From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #9 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 19 November 1992 Volume 02 : Number 009 In this issue: Re: F-117 Artcle (3/3) Re: F-117A Article Re: F-117 Article (1-3) Uhhh... Wow! Re: F-117 Artcle (3/3) Re: F-117 Article (1-3) Re: Role of F-117 in DS, was F-117 Artcle (3/3) Re: F117 Visibility stealth... F-117 V. E-2 See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 5:40:16 CST Subject: Re: F-117 Artcle (3/3) |> >I'm trying to remember now, but I believe that during the first night of the |> >air battle the F-117's were accompanied by radar jamming aircraft (Wild |> >Weasles). That says quite a bit about the confidence the Air Force had |> |> Uh, this isn't my area of specialty, but aren't Wild Weasles anti-radiation |> aircraft? I mean, they're not meant to jam, like EF-111s, but instead they |> hope an enemy radar will paint the aircraft so they can send an anti-radiation |> missile back up the beam. At least, that's my understanding. I could be |> completely wrong. (Phil feels himself treading on thin ice here) |> |> If anybody knows what sort of equipment the Wild Weasles carry, I'd sure |> appreciate hearing about it.... Wild Weasel is a mission designation for SAM suppression (what the Navy apparently called Iron Hand in Vietnam). You are right about the basic mission outline - this was originally performed with Shrike missiles, these days with HARM or ALARM. The aircraft most commonly referred to as Wild Weasel is the F-4G, but this is not a specific designation for it. For example, the Brits use the Tornado for their Wild Weasel missions. I think the original poster asks a valid question though - why send non-stealth Wild Weasel aircraft along with a flight of stealth aircraft? The stealth aircraft supposedly don't need the SAMs to be taken out, and the Wild Weasels would show up on the radar, thus removing the element of surprise. Unless of course the Wild Weasel aircraft were F-117s themselves. I don't think F-117s can carry large missiles in their weapons bay though can they? Steve, do you have any references for the inclusion of Wild Weasels in F-117 strike missions? Also, the discussion of the radar visibility of the F-117 in ODS has been discussed before, and the consensus seemed to be that the aircraft was only radar visible from the rear. Steve, did your contact on the E-2C mention anything about his location relative to the F-117 when it appeared on radar? - -- ______ _____________ ______________________ ______ /\####/\ / / / / /\####/\ / \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \ /____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\ \####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/ \##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/ \/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/ agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:15:43 -0800 Subject: Re: F-117A Article T Velazquez relayed: >> "Such a radical technology had its doubters. The model above >>was bombarded with radar beams without result. Once, a skeptical > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>visiting officer claimed to 'see something' on the display; a crow had >>landed on the model." Steve Upp responds: >What the heck does 'without result' mean here? Do you really believe that >the airframe was able to absorb or deflect 100% of the radar beam? Give me >a break... This kind of claim is an absolute joke, unfortunately the public >by and large believes it and since the project is 'BLACK' no one can >independently verify it without the risk of going to jail. How about the rest of it: "Such a radical technology had its doubters. The model above was bombarded with radar beams without result. Once, a skeptical visiting officer claimed to 'see something' on the display; a crow had landed on the model." Too bad a skeptical skunk-works subscriber couldn't be there as well! :) Earlier the article expands on the situation for the model test you mentioned. I would like to make two points from the same article: 1. The article later says: "You're not making these things invisible," said Benjamin Lambeth of RAND Corp. Stealth "reduces substantially the distance at which the plane can be detected. By the time detection occurs, it won't be tactically useful."" I assume "without result", is summarized by the immediately above paragraph. My assumption is that the test mentioned by Ben Rich is consistent with the implications of that paragraph. 2. Also, as indicated below, you're not the only one who was skeptical. It's important to be skeptical but it's also important to have vision and not get dominated by the difficulties of a problem when looking for a solution. The following indicates skepticism on the part of many groups and the related problems in this project. "In 1974, however, when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) requested proposals for a stealthy small fighter, Lockheed was not even invited to submit one. At the time, company officials were forbidden to boast of their prowess in low-RCS aircraft because the high-altitude snooping of the U-2 and the SR-71 was being conducted for the CIA. The corporation was permitted to bid only after Mr. Johnson obtained a letter from CIA officials authorizing Lockheed to disclose limited details. In 1975, DARPA was persuaded to accept an unsolicited Lockheed proposal. ... Lockheed's early computer modeling, however, was limited to calculations in only two dimensions, meaning that the resulting aircraft would have an ungainly, faceted design rather than a smooth, seamless one. In fact, Mr. Rich and his Lockheed team christened that first, sharply angled aircraft "the Hopeless Diamond." ... Initially, Pentagon officials regarded with deep skepticism Lockheed's claims of having developed some revolutionary radar-evading properties. ... "The reaction from the Air Force and DARPA was, 'That was all theory,'" ... Mr. Rich recalls demonstrating the new approach for a visiting officer. With radar beams bombarding the test stand, the two men intently watched a display screen. Nothing appeared. "All of a sudden," recalled Mr. Rich, "a black crow landed on the model. The officer said, 'I see something.'" That series of demonstrations indicated that Lockheed was on the right path, but the company and the Air Force had along way to go before they would be certain they weren't chasing a mirage. ... Additional interesting confirmation of Lockheed's achievement comes from Irv Waaland, chief designer of Northrop's competing XST project, from: AW&ST 2/10/92; pg 23. "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency sponsored the XST competition. The two companies started five months of work in November, 1975, and each produced a full-scale RCS model. "It was close, but Lockheed was the clear winner where it counted the most," Waaland said. Lockheed went on to build two flying prototypes under the Have Blue program, which first flew in December, 1977 (AW&ST Apr. 22, 1991, pg 30)." >I would assume many people who read this list heard the reports of >F-117's being observable over Iraq during the war. I had the opportunity >to talk with an individual who flew many missions during the war aboard >an E-2 (a Navy carrier based radar aircraft) . He confirmed the press >reports that said that they were able to track the airplane without >difficulty during its entire mission. I would like to know more details of how the E-2 'saw' the F-117's, and when. >I'm trying to remember now, but I believe that during the first night of the >air battle the F-117's were accompanied by radar jamming aircraft (Wild >Weasles). That says quite a bit about the confidence the Air Force had >in their ability to avoid enemy radar! After all the jammers could have been >used to escort more of the known 'non-stealthy' missions that instead were left >more vulnerable because they had to escort the 'stealthy' aircraft. Let's look this up first before commenting. How does a Wild Weasel strike imply anything about the F-117's stealth effectiveness? Does a really stealthy aircraft really need surprise? I wouldn't be surprised if Wild Weasels preceded ANY attack force. Heck, if you can wipe out some radars, then that helps the following attack missions be successful. But I'm not a tactician. >> "Some credit the F-117's success to its avoidance of >>traditional procurement processes. A small team, working free from >>public scrutiny, brought stealth from the laboratory to operational >>use, which many said couldn't be done." >There is a definite downside to this. The lack of public scrutiny could also >mean that there is less risk that their funding will get cut because the >system doesn't work as well as the price tag suggests. This is really the second part of your comment. I agree that this happens, but from what I know about the Lockheed F-117 program, I would disagree that the 117 belongs in the category of systems that don't work. Look at their competitors comments (Irv Waaland) above. Larry ------------------------------ From: Nick Laflamme <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:15:55 EST Subject: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:32:51 -0800 you said: >T Velazquez writes: >> The following is an article that appears in the November 1992 issue of >>Air Force Magazine. > >Thanks for sharing this! In my opinion, this is what this mail list is all >about! I'm probably being overly paranoid or formal or something, but the (presumably unauthorized) copying of that much (presumably) copyrighted material makes me nervous. I'm more comfortable with short excerpts and enthusiastic recommendations that we all find the original issue and read it. Just a thought, Nick * "I know what my problem is: the world is not as I would have it." * * NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET * Dominique.P.Laflamme.1@nd.edu ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:51:54 MST Subject: Uhhh... Wow! Precedence: bulk upp@comm.mot.com (Steve Upp) replies: >> "Such a radical technology had its doubters. The model above >>was bombarded with radar beams without result. Once, a skeptical > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>visiting officer claimed to 'see something' on the display; a crow had >>landed on the model." > > What the heck does 'without result' mean here? Do you really believe that > the airframe was able to absorb or deflect 100% of the radar beam? Give me > a break... This kind of claim is an absolute joke, unfortunately the public > by and large believes it and since the project is 'BLACK' no one can > independently verify it without the risk of going to jail. Not that I particularly want to defend the F-117 procurement or test procedures (though they seem to have worked well this time, IMNSHO), but this sort of nasty little slam w/o any sort of accompanying technical argument or merit does seem a little out of place. Without result is obviously poorly defined here, even I will admit, but responding in kind pejoratively only makes this noise unpleasant to read. I would think that if the RCS was four or more orders of magnitude smaller than a comparable size/shape metal model that the description "without result" is entirely reasonable... or if a crow's RCS swamps the return of a seven foot model, that seems pretty reasonable to me. You are right, though, that we cannot go out and measure this. Perhaps this isn't reasonable, but at best that would, and in this case should, take a lot of arguing to decide. > I would assume many people who read this list heard the reports of > F-117's being observable over Iraq during the war. I had the opportunity > to talk with an individual who flew many missions during the war aboard > an E-2 (a Navy carrier based radar aircraft) . He confirmed the press > reports that said that they were able to track the airplane without > difficulty during its entire mission. One well known (or at least suspected) phenomenon of stealth aircraft is that they *are* detectable by radar. But not by short-wave targetting radars, at least not easily. > I'm trying to remember now, but I believe that during the first night of the > air battle the F-117's were accompanied by radar jamming aircraft (Wild > Weasles). That says quite a bit about the confidence the Air Force had > in their ability to avoid enemy radar! After all the jammers could have been > used to escort more of the known 'non-stealthy' missions that instead were > left more vulnerable because they had to escort the 'stealthy' aircraft. References please. I have never heard this, and the AF has maintained all along that F-117s were the only aircraft ever allowed over Baghdad. If they had Wild Weasels along, that's news to me. There certainly were lots of Wild Weasels out that night, and lots of A-6s, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and ALCMs, and ... Jammers and Wild Weasels are (or can be) different sorts of aircraft. A wild weasel needs to have a large RCS to encourage SAM and other targetting radars to be turned on. When the radars show up, each gets its very own missile... A jammer, on the other hand, is used to deny an opponent specific knowledge of aircraft number and locations. All *were* out in large numbers that night. >> "Some credit the F-117's success to its avoidance of >>traditional procurement processes. A small team, working free from >>public scrutiny, brought stealth from the laboratory to operational >>use, which many said couldn't be done." > > There is a definite downside to this. The lack of public scrutiny could also > mean that there is less risk that their funding will get cut because the > system doesn't work as well as the price tag suggests. Nonetheless, it does seem that far and away the best procurement procedure is to have a well defined set of requirements for the eventual product, and have these overseen by a SMALL team of liaisons/procurement-officers/whatevers. Oversee the heck out of those folks, but keep that team small, make sure they can not or do not add additional requirements as the project progresses, and that they have veto over additional requirement pressures. This is true for ANY medium or large scale engineering project, IMO... Conversely, if you really want to screw something up, whether it be GM, the military, ... have a 4-1 ratio of overseers-to-workers, change the requirements as the winds blow, encourage publicity hounds to show up with camcorders to do expose's on every teething problem, and stir in an unhealthy dose of lawyers. I generally believe "Terrible things flourish in secrecy", but the need for limiting the destructive effects of choking oversight is often underestimated. - -r ------------------------------ From: upp@comm.mot.com (Steve Upp) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:54:03 CST Subject: Re: F-117 Artcle (3/3) > Steve, do you have any references for > the inclusion of Wild Weasels in F-117 strike missions? I remember reading an article in Aviation Week that described the initial mission configurations. I'll try to find the article. It may have been F-111s now that I think about it. I'll have to go back and look. > > Also, the discussion of the radar visibility of the F-117 in ODS has > been discussed before, and the consensus seemed to be that the aircraft > was only radar visible from the rear. Steve, did your contact on the E-2C > mention anything about his location relative to the F-117 when it > appeared on radar? I asked this gentleman this same question. Rough quote of conversation: Question: You were able to detect the stealth fighters from the air? Answer: That's what the press has reported and I'm not going to contradict them. Question: Could you detect them from any angle? In other words, approaching, departing, above or below? Answer: (He noded his head affirmatively) I sat there in shock. He went on to express his disatisfaction with the 'equipment' that the E-2 has aboard it compared with some other types of more 'sexy' aircraft. He specifically mentioned the B-2 as being another Air Force money machine because of a government annoucement to continue funding that project the previous day. Basically his complaint was: stealth doesn't work, but the Air Force pours amazing amounts of money into these projects while the Navy can't get money to upgrade 'equipment' on the E-2 to modern standards. I don't know how much of this is just inter-service rivalry, but at the time I believed he really believed that stealth technology was not all it was cracked up to be. All in all it was a remarkable conversation. The problem with all of this is that it can't be verified. This guy tells me that he saw first hand that the F-117 was not stealty enough to avoid his airborn radar. So what... It PROVES nothing. The Air Force denies it, and tells you that the details of the F-117's anti radar performance are a national secret but they are effective....end of story. You and I can do nothing about it but talk about it (without reliable facts) and pay for it. The argument can be made that we don't want these facts verifiable because it'll keep an enemy guessing. I suppose that this is true, we just have to keep this in mind when we talk about this stuff. I for one don't take much of what I read or hear about military projects very seriously. I hate being fooled so I'd rather be doubtful. - --- Steve Upp email: upp@comm.mot.com Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector voice: (708) 576-4953 1301 E. Algonquin Road, IL02 Room 4413 fax: (708) 576-6150 Schaumburg, IL 60196 ------------------------------ From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:58:46 PST Subject: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) > > I'm probably being overly paranoid or formal or something, but the > (presumably unauthorized) copying of that much (presumably) copyrighted > material makes me nervous. I'm more comfortable with short excerpts and > enthusiastic recommendations that we all find the original issue and > read it. > > Just a thought, > > Nick > Wouldn't that come under the umbrella "U.S. government work not protected by U.S. copyright" anyway? I quite enjoyed the article even if it was a bit gee-whizish :-) - -- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ From: Rick Lafford Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:13:51 EST Subject: Re: Role of F-117 in DS, was F-117 Artcle (3/3) OK, this one is getting out of hand. According to my sources (which will remain nameless), the F-117's went in alone that first night, the \ 'sparkvarks' (EF-111) penetrated Iraqi airspace and provided jamming and the 'wild weasels' (F-4) followed at a distance to supress any radar lighting off in an attempt to find what was bombing Bagdad. The F-4's were tasked with clearing a corridor in the SAM net for the main strike package to follow. They were not there to aid the F-117's. Later in the war, at the request of the F-117 pilots, the AF stopped jamming when the F-117's were going in. The Iraqi's were taking the jamming as a cue that an attack was coming and would 'fire on warning'. The F-117's primary task on day one was to destroy the command and control system for Iraq's air defense system, not the radar and missile sites themselves. Hence, the WW aircraft had to destroy the actual SAM (and AAA) radars to remove that threat. The F-117 attacks simply prevented the Iraqi's from having any cohesive defense. "Iron Hand" aircraft following the WW and EF-111's were tasked with destroying the actual missile launchers and gun emplacements after the radar was taken down. These missions were ably handled by F-15E, A-6, F-18 and A-7 aircraft. A typical 'Iron Hand' attack would place combinations of RBU's, CBU and delayed action mines on the SAM launch sites to negate the effects of the Iraqi's repair efforts. I do not believe that the jamming aircraft actually flew over Bagdad, simply near enough to jam any radar being used. EA-6 Prowlers were also used during the war to support missions nearer the coast. Remember also the the F-117's hit the Iraqi air defence headquarters before the first cruise missiles started shorting out the power grid. Once the grid went down, the SAM sites were forced to start-up their back-up power systems and the delay there allowed the Weasels and Iron Hand people to close on the primary air defense sites ringing Bagdad. The F117 is obviously not invisible to radar, it simply has a low reflectance and then focuses those reflections in a direction somewhere other than the transmitter. Even then, special approach techniques must be used to minimize any potentially detectable return. Since the F-117's were not trying to evade long range look-down radar, I'm not surprised that they would show up on someone's screen. BTW - this -almost- belongs on sci.military, which had a long series of postings on this very topic. Nameless sources: AW&ST Victory in the Desert (other nameless persons involved in F-16 and F-15E operations) Regards, Rick - ---------------------------- Rick Lafford |"The aiming system is neat; you put the 'Death Eastman Kodak Co. | Dot' on the target, fly the cue, the computer lafford@serum.kodak.com | drops the ord and the target disappears." - F15E ========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: harle@jablab.gatech.edu (Mark R. Johnson) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:40:00 EST Subject: Re: F117 Visibility I know I don't know what I'm talking about. However, it was mentioned earlier that the F117 is not radar invisible from all sides - just those that count (i.e. primarilly the front). It is also my understanding that most of the radar evading ability comes from angular reflection of tracking radar away from the source. Finally, it was also mentioned that it had been decided that F117's are visible to radar from the rear. Of course, all of this question of visibility has come up in terms of how the Navy E2's were able to track the F117's on their missions to Bagdad. (This you already know.) My suggestion is that the F117 is most visible from above and below, as it is from these angles that it reveils the largest aspect, and contains the slightest sloping surfaces. If this is the case, I would assume that the E-2's would have a grand vantage point if they track from high altitudes (i.e. significantly higher than the F117 standard operational altitudes). It this is all true (though it probably is not), then the F117 would have a great deal of trouble against an opponent with AWACS or similar capability. However, it is a benefit for the tacticians who very much would like to keep track of the F117's as they fly their missions... Ok, I'll shut up now. - -- M. Johnson Department of Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology Internet: harle@jablab.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:52:22 PST Subject: stealth... A fact or two, and some speculation: It has been widely reported (and makes sense, technically) that the F117 was optimized for radar stealth _against_ _ground_ _based_ radars. Makes sense for use on "intrusion" missions. And most of the world does not have AWACS/E2, (or AWACS-like) capability. Most of the airborne radars are in the hands of our nominal friends. Iraq had _two_ if memory serves. It has ben publicly asserted that F117 was, in part designed for surgical, even deniable, operations (we weren't there, we didn't do that) operations, typically against not so advanced air defense systems. Dunno if this is true. In either (or both) cases, visibility to "look down" radar may not be as minimal as against ground based. (Unrelated, as to F117 self defense ability: saw one at Omaha, two years ago(?). Someone asked the driver if he had any self defense capability, the response, roughly: We have some special stuff. We can look after ourselves. Was he "disinforming"? Dunno.) Speculation: We know the F117 carries radar enhancers, to "look normal" and fit into the ATC system, on ferry flights. (Driver above asserted the carried "special pieces", implying corner reflectors, etc.) Now I can think of ways to mask corner reflectors, making the (radar) stealth controllable. And modified IFF gear, to make a plane MORE visible is also public, trivial, and SWITCHABLE. (Normally IFF serves a different purpose, of course.) Consider the capabilities of a little Quail to look like a big "Buffalo". If i was sending a/c in "over here", i might be real tempted to make jamming noises "over there", to confuse whomever i was sending them towards. A question for the E-2 was could they see F117 "all the time" or just while in friendly airspace? (True, it might be nice to be stealthy always, in case the opposition was looking, but i get the impression that there was enough traffic in the air in the Gulf that one or two stray tracks were not going to be noticed...) regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "Mike Cancellier" Date: 18 Nov 92 18:04:00 PST Subject: F-117 V. E-2 Date sent: 18-NOV-1992 Hi all, I really have a problem with the whole E-2 thing. If the E2 can pick up the F117, which has the equivalent RCS of a "small Sparrow", then it is probably picking up said sparrows regularly, you follow? As far as I know (and I am a missileer, not a scientist or pilot) only the square wave radars, and radar interferometry can pick the aircraft up at any real range. The only report I heard was of a british scope dope picking one up just as it flew over his van. This is to be expected. The E2 is not that great a package. It can support a carrier air wing out to the range of the best carrier based weapons or about 150 some odd miles. It doesn't have anywhere near the capability of the E3 Sentry or the E8 JStars aircraft. The Coasties have given theirs back because they weren't good enough. They now use the Air Force for the same job. Please keep in mind that as an Air Force officer, I have some small prejudices. I have however spoken to the ops officer for the 37th Fighter Wing (the F117 guys) about the strikes on Baghdad so I have some small knowledge. I have also spent some time with the ops officer for the 462nd Fighter Sqdn (the F4G's) and he told me his version. I am not speaking as a represntative of my Air Force, just a wacko Skunker. 'Nuff said. Cheers, Mike *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | Mike Cancellier, Lt, USAF ICBM Net: 34 06 24 N 117 48 21 W | | CVALJ000@CSUPomona.edu or | | Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept. 47 55 31 N 97 01 57 W | | Technical Specialist (Reply in 30 minutes, guaranteed!) | | (714) 869-3590 Missileer in Waiting | *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #9 ******************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". 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 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 anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).