From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #42 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, April 6 1999 Volume 08 : Number 042 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #41 U-2s in China RE: GAO Report URL Re: This just in... Re: F-117 photos Re: Stealth debate (longish) RE: CEC [Cooperative Engagement Concept] [[was Re: The stealth ex cuses begin]] RE: GAO Report URL RE: GAO Report URL AV-8B losses. [Was: Stealth debate (longish)] Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped Re: F-117 serials F-111 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 21:09:58 -0400 From: Brian Mork Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #41 skunk-works-digest wrote: >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 1979 ?! Eee gads! That makes me feel old.. - -- Brian Mork, http://www.qsl.net/ka9snf, or mork@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 21:27:07 -0400 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: U-2s in China x >Didn't the US give China 4 U-2s to play with, only they crashed them all >within days of getting them? > >Gavin > From 1961 through 1974, The CIA and the Republic of China Air Force (Taiwan) jointly operated U-2s. They did not "crash them all within days of getting them." Five were shot down over the China mainland during the course of over a hundred overflights. Seven aircraft were lost in on training/proficiency flights between 1961 and 1970. Approximately 28 Chinese pilots were qualified in the U-2 and 10 were killed in shootdowns or crashes. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 19:49:27 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: GAO Report URL At 12:43 PM 4/5/99 -0400, you wrote: >> Thanks for that URL. >> >> Two things: >> What does GAO mean? (I am asleep!) > >US General Accounting Office > The GAO is a government watchdog group with an excellent reputation for identifying wasted or misusedfunds and in this case how well something works versus the claims made. Kinda like "60 minutes". >> 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. > It began as McNamara's dream airplane, the TFX(Tactical Fighter Experimental). It was to be a joint Navy/USAF plane that does it all. The Navy bailed out leaving it to the AF. Possibly being a swing wing plane it presented problems, don't remember. It was supposed to be a Boeing design and build but President Johnson decided it would be better if GD in Texas would be awarded the contract. It got off to a terrible start but seems like a good airplane. Hell, what airplane have we built that isn't embroiled in some kinda imbroglio. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 20:26:35 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: This just in... >by 1st Lt. Matthew Borg >31st Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs > >AVIANO AIR BASE, Italy (AFPN) -- During his more than six hours behind enemy >lines, the U.S. F-117 pilot who ejected during a night mission over >Yugoslavia March 27, waited for his rescuers with a cloth American flag under >his flight suit and against his body. > >Given to him by an airman as he strapped in for his mission, he secured the >flag before he took off, and that's where it remained until his return, >providing him a calming reassurance throughout. > >"A moment like this is a prayer in object form," said the pilot, whose >identity is being protected for operational security reasons. "Her giving >that flag to me was saying, 'I'm giving this to you to give back to me when >you get home.' > >"For me it was representative of all the people who I knew were praying," >said the pilot. "It was a piece of everyone and very comforting. It helped >me not let go of hope. Hope gives you strength ... it gives you endurance." SNIP------CUT-----SLASH------TEAR------RIP------!!!! > >"(The American people) can be very proud of the devotion and hustle everyone >is exhibiting over here," said the pilot. "Keep them in your prayers and >support them." (Courtesy of U.S. Air Forces in Europe News Service) > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=- Pardon me but this sounds like a pathetic John Wayne movie. Contrast this to the closer to real life description of the Scott O'Grady shoot down in his F-16 that was posted on the net. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 21:06:18 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 photos I wrote: >>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. > Andreas wrote: >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. > I might agree in general. Individual maintainers at airshows will each tell you what you cannot photograph on the airplane depending on what screwed up idea each harbors. Lockheed and the AF all have published much better photos that hide nothing. >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. > I will argue that you are only partially correct. While it is true in the past there have been planes assigned to air show duty, these planes were never stripped of their RAM. In fact they were given brand new RAM and paint before the season started. The 117 comes in only one flavor, covered in black RAM. You can follow the planes from show to show and see the weathering of the RAM. Fresh RAM is black. Weathered RAM turns towards lighter shades of gray. Pieces ripoff in flight or have to be removed for internal access, etc.and have to be replaced with new RAM. These new patches are very obvious. This is the biggest hassle in keeping these planes operational. While the 2 aircraft were assigned to airshow duty along with a dedicated support crew, other F-117's are flown to individual airshows as the need arises. Some weekends require several additional airplanes, if not just for flyby's. Holloman has planes constantly going back and forth across country. There are training flights. There are aircraft going to major overhaul's done in Sacramento. There are aircraft going back to Palmdale for upgrades of avionics. They fly support in military exercises. Some planes are borrowed for additional testing. All in addition to normal flight operations out of Holloman that keep pilots qualified. So you may very well see a plane at your air show that is last weeks test aircraft or next weeks guest at Palmdale. I had the pleasure of seeing 837 and meeting the Dragon Test team at the Whidby Island NAS airshow last August. I asked what they were doing there and the pilot replied "Couldn't find anyone else to go". They enjoyed the change of pace and meeting the public. I will predict now that if the planes in Aviano remain there then this summer's air show schedule is in jeopardy. But I know that the ACC will work damn hard to meet their air show schedule and if they do they will have pulled off a miracle. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 99 04:36:05 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) On 4/5/99 4:59AM, in message <199904051158.EAA15774@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > 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. For the purposes of my point, I'm assuming it does. If it doesn't, then it's not worth anything. > > >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. > Not really, it's only logical. If something is guided by radar, then by definition a target that is harder to track by the guidance radar is harder to hit. > > 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. > Actually, there is. Naval officers on the ground using a lesser capabiltiy version of the optical system on the F-14D have locked onto and tracked the B-2 at those ranges (that's why I qualified it with "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? > > 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. > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 21:42:33 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: RE: CEC [Cooperative Engagement Concept] [[was Re: The stealth ex cuses begin]] TC, Interesting stuff! I definitely agree that the production of countermeasures is almost always less expensive that production of the offensive weapon. As I know that you are aware of, the U.S. has been dabbling in "stealth" technology for many decades, it at least goes back to the SR-71 and U-2/TR-1 that I know of and probably predates those as well. Conversely, anti-stealth technology also goes back almost as far. If something is moving through the air, it can not be completely invisible. Even the U.S. would concede that it is possible to detect a "stealth" aircraft. On the other side of the coin, it must also be considered that when an incident such as the downing of a "stealth" aircraft occurs, it could be a random event rather than a breakthrough in anti-stealth technology. We still train our ground troops to employ "SAFADs" (small arms for air defense) and still use gun systems for air defense purposes (if you put enough rounds up in the sky, you will eventually get lucky and hit something). Robin S. Murray - -----Original Message----- From: Terry W. Colvin [mailto:fortean@primenet.com] To: murrayr@ Subject: CEC [Cooperative Engagement Concept] [[was 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 ³additional resources were available in [counterstealth] it would help." More recently, Secretary of the Navy Lehman said, ³I 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 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. 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 war. Is that really your point? - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 99 04:55:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: GAO Report URL On 4/5/99 9:43AM, in message <199904051643.MAA26190@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > 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. > I'd have to disagree. What USAF wanted in the '60s was a dedicated long range strike aircraft. What they got was McNamara's compromise. It never was as capable as a dedicated aircraft would have been (look at what the TSR.2 would have been capable of to see), and it never met its specs, but it was still a well thought of aircraft that never outlived its original controversy. The F-111A never achieved combat-ready status, even though it was the major production version, which is why the fleet was so expensive to operate. Something that stayed around for 30 years doesn't really qualify as being rushed out of service. Its maintenance did it in when it started facing the time for big rebuilds. The EF-111A was faster, had better range and was better suited for NOE flight than the EA-6B but it was not more capable. What Grumman achieved with the EF-11!A was to automate the systems to where it was thought one man could do the work of the three in the Prowler at the time the EF was designed. This was a remarkable achievement. However, in the interim the Prowler's ECM capabilities had been enhanced and it continued to receive upgrades and enhancements whereas the EF-111A never got that level of support in the AF so it lagged behind. In addition to rebuilding, the Electric Foxes also faced an enormous cost in upgrading their ECM capabilities (if possible) to catch up. EF wasn't a fighter or a bomber and didn't have the constituency to scare up that kind of money, so that's another reason it went away. AS an aside, the F-111 was considered by the USN as the hardest AF airplane to stop (next to the SR-71 which was darn near impossible). This is because starting in at medium altitudes it would accelerate to M2+ and stay there for a loooong time, sometimes in a slight dive. Something that could maintain that speed for that long is Very hard to kill. > 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). > > IMHO, the reason for the Hornet E/F's existence was to have something for MDD to do after the A-12 went away to keep it in the tacair business. Now that Boeing bought it, that's no longer necessary, but too many folks' careers and reputations are tied to the plane for anyone to be willing to support cancellation. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 99 05:02:48 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: GAO Report URL On 4/5/99 7:49PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990405194927.0070dfd0@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > > It began as McNamara's dream airplane, the TFX(Tactical Fighter > Experimental). It was to be a joint Navy/USAF plane that does it all. The > Navy bailed out leaving it to the AF. Possibly being a swing wing plane it > presented problems, don't remember. It was supposed to be a Boeing design > and build but President Johnson decided it would be better if GD in Texas > would be awarded the contract. It got off to a terrible start but seems > like a good airplane. Hell, what airplane have we built that isn't > embroiled in some kinda imbroglio. Johnson didn't make the GD decision, McNamara did, although obviously he had LBJ on his mind at the time (I think Kennedy was still President when the selection was made). Interestingly enough, there were four separate evaluations of the competing designs, and Boeing was the choice of the evaluators on all four. It is rumored that some of Boeing's solutions to problems were leaked to GD in the final round. DoD also reportedly leaked that GD was going to win Before the final evaluations were announced (which Boeing won). McNamara personally selected GD, on the grounds that its design had more "commonality" than Boeing's. In a bit of irony, the variable sweep wing, which many thought would be a problem, was one of the few things that worked perfectly right from the start. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 99 05:23:15 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: AV-8B losses. [Was: Stealth debate (longish)] On 4/5/99 2:26AM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > The AV-8B flew at over 10,000 feet and at night, yet suffered > substantial losses. With all due respect, this really isn't true (I love the Harrier). The AV-8B suffered losses at the low altitudes which are normal for CAS, which is the type of plane it is. What was the negative news about its losses was something that is symptomatic of smaller aircraft (and the AV-8B is quite small relative to other aircraft): If you hit one, you're more likely to hit something important than you would on a larger plane. In the case of the AV-8B, if an IR missile hit it in the nozzle, that was in the midsection of the aircraft where there were lots of other vital things around to also get damaged. Other aircraft when hit in the nozzle might survive a small warhead hit because there's not much else around there. That was what was the unpleasant surprise regarding the AV-8B, that a hit that other sometimes might survive would take out something vital on the Harrier. This got mutated in some press reports that it suffered unusually high losses, which wasn't true. Its losses were not "substantial". Here are the numbers for the AV-8B in Desert Storm: One non-combat loss of an AV-8B operating from USS NASSAU No non-combat losses of an AV-8B operating from shore anywhere in-theater during the entire war. Five combat losses, of which four probably would not have occurred had the Harriers been fitted with their ECM gear. Two resulted in pilot KIAs, two were captured and one was rescued. In the latter case, the pilot had flown his damaged aircraft out of area and was attempting to make a landing on an abandoned airstrip that would not have been possible by other aircraft. He got within 1,000 feet of touchdown when he lost it and ejected. Marine ground forces recued him. The AV-8B's combat loss rate was .00129 as a percentage of all missions, or .00148 as a percentage of low altitude missions, where all the losses occurred. For comparison, the Israeli Air Force 20 years earlier also conducted CAS/BAI missions in that part of the world against less formidable defenses. Their loss rate was 32 times higher. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 22:25:18 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 Loss is Over-Hyped At 03:17 PM 4/5/99 -0400, Andreas wrote: >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): >==================================== >785 (80-0785) 04/20/82 (at Groom Lake, NV, Robert Ridenhauer, injured) This damn thing is a thorn in my side. Robert Dorr claims that since Ridenhauer crashed the plane before its acceptance then it was never given the number 785. He then goes on in "Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" that a new airframe was constructed and delivered as 785. The crashed airframe was later proposed as a 2 seat trainer and eventually became a mock up. The official number built is 49. If Dorr is correct, they built 50. If Dorr is wrong, they built 49 and delivered 48. Yet Lockheed and the AF claim 49 aircraft delivered. I drove Peter nuts with this. Any ideas? >792 (81-10792) 07/11/86 (near Bakersfield, CA, Maj. Ross E. Mulhare, killed) >793 (81-10793) 09/14/97 (Middle River, MD, Maj. Bryan Knight, ok) >806 (82-0806) 03/27/99 (Budjenovici, Yugoslavia, (pilot ?), ok) >815 (84-0815) 10/14/87 (near Tonopah, NV, Maj. Michael J. Stewart, killed) >801 (82-0801) 08/04/92 (Alamogordo, NM, Capt. John Mills, ok) Technically the plane crashed in La Luz, NM. Its the next town down the road from Alamo!! Mills transferred later back to an F-16 squadron at Misawa AFB in Japan. >822 (85-0822) 05/10/95 (near Zuni, NM, Capt. Kenneth Levens, killed) >824 (82-0824) 04/05/95 (burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, (pilot ?), ok) Landed while on fire. Pilot jumped from rolling airplane and not injured. Plane was rebuilt in Palmdale and back in service. >825 ("82-0825") 06/04/97 (burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, (pilot ?), ok ?) Not sure about any fire. The plane ran off the end of the runway. It waits back at Palmdale until money is budgeted for the repair work. One rumor says the money is there now. >843 (88-0843) ../../96 (burned out at Holloman AFB, NM, (pilot ?), ok) > 843 catches fire regularly. I think its still in service, but not sure. {{{{{I don't know if any of the three burned-out aircraft have been or will be}}}}}} >repaired, though, and the serial of '825' should be '85-0825', not as AFM >(Air Forces Monthly) No. 124 states '82-0825'. >>>The pilot, believed to be Captain Ken Dwelle, was picked up by rescue troops > No connection of name on cockpit and name of pilot. Maybe 1 chance in 30 it is the correct name. >I guess they got that from the name printed on the side of the canopy, which >is not a valid assumption to make. There is no information yet regarding the >name of the pilot, and the USAF is not talking. > patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 01:30:08 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: F-117 serials Andreas: Don't be too quick to thank me for the FY prefixes. The numbers per Lot are correct, but aircraft keep showing up at airshows with anomalous FY prefix numbers that don't match what we expect. If it is painted on the aircraft, I usually go with it. To add to the confusion, official documentation still lists 792 as 81-0792 when it should obviously be 81-10792. It is frustrating for people who like to get the serials correct and complete. Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 06:34:54 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-111 I recommend "Illusions of Choice" as the ultimate history of the F-111 program. - -------------------------------------- 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 #42 ******************************** 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