From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #28 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 Tuesday, March 30 1999 Volume 08 : Number 028 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: My observations on F-117 loss Re: F-117 PR Machine Re: My observations on F-117 loss Re: F-117 PR Machine Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: F-117 PR Machine Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: What happened to the f-117? F-117 Re: F117 compromised? Re: F-117 PR Machine time to call up the SR-71s yet? Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: F-117 PR Machine Re: What happened to the f-117? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:28:49 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: My observations on F-117 loss Greg wrote: >If we only look at the video of the crash site what can we deduce? >1) the wreckage was all located in one place, not scattered over a > wide area (much like the Maryland(?) air show accident) >2) major portions of the airframe were still recognizable >3) most of the damage appears to be from a post-impact fire (again, > much like the Maryland air show accident) >4) the face of the turbine inlet appears undamaged >5) what appeared to be the sawtoothed leading edge of a bomb bay door > appears on top of the wreckage >6) the left rudder was seen with it's outer side face-up >My impression is that the F-117 impacted the ground at a relatively >slow airspeed, probably falling near-vertically and landing flat, >just like the incident at the aforementioned airshow. The aircraft >did not appear to break up in the air, did not dive in at high speed >nose first, etc. Based on the almost pristine appearance of the inlet >turbine blades, the engine(s) were probably not running at time of >impact. The airframe may have landed inverted, explaining the bay >door on top of the wreckage and the orientation of the rudder. I totally agree with Greg in all of his observations -- the aircraft landed inverted, and basically in one pice, on the ground. At least one bomb bay door seemed to have been open, and the landing gear was visible. That leads me to about the same conclusion as Greg: a) The plane did not explode in the air (nor on impact or later on the ground while burning), which seems to indicate that the bombs were most likely already dropped before the crash. b) The 'beaver' tail and the (port) rudder both looked basically intact, while there were obvious gun (or shrapnel) holes in one of the wings (one was pretty round, maybe 23 mm AAA shells ?) -- which seems to point away from heat seeking missiles or a direct hit by larger radar-guided missiles. Possible scenarios? * Maybe the plane was hit by (unguided?) AAA ground fire, right after the pilot dropped (and guided/observed) his weapons. Impacting bombs tend to create this kind of response. A so-called "golden BB" may have hit a vital part of the aircraft just by accident? * Maybe the bomb bay door jammed open, creating a large enough signature for the plane to be tracked on radar, or it was open long enough for the radar to acquire the jet (at least for a short period of time) and one of the SA-3 missile -- which were apparently launched in the vicinity -- exploded just near enough, that some shrapnel hit a vital part of the plane? * Maybe the aircraft developed an on-board fire (they kinda tend to burn easily, because of fuel leaks, it seems), engine trouble, or some other sort of in-flight emergency -- the pilot ejected because the plane was not recoverable, and after the ejection, the rest of the plane, the canopy, the ejection seat and the pilot himself, are probably all better radar targets than an undamaged F-117A, possibly leading to the SA-3 'GOA' launches. I don't think all F-117As would be stood down if the aircraft was downed by a 'known' in-flight emergency, especially during an ongoing operation. Greg also wrote: >Another observation of the crash video shows people all around the >burning wreckage. My recollection of prior (F-117) accidents includes >concerns about toxic fumes given off by burning composite resins and >the exposure to the resulting composite fibers. Were these just >stories made up to discourage souvenir hunters or are the crash >site observers going to experience exposure-related illnesses? Some of the people that picked through the remains might have some health problems later, especially the guys who stood all around the burning wreck (apparently someone even tried to extinguish the fire). I have heard all sorts of bad things about the carcinogenic properties of the stuff, even if it does not burn! All the above is also basically what I told CNN today, when they interviewed me. I hope I didn't embarrass myself (and the Skunk-Works mailing list) too much. :) This was my first real TV interview ever, and I was quite nervous. I have no idea if or when they will use this stuff, though, but I will keep an eye on CNN and Headline News for a while. (Maybe parts will be included on Larry King Live tonight at 9:00 p.m. EST -- his guest will be Scott O'Grady.) CNN called me after midnight on Sunday morning to ask if I could help them identify the F-117 pilot -- they seem to really want to talk with him first. I gave them some information about the plane (806), its history, etc., F-117As and the Skunk Works in general, explained the Bandit list, and that the name on the cockpit is not necessarily the current pilot's name, etc. Then they called this morning asking for an 'on camera' interview. They also asked me specifically about the Skunk Works mailing list! I even got a plug for the SR-71A in -- which would be such a wonderful asset to have right now in Yugoslavia -- but who knows what will land on the cutting room floor. - -- Andreas [who may be on (inter)-national TV :)] - --- --- 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, 30 Mar 99 05:34:58 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine I fail to see why F-117s flying with ECM is being taken as some big deal. After all, submarines have more than one torpedo tube, Dirty Harry had more than one bullet and Superman has more than one super power. Stealth is a wonderful asset but if I had the choice, I'd want ECM assets around too, if I could get them. If I'm really hard to spot when I'm operating by myself, think how much harder I'd be to see if there was also other jamming going on to degrade the already limited effectiveness the enemy had against me. The only time I wouldn't want it would be if I thought its presence would alert the enemy that something was coming and it would do me more harm than good. An example of this would be if I had to fly through an area at medium to lower altitudes on a surprise attack where the enemy had a lot of AAA and good fire discipline. In this kind of defense, the enemy doesn't really aim at the target, they fire their weapons on set headings/inclinations at a specified rate. The idea is to have enough in the air at any given moment at a close enough spacing that the aircraft basically flies into a shell. I'd want to come in and drop my ordnance before they knew I was on the way, hopefully getting out of there or being hard enough to "see" that the enemy wouldn't be able to decide which fire pattern to deploy before it was too late. In this case, jamming would serve to alert the defenders. On the other hand, if I'm coming in as part of an ongoing attack, or when the enemy is already primed, everything I can get would be fine with me! Regarding the F-117 having absolutely no ability to detect a missile lock-on, I'd find that hard to believe. There are passive systems whose operation wouldn't compromise the aircraft's stealthiness. An indication of missile lock, intensity and direction would help the pilot to select which tactics would make maximum advantage of his LO characteristics. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 05:43:28 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: My observations on F-117 loss I even got a plug for the SR-71A in -- which would be such a wonderful asset to have right now in Yugoslavia -- but who knows what will land on the cutting room floor. - -- Andreas [who may be on (inter)-national TV :)] Hey, potential world-famous celebrity, A plug for the SR-71 from you? I hope it survives! Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:32:09 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine At 05:34 AM 3/30/99 GMT, Art wrote: > > Regarding the F-117 having absolutely no ability to detect a missile lock-on, >I'd find that hard to believe. There are passive systems whose operation wouldn't >compromise the aircraft's stealthiness. An indication of missile lock, intensity >and direction would help the pilot to select which tactics would make maximum >advantage of his LO characteristics. > There is evidence to indicate such a system was to be incorporated in the 117. The original aircraft were delivered with an antenna located in the lower left wing that could be extended in flight to detect radar signals. They have since been removed from the aircraft. And I can find no evidence the systems were ever really used. Mission planning took several hours of a number of people for each flight. The result was a precise path that was plugged into the planes flight computer. The tactics discussed even long after the Gulf War were very simple. The best defense considered for the plane/pilot was to "follow the black line". In other words once the mission was initiated, the pilot never deviated from the path given to him and flown by the flight computer. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:33:45 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? The only evidence that stealth "worked" is the gulf war. But it performed no better or worse than any other aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet. That does not prove it worked. The fact that non-stealth aircraft have not been hit in Serbia and a stealth aircraft was hit, tends to make my point. Jim Stevenson >>Sam, >> >>You are getting excited over nothing. Stealth doesn't work so if our >>enemies want to throw their money away like we have on something of no > > Well, do you have anything to back that statement up? There is > considerable empirical evidence to the contrary. > > Dan > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > The software you were born with helps > you follow thousands of different > threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet > feasts using only ingredients from > the 24-hour store, and use words > like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" > in casual conversation. It deserves > the operating system designed to work > with it: the MacOS. > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:37:54 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine > I fail to see why F-117s flying with ECM is being taken as some big deal. It's not a big deal. It only reinforces the point that there was and still is a mismatch between the bill of goods that the military sold and what the aircraft is in reality capable of. But as former CIA director Robert Gates said in the New York times, "Governments . . . lie and they cheat in order to amass power and wealth." > After all, submarines have more than one torpedo tube, Dirty Harry had more > than one bullet and Superman has more than one super power. Stealth is a > wonderful asset but if I had the choice, I'd want ECM assets around too, if I > could get them. If I'm really hard to spot when I'm operating by myself, > think how much harder I'd be to see if there was also other jamming going on > to degrade the already limited effectiveness the enemy had against me. The > only time I wouldn't want it would be if I thought its presence would alert > the enemy that something was coming and it would do me more harm than good. > An example of this would be if I had to fly through an area at medium to lower > altitudes on a surprise attack where the enemy had a lot of AAA and good fire > discipline. In this kind of defense, the enemy doesn't really aim at the > target, they fire their weapons on set headings/inclinations at a specified > rate. The idea is to have enough in the air at any given moment at a close > enough spacing that the aircraft basically flies into a shell. I'd want to > come in and drop my ordnance before they knew I was on the way, hopefully > getting out of there or being hard enough to "see" that the enemy wouldn't be > able to decide which fire pattern to deploy before it was too late. In this > case, jamming would serve to alert the defenders. On the other hand, if I'm > coming in as part of an ongoing attack, or when the enemy is already primed, > everything I can get would be fine with me! > Regarding the F-117 having absolutely no ability to detect a missile lock-on, > I'd find that hard to believe. There are passive systems whose operation > wouldn't compromise the aircraft's stealthiness. An indication of missile > lock, intensity and direction would help the pilot to select which tactics > would make maximum advantage of his LO characteristics. > Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:07:50 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? At 06:33 AM 3/30/99 -0500, you wrote: ~~~Snip~~ > >The fact that non-stealth aircraft have not been hit in Serbia and a >stealth aircraft was hit, tends to make my point. > >Jim Stevenson > - ----------------------------------------- We have virtually no knowledge of the conditions, statistics or numbers of the planes and missions flown in the last 7 days. If the only plane downed so far is a stealth plane than the point you really should be making is that stealth aircraft are actually more vulnerable to Serbian radars and that non stealth aircraft are impervious to Serbian air defenses. After all, the statistics prove that don't they? Maybe we should wait for another GAO report. Unless we can't believe what the government tells us. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:43:39 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? If you want to use statistics, then your point is well made. Statistically, the non-stealth airplanes appear to be more survivable. The Gulf War made the same point: if you look at the few missions (relatively speaking) that the F-117 flew compared with the higher numbers of non-stealth airplanes, then statistically, the F-117 was no great success. I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. Are you saying that the GAO reports are inaccurate and the military assertions about the viability of its stealth aircraft are accurate? Jim Stevenson > At 06:33 AM 3/30/99 -0500, you wrote: > ~~~Snip~~ >> >>The fact that non-stealth aircraft have not been hit in Serbia and a >>stealth aircraft was hit, tends to make my point. >> >>Jim Stevenson >> > ----------------------------------------- > > We have virtually no knowledge of the conditions, statistics or numbers of > the planes and missions flown in the last 7 days. If the only plane downed > so far is a stealth plane than the point you really should be making is > that stealth aircraft are actually more vulnerable to Serbian radars and > that non stealth aircraft are impervious to Serbian air defenses. After > all, the statistics prove that don't they? > > Maybe we should wait for another GAO report. Unless we can't believe what > the government tells us. > > patrick cullumber > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:15:52 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? Jim Stevenson wrote: >The only evidence that stealth "worked" is the gulf war. But it >performed no better or worse than any other aircraft that flew at night >above 10,000 feet. That does not prove it worked. I think you're analysis is unfair. RCS, I/R and acoustic signature reduction has been considered desirable in a/c design for many years. The fact is that achieving orders of magnitude reductions create a wide range of disparate, complex and expensive engineering problems. Are you saying that the LO R&D has resulted in a zero net gain wrt to the survivability of a/c ? If so, Air Force Chief of Staff - General Larry Welch and former Secretary of the Air Force - Donald Rice are just two of those who would disagree with your take on stealth. They and the Nighthawk aircrews are in a better position to make a value judgement than any of us. How do you explain the tests against various radars in the Have Blue phase of the F-117s development ? Of course LO works - the problem is one of perception rather than engineering. Despite what the media says, we know stealth doesn't mean invisible, it simply means a greatly reduced probability of detection. >The fact that non-stealth aircraft have not been hit in Serbia and a >stealth aircraft was hit, tends to make my point. Come on ! that's a textbook non sequitur :) The F-117s as you know are tasked against highly protected and high value targets, so they are always at risk from blind AAA fire after they've done their job. Note that the Nighthawk's ordnance appeared to have been dropped, which would have resulted in immediate local AAA firing. Finally, because we don't know the circumstances of the F-117 loss ( nor should we until after this action is over) it's clearly impossible to say because it was lost QED: stealth doesn't work. David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:27:04 +0100 From: Haitham Yousef Subject: F-117 Hi All, I think what happened to the F-117 is that it flew through a thick curtain of anti-aircraft ammunition (remember Yugoslavia had the 4th largest army in the world) therefore statistically became more prone to be hit. Other option is that the russians have developed anti-stealth radar capability! But this would mean more downed F-117s which is not the case. Haitham ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:38:16 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F117 compromised? At 12:06 PM 3/29/99 -0600, you wrote: >Is it possible there are some pyrotechnical devices that are triggered to >minimize the compromisation of an important technical asset such as >the F-117? > > No. The only devices on the plane are the rocket that ejects the ACES II ejection seat and a very small charge located in the bottom rear of the plane that blows a tailhook down and out thru the RAM covering. This is used in emergencies for arrested landings at air bases. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:41:42 -0500 From: Brentley Smith Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine > Mission planning took several hours of a number of people for each flight. > The result was a precise path that was plugged into the planes flight > computer. The tactics discussed even long after the Gulf War were very > simple. The best defense considered for the plane/pilot was to "follow the > black line". In other words once the mission was initiated, the pilot > never deviated from the path given to him and flown by the flight computer. So why do we need a human in the seat? I realize an on-board pilot can make better last minute go/no-go decisions and probably jink the plane a little better to avoid being shot up. But couldn't much of that be done remotely on demand since the flight plan is pretty much set in stone ahead of time? How much cheaper (if at all) would replacement F-117s be if the cockpit could be left empty? Crank 'em out and fly 'em over. Is this even feasible? Thinking outside the [possibly soggy] box, Brentley Smith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:07:13 -0500 From: Brentley Smith Subject: time to call up the SR-71s yet? Sure the Predator is a cute and sexy way to gather intel. But if the whole thing is at risk every time an antenna goes goofy or whatever, wouldn't it make sense to have a manned "spy" plane around ready in reserve to pick up where the U2 falls short? Maybe the Blackbird offers nothing over the U2 in this scenario, but it make sense to have it around just in case? Particularly if the whole program costs the same per year as a couple of Predators. [excerpted article below:] [...] NATO intelligence analysts, speaking under conditions of anonymity confirmed most of the claims by Hasanaj and by the KLA field commander in Kosovo, but not the allegation that 100 Kosovars perished in a fire set by Serbian forces. For example, the analysts say they have employed reconnaissance satellites and the high-flying U-2 spy plane to photograph "what looks like 20,000 people" at the open-air soccer stadium in Pec. The analysts and intelligence officials from two NATO nations say their efforts have been hampered for almost a week by the inability to repair a sophisticated unmanned spy plane known as the Predator. The guidance system in the drone aircraft, which is based in Albania, malfunctioned when the CIA first attempted to launch it last Thursday. The Predator, which is not much bigger than a large model plane and flies only a few hundred feet off the ground, is equipped with extremely sensitive photographic equipment for providing battlefield intelligence. NATO used the unmanned spy plane, which cost several hundred thousand dollars, for selecting targets to strike in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [...] [ from an article @ http://nt.excite.com/news/u/990329/16/politics-serbs ] - -------------- Brentley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:07:49 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? You are making my point: because no stealth aircraft got shot down in the Gulf War, we cannot conclude that stealth works. Why? Because NONE of the aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet and at night were shot down. Stealth aircraft flew above 10,000 feet and at night. Therefore, they did no better than ANY other aircraft at those altitudes and times. You have no evidence that stealth works. All you have are the assertions of senior Air Force personnel. There statements are not proof, only assertions. In every war, the assertions of senior military commanders tends to depart from reality. I could start with the claims of the senior Army Air Corps commanders before WW II who stated emphatically that we would not have to commit land troops in Europe because air power would destroy the enemy's will to wage war and its war making capability. (Sound familiar?) If you want to set aside the fact that we don't know what brought down the F-117, a point I readily concede, then the only output from all of this stealth input is that the F-117 did no better in the Gulf War than anything else. Beyond that, I have interviewed individuals that were involved in the testing of the original F-117/Have Blue aircraft. I can say that those individuals were most distressed that the scientific method that has dominated Western Civilization for the last few centuries was overlooked in the testing of these aircraft. The only test that counts, is of course, actual warfare. So, stand by for the cover stories that will inevitably flow from the discovery that stealth, a welfare program for the technologist, is not "virtually invisible." Jim Stevenson > Jim Stevenson wrote: > >>The only evidence that stealth "worked" is the gulf war. But it >>performed no better or worse than any other aircraft that flew at night >>above 10,000 feet. That does not prove it worked. > > I think you're analysis is unfair. RCS, I/R and acoustic signature > reduction has been considered desirable in a/c design for many years. The > fact is that achieving orders of magnitude reductions create a wide range > of disparate, complex and expensive engineering problems. > > Are you saying that the LO R&D has resulted in a zero net gain wrt to the > survivability of a/c ? If so, Air Force Chief of Staff - General Larry > Welch and former Secretary of the Air Force - Donald Rice are just two of > those who would disagree with your take on stealth. They and the Nighthawk > aircrews are in a better position to make a value judgement than any of us. > > How do you explain the tests against various radars in the Have Blue phase > of the F-117s development ? > > Of course LO works - the problem is one of perception rather than > engineering. Despite what the media says, we know stealth doesn't mean > invisible, it simply means a greatly reduced probability of detection. > >>The fact that non-stealth aircraft have not been hit in Serbia and a >>stealth aircraft was hit, tends to make my point. > > Come on ! that's a textbook non sequitur :) > > The F-117s as you know are tasked against highly protected and high value > targets, so they are always at risk from blind AAA fire after they've done > their job. Note that the Nighthawk's ordnance appeared to have been dropped, > which would have resulted in immediate local AAA firing. > > Finally, because we don't know the circumstances of the F-117 loss ( nor > should we until after this action is over) it's clearly impossible to say > because it was lost QED: stealth doesn't work. > > David > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:09:05 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine We don't. That's why we only built a few of them. The cruise missile is taking their place. Jim Stevenson >> Mission planning took several hours of a number of people for each flight. >> The result was a precise path that was plugged into the planes flight >> computer. The tactics discussed even long after the Gulf War were very >> simple. The best defense considered for the plane/pilot was to "follow the >> black line". In other words once the mission was initiated, the pilot >> never deviated from the path given to him and flown by the flight computer. > > So why do we need a human in the seat? I realize an on-board pilot can > make better last minute go/no-go decisions and probably jink the plane a > little better to avoid being shot up. But couldn't much of that be done > remotely on demand since the flight plan is pretty much set in stone ahead > of time? > > How much cheaper (if at all) would replacement F-117s be if the cockpit > could be left empty? Crank 'em out and fly 'em over. Is this even feasible? > > Thinking outside the [possibly soggy] box, > Brentley Smith > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:32:38 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? Jim S wrote: >You are making my point: because no stealth aircraft got shot down in >the Gulf War, we cannot conclude that stealth works. Why? Because NONE >of the aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet and at night were shot down. I'm afraid I don't see how I'm making your point for you Jim. We don't >know< that a stealth plane was tracked acquired and locked onto by a SAM system. If that is the case, then lessons have been learned and a lot of questions are raised. However, if, as I suggested it was AAA fire, then it's just sheer chance and skill of the AA gunners that brought it down. Even if an aircraft was totally stealthy to every detection media, it might not survive flying into a wall of AAA or even a few bullets in the wrong places . >Stealth aircraft flew above 10,000 feet and at night. Therefore, they >did no better than ANY other aircraft at those altitudes and times. This is an 'Is the glass half full or half empty?' argument. By your own reckoning, the stealth planes did no worse than any other a/c, so it cancels out in the survivability equation. >You have no evidence that stealth works. All you have are the assertions >of senior Air Force personnel. There statements are not proof, only >assertions. In every war, the assertions of senior military commanders >tends to depart from reality. With respect, that isn't the issue. When these comments were made, there was no war in progress. Plane makers simply proposed LO a/c that the Air Force and Congress decided were worth the required R&D and in some cases, production budgets. Wrt to whether stealth works or not, if you consider the simple case of the increase in RCS that slight gaps in the RAM generated during the test phase, that were overcome with 'buttering,' stealth technology must be doing >something<. >...........I could start with the claims of the >senior Army Air Corps commanders before WW II who stated emphatically >that we would not have to commit land troops in Europe because air power >would destroy the enemy's will to wage war and its war making >capability. (Sound familiar?) Depressingly so. But again, that isn't the issue. FWIW, I don't think that air strikes alone will win the day in Serbia, Kosovo or anywhere else. Maybe if and when the A-10s get involved, it'll focus the minds of those carrying out the genocide. Strategic targets being hit miles away are one thing, but coming under direct and heavy fire yourself is something else again. >If you want to set aside the fact that we don't know what brought down >the F-117, a point I readily concede, then the only output from all of >this stealth input is that the F-117 did no better in the Gulf War than >anything else. I don't think comparisons between the Gulf and Serbia are useful, as they're very different actions and besides, you can't prove it fared worse. >Beyond that, I have interviewed individuals that were involved in the >testing of the original F-117/Have Blue aircraft. I can say that those >individuals were most distressed that the scientific method that has >dominated Western Civilization for the last few centuries was overlooked >in the testing of these aircraft. I'd really like to hear more about those interviews. >The only test that counts, is of course, actual warfare. So, stand by >for the cover stories that will inevitably flow from the discovery that >stealth, a welfare program for the technologist, is not "virtually >invisible." War is the only true test for any system I agree and I will keep a look out for the stories you describe, if they ever do . BTW, you didn't answer my question on whether you're saying that stealth has resulted in a zero net gain wrt to the survivability of a/c. I just want to calibrate the level of your contempt for LO technology :) David >> Jim Stevenson wrote: >> >>>The only evidence that stealth "worked" is the gulf war. But it >>>performed no better or worse than any other aircraft that flew at night >>>above 10,000 feet. That does not prove it worked. >> >> I think you're analysis is unfair. RCS, I/R and acoustic signature >> reduction has been considered desirable in a/c design for many years. The >> fact is that achieving orders of magnitude reductions create a wide range >> of disparate, complex and expensive engineering problems. >> >> Are you saying that the LO R&D has resulted in a zero net gain wrt to the >> survivability of a/c ? If so, Air Force Chief of Staff - General Larry >> Welch and former Secretary of the Air Force - Donald Rice are just two of >> those who would disagree with your take on stealth. They and the Nighthawk >> aircrews are in a better position to make a value judgement than any of us. >> >> How do you explain the tests against various radars in the Have Blue phase >> of the F-117s development ? >> >> Of course LO works - the problem is one of perception rather than >> engineering. Despite what the media says, we know stealth doesn't mean >> invisible, it simply means a greatly reduced probability of detection. >> >>>The fact that non-stealth aircraft have not been hit in Serbia and a >>>stealth aircraft was hit, tends to make my point. >> >> Come on ! that's a textbook non sequitur :) >> >> The F-117s as you know are tasked against highly protected and high value >> targets, so they are always at risk from blind AAA fire after they've done >> their job. Note that the Nighthawk's ordnance appeared to have been dropped, >> which would have resulted in immediate local AAA firing. >> >> Finally, because we don't know the circumstances of the F-117 loss ( nor >> should we until after this action is over) it's clearly impossible to say >> because it was lost QED: stealth doesn't work. >> >> David >> > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #28 ******************************** 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