From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #9 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 Sunday, February 13 2000 Volume 09 : Number 009 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: 'Solum Volamus' Patch Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:01:09 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: 'Solum Volamus' Patch On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Dave Bethke wrote: > > do you know if there is anywhere on the net (anysize, the bigger the > better) > > available for download patch 'Solum Volamus' worn by U-2 pilots? > > > RSVP by direct e-mail rather that newsgroup, > > > Thanks, > > > Salinger > > http://fly.to/salinger > > Igor Salinger > > -- > Dave Bethke Looks like the Yugoslavia want some of those so they can claimed they shoot down a U-2 airplane LOL! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I Trek. Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:29:47 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility > 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. This describes a capacitor. Since when do capacitors become invisible when exposed to "ordinary photons" as indicated above? BTW: What IS an "ordinary photon"? Where is the proof? This is theory at best. Where is the experimental data? What are your references precisely? > > 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 > > - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 22:54:09 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility - --------------A9E1A324DC73A129EE7A6F98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is what I have so far on Optical invisibility, (the problem is I have read so much stuff for such a long time that I can hardly ever say where I got the info from, but most of it comes from the net or magazines) 1. ‘Conventional camouflage’ Optical detection depends on a lot of different parameters such as background, ambient light, size (Stealth aircraft tend to be bigger than non-stealth because they have to carry their payload internally) etc... Which means that for example that a ‘camouflage’ designed for the states would not be as effective in Europe for example (where skies tend to be grayer than in the states), and the background is also influenced by the weather (gray skies clouds, fog etc...) Of course you can limit the ‘range of background colors’ by operating only at certain times, for example at night, which means painting your aircraft dark gray (and not black!) would give you good results. The ‘glinting’ of light (usually the sun) on the aircraft is also bad for optical visibility (and often worse than a difference in color between the object and the background) to counter this they use mat paint or even a ‘rubber’ type paint. So conventional camouflage can give good results but only with a limited range of different backgrounds Just like earlier generation RAM worked only at a limited range of frequencies. All these techniques where already used in WWI. All this works fine at low and medium altitude but at higher altitudes, whatever the color the plane is (so even if black), it will always look brighter than it’s background. For the B-2, the more ‘conventional ‘ idea is that it’s ‘medium’ gray (apparently they are reverting to the same color for the –117’s) used in conjunction with a low reflective paint would reduce the ‘day light’ optical signature by as much as 30%, and night time signature even more. And for the High altitude problem they would have sensors that allowed them to know at which altitude it was best to fly to ‘blend in’ the background or at least avoid this ‘brighter than background’ effect. Smoke from the exhaust is also a problem, they counter this by improving the efficiency of the combustion. Contrails are also bad for the optical signature, there have been talks of chemicals that would be injected in the engine to reduce it and the IR signature, but from what they say it didn’t work. But then I don’t see how they would have reduced the contrail and the IR signature, could it be a program that ‘turned black’ once they realized how effective it was? 2. Less conventional ideas Sometimes the brain can not process information and just disregards it, the same goes for computers if you could have fast ‘changing image’. Examples of this are games or test where you have to ‘see’ something in a picture that appears to be nothing but blotches of color, or a picture that can be viewed as an old lady or a young lady. Or a picture that resembles nothing until you spot the Dalmatian (no pun intended), but then every time you look at the picture the only thing your ‘brain’ sees is a Dalmatian. This is the technique that is supposedly used on the ‘stealth blimp’, where with a few lights here and there they have ‘changed it’ into a ‘constellation’. This system could also be used as an optical counter-measure against optically guided missiles, Where the guidance system is unable to decide what the target is or if it is a target. Earlier and simpler versions of this technique where used on WWI ships (painted with white and black stripes going in all directions thus ‘confusing’ the observer as to the shape, direction and size/range to the target). And to a lesser extent the ‘breaking’ of the shape, by using different color patterns for the camouflage. There was also a program called (yedo, yedi or something like that) which involved lights placed on the wing leading edges, this was first tried in WWII on sub hunters (TB-3’s?), and then again in Vietnam on F-4’s apparently this was very effective. So much so that they claim the only reason they didn’t use it on the B-2 is because the system wasn’t ready ?!?! If I remember well it was something like 70-75% effectiveness. There are also active EO counter-measures involving the use of aerosols. If I remember well they used this by having aircraft fitted with fuel tanks look alike. 3.Even less ‘conventional’ ideas They also have systems that detect optical trackers or detectors, they then use a laser to incapacitate or destroy the guidance system (or the observer's eyes!). But you would probably need a turret or a pod to fit one of those on a B-2. I know for sure such a system is being tested on M2 Bradley Fighting vehicles, so it would certainly be available for other ‘platforms’. A system for which I have no name, or program name, is (was) operational on a ‘new’ stealth aircraft (this must have been about 4-5 years ago though). This is what I remember of the system. The aircraft would be ‘covered’ by a 24 volt charge, which would have several effects, one was to actively reduce it’s RCS, but it would also ‘excite’ receivers on the aircraft skin which would then change their colors (probably only variations in color) I think it was this system that was also tested on an F-15, where a nearby observer claimed that you could see the plane normally at take off but then as soon as it was about a mile away it would just disappear, the only problem was that the F-15 apparently still left contrails or smoke which made it detectable. I also saw not so long ago on the net a document from the USAF titled ‘Forecast 2’ which talked of active ‘skins’ and coatings that incorporated ‘phased elements’ capable of detecting the ‘background’ picture (light sensitive receivers?) and then transmitting this info to ‘modules’ (also incorporated in the skin) but on the other side of the aircraft so that these would reproduce the picture. So in effect you would seem transparent. I also read about a similar or the same system in an issue of Popular mechanics or Popular science about two years ago. ‘Active skins’ are certainly a big thing now, and I know they are used or have at least been tested as antennas on the F-18 E/F. I know the French are also working on active skin but apparently they only hope for a ‘breakthrough’ in this technology around 2010-2020! Once again I’m sorry for the lack of references or technicality in the descriptions, and I would be glad if you had any precision to had or corrections to make. Also sorry if it sounds like I'm bragging, but it's just that I've found that the best way to 'pull usefull information' out of the mass of information we get is to make recaps every now and again and then share the info with others, who will hoppfully give their point of view on it. - --------------A9E1A324DC73A129EE7A6F98 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is what I have so far on Optical invisibility, (the problem is I have read so much stuff for such a long time that I can hardly ever say where I got the info from, but most of it comes from the net or magazines)

 1. ‘Conventional camouflage’
Optical detection depends on a lot of different parameters such as background, ambient light, size (Stealth aircraft tend to be bigger than non-stealth because they have to carry their payload internally) etc... Which means that for example that a ‘camouflage’ designed for the states would not be as effective in Europe for example (where skies tend to be grayer than in the states), and the background is also influenced by the weather (gray skies clouds, fog etc...) Of course you can limit the ‘range of background colors’ by operating only at certain times, for example at night, which means painting your aircraft dark gray (and not black!) would give you good results.
The ‘glinting’ of  light (usually the sun) on the aircraft is also bad for optical visibility (and often worse than a difference in color between the object and the background) to counter this they use mat paint or even a ‘rubber’ type paint.
So conventional camouflage can give good results but only with a limited range of different backgrounds
Just like earlier generation RAM worked only at a limited range of frequencies. All these techniques where already used in WWI.
All this works fine at low and medium altitude but at higher altitudes, whatever the color the plane is (so even if black), it will always look brighter than it’s background.

For the B-2, the more ‘conventional ‘ idea is that it’s ‘medium’ gray (apparently they are reverting to the same color for the –117’s) used in conjunction with a low reflective paint would reduce the ‘day light’ optical signature by as much as 30%, and night time signature even more. And for the High altitude problem they would have sensors that allowed them to know at which altitude it was best to fly to ‘blend in’ the background or at least avoid this ‘brighter than background’ effect.

Smoke from the exhaust is also a problem, they counter this by improving the efficiency of the combustion.

Contrails are also bad for the optical signature, there have been talks of chemicals that would be injected in the engine to reduce it and the IR signature, but from what they say it didn’t work. But then I don’t see how they would have reduced the contrail and the IR signature, could it be a program that ‘turned black’ once they realized how effective it was?

2. Less conventional ideas
Sometimes the brain can not process information and just disregards it, the same goes for computers if you could have fast ‘changing image’. Examples of this are games or test where you have to ‘see’ something in a picture that appears to be nothing but blotches of color, or a picture that can be viewed as an old lady or a young lady. Or a picture that resembles nothing until you spot the Dalmatian (no pun intended), but then every time you look at the picture the only thing your ‘brain’ sees is a Dalmatian. This is the technique that is supposedly used on the ‘stealth blimp’, where with a few lights here and there they have ‘changed it’ into a ‘constellation’.
This system could also be used as an optical counter-measure against optically guided missiles, Where the guidance system is unable to decide what the target is or if it is a target.
Earlier and simpler versions of this technique where used on WWI ships (painted with white and black stripes going in all directions thus ‘confusing’ the observer as to the shape, direction and size/range to the target). And to a lesser extent the ‘breaking’ of the shape, by using different color patterns for the camouflage.

There was also a program called (yedo, yedi or something like that) which involved lights placed on the wing leading edges, this was first tried in WWII on sub hunters (TB-3’s?), and then again in Vietnam on F-4’s apparently this was very effective. So much so that they claim the only reason they didn’t use it on the B-2 is because the system wasn’t ready ?!?! If I remember well it was something like 70-75% effectiveness.

There are also active EO counter-measures involving the use of aerosols. If I remember well they used this by having aircraft fitted with fuel tanks look alike.

3.Even less ‘conventional’ ideas
They also have systems that detect optical trackers or detectors, they then use a laser to incapacitate or destroy the guidance system (or the observer's eyes!). But you would probably need a turret or a pod to fit one of those on a B-2. I know for sure such a system is being tested on M2 Bradley Fighting vehicles, so it would certainly be available for other ‘platforms’.

A system for which I have no name, or program name, is (was) operational on a ‘new’ stealth aircraft (this must have been about 4-5 years ago though). This is what I remember of the system. The aircraft would be ‘covered’ by a 24 volt charge, which would have several effects, one was to actively reduce it’s RCS, but it would also ‘excite’ receivers on the aircraft skin which would then change their colors (probably only variations in color)
I think it was this system that was also tested on an F-15, where a nearby observer claimed that you could see the plane normally at take off but then as soon as it was about a mile away it would just disappear, the only problem was that the F-15 apparently still left contrails or smoke which made it detectable.
 
I also saw not so long ago on the net a document from the USAF titled ‘Forecast 2’ which talked of active ‘skins’ and coatings that incorporated ‘phased elements’ capable of detecting the ‘background’ picture (light sensitive receivers?) and then transmitting this info to ‘modules’ (also incorporated in the skin) but on the other side of the aircraft so that these would reproduce the picture. So in effect you would seem transparent. I also read about a similar or the same system in an issue of Popular mechanics or Popular science about two years ago.
‘Active skins’ are certainly a big thing now, and I know they are used or have at least been tested as antennas on the F-18 E/F. I know the French are also working on active skin but apparently they only hope for a ‘breakthrough’ in this technology around 2010-2020!

Once again I’m sorry for the lack of references or technicality in the descriptions, and I would be glad if you had any precision to had or corrections  to make.
Also sorry if it sounds like I'm bragging, but it's just that I've found that the best way to 'pull usefull information' out of the mass of information we get is to make recaps every now and again and then share the info with others, who will hoppfully give their point of view on it.
  - --------------A9E1A324DC73A129EE7A6F98-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:49:10 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Timothy Toth wrote: > There was also a program called (yedo, yedi or something like that) > which involved lights placed on the wing leading edges, this was first > tried in WWII on sub hunters (TB-3’s?), and then again in Vietnam on > F-4’s apparently this was very effective. So much so that they claim the > only reason they didn’t use it on the B-2 is because the system wasn’t > ready ?!?! If I remember well it was something like 70-75% > effectiveness. Can you be more elaborate in how this system work please? I think probably the list talk about this long time ago. > 3.Even less ‘conventional’ ideas > They also have systems that detect optical trackers or detectors, they > then use a laser to incapacitate or destroy the guidance system (or the > observer's eyes!). But you would probably need a turret or a pod to fit > one of those on a B-2. I know for sure such a system is being tested on > M2 Bradley Fighting vehicles, so it would certainly be available for > other ‘platforms’. I heard of this defensive laser method being test in apache and others fighter also. About the laser used to destroy observer's eyes, it is being banned in the USA. > A system for which I have no name, or program name, is (was) operational > on a ‘new’ stealth aircraft (this must have been about 4-5 years ago > though). This is what I remember of the system. The aircraft would be > ‘covered’ by a 24 volt charge, which would have several effects, one was > to actively reduce it’s RCS, but it would also ‘excite’ receivers on the > aircraft skin which would then change their colors (probably only > variations in color) Are you talking about ionize plasma discharge? I heard both, the Russian and USA is working in this method to reduce the RCS, weak the shock wave, reduce engine noise, etc. > I think it was this system that was also tested on an F-15, where a > nearby observer claimed that you could see the plane normally at take > off but then as soon as it was about a mile away it would just > disappear, the only problem was that the F-15 apparently still left > contrails or smoke which made it detectable. Without afterburner, I don't think the F-15, F-16 and others current generation fighter have a highly visible contrails (even at 1 mile away), unlike monster like Mig 25... > that the best way to 'pull usefull information' out of the mass of > information we get is to make recaps every now and again and then share > the info with others, who will hoppfully give their point of view on it. Nice review :) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I Trek. Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:00:57 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility - --------------F4DAA97CCA5BBF5C961617BC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Wei-Jen Su wrote: >> There was also a program called (yedo, yedi or something like that) >Can you be more elaborate in how this system work please? I think probably the list talk about this long time ago. The program name was Yehudi it started in 1943 but only came to light (no pun intended!) in the 1980’s it’s aim was to make the TBM-3s (Torpedo bombers) optically ‘stealth’ because German subs would always spot them and dive for over before the TBM-3s could spot them or attack them. They installed 10 sealed-beam lights in the wing's leading edges and around the engine. And the TBM-3 would adjust the intensity of the lights to match the sky. Acquisition range was reduced by about 80%. It seems however this system was not put in production, supposedly because by then they got radars to detect the subs from further away. A similar system was tested again during Vietnam on F-4’s , the program was then called Compass ghost , and the aircarft was painted blue and white and had 9 lamps installed on the wings and body but acquisitions range was only reduced by about 30% (maybe because it was an all around reduction of 30%, meaning they had 9 lights to cover the whole aircraft instead of 10 just for the front, as on the TBM-3?) A reason why such a system may not have been fielded is that it would probably have a counter effect on the IR signature, and it would also require a lot of power to light up this ‘flying night club’, enough for it to match the background. > >> They also have systems that detect optical trackers or detectors, they > then use a laser to incapacitate or destroy the guidance system (or the > observer's eyes!).But you would >>probably need a turret or a pod to fit one > of those on a B-2. I know for sure such a system is being tested on M2 > Bradley Fighting vehicles, so it would certainly be available for >>other > ‘platforms’. > >I heard of this defensive laser method being test in apache and others > fighter also. About the laser used to destroy observer's eyes, it is being > banned in the USA. Yes similar systems have been tested since at least the 1980’s at one time Loral was working on a project called ‘Have Glance’ which was also a similar system, and I remember reading about other programs for similar systems. The system tested on the Apache is specifically designed to destroy guidance systems from IR missiles. The British used ‘Laser dazzlers’ during the Falklands conflict (1982), these where like ‘laser guns’ installed on their warships and they would be aimed at pilots, the system would apparently only temporarely blind the pilot. While it is true that ‘destroying’ the observer’s eyes is forbidden, such a system would be designed to destroy tracking cameras or other such devices, but of course if someone is using binoculars for example or a gun sight... This is a problem they now have in the army, because of the laser range finders and special glasses have been designed for soldiers and gun sights on Tanks and fighting vehicles now have some sort of protection against laser accidentelly (or not) illuminating them. > >> A system for which I have no name, or program name, is (was) operational > on a ‘new’ stealth aircraft (this must have been about 4-5 years ago > >> though). This is what I remember of the system. The aircraft would be > ‘covered’ by a 24 volt charge, which would have several effects, one was > >> to actively reduce it’s RCS, but it would also ‘excite’ receivers on the > aircraft skin which would then change their colors (probably only > >> variations in color) > >Are you talking about ionize plasma discharge? I heard both, the Russian > and USA is working in this method to reduce the RCS, weak the > >shock wave, reduce engine noise, etc. Sorry I don’t have any more info about this system , however I don’t recall the article mentioning Ionize plasma discharge. I think it was more similar to the idea of ‘an active skin’ than a plasma ‘cloud’. Do you have more info on Russian active systems? The only info I saw was an article by ITAR-TASS that looked a lot like good old days propaganda and the mention by a Russian aviation enthusiast that the Mig 1.42 would use either a plasma type system or ‘another’ type of active system. I don’t think that the Russians are capable at this time or in the near future of fielding such a system. > >> the only problem was that the F-15 apparently still left contrails or > smoke which made it detectable. > >Without afterburner, I don't think the F-15, F-16 and others current > generation fighter have a highly visible contrails (even at 1 mile away), > unlike monster like Mig 25... You are right most ‘new’ generation aircraft don’t ‘smoke’ that much any more because these engines are much more efficient than say the J-79 on the F-4 a renowned ‘smoker’. However they do leave contrails, which is different, Contrails form when the water vapor in aircraft exhaust freezes. So the idea behind the chemicals used was to try and get rid of the ‘water vapor’. > >> that the best way to 'pull usefull information' out of the mass of > information we get is to make recaps every now and again and then share the > info with others, who will hoppfully >>give their point of view on it. > >Nice review :) Hehe Thanks for the compliment, but more especially for your feedback on this Timothy - --------------F4DAA97CCA5BBF5C961617BC Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

Wei-Jen Su wrote:
>> There was also a program called (yedo, yedi or something like that)

>Can you be more elaborate in how this system work please? I think probably the list talk about this long time ago.

The program name was Yehudi it started in 1943 but only came to light (no pun intended!) in the 1980’s it’s aim was to make the TBM-3s (Torpedo bombers) optically ‘stealth’ because German subs would always spot them and dive for over before the TBM-3s could  spot them or attack them. They installed 10 sealed-beam lights in the wing's leading edges and around the engine. And the TBM-3 would adjust the intensity of the lights to match the sky. Acquisition range was reduced by about 80%. It seems however this system was not put in production, supposedly because by then they got radars to detect the subs from further away.
A similar system  was tested again during Vietnam on F-4’s , the program was then called Compass ghost , and the aircarft was painted blue and white and had 9 lamps installed on the wings and body but acquisitions range was only reduced by about 30% (maybe because it was an all around reduction of 30%, meaning they had 9 lights to cover the whole aircraft instead of 10 just for the front, as on the TBM-3?)
A reason why such a system may not have been fielded is that it would probably have a counter effect on the IR signature, and it would also require a lot of power to light up this ‘flying night club’, enough for it to match the background.

>> They also have systems that detect optical trackers or detectors, they then use a laser to incapacitate or destroy the guidance system (or the observer's eyes!).But you would >>probably need a turret or a pod to fit one of those on a B-2. I know for sure such a system is being tested on M2 Bradley Fighting vehicles, so it would certainly be available for >>other ‘platforms’.
>I heard of this defensive laser method being test in apache and others fighter also. About the laser used to destroy observer's eyes, it is being banned in the USA.
Yes similar systems have been tested since at least the 1980’s at one time Loral was working on a project called ‘Have Glance’ which was also a similar system, and I remember reading about other programs for similar systems. The system tested on the Apache is specifically designed to destroy guidance systems from IR missiles. The British used ‘Laser dazzlers’ during the Falklands conflict (1982), these where like ‘laser guns’ installed on their warships and they would be aimed at pilots, the system would apparently only temporarely blind the pilot. While it is true that ‘destroying’ the observer’s eyes is forbidden, such a system would be designed to destroy tracking cameras or other such devices, but of course if someone is using binoculars for example or a gun sight... This is a problem they now have in the army, because of the laser range finders and special glasses have been designed for soldiers and gun sights on Tanks and fighting vehicles now have some sort of protection against laser accidentelly (or not) illuminating them.
 
>> A system for which I have no name, or program name, is (was) operational on a ‘new’ stealth aircraft (this must have been about 4-5 years ago
>> though). This is what I remember of the system. The aircraft would be ‘covered’ by a 24 volt charge, which would have several effects, one was
>> to actively reduce it’s RCS, but it would also ‘excite’ receivers on the aircraft skin which would then change their colors (probably only
>> variations in color)
>Are you talking about ionize plasma discharge? I heard both, the Russian and USA is working in this method to reduce the RCS, weak the
>shock wave, reduce engine noise, etc.
Sorry I don’t have any more info about this system , however I don’t recall the article mentioning Ionize plasma discharge. I think it was more similar to the idea  of ‘an active skin’ than a plasma ‘cloud’. Do you have more info on Russian active systems? The only info I saw was an article by ITAR-TASS that looked a lot like good old days propaganda and the mention by a Russian aviation enthusiast that the Mig 1.42 would use either a plasma type system or ‘another’ type of active system. I don’t think that the Russians are capable at this time or in the near future of fielding such a system.
>> the only problem was that the F-15 apparently still left contrails or smoke which made it detectable.
>Without afterburner, I don't think the F-15, F-16 and others current generation fighter have a highly visible contrails (even at 1 mile away), unlike monster like Mig 25...
You are right most ‘new’ generation aircraft don’t ‘smoke’ that much any more because these engines are much more efficient than say the J-79 on the F-4 a renowned ‘smoker’. However they do leave contrails, which is different, Contrails form when the water vapor in aircraft exhaust freezes. So the idea behind the chemicals used was to try and get rid of the  ‘water vapor’.
>> that the best way to 'pull usefull information' out of the mass of information we get is to make recaps every now and again and then share the info with others, who will hoppfully >>give their point of view on it.
>Nice review :)
Hehe Thanks for the compliment, but more especially for your feedback on this

Timothy - --------------F4DAA97CCA5BBF5C961617BC-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #9 ******************************* 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