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.''  

>After a five-year breather, America's premier spy plane is again
>scorching the skies. Wright-Patterson

>        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/

: >the war, it could have detected Iraqi troop movements and

: 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."

Cheers,

Ted

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 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.

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.

Regards

Adrian Thurlow

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?

adrian....@bt-sys.bt.co.uk (Adrian Thurlow) 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.
>

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

In article <dadamsDK...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:

> 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

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.

Adrian Thurlow writes:
>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.

Cheers,

Ted

You boys have been babbling a wee bit too much and Church Lady is
about to bop you on the head.

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

 > 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.

*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.
                

                  ?
                 /~\                  gra...@westrowops.win-uk.net  
                (o o)                
 ------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------
   |      |               |       |
  ---------------------------------
      |       |       |       |
          Cor! Its a 1%-er.

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.

"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
===============================================================

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

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.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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.

>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.

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

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               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

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.

--
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

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

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

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.

--
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

In article <4crggg$l...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, swar...@pilot.msu.edu (Stephen Swartz) writes:

|>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

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.
>

--
==>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]
=============================================================

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.
>

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

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.

[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.

--

===============================================================
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
===============================================================

Cheers,

Ted

Cheers,

Ted

sure, it's not like we have enemies these days.

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

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!   ;)

===============================================================
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
===============================================================

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.

In article <dadamsDK...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) says:
>
>
>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

: 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."

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.

--
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."

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.

>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
========================================================================

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).

[Buck...@AOL.COM

Of course.  Where else could such a well-informed type originate from (the only
other possibiilty is Mein-Kampfuserve).

--

===============================================================
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
===============================================================

>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).

>[Buck...@AOL.COM

>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.

>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  ZBJ...@prodigy.com                                        
                 Blackbird Airpark Volunteer Staff                    
  Spreen Honda Service Tech.

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.

George Bonser
gr...@cris.com

Forbes for President in '96

>
>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.
>>
>

Some SR-71s used to carry a fairly decent SAR; do you know whether the
two reactivated ones have this capability?

>>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
>

>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.
>

        gr...@cris.com (George B) writes:
        
>Forbes for President in '96

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."

: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.

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.

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).

Fishing for Mary Shafer's complete and undivided attention, or what?

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

PM> Is Rogers Smith still at Dryden?

Not just here, but Chief Test Pilot.

--
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

On 15 Jan 1996 17:24:21 GMT, shbj...@ix.netcom.com(Jayne Shoreham ) said:

>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.

--
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

Along the same lines, does anyone know how old the airframes that are
being used as J-STARS platforms are?

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

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).
>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!!!

> On 11 Jan 1996 19:15:25 -0500, buck...@aol.com (Bucket99) said:

> 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)

>>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

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

Forbes for President in '96

> 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

>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.

George Bonser
gr...@cris.com

Forbes for President in '96

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

sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov                               DoD #362 KotFR  
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html

: 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!
 

tom...@apollo.ekfido.kodak.com (Paul Tomblin x31515) wrote:

>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".

George Bonser
gr...@cris.com

Forbes for President in '96

> >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.

Unless you use jamming.

>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.

> So i see some propoganda that Lockheed skunk works is testing a

> Linear aerospike experimental rocket (LASE, LASER??) on the back

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.

Anyone have any idea how many SR-71's were in the "fleet" back before the
retirement?  Or even a good guess?

   Eric

--
epawtows@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

In article <4djqii$d...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,  <t...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>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.

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

Leave the flaming to the chat boards.

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

That is why they inventend "HOME-ON-JAM".  Emitters are targets.

>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?
>

>> 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

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

>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.

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.

>> Along the same lines, does anyone know how old the airframes that
are
>> being used as J-STARS platforms are?
>

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.                      

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.

> 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.

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   @

>         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?

Not enough space or money on board. Plus the power equirements would be
unbelievable. Nickname? The "Target"

On Fri, 19 Jan 1996, Steve Sampson wrote:

> Brian varine wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 1996, Sandy Redding wrote:
> >
> > > Brian varine wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > >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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> 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.

In addition a country like Columbia has very mountainous terrain, the
JSTARS APY-3 is a great radar but it can't look through mountains.

>         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.

          hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu "Harold Hutchison" writes:
>         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

> 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...

>>         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?
>

> 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.  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.

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.

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.  

>>>      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?
>>
>> 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.

Ciao.

: 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."

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------
- Mike Bandor  (ban...@jcave.com)
- Computer programmer:  Ada/C++/Windows/Winhelp/JOVIAL/MASM
-
- "Trying to manage programmers        is like trying to herd cats!"
-
- Speaking for myself!  Standard disclaimer applies.
---------------------------------------------------------
- Author of MEGATERMS:  Military Terms and Acronyms
- http://www.jcave.com/~bandorm/megaterm/megaterm.htm
- ftp://jcave.com/usr/b/bandorm/m-term.zip
---------------------------------------------------------

>The other problem with J-STARS, like other electronics.. one HEMP shot
>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.

I suppose that WOULD be the ultimate jammer. But once a nation resorts
to that, they had better pretty much count on not having any
electronic equipment of their OWN for very long either.  Besides,
JSTARS is going to operate within RADAR line of sight of the enemy, to
zap JSTARS, they are going to have to sacrifice their own stuff or tip
us off on what is comming by shutting everything down ahead of time.

George Bonser
gr...@cris.com

Willy the Weenie for Private Citizen '96.

A "jammer" has to do quite a good deal more than just blast out noise.
At a simplistic level, a jammer can be assumed to be a white noise
transmitter operating on the same frequency as the distant radar set -
if the radiated level of noise is greater than the reflected radar
signal, the reflected signal is probably lost.

There is quite a bit more to it than that!  Very few self-respecting
radar sets these days lack frequency-hopping capability.  To defeat an
agile transmitter, a jamming set has to be able to switch frequencies
at rates high enough to return a false echo before a reflected signal
makes it past the receivers disciminator.  Very few nations can afford
the equipment necessary to do so.

If you add onto that other features like sidelobe blanking, spread
spectrum signals, and sensor integration with other platforms such as
FLIR/FLDR, new toys such as IDECM, tactical networks such as CEC or
JTIDS, UAV drone data, satellite based radar (as if you don't believe
it's out there!), ect. etc...  Toss the equally non-insignifigant
covert activities of special forces providing foreward observation
posts, and I feel sorry for anyone trying to defeat the US with baloon
based reflectors.

As for use of such front-line systems against third-world targets, I
cite the first published tactical use of the F-117 (this being my
obligatory link back to the Area 51 context! :) - the "Just Cause"
mission to dig holes next to the Panamanian Defense Force barracks at
Rio Hato.

BTW - I highly reccomend the book "Radar Handbook", 2nd ed. by Merrill
Skolnik, McGraw Hill 1990.  Expensive ($90), but the best technical
discussion of radar/ecm/eccm I've seen in readily available open
print.

In <4e3fo1$h...@rand.org> Serena Bolton <sbo...@rand.org> writes:
>The other problem with J-STARS, like other electronics.. one HEMP shot
>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...)

Don't they have shielding against things like that yet?  I would have
thought that kit like J-STARS, AWACS and Airforce-1 (intended to be airborne
during a nuclear strike) would have some sort of protection.

How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
attacks?

Alan

>Alan

Most military aircraft are EMP protected - it's just an engineering
excercise.  For example, a sci-fi novel I read a while back ("Snow
Crash"?  A Gibson book?) talked about a high-altitude nuke that killed
all civilial cpu's.  All subsequent cpu's were in faraday cages with
optical ports for power and I/O.  While extreme, that would handle
just about any EMP.

EMP just causes voltage spikes on any waveguide or antenna-like
conductor which can overload unprotected circitry.  Protection is
expensive, but price is relative in military gear...

If the airframe is already TEMPEST sheilded, it seems that all you
would have to do is to EMP harden all already sheilded ports.

In article <4e8bib$s...@tdc.dircon.co.uk>, aedw...@tdc.dircon.co.uk (Alan Edwards) says:
>
>In <4e3fo1$h...@rand.org> Serena Bolton <sbo...@rand.org> writes:
>>The other problem with J-STARS, like other electronics.. one HEMP shot
>>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...)
>
>Don't they have shielding against things like that yet?  I would have
>thought that kit like J-STARS, AWACS and Airforce-1 (intended to be airborne
>during a nuclear strike) would have some sort of protection.

Yep.

>
>How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
>attacks?
>

Shielding, shunting/grounting, etc. is the method.  Haven't ever tested it
in the field =8^) but the folks at the EMP lab at Kirtland (ever see the
pictures of airplanes stuck up on this huge wooden trestle?) routinely
blast the aircraft with "near-nuclear" levels of EMP to see what happens.

Over in alt.folklore.military some claim this program is all part of some
Oliver Stone-like hoax by the military industrial establishment.

Steve

>This is the first mention I've seen in this newsgroup about JTIDS, the
>Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (I *think* that's what it
>stands for, at least.)  What exactly is JTIDS and how is it used?  Is it
>used to network radar systems or does it have another purpose?

JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) is (one of) the
Army's tactical network(s), intended it seems for high speed
distribution of sensor data, especially in regards to real-time
handoff of targeting data. (Can you say "bi-static"? :)   I think
their most signifigant use is for theater integration of data from
many different platforms, such as THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area
Defense), the PAC-3 missile platforms, and the Corps SAM.

THAAD handles high altitide theater ballistic missiles, PAC-3 handles
low-altitude ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and Corps SAM
handles coverage of front-line assets out of range of coverage of
THAAD and PAC-3.  

JTIDS would let data from all of these platforms be shared at the
tactical and strategic command level, reducing reaction times,
allowing stand-off strategies, etc.  Basically allow beter view of the
big picture battlefield by bringing all those distant radar sets data
back home.

JTIDS is managed (?) on HP 735 RISC workstations as components of the
AN/TYQ-23 mobile tactical air operations control system, called the
TOC (Tactical Operations Center).  Seperate batteries (ground
stations) are linked via 100 Mbit/s FDDI (fiber optical) lan, and RF
links connect to JTIDS, MSE (Mobile Subscriber Equipment) and SINCGARS
(Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System).

Discussions regarding the Navy's CEC (Cooperative Engagement
Capability) imply that JTIDS is not yet integrated with AWACS, Rivet
Joint surveillance aircraft, J-STARS, or the Marines HAWK sites.

(Isn't it cool how much data is available in open press!  Now if we
could just get open info on A51! :)

E-8C Maintainers
4500 Joint STARS SQ (Provisional)
Deployed points east

E-8C Maintainers
4500 Joint STARS SQ (Provisional)

>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...

Sure but some common sense is involved.  For instance, for reflectors
sailing on the breeze, if one target suddenly turns in a direction
away from the wind, you can draw a conclusion that it is not a
windborne reflector. Also, if the vast majority of targets seem to be
moving, however gradually, in a certain direction, you can draw some
more conclusions. Also for vehicle mounted reflectors, it would tie up
a lot of enemy vehicles. Random movement is random and two decoys are
unlikely to travel teh exact same course twice. Route assisted targets
(those travelling on roads, rivers, trails, etc) tend to follow the
route and these paths will add over time.

George Bonser
gr...@cris.com

Forbes for President in '96

prob...@best.com (Kerry L. Bonin) wrote:

> All subsequent cpu's were in faraday cages with
>optical ports for power

You did say it was fiction, right?

George Bonser
gr...@cris.com

Forbes for President in '96

>
>A "jammer" has to do quite a good deal more than just blast out noise.
>At a simplistic level, a jammer can be assumed to be a white noise
>transmitter operating on the same frequency as the distant radar set -
>if the radiated level of noise is greater than the reflected radar
>signal, the reflected signal is probably lost.

I'm not familiar with the capabilities of the J-STARS radar, but I just
thought I'd interject that there are methods to detect a signal that is well
below the noise floor on a per-pulse basis.  

>BTW - I highly reccomend the book "Radar Handbook", 2nd ed. by Merrill
>Skolnik, McGraw Hill 1990.  Expensive ($90), but the best technical
>discussion of radar/ecm/eccm I've seen in readily available open
>print.

I'll second that, particularly to those that rely on Skolnik's textbook
"Introduction to Radar Systems" which, to my mind, is not as good.  Also
worth tracking down is the 1st edition of the "Radar Handbook" which includes
some fundamental radar principles (e.g. waveform ambiguity functions) that
were sacrificed for modern system descriptions in the 2nd ed. (though he left
my radar in, see page 18.12).  

Andy.
--
Andrew Cott              MIT Lincoln Laboratory              co...@ll.mit.edu

>Will Flor <wi...@rrgroup.com> wrote:
>
> What exactly is JTIDS and how is it used?

Now that we've heard the Army's side of the story, let me tell you how
this stuff works in the air.  JTIDS does stand for Joint Tactical Info.
Distribution System, and more or less it is a data-linking system.  Up in
the wild blue yonder this enhances Situational Awareness immesurably,
allowing various things to be known about your A/C like fuel status,
weapons, position, and even radar contacts to others in your "net".  

I'm not to big on the internal workings of it, I just change the boxes
when they go bad.  But I do know that the F-14, E-3, F-15 (mod. in
progress), F-16 (mod. planned) all do or will have JTIDS.  Also various
European countries have a similar system equiped on their jets, most
notably the Tornado.

--
Mike Morris
USAF
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2906/
------------------------------------------------------

>>This is the first mention I've seen in this newsgroup about JTIDS, the
>>Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (I *think* that's what it
>>stands for, at least.)  What exactly is JTIDS and how is it used?  Is it
>>used to network radar systems or does it have another purpose?

>JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) is (one of) the
>Army's tactical network(s), intended it seems for high speed
>distribution of sensor data, especially in regards to real-time
>handoff of targeting data. (Can you say "bi-static"? :)   I think
>their most signifigant use is for theater integration of data from
>many different platforms, such as THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area
>Defense), the PAC-3 missile platforms, and the Corps SAM.

JTIDS is a digital data link.  It can relay digital voice.  The system is set
up to share information.  Processed information.  It does not send raw
information.  The JTIDS system was installed on the E-3 AWACS first,
because the system was very large.  The smaller versions would be
installed in fighters.  The smaller versions never met their milestones
and was dropped.  I believe the companies went back to the drawing
board and did produce a smaller system that is even better than the
washing machine size object on the E-3.

To give you an idea of it's actual use, I take you to Aug 8 1990 when the
E-3 began it's second long range tour of Saudi Arabia (the first was an
8 year 24 hour orbit during the Gulf war between Iran and Iraq).  The
Iraqi front is much too long for 1 E-3 to cover.  It actually is so long, it
takes 3 E-3's to patrol.  The E-3 in the west needs to share data with
the E-3 in the east.  With an E-3 in the center (over the captured Iraqi
base As Salaam) the three air defense systems can share data.  They
don't care about raw data, they care about tracks (database entries which
contain information about an object - heading, altitude, speed, number).
These database entries are then shared across the network (JTIDS radio
network).  Since this is radio, and highly multiplexed, other users can
join in.  For instance, Patriot batteries, and other SAM sites can passively
listen (or actively transmit) as these tracks come into their airspace.  In
the E-3 scenerio, the E-3's all share database's, and can communicate via
voice with each other over the link.  The F-15's with JTIDS terminals can
track the air picture as well as those on the E-3, as the F-15 can select which
database targets he's interested in passively listing to.

No raw data.  There isn't THAT much bandwidth.

FYI

Steve

I've heard about a propulsion experiment that supposedly will run on the
NASA SR-71 soon - LASER.  What's the story on that, and when's it
scheduled to run?  Is there a web site that gives any information about
it?

Alan Drake
dra...@aol.com

> I've heard about a propulsion experiment that supposedly will run on the
> NASA SR-71 soon - LASER.  What's the story on that, and when's it
> scheduled to run?  Is there a web site that gives any information about
> it?

LASRE.  See http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/ (you may have to hunt around for
the LASRE stuff; some is in
http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/RLV_HTMLs/RLVNewArchive.html).

I haven't seen anything (there or elsewhere) about when it is
scheduled for test on the SR-71; it has already been tested on the
ground.

>
>I've heard about a propulsion experiment that supposedly will run on the
>NASA SR-71 soon - LASER.  What's the story on that, and when's it
>scheduled to run?  Is there a web site that gives any information about
>it?
>

Gee, you just missed it we were discussing it.

Actually, if the LASRE experiments work out well, it almost makes one
think of dusting off the X-15 and re-running the scramjet tests
that they were doing on that.  How about some Mach 6 testing anyone?

pat

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

In article <4ehann$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Drakeal <dra...@aol.com> wrote:

>I've heard about a propulsion experiment that supposedly will run on the
>NASA SR-71 soon - LASER.  What's the story on that, and when's it
>scheduled to run?  Is there a web site that gives any information about
>it?

Try http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/ for this.  I think there's a link called
"Current Research Projects", although I haven't checked on it.
Marshall should have something, too, at http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR  sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end....

> Try http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/ for this.  I think there's a link called
> "Current Research Projects", although I haven't checked on it.

I looked around and tried a search, and found the following paragraph
(from http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/X-Press/1995/xp-95-11.html,
November 1995).  I didn't see anything else.

    Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE)

    The Critical Design Review (CDR) was recently held at Dryden.
    Along with project personnel from all government and contractor
    organizations, participants also included the Independent Review
    Team and the Flight Readiness Review panel members. The CDR was
    well received. Sixty-six requests for action (RFA) were
    submitted with emphasis being given to the following areas:

       SR-71 special operations with LASRE installed
       Software criticality
       Configuration control
       Required review prior to ground tests

    The CDR was very successful, resulting in constructive input and
    RFAs.

J>     The Critical Design Review (CDR) was recently held at Dryden.
J> Along with project personnel from all government and contractor
J> organizations, participants also included the Independent Review
J> Team and the Flight Readiness Review panel members. The CDR was
J> well received. Sixty-six requests for action (RFA) were submitted
J> with emphasis being given to the following areas:

And five of those RFAs were mine.

The current schedule is vaguely approximated as:
SR-71A back to Dryden early March
Ground firing of the engine at Phillips Lab mid-March
Experiment put on the SR April
Ground tests, etc. until May
First flight May

That's just my bad memory from a work planning meeting a while back.
We got through my part of it and I didn't pay as close attention as
you probably would have liked to the rest of it.  I can, however, tell
you every one of my action items and their schedules.
--
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

Pat> Actually, if the LASRE experiments work out well, it almost makes
Pat> one think of dusting off the X-15 and re-running the scramjet
Pat> tests that they were doing on that.  How about some Mach 6
Pat> testing anyone?

Too much shock interference unless we move the scramjet.  Otherwise,
we'll just keep burning it up.

--
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

Alan Edwards (aedw...@tdc.dircon.co.uk) wrote:
: Don't they have shielding against things like that yet?  I would have

: thought that kit like J-STARS, AWACS and Airforce-1 (intended to be airborne
: during a nuclear strike) would have some sort of protection.

THe electronics on AWACS are hardened against nuclear EMP. I would think
J-Stars and Air Force One and E-4B and other airxcraft you can think of are
also, but I'm only assuming because I've never seen the others.

: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
: attacks?

: Alan

--
                                             c...@netcom.com

Mary Shafer <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1996 23:12:15 -0500, kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) said:
>

>SR-71A back to Dryden early March
>Ground firing of the engine at Phillips Lab mid-March
>Experiment put on the SR April
>Ground tests, etc. until May
>First flight May
>
>That's just my bad memory from a work planning meeting a while back.
>We got through my part of it and I didn't pay as close attention as
>you probably would have liked to the rest of it.  I can, however, tell
>you every one of my action items and their schedules.
>--

please do.

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

>THe electronics on AWACS are hardened against nuclear EMP. I would think
>J-Stars and Air Force One and E-4B and other airxcraft you can think of are
>also, but I'm only assuming because I've never seen the others.
>
>: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
>: attacks?

Most of the more modern military aircraft are shielded.  And, if they
were older, but their mission would require them to continue operating
after a nuclear detonation, they were retrofitted.  Any of the nuclear
bombers, air control, or staff aircraft were fitted this way, but I don't
think that any fighters were.  Some of the cargo aircraft may have been
shielded, again I'm not sure.  I never heard about it, anyway.  If you
ever tour an Air Force plane (for whatever reason) check the door seals.
 If they've got some form of a wire mesh around them, the plane's
shielded from an EMP.

C/SSgt Joe Adamski
CS-12
USAF Academy

--
"This content in no way reflects the opinions, standards, or policy of
the United States Air Force Academy or the United States government."

You're rather behind the curve on this.  All the reports you mention are
quite a few years old by now and several have been discredited.  In
addition, the "SR-71 replacement" exists in several forms--the Tier-3
Minus DarkStar, the Tier-2, the Tier-2 Plus, and... the SR-71.

D-Day

_________
"Did you know that if you put a little hat on a snowball it can last a
long time in hell?"--Dogbert

"Aurora" hypersonic spyplane? The Aurora or "Senior Citizen" has been
called the plane to take the place of the SR-71 and several people who
claim knowledge of it's existance  say it has been seen in the skies
over the North Sea (U.K.) and in the California and Nevada skies.Reports
of a "Donuts-on-a-rope" contrail and loud "Rip-open-the-sky" sounds
seem to lend credence to the report of one man's observation of a "Black,
triangular plane" being refueled over the North Sea by a larger transport
aircraft.

regards,
Ron (Houston, Texas)

Mary,

You are so HOT! I have browsed thru your posts over the last few days
and while I find that you are one bad-ass NASA employee,
<BUrrrrrrrrP>, your posts seem more about Mary and all her
accomplishments than about alt.conspiracy.area51.

I don't want to know about your 'action items and schedules'.
Your posts are better suited for <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> some
internal news server at NASA, where they will understand your insider
mumbo-jumbo terminology.

Here's my 'RFA':
If you're going to <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> post using tax dollars,
please stay on topic.

Can somebody PLEASE get me another beer here?

>Mary,

>You are so HOT! I have browsed thru your posts over the last few days
>and while I find that you are one bad-ass NASA employee,
><BUrrrrrrrrP>, your posts seem more about Mary and all her
>accomplishments than about alt.conspiracy.area51.

>I don't want to know about your 'action items and schedules'.
>Your posts are better suited for <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> some
>internal news server at NASA, where they will understand your insider
>mumbo-jumbo terminology.

>Here's my 'RFA':
>If you're going to <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> post using tax dollars,
>please stay on topic.

>Can somebody PLEASE get me another beer here?

Oh, you were drinking beer while posting?

I thought you were just blowing it out your ass.  As a matter of fact,
why don't you?

Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com

>>internal news server at NASA, where they will understand your insider
>>mumbo-jumbo terminology.

> I thought you were just blowing it out your ass.  As a matter of fact,
> why don't you?

 Now now .. not many people on Usenet are BRAVE enough to admit they aren't
 able to understand an explanation.

 You should be more considerate to the bottom 1/8th of the IQ scale;
 after all, he could be someone's mother.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  jk...@ragtime.com      | ... heard a singer on the radio, late  | Protect
 SysOp, Ragtime East    | last night; said he's gonna kick the   |   the
   Net-Viking  ]:|      | darkness, 'till it bleeds daylight ... |     Net!

   wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) wrote:

>You're rather behind the curve on this.  All the reports you
mention are
>quite a few years old by now and several have been discredited.

Hi D-Day,
Actually, there was a very recent (Sept 27 1995) sighting over
Cornwall in the UK.  A guy (David Morris of Walsall) was out
taking a picture of the sunset, when he saw and then took a
fairly good picture of a triangular shaped plane being refueled
by a KC-135, and flanked by a couple of F1-11s that look like
they are carrying missiles.

The unkown craft is about 3/4 as big as the KC-135, and is
definitely NOT a stealth bomber of any other known plane.  A post
and JPG of this was posted to alt.paranet.ufo on Jan 21 1996 by
c...@ecom.u-net.com.

Am I the only one who saw the following post?

>Path: ibmpcug!gwen.pcug.co.uk!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!user
>From: mdemb...@delphi.com (Mike Dembinski)
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51
>Subject: Re: Please Read Me FIRST-US Airforce Triangle Shaped Aircraft/UFO Photo Data.
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:41:47 +0000
>Organization: my good self
>Lines: 33
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <AD2BA14B...@dembin.demon.co.uk>
>References: <4dtp7a$d...@nuntius.u-net.net> <822419...@gunlane.demon.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: dembin.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dembin.demon.co.uk
>
>REPLY-TO: mdemb...@delphi.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>In article <4dtp7a$d...@nuntius.u-net.net> c...@ecom.u-net.com  writes:
>
>>> A fantastic new photograph has recently come to light and Encounters
>>> reveals it exclusively!  The craft was captured in mid air, refueling
>>> via an American KC 135 Strato Tanker.
>
>>> The photograph was taken on Wednesday 27th September 1995 at 6.45pm,
>>> by holidaymaker David Morris, from Walsall.  The object was seen at
>>> Sandymouth, Bude, in Cornwall.  David had gone out to photograph the
>>> sunset but due to a double cloud layer had no chance.  His attention
>>> was caught by the loud noise of planes out at sea.  They appeared to
>>> be in a pack formation, heading north.  He took quick aim and captured
>>> an image.
>>> The picture was taken with a Canon AE1, Lens 300mm, x3 Converter.
>
>
>It's a hoax. The picture appeared in October 1995 issue of 'Astronomy Now'
>magazine. There, it is captioned 'A simulation of the refuelling of the top
>secret 'Aurora'. Photo composition by Bill Rose'. Other Bill Rose pics
>include a 'foil dish tossed in the air' and an ufo beaming down light
>'engineered' by the photographer.
>
>I called the editor of Encounters magazine; he was embarrassed and
>apologetic. He says a hoaxer had sent him a print of the Bill Rose photo
>along with the story about taking it on holiday.
>
>Just shows how easy it is to be taken in!
>
>Mike
>
>
>

I think that about wraps it up.

AJ

--------------------------------------------------------------------
   AAAA       JJJJJJJJ       ajsa...@dolomite.win-uk.net
  AA  AA         JJ    "It's not a question of whose habitat it is,
 AAAAAAAA  JJ    JJ      it's a question of how fast you hit it!"
AA      AA  JJJJJJ                   (Arthur Dent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

code...@xmission.com wrote:

: Hi D-Day,

: Actually, there was a very recent (Sept 27 1995) sighting over

  A guy (David Morris of Walsall) was out
: taking a picture of the sunset, when he saw and then took a
: fairly good picture of a triangular shaped plane being refueled
: by a KC-135, and flanked by a couple of F1-11s that look like
: they are carrying missiles.

: The unkown craft is about 3/4 as big as the KC-135, and is
: definitely NOT a stealth bomber of any other known plane.  A post
: and JPG of this was posted to alt.paranet.ufo on Jan 21 1996 by
: c...@ecom.u-net.com.

The photo you mention is a hoax..it was (illegally?) copied out of an
astronomy magazine and sent to a UFO mag along with a BS story which
sounds like an exact rip-off of the famous August 1989 North Sea sighting.

K

: Actually, there was a very recent (Sept 27 1995) sighting over

: taking a picture of the sunset, when he saw and then took a
: fairly good picture of a triangular shaped plane being refueled
: by a KC-135, and flanked by a couple of F1-11s that look like
: they are carrying missiles.

: The unkown craft is about 3/4 as big as the KC-135, and is
: definitely NOT a stealth bomber of any other known plane.  A post
: and JPG of this was posted to alt.paranet.ufo on Jan 21 1996 by
: c...@ecom.u-net.com.

The same image was posted to rec.aviation.military.  Clearly a very bad
fake scannned from the front of a supermarket tabloid.  I could
have done better with a crayon.

--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu        --- el...@confusion.net
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage -- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."

>Hello Ms. Shafer,
>    Read your interesting report <snip>

I find Ms Shafer's writing interesting. I hope she is not put off by the

anonymous jottings of 'r...@listsrv.mumbo.jumbo.gov' who wrote:

>You are so HOT! I have browsed thru your posts over the last few days
>and while I find that you are one bad-ass NASA employee,
><BUrrrrrrrrP>, your posts seem more about Mary and all her
>accomplishments than about alt.conspiracy.area51.
>
>I don't want to know about your 'action items and schedules'.
>Your posts are better suited for <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> some

>internal news server at NASA, where they will understand your insider
>mumbo-jumbo terminology.

Ms Shafer's stuff is good, because it is the authentic voice of Government
research. Long may she continue writing here. It is good to get a feel for
her brand of jargon, because that's what they'll all speak. Don't slag it,
learn it! I for one find it interesting.

Ron  Sweenson continued:

>    I was wondering what your opinion is of the stories in magazines
>and on the various cybernet conferences concerning the so called
>"Aurora" hypersonic spyplane? The Aurora or "Senior Citizen" has been
>called the plane to take the place of the SR-71 and several people who
>claim knowledge of it's existance  say it has been seen in the skies
>over the North Sea (U.K.) and in the California and Nevada skies.Reports
>of a "Donuts-on-a-rope" contrail and loud "Rip-open-the-sky" sounds
>seem to lend credence to the report of one man's observation of a "Black,
>triangular plane" being refueled over the North Sea by a larger transport
>aircraft.

The refuelling picture is a hoax; I have said so repeatedly to this
newsgroup. It was montaged by Bill Rose for the October 1995 issue of
Astronomy Now (UK) magazine. There, it is captioned 'A simulation of the

refuelling of the top secret 'Aurora'. Photo composition by Bill Rose'.

Mike

>Actually, there was a very recent (Sept 27 1995) sighting over
>Cornwall in the UK.  A guy (David Morris of Walsall) was out
>taking a picture of the sunset, when he saw and then took a
>fairly good picture of a triangular shaped plane being refueled
>by a KC-135, and flanked by a couple of F1-11s that look like
>they are carrying missiles.

BOLLOCKS, BOLLOCKS, BOLLOCKS, BOLLOCKS, BOLLOCKS, BOLLOCKS, BOLLOCKS,
BOLLOCKS.

>The unkown craft is about 3/4 as big as the KC-135, and is
>definitely NOT a stealth bomber of any other known plane.  A post
>and JPG of this was posted to alt.paranet.ufo on Jan 21 1996 by
>c...@ecom.u-net.com.

IT IS A HOAX.

Once again (this is the fifth time I'm posting this):

The David Morris 'refuelling' picture is a hoax; I have said so repeatedly

to this newsgroup. It was montaged by Bill Rose for the October 1995 issue
of Astronomy Now (UK) magazine. There, it is captioned 'A simulation of the
refuelling of the top secret 'Aurora'. Photo composition by Bill Rose'.
Other Bill Rose pics include one captioned 'foil dish tossed in the air'

If anyone else posts old bollocks suggesting that Bill Rose's deliberate
fake is 'proof' of 'Aurora', I shall tear up my collection of UFO magazines
and join Dean and the debunkers; I'm beginning to see how stories like
MJ-12, Cydonia, Sports Model etc snowball. Despite cast iron refutation,
people still insist that this totally-debunked story still holds
credence...

Still, there's always the Manchester airmiss wedge...

Mike

Mike

prb> In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, Mary
prb> Shafer <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>That's just my bad memory from a work planning meeting a while back.
>We got through my part of it and I didn't pay as close attention as

>you probably would have liked to the rest of it.  I can, however,

prb> please do.

They're all boring, at least by name.  Things like
"S&C/HQ report, 12 March"
aren't exactly thrilling, even to those of us doing the work.  There
are 20 pages, in about 6 point type, of tasks required to get LASRE in
the air and my team only has five exclusively, though we participate
in about another ten or so (which include the actual flights).

There's a lot of unglamorous, fairly routine stuff to do to get a
project in the air.  Right now, the fun is at Lockhhed, where they're
fabricating the test article and instrumenting the SR-71, while the
research engineers are examining data and fiddling around with batch
simulations to see if we have enough control authority and stuff like
that.  We've started using the realtime sim, with pilots, to see how
it flies.  We're looking at flight profiles and different thrust
models and whether the moments from the rocket engine are going to
affect how the plane flies, because we're in the risk analysis part of
the program.  Meanwhile other engineers are working on the controller
box and other key disciplines.  We can't finish the instrumentation
because the PCM isn't here yet, but it will arrive ready to plug in,
so that's not slowing us down much.

--

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

Did I miss anything?

pat

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

1) Would DOD give up the SR-71's if they had nothing better?  Consider
that the F117 Stealth Fighter was already mocked up in the mid 70's but
not revealed till relatively recently.  What did they have mocked up in
the late 70's or early 80's?  Similarly the situation with U2's and
SR71's.

2) "This is satellite capability that obsoleted the SR71" can be ruled
out on the basis of insufficient response (global reach, global power).

3) Aurora probably has worked out key technologies some of which may be
useful to RLV such as materials and thermal protection systems or perhaps
relevant to HRST (airbreather/rocket).  On the other hand these
technologies may have been developed but be too expensive to operate
within commercial space access goals.  Alternate techniques would be
needed.

 
Edgar Zapata, NASA Kennedy Space Center
Shuttle LOX and External Tank Systems Engineer
For Next Generation:
RLV: http://calvin.ksc.nasa.gov:1080/nexgen/rlvhp.htm

You're applying to DoD the standard mistake people make about NASA:  thinking
of it as a monolithic entity that makes globally-rational decisions.  Often
it doesn't work that way.  Reportedly, one of the SR-71's major problems was
that the USAF was paying its operating costs but was not one of its major
customers.  (Some of the other recon programs are/were paid out of a central
DoD fund, but attempts to shift the SR-71 funding there hadn't succeeded.)
The USAF understandably got fed up with this.
--
Space will not be opened by always                 |       Henry Spencer
leaving it to another generation.   --Bill Gaubatz |   he...@zoo.toronto.edu

: 1) Would DOD give up the SR-71's if they had nothing better?

: 2) "This is satellite capability that obsoleted the SR71" can be ruled

: out on the basis of insufficient response (global reach, global power).

Once again:  the replacement for the SR-71 consists of:  satellites, the
Tier-2, the Tier-2+, the Tier-3- (Minus) DarkStar, and... the SR-71.  
Given the fact that these are all (except for the satellites) open
programs and that there are a bunch of them, why is it impossible to
believe that there is no such thing as "Aurora"?

: 3) Aurora probably has worked out key technologies some of which may be

: useful to RLV such as materials and thermal protection systems or perhaps
: relevant to HRST (airbreather/rocket).

If it did exist and had worked out these technologies, you would see them
being used today.  The cost savings that could be achieved would override
any secrecy concerns (in my own research on the CORONA reconnaissance
satellite during the 1960s, I have so far learned that CORONA-derived
technology was used for the U-2, SR-71/A-12, Lunar Orbiter, MOL, and
Apollo--black technology does show up in white programs).

D-Day

_________
"Did you know that if you put a little hat on a snowball it can last a
long time in hell?"--Dogbert

: Tier-2, the Tier-2+, the Tier-3- (Minus) DarkStar, and... the SR-71.  
: Given the fact that these are all (except for the satellites) open
: programs and that there are a bunch of them, why is it impossible to
: believe that there is no such thing as "Aurora"?

But there is an Aurora! Ben Rich said (wrote) it himself! It's the D-21
un-manned photo recon plane of WAY back.

--
                                        Simon Lam
                                                It's the man, not the machine.
                                                (But it often helps)
                                        E-mail:...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca

the X-15 explored this regime slightly.

My own theory is that some project was testing a vehicle to operate in
this regime, but like the X-15-A2, it suffered terrible difficulties
and they ended up scrubbing the project and hiding the whole thing.

earlier in, they convinced pentagon managers that they were only
 10% away from operational capability so why not mothball the SR-71
and all sorts of other hand-waving.

a failed technical project that was obsoleted by stealth technologies
and RPV drones may well explain the whole matter.

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

Simon Lam (aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: : Once again:  the replacement for the SR-71 consists of:  satellites, the

: : Tier-2, the Tier-2+, the Tier-3- (Minus) DarkStar, and... the SR-71.  
: : Given the fact that these are all (except for the satellites) open
: : programs and that there are a bunch of them, why is it impossible to
: : believe that there is no such thing as "Aurora"?

: But there is an Aurora! Ben Rich said (wrote) it himself! It's the D-21
: un-manned photo recon plane of WAY back.

Ugh!  Nope.

That was TAGBOARD.  "Aurora" was a line in a budget document used to
refer to money for the B-2 competition--it didn't even refer to a
specific aircraft.

D-Day

_________
"Did you know that if you put a little hat on a snowball it can last a
long time in hell?"--Dogbert

>1) Would DOD give up the SR-71's if they had nothing better?

1 - Yes, because it was costing them an arm and a leg to operate, and was
regarded as a luxury.

2 - No, and they did have something better, in the form of the Lacrosse
imaging radar satellites.

3 - No, and they did have something better, in the form of the "Aurora"
program then under development, which was subsequently cancelled.

>2) "This is satellite capability that obsoleted the SR71" can be ruled
>out on the basis of insufficient response (global reach, global power).

No, the 2 Lacrosse + 3 Keyhole IMINT constellation provides roughly 2-3
hour revist intervals, which is quite good compared to the tasking
responsiveness of SR-71. Aerial vehicles provide better continuous
surveillance, but that is a different matter.

>3) Aurora probably has worked out key technologies some of which may be
>useful to RLV

Yes, this is correct.

But none of these three points addresses the question of whether the dang
thing is operational [hint: it ain't -- it was cancelled about five
years ago].

--
John Pike
Federation of American Scientists  http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/
CyberStrategy Project              http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/cp/
Intelligence Reform Project        http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/irp/
Military Analysis Network          http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/man/
Space Policy Project               http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/spp/

>
> You are so HOT!

And you are so COLD, as in cold and slimy.

 I have browsed thru your posts over the last few days
> and while I find that you are one bad-ass NASA employee,
> <BUrrrrrrrrP>, your posts seem more about Mary and all her
> accomplishments than about alt.conspiracy.area51.

At least she *has* accomplishments...

>
> I don't want to know about your 'action items and schedules'.
> Your posts are better suited for <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> some
> internal news server at NASA, where they will understand your insider
> mumbo-jumbo terminology.

....and a brain.

>
> Here's my 'RFA':
> If you're going to <BUUUUuuuuuuuRRRRRRrrrrp> post using tax dollars,
> please stay on topic.
>

Likewise, Mr. mumbojumbo.GOV.  What do you do, work for the IRS, or Congress?

> Can somebody PLEASE get me another beer here?

And what are you doing drinking beer on time I'm paying for?

Flameshields up!

Tex
____________________
...Navy Wings are made of Gold...  
_____________________________________________________________________
|N. Bradford-Reid              |"If you want to inspire confidence, |
|Department of English         |*give plenty of statistics*.  It    |
|The University of Texas       |does not matter that they should be |                        
|n.b-...@mail.utexas.edu      |accurate, or even intelligible, so  |
|                              |long as there is enough of them."   |
|                              |                  Lewis Carroll     |
____________________________________________________________________

: On 2 Feb 1996 23:06:25 -0500, p...@clark.net (Pat) said:

: prb> In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, Mary
: prb> Shafer <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

: >That's just my bad memory from a work planning meeting a while back.
: >We got through my part of it and I didn't pay as close attention as
: >you probably would have liked to the rest of it.  I can, however,
: >tell you every one of my action items and their schedules.

: prb> please do.

: They're all boring, at least by name.  Things like
: "S&C/HQ report, 12 March"
: aren't exactly thrilling, even to those of us doing the work.  There

Actually I can coroberate her statement to the extent that I know the planes
where not destroyed.  They where mothballed out at Edwards AFB in California
(actually right next to the secret B2 bomber plant and the space shuttle
facility).  I was very glad to see that they where not destroyed.  Congress
can be very stupid/short sighted sometimes!  I actually managed to snap some
pictures of them.

Mark

Of course, if you had a cheaper way of orbiting your satellites, say a two
stage to orbit system....

In article <4fct28$a...@clarknet.clark.net> john...@fas.org "John Pike" writes:

> Edgar Zapata <edgar.z...@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> >1) Would DOD give up the SR-71's if they had nothing better?
>
> 1 - Yes, because it was costing them an arm and a leg to operate, and was
> regarded as a luxury.
>
> 2 - No, and they did have something better, in the form of the Lacrosse
> imaging radar satellites.
>

So now SR's are back flying again, the presumption is the Lacrosses are
non operational?

--

Mark Boladurant <mbondr@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN> wrote:
>Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: On 2 Feb 1996 23:06:25 -0500, p...@clark.net (Pat) said:

>Actually I can coroberate her statement to the extent that I know the planes
>where not destroyed.  They where mothballed out at Edwards AFB in California
>(actually right next to the secret B2 bomber plant and the space shuttle
>facility).  I was very glad to see that they where not destroyed.  Congress
>can be very stupid/short sighted sometimes!  I actually managed to snap some
>pictures of them.
>

Um Mark, it was the bush administration that dumped the 71 and it was
only congress that insisted that a few be kept on mothballs and that
later funding be committed to bringing them back on line.

--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik

>Hi D-Day,

>Actually, there was a very recent (Sept 27 1995) sighting over
>Cornwall in the UK.  A guy (David Morris of Walsall) was out
>taking a picture of the sunset, when he saw and then took a
>fairly good picture of a triangular shaped plane being refueled
>by a KC-135, and flanked by a couple of F1-11s that look like
>they are carrying missiles.

>The unkown craft is about 3/4 as big as the KC-135, and is

>definitely NOT a stealth bomber of any other known plane.  A post
>and JPG of this was posted to alt.paranet.ufo on Jan 21 1996 by
>c...@ecom.u-net.com.

How many more times do we have to go over this ? It was a fake picture !!!
See the recent issues of the Skunk-Works digest and March's "Encounters"
mag.

PS is it me, or do other readers get equally p***ed off when people call
the F-111 an "F1-11" ? As far as I can recall the F1-11 was a twin
engined airliner built by BAC in the sixties !

Gary

> Ron  Sweenson (rswe...@haven.ios.com) wrote:
> : "Aurora" hypersonic spyplane? The Aurora or "Senior Citizen" has been

> : called the plane to take the place of the SR-71 and several people who
> : claim knowledge of it's existance  say it has been seen in the skies
> : over the North Sea (U.K.) and in the California and Nevada skies.Reports
> : of a "Donuts-on-a-rope" contrail and loud "Rip-open-the-sky" sounds
> : seem to lend credence to the report of one man's observation of a "Black,
> : triangular plane" being refueled over the North Sea by a larger transport
> : aircraft.
>

> You're rather behind the curve on this.  All the reports you mention are

The usual racetrack for the Doughnut was Nevada to Scotland, allegedly.
Machrihanish was always mooted as the turn around base; well, this from
the Financial Times, Feb 8

RAF TO PULL OUT OF AIRBASE
The Royal Air Force said yesterday it would pull out of its Machrihanish base
on Scotland's Kintyre peninsula. 18 civilian worker will be made redundant
and 65 RAF personnel posted elsewhere. The base, whose 10,000ft runway is one
of Britain's longest, will remain open for air ambulance and scheduled
civilian flights. The RAF said that there was no longer an operational
requirement for the site and no aircraft are based there (PA).

--
"Starwatch" with Heather Couper - 'Ordinary stars don't transmit radio waves'
Not much point in doing solar observing on 10.7cm then, is there?

>con.net>: <4e3fo1$h...@rand.org> <4e8bib$s...@tdc.dircon.co.uk>
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

>Alan Edwards (aedw...@tdc.dircon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Don't they have shielding against things like that yet?  I would have
>: thought that kit like J-STARS, AWACS and Airforce-1 (intended to be airborne
>: during a nuclear strike) would have some sort of protection.

>THe electronics on AWACS are hardened against nuclear EMP. I would think
>J-Stars and Air Force One and E-4B and other airxcraft you can think of are
>also, but I'm only assuming because I've never seen the others.

>: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
>: attacks?

>: Alan

>--
>                                             c...@netcom.com

They are so high up when they drop the things they can aviod most of
the interferrance.

: >where not destroyed.  They where mothballed out at Edwards AFB in California
: >(actually right next to the secret B2 bomber plant and the space shuttle
: >facility).  I was very glad to see that they where not destroyed.  Congress
: >can be very stupid/short sighted sometimes!  I actually managed to snap some
: >pictures of them.

Actually, Edwards was (and presumably is) quite proud of their 71s.
When I attended a Shuttle landing there in '92 (Endeavour, I believe),
they had 3 out on the tarmac (1 right up by the ropes - the others at
a distance).  Intakes and suck were plugged and we couldn't get up to
the cockpit, but they had an officer there answering questions.

Steve

> c...@netcom.com (Carl Osgood) wrote:
>
> >con.net>: <4e3fo1$h...@rand.org> <4e8bib$s...@tdc.dircon.co.uk>
> >Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>
> >Alan Edwards (aedw...@tdc.dircon.co.uk) wrote:
> >: Don't they have shielding against things like that yet?  I would have
> >: thought that kit like J-STARS, AWACS and Airforce-1 (intended to be
airborne
> >: during a nuclear strike) would have some sort of protection.
>
> >THe electronics on AWACS are hardened against nuclear EMP. I would think

> >also, but I'm only assuming because I've never seen the others.
>
> >: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's
own
> >: attacks?
>
> >: Alan
>
> >--
> >                                             c...@netcom.com
>
>
> They are so high up when they drop the things they can aviod most of
> the interferrance.

The induced voltage from the EMP of a 30 megaton device at an altitude of
35,000 ft is approximately 1,000,000 volts/meter.  I don't know how "high up"
your bomber is, but a B-52 can't fly high enough to "avoid most of the
interference" (I took the liberty of correcting your spelling).  If the bomber
(or anything else in the area) isn't shielded, its circuits will be fried,
period.

Richard

PS:  I also removed sci.space.policy from the group list.

>Richard

An average civilian aircraft flies at 45,000ft on a transatlantic
voyage, the average B52 can cruise way above this,approaching
60-70,000 ft ,haven't got the ceiling height but i'll find out, two
points here.
1.What type of bomb are they detonating. B52's do carry under the wing
air launched cruise missiles, these will travel to the target probably
50km away,erradicating the problem of frying the circuits.
2. A free fall bomb still has a distance to fall and unless the plane
is stationary it would never be directly above a detonation.

Apparently though a detonation in the ionosphere will cause electrical
circuits both on the ground and in the air to be fried, I know it
sound very much like the plot to Goldeneye but there was some truth
and scientific research into this use.

Obviously a spelling bad day.

Damon Witherick

>An average civilian aircraft flies at 45,000ft on a transatlantic
>voyage, the average B52 can cruise way above this,approaching
>60-70,000 ft ,haven't got the ceiling height but i'll find out

No, the B-52 does not fly at those altitudes.
It's service ceiling is around 50,000 ft.

> >: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
> >: attacks?
>
> >: Alan
>
> >--
> >                                             c...@netcom.com
>
> They are so high up when they drop the things they can aviod most of
> the interferrance.

The only problem with this idea is that its dead wrong.  Bombers operating at strategic
levels was phased out a long time ago.  Low-level penetration is the rule now.  Even the
B-52's are supposed to do this.  And the way they avoid the EMP effects, apart from
shielding, is time-delayed gravity bombs and ALCM's.

Lane Willard
la...@ulantris.infinop.com

Ok so they actually fly at 50,000ft, that's still 15,000
above the explosion and as I pointed out earlier there is no way they
will stay stationary over an explosion. I fhte dambusters used to peel
away after releasing their cargo I'm sure that principal would still
be in use today.

Damon

> But there is an Aurora! Ben Rich said (wrote) it himself! It's the D-21
> un-manned photo recon plane of WAY back.

USAF, for various reasons, can't use a "catch all" code name/line item in
their budget. It would cause confusion, etc. And if it was a catch all
name, the line item numbers would have changed over the years with that
particular codename.

>
>
>In article <4fs6vi$r...@mail.pl.unisys.com>,
>>An average civilian aircraft flies at 45,000ft on a transatlantic
>>voyage, the average B52 can cruise way above this,approaching
>>60-70,000 ft ,haven't got the ceiling height but i'll find out
>
>No, the B-52 does not fly at those altitudes.
>It's service ceiling is around 50,000 ft.
>

>
>c...@netcom.com (Carl Osgood) wrote:
>
>>con.net>: <4e3fo1$h...@rand.org> <4e8bib$s...@tdc.dircon.co.uk>
>>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>
>>Alan Edwards (aedw...@tdc.dircon.co.uk) wrote:
>>: Don't they have shielding against things like that yet?  I would have
>>: thought that kit like J-STARS, AWACS and Airforce-1 (intended to be airborne
>>: during a nuclear strike) would have some sort of protection.
>
>>THe electronics on AWACS are hardened against nuclear EMP. I would think

>>also, but I'm only assuming because I've never seen the others.
>

>>: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
>>: attacks?
>
>>: Alan
>
>>--
>>                                             c...@netcom.com
>
>
>They are so high up when they drop the things they can aviod most of
>the interferrance.
>

_ ._. .._ _ ....    Courbet

>> >: How do the electronics on a nuclear-capable bomber survive during it's own
>> >: attacks?
>>

>> They are so high up when they drop the things they can aviod most of
>> the interferrance.

>The only problem with this idea is that its dead wrong.  Bombers operating at strategic

>levels was phased out a long time ago.  Low-level penetration is the rule now.  Even the
>B-52's are supposed to do this.  And the way they avoid the EMP effects, apart from
>shielding, is time-delayed gravity bombs and ALCM's.

The only way to avoid EMP effects is to build it into the electronics (that
means engines too).  There is no way to be clear of it.  The first nuke of any
nuclear battle will be detonated at 30 to 40 thousand feet.  This nuke, aimed
atSalina Kansas, will be used to wipe out non-EMP protected equipment.
A nuke at that altitude will pretty much cover the whole continental US.

You can't fly low enough, or high enough...  Even terrain masking won't help.

>Steve
Most people do realize that there are several still. I've heard
reports(Not personally seen) that there is a fully functional "Static"
display at Warner Robbins in Georgia.

I for one think the SR 71 was and is the best in the USA's arsenal.
And no one knows what it's full capabilities were/are. I will say, we
have'nt destroyed them all, there is one or two that still flies to
various air shows.

JB

The capabilities are something that I would love to know, though.  Since
pilots had to continually reduce afterburner during flight to keep from
exceeding max speed since 80% of thrust if from the intakes, not the
exhaust, they move incredibly fast and high.  Knowing someone working
with VX-4 and Navy accident investigations for a while told me of an F-14
which made it to close to Mach 4.  From this and other info, I would say
the SR could go Mach 6-8 at altitudes up to 180,000 feet.  Any others who
agree or want to contribute to these ideas?

Andrew
need4...@prodigy.com

>swa...@epas.utoronto.ca (Steven Walton) wrote:
>>Actually, Edwards was (and presumably is) quite proud of their 71s.
>>When I attended a Shuttle landing there in '92 (Endeavour, I believe),
>>they had 3 out on the tarmac (1 right up by the ropes - the others at
>>a distance).  Intakes and suck were plugged and we couldn't get up to
>>the cockpit, but they had an officer there answering questions.

Actually you are talking about NASA Dryden FRC and
not "Edwards" as such.  They were nice enough to put
their Blackbirds on display during those events.  

 >Most people do realize that there are several still. I've heard
 >reports(Not personally seen) that there is a fully functional "Static"
 >display at Warner Robbins in Georgia.

That would be SR-71 #958, which was last flown on 2/23/90.
It is a long way from being "fully functional" however,
unless you mean functional as a static display. :)

 >I for one think the SR 71 was and is the best in the USA's arsenal.

 >And no one knows what it's full capabilities were/are.

Well... the bulk of that information is available now.

 >I will say, we have'nt destroyed them all,

Other than in crashes, none have been "destroyed".  When the USAF
originally ended their SR-71 operations, all of the remaining
Blackbirds (SR-71s and A-12s) were sent to various museums around
the country... except for the three given to NASA and the three
stored in Palmdale.  

 > there is one or two that still flies to
 >various air shows.

Unfortunately NASA cannot afford to perform at airshows
with the SR-71 the way the USAF used to do at times.
Perhaps if the reactivated Air Force Blackbirds are still
operating when the next Edwards air show comes around,
people will once again be able to see such a performance!

Lets see an F-14 going near mach 4. Well maybe if we hooked to one of the
Shuttles SRBs. No F14  ever goes near its max speed for long. Its more
like mach 2 with no payload. The thrust from the SR-71 intakes is about
54%. The top speed of the SR-71 is around 3.5 plus alittle more. And alt
in the 85-95,000. As of this time 2 SR-71A are in Airforce inventory and
if we get a larger budget we could get 2 more. No SR-71 have flown at any
airshows in over 5-6 years. If you get luckly you might see one fly out
of Palmdale or Edwards at this time.
-
  ERNEST MESA  ZBJ...@prodigy.com                                        
                   Blackbird Airpark Volunteer Staff                    
  Spreen Honda Service Tech.

Duane P Mantick (wb9...@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: >I have not heard of any flying to airshows, but NASA was given, I believe
: >2, at least one, anyway.  The others, which they won't confirm how many,

:         NASA *had* three.  At least one, and possibly two are or
: will be taken BACK by USAF and returned to service.  As I understand it,
: it is likely that NASA will keep ex-956 (the SR71B two seat trainer)
: and both NASA and USAF crews will work in a co-operative schedule for
: training.

NASA has three.  USAF has three.  Two of the USAF birds are being readied
for service or are already there.

It is highly unlikely that NASA will have to give any of their birds to
USAF.  They are sharing the two-seater for pilot training, one of the
others is being modified for tests, and the third is in storage.

There is a very simple reason why NASA will not give any of their planes
back to the Air Force--it is not clear the Air Force will continue to
operate its own SR-71s, let alone expand the fleet.  Remember, the
decision to recall the SR-71 to active service was made by Senator
Byrd--who now comes from the wrong political party.

D-Day

>I have not heard of any flying to airshows, but NASA was given, I believe
>2, at least one, anyway.  The others, which they won't confirm how many,

        NASA *had* three.  At least one, and possibly two are or
will be taken BACK by USAF and returned to service.  As I understand it,
it is likely that NASA will keep ex-956 (the SR71B two seat trainer)
and both NASA and USAF crews will work in a co-operative schedule for
training.

>were stored, except for a couple which were shipped out to various

>museums.  They are reactivating some of them for active service again,
>but again, I doubt we'll ever know for sure how many of them.

        Three were given to NASA, three were kept in "cold" storage
by USAF, everything else was parceled out as a "museum bird".  Most
of those will *never* be in any shape to fly again.

>The capabilities are something that I would love to know, though.  Since
>pilots had to continually reduce afterburner during flight to keep from
>exceeding max speed since 80% of thrust if from the intakes, not the
>exhaust, they move incredibly fast and high.  Knowing someone working
>with VX-4 and Navy accident investigations for a while told me of an F-14
>which made it to close to Mach 4.  From this and other info, I would say

        Bulllllllllsheeeeit.  I'd like to see some credible evidence....

>the SR could go Mach 6-8 at altitudes up to 180,000 feet.  Any others who
>agree or want to contribute to these ideas?

        I sincerely *doubt* that.  VERY much.  I am told that there were
limits on airspeed that were *aerodynamic* in nature.....which lead me
to think that attempting to deliberately exceed mach 4 would probably
result in two punched-out crew and a lost aircraft.....

        As for "where are they now", here is the last information that
I had on that subject.....

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To help clear up a little bit of confusion, here is a list of the A12's, YF12's
and SR71's, according to "Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird", by Paul F. Crickmore,
published 1986.
[I have made some additions and notations to the list, as much has
happened since Crickmore compiled the list in 1986 and earlier.  With
the 1989-90 retirement, a great deal will change. -DPM]
{Note also additions of material, from Aerofax Minigraph  
#1, printed 1985}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next revision also based on Crickmore and entered 8/6/90 regarding the
aircraft losses.
===============================================================================
Revision on 8/28/90 from Mary Shafer of Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
reflecting on the fate of 64-17973.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Other revisions dated as received after the retirement.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
It appears that 961, 962 or 968 may have seen service in the 1990-91 Gulf War.
Details will be added as available. 4/22/91
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Some details added by DPM up to 5/13/93.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Further edits 6/24/93 as per Phil Moyer.  His information is provided by
Lockheed Advanced Development Company, AKA "The Skunk Works".  This material
is noted with the symbol [LADC].
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
NASA-related additions 4/14/94; info. from Al Bowers, Dryden Flight Research
Center posted in rec.aviation.military.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
Further info. from Al Bowers added 1/13/95.
===============================================================================

A12/YF12
--------
Serial #        Article #
--------        ---------
60-6924                121
        A12 prototype first flown 26 April 1962.  In storage at Palmdale.
        >>>According to Larry Smith (12/3/90), 924 is on display at Palmdale.
        >>>On display in Blackbird Airpark, Plant 42 after restoration
        by Lockheed.  Location and detailed plaque information from
        Dean Adams 1/31/92.
        [LADC] on display in Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA.

60-6925                122
        In storage at Palmdale.
        >>>According to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City,
        this airframe has been given to them as a museum display.  It was
        placed on the deck of the Intrepid on December 3, 1990.

60-6926                123
        lost 24 May 1963.
        ****Aerofax claims loss during test program - inverted spin in a
            thunderstorm; pilot survived.
        Crickmore - this was the first A-12 accident.  CIA pilot Ken Collins
        was flying an INS test.  He entered clouds and water vapor froze
        in the pitot static system.  With the airspeed indicator giving
        the wrong reading, the aircraft stalled;  Collins ejected safely
        from an inverted flat spin.

60-6927                124
        "Titanium Goose" A12 dual-cockpit trainer. In storage at Palmdale.
        >>>>>According to mail from Larry Smith on 5/14/91, Tony Landis
        says this aircraft has been sent to the California Museum of
        Science and Industry in Los Angeles.

60-6928                125
        lost 5 Jan 1967
        ****Aerofax claims loss during test program - pilot did not survive.
        Crickmore - CIA pilot Walter Ray was flying a routine training
        sortie and suffered an unspecified "fuel emergency".  He ejected
        but a seat separation malfunction caused him to become wedged
        between the parachute and the seat head rest.  He was killed
        when the seat struck the ground.

60-6929                126
        lost 28 Dec 1967
        ****Aerofax claims loss during test program, date uncertain - pilot
            survived.
        Crickmore - CIA pilot Mel Vojvodich was flying an FCF (Functional
        Check Flight) after some aircraft modifications.  He lost control
        of the aircraft less than 7 seconds into the flight at an altitude
        of 100 feet. He ejected from the plane, narrowly missing the fireball
        on the ground and survived.

60-6930                127
        in storage at Palmdale.
        >>>According to Scott Osborn of the U.S. Space and Rocket Center
        in Huntsville, AL., this aircraft is to be delivered on a truck
        on 12/11/90 for use as part of their Space Camp operation.  At least
        this aircraft will them help teach young people about aviation.

60-6931                128
        in storage at Palmdale.
        >>>Accoridng to Larry Smith (12/3/90), 931 will be displayed at
        the Minnesota ANG Museum.

60-6932                129
        lost 5 June 1968 during operational mission from Kadena, Okinawa
        ****Aerofax claims lost "after departure"; may have been last
            operational mission from Kadena for A12's - pilot did not
            survive.
        Crickmore - CIA pilot Jack Weeks lost due to inflight problem of
        unknown nature.  Position 500 miles east of Manila and 600 miles
        south of Okinawa.

60-6933                130
        in storage at Palmdale.
        >>>According to Larry Smith (12/3/90), 933 will be displayed at
        the San Diego Air Museum, San Diego, CA.
        >>>As per Clinton Keith on 5/17/91, this aircraft was at General
        Dynamics Harbor Facility, San Diego.
        >>>As per Shane Deichman on 8/19/91, this aircraft on display
        at the Aerospace Museum in Balboa Park, San Diego, CA, after
        some restoration work.
        >>>As per Shane Deichman on 9/16/91, 933 first flew 27 Nov. 1963.
        She made 217 flights which covered 406.20 hours.  933 was
        retired in August of 1965 to open storage in Palmdale, CA.
        [LADC] Air and Space Museum, Balboa Park, San Diego, CA.

60-6934                1001
        prototype YF-12 first flew 7 Aug 1963.  Was stored until rebuilt as
        SR-71C 64-17981 two seat trainer. As of writing, still operational.
        ****Aerofax claims '934 was damaged during a landing at Edwards AFB
            prior to rear half being used to build '981.

60-6935                1002
        was in storage; flown again 11 Dec. 1969 and loaned to NASA as test
        aircraft.  Flown to USAF museum at Wright-Patterson AFB for permanent
        display

60-6936                1003
        set world speed/altitude records on 1 May 1965 of 2070.101 MPH and alt.
        of 80,257.86 feet (speed over straight course).  Also set speed over
        closed course of 1688.889 MPH; speed over 500KM closed course of
        1643.041 MPH.  Briefly retired but reactivated for NASA test program.
        lost 24 June 1971 (Aerofax claims lost at Edwards AFB, no details)
        ******
        Crickmore - On the 63rd flight test of a command and control test
        program, USAF pilot Lt. Col. Ronald J. Layton and WSO Maj. William
        A. Curtis were forced to eject after the plane caught fire due to
        a fuel line fatigue failure during approach to Edwards.  Both
        survived.
        >>>>>according to Al Bowers, the crew did not eject but landed the
        plane on the lakebed at Edwards, where the plane burned.  The crew
        egressed without the aid of ground crews.

60-6937                131
        in storage at Palmdale.
        (Mary Shafer claims this was a test aircraft for NASA)
        ****Aerofax Minigraph #1 says this aircraft was really SR71a
        64-17951 and was assigned the fictitious serial number 60-6937
        after being designated as a YF12C for NASA.

        More recent info. claims the REAL 937 is on display at
        Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale.
        [LADC] On display in Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA.
        <from Al Dobyns 12/2/93 - being restored at Evergreen AirVenture
        Museum, McMinnville, Oregon>

60-6938                132
        in storage at Palmdale.
        On display in Mobile, Alabama at the USS Alabama.
        [LADC] confirmed.

60-6939                133
        lost 9 July 1964
        ****Aerofax claims pilot survived.
        Crickmore - A12 test pilot Bill Park was returning to Groom Lake
        following a high Mach test flight; aircraft was brand new. On
        approach, the controls locked up.  Despite trying to save the plane,
        bank angle and descent rate increased.  At 1500 feet in a 45
        degree bank, Park ejected safely as '939 flew into the ground.

60-6940                134
        modified to M-12 drone carrier.  survives in storage at Palmdale.
        >>>According to Mark Smith of the Seattle Museum of Flight (and
        through Larry Smith on 12/3/90) this aircraft will be moved to their
        museum in March 91.  They hope to acquire a D21A drone to complete the
        exhibit.
        >>>>>>DPM note, by 1994 the D21 had been acquired, restored and
        mounted.

60-6941                135
        modified to M-12 drone carrier.  lost 30 July 1966 during test launch
        of drone.
        ****Aerofax claims loss on 3 July 1966 (typo?)
        Crickmore - On first D21 test flight with a full fuel load, drone
        separated but failed to clear the M12's shock wave.  At Mach 3+,
        the drone struck the tail of '941 and caused a pitch-up.  Aircraft
        broke up.  Pilot Bill Park and WSO Ray Torick ejected and landed
        in the Pacific but Torick drowned before he could be recovered.
        Park survived.

60-6942
60-6943
60-6944
60-6945
60-6946
60-6947
60-6948                serial numbers assigned but never used.

SR-71
-----
64-17950        2001
        prototype.  first flew 22 Dec 1964.  lost 10 Jan 1967.
        ****Aerofax claims lost on 11 April 1969 following take-off
            accident.
        Crickmore - Lockheed pilot Art Peterson was conducting anti-skid
        brake trials.  At 200 knots the braking 'chute failed to
        deploy properly.  After leaving the wet test area and finding
        dry surface, the brakes locked and all six main tires blew.
        The magnesium wheel hubs caught fire which spread to the rest
        of the aircraft.  Peterson was injured but escaped the aircraft.
        '950 was destroyed in the fire.

64-17951        2002
        first flew 3 March 1965.  Lockheed gave it to USAF in 1969; USAF
        gave it to NASA 16 July 1971.  Then a YF-12C serial numbered 60-6937,
        last flew on 22 Dec 1978 and placed in storage at Palmdale.
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, on display at Edwards AFB.
        On display at Pima Air Museum, Tucson Arizona.
        [LADC] confirmed. Airframe Time 796.7 hours, last flown 22 Dec. 1978

64-17952        2003
        disintegrated 25 January 1966 in high speed flight. pilot survived.
        ****Aerofax claims RSO did not survive.
        Crickmore - Piloted by Lockheed employee Bill Weaver and RSO Jim
        Zwayer, aircraft experienced an "inlet scheduling malfunction"
        followed by an unstart on the right engine while in a 30 degree
        bank at 80,000 feet and Mach 3+.  Aircraft broke up; both pilot
        and RSO escaped from aircraft but RSO was found dead after
        parachuting to the ground.  Pilot survived.

64-17953        2004
        lost 18 Dec 1969
        Crickmore - USAF pilot Lt. Col. Joe Rogers and RSO Lt. Col.
        Gary Heidelbaugh were on a test sortie after ECM modifications.
        After going supersonic, there was an explosion and a loss of
        power and control.  Both crewmembers ejected safely; aircraft
        was destroyed.

64-17954        2005
        written off 11 April 1969 after aborted takeoff and fire
        ****Aerofax claims lost 9 Feb. 1966
        Crickmore - USAF pilot Lt. Col. Bill Skliar and RSO Maj. Noel
        Warner had just rotated for takoff when a left main gear tire
        blew.  As they aborted the takeoff, shrapnel from the
        disintegrating wheel hubs caused the aircraft to catch fire.
        Pilot and RSO both escaped.

64-17955        2006
        only SR-71A of original production batch still flying.  Operated
        AFLC (?) at Plant 42, Palmdale.
        Currently said to be at Edwards AFB.
        [LADC] confirmed.  Airframe Time 3760.0 hours, last flight
        25 Sept. 1989

64-17956        2007
        prototype of SR-71B trainer.  first flown 2 Nov 1965.  Only B model
        surviving.
        >>>>According to Mary Shafer, 11/26/91, 956 has been renumbered
        N831NA for NASA service and was the only Blackbird in flying
        condition for NASA at that time.

64-17957        2008
        second SR-71B.  lost 11 Jan 1968.
        ****Aerofax dates loss as 12 Jan 1968 during an approach to Beale AFB
        Crickmore - During a training flight, the aircraft suffered a
        double generator failure over northern Washington state.  Displaying
        great skill, the pilot was able to coax the aircraft back to Beale
        (California), only to have serious unstarts while in the approach
        pattern. The crew ejected safely; the aircraft crashed inverted
        about 7 miles north of the field.
        

64-17958        2009
        first A model delivered to USAF on 10 May 1966.  On 27/28 July 1976,
        set current speed record over a 15/25 KM course of
        2193.167 MPH. At writing, still operational with 9th SRW.
        >>>>On display at Robins AFB, Georgia.
        [LADC] confirmed. Airframe Time 2288.9 hours, last flight 23 Feb. 1990

64-17959        2010
        operational with 9th SRW.
        >>>According to Larry Smith (12/3/90), 959 will be displayed
        at Eglin AFB, Florida.
        [LADC] confirmed.  Airframe Time 866.1 hours, last flight 29 Oct. 1976

64-17960        2011
        operational with 9th SRW.
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, on display at Castle AFB.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 2669.6, last flight 27 Feb. 1990

64-17961        2012
        operational with 9th SRW.
        >>>>>according to mail from Larry Smith on 5/14/91, Tony Landis
        says this aircraft has been sent to the EAA Museum in Oshkosh
        Wisconsin.  Tony also says this one has been in the Beale AFB
        museum.....

        Last known to be a complete mess.  EAA turned it down because
        of excessive transportation costs; Chicago Museum of Science
        and Industry has expressed interest.  Will require large
        amounts of restoration.  -DPM 5/13/93 from Phil Moyer
        >>>>>>As per recent mail from Phil Moyer, bird has been shipped to
        the Kansas Cosmosphere for display.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 1601.0 hours, last flight 2 Feb. 1977

64-17962        2013
        no information available***********************************
        revised Crickmore says operational with 9th SRW.

        Last known in operation storage at Palmdale.  Thought to have
        been used in the Gulf War, 1991.
        [LADC] Still held by USAF.  Airframe Time 2835.9, last flight
        14 Feb 1990

64-17963        2014
        operational with 9th SRW
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, on display at Beale AFB.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 1604.4, last flight 28 Oct. 1976

64-17964        2015
        no information available***********************************
        revised Crickmore says operational with 9th SRW.
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, on display at Offut AFB.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 3373.1, last flight 20 March 1990

64-17965        2016
        lost 25 Oct 1967
        Crickmore - USAF crew "E18" were descending on autopilot over
        central Nevada.  The INS gyro platform failed and aircraft
        entered a steep dive.  Unable to recover the aircraft, the
        pilot and RSO ejected at Mach 1.4; they survived but the
        aircraft crashed near Lovelock, Nevada.

64-17966        2017
        lost 13 April 1967
        Crickmore - USAF crew "E12" were climbing after an in-flight
        refueling and over-extended their angle of attack.  Control of
        the aircraft was lost; both men ejected safely but aircraft
        was lost.

64-17967        2018
        operational with 9th SRW
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, at NASA Ames/Dryden Flight Research Facility.
        [LADC] Still held by USAF at Palmdale, confirmed by NASA DFRF.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 2636.8 hours, last flight 14 Feb. 1990

64-17968        2019
        operational with 9th SRW

        Last known in operational storage at Palmdale.  Thought to have
        been used in the Gulf War, 1991.
        [LADC] Still held by USAF at Palmdale.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 2279.0, last flight 12 Feb. 1990

64-17969        2020
        lost between 1970 and early 1971 during operational mission from Kadena
        ****Aerofax lists as operational with 9th SRW
        Crickmore - shortly after refuelling, pilot attempted to climb over
        clouds but attempted too great of a climb attitude.  Both engines
        flamed out and could not be restarted; crew ejected safely
        and aircraft crashed near Korat, Thailand.

64-17970        2021
        lost 17 June 1970 following collision with KC135Q tanker
        ****Aerofax lists as operational with 9th SRW
        Crickmore - USAF crew "E08" had just disconnected from a KC135Q
        when the pilot lost sight of the tanker briefly and then hit
        the horizontal stabilizer.  Both pilot and RSO ejected safely
        and landed about 20 miles east of El Paso, Texas while the
        SR71 crashed nearby.

64-17971        2022
        operational with 9th SRW
        ****Al Bowers indicated this aircraft going to NASA Ames/Dryden
            Flight Research Facility.  (June 1990)
            (confirmed 28 June 1990 by 9th SRW Public Relations.)
        [LADC] NASA DFRF.  Airframe Time 3512.5 hours, last flight 19 Mar. 1990
        According to Al Bowers, numbered 832.  9/14/94
        >>>>>further from Al Bowers on 1/13/95, being prepped for return
        to USAF service.  He says it has not been flown since delivery to
        NASA.

64-17972        2023
        on 1 Sep 1974 set new transatlantic speed record from New York to
        London in 1 hour 54 minutes 56.4 seconds.  on 14 Sep 1974 flew from
        London to Los Angeles in 3 hours 47 minutes 35.8 seconds
        [note - Crickmore does not list the fate of this aircraft]
        on 6 March 1990 set four records during its final flight -
                Transcontinental Coast-to-Coast 2,404 miles -
                        68 min. 17 sec. or 2112 MPH
                LA to Wash., D.C. - 64 min. 5 sec.
                KC to Wash., D.C. - 26 min. 36 sec.
                St.L to Cincinatti - 8 min. 20 sec.
        aircraft retired to Smithsonian Air and Space Museum
        [LADC] Airframe Time 2801.1 hours, last flight 6 March 1990

64-17973        2024
        operational with 9th SRW
        ******>>According to Mary Shafer (8/28/90) this aircraft is a
        static aircraft at Palmdale.
        >>>>On 12/9/91, Mary Shafer indicated that aircraft was on display
        at Plant 42, Palmdale.
        [LADC] Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale
        [LADC] Airframe Time 1729.9 hours, last flight 21 July 1987

64-17974        2025
        operational with 9th SRW
        ******>>A posting in sci.military from Michael Tighe states that
        '974 was lost shortly after takeoff from Kadena AFB, Okinawa and
        went into the South China Sea.  Pilot Lt. Col. Dan House and his
        RSO survived.  Date precisely unknown, sometime in 1989.  AW&ST
        reported in their Jan. 29, 1990 issue that, according to Lt. Col.
        Dan House the left engine "blew up" inflight.  Shrapnel hit the
        hydraulic lines, causing a loss of flight controls.  Pilot and
        RSO punched out without injury.  The aircraft was recovered 10
        days later; AW&ST quoted Col. Tom Henicheck, commander of Det. 4
        of the 9th SRW as saying "It was the first loss in 17 years."

64-17975        2026
        operational with 9th SRW
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, on display at March AFB.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 2854.0 hours, last flight 12 Feb. 1990

64-17976        2027
        operational with 9th SRW
        This aircraft is reputed to have had the largest number of operational
        sorties. Retired to the USAF museum at Wright-Patterson AFB,
        Dayton, Ohio on 27 March 1990.
        [LADC] Airframe Time 2985.7 hours, last flight 27 March 1990

64-17977        2028
        lost 10 Oct 1968
        ****Aerofax gives no date but indicates loss due to aborted take-off
            both crew members survived
        Crickmore - a wheel failure sent shrapnel into the fuel tanks, catching
        the aircraft on fire on an aborted takeoff.  The RSO ejected safely
        While the pilot rode the aircraft across the ground and escaped
        with only bruises and sprains.  The aircraft was almost
        brand new and was written off.

64-17978        2029
        "Rapid Rabbit" lost sometime in May 1973 at Kadena.  AT time of
        writing, last SR-71 *KNOWN* to have been written off.
        >>>>>>since then 974 was lost more recently.
        Crickmore - This aircraft accumulated more sorties in Southeast
        Asia than any other SR71.  Returning from an operational mission,
        a maximum crosswind landing was attempted.  First landing was
        aborted and brake 'chute was left behind.  On the second attempt
        '978 left the runway and struck a concrete barrier housing.  Both
        crewmembers were unhurt but "Rapid Rabbit" was deemed too badly
        damaged to be saved and was broken up for spares.

64-17979        2030
        operational with 9th SRW
        >>>>As of 28 June 1990, on display at Lackland AFB.
        [LADC] Airframe Hours 3321.7 hours, last flight 6 March 1990

64-17980        2031
        operational with 9th SRW
        as of 12 March 1990 at NASA Ames/Dryden in flying storage, according
        to Mary Shafer
        ****Al Bowers confirmed, June of 1990
        >>>>Also confirmed by 9th SRW Public Relations, 28 June 1990.
        >>>>According to Mary Shafer, 11/26/91, 980 has been renumbered
        N844NA for NASA use.
        [LADC] Airframe Hours 2255.6 hours, last flight 15 Feb. 1990
        >>>>>further from Al Bowers on 1/13/95, this airframe has been
        seeing regular use by NASA.

64-17981        2032???????
        hybrid designated SR-71C consisting of the wing and rear of YF-12A
        60-6934 and the forward fuselage from a static test aircraft.  first
        flew 14 March 1969 and still flies when '956 is down for maintenance.
        >>>>On 28 June 1990, 9th SRW Public Relations indicated that this
        aircraft has been salvaged for parts to a point that it will
        never again be airworthy - however it may be eventually restored
        enough for display purposes.

        Recently claimed to be at Hill AFB, Utah.
        [LADC] confirmed.  Airframe Time 556.4 hours, last flight 11 Apr. 1976

=============================================================================
As more time goes by, this list is becoming more and more complete.  The major
source of information, Paul Crickmore's books on the subject, still appear
to be some of the most reliable written sources.

Duane
e-mail to wb9...@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu

>60-6927                124
>        "Titanium Goose" A12 dual-cockpit trainer. In storage at Palmdale.
>        >>>>>According to mail from Larry Smith on 5/14/91, Tony Landis
>        says this aircraft has been sent to the California Museum of
>        Science and Industry in Los Angeles.

>60-6937                131
>        in storage at Palmdale.
>        (Mary Shafer claims this was a test aircraft for NASA)
>        ****Aerofax Minigraph #1 says this aircraft was really SR71a
>        64-17951 and was assigned the fictitious serial number 60-6937
>        after being designated as a YF12C for NASA.
>
>        More recent info. claims the REAL 937 is on display at
>        Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale.
>        [LADC] On display in Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA.
>        <from Al Dobyns 12/2/93 - being restored at Evergreen AirVenture
>        Museum, McMinnville, Oregon>

As of summer '95 and according to Doug Nelson, Flight Test Center
Museum director, '937 is in outdoor storage at Palmdale, and has been
stripped of significant parts, such as the spikes. {Sad, since (he
says) it was the only A-12 to actually fly combat missions.]

Also, '927 is in indoor storage at Palmdale.  Evergreen, Cal Museum of
S&I, and CIA headquarters are in the running to get these last two
A-12s.

Regards,

Paul Suhler

I never heard a claim that it could "outrun" a missile; what's your
source?

The Blackbird's near-invulnerability has been due to it's high speed
and high altitude.  Remember that if the missile launch is two seconds
off optimal (if the crew can even figure out what that is), then the
aircraft is a mile from the ideal intercept point.  At those
altitudes, SAMs don't have have enough fuel left to perform a chase.

I've read somewhere that some later Soviet SAMs were thought to have
been able to hit a Blackbird.  (Sorry, I don't remember the source,
but it may have been Crickmore.)  Certainly had the missiles used by
North Vietnam had nukes, they would have knocked them down.

Paul Suhler

As for the SR-71 top speed, I don't know if the numbers that are being
told sound true.  The plane is supposed to be capable of outrunning all
missiles which would mean  a speed of around Mach 4 or so since there are
missiles that will travel at Mach 4 now, i.e. Phoenix.  At 85-90,000 feet

Sorry about the thrust % error, I am trying to keep up with about 3
million things at once and sometimes I get a little confused.

Andrew
need4...@prodigy.com

> It is highly unlikely that NASA will have to give any of their birds to
> USAF.  They are sharing the two-seater for pilot training, one of the
> others is being modified for tests, and the third is in storage.
>
> There is a very simple reason why NASA will not give any of their planes
> back to the Air Force--it is not clear the Air Force will continue to
> operate its own SR-71s, let alone expand the fleet.  Remember, the
> decision to recall the SR-71 to active service was made by Senator
> Byrd--who now comes from the wrong political party.
>
>
> D-Day

   NASA did give up one of their SR-71A's to the Air Force. Aircraft 17971
(NASA 832) was the first of the reactivated SR-71's. Since NASA had kept
up on routine maintanance checks (although it never flew ) it was in the
best shape. The other aircraft, 17967, was simply parked outside with the
other Air Force SR-71's at site 2 at Palmdale and not touched. It was
because of this that 971 was officially released to the Air Force after
only 3 FCF flights whereas 967 needed 8 FCF flights and they are still
having some difficulties with this aircraft.
 
   Both Air Force SR-71's are now 'operational' and are stationed at Det.
2/9 RW at Edwards and have been flying about one training mission a week.

In article <4gdgh3$3...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) writes:
|> useneta1.news.prodigy.com> <4gd42i$f...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>:
|> Distribution:
|>
|> Duane P Mantick (wb9...@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:

|> : >2, at least one, anyway.  The others, which they won't confirm how many,
|>
|> :         NASA *had* three.  At least one, and possibly two are or
|> : will be taken BACK by USAF and returned to service.  As I understand it,
|> : it is likely that NASA will keep ex-956 (the SR71B two seat trainer)
|> : and both NASA and USAF crews will work in a co-operative schedule for
|> : training.
|>

|> NASA has three.  USAF has three.  Two of the USAF birds are being readied
|> for service or are already there.
|>

|> It is highly unlikely that NASA will have to give any of their birds to
|> USAF.  They are sharing the two-seater for pilot training, one of the
|> others is being modified for tests, and the third is in storage.

|> D-Day

D-Day:  One of the NASA SR-71's was the first SR-71 to be refurbished
for the Air Force because it was in better shape then the others.
This SR-71 is AF S/N 971 (NASA S/N 832).
 
R. Joe Wilson
F-18 HARV Controls Engineer    NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
jwi...@krypton.dfrf.nasa.gov              Of course I don't speak for NASA
  "We all agree that your theory is mad.  The problem that divides us is this:
   Is it sufficiently crazy to be right?"  Dr. Niels Bohr

>An average civilian aircraft flies at 45,000ft on a transatlantic
>voyage, the average B52 can cruise way above this,approaching

>60-70,000 ft ,haven't got the ceiling height but i'll find out, two
>points here.
>1.What type of bomb are they detonating. B52's do carry under the wing
>air launched cruise missiles, these will travel to the target probably
>50km away,erradicating the problem of frying the circuits.
>2. A free fall bomb still has a distance to fall and unless the plane
>is stationary it would never be directly above a detonation.
>
>Apparently though a detonation in the ionosphere will cause electrical
>circuits both on the ground and in the air to be fried, I know it
>sound very much like the plot to Goldeneye but there was some truth
>and scientific research into this use.
>
>Obviously a spelling bad day.
>
>Damon Witherick
>

Back in the 70's I was about 20 miles from  20+KTon air bursts and we took no
special EMP precautions at all.  Didn't mess up even our most sensetive radio
receivers.  These air bursts took place at altitudes of approximately 700 to 1000
feet.  (Of course, you didn't look at the mushroom without goggles, so I guess
our most sensetive receivers --Mark 1 eyeballs--were still affected.  After all,
light IS electromagnetic energy!)

Mark Borgerson

----Stuff deleted-----

> As for the SR-71 top speed, I don't know if the numbers that are being
> told sound true.  The plane is supposed to be capable of outrunning all
> missiles which would mean  a speed of around Mach 4 or so since there are
> missiles that will travel at Mach 4 now, i.e. Phoenix.  At 85-90,000 feet
> it could be intercepted by a capable MiG-25 and ground crew (if that's
> possible with the current state of affairs).  An Israeli apparently
> followed or tried to follow a MiG-25 and was left behind and his plane
> didn't go above something like 70,000 feet.  The "slow" numbers they give
> us just sound fishy, that's all.

I suggest you read Duane Mantick's reply to your first error filled post!
It's not that the engine can't drive the plane to higher speeds. it's that
the shock wave off the nose enters the engine at above 3.7 mach. Which
means that the engine would lose it supply of "smooth" air, causing an
unstart.

Best,

John

> Back in the 70's I was about 20 miles from  20+KTon air bursts and we took no

Hello!

I'm curious: When were air-burts banned? I thought that was in the 60s?
I'm a bit surprised that there still were some in the 70s.

Regards
Mike

--
  Mike Hoffmann                | Pencom Systems Administration Services
  mi...@psa.pencom.com         |  On assignment @Netscape Communications
  "Cats are nature's way of helping you identify the people you don't
                                 want to know."

Cheers,

Ted

>Andrew Smallwood writes:
>>As for the SR-71 top speed, I don't know if the numbers that are being
>>told sound true.  The plane is supposed to be capable of outrunning all
>>missiles which would mean  a speed of around Mach 4 or so since there are
>>missiles that will travel at Mach 4 now, i.e. Phoenix.  At 85-90,000 feet

>I never heard a claim that it could "outrun" a missile; what's your
>source?

>The Blackbird's near-invulnerability has been due to it's high speed
>and high altitude.  Remember that if the missile launch is two seconds
>off optimal (if the crew can even figure out what that is), then the
>aircraft is a mile from the ideal intercept point.  At those
>altitudes, SAMs don't have have enough fuel left to perform a chase.

>I've read somewhere that some later Soviet SAMs were thought to have
>been able to hit a Blackbird.  (Sorry, I don't remember the source,
>but it may have been Crickmore.)  Certainly had the missiles used by
>North Vietnam had nukes, they would have knocked them down.

>Paul Suhler

The following is a paragraph from SKUNK WORKS by Ben Rich & Leo Janos
(an EXCELLENT book by the way IMHO)

"        Time and again, the airplane and its counter-measure equipment
proved their worth over North Vietnam, Cuba, and northern Russia.  But
mostly we could just outspeed any homing missile that would have to be
led at least thirty miles ahead of its target to reach the Blackbird's
altitude of sixteen miles high and at 2,000 mph-plus speeds.  Most
missiles exploded harmlessly two to five miles behind the streaking
SR-71.  Often the crew was not even aware they had been fired upon."

Later in the book a pilot states that SA-5s were capable reaching
them.

James Robinson

Craig

                 
!
                               

> The capabilities are something that I would love to know, though.  Since
> pilots had to continually reduce afterburner during flight to keep from
> exceeding max speed since 80% of thrust if from the intakes, not the
> exhaust,

Thrust from the intakes?!? Guess the must fly backwards then...

>they move incredibly fast and high.  Knowing someone working
> with VX-4 and Navy accident investigations for a while told me of an F-14
> which made it to close to Mach 4.

Mach 3 maybe, but doubtful much more... the wings would fail from heat
distortion.

> From this and other info, I would say

> the SR could go Mach 6-8 at altitudes up to 180,000 feet.  Any others who
> agree or want to contribute to these ideas?

Again... the wings would melt. SR-71 wings already glow when cruising
at Mach 3.3. If they were made of ceramics like the heat shields on the
shuttle, then yes, they'd be capable of more speed (currently they are
limited by aerodynamic heating -- Air Friction -- of the leading edges
of the airframe).

The ONLY airplane that ever made it close to Mach 6 was one of the Bell
X-15 rocket planes. Think the top-speed record still stands at 3,594
mph.

The SR-71As are a more leisurely 2000 mph cruise.

Andrew
need4...@prodigy.com

--
Richard Thompson        
10327...@compuserve.com

   Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>FQA...@prodigy.com (Andrew Smallwood) wrote:
>
>> The capabilities are something that I would love to know, though.  
Since
>> pilots had to continually reduce afterburner during flight to keep
from
>> exceeding max speed since 80% of thrust if from the intakes, not
the
>> exhaust,
>
>Thrust from the intakes?!? Guess the must fly backwards then...
>

I think this refers to thrust generated by SUCTION from the intakes,
and as far as I know, is correct.

>The ONLY airplane that ever made it close to Mach 6 was one of the
Bell
>X-15 rocket planes. Think the top-speed record still stands at 3,594
>mph.

The maximum speed attained by the _NORTH AMERICAN_ X-15 (in this case,
an X-15A-2) was Mach 6.72 or 4534 mph/7297 km/h, on October 3rd, 1967,
piloted by W. J. Knight.

Martin

In a previous article, Mike Hoffmann <mi...@psa.pencom.com> said:

>Mark Borgerson wrote:
>
>> Back in the 70's I was about 20 miles from  20+KTon air bursts and we took no
>
>Hello!
>
>I'm curious: When were air-burts banned? I thought that was in the 60s?
>I'm a bit surprised that there still were some in the 70s.

The Atmospheric Test Ban treaty was signed on August 5, 1963.  Either this guy
is full of shit, or he was working with the Israelis.

--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com, formerly ptom...@canoe.com)
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/">My home page</a>
"The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which
he has to demonstrate his superior skill" - anon.

In a previous article, ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) said:
>In a previous article, Mike Hoffmann <mi...@psa.pencom.com> said:
>
>>Mark Borgerson wrote:
>>> Back in the 70's I was about 20 miles from  20+KTon air bursts and we took no

>>I'm curious: When were air-burts banned? I thought that was in the 60s?
>>I'm a bit surprised that there still were some in the 70s.
>
>The Atmospheric Test Ban treaty was signed on August 5, 1963.  Either this guy
>is full of shit, or he was working with the Israelis.
>

Oops.  My apologies - I forgot the French where still testing in the
atmosphere long after the civilized world had given it up.

--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com, formerly ptom...@canoe.com)
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/">My home page</a>
"The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which
he has to demonstrate his superior skill" - anon.

>>Thrust from the intakes?!? Guess the must fly backwards then...
>I think this refers to thrust generated by SUCTION from the intakes,
>and as far as I know, is correct.

I've always figured that as a misquote, for in looking at the beast, it
seems clear that the high speed end of the engine envelope, it is
functioning primarily as a ramjet, with bypass air beeing feed into the
afterburner section, and the turbojet core being little more than a
preheater for the airfuel mixture. Think! how is a jet engine intake
array going to magically create energy and input it into dumped or
bypassed air? and the idea of any plane overtly sucking its way through
the air is clearly the product of too much of something or not enough
of another.  

>
>>The ONLY airplane that ever made it close to Mach 6 was one of the
>Bell
>>X-15 rocket planes. Think the top-speed record still stands at 3,594
>>mph.
>
>The maximum speed attained by the _NORTH AMERICAN_ X-15 (in this case,
>an X-15A-2) was Mach 6.72 or 4534 mph/7297 km/h, on October 3rd, 1967,
>piloted by W. J. Knight.
>
>
>Martin

Ernest Mesa writes:
>
>Remember the intakes do move on the SR-71 back about 2 ft at mach 3.
>

Dick.

In article <4gl6g6$e...@news.magi.com> Krob...@magi.com "Kristan Roberge" writes:
> Thrust from the intakes?!? Guess the must fly backwards then...

Thrust from the inlet geometry, and lots of fluid dynamics black magic.
I'm just a mechanical engineer specialised in small mechanisms, but
with a nozzle and an energy input, at SR-71 operating speed and altitude
most of the turbines are dead weight and you'd get better performance
from the engines if you just threw them away :) Intake, exhaust and the
combustion chambers would be plenty.

--
"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

 Not tuned whats that supposed to mean? Why do you say it is more
difficult to fly at higher speed?  There inlets on the SR-71 are variable,
 they move as needed to provide thrust and keep the shockwave positioned
in the inlet. So I guess if this is what you mean by tuned I guess they
are.

We've occasionally gotten to about Mach 3.23, but only on very cold
days.  This is, of course, because of the temperature limit.

--
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

Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:
>
> In article <4gl6g6$e...@news.magi.com> Krob...@magi.com "Kristan Roberge" writes:
> > Thrust from the intakes?!? Guess the must fly backwards then...
>
> Thrust from the inlet geometry, and lots of fluid dynamics black magic.
> I'm just a mechanical engineer specialised in small mechanisms, but
> with a nozzle and an energy input, at SR-71 operating speed and altitude
> most of the turbines are dead weight and you'd get better performance
> from the engines if you just threw them away :) Intake, exhaust and the
> combustion chambers would be plenty.

It actually does that.  At very high speeds most of the air (85%?) is deflected
so as to move outside the turbines. And then enters at the afterburner stage again.
So it's pretty much a ramjet at that stage.
Also at such high speeds the afterburner becomes far more fuel efficient.

BTW   Inlets _DO NOT_ provide thrust!!!!
No extra energy goes in, thus no thrust is generated.
First (second?) law of thermodynamics!
Off course the inlets design IS extremely important, and without them the SR-71 would never
have existed. With normal inlets you might miss as much as 40% of the thrust now
delivered, but the DO NOT provide thrust themselves.

(Just as in a car, the carburator doesn't provide thrust, but without it your car wouldn't
run as nice)

Anthony.