From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #76 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 Thursday, November 19 1998 Volume 07 : Number 076 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: F117 used for recon? My glitchie email not quite LADC, nevertheless... RE: SR-71 Production Resumed Re: F117 used for recon? Re: F117 used for recon? RE: F117 used for recon? Re: SR-71 LASRE Re: F117 used for recon? Re: SR-71 LASRE Re: SR-71 LASRE F-22 book Re: F117 used for recon? Re: F117 used for recon? [none] Re: F117 used for recon? Re: SR-71 LASRE Re: F117 used for recon? Re: F-22 book Re: F117 used for recon? R&D in the open. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:25:58 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? Says a lot for the faith they have in their aircraft. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:martinh@ix.netcom.com] On Behalf Of Martin Hurst Sent: 18 November 1998 15:45 To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? - ------------ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:41:29 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: My glitchie email There seems to be extra stuff coming out at the end of my email posts to this list. Because of this it is kicking off the actual digest. I'm trying to solve this from happening. Sorry for any inconvience this may be causing this list and its readers. - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:50:01 -0800 From: David Lednicer 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? XMQM-105 Aquila. LMSC won the contract in 1974 and it was first flown in 1975. After many years of testing, testing, testing it was canceled in the late 1980s - early 1990s. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 18 Nov 1998 11:21:00 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: SR-71 Production Resumed > 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. Or more likely, just jerking the chains of the audience! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:31:17 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? David wrote: patrick writes: >>Ah come on Patrick, why not accept that a classified LO recon a/c >>exists :) >David, we have been down this road before. I know...just put it down to the British sense of humour... Maybe you'll buy me a couple of Margaritas when the roll it out of the hangar...Heck..I'll buy YOU a couple ! Best David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:13:47 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? >>Ah come on Patrick, why not accept that a classified LO recon a/c exists :) >David, we have been down this road before. ... >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. I agree Pat. Back in 1991, Lockheed prepared a proposal for a stealthy recce package for the bomb bay of the F-117A. The package contained cameras, electro-optic sensors and other devices for tactical intelligence gathering. A bomb-bay cover with a stealthy window or radome was proposed to be used with such equipment. Lockheed said that the package wouldn't hurt the aircraft's stealthiness. General Merrill McPeak, then Air Force chief of staff, turned down the proposal saying that the F-117A technology is "rather old ... so I wouldn't spend any money on what amounts to obsolete technology. In addition, the F-117 does not modernize a part of the Air Force that needs to be modernized" (Defense News; 6/17/91). Years later, we learned of the stealthy UAV efforts, ala DARKSTAR, and the other non stealthy UAV efforts, and even the hypothetical Q (1995). I imagine that McPeak probably had these UAVs in mind when he made those F-117A comments back in 1991. >Now if someone has evidence to the contrary I would be the first to want to >see it. I agree Pat. I'm skeptical as well. The tactical recce role is to be performed by the new UAVs. We have discussed in the past that these subsonic, high loiter time UAVs, don't really replace what the SR-71 can do. So that 'hole' is the only one that anyone could argue still exists, in my opinion. Personally, I'm skeptical that anything fills that as well, given tight USAF budgets and the fact that they actually brought the SR-71 back for awhile. There were some interesting high speed sightings back in 1989, 1990, before black aircraft enthusiasts turned into an arm of the UFO movement. But nothing convincing since. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 03:18:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? George, Point I was making was that if you take away the F-117's stealth (which is its true, remarkable achievement), it's a single purpose aircraft that isn't of much use for much else, and really isn't competitive with current strike designs. The F-22 is very expensive, but Everything is very expensive, including its European competitors (comparisons are often made comparing flyaway cost of European fighters versus system cost of F-22). Even without its stealth it's still a very competitive plane. Your point about it being too expensive to use is certainly true in a CAS role (which USAF isn't interested in anyway) but in a strike role could be justifiable if it gets the job done, and you can use it for other things Besides, it's all moot anyway, we aren't going to be building any more F-117s. Of course, USAF also plans to build a whole new striker in 15 years or so. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:19:48 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: SR-71 LASRE In a previous posting, I made some comments about the SR-71 Linear Aersospike program. It was not my place to do so, and I was out of line. As a result, I got into some serious "hot water" at work, and deservedly so. My first mistake was that I thought the information was public knowledge. While it was, in fact, (in some circles) there has been no official statement released. My second and more grievous error (which no one has pointed out, but which I regret just the same) is that I associated myself with my work at Dryden. I was speaking only as a private citizen, and did not mean to imply in any way that this was an official announcement. I apologize profusely to anyone who may have misinterpreted my posting as such. I also offer heartfelt apologies to any officials who were (justifiably) offended by my actions. I wasn't thinking. To avoid future errors of this type, I will no longer post any comments about NASA programs. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 03:32:03 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? On 11/18/98 12:13PM, in message <199811182013.MAA22534@pdxcs202.pdx.intel.com>, Larry Smith wrote: > > The tactical recce role is to be performed by the new UAVs. > Here's what to me is both interesting and disconcerting: Our plans are all based on the use of these wonder UAVs, with confident pronouncements about which one will be used where. The problem is that except for the short range very small ones, UAVs have been pretty much a flop. Pioneer worked well in Desert Storm, but that's the specific environment it was designed for. They were also operated from the ships {BBs} that would be undamaged when the UAV missed the net and careened into the superstructure. Vast quantities have been thrown at a number of these programs, only to see them repeatedly get canceled because they just can't get the !#@@$%^~!!# things to work. The most recent Army/Navy joint effort just went belly-up because, among other things, besides not even coming close to meeting specs, the disadvantages of having to have a full flight deck to operate it (and discontinuing other flight ops during that time) kinda outweighed whatever benefit the Navy might get from it. Darkstar and Global Hawk are years behind schedule, way over budget and moving at a glacial pace (by October, the second Darkstar only had flown twice and Hawk had flown a grand total of five times, one of those ending in an abort). This is not encouraging... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:00:59 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: SR-71 LASRE At 10:19 PM 11/18/98 EST, Peter Merlin wrote: >In a previous posting, I made some comments about the SR-71 Linear Aersospike >program. It was not my place to do so, and I was out of line. As a result, I >got into some serious "hot water" at work, and deservedly so. My first >mistake was that I thought the information was public knowledge. While it >was, in fact, (in some circles) there has been no official statement released. > >My second and more grievous error (which no one has pointed out, but which I >regret just the same) is that I associated myself with my work at Dryden. I >was speaking only as a private citizen, and did not mean to imply in any way >that this was an official announcement. I apologize profusely to anyone who >may have misinterpreted my posting as such. I also offer heartfelt apologies >to any officials who were (justifiably) offended by my actions. I wasn't >thinking. To avoid future errors of this type, I will no longer post any >comments about NASA programs. > > > Peter: Your a class act. Your apology alone is indicative of that. Keep up the good work and "Keep On Posting". Your F-117 stuff has been great. Besides, who wants to read about John Glenn's triumphant return to Space anyway!!! patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 06:43:16 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 LASRE Peter, You shouldn't feel bad about revealing the cancellation. It's my understanding that it became official last Friday (Hmmm, Friday the 13th...), so you didn't jump the gun or let any cats out of the bag. The buzz saw you ran into is the one I dodged for the period I was posting from work, so I can sympathize completely (even though what I do at work has no relation to what I post here, I decided it was "healthier" to not post from work). Here's an interesting tidbit I picked up on X-33 that I haven't been able to confirm yet. In the tradition of doing very well on the big stuff on these giant programs, but overlooking some of the ancillary details, it is reported that the X-33 program may have to fund some unexpected support costs. One of the things that BMDO was looking for when it started the reusable SSTO work, was the ability of the vehicle to operate from relatively off the shelf facilities. That's why they liked what eventually became DC-X. Had that concept won the X-33 competition, after it flew to Utah, they could service it and fly it back to Edwards (which would also serve as another test flight, if they wished). That facilities consideration wasn't as important to NASA as were other things. From what I've heard, after each flight X-33 will be trucked back to Edwards, since there won't be facilites capable of turning it around and launching it at its landing site. Problem they're now starting to realize is that due to its shape, it'll be too wide and/or too high to go under certain bridges and through certain areas on the route back. Someone is going to have to pay for the widening or raising necessary (unless those costs are buried in that super-pork Highway Bill that got passed). Can anyone confirm or deny? Art "Low Bridge!" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:55:21 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: F-22 book Hey Skunkers, if you like: Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the "Stealth Fighter" by David C. Aronstein, ANSER, Albert C. Piccirillo, ANSER published by AIAA, you guys will love this: Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter by David C. Aronstein, ANSER, Michael J. Hirschberg, ANSER, Albert C. Piccirillo, ANSER published by AIAA also. I just got my copy. Almost the same quality compared with the F-117 book. Check the AIAA page for more detail description. 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: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:35:29 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? Larry writes I wrote: >>>Ah come on Patrick, why not accept that a classified LO recon a/c exists :) Patrick replied: >>David, we have been down this road before. ... >>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. > >I agree Pat. Me too. I've never suggested the speculative LO recon. platform is based on an F-117..and only responded to Patrick's post as a tongue-in-cheek thing. >Back in 1991, Lockheed prepared a proposal for a stealthy recce package >for the bomb bay of the F-117A. The package contained cameras, electro-optic sensors >and other devices for tactical intelligence gathering. A bomb-bay cover >with a stealthy window or radome was proposed to be used with such equipment. >Lockheed said that the package wouldn't hurt the aircraft's stealthiness. > >General Merrill McPeak, then Air Force chief of staff, turned down the >proposal saying that the F-117A technology is "rather old ... so I wouldn't >spend any money on what amounts to obsolete technology. In addition, >the F-117 does not modernize a part of the Air Force that needs to be >modernized" (Defense News; 6/17/91). No arguement here either. If a LO recon. a/c already existed using curved surface stealth technology that Northrop were investigating (Tacit Blue) why would the USAF want the higher drag & shorter range flat panel approach. > >Years later, we learned of the stealthy UAV efforts, ala DARKSTAR, and >the other non stealthy UAV efforts, and even the hypothetical Q (1995). > >I imagine that McPeak probably had these UAVs in mind when he made those >F-117A comments back in 1991. As far as I'm aware only DarkStar promises LO recon, so it could..as far as we know...only be that UAV that would perform the task of a modified F-117. The General and the JCS were prepared to accept not only the grounding of the SR-71 but also the lack of a LO recon a/c until the Tier III- was operational, which is still some way off ? Isn't recon. one of (if not the most) obvious applications for LO a/c ? >>Now if someone has evidence to the contrary I would be the first to want to >>see it. > >I agree Pat. I'm skeptical as well. Seems we have a stand-off here. I value your input on this subject and suggest we agree to disagree. Until I'm in a position to put up I'll shut up. Can't say fairer than that. >The tactical recce role is to be performed by the new UAVs. So it seems. > >We have discussed in the past that these subsonic, high loiter time UAVs, >don't really replace what the SR-71 can do. So that 'hole' is the only one >that anyone could argue still exists, in my opinion. > >Personally, I'm skeptical that anything fills that as well, given tight >USAF budgets and the fact that they actually brought the SR-71 back for >awhile. > >There were some interesting high speed sightings back in 1989, 1990, before >black aircraft enthusiasts turned into an arm of the UFO movement. But >nothing convincing since. Good points all. However, I must say it takes a paradigm shift to convert those of us who're interested in classified a/c programmes into U*O buffs in the generally accepted sense of the term. BTW Larry, now you used the dreaded acronym, does that mean you have to buy the Maragritas :) Best wishes Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:34:49 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? David--- What is it we agreed to disagree on???? Another idea as to why no F-117 recon configuration is the F-117 has never been allowed to fly where enemy fighters were expected. Even in the Gulf War F-15's made sure there were never any threats from aircraft. An F-117 might be a sitting, I mean flying duck, versus modern Soviet bloc built fighters using their IR weapon sighting systems. I have never heard of any testing done of airborne radar on these planes. They actually were more fearful of F-15's who might have accidently tripped across them unexpectedly in stealth mode returning from a bomb run. After all they flew all over Iraq and not just to Bagdad. So it was a few moments of concern as they headed unannounced towards Saudia Arabia and not able to activate their transponders till near the border. With current AF thinking about removing pilots from the battle scene where possible I don't think an F-117 would be tasked for such a mission. Even with its LO profile. A little known fact is the F-117 was not the only plane to complete its missions without a scratch. The F-111's also have the honor of never being hit while flying in the Gulf War. This idea has somewhat clouded what the F-117 really is capable of doing. In some ways the Gulf War was very atypical and may tend to give too much confidence to some warfighters. (Don't you just love Pentagonese?) patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:51:57 -0800 From: "Anderson, Richard W" Subject: [none] From the 11/19/98 issue of Defense Daily: "The concept, which is being studied by Lockheed Martin under Independent Research and Development (IRAD) funding, would install infrared, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), or other sensors on the F-22 to provide a high Mach number aircraft capable of reacting quickly to reconnaissance requests." Isn't that amazing - somebody in ACC thinks we need a high mach number recon aircraft...... Rick Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:26:19 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? patrick writes: >David--- > >What is it we agreed to disagree on???? That the probability of a classified recon. a/c existing is high. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be leaving the door open to the possibility, but like Larry, remaining sceptical given the available data. I fully understand that position and as I said in my last post, I respect both yours and Larry's input. Larry has helped me out a great deal in the past in relation to certain projects and I find it helps me to get a clear picture of what's going on by 'shooting the breeze' with some members of this list and others. >Another idea as to why no F-117 recon configuration is the F-117 has never >been allowed to fly where enemy fighters were expected. Even in the Gulf >War F-15's made sure there were never any threats from aircraft. An F-117 >might be a sitting, I mean flying duck, versus modern Soviet bloc built >fighters using their IR weapon sighting systems. I have never heard of any >testing done of airborne radar on these planes. They actually were more >fearful of F-15's who might have accidently tripped across them >unexpectedly in stealth mode returning from a bomb run. After all they >flew all over Iraq and not just to Bagdad. So it was a few moments of >concern as they headed unannounced towards Saudia Arabia and not able to >activate their transponders till near the border. Agreed. But I've already said that the F-117 is not a basis for LO recon. > >With current AF thinking about removing pilots from the battle scene where >possible I don't think an F-117 would be tasked for such a mission. Even >with its LO profile. From UAVs to UCAVs, the DoD seems intent on removing the pilot from high risk missions. A laudable objective, but one that seems some way off as we speak. The Predator has done OK in Bosnia, with a few losses. Whether those losses would have happened in a manned recon. a/c is open to question. I'm not against uninhabited a/c in principle..they're just not up to the job at the moment. Perhaps very low cost MAVs will prove more successful for certain missions...but that's likely to be some way off also. > >A little known fact is the F-117 was not the only plane to complete its >missions without a scratch. The F-111's also have the honor of never being >hit while flying in the Gulf War. This idea has somewhat clouded what the >F-117 really is capable of doing. In some ways the Gulf War was very >atypical and may tend to give too much confidence to some warfighters. >(Don't you just love Pentagonese?) Valid points. It's a fact that many people continue to believe that Stealth planes are invisible to radar and are somehow invulnerable...an attribute wrongly given to them by the media and sadly now accepted as fact. Multi-spectral LO is a realtive term and also a real Pandora's Box relying in many ways on intel. assesments of enemy detection ability to achieve 'lock-ons.' The bar will continue to be raised and it's clear that eventually, a/c that were once considered LO won't be in the future as new radar and IR guided weapon systems come on-line. That's the time that hypersonic platforms will really come into their own, which, is still some years off in operational terms I would say, FWIW. Those 'skyquakes' and reports of very fast moving a/c, that occur from time to time suggests to me that test beds are already flying periodically, but much as I'd like to believe an operational hypersonic a/c is 'rubber on the ramp' - I very much doubt it. The grounding of the SR would make more sense if its role was to some extent being filled by a classified asset, whilst a hypersonic or at least high supersonic a/c was under development. That way hopefully, the enemy would be unsure of US aerial recon. capabilities. To rely on unmanned systems that may enter the inventory some years down the line, doesn't help commanders-in-the-field now...and let's face it: there's a great need for aerial recon. in many parts of this unstable and volatile world. I'm more than happy to drop this LO recon. thread. Thanks again Best David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:54:15 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: SR-71 LASRE Pat writes: >Peter: > >Your a class act. Ditto here! It's good to have a NASA guy that really loves aircraft. I never take your posts as official announcements Peter. Don't take that the wrong way. I know that is not your position. I appreciate you pointing us at the official NASA announcements when they are made. Dryden is finally getting back into the stuff they should be doing, with all the interesting programs going on out there now. We should be funding this level, or more, all the time. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:01:21 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? >> The tactical recce role is to be performed by the new UAVs. > Here's what to me is both interesting and disconcerting: Our plans are all >based on the use of these wonder UAVs, ... >The problem is ... UAVs have been pretty much a flop. ... I agree Art. That certainly is what the public info has been. But, the UAV thing is still, as we say in Intel, POR (Plan Of Record). From what we currently know. As an engineer, I would love to know where the hangups are. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:05:04 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F-22 book Wei-Jen Su writes: >David C. Aronstein, ANSER, Albert C. Piccirillo, ANSER >David C. Aronstein, ANSER, Michael J. Hirschberg, ANSER Ah yes, the interesting think tank ANSER! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:29:50 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? >Me too. I've never suggested the speculative LO recon. platform is based on >an F-117..and only responded to Patrick's post as a tongue-in-cheek thing. I figured it was tongue-in-cheek David, but had to vent my spleen. Sorry! Someone has to do something to stop these 'black aircraft researchers' that one hears on radio and TV talking about these alleged things as though it's a sure thing they exist! >As far as I'm aware only DarkStar promises LO recon, so it could..as far as >we know...only be that UAV that would perform the task of a modified F-117. >The General and the JCS were prepared to accept not only the grounding of >the SR-71 but also the lack of a LO recon a/c until the Tier III- was >operational, which is still some way off ? Isn't recon. one of (if not the >most) obvious applications for LO a/c ? So you believe, that an interim aircraft is flying? Is that what you're saying? I disagree, based on politics, budgets, and a general unwillingness to self-finance innovation in the US aerospace industry. >Seems we have a stand-off here. I value your input on this subject and >suggest we agree to disagree. And I value your input David. But it's hardly a stand off. Remember, you have proven nothing. You have only informed us of your beliefs. >Good points all. However, I must say it takes a paradigm shift to convert >those of us who're interested in classified a/c programmes into U*O buffs >in the generally accepted sense of the term. Not really! You may not believe they are flown by aliens, but the house is based on sightings/reports by people, whose transformation functions are chaotic, at the present time. So what do you really have? In other words, it is a belief, as you say above. The danger (and from what I've heard it's already upon us) is. that eventually that belief turns into a religion. Then it feeds on itself and becomes succor to the believer. >BTW Larry, now you used the dreaded acronym, does that mean you have to >buy the Maragritas :) With pleasure! Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:05:47 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: R&D in the open. While it seems nothing much is happening at the Lockheed Skunkworks, exciting aircraft R&D is occuring right out in the open. Consider ATTT, Roton and Proteus. Proteus, a seeming distant cousin to Global Hawk, is manned and multi-mission. Powered by two Williams Rolls-Royce Turbofans, it can carry a 2000# payload, climb to 60,000 ft. and loiter for 14 hrs. Payload missions may involve telecommunications, recon. or Spacelaunch. http://www.scaled.com/projects/proteus/proteus.htm ATTT or the Advanced Technology Tactical Transport, funded by DARPA, is a a $3,000,000 , 62% scaled, proof-of-concept STOL transport. http://www.scaled.com/projects/attt/attt.htm The ROTON SSO vehicle follows in the footsteps of the DC-X taking 7000# to orbit and returning with a controlled re-entry. Scaled Composites, with Burt Rutan, is deep into development and flight testing of aircraft that seem, in some cases, beyond the leading edge. Could it be, that with the passing of aviation greats Ben Rich, Kelly Johnson and John Northrop, that the fire is gone from the major players? Or have they just gotten fat at the trough of the Federal Bureaucracy? Wayne Wayne Busse http://www.sky.net/~wings wings@sky.net wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #76 ******************************** 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