From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #48 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 048 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Stealth Debate Stealth debate FWD: (UASR) UFOMIND: Stealth Crash in Kosovo: Area 51 For Jim Stevenson.... Re: Stealth debate Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: Stealth debate Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: For Jim Stevenson.... F-111 in Gulf War, etc. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:28:25 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth Debate > > I am afraid that James P. Stevenson wins this debate, as he has > the perfect argument. To properly refute: > >> 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. > > will require diagrams showing radar return plots, at a range of different > frequencies for different aircraft. As he distrusts pole data, this > information will have to be acquired in flight. This sort of information > is highly classified and will likely never be released to the public > domain. This data does exist - you might want to see page 56 of the > February 1, 1993 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology to see how it > is acquired. > > As an aeronautical engineer, I resent journalists like Mr. > Stevenson, who seem to think they know more than me about how I should do > my job. The truth is that most of these journalists are not aeronautical > engineers and have just a glimmer of understanding about all of the issues > involved in aircraft development programs. Even worse, their > "investigations" have created such a lousy environment in this industry > that it is exceedingly difficult to conduct a proper development program, > hence they have to be conducted in secret. > > > David Lednicer > > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:29:56 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Stealth debate David wrote: > I am afraid that James P. Stevenson wins this debate, as he has > the perfect argument. To properly refute: > >> 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. > > will require diagrams showing radar return plots, at a range of different > frequencies for different aircraft. As he distrusts pole data, this > information will have to be acquired in flight. This sort of information > is highly classified and will likely never be released to the public > domain. This data does exist - you might want to see page 56 of the > February 1, 1993 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology to see how it > is acquired. Actually, if we have a war in which numerous aircraft fly to a target and the stealth aircraft survive and the non-stealth don't, then I would not be able to make my claim. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 12:00:39 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (UASR) UFOMIND: Stealth Crash in Kosovo: Area 51 >Nice to hear from you again. Yes, you're right, some B-1's are >deployed from the NATO AFB fairford in the UK. I just found a (5 days >old) non confirmed update on aircraft involved in the Kososvo crisis >posted to the Mil-Scan mailing list (see below). These data are mainly >derived from military communications monitoring. Personally, I'd trust >Jane's Defence data somewhat more... (British involvement seems a bit >on the low side to me) Thanks for the overview of planes used, Fritz. I just love airplanes but don't know much about them. I'm amazed Belgium has 12 F-16s! The Belgian skies must now be devoid of F-16s :-) The other day there was something on the news about our military and they said the equipment was very outdated. Actually I was told that when Clinton asked our King 'Do you want to participate in the attacks on Kosovo', our King said 'Of course. Do you want 1 plane, 2 planes or all 3 of them?' I guess that was just a tale :-) I wonder about that F-117 though. How stealthy can it be if it was shot down? Or wasn't it shot down, did it malfunction? I doubt they'll tell us. Re the F-111 versus F-117, if the F-111 was designed a few years ahead of the 117 (and I assume it was since its number precedes the F-117's number), it couldn't have as many stealth features (IF it had any at all) since they learn a bit more each time they design, then test, a plane, right? Since there are several years between designing a plane and actually manufacturing it, this development takes time. Computer simulations can't do everything. And most stealth designs are (more) stealthy as 'seen' from below and in front, not from above, or so it sounds like. What with satellites and all I guess they can see those stealth planes from up there, the technology must exist... Then there is the use of infra-red, wouldn't that detect a stealth plane? After all at the speed the F-117 flies, it must heat up quite a bit and be detectable. Are there any other F-117s apart from the 'A' type? Lockheed makes them, right? (Now Lockheed-Martin, I believe) The F-117 (which was the 1st 117 design I presume, prior to the 117 A) is said to be based on the 'first generation stealth techniques' so one wonders about the second generation... I suppose improved designs to make the plane 'look' even 'smaller', i.e. lower its RCS (radar cross section), and improved RAM (radar absorbing material) - the latter surely would be interesting - wanderers getting bits and pieces off that crashed plane could sell it to the competition (other airplane manufacturers)... >Interesting question... Hang on a minute... Let me get some USAF >flight information publications from the shelf... Leafing through >these we can conclude that no reference whatsoever is being made to >the use of afterburner/ reheat in relation to runways. Obviously it is >not an issue, otherwise it quite certainly would have been mentioned >in these operational publications. A lot of info however is provided >on runway bearing capacity (pavement strength, maximum weight the >runway can sustain, etc.) Extreme heat cannot be good for any substance used to make a runway. And presumable the afterburner heat would hit the runway at roughly the same point each time. Still, the heat only lasts for a short period of time since the plane will be moving quite fast by then. Depends on how long it takes for the runway to cool down again, I guess, whether or not such heat would damage it. BTW, BBC also mentioned using 'British Tornados from Germany' whatever that may mean. Tornados of theirs usually stationed in Germany, I presume. So that's one to go on the list (Jane forgot it! Who was the original Jane in defense weekly? Or is Jane an acronym? Good source though, Jane's) CU Lieve * Lieve Peten, Vlaanderen, Belgium - -- 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: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:46:58 -0300 From: Ivan Baird Subject: For Jim Stevenson.... At 10:53 AM -0600 4/7/99, skunk-works-digest wrote: >All of this dialog resulted from my original statement and really my >only point which is that there is no imperical data to support all of >the republishing of Air Force assertions that stealth works. It may work Hi Jim (and all!).... At one time I was both a randomly frequent and intense follower of this List - circumstances have since dictated I can't follow as close as I would like.... :-( After I could not follow things as closely as I would like, I switched to digest mode, as I KNEW that I would have the time, opportunity, and reasons to begin reading more than sporadically on occasion - the recent operations in Kosovo have been my first real following since Desert Storm! :-( First, I have to ask Jim a question (based upon the above ASSERTION.... - - Did you or did you not write: Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:01:50 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? Sam, You are getting excited over nothing. Stealth doesn't work so if our enemies want to throw their money away like we have on something of no additional value, let them do it. Jim Stevenson ???????????? Now, I realize that wasn't your *first* post on the subject, but if you *DID* make this statement, maybe you would like to retract it now based upon some of your more recent posts?!?!? (ie there's no *proof* (IYO) that stealth works!!!) Personally, and I realize I'm *just* a Canadian and probably don't count in your way of thinking anyway, the fact that I see you both afraid and unwilling to actually tell us your background compared to the other esteemed members of the List only shows that you are only blowing wind!!! Since I am not normally a 'flamer' I will not take this message much further - but let me state that I think your arguments?!?! are both biased and without merit.... All you have done is created a situation where this one person (who does have quite a collection) will NOT by ANY books with a James Stevenson as the author!!! (PS - if your going to reply, take it private; your replies WILL be ignored otherwise!!!) - -- Ivan Baird, CET A+ Certified (Mac and DOS/Windows) Deitech Computing Member of the Warlords II World Tournament Organizers Team.... Have a Good One!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:01:17 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate >>>>>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. > >If you really want to make an aircraft invisible, keep spending money >like we are on the F-22 so that we can afford to produce so few of them >that the enemy won't be able to see them. You said stealthy in all frequency ranges, not invisible. There is a big difference. 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: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 20:56:41 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Jim S replies: I wrote: >> >> I'm too old to naively accept everything I'm told by either contractors or >> gvmt agencies, but for reasons I've explained, this debate can't be >> resolved in the way you'd like, because to do so would jeopardise the lives >> of the brave people who actually fly the machines we discuss and write >> about from the safety of our PCs. That, I think we can agree is not a price >> worth paying. > >So, because you can't get the data for what you believe are reasonable >reasons, you chose to believe it. If the acquisition of those data would risk the lives of those who are prepared to put themselves in harm's way, then yes, I'll forgo that information. My position isn't based on blind acceptance of the technology, nor is it quasi-religious fervour. It's based on many interviews over the years with those aerospace engineers and academics who turn remarkable, often radical ideas into 'rubber on the ramp.' FWIW, my experience of engineers and academics is that they rarely overplay their hand, quite the reverse; generally I find them cautious and conservative with their claims. I entered this discussion to set the record straight in some small way by stressing that no-one I've spoken to who's involved in the business regards LO a/c as a panacea, or recognises the extravagant claims the media often makes about their work as having any bearing on their research programmes. Where you see conspiracy, I see justifiably classified information. As I can't see any way around this stand-off, that just about wraps up my input. As the lives of those who are flying these LO a/c depend to a high degree on the multi-billion dollar technological scam you depict, I hope you're wrong. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:23:07 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe 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. And, typically, the persons most likely to talk about such things to a journalist have a grudge against the program, a particular person, etc. They are the most unreliable of sources. >> >> 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. On the pole tests, yes. On the Nellis range, no. >> >>>>>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. >> > >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 Does it now? >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. Fine. But the differences in opinion are irrelvant once you look at the mathematics behind the argument. > >If you want to accept the lies, proceed. I won't accept statement of >military leaders about secret projects until they provide the evidence. If they're making statements, the programs aren't exactly secret. I don't accept their statemtns either, but I do accept the basic laws of physics that govern stealth, which you apparently do not. > >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. That was part of the test program. >> 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. Your facts and numbers do not support that statement. Your numbers account only for losses, not damage, radar tracking, etc. You have not being debating the stealthiness of a design, you have been debating how killable those aircraft were. For some reason, you AND the GAO decided to omit many aircraft, including the B-52G, which were damaged by radar guided missles at medium and high altitudes in both day and night. > >>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. You should. You are not maintaining your case very well. > >>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? The GAO report did not examine all of the aurcraft and conditions you are assuming it did. >> >> 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. That claim cannot be substantiated without the Iraqi radar tapes. Of course, we have French radar tapes from during the war, the same make and model of radar that the Iraqis had deployed in mnay of the areas that the F-117 attacked, and they were not able to track the F-117 without radar reflectors, but I guess that doesn't count does it? > >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? Absolutely. different types of RAM can be applied for different threats. >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? Generally it is theatre-wide decision for a particular conflict. > >AS to the training, tactics, etc. That can be performed by all aircraft. >I am only discussing the design of an aircraft. Training and tactics are very aircraft specific. >> >>>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. Gee, that argument would throw you back to training and tactics, wouldn't it? > >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? Spoken like a true journalist. Newton, Escher, Fuller, Planck, Feynman, Overhoster; to name a few. I find it odd that the very contractors you accuse of lying about the effectiveness of stealth are the ones you use to defend your "understanding" of the theory behind it. I suppose it would be Just Too Hard to pick up some textbooks on it. >Let's see that data. File a FOIA request. > >> The Iraqi radar tapes are either destroyed or in the hands of the >> Iraqis. > >Are you sure?! > File a FOIA request, or talk to some of the people who went into Iraq after the air offensive. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 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: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:28:13 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar > >All of this dialog resulted from my original statement and really my >only point which is that there is no imperical data to support all of >the republishing of Air Force assertions that stealth works. It may work >and it may not but we cannot tell from the only practical demonstration, >the Gulf War. (It is too soon to tell from this latest war although I Your data from the Gulf War is flawed and does not support your own assertions. >have read accounts that the U.S. government has admitted that the F-117 >was brought down by an SA-3.) The wreckage videos do not support that theory. But hey, we won't get into that. I let you find your own experts on SAMs. > >Most on this site have responded with the aggression of defenders of the >faith that I might expect this from religious zealots but not from >people that I thought were steeped in the Western tradition of the >scientific method. I do hope I'm not included there, all I have really done is point out the flaws in your data and your logic. That doesn't mean I don't agree with your point (which isn't immediately clear to me). 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: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:30:23 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: For Jim Stevenson.... Ivan Baird wrote in part: >First, I have to ask Jim a question (based upon the above ASSERTION.... >- Did you or did you not write: >Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:01:50 -0500 >From: "James P. Stevenson" >Subject: Re: What happened to the f-117? > Sam, > > You are getting excited over nothing. Stealth doesn't work so if our > enemies want to throw their money away like we have on something of no > additional value, let them do it. > > Jim Stevenson > > ???????????? > > Now, I realize that wasn't your *first* post on the subject, but if > you *DID* make this statement, maybe you would like to retract it now > based upon some of your more recent posts?!?!? (ie there's no > *proof* (IYO) that stealth works!!!) I did say stealth does not work but I should have said there is no evidence that stealth works. You are absolutely correct. > > Personally, and I realize I'm *just* a Canadian Canadians are great people. > and probably don't > count in your way of thinking anyway, the fact that I see you both > afraid and unwilling to actually tell us your background compared to > the other esteemed members of the List only shows that you are only > blowing wind!!! A person's background not the issue. It is his arguments. Just as your background is irrevelant to your comment regarding my saying stealth does not work when I should have said there is no evidence that it works. You were absolutely correct and it makes precious little difference if you have a Ph.D. in aerodynamics and stealth or dropped out of 8th grade. > Since I am not normally a 'flamer' I will not take this message much > further - but let me state that I think your arguments?!?! are both > biased and without merit.... I am biased. I favor evidence. As far as merit, my only arguement is that there is no evidence. If you have some, then my argument will become meritless. >All you have done is created a > situation where this one person (who does have quite a collection) > will NOT by ANY books with a James Stevenson as the author!!! My loss. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:32:54 -0400 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: F-111 in Gulf War, etc. Since some of the group seem unaware of the contributions of the F-111 in the Gulf War, the following is offered: The F-111F, with its ability to deliver a wide variety of PGMs, was one of Desert Storm’s most effective aircraft. Of 2,598 sor-ties scheduled, 2,417 took off (93% of those scheduled, and 4.5% of the 53,000 coalition combat sorties flown), and 1,919 delivered weapons (74% of scheduled, 79% of flown, and 4.7% of the coalition’s 41,000 strike sor-ties). Total combat hours flown were 9,381.2, meaning that each mission lasted about four hours. Of more than 8,000 LGBs delivered by the USAF, F-111Fs delivered 4,596. In addition to LGBs, the F-111Fs also delivered all 70 GBU-15s employed. The 66 deployed F-111Fs dropped 5,576 bombs to destroy 2,203 targets, includ-ing confirmed direct hits on 920 tanks and ar-mored personnel carriers (one seventh of the total destroyed during the war), 252 artillery pieces, 26 vehicles, 67 troop and munition as-sembly areas, 245 hardened aircraft shelters (HASs), 113 bunkers, 13 runways, four air-craft in the open, 13 hangers 19 warehouses, 158 buildings, 23 logistics sites, nine lines of communications (LOCs) 25 surface to air mis-sile (SAM) and AAA sites, 11 Scud missile sites, five pumping stations, four mine entrances, 32 chemical facilities, nine towers, two ships, and 12 bridges destroyed. These attacks resulted in 321 secondary explosions. At the end of the first night’s attacks, three aircraft reported minor AAA damage. One had a single bullet hole in its tail, it’s not known what damage was done to the others. These were the only incidents of combat damage suffered by F-111Fs during the war. In contrast to the precision attacks the F-111Fs were able to undertake because of their Pave Tack and GBU-15 systems, the F-111Es flying with Proven Force from Incirlik Tur-key were limited by their 1960’s vintage avi-onics. The targets attacked by F-111Es in-cluded rail yards, airfields, petroleum refineries and ammunition storage facilities. For the most part they were limited to flights of eight to 18 aircraft dropping loads of four CBU-87 CEMs or 14 Mk 82 LDGPs each on area targets from about 25,000 feet, with results matching the World War II vintage tactics. One F-111E "fragged" itself (was damaged by the explosions of its own bombs) on the night of 18 January. When F-111Fs carried out the first attack on a ‘super HAS’, on 24 January, they failed to destroy it. They changed tactics and returned two nights later, now dropping two GBU-24A/Bs against each super HAS at one-second intervals. This succeeded, with the first bomb punching a hole in the shelter and the second destroying the contents. The realization that their HASs were useless against LGBs prompted the Iraqis to begin an exodus the following morning, the 27th. On that day 20 Iraqi combat aircraft, the cream of Iraq’s air force, fled to Iran, including Mirage F.1s, MiG-29s, Su-22s, and Su-24s. Also Iraq’s air and air defense force commanders were exe-cuted the same day. In all, F-111Fs accounted for 245 of the HASs destroyed. This was 65% of the 375 de-stroyed during the war, and 41% of Iraq’s 594 HASs (it is believed that 141 aircraft were de-stroyed in their shelters). After the war, Iraqi prisoners who had served at airfields revealed that to survive they hid in the safety of the HASs during the day when the ineffective at-tacks by non-LGB equipped aircraft occurred. However, when the LGB attacks began after the sun went down, they hid in the safety of the bomb craters created around the airfield during the daylight raids while the shelters blew up all around them. During an LGB attack on 28 January, Captains Matt Young and Greg Chapman were flying the first of 20 F-111Fs attacking Tallil AB, in southeastern Iraq. Their direct hit on an ammunition storage area destroyed over 125 storage shelters and resulted in the largest non-nuclear, man-made explosion ever detected by a Defense Support Program (DSP) missile warning satellite. Afterwards, smoke rose to over 30,000 ft (9,000 m) and only one other aircraft in the attack (which had already dropped its bombs before the explosion) was able to deliver its weapons. Attacks on Iraqi tank and artillery concen-trations began on 5 February. Two aircraft destroyed seven tanks with eight bombs. On 7 February the first 44 aircraft mass tank killing mission took place, and they became almost nightly events until the beginning of the ground war with air-craft being sent into 30 x 60 nm ‘tank boxes’ with 15 minutes to deliver their four bombs. The process quickly becoming known as ‘tank plinking’ During a raid on 13 February, 46 aircraft destroyed 132 tanks and armored vehicles, a 71% success rate. On another night, 20 aircraft destroyed 77 tanks. The initial tank-plinking successes suffered as aircraft not capable of LGB attacks began scattering their bombs indiscriminately across the desert trying to "do their bit." The net effect of these well-meaning, but largely ineffective attacks was to create numerous false revetments, which, in concert with the poor weather, caused some of the bomb craters to be mistaken for tanks. When it was discovered that sixty-odd F-111Fs had destroyed ten times as many tanks as 250 F-16s, the F-16s were directed to cease attacks by mid-afternoon each day to allow the dust to settle before the Varks went to work at night! The F-111F LGB attacks were the ‘improved tactics’ military briefers very coyly avoided talking about... The only Aardvark lost during the war was an EF-111A. It flew into the ground 30nm northwest of Arar, Saudi Arabia at 2239Z on 13 February while performing evasive maneuvers against what they believed to be an Iraqi fighter. On 27 February, the final night of the war, two F-111Fs each delivered a single GBU-28/B ‘Deep Throat’ bomb against a deep com-mand bunker at Al Taji AB, just north of Baghdad; one of three such bunkers where Saddam Hussein reportedly spent most of the war. Plans to destroy the other two bunkers in downtown Baghdad were thwarted by the cease fire, the second two bombs not arriving at Taif until two days later. One of the most remarkable aspects of the F-111Fs’ performance during Desert Storm is the fact that there wasn’t a single unscheduled engine change during the entire war! You didn’t here much about the F-111Fs’ contributions to the war because the Air Force didn’t want it known how successful this old war horse was. Most of the videos shown during the press briefings were from F-111Fs, even though it was implied they were from F-15Es. The video quality of Pave Tack was far superior to that of LANTIRN and made for a much better show. Desperate for funding for the F-22, the entire F-111 fleet was repeatedly offered up as a source of funding. The number of F-111Fs receiving Pacer Strike avionics improvements to were severely curtailed and installa-tion of a new stores management set was canceled after the components were delivered. Ironically, the F-111’s integration of GPS into the navigation system was the best of any air-craft at the time, resulting in a phenomenal in-crease in bombing accuracy. During a 1995 laser-guided bombing competition, the laser in a Pacer Striked F-111F’s Pave Tack pod failed, forcing the crew to perform a radar toss, delivering their LGB like a ‘dumb bomb’. Despite this handicap, the Pacer Strike modifications allowed them to deliver the bomb to within 4 meters (13 feet) of the target. Increasing determined to rid itself of its war-winning nuisance, the Air Force an-nounced that the F-111F’s PGM capabilities were no longer needed because F-15Es and F-16C/Ds had been equipped with LANTIRN. The logic went that now that they composed only 13% of the Air Force’s LGB capability, there was no need to keep such expensive di-nosaurs. Conveniently ignored was that moving the target a few hundred miles from the tanker resulted in the ‘dinosaur’ once again com-prising 100% of the LGB capability. The Air Force finally won its battle in the FY 96 budget. In a case of collective institu-tional stupidity, remarkable even for Washing-ton, it was decided to retire all the F-111Es and F-111Fs during FY96. The EF-111As were initially to be spared until the turn of the century by a combination of factors: the loss of an F-16, shot down over Bosnia on a mission lacking electronic jamming support, and the realization that there were insufficient EA-6Bs to replace the already over-tasked Ra-vens. As with the F-111Es and Fs, the decision to abandon the EF-111A was made by Commander of ACC (and former adulterer/future Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), General Joe Ralston. He asked the operators of the Russian-like threat simulators used at the Nellis Test Range complex in Nevada which jamming aircraft created the greatest problems for them. They unanimously chose the EA-6B, with its much more frequently upgraded version of the ALQ-99, something the Air Force always found too expensive to do for the EF-111A when faced with the competing priority of building new air-to-air fighters. In another interesting deception, General Ralston claimed a contributing factor in his decision was the ‘fact’ that there were only 24 EF-111As compared to 127 EA-6Bs. This was an interesting comparison, since the EA-6B figure represented the total surviving production, while the EF-111A number represented only the single squadron available for service, ignoring 15 other surviving EF-111As, most of which were deployed at the time he made his statements to operations over Bosnia and Iraq. In the end, the EF-111As were all sent to the "boneyard" by the summer of 1998. In short, they came, they saw, they kicked big-time butt, and were thrown away as a reward. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #48 ******************************** 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