From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #63 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 21 2000 Volume 09 : Number 063 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** DARPA Quiet Supersonic CBD item update on the Kursk Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon RE: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk F-22 testing continues (from AFNS) Re: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk RE: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk FWD (TLC-Mission) U-2/SR-71 funding and ops Re: update on the Kursk Re: update on the Kursk *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:11:10 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: DARPA Quiet Supersonic CBD item COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF AUGUST 17,2000 PSA#2666 A -- QUIET SUPERSONIC PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (MODIFICATION) SOL RA 00-47 DUE 091500. POC Dr. Richard Wlezien, DARPA/TTO, Fax (703) 696-8401. "Attached Synopsis of Original Announcement" PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION: The goal of the Quiet Supersonic Platform (QSP) program is to develop and validate critical technology for long-range advanced supersonic aircraft with substantially reduced sonic boom, reduced takeoff and landing noise, and increased efficiency relative to current-technology supersonic aircraft. Improved capabilities include supersonic flight over land without adverse sonic boom consequences, increased unrefueled range, increased area coverage, and lower overall operational cost. Prior experience suggests that no single technology will provide the "silver bullet" required to solve the sonic boom problem. http://alerts.sciencewise.com/foaalert/dod/opp/mti/08170001.htm "Prior experience" ??? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:02:15 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: update on the Kursk - -The US Navy had announced that it had registered two explosions the second much greater than the first. This has now been confirmed by Norwegian Seismologists who say there was one explosion at 0728 and 27 sec registering about 1.5 on the Richter scale. The second at 0730 and 42 sec registering about 3.5 on the Richter scale (equivalent to one to two tons of TNT explosive detonated underwater) - -There where 10 senior naval officers on board as observers. - -There has been a lot of contact between NATO (and some NATO members independently) and the Russians on this matter. There have even been two visits from Russian representatives at NATO headquarters. - - 2/3 of the crew could have been killed by the explosion that sunk the sub according to Jane's. - -The K-141 Kursk was one of the Russian subs with the best trained crews, and was soon to be deployed in the Mediterranean as part of a carrier group. This deployment is/was planned as a show of force, to remind the world that Russia is still a world power. The major exercise in which the Kursk was taking part was a prelude to this deployment. Interestingly this task force is to be led by the Aircraft carrier Kuznetsov, which had to be towed back to port a few months ago, while taking part in another such deployment. Why did they wait? - -The hatches on the Kursk are compatible with the LR5 rescue submarine sent by the British. And the Russians were very likely to know that from the beginning. - - The first estimates had said there should be enough air left until early friday, why take risks? Knowing 48 hr at least were needed if everything went well to get outside help. - -Why was the 'foreign' rescue mission not allowed to land and depart from the military base, which was closest but had instead to take a longer route. Putin is being heavily criticized at home for his apparent lack of interest in the matter. Russian military Top brass seem to be resisting foreign 'interference' and even leaking 'rumors' of foreign responsibility in the accident with Defense minister Sergeyev (ex-commander of strategic rocket forces (nuclear forces), and a noted anti western) backing these stories (i.e. US sub 'ramming' the Kursk, reports of another sub resting on the sea floor then secretly limping back to norway etc...). If so, Putin is likely to have at least not resisted the military, because he is a strong supporter of a 'strong' Russia. We may have seen some political infighting, with some supporting foreign help and openness while others, backed by the defense minister and the military preferring to keep the lid on the accident and avoiding 'outsiders' meddling in their affairs. The decision may have been to try and keep the lid on the whole story (the story was only revealed 2 days later and not by the government or the military), and the military would try it's own rescue. Either they had to concede to a Wednesday deadline (+ 48hrs needed for foreign help to arrive would coincide with the first estimates on amount of air left , which was early Friday) Or they were forced into accepting foreign assistance because of the public outrage. In any case everyone seems to have lost in this affair, first and foremost the sailors of the Kursk, of course. The military and government leaders (including Putin) have now to endure the public outrage, because they have not done everything that could be done to save the sailors, and on the international front Russia will have lost face and prestige, because of having to rely on its 'enemy' for help. Ironically the image that NATO is still the great enemy that they have themselves in a large part created for their political purposes, will now work against them. I just wonder if (or hope that) the Sailors, if any are still alive, and their families know that even the 'enemy' thinks of them as men, and that our thoughts go with them. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:02:03 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon I was reading about the Deep space 1 mission and the Ion propulsion engine, and was wondering if such a system first of all would 'work' as a radar 'cloaking' device, and secondly if it was usable other than theoretically on a stealth platform. The ion drive emits only an eerie blue glow as ionized (electrically charged) atoms of xenon are pushed out of the engine. Xenon is the same gas found in photo flash tubes and many lighthouse bulbs. Ion propulsion is not new, it has been around at least since the 1970's. The engine is very small and it is very efficient (Deep space 1 uses about a 100 gram of Xenon per day) and can operate for long period of times (thousands of hours non-stop) which even if you had to divide into several 'thrusters' to cover the whole platform it would still be enough for 30/40hr missions. Due to the extremely low 'thrust' (said to be equivalent to the pressure exerted by a sheet of paper held in the palm of your hand) such a system provides it would have no effect on the movement of the platform. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:13:56 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: update on the Kursk 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_01C00948.B7E91518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Amen to that..... The Russian people know what their government did (or didn't do in this case) and what it has cost them..... And they know that there were many countries willing to help, but the offers were refused. Putin and his cronies will pay for this dearly, both at home and abroad.... its sad that so many men had to die in the process..... We should all say a few prayers for those men and their families.... Greg W - -----Original Message----- I just wonder if (or hope that) the Sailors, if any are still alive, and their families know that even the 'enemy' thinks of them as men, and that our thoughts go with them. Timothy - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00948.B7E91518 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: update on the Kursk

Amen to that.....  The Russian people know what = their government did (or didn't do in this case) and what it has cost = them.....

And they know that there were many countries willing = to help, but the offers were refused.  Putin and his cronies will = pay for this dearly, both at home and abroad.... its sad that so many = men had to die in the process.....

We should all say a few prayers for those men and = their families....

Greg W

-----Original Message-----
<SNIP>
I just wonder if (or hope that) the Sailors, if any = are still alive, and their
families know that even the 'enemy' thinks of them = as men, and that our thoughts
go with them.
Timothy


- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00948.B7E91518-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:47:38 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: update on the Kursk >-Why was the 'foreign' rescue mission not allowed to land and depart from the >military base, which was closest but had instead to take a longer route. That doesn't seem to be accurate. The reason LR5 was taken to Norway was that after searching a database of ships able to accomdate LR5 and it's hardware, that was the closest one- and even then the ship required modifications. There have been a number of photos in the press of LR5 being flown to Norway on a *Russian* aircraft, and Russians provided techical assistance and money for the operation. So the Russians were not exactly obstructing the LR5 team. 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: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:21:23 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: F-22 testing continues (from AFNS) 001251. Gun door hydraulic system tested on Raptor - Stand-alone photo 001251a - image cutline http://www.af.mil/news/Aug2000/n20000817_001251.html EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFPN) -- The F-22 Raptor's internal-mounted M61A2 six-barreled 20mm lightweight Gatling gun's (upper right wing) hydraulic door was tested during a recent flight test of Raptor 4002 above the Mojave Desert. The successful test was designed to see how the door would react when opened at high speeds. Built by General Dynamics in Burlington, Vt., the gun can fire 6,000 rounds per minute, although the Raptor usually carries only 480 rounds. Almost all current U.S. military fighters and attack jets have been equipped with the M61 or its follow-on models since the 1950s. Consequently, the upgraded gun seems a perfect fit for the next-generation fighter. (Photo by Judson Brohmer) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:02:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: update on the Kursk > >-Why was the 'foreign' rescue mission not allowed to land and depart from the > >military base, which was closest but had instead to take a longer route. > > That doesn't seem to be accurate. The reason LR5 was taken to Norway > was that after searching a database of ships able to accomdate LR5 > and it's hardware, that was the closest one- and even then the ship > required modifications. There have been a number of photos in the > press of LR5 being flown to Norway on a *Russian* aircraft, and I recognized the Russian aircraft, it looked like an Il-76, but I couldn't tell if it had been provided by the Russian air force as I didn't see any markings. I also couldn't tell if the footage was real or pieced together file footage. Can't always trust what you see on TV... Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com > Russians provided techical assistance and money for the operation. > > So the Russians were not exactly obstructing the LR5 team. > > 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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:18:13 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: update on the Kursk I think you are right on that one. From what some say it would have taken the same time whether they where flown to Russia or Norway. But then again you could still say that taking the LR5 aboard a Russian aircraft was putting the mission at risk and therefore an attempt at obstructing the mission :-) Both the Norwegians and the English seem to be very keen to defend the Russians and the fact that they did everything possible, there are even ome statements floating around that they wouldn't have arrived earlier even if the Russians had called on foreign assistance earlier... (If that is the case I don't think much of the so called speed with which they are supposed to operate). I think the plane would have to be an AN-224 rather than an IL-76. You will find info on the LR5 on the royal navy page dedicated to the Kursk recue mission at http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1211.html Anyhow the other arguments still stand, and of course all this is still speculation, but what may have happened is that the Russian military have lost control of the rescue operation in favor of politicians (because some politicians thought it was about time they started thinking about their political health for eg.). So the 'foreign' help is now trying to save the face for the Russian politician, which of course may fly back into NATO's face if they get too late to find anyone left alive on board. On the other hand I have 'no fear for' Putin. He is clever enough, and he will just take this as a pretext to increase spending for the military, this will be presented as a way of saving the lives of the military, and was high on his agenda anyway (the idea is to revive the economy by reviving the military industrial complex, it worked very well for the Germans between the two wars). Timothy Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > >-Why was the 'foreign' rescue mission not allowed to land and depart from the > > >military base, which was closest but had instead to take a longer route. > > > > That doesn't seem to be accurate. The reason LR5 was taken to Norway > > was that after searching a database of ships able to accomdate LR5 > > and it's hardware, that was the closest one- and even then the ship > > required modifications. There have been a number of photos in the > > press of LR5 being flown to Norway on a *Russian* aircraft, and > > I recognized the Russian aircraft, it looked like an Il-76, but I couldn't tell > if it had been provided by the Russian air force as I didn't see any markings. > I also couldn't tell if the footage was real or pieced together file footage. > Can't always trust what you see on TV... > > Sam > > CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC > http://www.darkent.com > > > Russians provided techical assistance and money for the operation. > > > > So the Russians were not exactly obstructing the LR5 team. > > > > 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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:03:15 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: update on the Kursk At 09:18 AM 8/19/00 -0700, you wrote: >I think the plane would have to be an AN-224 rather than an IL-76. > > Antonov An-124-100 Ruslan flown by this group.. http://www.voldn.ru/ http://www.voldn.ru/124photo.htm We've been watching the 124's coming and going here in Louisville. Impressive planes.. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:05:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: update on the Kursk > I think you are right on that one. From what some say it would have taken the same > time whether they where flown to Russia or Norway. > But then again you could still say that taking the LR5 aboard a Russian aircraft was > putting the mission at risk and therefore an attempt at obstructing the mission :-) > Both the Norwegians and the English seem to be very keen to defend the Russians and > the fact that they did everything possible, there are even ome statements floating > around that they wouldn't have arrived earlier even if the Russians had called on > foreign assistance earlier... > (If that is the case I don't think much of the so called speed with which they are > supposed to operate). > > I think the plane would have to be an AN-224 rather than an IL-76. The one they showed on TV was an Il-76, although I too thought that they would have used an AN-124. That's why I made that comment about not being able to trust what you see on TV. This is probably unrelated, but isn't the RAF leasing Russian AN-124's to satisfy their short-term heavy lift requirements? Incidentally, I don't mean to blame anyone or ruffle anyone's feathers but if it was up to me, a US Navy DSRV would have been on a C-17/C-5 within a couple of hours after the accident and would have been in Russia or Norway within 8 hours after that. If the Russians continued to refuse offers to help, I'd park the C-17/C-5 with the DSRV at the nearest Norwegian airbase and sat there until they were forced to change their minds. To the best of my knowledge US Navy DSRVs are permanently on hot standby, can be mobilized in virtually no time and are fully compatible with USAF transports, so responding to emergencies like this one shouldn't be a problem. I also don't buy the British excuses about not being ready to go... submarine rescue vehicles are designed to be able to respond rapidly to any emergency, there is no point in having rescue vehicles if you cannot deploy them within 24 hours or less of an accident -- if you can't get to the crew of a stranded sub within 24 hours they're most likely going to be toast! I believe we should have helped in this rescue for humanitarian as well as foreign policy reasons despite Russian refusals to accept US assistance. If we let the world know that we had a DSRV right next door (in Norway) ready to go withing 10 hours of the accident, I think they would have been compelled to accept our assistance earlier. It is highly unlikely anyone is still alive at this point (a whole week after the accident!). Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com > You will find info on the LR5 on the royal navy page dedicated to the Kursk recue > mission at > http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1211.html > > Anyhow the other arguments still stand, and of course all this is still speculation, > but what may have happened is that the Russian military have lost control of the > rescue operation in favor of politicians (because some politicians thought it was > about time they started thinking about their political health for eg.). So the > 'foreign' help is now trying to save the face for the Russian politician, which of > course may fly back into NATO's face if they get too late to find anyone left alive > on board. > On the other hand I have 'no fear for' Putin. He is clever enough, and he will just > take this as a pretext to increase spending for the military, this will be presented > as a way of saving the lives of the military, and was high on his agenda anyway (the > idea is to revive the economy by reviving the military industrial complex, it worked > very well for the Germans between the two wars). > Timothy > > > > > > Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > > >-Why was the 'foreign' rescue mission not allowed to land and depart from the > > > >military base, which was closest but had instead to take a longer route. > > > > > > That doesn't seem to be accurate. The reason LR5 was taken to Norway > > > was that after searching a database of ships able to accomdate LR5 > > > and it's hardware, that was the closest one- and even then the ship > > > required modifications. There have been a number of photos in the > > > press of LR5 being flown to Norway on a *Russian* aircraft, and > > > > I recognized the Russian aircraft, it looked like an Il-76, but I couldn't tell > > if it had been provided by the Russian air force as I didn't see any markings. > > I also couldn't tell if the footage was real or pieced together file footage. > > Can't always trust what you see on TV... > > > > Sam > > > > CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC > > http://www.darkent.com > > > > > Russians provided techical assistance and money for the operation. > > > > > > So the Russians were not exactly obstructing the LR5 team. > > > > > > 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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:14:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: update on the Kursk There is a documentary on the History Channel about submarine rescue (came on at 0700 Hours EDT). One of the first things they mentioned was the fact that US Navy Deep Submergence Units (DSUs) with their DSRVs, diving bells, etc. can deploy anywhere in the world in under 38 hours. I suspect they will re-run it after midnight EDT tonight. Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:03:14 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: update on the Kursk > > The one they showed on TV was an Il-76, although I too > thought that they would > have used an AN-124. That's why I made that comment about not > being able to > trust what you see on TV. > > This is probably unrelated, but isn't the RAF leasing Russian > AN-124's to > satisfy their short-term heavy lift requirements? Nope, the RAF is getting 4 C-17s (the construction of the first one started at Boeing last month) on a lease until the new fleet of A440s is delivered. In the meantime half of the existing C-130 are being replaced with 25 C-130Js. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:14:23 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: update on the Kursk > >The one they showed on TV was an Il-76, although I too thought that they would >have used an AN-124. That's why I made that comment about not being able to >trust what you see on TV. > Heres the CNN picture of the loading onto the AN-124 http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/17/russia.submarine.02/story.russia. sub.ap.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:17:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: update on the Kursk > >The one they showed on TV was an Il-76, although I too thought that they > would > >have used an AN-124. That's why I made that comment about not being able to > >trust what you see on TV. > > > > Heres the CNN picture of the loading onto the AN-124 > Yes, that is an AN-124, but the aircraft they showed early this week was an Il-76... go figure... they did not show the sub actually being loaded, they just showed an Il-76 taking off... The British sub probably wouldn't fit in an Il-76 which is why I was wondering... Incidentally, the US Navy DSRV will fit in a C-5 but I'm not certain if it will fit in the C-17 or the C-141. > > http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/17/russia.submarine.02/story.russia. > sub.ap.jpg > Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:12:32 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLC-Mission) U-2/SR-71 funding and ops This is the first I have heard of this. By this time 75+, I believe the SR-71 did belong to the AF. That was the rub with the AF leadership. They cost so much to operate, were an "intelligence" asset for tasking, and they could not drop bombs or shoot guns. The early YF-12s belonged to CIA. CIA also phased out their early U-2 opns and turned most or all of the assets (a/c) over to the AF. Funds for these operations came from various sources. For example, while I was on the Air Staff in late 80's the AF intel budget funded milcon to build additional ramp space and hangers at Beale for the U-2s (I think). One of my projects was competing with it in the budget rack and stack. (We both got funded). When you get into funding for intelligence operations there are some interesting combinations and colors of money. For years the AF paid for the "range" ships that collected Soviet telemetry off Kamchatka in the Far East. You don't think that didn't irritate the AF Chief of Staff! Enough of this for tonite. Tom Lee Bzaza wrote: > While at Beale (75-84), I believe that I heard that the SR's were not > technically in the AF inventory; that NASA (or some other D.C. agency) > had ownership of them. I heard that because of the "funding" for their > flying was extremely high, those funds came elsewhere. So as to "who" > owned them, it would be best to find out "definitely" from the folks at > the Blackbird Assn. at: > http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/sr-71~1.htm > Since I do not know for sure, and only expressing those things that > were circulated back then, your best bet would be to contact that site. > "Bzaza" - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com > 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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:27:54 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: update on the Kursk John Szalay wrote: > > At 09:18 AM 8/19/00 -0700, you wrote: > >I think the plane would have to be an AN-224 rather than an IL-76. > > > > > > Antonov An-124-100 Ruslan flown by this group.. > > http://www.voldn.ru/ > > http://www.voldn.ru/124photo.htm > > We've been watching the 124's coming and going here in Louisville. > Impressive planes.. I wonder if the US, CIA, etc. considered offering to use the old Hughes Glomar Explorer! They could just list the whole damn thing up. The sub probably isn't as heavy as the one they tried to raise years ago. Al ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:48:57 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: update on the Kursk > I wonder if the US, CIA, etc. considered offering to > use the old Hughes Glomar Explorer! They could just > list the whole damn thing up. The sub probably isn't > as heavy as the one they tried to raise years ago. The Kursk SSGN is much larger than the Golf SSB the GE tried to recover: Ca. 18,000 tons submerged vs 3,500; 158 meters long, vs 99; 18 meters beam vs 8.5. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #63 ******************************** 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