From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #75 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, June 29 1999 Volume 08 : Number 075 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** THAAD footnote F-117 article in Newsweek Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Costs Re: Costs Re: Costs B-2 EMD contract extension Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: F-117 article in Newsweek IRST ranging (Was: F-117 article in Newsweek) Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: F-117 article in Newsweek RE: F-117 article in Newsweek *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 99 02:16:34 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: THAAD footnote Came across something that may explain some of the problems they've been having and put the contractors in a better light: Seems that the Administration reportedly directed that THAAD be designed so that it could Not accept queuing from external sources. This vastly magnifies the problem and makes it much more complex to solve. Further, and I'm still trying to confirm this, they may have also ordered that the speed of the missile be restricted, further complicating the situation. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 06:23:49 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-117 article in Newsweek There is an article about the F-117 shoot down in Newsweek at this location: http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in0501_1.htm Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 06:16:46 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek At 06:23 AM 6/28/99 -0400, you wrote: >There is an article about the F-117 shoot down in Newsweek at this >location: > >http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in0501_1.htm > >Jim Stevenson > > > >Well there it is. It's in print. Must be true. Jim was right all along. But Chuck Myers, a former combat pilot and an early pioneer of stealth design, bluntly told NEWSWEEK that the F-117 and B-2 are "not stealthy at all. They have to fly at night; they can't fly during the day. We never produced a stealthy airplane." End of subject!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 07:55:20 -0700 From: "corey lawson" Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) >Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:07:11 -0400 >From: Gunman and Jacks >Subject: Re: ATF testing >James P. Stevenson spewed forth the following: >>You are so right. The question is: should we hold military program >>managers to the same standard that the law hold the average citizen to? >>In other words, does fraud in the inducement apply to the military? >> >>I maintain that it should. If you have a house built and the builder >>tells you it will cost $200,000; you make plans on that basis; you >>budget your household to that amount; you procure a loan based on that >>amount; and on settlement day he tells you ill will be $479,500, you >>will proabably cry foul. >> >Houses are not new technology, new technology is hard to quote, since its >in a development process. OK, let's talk about Bill Gate's new "house", then... (too bad the cost of his house is so much lower than his net worth. Or the cap of Microsoft. Because if I was a Microsoft employee I'd probably feel a little cynical aobut my work and his house and its budget controls, as I probably would if I were a shareholder, because he's ultimately playing with their money... much like some of y'all feel about the govment...). Here's a procurement budget that could make sense: $500 mill. avail to develop a prototype for competition, spread amongst the big 3 and Scaled Composites. Total plan is $2 Billion to procure a fleet of 400 fighter aircraft within 5 years of acceptance. And leave it at that. Think the AF/DoD/Congress would go for that? Probably not... Then leave it for the competition to come up with planes with different capabilities, technologies, etc. As long as a goal of $50 million per plane was strictly adhered to... (but bonus points for say a 90% plane that cost only $40million per plane). - -Corey Lawson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:47:48 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Costs Jim, in one of your more recent posts you compare the acquistion costs of different C-130. Unfortunately, you seem to have no knowledge of what goes into the price of an airplane. Raw material is just one part. Labor to produce the aircraft is another chunk. Then comes such things as the cost of facilities (building mortgage/rent/lease payments, upkeep and utilities) and the company has to make a guess as to how many aircraft are going to be produced, as this decides how the cost is spread out. The same must be done for R&D costs, which can be quite sizeable. This also holds true for overhead such as support staff, administrative staff and management. Lastly comes profit, which is fixed on government contracts. If there is no profit for a company, there is no incentive to actually undertake the work. If the guess is that few are going to be produced, the overhead that gets added can be quite high - hence the $300 wrenches. Companies have room to manouver, but not much, as the government auditors oversee everything. I used to think accounting was a cut and dry science. After working as engineer in industry for almost 20 years, and for 15 of that in small companies, I realize that accounting is instead an art. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:48:46 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Costs David wrote: > Jim, in one of your more recent posts you compare the acquistion > costs of different C-130. Actually, I was comparing the declining costs and then the rising costs of essentially the SAME aircraft. Obviously, different things go into the cost, otherwise the costs should have followed the normal supply-demand curve. >Unfortunately, you seem to have no knowledge ofwhat goes into the price of an airplane. Since you don't know what I know, you are not on firm ground in making that statement. >Raw material is just one part. > Labor to produce the aircraft is another chunk. Then comes such things as > the cost of facilities (building mortgage/rent/lease payments, upkeep > and utilities) and the company has to make a guess as to how many aircraft > are going to be produced, as this decides how the cost is spread out. The > same must be done for R&D costs, which can be quite sizeable. This also > holds true for overhead such as support staff, administrative staff and > management. Lastly comes profit, which is fixed on government contracts. > If there is no profit for a company, there is no incentive to actually > undertake the work. This is an argument better left somewhere else. I believe companies should make a profit. What I object to is paying significantly more for essentially the same thing. > > If the guess is that few are going to be produced, the overhead > that gets added can be quite high - hence the $300 wrenches. Companies > have room to manouver, but not much, as the government auditors oversee > everything. > > I used to think accounting was a cut and dry science. After > working as engineer in industry for almost 20 years, and for 15 of that in > small companies, I realize that accounting is instead an art. This is not an accounting issue; this is pure politics. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:53:15 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Costs David Lednicer wrote: > > Jim, in one of your more recent posts you compare the acquistion > costs of different C-130. Unfortunately, you seem to have no knowledge of > what goes into the price of an airplane. Raw material is just one part. > Labor to produce the aircraft is another chunk. Then comes such things as > the cost of facilities (building mortgage/rent/lease payments, upkeep > and utilities) and the company has to make a guess as to how many aircraft > are going to be produced, as this decides how the cost is spread out. The > same must be done for R&D costs, which can be quite sizeable. This also > holds true for overhead such as support staff, administrative staff and > management. Lastly comes profit, which is fixed on government contracts. > If there is no profit for a company, there is no incentive to actually > undertake the work. > > If the guess is that few are going to be produced, the overhead > that gets added can be quite high - hence the $300 wrenches. Companies > have room to manouver, but not much, as the government auditors oversee > everything. > It is true that profit is fixed on government contracts. So if you are CEO of Spacely Sprockets, a military contractor, and can only get a fixed percentage on your contracts, how do you increase your profits and grow your company? One way is by winning more business - but there are only so many military programs at any given time. Another is by making your contracts cost more. What costs do you have control over? Engineers salaries are set in the marketplace, and the government auditors will look at these. Overhead functions, however, have lots of room to add to. If you grow the support organization, your overhead goes up, and so does the magnitude of your profit. The only thing that controls this is if Cogswell Cogs down the road does the same thing you do and has a lower cost structure that will give them an advantage in bidding on work. You could also get the goverment to mandate overhead structures such as property tracking, security, etc. so your competitors will have these costs, too. If there isn't much competition, CPFF is no panacea. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:53:29 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: B-2 EMD contract extension Anyone know what this is about, or if it has any particular significance? Northrop Grumman Receives Extension to B-2 Development Contract June 25, 1999 2:17 PM EDT LOS ANGELES [EXCERPT] /PRNewswire/ -- Northrop Grumman Corporation announced today that the U.S. Air Force has modified its contract with the company for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the B-2 stealth bomber. This contract modification enables the Air Force and the company to verify and integrate planned changes to the B-2 weapon system. The additional effort will extend the contract completion until 2002, at which time Federal and state income taxes totaling approximately $1 billion will become payable. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 99 02:40:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) On 6/28/99 7:55AM, in message <008001bec176$3eaa1c30$dee5ef84@clawson.ucsd.edu>, "corey lawson" wrote: > > OK, let's talk about Bill Gate's new "house", then... (too bad the cost of > his house > is so much lower than his net worth. Or the cap of Microsoft. Because if I > was a > Microsoft employee I'd probably feel a little cynical aobut my work and his > house > and its budget controls, as I probably would if I were a shareholder, > because he's > ultimately playing with their money... much like some of y'all feel about > the govment...). As long as Bill is fulfilling his side of the bargain to them, why should they care what he does? Keep something in mind: It's not the workers' or the shareholders' money. It's His money (most of which is tied to Microsoft stock by the way. He's a shareholder too. If he and the folks around him make wrong decisions, he loses money). If he's not delivering on what he's paying paid, he could be ousted. If he is, then how much he is making is nobody's business but his. > > Here's a procurement budget that could make sense: $500 mill. avail to > develop a prototype for competition, spread amongst the big 3 and Scaled > Composites. Total plan is $2 Billion to procure a fleet of 400 fighter > aircraft within 5 years of acceptance. And leave it at that. Unless you freed the contractors from all government regulations and oversight, you'd get no bidders. No one would be able to meet all those and still build an airplane for that kind of money. Scaled Composites is a very special case and they are incredibly innovative and clever. Keep in mind, though, that they aren't really in the business of making aircraft designed for mass production. > > Think the AF/DoD/Congress would go for that? Probably not... Right. Even with more money, that kind of thinking goes against everything they stand for. How can you take credit for "managing" a program if you aren't involved in every little detail? I worked on the F-20 and I saw how much the "system" worked to stop this kind of thing. > Then leave it > for the competition to come up with planes with different capabilities, > technologies, etc. As long as a goal of $50 million per plane was strictly > adhered to... (but bonus points for say a 90% plane that cost only > $40million per plane). "Design to cost" sounds great on paper, but runs up against reality all to often. If cost becomes the overruling factor you end up with very conservative designs that may not be able to do what you need. A classic example is the FFG-7 class of naval frigates designed in the late '60s-early '70s. They were designed to a "Build me something for no more than $x". They did that, but the ship that resulted couldn't operate independently against significant opposition. Basically, you always had to have one of the big, expensive ships around. Cost should be a factor (total, not flyaway), but not a showstopper. Affordability is not the same as cost but is more relevant. A 90% plane is a good idea if you're talking about 90% of a spec that has a lot of "nice to have" stuff in it. If the spec, though is honestly and intelligently tied to the mission and you produce a 90% plane, you haven't saved 10%. you've wasted 90%. Interestingly enough, the JSF program comes closest to what you want. The R&D $s are fixed (to the point where the contractors can't spend more of their own money even if they want to) and there is a goal for flyaway cost of the aircraft. At the end of the exercise, the idea is to see what we get for that cost. If the plane isn't enough improvement, then it doesn't get bought. If it can't be delivered for that cost, then we decide whether we want to pay the additional or walk away. The version before Lockheed's final proposal actually had noticeably better performance than the one they're proposing. Lockheed decided that the Government wouldn't pay what that would cost and it may not be necessary anyway, so they backed off a proposed a lesser plane. There's a lot of pressure on the teams. On the one hand you want to produce the most for the buck. However, if you make the plane too good, USAF will perceive it as a threat to the F-22 and will shut the program down. You want to produce an aircraft for the lowest reasonable cost, but if you are too economical, the Super Hornet lobby will try and kill you (Hornet E/F is already going to be substantially more expensive to buy and fly than JSF). And the beat goes on... Art > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:26:34 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Art, I would love to hear some info posted about the F-20. What was it suppose to do, how good was it, why did it go no where. You know, the same list of suspects again. Here again a beautiful airplane, lots of real activity and then oblivion. Lets not as a list miss out on your valued insight. If you don't mind. thanks, patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek James P. Stevenson alerted us to the following: >There is an article about the F-117 shoot down in Newsweek at this >location: >http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in0501_1.htm This Newsweek article does not sound very well researched or written, and three points in particular raised my eyebrows: >As the American warplane dropped its bombs on a target near Belgrade, the >F-117's open bomb-bay doors made the jet "look like a barn on radar," >according to a senior Air Force official. The Serbs quickly fired off >missiles. Suddenly under attack, the F-117 pilot dropped below the clouds. The F-117A can not drop bombs from above a thick cloud layer, because their IR and Laser targeting system will not work through clouds. So if the pilot dropped his bomb(s), he must have been already below the clouds. >A bad idea, say stealth pilots. F-117s are painted black. Some of its >designers argued that a milky blue color would provide better camouflage, >but the Air Force "didn't think that was manly enough and ordered them >painted black," said a senior government official who helped write a >classified study of the 1991 Persian Gulf air war. On a moonlit night, >silhouetted against the clouds like the "Batman signal," the plane made a >fat target. If there was such a complete overcast, a cloud layer below which the plane had to drop, how could the moonlight had much of an affect (through those clouds)? Artificial ground-based light, from cities etc., has a much bigger effect in such circumstances than the Moon. This whole scenario does not sound quite right. >An infrared radar on a Navy F-14D fighter flying near the China Lake testing >grounds in California suddenly lit up not long ago; the pilot had >inadvertently locked on to a B-2 bomber. The IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) system of the F-14D is an EO (Electro- Optical) device and not a radar. It a) does not use radio waves, and b) does not help much with ranging (other than through size-comparison of known objects). It is just a nice video camera, that works even in darkness, and has a pretty good zoom. It is totally passive, and doesn't "light up" in the sense a radar screen does. >But Chuck Myers, a former combat pilot and an early pioneer of stealth >design, bluntly told NEWSWEEK that the F-117 and B-2 are "not stealthy at >all. They have to fly at night; they can't fly during the day. We never >produced a stealthy airplane." Also, who is this Chuck Myers guy? Charles E. Myers of the "Fighter Mafia"? Why is he considered "an early pioneer of stealth design"? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:24:38 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: IRST ranging (Was: F-117 article in Newsweek) Andreas noted, >The IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) system of the F-14D is an EO (Electro- >Optical) device and not a radar. It a) does not use radio waves, and b) does >not help much with ranging (other than through size-comparison of known >objects). It is just a nice video camera, that works even in darkness, and >has a pretty good zoom. It is totally passive, and doesn't "light up" in the >sense a radar screen does. This (passive ranging with IRST) is something I've wondered about. Submariners face a similar situation with passive sonar, and derive range by an exercise in trigonometric art called "Target Motion Analysis" IIRC. Why couldn't an airplane equipped with IRST and a good GPS/INS navigation system do the the same trick? For such things was the Kalman Filter invented. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:17:32 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Andreas, I sent your comments on to the author and this is his message back to me: "interesting points to ponder....though, who said it was completely overcast in which the aircraft couldn't drop its bombs? and could not one cloud be illuminated by the moon and catch the F-117 flying against it?" Jim > James P. Stevenson alerted us to the following: > >>There is an article about the F-117 shoot down in Newsweek at this >>location: > >>http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in0501_1.htm > > This Newsweek article does not sound very well researched or written, and > three points in particular raised my eyebrows: > >>As the American warplane dropped its bombs on a target near Belgrade, the >>F-117's open bomb-bay doors made the jet "look like a barn on radar," >>according to a senior Air Force official. The Serbs quickly fired off >>missiles. Suddenly under attack, the F-117 pilot dropped below the clouds. > > The F-117A can not drop bombs from above a thick cloud layer, because their > IR and Laser targeting system will not work through clouds. So if the pilot > dropped his bomb(s), he must have been already below the clouds. > >>A bad idea, say stealth pilots. F-117s are painted black. Some of its >>designers argued that a milky blue color would provide better camouflage, >>but the Air Force "didn't think that was manly enough and ordered them >>painted black," said a senior government official who helped write a >>classified study of the 1991 Persian Gulf air war. On a moonlit night, >>silhouetted against the clouds like the "Batman signal," the plane made a >>fat target. > > If there was such a complete overcast, a cloud layer below which the plane > had to drop, how could the moonlight had much of an affect (through those > clouds)? Artificial ground-based light, from cities etc., has a much bigger > effect in such circumstances than the Moon. This whole scenario does not > sound quite right. > >>An infrared radar on a Navy F-14D fighter flying near the China Lake testing >>grounds in California suddenly lit up not long ago; the pilot had >>inadvertently locked on to a B-2 bomber. > > The IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) system of the F-14D is an EO (Electro- > Optical) device and not a radar. It a) does not use radio waves, and b) does > not help much with ranging (other than through size-comparison of known > objects). It is just a nice video camera, that works even in darkness, and > has a pretty good zoom. It is totally passive, and doesn't "light up" in the > sense a radar screen does. > >>But Chuck Myers, a former combat pilot and an early pioneer of stealth >>design, bluntly told NEWSWEEK that the F-117 and B-2 are "not stealthy at >>all. They have to fly at night; they can't fly during the day. We never >>produced a stealthy airplane." > > Also, who is this Chuck Myers guy? Charles E. Myers of the "Fighter Mafia"? > Why is he considered "an early pioneer of stealth design"? > > -- Andreas > > --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org > 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu > Flint, MI 48502-1239 > Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ > --- --- > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > "interesting points to ponder....though, who said it was completely > overcast in which the aircraft couldn't drop its bombs? and could not Any person who have some background in laser technology know about this. Infrared laser can not penetrate throught clouds. Also, a lot of military and news sources say about this problem. That is why they have now upgrated their bomb to a combo of laser and GPS, but I don't know if this type of bomb was used already. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again" Capt. Picard (ST:TNG The Inner Light Ep.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:32:56 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: F-117 article in Newsweek > James P. Stevenson alerted us to the following: > > >There is an article about the F-117 shoot down in Newsweek at this > >location: > > >http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in0501_1.htm > > This Newsweek article does not sound very well researched or > written, and > three points in particular raised my eyebrows: > Hmmmm. Who is the intended audience of the article? (Wink, wink, nod, nod, them too!) What is the overall quality of Newsweek research, with respect to news articles generally, as well as aviation and technology articles specifically? What is the journalistic history of the author? What kind of deadline did the author have from go to whoa? Do most readers actually digest ongoing events (news, special reports, weather, etc.) as they experience them for later brain retrieval, comparison and analysis when they read an "indepth" article about an event months later? ("But didn't NATO say several times they couldn't fly some nights because it was too cloudy to pinpoint targets accurately enough to minimise civilian casualties ...?") Seems to me the only people who will raise the issue of inaccuracy will be (1) people on this list and others with similar interests, experiences and knowledge, or (2) those that "know" what happened. In the case of the latter, they will never talk about it and in the case of the former, they will never be adequately and objectively interviewed about it. From another perspective, there are actually three stories within the article: 1) The taxpayer and bean counter story. This is pretty much encapsulated in the third "bang for the buck" paragraph detailing DoD costs for stealth technology in general and the F-22 costs in particular. Just "show me the money!" and I'll make up my own mind if it's taxpayer's money well spent, thankyouverymuch. A perusal of aircraft manufacturer websites, boring Congressional budget websites and past news articles are probably the basis for the information. (AKA, the unglamorous meat and potatoes research every real journalist hates to do but knows is essential and must be done.) 2) The play-by-play story. Ever since Tom Clancy and similar authors brought high tech novels to the best seller lists on a sustained basis, readers devour this pseudo-real life writing style. It's a journalistic technique used to hook the reader (and their wallet) into the netherworld of people and events we all want to be a part, but never will. Vicarious living - just look at the computer games played by us wannabes with fast cars, fast aircraft and fast ... oh never mind. :) (This technique is also used extensively -- and to great effect -- in the dissemination of false computer virus email.) 3) The political story. This too, is broken down into two sub-categories: (a) the home audience, and (b) everyone else. IMHO, the home audience political slant is to discredit expensive, high tech stealth as a waste of taxpayers money. The telling point is made in the first few lines of the last paragraph of the article. But others outside of the home audience may see the article as disinformation and propaganda about the real effectiveness of the technology. However, since they have no real comprehension of the American political psyche, they will fall into a paradox - not believe the details, don't spend the money and be blown off the planet at some later date, or spend the money to combat the technology and risk bankrupting their very (foreign) country. In almost all cases, the machismo and egos of such despots (not to mention the desire to run roughshod over their own people) overrides practicality. Ironically, such high tech technology wins by "stealth" here, too. Finally, the author's response to Jim Stevenson is very insightful as it says to me the author, too, in his research and interviews, was bamboozled by stealth. :) Or maybe it was smoke and mirrors, on a moonless night? :) Ok, I'll go back to the Outback and wait for John Glenn to orbit overhead so I can shine my torch on him. :) Dennis ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #75 ******************************** 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