From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #47 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 28 2000 Volume 09 : Number 047 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: FWD [fort] Evil Clowns: Phantom, Pogo and Pennywise Re: FWD (TLCB/PVT) Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Follow-up on PCL Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Here we go again. Follow on to reistance to jamming of GPS guided weapons Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Re: Follow on to reistance to jamming of GPS guided weapons Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Re: The Old Dog Re: The Old Dog EB-52 and B-2 review...extravagent? Re: EB-52 and B-2 review...extravagent? Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:21:22 +0100 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:26:39 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD [fort] Evil Clowns: Phantom, Pogo and Pennywise My error, correct list should be Skeptic instead of Skunk-Works. Terry - ----- MELUMAN@aol.com wrote: > > Yes, George, I have a "comment". > > Why not go back to Transylvania, where you belong? - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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 >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] 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: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:46:22 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB/PVT) Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress According to FAS the Hound Dog was the AGM-28, is this right? I like the way it coupled in with the bombers fuel though, thats certainly unique! inal Message ----- From: "Terry W. Colvin" To: ; Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: FWD (TLCB/PVT) Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress > "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > Last of the giants > > and now serve mainly as launchers for the AGM-86B air-launched cruise > > missile. > > ==========Interesting! While I was stationed at Seymour Johnson, they put > a Hound Dog on display in the Parking Lot outside the Officers Club. I went > down to take a couple pictures of it, and while there, this rather large pilot > type came out of the club, still in his flight suit. He apparently was a BUFF > pilot. As he walked by, he said, "Shame it ain't worth a shit!" It kind of > surprised me, and I said, "Really?" to which he added, "That thing ain't worth > a tinkers damn!" I personally didn't know a thing about the Hound Dog, but he > sure had a low opinion of it! > > Randy Ryman > > -- > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) > < fortean1@frontiernet.net > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > 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 >[Allies, CIA/NSA, > and Vietnam veterans welcome] > 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: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:46:00 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Terry W. Colvin wrote: >... He apparently was a BUFF pilot. As he walked by, he said, "Shame it ain't worth a shit!" It >kind of surprised me, and I said, "Really?" to which he added, "That thing ain't worth a tinkers >damn!" I personally didn't know a thing about the Hound Dog, but he sure had a low opinion of >it! >Randy Ryman It seems the AGM-28 had a very low availability/reliability rate, which would then explain the pilot's coments. Gavin Payne wrote: >According to FAS the Hound Dog was the AGM-28, is this right? >I like the way it coupled in with the bombers fuel though, thats certainly unique! Yes. At least that's what I have too. I wonder if they had a version that could be refueled in flight and then sent back to the B-52? :-) Apparently the AGM-28B had a reduced RCS. By the way, they are now replacing the computers on some of the B-52's, and there are some serious talks of eventualy transforming some of those into EB-52's (EW platform) for which these new computers would just happen to come in handy. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:09:12 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Follow-up on PCL The threat posed by the PCL seems to be recognized by the air force. In an article on the B-1B in the "Air combat" of this month. An ex-pilot and official was mentionning the importance of the B-1B because the 'authority' of the B-2 would be eroded if the "chinese passive detection system" was to come into wider use. Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:59 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress > By the way, they are now replacing the computers on some of the B-52's, and there are some serious talks of eventualy transforming some of those into EB-52's (EW platform) for > which these new computers would just happen to come in handy. Can you imagine the power of one of those things? Fill the bomb bay with generators, fill the wing hardpoints with huge ECM packages and with the combat range of one of those things you could probably give a B-2 a strategic support fleet. With the EA-6B's range limiting it to tactical use only I guess they're nervous which route a B-2 takes to get to its target. At least thats what happened over Kosovo. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:31:44 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Here we go again. Here we go again, someone wants to bring the SR back again.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagena me=wpni/print&articleid=A55585-2000Jun24 ::HINT put all of the line together. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:53:50 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Follow on to reistance to jamming of GPS guided weapons The Raytheon Company,has just received a modification to a previously awarded ordering agreement for the integration of the Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) into the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) System. This effort will bring new production JSOWs delivered after 1 April 2003 in compliance with current Global Positioning System (GPS) security requirements for weapon-based GPS. The JDAM-ER (extended range version) ha just been tested, this version is apparently the firt to incorporate some anti-jamming tecchnique, also SSASM I presume. Does anyone have an idea how SSASM works? 'Selective availability' sounds to me like it is designed to defeat input of false information by jammers, but what about barrage jamming? Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:14:29 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress some years ago i read a book"flight of the old dog", by dale brown.(published 1987)i don't remember all of the details but it was about a B-52 with a lot of unorthodox electronic gear on board.has any one else ever read this book? (or heard of it) wayne binkley. > By the way, they are now replacing the computers on some of the B-52's, and there are some serious talks of eventualy transforming some of those into EB-52's (EW platform) for > which these new computers would just happen to come in handy. Can you imagine the power of one of those things? Fill the bomb bay with generators, fill the wing hardpoints with huge ECM packages and with the combat range of one of those things you could probably give a B-2 a strategic support fleet. With the EA-6B's range limiting it to tactical use only I guess they're nervous which route a B-2 takes to get to its target. At least thats what happened over Kosovo. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:23:56 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Follow on to reistance to jamming of GPS guided weapons "Does anyone have an idea how SSASM works? 'Selective availability' sounds to me like it is designed to defeat input of false information by jammers, but what about barrage jamming?" Timothy Wellll, I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya... Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:51:26 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress Yeah I've read it. "Flight of the old dog" by Dale Brown. There was a really good computer game called Megafortress based on it about hmmm 10 years ago. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "wayne binkley" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Boeing B-52G Stratofortress > some years ago i read a book"flight of the old dog", by dale > brown.(published 1987)i don't remember all of the details but it was about a > B-52 with a lot of unorthodox electronic gear on board.has any one else ever > read this book? (or heard of it) > wayne binkley. > > > > By the way, they are now replacing the computers on some of the B-52's, > and there are some serious talks of eventualy transforming some of those > into EB-52's (EW platform) for > > which these new computers would just happen to come in handy. > > > Can you imagine the power of one of those things? Fill the bomb bay with > generators, fill the wing hardpoints with huge ECM packages and with the > combat range of one of those things you could probably give a B-2 a > strategic support fleet. > With the EA-6B's range limiting it to tactical use only I guess they're > nervous which route a B-2 takes to get to its target. At least thats what > happened over Kosovo. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:46:15 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: The Old Dog Didn't Dale Brown write another book wherein the Old Dog was featured? Seems like I read it, but can't remember it now. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:30:27 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: The Old Dog None of his series got upto much in my oppinion. I prefer the fiction where it could be true! (Like Hunt For Red October!) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C Robison" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:46 PM Subject: Re: The Old Dog > > > Didn't Dale Brown write another book wherein the Old Dog was featured? > Seems like I read it, but can't remember it now. > > Tom > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:47:45 -0700 From: Timothy Toth Subject: EB-52 and B-2 review...extravagent? Gavin Payne wrote: >None of his series got upto much in my oppinion. I prefer the fiction where it could be true! (Like Hunt For Red October!) wayne binkley wrote: >I don't remember all of the details but it was about a B-52 with a lot of unorthodox electronic gear on board.has any one else ever >read this book? (or heard of it) >wayne binkley. I admit my first reaction to his writtings was als 'this could not be true', but I just read a book from him about a 'special' B-2, and once again it was supposed to be a highly modified system. All in all what he describes is not that far fetched (I'm not talking about Geo-political situations). In fact the talks about an EW B-52 (EB-52) have just become more serious now, but they had been in the air for a while, he may have just picked it up then. I think what is happening is that he studies his subject ( for eg. for the B-2 book he met with several people involved with the B-2) and takes into account the most advanced/extreme upgrades possible or talked about. For example there has been in the past some pilot talk about the possibility of arming the B-1B with AMRAAM or make in it a tand-off jamming platform, there are talks about active cancellation sytems on the B-2 and we know that similar system exist, we know of non-lethal weapons etc... By the way in his B-2 book he mentions a 'cloaking device' (interestingly enough I remember reading a message from the skunk-works archives where one was stating that the pilots also talked of activating a 'cloaking device'). Any way Dale Brown in his book calls this system the USQ-13 BEAD (if I remember well) which would be an inapropriate official designation, but the description of the system is sound . In an article (Popular Mechnics?), where the writter was actually allowed to fly in the B-2, they mentionned a button named 'penetration mode’ (reduces elevon and rudder movement during an attack), and another unidentified button (taped over for the flight). Could this be a ‘combat mode’/’cloaking device’ button? Talking of designations, there is also the weird but (real and) official ZSR-63 designation of the B-2 defensive system Z is supposed to stand for pilotless or piloted S for specialised R for receiver and of course the 63 would mean that this is the 63rd similar type of system in existance. A few questions arise though, why give it the Z denomination and not the normal A for aircraft? What could be special enough about it to have been given an S (why not A for Active for eg. :-) ). The R seems to imply that this is only a receiving system would this mean that the B-2 has no active E. defense. And the only other similar denomination that I ever heard of was the ZSR-62 which was supposed to be a contender to the ZSR-63 and was supposed to have incorporated some "advanced EW techniques" (active RCS reduction system?) The ZSR-63 is sometimes described as being the APR-50 (by Lockheed Martin) or being a system of which the APR-50 is only a part, the later is more likely as APR-50 and ZSR-63 are both official designations. Information I found on the APR-50 seem to indicate that this is a 4-20GHZ RWR system. The defensive system almost certainly covers a wider range of frequencies than this. In addition to this the APR-50 is a Lockheed martin product, while the ZSR-63 is a Northrop Grumman product. Northrop Grumman is said to have received a contract due for completion in July 2000 for development, production and installation of 13 Band 4 retrofit kits applicable to the ZSR-63 radar (?! I assume the term ‘radar’ used in the article was a mistake!). Doe anyone konw if the DMS or Defensive management System and the ZSR-63 are one and the same? The DMS was at first declared “operationally unsatisfactory” because the information provided by the system was inaccurate, the display cluttered, and operating it was very demanding for the crew. In spite of the problems, it was found to provide good information on known threat locations included in computer files prior to a mission. New computers would be necessary, if the DMS was to perform up to original expectations. This problem is apparently not uncommon (The shootdown of O’Grady’s F-16 over Bosnia in 95 is said to have been the result of this sort of problem), this has led to a redefinition (respecialisation) of RWR and ESM systems. An RWR main purpose is to recognize threats to the platform, it will detect and react only to pre-programmed emissions and patterns, but has a much quicker response time (to warn and or activate jammers and dispensers). The ESM system detects and analyses all emissions, it is more of a reconnaissance tool. The B-2 probably now has both capabilities. The B-2 is reported to have an availability rate of only 20% when everything is taken into account. This is mainly related to LO problem if LO was not taken into account the availability rate approaches 76% (not far from B-1 and B-52 and quite good for such a ‘young’ system). The B-2 is difficult to deploy from other than specially prepared bases, this is once again due mainly to LO problems. (constant testing of RCS is needed). The aircraft also needs to be maintained in special hangars for the reasons explained above but also due to the fact that tapes and compounds and RAM (used to fill joint between RAM when access panels are opened or when two layers of RAM are needed for eg.) presently need 72hrs of drying time, during which the aircraft is vulnerable to high humidity and/or rain (which may be the explanation for the rumors about the aircraft’s ‘vulnerability’ to rain). The aircraft was also rumored to be vulnerable to detection by early warning radars (ie HF, VHF frequencies). During tests on AV-3 (now operational and upgraded to Block 30 configuration) it was discovered that the aircraft was vulnerable at a certain angle at certain frequency (believed to be HF). It was latter admitted that the aircraft ‘can be detected by some high-powered, land-based, early warning radars’. However the problem was reportedly solved without structural modifications, thus almost certainly by the use of RAM (unless an active system was used or modified to cope with the problem!). The Russian even claimed that the B-2 was vulnerable to its new-generation SAM systems, such as the S-300PMU (SA-10/A 'Grumble') and S-300V-9M83/82 (SA-12A/B 'Gladiator'/'Giant'). Since then several improvements have been made to improve the RF signature especially in the HF range, and reduce maintenance required to restore signature performance.The number of low observable write-ups has been reduced by a factor of five when comparing Block 30s to the Block 20s. An 'Advanced Topcoat' paint has also been introduced (on block 30 models?) which further reduces the IR signature, probably the same as used on the F-22. The B-2's APQ-181 radar is said to be working at the rather unusual Ku band frequency, which needs more power and suffers more from athompheric conditions than the more normal X-band for example, but what if it was capable of working at both these frequencies? Could the antennas be of this type : US4772890: Multi-band planar antenna array at http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US04772890 Does anyone have info on active fiber composites? Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:11:57 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: EB-52 and B-2 review...extravagent? I think now we all have to agree that the B-2 has something significantly different to the rest of the public facing fleet. This is demonstrated by the cost, the level of security that surrounds the type, the operating tactics, features like the "magic" buttons in the cockpit and the fact that people who have a respected knowledge of electronics systems have to scratch their heads and can't come up with answers to some questions about it. One question though, now that the B-2 is now at block 30 what changes were made to each level? I read that all the operational fleet are now block 30. What needed to be done to an already perfect airframe?! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy Toth" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:47 PM Subject: EB-52 and B-2 review...extravagent? Gavin Payne wrote: >None of his series got upto much in my oppinion. I prefer the fiction where it could be true! (Like Hunt For Red October!) wayne binkley wrote: >I don't remember all of the details but it was about a B-52 with a lot of unorthodox electronic gear on board.has any one else ever >read this book? (or heard of it) >wayne binkley. I admit my first reaction to his writtings was als 'this could not be true', but I just read a book from him about a 'special' B-2, and once again it was supposed to be a highly modified system. All in all what he describes is not that far fetched (I'm not talking about Geo-political situations). In fact the talks about an EW B-52 (EB-52) have just become more serious now, but they had been in the air for a while, he may have just picked it up then. I think what is happening is that he studies his subject ( for eg. for the B-2 book he met with several people involved with the B-2) and takes into account the most advanced/extreme upgrades possible or talked about. For example there has been in the past some pilot talk about the possibility of arming the B-1B with AMRAAM or make in it a tand-off jamming platform, there are talks about active cancellation sytems on the B-2 and we know that similar system exist, we know of non-lethal weapons etc... By the way in his B-2 book he mentions a 'cloaking device' (interestingly enough I remember reading a message from the skunk-works archives where one was stating that the pilots also talked of activating a 'cloaking device'). Any way Dale Brown in his book calls this system the USQ-13 BEAD (if I remember well) which would be an inapropriate official designation, but the description of the system is sound . In an article (Popular Mechnics?), where the writter was actually allowed to fly in the B-2, they mentionned a button named 'penetration mode' (reduces elevon and rudder movement during an attack), and another unidentified button (taped over for the flight). Could this be a 'combat mode'/'cloaking device' button? Talking of designations, there is also the weird but (real and) official ZSR-63 designation of the B-2 defensive system Z is supposed to stand for pilotless or piloted S for specialised R for receiver and of course the 63 would mean that this is the 63rd similar type of system in existance. A few questions arise though, why give it the Z denomination and not the normal A for aircraft? What could be special enough about it to have been given an S (why not A for Active for eg. :-) ). The R seems to imply that this is only a receiving system would this mean that the B-2 has no active E. defense. And the only other similar denomination that I ever heard of was the ZSR-62 which was supposed to be a contender to the ZSR-63 and was supposed to have incorporated some "advanced EW techniques" (active RCS reduction system?) The ZSR-63 is sometimes described as being the APR-50 (by Lockheed Martin) or being a system of which the APR-50 is only a part, the later is more likely as APR-50 and ZSR-63 are both official designations. Information I found on the APR-50 seem to indicate that this is a 4-20GHZ RWR system. The defensive system almost certainly covers a wider range of frequencies than this. In addition to this the APR-50 is a Lockheed martin product, while the ZSR-63 is a Northrop Grumman product. Northrop Grumman is said to have received a contract due for completion in July 2000 for development, production and installation of 13 Band 4 retrofit kits applicable to the ZSR-63 radar (?! I assume the term 'radar' used in the article was a mistake!). Doe anyone konw if the DMS or Defensive management System and the ZSR-63 are one and the same? The DMS was at first declared "operationally unsatisfactory" because the information provided by the system was inaccurate, the display cluttered, and operating it was very demanding for the crew. In spite of the problems, it was found to provide good information on known threat locations included in computer files prior to a mission. New computers would be necessary, if the DMS was to perform up to original expectations. This problem is apparently not uncommon (The shootdown of O'Grady's F-16 over Bosnia in 95 is said to have been the result of this sort of problem), this has led to a redefinition (respecialisation) of RWR and ESM systems. An RWR main purpose is to recognize threats to the platform, it will detect and react only to pre-programmed emissions and patterns, but has a much quicker response time (to warn and or activate jammers and dispensers). The ESM system detects and analyses all emissions, it is more of a reconnaissance tool. The B-2 probably now has both capabilities. The B-2 is reported to have an availability rate of only 20% when everything is taken into account. This is mainly related to LO problem if LO was not taken into account the availability rate approaches 76% (not far from B-1 and B-52 and quite good for such a 'young' system). The B-2 is difficult to deploy from other than specially prepared bases, this is once again due mainly to LO problems. (constant testing of RCS is needed). The aircraft also needs to be maintained in special hangars for the reasons explained above but also due to the fact that tapes and compounds and RAM (used to fill joint between RAM when access panels are opened or when two layers of RAM are needed for eg.) presently need 72hrs of drying time, during which the aircraft is vulnerable to high humidity and/or rain (which may be the explanation for the rumors about the aircraft's 'vulnerability' to rain). The aircraft was also rumored to be vulnerable to detection by early warning radars (ie HF, VHF frequencies). During tests on AV-3 (now operational and upgraded to Block 30 configuration) it was discovered that the aircraft was vulnerable at a certain angle at certain frequency (believed to be HF). It was latter admitted that the aircraft 'can be detected by some high-powered, land-based, early warning radars'. However the problem was reportedly solved without structural modifications, thus almost certainly by the use of RAM (unless an active system was used or modified to cope with the problem!). The Russian even claimed that the B-2 was vulnerable to its new-generation SAM systems, such as the S-300PMU (SA-10/A 'Grumble') and S-300V-9M83/82 (SA-12A/B 'Gladiator'/'Giant'). Since then several improvements have been made to improve the RF signature especially in the HF range, and reduce maintenance required to restore signature performance.The number of low observable write-ups has been reduced by a factor of five when comparing Block 30s to the Block 20s. An 'Advanced Topcoat' paint has also been introduced (on block 30 models?) which further reduces the IR signature, probably the same as used on the F-22. The B-2's APQ-181 radar is said to be working at the rather unusual Ku band frequency, which needs more power and suffers more from athompheric conditions than the more normal X-band for example, but what if it was capable of working at both these frequencies? Could the antennas be of this type : US4772890: Multi-band planar antenna array at http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US04772890 Does anyone have info on active fiber composites? Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:21:22 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:21:22 +0100 This came through the AFNS tonight. Something one of the F-117 pilots told me at Air Fete 00 is that the life expectency of the type is estimated to be around 10 years. Apparently as there's no two seater models, they can't take congressmen up with them and wow them! They said and I quote so don't flame or argue with me!, that this is what happened with the A-12. Unless the men who control the pockets actually experience it all at first hand they're not intersted. Dont know if its all true but thats what all the F117 crew think these days. WASHINGTON -- The Air Force and it's F-117 maintainers will benefit from a fleet-wide modification designed to improve maintainability and reduce operating costs, according to officials at the F-117 System Program Office, Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. "The F-117's low-observable features have always been costly and difficult to maintain because of the various radar-absorbing material configurations," said Capt. Richard Owens, with the F-117 SPO. To correct this, the Single Configuration Fleet modification consolidates the existing seven different radar-absorbing material configurations into one optimized for maintainability and deployability. The modification, entailing stripping and re-coating the entire F-117 fleet, replaces the sheet-coated RAM on the wings, rudders and fuselage and uses a precise robotic process to apply a RAM coating to almost 75 percent of the airframe, he said. These areas which are never accessed for maintenance will require virtually no future RAM repairs. Areas that are frequently accessed will have removable RAM sheets applied to the maintenance panels. "The new spray-coated RAM is much more durable than previous versions of sheet-coating," Owens said. "This will result in the new (Single Configuration Fleet) aircraft requiring fewer RAM repairs. The optimized configuration provides maintainers easy access to maintenance panels while eliminating the need to repair infrequently accessed areas." According to Owens, the biggest advantages of the new standardized configuration, for maintainers and the Air Force, will be common repair procedures and materials for all F-117s. Currently, with so many configurations, there are numerous repair procedures and materials, he said. "Our maintainers must keep track of which procedures and materials belong to which aircraft." "Training was a nightmare," said Master Sgt. Roger Britt, quality assurance evaluator, 49th Operations Group, Holloman AFB, N.M., referring to getting new maintainers qualified on the various F-117 stealth configurations. "Maintaining the aircraft will be so much easier once the entire fleet undergoes its (modification)," Britt said. "We should also see a 50 percent reduction in the size of our technical order -- the manual airmen must follow step-by-step when working on aircraft maintenance." The new modification also will greatly reduce the amount of hardware and other supplies that units will need when they deploy to forward locations, said Britt. The Air Force will be able to phase out a number of materials leading to further cost savings in the logistics and materiel management, Owens said. "Based on flight test results and an initial operational evaluation, the new SCF configuration will reduce maintenance manhours per flying hour due to (RAM) maintenance by over 50 percent," he said. "Since (low observability) is the primary maintenance driver for the F-117, the SCF improvements will indirectly improve sortie generation capability. "Additionally, once SCF is implemented in the entire F-117 fleet, the annual consumable material costs will be reduced from the current level of $14.5 million to approximately $6.9 million," Owens said. The modification is being implemented on a five-year schedule as the F-117s are rotated through the contractor depot at Palmdale, Calif., he said. To make best use of this time, the Air Force is also implementing numerous other F-117 modifications and repairs. The entire process takes approximately five months for each aircraft. The first completed production aircraft to undergo the modification was delivered to Holloman in April. Holloman is the only base in the Air Force that flies the F-117. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #47 ******************************** 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