From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #729 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 22 November 1996 Volume 05 : Number 729 In this issue: ABL webpage Forwarded mail.... (fwd) Re: A new designator F-117 Crashes Re: Inside of the Skunk Works Re: ABL Re: ABL JSF/TFX? re: JSF/TFX? Seawolf Re: Seawolf Re: F-117 crashes X-36, etc. info and pics Correction Tornado - was JSF/TFX Re: JSF/TFX? re: Tornado - was JSF/TFX Re: ABL defense Re *** ABL defense Re: JSF/TFX? 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: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:31:02 -0800 Subject: ABL webpage I believe the Phillips Research Lab has a web page with lots of info on the ABL system. I got some neat pictures there. They show some of thelasers and have a lot of info, don't remember the url, but a search on altavista.digital.com wil lprobably find it. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:23:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Forwarded mail.... (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From Air&Space/Smithsonian (October-November 1996 Issue) Do you ever miss the cold war? You're not alone, and that's part of the inspiration for our occasional series "Reflections on the Cold War" and the installment in this issue, "Going Vertical." When the rivets in the Iron Curtain popped, the world became a much more confusing place. During the long years when the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in an ideological struggle for dominance, the diplomatic decisions were simple: Choose one side or the other and live with the result. But an up side to the rivalry was that both powers were engaged in a competition for technological supremacy, and paranoia can produce wondrous works. Beginning in the 1950s and accelerating until the late 1980s, the race for world technological leadership produced great benefits. To be sure, the fear of another global war was palpable, and local civil defense drills were nothing to feel good about--the streets of major cities empty of life, schoolkids huddled under their desks. All of it was genuinely scary. But at the same time, the rate of progress in aircraft design and performance during that period seems unmatched by anything before or since. The notion of building a powerful fighter that could take off vertically from a pad no bigger than a helicopter's is of a piece with the cold war era, if only because without the cold war, you have a hard time imagining its being done at all. There were two such airplanes--one from Convair and the other from Lockheed--and today both seem at the very least a curiosity, and at the very most a bizarre joke. Yet both were deadly serious attempts at defining a whole new way of operating an aircraft and a whole new mission. Helicopters could land and take off vertically, but once airborne, they were too slow to duel with fighters. The "Pogo"-style fighters promised an attractive combination of speed and flexibility (eventually, that promise would be realized in the Harrier). And the reason the airplanes were built at all was because enough people thought they would give us what we wanted in all new airplanes--some tangible advantage over the dreaded Russians. At least part of the inspiration for a vertical-takeoff scheme was the sudden abundance of power conferred by the advances in turbine engines made during the 1950s and '60s. This was the time of the "century series" fighters--those with designations of F-100 and higher--all of them quite comfortable at Mach 1-plus, courtesy of incredibly powerful afterburning turbojets. Advances in materials in the hot sections of turbines led to higher operating temperatures and more power--for turboprops as well as jets. The Pogos' gigantic turboprop engines had plenty of power, and you had only to harness them to a gearbox that would deliver all that horsepower to the propellers without the whole symphony of metal coming apart. Today the XFY and XFV seem almost quaint in their embodiment of engineering naivete. Tail sitters don't work, and now we know that; having become so much wiser we can also wonder why it took building them to figure that out. But at the same time, there is something wonderful about them that says a lot about the climate for designers in that era. The airplanes also speak volumes about the courage of test pilots like "Skeets" Coleman, who actually transitioned from vertical to horizontal and back again in them. You'll get to meet Coleman in Stephan Wilkinson's thoughtful account of the life and times of the tail sitters on page 50. These days, the competition between the superpowers is more like a sibling rivalry, and that takes the edge off our eagerness to dare to attempt what had been unimaginable. Today we seem more eager to tell inventors with wild and whacky ideas to check their brains at the door. In the cautious climate of the future we're unlikely to see anything as marvelously outrageous as those two airplanes ever again, and that's one aspect of the cold war I'll miss. -George C. Larson ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 8:49:23  Subject: Re: A new designator Andreas: C-33 was the designator that was expected to be assigned to the 747 had it entered service as a cargo plane with USAF. Although Boeing didn't use it, it appeared quite often in other reports and articles. This year, it was widely anticipated that the total C-17 fleet was going to be 60 or so to meet USAF's need for paradropping, drive-on/drive-off and operation from medium-sized airfields, and the rest of the airlift need would have been met by a military version of the 747 which could carry more payload farther and faster than the C-17 and would have cost less, but would not be able to operate out of the airfields that the C-17 could. The "C-33" reference started showing up again. As it turned out, the Administration decided to go with an all-C-17 fleet, so the project (and possibly the designator) died. Art Hanley Although those of simple minds might want to infer otherwise, none of the above has anything to do with the views of my employers ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:04:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: F-117 Crashes The sources that I have seen say that the F-117 that crashed on 4/20/82 did not have a serial number. This was because the airframe had not yet been accepted by the USAF, and hence still belonged to Lockheed. There might have been a serial number allocated, that was to be used when it was accepted, but obviously, it crashed first. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:57:21 -0800 Subject: Re: Inside of the Skunk Works >you. Although an improvement on AIM-7 kinematics, I'd hardly call AMRAAM >kinematic >performance amazing. Could someone please define kinematic in this context? td ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:42:00 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: ABL ... and just to be a little bit facetious here, could ABL spinoffs be used in the home? Say a small thermos-sized unit used as an insect killer. Flys, mosquitos -ZAP!... oops, pity about the cat... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 15:58:36  Subject: Re: ABL Brett: Why not? Of course, I would imagine the big problem would be getting the 747 in through the front door, but maybe they build their entrances a little bigger in New Zealand. Art Hanley Don't even think, not for a second, That what I said above has anything To do with my employer's position. ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:44:47 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: JSF/TFX? I've been noticing on rec.aviation.military that there is a tendency to compare the hopes for the JSF varients with the F-111 affair. Scene: Scrooge, the DoD accountant is visited by the ghost of Jacob Marley, who looks a lot like Robert McNamara, who says: "You will be visited by the ghost of the Switchblade Edsel... a camel is a horse designed by a committee!" Much noise is made about Navy airframe being deadweight in an AF plane etc. Someone used an automotive analogy to "prove" the inherent absurdity of the idea. Now, my understanding is that airframe components will be differently milled for each service branch and there will be a high degree of modularity to produce three different aircraft. To use an automotive analogy, Renault seems to make a tidy profit making Meganes in saloon, coupe, hatchback and MPV(minivan) form - with trim and specification options also. How similar or different is JSF to/from TFX(F-111)? AFAIK, the latter was designed to serve the Navy, Marines and Air Force in essentially the same version. Are multirole aircraft really viable? Multirole vs modular? Is the Tornado a good plane or not? Comments? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 18:03:44  Subject: re: JSF/TFX? The big difference between JSF and TFX (aside from technology) is the underlying philosophy. In the case of the F-111, the driving force was McNamara's obsession with "commonality", which he considered identical parts. The actual missions were secondary or not important as far as he was concerned. They set out to build an airplane that would be required to fly totally incompatible missions yet use identical parts. This couldn't have been done, even if he had picked the right contractor. BTW, the Marines were never intended to get the F-111. Originally, it was thought of as the "Tri-service Fighter eXperimental", and the third service would have been the Army. About this time, USAF succeeded in getting tactical fixed wing taken away from the Army, so they were out. The designation then changed to "Tactical Fighter eXperimental". The plane we ended up with was a total failure for the Navy, and although a good plane for the USAF, was nowhere near what it could have been if it could have been optimized for the USAF mission. A better historical reference would be the F-4. It was designed for the Navy mission. Even with the carrier compromises in the design, it was far better than anything the Air Force had. As a result, it was already capable of performing the Air Force roles as designed. It simply isn't true that a landbased plane will always outperform a ship based one. The F-4 is one example, and another is the F-8. You can see this today in the F-14B/D (which have engines with the thrust and performance the plane was designed for). JSF is primarily the F-16 replacement, with the potential for carrier operations built in. It isn't quite as hot as what USAF would have liked and has more structure than they favor than if they could have had a totally optimized system, but it'll do what they need and Congress probably wouldn't have funded a USAF-only aircraft. However, it will still fly rings around a F-16 and should be more than a match for Eurofighter or Rafale (it's a lot newer technology--of course they're flying and this is on paper). For the Marines and RN, a F-16 replacement that is STOVL and marinized will perform all they want for their AV-8B replacement coming out of the box, so they are getting what they need. It probably won't be as capable as ASTOVL would have been, but they don't seem upset about the turn of events at all. For the Navy, JSF will not do what A/FX would have, but the Navy elected to pursue the F/A-18E/F instead of the A/FX. Using the basic design, JSF will give the Navy substantially more strike (and fighter, although that isn't discussed much) capability than it would have gotten without it. For one thing, when it comes on line Naval Aviation will be back in the all-weather strike game. The Navy's role is essentially to take this airplane, exploit the carrier capability potential and add more fuel and weapons capability up to the point where it does not compromise the basic design or require separate production. At that point, that's what they get and that will determine what missions they will be able to fly. All three models are to be built on the same production line. For comparison, the USAF and Navy versions of the ATF would have required separate production lines even though they were to have been built by the same contractor. The STOVL version trades fuel for the lift system (although maybe not in the Boeing design, it's direct lift). The Navy models have modified wings, launch/recovery gear and more fuel and payload (the internal requirement was four JDAM vs. two for the USAF model). The avionics fit will be different, with the most sophisticated probably in the Navy version. Multirole aircraft are never as good as optimized aircraft, and the crews won't be as well trained as specialists. On the other hand, aircraft have become so expensive that except for very special cases, single-purpose just isn't affordable any more. IMHO, Tornado is an Excellent strike aircraft (but slow). It's a mediocre fighter. Art "doesn't he ever quit?" Hanley My employers are in no way associated with whatever is written above, much to their relief ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:11:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Seawolf Sorry if it is not Skunky, but still deal with Stealth. Recently, a speaker send it by Electric Boat Corp. (a branch from General Dynamics Corp.) came to my University for Career Fair. For peoples than don't know, this company is the one that built the Seawolf and Ohio Class Submarine. Looks like the company (and the US submarine industry) is not death at all. They are in the process to build a new class of submarine (formerly known as Centurion). A highly that amazed me, was that he mention when the Seawolf is running under the water at maximun "silence mode" speed, it is more quiet than a Ohio Class submarine with the engine off docking on a port!!! Of course, the Seawolf is the most expensive submarine ever built. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:50:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Seawolf BTW, Electric Boat Corp. homepage is: http://www.gdeb.com/ May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Xelex@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:26:38 -0500 Subject: Re: F-117 crashes Kudos to Andreas for a fairly accurate listing of F-117 crashes. One important correction needs to be made, however. The F-117A that crashed on 4 AUG 92 was 82-0801, not 802. There had been much confusion over this point because many good sources (AW&ST, Capt. John B. Mills, and Jim Goodall) had identified it as 802. The accident reportrepeatedly gives the number as 82-0801, or simply 801. The radio call sign was SHABA 67. Photos of 801 taken during Desert Storm, show artwork on the bomb bay door that bears the name "Perpetrator." The wreckage of the aircraft was auctioned as scap in early 1996. Many parts and assemblies were stamped "SS 801," and the bomb bay door still carries the "Perpetrator" artwork. Regarding F-117 fires: Ship 843, the last F-117A built, caught fire on the ground at Holloman sometime during 1996. It burned for 15 minutes before the fire trucks arrived. Fuel line fatigue leaks are a chronic problem in the F-117A. Since Andreas mentioned the HAVE BLUE crashes, I should note that the wreckage of both demonstrators was buried between the north parking ramp and the lakebed at Area 51. Workers have recently attempted to relocate and excavate HAVE BLUE #1 for restoration. The original plan called for placing it on a pylon in front of base ops, but maybe it will go to the USAF museum like TACIT BLUE. I certainly hope so. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ From: Dan Zinngrabe Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:45:13 -0500 Subject: X-36, etc. info and pics Andreas mentioned he was a little bit in the gray about the new NASA X-36 and hypersonic programs- there is some info and pictures (even 3-views for us true geeks) at the Dryden photo server- particularly drawings of the Hyper-X hypersonic a/c testbed, photos of the X-36 that AvWeek ran, and lots of other skunky goodies. The info that comes with the pictures is better than the average press release. The NASA Dryden Photo Server is at- http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/ Dan Z hope this helps ------------------------------ From: Dan Zinngrabe Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:49:05 -0500 Subject: Correction That should have been X-38, not X-36 (though that's there too, and the X-38 is formerly the "X-35" and ACRV). Sorry about that. There are quite a few little-known and unusual test aircraft pictured, the site is well worth a visit. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/ Dan ------------------------------ From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:24:02 +0100 Subject: Tornado - was JSF/TFX Art views the Tornado as an excellent strike aircraft (albeit slow) but a mediocre fighter. Bear in mind that the UK fighter requirement during most of the Cold War was for a "missileteer" - a launch platform for missiles to bring down Badgers and Backfires over the Atlantic. Dogfighting requirements were less of a concern at that time. It's only more recently (after the Tornado was designed) that there was a move back to more agile fighters. Something akin to the early F4s being armed only with missiles. Whether the UK actually got the best system for that role is another matter. Steve ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:49:20 +0000 Subject: Re: JSF/TFX? Brett wrote- >How similar or different is JSF to/from TFX(F-111)? AFAIK, the latter was >designed to serve the Navy, Marines and Air Force in essentially the same >version. Perhaps the secret is to NOT try to design a multi-service aircraft. 'Twould seem to me the that the F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair, A-1 Skyraider, et. al., prove the concept that an aircraft can successfully be adpated for all the services, provided that you DON'T start out with that in mind. Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp, Hughes Electronics Corp, General Motors Corp, God, or my wife. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 9:04:31  Subject: re: Tornado - was JSF/TFX The thing to keep in mind about Tornado is that it illustrates one of the interesting phenomena of tactical aircraft design. You can take something designed as an attack aircraft, and get a pretty good strike aircraft out of it, but it doesn't work as well going the other way. Britain actually didn't really have much choice but to develop the Tornado ADV. At the time of the decision to develop the Tornado ADV, there were two other candidates that could have been considered, the F-15 and the F-14, both of which would be better even in the role envisioned for the ADV. The Tornado had the inside track for a number of reasons. One was that the logistics and infrastructure were in place to support the aircraft. Another was that it was a semi-British aircraft, a factor not to be discounted. Most importantly, though, was the fact that Britain was committed to buy a certain number of Tornados (Tornadoes?) in their agreement with Germany and Italy. They probably didn't want to spend the money to introduce a new type And to still buy all the Tornados they were committed to. In addition Britain's requirement for strike aircraft had dropped since the original agreements were signed, so what were they to do with the extra Tornado IDS aircraft that were to be built? If there was a "missile slinger" version of Tornado that they could buy to meet their obligation instead of some of the strike models, a neat problem could be avoided. Voila--the Tornado ADV. Art Hanley Batman: "Do you think this represents the views of his employer"? Robin: "Holy Disclaimer! Of course it doesn't"! ------------------------------ From: darknite@juno.com (*********** * *************) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:14:08 PST Subject: Re: ABL defense If I understand the systems we are taking about here, the energies involved in any desirable laser sys are such that even a few percent of absorbed radiation (there are no "perfect" reflectors) would be enough to vaporise holes in the relatively fragile skins and fuel containers of IC/IMR-BM's. Even a small breach in these areas easily result in mission failure for the launching system. While counter-measures range from reflective skins to smoke ejection from the nose (resulting in a sheath of non-structural reflective material), it is also possible to (or should be by the time a laser ABM sys comes of age) focus the beam to a point near but not at the surface of the missle, where the concussive force will if not proving directly lethal would cause an exhaustion of an excess of corrective propulsion, thus making accurate targeting impossible. As stated elsewhere, it is cheaper and easier for the country with the laser sys to boost the laser power than it is for the country with the missiles to improve thier systems. While most of this discussion is rightly aimed at boost phase interception, terminal interception is also viable and perhaps even more effective (as the warhead is in ballistic flight). It may not be as easy to "kill" a warhead, but a detonation far enough off-target to be outside the designed range of the weapon is equally ineffective and leaves the ABM capable target with full retalitory capability. darknite ------------------------------ From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:39:38 +0100 Subject: Re *** ABL defense darknite says.... While counter-measures range from reflective skins to smoke ejection from the nose (resulting in a sheath of non-structural reflective material), it is also possible to (or should be by the time a laser ABM sys comes of age) focus the beam to a point near but not at the surface of the missle, where the concussive force will if not proving directly lethal would cause an exhaustion of an excess of corrective propulsion, thus making accurate targeting impossible. darknite - ------- Focus the beam? Concusive force? We're talking about a laser here, aimed at a target probably several hundred kilometres away. I'm not at all certain how or why a focussed laser beam should create a concussive force. ------------------------------ From: FSalles@trip.com.br (Felipe Salles) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:44:12 -0700 Subject: Re: JSF/TFX? Tom Robison wrote: > > Brett wrote- > >How similar or different is JSF to/from TFX(F-111)? AFAIK, the latter was > >designed to serve the Navy, Marines and Air Force in essentially the same > >version. > > Perhaps the secret is to NOT try to design a multi-service aircraft. > 'Twould seem to me the that the F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair, A-1 Skyraider Here is my 2 centavos: 1) I believe de dificult isn't creating a multi-service aircraft, instead multi-funtion is the problem. All of the aircraft above did the same jobs required of them in all services (and countries) in wich they served.TFX is a different story. Interceptors and all weather fighter-bombers are both very specialised (and totaly diferent...) breeds of aircraft. The requirements are totaly conflicting. Any manufacturer can create one from the other but it would clearly be a HUGE compromise solution, and both him and the client surely would be aware of this compromise (Tornado ADV...). 2) Money: look at the number of manufacturers and the size of the production runs for 1950's naval aircraft(and all other, in fact...) compared with today reality and the future trend. With the cancelation of the Avenger II if the Navy didn't join the JSF bandwagon with a big smile, they probably wouldn't be able to attack anything in the next century. (Then why give them the carrier fleet if they can't attack... ;) 3) Computers, CAD/CAM, etc.: The major diference in creating the JSF and the TFX is the conditions and technology that aerodinamicists and engineers had available to them during the project stage. Even with all the wind tunnel experience available in the early 60's it would be all be unbelievably crude compared to today's reality. Digitaly one can better attempt to conciliate all conflicting requirements and be realy able to adopt a 'modular' solution from the drawing board (or should I say the CAD Station ;). Last but not least it is clear that manufacturing processes were improoved by leaps an bounds in the last three decades, allowing the single line to pump out all the diferent models at the same time. These I believe are the differences, comments anyone? Felipe ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #729 ********************************* 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).