From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #718 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 15 October 1996 Volume 05 : Number 718 In this issue: re: AIM-47 speed re: AIM-47 speed re: AIM-47 speed re: bad news for SR-71 fans Re: Bad news for SR-71 fans.... other gift shops Re: A-17 and Brilliant Buzzard re: AIM-47 speed Re: SPYPLANES, the review 5/1/60 Again Re: 5/1/60 Again Re: 5/1/60 Again "Unusual" Contrails in Oregon Re: A-17 and Brilliant Buzzard Was that really a B2 I saw... Arsenal Ship Concept "Unusual" Contrails in Oregon" 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: Fri, 11 Oct 96 9:51:38  Subject: re: AIM-47 speed Chuck, You know, I never thought of that. I have no idea. That remark was based on a discussion following an [unclassified] briefing in the '80s on the AIM-54. In it, I was told that the AIM-54's speed was a certain value plus launch speed and the max was thermally limited. Now, if that's the case there has to be some method of keeping that value from being exceeded. This means that either a. The flight profile is more variable than might be expected to keep from exceeding limits. b. They've got some way to vary burn time/thrust, which I consider unlikely given the Phoenix's age. c. They've got a way to shut it off, which is what I assumed explained the situation. It's worthy of note that GD's proposal for the Navy's AAAM weapon was built around a start-stop-start motor concept. The number or firings and duration would vary depending on what kind of profile, range, and terminal energy state was needed for the particular shot. d. Either they misstated (deliberately or otherwise) or I "misremembered" (as Gene Roddenberry used to say), and it is in fact drag limited. Thanks for making me think. Maybe someone on the list has newer, more improved and better info. Art "Don't stand behind it when it fires" Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 11 Oct 96 10:27:04  Subject: re: AIM-47 speed Steve: The profile Phoenix flies depends on what the AWG-9/APG-71 tells it about the target. The really long range shots follow a climb to high altitude and then a dive onto the target. It is a ballistic trajectory after burnout, however there is still aerodynamic control. Art Hanley Those that seek to find a relationship between what I've written here and what my employer may believe, seek something that can't be found. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 07:42:10 PDT Subject: re: AIM-47 speed Art, 1) How does one shut down an SRM with integrated oxidizer in the propellant? 2) The acceleration comes from F=ma. The drag is a function of the dynamic pressure (yep, even supersonic -although the shock waves do complicate it) which increases with the square of the velocity. since it is a rocket, at a constant altitude the thrust stays pretty constant. So: V =Vo + at must be modified such that a =d(mVe)/dt -Cd(M)rhoV*V/2 where Ve is the exhaust velocity of the missile (body axis system) and V is the velocity of the air , M the Mach number is defined as V/A where A is the local speed of sound ,A=sqrt(gamma*R*T) Gamma being , if I remember Cp/Cv. Cd(M) is a drag coefficient which is a function of the Mach number and rhoV*V/2 is the dynamic pressure. What this does is incorporate the gas kinetics of the shock wave into the drag calculations. Due to compression in the shock wave the air flowing next to the missile is going slower than the air a few feet out in front of it! If we assume constant altitude (fired horizontally) we can take d(mVe)/dt to be constant, T to be constant and hence, A to be constant M is a function of V , since the geometry of the rocket is incorporated into my Cd(M) phantom term. So without going into solving the DE we see right away that there is a large sensitivity to initial conditions! But this is not rocket science. Anybody can do it. Thats why I like flight controls. I am looking for any input on neural networks used in adaptive flight control systems. Can anyone help? Chuck ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Sat, 12 Oct 96 05:48:30 GMT Subject: re: bad news for SR-71 fans This bears on current DoD policy, so I acan only address it from here Chuck: Even if we accept that your first two points are correct (which I don't but that's another issue), they don't bear on the current issue of the SR-71. No one has argued that the SR should be kept forever. The revival plan envisioned it only coming back for another five years or so. However, what do we do in the meantime until these new wonder systems come to flower? Dark Star, you'll remember, barely survived its first flight and wiped out on the second. It almost got canceled. As of now, the SR is still the most survivable system we have. Maybe that's by default, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. It may not be as capable as systems we could have built later, but we didn't build them. Consider the value it could have had in pre and post strike recon in the recent Iraq cruise missile extravaganza. Regarding your third point: The SR's costs are minor compared to what's being spent on other systems that as yet have not filled the part of the recon spectrum that the SR does. Since the SR is a separately funded line item, its costs have no bearing on securing a better technology baseline. Remember, it was the lack of that baseline that brought the SR back. The SR went out of production in the late '60s and the production line was destroyed. Although there has been work on internal sensors and ECM (which could be used elsewhere, the SR does not prevent newer systems from being developed. The SR was retired because the enemies of the program gained the ascendency and SAC had gotten its extra tankers and so wanted this non-bomber out of the way. Its revival has been handicapped because it proves an embarrassment and because it is not career enhancing. If it is put to sleep this year, it will be because the system doesn't like an "outsider". If it is abandonded again, there's nothing to indicate that there will suddenly be a shower of funding for new systems, especially given current Washington policies and climate. I too would like to see a new air breathing system, but as I asked on another thread, will there Really be funding for it given the current Potomac Preferences? Maybe there really will be a true replacement for the Blackbird developed. I hope there is. But what do we use in the meantime? Art ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 09:41:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Bad news for SR-71 fans.... Hello All, Received this from Richard Graham this morning, about the legislative language: >Talked to Emmons today and he told me that legislative language you sent >me is >about five months old and is now OBE (Overcome By Event)...it's not >a problem >any more. The money is there and they are a "go" with ACC. >All we need now is >for CINC to request the SR-71s capability. Best, 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: Jason Burton <207.19.158.3@eagle.tricities.net> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 10:40:22 -0400 Subject: other gift shops The questions was asked here if there are any other aircraft manufactures site with gift shops. Boeing has one at http://www.boeing.com/gifts/html/welcome.html And still looking... \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | | | jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com | | john.szalay@worldnet.att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 14:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: A-17 and Brilliant Buzzard J. Pharabod asked: >What happened to the "A-17", reportedly seen over the North Sea >(if memory serves) ? Below is an excerpt from an old mail: >[... AW&ST article summary ...] >Could this "A-17" be the same as the "Brilliant Buzzard" ? The only source for the "A-17" (as far as I know) was a short article in AirForces Monthly (AFM) No. 83, February 1995, which included a nice three- view drawing and an artists impression of an "YF-23-derived" aircraft, a two-seater electronic warfare/reconnaissance version, drawn by Pete West. The article describes it also as a swing-wing design, while the drawings show a highly swept delta wing. The article also says that the USA has at least 5 different 'black' aircraft developed (manned and unmanned), including 'Aurora', 'Artichoke' (never heard before, what is it?), the 'TR-3A' and another, unnamed one. No explanation is given as to where the "A-17" designation is supposed to come from, and the drawing is said to be based on sightings of the aircraft in the UK (Boscombe Down incident), and the USA (at Edwards AFB, Tonopah Test Range, Palmdale, Amarillo TX, and Cannon AFB, NM). The "A-17" is described as a relatively small, fighter-like aircraft, while the 'Brilliant Buzzard' is supposed to be more bomber-like in appearance and dimensions. The highly swept plan view of the "A-17" is more reminiscent of the 'North Sea sighting', than the XB-70-like aircraft reported here earlier. All of this is conjecture and can't be verified or proven, and should be therefore taken with a truck load of salt. :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 14:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: re: AIM-47 speed Exact and reliable data for the GAR-9/AIM-47A is sparse, and I have two (older) sources who claim Mach 6 as maximum speed, while Jay Miller writes Mach 4. Also, contrary to the (Mach 3.8 fast) AIM-54 Phoenix, which uses either a Rocketdyne (Flexadyne) Mk.47 or an Aerojet Mk.60 solid-fueled rocket motor, the AIM-47A Falcon appears to have been equipped with a Lockheed-built 'storable' liquid-fueled rocket motor -- which might be shut down in flight. Also, the missile was not limited to straight and level head-on intercepts, but was successfully tested against targets flying at 40,000 ft. and down to sea-level, while being launched at 80,000 ft. and at speeds from Mach 2.2 to Mach 3.2. I don't think the F-12 pilot would try to reach the target anyway, why should he, to ram it? :) The most interesting part for me is the guidance system, comprising a semi- active radar homing seeker for the main part of the intercept flight, which would force the F-12 to keep its nose pointed at the target (or at least in its general direction) for most of the time, to illuminate it with the ASG-18 radar. The second seeker, an IR homing sensor for the terminal guidance phase of the AIM-47A, is seldom mentioned. Was it ever used, tested, or even installed, and if, how was the seeker head cooled at those speeds and induced temperatures, and how did it perform against ground clutter and low target IR signatures during frontal aspect intercepts? Or is the IR seeker just another myth, like so many others, born out of the secrecy surrounding the Blackbird family and other Skunk Works designs? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 09:13:12 -0400 Subject: Re: SPYPLANES, the review Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >Another statement from the end of the show doesn't make sense either. It >claims about the Blackbird: "...more then once its been retired, only to be >pulled back into service in a time of need." > >As far as I know, the SR-71 was only once retired, and only once brought back >to (very limited and interrupted) service. But I don't think more than once >or because of any "time of need", but because of politics (which, at least in >my opinion, was also the reason for the retirement in the first place). I wrote to the producers of the show and this is what they wrote back as their explanation: >As far as the SR-71 being pulled in and out of service: The program has been >under fire practically since it's inception. It was retired in 1990 and >returned to service in 1995. While it was supposed to be part of the >operational force, the amount of money allocated was apparently not enough to >conduct an operational mission. So essentially it was provisionally returned >to service. Then in April of this year, the program was actually suspended >only to be funded again in the last round of budget approvals after our >program was complete. Again, we hope you understood from this segment that >it has lead a troubled and challenged life as the underdog of the Air Force. Go figure! They also said this: >We do take extreme care in telling a factual story that is also entertaining. > We do very much appreciate your feedback. We employ experts who vet every >program for visual and contextual errors. In this case the two were authors >who have written extensively on the SR and other reconnaissance aircraft. All >pertinent changes suggested by them were incorporated into the program. I >hope you will continue watching as we are always trying to get it right. Maybe they should get new "experts". Best, 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: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 5/1/60 Again On Saturday morning, the Seattle Times carried a very interesting Reuters report, datelined Moscow, entitled: "What Really Happened in 1960 U2 Crash". The text is as follows: A former Soviet fighter pilot broke 36 years of silence yesterday to reveal what he said was the true story of one of the hottest moments of the Cold War: the downing of Gary Powers' U2 spy plane in 1960. Igor Mentyukov told Trud newspaper his new Sukhoi Su-9 fighter was unarmed when he was scrambled over the Urals and ordered to ram the high flying "spy in the sky" piloted by Powers, a U.S. agent. He said he managed to overtake the U2. "Powers' plane got into the slipstream of my Su-9," Mentyukov said. "The airstreams whip past at 180 meters per second (400 mph), plus the turning factor. It started to flip him over, his wings broke off... It all happened by chance." Mentyukov said Soviet generals, eager to satisfy Kremlin leader Nikita Khrushchev's misguided faith in Moscow's rocket defenses, covered up his extraordinary feat and insisted for three decades that the U2 was hit by a guided missile. The downing of the U2 on the morning of May 1 brought on a sudden Cold War chill. The incident, which exposed Washington's secret reconnaissance missions to the world, provoked a series of angry outbursts from Krushchev that wrecked a Paris summit with President Dwight Eisenhower. U.S. commanders, who had believed that their U2s flew too fast and too high to be caught, were led to reconsider the value of manned nuclear bombers. Powers, working on contract for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, was put on public trial in Moscow in August 1960 and jailed for 10 years for espionage. He was released in Februrary 1962 in a spy exchange. The unassuming Powers, who died in 1977, was always unable to give a clear account of how he was brought down. He said he felt a explosion, the U2 went into a spin and he ejected to safety. "Everywhere I looked was orange," he once recalled. Mentyukov, who said he was later rewarded with "Saturn wristwatches and an order to shut up," said the U.S. pilot was describing the sonic boom of the Sukhoi overtaking him from above and the flare of its jet engine. Soviet commanders were apparently so frustrated with repeated U.S. photographic missions that the commander of air-defence forces, Marshal Yevgeny Savitsky, ordered Mentyukov to ram the U2. "Savitsky knew I had no weapons system. And there was no chance of surviving a ramming." said Mentyukov, whose wife was pregnant at the time. "They told me" 'Everything will be done.' There was no time for fine words." - --------------- Now, how to judge the accuracy of this story. Its basically Mentyukov vs. Penkovsky with Powers in the middle. Penkovsky claimed, in the reports he sent to MI5, that 14 SA-2s were fired, shotgun style, at Powers and this is what brought him down. Personally, I tend to believe Penkovsky, as he is/was a more reliable source, plus his account explains the "orange flash" better. Additionally, Kelly Johnson determined that the structural failure that downed the U-2 was the right horizontal stab breaking off. If the Su-9 intercepted the U-2, the Su-9 would have been on a ballistic flight path and would have been moving very slow at the top of its arc, as it went past. There would not have been a sonic boom. Lastly, the article makes a glaring error - Powers did not eject. Instead, he did a "manual" bail-out. The Soviets found the ejection seat, still in the cockpit. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: 5/1/60 Again On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, David Lednicer wrote: > He said he managed to overtake the U2. "Powers' plane got into > the slipstream of my Su-9," Mentyukov said. "The airstreams whip past at > 180 meters per second (400 mph), plus the turning factor. It started to > flip him over, his wings broke off... It all happened by chance." > > > If the Su-9 intercepted the U-2, the Su-9 would have been on a > ballistic flight path and would have been moving very slow at the top of > its arc, as it went past. There would not have been a sonic boom. > I don't believe the Su-9 can fly higher than the U-2. In a reconn mission in hostil airspace, Power should be flying around 70,000 ft. The ceiling of the Su-9 without any external payload is around 55,000 ft. Well, this is the data from a book wrote during Cold War. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 5/1/60 Again Yes, the ceiling of the Su-9 is probably around 55,000 feet. However, by gaining a lot of speed down low, before pulling up, any aircraft can be put on a ballistic flight path that will peak out at an alitutude that exceeds its ceiling. Chris Pocock's book talks about U-2 pilots seeing MiG-21s doing this, with the MiGs coasting past the U-2. However, under such conditions, the aircraft were uncontrollable, and the MiG pilots were unable to do anything other than grin as they went by. My FAI record book says that a specially equipped Su-9 (T-431) set a record for absolute height on July 14, 1959. The altitude attained was 94,659 feet. I think absolute height records can be set on ballistic flight paths. Later, a Su-11 set a record for horizontal flight on September 4, 1962. This record was 69,456 feet. Something that has occured to me since my first post - the orange glow couldn't have been the Su-9's exhaust. In all likelihood, the Sukhoi's engine would have flamed out long before he reached the U-2! This adds another seed of doubt to this account. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 01:35:05 -0500 Subject: "Unusual" Contrails in Oregon This seems to coincide in location with some recent sonic boom reports.... ************************************************************ This morning, Monday, while noticing a particularly nice sunrise, I noticed a very unusual contrail. Leaving the military corridor to the east of me from the North, approximately 121 degrees longitude, the aircraft dropped quite quickly from an exceptionally high altitude and began producing the contrail as it banked very sharply to due east, approx 42 latitude for about 1 minute, before banking very sharply to due South, along approx 120 longitude, apparently heading to central Nevada. My location is Klamath Falls, Ore. 42.2 lat, 121.8 Long. I have NEVER seen an aircraft make this manuver in this area/fashion. Already asked my F16 buddies, and they dont know who it was. Time was 7:15 am local Pacific, 1415 Z. Also noticed a high degree of Military traffic North/South this AM. Local High pressure zone is making very nice and stable contrails. Dan O'Connell *************************************************************** Dan Z ------------------------------ From: blipe@hughes.net (Bruce Lipe) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:30:17 -0700 Subject: Re: A-17 and Brilliant Buzzard J. Pharabod wrote: > > What happened to the "A-17", reportedly seen over the North Sea > (if memory serves) ? Below is an excerpt from an old mail: > > >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 03:40:26 -0500 (EST) > >From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > >[...} > >The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) is working on a > >modification program for F-16s, to enable autonomous flight and > >auto-landing capability. Other options include an F-117-like > >delta-wing design without a cockpit, but with a blended surface > >fuselage, instead of flat planes. [A sketch of this design is > >included, which might also be a candidate for the "A-17".] > > Could this "A-17" be the same as the "Brilliant Buzzard" ? > > J. Pharabod ARPA may perform a research project called Unmanned Tactical Aircraft using the AFTI F-16 at Dryden. The AFTI in its current form, can already perform autonomous flight and ground attack. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Was that really a B2 I saw... ...this last Sunday flying over Snohomish County? It was at pretty low altitude. I'm surmising it had just taken off from Paine Field, in Everett. Anybody else care to speculate on why it was flying over Puget Sound and Snohomish County, and why it was during the day at such low altitude (I'll guess 5000 ft.)? It's a pretty loud jet, btw, or at least it is when flying under takeoff power trying to gain altitude... But it was pretty cool! - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Corey Lawson + Daddy lets me drive slowly around the UW Bothell Computer Facilities + driveway on Tuesdays... but only on Tuesdays csl@u.washington.edu + -the Rainman UG4<#ol! 206.685.5209 + - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Matthew Wherry Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 06:44:16 -0500 Subject: Arsenal Ship Concept It's off charter I know, but interesting anyway: http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/14/pentagon.ships/index.html This CNN article dicusses the pros and cons of the Navy's automated "arsenal ship" concept. Any more thoughts on how airbone platforms stack up? - -Matt ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:37:43 -0700 Subject: "Unusual" Contrails in Oregon" >This morning, Monday, while noticing a particularly nice sunrise, I >noticed a very unusual contrail. Leaving the military corridor to >the east of me ... the aircraft dropped >quite quickly from an exceptionally high altitude and began producing the >contrail as it banked very sharply to due east, ... >before banking very sharply to due South, ... >Time was 7:15 am local Pacific, ... You may have seen the same thing that the folks near White Sands were treated too early one morning in the past week. There were so many calls from the public to the military that they explained it even on the local TV channel up here in northern Oregon, as well as showing video. The sky was quite spectacular in that it looked like the Battle of Britian! The sky was covered with contrails that portrayed lots of sharp turns followed by straight sections followed by more sharp turns. It turns out that the Army (I think that's who it was) is testing some anti-radar missile or some such. Testing began last week over White Sands, but they said on TV that the missile was going to be taken on tour soon and flown over many installations all over the world (that's what they said). So, since you saw several sharp turns, and near the Oregon Test Range, you may have seen that missile being put through its paces. Since you are also near the F-16 ADC training base at Klamath Falls, and those guys use the Oregon Test Range a lot, and if I were an F-16 pilot, I don't think I could fly straight very long myself, especially near that beautiful desert region of eastern Oregon. I vote for number 1, you might have seen that new missile thingy! Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #718 ********************************* 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).