From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #51 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 Friday, April 9 1999 Volume 08 : Number 051 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-17 vs. Red radar Re: F-117 serials Re: DU ammo Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] F111s still flying Re: Disk problems Re: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: Disk problems Re: *just* a Canadian Re: Stealth debate (long) Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: Stealth debate (long) Off Topic Arrow Short X-43 (was HYPER-X) artwork seems to have changed some! RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:34:44 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: F-17 vs. Red radar I am not sure why James Stevenson has repeatedly criticized my DYCOMS post. I never made any claims about the data generated by the DYCOMS tests. He had made this statement: "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.<< I simply replied: "Actually the F-117A was flown against a Soviet-style air defense radar system. Each and every airframe had its RCS verified against the Dynamic Coherent Measurement System (DYCOMS) at Groom Lake, Nevada. The complex consists of actual and simulated ex-Soviet threat systems set up to duplicate foreign air defenses. It is as close as you can get to a 'real world' experience without actually firing missiles at the target aircraft." My intention was simply to show that such tests had, if fact, been conducted. I made no claims whatsoever regarding the results of those tests. The first test of an F-117A against DYCOMS (also known as Project 100) took place on 27 August 1982. Tom Abel flew 80-0786 against the P-100 systems for nearly two and a half hours. Other than RCS verification of each F-117A prior to acceptance, P-100 was used for numerous tests of various types of RAM, exhaust linings, sawteeth, antennas, etc. Baseline data was acquired, and the aircraft were observed in various configurations (including "battle damage"), and from numerous different angles relative to the radar systems. Having read all of the posts in the recent stealth debate, I've decided that I don't believe that James Stevenson actually exists. At least i have no EVIDENCE of his existence. :) Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:46:55 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: F-117 serials The F-117A serial numbers were born out of the projected first flight date of the first FSD article: July 1980 (or 7/80), therefore Article 780. All of the airframes that followed simply received sequential numbers (through 843). At some point the fiscal year (FY) prefixes were applied retroactively. I thought that I had solved the mystery when I learned that there were 11 Lots built, with the following numbers built per fiscal year: FY Number Built 79 5 80 7 81 7 82 12 83 2 84 8 85 8 86 8 87 4 88 3 This would have made Ship 831 serial number 86-0831. Official USAF records, however, list it as 85-0831. At airshows, some of the other aircraft also fall out of sequence in the FY numbers. I do know that FY79 includes only 79-10780 through 79-10784. Ship 785 was a FY80 airframe and 792 was a FY81 airframe. Observations from airshows might eventually help fill in the gaps and correct the errors. Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:12:00 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: DU ammo Since someone mentioned depleted uranium (DU) ammunition, here is some additional information. There are at least six common types of DU ammunition in use, as well as a number of less common and experimental types. DU is useful in kinetic energy armor-piercing rounds because it is 1.5 times as dense as lead and, as mentioned in the previous post, it is pyrophoric. There is am abundant supply of DU as waste from the nuclear fuel industry. It is quite stable in its most widely used form, an alloy known as Staballoy. Depleted uranium contains mostly low specific activity U238 with less than 0.3 percent of U235. The radioactivity is about half that of natural uranium according to published reports by Nuclear Metals Inc., which is the largest U. S. producer of the substance. DU ammunition ranges from 20mm rounds to 120mm tank ammunition. DU emits alpha and low-level beta radiation. When burned, it gives off a toxic, alpha-emitting heavy metal smoke. As a point of reference, alpha particles are the same type of radiation as emitted by plutonium. They are weak, and will not penetrate human skin, or a piece of paper. If inhaled, however, they can damage the soft tissues of the lungs, and cause cancer. The bulletin of the Atomic Scientist (Nov./Dec. 1997) stated that 105mm "uranium penetrators, once fired and thus stripped of their protective metal casing, emit 280 millirems of radiation per hour on contact. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's maximum limit for radiation exposure is 100 millirems per year. This is, of course, in addition to DU's more immediate toxic danger created by uranium oxides released when it burns upon hitting hard targets..." DU ammunition has been sold to many other countries including Korea, Isreal, and Thailand, while Britain and France have made large purchases of raw DU for use in their weapons programs. Russia has its own DU ammunition, which it markets worldwide. The DoD has recommended that the Army (and perhaps other services) engage in "public relations efforts to prevent a possible adverse international reaction" to DU while warning that "health and environmental concerns over DU could cause it to become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal." Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 21:20:51 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] B-52 carpet bombing (ARCLIGHT strikes) were restricted to South Vietnam and the eastern area of Cambodia. This short-lived air campaign, called Linebacker II, inflicted severe damage and brought the North Vietnamese back to the Paris peace talks. A documentary on cable tv (The History Channel?) stated the first few days saw B-52s approaching from the same azimuth and altitude. Another possibility is that NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen) were read by the North Vietnamese. IMHO, the compromise of our cryptologic equipment (eg KW-7 and KW-26) allowed the North Vietnamese to read our mail. Also, several hundred SAMs were fired in waves, effective but drastically drawing down stocks. Our intent was to bomb and mine Haiphong and other harbors to prevent replenishment. BTW, I saw many a B-52 take off from U-Tapao Air Base in southern Thailand. My bungalow was halfway up the hill at Kilo 16. The tapioca fields were strewn with large connected boulders, ideal for binocular views. Terry - -------------- gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > > At 09:28 PM 4/7/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >I remember something like 10 B-52s lost during the Christmas > > offensive > > >to force progress at the Paris peace talks. Anyone have the > > final count > > >and/or source of information? > > 10 of them big buggers is a hell of a lot to lose. What was the main cause > of them being downed? > Gavin - -- 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 Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (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: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:01:32 +1000 From: Joe Sleator Subject: F111s still flying > > The only operational F-111s in the world are Australian. > And they are just as loud as the American ones. At Amberly in Queensland, I was doing some consulting and had to sleep on the base. They had one running in full AB in a ground-test-rig which woke me up about 12:30AM one night. I had the priveledge of sneaking right up to it (I was about 60 feet away). Had to open my mouth and keep my fingers in my ears the whole time. Joe Sydney ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 01:42:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Disk problems > To all who have been so kind to comment on my comments. I have had a > hard disk problem which wiped out about the last 30 Skunk works > messages. Anyone who did not receive a response but feels one is due, > please resend. Could you please elaborate about the problem? I'm sure there are a lot of computer experts on this list that would be delighted to assist you in recovering your data. For a PC running a Microshaft OS I would recommend Norton Utilities by Symantec. For a smackintosh running MacOS I would also suggest Norton Utilities. If you're running linux or a commercial Unix, I wish you luck! > > Jim Stevenson Sam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 99 05:45:42 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: (UASR) F-111 comments On 4/8/99 4:48AM, in message <199904081147.EAA11148@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > On 4/7/99 3:07AM, in message > Jim S wrote: > > > Art, my mistake. I meant to say, TF30 engine and afterburner as an add > on. Coulam makes a big point about how adding the AB caused a lot of > problems with the engine. > > The rest of your piece was an excellent recap of the F100/F401 engine > development history. > > Jim > > Thanks for the kind words, I will check out his book. One other BIG problem with the TF30 was that it was very sensitive to airflow. The is wouldn't have been a big deal on the docile flying F6D for which it was originally designed, but on the F-111 and especially the F-14 this was disaster city, especially combined with afterburner (try and slam two TF30s quickly int A/B and you could find yourself piloting one of the world's heaviest gliders!). Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 07:35:52 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: (UASR) F-111 comments ART WROTE: > Thanks for the kind words, I will check out his book. One other BIG problem > with the TF30 was that it was very sensitive to airflow. The is wouldn't have > been a big deal on the docile flying F6D for which it was originally designed, > but on the F-111 and especially the F-14 this was disaster city, especially > combined with afterburner (try and slam two TF30s quickly int A/B and you > could find yourself piloting one of the world's heaviest gliders!). The by-pass ratio was large enough that when the AB lit, a pressure spike when forward toward the compressor stage and stalled out the compressor. The same problem happened on the F-14 and big-time on the F100 powered F-15s and F-16s. When the air stopped flowing, the turbine blades got too hot and began a flight path of their own, usually out. Thus the term "stall stagnation." Jim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 07:38:52 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Disk problems Sam, Thanks for your offer. I had directory problems that I fixed with a disk utility called Disk Warrior for the Mac. The problem is fixed but some files, not just in my e-mail accounts, were lost. Jim >> To all who have been so kind to comment on my comments. I have had a hard >> disk problem which wiped out about the last 30 Skunk works messages. Anyone >> who did not receive a response but feels one is due, please resend. > Could you please elaborate about the problem? I'm sure there are a lot of > computer experts on this list that would be delighted to assist you in > recovering your data. > For a PC running a Microshaft OS I would recommend Norton Utilities by > Symantec. For a smackintosh running MacOS I would also suggest Norton > Utilities. If you're running linux or a commercial Unix, I wish you luck! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:42:12 -0300 From: Ivan Baird Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian At 8:44 PM -0600 4/8/99, skunk-works-digest wrote: >Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:29:45 -0700 >From: Larry Smith >Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian > >>> Personally, and I realize I'm *just* a Canadian > >>Canadians are great people. > >Hell, yes! Gee - didn't really expect this much reaction! ;-) I'll send this one to the List, but will probably be inclined to go private afterwards if any detailed discussions ensue.... ;-) >We ought to have an AVRO Arrow day here someday. Not because it's >a product of the Skunk Works of course, but because of its greatness >(not to pour salt in an obviously still open wound for all Canadians >and many high speed aircraft lovers such as myself). Well, not all Canadians! ;-) (My father in fact, who worked for Fairey Aviation for many years (including during Black Friday), and presently works for IMP Aerospace, *these days* actually supports the decision to cancel the Arrow.... Personally, knowing enough about aircraft, I would have liked to see what became of the project - but I certainly *don't* believe that hype that it was a better aircraft than what the F-18 is toady, as to many Canadians seem to think....) >I'd still like to obtain a copy of that show on the Arrow that ran >some time ago (was it a year or so ago?) on Canadian TV. I only bring >that up in case it's easy to obtain in Canada (it should be sold here >in the U.S. as well) and all I would have to do is call up some >video store or something. I will assume that you got the information in a later post, but if not let me know and I can get the info to you.... It comes as a two video set. This WAS a good show; very enjoyable (I obtained my own copy immediately when it was released) - but be aware that it IS more a fabrication of events than a real history! Some of the 'facts' in the movie are just so far off that, if one does know the Arrow History, it is almost laughable (I say almost because I spent much time after this show aired debunking the show and its facts - to the point that most around thought I *didn't* enjoy it! :-( ) The women Chief Engineer (no offense intended to Mary Shaffer, of course - but that WAS the late '50s), the 'coke bottle' effect, '206 being 'saved', .... These are the major ones I remember (I haven't watched it in awhile) but there were lots more.... I am only mentioning this so that no one thinks that this is infact a *true* history - it is a made for TV movie, and plays a lot with the real facts of the case.... >But what a BEAUTIFUL airplane! The book I have also shows line drawings >of the proposed Mach 3 mods. Biggest change being the intakes.... Does the book you have show the ZELL (Zero Length Launch) configuration? (essentially large JATO packs) There was apparently even discussions of a Mach 4-5 version, but this was several follow-ons later and it was realized that much more would have to be learned first! I was a beautiful airplane, for the time.... While I always liked the Delta Dagger and Dart, IMO the Arrow was nicer to look at - and it was 20-25 years later before there was (again IMO) a nicer looking aircraft.... >Are there any good WEB sites with Arrow pictures? Most of what I have has been posted, so I'll not both reposting.... - -- Ivan Baird, CET A+ Certified (Mac and DOS/Windows) Deitech Computing Member of the Warlords II World Tournament Organizers Team.... Have a Good One!!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 08:29:01 -0500 From: G&G Subject: Re: Stealth debate (long) "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > In other words, people are expendable but $2+ billion B-2s are not? > I've tried to stay out of this 'discussion', but I cannot ignore this question. If you observe the government's and/or military's actions, the answer is "yes". If you observe the government's and/or military's words, the answer is "no". Supposedly we would not destroy the F-117 wreckage by bombing it because of the risk of injuring people. Reconcile that with the purpose of any military action, including that of the B-2. Note the public outcry over the loss of a single F-117 while we continue to count the number of Yugoslav (and Iraqi) aircraft downed. Note the public outcry over the three servicemen being held by Milosovic's forces while ignoring the number of deaths due to the current bombing campaign and state of the refugee community. Do not take this as the rantings of a bleeding-heart liberal, those who know me would quickly dispute that opinion. I'm merely saying that the government's and/or military's actions are quite different than the government's and/or military's words. Don't get me started on the recent expulsion of Annapolis cadets in the light of our current leadership in Washington.... Greg Fieser %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 06:47:58 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar I am reposting this per James request after a HD crash. OK, no excuses this time James! *G* ***************************************************************************** At 07:57 AM 4/8/99 -0400, James wrote: >You chose to believe what you are told, I chose to wait until I can see >the data. I think you should rephrase that to "I chose not to believe what I am told until I can see the data." And that's okay too. >But back to my original comment: we don't have real world information >that shows the F-117 worked any better. How something works in the real >world is the ultimate test. Whose to say what a real world test is in war situation. Lots of variables, some unknown, few controls. Isn't the test of any F-117 mission also a test of the adversary in attempting to prevent the success of the mission? My point is I agree the Gulf War was not evidence. I would say it might not even have been a good test. If NAVY Seals knocked out power going to an AA battery before an F-117 strike, then there won't be any kind of a test. Only the mathematical probability of a random hit. >As for the recent F-117 in Yugo. it appears that it was bagged when it put down its bomb-bay doors. So now you are believing rumors? Where is there the least bit of evidence this occurred? This idea was pure conjecture posted earlier here. Are you not saying it appears 806 was invisible to the radar until the bomb bay door opened? Show me an AAA radar tape of the precise time a lock on occured and show me the precise time the door was opened. Isn't this the kind of evidence you normally require to believe something? The doors can be opened either individually or together. It takes less than 10 seconds to bang them open, release and close again. Do we know the plane is significantly less stealthy with a door open? It is also a faceted component designed in as part of the aircraft. I could envision maybe a lock on with a door opening which would allow a missile launch. I could also envision losing the fore mentioned lock on when the door was closed. And the plane veering off to a new heading after bomb release. >I'll have to ponder the significance of being invisible until you are right upon the >enemy only to have them shoot you anyway. Careful now, you might ponder without valid or sufficient evidence. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 09:09:10 -0500 From: G&G Subject: Re: Stealth debate (long) G&G wrote: > Supposedly we would not destroy the F-117 wreckage by bombing > it because of the risk of injuring people. Reconcile that with > the purpose of any military action, including that of the B-2. After reading this I realized this could have been better stated. I did not mean to imply that the purpose of any military action is to injure people, but that is often the result of such action. War is hell. Ask anyone who's been there. Greg Fieser %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 15:55:53 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Off Topic Arrow Short Thought this may be of interest: David BEGIN MESSAGE: ******************************* PRESS RELEASE: APRIL 8, 1999 ******************************* DALKEITH, ONTARIO, -- APRIL 8, 1999 http://www.arrow-alliance.com APRIL 8, 1999 Arrow speed brakes found. Dalkeith, ON, April 1 - Arrow Alliance Director Peter Zuuring, in cooperation with The National Aviation Museum, today announced that a hitherto unknown set of speed brakes for one of the Arrows has been uncovered in a storage facility of The National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. The Arrow Alliance's first project is to rebuild at least a static version of the infamous 1950's era, Canadian, Supersonic Interceptor, the Avro Arrow. All the details, Press Clippings and one CBC radio interview (in streaming audio) are available on site now for further details... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:17:59 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: X-43 (was HYPER-X) artwork seems to have changed some! It looks ike there has been some changes in the X-43 artwork. Check out the artwork at: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Hyper-X/Small/index.html Click on picture: ED98-44824-1 For those who don't know what X-43 is, here's a small extract from some of the earlier NASA press releases: The X-43 program hopes to demonstrate "air-breathing" engine technologies that could ultimately be applied in vehicle types from hypersonic (Mach 5 and above) aircraft to reusable space launchers. Although prior flight experiments conducted by the Russians using a rocket booster have demonstrated air- breathing engine operation at Mach 5 to 6 conditions, the X-43 will be the first free-flying demonstration of an airframe-integrated, air-breathing engine and will extend the flight range to Mach 10. The on-design altitude of X-43 was to be at around 100,000 ft., which is roughly where USAF Maj. Pete Knight flew the X-15A-2 on 10/3/67 at Mach 6.7 with a dummy scramjet test article on the ventral. History: The HYPER-X program was announced on 10/9/96 by NASA HQ. NASA Langley was to be overall program manager of the project, and NASA Dryden was to conduct the flight tests. The winning contract team lead by MicroCraft Inc. was announced on 3/24/97. Other members of the winning team were: Boeing North American, GASL, and Accurate Automation. Orbital Sciences Corp. won a contract to modify a Pegasus booster rocket to serve as the HYPER-X booster up to the flight test condition. NASA announced that they renamed HYPER-X to X-43 on 8/27/98 when the first X-43 engine was delivered to NASA Langley from GASL, for static ground tests. The schedule called for another engine to be delivered in 2/99 to NASA Dryden, for matng with the flight vehicle. The first of 4 flights (1-Mach 5, 1-Mach 7, 2-Mach 10) were originally to occurr in early 1999, but were moved back to early 2000. Also for budget reasons the Mach 5 test was cancelled and the other 3 tests were replanned as: 2-Mach 7, 1-Mach 10. It's a very complex integration job to get one of these scramjets to develop thrust on a real flying vehicle, so it's a difficult thing to do. Indeed, the whole vehicle is essentially the engine, so the optimization process is much more difficult than a normal supersonic jet airplane. Anyone have any new public information on it? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 99 23:15:11 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] On 4/8/99 1:38PM, in message <000101be8201$b0e4b7b0$0300a8c0@liden2.cleancrunch.demon.co.uk>, gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > 10 of them big buggers is a hell of a lot to lose. What was the main cause > of them being downed? > Gavin > There were actually 15 lost. That sounds like a lot, but it was a shade over 2%, lower than loss rates of bombers in previous wars. USAF says all were lost to SAMS, while the N. Vietnamese claim two were downed by MiGs (B-52s also shot down two MiGs). The main cause of the losses was, IMHO, the inflexible tactics imposed by PACAF, which controlled all Air Force ops. USAF until the late '80s was dominated by SAC and SAC's types of thinking in many ways set tactics. In Vietnam, PACAF was often accused of still fighting the air war against Germany with massed formations in static cells. Before the 36 hour Christmas standown in 19872, The B-52s were directed to fly the same routes, same headings, same altitudes weather permitting same turns over the same points at the same turn rates each time they attacked a particular target. Maneuvering or evasive action was not allowed, because that's not the way strategic bombing is supposed to be done. A corridor of chaff was laid down first, and the direction and location of this corridor basically told the N. Viets what the target would be. When the B-52s would appear, the gunners could essentially take out their stopwatches and predict where the B-52s would be at any given moment of the attack. This minimized the effectiveness of jamming, because the N. Viets could fire their missiles unguided at a particular point in space timed to arrive when the B-52s would fly into them. They could use proximity or altitude fuses, the latter being set for the known altitude or, if weather made for slight variations, the altitude could be relayed from Migs sent up to shadow the bombers. It got so bad that there were some jokes (only half in jest) that a MiG pilot could know when to climb in his jet, takeoff, fly a wide downwind, fire and just go back and land in one big circle. Also, when the B-52s made their predictable sharp turn after bombing, this pointed their on-board jammers outward, away from the enemy radars. Since it could be reliably predicted when and where this turn would occur, this would be the time that guided SAMs would be launched for maximum effectiveness. The peak losses were six B-52s on the night of Dec. 20-21. USAF officially says. "The losses, which to the aircrews seemed to result from rigid adherence to flawed tactics, dealt a numbing, though not crippling, blow to morale...". I have heard unofficially that there was a near mutiny amongst bomber crews. In any case, after the standown, tactics were changed into something more effective and losses dropped dramatically. In fact, by the final days of Linebacker II US forces were roaming more or less at will over N. Vietnam, their air defense system having been destroyed and their SAMs used up. With the mining, there was no way to resupply the SAM sites, even if they could have guided them. I should point out that USAF tactical aircraft often had to operate under the same restrictions during most of the war when repeatedly attacking Hanoi/Haiphong and other similar areas. Art Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #51 ******************************** 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