From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #44 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 044 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: Stealth debate Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: Stealth debate Re: GAO report on F-117/Desert Storm Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Stealth debate F-117 vs. Red radar Re: Stealth debate (my last one - I hope) Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:44:27 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: 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. Not true. The Navy did not want an Air Force aircraft imposed on them so they used "carrier suitability" as the excuse. In many respects, the F-111B was better on the carrier than the F-14. See, Robert F. Coulam, "Illusions of Choice." Princeton Univ. Press. 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. There were stealth applications used in the original F-111. - -------------------------------------- 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, 6 Apr 1999 18:31:41 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate > >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. Well, if you knew the results, you would also know of any vulnerabilities of the design- like what aspect angles and frequency ranges the aircraft might be susecptible to, and if you were particularly crafty, you might be able to modify an existing radar system to expose those vulnerabilities. Of course, even to do that, you would also need access to the models and a pretty powerful set of simulation tools. Simply build-test-debug is rather expensive in the physical world. And there is no reason to beleive you would be sucessful in the first place, unless you modelled it to death. > >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. If they did apply the scientific method as you describe, neither you nor I would know about it until maybe 25 years after the fact. > >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. This assumes the operator knew he was testing to begin with, and then you get into the whole Schrodinger's cat thing, and... And, well, if it worked sufficiently, the operator wouldn't be tracking it in the first place, would he? >> >>>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. The differences between curves and factes have more to do with the state of the models than anything else. Wether either design methodology produces an "optimal design" is a point of debate in itself. Optimal for what? the B-2 and F-117 are different aircraft, designed for entirely different operating environments. Facets vs. curves is not a consequence of the state of the technology- just look at the D-21 , AGM-129, or even the apetures on the B-2. Your statement implies that there was some radical shift from facets to curved surfaces that provided some form of paradigm shift in signature reduction. The D-21 used curved surfaces to reduce it's signature years before even the Hopeless Diamond mounted a pole. And facets are still used on the F-22 and B-2 everywhere- from the weapons bay doors to the fuselage. If curved surfaces were the "optimal desing", all of the skin penetrations on those aircraft would be ovid or spherical. They aren't. A sphere has a small signature from all aspects, but not small enough- an angular surface allows you to tune the signature so that the aspect angles you are most likely to be viewed from are the smallest. Even with dramaticly effective RAM, a sphere is nowhere near as effective as a "facted" shape for reducing signature from a given aspect angle. The B-2 is *still* a faceted desing overall. It is optimized, like most other stealth aircraft, to be low observable from the lower-front aspects. As it is attacking a target, that target's air defenses see the smallest signature. If you were to look at a B-2 from that aspect, you would see that the silhoutte of the monster in front of you is angular, not curved. The wings of the B-2 do not look like bannanas, crescents, or flying saucers. Only the upper surfaces of the B-2, those that actually encounter the least energy from the target are cureved, and even those are primarily thermosplastic laid over what is probably a facted structure (there is much debate over this, and the AF doesn't exactly let you crawl around inside the wing of a B-2). Thermosplastics, of course, being largely transclucent to radar. The B-2 was designed for long range penetration with a heavy bomb load. The F-117 is a surgical precision bombing platform. They are two different animals, and are designed as such. Debating the differences between curves and planar surfaces as applied to the reflection of absorbtion of energy, would require a primer on things like vector math, normals, B-splines, and other boring things that I deal with on a regular basis, and most anyone who follows the computer gaming industry is fairly well versed in. The transition between generations of stealth aircraft in the 1980s had far more to do with the state of the art in computer graphics, CAD/CAM, and simulation than signature reduction. > >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 Eveyone lies to you. The DMV told me my car was properly registered, then they impounded it. Accepting that is part of being an adult. And I won't get into the things that computer companies tell you :) >have to see the data to begin the process of believe. Like I keep >saying: show me. Radar is kind of hard to show you- it tends to be invisible and only manifests itself to the casual observer as heat. Thus, my pointing you to your local microwave oven. There are endless - though dangerour - experiments that you can conduct there, such as covering a plastic F-117 model VERY CAREFULLY with alluminum foil and positioning it so that it faces the microwave source directly. Don't try this at home kids, I run my experiments through a computer before I do them. The only other way to "show you" is with numbers- numbers which are not very different wether they are from RATSCAT, DYCOMS, ECHO, SAW, or even the Iraqi air defense system. > >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 Wonderful. Learn about stealth not from physics textbooks and engineering, but from a study of a aircraft program . >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 No, *you* have found no evidence. That does not mean there is not any. So far I am realtively uninspired by your research abilities in this case. The GAO report itself states that it excludes several aircraft types- because they did not attack a significant number of "strategic" targets. >F-117 is any less susceptible to radar imaging than any other aircraft You are assuming that somehow the GAO, AF, etc. obtained Iraqi radar tapes. Imaging an aircraft and shooting it down are two different things. After the primary SEAD and C3I offensive in the gulf war, the Iraqi military depended heavily on man-portable SAMs and AAA guns for air defense- both of which are useless at "medium altitudes" and at night. Why did they dpend on such weapons? Well, for one, their radars had almost no way of communicating with their weapons, because either the radars themselves were not operable, or the communication system was not operable. You have done nothing to substantiate your claim above. In fact, most of the aircraft lost in the gulf war were downed by IR guided SAMs, or AAA at low altitudes. Both of those systems are largely daylight-dependant, and ineffective at high altitudes. Perhaps you would be wiser to investigate the AF's calims of "esstentially invsible to optically guided weapons" instead of radar. > >The stealthiness of the design is not like the adaptable wing, variable Actually, it is. Training, tactics, RAM coatings, intelligence, and ECM allow for quite a bit of adaptation. >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. Really? Where did you hear that from? The bulk of the stealthiness, for given radar, comes from the materials and aspect angle, not the shape. Imagine a large parabolic dish. If you were to coat the inside with aluminum or something else relfactive, shining a light on it would produce a more or less focused beam. If the inside was painted flat black, it would not produce much of a return, would it? >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. The only in-flight results from an actual combat aircraft would be from the various excercises on the Nellis range against 4N systems, and yet you throw those data out of hand. The Iraqi radar tapes are either destroyed or in the hands of the Iraqis. Ask them. If they tracked a stalth aircraft and can prove it, I'm sure they will be happy to furnish you with all the "evidence" you need. 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: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:33:10 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments >> 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. > >There were stealth applications used in the original F-111. > All military aircraft are designed with some degree of low observables to enhance their survivability. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:37:49 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate > >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. Which you have no way of proving or disproving. > >>>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. > No, you can, but to do so would be lunacy- you would be sacrficing far too many things for the sake of stealth. You would be weighted down with coatings and cut into your payload, etc. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:42:44 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: GAO report on F-117/Desert Storm > >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 While that may be entertaining, it would nagate Aurora's current role as a psychological weapon. How many countries do you think listened to the Aurora rumors and modified, say, their nuclear wepons production program to put it underground, instead of merely hiding things a few times a day during KH-11 passes? How much do you think that slowed them down? A system does not have to be fielded to be effective, as SDI demonstrated. It's effects were felt not long after it was announced. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:43:39 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe 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. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:47:30 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > >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. > > And I can spot a B-2 with my own eyes, but that does not make me an effective weapons system. If I cannot attack the target, seeing it is of no use. Mathematically, the situation favors the Lockheed solution. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:54:08 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate > >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. And never mind the TWO B-52G's that were *damaged* at approximately 1020 AM Local time on the 26th of Feb. 1991 by radar guided missile en route to their targets. Apparently, damage does not count in the GAO statistics, only losses. Looks like you'll have to add more qualifiers to your statement. They were flying at "medium altitude" (exact wording of the report in front of me). Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 22:27:29 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: F-117 vs. Red radar >>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.<< Actually the F-117A was flown against a Soviet-style air defense radar system. Each and every airframe had its RCS verified against the Dynamic Coherent Measurement System (DYCOMS) at Groom Lake, Nevada. The complex consists of actual and simulated ex-Soviet threat systems set up to duplicate foreign air defenses. It is as close as you can get to a "real world" experience without actually firing missiles at the target aircraft. Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:44:29 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Stealth debate (my last one - I hope) >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. Sorry Jim, such an experiment is unnecessary! Again, because of the tools. When the tools are verified, they INLCUDE in their results the results of your special test, because there is no reason to believe that the laws of nature will change for your special test. (However, I vaguely recall something like this being done, maybe not before production however. I'll have to check.) We have a major disconnect here Jim! It's useless to argue at this point. You don't see the importance of the tools. >> 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. The F-117A is one OPTIMUM design dictated by the then existing tools. OK, maybe this will help you, and this brings up the inadequateness of your little test above, as well. There are an infinite number of designs with the original tools, only a finite number are applicable given the constraints of the F-117A airplane. Of those, the F-117A represents the best that Lockhheed could find. Given additional searching tools, there may be others. That is why the design software is so classified, and the design software actually IS THE STEALTH CAPABILITY, not the airplane as much. Because, say the enemy changes the radar, where you can't get a copy of the radar set itself, but you can characterise the radar by analysing its signals, you can then find out the impact of the change on your design. Not only that, you can test the fix. Therefore, the tools are really everything (IMHO)! They also provide the spec to test the real implementation. The F-117A is one successful design. It DOES represent value, and you wouldn't want it to fall into enemy hands because it does represent one successful solution, and it would have information about stealth materials for example. But the major capability, is in the tools. The tools today are more sophisticated. Given the funding, one should probably develop a new stealth aircraft every 5 years or so, just as technology demonstrators. Not so much to field as a frontline aircraft, but to develop the tools! To take the tools farther in capability, because you'd need the advanced aircraft to validate the new tool capability. Maybe that helps. >> 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. I have been trying. Without much success I might add. So I'm cutting this short. >> 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. No, you missed it. The answer is: you know you're in your stealthiest condition because you not DEAD! Remember, you're putting people in these slow airplanes and telling them they're nearly invisible, and putting them in quite hostile air defense environments, because of their stealth. Therefore, the tools GOT TO WORK!! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 99 05:26:52 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 comments On 4/6/99 4:44PM, in message <199904062343.QAA29781@falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > Not true. The Navy did not want an Air Force aircraft imposed on them so > they used "carrier suitability" as the excuse. In many respects, the > F-111B was better on the carrier than the F-14. > > See, Robert F. Coulam, "Illusions of Choice." Princeton Univ. Press. > > I've heard that before. Of course, the F-111B went through its Weight Improvement Program, its Super Weight Improvement Program and its Colossal Weight Improvement program (I am not making those names up). In the desperate attempt to get weight down, they had reached the point where they were taking glass out of the dials and substituting plastic to save ounces. The F-111B did do carrier operations from the Coral Sea, but at very light weights, not approaching what would be required in operation. One of the requirements was that in landing configuration, an aircraft with one engine out would have to be able to climb at 500 fpm on a waveoff. AS I recall, in landing configuration (everything dirty), the F-111B could not even maintain level flight single engine. With the cutback in carriers that had occurred by the '70s, the Navy could also no longer afford the luxury of an airplane whose sole function was to fire long range missiles at hordes of bomber fleets, relying on other fighters for protection should anything close with it. That was the original function of the Douglas "Missileer", the canceled aircraft concept that was exhumed for the F-111B. The F-111B at non-operational weights probably was easier to bring aboard than an F-14A at operational weights. This is partly due to the fact that the F-14A was never supposed to be an operational version, and a number of features were never incorporated in it (including full development of the Direct Lift Control). This was because those were 'F-14B' features (which was to be the operational version) and, "We're not building F-14Bs, we're going to build As". This was said to me personally at the Aviation Supply Office in Philadelphia in 1973-74, and that ludicrous statement has always stuck with me. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #44 ******************************** 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