From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #41 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 Monday, April 5 1999 Volume 08 : Number 041 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Photos of downed F-117 Re[2]: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped RE: Photos of downed F-117 This just in... RE: Stealth debate (longish) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:24:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) Art wrote: >This has been fascinating, I've enjoyed just reading it. I absolutely agree, the best debate on this list for about a year -- much better than stupid remarks like the one from 'Agent T'. It seems to me that Jim wants someone on this list to prove or at least provide evidence, that stealth in general and F-117As in particular work as advertised [at least in respect to LO/stealth/survivability]. I do not believe anyone on this list can provide this evidence, and if anyone could, he/she would not be permitted to do so. I personally would prefer to have evidence that F-117As, B-2As, F-22As, RAH-66As, JSFs and all the other stealth (incorporating) weapon systems work, or that they are at least more survivable than similar 'non-stealthy' systems (F-15Es, B-52Hs, F-15Cs, AH-64As, F-16Cs/AV-8Bs), but I don't expect such proof, at least not until much more data is (and can be) released. The way this discussion started was a little controversial though, with Jim's assertion that "Stealth does not work," rather than "There is no factual evidence that I (Jim) consider valid and/or unbiased enough to come to the conclusion that Stealth works as advertised." I have no proof that the US (or Russian, Chinese, French, British, ...) nuclear arsenal works as advertised -- and I have no desire to find out the hard way -- but because all of the relevant data is either secret or way over my head, I will have to assume that it does work. Whether I think it is sensible to spend billions of dollars [or any other currency] on their development and deployment is an entirely different question. There is no doubt in my mind that the physics of (thermo)nuclear weapons, early warning, command and control, etc. work in theory, and there were many successful tests and exercises with respect to all aspects of the MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction), but in the end it was just a concept, and an all out nuclear war was never executed. So there is no "real evidence" that it would have worked. But the question remains: is such evidence really necessary? I learned a lot new bits and pieces of information from this discussion and I think it is very valuable. On the other hand, I don't think it will lead to a conclusive proof or disproof of 'stealth'. Government accountability is important, and with the demise of the Cold War, it is now much more prevalent in the mind of the average citizen/tax payer than maybe ten years ago. And I assume that everyone on this list agrees that wasting [their] money is a bad thing. But I think that is a political issue, not a technical one. - -- Andreas [who has to BELIEVE that stealth works, because empirical evidence in either way is just not available (to me at this time)] - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:44:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Photos of downed F-117 I wrote: >The Former Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China both have the >remains of one or more U-2Cs... I forgot to mention Cuba, which also has a U-2C wreckage. - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 99 15:45:03 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Thanks to all those who helped me get back on the list..... Greg W. ps: Boy, I missed posts like this, Andreas! ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Author: at INTERNET Date: 4/5/1999 15:17 Terry Colvin forwarded a post from Jim Boyd in response to an newspaper article from the London Times, which was apparently quoted on J. Orlin Grabbe's page, . Patrick has a I also added a small overview of F-117A serials and some additional data on the 10 lost aircraft. Thanks to Peter Merlin for help with the Fiscal Years. Production Overview: ==================== YF-117A FSD (Full-Scale Development aircraft): - ---------------------------------------------- 780 through 784 Total: 5 Series F-117A: - -------------- 785 through 843 Total: 59 FY Number ordered/built/paid Article numbers: - --------------------------------------------------- 79 5 Lot 1 (FSD) 780 - 784 80 7 Lot 2 785 - 791 81 7 Lot 3 792 - 798 82 12 Lot 4 (8) 799 - 806 Lot 6 (4) 809 - 812 [out of sequence] 83 2 Lot 5 807 - 808 843 88-0843 (59th series F-117A built, last aircraft accepted by USAF: 07/12/1990, flew 33 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "Affectionately Christine"); burned out sometime in 1996 at Holloman AFB, NM, the pilot (?) survived, aircraft might be repaired); - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:47:43 +0100 From: gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk Subject: RE: Photos of downed F-117 > > The Former Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China > both have the > remains of one or more U-2Cs, including cameras, avionics, > defensive systems > and other sensors -- very secret at the time, while U-2Ss, > even though they > are much more advanced now, are still used today. I have no > idea how much > use the wrecks were for those countries at the time, but the > fact that they > exploited the remains, did not make the U-2 or overhead > reconnaissance > obsolete, even though it probably influenced its current > implementation. Didn't the US give China 4 U-2s to play with, only they crashed them all within days of getting them? Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:00:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: This just in... More AFNS articles 'for the record', and one piece of interesting information for discussion: Even though neither people nor units nor 'rescue vehicles' are named, the second article describes the prelude to the crash as high negative g-forces that might have resulted from things like the nose or a wing coming off the plane. Nothing substantial yet, though. 990585. Additional F-117 stealth fighters arrive in Germany SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany (AFPN) -- U.S.-based F-117 Nighthawks arrived here April 4 to help support NATO operations over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen ordered the stealth fighters from Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., to Germany in an effort to boost NATO air power and put an end to the ongoing conflict in Kosovo. NATO aircraft continue to strike Yugoslav military targets and war-making infrastructure. The F-117s join other forward-deployed U.S. and NATO aircraft based at locations throughout Europe, including Aviano and Cervia air bases in Italy; Royal Air Force Fairford, England; and Ramstein AB, Germany. (Courtesy of U.S. Air Forces in Europe News Service) 990592. Rescued pilot details evasion, inspiration by 1st Lt. Matthew Borg 31st Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs AVIANO AIR BASE, Italy (AFPN) -- During his more than six hours behind enemy lines, the U.S. F-117 pilot who ejected during a night mission over Yugoslavia March 27, waited for his rescuers with a cloth American flag under his flight suit and against his body. Given to him by an airman as he strapped in for his mission, he secured the flag before he took off, and that's where it remained until his return, providing him a calming reassurance throughout. "A moment like this is a prayer in object form," said the pilot, whose identity is being protected for operational security reasons. "Her giving that flag to me was saying, 'I'm giving this to you to give back to me when you get home.' "For me it was representative of all the people who I knew were praying," said the pilot. "It was a piece of everyone and very comforting. It helped me not let go of hope. Hope gives you strength ... it gives you endurance." In numerous debriefings over the past week, the pilot spoke of this endurance along with his determination to survive and evade, but credits his return home to the search and rescue team that plucked him from deep within Serbian territory. Punctuated by repeated statements of gratitude to his rescuers, the stealth fighter pilot detailed his emergency ejection, enemy evasion and eventual rescue. "I knew I was fairly deep into Serbian territory," said the Air Force pilot. "I had guessed my position was within 20 miles of Belgrade -- not a happy thought, considering the risk involved in a combat search and rescue that deep into Serbian territory." The pilot said he purposely wasn't optimistic about a timely extraction, and was prepared for potential capture. "I knew everybody was doing everything they could, but I also knew what was involved in trying to recover me," said the pilot. "Even though that team is highly trained and extremely skilled, I knew the risks and complexity, as well as the danger. I still can't believe that I got on board that (rescue vehicle) with our guys." The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but the pilot did provide officials with a detailed account of his ejection from the aircraft. While he doesn't know exactly what the negative G-forces were prior to his ejection, he described them as "enormous," potentially as high as five times the force of gravity. "I remember having to fight to get my hands to go down toward the (ejection seat) handgrips," he explained. "I always strap in very tightly, but because of the intense G-forces, I was hanging in the straps and had to stretch to reach the handles." While he recalls the intense strain involved in getting his fingertips to the ejection handles, he said he doesn't remember making the conscious decision to eject from the aircraft. "'Am I going to know when it's time to get out?' is the question on every fighter pilot's mind," he said. "The one fragment of this whole event I can't remember is pulling the handles. God took my hands and pulled." Uninjured except for a few minor abrasions, the Nighthawk pilot described the ejection as "violent." Although slightly disoriented after the high-airspeed ejection, he was very aware he had just bailed out deep within Serbian territory. "It didn't panic me," he said. "I just got very busy doing what I needed to do." After his parachute had deployed, he said he immediately started working the rescue. "I remember thinking, 'Why wait until I hit the ground? Let's go for it now,'" he explained. The pilot attributes a great deal of his success behind enemy lines to his Air Force SERE training, an intensive program that includes survival, evasion, resistance and escape instruction. "There was not a whole lot of this that I actually had to ponder," he said. "The SERE training and periodic life support refresher training provide a very strong foundation of survival techniques. Having experienced (survival and evasion) at some level, even though it was in the training environment, provided some level of familiarity." Because of the potential that the Serbs were also monitoring various radio frequencies, the pilot had to minimize his radio transmissions and calls for help. After making radio contact with NATO forces, he used the remaining minutes of his descent to survey the land -- looking for landmarks, areas of cover and a landing site. Parachuting into a freshly plowed field approximately 50 yards from a road and rail track intersection, he immediately began burying the life raft and other survival equipment automatically deployed during the ejection sequence. "There was some activity at that intersection," he said. "Thank God no one actually saw me come down." While he couldn't absolutely confirm that the cars, trucks and people he heard were looking for him, he did hear search dogs. At one point, a dog came within 30 feet of where he was huddled. The pilot spent the next six hours hunkered down in this "hold-up site" in a shallow culvert 200 yards away from his landing site. It was during this time that many questions began racing through his head. "A very important part of the whole combat search and rescue operation is to minimize transmission on the radio," he said. "However, for the downed guy, it's very unsettling to not know what's going on. You're thinking, 'Do they know I'm here? Do they know my location? Where are the assets and who is involved? What's the plan? Are they going to try to do this tonight?' It's the unknowns that are unsettling." But amid this road race of thoughts, the Air Force officer had something tangible to get him through six hours of solitude amidst barking search dogs, passing headlights and pursuit trucks roaring up and down the nearby road -- the American flag. And while the downed pilot waited, so did the American people, including those forces deployed to Aviano Air Base, Italy. "When we heard he was down," said the airman who had given him the flag, "it was as if we had lost a member of our family. These guys aren't just pilots to us. We know their families and they know ours." The pilot endured for more than a quarter of a day until the special operations unit arrived. With minimal communication but careful and discreet authentication of his identity, the search and rescue team was able to ingress to the pilot's hold-up location. Search and rescue specialists with emergency medical capabilities and whose mission is to recover combat air crews in austere environments quickly extracted the pilot and whisked him toward friendly ground. Among the first to greet the rescued pilot at Aviano was the airman. Amid the hugs, back slapping and hand shaking, the F-117 pilot spotted her in the crowd and reached into his flight suit to reveal the flag he had promised to return to her. "People have asked me if I was thinking about the flag I had given him," the airman said. "I wasn't thinking about it at all. I just wanted him back." Now, just days after his rescue, the downed pilot is anxious to get right back in the cockpit. "The leadership said they wanted to give me a breather and that it wasn't my choice," said the pilot. "All I asked was that I be able to stay here for as long as possible before heading back. I think all of us need to have time together to visit with our emotions." Allied Force air operations continue to launch here day and night, with approximately 140 warplanes operating out of the Northeastern Italy air base. Nearly 400 NATO aircraft in the region have been ordered by Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme allied commander Europe, to focus more intensely on Yugoslav forces. While the rescued pilot will be miles away from the combat for the foreseeable future, he did want the American public to know how hard those still supporting the operations are working. "(The American people) can be very proud of the devotion and hustle everyone is exhibiting over here," said the pilot. "Keep them in your prayers and support them." (Courtesy of U.S. Air Forces in Europe News Service) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:28:48 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: Stealth debate (longish) James writes: > -----Original Message----- > From: James P. Stevenson [mailto:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 04, 1999 7:56 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > > > > >>Well, if it had additional data, and could not conclude > that the F-117 > >>did any better than other aircraft, where is the evidence > that stealth > >>worked? > > > > Where is the evidence that it did not? Zero losses is zero losses. > > You are arguing that it did work. I don't have to prove a negative. ... chop ... > The F-22 will have in its production version, 1.7 million lines of > software code. As testimony to this level of effort, a good programmer > can produce three lines of debugged software code per day, Thus the > F-22, when it is completed its flight test, will have over 2,000 man > years of software code effort. Aircraft number one has > 300,000 lines of > code and the current plane to migrate up to the 82 percent level with > 1.4 million lines of code in aircraft No. 9. The development test and > evaluation (DT&E) phase will not include code for dropping the JDAM > munitions. I would like to know exactly where you got the figure that a "good programmer" can produce three lines of debugged code a day. Also, where did you get the information that there will be 1.7 million lines of source code. Erik - -- Dr. Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Computer Scientist 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 > > Congress put a cap on the cost of the F-22 in the National Defense > Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, November 18, 1997. It "imposed > cost limitations of $18.688 billion on the F-22 EMD program and $43.4 > billion on the production program." However, it did not specify a > quantity of aircraft to be procured. This means that if the program > acquisition unit cost (PAUC) increases, the quantity of aircraft will > decrease because the money authorized is a constant. In > August 1998, the > Air Force was planning how announce that it would exceed the EMD cost > cap by over $1 billion. > > Dividing the fixed amount authorized by Congress for EMD and > production > with the previous money spent on Concept Formulation and DemVal, the > F-22 program unit cost will exceed of $190 million. Adding the $1 > billion EMD overrun will add approximately $3 million to the program > acquisition unit cost. > > Making production decisions before substantial completion of > flight test > has been historically justified because "the Russians are > coming." Yet, > in making them prior to the completion of testing, the > military runs the > risk that the hard tooling of the production aircraft or the aircraft > themselves will have to be changed. Even without the pressure of the > Soviet threat, there is a tendency to lock in production > commitments so > that the program has a better political potential. The best example of > this is the F-18E/F. > > In spite of 25 years of two flying prototypes, (the YF-17 and the > F-18A/B/C/D), the F-18E/F--an airplane justified in large part for its > increased range--developed a wing drop problem almost from the > beginning, (see "Testing the Super Hornet: A Status Report," Aerospace > America, June 1998). The Navy was 2,500 flight hours into its flight > test program before it said that it had solved the problem. > As a result, > the Navy was successful in gaining approval to enter production before > the flight test program was over. The production aircraft would > incorporate the fix for the wing drop. > > Yet as the F-22 approached the December 1998 183 flight test > hour mark, > the point at which the Air Force wanted to gain a production > commitment > for the Raptor, the F-18E/F wing drop problem re-emerged. The > production fix functioned more poorly than the interim fixed used to > gain the production approval. As a result, the Navy almost lost an > F-18E. The fix was not something for nothing, either, in a low level > range comparison, an F-18C flew further than the F-18E, defeating in > large part, the justification to build the F-18E in the first place. > > There is no unamimity within the Department of Defense as to > whether or > not we really need the F-22. According to the Director of Investment, > Ron Garant: > > "The A-12 and ATF are a lot of 'me too' for the nonstrategic > community. > If these programs are continued, they will break the backs of > TACAIR in > both the Navy and Air Force. All three of these programs suffer from > having been born in the undisciplined world of compartmented programs > where money is no object and the realities of the world are never a > consideration. . . . > > "To put all of this in historic perspective, we need only look at what > drove the Egyptians to stop building pyramids. It was not a conscious > decision based on analysis of need." It was, according to Garant, > because the pharaohs ran out of money." > > And the need for stealth in the first place is also subject to debate. > > "The story that you had to have stealth to defeat the Russians was > created in OSD," said former Navy Secretary John Lehman. "It > was created > in DDR&E [the office of the Director of Defense Research & > Engineering] > from Bill Perryšs time and PA&E [Program Analysis & Evaluation] went > along with it. If the Navy were allowed to say how it wanted to defeat > the Russians, I would have proceeded with the SEAD > [suppression of enemy > air defenses] mission just like we did in Libya and Iraq. . . . > > "Look, Libya and Iraq had the best air defenses the French > and Russians > had to offer. Downtown Tripoli was more heavily defended that > any target > in Russian and we went in and out of there without being shot down. We > would have done the same thing in Russia. So therešs the proof that we > didnšt need stealth." > > > > There was a great deal of physics that said gun-assembly atomic > > weapons would be effective and reliable. Without validating that > > model, it was put into use in combat. That type of atomic weapon was > > never tested. > > I missed your point. > > >>> I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. > Are you saying > >>> that the GAO reports are inaccurate" > > > > It was niether accurate or inaccurate,as far as your assetions. It > > neither proves or disproves wether a particular weapons system > > "worked at 10,000 fett and at night", and in fact it points out that > > making such judgements based on their data, and their report, would > > be foolish. > > > > All that report gives is numbers without meaning in this case. > > There is no evidence that any aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet at > night did any better than any other aircraft. See Lehman's comment > above. > > >> > >>No. I am saying that the GAO report makes the point that there is no > >>evidence that the F-117 did any better than any other > aircraft flying in > >>the same altitudes and at night. > > > > And it also does not show that it was any worse at anything than any > > other aircraft under the same conditions. > > That is true. But you appear to be saying that stealth works. There is > no evidence that it works. According to Lehman, it's not even needed. > >> > >>One can reasonably infer that there is no evidence that the > F-117 did no > >>better than any of the other aircraft flying above 10,000 > feet and at > >>night from the GAO report or the Title V report. > > > > And there is absolutely no significance to that statement. > > The significance is that if you pay extra for stealth and you > don't need > it, don't spend it. > > >>>>According to my interview with one of the authors of the > GAO report, > >>>>there were other aircraft that flew into areas of equal or greater > >>>>threat. > >> > >>> "Threat" is another ill-defined term. Attacking a SAM site is > >>> considered to be attacking an "area of great threat", but so is > >>> attacking an Anthrax plant with no AAA defenses. Threat is a very > >>> subjective term. > >> > >>As far as I know, no aircraft has been shot down by the anthrax > >>bacillus. > > > > And thus, it is not a threat? So it isn't effective at > killing pilots? > > Stealth is an alleged defense against surface-to-air and air-to-air > missiles. It is not designed as a defense against anthrax. > > >>> > >>> Even then, yes, cruise missiles did fly into similar > areas, at some > >>> points over 10,000 feet and at night, and even got shot down. In > >>> fact, every one was destroyed. > >>> Nonetheless, in this case cruise missiles fit your > analysis. they are > >>> aircraft flying over 10,000 feet at night and in areas of "high > >>> threat", yet they were shot down, and every one failed to > return home. > >> > >>I am not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that > every cruise > >>missile flying above 10,000 and at night got shot down? > > > > Every one was destroyed, wasn't it? And quite a few DID get > shot down. > > When you provide the data or show me where to look, I can > comment on it. > > > >>I am separating the stealth treatment of the airframe from > the avionics > >>stuffed inside to drop the bombs. I am not interested in > discussing the > >>avionics. There is some evidence on the bomb dropping capability > >>although it is far less successful than advertised. > > > > Then you seem to think that the aircraft's purpose is to be > > "essentially insivble" to radar. No, it's purpose is to drop bombs. > > An aircraft is only effective if it can do it's job, the F-117's job > > is to drop bombs. Stealth is only a means to an end, to help make > > sure that the bombs get there. > > As far as I am concerned, I have been responding to the assertions on > this list that "stealth worked" not that the F-117 did a good job in > dropping its bombs. If my assertion is correct, that there is no > evidence that stealth worked any better than non-stealth aircraft (or > that there is no evidence that it did) then the next discussion may be > how well the F-117 worked as a platform dropping bombs. However, I am > not discussing that issue. > > > >>A simple observation hardly constitutes analysis. In this > case, it takes > >>none. All one has to observe is that there are assertions > and there are > >>observations. Put the two together and what do you see: that all > >>aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet did not get shot down. > >>Conclusion: there is no evidence that stealth works. > > > > I seem to remember an AC-130 getting shot down in the first > nights of > > the war, and it operates at above 10,000 feet and at night. > > But what altitude was it operating at when it got shot down? > > > > I do not see how those figures relate to the effectiveness > of stealth > > aircraft or technology. If anything, they show the effectiveness of > > stealth aircraft in beheading the Iraqi C3I and AAA systems in the > > early stages of the war, and paving the way for other aircraft to > > conduct their missions in a reduced AAA threat environment, leading > > to fewer overall losses. > > > If I accept your premise, then it also shows the same thing for all > other aircraft operating above 10,000 feet at night. > > >>>> > >>>>Those same databases also make it equally difficult to prove that > >>>>stealth worked. > >>> > >>> But massive databases of data collected both on EW ranges > and in the > >>> real world indicate that stealth does work. . . > >> > >>The data from EW ranges is irrevalant. Real world data is all that > >>counts. The history of flight test and weapons test is filled with > >>successful test results only to go into combat and > discovered that the > >>data in combat was a mismatch with the data in test. Look at the GAO > >>report. It talks about the mismatch between stealth claims > before the > >>Gulf War and the results. The GAO report highlights those > mismatches. > >> > >>> it does reduce the > >>> signature of the aircraft significantly, making it hard for an > >>> adversary to track and destroy an aircraft before it reaches it's > >>> target. > >> > >>Prove it. > > > > Got a good microwave? > > This throwaway comment is lost on me. > > -------------------------------------- > 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%3D921852 978/002-87 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #41 ******************************** 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