From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #35 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Wednesday, July 1 1998 Volume 07 : Number 035 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto More on Black Colt/Black Horse Re: More on Black Colt/Black Horse Re: Off-topic questions A/FX cancellation Super Hornet Re: Super Hornet Re: Super Hornet New Tamiya F-117A plastic scale model Reply to Test - IGNORE Who led: McAir or GD "Borrowed" from the AFNS Fw: Re: Super Hornet *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 98 17:55:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions On 6/26/98 2:44PM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > > > Hmmm... I though PW makes better engines than GE for fighter > aircraft. Not necessarily. Consider that the two best jet fighter engines ever built, the J-79 and F404 were both GE. Pratt has built some very good engines in its time, but has also produced major dogs (TF30) > A USAF pilots told me that the GE engines is less reliable than > the PW (I don't know which model of engines he was talking about, but he > flies F-16 and F-15), and everytime when a GE engines is damage beyond > repair, they reemplace with a PW one. Also, GE engines need 15 min. to > warn up before take off, but a PW engine can fly the aircraft inmediately. > Maybe I am wrong. While at the time of construction, you can put either a F100 or F110 into an F-16, once you've built it, to change engine types is an Enormous modification, that involves at least Depot level, if not return to factory. The F110 is probably a better engine than the F100, but it isn't a classic in the sense of the two I mentioned above. Also, consider the export market and what they keep buying. Anyone who is telling you a jet fighter engine takes 15 minutes to "warm up" is seriously pulling your leg. Art > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 98 18:02:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Off-topic questions On 6/26/98 3:02PM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > I wonder what will happen if goverment didn't kill the A-12 and > the Navy now has a stealth strike aircraft and didn't waste millions of > dollars in bunch of other projects to match their needs. Eventually, with > more works, the A-12 price will get lower if they continue the funding. > > The A-12 had serious design problems partly caused by the fact that only one team was willing to accept the contract and that team was led by a company with no carrier experience, the fact that the team had to reinvent stealth technology itself, USAF really wasn't interested in a joint project it didn't lead and that the specifications the Navy wanted were really too extreme. It could have been fixed if DoD had been willing to throw more billions at it, but it would have always been expensive. Ironically, it would have cost less to fix the A-12 than it cost to develop the vastly inferior F/A-18E/F. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 98 18:15:55 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 & Line Item Veto On 6/26/98 8:05AM, in message <3593B850.7AA6@erols.com>, Jim Rotramel wrote: > Gee, now that the Supremes have declared the line item veto > unconstitutional, does that mean the the USAF will 'unkill' the program > that they killed illegaly? In theory this could happen, but in practice it's not likely. Remember, technically USAF didn't kill the program (although they weren't supporters), Clinton did. Money would have to be restored to bring the plane back and I'm not sure anyone at this point would be confident enough that the enemies of the program wouldn't try something else to be willing to get involved. > > vis a vis the A-6/F-14 replacement questions: > > The F/A-18F will replace the F-14. However, the AIM-54 capability will > die with the Tomcat. (Forget about F-22 and carrier ops/Phoenix--that > won't happen.) > The F model is a two seat E with less range. Even without Phoenix, the F-14D is far superior to it. > The F/A-18 and F-14 BOTH have PGM capabilities. The F/A-18C/D (the A/Bs > are pretty much out of the active inventory and have somewhat less > capability) uses the AAS-38 'NightHawk' pod. Many F-14s are now capable > of employing the AAQ-14 LANTIRN pod. Both pods have self lasing > capabilities. Both aircraft are cleared to employ the GBU-10, GBU-12, > and GBU-16 PAVE Way II LGBs as well as the GBU-24 PAVE Way III. The > F/A-18C/D can also employ the Walleye, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-84E SLAM, > and AGM-154A JSOW. The F-14 only was permitted to get PGM capability when it was certain that this would not threaten the F/A-18. Even then the introduction of LANTIRN was opposed by the higher ups and openly came about because of some squadrons doing the work themselves on the Q.T. in an under the table partnership with USAF (more LANTIRNS sold to the Navy means a lower price on the ones for USAF). Ther will not be enough LANTIRNs bought to equip all the Tomcats set up for them. They are expected to "rotate" the equipment > > The real limitation is not what they can do, but how far away from the > boat (esp. the F/A-18) they can do it. (I'm sure Jim Stevenson will have > something to add about this!) The F/A-18Es will eventually replace the > F/A-18Cs, and at some point JSF will enter the mix. I'm too far down the > food chain to know just what that mix will look like--but, from what I > gather reading the press, it doesn't sound like the people making the > decisions are quite sure themselves at this point... Actually, the E/F will not be capable of all-weather strike. That went away with the A-6 and won't come back (maybe) until JSF. It also is a substantial drop in fighter capability. Navy was to get 1,000 Hornet E/Fs (no idea where to park them all) and 300 JSFs to "complement the Hornet. However, until the most recent analysis of military plans was done, the Navy was talking about buying even fewer JSFs in order to protect the Hornet. The plan(?) now is to buy fewer Hornets and more JSFs if the latter meets specs. > > One more thing, the F-117 DOES have bolt-on external radar reflectors > for peacetime ops. IFF is standard on all USAF aircraft, and, unless > things have changed A LOT since 1991, NECESSARY for going to war. The > civilian Mode III gets turned off in combat, but the military Mode IV is > a go-no go item. It's always a good thing to let the Eagles and Tomcats > know you're not a bad guy. Remember the UH-60s that got hosed by the > Eagles over Iraq? They didn't have their Mode IV turned on... > > Jim Rotramel > Jim has raised a very significant point. We are spending a gazillion dollars to develop (maybe) these new weapons, and we still don't spend all that much on trying to get a reliable, effective IFF. this has been a problem for 20+ years. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:30:50 EDT From: CatshotKim@aol.com Subject: More on Black Colt/Black Horse Lots of info at:http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/index.html Also, Art wrote, in reference to the A-12: "that team was led by a company with nocarrier experience". Wasn't McDonnell Douglas the lead on that contract? As in the "F-4" McDonnell Douglas? That, coupled with the F/A-18 may have given them a little bit of insight into the secrets of carrier aircraft. As for a navalised F-22 or F-15, set your wayback machines for 1963-65. Remember the F-111B? Building a workable carrier-based aircraft requires an entirely different approach to airframe engineering because of increased loads and stresses. Kim Keller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 98 06:01:30 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: More on Black Colt/Black Horse On 6/27/98 12:30PM, in message <78bfb6a.35954869@aol.com>, CatshotKim@aol.com wrote: > l > > Also, Art wrote, in reference to the A-12: "that team was led by a company > with nocarrier experience". Wasn't McDonnell Douglas the lead on that > contract? As in the "F-4" McDonnell Douglas? That, coupled with the F/A-18 may > have given them a little bit of insight into the secrets of carrier aircraft. > > Macair was not the lead. The lead was General Dynamics, of F-111B fame. In fact Macair, based on their carrier experience, started raising teh flag early on teh serious problems the original A-12 design would have getting on and off the boat. GD's response to Macair was basically, "We built teh F-16, we can do anything. Go away and don't bother me again". Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 98 06:29:36 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Off-topic questions News Flash! The Aircraft List is working again! Those of us on both lists should probably take our non-skunky aircraft stuff back there. Now, violating what I just said, here's some thoughts on Sam's message to this list on the 26th: First, keep in mind that the following is an academic discussion. Since the Administration is not willing to budget even enough to keep the current forces combat ready, any big new programs are not very likely. USAF keeping F-15E line open: F-15 line is open only for existing USAF orders and export. No more money. Any further development of F-15 will have to be funded from abroad an probably won't be permitted, since any improvements to F-15 may be seen by USAF as threat to F-22. F-14D+: In order to protect F/A-18E/F, F-14 production line was broken up. I do not know if the tooling even exists any more. The tooling still exists and is in Navy hands to convert F-14A/Bs to Ds, but doing so isn't likely. Canceled maintenance and overuse of the aircraft is using up airframe hours. Besides, the resultant aircraft would be better than the Hornet E/F and that is not permitted. "F-15EN": While this would be a better plane than the Hornet E/F, it would cost a bazillion dollars to develop, wouldn't be available for many years and would be unnecessary because an F-14D with minor modifications could do this job as well or better from shipboard, and it's a better air-to-air platform. Besides, this might be too much of a change to the F-15 and would be opposed by USAF for the reasons above, plus they want to get rid of carrier aviation, anyway. "F-22N": There originally was supposed to be one of these, the NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter). Even before big budget cuts, Navy pulled out because they felt where the money should really be spent was on more strike capability, and only enough fighter capability to beat anything it would encounter, not to be an order of magnitude better. You could build further performance into the missile for a lot less than it would take to have a strike aircraft with "Ultrafighter" performance. This was to be the A/FX, which would also be USAF's F-111 replacement. It was canceled in favor of preserving the F/A-18E/F. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 06:33:13 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: A/FX cancellation Art, You wrote: >You could build further performance into the >missile for a lot less than it would take to have a strike aircraft with >"Ultrafighter" performance. This was to be the A/FX, which would also be >USAF's >F-111 replacement. It was canceled in favor of preserving the F/A-18E/F. The A/FX was not cancelled to perserve the F-18E/F. The A/FX was cancelled due to the lack of money. The F-18E/F was concocted to perserved the appearance of a "deep strke" capability which some senior naval aviators believe is the only justification for the carrier. Jim ********************************************** James P. Stevenson E-mail Address: jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Telephone: (301) 254-9000 ********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:04:50 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Super Hornet Given the recent comments on on the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, maybe I can add to the discourse. The Super Hornet is, on the surface, similar to the F-18D, but looks are deceiving. The Super is actually 25% larger. A 34" longer fuselage and wings that are 100 square feet larger add to the load this airframe can carry. The Super can carry 3600 pounds more fuel internally, and two more hardpoints on the wings bring weapon stations to 11. The addition of the new F414-GE-400's with around 24,000 pounds thrust each, and these other significant differences result in an increase in the Super's mission radius to around 700 miles To visually compare the evolution of the Hornet, these photos are of the YF-17 Cobra, the F-18C and the F/A-18E/F. http://www.wmof.com/yf17.htm Courtesy Western Museum of Flight http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18/images/fa1804.htm Boeing Photo http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/images/f18epr.htm Boeing Photo Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:38:44 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Super Hornet - --============_-1312973365==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Wayne Busse wrote: >The Super Hornet is, on the surface, similar to the F-18D, but looks are >deceiving. The Super is actually 25% larger. A true statment. this will make a one of the largest targets in the sky and help draw adversary aircraft to it like moths to a light >A 34" longer fuselage and wings that are 100 square feet larger add to >the load this airframe can carry. The Super can carry 3600 pounds more >fuel internally, and two more hardpoints on the wings bring weapon stations >to 11. >The addition of the new F414-GE-400's with around 24,000 pounds thrust each, >and these other significant differences result in an increase in the >Super's mission radius to around 700 miles Square footage, pounds of fuel, thrust etc.l, are all inputs. The issue is what are the outputs. This table addresses the issue F-18E PERFORMANCE COMPARED WITH F-18A/C Characteristic or mission Original F-18A F18C * F-18E configuration specification (Lot 1 FSD) (Lot 14) Fighter escort 420 319 302 356 Mission radius, NM. Interdiction Mission radius, NM 618 347 398 501 Acceleration (0.8 to 1.6 M), sec 98 144 180 153 * The Navy was not procuring Lot 14 F-18Cs when this comparison was made but Lot 15 F-18Cs with a more powerful engine. So where is the 700 mile mission radius? ********************************************** James P. Stevenson E-mail Address: jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Telephone: (301) 254-9000 ********************************************** - --============_-1312973365==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Wayne Busse wrote: >The Super Hornet is, on the surface, similar to the F-18D, but looks are >deceiving. The Super is actually 25% larger. right,left A true statment. this will make a one of the largest targets in the sky and help draw adversary aircraft to it like moths to a light >A 34" longer fuselage and wings that are 100 square feet larger add to >the load this airframe can carry. The Super can carry 3600 pounds more >fuel internally, and two more hardpoints on the wings bring weapon stations >to 11. >The addition of the new F414-GE-400's with around 24,000 pounds thrust each, >and these other significant differences result in an increase in the >Super's mission radius to around 700 miles Square footage, pounds of fuel, thrust etc.l, are all inputs. The issue is what are the outputs. This table addresses the issue TimesF-18E PERFORMANCE COMPARED WITH F-18A/C Characteristic or mission Original F-18A F18C * F-18E configuration specification (Lot 1 FSD) (Lot 14) Fighter escort 420 319 302 356 Mission radius, NM. Interdiction Mission radius, NM 618 347 398 501 Acceleration (0.8 to 1.6 M), sec 98 144 180 153 * The Navy was not procuring Lot 14 F-18Cs when this comparison was made but Lot 15 F-18Cs with a more powerful engine. So where is the 700 mile mission radius? ********************************************** James P. Stevenson E-mail Address: jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Telephone: (301) 254-9000 ********************************************** - --============_-1312973365==_ma============-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:32:43 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: Super Hornet >>Wayne Busse wrote: >>The Super Hornet is, on the surface, similar to the F-18D, but looks are >>deceiving. The Super is actually 25% larger. >James P. Stevenson replied: >A true statment. this will make a one of the largest targets in the sky >and help >draw adversary aircraft to it like moths to a light. O.K. let's pretend that NO stealth technology is going into the airframe design and compare sizes: Length: F-14D 62'7" F-18F 60.7" Wingspan: F-14D 64' unswept, 38' swept F-18F 44.7' Max. Takeoff Wt: F-14D 74,300 Lbs. F-18F 66,000 Lbs. >So where is the 700 mile mission radius? According to Northrop Grumman, also manufacturer of the Tomcat, the range of the Super Hornet, with external tanks in fighter dress, is 1930.6 nm. Seems like if you traveled 1400 miles round-trip, that would still allow some loiter time. Last information I saw, the Tomcat had a range, with external tanks, of about 1560 nm. As for the AGM-54, what were the maximum number of targets engaged and actually downed beyond 50 miles? The F/A-18E/F is a done deal, and a bunch of guys argueing on the internet ain't gonna' change it. Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:28:20 -0700 From: patrick Subject: New Tamiya F-117A plastic scale model I happened to wander over to my favorite hobby shop and picked up the new Tamiya 1/48 scale F-117A model today. And after looking at I have to admit it goes right to the top, as expected. Except for several minor things it is excellent. Even the packaging. The top fuselage half which normally has the 4 air data probes attached to it comes with a runner around the nose acting as a bumper for the air probes. Great idea but it will require degating in 4 spots to remove the runner and I hope they can be trimmed neatly. The bottom half of the fuselage is beautiful. This to me is my favorite view anyway. Almost every single removeable panel, grill or cover is there. The only ones overlooked are the small opening grills for the hydraulic fluid catch tank overflow outboard of the main gear doors but who knows they even exist. The cockpit is just super. Very good sidepanels, excellent seat, even detailing with extra parts for the rear firewall behind the seat. And the front panel is damn near perfect. Coupled with the decals for the front panel it is going to have a beautiful open cockpit when finished. The clear plastic pieces are super and they even include a masking sheet with die cut pieces that cover each separate panel on the canopy when sprayed. How nice. The decals are standard Whitley/Tolin stuff from the 37th FW at Tonopah (plus Toxic Avenger "nose gear well" art!) but they are also excellent. I think they even include some data plates for the gear struts. The nomenclature on these is so small that.....just kidding. But the warning sign on the red box surrounding the tail hook cover panel is very legible. The gear door interiors are highly detailed and quite accurate. As is the bomb bay, including trapeze and a very detailed interior. If you ever get under an F-117 it is fascinating. This shouldn't be a hard model to assemble as it is so well made. The one question I have is why they scribed off the back of the airplane with a series of rectangular lines inplying large access panels. It almost looks like the cargo doors to the Space Shuttle. There just are no panel lines like these on an actual F-117. So is it worth twice the price of any other 117 model. Well if you want the very best isn't it always? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ps: Peter you gotta get one! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 06:48:04 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Reply to Test - IGNORE Testing Reply To Fix ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 04:12:36 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Who led: McAir or GD Art, You wrote: > Aviation Week, folks at Grumman and Northrop (who both independently >told me >before and after the A-12 went belly up that their team walked out of the >competition), some folks at MacAir I ran across and even posting to the Skunk >Works list. Ben Rich also told me in 1990 that Grumman and Northrop were >wise to >bail, and in fact Lockheed didn't want to get involved with the A-12 >program as >any kind of prime. > > I'm not saying Macair was blameless, just that they realized early on >that >there would be weight problems and they would require more effort than GD >thought, >but GD wasn't that concerned since this wouldn't be an insurmountable >issue on the >kind of land based planes they were used to. I believe you wrote this in response to my comments to your earlier note in which I took issue to whether GD or McAir was the lead on the A-12. The original agreement made them co-equal on the project and McAir's experience certainly qualifies as carrier experience. As to your comment above about Northrop/Grumman bailing on the competition, that statement is correct. That became one of the points in the subsequent trial. GD/McAir argued that the competition was a charade in that there was no competition. ********************************************** James P. Stevenson E-mail Address: jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Telephone: (301) 254-9000 ********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 03:01:35 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: "Borrowed" from the AFNS 980963. Second DarkStar UAV completes test flight WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The second Tier III Minus DarkStar high-altitude endurance unmanned air vehicle flew June 29 for the first time. The vehicle took off from the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. During the 44-minute flight, the vehicle achieved an altitude of about 5,000 feet and completed pre-programmed basic flight maneuvers. The system successfully executed a fully autonomous flight from takeoff to landing using the differential Global Positioning System. "Today's flight culminates many months of work by the dedicated Lockheed Martin, Boeing and government team," said Harry Berman, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program manager for Tier III Minus. "The NASA Dryden and Edwards team in particular did an outstanding job supporting today's flight." The flight test program, being conducted at National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards, will evaluate basic system performance, including the high-resolution synthetic aperture radar and electro-optical payloads. At the completion of these tests, the Air Force's Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, will take over management of the system and prepare for participation in the U.S. Atlantic Command-sponsored military utility assessment in 1999. The DarkStar system is designed for aerial reconnaissance in highly defended areas by using low-observable characteristics. It will operate within the current military force structure and with existing command, control, communications, computer and intelligence equipment. It can operate at a range of 500 nautical miles from the launch site and loiter over the target area for eight hours at an altitude of more than 45,000 feet, carrying either an electro-optical or synthetic aperture radar payload. The first DarkStar air vehicle flew for the first time March 29, 1996. During the second flight April 22, 1996, the vehicle crashed. Based on the conclusions of the mishap investigation, the DarkStar team modified the second air vehicle with new landing gear, redesigned the flight control software and conducted intensive simulations prior to beginning taxi tests in March 1998. Many other subsystems were also upgraded as part of the system-wide assessment conducted by the government-industry team. "The government-industry team has worked hard over the last two years to determine the cause of the mishap and make system-wide improvements in the robustness of the aircraft and ground system," Berman said. "DarkStar offers a unique penetrating reconnaissance capability for the warfighter. The resumption of flight tests puts the program back on track." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 06:35:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Fw: Re: Super Hornet - --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ On 6/29/98 4:32PM, in message , Wayne Busse wrote: > . > > O.K. let's pretend that NO stealth technology is going into the airframe design > and compare sizes: > > Length: F-14D 62'7" > F-18F 60.7" > Wingspan: F-14D 64' unswept, 38' swept > F-18F 44.7' > > Max. Takeoff Wt: F-14D 74,300 Lbs. > F-18F 66,000 Lbs. > Yes, that means that they are both large airplanes, the E/F is as large as an F-15E (and probably costs more). However, you don't get nearly the plane you get with an F-15E > >So where is the 700 mile mission radius? > > According to Northrop Grumman, also manufacturer of the Tomcat, the range > of the Super Hornet, with external tanks in fighter dress, is 1930.6 nm. > > Seems like if you traveled 1400 miles round-trip, that would still allow some > loiter time. > > Last information I saw, the Tomcat had a range, with external tanks, of > about 1560 nm. > Keep in mind that for a whole bunch of reasons, you can't just divide the ferry range in half and call that the strike radius. It's really NORTHROP grumman now. There was far more certain profit on the Hornet E/F than there was on a potential F-14D buy, especially considering DoD's pushing the former. So, NG pushed the former as well. If you went to the company's web sites after the merger, you would hardly find any indication the Tomcat existed. Regarding the "700 mile radius" of the Hornet E/F, you've got to remember that the E/F proponents will try any kind of tricky logic to cover up that we're not getting that much more for what we're paying. For example, one stunt they've pulled in print is to compare how far away an F-14 or A-6 could hit carrying a sub-optimal load of gravity bombs vs. a Hornet E/F using long-range standoff missiles. Here's how they get the "700 mile radius". First you load the E/F up with a light weapons load (They tend to quote E/Fs with large payloads and large external fuel loads for increased range. What they don't emphasize is that this is an either/or proposition). Second for every E/F you want to hit at 700 miles, you launch Another E/F. The sole function of this second Hornet is to haul fuel for the first Hornet out as far as it can and still stagger back to the CV. The second Hornet refuels the first and go back. Now, the remaining 50% of the Hornets you launched can indeed reach out 700 miles, drop weapons (and tanks) and return, as long as a/b isn't used a lot for dealing with any opposition found along the way. The old A-6 could fly this mission with a larger payload and wouldn't need to refuel. Here are some real figures: A Hornet E/F carrying four Mk 83s, two 330 gallon tanks and two AIM-9s is expected to have a radius of 400nm. If you increased external fuel by 50% by addling a third tank, radius would go up to 475nm. An F-14D with the same load would go out to 495nm, and only require two external 280 gallon tanks (which impose no maneuvering limitations), which it could retain. If you doubled the number of Mk 83s, there would be little or no affect on the Tomcat's radius, but the E/F's would go down dramatically. This is because the E/F is "draggier", and because the E/F has to trade fuel stations for weapons, while the Tomcat does not. While the E/F does carry more fuel, one of the big reasons for that extra fuel is to compensate for the higher fuel burn of the 22,000 lbs thrust F414-GE-400 engines. These engines are necessary because of the E/F's greater weight (The F-14D has a better thrust to weigh ratio, by the way). The hoped for range increase is predicated on lower drag and other aerodynamics in the non-cruise portion of a mission. > As for the AGM-54, what were the maximum number of targets engaged and > actually > downed beyond 50 miles? > The F-14D is a better fighter even without the AIM-54. In the Gulf War, USAF forbade the Navy from using use of the AIM-54. That was the only opportunity to use it in combat. Of course, we've never fired an ICBM or SLBM in anger either, and haven't fired a torpedo in anger since WWII. Maybe we should never have had a nuclear deterrent or any submarines. Keep in mind also, that USAF is trying to increase AMRAAM's range beyond 50 miles. > The F/A-18E/F is a done deal, and a bunch of guys argueing on the internet > ain't gonna' > change it. > Unfortunately, this may well be true, but no one has to like it. However, by keeping this story out it helps to protect the skunky aircraft we really need. If it weren't for a lot of folks both within and without the Navy talking about this, the Navy JSF would probably already have been canceled in favor of more Hornet E/Fs. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #35 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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