From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #79 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 Friday, October 13 2000 Volume 09 : Number 079 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Tier 3 revealed Re: Tier 3 revealed Re: Tier 3 revealed B-2 Radar Re: Tier 3 revealed (long) Aug 23,2004 Stealthysats USS Cole DDG-67 RE: USS Cole DDG-67 Re: USS Cole DDG-67 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:32:50 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe 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 That's true- and that's exactly what DARPA does. From the "mission statement" on www.darpa.mil: "The DARPA mission is to develop imaginative, innovative and often high risk research ideas offering a significant technological impact that will go well beyond the normal evolutionary developmental approaches; and, to pursue these ideas from the demonstration of technical feasibility through the development of prototype systems." So DARPA programs aren't for developing operational programs or upgrades, they're technology and capabilty development. The X-Wing and UCAV programs fall into technology and capabilities. >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. When DARPA runs programs that have white and black world components like the X-wing, each part focuses on different problems. In the case of the X-wing program, the black program(s) focused on RCS and operational capabilities ("gee, what can we use this stuff for?"). The NASA programs were *complementary*, not counterparts. They weren't tackling the same problems, and so the different sets of contractor teams didn't communicate officially or not- because the work each team was doing wasn't of interest to another, and no team really had the "big picture". The team working on the advanced powerplant was doing work that had no effect on the RCS work of the black program, etc. Other efforts since then have had more communication between white and black worlds, but it's still very limited - primarily because of security restrictions. A black-world engineer may not be allowed to go to a certain conference, or speak at a certain association, etc. while a white-world engineer might only have a glimmer of access to material that came from the black world, as it might expose the black program that generated it. For example, the X-30 and several other white world programs had only very limited access to data from sensitive projects like SCIENCE REALM, etc. (which developed refractory-metal structures for hypersonic flight) - even though some of the NASP contractor team engineers had worked on the very black programs they couldn't draw on. It's not the most brilliant way to do things, but it's the way that things are done. Dan - -- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Linux: What do you want to port today? _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:15:45 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Tier 3 revealed Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > When DARPA runs programs that have white and black world components > like the X-wing, each part focuses on different problems. In the case > of the X-wing program, the black program(s) focused on RCS and > operational capabilities ("gee, what can we use this stuff for?"). > The NASA programs were *complementary*, not counterparts. They > weren't tackling the same problems, and so the different sets of > contractor teams didn't communicate officially or not- because the > work each team was doing wasn't of interest to another, and no team > really had the "big picture". The team working on the advanced > powerplant was doing work that had no effect on the RCS work of the > black program, etc. Hiding the compressor face and the hot components at the back like the turbine frame are major neccessities to obtaining low observability, whether from IR or radar. The things you have to do to accomplish this can have major impacts on engine performance, so you have to involve the engine company to get valid RCS reduction work done - otherwise you have optimized to a false solution and run the risk of not meeting your performance goals (like takeoff if its bad enough). There are people in all of these organizations who think about the "big picture" and are making decisions about where to go with these programs. Of course, you always run the risk of focusing out so much you lose sight of the details, and the details are usually where problems occur. For something to really "Work" EVERYTHING has to make sense from the details up to the big picture. > > Other efforts since then have had more communication between white > and black worlds, but it's still very limited - primarily because of > security restrictions. A black-world engineer may not be allowed to > go to a certain conference, or speak at a certain association, etc. > while a white-world engineer might only have a glimmer of access to > material that came from the black world, as it might expose the black > program that generated it. For example, the X-30 and several other > white world programs had only very limited access to data from > sensitive projects like SCIENCE REALM, etc. (which developed > refractory-metal structures for hypersonic flight) - even though some > of the NASP contractor team engineers had worked on the very black > programs they couldn't draw on. > So how do you know they couldn't use data from SCIENCE REALM? After all, much of the work done on NASP was and is still classified. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:15:23 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Tier 3 revealed >Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > >> >> When DARPA runs programs that have white and black world components >> like the X-wing, each part focuses on different problems. In the case >> of the X-wing program, the black program(s) focused on RCS and >> operational capabilities ("gee, what can we use this stuff for?"). >> The NASA programs were *complementary*, not counterparts. They >> weren't tackling the same problems, and so the different sets of >> contractor teams didn't communicate officially or not- because the >> work each team was doing wasn't of interest to another, and no team >> really had the "big picture". The team working on the advanced >> powerplant was doing work that had no effect on the RCS work of the >> black program, etc. > >Hiding the compressor face and the hot components at the back like the >turbine frame are major neccessities to obtaining low observability, >whether from IR or radar. The things you have to do to accomplish this >can have major impacts on engine performance, so you have to involve the >engine company to get valid RCS reduction work done - otherwise you have >optimized to a false solution and run the risk of not meeting your In the case of the X-wing, the black program and the white program were two completely different aircraft using two completely different powerplants - and the engine development effort was separate as well. The black program engineers weren't working with the multimode powerplant being developed in the white world. >performance goals (like takeoff if its bad enough). There are people in >all of these >organizations who think about the "big picture" and are making decisions >about where to go with these programs. Of course, you always run the With programs like these, all of those people are with DARPA, with (in some cases) a few in service organizations of NASA - not the engineers. While the people "in the know" offer guidance to the engineers and help write specs, they essentially take a hands off approach when it comes to implementation details. >risk of focusing out so much you lose sight of the details, and the >details are usually where problems occur. For something to really >"Work" EVERYTHING has to make sense from the details up to the big >picture. With a DARPA advaced concept program, the idea of "working" is very different from that of a program aimed at developing an operational system. DARPA explores concepts, pushing technology, not engineering technologies aimed at creating deployable systems. The black-world X-wing could never have been deployed as an operational aircraft, but it did prove that concept *could* be viable in a future military application, and it solved a lot of the RCS problems inherent in the concept (mainly by switching from a 4-bladed rotor to a two-bladed rotor in the 2nd stage of the program). So not everything has to make sense. It depends on the program's objectives, it's scope, etc. When you deal with the government, things rarely make sense- Tier III was both cancelled and received double it's funding request in the same day by congress (FY93 Itnelligence Authorization Act vs. Dicks amendment - June 25th 1992). And of interest to skunkers (slightly), there's an X-wing in the new Schwartzenegger movie, "The 6th Day". You can glimpse it in the trailer on: http://www.apple.com/trailers/ > >> >> Other efforts since then have had more communication between white >> and black worlds, but it's still very limited - primarily because of >> security restrictions. A black-world engineer may not be allowed to >> go to a certain conference, or speak at a certain association, etc. >> while a white-world engineer might only have a glimmer of access to >> material that came from the black world, as it might expose the black >> program that generated it. For example, the X-30 and several other >> white world programs had only very limited access to data from >> sensitive projects like SCIENCE REALM, etc. (which developed >> refractory-metal structures for hypersonic flight) - even though some >> of the NASP contractor team engineers had worked on the very black >> programs they couldn't draw on. >> > >So how do you know they couldn't use data from SCIENCE REALM? Casual conversttions with engineers and program managers after the existence of SCIENCE REALM and it's bretheren was in the public domain. While they couldn't use the data on a number of programs, they did get approval to bring it out of the black for the X-33, since it was a "critically enabling technology" that made the X-33 possible (or so the story goes). After >all, much of >the work done on NASP was and is still classified. NASP and SCIENCE REALM, etc. were not directly linked - which is one of the reasons that they couldn't use the classified data at the time. And engineers working with one set of classified NASP data didn't have access to another- for whatever reason, quite a bit of the NASP work that was classified was compartmentalized. SCIENCE REALM was part of the black programs that split from the TAV program when it was merged into NASP. Dan - -- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Linux: What do you want to port today? _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 21:34:48 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: B-2 Radar I remember reading a while ago theories about the B-2's radar. What I'm interested in is how it gets round the problem of being inside a RAM body, the different frequency ranges it uses, and what I remember of a two phase scanning method or something. Can anyone point me to a web page with this on, or at least which mailing list archive will have it in? I've looked through my archives and can't find it! Thanks in advance. Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 100 19:41:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Tier 3 revealed (long) On 9/29/00 3:43AM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > > >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 :) > I had the opportunity to meet a number of the NASA folks involved with the RSRA and X-Wing programs during the period of time the program was active at NASA Ames, along with the XV-15 program. Both RSRA and X-Wing ended up being programs that continued for a while on their own momentum, rather than for practical use. It's important to remember that RSRA and X-Wing were not the same or two parts of the same program, but different programs that happened to have a common interest for a time. RSRA was supposed to be a vehicle for testing rotor wing concepts, advanced and otherwise. It was supposed to be able to operate as a rotorcraft, fixed wing or compound depending on the program. It was also supposed to provide a less expensive method of testing new rotors so that manufacturers could test their new designs. The big problem with the latter concept was that RSRA was the wrong size. Because of its size, any rotors that would be sized for the RSRA would be too large for most of the actual new helicopters being designed, and the data did not scale down. In addition, use of the RSRA looked like it would be so expensive it was simpler for the manufacturers to simply try their new rotors on modified models of existing helos. RSRA did fly some flights doing noise measurement tests, but really didn't find any widespread application and was mothballed early. X-Wing was one of the programs that planned to use the RSRA vehicle for a limited part of its tests, but X-Wing (as opposed to stopped-rotor) was a program that had major flaws in its concept from the start and if anyone had taken an objective look at it from the start wouldn't have gotten very far. It survived as long as it did because a lot of people, Government and corporate, had invested a lot of time and work in it and when that happens, it becomes really hard to walk away from something. In addition, there was funding, and some ancillary technologies that might not be funded otherwise may be coincidentally developed. To the contractors, it was a program that had funding, so if the Government wanted it, they'd try and build it. Finally, the potential of Tilt-Rotor was becoming obvious, and those companies that had chosen to forgo work in this area were looking for something, anything, that would not Tilt-Rotor out of competition. This also included a smear campaign, but that's out of the scope of this topic. Executives of the X-Wing program noted that a successful craft would need a control system, "...an order of magnitude more complicated than that of the Space Shuttle"! This was said to me personally, and they were Proud of it! Among the reasons for this was the rotor concept itself. The rotor was supposed to be symmetrical fixed pitch, control being provided by exhaust air vented through slots on the advancing edge of the blade. In conventional flight, exhaust air would provide lift and roll control, but this time exhausted through the trailing edge. The problem here is obvious with a little thought: During transition an edge would be a leading and a trailing edge, depending on where it was at any given instant on each rotation. This involved a hideously complex balancing act during transition. So much power would be required during the transition (either way) that the vehicle would not be able to maintain level flight. Proposals surfaced to add auxiliary powerplants and flight controls and finally to change the rotor to use collective pitch on any operational vehicle. All of these are things X-Wing was supposed to eliminate. There was no feasible civil role for X-Wing, because with power loss there was no autorotation capability (no collective, remember?). It would also be very noisy. These meant that the chance of civil certification was nil. Any use, therefore, would have to be military and DARPA's interest was open and well-known. These no doubt included some of the things mentioned in posts here, but I also felt there was some "What-if" thinking in there. That's the kind of thinking that goes, "It's not very likely that we'll actually be able to get this to work (remember, classic X-Wing, not stopped-rotor), but we've got the money and What If by some chance it Does work, the payoff might be enormous"? One of the other problems was that while X-wing would have a somewhat higher dash speed than Tilt-Rotor, its cruise speed was noticeably slower than that of a Tilt-Rotor, and it was nowhere near as efficient. Sikorsky acknowledged this in internal memos. In fact, if you were willing to trade off some of its hover efficiency, or develop variable diameter Proprotors (which was less difficult that developing X-Wing), a Tilt-Rotor would dash faster as well. All of this was surfacing in the year prior to the oft-postponed flight of X-Wing on RSRA made lots of people ask, "Even if we actually overcame all the problems, what we'd end up with isn't particularly better than what we could do for a lot less, so why are we spending all this money"? The RSRA flight tests, which by the way were of a rotor size that was not representative of production vehicles, kept getting scaled back. From first a full X-Wing demonstration to one where fixed wing flight would be handled by the conventional wing, not the rotor. From there, back to where no transition would be attempted, the rotors would simply be rotated and it wasn't sure whether any "blowing" would take place, to a point where the rotor was not even to be rotated. At this point the X-Wing/RSRA program kind of collapsed as not being worth the effort and was dropped. When X-Wing went away, there was no other work immediately available for the RSRAs so they got put away until other uses might be found. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:47:30 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Aug 23,2004 i would like to ask some of you to forward this to any other group you belong to,this way(as i only belong to a few) it can get some wider dissemination. wayne >i have an idea that i just want to bounce off somebody(anybody)let me know >what you think.> on august 23,2004,the Mighty Hercules will celebrate the >50th anniversary of >it's first flight.i am sure that lockheed and the USAF will have some kind >of ceremony,but what about us?i am proposing that all of the "reunion >groups"such as,but not limited to >sewart,pope,clark,everux,rescue,weather,special ops,firebirds(you get the >picture)etc.have a reunion during august 22nd(sun) and august24th(tue)at >the same place(i am of course open to suggestions),maybe >Marrietta,Georgia,or some place close to the factory. i know it's along way >off but you have to start some time.> wayne.> _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:37:42 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Stealthysats I just posted this to sci.space.history, but thought some people here might be interested also. I recently came across the following, which is found on p.30 of "Semi Annual History of the Directorate of Space, Period of 1 January 1971 - 30 June 1971" The paragraph, originally classified SECRET, was declassified on 10 March 1996. According to a correspondent who, to my amazement, knows about such stuff, the DoS was a component of the office of the USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for Development (also known as DCS/D and later DSC/R&D), who was the Air Staff officer in charge of advanced development in the Pentagon. - ------------ "The MIT Lincoln Laboratory is involved in a program to demonstrate the technology necessary to deploy a highly survivable satellite communication system for command and control of the SIOP forces. The effort is based upon the use of two satellites (LES-8 and LES-9) carefully designed (both electronically and physically) so that detection of the satellite presence is extremely difficult. The satellites would use satellite-to-satellite communications links and would permit two way communications between aircraft and surface forces on a global basis. The anticipated launch of LES-8/9 is in September 1974." - ------------ "So that detection of the satellite presence is extremely difficult" is consistent with a rumor I'd heard earlier, that one of the two LESes was equipped with a plane mirror intended to send the line of sight of a terrestrial observer out into starry space. It also represents the fifth or sixth confirmed or reasonably believable report of low-observable satellite studies, technology development efforts or actual programs stretching from the early 1960's to ca. 1990. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:46:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: USS Cole DDG-67 Terrorists apparently attempted to blow up the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer (DDG-67) in Yemen today. 6 USN fatalities were reported, 35 were injured. USN press release: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/news_stories/cole.html I believe the individuals responsible for this cowardly act should be located and dealt with swiftly and permanently. I would also like to express my sympathy to the families of the victims. Furious Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:47:26 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: USS Cole DDG-67 I wonder if its the same people who threw a bomb over our embassey wall today. Wonder why they hate UK/US people right now. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Sam Kaltsidis Sent: 13 October 2000 02:46 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: USS Cole DDG-67 Terrorists apparently attempted to blow up the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer (DDG-67) in Yemen today. 6 USN fatalities were reported, 35 were injured. USN press release: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/news_stories/cole.html I believe the individuals responsible for this cowardly act should be located and dealt with swiftly and permanently. I would also like to express my sympathy to the families of the victims. Furious Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:52:27 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: USS Cole DDG-67 Yes, apparently they are the same people, an islamic terrorist group. The hate they have towards the US/UK is fairly common amongst arab people, and in fact this anti-american feeling is growing, it has even started spreading in European countries. The UK 'problem' is more recent and is mostly due to the fact that the UK has had the same point of view as the US on several matters lately. This hate is totaly biased, wathever these countries do is viewed with suspicion and is presented in a way that it seems the US/UK think only of theselves and try to rule the world. You will notice that each time muslims make a demonstration they burn an American flag, wether the US has anything to do with it or not. The US is the "greater Satan" (their own words) I guess the UK now holds the title of "lesser Satan" (I think this title was held by the Russians until recently). You have to remember that these people live in a totaly different world, for example in Palestinia they put up little shows for 4 year old children in wich people stand in front of them, Kalashnikov in hand with masks on, and chanting anti-israeli, anti-american slogans and burning flags (while we try to stop them from watching 'violent movies' and such). They are mostly brainwashed, and brougt up to hate the west and the US and Israelis in particular of course (hence the 'children' throwing stones in Gaza, they have been granted a special holliday for the occasion). In Europe this anti-american feeling started mostly with De Gaule, who couldn't stand the idea that France wasn't a superpower anymore. He took his distance from Nato and seeked to pit the Russians against the Americans for the benefit of France, this meant breaking the 'American dream' sentiment that was running through Europe in those times. In the middle east the anti-american feeling comes mostly I think from the fact that they are from the west and that they supported (even if passively) israel in their wars. This explains the ridiculous and outrageous act, even if it's no excuse. After all what would people have said if the US had bombed Russia because Serbs were killing Kosovars... Gavin Payne wrote: > I wonder if its the same people who threw a bomb over our embassey wall > today. Wonder why they hate UK/US people right now. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Sam Kaltsidis > Sent: 13 October 2000 02:46 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: USS Cole DDG-67 > > Terrorists apparently attempted to blow up the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke > class > destroyer (DDG-67) in Yemen today. > > 6 USN fatalities were reported, 35 were injured. > > USN press release: > > http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/news_stories/cole.html > > I believe the individuals responsible for this cowardly act should be > located > and dealt with swiftly and permanently. > > I would also like to express my sympathy to the families of the victims. > > Furious Sam > > CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC > http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #79 ******************************** 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