From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #71 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, June 23 1999 Volume 08 : Number 071 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon More on Roton Re: ATF testing Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon OT: Help Wanted Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon/lying russians Latest on Roton Re: Latest on Roton Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:33:53 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon Source: The Electronic (Daily) Telegraph,June 14, 1999, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000343180237640&rtmo=au4WahhJ&atmo=99999999 &pg=/et/99/6/10/ecnmig10.html MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon By Jon Pratty A NEW Russian MiG fighter that uses a "Star Trek"-style plasma cloaking device to hide from enemy radar and missiles is due to make its first flight any day. The stealth device weighs under 100kg and can be fitted to any aircraft. It surrounds the plane with a cloud of plasma or electrically charged gas, rendering it invisible to enemy radar, say its makers. The plasma stealth system on the MiG 1.42 is most likely real; Russian scientists have long been experts in high-energy physics. "The Russians do have some novel approaches to plasma research," said Nick Cook, of Jane's Defence Weekly. "I suspect they are very much more advanced than we think. This device promises passive reductions in both radar cross-section and drag." The device was developed at a secret base outside Moscow called the M.V. Keldysh Research Centre. Established as long ago as 1933, it is one of the pioneering centres of rocket research in the world. The centre's website coyly confirms that work on plasma physics takes place, as well as building new rocket engines, space power plants and lasers. The Russians are so convinced of the value of the new cloaking shield, they want to sell it to raise hard currency. Jane's Defence Weekly recently revealed the makers are now offering to fit the system to any fighter, raising the unhappy prospect of Iraqi or Serbian MiGs using it. The first flight has been postponed several times since January; to date, the plane has only taxied on a runway for some visiting politicians and generals. Unkind observers in the West have suggested that the plane is nothing more than a dummy. Said Cook, "It's a real aircraft, but it is a generation behind our latest offering in the West." *11 February 1999: Nasa jet takes a turn for the better [New flight control sytem] External: *M.V. Keldysh Research Centre - Federation of American Scientists *Jane's Defence Weekly [Subscription required] *MiG 1.42 info - Russian Aviation FAQ *MiG 1.42 Photos - AeroWorldNet © Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998. Terms & Conditions of reading. Information about Telegraph Group Limited and Electronic Telegraph. "Electronic Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" are trademarks of Telegraph Group Limited. These marks may not be copied or used without permission. Information for webmasters linking to Electronic Telegraph. - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:55:31 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing The entire cost of all of the manned stealth programs is staggering. The benefits were out of proportion with the reality. I daresay that if most aircraft flew with two EA-6Bs as escort, they could have made bombing runs without getting hit, just as the B-2 did. The claimed accuracy of the B-2 is impressive. However, there is nothing that it does that could not have been put into the B-52. Now imagine B-52s with EA-6Bs on each wing. Not only would it have a similar lack of susceptibility to radar but with the same weapon system and weapons, it could have carried more for less money. What remains to be determined is if the mismatch between the claims that the Air Force made after Desert Storm and the reality of their successes have been equally distorted in Kosovo. Jim Stevenson > On 6/19/99 11:23AM, in message > <199906191823.LAA18814@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" > wrote: >> >> I'm saying that Riccioni said that he suspects that the F-22 cannot fly >> supersonically much further than the F-15 can fly supersonically, at >> similar speeds. >> >> Jim >> > > > If this turns out to be the case, the implications are staggering; > For US > technology, for the F-22, for the Air Force and for out entire R&D process. > > > Art > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 99 03:14:27 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: ATF testing On 6/21/99 2:55PM, in message <199906212155.OAA22898@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > The entire cost of all of the manned stealth programs is staggering. Jim, If you're referring to my use of "staggering" in replying to your post, I wasn't addressing the stealth issue. Frankly, if the F-22 doesn't meet its full stealth goals, that isn't too bad from an operational point of view. It's a fighter; unlike the B-2/F-117 it's not supposed to avoid contact. Although it would be nice if it achieves its promised stealth performance operationally, it won't impact the mission that much if it misses by a bit. While it's nice to have B-2 level "invisibility", for a fighter, you've got enough stealth if the other guy can't get lock on you until after you've launched. A giant very long wave antenna is not the thing you need to deal with. If it "sees" a fighter, you haven't lost that much. The radar you've got to seriously defeat is the radar that provides guidance for the missile coming your way. This would include the illuminating fighter's (or offboard unit) and the seeker, active-or semi-active, on the missile. If those can't see you, even if you're perfectly visible to the other radars, you have an enormous tactical advantage (although you have paid to much in $$$ for it), even if the F-22 doesn't achieve its original promises. As yet there's no indication that the electronics won't perform to par, but even if they don't, that can be fixed--buy someone else's electronics. It won't involve a major redesign of the plane. BUT, if the F-22 can't fly farther supercruising than the F-15 can in afterburner---THAT'S staggering! Supercruise is frankly the biggest air combat advantage the F-22 has. One of the main things the plane is supposed to do is, while not having a top speed all that high (in fact, it's less than the F-15's and others), its combat speed, the speed it can maintain for sustained periods, is supposed to be over 50% higher than other fighters. Sustainable speed is an enormous advantage. One of the big reasons that Mach 2.5 speeds aren't all that much in demand is that most M2+ fighters can't maintain those speeds for very long. For this reason, combats quickly deteriorate to the high subsonic. The F-22 is supposed to be able to maintain M1.5 for periods comparable to what other aircraft can do at M.9. This affected engine design in a major way, as well as that of the aircraft and its planned tactics. If the F-22 can't go any farther M1.5 supercruising (without 'burner) than the F-15 can at M1.5 (with 'burner), this is catastrophic and means that the F-22's design is fundamentally flawed and Major design errors took place. This makes its supercruising capability something we paid dearly for that is virtually worthless. IF it's true. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 99 03:19:01 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon On 6/21/99 1:33PM, in message <376EA1B1.6527772C@primenet.com>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > Source: The Electronic (Daily) Telegraph,June 14, 1999, > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000343180237640&rtmo=au4WahhJ&atmo=99999999 > &pg=/et/99/6/10/ecnmig10.html > > MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon > > By Jon Pratty > > Just remember, the Russians lie a lot. They've shown working samples of devices that they really couldn't deliver in the past and lied about their availability (KA-50, rearward firing missile, etc.). On the other hand, I wonder if they got the cloaking device from someone else? Let's see... Romulan,--Russian; Russian,--Romulan. Hmmmm Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 99 03:33:02 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: More on Roton For those interested in more information on Roton and other Earth to Orbit advanced technologies that might actually be practical as opposed to practically unaffordable, there is a good short article in the July 5 Forbes magazine, page 140. For a business magazine to cover this is quite promising. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:54:51 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing Art wrote: > If you're referring to my use of "staggering" in replying to your post, > I wasn't addressing the stealth issue. Frankly, if the F-22 doesn't > meet its full stealth goals, that isn't too bad from an operational > point of view. It's a fighter; unlike the B-2/F-117 it's not supposed > to avoid contact. Although it would be nice if it achieves its promised > stealth performance operationally, it won't impact the mission that much > if it misses by a bit. You originally wrote about testing. My point is that we won't know whether it meets or even comes close to meeting its goals because it will be deep into production before it has finished testing. And then what? What if it does not even come close? Then we will have wasted lots of money on stealth. > While it's nice to have B-2 level "invisibility", for a fighter, you've > got enough stealth if the other guy can't get lock on you until after > you've launched. A giant very long wave antenna is not the thing you > need to deal with. If it "sees" a fighter, you haven't lost that much. > The radar you've got to seriously defeat is the radar that provides > guidance for the missile coming your way. This would include the > illuminating fighter's (or offboard unit) and the seeker, active-or > semi-active, on the missile. If those can't see you, even if you're > perfectly visible to the other radars, you have an enormous tactical > advantage (although you have paid to much in $$$ for it), even if the > F-22 doesn't achieve its original promises. Oh yea? The A-12 was later technology than the B-2 and all the experts at CNA claimed that the Russians could direct its fighters to within 5 miles of the A-12. At that range the F-22 would be visible. I haven't seen stealth yet that can defeat a gun. > As yet there's no indication that the electronics won't perform to par, > but even if they don't, that can be fixed--buy someone else's > electronics. It won't involve a major redesign of the plane. This is a glass is half empty versus half full. My reading of history is that the acquisition people always promise far more than they deliver. So when someone tells me avionics will deliver X, I discount that significantly. From my perspective, there is no evidence that it will work. Time prevents me right now from addressing the reasons why. But start with the lines of code and finish with the fact that the code is written around processors that are no longer made and you have an idea. > BUT, if the F-22 can't fly farther supercruising than the F-15 can in > afterburner---THAT'S staggering! . . . The > F-22 is supposed to be able to maintain M1.5 for periods comparable to > what other aircraft can do at M.9. This affected engine design in a > major way, as well as that of the aircraft and its planned tactics. If > the F-22 can't go any farther M1.5 supercruising (without 'burner) than > the F-15 can at M1.5 (with 'burner), this is catastrophic and means that > the F-22's design is fundamentally flawed and Major design errors took > place. This makes its supercruising capability something we paid dearly > for that is virtually worthless. According to your comments, Art, the F-22 is suppose to cruise supersonically for the same distance as the F-15, et al, subsonically. The ATF goal was a total combat radius of action of 500 miles (100 subsonic and 400 supersonic). According to your comments, that means the F-15 should have a subsonic range of 500. But F-15A did not even meet its radius of action of 240 miles. Time will tell whether the F-22 can cruise supersonically much more than 125 miles. Riccioni did the seminal work on this subject. He shared all of his calculations with me. He claims no heavenly guidance on the subject. However, he claims that most of this is simply physics. And if you have a fuel fraction less than 0.29, you cannot expect to meet the range promised by the acquisition czars who used these inflated numbers to extract the money in the first place. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:58:09 -0400 From: "Philip R. Moyer" Subject: Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon > On the other hand, I wonder if they got the cloaking device from someone >else? Let's see... Romulan,--Russian; Russian,--Romulan. Hmmmm It was Northrop. They were working on plasma-dampened shock waves with a concept called the Tactical High-Altitude Penetrator (THAP), if my aging memory recalls correctly. I think it was Larry Smith who dug this one up back in about 1992. Also, as I recall, the research completely dried up around '67, even though all published material prior to that looked promising. Larry, can you clear up my bad memory here? Regards, Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:00:07 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: OT: Help Wanted Hello again: As a few may know the list will be relocating to a dedicated server over the next few weeks. DON'T PANIC, there will not be a service interruption (I hope) and nothing will change as to the list itself. Here's the reason for the message: I'm not a sendmail 8.9.3 expert and could use someone that is to look at the config for it and majordomo here before we cut over to the new box so as not to have any unnecessary problems (or any at all hopefully). I can't pay you anything, except a big public thank you on the list and a small note at the bottom of my web site, unless you want free email and web space that is about all I have to offer. Thanks, George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:43:28 PDT From: wayne binkley Subject: Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon/lying russians on 6/22/99 03:19 gmt"art" wrote i have often wondered why aircraft subject to be attacked from the rear do NOT have a rearward firing missile.after all, the B-52 ,as far as i know still has tail guns.if this is not a proper subject for discussion on this list,or if it has recently been explained,maybe some one can tell me how to find it in the archives,if that can be done.if not please correspond with me at my E-mail address.i am really curious about this and suspect there must be some simple explanation so obvious that i have over looked it.thanks in advance. wayne d.binkley _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:58:51 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Latest on Roton From: "Kim Keller" To: "Skunk Works Mail List" Subject: Latest on Roton Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:11:42 -0400 Rotary Rocket, the makers of Rotn, have laid off the bulk of their work force due to a lack of funds. A core staff of about thirty remains and will attempt to fly the atmospheric test vehicle sometime in the next couple months. Investors have been reluctant to part with their money. The projected market for Roton launch services is now considered unstable with plans for some major low-earth-orbit satellite constellations being dropped. Perhaps some successful atmospheric testing will shake the dollars loose. - -Kim- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:33:59 EDT From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Latest on Roton Perhaps they had the same first impression I had: God, what a silly thing, there getting really desperate. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG / KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:58:51 +0000 georgek@netwrx1.com writes: >From: "Kim Keller" >To: "Skunk Works Mail List" >Subject: Latest on Roton >Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:11:42 -0400 > >Rotary Rocket, the makers of Rotn, have laid off the bulk of their >work force due to a lack of funds. A core staff of about thirty >remains and will attempt to fly the atmospheric test vehicle sometime >in the next couple months. Investors have been reluctant to part with >their money. The projected market for Roton launch services is now >considered unstable with plans for some major low-earth-orbit >satellite constellations being dropped. > >Perhaps some successful atmospheric testing will shake the dollars >loose. > >-Kim- > ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 99 02:36:40 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: ATF testing On 6/22/99 5:54AM, in message <199906221254.FAA03226@falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > > You originally wrote about testing. My point is that we won't know > whether it meets or even comes close to meeting its goals because it > will be deep into production before it has finished testing. And then > what? What if it does not even come close? Then we will have wasted lots > of money on stealth. > This is something you and I agree on. My position is that because we take so long to develop things nowadays, we have to put them into production well before we know how well the thing actually works. > > > > Oh yea? The A-12 was later technology than the B-2 and all the experts > at CNA claimed that the Russians could direct its fighters to within 5 > miles of the A-12. At that range the F-22 would be visible. I haven't > seen stealth yet that can defeat a gun. > At night, five miles would still be too far away to attack it visually although LLTV continues to advance. During the day, the F-14D can already pick up a B-2 at 40+ miles. My contention, though, is that especially for a fighter, if you have enough stealth that the missile can't guide, you've got enough-even if the search radar can get the interceptor in the general area. I personally think spending a lot more money than that on stealth for a fighter probably has a negative cost benefit ratio. Regarding gun kills, if someone gets a gun kill on an F-22, they're either Really lucky, or the Raptor pilot is Really bad. Not only because of the Raptor's maneuverability, but because gun kils killsjust so damn hard! > > This is a glass is half empty versus half full. My reading of history is > that the acquisition people always promise far more than they deliver. > So when someone tells me avionics will deliver X, I discount that > significantly. From my perspective, there is no evidence that it will > work. Time prevents me right now from addressing the reasons why. But > start with the lines of code and finish with the fact that the code is > written around processors that are no longer made and you have an idea. I've brought up the out of production processors here myself. That, however, is going to be a permanent problem from here on out. If they've got a bunch of them in a warehouse somewhere or have someone who can build more (I think that's what they're going to do), that's not the big problem. The code is. I feel, though, that that situation can be worked around, you can always put in other electronics, albeit at high cost. You might even have to build the plan with a RIO like you should have in the first place. > > > According to your comments, Art, the F-22 is suppose to cruise > supersonically for the same distance as the F-15, et al, subsonically. Not really. My understanding is that it is supposed to be able to cruise supersonically far longer than anything else it would encounter, making M1.5 a useful, sustainable speed. > The ATF goal was a total combat radius of action of 500 miles (100 > subsonic and 400 supersonic). Note that this is less than the radius of current US fighters, depending on the loiter. The F-22 is supposed to have a greater radius, though, than them if it stays subsonic. However, 800 miles of supersonic performance is fantastic compared to anything else. Even if the return is all subsonic, 400 miles of supersonic is a major step up for combat or attack. > According to your comments, that means the > F-15 should have a subsonic range of 500. But F-15A did not even meet > its radius of action of 240 miles. One example of problems with the early F-15As indicates how much fuel is used in 'burner. An F-15A that takes off and accelerates directly to M2+ will not have enough fuel left to return to its point of departure. > > Time will tell whether the F-22 can cruise supersonically much more than > 125 miles. This would still be a significant advantage, depending on what else is affected. The problem would be we were paying for a lot more. > Riccioni did the seminal work on this subject. He shared all > of his calculations with me. He claims no heavenly guidance on the > subject. However, he claims that most of this is simply physics. And if > you have a fuel fraction less than 0.29, you cannot expect to meet the > range promised by the acquisition czars who used these inflated numbers > to extract the money in the first place. > > Jim > As I said, if the F-22 massively misses its supercruise numbers, the implications are staggering. As you said, time will tell. This is why I so hate the glacial way we develop aircraft. Considering the time that's elapsed since first flight the test program should be far enough along that we could have a feel for whether it's going to come close to meeting its spec. This should be a go/no go for a production decision, but it won't be because of the incredibly low risk way we test anything. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:29:40 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing Art wrote: > > This is something you and I agree on. My position is that because we take so > long to develop things nowadays, we have to put them into production well > before we know how well the thing actually works. That's not the reason. The reason it takes so long is that the contractors and military want to lock in the constituency for the program to guarantee that it won't fail politically. >> >> Oh yea? The A-12 was later technology than the B-2 and all the experts >> at CNA claimed that the Russians could direct its fighters to within 5 >> miles of the A-12. At that range the F-22 would be visible. I haven't >> seen stealth yet that can defeat a gun. >> > > At night, five miles would still be too far away to attack it visually > although LLTV continues to advance. During the day, the F-14D can already > pick up a B-2 at 40+ miles. My contention, though, is that especially for a > fighter, if you have enough stealth that the missile can't guide, you've got > enough-even if the search radar can get the interceptor in the general area. I > personally think spending a lot more money than that on stealth for a fighter > probably has a negative cost benefit ratio. Regarding gun kills, if someone > gets a gun kill on an F-22, they're either Really lucky, or the Raptor pilot > is Really bad. Not only because of the Raptor's maneuverability, but because > gun kils killsjust so damn hard! > In all due respect, Art, you nor I have any idea what the maneuverability of the F-22 is. All we have heard are assertions from contractors and Air Force people that it is awesome. But there is no evidence, only assertions. It would not surprise me if the F-16A could out maneuver it. The F-22 is a pig. It weighs almost 65,000 pounds and has a thrust to weight worse than the F-15A or F-16A. There are not a lot of air-to-air encounters at night. >> SNIP > >> The ATF goal was a total combat radius of action of 500 miles (100 >> subsonic and 400 supersonic). > > Note that this is less than the radius of current US fighters, depending on > the loiter. The F-22 is supposed to have a greater radius, though, than them > if it stays subsonic. However, 800 miles of supersonic performance is > fantastic compared to anything else. Even if the return is all subsonic, 400 > miles of supersonic is a major step up for combat or attack. Yes, but the F-22 does not have that kind of radius of action. Look at the fuel fraction. It is worse than an F-15 and has higher fuel consumption. How can it possible fly further unless it has virtually no drag? > >> According to your comments, that means the >> F-15 should have a subsonic range of 500. But F-15A did not even meet >> its radius of action of 240 miles. > > One example of problems with the early F-15As indicates how much fuel is used > in 'burner. An F-15A that takes off and accelerates directly to M2+ will not > have enough fuel left to return to its point of departure. Right, so there you have another misleading comment by the Air Force. "The F-15 is a Mach 2 fighter." No it's not. If it goes to Mach 2, it flies out of the sky. Furthermore, the only way it can get there is without missiles. So the point is, the comment is bogus. What remains to be seen is the number of bogus comments about the F-22. >> >> Time will tell whether the F-22 can cruise supersonically much more than >> 125 miles. > > This would still be a significant advantage, depending on what else is > affected. The problem would be we were paying for a lot more. We, as taxpayers, through our representatives, agreed to buy an aircraft that would fly 400 miles and back supersonically. If it only goes 125, then we've been ripped off. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 99 03:11:09 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: ATF testing On 6/23/99 3:29AM, in message <199906231029.DAA21341@scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Art wrote: > > > > This is something you and I agree on. My position is that because we take so > > long to develop things nowadays, we have to put them into production well > > before we know how well the thing actually works. > > That's not the reason. The reason it takes so long is that the > contractors and military want to lock in the constituency for the > program to guarantee that it won't fail politically. I wonder if that's the case as much as first, although you spend a LOT more by having these lengthy developments, in any given year you don't have that big a gulp to sell. Second, by taking the virtually no risk route to testing you force it to last damn near forever. Politically speaking it would seem more likely that if you could get a bigger in short term but smaller in long term R&D funding bulge sold, it would be to your advantage to get a (tested) a/c into production quicker. The longer you are in R&D the more that supporters, the political climate and conditions can change. The harder it is to hold your coalition together. The classic present day example I can give to you is the Rafale. Had the French government just developed the thing on schedule instead of throwing its money away on socialist fantasies and welfare, they would have Owned the present fighter market. Instead, they've had to fight every year and they've blown the lead (and it was a big one) they had over their competition, as well as the advantages of having only one production line. Back to the US, it's much easier to cancel an advanced technology project that won't enter service for another 8 years than it is to cancel one that has bunches rolling off the assembly line. > >>n. > >> > > > . Not only because of the Raptor's maneuverability, but because > > gun kils killsjust so damn hard! > > > In all due respect, Art, you nor I have any idea what the > maneuverability of the F-22 is. All we have heard are assertions from > contractors and Air Force people that it is awesome. But there is no > evidence, only assertions. It would not surprise me if the F-16A could > out maneuver it. The F-22 is a pig. It weighs almost 65,000 pounds and > has a thrust to weight worse than the F-15A or F-16A. We have some idea from the prototypes, but I agree that we don't really know enough to go to production. Regarding thrust to weight, with two 35,000 lb thrust engines pushing a 65,000 lb. airframe I'd say that's a pretty good ratio. Keep in mind also, the requirement was maneuverability equal to the F-16C, which Lockheed claims they beat. Weight can be overcome. Although it can't match it in every maneuver, the F-14B/D reportedly pretty much fights the F-16C/D to a draw close-in and it weighs a Lot more. Maneuverability is great up to a point, but I fear that in some quarters it's being treated the same way top speed was in the '50s and '60s, too much else being sacrificed to gain a bit more maneuverability that really isn't that important. > > There are not a lot of air-to-air encounters at night. True. I was simply covering that base because of your mention of its visibility. I was also noting by my LLTV comment that this "cloak" may be pierced in the near future. > >> > SNIP > > > Yes, but the F-22 does not have that kind of radius of action. Look at > the fuel fraction. It is worse than an F-15 and has higher fuel > consumption. How can it possible fly further unless it has virtually no > drag? > Don't underestimate the advantages of low drag. The F-14A always had a lower T/W ratio than the F-4, yet could fly rings around it and handily outaccelerate it (when the TF30s worked). In fact, except for a fairly narrow band, it outaccelerates the F/A-18. Now when you get to the B/D... That said, I also will be very interested when some actual performance test results are in. > > > > Right, so there you have another misleading comment by the Air Force. > "The F-15 is a Mach 2 fighter." No it's not. If it goes to Mach 2, it > flies out of the sky. Furthermore, the only way it can get there is > without missiles. So the point is, the comment is bogus. What remains to > be seen is the number of bogus comments about the F-22. To be honest the example I used was a bit unfair. An F-15 would normally accelerate to M2+ starting at altitude and from high subsonic. Starting from the ground really uses up the gas. Even so, it doesn't have much persistence at high Mach. I wanted to point out how much fuel is used by afterburners. I didn't know that the Eagle had to be clean to exceed M2. I know for a fact that a F-14 (shameless plug) will sustain M2+ in level flight carrying four AIM-54, two AIM-9 and two 280 gal, tanks, albeit turning an enormous amount of kerosene into heat and noise. Interestingly enough, the Navy seems to have come to the conclusion that short bursts of speed M2+ aren't worth the fuel and maintenance costs, so the F-14B/D are limited to M1.88 (I believe they deactivate the variable ramps), even the aircraft is capable of M2.5. This, by the way, was essentially the same thing they would have done to the production B-1A. Variable ramps but disabled. If pursuit made it vital to go faster than M1.8, the pilot would push in the circuit breakers and become a test pilot. > > >> > >> Time will tell whether the F-22 can cruise supersonically much more than > >> 125 miles. > > > > This would still be a significant advantage, depending on what else is > > affected. The problem would be we were paying for a lot more. > > We, as taxpayers, through our representatives, agreed to buy an aircraft > that would fly 400 miles and back supersonically. If it only goes 125, > then we've been ripped off. > > If true, we sure have! Art "I wanted the F-23" Hanley ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #71 ******************************** 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