HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Su-29?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:43:28 GMT
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.


From ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Stainless Steel Rat)

>>>>> On 8 Apr 92 00:41:04 GMT, danmcd@cs.arizona.edu (Daniel L. McDonald) said:

>According to the latest issue of "Flying", the Russians have announced
>plans to attend the EAA gathering at Oshkosh again this year. They
>intend to exhibit the Antonov Mriya (the world's larget aircraft) on
>which there was a thread here some months back. They also intend to
>bring at least one Su-29 (the one that does the "cobra" maneuver) and,
>of course, some of their Sukhoi acrobatics aircraft.

danmcd> Su-29?!?  What is this.  I've heard of the Su-27, but an Su-29?
danmcd> Could someone please either post of mail information on this plane?

It's definitely the Su-27. Possibly there is some confusion with the
MiG-29.

(Note: the following information is from the March 1991 Popular Mechanics,
and may be somewhat dated by now).

The Su-27 ``Flanker'' is most similar to the USAF's F-14 and F-15, by
comparison. It has a maximum weight of around 66,000 pounds (the MiG-29's
maximum weight is only about 40,000 pounds). Its two Lyulka engines
generate 55,000 pounds of thrust, giving the Su-27 a top speed of 1550 mph,
and a short runway takeoff performance of 1100 feet at 135 knots (the F-14
and F-15 need around 2000 feet). Projected maximum range with onboard fuel
is 2500 miles. The Su-27 uses a very stable and responsive fly-by-wire
control system, with highly accurate positioning. This system is at least
partially responsible for the Su-27's ability to perform the ``Cobra''
maneuver, pitching the nose of the aircraft to 130 degrees (the twin seat
version can only pitch to about 90 degrees due to the different center of
gravity of the craft).

--Rich
--
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!ratinox/   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: torpedo firing depth
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:00:58 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

You better believe those tube are at outside pressure, don't
ever doubt that. The tubes are flooded down and THEN the
muzzle doors are opened. then using 5k lb air pushing
WATER through a big ram the fish is ejected (and yes it
is noisy) A swimout is much better but much slower. 
It was always an interesting expirence to be reeling in the
long wire up in the escape trunk (hatchs closed) and think
about all that water rushing by less than a hands thickness
away as you are sitting there sweating with a slow o2 bleed 
on :-) [of course that hatch to control has to be shut, thats
the only way to reach the line wiper, and you have to sit some-
where]
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
From: gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: MIL STD Data Busses
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:51:44 GMT
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


From gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)


In sci.military, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
>
>Can anyone tell me about the MIL STD Data busses that military
>airplanes use?  Is it somnething like an ethernet that I can go attach
>devices to?  Do most airplanes have one?

    Most military combat aircraft and now other combat vehicles (M1A2)
use the Mil-Std-1553B databus.

    In the future, the Army will adopt what is called the Standard Army
Vetronics Architecture (SAVA) which is currently under development.

    Some commercial aircraft use whats called the ARINC-49 (?) databus,
which I don't know what it stands for.
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:07:17 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences


From sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)

Oh by the way, I'd like to add that watching one of these things being
fired is *IMPRESSIVE*. I would not want to be on the wrong end of one
of those things. It would scare me shitless.

To put it in context, at the machine gun shoot, when they open fire on
the range, there are anywhere from 50-100 machine guns being fired at
once. All kinds of guns. One person had an old quad-50 turret A-A gun.
The roar is utterly deafening without hearing protection (you *will*
use hearing protection).

This goes on for a while, and then a sharp "BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP!" can be heard over everything. I can't
think of anything to compare it to.  Maybe a Cox model airplane engine
at max rev, amplified 100,000 times.

Most of the people, even the machine gunners, stop to look. It steals
the show every time.

And it's so little! It doesn't look formidable. It looks cheesy.  Just
a piece of hardware.  Six 2' barrels, a motor, and a little hardware.
And a big box of ammo.  It almost looks like you could build one in
your garage.

At night they fire it with tracers and it looks like something out of
Star Wars. It makes me wonder what it was like to see the sky over
Baghdad last January. Wow.

Sean
-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Windage adjustment on military rifles.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:50:19 GMT


From wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>

In article <1992Mar28.024808.20194@cbnews.cb.att.com> Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>BTW, I didn't mention another disadvantage of adjustment knobs, which is that
>>anything which can get knocked out of adjustment inevitably will.
>
>The elevation and windage knobs on the M16A2 are spring-loaded and quite
>difficult to turn.

The sights on my Colt AR-15 "Sporter" H-BAR,which are identical 
        to the M16A@ are very stable. I think you'd have to *TRY* in
        order to knock them off their setting.
My M1 Garands and M14 rifle sights, which are practically  
        identical, loosened very quickly before I installed sight
        locks. Also banging the top of the rear sight will
easily knock it off zero without the locks.

-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Offensive applications of SDI
Keywords: Thor (aka Crowbar), impact explosion, 16 tons of TNT
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:39:25 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <1992Apr11.002344.19476@cbnews.cb.att.com> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr1.034101.7885@cbnews.cb.att.com>, 
>ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes...
>>Even with no terminal guidance, having hundreds of 16 ton TNT equivalent
>>explosions saturate the area of a massed tank formation would be devastating.
>
>	Could someone please explain to me how this is possible?  Am I to
>understand that the Thor (aka Crowbar) weapons system has an impact explosion 
>equivalent to 16 tons of TNT!?

Depleted uranium is approximately 19 grams per cubic centimeter. The
"crowbar" is 2 meters long and about 9 cm in diameter. That's about
242 kilos coming in at better than 5 km/sec. Kinetic energy is about
3*10^9 watt-seconds. Picture throwing a short across Hoover Dam's
main switchyard.

Gary
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: raised section on 637-class sub
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:58:30 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

I can't offer any help on the Parche's forward protrusion other than to comment
that it is probably not  associated with Swimmer delivery.  There were several
637 boats converted to carry SEAL teams and their Swimmer Delivery Vehicles.
Unfortunately, Parche was not one of them.

I have seen a picture of the Richard B. Russel (another 637-class)modified to 
support a DSRV (rescue mini-sub) and she (given the name shouldn't that be 
"he"?) has a very pronounced fitting very far aft that does indeed resemble a
sonar dome.  I assume it is related to the DSRV but side scan sonar for
localizing a disabled vessel might also mike sense.  Unfortunatedly Jane's
makes no mention of this, nor is Parch included in the list of subs modified to
handle the DSRV.  (It might be since the list is not comprehensive.)

Also, some 637 boats have the Bustle communications bouy fitted imediately
abaft of the sail but I don't think that's what you mean.

Reference: Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91.

Tom Schoene
WWO@cornella.cit.cornel.edu
"Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: smennitt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stuart Mennitt)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: NavSurfWarCen, CarderockDiv (ex-"Taylor Model Basin")
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:40:21 GMT


From smennitt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stuart Mennitt)


In sci.military, upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:

>It seems to me that a SMG would be handier than a M16 in a lot of
>situations. I've heard that the HK MP5 is especially nice.
>

    A Green Beret called the MP5 "the Cadillac of submachine guns" at
the DS Victory display last year in DC.  The most impressive piece at
the Special Forces display was the Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle.

]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[
]      Stu Mennitt      smennitt@oasys.dt.navy.mil    [
]     NavSurfWarCen, CarDiv     Bethesda, Maryland    [
]         was: David Taylor Research Center           [
]     was: David Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center         [
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE:the .50 cal single shot pistol.no way!
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:19:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr15.231948.1235
Organization: AT&T


From EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

in reply to mlong@uconnvm.uccon.edu 's search for a .50 cal pistol:
are you serious?altough technically can exist i do not think anyone will
built it.the reasons are:
DATA - mcmillan M-88 rifle  barrel 29 in. / weight 29 pounds
     - barret 82a1                33.5 in. / weight 32.5 pounds
     - .50 cal ballistics 660 grains,3080 fps,13688 foot-pounds

     -BRUTUS (rem X-100 in 458 winchester)barrel 13 in. / 6.5 pounds
      .458 winchester  500grains / 2070 fps / 4850 foot-pounds
BRUTUS is the most powerfull pistol i know of.recoil is HARD:!

REASONS:find an action.no action made that can handle the .50 cal.either
you make one or use one from a rifle which is ILLEGAL
        how heavy must you make it?the .50 rifle's recoil,though possible
to handle , is ENOUGH .imagin ethe pistol's recoil!!!!
        barrel length must be kept bellow 16 inches(according to law)
that is half the rifle's length.muzzle blast and flash will be ENORMOUS.
TERRIBLE,HORRIBLE,UNFORGETABLE

i will never stand NEAR such apistol , even if i'm gonna get 6 truckloads
of that lager.

kostas papakotas the "sniper" (relay nick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Japanese Jets in World War 2
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:25:42 GMT


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> The Garber Facility also has an Okha glide bomb on display.

To tie this into another recent thread, the Science Museum in
Kensington, London has one of these on display too

They have a Gloster F9 as well (the Whittle jet engine test aircraft).

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bhanafee@deimos.ads.com (Brian Hanafee)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mountain View, CA 94043, +1 (415)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:08:59 GMT


From bhanafee@deimos.ads.com (Brian Hanafee)


In article <1992Apr13.034056.5542@cbnews.cb.att.com> douglas@netcom.com (Doug - MIS x7889) writes:
>Actually I have heard that they use the Glock series 9mm pistols for
>two reasons - the finish is Tennifer, supposedly wears well to water
>and other things the SEALs encounter, and they can also be OEMed with
>some special springs or something that give them the ability to shoot
>underwater.
>
>I can't imagine the shock wave that hits your ears when shooting underwater!

After following this thread a few days, I asked a (recent) ex-SEAL
friend of mine what they use.  It is a 9mm, but not the Glock.  They
don't use the Glock because it doesn't have a clip release lever.  He
thought it was too bad they didn't, because otherwise the Glock is
virtually indestructable.

They also had some problems a couple years ago with one of their 9mm
models (not Glocks) because the manufacturer rated them at 5000
rounds, and the barrels were exploding after about 900.  After a
couple injuries, they got that problem fixed.

--
Brian Hanafee                         Advanced Decision Systems
bhanafee@ads.com                      1500 Plymouth Street
(415) 960-7300                        Mountain View, CA 94043-1230
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: FC-47
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:42:09 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <1992Apr4.012513.12280@cbnews.cb.att.com> CFG435CNP@mgvax.ulster.ac.uk writes:

>	Also, someone a while back was asking about an aircraft called FC-47
>this was in fact the first designation of the Douglas Gun-ship, and it was
>changed shortly after its introduction to AC-47, don't know why, maybe the
>fighter community disliked having a twin turbo-prop fighter in the jet age
>!!!

Well, the original designation of fighter aircraft was "P" for "pursuit",
and the major function of most fighter aircraft is still to catch or
intercept other aircraft and fight with them. It's really difficult to
imagine a nation fielding a warplane that a glorified DC-3 can catch
and shoot down.

The major function of the gun-ship is/was to attack ground targets, and
the proper designation for such a plane is "A". The only question in
my mind is why anyone in their right mind would call the AC-47 a "fighter"
even temporarily.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If you take a dog which is starving and feed him
George Patterson -  | and make him prosperous, that dog will not bite
                    | you. This is the primary difference between a dog
                    | and a man.             Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:26:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>

>>From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
> 
>>We use the M249 and M60 as SMGs, and neither are 9mm. I have specs if
>>yo want them.
> 
>     I believe you've got your terms a little messed up.  A SMG is by
>definition a pistol calibered Sub-Machine Gun.  You are reffering to
>SAW's (Squad Automatic Weapons).  

Only the M249 is a Squad Automatic Weapon.  It fires the same round as
the M16A2.  The 7.62mm M60E3 is a General Purpose Machine Gun.

Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ground Missiles List
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:27:52 GMT


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> Ground Missiles (Launchers unspecified)
> 
> 

SM-62   Snark
SM-75   Thor
MGR-1   Honest John
MGR-3   Little John
XB-64   Navaho
        Redstone
        Corporal
LGM-25  Titan
LGM-30  Minuteman
MGM-47  Dragon
MGM-51  Shillelagh
MGM-71  TOW

Loon
Regulus  (I & II)
Rascal
Rigel
Triton
From: EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: SU-27IB.....MIG-29M..new!!!!!!!!
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:30:24 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu


here's some data on ussr's latest aircraft.

-SU-27IB  (equivalent of F15E)
when seen aboard "KUZNETSOV" it had:X-31(AS17)antiradar missiles / X-29(AS14)
air to ground misss,laser guided / bombs / new AAM (equivalent ofAMRAAM)
R-73 (AA11) archers / 30mm gun.
and of course it was 2 seated (SIDE BY SIDE )!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- mig 29 m (fulcrum plus) with: fly by wire / crt / as14 / no additional air in
takes / more powerfull engines

reference:"flight and space" the No1 greek magazine..

kostas papakotas...........
From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:45:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> Actually a 9mm handgun would make a lot more sense, if we also had
> a general issue 9mm SMG, like most of the NATO forces have.

What do US forces use for an SMG at present ?
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:32:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Henry Spencer writes:
#on the other hand it also absorbs sunlight pretty well.  The XB-70s were
#white at least partly on the theory of reducing solar heating.  So was

Was not part of the reason for white paint to reduce the damage from the
flash of just-delivered nuclear weapons. I seem to recall the British
V-bombers having white paint and subdued national colors (very pale red
and blue) for that reason, and I definitely recall that WRT the TSR.2.
I guess the flash caused the same effects as solar heating, albeit more
intense.

While I'm here:

1. I recently saw "First Flights", an episode on jet bombers. They had 
footage of the XB-70. I find this aicraft to be unceasingly fascinating,
and am wondering if there are any decent books exclusively or primarily
devoted to it.

2. For those in the NYC area, there is an SR-71 at the INTREPID Sea-Air-
Space museum. It's size impressed me. I was able to walk around under the
wings between the engine and fuselage, which is no mean feat when you're
6'6" tall. The engines are of course missing. A ladder lets you peer into
the cockpit. A question. There is a large "ridge" of metal, about 6" high,
sticking up and forward from the canopy frame that divides the right and
left sides of the windshield, My conjecture is that it's a splitter plate
to reduce the airflow, and subsequent heating, over the windshield.
Corrections or explanations are appreciated. It really picked my curiosity.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS
From: briand@anasaz.UCAR.EDU (Brian Douglass)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re:  Low Altitude Training
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:42:49 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az


From briand@anasaz.UCAR.EDU (Brian Douglass)

In article <1992Apr11.002901.19981@cbnews.cb.att.com> fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:
>
>From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
>
>When you consider the weapons available now to the average
>and the AH1's, even the 52h's come in low but not slow.
>(The fast movers dont like to get the planes dirty by 
>having to fly through smoke and all :-) )
>-- 

Well, not so.  Red Flag operations at Nellis AFB in Nevada routinely do
low-level training.  Especially during the group operations when aircraft
fly in from all over the country to perform mock strikes at the gunnery
range.  In fact, about 5 years ago, a WO on an F-111 wrote a superb article in
Air Power (I think) on what it was like to be on one of these missions.  They
took off from somewhere over Idaho, rendezevoused with a tanker over northern 
Nevada, went after their target with full weight simulated bombs, hit the target
and egressed out.  The best line in the article was the WO describing how
right after he called "bombs away" the plane gyrated severely and his head
was stuck to the scope.  When he finally looked up, they were at knife edge
at 500 knots, 50 feet off the ground, just coming out of a severe turn.  

On the way, an F-5 from an aggressor squadron had been chasing them.  Now
light, they just pulled away from him.  The author claimed no plane could
keep up with the F-111 on the deck.  The last they saw of the F-5, he was
headed for the hills as a couple of F-16's were after him.  The article is
one of the best I've read of what Red Flag training is like.  That day,
the author claimed there were 100+ aircraft involved.

Personnally, I remember one day being out at Nellis when windows and
buildings rattled across the base.  Everyone ran out thinking someone had
crashed on the runway, and we were across the street from the tarmac.
Instead, a B-1 could be seen rising into the air on full-afterburner,
headed north.  Apparently he had snuck in from the south across Lake Mead,
come across the runway at about 100 AGL, and then punched it.

So maybe the fat-boys do get to have some fun occasionally.

-- 
"You want to know what's scary?  The Third World has 12 new members and
some of them are nuclear armed!"  Former US intelligence officer.

Brian Douglass			briand%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
				602-870-3330 X657
From: prm@ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Blackbird Paint (was: SR-71 top speed estimates)
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:23:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From prm@ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer)



>From colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)

>I suppose everybody already knows this, but the Blackbird isn't painted black,
>it's indigo blue, and my book shows a top speed of 3100 mph, but who knows.

It's black.

According to a source of mine, who works in the Materials Development
Department at the Lockheed Advanced Development Company [LADC, aka the
Skunk Works], and is responsible for all paint products on their
aircraft, the Blackbirds are painted with product C-144, available only
from LADC.  It is most closely matched in color by Gunship Black, #37038.

Don't bother trying to order C-144 from the Skunk Works; the planes must
be flown immediately after they are painted because C-144 must be cured
at flight temperatures.

Side note: thank you, Mary Shafer, for correcting my mis-interpretations
of the Dynamic Pressure Range on the SR specs.

Cheers,
Phil
(who spends too much time on the telephone talking to people at Lockeed.  :-)