From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #33 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 Friday, April 2 1999 Volume 08 : Number 033 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: The stealth excuses begin F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Anyone there? Re: Anyone there? RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Advocating stealth *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:55:52 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb > On 4/1/99 11:28AM, in message > <000001be7c76$9efc69c0$0300a8c0@liden2.cleancrunch.demon.co.uk>, > gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > I know that the B-52 & B-1B and E-4 are 'heavily hardened' against EMP. > > If I was dropping a couple of dozen B-61s, I'd want something to keep me in > > the sky :) > > Gavin > > > > > > When the B-52 was designed, the phenomena of EMP was not really understood. > Although there have been a number of upgrades to the BUFF, whether all its systems > could handle an enhanced EMP attack can't be assumed to be true. On the other > hand, because of teh age of the B-52 and some of its control systems, it is > already more naturally resistant to EMP effects than later aircraft (tube > technology is not as vulnerable). > I don't think the B-52's use anything with tubes anymore... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:58:39 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin >The article below in one of the beginning trail of excuses for the >F-117's failure to work as advertised. Like every all previous failed >claims, you can expect to see more of this. Usually, it comes in the >form of "we have a software update that will fix that." 1. What is "as advertised"? As others have pointed out, no stealth aircraft is invisible, it merely has it's signature reduced. Even then, the signature is only smaller from some aspects- in some narrow lobes the signature may actually be signicantly greater than a "non-stealth" aircraft. 2. When you drive somewhere, do you first change the oil of the car, repaint it, make sure your doors have hermetic seals, and then tighten each and every nut, bolt, and rivet before going anywhere? That's more or less what happens before a stealth aircraft is flown. If there is a scratch in the paint, a loose fitting, or just about any other abnormality, the aircraft's signature will not be optimal. In fact, if the bomb bay or landing gear doors do not close fully, the advantage of stealth is almost certainly lost. Cutbacks in spending for the development of eaier to maintain coatings, etc. and overall cutbacks in the mainatinance of the F-117 fleet reduce their combat effectiveness greatly. 3. When you drop a bomb, your element of suprise is lost, and you generally don't make any friends. Blind firing can be effective, and no stealth aircraft is "stealthy" when firing. 4. Then there is the evidence that others have discussed on the list, the Serb video that seems to indicate a mechanical failure. It's quite plausible that a mechanical failure forced the F-117 into a vulnerable position. I beleive the landing gear was deployed. Basically, you're jumping to far too many conclusions. Wait until the pilot's side of the story is heard before you judge the combat effectiveness of a weapons system in a dynamic threat environemnt by an *accounting report*. And if you are still in doubt as to wether your tax money is being well spent, take Lockheed and the Air force to court. they spent your money, and you feel it was misspent. Lockheed and the AF can present a case for the effectiveness of low observable aircraft far better than the GAO or even the people on this list can. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 18:40:21 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin >>The article below in one of the beginning trail of excuses for the >>F-117's failure to work as advertised. Like every all previous failed >>claims, you can expect to see more of this. Usually, it comes in the >>form of "we have a software update that will fix that." > > 1. What is "as advertised"? As others have pointed out, no stealth > aircraft is invisible, it merely has it's signature reduced. Even > then, the signature is only smaller from some aspects- in some narrow > lobes the signature may actually be signicantly greater than a > "non-stealth" aircraft. Here is the advertisement. "[W]hat gives the F-22 its unique advantage as an air dominance fighter of the future is that any aircraft that it comes up against, any air defense system that it comes up against it will be essentially invisible to. . . . "And its biggest distinctive advantage over the F-15 or any other airplane in the inventory today is that it cannot be seen by the radars, either the ground-to-air defense system or the radars that drive the air-to-air missiles.=B21/ 1/ William Perry, =B3Defense Department Budget Briefing.=B2 (7 Feb. 1994): A1, A-10. He made similar claims with the F-117. > 2. When you drive somewhere, do you first change the oil of the car, > repaint it, make sure your doors have hermetic seals, and then > tighten each and every nut, bolt, and rivet before going anywhere? > That's more or less what happens before a stealth aircraft is flown. > If there is a scratch in the paint, a loose fitting, or just about > any other abnormality, the aircraft's signature will not be optimal. > In fact, if the bomb bay or landing gear doors do not close fully, > the advantage of stealth is almost certainly lost. Cutbacks in > spending for the development of eaier to maintain coatings, etc. and > overall cutbacks in the mainatinance of the F-117 fleet reduce their > combat effectiveness greatly. Exactly. So don't sell it to us as fantastic when in fact it has all of these issues that keep it from performing as advertised. > > 3. When you drop a bomb, your element of suprise is lost, and you > generally don't make any friends. Blind firing can be effective, and > no stealth aircraft is "stealthy" when firing. Right. > > 4. Then there is the evidence that others have discussed on the list, > the Serb video that seems to indicate a mechanical failure. It's > quite plausible that a mechanical failure forced the F-117 into a > vulnerable position. I beleive the landing gear was deployed. You may be right. I am not claiming the recent crash was the result of the Serbs. I am saying that stealth has not demonstrated that it worked any better than any other aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet. > > Basically, you're jumping to far too many conclusions. Wait until the > pilot's side of the story is heard before you judge the combat > effectiveness of a weapons system in a dynamic threat environemnt by > an *accounting report*. The pilots comments are part of the determination as to what happened, but only part. > > And if you are still in doubt as to wether your tax money is being > well spent, take Lockheed and the Air force to court. they spent your > money, and you feel it was misspent. Lockheed and the AF can present > a case for the effectiveness of low observable aircraft far better > than the GAO or even the people on this list can. Unfortunately, the concept of sovereign immunity prevents the citizen from suing the government for wasting its money. But if I could, I would. The U.S. government just spent over $5 billion on the A-12 for which we received nothing. Furthermore, it spent the money illegally without the consent of the Congress. > - -------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Author, "The Pentagon Paradox : The Development of the F-18 Hornet" Available at Amazon.com at this web site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507759/qid%3D921852978/002-87 71310-1228648 "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth aircraft. Available Spring of 2000 from The Naval Institute Press Http://www.usni.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:03:21 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin >>>The article below in one of the beginning trail of excuses for the >>>F-117's failure to work as advertised. Like every all previous failed >>>claims, you can expect to see more of this. Usually, it comes in the >>>form of "we have a software update that will fix that." >> > >1/ William Perry, „Defense Department Budget Briefing.¾ (7 Feb. 1994): >A1, A-10. > >He made similar claims with the F-117. Really? Why not post them, they're more relevant. > >> 2. When you drive somewhere, do you first change the oil of the car, >> repaint it, make sure your doors have hermetic seals, and then >> tighten each and every nut, bolt, and rivet before going anywhere? >> That's more or less what happens before a stealth aircraft is flown. >> If there is a scratch in the paint, a loose fitting, or just about >> any other abnormality, the aircraft's signature will not be optimal. >> In fact, if the bomb bay or landing gear doors do not close fully, >> the advantage of stealth is almost certainly lost. Cutbacks in >> spending for the development of eaier to maintain coatings, etc. and >> overall cutbacks in the mainatinance of the F-117 fleet reduce their >> combat effectiveness greatly. > >Exactly. So don't sell it to us as fantastic when in fact it has all of >these issues that keep it from performing as advertised. When the "advertisements" you are referring to were made, most of these problems were not issues because the aircraft were being maintained much better, because the funds to maintain them were available. >> >> 3. When you drop a bomb, your element of suprise is lost, and you >> generally don't make any friends. Blind firing can be effective, and >> no stealth aircraft is "stealthy" when firing. > >Right. And the aircraft were never "advertised" to be "invisible" during or after weapons release. The point is to maintain the element of surprise. >> >> 4. Then there is the evidence that others have discussed on the list, >> the Serb video that seems to indicate a mechanical failure. It's >> quite plausible that a mechanical failure forced the F-117 into a >> vulnerable position. I beleive the landing gear was deployed. > >You may be right. I am not claiming the recent crash was the result of >the Serbs. I am saying that stealth has not demonstrated that it worked >any better than any other aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet. 1. During the combat conditions of the Gulf War. 2. According to the GAO. 3. During a time when it's operational readiness was quite higher. 4. Neglecting the fact that the French forces in the region were using more or less the same radar that the Iraqi C3I did, and could not track the F-117 on repeated occasions- unless the peacetime radar reflectors were installed. Etc. There seem to be a lot of factors you are neglecting in your analysis. >> >> Basically, you're jumping to far too many conclusions. Wait until the >> pilot's side of the story is heard before you judge the combat >> effectiveness of a weapons system in a dynamic threat environemnt by >> an *accounting report*. > >The pilots comments are part of the determination as to what happened, >but only part. And yet, a fairly signifcant part. He was there. None of us, or the GAO, were :) > >Unfortunately, the concept of sovereign immunity prevents the citizen >from suing the government for wasting its money. But if I could, I >would. The U.S. government just spent over $5 billion on the A-12 for >which we received nothing. Furthermore, it spent the money illegally >without the consent of the Congress. >> So write your Congressman, and everyone on the various oversight comittees. And the notion that the A-12 "brought us nothing" is a bit far fetched. The sensor suite alone advanced the state of the art, and helped drive down the costs of countless other sensor and information processing programs in both military and civil sectors. The B-2's radar carries much of it's lineage from the A-12, as does the F-18E, J-Stars, etc. 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. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:24:13 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped >From J. Orlin Grabbe's page, < http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ >: > >F-117 Loss Is Over-Hyped >by Jim Boyd > >Hi Orlin, > >This story from the London Times [story below] is a bit over-blown. The U.S. >military was not "stunned" by the loss of a single aircraft in an intense >deployment. The U.S. military loses 50 or so combat aircraft per year to >accidents (not counting helicopters), and has lost about 10 F-117s in >accidents--about 16% of the total produced. > >The F-117 entered service in 1983. It was designed in 1977, using the >MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF RADAR STOLEN FROM THE RUSSIANS, dating to the early >1970s. The F-117's stealth technology is 30 years OLD, and is based on >shaping, not exotic materials. Thus, its loss to the Russians (via their >Serb allies) is not nearly as devastating as it would have been had the >stealth technology been based on advanced materials, like the newer manned >and unmanned reconnaisance aircraft used by the Air Force. The Air Force has >at least three highly secret recon planes that have never been shown in >public. One is super-sonic stealth. > >The F-117 is an extremely simple aircraft. It was designed before powerful >computers were available. All of its guts were taken from existing (in 1980) >aircraft parts. The cost is typically quoted at about $60 million per F-117. >That is CHEAP for an aircraft made in such small numbers. If you add up the >amount of damage inflicted by its two exremely accurate 2000-lb bombs, >figure that it needs no fighter escort and no electronic jamming escort, and >that it has an extremely low loss rate -- then the $60 million is damned >cheap. > >Also, the F-117 program is about 25 years old, and any program that old will >have leaked like a rusty bucket by now. Many hundreds of engineers design >such a plane, hundreds of technicians build it, and thousands of Air Force >personnel have serviced it over the years. I seriously doubt that it has any >secrets remaining. > >There is an element of bitter jealousy in Europe concerning the superiority >of American weaponry and technology. I noticed this in the reporting of the >Gulf War, and it shows in this article. > >The technologies we see on TV -- F-15E, JSTARS, AWACS, F-117, laser-guided >bombs, cruise missiles, etc. -- are 20 years old. > >The United States is ABSOLUTELY invincible on a conventional battlefield. >Our biggest risk is non-conventional warfare. > >I enjoy your website. > >March 30, 1999 > > >------The article referenced above follows: > >US military stunned as Yugoslavs shatter myth of invincible Stealth > >AMERICA'S military confidence has suffered a knock with the downing of an >F117 Stealth fighter, a plane which came through repeated bombing raids >during the Gulf War unscathed to attain the status of myth. >President Clinton said he was relieved the plane's pilot had been snatched >to safety by a US rescue team, but the televised images of £28 million worth >of military high technology smouldering in a field 30 miles west of Belgrade >represented a massive propaganda coup for the Yugoslav Government. > >The pilot, believed to be Captain Ken Dwelle, was picked up by rescue troops >backed by HH-60 Night Hawk helicopters and a number of fixed-wing aircraft >within six hours of bailing out in his ejection capsule, which is itself a >technological masterpiece costing $3 million. The black, bat-winged, >radar-evading Stealth fighter is venerated as one of the most advanced >weapons in the US arsenal. > >Yet, while none has been downed in combat before, there are long-standing >concerns about its reliablilty, since no fewer than six out of a total force >of 59 F117s have crashed. > >Whether the plane was a victim of mechanical failure, pilot error or hostile >fire remained unclear last night, but Pentagon officials made no secret of >their shock at the loss of the air force mascot. The subsonic F117, with a >lone pilot armed with two, 2,000lb laser-guided bombs, has a composite skin >and surfaces designed to reflect and absorb radar, diffusing its image on >radar screens. The air intake vent is above the wing, to avoid infrared >detection from the ground. > >In 1991, F117s flew 1,788 missions against key Iraqi command and weapons >targets, striking central Baghdad and clearing the way for the B52 bombers. > >Not a single F117 was lost in Iraq, leading to a mood of complacency about >the plane's abilities among some military planners that was rudely exploded >on Saturday night. > >Critics of the aircraft point out that it is not easy to manoeuvre and, >while hard to detect, the F117 is far from invisible. The plane's makers >boast that its sophisticated anti-detection system reduces the 43ft wingspan >to an object the size of a bumble bee, but it only takes a single loose bomb >bay door to make the plane look like a flying barn, in the words of one >weapons expert. Even before Saturday's downing there were doubts about the >mechanics of the F117, after a crash at a Baltimore airshow in 1997 which >was caused by a defect in a wing support. > >Developed 25 years ago by Lockheed Martin in a secret Californian weapons >facility known as Skunk Works, the F117's existence was only formally >admitted in 1988 when it was used for the less than heroic job of dropping a >bomb to frighten Panamanian troops before the US invasion. > >In addition to the loss of the plane itself, the United States faces the >possible loss of its secret radar-evading technology, which could now find >its way into the hands of military scientists in Russia, the Serbs' >supportive ally. > >News of the loss of the plane left White House officials stunned. Despite >days of warnings that the operation in Yugoslavia is not risk-free, the Nato >campaign has been sold to an uncertain American public as an exercise in >high-tech, low-risk bombing that will involve few casualties and no ground >troops. > >Mr Clinton's combination of elevated military goals without commitment to a >ground campaign is, as one commentator put it, the doctrine of immaculate >coercion. > >Just four days into the campaign, the US has had to put in troops on the >ground to rescue a pilot, possibly shot down in a fighter widely reputed to >be virtually invulnerable in the face of lower-grade Serbian military >technology. > >Pentagon officials have repeatedly emphasised that the Yugoslav Army's air >defence network, with some 2,000 surface-to-air missiles, represents a far >more serious threat than the Iraqi defences, but military planners had been >encouraged (if baffled) by the lack of hostile fire during the initial >raids. > >US officials launched another television blitz yesterday, with senior >military commanders and Administration officials appearing on all the main >television networks to try to garner support for the action. > >Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, said the situation in Kosovo was >terrible with mounting evidence that Serb forces are really getting ready to >eliminate the Kosovo Liberation Army forces and have an increased campaign >of ethnic cleansing. She also said that America had received reports of >rapes by the Serb forces on the ethnic Albanian population. > >In Washington, William Cohen, the US Defence Secretary, said the loss of the >Stealth fighter would have no impact on the overall air campaign. "It's >going to intensify," he said. > >London Times, March 30(?), 1999 - -- 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 Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (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: Thu, 01 Apr 99 20:21:04 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Anyone there? Hello? Anyone out there? I haven't seen anything on here in weeks! Greg W. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 01:04:06 EST From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Anyone there? There have been DOZENS of messages per day, are You out there? Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America In use: Kenwood: TM-251A/E, TS-570d, Yaesu: FT-8100R, FT-2500M, FT50rd, Realistic: DX-394, Icom: IC-706MKII, Uniden: BC-200xlt, BC-760xlt, Whistler: CO403DC scanning video reciever 55-806 MHz On Thu, 01 Apr 99 20:21:04 -0500 gregweigold@pmsc.com writes: > >Hello? Anyone out there? > >I haven't seen anything on here in weeks! > >Greg W. > > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 99 06:05:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Drudge Report - EMP Bomb On 4/1/99 12:55PM, in message <199904012055.PAA13169@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > I don't think the B-52's use anything with tubes anymore... > I was referring more to the level of technology in control systems and the like. Our newer systems are less tolerant of the kinds of electric overloads caused by EMP. For example, a modern electronic ignition system in a new car is far more vulnerable than an older mechanical condensor and points type. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 12:50:26 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin Jim S writes: >David wrote: > >> I can't remember ever being told by anyone in the business or the DoD tha= >t >> LO planes were either invisible to radar/IR or invulnerable. > >I don't know if you would consider Secretary of Defense William Perry as >being in the business, but here is his claim of radar invisibility: >"[W]hat gives the F-22 its unique advantage as an air dominance fighter >of the future is that any aircraft that it comes up against, any air >defense system that it comes up against it will be essentially invisible >to. . . . To what ? I assume, to radar, but I'd like to see his finished sentence. I have to say that even in your carefully selected quote he hasn't said invisible. He's said 'essentially invisible,' which is an important qualification. If you're essentially anything, you aren't completely something. WRT the F-22's LO capabilities, maybe Perry knows something we don't - a fair bet I'd say. As we appear (at least on the issue of LO) to differ, I think you'd agree that significant aspects of LO survivability and probability of intercept are highly classified. If we knew these details we wouldn't reveal them here, and without hard data to which scientific methodolgy can be applied, we can only talk in general terms from information gathered from open source, non-classified publications. That said. if we look at a Department of the Air Force briefing dated March 1990 ' B-2 Survivability Against Air Defense Systems,' we read some very interesting facts. Here are a few carefully chosen extracts of my own from the 13 page paper. I think it's a very balanced overview. The headings are mine, just to quickly identify our areas of discussion/difference: 1. [On Invisibility]: QUOTE: "Stealth aircraft are neither invisible or immortal, but pose many challenges to air defense systems that their survivability is much greater than conventional aircraft." "The B-2 is obviously not invisible. But what is needed for successful air defense against the B-2 is detection, tracking and kill capabilities at relatively long operating ranges (e.g. 25 to 100 miles depending on the style of defense). At such ranges the various signals available from the B-2 are generally very weak and easily lost." END QUOTE Comments: Where's the hype here ? It even spells out the fact that LO a/c are >not< as you suggest being universally 'sold' as invisible and by implication invulnerable. 2. [On Who's Involved with Validating LO Effectiveness]: QUOTE: "Since the early days of the stealth program, the Air Force has conducted , and continues to conduct a broad range of investigations of potential air defense counters to stealthy air vehicles....with the objective of finding an ‘Achilles Heel’ that could provide a means to effectively counter stealth technologies. A talented cadre of Ph.D. level scientists, engineers, and analysts [aided by contributions of many additional talented staff from government, industry, and academia] has been given direct access to data on various stealth programs and sufficient funding to conduct major experiments. >>>These researchers have operated independently of stealth program managers and industrial contractors<<<." END QUOTE (My Emphasis added) Comments: You suggested that the standard scientific method was thrown aside in the scramble to put LO 'rubber on the ramp.' Does the involvement of all these people from different scientific backgrounds imply they're all part of the cosy LO technological scam ? If so, just how many people are involved in this illegal conspiracy ? 3. [On Accepting That The B-2 Can Be Detected]: QUOTE: ".....Many radar systems cannot accommodate the very substantial upgrades to detect the B-2 and their coverage zones are too small to support successful defense against this bomber. >>Some big, powerful radars do have a useful detection capability. In response, the B-2 could employ evasive routing, fly low to reduce coverage and/or employ stand-off weapons to attack targets in the vicinity of these radars.<<" END QUOTE (My emphasis added) QUOTE: " Developing an informed and mature view of the survivability of stealthy aircraft is necessary as we peruse these stealth and counterstealth activities. For example, during test activities, air defense sensor components will occasionally detect stealthy air vehicles. And, with sufficient coverage density and at short range, perhaps even track them." END QUOTE Comments: There is a clear acceptance here that certain radars can detect and sometimes even track the B-2. Overall, the Air Force seems to have no illusions about LO technology or its limitations, even if politicians and others are misinformed. David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:56:33 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Re: Advocating stealth David wrote: >>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 >> . . . would disagree with your take on stealth. Then James S. wrote: >Larry Welch is an advocate for the Air Force. It was, after all, Larry >Welch who generated the analysis that said an F-15 with an AIM-82 >missile could generate an exchange ratio against the MiG-21F of >955-to-1. No, Welch is an advocate for fighters. Lest we not forget he was one of the main folks instrumental in killing the SR program. 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #33 ******************************** 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