From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #92 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, January 5 2001 Volume 09 : Number 092 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** TEST FOR GEORGE Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Mary should stay... Re: TEST FOR GEORGE Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways RE: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways RE: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Re: Thirteen Days FWD (SW/TLCB) Re: Glomar Explorer Canadian flying saucer Re: Aurora Borealis USS Kitty Hawk Incident *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:16:04 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: TEST FOR GEORGE This is a test.... please ignore this post. Thanks Greg Weigold, Sr. Technical Consultant CyberLife BPO eCommerce Computer Sciences Corporation Columbia, SC Office: 803-333-6952 mailto:gregweigold@mynd.com Pager: 803-654-7653 mailto:8036547653@mobilecomm.net Cellular: 803-622-5045 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:52:41 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways > This statement . . . > > > I think that the Star Wars efforts did a lot of good-it > > bankrupted the Russians and we don't have a cold war at present > > . . . makes and assertion for which there is no evidence. True, the Soviets > crumbled after the Star Wars effort began but that does not prove that the > Star Wars effort was the cause. This is going to be argued for all future time, but just the timing makes it unlikely that SW drove the USSR to ruin. March 1983 marked the kick-off of SW, things didn't get rolling for a couple of years, and the Warsaw Pact collapsed in late 1989, followed by the dissolution of the USSR in late 1991. Not really enough time to do in a robust superpower, especially since SW never produced anything close to an operational system. (Still hasn't, for that matter). The USSR may have been bankrupted due in some important measure to an arms race, but it was the arms race that had been going on since 1945. At most, SW might have pushed them over an edge they were already teetering on, but it's hard to see how to prove that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:15:54 -0600 (CST) From: Todd Madson Subject: Mary should stay... I also value Mary's participating on this list. Not only as someone who has had time on the SR-71 but as a pilot in general. How many of us actually fly on a regular basis? I certainly don't. More than once she's touched on something that reflects why something is the way it is. My last aviation course, sadly, was in my senior year of high school so it's nice to get information like this. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:06:05 -0600 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: TEST FOR GEORGE On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:16:04 -0500, you wrote: >This is a test.... please ignore this post. > >Thanks > >Greg Weigold, Sr. Technical Consultant CyberLife BPO eCommerce >Computer Sciences Corporation >Columbia, SC Office: 803-333-6952 mailto:gregweigold@mynd.com >Pager: 803-654-7653 >mailto:8036547653@mobilecomm.net >Cellular: 803-622-5045 > > Greg: Looks just like you see it...no HTML. Your're fine. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:58:01 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Greg, Yes, there are many books making that claim. But there are other books claiming that the Soviet Union was in terminal mode before Star Wars was ever announced. There was also a significant internal Navy study. Such claims were usually discredited because if they were accepted, then the justification for raiding the public trough to support the billions of unnecessary technology would have been more difficult. Jim Stevenson > Jim, > I would agree that there is no "hard evidence" that Star Wars brought down > the Soviet Union.... however, numerous old-timers from the various "inside" > governmental offices have written books or been interviewed for books, and > many of those insiders have stated that keeping up that keeping with up the > Western military, not just ours, but all of NATO combined, was killing the > Soviet economy, and many have said that Star Wars was the final straw that > broke the bank, so to speak.... > > I don't think anyone would say that Star Wars alone did it, but that seems > to be the last program that the Soviets could counter....or attempt to > counter... The "Brilliant Pebbles" program could probably be added to that > category too.... > > Greg W > > -----Original Message----- > From: James P. Stevenson [mailto:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 08:25 PM > To: Skunkworks > Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways > > > This statement . . . > >> I think that the Star Wars efforts did a lot of good-it >> bankrupted the Russians and we don't have a cold war at present > > . . . makes and assertion for which there is no evidence. True, the Soviets > crumbled after the Star Wars effort began but that does not prove that the > Star Wars effort was the cause. > > Jim Stevenson > > > Greg Weigold, Sr. Technical Consultant CyberLife BPO eCommerce > Computer Sciences Corporation > Columbia, SC Office: 803-333-6952 mailto:gregweigold@mynd.com > Pager: 803-654-7653 > mailto:8036547653@mobilecomm.net > Cellular: 803-622-5045 > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:09:40 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways 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_01C071DC.4091F528 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Agreed that Star Wars wasn't the REASON, just one of the biggest and last straws in the "House that Lenin Built" Greg W - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C071DC.4091F528 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of = ways

Agreed that Star Wars wasn't the REASON, just one of = the biggest and last straws in the "House that Lenin = Built"

Greg W

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C071DC.4091F528-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:16:03 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways > Such claims were usually discredited because if they were accepted, then the > justification for raiding the public trough to support the billions of > unnecessary technology would have been more difficult. I had some contact with such matters ( see http://archives.his.com/intelforum/msg01937.html ) and can say that, whatever the motivation, the intelligence community in 1983 did not foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union, or think that Star Wars was likely to bring on such an event. The IIA linked to the above URL contains a fair amount of explicit and implicit information about what the US saw the situation as being as of mid-1983. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:22:04 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways 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_01C071DD.FC325BE6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think anyone ever INTENDED that Star Wars would bring about such a change, and I don't see it as the ONLY reason that things happened the way they did, and I doubt that anyone would have ever thought that a proposed system would bring about much of any change, but if we spent billions on the system, I would think its a safe assumption that the Soviet Union did too.... and that may have been their problem.... When we spend money on R&D, our defense contractors and other folks involved are often looking for practical money-making applications of the R&D, even if the desired outcome was gigawatt lasers, the uses they found for smaller, less costly, laser equipment have led to things like laser eye surgery... maybe not even directly from the SW programs, but some of those people would have left Raytheon or whoever and gone elsewhere carrying some of the knowledge and experiences and worked on other types of systems. This is where I see the big difference between our R&D dollars and their R&D rubles.... if we spend billions on something, and it doesn't ever get implemented, our contractors are often allowed to use some of the knowledge for making money back on the investments. How many times have you heard about revolutionary new commercial products coming out of the old Soviet Union R&D contractors? Greg W BTW: A Happy and safe New Year's to everyone on the list.... - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C071DD.FC325BE6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of = ways

I don't think anyone ever INTENDED that Star Wars = would bring about such a change, and I don't see it as the ONLY reason = that things happened the way they did, and I doubt that anyone would = have ever thought that a proposed system would bring about much of any = change, but if we spent billions on the system, I would think its a = safe assumption that the Soviet Union did too....  and that may = have been their problem....   When we spend money on R&D, = our defense contractors and other folks involved are often looking for = practical money-making applications of the R&D, even if the desired = outcome was gigawatt lasers, the uses they found for smaller, less = costly, laser equipment have led to things like laser eye surgery... = maybe not even directly from the SW programs, but some of those people = would have left Raytheon or whoever and gone elsewhere carrying some of = the knowledge and experiences and worked on other types of = systems.

This is where I see  the big difference between = our R&D dollars and their R&D rubles....  if we spend = billions on something, and it doesn't ever get implemented, our = contractors are often allowed to use some of the knowledge for making = money back on the investments.  How many times have you heard = about revolutionary new commercial products coming out of the old = Soviet Union R&D contractors? 

Greg W

BTW:  A Happy and safe New Year's to everyone on = the list....

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C071DD.FC325BE6-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:08:34 EST From: UKdragon@aol.com Subject: Re: Thirteen Days someone wrote: << Seeing the coming attractions of that movie, I've been waiting for it to air. But when it comes to Hollywood and the Air Force, many mistakes have been made. One that comes to mind, is utilizing an F4 in the Gary Powers movie (w/ Lee Majors) when he was shot down over Russia in a U2. I guess the only way of picking thru the truth, is to either have first hand knowledge, and/or doing the proper research into the matter. >> Hopefully, some careful research WAS incorporated into this film. Myself, Jay Miller and maybe others were consulted on such details as overflight chronologies, and aircraft colors and markings. At one time, the studio was planning to construct a U-2 cockpit mockup. I don't know know whether they did, though. The film is not yet released in the UK. I didn't see the script. Regarding low-level recce over Cuba, these flights started on 23rd October 1962, the day after JFK went public on the crisis. Prior to then, only U-2 flights. VFP-62 was first in action, then (if memory serves) VMFP-3, both with F8U. USAF 363TRW RF-101s got started three days later (but had IMC problems with the cameras at first). I'll have to watch Operation Overflight (Gary Powers movie) again. They certainly used a real U-2 for some of their filming - a NASA U-2C was painted black at Moffett Field for this purpose. Regards Chris Pocock <> UKdragon@aol..com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:28:24 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (SW/TLCB) Re: Glomar Explorer Kevin - Your information is good bud. My dad worked with Howard Hughes, at that time through phone communications only while HH stayed cooped-up in a Las Vegas hotel, during the lifting of the Russian sub,..he was the Program Manager, and my brother was part of the crew that was on board the Glomar. I had the pleasure of boarding her while on leave once and was extremely impressed with the mechanics of (this) fine rig! They did get half of the sub contained into what they refer to as the "moon pool". My brother and the rest of the crew witnessed the "bagging" of 5, very well preserved, Russian sailors. I apologize to all here that I'm uncertain on the correct dates of all this,...I'll just say, safely, that it was between 70 and 73. A journalist at the time, Jack Anderson, blew the whistle on "the program", stating that there were nuclear weapons on-board a captured Russian sub in the Bay area,..i.e., the Port of Redwood City. Within', literally, hours of this story hitting the pre!ss,...dozens of black limos showed up at the site and everyone was sent home. In a flash, some leftwinged, liberal reporter shut an entire, extremely important program, down!!! That bastard should've kept his trap shut! Especially during (those) days when the only REAL information we could believe about the Russians, was "hands on" material that we could aquire!!! It was an extremely hush hush program,..."Black Door" as Lockheed called 'em. I could carry on here forever, with the stories I've heard and the pictures I've seen,...but, bottom line was, the Russians, 'we' found out through (this) endeavor, were in the Stone Age compared to what 'they' had claimed! We were leeps and bounds past their technology! Oh boy,...thanks for allowing me to take up some time here fellas, it's an era that brings a lump to my throat because of what I saw it did to my dad the day it all came down. He was crushed,....stunned that any American could stoop so low to get a story, and forgo any thought of Americanism. Interesting fact here though, after this story went to print?..........Jack Anderson was really never heard from again, and, at this particular time,...he was right up there with yer' Gueraldo Riveras of today ---- good riddens to bad (foxtrotin') rubbish in my book,...may he burn in hell!!! Oh,...and the "Shadow"?......:>),.........talk to most any Navy Seal about (that) little BEAUTY! Heheheee,...that is,...if ya' can believe a Navy Seal when yer' talkin' to him?! A "Stealth" in water therory. - - Buzz. - --------------Original message------------------ "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: 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 ;-) The Glomar Explorer (ship) underwent massive modification in 1998 and now serves with Houston-based Global Marine Drilling on a 30 year lease from the Navy to do deep sea drilling. (Oil I believe) THe Hughs Mining BArge (HMB-1) was the portion that contained the claw and the enclosed area for the Russian sub and has been in service with the US NAvy since the mid 1980's. It was (and still is) the enclosed barge that the Lockheed Sea Shadow was contsructed in, tested from, and hiden in all of these years. IIRC I think it's undergoing a 5 year test up in the San Franciso Bay. I THINK I have all of that right, anyone have bet! ter info??? - -Kevin Helm F-117A: The Black Jet - -- 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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 22:35:25 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Canadian flying saucer Letter to Fortean Times 138, October 2000, p. 51 "I was interested in the photo of the Avroplane [FT135:81]. However, your caption is wrong; it should read 'Canada's own flying saucer'. The Avroplane and Avrocar were products of Avro-Canada, a company created by AV Roe (as you say, part of Hawker Siddeley) buying Victory Aircraft, who had built Lancasters in Canada during World War II. The demise of Avro-Canada was more to do with the cancellation in 1959 of the CF-105 Arrow fighter than that of a minor experimental series. A clue to its Canadian origin is the Maple Leaf roundel on the nose. Good luck to Spike in his search for Australian Spitfires [FT135:50]. I've heard this one a few times, but suspect it is little more than an urban legend. Similar tales exist of Lancaster bombers in landfill sites, and Luftwaffe aircraft pushed into a pond at Farnborough. Interestingly, recent digs in America have found large amounts of ex-Luftwaffe hardware buried at the site of Freeman Field, where the US tested them. David Fleming Fife, Scotland" - -- 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: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:49:43 -0500 From: Don Hackett Subject: Re: Aurora Borealis Welcome back Mary! I saw the aurora borealis from the top of the Franklin Mountains in El Paso Texas in the fall of 1960, in the event that you describe. I just happened to be on an ovenight hike at an altitude of 7500 ft., about 15 miles west of Biggs Airforce Base (where the B-36's stopped the conversations in our high school's classrooms as they took off towards the west over the mountains). Most amazing thing I'd ever seen. (The aurora, not the B-36's, which only came second). >- -----Original Message----- >From: Mary Shafer [mailto:shafer@spdcc.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 02:53 PM >To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' >Subject: RE: AURORA WATCH: > > >I've only ever seen the aurora borealis once and it was very far south, >as it happened during a year when the sun was very active. It was in >Patterson, CA, in the San Joaquin Valley (you probably won't find it on >a US map, but you may find Turlock, which is at the same latitude). >This would have been in about 1958-60 and it was described as the >furthest south the aurora had been since some date lost in my memory, >about a century before. I know we were all allowed to stay up late to >see it, so it was a Big Deal. > >I'd hoped to see the southern aurora one of the time we were in the >southern hemisphere (Punta Arena, Chile; Tasmania, Australia; and the >South Island of New Zealand), but we've only been there in the summer, >making it even more unlikely. We've seen penguins but no aurora. > >Regards, >Mary > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > ___________ "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water." - -- Governor George W. Bush, Jr. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:57:55 EST From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: USS Kitty Hawk Incident The Real Story of the USS Kitty Hawk Incident Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Source: Military E-Mail Published: 9 December 2000 Author: U.S. Navy F/A-18 Pilot Posted on 12/13/2000 17:32:15 PST by Spook86 Note: The following is an eyewitness account of the recent Russian "buzzing" of the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan. It was written by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 pilot who was on the carrier at the time of the incident. I received this via e-mail from a military colleague who, in turn, verified that it came from the Kitty Hawk. It makes for interesting reading, and provides a remarkable account of the absolute buffoonery that took place during the incident. Comments in brackets were added to clarify or explain military jargon Flying **** : -Cruise was pretty easy and interesting: 54 days at sea, 40 traps [carrier landings], and 45 [flying] hours in the month of October alone! Yes, we flew our asses off! Since I'm one of three department heads with all my quals I fly a lot. Here's an interesting story (this is a no sh---er). I was on the bridge in line to drive the ship as there are a bunch of O-5s and a few O-4s earning our "coming alongside" qual. It's a gay shoe boy ***** where you give commands to the helm and lee helm (that's the throttle, dude) and you're actually flying formation on the replenishment ship during UNREPS [underway replenishment ops]. You do this under the close supervision of the Captain of the ship and the CDO (command duty officer--an O-5, usually the navigator or assistant navigator). Anyways, I'm sitting there bullsh-----g with my XO [executive officer] who is also getting his qual and we hear on the CO's squawk box a call from CIC (Combat Info Center). They said "sir, we're getting indications of Russian fighter activity." His response was "launch the alert fighters." Combat told him the highest alerts were Alert 30s [launch within 30 minutes of notification]. The Captain got p---ed and said "launch everything we've got ASAP." I ran to the navigator's phone and called the SDO [squadron duty officer]. Our squadron didn't have alert duty that day, bummer, so I told him to find out who did and get their ass moving up to the flight deck (only Alert 7s are actually sitting on the flight deck, ready to go; alert 30s means you are in the ready room). Anyways, 40 minutes after the CO called away the alerts, a Russian SU-27 Flanker [air superiority fighter--similar to a U.S. F-15] and SU-24 [strike fighter, akin to an F-111] Fencer made a 500 knot, 200 foot pass directly over the tower of the Kitty Hawk...it was just like in Top Gun, shoes on the bridge spilled coffee and everyone said "H--y S---!. I looked at the Captain at this point and his face was red. He looked like he just walked in on his wife getting boned by a Marine. The Russian fighters made two more high speed, low altitude passes before we finally launched the first aircraft off the deck...a EA-6B Prowler [electronic warfare aircraft]. That's right...we launched a f-----g Prower and he ended up in a 1 versus 1 with the Flanker just in front of the ship. The Flanker was all over his ass (kind of like a bear batting around a little bunny right before he eats it). He was screaming for help when finally an [F/A-18] Hornet from our sister squadron (I use this term in the literal sense because they looked like a bunch of f-----g girls playing with the Russians) got off the deck and made the intercept. It was too late. The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt to intercept them. The funny part of the story was the Admiral and the CAG [Carrier Air Group Commander] were in their morning meeting in the war room andthey were interrupted by the thundering roar of Russians buzzing the tower. A CAG staff dude told me they looked at each other and our airplan, noticed we didn't have any flights scheduled until a few hours later, and said "what was that?" Four days later, the Russian intelligence agency e-mailed the CO of the Kitty Hawk and enclosed pictures they had taken of our dudes scrambling around the flight deck, frantically trying to get airborne. I'm quite sure the f-----g loser shoe boy [black shoe=ship driver/surface warfare officer] in charge of our battle group's air defense was fired. It's also ironic that the Admiral's change-of-command occurred just a few weeks prior to this incident. Anyways, the Russians tried to come out a few other times, and we were more than ready. I personally intercepted an IL-38 May [anti-submarine wargfare aircraft] and shoved my wingtip in front of his windscreen to prevent him from turning towards the ship (yeah, yeah we're friends now, blow me). In typical Navy Senior officer knee jerk fashion our entire airwing stood alerts around the clock as if WWII was going to break out anytime. This story was plasteredall over Russian and Japanese newspapers yesterday. The Russians even awarded their aircrew medals for their achievement. What f-----g shame! I felt like I was on the Bad News Bears and we got our asses kicked, and I didn't even get off the bench to help the team. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -- Had to clean up the salty (no pun intended) language, but I can understand this Hornet driver's frustration. Unfortunately, the e-mail doesn't answer a couple of salient questions, i.e., did maintenance or parts problems prevent the Kitty Hawk from keeping F/A-18s on higher alert as they transited the Sea of Japan? Additionally, if the carrier couldn't launch aircraft sooner, why didn't some of its escort vessels lock up the Russian jets with their surface-to-air missile radars, and remind them that we could still blast them from the sky. Getting locked-up by a SAM radar produces very distinct visual and audio cues in the cockpit. However, I get the impression that the Kitty Hawk's AEGIS cruiser didn't do that. All-in-all, a very sad day for the Kitty Hawk battle group, and the U.S. Navy. BTW, this e-mail confirms initial reports of the incident that appeared in the Washington Times, including the post-mortem pictures e-mailed by Russian military intelligence to the Kitty Hawk. As you'll recall, Bill Cohen's cabana boy (Ken Bacon) denied those elements of the story. What a Clymer! __________________ (Account lifted from FreeRepublic.com) meluman ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #92 ******************************** 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