From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #76 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 30 1999 Volume 08 : Number 076 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: F-117 article in Newsweek Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Re: F-117 article in Newsweek F-117 shootdown Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) Myers as pioneer *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:11:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: 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 > > =--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I will add to the argument that this is a lousy article. From the Newsweek article: "The charts are misleading. They do not acknowledge that the stealth aircraft must still be accompanied by planes designed to jam enemy radars. This was a charge after the Gulf War that was refuted in an article written by Lt. Col Ralph Getchell at the Air War College in 1992. Getchell was an F-117 squadron leader in the Gulf War. Getchell explained that the use of EF-111 Raven's in the Bagdad area caused the radar operators to decrease the sensitivity of their radar. Obviously this was an advantage to the ensuing F-117 attack. Cheap insurance if you will. But he claims the Ravens were tasked independently of the F-117 missions and unknown to the the F-117 pilots as to their times and locations. They were sent in at different times to harass the Bagdad radars only and they never flew missions together with the F-117 or in their support any where else in Iraq. In fact the nature of the F-117 routes precluded this from happening. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 05:22:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek On 6/29/99 7:43AM, in message , Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > 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. > > My understanding from Grumman was that you could derive range data from the IRST in combination with processing and other known data in the APG-71. It wasn't remotely as precise as the radar, but could give range approximation and it was good enough to be used to cue missiles that had their own terminal guidance (this would be IR missiles, AIM-120, Phoenix and the stillborn AAAM). Unfortunately, those who I could ask for more detail have all been laid off. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 06:05:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek On 6/29/99 10:11PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990629221154.0074b958@e-z.net>, patrick 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 > > > > > =--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > I will add to the argument that this is a lousy article. > > >From the Newsweek article: > > "The charts are misleading. They do not > acknowledge that the stealth aircraft must still be > accompanied by planes > designed to jam enemy radars. > > > > This was a charge after the Gulf War that was refuted in an article written > by Lt. Col Ralph Getchell at the Air War College in 1992. conceptl agree that the article was probably done by someone who had no concept of what they were writing about (or an editor decided to change it to reflect personal opinion. However, USAF stealth proponents are guilty of overselling their technology. If the airplane is unexpected, such as a single strike, a nuclear attack and is flying alone, its stealthiness does confer a large advantage that can help it get through where a non-stealth aircraft might get picked up. However, USAF kind of pitched that this would always be the case. In other words, in an attack by multiple aircraft in an ongoing conflict (which means the enemy is alerted), a stealth aircraft would be just as undetectable. Even the people building the planes never claimed that! USAF did, though. We all saw those charts showing how many aircraft it took to support a conventional strike and how you only needed a few B-2s to do the equivalent. While it was accurate to show the B-2s having a range/payload advantage the indication that no defensive support aircraft were needed was hype. After all, the #1 tasking of EA-6Bs during the Kosovo madness was protecting the B-2. A stealth aircraft has some advantages, but it has even more if someone is reducing the effectiveness of the radars trying to detect it. The charge that stealth aircraft have to fly at night is kind of a straw man. The F-117 was the first stealth aircraft and was envisioned as a silver bullet kind of system. It's a fine plane, but take away its stealth and it isn't all that impressive. I doubt if the designers envisioned it being used as part of massed attacks Given the state of its technology, being a night striker is not out of line. The B-2, frankly, probably is used at night because they cost so much and we have so few. Every bit helps. Its harder to find at night, so we might as well use it then. We've got other airplanes to get shot at during the day. The B-2 doesn't have the B-1's agility, so it has to hide. It was designed to. Its first role was nuclear strike and it was counting in that role on so much else going on that its low observability would be magnified by confusion. The first stealth plane that was designed to be used in day as well as night all the times, was the A-12, and its more practical successor the A/FX. They went nowhere, as we know. In my opinion the stealth features built into the F-22 are a good idea, but probably overdone in light of their cost and its mission. I would have had less stealth and concentrated on insuring supercruise, carrying more weapons and insuring that the aircraft does meet its maintenance goals. It is often forgotten that a good portion of the F-22's cost is "up-front" money to "buy" lower maintenance requirements in service. I'd worry more about those than dragging the last bit of stealth out of a fighter. Frankly, Id back off on the fighter capabilities a bit in return for more strike usability as well. But then, they didn't ask me. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 06:14:02 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) On 6/29/99 6:26AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990629062634.006cd764@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > 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 > Pat, I've written about the F-20 before elsewhere, and while I don't mind doing it again, I wonder if it would be a proper topic for this list. I will mention something relevant. In 1983-84, GE was delivering to us a radar that had low observability characteristics that wouldn't matched again until nowadays. In this operation, the APG-67 would be closely integrated with the very, very accurate ring-laser gyro INS. It would quickly paint a good picture of the terrain/landmarks and then go quiet. The F-20 would navigate via the INS using that stored picture. Every so often on an irregular basis the -67 would take another quick look, update the map and go quiet again. The other thing I will say is that what happened to the F-20 is the reason why no defense contractor in his right mind will ever again spend big bucks of his own money to develop something for DoD, unless it's for the Marines. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:04:21 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: 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 >> >> > =--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > I will add to the argument that this is a lousy article. > >>From the Newsweek article: > > "The charts are misleading. They do not acknowledge that the stealth > aircraft must still be accompanied by planes designed to jam enemy > radars. > > > > This was a charge after the Gulf War that was refuted in an article written > by Lt. Col Ralph Getchell at the Air War College in 1992. Getchell was an > F-117 squadron leader in the Gulf War. Getchell explained that the use of > EF-111 Raven's in the Bagdad area caused the radar operators to decrease > the sensitivity of their radar. Obviously this was an advantage to the > ensuing F-117 attack. Cheap insurance if you will. But he claims the > Ravens were tasked independently of the F-117 missions and unknown to the > the F-117 pilots as to their times and locations. They were sent in at > different times to harass the Bagdad radars only and they never flew > missions together with the F-117 or in their support any where else in > Iraq. In fact the nature of the F-117 routes precluded this from happening. > The F-117 tactics manual instructs the pilot not to fly without jamming escort. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:06:20 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek > On 6/29/99 7:43AM, in message > , Kathryn & Andreas > Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > > My understanding from Grumman was that you could derive range data from the > IRST in combination with processing and other known data in the APG-71. It > wasn't remotely as precise as the radar, but could give range approximation > and it was good enough to be used to cue missiles that had their own terminal > guidance (this would be IR missiles, AIM-120, Phoenix and the stillborn AAAM). > Unfortunately, those who I could ask for more detail have all been laid off. > Art It was good enough, Art, that the pilot's CO demanded all of his on board tapes so that there was no record of how easily the F-14 could detect the B-2. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:11:10 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) > On 6/29/99 6:26AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990629062634.006cd764@e-z.net>, > patrick > wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > Pat, > > I've written about the F-20 before elsewhere, and while I don't mind doing it > again, I wonder if it would be a proper topic for this list. > I will mention something relevant. In 1983-84, GE was delivering to us a > radar that had low observability characteristics that wouldn't matched again > until nowadays. In this operation, the APG-67 would be closely integrated > with the very, very accurate ring-laser gyro INS. It would quickly paint a > good picture of the terrain/landmarks and then go quiet. The F-20 would > navigate via the INS using that stored picture. Every so often on an > irregular basis the -67 would take another quick look, update the map and go > quiet again. > The other thing I will say is that what happened to the F-20 is the reason why > no defense contractor in his right mind will ever again spend big bucks of his > own money to develop something for DoD, unless it's for the Marines. > Art I knew Topgun pilots who flew the F-20 and said given equal dollars, they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s. The pilots who said this had flow both. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:52:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > I knew Topgun pilots who flew the F-20 and said given equal dollars, > they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s. The > pilots who said this had flow both. I am curious, does this apply the dollars spend in the training of the pilots? Maintanance? Moral and critic issues if more pilots get shot down? etc. Or just the unit cost of the airplane... May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It's not an easy thing to meet your maker" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 06:12:38 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > >> I knew Topgun pilots who flew the F-20 and said given equal dollars, >> they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s. The >> pilots who said this had flow both. > > I am curious, does this apply the dollars spend in the training of > the pilots? Maintanance? Moral and critic issues if more pilots get shot > down? etc. Or just the unit cost of the airplane... > I don't understand your question? Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 03:36:09 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek At 04:04 AM 6/30/99 -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 >>> >>> >> =--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> >> I will add to the argument that this is a lousy article. >> >>>From the Newsweek article: >> >> "The charts are misleading. They do not acknowledge that the stealth >> aircraft must still be accompanied by planes designed to jam enemy >> radars. >> >> >> >> This was a charge after the Gulf War that was refuted in an article written >> by Lt. Col Ralph Getchell at the Air War College in 1992. Getchell was an >> F-117 squadron leader in the Gulf War. Getchell explained that the use of >> EF-111 Raven's in the Bagdad area caused the radar operators to decrease >> the sensitivity of their radar. Obviously this was an advantage to the >> ensuing F-117 attack. Cheap insurance if you will. But he claims the >> Ravens were tasked independently of the F-117 missions and unknown to the >> the F-117 pilots as to their times and locations. They were sent in at >> different times to harass the Bagdad radars only and they never flew >> missions together with the F-117 or in their support any where else in >> Iraq. In fact the nature of the F-117 routes precluded this from happening. >> >The F-117 tactics manual instructs the pilot not to fly without jamming >escort. > >Jim Stevenson Oh no, someone forgot to read the tactics manual again! Consider what Getchell said. Due to the nature of the missions where the flight path was stored on tape and downloaded into the flight computer and thus flown by autopilot, it would be virtually impossible for an accompany escort. But then a radar jamming mission could be flown from a number of different directions/altitudes/time irrespective of the journey of a F-117 and still be effective. He is quite clear that the jamming support missions were cheap yet effective insurance and nice to have but not a prerequisite to a mission being flown. Jim you are famous for not wanting to believe the printed word from the AF but instead spout info from confidential sources. Getchell earned his "100 Hours Over Bagdad" patch. I have no reason to assume he would not be the definitive answer on this topic. > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:05:10 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek At 06:05 AM 6/30/99 GMT, you wrote: >On 6/29/99 10:11PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990629221154.0074b958@e-z.net>, patrick > 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 >> > >> > >> =--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> >> I will add to the argument that this is a lousy article. >> >> >From the Newsweek article: >> >> "The charts are misleading. They do not >> acknowledge that the stealth aircraft must still be >> accompanied by planes >> designed to jam enemy radars. >> >> >> >> This was a charge after the Gulf War that was refuted in an article written >> by Lt. Col Ralph Getchell at the Air War College in 1992. > > >conceptl agree that the article was probably done by someone who had no concept of >what they were writing about (or an editor decided to change it to reflect >personal opinion. However, USAF stealth proponents are guilty of overselling >their technology. If the airplane is unexpected, such as a single strike, a >nuclear attack and is flying alone, its stealthiness does confer a large advantage >that can help it get through where a non-stealth aircraft might get picked up. >However, USAF kind of pitched that this would always be the case. In other words, >in an attack by multiple aircraft in an ongoing conflict (which means the enemy is >alerted), a stealth aircraft would be just as undetectable. Even the people >building the planes never claimed that! USAF did, though. > Art- The fact remains that the F-117 did fly night after night against the Bagdad Air Defense and clearly did it with impunity. I admit this is a function of several factors such as the type of defensive weapons the Iraqi used and how well they were trained in their use. I personally believe that low observability also has to be entered into this equation. My reasoning for this knowledge of some of the training the F-117's did during Operation Desert Shield. They did a number of simulated attacks along the border while being tracked (painted) with Iraqi radars. These manoevers were designed to obeserve Iraqi behavior while switching from non-stealth to stealth mode. And it was very clear in the minds of the F-117 pilots that the Iraq Air Defense systems were confused repeatedly by their activities. Regardless their record stands for that war. On the other hand I agree the activity over Yugoslavia is a whole new equation. I refuse to debate whether the F-117 is an LO or not an LO vehicle. I do agree it has limitations that up to this point had not been exploited. It was either a quirky set of occurances that led to the downing of 806 or the Serbs marshalled the right technology as did the Russians who knocked down Gary Powers. I am skeptical of the news a second plane was shot up. But since no other F-117s were hit then it is inconclusive at this time without further data. The real mystery is why no non-LO aircraft were hit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:06:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > > > >> I knew Topgun pilots who flew the F-20 and said given equal dollars, > >> they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s. The > >> pilots who said this had flow both. > > > > I am curious, does this apply the dollars spend in the training of > > the pilots? Maintanance? Moral and critic issues if more pilots get shot > > down? etc. Or just the unit cost of the airplane... > > > I don't understand your question? You said that Top Gun pilots said: "given equal dollars, they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s" As I understand, if you have, for example, with the same amount of money you can buy 4 F-16 and 5 F-20, but the kill ratio is 1 vs. 1, they will rather buy more F-20 than F-16... True? My question is that if they had consider the amount of money spend in the training of the pilot (about 20 years ago, the money spend in training a fighter pilot is almost the same as the fighter airplane itself), the money spend in maintanence of the airplane, the critics that will go after how many pilots got shot down, etc. If there are less airplane with higher kill ratio, that means we need to train less pilot, less money will spend in maintanence, etc. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It's not an easy thing to meet your maker" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:51:38 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 article in Newsweek > At 04:04 AM 6/30/99 -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 >>>> >>>> >>> =--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>> >>> I will add to the argument that this is a lousy article. >>> >>>>From the Newsweek article: >>> >>> "The charts are misleading. They do not acknowledge that the stealth >>> aircraft must still be accompanied by planes designed to jam enemy >>> radars. >>> >>> >>> >>> This was a charge after the Gulf War that was refuted in an article written >>> by Lt. Col Ralph Getchell at the Air War College in 1992. Getchell was an >>> F-117 squadron leader in the Gulf War. Getchell explained that the use of >>> EF-111 Raven's in the Bagdad area caused the radar operators to decrease >>> the sensitivity of their radar. Obviously this was an advantage to the >>> ensuing F-117 attack. Cheap insurance if you will. But he claims the >>> Ravens were tasked independently of the F-117 missions and unknown to the >>> the F-117 pilots as to their times and locations. They were sent in at >>> different times to harass the Bagdad radars only and they never flew >>> missions together with the F-117 or in their support any where else in >>> Iraq. In fact the nature of the F-117 routes precluded this from > happening. >>> >>The F-117 tactics manual instructs the pilot not to fly without jamming >>escort. >> >>Jim Stevenson > > > Oh no, someone forgot to read the tactics manual again! Consider what > Getchell said. Due to the nature of the missions where the flight path was > stored on tape and downloaded into the flight computer and thus flown by > autopilot, it would be virtually impossible for an accompany escort. But > then a radar jamming mission could be flown from a number of different > directions/altitudes/time irrespective of the journey of a F-117 and still > be effective. He is quite clear that the jamming support missions were > cheap yet effective insurance and nice to have but not a prerequisite to a > mission being flown. > > Jim you are famous for not wanting to believe the printed word from the AF > but instead spout info from confidential sources. Getchell earned his "100 > Hours Over Bagdad" patch. I have no reason to assume he would not be the > definitive answer on this topic. If I am famous for "not wanting to believe the printed word from the AF" it is because I have been lied to too many times. The Air Force has to prove what it says. The mere fact that some guy with stars on his shoulders tells me something does not mean that it is true. Nor does it mean that it is not true. It simply means that I have to have evidence. I will never forget the comment from a two star general whom I caught in a blatant lie. He said, and I quote, "all right, Jim, I'll level with you. We have to lie so that congress will give us more money so we can fix it." So much for representative government. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:58:29 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-117 shootdown Patrick wrote: > Art- The fact remains that the F-117 did fly night after night against the > Bagdad Air Defense and clearly did it with impunity. . . . So did the other aircraft that flew at medium and high altitudes at night. >I am skeptical of the news a second plane was shot up. As far as the other F-117s getting shot up, that has been admitted by the Air Force, just not publicly. >The real mystery is why no non-LO aircraft were hit. It's no mystery. The success rate of the surface to air missiles in Vietnam was less than one percent. When you fly high, you have more opportunity to avoid the missiles. You just can see much that you are aiming for. Virtually all of the aircraft that flew high avoided getting show down. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:03:15 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: New vs. old Tech (houses) > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > >> > On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> I knew Topgun pilots who flew the F-20 and said given equal dollars, >> >> they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s. The >> >> pilots who said this had flow both. >> > >> > I am curious, does this apply the dollars spend in the training of >> > the pilots? Maintanance? Moral and critic issues if more pilots get shot >> > down? etc. Or just the unit cost of the airplane... >> > >> I don't understand your question? > > You said that Top Gun pilots said: "given equal dollars, > they would rather have a few more F-20s that a few less F-16s" > As I understand, if you have, for example, with the same amount of > money you can buy 4 F-16 and 5 F-20, but the kill ratio is 1 vs. 1, they > will rather buy more F-20 than F-16... True? My question is that if they > had consider the amount of money spend in the training of the pilot (about > 20 years ago, the money spend in training a fighter pilot is almost > the same as the fighter airplane itself), the money spend in maintanence > of the airplane, the critics that will go after how many pilots got shot > down, etc. If there are less airplane with higher kill ratio, that means > we need to train less pilot, less money will spend in maintanence, etc. AIMVAL/ACEVAL showed that by keeping the force ratio constant, as the total number of aircraft increased, the exchange ratio decreased from slightly over 3-to-1 to less that 1-to-1. With equal dollars, the force ratio becomes lopsided in favor of the less expensive aircraft as does the exchange ratio. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:11:20 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Myers as pioneer Andreas wrote: > Also, who is this Chuck Myers guy? Charles E. Myers of the "Fighter Mafia"? > Why is he considered "an early pioneer of stealth design"? Yes. Myers wrote about stealth as early as 1966. He is considered "an early pioneer of stealth," not necessarily of design per se, because he generated the requirements for Project Harvey from which XST, Have Blue, and the F-117 evolved. Myers did this in the fall of 1973. The follow year in December 1974, DARPA sent out a requirement for "Project Harvey." Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #76 ******************************** 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