SR-71 back again
Allen Thomson
DAYTON, Ohio (AP) 24 Dec 1995
[EXCERPTS]
After a five-year breather, America's premier spy plane is again
scorching the skies. Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base has put the SR-71 Blackbird back in business.
``The plane is the only one of its kind. It's the
highest-flying, fastest manned reconnaissance platform,'' said
Capt. Michael Zimmerman, who managed the SR-71 restoration program
from Wright-Patterson.
The Blackbird, named for its dark and stealthy presence, first
flew in 1966. The 12-plane force was retired in 1990 because of the
high cost of maintenance. But several of the planes were brought
out of mothballs last September to plug gaps in U.S.
intelligence-gathering.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., led the charge for reactivating the
jets in July 1994 as a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
``We needed it in the Persian Gulf War, when battlefield
commanders could not get enough imagery from satellites to answer
all of their intelligence questions,'' Byrd said then.
The other U.S. reconnaissance planes -- the U-2 and the RC-135 --
do not have the speed and altitude to fly over a potentially
hostile opponent and unmanned aerial vehicles are still being
developed, he added.
Had the SR-71 been activated and allowed to fly over Iraq during
the war, it could have detected Iraqi troop movements and
determined the accuracy of U.S. bombings, he said. And it could
have helped make more precise airdrops of food and medical supplies
in Bosnia.
``It's a costly airplane, but it's very unique in that nothing
else can do it,'' Behler[?] said. ``I believe the number of airplanes
we have to fulfill that requirement is adequate.''
Charles R. Smith
>After a five-year breather, America's premier spy plane is again
>scorching the skies. Wright-Patterson
> <snip>
> Had the SR-71 been activated and allowed to fly over Iraq during
>the war, it could have detected Iraqi troop movements and
>determined the accuracy of U.S. bombings, he said. And it could
>have helped make more precise airdrops of food and medical supplies
>in Bosnia.
> ``It's a costly airplane, but it's very unique in that nothing
>else can do it,'' Behler[?] said. ``I believe the number of airplanes
>we have to fulfill that requirement is adequate.''
The real question is what happened to Aurora? The uses of recon RPVs
in Bosnia and Iraq are being well covered by Aviation Week. ARGUS in
Iraq and now Tier 1/ 2 RPVs are already doing a great job but what
happened to the super secret, super fast penetrator? Was it retired
by Clinton as rumored and now the SR-71 is being used to give us a
recon window until better RPVs (2+ and 3) come on line?
1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775
Charlie Smith
SOFTWAR http://www.ultimate.org/2292/
Dwayne Allen Day
: > Had the SR-71 been activated and allowed to fly over Iraq during
: The real question is what happened to Aurora? The uses of recon RPVs
: in Bosnia and Iraq are being well covered by Aviation Week. ARGUS in
: Iraq and now Tier 1/ 2 RPVs are already doing a great job but what
: happened to the super secret, super fast penetrator? Was it retired
: by Clinton as rumored and now the SR-71 is being used to give us a
: recon window until better RPVs (2+ and 3) come on line?
The truth is probably more boring than you believe.
Last spring, the trade newsletter Military Space ran an article that
appears to make the most sense. "Aurora" (the true name actually belongs
to the B-2 competition) was not hypersonic. It was a supersonic stealth
drone that flew in the late 80s until it made a hole in the desert. When
one considers the problems of getting stealth coatings to work at
supersonic speeds (where friction is going to either melt or erode them),
one can see how this would be a big problem.
Apparently, sometime after that, someone asked the obvious question: if
you're stealthy enough, what does it matter what speed you're going? In
fact, going slow gives you the ability to hang over the targets of
interest, snapping pictures all the time.
The result was a program called Tier-3. This was to be a very large
stealth UAV. It is probably the origin of the rumors of a "TR-3 Manta."
TR-1 is a newer version of the U-2 and someone probably heard some talk
in a bar about "Tier-3" and thought that it was a designation like
"TR-1", "U-2", etc.
Tier-3 ended up being massively expensive and they killed it while it was
still paper. Instead they pursued a whole bunch of other options such as
Tier-1, Tier-2, Tier-2+ and Tier-3- ("Tier Three Minus"). The latter is
now undergoing testing and is called the DarkStar. Pictures got
plastered all over the trade publications.
As for the SR-71, the story is schizophrenic. The Air Force does not
really want the plane because it's damn expensive to operate (maybe $100
million a year for two planes--five years ago it was too expensive at
$330 million a year for 12 planes!). The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance
Office says that the plane does not satisfy its needs (but nothing will
ever satisfy anybody's needs), but they will still use it. The SR-71 was
crammed down the Air Force's throat by Senatory Byrd. You might have
noted that Senator Byrd is a member of a party that is not exactly in
power at the moment. I have no idea if SR-71 money is currently in the
DoD budget.
Don't think that there is a clear, overriding rationality to all this
stuff. Everybody has their own agenda and priorities and they do not all
coincide. The two SR-71s in service might disappear in a couple of months.
D-Day
_________
"Greetings to all intelligent life everywhere. And for all the rest of
you, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys."
Ted B. Blakeley
dumped, if only for the fact pertaining to the expense that comes along
with the in-flight refueling program..this expense is far greater than
"simply" bringing back the SRs. No one wants to pay for the tanker
program.
Cheers,
Ted
Dean Adams
They are not bringing back the "tanker program". The fleet of
KC-135Qs which supported SR-71 worldwide operations in the past
has long since been disbanded.
The new scaled-down SR-71 program will make use of
existing KC-135E/R and KC-10 tanker resources.
Dean Adams
Dwayne Allen Day <wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
...
>The result was a program called Tier-3. This was to be a very large
>stealth UAV. It is probably the origin of the rumors of a "TR-3 Manta."
>TR-1 is a newer version of the U-2 and someone probably heard some talk
>in a bar about "Tier-3" and thought that it was a designation like
>"TR-1", "U-2", etc.
"Tier-3" == "TR-3" certainly sounds like a reasonable possibility,
although that does not explain the whole backstory of a Northrop
(Tier-3 was supposedly LADC), small, twin engine, single crew
stealthly tactical recon aircraft.
>Tier-3 ended up being massively expensive and they killed it while it was
>still paper.
Well, I hope that last part is not true. They apparently spent
$500 million+ on the Tier-3 program before it was canceled, so
i'd like to think that at least some metal was bent.
>As for the SR-71, the story is schizophrenic. The Air Force does not
>really want the plane because it's damn expensive to operate (maybe $100
>million a year for two planes--five years ago it was too expensive at
>$330 million a year for 12 planes!). The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance
>Office says that the plane does not satisfy its needs (but nothing will
>ever satisfy anybody's needs), but they will still use it. The SR-71 was
>crammed down the Air Force's throat by Senatory Byrd.
But don't forget that the cancelation of the SR-71 was crammed down
Congress and other's throats by promises of a follow-on program.
Ted B. Blakeley
Adrian Thurlow
> They are not bringing back the "tanker program". The fleet of
> KC-135Qs which supported SR-71 worldwide operations in the past
> has long since been disbanded.
>
> The new scaled-down SR-71 program will make use of
> existing KC-135E/R and KC-10 tanker resources.
I believe that you are incorrect with this. Although the unit flying the Q
version at the time of the
Senior Crown program may have gone the aircraft do, in fact, still exist.
They are to be fitted with new CFm
engines and redesignated KC-135T.
Regards
Adrian Thurlow
Dean Adams
Yep, i've heard that at least some of the Qs are being re-engined
and given a new designation (makes sense), but how does that differ
from what I said?
James F. Parkyn
>In article <dadamsDK...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com
>(Dean Adams) wrote:
>
>> They are not bringing back the "tanker program". The fleet of
>> KC-135Qs which supported SR-71 worldwide operations in the past
>> has long since been disbanded.
>>
>> The new scaled-down SR-71 program will make use of
>> existing KC-135E/R and KC-10 tanker resources.
>
>I believe that you are incorrect with this. Although the unit flying
>the Q version at the time of the
>Senior Crown program may have gone the aircraft do, in fact, still >exist. They are to be fitted with new CFm engines and redesignated >KC-135T.
>
A recent LA Times (Pravda West) article stated that practice flights
are run along the west coast about every two weeks. I can't recall
if specific mention was made of refueling, but I thought that the
Blackbird needed to be topped off after takeoff. The flights originate
from Edwards.
For those of you who are radio monitors, check out the FAA high altitude
UHF aircraft frequencies for activity that will only originate from a
military aircraft at those heights. The ones that I have heard have a lot
of background noise from the life support as well as electrical noise
from the avionics.
Jim
Adrian Thurlow
> Adrian Thurlow <adrian....@bt-sys.bt.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <dadamsDK...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean
Adams) wrote:
> >> They are not bringing back the "tanker program". The fleet of
> >> KC-135Qs which supported SR-71 worldwide operations in the past
> >> has long since been disbanded.
> >>
> >> The new scaled-down SR-71 program will make use of
> >> existing KC-135E/R and KC-10 tanker resources.
> >
> >I believe that you are incorrect with this. Although the unit flying the Q
> >version at the time of the Senior Crown program may have gone the aircraft
> > do, in fact, still exist. They are to be fitted with new CFm
> >engines and redesignated KC-135T.
>
> Yep, i've heard that at least some of the Qs are being re-engined
> and given a new designation (makes sense), but how does that differ
> from what I said?
The Q version of the KC-135 was a special version that had seperate tanks for
its own fuel and that going out via the flying boom. It was therefore the
only version
able to refuel the SR-71 as the E/R versions do not have this capability.
The KC-10 is however able to
seperate fuel types and is cleared for SR-71 in flight refueling.
I am a big fan of the SR-71 and I am glad to see it back but there is
something wrong in all of this.
Previously important missions were flown with a backup aircraft waiting at
the hammerhead. With
a two aircraft fleet the entire fleet would be tied up for one mission.
Is this really practical?
Regards
Adrian Thurlow
Dean Adams
James F. Parkyn <jpa...@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> wrote:
>A recent LA Times (Pravda West) article stated that practice flights
>are run along the west coast about every two weeks.
Yes, that is one of their training flight routes, from Palmdale/Edwards
north up towards the Canadian border, and then back down south to home.
> I can't recall if specific mention was made of refueling, but I
> thought that the Blackbird needed to be topped off after takeoff.
In the past it was USAF standard operating procedure to takeoff and
immediately rendezvous with a tanker, but if the SR-71 instead takes
off with a full load of fuel it can have about an hour of Mach 3+
flight time without refueling.
Paul Suhler
>Previously important missions were flown with a backup aircraft waiting at
>the hammerhead. With
>a two aircraft fleet the entire fleet would be tied up for one mission.
>Is this really practical?
A couple of weeks ago, one of the Los Angeles TV stations had a short
segment (filmed at Palmdale) in which they said that the US commander
in Bosnia had requested SR-71 surveillance, but that two operational
aircraft are required before any can be used, and that the second one
is not on line.
He then talked about reports that work on the second aircraft is
dragging because one faction in the Air Force doesn't want it active
at all.
Same old games.
Ted B. Blakeley
Cheers,
Ted
Tom Schaefer
alt.conspiracy.area51.
You boys have been babbling a wee bit too much and Church Lady is
about to bop you on the head.
Dean Adams
Adrian Thurlow <adrian....@bt-sys.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>The Q version of the KC-135 was a special version that had seperate tanks
>for its own fuel and that going out via the flying boom.
Actually I believe all KC-135s are able to isolate different grades
of fuel in different tanks. The most significant change made in the
KC-135Q is that it had an engine mod which allowed it to burn JP-7
directly, thereby removing the need to always have two separate fuel
stores and eliminating the possibility of a "bingo fuel" emergency
(and mission abort) with a full load of JP-7 onboard.
> It was therefore the only version able to refuel the SR-71 as
> the E/R versions do not have this capability. The KC-10 is however
> able to seperate fuel types and is cleared for SR-71 in flight refueling.
NASA has been using standard KC-10s and KC-135s to support
their missions at Dryden.
>I am a big fan of the SR-71 and I am glad to see it back
Ditto!
> but there is something wrong in all of this. Previously important
> missions were flown with a backup aircraft waiting at the hammerhead.
> With a two aircraft fleet the entire fleet would be tied up for one
> mission. Is this really practical?
Obviously what we have now is a *scaled down* program. It remains
to be seen exactly how they will reorganize all the operational
procedures used, but I still think it can be a worthwhile program.
The SR-71 simply offers a unique capability in the area of fast,
easily targetable, airborne reconnaissance.
Wayne Allen
*Ted B. Blakeley <gee...@teleport.com> wrote:
*>Unfortunately, I agree with you...I too believe the program will be
*>dumped, if only for the fact pertaining to the expense that comes along
*>with the in-flight refueling program..this expense is far greater than
*>"simply" bringing back the SRs. No one wants to pay for the tanker
*>program.
*They are not bringing back the "tanker program". The fleet of
*KC-135Qs which supported SR-71 worldwide operations in the past
*has long since been disbanded.
*The new scaled-down SR-71 program will make use of
*existing KC-135E/R and KC-10 tanker resources.
The SR-71 tanker fleet were specifically adapted for the bird, the other tankers
would not be able to provide the support. The Blackbird does not use the same fuel as
do the other jet aircraft of your air-force.
--
Wayne Allen WARNING: Contains adult content.
VA3WHA Partial nudity or violence.
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca Do not remove label on penalty of law.
Graham Wickens
now they have got new big engines like most of the fleet! from KC-135Q to
KC-135T. I do not think the decision to bring back the SR-71 was taken
without reference to its tanking requirements!
?
/~\ gra...@westrowops.win-uk.net
(o o)
------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------
| | | |
---------------------------------
| | | |
Cor! Its a 1%-er.
Dean Adams
Wayne Allen <wha...@capitalnet.com.ca> wrote:
> The SR-71 tanker fleet were specifically adapted for the bird,
Indeed they were. The KC-135Q tankers were based at Beale AFB,
right along with the SR-71s that they supported.
> the other tankers would not be able to provide the support.
Not correct. A dedicated tanker fleet was used to support the
previous full-scale USAF Blackbird operation, but since the retirement
the remaining operational SR-71s have had to rely on "other tankers".
> The Blackbird does not use the same fuel as
>do the other jet aircraft of your air-force.
Quite true. It burns JP-7, which is used by no other aircraft.
Keith Wood
"James F. Parkyn" <jpa...@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> wrote:
[For those of you who are radio monitors, check out the FAA high altitude
[UHF aircraft frequencies for activity that will only originate from a
[military aircraft at those heights.
How about a list?
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
===============================================================
Pat
I seem to recall seeing an article in Aerotech news stating that along
with a massive spares hunt for SR-71 bits during the re-start,
some 35 KC-135Qs were refurbed to support mission operations.
--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik
Mike Jensen
from the follow-up. It doesn't relate directly (enough) to space.policy
issues and this newsgroup is noisy enough. Thanks.
Mike
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with
confidence. -- Manly's Maxiam
Don't be so open minded your brains fall out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khreriov
The -135Qs were special purpose birds, uniquely able to refuel the
Blackbirds. They had modified fuel manifolds and fuel control panels,
designed to prevent its normal load of JP-4 from mixing with or being
transferred instead of JP-7. They also had special communications gear
and other items of equipment to enhance its Blackbird mission.
The engines did not require special modifications to burn JP--7,
although they probably were adjusted internally to burn it for longer
periods of time than normal J57-PW400s would be expected to.
I used to be a USAF boom operator, and have flown both types of
tankers.
eir...@ix.netcom.com
>thom...@netcom.com (Allen Thomson) wrote:
>> Had the SR-71 been activated and allowed to fly over Iraq during
>>the war, it could have detected Iraqi troop movements and
>>determined the accuracy of U.S. bombings, he said. And it could
>>have helped make more precise airdrops of food and medical supplies
>>in Bosnia.
>1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775
>Charlie Smith
>SOFTWAR http://www.ultimate.org/2292/
just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
Mary Shafer
PS> NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu
PS> In article <4cqbsd$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> eir...@ix.netcom.com () writes:
>just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
>was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
>clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
PS> Could you please cite your source for this? I was under the
PS> impression that the USAF had terminated SR-71 operations the
PS> previous year (1990), leaving NASA the only operator. Are you
PS> saying they flew the missions?
PS> I've never heard of this.
That's because it never happened. As you write, the only flyable
aircraft came to Dryden in 1990 (February through mid-summer, as I
recall) and USAF got completely out of the Blackbird business.
NASA was busy flying research and proficiency flights over the Western
US. We did not get any of the surveillance/reconnaisance equipment.
In fact, we didn't even get the pages of the Pilot's Handbook (the
Dash 1) that described how to work it.
I believe that the farthest the SR-71 has ever gotten from Dryden was
just off the East Coast. I also know that the only foreign countries
we even might have flown over are Canada and Mexico, but I'm not sure
if we've ever actually done so. If we did, it would only be very
briefly, probably caused by a delayed turn. We've never done so on
purpose.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Mary Shafer
J> A recent LA Times (Pravda West) article stated that practice
J> flights are run along the west coast about every two weeks. I can't
J> recall if specific mention was made of refueling, but I thought
J> that the Blackbird needed to be topped off after takeoff. The
J> flights originate from Edwards.
That corresponds well with the schedule they send me every week,
although the activity dropped off over the holidays.
You can either take off heavy and fly for 1.5 hours, including some
Mach 3+ time; take off light, refuel immediately, and fly for 1.6 or
1.7 hours (it takes a while to refuel and the takeoff does burn some
fuel), including some Mach 3+ time; take off heavy, refuel halfway
though the flight, and get 3 hours; or take off light, refuel
immediately and halfway through the flight and get about 3.2 hours.
We've flown most of our research flight without refueling; we never
could match the B-2's priority for tankers. That is, it's quite
possible to go Mach 3 without hitting the tanker. I think the USAF
proficiency flights, to which the article refers, usually take on at
least one bag of fuel--the flight schedule always calls for a tanker
for those flights. That's easy for the Air Force, they own the
tankers.
Caveats--my memory for numbers is suitable crummy that I can't tell
you what takeoff weight we use going off heavyweight, although 85,000
sticks in my mind as takeoff weight at lower temperatures, or how much
fuel we transfer (i.e. a bag). Nor will I post the weekly schedule.
Mary Shafer
WA> The SR-71 tanker fleet were specifically adapted for the bird,
WA> the other tankers would not be able to provide the support. The
WA> Blackbird does not use the same fuel as do the other jet aircraft
WA> of your air-force.
Totally wrong, Wayne. NASA's been refueling SR-71s from any KC-135 or
KC-10 available, as long as it has JP-7 in the tanks, since 1990.
I think there might even be a picture of us doing so on
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/
in the photo archive.
Stephen Swartz
>
>
>Adrian Thurlow <adrian....@bt-sys.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>>The Q version of the KC-135 was a special version that had seperate tanks
>>for its own fuel and that going out via the flying boom.
>
>Actually I believe all KC-135s are able to isolate different grades
>of fuel in different tanks. The most significant change made in the
>KC-135Q is that it had an engine mod which allowed it to burn JP-7
>directly, thereby removing the need to always have two separate fuel
>stores and eliminating the possibility of a "bingo fuel" emergency
>(and mission abort) with a full load of JP-7 onboard.
KC-135Qs were equipped with a (unique) second SPR and crossover manifold
system. At least that's the way it was when I was working on them . . .
There were a handful of system changes that made the KC-135Q different
from the rest of the fleet. The ability to keep the contents of the
body tanks and the wing tanks totally separate was one of them.
I hear the Q models are being dispersed throughout ACC; are they being
de-modded first?
Steve
Paul Suhler
>just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
>was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
>clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
Could you please cite your source for this? I was under the
impression that the USAF had terminated SR-71 operations the previous
year (1990), leaving NASA the only operator. Are you saying they flew
the missions?
I've never heard of this.
Paul Suhler
Mary Shafer
SS> In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) says:
>
>On Sat, 06 Jan 1996 17:01:29 GMT, wha...@capitalnet.com.ca (Wayne Allen) said:
>
>WA> The SR-71 tanker fleet were specifically adapted for the bird,
>WA> the other tankers would not be able to provide the support. The
>WA> Blackbird does not use the same fuel as do the other jet aircraft
>WA> of your air-force.
>
>Totally wrong, Wayne. NASA's been refueling SR-71s from any KC-135 or
>KC-10 available, as long as it has JP-7 in the tanks, since 1990.
SS> Guess what? Modern(er) jet engines on the KC-10 (and, I believe,
SS> the KC-135R with the CFM-56's) do not seem to have this problem.
SS> "Any KC-135 or KC-10 available" is somewhat misleading, even with
SS> the significant qualifier "as long as it has JP-7 in the tanks."
Well, we really will take any tanker that we can get--we've used SAC
tankers, ANG tankers, and AFFTC Test Ops tankers. Our only
requirement is that they be available the day before the flight so
that we can use our JP-7 fuel trucks to fill the refueling tanks.
While many of these have been KC-10s or KC-135Rs, not all of them have
been. Some were the little-engine KC-135s. I've seen them on the
ramp, usually when I'm coming back from aerobics at lunch--they arrive
here in the early afternoon.
It is my understanding that tankers normally don't use the refueling
fuel and that the modification of the KC-135Q was to give modified
engines access to the JP-7, mostly to cut down the logistics and to
make the load more flexible.
shadow...@delphi.com
My thoughts are with you all, and with that beautiful aircraft...
Alistair Henderson
|>I hear the Q models are being dispersed throughout ACC; are they being
|>de-modded first?
|>
|>Steve
|>
They're being fitted with CFM-56 engines and re-designated KC-135Ts. Don't know how this
affects the rest of the mods, though. Guess it depends wether or not USAF thought
they would need the mods again...
Al.
--
Al Henderson.
Computer Science III
Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Email: cee...@cee.hw.ac.uk
RAF Web Pages: http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/~ceeamh
Walt Shiel
>In article <4cqbsd$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> eir...@ix.netcom.com () writes:
>>just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
>>was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
>>clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
>
NASA birds and I sincerely doubt NASA flew any recce missions in support
of Desert Storm. Can you cite a credible reference for this?
--
==>For All E-Mail Replies, Use "wsh...@airmail.net"
=============================================================
Walt Shiel - Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and
Personal History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
[For More Info, E-Mail: wsh...@airmail.net]
=============================================================
Stephen Swartz
>
>On Sat, 06 Jan 1996 17:01:29 GMT, wha...@capitalnet.com.ca (Wayne Allen) said:
>
>WA> The SR-71 tanker fleet were specifically adapted for the bird,
>WA> the other tankers would not be able to provide the support. The
>WA> Blackbird does not use the same fuel as do the other jet aircraft
>WA> of your air-force.
>
>Totally wrong, Wayne. NASA's been refueling SR-71s from any KC-135 or
>KC-10 available, as long as it has JP-7 in the tanks, since 1990.
>
You're both right!
KC-135Q's were specially modified to keep the contents of the wing tanks
(JP4) and body tanks (JP7) separate. Bad things happened when J-57/59W's
burned JP7.
Guess what? Modern(er) jet engines on the KC-10 (and, I believe, the
KC-135R with the CFM-56's) do not seem to have this problem.
"Any KC-135 or KC-10 available" is somewhat misleading, even with the
significant qualifier "as long as it has JP-7 in the tanks."
Steve Swartz
Give Peace a Chance
Stop the Flame Wars
Keith Wood
suh...@pollux.usc.edu (Paul Suhler) wrote:
[In article <4cqbsd$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> eir...@ix.netcom.com () writes:
[>just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
[>was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
[>clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
[Could you please cite your source for this? I was under the
[impression that the USAF had terminated SR-71 operations the previous
[year (1990), leaving NASA the only operator. Are you saying they flew
[the missions?
Just as a SWAG, I think that there was some cross-communications, where someone
reported the use of a "black spy plane" and someone else filled in the mental
blanks with "Blackbird" and "SR-71" instead of U-2/TR-1.
Ted B. Blakeley
the SRs during the time period of the Gulf War. In fact, I'm 100% sure
as 956 was in the shop during this time period and 956 was the 1st
article NASA flew....this time around, that is. Remember they flew them
back in the 70s.
Cheers,
Ted
Ted B. Blakeley
"OKAY" for them to receive the SRs.....but did so shortly after.
Cheers,
Ted
Pat
Adrian Thurlow <adrian....@bt-sys.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dadamsDK...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>Previously important missions were flown with a backup aircraft waiting at
>the hammerhead. With
>a two aircraft fleet the entire fleet would be tied up for one mission.
>Is this really practical?
>
sure, it's not like we have enemies these days.
Keith Wood
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
[
[I believe that the farthest the SR-71 has ever gotten from Dryden was
[just off the East Coast. I also know that the only foreign countries
[we even might have flown over are Canada and Mexico, but I'm not sure
[if we've ever actually done so. If we did, it would only be very
[briefly, probably caused by a delayed turn.
Oh, c'mon, Mary, who are you trying to kid? we all know that a standard-rate
360 in the -71 is from Yukon to Yucatan! ;)
Dean Adams
Stephen Swartz <int...@ostp.eop.gov> wrote:
>KC-135Q's were specially modified to keep the contents of the wing tanks
>(JP4) and body tanks (JP7) separate. Bad things happened when J-57/59W's
>burned JP7.
The KC-135Qs, which were the fleet of SR-71 dedicated tankers based
with the 9th SRW, had their engines modified to safely burn JP-7.
>Guess what? Modern(er) jet engines on the KC-10 (and, I believe, the
>KC-135R with the CFM-56's) do not seem to have this problem.
I doubt they would go out of their way to burn JP-7 though.
Normally they will just keep the fuel separated.
Stephen Swartz
>
>
>Stephen Swartz <int...@ostp.eop.gov> wrote:
>>KC-135Q's were specially modified to keep the contents of the wing tanks
>>(JP4) and body tanks (JP7) separate. Bad things happened when J-57/59W's
>>burned JP7.
>
>The KC-135Qs, which were the fleet of SR-71 dedicated tankers based
>with the 9th SRW, had their engines modified to safely burn JP-7.
>
That makes a lot of sense.
I believe the only mod needed is to make the decision to trim the engines
for this fuel (caveat: not responsible for tricks of faulty memory! =8^).
**** WAR STORY ALERT! DON YOUR PROTECTIVE GEAR! ****
When I was stationed at Beale in 1978-79, this had not been done yet.
Every other month or so, one of the crew chiefs or POL techs would submit
a suggestion to do this but it was regularly refused ("Not cost
effective"). When I was refueling them , allowing either the JP7 or JP4
tanks to fail the "flash test" (for purity) was considered a major faux
pas; requiring defueling & draining and starting all over again (in some
cases). Lost track of the Qs in 1980- I apologize if my info was dated.
> >Guess what? Modern(er) jet engines on the KC-10 (and, I believe, the
> >KC-135R with the CFM-56's) do not seem to have this problem.
>
>I doubt they would go out of their way to burn JP-7 though.
>Normally they will just keep the fuel separated.
>
>
Yeah (sheepish grin) oops. It's not that tough to direct the fuel from
the SPR to any tank you want. The only hassle (in the case of using
non-Qs to support SR ops) is the cleaning up afterward before using the
body tanks for JP4 again.
On the related note of "why the split manifold in the first place?" (see
previous posts):
I often wondered, during long "0-dark thirty" refueling sessions on the Q,
why we were going to so much trouble with the whole dual-manifold thing.
I was told the second manifold was more for ground ops during bare base
support.
In other words, let's say (for some odd reason) that you needed to put
JP7 on an SR71 that had put down at a non-JP7 base. Instead of trucking
it in, just park a Q model next to it, hook up one of those handy ground
transfer hoses, flip a few valves, pressurize the A/R pumps, and voila!
JP7 flows from the tanker to the SR.
Anyhow, mea culpa for confusing the issue in my previous post. I'll try
harder in the future.
Steve Swartz
Bucket99
missions. The advances in sattelite photography have made the Blackbird
obsolete. That and the J-STARS, and the new Photo bird (AURORA).
Buck...@AOL.COM
Andrew Toppan
: just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
: was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
: clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
One word: Rubbish.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
Peter Marshall
--
| Linknet : Peter Marshall 135:69/4
| Internet : Peter.M...@ve6cyr.linknet.ccinet.ab.ca
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Andrew Toppan
: The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
: missions.
Where have you been for the last 6 months? The SR-71 is flying for
USAF again. And I'd suggest that the person you were replying to probably
knows infinitely more about the subject than you do.
Dean Adams
Bucket99 <buck...@aol.com> wrote:
>The SR-71 is RETIRED!
Not correct (of course).
> If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA missions.
No, nothing "silly" about 'em.
> The advances in sattelite photography have made the Blackbird
> obsolete.
Three strikes, you're out! :>
The Blackbird co-existed with the satellites for most of it's
operational career. There was no particular "advance" that
precipitated it's retirement, it was primarily a political
and budgetary move. Airborne recon platforms will never be
obsolete, because they have a level of flexibility that cannot
be matched by space-based systems.
> That and the J-STARS,
J-STARS performs a totally different than the Blackbird.
> and the new Photo bird (AURORA).
Which if it existed at all, has almost certainly been canceled.
et...@deltanet.com
swar...@pilot.msu.edu (Stephen Swartz) writes:
>I hear the Q models are being dispersed throughout ACC; are they being
>de-modded first?
Just to add my 2 cents worth of noise to this question :), allow me to
quote from the January 1996 issue of "Air Force Magazine":
The last of fifty-six KC-135Qs in the Air Force, #58-0099, left
Fairchild AFB, Wash., in early fall with a tell-tale trail of black
smoke and a thunderous roar, on the way to be refurbished as a
KC-135T. The aircraft will feature the new CFM56 engines now seen
on KC-135Rs but will retain its special ability to isolate two
separate fuel types within its fuel cells, an adaptation needed to
refuel SR-71s. (Page 17)
========================================================================
et...@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463
et...@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A
http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech
========================================================================
Keith Wood
buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) wrote:
[The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
[missions. The advances in sattelite photography have made the Blackbird
[obsolete. That and the J-STARS, and the new Photo bird (AURORA).
Thank you, Mister Bucket. Perhaps you should read the newsgroup for a while
before exposing your ignorance. Or maybe a newspaper (the story about the
three -71s returning to service hit a week or two ago).
Of course. Where else could such a well-informed type originate from (the only
other possibiilty is Mein-Kampfuserve).
--
Mike Freeman
>In article <4d496t$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) wrote:
>[The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
>[missions. The advances in sattelite photography have made the Blackbird
>[obsolete. That and the J-STARS, and the new Photo bird (AURORA).
>Thank you, Mister Bucket. Perhaps you should read the newsgroup for a while
>before exposing your ignorance. Or maybe a newspaper (the story about the
>three -71s returning to service hit a week or two ago).
>Of course. Where else could such a well-informed type originate from (the only
>other possibiilty is Mein-Kampfuserve).
I'm glad someone said something before me. I would have ripped this
guy to shreads. The thought that the J-STARS is a "photo bird" is
insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
Mike Freeman
>free...@pilot.msu.edu (Mike Freeman) wrote:
>> The thought that the J-STARS is a "photo bird" is
>>insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
>>synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
>I built some of the color displays for this bird. It does for the
>ground commander sort of what AWACS does for the air commander. It is
>also usefull for the ground attack air folks looking for ground
>targets. I don't think it has a lot on common with the SR-71.
>It is just a regular Boeing jet with some electronics mounted inside.
I know that's what I was saying. As far as it being a regular Boeing
jet with some electronics inside is not exactly true. It's side
mounted radar probably costs more than an F-16. You are right about it
being an AWACS for the ground. The pictures of the scopes from Desert
Storm show that it does just what it was designed to do, even though
the planes in DS were prototypes.
Mike
Ernest Mesa
heard all over the San Bernardino Co area. It happend around 3:45 PM and
was in the locall papers.
-
ERNEST MESA ZBJ...@prodigy.com
Blackbird Airpark Volunteer Staff
Spreen Honda Service Tech.
George B
> The thought that the J-STARS is a "photo bird" is
>insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
>synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
I built some of the color displays for this bird. It does for the
ground commander sort of what AWACS does for the air commander. It is
also usefull for the ground attack air folks looking for ground
targets. I don't think it has a lot on common with the SR-71.
It is just a regular Boeing jet with some electronics mounted inside.
George Bonser
gr...@cris.com
Forbes for President in '96
Allen Thomson
>
>In article <4cqbsd$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, <eir...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
>>was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
>>clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
>>
>
>the SR-71s had already been retired by the Air Force, so there were
>no military flights made at any time during the Gulf War. Second,
>the Blackbird's cameras would have been just as obscured by smoke
>from oil well fires as the satellites, unless you are trying to
>suggest that the SR-71 was flying "low-level" recon missions below
>the clouds.
Some SR-71s used to carry a fairly decent SAR; do you know whether the
two reactivated ones have this capability?
Jayne Shoreham
Freeman) writes:
>>free...@pilot.msu.edu (Mike Freeman) wrote:
>>> The thought that the J-STARS is a "photo bird" is
>>>insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
>>>synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
>
>I know that's what I was saying. As far as it being a regular Boeing
>jet with some electronics inside is not exactly true. It's side
>mounted radar probably costs more than an F-16. You are right about it
>being an AWACS for the ground. The pictures of the scopes from Desert
>Storm show that it does just what it was designed to do, even though
>the planes in DS were prototypes.
>
>Mike
>
It is a SIDE-Looking Radar! Norden multi-mode side looking radar
antenna, 25' long, faired into the BELLY of each acft.
Range in excess of 155 miles.
Jayne Shoreham
>I'm glad someone said something before me. I would have ripped this
>insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
>synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
>
System.707-300 Airframes, Grumman was the original contractor, now
Northrop Grumman out of Melbourne, FL. Endurance 20 hours with 1
In-flight refueling.
Paul Tomblin x31515
Forbes is anti-aviation. He's trying to close down a long standing general
aviation airport because the pattern is over his property (and close a small
business and throw people out of work). Meanwhile he's violating local noise
ordances by flying helicopters into his estate (closer to his and his
neighbours houses than the airport he's trying to close down).
Anybody who loves aviation will vote against Steve "The Hypocrite" Forbes.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@canoe.com)
"You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
DANIEL ROBERT HOLDSWORTH
In article <4d4ed7$i...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) writes:
:Bucket99 reshaped the electrons to say:
:: The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
:: missions.
:
:Where have you been for the last 6 months? The SR-71 is flying for
:USAF again. And I'd suggest that the person you were replying to probably
:knows infinitely more about the subject than you do.
There's also the fairly obvious point that the SR-71 is useful in that
it is unpredictable.
Say you're some crazed third world dictator. You want to move against another
state, but you don't want those damn interfering americans to know whats
going on. So, you move quietly, slow buildup, and keep everything camoflaged
as well as you can when the satelites are overhead.
Odds are your tanks show up quite well on IR, but if you've played it smart and
had reasonable decoys around the area, then little should happen.
Problem is, if some smart alec over in the Pentagon thinks that you're up to
something naughty, then he can order an SR-71 to overfly the general vicinity.
Once this happens, there's bugger all you can do. If you take a pot shot at the
bloody thing, odds are you're wasting ammo and if they see your missile, then
you've just declared war on the most powerful nation on the planet. More to the
point, you've given the game away. If not, then the SR-71's cameras, radar and
the like WILL spot at least some activity, and at that point you'd be best
off giving the opertion up as a bad job, calling it "routine troop manoevers"
and going home.
So from the point of view of the average crazed third world dictator, the SR-71
is very very bad news. Is it any wonder that it is still in service with US
forces?
Dan H.
Dean Adams
In article <4cqbsd$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, <eir...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>just fyi, the sr71 was use in the gulf war in a limited role when it
>was discovered that the satalites could not gather data through the
>clouds of smoke from the oil well fires. The blackbird could.
>
No, the Blackbird couldn't (for multiple reasons). For one thing,
the SR-71s had already been retired by the Air Force, so there were
no military flights made at any time during the Gulf War. Second,
the Blackbird's cameras would have been just as obscured by smoke
from oil well fires as the satellites, unless you are trying to
suggest that the SR-71 was flying "low-level" recon missions below
the clouds.
It is true that some field commanders wanted SR-71 coverage
at various times during the war... but they didn't get it.
Sandy Redding
>
> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
> obsolete. That and the J-STARS, and the new Photo bird (AURORA).
Fishing for Mary Shafer's complete and undivided attention, or what?
Mary Shafer
B> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
B> missions.
I beg your f**king pardon?
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Mary Shafer
PM> Is Rogers Smith still at Dryden?
Not just here, but Chief Test Pilot.
Mary Shafer
>I'm glad someone said something before me. I would have ripped this
>guy to shreads. The thought that the J-STARS is a "photo bird" is
>insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
>synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
JS> It stands for Joint Surveillance and Target Attaack Radar
JS> System.707-300 Airframes, Grumman was the original contractor, now
JS> Northrop Grumman out of Melbourne, FL. Endurance 20 hours with 1
JS> In-flight refueling.
The interesting difference between J-STARS and AWACS is that J-STARS
tracks _ground_ vehicles; AWACS tracks _airborne_ vehicles.
There was a paper on the use of the essentially experimental J-STARS
at a recent (1992, maybe) Society of Experimental Test Pilots
Symposium. We got to see trucks and tanks and all kinds of stuff
moving around. Really a great tool.
JCohenour
Grumman's Lake Charles, LA facility and then flown to Melbourne, FL for
the systems installation/integration work.
Along the same lines, does anyone know how old the airframes that are
being used as J-STARS platforms are?
Pat
Mary Shafer <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>On 11 Jan 1996 19:15:25 -0500, buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) said:
>
>B> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
>B> missions.
>
>I beg your f**king pardon?
>
So i see some propoganda that Lockheed skunk works is testing a
Linear aerospike experimental rocket (LASE, LASER??) on the back
of the SR-71.
Is that program going well? what publically can be commented on it.
--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik
Ed Haering
>The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
>obsolete. That and the J-STARS, and the new Photo bird (AURORA).
>Buck...@AOL.COM
For information about one of those "SILLY NASA MISSIONS" (sonic boom research
for the future High Speed Civil Transport), see the Jan. '96 issue of
NASA Tech Briefs magazine, pages 68-69. It's also available on the Web at
http://www.ptw.com/~ehaering/DRC-95-32.html
Ed Haering
Principal Investigator for the SR-71 Sonic Boom Propagation Experiment
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
OF COURSE I DON'T SPEAK FOR NASA!!!
Mike Hoffmann
> On 11 Jan 1996 19:15:25 -0500, buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) said:
> B> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
> B> missions.
> I beg your f**king pardon?
> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
> SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
Too bad the original poster was likely one of the usual clueless AOL
hit-n-run posters. I would have loved to enjoy the spectacle of Mary
making mincemeat of him. :-)
Regards
Mike
--
Mike Hoffmann | Pencom Systems Administration Services
mi...@psa.pencom.com | On assignment @Netscape Communications
"Let's go exploring." (Calvin's final words to Hobbes, 12-31-95)
George B
>>I'm glad someone said something before me. I would have ripped this
>>guy to shreads. The thought that the J-STARS is a "photo bird" is
>>insane. If I'm not mistaken, the R stands for radar, namly the
>>synthetic side looking radar that it uses to see the battle field.
>>
>It stands for Joint Surveillance and Target Attaack Radar
>System.707-300 Airframes, Grumman was the original contractor, now
>Northrop Grumman out of Melbourne, FL. Endurance 20 hours with 1
>In-flight refueling.
The color displays were built by Interstate Electronics in Anaheim Ca.
Last I heard, Motorola was building some stuff for the Army that would
integrate with the system.
George Bonser
gr...@cris.com
Richard Caldwell
In Article<SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
<sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes:
> On 11 Jan 1996 19:15:25 -0500, buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) said:
>
> B> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
> B> missions.
>
> I beg your f**king pardon?
Calm down, Mary! After all, consider the source. How can you take anyone
seriously with a name like Bucket99, especially when they are posting from
Assholes On-Line. 8-]
We all know he's so full of it he probably has brown eyes.
Richard
George B
>There was a paper on the use of the essentially experimental J-STARS
>at a recent (1992, maybe) Society of Experimental Test Pilots
>Symposium. We got to see trucks and tanks and all kinds of stuff
>moving around. Really a great tool.
Yeah, if it moves, it is pretty much toast.
Mary Shafer
P> In article <SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
P> Mary Shafer <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>On 11 Jan 1996 19:15:25 -0500, buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) said:
>
>B> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
>B> missions.
>
>I beg your f**king pardon?
P> So i see some propoganda that Lockheed skunk works is testing a
P> Linear aerospike experimental rocket (LASE, LASER??) on the back of
P> the SR-71.
It's the LASRE, for Linear (or, occasionally, Lockheed) AeroSpike
Research Experiment, I think. The trouble with snappy acronyms is
that we use them so commonly that they become the name and we forget
what the real words are.
I believe it would be more accurate to say that Lockheed is building
it and Dryden is testing it, but who am I to argue with the PR folks?
P> Is that program going well? what publically can be commented on
P> it.
Well, we seem to be doing pretty well on the aircraft part. Right now
the A that we're using is in Palmdale, having the strongback and
instrumentation installed. They did a major inspection at the same
time. The only other aircraft issue is sorting out the two
best-matching engines from the six we have, as I recall. The plane
flies back here in February, I believe. There was no big effect of
the furlough, but the holidays had an impact.
Regarding the actual experiment, we're doing a lot of FMEA, since
we're the RTO, of course. See what I mean about acronyms--that's
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and Responsible Test Organization.
Lockheed and Rocketdyne are busy bending metal. It's my understanding
(that's my subtle way of saying I can't find my latest schedule
easily) that they're going to deliver the experiment to the Rocket
Site--the USAF Phillips Lab, now, but the Rocket Site in 1961 when I
moved here--for ground firing some time in March, which is pretty
close to the original estimates. The FMEA stuff was heavily impacted
by the furlough, although had we not been furloughed there would have
been some holiday leave, I think. The experiment was unaffected by
the furlough, of course, but the holidays had an impact on this, too.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
Joseph Wisniewski
: shbj...@ix.netcom.com(Jayne Shoreham ) wrote:
: George Bonser
: gr...@cris.com
: Forbes for President in '96
Moto is building the ground-based command and control centers that reside
in mobile vehicles, Bradleys, Humvees, etc.
--
Joe Wisniewski
Commercial Software Solutions, Ltd. -- Embedded/RT SW Consulting
Co-Author: Program Smarter, Not Harder - Get Mission Critical Projects
Right the First Time
wis...@primenet.com --- The "Baltimore Browns"? Pazhaloosta!
Ada95 --> She'll take you to places you never thought possible!
George B
>Forbes is anti-aviation. He's trying to close down a long standing general
>aviation airport because the pattern is over his property (and close a small
>business and throw people out of work). Meanwhile he's violating local noise
>ordances by flying helicopters into his estate (closer to his and his
>neighbours houses than the airport he's trying to close down).
>Anybody who loves aviation will vote against Steve "The Hypocrite" Forbes.
At THAT particular airport anyway. If he flies helicopters, he
probably is not "anti-aviation".
Brian varine
> >at a recent (1992, maybe) Society of Experimental Test Pilots
> >Symposium. We got to see trucks and tanks and all kinds of stuff
> >moving around. Really a great tool.
>
> Yeah, if it moves, it is pretty much toast.
Unless you use jamming.
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>It stands for Joint Surveillance and Target Attaack Radar
>System.707-300 Airframes, Grumman was the original contractor, now
>Northrop Grumman out of Melbourne, FL. Endurance 20 hours with 1
>In-flight refueling.
Hmm Target Acquisition. Does it not use a synthetic aperture radar. The main
difference between an AWACs and JSTAR is that the AWACs contains aircraft
controllers who direct a number of aircraft according to their radar picture
etc. JSTAR is purely a traget acquisition system, however with the appropriate
ground link there is no reason why it cannot be used to control ground attack
systems (eg A10, artillery maybe) but this would almost certainly be done from
the ground. The kind of intelligence it provides is strategic/operational
rather than tactical; it would also be used to 'cue' other systems that could
gather much more detailed information (photo-reconnaisance etc).
I believe that the JSTARs used in the Gulf were actually prototypes rather
than in service equipment. Regardless they did a superb job.
Jim Kingdon
Here is some stuff from http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov. I've also included
a note about their J-2 based aerospike even though that would appear
to be a different thing than LASRE.
----------------------------------------
January 12, 199[6]: The Lockheed Martin Skunkwork's X-33 concept will
utilize J-2 engine based Aerospike engines for main propulsion. Six
J-2 engines remain in bonded storage from the Apollo/Saturn V
Program. These were used to power the second (S-II) and the third
(S-IVB) stages of the Saturn V. The MSFC Propulsion Laboratory
personnel are disassembling one of those engines to catalog parts and
inspect the hardware. Parts of these engines could be used for the
X-33.
J-2 engine based Aerospike being tested in the early 1970's at Sanna
Susana Test Facility.
----------------------------------------
October 18, 1995: The Linear Aerospike SR71 Experiment (LASRE)
Thruster Ignition Test. The LASRE's single thruster test
article has successfully completed the following series of
test within the test plan:
Seven, 3 second hot fire tests. Test was completed at
all three operating conditions: 80, 100, and 120
percent with the corresponding pressure chamber levels.
Two of the 3 second tests were run 1.5 minutes apart,
and two other 3 second tests were run 5 minutes apart
to simulate the shortest and longest time between
firings during the flight test program.
A total of four, 12 second hot fire tests; at least one
test at each of the operating conditions. The 12 second
run duration demonstrated a NASA requirement to run the
engine for 1.5 times, the longest duration that the
flight feed system can possibly run. Post test hardware
inspection showed all component to be in excellent
condition.
----------------------------------------
October 10, 1995: Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE)
Update. On October 6, 1995, the igniter/chamber/nozzle
segment hot fire test was performed at the Advanced
Propulsion Test Facility (APTF), Saint Peter Stand,
California. Stability was verified at 80 percent ignition.
Hardware in excellent condition was reported post test
inspection. Combustor, fences, and nozzle ramp segments
are the same configuration of those scheduled for the
SR-71 flight demonstration. This is the first in the
series of hot fire tests to be conducted at the stand for
design validation prior to the flight demonstration.
Eric Pawtowski
Mike Freeman <free...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood) wrote:
>
>>Thank you, Mister Bucket. Perhaps you should read the newsgroup for a while
>>before exposing your ignorance. Or maybe a newspaper (the story about the
>>three -71s returning to service hit a week or two ago).
>
Anyone have any idea how many SR-71's were in the "fleet" back before the
retirement? Or even a good guess?
Eric
--
epaw...@vt.edu----------------------------------------------------
Technicon 13 - SF&F return to SW Virginia! March 22-24, 1996.
Guests: Author L.E. Modesitt, Games designers Lori&Corey Cole,
Artist Ruth Thompson
Pat
>In article <4de2k5$9...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>
>>It stands for Joint Surveillance and Target Attaack Radar
>>System.707-300 Airframes, Grumman was the original contractor, now
>>Northrop Grumman out of Melbourne, FL. Endurance 20 hours with 1
>>In-flight refueling.
>
>Hmm Target Acquisition. Does it not use a synthetic aperture radar. The main
>difference between an AWACs and JSTAR is that the AWACs contains aircraft
>controllers who direct a number of aircraft according to their radar picture
>etc. JSTAR is purely a traget acquisition system, however with the appropriate
>ground link there is no reason why it cannot be used to control ground attack
>systems (eg A10, artillery maybe) but this would almost certainly be done from
>the ground. The kind of intelligence it provides is strategic/operational
>rather than tactical; it would also be used to 'cue' other systems that could
>gather much more detailed information (photo-reconnaisance etc).
JSTARS is a element of the Air-Land Battle 2000 doctrine. JSTARS is a
system not a platform. JSTARS is meant to co-ordinate data from the
radar with other platforms, downlink to ground terminals and provide
airborne co-ordination of attacks and defense options.
JSTARS terminals are meant to be used by ground force commanders to
provide warning of near area enemy movements as well as allow force
commanders to co-ordinate offensive actions.
>I believe that the JSTARs used in the Gulf were actually prototypes rather
>than in service equipment. Regardless they did a superb job.
I wouldn't believe anything of what they did without reading the
data myself. Look at all the BS over Patriot missile system performance.
Also JSTARS was a little older then people imagine. work on it started
in the 1985-86 time frame.
SANJUANA
quite entertaining...Most of the discussion argues topics that are public
knowledge today...enormous amount of printed and electronic truths are
avaialble to review...but unspeakable a decade ago. Attacking the lack of
knowledge of someone who is using a particular online service goes to the
heart of this post. Use the band width to inform and to persuade... but
when you are unaware of reality the best you have to offer is the quiet
benefit of reading and hopefully learning from those who can share their
experiences.
Leave the flaming to the chat boards.
Richard Caldwell
Sounds good to me. Now, if you can just convince your fellow AOL'ers, the
flame level on USENET will be cut in half in one fell swoop! 8-]
Richard
Jim Dincau
Sandy Redding
That is why they inventend "HOME-ON-JAM". Emitters are targets.
Bob Keeter
>Mary Shafer wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jan 1996 19:15:25 -0500, buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) said:
>> B> The SR-71 is RETIRED! If it is used at all, it's used for silly NASA
>> B> missions.
>
>> I beg your f**king pardon?
>
>> SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
>
>hit-n-run posters. I would have loved to enjoy the spectacle of Mary
>making mincemeat of him. :-)
>
>Regards
>Mike
I've seen an ugly ole 'Vaark destroy a instrumentation van with a totally unintentional sonic boom. What do you think a Blackbird c=
ould do to the guy's mailing address! Lets see now an overpressure of "how many PSI". . . . . . .?
Feedback, clear and simple!
bk
Becida
<mi...@psa.pencom.com> writes:
>Too bad the original poster was likely one of the usual clueless AOL
>hit-n-run posters. I would have loved to enjoy the spectacle of Mary
>making mincemeat of him. :-)
>
>
Mincemeat?
Rob.
Brian varine
How is J-STARS going to HOJ? If it's 150-200 miles away I doubt it'll
cruise towards the jammer. It could get a rough bearing perhaps but
thats about all. Co-ordiante a few jammers and you'll have many bearings.
J-STARS is nice but the AF seems to think it'll look into enemy territory
at will, I kind of doubt the next threat will be that stupid.
Jayne Shoreham
>> Along the same lines, does anyone know how old the airframes that
are
>> being used as J-STARS platforms are?
>
that the
>original E-8A production contract called for converting ex-commercial
707s.
>It was later revised to be based on newly build 707-320 airframes.
Not to quibble but believe they are 707-300 airframes. The first
modified airframes were delivered to Grumman in August 1987, followed
by the second in in November 1988.
>The first and second prototypes were first flight tested in 1988 and
1989.
>Both were deployed to Saudi Arabia in January 1991. They flew 54
missions
>combined, totaling more than 600 hours. Not bad for untested systems.
>
>Chris
Chris- Believe they only flew 49 Missions and logged 535 Combat Hours.
Still a pretty good record.
Steve Sampson
JSTARS is effective against third-world nations. It will be valuable in
Colombia and points south to assist the E-3 in drug Ops. The Army will
know where to target the camps. The problem is, it's easy to jam. Any
second rate power would be dragging radar reflectors all over the place
and filling them with helium to blow in the wind. Overload the operators
and the billion dollar ship is junk :-) JSTARS looks for low doppler
targets in formation. Six trucks can simulate a hell of a formation with
some calibrated reflectors. They can also simulate bridges 500 yards
away from the real one.
Christopher S. Liu
> Along the same lines, does anyone know how old the airframes that are
> being used as J-STARS platforms are?
Great question. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. I do know that the
original E-8A production contract called for converting ex-commercial 707s.
It was later revised to be based on newly build 707-320 airframes. However,
Boeing halted production on this airframe. As a result, previously-owned
707s are used for JSTARS, and designated E-8C.
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> Hmm Target Acquisition. Does it not use a synthetic aperture radar.
The Norden AN/APY-3 SLAR can be operated as a SAR.
> I believe that the JSTARs used in the Gulf were actually prototypes rather
> than in service equipment. Regardless they did a superb job.
The first and second prototypes were first flight tested in 1988 and 1989.
Both were deployed to Saudi Arabia in January 1991. They flew 54 missions
combined, totaling more than 600 hours. Not bad for untested systems.
Chris
--
Chris Liu \ _ /
c...@hprnd.rose.hp.com x________\_(")_/________x
voice (916) 785-4412 x o o \_\(.)/_/ o o x
fax (916) 785-5959 x O @
Brian varine
>
> >JSTARS is effective against third-world nations. It will be valuable in
> >Colombia and points south to assist the E-3 in drug Ops. The Army will
> >know where to target the camps. The problem is, it's easy to jam. Any
> >second rate power would be dragging radar reflectors all over the place
> >and filling them with helium to blow in the wind. Overload the operators
> >and the billion dollar ship is junk :-) JSTARS looks for low doppler
> >targets in formation. Six trucks can simulate a hell of a formation with
> >some calibrated reflectors. They can also simulate bridges 500 yards
> >away from the real one.
>
> of clutter. The problem is that over time, you can distinguish clutter
> from the real targets. Clutter works for only a short time to hide
> real transport routes (I would think). I don't think that we would be
> so inept as to not realize what was happening after a sortie or two.
> After that, we simply collect enough data to nail the routes.
Unless you've been overrun or can do nothing about it. I have a hard time
believing JSTARS can weed through good jamming. The more clutter the more
BS you'll have to accept. IF the enemy has decent EW assets I'd bet the
SAR option would be out. Desert Storm didn't see to much ECM (from the
enemy at least). The rest of the world is buying lots of EW equipment and
will probably use it much more. I doubt the F-16 HTS will have a chance
in hell findng a jammer. With the intro of jamming the range of JSTARS
will probably be affected also so forget that 150NM range. I like JSTARs
but the AF and Army act like it's the perfect sensor that can roam around
all day and see everything anytime.
Harold Hutchison
>> > > > > >at a recent (1992, maybe) Society of Experimental Test Pilots
>> > > > > >Symposium. We got to see trucks and tanks and all kinds of stuff
>> > > > > >moving around. Really a great tool.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yeah, if it moves, it is pretty much toast.
>> > > >
>> > > > Unless you use jamming.
>> > >
>> > > That is why they inventend "HOME-ON-JAM". Emitters are targets.
>> >
>> > How is J-STARS going to HOJ? If it's 150-200 miles away I doubt it'll
>> > cruise towards the jammer. It could get a rough bearing perhaps but
>> > thats about all. Co-ordiante a few jammers and you'll have many bearings.
>> > J-STARS is nice but the AF seems to think it'll look into enemy territory
>> > at will, I kind of doubt the next threat will be that stupid.
>>
>> Colombia and points south to assist the E-3 in drug Ops. The Army will
>> know where to target the camps. The problem is, it's easy to jam. Any
>> second rate power would be dragging radar reflectors all over the place
>> and filling them with helium to blow in the wind. Overload the operators
>> and the billion dollar ship is junk :-) JSTARS looks for low doppler
>> targets in formation. Six trucks can simulate a hell of a formation with
>> some calibrated reflectors. They can also simulate bridges 500 yards
>> away from the real one.
>
> JSTARS APY-3 is a great radar but it can't look through mountains.
One question: Why not take the E-3's air-search radar and the
J-STARS's ground search radar, put them BOTH on a 747 airframe and use
that? Designate it E-10, and come up with a good nickname for a plane
that would SEE all...
Any ideas?
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Brian varine
> J-STARS's ground search radar, put them BOTH on a 747 airframe and use
> that? Designate it E-10, and come up with a good nickname for a plane
> that would SEE all...
> Any ideas?
Not enough space or money on board. Plus the power equirements would be
unbelievable. Nickname? The "Target"
Brian varine
> Brian varine wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 1996, Sandy Redding wrote:
> >
> > > Brian varine wrote:
> > > >
Brian varine
> Why would it be "Target"? With using both the E-3 and E-8,
> you have TWICE the High Value Heavy Airframe Aircraft to protect. My
> proposed E-10 halves the number you'd need to watch and gives you
> lower maintenance bills, a few more F-22s or F-15Cs or whatever to
> send at the bad guys instead of just hanging back and flying
> racetracks, and the person in charge can get everything eh needs on
> one plane.
With an APY-2 and an APY-3 onboard you need gobs of power, I don't think
it's possible. Add to that you just made the plane THE high value target.
I doubt you'll have the power left to run a good jammer. I hate to think
what would happen if one of these things crashed, mucho $$$$$ gone.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> One question: Why not take the E-3's air-search radar and the
> J-STARS's ground search radar, put them BOTH on a 747 airframe and use
> that? Designate it E-10, and come up with a good nickname for a plane
> that would SEE all...
> Any ideas?
First problem: space and power requirements. Second problem, the
optimum position, altitude and patrol route for a JSTARS and an
AWACS are probably rather different. Seperate the sensors and you can
use each to best advantage: with datalinks you can integrate the
information anyway.
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
S. Sampson
> of clutter. The problem is that over time, you can distinguish clutter
> from the real targets. Clutter works for only a short time to hide
> real transport routes (I would think). I don't think that we would be
> so inept as to not realize what was happening after a sortie or two.
> After that, we simply collect enough data to nail the routes.
The problem is, that most battles are very short. The war can be long
and drawn out, but individual battles last at most, days.
The Iraqis going after Kafji would have the Battle Staff cannabalizing
units like crazy if there was a JSTARS image that showed hundreds of
targets heading south. (the Saudi oil fields are all south of Kuwait).
That image could have been produced with passive jamming (i.e., radar
reflectors towed behind 6 pick-up trucks).
Over time they would have seen the deception, but over time they would
be in the next battle...
Harold Hutchison
>> J-STARS's ground search radar, put them BOTH on a 747 airframe and use
>> that? Designate it E-10, and come up with a good nickname for a plane
>> that would SEE all...
>> Any ideas?
>
> unbelievable. Nickname? The "Target"
Why would it be "Target"? With using both the E-3 and E-8,
you have TWICE the High Value Heavy Airframe Aircraft to protect. My
proposed E-10 halves the number you'd need to watch and gives you
lower maintenance bills, a few more F-22s or F-15Cs or whatever to
send at the bad guys instead of just hanging back and flying
racetracks, and the person in charge can get everything eh needs on
one plane.
Dean Adams
Eric Pawtowski <epaw...@cray-ymp.acm.stuorg.vt.edu> wrote:
>Anyone have any idea how many SR-71's were in the "fleet" back before the
>retirement? Or even a good guess?
Hmmm... I think it was 12, plus the SR-71B trainer.
Dean Adams
Allen Thomson <thom...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Some SR-71s used to carry a fairly decent SAR; do you know whether the
>two reactivated ones have this capability?
>
Yes, the sensor (and DEFensive) systems were brought out of storage
and refurbished for use along with the airframes. The last report
I saw said there were 3 ASARS units that had been requalfied for
flight, as well as 3 OBCs and 6 TEOCs (Optical Bar/TEchnical Objective
Cameras). The ASARS and OBCs mount in the nose, while TEOCs fit into
the chine bays.
S. Sampson
>>> J-STARS's ground search radar, put them BOTH on a 747 airframe and use
>>> that? Designate it E-10, and come up with a good nickname for a plane
>>> that would SEE all...
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Not enough space or money on board. Plus the power equirements would be
>> unbelievable. Nickname? The "Target"
> Why would it be "Target"? With using both the E-3 and E-8,
>you have TWICE the High Value Heavy Airframe Aircraft to protect.
You're thinking like an accountant. Think like the enemy. Would you rather
have one aircraft to target, or three?
I vote for one. Kill one, you win. With three, it's harder to get them all.
I think the E-8 should be scrapped. The radar should be in a drone, or a
U-2, as originally planned. They don't need a crew on there.
Serena Bolton
and you are in a world of hurt.. High-altitude Electro-Magnetic
Pulse...that basically screws up everything with an electronic brain..
everything from Nav systems to jamming equipment to NVGs... not a happy
picture.... (good for us HEMP shots tend to be limited to nuke-capable
entities... on second thought, maybe that isnt very comforting...)
Ciao.
Dwayne Allen Day
: Yes, the sensor (and DEFensive) systems were brought out of storage
: and refurbished for use along with the airframes. The last report
: I saw said there were 3 ASARS units that had been requalfied for
: flight, as well as 3 OBCs and 6 TEOCs (Optical Bar/TEchnical Objective
: Cameras). The ASARS and OBCs mount in the nose, while TEOCs fit into
: the chine bays.
The OBC is a modified CORONA satellite camera (highly modified,
actually). Panoramic, high-quality photos.
D-Day
_________
"Greetings to all intelligent life everywhere. And for all the rest of
you, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys."