From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Thu Sep 20 17:21:15 2001 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:21:15 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #33 skunk-works-digest Thursday, September 20 2001 Volume 10 : Number 033 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** F-22 Inlet Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Re: F-22 Inlet Moog BIG MF Re: Moog/Replicas Re: BIG MF??? Re: Falkland Is observations Re: Falkland Is observations Re: F-22 Inlet discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals U.S. Air Force Will Not Fund X-33, X-34 Vehicles Fly a MiG-25 to the edge of space Re: Fly a MiG-25 to the edge of space See The Flag Fly !! Off Topic: Thinking of you Re: Off Topic: Thinking of you Fw: Please read. Important Mesage (fwd) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:33:42 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: F-22 Inlet The holes in the F-22 inlet are for boundary layer suction. They can also be seen on the inlet ramp of an F-4. Similar holes you see in the inlets of commercial turbofan engines are for a different purpose - they lead to tiny cavities and are for noise suppression, as the fan on a high bypass ratio turbofan produces a lot of high frequency, forward radiated noise. Regarding inlet efficiency, the F-16 has a fixed inlet, but is capable of speeds close to M=2. The F-18 also has a fixed inlet. Most current fighters aren't required to go as fast as the older generations of fighters. Hence, fixed inlets work fine, and have lower radar signatures. The F-15 and F-14 have full variable inlets. BTW - The Lockheed X-35 JSF has a novel inlet where they use the shape of a bump ahead of the inlet to avoid ingesting the fuselage boundary layer into the inlet. This avoid bounday layer diverters, which have big radar signatures. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:32:43 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: Fw: To shunkworks list - "U2" surveillance over Iraq Allen Thomson wrote: > > Art Hanley said, > > > The point I was making was referring to the fact that satellites are > > not good in unpredicted situations or areas. > > Certainly that's true for the kind of reconnaissance > satellites/constellations > the US operated for the last part of the Cold War and somewhat thereafter. > It doesn't have to be that way, and in fact it appears that part of the idea > of > the Future Imagery Architecture now being pursued by the NRO is to fix > the problem. BTW, the Israeli EROS follow-on to their Ofeq spysats > will be much better in this respect also. It's not really a function of the type of satellite as much as it is of how many launchers you have, how many are available, how long it takes to get one ready, when you can launch it and the orbit of the satellite. If something unplanned pops up where you weren't expecting to need to look, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to get anything up in time to be responsive. Using existing assets to work an area that is off the "normal" route means changing orbits, and that means using precious propellant. Because that has such a drastic affect on the remaining life of the satellite (you're going to have to use more to move it "back" as well) and because these assets are Soooo expensive to build and launch, the decision to "move" one has to survive an enormous bureaucratic morass and rice bowl competition. This doesn't make for timeliness. As an aside, the SSTO program, when it was a part of SDI, was going to require a means of doing a vast volume of launches at a lower cost. A byproduct of this, and one of the main attractions of the DC-X concept, was how fast you could turn it around and how little ground support it needed. A byproduct of this that was well known was that it would also be available to rapidly put recon birds in orbit. The whole DC-X concept was so closely identified with SDI, though, that it was at a disadvantage with the change in Administrations. > > > During all the time of the original invasion, Britain assembling a task > force, > > sailing half-way around the world and the entire war being fought, we > > were unable to get a satellite in position. > > That's not quite right. We had two KH-11 electro-optical spysats in orbit > during the period, and launched a KH-9 area-search film return satellite > halfway through the fracas, on May 11, 1982. Then there were the SIGINT > birds which likely made significant contributions, but I don't consider > those > here. We had them up there doing their usual sterling job (that's Not sarcasm), but we weren't really able to get anything to concentrate on the area during the war, it wasn't an area we had expected to need to "watch". I'm sure we gave the Brits what we had, but we know from reports then and now that they never got any early warning of Argentinian activity except through their organic sensors. They never were able to determine how many Argentinean subs were in port or at sea (as it turned out, only one Argentinean sub operated against the British and it was ineffective solely to its own bad luck). > > As it happens, orbital elements for the KH missions are available, and I've > just run a quick-and-dirty analysis of satellite passes over the Falklands > for > two five-day periods starting May 10, about a month after the invasion, and > June 10, after the KH-9 had had a chance to get working and while the > shooting still going on. > > What emerges is what commanders griped about after Desert Storm a > decade later: the density of coverage just isn't really what you want for > tactical support. And my look didn't take into account the famously bad > Falklands weather, so several of the passes identified below may well > have been clouded out. Nobody should be surprised by the lack of > tactical utility, BTW, because the satellites were designed for strategic > reconnaissance, quite a different thing. Which is the whole point. Not to slam satellites, but to point out that they can't do everything. The original question that started this thread was why are we flying U-2s over Iraq if we have satellites. BTW, thanks for the analysis of the orbits, that was valuable work. Art > > If anybody is interested in doing a less q&d analysis -- for example, I > just took passes between local 0600 and 1800 local time rather than > look up actual sunrise/sunset times -- I'll be happy to send the complete > collection of orbital elements by e-mail. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:15:37 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: F-22 Inlet David Lednicer wrote: > > > Regarding inlet efficiency, the F-16 has a fixed inlet, but is capable of > speeds close to M=2. The F-18 also has a fixed inlet. Most current > fighters aren't required to go as fast as the older generations of > fighters. Hence, fixed inlets work fine, and have lower radar signatures. > The F-15 and F-14 have full variable inlets. > An interesting follow-up is that the variable inlets on many of the F-14s have been disabled (not mechanically, just circuit breakers, to my understanding). The Navy's view is apparently that the time spent above M2 is so small that it just wasn't worth the cost of maintenance on the inlets. So, thjey're still there but left in a fixed setting. That's why you see many sources listing the top speed of the F-14D as M 1.88 even though it has substantially more thrust than the F-14A which was credited with M2.34. A similar plan was envisioned for the production version of the B-1A, the variable inlets and stronger wings would be there, but all the circuit breakers would be pulled for all normal operations. If a -1A got into a situation where a threat dictated that speeds above M1.6 were needed, the crew could push the circuit breakers back in, and they'd become test pilots. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:41:28 -0400 From: "Morris, Andrew" Subject: Moog My brother in law works for Moog a company that produces a number of products including various kinds of actuators for space and aviation industries. Last Friday they held a corporate anniversary party and he reports that they had in their parking lot a full scale mock up of the JSF (the Boeing one). I just thought it interesting that they would/could truck this kind of gee whiz show and tell thing around to corporate partners?? Happy Monday, Andy Morris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:02:58 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: BIG MF wayne d.binkley >From: "wayne binkley" >To: wbinkley@hotmail.com >Subject: BIG MF >Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:44:33 > Received: from 150.208.238.12 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:44:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [150.208.238.12] From: "wayne binkley" To: wbinkley@hotmail.com Subject: BIG MF Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:44:33 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from text/html by demime 0.98e [IMAGE] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:24:11 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: Moog/Replicas Greetings! In a message dated 20/08/01 14:43:03 GMT Daylight Time, morris@admissions.buffalo.edu writes: << I just thought it interesting that they would/could truck this kind of gee whiz show and tell thing around to corporate partners?? >> We have several 'replicas' in the UK/Europe... The RAF Careers dept. has fibreglass Tornado, Hawk and Eurofighter which they take to airshows & other events like military (musical) tattoos & seafront events where the airshow is out off the coast... The seats & undercarriages (gear) are often 'real' metal versions, with near-full cockpit dials & switches for the young (future pilots?) to fiddle-with! Another use of 'plastic planes' has been the Spitfire & Hurricane 'Gate Guard' replacement program. The harsh UK weather was unkind to 'real' warbirds on duty outside some of our RAF bases, so some of the old (real) Spit's & Hurri's are now restored to flying condition - replaced by fibreglass replicas, the moulds taken from the original aircraft! The 'plastic' JSF (full scale) models have been seen at Farnboro' & RIAT Cottesmore - one wonders if one day perhaps ALL the aircraft at airshows will be 'plastic'... even the flying versions?! - ----------------------------------------- Regards, Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:28:22 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: BIG MF??? Sorry Wayne - Nothing came over! In a message dated 20/08/01 18:04:23 GMT Daylight Time, wbinkley@hotmail.com writes: << wayne d.binkley >From: "wayne binkley" >To: wbinkley@hotmail.com From: "wayne binkley" To: wbinkley@hotmail.com Subject: BIG MF Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:44:33 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from text/html by demime 0.98e [IMAGE] >> ================= (If it helps, you're welcome to upload files to our B-T 'Files' area!) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/black-triangle/files/ Yahoo! Groups : black-triangle Files - Just trying to help!!! :-)) - ------------------- Regards, Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:17:41 GMT From: anodyne@senet.com.au Subject: Re: Falkland Is observations > We also supplied the UK with the latest versions of AIMs, rather than > making them wait until their name came up to the top of the list, or > so everyone says. The US also took over the UKs air tanker commitments in NATO, which was vital remembering how waves of tankers were sent out to refuel other tankers to refuel one Vulcan to the Falkland Is. > After some blather, the French suspended all deliveries and support for > the Exocet missile. Argentina had to make do with the five or six > already delivered, and had to keep them functional on the couple of > Super Entendards equipped to carry them entirely on their own. There were rumours of dissimilar air combat exercises between the Sea Harriers and Super Etendards, on the Sea Harriers way 'down south.' > (chaff and flare packs) to the Buccaneer and Phantom aircraft that were > sent out to the Falklands. (AN/ALE-40s , if memory serves). Phantoms were only sent out after the conflict, they took no part in it, as the Royal Navy 'gave' their Phantoms to the RAF (along with their Buccaneers) when they lost their aircraft carriers (the Sea Harriers operated off of Through Deck Carriers (TDC) not Aircraft Carriers - a moot point neatly used by RN to overcome political stupidity). Talking of political stupidity, if the Argentinians had waited about six months (from memory) all of the TDC would've been sold or in being refitted, and that would prevented any Task Force sailing. Steve - ------------------------------------------- This message was sent using SE Net Webmail. http://webmail.senet.com.au/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:03:19 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: Falkland Is observations Just goes to prove the old maxim: Timing is everything..... Talking of political stupidity, if the Argentinians had waited about six months (from memory) all of the TDC would've been sold or in being refitted, and that would prevented any Task Force sailing. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:41:58 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F-22 Inlet A little note here, sorry it's somewhat late. Just because an inlet is 'fixed' doesn't mean that it can't work quite well at high supersonic or even hypersonic speeds. Also, there has been at least one quite successful and efficient supersonic inlet with a fixed spike, and fixed throat attached to a manned M2+ supersonic Fighter/Interceptor. The XF8U-3's! It had a moveable bypass door down the fuselage from the inlet. I would point at that inlet as one that we probably haven't learned enough from. It predated the A-12's inlet by 4 years. And some wanker allowed them all to be hacked-up and sold for scrap! Larry >From: Art Hanley [csgn@home.com] >Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 9:16 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: F-22 Inlet > >David Lednicer wrote: >> >> >> Regarding inlet efficiency, the F-16 has a fixed inlet, but is capable of >> speeds close to M=2. The F-18 also has a fixed inlet. Most current >> fighters aren't required to go as fast as the older generations of >> fighters. Hence, fixed inlets work fine, and have lower radar signatures. >> The F-15 and F-14 have full variable inlets. >> > > > An interesting follow-up is that the variable inlets on many of the >F-14s have been disabled (not mechanically, just circuit breakers, to my >understanding). The Navy's view is apparently that the time spent above >M2 is so small that it just wasn't worth the cost of maintenance on the >inlets. So, thjey're still there but left in a fixed setting. That's >why you see many sources listing the top speed of the F-14D as M 1.88 >even though it has substantially more thrust than the F-14A which was >credited with M2.34. A similar plan was envisioned for the production >version of the B-1A, the variable inlets and stronger wings would be >there, but all the circuit breakers would be pulled for all normal >operations. If a -1A got into a situation where a threat dictated that >speeds above M1.6 were needed, the crew could push the circuit breakers >back in, and they'd become test pilots. > > > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 14:05:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Allison" Subject: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals Hello, In case anyone's curious, Ross & Perry is offering a pre-publication discount on the flight manuals for the SR-71, YF-12, U-2C, and YF-23. The books will be available after Sept. 15; if you order before then, they're offering a 30% discount. Here's a page with all the details: http://www.habu.org/books-videos/flightmanuals.html The offer absolutely ends September 15, 2001. Sincerely, - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org 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: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:07:26 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals David, Thanks!! My boys will love these as Christmas presents and birthday presents.... Are those the covers that are on the manuals? Nice shot of the SR-71..... The others are good too.... Thanks again Greg W ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:11:10 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals The website doesn't mention shipping.... is that included? Greg W ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:18:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Allison" Subject: Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals Greg: Yep, those are the actual covers. As to your other question, the prices are for the books only. Here are the shipping costs from the publisher (I will update the web page later today): Within the U.S.: $7.00 International Air: $35.00 (all but SR-71) $45.00 (SR-71) International Surface: $25 Sincerely, - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org 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 On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Weigold, Greg wrote: > David, > Thanks!! My boys will love these as Christmas presents and birthday > presents.... > Are those the covers that are on the manuals? Nice shot of the SR-71..... > The others are good too.... > > Thanks again > Greg W > > The website doesn't mention shipping.... is that included? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:27:05 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: discount on SR-71/YF-12/U-2C/YF-23 flight manuals David, Thanks... Greg W ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:21:33 -0400 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: U.S. Air Force Will Not Fund X-33, X-34 Vehicles With this announcement, where does that put these NASA programs, moth-balled, shelved, delayed indefintely ?!? - -----Original Message----- From: spacenews@SPACE.COM To: SPACECOM-TEXTS@LISTSERV.SPACE.COM Date: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:08 PM Subject: SPACE.com Update for Thursday, September 6, 2001 > >Today on SPACE.com -- Thursday, September 6, 2001 -- http://www.space.com/ > >In today's issue: > >* U.S. Air Force Will Not Fund X-33, X-34 Vehicles >http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacepolicy/xnews_090501.html > >The U.S. Air Force has decided not to adopt NASA^Rs orphaned X-33 and X-34 experimental rockets or take on a greater role in the agency^Rs X-37 space vehicle program, according to industry and government sources. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:26:33 -0400 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: Fly a MiG-25 to the edge of space http://www.incredible-adventures.com/edgeofspace.html I didn't know that a MiG could do that? How high and how fast and how long can a MiG fly at that altitude, without having a whole new engine replacement? Does flying high and fast, over 30 years for the SR-71 sound possible (tongue-in-cheek) !!! - -----Original Message----- From: spacenews@SPACE.COM To: SPACECOM-TEXTS@LISTSERV.SPACE.COM Date: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:08 PM Subject: SPACE.com Update for Thursday, September 6, 2001 > >Today on SPACE.com -- Thursday, September 6, 2001 -- http://www.space.com/ > >In today's issue: > >Fly a MiG-25 to the edge of space. Experience zero-gravity in an IL-76. Complete hands-on cosmonaut training at Russia^Rs Star City. Train for the space station. Incredible Adventures offers these space adventures and more. >http://www.incredible-adventures.com/space2.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:43:50 -0700 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph (Facility 406 Field Account)" Subject: Re: Fly a MiG-25 to the edge of space GASP! The Heck with the MiGs, check out the other stuff! Kurt Martin Hurst wrote: - -- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:47:41 -0400 From: "Tom" Subject: See The Flag Fly !! http://www.101smiles.com/americastands.html [demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of See The Flag Fly !!.url] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:16:31 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Off Topic: Thinking of you Hi from UK. Just wanted to let our American friends that we are watching the live TV pictures, and sharing your horror, shock & grief in the difficult hours. As a London Firefighter of 27 years front line experience, I was deeply moved to see how many of New Yorks Bravest were charging into the doomed WTC - as thousands of people were trying to escape... We're thinking of - & praying for - not only the Emergency & Medical crews, but the families & friends of all those involved. Please pass on our thoughts - in these darkest hours we ARE there with you - even from so far across the Atlantic... (Sadly we know a bit about cowardly terrorist actions - IRA & Arab bombs have killed many & maimed thousands of innocent victims from London to Manchester, Warrington to Amagh, & countless other cities & towns across Britain.) You're in our prayers... - --------------------------------- Bill Turner, B-T Admin, UK. www.secretjet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:49:55 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: Off Topic: Thinking of you Bill: Thank you very much. I don't feel this is off topic at all, it affects every honorable peaceful person on the planet. Hopefully we can come up with an intelligent, effective response to such a terrible act George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, 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: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:18:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Allison" Subject: Fw: Please read. Important Mesage (fwd) Skunkworks listmembers: This was forwarded to me, and though I would share it with the group. Semper Fi. - - David Allison habu.org - ------------------- begin forwarded message -------------------------- From: Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events through the lens of military history. I have joined the cast of thousands who have written an "open letter to Americans." Dear friends and fellow Americans 14 September, 2001 Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II. These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing - better said anxious -- to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long? In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them. In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only "superpower" (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent "counter-terrorist" organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional "body snatch," (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens. Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear "centers of gravity" to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders. Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned. Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but! also less audacious "sand in the gears" tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our "comfort zone" forcing the average American to "pay more and play less" and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order. Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our! mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail. Everyone I've talked to In the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy ********************************************************** Please forward this to everyone you know. I hope you agree that the message is very clear and must be understood by every citizen of this country. God Bless America ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #33 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest 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