From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #699 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 28 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 699 In this issue: Undeliverable Message Compartmented Information Richard Bissell Re: JSF award Re: JSF award Re: X-35 and JSF 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: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 1:29:17 EDT Subject: Undeliverable Message To: Cc: Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #698 Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Howard German@BSC@IBK VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The maximum message limit for a user's mailbox is 10,000. The default message limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set message limits using the Mailbox Settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). When a user's mailbox reaches the limit, the user must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. - ---------------------- Original Message Follows ---------------------- Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 27 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 698 In this issue: Wings source references Re: Difference between western jets and eastern jets. source references Compartmented Information X-37, Pt. 2 Richard Bissell Re: X-35 (Plane designated both X and Y) re: source references Re: Richard Bissell Re: Compartmented Information Re: X-35 and JSF Richard Bissell Re: Compartmented Information Re: X-35 and JSF Re: X-35 and JSF Re: X-35 and JSF Re: book information [Fwd: URGENT!!!!! NEW MILITARY BASE KEPT SECRET FOR 60 YRS!!] 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: Sat, 24 Aug 96 7:27:27 EDT Subject: Wings I watched "Wings" last night on the Discovery Channel about the Harrier. I thought it was a great show. I missed the closing credits to see when it was filmed. Does anybody know? I couldn't have been too long ago, because of all the Desert Storm material. Also, don't forget, the CORONA series starts Sunday night at 9:00 eastern. - - -- Hope for the best, expect the worst, and take what God gives you. Douglas J. Tiffany (dougt@u011.oh.vp.com) | I shaped the electrons this Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio | way, not my employer. - ------------------------------ From: Ron and Louise Crawford Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:04:08 -0500 Subject: source references Can anyone refer me to unclassified sources which would give basic dimensions (length, span) and plan view drawings of the Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and McDonnell et al fighter projects for the JAST/JSF competition? I would like this information in order to design 1/200 scale models of the aircraft, so fine detail is not important. Does anyone else collect or build in 1:200 scale? I have archives back into the 1930's and would be delighted to correspond and swap information. Ron Crawford - ------------------------------ From: csmith9@vivanet.com (Chuck Smith) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 12:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Difference between western jets and eastern jets. > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > >> I personally believe the main difference between western and FSU/Russian >> designs is -- besides the use of the metric system and cyrillic lettering -- >> the "inverted" artificial horizon or attitude indicator. >> >> In western aircraft, the symbol of the aircraft is stationary, while the >> horizon is moving, according to the view out of the aircraft. In Russian >> aircraft, the horizon is kinda stationary, while the aircraft is moving, >> showing the attitude of the aircraft in respect to the ground, as it would >> be seen by an outside observer. > > Right!!! This issue was commented between Western and Eastern >fighter pilot before. They said: that's why Eastern and Western has so >much confrontation, they look at the world in different points of view. ;) Well, I beg to differ. There exists fundamental differences in the two super powers approaches to stability and control. The US aircraft are much more inherently stable with greater damping in the short-period and phugoid pitch modes. This is a holdover on the US's side to the (failed) dogma of a fighter being a stand-off missle launching platform. Notice that the F14 and F15 are airframes designed around a RADAR and missle system(s). The Soviet aircraft show much more neutral stability. This is why the Mig 29 is so lethal in combat. It goes where its pointed. The Mig's designers took an airframe/powerplant system that worked exceptionally well and then designed weapons to utilize the superior performance. The last Mig I got to see still had a spring trim system in it! Compare that to the US systems which must use either stepper motors, servo motors, or servo valve hydraulics for pitch trim. As far as the differences in control, the US has invested into the VISTA to try to rethink its approach. Manuvers like the "cobra" are designed as weapons delivery tactics. If someone gets the guts to follow my recomendation and remove the vertical fin/rudder once the P&W is fully checked out (although if it works properly, the VISTA can operate its rudder to simulate the fin being removed-up to a limited yaw angle) the "frisbee" may yet be done. I'd hate to be the poor sap bearing down on an enemy only to have it pull up, spin around and fire at me head on! Of course, we will then need an air to air which is controllable flying both backwards and forwards. If you don't think it will happen, ask an AV8B pilot what "VIFfing" is. Or how 4 MIG 29's were able to avoid interception a few years back because they were behaving like helo's on a RADAR screen. This may sound far out but with RSS systems and vectored thrust the aircraft as we know it may be becoming a dinosaur. The P&W for example, will be the most powerful, fastest moving "control surface" on the VISTA. Imagine slaving the pitch mode to the roll function on a MIG 29 type airframe. Low speed, high roll rate! It may be the case that air to air combat will be occurring at lower and lower speeds. One thing is for sure. the next generation of fighters will be exciting! Chuck - ------------------------------ From: Ron and Louise Crawford Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 10:49:29 -0500 Subject: source references Can anyone refer me to unclassified sources which would give basic dimensions (length, span) and plan view drawings of the Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and McDonnell et al fighter projects for the JAST/JSF competition? I would like this information in order to design 1/200 scale models of the aircraft, so fine detail is not important. Does anyone else collect or build in 1:200 scale? I have archives back into the 1930's and would be delighted to correspond and swap information. Ron Crawford - ------------------------------ From: James Easton <100626.2242@Compuserve.com> Date: 25 Aug 96 16:50:46 EDT Subject: Compartmented Information John Stone wrote: >As I understand it, at least when my father was involved with some secret >projects, they were only told what they needed to know to do there job... John, Thanks for the interesting feedback. Did your father ever use the terms "compartmented/compartmentalized" at the time? If he did, can you say when that was? I'm trying to pinpoint the origin of the terminology and clarify when it was first introduced. Was there at some point a designated terminology or did it simply evolve? It's proved difficult to identify when the terms, which seem interchangeable, first appeared. The concept itself goes back a long way. John Pike, at the Federation of American Scientists, offered the view that: There are at least two different issues here: 1 - The *concept* of compartmentation dates at least to the Manhattan Project, wherein very very few of the folks working on the thing had any clue whatsoever as to what they were actually working on [folks working at Oak Ridge were operating control panels where a majority of the controls were dummies that did nothing whatsoever]. 2 - The origins of the application of the *term* compartmentation to the intelligence community are unknown to me, but the Sensitive Compartmented Information nomenclature [ak SCI/TK = Talent Keyhole, SCI/ZR = ZR Rifle, etc] seems to antedate U-2, and probably dates to the WWII OSS days, wherein [I believe] human sources and assets were given code names [eg TOPHAT, FEDORA, etc etc]. [End] An alternative, informed opinion suggested that the terminology came out of the U-2 program, although it may slightly have proceeded that, but there was no recollection of it being used during WWII. There must be some point at which either "compartmented" or "compartmentalized" was first used and the U-2 program seemed a likely possibility. As the first request had "bounced" back to me, I had resent it with a mention of the CORONA program. That mail was also returned, but it's obviously getting through to the list O.K. Again, the concept was prominent in that program and the terminology is used in retrospect. But was it used at that time? James. Internet; 100626.2242@compuserve.com - ------------------------------ From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Date: 26 Aug 96 09:09:26 EDT Subject: X-37, Pt. 2 The Aug. 19 AW&ST has further mention of the X-37: (p. 19)"Capitol Hill fans of the vertical landing SSTO still aren't giving up on keeping alive a successor to the DC-X as a backstop to the X-33...What's more, they think the suggestion that has popped up at NASA that the U.S. is ready to pursue a $1 billion, air-breathing launcher dubbed X-37 is a chimera." So, there you have it--AW&ST's latest scoop. The X-37 will be called the Chimera. :) - ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:25:56 +0000 Subject: Richard Bissell Can anyone suggest a good book on the life of Richard Bissell? Tom Robison Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (work) tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net (home) - ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 14:08:56  Subject: Re: X-35 (Plane designated both X and Y) Back in the late '40s-early '50s, the theory was a model of a plane considered for service would get the designator "X" when it was what today would be called a "proof of concept" model. It would not have producability features built in. If a prototype of the production model was deemed necessary, it would get the "Y" designation. This would be more representative of the production model. Some aircraft prior to production only got the "X" designation and went from there to production. Examples include the B-47 and F-101. Others started out as "Y" 's and there was no X-model. For example, the F-105 and F-100. Some had both X and Y models. For example, the B-52 and F-86. Nowadays because we believe we're so brilliant, we only do Y models, or go straight to production (ala F/A-18E/F) without any prototypes. JSF is a return to the early case because the first planes will be proof-of-concept aircraft and the winner of that competition will then build prototypes (oh, excuse me, "EMD aircraft") for entry into service later in the next decade. Art "Will Fox name the spinoff 'The Y Files'?" Hanley Looking for my employer's views? Look somewhere else 'cause they won't be found here. - ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 15:12:46  Subject: re: source references Ron: FLIGHT International a month or so ago did a stroy that may have the info you seek, although I don't think it included dimensions. That's under kind of close hold until the first selection in October. I have jpegs of all of them if it'll help you. but they're not 3 views. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. - ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:20:51 Subject: Re: Richard Bissell >Can anyone suggest a good book on the life of Richard Bissell? > >Tom Robison >Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN >tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (work) tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net (home) > Reflections of a Cold Warrior by Richard Bissell, 1996, Yale - ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:18:50 Subject: Re: Compartmented Information > >I wonder if anyone could help with some research. > >I would like to determine the origin(s) of the terms compartmented and >compartmentalized. > Although off topic, an excellent question since it seems the subject is conspicously avoided by many authors who have written on US intelligence and/or secrecy. I have searched more than two dozen reputable books, historical and anecdotal, and found few references. The only outright discussions of the topic were by Stansfield Turner in Secrecy and Democracy, and William Burrows in Deep Black. Turner does not identify it's origins. Burrows contends compartmentalization was institutionalized during WWII. Modern references are related to two concerns, espionage and questionable covert action (without oversight-see U.S. Intelligence, Evolution and Anatomy by Mark Lowenthal under "sensitive clearances) Both issues were seriously considered between 1975 and 1985. It seems to me a conceptual change occured after the Boyce, Howard, Pelton incidents and the 1984 Senate Intelligence Committee hearings which evolved the modern concept, via Casey. Although Burrows references concerns of the NRO, some groups such as Lockheed Skunk Works had the whole banana under one roof, ie U2, SR71. A stricter SCI not only protects against espionage, but also against oversight. So, the actual origins of SCI may not reflect contemporary practice. Byron - ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 05:54:57 GMT Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF I agree with Andreas that JSF is not a sure thing but I think the reasons are going to be somewhat different. JSF demonstrators are only being built in two versions at first because the biggest differences between the versions is the CTOL version for the Air Force and the STOVL version for the USMC, RN, possibly RAF and other sefaring nations. This latter variant is essentially the Air Force model with STOVL capability, so the second demonstrator will be the STOVL variant primarily to demonstrate the low speed regime and transition. Since JSF has coimcomebe dominated by Air Force requirements, the changes permitted to the Navy version appear to be limited to carrier compatibility and increased internal payload. The CTOL demonstrator is to be modified to demonstrate carrier compatibility later in the program. The problem for the USN is that there are at present only plans to build 300 of its version, which will have little or no export potential. The JSF program can get along quite well without the Navy variant, which of course the Air Force would love. The Marines have made it clear that a STOVL version of the Air Force model will meet all their needs. I think Andreas is right that the two finalists will be Lockheed and Macair. After all, these were the two companies that the government originally wanted to build the ASTOVL. Boeing does not have a history as a tactical aircraft builder. Also, Boeing committed what may be an unpardonable sin. When the original ASTOVL competitors were announced, Boeing was out. They announced that they had so much confidence in their design that they very well might just go ahead and build it on their own using their own money (of course they also lobbied Congress on the grounds that the only one of the competitors proposing direct lift was them, and the only really successful STOVL aircraft to enter service was a direct lift aircraft). This can cause panic in Washington because suddenly you've got someone out there who is not under direct control, and what if they do it better, faster or cheaper? Boeing eventually got funding for studies and design, but who knows if that resentment is still there? Then agian, we could all be surprised. Unlike Andreas, if the submissions are at all close in capability, I hope Macair gets it. Why, because Macair is teamed with Northrop Grumman. This is also the team that is building the F/A-18E/F. JSF is a much bigger and much more important program than the Super Hornet. If the team that was building the E/F gets to build JSF, then maybe it'll be acceptable to get rid of the Hornet E/F and buy more JSFs. Frankly, that's the only way I can see that Naval Air will be around 15-20 years from now. Of course, none of them may enter production. Like virtually all the major systems to be developed, the JSF program has been restructured in such a way that the truly big money and major program decisions will not have to take place until after the Administration leaves office, assuming it's re-elected. Based on what has happened so far, I'm not all that confident that there actually are any real plans to put it into production at all. Art - ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:10:56 +0000 Subject: Richard Bissell Thanks to all who suggested _Reflections Of A Cold Warrior_. Sounds like just what I'm looking for. Tom Robison Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (work) tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net (home) - ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:23:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Compartmented Information >>I would like to determine the origin(s) of the terms compartmented and >>compartmentalized. I think Vannevar Bush originated or was involved in originating the' compartmented approach during WWII. The idea basically was to limit the damage a spy could do, assuming that a spy could successfully infiltrate a classified operation. Larry - ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:53:32 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF Good points, but maybe this can go both ways: On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 betnal@ns.net wrote: > lift aircraft). This can cause panic in Washington because suddenly > you've got someone out there who is not under direct control, and what if > they do it better, faster or cheaper? Boeing eventually got funding for > studies and design, but who knows if that resentment is still there? > Then agian, we could all be surprised. > > Art Lockheed also started out as an outsider in the stealth fighter competition, but got the contract by using similar initiative/chtuzpah. Do you think that resentment could be overcome by a better, faster, cheaper plane - if it indeed does turn out to be so? If we're taking bets, then I'm thinking that maybe it will be Mcair and Boeing - the "spare" engine in the VSTOL version of the former and its high stealthiness for the former and the high commonality and small size (cost?) for the latter might be compelling. I know that Lockmart got the F-22 by being fairly conservative compared to their rivals, but got the X-33 by being relatively radical. - - --Brett - ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 15:04:46  Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF Addressing Brett's post would be too close to commenting on current DoD policy, which I won't do from here. I'll pass on some background from home. Art "Chicken" Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! - ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 03:25:40 GMT Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF It's true that Lockheed may not have been the company that one would have first expected to build what became the F-117, but they unquestionably had the better design. Keep in mind, though, that although it was deep black, the stealth fighter competition was a fully approved fully "managed" government program that was well within the Natural Order of Things. What I was referring to is that while you can develop modifications, actually going out and developing something really major on your own is generally frowned upon and often will actually hurt you. This is especially true in USAF and the Army, but is true to a lesser extent in the Navy as well. Only the USMC seems to play fair. Contractors are more willing to spend their own money for the Marines because they know that if the thing works as promised and does something the Marines really need, the Marines will fight for it. Other services seem to count it against you if you do it all yourself, even if it works. For example, when Northrop developed the F-20 using its own money, and it turned out to be better than the F-16 except for range, USAF really worked against it getting any sales, putting special requirements on the plane overstating its maintenance needs, etc. After the F-20 died, though, General Dynamics (builder of the F-20's competitor) was encouraged, in an "approved" program to work closely with Taiwan to develop a plane to meet the same requirement the F-20 was designed for. Ironically, the plane that resulted was even more capable than the F-20 and is as good as anything developed by the "major" countries, and more advanced than most other aircraft in service. Similarly, in the Army, FOG-M and by far the best design for the Improved TOW Vehicle of the 1970s were designed by Ft. Knox and then turned over to private industry. Since they were not developed the "accepted" way, they were suppressed. Although the Marines fought for it, there was a great deal of prejudice in the Pentagon against Boeing and Bell because they kept the V-22 alive with their own money. A final example is going on right now. The SR-71 was brought back not through the usual channels. As a result it is being suppressed through false statements, unneeded delays and bureaucratic tricks. My point is that Boeing originally made it into the competition by threatening to build their own plane themselves. This may be cause for lingering resentment for which there is ample precedent. I don't think we're privy to enough info right now to say which design is best. I also hope that Boeing and MDD-Northrop get to fight it out. Boeing because they seem to be the gutsiest and the most innovative and MDD because if they win maybe we can be freed from the Super Hornet. Art the Dubiously Informed. - ------------------------------ From: id4@ats.com.au (Lando Calrissian) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 22:17:40 +1000 Subject: Re: book information >---------------------------------------------------------- >> Subj: New Booklet Available on Supersonic Research >> >> The NASA History Office has recently received a shipment of a new NASA >> special publications, SP-513, hot off the press and free for the asking. >> _Selected Examples of NACA/NASA Supersonic Flight Research_ was written by <*SNIP*> *Selected* examples ?? In other words, all the really interesting, classified projects aren't even mentioned in it. As they say - nice try, but no cigar. - - -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Some men see things the way they are, and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were, and say 'Why not?'" -- Robert F. Kennedy (by George Bernard Shaw) - - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Etherington =8^) [ id4@ats.com.au ] =8^) -- PESSIMIST IS WHAT AN IDEALIST CALLS A REALIST -- - - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:03:47 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: URGENT!!!!! NEW MILITARY BASE KEPT SECRET FOR 60 YRS!!] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - - --------------42344AF73473 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got this from rec.aviation.mil - - -- May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net - - --------------42344AF73473 Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Path: tyger.inna.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: pumrum@aol.com (Pumrum) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: URGENT!!!!! NEW MILITARY BASE KEPT SECRET FOR 60 YRS!! Date: 27 Aug 1996 15:06:11 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <4vvgv3$cck@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Reply-To: pumrum@aol.com (Pumrum) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com THE MILITARY WAS DISCOVERED ONE LATE FEBRUARY MORNING WHEN A LOW FLYING CESSNA EN ROUTE FROM ALBEQUIRQY TO VEGAS, WHEN IT RAN OUT OF GAS AND WAS FORCED TO LAND. IT LANDED IN A MILITARY BASE NOW CALLED ARE 71!!! ~~~~~~MORE UPDATES TO FOLLOW~~~~~~ -ben PUMRUM@AOL.COM or DIRTROAD@MSN.COM - - --------------42344AF73473-- - ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #698 ********************************* 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). ------------------------------ From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:40:20 -0700 Subject: Compartmented Information > >I wonder if anyone could help with some research. > >I would like to determine the origin(s) of the terms compartmented and >compartmentalized. > Try www.altavista.digital.com and search under various headings like Secret_compartmentalized and use the underlines, and you will find all kinds of interesting references. You may need different wording, but a lot of what you want may be out there. ------------------------------ From: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:35:43 -0400 Subject: Richard Bissell tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) writes: >Can anyone suggest a good book on the life of Richard Bissell? His autobiography is a good place to start: Reflections of a Cold War Warrior by Ricjard M Bissell Jr with Jonathan Lewis and Frances Pudlo, published by Yale University Press earlier this year, at $30 I believe. I haven't read my copy yet. Actually, RMB didnt actually finish, or even write, this book himself before his death. Fortunately, though, he got together with researcher Jonathan Lewis late in life, and the pair spent extensive time together on interviews. Together with RMB's secretary/PA Frances Pudlo, Lewis eventually produced this book. A great man talking from the grave, as it were... Regards Chris Pocock "Information is useless without Intelligence" UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ From: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 10:22:50 EDT Subject: Re: JSF award Art said: >My point is that Boeing originally made it into the competition by >threatening to build their own plane themselves. This may be cause for >lingering resentment for which there is ample precedent. I don't think >we're privy to enough info right now to say which design is best. I also >hope that Boeing and MDD-Northrop get to fight it out. Boeing because >they seem to be the gutsiest and the most innovative and MDD because if >they win maybe we can be freed from the Super Hornet. Aside from pure technical merit and petty bureaucratic maneuvering, it seems that industrial base considerations are going to have to play heavily in the JSF selection process. The real question is how many active fighter shops can DoD support going into the next century? Industry restructuring has brought us down to essentially 2 (assuming you count MDA and NG as one). RAND seems to think that 2 is about as much as we can support. Now, in terms of available funding, both JSF and F-22 have projected total program costs of about $100B. Super Hornet program costs are projected at about $63B, C-17 at about $36B (not a fighter but a source of cash), and other miscellaneous programs like T-45TS and F-16 add to the total available business base. Clearly, LMAS and MDA can continue to survive off of other programs if they don't get the JSF award. Awarding JSF to Boeing would essentially create another fighter company with $100B in business base. Maybe DoD might perceive that as desireable because that would prevent LMAS or MDA from becoming too dominant in the tactical aircraft market (as well as bringing "new blood" into the business). On the other hand, once you set up a facility, it is hard to get rid of it and expensive to maintain. Bill Perry has taken a lot of heat for paying the restructuring costs in the aerospace industry to get to the reduced number of facilities that we have today. That process could conceivably be reversed with one program award like JSF. I'm not implying that any one of the 3 competitors has an edge or a disadvantage, but rather that with so few major new program awards coming out in the foreseeable future, and the need for a smaller, more efficient defense industrial base, a lot of factors will determine major program awards in addition to the technical merits of the respective competing systems. The JSF award will be very interesting to watch (the program itself will be interesting too because they are trying pretty hard to make it an affordable system). Eric, speaking for myself ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 9:14:04  Subject: Re: JSF award Can't comment on Eric's extremely thoughtful post from here (DoD computer) except for one factual update: Super Hornet Program costs are projected to be much larger than F-22's, if the program is as large as is currently talked about. JSF would be larger than both. The minimum quantity expected on that program Without exports (except for RN) is 3,000. Art Hanley My employer has absolutely nothing to do with any of this and is no doubt glad of that fact ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF Ron and all, I looked through my AW&ST, Air International, AirForces Monthly and other publications, trying to find more precise data on the JAST/JSF contenders. I found some general layout drawings and many model photos and artists impressions, but no specifics on dimensions. I have added some references at the end of this post. Most of the JAST/JSF mockups are anyway only scaled down versions of the proposed X-32/X-35 test vehicles. No X-Plane hardware has been build yet, and the configurations may still change a bit. The final JSF series aircraft will probably look even more different. It is by any means highly uncommon to give prototypes of fighter aircraft an X-Series designation or (if you like) build two competing experimental research aircraft as the prototypes for one intended service aircraft, even though several missiles in the X-Plane history, like the X-7 (Q-5), X-8 (Aerobee), X-9 (GAM-63 Rascal), X-10 (SM-64 Navaho), X-11 and X-12 (SM-65 Atlas A/B) actually tested or resembled mass produced research vehicles or weapon systems. The X-16 (a pure USAF project, not related to the CIA at all, like the Popular Mechanics (PM) article claims) and the X-27 might have resulted in real series production aircraft, but they didn't. The X-32 and X-35 should have been designated XF-24 and XF-25 (or YF-24 and YF-25), if logic and regulations, and not politics, would have been applied. Instead, first the CALF and ASTOVL studies were combined into JAST to save some money, then the whole thing evolved into JSF, with thousands, or at least hundreds of proposed service aircraft in at least three different versions for three different services, plus possible export models, even before any of the concepts were selected. Regarding the PM article: I got the issue, and must say that the article contains several errors, but I really liked the artwork. The article itself is pretty shallow, and a sentence like: "While it will not achieve orbit, it will lift payloads more economically than any existing first-stage rocket, making it possible to orbit astronauts and satellites for about $1000 per pound, one-tenth the current cost of the space shuttle." regarding the X-33 is absolutely stupid. First, the author acknowledges that the X-33 is a suborbital (unmanned) vehicle, and then he claims it will orbit not only satellites but also astronauts. *sigh* Supposedly researched by Nancy Coggins (skimming for a few minutes through the first edition of Jay Miller's X-Planes X-1 to X-29 book, I presume ?), is exactly what you would expect from PM -- not much. The XB-70 does not belong in the X-Plane series at all, as does not the D-558-I, D-558-II, HL-20, M2F1, M2F2/M2F3, and various other aircraft used for research and experimental flight testing around the world. ;) The drawing of the X-33 depicts an early Rockwell International design, rather than the winning Lockheed Martin's X-33 (proof-of-concept vehicle for the VentureStar RLV). The X-34 drawing is also pure speculation. The X-32 drawing is based on the Lockheed Martin concept, but ignores the other two designs, which look quite different. The NASA ACRV study was named X-35, but never got a military designation -- a big difference. The X-35 will be of course the second JAST/JSF contender. The 'black project/secret aircraft' story was new to me. To split up the designs as X-1, X-1A/B/C/D and X-1E, X-15 and X-15A-2, X-24A and X-24B, but combine others, like X-7, X-14, X-25, X-26 and X-32 is pretty silly, and the "(Series)" addition for X-7, X-14, X-23 and X-25 is especially ridiculous. Not only is essential information, like the systems manufacturer, model designation, popular name and number of vehicles built or planned missing, but the unpowered X-25 and the powered X-25A and X-25B as well as the unpowered X-26A and the powered X-26B are as different from each other, as are the X-1, X-7 or X-15 versions. It is also ridiculous to refer to the single X-14, the 3 different X-25s and the 4 identical X-23s as "series", as is the claim that the achievement of the X-14 was that it "Led to the development of Hawker Siddeley's Harrier" -- even though X-14 test data was utilized for the design of the P.1127. No mention is made that the X-1E is a modified X-1, the X-15A-2 was a rebuilt X-15 and the sole X-24A became the only X-24B. The claim that the achievement of the X-12 is: "None. Destroyed shortly after takeoff" seems strange in the light of the successful launches of the other four Atlas B X-12 vehicles. There are several more errors but I nevertheless must recommend the issue! I say "Buy It" -- for $2.95 you get a whole bunch of nice artwork, a double sided poster, and many nice side/top view drawings. Here are some references for JAST/JSF contender information: Air International: If there was an article in Air International, then I must have missed the issue (I am missing Vol.49, No.5 (November 1995) and Vol.50 No.4 (April 1996) as well as any after Vol.50 No.6 (July 1996)). Popular Science: The June 1996 issue has general layout drawings, artists impressions, model photos and general descriptions of all three JAST/JSF contenders, in an article of Bill Sweetman. If the author of the PM magazine article would have read this article, he would have noticed the X-35 error. AirForces Monthly: The July 1996 issue (No.100) has an article on the Lockheed Martin JSF contender by Eric Hehs of LMTAS's Code One magazine. With several photos and artists impressions. AW&ST (which finally has now its own web site at http://www.awgnet.com) articles include: * Jan. 23, 1995 -- two related articles on pages 34, 38 and 39, with early artists impressions of all three contenders; * Feb. 6, 1995 -- one article on page 22 and 23; * Mar. 3, 1995 -- three articles about the three contenders on pages 48-51; * Jun. 19, 1995 -- article about Lockheed's design, pages 74-76; * Jun. 26, 1995 -- article about all three, pages 22 and 23; * Sep. 25, 1995 -- Boeing's design, pages 53 and 54; * Oct. 9, 1995 -- first mentioning of JSF, pages 20 and 21; * Oct. 23, 1995 -- general JSF info, page 73; * Dec. 4, 1995 -- JAST test progress, page 30; * Dec. 11, 1995 -- JAST engines, pages 30 and 31; * Feb. 12, 1996 -- MDC's design, pages 57-59; * Feb. 19, 1996 -- MDC's design, pages 52 and 53; * Mar. 18, 1996 -- JAST engines, page 24; * Apr. 8, 1996 -- JAST antenna, pages 46 and 47; * Apr. 15, 1996 -- two articles on JSF engines, pages 24 and 25; * May. 6, 1996 -- Boeing's RCS tests, page 57; * May. 13, 1996 -- three articles, Lockheed's JSF design, USMC (non-) procurement, and JSF avionics/software, pages 63-65; * Jun. 10, 1996 -- Boeing's design ends testing, pages 47 and 49; * additionally, there are several more references in the News section and other articles, with topics like avionics, stealth, weapon systems, research aircraft or procurement plans. Lockheed's internal magazines the Skunk Works' Star and the LMTAS' Code One frequently have information about Lockheed's JAST/JSF designs. On the web (all available through my home page) are: * the JAST WWW server -- http://www.jast.mil * Lockheed Martin Co., -- http://www.lmco.com the Skunk Works, -- http://www.lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw and LMTAS Fort Worth -- http://www.lmtas.com * Boeing Aerospace -- http://www.boeing.com * McDonald Douglas -- http://pat.mdc.com - - Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #699 ********************************* 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).