NOTE: During the course of this interview, Rep. Cunningham ("Duke") held plastic models of the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. When he uses the models to indicate a feature of either plane, this is noted in the transcription in [brackets].

_________________

LOTTMAN: I know you're a former Naval Aviator, Top Gun flight instructor, decorated a dozen times. And to my knowledge, you're the only member of Congress to take the Super Hornet for a test drive. Is that correct?

DUKE: Yes.

LOTTMAN: First of all, how did that opportunity come about?

DUKE: Well, I'm one of the few members in Congress that's a test pilot. I can take an airplane up and when they tell me there's a system that's a gee-whiz system that we need to invest in, it's, "I'm from Missouri. Show me." I'm able to look and see what the pluses and minuses are of the system, and will it aid us in the future.

They were having some problems with the FA-18 E/F, the wing-drop problem. They wanted to take a look and have me fly it, in which they basically took, when you have flow over a wing, that comes, at certain altitudes, when you start puttin' G, that spanwise flow will actually spin off of the airplane and cause loss of lift or the airplane would dip. Now, if you're tracking another airplane out there, that's pretty significant. So what they did is took the flange right here with the wing fold [indicates location on model plane] and they put holes in it and controlled the spanwise flow and stuff.

Well, I went up and tested it, to see, and I looked at the V.N. diagrams-- or basically your performance diagrams, and where you're having the problems--put the aircraft through different paces, used the weapon system. I don't fly the airplane regularly.

Another good thing, the aircraft, just like a computer, is user-friendly. You can take a very junior aviator, put him in this airplane, and the airplane itself is easy to fly. It's one of the most desirable airplanes I have ever flown. But it is also task-loaded as far as all the different weapons systems, they need the flight hours to be able to use all the black programs, or classified programs.

LOTTMAN: I know it's hard to do based on this limited experience, but assuming you've flown other carrier-based fighter models...

DUKE: I've flown almost everything the Air Force and Navy has, and everything the Soviets have.

LOTTMAN: OK, can you make a comparison between the Super Hornet, and say, the F-18 C/D or some of those other models, based on your experience?

DUKE: Well, the comparison is the reason you have the Super Hornet is, first of all, look at the ordnance level you have here, and then in the C/D, look what you can hang on that [indicates on two model planes]. Just the number of weapons that you can bring to bear on a target means you may not have to fly there as many times, 'cause you can put more bombs or missiles on targets.

The second thing is, this is range-limited, which we knew when we built it [raises C/D model]. This airplane [indicates E/F model], with tanking, you can get 800 and some miles. This one [indicates C/D] is something like 420 miles. So getting to the target, say getting out of the Gulf over Baghdad, or other target areas, you can get to the target. The time that you can spend in the area--you don't wanna just get there and have to deliver your bombs, especially if you have different targets--you wanna be able to stay and loiter, and/or even become a fighter and protect other aircraft. So that is different.

One of the most significant things, I think, for a young pilot, is that you put a young pilot in this airplane [indicates C/D model], and say you're in the Sea of Japan in the dead of winter. You come back aboard a carrier, you may have one pass because of the weight restrictions in this airplane and the limited fuel. If he misses the wires and bolters, he has to go up and tank. If he doesn't tank successfully, he could end up in the water, and he's gonna die. With this airplane, you go back to the new E/F, you go 8 or 9 times that you can go around that flight deck because of the increased fuel, the increased range, and everything else, that means survivability for those young pilots.

The airplane flies very well. It has upgraded..... Another capability it has is that right now, the enemy aircraft, if he's coming at you in an SU-35 or 37, he has an advantage over you in that his radar sees you first--in a C/D or F-15--his missiles reach further than yours. So that tells me that if I go beak to beak with him, that if we both fire at the same time, my pilot's not gonna survive.

The stealthiness of this particular aircraft puts you inside that envelope so that he doesn't see you as early, you can shoot your AMRAAM, and leave, and he is gonna 'go away' instead of you. So, uh, the Delta there, the options are pretty relevant. That the airplane is better, it gives you more capability and survivability, and at the same time, the cost-effectiveness is very good.

LOTTMAN: First look, first shot.

DUKE: First look, first shot, and you come back home, and it's like Patton said: the other guy dies for their country instead of our American pilot dying for his.

LOTTMAN: Just to backtrack a little, when you flew the E/F, it was fitted with the porous wing coverings, is that right?

DUKE: Mmm-hmm. And they've actually improved on that since I flew it. When you do that, any extra holes or drag or fences that you put up, you could put stall fences in their but that would cause increased drag, cost you in range. They are still below... they far exceed expected range, even with these porouses, and they have actually cut that down to actually increase the range of the aircraft.

LOTTMAN: Did you get up over 0.6, to where they were experiencing the problem?

DUKE: I took it in every area. I looked at precisely where they were having the problems. The G-loadings, the speeds, the altitudes, and put it through all the paces and couldn't duplicate the problem that they had, and if there was I problem there, I could duplicate it. I also flew it against another pilot in the airplane like that [indicates C/D], who was very experienced, and this plane [holds up E/F model] is head and shoulders in power and turning capability and everything else.

But even more so, the weapons... To do a low-level, doing 600 or 700 knots at 100 feet, being able to lock up a target with this system, and I can't get classified, but lock up a system a very long distance away, say a bridge, and before I used to have to pop up and look for that system. When you do that, you become vulnerable to enemy gunners. I can hit that system, pop up, and I already know exactly where I wanna go. With the maneuverability of the aircraft I can put it there, so I hit "bomb" and go right back down to low altitudes so the survivability of the plane in air-to-ground mode, in bombing mode, is much more survivable. The weapons systems compared to what I had in Vietnam are "Star Wars" ahead, and those are the kinds of systems that we need for the 21st century.

LOTTMAN: So, for the carrier-based fleet the Super Hornet is the way to go?

DUKE: Yes. I have a lot of concerns with the Joint Strike Fighter coming up, because the Marine Corps is dragging along the Air Force and the Navy with the R&D of a jump-type. The Air Force wants a replacement for the F-16, which is an old airplane. The Navy will have a low-end airplane which is gonna have to compete not with the SU-35 and SU-37, but whatever they have down the line in aircraft and weapons systems and missiles and radar. In my opinion, we are not gonna meet that with a low-end airplane. You can't have that, and we've gotta do some adjustment in the future procurement of the JSF.

LOTTMAN: the Super Hornet buy has been reduced from 1,000 to 700-800.

DUKE: Yes, and any time... you have, say, 1,000 units of a widget that you buy, they're cheaper buying 1,000. If you buy, say, 500 of those widgets, they cost more, because you're paying for individual numbers. All that research and development is piled on each one of those aircraft or those widgets. So by reducing the number you actually increase the cost. That curve crosses somewhere. And you also lose capability. You can't even buy smart. Instead of laying off people at a factory building this thing, you need a steady procurement line so that you keep those people working, get the job done. When you shut down the line and then have to gear it up, costs you billions of dollars. So we're looking at that as well in all of the systems. Not just the F/A-18, but the F-22, with basically re-doing the procvurement system in the military so that we can do it better, more on a business base instead of a political base.

The JSF will happen, but in my opinion, we're gonna have to re-look-at the requirements that are in that aircraft or we might as well not buy it in the first place.

LOTTMAN: OK, my last question: depending on whom you talk to, the Super Hornet is either a model de3velopment and acquisition program, or some have the view that it's in trouble, there's been some controversy. Do you have any concerns about the future of this program or do you see clear sailing ahead?

DUKE: No, I don't, because in testing different aircraft, for example, the F-16 for the Air Force, I did the high angle of attack on the F-16 in when we put at Top Gun. They had a deep stall condition where the airplane would deep-stall, we actually lost a lot of Air Force pilots. The computer would take over and actually waffle into the ground. They put a manual pitch override switch into it, it was called an MPO switch, which solved that. The F-5E got into where if you get over the top like this and back, the airplane would take off like this and all you had to do was put in the maneuvering slats or pull back on the stick, but they lost a couple of airplanes that way. The F-14, same thing.

Every aircraft that goes through, you put it through a wind-tunnel test, you design it, but that's why you have a flight test program. That's why in the flight-test program they found the wing-drop problem. In the flight test program they found the deep-stall for the F-16 and the F-5. As it goes through these iterations, you wanna minimize those, of course, but I think the technology we have with the different companies, whether it's McDonnell Douglas or Lockheed--it's McDonnell-Boeing now--there's a lot of expertise out there. They can do a pretty good job and give you the best bang for the dollars.

LOTTMAN: So, from a historical perspective, these bumps on the road are not unusual, then?

DUKE: No, no. You take a look at the airplanes on my tie [holds up tie embossed with bi-planes]. An airplane is like a woman. She has her good points and bad points. You love the good ones and you learn to live with the bad ones. Now, my wife says an airplane is like your husband. He has his good points and bad points and you learn to live with the bad ones. But what I'm sayin' is that each airplane is different, has different capabilities, and is put there for a different reasons. You take and maximize the potential of that aircraft, and also force the enemy into your strong areas. It's like if you have a footbal team, and you're a good passing team, you're not gonna run a ground game against them if they've got the number one defense in the league.

So you take a look at the enemy, what he has, what your capabilities are, and you maximize those. The F/A-18 E/F is a good plane to do that with, because it has a lot of different options for you to be able to do that, both in range and stealthiness, and capability, what you carry, and the flexibility of the aircraft. The F-22 is a necessary aircraft for the Air Force.

[asked to repeat by camera person]

The F/A-18 E/F is a good aircraft because you've got a lot of flexibility into it. First of all you can get to the target. When you get there, you've got a lot of flexibility in what you can load or dis-load on it, for your ordnance. It has the flexibility of what aircraft you can fight and survive in an area because of its stealthiness, because of this extended range, and when you have the extended range, it allows you with your young pilot to be able to come back to the carrier with more fuel so the safety margin when he comes back he can stay on target more. The advanced electronics... enabling you to get over Baghdad, where before you would have had to stay out because there's a high missile threat to you, all of these are advantages in an aircraft. The F-22 for the Air Force has many of these same advantages. They're very classified programs in this airplane and other aircraft that we're building have into them, that we can't talk about on this film, or I'd have to kill you.

LOTTMAN: That's OK.

DUKE: I'm just kidding. But the airplane overall meets those requirements far above what the specs were. I was very critical of this when it came in. I didn't wanna build this plane. It was risky, it was only about 15% common with the F/A-18, the engines weren't developed. But all of those fears have been put to rest because it has become a very good system. Do we need a better system than this to compete with the potential enemies that we have out there? Absolutely. People will tell you that there are no enemies, that the Cold War is over. Not true. Look all over the world at the coflicts that we're into, whether it's Bosnia, whether it's Korea, whether it's Ireland, whether it's South Africa, wherever it happens to be. Lotta dangerous areas. And peace comes through strength, not weakness. You can't walk softly and carry a big stick of candy. You have to walk softly and carry a big stick.

LOTTMAN: To what extent did flying the plane turn you, from someone who didn't want to build the plane, to...

DUKE: I needed convincing in my mind that it met what my requirements were for an airplane. First of all, the ease of flying it for a young pilot, because we're not getting the number of training hours that we are; the maintenance capability, that you don't spend 50 or 60 man-hours per flight hour on the airplane, the weapons system...

LOTTMAN: Is that...?

DUKE: Not so much that one [indicating C/D], but the F-14 does. The C/D is better than the F-14 as far as maintenance. But the ability to use the weapons system as basically a novice in the airplane, to get into a system, and I have a lot of experience, but even when you have new systems, to be able to use those in a combat environment, and do they work? Can I lock up that target? And as I'm locking up this target I actually locked up another target of an airliner coming in, simulating that it was a MiG coming in, so I can find my target, I know where the bad guys are. And my systems, like Buck Rodgers, it goes [simulates computer bleeps] 'MiG-29, MiG-31', so I know his capabilities, how close can I let him get and still continue my mission, all of these different things are: how effective can you be as a fighter, an attack airplane, what is your survivability, and what are your chances of accomplishing your mission? That's what I resolved when I flew the airplane. All of them, very very well.