From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #90 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, December 17 1998 Volume 07 : Number 090 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) Iraq RE: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) A4B Re: Iraq Re: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) Re: Iraq Re: The Hypersonic Revolution Re: Iraq Re: Iraq Re: Iraq Re: Global Hawk Re: Iraq early stealth Re: Iraq Re: early stealth Re: The Hypersonic Revolution Re: The Hypersonic Revolution Re: early stealth Digest search engine? Origin of the word "stealth" Re: Iraq Re: Iraq Re: Iraq *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 98 17:46:51 EST From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) Erik Hoel wrote (in part): >Project Pluto - this is a fascinating one. A few years ago there was a small >amount of discussion on this list concerning Pluto (around 12/5/96 ?); does >anyone have any information to share? If the Project Pluto that's being spoken of is the 50's & 60's effort to develop a nuclear ramjet powered UAV, then, yes, this has been discussed here before. I posted a summary of an Air & Space Smithsonian article on the project to the list on 3/16/95. I still have the summary if people are interested. The A&S Smithy article appeared in the April/May '90 issue, if anyone wants to hunt it down. Fascinating story. - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:56:53 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Iraq According to CNN we launched about 100 cruise missiles against Iraq roughly one hour ago. Both US and UK forces participated in the strike. Details have not been made available yet. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:05:01 -0800 From: ehoel@esri.com Subject: RE: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) Paul Keller wrote: > If the Project Pluto that's being spoken of is the 50's & 60's effort > to develop a nuclear ramjet powered UAV, then, yes, this has been > discussed here before. I posted a summary of an Air & Space > Smithsonian article on the project to the list on 3/16/95. I still > have the summary if people are interested. The A&S Smithy article > appeared in the April/May '90 issue, if anyone wants to hunt it down. > Fascinating story. Hmmmm. I tried to download a copy of the digest (http://www.netwrx1.net/skunk-works/) from 3/16/95 and learned the following: v05.n207 2/28/95 v05.n208 empty v05.n209 empty v05.n210 empty v05.n211 empty v05.n212 empty v05.n213 3/17/95 - no mention of Pluto Several digests later, there was mention of some digest weirdness (i.e., missing previous digests). Given the above, could you please repost the info Paul. Thanks, Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax > -----Original Message----- > From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu [mailto:keller@eos.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 2:47 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Cc: keller@eos.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) > > > Erik Hoel wrote (in part): > >Project Pluto - this is a fascinating one. A few years ago > there was a small > >amount of discussion on this list concerning Pluto (around > 12/5/96 ?); does > >anyone have any information to share? > > > --Paul Keller > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:26:13 +1100 From: "Andrew See" Subject: A4B >> I see tha tI as with most of us are victoms of American dis-information! >> I read of an aircraft designated A4b in 1943 flew at 4200 MPH, there was > >Impossible! The A4B Skyhawk is a Vietnam-era fighter aircraft capable of low >supersonic speeds. I think the A4B was also a Nazi ballistic missile, similar to the V2, but with planar wings. It is conceivable that a 1940's era unmanned ballistic missle could reach such speeds. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:13:46 -0800 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Iraq This is the 4th airstrike since the Gulf War. It's interesting what the Republicans -- who one would think would support the attack -- are saying: "I think this president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office," said Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., criticized the military action even before it was formally announced. "While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," his statement said. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question," he said in a statement issued shortly before the sound of anti-aircraft guns erupted over Baghdad at 4:49 p.m. ET. As Clinton noted in his speech, it was prudent to attack before Ramadan (correct spelling?), the holy time of the Muslim faith, so as not to offend the other Arab countries. The entire international community supports the action and the U.N. voted 9-0 to support the airstrike. It's hard to be a (moderate) conservative these days with such idiots in Congress. Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:36:10 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: Flying Saucer (On Topic!) I would like to see these as I have no idea what Project Pluto is! Please send them to KQ6NG@earthlink.net Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:44:13 -0800 ehoel@esri.com writes: >Brad Hitch wrote in response to Frank Markus: > >... chop ... > >> The Russians have purportedly (Paul >> Czysz) proposed using a strong neutron source to achieve a *low* >level >> of ionization of the air in front of their AJAX vehicle - I can't >> believe this would ever fly (shades of Project Pluto - care to >comment >> on that one Peter Merlin?). > >Project Pluto - this is a fascinating one. A few years ago there was a >small >amount of discussion on this list concerning Pluto (around 12/5/96 ?); >does >anyone have any information to share? > >I do have three images of Pluto if anyone is interested. Two are >images of >test engines, and the third is an artist's concept drawing of the >engine >test area. > >Erik >-- >Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com >Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com >380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel >Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:45:50 -0800 From: Colin Thompson Subject: Re: Iraq Do you really think the Muslims are going to enjoy their holy days with dead bodies in the streets and their cities destroyed? So we are only going to launch a three day strike? Get a grip! The dog is wagging full speed. Ryan Kirk wrote: > > This is the 4th airstrike since the Gulf War. > > It's interesting what the Republicans -- who one would think would > support the attack -- are saying: > > "I think this president is shameless in what he would do to stay in > office," said Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla. > > Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., criticized the military > action even before it was formally announced. > > "While I have been assured by administration officials > that there is no > connection with the impeachment process in the House of > Representatives, I cannot support this military action > in the Persian Gulf > at this time," his statement said. > > "Both the timing and the policy are subject to > question," he said in a > statement issued shortly before the sound of > anti-aircraft guns erupted > over Baghdad at 4:49 p.m. ET. > > As Clinton noted in his speech, it was prudent to attack before Ramadan > (correct spelling?), the holy time of the Muslim faith, so as not to > offend the other Arab countries. The entire international community > supports the action and the U.N. voted 9-0 to support the airstrike. > It's hard to be a (moderate) conservative these days with such idiots in > Congress. > > Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:57:08 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: The Hypersonic Revolution Regarding the three volume set "The Hypersonic Revolution," edirted by Dr. Richard P. Hallion, Ron CRawford writes: >Could you post ISBN's or sourcing for the hypersonics report set? Amazon and B&N didn't show a listing.< It was published by: Air Force History and Museums Program Bolling AFB, DC 20332-1111 There is no ISBN number. I don't think it costs anything either. (At least it's not marked with a price). Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:35:54 -0800 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Iraq Ramadan lasts for a month. According to Cohen, the length of Operation Desert Fox is as yet undetermined. The element of surprise was a major factor here. Although the timing of the strike limits Hussein's preparation time, it also put us at a disadvantage: we have no F-117's in the entire Gulf region. Colin Thompson wrote: > > Do you really think the Muslims are going to enjoy their holy days with > dead bodies in the streets and their cities destroyed? So we are only > going to launch a three day strike? Get a grip! The dog is wagging > full speed. Perhaps I missed the news bulletin announcing the airstrike against the other mideastern countries that you seem to be referring to. The only civilians hurt will be Iraqi. Although the 100 cruise missiles were only launched at Iraq, one thing is for sure: any attack during a time of worship (especially at the beginning) will be seen by the other Arab nations as a personal insult to their religion. I don't think we want that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 98 06:38:40 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Iraq For what it's worth, the latest reports I've heard from the talking heads is that up to 300 cruise missiles were launched, all from Naval assets. If true, that would pretty much use up most of the Tomahawks in the area. Further strikes are expected form B-52s, who do have a limited number of conventional ALCMs in inventory. That points up another problem we'll be facing in the not too distant future. Clinton has never replaced the missiles we've used previously, and in fact turned down a contract opportunity to buy Tomahawks for a lower price than Harpoon. If we continue to pretend that we can rely on "surgical " cruise missiles exclusively, we're going to run out worldwide. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:42:00 -0800 From: Colin Thompson Subject: Re: Iraq Too all of you on the list, I am sorry to have to make my debut posts on politics, but I can't let this heresy stand. First, Clinton and now Gore are the ones that mentioned not disturbing Ramadan. Where the idea that I inferred that other Muslim countries were under attack came from I don't know. Second, consider this additional fact on the wagging dog. All of the talking heads in the news media are talking about destroying "weapons of mass destruction". Where are these "weapons of mass destruction"? Seven years of UN inspections have failed to find just one "weapon of mass destruction". The whole thing stinks! To keep this on topic I have observed plasma type aircraft maneuvering over the Sierra Nevada mountains. The next time I see this, I hope to video tape their telemetry signals which are transmitted by observational helicopters in the 2.3 to 2.6 GHz range. 73, Colin Ryan Kirk wrote: > > Ramadan lasts for a month. According to Cohen, the length of Operation > Desert Fox is as yet undetermined. The element of surprise was a major > factor here. Although the timing of the strike limits Hussein's > preparation time, it also put us at a disadvantage: we have no F-117's > in the entire Gulf region. > > Colin Thompson wrote: > > > > Do you really think the Muslims are going to enjoy their holy days with > > dead bodies in the streets and their cities destroyed? So we are only > > going to launch a three day strike? Get a grip! The dog is wagging > > full speed. > > Perhaps I missed the news bulletin announcing the airstrike against the > other mideastern countries that you seem to be referring to. The only > civilians hurt will be Iraqi. Although the 100 cruise missiles were > only launched at Iraq, one thing is for sure: any attack during a time > of worship (especially at the beginning) will be seen by the other Arab > nations as a personal insult to their religion. I don't think we want > that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 98 06:54:09 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Global Hawk On 12/15/98 12:46PM, in message , Eric Rebentisch wrote: > : > > > > . > > I have no argument with your points, but it is worth remembering that the > whole thing started off as an ACTD (advanced concept technology > demonstrator) and not a formal acquisition program. > > I hope that they are successful (within the objectives of the original > ACTD) and it leads to more of this kind of technology demonstrators. It > would be nice to see more quick, cheap, and frequent aircraft development > programs turning out new experimental designs. It would make the industry > a more exciting place to work and the users might actually be able to get > their hands on technology before it becomes obsolete. > > I'd like to see more technology demonstrators as well. If we had never had the XV-15, we wouldn't have the Tilt-Rotor revolution that's about to hit. Problem with Global Hawk is it's not cheap, quick or something that pushes the envelope. Also, it hasn't been a technology demonstrator for years. That's actually what they think will be in full scale service in six years. As a result, other forms of tactical recon are not getting the support they need because we're operating under the assumption that the wonderdrones are coming, so we shouldn't spend money elsewhere. It may indeed become a Good Thing, but meanwhile we're putting all our eggs in one basket. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:53:51 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Iraq > For what it's worth, the latest reports I've heard from the talking heads > is > that up to 300 cruise missiles were launched, all from Naval assets. If true, The first number they mentioned on the tube last night was 100, then 200. Have we launched additional missiles since then? > that would pretty much use up most of the Tomahawks in the area. Further If I recall correctly our Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers with VLS usually carry about 40 Tomahawks. I believe Spruance class destroyers can carry at least 8. I think Alreigh Burke class Aegis destroyers carry about 20, and Los Angeles class attack subs may be able to carry 12 or more. Can someone enlighten us on this? Anyone know which version(s) of the AGM-109/BGM-109/UGM-109 we are using? My guesstimates above include both ground attack versions and anti-ship versions of the tomahawk, although given the virtually non-existent naval threat to our vessels we probably would have very many anti-ship Tomahawks on our ships. Anyone know what type of warheads we are using and how effective our missiles have been thus far. > strikes > are expected form B-52s, who do have a limited number of conventional ALCMs in > inventory. I presume you are referring to AGM-86C's, is this correct? Again, if I remember correctly each B-52 can carry 20 of these. I think we have several hundred of these in inventory, and we might be able to convert the nuclear version of the ALCM (AGM-86A/B) to the conventional version fairly easily and inexpensively. > > That points up another problem we'll be facing in the not too distant > future. > Clinton has never replaced the missiles we've used previously, and in fact > turned > down a contract opportunity to buy Tomahawks for a lower price than Harpoon. Wow! That would have been a great deal.... I'm guessing less than $1.25mil a piece. We definitely should have went for that. > If we > continue to pretend that we can rely on "surgical " cruise missiles > exclusively, > we're going to run out worldwide. > Let's hope our very good friends worldwide (including Saddam) are unaware of this. > > > Art Sam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:26:33 EST From: UKdragon@aol.com Subject: early stealth Adrian Beaumont wrote: >> The question of stealth technology is also good - does anyone know just wh= en the ideas were first discussed at the Skunk Works? Did aircraft development simply stick for some years at trying to be faster/higher than the other guy's missiles or bullets? Given that radar had had such a massive impact on WW2, why didn't aircraft designers try to make "invisibl= e" aircraft sooner? Yes, interesting question, given that the radar engineers were pressing on with the absorbers in early postwar years. I think that these efforts were= led by MIT Radiation Labs in the US, and Plessey's research lab at Caswell, pl= us the government's RSRE lab at Malvern. As far as I'm aware, the Skunk Works didnt get into Stealth until the Rain= bow project on the U-2 in mid-1956. And the eastern scientific establishment (MIT/Land panel etc) drove that effort. When it failed, ADP was funded in = 1957 for the Gusto studies, which are noted briefly in Jay Miller's book. That = led on to Archangel and eventually to the A-12 Blackbird. However, there was another project named Buckhorn in mid-1958, which used = a U-2 as (at least) a testbed. Again driven by MIT folks. Anyone know anythi= ng about it? Regards, Chris Pocock=09=93Information is useless without Intelligence=94 email: UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:38:13 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Iraq At 06:38 AM 12/17/98 GMT, you wrote: > For what it's worth, the latest reports I've heard from the talking heads is >that up to 300 cruise missiles were launched, all from Naval assets. If true, >that would pretty much use up most of the Tomahawks in the area. Further strikes >are expected form B-52s, who do have a limited number of conventional ALCMs in >inventory. > > It seems the Navy might have been caught in a shift change. The Carl Vinson was 2 days out of the Gulf when the party started. Thus the prediction of Desert Fox lasting thru Saturday when the replacement carrier group will be on station and no doubt lighting off as many cruise missiles as they can before Ramadan. This just might even top this week episode of "JAG". patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:07:11 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: early stealth There was some early work in the early 1950s of making re-entry vehicles stealthly according to John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2. Jim Stevenson >Adrian Beaumont wrote: > >>> >The question of stealth technology is also good - does anyone know just when >the ideas were first discussed at the Skunk Works? Did aircraft >development simply stick for some years at trying to be faster/higher than >the other guy's missiles or bullets? Given that radar had had such a >massive impact on WW2, why didn't aircraft designers try to make "invisible" >aircraft sooner? > >Yes, interesting question, given that the radar engineers were pressing on >with the absorbers in early postwar years. I think that these efforts were led >by MIT Radiation Labs in the US, and Plessey's research lab at Caswell, plus >the government's RSRE lab at Malvern. > >As far as I'm aware, the Skunk Works didnt get into Stealth until the Rainbow >project on the U-2 in mid-1956. And the eastern scientific establishment >(MIT/Land panel etc) drove that effort. When it failed, ADP was funded in 1957 >for the Gusto studies, which are noted briefly in Jay Miller's book. That led >on to Archangel and eventually to the A-12 Blackbird. > >However, there was another project named Buckhorn in mid-1958, which used a >U-2 as (at least) a testbed. Again driven by MIT folks. Anyone know anything >about it? > >Regards, Chris Pocock “Information is useless without Intelligence” > >email: UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:40:49 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: The Hypersonic Revolution >Regarding the three volume set "The Hypersonic Revolution," edirted by Dr. >Richard P. Hallion, Ron CRawford writes: >Could you post ISBN's or sourcing for the hypersonics report set? Amazon >and B&N didn't show a listing. > >It was published by: >Air Force History and Museums Program >... There is also a curious statement at the beginning of each volume that I recall that states that distribution outside the U.S. is not allowed and that U.S. citizenship or some such is required for distribution. I got my copies years ago from USAF. I also know that some public libraries across the U.S. also have it. So I don't know how such a thing could be enforced or even if it really matters. It's probably good that people who think that there are black hypersonic airplanes already flying or advanced flying disks using plasma/MHD technology already in existence, read it. As you will get a good feeling for the state of hypersonic technology, and see that although some things are technically feasible, that doesn't mean that they've happened, due to many factors, some of them political, some of them due to the shortsightedness of those involved, some due to a lack of funding, some due to a lack of consensus, some due to too many people being involved in the decision, ... . All of that is in there. These are the problems that Brad and myself mentioned in the last few weeks. Also, Jenkins nice book on Space Shuttle development seems to contain a lot of what's in Hypersonic Revolution. In fact, I found whole sections in Jenkins that seem to have been fairly well transplanted from Hallion's Hypersonic revolution. But jenkins has some additional goodies that hallion doesn't mention. So both seem like they're good to have. But again, there are those pesky admonishments in the beginning of Hypersonic Revolution. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:48:02 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: The Hypersonic Revolution >Re: there are goodies in Jenkins Space Shuttle book that >are not in Hallion's Hypersonic Revolution ... I might add, that the drawings in Hypersonic Revolution are very crude black and white drawings. In Jenkins book, the same drawings (many of them) were redone in an excellent manner. Plus there are new drawings from the same projects that aren't in Hallion's Hypersonic Revolution. Plus as I said, there is additional information in Jenkins about some of those programs. So to net it out, if you can't get Hypersonic Revolution, or are worried about the U.S. citizenship thing, get Jenkins book. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:54:37 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: early stealth James P. Stevenson wrote: >There was some early work in the early 1950s of making re-entry vehicles stealthly >according to John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2. A former TRW engineer told me that the Mk-11 reentry vehicle for the Minuteman II did incorporate a conductive layer under the ablator to increase its nose-on stealthiness. BTW, is there any documentation on how the term "stealth" came to be used in connection with low-observable technology? Just looking at the existing literature, it seems to have been coined at the Skunk Works in 1975, but this is just an inference. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:11:23 -0800 From: ehoel@esri.com Subject: Digest search engine? After visiting George's site containing all the archived digests (http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works), I was unable to find any search tool, etc. Does anyone have a mechanism that allows them to search the digests (without having to download all the digests and search locally)? Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:26:21 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Origin of the word "stealth" There had been technical efforts to reduce aircraft susceptibility to radar detection as far back as World War II by the Germans. The United States renaissance on radar reduction began in the 1950s on ICBM re-entry vehicles. Lockheed did some work on the U-2 in the late 1950s and on its SR-71 aircraft in the early 1960s. The Navy also looked at making some of its smaller boats less detectable to radar. The first use of the word "stealth" however, showed up in a letter, written my Myers, in the late 1960s. Charles E. Myers, Jr., an Army Air Force pilot in World War II, a Navy pilot during the Korean War, and a test pilot for Convair during the 1950s, defined stealth in the late 1960s: "Stealth: The most valuable characteristic for air-to-air combat is the degree of invisibility to visual, IR and radar acquisition systems. Size and proper selection of paint are primary contributors to stealth."* To this definition was added the suppression of sound and electromagnetic emissions and these attributes were incorporated in the term "low observables." But in general, when one hears the term stealth, most people are referring to its reduced visibility on radar. ________________ *This is the first use of the word "stealth" the author can find as applied to military aircraft. See, James P. Stevenson, The Pentagon Paradox, p. 34, citing from a 1966 document Myers wrote. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:26:47 -0800 From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net Subject: Re: Iraq >To keep this on topic I have observed plasma type aircraft maneuvering >over the Sierra Nevada mountains. The next time I see this, I hope to >video tape their telemetry signals which are transmitted by >observational helicopters in the 2.3 to 2.6 GHz range. You seem to imply with this comment that these telemetry "signals" are in the clear? What modulation type do they employ? td ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:46:05 -0800 From: Colin Thompson Subject: Re: Iraq Narrow band FM. tonydinkel@clubnet.net wrote: > > >To keep this on topic I have observed plasma type aircraft maneuvering > >over the Sierra Nevada mountains. The next time I see this, I hope to > >video tape their telemetry signals which are transmitted by > >observational helicopters in the 2.3 to 2.6 GHz range. > > You seem to imply with this comment that these telemetry "signals" are in > the clear? What modulation type do they employ? > > td ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:18:48 -0600 From: David Bethke Subject: Re: Iraq Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > If I recall correctly our Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers with VLS usually > carry about 40 Tomahawks. .... IIRC, cruisers carry 90, Arliegh Burke destroyers, 90, and Spruance destroyers, 61. Some also carry 6 or 8 above deck launch tubes. As I understand it, they can not be replenished at sea. The online news sources, not to mention TV, all seem to disagree on what ships are actually over there, so an estimate of the cruise missile count is almost impossible. - -- Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston (Navy Dad) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #90 ******************************** 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