From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #72 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, September 20 2000 Volume 09 : Number 072 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** F-117 book recommendations net surfing Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] F-18E/F developed in record time Re: F-18E/F developed in record time JSF takes first flight - see video Re: F-18E/F developed in record time Re: net surfing Re: JSF takes first flight - see video Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] Good pic RE: Good pic Re: net surfing Re: Good pic Specific SR-71 Info RE: Good pic *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:07:04 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: F-117 book recommendations When I saw the flood of responses to my message, I though people were going to take me to task for my crankiness. Despite no one doing so, I still apologize - some days I just get that way... Related comments: > Jim Stevenson wrote: > 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? Look carefully at the comment of Patrick's I was responding to: > 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 was just saying that Aronstein was likely not a F-117 program manager and I doubted that Piccirillo was too. Yes, researchers can report accurately - sometimes more accurately than those of us blinded by the fog of battle. However, the contrary is also true - I have seen a lot of paper wasted by people printing horribly inaccurate reporting. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:38:06 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: net surfing i found this site while"surfing".it has some old B&W slides used in the 50s by the US Navy to train people to recognize USAF acft.some of them are interesting.(to me).Wayne Aircraft Recognition Photos http://aircraft.newspeak.org/ recently on some list(?) we were discussing the suitability/probability of using large jet transports (C-141,C-17s,C-5s)for fire fighting as suitable C-130s are getting hard to come by. guess it never occured to us that it might already have been done.click on this url and notice the last acft.,an IL76. http://www.airtanker.com/aap/pics/type1.html this is a large acft with a max take off weight of 374,790 lbs. has any one else heard of this acft being used for fire fighting work? for more on the IL76 co to this url. http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.simplenet.com/il76.html wayne _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 19 Sep 100 03:01:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] On 9/17/00 10:41PM, in message <200009180541.e8I5fZq00137@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > 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. > > > To explain my thoughts: If one is going to argue against the F-22, it should be done from a position of knowledge and with rational analysis. Simply saying that it's "Cold War" and implying that by definition that makes it a white elephant is stupid. Regarding Comanche, my heartburn is that it's taken so long to put this into service that its technology is in many ways now dated and its costs can no longer be justified. It offers little if any improvement over available alternatives, except possibly in noise abatement, but costs a Lot more. This is what happens when you first eliminate the best solutions and settle for second or third best and then try and do something on the cheap and keep stretchingit out. Of course, it also suffers from spending eight of its years in development under an Administration that didn't really want to develop anything and so was restructured so that the major money wouldn't come do until after said Administration was out of office. This is true of virtually every other large scale system under development as well, and this isn't a coincidence. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 04:37:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] > On 9/17/00 10:41PM, in message <200009180541.e8I5fZq00137@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, > Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > To explain my thoughts: If one is going to argue against the F-22, it > should be done from a position of knowledge and with rational analysis. Simply > saying that it's "Cold War" and implying that by definition that makes it a > white elephant is stupid. I agree with you on this point, perhaps I misunderstood your comments in your previous post. > Regarding Comanche, my heartburn is that it's taken so long to put this > into service that its technology is in many ways now dated and its costs can no > longer be justified. It offers little if any improvement over available > alternatives, except possibly in noise abatement, but costs a Lot more. This > is what happens when you first eliminate the best solutions and settle for > second or third best and then try and do something on the cheap and keep > stretchingit out. > > Of course, it also suffers from spending eight of its years in development > under an Administration that didn't really want to develop anything and so was > restructured so that the major money wouldn't come do until after said > Administration was out of office. This is true of virtually every other large > scale system under development as well, and this isn't a coincidence. > I agree, the RAH-66 Comanche and the F-22 have both suffered to varying degrees because of this and the Administration's utter disregard for the military and national security. However I support both projects despite their disproportionally hight cost which is in part due to the fact that the total program cost has been capped by Congress. I suspect the F-22 may end up costing 400mil a copy. I believe the government needs to fast-track a number of major programs to make up for the past 8 years of total neglect. I am also confident we are capable of designing and fielding a completely new major weapon system in under five years (instead of the 10-20 years it currently takes -- which is absolutely pathetic for a country as advanced as ours). The F-22 is almost 15-20 years old, as is the Comanche. Heck, I don't like the F-18E/F but it was developed in record time just because the brass liked it, which proves what we are capable of when we appropriate the right resources to a project. > > Art > > Sam PS I hope I'm wrong about this, but I have a feeling another war is right around the corner (some of our "dearest friends" are about to invade their neighbors yet again or so it would appear -- the timing of all the recent sabre rattling seems rather suspicious, don't you think?). CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:52:20 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-18E/F developed in record time on 9/19/00 4:37 PM, Sam Kaltsidis at skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu wrote: > Heck, I don't like the F-18E/F but it was developed in record time just > because > the brass liked it, which proves what we are capable of when we appropriate > the > right resources to a project. > > >> >> Art One could argue, since the military claims that the YF-17 was a prototype for the F-18A/B/C/D and the F-18A/B/C/D were prototypes for the F-18E/F, that it took over 20 years to develop the F-18E/F. You are more accurate to say it was built in record time, but then, why not with all that preceded it. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 100 14:14:34 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-18E/F developed in record time On 9/18/00 4:52PM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > on 9/19/00 4:37 PM, Sam Kaltsidis at skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu wrote: > > > Heck, I don't like the F-18E/F but it was developed in record time just > > because > > the brass liked it, which proves what we are capable of when we appropriate > > the > > right resources to a project. > > > > > >> > >> Art > > One could argue, since the military claims that the YF-17 was a prototype > for the F-18A/B/C/D and the F-18A/B/C/D were prototypes for the F-18E/F, > that it took over 20 years to develop the F-18E/F. > > You are more accurate to say it was built in record time, but then, why not > with all that preceded it. > > Jim Stevenson > > Hey wait a minute! I didn't say it was developed in record time! Let's compare the E/F's development with the record of, oh, ...say, the F-14. F-14: Totally new design using highly modified fire control still under development Contract awarded 1969 based on 1967-68 work; First flew 1970; IOC 1973-74; First deployment 1975. Award to first deployment: 6 years F/A-18E/F: Limited unique improvements over existing model, using existing, already developed fire control Contract awarded in 1991 based on 1986-87 work; First flew 1995; OPEVAL 1999, when full production authorized; IOC 2002; I don't have the initial deployment date immediately to hand, but it'll be at least a year behind that. Award to first deployment: 12 years. This is a record? Art (maybe another one?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:26:48 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: JSF takes first flight - see video This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0225F.2873B7E6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is slightly off-topic, but I figured alot of folks on here might enjoy this http://www.msnbc.com/news/462482.asp?0nm=N15N There is a story about the Boeing version taking its first flight, on Monday, and a short video (about 1:45) It is an UGLY plane, at least from the front! Greg W - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0225F.2873B7E6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable JSF takes first flight - see video

This is slightly off-topic, but I figured alot of = folks on here might enjoy this

http://www.msnbc.com/news/462482.asp?0nm=3DN15N

There is a story about the Boeing version taking its = first flight, on Monday, and a short video (about 1:45) 

It is an UGLY plane, at least from the front!

Greg W

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0225F.2873B7E6-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:58:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: F-18E/F developed in record time > On 9/18/00 4:52PM, in message , > "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > > on 9/19/00 4:37 PM, Sam Kaltsidis at skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu wrote: > > > > > Heck, I don't like the F-18E/F but it was developed in record time just > > > because > > > the brass liked it, which proves what we are capable of when we appropriate > > > the > > > right resources to a project. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Art > > > > One could argue, since the military claims that the YF-17 was a prototype > > for the F-18A/B/C/D and the F-18A/B/C/D were prototypes for the F-18E/F, > > that it took over 20 years to develop the F-18E/F. > > > > You are more accurate to say it was built in record time, but then, why not > > with all that preceded it. > > > > Jim Stevenson > > > > > > > Hey wait a minute! I didn't say it was developed in record time! > > Let's compare the E/F's development with the record of, oh, ...say, the > F-14. > > > > F-14: Totally new design using highly modified fire control still under > development > > Contract awarded 1969 based on 1967-68 work; First flew 1970; IOC > 1973-74; First deployment 1975. Award to first deployment: 6 years > > > > F/A-18E/F: Limited unique improvements over existing model, using > existing, already developed fire control > > Contract awarded in 1991 based on 1986-87 work; First flew 1995; OPEVAL > 1999, when full production authorized; IOC 2002; I don't have the initial > deployment date immediately to hand, but it'll be at least a year behind that. > Award to first deployment: 12 years. This is a record? > > > > Art (maybe another one?) > I should have clarified further, I meant record time for this administration in a post-cold war world (heck the P-51 was initially developed for the British in a few months wasn't it? It took the Skunk works just a few years to develop the A-12/SR-71 in the early 1960's didn't it?). Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not defending the administration, I was just commenting on how quickly the military could move if the brass wanted to move (relatively) fast (relative to other projects that have been around since the early or mid 1980's like the F-22, RAH-66, NMD, etc.). If the F-22 ever goes into service it will probably have been in development for well over 20 years. As always standard disclaimers apply, and please DO correct me if I'm wrong or I've have stuck my foot in my mouth yet again. Sam "kill the F/A-18E/F, save the F-14D+, F-22 and the JSF" CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:36:23 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: net surfing At 07:38 PM 9/18/00 GMT, you wrote: >i >recently on some list(?) we were discussing the suitability/probability of >using large jet transports (C-141,C-17s,C-5s)for fire fighting as suitable >C-130s are getting hard to come by. Hard to come by? maybe just locked in red-tape ? But checking the DM inventory list, I see 57 C-130's, 4 LC-130's and 6 AC-130's listed as being in storage at the Boneyard.. 16 A's 13 B's 3 D's 22 E's 2 F's 1 H and the 130 production line is still turning them out. J models, not sure about the H's Not being critical, just curious myself. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 100 05:25:41 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: JSF takes first flight - see video On 9/19/00 10:26AM, in message <416A5F46A2C3D31185B200104B61F8D2A5B58B@bly-msg-07.pmsc.com>, "Weigold, Greg" wrote: > This is slightly off-topic, but I figured alot of folks on here might enjoy > this > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/462482.asp?0nm=N15N > > There is a story about the Boeing version taking its first flight, on > Monday, and a short video (about 1:45) > > It is an UGLY plane, at least from the front! > Boeing has a two and six minute version posted. It IS an ugly plane. The production model will look substantially different and better, but not beautiful. If this turns out to be a beauty contest, Lockheed's got it knocked. Not to infer too much from this, but in the ATF competition, Northrop/MDD was going to be ready to fly way before Lockheed was, so the program was slowed to allow Lockheed to catch up and only be a month behind. Boeing's CTOL JSF demonstrator was going to fly some time ago, but Lockheed had encountered a number of problems. The Pentagon slowed the program, and now Lockheed's CTOL demonstrator's flight will only be a month behind. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 100 05:43:27 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Cold War Military Relics(OFF TOPIC?) [long response] On 9/19/00 1:37AM, in message <200009190837.e8J8bjU20713@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > I agree, the RAH-66 Comanche and the F-22 have both suffered to varying > degrees > because of this and the Administration's utter disregard for the military and > national security. However I support both projects despite their > disproportionally hight cost which is in part due to the fact that the total > program cost has been capped by Congress. I suspect the F-22 may end up > costing > 400mil a copy. > The flyaway of the F-22 will never get this high, it won't survive. I guess I need to clarify my clarifications: If we were starting from scratch today, I wouldn't favor developing a plane like the F-22. However, given that it's already here and so much R&D has been spent and it Is a very capable air-to-air platform (needs better armament, though), I'd favor producing it and improving its strike capability rather than starting over. I favor cancellation of RAH-66 because it no longer will provide us with anywhere near enough to justify its cost. They went with the wrong concept to begin with by writing Tilt-Rotor out of the competition, and as a helo, it's no longer That spectacular. In a month or so, the first AH-1Z (UltraCobra? KingCobra? Viper?)will fly, and there are already export orders for 150 of them. It will be the most capable and effective attack helo in the world. Add the Comanche's commo gear and you'll have a more capable vehicle for that mission at half the price. Won't happen though. If Army bought AH-1Zs, someone would surely ask why we are continuing with Apache Longbow, and That is not a door the Army wants to open! > I believe the government needs to fast-track a number of major programs to > make > up for the past 8 years of total neglect. I am also confident we are capable > of > designing and fielding a completely new major weapon system in under five > years > (instead of the 10-20 years it currently takes -- which is absolutely > pathetic > for a country as advanced as ours). The F-22 is almost 15-20 years old, as is > the Comanche. Depends on who wins in November, in Congress and in the White House. One side openly shows it's not interested. > > > Heck, I don't like the F-18E/F but it was developed in record time just > because > the brass liked it, which proves what we are capable of when we appropriate > the > right resources to a project. > > > > > > Art > > So, it was You! > > > PS I hope I'm wrong about this, but I have a feeling another war is right > around > the corner (some of our "dearest friends" are about to invade their neighbors > yet again or so it would appear -- the timing of all the recent sabre > rattling > seems rather suspicious, don't you think?). Hey, as long as those checks keep coming in, by definition nothing's wrong. > Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:59:14 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Good pic If you want to see a picture of a hush-hush program that lives a very public existence, see the picture at the bottom of page 63 of Terry Waddinton's new book "McDonnell Douglas DC-10; Great Airliners Volume Six". The aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX - I have seen it parked on the ramp there several times. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:55:06 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: Good pic This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02323.E1D8B67C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Its often been said that hiding in plain (plane) sight is the best way to keep something hidden! - -----Original Message----- From: David Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:59 PM To: Skunk Works Group Subject: Good pic If you want to see a picture of a hush-hush program that lives a very public existence, see the picture at the bottom of page 63 of Terry Waddinton's new book "McDonnell Douglas DC-10; Great Airliners Volume Six". The aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX - I have seen it parked on the ramp there several times. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02323.E1D8B67C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Good pic

Its often been said that hiding in plain (plane) sight is the best way to keep something hidden!

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:59 PM
To: Skunk Works Group
Subject: Good pic



        If you want to see a picture of a hush-hush program that lives a
very public existence, see the picture at the bottom of page 63 of Terry
Waddinton's new book "McDonnell Douglas DC-10; Great Airliners Volume
Six".  The aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX - I have
seen it parked on the ramp there several times.




- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02323.E1D8B67C-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:44:32 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: net surfing john,i think the "key" word here is "suitability".no one said that C-130s are not available.using C-130s as "water bombers" is very hard on the airframe,especially the center wing box structure.it requires an airframe in excellent condition with little or no corrosion and low overall flying time or one that has been or can be "reworked". a lot of them at DM have out lived there useful flying life,although they could maybe used for less strenuous work than fighting fires.the "J" model production line is behind schedule and probably wont have any for "civilian use for a while,if you could afford the 30-45 million dollar price tag(the"H" line is shut down).if you could find a "B" in good shape they would make a good bomber.maybe an "F".i don't think a "D" would work to good,as it is an "A" with "skis".most of the "Es" are high time and would need extensive work as there center wing torsion box would need major work to take the stress of flying at low level over mountainous terrain with wicked up draft due to fires.i think it was kelly johnson who said"airplanes are like people,the older they get the more they weigh"the "A" model is the lighest,and stripped to bare tanker configuration weighs about 70,000 lbs,with 20,000lbs fuel and 30,000lbs "payload" it takes off at 120,000 lbs and has a stall speed of about 95KTS.allthe other models weigh more and would have a higher stall speed.this is important whem you fly over a mountain and the bottom drops out. wayne - ----Original Message Follows---- From: John Szalay Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: net surfing Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:36:23 -0400 At 07:38 PM 9/18/00 GMT, you wrote: >i >recently on some list(?) we were discussing the suitability/probability of >using large jet transports (C-141,C-17s,C-5s)for fire fighting as suitable >C-130s are getting hard to come by. Hard to come by? maybe just locked in red-tape ? But checking the DM inventory list, I see 57 C-130's, 4 LC-130's and 6 AC-130's listed as being in storage at the Boneyard.. 16 A's 13 B's 3 D's 22 E's 2 F's 1 H and the 130 production line is still turning them out. J models, not sure about the H's Not being critical, just curious myself. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:14:03 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Good pic > If you want to see a picture of a hush-hush program that lives a > very public existence, see the picture at the bottom of page 63 of Terry > Waddinton's new book "McDonnell Douglas DC-10; Great Airliners Volume > Six". The aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX - I have > seen it parked on the ramp there several times. For those of us who don't have easy access to the book, could you tell us what it is? Please? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:33:35 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Specific SR-71 Info I'd like to find out some information about a specific SR-71 - #962. Can anyone point me in the direction of a resource ? I believe it set an altitude record in 1976 & was at Det 4 (RAF Mildenhall) for a while. It left Det 1(Kadena AB) for its last flight in Jan '90, and its been in flyable storage at Palmdale since then. Any help or corrections welcome Best David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:32:01 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: Good pic This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02331.6BE99A18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" or scan in the picture? - -----Original Message----- From: Allen Thomson [mailto:thomsona@flash.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 02:14 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Good pic > If you want to see a picture of a hush-hush program that lives a > very public existence, see the picture at the bottom of page 63 of Terry > Waddinton's new book "McDonnell Douglas DC-10; Great Airliners Volume > Six". The aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX - I have > seen it parked on the ramp there several times. For those of us who don't have easy access to the book, could you tell us what it is? Please? - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02331.6BE99A18 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Good pic

or scan in the picture?

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Thomson [mailto:thomsona@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 02:14 PM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: Re: Good pic


> If you want to see a picture of a hush-hush program that lives a
> very public existence, see the picture at the bottom of page 63 of Terry
> Waddinton's new book "McDonnell Douglas DC-10; Great Airliners Volume
> Six".  The aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX - I have
> seen it parked on the ramp there several times.


For those of us who don't have easy access to the book, could you tell us
what it is? Please?


- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02331.6BE99A18-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #72 ******************************** 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