From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #83 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 Thursday, December 14 2000 Volume 09 : Number 083 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** C-17 on carrier deck Re: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Re: Simulated attack by SU-24's on Kitty-Hawk RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck RE: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Re: RE: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Re: A-12 Deck Ops. RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck D-21 question C-17 from a carrier Skunky Mirc-Chat? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:24:16 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: C-17 on carrier deck sam wrote: I'm confident however that we could launch a C-17 from a carrier if we really wanted to. Sam i guess you can do just about anything if you really wanted to, but launching a C-17 from a carrier would be tricky due to the amount of thrust(161,760lbs)if it was blowing back at the superstructure it could cause some damage.it would have to be pre-positioned on an angle deck by a crane and then refueled and loaded.due to it's wing span(167ft) it could not land on any carrier i know of due to the superstructure. C-17s have in flight refueling so crew fatigue is the only range limiter.a C-130 (132ft wingspan)made several full stop landings on a carrier without arresting gear.it made full stop ldgs. and then took off with out having to back up(go to this url for a quick time movie www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/site/QT/hercon.html ) i have seen U2s take off and land many times(103ft wingspan),and believe they could operate off carriers.the reason the navy decided not to use C-130s on carriers for COD ops was that they could not fold their wings to be stowed below,and if they were unable to take off would block the deck preventing other acft from using the carrier.under those conditions it would have to be pushed over the side.U2s would have to be modified for stowage unless it was just using the carrier for a mobile take off point. wayne _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Dec 100 21:12:12 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: picture of SR71 on carrier deck On 12/9/00 12:58AM, in message <200012090858.eB98wx110518@trident.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > It MIGHT be possible to launch an SR-71 or an A-12 from an aircraft carrier, > however I agree that recovery would most likely be extremely difficult if not > impossible even with a barricade. > > I believe modifications to the landing gear would be required so that it could > be attached to the catapult, no such modifications are immediately apparent. Sorry, it wouldn't even be remotely possible. Aside from the landing gear having to be totally redesigned (you want the nose gear to be ripped off when the cat' fired), the entire gear supporting structure would have to be reengineered to withstand and dissipate the shocks involved. Further the structure of the aircraft itself would have to be reengineered to withstand what's involved. Going beyond that, accelerating a 100,000 lb aircraft to the SR-71's takeoff speed (even with a 30 knot wind over the deck) in 360 or so feet is beyond the capability of the catapults. Add to that, that even if the nose gear didn't come off, the initial yank would probably rip the aircraft apart. Similarly, coming back aboard, there's be no way to stop the aircraft that wouldn't destroy it, even if the SR was capable of flying the type of approach a carrier aircraft needs to fly, which it can't. This doesn't even address the crosswind component encountered when coming back aboard. The SR can tolerate higher crosswinds than the U-2, but I believe even they would be exceeded. > > Even though, it might be theoretically possible to launch from a carrier I > believe the Air Force and or CIA would probably have no reason to do this. That's key: There is NO conceivable reason that anyone would even want to try this, considering how fast the SR could get anywhere in the world it needed to be. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Dec 100 21:51:19 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Simulated attack by SU-24's on Kitty-Hawk On 11/15/00 10:07AM, in message <3A12D0CB.1CA35075@primus.ca>, "T.Toth" wrote: > Have you heard of the latest, 'peacefull confrontation' between Russian and > American Forces. It seems rather odd that a pilot who could potentially > provoke > an international incident would be decorated unless he had previous agreement > from higher up levels. > > Russia Says Planes Got Sneak Views of U.S. Carrier > http://russiatoday.com/news.php3?id=220856 > > Anyone has more on this? > Apparently they also claim that these where on an 'attack profile and that, if > it had been war, the Kitty hawk would have been sunk. > I assume radars on the Kitty-Hawk were shut down because of the refueling > (risks of igniting fuel), but what of her escorts? > > The Russians seem pretty careless about provoking incidents. Reminds me of the > TU-95 Bear 'attack' of a few months back. and the shooting of a laser by a > Russian spy ship at a Canadian forces aircraft in 94-95. > > I just noticed this letter in the digest, or I might have been able to provide some info sooner. The Kitty Hawk was undergoing refueling operations (which is another argument in favor of nuclear powered warships), it's true. However, the Sukhoi Su-24 and SU-27 were detected well away from the ship, inbound. Illustrative of the level of readiness our military has been forced to sink to in the last decade, the Kitty Hawk was unable to launch an aircraft for over 40 minutes. During this period, the Sukhois made at least three passes directly over the ship at around 200 feet altitude. During the '80s, neither we nor the Soviets directly overflew each other others warships at less than thousands of feet.. We'd come close, but we wouldn't overfly. This would be considered a major international incident and, at least for us, would be career ending if proved. After 40 minutes, the Hawk finally got an EA-6B in the air, to do who knows what. The Flanker immediately bounced him and kept him boresighted at will. Finally, a Hornet was launched, but unless a Flanker pilot is very stupid, there's really not much of anything a Hornet can do to a Flanker close-in except watch in awe. The Sukhoi simply disappeared. To add insult to injury, a day or two later the Russians e-mailed to the Kitty Hawk photos they took while overhead. No, this wasn't done by some pilots on their own. Clearly, this was sending a message. The Administration responded by saying it didn't mean anything, and we continue to enjoy a fantastically successful relationship with Russia due to our brilliant negotiations and wonderful agreements. BTW, in the laser incident, in addition the to injured Canadian crew, a USN LieuLieutenantard suffered permanent eye damage from the laser and had to be taken off flight status. The Administration first said it never happened, and after it couldn't be spun out of sight (I believe there were even photos), launched a "detailed inspection" of the ship to find out "the truth". However, prior to coming aboard, the Russian embassy was provided the date and time the inspection would take place as well as what was being looked for. Amazingly enough, no laser was found. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:13:00 -0000 From: "Amanda & David Linthwaite" Subject: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Can I also add that the Blackbirds habit of leaking fuel through its fuselage prior to heat expanded tightness would not be welcomed on a restricted deck dripping into the cats. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of betnal@ns.net Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: picture of SR71 on carrier deck On 12/9/00 12:58AM, in message <200012090858.eB98wx110518@trident.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > It MIGHT be possible to launch an SR-71 or an A-12 from an aircraft carrier, > however I agree that recovery would most likely be extremely difficult if not > impossible even with a barricade. > > I believe modifications to the landing gear would be required so that it could > be attached to the catapult, no such modifications are immediately apparent. Sorry, it wouldn't even be remotely possible. Aside from the landing gear having to be totally redesigned (you want the nose gear to be ripped off when the cat' fired), the entire gear supporting structure would have to be reengineered to withstand and dissipate the shocks involved. Further the structure of the aircraft itself would have to be reengineered to withstand what's involved. Going beyond that, accelerating a 100,000 lb aircraft to the SR-71's takeoff speed (even with a 30 knot wind over the deck) in 360 or so feet is beyond the capability of the catapults. Add to that, that even if the nose gear didn't come off, the initial yank would probably rip the aircraft apart. Similarly, coming back aboard, there's be no way to stop the aircraft that wouldn't destroy it, even if the SR was capable of flying the type of approach a carrier aircraft needs to fly, which it can't. This doesn't even address the crosswind component encountered when coming back aboard. The SR can tolerate higher crosswinds than the U-2, but I believe even they would be exceeded. > > Even though, it might be theoretically possible to launch from a carrier I > believe the Air Force and or CIA would probably have no reason to do this. That's key: There is NO conceivable reason that anyone would even want to try this, considering how fast the SR could get anywhere in the world it needed to be. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:33:51 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Just locking into this e-mail. Thought you guys might like to know that Lockheed seriously explored...with the Navy...a navalized A-12. Somewhere in my files I have the drawings...with beefed up landing gear, arrestor hook, etc. Navy was interested, but common sense eventually prevailed! Cheers, Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:17:52 -0000 From: "Amanda & David Linthwaite" Subject: RE: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Was this for the Interceptor version (F-12, YF-12 ?). Might have been some combination if fitted with the Phoenix although this would have increased the t.o. weight even more (hefty blighter, the Phoenix) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of JNiessen@aol.com Sent: 10 December 2000 14:34 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Just locking into this e-mail. Thought you guys might like to know that Lockheed seriously explored...with the Navy...a navalized A-12. Somewhere in my files I have the drawings...with beefed up landing gear, arrestor hook, etc. Navy was interested, but common sense eventually prevailed! Cheers, Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 100 20:36:03 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck On 12/10/00 6:33AM, in message <51.489b5f3.2764ee4f@aol.com>, JNiessen@aol.com wrote: > Just locking into this e-mail. Thought you guys might like to know that > Lockheed seriously explored...with the Navy...a navalized A-12. Somewhere in > my files I have the drawings...with beefed up landing gear, arrestor hook, > etc. Navy was interested, but common sense eventually prevailed! > > Cheers, Jay Miller > Thanks, Jay, There's no doubt that Lockheed would propose anything to anybody if there was a chance of getting a contract, even if they weren't that sure it would work (can you say "Venture Star"?). Even starting with the lighter weight A-12, they'd be producing essentially a new aircraft, not a modification (how does the skin take to salt water, etc.). Consider the sight line over the nose on approach, for example. One can see a modern example of this by looking at the substantial differences between the F-117A and the proposed F-1117N (or whatever designation you prefer). The only cases that come to mind where a post-1950 high-performance aircraft that wasn't designed from the start with provision for carrier duty built in was operationally successful was the FJ-2 Fury (from the F-86) and the navalized Frogfoots, Fulcrums and Flankers, especially the latter two. I suspect that the Soviet requirement for operating from rough fields required the aircraft to have most of the things that would be required for carrier landings built in anyway (those aircraft take off under their own power, not catapulted). Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:07:47 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck Hello, Not that everyone hasn't already brought up the major problems with the scenario, but who out there wants to land an aircraft that weighs 60,000 lbs. bone dry, onto a 1200' aircraft carrier when said aircraft's minimum landing speed is 155 kts +fuel. Would take one hell of an arresting hook to hold that airplane. When 977 was lost on 10Oct1968, the aircraft lost all 3 landing gear when it hit the arresting cable. Those mains are solid titanium about 6" thick, too. I'd also hate to see what would happen to the main tires when you'd hit the deck at those speeds. If you didn't blow all 6 of 'em at once, you'd leave a nice set of dimples in the flight deck from the impact (they're inflated to 415 psi, making them rock-hard). I agree with whoever said that the blackbird's speed would make the operation unnecessary. From Kadena, Mildenhall, and Beale, you can be anywhere in the world within 6 hours. From Beale you could be anywhere in less than 9 if you flew great circle. The DET-2 birds had satellite uplinks with near-real-time intelligence capabilities as well, making the return leg unnecessary. Sincerely, - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:31:32 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck To be honest, I can't recall for certain, though it definitely was an A-12 derivative and not associated with the F-12 program. It's been more than a few years since I looked at the drawing...which now is in storage at the Aerospace Education Center in Little Rock, Arkansas...along with the rest of my Lockheed files. Cheers, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:57:43 +1030 From: Steve Apthorpe Subject: Re: A-12 Deck Ops. Sam, > It MIGHT be possible to launch an SR-71 or an A-12 from an aircraft carrier, > however I agree that recovery would most likely be extremely difficult if not > impossible even with a barricade. I would disagree that a launch was possible. Recovery is never undertaken (and could never be) purely on a barricade. I must admit I don't know the landing speed of the A-12 et al., but I would find it hard to believe you would get it on a carrier, let alone that the structure would take it. From what I've heard (TV progranms interviewing SR-71 pilots) these are pretty fragile when it comes to strength. Yes, structurally able to take heat stresses, but the manouveuring envelope is only a few G's, hardly carrier-proof (yes I know the differences between inertial loading and landing loading - but you would never have the low former with high latter). > I believe modifications to the landing gear would be required so that it could > be attached to the catapult, no such modifications are immediately apparent. You would need fundamental structural modifications to stop your modified nose gear from snapping off. I am not expert enough to state (but 10 years in aircraft design offices helps), but I suspect that making the aircraft suitable for carrier ops (even a casual use) would severely compromise the aircraft's performance. > Even though, it might be theoretically possible to launch from a carrier I > believe the Air Force and or CIA would probably have no reason to do this. I don't believe it is theoretically possible (short of fundamental redesign), but agree that there would be no use in doing so - better to air-air refuel and land at a base that can process the intel (certainly A-12 where there was no real-time broadcast of intel.). > I'm confident however that we could launch a C-17 from a carrier if we really > wanted to. Maybe on a flat-top :) ..., but why? Its a bit big for COD (Carrier On-board Delivery), I know they landed a Herc, but was that a goer for a squadron pilot to achieve in all weathers? If it wasn't, then a test pilot on a clear day proves nothing. Cheers Steve P.S. This is all moot as I believe the original question was raised by the A-12 that was craned on the carrier, and was never intended to suggest carrier ops - its just a museum. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:09:39 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck 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_001_01C06384.F5408C98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The only way I could figure an SR would be on a carrier is just the way the A-12 on the Intrepid got on there.... a crane. Perhaps an SR got a ride from somewhere far afield when it couldn't be repaired in the field.... but I would doubt that.... seems to me it would be far easier to send a planeload of mechanics and parts, than to transport that beast on a carrier!! Greg - -----Original Message----- From: betnal@ns.net [mailto:betnal@ns.net] Sent: None To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: picture of SR71 on carrier deck On 12/9/00 12:58AM, in message <200012090858.eB98wx110518@trident.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > It MIGHT be possible to launch an SR-71 or an A-12 from an aircraft carrier, > however I agree that recovery would most likely be extremely difficult if not > impossible even with a barricade. > > I believe modifications to the landing gear would be required so that it could > be attached to the catapult, no such modifications are immediately apparent. Sorry, it wouldn't even be remotely possible. Aside from the landing gear having to be totally redesigned (you want the nose gear to be ripped off when the cat' fired), the entire gear supporting structure would have to be reengineered to withstand and dissipate the shocks involved. Further the structure of the aircraft itself would have to be reengineered to withstand what's involved. Going beyond that, accelerating a 100,000 lb aircraft to the SR-71's takeoff speed (even with a 30 knot wind over the deck) in 360 or so feet is beyond the capability of the catapults. Add to that, that even if the nose gear didn't come off, the initial yank would probably rip the aircraft apart. Similarly, coming back aboard, there's be no way to stop the aircraft that wouldn't destroy it, even if the SR was capable of flying the type of approach a carrier aircraft needs to fly, which it can't. This doesn't even address the crosswind component encountered when coming back aboard. The SR can tolerate higher crosswinds than the U-2, but I believe even they would be exceeded. > > Even though, it might be theoretically possible to launch from a carrier I > believe the Air Force and or CIA would probably have no reason to do this. That's key: There is NO conceivable reason that anyone would even want to try this, considering how fast the SR could get anywhere in the world it needed to be. Art - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C06384.F5408C98 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: picture of SR71 on carrier deck

The only way I could figure an SR would be on a = carrier is just the way the A-12 on the Intrepid got on there.... a = crane.  Perhaps an SR got a ride from somewhere far afield when it = couldn't be repaired in the field.... but I would doubt that.... seems = to me it would be far easier to send a planeload of mechanics and = parts, than to transport that beast on a carrier!!

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: betnal@ns.net [mailto:betnal@ns.net]
Sent: None
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: Re: picture of SR71 on carrier deck


On 12/9/00 12:58AM, in message
<200012090858.eB98wx110518@trident.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam = Kaltsidis
<skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu> wrote:


>
> It MIGHT be possible to launch an SR-71 or an = A-12 from an aircraft carrier,
> however I agree that recovery would most likely = be extremely difficult if not
> impossible even with a barricade.
>
> I believe modifications to the landing gear = would be required so that it could
> be attached to the catapult, no such = modifications are immediately apparent.


    Sorry, it wouldn't even be = remotely possible.  Aside from the landing gear
having to be totally redesigned (you want the nose = gear to be ripped off when
the cat' fired), the entire gear supporting = structure would have to be
reengineered to withstand and dissipate the shocks = involved.  Further the
structure of the aircraft itself would have to be = reengineered to withstand
what's involved.  Going beyond that, = accelerating a 100,000 lb aircraft to the
SR-71's takeoff speed (even with a 30 knot wind over = the deck) in 360 or so
feet is beyond the capability of the = catapults.  Add to that, that even if the
nose gear didn't come off, the initial yank would = probably rip the aircraft
apart.  Similarly, coming back aboard, there's = be no way to stop the aircraft
that wouldn't destroy it, even if the SR was capable = of flying the type of
approach a carrier aircraft needs to fly, which it = can't.   This doesn't even
address the crosswind component encountered when = coming back aboard.  The SR
can tolerate higher crosswinds than the U-2, but I = believe even they would be
exceeded.




>
> Even though, it might be theoretically possible = to launch from a carrier I
> believe the Air Force and or CIA would probably = have no reason to do this.


    That's key:  There is NO = conceivable reason that anyone would even want to
try this, considering how fast the SR could get = anywhere in the world it needed
to be. 


          &nb= sp;           &nb= sp;           &nb= sp;           &nb= sp;           &nb= sp; Art



- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C06384.F5408C98-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:29:55 -0800 From: Erik Hoel Subject: D-21 question Yesterday I was helping my kid put together an SR-71 model and found that it contained a D-21 and a mating pylon (pretty cool freebee). In any event, I was surprised by the amount of reverse (?) dihedral in the D-21. Can someone explain why this is done in educated layman's terms. Another observation - I was also a little surprised by the vertical offset that the centerline of the engines has with respect to the fuselage. I am assuming that the engine centerline follows the path of travel; this then would give the SR-71 a decidedly nose-high cruise attitude (2-4 degrees?). Why is this done? It reminded me of some commercial airliners that seem to cruise with the nose very slightly elevated. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:49:06 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: C-17 from a carrier sam wrote: I'm confident however that we could launch a C-17 from a carrier if we really wanted to. Sam i guess you can do just about anything if you really wanted to, but launching a C-17 from a carrier would be tricky due to the amount of thrust(161,760lbs)if it was blowing back at the superstructure it could cause some damage.it would have to be pre-positioned on an angle deck by a crane and then refueled and loaded.due to it's wing span(167ft) it could not land on any carrier i know of due to the superstructure. C-17s have in flight refueling so crew fatigue is the only range limiter.a C-130 (132ft wingspan)made several full stop landings on a carrier without arresting gear.it made full stop ldgs. and then took off with out having to back up(go to this url for a quick time movie www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/site/QT/hercon.html ) i have seen U2s take off and land many times(103ft wingspan),and believe they could operate off carriers.the reason the navy decided not to use C-130s on carriers for COD ops was that they could not fold their wings to be stowed below,and if they were unable to take off would block the deck preventing other acft from using the carrier.under those conditions it would have to be pushed over the side.U2s would have to be modified for stowage unless it was just using the carrier for a mobile take off point. wayne _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:53:57 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Skunky Mirc-Chat? Seasons Greetings! As the facility now exists (Thanks George!), any Skunk-Works members seeking a friendly Internet Chat can now go to the channel at #Skunk Works on MIRC. It can be found via Port 6667 & the server is: irc.netwrx1 I've checked in a few times (no-one there!), and will be back on Saturday evening (UK time), afternoon (Eastern US)... See you there?! Best Wishes, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. AIM:Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Black-Triangle NEW Homepage! Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #83 ******************************** 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