From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #78 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, November 25 1998 Volume 07 : Number 078 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F117 used for recon? A-7 loss rate in Desert Storm The secret's out... UAV problems U-2 records RE: UAV problems - is in the "U" unmanned !!! F-22 Design Evolution ER-2 record and NASA press release Re: ER-2 record and NASA press release 'X-Hunters' trek through desert F-117N Re: F-117N Re: F-117N Re: Re: ER-2 record and NASA press release Re: F-117N Stealth A-6 Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDING IG REPORT *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 98 20:26:05 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F117 used for recon? On 11/19/98 6:34AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19981119063449.00727a88@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > David--- > > What is it we agreed to disagree on???? > ... An F-117 > might be a sitting, I mean flying duck, versus modern Soviet bloc built > fighters using their IR weapon sighting systems. I have never heard of any > testing done of airborne radar on these planes. The Iraqiis still had operational some of those old Soviet ground based long wave early warning radars during the war. One unconfirmed tale from the war was that those radars could in fact see the F-117s, but they could not provide range data or bearing data precise enough for an intercept. Iraqii Mirage fighters were supposedly launched and vectored on these headings, and would attempt to locate the Nighthawks with mounted search lights (which some Nighthawk pilots were reported to have observed), since the airborne radars saw almost nothing. Of course, this makes looking for that needle in that haystack look easy, and they never got close. > > > A little known fact is the F-117 was not the only plane to complete its > missions without a scratch. The F-111's also have the honor of never being > hit while flying in the Gulf War. > > patrick cullumber The Gulf War was also the swan song of the A-7, the best light attack aircraft ever built. Given its unbelievably low loss rate during Vietnam, does anyone on this list know if any of them suffered any damage during the Gulf War? Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:55:13 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: A-7 loss rate in Desert Storm Art, My source, the GAO report on Desert Storm, says that there were none. Jim >On 11/19/98 6:34AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19981119063449.00727a88@e-z.net>, >patrick > wrote: > >> David--- >> >> What is it we agreed to disagree on???? >> ... An F-117 >> might be a sitting, I mean flying duck, versus modern Soviet bloc built >> fighters using their IR weapon sighting systems. I have never heard of any >> testing done of airborne radar on these planes. > > The Iraqiis still had operational some of those old Soviet ground >based long >wave early warning radars during the war. One unconfirmed tale from the >war was >that those radars could in fact see the F-117s, but they could not provide >range >data or bearing data precise enough for an intercept. Iraqii Mirage >fighters were >supposedly launched and vectored on these headings, and would attempt to >locate >the Nighthawks with mounted search lights (which some Nighthawk pilots were >reported to have observed), since the airborne radars saw almost nothing. Of >course, this makes looking for that needle in that haystack look easy, and >they >never got close. > >> >> >> A little known fact is the F-117 was not the only plane to complete its >> missions without a scratch. The F-111's also have the honor of never being >> hit while flying in the Gulf War. >> >> patrick cullumber > > The Gulf War was also the swan song of the A-7, the best light attack >aircraft ever built. Given its unbelievably low loss rate during Vietnam, >does >anyone on this list know if any of them suffered any damage during the >Gulf War? > > > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:36:14 -0800 From: G&G Subject: The secret's out... Peter Merlin sure knows how to keep a secret... I opened the morning paper today and there, on the front page, was: "Team Scours Desert For Crashed Planes - 'X-Hunters' make name for themselves by reclaiming pieces of flight test history" Rather than attempt to transcribe further (it's Monday morning and I'm not yet firing on all cylinders), follow this link: http://www.dallasnews.com/national-nf/nat101.htm Congratulations Peter and Tony Moore. You got equal billing on the front page with the 35th anniversary of the Kennedy assasination here in Dallas and the AOL/Netscape deal :( (oh, and a story about smoked turkeys... :) ) Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:50:17 EST From: UKdragon@aol.com Subject: UAV problems Ron wrote >Can anyone address the critical problems in the UAV programs like Dark Star and Global Hawk? Seems intuitively like those would lie mainly in the transition from RPV's to self-piloted vehicles. and Larry noted >It is somewhat puzzling as the D-21 did all this 30 years ago, with old technology. ...So what is the real problem? I'd like to know= ! A combination of problems, I reckon, such as: - - sensor payload (compare Global Dork's 1,900 lbs with U-2 for instance) - - sensor aperture (the bigger the better. Darkstar is tiny) - - huge mission planning task for the autonomous UAV, despite automation - - ditto for abort/unanticipated scenarios, to replace the comfort factor o= f man-in-the-loop - - ATC co-ordination (and you may convince the FAA, but try convincing Kore= an or Italian ATC!) - - cost to get all above right. Forget $10 million per copy for the above- mentioned vehicles. It's $13 million now and rising fast Sorry, that should be person-in-the-loop. Regards, Chris Pocock=09=93Information is useless without Intelligence=94 email: UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:50:16 EST From: UKdragon@aol.com Subject: U-2 records Art, still boosting the Blackbird but accepting the sad inevitability of i= ts demise, wrote: >Not to denigrate the U-2 in any way, but the SR [sigh] would routinely ca= rry a payload twice as large to well over 75,000 feet. Just to clarify, the new U-2S records do not reflect its max performance.= I suspect the Air Farce wouldn't let them release the data. But it's no big secret. Max payload is 4,400 lbs (not the 3,300 lbs carried in the recent record flight). Max altitude for practical mission purposes is about 75K. Incidentally, back in 1989, while setting new time-to-climb records in t= he C-1F Group III category, a lightly-loaded NASA U-2C model flew to 73,700 f= eet in 16 minutes. Regards, Chris Pocock=09=93Information is useless without Intelligence=94 email: UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:46:15 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: UAV problems - is in the "U" unmanned !!! - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE16F8.69B93B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The unanticipated during the flight profile can only be handled = intelligently by a human pilot. A human is intuitive - a computer is not, and if a computer can be made = intuitive then it becomes a complex costly piece of equipment that makes = it very unaffordable to make any production UAV's. The Blackbird, at its high speed high altitude of operation, made its = flight plan very complex, BUT it was handled and controlled very well by = human pilots at the helm. It also had a large aperture and covered = 100,000 sq. mi. an hour of Earth. NO UAV or up-and-coming recon/intel = can boast those capabilities !!! ... I'm Venting again ... - --------------- A combination of problems, I reckon, such as: - - ditto for abort/unanticipated scenarios, to replace the comfort factor = of man-in-the-loop... - --------------- - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE16F8.69B93B00 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhMUAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE0AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQBTTVRQAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEu Y29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAYAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4 MS5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAGgAAACdza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNv bScAAAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlNLVU5LLVdPUktTQE5FVFdSWDEuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAA CwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADATsBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90 ZQAxCAEEgAEALgAAAFJFOiBVQVYgcHJvYmxlbXMgLSBpcyBpbiB0aGUgIlUiIHVubWFubmVkICEh IQC0DQEFgAMADgAAAM4HCwAXAA8ALgAPAAEARAEBIIADAA4AAADOBwsAFwAPAC4ADwABAEQBAQmA AQAhAAAAQzFCNzEzRDU3RDgxRDIxMTk2QTI0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAAygYBA5AGAIQEAAASAAAACwAj AAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkA4IVuUCIXvgEeAHAAAQAAAC4AAABSRTog VUFWIHByb2JsZW1zIC0gaXMgaW4gdGhlICJVIiB1bm1hbm5lZCAhISEAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAAB vhciUF3VE7fEgX0R0paiREVTVAAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFgAAAG1h cnRpbmhAaXgubmV0Y29tLmNvbQAAAAMABhC5U/5OAwAHEIsCAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABUSEVVTkFO VElDSVBBVEVERFVSSU5HVEhFRkxJR0hUUFJPRklMRUNBTk9OTFlCRUhBTkRMRURJTlRFTExJR0VO VExZQllBSFVNQU5QSUxPVEFIVU1BTklTSU5UVUlUSVZFLUFDAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA7QIAAOkCAABP BAAATFpGdS6oXSr/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHi c3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRAQvxIFRoZSB1 blEAcHRpYwUgYRPQZMwgZAhxGRAgdBrBGOCYaWdoBUATUG9mAxANGtBjA5ECIGx5IGLzGtARgG5k HUAbsAuAE9C2bByRCfB0HdId4GEeIIp1A4JwAxBvdC4KhU5BH9UEAB6idWkbMHaNGtAtH7EFoG1w dRPQ6wXAIZFuIHAsH7AeUB6g/mYieh1yHgEAwA2wIbkcQX8hcQVAHgAioQeRIoQdQHh/IpETwB3R IEAFkBrQHRAg9GVxIfBwB4ACMBwxG4DdJTFrB5EmgSIwch3gGvGbDdAFsGQBoB1BdG8ps28joSgh A2Ab0GMbMAIgIGBVQVYncyCWGrJC4QtgY2tiaQsgI5EFQIsiAAQgaByhIHNwCeB/G7AvEwdAGzAh 4CVhKKFv/S9wchuALKEjkCVELuEcho8Y8SpEJ1UjkEJVVCZy/HdhLvEeRSOyBaACMANg9x7wG6Eq U3ce4R+CH+knEYcpUh4RHuBtLiBJBUBdB0BzK4ARgDTBIAtgcv8fIB+wMOEh4BYQNNUqURuhmRkw MCw64BqQc3E4IGxtaTggA5FoCGEokkXnCsAcQDggTk8s0h2gBcDodXAtHkEtIqEcAhYQ7TUhLx6z JMRvNDApUifgvx1SCrAuQByQGzAHkSFBABsKhQqFLkIQODAnbSDmVh8xHAJhZwtxQgJBPP4tRIwg pyKhLkAbACyTKKFTHPErMW1zI5BJPmJrzTFCcyxwL/FzOkQWG8C/IgArcSrhH7AG4AAgLxr8/wTw CfAKwCygR2ErcRYQC1HfKHEcQiKhKuEFQGYA0CtwVzwyCoUDgS0LgC0cQS2/FaAw0EN4RI9BWhUx AFHgAAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzDgR7GYIBe+AUAACDDghW5QIhe+AR4APQABAAAABQAA AFJFOiAAAAAAfUQ= - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE16F8.69B93B00-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:31:36 -0800 From: G&G Subject: F-22 Design Evolution The on-line version of Lockheed's (LMTAS) Code One magazine has published an insightful history of the design evolution of the F-22, including some interesting images of design concepts that didn't make the final cut. See: Part 1: http://www.lmtas.com/codeone/C10498.html Part 2: http://www.lmtas.com/codeone/C11098-2.html Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:46:25 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: ER-2 record and NASA press release I wish NASA had more people in the PA/PR business who are as knowledgeable as Peter Merlin, then blunders like the ones in NASA Press Release 98-210 would probably not be as frequent and hair-raising: >NASA AIRCRAFT SETS NEW WORLD ALTITUDE RECORD >A NASA ER-2 aircraft set a new world altitude record for medium weight >aircraft on Nov. 19, 1998, reaching 68,700 feet, almost twice the cruising >altitude of most airliners. >The new world record was made by an ER-2, tail number 806, based at NASA's >Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, and occurred during an airborne >science mission to measure different components in the atmosphere, such as >water, ozone and other atmospheric particles. The new record surpassed the >old record of 62,500 feet, which was flown by a Canadian P-42 aircraft in >1988. The record was for the aircraft medium weight class of 26,455 to >35,274 pounds at takeoff. >This record flight was not the first time the ER-2 has achieved such a high >altitude. The aircraft, a close relative of the U.S. Air Force U-2, >routinely operates between 65,000 and 70,000 feet. But this is the first >time the ER-2's performance has been documented and made public. >"This flight had two purposes," said Dryden ER-2 pilot Jim Barrilleaux, who >flew this historic mission. "The science goal is the principle reason we >flew the aircraft. But achieving the world altitude record verifies all of >the outstanding efforts by the people who have worked on the NASA ER-2s and >U-2s throughout the years -- designers, builders, operators, maintainers and >scientists. This flight provides public acknowledgment of their good work. I >personally feel that I am doing this on their behalf and in their honor." >An official from the National Aeronautics Association (NAA) observed the >record-setting event and will process the formal certification with the >Federal Aeronautique Internationale (FAI). The FAI is the international >organization responsible for the coordination of competition and >certification of all world aviation records. The NAA, as the U.S. >representative of the FAI, is responsible for coordination and certification >of all aviation records in the United States. >NASA owns and operates two ER-2 aircraft for its Airborne Science Program. >Built by the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, the aircraft collect information >about our surroundings, including Earth resources, celestial observations, >atmospheric chemistry and dynamics and oceanic processes. The aircraft also >are used for electronic sensor research and development, satellite >calibration and satellite data validation. >A NASA ER-2 recently concluded a six-week hurricane study originating from >Patrick Air Force Base, FL, designed to improve scientists' ability to >forecast, track and measure the intensity of hurricanes. As part of the >mission, the ER-2 flew above Hurricane Bonnie, collecting valuable >information that could ultimately save lives and money. >Program History >In 1981, NASA acquired its first ER-2 aircraft. The agency obtained a second >ER-2 in 1989. These airplanes replaced two Lockheed U-2 aircraft, which NASA >had used to collect science data since 1971. The U-2s, and later the ER-2s, >were based at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, until 1997, at >which time the ER-2 aircraft and their operations moved to Dryden. >Since the program's inaugural flight on Aug. 31, 1971, NASA U-2s and ER-2s >have flown over 4,000 data missions and test flights in support of >scientific research conducted by scientists from NASA, other government >agencies, universities and the private sector. >ER-2 Capabilities >For most missions, the ER-2 operates at altitudes between 65,000 and 70,000 >feet. Depending on aircraft weight, the ER-2 reaches a cruise altitude of >65,000 feet within twenty minutes. Typical cruise speed is 470 miles per >hour. The range for a normal six-hour mission is approximately 2,500 miles, >which yields five hours of data collection at high altitude. The aircraft is >capable of longer missions of more than eight hours and ranges of more than >3,400 miles. The ER-2 can carry a maximum payload of 2,600 pounds, >distributed in the equipment bay, nose area and wing pods. Besides calling the FAI "Federal Aeronautique Internationale" instead of "Federation Aeronautique Internationale" (and I don't even mind the missing accents), attributing the P-42 world records to Canada, is at least embarrassing. The P-42 (a prototype version of the Sukhoi Su-27, also known as T10-15, T10S-3 or T10S-13) set 27 climb-to-height, speed, and altitude records in several classes between 1987 and 1988 for the then still existing Soviet Union. The aforementioned altitude record was also set on 06/10/1987 (not in "1988") and was neither in the (non-existing) "medium weight" class. The correct definition for the (incorrectly) mentioned class would be: Class C-1h, Group 3 ("C" standing for Aeroplane, "-1" for the category Landplane, and "h" for the take-off weight class (from 12,000 to 16,000 kg, which is the same as "26,455 to 35,274 pounds"), and "Group 3" depicts Jet-powered aircraft). The P-42's altitude (sustained in horizontal flight) record was set instead (only) in the "N" Class ("N" standing for STOL, or Short Take-Off and Landing aircraft, of any category and any weight), Group 3 (Jet-engines) and was for 19,335 m (or 63,435 ft.), and not "62,500 feet". NASA can claim the Group 3 record in the N Class (from the P-42) and/or in the C-1h Class (not claimed by anyone yet), but their press release was inaccurate in either case. If NASA's ER-2 wants to claim the absolute altitude record (not altitude sustained in horizontal flight record) in the Class C-1h, Group 3, then the height to beat would be 27,460 m (90,093 ft.), established 04/26/1995 by a Russian MiG-29. If they instead claim the Class C-1i (16,000 kg to 20,000 kg), Group 3, altitude record (absolute or sustained horizontal flight) they would only need to beat the 21,839 m (71,651 ft.), reached by a Myasishchev M-17 on 03/28/1990. For additional information see also the FAI web site at: www.fai.org. - -- Andreas [accepting job offers for aerospace historian positions now] - --- --- 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: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:08:20 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: ER-2 record and NASA press release As much as I hate to follow up on my own posts, I must be as picky with myself as with others. I wrote: >The correct definition for the (incorrectly) mentioned class would be: >Class C-1h, Group 3 ("C" standing for Aeroplane, "-1" for the category >Landplane, and "h" for the take-off weight class (from 12,000 to 16,000 kg, >which is the same as "26,455 to 35,274 pounds"), and "Group 3" depicts >Jet-powered aircraft). The correct definition for "-1" Landplane is "Sub-Class" and not "Category", and the different take-off weights are also considered "Sub-Classes". There are no "Categories" for the C, H, M, and N Classes, at all, but A, B, and other Classes have Categories for "General" and "Feminine" (female pilots/astronauts), or "Without Refuelling In Flight" and "With Refuelling In Flight", etc. The FAI web page has about all the definitions online. - -- 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: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:38:46 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: 'X-Hunters' trek through desert < http://www.dallasnews.com/national-nf/nat101.htm > The self-described aviation nuts formed the Aerospace Archaeology Field Research Team locating crash sites that nobody else could find. In doing so, airplanes that had existed only in photographs in history books and archives have been made real again. In a very real sense, the X-Hunters are helping to preserve history. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:22:10 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: F-117N Despite what you may have read, the Navy actually developed a carrier-based Stealth fighter, based on the F-117. I saw it last night on "JAG". ;>) Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:45:25 -0500 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: F-117N I think they have a version of the Concorde which is carrier based too. ;) Tom C Robison wrote: > Despite what you may have read, the Navy actually developed a carrier-based > Stealth fighter, based on the F-117. I saw it last night on "JAG". ;>) > > Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:04:03 -0600 From: brian.hodge@blockbuster.com Subject: Re: F-117N actually Lockheed did develop a naval version of the F-117, but it never made it past the conceptual drawing. FYI- I know that JAG officers always get to go on undercover assignments to Iraq. I saw the commerical for the show and had one of the best laughs of my life. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:44:38 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: ER-2 record and NASA press release For all... The release on this consistently refers to a "Canadian P-42" aircraft as being the previous record holder. Anyone have any insights on this mysterious high- performer? NASA's public relations folks must know something I don't. I propose the previous record holder to be the Sukhoi P-42; anyone out there with more accurate info? All the best, Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:12:40 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117N No, it actually made it to the model and artist rendering stage. Jim >actually Lockheed did develop a naval version of the F-117, but it never >made it past the conceptual drawing. > >FYI- I know that JAG officers always get to go on undercover assignments to >Iraq. I saw the commerical for the show and had one of the best laughs of >my life. > >Brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:54:49 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Stealth A-6 During the 1982-1984 period, Grumman wanted to get into the stealth game. On July 6, 1984 it showed Secretary Lehman an A-6, one half of which was, to use Lehman's words, "tarted up" in stealth mode. If anyone has any information on this I would appreciate it. Jim Stevenson Jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:05:33 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDING IG REPORT >Mime-Version: 1.0 >X-Sender: tchristi@oed-u1.oed.ida.org >Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:40:40 -0500 >To: Recipient List Suppressed:;;;@ida.org@ida.org; >From: Thomas Christie >Subject: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDING IG REPORT > >Inside the Pentagon > >Senator cites documents suggesting diminished aircraft performance > >FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDING IG REPORT > _______________________________________________ > Date: November 26, 1998 - > >Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) this week requested the defense secretary >initiate an investigation by the Pentagon inspector general on performance >problems experienced by the Navy's F/A-18E/F attack fighter in flight tests >and whether program officials had fully disclosed test information to the >Office of the Secretary of Defense. > >Pending the IG's report, Feingold asks Defense Secretary William Cohen in >the Nov. 23 missive to suspend the release of funds for the third lot >low-rate initial production aircraft, a decision that is anticipated within >the next few days or weeks. > >In the letter, reprinted with this article, Feingold cites a number of >Defense Department documents that suggest the Super Hornet not only cannot >meet several of its initial specifications -- some of which were eased >after disappointing flight tests -- but also cannot exceed the performance >of Lot 12 C/D versions of the F/A-18. > >Since the Lot 12 version of the C/D was designated as the model for >comparison for the F/A-18E/F, improvements, most notably an enhanced >performance engine, have been incorporated into the C/D model. Feingold >asks the IG to explain, if the Lot 19 C/D with the upgraded engine that the >Navy currently flies is superior to the E/F's performance, "why the E/F is >preferred over the Lot 19 . . ." Serious problems for the F/A-18E/F began >in March 1996, when Navy test pilots discovered a "wing drop" problem on >the premier fighter aircraft. The phenomenon causes the plane to abruptly >bank left or right, interfering with its ability to dogfight. > >Navy officials have trumpeted what they believe are "fixes" for the wing >drop problem, while acknowledging the changes they must make to the Super >Hornet's wings likely carry some penalties in weight (and hence >performance). One problem that has persisted in flight tests of the wing >drop fixes has been a shaking or "buffet" to the aircraft, defense >officials say. > >The plane reportedly has shown additional difficulty in rolling, according >to these sources. > >In Feingold's view, "the most troubling aspect of the wing drop dilemma, >however, is the apparent failure of Super Hornet program officials to >provide superiors at the Department of Defense with timely information on >the problem. . . . Given the information I have, the Navy's Super Hornet >test team has been less than forthright with DOD on a program that could >easily end up costing more than $100 billion." > >Among the documents Feingold attached to his letter to Cohen is a report >issued in July 1997 by a Navy test official who was then apparently >preparing a campaign to lower F-18 pilots' expectations for the new E/F >aircraft they will fly. A Navy review board "discussed the need to >implement the mitigation plan of aggressive indoctrination of [the] >operational community to help them match expectation to reality of the >F/A-18E/F," the document states (Inside the Pentagon, Jan. 15, p1). > >Another attachment to Feingold's letter is a time line depicting Navy >F/A-18E/F tests and DOD decisions on the program, entitled, "What Did the >Navy Know and When Did It Know It?" > >In his letter to Cohen, Feingold asks that the Pentagon IG "investigate >whether Super Hornet program officials provided the Office of the Secretary >of Defense and others with timely information on the aircraft's test flight >status, particularly with regard to the wing drop problem." > >But the senator, a member of the Senate Budget Committee, also goes on to >ask a series of detailed questions about the E/F's ability to meet its >performance specifications. Specifically, Feingold asks that the IG submit >a report to Cohen and to Congress certifying: > > * "that F/A-18E/F meets all performance specifications; > > * "whether the Super Hornet would have met its maneuvering performance >goals stated on page 6, paragraph 4a. of the [operational requirements >document] if they had not been relaxed by [then-director of air warfare >programs Rear] Adm. Dennis McGinn in the special clarification letter >issued in October 1997 . . ." > >Feingold refers here to action that McGinn, now a three-star admiral >commanding the Third Fleet, took last year to ensure the F/A-18E/F would >not be held to strict requirements for turning, climbing or maneuvering -- >capabilities in which the aircraft had shown deficiencies in flight tests >(ITP, Feb. 19, p1). "that maneuvering performance is equal to or superior >to that of the most likely current-generation threat aircraft including, >but not limited to the Su-27 and MiG-29, as well as the Lot 12 F/A-18C/D; >and > >"that the operational pilots deem the aircraft's performance to be >demonstrably superior, across the board, to the Lot 12 C/D in both the >fighter escort and interdiction missions, and, if inferior in any aspects >to the Lot 19 with enhanced engine performance engine, explain why the E/F >is preferred over the Lot 19, in order to meet the entrance criteria for >the OT-IIC operational evaluation, now scheduled for Spring 1999." > >The senator is referring here to a finding by the General Accounting Office >that engine performance in the Lot 19 F/A-18C/D appears to exceed that of >the E/F (ITP, Jan. 22, p11). > >Many defense officials believe the Navy will have difficulty reaching the >bar Feingold has set for the F/A-18E/F -- namely, that it meet its original >key performance requirements and that it offers >capability superior to existing aircraft already being flown by the Navy >and by foreign nations. > >The biggest near-term test Feingold has laid out for Cohen's handling of >the program appears to be the senator's request that funds for the next lot >of production -- due to be released soon -- be withheld pending the results >of the IG's investigation. "I request that you suspend release of money for >the third low-rate initial production lot until the inspector general >completes her investigation and the Super Hornet program officials certify >formally that they fully understand the results of the recently completed >OT-IIB flight tests, >and the program manager has corrected all maneuvering performance >deficiencies identified in the OT-IIB test report prior to the initiation >of operational evaluation next spring." > >The OT-IIB test report for the F/A-18E/F remains classified and the Navy >has not released its findings. But sources say it alludes to several >serious performance problems beyond the wing drop phenomenon. -- >Elaine M. Grossman > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #78 ******************************** 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