Skunk Works Mailing List
Re: Faith versus evidence
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:31:52 -0700
From: Dan Zinngrabe
Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence
>Larry Smith wrote:
>
>> But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with
>> respect to the following:
>>
>> 1. You don't believe in physics.
>
>Not true. I do believe in physics.
>
>> 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics.
>
>I believe the THEORY is valid.
>
>> 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application
>> of the theory of stealth technology.
>
>This is where the faith comes in. Some on this list have accepted, as a
>matter of faith (it has to be unless they have run tests themselves that
>are consistent with good science) that the F-117 works.
Which I know some of us have. And I know that there are persons on
this list who have had exposure to the data that Jim beleives is
being "hidden behind classification".
And of those who have seen the data, or the models, all think that
"stealth works".
Of course, a great deal of the data that Jim seems to think is
classified is in the open literature where anyone can find it.
>
>I have always reserved the right to say "show me." Prove to me that it
>works. The military hides behind classification. Who can argue?
At this point I doubt that there is anything that the AF or anyone
else can show Jim that will put his argument to rest. Jim's faith is
in that it doesn't work, that the military is lying to him, etc.
There does not seem to be anything to sway him in that direction, not
even good physics.
Jim, in short, is much like a die-hard UFO fanatic.
>
>The Air Force had four prototypes, the two YF-22s and the two YF-23s.
>Neither was even tested for stealth. Now we have the Air Force wanting
>to go into production on the F-22 before any stealth testing, much less
>a complete test of stealth, is done.
I don't see how you can make this statement after your bold assertion
that stealth test data is hidden behind classification. You say that
neither was "tested for stealth", while there are a few technicians
at the Helendale, Tejon Ranch, Groom, and Holloman ranges that would
disagree with you. In addition there are a number of expenditures in
the F-22 program that would strongly indicate that it was indeed RCS
tested in flight during the ATF fly-off.
>As far as the F-117, it appears that two were shot up in our latest
>adventure. One did not make it home. That is a loss rate far in excess
>of the F-16. Furthermore, the F-117s had jammer escort. So, just exactly
>how stealthy am I suppose to believe the F-117 is?
>
1. Comparing an F-117 to an F-16 is silly. They do not operate in the
same threat environment, perform similar missions, or sue similar
tactics. You might as well be comparing the F-117 to a KC-10.
2. Appearances can be deceiving. As far as anyone who bothered to
look into that rumor can tell, there was no other F-117 damaged by
enemy fire.
Dan
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
The software you were born with helps
you follow thousands of different
threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet
feasts using only ingredients from
the 24-hour store, and use words
like "paradigm" and "orthogonal"
in casual conversation. It deserves
the operating system designed to work
with it: the MacOS.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Next Message
| Previous Message
| List Surrounding Messages
|
This archive of mailing list messages
is provided as a free public courtesy.
It is maintained automatically.
The webmaster has no control over content,
does not review these messages and accepts no
liability for the accuracy of information contained herein.
Responsibility for this material rests solely with the author
and mailing list moderator (if any).
Note: This is a temporary archive only; this message will
be deleted eventually. See main page for more info.
This site is supported by the
Research Center Bookstore.
Please visit our catalog if you appreciate our free web services.
|
|
Created: Mon Aug 23 21:53:09 EDT 1999