From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #81 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, December 1 1998 Volume 07 : Number 081 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... Seashadow question Re: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Re: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] Biefield-Brown nonsense EF2000 v F/A-18E/F Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... Seeing stealth Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO Re: EF2000 v F/A-18E/F Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... [none] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:42:39 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... On 1998-11-30 UASR@MyList.net said: >Kurt Rudolph wrote: >> Last Friday, a week before yesterday, while traveling throught >>Palmdale, on HWY14 south, I heard on 128.225 MHz, an aircraft >>report its altitude as 140,500 feet. Does anybody know what >>this may have been? 140,500 seems pretty high. >Greg W. responds: >REFERENCE- >FAA ORDER 7110.65, MILITARY OPERATIONS ABOVE FL 600, PARAGRAPH >9-3-11. >Return To Chapter 9 TOC >9-3-11 MILITARY OPERATIONS ABOVE FL 600 >Updated: 2/29/96 >EN ROUTE >1. FAAO 7110.65, Paragraph 4-5-1, Vertical Separation Minima - >5,000 feet. >Ah, there it was, the 5K separation. >And the following is interesting! >>NOTE- >>1. THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE MILITARY SERVICES PRECLUDE THE >>TRANSMISSION OF ACTUAL ALTITUDE INFORMATION ON THE AIR / GROUND OR >>LANDLINE CIRCUITS. A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT DETAILING THE PLAN FOR >>ASCERTAINING ALTITUDE CODES FOR THE DAY SHOULD BE READILY >>AVAILABLE TO THE CONTROLLERS AT THEIR POSITIONS OF OPERATION. >>2. PILOTS WILL REPORT THEIR ALTITUDE, USING THE CODED PLAN, AND >>INTENDED FLIGHT PROFILE ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH EACH ARTCC. >Pretty cool eh? >Posted by : "Terry W. Colvin" Hello all, Below some more details on the procedure above. I found this in a recent issue of the ATCC FAQ. ( http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm ) Check that URL for other interesting inside information on ATC procedures. FYI: ATCC is propably the most realistic commercial ATC Simulation Program on the market today. It is intended for 'hard-core' ATC addicts (like me:) The ATCC FAQ is written by professional air traffic controllers. Excerpt from the ATCC FAQ: ================= Much more practical of the obscure need-to-know-at-some-point procedures: Ultra-Ultra-High (FL600+) Missions Technically "positively controlled airspace" in the U.S. is only from FL180 to FL600, so an aircraft (like a U2) above FL600 could fly VFR and not be in contact with ATC. Some may do this, but most regular missions above FL600 are IFR. Separation standards above FL600 are 10 miles and 5000 feet, instead of 5 and 2000. There are so few above FL600 anymore that the odds are incredibly slim any two would get within 20 miles of each other, even, but you still have to watch out for it (it has happened). The actual altitudes they fly at are classified, so the transponder stops at 600C, even if they are above. If you really need to separate them, there are frequently-changing altitude codes you are supposed to be able to locate at some sectors, such as a codeword like "BAKE." If you ask a U2 at or above FL600 his altitude, he may respond "Bravo plus 5," so if "BAKE" was the current code word, B corresponds to 60,000, A to 70,000, and so on, so B+5 is FL650. Conflicts are so rare, though, that sometimes the codes get mis-communicated or can't be found, so you can always tell one to maintain a letter altitude, and the other a letter plus 5, and they will be separated regardless of which they choose. ================= Best regards, Frits Westra -- fwestra@hetnet.nl Netherlands Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Registered - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 03:44:37 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Seashadow question Has anyone heard any thing about Seashadow being taken out of storage from San Diego? There a "report " of a sighting of it or a similiar vessel at Pearl Harbor recently. I checked the Lockmart PR site and the last press release was from 1993 when it started daylight testing. I suspect a case of mistaken ID but I thought I would check... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:47:55 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] > From: "Terry W. Colvin" > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:49:37 -0700 > Subject: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] > > Posted by : Lee Markland > > Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most >people see are in reality flights of classified aircraft. For >instance I will wager that the Air Force was testing the Befield >Brown effect well before they flew the B-2 and I suspect the >F117A aircraft. > > Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, >used in conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the >April 9, 1992 Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip >that the B-2 electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream >- for those who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is >tantamount to admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. > > Lee Markland My understanding was this was ACTUALLY to reduce the apparent radar target size of the B-2, as these were also the points (for several technical reasons) that were most likely to be the clinks in the stealth design. The Befield-Brown effect is hardly the only reason for electrostatic-charging. Still very much Top Secret but anti-gravity? Too much X-Files perhaps? GDGoodman - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:05:12 -3200 (PST) From: dadams@netcom.com Subject: Re: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] > Posted by : Lee Markland > Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see are in > reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that the > Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew the > B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. > Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, used in > conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the April 9, 1992 > Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the B-2 > electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for those > who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount to > admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. Heh. I remember that article (it was actually March 9, 1992), and of course it had nothing to do with "antigravity". The use of electrostatics was for signature reduction (see excerpt below). As usual, those wacky UFO believers love to invent their own version of reality. This example is tantamount to admitting that the proponents of these fantasies have no idea what they are talking about. AWST excerpt: One was a ``thermal signature masking technology...which is used on the B-2 [stealth bomber],'' an engineer said. ``Basically, it's an electrostatic heat transfer phenomena that charges the jet engine exhaust stream to disperse the heat--by a factor of about 800. It does a remarkable job of altering the thermal signature.'' He said the same basic technology, used in wing leading edges, can reduce a flying vehicle's radar cross section (RCS) by masking thermal signatures created by aerodynamic perturbations of the air. ``The radar signature of an incoming warhead can be reduced to less than 10%'' of its normal value, the engineer said. ``We found that radar cross section had a lot to do with aerodynamics and turbulence--past certain speeds.'' Electrostatic field-generating techniques in the B-2's wing leading edges may help reduce its RCS. The bomber's leading edges posed a particularly challenging production problem on the first aircraft, and may have been the source of diminished results during early stealth flight tests. - ------end excerpt------ > >Anyhow, as I was standing there, looking east that evening, with my trusty > >telescope, I saw the same object with the setting sun reflecting off of it. > >Sure enough, as I looked through the telescope, I saw it hanging there, > >about 15 miles or so away. Hoovering, sorta. A flattened blimp. Looking to > >the southeast, I again saw what looked like jets heading straight at it, > >about 4 or 5 this time. They maneuvered under it and then climbed and each > >one fired a missile. The ship started to go up but I saw two flashes. > >Missiles impacting. Then it veered off towards Wrightwood, wobbling left and > >right and then what appeared to be an attempt to climb. Unfortunalely, it > >did not make it. It veered again, passed over Lake Arrowhead, turned, and > >headed SW towards Mt San Antonio. As it passed north of me, it was glowing > >blue, and getting brighter as it descended. It disappeared over the mountain > >ridge west of the cabin and then I heard what sounded like a dull thud and a > >roar. It apparently impacted the ground. A few minutes later I felt the > >cabin shake a little. > > > >The next day, I climbed up the ridge at about 6 AM, and was stopped by some > >Air Force dudes. That was as far as I got. They were everywhere. So I went > >home and just put it aside. Needless to say, the AF Dudes had M-2 carbines > >and all I had was my Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun. NO match!!! > > > >I saw some more outside of Winslow AZ in 1974 at my brothers place (May he > >rest in peace), and before that, I was involved in a cover up at Tinker > >(OKCADS) AFB back in 1966. Pretty wild stories! Sounds like last weeks' X-Files episode. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:14:28 -0800 From: Tom Mahood Subject: Biefield-Brown nonsense >Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:50:05 -0700 >From: "Terry W. Colvin" >Subject: Befield-Brown effect [was Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO] > >Posted by : Lee Markland > >Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see are in >reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that the >Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew the >B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. > >Befield-Brown effect is electrostatic (antigrav) propulsion, used in >conjunction with "standard" jet engines. Article on it in the April 9, 1992 >Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the B-2 >electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for those >who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount to >admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. > >Lee Markland I am so tired of this craziness rearing its head over and over again. The AvWeek article mentioned was the one by Bill Scott where he made a few pretty speculative statements that were very much open to interpretation. A few wingnuts have taken it to mean the B-2 is antigravity powered. Now I don't know if it's true if its leading edges are charged or not. But if they are, there are certainly mundane explanations for doing so, such as flow control, or perhaps increasing dissipation of the hot exhaust stream to boost stealth. As for the alleged "Biefeld-Brown effect", I can speak as someone who has spent a fair amount of time looking into the subject. Beyond those "effects" due solely to poor experimental protocols, it doesn't exist. Zip, nada, nothing. If it did, it would be the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate, and we'd have a hell of a lot more things floating around than B-2s. A definitive report on the Bielfeld-Brown effect that the fringe crowd is either unaware of or conveniently ignores (as it clearly shows the effect doesn't exist) , was commissioned by Phillips Labs out at Edwards AFB around 1990. Entitled "Twenty First Century Propulsion Concept", by R. L. Talley, it was completed in May of 1991, and is available through the NTIS or DTIC. It's an extremely comprehensive report, and Talley's experimental procedures were first rate. A worthwhile report to peruse through, for while Talley found no evidence of any forces produced by static fields (ala the Biefeld-Brown effect) he did find hints of what he called "anomalous forces" produced in certain experimental configurations with TRANSIENT electric fields. But that's a whole 'nuther story, and outside the charter of this list.... Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:10:36 +1100 From: "Andrew See" Subject: EF2000 v F/A-18E/F >Obviously the US would never do this for political reasons, but I can't help >thinking a navalised EF2000 would better fulfil the Superhornet role. After >all the EF *is* designed to be capable of mixing it with the latest Fulcrum >and Flanker variants in a dogfight, whilst at the same time having excellent >a2g and antiship capabilities. Plus there is the supercruising, long range, >IRST, TIALDS, reduced RCS design. Can the 18E do all this? Just replying to myself here, and actually there is a precedent for the US buying a non-us type, or at least a licenced/modified type. The AV8 harrier variant used by the USMC. Still I couldn't imagine the Nimitz cruising the Persian Gulf with a deck load of "EF2000N's" :) ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:32:30 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 Wei-Jen Su wrote: > Well, for almost the same price of the EF, you can buy a F-22. I seem to remember back during the ATF competition (before the YF-22 & YF-23 teams were chosen) that USAF had a firm requirement that the ATF cost would not exceed $35 million in 1985 dllars (or something like that). I heard someone quote the cost of the F-22 at something like $178 million per recently - inflation must be worse than any of us realized!!! Does anyone else remember this ($35 mil/per) figure?? Does anyone have an accurate number on the current cost of an F-22?? Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 98 04:30:30 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... Has anyone considered the possibility that someone with a transmitter was simply playing a joke? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 98 04:33:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Seeing stealth Interesting article in this Weeks Avweek on ways of detecting stealth. One involves watching for disturbances in the pattern of FM signals from commercial radio stations. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 98 04:55:43 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 On 11/30/98 10:32PM, in message <36638D7E.998C5975@cyberramp.net>, G&G wrote: > Does anyone else remember this ($35 mil/per) figure?? Does anyone > have an accurate number on the current cost of an F-22?? > > > Greg > > The actual cost of any controversial aircraft is probably one of the most closely guarded secrets around. It's very hard to make comparisons because what X amount of dollars is buying may be unspecified or can be manipulated for various purposes. For example, if you quote the EF2000's flyaway cost and compare it to the F-22's program unit costs, the F-22 looks real bad, but it's a specious comparison. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:00:59 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO Subject: Re: [UASR]> FWD: Victorville, CA - 1958 shootdown of UFO Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:15:55 EST Posted by : RONCRAFT@aol.com In a message dated 11/30/98 2:48:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, markland@rockisland.com writes: > > Just an opinion, but I'm sure that what you saw, and most people see are in > reality flights of classified aircraft. For instance I will wager that the > Air Force was testing the Befield Brown effect well before they flew the > B-2 and I suspect the F117A aircraft. Lee's obviously correct in that classified aircraft account for a number of contemporary ufo sightings - but testing the Befield Brown effect as early as 1958 doesn't appear to be an adequate explanation for that sighting. As I recall, the B-58 Hustler was possibly our most advanced aircraft in that time frame, the B-47 was still operational, the SR-71 was still a concept, and ICBM and space booster technology was in its infancy. My sighting, in mid 1955 or thereabouts was definitey not an aircraft. It was a relatively slow moving ufo of indeterminate size ovoid/oval in shape, brilliant, fiery white with suggestion of green in color, and a distinct red/orange tail that could have been a sensor. Sighting occurred 20 miles south of Syracuse NY, after midnight. It was reported the next morning in the Syracuse Post Standard. USAF at Hancock Field provided no information or comment. Throughout my subsequent career in aerospace, ecompassing radar systems, the manned space programs, and aircraft and rocket propulsion systems, nothing remotely similar existed in any terrestial aerospace establishment. We'd have known about it. It would seem if we had an operational or potentially operational antigravitic capability that time, we would have concentrated more resources on developing it, and perhaps wouldn't have wasted so much money, resources, and talent developing boosters on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs The Saturn V was one big, expensive mutha . It's also hard to imagine developing a dog like the multiservice forerunner of the F-111 if we were sniffing at antigravitic capabiltiy at the time. On the other hand, lack of feasibility never stopped the defense industry from profitting from weapons systems that would never work as conceived, and the manned space programs were political in nature, as we were led to believe we were racing the Russians to the moon - while, of course, the Russians were never in the race, but were busily refining the terrestial weapons systems, fomenting revolution in the third world, worrying about an out of control Mao, and addressing near space dominance, while trying to make their socioeconomic system function at home. I'd suspect that you might have more insight into the ufo phenomenon than you revealed in your post, Lee, and would certainly understand should you not wish to share them. However, with a very healthy appreciation for your intellect and scholarship, I'd be very inteterested in reading your views. ron - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 98 05:00:02 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: EF2000 v F/A-18E/F On 11/30/98 7:10PM, in message <199812010415.VAA02040@netwrx1.com>, "Andrew See" wrote: > > > Just replying to myself here, and actually there is a precedent for > the US buying a non-us type, or at least a licenced/modified type. The > AV8 harrier variant used by the USMC. > The Harrier is one of the very few cases of the U.S. buying a foreign weapon system in recent times, and that was partly because there was no US equivalent. Keep in mind also this was the Marines, who tend to be more real-world oriented than the other services. In this case, they basically charged Hawker's chalet and said, "We want these, how do we get them and what would they cost us"? Art > Still I couldn't imagine the Nimitz cruising the Persian Gulf with a > deck load of "EF2000N's" :) > > > > > Neither do I. Would take too long to get into service, and not politically correct. Latter holds true for the Rafale, plus reliability of supply would be a factor there. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:14:13 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... At 01:55 AM 11/30/98 EST, you wrote: >Sure, I'd like to "pilot" a sounding rocket, I'd even radio back every >now and then.. > >Kurt > =-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I don't think so......sounding rockets travel a hell of a lot quicker than you think. Closer to the speed of a guided missile rather than the Space Shuttle. If the speed doesen't get you the acceleration will. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 04:33:29 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... Sure, what kind of transmitter were you using? Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Tue, 01 Dec 98 04:30:30 GMT betnal@ns.net writes: >Has anyone considered the possibility that someone with a transmitter >was simply >playing a joke? > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 02:34:55 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, James P. Stevenson wrote: > The F-18E/F price that the Navy admits to is $80 program acquisition unit > cost (PAUC). The F-22 PAUC is $190 million. > Hmmm... the last thing I heard is around 80~100 million the unit cost of the F-22... Of course, as Art said, they don't want to tell the real price... If the price of the aircraft is linealy proportional to the weight of the aircraft (as it is in the commercial aircraft case)... :) 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, 1 Dec 1998 07:28:36 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 The $35 million was the promised fly-away productioncost of the ATF/YF-22. That figure was carved in stone. Regardless of the the increasing costs internal to the Air Force, people on the program were required to use only the $35 million fly-away cost externally. Some were even threatened if they used a different number. The U.S. Congress has put a cap on the production cost of the F-22 at $43 billion. If you add to that the $6.4 billion spent on the DemVal stage and combine that with the $18 billion cap the Congress put on the EMD phase, you have a total of $67+ billion. Divide that number by the 339 planned F-22s (which number is not caped either up or down) and you arrive at a program acquisition unit cost of $197 million. Jim Stevenson >On 11/30/98 10:32PM, in message <36638D7E.998C5975@cyberramp.net>, G&G > wrote: > >> Does anyone else remember this ($35 mil/per) figure?? Does anyone >> have an accurate number on the current cost of an F-22?? >> >> >> Greg >> >> > > The actual cost of any controversial aircraft is probably one of the >most >closely guarded secrets around. It's very hard to make comparisons >because what X >amount of dollars is buying may be unspecified or can be manipulated for >various >purposes. For example, if you quote the EF2000's flyaway cost and compare >it to >the F-22's program unit costs, the F-22 looks real bad, but it's a specious >comparison. > > > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 07:30:43 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F/A-18 E/F v EF2000 For as complete a story as I was able to put together in a public forum, see the November 1998 article I wrote on the F-22 in Aerospace America. Jim Stevenson >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, James P. Stevenson wrote: > >> The F-18E/F price that the Navy admits to is $80 program acquisition unit >> cost (PAUC). The F-22 PAUC is $190 million. >> > > Hmmm... the last thing I heard is around 80~100 million the unit >cost of the F-22... Of course, as Art said, they don't want to tell the >real price... If the price of the aircraft is linealy proportional to the >weight of the aircraft (as it is in the commercial aircraft case)... :) > > 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, 01 Dec 1998 06:08:15 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: [UASR] FWD: (SW) High Flying Aircraft... At 04:33 AM 12/1/98 EST, you wrote: >Sure, what kind of transmitter were you using? > >Kurt > >Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG >Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB >Based In Nevada, United States Of America > >On Tue, 01 Dec 98 04:30:30 GMT betnal@ns.net writes: >>Has anyone considered the possibility that someone with a transmitter >>was simply >>playing a joke? I once heard on an AF high frequency channel a SAC aircraft call in to its base. Upon completion of the call a new voice called the aircraft using its code name. The pilot asked who it was and the reply was "It's God". The pilot then asked "God" what his location was. "God" evidently decided any further communication with a B-52 would come to no good as the caller remained silent. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:20:42 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: [none] The gummint is once again considering allowing phone companies to charge a per-minute rate for internet usage. If this gives you visions of dollar bills flying out the window, write your congress-critter at http://www.house.gov/writerep/ Info: http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9811/07/net.commerce.impact/index.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/ispfact.html ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #81 ******************************** 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