From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #46 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 Wednesday, April 7 1999 Volume 08 : Number 046 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Stealth debate Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: Stealth debate Re: Stealth debate Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Stealth Debate AFNS post... NASA post... Re: Stealth Debate *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 07:07:04 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate I wrote: >>Don't misunderstand me. I am not conceding that the F-117 can be made >>practically invisible. But if it can under ideal conditions, It makes >>precious little difference to me if some Michaelangelo with tape and >>butter can put an F-117 on a pole and make the thing disappear. (Not >>that I believe it in the first place.) What matters is if the airplane >>can be made stealthy in an operational setting. Dan wrote: > Which you have no way of proving or disproving. It is not up to me to prove it. It is up to the Air Force. >>>>John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2, told me as >>>>have others, that you have to make decisions against which frequency >>>>ranges you want to make the aircraft stealthy. You could, for example, >>>>make it invisible against low frequency (search) radar ... >>> >>> Just as I expected! You've wasted our time! You believed it all along! >> >>No, I don't believe it. I simply said that Cashen acknowledged that you >>can't make an the same aircraft design stealthy to all frequencies. >> > > No, you can, but to do so would be lunacy- you would be sacrficing > far too many things for the sake of stealth. You would be weighted > down with coatings and cut into your payload, etc. If you really want to make an aircraft invisible, keep spending money like we are on the F-22 so that we can afford to produce so few of them that the enemy won't be able to see them. - -------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 09:35:50 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > First, did you watch the experiment? Did you see the data? Secondly, for > this to have any meaning for me, it would have to be a double blind > study. Stealth and non-stealth aircraft would have to be flown against > it and the people operating the radar would not be permitted to know > which was which for this to have any meaning for me. > What can you imply from the fact that I have never actually witnessed an F-117, SR-71, U2, B-1 or may other planes fly. That in fact they can't fly? Can I even trust that the people who tell me they saw one fly are telling me the truth? What does the AF have to do, invite you to do their testing for them? And then, can we beleive what you tell us? At the risk of ruffling your feathers, is all of this hype to promote your new book or what? Drew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:14:57 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar > "James P. Stevenson" wrote: >> First, did you watch the experiment? Did you see the data? Secondly, for this >> to have any meaning for me, it would have to be a double blind study. Stealth >> and non-stealth aircraft would have to be flown against it and the people >> operating the radar would not be permitted to know which was which for this >> to have any meaning for me. Drew replied: > What can you imply from the fact that I have never actually witnessed an > F-117, SR-71, U2, B-1 or may other planes fly. That in fact they can't fly? > Can I even trust that the people who tell me they saw one fly are telling me > the truth? What does the AF have to do, invite you to do their testing for > them? And then, can we beleive what you tell us? > At the risk of ruffling your feathers, is all of this hype to promote your new > book or what? All of this dialog resulted from my original statement and really my only point which is that there is no imperical data to support all of the republishing of Air Force assertions that stealth works. It may work and it may not but we cannot tell from the only practical demonstration, the Gulf War. (It is too soon to tell from this latest war although I have read accounts that the U.S. government has admitted that the F-117 was brought down by an SA-3.) Most on this site have responded with the aggression of defenders of the faith that I might expect this from religious zealots but not from people that I thought were steeped in the Western tradition of the scientific method. You can always tell when the quality of the arguments are beginning to decline because the commentary begins to attack the person, the traditional logical fallacy of ad hominum attacks. Ad hominum attacks always reflect worse on the person making them than they do on the person who is being attacked. The implication of this latest comment is that I might be making these comments to promote my book and thus my efforts are an attempt to make money. If you want to apply that logic, that is that motives are done in an attempt to make money, take that paradigm and apply it toward the designers and promoters of stealth. Then ask yourself: who will make more, Stevenson, with his book or the aerospace companies claiming that stealth works. Be sure to look at the revolving door through which the military officers and senior defense officials go when they have finished passing judgment on these stealth aircraft. Jim S. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 99 10:17:02 EDT From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Stealth debate I, too, will agree that this has been one of the more interesting topics to come up on this in list in sometime. While I will agree with Mr. Stevenson that any competent scientific peer or technical reviewer will ask for comparisons to other methods, and, indeed, I am a bit troubled by his account of the HAVE BLUE testing, there are, I believe some points that need to be brought up more directly about engineering test conduct. First of all, engineering tests are not experiments in the classical scientific sense. Engineering tests are performed to meet quite specific, and often very narrowly defined, objectives, usually through the use of a very precise test procedure. Controls may or may not be performed for a variety of reasons. Part of the reason for this is occasionally a combination of cost considerations and previously completed results. Many (if not most) engineering tests aren't laboratory benchtop experiments, and aren't cheap to run. Certainly flying aircraft against SAM installations isn't going to be cheap. If someone else has already done the work, there's often no need to repeat it. Yes, it might add some value for everyone who does an engineering test to do a control as well, but, real-world reality rather intrudes on that: Society's resources, even those of the Pentagon, are not unlimited, and essentially all engineering decisions are tradeoffs between the ideal and what's affordable. Larry Smith is very correct in pointing out that a lot of engineering testing is done mainly to simply confirm design calculations. Verifying everything by direct testing or experimentation is often prohibitively expensive, and, sometimes, dangerous. In the case of the HAVE BLUE testing cited by Mr. Stevenson's message of Apr. 1, it's fairly clear that the primary test objective was to test HAVE BLUE's stealth effectiveness against fire control radars. As to Lockheed's not performing a control, it needs to be said that the testing that Lockheed actually performed themselves isn't the final report on HAVE BLUE's LO effectiveness. I, for one, am extremely skeptical of the implied presumption of Mr. Stevenson's that the effectiveness and capability against conventional aircraft of the SAM batteries used in the HAVE BLUE testing wouldn't already be known. The point about that testing that I find more troubling is that it may have been useful, and made the final results more meaningful, to determine the battery's effectiveness against conventional aircraft under the exact conditions that HAVE BLUE was tested against. As to not using the search radar, that's a matter of test procedure, and, however questionable it may look here, that's a matter that's well beyond the scope of anything that anyone has posted here on that subject. WRT double blind testing, wherein the people conducting the test don't know what it is that they're testing, while I will acknowledge that Mr. Stevenson is entitled to his opinion on the necessity of that in testing LO aircraft, I will say that double blind testing has virtually (if not absolutely) no place in any field of engineering or physics testing and/or experimentation. Double blind testing is pretty much limited to testing of drugs on human subjects, where it's necessary to separate psychological effects from physiological effects. If Mr. Stevenson wishes to argue this point, then, fine, then it's my turn to ask him for evidence, and I will want to see one citation--just one, in a peer reviewed scientific journal or conference proceeding in any field of engineering or physics in which a double blind test was performed. Good luck on that one since I _have_ served as a peer reviewer in scientific conferences in my own field (nuclear engineering), and neither I, nor anyone I know of on any technical program committee I have served on, has ever asked an author for a double blind study. An observation I'd add as to evidence as to whether stealth does or does not work: Since we, the general public, are denied access to the technical data as to the effectiveness of the LO characteristics of the combat aircraft, it may be useful to look elsewhere, in this case, at the political arena. In this case, in spite of the flying caution that Art Hanley pointed out, the US Air Force was still willing to risk at least two of their precious B-2s in combat over Yugoslavia on what I see as a militarily useless political stunt. That implies to me quite a high degree of confidence in the B-2s LO characteristics by those-in-the-know. Yes, I know they were flying at high altitude, last week's Aviation Week said 40k feet, but, then again, there were quite a few B-52s lost over Vietnam doing the same thing. Anyone know how many B-52s were lost over Vietnam? Something else about this debate, and I'll say it just once politely and respectfully to everyone involved in this debate: _Please_ cut your quotes of others postings. It isn't necessary to quote an entire message to keep things in context. I really don't care to wade through hundreds of lines of someone else's message which I've already read just to figure out what the few original lines are. I frequently don't bother with reading those at all. - --Paul Keller My opinions, not my employer's. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 08:04:30 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Stealth debate At 06:37 PM 4/6/99 -0700, someone wrote: John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2, told me as have others, that you have to make decisions against which frequency ranges you want to make the aircraft stealthy. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=- If you consider radar waves are electromagnetic waves based on laws of physics then each frequency of radar has a specific wavelength. This can be precisely calculated in length. If you consider a LO aircraft to be a reflector of these radar signals or waves of energy then you can design in what frequency your aircraft will be resonant or highly reflective to and what frequency you want it to be non resonant or non refective to. That might be easier said then done. But the fact is physical characteristics of the aircraft by design are going to cause the the reflected radar wave to act accordingly. One could choose to be low in reflectance to a high frequency signal and vice versa. Or dampen out the high reflectance so it is equally non reflective at all frequencies or at least have no comparatively high reflective levels of amplitude. This can be done by changing lengths or widths of dimensions or rates of curvature to adjust resonance. It can be done by taking a highly resonant area and covering it in RAM. Rumor has it Lockheed tried covering the pilots helmet in RAM to lower the amplitude of reflectance before metalizing the glass cockpit panels. Obviously a CRAY Supercomputer would be advantageous for studying all these variables. Each aspects characteristic dependant on each frequency considered. All surfaces adding their part to form a combined flying radar reflector. And of course the final design is a combination of many compromises that results in an object that could be theoretically measured from every angle at every frequency for a precise look at its RCS. Who knows how many "looks" are given an aircraft at an RCS range. I think most pole mounts are temporarily fixed and cannot be rotated during testing, let alone moved 360 degress in direction with who knows how many angles, positive or negative in deflection one might to want to measure. Time (money) surely limits sampling to just a handful of changes during a test. Point is a lot of compromises and extrapolations must be made. At any tested point the power of the reflected wave can be measured but for all the points not measured an extrapolation must be done. Part of the planes LO therefore can be measured and much of it must be calculated. Any number assigned as an "RCS number" can only be an arbitrary number. And if it is to be meaningful at all it must be a compilation of measured returns of the same frequencies measured from the same angles for each calculated number. Any differences would disallow comparison of RCS numbers. With almost every aerospace contractor having their own RCS range I wonder how standard the testing is. Of course in HAVE BLUE the XST's were tested on the same pole and range within 24 hours or so of each other. Oddly enough the RATSCAT range is usually managed by a contracted aeropace firm to conduct all the testing. The most amazing thing to me was Lockheed and Northrup were both set up in a large hanger divided by only a curtain down the center of the building while they waited their turn. I wonder if we will ever see devices on an aircraft that are adjustable so as to be able to alter the RCS over a range of frequencies while in flight. Or maybe an adjustment made based on mission requirements. Someone also said that Lockheed ignored one end of the radar frequency spectrum and concentrated on the other. Was this a design requirement based on what the AF thought was a greater threat? What if Lockheed knew ahead of time which frequencies were to be considered crucial and which were considered irrelevant to the decision? But that is pure speculation on my part. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:54:53 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Jim S writes: >All of this dialog resulted from my original statement and really my >only point which is that there is no imperical data to support all of >the republishing of Air Force assertions that stealth works. You said yourself that your lengthy interviews with such people as Cashen and Rich gave you to understand that an a/c can be made LO to certain radar wavelengths and not others. By way of an example, you cited how the Northrop XST was much less observable than Lockheed's against long wavelength radar. In doing this you have illustrated why precise details of RCS tests >must< remain classified, because revealing them would give potential enemies the parameters within which they can construct radars to detect LO a/c. >......... It may work >and it may not but we cannot tell from the only practical demonstration, >the Gulf War. (It is too soon to tell from this latest war although I >have read accounts that the U.S. government has admitted that the F-117 >was brought down by an SA-3.) The premise here seems to be that if it was hit by an SA-3, then ipso facto: it was acquired, tracked and locked-onto by radar What I heard and also read in AW&ST was that due to the bad weather, the F-117a was forced to fly below the cloud base to acquire its targets, where it may have been tracked by the SAM battery's electro-optical sensors or perhaps subject to AAA (the latter not from AW&ST) You don't need me to tell you the old addage of 'If you can see it you can hit it.' The only question this raises with me is why the F-117 was sent in given the prevailing bad weather, when there was a high risk that it would be forced to drop below cloud which would then act as a backdrop against which the a/c would be silhouetted.. >Most on this site have responded with the aggression of defenders of the >faith that I might expect this from religious zealots but not from >people that I thought were steeped in the Western tradition of the >scientific method. I can't let this one go Jim. Aside from the fact that this ' religious zealots' line of reasoning sounds in itself like an ad hominem attack of the very sort you decry, I haven't noticed any aggression on either side. Indeed, this is exactly why this list is consistently such high quality. I'm too old to naively accept everything I'm told by either contractors or gvmt agencies, but for reasons I've explained, this debate can't be resolved in the way you'd like, because to do so would jeopardise the lives of the brave people who actually fly the machines we discuss and write about from the safety of our PCs. That, I think we can agree is not a price worth paying. David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:17:07 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Stealth Debate I am afraid that James P. Stevenson wins this debate, as he has the perfect argument. To properly refute: > My only claim is that there is no evidence that the F-117 is less > susceptible to radar than any other aircraft that flew at night at > medium altitudes in the Gulf War. That is my only claim. will require diagrams showing radar return plots, at a range of different frequencies for different aircraft. As he distrusts pole data, this information will have to be acquired in flight. This sort of information is highly classified and will likely never be released to the public domain. This data does exist - you might want to see page 56 of the February 1, 1993 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology to see how it is acquired. As an aeronautical engineer, I resent journalists like Mr. Stevenson, who seem to think they know more than me about how I should do my job. The truth is that most of these journalists are not aeronautical engineers and have just a glimmer of understanding about all of the issues involved in aircraft development programs. Even worse, their "investigations" have created such a lousy environment in this industry that it is exceedingly difficult to conduct a proper development program, hence they have to be conducted in secret. David Lednicer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:17:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: AFNS post... Another AFNS (Air Force News Service) report (for the record), this time 'acknowledging' that the F-117A was "shot down", even though most of the other information is banal. >990594. Robins tanker unit aids pilot's rescue >by Hal McKenzie >Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Public Affairs >ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFPN) -- Airmen from the 19th Air Refueling >Group here played a critical role in the successful search and rescue of >the F-117A Nighthawk pilot shot down over Yugoslavia March 27. >The group's "Black Knights" helped the defensive cap of fighters, >radar-jamming aircraft and airborne warning and control planes stay in the >air long enough to complete the rescue mission. >Col. Dave Lefforge, 19th ARG commander, talked March 31 about the unit's >role in the operation. >"At a certain time we launched off of a strip alert from our deployed >location. We went to the designated area to refuel fighter aircraft >defending the rescue operation," he said, providing scant details because of >operational security reasons. >The group is providing air refueling for fighters, bombers, AWACS radar >planes and other aircraft involved in the round-the-clock NATO bombing >campaign over Yugoslavia. The operation is designed to force Serbian leader >Slobodan Milosevic to cease the oppression of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo >province. >Lefforge recently returned from the European base where members of the 19th >ARG are deployed and reports that the people and planes are in top form, >despite the rising intensity of the campaign. >"They were excited to do what they were trained to do. Their morale is >very high. Reports from command indicate they are very pleased with their >performance," he said. >"The jets are performing very well," he continued. "The KC-135R is one of >the most reliable planes in the Air Force. Our maintenance personnel are so >dedicated to what they're doing, they take it personally when anything goes >wrong and don't stop until it's fixed. We have a record of 100-percent >deployment of aircraft tasked." >Besides routine refueling, the ARG is on alert for emergencies such as the >rescue operation. >"We're on call and on alert status," Lefforge said. >The Black Knights' reputation is such that they are one of the most >called-on units in the Air Force. >"We have been the unit of choice in five of the last seven no-notice >deployments," Lefforge said. "We are called on first a lot." >Despite ongoing deployments all over the world, during last month's Air >Mobility Command Operational Readiness Inspection here, all sections of the >19th ARG earned "outstanding" for a "perfect outstanding" score. >That is "extremely unusual," Lefforge said. "We looked through the records >to see who got the last perfect outstanding, but we couldn't find it. They >are really the best." - -- 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: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:18:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: NASA post... The following is forwarded from the NASA History email list, again 'for the record': Roger Launius wrote: >As you may be aware, in September 1998 the NASA History Office published in >its History Series _From Engineering Science to Big Science_, a collection >of essays about the NACA/NASA R&D projects that have received the Collier >Trophy "for the greatest achievement" in air and space. NASA has just added >to the record of achievement, by receiving a portion of the Collier Trophy >for the research conducted using the ER-2 high-speed, high-altitude >research aircraft. The following news release from Dryden Flight Research >Center highlights the story. >Roger D. Launius >roger.launius@hq.nasa.gov >************************************************************** >NASA News >National Aeronautics and >Space Administration >Sender: owner-press_release@lists.dfrc.nasa.gov >Dryden Flight Research Center >P.O. Box 273 >Edwards, California 93523 >AC 661-258-3449 >FAX 661-258-3566 >Leslie A. Mathews >For Release >NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif. >March 29, 1999 >Phone: (661) 258-3893 >RELEASE No: 99-10 >DRYDEN'S AIRBORNE SCIENCE PLANE, ER-2, SELECTED FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS >NASA's Airborne Science program plane, the high-altitude ER-2, managed at >Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., is recognized with three >top national aeronautical awards for 1998. >The United States'oldest aviation organization, the National Aeronautic >Association (NAA), selected ER-2/U-2S plane for its most prized and >greatest aeronautical honor in America, the Collier Trophy. It was >presented to Lockheed Martin and its partners, NASA, General Electric >Corp., and the Defense Intelligence Agency, for the design, manufacture and >operation of the these planes. The Collier Trophy is on permanent display >at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. >NAA President Don Koranda said, "Although the U-2 program has been in >existence for a long time, this new version (ER-2/U-2S) will substantially >enhance the mission capabilities performance and safety of this >high-altitude aircraft well into the 21st century." >A direct descendent of the original 1950s era designed U-2A, the new >ER-2/U-2S is larger, twice as heavy, and can carry four times the payload >as its predecessor. In 1998, the NASA ER-2 and the United States Air >Force's U-2S combined to claim four altitude and payload records for >air-breathing aircraft. The Soviet Union previously held three of the >records with the fourth being a new world record. >The NAA also awarded the ER-2 with its one-of-the "Ten Most Memorable >Record Flights" of 1998 awards for its record altitude of 67,188 feet in >horizontal flights for medium-sized airplanes. The previous record was >62,500 feet. >At the recent 95th annual awards dinner of The Explorers Club, "The >Citation of Merit for Pioneering Exploration of Extreme Altitude >Environments" was presented to Dryden Pilot Jim Barrilleux, who accepted >for all of the ER-2 pilots and team. It is one of the highest honors >bestowed by the club. >The Explorers Club recognized the ER-2 in 1998 for its 1987 Antarctic Ozone >depletion campaign, confirming that chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) molecules >used in refrigerants and other applications led to detailed evidence of >ozone destruction. The evidence prompted an increased global awareness of >man-made depletion of the ozone. Other NASA recipients being honored were >John Glenn and Story Musgrave. >Currently, Dryden's two ER-2s are being used for: experiments related to >Earth resources, celestial observations, atmospheric chemistry and >dynamics, oceanic processes, electronic sensor research and development, >satellite calibration and data validation, among others. The planes have >flown atmospheric research missions from such far-flung spots as Punta >Arenas, Chili; Bangor, ME; Darwin, Australia; Stavanger Norway; the Fujian >Islands and in tropical areas like Brasilia, Brazil. >Besides the ER-2s in Dryden's Airborne Science Program, a DC-8 is also >used for three types of missions: Sensor development, satellite sensor >verification/validation and basic research of Earth's surface and >atmosphere. It has been deployed to virtually all areas of the globe in >pursuit of airborne science, flying missions on all seven continents and >over both the north and south poles. In addition to upgraded aircraft >instrument systems, NASA's DC-8 has specialized data acquisition and >processing systems aboard to support its scientific role. >For more information on the Collier Trophy or Ten Most Memorable Flights, >contact Ann Ruebelmann at (703) 527-0226. For the Explorers Club call John >Bruno at (212) 628-8383. And to speak to a Lockheed Martin Corporation >representative, call David Geary (661) 572-4153. - -- 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: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:53:26 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Stealth Debate I wrote: >>>The point is that the scientific method was not applied to the F-117 >>>because for it to have been applied, the Air Force would have had to >>>build one, flown it in a double blind study against radars using Russian >>>equipment, searched the way Russians would have searched, tracked, etc. >>>for an aircraft. >>> >>>The operator could not have known which of the targets was the F-117 and >>>which was the non-stealth target(s). Then, if the results showed that >>>the F-117 was sufficiently harder to detect than the non-stealth >>>aircraft, then and only then should a production decision have been >>>made. I can assure you that was not done. Larry replied: > >> Sorry Jim, such an experiment is unnecessary! >> >> Again, because of the tools. When the tools are verified, they INLCUDE in >> their results the results of your special test, because there is no reason to >> believe that the laws of nature will change for your special test. Jim replied: >The law of nature is that what can go wrong, will go wrong. What works >on a pole model or in computer simulation is a far cry from testing a >production aircraft. That does it Jim. We are so far apart that it isn't worth my time to pursue this any longer. I tried. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #46 ******************************** 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