skunk-works-digest Wednesday, November 5 1997 Volume 06 : Number 085 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment Completes Successful First Flight Information Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #84 Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #84 Interesting Av Week..... F-18 Pictures Abandoned Blackbird Re: F-18 Pictures Biography re: Abandoned Blackbird LASRE Deja Vu all over again re: U-2 Threated by Hussein Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #84 FWD: U2, SR71, SAMs Re: Deja Vu all over again SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR Re: FWD: U2, SR71, SAMs *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:07:26 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment Completes Successful First Flight This is the other interesting NASA press release. Any additional info from our resident NASA Dryden employees, Mary, Pete? ***** Begin of Forward ***** Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC October 31, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Kirsten Williams Dryden Flight Research Center (Phone: 805/258-3449) Ron Lindeke Lockheed Martin Skunk Works (Phone: 805/572-4153) Ranney Adams Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate (Phone: 805/275-5465) RELEASE: 97-251 LINEAR AEROSPIKE SR-71 EXPERIMENT COMPLETES SUCCESSFUL FIRST FLIGHT A NASA SR-71 today successfully completed its first flight as part of the NASA/Rocketdyne/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. The SR-71 took off at 11:31 a.m. EST. The aircraft flew for one hour and fifty minutes, reaching a maximum speed of Mach 1.2 before landing at Edwards at 1:21 a.m. EST, successfully validating the SR-71/linear aerospike configuration. Linear Aerospike rocket engines are going to power the X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator, scheduled to fly in 1999. LASRE is designed to gather data on the aerospike's exhaust plume as it travels through the transonic region of flight. Linear aerospike rocket engines have been laboratory- and ground-tested many times over the past thirty years, but have never flown until now. LASRE is a one-tenth-scale, half-span model of the X-33. The model contains eight thrust cells of an aerospike engine and is mounted on a housing known as the "canoe," which contains the gaseous hydrogen, helium and instrumentation gear. The model, engine and canoe together are called the "pod." The entire pod is 41 feet long and weighs 14,300 pounds. This flight is the first in a series of ground-based and in-flight qualification tests. Following these tests, a decision will be made to proceed to data-collection flights of the linear aerospike or to pursue more ground testing at the U. S. Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate, formerly Phillips Laboratory. A "typical" LASRE data-collection flight will consist of the SR-71 taking off to rendezvous with a tanker aircraft for aerial refueling. Then, the SR-71 with the piggyback LASRE pod will climb up to a predetermined altitude between 20,000-80,000 feet. The linear aerospike will then be fired for the collection of in-flight data on the performance of the engine. The LASRE pod carries enough fuel for one aerospike rocket engine firing per flight, which will last two to three seconds. The flight research missions will measure the rocket engine's performance, from subsonic speeds up to Mach 3, or approximately 2,200 miles per hour. Among the important flight test points scheduled will be the data gathered as the SR-71 passes through the so-called transonic region, from roughly Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2, or approximately 750 miles per hour. The flight research missions will be used to gather accurate data on the interaction of the X-33 model's airflow with that of the linear aerospike engine and its exhaust plume. This data also will help determine the efficiency of the rocket engine. The aerospike engine is expected to produce approximately 7,000 pounds of thrust. The total cost of the LASRE program is approximately $20 million. Linear Aerospike Engine Technology Linear aerospike rocket engines have been around for more than thirty years. Based on a concept developed by the Air Force's Propulsion Directorate in the early 1960s, Rocketdyne, now Boeing North American - Rocketdyne, developed the technology for both linear and annular aerospike engines during the mid-1960s, ground testing various designs into the 1970s. Rocketdyne proposed the aerospike engine for use on the Space Shuttle, but the engine was turned down because the technology was considered too immature at the time. Since then, Rocketdyne has accomplished 73 laboratory and ground-test firings, with over 4,000 seconds of operation of this type engine. Rocketdyne has spent over $500 million over the years to test and improve aerospike engine technology. Recent improvements funded by the Air Force in the early 1990s made it possible to improve the manufacturing of aerospike engine thrust cells, while modern performance sensors and monitoring controls enable split-second engine control. The linear aerospike engine is very similar to normal rocket engines in its plumbing and accessories, utilizing similar components, such as turbopumps. However, one of the major differences, and the most notable, is the absence of a bell-shaped nozzle. The linear aerospike engine uses the atmosphere as part of its nozzle, with the surrounding airflow containing the rocket's exhaust plume. This keeps the engine at optimum performance and efficiency along the entire trajectory of ascent to orbit. Traditional rocket engines cannot compensate for atmospheric changes, from low altitude and high atmospheric pressure, to high altitude and low atmospheric pressure. So, they are designed for a particular performance range in an effort to get the best performance from them. Another major difference is that linear aerospike engines are 75 percent smaller than normal rocket engines of comparable thrust. The smaller design means less engine weight and less engine support structure required, which allows for lighter spacecraft. This will result in lower cost to launch a vehicle into orbit. X-33 and the Reusable Launch Vehicle Program The X-33 is a technology demonstrator for a Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). The RLV technology program is a cooperative agreement between NASA and industry. The goal of the RLV technology program is to enable significant reductions in the cost of access to space, and to promote the creation and delivery of new space services and other activities that will improve U.S. economic competitiveness. The program implements the National Space Transportation Policy, which is designed to accelerate the development of new launch technologies and concepts to contribute to the continuing commercialization of the national space launch industry. The RLV program consists of both the X-33 and the X-34 technology demonstrators. The smaller X-34 will test the feasibility of launching small commercial and scientific payloads aboard a reusable rocket. - -end- NOTE TO EDITORS: A NASA Fact sheet on the SR-71 is available on the World Wide Web at URL: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/index.html Also visit Dryden's LASRE Website at URL: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/SR71/lasre.html Photos are available from the NASA Dryden Photo Archive at URL: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/photoserver.html or by calling 805/258-2664. ***** End of Forward ***** - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 08:34:17 -0500 From: James Stevenson Subject: Information George, I enjoy receiving the Skunk Works digest. Is there a way to receive the messages real time, i.e. as they are sent? I know that some groups offer either option. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 09:16:44 -0500 (EST) From: BDLiddicoa@aol.com Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #84 Jeez-Louise, can we get the hell off Bill Gates' car? Who the hell cares? This newsletter is for *aviation*. Anyone that can be so obsessed with Bill Gates' car as to write the longest post I've ever seen on Skunk Works has got a lot more problems upstairs than Bill Gates..... On a more serious note, interesting line from World Airpower Journal Fall 1997: "USAF operates only 13 MH-60G versions of the Pave Hawk, with 10 assigned to AFSOC and the remaining 3 officially with the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah. Despite having been assigned to Ogden since 1993, they have not been seen at the base and may reside at one of the secret Air Force facilities in Nevada" I am puzzled and intriged by this remark. I can't see how Pave Hawks would be necessary for perimeter defense at Groom Lake, et al(Boyscouts could handle that), but I wonder if USAF is testing additional electronics systems for the Pave Hawks at Groom, where electronic warfare testing has increased of late. Please give me your thoughts. I am genuinely surprised that AFSOC would give up almost 1/4 of its Pave Hawk strength. Brian D. Liddicoat Laser Design International, LLC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 07:32:33 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #84 At 09:16 AM 11/1/97 -0500, BDLiddicoa@aol.com wrote: >Jeez-Louise, can we get the hell off Bill Gates' car? Who the hell cares? Bill Gates has a car? ;-) >Despite having been assigned to Ogden since 1993, they have >not been seen at the base and may reside at one of the secret Air Force >facilities in Nevada" > >I am puzzled and intriged by this remark. I am too, but for a different reason. "one of the secret Air Force facilities in Nevada" Hmm. I know a (very) little about Groom, but I've only rarely (and very obliquely) found references to other AIRFIELDS in that area. S-4 is pretty well-known today, but... Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM Conquistador Council, BSA mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 (That was Texas A&I University.) (BTW - spent a year at SLU, too!) Spambot Bait: root@localhost postmaster@localhost admin@localhost abuse@localhost spam@primenet.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 21:34:56 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Interesting Av Week..... Hello All, I just noticed the cover of the 20 Oct issue of Av Week, down in the lower right hand corner is the article title of " Manned Recon Makes a Comeback", then inside there is an article on the line item veto of the SR! Not exactly a comback! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:19:28 -0600 From: Joy Richards Subject: F-18 Pictures For those who sent pictures of the F-18 for the young paraplegic I want to say that he was very thrilled and appreciated them very much. He was crippled, btw, in an automobile accident. For the one who promised but never sent, I'll say thank you for the offer, sorry it didn't work out. Joy Richards ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 07:53:48 -0800 From: "Anderson, Richard W" Subject: Abandoned Blackbird This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE82C.F2A117E0 Content-Type: text/plain In one of his recent items on the SR funding (or lack of) Art made a reference to 'the SR being abandoned....' Speaking of abandoned SRs, I happened to be at Palmdale a couple of weeks ago and was shown a trainer version of the Blackbird (tail number unknown) that they are still 'holding' for a museum that can't figure out what to do with it. I just wondered if anybody knows which museum was supposed to be getting the aircraft and if they're ever going to do anything with it. That plane is really looking sad....... Rick - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE82C.F2A117E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgEPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcLAAMABwA1ADAAAQBPAQEggAMADgAAAM0HCwAD AAcAMAA7AAEAVQEBCYABACEAAAAyQTMxQjMwQjFFNTREMTExOTYxNTAwMjAzNTIyRUFFQwDlBgEE gAEAFAAAAEFiYW5kb25lZCBCbGFja2JpcmQAGgcBDYAEAAIAAAACAAIAAQOQBgDgBAAAHAAAAEAA OQDgTXyscOi8AR4AcAABAAAAFAAAAEFiYW5kb25lZCBCbGFja2JpcmQAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbzo b575C7MxNFQeEdGWFQAgNSLq7AAAHgAxQAEAAAAJAAAAUkFOREVSU08AAAAAAwAaQAAAAAAeADBA AQAAAAkAAABSQU5ERVJTTwAAAAADABlAAAAAAAIBCRABAAAANgIAADICAAAhAwAATFpGdSgShZ4D AAoAcmNwZzEyNf4yAP8CBgKkA+QF6wKDAFATA1QCAGNoCsBzZXT+MgYABsMCgw5QA9UHEwKD+jMT zX0KgAjPCdkCgAqByw5xC2BuDhAwMxTgCwqzFOIB0CBJA6ACIGUaMKhmIGgEACAWwGMJ8GEFQGl0 ZW0EIAIgIAR0aBpgU1IgZnXEbmQLgGcgKAWxC2D0Y2sacSkUMQVAAMAOcPQgYRrhZgSQCfAbEBvg yG8gJxv1YmUcogGgpQBwZBpBZC4goScKhcEKhVNwZWFrHKIagTMgFxwhcywaABqgYXC/IeAi8h8B H7AeMAVAUAdA3G1kB0AeIgWgdQtQGmPKdwngawQgYWcfECAxhSYAYQQgc2hvdwOgmR5AdHILcQSQ IHYEkC8AkBvBGoEb8kIdImJpzwsgHNABkAMRbnUG0CgB+Rxwa24nUR2QG/AkkRvxbnkeMBbAJyB0 AxADICd1J0BsHJInHFAFsR5Abe51ErAqMCsUYwBwHzAcUKxpZwhwGmF1BUB3KzMvHxAgUCYAG2Bo G1EuIP0jcWotcC8RAiAEgSMBBpD1JqF5BuBkK6AqsgQgLzCfDeAwEC1lJvMlkHBvErB9JBZnEsAs EByxG/ILcHK9BQBhAYAmozGBK3InK9H2ZSgxNIBvNNMvkzGxG/D7HKIv6FQrMgtRGlEawwdA1mwr oBZQbyITcx4AIKLrIKEg/FIN4GsKjwuRE7IXGeE8pRXhAD8AAAADAPE/CQQAAAMA/T/kBAAAAwAm AAAAAAADADYAAAAAAAIBRwABAAAANwAAAGM9VVM7YT1BVFRNQUlMO3A9TE1DTztsPUVNU1MwMU0w My05NzExMDMxNTUzNDhaLTE1MDUxMwAAHgA4QAEAAAAJAAAAUkFOREVSU08AAAAAHgA5QAEAAAAJ AAAAUkFOREVSU08AAAAAQAAHMIZcfKxw6LwBQAAIML7uEwBw6LwBHgA9AAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4A HQ4BAAAAFAAAAEFiYW5kb25lZCBCbGFja2JpcmQAHgA1EAEAAAA1AAAAPEIwQkVGM0FEM0Q5QUQw MTFCNENEMDAwMEY4MUU0RDY2MDEzMzgwNjFARU1TUzAxTTAzPgAAAAALACkAAQAAAAsAIwAAAAAA AwAGEJwvaQYDAAcQmQEAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABJTk9ORU9GSElTUkVD RU5USVRFTVNPTlRIRVNSRlVORElORyhPUkxBQ0tPRilBUlRNQURFQVJFRkVSRU5DRVRPVEhFU1JC RUlOR0FCQU5ET05FRFNQRUFLSU5HT0ZBQkFORE9OAAAAAAIBfwABAAAANQAAADxCMEJFRjNBRDNE OUFEMDExQjRDRDAwMDBGODFFNEQ2NjAxMzM4MDYxQEVNU1MwMU0wMz4AAAAAtjA= - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE82C.F2A117E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:17:12 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: F-18 Pictures Thank heavens you wrote again. I've lost your addresses (e-mail and snailmail) and I have this little pile of signed photos sitting here as a daily reproach to me. Please resend your address so I can get these to you. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Joy Richards wrote: > For those who sent pictures of the F-18 for the young paraplegic > I want to say that he was very thrilled and appreciated them very > much. He was crippled, btw, in an automobile accident. > > For the one who promised but never sent, I'll say thank you for the > offer, sorry it didn't work out. > > Joy Richards > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:08:13 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Biography WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- One of the greatest American military figures and Air Force proponents will be honored with a video biography to be aired on national television in November. Gen. Henry Harley "Hap" Arnold, most noted for being the first Army Air Corps chief of staff, will be featured in the Arts and Entertainment channel program "BIOGRAPHY" as part of their 5-Star-Heroes-Week Nov. 10-14. The world premier of "Gen. 'Hap' Arnold: The Sky Warrior," will be Nov. 12 at 8 p.m. EST, 9 p.m. PST. Other personalities featured during A&E's 5-Star-Heroes-Week include Adm. 'Bull' Halsey, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Adm. Chester W. Nimitz and Gen. George Marshall. Tom Robison, tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Airborne Communications Systems Hughes Defense Communications, 1010 Production Rd. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp., Hughes Electronics Corp., General Motors Corp., Raytheon Corp., God, or my wife. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 97 12:27:31 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Abandoned Blackbird That is actuallly the "Titanium Goose". It was a trainer built for the A-12 program, which preceded the SR-71. It was supposed to go to a couple of differnet museums, but the mnuseums' plans kept falling through. I'm not sure of its current status. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:32:30 -0800 From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Subject: LASRE Great footage of the LASRE first flight today on NASA Select! First segment was of the test flight itself, second showed static testfire (short but impressive!), mating and rollout. Third seg was the standard X-33 test flight profile animation. Very much worth trying to catch if you have access to NTV on cable or satellite. I doubt if mainstream media will air any of it at all. Congratulations Mary and all involved. NTV Videofile airs at 3, 6, 9 and Midnight eastern on NASA Television which is available through the GE2 satellite system, located on Transponder 9C, at 85 degrees West longitude, frequency 3880.0 MHz, audio 6.8 MHz. Tony Dinkel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 97 05:02:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Deja Vu all over again In 1990, the SR-71 was retired with nothing available that could do its mission. Within 6 months it was obvious how wrong that call was when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Although there were requests to bring it back, they were round-filed rather than admit the error. A few weeks ago, Slick line-item vetoed the restored SR-71 program. Now, Hussein is throwing American inspectors out of Iraq, and threatening to shoot down U-2s, which he probably has the capability to do while the only organization that could provide the kind of intel we'd need is being taken apart. Maybe the decision will be reversed in light of what happened before the point of no return? If you believe that, I've got some oceanfront property near Las Vegas I'd like to sell you. Of course we could use the UAVs we don't have, but then the record of UAV programs has been so bad so far, I'm afraid that hope's a bit premature. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 8:21:28 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: U-2 Threated by Hussein Su Wei-Jen: You must have been away from the list for a while. Clinton line-item vetoed the SR-71 program on Oct. 14. It is no longer operational, and the program is being dismantled. Art Hanley My employers are in no way associated with whatever is written above, much to their relief ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:24:52 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #84 BDLiddicoa@aol.com wrote: > > > "USAF operates only 13 MH-60G versions of the Pave Hawk, with 10 assigned to > AFSOC and the remaining 3 officially with the Ogden Air Logistics Center at > Hill AFB, Utah. Despite having been assigned to Ogden since 1993, they have > not been seen at the base and may reside at one of the secret Air Force > facilities in Nevada" > > I am puzzled and intriged by this remark. I can't see how Pave Hawks would be > necessary for perimeter defense at Groom Lake, et al(Boyscouts could handle > that), but I wonder if USAF is testing additional electronics systems for the > Pave Hawks at Groom, where electronic warfare testing has increased of late. > Please give me your thoughts. I am genuinely surprised that AFSOC would give > up almost 1/4 of its Pave Hawk strength. > Brian D. Liddicoat > Laser Design International, LLC The Pave Hawks have been patrolling the border of Area 51 since 1993, with manysightings, and at least one incident of the "Hawk" actually putting its skids down onto a large bush two people were cowering under. The Groom Lake snoopers were shaken, but not injured. I know one of the people personally, and it happened. The MH-60G is actually well suited for patrolling the border of the vast, Area 51 testing and research range. With a speed of 294 kph, a range of 500+ nautical miles without refueling, and the ability to carry 8-10 troops and an 8000 lb. payload, the "Hawk" can cover a lot of ground. Combined with all-weather radar, and other enhancements, it is able to operate at night and in any weather. As to why the AFSOC "gave up" the 3 Pave Hawks is pure speculation, but there must have been a "higher need". The Blackhawk family of choppers is being upgraded, and I believe the "H" model is currently flying with several refinements, like FLIR and Millimeter Band Radar. Wayne - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:13:39 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: FWD: U2, SR71, SAMs From: Steven Barber Organization: Xpedite Systems Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: skunk works Subject: U2, SR71, SAMs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re U2s over Iraq vs SR71s over Iraq - if the mission is best satisfied by a platform that can loiter, then surely the U2 is the system of choice and the veto makes sense (for this one-off case. You can argue generalities). If the mission is satisfied by a 'quick peek' or even best fulfilled by a minimum-warning snapshot, then Bill Clinton has been very poorly advised in vetoing the SR71 funding. Anyone know what the profile might be? 8^) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:46:39 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again Art writes: >In 1990, the SR-71 was retired with nothing available that could do its mission. >... >A few weeks ago, Slick line-item vetoed the restored SR-71 program. ... >... Maybe the decision will >be reversed ... > >Of course we could use the UAVs we don't have, but then the record of UAV programs >has been so bad so far, I'm afraid that hope's a bit premature. Maybe if we do without the SR for awhile, we'll replace it. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 97 06:57:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR The U-2 is cleared for more models of sensor equipment than the SR was at program termination, and its radar resolution is somewhat better than the SR's because it flies slower. It also has much better loiter. The SR can react faster, can carry more types of sensors on a single mission, and has the ability to "surprise" Hussein, because by the time he can detect it it'll be imaging the objective before he can do anything about it, whereas if a U-2 is detected, he has time to hide stuff. In the case at hand, though, those issues are secondary to an overriding consideration: Saddam can probably shoot down a U-2 (excellent vehicle though it is) that would be in position to get the intel we'd need. An SR, he couldn't. Larry: We are working on a replacement for the SR, the big UAVs, when (if) we get them to work. The problem is they're 8 years away, and even when they get here there are a number of things the SR (and U-2) do that they can't. Of course, what do we do until they get here is another question. I fear you're being too optimistic that with the SR gone they'll see we need the capability. They didn't acknowledge that the last time they got rid of it, why would they now? Hmmm... in 1990, it was six months before Hussein demonstrated how wrong the abandonment of the SR was. This time it only took him 2 1/2 weeks. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:01:39 -0800 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR >>Maybe if we do without the SR for awhile, we'll replace it. > We are working on a replacement for the SR, the big UAVs, when (if) we get >them to work. The problem is they're 8 years away, and even when they get here >there are a number of things the SR (and U-2) do that they can't. >... >I fear you're being too optimistic that with the SR gone they'll see we need the >capability. I am optimistic, but I fear that what we've learned so far about the new subsonic UAVs is going unnoticed. The currently published properties of the big UAVs indicates that they don't have the SR's critical property of speed. A lot has been spent so far on giving them stealth and an autonomous capability and in getting a sensor suite to work with them. As AW&ST and you have both observed this week, we still have little to show over what was promised for these UAVs. It seems to me that as nice as the SR is, and given the fact that it still works, the net lesson however is that it is not wanted. In the rush to develop subsonic stealth systems we have lost sight of the fact that a high speed system works. I would bet today that given the problems with the subsonic UAVs, that one could make a case and even convince someone that high speed systems might be relatively cheap compared to advanced stealth multi-spectrum automonous platforms, and we could have it in way under 8 years. Speed is a single attribute which can do the job. With subsonic UAV stealth it is a much harder problem requiring the simultaneous optimization of multiple attributes.. So it is time to cut our EXPOSURE, and work on a true SR follow-on as well, that is affordable. We have certainly been dragging our feet in that area. In the end we need both types of platforms. Speed is life, always was, always will be! Speed today SHOULD be cheap! We've been sitting on our butts long enough! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:44:15 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re: FWD: U2, SR71, SAMs My personal feeling is that the country would have been best served by some kind of mothballing of the fleet, instead of the complete cutoff of ALL funding. I understand that there are planes sitting around with surveilance equipment installed that only contractors can remove, but there's no funding for the contractors! If we need these in the future, my understanding is that there will be NO WAY to reactivate them this time. Is this the way you folks understand it too? I think the President listened to the wrong people again, and we're gonna be sorry..... Greg Columbia,SC ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: FWD: U2, SR71, SAMs Author: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) at INTERNET Date: 11/5/97 1:13 AM From: Steven Barber Organization: Xpedite Systems Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: skunk works Subject: U2, SR71, SAMs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re U2s over Iraq vs SR71s over Iraq - if the mission is best satisfied by a platform that can loiter, then surely the U2 is the system of choice and the veto makes sense (for this one-off case. You can argue generalities). If the mission is satisfied by a 'quick peek' or even best fulfilled by a minimum-warning snapshot, then Bill Clinton has been very poorly advised in vetoing the SR71 funding. Anyone know what the profile might be? 8^) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #85 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner