From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #8 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, February 11 2000 Volume 09 : Number 008 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** FWD (TLC-Mission) Re: B-57 RE: On achieving optical invisibility Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: B-57 Spook Plane & Targeting FWD (TLCB) Martin B-57 Development and some odd history. FWD (TLC-Mission) Re: B-57 FWD (TLC-Mission) SR71s Over China RE: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: invisible Radar? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:06:02 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLC-Mission) Re: B-57 Do you know when they began using them (the B-57's) over China? When I was at the 6927th Security Squadron at Onna Point, Okinawa in '66 or '67, we got a FLASH report of a shoot down of one of our recon planes over the China mainland by a MIG-21. We had two recon flights daily that took off from Taiwan, then flew a route up and down the mainland coast, returning to base at the end of the day. The linguists and diddy boppers on Taiwan and those on the recon planes would listen in on the traffic between the radar tracking sites and the MIG pilots. As the birds traveled up and down the coast, each MIG squadron would scramble and follow along below them, until the next fighter squadron would scramble and take up the chase. Most times it was futile for them, because our birds flew well above the MIG's ceiling. That particular day, the Chi-coms got off a lucky shot. One MIG made a zoom climb, then fired his air to air rockets, just as he topped out, hoping against hope one would find its target. We heard that the linguist, located in Taiwan, had heard the MIG pilot say, "Pa Gao er shih chi'en." (Climbing to twenty thousand) "Fa she le! (Rockets fired!) Then a moment later, "Wo dingle ta de pigu!! Wo dingle ta de pigu!!" (I fixed his ass!! I fixed his ass!!) We on Onna Point were instructed to listen for traffic referencing the shoot down, but we never picked up on any. We were too far out to listen on the VHF frequencies used by the MIGs. Most of the traffic we picked up was transports and ground controllers on HF. Never heard any more on the matter, and I don't know if there were any survivors or not. I doubt it. I always wondered what kind of birds we were flying over there though. I thought they might possibly be RC-135's. They were simply referred to as "ACRP", or Airborne Communications Reconnaissance Platform. We on Oki had the clearance, but didn't have the "need to know" the aircraft type. They never told us any more than was absolutely necessary for us to do the jobs we were assigned. P.S. I hope I don't get in trouble for talking about this thirty-three years after the fact. Never know who's listening and watching your traffic! (No need to wonder why they called us "spooks", is there?" - ----- William Gardner wrote: > The extended windspan B-57 and its English Canberra counterpart were used on recon missions over the Soviet Union. They were also used over China. Their role in this type of mission was one of the litttle known aspects of the Cold War. I don't believe any were ever lost over Russia. In the book "Spy Flights of the Cold War" there are several good picture of the extended wing B-57. > > Bill Bob Wheatley Det 4, 6922 Security Wing Ramasun Station / Udorn - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: On achieving optical invisibility > Read http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/bearden.htm > > and Discrepancies in Present EM Theory > > http://www.cseti.org/bearden/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm > > Tony Craddock > _____________________ As Jim would say, SHOW ME THE PROOF! This is theory and conjecture. Where's the experimental/empirical data to support this? Very Grumpy Sam > > At 04:42 PM 2/10/00 -0500, David Allison wrote: > >Pardon my asking, but what is "electrogravitational"? > > > >I'm the first to admit I don't have a master's degree in Science, > >but what does gravity have to do with electricity? MAGNETISM and > >electricity go hand-in-hand, but I thought gravity was a function > >of an object's mass affecting the space surrounding it, not its > >electrical charge or the amount of energy contained within it. > > > > - D - > > > >David Allison > >webmaster@habu.org > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:52:24 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: B-57 Spook Plane & Targeting Terry sent: ""At that time the final variants of the USAF's first worthwhile strategic jet bomber were fully operational, the B-47 Stratojet. About 1,800 aircraft were completed between 1946 and 1957 and they stayed in service til half way through the 1960s. The aircraft had been designed in 1945 and production had gone through three principal versions: the B-47A of 1950 (10 built); the B-47B of 1951 (380); the B-47E of 1953 (1,359 built, followed by 255 photo-reconnaissance variants, RB-47E). The production lines closed on 15th February 1947 and in the same year the USAD started to relegate the B-47s to photo-reconnaissance and training. In these roles the last Stratojets were taken out of service in 1966." The last sentence of the above is not correct. 24 WB-47Es remained in service with USAF until late 1969. They were modified for weather reconnaissance and were assigned to the 9th Weather Recon Wing of the Air Weather Service. These were not photo-recon types, but ex-bombers modified for weather recon and atmospheric sampling. By that time most of them were being used to scout refueling areas for fighter movements across the Pacific. Before the bombing moratorium several were operating from Clark recon-ing strike routes for the Arc Light Missions. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:41:52 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLCB) Martin B-57 Development and some odd history. Martin was selected in 1950 to undertake license production of the English Electric Canberra, the first aircraft of foreign design to enter operational deployment with the USAF after WWII. The initial Martin version, built to establish the production line, was the B-57A, first flown 20 July, 1953. Only eight were constructed before manufacturer was switched to the RB-57A, the RB-57A entered service in 1954 and the extensively built B-57B, night intruder joined TAC's 461st BW in early 1955. There was EB-57s built for ADC Defense Evaluation SQ-radar eval birds. The first acft turned over to the Vietnamese was the B-57. In Aug 1965 four were turned over to the VNAF-that was a surprise. According to one source the B-57 flew night FAC missions. In 1964 when the VC hit Bien Hoa they destroyed 5 B-57B and damage 15 others.The first American jet to drop bombs in anger against the VC was a B-57 SN 53-3888 of the 13 BS on 19 Feb., 1965. Couldn't find how many were made but it seems like I saw a figure of 450 at one time. I found Amos's picture as a Capt in one of these books but not in a B-57.. This data came from World Aircraft Encyclopedia, several Squadron/Signal Pubs and the USAF Aerospace Info Hdbk Gene Rossel - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:43:36 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLC-Mission) Re: B-57 The book I have lists 7 ROC (Taiwan) shoot downs during that period. Lists 12 worldwide during the years listed. I wouldn't consider my material the gospel truth, and there were probably others. I know we kept ferrying them into Taiwan, as I was on some of those missions. Hap Howard "Hap" Wyman NCOIC, Shop Crew 56th AEMS/AMS (Radio Section) Nakhon Phanom RTAFB 1968-1969 Air Commando Assoc. - Life Member http://home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/ TLC-Brotherhood - Charter Member http://www.TLC-Brotherhood.org "AnyTime - AnyPlace" The ROC lost 15 U-2s between Mar 1961 and Nov 1970. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:46:19 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLC-Mission) SR71s Over China I am not sure if our missions scheduled and performed over CHINA with the SR71s had anything to do with ROC U-2s flights after they stopped in Nov 70. I mentioned before in a previous post, about the special missions flown over Southern China and North North Vietnam, there was more than one or two of these missions also. The Intel was used about the Chinese border clashes with North Vietnam. Initially, I believe the USA was encouraged seeing them (keeping the North busy on more fronts). But concerned about the Domino theory and getting CHINA too involved. I remember a meeting in our office with CAS shortly after the TS message came in from the JCS. The Colonel just asked me to get it out of the safe, and then I was asked to step out of the office. Does anyone recall missions (Combat or Rescue type) further North of Hanoi or the most Northern mission in Laos? Sawadee, Ed Miller - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:39:50 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: RE: On achieving optical invisibility Duh - if it worked (and it does) you wouldn't be able to see the proof anyway!! Tony Craddock __________ At 03:09 AM 2/11/00 -0500, you wrote: > > Read http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/bearden.htm > > > > and Discrepancies in Present EM Theory > > > > http://www.cseti.org/bearden/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm > > > > Tony Craddock > > _____________________ > > >As Jim would say, SHOW ME THE PROOF! > >This is theory and conjecture. > >Where's the experimental/empirical data to support this? > >Very Grumpy Sam > > > > > > At 04:42 PM 2/10/00 -0500, David Allison wrote: > > >Pardon my asking, but what is "electrogravitational"? > > > > > >I'm the first to admit I don't have a master's degree in Science, > > >but what does gravity have to do with electricity? MAGNETISM and > > >electricity go hand-in-hand, but I thought gravity was a function > > >of an object's mass affecting the space surrounding it, not its > > >electrical charge or the amount of energy contained within it. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > >David Allison > > >webmaster@habu.org > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:50:18 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility Tony Craddock writes: >>>>Excerpted from >>>>FER DE LANCE >>>> >>>>A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons >>>>by Lt. Col. T.E. Bearden (retd.), 1986 >>>>Copyright >>>>ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES (P 90) >>>>... >>>>The >>>>phenomenon is observed only in insulators, not in conducting materials. >>>>... Thus ordinary photons >>>>strike the dielectric, changing into electrogravitational waves which >>>>transit the opaque dielectric, and these EG waves transform back to EM >>>>waves on the far side of the dielectric. Advanced scalar EM application of >>>>this effect can make an object optically invisible. David Allison responds: >>>... >>>I'm the first to admit I don't have a master's degree in Science, >>>but what does gravity have to do with electricity? ... Sam Kaltsidis responds: >>As Jim would say, SHOW ME THE PROOF! >> >>This is theory and conjecture. >> >>Where's the experimental/empirical data to support this? Tony Craddock responds: >Duh - if it worked (and it does) you wouldn't be able to see the proof >anyway!! C'mon Tony. Remember, we verify theories about the world with experiment before we believe them. So, let's go with what you quoted above. To discover gravity waves for the first time, all one has to do, is built the detector out of an insulator, and turn on the room lights! Or perhaps a simpler experiment that anyone can do: On that next trip to the beach, on a warm sunny day, bring an opaque insulating cover with you to cover yourself as you lay in the sun. According to your theory above, the sun's photons will emit from the underside of the insulating cover, after transiting the thickness of the insulator itself as gravitational energy, and still give you a sunburn! That is not the experience that most of us who have covered ourselves with a towel at the beach, have had. Or perhaps another simple experiment: Next time you go to the hardware store, pick up an insulated wire and inspect it under the store's lights. Does it look invisible? Connect the ends of the wire to a multimeter. Is it registering current under the light, that varies with the length of wire? Tony Craddock also wrote: >>>>One wonders which aircraft currently use this effect. Believe me Tony, the B-2 does NOT utilize this effect! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:49:57 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility - --=====================_187352497==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Nice try, but selectively deleting portions of the original post won't get it, whatever your viewpoint. The deliberate obtuseness, and the motivation for its application, is another matter. Do we perchance have a closet List Commissar in our midst? a) my original post quoted Scientific American as a primary source as follows: "For information on self-induced transparency with pulsated light, see E. L. Hahn, Scientific American, June 1967" b) who equated the sun or the lights in a hardware store with "Advanced scalar EM application of this effect "?? Not I. c) whoever mentioned the B-2? Not I - how about the F-117 if we are going to throw darts at the board? As your memory has obviously faded, here is the original post. Oh.........and you got an F on the test! Tony Craddock _______________________ Original Post ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES (P 90) 19. For information on self-induced transparency with pulsated light, see E. L. Hahn, Scientific American, June 1967. This is a scalar EM effect. The phenomenon is observed only in insulators, not in conducting materials. A dielectric tends to stop the flow of electrons, thus stopping the bleed-off of the Kaluza-Klein 5-potential as EM force fields. Thus through the insulator or dielectric, an electrogravitational pulse is transmitted. When this pulse emerges from the other side of the dielectric, then electrons are free to move again and form ordinary EM fields, resulting in resumed EM bleed-off of the KK (Kaluza-Klein) 5-potential. Thus ordinary photons strike the dielectric, changing into electrogravitational waves which transit the opaque dielectric, and these EG waves transform back to EM waves on the far side of the dielectric. Advanced scalar EM application of this effect can make an object optically invisible. Excerpted from FER DE LANCE A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons by Lt. Col. T.E. Bearden (retd.), 1986 Copyright ENDS ___________________ At 12:50 PM 2/11/00 -0800, you wrote: >Tony Craddock writes: > >>>>Excerpted from > >>>>FER DE LANCE > >>>> > >>>>A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons > >>>>by Lt. Col. T.E. Bearden (retd.), 1986 > >>>>Copyright > >>>>ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES (P 90) > >>>>... > >>>>The > >>>>phenomenon is observed only in insulators, not in conducting materials. > >>>>... Thus ordinary > photons > >>>>strike the dielectric, changing into electrogravitational waves which > >>>>transit the opaque dielectric, and these EG waves transform back to EM > >>>>waves on the far side of the dielectric. Advanced scalar EM > application of > >>>>this effect can make an object optically invisible. > >David Allison responds: > >>>... > >>>I'm the first to admit I don't have a master's degree in Science, > >>>but what does gravity have to do with electricity? ... > >Sam Kaltsidis responds: > >>As Jim would say, SHOW ME THE PROOF! > >> > >>This is theory and conjecture. > >> > >>Where's the experimental/empirical data to support this? > > >Tony Craddock responds: > >Duh - if it worked (and it does) you wouldn't be able to see the proof > >anyway!! > >C'mon Tony. > >Remember, we verify theories about the world with experiment before we believe >them. > >So, let's go with what you quoted above. > >To discover gravity waves for the first time, all one has to do, is built the >detector out of an insulator, and turn on the room lights! > >Or perhaps a simpler experiment that anyone can do: >On that next trip to the beach, on a warm sunny day, bring an opaque >insulating cover with you to cover yourself as you lay in the sun. According >to your theory above, the sun's photons will emit from the underside of the >insulating cover, after transiting the thickness of the insulator itself >as gravitational energy, and still give you a sunburn! > >That is not the experience that most of us who have covered ourselves with a >towel at the beach, have had. > >Or perhaps another simple experiment: >Next time you go to the hardware store, pick up an insulated wire and inspect >it under the store's lights. > >Does it look invisible? > >Connect the ends of the wire to a multimeter. Is it registering current >under the light, that varies with the length of wire? > >Tony Craddock also wrote: > >>>>One wonders which aircraft currently use this effect. > >Believe me Tony, the B-2 does NOT utilize this effect! > >Larry - --=====================_187352497==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Nice try, but selectively deleting portions of the original post won't get it, whatever your viewpoint.

The deliberate obtuseness, and the motivation for its application, is another matter.  Do we perchance have a closet List Commissar in our midst?

a)  my original post quoted Scientific American as a primary source as follows: "For information on self-induced transparency with pulsated light, see E. L. Hahn, Scientific American, June 1967"

b)  who equated the sun or the lights in a hardware store with "Advanced scalar EM application of  this effect "?? Not I.

c)  whoever mentioned the B-2?  Not I - how about the F-117 if we are going to throw darts at the board?

As your memory has obviously faded, here is the original post.

Oh.........and you got an F on the test!

Tony Craddock
_______________________

Original Post

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES (P 90)

19. For information on self-induced transparency with pulsated light, see E. L. Hahn, Scientific American, June 1967. This is a scalar EM effect. The phenomenon is observed only in insulators, not in conducting materials. A dielectric tends to stop the flow of electrons, thus stopping the bleed-off of the Kaluza-Klein 5-potential as EM force fields. Thus through the insulator or dielectric, an electrogravitational pulse is transmitted. When this pulse emerges from the other side of the dielectric, then electrons are free to move again and form ordinary EM fields, resulting in resumed EM bleed-off of the KK (Kaluza-Klein) 5-potential. Thus ordinary photons strike the dielectric, changing into electrogravitational waves which transit the opaque dielectric, and these EG waves transform back to EM waves on the far side of the dielectric. Advanced scalar EM application of this effect can make an object optically invisible.

Excerpted from
FER DE LANCE

A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons
by Lt. Col. T.E. Bearden (retd.), 1986
Copyright
ENDS
___________________


At 12:50 PM 2/11/00 -0800, you wrote:


Tony Craddock writes:
>>>>Excerpted from
>>>>FER DE LANCE
>>>>
>>>>A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons
>>>>by Lt. Col. T.E. Bearden (retd.), 1986
>>>>Copyright
>>>>ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES (P 90)
>>>>...
>>>>The
>>>>phenomenon is observed only in insulators, not in conducting materials.
>>>>...                                                  Thus ordinary photons
>>>>strike the dielectric, changing into electrogravitational waves which
>>>>transit the opaque dielectric, and these EG waves transform back to EM
>>>>waves on the far side of the dielectric. Advanced scalar EM application of
>>>>this effect can make an object optically invisible.

David Allison responds:
>>>...
>>>I'm the first to admit I don't have a master's degree in Science,
>>>but what does gravity have to do with electricity?  ...

Sam Kaltsidis responds:
>>As Jim would say, SHOW ME THE PROOF!
>>
>>This is theory and conjecture.
>>
>>Where's the experimental/empirical data to support this?


Tony Craddock responds:
>Duh - if it worked (and it does) you wouldn't be able to see the proof
>anyway!!

C'mon Tony.

Remember, we verify theories about the world with experiment before we believe
them.

So, let's go with what you quoted above.

To discover gravity waves for the first time, all one has to do, is built the
detector out of an insulator, and turn on the room lights!

Or perhaps a simpler experiment that anyone can do:
On that next trip to the beach, on a warm sunny day, bring an opaque
insulating cover with you to cover yourself as you lay in the sun. According
to your theory above, the sun's photons will emit from the underside of the
insulating cover, after transiting the thickness of the insulator itself
as gravitational energy, and still give you a sunburn!

That is not the experience that most of us who have covered ourselves with a
towel at the beach, have had.

Or perhaps another simple experiment:
Next time you go to the hardware store, pick up an insulated wire and inspect
it under the store's lights.

Does it look invisible?

Connect the ends of the wire to a multimeter. Is it registering current
under the light, that varies with the length of wire?

Tony Craddock also wrote:
>>>>One wonders which aircraft currently use this effect.

Believe me Tony, the B-2 does NOT utilize this effect!

Larry
- --=====================_187352497==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:28:59 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: invisible Radar? - --------------C3FBD0F0EC97B8FBA13F6A4B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > >However one thing puzzles me; how did they manage to make the radar antenna > stealthy? > That's a very good question > >They probably didn't have what was needed when they built the F-117,which would > explain why it has no radar (plus the fact > >that they probably didn't have the technology to make it's emissions discreet > enough). But the B-2, the F-22, the reported > >'triangular' Blimp etc... all have a radar. How would they make the antenna of > the radar stealthy when the aim of a radar > >antenna is to emit and RECEIVE radar waves! Is it unstealthy at it's own > wavelength? > >Does anyone have an idea? > > What's interesting here is that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a > buzz in the black world concerning new signal processing > techniques for counter-stealth utilizing "Bragg cell channelizers" and > "acousto-optical" signal processing techniques for ultra wideband > radarm bistatic radar, and several other counterstealth schemes, with work on US > systems conducted at the Tonopah Electronic Warfare Range > and several adjacent areas. Several of these systems were supposedly tested > against F-117 and B-2 aircraft (which could explain several > unscheduled daylight B-2 overflights of Groom during that period). Here's > someone's reprint of an AW&ST article from about that time, > touching on black acousto-optical research: > > Nonetheless, the question of how to make a LO antenna or radome is very > interesting. The radome could be constructed or materials that > are transparent to a limited range of frequencies, but I assume this could be > challenging for a frequency agile radar or interfere with > other LO aspects such as the IR signature (much of the absorbed frequencies would > be radiated as heat). A very interesting problem, > and so far I haven't found anything on it in the open literature. > Dan Well any way you look at it the antenna has to be able to receive the radar energy at least at the frequency it is emitting at. The only logical way around this (but then again I’m not an expert) would be to have the radar cone designed to not let ‘other’ frequencies through, and then have the radar antenna ‘absorb all frequencies that do get trough. It would definitely require a LOT of signal processing capability to sort out all the emissions coming through, but then I should think they now have that available. They could probably even use the radar passively (using other radar emissions and just using the antenna as a receiver). The ‘cone’ ( I don’t know how you would call the area covering the radar antenna on the B-2’s wings) would be designed to scatter radar energy (shaping), and probably also using RAM. But an active system would probably not be good in these areas, unless they can be designed to counter only certain frequencies. I also read somewhere that the direction in which carbon fibers used in composite materials are ‘set in’ affect, it’s transparency to radar energy. (I think carbon fibers are used in RAM, and the composites that are used to make the ‘cones’). As for heat, I guess they could also use IR suppressing paint on the cone, or the same system they have used on the rest of the airplane. There are also talks of materials (coatings or paints?) that ‘shifts’ the heat into IR wavelengths that are much better absorbed by the atmosphere. Concerning the use of "Bragg cell channelizers" and "acousto-optical" signal processing techniques for ultra wideband radarm bistatic radar, and several other counterstealth schemes. I think the ‘magic’ of the new stealth designs is that their stealth capabilities is efficient in a much wider part of the spectrum than the first designs where. - -U-2 just used RAM and was probably only of limited stealth at very limited radar wavelenghts. - -SR-71 was reported as having a 0.55sqm RCS in ‘almost’ all aspects, using shaping and RAM/RAS but then again probably only at limited wavelengths (probably not as effective in the HF/VHF/UHF used by long range surveillance radars because the RAM would have to be too thick) and it’s IR and acoustic signature must have been huge. - -F-117 when they first came out would have had a balanced RCS at a much wider range of frequencies), with lowered IR and acoustic signatures, and they are constantly improving it’s stealth characteristics. - -B-2 and F-22 would probably have been designed to counter all these likely future (at that time) threats. I know they have several ongoing programs to design systems (computer simulation?) that would help reduce the amount of ‘real’ testing needed to test decoy effectiveness, stealth capabilities and so forth. So we can also expect these latest airplanes of being continuously updated just like the –117’s. One potential weak point would be the merging of the information from several systems using different wavelengths (so an ultra-wide band bi-static ‘radar’ or a system using using acoustic, IR, radar and maybe the ‘wake signature’). For example we probably all have read reports of a –117 or a B-2 being detected, but it seems none of these systems where able to track these aircraft, which means all they saw was an occasional ‘blimp’ on the radar and that was it, definitely not enough to shoot it down. The same goes for detection at HF/VHF and UHF bands which provide long range and are good against stealth but don’t give good enough accuracy for a shot (which is why tracking or fighter radars use frequencies around the I/J bands). However if you could merge information from several systems using different wavelengths, you could probably 'criss-cross' information to keep a good track and have a good accuracy... Bi-static radar is good against stealth because shaping is designed to scatter the radar waves away from the emitter (which on most radars is also the receiver) However on a bi-static radar the emitter and receiver can be far apart. Examples of bi-static radars using HF frequencies are the AN/FPS-118 OTH (over the horizon radar) and the AN/TPS-71 ROTHR. It was a similar system (called Jindalee) that was apparently used by the Australians to detect the B-2. These systems have the reported range of 2.500NM reported in the article was a similar system, but they are very costly to operate and build, fixed or semi-fixed and not very common. I guess these systems would be about the best systems in operation to detect stealth (RAM not very effective at these wavelengths, and effectiveness of shaping reduced because they are bi-static). Their problem is they have a minimum range of approx.900km (because to get the OTH effect they have to ‘bounce’ the HF waves against the Ionosphere). Since these systems are not new and the Russians have some, I guess the 'skunkies' have found a way to reduce the effectiveness of these radars to the point where the aircraft can enter the minimum range of the radar. I don’t think one system on it’s own could be, the ‘ultimate counter-stealth’, and only the ‘merging’ of different systems would be the way to go. It makes you wonder why they put so much effort into ‘integrating’ all the systems on the F-22... Timothy - --------------C3FBD0F0EC97B8FBA13F6A4B Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dan Zinngrabe wrote:
>However one thing puzzles me; how did they manage to make the radar antenna stealthy?
That's a very good question
>They probably didn't have what was needed when they built the F-117,which would explain why it has no radar (plus the fact
>that they probably didn't have the technology to make it's emissions discreet enough). But the B-2, the F-22, the reported
>'triangular' Blimp etc... all have a  radar. How would they make the antenna of the radar stealthy when the aim of a radar
>antenna is to emit and RECEIVE radar waves! Is it unstealthy at it's own wavelength?
>Does anyone have an idea?

What's interesting here is that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a buzz in the black world concerning new signal processing
techniques for counter-stealth utilizing "Bragg cell channelizers" and "acousto-optical" signal processing techniques for ultra wideband
radarm bistatic radar, and several other counterstealth schemes, with work on US systems conducted at the Tonopah Electronic Warfare Range
and several adjacent areas. Several of these systems were supposedly tested against F-117 and B-2 aircraft (which could explain several
unscheduled daylight B-2 overflights of Groom during that period). Here's someone's reprint of an AW&ST article from about that time,
touching on black acousto-optical research: <http://www.eidolon.ndirect.co.uk/unmajestic/023.html>
Nonetheless, the question of how to make a LO antenna or radome is very interesting. The radome could be constructed or materials that
are transparent to a limited range of frequencies, but I assume this could be challenging for a frequency agile radar or interfere with
other LO aspects such as the IR signature (much of the absorbed frequencies would be radiated as heat). A very interesting problem,
and so far I haven't found anything on it in the open literature.
Dan

Well any way you look at it the antenna has to be able to receive the radar energy at least at the frequency it is emitting at. The only logical way around this (but then again I’m not an expert) would be to have the radar cone designed to not let ‘other’ frequencies through, and then have the radar antenna ‘absorb all frequencies that do get trough.
It would definitely require a LOT of signal processing capability to sort out all the emissions coming through, but then I should think they now have that available. They could probably even use the radar passively (using other radar emissions and just using the antenna as a receiver).
The ‘cone’ ( I don’t know how you would call the area covering the radar antenna on the B-2’s wings) would be designed to scatter radar energy (shaping), and probably also using RAM. But an active system would probably not be good in these areas, unless they can be designed to counter only certain frequencies. I also read somewhere that the direction in which carbon fibers used in composite materials are ‘set in’ affect, it’s transparency to radar energy. (I think carbon fibers are used in RAM, and the composites that are used to make the ‘cones’).
As for heat, I guess they could also use IR suppressing paint on the cone, or the same system they have used on the rest of the airplane. There are also talks of materials (coatings or paints?) that ‘shifts’ the heat into IR wavelengths that are much better absorbed by the atmosphere.

Concerning the use of "Bragg cell channelizers" and "acousto-optical" signal processing techniques for ultra wideband radarm bistatic radar, and several other counterstealth schemes.
I think the ‘magic’ of the new stealth designs is that their stealth capabilities is efficient in a much wider part of the spectrum than the first designs where.
-U-2 just used RAM and was probably only of limited stealth at very limited radar wavelenghts.
-SR-71 was reported as having a 0.55sqm RCS in ‘almost’ all aspects,  using shaping and RAM/RAS but then again probably only at limited wavelengths (probably not as effective in the HF/VHF/UHF used by long range surveillance radars because the RAM would have to be too thick) and it’s IR and acoustic signature must have been huge.
-F-117 when they first came out would have had a balanced RCS at a much wider range of frequencies), with lowered IR and acoustic signatures, and they are constantly improving it’s stealth characteristics.
-B-2 and F-22 would probably have been designed to counter all these likely future (at that time) threats. I know they have several ongoing programs to design systems (computer simulation?) that would help reduce the amount of  ‘real’ testing needed to test decoy effectiveness, stealth capabilities and so forth. So we can also expect these latest airplanes of being continuously updated just like the –117’s.

One potential weak point would be the merging of the information from several systems using different wavelengths (so an ultra-wide band bi-static ‘radar’ or a system using using acoustic, IR, radar and maybe the ‘wake signature’).
For example we probably all have read reports of a –117 or a B-2 being detected, but it seems none of these systems where able to track these aircraft, which means all they saw was an occasional ‘blimp’ on the radar and that was it, definitely not enough to shoot it down. The same goes for detection at HF/VHF and UHF bands which provide long range and are good against stealth but don’t give good enough accuracy for a shot (which is why tracking or fighter radars use frequencies around the I/J bands). However if you could merge information from several systems using different wavelengths, you could probably 'criss-cross' information to keep a good track and have a good accuracy...
Bi-static radar is good against stealth because shaping is designed to scatter the radar waves away from the emitter (which on most radars is also the receiver) However on a bi-static radar the emitter and receiver can be far apart. Examples of bi-static radars using HF frequencies are the AN/FPS-118 OTH (over the horizon radar) and the AN/TPS-71 ROTHR. It was a similar system (called Jindalee) that was apparently used by the Australians to detect the B-2. These systems have the reported range of 2.500NM reported in the article was a similar system, but they are very costly to operate and build, fixed or semi-fixed and not very common. I guess these systems would be about the best systems  in operation to detect stealth (RAM not very effective at these wavelengths, and effectiveness of shaping reduced because they are bi-static). Their problem is they have a minimum range of approx.900km (because to get the OTH effect they have to ‘bounce’ the HF waves against the Ionosphere). Since these systems are not new and the Russians have some, I guess the 'skunkies' have found a way to reduce the effectiveness of these radars to the point where the aircraft can enter the minimum range of the radar.
I don’t think one system on it’s own could be, the ‘ultimate counter-stealth’, and only the ‘merging’ of different systems would be the way to go. It makes you wonder why they put so much effort into ‘integrating’ all the systems on the F-22...

Timothy
  - --------------C3FBD0F0EC97B8FBA13F6A4B-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #8 ******************************* 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