skunk-works-digest Friday, March 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 017 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Off-topic Hornet F-14. Re: Off-topic Hornet Re: F-14. Re: Off-topic Hornet WAPJ #32 Re: 100K plus B-1A/B Canards E-6B, EF-111 Re: 100K plus Re: Off-topic Hornet Re: Off-topic Hornet Re: B-1A/B Re: Off-topic Hornet Re[2]: Off-topic Hornet E-6 and EA-6B Re: F-14. Re: F-14. Re: Off-topic Hornet *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:29:20 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis 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 Indeed, something like 400nm theoretical and 200nm actual range when installed in the F-14D; this is my kind of radar :)) With the Phoenix missile (AIM-54C) the F-14 is the only aircraft capable of engaging and destroying targets as far away as 150nm. The AN/APG-71 is based on the AN/APG-70 installed on the F-15E which has very similar capabilities to the F-14 with one very important difference however, the F-15E does not have the Phoenix missile system. Would anyone care to discuss adding supercruise capabilities to the F-14D, F-15E, F-16C/D, F/A-18E/F? > 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 > Sam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 05:58:38 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... On 3/18/98 9:29PM, in message <199803190529.AAA06794@aegis.vgnet.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > times > > Indeed, something like 400nm theoretical and 200nm actual range when installed > in the F-14D; this is my kind of radar :)) With the Phoenix missile (AIM-54C) > the F-14 is the only aircraft capable of engaging and destroying targets as far > away as 150nm. The AN/APG-71 is based on the AN/APG-70 installed on the F-15E > which has very similar capabilities to the F-14 with one very important > difference however, the F-15E does not have the Phoenix missile system. > Important thing to keep in mind: The APG-70 in the F-15E is the same one as in the F-15C/D but with TFR and ground attack capabilities enabled. Air-to-Air, the two aircraft are almost identical except that the C may be slightly more agile due to lower weight. The APG-71 is more powerful than the APG-70 and can handle more sensors, but much of its capability was stillborn and never fully developed so as to create a justification for the Hornet E/F. > Would anyone care to discuss adding supercruise capabilities to the F-14D, > F-15E, F-16C/D, F/A-18E/F? > > > > F-14B/D can and have supercruised and the Hornet E/F is supposed to be capable of same without weapons. Note that this capability will not be in the same league as that of the F-22 and is more a function of the way available power vs. drag fell out than of conscious design. The F-22 will do it much longer, faster and as a normal mode of operation. Adding this capability in a meaningful way to the other aircraft would be hideously expensive and still wouldn't match the F-22. It's worthy of note that the proposed Super Tomcat 21 would have supercruised routinely at about .15 Mach less than the F-22. Wouldn't have remotely matched the Raptor's stealth. The avionics in it would actually have been superior to the Raptor's but would be noticeably compromised by having a much less effective antenna. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:57:08 +0000 From: Steven Barber Subject: Off-topic Hornet Can anyone explain to us non-US members *why* the US Navy is so keen on having the Super Hornet and why, if it is such a dodo, they are being allowed to go down that road by Congress (or whoever)? If *I* were at sea with the Navy, I'd like the ability of the Tomcat to engage multiple targets at 150nm. I'd feel *much* safer. Also, how does the Super Hornet stand in relation to the JSF? Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:20:45 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: F-14. Its such a shame about the Tomcat going...why didn't the Navy look in the Tomcat21? It was a great aircraft -- retaining the brilliant airframe, and adding 21st Century equipment. Sad but True... EF-14? He-he...what does the F-14 outfitted w/a TARPS system get designated? 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: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:07:51 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet The original F-18 was purchased because the Office of the Secretary of Defense determined that the Navy could not afford to put all F-14s on its carrier decks. So the Hornet-Tomcat issue was money. The Super Hornet-Tomcat issues is a continuation of the same issue. The Navy's lack of discipline combined with its institutional believe that if it loses the deep strike mission the carrier will go away, drives it to the larger Super Hornet. The Super Hornet was a quick fix for the disappearance of the A-12. The Navy believes that bigger airplanes can fly further (something the F-16 disproved.) Jim Stevenson Steven Barber wrote: > > Can anyone explain to us non-US members *why* the US Navy is so keen on > having the Super Hornet and why, if it is such a dodo, they are being > allowed to go down that road by Congress (or whoever)? > If *I* were at sea with the Navy, I'd like the ability of the Tomcat to > engage multiple targets at 150nm. I'd feel *much* safer. > > Also, how does the Super Hornet stand in relation to the JSF? > > Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:08:30 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-14. It was a money issue. James Matthews wrote: > > Its such a shame about the Tomcat going...why didn't the Navy look in the > Tomcat21? It was a great aircraft -- retaining the brilliant airframe, and > adding 21st Century equipment. Sad but True... > > EF-14? He-he...what does the F-14 outfitted w/a TARPS system get > designated? > > 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 > ____________________________________ - -- ************************************ James P. Stevenson Aerospace Planning Group, LLC E-mail:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Office:301-254-9000 Home: 301-530-4241 FAX: 301-530-6923 5600 Roosevelt St. Bethesda, MD 20817-6740 USA ************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:11:42 -0500 From: "Sheila H.//Elwood Blues" Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet Steven Barber wrote: > > Can anyone explain to us non-US members *why* the US Navy is so keen on > having the Super Hornet and why, if it is such a dodo, they are being > allowed to go down that road by Congress (or whoever)? > If *I* were at sea with the Navy, I'd like the ability of the Tomcat to > engage multiple targets at 150nm. I'd feel *much* safer. > > Also, how does the Super Hornet stand in relation to the JSF? > > Steve I am biased, having served on carriers, so I will give my view: rectal cranial inversion. It is hard to think clearly when you have your head tucked .... It makes not one lick of sense to me. Your statements about feeling safer are right on the money. 150 miles isn't much but it sure is better being protected by a tomcat than an overweight bug. unless of course you are very near shore and taking shots from shore batteries - hornets flying over and scaring folks about wether or not they will fall out of the sky.... bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:37:19 -0800 From: G&G Subject: WAPJ #32 Andreas and others, Has anyone received the latest World Air Power Journal (#32) ? I'd hate to miss an issue, and it seems like it's past time to have received #32... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:29:03 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: 100K plus If I understand your argument, then it would follow that you would have to fly twice as fast to have the same density. Jim Stevenson Larry Smith wrote: > > >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: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:31:34 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: B-1A/B For some reason, my posts are going through on the first try, so here this is again.... > the B-1B was supposed to spend more time at treetop level and supersonic > capability was considered less important. Additionally, the B-1B is so grossly overweight that its service ceiling at normal mission weight is only about 20,000 ft! In developing the B-1B from the B-1A, they greatly increased the aircraft weight without changing the wing area. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:32:17 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: Canards The attempts to explain canards are largely incorrect. I have extnesive experience with canards, having worked on or analyzed over 15 different canard designs, so let me try to explain this stuff in English. All aircraft have to have a way of trimming out the aircraft longitudinally - that is a way to arrive at zero pitching moment about the center of gravity. Flying wings do this by using low pitching moment airfoils and then deflecting the trailing edge to get zero pitching moment. Conventional aircraft do this by downloading the horizontal tail (usually, but this can be an upload in some flight conditions). Canards do this by carrying an upload on the canard. Conventional aircraft horizontal tails are usually symmetical or inverted airfoils. Canard aircraft canards are almost always right side up airfoils, not inverted airfoils. Usually, the canard has a slotted flap, so that it has a very high CLmax. Achieving positive longitudinal stability is critical also (except for relaxed stability aircraft like the F-16, F-18, etc.). The important criteria is that the center of gravity be ahead of the neutral point. The neutral point is the hypothetical CG location that would give neutral stability. Any CG location aft of this gives instability, which is dangerous, unless you have a computer flying the aircraft, like on the F-16, etc. With all three configurations (flying wing, conventional, and canard), the surfaces are sized to have a neutral point that will be safely aft of any possible CG location. Canard aircraft are rigged so that the canard will stall before the main wing, resulting in pitch down and hence, natural stall recovery. If the main wing where to stall first, a pitch up would occur. On a conventional aircraft, the wing must always stall first. I have been involved with fixing one aircraft where the horizontal tail had a tendency to stall first, when the flaps where down. This resulted in a "bunt", an inverted spin and in one case, a fatal crash. Canard aircraft usually do not have shorter take off runs than conventional aircraft. To put high lift devices on a canard is difficult, as flaps on the aft wing produce a high pitching moment that must be trimmed out by an already highly loaded canard. On the Starship, Burt used a swinging canard, which would unsweep when the flaps were down. Additionally, canards have rotation problems, because of the short moment arm from the canard to the CG. Canards have another fundamental problem. You want to have consumables, like fuel, on the CG, as the CG range is usually very restrictive. As the wing is usually rather far aft, to get the neutral point in the right place, this means the fuel goes in strakes ahead of the wing. Now, to get low induced drag, the sum of the loading of the canard and wing should be near elliptical. The canard tends to be nearly elliptically loaded, which results in a big hole in the loading of the aft wing in the area behind the canard. This means the inner part of the aft wing cannot lift, so you end up with this strake containing the fuel being unable to do any useful work. This strake and the inboard wing does nothing but produce drag. Additionally, the aft wing load is carried well outboard, resulting in very high root bending moements. I work on them, but if I were to design an airplane for myself, it would have a conventional configuration. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:39:21 EST From: BDLiddicoa Subject: E-6B, EF-111 >>Is the E-6B based on the 707 airframe. Guys, he ain't talking about the Prowler, but about the E-6B Mercury, which replaced TACAMO. Yes, that is based on the 707 airframe. >>Why was EF-111 canned for EA-6B. The newest update EA-6B not only offers more channels and superior jam capability, but most importantly, has COMINT capability, which the EF-111 lacks. Brian D. Liddicoat Laser Design International, LLC San Francisco ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:58:29 +0100 From: "Pavel Sestak" Subject: Re: 100K plus or should you have variable inlets (meaning variable area of the inlet) if i understand this correctly. btw: i've bought jane's fighter anthology and there is a video about f-104 setting world altitude record by reaching 103k. If I understand your argument, then it would follow that you would have to fly twice as fast to have the same density. Jim Stevenson Larry Smith wrote: > > >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: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:27:30 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet At 08:11 19/03/98 -0500, Bob wrote: >course you are very near shore and taking shots from shore batteries - >hornets flying over and scaring folks about wether or not they will fall >out of the sky.... >bob In that case, is it possible to adapt a DC-10 for carrier operations? :-) - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:09:10 -0500 From: "Sheila H.//Elwood Blues" Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet Brett Davidson wrote: > > At 08:11 19/03/98 -0500, Bob wrote: > >course you are very near shore and taking shots from shore batteries - > >hornets flying over and scaring folks about wether or not they will fall > >out of the sky.... > >bob > > In that case, is it possible to adapt a DC-10 for carrier operations? > > :-) > > --Brett I got un-invited to a meeting I was in when I suggested loading KC10s with hogs and pigs and just flying them over Iran during the hostage crisis. Some folks just don't have any sense of humor at all. bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:44:14 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: B-1A/B At 08:31 19/03/98 -0800, David Lednicer wrote: >> the B-1B was supposed to spend more time at treetop level and supersonic >> capability was considered less important. > > Additionally, the B-1B is so grossly overweight that its service >ceiling at normal mission weight is only about 20,000 ft! In developing >the B-1B from the B-1A, they greatly increased the aircraft weight without >changing the wing area. There is an anecdote about Edward Teller doing a few back-of-the-envelope calculations about various bomb designs. For one, the means of delivery was "back yard" - it was so powerful and heavy that you wouldn't even be able to deliver it at treetop level. Nor would you need to... - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:52:59 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet At 17:09 19/03/98 -0500, bob wrote: >I got un-invited to a meeting I was in when I suggested loading KC10s >with hogs and pigs and just flying them over Iran during the hostage >crisis. Some folks just don't have any sense of humor at all. Tut tut. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 17:19:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: Off-topic Hornet I gotta meet this guy someday!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! Thanks Bob, I needed that! Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet Author: at INTERNET Date: 3/19/98 5:09 PM Brett Davidson wrote: > > At 08:11 19/03/98 -0500, Bob wrote: > >course you are very near shore and taking shots from shore batteries - > >hornets flying over and scaring folks about wether or not they will fall > >out of the sky.... > >bob > > In that case, is it possible to adapt a DC-10 for carrier operations? > > :-) > > --Brett I got un-invited to a meeting I was in when I suggested loading KC10s with hogs and pigs and just flying them over Iran during the hostage crisis. Some folks just don't have any sense of humor at all. bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:21:42 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: E-6 and EA-6B I've noticed a recent thread about the EA-6B and Boeing 707. I think the confusion has come from (where else?) the news media. With the recent incident involving a Prowler and a cable car, some of the news readers (Peter Jennings comes to mind) referred to the Prowler as the "E-6B". The E-6 Mercury is indeed based on the Boeing 707 airframe and is used for the TACAMO submarine communication mission. It is a completely different airframe than the A-6 Intruder-based EA-6B Prowler which was the airplane involved in this incident. As to the Prowler, Raven, and Super Hornet, some observations: The Air Force sacrificed the F-111 and EF-111 on the altar of the F-22. General Ralston, who got caught up in the Kelly Flynn affair, is the name behind that particular act. IMHO the important thing wasn't keeping a jamming capability ("Who needs jamming when you're stealthy?" goes the inside the beltway 'logic'), but getting F-22s. While the EF-111 was the better airframe, the Air Force balked at upgrading the Raven to give it the 'troning' ability of the Prowler, which the Navy has at least made some effort to update. Meanwhile, the Prowlers are not as healthy structurally as one would like and have had g limits imposed on them to make them last as long as possible. So, in addition (or subtraction) to throwing away roughly 40 healthy EF-111 airframes, the remaining Prowler fleet will start fading away after 2000 due to fatigue. The only available successor, given that the USAF as abrogated its jamming mission to the USN is, you guessed it boys and girls, the Super Hornet. In talking to a friend who is experienced in both the EF-111 and EA-6B, the F/A-18G (as its being called unofficially) actually looks like it will be a pretty good airframe for the mission. It had better be, it=92s not like there are a lot of choices. BTW, the EF-111 retirement ceremony is 1-3 May at Cannon AFB, NM. Cheers, Jim Rotramel mrvark@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 98 05:36:36 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-14. On 3/19/98 4:20AM, in message <199803191225.VAA18630@tkb.att.ne.jp>, "James Matthews" wrote: > Its such a shame about the Tomcat going...why didn't the Navy look in the > Tomcat21? It was a great aircraft -- retaining the brilliant airframe, and > adding 21st Century equipment. Sad but True... > > EF-14? He-he...what does the F-14 outfitted w/a TARPS system get > designated? > > James. > > An F-14 with TARPS is still an F-14, since it's an external store, not an integral change in mission. There was some talk of an RF-14, but that role was reserved for the F/A-18, which has never been able to successfully perform it. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 98 06:02:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-14. On 3/19/98 4:20AM, in message <199803191225.VAA18630@tkb.att.ne.jp>, "James Matthews" wrote: > Its such a shame about the Tomcat going...why didn't the Navy look in the > Tomcat21? It was a great aircraft -- retaining the brilliant airframe, and > adding 21st Century equipment. Sad but True... > > EF-14? He-he...what does the F-14 outfitted w/a TARPS system get > designated? > > 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 > ___________________________________ Left out the other part. Super Tomcat 21 would have cost less to develop than the Hornet E/F but would have cost considerably more to buy. Granted, it would have been a much, Much more capable aircraft than the Hornet E/F, but it didn't enjoy support at the DoD level so it's unlikely if the USN would ever have been funded for it (plus the AF would lobby against it). Also, Grumman was absolutely Terrible at marketing or getting their message across, and tended to tick people off with their arrogance. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 98 06:15:40 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Off-topic Hornet On 3/19/98 12:57AM, in message <3510DDE3.885D7E98@xpedite.co.uk>, Steven Barber wrote: > Can anyone explain to us non-US members *why* the US Navy is so keen on > having the Super Hornet and why, if it is such a dodo, they are being > allowed to go down that road by Congress (or whoever)? > If *I* were at sea with the Navy, I'd like the ability of the Tomcat to > engage multiple targets at 150nm. I'd feel *much* safer. > Super Hornet was really a product of the Office of Secretary of Defense and enjoys tremendous support within the bureaucracy. Also, if it the program goes, people can build an entire career around the aircraft. It also enjoyed residual support from Congress who thought they invented the F/A-18 and would never admit that they may have backed the lesser horse. That is fading as people turnover in Congress. As a result the Super Hornet faction became ascendant. If you were in the Navy and you didn't support the Hornet, your career wouldn't go very far. In fact, I have been told by F-14 crews that they were under direction when taking the Tomcat to air shows to answer questions to the best of their ability if asked, but not to volunterer information that would promote their aircraft. > Also, how does the Super Hornet stand in relation to the JSF? The JSF is more capable (although just how capable will depend on what USAF allows it to be), stealthy, maneuverable and has greater range/payload. However, the Hornet faction is still ascendant, although weakened. Plans last year were to cut Navy JSF buys partly to insure a requirement for the Hornet E/F. However, the most recent overall review talked about cutting Hornet buys in favor of JSF if it meets specs. If this happens, it will be the first time in the history of the aircraft that the Hornet has ever suffered a cut. Art > > Steve > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #17 ******************************** 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