From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #574 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Monday, 18 December 1995 Volume 05 : Number 574 In this issue: re: grounding of SR-71s Re: U-2s to deploy to France Re: U-2s to deploy to France RE: U-2/TR-1 Re: Grounding of SR-71s Re: Help with Family Tree Re: Boeing Programs 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: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 15:57:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: re: grounding of SR-71s The USAF _gave_ us all the spares, along with the aircraft. We, in our gracious generosity, _give_ them back to the USAF when they need them. (There are a bunch of MOUs and LOAs floating around making this work.) We figure, including manpower, fuel, parts, and overhead, that it costs ust about 125K per hour to fly the Blackbirds. This includes keeping the sim running, life support, expendables (nitrogen, oxygen), and so on. It used to cost the military millions per flight, but they had to factor in the cost of entire bases, air wings, analysists, and so on. Running a coupple of additional aircraft is a lot cheaper than than running an air wing, if you see what I mean. I don't have time right now to discuss the economies of shared rather than dedicated personnel, but you folks are smart enough to fill in the blanks, I know. I have to finish up and go Christmas shopping (my husband wants a Blackbird model, but resin, not wood, so I've got to do a lot of calling around--thank heavens for UPS next-day air and credit cards). Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > That number came from a retired USAF general, and I was just quoting him. He > had written that in USAF service the per hour direct cost was about $50K and > the reactivated ones would run $30-40. He was basing that on the USAF having > about $750 million worth of SR-71 parts still in stock. I do not know if he > was including the "overhead" labor of the Lockheed employees that would maintan > the aircraft when it's not actually tasked with a flight. No one in USAF ever > gainsayed (I've been reading a medieval story and wanted to use that word) his > numbers, so I used them. I never thought to ask, but I'd be interested in the > direct costs to NASA to fly the SR-71. When parts are needed, does the USAF > provide them gratis or must you reimburse them through an inteagency agreement? > > Art Hanley > > Despite all appearances > to the Contrary, my > employers have nothing to > do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 16:06:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: U-2s to deploy to France This is a little confusing--they produced an improved version of the U-2 and decided to call it the TR-1 because it was a) for tactical recce and b) a lot different from the U-2. However, some time after they retired the old, tired, little U-2s and made the TR-1s operational, the decided to rename the TR-1s U-2s. As a result, you're both correct, but the person calling them U-2s is most correct right now. Obviously, this could be temporary. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > I don`t think any U-2`a are still active in military service, but who knows. > Probably mean TR`s don`t you think. > Many more differences than meet the eye, like the B1(a) vs. the B1B. > Does anyone know if there are active U2,s or have they all been > relegated to NASA as research platforms? > > Hot tip: > Skunk watch at Chemung County Airport, Elmira NY > Chuck ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:53:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: U-2s to deploy to France Mary wrote in response to Chuck: >This is a little confusing -- they produced an improved version of the U-2 >and decided to call it the TR-1 because it was a) for tactical recce and >b) a lot different from the U-2. However, some time after they retired >the old, tired, little U-2s and made the TR-1s operational, the decided to >rename the TR-1s U-2s. As a result, you're both correct, but the person >calling them U-2s is most correct right now. Obviously, this could be >temporary. The first batches of 50 U-2s -- comprising the prototype U-2, U-2As, and U-2Ds, which later became 'WU-2A's, U-2Cs, 'WU-2C's, U-2Es, U-2Fs, U-2Gs, U-2Hs and U-2CTs -- were delivered from May 1955 through October 1957, followed soon after by 6 additional airframes, which were built from spares. In 1966, Kelly Johnson presented the much bigger U-2R (R for Redesigned or Resomething), and a batch of 12 U-2Rs -- which originally could not carry the two super pods -- was built and delivered in 1967/68. Six went to the CIA and some flew with Taiwanese markings, while the other six went to the USAF. The USN used 2 airframes temporarily as U-2EP-X for tests. In November 1979, after nearly 12 years, the U-2R was produced again, and this time in five sub-versions, which had only minor, internal and external differences. 37 were built, comprising 6 (or 7) U-2R, 1 U-2R(T) trainer, 2 ER-2 (or U-2ER), 25 (or 26) TR-1A and 2 TR-1B trainer. Of these, the 2 ER-2s and 1 TR-1A went to NASA. Several TR-1As were later modified to U-2R standard -- TR-1As were supposed to be used tactical, meaning mainly photographic and radar reconnaissance and were differently wired, while U-2Rs were supposed to be used strategically, meaning also for ELINT and SIGINT missions. In essence, the Senior Span (C-Span) pod for example, can only be fitted to U-2Rs, while other systems are only compatible with TR-1As. In 1991, the USAF decided (because the 'Cold War' was over), to drop the 'politically motivated' TR-1 designation, and redesignated all TR-1A as U-2R and the TR-1B as U-2R(T) -- regardless of internal configuration. Later, one additional U-2R(T) was re-built from a crashed U-2R/TR-1A and the latest re- engine program created the U-2S and U-2S(T) designations. So, the U-2R designation was introduced in 1966, and was never replaced by the TR-1 designation -- but instead, both co-existed for about 12 years. - -- Andreas PS: All numbers are of course unofficial, because the Dragon Lady is still very much classified. - --- --- 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: George Allegrezza 17-Dec-1995 2149 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 95 22:03:31 EST Subject: RE: U-2/TR-1 Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >In November 1979, after nearly 12 years, the U-2R was produced again, and >this time in five sub-versions, which had only minor, internal and external >differences. 37 were built, comprising 6 (or 7) U-2R, 1 U-2R(T) trainer, >2 ER-2 (or U-2ER), 25 (or 26) TR-1A and 2 TR-1B trainer. >Of these, the 2 ER-2s and 1 TR-1A went to NASA. Several TR-1As were later >modified to U-2R standard -- TR-1As were supposed to be used tactical, >meaning mainly photographic and radar reconnaissance and were differently >wired, while U-2Rs were supposed to be used strategically, meaning also for >ELINT and SIGINT missions. In essence, the Senior Span (C-Span) pod for >example, can only be fitted to U-2Rs, while other systems are only compatible >with TR-1As. Remember, the whole point of the TR-1A was to provide the platform for the PLSS/Assault Breaker system. When that died, the TR-1A was respun as a tactical reconnaissance system -- still with sensor pods, although different than the PLSS pods. PLSS was one of those Carter-era systems that, like Wasp and that kooky nutty Army antiaircraft laser system, suddenly ran into "technical difficulties" on or after 20 January 1981. I suspect Aurora encountered much the same fate, albeit twelve years later. Let us not forget, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, the technical review committee is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Besides, if there hadn't been a TR-1, we wouldn't have been able to obsess about the TR-3. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "You are a strange, sad little man." Mobile Systems Business | Littleton MA USA | -- Buzz Lightyear allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 22:13:37 +0700 Subject: Re: Grounding of SR-71s To Paul, That the SRs returned in order to cover something else is certainly a viable hypothesis. If so, instead of covering for something with a similar signature it might just be that they are there as a diversion so that people won't look elsewhere for something else. Of course, this would be an optimistic view. Art ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 22:33:38 +0700 Subject: Re: Help with Family Tree To John Regus: Grumman ate Vought and was in turn eaten by Northrop (although technically it's a "merger". McDonnell ate Douglas and became McDonnell Douglas. This comapny has a military and civil division as well as a helicopter division (which came when they ate Hughes Helicopters). Generally, the fighter-attack stuff (F-15, AV-8) is more "McDonnelly" out of St. Louis, and the large transports (KC-10, C-17) is more "Douglassy" out of Long Beach. General Dynamics was Convair, which came out of eating Consolidated a long time ago. Lockheed ate (Oops! I mean merged with) General Dynamics military aircraft and then married Martin, which used to be Martin Aircraft which I believe built the M404 passenger aircraft you asked about (not to be confused with the 440 which was a Convair aircraft and is still around as a turboporp conversion). Lots of companies team with each other to spread risk, but more importantly because its been fashionable with DoD for about 15 years now. The peak example of this remains the Magical Mystery Teams involved with the A/FX. Art ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 22:47:04 +0700 Subject: Re: Boeing Programs One other big thing Boeing is involved with is JAST (or JSF). They have a particularly innovative design for the competition, it'll be interesting to see what happens. To me the most interesting thing about their submission isn't the aircraft itself. Back in the ASTOVL days, ARPA selected Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas to pursue further refinement of their designs. Both of them used externally powered fans for STOVL operations, a concept pioneered by and favored by ARPA (MDD has since gone to lift + lift/cruise), while Boeing had proposed a direct lift aircraft (like the Harrier). Boeing then thought about it and announced, "Hey! We're Boeing. We're big. We're doing real well. We'll build our plane with our own money"! This, of course, put the Beltway in a tizzy. Boeing was also pitching to Congress as well, arguing that there ought to be an investigation of direct lift since we already had one of those in service and we shouldn't put all our technology eggs in one basket. Congress agreed, and Boeing's work became partially Government funded. This also helped because the likelihood of the US buying a plane developed and financed outside the establishment is really, really slim. Now for JAST they are considered a full competitor. Art ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #574 ********************************* 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).