From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #70 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, September 12 2000 Volume 09 : Number 070 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #68 Re: Steve Douglass 'Interceptors'... Re: Airliner, stealth fighter near miss? Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: Insignia, Other Stuff Re: F-117 Near Miss Article on CNN.COM FW: SR 71 F-117 Near Miss and LO Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #69 Re: Insignia, Other Stuff Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #69 Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: F-117 Near Miss and LO Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #68 US Air Force has a new weapons system *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:47:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #68 > Lee Markland writes: > > > I don't know about that, but the F117 must be the most agile, or lucky > > aircraft in the world. Imagine > > walking through a rainshower and not getting wet. The F117 flew through, > > without nary a scratch, > > the most intense ack ack every experienced, worse even than that > > experienced by allied bombers > > over Germany. As one pilot put it it was like flying through a fireworks > > display. > > > > And nary a scratch. I would like to sit behind this guys while they > gamble > > at Vegas :0 > > > > I guess radar invisibility and a triangular shape also protects against > ack > > ack. > > > > Impressive. > > Sarcasm duly noted :) > > However, on a specialist list like this, do I really need to point that a > Low Observable (LO) aircraft is NOT invisible to radar - it has a >low< RCS > (Radar Cross Section.) As radar operates across many frequencies, no a/c or > structure can be LO at all radar frequencies. > > It doesn't end there. How effective it is likely to be also depends on a > significant reduction of its signature or footprint in the IR (Infra-Red), > acoustic and visible light > spectra. > > You're right of course, the F-117 is an impressive piece of engineering - > just have a talk with an scientist or engineer familiar with the > practicalities of LO design and I guarantee you'll need to lie down in a > darkened room for a while. > > It's a hideously complex subject, which the media hasn't always dealt with > particularly well. That in turn has helped to generate unrealistic > expectations in the minds of an increasingly scientifically illiterate > public. > BINGO!!! You got it right on the money!!! That's the problem with our society, we do not have enough people that have been properly trained in the sciences!!! Or know their history for that matter... the problem is most of the public doesn't care... and when you have an apathetic public nasty things happen... and to some degree we deserve what we get. > > Best > > David Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:31:25 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: Steve Douglass 'Interceptors'... Greetings! Todd Madson wrote: << ...My other question: Steve Douglass used to have the Project Black website on the internet and it appears to have vanished - did it move? >> Hiya. If I can speak for Steve (don't know if he's 'on list'?), he recently experienced some problems with his Web 'Host', but is trying to resolve these difficulties & get Project Black back on line. Also: He recently became a happy Grandfather, so has some other 'distractions' around the place! The (very) old Project Black site is still on line, some of the pictures/artwork/links are dead, but you can try: http://204.253.66.220/projectblack/index.html INTERCEPTS/PROJECT BLACK I'm sure he won't mind friendly e-mails to: webbfeat@1s.net (Please mention Bill T.//Black-Triangle). - --------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. AIM: Secretjet / Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monitoring S.E.UK Mil-Airband on Yupi 7100 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/ Secretjet/ No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wesley's Photo Page ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:16:49 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Airliner, stealth fighter near miss? At 09/08/2000 -0500, you wrote: >CHICAGO (9/7/2000, 7:29 p.m. CDT) - An F-117 stealth fighter brushed so >close to a United Airlines jet that it set off the passenger plane's >on-board radar Thursday, the airline and the military said. > >The incident occurred shortly after United flight 174 left Los Angeles >International Airport for Boston about 8:30 a.m., said Chris Nardella, a >spokeswoman for United, which is based in the Chicago suburb of Elk Grove >Village. > >The Boeing 757 was flying at about 10,800 feet when its on-board radar >equipment detected an approaching aircraft. Nardella said the crew kept >the plane at that altitude until the Air Force jet passed overhead. No doubt Saddam Hussein is quietly meeting with Boeing sales reps as we speak in order to obtain some of these 757 "AWACS" for duty along the "No Fly Zone" borders in Iraq. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:10:49 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations At 09/08/2000 -0700, you wrote: >I have been meaning for some time to pick up a good book on the F-117 (the >more technical the better); do any of you have particular recommendations - >preferably for books still in print? > >Any opinions on "Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the 'Stealth >Fighter'", by David C. Aronstein and Albert C. Piccirillo? This one was >mentioned by Allen Thomson about a year and a half ago. > >Erik > Excellent book. Lots of manufacturing and test info. Somewhat esoteric but worth the money if you want the insight these two ex-F-117 program managers deliver in their text. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:43:40 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Insignia, Other Stuff Andreas Parsch wrote: > > Todd Madson wrote: > > > > When aircraft are being tested, oh, say black aircraft in general - > > is it common or not common for aircraft to display insignia of any > > kind? Or is that sort of thing only affixed to operational a/c? > > "Black" test aircraft (e.g. HAVE BLUE, TACIT BLUE and prototypes of U-2 and > A-12) usually carry no markings like national insignia, squadron codes, > serial numbers, etc. Of course, I do know nothing about _current_ black > prototypes ;-)! > > > > > On some of the model kit A-12/SR-71's I built as a kid they always > > had the small grayish insignia that barely showed up against the > > black of the skin. > > AFAIK the A-12s/SR-71s carried either no insignia, or the standard > "high-visibility" one. Maybe the SR-71s used gray "low-viz" insignias late > in their career, but I haven't seen a picture showing this. According to Ben Rich's book, the AF wanted the standard hi-viz insignia on the SR-71s. Later this was changed to a very dull red color and no more "U. S. AIR FORCE" along the upper part of the fuselage. I have seen a photo that shows the "stars&bars" (is that right?) on upper left wing section, but I don't think all of them had that. I believe the ones flown out of Edwards AFB had "ED" and tail number. Considering the up-and-down cycle of having flying SR-71s in the last 10+ years, I think what was painted on them varied more than I would have expected. All other lettering and figures such as warning about ejection seats, emergency canopy release, etc. was all dull red. Tail fins on some birds carried some interesting artwork, but it was done in chalk so it didn't last long. Having such artwork on aircraft was discouraged by upper level brass. But nobody follows all of the rules all of the time. > > > > > My curiousity stems from being told about an a/c sighting where there > > was some sort of squadron insignia clearly visible on the bottom of > > aircraft. Very peculiar. > > _Very_ Peculiar indeed, if it were a "black" a/c. Even on "high-viz" > aircraft, squadron insignias are very rarely applied to the a/c bottom > (probably only for "special events"). A book about the F-117 shows the bottom having the American flag painted on it. It was flown during a ceremony for Casper Weinberger I believe. I've also seen a drawing of this. I don't know if it was done for real. Anyone know? > > > > > My other question: Steve Douglass used to have the project black > > website on the internet and it appears to have vanished - did it > > move? > > The following URL works as I write this: > > "http://204.253.66.220/projectblack/" > > However, the numerical server address may indicate a temporary URL. > > So long > Andreas > > -- > US Military Aviation Designation Systems > http://www.andreas-parsch.online.de Al ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:47:14 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: F-117 Near Miss Article on CNN.COM Erik Hoel wrote: > > Todd Madson [mailto:crash@waste.org] wrote: > > > Check out: > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/near.collision.02/index.html > > > > This gives a much better summary of the incident. > > Quoting from the bottom of the article on the CNN web page: > > The 410th flight test squadron reports to the 412th test wing at Edwards but > > flies out of Air Force Plant 42, which is in Palmdale, California. The plant > > is a government-owned contractor facility where the B-52 bomber was built, > as well as a space shuttle. ^^^^ > > > > Erik Frustrating isn't it?! :-> Al ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:47:27 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: FW: SR 71 Got this today, thought I'd pass it on. Gavin - -----Original Message----- From: Jack Livesey [mailto:JLivesey@IWM.ORG.UK] Sent: 08 September 2000 11:44 To: gbpayne@btinternet.com Subject: SR 71 Dear Gavin The SR 71 was due to be hear for September but we had problems getting a ship. All I can say is it is now due to arrive in the next 6-8 weeks. Yes I can confirm it is 962 we are getting. If I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Jack Livesey Collections Assistant ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 14:36:02 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: F-117 Near Miss and LO Two things I've picked up on over the last couple of days are : Re: 757 Radar The F-117 being picked up on the 757's radar is normal. Remember during peacetime training flights etc, they HAVE to carry a radar reflector to help prevent mid air collisions etc and to give air traffic controllers etc a chance. Re: LO designs and AAA Could you do anything to the LO design of an aircraft so that any radar pulses that were returned were in-accurate? If you could confuse a AAA unit's radar into firing somewhere other than where you are it might as well not be firing. Could you do anything to the physical shape of the aircraft to make it more difficult to be hit by AAA? Imagine a B-2 flying slowly overhead even at medium level. Thats a very large target you've got to aim at. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 09:16:00 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #69 David Wrote: > >However, on a specialist list like this, do I really need to point that a >Low Observable (LO) aircraft is NOT invisible to radar - it has a >low< RCS >(Radar Cross Section.) As radar operates across many frequencies, no a/c or >structure can be LO at all radar frequencies. Irrelevant and obfuscatory, subject is invincibility not invisibility. > >It doesn't end there. How effective it is likely to be also depends on a >significant reduction of its signature or footprint in the IR (Infra-Red), >acoustic and visible light >spectra. Same as above, irrelevant and obfuscatory (i.e. not germane to the subject of apparent invincibility). > >You're right of course, the F-117 is an impressive piece of engineering - >just have a talk with an scientist or engineer familiar with the >practicalities of LO design and I guarantee you'll need to lie down in a >darkened room for a while. Again the subject is not LO design, and I doubt that LO design alone is sufficient to evoke such an irrational response. >It's a hideously complex subject, which the media hasn't always dealt with >particularly well. Again irrelevant, the subject and source is not the media. That in turn has helped to generate unrealistic >expectations in the minds of an increasingly scientifically illiterate >public. Thinly veiled argumentum ad hominem et ad ridiculum, but still irrelevant as the subject is not the public. As regards the public being "scientifically illiterate", in a specialist society, what's new already?Having said that, being "scientifically illiterate" does not mean that one lacks powers of observation or critical thinking skills, and being scientifically "literate" does not mean that one has critical thinking skills (to wit the propensity of "scientific thinking" personalities for circular reasoning, or even blind belief in "authority"). > >Best > >David All of which avoids answering the question of not only the invisibility (LO) of the F117, but it's invincibility as well. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 20:25:22 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Insignia, Other Stuff At 09/08/2000 -0500, you wrote: >A book about the F-117 shows the bottom having the American >flag painted on it. It was flown during a ceremony for >Casper Weinberger I believe. I've also seen a drawing of >this. I don't know if it was done for real. Anyone know? It was done for real. Then hushed up for a long time in fear of criticism. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:30:34 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #69 Lee Markland markland@rockisland.com writes: > > David Wrote: > >However, on a specialist list like this, do I really need to point that a > >Low Observable (LO) aircraft is NOT invisible to radar - it has a >low< RCS > >(Radar Cross Section.) As radar operates across many frequencies, no a/c or > >structure can be LO at all radar frequencies. > > Irrelevant and obfuscatory, subject is invincibility not invisibility. It's a sunny day here - the sky is blue and the trees are gently swaying in the breeze. The BBQs are cooking burgers etc. - all is well. I tell you this because it means I'm in a good mood and have neither the desire nor time to enter an argument, or lose my temper with you - life's too short. I suggest you look at the published details of the F-117 ops during DS from trustworthy sources. The FAS for instance has some excellent data on the DS as a whole - and I'd take serious exception if you suggest the FAS is an Establishment puppet. You seem to think the F-117 is invincible in some way - presumably due to some highly classified system. Further, you seem tobelieve the a/c is 'invisible' to radar. When I point out that the a/c is not invisible but LO, you call that 'irrelevant' because the ' ..subject is invincibility not invisibility.' There is NO invincible platform and to suggest there is, detracts from the courage of those pilots who strapped into a single seat plane for a typically five hour sortie in the pitch black, in the hope that that all this gee whiz stealth stuff was going to work. The fact is the F-117 operated at medium altitude at night. Around one-third of USAF casualties occurred above 12,000 feet, and only one-quarter of the coalition aircraft casualties occurred at night. > >It doesn't end there. How effective it is likely to be also depends on a > >significant reduction of its signature or footprint in the IR (Infra-Red), > >acoustic and visible light spectra. > > Same as above, irrelevant and obfuscatory (i.e. not germane to the subject > of apparent invincibility). Thanks for explaining the meaning of ' irrelevant and obfuscatory,' It's greatly appreciated. Far from obfuscating the subject, I've attempted to clarify things by bringing a degree of reality into play. I'll say it again : There is no invincibility - apparent or otherwise. It's simply statistics. Compared with other types, the F-117s flew fewer missions -as you'd expect. It's like this: the Iraqis had a significant AAA and IR SAM capability to aircraft below 10,000 feet, so by flying above that ceiling you >reduce< the threat. By flying at night that threat is further reduced. Not removed - those aircrews in DS were clearly flying into harm's way and the mission planners quite properly did all they could to mitigate that threat. It wasn't just the F-117 that made use of this tactic - for example: although there were around 20 A-10 losses during DS ( often because, like the RAF Tornadoes they were flying low,) no A-10 was shot down during night ops even though they flew a similar number of sorties as the F-117. Corrections welcome - but that's as I recall it. > >You're right of course, the F-117 is an impressive piece of engineering - > >just have a talk with an scientist or engineer familiar with the > >practicalities of LO design and I guarantee you'll need to lie down in a > >darkened room for a while. > > Again the subject is not LO design, and I doubt that LO design alone is > sufficient to evoke such an irrational response. I read the words, but don't follow. I'm not known for making 'irrational responses.' Moreover, having re-read my response - I still fail to see the non sequitur(s). > >It's a hideously complex subject, which the media hasn't always dealt with > >particularly well. > > Again irrelevant, the subject and source is not the media. > > That in turn has helped to generate unrealistic > >expectations in the minds of an increasingly scientifically illiterate > >public. > > Thinly veiled argumentum ad hominem et ad ridiculum, but still irrelevant > as the subject is not the > public. As regards the public being "scientifically illiterate", in a > specialist society, what's new already?Having said that, being > "scientifically illiterate" does not mean that one lacks powers of observation > or critical thinking skills, and being scientifically "literate" does not > mean that one has critical thinking skills (to wit the propensity of > "scientific thinking" personalities for circular reasoning, or even blind > belief in "authority"). I'm afraid the BBQ is too tempting and I have to go. I'm not in the business of making ad hominem attacks. My point about scientific illiteracy is not aimed at you - though you really must read more about the subject - or be more open to learn from lists like this - and engineers. I've learned a vast amount - and I don't claim to be some kind of guru. So many people talk about engineering and applied science with no real concept of the subject. Take hypersonics - another topic often raised on the Net. Mach 10, Mach 20 roll off the tongue, but the realities behind these figures are mind bending. > All of which avoids answering the question of not only the invisibility > (LO) of the F117, but it's invincibility as well. I've covered your queries and should have lain to rest, any notion that the F-117 or any other a/c in any country's inventory is invincible. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:09:25 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations Erik wrote: > > >I have been meaning for some time to pick up a good book on the F-117 (the > >more technical the better); do any of you have particular recommendations - > >preferably for books still in print? > > > >Any opinions on "Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the 'Stealth > >Fighter'", by David C. Aronstein and Albert C. Piccirillo? This one was > >mentioned by Allen Thomson about a year and a half ago. Haven't read it, but I intend to buy a copy on recommendation from some very fussy people ! Jay Miller's "Lockheed Martin F-117 Nighthawk" "Janes at the controls - How to fly the F-117 Stealth Fighter" "F-117 Nighthawk" by Paul and Alison Crickmore "Stealth Warplanes" by Bill Gunston is a book I keep meaning to buy - so you've done me a favour by reminding me. For anyone who doesn't know: if Bill says it -you can take it to the bank - he's like a British Jay Miller in that respect. Hope this helps Best D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 100 01:17:20 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 Near Miss and LO On 9/9/00 6:36AM, in message <000101c01a62$e9e5e9d0$b776073e@gavin1>, "Gavin Payne" wrote: > Two things I've picked up on over the last couple of days are : > > > Re: 757 Radar > The F-117 being picked up on the 757's radar is normal. Remember during > peacetime training flights etc, they HAVE to carry a radar reflector to > help prevent mid air collisions etc and to give air traffic controllers etc > a chance. > Keep in mind "...its on-board radar equipment detected..." is probably just the usual ignorance of the Press about anything technical. With the F-117's Mode C transponder in full operation, altitude and position would nave been easily detectable, and the 757's Collision Avoidance System, not the radar, would have warned the crew. > > Re: LO designs and AAA > Could you do anything to the LO design of an aircraft so that any radar > pulses > that were returned were in-accurate? If you could confuse a AAA unit's > radar > into firing somewhere other than where you are it might as well not be > firing. > This is actually a widely practiced tactic that has been used for years. The idea is that when an aircraft is painted with a particular beam, the jammer waits a short time and then sends back a timed pulse that appears to be a return of transmitted beam. Generally, this pulse should be stronger than the actual returning pulse. Since by now theAthe AAAar antenna has turned slightly away from where it was when it transmitted the actual beam, it registers the deception pulse, determines where the antenna is pointing at the instant the deception pulse arrives and assumes that is where the target is, even though it isn't. This is not actually a LO technique because w=you want the bad guys to observe you, just observe you incorrectly. > Could you do anything to the physical shape of the aircraft to make it more > difficult to be hit by AAA? Imagine a B-2 flying slowly overhead even > at medium level. Thats a very large target you've got to aim at. > > If you're talking radar-guided, the same principles as for missiles apply. Optical tracking is the reason F-117s and B-2s fly at night as they can be seen by devices such as the F-14D's TCS (and its IRST and its radar). LO is useful against mobile or single AAA sites, but there is a tactic of massed AAA that works quite well against stealth if you train for it, have a large number of fixed sites and have troops that can maintain their discipline and comply with orders. What you do is you don't aim at aircraft. Rather, each site has a certain bearing they are to fire on at a certain rate and at a certain interval. If the sites are located in an area that it is known the attacking aircraft have to fly through, then the job is to put enough ordnance in a given "box" within a certain amount of time and let the laws of probability take care of the rest. The attacking aircraft will fly into the shells. This tactic was used by the North Vietnamese to great effect. It was also used successfully in the Gulf War. When Tornados would attack airfields and the like at low level on their own, they tended to get through relatively unscathed because they were in and out before the defenders knew they were there and could man their guns. However, when these aircraft were used in conjunction with USAF aircraft doing a medium level attack of the same facility or a target within the radar horizon, the medium level attack would be detected and the Iraqis would start firing everything in sight upwards, sometimes in a disciplined fire pattern and sometimes randomly. They may never have even been firing at the Tornados coming in at low attitudes, or even seen them, but that didn't stop the Tornadoes from flying into the steel rods whizzing through the atmosphere. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:36:38 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #68 Sam Kaltsidis > You're right of course, the F-117 is an impressive piece of engineering - > > just have a talk with an scientist or engineer familiar with the > > practicalities of LO design and I guarantee you'll need to lie down in a > > darkened room for a while. > > > > It's a hideously complex subject, which the media hasn't always dealt with > > particularly well. That in turn has helped to generate unrealistic > > expectations in the minds of an increasingly scientifically illiterate > > public. > > > > > BINGO!!! You got it right on the money!!! That's the problem with our society, > we do not have enough people that have been properly trained in the sciences!!! > > Or know their history for that matter... the problem is most of the public > doesn't care... and when you have an apathetic public nasty things happen... > and to some degree we deserve what we get. Sam Sorry for the delay in responding - just found your post. Who needs technologists and scientists when we have lawyers & accountants ?! I suspect in the climate of short termism that's been created, most of the major breakthrough programmes in technology wouldn't have found funding, unless there was a fast and obvious pay off. As it is - people now hype up their programs so they'll get the money to continue with their work - something goes wrong and there's all hell to pay - I suspect the X-33 is an example of this. Best D ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:02:02 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: US Air Force has a new weapons system can some one translate this from "pentagonese"(General's Speak) to plain english so a retired NCO can understand it? US Air Force has a new weapons system 12 September 2000 The US Air Force officially has a new weapons system. After three years of experimentation, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael E. Ryan announced that the air operations centre (AOC) is now an integral part of how the service will prepare for and conduct future expeditionary operations. "I declare the AOC as an official weapons system today," Ryan said after a visit here Sept. 8 to view the air operations centre during Joint Expeditionary Force eXperiment 2000. JEFX, a two-week event that runs through Sept. 15, assesses Air Force expeditionary operations through the use of new technology and capabilities in a simulated warfighting environment that combines live-fly forces, models, simulations and technology insertion at 11 sites across the United States to explore and evaluate new processes. The air operations centre at Hurlburt is the hub for all of the information flow involved in the experiment. It simulates a forward command and control structure that plans and directs the air campaign using intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and initiatives such as agile combat support and time-critical targeting. In essence, it is a forward-deployed war room -- light, lean and lethal. During a real-world operation, the AOC will be the "eyes, ears, hands and legs of the commander," said Ryan. "In each of our theaters, the ability of the air commander to execute the missions he has depends on the capability to have an air operations centre that (can be tailored) ... for the mission he needs to do," the chief of staff explained. As an integral component of the aerospace power equation, Ryan said the next step in the process is to identify the speciality codes, training pipeline, career path and currency requirements associated with the AOC as a weapons system. "We need a baselining of the capabilities in that weapons system, just as we do in our capabilities in something like an F-16," said the Air Force's senior leader. "(In the F-16) we have a crew chief that knows how to maintain it and we have pilots that know how to fly it. We have to have the same concept for our air operations centres. "We have to have those who know how to rapidly set it up and we must have operators who are very familiar with it," Ryan said. That's where experimentation such as JEFX comes in. This year's experiment is the third in a series since 1998 designed to meet the evolving needs of the Expeditionary Aerospace Force of the 21st century and to implement Joint Vision 2020. "Air Force experimentation provides both near and long-term benefits for our warfighters," said Col. Kevin Dunleavy, the director of JEFX 2000. "It provides a means to assess new technologies and operational concepts, allows warfighter involvement early in the acquisition process and produces better informed investment decisions." Air Force planners here view experimentation as a discovery process. They are quick to differentiate it from the traditional military exercise, saying the service experiments to learn and exercises to train. In other words, military exercises hone established procedures to do them more efficiently, while experiments assess those procedures and new ideas that may become procedures. Experimentation for the Air Force has always been important, said Ryan. "We always have to be on the cutting edge because it's the leading technology that we leverage for our aerospace capabilities," said the chief of staff. "In this case (with the AOC), what we're looking at is the command and control area to make sure that we can move information around and do it in an efficient and effective way. Inviting commercial people to come in (at JEFX) and show us what they have, allows us to interface with them and tell them what we need. "It allows our bright, young people to be able to do some real creative things," he added, "so it's important to us. It's about our future." That future involves an Air Force that will continually reshape itself to deploy forward with the smallest possible footprint in terms of equipment and personnel. "We're an expeditionary force," said Ryan. "We'll be expected to be expeditionary as far as I can see in the future. As far as our vision takes us to 2020, I see no lessening on the demand for us to move forward rapidly and to be able to execute very quickly. To do that, we need to get light and lean ... this is critical to the very nature of the business we do." REF XQQAS XQQTY XQQAR editor@defence-data.com _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #70 ******************************** 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