From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #43 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 043 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Stealth debate (longish) GAO report on F-117/Desert Storm Re: GAO Report URL Re: GAO report on F-117/Desert Storm Small quibble Re: Stealth debate Re: Stealth debate Re: Stealth debate (longish) NS/ASR: Treasure Trove of Photorecon Re: Stealth debate (longish) FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in Kosovo, Area 51] FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: Stealth debate Re: Stealth debate *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 06:36:27 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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 > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 06:41:26 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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. That is the problem, everyone assumes without investigation. >>> 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. Not really. John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2, told me as have others, that you have to make decisions against which frequency ranges you want to make the aircraft stealthy. You could, for example, make it invisible against low frequency (search) radar but then you are probably going to be as susceptible against acquisition radar as the next guy. In the XST "flyoff" the Northrop approach was to compromise against acquisition but be more difficult to track; Lockheed forgot about the search and focused on the acquisition radar. >>> 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"). I agree with you. I'm saying what the Air Force would claim. >>> 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:49:29 +0100 From: gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk Subject: GAO report on F-117/Desert Storm Thanks for the URL pointing to that Desert Storm document. Very interesting indeed. As always I am interested in whats behind the [DELETED] 'panels', who knows where my guessing leads to! One bit I did think was a big give away was the number of recon platforms mentioned. I don't have the text file here, but the line started with something like : [DELETED] recon. platforms were in use, including U-2R/TR-1, RC-135 etc. Why on earth would they want to hide the actual number used? Maybe because they are trying to hide a black recon platform that is in use but have not been made public? Any thoughts etc? Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 08:37:56 -0500 From: G&G Subject: Re: GAO Report URL patrick wrote (of the TFX program): > > .... It was to be a joint Navy/USAF plane that does it all. ... This statement sounds like a description of the JSF to me... =:o> Greg Fieser - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 06:42:24 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: GAO report on F-117/Desert Storm At 01:49 PM 4/6/99 +0100, you wrote: >Thanks for the URL pointing to that Desert Storm document. > >Very interesting indeed. As always I am interested in whats behind the >[DELETED] 'panels', who knows where my guessing leads to! > >One bit I did think was a big give away was the number of recon platforms >mentioned. I don't have the text file here, but the line started with >something like : >[DELETED] recon. platforms were in use, including U-2R/TR-1, RC-135 etc. > >Why on earth would they want to hide the actual number used? Maybe because >they are trying to hide a black recon platform that is in use but have not >been made public? > >Any thoughts etc? > My thoughts...... To hide the number of aircraft, ships, subs, men, trucks, whatever is probably the first thing one would want the enemy not to know. Look at the mock landing the Allied forces used to convince the Germans the D-Day invasion was not going to be at Normandy. They exaggerated the numbers at the false location and hid the numbers for the real invasion. A black recon platform? Thought never occurred. Keep in mind, IMHO, these GAO reports are probably the most honest straight forward reports our government publishes. They have no axe to grind and are considered to be brutually factual and pull no punches. They are in fact very revealing of what our governments activity really is. Since we are on "the" topic. It would be interesting if a powerful Congressman would get some money approved for the GAO to investigate the "Aurora" flap. Now that would make for some very interesting reading. Deletions and all!!! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:01:40 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Small quibble > Art wrote: > 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. Gotta disagree with with you here. The Egyptian and Syrian air defence systems were quite well prepared and integrated. Before October 5, 1973 (the opening day of the Yom Kippur War), no western air force had any experience dealing with the SA-6 and experience with the SA-7 and quad 23mm gun system was limited. On the first day of the war, the IDF/AF concentrated on attacking the Egyptian and Syrian assault forces, rather than first taking out the air defence system, as we did in Iraq. Hence, the IDF/AF suffered a very high loss rate. The Syrian air defence system wasn't neutralized until about October 12th - once the IDF/AF found the building housing the central computer system. The Egyptian system was finally neutralized after Israeli ground forces crossed the Suez canal on October 14th and overran missile sites. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:22:03 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Stealth debate Larry wrote: >> So per the essence of the scientific method, you use the theory to >> make predictions about reality, and then you go out and test it >> in the real world. It either verifies your theory or not. James P. Stevenson replied: >Modeling is not reality. I am quite sure that these models work. I am >also sure that the pole test results were most successful. I feel >confident that the scientific method was applied to these models, etc. Well then you're part way there Jim! At least you acknowledge that a stealthy model can be designed. You even acknowledge that its scientific! >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. Not true! The F-117A was a derivative of the aircraft whose RCS characteristics were dictated by successful experiments of the Echo tools. What you're saying, is that for the first time, we have a theory that allows Lockheed and the USAF to predict the results of a F-117A pole test. And you're saying that they didn't use it! Well, they did pole test the F-117A, full size. Again, experiment matched predictions. The USAF wanted to know that the RCS capability of the real F-117A matched the predicted RCS. This is important Jim as this establishes the goodness of the design, when it is functioning per specification. Previously, before the Echo I breakthrough, RCS optimization was hit and miss in many details, and all there was were design generalities and point design fixes. How do you think they knew the B-2 had a RCS problem at one point in its design? Because its RCS was below what theory said it should be! How do you think they evaluated different proposed fixes? >I am not interested in seeing the models that the Air Force or Northrop >or anyone else has. I want the Air Force to explain why the Australians >can spot the B-2s 1,800 miles away; why others have tracked the B-2 with >bi-static radar; and why the Russians claim they can track it. You could have shortened this whole discussion if you had said, that you have no probem with the optimum stealthiness of the design, but how does one know at any moment if the design measures up to that performance! You had many people thinking that you don't believe in stealth period. In reality, you believe in stealth theory, and also that stealthy models can be built. You don't believe that the F-117A itself was tested against those same models for some reason, but you have reduced your argument to how do we know that stealth aircraft work at the moment? How do I know that the aircraft wasn't carrying radar reflectors in the incidents you mentioned? Why are you so sure it wasn't, in the cases you mentioned? But actually, it doesn't matter! >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. It doesn't matter Jim! It doesn't matter Jim because for the scientific reasons mentioned above, the stealth aircraft CAN BE put into a very stealthy configuration relative to the EXPECTED radars it is flying against. How do we know that in a specific instance (only a combat situation really applies) the aircraft is in its stealthiest condition? I think you know the answer to that yourself! Here's a hint! What happens if it's not?? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:29:36 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Stealth debate >>> 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. >That is the problem, everyone assumes without investigation. Don't include me in that! I don't need any additional proof as I KNOW the tools WORK!! If the crew chief can't get the airplane into its proper shape for a combat mission, that is another matter. >John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2, told me as >have others, that you have to make decisions against which frequency >ranges you want to make the aircraft stealthy. You could, for example, >make it invisible against low frequency (search) radar ... Just as I expected! You've wasted our time! You believed it all along! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:41:32 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) Art wrote: >>This has been fascinating, I've enjoyed just reading it. Andreas replied: >I absolutely agree, the best debate on this list for about a year I hope the poster was informed. I guess I learned how hard it is for many writers on technical subjects these days to understand some technical issues. >It seems to me that Jim wants someone on this list to prove or at least >provide evidence, that stealth in general and F-117As in particular work >as advertised [at least in respect to LO/stealth/survivability]. > >I do not believe anyone on this list can provide this evidence, There is no reason why this is any different than insuring the performance of any other aspect of the aircraft. For example, proving that the engines perform per spec. I hope you all see this! Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 18:20:59 -0400 From: Bob Tullman Subject: NS/ASR: Treasure Trove of Photorecon That is, NO STEALTH/ANTISTEALTH RHETORIC in this message :) Check out http://www.fas.org for a number of interesting things including Kossovo FLIR images, and Aerial Reconaissance photos, U2 photos and Aerial Recon photos of Russian nuclear plants. Pretty neat! Bob ________________________________________________________ Bob Tullman, Randolph, NJ bobtull@planet.net http://www.planet.net/bobtull ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:05:39 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > > Art wrote: >>>This has been fascinating, I've enjoyed just reading it. > > Andreas replied: >>I absolutely agree, the best debate on this list for about a year > > I hope the poster was informed. I guess I learned how hard it is > for many writers on technical subjects these days to understand > some technical issues. > >>It seems to me that Jim wants someone on this list to prove or at least >>provide evidence, that stealth in general and F-117As in particular work >>as advertised [at least in respect to LO/stealth/survivability]. >> >>I do not believe anyone on this list can provide this evidence, > > There is no reason why this is any different than insuring the > performance of any other aspect of the aircraft. For example, > proving that the engines perform per spec. There is a big difference. The stealth results are in the black. Therefore, there is no way to challenge them. The performance results of an engine, once installed, are published. Then they are verified by others. If the data is buggered, there are enough other pilot comments, such as those who challenge the results of the F-18E, the sort of keep the system honest. - -------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:06:35 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in Kosovo, Area 51] On 1999-04-05 UASR@MyList.net said: >^~ Posted by : RONCRAFT@aol.com >In a message dated 4/5/99 10:35:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >fwestra@hetnet.nl writes: >> RELEVANCE OF THE ABOVE MESSAGE: NIL. The author obviously doesn't >>know what he's talking about. The crashed fighter aircraft was >>an F-117. The F-111 is an entirely different aircraft, and so >>far no F-111 has been downed in Kosovo. >I doubt if F-111s are still in the operational inventory, I'm not sure about that. According to Jane's Defence (see below) no F-111 is in use over Kosovo. >particularly with that dog of a TF30 engine and the success of >terrain following cruise missiles which tend to obsolete the F-111 >mission. And calling that engine a dog is a gross insult to dogs. LOL! >Last mission I knew they flew was Reagan's successful attack upon >Quadafi's two year old daughter, and I don't believe, but don't >know for sure, that they were used in the Gulf War. Do you know, >Frits? Yes, the F-111 was in use during Desert Storm. To my knowledge, the F-111's (and the F-117's too, for that matter) have the honor of never being hit during the Gulf War. These were the only airplanes to return without a scratch. On the other hand the A-10's, F-16's, Tornados, surely flew a LOT more missions than the F-111's. BTW according to Jane's Defence currently the following aircraft are in use in the Kosovo war: B-52, B-2, F-117, Tornado ECR, Harrier GR7, Sea King, Canberra PR9, U-2S, F-15E, F-16 (various), CF-18, EF-18, F/A-18, E-3, EA-6B. For updates see: http://www.janes.com/defence/features/kosovo/kosovohome.html Read you later, Frits - -- 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 1999 16:07:16 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments > Looking at my photo of the F-117 I see an extreme stealth design, surely > it would have the same coating as the F-111? The F-111 is a swing wing aircraft originally conceived in the 60s under Defense Secretary McNamara as a joint services, multirole aircraft. The Navy version simply was not amenable to carrier operations and never went into production. The Air Force version evolved through several variants, including the FB-111, a terrain following nuclear warhead delivery system. Several of the aircraft were lost in Viet Nam. In most cases, we never determined whether the aircraft succumbed to equipment failure or enemy action. The F-111 series was handicapped by a very poor engine (the Pratt & Whitney TF30) with low reliability (MTBF) and initital double digit MTBO. The first operatonal F-14s were cursed with the same engine, forcing pilots to "fly the engine" as well as the aircraft. Subsequent replacement with a fighter mission cycle variant of the GE F101 engine, a superb engine originally developed for the B-! bomber, greatly enhanced the capabilities and service life of the F-14. The F-111 was never, to my knowledge, given a stealth coating. In fact, stealth technology of the sophistication used in the F-117 and B-2 did not exist during the F-111's introduction into the inventory. ron - -- 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 1999 19:12:24 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate > >>>> 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. > >>That is the problem, everyone assumes without investigation. > > Don't include me in that! > > I don't need any additional proof as I KNOW the tools WORK!! > If the crew chief can't get the airplane into its proper shape > for a combat mission, that is another matter. Don't misunderstand me. I am not conceding that the F-117 can be made practically invisible. But if it can under ideal conditions, It makes precious little difference to me if some Michaelangelo with tape and butter can put an F-117 on a pole and make the thing disappear. (Not that I believe it in the first place.) What matters is if the airplane can be made stealthy in an operational setting. >>John Cashen, the stealth designer of the B-2, told me as >>have others, that you have to make decisions against which frequency >>ranges you want to make the aircraft stealthy. You could, for example, >>make it invisible against low frequency (search) radar ... > > Just as I expected! You've wasted our time! You believed it all along! No, I don't believe it. I simply said that Cashen acknowledged that you can't make an the same aircraft design stealthy to all frequencies. - -------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:41:19 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate > > > Larry wrote: >>> So per the essence of the scientific method, you use the theory to >>> make predictions about reality, and then you go out and test it >>> in the real world. It either verifies your theory or not. > > James P. Stevenson replied: >>Modeling is not reality. I am quite sure that these models work. I am >>also sure that the pole test results were most successful. I feel >>confident that the scientific method was applied to these models, etc. Larry's rebuttal: > Well then you're part way there Jim! At least you acknowledge that a > stealthy model can be designed. You even acknowledge that its scientific! Jim's sur-rebuttal: No, what I believe is that some aspects of the scientific method were applied to the models both pole and computer simulations. What I don't know is the results. > >>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. > > Not true! The F-117A was a derivative of the aircraft whose RCS > characteristics were dictated by successful experiments of the Echo > tools. > > What you're saying, is that for the first time, we have a theory that > allows Lockheed and the USAF to predict the results of a F-117A pole > test. And you're saying that they didn't use it! > > Well, they did pole test the F-117A, full size. Again, experiment > matched predictions. The USAF wanted to know that the RCS capability of the > real F-117A matched the predicted RCS. > > This is important Jim as this establishes the goodness of the design, > when it is functioning per specification. > > Previously, before the Echo I breakthrough, RCS optimization was hit > and miss in many details, and all there was were design generalities > and point design fixes. > > How do you think they knew the B-2 had a RCS problem at one point in its > design? Because its RCS was below what theory said it should be! How > do you think they evaluated different proposed fixes? The point is that the scientific method was not applied to the F-117 because for it to have been applied, the Air Force would have had to build one, flown it in a double blind study against radars using Russian equipment, searched the way Russians would have searched, tracked, etc. for an aircraft. The operator could not have known which of the targets was the F-117 and which was the non-stealth target(s). Then, if the results showed that the F-117 was sufficiently harder to detect than the non-stealth aircraft, then and only then should a production decision have been made. I can assure you that was not done. > >>I am not interested in seeing the models that the Air Force or Northrop >>or anyone else has. I want the Air Force to explain why the Australians >>can spot the B-2s 1,800 miles away; why others have tracked the B-2 with >>bi-static radar; and why the Russians claim they can track it. > > You could have shortened this whole discussion if you had said, that you > have no probem with the optimum stealthiness of the design, but how does > one know at any moment if the design measures up to that performance! By testing. And don't put words in my mouth. One need only see the difference between facets and curves to know that there are differences in what some consider the optimum design. > > You had many people thinking that you don't believe in stealth period. > In reality, you believe in stealth theory, and also that stealthy models > can be built. Believing in a theory that cannot be put into practice is as useful as scholastic debate. Perhaps stealthy models can be built. I have been told that they can. But I have been lied to so many times that I would have to see the data to begin the process of believe. Like I keep saying: show me. >You don't believe that the F-117A itself was tested against > those same models for some reason, but you have reduced your argument to > how do we know that stealth aircraft work at the moment? No. > > How do I know that the aircraft wasn't carrying radar reflectors in the > incidents you mentioned? Why are you so sure it wasn't, in the cases you > mentioned? But actually, it doesn't matter! I understand the theory of stealth. I just finished five years of researching the history of the Navy's A-12. Part of that research involved learning as much as I could about the theory of stealth. That included interviews with some very knowledgeable people. I believe they believe it works. But I also interviewed knowledgeable people who have seen results who don't believe it works as advertised. All I have said from the beginning is that there is no evidence that the F-117 is any less susceptible to radar imaging than any other aircraft that flew in the gulf war at night and at (and I'll modify this for Dan) medium altitudes. There may be some evidence. If so, let the services bring it forth. But if there is evidence, you have to answer this question: Why did the U.S. government, after telling the judge in the A-12 case it would protect the B-2 data, destroy virtually all of it? >>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. > > It doesn't matter Jim! > > It doesn't matter Jim because for the scientific reasons mentioned above, > the stealth aircraft CAN BE put into a very stealthy configuration > relative to the EXPECTED radars it is flying against. The stealthiness of the design is not like the adaptable wing, variable on the fly. The anticipated radar, against which the design was made, was determined back in the design stage. The bulk of the stealthiness is suppose to come from the shape. That is not a variable. > > How do we know that in a specific instance (only a combat situation really > applies) the aircraft is in its stealthiest condition? > > I think you know the answer to that yourself! I know the theory. I have not seen in-flight results from actual combat aircraft. It take very little to make a pole model un-stealthy. I am sure it takes less to make a production version dirty up real fast. - -------------------------------------- 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 #43 ******************************** 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