From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #43 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 Thursday, June 15 2000 Volume 09 : Number 043 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Boeing E-3 Sentry Re: Boeing E-3 Sentry Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] Flag day Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] Boeing B-52G Stratofortress If you can't hail Mary, lob Quiz Re: If you can't hail Mary, lob Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] RE :QUIZ "Black" Budget FY01 Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] Re: Quiz *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:00:40 +0100 From: gbpayne@btinternet.com Subject: Re: Boeing E-3 Sentry My apologies for getting the name of the pods wrong, I was confusing them with Jellystone (whatever that is!). When a USAF E-3 was at the RAF Mildenhall Air Fete the other week, they INSISTED that it had the same level of protection as the B-2 and F-117 when on static display. They were the only aircraft too that didn't have any aircrew chatting to the crowds all day. When I asked the C-5 crew next to them why they were suddenly so protective these days over the E-3, he said it was down to the new pods on the nose...Apparently they were upgraded a couple of years ago, upgraded again before they went to Kosovo and have recently been upgraded again 'after lessons learnt in combat'. >Gavin Payne wrote: >> I noticed when they came into service that we put the Yellowstone ESM >pods on (the same pods we added to the Nimrod >MR2 as they went to war in the Falklands). >>Anyone know why the RAF wasn't happy with the default ESM kit and added >more?(the standard kit is still there; the RAF >have just added a pod to each wing) >>All I can think of is that maybe the RAF sorties used to take them >closer to Eastern borders and in range of threats the E3 >isn't normally used to. > >In fact the E-3D does not have the 'default ESM kit', because there was >no such thing at the time. The E-3D where the first of >the E-3 series aircraft to have an ESM system. The first USAF aircraft >was fitted with the AYR-1 in oct. 95 as part of the >Block 30/35 upgrade (retrofit on other aircraft ongoing until 2001). >French E-3Fs and NATO aircraft are also receiving the >equipment. > >Aircraft with the AN/AYR-1 are easily recognisable because it's sensors >are housed in the big canoe-like bulges on the >forward fuselage and in smaller bulges on the nose and tail. It is >capable of detecting fighter radars more than 550km away. >An improvement program for the system is also planned. > >The Loral 1017 Yellowgate has it's sensors in the wingtip pods, and >covers the C- through J-band. >In April 1999 Racal-Thorn Defence was awarded a contract worth about £5>m >to upgrade Yellowgate. These improvements >will enhance the aircrew's threat warning and surveillance data, as well >as reducing the system's weight and increasing its >reliability. > >And in related news; >China has recently started marketing the FT-2000 system (based on the >Russian S-300PMU-1/SA-10). This system can also >use an indigenously developed anti-radar homing missile which is capable >of engaging AWACS type targets and stand >off-jammers. > >Timothy > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:24:24 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Boeing E-3 Sentry Gavin wrote: ".Apparently they were upgraded a couple of years ago, upgraded again before they went to Kosovo and have recently been upgraded again 'after lessons learnt in combat'." All in hopes that someday they might get it right, what? Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:48:35 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > > Also what is to keep Iraq from placing a nuclear warhead > > on a ship and sailing it into New York City harbor? > > Here's a scarier scenario, from a old report to the USCG forecasting turn of > the century law enforcement requirements. > > Most/many currents are constant and predictable, put someting in it, let it > go, and you know woth fair accuracy where and when it'll be down the road. > > There are bouys called so-fars -- they only rise or sink sofar, and the > depth can be set. These are old technology. Hook a device of mass > destruction (nuclear or biologocal or chemical) to a sofar, put it in a > current and let it go. > > When it goes off, whom do you blame, where do you retaliate, how do you > adequately guard against it? > > I am only amazed that a terrorist group has not yet used this method! > The problem is that you don't know exactly WHERE your buoy is going. The second problem is that spy satellites can pretty easily spot weapons sized lumps of radioactive materials unless kept in a hefty lead containment system. Then you've also got the sonar nets that girdle the US. Anything that is metallic and is below the surface gets tracked when it comes within a certain range. - -- 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 >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:14:41 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Flag day

The United States National Anthem

THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER

 

Oh, say can you see, by the Dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Francis Scott Key

Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the Star-Spangled Banner on September 14, 1814, during the War of 1812's bombardment of Fort McHenry. The fort guarded the entrance to Baltimore harbor. While on a mission to secure the release of a Maryland physician who had been captured by the British, Key himself was also detained. Key was held on one of the frigates which would participate in the attack on Fort McHenry during the night of September 13 - 14, 1814. Helplessly, Key watched as the bombardment lasted throughout the night. No one knew if the Americans could hold the strategic fort. When dawn finally arrived, boldly flying over the battered fort was the American flag, a huge symbol that the British bombardment had failed to destroy the fort or dislodge the Americans. Key's lyrics, which had been set to the music of the old English song "To Anacreon in Heaven," quickly became one of his generation's most popular patriotic compositions. The Star-Spangled Banner offically became our country's national anthem on March 3, 1931, with a law signed by President Herbert Hoover.

[ front cover | inside front cover | p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | p5 | p6 | p7 | p8 | p9 | p10 | p11 | p12 | inside back cover | back cover ]

 

Mouse overBack to Veterans Day Home Page

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:24:38 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > > > I am only amazed that a terrorist group has not yet used this method! > > > > The problem is that you don't know exactly WHERE your buoy is going. Not to come down on either side of the buoy-bomb, but a terrorist might not be too picky. >The > second problem is that spy satellites can pretty easily spot weapons > sized lumps of radioactive materials unless kept in a hefty lead > containment system. Totally, absolutely untrue. Satellites are more that 100 km from the ground, the air provides the same amount of shielding as 10 meters of water -- if the bomb is underwater, that just adds more shielding -- and bombs aren't all that radioactive to begin with. >Then you've also got the sonar nets that girdle the > US. Anything that is metallic and is below the surface gets tracked when > it comes within a certain range. Again, untrue. The SOSUS arrays listen for noise generated by submarines and ships. The only way the proposed constant-depth drifter buoy would be detected is by a ship's active sonar, and, AFAIK, those are infrequently used. Or a hapless submarine might chance to bump into it, I suppose. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:36:08 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Last of the giants The B-52 was the last of the giant bombers built for the US Air Force, and flew in prototype form during April 1952 before entering service as a high-altitude strategic bomber. There followed a succession of improved bomber models before the advent of the first of 193 B-52s in October 1958. This featured a "wet" wing for much increased fuel capacity, a shortened vertical tail, an improved pressurized compartment for all of the crew, remotely controlled tail guns, and provision for Quail decoy missiles as well as two AGM-28 Hound Dog stand-off nuclear missiles. 1962: the turning point from high to low level From 1962 the Stratofortress was switched from high to low-level penetration of enemy airspace with the Hound Dog supported by AGM-69 defense suppression missiles, and since that time the bomber's electronics have been radically upgraded in a continuous program to improve both offensive and defensive features. Some 90 of the surviving 167 aircraft are now configured as launchers for the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile, but will switch to maritime surveillance/support as newer aircraft enter service. Principal version B-52G (nuclear bomber and stand-off missile carrier now configured as a cruise missile carrier and maritime surveillance/support platform). Principal user USA. Technical Data Type: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress six-seat strategic bomber. Engines: eight 13,750-lb (6,237-kg) thrust Pratt & Whitney J57-P-43WB turbojets. Performance: maximum speed 594 mph (956 km/h) at optimum altitude; initial climb rate not revealed; service ceiling 40,000 ft (12,190 m); range 7,500 miles (12,070 km) without inflight refueling. Weights: empty not revealed; maximum take-off 488,000+ lb (221,353+ kg). Dimensions: span 185 ft 0 in (56.39 m); length 160 ft 10.8 in (49.04 m); height 40 ft 8 in (12.40 m); wing area 4,000.0 sq ft (371.60 m^2). Armament: four 0.5-in (12.7-mm) machine-guns, and up to about 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) of disposable stores including 12 AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, or 20 AGM-69 Short-Range Attack Missiles, or a mix of these weapons, or other ordnance. The B-52G sports three-tone camouflage on its upper surfaces, together with white under surfaces. - -----Part II----- Exceptionally long life Despite its obsolescence in terms of its airframe and powerplant, the B-52 remains in service as a major element of the USA's strategic triad of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles. It was at first thought that the Rockwell B-1 would supplant the B-52, but the limitation of the later type's production to 100 means that the two aircraft now complement each other. Surviving B-52s have been structurally revised for low-altitude operation and have been upgraded electronically, and now serve mainly as launchers for the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile. War over Vietnam The B-52 was planned as a high-altitude bomber and flew in April 1952. Production ended in 1962 after the delivery of 744 aircraft. Other than the current B-52G and B-52H models, the variant that saw the greatest service was the B-52D used as a conventional bomber in the Vietnam War. Principal versions B-52B and B-52C (essentially pre-production models built in small numbers for evaluation and reconnaissance), B-52D (tail armament of four 0.5-in/ 12.7-mm machine guns), B-52E (more advanced nav/attack system), B-52F (increased power), B-52G (definitive turbojet-powered model with integral wing tanks, remotely controlled tail guns under a shorter fin/rudder, and provision for two AGM-28 Hound Dogs), and B-52H (last model with many improvements including a new tail gun). Principal user USA. Technical data Type: Boeing B-52H Stratofortress six-seat long-range strategic heavy bomber. Engines: eight 17,000-lb (7,711-kg) thrust Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3 turbofans. Performance: maximum speed 595 mph (958 km/h) at 36,000 ft (10,975 m); initial climb rate not revealed; service ceiling 55,000 ft (16,765 m); range 10,000 miles (16,093 km). Weights: empty not revealed; maximum take-off 488,000 lb (221,353 kg). Dimensions: span 185 ft 0 in (56.39 m); length 160 ft 11 in (49.05 m); height 40 ft 8 in (12.40 m); wing area 4,000.0 sq ft (371.60 m^2). Armament: one 20-mm multi-barrel cannon and up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM or AGM-86 missiles, or free-fall bombs. - -- 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 >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:31:49 -0400 From: "Morris, Andrew" Subject: If you can't hail Mary, lob The press said that antiballistic missile system they'd like, no need to build would intercept in the ascent stage of the missile's flight, NOT the Reaganesque Star Wars bubble that would stop the rain of Soviet warheads on the way down. Consider this. A ship full of illegal chinese immigrants runs itself aground on the shore of New Jersey. (old news) The Navy didn't intercept this ship, the Coast Guard didn't intercept this ship, the spy satellites didn't detect the ship (in time, but probably had pics seen later of its course, speed and final location stuck on the beach) and there are literally thousands of ships plying the coasts of the US and oh by the way, the coasts of all of our Allies. What about them? All a so-called rouge nation, faction, or religous group fundamentalist Christian group or otherwise, need do is pull up to the coast of a nation, errect the very short range missile launcher on its deck and push the button. Batteries of the latest and greatest Patriot, ABL, GBL, even Texas Air National Guardsmen shoulder to shoulder with Stingers would likely not bring it down. It would go where, or close enough to where ever they wanted it to go with NBorC warheads. And believe me a small cell of fundamentalists trained, educated and who had just vacationed in the US with their latest GPS locator, will not feel "put out" by the US government funding an ABM system. Their goal is not like the former Soviets to go toe to toe with the US, it will be to make a point. And they'll give it their best Midwest University try and they won't care if the first one doesn't hit pay dirt. Terrorism (read rouge nation) is a different animal than world domination by a totalitarian government system. They aren't sweating a national economic situation on their homefront. They have funding sources like BinLadin and a dream of rocking the world, not taking it over. Get off the Star Wars dream, this is not the 70s, 80s, or 90s. It is a different world. Spend the money and devote the research elsewhere. Design a stealth patrol car for the Kansas State Police. Thanks, Happy Wednesday. Andy Morris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:05:56 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: Quiz Ok folks, The list appears quiet so I'm gonna take a stab at this. For a chance at a set of slightly used Ginsu steak knives, who was Sidney Cotton, and what is/was his contribution? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:05:18 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: If you can't hail Mary, lob >The press said that antiballistic missile system they'd like, no need to >build would intercept in the ascent stage of the missile's flight, NOT the >Reaganesque Star Wars bubble that would stop the rain of Soviet warheads on >the way down. All of the literature I've seen, dating back to 1985 or so, focuses on boost phase interception. While terminal phase interception was always looked at, the core of the SDI programs was not hitting individual RVs. > >Consider this. A ship full of illegal chinese immigrants runs itself > >All a so-called rouge nation, faction, or religous group fundamentalist >Christian group or otherwise, need do is pull up to the coast of a nation, >errect the very short range missile launcher on its deck and push the >button. The currently envisioned program is focused on medium and long range ballistic missiles, not Katayusha(sp?) or FROG type weapons but Scud-type weapons and larger. The percieved threat is nations like North Korea and Iran which are actively developing both long range ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. For short range threats, things like THEL exist, and are not part of the ABM system(s) that are causing so much controversy. >system. Their goal is not like the former Soviets to go toe to toe with the >US, it will be to make a point. And they'll give it their best Midwest >University try and they won't care if the first one doesn't hit pay dirt. A terrorist is far more likely to use a delivery system simpler than a missile. For example, terrorists both in the US and abroad have already used not only trucks but salad bars and buildings as delivery systems for biological agents. A terrorist would have to be rich and foolish to use a missile. > >Terrorism (read rouge nation) Terrorism and rogue nations may sometimes go hand in hand, but they are NOT the same thing. The threat the ABM system is design to counter is not a terrorist hijacking a road mobile ICBM like some kind of bad HBO movie but to counter nation states from developing and deploying medium and long range ballistic missiles capable of hitting the continental United States (and for ship-borne ABM systems, other places as well). Terrorists hide bombs in luggage, they don't buy/build/steal SA-10 systems and shoot down airliners. The modern terrorist has far more useful deliery methods of the agents at their disposal than a ballistic missile. > >Get off the Star Wars dream, this is not the 70s, 80s, or 90s. It is a >different world. Spend the money and devote the research elsewhere. Design >a stealth patrol car for the Kansas State Police. You seem to overlook that SDI has been cited by both Russian and American officials as one of the driving forces behind the changes that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. Strategic weapons and defense systems are far more political and economic than military. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:55:28 -0500 From: UFO Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum]  

Allen Thomson wrote:

 "Terry W. Colvin" wrote:
>The
> second problem is that spy satellites can pretty easily spot weapons
> sized lumps of radioactive materials unless kept in a hefty lead
> containment system.

Totally, absolutely untrue.   Satellites are more that 100 km from the
ground, the air provides the same amount of shielding as 10 meters of
water -- if the bomb is underwater, that just adds more shielding -- and
bombs aren't all that radioactive to begin with.
 

But it's just around the corner. It's been in development for the past decade or more. Testing was done with the ALEXIS and FORTE sats and CALIPOE systems to develop multi-spectral thermal imaging for the detection of nuclear materials for arms proliferation uses. 3 or 4 years ago they were able to detect radioactive dust in processing plants. And that's just the non-secret stuff. Although I still think detection of a bomb will be a few years off, it will happen soon. there are already "sniffers" in Washington, the Panama Canal and other places and once they have detection down with sattelites (if we don't already), next step will be tracking of materials, then bombs.
 
>Then you've also got the sonar nets that girdle the
> US. Anything that is metallic and is below the surface gets tracked when
> it comes within a certain range.

Again, untrue. The SOSUS arrays listen for noise generated by submarines and
ships.  The only way the proposed constant-depth drifter buoy would be
detected is by a ship's active sonar, and, AFAIK,  those are infrequently
used.  Or a hapless submarine might chance to bump into it, I suppose.

Given a million to one odds, they could be detected by magnetic anomoly detectors in a ship or helicopter, but only by chance and even if so, they probably wouldn't think a thing about it. About the same odds of a sub bumping into it unless, of course, they were looking for it and knew where to look. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:04:41 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] Allen Thomson wrote: > ...snipped... > >Then you've also got the sonar nets that girdle the > > US. Anything that is metallic and is below the surface gets tracked when > > it comes within a certain range. > > Again, untrue. The SOSUS arrays listen for noise generated by submarines and > ships. The only way the proposed constant-depth drifter buoy would be > detected is by a ship's active sonar, and, AFAIK, those are infrequently > used. Or a hapless submarine might chance to bump into it, I suppose. Haven't there been some collisions between our subs and other subs, perhaps from the old USSR? Or is all of that just Hollywood movie stuff? Al ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:18:27 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: RE :QUIZ Dennis Lapcewich wrote: >Ok folks, >The list appears quiet so I'm gonna take a stab at this. >For a chance at a set of slightly used Ginsu steak knives, who was Sidney Cotton, and what is/was his contribution? Was he the guy that discovered Jellystone? :-) Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:24:47 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: "Black" Budget FY01 This comes from JED 06/00: The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has published an assessment of the classified,or "black" budget for FY01. Based on an analysis by Elizabeth Heeter, roughly $16 billion, or 16 percent of the funding requested by the Pentagon was for classified programs. This split almost evenly between procurement and RDT&E and was up slightly from the FY00 request of $15.4 million, but significantly lower than the FY87 peak of $21 billion. As usual, the Air Force request was largest at $7.1 billion, or 34 percent of the total. This is because the service's acquisition budget contributes to a number of intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. The Air Force is also responsible for most C4I functions and related assets. Navy classified procurement was $200 million, followed by the Defense Agencies at $700 million. The Army requested no black procurement funds. In classified research and development (R&D), the Air Force comes in at $13.7 billion, the Navy at $1.3 billion and the Army $200 million. The Defense Agencies requested roughly $1.4 billion in this area. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:20:17 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] > Haven't there been some collisions between our subs and > other subs, perhaps from the old USSR? Or is all of > that just Hollywood movie stuff? Yes, every few years someone bumps into someone else. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:40:32 -0600 From: David Brunner Subject: Re: Quiz At 09:05 AM 06/15/2000 +0930, you wrote: >Ok folks, > >The list appears quiet so I'm gonna take a stab at this. > >For a chance at a set of slightly used Ginsu steak knives, who was Sidney >Cotton, and what is/was his contribution? > > >Dennis > > > > > > I cheated... the first hit from the google search engine talks about his contribution to early aerial recon. (Yeah, that's my final answer). ;) Cheers, David - -- David Brunner Aurora, CO. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #43 ******************************** 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