From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #29 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 029 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: What happened to the f-117? Re: F-117 PR Machine ----- VERY LONG more about Kosovo *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:33:04 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison 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. Regardless of what brought down 82-806, keep in mind one thing about the F-117A's during Desert Storm: They went in FIRST. The Iraqis were well aware of Bush's deadline. The air strike began 2 minutes after the zero hour. The Iraqis had to be prepared for the air strike. The F-117s were sent in first to destroy critical points in the Iraqi air defenses prior to the rest of the fleet. I was on the road at the time, but I've spoken to people who saw the CNN coverage who said the air raid sirens went off AFTER the first bombs were dropped, meaning that the Iraqi air cefenses didn't pick them up. The early destruction of enemy air defenses made all future flights at night above 10,000 feet safer for everyone. David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:48:07 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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 . Since we do not know, I cannot comment. > >>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. True, they did not worse but more to the point, the assertion on the table is that stealth works. I maintain that there is no evidence that it works. There are statements that it works. There are comments that it works. There are theories that it works. There is NO e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e that it works. >>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 don't follow your logic unless it is that since we have stealth it must be doing something. If so, your logic reminds me of something Galbraith wrote: "In both the military and the associated civilian mind there is little that is more certain than the decisive role of air power. We have planes; therefore they must be effective. No doctrine is, in reality, so suspect. In the years after the Second World War, American control of the air over Korea and Vietnam was complete; this did not win or demonstrably affect the course of the wars in those countries." John Kenneth Galbraith, A Journey Through Economic Time. (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1940): 130-131. >>...........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. Right on. > >>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. They may be different actions but the one constant is the claim that stealth is the analogue for the pre-World War II claim that American bombers are so heavily armed and so heavily armored that they will get through. > >>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. Read my book on the history of the A-12, "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding," from the Naval Institute Press which should be out next spring. > >>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 . The excuses will come, you can count on it. > > 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 :) I have no contempt for stealth, only for the government officials who inflate its claims by assertion or by silence when the media calls it "invisible" and then demands that the citizens pay for this inflated capability under the threat of imprisonment Jim Stevenson > > 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 >>> >> > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:12:32 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? Jim S writes I wrote: >> 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 . > >Since we do not know, I cannot comment. Now you're making my point for me ! The issue, wrt stealth working or not (and specifically, the loss of the F-117 near Belgrade) is whether an enemy SAM system acquired a fatal lock-on. If it did, your premise is strengthened, if not, then it's weakened. Agreed ? >>>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. > >True, they did not worse but more to the point, the assertion on the >table is that stealth works. I maintain that there is no evidence that >it works. There are statements that it works. There are comments that it >works. There are theories that it works. There is NO e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e >that it works. Air raid sirens went off in Iraq (not sure about Serbia/Kosovo) >after< the F-117 had dropped ordnance, indicating that the sophisticated Iraqi (& perhaps Serbian) ground radar hadn't picked them up on their bomb run. Of course, you must dispute this because it would negate your premise. I can always double check the facts. >>>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 don't follow your logic unless it is that since we have stealth it >must be doing something. [edit] My rationale is this: LO technology is not magical, it's a way of reducing the probability of being tracked and most importantly, locked-onto by known detection media (radar, IR etc.) The fact that a stealth plane needs regular RAM maintenance to keep its stealth properties indicates that without it, its RCS would increase and with it, the probability of its interception. If stealth didn't work at all and it was all hype by blue suiters, politicians and boffins, the RCS would remain the same, so there's a functional, empirical test that proves it reduces RCS. RCS reduction is a factor in just about all modern mil.jets. So called, stealth planes take that reduction further by a considerable degree. The exact degree is, AFAIK properly classified, as its disclosure may assist those who we wouldn't want to help. >>>...........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. > >Right on. >> >>>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. > >They may be different actions but the one constant is the claim that >stealth is the analogue for the pre-World War II claim that American >bombers are so heavily armed and so heavily armored that they will get >through. Well, that's not a claim I would support because I don't accept that the LO / WWII bombers issues are analogous. If you can see it you can hit it - if you can hit it hard and/or long enough, it will stop flying. Whereas the point of reduced or low observability is that it's harder to 'see.' >>>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. > >Read my book on the history of the A-12, "The $5 Billion >Misunderstanding," from the Naval Institute Press which should be out >next spring. Wonderful. Perhaps you'd remind me closer to the date. >>>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 . > >The excuses will come, you can count on it. >> >> 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 :) > >I have no contempt for stealth, only for the government officials who >inflate its claims by assertion or by silence when the media calls it >"invisible" and then demands that the citizens pay for this inflated >capability under the threat of imprisonment So was that a yes or no to the question of whether stealth technology has resulted in a zero net gain for a/c survivability Best 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 >>>> >>> >> >> > > >----------------------------- >James P. Stevenson >(301) 254-9000 > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:56:55 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? Jim Stevenson wrote: ....Items deleted..... >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. Lockheed had to pay to get a new pole done at the radar range because it gave back a too big of a return and masked the Have Blue return.....so the Skunk Works designed a new pole, so that they could get an accurate return from Have Blue and then the F-117. All you given us is anecdotal assumptions. I agree with David that the pilots are the ones that know whether it works or not. Actually you haven't given us any information as to why it doesn't work! Please enlighten us! Best, John John Stone PLEASE NOTE (another!) NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: blackbirds@iname.com U-2 & SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:12:50 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: F-117 PR Machine ----- VERY LONG > We don't. That's why we only built a few of them. The cruise missile is > taking their place. WARNING: VERY LONG Negative. We need both manned and unmanned aircraft on the modern battlefield. Cruise missiles are not perfect and neither are manned or unmanned aircraft. Standoff missiles used in conjunction with manned and unmanned aircraft will offer us the best options for destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. Cruise missiles are useless for CAP or BARCAP (note that I'm being sneaky here). Cruise missiles cannot engage highly mobile targets or discriminate between friendly and enemy forces in close proximity to each other or engaged in close combat. Unmanned aircraft would also have difficulty in a situation like that, and then there is the question of whether to make them remotely piloted or use AI to make them autonomous, but then we have to deal with other serious problems, such as losing contact with the remotely piloted vehicle because of jamming or other enemy or friendly actions (we might even accidentally jam our own transmissions). In the event we decide to go with AI, we have to make sure the AI has similar abilities to those of a human being and although we have gotten pretty close to that goal, we may never be able to replace a human pilot. The maturity level of current AI projects is pretty low and we certainly COULD NOT trust human lives to AI. AI also has poor reliability, fault tollerance and fault recovery. Human pilots are naturally not infallible, however they have much better reliability and respond to the unexpected much better than computers. The fact the we only built 54 F-117's doesn't prove anything. The F-117 is still a viable stealth aircraft and we certainly should not allow anyone to obtain the ability to manufacure F-117's or stealth aircraft based on it. Stealth alone will not guarrantee success, however stealth can be extremely useful. If the enemy does not know you are coming that alone is a huge advantage. The 117 was never invisible, neither was the B-2 or the F-22. These aircraft all have reduced RCS but that does not make them invisible. They can all be detected using appropriate detection techniques, and they are far easier to detect when they are in very close proximity to a powerful radar or set of radars, by the time they are detected however they will most likely have already completed their mission and be on their way home. Stealth alone will not get the plane and it's crew home safely, speed, agility, ECM, ECCM, flares, chaff, RWR, the pilot's ability to evade enemy defenses and good real-time intelligence will all help enormously. But if the enemy cannot maintain lock-on because of the aircraft's stealth characteristics that can also save your behind to fight another day. The enemy will also have dificulty sending interceptors against you, if they don't know your speed, course and altitude and the interceptors themselves will have difficulty detecting you and locking onto your plane. Even if they fire against you, it will be easier to evade enemy missiles if they cannot maintain a solid lock and missiles fired blindly will have no chance of hitting. AAA fire can still be a problem, however without guidance from radar even thick AAA will most likely be ineffective and will have a low probability of success. I still contend that we SHOULD HAVE destroyed the wreckage immediately after the incident to deny the enemy the opportunity to use this technology (even if it is obsolete) and also deny the enemy the satisfaction and publicity they got out of this incident. It is still not at all clear that the F-117 was shot down, in fact there is some evidence to the contrary. Also, it appears that other F-117's in the same strike package returned to base safely and perhaps even without a scratch. Now a little about the political situation... All ethnic and religious groups in the former Yugslavia and the balkans in general hate each other to death. They have hated each other for over a thousand years. All ethnic and religious groups, including but not limitted to Serbs, and Albanians, in the former Yugoslavia have committed war crimes and attrocities against each other. They are all guilty of terrible things, a lot of which are unknown to the international public. We cannot blame all this to the Serbs alone, in fact a lot of the bull we have been hearing on TV is just that. In Bosnia all groups committed attrocities (these have been confirmed) far worse than what the Serbs are currently being accussed of. The fact that thousands of Albanian refugees are being allowed to leave Kosovo proves that the Serbs are not indiscriminately killing them all which is the definition of genocide. In fact, all the scenes we've been seeing on TV show tens of thousands of Albanian refugees fleeing Kosovo and allegedly being pursued by Serb forces. If this were the case then WHERE are the dead and wounded??? Why have we been unable to independently confirm any of this? If the Serbs where are blutal as depicted then no one would have made it out of Kosovo alive. Am I not correct??? I am not defending ANYONE here, I am just saying that the truth is not as it seems! The Serbian forces and the KLA SHARE responsibility for what is going on, they ARE BOTH guilty and MUST be PUNISHED. This started as an attempt by the KLA to expand Albanian borders to include Kosovo -- this is just a land-grab, just like the situation in Bosnia, where all sides where guilty of terrible crimes. Milosevic MUST be removed from power immediately, and Congress should authorize the CIA and the Special Forces to do whatever it takes to remove him immediately, however we also need to remove his senior officers as well as the KLA leadership and force the KLA to disband. As long as Milosevic remains in power and the KLA exists there can be no lasting peace in Kosovo. We also need to be very careful not to encourage any other ethnic groups in the area to try to emulate the KLA or try to attack their neighbors because that WILL start WWIII. Let's not forget about all the hatred and territorial disputes between Greece and Turkey (both NATO members) and the fact that it won't take much to get them to start killing each other. We also need to watch Bulgaria and Skopje (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- this name is NOT acknowledged by Greece because the Northeastern part of Greece is also called Macedonia) very carefully because they have territorial claims against Greece, Serbia, Turkey and possibly other countries in the region. Let me recap... We should be bombing BOTH the Serbian forces and the KLA!!! If Greece and Turkey start misbehaving we should bomb the two of them as well!! If Bulgaria and Skopje want to get into this, we should spank them too! Sam > > 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 17:41:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: more about Kosovo The USAF site has some interesting pictures :)) (B-2, F-117, etc.) http://www.af.mil/current/kosovo/ Please pardon the spelling and or grammar errors in my previous post, I was being sloppy. Sam ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #29 ******************************** 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