From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #32 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, April 1 1999 Volume 08 : Number 032 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** [none] Photos of downed F-117 Re: Final Flight Re: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb Advocating stealth No evidence that F-117 stealth works The stealth excuses begin Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: No evidence that F-117 stealth works Re: The stealth excuses begin Global Dork crash RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:23:12 -0700 From: Lee Subject: [none] ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:43:54 +0000 From: Brent Clark Subject: Photos of downed F-117 Check out this site which has photos of #806. http://www.stratfor.com/crisis/kosovo/maps.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:51:16 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Final Flight At 10:07 PM 3/31/99 -0600, Dr. Bob Hoskins wrote: >>>> New_Century_SchlbkDear Friends of the KC-135, It has been quite a while since I last sent out an e-mail regarding the KC-135 fleet and my book about it. I have relocated and changed my e-mail address. Please note that it is now drbob@shemya.net---clever, huh? If any of you receive duplicates of this message (at the same e-mail address) or wish to be removed, please let me know. Rather than delay any longer in an effort to try to get my new (and improved, naturally) KC-135 web site up and running, I wanted to send this message because of its importance. Final Flight After a four-year bout with Alzheimer's Disease, legendary Boeing test pilot A. M. "Tex" Johnston died on 29 October 1998, in Mt. Vernon, Washington, at age 84. Perhaps best remembered for his 1955 "Gold Cup Roll" of the Boeing 367-80 Johnston's aviation accomplishments range from interwar barnstorming to Chief of Flight Test at Boeing. These are recounted in his book _Jet Age Test Pilot_. Anyone with even a passing interest in the KC-135 is sure to recall that "Tex," wearing a new pair of cowboy boots made especially for the occasion, flew in the right seat of 55-3118 with Boeing test pilot "Dix" Loesch in command of the maiden flight of the KC-135 on 31 August 1956. "Tex" readily agreed to write the Foreword to _Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker--More Than Just a Tanker_. It was both a pleasure and an honor to work with him. Thanks for everything "Tex." Please remember "Tex" by sending a contribution to the Tex Johnston Memorial Scholarship Fund Museum of Flight 9404 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98112 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe it should be called the "Tex Johnston Flight Test Center" up at Boeing Field in Seattle. Vaya Con Dios Tex. When you get there, show 'em how its done. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:16:24 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Re: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb Wayne Binkley wrote: >let me see if i got this right.you guys don't believe anything an >american"blue" suiter says but are ready to believe some russian quoted >in the "drudge"report.talk about being biased. Thanks Wayne....... Best, John John Stone PLEASE NOTE (another!) NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: blackbirds@iname.com U-2 & SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 08:48:29 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Advocating stealth David wrote: >Are you saying that the LO R&D has resulted in a zero net gain wrt to the >survivability of a/c ? If so, Air Force Chief of Staff - General Larry Welch > . . . would disagree with your take on stealth. Larry Welch is an advocate for the Air Force. It was, after all, Larry Welch who generated the analysis that said an F-15 with an AIM-82 missile could generate an exchange ratio against the MiG-21F of 955-to-1. - -------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Author, "The Pentagon Paradox : The Development of the F-18 Hornet" Available at Amazon.com at this web site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507759/qid%3D921852978/002-87 71310-1228648 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:38:01 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: No evidence that F-117 stealth works I wrote: > The only evidence that stealth "worked" is the gulf war. But it performed= no > better or worse than any other aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 f= eet. > That does not prove it worked. David responded: > I think you're analysis is unfair. RCS, I/R and acoustic signature > reduction has been considered desirable in a/c design for many years. The > fact is that achieving orders of magnitude reductions create a wide range > of disparate, complex and expensive engineering problems. The fact that the reductions mentioned are desirable does mean that their attempted implementations were successful. I agree that there are many problems in the development. There is no evidence that, with respect to stealth, the engineers solved them. > How do you explain the tests against various radars in the Have Blue phas= e > of the F-117s development ? As an indication of its rush to a conclusion on the effectiveness of stealth, the Air Force awarded the full scale engineering (FSD) contract on November 16, 1978, for a production version of the Have Blue aircraft, which would become known as the F-117A. At the time, there were only four months of flight test on the second Have Blue aircraft, then one used for in-flight stealth testing. If one accepts that the Lockheed Have Blue aircraft was a proof of concept for a stealth aircraft, then one must also assume that the Have Blue test was subject to the rigors of the scientific method, since it stood for stealth generically. That would require that the test was set up to disprove the concept of the "invisibility" to radar with opposite results. However, the rigor of the scientific method was missing on the Have Blue program. The Have Blue demonstration testing did not look at the Have Blue aircraft the way the Soviets would. There was no search radar feeding information into the missile acquisition radar. The search was done with the same fire control radars that would have been used to shoot it down. "That was the functional equivalent of looking for an airplane through a soda straw. I could have flown any airplane in the test designed by Lockheed," Bob Drabant said. "It was a test designed to make the radar fail." - ------------------------------------------------- Table - ------------------------------------------------- Relative radar reflectively from the front view of competing XST (Have Blue) models Radar Freq. Northrop Lockheed 16.0 GHz 4.0 1.3 2.3 GHz 1.5 1.0 0.175 GHz 13.0 1,000.0 Source: Have Blue Briefing - ------------------------------------------------- The Lockheed Have Blue model was more susceptible to low frequency radar that the Russians would use to search for targets. - ------------------------------------------------- The radar had binoculars slaved to it. While an observer could visually see the Have Blue airplane at 12 to 15 miles, the radar operators could not see it until it was five miles from the radar. This sounds quite impressive. However, to have adhered to the scientific method, the Air Force should have sent a non-stealth aircraft over the exact same route, at the same airspeed, altitude, and direction. The Air Force=B9s failure to do that has caused some to take issue with the quality of the testing. Some knowledgeable participants have further questioned whether the radar was accurately slaved to either the binoculars or the other radars used for verification. If production of the F-117 aircraft had been authorized based on the Have Blue test results, it would have been a good example of setting up an experiment so that it could not fail. But then, how could it: the Lockheed Have Blue test was designed, run, and had its final report written by Lockheed. It was the functional equivalent of having a company=B9s chief financial officer perform a tax audit for the IRS. The test results of Have Blue were, however, incidental to the authorization of the F-117. The results were a forgone conclusion because as Paul Kaminski stated, "the F-117 development effort actually began a little over one year earlier when the concept definition contract was awarded one month prior to the first HAVE BLUE flight on December 1, 1977." In other words, there was no flight test data or radar test data from a flying airplane available when the decision was made to proceed with the concept definition of the F-117 and the FSD contract was awarded after only four months of testing on the aircraft in flight. American=B9s pride themselves as practitioners of the Western tradition of applying the scientific method, a self-correcting process of observations, analyses/synthesis, hypothesis, and test. Fundamental to the validity of the scientific method is the use of the double-blind study, "a test . . . in which neither tester nor subject has knowledge of identities or other factors that might lead to bias." The scientific method was not used to prove the viability of stealth nor were the experiments set up to maximize the potential for failure, a mandatory element in the intellectual tradition of the scientific method. Indeed, one can argue, as Karl Popper did, that "just because the first million swans observed were white, one could not guarantee that the next one would be white also." Popper suggested that accordingly, a theory could never be proven only disproven. The entire process of investigating the veracity of the claims of stealth are replete with the intellectual arrogance of "we know and you don=B9t." The argument against stealth is virtually identical to the arguments against psychotherapy. As one commentator described it: "A third bias [against psychotherapy] is that these are not data that can be publicly seen. There are data that only the psychotherapist can see with the patient. So you have two people who have access to it. So the question is how can you base a science on data that only two people have access to? And in fact, even worse, many of the psychoanalysts would respond, 'well, you just don=B9t have access to the right kind of data. If you did, you would see what we see.' And the response by the experimentalist is, 'well, look, you=B9re saying I=B9ve got to go through years of psychoanalytic training or training as a clinical psychologist so I can see these data so I can then attest to whether or not they are true. But I=B9m already going to be committed to those beliefs if I go through all those years of training. You=B9re saying no one can judge these beliefs except people who are already committed to them? That doesn=B9t make any sense.' " Some viewed Operation Desert Storm as proof of stealth=B9s effectiveness. However, as this congressional exchange illustrated, it was only proof that flying out of range of the missiles gave everyone the same result as the "stealthy" F-117. "Mr. McCrery. How do you explain the fact that F-117=B9s were used disproportionately in the opening stages of the war, disproportionately in terms of the sorties they ran, compared to the number of aircraft they represented as a percentage of the whole, and knocked out some of the elements of the Iraqi Army that allowed us to establish air superiority, and yet we didn=B9t lose a single 117? Mr. Sprey. For the same reason that the other fighters that few 10,000 feet and higher didn=B9t get hit, either. That is not a tribute to the survivability of the airplane. It just means if you stay out of the close-in combat zone, it is not hard to survive. Every airplane in the war survived beautifully as long as they flew high. At high altitude there are no guns to reach you, and the radar missiles that can reach you are very easy to outmaneuver, with or without stealth. In general, in previous wars it has taken anywhere from 100 to 500 surface-to-air missiles to get a single kill. They are just not a big threat if you see them coming and if you fly high. So, the F-117 achieved the same thing as the F-16 or the F-15: When you flew high, you didn=B9t hit. There is no miracle there. . . . " Sprey did not add that with the amount of EA-6B jamming used during the opening days of the war, an armada of Reynolds-wrapped 747s could have flown over Baghdad without receiving a scratch. - -------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Author, "The Pentagon Paradox : The Development of the F-18 Hornet" Available at Amazon.com at this web site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507759/qid%3D921852978/002-87 71310-1228648 "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth aircraft. Available Spring of 2000 from The Naval Institute Press Http://www.usni.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:46:54 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: The stealth excuses begin The article below in one of the beginning trail of excuses for the F-117's failure to work as advertised. Like every all previous failed claims, you can expect to see more of this. Usually, it comes in the form of "we have a software update that will fix that." Now, the advocates are distancing themselves from this first generation of stealth and are claiming that the B-2 and F-22 got it right. But again, we don't know because the F-22 production decision will take place before any significant testing on its stealth takes place. Jim Stevenson 1, 1999 THE LOST JET Stealth Gives Plane Mask, but Not Cloak, Experts Say By WARREN E. LEARY WASHINGTON -- The loss of an American stealth fighter in Yugoslavia on Saturday did not represent a failure of its radar-evading technology, experts said Wednesday. The F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter-bomber, which went down 30 miles west of Belgrade, probably because of enemy fire, represents an early version of technology that is becoming increasingly common in military aircraft. The technology, including materials and design features that cause the craft to absorb rather than reflect radar beams, was not expected to make planes invisible to radar, but rather to reduce an enemy's ability to detect them. The exact cause of the F-117's loss has yet to be determined, but senior Pentagon officials, speaking on condition that they not be identified, said the plane was tracked for a time by Yugoslav military radar and probably was hit by a Russian-made SA-3 surface-to-air missile. American military officials have not disclosed the operating conditions of the plane at the time it was lost, or how long it had been visible on radar. But private military experts say that under the right conditions, stealth aircraft can be detected in a variety of ways, including with certain radars. Still, they said, the planes have great advantages over conventional warplanes without such "low-observability technology." "No one ever said the F-117 was an invisible plane that could not be shot down," said John E. Pike, a military affairs analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. "It would be obviously incorrect to say this represents a failure of the technology. "Stealth technology is not like a 'cloaking device' from 'Star Trek.' In the real world, it makes an airplane difficult to detect, but not impossible." No warplane can be made totally undetectable. But the ability to make the Nighthawk and future models less obvious to radar and other sensors is improving in an effort to stay ahead of technology to detect them. "This is like a cat-and-mouse game between technologies," said Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based study group. "The U.S. has been ahead in its stealth technology for a while, but this kind of technical monopoly is unusual and can't last." Stealth features extend to the plane's two jet engines. The air intakes for the engines are covered with a mesh to keep radar signals from hitting spinning turbine blades, intensifying the signals, and engine exhaust exits the plane through slits that mix it with cold air, reducing the craft's infrared heat signature. The F-117 can show up on radar screens in a number of ways, experts said, including making sudden maneuvers at low altitude that can reflect signals to receivers in the area. Such turns and maneuvers are more likely over the mountainous terrain of Yugoslavia than the desert terrain of Iraq. Further, experts said, when the plane opens its bomb-bay doors to drop its 2,000-pound "smart" bombs, the doors produce a large radar "reflection" that can disclose the aircraft's location. "The plane is most vulnerable to detection when it drops its bombs," Pike said. The bombs themselves show up on radar screens, allowing an enemy to track them back to their source. The Air Force recently started coating the Nighthawk's bombs with a radar-absorbing coating, Pike said. Dr. Krepinevich said the type of enemy radar and its position also could help in detecting a stealth plane. The F-117 operates more effectively when American forces know the position of enemy radars so the plane can find its way through holes in a defense screen, he said, and tightly placed or unexpected radars operating at certain frequencies can detect the plane. Newer stealth aircraft like the B-2 bomber and the F-22 fighter have designs dramatically different from that of the F-117. The new planes have a more curved and streamlined appearance that developers say makes them even less detectable. Designers are incorporating stealth features into many new, more conventional warplanes, experts said, to lessen the possibility of detection but not necessarily to avoid it entirely. "You want the advantage of seeing the enemy before he sees you," said Daniel Goure, deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "even if it's only for a couple of minutes or a few seconds. If stealthiness allows you to get off the first shot, it's worth the effort." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 07:38:49 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin At 09:46 AM 4/1/99 -0500, Jim Stevenson wrote: >The article below in one of the beginning trail of excuses for the >F-117's failure to work as advertised. Like every all previous failed >claims, you can expect to see more of this. Usually, it comes in the >form of "we have a software update that will fix that." > >Now, the advocates are distancing themselves from this first generation >of stealth and are claiming that the B-2 and F-22 got it right. But >again, we don't know because the F-22 production decision will take >place before any significant testing on its stealth takes place. > >Jim Stevenson > > > 1, 1999 > >THE LOST JET >Stealth Gives Plane Mask, but Not Cloak, Experts Say > >By WARREN E. LEARY > >WASHINGTON -- The loss of an American stealth fighter in Yugoslavia on >Saturday did not represent a failure of its radar-evading technology, SNIP_____SNIP______SNIP C'mon Jim, there is absolutely nothing new in this article and except for the mention of the loss of 806 this article could have been written during the Gulf War. This article says nothing. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:17:47 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin Jim S writes: >The article below in one of the beginning trail of excuses for the >F-117's failure to work as advertised. Like every all previous failed >claims, you can expect to see more of this. Usually, it comes in the >form of "we have a software update that will fix that." > >Now, the advocates are distancing themselves from this first generation >of stealth and are claiming that the B-2 and F-22 got it right. But >again, we don't know because the F-22 production decision will take >place before any significant testing on its stealth takes place. Thanks for posting the interesting article. The LA Times ran a similar piece by James F. Pltz and Jeff Leeds. I welcome this approach because it sets the record straight on what LO is and isn't. However, I very much doubt that anything contained in them isn't known to us/those who take an active interest in advanced aviation . If we get away from the hype surrounding the term 'Stealth' and get back to what engineers call it: 'Low Observability,' we note that the operative word is 'Low' rather than 'No' Observability. I can't remember ever being told by anyone in the business or the DoD that LO planes were either invisible to radar/IR or invulnerable. David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:59:32 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin Re all the stealth arguments or opinions, here is what I know about the F-117A's stealth characteristics: 1) In his book "Skunkworks," Ben Rich never said the radar model was invisible. What he said was that it had the same radar profile as a 1/8" ball bearing. Very small, but not invisible. Radar returns all kinds of noise, and it's up to the operator to filter out real traffic from birds, debris, skyscrapers, etc. When you're radar signature is the same as that of a duck, it's a good chance you'll be ignored because the radar operator thinks they're looking at a duck. 2) As far as the airplane not being as stealthy as the radar model, this is almost certainly true due to such items as engine intake screens, pitot tubes, etc. But the airframe is still stealthy. My proof is the Sea Shadow. This boat was developed by Lockheed because of all the dead bats found in the hangar with the F-117, during flight tests at Groom Lake. The airframe was deflecting the bats' sonar, and they were flying into it and breaking their necks. Ben Rich and others decided that if it works on sonar in addition to radar, there must be a use for the stealth design for anti-sonar applications. Thus the Sea Shadow. 3) I personally don't believe that the B-2 is as "stealthy" as the F-117 or it would have seen more usage than it has. However, this point is personal opinion only and I'm not trying to pass it off as a fact. 4) I can't remember where I read this (meaning it's probably not true), but the article said that the windows in the F-117 have a coating that darkens when electricity passes thru it. Why? Because the radar signature of the pilot's flight helmet was bigger than the radar signature of the airplane itself. If I'm wrong on any or all points, I'm sure someone will let me know. David Allison allison@habu.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:00:42 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: No evidence that F-117 stealth works Jim S writes: >I wrote: > >> The only evidence that stealth "worked" is the gulf war. But it performed= > no >> better or worse than any other aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 f= >eet. >> That does not prove it worked. > >David responded: > >> I think you're analysis is unfair. RCS, I/R and acoustic signature >> reduction have been considered desirable in a/c design for many years. >> The fact is that achieving orders of magnitude reductions create a wide >> range of disparate, complex and expensive engineering problems. > >The fact that the reductions mentioned are desirable does mean that ^^^^^^^^^ >their attempted implementations were successful. I'd like to think you're agreeing with me, but I fear a typo :) >......................................... I agree that there are >many problems in the development. There is no evidence that, with >respect to stealth, the engineers solved them. Come on Jim, you're using the 'S' word again which means less than nothing because it causes misperceptions. As I've said before, 'Low Observability' is what engineers call it, not ' No Observability.' Surely you agree with that. > >> How do you explain the tests against various radars in the Have Blue phas= >e >> of the F-117s development ? > >As an indication of its rush to a conclusion on the effectiveness of >stealth, the Air Force awarded the full scale engineering (FSD) contract >on November 16, 1978, for a production version of the Have Blue >aircraft, which would become known as the F-117A. At the time, there >were only four months of flight test on the second Have Blue aircraft, >then one used for in-flight stealth testing. [good stuff edited] Now this is just what I wanted to see. I'll get back to you when I've had a a chance to take a good look at it...and ask a few people. Best Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:24:30 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin David wrote: > I can't remember ever being told by anyone in the business or the DoD tha= t > LO planes were either invisible to radar/IR or invulnerable. I don't know if you would consider Secretary of Defense William Perry as being in the business, but here is his claim of radar invisibility: "[W]hat gives the F-22 its unique advantage as an air dominance fighter of the future is that any aircraft that it comes up against, any air defense system that it comes up against it will be essentially invisible to. . . . "And its biggest distinctive advantage over the F-15 or any other airplane in the inventory today is that it cannot be seen by the radars, either the ground-to-air defense system or the radars that drive the air-to-air missiles.=B21/ 1/ William Perry, =B3Defense Department Budget Briefing.=B2 (7 Feb. 1994): A1, A-10. - -------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Author, "The Pentagon Paradox : The Development of the F-18 Hornet" Available at Amazon.com at this web site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507759/qid%3D921852978/002-87 71310-1228648 "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth aircraft. Available Spring of 2000 from The Naval Institute Press Http://www.usni.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:25:55 -0500 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: Global Dork crash Apparently one of the Global Hawks crashed near China Lake yesterday. "rolled into a dive from 41,000 feet" http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh0r.htm Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:28:18 +0100 From: gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk Subject: RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb I know that the B-52 & B-1B and E-4 are 'heavily hardened' against EMP. If I was dropping a couple of dozen B-61s, I'd want something to keep me in the sky :) Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Sam Kaltsidis > Sent: 31 March 1999 18:41 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb > > > > At 07:36 AM 3/31/99 -0500, you wrote: > > >I found the following on the Drudge Report. What does it > refer to? Could > > >it be the massive B-52 jamming power that has been > discussed here. Is it > > >another jamming-type device? Is it a genuinely new type > of weapon (like the > > >carbon fibers that were used to disrupt the Iraqi electrical grid)? > > > > ~~~snip~~~~~ > > > > >Or could the Russians be playing at disinformation yet again? > > >conventional weapons. "It was created in Los Alamos and is > aimed to destroy > > >radio electronic equipment," the TASS newswire reported in > Tuesday flashes. > > > > > =-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > > Yah, thats just what all our aircraft and surveillance > vehicles need while > > flying over enemy area is to have all their electronic > ability to be > > disrupted. > > > I believe (some of) our aircraft are protected from EMP. > > > > > > patrick > > Sam > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 99 19:56:54 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb On 4/1/99 11:28AM, in message <000001be7c76$9efc69c0$0300a8c0@liden2.cleancrunch.demon.co.uk>, gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk wrote: > I know that the B-52 & B-1B and E-4 are 'heavily hardened' against EMP. > If I was dropping a couple of dozen B-61s, I'd want something to keep me in > the sky :) > Gavin > > When the B-52 was designed, the phenomena of EMP was not really understood. Although there have been a number of upgrades to the BUFF, whether all its systems could handle an enhanced EMP attack can't be assumed to be true. On the other hand, because of teh age of the B-52 and some of its control systems, it is already more naturally resistant to EMP effects than later aircraft (tube technology is not as vulnerable). ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #32 ******************************** 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