Air Launched Sortie Vehicle from the early 1980s

[Namechange User]

Or they want to keep it a secret still for other reasons.  For example, the rumors about the TR-3B, if true, are a sea change in technology and capabilities. 

It seems highly unlikely that a secret aircraft could enter extensive operational use and remain totally unknown/unseen.  Once it starts flying regularly, and is based somewhere closer to the target, it will be seen.  One or two, yes.  A bunch?  No.

Certainly there were other secret aircraft developed there that remain secret.  But they were most likely prototypes.  And it is hard to believe that there were a lot of prototypes.  Why build a lot of secret prototypes and then never put them into production?

I don't know, the F-117 was operational for 5 years before it was disclosed.  It was disclosed because the government chose to do it.  Certainly if they wanted to keep something a secret, it's possible.  If and when it is sighted, strange sonic booms are detected, or pulse-detonation contrails are spotted, all that has to be done is claim no knowledge of anything or say nothing. 

[Blackout]

I was just poking fun.  I would like for the Blackstar to be real, but I have some serious doubts. 

[Blackstar]

I don't know, the F-117 was operational for 5 years before it was disclosed.  It was disclosed because the government chose to do it.   

They were training with it for 5 years before it was disclosed.  It was public when it flew its first operational mission (Panama).  They disclosed it because they calculated that they could not use it for the purpose that it was designed (bombing) without it becoming public.

[Namechange User]

I don't know, the F-117 was operational for 5 years before it was disclosed.  It was disclosed because the government chose to do it.   

They were training with it for 5 years before it was disclosed.  It was public when it flew its first operational mission (Panama).  They disclosed it because they calculated that they could not use it for the purpose that it was designed (bombing) without it becoming public.

Two different things.  It went operational in '81-'82 timeframe.  In Panama, that was the first time is was used for the reason it was built...that you are aware of anyway.  The F-22 has not been used in combat yet.  Is it not operational?

[kevin-rf]

Do not forget the tempo of the training and the training accidents that put additional pressure for it to be made public.

As for Blackstar, best way to cover up a failure. Classify the crap out it. That way, no one can ask where all the money went. If it worked, we may have heard about it. If it flubbed... No one wants to brag about a failure.

So that leaves us:

1. It's the best kept secret since pinky swears.
2. It failed an no one wants to own up.
3. It never existed.

[Blackstar]

So that leaves us:

1. It's the best kept secret since pinky swears.
2. It failed an no one wants to own up.
3. It never existed.

Multiply by ten times.

As noted, there was all kinds of wild speculation in the early to mid-1990s that all kinds of great spooky things were happening.  But we've had several wars since then and the spooky planes don't seem to have made a showing.

[Namechange User]

So that leaves us:

1. It's the best kept secret since pinky swears.
2. It failed an no one wants to own up.
3. It never existed.

Multiply by ten times.

As noted, there was all kinds of wild speculation in the early to mid-1990s that all kinds of great spooky things were happening.  But we've had several wars since then and the spooky planes don't seem to have made a showing.

Again, I reference the F-22.  It has not shown up in Afghanistan or Iraq, therefore it most not exist. 

[vt_hokie]

Again, I reference the F-22.  It has not shown up in Afghanistan or Iraq, therefore it most not exist. 

Seems odd that when production was facing termination, the AF wasn't eager to prove the F-22's worth.  Wasn't it given a ground attack role and re-designated F/A-22?

[Blackstar]

Again, I reference the F-22.  It has not shown up in Afghanistan or Iraq, therefore it most not exist. 

Your logic is rather faulty, and getting silly.

The F-22 in fact can be used to argue the opposite--why isn't it a classified aircraft?  The reason is because it has to conduct an operational mission (air superiority) and in order to do this, it has to operate at times and in places that expose it to the public.  Therefore, it is unclassified.

My argument re spooky black aircraft at Area 51/Groom Lake is that you really _cannot_ use a covert aircraft operationally--certainly not in large numbers.  The reason is that doing so risks exposure.  Ipso facto, it is nearly impossible to believe that lots of classified aircraft have been built and tested there that have actually entered operational service.  It is much easier to believe that few things have been built/tested there, they have been almost entirely prototypes or proof-of-concept vehicles, and that they never became operational.

But we're off topic and I'll bring us back on in the next post.

[Blackstar]

Here is a bibliography posted to another list of ALSV articles:

1. Interavia Aerospace Review, 1982, v.37, II, N 2, p.117.
5. Plight International, 1984, v.125, 14/1, N 3897, p.72.
8. Air Force Magazine, 1984, v.67, N 4, p.25-26.
10.Aerospace America, 1985, v.23, II, N 2, p.50-53.
11. Journal of Spacecraft, 1986, v.23, XI-XII, N 6, p.612-619.
12. International Defense Review, 1982, v.15, N 8, p.1113.
13. Popular Mechanics, 1982, XII, p.120.
14. Space World, 1983, N T-1-229, p.33.
15. Plight International, 1982, v.122, 4/XII, N 3839, p.1637.
18. Smith B.A. Study shows space sortie concept viable by 1990. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 1/XI, N 18, p.69-70.
19. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 20/XII, N 25, p.63.
20. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.116, 14/VI, N 24, p.28.
22. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 9/III, N 6, p.49.
23. Air Force Magazine, 1983, v.66, N 11, p.111.
30. Spaceflight, 1984, v.26, III, К 3, p.123-128.
32. Spaceflight, 1985, v.27, I, N 1, p.3.
33. Spaceflight, 1987, v.29, III, N 3, p.90-91.
34. Interavia Air Letter, 1986, 20/V, N 11001, p.6.
35. Air et Cosmos, 1986, 6/IX, N 1107, p.46.
36. Plight International, 1986, v.130, 30/VIII, N 4026, p.60.
37. Plight International Show Daily, 1986, 2/IX, N 3, p.36.
38. Air et Cosmos, 1986, 20/XII, N 1122, p.31-32.

[Namechange User]

Again, I reference the F-22.  It has not shown up in Afghanistan or Iraq, therefore it most not exist. 

Your logic is rather faulty, and getting silly.

Oh, I'm sorry you think that.  Lets review the evidence....

I simply said it is possible to keep a secret if one chooses to do that.  The reasons for doing so can range accordingly.  There is speculative evidence that something exists, what and for what purpose, I don't know.  However, accountable deniability has a role here if one chooses to do that.  Seems pretty logical so far. 

Next you implied that F-117 was not operational until Panama.  Not true.  The government chose to disclose it at that time for most likely a multitude of reasons.  Yet it was still an operational airframe operating in secret for approximately a 1/2 decade.  Not flawed so far.

The F-22.  It has not seen combat yet.  It is an operational airframe nonetheless.  While there are a couple of wars ongoing, that does not mean we have to use everything in our arsenal for those wars, F-22 included.  Yet, they still exist.  The F-22 is highly classified, just not its entire existence because, after all, it is just supposed to be a 5th generation fighter with the purpose of air superiority.  Doesn't seem silly or faulty yet....

So the entire point was that something can exist just because there is no direct evidence that conclusively points to it.  I have no idea if it does or not.  Something can be operational without having seen combat, if it is even meant for that, without knowing about the entire airframe (F-117) or components of it (B-2, F-22, F-35, UAV's, etc).  Clearly not flawed. 

[Thorny]

Seems odd that when production was facing termination, the AF wasn't eager to prove the F-22's worth.  Wasn't it given a ground attack role and re-designated F/A-22?

Briefly. They went back to plain F-22 so as not to be a rival to the F-35 (which has a much better justification for being an F/A designation). There was work to put Small Diameter Bomb on F-22, but I'm not sure how far that went.

[Blackstar]

Oh, I'm sorry you think that.  Lets review the evidence....

Yeah, whatever.  I'm back on the ALSV subject.  You got anything on that?

[Namechange User]

Oh, I'm sorry you think that.  Lets review the evidence....

Yeah, whatever.  I'm back on the ALSV subject.  You got anything on that?

Nope.  Sorry to put things in perspective for you (and for you to get defensive for some reason).  Enjoy your topic.

[Blackstar]

A mid-1980s paper on different options for "on demand" launch vehicles.  Think of this as an earlier iteration of the current Operationally Responsive Space approach.  The ALSV was one approach.

[Blackstar]

The first of a several-part article about the ALSV will appear in The Space Review on Monday.  Parts 2 and 3 will have some neat artwork.

I'm using these articles as drafts, hoping to get some people to send me additional information.

[Blackstar]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1569/1

Fire in the sky: the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle of the early 1980s (part 1)
by Dwayne Day
Monday, February 22, 2010
 
Moonraker is usually near the top when film critics list the worst James Bond movies. But for space enthusiasts, the film had some pretty cool hardware and a great opening sequence when a space shuttle ignites its engines atop a 747, blasting the giant jumbo jet into a fireball as it sails away. Of course, it’s all fiction: the shuttle doesn’t carry its own fuel for its main engines. But it looked good. Three decades later, Superman Returns featured a small space shuttle blasting off the back of a 777, which also fell from the sky and had to be rescued by the Man of Steel.

While these were fictional accounts, air-launching a small spaceplane from the back of a jumbo jet is an idea that was considered by both superpowers during the Cold War. The Soviet Union seems to have studied the concept more than the United States, even going so far as to build a mockup of its spaceplane. But although both sides studied it, neither ultimately developed it.

[Blackstar]

Here is a 1983 JBIS article on the ALSV.  You really won't learn much from it, because it is based only on open sources (something that was common for a lot of this author's work--his research skills consisted of owning a library card).

Since I ran that article in TSR I've been contacted by a couple of people, including someone who was in charge of the Boeing ALSV study, which is apparently the study that went the furthest (other contractors don't seem to have done as much, but that could be because they were not as public--I don't know).

He has already provided some information and says he will provide more.  He said that the Boeing study lasted about 9 months and that the Air Force lost interest in the ALSV once they found out how much the external tank would cost.  That was the one expendable piece of equipment, and the one real expense.  Probably too much for only about 3500 pounds of payload. 

He also said that Boeing programmed the flight profile into their 747 trainer to demonstrate that it could work (a 60 degree climb under rocket power!).  And he said that it turned out that because the 747 was pressurized, the aft bulkhead in the plane could take a lot of force, so pushing on it with a rocket engine was not a problem.

I'll be following up on this article sometime in the near future (although not this coming week).

[Blackstar]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1

Fire in the sky: the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle of the early 1980s (part 2)
by Dwayne Day
Monday, March 8, 2010

"On December 11, 1980, only ten days after Hart’s description of the Air Force Space Sortie System, William J. Ketchum of General Dynamics’ Convair Division produced a memo that he sent to his superiors. Because Hart had referred to the spacecraft using tanks similar to the Atlas rocket, which Convair manufactured, it was only natural that the company would take notice.

Ketchum’s memo stated that they had sought to explore the “initial conditions provided by the 747 carrier, lifting ascent trajectory modeling and performance determination, and drop tank weight estimating based on Atlas hardware.”"

[Blackstar]

Here's one that I did not know about, dating from the late 1980s:

http://www.xcor.com/products/vehicles/frequent_flyer_and_teledyne_brown_spaceplane.html