From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #56 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 Saturday, July 29 2000 Volume 09 : Number 056 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Chris Pocock's New U-2 Book and HTAUTOMAT Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question FWD (TLC-Mission) Project Big Safari? Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question AF news article U-2 Re: Big Safari document and info Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question Re: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of Scud Ballistic FWD (EXT) Re: Concorde Down *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:27:52 -0400 From: Jerry Ennis Subject: Chris Pocock's New U-2 Book and HTAUTOMAT While reading Chris Pocock's new U-2 book (The U-2 Spyplane: Toward the Unknown), the story of the purported origin of the HTAUTOMAT "code name" for the U-2 photointerpretation center caught my eye. Pocock explains that Arthur Lundahl, Chief of the CIA's Photo Intelligence Division, wanted the new operation to be codenamed AUTOMAT. In a note on page 60, Mr. Pocock explains the transformation of AUTOMAT to HTAUTOMAT by writing, "Because a classified codename could not begin with a vowel, the initials of Lundahl's security officer Henry Thomas were prefixed to the name, hence HTAUTOMAT." The note also tells us that Mr. Pocock relied on Richard Bissell's "Reflections of a Cold Warrior" for this story. Bissell's book states: "The next step was to give the operation a project designation, since it was not at office-level status. Lundahl wanted to call it Automat because he intended to run it on the model of the places he'd seen in New York that were open practically around the clock. . . . Then a man from security stepped in and said a code word couldn't start with a vowel. Lundahl said he didn't give a damn and told him to put something else in front of it. His security officer, Henry Thomas, hung an HT in front of Automat and the project became known as HTAutomat." (Bissell, p. 104) The source for this information is given as "Arthur Lundahl interview by Jonathan Lewis, tape recording, Bethesda, Md., 23 January 1992." As reluctant as I am to take on the likes of Arthur Lundahl and, indirectly, Richard Bissell, the fact is that this story of the origin of the HT prefix can not be correct. CIA assigns two-letter prefixes (called digraphs) to codenames (which CIA actually refers to as cryptonyms). The digraphs designate a geographical or functional area. If the digraph permits, it can be incorporated into the cryptonym itself (e. g., AEROPLANE; CAPER). Otherwise, it is an obvious prefix (e.g., AEFOX; CABOUNCE; HTAUTOMAT). Every foreign country and every agent and operation in that country has a cryptonym that begins with the same two letters. Examples during the 1950-1960 time frame include AE for the Soviet Union, BE for Poland, DI for Czechoslovakia, DM for Yugoslavia, SM for the United Kingdom, DN for South Korea, etc. (See, Leo D. Carl, The International Dictionary of Intelligence, Mavin Books, 1990, p. 107; Phillip Agee, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, Stonehill Publishing, 1975, p. 48; David Wise, Molehunt, Random House, 1992, p.19) Reviewing declassified CIA documentation also shows three other uses of the HT digraph during the time of HTAUTOMAT's operation. (According to Gregory Pedlow & Donald Welzenbach [The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974, Central Intelligence Agency, 1998, p. 82], HTAUTOMAT came into existence in January 1956.) The other uses of the HT digraph during this period are HTKEEPER, HTPLUME, and HTLINGUAL.=20 =46rom the CIA's study of its early-1950s covert action in Guatemala (declassified in 1997), we learn that HTKEEPER was the cryptonym for Mexico City and HTPLUME was Panama. (Nicholas Cullather, Operation PBSUCCESS: The United States and Guatemala 1952-1954, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1994. See Appendix C, "Codewords Used in PBSUCCESS.") HTLINGUAL, of course, was the (in)famous mail-opening operation which ran from 1955 until 1973.=20 Since none of these "codenames" (KEEPER, PLUME, or LINGUAL) began with a vowel, the HT digraph was obviously added for a different reason. We can find many other examples of digraphs beginning with consonants being added to cryptonyms beginning with consonants. For example: DTFROGS, JMBLUG, KMFLUSH, LCFLUTTER, LCPANES, PBPRIME, PBSUCCESS, PBFORTUNE, PBCABOOSE, SECANT and SEQUIN (two examples of the digraph being integrated into the cryptonym), WSBURNT, WSHOOFS, FJDEFLECT, =46JHOPEFUL, SCRANGER, HBDRILL, JUBILIST, JUBATE, and ZRBRIEF (Cullather, op.cit. and PBSUCCESS document collection at http://www.foia.ucia.gov/popdoc1/guatemala.htm), plus the entire KU series (KU digraphs referred to elements of CIA) - KUCLUB, KUFIRE, KUGOWN, KUHOOK, KUSODA, KUBARK, KUJUMP (Cullather, ibid, and PBSUCESS document collection). Phillip Agee adds KUDOVE, KUTUBE, KUDESK, and KUCAGE, LITEMPO, and LICOZY to the consonant-consonant list. (Agee, op.cit. p. 48 and 612-13) There are also many examples of digraphs beginning with vowels added to cryptonyms beginning with vowels. Agee writes that all US government agencies had cryptonyms beginning with OD. He gives examples as ODACID (the State Dept), ODEARL (the Department of Defense), ODOATH (the US Navy), and ODENVY (the FBI) (Agee, p. 48). Cullather confirms ODACID and ODENVY and adds ODUNIT (the USAF), and ODIBEX (unidentified). And, of course, there are digraphs beginning with vowels added to cryptonyms which begin with consonants. A few examples are: AMLASH, ESMERALDITE, AEFOXTROT, AEBARMAN, AELADLE, AVBRANDY, AVBLIMP, AVBUSY, and ECJOB (to name a few). I apologize for such a long message, but I wanted to make it clear that the historical record does not support Lundahl's story. I can not explain why Lundahl said what he did and we can't ask him since he died five months after Jonathan Lewis' interview. Bissell died before his book was completed, so the degree to which Bissell reviewed the HTAUTOMAT story is also unknown. Pocock also had problems with some points in Bissell's book and notes, "Readers will find significant differences between this author's account of events, and those as related by the Bissell memoir." (Pocock, footnote, p. 40) While Lundahl's story is a nice one, I'm afraid the simple truth is not as interesting: the HT digraph (prefix) was added to AUTOMAT because HT was the appropriate designator for the CIA office or functional area under which the U-2 photointerpretation effect fell. ***************************************************** From: Jerry Ennis (jde1@att.net) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:13:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question > Just a simple question > > On July 25 the F-22 succesfully fired an AIM-9. > My question is, isn't the AIM-9 supposed to acquire the target before being > fired? If this is the case do they have to have the AIM-9 sticking out and > hanging on a trapeze while it acquires it's target ( and during dogfights). I I believe AAMs on the F-22 are mounted on special robotic arms that extend outwards when the missile is about to be fired. I think the weapon bays on the either side of the fuselage just under the wings as so equipped. I'm not sure if that is the case with the main weapons bay under the fuselage. > assume this is not the cae and that they rely on radar info to launch, and have > the AIM-9 acquire it's target while in flight. And that if they can acquire the > target visualy, helmet info will be used ( I'm not sure how this works) since the I'm sure they could upload targeting data to the missile prior to launch if they wanted to. > radar has an even more limited FOV than more conventional radars (non moveable > antenna, and degradation at high angles) > Is this correct? Can anyone clarify? It doesn't matter... the AN/APG-77 (IIRC) has an advanced electronically scanned array antenna and can be programmed to do just about anything the hardware can do. It is a multi-function beast and can perform all kind of tasks (radar++, EW, communications, etc...) > Timothy Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:45:18 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > Just a simple question > > > > On July 25 the F-22 succesfully fired an AIM-9. > > My question is, isn't the AIM-9 supposed to acquire the target before being > > fired? If this is the case do they have to have the AIM-9 sticking out and > > hanging on a trapeze while it acquires it's target ( and during dogfights). I > > I believe AAMs on the F-22 are mounted on special robotic arms that extend > outwards when the missile is about to be fired. I think the weapon bays on the > either side of the fuselage just under the wings as so equipped. I'm not sure if > that is the case with the main weapons bay under the fuselage. > > > assume this is not the cae and that they rely on radar info to launch, and > have > > the AIM-9 acquire it's target while in flight. And that if they can acquire > the > > target visualy, helmet info will be used ( I'm not sure how this works) since > the > > I'm sure they could upload targeting data to the missile prior to launch if they > wanted to. Do you mean they would just open the bay doors and extend for shooting after having relayed all info to the missile (so just a few short seconds)? Since the open bay doors, extended missile and robot arms impair the F-22's maneouvrability, stealth, etc... I asume they want to reduce that time to strict minimum. I guess maybe that's why they have only two AIM-9, they hope not to have to use'm too much... (Of course a swiveling robot arm would be nice for 360 deg :-) ) > > radar has an even more limited FOV than more conventional radars (non moveable > > antenna, and degradation at high angles) > > Is this correct? Can anyone clarify? > > It doesn't matter... the AN/APG-77 (IIRC) has an advanced electronically scanned > array antenna and can be programmed to do just about anything the hardware can > do. It is a multi-function beast and can perform all kind of tasks (radar++, EW, > communications, etc...) > > > Timothy > > Sam Yes I understand the APG-77 is a 'beast', but I'm under the impression that there is some degradation, when illumination is done at high angles (The AESA being fixed of course). So if you're in the frontal FOV the APG-77 would definitly be faster and better at tracking a high speed manoeuvering target than a mechanical antenna, but the 'effective' FOV is more limited. Although apparently provision has been made to add two extra antennas (if deemed necessary), on the sides to increase the FOV to approx. 270 deg. Potentially there is no limit, one could imagine having a few 'modules' on the back, for 360 deg FOV greatly enhanced situation awareness, missile warning, jamming etc... ah well one can always dream I guess. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:43:58 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLC-Mission) Project Big Safari? This came from the July 24 Aviation Week. Regards Remote vehicles, B57 spy AC and C 130 modifications regarding Surveilance, and remote sensors. Good stuff. A group called Big Safari, ever heard of it? The actual magazine had a photo of a KC97 refueling a C130 enroute to dropping a group of Seals into Subic. < http://www.aviationnow.com/TwoShare/getPage?sid=4177770264245827683 > In 1967 North Vietnam was still being bombed, and the area around Hanoi was heavily defended enough to give pause to ordering in aircrews. An idea was floated to take some of the hundreds of T-33s in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., and modify them at a cost of about $12,000 each to fly one-way-drone or cruise-missile-type missions. The proposed QT-33 would have had additional hip and cockpit fuel tanks to attain the necessary range. It would have taken off at 5,000 lb. over its normal gross weight. A small television camera in the aircraft's nose would have been linked to a monitor in a DC-130 to provide guidance to targets in the Hanoi area. (DC-130s were already in theater operating Lightning Bug drones.) The idea was turned down by the Pentagon, however, and the T-33s were sold for $7 a ton as scrap. more: THE OFFICE SPECIALIZES in fast-response, low-cost, limited-production programs. But there have been a few exceptions. During the Vietnam War, Big Safari officials helped organize production of about 1,000 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that gathered intelligence about North Vietnam from high altitude during the summer and from low altitude during the winter monsoons. Along the way, new add-on payloads gathered Vietnamese communications and electronic equipment signals, and jammed radars. The office also managed the production of 22 large-wing, high-altitude B-57Fs that were used for a mission similar to that of the U-2. What is remarkable, given traditional acquisition cycle times, is that only eight months elapsedfrom program start to first flight for a virtually new aircraft. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:01:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question > Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > > Just a simple question > > > > > > On July 25 the F-22 succesfully fired an AIM-9. > > > My question is, isn't the AIM-9 supposed to acquire the target before being > > > fired? If this is the case do they have to have the AIM-9 sticking out and > > > hanging on a trapeze while it acquires it's target ( and during dogfights). I > > > > I believe AAMs on the F-22 are mounted on special robotic arms that extend > > outwards when the missile is about to be fired. I think the weapon bays on the > > either side of the fuselage just under the wings as so equipped. I'm not sure if > > that is the case with the main weapons bay under the fuselage. > > > > > assume this is not the cae and that they rely on radar info to launch, and > > have > > > the AIM-9 acquire it's target while in flight. And that if they can acquire > > the > > > target visualy, helmet info will be used ( I'm not sure how this works) since > > the > > > > I'm sure they could upload targeting data to the missile prior to launch if they > > wanted to. > > Do you mean they would just open the bay doors and extend for shooting after having > relayed all info to the missile (so just a few short seconds)? Since the open bay > doors, extended missile and robot arms impair the F-22's maneouvrability, stealth, > etc... I asume they want to reduce that time to strict minimum. I guess maybe that's > why they have only two AIM-9, they hope not to have to use'm too much... (Of course > a swiveling robot arm would be nice for 360 deg :-) ) > > > > > radar has an even more limited FOV than more conventional radars (non moveable > > > antenna, and degradation at high angles) > > > Is this correct? Can anyone clarify? > > > > It doesn't matter... the AN/APG-77 (IIRC) has an advanced electronically scanned > > array antenna and can be programmed to do just about anything the hardware can > > do. It is a multi-function beast and can perform all kind of tasks (radar++, EW, > > communications, etc...) > > > > > Timothy > > > > Sam > > Yes I understand the APG-77 is a 'beast', but I'm under the impression that there is > some degradation, when illumination is done at high angles (The AESA being fixed of > course). So if you're in the frontal FOV the APG-77 would definitly be faster and > better at tracking a high speed manoeuvering target than a mechanical antenna, but > the 'effective' FOV is more limited. > Although apparently provision has been made to add two extra antennas (if deemed > necessary), on the sides to increase the FOV to approx. 270 deg. > Potentially there is no limit, one could imagine having a few 'modules' on the back, > for 360 deg FOV greatly enhanced situation awareness, missile warning, jamming > etc... ah well one can always dream I guess. > Timothy > > There doesn't have to be degradation since they can put AESAs ANYWHERE on the airframe :-)) Thus, providing full 3-axis coverage (360 degrees per axis) is fairly simple. About the AIM-9X missiles the F-22 should never come close enough to an enemy fighter to use them (at least that's the theory). Talking to the missiles and uploading data to them prior to launch would be really simple and would take less than a few ms. Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:17:28 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question > > >> > radar has an even more limited FOV than more conventional radars >>(non moveable >> > antenna, and degradation at high angles) >> > Is this correct? Can anyone clarify? >> >> It doesn't matter... the AN/APG-77 (IIRC) has an advanced >>electronically scanned >> array antenna and can be programmed to do just about anything the >>hardware can >> do. It is a multi-function beast and can perform all kind of tasks >>(radar++, EW, >> communications, etc...) >> >> > Timothy >> >> Sam > >Yes I understand the APG-77 is a 'beast', but I'm under the >impression that there is >some degradation, when illumination is done at high angles (The AESA >being fixed of >course). So if you're in the frontal FOV the APG-77 would definitly >be faster and >better at tracking a high speed manoeuvering target than a >mechanical antenna, but >the 'effective' FOV is more limited. Actually, I recall seeing material that indicated that the 77 had a much better field of view than other modern radars, extending into the rearward aspect. >Although apparently provision has been made to add two extra >antennas (if deemed >necessary), on the sides to increase the FOV to approx. 270 deg. >Potentially there is no limit, one could imagine having a few >'modules' on the back, >for 360 deg FOV greatly enhanced situation awareness, missile >warning, jamming >etc... ah well one can always dream I guess. It's been done before, and it's done on the F-22. The tail contains a number of electronic modules. There have been test aircraft that use almost their entire fuselage as an antenna array. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:40:57 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: AF news article U-2 > >001130. New U-2 egress simulator enhances emergency training >by Rhonda L. Edwards >9th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs > http://www.af.mil/news/Jul2000/n20000727_001130.html >BEALE AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFPN) -- The 9th Physiological Support >Squadron unveiled its new U-2 Egress Simulator here recently. This >simulator, the first of its kind, will be used to train pilots, flight crews >and members of the fire department in egress procedures and fire extraction >related to the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft. > >In 1997, Master Sgt. Ed Cotney, 9th PSS trainer, recognized a need for >improving the U-2 trainer. Upon his recommendation, Air Combat Command >Training Support Squadron, Detachment 1 at Luke AFB, Ariz., with assistance >from the 9th PSS, and Beale's ACC Training Support Squadron, Detachment 11 >built a new one. > >This system is capable of simulating dangerous situations in a safe >environment, said Maj. Brandon King, Detachment 11 commander. Its updated >features and components help create a realistic scenario necessary for >effective emergency training. > >The trainer's aircraft components include a new cockpit windscreen, full >pressure suit capability, and the ability to tilt at a 90-degree angle. The >trainer is also able to produce fire and smoke adding to the realism of the >situation. > >"It actually simulates the complete flight," said Staff Sgt. Carl Muhlecke, >egress training NCOIC. "Anything pilots can do in the cockpit, they can do >in this simulator." > >The previous trainer had limitations. The pilots could only use their >imaginations for emergency situations instead of actually experiencing the >stress. The new simulator provides a much more realistic scenario for >trainees. > >Although the new simulator will be the primary source of training, it will >be used to enhance traditional egress training, not replace it, Muhlecke >said. > >"The result of this training will be better prepared, better trained U-2 >pilots who will have the necessary skills to succeed in the event of an >actual emergency egress situation," said Capt. Ernesto Salinas, Detachment >11 curriculum development chief. > >The simulator was dedicated to the late Capt. Randy Roby. Roby was a U-2 >pilot who was killed in an accident in Oroville, Calif. in 1996. (Courtesy >of ACC News Service) > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:48:10 -0500 From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III" Subject: Re: Big Safari document and info Additional information about BIG SAFARI and some of its programs (including additional references to the project) may be found in my book _Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker: More than Just a Tanker_. http://www.shemya.net/book.html Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 100 18:45:42 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 question On 7/27/00 9:36AM, in message <3980651B.40481A5A@primus.ca>, "T.Toth" wrote: > Just a simple question > > On July 25 the F-22 succesfully fired an AIM-9. > My question is, isn't the AIM-9 supposed to acquire the target before being > fired? If this is the case do they have to have the AIM-9 sticking out and > hanging on a trapeze while it acquires it's target ( and during dogfights). I > assume this is not the cae and that they rely on radar info to launch, and > have > the AIM-9 acquire it's target while in flight. And that if they can acquire > the > target visualy, helmet info will be used ( I'm not sure how this works) since > the > radar has an even more limited FOV than more conventional radars (non moveable > antenna, and degradation at high angles) > Is this correct? Can anyone clarify? > Timothy > ON the F-22 my understanding is that when selected, only the nose of the AIM-9s stick out for acquisition. When launched, which is a very rapid sequence, the whole missile comes out and then rockets away. An unfortunate byproduct of the stealth design of the F-22 is that a good portion of the seeker head is blocked by the fuselage before launch. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 100 19:07:34 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of Scud Ballistic On 7/27/00 1:29PM, in message <05256929.00708B0D.00@notesmail.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, "Tom C Robison" wrote: > > > ---------------------- Forwarded by Tom C Robison/HDC on 07/27/2000 03:28 PM > --------------------------- > > > dlnews_sender@DTIC.MIL on 07/27/2000 01:50:02 PM > > Please respond to DODNEWS-L-request@DTIC.MIL > > To: DODNEWS-L@DTIC.MIL > cc: (bcc: Tom C Robison/HDC) > Subject: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of Scud Ballistic > Missiles - > Gulf War > > > > = N E W S R E L E A S E > = > = OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE > = (PUBLIC AFFAIRS) > = WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 > = > = PLEASE NOTE DATE > ==================================================== > > No. 470-00 > (703)695-0192(media) > IMMEDIATE RELEASE > July 27, 2000 > (703)697-5737(public/industry) > NEW INFORMATION PAPER EXAMINES IRAQ'S USE OF SCUD BALLISTIC MISSILES DURING > GULF WAR > I highly recommend the new book, "Brighter than the Baghdad Sun", ISBN 0895262517. It was written by two experienced corespondents and is based on not-for-attribution disclosures by intelligence personnel and interviews with defectors and involved personnel. Although mostly about Saddam's work in developing nuclear weapons (and how a lucky bomb dropped on a secondary target saved Kuwait City) then and since the war, there is information related to the warheads of Scuds and the "...threat of massive U.S. retaliation". It's come out that the British had made it clear that if CBWs were used on their troops they let it be known that they would respond in a nuclear manner. According to the book, on Jan. 9, 1991 Secretary of State James Baker delivered a letter to Iraq's Tariq Aziz and forced him to read it in his presence. IN the letter, from George Bush, it stated that if CBW was used on any Allied troops or neighboring countries, "We will send you back to the pre-industrial age and it will take centuries for Iraq to recover from America's response". Given that this was before Bush took the nukes off ten SSNs and CVs, it's reasonable to assume that the Iraqis understood this response would involve fusing Hydrogen atoms. Of course nowadays, the letter probably might very well be asking for campaign contributions. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:23:05 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (EXT) Re: Concorde Down > Thirty year old technology, and still the fastest passenger aircraft in > the sky. > > Sigh... Being an unreconstructed aerospace nut (and spending way too much time on airplanes), I've followed the Concorde crash story with morbid fascination. Some random observations: <> The Concorde stands for the proposition (among others) that you "can't push the river". Despite 35 years of effort by France and the UK, BA and AirFrance haven't been able to make their SST really pay. BA says it makes an operating profit on their birds, but only if you do the accounting such that you consider that the company received the airplanes as a GIFT from the British government. <> Despite having suffered through a transatlantic flight more times than I can now count, I can't make myself believe that an SST with current technology makes sense. It seems to me that the disruption of one's schedule from crossing 6 or 8 time zones in 3 or 4 hours is just as great as doing it in 9 or 10 hours. Heck, just going back and forth between the US Middle and Left Coasts is enough to kill the better part of two whole days for me. With the ability to keep a laptop computer running throughout the usable portion of the transatlantic flight now, I've come to actually be able to make productive use of the trip if I want or need to. <> By the time technology develops to the point that a ticket for an SST ride is cost effective for the business traveler, telepresence will have made such trips decreasingly useful. This is already happening. Those kinds of business activities that can't seem to be replaced by telepresence tend to not be the kind that are the most time-sensitive in the vast majority of cases. <> Concorde is a testimony to the fact that highly skilled and motivated people can make an "irrational" technology work pretty darned well long past the point where it would make sense to throw in the towel and let it die a natural death. This is obviously a function of government subsidy and institutional inertia insulated from market pressures, a lesson to which advocates of swift technological progress should pay close attention. <> I understand why the engines have to be in closed nacelles tucked in tightly to the body and wing, but why not on TOP of the wing, where debris from an exploding tire wouldn't be a problem? Greg Burch - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #56 ******************************** 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