From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #10 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 Sunday, April 1 2001 Volume 10 : Number 010 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR-71 Reunion B-2 Spotting RE: F-22 vs. JSF STEAMY BESS et al Selective Stealth RE: F-22 vs. JSF AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue Re: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue RE: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue RE: F-22 vs. JSF Re: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue RE: F-22 vs. JSF RE: F-22 vs. JSF Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American super spy plane. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:59:52 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: SR-71 Reunion Martin Hurst wrote: > > According to the Leland R. Haynes (Msgt USAF, Ret)'s website, > http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srreco~1.htm > > the Blackbird Reunion - 2001, is coming up: > ------------------------------------------------- > For those personnel that are members of the Blackbird Association, the > Reunion > will be held on June 08-10, 2001 at the Nugget Hotel in Reno, Nevada. The > emphasis this year will be on the SR-71. Plan to attend. > ------------------------------------------------- > > Is anyone planning to go to it, or has gone to these in the past? > > Sounds like a great opportunity to meet and listen to those special > individuals, as they get on in years. > > -Martin I get their newsletter but cannot afford to go. I've noticed that as each issue comes out, there are fewer things going on. And the list of members of the real projects keeps showing more and more passing on. Al ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:42:21 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: B-2 Spotting On 25/03/2001 at 22:19:09, Jim Stevenson (jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com) wrote: >There is a world of difference between the readings of a pole model that is >as slick as a wore-down glacier and a real-world aircraft that has rivets, >flaps, openings, etc. As a point of fact, I spoke with a pilot who has >picked up the B-2 at 100 miles. Although to be fair, when not in "shhhh, secret, going to bomb the bad guys" mode, the "stealth" aircraft usually carry scabbed-on radar reflectors so that Joe Bizjetflyer doesn't inadvertently run into them. This is actually a problem in a shooting war situation, since the communications and control usually has to make gaps in its conventional (i.e. radar noisy) traffic to let the slick skins slide through. An enemy command and control that is on the ball can spot these gaps, which is why the first things that get attacked are communications networks. Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately by telephoning +44(1252) 373232. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 101 07:13:29 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF These two aircraft are an interesting example of technologyh and politics. I'd like to add some comments (not arguements) to Timothy's post On 3/24/01 9:05AM, in message , "T. Toth" wrote: > These aircraft are suposed to complement one another not compete. This is an absolute mandate if USAF is to stay in the program. Nothing, repeat NOTHING will be allowed to compete with or threaten the F-22. A number of JSF requirements were reduced specifically for this reason. USAF wants the plane to be good, but not too good. > The F-22 > is designed almost exclusively for air-superiority where as the JSF's > air-to-air performance is almost secondary The F-22 has substantial air-to-ground potential, but until lately USAF has not been willing to talk about it. I addition to the internal bays, it has four underwing weapons capable pylons. It's an open secret that the AF intends to replace the F-15E with the -22, and plans a couple of years back openly envisioned the F-117 being retired early in order to make room for strike F-22s. > (it is supposed to replace the > F-16, A-10 and Harrier, and for eg. in the case of the British would be > complemented by the Typhoon). As an air-to-air fighter, it only suffers dramatically in comparison with the F-22. Since a number of the onboard systems have not yet been specified, exact companions with the European aircraft are premature. It's worthy of note that it is a generation beyond them and at least a half generation beyond the F-22. It will be a Much better air-to-air and air-to-ground platform than the F/A-18E/F; it will also cost less. > In addition to this the JSF is a cheap figther with emphasis on low > acquisition and maintenance costs and in a lot of instances, easely > available enhancements to performance (eg. stealth) have been abandonned to > reduce these costs. > The F-22 will be much stealthier (RCS 0,005 sq.m.) than all versions of the > JSF (theselves having different RCS but at least 0.01 requirement is > for -30dB). Stealth was backed off for cost reasons, although it will stealthier than anything except the F-22 and B-2. Of course, the desire not to threaten the F-22 had a role here too. One of the losses was apparently "smart skin", a technology appearing apparently too late to be incorporated into the F-22 design. > The F-22 radar will be better (based on same design but much > more powerfull. Apparently system integration and data fusion will be better > on JSF probably just because it is newer). The JSF's radar has not yet been selected although a variant of the F-22's radar is up for consideration. The F-22's radar has higher power and its AESA will have more elements. On the other hand, the processing power of the JSF will be more capable and faster, a reflection of ten years' newer technology, which will serve to compensate for the fewer elements. > And as far as manoeuvrability is > concerned the F-22 will be better(JSF is only supposed to be capable > of -3g/+8g). Actually, both JSF designs could match the F-22's g capabilities, the question is whether or not the customer is willing to pay for the structure to be incorporated into the design. In the past year, the answer to that question seems to have moved from "no" to yes". > Concerning the AOA it seems requirements where ; F-22 60+ deg. AOA, anf for > JSF 20+deg AOA. Both have reached theirrequirenments. The F-22 even had to > perform extreme manouevers and High AOA with central weapon bays open (once > again showing emphasis on air-to-air combat. The AoA requirements for production JSFs have not yet been specified. It's likely, though that they will be less than that of F-22. JSf will be able to separate weapons under extremely conditions as well. it's all a function of how much we're willing to pay. As air-to-air missiles become more agile and have a larger seeker envelope, extreme AoA (and g capability) in the aircraft becomes less important than they have been. > > > > PS: just a stupid question but, I assume that the STOVL version of JSF will > be capable of a much higher AOA. Is this correct? In theory it could, due to the Reaction Control System, but in practice that probably won't be exploited. The STOVL version has no particular reason to operate at extreme AoAs. Now, if the JSF were designed to use the RCS in high AoA maneuvers and post stall conditions, combining this with the vectored thrust would produce an aircraft that would be unbelievably agile. There doesn't seem to be much interest in this, though. Keep in mind that we aren't even to the point of prototypes with JSF Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:19:13 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: STEAMY BESS et al Bill Turner, 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net wrote: >Hiya! >'Steamy Bess'??? >Robin, that's one of the WEIRDEST callsigns >I've ever heard/seen! :-))) It's a sad story. Pour yourself a stiff drink, pull up an easy chair and I'll tell you. Many years ago there was a happy little aerospace company called British Aerospace and an even happier avionics company called Marconi Systems, who in turn were made up of a lot of other happy little aerospace companies whose ancestry could be traced back all the way to pioneering flying machine bit designers and manufacturers like Avro, Link, Miles, Supermarine, Hawker-Siddeley and Blackburns. Then it got a wee bit expensive to design and build whizz-jets, and the beancounters and paper shufflers had this Utterly Brilliant idea of wrapping up all these little companies into one Ginormous lump, trim off all the duplicate parts of this new megacorp and this lean, mean, sharp-point-of-hypertechnology supergroup could whup them colonials and their various tinbashing efforts. While this was fine in principle (one company designs the flying machines, the other the boxes that used the electrickery and the wiggly amps, both working together to integrate one into 't' other). In practice it was a bit like gluing a haddock to a donkey and trying to persuade them to fly, and it's only down to the reams of good will carefully nurtured over the years that we (former British Aerospace and Marconi people) have survived this long without ripping each others' throats out. But what really nipped everybody's nuts over this deal was the massive waste of money rebranding the "new" company - you may be familiar with the interlocking circles, which look great as an animated computer graphic on a presentation video, but when put onto the front page of a document just look like a confusing mess. The company has evidently fallen for Dogbert's "Brown ring of quality" joke (when challenged to produce a logo for the project he's advising on, Dogbert picks up his coffee mug from the piece of paper it's resting on to reveal the spilled coffee stain it left behind). The symbol is universally (and utterly unofficially) referred to as the "Brown Ring of Quality" for this reason When the new corporate name, BAE SYSTEMS, was revealed, we were told that the BAE came from "British Aerospace" and the SYSTEMS came from "Marconi Systems". Riiiggghhhtt. This argument was about as convincing as when British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and Hawker Syddeley Aviation (HSA) were merged to form British Aerospace (BAe). Incidentally, the "BAE" in BAE SYSTEMS doesn't officially mean anything - it's just a three letter word, though we haven't had any guidance as to how it's supposed to be pronounced. There is an official policy regarding the use of the company name. It is always to be written in capitals (i.e. BAE SYSTEMS, never BAe Systems) and never, ever, under pain of having a finger wagged at you, truncated or abbreviated. It's all or nothing, mister! The name-symbol has a specified font, and must be printed as white on a red background (which has its own Pantone colour, of course, which is almost but not quite exactly the same colour as Microsoft's "Red"). The design of this logo, apparently, cost in excess of three quarters of a million pounds. It's a pity, then, that it is so like a cross between the old British European Airways (BEA) logo of the 1960's, the British Post Office Logo (which, to save embarrassment, has now renamed itself Consignia") and a "pack it high, sell it cheap" convenience store called "SPAR". A four-year-old with a box of crayons and a big piece of drawing paper could have come up with something better. (What is it with this corporate desire to rename the company every few years? Do the people who make these decisions have shares in PR companies and design studios? Or do they think that disguising a failing company will fool customers into thinking it's a dynamic new organisation that will magically solve all their problems overnight? An why do they choose such daft, neutered names - British Steel became Corus. All that reminds me of is "Corrosion", hardly a word I'd want to associate with a company that produces structural metals. Oh, and there's the argument "...we're in an international market. Johnny Foreigner doesn't like to do business with companies that have 'British' in their names, it puts them off." Yeah, like it puts me off when my company no longer has any faith in my country of birth, and 'British Made' is no longer a thing to be proud of.) I use the anagram STEAMY BESS as a call-sign because I think this whole "capital letters, no abbreviation, brown ring of quality" Bunch of Feckin' Ar5e deserves as much ridicule as we can heap upon it, and I know I'm not an isolated case. I consider it an insult to the former Marconi side of the business, the name of which has been consigned to the trash bin of corporate megalomania along with such fine names as Fairey, Bristol, Sopwith and the like. Some time ago a flurry of anagrams appeared. These, apart from a couple of die-hard ones like STEAMY BESS and MESSY BEAST have gone the way of the passenger pigeon and the tail wheel. I've encountered the following variants: E, MY BEST ASS BET ME SASSY MESSY BEAST STEAMY BESS SEE MY STABS BASTE MY SES MATES BESSY YES, BE MASTS SEB'S MATEYS BEAMS TESSY MESS BEASTY SAM BEST? YES! STEAM BY ESS And the following were supplied courtesy of an anagram utility nicked off the World Wide Wait: A messy best My! 'e's beasts My base sets Mess by east Mess by seat 'e's messy bat My best seas As bye stems By sat seems Abyss meets My! beset ass Set embassy Byte masses My bats sees Yes mess tab Yes met bass Mess by a set By sea stems Bet mess say Messy betas Mess bye sat A bytes mess My! 'e's best as Mess set bay My! as be sets Stay mess be Betsey mass By mats sees My! 'e's bet ass By at messes My bass tees Mass by tees My see stabs 'e's mess by at Bassy meets Bye seats Ms Bases yet Ms Ya! bets mess Essay bet Ms Say stems be 'e's byte mass My asses bet Me bays sets Me ass bytes Bye Ms asset Seams bytes Yes bet as Ms By ass's meet My! 'e's basset Bats Ms eyes 'e's sty beams Set by masse My! sea's best Met, 'e's abyss By as 'em sets Sty bases me Beset say Ms My beast ess My! 'e's bets as Mess beasty Mess a Betsy By SSE mates Bee Ms stays Am 'e's sets by My ess beats 'em, by assets 'e's Ms by eats 'e's Ms by teas 'e's yams best Ta! 'e's mess by Masse bytes Met ass's bye A system's be Easy Ms bets Set by Ms sea Yes be masts Bye sets Sam Tee by Ms ass Yes best Sam By as 'e's stem Ms by sat see Eye stabs Ms Steam by ess By ATS seems Messy, t base Sb mates yes Betsy me ass 'e's Ms by a set Eat messy sb Set bassy me Seas Mbytes Byte Ms seas By SSE teams 'e's stems aby Ta! by Ms sees Messy tb sea Messy bs tea Messy beats Messy as bet By ass meets By seam sets By eats mess By teas mess 'e's messy tab By same sets My! 'e's basest My! set bases Abysses met Ya! best mess Bat yes mess A messy bets My! sees tabs Yes bet mass Me as by sets Me by assets Best says me Messy Bates Set bye mass Mess as byte Messy be sat By Ms teases Ms beats yes Yes beast Ms By ass teems By mast sees By seams set My be assets My stab sees 'e's bay stems Set by me ass Masts by see Easy best Ms A be systems Met by 'e's ass 'e's a stems by Baste messy By asses met Me stabs yes My! bets seas Abyss teems 'e's bye masts Says bets me 'e's steams by By seas stem Ta! by messes By tea's mess My! set be ass Set abyss me A bye sets Ms My! bat's sees 'em best says Bayes stems Eyes, Ms tabs Bye as set Ms Seem by Tass My beast SSE Yes best a Ms My basest ES By ess mates My! 'e's 'e's tabs Stem bye ass My ES beasts My SSE beats 'e's Ms by east 'e's Ms by seat 'e's best mays Ms sees by at Sty bee mass Set Sam's bye Bat messy ES Bet Sam's yes Betsey as Ms Ya! 'e's best Ms Beys met ass 'em set by ass Messy tab ES Betsy seams Eyes stab Ms Ms as by tees Aby mess set Steam by SSE Beat messy S 'e's steamy bs My bs teases My! best as ES Yb meets ass Eat messy bs BAM sets yes Beys mess at Sam's Betsey By ess teams Says beet Ms Ms sea bytes >Any news on the BAe (Warton?) Triangle/Stealth for us?! I am currently working on the first fifteen castings. They've been cleaned up and are waiting to be painted. Patience, my preciousssss..... Robin Hill, E, MY BEST ASS, Brough, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately by telephoning +44(1252) 373232. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:52:44 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Selective Stealth patrick cullumber queried: >At 03/27/2001 08:42 AM, I wrote: >>This is actually a >>problem in a shooting war situation, since the communications and control >>usually has to make gaps in its conventional (i.e. radar noisy) traffic to >>let the slick skins slide through. An enemy command and control that is on the >>ball can spot these gaps, which is why the first things that get attacked are >>communications networks. >Robin, >Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I catch your drift. According to a Gulf Air War debrief I read (can't remember the actual refererence at the moment, I'll see if I can track it down) the stealth forces fly through sectors that are sequentially cleared by the command and control operators. The idea is that if an enemy command, control and intelligence gathering network is up to speed, it can spot trends in the movement of aircraft it *can* see (i.e. the non-stealthy traffic) and infer the movement of the stealthy stuff from the way the other traffic is behaving, and can concentrate its sensors and ground- based defences appropriately. This requires a high degree of integration between the intelligence gathering and fire control communications, which is why the early phases of the air war were concerned with knocking out the Iraqi communications networks. Stealth operators are faced with the dilemma of making their aircraft truly stealthy (sensor invisible, including thermal and optical signatures) and risking being flown into by conventional aircraft, or making them have "leaky stealth" (transponders, selective reflectors, night-vision system compatible formation lights and so on) and risking being spotted by an enemy that has the same level of technology at their disposal to exploit these ideas. Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately by telephoning +44(1252) 373232. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 2001 12:25:24 -0800 From: gregd@habu2.net Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF On Wed, 28 March 2001, betnal@ns.net wrote: > > PS: just a stupid question but, I assume that the STOVL version of JSF will > > be capable of a much higher AOA. Is this correct? > > In theory it could, due to the Reaction Control System, but in practice > that probably won't be exploited. The STOVL version has no particular reason > to operate at extreme AoAs. Now, if the JSF were designed to use the RCS in > high AoA maneuvers and post stall conditions, combining this with the vectored > thrust would produce an aircraft that would be unbelievably agile. There > doesn't seem to be much interest in this, though. A follow-on stupid question: would a pure vertical landing (or take-off) be considered a 90 degree AoA??? A technicality??? At what point would one differentiate between hi-alpha and a slowly sinking hover? Greg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:41:57 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue Fellow hypersonics nuts. This week's AW&ST (3/26/2001) is manna from heaven. Check out: http://www.AviationNow.com/hyperstrategy Be sure to click on the Scientific Advisory Board Web site at the bottom of the article and check out the detailed and summary reports mentioned in the AW&ST piece. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:10:52 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue Larry, >Fellow hypersonics nuts. >This week's AW&ST (3/26/2001) is manna from heaven. >Check out: http://www.AviationNow.com/hyperstrategy When I looked at the cover, I knew you would like that. :) I was going to mention something here, but you beat me to it. If you don't usually get the AW&ST, you should get a copy of this issue, though, as they have three additional, related, hypersonics articles. If you can't find an issue, I would be glad to send you a copy. Let me know. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:31:36 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue Hi Andreas! I have an issue, thanks very much though! Yes, I have a perscription to AW&ST. This is the kind of issue I look forward to. Correct on the additional articles in this issue. Maybe we should tease everyone by saying that they discuss ground tested hypersonic designs that use JP-7 (ie: SR-71) fuel. Also, they're suggesting/planning X-43B/C/D follow-ons to X-43A. Also, for those of you who also like the far out stuff, like me, they have some of that stuff too, at the SAB WEB site. The detail foils talk about MHD power extraction from Mach 10+ flows, to power beam weapons. Now that would make for an interesting hypersonic interceptor! Assuming that you can aim it, and it has a wide field of fire, who needs to maneuver with something like that? The flow modification and vehicle visibility applications of MHD are interesting too. But we're talking far out here. Larry >Larry, > >>Fellow hypersonics nuts. > >>This week's AW&ST (3/26/2001) is manna from heaven. > >>Check out: http://www.AviationNow.com/hyperstrategy > >When I looked at the cover, I knew you would like that. :) > >I was going to mention something here, but you beat me to it. If you don't >usually get the AW&ST, you should get a copy of this issue, though, as they >have three additional, related, hypersonics articles. > >If you can't find an issue, I would be glad to send you a copy. Let me know. > >-- Andreas > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 101 07:14:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF On 3/28/01 12:25PM, in message <20010328202524.5465.cpmta@c001.snv.cp.net>, gregd@habu2.net wrote: > > A follow-on stupid question: would a pure vertical landing (or take-off) be > considered a 90 degree AoA??? A technicality??? At what point would one > differentiate between hi-alpha and a slowly sinking hover? > > Greg > It's not stupid but it is a semantic technicality. In the situation you're describing, the aircraft is not flying, but rather sitting on a jet blast. So, technically, AoA may not even apply. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:38:01 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: AW&ST 3/26/01 USA Hypersonics Issue Manna indeed ! As a fellow hypersonic nut, I raised a glass to us all when I read the issue. However, being a linear kinda guy I read the letters page before I got to the 'Scramjet Breakthrough' feature. That put quite a damper on things. For those who've read the hard copy issue of AW&ST, it will be obvious which I letter I mean - it's from Burt Rutan and it expresses his serious concerns over the cancelation of the X-34 programme - and urges that the test flights should go ahead. Is it likely that an administration who would pull a programme like X-34 that was pretty well ready to go will fund more hypersonic research, or will we see further X-Planes cancelled ? On the subject of X-Planes, Jay Miller's new X-Planes book (X-1 - X-45) is just a delight. Sorry if I sound a little pesimistic over the hypersonic work, but as we all know it's more often politics rather than technical issues that cause programmes to be pulled... Best David "Larry Smith" writes: > > Fellow hypersonics nuts. > > This week's AW&ST (3/26/2001) is manna from heaven. > > Check out: http://www.AviationNow.com/hyperstrategy > > Be sure to click on the Scientific Advisory Board > Web site at the bottom of the article and check out > the detailed and summary reports mentioned in the > AW&ST piece. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:47:55 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF What are people's views on the future of the F-22? Is it likely it won't get the approval required for production, get culled by the budget cuts, or get its feature set downgraded? Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of betnal@ns.net > Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:10:27 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF I think that the F-22 will be ordered in small numbers, if at all. While it is a superb aircraft in an absolute sense, it has no credible opponents for which is required. The JSF is vital to the Marines (who will be smarting from the probable cancellation of the Osprey) and the British who need it to replace the Harrier. Foreign sales of the JSF will probably be large (although not on the scale of the F-16.) Compared to the F-22, the JSF is cheap. While the Air Force would like to have the best fighter in the world, I am not convinced that they would give up having many very good aircraft for a few great ones. Conclusion: JSF wins. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Gavin Payne Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:48 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF What are people's views on the future of the F-22? Is it likely it won't get the approval required for production, get culled by the budget cuts, or get its feature set downgraded? Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of betnal@ns.net > Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:15:33 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: Vicious downing of peacefull Chinese fighter by American super spy plane. According to the Chinese version. The EP-3 (24 crew) suddenly veered towards 2 nearby (10 miles) patrolling chinese fighter and knocked one out of the sky. Of course since Chinese fighters are better made than the americans expected the american spy plane was damaged and had to land and is now in chinese hands. Why does America need the F-22 or the JSF? The USA has acknowledged that one of it's EP-3 patrolling the south-China sea was involved in a collision with one of two Chinese fighters, and was know in Chinese hands with it's 24 crew. Does anyone out there know if it is normal for a Spy plane to land in 'enemy' territory unless forced to do so? Am I too 'James Bondeske'in thinking that they would have tried getting back into neutral territory, or ditch the aircraft (after bailling out) rather than having it and themselves fall into enemy hands. I can't see the US putting an EP-3 far inside 'enemy territory' (too vulnerable) so it must have been, if not in, then at least very close, to 'neutral territory', and flying back to neutral territory would then make more sense than flying all the way back to a chinese landing strip. I imagine the Chinese sent two figthers to intercept the EP-3 which they tried to Force into Chinese custody a bit too viciously , and after one fighter went down the choice was to obey or be shot down on the spot. I guess the Chinese thought the Russian stunts with their simulated nuclear attacks, and anti aircraft carrier attacks where quite interesting and decided to have a go at it themselves. Timothy - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Frank Markus Sent: April 1, 2001 7:10 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF I think that the F-22 will be ordered in small numbers, if at all. While it is a superb aircraft in an absolute sense, it has no credible opponents for which is required. The JSF is vital to the Marines (who will be smarting from the probable cancellation of the Osprey) and the British who need it to replace the Harrier. Foreign sales of the JSF will probably be large (although not on the scale of the F-16.) Compared to the F-22, the JSF is cheap. While the Air Force would like to have the best fighter in the world, I am not convinced that they would give up having many very good aircraft for a few great ones. Conclusion: JSF wins. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Gavin Payne Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:48 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF What are people's views on the future of the F-22? Is it likely it won't get the approval required for production, get culled by the budget cuts, or get its feature set downgraded? Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of betnal@ns.net > Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #10 ********************************* 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