martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,995
- Reaction score
- 3,138
I never liked the Hopper - I truly hate, detest, loathe, despise, abhor, dislike, and disdain all suborbital "launch" concepts. But I'm not bitter...
Dark Moon Rising: Archibald space TL
- Thread starter Archibald
- Start date
Crap, since your name was on one of the report, I assumed... oh well.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,995
- Reaction score
- 3,138
Can you provide me with a copy of that report? It's probably too late to do something about it, but at least I want to be aware of that stain. Since it was a FESTIP concept, I guess it's guilt by association...
Last edited:
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,995
- Reaction score
- 3,138
Is it really too much to ask to simply provide me with the file or at least title in question rather than send me on a puerile snipe hunt? I've never known you for playing coy when it comes to posting documents before. At least provide me with the exact title and number of the report, please, rather than vaguely referring to "à few results" (and I have no idea whatsoever why you put an accent grave on the "à").
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,995
- Reaction score
- 3,138
Thanks for the clarification - I thought there might be a hopper specific report or paper with among others my name on it, but thankfully that's not the case.
What might have been... a small excerpt from NASA 1970 Hearings. Gemini-B, Big Gemini, Douglas Model 176, and solid/S-IVB to launch them all. Makes a bit more sense than what we got in 1972... and the next three decades afterwards.
"One of the best launch architecture in existence today has been slowly refined by NASA Langley over years and decades. Central to it is what they call the Variable Element Bimese. There is one key idea at the concept core, and it is quite smart. Imagine a basic rocketplane that could be tweaked according to a very large number ofmission modes. It could be manned, or unmanned. It would start with LOX/hydrogen, then gradually introduce RP-1 in wet wings, since tripropellant has such massive advantages.
VEB would have four main flight modes.
MODE-1 could fly alone, but only suborbital trajectories, propellant mass fraction 0.85 or 0.80.
MODE-2 It could fly all alone to orbit, hence as a SSTO. With such tricks as tripropellant, small solids, or a additional tankage in the payload bay... or a combination of all this.
MODE-3 It could fly as a bimese or trimese, that is with identical twins strapped to its flanks.
MODE-4 It could haul expendable rocket stages: think of aflyback booster, Shuttle style. This makes heavy lift much easier, even if expendable rocketry is more expensive.
This is a very balanced launch architecture, perhaps the best we can presently achieve through chemical rocketry. Then I may ask, how about adding a fifth mode ?
MODE-5 VEBs launch separately and briefly hook during ascent: for docking or oxidizer transfer.
MODE-1 could fly alone, but only suborbital trajectories, propellant mass fraction 0.85 or 0.80.
MODE-2 It could fly all alone to orbit, hence as a SSTO. With such tricks as tripropellant, small solids, or a additional tankage in the payload bay... or a combination of all this.
MODE-3 It could fly as a bimese or trimese, that is with identical twins strapped to its flanks.
MODE-4 It could haul expendable rocket stages: think of aflyback booster, Shuttle style. This makes heavy lift much easier, even if expendable rocketry is more expensive.
This is a very balanced launch architecture, perhaps the best we can presently achieve through chemical rocketry. Then I may ask, how about adding a fifth mode ?
MODE-5 VEBs launch separately and briefly hook during ascent: for docking or oxidizer transfer.
I liked writing that last bit, because it's fun to see suborbital refueling & docking as a spinoff of bimese / trimese "single stick" vehicles.
The attached document (Tooley) in particular is a very good read.
Takes the one-element-Bimese, explores alternate missions for it: suborbital, SSTO-with-a-trick, bimese, and flyback booster for HLV. And then it the second document (AIAA-2009) , Mel Bulman does mostly the same job, except with a tripropellant vehicle rather than a "bimese single stick".
Bottom line: there is an entire family of missions and modes a correctly-sized VTOHL rocketplane could fly: suborbital point-to-point, SSTO, bimese, trimese, bimese-expendable-HLV, FLOC (third document, JPC).
The attached document (Tooley) in particular is a very good read.
Takes the one-element-Bimese, explores alternate missions for it: suborbital, SSTO-with-a-trick, bimese, and flyback booster for HLV. And then it the second document (AIAA-2009) , Mel Bulman does mostly the same job, except with a tripropellant vehicle rather than a "bimese single stick".
Bottom line: there is an entire family of missions and modes a correctly-sized VTOHL rocketplane could fly: suborbital point-to-point, SSTO, bimese, trimese, bimese-expendable-HLV, FLOC (third document, JPC).
1967
EUROSPACE PROPOSES AVRO VULCAN AS INTERIM AEROSPACE TRANSPORTER
"We started from a very basic reasonning. What is thelargest rocket an Avro Vulcan can carry semi-recessed under its belly? The answer was right in front of us: it is called Blue Steel.Whatever rocket the size of a Blue Steel - or even a bit larger -would fit. This was a very important realisation: as it guided ourreview of French boosters. We found, not one, but three potentialcandidates: with such poetic names as Emeraude, Améthyste, and Cora.Indeed the French seemingly ran out of precious stones to name theirboosters: no problem then, they shifted to women names.
Emeraude is the older Diamant first stage; Améthyste is the muchimproved variant. Cora is something else: with somewhat the sameengines, it has been enlarged from 5 ft to 7 ft. It is aground-launched test vehicle for Coralie, a stage that seats on topof a Blue Streak in the Europa launcher. On top of Cora is Astris,the german third stage. And yes, the French are planning Cora-Astrislaunches, first from Hammaguir and later from their Biscarrossemissile range, on the Atlantic coast: largest rockets ever launchedfrom continental western Europe.
Interestingly enough, all those booster have been tested andflown without any upper stages. Now back to the Blue Steel and itsdimensions, carefully drawn to max out the space and volume availablebelow an Avro Vulcan. For a start the Blue Steel is 4 ft in diameter,half of it buried in the former bomb: semi-recessed. So there isample ground clearance for either Diamant 5 ft or Cora 7 feet. Next,the length: 34 feet: a bit less than 11 meters. And it is right therethat Cora has an edge over the Diamants. Being a touch wider with thesame engines and propellants drastically cuts its length... to muchless than 34 ft. In comparison, Améthyste and Emeraude are just tooslender. So Cora ends as a winner.
The first stage of the Cora is 5.5 metres long with a diameter of2 metres; when fully fuelled, it weights 9.85 tonnes; the propellantis a mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetricaldimethylhydrazine (UDMH). The entire rocket – Cora-Astris - had a length of 11.5 metresand a takeoff weight of 16.5 tonnes. It is powered by a three-nozzleengine which has a specific impulse (in vacuum) of 280 seconds. So itis a bit too long for the Vulcan, but the real deal is Cora:different second stages could be matted to it, with much betterperformance than Astris. Overall, Cora is an extremely compactbooster that would fit a Vulcan's Blue Steel recess seamlessly. The system could deliver 1000 pounds to orbit out of a standard runway.
Where it gets really interesting is that the French are presentlydeveloping miniature hydrogen stages to drastically improve Diamantperformance Basically, whatever presently solid-fuel, standing on theshoulders of Emeraude: must be shifted to hydrogen. This has beenastutely called Diogène, that is: DIamant hydroGENE. In passing, theFrench got a deal with Rolls Royce, which does exactly the same thingon the other side of the Channel: called RZ.20. A merger of the twoprograms would be very apealing, considering the expense anddifficulty of working with hydrogen fueled rockets.
The Diogène stages – H2, H3, HM-4 – are severely constrainedby Emeraude 5 ft diameter: both combustions chambers and nozzles haveto be split in four minucule units, at the expense of efficiency.Coralie's 7 feet by comparison greatly relaxes those constraints, the result being the HM-6 with just one chamber and one nozzle. Thefrench are proposing ELDO-B, which is a Blue Streak with an HM-6 ontop; and also Vulcain-H, which is more interesting here. Indeed thatone mates a Coralie with an hydrogen stage above: called H-3.5; allin the name: 3500 kg of cryogenic propellants; inside a Coraliediameter of 7 feet. Even with hydrogen low density, the result is avery tiny and compact stage that would easily fit in place of Astris,at the tip of Cora.
Launching Cora would provide an early Aerospace Transporter capability at bargain price. Crucially, the use of Cora would place Eurospace and its Vulcan at the crossroads between Europa and Diamant: since they use the same Vexin / Valois engine. An upgrade with the french diminutive hydrogen stages would be equallyinteresting: it would be akin to a miniature, air-launched ELDO-B !
That combination could double or even triple the payload to orbit: to3000 pounds, which is quite impresssive considering the mothership isa Vulcan medium bomber. For the sake of comparison, the Americans useB-52s, B-58s and XB-70s, which are altogether much larger and faster– or both – than the British bomber.
Another remarquable aspect relates to the possibility of ditchingthe strongly-build pressure-fed stages in the ocean, for recovery andreuse. This exactly means that, out of three stages – Vulcan, Cora,Astris – the first two would be reusable, which is nothing shortof amazing.
If such system was build it would position Eurospace as amiddleman: a bridge between Diamant and Europa, french and britishhydrogen rocket work, expendable and reusable boosters. This is whatmakes that proposal worth developing.
The French intends to test Cora from Biscarrosse, south west France. Near the city is Lahitte airfield. The runway is presently way too short for a Vulcan, but it could be extended. Alternatively, French military bases of Cazaux and Merignac are reasonably close. Mirage IIIC SEPR rocket boosters also run on storable propellants: so fueling a Cora could be done, at least in theory.
EUROSPACE PROPOSES AVRO VULCAN AS INTERIM AEROSPACE TRANSPORTER
"We started from a very basic reasonning. What is thelargest rocket an Avro Vulcan can carry semi-recessed under its belly? The answer was right in front of us: it is called Blue Steel.Whatever rocket the size of a Blue Steel - or even a bit larger -would fit. This was a very important realisation: as it guided ourreview of French boosters. We found, not one, but three potentialcandidates: with such poetic names as Emeraude, Améthyste, and Cora.Indeed the French seemingly ran out of precious stones to name theirboosters: no problem then, they shifted to women names.
Emeraude is the older Diamant first stage; Améthyste is the muchimproved variant. Cora is something else: with somewhat the sameengines, it has been enlarged from 5 ft to 7 ft. It is aground-launched test vehicle for Coralie, a stage that seats on topof a Blue Streak in the Europa launcher. On top of Cora is Astris,the german third stage. And yes, the French are planning Cora-Astrislaunches, first from Hammaguir and later from their Biscarrossemissile range, on the Atlantic coast: largest rockets ever launchedfrom continental western Europe.
Interestingly enough, all those booster have been tested andflown without any upper stages. Now back to the Blue Steel and itsdimensions, carefully drawn to max out the space and volume availablebelow an Avro Vulcan. For a start the Blue Steel is 4 ft in diameter,half of it buried in the former bomb: semi-recessed. So there isample ground clearance for either Diamant 5 ft or Cora 7 feet. Next,the length: 34 feet: a bit less than 11 meters. And it is right therethat Cora has an edge over the Diamants. Being a touch wider with thesame engines and propellants drastically cuts its length... to muchless than 34 ft. In comparison, Améthyste and Emeraude are just tooslender. So Cora ends as a winner.
The first stage of the Cora is 5.5 metres long with a diameter of2 metres; when fully fuelled, it weights 9.85 tonnes; the propellantis a mixture of nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetricaldimethylhydrazine (UDMH). The entire rocket – Cora-Astris - had a length of 11.5 metresand a takeoff weight of 16.5 tonnes. It is powered by a three-nozzleengine which has a specific impulse (in vacuum) of 280 seconds. So itis a bit too long for the Vulcan, but the real deal is Cora:different second stages could be matted to it, with much betterperformance than Astris. Overall, Cora is an extremely compactbooster that would fit a Vulcan's Blue Steel recess seamlessly. The system could deliver 1000 pounds to orbit out of a standard runway.
Where it gets really interesting is that the French are presentlydeveloping miniature hydrogen stages to drastically improve Diamantperformance Basically, whatever presently solid-fuel, standing on theshoulders of Emeraude: must be shifted to hydrogen. This has beenastutely called Diogène, that is: DIamant hydroGENE. In passing, theFrench got a deal with Rolls Royce, which does exactly the same thingon the other side of the Channel: called RZ.20. A merger of the twoprograms would be very apealing, considering the expense anddifficulty of working with hydrogen fueled rockets.
The Diogène stages – H2, H3, HM-4 – are severely constrainedby Emeraude 5 ft diameter: both combustions chambers and nozzles haveto be split in four minucule units, at the expense of efficiency.Coralie's 7 feet by comparison greatly relaxes those constraints, the result being the HM-6 with just one chamber and one nozzle. Thefrench are proposing ELDO-B, which is a Blue Streak with an HM-6 ontop; and also Vulcain-H, which is more interesting here. Indeed thatone mates a Coralie with an hydrogen stage above: called H-3.5; allin the name: 3500 kg of cryogenic propellants; inside a Coraliediameter of 7 feet. Even with hydrogen low density, the result is avery tiny and compact stage that would easily fit in place of Astris,at the tip of Cora.
Launching Cora would provide an early Aerospace Transporter capability at bargain price. Crucially, the use of Cora would place Eurospace and its Vulcan at the crossroads between Europa and Diamant: since they use the same Vexin / Valois engine. An upgrade with the french diminutive hydrogen stages would be equallyinteresting: it would be akin to a miniature, air-launched ELDO-B !
That combination could double or even triple the payload to orbit: to3000 pounds, which is quite impresssive considering the mothership isa Vulcan medium bomber. For the sake of comparison, the Americans useB-52s, B-58s and XB-70s, which are altogether much larger and faster– or both – than the British bomber.
Another remarquable aspect relates to the possibility of ditchingthe strongly-build pressure-fed stages in the ocean, for recovery andreuse. This exactly means that, out of three stages – Vulcan, Cora,Astris – the first two would be reusable, which is nothing shortof amazing.
If such system was build it would position Eurospace as amiddleman: a bridge between Diamant and Europa, french and britishhydrogen rocket work, expendable and reusable boosters. This is whatmakes that proposal worth developing.
The French intends to test Cora from Biscarrosse, south west France. Near the city is Lahitte airfield. The runway is presently way too short for a Vulcan, but it could be extended. Alternatively, French military bases of Cazaux and Merignac are reasonably close. Mirage IIIC SEPR rocket boosters also run on storable propellants: so fueling a Cora could be done, at least in theory.
Eurospace - Paris, 1966
"So you want Eurospace to start its own european space program. Good luck with that. ELDO members are not even able to fund Europa properly, even less to make it fly single piece. Or maybe we should look at the national level. Italy is launching Uncle Sam Scout rockets from an oill rig off the coast of Kenya; the British have Black Knight but stopped right there for Blue Streak and ELDO. Starting from the same point – Veronique – the french, despite starting Europa with the Brits, carried on: not only with Diamant, but also their ballistic missiles: the two programs are so close, they often trade a few stages between them. If we want to go to the national level, of the three France sounds the most logical bet.
"Nope. Even if we picked bits of Diamants and missiles to hang below the Vulcan, the France couldn't fund a third space program, kind of. So I wonder instead if we shouldn't try a different approach. Space program at European level is locked ? Find the money elsewhere.
"Where ?"
"Aeronautics. Back to Europa square one. It started as anglo-french program no ? Like Jaguar, Concorde, AFVG and all the helicopters: Gazelle, Lynx, Puma..."
"You want to hijack that pot of money ?
"Sure. Do we have a Vulcan or not ? So we can raid aeronautics money.
"Not sure. Unless you want to sell Avro Vulcans to the Force de Frappe. But I fear the Mirage IV is already there, to stay."
"Nope, not as bombers. Close, but not that. Whatif I created a requirement, close enough from our Vulcan air-launched rockets ?How about Skybolt ? Or Blue Steel ? Are you telling me the Mirageswill stick with gravity bombs right over the targets ? I call that suicide."
"I see where this is going... Skybolt ? Back to our Vulcan.But I can't see where would the french put a Blue Steel or Skybolt,or even a SRAM, on the Mirage. Just too small, even with that smartbomb recess trick under the belly. But no missile would fitthere, or only too small to get any meaningful range."
"Who say the Mirage is the only bomber the French will everbuild ? Vautour is proof another way is possible. Heck our studies itactually made more sense, as an Agena carrier. It fit nicely intothat big fuselage. But Vautour is not what I have in mind. Rather,something the size of a B-58... a doubled Mirage IVA."
"They wanted this, back in 1959. But the Mirage IVB went nowhere, by early 1960 it was buried. And with the emphasis on ballistic missiles, I can't see any successor to the Mirage any time soon."
"Well... you're wrong. French bombers the size of a B-58didn't died with the IVB. They are still on the drawing boards and RFP, except this time with the French own Skybolts and SRAMs and Blue Steel. They are in that game."
"Are they ?"
"Sure. They call these studies MINERVE, a nod to the Mirage."
"But those are low level stuides only. And I can't see how an old and lumbering Vulcan could be relevant to Minerve. Not evensupersonic."
"You are missing the point. Unlike the Mirage IV back in the day, there is a whole side of Minerve that is not supersonic: not at all. They can afford that because Minerve is mostly concerned withstand-off airborne missiles: ballistic and cruise ones; to be firedaway from the target. So there are very slow platform considered,such as Breguet Project 1190. A modified Atlantic."
"The... maritime patrol aircraft ? You're just kidding me."
"Hell no. It might be agonizingly slow, the Atlantic has colossal range, almost ten thousand miles. So, see ? A Vulcan may have a chance. By the way, it is a nice middleground between a Mirage and a Concorde... the french ballistic missiles are all made of three essential building blocks: P-16, P10 and P-4. The "P"stands for solid fuel, because poudre = powder. The numbers are justthe mass of solid-fuel. Same for the liquid stage, Eurpa Coraliestage 2 is also called L-10, and Diamant booster is a L-17. Most of these building blocks are small enough to fit under a Vulcan. Andthat's the exciting thing: our Vulcan can air-launch, indifferently, the two sides of the French space program. It is just the right size for that. Imagine, if we made the French a Minerve proposal where the aircraft is off-the-shelf (a Vulcan) and so are the rockets hanged below its belly – their own boosters, military,civilian, or mixed. Check the sheer amount of French launcher proposals those days: Diamant, Regent, Vulcain, Turquoise, Diogene,Carmen, Bacchus... it is just a matter of finding the right combination for our Vulcan."
...
Eurospace Vulcan had matured, and turned into a very interesting proposal.
"It is mostly a matter of hanging a ten-ton booster belowthe Vulcan. That booster, we find it in France; there are actuallytwo of them. On the civilian side, Coralie – L10 – gets you notonly an entry ticket into the Europa program, but also into Diamant;as the Vexin engine is essentially the same. So, Vulcan plus Coralie,but that's not enough to lift anything into orbit. And there – wehave to paths, essentially ELDO-A and ELDO-B related. The Vulcan,somewhat, picks the role of the Blue Streak ! While performance isobviously lower, flexibility is a major advantage.
The Vulcan / ELDO-A hybrid features all three Europa II upperstages: Coralie-Astris-PAS. Could work in parallel with the Frenchtesting the same combination out of their Biscarrosse missile testbase: Cora and Vempa, give or take. This is called VUELO, the spanishword for "flying" and a combination of Vulcan and ELDO:VUlcan EuropeanLauncher Organization.
Next the Vulcan borrows ELDO-B HM-4 high energy hydrogen stage,mating it to Coralie. The French shortened Diamant-Hydrogene inDIOGENE; it dawned on us that Europa and hydrogene could be calledEUGENE. Interestingly enough the French had a rocket project matingCoralie to an hydrogene stage: it was called Vulcain, which is almostto good to be true and provided a very perfect name.
Finally, we are also discussing with the French military, andthere, solid-fuel is mandatory. Which is hardly an issue, as the socalled P10 is the essential building block of both french IRBMs andSLBMs. They are, presently, the S-2 and the M-2: hidden inside thePlateau d'Albion underground base and the Redoutable classsubmarines.
The P10 evenly matches a L10 Coralie, dimensions and performancewise: just like Titan II and Minuteman, the two propulsion system arecomplementary. The French have methodically build solid-fuel stages,somewhat like LEGO blocks. Those stages are not only common to theS-2 and M-2: Diamant also use them... and Europa: the PAS is a memberof that extended family. Hence the French have solid fuel stages spanning SLBMs, IRBMs, small and medium civilian boosters. Thanks to that remarquable factoid, it is possible to hang below the Vulcan a P10-P6-PAS three stage, all-solid launch vehicle, of truly remarquable performance. A Vulcan could deliver up to 3000 pounds toorbit out of a very ordinary runway. This would be called Minerve, which is actually the name of a very broad program encompassingFrance own Skybolt, Blue Steel, SRAM and Hound Dog: standoff missilesfor the Mirage IV hypothetical successor. Which would have to be muchlarger, but the Force de Frappe budget is already an enormous drawnon France limited resources; it seems more and more obvious thatfuture belongs to S-2 and M-2, mostly. Even the next step in solid-fuel ballistic missile – adding a P40 below a P16-P10 S-2 to get an ICBM – is seen as unnecessary.
Against that background, Vulcan-Minerve would provide anoff-the-shelf ALBM – Air Launch Ballistic Missile – for twoimportant missions. A Vulcan-P10-P6 could not deliver to orbit, but would provide almost global strike range. Vulcans with a S-2 class missile strapped to their bellies could be dispersed across France many overseas territories: Saint Pierre et Miquelon, French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, La Réunion, Tahiti and New Caledonia...from these places they would surround the Soviet Union. Which would have to expend ICBMs to nuke every single of these places, but the Vulcans could very much be airborne, supported by C-135FR: Mirage IV style, except with far better range. As for a Vulcan-P10-P6-PAS, it could deliver almost 3000 pounds to orbit, which would radically solves the Diamant – Europa gap. And since the French seems to be more and more interested in spysats...
Those are (Vulcan) Minerve tentative military missions. On the civilian front, the prospects are equally exciting. Testing and air-launching of all three Europa II upper stages has already been mentionned. VUELO would consolidate Cora and Vempa under the sameVulcan mothership, and solve Biscarrosse range issues.
Finally, L10 and P10 have one interesting characteristic incommon: they are strongly build, and as such could very much be parachuted in the ocean for recovery, refurbishment, and reuse. And since the Vulcan is reusable, too, only the upper stage(s) would bewasted: Astris, PAS, HM-4, P6. In the end, the Vulcan with a recoverable ten-ton stage is a mostly reusable launch system !
"So you want Eurospace to start its own european space program. Good luck with that. ELDO members are not even able to fund Europa properly, even less to make it fly single piece. Or maybe we should look at the national level. Italy is launching Uncle Sam Scout rockets from an oill rig off the coast of Kenya; the British have Black Knight but stopped right there for Blue Streak and ELDO. Starting from the same point – Veronique – the french, despite starting Europa with the Brits, carried on: not only with Diamant, but also their ballistic missiles: the two programs are so close, they often trade a few stages between them. If we want to go to the national level, of the three France sounds the most logical bet.
"Nope. Even if we picked bits of Diamants and missiles to hang below the Vulcan, the France couldn't fund a third space program, kind of. So I wonder instead if we shouldn't try a different approach. Space program at European level is locked ? Find the money elsewhere.
"Where ?"
"Aeronautics. Back to Europa square one. It started as anglo-french program no ? Like Jaguar, Concorde, AFVG and all the helicopters: Gazelle, Lynx, Puma..."
"You want to hijack that pot of money ?
"Sure. Do we have a Vulcan or not ? So we can raid aeronautics money.
"Not sure. Unless you want to sell Avro Vulcans to the Force de Frappe. But I fear the Mirage IV is already there, to stay."
"Nope, not as bombers. Close, but not that. Whatif I created a requirement, close enough from our Vulcan air-launched rockets ?How about Skybolt ? Or Blue Steel ? Are you telling me the Mirageswill stick with gravity bombs right over the targets ? I call that suicide."
"I see where this is going... Skybolt ? Back to our Vulcan.But I can't see where would the french put a Blue Steel or Skybolt,or even a SRAM, on the Mirage. Just too small, even with that smartbomb recess trick under the belly. But no missile would fitthere, or only too small to get any meaningful range."
"Who say the Mirage is the only bomber the French will everbuild ? Vautour is proof another way is possible. Heck our studies itactually made more sense, as an Agena carrier. It fit nicely intothat big fuselage. But Vautour is not what I have in mind. Rather,something the size of a B-58... a doubled Mirage IVA."
"They wanted this, back in 1959. But the Mirage IVB went nowhere, by early 1960 it was buried. And with the emphasis on ballistic missiles, I can't see any successor to the Mirage any time soon."
"Well... you're wrong. French bombers the size of a B-58didn't died with the IVB. They are still on the drawing boards and RFP, except this time with the French own Skybolts and SRAMs and Blue Steel. They are in that game."
"Are they ?"
"Sure. They call these studies MINERVE, a nod to the Mirage."
"But those are low level stuides only. And I can't see how an old and lumbering Vulcan could be relevant to Minerve. Not evensupersonic."
"You are missing the point. Unlike the Mirage IV back in the day, there is a whole side of Minerve that is not supersonic: not at all. They can afford that because Minerve is mostly concerned withstand-off airborne missiles: ballistic and cruise ones; to be firedaway from the target. So there are very slow platform considered,such as Breguet Project 1190. A modified Atlantic."
"The... maritime patrol aircraft ? You're just kidding me."
"Hell no. It might be agonizingly slow, the Atlantic has colossal range, almost ten thousand miles. So, see ? A Vulcan may have a chance. By the way, it is a nice middleground between a Mirage and a Concorde... the french ballistic missiles are all made of three essential building blocks: P-16, P10 and P-4. The "P"stands for solid fuel, because poudre = powder. The numbers are justthe mass of solid-fuel. Same for the liquid stage, Eurpa Coraliestage 2 is also called L-10, and Diamant booster is a L-17. Most of these building blocks are small enough to fit under a Vulcan. Andthat's the exciting thing: our Vulcan can air-launch, indifferently, the two sides of the French space program. It is just the right size for that. Imagine, if we made the French a Minerve proposal where the aircraft is off-the-shelf (a Vulcan) and so are the rockets hanged below its belly – their own boosters, military,civilian, or mixed. Check the sheer amount of French launcher proposals those days: Diamant, Regent, Vulcain, Turquoise, Diogene,Carmen, Bacchus... it is just a matter of finding the right combination for our Vulcan."
...
Eurospace Vulcan had matured, and turned into a very interesting proposal.
"It is mostly a matter of hanging a ten-ton booster belowthe Vulcan. That booster, we find it in France; there are actuallytwo of them. On the civilian side, Coralie – L10 – gets you notonly an entry ticket into the Europa program, but also into Diamant;as the Vexin engine is essentially the same. So, Vulcan plus Coralie,but that's not enough to lift anything into orbit. And there – wehave to paths, essentially ELDO-A and ELDO-B related. The Vulcan,somewhat, picks the role of the Blue Streak ! While performance isobviously lower, flexibility is a major advantage.
The Vulcan / ELDO-A hybrid features all three Europa II upperstages: Coralie-Astris-PAS. Could work in parallel with the Frenchtesting the same combination out of their Biscarrosse missile testbase: Cora and Vempa, give or take. This is called VUELO, the spanishword for "flying" and a combination of Vulcan and ELDO:VUlcan EuropeanLauncher Organization.
Next the Vulcan borrows ELDO-B HM-4 high energy hydrogen stage,mating it to Coralie. The French shortened Diamant-Hydrogene inDIOGENE; it dawned on us that Europa and hydrogene could be calledEUGENE. Interestingly enough the French had a rocket project matingCoralie to an hydrogene stage: it was called Vulcain, which is almostto good to be true and provided a very perfect name.
Finally, we are also discussing with the French military, andthere, solid-fuel is mandatory. Which is hardly an issue, as the socalled P10 is the essential building block of both french IRBMs andSLBMs. They are, presently, the S-2 and the M-2: hidden inside thePlateau d'Albion underground base and the Redoutable classsubmarines.
The P10 evenly matches a L10 Coralie, dimensions and performancewise: just like Titan II and Minuteman, the two propulsion system arecomplementary. The French have methodically build solid-fuel stages,somewhat like LEGO blocks. Those stages are not only common to theS-2 and M-2: Diamant also use them... and Europa: the PAS is a memberof that extended family. Hence the French have solid fuel stages spanning SLBMs, IRBMs, small and medium civilian boosters. Thanks to that remarquable factoid, it is possible to hang below the Vulcan a P10-P6-PAS three stage, all-solid launch vehicle, of truly remarquable performance. A Vulcan could deliver up to 3000 pounds toorbit out of a very ordinary runway. This would be called Minerve, which is actually the name of a very broad program encompassingFrance own Skybolt, Blue Steel, SRAM and Hound Dog: standoff missilesfor the Mirage IV hypothetical successor. Which would have to be muchlarger, but the Force de Frappe budget is already an enormous drawnon France limited resources; it seems more and more obvious thatfuture belongs to S-2 and M-2, mostly. Even the next step in solid-fuel ballistic missile – adding a P40 below a P16-P10 S-2 to get an ICBM – is seen as unnecessary.
Against that background, Vulcan-Minerve would provide anoff-the-shelf ALBM – Air Launch Ballistic Missile – for twoimportant missions. A Vulcan-P10-P6 could not deliver to orbit, but would provide almost global strike range. Vulcans with a S-2 class missile strapped to their bellies could be dispersed across France many overseas territories: Saint Pierre et Miquelon, French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, La Réunion, Tahiti and New Caledonia...from these places they would surround the Soviet Union. Which would have to expend ICBMs to nuke every single of these places, but the Vulcans could very much be airborne, supported by C-135FR: Mirage IV style, except with far better range. As for a Vulcan-P10-P6-PAS, it could deliver almost 3000 pounds to orbit, which would radically solves the Diamant – Europa gap. And since the French seems to be more and more interested in spysats...
Those are (Vulcan) Minerve tentative military missions. On the civilian front, the prospects are equally exciting. Testing and air-launching of all three Europa II upper stages has already been mentionned. VUELO would consolidate Cora and Vempa under the sameVulcan mothership, and solve Biscarrosse range issues.
Finally, L10 and P10 have one interesting characteristic incommon: they are strongly build, and as such could very much be parachuted in the ocean for recovery, refurbishment, and reuse. And since the Vulcan is reusable, too, only the upper stage(s) would bewasted: Astris, PAS, HM-4, P6. In the end, the Vulcan with a recoverable ten-ton stage is a mostly reusable launch system !
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,024
- Reaction score
- 9,410
from old version of Alternate history, but it Match the post on Avro Vulcan als rocket launcher
"Great minds think alike"
Eurospace – Paris.
1965
"We got a briefing on Force de Frappe and Minerve" Air Liquide CEO and Eurospace founder Jean Delorme said. "The steering committee to supervise the ground-to-ground missiles is called the Comité Athena and has been created recently: on 29 May 1964. The committee Coelacanthe, created on 21 June 1962 covers the submarine launched missiles. Finally is the committee Minerve, established for the composite aircraft and missile only in May 1962.
The four Minerve missions that had to be fulfilled are:
-high-altitude launch of a gliding missile, separation at Mach 1.5. This is called Minerve 1a.
-the same operation but with a ballistic missile - Minerve 1b.
-carriage of a ballistic missile with separation at low altitude and Mach 1.5: Minerve 2a.
-an aerodynamic flying missile with a low altitude separation at Mach 0.5: Minerve 2b.
By november 1963 the Minerve programme was downgraded with the abandonment of specifically designed supersonic large bombers in favour of variants of known aircraft. They are: the Breguet Br 1190/91 - derived from the Atlantic; the Dassault Mirage IV, Sud Aviation Super Caravelle (that is: Concorde) and the C-160 Transall military cargo from Nord Aviation.
In the end, the Mirage IVA october 1964 IOC in Mont de Marsan, plus rapid progresses of Coelacanthe and Athena committees, had Minerve cancelled the next year.
Now folks, how about bringing back Minerve 1b on the cheap and off the shelf ? It starts with the Vulcan, which checks the box of an existing aircraft as much as an Atlantic, a Transall, or the coming Concorde. Then the rockets are off the shelf. What is truly remarquable is how the basic P10 solid-fuel booster stage is a common building block to Athena's S-2 IRBMs; Coelacanthe's M-1 SLBM; plus the Super Diamant and Hyper Diamant launch vehicle proposals. That's remarquable.
This means that if we hang the correct all-solid Diamant below our Vulcan, we bring together: Diamant, S-2, M-1 and Minerve. No less ! Plus the Vulcan has Olympus engines similar to Concorde's, so this may eventually helps maintenance costs. In fact the Vulcan fills a gap between a Mirage IV and a Concorde: much like the launch vehicle fills a gap between Diamant and Europa. This is awesome."
…
By late 1965 Eurospace bold proposal to hang rockets below a Vulcan went in overdrive.
"All of sudden it was as if everybody and his dog had a booster to hang in place of the Blue Steel cruise missile." Jean Delorme later said. "Within the span of a few weeks, it was like a Cambrian explosion: it rained proposals from both sides of the Channel. The British, quite logically, were interested: they had created the Vulcan in the first place after all. The Blue Steel was a rather enormous cruise missile, 34 feet long and four feet in diameter. Plus it was rocket powered, so in a sense, it was a perfect template: whatever was smaller than it, fit the Vulcan belly and tall undercarriage.
And so the madness began.
We French reviewed solid-fuel ballistic missiles, Diamant, and Coralie. Then the British did the same: they were startled to realize a Polaris A3 fit in place of a Blue Steel: it was actually shorter ! The Americans were already there, with TOWN HALL air-launching Polaris from a B-58 Hustler belly pylon.
But the British besides Polaris and Blue Streak had a third venue to rocketry: the Black Knight: their very own Veronique. Much like Veronique led to Diamant, Black Knight could create an orbital launcher. Plus, hydrogen peroxide and kerosene were an extremely dense propellant combination, hence the resulting booster would be extremely compact.
David Andrews at Hawker Siddeley loved the idea, hired a youngster with the name of David Ashford, and together they noted the Blue Steel own rocket and combustion chambers would be almost perfect. Andrews designed a three stage launch vehicles that tightfully maxed out the Vulcan payload and ground clearance. It was a very exciting time: our concept of an interim aerospace transporter could be funded through ELDO, french, or british space program; civilian or military; aeronautics and space."
Eurospace – Paris.
1965
"We got a briefing on Force de Frappe and Minerve" Air Liquide CEO and Eurospace founder Jean Delorme said. "The steering committee to supervise the ground-to-ground missiles is called the Comité Athena and has been created recently: on 29 May 1964. The committee Coelacanthe, created on 21 June 1962 covers the submarine launched missiles. Finally is the committee Minerve, established for the composite aircraft and missile only in May 1962.
The four Minerve missions that had to be fulfilled are:
-high-altitude launch of a gliding missile, separation at Mach 1.5. This is called Minerve 1a.
-the same operation but with a ballistic missile - Minerve 1b.
-carriage of a ballistic missile with separation at low altitude and Mach 1.5: Minerve 2a.
-an aerodynamic flying missile with a low altitude separation at Mach 0.5: Minerve 2b.
By november 1963 the Minerve programme was downgraded with the abandonment of specifically designed supersonic large bombers in favour of variants of known aircraft. They are: the Breguet Br 1190/91 - derived from the Atlantic; the Dassault Mirage IV, Sud Aviation Super Caravelle (that is: Concorde) and the C-160 Transall military cargo from Nord Aviation.
In the end, the Mirage IVA october 1964 IOC in Mont de Marsan, plus rapid progresses of Coelacanthe and Athena committees, had Minerve cancelled the next year.
Now folks, how about bringing back Minerve 1b on the cheap and off the shelf ? It starts with the Vulcan, which checks the box of an existing aircraft as much as an Atlantic, a Transall, or the coming Concorde. Then the rockets are off the shelf. What is truly remarquable is how the basic P10 solid-fuel booster stage is a common building block to Athena's S-2 IRBMs; Coelacanthe's M-1 SLBM; plus the Super Diamant and Hyper Diamant launch vehicle proposals. That's remarquable.
This means that if we hang the correct all-solid Diamant below our Vulcan, we bring together: Diamant, S-2, M-1 and Minerve. No less ! Plus the Vulcan has Olympus engines similar to Concorde's, so this may eventually helps maintenance costs. In fact the Vulcan fills a gap between a Mirage IV and a Concorde: much like the launch vehicle fills a gap between Diamant and Europa. This is awesome."
…
By late 1965 Eurospace bold proposal to hang rockets below a Vulcan went in overdrive.
"All of sudden it was as if everybody and his dog had a booster to hang in place of the Blue Steel cruise missile." Jean Delorme later said. "Within the span of a few weeks, it was like a Cambrian explosion: it rained proposals from both sides of the Channel. The British, quite logically, were interested: they had created the Vulcan in the first place after all. The Blue Steel was a rather enormous cruise missile, 34 feet long and four feet in diameter. Plus it was rocket powered, so in a sense, it was a perfect template: whatever was smaller than it, fit the Vulcan belly and tall undercarriage.
And so the madness began.
We French reviewed solid-fuel ballistic missiles, Diamant, and Coralie. Then the British did the same: they were startled to realize a Polaris A3 fit in place of a Blue Steel: it was actually shorter ! The Americans were already there, with TOWN HALL air-launching Polaris from a B-58 Hustler belly pylon.
But the British besides Polaris and Blue Streak had a third venue to rocketry: the Black Knight: their very own Veronique. Much like Veronique led to Diamant, Black Knight could create an orbital launcher. Plus, hydrogen peroxide and kerosene were an extremely dense propellant combination, hence the resulting booster would be extremely compact.
David Andrews at Hawker Siddeley loved the idea, hired a youngster with the name of David Ashford, and together they noted the Blue Steel own rocket and combustion chambers would be almost perfect. Andrews designed a three stage launch vehicles that tightfully maxed out the Vulcan payload and ground clearance. It was a very exciting time: our concept of an interim aerospace transporter could be funded through ELDO, french, or british space program; civilian or military; aeronautics and space."
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
(all the expletives deleted) YUCK!
Hydrazine is the most evil fuel known to man! It is acutely toxic, chronically toxic, carcinogenic even to states other than California, hypergolic, and a monopropellant. If you are lucky, that stuff will just blow up in your face...
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
An empty Titan is under 20,000lbs?
Nice to see somebody catching up like that.
-Titan II has the all time record for propellant mass fraction, particularly the first stage. Out of 117 tons on the pad, 96% is propellants in the tanks. The tanks and rocket around the props are a paltry 4%. 60 years later Musk Starship barely matches that record. So the empty stage is less than 5 metric tons.
-Yes hydrazine is a bastard stuff, no question about it. Note that the F-16 APU uses it, also the Mirage III SEPR additional rocket. Also Bullpup missiles, which propulsion system was sealed and containerized. So at a military base it could be done, at least in theory.
Plus "crazy Ivan" had every single of its ballistic missiles, including SLBMs, running on storables (R-27 R-29 R-16 R-36...) Until the RT- and Topol series, post 1975-80.
This story is a kind of tribute to the sheer goodness of the Titan IIIB - Titan and Agena. They were amazing rockets.
-Titan II has the all time record for propellant mass fraction, particularly the first stage. Out of 117 tons on the pad, 96% is propellants in the tanks. The tanks and rocket around the props are a paltry 4%. 60 years later Musk Starship barely matches that record. So the empty stage is less than 5 metric tons.
-Yes hydrazine is a bastard stuff, no question about it. Note that the F-16 APU uses it, also the Mirage III SEPR additional rocket. Also Bullpup missiles, which propulsion system was sealed and containerized. So at a military base it could be done, at least in theory.
Plus "crazy Ivan" had every single of its ballistic missiles, including SLBMs, running on storables (R-27 R-29 R-16 R-36...) Until the RT- and Topol series, post 1975-80.
This story is a kind of tribute to the sheer goodness of the Titan IIIB - Titan and Agena. They were amazing rockets.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,754
- Reaction score
- 4,380
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
Ah, I see you too have found Doctor Lowe's blog.
He turns positively poetic when it comes to chemicals attempting to separate your atoms from one another...
He sounds like John Clarke and his legendary book "Ignition !". When he discuss such gentle substances as boron fuels and fluorine, also beryllium. He has that almost legendary punchline (quoting from memory) "In case of a leak, the solution is - a good pair of running shoes". Also the Me-163 and its storable props that combusted everything: the plane, the pilot, and the mechanics.
Such nicely named substances as "red fuming acid" (sounds as if the thing is fuming in anger, turning red) and the aptly named FOOF - sounds like the noise of a flashpoint explosion.
FOOOOOF !!! - there goes the rocket, the pad, and any lifeform within 1 km radius.
Also the Me-163 and its storable props that combusted everything: the plane, the pilot, and the mechanics.Such nicely named substances as "red fuming acid" (sounds as if the thing is fuming in anger, turning red) and the aptly named FOOF - sounds like the noise of a flashpoint explosion.
FOOOOOF !!! - there goes the rocket, the pad, and any lifeform within 1 km radius.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
Doc Lowe inspired me to get my own (pdf) copy of "Ignition!"He sounds like John Clarke and his legendary book "Ignition !". When he discuss such gentle substances as boron fuels and fluorine, also beryllium. He has that almost legendary punchline (quoting from memory) "In case of a leak, the solution is - a good pair of running shoes".
Such nicely named substances as "red fuming acid" (sounds as if the thing is fuming in anger, turning red) and the aptly named FOOF - sounds like the noise of a flashpoint explosion.
FOOOOOF !!! - there goes the rocket, the pad, and any lifeform within 1 km radius.
Meanwhile, I'm polishing that story, which has ballooned to a truly epic size... someday I may publish it as an e-book, via Amazon or (better) Publishdrive. But it needs to be trimmed and improved, and it is like Sysiphus and his goddamn rock...
https://account.publishdrive.com/login
https://account.publishdrive.com/login
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
I'm just seeing the login page for Publishdrive, were you intending to point to somewhere else?
August 1967
Over the last few months Eurospace's Vulcan aircraftt has taken a central role in European rocketry; by large. This is due to the smart and hard work of the organization members. They have opened an interesting Pandora box. At the ELDO ministerial conference in Rome in July 1967, Eurospace director Jean Delorme has taken the bull by the horns. Delorme asked the delegates, point blank, the following questions:
Should the British hang a Polaris below their bomber, replacing the Blue Steel ?
Should the French military hang a S-2 or a M-1 missile and adopt the Vulcan for Minerve?
Could the above two ideas made one ?
Should the British go ahead with the so-called Black Arrow rocket, and then air-launch it ?
Should a Diamant or Coralie booster be air launched ?
Should ELDO use the Vulcan to flight test Coralie-Astris-PAS, that is Europa II upper stages ?
Should ELDO use the Vulcan to preserve ELDO-B1 H5.5 hydrogen stage ?
Should the Italians hang a Scout rocket to the bomber ?
Delorme added that Eurospace Vulcan could do all these missions with few if none modifications. He insisted this made it an early step toward the Aerospace Transporter, Concorde being the second step.
Over the last few months Eurospace's Vulcan aircraftt has taken a central role in European rocketry; by large. This is due to the smart and hard work of the organization members. They have opened an interesting Pandora box. At the ELDO ministerial conference in Rome in July 1967, Eurospace director Jean Delorme has taken the bull by the horns. Delorme asked the delegates, point blank, the following questions:
Should the British hang a Polaris below their bomber, replacing the Blue Steel ?
Should the French military hang a S-2 or a M-1 missile and adopt the Vulcan for Minerve?
Could the above two ideas made one ?
Should the British go ahead with the so-called Black Arrow rocket, and then air-launch it ?
Should a Diamant or Coralie booster be air launched ?
Should ELDO use the Vulcan to flight test Coralie-Astris-PAS, that is Europa II upper stages ?
Should ELDO use the Vulcan to preserve ELDO-B1 H5.5 hydrogen stage ?
Should the Italians hang a Scout rocket to the bomber ?
Delorme added that Eurospace Vulcan could do all these missions with few if none modifications. He insisted this made it an early step toward the Aerospace Transporter, Concorde being the second step.
Before too long, the said Pandora box had very unexpected ramifications. Some of them were very unwelcome...
London
London
Lord Mountbatten was hysterical: he was almost banging his head against the walls.
"In December 1962 with the Nassau agreements my beloved Royal Navy screwed the RAF by taking away the nuclear deterrent from them. They had Blue Steel,to be replaced by Skybolt, both attached to Vulcan bombers. But we erased all this, for Royal Navy nuclear submarines with Polaris. As soon as enough subs and Polaris would be available - december 1970 -the Blue Steel would be retired and the RAF would kiss goodbye to its deterrent role."
"But something has gone wrong..."
"Like hell it did. Those assholes French and Americans got that weird idea of dropping solid-fuel rockets from large aircraft: and of course they picked the Vulcan B2 as ideal for the job. Next, they meticulously listed every single mid-sized rocket in existence: from ELDO, fromItaly, from France... and from Great Britain. Remember that the Americans have project TOWN HALL to air drop Polaris from B-58. Youcan see where this is going..."
"Oh gosh. The RAF jumped on this..."
"Exactly. They noted that a Polaris is a touch smaller than a Blue Steel, and their diameters are very close: 4 ft and 5 ft, give or take. It did not took long for them to propose a Vulcan-Polaris combination. It was too good to be true, imagine: it brought back Skybolt on the cheap,and of course it pissed the Navy and me. Which is priceless, for the RAF."
"But bombers can be nuked on the ground and can't fly for weeks or months: unlike boomer subs."
"Oh, but the RAF has a solution to that. Borrowed from the French and their Minerve program. Just scatter the Vulcan missile carriers across overseas territories: wherever there is a runway long enough in the former British empire, presently known as Commonwealth."
"I'm not sure Commonwealth nations accepts to become big targets for Soviet ICBMs..."
"You have apoint. The case of the French is different: they have full blown overseas territories all across the world: near Canada, in the Caribbean, near Brazil, in the Pacific and Indian ocean."
"In December 1962 with the Nassau agreements my beloved Royal Navy screwed the RAF by taking away the nuclear deterrent from them. They had Blue Steel,to be replaced by Skybolt, both attached to Vulcan bombers. But we erased all this, for Royal Navy nuclear submarines with Polaris. As soon as enough subs and Polaris would be available - december 1970 -the Blue Steel would be retired and the RAF would kiss goodbye to its deterrent role."
"But something has gone wrong..."
"Like hell it did. Those assholes French and Americans got that weird idea of dropping solid-fuel rockets from large aircraft: and of course they picked the Vulcan B2 as ideal for the job. Next, they meticulously listed every single mid-sized rocket in existence: from ELDO, fromItaly, from France... and from Great Britain. Remember that the Americans have project TOWN HALL to air drop Polaris from B-58. Youcan see where this is going..."
"Oh gosh. The RAF jumped on this..."
"Exactly. They noted that a Polaris is a touch smaller than a Blue Steel, and their diameters are very close: 4 ft and 5 ft, give or take. It did not took long for them to propose a Vulcan-Polaris combination. It was too good to be true, imagine: it brought back Skybolt on the cheap,and of course it pissed the Navy and me. Which is priceless, for the RAF."
"But bombers can be nuked on the ground and can't fly for weeks or months: unlike boomer subs."
"Oh, but the RAF has a solution to that. Borrowed from the French and their Minerve program. Just scatter the Vulcan missile carriers across overseas territories: wherever there is a runway long enough in the former British empire, presently known as Commonwealth."
"I'm not sure Commonwealth nations accepts to become big targets for Soviet ICBMs..."
"You have apoint. The case of the French is different: they have full blown overseas territories all across the world: near Canada, in the Caribbean, near Brazil, in the Pacific and Indian ocean."
Last edited:
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
Is UK-Polaris dual-keyed or UK-keys-only in your timeline?
Because if dual-keyed, the US would have a say in just where those missiles can go, in terms of what access controls there are to the missiles proper.
Because if dual-keyed, the US would have a say in just where those missiles can go, in terms of what access controls there are to the missiles proper.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,024
- Reaction score
- 9,410
Little side note:
This is around 1962-67
The Soviet ICBM were just able to reach US territory with heavy Warhead.
the R-36 was in test phase and put in service during that Period
but got only the range 11000 km, the improved version with 16000 km range came in 1984.
means RAF could store Vulcans/Polaris and Tanker aircraft in places like Australia, New Zeeland,
or British Guyana, Trinidad and Caribic
or Falkland islands (poor Argentina)
After 1984 those site are in range of R-36 second generation.
only solution is to keep 30% Vulcans in flight, 30 % in alert condition for immediate Take off, 30% maintenance.
Theoretical RAF has 60% strike capacity in case of Attack.
but operational cost are murder on little Britain...
You have a point. Vulcan Polaris is probably a non starter.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
In our timeline, it looks like the British effectively held most of the control of the Polaris missiles they had, since the warheads were of British design but packed into American-designed reentry bodies.
Yes, the missiles were officially under NATO control, in the body of SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe). Operationally, though, SACEUR delegated the Polaris missiles to SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic) who then usually delegated that control to COMEASTLANT (Commander, Eastern Atlantic). Funny enough, COMEASTLANT was always a British Admiral.
OK the list of rockets to be hanged below the Vulcan is mostly akin to "laundry list" and "throw things at the wall and see what sticks".
Also fun to parallel "Vulcan Polaris" and "Vulcan M1 / S2" turning the sub or silo missiles into ALBMs.
Also fun to parallel "Vulcan Polaris" and "Vulcan M1 / S2" turning the sub or silo missiles into ALBMs.
Last edited:
Update
Apollo landing sites are driving me crazy. The Marius Hills (with the 200 ft wide pit missed by Lunar Orbiter 4 & 5 in 1967, and only seen by Kaguya in 2009) were one of the few selected landing sites not visited. It made it to Apollo 15 "finals" but was not picked up.
Thanks to LROC I know the exact coordinates of the Marius Hills Pit, and I'm trying to pinpoint potential Apollo Marius Hills landing sites to see how far (or close) were they from the pit. Except there were a crapton of studies with different spots and coordinates.
And now I have found that document, with even more spots and coordinates.
Apollo landing sites are driving me crazy. The Marius Hills (with the 200 ft wide pit missed by Lunar Orbiter 4 & 5 in 1967, and only seen by Kaguya in 2009) were one of the few selected landing sites not visited. It made it to Apollo 15 "finals" but was not picked up.
Thanks to LROC I know the exact coordinates of the Marius Hills Pit, and I'm trying to pinpoint potential Apollo Marius Hills landing sites to see how far (or close) were they from the pit. Except there were a crapton of studies with different spots and coordinates.
And now I have found that document, with even more spots and coordinates.
Lunar Landing Site Summary Book
books.google.fr
Remember my Black Archer british missile ? That story ain't over yet. By a long shot.
Great Britain - January 1965
One curious development from the Black Archer studies relates to the AW.681 transport. As presently designed, it has four Medways, 6 tons thrust each. But the Black Archer studies wanted more thrust to help VSTOL capabilities: related to the planes and missiles dispersal across remote airstrips.
Accordingly, AW.681 variants were created with either the 10 tons Pegasus (from the P.1127 Kestrel) or the 15 tons BS.100 (from the supersonic P.1154). Needless to say, an AW.681 with those engines would have truly fascinating VSTOL performance and payload.
And this was only a beginning: as the British realized any missile could be dropped from an AW.681: on a pallet with parachutes. Missiles as diverse as Blue Steel, Blue Water, Polaris, Skybolt - oreven multiple WE.177 tactical nukes. There, the AW.681 ran into...the BAC TSR.2. For the record, all three aircraft - P.1154, TSR-2 and AW.681 - are in political and financial troubles with successives British governments.
What is slowly being realized is that the AW.681 may survive, unlike the other two; and steal their thunder. Related to the TSR-2, the transport would become a VSTOL, standoff missile platform. Related tothe P.1127 and P.1154: it may borrow their engines.
In the case of the Kestrel / Harrier, there would be interesting engine synergies for the RAF. As for P.1154, if that plane died the AW.681 could carry on testing the massively powerful BS.100 and its PCB system: Plenum Combustion Chamber. Of course the AW.681 is not supersonic, but it has an advantage nonetheless: underwing, pylon-mounted BS-100s would have less vibrations and hot gas reingestion; major issues plaguing Hawker supersonic VSTOL fighter.
So in a twist of bizarre fate, among the three British aircraft developments, the AW.681 presently has an edge over the TSR-2 and P.1154... and may eventually survive. Production variant would have 10 tons Pegasus engines, yet one aircraft could be tested with theeven more powerful BS.100: rescued from the doomed P.1154 fighter. Such is the aircraft performance, USAF curiosity has been picked: asAW.681 performance would make it a VSTOL Hercules - if not a VSTOL C-141 Starlifter !
All of sudden, this has made AW.681 an intriguing alternative for ICBM basing. Indeed, classic silos are fixed and thus fattargets for fast-improving Soviet missiles. Polaris is one answer to that teething issue, but it is a Navy program, to the Air Force horror. Plus targeting is still complicated, and CEP is lacking: so Polaris presently are second strike weapons: this is Minuteman last advantage over them.
WS-120A is presently reviewing every single basing concept, including the weirdest and most outrageous ones. Against that background, Black Archer basing studies and their (unexpected) AW.681 development were closely watched by the Americans. ICBM dispersal and launch through cargo planes had already been considered: through C-130s, C-141s and the coming giant C-5. But all of those planes needs large runways and thus presents no advantage compared to a B-52 / Skybolt combination. An Hercules can certainly go reasonably STOL, but not carrying a ballistic missile large enough. Alternatives are the CL-84, Do-31, Breguet 941 and XC-142 - but none of them is truly convincing nor can carry any ballistic missile large enough. Interestingly enough theDo-31 has a pair of Pegasus underwings - just like some AW.681 variants studied for Black Archer. But it only has two of them while the insistance on VTOL rather than STOL led to packs of lift-jets also fitted to the wings: which is clearly a mistake. And any larger cargo aircraft need long runways.
An AW.681 with four BS.100 turbofans or evolved Pegasus might be a game changer. It would have large amount of vertical thrust; with a powerplant far more realistic than batteries of lift-jets: noisy, vibrating, fuel-thirsty, and producing copious amount of hot gases to be reingested: degrading performance.
The prospect of a 4*Pegasus or 4*BS.100 cargo aircraft is a rather intriguing one. As far as size and weight are concerned, the present AW.681 falls right between an Hercules and a Starlifter: except with strong STOL capabilities - provided by 40 to 60 tons of thrust ! This could provide exciting new opportunities, not only for USAF but also for the Army, Navy and Marines.
One curious development from the Black Archer studies relates to the AW.681 transport. As presently designed, it has four Medways, 6 tons thrust each. But the Black Archer studies wanted more thrust to help VSTOL capabilities: related to the planes and missiles dispersal across remote airstrips.
Accordingly, AW.681 variants were created with either the 10 tons Pegasus (from the P.1127 Kestrel) or the 15 tons BS.100 (from the supersonic P.1154). Needless to say, an AW.681 with those engines would have truly fascinating VSTOL performance and payload.
And this was only a beginning: as the British realized any missile could be dropped from an AW.681: on a pallet with parachutes. Missiles as diverse as Blue Steel, Blue Water, Polaris, Skybolt - oreven multiple WE.177 tactical nukes. There, the AW.681 ran into...the BAC TSR.2. For the record, all three aircraft - P.1154, TSR-2 and AW.681 - are in political and financial troubles with successives British governments.
What is slowly being realized is that the AW.681 may survive, unlike the other two; and steal their thunder. Related to the TSR-2, the transport would become a VSTOL, standoff missile platform. Related tothe P.1127 and P.1154: it may borrow their engines.
In the case of the Kestrel / Harrier, there would be interesting engine synergies for the RAF. As for P.1154, if that plane died the AW.681 could carry on testing the massively powerful BS.100 and its PCB system: Plenum Combustion Chamber. Of course the AW.681 is not supersonic, but it has an advantage nonetheless: underwing, pylon-mounted BS-100s would have less vibrations and hot gas reingestion; major issues plaguing Hawker supersonic VSTOL fighter.
So in a twist of bizarre fate, among the three British aircraft developments, the AW.681 presently has an edge over the TSR-2 and P.1154... and may eventually survive. Production variant would have 10 tons Pegasus engines, yet one aircraft could be tested with theeven more powerful BS.100: rescued from the doomed P.1154 fighter. Such is the aircraft performance, USAF curiosity has been picked: asAW.681 performance would make it a VSTOL Hercules - if not a VSTOL C-141 Starlifter !
All of sudden, this has made AW.681 an intriguing alternative for ICBM basing. Indeed, classic silos are fixed and thus fattargets for fast-improving Soviet missiles. Polaris is one answer to that teething issue, but it is a Navy program, to the Air Force horror. Plus targeting is still complicated, and CEP is lacking: so Polaris presently are second strike weapons: this is Minuteman last advantage over them.
WS-120A is presently reviewing every single basing concept, including the weirdest and most outrageous ones. Against that background, Black Archer basing studies and their (unexpected) AW.681 development were closely watched by the Americans. ICBM dispersal and launch through cargo planes had already been considered: through C-130s, C-141s and the coming giant C-5. But all of those planes needs large runways and thus presents no advantage compared to a B-52 / Skybolt combination. An Hercules can certainly go reasonably STOL, but not carrying a ballistic missile large enough. Alternatives are the CL-84, Do-31, Breguet 941 and XC-142 - but none of them is truly convincing nor can carry any ballistic missile large enough. Interestingly enough theDo-31 has a pair of Pegasus underwings - just like some AW.681 variants studied for Black Archer. But it only has two of them while the insistance on VTOL rather than STOL led to packs of lift-jets also fitted to the wings: which is clearly a mistake. And any larger cargo aircraft need long runways.
An AW.681 with four BS.100 turbofans or evolved Pegasus might be a game changer. It would have large amount of vertical thrust; with a powerplant far more realistic than batteries of lift-jets: noisy, vibrating, fuel-thirsty, and producing copious amount of hot gases to be reingested: degrading performance.
The prospect of a 4*Pegasus or 4*BS.100 cargo aircraft is a rather intriguing one. As far as size and weight are concerned, the present AW.681 falls right between an Hercules and a Starlifter: except with strong STOL capabilities - provided by 40 to 60 tons of thrust ! This could provide exciting new opportunities, not only for USAF but also for the Army, Navy and Marines.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY - CONFIDENTIAL
The British government has been very disturbed by Skybolt cancellation; this has triggered the Nassau crisis, then the agreement to get Polaris onboard British boomers. Adding to the crisis was Skybolt very uncertain fate: as the Task Force at Eglin, Florida, will be essentially reused by Owen Gordon air-launch satellite program. The US Government is making lemons into lemonade there: recycling Skybolt massive expenses into a brand new program. This has irritated both McNamara and the British, although for opposite reasons.
SecDef don't want to hear about Skybolt anymore. USAF dream of turning its B-52 fleet into flying Polaris submarines - because Skybolt is exactly that - have been dashed for a few obvious reasons. Unlike a nuclear submarine hidding in the oceans for weeks of time, bombers can't hide in the sky, nor fly more than a few hours. What's worse, if they stay on the ground their giant runways make them enormous targets for Soviet ICBMs.
And so Skybolt was killed - only to be reborn and recycled for a very different purpose. General Harold Shoemaker Project SCOOP office has collected SAMOS residuals: cameras and Agenas boosters; they will be blended with Skybolt residuals: solid-fuel rockets and their B-52 carriers. The whole thing will try and prove the concept of an air launch reconnaissance satellite.
Not only McNamara was irritated by Skybolt troubled ending. So were the British. They were offered a participation in the new program as a way of continuing Skybolt, but tersely refused the deal. Within Skybolt new role as an Agena spysat booster, the Lockheed stage takes over the guidance problem - to orbit. Which is much simpler and cheaper than the stellar-inertial guidance system of the lost flying ballistic missile. While Polaris and Skybolt are overly similar, their launch platforms are not. Both submarine and B-52 needs to pinpoint their launch position with high exactitude to help their missile guidance. Except that maximum speed of a submarine is merely a few percents of a bomber velocity. This has a direct impact on Circular Error Probable; and makes ALBM guidance a much harder problem than a Polaris. Skybolt star-tracker and intertial combined system is overly complex and expensive; and now that the repurposed Skybolt no longer needs it, the burden would fall square on British shoulders. After a brief reflexion, they picked Polaris instead - and carried the day, albeit on the edge.
As an insurance however, the British went looking for a national missile - just in case. One that could replace either the dead Skybolt or a forbidden Polaris: as Dean Rusk Europeanists tried until the very end to make British Polaris just another Polaris among NATO Multi-Lateral Force: the doomed MLF. Which proposed "Polaris for every European nation interested" except locked through severe dual-key conditions. The British did not wanted to hear a single word about this, and got their own, far better bargain instead. Their Polaris will not be NATO-locked, to their relief.
Still, the British government requested a) a national missile study and b) a rehash of every single platform option able to launch it. The end result has been called BLACK ARCHER. While Polaris made it unecessary, it remains a fascinating case of basing issue: the same presently facing Minuteman and its hypothetical successor sometime in the next decade.
British companies truly have fired by all tubes - which is quite apropriate a word when discussing Polaris. BLACK ARCHER, remarquably, was carefully sized to fit as many platforms as possible.
British rocketry besides Blue Streak has a national booster program of Black Knight and Blue Steel legacy. The former is a sounding rocket; the later, a rocket powered cruise missile. A third use of British national rocket engines were interceptors: extensive research that spanned two decades and cuminated with the Saro SR.177 cancelled fighter. All three programs essentially used the same core engine, called Gamma. Because of the interceptor and cruise missile side of it, fuel is kerosene; but the oxidizer is a dark horse called hydrogen peroxide. Which has a few intriguing qualities compared to classic LOX and storable, as used by the Titan and Atlas. For a start it is extremely dense, which made British rockets like Black Knight among the smallest in existence. And this was used to carefully size BLACK ARCHER to the most compact dimensions, for the maximum of platforms.
The list of said platforms reads like a hodgepodge of Great Britain very troubled aerospace programs.
On the aircraft side, TSR-2 and HS.681 may have appreciated Black Archer as a springboard to save their troubled and struggling developments. Black Archer could be clung to a TSR-2 belly for release at high speed and velocity: outside Soviet airspace. Then is the HS.681 transport aircraft, in a variant borrowing the massively powerful BS.100 engine from a third (troubled) aircraft in development: called the P.1154. Beside the VSTOL transport the British went all out with every single large or fast aircraft they could think off: Beverley, Belfast, Comet & Nimrod, VC-10, Trident, all three V-bombers, and even the nascent Concorde ! Once again, Black Archer size had been calculated to the inch to fit as many as possible. Yet this is only the aircraft side of the study. Boomers, surface ships, trucks and trains (sheltering in tunnels !) were also considered as tentative Black Archer carriers.
While Black Archer is dead, some platforms ideas may survive... with Polaris, as an alternative to nuclear submarines.
The British government has been very disturbed by Skybolt cancellation; this has triggered the Nassau crisis, then the agreement to get Polaris onboard British boomers. Adding to the crisis was Skybolt very uncertain fate: as the Task Force at Eglin, Florida, will be essentially reused by Owen Gordon air-launch satellite program. The US Government is making lemons into lemonade there: recycling Skybolt massive expenses into a brand new program. This has irritated both McNamara and the British, although for opposite reasons.
SecDef don't want to hear about Skybolt anymore. USAF dream of turning its B-52 fleet into flying Polaris submarines - because Skybolt is exactly that - have been dashed for a few obvious reasons. Unlike a nuclear submarine hidding in the oceans for weeks of time, bombers can't hide in the sky, nor fly more than a few hours. What's worse, if they stay on the ground their giant runways make them enormous targets for Soviet ICBMs.
And so Skybolt was killed - only to be reborn and recycled for a very different purpose. General Harold Shoemaker Project SCOOP office has collected SAMOS residuals: cameras and Agenas boosters; they will be blended with Skybolt residuals: solid-fuel rockets and their B-52 carriers. The whole thing will try and prove the concept of an air launch reconnaissance satellite.
Not only McNamara was irritated by Skybolt troubled ending. So were the British. They were offered a participation in the new program as a way of continuing Skybolt, but tersely refused the deal. Within Skybolt new role as an Agena spysat booster, the Lockheed stage takes over the guidance problem - to orbit. Which is much simpler and cheaper than the stellar-inertial guidance system of the lost flying ballistic missile. While Polaris and Skybolt are overly similar, their launch platforms are not. Both submarine and B-52 needs to pinpoint their launch position with high exactitude to help their missile guidance. Except that maximum speed of a submarine is merely a few percents of a bomber velocity. This has a direct impact on Circular Error Probable; and makes ALBM guidance a much harder problem than a Polaris. Skybolt star-tracker and intertial combined system is overly complex and expensive; and now that the repurposed Skybolt no longer needs it, the burden would fall square on British shoulders. After a brief reflexion, they picked Polaris instead - and carried the day, albeit on the edge.
As an insurance however, the British went looking for a national missile - just in case. One that could replace either the dead Skybolt or a forbidden Polaris: as Dean Rusk Europeanists tried until the very end to make British Polaris just another Polaris among NATO Multi-Lateral Force: the doomed MLF. Which proposed "Polaris for every European nation interested" except locked through severe dual-key conditions. The British did not wanted to hear a single word about this, and got their own, far better bargain instead. Their Polaris will not be NATO-locked, to their relief.
Still, the British government requested a) a national missile study and b) a rehash of every single platform option able to launch it. The end result has been called BLACK ARCHER. While Polaris made it unecessary, it remains a fascinating case of basing issue: the same presently facing Minuteman and its hypothetical successor sometime in the next decade.
British companies truly have fired by all tubes - which is quite apropriate a word when discussing Polaris. BLACK ARCHER, remarquably, was carefully sized to fit as many platforms as possible.
British rocketry besides Blue Streak has a national booster program of Black Knight and Blue Steel legacy. The former is a sounding rocket; the later, a rocket powered cruise missile. A third use of British national rocket engines were interceptors: extensive research that spanned two decades and cuminated with the Saro SR.177 cancelled fighter. All three programs essentially used the same core engine, called Gamma. Because of the interceptor and cruise missile side of it, fuel is kerosene; but the oxidizer is a dark horse called hydrogen peroxide. Which has a few intriguing qualities compared to classic LOX and storable, as used by the Titan and Atlas. For a start it is extremely dense, which made British rockets like Black Knight among the smallest in existence. And this was used to carefully size BLACK ARCHER to the most compact dimensions, for the maximum of platforms.
The list of said platforms reads like a hodgepodge of Great Britain very troubled aerospace programs.
On the aircraft side, TSR-2 and HS.681 may have appreciated Black Archer as a springboard to save their troubled and struggling developments. Black Archer could be clung to a TSR-2 belly for release at high speed and velocity: outside Soviet airspace. Then is the HS.681 transport aircraft, in a variant borrowing the massively powerful BS.100 engine from a third (troubled) aircraft in development: called the P.1154. Beside the VSTOL transport the British went all out with every single large or fast aircraft they could think off: Beverley, Belfast, Comet & Nimrod, VC-10, Trident, all three V-bombers, and even the nascent Concorde ! Once again, Black Archer size had been calculated to the inch to fit as many as possible. Yet this is only the aircraft side of the study. Boomers, surface ships, trucks and trains (sheltering in tunnels !) were also considered as tentative Black Archer carriers.
While Black Archer is dead, some platforms ideas may survive... with Polaris, as an alternative to nuclear submarines.
Having tons of fun connecting the air-launched-Agena craze, with the 1960's VSTOL craze. HS.681: the more I learn about it, the more I love it.
...
1963
The HS.681 - as a piece of the Black Archer basing review - caught the attention of the Americans. Which soon integrated the HS.681 into two groundbreaking studies: Golden Arrow and Project Forecast. The alliance of the two made the HS.681 a darling of the Americans, their funding floodgates rescueing the threatened VSTOL airlifter.
...
A rather reasonable marriage of airplane and ballistic missile was Golden Arrow’s air transportable missile system, which mated a ballistic missile with existing C-141 transport aircraft. As long as the missile weighed 27,000 pounds or less, a C-141 could carry two and their associated launch vehicles. Similar to the road-mobile transporter launcher, this launcher was a self-contained launch platform and launch control center. Aerospace envisioned a fleet of seventy-five C-141s, each carrying two missiles and launchers as cargo. The aircraft moved randomly between airfields that American planners hoped the Soviet Union had not targeted. Because a C-141 could land at many American airfields and because a missile-equipped C-141 appeared the same as any other, planners could move the missiles virtually anywhere there was sufficient runway, and even the best spy network would struggle to know what was on the aircraft.
Aerospace proposed four variations of operations.
The first mode located the aircraft randomly throughout a worldwide network of airfields. The missiles stayed on the C-141 because every twenty-four hours, the aircraft moved to a new location.
A second concept stationed an aircraft at a randomly selected airfield for one week. The launchers vacated the aircraft and maintained an alert configuration on the airfield.
The third mode was similar to bomber scrambles because the missile aircraft remained at a centrally located air base until the alert klaxon sounded, at which time the C-141s departed for a preassigned location to conduct whatever launch operation was required.
Last, Aerospace proposed that missile-carrying aircraft fly in the Military Air Transport Service schedule. This option was a copy of the first, except that it afforded additional deception by concealing movements within regularly scheduled military air transport traffic. Total system costs, including research, development, testing, evaluation, procurement, and five years of operations ranged from a low of $15 billion to a high of $19 billion, the differences based upon the amount of time that the aircraft flew. Moving the missiles meant that the C-141s had to fly, which demanded more maintenance, fuel, and trained aircrews. This was expensive, and the missiles did not exceed the capabilities of hardened and dispersed Minuteman; nonetheless, elements of the proposal reappeared in the late seventies and early eighties.
...
Soon a HS.681 with four BS.100 replaced the C-141 in the Golden Arrow studies - with a bit less payload but far better STOL capabilities. This was called: dash-on-warning with endurance.
It consists of 150 HS.681 aircraft - carrying 150 Midgetman missiles - on continuous ground alert at 75 inland airfields. Also provided are 2,300 to 4,600 recovery airfields.
Three cases are considered:
Case A: Minimal upgrades to 2,300 existing airfields, including hard gravel lengthening and fuel caches.
Case B: Same fields as case A with addition of landing aids, floodlights, security fence, snowplow, crew shack, 2-man permanent crew, and other supplies.
Case C: Additional 2,300 airfields built from scratch and equipped as in case B.
If construction of a large number of austere fields were contemplated, it would be desirable to minimize costs by deploying aircraft capable of using short runways. Several studies have discussed advanced medium short take-off (HS.681) aircraft capable of carrying one Midgetman missile.
...
Dr. Alexander H. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for R&D, says that we are faced with an “embarrassment of technical riches.”
A key element in Dr. Flax’s optimism is that the new technology apparently will allow the next generation of strategic aircraft to have a STOL (short-takeoff-and-landing) capability without a significant impairment in range or cruise speed.
The use of high-lift boundary-layer control and engines with vectorable-thrust nozzles and increased thrust-to-weight ratios offers the possibility of cutting the takeoff distance on a 250,000- to 400,000-pound jet aircraft from today’s requirement of around 10,000 feet to the neighborhood of 5,000 feet.
Among the findings of the Air Force's Project Forecast study are recommendations to develop a CX-Heavy Logistics Support Aircraft and a vertical-short-takeoff-and-landing aircraft (VSTOL) to fill the gap between the capabilities of C-130s and helicopters.
...
Since there are only a few airfields in the US with runways 10,000 feet or longer it hasn’t been possible to disperse SAC bombers widely on the ground. Consequently, the force cannot have an acceptable survival probability without maintaining an airborne alert that is very costly and wearing on crews and equipment. The B-52 force’s current ability to survive a massive attack and then retaliate effectively has been seriously questioned in DoD by critics of the manned bomber. This criticism would be largely overcome if SAC bombers had a 5,000-foot STOL performance. Then they could operate from any of more than 1,000 US airfields, and their survivability would be increased significantly.
Dr. Flax attributes additional benefits to the STOL idea. He says, “This, if you like, would be long endurance on the ground rather than long endurance in the air. It would probably be far less expensive both in first costs and in operational costs. . . . Such aircraft would be easily operable from a variety of overseas bases, if such a mode of operation became militarily or politically more effective. While such a strategic aircraft would appear to be far less exotic than many of those claiming current interest, it might well prove to be the more practical, more economic, and more militarily effective.”
...
A synoptic history of the Kestrel program from original agreement to completion of the trials report
Tripartite Agreement - Jan. 1, 1962.
Tripartite Evaluation Squadron Established - Nov. 15, 1964
Trials Flying Commenced - Apr. 1, 1965.
Trials Flying Ceased - Nov. 30. 1965.
Trials Report Submitted - Feb. 15, 1965.
...
By late 1961, Hawker had been able to demonstrate the validity of its design concept, despite a lack of support from the RAF and little from the Civil Service. In early 1962, official support emerged in the form of the Operational Requirements branch of the Ministry of Aviation, which approached the Treasury seeking its sanction of a batch of nine production-standard aircraft to be operated by an evaluation unit to be administered by the Central Fighter Establishment at RAF West Raynham. In light of open interest expressed by figures within the U.S. and West Germany, the British government approached these nations with an offer to collaborate on the project and to seek contributions towards the cost involved. Following the acceptance of all three nations, on 22 May 1962, Hawker received a formal Instruction to Proceed with the procurement of materials for the construction of the nine aircraft. The nine aircraft were ordered as the Kestrel FGA.1, which was essentially an improved version of the P.1127.
On 7 March 1964, XS688 became the first Kestrel to conduct its maiden flight, flown by Bill Bedford. The Kestrel had fully swept wings and a larger tail than the early P.1127s, and the fuselage was modified to take the larger Pegasus 5 engine as in the P.1127/Kestrel prototype XP984, in addition to some other changes, such as addition of ultra high frequency radio and assorted operational equipment in a bay house within the rear fuselage. Prior to the availability of the Kestrel for testing, a pair of NASA pilots visited Dunsfold to perform a complete set of handling trials using the earlier P.1127 in its place.
On 15 October 1964, the Tri-partite Evaluation Squadron was formed at RAF West Raynham, staffed by a diverse mix of military test pilots from Britain, the United States and West Germany. The personnel comprising the squadron were highly experienced pilots; prior to flying the Kestrel, each received a week's ground training at Bristol's in-house facility and a week's ground instruction at Dunsfold prior to a three-hour flight conversion instructed by Bill Bedford. The purpose of the squadron was to evaluate the suitability of V/STOL aircraft for field operations, compare competing styles and methods of taking off/landing, develop normal flight operating procedures, perform instrument flight assessments, conduct night flight operations, and explore jet-borne maneuvering throughout the Kestrel's flight envelope.
Six of the eight surviving evaluation aircraft (the three allocated to the U.S. plus those allocated to Germany) were transferred to the U.S. for evaluation by the Army, Air Force, and Navy as the XV-6A Kestrel. After Tri-Service evaluation they were passed to the USAF for further evaluation at Edwards Air Force Base, except for two that were assigned to NASA.
...
By 1963, the Americans wanted HS.681s ASAP: for Project Forecast and for Golden Arrow. They wanted Pegasus, first: for commonality with the Tri-Partite Squadron; yet they were ready to pour funding into the P.1154 massively powerful turbofan called BS.100. The prospect of a four BS.100 HS.681 was irresistible. With 40, then 60 tons of thrust an airlifter the size of an Hercules could go VTOL; and a shrunk C-141 could be a STOL.
What the Americans quickly realised was that BS.100s would better fit the HS.681 than the P.1154.
The subsonic transport had an important advantage: pylon-mounted engines much farther from the ground. Considering the ground erosion and hot gas reingestion issues with Plenum Combustion Chamber technology, this was quite welcome.
By June 1963 the Americans presented the British with a funding plan for HS.681 and BS.100. Since Pegasus was already known as F402 in the United States, BS.100 got called F403. The Americans loved the engine had soon got big plans for it.
...
1963
The HS.681 - as a piece of the Black Archer basing review - caught the attention of the Americans. Which soon integrated the HS.681 into two groundbreaking studies: Golden Arrow and Project Forecast. The alliance of the two made the HS.681 a darling of the Americans, their funding floodgates rescueing the threatened VSTOL airlifter.
...
A rather reasonable marriage of airplane and ballistic missile was Golden Arrow’s air transportable missile system, which mated a ballistic missile with existing C-141 transport aircraft. As long as the missile weighed 27,000 pounds or less, a C-141 could carry two and their associated launch vehicles. Similar to the road-mobile transporter launcher, this launcher was a self-contained launch platform and launch control center. Aerospace envisioned a fleet of seventy-five C-141s, each carrying two missiles and launchers as cargo. The aircraft moved randomly between airfields that American planners hoped the Soviet Union had not targeted. Because a C-141 could land at many American airfields and because a missile-equipped C-141 appeared the same as any other, planners could move the missiles virtually anywhere there was sufficient runway, and even the best spy network would struggle to know what was on the aircraft.
Aerospace proposed four variations of operations.
The first mode located the aircraft randomly throughout a worldwide network of airfields. The missiles stayed on the C-141 because every twenty-four hours, the aircraft moved to a new location.
A second concept stationed an aircraft at a randomly selected airfield for one week. The launchers vacated the aircraft and maintained an alert configuration on the airfield.
The third mode was similar to bomber scrambles because the missile aircraft remained at a centrally located air base until the alert klaxon sounded, at which time the C-141s departed for a preassigned location to conduct whatever launch operation was required.
Last, Aerospace proposed that missile-carrying aircraft fly in the Military Air Transport Service schedule. This option was a copy of the first, except that it afforded additional deception by concealing movements within regularly scheduled military air transport traffic. Total system costs, including research, development, testing, evaluation, procurement, and five years of operations ranged from a low of $15 billion to a high of $19 billion, the differences based upon the amount of time that the aircraft flew. Moving the missiles meant that the C-141s had to fly, which demanded more maintenance, fuel, and trained aircrews. This was expensive, and the missiles did not exceed the capabilities of hardened and dispersed Minuteman; nonetheless, elements of the proposal reappeared in the late seventies and early eighties.
...
Soon a HS.681 with four BS.100 replaced the C-141 in the Golden Arrow studies - with a bit less payload but far better STOL capabilities. This was called: dash-on-warning with endurance.
It consists of 150 HS.681 aircraft - carrying 150 Midgetman missiles - on continuous ground alert at 75 inland airfields. Also provided are 2,300 to 4,600 recovery airfields.
Three cases are considered:
Case A: Minimal upgrades to 2,300 existing airfields, including hard gravel lengthening and fuel caches.
Case B: Same fields as case A with addition of landing aids, floodlights, security fence, snowplow, crew shack, 2-man permanent crew, and other supplies.
Case C: Additional 2,300 airfields built from scratch and equipped as in case B.
If construction of a large number of austere fields were contemplated, it would be desirable to minimize costs by deploying aircraft capable of using short runways. Several studies have discussed advanced medium short take-off (HS.681) aircraft capable of carrying one Midgetman missile.
...
Dr. Alexander H. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for R&D, says that we are faced with an “embarrassment of technical riches.”
A key element in Dr. Flax’s optimism is that the new technology apparently will allow the next generation of strategic aircraft to have a STOL (short-takeoff-and-landing) capability without a significant impairment in range or cruise speed.
The use of high-lift boundary-layer control and engines with vectorable-thrust nozzles and increased thrust-to-weight ratios offers the possibility of cutting the takeoff distance on a 250,000- to 400,000-pound jet aircraft from today’s requirement of around 10,000 feet to the neighborhood of 5,000 feet.
Among the findings of the Air Force's Project Forecast study are recommendations to develop a CX-Heavy Logistics Support Aircraft and a vertical-short-takeoff-and-landing aircraft (VSTOL) to fill the gap between the capabilities of C-130s and helicopters.
...
Since there are only a few airfields in the US with runways 10,000 feet or longer it hasn’t been possible to disperse SAC bombers widely on the ground. Consequently, the force cannot have an acceptable survival probability without maintaining an airborne alert that is very costly and wearing on crews and equipment. The B-52 force’s current ability to survive a massive attack and then retaliate effectively has been seriously questioned in DoD by critics of the manned bomber. This criticism would be largely overcome if SAC bombers had a 5,000-foot STOL performance. Then they could operate from any of more than 1,000 US airfields, and their survivability would be increased significantly.
Dr. Flax attributes additional benefits to the STOL idea. He says, “This, if you like, would be long endurance on the ground rather than long endurance in the air. It would probably be far less expensive both in first costs and in operational costs. . . . Such aircraft would be easily operable from a variety of overseas bases, if such a mode of operation became militarily or politically more effective. While such a strategic aircraft would appear to be far less exotic than many of those claiming current interest, it might well prove to be the more practical, more economic, and more militarily effective.”
...
A synoptic history of the Kestrel program from original agreement to completion of the trials report
Tripartite Agreement - Jan. 1, 1962.
Tripartite Evaluation Squadron Established - Nov. 15, 1964
Trials Flying Commenced - Apr. 1, 1965.
Trials Flying Ceased - Nov. 30. 1965.
Trials Report Submitted - Feb. 15, 1965.
...
By late 1961, Hawker had been able to demonstrate the validity of its design concept, despite a lack of support from the RAF and little from the Civil Service. In early 1962, official support emerged in the form of the Operational Requirements branch of the Ministry of Aviation, which approached the Treasury seeking its sanction of a batch of nine production-standard aircraft to be operated by an evaluation unit to be administered by the Central Fighter Establishment at RAF West Raynham. In light of open interest expressed by figures within the U.S. and West Germany, the British government approached these nations with an offer to collaborate on the project and to seek contributions towards the cost involved. Following the acceptance of all three nations, on 22 May 1962, Hawker received a formal Instruction to Proceed with the procurement of materials for the construction of the nine aircraft. The nine aircraft were ordered as the Kestrel FGA.1, which was essentially an improved version of the P.1127.
On 7 March 1964, XS688 became the first Kestrel to conduct its maiden flight, flown by Bill Bedford. The Kestrel had fully swept wings and a larger tail than the early P.1127s, and the fuselage was modified to take the larger Pegasus 5 engine as in the P.1127/Kestrel prototype XP984, in addition to some other changes, such as addition of ultra high frequency radio and assorted operational equipment in a bay house within the rear fuselage. Prior to the availability of the Kestrel for testing, a pair of NASA pilots visited Dunsfold to perform a complete set of handling trials using the earlier P.1127 in its place.
On 15 October 1964, the Tri-partite Evaluation Squadron was formed at RAF West Raynham, staffed by a diverse mix of military test pilots from Britain, the United States and West Germany. The personnel comprising the squadron were highly experienced pilots; prior to flying the Kestrel, each received a week's ground training at Bristol's in-house facility and a week's ground instruction at Dunsfold prior to a three-hour flight conversion instructed by Bill Bedford. The purpose of the squadron was to evaluate the suitability of V/STOL aircraft for field operations, compare competing styles and methods of taking off/landing, develop normal flight operating procedures, perform instrument flight assessments, conduct night flight operations, and explore jet-borne maneuvering throughout the Kestrel's flight envelope.
Six of the eight surviving evaluation aircraft (the three allocated to the U.S. plus those allocated to Germany) were transferred to the U.S. for evaluation by the Army, Air Force, and Navy as the XV-6A Kestrel. After Tri-Service evaluation they were passed to the USAF for further evaluation at Edwards Air Force Base, except for two that were assigned to NASA.
...
By 1963, the Americans wanted HS.681s ASAP: for Project Forecast and for Golden Arrow. They wanted Pegasus, first: for commonality with the Tri-Partite Squadron; yet they were ready to pour funding into the P.1154 massively powerful turbofan called BS.100. The prospect of a four BS.100 HS.681 was irresistible. With 40, then 60 tons of thrust an airlifter the size of an Hercules could go VTOL; and a shrunk C-141 could be a STOL.
What the Americans quickly realised was that BS.100s would better fit the HS.681 than the P.1154.
The subsonic transport had an important advantage: pylon-mounted engines much farther from the ground. Considering the ground erosion and hot gas reingestion issues with Plenum Combustion Chamber technology, this was quite welcome.
By June 1963 the Americans presented the British with a funding plan for HS.681 and BS.100. Since Pegasus was already known as F402 in the United States, BS.100 got called F403. The Americans loved the engine had soon got big plans for it.
VERTICAL AIRLIFTERS ?
As of 1963 the Americans had a VSTOL transport program with many different names: SOR-198, CX-6, and LIT - Light Intra-theater Transport. It was to fill the gap between helicopters and Hercules, or even replace them partially. The same year a joint US-UK working group checked whether HS.681 fitted any US needs; unfortunately the plane was too big for LIT. Soon that argument was swept away by a combination of Project Forecast and Golden Arrow. All of sudden, the Americans wanted the HS.681: at any cost.
A compromise was eventually found for a variant having Pegasus engines; to replace C-130s. The P.1154's BS.100 turbofan however had the Americans dreaming of a larger transport able to carry the bulk of heavy Army equipments: including M60 battle tanks up to 12 ft wide and weighing 130 000 pounds. Four BS.100s could deliver massive amount of thrust.
Crucially both Pegasus and BS.100 had VSTOL capability limited to the engine in its underwing pod; the aircraft proper did not needed complex lift devices or engine interconnections.
As of 1963 the Americans had a VSTOL transport program with many different names: SOR-198, CX-6, and LIT - Light Intra-theater Transport. It was to fill the gap between helicopters and Hercules, or even replace them partially. The same year a joint US-UK working group checked whether HS.681 fitted any US needs; unfortunately the plane was too big for LIT. Soon that argument was swept away by a combination of Project Forecast and Golden Arrow. All of sudden, the Americans wanted the HS.681: at any cost.
A compromise was eventually found for a variant having Pegasus engines; to replace C-130s. The P.1154's BS.100 turbofan however had the Americans dreaming of a larger transport able to carry the bulk of heavy Army equipments: including M60 battle tanks up to 12 ft wide and weighing 130 000 pounds. Four BS.100s could deliver massive amount of thrust.
Crucially both Pegasus and BS.100 had VSTOL capability limited to the engine in its underwing pod; the aircraft proper did not needed complex lift devices or engine interconnections.
Just for the fun of it I compared BS.100 thrust with the C-141, YC-14, YC-15, C-17 and C-5 respetive engine power. At 15.5 tons of thrust, four of them would give a whopping 62 tons of thrust. If played smart, that amount of engine power would allow for a cargo plane of capabilities somewhere between a C-141B and a C-17.
Never, ever forget the sheer, absolute horror of nuclear warfare. And how 1983 brought the world way, way too close from the apocalypse.
...
Barefoot Gen
The day after
Threads
That year 1983, the horror of atomic warfare hit Japanese, British and American screens with absolute brutality. No horror was spared to the unfortunate spectators of these three masterpieces. People were burned alive, their eyes falling from their sockets as they screamed in horror, then vanished into dust - or just blackened skeletons. Survivors were zombified: burned from head to toes, their guts left hanging. Others were seemingly left untouched, only to die of radiation sickness: vomiting blood and guts.
...
What was even more disturbing was that Cold War reality seemingly tried to caught up with the on-screen horrors. On a gloomy fall, that year 1983 a chain of absurd events led to close-calls as frightening as 1962. Except this time the Soviets had caught up with the American nuclear stockpile - and then, almost doubled down.
The ultimate result of the Cold War insane nuclear arm race now had the world seating on a whopping 75 000 nukes; sixteen thousands megatons combined: first strike delivery.
A sixteen thousands million tons of TNT powderkeg: at the mercy of Reagan agressive rethoric and Andropov paranoid agony. It would only take a single misunderstanding to incinerate a few billion people and doom the unfortunate survivors to an horrible agony.
And the misunderstandings started in earnest.
...
Barefoot Gen
The day after
Threads
That year 1983, the horror of atomic warfare hit Japanese, British and American screens with absolute brutality. No horror was spared to the unfortunate spectators of these three masterpieces. People were burned alive, their eyes falling from their sockets as they screamed in horror, then vanished into dust - or just blackened skeletons. Survivors were zombified: burned from head to toes, their guts left hanging. Others were seemingly left untouched, only to die of radiation sickness: vomiting blood and guts.
...
What was even more disturbing was that Cold War reality seemingly tried to caught up with the on-screen horrors. On a gloomy fall, that year 1983 a chain of absurd events led to close-calls as frightening as 1962. Except this time the Soviets had caught up with the American nuclear stockpile - and then, almost doubled down.
The ultimate result of the Cold War insane nuclear arm race now had the world seating on a whopping 75 000 nukes; sixteen thousands megatons combined: first strike delivery.
A sixteen thousands million tons of TNT powderkeg: at the mercy of Reagan agressive rethoric and Andropov paranoid agony. It would only take a single misunderstanding to incinerate a few billion people and doom the unfortunate survivors to an horrible agony.
And the misunderstandings started in earnest.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 10,262
So, Able Archer went wrong in your timeline?
Similar threads
-
NEXT Lunar Colonisation Program- Started by Michel Van
- Replies: 9
-
-
Original US space program without the moon goal.
- Started by carmelo
- Replies: 4
-
Zond (and the Soviets) beat Apollo NEAR the Moon (not to the surface)
- Started by Archibald
- Replies: 14
-