From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #61
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, August 14 2000       Volume 09 : Number 061



     Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
Spot the lights
Which JSF?
Re: Spot the lights
Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #60
Re: Which JSF?
Re: Spot the lights
Re: Which JSF?
acft lightning strike
WAPJ/WoF
Re: Brighter than the Baghdad Sun
Re: Which JSF?
Re: Spot the lights
Re: Spot the lights
RE: Spot the lights
Re: Spot the lights
Re: Spot the lights
Russian Sub
[none]
RE: Russian Sub
Re: Russian Sub
Re: Russian Sub
***************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:05:56 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Spot the lights

I am currently studying pictures of the B-2, and I have a few questions. Since some of you have much more experience than I in this field I hope you can shed some light :-) , on a few things.
There are a bunch of (what seem to be) lights hidden behind semi-transparent material, these  all seem to be situated around the cockpit, on the top and bottom of the aircraft, always in a row of 4. So
far I have located 7 rows of 4. These do not seem to be used for night flying, position, landing, or refueling. Can you 'spot' anymore of these, and do you have an idea of their use.
If you play 'spot the lights' you'll notice that these are only visible under certain conditions.
I'm thinking of the Compass Ghost program (on an F-4) and (the planned) tests with the Have blue (prototype which crashed). Since it has been mentioned that the B-2 adjusts it's altitude according to
the surrounding light conditions to blend into the sky and this is presumably done with the aid of sensors I tought these of could alo be used to adjust the intensity of lights.

An other question is, does this 'yellowish glint' on/in the exhaust look to your expert eyes, like reflections from the sun.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b2side8x6.jpgte

Is this some sort of contrail, coming out of the exhaust, and why not out of both.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2_10.jpg

Thanks in advance for your input.
Timothy

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:11:01 EDT
From: SecretJet@aol.com
Subject: Which JSF?

Greetings from UK.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but regarding the
'Which JSF will Win?' question...

Am I the only one who thinks the Boeing version (X-32?)
is really UGLY?!  It looks hideous to me, that huge
intake looks gross, and I always think of the old adage:
"If it looks good, it should fly good..."

The X-35 looks great by comparison - like the F-22, but
Boeing's effort could be called 'Guppy' from it's distorted
gullet!
(Just my view, anyone care to comment?)
- ------------------------------------------------------
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
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html">http://members.aol.com/
Secretjet/</A> 
No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind!
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/wolas99/wesley.html">Wesley's Photo Page</A> 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:29:10 -0600
From: "David Brunner" <anon6622@nyx.net>
Subject: Re: Spot the lights

To my unexpert eyes, this looks like some kind of probe or sensor 
which is reeled out the back end of a plane during test flights. I 
wonder if this photo was taken during testing?

You can kinda see what I'm talking about at:
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/
C1L22-737-300.html

On 11 Aug 2000, at 7:05, T.Toth wrote:


> Is this some sort of contrail, coming out of the exhaust, and why not out of both.
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2_10.jpg
> 


- --
David Brunner   KE0AZ
anon6622@nyx.net

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:09:40 EDT
From: Liddicoat5@aol.com
Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #60

Re: World Airpower Journal:

Vol. 9's listings include "America's Reds". Does anyone have this volume? If 
so, please tell me what this article refers to? Specifically, Is the article 
about the Red Eagles/Red Hats operations with Soviet bloc aircraft?

Cheers,

Brian D. Liddicoat
Santa Cruz, CA

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:24:44 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Which JSF?

Well I don't want to upset anyone from Boeing but... I do have to agree on that
one. But then that wouldn't stop them would it! They'd just call it LUFF (Little
Ugly F Fighter) or something...
Timothy

SecretJet@aol.com wrote:

> Greetings from UK.
>
> Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but regarding the
> 'Which JSF will Win?' question...
>
> Am I the only one who thinks the Boeing version (X-32?)
> is really UGLY?!  It looks hideous to me, that huge
> intake looks gross, and I always think of the old adage:
> "If it looks good, it should fly good..."
>
> The X-35 looks great by comparison - like the F-22, but
> Boeing's effort could be called 'Guppy' from it's distorted
> gullet!
> (Just my view, anyone care to comment?)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html">http://members.aol.com/
> Secretjet/</A>
> No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/wolas99/wesley.html">Wesley's Photo Page</A>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:07:08 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Spot the lights

Ok you're right it is a cable, you can see the 'device' better on other pictures. It
does not come out of the exhaust but is attached to a semi-permanent 'triangle' fixture
standing on the tail. I wonder what they where testing though. Some sort of towed decoy
maybe.

David Brunner wrote:

> To my unexpert eyes, this looks like some kind of probe or sensor
> which is reeled out the back end of a plane during test flights. I
> wonder if this photo was taken during testing?
>
> You can kinda see what I'm talking about at:
> http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/
> C1L22-737-300.html
>
> On 11 Aug 2000, at 7:05, T.Toth wrote:
>
> > Is this some sort of contrail, coming out of the exhaust, and why not out of both.
> > http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2_10.jpg
> >
>
> --
> David Brunner   KE0AZ
> anon6622@nyx.net

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 100 17:08:50 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Which JSF?

On 8/11/00 8:24AM, in message <39941ABB.5C02DB8F@primus.ca>, "T.Toth" 
<ttoth@primus.ca> wrote:

> Well I don't want to upset anyone from Boeing but... I do have to agree on 
> that
> one. But then that wouldn't stop them would it! They'd just call it LUFF 
> (Little
> Ugly F Fighter) or something...
> Timothy
> 
> SecretJet@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Greetings from UK.
> >
> > Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but regarding the
> > 'Which JSF will Win?' question...
> >
> > Am I the only one who thinks the Boeing version (X-32?)
> > is really UGLY?!  It looks hideous to me, that huge
> > intake looks gross, and I always think of the old adage:
> > "If it looks good, it should fly good..."
> >
> > The X-35 looks great by comparison - like the F-22, but
> > Boeing's effort could be called 'Guppy' from it's distorted
> > gullet!
> > (Just my view, anyone care to comment?)
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >


    It's true that the X-32 is the ugliest plane conceived since the French 
designs of the '30s and '40s.   Keep in mind that the Boeing team substantially 
redesigned the a/c in '99.  The X-32 is only a demonstrator and they were so 
far along they decided not to scrap their work so far and just fly this 
monster.   All the X-32 and X-35 are supposed to do is show that the respective 
companies' concepts will work, nothing else. They were substantially further 
along than Lockheed in being ready for flight and didn't want to give that up.  
 The definitive shape of Boeing's JSF is substantially different, and while not 
as pretty as Lockheed, is substantially more pleasing to the eye.  Numerous 
illustrations abound.



            Art

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:13:31 GMT
From: "wayne binkley" <wbinkley@hotmail.com>
Subject: acft lightning strike

lightning strike initiated by acft



      http://lightning.pwr.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/lrg/temp/plane.html



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:14:11 -0400
From: Jim Rotramel <mrvark@erols.com>
Subject: WAPJ/WoF

WAPJ/WoF are NOT going out of business, as I understand it. The sale
Terry writes about is billed as AIRTime's 10th Anniversary sale with
soft-bound issues going for $7.95 and hard-bound for $9.95
(800-359-3003). Aerospace, which publishes WAPJ/WoF, may be looking for
a new US distributor as their contract with AIRTime reportedly is up at
the end of the year, but claim they are not going out of business. They
aren't acting like it either, having sent out a request for information
to contributors less than a month ago. I wish I had a nickel for every
time someone claimed they were finished...why, I could pay my child
support with it!!!

Jim Rotramel

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 100 17:14:52 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Brighter than the Baghdad Sun

On 8/10/00 12:23PM, in message <3993014B.87BED778@erols.com>, Jim Rotramel 
<mrvark@erols.com> wrote:
> One has to
> wonder if Saddam is to sick to care about pulling the tiger's tail, or
> if Clinton doesn't want to risk having someone shot down so close to the
> election...
> 
> 

    Since most of the large scale bombing there for the last few years seems to 
have been mostly for political purposes and news management, I would agree that 
the election probably has  a lot to do with that.    

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Kaltsidis <skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu>
Subject: Re: Which JSF?

> Greetings from UK.
> 
> Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but regarding the
> 'Which JSF will Win?' question...
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks the Boeing version (X-32?)
> is really UGLY?!  It looks hideous to me, that huge
> intake looks gross, and I always think of the old adage:
> "If it looks good, it should fly good..."
> 
> The X-35 looks great by comparison - like the F-22, but
> Boeing's effort could be called 'Guppy' from it's distorted
> gullet!
> (Just my view, anyone care to comment?)


Personally, I don't give a damn what an aircraft looks like, I care about how 
well or how badly it works. Right now it looks like the X-32 may be a better 
design although it may be a little too early to tell.

Sam

CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC
http://www.darkent.com


> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html">http://members.aol.com/
> Secretjet/</A> 
> No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/wolas99/wesley.html">Wesley's Photo Page</A> 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:31:15 -0400
From: Jeff Clark <jeffhclark@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Spot the lights

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:07:08 -0700 "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca> writes:
>Ok you're right it is a cable, you can see the 'device' better on 
>other pictures. It does not come out of the exhaust but is attached
>to a semi-permanent 'triangle' fixture standing on the tail. I 
>wonder what they where testing though. Some sort of towed decoy
>maybe.

It's a static airflow pressure sensor.  It's used during flight
testing to help calibrate airspeed instruments.  The cone is used to 
make enough drag so the wire will reel out enough to place
the sensor, which is just forward of the cone, into undisturbed
air.

Jeff Clark

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:46:06 +0100
From: "David" <win@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Spot the lights

T.Toth <ttoth@primus.ca> wrote:

> I am currently studying pictures of the B-2, and I have a few questions.
>Since some of you have much more experience than I in this field I hope
you >can shed some light :-) , on a few things.

> There are a bunch of (what seem to be) lights hidden behind
semi->transparent material, these  all seem to be situated around the
cockpit, on the >top and bottom of the aircraft, always in a row of 4. So
> far I have located 7 rows of 4. These do not seem to be used for night
>flying, position, landing, or refueling. Can you 'spot' anymore of these,
and >do you have an idea of their use.
> If you play 'spot the lights' you'll notice that these are only visible
under >certain conditions.

Funny you should mention this. Some time ago I asked about the
lighting pattern of the B-2 as someone contacted me saying a colleague
had seen several Spirits here in the UK - some of which had four white
lights on the leading edge of the wing on either side of the cockpit.
They were flying in formation with B-52s.

It's been some time now, so I'll dig out the report he sent me.

Best

David

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:36:50 +0100
From: "Gavin Payne" <gbpayne@btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Spot the lights

> Funny you should mention this. Some time ago I asked about the
> lighting pattern of the B-2 as someone contacted me saying a colleague
> had seen several Spirits here in the UK - some of which had four white
> lights on the leading edge of the wing on either side of the cockpit.
> They were flying in formation with B-52s.
>
> It's been some time now, so I'll dig out the report he sent me.


According to some B-2 ground crew I spoke to and a number of people on the
Internet, the B-2 was secretly operated out of RAF Fairford during the
Kosovo campaign.  Don't know if they flew solo or with the B-52 packages
though.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:46:07 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Spot the lights

It would be great if you could find it.
I had seen what seems to be the lights you mention, but only on some aircraft,
other aircraft seem to have noting there. I wonder if it is a later add on ,
or if they have forgotten to retouch some of the photos :-) . However as I
said in previous messages even the other lights (7 rows of 4 so far) are only
visible on certain photos (because they are behind semi-transparent material
it seems. the easiest to see being the 3 rows just under the canopy). I have
read that tests have been done on F-15's with 'fluorescent panels', so maybe
these 4 round spot lights behind these semi-transparent panels would have the
same effect. Of course having some lights on the leading edges make even more
sense . I had tottaly forgotten about those 'whitter rectangular panels' on
the leading edges and couldn't figure out why they would only 'reduce' the
frontal visual siganture of te aircraft (IF that's what it is).
Although I have no expertise in this field I would also expect to find some
more lights at least on the bottom (middle and back) of the aircraft (If it is
to be used to reduce the visual signature of the aircraft from all quarters
and not just the frontal signature). Untill we 'see/ find' those other lights,
I think the visual camouflage theory is pretty 'light' :-)
Timothy

David wrote:

> T.Toth <ttoth@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> > I am currently studying pictures of the B-2, and I have a few questions.
> >Since some of you have much more experience than I in this field I hope
> you >can shed some light :-) , on a few things.
>
> > There are a bunch of (what seem to be) lights hidden behind
> semi->transparent material, these  all seem to be situated around the
> cockpit, on the >top and bottom of the aircraft, always in a row of 4. So
> > far I have located 7 rows of 4. These do not seem to be used for night
> >flying, position, landing, or refueling. Can you 'spot' anymore of these,
> and >do you have an idea of their use.
> > If you play 'spot the lights' you'll notice that these are only visible
> under >certain conditions.
>
> Funny you should mention this. Some time ago I asked about the
> lighting pattern of the B-2 as someone contacted me saying a colleague
> had seen several Spirits here in the UK - some of which had four white
> lights on the leading edge of the wing on either side of the cockpit.
> They were flying in formation with B-52s.
>
> It's been some time now, so I'll dig out the report he sent me.
>
> Best
>
> David

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:36:08 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Spot the lights

Makes sense. In fact even though they claim they did not use this system for
operation Allied Force, they do admit that they 'could' employ the B-2 in a
novel way; A B-2 would take off from Whiteman, fly directly to a combat area,
bomb its targets, and then recover at a forward base. At that base, the B-2
could rearm, take off for a new combat zone, attack more targets, and then
return to Whiteman. This type of employment would have permitted more sorties
but still kept the B-2 support train mostly back at Whiteman.
They claim that :
Most missions were 30 hr long, with B-2 taking off from the states 14hrs
before other assets in theatre.
Most pilots only flew 1 mission (altough each mission included several targets
sometime up to 16 in 16 different places).
A mission capable rate of 60% (75% if LO related problems not included).
Only 8 B-2's were assigned to the operation so that at least 6 would always be
available. The others were kept for training purposes (maybe this included
some very realistic training from bases in the UK :-) )
Pilots reported they were never detected, and that sometimes Serbs thougt they
had been attacked by cruise missiles.
No jammers (ie EA-6B) were needed to protect the B-2 but they were 'nice to
have'.
Timothy

Gavin Payne wrote:

> > Funny you should mention this. Some time ago I asked about the
> > lighting pattern of the B-2 as someone contacted me saying a colleague
> > had seen several Spirits here in the UK - some of which had four white
> > lights on the leading edge of the wing on either side of the cockpit.
> > They were flying in formation with B-52s.
> >
> > It's been some time now, so I'll dig out the report he sent me.
>
> According to some B-2 ground crew I spoke to and a number of people on the
> Internet, the B-2 was secretly operated out of RAF Fairford during the
> Kosovo campaign.  Don't know if they flew solo or with the B-52 packages
> though.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:18:24 +0100
From: "Gavin Payne" <gbpayne@btinternet.com>
Subject: Russian Sub

So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that the sunk Russian sub
"touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today might be true ? :)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:24:35 -0500 
From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: [none]

>>From thomsona@flash.net Mon Aug 14 15:38:53 2000
>Received: from chupacabras.flash.net ([209.30.2.16])
>	by eagle.netwrx1.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1)
>	id 13OR0V-0000M1-00
>	for skunk-works@netwrx1.com; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:38:52 -0500
>Received: from dzn (208-194-207-247.flash.net [208.194.207.247])
>	by chupacabras.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11370
>	for <skunk-works@netwrx1.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:38:16 -0500 (CDT)
>Message-ID: <001b01c0062f$579e5e00$f7cfc2d0@dzn.com>
>From: "Allen Thomson" <thomsona@flash.net>
>To: <skunk-works@netwrx1.com>
>References: <000301c0062c$d638aca0$2f5301d5@gavin1>
>Subject: Re: Russian Sub
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:36:34 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
>
>
>Gavin Payne enquired,
>
>> So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that the sunk Russian
>sub
>> "touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today might be true ?
>:)
>
>It's much too early to tell, but that's certainly one of the likelier
>possibilities.   I really hope
>that isn't what actually happened, as it could have wide-ranging and very
>bad consequences.  I also hope they can get the crew out safely.  And that
>the hypothetical foreign submarine is ok.
>
>These kinds of games might have been justified during the Cold War, but not
>now.
>
>
>
>
Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com

George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica
Waukesha, WI USA
georgek@netwrx1.com
http://www.netwrx1.com
ICQ #12862186

      Zz
       zZ
    |\ z    _,,,---,,_
    /,`.-'`'    _   ;-;;,_
   |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'_'
  '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:47:21 -0400
From: "Weigold, Greg" <GregWeigold@mynd.com>
Subject: RE: Russian Sub

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0065B.12591052
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Welllllllll.......

Considering how quickly it seemed to go down, I would think it was more than
a toilet overflowing....  <grin>

Someone playing tag or "chicken" about 500' down?

BTW:  I missed how deep it is..... anyone catch that?

Greg W

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Payne [mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:18 PM
To: Skunk Works (E-mail)
Subject: Russian Sub




So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that the sunk Russian sub
"touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today might be true ? :)





- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0065B.12591052
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: Russian Sub</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Welllllllll.......</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Considering how quickly it seemed to go down, I would =
think it was more than a toilet overflowing....&nbsp; =
&lt;grin&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Someone playing tag or &quot;chicken&quot; about 500' =
down?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>BTW:&nbsp; I missed how deep it is..... anyone catch =
that?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Greg W</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Gavin Payne [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com">mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com</A>=
]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:18 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Skunk Works (E-mail)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Russian Sub</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So who here also thinks that the media suggestions =
that the sunk Russian sub</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;touched noses&quot; with a &quot;foreign&quot; =
submarine earlier today might be true ? :)</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0065B.12591052--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:37:06 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

Originally the Russians stated that the average depth was 15-45m they
have now admitted that it is at 150m (various other report give from 100
to 155m). During a previous accident they had attempted a 'swim out'
from not even such a depth and no one survived. Not even the highly
trained British and American sub crews who are reputed to have the best
training for such emergency swim outs would manage from such depths. In
addition to that they are in very cold water which are usually covered
by a layer of ice.
Reports of a collision are not widely supported, although some reports
imply that there is only contact with some of the crew, and that the
situation of the rest is unknown.
The reactor is out (which means no air supply).
They are now out of radio contact, and only have 'acoustic
communication', this can take the form of simple pounding on the hull
although I think most submarines are equipped with low technology
'underwater telephones'.
My best bet based on the information I have is that the problem was with
the nuclear reactor and not a collision, this however is not a
politically 'acceptable' fact.
However quite sadly I have the impression that the crew will be
sacrificed to the ideology of the state, for the Russians have no DSRV
(Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel). The Americans have some which can be
deployed quite rapidly however the hatches have to be adaptable to the
submarine. The americans 'told' most countries (including Russia) how to
make these adaptable when they built the DSRV in the 60's. But I don't
think the Russians would have done anything back then, and I don't think
it would be politically acceptable for them to have one of their most
recent nuclear subs rescued by the Americans, it would shatter the
nationalistic pride on which the Russian government has been depending
to 'survive' the collapse of that once great power. All recent
announcements seem to confirm this, the crew is practically officially
dead.
One has to remember that these crews are not as well trained as Western
crews. They are often recruits who volunteer for a special tour aboard
submarines, even though conditions are particularly tough and health is
at great risk (from radiation) because they gain a special status (and
pay) due to the pride the Russians get from their submarines. When (if?)
they come back home they are often practically regarded a heroes. Not
this time I think :-(
Timothy



"Weigold, Greg" wrote:

>
>
> Welllllllll.......
>
> Considering how quickly it seemed to go down, I would think it was
> more than a toilet overflowing....  <grin>
>
> Someone playing tag or "chicken" about 500' down?
>
> BTW:  I missed how deep it is..... anyone catch that?
>
> Greg W
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Payne [mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:18 PM
> To: Skunk Works (E-mail)
> Subject: Russian Sub
>
>
>
> So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that the sunk
> Russian sub
> "touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today might be true
> ? :)
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:40:34 -0500
From: Jack Schitt <UFO@Mailops.com>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#0000EE" VLINK="#551A8B" ALINK="#FF0000">
Well, I've been keeping up with it and depending on where you get the story
from, it is 350 feet, 400 feet, 450 feet, 500 feet, 150 meters, 200 meters,
or "bottom of the ocean" (the most accurate:)). I can't find a chart of
that area to pinpoint it and check.
<P>Anyway, if it was a foreign sub, I wonder what country? Maybe the US
or UK, most likely not. Personally I put money on China. Any takers?
<P>Weigold, Greg wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>Welllllllll.......</FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>Considering how quickly it seemed to go down, I would
think it was more than a toilet overflowing....&nbsp; &lt;grin></FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>Someone playing tag or "chicken" about 500' down?</FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>BTW:&nbsp; I missed how deep it is..... anyone catch that?</FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>Greg W</FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=-1>From: Gavin Payne [<A HREF="mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com">mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=-1>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:18 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=-1>To: Skunk Works (E-mail)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=-1>Subject: Russian Sub</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;
<P><FONT SIZE=-1>So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that
the sunk Russian sub</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=-1>"touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today
might be true ? :)</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>

<P>--
<BR>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<BR>You don't know me,
<BR>Jack Schitt
<BR>&nbsp;
</BODY>
</HTML>

------------------------------

End of skunk-works-digest V9 #61
********************************

    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