From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 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 Sunday, August 27 2000 Volume 09 : Number 065 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon Re: Above Top Secret Re: Above Top Secret Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: Brighter than the Baghdad Sun RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: Above Top Secret Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 08:34:36 +0200 From: Andreas Parsch Subject: Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > If it is ionized plasma (which is what plasma is by definition - duh!!!) it will > light up the aircraft like a Christmass tree... (please forgive the > quasi-religious comment) both by reflecting radar signals and generating an IR > signature. Then there's the problem of keeping the plasma conformed to the > airframe and preventing it from degrading aerodynamic performance. And on top of > all that, you would need to ensure that the "plasma cloud" surrounding the > airframe does not generate a visual signature that would presumably be visible > for tens of miles (after all the aurora borealis and the aurora australis are > plasma phenomena visible hundreds if not thousands of miles away). > > Unless someone's been able to re-write the laws of physics, I don't see how a > plasma stealth device could work... > > Please correct me if I'm wrong... where's a physicist when you need one? > > Sam > Hello, I am a physicist (well, at least I've got a physics degree from a German university - judge for yourself what this is worth ;-) ), and have stopped reading any postings/articles about "plasma stealth" a long time ago. As you say, these "concepts" are rather stretching the well(?)-known laws of physics. Another problem with articles about "plasma stealth" is, that some of them tend to drift towards "electrogravitic propulsion" schemes, especially when the B-2 is discussed. And this "electrogravitics" is IMHO _really heavy_ BS (sorry)! But then, I'm not Einstein, so I may be completely wrong ;-)! Andreas - -- US Military Aviation Designation Systems http://www.andreas-parsch.online.de/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 08:16:26 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon Pfiuuu! Thank you for those explanations. You really saved me from utter humiliation. I was planning on relying heavily on the 'plasma field theory' for my next Stealth Tricycle. I guess there is a lot of BS flying around on the web! Talking about flying Christmas trees, it seems that the same would go for visual stealth relying on LED. As these would generate too much heat (and would need too much power) although I still don't know what their effect on the RCS would be. Timothy Andreas Parsch wrote: > Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > If it is ionized plasma (which is what plasma is by definition - duh!!!) it will > > light up the aircraft like a Christmass tree... (please forgive the > > quasi-religious comment) both by reflecting radar signals and generating an IR > > signature. Then there's the problem of keeping the plasma conformed to the > > airframe and preventing it from degrading aerodynamic performance. And on top of > > all that, you would need to ensure that the "plasma cloud" surrounding the > > airframe does not generate a visual signature that would presumably be visible > > for tens of miles (after all the aurora borealis and the aurora australis are > > plasma phenomena visible hundreds if not thousands of miles away). > > > > Unless someone's been able to re-write the laws of physics, I don't see how a > > plasma stealth device could work... > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong... where's a physicist when you need one? > > > > Sam > > > > Hello, > > I am a physicist (well, at least I've got a physics degree from a > German university - judge for yourself what this is worth ;-) ), and > have stopped reading any postings/articles about "plasma stealth" a > long time ago. As you say, these "concepts" are rather stretching > the well(?)-known laws of physics. > Another problem with articles about "plasma stealth" is, that some > of them tend to drift towards "electrogravitic propulsion" schemes, > especially when the B-2 is discussed. And this "electrogravitics" > is IMHO _really heavy_ BS (sorry)! But then, I'm not Einstein, so > I may be completely wrong ;-)! > > Andreas > > -- > US Military Aviation Designation Systems > http://www.andreas-parsch.online.de/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:17:22 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon > Andreas Parsch wrote: > I am a physicist (well, at least I've got a physics degree from a > German university - judge for yourself what this is worth ;-) ), and > have stopped reading any postings/articles about "plasma stealth" a > long time ago. As you say, these "concepts" are rather stretching > the well(?)-known laws of physics. I'm just off out, so please excuse this if it's a little garbled - I just find it too interesting to resist ! I've spoken with several academics and engineers who don't find the concept of radar signature reduction by plasma to be such a stretch. Non thermal plasma is being used to reduce NoX emission levels in car exhaust, and plasma antennae are also under investigation. One of the challenges seems to be maintaining a dense enough plasma around the aircraft. If the a/c is surrounded by a plasma envelope and is therefore brighter than it would be without it - might that not have the same effect as the Yehudi lights of WWII - after all, it seems matching luminosity rather than background colour is key to reducing visual sig. Could this offer the possibility of daylight stealth ops ? > Another problem with articles about "plasma stealth" is, that some > of them tend to drift towards "electrogravitic propulsion" schemes, > especially when the B-2 is discussed. And this "electrogravitics" > is IMHO _really heavy_ BS (sorry)! But then, I'm not Einstein, so > I may be completely wrong ;-)! Aerodynamic drag reduction by charging the leading and trailing edges of the wing is often discussed wrt to the B-2 - I don't know if it's used on the Spirits, but the concept is often kicked around in theory. Electrogravitics is an odd one. I'd be very interested to hear why you think it's '_really heavy_ BS.' I assume you've read the report cited below - why do you suppose do many of the leading aerospace companies were so involved in elctrogravitics back then ? Just curious :) ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS An examination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control. Prepared by: Gravity Research Group Aviation Studies (International) Limited Special Weapons Study Unit 29-31 Cheval Place, Knightsbridge London, S.W.7. England Report GRG-013/56 February 1956. AF Wright Aeronautical Laboratories Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Technical Library Dayton, Ohio 45433 TL 565 A9 BEGIN EXTRACT 1: "Electrostatic energy for propulsion has been predicted as a possible means of propulsion in space when the thrust from a neutron motor or ion motor would be sufficient in a dragless environment to produce astronomical velocities. But the ion motor is not strictly a part of the science of electrogravitics, since barycentric control in an electrogravitics system is envisaged for a vehicle operating within the earth's environment and it is not seen initially for space application. END BEGIN EXTRACT 2 Also included is a list of references to electrogravitics in successive Aviation Reports since a drive was started by Aviation Studies (International) Limited to suggest to aviation business eighteen months ago that the rewards of success are too far-reaching to be overlooked, especially in view of the hopeful judgement of the most authoritative voices in microphysics. Also listed are some relevant patents on electrostatics and electrostatic generators in the United States, United Kingdom and France. END Best David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:14:26 +0200 From: Andreas Parsch Subject: Re: Ionised 'cloak' using Xenon David wrote: > > Electrogravitics is an odd one. I'd be very interested to hear why you > think it's > '_really heavy_ BS.' Well AFAIK the term "Electrogravitics" is used to describe the coupling of electromagnetic and gravitational forces, e.g. by using an electomagnetic field to somehow manipulate the local gravity field in such a way, that an aircraft or spaceship is "pulled" forward or upward. (A "simple" ion engine is a totally different case.) I think this is BS because many leading theoretical physicists in the last 75 years have tried to connect gravity to electromagnetism - or any other force. All (apparently!) completely without success. The military may have some very bright brains working for them, but I can't imagine that they are _that_ far ahead of "open" science. Anyway, if we just use _commonly known_ laws of physics, an "electrogravitic" drive as defined above is simply impossible. > > I assume you've read the report cited below - why do you suppose do many of > the leading aerospace companies were so involved in elctrogravitics back > then ? I didn't read the report. If this fact disqualifies me for making useful comments, stop reading now ;-)! Well "back then" (I assume the 50s to late 60s) _everthing_ was imaginable. Nuclear science was relatively new. Quantum Theory and General Relativity were not understood as well as they are today. > > Just curious :) > > ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS > > An examination of electrostatic motion, > dynamic counterbary and barycentric control. Uh oh, now my English is reaching its limits :-(( ... "dynamic counterbary control" - what's "counterbary"?? > > Prepared by: > Gravity Research Group > Aviation Studies (International) Limited > Special Weapons Study Unit > 29-31 Cheval Place, Knightsbridge > London, S.W.7. England > > Report GRG-013/56 February 1956. > > AF Wright Aeronautical Laboratories > Wright-Patterson Air Force Base > Technical Library > Dayton, Ohio 45433 > > TL 565 A9 > > BEGIN EXTRACT 1: > > "Electrostatic energy for propulsion has been predicted as a possible means > of propulsion in space when the thrust from a neutron motor or ion motor > would be sufficient in a dragless environment to produce astronomical > velocities. But the ion motor is not strictly a part of the science of > electrogravitics, since barycentric control in an electrogravitics system > is envisaged for a vehicle operating within the earth's environment and it > is not seen initially for space application. > END > > BEGIN EXTRACT 2 > > Also included is a list of references to electrogravitics in successive > Aviation Reports since a drive was started by Aviation Studies > (International) Limited to suggest to aviation business eighteen months ago > that the rewards of success are too far-reaching to be overlooked, > especially in view of the hopeful judgement of the most authoritative > voices in microphysics. Also listed are some relevant patents on > electrostatics and electrostatic generators in the United States, United > Kingdom > and France. > END > > Best > > David " .. that the rewards of success are too far-reaching to be overlooked." Well, I think this is the number 1 reason for any serious research in that field. It may sound impossible, but _if_ someone makes a breakthrough, then it will be the invention of the millenium! And finally: I am NOT AN EXPERT in electrogravitics or similar technologies. I just have a physics background which is probably at least slighly more detailed than that of the "average" aviation enthusiast (I hope this statement was formulated carefully enough not to offend anyone ;-)! ). So please don't take any of my statements too seriously. Regards Andreas - -- US Military Aviation Designation Systems http://www.andreas-parsch.online.de/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:15:24 -0400 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Above Top Secret my 2 cents. I talked with someone at the DOD Security Institute a couple of years ago and he said that there is no rating above Top Secret, only Special Access Programs that limit access to those in the SAP. He said there was testiony in Congress a few years before where someone said "That's above Top Secret" and that's where the rumor started that there is a higher clearance. I also heard from a person who worked in a weapons lab who said " in -- division you need a higher than Q clearance." (The top clearance the Energy Department has). But another person said its a compartmented clearance, (added to the Q clearnace). All the research I've done says TS is the limit, SAP's are added to TS clearances to limit access. James ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:35:30 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Above Top Secret > All the research I've done says TS is the limit, SAP's are added to TS > clearances to limit access. That's my understanding, and I worked in DC for some 25 years, held TS, various SCI, SAP/SAR clearances. The way I came to think of it is that the classification system is two-dimensional: the vertical axis, corresponding to CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET, is defined in terms of direness of damage to the national security if revealed; the horizontal is a codification of "need to know," with a very large number of compartments corresponding to various activities. Kind of a 3x3,000 table. People with a vanilla TS clearance wouldn't be able to see CONFIDENTIAL HOPTOAD material if they hadn't been read into the HOPTOAD compartment. In practice, for very tightly held information and activities, the compartmentation could easily create the impression -- and the effect -- of "above TOP SECRET." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:14:39 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Forgot to add, the Wing Commander also said, that it was a 31 hour nonstop flying mission. Let's see. Crew of 2 and a 31 hour duty day. 31 hour duty day - no way, not even if the crew take turns laying back and sleeping, and the entire flight is computer controlled. Lee As see on TV, CBS special, two part series, Silver Bullet (reliance on military technology). Commander of the B-2 Wing. "Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a "stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics and an EM field . ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:08:36 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 As see on TV, CBS special, two part series, Silver Bullet (reliance on military technology). Commander of the B-2 Wing. "Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a "stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics and an EM field . ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:27:51 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 >As see on TV, CBS special, two part series, Silver Bullet (reliance on >military technology). > >Commander of the B-2 Wing. > >"Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". > >Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And >apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a >"stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics >and an EM field . All American LO aircraft have stealth aspects that are "turned on" at some point during the mission, wether this is radio silence, retractable antennas/apetures, or LPI radar modes. The F-117 has a number of retractable antennas, and I beleive the B-2 does as well, and the B-2 does have an LPI radar- one of the most highly classified parts of the aircraft. Sorta gives new meaning to the term "black box". 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, 26 Aug 2000 18:43:53 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel additive turned on. If there was active radar, no doubt it was shut down and radio transmissions limited to those sent upwards to satellites. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Lee Markland Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 6:09 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 As see on TV, CBS special, two part series, Silver Bullet (reliance on military technology). Commander of the B-2 Wing. "Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a "stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics and an EM field . ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:47:24 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 I have to agree. The phrases 'stealth mode on', 'going stealthy' are used by British crews when they're going into combat. It just means that they switch off as many active systems as possible etc. If you interpret it as meaning switch on the force field etc then you've just been watching star trek too much! There's a few pages about the radar on Raytheon's web site and a lot of other avionics. > >As see on TV, CBS special, two part series, Silver Bullet > (reliance on > >military technology). > > > >Commander of the B-2 Wing. > > > >"Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". > > > >Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And > >apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does > not have a > >"stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based > on electronics > >and an EM field . > > All American LO aircraft have stealth aspects that are "turned on" at > some point during the mission, wether this is radio silence, > retractable antennas/apetures, or LPI radar modes. The F-117 has a > number of retractable antennas, and I beleive the B-2 does as well, > and the B-2 does have an LPI radar- one of the most highly classified > parts of the aircraft. Sorta gives new meaning to the term "black > box". > > 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, 26 Aug 2000 18:48:13 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 At 03:14 PM 8/26/00 -0700, you wrote: >Forgot to add, the Wing Commander also said, that it was a 31 hour nonstop >flying mission. >Let's see. Crew of 2 and a 31 hour duty day. > >31 hour duty day - no way, not even if the crew take turns laying back and >sleeping, and the entire flight is computer controlled. > >Lee > > >As see on TV, CBS special, two part series, Silver Bullet (reliance on >military technology). > >Commander of the B-2 Wing. > >"Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". > >Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And >apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a >"stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics >and an EM field . > > IHMO: this is more a point of turning OFF the Transponders and international required nav aids, such as nav lights, marker lights ( retractable, as used appears to be used on the F-117) and making sure that ALL radios, radars are OFF . So it would be a case of "stealth is based on a lack of electronics" removing ANY possible emitters. one man's opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:51:53 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Brighter than the Baghdad Sun I too picked up "Brighter Than the Baghdad Sun" and read it in a weekend... >Some have complained about the lack of cited sources and to a certain >extent I think that's a valid criticism. I can understand why the >identity of their Iraqi sources have to be kept secret (as will you, From the material in the book, it seemed to me that quite a bit of their sources were Iraqi dissidents, and you can't really expect them to be objective, and they're kinda hard to cross-check. > >On page 218 they talk about Tornados finding a caravan of several motor >homes in the desert (Saddam is known to travel in Winnabagos) and being >told by the US not to destroy them, but let the Navy do it. By the time >the Navy arrived, the campers had scattered. I hadn't heard that story, >but they didn't include a couple of stories I had heard. 1) An F-16 had >stumbled across a convoy later determined to have contained Saddam, used >one bomb to take out the lead vehicle and another to take out tail-end >Charlie. Being an F-16, he was then out of bombs and Saddam escaped. 2) >Smallwood's book on F-15Es in the Gulf War described a couple of Beagles >being sent after a Winnabago and finding a smoking hole because my >beloved Varks got there first. They also didn't mention the plan to flood out Baghdad by using a SADM on the Tigris and Euphrates dams. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_b.html Here Horner talks a little about the "Winnebago missions", though he *only* mentions an A-10 sortie. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/horner/3.html Glosson talks baout the same thing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/glosson/1.html One "special mission" that had been mentioned in a number of Gulf War analysis was "Horner's Buster", though I didn't find any articles on it online. Supposed there was a standing order out that if Saddam was known to be flying somewhere, the nearest fighters would get a "Horner's Buster" order to intercept Saddam. > >One clear error was on page 224 when they talk about F-14s dropping >bombs during Desert Storm. They didn't get that capability until the >mid-1990s and are now the platform of choice for dropping LGBs. I >suspect the authors were talking about an F-111F strike, but its >impossible to confirm because no dates are given. The book was fraught with errors- no mention was given to the several *other* cars that came out of Iraq with Hussein Kamel, and much of the story of his stay in Jordan was complete fiction. >As an interesting aside (and not covered in the book that stops at the >end of 1999), there have been recent reports that Saddam is seriously >ill, perhaps with cancer. Also, we haven't dropped a bomb since the 14th >of June in northern Iraq and the 22nd of July in the south. 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... Somebody must have read your post and decided that it was time to get in the monthly bombings. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:44:13 -0700 From: "Dave Cox" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 On 26 Aug 00, at 18:43, Frank Markus wrote: >If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt >that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel >additive turned on. If there was active radar, no doubt it was shut down >and radio transmissions limited to those sent upwards to satellites. In the particular case of the B-2, yaw is normally controlled by splitting the control surfaces open, which raises the signature quite a bit. In stealth mode, yaw is controlled by differential engine thrust, and you hope you don't have to turn very much. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:59:23 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Above Top Secret jaz5@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > my 2 cents. > > I talked with someone at the DOD Security Institute a couple of years > ago and he said that there is no rating above Top Secret, only Special > Access Programs that limit access to those in the SAP. He said there > was testiony in Congress a few years before where someone said "That's > above Top Secret" and that's where the rumor started that there is a > higher clearance. > > I also heard from a person who worked in a weapons lab who said > " in -- division you need a higher than Q clearance." (The top > clearance the Energy Department has). But another person said its a > compartmented clearance, (added to the Q clearnace). > > All the research I've done says TS is the limit, SAP's are added to TS > clearances to limit access. > > James That fits in well with my work experience. At one time I had a "Q" clearance. A group who ran a particular program needed to have it updated. I had to wait until I was given special access to that program before I could work on it. Once i was done with it, the special access was withdrawn. Al ps: if I had gone through the whole interview process with the CIA, I wonder what sort of clearance I would have had. I guess ones like "L" and "Q" were associated with AEC (old) and DOE gov't agencies. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:22:39 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 At 03:14 PM 8/26/00 -0700, you wrote: > >Commander of the B-2 Wing. > >"Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". > >Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And >apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a >"stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics >and an EM field . > > Yep and here's a picture of that moment that the clocking device takes effect.. http://www.af.mil/photos/Jun2000/000627-f-0000a-001.jpg ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:48:54 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 John Szalay wrote: > At 03:14 PM 8/26/00 -0700, you wrote: > >Commander of the B-2 Wing. > >"Somewhere enroute to Bosnia, we TURNED ON THE STEALTH". > >Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And > >apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a > >"stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics > >and an EM field . > Yep and here's a picture of that moment that the clocking device takes > effect.. > http://www.af.mil/photos/Jun2000/000627-f-0000a-001.jpg > ;-) Interestingly the picture does prove the point, except that it is not in stealth mode at the time. Notice the little position lights on the wings, how they are 'sticking out' and how you can see just behind them the little (open) doors that cover them when they are retracted. Dave Cox wrote: > On 26 Aug 00, at 18:43, Frank Markus wrote: > > >If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt > >that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. > > > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were > >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel > >additive turned on. If there was active radar, no doubt it was shut down > >and radio transmissions limited to those sent upwards to satellites. > > In the particular case of the B-2, yaw is normally controlled by splitting > the > control surfaces open, which raises the signature quite a bit. In stealth > mode, > yaw is controlled by differential engine thrust, and you hope you don't have > to turn very much. I believe this is the 'combat mode'. There is apparently a switch or button titled combat mode, which would presumably take care off all these signature reduction measures automatically (including limiting radio emissions, anti contrail additive etc...). Which could also explain the "turned on the stealth" remark. Lee Markland wrote: > Forgot to add, the Wing Commander also said, that it was a 31 hour nonstop > flying mission. Let's see. Crew of 2 and a 31 hour duty day. > 31 hour duty day - no way, not even if the crew take turns laying back and > sleeping, and the entire flight is computer controlled. > Lee I guess like most of us they just press the 'T' (time acceleration key) on the keyboard when nothing interesting is happening, and it should then only take them about 3 hours. :-) This seems to have been one of the concerns of planners and crew in the beginning although they now say that they would only start worrying about pilot fatigue for more than 40 hour missions. In fact there where more crews than B-2's tasked for this mission (8 B-2's so that 6 would always available, and 51 pilots flew missions (some up to 3 but most only one). Although it was a requirement that pilots get at least three days of rest between each mission, the AF claims that the pilots seemed 'alert and ready to get back in the rotation for another mission" ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #65 ******************************** 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