From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #59 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, May 13 1999 Volume 08 : Number 059 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** NEWS: Studying Stealth Teste Message Do NOT Reply Total bomber force Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B B-2: Is NOT the Lone-Wolf Sold to Taxpayers Re: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B SR-71 comeback? Re: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B Re: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B Re: B-2: Is NOT the Lone-Wolf Sold to Taxpayers Re: SR-71 comeback? Bomb designations, BLU in particular F117's in Grenada? Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: Bomb designations, BLU in particular Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: SR-71 comeback? When it comes time for the "body & fender " man. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 23:01:02 +0200 From: Frits Westra Subject: NEWS: Studying Stealth For Immediate Release April 29, 1999 STUDYING STEALTH: AIR FORCE BEGINS OPERATION OF WORLD'S LARGEST WIDE BAND BISTATIC IMAGING & RADAR CROSS SECTION TEST FACILITY The U.S. Air Force will soon begin operation of an upgraded test facility believed to be the only one of its kind in the world able toconduct wide bandwith bistatic imaging and radar cross section (RCS) measurements of full-sized aircraft. Full story at: URL: http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/res-news/BICOMS.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 00:56:47 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Teste Message Do NOT Reply Just a quick test of the list software. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@lycos.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 23:36:21 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Total bomber force I thought the AF had up 100 remaining Buffs? Gs and Hs.... Minot doesn't have enough room for 1/2 that. Where have all the H models gone?? (Old 60s anti war song?) - ----------------- All the G's are in the boneyard and most have been cut up. Huge mistake, but the TAC Generals wanted to get rid of them. There are 94 H's left and some are in the Guard/Reserve. Two wings left at Barksdale and Minot. The plan is to this year go down to about 74 total. With the birds in depot and BAI a/c, this brings the total usable down to about 50. There are about 90 B-1B's left. Two wings at Ellsworth and Dyess. Several of the a/c were put into what we used to call flyable storage. They are here, but can't fly. The B-1 is being modified and several are in the depot. There are a few at Mountain Home as part of that wings AEF. (Air Expeditionary Force.) All but light maintenance done here at Ellsworth. Two reserve wings at McDonnell and Robins. They have less aircraft. All the B-1's are conventional only. No longer nuclear capable. Then you have the 20 B-2's at Whiteman. That's the total bomber force. - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 00:02:47 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B This should be of interest to those following the conflict in Yugoslavia- Apparently NATO is using a new air-dropped non-lethal bomb using carbon fiber spools, ala the modified Tomahawks employed in the 1991 Gulf War. Who knows, maybe this is the elusive HAVE FLAG program. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:48:55 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: B-2: Is NOT the Lone-Wolf Sold to Taxpayers Subject: B-2: Is NOT the Lone-Wolf Sold to Taxpayers Date: Mon, May 10, 1999, 7:31 AM WASHINGTON (AP) -- The B-2 stealth bomber, sold to taxpayers as a lone-wolf airplane that would render scores of conventional escorts unnecessary, instead is flying into combat with a full array of older aircraft providing air defense, radar suppression and jet fuel. During epic battles in Congress over buying the bat-winged, radar-evading plane, boosters displayed charts illustrating how a pair of B-2 Spirits with two crewmen each could do the work of 55 existing aircraft and 116 crewmen. In the real battle over Yugoslavia, it's not working out that way. The B-2 is relying on a full contingent of support and escort aircraft and crews, just like its conventional cousins. So was there some hype in the original pitch for the most expensive aircraft ever built, at $2 billion each? "Just a tad," said military analyst Ken Allard, who teaches defense technology at Georgetown University. "This should not surprise you." Air Force Brig. Gen. Leroy Barnidge Jr., the commander of the B-2 bomber force, said that in combat the plane takes advantage of "the support package that's out there" as an added measure of protection, even though the other aircraft may not be required. Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary now with the private Council on Foreign Relations, said that given the B-2's $2 billion price tag -- making it the most expensive aircraft ever built -- no one should have expected the plane to fly unescorted into combat. "In the real world they're so terrified that the B-2 will be shot down that they're taking extra protection," Korb said. Bomber advocates are quick to say that the B-2 has performed exceptionally well in Yugoslavia, accounting for one-third of the targets that NATO aircraft have struck. They're just not doing it alone as once predicted. As described by Barnidge, a minimum support fleet for two B-2s on a bombing mission would include 14 aircraft and 85 crew members. Often the numbers can be much higher. Flying a pair of B-2s loaded with 16 satellite-guided 2,000-pound bombs 30 hours from their home at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., to Yugoslavia and back involves four midair refuelings, two each way. Once over the Balkans, the B-2s can link up with EA-6B Prowlers to jam enemy radar systems in the off-chance they pick up a fleeting sign of the bombers. F-16 fighters armed with radar-seeking HARM missiles also are nearby during attack runs, able to destroy a ground radar station trying to fix on a B-2. Should a Yugoslav fighter locate and challenge one of the bombers, F-15 fighters with air-to-air missiles can eliminate that threat. RC-135 Rivet Joint planes pick up enemy electronic communications, and AWACS radar planes to guide the B-2s safely through busy airspace to their targets. Four years ago, Northrop Grumman Corp., which is building the 21-plane B-2 fleet in Southern California, described a likely mission by the bomber this way: "The B-2's large payload allows it to do the work of many smaller bomb-droppers, and its stealthy characteristics mean that B-2s do not need an armada of support aircraft." These capabilities mean "putting fewer personnel at risk." This was an important argument to those who said the B-2's cost -- nearly half that of an aircraft carrier -- made it a colossal extravagance. But advocates called it unfair to compare the cost of the bomber to a conventional $40 million fighter plane. The B-2 could do the work of many other aircraft, they said. In more than 40 strike sorties over Yugoslavia, the B-2 has demonstrated its ability to do far more than conventional aircraft. According to Barnidge, the B-2 has dropped 500 precision-guided bombs, or more than 2 million pounds of ordnance, at night, in foul weather, against formidable air defenses all with "zero collateral damage." "The jet's performance really has exceeded all of our expectations," Barnidge said. "The way they're doing it is the smart way to do it," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a leading B-2 advocate in the House said of the protective cover given the plane. "Why wouldn't you protect them, especially when you only have 21?" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 15:22:14 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B An excellent reference, thanks. Speaking of such things, is there an explanation somewhere of the designation system for US bombs? Whatsa BLU, CBU, SSU, etc.? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 22:24:04 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: SR-71 comeback? Aviation Week & Space Technology Washington Outlook - May 10, 1999 (http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_wash.htm) SR-71 APPEAL Ten lawmakers have appealed to the House Appropriations Committee to reactivate the Lockheed SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft, citing the U-2's vulnerability over Yugoslavia. They also cite the failure of $600 million in drone expenditures to produce any recon capability--just a canceled DarkStar and a years-late, vulnerable Global Hawk. Shut down by line-item veto in 1997, "the SR-71 would fill a gaping hole in our intelligence architecture for a bargain price," the congressmen contend. The House may challenge USAF's claimed $100-million-plus price tag for reactivation, based on alternative estimates of about $5 million to restore mission capability in 2-3 months, $39 million a year for operations and $11 million to undo the shutdown. Lawmakers hope to forestall a scheduled June 30 deactivation, and are exploring whether the Air National Guard or the Navy might be interested in the aircraft, given Air Force opposition to it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 03:04:18 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B At 03:22 PM 5/10/99 -0500, you wrote: >An excellent reference, thanks. > >Speaking of such things, is there an explanation somewhere of the >designation system for US bombs? Whatsa BLU, CBU, SSU, etc.? > > > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/desig.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html etc;;;;;;;; ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:16:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Carbon Fiber Warheads - BLU-114/B > An excellent reference, thanks. > > Speaking of such things, is there an explanation somewhere of the > designation system for US bombs? Whatsa BLU, CBU, SSU, etc.? > CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit; GBU = Guided Bomb Unit; I am not sure if these are the official designations, but they accurately explain the function of the weapon. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 99 03:52:38 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: B-2: Is NOT the Lone-Wolf Sold to Taxpayers On 5/10/99 4:48AM, in message <199905101148.EAA04134@goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Subject: B-2: Is NOT the Lone-Wolf Sold to Taxpayers > Date: Mon, May 10, 1999, 7:31 AM > > > A few weeks back the C.O. of one of the Prowler units involved in the Kososvo fiasco was quoted explaining the various ways the EA-6s are tasked. The number 1, absolutely highest priority assigned was covering B-2 operations. He explained that, "...the world's most expensive airplane doesn NOT have to compete for assets...". Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 99 05:27:51 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? On 5/10/99 7:24PM, in message <01BE9B34.1A221B00@oldpc>, Martin Hurst wrote: . > The House may challenge USAF's claimed $100-million-plus price tag > for reactivation, Well, we know USAF is lying because it didn't come anywhere near $100 million to bring two back when they had been sitting abandoned in the desert for five years. Since these have been hangared and preserved we KNOW it would cost less, although more training for crews would be required. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 14:08:33 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Bomb designations, BLU in particular >>Speaking of such things, is there an explanation somewhere of the >>designation system for US bombs? Whatsa BLU, CBU, SSU, etc.? >http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/desig.htm >http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html So the BLU-82, BLU-107, BLU-114 etc. are Bomb Racks and Shackles Units? Please help me understand this useage. (The CBU and GBU do seem to make some more obvious sense.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:00:40 -0400 From: Brentley Smith Subject: F117's in Grenada? I was just talking with a friend (Warthog pilot) and he mentioned that F117's didn't see their first combat in Panama, but rather in Grenada. Said that it was a real zoo as all the other pilots had to steer clear of them and whatnot. Anyone else ever heard this? Brentley bsmith@zippynet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:08:16 -0400 (EDT) From: David Allison Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? Aviation Week & Space Technology Washington Outlook - May 10, 1999 (http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_wash.htm) SR-71 APPEAL The article is encouraging, but I have my doubts. Did anyone else notice that there are no names put to the "ten lawmakers"? Like those emails that start out "Microsoft announced yesterday...". Seems to me that if you know how many people are on a committee, you should be able to name at least one (and by "you" I mean Aviation Leak & Space Tech, not Martin Hurst who forwarded the article to the group). At any rate, let's hope it's true. Sincerely, - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:30:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Bomb designations, BLU in particular Allen Thomson wondered: >So the BLU-82, BLU-107, BLU-114 etc. are Bomb Racks and Shackles Units? >Please help me understand this useage. >(The CBU and GBU do seem to make some more obvious sense.) BLUs are Bomb Live Units, or explosive bombs or mines (in contrast to BDUs, which are Bomb Dummy Units -- non-explosive, but ballistically and aerodynamically similar to the real weapons they represent -- and are used for training.) Here is a list of "U" designations, as far as I can figure them out. - -- Andreas Equipment, "Unit" Series designations: ====================================== The "U" series of equipment designators covers everything from complete weapons like laser-guided bombs to individual parts of weapons like fuzes and seekers, as well as maintenance equipment and loading vehicles, and even flight suits, helmets, and life rafts. Format: xxU-a[(D-b)][y][(V)-c][/z] ================================== Upper Case Letters and dashes "-", slashes "/" and parenthesis "(" and ")" are written 'as shown'. Lower Case Letters are variables which are explained below, while brackets "[" and "]" enclose optional parts of the designation: ====== xxU = Designation / Series of Units, for possible values of 'xx' see list 'a' = Series Number (usually sequential in each series, starting at 1) ====== AAU - Airborne Altimeter Unit (?) ABU - explosive items (?) ADU - Adapter Unit (?) ATU - Adapter Tail Unit (?), actuators BBU - Bomb Unit, explosive items BDU - Bomb Dummy Unit, practice bombs BLU - Bomb Live Unit, bombs, bomblets, mines, submunitions BRU - Bomb Release Unit, bomb racks, shackles BSU - Bomb Stabilizer Unit, stabilizing bomb fins, retarding devices CBU - Cluster Bomb Unit, end items, container with bomblets, submunitions CCU - Cartridge Unit (?), cartridges (CTG), actuators CDU - Clustered Munitions, Cluster Dispenser Unit (?), not end items CGU - Crew G... Unit (?), tension adjuster assemblies CKU - Catapult Unit (?), ejection seat catapults CNU - Miscellaneous Container, Container Unit (?) CPU - Computer Unit (?) (CPU-73/A, CPU-186/B) ? CRU - Crew Regulator Unit (?), oxygen regulators CSU - Crew Survival Unit (?), counter pressure vest CWU - Crew Wardrobe Unit (?), coveralls, suits DSU - Detection Sensor Unit (?), target detecting devices, sensors, seekers ETU - Elevation Trailer Unit (?) FLU - Floating Life-raft Unit (?), floating inflation devices FMU - Fuze Munition Unit, fuze systems, dispensing devices (end items ?) FSU - Fuze Safety Unit, safety / arming devices FZU - Fuze Unit, fuze related items GAU - Gun Aircraft Unit, aircraft guns, cannons, internal or podded GBU - Guided Bomb Unit, end items GCU - G... Converter Unit (?), LOX converters, recharge units GFU - Gun Related Item GGU - (oxygen concentrator ?) GPU - Gun Pod Unit, aircraft guns, external (containing guns) GRU - G... Rescue Unit (?), ejection seats GUU - Gun Unit, miscellaneous guns HBU - Harness Belt Unit (?) HCU - Handling Cargo Unit (?), cargo pallets HGU - Helmet Group Unit (?), helmets, other personal equipment HLU - Hoist Lift Unit (?), hoists JAU - Jettison Ammunition Unit (?), initiators KAU - Kit Armament Unit, munitions clustering hardware, dispenser containers KMU - Kit Munitions (Miscellaneous ?) Unit, miscellaneous guidance kits LAU - Launcher Aircraft Unit, rocket/missile launchers (rails and/or pods) LKU - Link Unit, ammunition links LMU - Launcher Mobile Unit, ground launchers LPU - Life Preserver Unit (?) LRU - Life Raft Unit (?) LUU - Light / Illumination Unit (?), flares MAU - Munitions Armament Unit, miscellaneous armament items, ejector racks MBU - Mask Breathing Unit (?), oxygen masks MCU - Mask Connector Unit (?), ("MCU-2/P" / "M-17A1" mask, parts of mask ?) MDU - Munitions Dummy Unit, miscellaneous simulated / training munitions MHU - Munitions Handling Unit, miscellaneous handling equipment, vehicles MJU - Munitions Countermeasure Unit, flares, decoys MLU - Munitions Live Unit, miscellaneous munitions, mines MTU - Mount Unit MXU - Module Miscellaneous Unit (?) / Munitions Guidance Unit (?), GBU AFGs, NVGs, gun pods, cargo pods PAU - Munitions Dispensing Device, External (P... Ammunition Unit ?) PCU - Parachute Crew Unit (?), parachutes PDU - Leaflet Dispenser (P... Dispenser Unit ?) PGU - Projectile Gun Unit, ammunitions, bullets, cartridges PWU - Internal Dispenser (P... Warhead Unit ?) RDU - Rocket Dummy Unit RLU - Rocket Live Unit SAU - Sight Armament (Ammunitions ?) Unit, gun/bomb/rocket sights SJU - Seat Jettison Unit (?), ejection seats SKU - (SKU-6/A ???, may be SJU-6/A), ejection seats SRU - Seat (Single ?) Rescue Unit (?), life preserver vests SUU - Store Suspension & Release Items, launchers, dispensers, pods TCU - Thruster Cartridge Unit (?) TMU - Tank Miscellaneous Unit TTU - Test Unit WAU - Warhead Ammunitions Unit (?), warheads for missiles and rockets WCU - Weapons Control Unit (?) WDU - Warhead Unit, live warheads for missiles and rockets WGU - Weapons Guidance Unit (?) WPU - Weapons Propulsion Unit (?), rocket engines WTU - Warhead Training Unit, dummy warheads for missiles and rockets ====== '(D-b)' = maybe Development-Version (???), 'b' = version number (probably sequential, starting at 1), optional ====== 'y' = Version, (2nd version is usually 'A', 3rd version is 'B', etc., sometimes with meaning: e.g. 'I' for 'Improved'), optional ====== '(V)-c' = Sub-Version, 'c' = modification Number (probably sequential, starting at 1), optional ====== '/z' = Usage (Location) Descriptor, for some possible values of 'z' see list (not really part of designation), optional ====== /A - Item stays Attached to Aircraft, Assembly, to fulfill its purpose /B - Item is released, discarded, ejected, to fulfill its purpose /E - Item is movable Equipment on ground (not a vehicle) /M - Item is Mobile on ground (vehicles, self-propelled or not) /P - Item stays on Person, Pilot, crew, to fulfill its purpose /U - Item is ??? (examples: GAU-12/U, MXU-810/U, PGU-32/U, PGU-38/U) /R0 - Item is ??? (example: MAU-12/R0 -- maybe typo instead of 'MAU-12/B' ?) ====== (c) 1999 by Andreas Gehrs-Pahl - --- --- 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, 12 May 99 11:14:46 EDT From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? David Allison wrote: >Aviation Week & Space Technology >Washington Outlook - May 10, 1999 >(http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_wash.htm) >SR-71 APPEAL >The article is encouraging, but I have my doubts. Did anyone else >notice that there are no names put to the "ten lawmakers"? Like >those emails that start out "Microsoft announced yesterday...". >Seems to me that if you know how many people are on a committee, you >should be able to name at least one (and by "you" I mean Aviation >Leak & Space Tech, not Martin Hurst who forwarded the article to >the group). I was wondering about this as well, but with a somewhat different view on it: My read on this is that the reason for not naming the lawmakers involved was only due to publication space limitations, not because they didn't want to be (or weren't) indentified. Nonetheless, my thought on who are lawmakers behind this is that not all lawmakers are exactly equal in terms of political clout in Washington. It's one thing to have the US Reps with Palmdale, Edwards & Beale in their districts to be asking for this. It's quite another matter, though, if the chairmen of the House Armed Services & Intelligence committees are behind this. Anyone know who the lawmakers involved are? - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:07:17 -0400 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? I hear the CIA is being reprimanded for their mistake with additional funding (cause with more money you know they would have up to date maps on Yugoslavia). Maybe the CIA will reactivate the SR?? Wasn't it their bird in the first place? Drew ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 19:34:22 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? Drew writes: [edit] >Maybe the CIA will reactivate the SR?? Wasn't it their bird in the first >place? Not really is the short answer. The CIA paid for the single seat A-12 Blackbird, but the later 2 seat SR-71 was always a USAF asset. So I'm told, who paid for the operation of the SR-71s and who received the intel. was a source of resentment for some years and was probably a major factor in its premature and (IMHO) profoundly unwise retirement. Let's face it, if they were grounded because UAVs and sats were going to replace its role, it's time to admit someone got it wrong. David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 99 04:00:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? On 5/11/99 12:34PM, in message <950@writer.win-uk.net>, David wrote: > > Let's face it, if they were grounded because UAVs and sats were going to > replace its role, it's time to admit someone got it wrong. > > David > My contacts with USAF, the Navy, the program and the research I did for that story a couple of years ago indicate that the reasons the SR was originally put down were: 1. It was a SAC asset and bomber types ran the Air Force. SAC wasn't that interested in anything that didn't drop bombs or supply fuel to planes that dropped bombs. 2. It was an older, mature system. No one was going to make General or high GS position working on a mature system, and no one could build a massive organization with such a limited sized system. 3. Satellite folks were paranoid about anything that implied satellites couldn't do absolutely everything better than anything else, especially given their enormous costs. 4. Anti-SR folks maneuvered themselves into high positions in USAF and they could outlast anyone who has to be re-elected. It went away the second time because: 1. Fighter types ran the Air Force. They weren't that interested in anything that didn't shoot down other planes or supply fuel to planes that shot down other planes. 2. Same as above. 3. In addition to 3 above, large UAV types didn't like it because while big UAVs hold a lot of promise, they've generally been a flop so far. Given the E-Nor-Mous amount of money that will have to be spent to bring them on-line, the last thing they wanted around was a system that could do as good or better job on the cheap. With no SR, we can't step back and rethink our course, but must continue to throw money at ongoing projects. 4. The SR has the ability to answer questions a lot of folks don't want asked (one of the main reasons it was vetoed IMHO). 5. Bringing the SR back would be an admission that someone made a mistake (twice). This simply Doesn't happen! Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:20:30 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? Art writes: >David wrote: >> >> Let's face it, if they were grounded because UAVs and sats were going to >> replace its role, it's time to admit someone got it wrong. [Good stuff edited ] > 4. The SR has the ability to answer questions a lot of folks don't want >asked (one of the main reasons it was vetoed IMHO). Thanks for your comments Art, they're much appreciated. A couple of points: 1) Would you expand a little on the above ? 2) I was told by more than one informed source that in their considered opinion, a major factor in the SR's grounding centred on the USAF getting tired of funding the acquisition of intel. that was then passed on to other agencies who made no financial contributions to its operational costs. As you didn't mention this aspect in your comprehensive list, I assume you'd consider it wasn't a factor. Is this correct ? I'd like to get this clear in my own mind, so any comments would be very welcome. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 01:18:12 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: When it comes time for the "body & fender " man. More "borrowed" from the AFNEWS - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 990967. Tinker unit helps in B-2 mission success > > WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFPN) -- A 14-person team from the 654th > Combat Logistics Support Squadron at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., arrived > here recently to learn more about the low observable surface treatments > for the B-2 and its missions over the Balkans. > > The 654th CLSS is the only logistics support squadron for the B-2. > > A combat logistics support squadron functions almost like an emergency > team or reserve unit that can leave in a moment's notice to support > maintenance and logistics problems for designated aircraft. > > According to Staff Sgt. Darrell Ellison, 654th CLSS, the team was > originally going to train here this summer to get experience dealing with the > B-2's unique low observable technology. > > However, the team has proved to be a tremendous advantage for Whiteman's > ongoing combat operations, according to 2nd Lt. Dave Short, from the 509th > Maintenance Squadron here. > > "The idea behind the CLSS is to help us turn aircraft during periods of > combat if a B-2 were to suffer structural damage, such as being shot," > Short said. "Thankfully, they weren't needed for that reason and hopefully > they never will be." > > Still, Short said the 654th CLSS' presence has allowed the regular crews > of the 509th MXS to focus more on preparing the B-2s for combat missions by > taking care of many routine phase inspections. > > "It works out well for both of our squadrons," Short said. "They get the > hands-on training that they wanted by running through our phase > maintenance, and that, in turn, frees up some of our people to turn combat > aircraft." > > The 654th CLSS also supports other aircraft including the B-52, B-1 and > the KC-135. However, Ellison said his team is dedicated strictly to the B-2 > and is always ready to support any B-2 mission at the drop of a hat -- vowing > to be at Whiteman within 12 hours after combat notice and at a forward > operating location within a day. > > "It's an honor to be given the responsibility to work with the B-2," > Ellison said. "It is one of the Air Force's most advanced aircraft and I > couldn't think of an airframe I would rather support." > > Ellison spoke on behalf of the other team members, saying the entire team > was happy they could help during a period of actual combat for the B-2, > and according to Short, their performance is equally appreciated. > > "The entire maintenance squadron owes a thanks to men of the CLSS team for > taking the time to come up and support us in getting the aircraft mission > ready," Short said. "Their support is making the difference as the B-2 > makes its combat debut in the spotlight." (Courtesy of Air Combat Command > News Service) > > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #59 ******************************** 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