From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #95 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, January 16 2001 Volume 09 : Number 095 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** White F-117's! 13 Days RE: 13 Days RE: 13 Days Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Oy! It's long! *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:55:52 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: White F-117's! Greetings! This from the Black-Triangle list: In black-triangle@egroups.com, SecretJet@aol.com wrote: > 3 Stunning photos of the (2) White F-117's at Palmdale > are published in the new edition of Aircraft Illustrated!!! > http://www.ianallan.com/publishing/airillus/ > > Admin is trying to get permission to use said pictures, > meantime try & get a copy of this excellent magazine. > ----------------------------------------- > Regards, > Bill Turner, 'Admin'. > Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. > Near London Heathrow, UK. > AIM:Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 > http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:54:35 -0500 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: 13 Days This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------25044A45A2F53162B9482960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I saw 13 Days this weekend and didn't notice any F-15s, but there were F-5Es (it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the CNN 'experts' couldn't tell the difference between an F-5 and an F-15, after all they both have two engines, one man, and a "5" in their designations!). I didn't notice a Spruance (not really a boat guy), but most of the ships appeared suitably old. All in all, I thought the producers did a very good job. They at least tried to make it right. There is lots of interesting contemporary footage of B-47s, B-52s, A-4s, F-4s, etc. that are at least from the right era. The fake RF-8s had appropriate markings for VFP-63, including the "Eyes of the Fleet" marking on the wing box, and personal markings that may have been based on the actual aircraft (don't know; not a Crusader expert). The incorrect things I did notice were that the U-2's B-camera installation had a lens in each window (oops!), one of the B-52 shots was a taxi shot of a test aircraft armed with Skybolts (wrong, but interesting), the SA-2s took off like an ABM (too fast) and were "single staged". All minor stuff that didn't detract from the movie. The thing that mystified me was that several times in the movie they went briefly to black and white. If there was a reason for it, it wasn't obvious to me. The laugher though, was when the RF-8 pilot was ordered to personally take his film to the Pentagon. In the next scene, he's reporting in to the Admiral, still in his sweaty flight suit and holding his helmet! LOL!!! All in all, I thought it was very well done; interesting, fast paced, and with nothing so horribly wrong that it spoils the movie. Jim Rotramel - --------------25044A45A2F53162B9482960 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="mrvark.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Jim Rotramel Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mrvark.vcf" begin:vcard n:Rotramel;Jim tel;fax:(301) 342-4922 tel;home:(301) 862-2321 tel;work:(301) 342-4358 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sites.netscape.net/mrvark/homepage adr:;;47249 Silver Slate Drive;Lexington Park;MD;20653-2434;USA version:2.1 email;internet:mrvark@erols.com x-mozilla-cpt:;3 fn:Jim Rotramel end:vcard - --------------25044A45A2F53162B9482960-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:08:50 -0600 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: 13 Days > > I saw 13 Days this weekend and didn't notice any F-15s, but there were > F-5Es (it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the CNN 'experts' > couldn't tell the difference between an F-5 and an F-15, after all they > both have two engines, one man, and a "5" in their designations!). I > didn't notice a Spruance (not really a boat guy), but most of > the ships appeared suitably old. > The link published earlier, refers to the advertising for the movie and not the movie itself. See http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/13/movieadpulled.ap/index.html Film 'Thirteen Days' pulls newspaper ads due to inaccuracies January 13, 2001 Web posted at: 11:04 AM EST (1604 GMT) NEW YORK (AP) -- The makers of a film described as dead-on accurate and a "by-the-numbers recreation" of the days surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 were not as precise when it came to the print advertisements for the movie. New Line Cinemas, which is distributing the Kevin Costner vehicle, "Thirteen Days," is pulling a two-page ad that ran in some newspapers, because the collage-like images include military equipment that did not exist at the time of the missile crisis, The New York Times reported Saturday. The advertisements -- which will be taken out of papers including the Times and The Los Angeles Times -- feature a Spruance-class destroyer and F-15 fighter jets, equipment not built until well after 1962. See above link for rest of story, as well as ... * http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010113/en/movie_ad_pulled_3.html * http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/13/national/13DAYS.html * http://www.thirteen-days.com/ (official site - make sure you have Flash instaled and speakers turned on) Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:20:09 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: 13 Days I recall that teaser posters in New York long before the film was released showed a collage with a mushroom cloud over the World Trade Center -- which was far in the future in 1962. And then there was the TV ad with a mushroom cloud -- and the vertical tracks of sounding rockets that were part of the test -- and a certain sign that the explosion was a test and not a real explosion of the sort that was allegedly being shown. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Lapcewich Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:09 PM To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' Cc: 'mrvark@erols.com' Subject: RE: 13 Days > > I saw 13 Days this weekend and didn't notice any F-15s, but there were > F-5Es (it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the CNN 'experts' > couldn't tell the difference between an F-5 and an F-15, after all they > both have two engines, one man, and a "5" in their designations!). I > didn't notice a Spruance (not really a boat guy), but most of > the ships appeared suitably old. > The link published earlier, refers to the advertising for the movie and not the movie itself. See http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/13/movieadpulled.ap/index.html Film 'Thirteen Days' pulls newspaper ads due to inaccuracies January 13, 2001 Web posted at: 11:04 AM EST (1604 GMT) NEW YORK (AP) -- The makers of a film described as dead-on accurate and a "by-the-numbers recreation" of the days surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 were not as precise when it came to the print advertisements for the movie. New Line Cinemas, which is distributing the Kevin Costner vehicle, "Thirteen Days," is pulling a two-page ad that ran in some newspapers, because the collage-like images include military equipment that did not exist at the time of the missile crisis, The New York Times reported Saturday. The advertisements -- which will be taken out of papers including the Times and The Los Angeles Times -- feature a Spruance-class destroyer and F-15 fighter jets, equipment not built until well after 1962. See above link for rest of story, as well as ... * http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010113/en/movie_ad_pulled_3.html * http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/13/national/13DAYS.html * http://www.thirteen-days.com/ (official site - make sure you have Flash instaled and speakers turned on) Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:45:40 -0800 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 Before I reply to Stevenson and Marcus, may I suggest that the forum members dust off 1984, an anagram for 1948, a description of the world as George Orwell (who earned his stripes fighting for the Communists and then subsequently disillusioned) saw it - then. Double speak is more prominent now than then, Dept of War is Department of Defense, Peace is our Profession was the motto of the Air Arm of Nuclear Obliteration. Today the enemy is Oceania, last decade it was Eurasia, next week it is Oceania again. >From: "James P. Stevenson" >Subject: Re: Missile Defense? > >But what if the missile was launched by a stateless person? Would it be fair >to destroy a country, unaware of the missile firing prior to liftoff, for >the act of a terrorist acting outside the values of the country? > >Jim Stevenson Another argumentum ad ridiculum from another proponent of wasteful taxpayer spending. Imagine a stateless person with the resources to launch a missle, much less the ability to procure and assemble the warhead of a mass destruction vehicle. The costs, the number of people involved, the logistics and transportation are mind boggling and totally outside of the realm of capability of a "stateless person", even an Osama bin ladin (who, incidentally is a convenient boogey man, and one of our own creation at that). One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter, and oppressive policies, political, economic and social are responsible for the creation of terrorism and terrorist. Menachim Begin bragged about being the "father of terrorists", the Sioux and Apache were terrorists to the white settlers who were dispossessing and slaughtering them (with the help of the U.S. Army of course). The same is true today in the mid east, where Israeli's have dispossessed the native population and as a consequence created a new class of "terrorists". Meanwhile back to your argument ad absurdum, what it is, need I say more. >From: "Frank Markus" >Subject: RE: Missle Defense? > > Yes, the USA could obliterate any country that attacked it. But, alas, >that would not be the end of it. A nuclear explosion in the atmosphere >would have effects that would extend regionally and, indeed, globally. Another good case for eliminating nuclear weapons, not for a missle defense system. A missle defense system will destroy the vehicle (if it hit's it) not necessarily the war head. The war head then (as the SCUD did) continues on to detonation, albeit off target and thus polluting the atmosphere. > >What would be the reaction of, say, Japan or China or even Russia to a >nuclear retaliation against North Korea? Probably nothing, why even project that they would get involved, especially when they too know that our second strike capability will obliterate them as well. Assume that North Korea launched a >single nuclear missile at the US, would we massively retaliate instantly as >we might against Russia? Or is it as likely that there would be a pause >before the American response? And would it be politically possible to >retaliate with nuclear weapons after it became clear that there would be no >further missile attacks from North Korea because they had exhausted their >arsenal? What has politics got to do with survival and retaliation. And yes, North Korea would not be able to get away with a solitary launch. In fact our whole nuclear defense strategy was based on retaliation before weapons strike. That's what MAD and our Defense against nuclear weapons attack was predicated on, the ability to launch a strike as rapidly as possible and as soon as it was confirmed that an attack had been launched against us (the purpose of the DEW line and it's improved version BMEWS, as well as the policy and training of the Strategic Air Command. I doubt if the Air Force's reorganization has changed the policies and procedures, just reallocated responsiblity, heirarchy and communications channels (Command and Control). > > Assume that Iraq or Iran had exploded a nuclear "device" from a ship off >New York. Assume further that there were no doubt concerning the author of >that explosion. Assume, assume, assume you can assume yourself into analysis paralysis and you can assume yourself into war. Then ask yourself, how would Saudi Arabia - or even >Israel - view the possibility of an American nuclear retaliation against >either of those states? The fact that the attack was launched from a ship, and especially an NCB device in the ship, only further illustrates the uselessness of a Missle Defense System. What defense is there against a ship in a harbor. What defense was their against the Truck Bomb of Timothy McVeigh, other than restricting access to the Murrah Building or its vicinity. What defense was there to the Bombing of the World Trade Center. Your arguments are non sequiturs and a stretch. Israel would applaud a nuclear attack against Iraq or Iran. Saudi Arabia would do what it always does, sit on it's hand as a trained and dependent dog (a client state) must and will do, if it's ruling class and family wish to continue to enjoy the lifestyle and toys that their oil delivers to them. While both would likely agree that the malefactor >"deserves it", I doubt that either would want to be down wind of a nuclear >strike. Irrelevant what they would want, but you are sure stretching it in your attempt to make a case. > > And what if the strike were not nuclear but biological or chemical? What >if, instead of making a nuclear bomb, a nation simply used its plutonium as >a poisonous dust? Would the USA be able to respond by using nuclear >weapons? What if, what if, what if. What if is being dishonest about the future, it is a game that the fearful and indecisive, the feckless and vapid play, and it is a game the conman who has an agenda plays on the victim of the scam. > > I could go on but the point is that it is very much in the interest of the >United States - or any country - to be able to prevent a situation in which >its response must be nuclear. And, of course, to avoid the damage that even >a small missile attack would cause to it. Sorry to contradict you, but the scenario's you paint do not justify a missle defense system, especially if the attack is coming from a ship anchored in a U.S. port. As regards a "rogue" nation launching a missle attack, my original declaimer and exception still stands, the act would be tantamount to suicide. As regards a "lone" individual launching a missle, preposterous to say the least, see my previous retort. As regards what Israel may or may not think. I think that the subtext of this whole discussion is the needs of Israel, and that the only reason for squandering taxpayer money on missle defense is to protect your beloved Israel, Mr Markus. > > The most important reason that I believe that we should build a limited >missile defense it to provide ourselves with options an with time If we didn't run around the world, backing thugs, murderers, liars, manipulators, people who dispossess other people (and quote the Bible as an authority), if we acted the way our social mythos would have us believe, according to the principles that we espouse but don't practise. We wouldn't have any "enemies" and we wouldn' t need any options. Meanwhile, by your own scenario of ships blowing up in harbors, and the ability to detonate suitcase bombs, the idea of a missle defense system is not only ludicrous but a waste of money. And just how did we manage to escape a nuclear holocaust from 1955 to 1985, without a missle defense system. I'll tell you how. The same way that anyone manages to protect themselves, by making themselves so big, tough, strong and bad that only an idiot would dare attack them. . In the >Gulf War, the presence of Patriot missiles (whether they actually worked or >not) enabled the Israelis to ride out Iraq's (small) missile attack with >enormously favorable consequences for the coalition of forces against >Sadaam. The truth is that the Israeli Leadership and the U.S. feared that if Israel entered the war, the Arab allies of the U.S. would have to vacate their support of the coalition and the coalition would fall apart. The Patriot missles (then in test stage) were merely a PR sop. If Israel had found itself with not option but to do nothing or to >retaliate, I have not doubt that they would have done the latter. The >effects of that - justified - retaliation would have blown the American-led >coalition apart as surely as it would have done, Baghdad. The presence of >the Patriots (and their apparent success) made it possible for Israel to >avoid having to decide between passivity and retaliation. Well you more or less admitted to what I said, (and your own latent "sensitivies" and loyalties as well, and perhaps revealed the subtext behind your defense of and rationalization for a Missle Defense System. To subsidize the defense of Israel at the expense of the American herd of cattle. > The real reason that we should embark on the creation of a missile defense >system is that it would preserve our options - and, indeed, enlarge them. WE, the people of the United States, do not need to preserve any options. All we have to do is to start doing the right thing and treat the people within our borders, as well as our neighbors and foreigners in accordance with our "lofty" and often stated public principles. When you are the top predator, the biggest shark in the ocean, you are the creature other creatures fear and the only reason any other critter wants to eliminate you is because you are threatening to eliminate them. Suggestion for balancing the budget, giving tax payers a break, and eliminating the enemies we have created in the world. Cut Eratz Y'srael loose and let it sink on it's own, as it will most assuredly do, without the subsidy and support of the vapid American. Lots of luck though. Considering the vast power, influence, (media, political and money) exerted within the U.S., by those whom have dual citizenship and/or loyalties first to Y'srael. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 101 06:28:27 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Oy! It's long! Hello Again, Thanks to Terry for forwarding the response on SDI from one of his other groups. Please uderstand that I don't mean anything personal by what I'm going to put in this post, this is an intellectual discussion only. That said, the "conventional wisdom" as espoused in the various points there is exactly what I was talking about in my comments on how our view of the results and non-results of SDI has been distorted. To wit: On 1/10/01 7:59PM, in message <3A5D2FA7.ACC6724@frontiernet.net>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > Forwarded from the Skeptic list... > > > Although REagan made his speech, the program didn't really start swinging > > until around 1996. [This was a typo by me and I'm sorry if it caused confusion. I meant to say that the program really started doing stuff around '85-86, not a decade later. By '96 "Classic" SDI was solidly dead.] >>We also tend to forget that when it started no-one was exactly sure how to do >>what we wanted to do, and a lot of basic research was needed just to >>determine which direction to take. There were definitely some screwball >>concepts in there, but there always are when tapping the Government largesse >>seems a possibility. There was also a lot of good science and engineering in >>there too. > > > By the measure of working machines to test, it may not have been up and > running until 1996, but by another measure, money spent: > 1976-1982 ~1 billion/year > 1983-1993 $44 billion total (That's $4.4 billion a year, not that much to invent totally new technology, and remember starting in FY90 the program was drastically slowed) > 1983 $991 million > 1985 1,397.299 million > 1986 2,759.222 million > 1987 4,802.566 million > 1988 5,463.312 million ($4 billion 2nd source) > 1994 $2.8 billion > 1995 $2.8 billion > 1996 $3.3 billion > 1997 $3.6 billion > 1998 $3.9 billion > 1999 $3.6 billion > 2000 ? > 2001 DoD request $4.7 billion > > "Overall, the United States has spent more than $100 billion (in current > dollars) in the pursuit of missile defense since the mid-1950s (plus $17 > billion on the Patriot system, developed separately by the Army as an > anti-aircraft system.)" > These are nice numbers, but they are used in a smoke and mirrors manner. What is meant by "missile defense" is not explained. Are we talking an actual anti-missile system, are all early warning systems counted as part of "missile defense", etc.? We have a clue in the statement "...plus $17 billion on the Patriot system..." Patriot was not developed for missile defense. We tried to use it to intercept Tactical missiles in the Gulf War, but rolling its entire costs into "missile defense is deliberately deceptive. Why not include the Navy's Standard missile, which is a much more capable system than Patriot? The Patriot costs are mentioned solely to be able to jack up the numbers quoted for SDI and "missile defense". Similarly, money spent before Reagan announced SDI is clearly not money being spent on SDI. Money spent after SDI came to a halt (essentially 1993) is also not money spent on SDI. The Government will spend lots of money at various times on things but when push comes to shove not actually do anything with it. For example, in the mid '80s DoD started research on what theas to be the advanced gun system for the Army. Because money was tight, FMC funded the initial research out of its own coffers. Money was spent each year, and the system progressed normally. In 1996, R&D was essentially complete, and it was time to put the system into production. At that point, the whole thing was canceled. You can't just look at how much was spent each year (in the case itself of Government) and say, "See? They must have been actively developing it". These numbers don't break out what was spent on SDI. It's true that a couple of months back the decision on deploying a limited missile defense was punted to the next Administration (actually the decision that was punted was whether to begin site preparation for the warning radar installations, no decision to actually deploy a systems was taking place), but that system was not an SDI system. How much of these monies were spent on tactical missile defense, which was not part of SDI. We're spending a lot on this too, but charging it to SDI is not valid. A case can be made that we weren't really going to deploy it either, since some of the roadblocks placed (by us) in its development don't make sense if we really intended to deploy the systems. How much of this money was for defense against anti-shipping missiles? How much was a line item diverted to hide some of the costs of our endless and pointless Balkan misadventures? My point is that throwing up a bunch of numbers is a valid datum, by is not terribly conclusive without clarification of what was spent on Reagan's SDI. > ---------- > Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") has > evolved through three major phases. The first, from 1983 to > 1987, called for an invulnerable shield to protect the entire United > States, thus making nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." No one directly connected with SDI seriously claimed that it would be invulnerable. This was a straw man brought up by opponents. To render ICBM "impotent and obsolete" you just needed to introduce sufficient credible uncertainty in what missiles coming against you will accomplish to raise the risk of their use beyond what you can gain. > The > second phase, from 1987 to 1990, envisioned a defense for land-based > missiles that called for 2,000 ground- and 4,000 space-based > interceptors, at a cost of over $70 billion. Hmmmm, that's less that what we're going to throw away on the F/A-18E/F. $4.7-7 billion a year is not that much when you look at the nearly $2 Trillion US budget, especially if you can save a lot of lives and redirect people away from spending money on better ways to kill each other Again, at this point various concepts were falling away with the change in Administrations. > The third phase, from 1990 to > the present, saw SDI evolve into the Global Protection Against > Limited Strikes (GPALS) system, a plan to defend against tactical and > theater missiles and as many as 200 long-range missiles-at an > estimated cost of $40 billion. Each new phase has had less ambitious goals > using less ambitious technical means, a trend that has > confirmed skeptics' doubts about the feasibility of these systems. From > 1984 through 1993, Star Wars cost $38 billion, but produced no > workable missile defense. David Copperfield himself would be proud of this bit of misdirection. In the early '90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia and the Ukraine actually had pretty good feelings toward us. Even though Bush Sr. had already de-emphasized the program, without the monolithic Soviet Union, the nature of SDI would change. priorityrity was off (had been for a few years). In '93 a new Administration came in that did not think the SDI concept was a valid one. You may agree of disagree, but that was their prerogative, they were in charge. To complain that a concept which had been slowed and stopped was invalid because it didn't produce a workable missile defense is like saying that if someone drives a Honda from San Francisco to Reno and then sells the car, this proves that Hondas can't drive all the way to Denver. > ---------- > > After looking at some of these sources, the assertion that the program > didn't swing until 1996 isn't accurate. The US has build and tested > theater missle defenses since the 1960's without much success. SDI > started out aiming for new technologies then fell back on traditional > missle interceptors which it started testing in '96. To repeat, SDI wasn't about tactical defense, although some of the technologies could have been used. Even if you accept the statement, "The US has build and tested theater missile defenses since the 1960's without much success", so what? The aviation world for years tried to build really jumbo airliners but didn't succeed until Boeing built the 747. > > > > SDI wasn't the only thing that brought the Soviets down, but it was a big > > thing. How do we know? Because back in the early '90s, when we had good > > relations with Russia and the Ukraine, they told us so. During that period > > they were being very open with us. > > My understanding is that SDI as an economic policy, designed to drive the > Soviet Union bankrupt spending the money to keep up with the US, failed. Hmmm. I haven't checked in the last day or two, but I think the Soviet Union is gone. In any case, SDI was only one of the things that sunk them. > What I've read is that the Soviet Union didn't take the bait and launch a > big SDI program of their own. SDI didn't cause the Soviet Union to fall > apart. This is a classic example of a straw man. No, the Soviets didn't launch a big SDI program, nor was that surprising. There are a number of reasons for that. 1. They already had a crude ABM system defending their command and control center. 2. Their philosophy was more built around the art of concealing fixed sites and developing mobile ICBMs, something we never embraced. 3. They didn't have the technology. 4. They didn't have the money (can you say, "bankrupting them"?). 5. Finally, Ronnie said he'd give them the technology, so why should they go develop it on their own (although they did build certain warning and fire control radars in violation of the ABM treaty)? Most importantly to the straw man tactic is claiming that the Soviets weren't financially and otherwise concerned about SDI. When the argument is made that the prospect of SDI contributed to their downfall, it's not said that it would be because of their own SDI. The Soviet Union was in many ways a Third World nation with First World nukes. A lot of their influence and position in the world came from those nukes. If a defense against them looked like it could be fielded, that power and influence would wane. To counter it, they would have to try and build an even larger force to overwhelm said defenses, and that could be countered by a smaller increase in the defender's system, so they'd have to spend more to build even more, ad infinitum. They simply couldn't handle the kind of growth they would have had to achieve. Frankly, neither could we if they had a functioning and effective SDI in place. Plus, they would have to support an even larger conventional force than what was already breaking their economy. > > > It's also worth noting that many of the things SDI opponents said would > be > > impossible have already been achieved. They made a big point of how complex > > the code would have to be and how programs with that many lines of code > > couldn't function. By 1991 telephone switching systems were already using > > larger and more complex code than what would have been required for SDI. In > > fact, Win 2K has more lines of code in it than what would have been required > > for SDI (whether it functions or not I'll leave for another forum). It was > > said we'd never be able to get the kind of sensor technology needed. The > radar > > technology exists today in packages small enough to be carried by fighters. > IR > > sensors of sufficient resolution and range have been operational for most of > > the '90s. Our big problem at this point is reliability of the interceptors, > > and that's engineering not new technology anymore. Although it's not at all > > certain that lasers would have been used, it's worthy of note that it was > > confidently predicted that lasers of sufficient power would never be able > to be > > lifted off the ground. Well, the ABL is going to be using a laser of the > class > > needed. > > This seems overly optimistic. > -Software: SDI hasn't been designed, let alone implemented, so we don't > know how big the programs would be. More pointed arguments against it > were that it would be difficult to test the complete system (necessary to > eliminate bugs), and that the software would be easy to sabotage by > introducing hard to test for bugs. Again, sounds good, but not really on the money. The argument about the size of the code came from SDI opponents. Using their numbers, programs of that complexity have been around for a decade. Regarding bugs, no one is ever going to completely eliminate bugs. Do you think th phone system is bug free? If you get rid of the big ones and build in proper redundancy and error correction, you reach a point where it's no longer cost effective to chase down the small ones that remain. Regarding sabotage, one has to assume that those who have access to the code will be thoroughly vetted. > -Sensors: Much prgress has been made in the last 17 years, true. But > wasn't there a recent flap about how decoys were, in principal, > undistinguishable in the situation tested? The current state of the > tech is hard to assess. I don't know of a SDI sensor system which has > been put together and passed tests. There are indeed still open issues, partly because we haven't been working that hard on a system that doesn't enjoy that much support at the highest level. It's stupid to decide on the basis of only six tests, you really need many more, in order to use what you learn (the first 13 tests of the Polaris missile were all failures, for example). But, if you're not going to be funded to do the tests... One thing about decoys is that most people who trumpet them tend to ignore is the effectiveness of multi-spectral sensors against them. More importantly, they tend to blithely overlook one critical detail; Unlike academic theorizing, It Is Actually VERY Hard To Produce Workable Decoys and Stuff Them Into a Missile. This is Especially true for countries that have just barely developed missile technology. The whys and wherefores of this would make this missive even longer that it already is...Just think of what's involved in an ICBM's operation and you'll see why this is so. > -ABL laser: The ABL is a plane-baed system which may, as is said, be > light enough to fit on a satelite (3000 lbs). It is still being > developed, and as far as I know, hasn't been tested (begin testing in > 2002-3, best as I can tell). Apparently it can not be put in space as > it's components are not durable--some need to be replaced after firing. Never said that the ABL would be suitable for space, you'd use a different one. The point is that critics said it would be decades, if ever before we'd be able to get a laser of sufficient power that would be small and light enough to be mobile. Well, the ABL system is in the power class needed and it's going to enter test in the next few years. > Also this: > "Critics cite a study, to be released shortly by the Government Accounting > Office (GAO), a watchdog agency, that reportedly raises serious doubts > about the viability of the ABL. It reportedly found little hope that a > system that can mold laser beams to compensate for atmospheric > disturbances will ever be developed." The GAO consists of auditors and they do very valuable work. They are paid to be skeptical of everything, and thank goodness they are. However, expressing this concern in this context is another example of misdirection regarding SDI. The main point is that a liftable laser of sufficient power was supposed to be nearly impossible, and they're building one now. Also, while it could be pointed out that the ABL will shoot at missiles that are above most of the distorting atmosphere, the whole atmospheric objection doesn't apply to SDI. Except when being used as a sensor, SDI's destructive lasers would be firing at targets Outside the atmosphere: Strategic, not tactical missiles Keep in mind also that the laser would not have to completely destroy the missile/warhead, just mess it up enough so that it destructs when it reenters the atmosphere. Just remember, I'm not saying that SDI absolutely would have worked. I don't have enough information, and we didn't pursue it far enough to make that statement. But by the same token, there isn't enough information to say as definitively as too many do that it wouldn't. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #95 ******************************** 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