From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #94 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 29 May 1994 Volume 05 : Number 094 In this issue: Re: Auroa and mothership Re: B-2/F117 Abbreviatio Re: See it and not kill it? Re: Auroa and mothership Re: Abbreviations 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: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 03:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Once upon a time John Regus shaped the electrons to say... >Mary wasn't the F111 originally developed as a fighter(ATX) program and >then it became the F111-b a medium haul bomber and now it is an elint >platform? What is to say the same evolution can not also happen to the B2? B2: COST! If costs FAR FAR FAR too much. We will never see any airframes beyond the first batch. And the technology curve is catching up, the B-2 is not undetectable. It is too large and too expensive, which means you'd only get a few. 'Putting all your eggs in one basket' The F-111 was developed as a tactical fighter for the AF. F-111A,C-F (The B was for the Navy.) Along with the F-111, the AF procured a number of FB-111A models. These were slightly larger than the F-111 and were designed for longer range penetration as medium bombers. However, the F-111 grew too and the F model was close to the FB-111 in capability. With the reorganization of the AF the FBs were redesignated to F-111s, I believe F-111Gs. Their original advantage was different electronics and nav systems and more fuel. Later the AF needed an ELINT and ECM aircraft. The Navy had the EA-6B Prowler with the ALQ-99 jamming system. The AF uses a modified version with more automation. (Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.) The EA-6B was fine for the Navy since the A-6 was their major attack aircraft. The AF had the F-111 and now F-15E. They needed an aircraft that could keep up with them. So a number of F-111A airframes were stripped, zero-houred, and rebuilt as EF-111A Ravens. The major point is that the Ravens were NOT new airframes, they were rebuilds, which is cost effective. Since there will only be 15 B-2s, rebuilding isn't an option. - -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: WPI anime FTP site, 130.215.24.1 /anime, the anime FanFic archive; rec.arts.anime.stories, questions to anime-dojinshi-request@wpi.wpi.edu GTW/HU d-- -p+ c++(++++) l u+ e+ m+(*)@ s++/+ !n h- f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ y+(*) FTP 130.215.24.1 /anime/mod.gifs now! MORE gifs added! Look at me and laugh! ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 02:35:57 -0700 Subject: Re: B-2/F117 >>I'd feel a LOT safer in an SR-71... >Agreed! I guess the more you talk about it the less sense >it makes to retire them (not to beat a dead dog!) Unless they have "something else" flying out there. :) >Also, about the B-2, it seems to me that it could serve a valuable role >as a "stealthy B52" as far as conventional warfare. Impractical? >How many B-2's are in existance? Only a handful so far, but there definitely are plans for it to be capable of carrying conventional weapons. For a B-52 style "dumb bomb" load, it could hold up to 80 Mk.82 500 lb. bombs. I'd say a better use for the B-2 would be filling up the rotary launchers with 16 2000 lb. laser guided bombs, like the ones carried by the F-117. Then a single B-2 could be doing the work of eight 117s. ------------------------------ From: john.stone@shivasys.com Date: Sat, 28 May 94 09:16:58 Subject: Abbreviatio Skunkers, I know this is off subject, I was hoping some of you more knowledgable posters and lurkers could help me out. Does the DOD or USAF put out a book or pamphlet list what some of the abbreviations that they use mean, such as: Air Staff/XOFI , I assume "XO" is Exec. Officer, but what does "FI" mean? Because this is off subject, you can email me at if you would rather not post on SWD: john.stone@shivasys.com or jstone@iglou.com Thanks for your help!! Thanks, John Stone ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 21:42:16 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: See it and not kill it? That is a good question Murr -- that is why I started the firefight that has been going on lately. Either find a suitable mission for the B2 or put the money elsewhere. Once all the kinks and bugs that you hear about the B1B are worked out, that plane will be the mainstay of our long-range, heavy bomber strike force. The B52 has had it. Finished- kaput. Take the money for the B2 and build more B1Bs. By the way skunks, did the B1 do anything during the Gulf war? On Sat, 28 May 1994, murr wrote: > BaDge writes: > > > TITLE Air Force Admits Enemies Can Detect Stealth Bomber.--News. > > SOURCE Boston Globe: Nov 2, 1989, 9:1 > > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > > ABSTRACT The US Air Force has announced that systems and technology > > exist to detect the B-2 Stealth bomber on enemy radar but that enemies will > > not be able to destroy the plane. The announcement is the latest in a > > series that continue to pare back previous claims for the aircraft. > > I remember reading this item when it came out. How can this be? Does the > enemy say: > > "That's on of those REAL expensive B2 planes. Let's not destroy it."? > > If you can see it you can shoot it. A subsonic plane that big would be a > fat target. Better part of a giga buck bites the dust. Why are we still > making `the plane without a mission'? > > murr > ------------------------------ From: johnk@consilium.com (John Kelleher) Date: Sat, 28 May 94 21:38:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership >ELINT is the province of the EF-111B Raven and other aircraft. ELINT >aircraft can be distinguished by the "E" in the designator. > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Gee Mary, that Raven designator is no fun. I preferred it when they tried to call the EF variant the "Electronic Fox"! But my favorite was the nickname they had at one of the bases in England. In honor of the unofficial nickname of the 111 (the Aardvark) when they flew in the first EFs they called them the SparkVarks!! John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ From: johnk@consilium.com (John Kelleher) Date: Sat, 28 May 94 21:52:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Abbreviations > >Does the DOD or USAF put out a book or pamphlet list what some of the >abbreviations that they use mean, such as: > > > Thanks, > > John Stone > The Air Force does have an AFR/AFP (AF Reg/Pamphlet) that lists approved abbreviations for use in official documents. (The number escapes me now.) You might contact a nearby AF Base or AFROTC det to see if they can get you a copy. Considering how often people on here cite spokesmen or offices of one type or another, it wouldn't hurt to have a copy. Unfortunately, the designators after individual names are often impossible to decipher. They can become impossibly cryptic, and that's sometimes deliberate. In one of my tours, I was 544IES/IEPSO, referring to the 544th Intelligence Exploitation Squadron, Imagery Exploitation, Photographic, Soviet, Offensive Missiles. In any other unit, the designation could have had a totally different meaning. Between services, there is similar confusion. I once wrote an article for the US Naval Institute Proceedings where I referred to the chain of command for ground-based missile launches as including an LCC or Launch Control Capsule. When they sent the article back for final review, their translator had turned it into some type of Landing Craft!! Thanks goodness for final proofs. John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #94 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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 To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu 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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).