From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #84 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, July 26 1999 Volume 08 : Number 084 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: Pyotr Ufimtsev Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Sight of Sound Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Sight of Sound Air Forces Monthly F-117 feature Re: Air Forces Monthly F-117 feature New F-117 magazine and book Re: New F-117 magazine and book DoD funding, new USAF SAP Re: New F-117 magazine and book >>> Warning - Don't Get Ripped Off !!! <<< Couple of things I've come across Re: Couple of things I've come across Re: Couple of things I've come across Re: Couple of things I've come across *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:14:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? Considering how much they had to pay us, just for simulation support and the checkout flights, I'd say $100 million was a low-ball estimate. There was a lot more to the reactivation than just the bare contract cost of bringing the stored aircraft up to flyable status. Surely you don't think that dragging an airplane out here on surface streets is free or that moving military personnel around is free or that setting up a facility is or that pilots, RSOs, technicians, mechanics, support staff, the P&W support, and LMSW work for nothing? Do you think that the refinery makes JP-7 as a gift? Do you realize that we spent more money per year to operate fewer aircraft in an already operational facility? (That doesn't include the cost of research programs like LASRE, which come out of different budgets.) I'm not impressed by the "It should have cost less" argument. That money was for establishing and running the Det for a year as well as getting the planes back in the air. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 betnal@ns.net wrote: > On 7/19/99 12:14AM, in message > , Mary Shafer > wrote: > > > One of those two aircraft had been kept in flyable storage down at Dryden > > and the other in dead storage in a warehouse at Plant 42. The USAF didn't > > have to bring both aircraft back, as we'd kept ours up so carefully. They > > saved money, but the taxpayer was paying for that readiness, just to a > > different agency. > > > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > > > On Tue, 11 May 1999 betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > Actually, Congress directed that sufficient SRs be brought back to permit a > operational capability and deployment with 48-72 hours notice at any time. This > would mean three A models, to provide the required capability with one in Phase > inspection. USAF took the number "three" and ignored the fact that it had to mean > three As. They counted the SR-71B flying for NASA as one of the three and said > they'd only bring two back. One of these was indeed one of NASA's which had been > maintained in flyable but not operational condition. The other one had had > nothing done to it since the day it was parked back in '90. USAF forbade any > money being spent on preservation. > > Had the NASA bird not been available, it still wouldn't have taken anywhere > near the $100 million to bring two (or even three) As back. In fact, during the > restoration while they had everyone there and all the equipment was still there, > Lockheed made USAF an offer to bring a third one back for a fixed price of > approximately $3 million. USAF turned them down cold. > > In late April-early May (the last period I had hard data for), 971 and 967 > could have been made operational in 30 days for about $2.5 million (crew would > take an extra thirty days). 968 and 962 could have followed 6 months behind the > first two. No way would it cost anywhere near $100 million, let alone the $200 > million number that USAF pulled out of thin air and used on the Hill. > > > Art > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:00:20 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Pyotr Ufimtsev At 12:56 PM 7/20/99 -0500, you wrote: >Does anyone happen to have a copy of the famous paper by Pyotr Ufimtsev that >is said to have inspired HAVE BLUE and the F-117? I was talking with >someone recently who said that it included a section on counter-stealth >techniques, including something like Lockheed's Silent Sentry. > >For that matter, does anyone here know Ufimtsev? I understand that, thanks >to the inscrutable workings of time and fate, he's now an associate >professor at UCLA. Maybe he could be persuaded to drop in to the list now >and then. > > Try calling him on the phone and asking him where it was published and how may you get a copy. Second, try e-mailing him. Most organizations have a standard e-mail protocol for their employees. Find out from someone at UCLA what is and send him an email requesting the same information. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:52:28 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Sight of Sound >I'm sending this to both lists because I think a majority of the members will >have some interest in this one. Have you ever "seen the sight of sound"? >This is an awesome photo of a Navy F/A 18-Hornet creating a shock wave >...I'm not sure that I understand how it works so if >anyone has time to explain it to me back channel I'd appreciate the lesson. Back on Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Pat asked the same question about an F-4 Phantom picture that he found at: http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg We discussed this at length, and I believe, adequately explained it. You might try looking up the appropriate Skunk Works List Digests for the conversation. I'm not trying to eliminate conversation of this, just attempting to point you at a similar subject. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 99 02:12:13 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? On 7/20/99 1:14PM, in message , Mary Shafer wrote: > Considering how much they had to pay us, just for simulation support and > the checkout flights, I'd say $100 million was a low-ball estimate. There > was a lot more to the reactivation than just the bare contract cost of > bringing the stored aircraft up to flyable status. Surely you don't think > that dragging an airplane out here on surface streets is free or that > moving military personnel around is free or that setting up a facility is > or that pilots, RSOs, technicians, mechanics, support staff, the P&W > support, and LMSW work for nothing? Do you think that the refinery makes > JP-7 as a gift? Do you realize that we spent more money per year to > operate fewer aircraft in an already operational facility? (That doesn't > include the cost of research programs like LASRE, which come out of > different budgets.) > I don't want to get into a "Who is more efficient, USAF, USAF with contractor maintenance or NASA"? argument. I'm merely talking about the costs. The original Congressional requirement was to be able to deploy on 72 hours notice at any time to a forward operating location for 30 days flying 15 sorties in support of the tactical commanders. Based on information from Lockheed, and personnel within and outside USAF, the answer came back that this requirement could be met by two aircraft. However, this allowed no contingency for an aircraft being in maintenance or unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, to guarantee two aircraft always available three SR-71s would be needed. That's how the requirement to restore three was derived. Lockheed had previously made an unsolicited proposal to restore three SR-71s, and had estimated that to do so would cost less than $100 million. This number being independently verified, the Armed Services Intelligence Committees included $100 million dollars in the Fiscal Year 1995 Defense budget specifically for the reactivation to operational status of three SR-71s, including maintenance and crews. Note that this was not covering actual operation of the aircraft and Det, which would be covered as a separate line item in each year's budget. In April, 1995 Congress, at the program's request, rescinded $27.5 million. This was for two reasons. First, since USAF decided to count the SR-71B as one of the "three" SRs, less money would be needed. Second, costs weren't running as high as expected. The actual amount spent was $54 million to bring the SRs back to operational status was $54 million. This included refining the JP-7 needed for initial start-up, more being funded out of the annual budget. It also included starting up the manufacture of more sealant for the tanks, which probably wouldn't have happened had the USAF program not restarted. USAF retained an extra $10 million. $5 million was said to be held for "operations", which was interesting in that in 1995 the SRs were not capable of operations. I have no idea where that money went. The other $5 million was being retained for "termination" costs. These were the costs the USAF expected to spend after they restored the aircraft to then immediately terminate the program. Remember, this was always their plan. The remaining $8.5 million was returned to the Treasury. I mention this to account for the remainder of the money and to also show that there was sufficient funding to bring back a third A model without asking for more money. It should also be noted that during the restored SR operations, the program repeatedly underran its budget, despite the roadblocks placed there by USAF. One incentive for this is that the separate line item of the annual budget was all the money the program was going to get to maintain operational capability. There wasn't a prayer of USAF coming up with more money to keep the SRs up (in fact, there's indications they might have dipped into it for other uses). The annual budget funded maintenance, proficiency flying, training and testing. It did not fund operational missions beyond what could be accommodated within the budgeted flying hours. Extra operational flights would be paid from other funds, just like when fighters trace endless circles in the sky in support of some UN mission, the extra money has to come from somewhere (usually stripped from the rest of the forces). There were customers with money, by the way, who requested the SR. The rise to $39 million proposed for the final year was to cover bringing back sensors USAF had blocked, buying some parts and starting the restoration of 968, so it would be ready when 967 or 971 went into Phase. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 99 02:18:02 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Sight of Sound I'm involved in a discussion of that picture elsewhere. IMHO, the Hornet is condensing water vapor, but is not going supersonic (note lack of characteristic shockwave at nose). One reason for this is that with three tanks and two more underwing stores, I doubt if the Hornet is capable of going supersonic. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:30:47 +0100 (BST) From: Louise Auger Subject: Air Forces Monthly F-117 feature The UK magazine Air Forces Monthly have started a two part F-117 feature including a competition to win the new F-117 book by Paul and Alison Crickmore which should be out soon. http://www.keymags.co.uk/afm/index.html Louise +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ | Louise Auger | | http://stealth.mudservices.com/louise/alternative/ | | Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18 | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:52:44 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Air Forces Monthly F-117 feature At 11:30 AM 7/21/99 +0100, you wrote: > >The UK magazine Air Forces Monthly have started a two part F-117 feature >including a competition to win the new F-117 book by Paul and Alison >Crickmore which should be out soon. > Thanks! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:09:36 -0700 From: patrick Subject: New F-117 magazine and book Here is some info on an F-117 magazine article and new book by Crickmore that was sent to me by a nice lady from England who loves F-117's. Isn't that the cat's pajamas! ========================================== The UK magazine Air Forces Monthly have started a two part F-117 feature including a competition to win the new F-117 book by Paul and Alison Crickmore which should be out soon. http://www.keymags.co.uk/afm/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:45:08 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: New F-117 magazine and book At 04:09 AM 7/21/99 -0700, you wrote: > >Here is some info on an F-117 magazine article and new book by Crickmore >that was sent to me by a nice lady from England who loves F-117's. Isn't >that the cat's pajamas! > OK.......i do like to see my name in print but I am not losing it. I didn't realize Louise sent this to the list and not me personally. Yes how egotistical. But to make this right, Louise is a wonderful fan of the F-117 and she has a great website devoted to it. Some other listings are there and some good pic's. Several of which I had never seen before. Enjoy!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:57:13 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: DoD funding, new USAF SAP Found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/1999/07/hac2000.html House Report. 106-244 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000 (Associated Bill -- H.R.2561) [...] NEGLECT OF TRADITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND ACQUISITION PROGRAM PRACTICES Adding to the difficulties confronting the Committee in its consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget request are serious budgeting and funding execution issues regarding appropriations for defense acquisition programs... [snip] For example, with respect to the Air Force, despite recent Committee direction and, in several instances, new appropriations law, the Committee finds that both in execution of funds provided in appropriations acts and in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission the Air Force acquisition community continues to ignore and violate a wide range of appropriations practices and acquisition rules. Details on these specific instances can be found elsewhere in this report, but a short summary of such Air Force abuses includes: (a) In its fiscal year 2000 budget the Air Force continues to blithely ignore specific Committee direction and law intended to ensure that funds appropriated for one purpose--for example, weapons procurement--are in fact used for that purpose and not for other efforts, such as research and development, by: (1) Requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in various procurement programs, when in fact the intended use is to support operation and maintenance funding needs (in violation of DoD policy); (2) Requesting substantial procurement funds for a program (the F-22 fighter) when in fact the use of the funds is for development (in violation of specific Congressional direction), and (3) Requesting substantial development funds for a program (the MILSTAR satellite), when the intent is to use the funds for procurement (in violation of a provision of law); (b) Violation of both new start program regulations and law, as well as standard reprogramming procedures, by using fiscal year 1999 funds to begin a new start, several hundred-million dollar production program which the Congress never formally approved (the C-5 avionics modernization program)--and did so by diverting funds specifically provided by the Congress for another program; and (c) Initiation of a new Special Access Program without prior Congressional notification as required by law. [more snip] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 99 03:12:49 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: New F-117 magazine and book You want a contest? I'll give you a contest (and not just for a book, which I know will be a goood one). Key Publications (in the UK) is running a contest in its pubs, the winner of which gets a trip to South Africa, tours a private warbird collection, and then gets a flight in one of the only two airworthy Lightnings left on the planet! Not Skunky, but exciting, eh? Art ------------------------------ Date: 7/21/99 8:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: spynow616@eastmail.com Subject: >>> Warning - Don't Get Ripped Off !!! <<< There have been some dishonest people who have copied this advertisement in an attempt to sell their own "cheap imitation" of the Internet Spy & You program. Don't be misled by other offers for $15 and $22 programs being advertised on the net... you get what you pay for, and there's only ONE "Internet Spy & You" program!!! Please see disclaimers at the end of this mailing. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Welcome to another... ListBott "Opt-In" broadcast. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Dear Subscriber, We have been FORCED TO LIMIT OUR DISTRIBUTION after July 28th !!! Don't miss this very limited time opportunity to get the software that will allow you to become the ultimate "Super Snoop" on anyone !!! Get The SOFTWARE They Want BANNED In All COUNTRIES!!! "THE INTERNET SPY AND YOU" SHOWS YOU HOW TO GET THE FACTS ON ANYONE!!! You now have just 4 days left to get the software they want banned in every country !!! Why? Because these secrets were never intended to reach your eyes... Plus, this is a VERY LIMITED TIME OFFER !!! Get the facts on anyone using the Internet! Locate Missing Persons, find Lost Relatives, obtain Addresses and Phone Numbers of old school friends, even Skip Trace Dead Beat Spouses. This is not a Private Investigator, but a sophisticated SOFTWARE program DESIGNED to automatically CRACK YOUR CASE with links to thousands of Public Record databases. Find out SECRETS about your relatives, friends, enemies, and everyone else! -- even your spouse with the new, INTERNET SPY AND YOU!!! It's absolutely astounding! Here's what you can learn: License plate number! Get anyone's name and address with just a license plate number! (Find that girl you met in traffic!) Driving record! Get anyone's driving record Social security number! Trace anyone by social security number! Address! Get anyone's address with just a name! Unlisted phone numbers! Get anyone's phone number with just a name - even unlisted numbers! Locate! Long lost friends, relatives, a past lover who broke your heart! E-mail! Send anonymous e-mail completely untraceable! Dirty secrets! Discover dirty secrets your in-laws don't want you to know! Investigate anyone! Use the sources that private investigators use (all on the Internet) secretly! Ex-spouse! Learn how to get information on an ex-spouse that will help you win in court! (Dig up old skeletons) Criminal search-background check! Find out about your daughters boyfriend! (or her husband) Find out! If you are being investigated! Neighbors! Learn all about your mysterious neighbors! Find out what they have to hide! People you work with! Be astonished by what you'll learn about people you work with! Education verification! Did he really graduate college? Find out! Internet Spy and You Software will help you discover ANYTHING about anyone, with clickable hyperlinks, no typing in Internet addresses! Just insert the floppy disk and Go! You will be shocked and amazed by the secrets that can be discovered about absolutely everyone! Find out the secrets they don't want you to know! About others, about yourself! It's INCREDIBLE what you can find out using the Internet Spy and You and the Internet! You'll be riveted to your computer screen! Get the software they're trying to ban! ACT NOW, Before it's too late! LIMITED TIME OFFER -- THIS SPECIAL SOFTWARE OFFER EXPIRES IN JUST 96 HOURS!!! ORDER TODAY!!! Only $45.95 U.S. (Postage Paid) Only $39.95 U.S. (If paying with Cash or Money Order.) We will RUSH YOU our Internet Spy and You software so you can begin discovering all the secrets you ever wanted to know! You can know EVERYTHING about ANYONE with our Internet Spy and You Software. Works with all browsers and all versions of AOL! ORDER TODAY !!! Send Only $45.95 U.S. (Postage Paid) OR, Only $39.95 U.S. (If paying with Cash or Money Order.) Sorry, NO PERSONAL OR BUSINESS CHECKS will be accepted. (ORDERS OUTSIDE THE USA, ADD $25.00) (ALL SOFTWARE PACKAGES SHIPPED WITHIN 48 HOURS) DON'T WAIT TO GET STARTED... here's what to do: STEP 1 - Compose a new message using the order form text below STEP 2 - Type or print your order information into the order form section STEP 3 - Print your completed order, then mail to the address below >>> Order Toll-Free <<< OPTIONAL, you may choose to place your order on our secure voicemail system by calling 1-800-242-0363 Ext 1940 >>> Order By Mail <<< (Must be called-in or postmarked "on" or "before" 7/28/99) Send to: Network Innovations Authorization: 1096-A10 1393 West 9000 South Suite 171 West Jordan, Utah 84088 U.S.A. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< We have been forced to limit the distribution of this resource. Orders received or postmarked AFTER 7/28/99, will be returned. Sorry, there will be NO exceptions!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>> Mail-in Order Form <<< Auth: 1096-A10 Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Method of payment: [ ] Visa [ ] MasterCard [ ] American Express Credit Card#: Exp Date: YOUR SIGNATURE HERE:_______________________________ We cannot process your credit card payment without your signature! [ ] Credit Card Orders $45.95!!! [ ] Money Order mail in orders -- only $39.95!!! [ ] Cash mail in orders -- only $39.95!!! WE DO NOT ACCEPT PERSONAL CHECKS!!! "Products & Services For Doing Business On The Net" (SORRY, NO MAC VERSION AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.) NOTE: THIS PROGRAM WILL NOT WORK ON WINDOWS 3.11 AND OLDER REFUNDS: Since this is "information" on disk, we cannot issue a refund after your order is shipped, only a replacement if necessary. DISCLAIMER: The seller of this powerful software resource will not be held responsible for how the purchaser chooses to use its resources. ************************************************************************************************** This mailing is done by an independent marketing company. We apologize if this message has reached you in error. Save the Planet, Save the Trees! Advertise via E-mail. No wasted paper! To be removed from this listserver, address book, please call us toll-free at 1-800-242-0363 Ext 1940 and we'll promptly honor your remove request. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 00:56:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Couple of things I've come across Two interesting rumors 1. Yes, the F-14 definitely can track the B-2. I believe this one, because I've indications of this elsewhere. It also helps explain why USAF and DoD are so anxious to get rid of the Tomcat. 2. There was a rumor going around Washington that the reason there was so much confusion and contradictory information going around regarding the F-117 shootdown is that in reality it was really flown by a Luftwaffe pilot. I'm not too sure of the credibility on this one. There's are two excellent articles in the current US Naval Institute Proceedings. One is "Stealth Saves Lives", written by a member of the force that has had the most experience and most success with stealth, the nuclear submarine community. The second is "Smart Bombs and Linear Thinking over Yugoslavia". Since PGMs go hand in hand with skunky operations (F-117s are not designed to make repeated attacks with dumb bombs, the reason for the F-22's ridiculously small strike payload is that PGMs are supposed to get the same number of kills with many less weapons), this article is particularly relevant. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:16:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Couple of things I've come across At 12:56 AM 7/26/99 GMT, you wrote: >Two interesting rumors > > >2. There was a rumor going around Washington that the reason there was so much >confusion and contradictory information going around regarding the F-117 shootdown >is that in reality it was really flown by a Luftwaffe pilot. I'm not too sure of >the credibility on this one. > Very interesting.....the 1st German Air Force Squadron has 1,000 foreign nationals stationed at Holloman AFB where the F-117 is based. (This includes families). They fly and train in their own Toronado's there. Do you think? And if that isn't enough the German Army is just down the road a piece training on the Patriot at Ft. Bliss. Great place to be during Oktoberfest! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 04:27:11 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Couple of things I've come across On 7/25/99 8:16PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990725201654.00749a18@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > > Very interesting.....the 1st German Air Force Squadron has 1,000 foreign > nationals stationed at Holloman AFB where the F-117 is based. (This > includes families). They fly and train in their own Toronado's there. > > Do you think? > > And if that isn't enough the German Army is just down the road a piece > training on the Patriot at Ft. Bliss. Great place to be during Oktoberfest! > Here's something even more interesting. What I didn't include was that the rumor also has it that Hollman AFB is where the Luftwaffe pilots come from that are trained on the F-117. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 23:44:17 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Couple of things I've come across >At 12:56 AM 7/26/99 GMT, you wrote: >>Two interesting rumors >> >> >>2. There was a rumor going around Washington that the reason there was so >much >>confusion and contradictory information going around regarding the F-117 >shootdown >>is that in reality it was really flown by a Luftwaffe pilot. I'm not too >sure of >>the credibility on this one. >> > > >Very interesting.....the 1st German Air Force Squadron has 1,000 foreign >nationals stationed at Holloman AFB where the F-117 is based. (This >includes families). They fly and train in their own Toronado's there. > >Do you think? > >And if that isn't enough the German Army is just down the road a piece >training on the Patriot at Ft. Bliss. Great place to be during Oktoberfest! Funny that this should come up, last weekend was a big airshow out here (that I missed, unfortunately). Come Monday morning, I'm opening up the office at 8 am and.... WHOOOSSHH!! A German Tonado flys by at no more than 800 feet equipped with drop tanks. Later in the day were were also treated to an F-15 doing a roll high above, and a full burner B-1 takeoff that set off all of the car alarms in town. All day I was trying to track down the web page that has a real-time Joshua Control ATC display with no luck to get outside in time to see that action :) But back on track... since the late 1980s there have been persistent rumblings of UK piloits being trained on the F-117, and even the Brits considering a small buy of Nighthawks. This is the first I've heard of German involvement myself, but it doesn't seem far fetched- perhaps US pilots get a loan of a MiG-29 with helmet mounted sight in exchange for Luftwaffe time in F-117s. One of the things that does put a damper on such US- German relations has been the potentially still-present connections between Germany's current and former intelligence assetts and certain rogue elements. During reunification there were quite a few Stasi people RIF'd, and a few kept. Their ties to their former contacts (real or imagined) do make many in the US intelligence community nervous. But working with the HMD setup in their MiG-29's would probably be considred worth allowing them to train on the F-117, IMHO. Everyone and their mother seems to be buying up the MiG-29, and that sight and the missiles to go with it were long considered an advantage over US weapons IIRC. Getting a fully decked out Fulcrum out to Groom for a little evaluation would be very high on a lot of people's wish lists. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #84 ******************************** 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