From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #11 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 Tuesday, February 15 2000 Volume 09 : Number 011 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: On achieving optical invisibility Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics FWD (SW/FT) invisible Radar? #2 FWD (FT) UK's Area 51 FWD (SW/FT) Re(22) B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Stealth blimp [was Re: FWD (SW/FT) B2 and YF22 electrogravitics] Scalar EM stuff - radar invisibility etc. Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 Re: Scalar EM stuff - radar invisibility etc. Re: FWD (SW/FT) invisible Radar? #2 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:25:14 EST From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility Tut tut, Larry. In another squable? Please use e-mail rather than band width. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:46:44 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility >Tut tut, Larry. In another squable? Please use e-mail rather than band >width. While it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line between on-topic and off, I beleive that Larry *was* discussing the topic at hand, and doing so fairly well. Keep in mind that this is discussion forum, and it seems that both parties were on-topic. And as far as the article is concerned, it is unlikely that a SciAm article from 1967 is availabel electronically, where we could all read it, and even finding it in a library collection might prove difficult- and as Larry pointed out, some of the theories on which that article was based have since been superceded. Physics on the level at which the article apparently focuses are influenced greatly by advances in mathematics and simulation- both of which have progressed greatly since 1967. Of course, that doesn't rule out the validity of the article outright. We won't know unless we read deeper than the summary presented. Interesting nonetheless, and optical stealth is obviously and area in which the Skunk Works has great interest. As far as "optical" RAM, there have been several discussion in the past on the list concerning it in great detail, and it's definitely worth looking at again. An aircraft that is optically invisible, camoflaged, or obscured in some way has some tactical value. A long endurance UAV (not to name any names) could benefit from "active camoflage". A tactical fighter, on the otehr hand, probably wouldn't benefit as greatly. Systems like "Yehudi" might benefit a tactical fighter somewhat, reducing the range at which a AAA gun or opposing fight might be able to engage a stealth aircraft, but "invisibility" beyond that would proably be heavy/complex enough that it would add little value. And a bomber, well, they tend to be pretty noisy over the target! Now a loitering UAV, that's a platform to make invisible :) Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 100 06:33:21 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics On 2/14/00 7:21AM, in message <38A81D65.470B4AE1@frontiernet.net>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > 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. Actually, I think the sonic boom elimination comes about from not flykng supersonically. Don't see why the thrust isn't enough to reach design speed. The B-2 has very low drag, and no one ever claimed it was a rapid accelerator. To give an illustration from another aircraft, The F-14A with the crappy Pratt&Whitney engines had a worse thrust to weight ratio than the F-4. But, it also had much less drag and more lift than you'd expect. It would easily out accelerate the Rhino over most of its flight envelope (the F-4 having the edge at the high end) and would out accelerate the F/A-18 in a similar vein (although the Hornet had some advantage for the low end). Of course, all to often the TF30s would hiccup or decide to take a vacation, so mush of the low drag advantage was lost. Having heard B-2s take off, I'd acknowledge that it's quieter than what you'd expect, but it's not That quiet. The same inlet/exhaust design that provides part of the stealth might also tend to mask some of the sound. The F-22 seems quieter than you'd expect given how much thrust that beast has. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:12:22 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, David wrote: > > | >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 Well, if the above statement is totally real, that means I wasted a lot of money on books, research papers and conferences, etc. which are all useless... "Just look at YF-22 and B-2", I can say that shape have to do a lot with stealth (in fact shape is usually around 80% factor of reducing RCS) Well, until he can proof the Romulan cloaking device really is here, I will not really trust that statement. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I Trek. Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:41:17 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Gav Rote: >So to detect 'stealth' planes you look for a fast moving 'black' space on your >radar and then shoot at it. Exactly right, according to a workmate who used to work on radar software in the RAF. Radar screens usually display a fair bit of "clutter" or noise, except when the radar beam is absorbed (eg. by RAM), which leaves a big black "wedge" shape on the screen. The near point of the wedge is your aircraft. Rob no black triangle jokes please - -- 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:44:31 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (SW/FT) invisible Radar? #2 "Terry W. Colvin" fnorwarded on: Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:33:23 -0700 >However one thing puzzles me; how did they manage to >make the radar antenna stealthy? The F-117 radar is covered with a screen that acts like a very directional Faraday cage, so that you have to be looking directly into the antenna aperture to "see" the radar antenna. The screen acts as a radio-wave labyrinth and the radome appears to be fitted with a cover coated with radar- disruptive material. Basically, the radar is only used sparingly and covered up when not in use. The signal emitted by the F-117's own radar must also do some kind of out-and-back path with the emitting element being duplexed as a receiving element so that the returning signal can be detected out of transmissions from off-axis emitters The radar transmission scheduling is also arranged so that there is very little active transmission over time, making it difficult to locate even if another sensing antenna does manage to detect any signals. I haven't been able to find out how much of a field of view the radar has, but it can't be very wide. Presumably it would only be used for weapons ranging with a relatively narrow field of view, which means that targets would have to be located by another radar system and passed to the F-117 via command and control links. When in civilian airspace the F-117 is fitted with a number of truncated, radar-reflecting pyramids to make it more visible on commercial radars. Each reflector is a little over six inches across and is over a hundred times more radar reflective than the rest of the aircraft. Robin Hill, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. - -- 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:47:11 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (FT) UK's Area 51 Andrew Rote: >For those not familiar with the UK's Area 51 (Right. Secret Testing >Facility, less than ten miles from a town of a third of a million people. >I'm sure.) it's situated in Warton, pop. 52., and just up the road from >Freckleton, pop 353 (I exaggerate only slightly. These towns are very, >very small). The local Islamic population is unlikely to be large. This area is commonly referred to as the arsehole of Britain. Nobody but nobody likes visiting Warton/Preston. My guess is that e.g. Pakistanis make up a large proportion of BAE SYSTEMS[1] employees, being on the whole skilled and well educated, hence the Islamic society. A quick employee search reveals 32 "Mohammeds" (commonly the name of the firstborn son) in the company. The only "secret" bit is the recently-constructed "Special Projects Hangar", where they can work on "sight-sensitive" stealth stuff. They've wrung some money out of the govt for this, which is why it's now gone quiet, after several years of telling all and sundry that BAe needed money for stealth development. Presumably they fly the things at night. Rob [1] Yes I know it looks like shouting, but this is how we *must* refer to the company at all times, on pain of....well, pain. Don't ask me, I didn't think it up. - -- 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:52:16 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (SW/FT) Re(22) B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Overhead Flange Development Engineer wrote on Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:26:46 +0000 >So to detect 'stealth' planes you look for a fast moving 'black' >space on your radar and then shoot at it. Strangely enough, yes. Because of the risk that "friendly" aircraft could collide with stealth weapon systems, the usual trick is to clear a rolling "no-fly" zone for your attacking stealthies to fly through. A really on-the-ball command and control system can spot these quiet spots in an enemy's airspace, would be aware that something was on the way and reposition anti-aircraft defences accordingly. This is why it's so important to take out your enemies command and control structure so you can't process enough aircraft movement reports to spot any patterns. (Hint: try not to do what Saddam Hussein did and buy loads of command and control gear off the French, 'cos at the first sign of a shooting war they tell the allies how to find and destroy all the communications equipment). Also, don't live near telecom centres like telephone and microwave exchanges, as they're going to be very high on an opposing army's hit list. In any event, stealth aircraft designers are going to have to find some new tricks now, because radars are getting clever enough to spot turbulence trails behind fast-moving aircraft. Stealth Zeppelins, anybody?? Robin ("Biggles Flies Undone") Hill, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. - -- 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:08:43 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Stealth blimp [was Re: FWD (SW/FT) B2 and YF22 electrogravitics] Multiple sources references to blimps in my archives: #1 I recently saw a drawing of an alleged "stealth blimp" while perusing Popular Mechanics at a local news stand. If such a device indeed exists, it could explain quite a lot of black triangle ufo sightings, since many of them certainly did exhibit blimp-like flight, except for instantaneous accelerations. The type of information the IMHO is useful to us would be confirmation (credible, not simply quotes from a source who knows a source who knows a source who knows someone that saw the blimp) that the stealth blimp exists, and preferably evidence that it's been deployed in locations where triangular ufos have been observed. #2 Second, Noll's UFO might be some sort of novel military craft, not known to the general public. The police witnesses told reporters the object resembled a drawing of a stealth blimp that appeared recently in Popular Mechanics magazine. Was it an experimental military aircraft? There is no radar track to confirm or disprove; the air traffic control tower at Scott Air Force Base was shut down at the time. Lambert Field reported no UFOs. The government denies all knowledge of any such craft. Still, this is where I would bet my money. Third, Noll's UFO might be a real intergalactic spacecraft. All those windows and brilliant glaring lights don't sound like any blimp I ever heard of. How could a blimp generate enough power? But if it wasn't a blimp, what was it? Sherlock Holmes said that when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be true. I suspect Holmes would vote for the UFO. A particularly interesting thing about Noll's UFO becomes clear if you plot the five confirmed reports of police sightings on a map. The sightings move south and west on a slow swooping curve aimed right at - St. Louis! The thought of just what in St. Louis is attracting UFOs beggars the imagination. So, bottom line, are there UFOs? I am not about to write a column saying No, Virginia, there are no UFOs, for the same reason I will never write a column saying there is no Santa. UFOs, like Santa, are real for those able to see them. Kids don't see UFOs, and adults don't see Santa. The window of imagination opens differently for us than for our children, but no less vividly. Of course, as a scientist, I don't accept UFOs as anything more than highly unlikely, sort of in the same category as Santa Claus and jackalopes. But I have seen a jackalope, and I am personally acquainted with very together kids who say they have seen Santa. So I live quite comfortably in a world where reasonable people see UFOs. I can no more imagine a world without UFOs than one without Santa. If there were one, I suspect it would be a drab, gray place, with no X Files, no Men In Black, no Independence Day. I wouldn't want to live there. George Johnson is a biology professor at Washington University.\onscience@txtwriter.com #3 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. - ----- Robert Chambers wrote: > > Robin Rote: > > >Stealth Zeppelins, anybody?? > > Funnily enough, I have seen references on another list to a "Stealth Blimp" > being developed at the Skunk Works. > Doesn't look like an ordinary blimp - more like a big black triangle...... > > Rob > > and no room for Goodyear advertising either - -- 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:46:32 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Scalar EM stuff - radar invisibility etc. Many of you have asked what is meant by "scalar" electromagnetics. This is the missing section of Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory (originally written in quaternions in the 1860s) that was expunged by Oliver Heaviside in the early 1900s when he re-wrote Maxwell's theories in vector notation. Whittaker also wrote the Math for it in 1903 and 1904, but it was universally ignored. It has never been in the textbooks since, and had been almost exclusively used for covert weaponization. The Soviets call it "energetics". For an interesting overview of the whole subject, see http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/bearden.htm You can also get a flavor of the theory starting at http://www.cseti.org/bearden/ferdelance/index.html For a history of how it has been weaponized go to http://www.cseti.org/bearden/analysis/history.htm and its follow on papers by Harry Mason. This also describes how the scalar components are piggy-backed on top of conventional radar signals, the Soviet Woodpecker grid etc. A further overview of the weapons aspects can be seen at http://www.cseti.org/bearden/part1/teslaweapons.htm A number of other relevant articles can be found at http://www.cseti.org including how to build detection equipment, how to achieve radar invisibility, some of the disasters involving its use etc. Regrettably, the proven medical and healing benefits of devices using this technology have been ruthlessly suppressed. Again, examples of this can be found at http://www.cseti.org Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:09:19 -0000 From: "David" Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics From: Wei-Jen Su David wrote: | | > | > | >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 :) | | Well, if the above statement is totally real, that means I wasted | a lot of money on books, research papers and conferences, etc. which are | all useless... "Just look at YF-22 and B-2", I can say that shape have to | do a lot with stealth (in fact shape is usually around 80% factor of | reducing RCS) Well, until he can proof the Romulan cloaking device really | is here, I will not really trust that statement. Exactly :) Never let it be said that this list is narrow minded about advanced technology, but isn't the notion of drag / sig. reduction using charged surfaces and some form of super-secret propulsion getting fused together here ? Back in the 50s, there really was a research effort into electrogravitic propulsion - many of the prime contractors were involved. One reference for those interested is: >Gravity Research Group >Aviation Studies (International) Limited >Special Weapons Study Unit >29-31 Cheval Place, Knightsbridge >London, S.W.7. England >Report GRG-013/56 February 1956. >AF Wright Aeronautical Laboratories >Wright-Patterson Air Force Base >Technical Library >Dayton, Ohio 45433 >TL 565 A9 >Bar Code: 3 1401 00034 5879 Whether anything came of this work, or who the GRG were is anyone's guess - but the notion that the B-2 or F-22 uses it, is just too silly for words. EG is still a field (no pun intended) which attracts serious study, but I'm not aware of any major testing of hardware - even sub-scale demonstrators. D ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:51 +0000 (GMT) From: dlorde@cix.compulink.co.uk (Dave Lorde) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 In-Reply-To: <200002142200.QAA13414@eagle.netwrx1.com> Timothy wrote: > 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). A documentary I saw some time ago about the Eurofighter development suggested that the tedious and lengthy procurement process and the time taken in resolving the conflicting requirements of the countries involved meant that the basic design was a relatively 'old' one, a compromise, and missed out on many later stealth developments. Check out the in-yer-face engine intakes for example. No doubt it will have been retro-fitted with whatever active stealth facilities that have been developed subsequently... Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:51 +0000 (GMT) From: dlorde@cix.compulink.co.uk (Dave Lorde) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #10 In-Reply-To: <200002142200.QAA13414@eagle.netwrx1.com> Timothy wrote: > 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). A documentary I saw some time ago about the Eurofighter development suggested that the tedious and lengthy procurement process and the time taken in resolving the conflicting requirements of the countries involved meant that the basic design was a relatively 'old' one, a compromise, and missed out on many later stealth developments. Check out the in-yer-face engine intakes for example. No doubt it will have been retro-fitted with whatever active stealth facilities that have been developed subsequently... Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:03:19 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Scalar EM stuff - radar invisibility etc. > Many of you have asked what is meant by "scalar" electromagnetics. > > This is the missing section of Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory > (originally written in quaternions in the 1860s) that was expunged by > Oliver Heaviside in the early 1900s when he re-wrote Maxwell's theories in > vector notation. > > Whittaker also wrote the Math for it in 1903 and 1904, but it was > universally ignored. > > It has never been in the textbooks since, and had been almost exclusively > used for covert weaponization. The Soviets call it "energetics". > > For an interesting overview of the whole subject, see > http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/bearden.htm > > You can also get a flavor of the theory starting at > http://www.cseti.org/bearden/ferdelance/index.html > > For a history of how it has been weaponized go to > http://www.cseti.org/bearden/analysis/history.htm and its follow on papers > by Harry Mason. This also describes how the scalar components are > piggy-backed on top of conventional radar signals, the Soviet Woodpecker > grid etc. > > A further overview of the weapons aspects can be seen at > http://www.cseti.org/bearden/part1/teslaweapons.htm > > A number of other relevant articles can be found at http://www.cseti.org > including how to build detection equipment, how to achieve radar > invisibility, some of the disasters involving its use etc. > > Regrettably, the proven medical and healing benefits of devices using this > technology have been ruthlessly suppressed. Again, examples of this can be > found at http://www.cseti.org > > Tony Craddock ROTFL ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:31:17 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) invisible Radar? #2 >So to detect 'stealth' planes you look for a fast moving 'black' space on your radar and then shoot at it. This was also a problem with the Sea Shadow. >(Hint: try not to do what Saddam Hussein did and buy loads of command and control gear off the French, 'cos at the first >sign of a shooting war they tell the allies how to find and destroy all the communications equipment). Well Sadam got his money back when the French warned him of the incoming B-52's. (recalled about 1/2 before attack) >In any event, stealth aircraft designers are going to have to find some new tricks now, because radars are getting clever >enough to spot turbulence trails behind fast-moving aircraft. Well Stealth is not just a matter of making the aircraft harder to see. It acts as a force multiplier in the sense that jamming becomes much more effective, it makes them harder to track/attack etc... However one has to admit that it's not going to be as effective as it once was. >Stealth Zeppelins, anybody?? There are very persistant rumours of a stealth Blimp. "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > >However one thing puzzles me; how did they manage to make the radar > antenna stealthy? > > The F-117 radar is covered with a screen that acts like a very > directional Faraday cage, so that you have to be > looking directly into the antenna aperture to "see" the radar antenna. > The screen acts as a radio-wave labyrinth and > the radome appears to be fitted with a cover coated with radar- > disruptive material. Basically, the radar is only used sparingly and > covered up when not in use. > The signal emitted by the F-117's own radar must also do some kind of > out-and-back path with the emitting element being > duplexed as a receiving element so that the returning signal can be > detected out of transmissions from off-axis emitters > The radar transmission scheduling is also arranged so that there is very > little active transmission over time, making it > difficult to locate even if another sensing antenna does manage to detect > any signals. I haven't been able to find out > how much of a field of view the radar has, but it can't be very wide. > Presumably it would only be used for weapons ranging > with a relatively narrow field of view, which means that targets would > have to be located by another radar system and passed to the F-117 via > command and control links. > When in civilian airspace the F-117 is fitted with a number of truncated, > radar-reflecting pyramids to make it more visible > on commercial radars. Each reflector is a little over six inches across > and is over a hundred times more radar reflective than the rest of the > aircraft. > Robin Hill, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. Euh? I wasn't talking about the F-117 then. Do we have to assume that your making a mistake when you say that the -117 has a radar, is a supposition of yours, is this a deicated BDA/reconnaissance version of the -117 (there are rumours that a few extra -117s where produced) or should we forget about the whole thing and just delete this message? Timothy ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #11 ******************************** 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