From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Fri Feb 22 15:54:06 2002 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:20:39 -0600 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V11 #1 skunk-works-digest Friday, February 22 2002 Volume 11 : Number 001 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR-71 on Diego Garcia, 1978-79 [none] YB-49 in El Paso? [none] Re: nothing on subject line Re: List Re: Old/lost/obscure/secret airfields Re: secret airfields - Thanks! SR-71 Question Re: SR-71 Question Another Lockheed product finds a new use.. Shape stealth history, place of F-117 therein Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? RE: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? Groom, April 2001 RE: Groom, April 2001 - Images Deleted RE: Groom, April 2001 - Images Deleted Re: Groom, April 2001 - Images Deleted Groom toxic waste exclusion, 2002 Re: movements Serbia F-117 Piece for Sale Hello to the group Re: Hello to the group [none] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:02:13 -0500 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: Re: SR-71 on Diego Garcia, 1978-79 At 06:52 PM 12/16/01 -0600, you wrote: Anybody have more information about what this deployment was for? http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/dg001.html >From Lockheed SR-71:The Secret Missions Exposed: P 154 "Diego Garcia The tiny island of Diego Garcia, located nearly halfway between the Maldives and Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, became an important operating location for B-52s participating in the Gulf War. Its strategic importance in relation to the western Middle East had been appreciated in US military circles over a decade earlier. As early as 1978, various engineering works began on the British-controlled base and the Senior Crown Programme Element Monitor (PEM) in the Pentagon obtained approval via a 'Chief of Staff Memo to the JCS' to acquire some JP7 storage tanks for emplacement on the island. In addition, an SR-71 'barn' was moved from Beale for reconstruction in this unlikely sub-Asian location. On Tuesday 1July 1980 Bob Crowder and Don Emmons left Kadena in aircraft 962 on a four and a half hour flight down to the island to 'exercise the facility'. It was the first time an SR-71 had ever visited the island, and after light maintenance the 'Habu' returned to Kadena. Despite having validated the good facilities, no SR-71 ever returned during subsequent operational sorties to 'points east' of the island." I seem to recall one or two round trips to the Persian Gulf from Kadena. I don't recall if these were before or after the establishment of an SR "base" at DG. (doubtless they are in the Crickmore book) But, it looks like there was never any operational mission flown by the SR from DG. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 07:02:36 -0600 From: Steve Douglass Subject: [none] I don't recall saying or claiming I have ever seen an aircraft called ASTRA... but of course .. I've been accused of saying a lot of things. I have slept since then so correct me if i'm wrong. "seen so often?" I wish! I have heard the call sign ASTRID. Steve Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:17:16 +0100 From: Andreas Parsch Subject: A-11 Astra Hello, the following was posted on another discussion forum. It may be old news to many people on this list, but just in case (it was new to me, anyway ;-)) ... "[...] who was the guy that saw the 'new stealth aircraft' that looked like a large F-117 (June 2001)? Anyway, let him (or them) know that what they saw was the USAF/ Skunk Works, A-11 Astra. An attack aircraft that replaced the F-111 'Vark.' The USAF was saying loud and clear - 'TAKE THE PICTURES ALREADY.' The Astra designate is not an acronym, its the aircraft's name. Its the same aircraft type seen so often by Steve Douglass. And, yes it is operational." Finally, a _real_ "A-11" from the Skunk Works !?! Regards Andreas Monitoring HF military from an apartment in the Texas Panhandle! HF Receiver: A Vintage Panasonic RF-4900 (works great) Antenna: Approximate 300 foot rain gutter running along the roof of my apartment! VHF and UHF receivers: Pro-2004, Pro-2035, BC-8500XLT Pro-43, Pro-60 Antennas: Scanner Discone, Interceptor UHF Yagi cut o 350 Mhz, UHF MIL aircraft blade antenna... all mounted on my balcony! Storm Spotters!: http://www.aes-tx.org/ Collectors!: http://www.benhurtradingco.com THE NEW PROJECT BLACK : http://www.projectblack.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:59:24 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: YB-49 in El Paso? Does anyone know if the YB-49 ever visited El Paso, presumably what is now Biggs Army Airfield? I have a very early, but seemingly clear memory (I would have been about five years old at the time, ca. 1950) of driving into El Paso with my parents and seeing a flying wing with very smoky engines -- much like the leftmost picture in the second row at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-49-pics.htm . Could this actually have happened, or is it just a "memory" made up in later years? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:23:43 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: [none] Is this list dead? What are the Skunkworks up to now? Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:40:03 -0500 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: nothing on subject line At 06:23 PM 1/9/02 +0000, you wrote: >Is this list dead? >What are the Skunkworks up to now? >Gavin Nope the list is still alive, just not a whole lot to say right now.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:53:26 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: List > Is this list dead? Well, it's kind of slow these days. > What are the Skunkworks up to now? Building a successor to the X-33? :-( Howsomever, let me drag out one of my favorite questions and invite discussion if anyone is interested in chatting until the next "Aurora" comes along. According to an item at http://www.csbaonline.org/ Classified or "black" programs constitute about $17.1 billion, or 16 percent, of the acquisition funding requested in the FY 2002 defense budget (see table). Of this amount, $7.9 billion is for procurement funding and $9.2 billion is for research and development (R&D) funding, representing 13 percent and 19 percent, respectively, of the total procurement and R&D budget request. The classified budget is 43 percent lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than in FY 1987, when acquisition peaked at $21 billion. The decline roughly parallels that of DoD acquisition funding for the same period. The question is, what are we getting/have we gotten for this money? Granted, some amount, like the CIA operating budget(*), goes to sort of run-of-the-mill stuff. Other parts, like the NRO budget, probably do result in a certain amount of sexy hardware, but it's kind of hard to see that NRO has put more than a few billion dollars of iron on orbit per year. Say that half or so of the black budget goes for routine stuff or somewhat perceptable activities like spysats -- still, we're left with a fair number of gigabucks per year going somewhere. And, over the course of the past couple of decades, at least $100 billion, perhaps more like $150B, have gone for --- what? (*) Ca. $3-4 billion/year, an amount that must be concealed within the DoD budget lest damage, serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage to the national security result from enemies learning of it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:05:12 -0800 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" Subject: Re: Shh.. its a secret... Yes, it's been pretty dead lately! Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:44:31 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Old/lost/obscure/secret airfields As long as we're seeking for something to be interested in, let me recommend the following set of very interesting pages for those who may not already know about them: http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:33:04 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: secret airfields - Thanks! In a message dated 10/01/02 19:46:43 GMT Standard Time, thomsona@flash.net writes: << http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/ >> Fascinating - Many Thanks!!! - ----------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:56:35 -0500 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: SR-71 Question Does anyone know what crew names were applied to SR-71A 64-17967 when it was based at Edwards in 1996/7 as part of 9 SRW/Det 2? Photos would be great (both sides if possible) is you could e-mail them to me directly. Thanks, Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:18:15 -0500 (EST) From: "D. Allison" Subject: Re: SR-71 Question Hello, 967 and 971 each were stenciled with the name of one pilot/RSO crew on each side, for a total of 8 crewmen. I can look up which ones were one which side of what airframe tonight; you can see the crews posing with 967 on this page: http://www.habu.org/sr-71/17967c.html 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 Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Jim Rotramel wrote: > Does anyone know what crew names were applied to SR-71A 64-17967 when > it was based at Edwards in 1996/7 as part of 9 SRW/Det 2? Photos would > be great (both sides if possible) is you could e-mail them to me > directly. > > Thanks, > > Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:21:03 -0500 From: John Szalay Subject: Another Lockheed product finds a new use.. I guess the story is not flashy or sexy enough for CNN, after all its just about the ol P-3. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Jan/13/ln/ln06a.html Take that, Darth Vader.... shooting at a P-3. HAH.. P-3 can shoot back... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:43:59 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Shape stealth history, place of F-117 therein At what date did overall body shaping as a way to deflect radar energy away from receivers become a firmly established design goal? As far as I can tell, it really got established in late 1958-1959 in preliminary studies for a U-2 successor -- that eventually led to the A-12(*)/SR-71. And, a little bit later, the Ryan Model 154 drone. One notes that the GUSTO II design proposal that came out of this era was a stealthy flying wing that sure reminds one of the B-2. Further and more, just looking at the various stealthy aircraft over the past forty years, it strikes me that B-2, F-22, JSF, various cruise missiles, connect more with the A-12 and Model 154 than they do with HAVE BLUE/F-117. So was F-117, important as it was/is, something of an excursion in the middle of the path to practical aircraft stealth? Comments, even flames, concerning these ramblings are solicited. (*) The first one. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:39:19 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? Greetings! I thought the radical & angular shape was purely a result of a mathematical equation - they fed the quest for 'which shape reflects least radar?' into the mainframe; The answer that came out was a 'squidged' diamond - So they then put together an aircraft with as many of those shaped panels as possible... Over to you! - --------------- 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, 21 Jan 2002 17:14:05 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? > I thought the radical & angular shape was purely a result > of a mathematical equation - they fed the quest for 'which > shape reflects least radar?' into the mainframe; The answer > that came out was a 'squidged' diamond - So they then put > together an aircraft with as many of those shaped panels > as possible... Kind of. But as I understand it, the Ufimtsev approach *only* applied to faceted surfaces, so when Olverholser used it, it naturally came out with a faceted airplane. Which obviously won the day in the competition. But, notice, that subsequent stealth airframe designs, AFAIK, do not use the faceting approach. They're much more reminiscent of the pre-HAVE BLUE blended look as exemplified by A-12, GUSTO 2, Model 154, etc. Now it may well be that the pre-faceted blended look was the result of simple eyeball design and raytracing, while the post-faced one resulted from vastly complicated Maxwell's equations solving. But just what the difference was is what I'm asking about, also why faceted steath seems to have had a run of a decade at most. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:18:37 -0800 From: "Jon" Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? IIRC, it had something to do with the computational power (or lack thereof) of the super computers of the era> PJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Thomson To: Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 15:14 Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? > > I thought the radical & angular shape was purely a result > > of a mathematical equation - they fed the quest for 'which > > shape reflects least radar?' into the mainframe; The answer > > that came out was a 'squidged' diamond - So they then put > > together an aircraft with as many of those shaped panels > > as possible... > > Kind of. But as I understand it, the Ufimtsev approach *only* > applied to faceted surfaces, so when Olverholser used it, it naturally > came out with a faceted airplane. Which obviously won the day > in the competition. > > But, notice, that subsequent stealth airframe designs, AFAIK, do not > use the faceting approach. They're much more reminiscent of the > pre-HAVE BLUE blended look as exemplified by A-12, GUSTO 2, > Model 154, etc. > > Now it may well be that the pre-faceted blended look was the result > of simple eyeball design and raytracing, while the post-faced one resulted > from vastly complicated Maxwell's equations solving. But just what the > difference was is what I'm asking about, also why faceted steath seems > to have had a run of a decade at most. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:16:35 -0500 From: "Greg Meland" Subject: RE: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? The early stealth aircraft achieved their stealth characteristics as a by-product of their design. Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction was not the primary driver in the design of the U-2, A-12, etc. When it came to the F-117, RCS was the part of the low observable equation that drove the design. In fact, the F-117 was the only aircraft up to that point in history that was designed from the ground up with low observability being the goal. During that period, computers were not powerful enough to handle the complex computations required for "blended" RCS surfaces. Thus, the faceted surfaces were the best that could be done. After the F-117 became operational, computer technology advanced sufficiently enough to handle the computations required for a blended surface in a stealth aircraft. Greg Meland - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Allen Thomson Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:14 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? > I thought the radical & angular shape was purely a result > of a mathematical equation - they fed the quest for 'which shape > reflects least radar?' into the mainframe; The answer that came out > was a 'squidged' diamond - So they then put together an aircraft with > as many of those shaped panels as possible... Kind of. But as I understand it, the Ufimtsev approach *only* applied to faceted surfaces, so when Olverholser used it, it naturally came out with a faceted airplane. Which obviously won the day in the competition. But, notice, that subsequent stealth airframe designs, AFAIK, do not use the faceting approach. They're much more reminiscent of the pre-HAVE BLUE blended look as exemplified by A-12, GUSTO 2, Model 154, etc. Now it may well be that the pre-faceted blended look was the result of simple eyeball design and raytracing, while the post-faced one resulted from vastly complicated Maxwell's equations solving. But just what the difference was is what I'm asking about, also why faceted steath seems to have had a run of a decade at most. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:27:37 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? John Cashen talks about this some in "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collapse of the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber Program." He mentions that he began rounding the edges but ran out of time. See page 20. Jim Stevenson On 1/21/02 8:16 PM, "Greg Meland" wrote: > The early stealth aircraft achieved their stealth characteristics as a > by-product of their design. Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction was not > the primary driver in the design of the U-2, A-12, etc. When it came to > the F-117, RCS was the part of the low observable equation that drove > the design. In fact, the F-117 was the only aircraft up to that point > in history that was designed from the ground up with low observability > being the goal. During that period, computers were not powerful enough > to handle the complex computations required for "blended" RCS surfaces. > Thus, the faceted surfaces were the best that could be done. After the > F-117 became operational, computer technology advanced sufficiently > enough to handle the computations required for a blended surface in a > stealth aircraft. > > Greg Meland > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Allen Thomson > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:14 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Shape stealth history, place of F-117? > > >> I thought the radical & angular shape was purely a result >> of a mathematical equation - they fed the quest for 'which shape >> reflects least radar?' into the mainframe; The answer that came out >> was a 'squidged' diamond - So they then put together an aircraft with >> as many of those shaped panels as possible... > > Kind of. But as I understand it, the Ufimtsev approach *only* applied > to faceted surfaces, so when Olverholser used it, it naturally came out > with a faceted airplane. Which obviously won the day in the competition. > > But, notice, that subsequent stealth airframe designs, AFAIK, do not use > the faceting approach. They're much more reminiscent of the pre-HAVE > BLUE blended look as exemplified by A-12, GUSTO 2, > Model 154, etc. > > Now it may well be that the pre-faceted blended look was the result of > simple eyeball design and raytracing, while the post-faced one resulted > from vastly complicated Maxwell's equations solving. But just what the > difference was is what I'm asking about, also why faceted steath seems > to have had a run of a decade at most. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:29:25 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Groom, April 2001 FWIW, there's a nice Ikonos pic of Groom Lake taken 16 April 2001 that shows, presumably because of favorable lighting conditions, secondary stuff on the lake bed: http://archive.spaceimaging.com/ikonos/2/kpms/2001/04/browse.85862.crss_sat. 2.0.jpg Details of the picture are at http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/quicklook/scene_metadata.asp?vSCENE_ID=2 000008586202THC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:44:26 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Groom, April 2001 - Images Deleted It appears that the image and detail files have both been deleted. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of Allen Thomson Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 4:29 PM To: Skunk Works List Subject: Groom, April 2001 FWIW, there's a nice Ikonos pic of Groom Lake taken 16 April 2001 that shows, presumably because of favorable lighting conditions, secondary stuff on the lake bed: http://archive.spaceimaging.com/ikonos/2/kpms/2001/04/browse.85862.crss_ sat. 2.0.jpg Details of the picture are at http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/quicklook/scene_metadata.asp?vSCENE_ ID=2 000008586202THC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:58:50 -0500 From: John Szalay Subject: RE: Groom, April 2001 - Images Deleted At 12:44 PM 1/27/02 -0500, you wrote: >It appears that the image and detail files have both been deleted. > They are still there, you just have to cut and paste the complete URL into you browser, since URL is truncated, it errors out... >FWIW, there's a nice Ikonos pic of Groom Lake taken 16 April 2001 that >shows, presumably because of favorable lighting conditions, secondary >stuff on the lake bed: > >http://archive.spaceimaging.com/ikonos/2/kpms/2001/04/browse.85862.crss_ >sat.2.0.jpg > >Details of the picture are at > >http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/quicklook/scene_metadata.asp?vSCENE_ >ID=2000008586202THC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:17:13 -0800 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" Subject: Re: Groom, April 2001 - Images Deleted It's there, the link is broken into pieces making it "unclickable" Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:24:46 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Groom toxic waste exclusion, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/print/20020130-11.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:58:50 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: movements On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK wrote: >> They did get dragged away from the road and >> parking lot for a few days, I'm told, but they're back behind the >> RAIF again, now that we have our roadblocks in position. > On Ave. P? No, at Dryden, which is at Edwards AFB. The airplanes in the park on Ave P are museum aircraft, not laid up in flyable storage. 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...." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:37:57 -0700 From: Brent Clark Subject: Serbia F-117 Piece for Sale Now they are trying to sell it back to us! Check out http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?Viewitem&item=1696945909 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:55:05 -0800 (PST) From: james yarborough Subject: Hello to the group Hello! my name is james and I am a college student at DCCC. Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:46 -0800 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" Subject: Re: Hello to the group DCCC? Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:19:00 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: [none] Lasers and New Gunships. gunsh-@aol.com Feb 16, 2002 23:21 PST America's laser of death cleared for take-off By Sean Rayment (Filed: 17/02/2002) AMERICA'S enemies will soon face a weapon, once confined to the Star Wars films, that can bring death at the speed of light. The special operations AC-130 Spectre Gunship, whose conventional weaponry has been used to devastating effect since the Vietnam War, is to be fitted with a laser that can shoot down missiles, punch holes in aircraft and knock out ground radar stations. Despite the successful operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, the emergence of asymmetric terrorist warfare - attacks such as September 11 where the enemy is unseen - has led the Pentagon to identify the need for a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system. The next generation Gunship, code named AC-X and nicknamed 'Son of Spectre' by US defence officials, will carry all the weaponry already used on the AC-130, including twin 20mm Vulcan cannon (capable of firing 2,500 rounds per minute), 40mm Bofors cannon (100 rounds per minute) and a 105mm Howitzer. Its 21st-century addition, however, will be its biggest punch: a chemical oxygen iodine laser (Coil), capable of carrying out lethal and non-lethal attacks. The advantage of laser weapons is that they strike at the speed of light. In the Coil, the power of a chemical reaction is converted to laser energy, and the weapon can carry on firing as long as its power source is intact. Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, has given the go-ahead for the next-generation AC-130, which includes full funding for the "integration of a direct-energy weapon". The Pentagon is yet to announce when the new laser-equipped "Son of Spectre" will come into operation, but it is understood that the first upgraded version could be involved in military operations within two years. Although lasers exist that can hit aircraft, disable optically guided missiles and destroy communications lines, the ability to vaporise enemy troops and vehicles Star Wars-style will take a few more years to develop. The Spectre, flown by the 16th Special Operations Squadron, has a crew of 13, including two observers using television and infra-red images to direct the four gunners on to their target. Working in pairs, normally providing close air support for special forces ground operations, Spectres can circle targets for hours, pulverising areas the size of football pitches with extraordinary precision. The Spectre has, however, come to the end of its operational life and further upgrades have been ruled out on cost grounds. Rob Hewson, the editor of Jane's Air Launched Weapons, said: "The laser will be the atomic weapon of the 21st century. Since the 1970s, US scientists have conducted a series of secret experiments in the Nevada desert using lasers. "We know that they had lasers capable of causing immense damage but they needed huge power packs. This remains a problem and this is why a laser weapon can only be fitted on an air frame the size of the AC-130. But advances will be made and the power plant will shrink and one day it will dominate the battle field. "The Americans may already have a very powerful laser weapon far more advanced than we have seen. They have been carrying out research in this field for years but it is a very secret weapons programme and we have no idea how far they have progressed." Once the Coil and its power plant have been fully developed, the USAF hopes to fit it to a whole range of manned and unmanned aircraft, such as the Predator reconnaissance probe, which is fitted with Hellfire missiles and has been used in CIA operations in Afghanistan. Lasers could also be used as an additional weapon system to fighters, bombers, helicopter gunships and warships, but this is unlikely for a decade. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V11 #1 ******************************** 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