skunk-works-digest Sunday, March 29 1998 Volume 07 : Number 020 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** A-26/B-26 Invader Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito Ramblings... Re: Dr. David Baker Re: Dr. David Baker Re: Dr. David Baker In My Humble Opinion: Andreas. F-117 designation Re: F-117 designation *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:19:53 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: A-26/B-26 Invader The Martin B-26 Marauder was a very fast (for its time), twin-engined medium bomber, whose sometimes difficult low speed flight and landing characteristics earned it the nickname 'Widowmaker'. The Douglas A-26 Invader was a twin-engined light attack bomber, basically a completely redesigned Douglas A-20 Havoc, of which the following versions were built: XA-26-DE (1 built, USAAF Serial: '41-19504'); XA-26A-DE (1 built, USAAF Serial: '41-19505'); XA-26B-DE (1 built, USAAF Serial: '41-19588'); A-26B-DL (1174 built, USAAF Serials: '41-39100' to '41-39151', '41-39153' to '41-39192', '41-39194', '41-39196' to '41-39198', '41-39201' to '41-39599', '44-34098' to '44-34776'); A-26B-DT (205 built, USAAF Serials: '43-22252' to '43-22303', '43-22305' to '43-22307', '43-22313' to '43-22345', '43-22350' to '43-22466'); A-26B (additional 423 (or 445) cancelled); A-26C-DL (5 built, USAAF Serials: '41-39152', '41-39193', '41-39195', '41-39199' and '41-39200'); A-26C-DT (1086 built, USAAF Serials: '43-22304', '43-22308' to '43-22312', '43-22346' to '43-22349', '43-22467' to '43-22751', '44-35198' to '44-35562', '44-35564' to '44-35947', '44-35953', '44-35955', '44-35957' to '44-35996'); A-26C (additional 2809 cancelled, including: '44-34777' to '44-35197', '44-35563', '44-35948' to '44-35952', '44-35954', '44-35956', '44-35997' to '44-37996'); FA-26C-DT (several A-26C-DT modified for Foto-Reconnaissance) XA-26D-DL (1 A-26B-DL, completed as XA-26D, USAAF Serial: '44-34776'); A-26D-DL (750 cancelled) XA-26E-DT (1 A-26C-DT, modified to XA-26E); A-26E-DT (1250 cancelled) XA-26F-DL (1 A-26B-DL, modified to XA-26F, USAAF Serial: '44-34586'); A-26G-DL (project only, based on A-26B-DL) A-26H-DT (project only, based on A-26C-DT) In 1948 all surviving A-26 Invaders were redesignated as B-26 Invaders, at which time all B-26 Marauders where already out of frontline service. The USAF had abandoned the 'A' (Attack) designation series in 1948, but with the introduction of McNamara's Joint Service Designation system in 1962, the 'A' (Attack) series was re-introduced, originally covering only redesignated USN types, but later also the A-26, A-37 and new designs. Together with later modifications of B-26 Invaders, the following new designations existed after 1948: B-26B-DL (redesignation of all surviving A-26B-DL); B-26B-DT (redesignation of all surviving A-26B-DT); CB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as transporters); RB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as reconnaissance aircraft, including: '44-34159'); TB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as trainers, including: '41-39182', '41-39278', '41-39423', '41-39499', '41-39571', '44-34108', '44-34156', '44-34184', '44-34401', '44-34411', '44-34450', '44-34593', '44-34597', '44-34642'); VB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as VIP (Very Important Person) or staff transport aircraft, including: '44-34160', '44-34610', '44-34616'); B-26C-DL (redesignation of all surviving A-26C-DL); B-26C-DT (redesignation of all surviving A-26C-DL); DB-26C-DT (conversion of some B-26Cs as drone controllers); EB-26C-DT (1 B-26C-DT modified for missile guidance tests, USAAF serial: '44-35300'); RB-26C-DT (new modifications of B-26C-DTs as reconnaissance aircraft, as well as some redesignated FA-26C-DTs, including: '43-22502', '44-35216', '44-35223', '44-35245', '44-35250', '44-35256' and '44-35257', '44-35262', '44-35271', '44-35322', '44-35358' and '44-35359', '44-35375', '44-35385', '44-35444', '44-35457', '44-35490', '44-35500', '44-35512', '44-35559', '44-35582' and '44-35583', '44-35599', '44-35606' and '44-35607', '44-35617', '44-35621' and '44-35622', '44-35626', '44-35678' and '44-35679', '44-35682', '44-35763', '44-35779', '44-35804', '44-35808', '44-35813', '44-35822', '44-35858', '44-35889', '44-35938'); TB-26C-DT (conversion of some B-26C-DTs as trainers, including: '43-22537', '43-22546', '43-22624', '43-22657', '43-22710', '43-22724', '44-35807', '44-35975'); XB-26F-DL (1 redesignated XA-26F-DL, USAAF Serial: '44-34586'); During and after 1962, the following designations were added: DB-26J (USN JD-1Ds, redesignated 1962); UB-26J (USN JD-1s, redesignated 1962); YB-26K-OM (1 B-26C-DT (ex A-26C-DT) modified by On Mark, USAAF Serial: '44-35634'); B-26K-OM (40 B-26C and B-26D modified by On Mark, new USAF Serials: '64-17640' to '64-17679'); RB-26K-OM (several B-26K-OM modified for reconnaissance with glass nose, including: '64-17643' and '64-17670'); A-26A-OM (all B-26K and RB-26K, as well as about 30 similarly modified B-26C and B-26D, were redesignated A-26A-OM on 04/31/1966); A-26K (unofficial surrogate designation of B-26K and A-26A); The 'B-26G' designation was apparently not used for the Invader, maybe because some B-26G-MA or TB-26G-MA Marauders were still in the inventory in 1948, and the 'B-26H' was actually a Marauder, the ZXB-26H-MA (redesignated in 1948, the 'Z' standing for 'obsolete'), which was the former XB-26H-MA, originally built as TB-26G-20-MA, and modified to test the B-47 (as well as B-48, B-51 and U-2) undercarriage configuration. Other Attack aircraft redesignated in the Bomber series in 1948 include: * Douglas XA-42-DO, which became the XB-42-DO; * Convair XA-44-CO, which became the XB-53-CO; * Martin XA-45-MA, which became the XB-51-MA; The first B-26 Invaders introduced in Vietnam, were from the batch of 110 B-26B (solid nose), B-26C (glass nose) and RB-26Cs (photo reconnaissance) aircraft, operated by the French Air Force (Armee de l'Air). They were supplied by the USAF under MDAP (Mutual Defense Assistance Program), starting on 11/04/1950, and were originally taken on charge by two Transport Groups (Groupe de Transport): GT II/62 and GT II/64 'Anjou' at Tan Son Nhut, but later equipped 3 Bomber Groups (Groupe de Bombardement): GB I/19 'Gascogne', based at Tourane (later called Da Nang), GB I/25 'Tunisie', based at Cat Bi and GB I/91 'Bourgogne', as well as 1 Reconnaissance Squadron (Escadrille de Reconnaissance): ER II/19 'Armagnac' (later Escadrille de Reconnaissance Photographique, ERP II/19). They flew 33,000 hours during 15,000 sorties, dropping 19,000 tons of bombs between 1951 and 1954. The remaining Invaders were returned to the USAF, when the French finally capitulated and left Indochina. It wasn't until 10/11/1961, when 4 'RB-26' were deployed under the USAF's 'Jungle Jim' program, with Detachment 2A of the 4400th CCTS (Combat Crew Training Squadron), that the Invader returned to Vietnam. The unit was code named 'Farm Gate' and was later redesignated 1st ACS (Air Commando Squadron, Composite) under the 34th TG (Tactical Group), and initially operated also 8 T-28s and 4 SC-47s. The RB-26 designation was a politically motivated ploy -- the aircraft were solid nose attack planes and not glass nose reconnaissance aircraft -- designed to avoid the appearance of contravening the 1955 peace agreement, which didn't allow the introduction of bombers in the area. Those 'Farm Gate' B-26Cs and RB-26Cs (at least 16 different airframes) were originally based at Bien Hoa AB, South Vietnam, but were later also flown from detachments at Pleiku and Soc Trang. All 'Farm Gate' aircraft were flown by US crews, but with South Vietnamese markings, and originally also carried a Vietnamese 'observer' or 'passenger'. Their official purpose was training South Vietnamese pilots, but their main occupation was low altitude bombing, strafing and other COIN (Counter Insurgency) missions against the Viet Cong, and also included convoy and UC-123B 'Ranch Hand' 'fighter' escorts. Their operational use was relatively short lived, due to structural fatigue problems with the WWII area airframes and wings, caused by high bomb loads and rough runway surfaces. They were grounded on 02/11/1964, and all survivors had returned to the CONUS (Continental USA) by 04/1964. Farm Gate B-26Cs (all were re-equipped with 6 or 8 gun B-26B noses, and had 6 underwing pylons) included: '44-35335', '44-35530', '44-35703', '44-35855' (?) (marked as '25855') -- assuming the serials shown are (mostly) accurate; Farm Gate RB-26Cs (with glass nose) included: '44-35585', '44-35813'; The last time Invaders fought over Vietnam and Laos, was from 06/08/1966 to 11/09/1969. Deployed originally under Project 'Big Eagle' for evaluation of night interdiction tactics, they were this time based at NKP (Nakhon Phanom RTAFB [Royal Thai Air Force Base], aka 'Naked Fanny'), in Thailand, a unit originally designated Detachment 9 of the 1st ACW (Air Commando Wing), joining the 606th ACS. After the evaluation program was over (ending on 01/13/1967), the A-26s stayed at NKP and were assigned to the 609th ACS, established 09/15/1967, which became a unit of the 56th ACW, using the new tail code 'TA'. The unit was later redesignated 609th SOS (Special Operations Squadron) under the 56th SOW (Special Operations Wing). There original parent unit in the USA was the 603rd SOS, of the 4410 CCTW (Combat Crew Training Wing), based at England AFB, LA, using the tail code 'IF'. These On Mark A-26A Counter Invaders (which up to 04/30/1966 were designated B-26K) usually used the callsign 'Nimrod'. There redesignation was probably also due to political reasons, but because B-52s of the 307th SW (Strategic Wing) were permanently based at U-Tapao RTAFB, also starting in 6/1966, that redesignation was pretty meaningless. These A-26As were flying truck and gun hunting missions over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos, Cambodia, and South and North Vietnam, in conjunction with O-2 'Nail' FACs (Forward Air Controllers), C-130A 'Blind Bat' and 'Lamplighter' as well as C-123K 'Candlestick' flareships. Other missions included CAS (Close Air Support) at Khe Sanh. During this time frame (1960 to 1970), CIA-operated Invaders could also be found in the SEA (South East Asia) theater, like in many other parts of the world -- Cuba, the Congo and Indonesia being some examples. At least 4 Air America-operated B-26Bs (painted black overall, without national insignia) arrived during 12/1960 in Thailand, and at least 12 B-26B and B-26Cs (left in natural metallic, and also without any national insignia), followed later in 1961, all coming in from Taiwan and being based at Takhli RTAFB, Thailand. In addition, some On Mark-modified, civilian registered B-26 VIP transports were used, including a Marksman B (?), registered 'N46598', painted blue overall with white stripes, sporting an elongated nose, rectangular passenger windows, a rear cargo door, weather radar and wingtip tanks, which was possibly used in 1967 for air drops over Laos. All of those aircraft were CIA-owned aircraft, flown by ex-USAF and mercenary pilots but not assigned to or associated with any USAF unit. - -- Andreas [exhausted] - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:23:26 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito Steve Hofer wrote: >I recall reading ages ago that the British Mosquito of WWII fame had an >especially low RCS (radar cross-section) because of its shape and >mostly-wood construction. Does anyone have any information to elaborate >on this? The wood would give a low radar return, but the engines and other parts would glow like a beacon. The Windecker YE-5A (USAF Serial '73-1653'), which was based on the all composite light plane Windecker Eagle, was transparent to radar, but needed a lot of RAM to hide the engine, instruments, cables, landing gear, and even the pilot. Radar transparency alone is principally BAD for stealth. >Another WWII era craft that looks like it would have a low RCS is the >MacDonnell Bat (XP-85 I believe), a twin-engined prototype fighter with >engine nacelles recessed into the wings. If you have have information on >the RCS of this plane, then you deserve the highest ranking as aviation >trivialogist. I doubt that McDonnell would have made any RCS measurements on the XP-67 'Bat' (USAAF Serial '42-11677') in 1944/45, I would even venture as far as to say that neither the USAAF nor any aircraft manufacturer had the ability or knowledge to make any RCS measurements at that time. (BTW, the two McDonnell XP-85 / XF-85 Goblins were small parasite fighters, intended for the B-36, USAAF Serials '46-523' and '46-524'.) Even if they would have made measurements, the RCS of an aircraft (or any other thing, for that matter), "depends". There is no one single number for RCS. The RCS varies greatly with aspect -- it might be very big from one angle and very small from another. It also varies with frequency -- each radar wavelength would have to be measured separately. What you get at the end are many, many numbers, which describe how big the radar return is from any given angle (and distance), and by any given radar, of the aircraft in a particular configuration. And changing the configuration, like uncovered seams or an extended antenna, might totally change the results, too. In short, there is no absolute RCS figure. But you can of course compare two aircraft in the same configuration -- same angle, same radar, etc. -- and then say, e.g.: "The F-117A has (in average) a 2 times bigger RCS than the B-2A." or something similar. But you can't (truthfully) say the RCS of the XP-67 is 1.3 m2 (or whatever value and unit you might prefer). But of course, I made the whole thing up, and can't prove a single word (regarding RCS measurements, that is). - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:46:05 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: Ramblings... I was told that the Mosquito actually had a conventional RCS due to the engine firewalls. It is hard to make them out of anything but metal (at least this was the case back then). As to the question: > Maybe someone has one or the other book, or can comment on Dr. David > Baker (or his background) in general? From the articles I have read of his, I get the impression that he knows just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be useful. His articles are full of inaccuracies and wild guessing. On a side note: Andreas its good to see you back! I sent the Bolkow article to Air International/Air Enthusiast and they are showing interest in publishing it. The trouble is I was never able to get ahold of Herr Bolkow to get a copyright release. Maybe they'll have more luck. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:38:39 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Dr. David Baker This subject line surprised me--Dr. David Baker is my oral and maxillofacial surgeon. He did my bone transplants and dental implants. Needless to say, we're talking about different Dr. David Bakers, but since I'd been in to see mine this morning, showing off my implant crowns now that the braces are off, I was pretty startled to see the subject line. It sounds like that Dr. David Baker isn't much of an author, but my Dr. David Baker is really great. Next time you're thinking about a dental implant, keep him in mind. (And wear seat and shoulder belts so you won't have to think about them, OK? Thirty years was a long time to be missing my front teeth, partial plate or no partial plate.) Regards, Mary 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...." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:52 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: Dr. David Baker On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > I was asked where the 'infamous' Dr. David Baker gets his information, but > I must say, I don't know. I assume the usual sources -- other publications, > books, magazines, etc., and maybe some additional input from his work at > NASA or the aerospace industry -- he has supposedly worked on the Space > Shuttle from 1970 to 1986, according to a blurb in Air International. The > topic was discussed (without any specific result) on the Skunk Works List > before (see below). > > Maybe someone has one or the other book, or can comment on Dr. David Baker > (or his background) in general? > > > Rocket: The History and Development of Rocket and Missile Technology (276P) > David Baker / Published 1981 > (Hard to Find) > > The rocket : the history and development of rocket & missile technology > David Baker > (Hard to Find) > I have a copy of this one that used to belong to the British Army Hong Kong garrison's Library (an enterprising local businessman bought up all of the library books before the Brits pulled out and shipped them down here for a 'flea-sale')..as you might expect they a had an excellent collection of military technology books. Its a large format volume of the type you usually only find in libraries, a quite detailed (lots of dates & places) but not over-technical history of civil & military rocketry from ancient China to circa 1977. There's a large fold-out section with images of rocket-powered aircraft on one side. My copy says its a first edition, dated 1978, the author is listed as "David Baker, Ph.D". On the back cover there's a photo of Dr.. Baker and a little biography: (some bits snipped) "David Baker, born in Holbeach, Licolnshire, England has always had his feet firmly rooted in 'space'. .He possesses that rare quality of being able to communicate highly technical facts with a clarity and enthusisasm that in no way undermines his very considerable scholarship in matters related to rocketry and astrophysics" [goes on with the adulation a bit..] .. The author received a formal education in Science and specilaized in Earth & Planetary Physics. He has a long association with NASA and has secured qualifications in manned flight planning operations. His formal professional qualifications include a BSc in astrophysics, a PhD for work on the evolution of the Solar System and a diploma in astronautics, all read at Rice University, Texas, the latter based on info freely supplied by the LBJ space centre in Huston. David Baker is currently (1978) a tutor in Astromony at Nottingham University [snip] ...fellow of the BIS, contributor to Flight International and Spaceflight magazines. In his professional capacity he has been associated with the space programmes of Europe and the US, having been comissioned to perform studies of potential spacestation operations. He is also a Technical Consultant to several military intelligence services.. [snip..more adulation stuff]" Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:01:42 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Dr. David Baker Oops. My dear friends on the mailing list, please forgive me for cluttering your mailboxes with a misdirected bit of off-charter chattiness. I wasn't watcing my mailer as closely as I should have been. That was supposed to be a private reply, not a broadcast message. But the part about wearing seat and shoulder belts is true for everyone. Trust me on that. Apologetically, Mary 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...." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:30:34 -0800 From: patrick Subject: In My Humble Opinion: At 04:18 PM 3/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >James P. Stevenson asked: > >>(A) Where the F-117 designation came from; and > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------- It seems to me an academic adventure to apply logic and reason as to how the DoD (USAF) assigns names and numbers to their aircraft. There appear to be more exceptions and aberrations and in some cases outright deceptive practices that far outweigh any DoD procedure. (or guideline?) If your concerned about why the F-117 is an "F" and not an "A", consider this too when you got the letter figured out. They went in at sometime in the program and pulled all the correct serial numbers from successive years so as to have them all in consecutive order. An interesting feat in light of the fact that the build number changed constantly. Try to find that procedure! Point is they do what is politically(?) correct at the time. Remember the Golden Rule. As far as the source of the number 117, it still remains the best kept secret of the program. Regarding the RCS of WW2 airplanes I don't know what the early radar engineers had dreams of but keep in mind it wasn't until the sixties that Lockheed learned how to calculate 2 dimensional returns of radar signals. And the first outdoor RCS range was not built until General Dynamics did so in conjunction with its TFX-111 program during a similar time period. GD later went on to build the RATSCAT range at White Sands Missile Range and operated that RCS range for a number of years. Andreas I think you are very close with your RCS comments but I believe at some point an actual theoretical number is assigned in testing. They would have to in order to do A/B testing. It would of course assume most variables removed such as "with this size model, oriented in this axis, mounted on a pole of this construction, this height and distance from the antenna. And more standards regarding RF power frequency, phase, etc. being equal, then the model exhibits this value for a RCS return. But I agree it cannot be an absolute value. In fact Lockheed beat Northrop to win the SENIOR TREND contract by simply putting their model on a pole at RATSCAT and demonstrating that its RCS was slightly lower than the XST design of Northrop. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:16:23 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: Andreas. This isn't skunky...I'm just curious. Andreas: How do you know so much?! Ok, that's it. Bye for now :) James. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:51:27 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-117 designation F-117 designation
To all,

I have sent the FAX below to a high ranking individual in the Air Force who worked on the F-117 program. I have a telephone interview with in the near future.

If any of you believe that I have left out anything significant, please let me know no later than April 5, 1998.

Thanks,

Jim Stevenson

I am working on an article on aircraft designations. I have some questions regarding the F-117 designation. Paul Kaminski suggested I contact you regarding them.

According to DoD Directive 4120.15-L, all aircraft should have a "basic mission" designation which can include "X" for experimental or "Y" for prototype.

1. Did the "Have Blue" aircraft ever have a Mission Designation? If not, why not?

2. Did the "Tacit Blue" aircraft ever have a Mission Designation? If not, why not?

I understand that the pilots who flew the foreign aircraft in the desert used F-112 through F-116 to be able to record the time in their log books. I also understand that pilots of Senior Trend used, in that same tradition, F-117 in their log books. (If I am incorrect, please let me know.)

3. My question is why did the Air Force continue with the F-117 designation once the aircraft became public instead of using the next "design number" as required by the DoD Directive 4120.15-L, such as the F-19?

4. Did the Air Force obtain a waiver from adhering to DoD Directive 4120.15-L by not using the next "design number?"

In 1964, the definition of a fighter in the DoD Directive was an "aircraft designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft and/or missiles."1/ An attack aircraft, on the other hand, was defined as an "aircraft designed to search out, attack, and destroy enemy land or sea targets using conventional or special weapons. Also used for interdiction and close air support missions."2/ By 1967, the definition of a fighter had expanded and included the function of an attack aircraft. The attack definition, however, had not changed. Both definitions have remained consistent to the present.3/

5. If you will accept that I have correctly corrected cited the DoD Directive on designations; and that I understand that the Air Force considered putting AIM-9s on the F-117, why did the Air Force not designate the F-117 as an "attack" aircraft since it has no air-to-air capability?


1/ U.S. Department of Defense. Department of the Air Force. "Releasable data on USAF Aerospace Vehicles." AFP 190-2-2 (Aerospace Information Handbook. Vol. III. (June 1964): (Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office]): 2.
2/ Ibid.
3/ U.S. Department of Defense. "Designating and Naming Defense Equipment: Military Aerospace Vehicles." AFR 82-1/AR 70-50C1/NAVAIRINST 8800.3C1(20 July 1990):10
**********************************************
James P. Stevenson
E-mail Address: jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com
Telephone: (301) 254-9000
**********************************************
------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:25:58 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: F-117 designation James P. Stevenson wrote (as HTML text, which I converted to pure ASCII text for easier readability): >To all, >I have sent the FAX below to a high ranking individual in the Air Force >who worked on the F-117 program. I have a telephone interview with in the >near future. >If any of you believe that I have left out anything significant, please >let me know no later than April 5, 1998. >Thanks, >Jim Stevenson >I am working on an article on aircraft designations. I have some questions >regarding the F-117 designation. Paul Kaminski suggested I contact you >regarding them. >According to DoD Directive 4120.15-L, all aircraft should have a "basic >mission" designation which can include "X" for experimental or "Y" for >prototype. The above seems to imply that "Y" for Prototype is a "basic mission" symbol or designation series. This is not true. Even though "X" for Research is a "basic mission" as well as a "modified mission" (in that case meaning Experimental), "Y" exists ONLY as "modified mission" symbol, and can only be used to prefix a "basic mission" symbol. >1. Did the "Have Blue" aircraft ever have a Mission Designation? If not, > why not? >2. Did the "Tacit Blue" aircraft ever have a Mission Designation? If not, > why not? I don't think you will get a sensible answer to this, especially considering the fact that many other USAF, USN and US Army aircraft have never received a designation in the Mission Design Series, including several aircraft currently in active service, like the CASA C.212, or MDC DC-9. As far as I can tell, each service has to request approval for a designation they would like to use, and ASC/ENES will then approve the suggested designation, or assign a different one. If the designation sounds sensible (like AV-8A or RC-7B) it might be approved, even though it is inconsistent with the system, when scrutinized. I believe that it is possible that the "E-7" designation was reserved for "Tacit Blue" or an operational derivative, while "F-19" might have been reserved for "Have Blue", but (due to secrecy) neither designation was actually applied. Also, both types were never in operational service, and even though the DoD paid for them, they were only used for testing by contractors. Also, an important phrase in DoD 4120.15-L suggests that any designation is considered valid, as long as it is listed therein: "This designation system does not permit unique or specified symbols not described in this List." Which apparently means that "unique" and "specific symbols" are permitted, as long as they are listed. :) On the other hand, even designations not listed therein, because of secrecy considerations, might exist, including relatively mundane aircraft such as the C-5C, AH-6, MH-6 and AH-60 models, which were not listed, at least while they were classified. >I understand that the pilots who flew the foreign aircraft in the desert >used F-112 through F-116 to be able to record the time in their log books. >I also understand that pilots of Senior Trend used, in that same tradition, >F-117 in their log books. (If I am incorrect, please let me know.) Even though this has nothing to do with designations, and is probably also still classified, an (honest) answer would be very interesting! >3. My question is why did the Air Force continue with the F-117 designation > once the aircraft became public instead of using the next "design number" > as required by the DoD Directive 4120.15-L, such as the F-19? >4. Did the Air Force obtain a waiver from adhering to DoD Directive 4120.15-L > by not using the next "design number?" Those question are not quite sensible. The USAF, specifically the Standards Division of the Directorate of Support Systems Engineering of the ASC (Aeronautical Systems Center) of the AFMC (United States Air Force Materiel Command), aka ACS/ENES, is solely responsible for assigning and approving any such designations, and by definition does not require a "waiver" from themselves to do what they want to do! There are/were so many non-standard designations used, including SR-71, AV-8, F/A-18, TR-1, RC-7B, UC-880, MV-22 and T-6A, to name but a few, that this question becomes rhetorical on several levels. I personally would really like to get an explanation for these and other discrepancies, but my experience with bureaucracy dampens my hopes that any will ever be forthcoming, especially because it would require (in most cases) the admission of incompetence by those same bureaucrats. >In 1964, the definition of a fighter in the DoD Directive was an "aircraft >designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft and/or missiles." (1) >An attack aircraft, on the other hand, was defined as an "aircraft designed >to search out, attack, and destroy enemy land or sea targets using >conventional or special weapons. Also used for interdiction and close air >support missions." (2) >By 1967, the definition of a fighter had expanded and included the function >of an attack aircraft. The attack definition, however, had not changed. Both >definitions have remained consistent to the present. (3) >5. If you will accept that I have correctly corrected cited the DoD > Directive on designations; and that I understand that the Air Force > considered putting AIM-9s on the F-117, why did the Air Force not > designate the F-117 as an "attack" aircraft since it has no air-to-air > capability? I would rephrase question 5 in its entirety, besides removing the word "corrected" in the first line. To begin with, I am not sure what AIM-9 missiles have to do with any aircraft designation. Several aircraft and helicopters, including A-10s and AH-1s can carry AIM-9s, giving them an air-to-air capability. On the other hand, your question is reversed, suggesting the F-117 should be designated A-x, because "the Air Force considered putting AIM-9s on" it. That is not logical at all. >(1) U.S. Department of Defense. Department of the Air Force. "Releasable > data on USAF Aerospace Vehicles." AFP 190-2-2 (Aerospace Information > Handbook. Vol. III. (June 1964): (Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing > Office]): 2. >(2) Ibid. >(3) U.S. Department of Defense. "Designating and Naming Defense Equipment: > Military Aerospace Vehicles." AFR 82-1/AR 70-50C1/NAVAIRINST 8800.3C1 > (20 July 1990): 10. >********************************************** >James P. Stevenson >E-mail Address: jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com >Telephone: (301) 254-9000 >********************************************** If you tape the phone interview (after asking permission, of course), I suspect many subscribers of this list would love to read a transcript, as well as any other information your research might reveal. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #20 ******************************** 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