From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 18 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 513 In this issue: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance XB35 and YB49 data requested, www links, etc Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #512 Re: Boscombe Down UK Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance Re: Boscombe Down UK 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: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 5:40:33 EST Subject: Air Force News Service 15nov95 I received this from the Air Force News Service today: 1267. B-1B delivering knockout punch in Egypt by Master Sgt. Louis A. Arana-Barradas Air Force News Service CAIRO WEST AIR BASE, Egypt -- The knockout punch the B-1B bomber gives the 366th Wing makes the unit more formidable than most of the world's small air forces. And though the bomber's awesome capabilities make it one of the Air Force's most potent weapon systems, there are still those who contend it is not capable of defending itself. But those who fly the sleek, black bomber say critics are forgetting that, like the bombers that brought the Third Reich and Japan to their knees in World War II, they too depend on their "little friends" -- the fighters -- to help them deliver their massive bomb load. Lt. Col. Tom Hopper, commander of the composite wing's 34th Bomb Squadron, explains the relationship with an analogy. "It's like having a great line blocking for the halfback in a football game. The halfback runs behind his line and when close to the goal line, cuts through a hole to score a touchdown." Each aircraft has its own role in fighting a war, and in the wing, he said. "When you put those parts together -- and everyone carries out their part of the mission -- it brings success." Hopper said the B-1B could to its part of the mission by itself. "But by flying with the rest of the wing, it enhances our capability to do a better job and cover an even larger target zone." Hence, one big reason for the composite wing, he said. By escorting the B-1B in and out of a mission, we can bring a lot more firepower to bear on the enemy in a shorter period of time," said Col. Ken Peck, the wing commander and exercise joint forces air component commander. On a typical mission, after the fighters destroy enemy radar and anti-aircraft artillery and missile sites, the Lancers obliterate targets with their 42,000-pound bomb payload. In the meantime, other jets provide cover against enemy fighters. At Bright Star, the bombers have struck against "enemy" airfields, troop formations and oil fields -- even the Aswan Dam. On most missions, aircraft from Egypt and France -- participating in the exercise for the first time -- have joined strikes with their American counterparts. "One of the great assets of the B-1 is that it really fits well into the composite force because we can fly at the same altitude, the same speed and the same areas as the fighters. That's the bomber's strength," Hopper said. The realistic training the bombers crews are getting at Bright Star has shown that the participants are at different levels of expertise, said Capt. Jon Schilder, a B-1B navigator/bombardier. "With this large contingent of aircraft from foreign countries and our own, we're seeing how well everyone can melt together into a composite package to strike targets," Schilder said. And because of careful mission planning and use of multinational composite strike packages during the exercise, Schilder said, "The B-1Bs have done very well. And we've done it without having any bombers shot down in simulated attacks." The 34th BS joined the wing more than a year ago, but is still based at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. It will soon join the wing at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. But Master Sgt. Michael E. Saad, a squadron expediter, said the maintainers, though they have the utmost faith in the bomber's abilities, already welcome the integration with the wing. "We're seeing how the B-1B is working really well with the fighters. "Our bombers are flying strong pinpoint missions by working as part of a group. It keeps our morale high," Saad said. Undeniably, the B-1B multiplies the wing's ability to wage war, Hopper said. And he said that when used correctly, the bomber becomes the "backbone of our fighting force." And as evidenced in Desert Storm, Hopper said, "When our bombers strike a target as part of a composite wing, we terrorize a country's capability and will to fight." - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 05:55:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Art Hanley wrote: > There is a tie-in to the list. Part of the post I'm responding to > talked about optical sensors. Now, we know that an optical guidance > seeker heads for air-to-air missiles is well within current > technology. This poses a question for stealth aircraft design. > Let's say 10 years or so from now, the F-22 is supercruising along at > M1.3 or so during the day. With a good IRST, which virtually every > contemporary fighter except the F-22 will have, the skin heating from So, how the F-22 can track a target using a IR-guide missile?? What IRST stand for anyway??? > friction will be enough that the aircraft should be both detectable > and trackable from a goodly distance. If our IRST-equipped foe gets > reasonably close and launches a missile that guides optically, what > is the counter? More importantly, does this sort of negate some of > the rationale for the compromises made to give the F-22 the excellent > stealth it enjoys? > > Art > How does the optically guides track target??? If it use the visible light wavelenght, what will happen if we use this missile during night??? You can not see anything. Maybe to counter any type of missile is to destroy it before it get close to you... using laser beam... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 03:29:13 PST Subject: XB35 and YB49 data requested, www links, etc Folks, First, apologies to those who tried to email me at home via the WWW page link. There was a typo in the "mailto" in the source, which has been corrected. Since the Lockheed links are so numerous, I have decided to devote my page to my favorites, the XB35 and YB49. This has the added challenge of sourcing good images and documentation. I hope it won`t be overwhelming. So, if you have any good links along the flying wing line please send them to me! I have in my possesion the NACA Wartime Reports from 1944, the wind tunnel data for the `49, and some really neat other stuff about these remarkable aircraft. I think I will contact the Discovery channel and ask that video frame captures from "The Wing Will Fly" be present in my resources. Hopefully, with a plug and link, they will agree. The wings are fun in that they have a mystique, and an aura of conspiracy about them. I also have documentation of Foa`s calculations showing that the range calculations made by William Sears of Northrop, where in error. Foa presented this material to Hap Arnold in 1948. Notice, that the requirements of the AF asked for a 10,000 mile range. While the XB35 did make that goal, the YB49 never flew more than 3600 miles! Many experts conclude that for jet propulsion, the flying wing is the absolute worst chioce for economy and range. I am a little less jaded, realising that high compression, high bypass fans in current use or developement may offer a newtwist. Certainly thought, the current B2 engines are not in this category. Well, I`l save the rest for the page. Again, I will be looking at a Calspan project this weekend. News to follow. Chuck ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 04:19:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance Hi Art -- was that you wondering "What About the F-14D?" in USNI Proceedings a few months back? Good stuff--enjoyed the article, though I bet you got an earful from the F/A-18E/F program office. :) On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Art Hanley wrote: > As I remember it, the official reason given for the decoloring of > naval aircraft was for air combat purposes... > > However, the real reason that I heard from more than one squadron, > and from some press reports, was simply that it was cheaper not to > have the brihgt markings because they cost more to paint and to > maintain. Unit pride wasn't even figured in. Since this started > during the Carter years, this is somewhat believable. I remember reading this too. At the height of the Navy low-viz tactical paint scheme era (really, *really* mottled grays on top of one another) I seem to recall something about those airplanes being difficult to keep clean (no idea why). Of course, that maintenance "cost" probably was not reflected in dollars and cents... If you want to see some really elaborate paint jobs, though, look at the Navy and Reserve F/A-18As serving in adversary roles..."loud" doesn't begin to describe them. > There is a tie-in to the list. Part of the post I'm responding to > talked about optical sensors. Now, we know that an optical guidance > seeker heads for air-to-air missiles is well within current > technology. This poses a question for stealth aircraft design. > Let's say 10 years or so from now, the F-22 is supercruising along at > M1.3 or so during the day. With a good IRST, which virtually every > contemporary fighter except the F-22 will have, the skin heating from > friction will be enough that the aircraft should be both detectable > and trackable from a goodly distance. If our IRST-equipped foe gets > reasonably close and launches a missile that guides optically, what > is the counter? Today's conventional wisdom says a preventive AMRAAM shot negates this scenario (tomorrow, it may be an AMRAAM-follow-on cued in by an offboard source using [fill in bells and whistles here]). However, given that the bad guy slips inside and gets an IR missile off, perhaps by that time we'll be seeing fighter-mounted active laser IR jammers, of the sort they're putting on special operations AC-130s? It would be an awfully tricky engineering problem, given targeting requirements and airframe masking issues in an agile airplane that's doing all sorts of unstable things to toss off a missile, but... > More importantly, does this sort of negate some of > the rationale for the compromises made to give the F-22 the excellent > stealth it enjoys? Maybe, but does one of those design compromises really directly lead to a higher F-22 IR signature, thus making it more vulnerable to long-range IRST detection? If so, then the answer would appear to be yes. If not, the scenario you pose may not be a case of the F-22 being too stealthy for its own good, but not stealthy *enough*. It might also be useful to bear in mind that the definition of "stealth" is not restricted to radar signature: it includes "infra-red, visual, contrails, engine smoke, noise, and electronic emissions." If the F-22 is suddenly vulnerable to IRST detection then the generation of "stealth" which it represents has simply been rendered obsolete -- which has always been a factor in stealth aircraft design. "Built-in obsolescence" of one sort or another, didn't they call it? I think the IR detection threat is an important one; that IRSTS ball sensors have been appearing on the noses of Soviet fighter aircraft since the mid-1980s seems to suggest at least one major school of fighter aircraft design is seriously examining the possibilities. I don't suppose an IRST can be retrofitted to future F-22s if this becomes a problem? ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row Worldwide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: russellk@BIX.com Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:19:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #512 > A modified F/A-18 on loan from the Navy, HARV had already been fitted with > thrust-vectoring vanes. These deflect engine exhaust to boost pitch and >yaw control. > Engineers installed the strakes -- each 4 ft. long and 6 in. wide -- last >winter. > Hydraulic actuators extend them to interact with vortexes swirling around >the nose. > The strakes work best at turning the jet left and right when it's in high >angles of > attack. The pilot sim-ply shifts the stick -- the strakes' movements are >governed > entirely by the plane's flight-control software. > Sounds to me like they should resurrect the "Cobra" nickname of the YF-117 for this bird! ============================================ Russell Kay, Technical Editor, BYTE Magazine 1 Phoenix Mill Lane, Peterborough, NH 03458 603-924-2591; fax 603-924-2550 russellk@bix.com ============================================ ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 18:55:18 Subject: Re: Boscombe Down UK Greg wrote: >I'm not familiar with this incident, could you (or someone) elaborate? Last November a sleek twin-inward canted finned aircraft of unknown origin was seen in broad daylight over Exmoor National Park. Later some radio buffs picked up that something was in trouble and was going to have to make an emergency landing. From memory, some of these went out towards BD airfield where security was very very tight to say the least. I have a feeling that some roads were shut off with a cover story about a missile going ga-ga. Sone witnesses saw a black a/c witha tarp over it, but they couls make out the twin inward canted tail fins. I belive the crew of two were killed. A C-5A a civilian 737 (Unmarked ?) and a Gulfstream registered to a US Bank showed up. The wreckage was presumably loaded onto the C-5 and taken away. There was talk at the time about it being a TR-3A, but as I said, I have a feeling that it was the F-111 replacement sometimes called the A-17 (Northrop usually get the 'made by' credit..but as with other projects there may well be a SW version too (F-22/F-23.) All of this is of course idle speculation, but it's interesting to follow the way these things pan out. FWIW, with the UK being such a small place ..and so far from America, I can't see the US flying hardware over here that isn't too far away from being acknowledged..there's also been talk about the UK building a LO a/c but as we appear to have trouble paying for the Euro-Fighter, it's hard to see where the money would come from. Besides..the talk about the RAF buying a few F-117s (RAF personnel as you know fly the Wobblin' Gobblin) came to nothing..so far. But why build our own Stealth planes ?...unless the US doesn't want to sell their LO technology to anyone else...which I can understand..Even though the F-117 is a relatively old a/c, its still nothing short of a flying miracle, and would be very welcome in any country's inventory I would have thought. John Burtenshaw posted some good stuff on the Boscombe Down incident..perhaps you could re-post it John ? Stuart Brown from Pop Sci also did some excellent stuff on the A-17..with Bill Sweetman ? I'm not sure..Anyway, I have it in my files, so if you need the issue date, I'll dig it out. On the North Sea sighting...could someone tell me if it's normal for a/c to fly in line abreast whilst waiting to re-fuel ? The 2 F-111s were on the port side of the KC135 as the mystery a/c appeared to take on fuel. Is that how it happens or does it appear more like the action of chase planes ? Best D ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 12:49:11 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance To Wei-Jen IRST stands for InfraRed Search and Track. Presently operational on the F-14D, Mig-29, Mig-31 and SU-27. Will be on Eurofighter, Rafale, Mig-29M, SU-35 and possibly Grippen. Expected to be on I.42, if it ever makes it into service. It's not necessary to have IR sensors on an aircraft in order to use an IR missile, since the seeker head itself does the acquisition and tracking. But, IRST will greatly enhance pointing the seeker in the acquisition phase, permits passive detection/track of other aircraft and has a number of other very useful features. Optical air-to-air guidance is not expected to be used on night mission. This was a limitation accepted from the beginning, but was considered acceptable in view of the other advantages gained by adding optical tracking to the weapons mix. If the technology existed to put a steerable multi-shot laser in a fighter-sized vehicle (the USAF's planned Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile system envisions using a 747 sized aircraft and initially it would only be effective against missiles), that would of course be a formidable defense, but that's a ways away yet. I was wondering what would be the counter to an air-to-air missile that guides optically. The F-22's very low RCS and the steps taken to suppress engine emissions would not do much to confuse such a weapon. Art Hanley In compliance with the Full Employment For Lawyers Act, I must state that the Above does not represent my employer's Views, only mine ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 13:18:57 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance To Robin: Yes, that was me in the Proceedings. To comment more here isn't appropriate because it involves current DoD policy. I'll pass on further details from my home account. Regarding the AMRAAM shot; The first shot usually wins, but this tactic would be equally effective from a non-stealth aircraft. There is also a disincentive to launch an AMRAAM out of envelope to scare someone off: He may not see your F-22 on radar, but he will see your AMRAAM launch and missile plume. Then he's got an idea of where you are (Sort of like the Romulans decloaking to fire) It's not to your advantage to fire early unless you've got a good chance to get a hit. Also, we still carry short range missiles today 'cause planes are going to get relatively close to each other. The compromises I was referring to do not make for a higher IR signature. In fact, great pains were taken in the ATF designs to reduce IR, and the F-22 should be very good at that. However, the very fact that an airplane is traveling supersonically is going to heat the skin itself to a point where a good IRST could be able to detect it. The compromises I was referring to is that some of the things you do to reduce RCS and IR emissions drive compromises in other areas. Worthwhile compromises, in order to get the desired stealth in multiple areas, but compromises nonetheless. What I'm wondering aloud about is does supercruising, which is extremely valuable, bring with it certain aspects that negate the value of some of the other compromises we made in an aircraft's design? Do optically guided missiles represent a "blind spot" in our planning? IRST was part of the original ATF requirements. The USAF took it out. Possibly because USAF may not be as comfortable with its value as other services, and possibly because they thought the housing might increase the F-22's RCS, although a retractable mount, such as on the Mig-31 should handle that. It could certainly be added and the F-22's avionics should certainly be able to integrate the data. I would think it inconceivable that it wouldn't eventually be added, it's too valuable. Art Hanley Not only do my employers not endorse the views above, they aren't even aware of them. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 15:53:15 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: Boscombe Down UK The particular issue of Popular Science that David Windle is referring to is January 1995. There is also information on the incident in the February, 1995 issue of Air Forces Monthly. An interesting note about the illustrations. if the F-23 had won the ATF competition, and if the navy had gone ahead with a naval ATF purchase, it is known that the aircraft would have been variable sweep (as was the naval version of the F-22). If you take those illustrations, add a fighter type canopy instead of the one shown and add IRST and optical sensors, you end up with something that probably looks a lot like a naval F-23. It's especially noteworthy that the illustrations show horizontal stabilators at the rear. These would be required for pitch, roll and low speed control on a carrier approach (Lockheed has to do the same thing in their proposal for a naval strike aircraft based on the F-117). Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 ********************************* 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).