFTU9TVFNVQ0NFU1NGVUxVQVZG Uk9NTE1TQ1dBU1RIRVUAAAAAAgEJEAEAAACtAwAAqQMAAFUFAABMWkZ1gHGBof8ACgEPAhUCqAXr AoMAUALyCQIAY2gKwHNldDI3BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVtAoMzdwLkBxMCgH0KgAjPCdk7 8RYPMjU1AoAKgQ2xC2BgbmcxMDMUUAsDbJBpMTQ0AtFpLRnzXwzQGfMLVRRRC/JjAEAgti0cXAqF VwNgE9A6CuFZC2gxNgqgHcJjBUBLoGF0aHJ5A6AmFLCUbmQWEGEEIEdlH8AAcy1QYWhsW1OQTVRQ OgTwaG4RkZJAC3BzLgWwZ10Kj8EbdyBUaGUgBGATwCAgc3VjYweQc2ZCdQMgVUFWIANSIOJMBeBD IHcggR+wJICmVQXwBxBteSTgcAIgTnMFsAmABdBRTRpgMCQ1QRSwcXUDEGEsSSK1b2YmcGhpEXAg WR+gIGwgcQVAMyRAWHcoJwBwKABZKCcT0CTBdu8gwCngKlAEIHcEkCSAHxGGYwhwCYAuIEl0IrWb JoIlcHQHcB+gZWwnYKMmgCdgdG8gBaBtC1DsZXgrczBwcAnwAJAssP4sK3MmwRYQAhAtYRpAIeD6 bC+BYwBwJSAysAmAIrUPC4AmswtgE9AgMTk4/DBzMXEBgASQK3Ew0RGAvnUTwDFBLFQfEQnAYSYQ pwtgNgEZECBuIHByL4HUYSAFgWENsC4itxtP9xxdHOsitU0y0hGwM+InkN0LgHQuEiTgCeBtJqIq IfcGkCayPNFiBRAysAcwAjD/MNAZEAuACeAFEDeBK4IngLcFkAcxBAB0NPItYXUh4L8CYDZBMAAN sCywFaBwKhL/BaAkwQ3BH1E2IkKwBJAfoI5pAiAHQCWTbm93MXD/JsEDoCnAPlImoy1hM/UyIvc9 0UHjJWB0LdEv4hYQC1FDJSAms1NSLTc6MCjtJsJSBZEDoFA0YTIhJhDVKZFbJ1BdMBBoPUAlIPop OKZXPkIgYTKyRfQUsNhpckYFsCUgJwQgPVE9L3AvFhBJ4hPARDFlZ955PY4mwTgBLWFnPUE3kPpi ANBrJoALIE3iE8E4cN9QxTIhUXIz4jhwdjMCMbHPBZAh0BWRTyAgIVSgIrX+ST6TJ2ARgDYxJ8AH gD3B/wUAEcA3oQfgU2cLUUpUT/ivNfA3cUU1MnFkMXBpQUC9KYBrSBQvIEfyJHFCSIGMa2JNYFnB QlVUMXD2STgwAiAnPbMrcSdgQnD+aQ2wMxEpgiTxKgEmsTdx8zimIrUtTQrAN2E5LR8WCyK1FTEA YkAAAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAQAAHMGASjdcKE74BQAAIMGASjdcKE74BHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAA UkU6IAAAAACYhQ== - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE12E2.205B0F20-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #75 ******************************** 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