From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #37 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 Saturday, May 20 2000 Volume 09 : Number 037 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response RE: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response RE: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #36 Off Topic: Groom Lake Shrimp? Armed Forces Day May 20 ,2000 Re: Off Topic: Groom Lake Shrimp? radars vs stealth and SEAD has the balance shifted? Re: radars vs stealth and SEAD has the balance shifted? Re: radars vs stealth and SEAD has the balance shifted? ADMIN NOTE: Server Outage Repaired Re: THAAD vs. SR-71 Kosovo Air Campain Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars Re: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars RE: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars PCL Fine-tuning Australia's defence radar with meteor showers Re: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars Re: PCL *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 22:06:51 -0400 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: Re: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response At 03:59 PM 05/09/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Terry

Hope the following helps explain your questions.

Note that these weapons can be aimed with an accuracy of around 6 inches.

As 256 innocent Americans died needlessly in this incident, the least we can do for them and their families is shine the light of truth on the events.

Not to mention that the very same longitudinal-wave EM technology has been proven 40 years ago to reverse cancers in thousands of rigorous tests by the French Academy of Sciences.

Tony Craddock

_________________

Death of the Arrow DC-8

Soviet tests against actual U.S. targets continued over the years. In 1972 at a secret meeting in Prague of the leaders of the European Communist parties,



BABBLE

Joe Donoghue
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:25:54 -0500 From: "Mark Patterson (s)" Subject: RE: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response Well, I think the accuracy of this thing is reflected in the line -- (Just as Gorbachev's Glasnost is a hoax!).. > -----Original Message----- > From: A.J. Craddock [SMTP:craddock@west.net] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 6:00 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Cc: fortean1@frontiernet.net > Subject: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response > > > Death of the Arrow DC-8 > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:31:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response > Well, I think the accuracy of this thing is reflected in the line -- (Just > as Gorbachev's Glasnost is a hoax!).. > I wish to add that the author of this article is obviously on hallucinogenic drugs as is the forwarder. This is not a personal attack it is a statement of fact. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: A.J. Craddock [SMTP:craddock@west.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 6:00 PM > > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > > Cc: fortean1@frontiernet.net > > Subject: Gary Powers To Be Honored - response > > > > > > Death of the Arrow DC-8 > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:21:10 -0700 (PDT) From: --TIGGER-- Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #36 - --- skunk-works-digest wrote: > Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:43:09 -0700 > From: "Terry W. Colvin" > Subject: Pilots Snoozed in Stealth Bombers > > LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. pilots flew 30-hour missions during the Kosovo > conflict thanks to power naps taken in garden chairs wedged into the > cockpits of their stealth bombers, a London-based defense magazine said > Wednesday. I'm surprised that just made it out. I knew a B-2 pilot at the time, and he told me about it. Although, I thought it was a decsion made by the pilots and not the squadron per se. He stated that there was just enough room behind the seats to lay down on the floor and that SOME pilots had brought lawn chairs along. He also said that their was talk of hammocks, but he had not see any as of that time. (During Operation Allied Force) Real nice guy. Kevin Helm F-117A: The Black Jet http://members.xoom.com/goatsucker __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:21:06 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Off Topic: Groom Lake Shrimp? Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:33:01 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" << Shrimp at Groom Lake!!? Definitely something that would have to be brought in by Janet flights or bus or whatever. >> But... How about the shrimp that lay dormant until the rains, then 'hatch-out' and teem - until eaten by the flocks of birds that somehow 'know' the shrimp are out?! We find the idea of top 'stealthies' running round Groom Not So Dry Lake with shrimp-nets quite appealing! Courtesy NASA Public Affairs Tour of Dryden (Edwards AFB)... For anyone that didn't know, there are excellent (& free!) escorted tours of NASA Dryden twice each day, (morning & afternoon...), most days of the year - phone first for info. 661-258-3449. The tour includes a video film, inside hangers & outside ramps, photography IS permitted - except inside the office buildings! - ------------------------------------------------------ Regards, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. AIM: Secretjet / Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monitoring S.E.UK Mil-Airband on Yupi 7100 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/ Secretjet/ No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:11:04 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Armed Forces Day May 20 ,2000 this is a good link that includes some history as well as customary message from sec. of def. Cohen wayne. http://www.defenselink.mil/afd/ ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Off Topic: Groom Lake Shrimp? On Thu, 11 May 2000 SecretJet@aol.com wrote: > Courtesy NASA Public Affairs Tour of Dryden (Edwards AFB)... > For anyone that didn't know, there are excellent (& free!) escorted > tours of NASA Dryden twice each day, (morning & afternoon...), Yeah! Those escorted service are very nice... The escort girls are pretty ;) Just make sure you don't drive too fast inside of the AFB! Once, I was distracted "chasing an airplane" and the Military Police stop me :( Oh well... a lot of my friends told me that the MP are stricter than the civilian ones... By their own experiences... :P May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "...When the child was a child it was the time of these questions: Why am I me, and why not you? Why am I here, and why not there? When did time begin, and where does space end?..." Peter Handke ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 23:35:51 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: radars vs stealth and SEAD has the balance shifted? In skunk-works-digest V9 #14 I had suggested that the Chinese may have been using the war in Yougoslavia to test their PCL (Passive Coherent Location system -passive anti-aircraft early-warning system, which is capable of detecting stealth aircraft . The system tracks civilian radio- and TV-broadcast signals, detecting aircraft by analyzing the slight distrubance in the commercial wavelengths caused by their flight ). This months Air force monthly now prposes the same theory (claiming this may be an explanation for the attack on the Chinese embassy). They also make a few good points (and add details) such as the fact that the B-2 that bombed the embassy had to be escorted with F-15's and EA-6B's (one would think that a non stealth escort and active jammers accompanying a B-2 would defeat the purpose of stealth. This is different than supporting the mission with F-15's on standby and EA-6B using Stand-off jamming).They also link the downing of the F-117 to the story (2 weeks before the bombing of the embassy) and report that a second F-117 was heavely damaged on that same night. As far as I know a system such as the PCL would not be capable of guiding weapons, but it would certainly be capable of tracking the target with sufficient accuracy for an optical system to take over when in range (such as the ex-Tchecoslovakian TAMARA system which the Serbs may have acquired through Russia). http://www.stratfor.com/MEAF/commentary/0005122315.htm Suggests that the Serbs have a system capable of defeating the HARMs (anti-radar missile) and that Irak has now acquired this system. If true it means that Air defence systems will now be much more dangerous, if you add the PCL to that, not even F-22 (to patrol the no-fly zones for eg.) or B-2/F-117's (to attack) will be safe. The strong Russian-Serb-Irak-China collaboration must be cause for concern in Washington... Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:37:07 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: radars vs stealth and SEAD has the balance shifted? Timothy Toth > In skunk-works-digest V9 #14 I had suggested that the Chinese may have been using the war in Yougoslavia to test their PCL (Passive Coherent Location system -passive anti-aircraft > early-warning system, which is capable of detecting stealth aircraft . The system tracks civilian radio- and TV-broadcast signals, detecting aircraft by analyzing the slight distrubance in the commercial wavelengths caused by their flight ). Like LockMart's Silent Sentry ? > This months Air force monthly now prposes the same theory (claiming this may be an > explanation for the attack on the Chinese embassy). Interesting post Tim. I don't think any of us think we know the full story behind the Chinese embassy hit. Whilst opinions naturally differ over the air war in Kosovo, no one can deny that NATO forces used the highest percentage of guided ordnance yet deployed in any conflict. The result of these precision strikes was a decrease in the inevitable civilian casualty figures, when compared to attacks with dumb bombs. If SEAD and deep penetration missions become even more difficult and dangerous than they are already due to LO a/c or a/c operating under EW cover becoming >routinely< detected, then strikes with cheap dumb S/O weapons become a depressing but viable option. The sobering irony would be that improved Air Defence Systems could lead to less precision strikes and more indiscriminate actions. I have to say that if the Chinese or anyone else had a new and effective system of detecting aircraft in operation over the FY, it didn't work too well. If you're in the business of shooting down NATO a/c, a B-2 would be top of the list - or a few F-117s to prove the one wasn't just a lucky shot. Stealth is only a relative term, and improvements/advances in detection media will pose new and serious threats to allied a/c. The bar is continually being raised, and it's this dynamic that's at the heart of what goes on in places like Groom Lake. When you cut out the BS, and the jingoism, this is serious and inevitably bloody business. There are no weapons that only take out the bad guys and guarantee zero allied losses. David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:47:27 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: radars vs stealth and SEAD has the balance shifted? David wrote: > Timothy Toth > > > In skunk-works-digest V9 #14 I had suggested that the Chinese may have > been using the war in Yougoslavia to test their PCL ... > Like LockMart's Silent Sentry ? Yes. One can suppose LockMart to have a good understanding of this system, and to have developped countermeasures one of which is most probably (as explained in my post in V9#14) the distruction of so-called civilian radio and TV emitters, which caused so much uproar at the time (The Americans claimed they where used for propaganda). A few years back, the French where also proposing a similar system (for developpement?) and claiming that stealth was now 'outdated'. > Interesting post Tim. I don't think any of us think we know the full > story behind the Chinese embassy hit. I don't claim to have THE explanation for it, but investigating the causes (be they accidental or not) are interesting. At present my point of view is that the Chinese where helping the Serbs and probably telling the americans to do something about it if they dared, or prove it ). This 'technique' is commenly used (just look at what is happening in Chechnya, the Iraki oil smuggeling by the Russians in the Gulf, or the so called Chinese 'fishermen' activity in the Spartlys). The strongest weapon that these countries have against democracies is public opinion, and anything they say is geared towards that. You will notice that these countries control their own media while exploiting the fact that most people in the west don't trust their media or their government anymore. Most people are more likely to believe the unbelievable coming from the mouth of a 'poor victim of the west' rather than believe what their government says. > Whilst opinions naturally differ over the air war in Kosovo, no one can > deny that NATO forces used the highest percentage of guided ordnance yet > deployed in any conflict. The result of these precision strikes was a > decrease in the inevitable civilian casualty figures, when compared to > attacks with dumb bombs. I believe this to be the case, one also has to point out to the tactics used by the Serbs (and Irakis) such as transporting civilians in army vehicles, placing weapons in civilian infrastructures and other techniques with the sole purpose of causing loses which can be used to touch public opinion. > If SEAD and deep penetration missions become even more difficult and > dangerous than they are already due to LO a/c or a/c operating under > EW cover becoming >routinely< detected, then strikes with cheap > dumb S/O weapons become a depressing but viable option. > The sobering irony would be that improved Air Defence Systems > could lead to less precision strikes and more indiscriminate actions. Maybe not, this may just be a case of sword and shield, it is up to the 'sword wielders' to find techniques/tactics to keep the advantage. > I have to say that if the Chinese or anyone else had a new and effective > system of detecting aircraft in operation over the FY, it didn't work too > well. If you're in the business of shooting down NATO a/c, a B-2 would > be top of the list - or a few F-117s to prove the one wasn't just a lucky > shot. Well detecting them and attacking them is one thing, destroying them is another, there where 4 times mores SAM's fired during the FY conflict than during the Gulf war. The fact that only 2 aircraft where shot down (not counting UAV's) may be, more due to the fact that self protection mesures have become much more effective , towed decoys where used by the British and the Americans, there is also the story about a B-1 being shot at several times and owing it's safe return to towed decoys (minus at leat one towed decoy). Do you think B-2's or F-117's could be equiped with towed decoys? > Stealth is only a relative term, and improvements/advances in > detection media will pose new and serious threats to allied a/c. > The bar is continually being raised, and it's this dynamic that's > at the heart of what goes on in places like Groom Lake. When > you cut out the BS, and the jingoism, this is serious and inevitably > bloody business. There are no weapons that only take out the bad > guys and guarantee zero allied losses. > David Agreed, unfortunatly for the 'good guys', western public opinion allows no mistake! Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 13:53:58 -0500 From: "George R. Kasica" Subject: ADMIN NOTE: Server Outage Repaired Hello: At about 9am this morning the main power supply fan on the server failed, resulting in the system shutting down. As of 145pm the power supply and fan have been replaced and all operations are normal at this time. There was NO loss of data. Sorry for the inconvenience, George Kasica ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 May 100 00:54:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: THAAD vs. SR-71 On 5/4/00 7:20AM, in message <3911871C.DC857F52@bc.sympatico.ca>, Timothy Toth wrote: > I can not say for sure if the SR-71 or the U-2 have active ECM, however one > source I read from claiming to have worked on the SR-71 says that "The > aircraft’s speed and altitude capabilities, together with its electronic > systems, make it virtually invulnerable from > attack by air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles." . The SR-71 had a very capable ECM system called "DEF". Since you only had to build a few of them, you could afford to pull out all the stops in designing it. THAAD is not designed to intercept a target that is capable of defensive maneuvers or carries active ECM. > . > - The SR-71 was 'intercepted' only once and not long before it's retirement. > This was done by coordinating an intercept by 5 MIG-31's guided by ground > controlers to come from all sectors. This tactic had to be used because on > previous attempts the SR-71 had simply avoided and/or outrun it's opponents. > > This story keeps surfacing every so often. It is Not True. I have this from people who flew the aircraft in that timeframe, from people who know the SR's capabilities and from a former Commander of the SR-71 squadron. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Kosovo Air Campain http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/na/a19546-2000may7.htm May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There is... another...Sky...Sky...walker" Yoda http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/news/2000/19/news4b.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:47:00 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars Not a bad, if rather nontechnical, article about the OZian OTH radars: http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:59:08 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars Interesting, it seems to suggest that the stealth technology (shape and RAM) needed to defeat OTH radars is already out there. The shape of the B-2 is certainly more 'appropriate' than that of the F-117, however I still think the shape of the F-117 does reduce its RCS even from above, even if not as effectively as that of the B-2. Maybe the RAM used for the 'upgrade' of the F-117 is capable of defeating these wavelenghts. Timothy Allen Thomson wrote: > Not a bad, if rather nontechnical, article about the OZian OTH radars: > > http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:20:08 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars > > Interesting, it seems to suggest that the stealth technology (shape and > RAM) needed to defeat OTH radars is already out there. The shape of the > B-2 is certainly more 'appropriate' than that of the F-117, however I > still think the shape of the F-117 does reduce its RCS even from above, > even if not as effectively as that of the B-2. Maybe the RAM used for the > 'upgrade' of the F-117 is capable of defeating these wavelenghts. > > Timothy > > Allen Thomson wrote: > > > Not a bad, if rather nontechnical, article about the OZian > OTH radars: > > > > http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm > > If we are to believe the Oz media reports that the current deployments of the Australian military in East Timor as peacekeepers is seriously stretching the ADF, by what real purpose does JORN serve? Sure we now have the high-tech capability to detect intruders (now more with illegal boat people than probably originally intended) at a much greater distance. But if the defense forces themselves are under-funded, under-staffed, under-equipped and under-nourished, don't we just have a longer lead time to say to the folks at home, "Well, thanks to JORN you have an extra 90 minutes to dig deeper, because we still can't stop them from coming ..." Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:22:42 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: PCL Passive coherent location of the Silent Sentry sort has shown up here on occasion, and I'm reminded that there's an interesting low-budget project at the University of Washington developing the technique for scientific purposes. See http://rcs.ee.washington.edu/spp/Projects/Manastash/status/mrr.html , particularly the last figure also http://rcs.ee.washington.edu/spp/Projects/Manastash/status/StatusDec7.html and, for a realish-time look, http://rcs.ee.washington.edu/spp/orca/httpd/html/radar/Data/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:05:53 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Fine-tuning Australia's defence radar with meteor showers URL: http://defence-data.com/current/page7237.htm Original Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:51:06 +0200 ========================== Forwarded message begins ====================== Fine-tuning Australia's defence radar with meteor showers 17 May 2000 [INLINE] The accuracy of Australia's defence surveillance radar is being improved through the use of a new low cost technique that uses meteor showers. Meteor showers naturally occur in the earth atmosphere on a continuous basis, day and night, as space rocks hit the circle of atmosphere protecting the earth's surface. Researchers from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) are using the energy trails left by meteors as they burn up in the atmosphere to improve the performance of Australia's radar in detecting aircraft and boats approaching Australia's coastline. "Our research means defence personnel can more cost-effectively protect our coastline from approaching aircraft or ships," says Dr Daniel Solomon. "It also means we can better check out the coastline for possible entry of illegal immigrants or wildlife smugglers." Over-the-horizon (OTH) radar systems can detect aircraft and shipping that is moving up to 3,000 kilometres away from the transmitters and receivers. Australia's first such radar system is located in central Australia and is called Jindalee. "The main challenge for these radars is to detect aircraft or ships against a background of interfering signals," Dr Solomon says."Such interfering signals may come about through the energy received from the ground, ocean or atmosphere. Radio stations or other communications can also disturb the radar signals." Jindalee's transmitting antenna stretch for 127 metres while the receiving antenna stretches for almost three kilometres. Dr Solomon's project used meteor trails to fine tune the accuracy of these antennas in determining the location and position of an aircraft or ship approaching Australia. "We were able to use the clear and distinct signals left by meteor trails to overcome the problems of energy and communications interference," he said. "This information could be readily used with existing software meaning we didn't need to use the expensive hardware required for some radar systems." Two other OTH radars are being constructed at Laverton in Western Australia and Longreach in Queensland. For more detail see also a DSD Feature Article about the JORN system, entitled [1]"JORN assures early warning for Australia". REF XQQPC XQQTY Copyright(c) 1996 - 2000 Defence Data Ltd. All rights reserved. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:31:33 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: Article on Jindalee (JORN) radars Dennis Lapcewich wrote: > If we are to believe the Oz media reports that the current deployments of the > Australian military in East Timor as peacekeepers is seriously stretching the > ADF, by what real purpose does JORN serve? Sure we now have the high-tech > capability to detect intruders (now more with illegal boat people than probably > originally intended) at a much greater distance. But if the defense forces > themselves are under-funded, under-staffed, under-equipped and under-nourished, > don't we just have a longer lead time to say to the folks at home, "Well, > thanks to JORN you have an extra 90 minutes to dig deeper, because we still > can't stop them from coming ..." > > Dennis Fear not, the Australian defence budget (and popularity from what I read) is getting a boost... They should be able to buy high-tech shovels, to dig not only deeper, but faster :-) Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 22:26:04 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: PCL So basically this is simply a multi-static radar, using civilian TV/radio emitters (operating in the VHF/UHF range) which means: Conventional attack/fighter aircraft RWR are not capable of detecting these frequencies. Such a system would be hard to detect other than by humint/imint, because even if you have specialised ESM Or Elint systems, emissions used by the system can easely be disregarded as 'normal' civilian emissions. Immune to ARM attacks; the system itself doesn't emit, and the emitters used, work on frequencies not covered by ARMs (although I think I read somewhere the latest version of the HARM covers at least the higher portion of this range of frequencies). I think these frenquencies have better performance in range, are less influenced by athmosheric conditions but have less discrimination, and are more affected by ground clutter (but then since it works on the doppler shift priniple I don't think this would be as bad). I think discrimination would also be affected by the fact that it is a multistatic system. I don't think such a system would be very mobile ( mobility would affect performance) need to 'calibrate' with emitters, size of antenna. Need of very powerfull computers (hopefully not accesible to most nations) Against stealth: These frequencies are better at detecting 'smaller targets'. The benefit from shaping (of the target) is reduced but still influences the RCS. If the US has developped RAMs effective against OTH radars (3-30MHz) (as the article on the Jindalee suggests), and more 'conventional' radars (up to 18GHZ and more), we can expect these to be effective in the 50-800MHz range (operating frequencies for Silent Sentry), but probably also with reduced efficiency. Vulnerabilities: You need to have powerfull enough emitters in the 'neighbourhood' (I don't think this system would have been useable in a theatre such as the desert during the Gulf war for eg). The emitters can still be detected (by ESM/ELINT systems) and attacked (not by ARMs of course). This may cause significant political problems (oppostion can easely claim these are purely 'civilian' targets).Of course you still have to know that such a system is out there, or make preemptive strikes against all emitters. A more politically acceptable way, would be to use com jammers even against civilian radio/TV emitters, this of course means that Stealth in deep strike missions would be escorted by jammers (like the EA-6B accompanying the B-2 in the Chinese embassy incident? one must also note that AN/USQ-113 communications jammer has been added to several EA-6B) Timothy ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #37 ******************************** 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