From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #11 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 21 November 1992 Volume 02 : Number 011 In this issue: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) F(???)-117 F-117 misdesignation Re: Copying Articles F(???)-117 F-117 designator Re: HAVE BLUE Re: Lockheed vs Convair Air Force Magazine Re: F-117 designator F-21 Re: Convair vs Lockheed Re: HAVE BLUE Designators Re: F-117 designator Re: F-117 designator Re: F-117 designator Air Force Magazine Re: F-117 designator F-117 designator (fwd) 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: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 06:53:34 MST Subject: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) >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. I would sit there with GREAT skepticism. If that was true of an F-117 in it's most stealthy configuration, then the aircraft would be a *failure* and they could be shot down as readily as any other fighter. That clearly is NOT the case, as we saw quite well during this very same operation. >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. Uh, huh. That seems to be the root of his comments. Even from unclassified sources, it is possible to see that stealth/low-RCS technology DOES "work". Perhaps you should have mentioned to him that the NAVY wants a new carrier stealth attack aircraft more than anything. What about all the money that was poured into the GD A-12 Avenger program... >All in all it was a remarkable conversation. Hmmm.... I'm not quite so easily "shocked" I guess. :-) BTW, where did this take place, and WHY did you even begin to take him seriously? >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. I have to find his blanket statements impossible to believe. Who knows what this guys motives were, or WHAT he really was tracking (if anything), OR what configuration the potential F-117 was flying in. If it actually was so easily tracked "from any angle", then it could NOT have been in full-steath mode. I remember reading a report some time back from another E-2C radar operator who was unable to get a good lock-on with an SR-71 flying through his sector. If the E-2C has difficulty with the SR stealth characteristics, then I can't beleive it so easily tracks the F-117. >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. Depending on the source, I can take some things quite seriously. I'm sorry to say that I think this guy was doing some "fooling". Either that or he just fooled *himself* with this anti-stealth, anti-AF attitude... Either way, I think the RESULTS of F-117 operations speak for themselves. ------------------------------ From: Nick Laflamme <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 09:02:09 EST Subject: F(???)-117 Is it just me, or is the Nighthawk misdesignated as F-117? From all I've heard about it, it is used as an attack bomber, not an interceptor or an air superiority fighter (apologies if I have my mission descriptions messed up). I suppose fighter planes are seen as "sexier" or more prestigious or something, but I keep getting confused when I think of the A-12 and wonder what it would have done that the F-117 doesn't do, besides land on a carrier. Confused in South Bend, 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: "DRCOA1::LENOCHS" Date: 20 Nov 92 11:55:00 EST Subject: F-117 misdesignation I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 20-Nov-1992 11:51am EDT From: Loyd M. Enochs LENOCHS Dept: 02*15 S.D. Wilmington - VW Tel No: (508)658-6100 1578 TO: Remote Addressee ( _DDN!skunk-works@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu ) Subject: F-117 misdesignation The "mis-designation" of the F-117 comes from internal AF politics. Strategic assets went to SAC, which used the B-bomber designation for its strike aircraft. Tactical assets went to TAC which used the F-fighter designation. Part of this was to get FB-111s, part is simple down-right parochialism, and part is pigheadedness. Note also that the A-10 is not a TAC favorite and was being phased out before its outstanding performance in Desert Storm. Now that USAF is being completely reorganized, who knows what will shake out? __ ___/ | \ | / The Computer's Revenge /____ |---->zap<- or \_| / | \ Ultimate Eyestrain (thanx to MM) Loyd M. Enochs (ex-USAF) - Dynamics Research Corporation - Andover, MA lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil ------------------------------ From: brndlfly@Athena.MIT.EDU Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:10:26 EST Subject: Re: Copying Articles Michael Heggen writes: >As mentioned previously, I think the key issue here is intent. The >intent of placing copyrighted material in this mailing list is >not to avoid payment of royalties to the author, but to discuss and >criticize the material. Correct me if I am wrong, but the article >that was placed was, in fact, an excerpt, and not the article in its >entirety, right? Further, althouhg there are a few hundred (?) people Nope, sorry guys, I posted the whole thing (Except maybe the byline at the top of the article, does that count?;) Lesson for the future: don't copy over the whole thing. Thanks for the insight, Mike. It seems I have started a bit of a discussion here. The reason I took the time to type in the article was that I thought the folks on the list would probably want to hear about some of the stuff Ben Rich and Paul Martin and company had to say that probably would not have otherwise been brought to light. I did not intend to infringe on anyone's copyright (of course I didn't intend to infringe on anyone's copyright!). Mike also says that the number of people who subscribe to this list is relatively small. That was another reason I decided to go ahead and type in the article. I definitely would NOT have posted it to sci.aeronautics or rec.aviation.military! I considered the article to be of interest to the few members of this group and decided to share the information with the rest of the members who may not have access to the article (I have read at least one post from someone saying they were having some trouble finding the issue). That's the way I see it. -T T Velazquez MIT Aero/Astro brndlfly@athena.mit.edu "Crayolas are one of the few things the human race has in common." -Robert Fulghum ------------------------------ From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (B Bikowicz) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:50:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: F(???)-117 Once upon a time Nick Laflamme shaped the electrons to say... >Is it just me, or is the Nighthawk misdesignated as F-117? From all >I've heard about it, it is used as an attack bomber, not an interceptor Well, technically, yeah it should be A-?? but the Air Force is allergic to the 'A' designator. The last 'A' they got was the A-10, something you could hardly call a fighter by any stretch. Besides, the AF didn't, and still doesn't, want it. The A-7 was Navy and the AF had to use the interservice designator. Remember the F-4 was the F-110 in the AF at first... So they call all their planes F-?? not just the F-117, how about the F-111? >From the start it was a strike aircraft. Why would they specify terrain following and high bomb load for a fighter? The F-111 doesn't carry air-to-air anyway. (Is it even cleared to?) Its a (stupid) tradition in the Air Force. They onyl want fighters, whether they are truly or not is irrelevant. How about the FB-111 (what are they now F-111Fs again oir something) Use by SAC as a strategic BOMBER, but they still had the 'F' in the designator... ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:09:48 PST Subject: F-117 designator What I've gotten on this is that the F-117 designator is a fluke. Since it was a black a/c, there was no official designation. Locally, the people working with it called it the F-117 because of one of the parts had a stencil on it that said F-117. When the Flight Manual was printed they had to use something so they stuck in the F-117 for lack of anything better. Whereby, it became official. Now, this is from memory, based on a conversation I had with Jim Goodall. I'm fuzzy on the details, so I might be a little off the mark on specifics, but the basic premise that it was a fluke is accurate, as he told me. I'll get him to regurgitate the story and I'll post it here. What I want to know is this: The stealth was thought to be the F-19 before the F-117 was announced. The official reason given for the lack of the F-19 was that it might get confused with the Mig 19 (which has to be bogus, or they would have left a hole for the F-15). Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. Anybody have a clue as to why the holes? Also, There is no C-16 or no A-11. (A-10 Warthog, A-11 ?, A-12 Navy Stealth). Any others? Hmmm.. what (if anything) is an F-13? See, there are lots of holes. For all we know, there's a second, black airforce out there in the desert. Rick ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:25:27 -0800 Subject: Re: HAVE BLUE Hello, The T Velazquez posted AF Mag article indicated: >>>which produced stealth technology demonstrators. I pointed out: >>The plurality of 'demonstrators' is the key word. >>Not the first time I've heard this. Dean responded: >Well, I suppose that refers to the two flying Have Blue birds, plus the >various static RCS test articles that both preceeded and followed them. You are of course correct, but that's not what I meant. The original text again: "One early stumbling block was financing. The Pentagon wanted Lockheed to build two stealth prototypes with $20 million in government cash. Mr. Rich knew he needed another $10 million to pull off the assignment and had to approach Lockheed's top executives for the money. ... In 1976, however, Mr. Rich and Mr. Kitchen made a joint representation to Lockheed's board on the potential of stealth. When they were finished, Mr. Rich had his $10 million check. From this point forward, stealth development went deep into "the black," or the classified world. The vehicle was the Have Blue program, which produced stealth technology demonstrators." Some issues about HAVE BLUE: It doesn't say that Have Blue was STRICTLY a Lockheed program, but that HAVE BLUE was the development 'vehicle'. Was Have Blue a bigger, government technology demonstration program? Was Have Blue's total money budget 20 million dollars? It DOES indicate that Lockheed was given only 2/3 rds of the funds it needed to build it's 2 prototypes (maybe signs of a bigger budget devoted to building prototypes of stealth for other regimes, besides the subsonic attack regime of the F-117A). Lockheed's previous programs were funded more completely. But these two aircraft were technology demonstrators. These are some of the questions. This is what I meant. This is just pure conjecture however. I also like conjecture on skunk-works, as long as it is so labeled. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:59:18 -0800 Subject: Re: Lockheed vs Convair Dean writes: > >I recently picked up a nice new reprint of a couple interesting articles >which i'm quite sure some of you saw a long time ago. But, for the >benefit of others i'll go ahead and excerpt some of the best stuff. > >(Originally from: "Lockheed Horizons", Winter 1981) > >DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCKHEED SR-71 BLACKBIRD >by Clarence L. Johnson THANKS! Good Work! > ... >Convair's proposals were much more serious, starting out with a ramjet >powered Mach 4 aircraft to be carried aloft by a B-58 and launched at >supersonic speeds. Unfortunately, the B-58 could not go supersonic >with the bird in place, Err, ahhhhh, sorry about this Lockheed guys but I can't resist. If a B-58 can't go supersonic with a Mach 4 payload in place, how can a B-52 go supersonic with TWO Mach 4 payloads in place? For those of you who don't know what the heck I'm talking about: A B-52H was used to launch two Mach 4 Lockheed D-21Bs. It used a ROCKET, currently and then, the highest flight time, most proven, hypersonic jet engine type in existence, to boost it to ramjet inlet 'start' speed. Convair, at that time, had already proposed rocket powered pods for the B-58 for other applications. So it's not like Convair wouldn't have thought about trying a rocket with their first proposal. So, in this one instance, be a little skeptical of what the GREAT Kelly Johnson says (and I do mean GREAT). I now head for my foxhole to dodge the incoming rounds! Larry ------------------------------ From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@CompuServe.COM> Date: 20 Nov 92 11:50:02 EST Subject: Air Force Magazine I've seen quite a bit of traffic go by the last couple of days on the availability of Air Force Magazine (AFM). AFM is not a Air Force publication, rather it is published by the Air Force Association (AFA) and is distributed to the membership of AFA. I have NEVER seen AFM on a newsstand. The cost of membership to AFA is worth it just to get AFM. If anybody wants further info please e-mail. Scott ------------------------------ From: Christopher Paul Diehl Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:01:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: F-117 designator Excerpts from mail: 20-Nov-92 F-117 designator by Rick Pavek@bcstec.ca.boe > The stealth was thought to be the F-19 before the F-117 was announced. > The official reason given for the lack of the F-19 was that it might > get confused with the Mig 19 (which has to be bogus, or they would > have left a hole for the F-15). Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. > > Anybody have a clue as to why the holes? Also, There is no C-16 > or no A-11. (A-10 Warthog, A-11 ?, A-12 Navy Stealth). Any others? The F-21 designator was applied to some Israeli Kfirs loaned to the U.S. Navy for aggressor training at Top Gun. As far as the F-19 designation goes, I would be willing to bet this is for some follow-on to the F-117. Do you all think the Air Force would stop with a first generation stealth strike fighter? I do not believe so. This is highlighted by the fact that during a recent budget battle when Congress wanted to fund the production of more F-117s, one Air Force general said the Air Force did not want them because they were obsolete. That says to me they have got their eye on something better... Chris ------------------------------ From: Michael D Tissandier Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:04:28 EST Subject: F-21 Rick Pavek wrote.... >The stealth was thought to be the F-19 before the F-117 was announced. >The official reason given for the lack of the F-19 was that it might >get confused with the Mig 19 (which has to be bogus, or they would >have left a hole for the F-15). Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. Correct (or pull out the trusty flamethrower) me if I am wrong, but wasn't F-21 the designation the DoD gave the Kfir's Israel loaned the Navy for their aggressor squadrons until the F-16N showed up at Miramar? BTW, Does anybody have any info on the GD "Kingfisher" project? I thought I saw a passing reference to it recently... Thanks in Advance... Mike - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Russians can give you arms, but only the United States can give you a selection ---Anwar Sadat mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:14:38 -0800 Subject: Re: Convair vs Lockheed Duane P Mantick writes: >As for the "thing-slung-under-the-hustler" and so forth, one problem you have >with sticking extra junk onto it to boost it up to Mach whatever is >physical space. > >I know Larry has seen photos of the models and drawings of various >concepts. In many if not most of them, Convair had already run up against >the Hustler's nose gear. The most commonly drawn pod had to have >a folding nose just to clear said same nose gear! > >Whether you consider that as the "Super Hustler" or as a potential >Fish or Kingfish design, trying to find something that would fit under >the B58 without interfering with the nose gear, or main gear and still have >enough room for the B58 to rotate (presenting a length problem) on >takeoff was an obvious problem. Trying to slap a rocket pod onto it >looks nigh well impossible. NOT! :) (No flame there ole buddy) The Super Hustler study you mentioned was a two component system. The The first component was the unmanned booster, and according to Miller, it was ramjet powered. The second component was the manned, ramjet powered, strategic bombing system. The blueprints indicated both components fit snuggly under the Hustler, and the B-58 was even able to rotate for takeoff. All I'm saying is that the booster, the ramjet powered first component, could have been replaced in the design, with a rocket powered one! >The B58 was essentially a Mach 2 aircraft. Right off the top o' me head, >I don't recall the maximum speed that one ever reached. From what we can >tell, that is pushing close to the point where most ramjets are able to light >off and run. That's why, if they really got the development money for that program, they most probably would have gone to a rocket powered booster, just like Lockheed did for the D-21B. If a B-52 can do it, a B-58 can. >I suspect that with greater power, the scheme might have worked. However, >the A12 Blackbird was there ... No. We're talking about the A-11 bid here. What the OXCART History calls GUSTO. Super Hustler PREDATES the A-11 bid. No. A-12 wasn't there. We're talking about the birth of the A-12. The _unofficial_ Convair line on the first bid was: 1. Political within the USAF. Le May didn't like the B-58. 2. CIA was running the program we're really talking about. Since the USAF was going to get rid of the B-58, the CIA was sure not going to manage a fleet of B-58 launchers. >Sigh - all the neat aircraft that never got produced..... I agree with that! Guys, this is NEW stuff! Larry ------------------------------ From: Christopher Paul Diehl Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:16:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: HAVE BLUE Excerpts from mail: 20-Nov-92 Re: HAVE BLUE by larry@ichips.intel.com > It doesn't say that Have Blue was STRICTLY a Lockheed program, but that > HAVE BLUE was the development 'vehicle'. > > Was Have Blue a bigger, government technology demonstration program? I seem to recall reading about an aircraft called the Northrop TSA (Tactical Stealth Aircraft) which competed against the Lockheed design. I read this in a book on stealth published by Tab/Aero. Also in this book, there was mention made of a General Dynamics program which was believed to be a stealth demonstrator development program. Chris ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:28:25 PST Subject: Designators Oh, yeah. Forgot about the aggressor a/c. Thanks. Your comments of: >As far as the F-19 designation goes, I would be willing to bet this is >for some follow-on to the F-117. Do you all think the Air Force would >stop with a first generation stealth strike fighter? I do not believe >so. This is highlighted by the fact that during a recent budget battle >when Congress wanted to fund the production of more F-117s, one Air >Force general said the Air Force did not want them because they were >obsolete. That says to me they have got their eye on something better... What I hear is that this additional production run of the F-117 was going to be a recon version and was to have been the TR-3A. No, I don't think the AF would stop with the 117. I'm just trying to figure out what could be filling the holes. I like to actually make two assumptions. First is that the AF screwed up when they left the F-19 hole in the line of designators. Now they wouldn't keep on leaving the blanks since they realized us civilians "caught on". So the second assumption is that the AF (Or whoever is doing all this) is now using a new designator for these a/c. Maybe we should be asking questions about the G-2B? Sure this is idle speculation. But you have to assume something is happening with this stuff. Can anybody point to the designation of C-16 and explain what it is? How about a C-130 with YC-14 engines? Come on, do a little brainstorming and speculate. You can extrapolate from the knowns... since we don't know otherwise we have to guess. I'm building a model of a jet-powered F5U Flapjack. Sure, I know it was propellor driven. But if you look at the shape, it already lends itself to a jet conversion. As I decide how it's hypothetical shape should look I ask myself: Given the known technologies of the period, what would the engineers do to modify the design? Well, what would the Vought engineers do? I'd cut down the props/shafts to the wing leading edge and round the tips. I'd graft the Cutlass aft end shape into the equivalent area of the disk. You have a loss of horizontal stab so either you expand the horizontal stab area or you add a stab between the vertical fins. The idea here is to experiment by taking the known and extropolating possibilities, much like what Testors did with their F-19 Stealth Fighter model. Sorry this kindof rambled... I had a big lunch today and I'm in slug mode. Rick ------------------------------ From: wb9omc (Duane P Mantick) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:03:46 -0500 Subject: Re: F-117 designator Rick, would *you* want to fly an F13??? :-) Duane ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:05:59 PST Subject: Re: F-117 designator Sure! 13's my lucky number! 8-) Seriously, if you were a pilot assigned to a black project and they said "Go fly the F-13, which we named F-13 because it would fool people, and be a professional about it or we'll send you back to flying copilot in a traffic pattern", would you do it? I'd fly it. Rick ------------------------------ From: gwh@lurnix.COM Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:43:27 -0800 Subject: Re: F-117 designator > Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. It's an IAI Kfir sized hole, in fact. 8-) The US Navy leased 12 for USN/USMC Agressor squadron duties. They were flying out of Miramar for a while; I think they were all sent home to Israel when the F-16N's were procured though. >Rick - -george william herbert gwh@lurnix.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu gwh@retro.com coming soon to a net near you ------------------------------ From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@CompuServe.COM> Date: 20 Nov 92 11:50:02 EST Subject: Air Force Magazine I've seen quite a bit of traffic go by the last couple of days on the availability of Air Force Magazine (AFM). AFM is not a Air Force publication, rather it is published by the Air Force Association (AFA) and is distributed to the membership of AFA. I have NEVER seen AFM on a newsstand. The cost of membership to AFA is worth it just to get AFM. If anybody wants further info please e-mail. Scott ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 21:27:40 -0500 Subject: Re: F-117 designator In your message dated: Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:09:48 PST you write: >have left a hole for the F-15). Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. Nope. This is what the Navy called the Kfirs that they used for dissimular ACM at Miramar a while back. > > >Rick - --Lee ------------------------------ From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (B Bikowicz) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:25:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: F-117 designator (fwd) Once upon a time Rick Pavek shaped the electrons to say... >have left a hole for the F-15). Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. Actually the F-21 designator has been used for Israeli Kfirs purchased for disimilar air combat training... And think on this... F-111 was the last in the series... F-14 = F-112, F-15 = F-113, F-16 = F-114, YF-17 = F-115, F-18 = F-116 so.... F-19 = F-117.... Subtle ploy? ############################################################################### # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think! # #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime# ############################################################################### ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #11 ******************************** 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).