From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #467 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 18 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 467 In this issue: Re: TR-3 and Tier III, one in the same? New Book on Black Aircraft - Reply Re: Cannons BVR Re: TR-3 and Tier III, one in the same? Re: Cannons Re: Cannons Re: Cannons Re: Edwards Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #465 Re: TR-3 and Tier III Re: Cannons Re: Cannons Re: Question on length of posts Re: Japanese Float Plane Seiran Submerged carriers 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: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 09:01:20 EDT Subject: Re: TR-3 and Tier III, one in the same? It's been a long time but I think Mary suggested this at one time. It sounds reasonable that a slurred Tier III could be misinterpreted as TR-3. paul mangan@kodak.com > From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Tue Oct 17 23:19:23 1995 > From: "Paul Heinrich" > I just had a thought, might it be possible that the semi-mythical > TR-3 and the Tier III are the same aircraft? Does anyone know where > the TR-3 nomenclature came from? Perhaps it was a misheard or slured > version of Tier III. Additionally, might TR-3 and Tier III be covers > for one another? > > Paul > ------------------------------ From: Robert Lantzy Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:07:16 -0500 Subject: New Book on Black Aircraft - Reply One small correction. The correct title of the book is "Dark Eagles." Sorry for any confusion. ------------------------------ From: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:25:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Cannons >>>>> "ahanley" == ahanley writes: ahanley> Here's a contrarian (is that a word?) view. Remember, ahanley> everything I say below ONLY applies to air-to-air. ahanley> Cannons and their effectiveness have, in my opnion, been ahanley> overly romanticized. They have been intimately tied in with ahanley> the concept of the sutained dogfight in air combat. BVR missiles have one problem : You need very free rules-of-engagement ie you need to be in this situation: Hmm, that bogey isn't squawking on IFF as he should. Kill him. And you must decide without getting visual on them. ------------------------------ From: Andrew See Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:50:21 +1000 Subject: BVR >missiles? I agree with the fellow that said BVR will be the way to go. Why, if >you're flying a F-22, would you put yourself in a position that negates all the >advantages you spent zillions of dollars to develop and buy? The F22 may be required to fly under visual ID rules of engagement, or no fire until hostile act witnessed etc etc. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 15:22:49 MET Subject: Re: TR-3 and Tier III, one in the same? >It's been a long time but I think Mary suggested this at one time. >It sounds reasonable that a slurred Tier III could be misinterpreted >as TR-3. >paul >mangan@kodak.com (Wed, 18 Oct 95 09:01:20 EDT) I am pretty sure that Mary said that. See also Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl (Wed, 18 Jan 1995 02:37:58 -0500 (EST)): >>There are several sightings of "triangular shaped" "flying wings" reported: >>- the alleged Northrop "Shamu" (B-2 proof-of-concept aircraft ?); >>- the alleged Northrop TR-3A (actually even sounds like Tier 3); >>- the object, video-filmed somewhere in Nevada, resembling a small B-2; And also myself (Mon, 22 Aug 94 15:58:32 SET): >>>Tier 3 ? *Sounds* very much like TR-3. Could this be the same beast as >>>the TR-3 A ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "David \"Scre^2ch\" Prieto" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 10:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Cannons It's all very true, I agree 100% with everything you have to say but there just isn't a single thing that gives you so many shots and costs so little as a piece of lead and some powder. The gun shouldn't be the first choice weapon of a fighter pilot considering what you have to do just to hit the target and the risks you take by going into a turning fight. Missiles take away much more from an aircraft's performance (not a lot though) than the gun does (assuming it is inside the fuselage and not on a pod). And of course a bullet will never fall for any form of ECM or flares... etc. etc. BVR is the future of air-to-air combat but I don't think an aircraft's capabilities should be limited like that. Basically in response to the part about the 3 missiles and the MIG... The pilot shouldn't try to manuever for a gun shot if the pilot can shoot a missile (like you said turning fights ARE very risky since you aren't paying attention to everything else around you), but if the pilot gets an easy shot with the gun... Use it, it's a guaranteed hit (if the pilot's aim is good) and at the rate guns fire today (compared to WWII and I) most aircraft will go down or be damaged pretty bad. ***************************************************************************** David "Scre^2ch" Prieto 14/3 dpriet01@barney.poly.edu screech@cnct.com TIP#814 ***************************************************************************** On Tue, 17 Oct 1995 ahanley@banyan.usace.mil wrote: > Here's a contrarian (is that a word?) view. Remember, everything I say below > ONLY applies to air-to-air. > > Cannons and their effectiveness have, in my opnion, been overly romanticized. > They have been intimately tied in with the concept of the sutained dogfight in > air combat. The sustained dogfight does occur, but it is a fairly rare and not > very effective method for shooting down the other guy. Usually what actually > happens is that one guy is flying along minding his own business and another > plane scoots up and blows him away. The other way lots of planes get shot down > is that a pursuer concentrates mightily on out manuevering his target. So > mighitly does he concentrate, that when his target's buddy blows him away, it > is a complete surprise (especially common on single seat fighters). Eric Von > Hartmann was the leading ace of WWII. Even we credit him with 352 confirmed > kills. His most effective tactic was to spot a plane or group of planes, pick > out his targets and then dive through the group at full bore firing everything > he could. He wouldn't turn but keep right on going, knowing full well that if > he did so his opponents wouldn't be able to position themselves to strike at > him. He'd then do it again. Saburo Sakai, a great Japanese ace, also knew the > advantage of this attack. He would even bounce five US planes, force them into > a defensive circle and them pick them off one by one. The sustained dogfight > does occur, but it's usually inconclusive and radically reduces the > effectivenss of the aircraft. > > Cannons are similar (remember, air-to-air only, here). They do knock down > other fighters at times, but it's very hard to do and is not the most efective > way to knock down the other guy. To get into position for a cannon shot, > you've almost always had multiple opportunities already for a more effective, > less risky missile shot already. In the Vietnam war missiles got a bad name > for a number of reasons: > > 1. The missiles we had were designed to shoot down bombers that didn't maneuver > too well. > > 2. We didn't train our people how to us the missiles they had effectively. in > fact, for a while we were essentially teaching gun tactics to planes that had > no guns! > > 3. The constraints put on our pilots by McNamara forced them inot positons > where they were vulnerable and couldn't take advantage of thier aircraft's > performance and weapons. > > Even so, missiles were a lot more effective than they were given credit for. > The had Pks lower than expected, it's true. However they were also often fired > in situations where the Pk for a gun would have been 0. You generally aren't > going to be able use your cannon unless you've really got the other guy. for > example, in a F-4E vs. Mig encounter, the F-4 may get a chance at a Sparrow and > two Sidewinder shots without ever getting in position for a gun shot. In the > after action report it'll show that it took three missiles to kill the Mig. > What doesn't come through is that if only the gun had been there, the Mig would > have gotten away. Also, missiles are often fired to break up an attack on your > wingman or to divert the enemy. Here's an interesting statistic: In the > Vietnam war, the U.S. aircraft with the best win/loss ratio was the F-8 > Crusader. Much was made of the fact that it had internal guns while the F-4B/J > did not. Know how many pure gun kills it got during the whole war? One. Guns > finished off one other kill when the pilot decided not to waste on a missile on > an aircraft already damaged by a Sidewinder. What the F-8 had was that unlike > other aircraft, it was used almost exclusively as a fighter. As a result, > that's what its pilots trained for all the time and they were very good. > > Nowadays, missiles have come a lot further in maneuverability and performance. > It is so much more effective to use a missile than a gun, especially when > you're outnumbered. It is very hard to keep a gun locked on planes like the > F-14/15/16/18. It can be done, but it takes a lot of time and resources. > Imagine trying to hold a pipper on something like the Rafale or F-22! Current > missiles, though, are capable of 40+g turns. Granted, they can't do that at > longer ranges 'cause they've burned out (we cancelled our only missile that > would have dealt with high manueverability targets at medium range), but > they're still going to be a lot more effective than a gun. Newer dogfighting > missiles, both in service and coming are very effective close in, more so tha a > gun. A gun does bring something else to the mix, but is it worth the weight, > vibration, gas, heat and disposal problems it brings vs. a couple more dogfight > missiles? I agree with the fellow that said BVR will be the way to go. Why, if > you're flying a F-22, would you put yourself in a position that negates all the > advantages you spent zillions of dollars to develop and buy? > > > Art Hanley > > Despite what you might want to > Believe, none of any of the above > Even remotely has anything to do > With my employer. > ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Rick Pavek) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:51:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Cannons >>>> "ahanley" == ahanley writes: > >ahanley> Here's a contrarian (is that a word?) view. Remember, >ahanley> everything I say below ONLY applies to air-to-air. > >ahanley> Cannons and their effectiveness have, in my opnion, been >ahanley> overly romanticized. They have been intimately tied in with >ahanley> the concept of the sutained dogfight in air combat. > >BVR missiles have one problem : >You need very free rules-of-engagement ie you need to be in this situation: >"Hmm, that bogey isn't squawking on IFF as he should. Kill him." > >And you must decide without getting visual on them. And sometimes without authorization/direction from control. And by that time, missiles may be useless. This thread is really a rehash of the giveandtake that took place in the '60s when they decided that guns were stupid and missiles were the kill vehicle of the future. Then, Vietnam came along and shot the theory to hell (and it was never any more than theory). It's nice to decide how to engage the enemy ahead of time. That way, both you and he know the rules ahead of time and can plan for it. Trouble is, he's planning _against_ you and _knows your plan_. If you think he doesn't know your plan, that he doesn't plan for it, that he doesn't plan around it... then you're a fool with a headstone apiece for all your pilots/crew/collateral. Let's wind up this thread. Rick ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 10:30:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Cannons > > BVR missiles have one problem : > You need very free rules-of-engagement ie you need to be in this situation: > Hmm, that bogey isn't squawking on IFF as he should. Kill him. > > And you must decide without getting visual on them. > "OOPS - those were SH-60 friendlies!!!" (F-15 pilot in Iraq) ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Edwards It's on 21 Oct and the F-15 and F-16 will do aerial routines (they've been practicing all week). The YF-23s won't be there and I think the remaining YF-22 has been shipped out of state. We're sending an F-18 and the X-31. If the SR-71B is in suitable condition (it's in phase right now), we'll send it, too, but since they were pulling an engine yesterday, I suspect it may not make it. Lot's of heavies will be there, though. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Sterling Hinman wrote: > Hello all; > > Since Edwards AFB has been mentioned in some recent posts... > > Isn't their airshow traditionally put on during the last weekend in > October? If so, does anyone have any idea of what will be flying, > or on static display this year? (I keep hoping to see the YF-22 ATF...) > > In the past they have done in exclusively on Sunday only, is this true > again this year? > > Anybody got the scoop? If not, I will give the PAO a call, get some info, > and pass it along to anyone else that's interested in going. > > > -SH- ------------------------------ From: russellk@BIX.com Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #465 When I visited the Smithsonian's Garber Restoration facility a year ago, they were working on a WWII Japanese plane (can't remember the relevant info on name, type, etc.) that had been designed to be carried inside a submarine. The sub, as I recall, would have held three or four of these planes, and they could be launched within five or six minutes of surfacing. Folding wings, contained in a tube that was just big enough to accommodate the propeller. They would pull it out of the tube, fasten on a set of floats, almost assembly line fashion, and bingo, ready to fly. The sub was designed to carry these planes to attack the Panama Canal. The plane had very pretty lines -- one of the most attractive Japanese planes I've seen. ============================================ Russell Kay, Technical Editor, BYTE Magazine 1 Phoenix Mill Lane, Peterborough, NH 03458 603-924-2591; fax 603-924-2550 russellk@bix.com ============================================ ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:38:28 -0700 Subject: Re: TR-3 and Tier III >I just had a thought, might it be possible that the semi-mythical >TR-3 and the Tier III are the same aircraft? Does anyone know where >the TR-3 nomenclature came from? Perhaps it was a misheard or slured >version of Tier III. Additionally, might TR-3 and Tier III be covers >for one another? The name TR-3 came from a magazine article entitled TRIANGULAR RECON AIRCRAFT MAY BE SUPPORTING F-117A, researched by aerospace author Joe Jones (author of "Stealth And The Art Of Black Magic") in the June 10, 1991 issue of AW&ST on pp. 20-21. I recently had an opportunity to talk with Joe and ask him this question. He told me that he did NOT misunderstand his source. Of course, that doesn't mean that Joe's source wasn't trying to communicate information in this manner. Since the rumored Q (which some believe was later called the Tier-3) began development around 1983 and was cancelled around 1992 (Jeez - 9 years - quite a long development schedule! - am I the only one to believe that there's a lot buried here?), Joe's source might have been trying to provide some hints. But no, Joe says he heard it quite clearly. Larry ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 11:07:35 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Cannons David and company, watch out I'm going to run off at the mouth (keyboard?): Your points are very good. Keep in mind that a gun is not just a little lead and powder. An internal gun puts some severe design constraints on the aircraft. They're heavy. Ya gotta lug 'em around all the time, even if you're not going to use them, while you can leave the missile back on the ramp. They generate heat. They generate vibration. They generate gas and particles. What to do with the shell casings or misfires is a big problem. What I'm postulating (air-to-air only, remember) is that nowadays the penalty incurred in carrying the gun all the time ain't worth it. A bullet isn't vulnerable to ECM, but the vast majority of bullets never hit anything and usually are never even fired. This isn't so obvious. Here's an example: You encounter two targets crossing at six miles and launch two AIM-9s. One impacts and the other misses. It would be pointed out that the missiles were only 50% effective. What is also true but not realized is that your gun was 0% effective because you were never in a position to use it. This is the common situation with high speed maneuverable aircraft. A missile usually imposes some performance penalty (although the F-4 and F/A-18 fly better carrying missiles than they do clean), but that's acceptable considering what the missile is there for. The internal gun imposes different penalties (including performance), but is nowhere near as lethal anymore. Turning fights risky not only for the guy you don't see, but also because of all the fuel and time you use. The best way a fighter, as opposed to an attack aircraft, supports the guy on the ground (and that's the real reason for tactical air's existence) is to kill as many of the other side's fighters as fast as possible and then strap on bombs. Missiles do this better, even if they still missed half the time. Barring a totally oblivious crew (not an unheard of occurrence I have seen films of B-52s bouncing F-14s and F-15s) or an already badly damaged aircraft, you're not going to get an easy gun shot anymore. Modern aircraft are too agile. Even in those cases, a missile is still going to be easier and more productive. Regarding positive visual ID, I could point out that my favorite fighter, the F-14, can do that at 10 miles, and a gun's not that much help there. Even if you have to come in real real close, a modern maneuverable missile is still going to be a better weapon. The cover of this week's Aviation Week shows a remarkable sequence of what current technology missiles can do (granted, this particular one isn't operational yet, but the British and Russians have missiles of similar performance). After all, what if the other guy isn't worried about positive visual ID or has a missile? Ya really don't want to go through all you've got to go through to get into gun position against an aware adversary if you can help it. It's worthy of note that despite all the talk about guns, we're still using basically the same air to air Gatling of the mid '50s. Now, to blow myself away: The Russians obviously don't agree with me. They have continued to develop advanced guns and sighting systems. Their laser sight is so accurate that they have reduced the Mig-29's ammo load to 150 rounds, which at the firing rate of that cannon is nothing. Even so, they still prefer missiles. If you want to damage a target but not kill it, a gun is better (assuming you can hit the target). Despite what all the computer studies and simulations show, there are going to be times when you're going to have to go down and shoot at stuff on the ground. Of course, an air-to-air gun isn't really the best for that (fires too fast, doesn't carry enough ammo), but it beats an AIM-7 all to heck for keeping their heads down. Maybe what would be optimum in the latter two cases is a streamlined pod instead of internal. Art "Blabberfinger" Hanley Only a Cad would suggest that any of the above had any relationship to the no doubt absolutely correct position of my employer on whatever it is the above is about. It doesn't. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 11:20:02 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Cannons Reply by : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Date : Wednesday, October 18, 1995 11:19:59 Reply to : , smtp@SPKSYS12@Servers[skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu] Reply: Greg, Three thoughts on your thoughts, for thought purposes: 1. What if the other side isn't playing by your rules (e.g. North Vietnam), and they use missiles? 2. Even if you have to get a visual ID, a missile is still a better air-to-air weapon. 3. In the case of the incident in Iraq, the very busy pilots DID make a visual ID (another good argument for two-crew fighters), and it didn't prevent the tragedy. Please don't think of me as insensitive, I 'm definitely not, but since this incident was brought up I have to note that even against straight and level helos, they used missiles. Art Hanley My views are my own and do not represent my employers (They made me say that) -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- To : From : Greg Fieser Subject : Re: Cannons Date : Wednesday, October 18, 1995 at 8:30:40 am PDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > BVR missiles have one problem : > You need very free rules-of-engagement ie you need to be in this situation: > Hmm, that bogey isn't squawking on IFF as he should. Kill him. > > And you must decide without getting visual on them. > "OOPS - those were SH-60 friendlies!!!" (F-15 pilot in Iraq) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 11:29:23 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Question on length of posts I got enough feedback that I'm encouraged to send my disgustingly long post. I would have sent it last night but I was trying to install a new component in my PC ("Lessee, Red wire to red, green to green, and black to...blue?" [Sudden bright light followed by loud noise]). I'll attempt to post it tonight. Art Hanley Despite all appearances to the Contrary, my employers have nothing to do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:26:31 EDT Subject: Re: Japanese Float Plane I remember an article about this plane a few years ago in Smithsonian Air and Space magazine. Its name meant something like "a blizzard attacking a cold, blue sky". I'm trying to find the magazine now, its in one of the 50 or so boxes I still have left after I moved a couple of years ago. What condition was the plane in when you saw it? I remember the article stating it was in pretty bad shape at the time. It was a beautiful plane judging by the painting they had in the mag. JW - ------------- Original Text From russellk@BIX.com, on 10/18/95 12:36 PM: To: When I visited the Smithsonian's Garber Restoration facility a year ago, they were working on a WWII Japanese plane (can't remember the relevant info on name, type, etc.) that had been designed to be carried inside a submarine. The sub, as I recall, would have held three or four of these planes, and they could be launched within five or six minutes of surfacing. Folding wings, contained in a tube that was just big enough to accommodate the propeller. They would pull it out of the tube, fasten on a set of floats, almost assembly line fashion, and bingo, ready to fly. The sub was designed to carry these planes to attack the Panama Canal. The plane had very pretty lines -- one of the most attractive Japanese planes I've seen. ============================================ Russell Kay, Technical Editor, BYTE Magazine 1 Phoenix Mill Lane, Peterborough, NH 03458 603-924-2591; fax 603-924-2550 russellk@bix.com ============================================ ------------------------------ From: Allan Janus Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:38:22 EDT Subject: Seiran Our Japanese sublaunched anti-Panama Canal plane is the Aichi Seiran. Allan Janus +---------------------------------------------------------------+ º Allan Janus 202-357-3133 º º National Air and Space Museum FAX: 202-786-2835 º º MRC 322 NASARC07@SIVM.BITNET º º Washington DC 20560 NASARC07@SIVM.SI.EDU º +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Mike Beede Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:53:49 -0500 Subject: Submerged carriers This month's Air and Space has an article about the only Japanese pilot in WWII to actually fly over the US launched from one of their subs. Not a submersible CVN, but an interesting article, even though its mostly personal interest. Just to keep on-topic, the cover story is about a zero-length launching project that essentially fired F-100s off a teeny little track with Real Big Rockets. So I suppose that with sufficiently hardy rockets and a big enough sub, it would be technically feasible to launch an SR-71 from one.... Or not. Mike ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #467 ********************************* 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).