From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #78 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 Tuesday, October 3 2000 Volume 09 : Number 078 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** UCAV Unveiled New ? webpage for Skunk info ? Air Force Print News: Sept. 29, 2000 X-planes Tier 3 revealed Re: Tier 3 revealed Re: X-planes Req: World's Fastest? Re: Req: World's Fastest? Re: Has anyone heard, is HYPER-X (X-43A) flying this month? RE: UCAV Unveiled RE: World's Fastest RE: World's Fastest Re: Has anyone heard, is HYPER-X (X-43A) flying this month? RE: World's Fastest RE: UCAV Unveiled URL for Skunkers RE: World's Fastest RE: UCAV Unveiled Fwd: CSIS Report F-22 questions RE: URL for Skunkers Re: F-22 questions Re: Tier 3 revealed Closure on the Groom Lake lawsuit, anti-mine testing at Tonopah *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:22:54 -0500 From: Steve Douglass Subject: UCAV Unveiled In light of Dan's excellent UCAV posts... Boeing and the Air Force unveiled the X-45 A.. yesterday .. an unmanned stealth combat (fighter) aircraft. According to the Boeing press release the X-45-a is an unmanned combat aerial vehicle they are developing under a 131 million dollar contract with the Air Force. Flight testing is planned for next spring at Edwards AFB. Also according to Boeing : "The X-45-A could significantly change the way future wars are fought because it would limit pilot exposure while improving combat readiness. It would detect and supress enemy air defenses and strike missions ahead of manned combat strike forces." You can view the Boeing UCAV at: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000927n.htm _Steve IN GOD WE TRUST.. ALL OTHERS WE MONITOR! The New Project Black is coming soon! Also: Visit our cool collector's site: http://www.benhurtradingco.com Antiques, pop culture, Texas treasures and much more! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:27:30 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: New ? webpage for Skunk info ? http://www.blackworld.freeservers.com/ U-2/SR-71 Maintainers Homepage ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:14:56 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Air Force Print News: Sept. 29, 2000 Welcome to today's U.S. Air Force ONLINE NEWS -- You can find more Air Force News at http://www.af.mil/news/. Today's stories include: 001495. Boeing unveils UCAV To view these stories online go to Air Force Online News at http://www.af.mil All stories in this message as well as any referenced images are in the public domain and do not require copyright release. Story submissions should be sent to news@afnews.af.mil. To subscribe or unsubscribe from this service, send e-mail to usafnews@afnews.af.mil. 001495. Boeing unveils UCAV by Senior Airman Oshawn Jefferson Air Force Print News SAN ANTONIO -- A glimpse of how the Air Force might conduct future combat operations was revealed Sept. 27, when the Boeing Aircraft Company unveiled the first Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle to a crowd of more than 400 spectators at Lambert Field, St. Louis, Mo. "This new aircraft will take on some of the dangerous and demanding kinds of missions during a combat situation," said Lt. Col. Michael Leahy, UCAV government program manager. "We see in the future that this aircraft will help take care of some of the air to ground threats that we face right now and allow manned assets to do their jobs more efficient and safer." Only 27 feet long with a 34-foot wingspan, the UCAV is designed to carry a variety of weapons and be stored unassembled in small container for up to 10 years. It can be restored in one hour and up to six UCAVs can fit inside a C-17 Globemaster III. "These aircraft will allow Air Force leaders to breathe easier when making a combat decision," said Maj. Rob Vanderberry, an Air Combat Command spokesperson. "What UCAV lets us do is attack a target without the concern of loosing a pilot, or having someone become a prisoner of war." The development of the UCAV could significantly alter the way future wars are fought, because it would limit pilot exposure to war, while improving combat readiness. The UCAV is designed to detect and suppress enemy air defense and strike missions ahead of manned combat strike forces. The plane would be used to augment manned Air Force fighters on high-risk, high-priority missions. "As the threat changes we think this system will allow us to effectively perform a part of our mission that will help us secure air supremacy," Leahy said. "And from a maintainers point of view, we think this vehicle takes advantage of the next generation of maintainers, because it is all-electric, and it takes all hydraulics out (of the picture) and can it be stored." The new UCAV will also prove to be cost effective. Each one will cost about $10 million, about one-third of the cost of a next-generation aircraft. Also because there is no need for a pilot, the cost is significantly reduced because there won't be cockpit. "This aircraft will by no means spell the end for the Air Force's need for pilots," Leahy said. "The role of the pilot will change concerning this aircraft, but I think the person who operates this in the mission control console has to have every bit the knowledge of strategy and tactics in the operational art of war that any pilot has." Flight-testing the UCAV is slated to begin in the spring of 2001 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Further risk production and operation evaluation efforts also must occur before the Air Force deems the UCAV feasible for mass production. "Our objective is to have all the testing completed by 2005," Leahy said. "Then we would have the necessary information needed to field these aircraft by 2010 if the Air Force decides to use them." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:48:53 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: X-planes > Fresh photos of the Curtiss-Wright X-19. Why not call the spark plug behind the whole program, Hank Borst? His phone number is (215)525-0112 or (215)687-8986. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:01:20 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Tier 3 revealed > I'm sure someone on the list has been wondering what happened to BAT, > LOCAAS, and the other mini-munition programs that disappeared from > view a few years ago (granted, those programs have gotten some press, > but not enough) Not me - I just got done with some work on LOCAAS. As to X-wing - despite the common misconception, it NEVER flew!. What flew was the RSRA with no rotor, as part of the workup to the X-wing flights. RSRA can fly as a helicopter, a compound helicopter or as a fixed wing aircraft and it did so at various stages of its life. The number 2 RSRA was modified to be a X-wing demonstrator, but never flew as such. I worked on X-wing at Sikorsky, and the concept had serious problems. Funny story: the test pilot at Sikorsky sho volunteered to be the X-wing pilot was near retirement and figured it would never fly. He started to get concerned when the mod was getting completed, but fortune shown on him and the program was euthanized before his moment came! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:43:39 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Tier 3 revealed > >As to X-wing - despite the common misconception, it NEVER flew!. What >flew was the RSRA with no rotor, as part of the workup to the X-wing >flights. RSRA can fly as a helicopter, a compound helicopter or as a >fixed wing aircraft and it did so at various stages of its life. The Ah, this was a point I was trying ot make clear in my post, but it was late, and I've been drinking way too much coffee lately. The NASA/Sikorsky X-wing only flew as either a fixed wing aircraft (with no main rotor) or as a helicopter (with the main rotor, but not able to stop the rotor to convert to "X-wing" configuration). Both NASA and the contractor team did a lot of interesting work with the engine (TF34?) to enable an X-wing to use a single powerplant for both rotary wing and jet-powered fixed wing (stopped main rotor) flight. McD's X-wing, flying out of our favorite Ranch in Nevada, *did* fly with a stopped rotor, but did not try and conquer the same challenges that the NASA effort did. The complementary DARPA/McDD black program concentrated on stealth and operational issues, while NASA tackled the hard stuff :) There is a long and interesting history of black programs with complentary/counterpart white world NASA programs (X-wing, X-36, Delta Clipper, etc.) where DARPA or a military service concentrates with one contractor on military-specific issues like stealth, while the NASA-lead team with another contractor actually tries to make whatever concept is being tested flyable (though with X-wing and at least one other program I can think of, it's questionable wether the concept was really flyable). Both programs are essentially ignorant of each other, while only DARPA has access to both sets of data. >number 2 RSRA was modified to be a X-wing demonstrator, but never flew as >such. I worked on X-wing at Sikorsky, and the concept had serious >problems. Funny story: the test pilot at Sikorsky sho volunteered to be >the X-wing pilot was near retirement and figured it would never fly. He >started to get concerned when the mod was getting completed, but fortune >shown on him and the program was euthanized before his moment came! Did they ever announce whose test pilot would fly the X-30? NASA, contractor...? Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/ - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:50:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Req: World's Fastest? > Greetings from UK! > > My young son recently asked me: > "Dad, If the SR-71 never flies again, what'll be the > World's 'fastest' aircraft?" > > I replied that technically the Shuttle may be it, > but many may disagree... I remember a stripped-out > F-15 'Streak' Eagle won many time-to-height climb > records - but top speed? > > Without referring to a new Guinness Book of Records, > can I ask the opinion of our illustrious members? > > MTIA, IIRC: Officially the fastest non-air breathing aircraft is the X-15 which reached Mach 6.72 at over 100K ft. I believe the fastest air-breathing aircraft after the SR-71 (Mach 3++) is the Mig-25 Foxbat (Mach ~2.8) followed by the F-15 (Mach 2.65+) and the F-4E (Mach ~2.6). The space shuttle is in a category of its own as it is non-air breathing like the X-15 however it is also a spacecraft which becomes a huge glider on descent. Since it is rocket powered and requires additional external boosters on ascent and is unpowered during its descent you cannot compare it to other aircraft or spacecraft directly. The international bodies that set the rules for aerospace records have pretty stringent requirements and they also have all kinds of classifications for different types of aircraft and if I remember correctly aircraft can only compete against aircraft in their own category or something like that. I think Andreas can answer this a lot better than I can. Sleepy Sam PS I am not going to comment on aircraft that do not exist. CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:30:26 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: Has anyone heard, is HYPER-X (X-43A) flying this month? Larry Smith craved: > > Last May they slipped the first Mach 7 flight to September. > > So what's going on. > > I'm starting to get my twitch. It must be getting ready. > > GO BABY GO!! > > Break the X-15A-2's record! Larry There's no easy way to tell you, but you're suffering from premature twitch syndrome ! According to DFRC (today) the flight's been re-scheduled for Jan-Feb 2001. No particular factor is being singled out. On the brighter side the first flight of the X-38 in its modified, if sub-scale CRV shape (131R ?) will take place in Nov this year. Nice to see you're still here ! Best Dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:58:39 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: UCAV Unveiled Steve Douglass [mailto:webbfeat@1s.net] wrote: > In light of Dan's excellent UCAV posts... > > Boeing and the Air Force unveiled the X-45 A.. yesterday .. > an unmanned stealth combat (fighter) aircraft. > > According to the Boeing press release the X-45-a is an unmanned combat > aerial vehicle they are developing under a 131 million dollar contract with > the Air Force. > > Flight testing is planned for next spring at Edwards AFB. > > Also according to Boeing : "The X-45-A could significantly change the way > future wars are fought because it would limit pilot exposure while > improving combat readiness. It would detect and supress enemy air defenses > and strike missions ahead of manned combat strike forces." Delivering strike munitions in this manner is quite cool. The next obvious question is related to air-to-air combat. What are people's opinions regarding the possibility of this type of unmanned aerial vehicle being developed (e.g., how close are we, is it worthwhile, etc., what are the biggest hurdles that the X-45A does not address in this regard). The list has from time to time addressed this issue. I was curious if people's thoughts are evolving given the unveiling of the X-45. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:17:31 -0500 From: Steve Douglass Subject: RE: World's Fastest World's fastest? Well, I guess it depends on the type. Technically the shuttle is fastest... but as aircraft (not spacecraft) go I think the (official) fastest piloted aircraft is still the X-15 which I believe flew Mach 6. Anyone have the facts on this? _Steve IN GOD WE TRUST.. ALL OTHERS WE MONITOR! The New Project Black is coming soon! Also: Visit our cool collector's site: http://www.benhurtradingco.com Antiques, pop culture, Texas treasures and much more! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:47:04 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: World's Fastest Hello Steve, how have you been! >World's fastest? > >Well, I guess it depends on the type. > >Technically the shuttle is fastest... Yes, of the current manned aircraft. Interestingly, the shuttle crew doesn't own the absolute manned speed record however. The Apollo crews hit the atmosphere at over Mach 30, as that is the mapping of earth escape velocity (as in escaping the earth's gravity well to go to the moon's) to a earth's atmosphere mach number. It's actually around Mach 32 or so if I recall correctly. >but as aircraft (not spacecraft) go I >think the (official) fastest piloted aircraft is still the X-15 which I >believe flew Mach 6. Yes, Mach 6.7, sustained for a short while at around 100,000 ft, within the atmosphere under power, with atmospheric heating effects. I don't think the shuttle actually achieves a very high mach number under power, as the traditional rocket trajectory is to get out of the atmosphere ASAP. That is relative to its reentry Mach number, which is near orbital, around Mach 25. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:52:17 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Has anyone heard, is HYPER-X (X-43A) flying this month? Hi David! >There's no easy way to tell you, but you're suffering from premature >twitch syndrome ! > >According to DFRC (today) the flight's been re-scheduled for Jan-Feb >2001. Maybe I was twitching from the WEB site being updated! :) >Nice to see you're still here ! I never left. I've just been too busy. I have to insert some hypersonic stuff into this list from time to time. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:31:13 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: World's Fastest Larry Smith [mailto:larry@ichips.intel.com] wrote in part: > Interestingly, the shuttle crew doesn't own the absolute > manned speed record however. The Apollo crews hit the atmosphere > at over Mach 30, as that is the mapping of earth escape velocity > (as in escaping the earth's gravity well to go to the moon's) to > a earth's atmosphere mach number. It's actually around Mach 32 > or so if I recall correctly. I'm a bit confused here. The Apollo moonshots where still traveling several thousand miles per hour when they transitioned from the moon to the earth's gravity well. Thus, wouldn't the reentry speed exceed that of the escape velocity? Maybe Larry could expand upon his statements a little; I'd like to understand this better. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:44:13 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: UCAV Unveiled So any guesses to which combat zones its been to already, either as a visitor or a paying customer? :-) Are we expecting the test flights to be at Edwards, Groom Lake or somewhere else? Even worse, does it now explain any previously un-answered questions of the black nature ;) Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Steve Douglass > Sent: 29 September 2000 02:23 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: UCAV Unveiled > > > In light of Dan's excellent UCAV posts... > > Boeing and the Air Force unveiled the X-45 A.. yesterday .. > an unmanned stealth > combat (fighter) aircraft. > > According to the Boeing press release the X-45-a is an unmanned combat > aerial vehicle they are developing under a 131 million dollar > contract with > the Air Force. > > Flight testing is planned for next spring at Edwards AFB. > > Also according to Boeing : "The X-45-A could significantly > change the way > future wars are fought because it would limit pilot exposure while > improving combat readiness. It would detect and supress enemy > air defenses > and strike missions ahead of manned combat strike forces." > > You can view the Boeing UCAV at: > http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000927n.htm > > _Steve > > IN GOD WE TRUST.. ALL OTHERS WE MONITOR! > > > The New Project Black is coming soon! > > Also: Visit our cool collector's site: http://www.benhurtradingco.com > Antiques, pop culture, Texas treasures and much more! > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:16:37 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: URL for Skunkers Interesting URL posted to R.A.M to-day. Skunk related...... http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=10&T=1&X=2001&Y=19166&Z=11&W=2 Thanks to Michael P. Kube-McDowell Author of THE QUIET POOLS and THE BLACK FLEET CRISIS Co-author with Arthur C. Clarke of THE TRIGGER ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:45:27 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: World's Fastest >> Interestingly, the shuttle crew doesn't own the absolute >> manned speed record however. The Apollo crews hit the atmosphere >> at over Mach 30, as that is the mapping of earth escape velocity >> (as in escaping the earth's gravity well to go to the moon's) to >> a earth's atmosphere mach number. It's actually around Mach 32 >> or so if I recall correctly. Erik Hoel responds: >I'm a bit confused here. >The Apollo moonshots where still traveling several thousand miles per hour >when they transitioned from the moon to the earth's gravity well. Thus, >wouldn't the reentry speed exceed that of the escape velocity? > >Maybe Larry could expand upon his statements a little; I'd like to >understand this better. It doesn't sound like you're confused about the point of my response, namely that some Apollo crew(s) owns the manned absolute speed record for 'flight' (yes it's a rather loose interpretation of the word 'flight' I agree). Now, it sounds as though you'd like to find out more about the Apollo earth reentry profile. I'll have to research this for you. This is indeed an interesting thing. What I'm especially fond of is how they tested this before putting men into it, back in the 60's, and I don't think they recovered the test articles, which means they had to communicate through the plasma sheath. Also coming up with the correct stagnation pressure and temperature equations for these types of flows is rather interesting as the standard equations yield grossly innacurate results. I'll see what I can put together. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:21:44 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: UCAV Unveiled I found this article on Janes' web site. It raises some interesting points about what the craft is classed as. http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw000919_2_n.shtml " Due to its range, weapons capacity and lack of a pilot, however, the UCAV, being designed to attack enemy air defence systems in the 2010 timeframe, could be considered a cruise missile or nuclear-capable launch vehicle specifically prohibited under the INF Treaty, some experts believe " ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 18:39:56 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Fwd: CSIS Report there has been a lot of talk about the morale of the US military.since the USAF,ANG and USAF reserves are the largest operators of C-130s,i think this is"on topic"(to the various lists).those of you who have an interest in the morale of US military(regardless of branch) should take a look at this report.(the rest use that"delete" function.) wayne http://www.csis.org/pubs/am21exec.html _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 17:59:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: F-22 questions Hello all, here are two tough questions for the list: 1) How can the F-22 archive both, sonic and radar stealth from the shock waves it creates flying at supersonic speed? 2) How the F-22 archive radar stealth from its exhaust plumes? As I understand, radar technology can detect the disturbance of the exhaust plumes coming out from the engines. Thanks in advances. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ " From knowing himself and knowing his airplane so well that he can come somewhere close to touching, in his own special and solitary way, that thing that is called perfection." Richard Bach, 'A Gift of Wings' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:24:06 -0500 From: Steve Douglass Subject: RE: URL for Skunkers SR-71 expert and author Jim Goodall send me these excellent comments on the terraserver Palmdale images. >Steve, >Interesting image. The 3 SR-71s are 971, 968 & 967. The light colored one >is the A-12B "Titanium Goose" 125/06927. The A-12B was at Plant 10 (the >Skunk Works) for years an I believe was recently moved to Site 2. Jim adds this for our edification: My "B-2 In Action" goes to Squadron/Signal on Monday......100 photos, most never published before, three pilots interviews, two of which flew two missions each during Allied Force." Thanks Jim! Look forward to reading your new book IN GOD WE TRUST.. ALL OTHERS WE MONITOR! The New Project Black is coming soon! Also: Visit our cool collector's site: http://www.benhurtradingco.com Antiques, pop culture, Texas treasures and much more! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:26:15 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-22 questions on 10/2/00 8:59 AM, Wei-Jen Su at wsu@its.caltech.edu wrote: > > Hello all, here are two tough questions for the list: > > 1) How can the F-22 archive both, sonic and radar stealth from the shock > waves it creates flying at supersonic speed? > > 2) How the F-22 archive radar stealth from its exhaust plumes? As I > understand, radar technology can detect the disturbance of the exhaust > plumes coming out from the engines. > You are beginning to break the code. To date, neither the YF-22 nor the F-22 has proven its ability to hide from radar with a flying model. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:30:10 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Tier 3 revealed Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > > There is a long and interesting history of black programs with > complentary/counterpart white world NASA programs (X-wing, X-36, > Delta Clipper, etc.) where DARPA or a military service concentrates > with one contractor on military-specific issues like stealth, while > the NASA-lead team with another contractor actually tries to make > whatever concept is being tested flyable (though with X-wing and at > least one other program I can think of, it's questionable wether the > concept was really flyable). Both programs are essentially ignorant > of each other, while only DARPA has access to both sets of data. > Why would DARPA do that? DARPA doesn't have people with the background or facilities to do much of anything useful by itself with the results of these programs. I would expect the black program had full access to all of the results coming from the white world and that the program managers and technical leads on the black program would personally know their counterparts at NASA. The black program contractor would also be aware of or even sit in on the white program reviews, make recommendations to the NASA and AF program managers, be talking to NASA about what their results mean and the Air Force & DARPA about where their black program should go, and be preparing the soil for their next proposals to the AF, NASA, & DARPA. Engineers in these companies often (maybe even usually) work on both white and black programs and they also serve on professional society technical committees alongside the government people. To a large extent the government works through contractors, not in-house, even in the black world. If you are a government program manager, withholding unclassified info from your contractors won't help you succeed in your job. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:47:52 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Closure on the Groom Lake lawsuit, anti-mine testing at Tonopah I don't know if this has been posted in public before, but GAO put out a report on EPA oversight of classified programs: It covers the Air Force's handling of the Groom Lake issue in as much depth as it could, and also reveals: "In 1991, the Air Force and CEQ agreed that an EIS was not required before conducting a Desert-Storm-related test of aerial deactivation of land mines at the Tonapah Range in Nevada. " Which would probably be BLU-82 testing (though my own understanding was that all aerial mine clearing tests, including BLU-82 drops, were conducted in-theatre). Note that the Air Force has apparently worked with EPA to clean up Groom - FAS has some wonderful, recent overheads of Groom that shows the cleanup effort: Aside from Groom Lake, the report covers a few nuclear/radiological programs (though not TIMBERWIND, DoD's late-80s nuclear rocket program). And for those of you who saw my earlier post mentioning chemical and biological testing at Groom Lake / the Nellis range in 1997 (my original post said they were testing a sensor suite for UAVs - this is not correct. AF documents list the purpose as testing UAVs as *delivery* platforms, ala Iraqi L-39s), Norio's Groom Watch carries some of the original AF material in the public domain: Oddly enough, no mention is made of using simulants for the biological agents. Open-air testing of bioweapons in any form (even with simulants) in the US is a big no-no. Testing of offensive biowar systems breaks the biological warfare treaty (which is a sham to begin with, but still...) Dan - -- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Linux: What do you want to port today? _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #78 ******************************** 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