From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #39 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 Monday, April 5 1999 Volume 08 : Number 039 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: F-116 1/2 Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Stealth debate (longish) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 14:58:21 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped >>> >>> --------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. >>> >> > This is the number you will find in AF and Lockheed press releases. I don't know how they arrived at it. I don't care how they arrived at it. I don't believe its possible to identify the cost of an airplane in the first place. So I am using this number and not questioning it so I can spend my time on things I can confirm and believe in. Accountants are not my gurus. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:23:34 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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. So did the other aircraft. What is your point? >>>>>>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 n= o >>>>> 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. That is correct. >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. No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that those who cite the Gulf War as evidence of the effectiveness of stealth cannot use it because non of the aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet and at night did not get shot down either. That is all that stealth was designed to do: permit the aircraft to survive in a hostile environment. But since all of the aircraft that flew at or above 10,000 feet and at night survived, one cannot use the Gulf War as evidence of stealth's effectiveness. >>> >>> 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? No one argues with the fact that F-117 production decisions were made before it was flown with other non-stealth aircraft at the same time, altitude, and flight path against Russian radars using the same equipment that Russians would use to detect, track, and acquire aircraft. No one. >>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 >>pilot=BCs 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. But the "demonstrators" did not demonstrate that they were stealthy nor have the pre-production F-22s that are currently flying. But, like previous "stealth" aircraft, the Air Force is going into production anyway. >>> 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. Are you saying that the gun worked without being tested? If so, how do you know? >>>>> I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. Are you sayi= ng >>>>> 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. We are not discussing the ability of the F-117 to drop bombs. I don't dispute its ability to drop bombs. I argue that there is no evidence that the money spent on stealth was worth it. >>>> >>>>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 i= n >>>>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. I am not saying it does not work. I am saying that 1) there is no evidence that it worked; and 2) that production decisions were made before there was evidence that it worked on a production F-117 aircraft. > >>>> >>>>One can reasonably infer that there is no evidence that the F-117 did n= o >>>>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. I prefer to have evidence of something, not a lack of no evidence, before I am asked to pay for something. > >> >>>>>>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? You lost me. >>> >>> 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. You made the assertion. You look it up. >> >>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. I agree. The evidence so far indicate exactly what you say: stealth is moot. > >> >>>>A simple observation hardly constitutes analysis. In this case, it take= s >>>>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. If you are correct, I'll modify my comment to "above 12,000 feet." >>> >>> 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. You lost me again. What assumption? >>>>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. If I understand your point it is that since we can absorb microwave in the kitchen, we can do it on aircraft. Is that you point? - -------------------------------------- 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 1999 18:37:49 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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. What loaded statements are you referring to? I am not using the GAO report as my only source. No one has argued against the fact that all aircraft (with the possible exception of your new input on the AC-130) that flew at--lets call it medium altitudes--at night survived. > > I am not saying wether stealth technology works or not. Either are you. O.K. What is your point? >>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. The Navy also has a program called CEC [Cooperative Engagement Concept] which involved several ships in different locations observing an alleged "stealth" aircraft on their radar. The inputs from these various radars are put into a computer at a central location and as a result, you can track the aircraft and get a firing solution." According to the Navy captain who led the exercise, the CEC was an overwhelming success. Richard Rumpf, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition, confirmed the perishability of stealth when he told congress in 1990 that if =B3additional resources were available in [counterstealth] it would help." More recently, Secretary of the Navy Lehman said, =B3I believed that the Navy could defeat stealth. It was not the war winner that its most enthusiastic supporters believed it was." Cooperative Engagement Concept works for ships and aircraft as well. Currently, F-18Cs and Ds are flying with the functional equivalent of the Cooperative Engagement Concept under a program with a white world name of Retract Maple. A radar modifications and some software enables these aircraft to see "stealth" aircraft. The ease of this modification is trivial compared to the attempts on the part of aerospace manufacturers to make aircraft "invisible." But more to point, the Russians are selling radars specifically designed to counter stealth. > >>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. The statement was an admission against interest and entitled to somewhat more weight. >>>>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 tha= t >>>>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 t= hat >>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. Understanding principles does not mean that the principles have been successfully translated into a production aircraft. > >>> >>> 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 wa= r. Is that really your point? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 99 03:24:12 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) This has been fascinating, I've enjoyed just reading it. You know, it really boils down to: At what point does the costs of stealth outweigh its benefits? Unquestionably it confers a survival benefit. If for no other reason that an aircraft that is harder to track via radar is also harder to hit with a radar guided missile (same logic for IR). By the same token, to pretend that stealth alone automatically grants virtual invulnerability is foolish. After all, the systems in the F-14D have already demonstrated the ability to track the B-2 at a distance exceeding 40 miles (in the day). Its IRST will undoubtedly pick up a F-22 supercruising. However, will it do it in time before the F-22 fires? By the same token, no one should seriously believe the earlier AF claim that the stealth characteristics of the F-22 imposed no cost or performance penalty. It is only common sense that if the stealth requirement weren't there, the aircraft would have been cheaper, or if it costs what it does now, it would have been more capable. Stealth seems to me to be one arrow in the quiver. A good arrow, but even Robin Hood used more than one. I'm sure of this. I saw the movie (the good one) and the TV series. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 23:51:32 EDT From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: F-116 1/2 Not any more, you just blew it for America, Agent Tang ! 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 >Anyone reverse-engineering this technology will be wasting millions of >dollars, only to end up with an aeronautical lemon. > >Just as "they" intended. > > Agent T, > Area S4 ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 01:02:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > This has been fascinating, I've enjoyed just reading it. You know, it really > boils down to: At what point does the costs of stealth outweigh its benefits? > Unquestionably it confers a survival benefit. If for no other reason that an > aircraft that is harder to track via radar is also harder to hit with a radar > guided missile (same logic for IR). By the same token, to pretend that stealth > alone automatically grants virtual invulnerability is foolish. After all, the > systems in the F-14D have already demonstrated the ability to track the B-2 at a > distance exceeding 40 miles (in the day). Its IRST will undoubtedly pick up a > F-22 supercruising. However, will it do it in time before the F-22 fires? By the > same token, no one should seriously believe the earlier AF claim that the stealth > characteristics of the F-22 imposed no cost or performance penalty. It is only > common sense that if the stealth requirement weren't there, the aircraft would > have been cheaper, or if it costs what it does now, it would have been more > capable. agree *.* But this brings up another issue. Should we be sacrificing all our conventional aircraft is favor of the F-22? Surely NOT. The F-22 alone cannot satisfy all our requirements -- not by a long shot. I believe that we still need advanced conventional aircraft to complement the F-22 and the JSF. We also need sufficient funding so that we are able to fly ALL our aircraft safely and effectively. I also believe that the military needs to change it's procurement policy, so that we do not end up spending several billion before we realize that the funds were being wasted on something that would never fly (A-12) or something we did not need (F-18E/F). It would be very desirable to be able to develop and field new designs more quickly**, but without jeopardizing the quality, capabilities or flight testing and evaluation of those designs. It would also be nice if we could build our systems in such a way that we could upgrade and maintain them more quickly and easily (I was horrified to read [in AW&ST] that Boeing was proposing eliminating a number of maintenance panels on the JSF in order to improve stealth, which would require the aircraft skin to be punctured and replaced every time we wanted to repair or upgrade internal components). Furthermore, I believe that we need to remove politics from the procurement process entirely, so that we do not end up paying for another Super Hornet. ** so that they do not become obsolete before they are even fielded > > Stealth seems to me to be one arrow in the quiver. A good arrow, but > even > Robin Hood used more than one. I'm sure of this. I saw the movie (the good one) > and the TV series. > lol :)) > Art > Sam PS Pardon me for being so religious about this, but I still maintain that we should have destroyed the wreckage of the F-117 in Serbia regardless of whether stealth works or not and regardless of whether the aircraft is obsolete or not. I believe that whenever an aircraft goes down in enemy territory for any reason and regardless of how secret it is, we should do whatever it takes to destroy the wreckage and "decontaminate" the area, so as to deny the enemy of any sensitive parts that may be left and also deny them the satisfaction and propaganda value it may have. In the case of the F-117 portions of the airframe were still intact (wing, empenage, etc.) and at least one of the engines "appeared" to be mostly intact. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 01:37:06 -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. > >What loaded statements are you referring to? I am not using the GAO >report as my only source. No one has argued against the fact that all >aircraft (with the possible exception of your new input on the AC-130) >that flew at--lets call it medium altitudes--at night survived. It shouldn't be new input. Finding out the details of the AC-130 and BGM-109 losses took me seconds, a simple internet search revealed everything I was looking for and more. >> >> I am not saying wether stealth technology works or not. Either are you. > > O.K. What is your point? Exactly. > >>>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. > >The Navy also has a program called CEC [Cooperative Engagement Concept] >which involved several ships in different locations observing an alleged >"stealth" aircraft on their radar. The inputs from these various radars >are put into a computer at a central location and as a result, you can >track the aircraft and get a firing solution." How much did that cost? How "easy and inexpensive" would it be for even a fairly capable country like India to pull off? Most countries do not have the computing power or "sensor fusion" capabilities (ubquitous datalinks, etc.) that the US does. For the US, it's not that hard. For Iraq it would be nearly impossible. And never mind the fact that it was a carefully orchestrated exercise that required months of planning. Then there is the fact that it did nothing to enable a missile to hit it's target. > >According to the Navy captain who led the exercise, the CEC was an >overwhelming success. Richard Rumpf, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Of course it was, it was more of a political exercise than a tactical one. >the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition, confirmed the >perishability of stealth when he told congress in 1990 that if >„additional resources were available in [counterstealth] it would help." Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on counterstealth this year. Billions since the mid 1980s. >manufacturers to make aircraft "invisible." But more to point, the >Russians are selling radars specifically designed to counter stealth. And I could sell you a floor polish and tell you it was a desert topping. That doesn't mean it's yummy. A number of people at DTRA and DOE could tell you about Russian techno-promises. 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: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 02:26:33 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) >> >> 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. > >So did the other aircraft. What is your point? Obviously missed. How could it have survived better than zero losses? Did the other aircraft have treatments applied to reduce their signatures? Was the threat environment static, as you seem to assume? The AV-8B flew at over 10,000 feet and at night, yet suffered substantial losses. Why is it not included in your analysis? The AC-130 also fit your profile, and suffered losses. Why was it not included? What about Cruise Missles? Have you looked ath the official DoD after action report on the Desert Storm campaign? "The Coalition's aggressive SEAD defeated most Iraqi radar systems. This enabled Coalition aircraft to conduct operations in the middle altitudes (about 15,000 feet) in relative safety because they were less vulnerable to IR-guided SAMs or unguided AAA. One of the greater dangers Coalition pilots faced was from IR- or EO-guided SAMs while they were flying at relatively low altitudes, supporting Coalition ground forces. Although sortie rates were relatively constant, approximately half of its fixed-wing combat losses occurred during either the first week of Operation Desert Storm (17 aircraft), before enemy defenses had been suppressed, or during the last week (eight aircraft), when aircraft were operating at lower altitudes in the IR SAM threat region." Aircraft at all altitudes, both during day and night, suffered losses during the first 3 days. The GAO report, strangely enough, omits any and all mention of the AV-8B and AC-130 losses- both of which occured at medium altitudes and (some) at night. the first few days of the war are the only ones realtive to your point- after the SEAD offensive was complete, any analysis of survivability is skewed. Never mind cruise missile, target drones, and unmanned recon aircraft like Pointer. > >No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that those who cite the >Gulf War as evidence of the effectiveness of stealth cannot use it >because non of the aircraft that flew above 10,000 feet and at night did >not get shot down either. That is incorrect. That is all that stealth was designed to do: >permit the aircraft to survive in a hostile environment. But since all >of the aircraft that flew at or above 10,000 feet and at night survived, >one cannot use the Gulf War as evidence of stealth's effectiveness. > Stealth aircraft or stealth technology? You seem to be missing the point that it d matters wether an aircraft is shot down before or after it hits it's target. If a stealth aircraft or missile is destroyed after it hits it's target, stealth has succeeded. >> >> 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. > >Are you saying that the gun worked without being tested? If so, how do >you know? Testing of such devices tends to leave big, ugly holes in the ground. >>>> >>>> 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. > >You made the assertion. You look it up. I did, that's why I pointed you to the search engine that gave the most relevant results. I have shown you where to look, and I'm not going to do your research for you. I am not going to hand you a fish, but a fishing pole. Unless your publisher is going to pay my research fees, in which case I'd be happy to :) >>> >>>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. > >I agree. The evidence so far indicate exactly what you say: stealth is >moot. You say, the Air Force, etc. cannot use the Gulf War as an example of how the F-117 is a sucess. The F-117 hit a substantial number of targets accurately. That's one sucess. The only one that matters, really. It did so with no losses, at a time when other aircraft were suffering great losses. There's another. > >If you are correct, I'll modify my comment to "above 12,000 feet." Fine. Don't quote the GAO as saying it though. Their assertion is that no aircraft flying above 10,000 feet at night was shot down, not 12,000. >> >> 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. > >If I understand your point it is that since we can absorb microwave in >the kitchen, we can do it on aircraft. Is that you point? > No. It has nothing to do with absorbing microwaves, but reflecting them and reducing the radar corss section of food packaging from certin angles, and focusing it in others. Ufimitsev's calculations have found applications other than weapons systems. 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. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #39 ******************************** 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