From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #38 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 Sunday, April 4 1999 Volume 08 : Number 038 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: The stealth excuses begin F-117 thrust and parry *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 11:03:19 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped > Terry there are some minor factual errors I will offer corrections for only > so the incorrect items don't go on to become part of the accepted body of > knowledge. > -------------------------------------------------- > At 05:24 PM 4/1/99 -0700, Terry Colvin wrote: >>>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'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. > > --------published figures quote 49 million per aircraft-------- Are these flyaway, weapons, procurement, or total program acquisition unit costs? What year dollars? If you take the total program cost of the F-117 and divide it by the total purchased, what is the program unit cost? Then specify what year dollars. > > > Thanks, patrick cullumber Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 08:01:31 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin >What I am saying is that there is no substitute for real-world testing >which has not been applied to any of the stealth programs before >production decisions were made. > and.... >>>What was not done, however, was the application of the scientific method >>>against the production aircraft. Production decision were made well in >>>advance of that. >>> - -=-==-=-==-==-===-==-==--=====----=---==-=-==-=--=-=-= If you consider the HAVE BLUE to be the best design produced after some intense activity by LADC to produce a viable LO flying proof of concept vehicle. If you consider the testing done by LADC at Grey Butte, Helendale and at RATSCAT. And if you consider the fact that the Northrop team walked away from the RATSCAT pole testing for the HAVE BLUE knowing full well they were beaten by a plane with a slightly lower RCS (and surely they knew how low theirs was). And if you consider that the HAVE BLUE testing pointed out the need for an even more precise RCS range which helped create the once super secret RAMS facility at WSMR. And if you consider that HAVE BLUE 2 was flown for the most part against radar systems in 52 flights to confirm RCS testing. And if you consider the F-117 to be a new design aircraft based on data learned in HAVE BLUE. And if you consider they built 5 full scale development models before they built the production run of F-117. If you consider all those careful, measured, tested, individual steps towards development of a plane touted to be a LO aircraft then to claim what you are claiming is irrational, illogical and absurd. Almost emotional in my opinion. I question your motive in all your protestations. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 08:55:53 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped At 11:03 AM 4/4/99 -0400, you wrote: >> >> --------published figures quote 49 million per aircraft-------- > >Are these flyaway, weapons, procurement, or total program acquisition >unit costs? What year dollars? > >If you take the total program cost of the F-117 and divide it by the >total purchased, what is the program unit cost? Then specify what year >dollars. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Hey Jim. I don't want to play anymore. This game is no fun. You win. Besides, I hear my mother calling me for dinner. See you tomorrow. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:19:23 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin > >>What I am saying is that there is no substitute for real-world testing >>which has not been applied to any of the stealth programs before >>production decisions were made. >> > and.... > >>>>What was not done, however, was the application of the scientific method >>>>against the production aircraft. Production decision were made well in >>>>advance of that. >>>> > > -=-==-=-==-==-===-==-==--=====----=---==-=-==-=--=-=-= > If you consider the HAVE BLUE to be the best design produced after some > intense activity by LADC to produce a viable LO flying proof of concept > vehicle. I can't. I have no evidence of that. Only assertions. >If you consider the testing done by LADC at Grey Butte, Helendale > and at RATSCAT. And if you consider the fact that the Northrop team walked > away from the RATSCAT pole testing for the HAVE BLUE knowing full well they > were beaten by a plane with a slightly lower RCS (and surely they knew how > low theirs was). Based on my interviews with Northrop personnel, I can't come to that conclusion. The Northrop design was better at some frequencies than the Lockheed design. But perhaps I might if I talked to the same people you did. >And if you consider that the HAVE BLUE testing pointed > out the need for an even more precise RCS range which helped create the > once super secret RAMS facility at WSMR. This is an input to stealth, not an output. > And if you consider that HAVE BLUE 2 was flown for the most part against radar >systems in 52 flights toconfirm RCS testing. The first 10 flights, approximately 20 percent, were checkout flights. The questions is, how many flights were flow before a production decision was made on the F-117? Since the Have Blue No. 2 first flew in July and the production decision in Nov., the answer is: not many. > And if you consider the F-117 to be a new design > aircraft based on data learned in HAVE BLUE. And if you consider they > built 5 full scale development models before they built the production run > of F-117. Yes, I considered it. But what I don't know is how much testing was done comparing the F-117 in comparison with other aircraft flow at the same altitude, on the same run, etc. > If you consider all those careful, measured, tested, individual steps > towards development of a plane touted to be a LO aircraft then to claim > what you are claiming is irrational, illogical and absurd. If you think that claiming that there is no evidence that the F-117 did no better than any other aircraft in Desert Storm that flew at the same altitude and at night is "irrational, illogical, and absurd," then all you have demonstrated to me is that you like to operate with data free analysis. > Almost emotional in my opinion. The only emotion I feel is that I have to pay for stealth that demonstrates no better performance than non-stealth aircraft and for which even former Navy Secretary John Lehman said there was no need. (See other postings.) > I question your motive in all your protestations. I was wondering how long it would take before the ad hominum attacks began. One sure sign that one has run out of valid rebuttals is to attack another personally. I don't question your motives, only your analytical abilities. You reaction reminds me of the reaction of the Catholic Church against those how questioned the belief in god. Believe as I do or will burn you at the cross. All I ask is that you provide some evidence that the stealth aspects of the F-117 made it more successful than any other aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet and at night during the Gulf War. You can not do it, so you resort to all the reason it should work. That is like the arguments as to why the earth MUST be the center of the universe and why the Catholic Church would not so much as peek into Galileo's telescope. - -------------------------------------- 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: Sun, 04 Apr 99 19:05:37 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) "The F-22 began violating the scientific method at the prototype stage and it continues to violate it. The YF-22 was not really a prototype since it failed to demonstrate stealth, the production engine, or the new avionics integrated within the tight confines of the F-22 aircraft. It demonstrated only one new aspect, the ability to supercruise. It even failed to demonstrate that, according to Col. Joseph Shearer, Deputy Director F-22 System Program Office." Well actually, the YF-22/23 were something unique: They weren't even FSD birds. They were, "See, I really have the technical ability to build a production airplane that will do what you want", birds. "The Air Force wants to go into F-22 production with only four percent of the total flight test completed, concurrency reminiscent of the Cold War. Indeed, it wants to obtain production commitments with only 183 hours of flight test out of a planned total of 4,337. This is only 26 hours more than the total 157 hours on the combination of YF-22 and YF-23 DemVal aircraft for which the government and contractors have already spent $6.4 billion." Isn't that more a function of the insane way we buy stuff now? Instead of going out and piling up a lot of hours quickly and possibly losing a couple of development aircraft (which is actually what flight testing is all about), we go very slowly, take NO chances and avoid all risk before making a decision because of the fear that money will get pulled if Any problems show up? "As a result, the Navy almost lost an F-18E. The fix was not something for nothing, either, in a low level range comparison, an F-18C flew further than the F-18E, defeating in large part, the justification to build the F-18E in the first place." Actually you can get almost all of the range increase promised for the E/F if you fly a C/D with the larger external tanks, as demonstrated by the Canadians. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:48:25 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > "The F-22 began violating the scientific method at the prototype stage > and it continues to violate it. The YF-22 was not really a prototype > since it failed to demonstrate stealth, the production engine, or the > new avionics integrated within the tight confines of the F-22 aircraft. > It demonstrated only one new aspect, the ability to supercruise. It even > failed to demonstrate that, according to Col. Joseph Shearer, Deputy > Director F-22 System Program Office." > > > Well actually, the YF-22/23 were something unique: They weren't even FSD > birds. They were, "See, I really have the technical ability to build a > production > airplane that will do what you want", birds. > > > > > "The Air Force wants to go into F-22 production with only four percent of > the total flight test completed, concurrency reminiscent of the Cold > War. Indeed, it wants to obtain production commitments with only 183 > hours of flight test out of a planned total of 4,337. This is only 26 > hours more than the total 157 hours on the combination of YF-22 and > YF-23 DemVal aircraft for which the government and contractors have > already spent $6.4 billion." > > > Isn't that more a function of the insane way we buy stuff now? > Instead of > going out and piling up a lot of hours quickly and possibly losing a couple of > development aircraft (which is actually what flight testing is all about), > we go > very slowly, take NO chances and avoid all risk before making a decision > because > of the fear that money will get pulled if Any problems show up? Absolutely. > > "As a result, the Navy almost lost an > F-18E. The fix was not something for nothing, either, in a low level > range comparison, an F-18C flew further than the F-18E, defeating in > large part, the justification to build the F-18E in the first place." > > > Actually you can get almost all of the range increase promised for the E/F > if you > fly a C/D with the larger external tanks, as demonstrated by the Canadians. I'd be willing to bet that the C/D with 480 external tanks would go further. JS ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 14:02:22 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped >>>>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. >> >> --------published figures quote 49 million per aircraft-------- > >Are these flyaway, weapons, procurement, or total program acquisition >unit costs? What year dollars? > >If you take the total program cost of the F-117 and divide it by the >total purchased, what is the program unit cost? Then specify what year >dollars. >> > Ask the GAO, accounting is their mission. Or you could look it up in the congressional record, ask Lockheed's PR people, etc. 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: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 14:36:09 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) >>>Well, if it had additional data, and could not conclude that the F-117 >>>did any better than other aircraft, where is the evidence that stealth >>>worked? >> >> Where is the evidence that it did not? Zero losses is zero losses. > >You are arguing that it did work. I don't have to prove a negative. No, I am not. I am arguing that the data you cite proves nothing either way. You say it proves it was no more effective at, essentailly, not being shot down over Iraq during the Gulf War, than other aircraft flying over 10,000 feet at night. 1. The data does not indicate that it was any less effective. 2. The point that it wasn't shot down is irrelevant if it succeeded in hitting it's targets. >> >>> >>>>>It does not disprove stealth nor does it prove it. >>>> >>>> Exactly. You said : >>>> "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 >>>> additional value, let them do it." >>> >>>Let me qualify my statement. There is not evidence that stealth works. Once again, according to your own assertions, there is also no proof that it does not. Your argument is not that it does or does not work, it is that you do not think that the scientific method was correctly applied post-HAVE BLUE, and you have no proff that it was or it wasn't, or that the application of the scientific method would have resulted in a more "stealthy" airracft that what is the F-117 today. >> >> There is no evidence that it does not, and a subnstatial amount of >> physics, as Larry pointed out, that indicates it does. > >Depending on whether you begin with an observation or an hypothesis, you >next proceed to analysis/synthesis and then test. This process was >avoided with respect to the production process on stealth aircraft. Got evidence? > >Take the F-22 for example. The F-22 weapon system is based on three >pillars: stealth, reduced vulnerability to radar; supercruise, the >ability to cruise faster than the speed of sound for extended ranges >order to transit the battlefield more quickly and reduce the time of a >potential enemy firing solution; and integrated avionics, designed with >more software lines of code than an Aegis Missile Cruiser to reduce the >pilot¼s workload and fire beyond-visual-range missiles without a visual >identification. > >The F-22 began violating the scientific method at the prototype stage >and it continues to violate it. The YF-22 was not really a prototype >since it failed to demonstrate stealth, the production engine, or the >new avionics integrated within the tight confines of the F-22 aircraft. >It demonstrated only one new aspect, the ability to supercruise. It even >failed to demonstrate that, according to Col. Joseph Shearer, Deputy >Director F-22 System Program Office. That's why the YF-22 was a demonstrator, not a prototype. The prototype aircraft have only been flying for a year or so. >> There was a great deal of physics that said gun-assembly atomic >> weapons would be effective and reliable. Without validating that >> model, it was put into use in combat. That type of atomic weapon was >> never tested. > >I missed your point. Well, gun-assembly weapons, like all atomic weapons, had never been tested. The design was considered sound enough to forgoe testing of the combat article and deploy it. > >>>> I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. Are you saying >>>> that the GAO reports are inaccurate" >> >> It was niether accurate or inaccurate,as far as your assetions. It >> neither proves or disproves wether a particular weapons system >> "worked at 10,000 fett and at night", and in fact it points out that >> making such judgements based on their data, and their report, would >> be foolish. >> >> All that report gives is numbers without meaning in this case. > >There is no evidence that any aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet at >night did any better than any other aircraft. See Lehman's comment >above. And there is nothing to indicate that that statement has any significance. It did not do any better, it did not do any worse. It suceeded in hitting it's targets. There is no evidence to indicate that it was ever tracked in Iraq. > >>> >>>No. I am saying that the GAO report makes the point that there is no >>>evidence that the F-117 did any better than any other aircraft flying in >>>the same altitudes and at night. >> >> And it also does not show that it was any worse at anything than any >> other aircraft under the same conditions. > >That is true. But you appear to be saying that stealth works. There is >no evidence that it works. According to Lehman, it's not even needed. No, I am not saying it works. And you yourself say that it does not work. I am ssaying there is nothing to indicate either. >>> >>>One can reasonably infer that there is no evidence that the F-117 did no >>>better than any of the other aircraft flying above 10,000 feet and at >>>night from the GAO report or the Title V report. >> >> And there is absolutely no significance to that statement. > >The significance is that if you pay extra for stealth and you don't need >it, don't spend it. There is no evidence that it was or was not needed. > >>>>>According to my interview with one of the authors of the GAO report, >>>>>there were other aircraft that flew into areas of equal or greater >>>>>threat. >>> >>>> "Threat" is another ill-defined term. Attacking a SAM site is >>>> considered to be attacking an "area of great threat", but so is >>>> attacking an Anthrax plant with no AAA defenses. Threat is a very >>>> subjective term. >>> >>>As far as I know, no aircraft has been shot down by the anthrax >>>bacillus. >> >> And thus, it is not a threat? So it isn't effective at killing pilots? > >Stealth is an alleged defense against surface-to-air and air-to-air >missiles. It is not designed as a defense against anthrax. Who said I was talking about stealth aircraft? Your assertions of "equal threat" are without meaning. What is a threat? >> >> Every one was destroyed, wasn't it? And quite a few DID get shot down. > >When you provide the data or show me where to look, I can comment on it. http://www.altavista.com/ The internet is a wonderful thing for expanding your horizons. > >As far as I am concerned, I have been responding to the assertions on >this list that "stealth worked" not that the F-117 did a good job in >dropping its bombs. If my assertion is correct, that there is no >evidence that stealth worked any better than non-stealth aircraft (or >that there is no evidence that it did) then the next discussion may be >how well the F-117 worked as a platform dropping bombs. However, I am >not discussing that issue. > You seem obsessed with that statement, that it did no better than XYZ. I am saying that it also did no worse, that your statements do no reflect poorly on any of the weapons systems used in that conflict. If the F-117 got to it's targets and hit them, stealth is moot. > >>>A simple observation hardly constitutes analysis. In this case, it takes >>>none. All one has to observe is that there are assertions and there are >>>observations. Put the two together and what do you see: that all >>>aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet did not get shot down. >>>Conclusion: there is no evidence that stealth works. >> >> I seem to remember an AC-130 getting shot down in the first nights of >> the war, and it operates at above 10,000 feet and at night. > >But what altitude was it operating at when it got shot down? Three AC-130s feel victim to IR guided SAMs in the Gulf War. All were operating at night. 1 was operating at 11,500 feet, another was at 9,800 feet, and the other is unknown. >> >> I do not see how those figures relate to the effectiveness of stealth >> aircraft or technology. If anything, they show the effectiveness of >> stealth aircraft in beheading the Iraqi C3I and AAA systems in the >> early stages of the war, and paving the way for other aircraft to >> conduct their missions in a reduced AAA threat environment, leading >> to fewer overall losses. >> >If I accept your premise, then it also shows the same thing for all >other aircraft operating above 10,000 feet at night. I do not see how you can ,make such insane assumptions about a combat environment. >>>Prove it. >> >> Got a good microwave? > >This throwaway comment is lost on me. > And yet, you don't answer the question. Most things you buy in a supermarket these days employs stealth technology, I'd be more than happy to guide you to a little demonstration. 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: Sun, 04 Apr 99 20:38:28 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) On 4/4/99 1:48PM, in message <199904042047.NAA11243@hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > Actually you can get almost all of the range increase promised for the E/F > > if you > > fly a C/D with the larger external tanks, as demonstrated by the Canadians. > > I'd be willing to bet that the C/D with 480 external tanks would go > further. > > JS > Since the E/F's engines burn more fuel than the C/D's, virtually all the E/F's range increase is based on more internal fuel (since you can hang the 480s on the C/D), lower drag from the wing (although with the "fix" that may no longer be true) and lower fuel consumption during "non-cruise" portions of the flight. As near as I can figure, that means they don't plan to use afterburner as much. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 14:42:09 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin > >No. I am not saying that because the models and simulation work, >stealth works. But the fact that you can infer from my statements that I >am saying stealth works indicates part of the problem. No, I am inferring that *you* have not applied the scientific method, have based the majority of your arguments on one loaded statement by the GAO, etc. etc. I am not saying wether stealth technology works or not. Either are you. >It makes no sense to develop a program for which there is any easy or >inexpensive counter. Stealth is such a program. You don't need to look So tell us what this "easy, inexpensive counter" is. >into over the horizon radars; just look at what was conceded before the >A-12 was ever built. > >The Center for Naval Analysis said that the Russians could vector >fighters to within five miles of the A-12. But it was never proven in combat or simulation against real Russian pilots, so it's not even as good as a computer model for proving anything. > >>>But even if you don't accept any of this, the point is that there is no >>>E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that the F-117 worked any better than anything else that >>>flew above 10,000 feet and at night. > >> - during the Gulf War, after the majority of the Iraqi air defences >> were destroyed. There is also no evidence that it "worked" (what does that >mean in this context?) any WORSE than anything else. > >That's right. Many on this chat list are claiming that stealth works. I >am not claiming that there is evidence that it did not. I am merely >stating that there is no evidence that it did. Which without any evidence either way makes your point, well, pointless. And most of the people on this list have enough grounding in physics to understand the underlying principles. >> >> And there is no evidence that mutally assured destruction did or >>did not work. >> There is no evidence that the internet could survive a nuclear attack. > >That is exactly the point. > The only way to prove either would be tobecome the victim of a nuclear war. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 17:56:26 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-117 thrust and parry This is my response to a private message I received. I have stripped off the name of the person who sent it. But I share it with the group for whatever it is worth. > Look I see evidence in you postings of some good inside info and some very > good thinking on your part. Thank you. >But for the most part you keep answering > questions with questions and rejecting logical and reasonable aspects that > is wrong. I don't understand what questions you are referring to when you say I answer questions with questions. Furthermore, I don't know what questions I am answering the question with. What I keep emphasizing is that there is no EVIDENCE that stealth works. There is plenty of money spent on things that one who has FAITH in the aerospace development process could reasonably conclude that it WILL work. However, having been lied to too many times, I am at this stage of my life a "show me" person. That is my point and my MAIN point. As for logic, I find nothing logical about accepting the assertions of anyone. Here is the the logic trail I see you using: Lockheed builds the F-117; Lockheed says it works; Therefore, the F-117 works. How about this logic: The Air Force and Lockheed have lied before about the capability of its aircraft; The F-117 is an aircraft; Therefore, the F-117's performance MAY be a lie. Anything wrong with that logic? > I agreed upfront the plane was overrated. I think now it is possible a non > stealth aircraft could have done a similar job. If you review my messages, that is in essence all that I have said. >But it seems this is a > function of how poorly the Iraqi radars and AAA crews were operating and > not necessarily how well Stealth worked. Thus the plane may have been > given credit for what really was a lousy air defense. And maybe Yugoslavia > will offer a better test under live fire conditions. That could be true. > > But no can prove or calculate my point or yours. We both know that. I am not attempting to prove my point. I am attempting to get others to understand that they cannot prove theirs. >If you are rational you must admit that this 117 program could not have gone > as far as it did without some merit. This is the most naive statement you have made. Do you want me to list the numerous programs that have continued on their own momentum that were totally useless. I could start with the A-12, on which the taxpayers lavished over $5 billion and for which it received nothing. History is filled with projects that were continued because they were welfare for the technologists. >Irv Waaland was the chief designer > for both the XST and the B-2. I have talked to him on the phone about the > loss to LADC on the HAVE Blue program. He has no qualms that it boiled > down to a sise by side RCS shoot out at RATSCAT. And Lockheeds entry was > slightly lower in RCS. > Now we both realize that is a number that consists of many inputs and may > be a relative figure. But the operators of RATSCAT, the AF Procurement > Office, LADC and Northrop all were out there and all saw the numbers and > the testing. They all knew one model was technically better than the > other. And Waaland told me that was the only factor considered when > awarding the program. He was proud of his effort but was content he did > their best and was beaten by a better team. I would think he would feel > differently if the LADC entry was not stealthy as everyone else believed it > to be. Well, not exactly. Lockheed was better in some frequency ranges than Northrop but not all of them. Here are the actually readings in relative detectability. Thus, Northrop is more detectable at the higher frequencies and less detectable at the lower or search frequencies. The Air Force was willing to give up on the detection and attempted to defeat the enemy radars in the acquisition and lock-on frequency ranges. Relative Readings of Have Blue competing Models (Front) Radar Freq. Northrop Lockheed 16.0 GHz 4.0 1.3 2.3 GHz 1.5 1.0 0.175 GHz 13.0 1,000.0 There were actually two designers of the B-2: Irv and John Cashen. Irv was the aero and Cashen was the stealth guy. I flew to Australia to interview him and did so for several days. > And to repeatedly deny that Lockheed was nor building a reasonable > engineering data base is not making sense. You seem to leak a few tidbits > about info you have to contradict this. I agree its up to you to prove > their efforts are bogus. I have seen way too much activity, discussion and > effort not to believe in Lockheeds stealth efforts. I am not questioning Lockheed's efforts. Nor am I questioning their database. But just as McDonnell Douglas had the wind tunnel data from Northrop on the YF-17 and still buggered their efforts on the F-18A only to screw up the wing design on the F-18E after two decades of experience, the level of effort does not a good design make. Do you think I am questioning the attempts that Lockheed engineers made. No. But do I think that Lockheed is capable of making mistakes. Yes. Why? Because it has done it before. It totally screwed up its design entry on the Freedom Fighter competition that ultimately led to the F-5E. It had a design that was so efficient, you had to tie the airplane to the ramp because even without thrust, it would fly. When challenged by the Air Force, the Skunkworks defended its work with the arrogance of "we are the Skunkworks. We know and you don't." Well, guess what. Lockheed had to eat it. They quietly dropped out of the competition when it was shown that it had screwed up the data. > I am normally a skoffer myself. Don't believe in Aurora, know the TR-3A > was fabricated, don't believe in UFO's either. There is no evidence. > > I worked on the base at Holloman for over a year as a civilian. One reason > I went there was to learn more about 117's. I believe it is for real. But > that depends on all sorts of other external factors. I have no problem > with the AF building 59 of these things. I'm not sure why they built the > B-1 and am just now appreciating the B-2. Fact is I am not impressed with > AF logic in general. > > But you can't keep countering with the quote from the GAO report about > darkness and 10,000 feet. And if you just refuse to believe it then no > information will sway your opinion so why discuss it? If someone keeps saying "X is true," and there is no evidence, I can keep replying, "show me." Now, X may be true. But until you show me, I will not accept it. I have been lied to personally by generals, admirals, and contractors too many times to accept anything anymore because some flag ranking officer says it. I fail to see why I can't keep countering with the GAO report or asking people to prove what they say. I certainly have offered more information in this dialogue than the warmed over Air Force PR comments offered on this list defending the F-117. > > I would be interested in knowing more of your background and experiences > here. I of course would keep said info confidential if you desired. I am > just an outsider with no connections whatever. A hobbyist if you will. My background and experience are irrelevant Truth is true, whether I have a double Ph.D. in aero and physics or I work in a grocery store. Background and experience are only important if you want to rely on assertions. I refuse to rely on assertions. You can pick up a copy of The Pentagon Paradox and that will give you some background. I was the editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal for six years. I have just finished researching the history of the Navy's A-12 Avenger for five years. After the equivalent effort of a bachelors and a masters degree, I can assure you that this stealth thing is so blown out of proportion that it will boggle your mind. - -------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #38 ******************************** 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