From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #45 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 Wednesday, April 7 1999 Volume 08 : Number 045 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: Small quibble Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: Stealth debate (my last one - I hope) Re: Stealth debate *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 99 05:42:22 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) On 4/6/99 3:41AM, in message <199904061040.DAA14859@harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > >> 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. > Are you picking on me, Jim? I just mean that if the thing doesn't work, the cost/benefit question is moot. > > >>> 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. It's been more or less acknowledged that the older massive Soviet Search and acquisition radars could probably see our stealth aircraft, even if it works . However, the minimum (I do mean minimum) range they could see them was still a good ways out. The higher frequency track and fire control radars would be the ones with the problem. Since those are also the radars that would guide the missiles, the idea is that the missile would have difficulty guiding. Even the modern multi-frequency radars don't generate those enormous waves that can see stealth. And the given the lesser range of missile seeker heads, active or semi-active, if stealth actually works this would tend to degrade their performance. Again, though would the degradation be enough to justify the costs in money, maintenance, performance and effort? Especially in a fighter, which many times is going to have to radiate like mad? Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 99 05:52:13 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Small quibble On 4/6/99 9:01AM, in message , David Lednicer wrote: > > 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. > I'm not at all minimizing the skill of the Israelis. What I'm getting at is that the Iraqiis had the advantage of newer technology and enhanced systems. In the CAS environment specifically (which is the environment in which the AV-8B primarily operated), and at low altitudes shoulder and small mobile missiles were much more prevalent and were more lethal in 1991 than they were in 1973. it's that environment that I'm talking about. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 99 05:54:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in On 4/6/99 4:06PM, in message <370A937B.9DC5E57D@primenet.com>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > 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. > The only operational F-111s in the world are Australian. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 05:58:35 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar I wrote: >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.<< Peter Merlin replied: > > 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. First, did you watch the experiment? Did you see the data? Secondly, for this to have any meaning for me, it would have to be a double blind study. Stealth and non-stealth aircraft would have to be flown against it and the people operating the radar would not be permitted to know which was which for this to have any meaning for me. - -------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 06:07:12 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: (UASR) F-111 comments > On 4/6/99 4:44PM, in message > <199904062343.QAA29781@falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" > wrote: I 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. Art wrote: > 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, check out Coulam's book. It is the model upon which all political military history's of weapons acquisition should be based. I believe you will find that the first 32 or 34 aircraft were going to be operational with the Missileer engine-afterburner combination, the TF34. The next aircraft, the F-14B, would have the F401 engine, the one being developed in combination with the Air Force F100 engine. But keep in mind, it was a Navy decision to cancel the F401 engine. It could have kept it if it wanted to. - -------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 06:23:06 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate (my last one - I hope) I wrote: >>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. Larry replied: > 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. The law of nature is that what can go wrong, will go wrong. What works on a pole model or in computer simulation is a far cry from testing a production aircraft. > > (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. Are you saying that the scientific method was performed on aircraft before they went into production? That the production decision was made based on a double blind study in which at least two aircraft, one stealth and one non-stealth were flown against Russian radars, using Russian techniques, and that the stealth aircraft performed so much better that the conclusion were irrefutable? And that these results were imbedded into 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. I am sure it was the best. But how did it perform relative to a non-stealth aircraft flying at the same altitude, time, day, route, at the same radar target, etc, etc. etc. > > 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. All of the above paragraph is a degradation into the ramble of assertions without proof. > > 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. Over $6 billion was spent on the ATF and it did not even get tested for stealth. Why would I want the government to continue to waste money on something it is unwilling to prove? > >>> 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. You haven't proven anything. All you have done is make assertions. > >>> 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!! The logic of the above sentence is: stealth works because its got to work or people will die. I think you assume that the Air Force would not put people into an aircraft that was susceptible to radar because the pilots might die. That is like thinking the government works like your 9th grade civics teacher told you it did. You keep telling me I missed it. But what did I miss? All you do is make the same kind of assertions that the Air Force makes without anything to back it up. Hiding behind classification has been used to cover the sins of a thousand failures. How do you know that this is not another one? - -------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 06:54:23 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate I wrote: >>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. Dad replied: > 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. Not necessarily. But this gets to the heart of we have to keep it secret to keep the enemy ignorant. Secrecy has a noble purpose but is distorted to cover many failures. >>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. It depends. Some people close to the program are willing to talk about certain aspects of the testing. Those that I have talked to said it was not done in many respects. > >>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? The operator on the Have Blue knew he was testing the Have Blue and nothing but the Have Blue. > >>>>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. I am not debating facets versus curves. But your discussion above shows be that you need to get into the history and evolution of stealth design before you go much further. Having interviewed Ben Rich and John Cashen for extensive periods, I will stick with my original statement: there are differences in opinion about facets versus curves. >> >>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 :) If you want to accept the lies, proceed. I won't accept statement of military leaders about secret projects until they provide the evidence. Remember: the Sparrow missile had a 80-90 Pk rate until it got into battle. Then it dropped to about 10 percent. It is possible that similar results could happen with stealth. >>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. Spoken like a true technophile. But not true. I have already outline to you and others what would satisfy me as evidence. Have a flyoff between stealth and non-stealth aircraft under the same conditions. > >>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 . > I did not say how I went about learning about stealth. >>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. I could not agree with you more. There may be some evidence. But neither you nor anyone else has provided anything to support the assertion that the F-117 is any stealthier than any other aircraft that flew at night and at medium altitudes in the Gulf War. Now, there may be some. But you have not provided it. >So far I am realtively uninspired by your research abilities in > this case. I am not researching to prove what I have maintained from the beginning: there is no evidence that the F-117 was any more stealthy than any other aircraft that, well, you know the rest. >The GAO report itself states that it excludes several > aircraft types- because they did not attack a significant number of > "strategic" targets. What is your point? > >>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. My only claim is that there is no evidence that the F-117 is less susceptible to radar than any other aircraft that flew at night at medium altitudes in the Gulf War. That is my only claim. > > 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. There are two major inputs into the attempt to make an aircraft less visible to radar: shape and RAM. Are you saying that RAM is a variable? Are you saying that the Air Force says, Gee, today we will be flying against radar X so lets change the RAM. Is that what you are saying? AS to the training, tactics, etc. That can be performed by all aircraft. I am only discussing the design of an aircraft. > >>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. Once an aircraft is flying on a certain heading, the aspect angle of the reflection of the radar is based on the shape of the aircraft. Both Cashen and Rich told me that 60-70 percent of the stealthiness of a design was due to shape. Cashen it is probably much higher. Rich conceded as much. So what is your source? > 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? And your point is? >>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. Let's see that data. > The Iraqi radar tapes are either destroyed or in the hands of the > Iraqis. Are you sure?! - -------------------------------------- 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 #45 ******************************** 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