From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #115 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 Monday, November 29 1999 Volume 08 : Number 115 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: X-44A "Manta" Re: X-44A "Manta" Re: X-44A "Manta" Re: X-44A "Manta" X-44A Re: X-44A Detection Re: Detection Re: Detection Re: Detection Re: Supercruise Re: Detection Re: Detection Re: Detection *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:59:06 -0500 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: X-44A "Manta" You wrote: >In going that step further and designing a no-tail- no control surface a/c >from scratch, they'll >be able to explore the application of other advanced ideas such as >inflatable control surfaces as a safety back-up should the TV system >encounter problems. > And fluidic vectoring. - ------------------------------------------------ Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available (see headers) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:36:43 -0000 From: "David" Subject: Re: X-44A "Manta" Gunman and Jacks writes: >You wrote: > > >In going that step further and designing a no-tail- no control surface a/c > >from scratch, they'll be able to explore the application of other advanced ideas such as > >inflatable control surfaces as a safety back-up should the TV system encounter problems. > And fluidic vectoring. Let me explain briefly how this S-W list works: you ask a question of listmembers, such as : >Anyone have more info on it? I tried H. Silver's website, and a couple X-plane sites, but didn't >find anything. They reply with more information - then you say at the very least, 'Thanks.' What you don't do, is to reply without bothering with attribution for the information you requested or without that simple thank-you. D Original Msg: Gunman and Jacks asked: >I just read a brief snippet about a new proposed X plane, that >resembles >the F-22, anounced at the H. Silver and Associats Fighter conference >last >month. > >Anyone have more info on it? I tried H. Silver's website, and a >couple >X-plane sites, but didn't find anything. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:22:24 -0500 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: X-44A "Manta" David wrote: > >Gunman and Jacks writes: > >>You wrote: >> >> >In going that step further and designing a no-tail- no control surface >a/c >> >from scratch, they'll be able to explore the application of other >advanced ideas such as >> >inflatable control surfaces as a safety back-up should the TV system >encounter problems. > >> And fluidic vectoring. > >Let me explain briefly how this S-W list works: you ask a question of >listmembers, such as : > >>Anyone have more info on it? I tried H. Silver's website, and a couple >X-plane sites, but didn't >find anything. > >They reply with more information - then you say at the very least, 'Thanks.' > >What you don't do, is to reply without bothering with attribution for the >information you requested or without that simple thank-you. > >D > > >Original Msg: >Gunman and Jacks asked: > > >>I just read a brief snippet about a new proposed X plane, that >>resembles >>the F-22, anounced at the H. Silver and Associats Fighter conference >>last >>month. >> >>Anyone have more info on it? I tried H. Silver's website, and a >>couple >>X-plane sites, but didn't find anything. > > > > > > Thanks to all that provided information - ------------------------------------------------ Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available (see headers) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:22:24 -0500 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: X-44A "Manta" David wrote: > >Gunman and Jacks writes: > >>You wrote: >> >> >In going that step further and designing a no-tail- no control surface >a/c >> >from scratch, they'll be able to explore the application of other >advanced ideas such as >> >inflatable control surfaces as a safety back-up should the TV system >encounter problems. > >> And fluidic vectoring. > >Let me explain briefly how this S-W list works: you ask a question of >listmembers, such as : > >>Anyone have more info on it? I tried H. Silver's website, and a couple >X-plane sites, but didn't >find anything. > >They reply with more information - then you say at the very least, 'Thanks.' > >What you don't do, is to reply without bothering with attribution for the >information you requested or without that simple thank-you. > >D > > >Original Msg: >Gunman and Jacks asked: > > >>I just read a brief snippet about a new proposed X plane, that >>resembles >>the F-22, anounced at the H. Silver and Associats Fighter conference >>last >>month. >> >>Anyone have more info on it? I tried H. Silver's website, and a >>couple >>X-plane sites, but didn't find anything. > > > > > > Thanks to all that provided information - ------------------------------------------------ Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available (see headers) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 18:59:03 -0000 From: "David" Subject: X-44A Having gotten down from my soapbox :) Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept of using 3-D TV and flight software for total control of an a/c ? Last time I spoke with NASA about the The Intelligent Flight Control Programme (IFCP) on the ACTIVE - which was a while back, it was progressing very well. For anyone not familiar with the IFCP - and I don't claim any particular knowledge - it learns to fly by observation and adapts to changing circumstances, much as a human might. It 'understannds' the basic laws and equations that govern flight, and in the event of these principles being broken, would quickly re-configure the entire flight control system, to create a new way of flying the aircraft, if at all possible. As the success of this programme is clearly going to be a key factor in the X-44a , does anyone have any new info on the status of the F-15 ACTIVE programme ? Best Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:49:29 -0500 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: X-44A David wrote: *snip* > >As the success of this programme is clearly going to be a key factor in the >X-44a , does anyone have any new info on the status of the F-15 ACTIVE >programme ? > I haven't seen anything new on the F-15 ACTIVE, but I know there was some work being done on the F-16 VISTA nozzle (a year ago maybe?), which should/could rollover to the ACTIVE. But, I'm not sure the funding stayed, since I haven't seen anything on it recently. - ------------------------------------------------ Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available (see headers) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:12:02 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Detection Here's something that's be discussed here before: And if you want to see computer geeks discussing this (quite funny) Anyone can join the discussion. Because of the copyright restrictions on the page I can't reproduce it here, but bottom line is that Newsweek is reporting that China has developed something similar to the LockMart Silent Sentry system, and of course Newsweek is painting the dire picture of US Intelligence/DoD caught with it's pants down. Now, before everyone gets in an uproar, let's take a look at why this isn't such a big deal. We'll skip the obvious references to Chinese campaign contributions, spys in government (and DoD) labs, Israel selling Patriot software to 3rd parties (I guess they didn't read the license agreement in the ReadMe), etc. The obvious points: - -China is nowhere near fielding PCL, and fielding it could take 5-10 years and a lot of money. Most chinese weapons and sensors are derived from Russian designs, they haven't had much luck in recent history deploying effective systems that were developed entirely indigenously- which doesn't mean they can't, or won't sell it to someone who can. Nonetheless, the system is far from being put into a place where it could be a threat. - -We don't know the source, and if any of it came from a Chinese news agency I'd find it highly doubtful that such a system does indeed exist. - -Even if it is fielded, it can't be used effectively for a fire control system. So they could see an F-117 over Taipei- so what? They couldn't hit it with a guided SAM. Sure, they could light the sky with ZSU fire- but as James unknowningly pointed out months ago, ZSU-23 and it's bretheren are only effective at fairly low altitudes. So fly higher :) - -Even then, there is a very good chance that US forces will know that such a system has been deployed in a particular place, and can change their tactics accordingly. One of the many things that Desert Storm demonstrated very well was how our theatre commanders can adapt to a dynamic threat environment. Tank plinking, SCUD hunting, etc. are good examples. There are some examples of antiradar tactics from that war (the details of which I can't recall) which would be even more applicable. Bottom line? A good commander could use a capability like PCL against the enemy. - -A system as distributed in nature as PCL would probably require a lot of information infrastructure support- power, networking, etc.- that would be ripe for other, non-physical attacks :) Find the e-mail address of the PCL cluster's sysadmin and sign him up for a bunch of high traffic mailing lists right before you fly in the B-2's - he'll be too busy sorting e-mail and making filters to keep the cluster up :) Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0, Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > The obvious points: > -China is nowhere near fielding PCL, and fielding it could take 5-10 > years and a lot of money. Most chinese weapons and sensors are > derived from Russian designs, they haven't had much luck in recent > history deploying effective systems that were developed entirely > indigenously- which doesn't mean they can't, or won't sell it to > someone who can. Nonetheless, the system is far from being put into a > place where it could be a threat. Good salient points. On the other hand, for the past seven years, it's been against policy that we acknowledge that China, N. Korea or Russia are actually working on new stuff. Keep in mind that the missiles that China and N. Korea have already tested we confidently (or at least officially) pronounced they wouldn't be capable of flying for another 5-6 years. No need to panic, but considering how long it takes us to deploy something 5-10 years isn't that long. Look how long ATF/F-22 has been in development (14 years) and all we've produced are two demonstrators and two prototypes. Even more dramatic, it took us over 10 years to design and deploy a new bayonet (ouch!)! Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:33:52 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Detection >On 11/28/99 8:12PM, in message , Dan >Zinngrabe wrote: > >> The obvious points: >> -China is nowhere near fielding PCL, and fielding it could take 5-10 >> years and a lot of money. Most chinese weapons and sensors are >> derived from Russian designs, they haven't had much luck in recent >> history deploying effective systems that were developed entirely >> indigenously- which doesn't mean they can't, or won't sell it to >> someone who can. Nonetheless, the system is far from being put into a >> place where it could be a threat. > > > Good salient points. On the other hand, for the past seven >years, it's been >against policy that we acknowledge that China, N. Korea or Russia are actually >working on new stuff. Keep in mind that the missiles that China and >N. Korea have >already tested we confidently (or at least officially) pronounced >they wouldn't be >capable of flying for another 5-6 years. > Well, I won't comment on that. There are a lot of conflicting sides to that story as well. Thankfully some of the more important decisions in that area were made by people who had good data and good analysts. And you have to keep in mind that few administrations have the wherewithall to announce to the public: "Those crazy guys over there that are *still* communist? In a few years they can hit San Francisco and we can't do dookie about it". I'd rather have the administration say little or nothing than have them let the press turn the public against North Korea, pushing us into air strikes against Yongbyon, etc., and thus pressing us into a nasty, drawn out, nobody really wins war on that peninsula. What scared me most about the sexual assault charges a while back on Okinawa is what it would do to our force levels in that theatre, as the 2nd Korean war has been looming for some time- and the 1st never actually ended! > > No need to panic, but considering how long it takes us to >deploy something >5-10 years isn't that long. Look how long ATF/F-22 has been in >development (14 >years) and all we've produced are two demonstrators and two >prototypes. Even more >dramatic, it took us over 10 years to design and deploy a new bayonet (ouch!)! > Aha, but it's much easier for us to deploy responses to certain kinds of threats than it is for our enemies! WE have the wonders of microprocessors and superb maintaince infrastructure which enables us to issue- software updates! Yup, these days many threats of this nature can be countered by software updates and tactics. So in many cases we don't have to redesign the F-22, we just upload some new software into the battle force, brief in everybody on what buttons to push when, where not to fly and how fast, and voila, we're invisible. It's almost lick the deflector shield and warp bubble hacks in Star Trek. The US, in recent history, has been pretty good at deploying new gadgets at wartime. While it took 10 years to design a new infantry bayonet (which has limited use in contrast to, say, a new assault rifle, which is another story), in the past 5 years alone the SEAL force has designed, etc. and deployed more than 3 new fighting knives- because they're *always* more or less at a wartime footing. And during Desert Storm, the GBU-28(?) Deep Throat bomb was developed in record time. It's not designing a new airplane, but it shows that the system *can* work when it has to. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Subject: Re: Detection on 11/29/99 12:23 AM, betnal@ns.net at betnal@ns.net wrote: > On 11/28/99 8:12PM, in message , Dan > Zinngrabe wrote: > >> The obvious points: >> -China is nowhere near fielding PCL, and fielding it could take 5-10 >> years and a lot of money. Most chinese weapons and sensors are >> derived from Russian designs, they haven't had much luck in recent >> history deploying effective systems that were developed entirely >> indigenously- which doesn't mean they can't, or won't sell it to >> someone who can. Nonetheless, the system is far from being put into a >> place where it could be a threat. > > > Good salient points. On the other hand, for the past seven years, it's been > against policy that we acknowledge that China, N. Korea or Russia are actually > working on new stuff. Keep in mind that the missiles that China and N. Korea > have > already tested we confidently (or at least officially) pronounced they > wouldn't be > capable of flying for another 5-6 years. > > > No need to panic, but considering how long it takes us to deploy something > 5-10 years isn't that long. Look how long ATF/F-22 has been in development > (14 > years) and all we've produced are two demonstrators and two prototypes. Even > more > dramatic, it took us over 10 years to design and deploy a new bayonet (ouch!)! > > > > Art > > Art, The Air Force claims that the F-22 is built around three pillars: advanced avionics, supercruise, and stealth. Now it depends on how you define a "prototype" or "demonstrator." But it appears that none of the three pillars were demonstrated in the YF-22 or the YF-23. The Air Force's deputy program manager told me that the ATF prototypes did not demonstrate supercruise. His words. The avionics are still flying around in a 757, and the prototypes were not tested for stealth. Supercruise is the ability to fly supersonically for an extended period of time. The F-15 can fly supersonically. The issue is for how far. What has not been demonstrated to date is that the F-22 can fly as far as the F-15. According to Col. Everest Riccioni, who did some of the seminal work on supercruise, his back of the envelope calculations indicate that the F-22 cannot fly significantly further than the F-15. This follows, according to Riccioni, because of the reduced fuel fraction and the higher specific fuel consumption. Thus, we have no evidence that the aircraft's avionics will work as advertised; none that it can supercruise as advertised (keep in mind that the original ATF specification was for a 500 mile radius of action, 400 of which was supersonic); and its stealthiness is as problematic as the F-117s. But, hey, what can you expect for a unit price of $200 million. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:21:11 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Supercruise Jim Stevenson wrote: > Supercruise is the ability to fly supersonically for an extended period of > time. The F-15 can fly supersonically. The issue is for how far. What has > not been demonstrated to date is that the F-22 can fly as far as the F-15. > According to Col. Everest Riccioni, who did some of the seminal work on > supercruise, his back of the envelope calculations indicate that the F-22 > cannot fly significantly further than the F-15. This follows, according to > Riccioni, because of the reduced fuel fraction and the higher specific fuel > consumption. > Actually, supercruise is the ability to fly supersonically without using the augmentors, which are real gas hogs. IIRC the F-15 can't do this without being in a dive. In a new engine like the F119 I would expect the engine pressure ratio to be higher than that of the old F100 with improved compressor and turbine efficiencies, improved combustor and turbine cooling, improved turbine materials, and adjustment of the bypass ratio to get better propulsion efficiency at supercruise, thus yielding lower specific fuel consumption (sfc, lb/hr of fuel flow per lb of thrust) for the F-22 versus the F-15 at the same flight condition. The reason the augmentors have such ghastly sfc is that the pressure is low where the heat is added to the air flow (about 45 psi at sea level for an engine like the F100, so pressure ratio PR=3) versus adding heat in the main combustor (at about 450 psi for a PR=30 engine). The difference in sfc between these two extremes is about a factor of 2. The nice thing about augmentors, though, is that you can run them near stoichiometric with exit gas temperatures up to 4500 F - so you can get alot of thrust fast. Since this was a BOTE estimate it couldn't have been very complex, so post the numbers Riccioni used and we will see if they make sense. Details matter. Brad Hitch MSME 1988, Purdue University Thermal Sciences and Propulsion Center Engineer, GE Aircraft Engines 1987-1993 PS - I highly recommend "Aircraft Engine Design" by Mattingly, Heiser, and Daley (1987, AIAA Education Series) as a good place to start. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 99 01:31:09 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Detection On 11/28/99 11:33PM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > > > > Well, I won't comment on that. There are a lot of conflicting sides > to that story as well. Thankfully some of the more important > decisions in that area were made by people who had good data and good > analysts. It's not enough to have good data (which we may not have had for years) and analysts if their conclusions are rejected if they conflict with Official Wisdom. > > And you have to keep in mind that few administrations have the > wherewithall to announce to the public: > "Those crazy guys over there that are *still* communist? In a few > years they can hit San Francisco and we can't do dookie about it". Actually, China can do that now. > > > >! > > > > Aha, but it's much easier for us to deploy responses to certain kinds > of threats than it is for our enemies! WE have the wonders of > microprocessors and superb maintaince infrastructure which enables us > to issue- > software updates! > Yup, these days many threats of this nature can be countered by > software updates and tactics. So in many cases we don't have to > redesign the F-22, we just upload some new software into the battle > force, brief in everybody on what buttons to push when, where not to > fly and how fast, and voila, we're invisible. It's almost lick the > deflector shield and warp bubble hacks in Star Trek. If only it were so! > > The US, in recent history, has been pretty good at deploying new > gadgets at wartime. While it took 10 years to design a new infantry > bayonet (which has limited use Not once you run out of bullets. > in contrast to, say, a new assault > rifle, which is another story), We've been working on that for at least 20 years. > in the past 5 years alone the SEAL > force has designed, etc. and deployed more than 3 new fighting > knives- because they're *always* more or less at a wartime footing. I wouldn't think they're a good comparison. They can go around the system, in many cases, and you're talking about something that is fielded only to a small group. If it's something for general use, it would take a lot longer. Consider how long it took to fix the M-16, even though we knew the problems from the day it was deployed. > And during Desert Storm, the GBU-28(?) Deep Throat bomb was developed > in record time. It's not designing a new airplane, but it shows that > the system *can* work when it has to. Again, that's a special purpose weapon in small quantities that used surplus materials and was able to suspend the normal process. I think more relevant examples would be how long it took to get JSTARS operational even after we had already deployed it in the Gulf. Or consider how long they've been trying to get the AH-64 to have decent availability. In fact, using the Gulf as an example, it took us five months to get ready, even though we had spent billions in the '80s putting material and resources in place for just that contingency. We have incredibly innovative people, but frankly most situations are come as you are. The system just isn't set up for rapid response anymore. Too many rice bowls. For example, if China suddenly threw back thousands of enormous blankets they've been using to conceal a force of 800 SU-27/30/35s with modern ordnance, would we really be able to react quickly? In an election year? The F-14 line is gone, the F-15 line is at a trickle and it would take a year or two to ramp it up (lead times of subcomponents), the Hornet E/F line is a year or so away from being able to crank out large numbers (no great loss there). Actually, we no longer set up production lines to crank out really large numbers ("too much overhead", say the bean counters). > Even in WWII, a triumph for American production, I believe we were only able to field one fighter during the entire war that hadn't already been designed before the war (not sure about bombers). We can call for the Cavalry, but it had better already have been on its way.... Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:58:00 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Detection > On 11/28/99 11:33PM, in message , Dan > Zinngrabe wrote: > > > > Aha, but it's much easier for us to deploy responses to certain kinds > > of threats than it is for our enemies! WE have the wonders of > > microprocessors and superb maintaince infrastructure which enables us > > to issue- > > software updates! You mean the kind of software updates that take a few days to write and 10-20 years to debug... > > Yup, these days many threats of this nature can be countered by > > software updates and tactics. So in many cases we don't have to > > redesign the F-22, we just upload some new software into the battle > > force, brief in everybody on what buttons to push when, where not to > > fly and how fast, and voila, we're invisible. It's almost lick the > > deflector shield and warp bubble hacks in Star Trek. > > > If only it were so! > > > > The US, in recent history, has been pretty good at deploying new > > gadgets at wartime. While it took 10 years to design a new infantry > > bayonet (which has limited use > > Not once you run out of bullets. > > Art > As always Art made some excellent observations. It would appear that we lack the ability to design and deploy complex systems in a short period of time. If some "evil" country unleashed several thousand MiG-21's againsts us we would probably lose, despite our qualitative superiority. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:41:37 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Detection > >The Air Force claims that the F-22 is built around three pillars: advanced >avionics, supercruise, and stealth. Now it depends on how you define a >"prototype" or "demonstrator." But it appears that none of the three pillars >were demonstrated in the YF-22 or the YF-23. Ignoring the "three pillars" PR nonsense.... > >The Air Force's deputy program manager told me that the ATF prototypes did >not demonstrate supercruise. His words. The avionics are still flying around >in a 757, and the prototypes were not tested for stealth. "Supercruise" has never been fully defined outside of breaking the sound barrier sans afterburners, which, according to the data I have somewhere in storage, *was* demonstrated. I beleive even AvWeek covered it at the time, each demonstrator (YF-23 & YF-22) did it about a week apart, and previously, in a dive, both F-15 and F-16 aircraft had as well. > >Thus, we have no evidence that the aircraft's avionics will work as >advertised; none that it can supercruise as advertised (keep in mind that >the original ATF specification was for a 500 mile radius of action, 400 of >which was supersonic); and its stealthiness is as problematic as the F-117s. Now, I find it kind of odd that Jim cites a lack of testing as indicating that the F-22/ATF does not meet whatever requirements, while the F-117 has passed about every test thrown at it, yet it too is "problematic". Of course, Jim also has contested in the past that testing itself is flawed. It would seem that kind of thinking is less than impartial. A lack of evidence does not indicate a negative value, nor a positive. It indicates a lack of value. If you ignore testing, simulation, etc. etc. you're left with only your own opinion, which probably doesn't matter all that much anyway if you can't back up your opinion with testing, simulation, etc. data. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #115 ********************************* 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