From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #49 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 Thursday, April 8 1999 Volume 08 : Number 049 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** F-117 serial numbers Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Stealth Debate Re: F-111 in Gulf War, etc. Re: F-111 kicks ASS!!!! FWD: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument Re: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] Re: (UASR) F-111 comments Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: F-117 vs. Red radar *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:36:21 -0400 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: F-117 serial numbers There seems to be some question about F-117 serial numbers. I think these are right, please correct me if I'm wrong. Note how the years jump around some, I've arranged these so the 'last three' of the s/n are sequential. 79-010780/-010785 6 YF-117A 80-000786/-000792 7 F-117A 81-010793/-010798 6 F-117A 82-000799/-000806 8 F-117A 83-000807/-000808 2 F-117A 84-000809/-000812 4 F-117A 85-000813/-000820 8 F-117A 86-000821/-000823 3 F-117A 84-000824/-000828 5 F-117A 85-000829/-000836 8 F-117A 86-000837/-000840 4 F-117A Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:39:13 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe 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 If Peter did (which I wouldn't put past him), he wouldn't be able to discuss it. In mnay circles, even asking such a thing is considered to be in poor taste. >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. > Darn, you found us out! Ain't ya never heard of chase aircraft? Over the DYCOMS range, F-117s, B-2s, etc. often fly with chase aircraft (usually F-16 or T-38s, though sometimes even A-7s and F-15s). Not to mention the number of aircraft "loaned" from Nellis for the express purposes calibrating the radar and serving as targets/chase aircraft. One of the reasons that the DYCOMS system is kept quiet is that it uses elements of foreign radar and ECM systems obtained by various agencies, and test US and foreign radars (and radar types) against both US and foreign aircraft. To some extnet even acknowledging this part of DYCOMS' role would expose the sources and methods by which the radar data, hardware, etc. being tested was obtained. The US tends to frown on that. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of inforamtion in the public domain on DYCOMS and it's use. 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 16:43:17 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" 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. > David wrote: > 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. I responded: What if the acquisition of the data showed that you were wrong; that pilots were flying into situations in which they thought they were safe but were not. Might that not be a reason to bring the data to light? > > 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.' Yes, they have done great things. But there are also disasters. If you are in this business, then you already know about the mismatches between the assertions and the realities. > > 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 have had a similar experience. >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, I have had similar experiences. > or recognises the > extravagant claims the media often makes about their work as having any > bearing on their research programmes. Don't understand your point. > Where you see conspiracy, I see no conspiracy. >I see justifiably classified information. I would too except for my experiences of government's continuous misleading statements. > As I > can't see any way around this stand-off, that just about wraps up my input. It's been a pleasure. > > 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. I did not depict it as a scan, I said there was no evidence that it worked. For what its worth, I hope I am wrong as well. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:45:29 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Stealth Debate James Stevenson wrote: > 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. This test proves nothing. You wanted scientific methods to be used and this is about as unscientific as it gets! In your test, if all the aircraft are detected, tracked and fired on and the stealth aircraft are agile enough to avoid the fire, but the non-stealth aren't, your test is satisified. However, stealth attributes are those of detectablity. Agility is classified as a different type of attribute. Hence, a non-stealth attribute saved the aircraft and your conclusion was wrong. The only way to definitively prove stealth works is to measure radar returns, at a range of different frequencies for different aircraft. Yes, this data exists and no, you and I will probably never get to see it. With this in mind, why don't you pursue a line of inquiry that can be answered? On another note, I think you are right - I don't think Cashen is an aeronautical engineer. However, he had Irv Waaland leading the aero side of things during the B-2's prelim design. Irv was very qualified in this aspect. David Lednicer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 01:08:22 +0200 From: Frits Westra Subject: Re: F-111 in Gulf War, etc. Thanks for the interesting posting, Jim. Please enlighten me which source you're quoting from? Thanks for the info, Frits > 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 - --[snipped]------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:40:53 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: F-111 kicks ASS!!!! >In short, they (F-111) came, they saw, they kicked big-time butt, and were >thrown away as a reward. Viva the Vark!!!! A descendant of the Convair Super Hustler! Thanks Jim for the nice summary! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:29:15 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument > She went further to warn of the impending use of B-1 and A-10 >bombers, "carrying missiles with depleted uranium previously used in Iraq >and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their use will bring about dangerous consequences >to the health not only of soldiers, but also the whole population. As you >know, toxins and radioactivity know no nationality or borders." Rather than invest actual effort rewriting it, here's a post I sent to the Healthfraud list last year on the subject of depleted uranium: At 08:17 AM 5/3/98 -0500, Ed Uthman wrote: >Depleted uranium has always intrigued me. All the materials available for >making shells, and the DOD decides to use an expensive, radioactive one! I According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who are of course in cahoots with the Greys and the Masons to keep the populace ignorant of the details of their diabolical plots and have ingeniously enlisted the assistance of the whole of the scientific world, DU is: "Uranium having a percentage of uranium-235 smaller than the 0.7 percent found in natural uranium. It is obtained from spent (used) fuel elements or as byproduct tails, or residues, from uranium isotope separation." (they've got a glossary of terms at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/GLOSSARY/index.html) Because of its excellent impermeability to radiation, as well as its hardness, DU is apparently used as _shielding_ around radioactive waste. It's too expensive to be used in this role as solid metal for most applications, but Lockheed Martin seem rather proud of figuring out a way to incorporate it into concrete for waste dumps (see http://www.lmco.com/press-releases/pr082996.html). >From a Deja News search I found a mention of DU being less radioactive than lead, but I'd want confirmation from someone qualified before I believed that. If it's true, that's a wonderful argument-stopper right there :-). >wonder how much each shell costs. Also, I wonder what the cost of the ammo >expended to kill one Iraqi main battle tank is. Does the ammo cost more >than its target? :) According to the Lockheed press release, there's more than half a million tonnes of depleted uranium hexaflouride stored around the US, but processing it into metal isn't cheap (hence its unpopularity for bulk applications). By military standards, the processing can probably be said to cost, in round numbers, nothing :-). The Gulf War Syndrome fans say DU is handed out free by the Government to defence contractors. Again, I'd want confirmation - I bet it's the hexaflouride, if anything, that's made available, with processing the contractors' problem. >Actually I do have a few serious questions about DU: > >1. Is it used in any munition other than the big 30mm gun (GAU-37?)carried >by the A-10 Thunderbolt II? Oh, yeah. Because it's really heavy and really hard, it's used in the cores of all sorts of armour piercing munitions. And as armour. >2. Someone mentioned earlier that DU is not used for its density (actually >osmium and iridium share the honor of being the densest elements under >standard conditions), but for its "refractory" properties. Does this mean >it doesn't vaporize and burn as easily as other materials? Why is this No, it means it burns BETTER. You've got to start thinking like Colonel Killcrazy here, Ed. Uranium is pyrophoric; flakes burn spontaneously in air. So when your poor old ex-Soviet tank gets hit by a DU round, the penetrator flakes apart inside and lights you up. Ain't technology grand? >3. What is depleted uranium depleted _of_? I thought that when uranium >decayed, it was no longer uranium at all, but lead. So, it must be depleted >of something other than its radioactivity. Just the high-radioactivity U-235. Correct me if I'm wrong here, folks - U-235 has a half-life of 7.0 x 10^8 years, and U-238 has a half-life of 44.6 x 10^8 years, so U-235 is about six times more radioactive, but neither is very radioactive, anyway. Pu-239 has a half-life of only 24,000 years. >4. Did anyone at the Pentagon consider that using a radioactive element, no >matter how innocuous its radioactivity is, in a munition is not such a good >idea in a nucleophobic world? Weren't there alternative materials that >would be almost as effective and a lot more politically correct? Could >Saddam launch a propaganda campaign and say, truthfully, that the US used >"nuclear weapons" against his people? Why should he? There's plenty of Americans doing it for him :-)! Essentially, based on this data, the dangerous thing about a DU bullet is not its trivial radiation, but the fact that it's hurled at you at several times the speed of sound, and probably has a lot of friends. Lying around on the sand, it would seem to be about as dangerous as a fishing sinker. [end repost] Incidentally, I never did find out whether the "less radioactive than lead" line was correct or not. Anyone know? - -- Daniel Rutter - DNRC Gadget Wrangler http://www.fromorbit.com/drutter/ Visit http://www.dansdata.com/! - -- 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: Thu, 08 Apr 99 05:20:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: (UASR) F-111 comments On 4/7/99 3:07AM, in message <199904071006.DAA04345@harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > 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. > > > Jim, I'm afraid we have a serious disconnect here in this. The F-111 couldn't have had the same engine-afterburner combination as the Missileer because the F6D never was planned to have afterburners. The only significant survivor of the F6D program was its engine, the TF30 (I know TF34 was a typo). The afterburner was added when the engine was adapted for the F-111 program. This was the start of TF30 problems. For the Missileer, all the TF30 had to do was not use a lot of gas as it powered a plane that would mostly motor around the sky waiting to shoot its long-range missiles. No afterburner. No rapid acceleration or deceleration. No high g turns. No fighter like maneuverability. No rapid throttle movement or sudden change of fuel flow. And definitely, no high angle of attack flight. This doesn't describe the F-111 or F-14 profiles. The problems on the Aardvark weren't solved until the F model, and they were never solved on the Tomcat. I'm not sure which engine Could have powered the 33rd or 35th F-111B and beyond, since there was no other engine in development at the time. This was the reason that the first 13-69 F-14s were to use the TF30, to get the plane into service until the F401 was available. In point of fact the F100, the engine that provided the core for the F401 was having serious development problems and was behind schedule. Consequently 19 Tomcats were flying before the first F401 was finally delivered and it went into #7 which had expected to get it on the production line. The Air Force at this time was encountering developmental problems with the F100. Reliability in the test program was not up to snuff and the engine was not taking well to rapid changes in fuel flow. The F100 engine at this point in time was more critical to USAF than the F401 was to the Navy. Although the F401 was the engine around which the F-14 was designed and provided the thrust levels and SFC benefits to allow the F-14 to meet its design specifications, the Tomcat was flying successfully with the TF30. Without the F100, there would be no F-15. Grumman was already sounding out the Air Force with low key sales pitches for the Tomcat. Congress, not understanding the difference between Air Force and Navy missions again, was making noises about both services using the same aircraft. At this point, it would have been the F-14 because it was flying and had a functioning engine in it. This issue was so sensitive that for many years, Navy and Air Force pilots were strictly forbidden to ever fly F-14s against F-15s. USAF hoped that given enough time they would solve the early F100 problems. In fact, they eventually mostly did, but at this juncture it didn't look like Congress was going to give them the necessary time. One of the most critical tests was the 150 hour run, wherein an F100 would have to run for 150 hours without failing. Congress had made it clear that without passing this test funding for the F100 would disappear, and the Eagle would remain grounded. Published reports at the time were somewhat confusing about the definitive 150 qualification test. According to some reports, on the critical test the engine was closely monitored and if certain key components appeared that they were about to fail, the test was suspended, the component replaced, and then continued. The F100 engine "passed" the test. The F100 eventually went on to become a good engine, although it was many years before it achieved its full potential. It was the mid 80s before the throttle movement restrictions were lifted. Engine stalls were a problem in air combat maneuvers. I remember in the late 70s talking to an F-15 pilot and asking him what was his feeling on F100 reliability. His reply was, "I'm glad I've got two of them". Endurance problems were eventually solved by derating the them". Endurance problems were eventually solved by derating the engine from 25,000 to 23,000 pounds of thrust. There was a key provision in the development agreement of the F100 and F401 engines. Basically, once the F100 passed the 150 hour qualification test the Air Force was no longer responsible for reliability and endurance improvements in the common core. At this point the Navy would be on its own, and had to accept the core in its current state. Any desired core improvements would have to be funded solely by the Navy. Even this early in the test program there were problems with the F401 as well. When USAF announced that the F100 had "passed", the Navy took a look at what it would cost to bring the core up to an acceptable level of reliability and performance to bring the F401 into service. Already there were grumblings about the cost of the F-14 program, and USN figured this was just too big a bill to have to face. In April, 1974 the F401 program was suspended. It had only flown 33 hours. When the F401 died, so did the F-14B. It wasn't that the USN didn't want to keep it, it was that in the condition it was being turned over to them they couldn't afford to. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:01:23 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] At 09:28 PM 4/7/99 -0700, you wrote: >I remember something like 10 B-52s lost during the Christmas offensive >to force progress at the Paris peace talks. Anyone have the final count >and/or source of information? > >Terry Yes 10 over NVN, also 4 others that made it back as far as Thailand or Laos. B-52 Aircrew Losses Total crew members involved 92 Recovered 26 MIA (NVN) 23 MIA (Laos) 1 POWs (later returned) 33 KIA/Died of Wounds 5 TOTAL 180[???] Larry - -- 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: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 07:48:00 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: (UASR) F-111 comments > On 4/7/99 3:07AM, in message Jim S wrote: >> 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. Art replied: > Jim, I'm afraid we have a serious disconnect here in this. The F-111 couldn't > have had the same engine-afterburner combination as the Missileer because the > F6D never was planned to have afterburners. Art, my mistake. I meant to say, TF30 engine and afterburner as an add on. Coulam makes a big point about how adding the AB caused a lot of problems with the engine. The rest of your piece was an excellent recap of the F100/F401 engine development history. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 07:57:23 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Jim S wrote: >>First, did you watch the experiment? Did you see the data? Secondly, for Dan replied: > If Peter did (which I wouldn't put past him), he wouldn't be able to > discuss it. In mnay circles, even asking such a thing is considered > to be in poor taste. > >>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. >> > > Darn, you found us out! > Ain't ya never heard of chase aircraft? > Over the DYCOMS range, F-117s, B-2s, etc. often fly with chase > aircraft (usually F-16 or T-38s, though sometimes even A-7s and > F-15s). Not to mention the number of aircraft "loaned" from Nellis > for the express purposes calibrating the radar and serving as > targets/chase aircraft. > > One of the reasons that the DYCOMS system is kept quiet is that it > uses elements of foreign radar and ECM systems obtained by various > agencies, and test US and foreign radars (and radar types) against > both US and foreign aircraft. To some extnet even acknowledging this > part of DYCOMS' role would expose the sources and methods by which > the radar data, hardware, etc. being tested was obtained. > > The US tends to frown on that. > > Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of inforamtion in the > public domain on DYCOMS and it's use. This puts me right back to the beginning. You are making assertions for which there is no evidence that I can evaluate. I don't know if Peter saw this data or was told by someone in the Air Force. If Peter saw it and makes the assertion, I have then forced to take his word for it. I still would not have seen it. You chose to believe what you are told, I chose to wait until I can see the data. Even at that, I have seen material that would tend to support what you are saying but then I've seen other data that refutes it. But back to my original comment: we don't have real world information that shows the F-117 worked any better. How something works in the real world is the ultimate test. As for the recent F-117 in Yugo. it appears that it was bagged when it put down its bomb-bay doors. I'll have to ponder the significance of being invisible until you are right upon the enemy only to have them shoot you anyway. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 08:07:32 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Jim S 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 >>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 Dan replied: > Your data from the Gulf War is flawed and does not support your own assertions. Give me a few days Dan to review the report. I read it some time ago and will have to review it before commenting. >>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). Your attacks on my data are reasonable. I need some time to review the data to see what you are having a problem with. As to your attacks on my logic, I am at a loss. There is nothing illogical about the statement that the experience of the Gulf War does not support the assertion that the F-117 was stealthy because the other aircraft that flew at night and at "medium" altitudes did not get hit either. Now, it may be that I am wrong on the data, but that is not a logical problem, that is a factual problem. The F-117 might be stealthy or it might not. All I am saying is that the Gulf War experience does not provide the evidence. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 07:25:34 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar At 07:57 AM 4/8/99 -0400, James wrote: >You chose to believe what you are told, I chose to wait until I can see >the data. I think you should rephrase that to "I chose not to believe what I am told until I can see the data." And that's okay too. >But back to my original comment: we don't have real world information >that shows the F-117 worked any better. How something works in the real >world is the ultimate test. Whose to say what a real world test is in war situation. Lots of variables, some unknown, few controls. Isn't the test of any F-117 mission also a test of the adversary in attempting to prevent the success of the mission? My point is I agree the Gulf War was not evidence. I would say it might not even have been a good test. If NAVY Seals knocked out power going to an AA battery before an F-117 strike, then there won't be any kind of a test. Only the mathematical probability of a random hit. >As for the recent F-117 in Yugo. it appears that it was bagged when it put down its bomb-bay doors. So now you are believing rumors? Where is there the least bit of evidence this occurred? This idea was pure conjecture posted earlier here. Are you not saying it appears 806 was invisible to the radar until the bomb bay door opened? Show me an AAA radar tape of the precise time a lock on occured and show me the precise time the door was opened. Isn't this the kind of evidence you normally require to believe something? The doors can be opened either individually or together. It takes less than 10 seconds to bang them open, release and close again. Do we know the plane is significantly less stealthy with a door open? It is also a faceted component designed in as part of the aircraft. I could envision maybe a lock on with a door opening which would allow a missile launch. I could also envision losing the fore mentioned lock on when the door was closed. And the plane veering off to a new heading after bomb release. >I'll have to ponder the significance of being invisible until you are right upon the >enemy only to have them shoot you anyway. Careful now, you might ponder without valid or sufficient evidence. patrick ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #49 ******************************** 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