From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #40 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 040 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: GAO Report URL Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Stealth debate (longish) RE: GAO Report URL More F-117As to Europe Re: Photos of downed F-117 Re: F-117 photos Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:43:46 +0100 From: gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk Subject: RE: GAO Report URL Thanks for that URL. Two things: What does GAO mean? (I am asleep!) and What made the F-111F a 'very expensive' aircraft? I am surprised considering it was retired a few years ago. Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Christoph > Sent: 04 April 1999 10:06 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: GAO Report URL > > > GAO Report URL: > (NSIAD-97-134, June 12, 1997 (235 pages). Operation Desert Storm: > Evaluation of the Air Campaign.) > > > http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid= > f:ns97134.txt > ( .txt format, 572KB ) > > http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid= > f:ns97134.txt.pdf > ( .pdf format, 858KB ) > > .PDF-version recommended as report contains images > > Christoph > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 07:59:07 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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. I think what you mean, Art, is that if it performs as advertised, it confers a benefit. The issue is, does it perform as advertised. >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). This is an assertion without evidence, unless you want to say that claims are evidence. > 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). The Air Force rebuttal to this would be, well, you may be able to track it but you can't lock-on or fuze. Again, there is no evidence. > Its IRST will > undoubtedly pick up a F-22 supercruising. However, will it do it in time > before the F-22 fires? I don't know. Why don't we hold off the production of the aircraft until we can prove it one way or the other. >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. Absolutely. > 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. Jim S. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 08:02:27 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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. I couldn't agree more, Sam. Jim S. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:43:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: GAO Report URL > Thanks for that URL. > > Two things: > What does GAO mean? (I am asleep!) US General Accounting Office > and > What made the F-111F a 'very expensive' aircraft? I am surprised IT WAS NOT a 'very expensive' aircraft? This is the most popular excuse Congress wants to hear in order to kill something... The F-111 was never popular with the USAF and practically everyone wanted it out of the inventory. IIRC: It was forced upon the USAF my DoD Secretary McNamara in the 60's. So, the USAF got rid of it at the first chance they got. In fact the USAF recently killed the much more capable and powerful EF-111A Raven in favor of the USN EA-6B Prowler (whose wings are falling off) just because they didn't want the EF-111. If we were to believe that the USAF really retires aircraft because they are 'very expensive' then the B-2 bomber should be the first one to be retired, followed by the F-22, JSF (if they are ever built). Using the same logic the USN shouldn't build the F-18E/F Super Hornet because it is very expensive and yet they are building it anyway even though they do not need it and even though it is less capable than the F-14D Quasi-Super Tomcat (which is already in the inventory and is being retired to make room for the E/F). Sam > considering it was retired a few years ago. > > Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:53:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: More F-117As to Europe No one mentioned the following AFNS report explicitly, so I thought I would add it 'for the record'. :) >990569. More F-117A's support Operation Allied Force >WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Thirteen F-117A stealth fighters will soon deploy from >Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., to join the Operation Allied Force air >campaign over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia April 3 and 4. >Twelve planes will be added to the force total, while the other fighter will >replace the F-117A lost during an air strike March 27. This will bring the >total number of aircraft in theater up to 220. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:57:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Photos of downed F-117 Thanks to Greg (Gregory Fieser ), Brent (Brent Clark ) and all the others who have posted links to pictures and reports regarding the recent F-117A crash. I would like to add some comments, based on the following daylight photos of the crash site: >http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/nose.jpg [This picture shows, of course, the tail of the aircraft, and not the nose, which is totally burned away.] >http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/tail.jpg >http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/engine.jpg >http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/text.jpg >http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/2130/site.jpg >http://www.stratfor.com/images/downedf117a.jpg >http://www.stratfor.com/images/downedf117b.jpg >http://www.stratfor.com/images/downedf117c.jpg >http://www.stratfor.com/images/downedf117d.jpg >http://www.stratfor.com/images/downedf117e.jpg Contrary to what I assumed originally, based on the night-time Serb TV footage of the burning aircraft, both bomb-bay doors seem to be firmly shut, but caved in, which leads me to the next assumption -- that the weapons bay is empty, and the bombs were obviously dropped before the crash. The 'door' that is extending into the air is the port engine-bay door, which probably either opened upon impact or due to heat-induced warping. Most of the aircraft in front of the bomb-bays (center) and engine-bays (outside) is basically burned away, but the outline of the plane can still be discerned. That in turn, means that most of the sensitive avionics and targeting/sensor suit is probably burnt away, together with much of the RAM material on the outside of the airframe, leaving little for the Serbs (or Russians, etc.) to 'discover'. Adding to that all the other information that is available about the over two decades old F-117A design in particular and stealth in general, I dare to assert that the 'mythology' surrounding the F-117A was the main victim of the crash, and 'National Security' was probably more harmed by retiring the SR-71A than losing this plane. The Former Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China both have the remains of one or more U-2Cs, including cameras, avionics, defensive systems and other sensors -- very secret at the time, while U-2Ss, even though they are much more advanced now, are still used today. I have no idea how much use the wrecks were for those countries at the time, but the fact that they exploited the remains, did not make the U-2 or overhead reconnaissance obsolete, even though it probably influenced its current implementation. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:00:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: F-117 photos patrick wrote: >At 08:41 PM 4/3/99 -0700, you wrote: >>Regarding the F117 that was shot down last week. I have to wonder... >>I attended the Miramar air show last summer and got a few pictures of >>F117's. For reasons I do not know, the F117 gets a very high degree of >>security at air shows: >Again, no mystery, no folklore, no conspiracy, no subterfuge. It is >printed in AF documents available to the public regarding security of >aircraft. The list begins with AF One and works down the hierarchy. When >it mentions specifics about the F-117 it specifically states "this is a >touch sensitive aircraft". They spend many manhours and dollars >resurfacing the RAM on this airplane. It is very labor intensive. >Theoretically the plane you see at an airshow on sunday afternoon should be >ready to depart on a world wide mission the following day. If the aircraft >comes back from the airshow with hearts and initials and various other >holes and gouges made by kids and adults poking at the RAM to see what it >is made of then it would have to go in for major repair work. I have to disagree with the second part of your post, Patrick. The security around F-117s (as well as U-2s and B-2s, for that matter) is (at least partially) a Public Relations stunt to keep the mystery surrounding those planes and 'stealth' in general alive. The F-117s that are displayed at airshows are 'dedicated' airshow planes, without the operational RAM coating, and are not intended to be operational 'at a moments notice'. The same is true for U-2s and SR-71s, etc. These planes do not carry any sensitive operational hardware, like sensors or defense (ECM) systems, or in case of the F-117As and B-2As any RAM putty or paint or sheets, nor live weapons. Don't assume 'rationality' or 'reason' behind things the military is doing -- in many cases there is no rational reason at all, and this is not limited to procurement decisions or the way operations are conducted, but extends down to such simple matters as designations, paint jobs, and paperwork, etc. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:17:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Terry Colvin forwarded a post from Jim Boyd in response to an newspaper article from the London Times, which was apparentl= y=20 quoted on J. Orlin Grabbe's page, . Patrick h= as=20 already responded to some of the errors contained in this post and the=20 article, but I want to add some additional input. Sorry for all the quoting= ,=20 but I prefer to maintain the context.=20 Jim Boyd wrote: >>This story from the London Times [story below] is a bit over-blown. The U= =2ES. >>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. and Patrick Cullumber responded: >There have been only 8 lost.=20 >792, 815 and 822 due to pilot error. >785, 793 and 801 and due to improper assembly. >824 landed on fire. >806 crashed in Yugoslavia Actually, if my records are right, there were only 7 complete losses, with 3 additional probable/possible losses due to fires, as listed below: Write Offs/Mishaps/Losses (by date): =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 785 (80-0785) 04/20/82 (at Groom Lake, NV, Robert Ridenhauer, injured) 792 (81-10792) 07/11/86 (near Bakersfield, CA, Maj. Ross E. Mulhare, kill= ed) 815 (84-0815) 10/14/87 (near Tonopah, NV, Maj. Michael J. Stewart, kille= d) 801 (82-0801) 08/04/92 (Alamogordo, NM, Capt. John Mills, ok) 824 (82-0824) 04/05/95 (burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, (pilot ?), ok) 822 (85-0822) 05/10/95 (near Zuni, NM, Capt. Kenneth Levens, killed) 843 (88-0843) ../../96 (burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, (pilot ?), ok) 825 ("82-0825") 06/04/97 (burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, (pilot ?), ok ?) 793 (81-10793) 09/14/97 (Middle River, MD, Maj. Bryan Knight, ok) 806 (82-0806) 03/27/99 (Budjenovici, Yugoslavia, (pilot ?), ok) I don't know if any of the three burned-out aircraft have been or will be= =20 repaired, though, and the serial of '825' should be '85-0825', not as AFM= =20 (Air Forces Monthly) No. 124 states '82-0825'. >>The F-117 entered service in 1983. It was designed in 1977, using the F-117As entered service in 1982, and became operational (IOC) 10/28/1983. >>MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF RADAR STOLEN FROM THE RUSSIANS, dating to the earl= y >>1970s.=20 >Not true. It was published openly in Russia and only much later translated >to English at UCLA and found its way then to the LADC >>The F-117's stealth technology is 30 years OLD, and is based on I beg to differ, from 1977 to 1999 is just 22 years, not 30. >>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 manne= d >>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. I assume he is talking about the Aurora, TR-3A, and A-17, all of which are= =20 just speculative, and so are their stealth features and other supposed (or better, imagined) capabilities. >>The F-117 is an extremely simple aircraft. It was designed before powerfu= l >>computers were available. All of its guts were taken from existing (in 19= 80) >>aircraft parts. The cost is typically quoted at about $60 million per F-1= 17. >published figures quote 49 million per aircraft >>That is CHEAP for an aircraft made in such small numbers. If you add up t= he >>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 w= ill >>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 Forc= e >>personnel have serviced it over the years. I seriously doubt that it has = any >>secrets remaining. The program is a little bit over 20 years old, not 30 and not 25. If there= =20 weren't any secrets remaining, than why does anybody (including the USAF)= =20 make such a fuss about it? >>There is an element of bitter jealousy in Europe concerning the superiori= ty >>of American weaponry and technology. I noticed this in the reporting of t= he >>Gulf War, and it shows in this article. I have not seen this "bitter jealousy in Europe concerning the superiority of American weaponry and technology" -- but that is probably a point of vie= w=20 thing. Because many NATO partners fly very similar aircraft (F-16, F/A-18,= =20 AV-8, E-2, E-3, etc.), and have some pretty good indigenous ones (Tornado, Mirage 2000, and may even count the MiG-29), I don't see much of a differen= ce here. B-52s, B-1s and B-2s, as well as some specific reconnaissance and electronic warfare capabilities, may be a different issue. >>The technologies we see on TV -- F-15E, JSTARS, AWACS, F-117, laser-guide= d >>bombs, cruise missiles, etc. -- are 20 years old. E-8s (J-STAR) are not 20 year old technology! >>The United States is ABSOLUTELY invincible on a conventional battlefield. >>Our biggest risk is non-conventional warfare. Famous last words. [...] Now to the newspaper article: >>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 snatche= d >>to safety by a US rescue team, but the televised images of =A328 million = worth >>of military high technology smouldering in a field 30 miles west of Belgr= ade >>represented a massive propaganda coup for the Yugoslav Government. >>The pilot, believed to be Captain Ken Dwelle, was picked up by rescue tro= ops I guess they got that from the name printed on the side of the canopy, whic= h=20 is not a valid assumption to make. There is no information yet regarding th= e=20 name of the pilot, and the USAF is not talking. >>backed by HH-60 Night Hawk helicopters and a number of fixed-wing aircraf= t >>within six hours of bailing out in his ejection capsule, which is itself = a >>technological masterpiece costing $3 million.=20 >ejection capsule? No such thing exists. The design is the classic blow the >canopy, hold tight to your ACES II ejection seat and out the open top you >go. Remember this a subsonic aircraft. LOL. :) But this shows how little the writer actually knew about the F-117A= =20 in general and this incident in particular. But that is exactly what I have= =20 to become to expect from the Media in regard to aerospace and other=20 technology issues. >>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 fo= rce >>of 59 F117s have crashed. >There are no long standing concerns. There was a fuel line that exhibited >failed welds which leaked fuel and caused an inflight fire. All 117's were >given new fuel lines without further incident. When assembled and flown >properly it is very reliable.=20 According to my sources, there were at least 3 fuel-leak related fires. And= =20 regarding the number of F-117As -- don't forget the 5 FSD aircraft. Not all= =20 production aircraft are operational either, several are used for testing. >>Whether the plane was a victim of mechanical failure, pilot error or host= ile >>fire remained unclear last night, but Pentagon officials made no secret o= f >>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 sk= in >>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. No, jet intakes don't have any exceptional IR signature, that feature belon= gs=20 to the jet exhaust -- the intake is relevant for concealing the jet engine turbine blades from radar detection. >>In 1991, F117s flew 1,788 missions against key Iraqi command and weapons >>targets, striking central Baghdad and clearing the way for the B52 bomber= s. >>Not a single F117 was lost in Iraq, leading to a mood of complacency abou= t >>the plane's abilities among some military planners that was rudely explod= ed >>on Saturday night. Now where did they get the 'mood of complacency' bit from? [Rest of the article and Patrick's responses deleted.] I also added a small overview of F-117A serials and some additional data on= =20 the 10 lost aircraft. Thanks to Peter Merlin for help with the Fiscal Years= =2E Production Overview: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D YF-117A FSD (Full-Scale Development aircraft): - ---------------------------------------------- 780 through 784 Total: 5 Series F-117A: - -------------- 785 through 843 Total: 59 FY Number ordered/built/paid Article numbers: - --------------------------------------------------- 79 5 Lot 1 (FSD) 780 - 784 80 7 Lot 2 785 - 791 81 7 Lot 3 792 - 798 82 12 Lot 4 (8) 799 - 806 Lot 6 (4) 809 - 812 [out of sequence] 83 2 Lot 5 807 - 808 84 8 Lot 7 813 - 820 85 8 Lot 8 821 - 828 86 8 Lot 9 829 - 836 87 4 Lot 10 837 - 840 88 3 Lot 11 841 - 843 - --------------------------------------------------- 64 780 - 843 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Lockheed F-117A Serial Numbers (as far as known): =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Static Test Articles: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 777 (none) 778 (none) 779 (none) Lot 1 (FSD - Full-Scale Development aircraft): =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 780 79-10780 (first flight: 06/18/1981, planned for 07/1980 =3D=3D> '780'= ) 781 79-10781 782 79-10782 783 79-10783 784 79-10784 Lot 2: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 785 80-0785 (1st series F-117A built, crashed 04/20/1982, before accepta= nce by USAF on first flight at Groom Lake, NV, pilot Robert Ridenhauer did not eject and was injured); 786 80-0786 (2nd series F-117A built, second aircraft accepted by USAF: 09/02/1982,=20 flew 24 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "War Pig"); 787 80-0787 (3rd series F-117A built, first aircraft accepted by USAF: 08/23/1982); 788 80-0788 789 80-0789 790 80-0790 791 80-0791 Lot 3: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 792 81-10792 (8th series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 12/22/1982, crashed 07/11/1986 near Bakersfield, CA, pilot Maj. Ross E. Mulhare did not eject and was killed); 793 81-10793 (9th series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 02/01/1983, flew 3 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "Wiley E. Coyote's Tritonal= =20 Express", crashed 09/14/1997 at Middle River, MD, pilot Maj. Bryan Knight ejected safely); 794 81-10794 795 81-10795 796 81-10796 797 81-10797 798 81-10798 Lot 4: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 799 82-0799 800 82-0800 801 82-0801 (17th series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 02/15/1984, flew 38 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "Perpetrator", crashed 08/04/1992 at Alamogordo, NM, pilot, Capt. John Mil= ls, ejected safely); 802 82-0802 (often quoted as having crashed 08/04/1992); 803 82-0803 804 82-0804 805 82-0805 806 82-0806 (22nd series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 09/12/1984, flew 39 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "Something Wicked", lost 03/27/1999 near Budjenovici, Yugoslavia, the pilot (?) ejected with minor injuries); Lot 5: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 807 83-0807 808 83-0808 Lot 6: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 809 82-0809 810 82-0810 811 82-0811 812 82-0812 Lot 7: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 813 84-0813 814 84-0814 815 84-0815 (31st series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 10/31/1985,=20 crashed 10/14/1987 near Tonopah, NV, pilot Maj. Michael J. Stewart did not eject and was killed); 816 84-0816 817 84-0817 818 84-0818 819 84-0819 820 84-0820 Lot 8: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 821 85-0821 822 85-0822 (38th series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 09/18/1986, crashed 05/10/1995 near Zuni, NM, pilot Capt. Kenneth Leven= s did not eject and was killed); 823 85-0823 824 85-0824 (40th series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 12/17/1986, landed 04/05/1995 on fire and subsequently burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, the pilot (?) survived); 825 85-0825 (41st series F-117A built, accepted by USAF: 03/25/1987, flew 33 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "Mad Max"); burned out 06/04/1997 at Holloman AFB, NM, the pilot (?)=20 survived, aircraft might be repaired); 826 85-0826 827 85-0827 828 85-0828 Lot 9: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 829 86-0829 830 86-0830 831 86-0831 832 86-0832 833 86-0833 834 86-0834 835 86-0835 836 86-0836 Lot 10: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 837 87-0837 838 87-0838 839 87-0839 840 87-0840 Lot 11: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 841 88-0841 842 88-0842 843 88-0843 (59th series F-117A built, last aircraft accepted by USAF: 07/12/1990,=20 flew 33 combat missions during Desert Storm, nicknamed (bomb bay 'nose' art) "Affectionately Christine")= ; burned out sometime in 1996 at Holloman AFB, NM, the pilot (?) survived, aircraft might be repaired); - -- Andreas - --- -= - -- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- -= - -- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #40 ******************************** 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