From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #672 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 30 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 672 In this issue: Re: topic list Re: Blackbird as a Target Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #671 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #669 Re: topic list Return of Offical Numbers Re: Wide-area spysat, junked with SR-71? RE: Blackbird as a Target Re: Blackbird as target Re: topic list Turn rate for high speed aircraft. Spy in the Sky x-29 bell official homepage?? A-12 DOE reveals Groom Lake [none] 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: Kean Stump Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: topic list > On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, somebody dropped their coffee on the keyboard and > wrote: > > > Ah, I'm not the only one who wants to join a mailing list > > that discusses classified, or at least sensitive, information. This would be bad. Many of us like our jobs. Classified or sensitive information is not appropriate on this list. Plenty of other avenues to discuss that stuff. Doesn't change the fact that many people would like to join such a list, though. kean, skunk-works maintainer and occasional heavy. Kean Stump Network Engineering kean@nws.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (541)-737-4740 ------------------------------ From: pricharc@agcs.com Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 18:07:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Blackbird as a Target I assumed that the SR71, when viewed from the side, would have a RCS large enough to be detected. Early detection means everyone is then looking and birds are scrambled etc. The SR71 is fast enough to avoid ground radar by hiding in the shadow of a low alt. slow moving a/c until it turns to make a dash. It is already at alt. and speed due to the distance from the eclipsing a/c. Did, or do we use that technique to shorten their launch windows? Or is it the RCS so small and vehicle so fast that they can head straight at a boarder doppler radar site without much fear of a timely response some distance in-country? In other words, no real need to play games. In regards to filtering; I didn't know they filtered fast moving objects. Luke AFB, local to Phoenix had an open house for pilots where they showed a/c footage on why one shouldn't wander into MOAs. One thing they tried to get across was that; just because their a/c radar could see you, didn't mean they would because they generally filter out anything less than 150 to 200 knots to avoid ground clutter. I didn't realize that ground radar was set this way too. They also showed how stealthy a Cessna 172R is when viewed from the front (via a lantern system late at night). The prop noise hid the body so well that the wings became visible first. A near miss was not recognized until the pilots (it was a F15 check ride) reviewed the tape. One of them never saw it, he must have blinked, and the other one didn't realize it was an aircraft (you could tell under slow motion). Caused quite a stir at the base at the time. Every private pilot should have this tour. - -Clyde- ------------------------------ From: MELUMAN@aol.com Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:28:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #671 Some of you engineer types may be able to answer a question about calculating the turn radius of a hypersonic A/C. I'd like to pose this question to students. So, if possible, in your reply, include details of the calculation. (f = ma) that type thing, in terms of angular acceleration. Here's the problem: 1. Level flight at mach 2, 4, and 8 (@ flight level 600) 2. disregard added thrust requirement or A/C performance relative to the stall threshhold. 3. solve for turn radius at 2 G and at 4 G. The answers may be interesting to some of you space cadets who like to speculate about the tactics of reconnaissance aircraft. Thanks in advance, Matt (Meluman@aol.com) ------------------------------ From: "Chris Taylor" Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:50:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #669 The Sr-71 as a target Everyone keeps discussing Speed or stealth or altitude but no one is discussing speed and stealth and altitude for the blackbird has one advantage that makes it what it is it can fly fast and high and stealthy so a missle can go high but not fast or high and fast but not far so maybe the sr cannot go higher than a sam or faster than a fox fire (mach 4) but it can go high and fast and far and you have to find it to begin with and because of its speed even if you do happen to find it it is usually to late for it comes in almost as fast as it goes out it is like trying to chase someone and by the time you find they are already gone. and interception has its own problems in that in order to intercept you must first find it and the blackbird is a very stealthy aircraft in that they used to have a beacon in the sr so that friendly towers could guide it in for a landing because they could not track on radar (obviously this is not quite as much a problem with today's technology but the point still lies) so lets look at reality the only way to beat the sr practically and or effectively is one of two forseable ways - -1- Space based satelitte missles (Lots of them so the sr can not fly around) - -2- Another plane like the sr just remember it does no good to go faster or higher or farther it must go faster higher and farther and of course after it finds it :-) something may go as fast but not as high or as fast and as high but not far enough and the one person was on the right track in that manuverability is irrelevent until you are in close quarters such as dogfighting etc.. the question is that of time not speed or maneuverable but time time time and that is where the blackbird has the advantage. Vietnam for example when the blackbird was close enough to be in range of sams and trackable after being found it was gone in about ten minutes so you see it is TIME I love this mailing list (very informative) As far as teleportation and the soul it does not matter what you believe if we have souls and they cannot transport and we develope you will find out fast enough :-) Chris Taylor chtaylor@vt.edu http://home.earthlink.net/~nerys/ Coming Soon The World of the Blackbird http://home.earthlink.net/~nerys/sr71.html ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:12:52 +1000 Subject: Re: topic list >To: Mary Shafer >From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) >Subject: Re: topic list > >>Well, I don't want to join a list like that, so please don't turn this >>list into one. >> > I agree, *this* list shouldn't discuss classified material, but > you can't tell me that you would not jump at the chance to become > privvy to sensitive, classified, or otherwise compartmentalised > information ... anyone would! > > Furthermore, I understand your denial of the above ... you have > to say "I don't want to join a list like that", because you are > part of the DoD, whose policy it is to a) monitor all employee > e-mail, and b) to deny everything ... > > Anyhow, have a nice day :-) > > > ********************************************************************* * * * "You don't know the half of it" * * -- Ex-US President George Bush, commenting on UFOs * * * * "The truth is out there ... But so are lies." * * -- Dana Scully * * * * "Is it a game, or is it real?" * * -- David Lightman * * * * "Some men see things the way they are, and say 'Why?' * * I dream things that never were, and say 'Why not?'" * * -- Robert F. Kennedy * * * * ------------------------------------------------------- * * Matthew Etherington * * =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) * * * * -- PESSIMIST IS WHAT AN IDEALIST CALLS A REALIST -- * * * ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:15:12 -0400 Subject: Return of Offical Numbers Hi, Sorry to restart this topic again, but it has taken a little while to get this info together from several sources. The cost for flying the SR-71 alone, is $38,000 an hour, if the aircraft is flown over 300 hours annually the cost drops to $27,000 an hour. Now this does not include Tanker support or T-38 profeciency flying. Which as I'm told are usually included in the other higher figures that the anti-SR people quote. Now the figures that the anti-SR people quote for fighter operation don't include the tanker support (which raises the cost of their operations dramatically) that they need also, so I'm just trying to compare apples to apples. And, the figures for the U-2 are about $7,000 an hour, now this doesn't include fighter cap or AWACS support,that the U-2 needs (and used extensively in Desert Shield/Storm) or T-38 profeciency flying. Another item that is always mentioned by detractors is the SRs reliance on Tankers. The SR with proper basing can fly unrefueled over North Korea ("Rocket Ride"), Bosnia, Iran, Libia, and other foreign countries. 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: John Stone Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:15:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Wide-area spysat, junked with SR-71? Terry Colvin wrote that: John Pike wrote that: Allen Thomson wrote: > > does anyone > here have the interesting-sounding presumed HR mentioned? I'm trying to get a copy of the HR "Intelligence Successes and Failures in Operations Desert Shield/Storm" apparently it's not classified. >I would want to check for accuracy. That's why I'm trying to get a copy. > found that the retirement of both the SR-71 and a wide-area > satellite imagery system simultaneously without follow-on >A curious observation [if accurate] since I "think" that the >public record on late-80s IMINT is pretty good, and there just >weren't any overhead IMINT systems that were retired in that >timeframe, unless the KH-11 came in two flavors, which is >possible, though unanticipated. AFAIK the only wide-area system >that was retired was KH-9, but that wasn't NRT. I'll let you know if they name the system, when I get a copy of the House Report. | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------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: "Fowler, Robert A." Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:49:02 -0700 Subject: RE: Blackbird as a Target This is a standard procedure to reduce miss interpreted noise AKA 4000 mph UFOs. The most common phenomena is several flocks of Canadian Geese popping up and down over hills in sync with the radar sweep rate resulting in multiple targets appearing as an extremely fast track that is capable of 'impossible' turns. >---------- >From: pricharc@agcs.com[SMTP:pricharc@agcs.com] >Sent: Thursday, June 27, 1996 18:07 >To: Mary Shafer >Cc: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu >Subject: Re: Blackbird as a Target [trim] >In regards to filtering; I didn't know they filtered fast moving >objects. Luke AFB, local to Phoenix had an open house for pilots where >they showed a/c footage on why one shouldn't wander into MOAs. One >thing >they tried to get across was that; just because their a/c radar could >see >you, didn't mean they would because they generally filter out anything >less than 150 to 200 knots to avoid ground clutter. I didn't realize >that ground radar was set this way too. > > ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 11:34:10  Subject: Re: Blackbird as target I don't think we should concentrate too much on the relative stealthiness or lack thereof of the SR-71. Although USAF isn't too fond of IR, most of the rest of the world is, and the SR has a big IR signature. Also, remember that on the very first flight of the A-12 over Vietnam it was detected by radar. Ben Rich has said that although they achieved a good deal of RCS reduction in the front and from the sides, as soon as the bird went into a turn radar could paint the bottom of the aircraft. The North Vietnamese often detected the Blackbird, there was simply nothing they could do about it. They had the most dense SAM system in the world, but none of them were capable of intercepting a Mach 3+ 80,000+ ft target. Then, as now, the SR's greatest survivability relies on its ECM, altitude and sustained speed. Even if you do detect it, there's usually not enough time to do anything about it, including hiding what it's looking for. The mechanics of intercepting such a target from the ground (or from the air with anything less than Phoenix) make a probability of shootdown extremely low with anything but a directed energy weapon. Although present SAMs might be capable of Mach 5, they aren't doing anywhere near that speed when they're climbing to the SR's altitude, and that's how the SR would have a good chance of evading them. Even an interceptor capable of the SRs speed would find this an extremely difficult proposition without a Phoenix or AAAM-type weapon, because of the mechanics of the intercept window. You'd need quite a performance advantage (Mach 5?) in the interceptor in order to position yourself consistently. One of the reasons the postulated Aurora is thought to be a Mach 5-6 aircraft (it's hard to imagine why you'd want to go much faster than Mach 6 or so and stay in the atmosphere) is that by that speed the problem of interception by other than a energy weapon becomes so complicated that probably no one would bother to try an develop a counter-SAM or aircraft against a non weapon-carrying system, even if they could. Art "Whoosh" Hanley Looking for my employer's views? Look somewhere else 'cause they won't be found here. ------------------------------ From: agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au (Matthew Etherington) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:41:49 +1000 Subject: Re: topic list >No, I wouldn't jump at the chance to become privy to sensitive >information. First, I already _am_; second, it's a real nuisance handling >the stuff; third, I understand the "need-to-know" concept; and fourth, I'm >mature enough not to feel left out when others have secrets I don't share. > Well, since you are in fact with NASA, and not a government agency, you are clearly unaware that said agencies are keeping certain items secret that the public not only has a need to know, but a right to know. In reference to your 4th point - I don't want to sound like a naive idealist, but surely the government is "by the people, for the people", is it not? Surely what we call "the government" are in fact just a group of administrators, and the people themselves *are* the real government? If so, then any and all intelligence collected by the administration, or any of it's agencies, is, by definition, "for the people", and should therefore be made public immediately. >NASA is NOT a DOD agency. You may have mistaken the reference to the DoD >as a reference to the Department of Defense. It's not and has nothing at >all to do with any federal agency. > My apologies for this error. >Your signature would be greatly improved by being trimmed to about a third >its present size. > I know, but I want to keep all the quotes :) - -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Some men see things the way they are, and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were, and say 'Why not?'" -- Robert F. Kennedy - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Etherington =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) -- PESSIMIST IS WHAT AN IDEALIST CALLS A REALIST -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 07:01:45 PDT Subject: Turn rate for high speed aircraft. OK, here goes. Mind you , I`m a little rusty on some of this. There are different turn rates. There is the sustained turn rate, the maximum turn rate, and the instantaneous turn rate. The maximum is the structural or aerodynamically limited limited maximum of the instantaneous. Sicne we`re talking about avoiding SAMS the instantaneous is what we want. The centripital acceleraltion is, in classic flight dynamics, given as some scalar (n) of th aceleration due to gravity at the Earth`s surface (g). Makes sense. We speak of a 2g or 3g turn. The lifting surfaces must support the aircraft`s weight times n, and for level flight the vertical (-g direction) component of the aircraft must be equal to weight. We can conclude, therefore, that the horizontal component of lift is SQRT((n*n)-1). The turn rate can be computed as (mass*g*sqrt((n*n)-1))/(mass*velocity ) Yeah, I know, its a weird way to get there, I`m thinking out loud. I do that a lot. But we can clean it up and get turn rate(instantaneous) = (g*sqrt((n*n)-1))/V which says turn rate gets smaller as V increases and increases with the square of the g`s you pull. Since we know the turn rate we can integrate WRT time and get course deviation. The only thing there is that as the g`s are held constant the velocity changes. So you need to do a little more work. And you will find that the lit coefficient comes into play, along with the induced drag. So, without more numbers- you can`t really get the turn radius of the SR71. But........... You can guess from historical trends and make a pretty good guess. I should note for non-engineering types the turn rate above is in radians/time so covert by 180/pi for degrees/sec. Chuck ------------------------------ From: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 14:44:48 -0400 Subject: Spy in the Sky TrimtabNYC@aol.com writes QUOTE Long Island's PBS station broadcast an American Experience show tonight called "Spy in the Sky." It was a beautiful hour long telling of the history of the design and use of the U-2. It was just produced this year, and it had some great details - such as the arguements that took place over how to land the U-2, and how a dirty version was produced using early radar absorption technology (which caused the engine to overheat and knock out the hydraulic system). For a fan of the skunky world such as myself, it was a great show! UNQUOTE For the benefit of those new to this list (who include myself, actually) I'll repeat a posting done on my behalf back in February. (I thought it was sent to this list, but maybe was only to rec.aviation.military newsgroup): "SPY IN THE SKY" comments by CHRIS POCOCK, author of DRAGON LADY - THE HISTORY OF THE U-2 SPYPLANE A documentary on the early history of the U-2 will be shown on public television February 26th. It's part of The American Experience series made by WGBH, Boston. I was a consultant to the program, helping to suggest interviewees, and story lines, and doing some fact-checking on the script. I also arranged a filming session at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford, UK where we have U-2C Article 359/56-6692 preserved. That's the black airplane which is shown on the ground at various times during the 50-minute show. Watch out for a fleeting glimpse of Yours Truly in the cockpit, pretending to be a U-2 pilot! The show doesn't contain any great revelations, but it does tell a good story. There is some new footage unearthed from Lockheed/CIA archives, though not as much as the producer had hoped. For that reason, too, the narrative is more 'political' and less 'technical' than I had hoped. Many of you will spot chronologically-inaccurate flying footage of U-2R models - which wasn't my idea! One highlight is the first public appearance of one of my personal heroes from the U-2 program, CIA pilot Bob Ericson. Bob was the first pilot to successfully bailout of a stricken U-2; the one who strapped Frank Powers in at Peshawar on that fateful MayDay 1960; the pilot of the flight that discovered the first SAMs in Cuba; and a key player in the early overflights of China. He later flew many hours for NASA. My own research into U-2 history continues, though at a slow pace. I've learnt quite a bit from the Russian side; finally identified what the U-2B actually was, and generally filled in a lot of gaps in the records. Official co-operation on the US side in releasing archives has been patchy, though I shouldn't sound ungrateful. After all, the Air Force did fly me in the Dragon Lady last year! Chris Pocock ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 10:58:29 MGT-200 Subject: x-29 is the x-29 supersonic? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 10:54:01 MGT-200 Subject: bell official homepage?? does anyone know if bell has an official homepage? thanks ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/students/2/orihp.htm oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 08:53:38 -0700 Subject: A-12 Greetings! Yesterday I attended an airshow at the former Carswell AFB (now JRB NAS Fort Worth something-or-other). Blue Angels, biplanes, scattered static displays, your basic open house airshow, and the first C-17 to come thru these parts (as far as I know). However, off to one side, in a hanger, was the fully restored, full-scale mockup of the ill-fated A-12 Avenger II, in all it's (lo-vis) glory, for everyone to see. The show continues today (Sunday) if anyone in the area is interested. I took some pix and, if I can locate a buddy with a scanner, I'll make them available. Closeups of the intake baffles, etc. Poor lighting and limited viewing angles (from a photographer's viewpoint), so no guarantees... Although I have seen it several times in the past couple of years, I believe this is the first time this aircraft (mockup) has been displayed publicly. Rather than try to describe the plane, I'll try to answer questions about what I did observe to those who are interested... Greg Fieser Since I am self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer... ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 30 Jun 96 18:22:44 PDT Subject: DOE reveals Groom Lake [I apologize for not being on the 'net lately, but my work schedule has taken all my time, and I regularly work past midnight.] Vernon Brechin and I have been investigating the Department of Energy's role at the secret U.S. Air Force flight test facility at Groom Lake, Nevada, and challenging the DOE in environmental hearings. He has dug up some amazing documents that confirm that Groom Lake, also known as Area 51, is in land euphemistically referred to as "lands withdrawn under Public Land Order 1662", including a U.S. Geological Survey map that shows the rectangular box for Area 51. After we confronted them with what we had, the sent an amazing response. I received a certified mail response to an ongoing FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) case with the DOE, where the DOE officially explains Groom Lake. Here are their comments: "In response to your request for information concerning the Air Force's facility at Groom Lake, Nevada, the 38,400-acre land area once known as 'Area 51' was withdrawn from public use by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission more than 35 years ago under Public Land Order 1662 (filed June 25, 1958)." "Since that time, the parcel has been used and administered as a national asset. Because DOE is not now active there, Area 51 no longer appears on maps of DOE's NTS." "Today that land area is used by the Department of Defense as part of its 4,120-square-mile Nellis Air Force Range. For safety and national security reasons, air space above both the Nellis Range and the NTS is closed to commercial aviation and the general public." Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 23:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [none] Testing... again ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #672 ********************************* 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).