From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 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, February 14 2000 Volume 09 : Number 010 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility TLC-Mission: FWD (SW) On achieving optical invisibility [of aircraft and ships] TLC-Mission: FWD (SW) Re: On achieving optical invisibility [of aircraft and ships] Re: On achieving optical invisibility RE: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics FWD (TLCB) Re: B-57 Spook Plane & Targeting Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Re: On achieving optical invisibility *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 04:52:32 -0600 From: Amy Hebert Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility I saw an object in 1997 that imitated a crescent moon (the real moon had already set). It hovered in place for 15 to 20 minutes, seemed to "eclipse" twice or opened and closed then simply disappeared. Ten minutes later the same object or another just like it was observed 106 miles to the south of my location by two people, also seemed to "eclipse" twice and...two cigar-shaped objects went into it then it descended to the field below. NORAD would not tell me if it was ours or who it belonged to but they sure asked a lot of questions. Many methods used to achieve illusion and invisibility. Lots going on around the world. Great list! AH ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:16:55 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility Timothy Toth noted, >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 It occurs to me that the development of bright, efficient LEDs over the past couple of decades might have made it desirable to revisit this idea. Of course the sky is blue, and blue LEDs have been difficult to build, so maybe this is a concept still awaiting adequate technology. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:56:08 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility > I saw an object in 1997 that imitated a crescent moon (the real moon had > already set). It hovered in place for 15 to 20 minutes, seemed to "eclipse" > twice or opened and closed then simply disappeared. Ten minutes later the > same object or another just like it was observed 106 miles to the south of my > location by two people, also seemed to "eclipse" twice > and...two cigar-shaped objects went into it then it descended to the field > below. NORAD would not tell me if it was ours or who it belonged to but they > sure asked a lot of questions. Many methods used to achieve illusion and > invisibility. Lots going on around the world. Great list! > AH The only thing is why disguise it as a moon? wouldn't it be obvious there where two moons, unless the only use it when there is no moon. Maybe they can change the patern of the 'disguise'. Any idea? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:06:34 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: TLC-Mission: FWD (SW) On achieving optical invisibility [of aircraft and ships] Optical stealth. Well, I was taught to see aircraft by a series of unforgiving IPs, element and flight leads as I rose from Blue Four to flight lead myself. I have yet to see any paint job more effective than the USAF Agreesor's smoke grey. I gotta add that at very high altitudes the U2's soot black is extremely effective and about the only way to see it at any distance (2-3 miles) is to catch sun reflection off the top of the wings. That emans you gotta get up where he is or even a little higher. Contrails - you stay out of them. I've only seen U2s con a couple of times and even then it was just a short trail maybe a couple hundred yards long. So little moisture 'up there' that the water vapor from the jet exhaust just seems to condens and almsot immediately evaporate. Human eyesight even for military pilots runs the gamut. I had 20-15 but was put to shame by 2 guys in my 104 squadron who scaled out less than 20-10. Either of them could pick up a 104 head-on at 10 nautical miles - an f4 out about 20. Tough going against them starting off head-on 40 miles apart. The navy type dazzle camouflage was intended to make the ship's type, course, and speed hard to make out - all those necessary to shoot at it efficiently. Radar countered that, of course. The artificial coloration using 'active skin' would work (I have no idea how well) against one viewer. If someone was off at a large angle he would see the camo meant for the selected viewer which may or may not be apropos for #2. A maneuvering aircraft can be seen possibly twice as far away as one flying straight and level, both being co-altitude. This is because the wings in planform add so much area to the silhouette. That's why one should not hang around too long trying to get a kill - others can see you a long way off. Most aircraft seen against a bright sky over 3 or so miles away look black - that's where a lot of those 'black helicopters' come from. In SEA USAF weinies made us tape our helmets so the white paint wouldn't make us so easy to see. Like a 10" white circle is easier to see than an F4 . . . . I've heard some guff about using a corona discharge to mask/absorb radar reflections - but that's very high voltage and I can't help but think an ADF - automatic direction finder - could track you then. Also the EPA would never approve production of all that ozone from the corona discharge. Best way not to get seen was hide wherever one could. Clouds are nice unless there's SAMs hanging around. Night time is great. Down in the weeds faster than your own noise is good too. check six - Walt BJ - -- 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: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:07:09 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: TLC-Mission: FWD (SW) Re: On achieving optical invisibility [of aircraft and ships] Hi Terry, Your email awoke a sore point. In '72 I was at the Fighter Weapons Center, Nellis AFB as a Staff Development Engineer. I was a Technical Editor, Project Engineer, Project Manager, letter and speech writer for the Generals (sometimes at TAC), an Operations Analyst, and stand up briefer among other assignments. I might fill any of those tasks on any given day after flying the early morning weather scout range mission before reporting to the office. My primary projects were anything to do with electronics and "camouflage paint". I also assisted in the design, sometimes participated in, and monitored studies done by Hughes Aircraft (Crew Size Requirements for the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter)), Multimode digital radar's..both hardware and simulations..some others I doubt I should mention. I spent time on the ranges at Pt. Mugu, China Lake, Eglin, the Avionics Labs at Wright-Patt, Hill , and the ranges out from Nellis. Even a 40-day trip with the A-10 NATO introduction team. We lived at work and on the road. Not much family time. My qualifications were a Master's degree plus 40 hours post graduate study in Electrical Engineering, majoring in Electromagnetic Theory and Digital Design. My thesis was on "Whole Aircraft as an Aperture Antenna". The 274 missions, mostly as a FAC logging 953 hours over the Ho Chi Minh trail didn't hurt either. I produced over 80 reports in the 5 years. Some as a ghost writer, some as an editor, and some entirely on my own. The "paint test" started out with Don Snyder as manager, me as engineer. Everyone thought it was funny. The F-15 was coming into the field an "Air superiority blue" and TAC headquarters wanted to know what made it so. No one seemed to believe that the color of a plane made much difference. The story is long. It became a 10-year project for me. Five in the military and five out. Don left half way through the first phase when we were testing using T-38's. I took the project over. By filtering out pilot skills, approach angles, backgrounds, etc. and leaving paint scheme as hopefully the only factor in air-to-air simulated combat (using the ACMR in many cases) we achieved a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the "Air Superiority Blue" against the countershaded multi-gray scheme. The result was the paint schemes you see today. We did both in-flight evaluations and computer simulations. The computer simulations predicted the flight results very closely. I read microfiche research from Army, Navy, and Universities dated from the beginning of time till I was bug eyed. I find nothing wrong in your comments Terry or nothing new we didn't cover back then. They could have come right out of the reports. Like you implied we do reinvent the wheel often. I wrote the first report, gave briefings up the chain, and the multi gray scheme on the F-15 was adopted. When writing the report I put Don down as the project manager since he had done most of the legwork getting the project started. My boss, when reviewing the draft, changed him to me. I refused to do that and changed it back to Don. I Irritated the Colonel just before me entering the zone for LC. What the hell, my Grandmother taught me to be honest. The last I knew of Don he appeared on the front page of my local Kilgore paper as a General in the Philippines putting down a little uprising..some years back. I loved the work and the great people at Nellis. Unfortunately I had coronary heart disease that resulted in grounding, open heart surgery, and subsequent retirement. The day I was supposed to report to F-4's in the operational testing wing at Nellis I was at Balboa Naval Hospital in surgery. But I stayed on duty at the TFWC for two more years doing the same work but very unhappy about being grounded. The camo paint test became quite popular and it extended into confirming our results with using the F-15, working with the Navy on the F-14, advising and working with AFSC on the A-10, and looking at about everything that flew, and into the future. An artist, Keith Ferris, came forth with a "deceptive" scheme that we tested. We included optical, infrared, contrails, and radar in our side studies and discussions. We were asked to do the F-4 but responded that unless the smoking engines were replaced it would be of no use. Smoke was how I often found and directed F-4's to me during airstrikes in Laos. I could pick up the smoke 15 or more miles away, long before I could see the aircraft. But it was no doubt who they were. I became the "expert paint guy". But not flying and being around flying all the time was very depressing. Everybody and his brother sat on my request for retirement and tried to get me to stay in with promises of promotion. The general was to be on the next board. My request bounced twice before they decided I was serious. Before my retirement in May 1977 I wrote an extensive report , at the general's request, on the camouflage program. I consolidated our lessons learned. I addressed optical cross section including dependence on saturation (the percent of "color" present), the reflectance, glint, smoking engines, dependence on the mission, the theater of operation, altitude, tactics to use the advantage, the threat (air or ground), and others. I proposed the idea of "active" camouflage which was a real possibility with a computer, some well placed and focused lighting, and background sensors. Radar signature was addressed, the possible use of non-reflective materials and paint, avoiding "radar reflector shapes"..i.e., removing the sharp corners. Infrared signature was addressed. It was concluded the only way to have a "low detection" aircraft was to start from the drawing board and design it from the ground up with all these things in mind. The report, about an inch thick, was completed, put in a nice red cover and given to a panel of 12 reviewers. It was approved as written and was a big part of another ribbon. None of the above was a sore point. I went on to have an excellent second career, make a lot more money than if I had stayed in, and even survived a second open heart (5-bypass) surgery. The sore point. Two years after retiring I was asked to come to TAC Headquarters as a consultant. When we sat down a red covered report was placed in front of us. The civilian on one side of me was the president of the company that had done the computer simulations and paint measurements during the tests. The gentleman on the other side was a military man who had been on my review panel. They both commented, "remember this". I answered, "sure, I wrote it". I opened the cover and my name had been replaced by a Major who wasn't even at the meeting. The only change was the cover and the signature page. I was a bit disgusted but said "to hell with it, if he wants to take credit for another mans work, let him live with it". I was peeved but at the same time I didn't really care. I had tripled my income since retirement and by the next year it had quadrupled. I know, almost like me, his bosses made that decision and he didn't have the balls to do the right thing. But I was the one invited to the meeting. I claim no proprietary ownership of the ideas and conclusions offered anyway. Like you said Terry "Where did I get this". I tell my students in college, the first time you repeat this quote me, the second time mention me, the third time it's yours. I stole that from somebody. I challenge anyone to prove they were the sole originators of any idea. You might think this is not mission related but remember that early in SEA our air-to air kill ratio was "less" than one-to-one. This was a small part of that search to get back to that 12-1 like Korea. This program had no direct bearing on SEA but many of the programs ongoing at Nellis and on the coast with the Navy at that time did. You know Top Gun, Red Baron, Red Flag, AIM 9, AWACS....Wonder what we are doing today? I sure miss that firepower demonstration and opening in-house show of the Thunderbirds every year up at Indian Springs..That same navigator in the F-111 that laid that simulated Shape right next to the F-84 sitting on the desert floor and draped the chute over the airplane four years in a row. Got a big OH!!! from the crown every time. Those T-60 (might be wrong) tanks we salted with gasoline drums and made slow motion movies of A-10's blowing them up with 30mm to show congress. Saw many a truck blow in SEA, never looked nearly that impressive. Have a couple of those 30 mm dummy shells sitting here on my desk next to a 20 mm and a spent m-16 bullet I picked up off the street in Saigon. Anyway, I feel confident in bragging that me and my buddies changed the color of the AF (and the Navy followed suit) back in about 1973. Sam W. Nail 54.. Now comes the sore point. - -- 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: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:28:51 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility Allen Thomson wrote: Timothy Toth noted >>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 >It occurs to me that the development of bright, efficient LEDs over the past couple of decades might have made it >desirable to revisit this idea. Of course the sky is blue, and blue LEDs have been difficult to build, so maybe this is a >concept still awaiting adequate technology. As a matter of fact now that you mention it, I have seen several times LEDs mentionned as (possibly?) being used during tests. Since you seem to know more about LEDs than I do (which is not difficult!) Could you tell me if LEDs can be integrated into the skin of the aircraft and would they increase the RCS or the IR signature? I have also read of RAMs which had been modified to reduce the optical signature, could this have been with LEDs? Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:36:51 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis 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 Optical sensors are by no means the sole method of detection. Assuming you do achieve total optical invisibility (which I seriously doubt you can) there are other ways to detect, track and lock on to a target and destroy it. There is a huge difference between reduced observability (which is available and has been deployed) and total optical invisibility. Human sensory organs are largely imperfect and can be deceived, quite easily in fact. However how is optical invisibility going to protect you against an AIM-120A AMRAAM, AIM-9X SIDEWINDER or AIM-54C PHOENIX (or any other radar or IR guided missile for that matter)? Methinks there are discrepancies (big gapping holes is more like it) in the theories you subscribe to. > > __________ > > 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: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 05:41:59 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility > > As a matter of fact now that you mention it, I have seen several times LEDs > mentionned as (possibly?) being used during tests. > Since you seem to know more about LEDs than I do (which is not difficult!) Could > you tell me if LEDs can be integrated into the skin of the aircraft and would > they increase the RCS or the IR signature? > I have also read of RAMs which had been modified to reduce the optical > signature, could this have been with LEDs? My own ignorance about this if pretty profound, but I don't see why you couldn't at least put LED panels on the aircraft, maybe put individual LEDs in holes in the skin. Since they are quite efficient and would be exposed to the air stream, I'd guess they wouldn't directly increase the the IR signature, though there might be some indirect effects. Dunno about RCS or the RAMs you've read about. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:21:09 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Terry fnordwarded: >Stealth doesn't have Jack to do with materials or design (just look at the >YF22 and B2). The craft flies inside a bubble, an energy absorbing field, >which also has the side effects of acting as a "force field" of sorts. Less >massive objects are deflected, more massive objects move the craft out of >the way, another effect is "matter snatch". They even made a Lear Jet a >Stealth Craft, and the CIA (Phoenix Air) crashed [it] on Chesnut St in Fresno, >CA on Dec 14, 1994 while playing "war games" with F-16's of the California >Air National Guard. There's a good article in the January 2000 "Air International" (p.40-41) about the use of electrostatics in the B-2, assigning properties such as increased stealth, aerodynamic efficiency, sonic boom elimination and possibly propulsion a la Townsend Brown. The propulsion claim is supported by the quoted thrust of which it is capable, which doesn't appear to be enough to reach its claimed speed, and that it is very quiet at takeoff. Looks like Paul LaViolette was right after all. This also made me wonder if the Eurofighter uses some form of active stealth, as to look at it it's about as stealthy as a sheet of tinfoil. It has been claimed to be "stealthy enough", and as RAF pilots tend to fly VERY low to go under radar, it probably is. However, the US and UK have a long-standing agreement to share stealth developments (ever since the UK nabbed the German stealth work after WWII when the US didn't yet realise its importance), so you never know. That tech wouldn't be allowed on the non=UK Eurofighter variants, however. Rob for all your antigravity needs - -- 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: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:46:02 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLCB) Re: B-57 Spook Plane & Targeting Jim Bartholomew wrote: > The RB-57D came into the USAF inventory in 1956. If you folks will look at my photo album < http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=120469&a=887326 > and go 4 rows down, 2nd column from the left, you will see a picture of an RB47E taken in Sept or Oct of 1956 in Ben Guarier (sp) North Africa (Just outside Marrakech). It was my plane and the guy putting on the May West was my Aircraft Commander Bob Watson. We were in the 91st Strat Reccon Wing TDY to North Africa for 90 days from Lockbourne AFB Ohio. In early 1957 the 91st was deactivated and the 376th Bomb Wing came to Lockbourne from Barksdale AFB La. Quite a few of the older RB47E crews transferred to RB57s at Turner AFB Albany GA. There is a picture of a 376th B47 taken at Lockbourne AFB sometime between late 1957 and mid 1964. < http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=120469&a=887326 > 8rows down and on the far right. - -- John A. (Amos) Parker Member "Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association"-RRVFPA Phormer Reccie Puke-Used FighterGator-Phormer Phantom Phlyer Proud Life Member Udorn VFW Memorial Post #10249 Life Member Air Force Association-Member Tailhook Association Member National Rifle Association-Member The Retired Officers Association Member Air Force Sargents Association View my album at http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=120469&a=887326 ICQ # 11612891-Owner "SAC Sucks Sign"-Proud Member of The CASBAR Firetalk # 41109 - -- 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: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:42:45 -0000 From: "David" Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics | >Stealth doesn't have Jack to do with materials or design (just look at the | >YF22 and B2). I'm looking, but evidently fail to see. I'm assuming the above is a joke. Please tell me it's a joke :) D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:59:21 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility - --------------F7C2238BA868901A3BC85464 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.plweb.at/lockheed/fund.html good page on fundamentals of stealth designs http://www.randf.com/ramapriaas.html good site on RAM/RAS "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: >Optical stealth. Well, I was taught to see aircraft by a series of unforgiving IPs, element and flight leads as I rose from >Blue Four to flight >lead myself. Best way not to get seen was hide wherever one could. Clouds are nice unless there's SAMs hanging around. Night time is >great. Down in the weeds faster than your own noise is good too. It's Good to have the point of view of people that have had some practice at all this!. >We were asked to do the F-4 but responded that unless the smoking engines were replaced it would be of no use. Smoke was how I often >found and directed F-4's to me during airstrikes in Laos. I could pick up the smoke 15 or more miles away, long before I could see the >aircraft. But it was no doubt who they were. I read that since the F-4's would produce more smoke at full power some F-4 pilots would have one engine at minimum power with the other on afterburner. >I've heard some guff about using a corona discharge to mask/absorb radar reflections - but that's very high voltage and I can't help but >think an ADF - automatic direction finder - could track you then. Also the EPA would never approve production of all that ozone from the >corona discharge. Yes. I also heard 'claims', about this, noting that that was the reason the B-2 couldn't fly when it was raining and that quite a few mechanics had been 'zapped', because they had touched the aircraft too soon after landing etc... seems pretty wild to me. >Hi Terry, >Your email awoke a sore point. >The "paint test" started out with Don Snyder as manager, me as engineer. Everyone thought it was funny. The F-15 was >coming into the field an "Air superiority blue" and TAC headquarters wanted to know what made it so. No one seemed > believe that the color of a plane made much difference. The story is long. It became a 10-year project for me. Five in >the military and five out. I guess I have a book where that talks a bit about your work then! It shows a picture of the eagle in 'air superiority blue' and it does look pretty good with the blue sky in the background, They do mention however that it proved to be a disapointement (and that skies where grayer in Europe than in Texas) and that it was replaced by a 2-gray scheme with the lighter gray on the ares normally in the shadow. I guess it doesn't help much but I'm sure happy to have your POV on this matter, any way. They also talk about Ferris (Called Chris Ferris here), the F-15, F-14 and A-10(tests during the 'Joint attack weapon system'). One thing though is they mention Camo schemes "Hill gray I" and "Hill gray II", but their is also a picture entiteled ' Compass Ghost finish' funny enough Compass Ghost was the name mentionned somewhere else for the program in which they had 9 'lights' placed on the F-4 (see previous message)...interesting coincidence, or just a mistake?.(maybe just to throw off people who had heard of the 'secret' Compass Ghost program on the F-4?) Terry fnordwarded: >There's a good article in the January 2000 "Air International" (p.40-41) about the use of electrostatics in the B-2, >assigning properties such as increased stealth, aerodynamic efficiency, sonic boom elimination and possibly propulsion a la >Townsend Brown. The propulsion claim is supported by the quoted thrust of which it is capable, which doesn't appear to >be enough to reach its claimed speed, and that it is very quiet at takeoff. Looks like Paul LaViolette was right after all. I Think it's Bill Sweatman that mentions the same idea in the Air International (or AFM) of January. He gives a few explanations on how and why. Also mentionning the fact that the B-2 would have too low a Thrust to weight ratio for a military aircraft, and that nobody in the military ever claimed that the B-2 was limited to Mach 0.8, this was a estimate made by 'experts'. >This also made me wonder if the Eurofighter uses some form of active stealth, as to look at it it's about as stealthy as a >sheet of tinfoil. It has been claimed to be "stealthy enough", and as RAF pilots tend to fly VERY low to go under radar, it >probably is. However, the US and UK have a long-standing agreement to share stealth developments (ever since the UK >nabbed the German stealth work after WWII when the US didn't yet realise its importance), so you never know. That >tech wouldn't be allowed on the non=UK Eurofighter variants, however. It would definetly not be surprising, while cruising on the net I the site of a British ompany advertising it's active stealth system (of course there was no information on how it worked and what it's capabilities are). The British have also been at the forefront of stealth technology, some even mentionning that the B-2 was probably using British designed RAMs.The other thing is that the UK and the US have just signed a comprehensive agreement on developement and rules of 'secrecy' regarding military related technology. Active stealth is out there, the only question is how effective is it , and which aircraft are operational with it. The Typhoon (Eurofighter) doesn't carry it's weapon internally why? Either because the weapon it carries are stealthy enough (The latest version of AMRAAM is definetly stealth, but I doubt Paveway's are), is it because it's active system is of the 'cloud' surrounding the aircraft and it's weapons in a stealth 'bubble', or is it because they didn't think the aircraft would needs to be as stealthy when it carried weapons (somehow this latest possibility seems dubious to me) . Timothy - --------------F7C2238BA868901A3BC85464 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
http://www.plweb.at/lockheed/fund.html      good page on fundamentals of stealth designs
http://www.randf.com/ramapriaas.html     good site on RAM/RAS

"Terry W. Colvin" wrote:
>Optical stealth. Well, I was taught to see aircraft by a series of unforgiving IPs, element and flight leads as I rose from >Blue Four to flight >lead myself. Best way not to get seen was hide wherever one could. Clouds are nice unless there's SAMs hanging around. Night time is >great. Down in the weeds faster than your own noise is good too.

It's Good to have the point of view of people that have had some practice at all this!.

>We were asked to do the F-4 but responded that unless the smoking engines were replaced it would be of no use. Smoke was how I often >found and directed F-4's to me during airstrikes in Laos. I could pick up the smoke 15 or more miles away, long before I could see the >aircraft. But it was no doubt who they were.

I read that since the F-4's would produce more smoke at full power some F-4 pilots would have one engine at minimum power with the other on afterburner.

>I've heard some guff about using a corona discharge to mask/absorb radar reflections - but that's very high voltage and I can't help but >think an ADF - automatic direction finder - could track you then. Also the EPA would never approve production of all that ozone from the >corona discharge.

Yes. I also heard 'claims', about this, noting that that was the reason the B-2 couldn't fly when it was raining and that quite a few mechanics had been 'zapped', because they had touched the aircraft too soon after landing etc... seems pretty wild to me.
 

>Hi Terry,
>Your email awoke a sore point.
>The "paint test" started out with Don Snyder as manager, me as engineer. Everyone thought it was funny. The F-15 was >coming into the field an "Air superiority blue" and TAC headquarters wanted to know what made it so. No one seemed
> believe that the color of a plane made much difference. The story is long. It became a 10-year project for me. Five in >the military and five out.

I guess I have a book where that talks a bit about your work then! It shows a picture of the eagle in 'air superiority blue' and it does look pretty good with the blue sky in the background, They do mention however that it proved to be a disapointement (and that skies where grayer in Europe than in Texas) and that it was replaced by a 2-gray scheme with the lighter gray on the ares normally in the shadow. I guess it doesn't help much but I'm sure happy to have your POV on this matter, any way.
They also talk about Ferris (Called Chris Ferris here), the F-15, F-14 and A-10(tests during the 'Joint attack weapon system').
One thing though is they mention Camo schemes "Hill gray I" and "Hill gray II", but their is also a picture entiteled ' Compass Ghost finish' funny enough Compass Ghost was the name mentionned somewhere else for the program in which they had 9 'lights' placed on the F-4 (see previous message)...interesting coincidence, or just a mistake?.(maybe just to throw off people who had heard of the 'secret' Compass Ghost program on the F-4?)

Terry fnordwarded:
>There's a good article in the January 2000 "Air International" (p.40-41) about the use of electrostatics in the B-2, >assigning properties such as increased stealth, aerodynamic efficiency, sonic boom elimination and possibly propulsion a la >Townsend Brown. The propulsion claim is supported by the quoted thrust of which it is capable, which doesn't appear to >be enough to reach its claimed speed, and that it is very quiet at takeoff. Looks like Paul LaViolette was right after all.

I Think it's Bill Sweatman that mentions the same idea in the Air International (or AFM) of January. He gives a few explanations on how and why. Also mentionning the fact that the B-2 would have too low a Thrust to weight ratio for a military aircraft, and that nobody in the military ever claimed that the B-2 was limited to Mach 0.8, this was a estimate made by 'experts'.

>This also made me wonder if the Eurofighter uses some form of active stealth, as to look at it it's about as stealthy as a >sheet of tinfoil. It has been claimed to be "stealthy enough", and as RAF pilots tend to fly VERY low to go under radar, it >probably is. However, the US and UK have a long-standing agreement to share stealth developments (ever since the UK >nabbed the German stealth work after WWII when the US didn't yet realise its importance), so you never know. That >tech wouldn't be allowed on the non=UK Eurofighter variants, however.

It would definetly not be surprising, while cruising on the net I the site of a British ompany advertising it's active stealth system (of course there was no information on how it worked and what it's capabilities are). The British have also been at the forefront of stealth technology, some even mentionning that the B-2 was probably using British designed RAMs.The other thing is that the UK and the US have just signed a comprehensive agreement on developement and rules of 'secrecy' regarding military related technology. Active stealth is out there, the only question is how effective is it , and which aircraft are operational with it.
The Typhoon (Eurofighter) doesn't carry it's weapon internally why? Either because the weapon it carries are stealthy enough (The latest version of AMRAAM is definetly stealth, but I doubt Paveway's are),  is it because it's active system is of the 'cloud' surrounding the aircraft and it's weapons in a stealth 'bubble', or is it because they didn't think the aircraft would needs to be as stealthy when it carried weapons (somehow this latest possibility seems dubious to me) . 
 

Timothy
 
  - --------------F7C2238BA868901A3BC85464-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #10 ******************************** 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