HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:55:35 GMT

rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) writes:

>about, but the weapons systems I recall for the A-11/12/SR-71
>planes were:
>1) a large air-to-air missile system.  I believe this was
>   actually tested once, successfully, but the program was
>   cancelled anyway.

	Three YF12A's were built using the AN/ASG18 fire control system
originally slated for the F108 Rapier program.  The missile was the
XAIM47 Falcon, something of a progenitor to the AIM54 Phoenix in use today
on the F14 Tomcat.  In fact, I believe the FC on the F15 Eagle is a
descendant of the AN/ASG18.

	At any rate, the system on the YF12 WAS tested and scored kills 
in excess of 100 miles.  Pretty good for an aircraft moving at Mach 3+....
The YF12 program was cancelled, and one or two of these birds were
turned over to NASA as high-speed testbeds.  One YF12A survives today
at the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio.  (tail number 935) 

>2) a KE air-to-ground kill system.  Basically a large iron rod
>   with some guidance.  Mach 3 launch + 80,000'+ fall of 1000+#
>   of iron carries a lot of punch.  Never carried as far as
>   development or testing.

	Rumours of this and other offensive weapons have been heard, but
there has been little, if any, hard data on them.

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: 57 Chevy vs. Acura NSX (was Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:15:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter

In article <1992Nov20.033044.13481@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>As a career fighter jock, with a combat tour in the F-4, the ugliest airplane
>built until the F-117, I'm wondering if you'd explain to me what ugly has to do
>with capability. And why it's even worth mentioning.

The F-4 ugly?  Now c'mon.  The F-4 is not ugly, it's manly.  It's a big brute
of a machine not encumbered with any of that sissy IC-based avionics you see
today.

Radios that look like automatic transmissions inside, transistor flip-flops,
IFF encoded with hundreds of little pins.  Yeah, a manly machine for manly
drivers.  Kind of like a 57 Chevy.

-- Craig
From: butler@interceptor.ksu.ksu.edu (The Hornet)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RF-4 Phantom
Date: 20 Nov 1992 11:12:55 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: interceptor.ksu.ksu.edu

     I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but Nebraska is still flying
the RF-4C out of Omaha...
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Blue Angels aircraft (Was: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 08:02:51 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <SHAFER.92Nov17194718@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer), quoting Randy Haskin, writes:

>> Actually, I believe that the Angels fly aircraft that are normal
>> production run, but merely high in their life cycle.
>
>The only people flying pre-production F/A-18s are NASA Dryden.  We got
>them from the Navy at Patuxent River NAS.  (I think that they might
>have been at the Navy Test Pilot School, but am not certain.  I am
>certain that they came from PAX.)

and in article <BALDWIN.92Nov18170716@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil>
"J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil> writes:

>I knew a guy who flew them then, and I am fairly sure that they would
>have come from OPTEVFOR (OPerational Training and EValuation FORce).
>Test Pilot School is just what it sounds like:  a school.  Not much
>actual "testing" is done there.

>>The Blue Angels certainly do fly production aircraft.  No one in the
>>Navy ever flew pre-production F/A-18s except PAX.

>Nor would they ever.  That's what it's there for!


OK, I gotta get into this.

The Hornets the Blues fly are production aircraft the
same as my '84 VW is a production car.  Yes, it is, but
it's not the current model.  The airplanes are -A's, with
additional modifications for the demo squadron only.
They don't get the same avionics and software updates
that the fleet gets.  These mods are another reason
the A/C will not get back to the fleet.  BTW, the
current model is the -C with further upgrades.

Test Pilot School still has a very old TF-18A (before
they changed them to -B's) that also does not get
upgrades.  It was a production A/C.

And OPTEV (VX-4,5 for the Hornet) pilots _DO_ fly
pre-production A/C for preliminary evaluations.  Pax
is not the only place that does.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."





Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: tcrook@u.cc.utah.edu (Tom Crook)
Subject: Museums
Summary: SR-71/Mig 25 thread gets me thinking about museums.
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center Student Mail Machine
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 05:01:09 GMT

In article <lg5b6rINNrtl@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>But the A-10 mentioned
>above is an example of an airframe that I'd have thought would be needed
>out in the field, as is the USAF Museum's F-117A.  Sounds like a waste
>of assets to put such aircraft on display while the types they represent
>are still in active service.

The Air Force suffers more from a shortage of money than aircraft.  It
costs a lot to maintain and fly military aircraft.  It even costs a
lot to put them in flyable storage.  Given the defense reductions
occuring now, you'll see many more aircraft out of service soon.  I
bet there are dozens of A-10's in museums by now.  We have one on
display at the Hill AFB museum here.

Speaking of museums, I've only been reading this group for about a
month.  Have there been discussions of good museums to visit around
the country?  Many times on business trips, I've run across a museum
by accident.  It would be nice to know if there's one in an area I
just happen to passing through.  Everybody knows about the famous ones
like at Wright-Pat, but some, like the one here, probably aren't well
known.  The Hill museum is relatively new.  They just moved into a
large newly constructed building within the past couple of years.
Highlights include an SR-71 and a B-17.  If you happen to be passing
through northern Utah its worth a visit.  The museum is just off I-15
about 35 miles north of Salt Lake City.  I'm not sure but I think it
is exit 341, Roy city.
-- 
 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
 | Thomas Crook                  He that hath no beard is less than a man   |
 | tcrook@u.cc.utah.edu                            --William Shakespeare    |
/__________________________________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: logier@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au (Rob Logie)
Subject: Re: Spitfires
Organization: Telecom Australia, TNE Computer Support Services
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 22:29:27 GMT

geoff@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU (Geoff Russell) writes:


>>   One I recall which was real interesting was "Song of a Merlin", sorry
>>   don't remember the author.  Jeffrey Quill by the way was the
>>   Supermarine chief test pilot and got to fly every single variation. 

>>I think this is probably "Sigh For A Merlin". Sorry I can't remember
>>the author's name either.

>"Sigh for a Merlin" was written by Alex Henshaw who was a test pilot
>equally as great as Jeffrey Quill but probably not as well known.

>I purchased the book about five years ago in paperback and can recommend
>it as an informative and entertaining publication that includes some 
>black and white photographs. It is the most interesting book about Spitfires
>that I have had the pleasure to read. 

>Just to make you all jealous, a friend of mine has a Mk 16 Spitfire and
>a Griffon engine sitting in his shed. Complete but dismantled.....


Tell him to hurry up and get it airworthy so we can drool at it !!


>Geoff Russell
>Analyst/Programmer 
>University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury
>Richmond, New South Wales,
>AUSTRALIA




-- 
This is a test

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: WPAFB F117 was SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:37:25 GMT

dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil writes:

>> 
>  The skin is so rippled because it is not the original skin for the aircraft.
>They took the original skin off due to security reasons.  Wouldn't want every
>one to just walk up and pull off a piece of history to take home would you?  
>They had to pull quite alot of stuff off this bird before it went on display.
>Had guards standing by while the restorers did their work.  David-- 

	Quite frankly, it looks like fiberglass with flat black paint.....

Duane
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement
Date: 14 Nov 92 22:59:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KK> .With a minimum of 3 or more tankers and the associated crews, you can
  > .imagine how $$$ operating SR-71s are.  And not only is there maintenance
  > .for the Blackbird, but for the supporting aircraft as well.

No, I doubt that many people can imagine just how expensive it is...  I
was given the hourly cost by a Nasa FT pilot, and it made operating a
747 look like a nickel and dime operation.  We're talking about MAJOR
bucks per MINUTE.  (I'd post the number, but that neuron seems to
have died...)

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                              
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:38:15 GMT

In article <9211191620.AA01617@etec.com> stivers@etec.com (Robert Stivers) writes:
>
>	I'm building a homebuilt with a partner. My partner flew F-4's in
>Nam off an aircraft carrier. He was short on his second tour when they got
>the first 2 RF-4's in. They let him do one of the first missions.
>	On takeoff one of the fans failed and he punched out. Knocked him out
>cold. Woke up in sickbay. Anyway, he has the distinction of 'splashing' the
>first RF-4 in combat.

First let me say that I may be misunderstanding the thread of the conversation,
and if I am, disregard all that follows.

In looking back over all the postings about the RF-4, I sense that some are
thinking of it as an armed strike aircraft.  The RF-4 is a photo reconnaissance
aircraft and nothing else.  It was flown by crews trained specifically in the
recce mission, and was not interchangeable with other F-4's in either mission
or aircrew.  The RF-4 was used extensively in Vietnam, but not as a strike
aircraft.

Having said that, I now tell you about a strike mission flown by an RF-4.
A friendly ground unit was under heavy attack, and an airborne FAC was
looking desperately for available air.  The only thing in the area was an
RF-4C.  Under direction of the FAC, the photojet made a run over the enemy
troops and popped out a string of magnesium flash cartridges.  The bad guys
panicked and ran back into the woods.  Before they could re-group, the FAC
had a flight of fighters inbound and the fight was over.

TH

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Pond Racer (was:Re: FAST Bearcat)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:54:53 GMT

strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:

>I'm sorry, but 
>there is just no substitute for raw cubic inches.  Two Nissan V-6's won't cut
>it.

	I heard the same thing, and believed it until I saw a 488ci Kieth
Black hemi put out over 3000 brake horsepower on nitro.  I'd say it
depends on how long you wish to have that motor hold together.  If we can
see over 400bhp from 2.2L Chrysler 4-cylinders on the street and over
1000hp from Buick 3.8L V6 motors on the 500 mile track, perhaps the
motor isn't quite the limiting factor here?  I'd suggest aerodynamics
as they change with different engine configurations as a start.

	BTW: a 511ci Dodge (440 with .060 bore and 1/2" stroker) makes
an excellent motor in a Dart, as does a 427ci Ford in a Cobra, but
in neither is the motor alone the important point.

	Wasn't it the F4 Phantom that had more engine than airframe?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:33:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <BOWERS.92Nov16123936@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

>The stories of the Six Day War was that the MiGs _did_ cross Israel at
		    ^^^ ^^^ ^^^
>Mach 3 and 80,000 feet, but none of those aircraft ever flew again.
>They were junk after that mission.

The Six Day War was in 1967; there were no MiG-25s around back then, and
there was no earlier (i.e., pre -25) MiG that was capable of Mach 3 flight. 
Might you be thinking of the Yom Kippur War of 1973?



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: pfoss@cmsa.gmr.com (Pete Foss PO/46)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Museums
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:12:49 GMT
Reply-To: pfoss@cmsa.gmr.com
Organization: .................

This past summer I stopped in at the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton,Ontario.
Thats about an hour or so west of Toronto or north-west of Niagra Falls.	

Very nice museum with almost all flyable planes.  B-25, AT-6 (Harvard), 
Corsair, Hellcat, C-47, etc.  Unfourtunately, I missed their Lancaster Bomber.
It was at a show.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: FAST Bearcat (was:Re: Speed Record)
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.212744.12304@u.washington.edu>, strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
|> 
|> > I think the record is held by 'Rare Bear' which is a highly
|> > modified Grumman F8F Bearcat.  It's about 500mph.  I
|> > could be wrong though....   
|> 
|> The official record is 528.329.
|> 
|> Another aircraft, "Tsunami", a custom-built unlimited air racer, attempted to
|> break this record, but crashed in the process.  The aircraft was destroyed in
|> an unrelated crash about a year ago.  The Rare Bear is still around and racing,
|> however it pulled out in the final at this year's Reno races because of a
|> blown engine.

The crash of Tsunami not only destroyed the aircraft but also killed it's
designer and creator, Jack Sandberg.  I had a description of the cause
of that incident somewhere, but can't find it.

Rare Bear still holds the record, but Bob Pond wants to take it away from
them with the twin-engine twin boom Lightning reminiscent "Pond Racer."
So far it hasn't approached the record, but has potential...

Of course, the silly-movie record COULD be held by Chappy Sinclair in 
Iron Eagle III who took a P-38 (Joltin' Josie) "over the top" in excess 
of 625+ MPH (though it looked like it was with the assistance of a 
JATO :-).  So... What's max compressibility for a P-38?  :-) :-)

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:18:37 GMT

geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>In _MiG Pilot_, it was mentioned that according to Belenko, it was 
>a crime to activate the radar on the ground because of its power,
>and that it was capable of killing rabbits at some distance, I think
>100 meters.

On the other hand, if you had a grudge against Orville Reddenbacher,
all you'd have to do is do a low pass over the Microwave Popcorn
factory with the radar on...

*** KABOOM ***  Shades of "Real Genius!"
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.    trebor@foretune.co.jp |
| AnimEigo US Office Email (for general questions): 72447.37@compuserve.com |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: Russian B-29 (was:Re: U.S. aircrews executed by Stalin)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:08:38 GMT

From "50th Anniversary of the B-29 Superfortress" by Al Lloyd:

"IT is ironic that one of three B-29's to be interned in Russia during WWII
was named "Hap Arnold".  From these three airplanes cane the Soviet copy known
as the Tu-4 "Bull", which was produced through reverse engineering.  At least
one example of these aircraft is operational in China today as a missile 
launch platform.  This aircraft is now powered by four turboprop engines."

Randall Haskin
L-17 N77BH
strega@u.washington.edu
From: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Speed Record
Date: 23 Nov 1992 17:58:54 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1eqtfcINNda6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bm511@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(Ronald G. Martin) writes:
> 
> What a/c holds the record for a prop-driven plane? I need to settle a bet!
> 	Thanks,
> 	  Ron
> P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.


I think the record is held by 'Rare Bear' which is a highly modified
Grumman F8F Bearcat.  It's about 500mph.  I could be wrong though....

P3 Orion????

"Yes, I to, wish   \              David Piatak  
I owned a P-51    /              Penn State Co-Op Student
Mustang"             \              Flight Research Branch
                           /              NASA-Langley Research Center
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Two Tidbits
Date: 15 Nov 1992 23:15:38 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1992Nov13.013326.14626@athena.mit.edu> mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
>Gee, presurrization (sp?) of a gunship sounds like a really bad idea.  You have to
>expect them to get shot up -- what happens then?
>			(Hideous sucking sound)

Besides, what is a gunship doing way the hell up where pressurization is 
neccessary?   

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: karppine@tnds05.ntc.nokia.com (Veikko Karppinen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft in Museums (F-16 and AC-130A in the Air Force Museum)
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:42:15 GMT
	<lg5b6rINNrtl@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
	<prm.721612099@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications

In article <prm.721612099@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu> prm@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu (Philip R. Moyer) writes:

>   [...]                                Note that they do not have a Falcon
>   yet.  They also do not have an AC-130 (or any 130 variant, for that matter)
>   which distresses me to no end....

   What about the F-16 in front of the Museum next to the A-10 (the F-16
   is in South Carolina ANG markings) ?

   And the AC-130A in the Annex building ?

>   Phil (who spends entirely too much time at the AF Museum :-)

   Veikko (who has only been there once - actually four weeks ago).

--
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Veikko Karppinen              Nokia Telecommunications
     karppine@ntc.nokia.com      P.O. Box 33, SF-02601 Espoo, Finland
                                 phone: +351-0-51161, fax: +351-0-5115615
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: WWII Warbirds ...
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:07:48 GMT

In article <202@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>> I know this may sound rather specific, so please NO flames. I'm just tweaking
>> the public for possible interest. I can't be the 'only' WWII Warbird fanatic
>> out here,... Or am I?
>
>Not by a long shot.  Fire out a few postings and get the discussion going!
>
>BTW, if you live in the Twin Cities area, you should take a trip out to
>Hangar #3 at Flemming Field in South St. Paul.

I agree completely.  :-)

I'm not sure if a WWII specific group would be overly beneficial, at least
at this moment.  There is a WWII mailing list which focuses on a specific
era, and aircraft discussions are more than welcome (actually, it seems
to occasionally be the major or only discussion).

However, WWII was an incredible era of technological and aerospace
advances.  To fully appreciate WWII aircraft, it's important to trace it
from prior to the war to several decades following - many of the advances
in today's equipment were started during WWII, so it's valid to look
beyond the timeframe as well as look back into the timeframe.

On the other hand, very detailed or specific discussions about aircraft,
crews, procedures, etc. may not be relevent or interesting to many people.

So I guess I'm in the grey area that doesn't see it as a need, yet has
a possible function.  So I guess I wouldn't object either way.  :-)  I
just know that I get a lot of enjoyment and interest in the discussions
that spawn off from these other discussions.

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:08:55 GMT

> Added to the budget problems was an unscheduled meeting
> between one of the YF-22 aircraft and the ground. Pilot-induced-oscillations
> are currently blamed. Don't know much more than that,
> but I would guess that this might be holding up the production
> process.

	Actually, this incident had very little adverse effect on the F-22
production scheme.  The accident occurred at a time when the YF-22 flight
test program was well over 90% complete, so the damage of the flight test
vehicle posed no significant problem.  The aircraft was actually allowed to
burn after the pilot egressed to test the burn characteristics (no joke!).  
The second flight test aircraft cannot be used, since it had already been
de-engined and sent to Marietta, GA for static ground testing.
	Cuttently, production aircraft are scheduled for introduction in 
1996, I believe.  The only forseeable problems are further budget cuts.
Fortunately, the Senate is behind the F-22 (that's a first!), but there will
be a serious debate in the future between the USAF and the Navy, regarding
(of course!) Carrier groups and fighters.
	I have the official YF-22 crash report - if anyone's interested, I
can post that.