From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #670 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 25 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 670 In this issue: Re: guided intercepts SR's Speed Re: guided intercepts B-2 thrust Re: Blackbirds as targets topic list Re: topic list Re: guided intercepts PS My ŠiŠ key only works once per word! SAC Recon Conference (fwd) re: B-2 thrust Re: B-2 thrust re: B-2 thrust Re: guided intercepts SR Acceleration classified Re: topic list Re: SR Acceleration Re: Blackbird as a Target information Re: B-2 thrust Re: Read My Lips 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 10:09:53  Subject: Re: guided intercepts Hey, Charles (now this I'm writing today) No one says it's impossible to shoot down an SR, just that it's really, really hard (see my blather I sent a bit ago), which is why no one's done it. And, I'd like to talk to anyone who would call the SR a true stealth aircraft; I've got this swamp land I've been trying to sell. It's just that even if you actually know it's there, there's not too much you can do about it. Art Hanley Not only do my employers not endorse the views above, they aren't even aware of them. ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 13:37:37 EDT Subject: SR's Speed I've heard alot about the SR's speed lately, but one thing I don't recall hearing is how much time it takes to achive mach 3.2. Let's say, for example, the SR is crusing at mach 1. How long would it take to get to mach 3.2 as fast as it can? - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:14:35 -0700 Subject: Re: guided intercepts I've reordered some of Chuck's comments here to group them together. Charles_E._Smith writes: > ... >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!) >... > But to my point, at design point cruise the SR is >pretty easy to intercept once found. Its not a >dogfighter. >... >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. >... Recce systems are designed to do their job in a specific threat environment, by defintion! The A-12 and SR-71 WERE designed for a high threat (for the time) SAM environment. The U.S. didn't want another U-2 incident. I believe you've forgotten all the A-12 and SR missions flown over North Vietnam, North Korea, the D-21 missions over China, and the SR missions over the Middle East (we won't even mention the rumored still classified missions there and elsewhere). I'm sure one can find lots of other first hand SR vs SAM stories in the SR-71 literature. Ben Rich and Buck Adams, a former SR-71 pilot who flew SR's over North Vietnam out of Kadena during the Vietnam War, both told me many stories about the SR versus SAMs. An additional point is that many special SAM tactics have been employed by the enemy in attempts to shoot down an SR-71! They've ALL failed! Some of these tactics are alluded to below. I don't think that you and others realize that on some of these missions, the SR-71 flew multiple passes over the target. So there was opportunity on these missions for the SAMs to get their act together. On one multi-pass mission, that Buck Adams told me about, his RSO detected no radar tracking attempts on their first pass over the target. They finished their first pass, turned around and came back for another. As they approached the target, suddenly it was like the 4th of July! There were MANY MANY missile tracks coming up! Buck thought they shot every missile they had! The tactics they employed in this situation, was to present the missile guidance system with a climb, turn, and a speed change (think 4D). Buck was somewhat startled by all these tracks coming up at him, and he was already in a turn, so he climbed and accelerated slightly. In fact, he overcooked his climb due to his excitement and got outside the envelope! He was able to recover and get the airplane back where it belonged, but things were rather tense for awhile. He and his RSO were able to bring home the bacon. Ben Rich added to this story, how, during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese would have agents monitoring SR-71 takeoffs and routes. He said that when they had the takeoff and route correct, they would launch their SAMS on time alone, and not radar!! Quoting Ben: "They had a network of spies watching for that airplane! They wanted to shoot one down real bad. They never did!" >I`m sick of people saying you can`t shoot something down >because its too fast. A future high speed recce system would be designed to counter the threat environment it would be doing recce in. Just like the SR was. I guess I could say, I'm sick of people saying you can't shoot something down just because it's stealth! Perhaps the best reason to build a high speed system is to have an augmented capability for space based assets. Namely: High speed can be useful in a high threat situation. High speed can be useful in a time critical situation. High speed can be useful in a time critical situation that also requires a large area to be seen. High speed, since it doesn't have to be stealthy, might be the only possible platform for certain sensors that cannot be stealthy (for whatever reason). High speed vehicles can be based here in the U.S. and get over targets very quickly. Therefore, a high speed system is a nice capability and option to have in a suite of sensor carrying assets. There don't have to be very many. And these days, there will be more and more different types of sensors, and eventually, more and more places to put them. >It comes down to speed, hence propulsion. Rockets will >beat ramjets every time. Every time? I think you've forgotten several things. One, some of those SAMs are ramjet powered. Second, pure rockets have lousy range. But heck, I like rockets. Pick the best of both worlds! Larry ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: B-2 thrust Does anyone know how much percent of the thrust is need it for a B-2 to take off??? Let's said in operating weight (175,000 lb). I hear someone told me that in Discovery channel mention something like only 20% of the total thrust is need it for the B-2 to take off (I don't know in what it was her weight during the take off). I will appreciate your answer. 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: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:18:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Blackbirds as targets Brett Davidson wrote: > 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 Not exactly - ASAT used radially firing 'squib' motors (solid-fueled charges) to guide the missile to impact - not ballistic at all. The F-15 mothership did fly a very exact profile in order to maximize altitude and minimize major course changes by the ASAT. Incidentally, I believe that LTV/Loral (now Lockheed Martin, of course) uses the same guidance technology on their MLRS, ATACMS, and SR-HIT/FLAGE/ERINT family of missiles. I have seen videos of in-atmosphere intercepts of ballistic warheads using this technology (ERINT, I believe). I have more details on how the system works, if anyone is interested... On a related subject, I think we're all kind of missing the point here. Physically maneuvering to evade an incoming missile would be a last resort for an SR (or similar craft). As I understand it, SRs use electronic spoofing (ECM) to 're-direct' incoming missiles. Besides, SR are limited to something less than 2 Gs at speed, aren't they???? Greg Fieser Since I'm self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer... ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:46:15 MGT-200 Subject: topic list The sr-71 and the u-2 are not classified anymore so why are they still on the list? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 03:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: topic list > The sr-71 and the u-2 are not classified anymore so why are they > still on the list? On what list? This mailing list?? Your answer is found in the following question: What organization built the SR-71 and U-2? ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 03:57:03 PDT Subject: Re: guided intercepts All good points, Art. Nice to have your input. Larry, we may have to agree to disagree. But thats what makes life fun. I should have been more specific actually. I was thinking in 1990`s trems of missle performance. The old Vietnam era SAMS were pretty primative compared to what you can do today. The tactic was to watch them visually and when they began to turn go right at them, and break when you RO told you to. Think of what was available for intercept computations in the late 60`s and early 70`s. Pretty laughable by todays standards. Probably not so funny to the guys who flew against them, though. The modern systems I`ve peeked into have enough processing power and thrust to initiate the intercept from t=0. They are also up-down linked and have the guidance computers ON THE GROUND, with all the data from DIFFERENT sources as parameters. Thats a HUGE difference . Multimode tracking turns a so-so system into world beater. Look at the MIG 29. Or the Patriot. Propellants are "hotter" today and solid fuel instabilities like screaming are much better controlled with the elastomer star-grains found in modern motors. This, along with hypersonic velocites makes a modern SAM pretty damn formidable. I really doubt the SR would stand much of a chance against a system designed today to get it today. Question is, has anyone seen the need to do it? For all its speed and bravado, the SR71 is a pretty benign aircraft. I stand by my statement that a rocket motor will out- perform an airbreather in a missle. As far as range- Larry, you`re way way way way off with your statement. Thinking too linerarly. As I remember from hueristics and my years in school, the fastest, farthest traveling thing ever made by man is Voyager. A multi-stage rocket if memory serves! My personal opinion is that airbeathers make better reusables and rockets make better one-shots. But I`m sure there`s an almost infinite number of exception. The fastest airplane ever built was rocket powered. Mach what for the X15? I still want to know what you think of my idea with Aphids on Rockwell orbiter? Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 04:45:46 PDT Subject: PS My ŠiŠ key only works once per word! Missle -> missile Please excuse the head up and locked syndrome. Chuck ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 06:55:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: SAC Recon Conference (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:04:39 -0500 (CDT) From: drbob@creighton.edu To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Subject: SAC Recon Conference Skunk Works fans may be interested to learn of the forthcoming Strategic Reconnaissance Reunion to be held 4-7 September 1996, in Omaha, Nebraska. Most of the activities are intended for "grip and grin" purposes, i.e., to renew old acquaintances, but on Saturday 7 September there will be a number of semi-official briefings on a variety of recon related topics. Looking at the list of who's coming, I recognize a few Sled crewmembers and a couple of U-2 pilots. Persons interested in attending should write to Colonel Harlon Hain (ret.), 212 Bellevue Blvd North, Bellevue, NE, 68005, for more information. Here's your chance to meet with and talk to the largest group of Skunk Works recon users! Dr Bob ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 8:01:59 EDT Subject: re: B-2 thrust >>Does anyone know how much percent of the thrust is need it for a B-2 to take off??? Let's said in operating weight (175,000 lb). I have a very nice poster form Northrop Grumman on the the B-2, it lists the gross weight as "more than 350,000 lbs.". Payload "more than 40,000 lbs.". Regards, Jay - ------------- Original Text From: Wei-Jen Su , on 6/24/96 9:30 PM: To: "Skunk Works" Does anyone know how much percent of the thrust is need it for a B-2 to take off??? Let's said in operating weight (175,000 lb). I hear someone told me that in Discovery channel mention something like only 20% of the total thrust is need it for the B-2 to take off (I don't know in what it was her weight during the take off). I will appreciate your answer. 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) 0 ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 06:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: B-2 thrust > >>Does anyone know how much percent of the thrust is need it for a > B-2 to take off??? Let's said in operating weight (175,000 lb). > > I have a very nice poster form Northrop Grumman on the the B-2, it lists > the gross weight as "more than 350,000 lbs.". Payload "more than 40,000 > lbs.". Here are a few B-2 weight specs: Empty weight: 110,000 lbs Weapon load: 50,000 lbs Fuel capacity: 200,000 lbs Normal T-O: 370,000 lbs Max T-O: 400,000 lbs >> I hear someone told me that in Discovery channel mention >> something like only 20% of the total thrust is need it for the B-2 to >> take off That sounds way too low to be an accurate number, at least for SOP. AWST did a "pilot report" on the B-2 a while back. That would be a good place to look for specific info like takeoff procedures. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 06:48:52 PDT Subject: re: B-2 thrust Takeoff is 100 to 105% thrust. Easy! Use the 350Klbs and the engine thrust. Cd is pretty easy to calculate Figure what you need to get to oh, say, 100 mph in about 6000 ft. Go have fun. This would be a great quicky project for Dan Raymer`s software, since the CAD model is so easy. Just use any 64 series airfoil. The section really doesn`t matter too much since the lift slope will be close to 2*Pi while within S/4 of the ground due to ground effect. Any students out there want to do this one and report? Hint: Use 75% for nozzle efficiency. Chuck "obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goaline" Vince Lombardi ------------------------------ From: worldnet@gnn.com (JOHN F. REGUS) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:39:14 Subject: Re: guided intercepts >Multimode tracking turns a so-so system into world >beater. Look at the MIG 29. Or the Patriot. > I thought the Patriot got beat up pretty badly over its "so-so" tracking system.... And, the Mig-29??? What avionic features set it off from the rest of the pack and make it better than anything? Or did I misread your intent? Regards SKOONKZ (good to be back) ***************************************************************** STRATACOM WORLDNET SYS/370/390 SYSTEMS SOFTWARE ENGINEERING DATA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS JOHN F. REGUS INTERNET: WORLDNET@GNN.COM ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 11:03:35 EDT Subject: SR Acceleration OK, let me rephrase the question: When the SR is finished refeuling, how long would it take to get up to mach 3.2? What airspeed would it be refeuled at? - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 11:36:19 EDT Subject: classified >The sr-71 and the u-2 are not classified anymore They never were. Many of their missions and capabilities were classified. The SR 71, specifically, was announced with a great blaze of publicity. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:40:07 -0400 Subject: Re: topic list From: "Ori" The sr-71 and the u-2 are not classified anymore so why are they still on the list? I beg to differ, try to meander around the flight line at Beale (especially down by the U-2 hangers) after taking a gander at the SR by the Air Traffic Tower. The guards come out of the wood work all armed with M-16s. While some aspects of the U-2 have been "declassified" many more have not. In regards to the SR, Det II at Edwards is a secure facility, with many armed guards patroling the area. You can't even get through the front gate without permission and a guide. Once again many aspects of the SR have been declassified, but other area specifically the defensive systems and the sensors are still classified, like wise with the U-2. Also what list are the SR and U-2 still on? Later, 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: BaDge Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR Acceleration On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Doug Tiffany wrote: > OK, let me rephrase the question: > > When the SR is finished refeuling, how long would it take to get up to > mach 3.2? What airspeed would it be refeuled at? > Er...ah, laden, or unladen. ;-D regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: pricharc@agcs.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:39:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Blackbird as a Target It is my understanding that the USSR complained regularly about SR71 over flights which we, of course, denied. The trick to such over-flights is to hide the a/c until it's too late for a good response. Since the SR71 isn't effective under radar the next best approaches are to mislead the defenders into thinking that they are not the targets or to fly in the shadow of another a/c such as an airliner. The latter approach works for only very fast high altitude a/c and at entry points where radar patterns don't overlap too much. This was the basis for the USSR shoot-down of the airliner en route to Japan. They claimed they were shooting at a shadowing a/c. Also, a effective defense doesn't have to be a kill. A small deviation in flight path won't bring home the picture. Even a lame shot can be a winner if it forces a deviation. Clyde ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:00:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: information I would just like to say thanks, to all of you kind people that are on this list, you seem to know your facts. It seems that any written material that i pick up is full of errors, and you guys (and gals) have the right information, and the willingness to share it. keep up the good work pat joyce -engineer ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 10:00:49  Subject: Re: B-2 thrust What Discovery May be saying was that the B-2 has a thrust to weight ratio of only 20%. Bombers and transports usually have much smaller thrust to weight ratios than tactical aircraft because this gives better range and longer endurance. The extreme agility of fighters and attack aircraft isn't needed in these roles. If a B-2 grosses out at 400,000 lbs., that would imply thrust in the neighborhood of 20,000 lbs. each, and the specs given for the B-2 usually say 19,000 to 20,000 lbs. per engine, so that's probably what they meant to say. Art Hanley Despite all appearances to the Contrary, my employers have nothing to do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Date: 25 Jun 1996 13:46:00 +0100 Subject: Re: Read My Lips Isn't it incredible the stupid trivia you remember, while daily forgetting far more important things? Anyway, the seemingly enigmatic Bush quote about UFO's has a humorous explanation: Back when Bush was campaigning for Prez, one of the tabloids printed a picture of George (and perhaps his wife) with a space alien. The headline screamed something about Aliens Support Bush. Bush's comment was merely off- the-cuff and innocuous. Back to deep lurk mode, Chris Mathews ## CrossPoint v3.11 ## ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #670 ********************************* 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).