From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #700 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 29 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 700 In this issue: Re: X-35 and JSF Re: X-35 and JSF Big Time Correction Re: X-35 and JSF NASA Dryden: 50 Years of Discovery through NASA Flight Research (fwd) AW&ST AUG 6 - SPACE FORCE Building 90 re: JSF Award re: JSF Award Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #699 Modelers beware re: Building 90 RAM in 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 14:07:31  Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF Let me add one more JSF reference to Andreas' useful post. Flight International in the July 3-9 issue has a very up to date report, with drawings and (finally!)... Cutaways! (not detailed, but better than anybody else's). ASTOVL was planned to merge into JAST, but it wasn't supposed to happen until a year after it did. This was because ASTOVL always was intended to produce an operational aircraft, while JAST wasn't going to necessarily do so. The ASTOVL types wanted to make sure their project was far enough along and well-designed before the merger so it would be lost in the fog. Congress mandated the merger a year early, and ASTOVL, along with the CAF studies and the Navy's A-6 replacement..A-12..A/FX requirement was blended in to become JSF. No doubt they are now sure there will be no more changes...until the next one. Art Hanley T'woulds be the basest flasehood if thou didst imply that M'Lords and Ladies, who most generously sign my meager checks, had in any way a foreknowledge or didst bless that which has been scriven above. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 16:16:13  Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF Big Time Correction In my last post I stupidly said that the ASTOVL people wanted to wait a year before merging into JAST so that their program would be lost in the fog. What I meant to say was that they wanted to wait so that their program WOULDN'T be lost in the fog. AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!! Art "D'ouh" Hanley These thoughts, such as they are, do not represent the thoughts of my employers, if in fact they choose to have any ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:02:35 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: X-35 and JSF On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 betnal@ns.net wrote: > 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 > Art the Dubiously Informed. Hmmmm, sounds like being almost as much fun as academia being a "limited tenure lecturer"... keep them frightened and docile... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:16:12 +1200 (NZST) Subject: NASA Dryden: 50 Years of Discovery through NASA Flight Research (fwd) Thought that this might be interesting... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:53:54 -0400 From: NASA HQ Public Affairs Office To: press-release-other@venus.hq.nasa.gov Subject: NASA Dryden: 50 Years of Discovery through NASA Flight Research Don Nolan-Proxmire Headquarters, Washington, DC August 28, 1996 (Phone: 202/358-1983) Kirsten Williams Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA (Phone: 805/258-2662) RELEASE: 96-174 NASA DRYDEN: 50 YEARS OF DISCOVERY THROUGH NASA FLIGHT RESEARCH This September, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, will celebrate a half century of exploration, discovery, and contributions to the nation's aerospace industry. The occasion marks the 50th anniversary of Dryden's founding as a support unit for the X-1 rocket plane supersonic research flights. A place of unique resources and capabilities, Dryden has evolved over the years from a small desert outpost into the nation's premier flight research facility. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the "X-planes," specifically designed as flight research tools to provide data not available from wind tunnels or simulators. The X-plane tradition continues today with the X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft, scheduled to fly this fall. Dryden History and Contributions The Center's origins date back to September 30, 1946, when a small group of engineers from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics' (NACA) Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in Hampton, VA, arrived in Muroc, CA, to research the so-called "sound barrier" with the X-1, a joint effort with Bell Aircraft and the U.S. Army Air Forces. The remote desert location was picked for several reasons. First, the Mojave Desert offered clear skies and almost unlimited visibility all but a few days a year. The desert landscape and sparse population in the surrounding area also made it an excellent choice for high-speed and classified operations. Moreover, the Army Airfield at Muroc had both a 10,000 foot runway and access to Rogers Dry Lake -- a 44- square mile natural landing site that General Albert Boyd called "God's gift to the Air Force." Those resources became even more important as the nation moved rapidly into the supersonic age. These were the heady days of jet and rocket power, where speed and altitude records often stood only until the next flight. However, in an era where aircraft designers were moving so rapidly into new and unknown territory, the NACA station at Muroc provided an essential resource for designers trying to build aircraft to operate beyond the speed of sound. In an effort to better understand the dynamics of transonic (approaching and immediately surpassing the speed of sound) and supersonic flight, the X-1 was followed by other "X-series" research aircraft. Beyond simply expanding understanding of high speed flight, the early X- plane research offered manufacturers important insights into problems they were encountering with their production aircraft. The adjustable stabilizer on the X-1, for example, was incorporated in the F-86's all-moving horizontal tail, giving it great advantages over MIG fighters during the Korean conflict. And a potentially deadly problem with inertial coupling (a tendency to diverge from the flight path) on North American's F-100 Super Sabre fighter was solved with the help of NACA's X-3 research plane. The open skies, land and resources at Dryden soon proved their usefulness to the space effort, as well. The Mach-6 X-15, whose pilots were labeled the first "space men" by the popular press of the day, researched and developed various technologies that were implemented in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft. The X-15 also provided the pioneering work on a craft designed to go into space and then return to a horizontal landing on Earth -- a concept that would develop over the next two decades into the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle design also was influenced significantly by lifting body research conducted at Dryden in the 1960s. Lifting bodies were small, tubby, wingless vehicles that proved a craft designed for space flight could be landed safely without power. In addition, the Lunar Landing Research/Training Vehicles (LLRV/LLTV), or "flying bedsteads," designed and researched at Dryden, became the trainers that taught the Apollo astronauts how to land on the Moon. The payoff came on the very first mission, when Neil Armstrong, who was a research pilot at Dryden before joining the space program, had to land the lunar module manually. The confidence to do that, Armstrong said later, came from his experience flying the Dryden-designed LLTVs. Yet even as the nation was reaching into space and to the Moon, aerospace manufacturers were trying to get improved performance out of conventional aircraft designs, especially as rising fuel prices in the early 1970s made fuel efficiency a much greater industry concern. Dryden provided invaluable assistance in this area by flight researching concepts such as the supercritical wing and winglets -- designs to improve a wing's aerodynamic efficiency that are now used by most airliners and corporate jet aircraft. Dryden also researched military applications of a supercritical wing with the Transonic Aircraft Technology (TACT) program and a variable camber wing concept called the Mission-Adaptive Wing (MAW), both flown on the F-111 aircraft. At the same time, the dawning computer age was opening a new horizon of possibilities in aircraft and engine design that were explored at Dryden. The Center flew the world's first purely digital fly-by-wire aircraft in 1972, for example, transferring both important technology components and a critical level of confidence in the concept to industry. That research contributed to the creation of McDonnell Douglas' F-18 Hornet, General Dynamics' F-16 C/D Falcon fighters, and even aircraft such as Boeing's new 777 digital fly-by-wire airliner. Computerized flight control systems and new composite materials made more maneuverable aircraft designs possible as well. To provide engineers and designers with more information about this new realm, Dryden conducted extensive flight research with advanced aircraft technology demonstrators, including the remotely controlled Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology vehicle, the forward-swept- wing X-29, and the thrust-vectored X-31. Dryden researchers also helped manufacturers explore new engine designs and integrated engine and flight control systems made possible by computer technology. The Digital Electronic Engine Control flight research project at Dryden led Pratt & Whitney to commit to a digitally controlled production engine, which since then has been integrated into aircraft ranging from the McDonnell Douglas F-15 to the MD-11 and the Boeing 757. A more advanced concept, integrating digital flight and engine controls, showed the potential of a fighter aircraft having a "self-repairing" control system, in which the aircraft would automatically use engine power to compensate for damage to an engine or flight control surface. After reading about one of several crashes resulting from the loss of flight controls because of hydraulic failures, a Dryden researcher then adapted that integrated flight control and engine concept into a potential Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA) system. A PCA system would provide a pilot with a computerized system to land an aircraft with only engine controls in the event of a catastrophic hydraulic system failure. Although the feat was considered impossible by many engineers, Dryden nevertheless completed successful automatic PCA landings with both a McDonnell Douglas F-15 fighter in 1993 and an MD-11 airliner in 1995. Along the way, Dryden also has proved a valuable support and trouble-shooting resource for a wide variety of commercial and government aerospace efforts. In addition to providing a testing and landing site for the Space Shuttle, for example, Dryden researchers discovered the cause and a cost-effective fix for a potentially dangerous Pilot Induced oscillation problem discovered on the Shuttle orbiter's final test flight before its first space mission. Dryden's high- speed research aircraft have proven capable testbeds for a variety of technologies, ranging from side-control sticks for the F-16 fighter to shuttle thermal protection tiles. Its B- 52 "mothership" has provided the launch platform to test everything from scale models and F-111 escape pod parachute systems to the commercially developed Pegasus rocket booster, designed to launch small payloads into orbit more cost- effectively than traditional rocket systems. Dryden's Convair 990 researched ways to improve the safety and performance of the Space Shuttle's landing gear, and the center's B-52 tested the drag chute now employed regularly on Shuttle landings. The center also has conducted a variety of research projects to improve safety in civil aviation, ranging from a general assessment of the handling qualities of small aircraft to a study of wake vortices to determine safe separation distances between airline and other traffic at commercial airports. In addition, the center has helped numerous aircraft manufacturers trouble-shoot design problems with production airplanes. The F-89, F-100, F-111, F-14, and F-15, among others, have benefited from Dryden's targeted research efforts. Dryden Today Much has changed since the initial NACA cadre of 13 engineers and support personnel arrived at Muroc in 1946. Yet in many ways, Dryden researchers today stand in the exact same place as their predecessors of 50 years ago -- still at the leading edge of what NASA understands, working to expand the boundaries into the abyss of the unknown. Technology has made great advances in the past half century. However, the problems have become more complex. Now, instead of simply trying to break through the speed of sound, America needs aircraft that can do that while still being highly maneuverable, "stealthy," or environmentally sensitive. Computers have made aircraft more capable, but they also have created new possibilities for problems. Software is now as critical to aircraft as the spars in their wings. Today, as Dryden faces the start of its second half century, it is continuing the tradition of diversified flight research in support of national goals and efforts. Its F-16XL supersonic laminar flow project aims to develop technology to help make a High Speed Civil Transport more aerodynamically, and therefore cost, efficient. Other projects, such as the F-15 Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles are looking to further improve the performance and maneuverability of aircraft and help industry capitalize on thrust-vectoring engine technology. The Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology program is attempting to develop remotely controlled aircraft capable of sustained, slow flight at high altitudes to gather currently unavailable information about our atmosphere. And a Reusable Launch Vehicle research effort using the Lockheed Martin X-33 is exploring technologies designed to make access to space more efficient and economical. People, Partnerships, and "Technical Agility" Over its 50 year history, there have been several factors that have enabled Dryden to successfully accommodate a wide variety of challenges and changes while continuing to play a significant role in advancing the nation's state of the art in aeronautics and aerospace design. Since its inception, Dryden has been a specialty shop, concentrating on the unique discipline of flight research. It is a practical discipline, where researchers from a variety of fields must work as a team, focused on the very real problems posed by an operational aircraft. This daily experience in operating and trouble-shooting research aircraft contributed greatly to Dryden's ability to help manufacturers and other NASA centers solve problems with production aircraft and spacecraft designs. It also has helped create an organizational philosophy and management approach that was very pragmatic, flexible, and result- oriented. Dryden has always been an independently-minded place where individual innovation and creative problem- solving were rewarded and formal procedures and paperwork were kept to a minimum. Dryden's project-focused team approach and pragmatic, flexible operational style have translated into a capability best described as "technical agility" -- an ability to adjust resources and focus to meet constantly changing priorities and needs. This "technical agility" is, unquestionably, one of Dryden's greatest strengths. It is also the primary reason the Center has been able to accommodate so many different projects and make such a wide variety of contributions to the aeronautics and space communities over the years. The requirements of flight research also have given Dryden a tradition of partnerships that date back to the first Army Air Force/Bell Aircraft/NACA team organized to conduct the X-1 research. The Center's very location on the grounds of Edwards Air Force Base means that it shares resources with the Air Force on a daily basis. In addition, many of the ideas and concepts researched in flight at Dryden originated elsewhere, and partnerships have involved other NASA centers, the military, and numerous commercial manufacturers. These teams not only provide a broad spectrum of expertise and perspective, they also help immensely in transferring the results of the research to organizations that can apply the technology to an operational design. Dryden's Mission -- Today and Tomorrow Much has changed since 1946. NASA has learned a great deal about high speed and high altitude flight. America has gone to the moon, and now NASA flies back and forth from space on a regular basis. Computers have revolutionized aircraft design and made much more capable ground test and simulation possible. Yet for all that, the role of flight research is as critical as it ever was. Computers and simulators can only model what is known. The unknown is always inherently unpredictable. To push the boundaries beyond what is known, to see what lies beyond the current frontier, further exploration is necessary. For the past half century, the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center has been a unique place where flight research could occur; a place where people have been encouraged to question and look for the unexpected; to push, discovery by discovery, the limits of our knowledge and understanding about aeronautics. In the process, Dryden has contributed significantly to the strength and success of the nation's aerospace community. As the United States faces the 21st century with an increasingly global economy and rising foreign competition, the role Dryden plays during its second 50 years will become even more important. -end- EDITOR'S NOTE: Still photography, video and a press kit are available to support this release. Photos are also available on the Internet under URL: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/photoServer.html Photos available in support of this release: EC60 6204 X-1 rocket research aircraft EC96 43434-7 X-1E on a pedestal in front of Dryden Headquarters building EC95 43073-6 Williams Phillips' painting, "Mach 2 Dawn," portraying first Mach 2 flight, which NACA pilot Scott Crossfield achieved in the D-558-2 E 17348 X-3 "Flying Stiletto" EC94 42909-1 Artist Stan Stokes' concept of the rocket-powered X-15 EC66 1461 NASA Hangar 4802 in 1966 with lifting bodies (HL 10, M2 F2, M2 F1) F-4, F-5D, F 104, C-47, and X-15s ECN 506 Lunar Landing Research Vehicle EC73 3468 F-8 Supercritical Wing research aircraft EC73 3478 F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire research aircraft EC 18899 F-15 equipped with digital electronic engine control ECN 14281 Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology research vehicle EC90 224 F-104 engaged in shuttle tile tests EC91 623-7 Perseus remotely piloted research aircraft EC94 42478-4 X-31 performing the Herbst maneuver EC94 42690-7 Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Pegasus launch vehicle under wing of B-52 EC94 42805-1 Propulsion Controlled Aircraft diagram on napkin EC95 43247-4 Milestone landing of propulsion-controlled MD-11, performing the first transport aircraft landing using only engine power EC95 43273-4 F-15 (ACTIVE) Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles EC96 43493-1 Moonrise over the orbiter Atlantis EC96 43503-9 F/A 18 vertical tails ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:52:47 +1200 (NZST) Subject: AW&ST AUG 6 - SPACE FORCE An interesting article in AvWeek, Aug 6, 1996. Maybe week or two old there in America? :-) "USSC Prepares for Future Combat Missions in Space." Indicates that the various Space Commands are evolving into a new force. Major points: Space becoming less a mere "Area of Operations (AOO)" and more "Area of Responsibility (AOR)" and likely to be included more in strategy and doctrine. Four key missions: Space support (launches etc), Space force enhancement (navigation, comm, intel etc), Space control or superiority (defensive/offensive operations- can refer to terrestrial support assets too) and Space force application (applying military force from space to Earth). The first two are currently dominant, but the latter two are expected to rise in importance quite dramatically. List to Santa includes a spaceplane. Whether it is a VentureStar-type heavy lifter or Black Horse-sized fighter is not mentioned. It was proposed a few years back that a separate Space Force be established, but after studying the emergence of the AF from the Army, a high degree of "jointness" was perceived to be essential, hence the current Space Commands in a variety of service branches. The AF does dominate, and pays most of the bills, but it is expected that any future Space Force will be thoroughly integrated with the combined needs and strategies of the other services right from the begining. No interservice rivalry? What *will* they do with their time? >;-) Wrapup commenting that now is the time to start planning for combat in space. OK, a lot of SF supposes that war in space will be some sort of cross between Jutland and Midway. Comments anyone? Thoughts about what real strategies and mission requirements would be? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:01:57 Subject: Building 90 Historical Note: The NY Times reported today Building 90, the former sight of Lockheed's Skunk Works, has been leased by Walt Disney Company. On another note not directly related to the Skunk Works, can someone please explain to me what Im missing? Comments in the JAST thread and previous threads on a variety of defense and aerospace topics reference the commonly stated belief that there have been massive defense budget cuts. This belief taints design and application considerations for future projects and prompts endless speculation on future contract acquisitions based on cost. Dole even used the issue in his nomination acceptance speech. I did a little research and frankly, I dont understand. From the US Office of Managment and Budget and the US Department of Defense the Federal Budget outlays fo National Defense Functions have averaged 284 billion for the past 7 years, that is, since 1990. Considering the current and 1997 budgets, in the 270 billion range and increasing, the cuts just dont appear "massive?" Add to this active military personnel in 1990 was just over two million people and by 1995 it had been reduced 25 percent to one and one half million with the closure of many bases. It seems to me that leaves more dollars for procurement, even if one uses "real dollars" (factoring inflation). Quite seriously, I dont get it. Anyone? Byron ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 02:53:20 GMT Subject: re: JSF Award A few more comments on Eric's message, now that I'm at the "safe" computer. I agree 100% that industrial base considerations could play a big role in the JSF award, as it does elsewhere. Like him, I believe that the powers that be would be content with just two builders (I doubt if they are too concerned whether Northrop or especially Grumman stayed in the business( My personal belief, expressed on the net and in print, is that the only rationale for the F/A-18E/F's existence is that without it, MDD would be out of the tactical aircraft business and they want to maintain the base. Macair didn't have anything else. The C-17 may turn out to be a good plane, but basically it's mid to late '70s technology at best. As long as they have a good I hope MDD wins JSF if for no other reason than the legitimate industrial base concerns propping up the Super Hornet will disappear. Without that reason for existence, maybe we can get rid of it and Naval Air might survive. Don't count Lockheed out just because they have F-22. JSF is bigger, and can be exported to countries that can actually pay for it, so Lockheed is going to go after this contract full bore. Also, keep in mind that Lockheed builds good stuff and is very well connected. Don't forget that they have never lost a competition for a new aircraft. Boeing is a special case. Unlike everybody else, they don't need Government orders. They like them, but they don't need them. Remember, they gave the Government a date when they were closing the 707 line, and they wouldn't reopen it for any orders received after that date (one of the reasons JSTARS is mounted on existing aircraft). They are doing very well, which is why they could afford to consider building their ASTOVL contender with their own money. Industrial base concerns aren't that strong here. If they don't win, they won't be laying off masses of people or closing plants. These facts could weigh in the decision makers' minds. This could be a very interesting few years... Art ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 04:48:37 PDT Subject: re: JSF Award Art writes: >Also, keep in mind that >Lockheed builds good stuff and is very well connected. Don't forget that >they have never lost a competition for a new aircraft. Huh? What about the Starfighter mod that was proposed to compete against the F16,17&18? There are a few others we can`t talk about either, Art. The big black one for starters. I always got the impression that the government was set that certain maufacturers are specialists and will get a contract just because "Acme is our USAF fighter supplier and Ronco is our bomber company..." "Northrop is our flying wing company..." There`s also another highly overlooked area in the decision. Spare parts. Given the level of complexity and cost of R&D for a new mil spec. bird, the old joke is that when the design team fixes the planform they "bet the company" that its the best design. With over a billion dollars R&D to go, if you don`t get the contract, you`re out of buisness! But Uncle Sam could never let that happen. If MD goes under how do you support the field for spares? Given the average age of a military aircraft spare parts is the real long-range money maker for the manufacturer. You can sell the aircraft at low to no margin just for the lucrative support $$$ that will go on for 30 or 40 years. Unless you`ve been involved with the day to day upkeep of aircraft, you probably can`t imagine whats involved. Compare the maintainence time to the flight time for a military A/C. (Especially the C5!!!!!!) Now, look at parts usage. Expensive parts at that- that are usually custom made on special machines. Even hardware. You just can`t run to the hardware store for a 1/4-20 bolt. You need an ANXXXX for about $5.00. Add to that its a government job.......... Chuck ------------------------------ From: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 09:26:27 EDT Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #699 Art said: >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. To which I reply: I got the $63B number from the latest GAO report trashing the Super Hornet. That's actually in FY$1996. The then-year tally is $89B for the 1000 aircraft buy. That's not to say that the actual cost will be much greater than projected, but then again, F-22 and JSF also have their own shot at exceeding projected costs. The $100B F-22 cost estimate came from another GAO report at the beginning of this year. JSF is still fuzzy enough that only vague estimates of ~$100B program cost for ~2400 aircraft have been thrown about (if the JSF JPO currently has a unit cost number, they are keeping it pretty close to the vest). Given that for any one program there are as many different cost estimates as there are people to provide them, I am certainly open to correction or clarification if you have additional information. Eric, speaking for myself ------------------------------ From: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 09:35:52 EDT Subject: Modelers beware >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. I agree. The 3-view drawings of the CALAC-proposed ATF design that was selected for DEM/VAL were substantially different from those that resulted in the YF-22 prototypes at the end of DEM/VAL. The current F-22 3-views are different still from those of the YF-22. Computer simulation and modelling have progressed significantly in the last 10 years from when the initial ATF designs were created. Nevertheless, the current JSF designs are still concepts based on some limited risk-reduction prototyping. When the DEM/VAL competition is finally awarded and the money spigots are opened, the respective contractors will have to convert their concepts into functional systems. A number of current concept features are likely to change during that process. Eric, speaking for myself ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 8:37:06  Subject: re: Building 90 Byron, It's not kosher for me to comment on the budget too much from a .mil address, maybe if someone else doesn't do better in the interim I can send something from home. One key thing to remember is that, like everything else where Government is involved, the concept of "money" isn't as simple as you or I would mean it in the real world. You've got to determine if you're talking about "appropriations", "authorizations" or "outlays" and in what context. Keep in mind that in 1990 the defense budget was just over $300 billion. If the budget fell every year and now was around $265 billion (I don't know the actual numbers offhand, I'm just making an example) you'd still be able to report an "Average annual outlay" of around $284 billion. Remember also, that unlike other agencies, military retirement comes out of the military's own budgets. Therefore, since those are fixed expenses, the cuts have a larger impact because the cut to the entire DoD budget would not be spread over the entire budget. Art "Walking Softly" Hanley Those that seek to find a relationship between what I've written here and what my employer may believe, seek something that can't be found. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RAM in JSF?? I was wonder if the JSF use Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) to reduce their Radar Cross Section (RCS)??? The reason I am asking is because if the JSF is going to be a export aircraft... RAM is not suppose to be a classified??? Or they just going to sell the JSF without RAM?? Same issue applie to the Comanche helicopter. Until now, the only country that I know the RAM was export is to UK. But, that RAM is not the most advance one. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #700 ********************************* 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).