skunk-works-digest Wednesday, March 18 1998 Volume 07 : Number 016 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Military AI. Re: Re[2]: X-15 RE: Aerodynamics./B1-B Re: The function of Canards Re: Aircraft Manuals Re: dashing... Re: dashing... Re: B-26 (was: F-117 designation) Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: dashing... (+ Grad School) Re: dashing... (+ Grad School) Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: dashing... Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: dashing... Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... EC-types Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... RE: 100K plus RE: 100K plus RE: 100K plus Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 13:27:45 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: Military AI. Wouldn't ALL of the intelligence in the military be artificial? :-) Speaking of oxymorons..... Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Military AI. Author: at INTERNET Date: 3/16/98 10:19 PM Brian Winston Jr. wrote: I read your post in the Skunk Works Digest. Regarding your questions about UAV's. You have to remember UAV's like PROWLER and SCORPION are relativly inexpensive when compared to a system like JSTARS. And you don't have to send any type of fighter escort to protect them. If you'd like to discuss this further, my e-mail address is bwinston@interlaced.net. Feel free to e-mail me. I thought I'd take this to the Digest itself, Brian...I am starting a page about AI (Artificial Intelligence) and, as part of my duties, I will be writing an essay on AI and the military. Now, the PROWLER is powered by AI...etc. Can anyone give me some info on it? Or any info on military AI. Brian, I've added you to my contact list...so if I am online and hema (Japanese = free, no work to do =) we can chat. James. ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ICQ: 7413754 ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:40:31 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Re[2]: X-15 FAI, not FAO. Sorry. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Mary Shafer wrote: > The reason that the X-15 record is "unofficial" is that it wasn't > certified by the FAO, which is the keeper of official records. The > maximum Mach record is similarly unofficial, for the same reason. The FAO > has a set of requirements, including observers and sealed instrumentation, > that groups like NASA and the USAF rarely bother with. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:25:26 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: RE: Aerodynamics./B1-B On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Gavin Payne wrote: > Although the engines avoid problems with radar, for some reason they are > magnets for birds. Even though they are no more than a liquid when they leave, > it still baffles crews as to why this aircraft has unusually high numbers of > them! Of course it is magnets for birds... what birds can resist this pretty baby!! ;) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:39:03 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: The function of Canards On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Adam Chance wrote: > All aircraft are subject to a center of gravity. The center of gravity > is usually placed in the center of the wings. Imagine if you took a Hmmm... First thing is that a airplane have only one wing (at least it is a biplane...). It has a left hand panel and right hand panel. I know my english grammar sucks... but I am sure about this. We don't call it "the center of wing". We call it the center of pressure. And for stability reason, you don't put the center of gravity in the center of pressure, you put it forward of the the neutral point. Ussually, the neutral point is located 1/4 of the mean aerodynamic chord. So, the center of gravity of the airplane is ahead of the neutral point, without a tail, the airplane will pitch down. Therefore, the tail have to push down to make the airplane stable. In the other hand, canard pitch the nose of the airplane up to make the airplane stable. > like the tail does. Also note that canards are mostly found on aircraft > with very forward cocpits (see Valkyrie and Concord), I would imagine Concord doesn't have canard. It pump its fuel from back to forward and forward to back to balance the aircraft. When the aircraft go to supersonic, the consideration of the center of gravity of the aircraft is different when it goes to subsonic. > that because of these forward cocpits these aircraft have problems with > center of gravity. I would also imaging that the canards help balance I will said that every aircraft have problem with the center of gravity. > out that center of gravity problem by changing the weight of the nose as > needed. You can do it with a convensional tail. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:40:52 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Aircraft Manuals On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Gavin Payne wrote: > Does anyone know where I can get an aircrew manual for an SR-71? > If you still can't find a copy of the SR-71 manual, try the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC. I got my copy from them when everybody was telling me that they ran out of copy. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:43:08 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: dashing... On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Adam Chance wrote: > Over the weekend I came across a new concept, dashing. At first it Forgive about my bad english... But what is dashing? If you answer that, I may answer your question. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:47:13 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: dashing... At 14:43 16/03/98 -0500, you wrote: > > >On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Adam Chance wrote: > >> Over the weekend I came across a new concept, dashing. At first it > > Forgive about my bad english... But what is dashing? If you answer >that, I may answer your question. > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen AFAIK, "dashing" is a short burst of maximum speed though a a vulnerable part of the mission, to escape from a sticky situation or final attack. The aircraft then returns to normal (relatively) economical cruise. Generally, such bursts of speed have always required afterburners, which deplete fuel at an incredible rate, limiting range. It has a tactical use, but aircraft that spent most of their missions at high speed are very rare - - the SR-71 never quite reached it's original range requirements, I read, and Concorde depends on continual afterburning to cruise at Mach 2. It's because of its fuel consumption that it only flies transatlantic routes and not transpacific and has generally been an economic failure (but the world would be a poorer place without it IMAO). The MiG-25 and 31 can dash at Mach 2.8-3.0, but not cruise. Designed as interceptors, there is no need for them to do so. Non-afterburning supercruise is a comparitively recent development as an absolute requirement in the ATF (F-22/YF-23) and next-generation supersonic airliner studies. High speed cruise generally suits airliners and recon aircraft. Dashing generally suits interceptors and aircraft with more complex missions that may require getting into and out of trouble quickly, but because of fuel limitations, aircraft that can do it have a limited range. Supercruise allows a combination of the advantages of both as fewer aircraft and fewer aircraft types are called upon to perform a wider variety of missions (spiralling costs and complexity - which is another issue). Stealth also helps close windows of vulnerability, reducing the need for dash capability, while advanced missiles (long-range standoff, near-hypersonic speed, high-g manouevering etc) make high-speed final attack or escape pointless. The F-22, stealthy and able to cruise at Mach 1.5 or thereabouts without afterburners, for example, will work in roles from interceptor to long-range strike without major modification. BTW, the Soviet Tsyubin (sp?!) bureau worked on a "Blackbirdski" recon plane capable of Mach 2+ cruise. It looked like a much smaller and slimmer CL-400 Suntan. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:25:41 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: B-26 (was: F-117 designation) > This calls for revolutionary F-26 designator :-) The reconnaissance version of the A-26A was designated FA-26A. > But I heard about adding some armor in forward parts > and more machine guns to B-26, when it was sent to Vietnam, > but I am not sure about it. Does anybody know about it more? The Invaders sent to Vietnam could be equipped with up to 14 guns, carry 4000lbs. of ordnance and the airframes were strengthened for short take off and landing operations. Naturally, they were used for counter-insurgency operations because they could loiter over the target considerably longer than jet powered aircraft. - --- Sam > > Pavel Sestak > bludicka@teledin.cz > > > > x1.com > Patrick, > You are correct about Vietnam, but the B-26 and A-26 are the same > plane. My > point was that the only reason they were called "A"-26s was that "B"-26 was > considered too provocative, not because USAF beleived in the "attack" > designation. > To USAF, everything that carries weapons and isn't a bomber is a fighter. > They > don't acknowledge the other role. > > Art > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:03:42 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... > Should anyone help me with EA-6. Is this vehicle based on B-707? (As KA-6 > and Hermes are...) > Negative. The A-6, EA-6 and KA-6 are not based on the B-707 in any way. The A-6 family does not even remotely resemble the B-707 (Am I correctly assuming that by B-707 you mean the Boeing 707 airliner?). The A-6 Intruder is a twin engine Navy carrier attack aircraft. The EA-6B Prowler is the EW version of the same aircraft. The KA-6 is the tanker version of the A-6. The A-6 is being withdrawn from service. The EA-6B Prowler is likely to remain in service for a couple of more decades. http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/a6.htm http://www.usmc.mil/images.nsf/b7a610ddc1be59598525650500718300/828AC7E14386EB31 8525658B000B9FE2/$FILE/waterlay.jpg Sam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:52:37 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: dashing... (+ Grad School) On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Adam Chance wrote: > 1. Are there any real benefits to an airplane being able to dash to a > target, I am thinking that maybe there is a benefit in fuel consumption, > or possibly engine maintanince? Why would you choose to build an > aircraft that would dash at Mach 3 rather than cruise at Mach 3? Just want to add something. To cruise at Mach 3 is much more complex than to dash at Mach 3 because of differents factors as fuel consumption, therma protection, type of engine to use, etc. Build a airplane to cruise at Mach 3 is of course more expensive than a airplane that can dash at Mach 3. All depend of what is the mission of the airplane and how much more do you want to spend (or can afford to spend). Of course... faster is better :). Even if you fly a airplane with the same performance than the enemy interceptor, it is very hard for you to get shoot down by the enemy if you are flying much higher than the enemy and if the enemy use only short range missiles (like the AIM-9X). You can theoretically outrun the enemy missiles range if you dash to max. speed. I did it quite often in NovaLogic F-22 on the internet (of course... it is just a game). > > 2. Are there currently any planes in use that use a supersonic dash > instead of cruising? Possibly these would be planes that I would never > have thought of as supersonic planes. > Boeing 707 did it in a dive years back. It reached supersonic. BTW, for those whom are in the industry or expert in schools... what is the best graduate school for Aerospace Eng. and Science for propulsion field? (so far, I got accepted at Caltech and MIT and don't know what to choose yet). May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:25:37 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: dashing... (+ Grad School) Regarding dashing vs cruise, this is all part of mission analysis and initial conceptual design. There are books on this. The AIAA has several good ones and there are others. I'll look for the details and post later. >for those whom are in the industry or expert in schools... >what is the best graduate school for Aerospace Eng. and Science for >propulsion field? (so far, I got accepted at Caltech and MIT and don't >know what to choose yet). Congrats on being accepted there! However, it would depend on what kind of propulsion you're interested in (in my opinion). For example, you seem someshat interested in hypersonic propulsion. if so, I would interview the professors to see if they are also advocates of hypersonic propulsion. Some MIT senior professors have been rather negative about this in the past (for example). Cal Tech has done some good work on combustion, but I don't think of them as advocates either. Univ. of Maryland is of course quite a BIG promoter of hypersonics. And NASA has funded several schools in the hypersonics research area. MIT and Cal Tech aren't on that list. A good hypersonics school (to pick one propulsion aplication as an example) should have a big name established hypersonics researcher on its staff. The names of these guys are easy to find as they are on the major textbooks in the field. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 05:22:09 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... On 3/16/98 5:32AM, in message <412565C9.004A546A.00@ms.teledin.cz>, "Pavel Sestak" wrote: > Should anyone help me with EA-6. Is this vehicle based on B-707? (As KA-6 > and Hermes are...) > > No, it's based on the A-6 Intruder, of which there was a KA-6D version. It is carreier capable and is the best ECM aircraft in the world. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 05:36:38 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: dashing... Slight update Brett Concorde is designed for supersonic cruising, as have been a few others (TU-160, when it works, for one). It's my understanding that if it slows to subsonic speed/altitude, its range is actually somewhat Less! The reason it doesn't fly transpacific routes (although it could do West Coast US-Hawaii) is that when it was designed in the '60s that wasn't a very big market and designing that much range into it would have been hideously expensive for little economic return. The design criteria was London/Paris-New York. The plane pretty much was an economic flop. It had the unfortunate timing to run into rapidly rising fuel prices (ironically, today fuel is cheaper in absolute dollars than it was then) and environmental hysteria which pretty much doomed it. It did give Europe, though, a way to keep their technology current. One thing about sustained speed/supercruise (which to my mind is more important in a fighter than stealth): it's a fantastic advantage, but is somewhat incompatible with stealth. For example, when the F-22 is supercruising, the F-14D will be able to pick it from a long way off with its IRST. On the other hand, since the F-14 won't be getting AAAM (or even AMRAAM, except for the D), the F-22 will be able to engage and disengage at will. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 05:39:43 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... On 3/16/98 3:03PM, in message <199803162303.SAA00333@aegis.vgnet.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > Should anyone help me with EA-6. Is this vehicle based on B-707? (As KA-6 > > and Hermes are...) > > > > Negative. The A-6, EA-6 and KA-6 are not based on the B-707 in any way. The A-6 > family does not even remotely resemble the B-707 (Am I correctly assuming that > by B-707 you mean the Boeing 707 airliner?). The A-6 Intruder is a twin engine > Navy carrier attack aircraft. The EA-6B Prowler is the EW version of the same > aircraft. The KA-6 is the tanker version of the A-6. > The A-6 is being withdrawn from service. The EA-6B Prowler is likely to remain > in service for a couple of more decades. > > http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/a6.htm > http://www.usmc.mil/images.nsf/b7a610ddc1be59598525650500718300/828AC7E14386EB31 > 8525658B000B9FE2/$FILE/waterlay.jpg > > Sam > The A-6 and KA-6 are gone [sigh]. While the EA-6B will be around for a while yet, it won't be given too many upgrades as they will probably phase it in the next decade out in another attempt to invent missions to justify the F/A-18E/F. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 05:57:24 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: dashing... On 3/16/98 12:00AM, in message <350CDC3A.3EED@gte.net>, Adam Chance wrote: > > > 1. Are there any real benefits to an airplane being able to dash to a > target, I am thinking that maybe there is a benefit in fuel consumption, > or possibly engine maintanince? Why would you choose to build an > aircraft that would dash at Mach 3 rather than cruise at Mach 3? > Most supersonic aircraft only dash at their top speed because it takes too much in design and cost to do otherwise. There are a few that are designed to seriously cruise at that speed, but they have to be designed to do it efficiently and it' s expensive. Also, the penalty for supersonic cruise efficiently is less than optimum performance subsonically. I use the term efficiently because most supersonic aircraft will maintain supersonic speed until the fuel runs out. For example, the F-5 is supersonic, but it's high speed time is measured in seconds. > 2. Are there currently any planes in use that use a supersonic dash > instead of cruising? Possibly these would be planes that I would never > have thought of as supersonic planes. > > Almost all of them. Exceptions are SR-71, Concorde, TU-160, TU-22M, F-111 F-22. One difference between the first two and the others is that they are so optimized for this regime that I believe their range is actually less subsonically. F-111 is so clean and carries so much fuel it can do it for a long time, but not as efficiently as it cruises subsonically. F-22 will do it at mach 1.5 w/o afterburner ( few others can supercruise, but not as well as the F-22), but will travel farther subsonically Art (boy I'm being a chatterbox tonight!) > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:58:54 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Art Wrote: === The A-6 and KA-6 are gone [sigh]. While the EA-6B will be around for a while yet, it won't be given too many upgrades as they will probably phase it in the next decade out in another attempt to invent missions to justify the F/A-18E/F. === Maybe they'll have an EF-14 by then. (sorry, Art.) Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:32:02 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... > Art Wrote: > === > The A-6 and KA-6 are gone [sigh]. While the EA-6B will be around for a > while yet, > it won't be given too many upgrades as they will probably phase it in the > next > decade out in another attempt to invent missions to justify the F/A-18E/F. > === > Maybe they'll have an EF-14 by then. (sorry, Art.) > > Tom > > Any thoughts on why the USAF's EF-111A Raven was removed from service so prematurely and replaced with the EA-6B Prowler? The Raven was a far more powerful EW platform. It was also a much more flexible airframe. Has any progress been made on the Wild Weasel version of the F-15E? Any chance they might develop an EF-15E??? Sam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:31:12 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: EC-types Sam wrote: Any thoughts on why the USAF's EF-111A Raven was removed from service so prematurely and replaced with the EA-6B Prowler? The Raven was a far more powerful EW platform. It was also a much more flexible airframe. Has any progress been made on the Wild Weasel version of the F-15E? Any chance they might develop an EF-15E??? ===== Last I heard, the wild weasel mission was the province of the two-seat lawn dart (i.e. F-16). It seems the air force wants out of every mission that doesn't involve smart bombs, so the EF-111 was canned. Anyway, I've heard folks on this and other lists say that the EA-6 is better at EW. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:42:43 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... At 12:32 17/03/98 -0500, Sam wrote: >Any thoughts on why the USAF's EF-111A Raven was removed from service so >prematurely and replaced with the EA-6B Prowler? The Raven was a far more >powerful EW platform. It was also a much more flexible airframe. Yes. There is a tiny but vital flaw in your question, I'm afraid. You are assuming that logic might somehow be involved. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 06:17:14 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... On 3/17/98 6:58AM, in message <052565CA.0052178D.00@notesmail.fw.hac.com>, "Tom C Robison" wrote: > > Maybe they'll have an EF-14 by then. (sorry, Art.) > > Tom > > Actually Tom, The F-14 is being prematurely retired as well in order to insure that the Hornet E/F will be the only option. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:11:06 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: 100K plus >According to Ben Rich, the lack of oxygen at high altitude was the reason why >the SR-71 levelled off at around 85,00 ft. Even at that altitude it was near >to the danger levels regarding atmosphere content. Well, this brings up an interesting question on the structure of the air molecule at high altitude. The air properties tables that I have in my aerospace engineering texts don't really indicate a change in the composition of the air molecule at high altitude. These tables indicate pressure, temperature, and density changes at different altitudes but not composition changes. I therefore believe that at altitude air is still roughly 70% Nitrogen and 30% Oxygen. Therefore, the real issue here for an aircraft attempting to breath air between 100K and 200K feet say, is the density of the air, or the amount of air per unit volume. If you look at the altitude tables for 85,000 ft and 100,000 ft, of geometric altitude, the density of air at 100,000 ft is roughly half that at 85,000 ft. This really shouldn't be too much of a problem, because as I said, (actually alluded to) before, the real issue is density as it applies to mass flow. Mass flow is (density X area X velocity). If density is halved, then if area or/and velocity are increased, then mass flow of air between 85,000 and 100,000 feet can be maintained constant. This is an oversimplistic view as actually the vehicles we're talking about are deeply supersonic (at least) at those altitudes and therefore shock waves are being generated in the inlets of their engines. Compression shocks (which inlets use to pressurize the air) can easily take the density up. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:26:05 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: 100K plus >The air properties tables that I have in my aerospace engineering >texts don't really indicate a change in the composition of the air molecule at >high altitude. I wanted to kill that past post and modify it a little to mention that at really high altitudes there are ionizing effects and of course low density effects which change some very basic aerodynamic assumptions that are made at low alrirudes. But for the purpose of this conversation, assume such effects are not present. larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:56:58 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: RE: 100K plus Larry Smith wrote: >Therefore, the real issue here for an aircraft attempting to breath air >between >100K and 200K feet say, is the density of the air, or the amount of air >per unit >volume. If you look at the altitude tables for 85,000 ft. and 100,000 ft., of >geometric altitude, the density of air at 100,000 ft. is roughly half that at >85,000 ft. This really shouldn't be too much of a problem, because as I said, >(actually alluded to) before, the real issue is density as it applies to >mass flow. > >Mass flow is (density X area X velocity). If density is halved, then if area >or/and velocity are increased, then mass flow of air between 85,000 and >100,000 >feet can be maintained constant. This is an oversimplistic view as actually >the vehicles we're talking about are deeply supersonic (at least) at those >altitudes and therefore shock waves are being generated in the inlets of their >engines. Compression shocks (which inlets use to pressurize the air) can >easily >take the density up. It's interesting that this has come up, as my wife has been following the Mt. Everest attempt in 1996, where 8 folks died in one day while attempting to summit and/or get back down. Everest is 29 thousand and change. According to some of the stuff she has been reading, the air at around 29-30 thousand has only 30% of the oxygen density then at sea level. Just a side bar to the air density lesson Larry just gave! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:04:29 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... > On 3/17/98 6:58AM, in message <052565CA.0052178D.00@notesmail.fw.hac.com>, "Tom C > Robison" wrote: > > > > > Maybe they'll have an EF-14 by then. (sorry, Art.) > > > > Tom > > > > > > Actually Tom, The F-14 is being prematurely retired as well in order to insure > that the Hornet E/F will be the only option. > The Super Hornet no matter how great it might be, will never be as effective as the F-14D Tomcat as an air superiority fighter and long range interceptor. The F-18E/F is incapable of carrying the AIM-54C Missile and it certainly does not have an AN/APG-71 radar. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 05:10:49 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... On 3/18/98 4:04PM, in message <199803190004.TAA26234@aegis.vgnet.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > On 3/17/98 6:58AM, in message <052565CA.0052178D.00@notesmail.fw.hac.com>, > "Tom C > > Robison" wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe they'll have an EF-14 by then. (sorry, Art.) > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > Actually Tom, The F-14 is being prematurely retired as well in order to insure > > that the Hornet E/F will be the only option. > > > > The Super Hornet no matter how great it might be, will never be as effective as > the F-14D Tomcat as an air superiority fighter and long range interceptor. > The F-18E/F is incapable of carrying the AIM-54C Missile and it certainly does > not have an AN/APG-71 radar. > > Sam > The APG-71 also has much greater range, can search a volume of airspace 8 times that of the APG-73, can integrate multiple sensors and, at the time it entered service, could burn through any known jamming equipment. On the other hand, the Super Hornet will allow the pilot to become much more proficient in formation flying with tankers. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #16 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.com". 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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner