GIGANTIC Aviation Week story, Pentagon has been flying 2-stage orbital spaceplane throughout 1990s&# Options

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It may even have been manned:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/030606p1.xml

My God, what a story -- if it's even partially true. And, judging from this article, they are absolutely certain they have proof (along with proof that the thing, although it works, has recently been mothballed as not
cost-effective).

It's important to keep in mind, though, that this thing is NOT a workable prototype of the originally planned 2-stage winged Space Shuttle. The second stage -- the spaceplane that actually achieved orbit -- was relatively small and probably very inefficient as a cargo carrier; its advantage lay in allowing the US to get a military reconaissance (or weapons) satellite into orbit surreptitiously, with no advance warning of the launch going to other countries. Even at that, as I say, AW reports that the thing has been recently canned as not worth its (doubtless huge) black-budget expense.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

OK, Bruce. Sure.

It's true. I've certainly never dared compare myself to Aviation Week -- which is exactly why I jumped to the conclusion that they must know what they were talking about when they released this story, until Bell raised those points about fuel-to-payload ratio and ICBM warning satellites, which I still find hard to counter.

I've just seen the other two AW stories on this in their March 6 issue, which unfortunately don't seem to me to provide any more information that would point toward an overall verdict on the story's veracity -- although they've certainly got enough witnesses to suggest that SOMETHING is going on. Could it be that we've actually got an improved version of those Mach 5, relatively low-altitude drones that Greg M was talking about -- specifically, a high-speed drone that returns to base automatically for reuse rather than being disposable (which, according to Greg, is what caused them to cancel the earlier drones as not cost-effective)?

[Bob Shaw]

From Wikipedia:

"One notable variant of the basic A-12 design was the M-21. This was a A-12 platform modified by replacing the single seat aircraft's Q bay, which carried its main camera to a second cockpit for a launch control officer. The M-21 was used to carry and launch the D-21 drone, an unmanned, faster and higher flying reconnaissance device. This variant was known as the M/D-21 when mated to the drone for operations. The D-21 drone was completely autonomous; having been launched it would overfly the target, travel to a rendezvous point and eject its data package. The package would be recovered in midair by a C-130 Hercules and the drone would self destruct.

The program to develop this system was canceled in 1966 after a drone collided with the mother ship at launch, destroying the M-21 and killing the Launch Control Officer. Three successful test flights had been conducted under a different flight regime; the fourth test was in level flight, considered an operational likelihood. The shock wave of the M-21 retarded the flight of the drone, which crashed into the tailplane. The crew survived the mid-air collision but the LCO drowned when he landed in the ocean and his flight suit filled with water.

The only surviving M-21 is on display, along with a D-21B Drone, at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington. The D-21 was adapted to be carried on wings of the B-52 bomber."

And:

"The Q-12 design was finalized in October 1963. An air-launched vehicle, it was powered by a single Marquardt RJ43-MA-11 ramjet, and used key technology from the A-12 project, including titanium construction. Its double-delta wing was similar to the A-12's outer wing design.

In late 1963, the project was named Tagboard and the Q-12 was re-designated D-21 while the A-12 became M-21 (D- for "daughter" and M- for "mother") to prevent confusion between Tagboard and the Blackbird family, which spawned from the A-12 design.

Testing

The D-21 mounted on the back of the M-21 - Photo: LockheedThe M-21/D-21 combination began captive flight-testing in December 1964, continuing through 1965. Aerodynamic covers that were in place over the intake and exhaust were removed after the first few tests, as it was unable to drop them at Mach 3 without damaging the M-21 and/or D-21. Increased drag caused by the removal was overcome by using the D-21's ramjet as a third engine.

The first launch of the D-21 from the back of the M-21 occurred successfully on March 5, 1966, followed by two others on April 27 and June 16 of that year. The fourth and final launch occurred a month later on July 30. The D-21 impacted with the M-21's tail immediately after separation, leading to the crash of both aircraft and the death of one of the two M-21 crewmembers. Due to this accident, the M-21/D-21 combination program was terminated.

The D-21B mounted under a B-52H - Photo: LockheedAn alternate method of launch had already been proposed before the ill-fated flight, as the M-21/D-21 launch procedure was known to be risky. A modified D-21 would be launched from an under-wing pylon on a B-52H. The Tagboard drone had to use a large solid-propellant rocket booster to accelerate to the target speed before igniting the ramjet, as the B-52 had a much slower speed.

The modified drone was designated D-21B - although there was no -21A version - and all D-21s on order in mid-1966 were completed as D-21Bs. Two B-52Hs were modified to carry two drones each and could communicate with the D-21Bs, which had improved remote control links that remained active up to 10 minutes into the mission.

Initial testing began in September 1967 and went on until July 1969, and was not very successful for some time. The first flight ended with the drone falling off the wing of the B-52 before even reaching the launching area. Not until the last two flights, having recovered the camera hatch after the drone had covered more than 5370 km (2900 nm), did the B-52H/D-21B system get declared ready for operational missions.

Operational Use
Four operational missions took place under the name SENIOR BOWL, from November 9, 1969 to March 20, 1971, all over the People's Republic of China to spy on the Lop Nor nuclear test site. Only two drones completed the flight, and system malfunctions prevented the recovery of the reconnaissance camera. Due to the poor level of success and the introduction of a new generation of photoreconnaissance satellites, the Tagboard project was cancelled in July 1971.

In the end, 38 D-21/D-21B drones were built. Twenty-one were expended in tests and missions, and the remaining 17 vehicles were placed in permanent storage and redesignated as GTD-21B. Since the mid-1990s, they have been released to museums for display."

________________________________________________________________________


There certainly *were* other airframes at the boneyard as I posted previously, though I now suspect it was the D-21B we were seeing there.

So: High speed UAVs *did* exist 35 years ago, and it is entirely reasonable to assume that a black project using modernised vehicles could exist today. A fast-dash/loitering mothership followed by a Mach 3 pass over a target (or onto a target, perhaps more likely) is perfectly credible. A recon variant (these days) might well be autonomous enough to autoland at a designated AFB, preferably well away from prying eyes (Diego Garcia sounds like just the place for both the mothership and it's baby to head for after a run over President Bush's Favourite Places). Note from above the problems with an air-launch from the upper surface of the SR-71, as compared to the more-or-less routine business of dropping things from the belly of aircraft.

Which leads us to *why*?

The argument goes that satellites can do a better job, and more cheaply. For routine recon this is very true. The key to this matter, though, is in the nature of satellites themselves. Even stealthy satellites are now routinely tracked from the ground by amateurs. Software to predict passages over any particular spot is readily available. So, the Bad Guys™ can simply wait until no birds are visible and then move about with impunity. So, what would *I* do if I was trying to remove 'em from the board? I'd lull them into a false sense of security with regular satellite passes, then catch the blighters via a recon UAV, then call in the very fast things that go bang. Of course, it's bad news for anyone else attending that particular wedding party, but Bush & Co are prepared to take the risk.

So, there you have it: a perfectly credible scenario for a pointy thing to be seen hanging below a fast aircraft!


Bob Shaw