From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #71 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, September 18 2000 Volume 09 : Number 071 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** F-117 book recommendations Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: F-117 book recommendations RE: F-117 book recommendations Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: F-117 book recommendations Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) Phantom Works PRANDTL-GLAUERT Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:32:24 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: F-117 book recommendations Erik wrote: >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. For the record, I posted a review of this book in this group, almost three years ago, when it first came out. Does anyone around here pay attention? Patrick wrote: > 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. I don't know about the other co-author, but David Aronstein is kinda young to have had anything to do with creating the F-117. As far as I know, they were both researchers paid to write the book. BTW - Aronstein now works at Raytheon/Beech. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:17:42 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations At 09/12/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Erik wrote: > > >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. > >For the record, I posted a review of this book in this group, almost three >years ago, when it first came out. Does anyone around here pay attention? > >Patrick wrote: > > > 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. > >I don't know about the other co-author, but David Aronstein is kinda young >to have had anything to do with creating the F-117. As far as I know, >they were both researchers paid to write the book. BTW - Aronstein now >works at Raytheon/Beech. > For what its worth......the book says Picirillo was a combat pilot in an F-4 in SE Asia. And in a phone conversation with me he indicated the book was actually a report he helped compile while working on the program with the AF. As far as the other guy.....dunno! Thanks for the clarification. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:04:28 -0400 (EDT) From: george.allegrezza@altavista.net Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations Erik wrote: > 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. I can't speak about the F-117 book, but their F-22 book is very well-done. I highly recommend it. (It also has a chapter on the 117 just to confuse things.) As I'm sure you all know, Piccirillo was the PEO for the ATF for 83-87. Even this book, however, doesn't give a satisfying answer as to why ATF was reoriented from air-to-dirt to ar-to-air in 1982. It's a mystery, as Sister Irene would have said. George - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:04:25 -0400 (EDT) From: george.allegrezza@altavista.net Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations Erik wrote: > 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. I can't speak about the F-117 book, but their F-22 book is very well-done. I highly recommend it. (It also has a chapter on the 117 just to confuse things.) As I'm sure you all know, Piccirillo was the PEO for the ATF for 83-87. Even this book, however, doesn't give a satisfying answer as to why ATF was reoriented from air-to-dirt to ar-to-air in 1982. It's a mystery, as Sister Irene would have said. George - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:32:40 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations >Erik wrote: > >> 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. > >I can't speak about the F-117 book, but their F-22 book is very >well-done. I highly recommend it. (It also has a chapter on the 117 >just to confuse things.) As I'm sure you all know, Piccirillo was >the PEO for the ATF for 83-87. > >Even this book, however, doesn't give a satisfying answer as to why >ATF was reoriented from air-to-dirt to ar-to-air in 1982. It's a >mystery, as Sister Irene would have said. > This article might answer that question: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/apr_98/apra_98.html 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: F-117 book recommendations Dan Zinngrabe [mailto:quellish@gte.net] wrote in part: > >Even this book, however, doesn't give a satisfying answer as to why > >ATF was reoriented from air-to-dirt to ar-to-air in 1982. It's a > >mystery, as Sister Irene would have said. > > This article might answer that question: > http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/apr_98/apra_98.html This is certainly an interesting article (thanks for the link) - I was however surprised to see the following: "The ATF would not be the first military aircraft capable of supercruising. This title belongs to the B-58 Hustler. The B-58, however, had to employ its afterburners or dive steeply to accelerate through the transonic drag to get to the flight condition where it could supercruise. The F-16XL and newer-model F-16s are capable of supersonic flight without afterburner as well." Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I did not know that this was the case with the B-58 or the later F-16s (I need to check Jay Miller's B-58 book again). Is the above quote in agreement with other's understandings? Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:13:00 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) i am not sure i agree with every thing Mr.Cardamone has to say,and i suspect like every one else he tends to slant things toward his personal point of view,however he is entitled to his point of view.read the article and make up your own mind.(i am posting this to more than one group,and it may be "OFF TOPIC" for some.please use your "DELETE" button now if that is the case)click on the URL,"for the rest of the story" wayne "Cold War Military Relics: Why Congress Funds Them" 9-13-00 From: Foreign Policy in Focus Thomas A. Cardamone, Jr. In the post cold war era, powerful legislators from both parties continue to see the Pentagon budget as a jobs program for constituents. Too often, funds are allocated for expensive weapons programs and equipment that lack a mission. A bold and reasonable defense policy should cut all research and development funds for unneeded and unworkable cold war relics, including the national missile defense system. More... http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol5/v5n29relics.html _________________________________________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:44:34 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations on 9/13/00 12:32 AM, David Lednicer at dave@amiwest.com wrote: > I don't know about the other co-author, but David Aronstein is kinda young > to have had anything to do with creating the F-117. As far as I know, > they were both researchers paid to write the book. BTW - Aronstein now > works at Raytheon/Beech. I don't understand the meaning of this comment. Are you saying that one has to have worked on a project to be able to accurately report on it? What does the fact that they were paid to write it have to do with the quality of the book? Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:46:21 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 book recommendations on 9/13/00 10:04 PM, george.allegrezza@altavista.net at george.allegrezza@altavista.net wrote: > Even this book, however, doesn't give a satisfying answer as to why ATF was > reoriented from air-to-dirt to ar-to-air in 1982. It's a mystery, as Sister > Irene would have said. To preserve the program. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:45:33 GMT From: "Kelly Burns" Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) I agree with wayne binkley. Mr. Cardamone you do slat things to YOUR personal point of view. Kelly Burns >From: "wayne binkley" >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:13:00 GMT > > > >i am not sure i agree with every thing Mr.Cardamone has to say,and i >suspect >like every one else he tends to slant things toward his personal point of >view,however he is entitled to his point of view.read the article and make >up your own mind.(i am posting this to more than one group,and it may be >"OFF TOPIC" for some.please use your "DELETE" button now if that is the >case)click on the URL,"for the rest of the story" >wayne > > > > > >"Cold War Military Relics: Why Congress Funds Them" 9-13-00 >From: Foreign Policy in Focus >Thomas A. Cardamone, Jr. >In the post cold war era, powerful legislators from both parties continue >to >see the Pentagon budget as a jobs program for constituents. Too often, >funds >are allocated for expensive weapons programs and equipment that lack a >mission. A bold and reasonable defense policy should cut all research and >development funds for unneeded and unworkable cold war relics, including >the >national missile defense system. More... > > >http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol5/v5n29relics.html > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >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. > > _________________________________________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:56:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Phantom Works A nice article of Phantom Works. http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0010/FR0010f.htm May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ " From knowing himself and knowing his airplane so well that he can come somewhere close to touching, in his own special and solitary way, that thing that is called perfection." Richard Bach, 'A Gift of Wings' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:54:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: PRANDTL-GLAUERT Prandtl-Glauert singularity is the exact name of what it was discuss long time ago... http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/gallery/conden/pg_sing.htm May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ " From knowing himself and knowing his airplane so well that he can come somewhere close to touching, in his own special and solitary way, that thing that is called perfection." Richard Bach, 'A Gift of Wings' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Sep 100 21:02:05 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] >I agree with wayne binkley. Mr. Cardamone you do slat things to YOUR >personal point of view. Kelly Burns >From: "wayne binkley" >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:13:00 GMT Finally got a chance to look at Mr. Cardamone's article. It's the kind of smug drivel, that not very knowledgeable self-preening people write when they want to impress people that already agree with them on how clever they all are. It's loaded with bogus information, deceptive phrasing and plain ignorance. To wit: " The U.S. spends 50% of its discretionary budget on the military and a mere 2% on foreign aid. " Note how "discretionary" budget is used to create a deceptive impression about the size of the DoD budget. The vast majority of the Federal budget is "non-discretionary", as Cardamone has to know. By only counting the "discretionary" budget, he misleads the reader and inflates the % of the budget that goes to DoD. For those unfamiliar, the discretionary portionprotion of the budget is that part where Congress says, "You have this much to spend; Once you've spent that, you either have to stop or get more money from us". DoD, NASA and some other agencies fall in here. That's shy so many aircraft are being put into storage for the rest of the fiscal year, there's no money to fly them because we're wasting sd much in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, etc. The non-discretionary portion is much larger and includes the welfare and social and "entitlement" programs. Here Congress says, "You have this much money to spend; Once you've spent it, however, if the year's not over you can go right on and can keep spending without limit". That's why all talk of an actual Federal budget "balance" or "surplus" is so much smoke and mirrors. What is put forth as the budget each year is accurate only for the minority of the spending that is discretionary. "So, given that 1) the U.S. no longer faces a credible military enemy,..." Ah, this must be why we have no troops deployed abroad and our Air Force and Navy's operational tempos are so low. This is a classic case of jumping from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion. "Much of the current debate over another expensive cold war relic, the national missile defense system, has focused on its size and when— not whether—it should be built. The options range from a “limited” $60 billion system (backed by candidate Gore)..." Virtually Everything in this paragraph is wrong. Special attention should be made of, ".. it 1) could be overwhelmed with decoys..." Anything can be overwhelmed by decoys if there 're enough of them, they have all the complexity needed and you have the science and production capacity to build them. However, the facts that no one who the proposed NMD is designed to defend against have the above or are projected to get them and that once you've built the defense system it's easier to defeat the decoys than it is to build and deploy the decoys are overlooked. "If the NMD system is shelved by the next president, military experts say these theater systems, several of which are scheduled to be available by 2007, could be expanded to cover the entire United States. " No doubt these unnamed "experts" are in the employ of the organization that funds Cardamone's fantasies. There is virtually no commonality between the NMD requirements/capabilities and those of theater systems. They "...could be expanded to cover the entire United States", but unless Oklahoma feels the need to defend itself against tactical missiles lobbed at it from Kansas, there doesn't seem much point. "One such system, the Crusader, will cost over $9 billion if all 480 are eventually built. Development of this 100-ton behemoth was not deterred by the reality that its lighter predecessor, the 69-ton Abrams tank...". The Abrams is not a predecessor of the Crusader, and in fact there is no relationship between them. Anyone who actually had any knowledge about either of these systems would know that, but why let facts get in the way? "...cold war weapons programs the Pentagon continues to tout as vital to U.S. security. Other such programs include the Navy’s new attack submarine (NSSN), which will cost over $65 billion". Again, if Cardamone actually knew what he was writing about he'd be aware that the Cold War submarine class, the Seawolf, was stopped at three units. NSSN was specifically designed around post-Cold War requirements. "And although the U.S. already fields the world’s premier sub—the Los Angeles class..." If Cardamone journeys to where actual submarines are, he will see a large number of low-time LA class SSNs awaiting scrapping because the ADministration won't provide the funds to refuel them. In addition, most of the industrial base to build LA class subs no longer exists. They use older techniques and skills that are not available any longer. Even if we wanted to build new LAs, they would cost more than NSSNs. It's worthy of note that the only weapon system that all the services unanimously and unreservedly support to be increased are SSNs. "...the probability of an enemy sub force challenging or surpassing the current U.S. fleet is remote". This is a nonsense statement, as no one is expecting vast undersea battles between fleets of subs. The question is, how many subs do you need to do all the things you want subs to do? An new LA class sub is more than a match for a SSK threatening a sea lane, but if the LA is 3,000 nm away, the SSK wins. Our SSNs are horribly over tasked now and can't keep up with their current assignments, yet announced plans task them with increased workload for all the services. That's why even USAF wants us to increase the size of the sub force. "...30 NSSN subs will be built by 2006". Lessee here, Virginia is supposed to be delivered in 2004 (delivery does not mean into service; That takes at least another year). Texas delivers in 2005. No delivery date has been set for Hawaii, and the only other one authorized (but not yet funded) doesn't even have a name yet. Guess 2006 is gonna be one hell of a year for NSSNs with 28 being delivered. --Whoever came up with the above statement's a boob. "... If just three of the programs noted above—F-22, Crusader, and new attack sub—were nixed, the CBO estimates the 10-year savings would be more than $62 billion". Duh. If you picked other systems, say the Super Hornet, you could save a different amount (I wold also get rid of Comanche, BTW). In fact, if you simply eliminated the Department of Defense and NASA, You Could Save Even MORE! This statement is meaningless. If you don't do something, it usually means the money to do it isn't spent. This truism, of course, does not apply to money funneled to Russia. A rational analysis, which this isn't, would describe what shouldn't be built, why and what if anything should be done in its place. For example, there might indeed be a good case against the F-22. But just saying, "it's a Cold War system" isn't it. Of course it's a Cold War system, and if we were starting today we'd build something different. But the F-22 already exists. The question is, assuming it performs as advertised, is it worth the cost? Supercruise, hyperagility stealth and advanced radar may all be Cold War initiated, but they just might be nice to have if you're confronted by a flight of exported Rafales. The question should be are its capabilities worthwhile things to have relative to what else we could do with the money? There's nothing like that in this piece, just cliches and pious bleatings For example, "... during the 1996 election cycle, the top 25 arms exporters gave a record $10.8 million”. Chump change; Heck, the Chinese and Indonesian interests came through with more than that! This works out to an average of $432,000 each. You can barely buy a night in the Lincoln Bedroom for that! You want to see Real money going into politico's hands nationwide? Check out contributions from the teachers' unions. Sorry, he reason I ranted so long is that there is a lot of this swill floating around masquerading as informed analysis. This kind of stuff gets far more credibility than it deserves. One of its many unfortunate results is that good analysis and legitimate questioning of where we're going gets swamped by all the dreck and so the train wreck gets ever closer. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:41:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] > Sorry, he reason I ranted so long is that there is a lot of this swill > floating around masquerading as informed analysis. This kind of stuff gets far > more credibility than it deserves. One of its many unfortunate results is that > good analysis and legitimate questioning of where we're going gets swamped by > all the dreck and so the train wreck gets ever closer. > > > > > > Art I agree with Art on everything except the F-22 and the Comanche and I also agree with Wayne on his assessment of Mr. Cardamone's article. Next thing you know people are going to propose that we outsource our national defense to China... We seem to be suffering from post-WWI and WWII disarmament syndrome yet again... ... every time the US and its allies disarm other parties always try to take advantage of the situation. Recent seemingly successful military operations have given the US public the mistaken impression that we can deal with any potential foe, however this is not the case -- our complacency and false sense of security will surely result in much suffering and perhaps our destruction. Even though the US is the only remaining Superpower in the world, we are also the most vulnerable power in the world. I will not comment on our vulnerabilities publicly at this time, but most of them are obvious. "Concerned and Quasi-paranoid" Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:43:28 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] thanks art.you really ripped him a new one. wayne. - ----Original Message Follows---- From: betnal@ns.net Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] Date: Sun, 17 Sep 100 21:02:05 GMT >I agree with wayne binkley. Mr. Cardamone you do slat things to YOUR >personal point of view. Kelly Burns >From: "wayne binkley" >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:13:00 GMT Finally got a chance to look at Mr. Cardamone's article. It's the kind of smug drivel, that not very knowledgeable self-preening people write when they want to impress people that already agree with them on how clever they all are. It's loaded with bogus information, deceptive phrasing and plain ignorance. To wit: " The U.S. spends 50% of its discretionary budget on the military and a mere 2% on foreign aid. " Note how "discretionary" budget is used to create a deceptive impression about the size of the DoD budget. The vast majority of the Federal budget is "non-discretionary", as Cardamone has to know. By only counting the "discretionary" budget, he misleads the reader and inflates the % of the budget that goes to DoD. For those unfamiliar, the discretionary portionprotion of the budget is that part where Congress says, "You have this much to spend; Once you've spent that, you either have to stop or get more money from us". DoD, NASA and some other agencies fall in here. That's shy so many aircraft are being put into storage for the rest of the fiscal year, there's no money to fly them because we're wasting sd much in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, etc. The non-discretionary portion is much larger and includes the welfare and social and "entitlement" programs. Here Congress says, "You have this much money to spend; Once you've spent it, however, if the year's not over you can go right on and can keep spending without limit". That's why all talk of an actual Federal budget "balance" or "surplus" is so much smoke and mirrors. What is put forth as the budget each year is accurate only for the minority of the spending that is discretionary. "So, given that 1) the U.S. no longer faces a credible military enemy,..." Ah, this must be why we have no troops deployed abroad and our Air Force and Navy's operational tempos are so low. This is a classic case of jumping from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion. "Much of the current debate over another expensive cold war relic, the national missile defense system, has focused on its size and when— not whether—it should be built. The options range from a “limited” $60 billion system (backed by candidate Gore)..." Virtually Everything in this paragraph is wrong. Special attention should be made of, ".. it 1) could be overwhelmed with decoys..." Anything can be overwhelmed by decoys if there 're enough of them, they have all the complexity needed and you have the science and production capacity to build them. However, the facts that no one who the proposed NMD is designed to defend against have the above or are projected to get them and that once you've built the defense system it's easier to defeat the decoys than it is to build and deploy the decoys are overlooked. "If the NMD system is shelved by the next president, military experts say these theater systems, several of which are scheduled to be available by 2007, could be expanded to cover the entire United States. " No doubt these unnamed "experts" are in the employ of the organization that funds Cardamone's fantasies. There is virtually no commonality between the NMD requirements/capabilities and those of theater systems. They "...could be expanded to cover the entire United States", but unless Oklahoma feels the need to defend itself against tactical missiles lobbed at it from Kansas, there doesn't seem much point. "One such system, the Crusader, will cost over $9 billion if all 480 are eventually built. Development of this 100-ton behemoth was not deterred by the reality that its lighter predecessor, the 69-ton Abrams tank...". The Abrams is not a predecessor of the Crusader, and in fact there is no relationship between them. Anyone who actually had any knowledge about either of these systems would know that, but why let facts get in the way? "...cold war weapons programs the Pentagon continues to tout as vital to U.S. security. Other such programs include the Navy’s new attack submarine (NSSN), which will cost over $65 billion". Again, if Cardamone actually knew what he was writing about he'd be aware that the Cold War submarine class, the Seawolf, was stopped at three units. NSSN was specifically designed around post-Cold War requirements. "And although the U.S. already fields the world’s premier sub—the Los Angeles class..." If Cardamone journeys to where actual submarines are, he will see a large number of low-time LA class SSNs awaiting scrapping because the ADministration won't provide the funds to refuel them. In addition, most of the industrial base to build LA class subs no longer exists. They use older techniques and skills that are not available any longer. Even if we wanted to build new LAs, they would cost more than NSSNs. It's worthy of note that the only weapon system that all the services unanimously and unreservedly support to be increased are SSNs. "...the probability of an enemy sub force challenging or surpassing the current U.S. fleet is remote". This is a nonsense statement, as no one is expecting vast undersea battles between fleets of subs. The question is, how many subs do you need to do all the things you want subs to do? An new LA class sub is more than a match for a SSK threatening a sea lane, but if the LA is 3,000 nm away, the SSK wins. Our SSNs are horribly over tasked now and can't keep up with their current assignments, yet announced plans task them with increased workload for all the services. That's why even USAF wants us to increase the size of the sub force. "...30 NSSN subs will be built by 2006". Lessee here, Virginia is supposed to be delivered in 2004 (delivery does not mean into service; That takes at least another year). Texas delivers in 2005. No delivery date has been set for Hawaii, and the only other one authorized (but not yet funded) doesn't even have a name yet. Guess 2006 is gonna be one hell of a year for NSSNs with 28 being delivered. --Whoever came up with the above statement's a boob. "... If just three of the programs noted above—F-22, Crusader, and new attack sub—were nixed, the CBO estimates the 10-year savings would be more than $62 billion". Duh. If you picked other systems, say the Super Hornet, you could save a different amount (I wold also get rid of Comanche, BTW). In fact, if you simply eliminated the Department of Defense and NASA, You Could Save Even MORE! This statement is meaningless. If you don't do something, it usually means the money to do it isn't spent. This truism, of course, does not apply to money funneled to Russia. A rational analysis, which this isn't, would describe what shouldn't be built, why and what if anything should be done in its place. For example, there might indeed be a good case against the F-22. But just saying, "it's a Cold War system" isn't it. Of course it's a Cold War system, and if we were starting today we'd build something different. But the F-22 already exists. The question is, assuming it performs as advertised, is it worth the cost? Supercruise, hyperagility stealth and advanced radar may all be Cold War initiated, but they just might be nice to have if you're confronted by a flight of exported Rafales. The question should be are its capabilities worthwhile things to have relative to what else we could do with the money? There's nothing like that in this piece, just cliches and pious bleatings For example, "... during the 1996 election cycle, the top 25 arms exporters gave a record $10.8 million”. Chump change; Heck, the Chinese and Indonesian interests came through with more than that! This works out to an average of $432,000 each. You can barely buy a night in the Lincoln Bedroom for that! You want to see Real money going into politico's hands nationwide? Check out contributions from the teachers' unions. Sorry, he reason I ranted so long is that there is a lot of this swill floating around masquerading as informed analysis. This kind of stuff gets far more credibility than it deserves. One of its many unfortunate results is that good analysis and legitimate questioning of where we're going gets swamped by all the dreck and so the train wreck gets ever closer. Art _________________________________________________________________________ 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 #71 ******************************** 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