From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #1 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, January 7 1999 Volume 08 : Number 001 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Missing X-Planes ? Re: Air Force Plants U-2 flight on ABC Re: U-2 flight on ABC Re: U-2 flight on ABC Re: U-2 flight on ABC [none] Re: AFNEWS flash - metric system discussion Re: The Hypersonic Revolution Re: your mail RE: AFNEWS flash - metric system discussion Re: threatcons FYI - Decisive Weapons Re: threatcons Missiles Missing Re: threatcons Re: Missiles Missing Re: Missiles Missing RE: Missiles Missing RE: FYI - Decisive Weapons Re: Missiles Missing RE: Missiles Missing Re: your mail Re: Missiles Missing RE: Missiles Missing Re: Missiles Missing Re: Missiles Missing Re: Missiles Missing *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 08:56:50 -0800 From: John Pike Subject: Re: Missing X-Planes ? On: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:44:26, win@writer.win-uk.net (David) wrote: >We know about the X-38 ACRV and the X-40A USAF SMV. >So what's happened to: X-39, X-41 & X-42 ? I cannot detect that this question was answered, but it is still a very good question. We recently updated our aircraft page @ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ And the problem remains: there seems to be an X-40 and an X-43 but X-39, X-41 and X-42 seem to be missing in action. I confess that I remain a bit puzzled as to just exactly who is responsible or authorized to bestow the X designation, which does seem to have become a bit over-used in recent years. I could imagine that X-40 might have grabbed a nice round number under the theory that an X-39 would show up pretty soon from somewhere [recall the fight over "X-30"], but unless I am missing something, I can't quite figure why anyone would grab "X-43" while skipping X-41 and X-42. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ John Pike http://www.fas.org/ Federation of American Scientists 202-675-1023 307 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002 "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 18:13:04 -0500 From: jeffhclark@juno.com (Jeff Clark) Subject: Re: Air Force Plants On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 02:37:29 +0000 John Szalay writes: > I have also found an Air Force Plant #62, in Middletown Conn > unable to find any other information as to who,what,when.. That would be the Pratt & Whitney plant, where they do most of their engine assembly. It started out as Pratt's site for development work on the nuclear-engine-powered aircraft projects of the 1950s. ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:21:54 -0500 (EST) From: george.allegrezza@altavista.net Subject: U-2 flight on ABC I've just rejoined the list after an absence of a few years, so I apologize if this has been discussed recently. On Thursday, Jan. 7th, at 10pm EST, ABC will air a program called "Behind Closed Doors With Joan Lunden VII". Lunden, not previously identified as a Dragon Lady enthusiast, takes a check ride in a U-2 and encounters an "in-flight emergency". Since this is on ABC and not Fox, the IFE may in fact be legit. The footage shown in the promos is not half bad. Still, one wishes a more serious journalist had been selected for the opportunity. George - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:54:27 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: U-2 flight on ABC > On Thursday, Jan. 7th, at 10pm EST, ABC will air a program called "Behind Closed > Doors With Joan Lunden VII". Lunden, not previously identified as a > Dragon Lady enthusiast, takes a check ride in a U-2 and encounters an "in-flight > emergency". Makes me wonder if the IFE might be some sore of PIT (Passenger-Induced Turbulence). - D David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V^V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:32:38 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: U-2 flight on ABC At 01:54 PM 1/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >> On Thursday, Jan. 7th, at 10pm EST, ABC will air a program called "Behind Closed >> Doors With Joan Lunden VII". Lunden, not previously identified as a >> Dragon Lady enthusiast, takes a check ride in a U-2 and encounters an "in-flight >> emergency". > This is a rerun from a number of months ago. Okay she is kinda hot and not a female John Pike but there are some interesting scenes and worth a casual glance. The IFE? I don't remember it as it was insignificant. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:56:12 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: U-2 flight on ABC On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, patrick wrote: > At 01:54 PM 1/4/99 -0500, you wrote: > This is a rerun from a number of months ago. Okay she is kinda hot and not > a female John Pike but there are some interesting scenes and worth a casual > glance. The IFE? I don't remember it as it was insignificant. > She was just on CNN's Larry King show promoting it..said they lost AC power and had to return to base, when they put the gear down the indicators said one wheel hadn't deployed, so they did a low flyby to enable the ground crew to see the gear etc etc. K ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:42:50 -0000 From: P Gavin Subject: [none] Please correct me if I am wrong (privately if you want) but is the B2 the only USAF aircraft not to have seen operational/combat sorties now (that we are allowed to know about)? - Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:57:27 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash - metric system discussion Brad Hitch wrote: >>There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system. ... Andreas Gehrs-Pahl responded: >I want to respond >to the following, because I not only disagree, it also bugs me frequently >in my day-to-day life. :) ... The metric system is inherently superior >to the US (or British ...) systems for the following 3 reasons: No! You misunderstood, and nobody else noticed it, so I'm going to fix the misconception right now. It's actually important. You THOUGHT (in []'s) Brad said: "There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system [compared to the old US (English) system]." Brad did NOT say that (the implicit part in []'s)! He meant the following, as he mentioned the problem with the US/English System 'pounds' unit: "There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system [compared to ANY other CONSISTENT system of units]." And that is completely true! If the Papua New Guineans, Neanderthals, or whomever had a CONSISTENT system of units, there would be no 'technical' reason for superiority of SI over that system. >I am all for traditions, but that kind of chaos is way too complicated for >me -- It's not traditional. It might seem traditional, but it's got more to do with feel and what one is used to (was raised with). I still can't picture a meter. I estimate meters as 3 ft! I can feel a pound of force, I have no 'feel' for a (kg X m)/sec**2 ! I KNOW what pounds of thrust feels like, I have no 'feel' for Newtons (although they sometimes taste good - sorry). I KNOW what 32 degrees F feels like, I have no feel for degrees Celsius. So Euro Boy ( :) ), a little more respect please! We (ahem ... I) am going through Hell too! Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:15:24 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: The Hypersonic Revolution Larry Smith wrote: >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. Peter Merlin responded: >I checked the original editions, and could not find such a restriction. At >any rate, the new edition has no restrictions of any kind. Over the hollidays I checked my original (2-volume) set. I was partially correct. The first volume that covered the older history of Hypersonics does NOT have such a restriction. However, the 2nd volume, which went up to the start of NASP (X-30) and covered (at the time I received mine) more recent projects, DOES have the restriction I mentioned, in my copy. FYI. >The new three-volume set ... So where does the 3rd volume end now. Is there a NASP History in there? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:24:38 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: your mail > Please correct me if I am wrong (privately if you want) but is the > B2 the only USAF aircraft not to have seen operational/combat sorties > now (that we are allowed to know about)? - Gavin Gavin: I don't believe the B-36 ever saw action (unless you call always having one in the air at all times with live nukes on boarding waiting for a green light from NORAD "action"...). - D David Allison allisonB@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V^V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:36:50 +1030 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: AFNEWS flash - metric system discussion > I still can't picture a meter. I estimate meters as 3 ft! I can feel a > pound of force, I have no 'feel' for a (kg X m)/sec**2 ! I KNOW what > pounds of thrust feels like, I have no 'feel' for Newtons (although > they sometimes taste good - sorry). I KNOW what 32 degrees F > feels like, > I have no feel for degrees Celsius. > > So Euro Boy ( :) ), a little more respect please! We (ahem ... I) am > going through Hell too! > Ah, a new year's debate! Love it! FWIW, when I came OZ from America several years ago I literally had to learn temperatures and measurement all over again. Notwithstanding Larry's comments, but the transition wasn't as painful as I expected it to be and now can freely mentally translate between the American system and metric with no problem. Of course, the exact calculations still require a calculator, when required, but for everyday living it's not difficult at all. Now if the Aussies could only spell "litre" correctly ....? Hmmmmm. :) Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:52:09 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: threatcons This is the last message I have saved from Skunk-Works. Has the list went TU? Threatcon ALPHA continues at Fort Huachuca. we are waiting for Bin Laden or some other Islamic nutter to act. Terry - ------------- patrick wrote: > > At 12:38 PM 12/22/98 EST, you wrote: > > >Shows what I know! > > > Same here. I worked at a base for year as a civilian and never heard the > term before. It was supposedly a Class 3 base as I was told (the highest) > due to s Space Surveillance squadron located there. But access to the base > was almost totally open and once on the base one could drive legally > anywhere except onto the flightline. Even past the SS squadron and all > their equipment in the parking lot. > > The flightline was declared the highest security level possible but again > one could drive down several roads thru open ungated breaks in the > perimeter onto the runway or past the hangers. In fact a crazy lady in a > VW supposedly chased some planes around on taxiway once. > > Oh well, you learn something new everyday...... - -- 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: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:44:19 +1030 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: FYI - Decisive Weapons FYI, The SBS TV channel here in Australia (similar to PBS in the states) is running a 12-part BBC series called Decisive Weapons detailing 12 strategic weapons throughout history. So far, they've had (as I remember) the P-51, Hurricane, the bayonet, longbow, Harrier jump jet, Russian WWII tank (name I forget), and last nite was the Springfield rifle musket. Tonite is the F117. The series is copyrighted 1997. Anyone seen the pgm on PBS? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 99 01:27:33 -0000 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: threatcons >Patrick wrote >It was supposedly a Class 3 base as I was told What is a "Class 3" designation? What other classes are there? Some of the places I've visited that are quite secure are really very open once they get to know you. jaz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:54:24 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: Missiles Missing It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 06:28:03 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: threatcons At 01:27 AM 1/6/99 -0000, you wrote: >>Patrick wrote > >>It was supposedly a Class 3 base as I was told > >What is a "Class 3" designation? What other classes are there? >Some of the places I've visited that are quite secure are really very >open once they get to know you. > >jaz > > Actually I get paid for each of these silly threads I create. The real money begins if they go beyond 10 replies...... As a civilian base worker about 4 years ago I was told that normally a base would be a Class 2 Secure facility if it operated ACC aircraft. I suppose a Class 1 might have been a training base or hospital facility, etc. But there was a deployable nuclear detonation, ICBM launch early warning tracking unit stationed on the base. They would routinely drive off the base in the middle of the night in a huge convoy of semi tractor trucks and go 100 miles out into the wilderness to set up shop. Their purpose was to relay signals from the TDRSS satellites that were sent by early warning satellites who monitored impending doom. They then relayed these signals to NORAD headquarters using another satellite. Besides being ensconced in the "no photography" area of the base, there were signs on the road past the compound that said "no stopping or parking whatsoever". Because of the so called secret nature of this units work, the base was given the highest classification of 3. I had never heard of the Threatcon classifications and assume they were created after I left the base. I still think the AF purloined this term from that movie with Matthew Broderick when he was hacking into "Joshua", the AF's threat simulator computer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:33:54 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Missiles Missing This is totally consistant with previous experience of American air-to-air missiles. The promise, while always in the 80-90 percent range, has actually exhibited 10-20 percent in actual combat. Jim Stevenson > It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American >aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain >this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have >something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could >that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 09:39:54 EST From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Missiles Missing Frank Markus wrote: > It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American >aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain >this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have >something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could >that 'something' be? On CNN's news last night they quoted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Gen. Shelton?) as saying that the missiles were fired from just barely within the outer limits of the missile's firing envelopes, implying that a low hit probability was expected. Just because they've been fired doesn't guarantee hits... - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:40:56 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Missiles Missing Do we know that the missiles were actually targeted at the aircraft, or designed simply to chase them off?- Gavin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Frank Markus Sent: 06 January 1999 13:54 To: Skunk_Works_List Subject: Missiles Missing It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:02:04 -0800 From: ehoel@esri.com Subject: RE: FYI - Decisive Weapons Dennis Lapcewich (Dennis.Lapcewich@unisa.edu.au) writes: > FYI, > > The SBS TV channel here in Australia (similar to PBS in the > states) is running > a 12-part BBC series called Decisive Weapons detailing 12 > strategic weapons > throughout history. > > So far, they've had (as I remember) the P-51, Hurricane, the > bayonet, longbow, > Harrier jump jet, Russian WWII tank (name I forget), The Russian tank is probably the T-34/76. 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: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 09:46:50 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Missiles Missing >Frank Markus wrote: >> It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American >>aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain >>this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have >>something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could >>that 'something' be? > >Paul Keller wrote: >On CNN's news last night they quoted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs >(Gen. Shelton?) as saying that the missiles were fired from just >barely within the outer limits of the missile's firing envelopes, >implying that a low hit probability was expected. Just because >they've been fired doesn't guarantee hits... > I wrote: I think this statement ......barely within the outer limits of the missile's firing envelopes..... is the Pentagon spin of saying "they launched too soon." Since we seem to have ample bandwidth.....does anyone know if the three women who flew in combat the last several weeks were all pilots? One was interviewed after her sortie and she was the pilot of an F/A-18. They mentioned two more females were involved in the attacks but didn't mention if they were gib's (girl in back) or pilots in command. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:39:09 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Missiles Missing Not to put too fine a point on it, but the report was that the missiles were fired "at" rather than "toward" the Iraqis. If the intent was merely to scare the bad guys, it seems a damned expensive way to do it. What do those things cost? - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Gavin Payne Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 9:41 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: Missiles Missing Do we know that the missiles were actually targeted at the aircraft, or designed simply to chase them off?- Gavin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Frank Markus Sent: 06 January 1999 13:54 To: Skunk_Works_List Subject: Missiles Missing It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:35:06 -0600 (CST) From: drbob@creighton.edu Subject: Re: your mail No doubt there are others, but the E-4 and E-6 have yet to carry out their primary missions. DrBob On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, P Gavin wrote: > Please correct me if I am wrong (privately if you want) but is the B2 the > only USAF aircraft not to have seen operational/combat sorties now (that we > are allowed to know about)? - Gavin > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:58:59 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Missiles Missing > This is totally consistant with previous experience of American air-to-air > missiles. > > The promise, while always in the 80-90 percent range, has actually > exhibited 10-20 percent in actual combat. There is nothing wrong with our missiles!!! I suspect they were fired at extreme ranges, against aircraft which might have been MiG-25 Foxbats fleeing the area at full afterburner at about Mach 2.85. You cannot expect medium range missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM to be able to chase fleeing Foxbats at Mach 2.85. Now if the 2 F-14 Tomcats we sent in to intercept the boggeys had AIM-54C Phoenix missiles with a range of over 150nm. and a speed of over Mach 4 the results may have been very different even against Foxbats. Again, our missiles work just fine as long as they are used properly within their envelope. Please forgive me for being so religious but I take comments like ones above very personally, because we have some of the finest air-to-air missiles in the world. Words of wisdom and contributions from experts on the list respectfully requested. Thanks, Sam > > Jim Stevenson > > > > > > It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American > >aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain > >this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have > >something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could > >that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:45:05 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: Missiles Missing > Not to put too fine a point on it, but the report was that the missiles were > fired "at" rather than "toward" the Iraqis. If the intent was merely to > scare the bad guys, it seems a damned expensive way to do it. What do those > things cost? > According to: http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/ AIM-120 AMRAAMS cost roughly $386,000 each. AIM-7 Sparrow missiles cost about $125,000 a piece. AIM-9 Sidewinders are about $84,000 each. If we wanted to buy more missiles this year they may cost 25-50% more than the figures listed above. This is just a rough guess. If anyone could enlighten us further, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] > On Behalf Of Gavin Payne > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 9:41 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: RE: Missiles Missing > > Do we know that the missiles were actually targeted at the aircraft, or > designed > simply to chase them off?- Gavin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Frank Markus > Sent: 06 January 1999 13:54 > To: Skunk_Works_List > Subject: Missiles Missing > > > It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American > aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain > this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have > something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could > that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:35:21 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Missiles Missing The response below to my comments on missiles reminds me of the statement: if every player makes his block, every hike in a football game would result in a touchdown. Jim Stevenson >> This is totally consistant with previous experience of American air-to-air >> missiles. >> >> The promise, while always in the 80-90 percent range, has actually >> exhibited 10-20 percent in actual combat. > >There is nothing wrong with our missiles!!! > >I suspect they were fired at extreme ranges, against aircraft which might have >been MiG-25 Foxbats fleeing the area at full afterburner at about Mach 2.85. > >You cannot expect medium range missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM to be able to >chase fleeing Foxbats at Mach 2.85. Now if the 2 F-14 Tomcats we sent in to >intercept the boggeys had AIM-54C Phoenix missiles with a range of over >150nm. >and a speed of over Mach 4 the results may have been very different even >against >Foxbats. > >Again, our missiles work just fine as long as they are used properly within >their envelope. > >Please forgive me for being so religious but I take comments like ones above >very personally, because we have some of the finest air-to-air missiles in the >world. > >Words of wisdom and contributions from experts on the list respectfully >requested. > >Thanks, > >Sam > >> >> Jim Stevenson >> >> >> >> >> > It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American >> >aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain >> >this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have >> >something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could >> >that 'something' be? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 05:57:22 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Missiles Missing Someone speculated: >It has been reported that all six (of six) missiles fired by American >aircraft against Iraqi planes failed to hit their targets. How to explain >this? Is there something wrong with our missiles? Or did the Iraqis have >something that defeated the American missiles? In both cases, what could >that 'something' be? I chimed in: The two cases cited above are only two of 6 or 8 possible explanations. I would also argue they are on the lower end of the list of probable causes. We're getting the cart in front of the horse. (getting the center of pressure in front of the center of gravity?) patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 12:06:26 -0700 From: Lee Subject: Re: Missiles Missing At 01:58 AM 1/7/99 , you wrote: >Again, our missiles work just fine as long as they are used properly within >their envelope. As a young kid, in the late 60's at Pensacola NAS, we were warned about the ejection seats in our Navy T2A jet trainers with similar words: "These seats will work perfectly if you use them within the proper envelope. The minimum requirement is straight and level flight at least 100 feet of altitude and 100 Knots air speed." To which we said, "In those conditions, why would I eject?" Thanks for the memory jogger! Lee __ __ _ __ _ - ~~ l ~-_ http://www.users.uswest.net/~racing2win/ @~~ ------+--------~----____ Ex-Naval Aviation, 3 time Utah Karting @==/~_~\===|=~======|===/~_~\~~-, Champion, Still a kid at heart. \ ( (_) ) \_______| ( (_) )__ , 1987 Fiero GT Burgundy Red, CS >~~\___/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\___/~ ICQ 2403935 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #1 ******************************* 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