From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #67 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, June 18 1999 Volume 08 : Number 067 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: My response to Larry on AURORA Re: My response to Larry on AURORA Re: THAAD Re: THAAD Re: FWD: (SW) Death of Lt. General Robert M Bond in 1984 Re: THAAD Re: Skunk-Works Charter (Classified Material) Re: THAAD Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter RE: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: Skunk-Works Charter RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 Re: THAAD Re: Skunk-Works Charter Re: THAAD *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:59:34 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: My response to Larry on AURORA Stacy Miller (straycat?) writes: >I have been following all the info on this aircraft Me too Stacy. > and I can say with >feeling and full belief that we know the US Government has been hiding its >"black" projects for years Yes. I agree that there have been, are, and will be "black" projects and that they are hidden, by definition. After all, in this context, that the word "black" is synonomous with new levels of meaning for the word "hidden', is well known! > so I ask you Larry why all the disinformation? Disinformation from my post? If you think my post is disinformation, then you didn't understand my post! >The fact of the matter is the all the facts point to it The only facts that I'm aware of, are that certain people claim to have seen certain things. But those facts don't build a very large knowledge base about this subject. Certainly not enough to say anything with certainty about the alleged aircraft. Let's also assume nobody is lying either (although that is always a possibility). So then how do we know, if we draw conclusions from just those facts, that our conclusions are correct? Don't we owe the people who ask us for information about 'Aurora' the truth? That we're really NOT sure that it exists? That we may be misinterpreting the sightings? My post attempts to accurately portray what is known about the unusual contrails. > and there is really >no changing statistics now is there. What statistics are you referring to? And how do these statistics prove that "Aurora" exists? > Just cause you don't think they would >lie to you doen't mean the rest of us don't know My post makes no such assertion! You're putting words in my mouth. And who are "the rest of us" that you are speaking for? > .........I hope it is in >existence, Exactly! Correct! You hope! There is no proof that it exists! But you hope it is true. There is nothing in my post, which should have destroyed your hope! Being a hypersonics nut, I'm with you Stacy, I hope it's true too. That would be VERY cool! But just because I hope it's true, doesn't mean I'm going to go along with claiming it is true, or misleading people about what is known. Now THAT would be a kind of disinformation! > it would only prove that they have more technology available to >them now then ever before. That is a given. There is no question that technology advances every day! But what technology? What IS Aurora? The original belief was a hypersonic spyplane. Later, some were conjecturing that it was a high supersonic speed attack aircraft, kind of a limited production follow-on strike mission version of the SR-71. Others think it is an access-to-space platform useable by any government group with a need for access-to-space. Some believe it is a mixture of all of the above. Perhaps you have your own Aurora interpretation. It was feasible to build a hypersonic capable spyplane back in the 1960's. But just because the technology is feasible, doesn't mean that it is actually used. Sometimes it's too expensive, or there is no perceived need, or there is no leadership with vision, ..., or whatever. >Only time will really tell huh.... I agree Stacy. In fact. The best way to get a black program officially revealed, is to invent something better! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 03:33:21 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: My response to Larry on AURORA On 6/17/99 7:59PM, in message <199906180259.TAA116446@pdxcs199.pdx.intel.com>, Larry Smith wrote: > > In fact. The best way to get a black program officially revealed, is to invent > something better! > > Larry > No, the best way to get one officially revealed is for someone running for reelection to feel it would get them a couple more votes! Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 03:37:05 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: THAAD On 6/17/99 12:12PM, in message <"376e4868.16366560"@mhub.corp.jci.com>, georgek@netwrx1.com wrote: > > FWIW: > > I heard this was test #7...the previous 6 were failures...not exactly > a great kill ratio IMHO. > > George > > There were also 13 succesive Polaris failures before the first one worked. The first F-14 crashed on its second flight. That's why they call it a test program. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 03:43:59 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: THAAD On 6/17/99 10:18AM, in message <000501beb8e5$5c2fa340$abf61ed1@dzn.com>, "Allen Thomson" wrote: > > After which they can try intercepting the RV plus decoys, jammers, chaff > and other > complicating objects. Since there are apparently a lot of fairly dumb SCUD > clones around, a capability against them is worth having, but it isn't the > whole story. > One of the things often overlooked is that any penetration aids put on a missile can only be installed at the expense of range or payload. Since the missile takes off on thrust, not lift, for every pound of decoys or countermeasures or extra RVs (the latter not applicable to a tactical missile) added means a pound less fuel or less warhead, which equates to making the missile less useful or less lethal. If the missile defense is credible to the other side, then you can drastically reduce the enemy weapon's effectiveness for a relatively small increase in defense. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:36:50 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD: (SW) Death of Lt. General Robert M Bond in 1984 Terry & Bill, I knew Gen Bond when he was at Eglin. He was the AD Commander then and was MGen Bond and we worked in Bldg 1 (me in the basement). I was in charge of the Base mail and also controlled Base Top Secret material. I would pickup the TS and distribute to units (store until picked up), but Gen Bond's material we maintained normally in our safe. He would sometimes come down and sit in the office to read/review a document or sign it out. I got to know him and his staff. He was promoted and left Eglin before the accident. After the accident there was a lot of talking going about, so this "hear say", but he was flying a Stealth aircraft, presumably back then the F-117. It was still hush, hush. Was at the Hanger 51 area I believe, right. A few comments came out that it was some type of Space Vehicle. The Mig-21 story was a cover-up, but the hardest thing to answer was, "Why is a three star general flying such risky aircraft?" Flying test aircraft and fighters was his life and he was one of the best!!!!! I salute him!! Ed Miller - ----- Original Message ----- From: William Gardner To: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 2:46 PM Subject: Re: FWD: (SW) Death of Lt. General Robert M Bond in 1984 > He was flying a modified MIG-21 donated by the Egyptian Air Force believe. > Bill > > >>> "Terry W. Colvin" 06/16/99 01:33PM >>> > On 27th April 1984, the LA Times reported that US Air Force Lt. General > Robert M. Bond had been killed - his "Air Force specially modified test > craft" had apparently crashed near Groom Lake at 10:45 a.m. > > Lt. General Bond was at the time a three-star general and Vice Commander of > the US Air Force Systems Command, which would have made him one of the most > senior military officers at the facility. > > At the time the Air Force refused to disclose precisely what type of > aircraft the general had been flying, but suspicions were fueled by the > unusual fact that a three-star general and base Vice Commander had been > employed as a test pilot. > > Does any List [Skunk-Works] member know if the aircraft type that > crashed was ever advised by the Air 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: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:14:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: THAAD On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 betnal@ns.net wrote: > On 6/17/99 12:12PM, in message <"376e4868.16366560"@mhub.corp.jci.com>, > georgek@netwrx1.com wrote: > > > > > FWIW: > > > > I heard this was test #7...the previous 6 were failures...not exactly > > a great kill ratio IMHO. > > > > George > > > > > > There were also 13 succesive Polaris failures before the first one worked. > The first F-14 crashed on its second flight. That's why they call it a test > program. > Art, you are right. As a experimentalist myself, you need a lot of failure to finally succeed. After you learn your mistakes, success will continues. About the F-14 story, I thought it crashed on the first flight test. I heard from guys at Grumman saying that they knew the airplane is going to crash because she has a lot of hydraulic, mechanic, etc. problems, but they flew anyway so they can catch the dateline set by the goverment. Because if the airplane flew before the dateline, they will get more money and the program will continue. Will you confirm this story? Thanks. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again" Capt. Picard (ST:TNG The Inner Light Ep.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:39:53 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter (Classified Material) >>CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >How does a lay person know what is Classified? > >Tony Craddock Thse two section os the U.S. Code seem most applicable: "Sec. 951. Agents of foreign governments" And: "Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information" The United States Code is searchable on the web: There's quite a bit in there on communications, nuclear material, intelligence matters, and USGov't land grabs! As far the the list, I don't think anyone should knowingly disclose classified material, that is, material they have been entrusted with by a government agency, representative, or contractor, disclose civilian trade secets or other proprietary material (ie- LockMart employee chatting about Tier 3, F-117 RAM, new contracts, etc.), or be an agent of an intellignece or law enforcement agency "probaing" for classified or proprietary material from list members (material they have been entrusted with). so why us not in the know about, say, Aurora can discuss it openly, a Lockheed or USAF employee who has access to that classified and/or confidential material should not. And if your local, state, or federal (gov't) law is significantly different from the above US Code, adhere to the rules in your part of the world, of course :) Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Subject: Re: THAAD > On 6/17/99 12:12PM, in message <"376e4868.16366560"@mhub.corp.jci.com>, > georgek@netwrx1.com wrote: > >> >> FWIW: >> >> I heard this was test #7...the previous 6 were failures...not exactly >> a great kill ratio IMHO. >> >> George >> >> > > There were also 13 succesive Polaris failures before the first one > worked. > The first F-14 crashed on its second flight. That's why they call it a test > program. > > > Art > The problem comes, Art, when we, as taxpayers, pay for these weapons to go into production before the testing has proven their viability. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:45:03 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:09:00 -0700, you wrote: >>CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >How does a lay person know what is Classified? > >Tony Craddock Chances are if you don't work with it you don't know it if its clasified...if you do work with it you know it....make sense? 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@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:32:04 -0500 From: Dave Bethke Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter "George R. Kasica" wrote: > Chances are if you don't work with it you don't know it if its > clasified...if you do work with it you know it....make sense? Sure does. Being a lay person, I figure if _I_ know about it, it can't be classified. :-) - -- Dave Bethke ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 08:49:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Skunk-Works Charter George, this is what I had in mind, see below. Comments? Greg W. - -----Original Message----- The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft or aerospace manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research group. Primary areas of discussion include: Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned New aircraft and aerospace technology - stealth or non-stealth Historical discussions about how current technologies came about Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft and aerospace vehicles, ie: cruise missiles, laser guided bombs, SSTO tests Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft, ie: stealth boats in the Navy Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and optical devices. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic discussions may occasionally occur as the list-owner permits, and the majority of list participants concur. 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@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:29:37 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter At 08:58 PM 6/17/99 +0000, you wrote the current suggested revision: >OK here we go....how's this: > >The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome >discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft >manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research group. > >Primary areas of discussion include: > > Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned > > New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth > > Historical discussions about how current technologies came about > > Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise >missiles and laser guided bombs > > Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft > > Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology >that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or >minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and >optical devices. > > Why go through all the hoops with the LO issues? (Lets be politically correct and call it Low Observability-LO) LO has been just another factor in the Skunkworks designs since the early fifties. And why differentiate between old and new technology if both are inclusive? And since I am on a roll (ouch!) why include only "leading edge" technology from other manufactures'? We discuss WW2 technology from time to time. Is it old technology or old leading edge technology? Point being simplify this thing so we can discuss airplane stuff and not motions to the question of the ammendment now on the table for discussion. This should work for everyone: The skunk-works mailing list was created mainly for discussions of the technology produced by Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. We also welcome discussions about appropriate technologies from sources outside of the Skunk Works. These discussions may include historical and political aspects of these products. And in addition to include discussion of sightings of unknown aircraft thought to have the potential of being a LADC product. >CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted > >Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published >materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief >synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will >attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. >The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:10:09 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter Dave Bethke wrote: > > "George R. Kasica" wrote: > > > Chances are if you don't work with it you don't know it if its > > clasified...if you do work with it you know it....make sense? > > Sure does. Being a lay person, I figure if _I_ know about it, it > can't be classified. :-) > > -- > Dave Bethke On the contrary, the fact that the military is actively involved in research, development, or production of a real system can result in classification of the information inside, and information on the existence, of the project even if it is well known technology to the rest of the world. Why should we tell everyone what we are working on so they can develop countermeasures before we can get it into production? Now THAT would be a waste of taxpayer $$$. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:21:21 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter On Fri, 18 Jun 99 08:49:00 -0500, you wrote: > >George, this is what I had in mind, see below. > >Comments? Sounds OK. Will let this be the version to include then unless we make more changes by Monday 1200Z. George > >Greg W. > >-----Original Message----- >The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome >discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft >or aerospace manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research >group. > >Primary areas of discussion include: > > Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned > > New aircraft and aerospace technology - stealth or non-stealth > > Historical discussions about how current technologies came about > > Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft and aerospace vehicles, > ie: cruise missiles, laser guided bombs, SSTO tests > > Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft, > ie: stealth boats in the Navy > > Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology > that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or > minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and > optical devices. > > >CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED > >Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted > >Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published >materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief >synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will >attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. > >The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic >discussions may occasionally occur as the list-owner permits, and the >majority of list participants concur. > >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@yahoo.com >gkasica@netscape.com >ICQ #12862186 > >Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works > > > ===[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@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:19:56 -0700 From: "corey lawson" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66 > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT) > From: Wei-Jen Su > Subject: THAAD > > Guys, I heard recently that THAAD finally got a succesfull test. > It finally intercept a ballistic head. I got this from a > reliable person. > Anyone know anything about this? If it is so, congratulation > to the THAAD > team! > May the Force be with you > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu It even made the 6 o'clock news here in San Diego. It looked like the missile had a funky initial launch path, like it was seriously overcorrecting, sort of like this: ^ _______/ / | | | | _____/ / | | | | ...for several repetitions before it finally flew a much straighter trajectory and hit the target... As far as the saga goes for the SR-71, someone needs to clean house at the Pentagon, and give the Air Force brass a *serious* bitch slap. They obviously have forgotten their raison d'etre, which is NOT to further their careers or get better tee times at the base golf courses... - -Corey Lawson clawson@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 17:56:55 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: THAAD On 6/17/99 11:14PM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > About the F-14 story, I thought it crashed on the first flight > test. I heard from guys at Grumman saying that they knew the airplane is > going to crash because she has a lot of hydraulic, mechanic, etc. > problems, but they flew anyway so they can catch the dateline set by the > goverment. Because if the airplane flew before the dateline, they > will get more money and the program will continue. Will you confirm this > story? Thanks. > This is kind of out of the Skunk Works charters, so I'll be brief. The above story is not true. The Tomcat had an uneventful first flight. On its second flight there was an undetected before takeoff weakness in one of the primary hydraulic feed lines. During the test flight the line started leaking and there was an indication in the cockpit, so the declared an emergency and returned to base (in those days they tested a/c more aggressively than the stretched-out wimpy way they do today so it was not at all unusual to be doing a full scale test program on only the second flight). The aircraft safely made it back and was on final when the gear was lowered. On the F-14 gear down signaled low speed and hydraulic boost was automatically increased to provide more control deflection and power since the control surfaces would be providing less force at any given deflection due to the lower speed. This increased flow increased the rupture and all the remaining fluid then bled out in one burst. You can see this on films from the chase plane. With no control, the crew ejected and the Tomcat nosed in on short final just beyond the tree line. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 18:04:26 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Charter On 6/18/99 5:32AM, in message <376A3C44.AB4CEC0@ix.netcom.com>, Dave Bethke wrote: ? > > Sure does. Being a lay person, I figure if _I_ know about it, it > can't be classified. :-) > > Not necessarily. It may have been disclosed to you innocently or otherwise without your knowing that it was classified. The key concept is whether you knew, or should have known, the information was classified. An example of the latter is if somehow you miraculously came across (I'm being far out here, I know) the launch codes for our nuclear retaliatory forces. Even if they didn't have a gazillion markings on them, it should be pretty obvious that these things were classified. By not disclosing them, you would be doing the right thing (and showing more concern than the Administration, but I digress). Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 18:17:24 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: THAAD On 6/18/99 3:53AM, in message <199906181054.DAA29295@toucan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > > The problem comes, Art, when we, as taxpayers, pay for these weapons to > go into production before the testing has proven their viability. > > Jim > > > I agree totally. In the cases cited above, production contracts were not signed or were conditional until testing was far enough along to be sure the things would work. Nowadays, with the incredibly drawn-out no-risk testing we do no company can afford to keep the option alive until its complete, so they say either pay the total cost of the testing during the testing phase or give us a production contract where we can recoup these costs. Further, because of the glacial progress of testing (are you aware that in all these years we've only managed to get two Comanches flying and the combined flight time of Both aircraft is less than 300 hours?), support for a program may not last until testing is complete, or it may become a target for someone trying to score political points. Finally, because waiting until testing is far enough along pushes the IOC so far out nowadays that it becomes ludicrous. So, all this convinces people to order things into production before they should. It's going to be 22 years from the time the ATF started for it to reach IOC. Over 13 years from first flight! It doesn't have to be that way. Again, consider the Tomcat: Contract award in Jan. '69. First flight, Dec. 1970. Navy workups 1973, IOC 1974 and first deployment (on Enterprise) in 1975. F-15 (which didn't have benefit of F-111 experience) didn't take that much longer. This was normal for those days and earlier. Why not now? Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #67 ******************************** 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