From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #93
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, January 11 2001 Volume 09 : Number 093
Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
USS Kitty Hawk Incident Report???
Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #92
Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways
Re: USS Kitty Hawk Incident
FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways
A more moderate read of Echelon
FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks
***************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:16:46 EST
From: SecretJet@aol.com
Subject: USS Kitty Hawk Incident Report???
Greetings!
We heard this alleged USNavy 'report' was NOT genuine!!!
(Good 'fun' though!)
Happy New Year, Clear Skies in 2001!
- -----------------------------------------
Regards,
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 20:02:22 -0800
From: Lee Markland
Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #92
At 05:29 PM 1/5/01 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:52:41 -0600
>From: "Allen Thomson"
>Subject: Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways
>
>> This statement . . .
>>
>> > I think that the Star Wars efforts did a lot of good-it
>> > bankrupted the Russians and we don't have a cold war at present
>>
>> . . . makes and assertion for which there is no evidence. True, the
>Soviets
>> crumbled after the Star Wars effort began but that does not prove that the
>> Star Wars effort was the cause.
>
>This is going to be argued for all future time, but just the timing makes it
>unlikely that SW drove the USSR to ruin. March 1983 marked the kick-off of
>SW, things didn't get rolling for a couple of years, and the Warsaw Pact
>collapsed in late 1989, followed by the dissolution of the USSR in late
>1991. Not really enough time to do in a robust superpower, especially since
>SW never produced anything close to an operational system. (Still hasn't,
>for that matter).
>
>The USSR may have been bankrupted due in some important measure to an arms
>race, but it was the arms race that had been going on since 1945. At most,
>SW might have pushed them over an edge they were already teetering on, but
>it's hard to see how to prove that.
The dissolution of the USSR had nothing to do with anything that anyone
projects or speculates.
For those few people who understand money and subscribe or have received
and read such arcana
as the Annual Report for the Bank For International Settlements, would have
noticed in its 1984 pages, one small paragraph stating in effect that the
Soviet Union was a failed economic experiment and must be reorganized.
It was shortly after that report was published in 1985 that we started
hearing about refuseniks (obviously people with an inside track) and then a
massive PR campaign to lift immigration quota's for these "oppressed peoples".
Other "insiders" in particular the likes of Dr. Fred Schwartz of the
Christian Anti Communist Crusade, started shifting the emphasis of their
pamphlets, newletters and programs from "fighting communism" to the
"homosexual menace". They obviously knew that the Soviet Union was in
demise, and to keep their organization alive, funds and subscriptions
flowing in, they had to target a new "devil".
BTW, the Bank for International Settlements is the Central Bank of Central
Banks, and is the "boss" to whom Alan Greenspan of our Federal Reserve
reports (once a month, three days, Sunday thru Tues, they don't work on the
Sabbath - Saturday).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 101 05:51:34 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways
Yeah, I know this is an older subject, but I've been away.
There's a lot of revisionism going on about this topic, that's spreading
into the general consensus here and abroad. We tend to forget how short a time
this thing was actually going on.
Although REagan made his speech, the program didn't really start swinging
until around 1996. We also tend to forget that when it started no-one was
exactly sure how to do what we wanted to do, and a lot of basic research was
needed just to determine which direction to take. There were definitely some
screwball concepts in there, but there always are when tapping the Government
largesse seems a possibility. There was also a lot of good science and
engineering in there too.
SDI (it's easier to type than Star Wars) had a lot of enemies. Not just
from those who didn't believe it was possible, but from those who had a vested
interest in it not succeeding. The intelligentsia from both ends of the
political spectrum didn't want to even admit the possibility that someone they
considered their intellectual inferior might be able to pull off what the y'ed
been unable to do in 50 years. Plus, there were still a lot of leftover Carter
people and others who were in high positions of power who had committed
themselves to the position that the Soviet Union would be around forever and we
should "adjust" to this reality. Those that said otherwise found their careers
threatened. Finally there were those who wedded to the insane Mutual Assured
Destruction lunacy which basically espoused that it was better to burn mothers
and children to death than to work on a way to render the threat impotent.
Whole careers were dedicated to this anything that threatened that worldview
was E-vil. You saw massive disinformation put out that continues to this day,
including a widely used but intellectually dishonest method of describing the
probability of success of missile intercept. There was also repeated
tendencies to overstate the problems in developing a missile defense (difficult
though they were), while significantly understanding the very big problems in
countering such a defense by an attacker.
It's not surprising that there wasn't a lot of hardware put into operation,
since we really didn't work on it that long. We were only just refining the
direction to go at that point. Lasers were just one of the options being
looked at. From '86 through most of '89 SDI got a lot of work done and was
working towards a goal of concept selection/technology
investigation/development. Of course, in '89 Ronnie went away. Bush Sr. came
in, and in many polices was closer to his successor, Billy Jeff, than he was to
his predecessor. In addition, if the technology of SDI produced a successful
system, Reagan would get credit for it. If it flopped, he [Bush] might get the
blame, so he wasn't exactly a champion for the program. This is a good
illustration of how much risk a program runs (except the F/A-18) that won't
deploy within the tenure of its champion. SDI research started drifting, and
being constrained. After Bush lost, the next Administration was openly hostile
to missile defense, strategic or tactical, and that was that.
There are some ironic differences between what a missile defense had to do
against the Soviet Union and a defense today. Against the Soviets, you did not
have to stop every warhead (although that would be nice), as long as you got
most of them, and could introduce enough uncertainty as to which would get
through. The Soviets might figure that one or two out of every ten would get
through, and for us that would indeed be horrible. However, for the Soviets,
there was no way of telling which ones would be the ones to get through and hit
their targets. All of the warheads designated for a particular target might
get through, or some or none. There was no way to tell, and the only way to
deal with that would be to build more missiles, a Lot more missiles, to bring
the probabilities back into line where the attack was worth risking. Remember,
the warhead had to hit our base, not come down somewhere else in order for the
attack to be worth doing and preventing retaliation. The problem with building
enough more missiles is that the defender can negate that certainty by
increasing the number of defensive weapons by not that large an amount. That's
what the Soviets were so worried about. It would take a lot to build such a
system, but once you had, you could counter an action by the attacker much
easier than the attacker could counter the defender.
SDI wasn't the only thing that brought the Soviets down, but it was a big
thing. How do we know? Because back in the early '90s, when we had good
relations with Russia and the Ukraine, they told us so. During that period
they were being very open with us.
Defense against today's threat is different. There won't be as many
missiles to defend against, but now you really do need to get every one. If
the Soviets were aiming for Long Beach Naval Shipyard and because of SDI they
might miss, they wouldn't achieve their objective and they' ed have to deal
with that. If, hypothetically, the Chinese decided to poop a missile at LA
because we supported Taiwan in a confrontation, they know we know it doesn't
matter to them if they actually hit the aim point or miss by 30 miles, they
still achieve their goal. So, today, we would have much less to shoot at, but
it could come from more directions and it would be more important to get every
one. Not an insurmountable problem, but an expensive one.
It's also worth noting that many of the things SDI opponents said would be
impossible have already been achieved. They made a big point of how complex
the code would have to be and how programs with that many lines of code
couldn't function. By 1991 telephone switching systems were already using
larger and more complex code than what would have been required for SDI. In
fact, Win 2K has more lines of code in it than what would have been required
for SDI (whether it functions or not I'll leave for another forum). It was
said we'd never be able to get the kind of sensor technology needed. The radar
technology exists today in packages small enough to be carried by fighters. IR
sensors of sufficient resolution and range have been operational for most of
the '90s. Our big problem at this point is reliability of the interceptors,
and that's engineering not new technology anymore. Although it's not at all
certain that lasers would have been used, it's worthy of note that it was
confidently predicted that lasers of sufficient power would never be able to be
lifted off the ground. Well, the ABL is going to be using a laser of the class
needed.
Sadly, with the end of SDI we lost something else that would have been
great for us even if the rest of the program hadn't worked. It was known that
a portion of the system would have to be space based, regardless of the form it
took. This would require a reliable, simpler and much more economical method
of getting to space, preferably reusable. Not dramatic, but workmanlike. SDI
was funding valuable work in this area and hardware was starting to be built.
In fact, the DC-X was originally funded as one of the concepts to provide the
space launch capability that would be needed. When SDI went away, so did a
good portion of the funding and in fact it was stigmatized as being part of
SDI. Had SDI continued, though, we probably would have had a much better way
to get to space in the upcoming years instead of recycling old designs or
grandiose flops like X-33/Venture Star...
I'm not saying that SDI absolutely the be-all and end-all, but I think that
to dismiss it as a failure or that we got nothing from it because it was
foolish or impossible doesn't do justice to the concept or to those that worked
on it. Would it have been practical? Who knows? We never hung around long
enough to find out.
(I'll bet there was a lot less eyestrain while I was gone.)
Art
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 101 07:50:51 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: USS Kitty Hawk Incident
On 1/5/01 7:57AM, in message <98.ed1aa72.27874903@aol.com>, MELUMAN@aol.com
wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Had to clean up the salty (no pun intended) language, but I can understand
> this Hornet driver's frustration. Unfortunately, the e-mail doesn't answer a
> couple of salient questions, i.e., did maintenance or parts problems prevent
> the Kitty Hawk from keeping F/A-18s on higher alert as they transited the Sea
> of Japan? Additionally, if the carrier couldn't launch aircraft sooner, why
> didn't some of its escort vessels lock up the Russian jets with their
> surface-to-air missile radars, and remind them that we could still blast them
> from the sky. Getting locked-up by a SAM radar produces very distinct visual
> and audio cues in the cockpit. However, I get the impression that the Kitty
> Hawk's AEGIS cruiser didn't do that. All-in-all, a very sad day for the Kitty
> Hawk battle group, and the U.S. Navy.
>
>
Alert 30 would not be that rare in this environment, especially since it's
our Official position that the Russians are just about our best buddies around.
However, according to folks I know who have been on the Kitty Hawk, in the
'80s although the readiness state might be Alert 30, you could definitely get
at least one fighter in the air in ten minutes, although not everything might
be aligned.
The basic answer to your question about what happened here is money, lack
of support for our forces except when involved in UN fiascoes, shortages of
people, parts, fuel and operating hours, both funded and available. In the
latter case, so much maintenance has been deferred on F/A-18s and they have
been flown so much in spite of it that airframe life is expiring years before
expected. This has necessitated plans for a very expensive rebuild to keep
them flying for more years. The problem here is that although this rebuild has
been announced as the solution for the aircraft running out of time, funding to
actually do it has not been requested.
This state of affairs is not that rare. Here's another example, also
involving the Hawk. When she changed her home prot to Japan a few years back,
she replaced the Independence, which was coming home to be scrapped. The Navy
could not scrape together enough operational F-14s to fully equip the Kitty
Hawk for the deployment. As a result, when the Independence and Kitty Hawk
passed each other, some bare tail F-14s that had been deployed on the
Independence and normally would be rotated back to the States had to be flown
over to the Hawk to equip her. Aside from the obvious implications of this
shortage, redeploying those F-14s without normal post-cruise maintenance meant
that a lot of their life got used up.
It's not that rare for aircraft of one side to fly very close to the other
side's warships, but historically flying directly over is a definite no-no.
That they did so shows an obvious intent to humiliate and some degree of
contempt.
Regarding Aegis cruisers, assuming some were around: It's notable that the
Russians didn't surprise anyone, we tracked them coming in. It's just that we
were unable to do anything about it. Also, while tracking with the search
systems is considered kosher, actually locking up with fire control system, and
as you say even with Aegis you can tell with that has happened, is considered a
very hostile act, much worse than an overflight. In fact, in some cases that
might be considered the equivalent of a weapons fire, and could be responded to
accordingly.
Normals you want fighters along side when aircraft like Flankers and
Fencers approach. In an uncertain situation, the Aegis can maintain a track
and if necessary lock up and launch fairly quickly, but if the suspect aircraft
are close in, the Standard missile may not arrive before the aircraft have
launched on their target. If there are fighters alongside, they can strike
immediately, Even if an anti-ship missile got off, a Tomcat's first Phoenix
would go for the missile and the other would go for the launch aircraft. Oh
wait a minute, we're talking F/A-18s here, aren't we? Well, maybe one of the
Hornets' tankers could ram the bad guys.
Art
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:59:35 -0700
From: "Terry W. Colvin"
Subject: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways
Forwarded from the Skeptic list...
> Although REagan made his speech, the program didn't really start swinging
> until around 1996. We also tend to forget that when it started no-one was
> exactly sure how to do what we wanted to do, and a lot of basic research was
> needed just to determine which direction to take. There were definitely some
> screwball concepts in there, but there always are when tapping the Government
> largesse seems a possibility. There was also a lot of good science and
> engineering in there too.
By the measure of working machines to test, it may not have been up and
running until 1996, but by another measure, money spent:
1976-1982 ~1 billion/year
1983-1993 $44 billion total
1983 $991 million
1985 1,397.299 million
1986 2,759.222 million
1987 4,802.566 million
1988 5,463.312 million ($4 billion 2nd source)
1994 $2.8 billion
1995 $2.8 billion
1996 $3.3 billion
1997 $3.6 billion
1998 $3.9 billion
1999 $3.6 billion
2000 ?
2001 DoD request $4.7 billion
"Overall, the United States has spent more than $100 billion (in current
dollars) in the pursuit of missile defense since the mid-1950s (plus $17
billion on the Patriot system, developed separately by the Army as an
anti-aircraft system.)"
A history of this is at: < http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/bmdhistory.htm >
Additional cost figures from:
< http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu38ne/uu38ne0c.htm >
< http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/MissileDefenseIllusion.asp?p=8 >
The program has changed over the years also. Described in
< http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1995/nd95/nd95.schwartz.html >
- ----------
Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") has
evolved through three major phases. The first, from 1983 to
1987, called for an invulnerable shield to protect the entire United
States, thus making nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The
second phase, from 1987 to 1990, envisioned a defense for land-based
missiles that called for 2,000 ground- and 4,000 space-based
interceptors, at a cost of over $70 billion. The third phase, from 1990 to
the present, saw SDI evolve into the Global Protection Against
Limited Strikes (GPALS) system, a plan to defend against tactical and
theater missiles and as many as 200 long-range missiles-at an
estimated cost of $40 billion. Each new phase has had less ambitious goals
using less ambitious technical means, a trend that has
confirmed skeptics' doubts about the feasibility of these systems. From
1984 through 1993, Star Wars cost $38 billion, but produced no
workable missile defense.
- ----------
After looking at some of these sources, the assertion that the program
didn't swing until 1996 isn't accurate. The US has build and tested
theater missle defenses since the 1960's without much success. SDI
started out aiming for new technologies then fell back on traditional
missle interceptors which it started testing in '96.
> SDI wasn't the only thing that brought the Soviets down, but it was a big
> thing. How do we know? Because back in the early '90s, when we had good
> relations with Russia and the Ukraine, they told us so. During that period
> they were being very open with us.
My understanding is that SDI as an economic policy, designed to drive the
Soviet Union bankrupt spending the money to keep up with the US, failed.
What I've read is that the Soviet Union didn't take the bait and launch a
big SDI program of their own. SDI didn't cause the Soviet Union to fall
apart.
> It's also worth noting that many of the things SDI opponents said would be
> impossible have already been achieved. They made a big point of how complex
> the code would have to be and how programs with that many lines of code
> couldn't function. By 1991 telephone switching systems were already using
> larger and more complex code than what would have been required for SDI. In
> fact, Win 2K has more lines of code in it than what would have been required
> for SDI (whether it functions or not I'll leave for another forum). It was
> said we'd never be able to get the kind of sensor technology needed. The radar
> technology exists today in packages small enough to be carried by fighters. IR
> sensors of sufficient resolution and range have been operational for most of
> the '90s. Our big problem at this point is reliability of the interceptors,
> and that's engineering not new technology anymore. Although it's not at all
> certain that lasers would have been used, it's worthy of note that it was
> confidently predicted that lasers of sufficient power would never be able to be
> lifted off the ground. Well, the ABL is going to be using a laser of the class
> needed.
This seems overly optimistic.
-Software: SDI hasn't been designed, let alone implemented, so we don't
know how big the programs would be. More pointed arguments against it
were that it would be difficult to test the complete system (necessary to
eliminate bugs), and that the software would be easy to sabotage by
introducing hard to test for bugs.
-Sensors: Much prgress has been made in the last 17 years, true. But
wasn't there a recent flap about how decoys were, in principal,
undistinguishable in the situation tested? The current state of the
tech is hard to assess. I don't know of a SDI sensor system which has
been put together and passed tests.
-ABL laser: The ABL is a plane-baed system which may, as is said, be
light enough to fit on a satelite (3000 lbs). It is still being
developed, and as far as I know, hasn't been tested (begin testing in
2002-3, best as I can tell). Apparently it can not be put in space as
it's components are not durable--some need to be replaced after firing.
Also this:
"Critics cite a study, to be released shortly by the Government Accounting
Office (GAO), a watchdog agency, that reportedly raises serious doubts
about the viability of the ABL. It reportedly found little hope that a
system that can mold laser beams to compensate for atmospheric
disturbances will ever be developed."
from
< http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/10/20/
us/us.1.html+ABL+SDI+test+problem&hl=en >
Jim Lund
- --
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net >
Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage *
TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
- ------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA,
and Vietnam veterans welcome]
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)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:23:26 -0700
From: "Terry W. Colvin"
Subject: A more moderate read of Echelon
"Echelon" is real, but it isn't the all-absorbing big-ear that some people
think, nor is it being used for the wrong reasons.
- - Bulletin of Nuclear Scientists -
< http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2000/ma00/ma00richelson.html >
- --
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net >
Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage *
TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
- ------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA,
and Vietnam veterans welcome]
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)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:54:00 -0700
From: "Terry W. Colvin"
Subject: FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks
I'll have to have a delve into my collection of aircraft books for details.
From memory:
The TSR-2 (Tactical Strike Reconnaissance) aircraft was a BAC (British Aircraft
Corporation, became British Aerospace when it merged with Hawker-Siddeley
Aircraft, now part of BAE SYSTEMS) project in the late 1950's/early 1960's. The
TSR-2 was an extremely ambitious project, intending to replace the V-force
(Victor,
Vulcan and Valiant aircraft), which formed the United Kingdom's tactical and
strike air force after the Second World War.
At the time the TSR-2 was being developed, the basic requirement for manned
aircraft was being questioned inside the British government. Strategic nuclear
missiles were expected to take a future war to the enemy, while local defence
would be fulfilled with missile batteries equipped with such weapons as the
Bloodhound surface to air missile. Pilots were going to be the dinosaurs of
modern warfare, and the need for a major (and very expensive) project to
design and build a new manned aircraft was difficult to justify.
The TSR-2 was intended to carry nuclear bombs or stand-off short range
nuclear missiles. The Buccaneer was a similar nuclear bomber for the Royal
Navy that was designed to fly at extremely low altitudes to fly under an enemy's
radar, then use a ballistic release (called the "toss bomb" manoeuvre) to lob
its weapon with a high degree of accuracy at a target and yet be able to get
away before it was caught in the weapon's concussion zone. Early Buccaneers
(and the TSR-2 prototypes) were painted anti-flash white in anticipation of
their role as nuclear bombers.
In the event the weapon for the Buccaneer was never developed. The rotating
weapon bay was designed specifically to carry a nuclear weapon (referred to
as the "TML" (Target Marker Lanyard) or "TMB" (Target Marker Bomb)), under
a project called "Blue Danube". The ballistic missile programme ("Blue Steel")
was also cancelled at about the same time, partly justified by the failure of
a European space collaboration project between the UK, Germany and France
(The Blue Steel component of he launch vehicle worked every time. Components
from other contributor nations - notably France - were less than successful.)
TSR-2 was a very complex aircraft which had a number of revolutionary design
features. It had a sophisticated autopilot and engine control system. It
also had a number of teething problems which, like every other high-tech project
caused delays and cost overruns. Attention was focussed on, of all things, the
undercarriage. The main landing gear had two large wheels in tandem to bear the
not inconsiderable weight of the aircraft. The retraction mechanism required
the undercarriage bogie to rotate before it could be stowed in the undercarriage
bay. This complicated linkage was prone to jamming, and great efforts were made
to improve its reliability.
Reginald "Bee" Beaumont, its test pilot, had concerns about the reliability of
the mechanism. he insisted that it perform at least five cycles on the ground
without jamming before he would retract the undercarrige in flight. It turned
out that his concerns were justified. On one test flight the undercarriage was
retracted. When the gear was lowered in preparatio for the landing, the wheel
bogie on one side failed to rotate, such that instead of both wheels being
level, one wheel was high and the other low.
Beaumont tried the usual trick of applying positive and negative 'g' to shake
the machanism loose, but it remained jammed. The option remained to eject, but
that would have destroyed the prototype aircraft. Beaumont elected to make an
attempt at landing the aircraft, risking the jammed gear tipping it over. In
the event, as the wheel touched the ground, the bogie unjammed and deployed
properly, allowng the aircraft to land without further incident.
Unfortunately, this was latched upon by the government as yet another piece of
evidence as to the failure of TSR-2. The project was abruptly cancelled - so
abruptly that another prototype was on its maiden flight preflight checks when
the order to cease work arrived. The pilot was ordered to shut down the engines
and abandon the flight. The aircraft never even flew, even though it was seconds
away from its first flight.
The existing airframes were ordered to be destroyed, the jigs and tools cut up
and notes and drawings shredded. Within weeks all trace of the project were to
be expunged. A couple of non-flying prototypes still exist in museums in the UK,
saved by BAC employees who refused to allow them to be destroyed.
It was a shameful example of how the British government treated its aviation
industries after the war, basically stating that it was incapable of matching
the design claims of its American rivals. Ironically, the F-111, ordered to
replace the TSR-2, cost more and had a poorer performance than the TSR-2. Even
the MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft), which became the Tornado, has still not
achieved the capabilities of the TSR-2 nearly forty years later.
I'll see if I can dig up more details. In the meantime, here are a few pictures:
Hope this helps,
Robin.
- ------
fortean1@frontiernet.net on 10/01/2001 22:35:03
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Robert Chambers suggested I contact you for more details on the TSR-2 program.
I quote in part his e-mail:
>The poor record of the Aardvarks is an old story where the bureaucrats
>push aside the cautions of the engineers and other technicians. Shades
>of the O-ring!
"It upsets those of us who are big TSR-2 fans that the UK govt of the time
ditched the programme because of delays and overspends, convinced by the US
govt that the F-111 would be on time and on budget, and ended up being even
more expensive than the TSR-2 would have been. For more details, contact
Robin Hill (robin.hill@baesystems.com) who has a more detailed knowledge of
these things.
Rob"
- --
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net >
Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage *
TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
- ------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA,
and Vietnam veterans welcome]
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 V9 #93
********************************
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