From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #669 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 24 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 669 In this issue: Blackbirds as targets Apologies in order to fellow skunkers. Re: Blackbirds as targets Re: Blackbird as a Target Blank Mail Note Re: Blank Mail Note XF-103 Intercept. XF-103 info guided intercepts Re: Some "official" numbers Re: Blackbirds as targets Re: XF-103 info Re: "Official" Numbers (Wordy and Rambling) Re: XF-103 info Re: guided intercepts Re: Blackbird as a Target (semi-long) 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:51:03 PDT Subject: Blackbirds as targets Shooting down a Blackbird doesn`t really pose that big a challenge as often suggested. The Eagle has shot down satellites, which last I knew, fly a little higher an a teency bit faster than a SR71. Whether we`re talking a useful, online system- well, thats another matter. The real threat to a SR71is the ubiquitous SAM. Couple of things: They are certaintly fast enough! (Ever seen footage of the Nike-Smoke launches. These are designed to intercept ICBMs post apogee. Nuff said!) I`m sure Mary can elaborate, but the laws of physics and aerodynamics plot against the Blackbird at its design point. It is not very manuverable. This is not a fault of this wonderful aircraft, just a fact of life. Small GA`s like a C310 make 2 minute turns. Transports make 10 minute turns. Blackbirds probably use sundials! Just kidding. I don`t guess they do too many holding patterns. But to my point, at design point cruise the SR is pretty easy to intercept once found. Its not a dogfighter. I`m sure that if Ronald Reagan`s "Evil empire bent on world domination" decided to, an anti-blackbird missle would be about an 18 inch put. I wonder how many Soviet aerospace engineering students got that control problem for a flight dynamics course? (Actually, I work with one!) It comes down to speed, hence propulsion. Rockets will beat ramjets every time. Scooping up nitrogen and using it for propellant won`t let you outrun a nice solid fueled system. my $0.02, Chuck ------------------------------ From: jeremy.compton@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Jeremy Compton) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:22:53 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Apologies in order to fellow skunkers. I noticed in V5 #667 1/2 that l am ment to have posted some part of V5 #666, l did not realise that l had done, my apologies as l have only discovered my name/email address there and attachment from the previous issue l'm unaware of having done so. Cheers Jeremy Compton Jeremy Compton Jeremy.Compton@stonebow.otago.ac.nz _____________________________ Shin: A device for finding furniture in the dark. ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 05:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Blackbirds as targets > Shooting down a Blackbird doesn`t really pose that big > a challenge as often suggested. Well, fortunately for our Blackbird crew members, nobody seemed able to meet that challenge at any time during it's operational history. > The Eagle has shot down satellites, which last I knew, fly a little > higher an a teency bit faster than a SR71. Except of course that satellites do not normally carry ECM gear, or have the ability to maneuver against an incoming threat. ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 09:29:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Blackbird as a Target >From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com >Shooting down a Blackbird doesn`t really pose that big >a challenge as often suggested. Then why hasn't it been done, A-12s & SRs have been overflying hostile sites since the mid 60's. The Air Force and the Navy tried and didn't succeed, they got lock-on, when they knew altitude and course, no defs though... but that doesn't necessarily mean a hit. >The Eagle has shot down satellites, which last I knew, fly a little >higher an a teency bit faster than a SR71. >Whether we`re talking a useful, online system- well, thats >another matter. The sat can't maneuver at all (at least in an evasive fashion) or does (at least to my limited knowledge) doesn't have any defense systems. >The real threat to a SR71is the ubiquitous SAM. >They are certaintly fast enough! (Ever seen footage of the >Nike-Smoke launches. These are designed to intercept >ICBMs post apogee. Nuff said!) I'll give you fast enough... >I`m sure Mary can elaborate, but the laws of physics >and aerodynamics plot against the Blackbird at >its design point. It is not very manuverable. This >is not a fault of this wonderful aircraft, just a fact >of life. Small GA`s like a C310 make 2 minute turns. >Transports make 10 minute turns. Blackbirds >probably use sundials! Just kidding. I don`t guess >they do too many holding patterns. > But to my point, at design point cruise the SR is >pretty easy to intercept once found. Its not a >dogfighter. As per your example, the SAM is held by the same laws of physics, the "slower" SR is more maneuverable then the faster SAM, and don't forget those def systems. >I`m sure that if Ronald Reagan`s "Evil empire bent on >world domination" decided to, an anti-blackbird missle >would be about an 18 inch put. I wonder how many >Soviet aerospace engineering students got that >control problem for a flight dynamics course? (Actually, >I work with one!) Well they've had since the '60s and all they came up with was the MiG-25. No luck there...... >It comes down to speed, hence propulsion. Rockets will >beat ramjets every time. Scooping up nitrogen and >using it for propellant won`t let you outrun a nice >solid fueled system. Once again we're back to those pesky laws of physics you mentioned earlier, the SR can out maneuver the SAM and then there are those def systems that the SR has. You know maybe it's not so easy after all........and then there's that quote from Kelly Johnson about thousands of missile launches against the SR and no hits...... respectfully submitted..... >my $0.02, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 07:48:23 PDT Subject: Blank Mail Note John writes: As per your example, the SAM is held by the same laws of physics, the "slower" SR is more maneuverable then the faster SAM, and don't forget those def systems ...... Not even close. The SAM has different stability derivatives and control functions. The T/W is orders of magnitude different. The SR can`t turn well at DP. The SR was designed to be stable, the SAM to be fast and manuverable. Yes, a NASCAR Monte Carlo is faster than the street version and handles better too! Once again we're back to those pesky laws of physics you mentioned earlier, the SR can out maneuver the SAM and then there are those def systems that the SR has. You`re comparing apples and oranges. The SR is an airplane relying on compression lift at design point were a missle is being pushed by its motor. The airplane is constrained in that it must keep flying first, manuvering second. At those altitudes you don`t get fancy. Bad things, man. Zippo aeroelastic damping ->Flutter. (which was a real problem on the B70. Notice the extra small canards on the 2nd prototype. They controlled the fuselage flutter.Really neat stuff.) The lifting surfaces for a missle are entirely (well, not a cruise type) devoted to control and the a G forces they impose would crush a pilot to death. Remember- the SR71 is encumbered with pilot and crew, whereas the missle isn`t. I`ve seen control functions aimed at 30 G`s for missles. I don`t think a cruising SR71 will out-turn that. 60 degrees of bank is 2 G`s. Even though my business card says "icy nerves, hair trigger reflexes" I don`t want to go over 5 Gees. Hell, I don`t want to go past 3! In fact, I like to sit in back and have drinks brought to me by pretty girls in Kimonos. I digress... Also, missles are truly 6 DOF controls. There isn`t the coupling between different functions like and aircraft. (Such as the Dutch-roll mode). As to why a Blackbird never got shot-down- who knows? Probably had the flights all worked out with the Soviets anyway. We never took a shot at their Bears or Badgers. PS I love the Mig 25.The steel airplane. WOW. Why be elegant when brute force will do the job? Maybe there`s a lesson there for engineers everywhere. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Blank Mail Note On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > I`ve seen control functions aimed at 30 G`s for missles. I don`t > think a cruising SR71 will out-turn that. 60 degrees of bank > is 2 G`s. Even though my business card says "icy nerves, > hair trigger reflexes" I don`t want to go over 5 Gees. > Hell, I don`t want to go past 3! In fact, I like to sit in back > and have drinks brought to me by pretty girls in Kimonos. > I digress... Look, SR-71 at Mach 3.2+ just make a 1 degree of change of course what will happen??? you will be off the original route for a couples of miles away. You don't need a high G to out-turn missile, just keep away of it. > As to why a Blackbird never got shot-down- who knows? Probably > had the flights all worked out with the Soviets anyway. We never > took a shot at their Bears or Badgers. SR-71 never get shoot down first because of difficulty of find it, then the difficulty to track it. It is different things. Now, once you find it and track it, it is very hard to intercept it because of the altitud and speed that it already has. A SAM shooting from ground will take quiet a time to intercept it. By the time the SAM reach the intercept point, SR-71 will change her course and it will be coples of miles out of its range or loss its track. And just mention how difficult a fighter can intercept a airplane that fly faster and higher than her. > > PS I love the Mig 25.The steel airplane. WOW. Why be elegant > when brute force will do the job? Maybe there`s a > lesson there for engineers everywhere. Yeah!!! Brute force. Not to mention how many migs were shoot down in the way to intercept SR-71 by its own SAM looking for SR-71!!! May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 03:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: XF-103 Talking about speed, I was fooling around in my aero profesor office's and I found a metal wind tunnel model of the Republic XF-103. XF-103 is a Mach 3 aircraft with a combination of turbojet and ramjet. Anyone on the list have any information about it??? I was looking for additional imformation about the aircraft and couldn't find anything in my "little library". Thanks in advance. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK Date: Sat, 22 Jun 96 19:24:10 EDT Subject: Intercept. > Look, SR-71 at Mach 3.2+ just make a 1 degree of change of course >what will happen??? you will be off the original route for a couples of >miles away. You don't need a high G to out-turn missile, just keep away >of it. The usual SAM is a _guided_ missle. As others have noted it has no pilot induced limitations in G stress. It will TURN and track. >> As to why a Blackbird never got shot-down- who knows? At a guess because it never ended being used against a serious air defense system. No F-USSR overflights.... The satellite powers do not get firs rate air defense equipment. > Probably had the flights all worked out with the Soviets anyway. We never > took a shot at their Bears or Badgers. Because the never _penetrated_. > SR-71 never get shoot down first because of difficulty of find >it, Interesting that macg almost_3 flight makses an a/c HOT. And the FUSSR fighters had some fo the first I/R Search and Track gear. And FUSSR had soudn ranging stations. Track the Boom, project and target... ====================== As to the SR71 potential as an 'overflight' machine, well, the General is a General and i only a 'puter jock. But if anyone else made that comparison (2 hrs vs 12, or whatever), I'd call it a classic example of 'fudging' with statistics. Lets compare the DISTANCE covered in the two times. (OK. The U2/TR3 STILL comes out ahead, but by a LOT less....) For a lot of penetrations 2400 miles (2 hours) and near immunity agains the air defense sytem IN USE are worth rather more than 12 hours of guranteed vulnerability.... IMO. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: FSalles@trip.com.br (Felipe Salles) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 00:12:34 -0800 Subject: XF-103 info This info I got from Enzo Angelucci's and Peter M. Bowers' 1985 Il Caccia Americano (the american fighter plane): Bill Gunston is quoted as saying that "this is the most futuristic fighter of the fifties" Developed by Alexander Kartveli's team, this innovative design looking like an oversized modern day cruise missile, it had a clean design with no bulges whatsoever not even sporting a fighter type transparent canopy. It had very short delta shaped wings, rudders and dorsal fin and a huge ventral square shaped air intake. About half of the length of the fuselage was occupied by the powerplant, the prototype XJ67-W-3/XRJ55-W-1 ramjet. The pilot would be encased in the nose of the XF-103 in a downward ejectable capsule. The intercept radar housed in the tip of the fuselage as was the considerably sized fuel tanks (right behind the pilot). Armament comprised 6 falcon missiles and 36 2.75in rockets. It was proposed to the USAF in the air superiority fighter bid and two prototypes were ordered in 1951. The titanium and stainless steel plane had prohibitive costs. Development was slow due to the unavailability of the engine. The success in fixing the F-102's problems and the perspective of the arrival of the brand new F-106, also the renewed doubts that top speed alone would not be suficient to insure the success of an interceptor. In August 21st 1957 (after a mock-up built) it was deemed unnecessary by the USAF after a full nine years in development. There is a three view line drawing of the XF-103 that I could post if there is any interest. These are the specs: Powerplant: XJ67-W-3/XRJ55-W-1 22.000 lbs (10.024 kgs) Wing span: 34'5" (10,49m) Wing surface: 401 sq ft (37,25m) Length: 77' (23,46m) Height: 16'7"(5,05m) Empty Weight: 24.949 lbs (11.317kg) Combat weight: 31.219lbs (14.161kg) Take-Off Weight: 38.505lbs (17.466kg) Max Take-Off Weight: 42.864lbs (19.443kg) Cruising Speed: 678mph (1091 km/h) Max Speed: 1985mph (3195 km/h)@50.000ft (15.240m) [est.] Stall Speed: 180mph (290 km/h) Climb rate: 50.000ft/7.1 min (15.240m /7.6 min)[est.] Operational Ceiling: 69.000ft (21.031m) Range: 245 miles (394km) Max Range 1545 miles (2486 km) Fuel capacity: 2440 USGal (9235 liters) This is one fabulous reference book, I wonder if it's available in english... Felipe Salles ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 23:03:36 -0700 Subject: guided intercepts Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > SR-71 never get shoot down first because of difficulty of find > it, then the difficulty to track it. It is different things. Now, once > you find it and track it, it is very hard to intercept it because of the > altitud and speed that it already has. A SAM shooting from ground will > take quiet a time to intercept it. By the time the SAM reach the intercept > point, SR-71 will change her course and it will be coples of miles out of > its range or loss its track. And just mention how difficult a fighter can > intercept a airplane that fly faster and higher than her. > This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of guided intercepts, missile or otherwise. It also ignores the fact that Soviet SAMs somehow intercepted and brought down Mach 2+ aircraft (even if they were their own... :) Greg Fieser Since I'm self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer... ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:12:15 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Some "official" numbers On Fri, 21 Jun 1996 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > Regarding the SR-71 vs. the F-15, exercises were run on this and it became > apparent that the Eagle's capability against a SR-71 at cruise was essentially > zip. A F-14 equipped with Phoenix would have a much better chance If (and it's > a big if) the Tomcat had sufficient warning to position itself for the shot and > if the SR did not determine the location or at least the bearing of the Tomcat > prior to coming within range. AFAIK, this parallels what Belenko said regarding the MiG-25 vs SR-71 - - possible in theory, but lots of ifs... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:15:31 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Blackbirds as targets On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Dean Adams wrote: > > The Eagle has shot down satellites, which last I knew, fly a little > > higher an a teency bit faster than a SR71. > > Except of course that satellites do not normally carry ECM gear, > or have the ability to maneuver against an incoming threat. Also, the ASAT missile that the F-15 carried, which is now outlawed by treaty (methinks), was a very specialised device following a very specialised flight profile. It was fine for shooting down satellites in vacuum, but of no use in an atmosphere - a ballistic trajectory and no streamlining on the final stage. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:08:25 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: XF-103 info On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Felipe Salles wrote: > This info I got from Enzo Angelucci's and Peter M. Bowers' 1985 Il Caccia > Americano (the american fighter plane): > > Bill Gunston is quoted as saying that "this is the most futuristic > fighter of the fifties" (interesting deletia...) Just in addition to that, Bill Sweetmann's book on "Aurora" has a small section on it too, as part of a general discussion on high speed flight. Photo of prototype and a short history of the programme included. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 05:23:41 GMT Subject: Re: "Official" Numbers (Wordy and Rambling) I'm afraid that too many are reading to much into those quoted statements about the SR's costs and I think you're being optimistic when you think that this is a subtle acknowledgement of Aurora's existence. IMHO, what you are seeing here is just more of the company line. Remember, the bureaucracy did Not want the Blackbird back! Should the SR be successful, this would imply that a "wrong" decision was made to retire it. Even a tacit admission of this is heresy. The government is by no means unique in this. Therefore, you're always going to see statements that say the plane is no good and useless and will cite irrelevant information such as the fact that it's loiter time is poor, which is a pointless statement about a non-loitering system (by the way, since he SR's hover performance is especially poor, we should naturally get rid of it since there are better systems for the medevac mission). Also, keep in mind that those pushing other systems (even ones that won't be available for 5-8 years) don't like the Blackbird being around because they perceive it as being a threat to "their" system even when that is not the intention of those endorsing its temporary reactivation. Let me give a couple of examples out of many to illustrate this: Secretary of Defense Cheney, based on bad advice, canceled the V-22 Osprey. Tprobablyprobaworsthe worsr decision regarding a military system of the past 17 years. Stung by all the criticism, DoD went out and hired their own consultants to validate this action. Lawrence Livermore was also tasked with using the war gaming model DoD uses to validate whether a system is considered effective enough to enter production. DoD's own hand-picked consultants came back and said that the cancellation was a big mistake. Lawrence Livermore's results showed that the Osprey was a tremendously worthwhile system, far more effective and less costly than any alternative. DoD's response was that their own consultants they paid to look at this were wrong and the Lawrence Livermore's model must be flawed. Keep in mithethat tha "flawed" model is the one we use to justify virtually all our tactical systems. Another case comes from NASA. In the '80s NASA planned to launch Shuttles with a fully fueled Centaur stage in the payload bay to boost satellites to a higher orbit. This was called "Wet Centaur" and was considered by many outside the project highly dangerous, especially if there was an abort prior to achieving orbit (Centaur's liquid fuel is explosive below 100,00 feet), since you'd have to come back with that thing aboard (can't jettison stuff in the bay when you're in the atmosphere). Although a number of engineers said that you could do a "Dry Centaur" (start pumping fuel from the main tank to Centaur once you're above 100,000 feet), NASA wouldn't here of it, strongly criticized anyone who advanced the idea an insisted that there was no problem anyway. After the Challenger disaster, NASA quietly cancelled Wet Centaur without ever acknowledging anything. What has all this blather this got to do with skunk-works? Just that this kind of mind-set (blinders, if you will) is symptomatic of all large organizations and isn't going away. That's what I think is behind these recent statements--they're trying to discourage Congress from "fixing" the "problem" with SR-71 funding. Art (you were warned) ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:44:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: XF-103 info On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > Just in addition to that, Bill Sweetmann's book on "Aurora" has a > small section on it too, as part of a general discussion on high speed > flight. Photo of prototype and a short history of the programme included. > --Brett Thanks... I knew I saw somewhere the pics of XF-103 in my small library and couldn't find it. If Bill Sweetmann's books Aurora said: "On pure ramjet power, the XF-103 was expected to attain no less than Mach 3.7, or 2,450 mph." If Bill Sweetmann is correct, we will have a airplane that "theorerically" will fly faster than SR-71 in times of U-2. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 07:14:43 PDT Subject: Re: guided intercepts Thank you, I`m sick of people saying you can`t shoot something down because its too fast. A Cessna 150 could take out a `71 if it was in position. Intercepts, as far as I know, are never from behind. The concept of a "stealth" aircraft flying Mach 3 is ludicrous also. The laws of gas dynamics proclude that happening. As metioned, the USSR is surrounded by "listening posts" . Think of the flight velocity profile problems that creates. High speed dash-decel to subsonic for border crossing , and then pour on the juice. No one has ever mentiond the contrail problem. At those ambients using hydrocarbon fuels you create H2O in the exhaust products (post expansion). I have no idea what this does on a Blackbird, but maybe Mary can elaborate. Ballistic missles re-enter at over Mach 10, and they can be (hopefully never!) intercepted. The point of all this is- The SR71 is a super airplane. Flys higher and faster than who knows what. And nice looking to boot. But------ It isn`t a missle. Missles are in a whole different performance range well past that of manned aircraft. (Rockwell Orbiter excepted!) Hey that`s it. We hang some Aphids under the shuttle wings. Bye, bye, Blackbird. Keep your stick on the ice, Chuck ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 9:27:17  Subject: Re: Blackbird as a Target (semi-long) On the Blackbird as a target: A heck of a lot depends on how much warning the SR gets. An intercept of Anything moving at that speed is very difficult. When you keep in mind how much of its energy a SAM will use climbing to the SR's altitude (and there are only a few who can do that), it doesn't have all that much left to go chasing the SR all over the sky. A relatively minor course change by an enroute SR will easily put it out of the SAM's intercept window. If the SAM is inflight towards a SR coming at it, the course change has to be even more violent because of their relative velocities and courses. A regular tactical fighter will attempt to evade a SAM by violent maneuvers in the terminal phase because that is when the SAM has the least time to correct its course (Although they're much more maneuverable than before, SAMs are not dogfight missiles). A regular tactical fighter does no have the performance to try and evade the SAM earlier, the SAM will simply correct its course. The SR, on the other hand, has sufficient speed and altitude to attempt to evade the missile while it is still some distance away, because it requires much more from the missile to change to the new course. Unlike the tactical aircraft, if the missile gets close, the SR does not have the agility to evade it in the terminal phase, but it's very, very difficult for the missile to get close. In addition, the SR would be using ECM. If the SAM is fired at a SR that as already passed, the course changes don't have to be so violent, but the launch window is much narrower, because not only does the SAM have to climb a great way, it must also accelerate to sufficient speed to catch the SR before it runs out of fuel itself. This can be quite a lengthy with a relative small overtake speed and is also very difficult. A missile defending the actual objective has a greater advantage because the SR Has to fly towards it in order to complete the mission. If it turns away to avoid the missile and doesn't complete the mission, the missile has won even if it doesn't get the SR. However this doesn't usually happen. One tactic used against the SR is to launch volleys of missiles, hoping that it can't evade them all. The problem here is you've only got one shot per land-based launcher (shipboard SAMs can reload much faster and often they're more capable than landbased counterparts) before the SR is out of range, so you've got to have a lot of launchers where you need them. This, by the way is how Mach 2+ aircraft got shot down by mistake, while the SRs escaped. Don't forget to differentiate between an aircraft that can dash at Mach 2 and can cruise at that speed, In exercises, the Navy found that one of the hardest aircraft to deal with was the F-111 because it could sustain Mach 2+ in a slight descent for a long time. The SR is even worse. Although the F-14/AIM-54 combination would be lethal against an SR that flew into the area the Tomcat was guarding, the Tomcat has to already be there because it can't sustain Mach 2 for all that long when carrying AIM-54s to go repositioning itself all over the sky in time. As for the SR not flying into heavily defended areas, ever heard of North Vietnam? Libya (who in fact had a missile capable of reaching the SR's altitude and speed)? The F-15 ASAT would have been worthless against a SR. It a long time to get the missile ready, and one of the few specially configured F-15s had to already be available in the area to have the missile loaded. Even then, the F-15 had to fly a very specific profile at a very specific time and the weapon only worked against a non-maneuvering target. That's why it would have worked against satellites in LEO, but not against aircraft. Ironically, one of the less obvious aspects of the SR's survivability is that there never were that many of them. It just wasn't worth the effort on an adversary's part to develop a weapon so sophisticated specifically to counter an non-weapons carrying aircraft deployed in such limited numbers. I really should have sent this last night when I wrote it, but I forgot. Art Hanley Try as you might, you'll find no connection between what's written here and the position of my employer, whatever that may be this week ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #669 ********************************* 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).