From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #471 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 21 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 471 In this issue: Arrow ABM Re: The Fall and Rise of the Blackbird Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] Big Tail '959 Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] re: Big Tail '959 Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] Re: Big Tail '959 SR-71A/BT (Big Tail) Re: SR-71's and SAR ASPJs See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Arrow ABM The BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) is in a funding and reorganization crisis (as usual) and the following systems are competing for the TMD (Theater Missile Defense) budget: * highest priority: - Lockheed Martin THAAD (Theater High Altitude Air Defense) (US Army); made two test flights this year, 14 are planned; - Aegis upgrades (as Navy Lower Tier or theater wide defense, USN); * below that ranking: - Patriot PAC-3 upgrade (US Army); - Navy Upper Tier or area defense (USN); * and below that: - MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System) and CorpsSAM (now combined), which is a multinational NATO program; (basically a HAWK replacement); - BPI (Boost Phase Intercept) kill vehicles; - BPI modifications of existing missiles like HARM or AMRAAM; - BPIs are either based on UAVs or aircraft; - ABL (AirBorne Laser) on Boeing 747s; - SBL (Space Based Laser); - IAI Arrow 2 ATBM (Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile), two-stage version of Arrow 1 (single-stage version, which made two test flights ?). Made its first test flight on July 30, 1995, with another one planned for later this year, 4 in 1996, and more in 1997 under the ACES (Arrow Continuation Experiments) program. The 5-year program cost $33 million, provided by the BDMO, while Israel is paying for the fire control radar, launch control center, fire control center and battle management center development. Elta Electronics Ltd. is developing the ground-based radar intended to work with the endoatmospheric weapon. Procurement and funding is of course always doubtful. - --Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: The Fall and Rise of the Blackbird Art's Blackbird post tickled me, so I have to point out some things, I felt should be said. First, I believe that the SR-71 is a very good aircraft, possibly the best for the job of strategic reconnaissance in the whole world, but it is not a tactical aircraft. As the editorial in the AW&ST of October 16 -- which btw sucked IMHO -- you compare the strategic, ultra-fast, super-high flying SR-71 with satellites and UAVs, but not with its closest competitor -- the U-2R. The U-2R is not only very versatile, strategic and tactical, in PHOTINT, SIGINT/COMINT and even target designation, but she has satellite (OTH) data-link, and she can loiter for quite a while. Additionally, she flies relatively high and is relatively stealthy. How can 2 or even 5 operational aircraft be useful in any way worthy to be called tactical? RF-4, RF-101 or RF-8 were real tactical reconnaissance platforms, and you can use UAVs as tactical reconnaissance or surveillance platform, but what can an SR-71 see (for example in Bosnia), that a satellite can't? The Bosnian war parties don't have any (or at least not much) intel regarding satellite overflights, the weather often does not permit optical high- altitude reconnaissance and an UAV (loitering below the clouds for 8 hours) can provide much more information to field commanders than a 5 minute sweep by an SR-71. Even though, of course, those loitering platforms (including the U-2) are more vulnerable than an SR-71 ever will be, no question about it. Also, during Desert Storm, the U-2s, together with the two E-8s were used in the Scud hunting role -- and I don't believe an SR-71 would have provided any better results. Anyway, I like the SR, but I don't think that it will ever be a useful tactical reconnaissance aircraft -- it wasn't designed to be one! I think that for some reason, U-2s are somewhat underestimated and ignored in this debate of reconnaissance. They are working in the field even longer than the SR and as far as I am concerned, with an outstanding record. - --Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Clyde Prichard Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:17:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] The story of using down-wash to take out a Mi6 seems plausible to me. AB after bingo in not likely then that's not what he said. If your low on fuel.. >The F4E pilot decided, that his low fuel level and incoming darkness .. then, it seems to me, getting a helo out of good terrain might require...guns... maneuvering...hence fuel. A top down missile shoot into a hole is not likely. But a down wash of just a couple of knots differential across the blades, while hovering in tight terrain, makes for a sure control problem. Keep in mind that hovering a helo is like balancing a marble on a flat board; once disturbed, recovery in the dynamic down-wash, however slight, is a bear. I've been caught in non-symmetrical jet wash while landing a prop. This was 3 minutes after it had left. Very exciting stuff. Glad I was flying straight into it. Even with full controls I exited the runway (slightly), but I stopped on a dime. Didn't get much pass the numbers! - - Clyde - CLYDE PRICHARD EMAIL: pricharc@agcs.com ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:35:35 -0500 Subject: Big Tail '959 I've gotten quite a few private postings (not that I mind) about SR-71A #64-17959, aka "Big Tail". It seems that several people have expressed an interest in knowing more about this configuration. I don't pretend to be an authority on the subject, but here's what little I know: "Big Tail" was an articulated extension to the rear of the standard SR fuselage. Articulated, in that the aft empennage has to be tilted upward for ground clearance due to rotation angle on takeoff and landing. What was in the tail, as far as I know, is still a matter of conjecture. Some sources indicate ECM equipment, others cite various ELINT equipment, even additional fuel storage. Jay Miller told me that the tail may have contained additional optical cameras to provide stereoscopic photography when combined with the forward cameras. This seems unlikely to me since there are no "optics" ports visible on the aircraft now, and the fact that a ~100ft separation of image pairs at 80,000 ft works out to a parallax angle of about 0.07 degrees (even less for oblique shots). It seems to me that stereo photo pairs could be achieved from consecutive photos during a pass. I don't know what the frame rate was on the cameras used, but at 2000 kts the images may have been too far apart. I don't know if the Big Tail mod was added to this airframe during it's service life, or if it was designed and delivered in this configuration. I do believe that it was the only SR airframe to fly in this configuration. Can anyone add to the folklore of '959? Greg Fieser Dallas TX Being self-employed, the opinions expressed herein DO reflect the opinions of my employer... ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:25:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Clyde Prichard wrote: > The story of using down-wash to take out a Mi6 seems plausible > to me. [snip] Please nobody say "off topic" about this thread before the final word is in. I am on tenterhooks to know whether this is an urban myth or not. Mike Eisenstadt (czbb026@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 12:02:55 ÿÿÿ Subject: re: Big Tail '959 Expanding on Greg's post: '959 was the only SR-71 modified to the "Big Tail" configuration. There seem to be two schools of thought as to the original purpose of the mod. One is that it was for possible aft-facing ECM equipment to counter a perceived vulnerability, and was also tested for possible additional sensor carriage when it was found that the additional protection wasn't needed. The other school says it was always for possible additional sensor carriage. I'd kind of doubt extra fuel storage because of all the plumbing that would have to be reworked and trim changes, but I've been wrong plenty of time before. In any case, SAC was already cutting back on the SRs and the mod was not adopted. '959, by the way, was a fairly low time aircraft, with total flight time less than 900 hours in its career, I believe. Art Hanley Not only do my employers not endorse the views above, they aren't even aware of them. ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Rick Pavek) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:05:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] >On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Clyde Prichard wrote: > >> The story of using down-wash to take out a Mi6 seems plausible >> to me. [snip] > >Please nobody say "off topic" about this thread before the final >word is in. I am on tenterhooks to know whether this is an >urban myth or not. I'll go you one better. In the book Zanek (about the Israeli Air Force) there's an account of an Israeli Fouga Magister bringing down a Mig-21. He flew around in the canyons and goaded the Mig until the Mig went in after him... and couldn't make the grade. Literally. Off topic? Well, the book is out of print. Therefore, it's stealthy. You don't know somebody's got it until they say something. ;) Rick Rick Pavek | Get Windows '95!! It's kuryakin@arn.net | the last Microsoft game Graphics and HTML for hire | you'll _ever_ want to Play! http://northshore.shore.net/~wxcentrl/uncle/uncle.html ------------------------------ From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 18:59:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Big Tail '959 Greg Fieser wrote: ......Some stuff deleted...... >"Big Tail" was an articulated extension to the rear of the standard SR >>fuselage. >Articulated, in that the aft empennage has to be tilted upward for ground >>clearance >due to rotation angle on takeoff and landing. It also tilted down after landing so the braking chute wouldn't be fouled by the tail. It was automatic, but it could also be controlled by the pilot, by a switch in the cockpit. >What was in the tail, as far as I >know, is still a matter of conjecture. Some sources indicate ECM equipment, >>others >cite various ELINT equipment, even additional fuel storage. Jay Miller told >me >that >the tail may have contained additional optical cameras to provide stereoscopic >photography when combined with the forward cameras. This seems unlikely to me >>since >there are no "optics" ports visible on the aircraft now, and the fact that a >~100ft They designed the "big tail" to defend against a supposed Russianover the shoulder missile threat. They also made room for an extra cameras (It could carry four, one in nose, one (panaoramic) in the tail and one in each chine). I have close-up photos of the tail as it sits at the USAF Armament Museum at Eglin AFB ,FL. They have covered (or) replaced the ports with metal. Also they had enough room for a live data link, but this was killed by USAF Chief Staff in late '80s, (he didn't want to make the SR program any harder to kill then it was). Maybe they should have put a Def system in it for use against the USAF Chief of Staff :) . >I don't know if the Big Tail mod was added to this airframe during it's >service life, >or if it was designed and delivered in this configuration. I do believe that >it was >the only SR airframe to fly in this configuration. It was built as a "normal" SR and later modified to "Big Tail" config. It first flew on 3 Dec. 1975 in "Big Tail" config. by Darrel Greenamyer/Stephen Belgau. The first USAF crew to fly the aircraft during testing was Tom Pugh/Jim Carnochan. It was only used for testing and never (at least thats what I was told) fly any operational missions. Your Skunkerly, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@iglou.com john.stone@shivasys.com U-2 and SR-71 Web Page http://wl.iglou.com/blackbird/ ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SR-71A/BT (Big Tail) There are three major sources for SR-71s, which include the Big Tail modification: * Jay Miller's "Skunk Works" -- limited to one photo and a photo caption, which states that the Big Tail configuration was intended for carrying a second OBC (Optical Bar Camera) for stereoscopic pictures, and that neither it nor an ECM system was ever installed in the tail; * A better source (published not much later, though) is Paul F. Crickmore's "Mission Exposed", which includes three photos and some paragraphs about its development. * The best source so far (being the latest published, but having quite a few misspellings and other errors) is James Goodall's "Blackbird" book. Just for the Big Tail section, the book is worth buying. He has no fewer than 14 Big Tail photos, 4 of which are interior shots, including 2 cockpit panel photos. It also has a four page chapter on that subject, providing the most information yet. Here is a summary of all three sources: At the end of the Vietnam war, the USAF was concerned about an increasing threat from Soviet SA-5 'Gammon' SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile), and wanted to increase the SR-71's ability to carry an aft-facing ECM system and other systems like real-time data transmission gear. Several possible configurations and modifications, including conformal belly-mounted packages and external pods were proposed. The chosen configuration was a nearly nine foot long extended tail, which offered fewer modifications and the lowest drag, with a considerable amount of volume. The new tail unit could have been relatively easily mounted on other SR-71s, if necessary. The tail could be moved 8.5 degrees upon landing or start, to prevent it from touching the ground, and was immediately moved 8.5 degrees down after the landing gear touched the ground, to prevent any interference with the drag chute. In flight, the tail was in the 8.5 degree down position. The tail unit weighed 1,273 lbs., had an added volume of 49 cubic feet and could carry a maximum payload of 864 lbs. It was hydraulically actuated, and could be used in flight to add trimming. It did not interfere with any flight operations, and did not reduce the handling characteristics or the maximum speed of the aircraft. Other changes to the test aircraft (Article '2010', USAF serial '64-17959', tail number '17959', side number '959') included the enlargement of the chine bays, to accommodate two more OBCs. Possible payloads were: * an ECM suite, called DEF J (Defensive system 'J'); * a thirty inch focal length Optical Bar Camera (OBC), of the same type as used in the nose; * a real-time satellite data-link antenna (never tested); The aircraft was tested with: * an ASARS-1 (Advanced Synthetic Aperature Radar System) in the nose and an OBC in the tail; * an OBC in the nose and in the tail; * an OBC in the nose and a DEF 'J' system in the tail; * four OBCs: one in the tail, one in the nose, and one in each chine; First flight of the modified aircraft was from Palmdale's Plant 42/Site 2, on December 3, 1975, (or December 11) by Lockheed test pilot Darrell Greenmayer and Lockheed test pilot (as RSO) Steven Belgeau, after high-speed taxi tests on November 20, 1975. Mach 1.27 was reached on this first flight. The Lockheed test program involved 12 flights, after which the aircraft was handed over to the USAF's Det 51. The first USAF crew to fly #959 in Big Tail configuration was Lt. Col. Tom Pugh (pilot) and Maj. John Carnochan (RSO) on May 5, 1976, carrying a DEF 'J' system in the tail an OBC in the nose. On August 4, 1976, the aircraft achieved Mach 3 and the test program was deemed successful. When the test series was finished, the aircraft was flown by Lt. Col. Tom Pugh (pilot) and Maj. Bill Frazier (RSO) on October 29, 1976 on its final flight, logging only 866.1 flight hours during its career. It was then stored at Palmdale, until it was delivered in 1990/1991 by truck to the USAF Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, FL, where it is now on display. Short timeline of 959: 11/03/1964 -- assembly started; 08/19/1965 -- roll-out; 11/ /1965 -- date of maufacture; 01/19/1966 -- first flight with Lockheed test pilot Bill Weaver and RSO George Andre; 12/03/1975 -- first flight in Big Tail configuration (aka SR-71A/BT) 10/29/1976 -- last flight; 1990/1991 -- USAF Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, FL; The Sources: Title - Lockheed's Skunk Works Subt. - The First Fifty Years - The Official History... Author - Jay Miller Publ. - Aerofax Inc., Arlington, TX Publ. - Midland Publishing Ltd., England Year - 1993 ISBN - 0-942548-56-6 Price - $29.95 Remark - Best Skunk-Works book, very good pictures, text, etc., but the appendix states 12/20/1974 as the first flight of '959', which is more than doubtful; Title - Lockheed SR-71 Subt. - The Secret Missions Exposed Author - Paul F. Crickmore Publ. - Osprey Publishing Ltd., London, England Year - 1993 ISBN - 0-85532-313-3 Price - $29.95 Remark - Very good, but states 12/11/1975 as first flight of BT, and 10/24/1976 as last flight; Title - SR-71 Blackbird Author - Jim Goodall Publ. - Squadron Signal Publications, Carrollton, TX Year - 1995 Series - 6067 ISBN - 0-89747-338-8 Price - $12.95 Remark - Many very good photos, but too many typos and some inconsistencies; - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SR-71's and SAR Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > The aircraft was tested with: > * an ASARS-1 (Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System) in the nose and an > OBC in the tail; I would like to hear more about the SAR payloads carried aboard the SR-71 and variants. What sort of recording mechanism did they use for the raw SAR data? What sort of turnaround time did they get (a) when the data was optically processed (early in the program) and (b) when the data was digitally processed (in the 80's)? My apologies if I'm asking sensitive questions. - -- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Radar Remote Sensing Group ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 02:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ASPJs Art Hanley wrote: >Sitting in a warehouse >gathering dust are more than 50 Advanced Self Protection Jammers >(ASPJ). The ASPJ is the most effective jammer anyone has ever built >to be carried by a non-dedicated ECM aircraft. [...] >ASPJ was a controversial system and made some enemies in Washington so >production was terminated. However, the taxpayers have already paid >for the systems and they're available, so why not use them? I'm not >saying this is happening or will happen. Frankly I don't think it >will, because to do so would tick off those who had it cancelled, >but there's always hope. If I remember right, the Westinghouse/ITT AN/ALQ-165 ASPJ was canceled by the USAF in 1992 after about 100 units were procured, and about $2 billion spent, because it failed to many tests. But, some of those previously stored ASPJs are right now actively employed on USMC F/A-18s based at Aviano AB, Italy, to protect those aircraft over Bosnia. I believe since July 1995, following the O'Grady incident. The USN wanted to use the "not perfect" systems, because they were "the best available" systems, to protect the aircraft against SA-6 'Gainful' missiles in the theater. Some critics say, they endanger the pilots instead of protecting them, though. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #471 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu 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 anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).