From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #57 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, August 31 1998 Volume 07 : Number 057 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... News article from AFNS Re: Aurora, TR-3A, et al. Re: First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered Re: Reason to keep the SR down... Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Re: Aurora Re: First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Re: Aurora RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... SR-71 + Air National Guard tales *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:51:38 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... >On 8/27/98 8:57PM, in message , Dan >Zinngrabe wrote: > >> >If there was a replacement for the SR-71 but he didn't want to tell >> >about it, he won't have to lie about it or even mention that there was a >> >2 day delay in getting the recon data. >> >> Assuming the delay was in getting the data, not processing it. >> >> > If the data was digital, processing time would be negligible, and >iterpretation wouldn't take that long for BDA vs. recon. Not at all. Spaceborne radar data is not *rt*, as many seem to beleive. it's not even close- the volume of data generated by a space based ground observation radar easily exheeds the bandwidth of SDS and TRDS. A day's worth of radar data could take 2 days to get from the satellite, for example. And then you have to do all sorts of wonderful, time consuming signal processing on that data. Not time spent burning up supercomputers mind you, though that takes time too. Analysis of Lacrosse-type data is still an inexact science, from what I've heard. There is a lot of weeding out retroreflections, foiliage, etc. that the computers miss. As I stated earlier, BDA for cruise missile strikes has proved clumsy. A Big Black Smudge isn't necesarily a mission kill. If it was wet film, the >nearest processing capability would be aboard an aircraft carrier (I doubt >Aurora >has a tailhook) or in England and that would take time. For BDA, though, >you'd >want to use digital. > >> >> Of course, the US has never officially admitted it has reconaissance >> satellites save for Corona, and it took them how long to unwrap that little >> gem? >> >> > True, but we knew that there were recon satellites, even if they weren't >acknowledged, by the early 1960s. Also, we took public actions based on >data from >these "unidentified" sources. This lack of this latter is what tends to >make be >think there's no operational "Aurora". ???? Who's to say that something like Aurora isn't an "unidentified source"? As far as the average CNN watcher is concerned, or even people at NPIC, what would be the difference between a satellite pass and an "Aurora" flyby? Timing is all. And gee, timing on a strike like what we saw in Afghanistan is extremely critical. you'd want near-constant coverage, which we can't do with satellites right now- unless we borrowed a Russian recce bird, and I doubt that in this case. You would need to know a lot more about what happened, when, and how than you can with the current constellation of US intelligence satellites. Sure, it could be done, it would be expensive, and you'd still be reading about the guys you missed shooting down an airliner a year down the line. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Develop Your Software. The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D, interactive About Boxes. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the Mac OS. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:16:56 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: News article from AFNS This news article was posted to the net by the AFNS, thought the group might want to see it. :) - ----------------------------------------------------------------- F-117 stealth fighter logs 150,000 hours 28 Aug 1998 HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- The F-117 stealth fighter completed flying its 150,000 flying hour when Brig. Gen. Bill Lake, 49th Fighter Wing commander, touched down on Holloman's runway Aug 25. The flying milestone was measured from the first F-117 flight by Lockheed Martin test pilot Hal Farley June 18, 1981. The first Air Force pilot to fly the F-117 was then Maj. Al Whitley, Oct. 15, 1982. The 150,000 hours included flight time of 59 Air Force aircraft and five additional test aircraft belonging to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is the manufacturer of the F-117, delivering 59 stealth fighters to the Air Force between August 1982 and July 1990. "What we have demonstrated in the past provides the American public a vivid picture of the Air Force's current and future capabilities," said Lake. Since the F-117's first Air Force flight in 1982, the aircraft has flown under different Air Force unit designations, including the 4450th Tactical Group and the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Tonapah Test Range, Nev.; the 57th Fighter Weapons Wing, Nellis AFB, Nev.; and the 410th Flight Test Squadron/410th Test Squadron, Palmdale, Calif. Besides the 49th FW, the main unit currently flying the F-117A Nighthawk is Detachment 1, Test Evaluation Group that also flies the black jet at Holloman. Det. 1, TEG falls under the 53rd Wing, Eglin AFB, Fla. The stealth fighter emerged from the classified world while stationed at Tonapah Airfield with an announcement by the Pentagon Nov. 10, 1988, and was first shown publicly at Nellis April 21, 1990. "Because of the F-117's proven stealth characteristics, when we are tasked, we can more easily penetrate heavily defended enemy positions which allows this aircraft to hit highly valued targets with pinpoint accuracy and minimize potential collateral damage," said Lake. (Courtesy of Air Combat Command News Service) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 21:38:45 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Aurora, TR-3A, et al. >Patrick wrote: > >>.......On the other hand if we are going to >>turn this list into a ufo type speculative adventure fueled by paranoia and >>imagination someone better start coming up with something logical, with >>hard evidence that is conclusive. I am not looking for any evidence or any >>information on Aurora, or any other program of a speculative nature. > David wrote: >With respect, the Aurora and dare I mention the TR-3 were both mentioned >by name on the 'OK to talk about' list of this forum when I joined it a few >years back, so its hardly UFO stuff. > - ----------------- David forgive me. Far be it for me to govern any discussion on this newslist. Enjoy! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:11:14 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered Interesting that all the dates on the pictures are from a year and a half ago, and the page itself was last updated in December of '97. Evidently it's been sitting on the web for quite some time; did anyone hear about this before? Of course, there's always the possibility that this is really old news, and that they're only now releasing information about it. Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:32:13 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Reason to keep the SR down... Art's argument, although admittedly pretty unbelievable, probably does have merit and may in fact be one of the many reasons the SR-71 was struck down. Our current administration isn't particularly known for its brilliant foreign policy. This administration, especially Madeline Albright, has continually conveniently forgotten past statements, threats, ultimatums, etc. in order to prevent a confrontation. At one point last spring when U.S.-Iraqi tensions were high, Madeline Albright said that if Saddam Husssein failed to cooperate with the U.N., then the U.S. would be forced to take military action. He backed down. But then as you know, just recently, he prevented American U.N. inspectors from entering again. This constitutes the violation Madeline Albright spoke of, but where is the action? Many occasions such as this have existed, yet no actions have ever been taken. How well are our leaders keeping their promises? Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:39:48 +0200 From: Urban Fredriksson Subject: Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage Wei-Jen Su wrote: > Haven't seen a UAV doing air-refueling yet. Anyone know how it is >done? What type of guiden system they use? The whole idea about Black Horse being manned was that it's considered impossible to do aerial refuelling with remote control of the receiver, due to the tiny control delays. So either the receiver does all the work and hunts the basket or it flies steadily relative to the offloader which manoeuvres the boom, or perhaps a steerable basket? betnal@ns.net wrote: > As for Hawk survivability; 15 whole degrees of bank! Wow! > That'll certainly be of a lot of use against a missile that can > make 25g turns. Is there any which _can_, at that altitude? I hardly think so. You'll probably need PIF-PAF (I wouldn't call that "turning") or something similar in a SAM to hit a hard turning very high altitude target. - -- Urban Fredriksson griffon@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:11:50 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Aurora I'd just like to clear a couple things up. In no way am I claiming that a massive government conspiracy exists and that all our government leaders are lying at us. After rereading some of my posts I realize that I sounded somewhat like this. For the record: I do not dispute the fact that no evidence of Aurora exists. I do not claim that it exists; I only claim that I think it is possible that it exists. Also, political statements do not belong here on the list, and I probably shouldn't have made that last post about Madeline Albright. Just thought I'd make my position known and sorry for the confusion. Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: First Hypersonic Propulsion Hardware Delivered On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Ryan Kirk wrote: > Interesting that all the dates on the pictures are from a year and a > half ago, and the page itself was last updated in December of '97. > Evidently it's been sitting on the web for quite some time; did anyone > hear about this before? > > Of course, there's always the possibility that this is really old news, > and that they're only now releasing information about it. It is an old old news... It is being public more than two years ago. It was in magazines and TV also. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." Confucius ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 02:08:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: UAV Budget Cuts - DarkStar Disadvantage On 8/29/98 9:39AM, in message <35E82ED4.70B6@canit.se>, Urban Fredriksson wrote: > Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > Haven't seen a UAV doing air-refueling yet. Anyone know how it is > >done? What type of guiden system they use? > > The whole idea about Black Horse being manned was that it's > considered impossible to do aerial refuelling with remote > control of the receiver, due to the tiny control delays. > So either the receiver does all the work and hunts the > basket or it flies steadily relative to the offloader > which manoeuvres the boom, or perhaps a steerable > basket? > Urban makes a good point here. A lot of UAV capability pronouncement is premature. They are indeed talking about unmanned air refueling, almost as if it's a given. In reality, it's still a long way off. In fact, if you look at the record of UAVs, So Far, it's pretty poor. Aviation Week made this same point a few weeks back talking about UCAVs replacing manned fighters. > betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > As for Hawk survivability; 15 whole degrees of bank! Wow! > > That'll certainly be of a lot of use against a missile that can > > make 25g turns. > > Is there any which _can_, at that altitude? I hardly think > so. You'll probably need PIF-PAF (I wouldn't call that > "turning") or something similar in a SAM to hit a hard > turning very high altitude target. > -- > Certainly the Matra Mica can, as can the last generation of Soviet missiles in this class, they're even more maneuverable down lower. Regarding SAMs, a 15 degree bank, especially in a vehicle that travels as slow as Global Hawk (I really should have made that point clearer) would be no challenge to a SAM such as Standard or anything in that class. The key is not the bank, but how fast you turn, how much territory you cover and how fast you can do it again against that second SAM that's slightly offset from the first and a couple of seconds behind. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 02:11:54 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Aurora Ryan, I don't think your statements were out of line since you clearly stated them in the context of the credibility of that being one of the reasons for the attempt to put the SR down. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 02:29:17 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... On 8/28/98 6:51PM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > >On 8/27/98 8:57PM, in message , Dan > >Zinngrabe wrote: > > Not at all. Spaceborne radar data is not *rt*, as many seem to beleive. > it's not even close- the volume of data generated by a space based ground > observation radar easily exheeds the bandwidth of SDS and TRDS. A day's > worth of radar data could take 2 days to get from the satellite, for > example. And then you have to do all sorts of wonderful, time consuming > signal processing on that data. Not time spent burning up supercomputers > mind you, though that takes time too. Analysis of Lacrosse-type data is > still an inexact science, from what I've heard. There is a lot of weeding > out retroreflections, foiliage, etc. that the computers miss. > > As I stated earlier, BDA for cruise missile strikes has proved clumsy. A > Big Black Smudge isn't necesarily a mission kill. > Dan is, of course, correct about the bandwidth issue coming down from satellite intel, even though in this case we wouldn't be looking at a day's worth of data, just a limited amount. This is also a good reason why satellites are great for long term intel but not too good for BDA. Actually, this lends further credibility to the lack of an Aurora, because of the delay times here. Cohen, though, attributed the delay to weather in the area at the times the satellite was overhead. If an Aurora was used, I would expect that he'd let us think it was an improvement in satellite tech. that got us the data sooner. For comparison, the SR-71 transmits recorded radar data at 2.5-3 times rt. I don't know the actual transmission rate for EO (Which is what I suspect they would use here. Not as good a resolution as wet film, but much faster to get into the users' hands). However, I do know that if an SR-71 took imagery of downtown Baghdad, the product would be in the analysts' hand 34 minutes later. An SR in this strike would probably have transmitted direct to the ships. If necessary, it could have gone out and hung off a tanker and then shot back in arriving a few minutes (after the smoke dissipated) after a second strike > > > ???? Who's to say that something like Aurora isn't an "unidentified > source"? As far as the average CNN watcher is concerned, or even people at > NPIC, what would be the difference between a satellite pass and an "Aurora" > flyby? Timing is all. > That's my point, "Aurora's" secret would be safe, if it existed. One other thought: If "Aurora" exists, but is so super secret that we can't use it anywhere or disseminate its product, what good is it? Another reason to keep the SR around for tactical missions. > Art > > > > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > Develop Your Software. > The software you were born with helps you outthink > Marketing (while making less money), induce > migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, > 3-D, interactive About Boxes. It deserves the > operating system designed to work with it: the Mac OS. > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > Maybe the B. of "B. Gates" stands for "Borg", as in: "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 20:11:59 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... >On 8/28/98 6:51PM, in message , Dan >Zinngrabe wrote: > >> >On 8/27/98 8:57PM, in message , Dan >> >Zinngrabe wrote: >> >> Not at all. Spaceborne radar data is not *rt*, as many seem to beleive. >> it's not even close- the volume of data generated by a space based ground >> observation radar easily exheeds the bandwidth of SDS and TRDS. A day's >> worth of radar data could take 2 days to get from the satellite, for >> example. And then you have to do all sorts of wonderful, time consuming >> signal processing on that data. Not time spent burning up supercomputers >> mind you, though that takes time too. Analysis of Lacrosse-type data is >> still an inexact science, from what I've heard. There is a lot of weeding >> out retroreflections, foiliage, etc. that the computers miss. >> >> As I stated earlier, BDA for cruise missile strikes has proved clumsy. A >> Big Black Smudge isn't necesarily a mission kill. >> > > Dan is, of course, correct about the bandwidth issue coming down from >satellite intel, even though in this case we wouldn't be looking at a >day's worth >of data, just a limited amount. This is also a good reason why satellites >are >great for long term intel but not too good for BDA. Actually, this lends >further >credibility to the lack of an Aurora, because of the delay times here. >Cohen, >though, attributed the delay to weather in the area at the times the >satellite was >overhead. If an Aurora was used, I would expect that he'd let us think it >was an >improvement in satellite tech. that got us the data sooner. Like those oh-so-new Lacrosse-class radarsats that can see through weather? Weather on site is becoming less and less of an excuse. Even the recent KH-11 series birds supposedly have ways of seeing through 80% of the world's weather. You're supposing that something like the hypothetical "Aurora" *would* get the data sooner. Aircraft have a whole different set of needs vs. a satellite. An a/c needs overflight permission, tanker support, pilots, loads-o mission planning, and *is* much more susceptiple to changes in the weather. How long did it typically take an SR to "get it on" from a mission go? > > > For comparison, the SR-71 transmits recorded radar data at 2.5-3 >times rt. I >don't know the actual transmission rate for EO (Which is what I suspect >they would >use here. Not as good a resolution as wet film, but much faster to get >into the >users' hands). It depends on the sensor, blah blah. Again, bandwidth. If they went the full nine yards with EO (which actually wouldn't do much good in this case) it would obviously be a bit slower than grainy black and white at 1m resolution. However, I do know that if an SR-71 took imagery of downtown >Baghdad, the product would be in the analysts' hand 34 minutes later. An >SR in >this strike would probably have transmitted direct to the ships. If >necessary, it >could have gone out and hung off a tanker and then shot back in arriving a >few >minutes (after the smoke dissipated) after a second strike Assuming the SR was in the area, assuming it had the necessary hardware (as well as the ships owned by *another* service), assuming they had their own intel support, yadda yadda. Or they could have paid a Kurdish cab driver or two in Baghdad to call them from a payphone. They'd probably get better data too. Much cheaper than NRO's solution, but not as sexy. > >> >> >> ???? Who's to say that something like Aurora isn't an "unidentified >> source"? As far as the average CNN watcher is concerned, or even people at >> NPIC, what would be the difference between a satellite pass and an "Aurora" >> flyby? Timing is all. >> > That's my point, "Aurora's" secret would be safe, if it existed. One >other >thought: If "Aurora" exists, but is so super secret that we can't use it >anywhere or disseminate its product, what good is it? 1. Who says something like that wouldn't be used? And doesn't the same argument hold true for the B-2 - too *expensive* to risk? 2. And it's not like that hasn't been done before with the F-117, and maybe even Have Flag, a tactical missile procurement program. What good is a tactical missile if no one is cleared to use it? Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b) (1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the afore- mentioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. - -->Unsolicited bulk email will be proofread @ $500/K, 2K minimum! _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 06:25:11 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Logic, no SR-71 Replacement ... On 8/30/98 8:11PM, in message , Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > >On 8/28/98 6:51PM, in message , Dan > >Zinngrabe wrote: > > > > >> > > Like those oh-so-new Lacrosse-class radarsats that can see through weather? > Weather on site is becoming less and less of an excuse. Even the recent > KH-11 series birds supposedly have ways of seeing through 80% of the > world's weather. But probably not good enough for BDA, but then we agree on that. > > You're supposing that something like the hypothetical "Aurora" *would* get > the data sooner. Aircraft have a whole different set of needs vs. a > satellite. An a/c needs overflight permission, tanker support, pilots, > loads-o mission planning, and *is* much more susceptiple to changes in the > weather. How long did it typically take an SR to "get it on" from a mission > go? > If you're lobbing cruise missiles at them, somehow I doubt if you're going to worry about overflight rights in the target country, and at SR speeds you can come from a long distance quite fast. Given the claim that the cruise missile strike had been planned for days, that's more than enough time to set up an SR flight. In actuality, nowadays it would take 24 hours to mount a mission if it wasn't an emergency; less if the objective was known already and the main requirement was prepping the aircraft. > > > > > > For comparison, the SR-71 transmits recorded radar data at 2.5-3 > >times rt. I > >don't know the actual transmission rate for EO (Which is what I suspect > >they would > >use here. Not as good a resolution as wet film, but much faster to get > >into the > >users' hands). > > > > > Assuming the SR was in the area, That's kind of the point of the discussion, isn't it? If the asset isn't in the area when you need it, be it the SR, a satellite or "Aurora", you aren't going to get much intel. In the case of the SR, launch time would be determined by when you want it over the objective and how far it happens to launch from. It's a relatively straightforward exercise to deploy it closer to the objective (of course there's the bugaboo of basing rights), the main requirements being a 9,200 foot runway and taxiways that can take the footprint pressure. You can fly it from quite far away when you have to. Of curse you'd need tankers then, but USAF (needs tankers whenever they want to take anything anywhere. > assuming it had the necessary hardware They do (or did) > (as > well as the ships owned by *another* service) Well, those ships launched the cruise missiles so they ought to still be around a half hour later. Remember, the Navy loved the SR far more than USAF did. > , assuming they had their own > intel support, yadda yadda. There would be no requirement for their own intel support, the customers would do their own (the datalinks are compatible, by the way), and the mission planning data for the SR is available to all users. > > Or they could have paid a Kurdish cab driver or two in Baghdad to call them > from a payphone. They'd probably get better data too. > Much cheaper than NRO's solution, but not as sexy. > Now how's anyone going to make General that way? > > > >> > >> > >> ???? Who's to say that something like Aurora isn't an "unidentified > >> source"? As far as the average CNN watcher is concerned, or even people at > >> NPIC, what would be the difference between a satellite pass and an "Aurora" > >> flyby? Timing is all. > >> > > That's my point, "Aurora's" secret would be safe, if it existed. One > >other > >thought: If "Aurora" exists, but is so super secret that we can't use it > >anywhere or disseminate its product, what good is it? > > 1. Who says something like that wouldn't be used? And doesn't the same > argument hold true for the B-2 - too *expensive* to risk? That's part of my point. If there were a hundred Auroras, but virtually no one was cleared to use them or see what they produced except in the gravest national emergency, then they aren't much use and the SR still makes sense as a "usable" asset. > 2. And it's not like that hasn't been done before with the F-117, and maybe > even Have Flag, a tactical missile procurement program. What good is a > tactical missile if no one is cleared to use it? > Consider the abortive attempt to rescue our hostages from Iran. Much has been made of the fact that the rescuers were surprised by the weather. The sad thing is that we knew what the weather was going to be and where the sandstorms were expected, but the rescue forces weren't cleared to receive the data because it might disclose sources. In that case, the sources were useless, no matter how good they were. That's why the tactical forces have been asking for the SR, once they learn what it can do. There may indeed be an Aurora, but if they don't know about it and can't get to use whatever it may produce, for them it doesn't exist. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:34:05 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: SR-71 + Air National Guard tales Forwarded from LTC Jimmie Butler, USAF (Ret): On my recent trip to Las Vegas, I had dinner with my USAFA roommate, Karl Hemeyer (and his wife, Dora) and Terry Pappas, a friend to whom I once gave some editing help on a cover article he wrote on SR-71s for the June 1991 issue of Popular Mechanics. Karl is currently a captain for United, and Terry is a corporate pilot. SR-71 Blackbird: Recently on the other net some of you were involved in the discussion of SR-71s, and someone had heard that the aircraft tended to leak fuel while on the ground. Someone had heard that they didn't normally take off with a full fuel load because of the leakage. This was a question I took to Terry. Terry agreed. Because of the heating involved in the high speeds flown by the SR-71, there is considerable expansion of some parts during a mission profile. So, to allow for that expansion, some parts don't fit together tightly on the ground. Terry said normally they took off with a partial fuel load and joined up with a tanker shortly after takeoff. He said that on some occasions they were required to fill it up before takeoff. Under those cases, fuel sprayed out of the tops and bottoms of the wings "like water from a garden hose." The ground support team wore gear similar to rain gear and also wore breathing apparatus while getting the aircraft ready to leave the chocks. I asked if that wasn't a little dangerous to light off a couple of engines in all that. His answer was not really. He said you could toss a lighted match in a puddle, and the fuel wouldn't catch fire. Terry's June 1991 article, titled The Blackbird is Back, was a discussion of two of the remaining Blackbirds being turned over to NASA for use in test programs. I'll copy in the first paragraph, which might encourage you to go to your library's archives and give it a read: For three years I flew 70 tons of titanium-skinned fury known as the SR-71 Blackbird. Along with my reconnaissance systems officer, Maj. John Manzi, I ranged to the ends of the Earth at speeds and altitudes no other plane could touch, carrying out missions still veiled in secrecy. It was the greatest thrill of my career. The context of one discussion suggested that when Terry delivered a Blackbird to Edwards AFB and NASA, it was the last USAF flight of the Blackbird. Anyway he spoke of a tradition at Edwards that when a particular type of bird was having its final flight, people gathered on the roof of an eight-story building, and there was come encouragement for a final flyover. So, Terry said he was set up on final approach for that last landing, then started a low approach and veered toward the building so he could set up a climbing turn to start as he passed about 100 feet over the rooftop. those of you who have heard the deep-throated roar from well away from an SR-71 at an airshow, you're probably already anticipating what that show is going to be like from 100 feet beneath it. He hit the burners in a little bit of a wallowing turn crossing the building and got what he called an out-of-burner light off. Essentially some fuel sprayed for about fifty yards behind the aircraft before burning. Undoubtedly there was a great deal of noise, as well. Terry said they always had another crewman on the ground essentially as a spotter and to coordinate support for the aircraft and all its classified gear. After Terry's low approach, the spotter, who most likely have been on the rooftop as well, came up to Terry and said that had been the most awesome experience of his life. Terry also said that their checklists were classified. The SR-71 flight simulator was located in a vault and not accessible to anyone outside of the program. So, when higher headquarters came to administer evaluations, the SR-71 folks would simply say you're not cleared to see our stuff. If you'd like, we'll go inside the vault and administer a simulator check and come back out and tell you how we did. Here's a footnote for commiseration for those of you who somehow got screwed by the system at one time or another. I first met Terry in about 1990 when he came to join Paul Gillette's workshop for professional writers in Los Angeles. Terry was a young looking major, though I soon discovered he was in his early 40s, even though you would have guessed late 20s. now at 50, you'd guess thirties. He's one of these guys who's always going to look like your handsome kid brother. When I learned he had been an SR-71 pilot and the number of years of service he had, I was surprised because it would seem he had been passed over for L/C. As I assume most of you would expect, the SR-71 program was truly a highly selective program: no ham-handed O-1 drivers need apply. Terry said the promotion rate to lieutenant colonel had been on the order of 93 percent. Terry came up for lieutenant colonel in the first year of the controlled Officer Effectiveness Report. inflation had gotten so rampant that probably 80-90 percent had been marked in the top overall rating block, so the OER had become somewhat useless as a tool for determine the most deserving for promotion. So the personnel system devised a new form and new rules that said you can have some percentage (maybe 10 or 15) in the top block and had to rate at least 50 percent of your people in the lower block. Right away, most of the headquarters staffs and a bunch of other self-important organizations would say, but we're highly selected, and we should have some exemption from having to say 50 percent of our people in the bottom block. I think it basically got down to lots of maneuvering and whining (and the new system did turn out to be pretty devastating to morale), but essentially a command like SAC had to meet those restrictions on the sum total of it's reports that went forward into people's records. That all being said, the SR-71 people were certainly in a class that didn't include 50 percent who were average performers. However, I don't know if they got any level of favorable exemptions, and in Terry's group of 8 majors, only 2 (25 percent) were selected for lieutenant colonel that year. So, in my opinion, he was an outstanding officer with great skill who lost to the bureaucracy. If I needed a pilot for an important mission, he would be at the top of my list. Terry said that all you aircraft buffs should try to make a visit to the high desert and go to a display that's in the city of Palmdale, where I believe the B-2 production line is/was. He says there's an air park, or some kind of display, that includes an SR-71, a YF-12, an F-117, and a drone that the SR-71 used to take up and release for missions wherever a part of Ken Starr's investigation of the current administration, but I guess that would have been before his time. A final footnote about Terry and an ACB connection. A couple of days after Terry's first visit to the writers workshops, Paul and I and a couple of the ladies from the group were having dinner at Paul's favorite restaurant. I had told them I was searching for a title for my Vietnam flying novel. I explained the core of what the story was all about and that I was looking for something that expressed the sense of dedication and camaraderie, etc., but nothing had come to mind. We tried a few ideas, but nothing struck the right chord. A little later, Paul mentioned that he appreciated how I had taken Terry under my wing at the gathering and explained the class procedures, etc., since Paul was always busy in the short breaks between manuscript readings and hadn't had time. I came back saying something like In the Air Force, there's a certain brotherhood. . . ." One of the ladies said There's your title." And she was right. Tales from the National Guard My friend Karl spent most of his USAF time as an instructor at pilot training. In about 1969, he got out and went to United Airlines. After about 3 months at the school in Denver and 3 months flying the line out of Chicago, Karl was furloughed along with many others and wasn't recalled by United for nearly 7 years. During the interim, he signed on with the Illinois National Guard (I believe) and flew out of O'Hare. Karl has a tale of one of the most memorable takeoffs I have ever heard, so I asked him to tell the story to Terry as we were having dinner. Sometime in the early 1970s, Karl was in the right seat of a KC-97. Loaded for a refueling mission, the bird is not going to be one of your more nimble rides nor compete with a Helio Porter for short takeoff roll. Everybody got that? As they were in position on the runway for takeoff, a Convair 880 (North Central Airlines, I think) was on short final for a cross runway, which intersected with Karl's runway. The tower confirmed with the 880 crew that it would be able to turn off its runway short of the intersection. Thus assured, the tower cleared the KC-97 for takeoff. As Karl's tanker rumbled forward slowly gaining takeoff speed, the 880 landed, and the pilot indeed turned off prior to the intersection. However, he did not stop and continued on a parallel taxiway that also crossed in front of the KC-97. Looking through the tanker's windshield, it was very obvious that both aircraft were heading for the same point and were going to get there at the same time. the view you might have had, as well, if you were a passenger looking out a side window of the 880. Karl said his pilot was very good. He waited until the last possible moment, then pulled the yoke back to try to make the heavily loaded tanker leap over the 880. They apparently did, and thought so until they got a call from their ops center about an hour later. The ops people asked if something had happened on takeoff. The crew told about the near miss. The ops people told them it wasn't exactly a near miss. One of the radio antennas (about 18 inches long) on the bottom of the KC-97 had been knocked off by the vertical stabilizer of the 880. Talk about close calls. Think again about what that would have looked like from the cockpit or from a passenger seat when you end up that close. You would think that among the more complex challenges of air traffic control that keeping aircraft apart on runways would be one of the more manageable tasks. But mistakes happen. One of the first 3 C-141s that were lost had just landed at Danang and was cleared across an active runway in front of two Marine A-4s on takeoff roll. One bird missed the C-141; the other sliced through just aft of the wing and set off an exploding fire among the cargo that included tanks of acetylene. The loadmaster managed to yank a troop door open, jump out, and get far enough away before the explosion killed the rest of the crew. And, I believe the most deadly aircraft accident ever was that one at Tenarive (in the Azores???) when I believe it was a 747 captain who tried to takeoff while another 747 was taxing on the foggy runway. I think close to 600 people died in that one. Karl also talked about the TWA 800 crash and how the Guard had experienced a very similar explosion on a KC-135 some years back. A highly experienced crew was in a normal descent through about 10,000 feet and an explosion in the area of the center wing tank blew off the front of the aircraft. Jimmie - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #57 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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