From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #26 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 11 March 1997 Volume 06 : Number 026 In this issue: mailing lists Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #25 RE: Sea Shadow Corrections and Speculations The Tier 3 question Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #25 Credible Sport F-22 Roll Out U-2/Cold War web site Re: Credible Sport Re: Credible Sport Re: Credible Sport Re: Credible Sport Air Force Mag. "The Spaceplane" also re: X-37 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: Stendec1@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 08:45:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: mailing lists good morining dou you have a mailing list? if you do i would sure like tp be on it . thank you . glen david ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Kalat" Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 12:22:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #25 > > In a message dated 3/5/1997 03:55:14 AM, you wrote: > > >From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:01:12 -0500 (EST) > >Subject: New CREDIBLE SPORT info > > > >CNN Headline News showed (probably as a filler) a several minute long > segment > >about a Jane's Defense Weekly article about the YMC-130H CREDIBLE SPORT > >project, including lots of (very impressive) black and white film footage > >of test flights. I lost about a half years worth of email, which included > >some additional information (like the serials of the 3 YMC-130H CREDIBLE > >SPORT aircraft), otherwise I would post them here. > > > >The footage included a (non-fatal) crash landing of one of the aircraft, and > > >several "very short" take-off and landings. The aircraft bristled with > >rockets, including 4 (apparently around the landing gear) facing straight > >down, several "retractable" rockets facing forward and several facing aft, > as > >well as some stabilizing rockets at the tail and other places. > > > >At least the forward facing rockets could retract into pods (or coffin-like > >covers) and the landing and starts were impressively fiery and also short > >distance. The commentator made it sound like the project was continued after > > >the mission was cancelled, which makes me think that "SENIOR CITIZEN" could > >be a follow-on project for the same purpose. > > > >I'd love to get a copy of the film! > > > >- -- Andreas > > I agree with you that Senior Citizen is probably a C-130 derivative. Paul > McGinnis's sketch of the delta winged concept notwithstanding. > > - - Steve Hofer aka conslaw > By the way: The web site for Smithsonian Air & Space has a digitized movie > of the C-130 landing on the carrier Forrestal. I haven't checked it out yet. > > Wasn't this the aircraft that was quickly designed after the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran? I remember reading that recently for the first time. They were basically planning to land the C-130 vertically in a stadium of some sort, liberating the hostages, and taking back off vertically. From my understanding, two prototypes were made. One flew, and crashed. The other never did, and the project was cancelled due to Iran's agreement to release the hostages. Personally, I don't think that trying to fly a C-130 via vertical jets lashed onto the side in only a few weeks doesn't sound like a very fun prospect at all. Some very brave pilots out there somewhere. Andrew Kalat akalat@kbltech.com ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Sat, 8 Mar 97 16:38:29 EST Subject: RE: Sea Shadow > Does any one have the current location of the Skunkworks stealth ship? > It used to be tied up in south San Francisco Bay. > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net According to Lockmart's PAO website, Sea-Shadow is in San Diego at the 32nd Street pier. \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | | | jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com | | | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) ... Help stop "Cranial Rectumitus" !... ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 19:15:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Corrections and Speculations I wrote: >I would assume the footage of the test flights was at least partially made >at Hurlbert Field/Eglin AFB, FL, and Dobbins ANGB, GA. I made two dumb errors in this single sentence: Hurlburt Field was misspelled and Dobbins is an ARB (Air Reserve Base), not an Air National Guard Base. Thanks to everyone pointing that out to me. Also, Dave Barak has put 4 stills of the YMC-130H video on his home page at: http://www.netrunner.net/~barak/c130 Anybody care to speculate if one of the 'black' aircraft, rumored to be unveiled at the USAF's 50th Anniversary airshow at Nellis AFB next month, will be the Senior Citizen aircraft? Other candidates for this 'surprise' unveiling include of course "Aurora" (and relatives), the "Northrop TR-3A Black Manta" or "Northrop A-17", Lockheed's Tier 3 (or "Q") or any of the other stealthy UCAVs, one of the silent, stealthy helicopters, or even one of the real big triangles (or "Silent Vulcans"). What about the Skunk Work's "Vindicator"? Did I forget anyone? (The XB-70 look-alikes fall under the "Aurora relative" group, I suppose). - -- 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: Xelex@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 19:17:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Tier 3 question Previously, I may have posted anecdotal stories to the effect that the Tier 3 manned prototype flew at Groom Lake, and was later placed in the classifed museum there. Lately, I have found that most of my sources say the aircraft never got beyond the mock-up stage. As the story goes, about $300 million was spent on the project between 1983 and 1992. Joint CIA-USAF management created difficulties. A source said that "if a prototype had flown, it would have been manned." The design included a 220-foot wingspan. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ From: "David B. Serafini" Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:53:12 -0800 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #25 > From: patrick@e-z.net > Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 22:48:31 -0800 > Subject: Glomar Explorer > > The Glomar Explorer is currently in a shipyard in Portland Oregon for > overhaul and conversion. It has been here several times over the > [....] > submarine laying in many thousands of feet of water. The ship is being > refitted for use as a "deep drilling vessel". Isn't this the same story > originally used when it was first built? If I remember correctly the original story was it would be used for "mining" the ocean floor (for manganese modules?), although I certainly would believe there was more than one cover story. - -David ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:26:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Credible Sport Now that Credible Sport is "White", it answers a long held question of mine. When I was finishing my master's in the spring of 1980, I interviewed for a job at Lockheed Georgia. The guys in the aero group made reference to a "Black Hole" that was swallowing guys from their group. Later, on a plant tour, we passed the old JetStar assembly building, which was now surrounded by barbed wire. I was told that this was the "Black Hole" - this must have been where they were putting Credible Sport together. For a while I thought that this was where what became the "Stealth Fighter" was assembled. However, late in the 1980s when the F-117 was announced, we learned that this was assembled in Burbank. I ended up taking a job at Sikorsky in the fall of 1980, and the guy who sat behind me told me an interesting story. One day, in 1979, he got a call from the Navy, asking what the range of a RH-53D, with the Engine Air Particle Separators (EAPS) removed, would be. He calced the number and passed it back to them. Later, after the aborted mission, he realized that this was the Navy checking to make sure it was possible. In my time at Sikorsky, I also heard about UH-60s modified for "Honey Badger" missions. Later, the DoD admited that this was the code name for a possible second mission to Tehran. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:38:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: F-22 Roll Out The Air Force 50th Anniversary web site mentions the F-22 Roll out at Wright Patterson AFB on April 9, 1997. It lists the contact personas Lt. Col Braun (513) 257-4910. - - Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:02:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: U-2/Cold War web site There are several good essays on the U-2 and the cold war (from a con ference held at Bodo Norway in October 1995) at this site: http://www.hibo.no/asf/Cold_War/report1/ These articles have been present on this site for a while, but they have recently been made much easier to access. In particular, Chris Pocock's piece has a lot of previously unpublished information. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:42:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Credible Sport On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Felipe Salles wrote: > The EAPS are the "filters"in front of the engine intakes, right? Why > would anyone want remove them? Specialy when flying into a desert > scenario? Would range and speed be afected by this alteration? The EAPS are inertial particle separators, mounted in front of the engine inlets. They work by swirling the air sucked through them by the engine. The swirling forces the particles (sand, ice, etc.) to fly out into collectors, where they are dumped overboard. On the H-53, in forward flight, doors at the front of the EAPS are opened, and the engine is fed with straight, unfiltered, ram air. Hence, they are only used in hover. The EAPS are only there to prevent long term engine wear. They are quite draggy and also reduce inlet efficiency, even in forward flight. Hence, for a short, high value mission, they could be removed with no harmful effects on achieving the mission goals. I think the Tehran rescue mission planners never counted on the RH-53Ds coming home. BTW - RH-53Ds were used because of their slightly superior performance to other H-53s. This was before the H-53E was available. Officially, on the mission, one turned back because of instrument failure, one landed and was abandoned due to indications of a imminent blade failure (by the BIM system) and one had an aux hydraulic system failure at Desert One. As the refueling for the abort was taking place, another RH-53D, on a repositioning move, collided with a C-130. The Iranians, the next morning, strafed the remaining helicopters, despite the fact they were trying to get around the embargo and buy RH-53D spares for their own fleet (yes, the Imperial Iranian Navy bought some RH-53Ds - they were the only foreign customer). Rumors have it that one or more RH-53Ds survived and are now in Islamic Republic of Iran Navy service. BTW - the BIM system is the "Blade Inspection System". Sikorsky uses hollow spars in their rotor blades. They are pressurized with Nitrogren and if some leaks out, an indicator pops out, indicating a possible imminent blade failure. On the H-53 with the IBIS system, the indicator is radioactive and a gieger counter on the upper fuselage detects it and lights a warning light in the cockpit. However, the system is prone to erronous readings and pilots often ignore it. Major Siefert, the USMC commander on the mission claimed that he told his pilots that a BIM indication was reason for landing immediately. What I could never figure out was how the mission was supposed to end, if it succeded. The commandos were supposed to go into Tehran on buses and assault the embassy. Then, the RH-53Ds were supposed to come and airlift everyone to the airport. There, US troops were supposed to land in C-141s and seize the airport, so that everyone could be evacuated. It is hard to see how this could have succeded. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: "Randal L. Marbury" Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:40:37 -0600 Subject: Re: Credible Sport David Lednicer wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Felipe Salles wrote: > > > The EAPS are the "filters"in front of the engine intakes, right? Why > > would anyone want remove them? Specialy when flying into a desert > > scenario? Would range and speed be afected by this alteration? > What I could never figure out was how the mission was supposed to > end, if it succeded. The commandos were supposed to go into Tehran on > buses and assault the embassy. Then, the RH-53Ds were supposed to come > and airlift everyone to the airport. There, US troops were supposed to > land in C-141s and seize the airport, so that everyone could be evacuated. > It is hard to see how this could have succeded. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" It was dicey at best. Which is why a more practical solution--inflight helo refueling by HC-130--should have been given serious consideration/use. Why land any assets at all (except for the requisite "precious cargo" onload) when a sufficient number of HH-53's were in the inventory with combat-familiar/tested ("thanks" to Vietnam Combat SAR) personnel to fly them? And they could have done it with EAPS in place. "Black BIMs" might still be a problem, but they were prone to misfires also, just like mag plugs and all the other "stuff". There would still have been ample work for SOF (and maybe even the Navy) to give everyone their "piece of the pie". As one of the folks involved in the aftermath of "Desert One", I'm glad it *only* took five _more_ years for the capabilities of the former Rescue community to be recognized by the "powers-that-be" (and grudgingly by the rest of SOF). IMHO, the vindication of my hypothesis can be seen in the investments in MC-130E Helo AR (which unfortunately makes an already overtasked platform even more so), PAVE LOW I-III, Refuelable MH-46, and the introduction of the improved HC into SOF (as the MC-130P/N). - -- Randal Marbury, former Rescue Special Ops Low Level (Standardization) Pilot (with NVG scars and gray hairs to prove it!) AeroSpace Technical Research Associates Watauga, TX, USA http://ASTRA.home.ml.org ********************************************* My thoughts are nobody's business but my own. In fact...my thoughts _are_ my business. ********************************************* ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 11:33:15 nA Subject: Re: Credible Sport Dave, Thanks for your H-53 info. I've put away those books I had on the raid, but I seem to recollect that the plan was the H-53s were to be flown to a desert air strip not all that far away, and under the cover of carrier air, and AC-130s if need be, would transfer the commandos and hostages to C-130s which would take everyone out of the country. The H-53s were to be destroyed on site, by either the commandoes or by bombing from the jets. If we ever actually get the Osprey, it'll be a lot easier to do something like this. Art Hanley Not even an electron of this message is associated with even a proton of my employer's views, even on the quantum level ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:35:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Credible Sport When I woke up that morning and heard the first reports of the aborted raid, I assumed that it had been M/HH-53s and HC-130s. I was rather suprised to find that it was USMC pilots flying RH-53Ds, without refueling probes (RHs normally do have probes!). The Navy was already short of RHs and the attrition on this mission just made it worse! I agree with you - personally, I would have used MH-53 Pave Low IIIs and if the USN wanted a role, they could have landed on the Nimitz to refuel. The HH is much better armed and armored than the RH. Helicopter air-to-air efueling can be done down very low, so I don't see why they didn't make use of this. It would have made the ingress and egress a lot easier, safer and probably faster. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:04:09 -0800 Subject: Air Force Mag. "The Spaceplane" also re: X-37 Air Force Magazine March 97 issue has a 2-page article entitled "The Spaceplane". It discusses the state of USAF thinking and some of the current organizational/study activities regarding the usage of such an airplane by USAF. At the end it also briefly mentions the unofficial "X-37" which seems to come into and out of earshot from time to time as of late. They mention that "X-37" would probably include 2 to 4 variants rather than one variant as with X-33 and X-34. They also mention air-boosted rocket engines (a rather general term lacking in specificity) as well as the possibility for small two-stage vehicles. Several discussions of the unofficial "X-37" that I've heard lately describe it as a possible "X-33" follow-on study, but there are other airbreathing studies already underway that could be considered related to that as well, for example, Hyper-X. In any event, it seems that hypersonic airbreathing is still in the mix! ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #26 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@pmihwy.com". 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@pmihwy.com" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "georgek@netwrx1.com". 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 e-mail request by sending a message to majordomo@pmihwy.com with no subject and a line containing "get skunk-works-digest vNN.nMMM" (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). You can get a list of all available digests by sending the one line command "index skunk-works-digest". If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R, Kasica