ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (10/28/89)
From: ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) In article <10406@cbnews.ATT.COM>, military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: [about the scrapping of the XB-70] WBT> Remember when this happened, only a few years after a U-2 was shot WBT> down over the USSR. That wasn't really supposed to happen, either. WBT> But Soviet missile progress outstripped U.S. expectations. It WBT> probably didn't to make the same mistake in judgement again. [mod.note: A misattribution; I didn't write this. - Bill ] >>>>> On 23 Oct 89 23:09:37 GMT, dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) said: DP> Was the U-2 really shot down? I've heard an alternate theory that the DP> U-2 had either a mechanical problem/structural failure/etc. Arguments DP> for the later theory included: DP> o No intelligence on the Soviets having a missle capable of DP> downing a U-2. DP> o No other downed U-2s (the US stopped overflights over the DP> USSR, but Soviet clients could have probably gotten the DP> SAM and had lots of opportunity to use it). DP> (I know the Soviets claimed to shot the U-2 down, but that makes better DP> press than saying it fell out of the sky. Probably much more acceptable DP> to Congress-critters too.). An additional point or two: Robert Heinlein disbelieved this one, too. (See _Expanded Universe_ for details--"PRAVDA means TRUTH" is the portion in question, I believe.) He noted that a shootdown from full U-2 altitude, at full U-2 speeds, would most likely turn the aircraft into Christmas tree tinsel (E = mv**2, and all that). Certainly there would be no surviving radio gear (or pilot!). Can anyone speak to this? Not knowing the speeds involved, etc, I can't do the calculation (and this is a late-night response with the library already closed). Bill? Mary? [DISCLAIMER: Boston University holds no official position on this that I know of. :-]
mark@decwrl.dec.com (Mark G. Johnson) (10/30/89)
From: mips!mips.com!mark@decwrl.dec.com (Mark G. Johnson) In article <10719@cbnews.ATT.COM> ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes: > >... that a shootdown from full U-2 altitude, at full U-2 speeds, would >most likely turn the aircraft into Christmas tree tinsel (E = mv**2, and >all that). Certainly there would be no surviving radio gear (or pilot!). > >Can anyone speak to this? Not knowing the speeds involved, etc, I can't do >the calculation (and this is a late-night response with the library already >closed). Kelly Johnson, designer of the U-2 and manager of the Lockheed SkunkWorks (and designer of the SR-71 and ....) has something to say about this in his book "Kelly: More Than My Share" (1985, Smithsonian Institution Press). p. 127: "During the period of U-2 overflights, the Russians had been working diligently to improve their SA-2 missile and radar systems. When Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev triumphantly announced that Powers had been shot down west of Sverdlovsk, we tried to reconstruct what had happened. We simulated Powers' flight mission and studied what aircraft components might fail and cause him to lose cruising altitude. ===> **** We found nothing in the aircraft or its systems likely to lead us to doubt that the aircraft had been hit at altitude as the Russians stated". [then Johnson describes the fiasco in which the first released photos were not of the downed U-2, but of a Russian aircract. Then how his outraged scoffing at this obvious lie goaded the USSR into publicly displaying the actual pieces of Powers' U-2 at a press conference. From photos taken of the wreckage, Johnson and the CIA concluded:] "Both wings failed because of down-bending, not penetration of critical structure by shrapnel from a missile. "None of the pictures showed a horizontal tail. And the right section of the stabilizer was missing." "The design of the U-2 wing is so highly cambered that without a tail surface to balance the very high pitching moment, the aircraft goes immediately over on its back; and in severe cases the wings have broken off in down-bending. This occurred once in early testing when the pilot inadvertently extended wing flaps at high cruise speed, resulting in horizontal tail failure. This takes place in a few seconds, at great acceleration and with the fuselage generally spinning inverted." "When Powers was exchanged in February 1962 for a Russian spy, I met and talked with him as soon as possible. ===> *** His statements matched our conclusions. "Between what we had deduced and what Gary told us, it appeared that ===> *** an SA-2 missile had knocked off the right-hand stabilizer WHILE HE WAS AT CRUISING ALTITUDE. THe airplane then, predictably, immediately sent over on its back at high speed and the wings broke off in downbending. Gary was left sitting in the fuselage with a part of the tail and nothing else." -- -- Mark Johnson MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 (408) 991-0208 mark@mips.com {or ...!decwrl!mips!mark}
bfb1@tank.uchicago.edu (B. F. Braumoeller) (10/30/89)
From: bfb1@tank.uchicago.edu (B. F. Braumoeller)
In article 2749, a question concerning the speed of the U-2 came
up. According to a two-part article published in Airpower/Wings
magazine, the speed would range only from 408 knots to 412 knots.
If the pilot flew faster than that, he would encounter high-speed
turbulence as a result of approaching mach 1. This kind of turbelence
could actually break up the aircraft since it was manufactured to
be as light as possible. This resulted in a fairly fragile aircraft.
If the pilot flew slower than 408, he would most likely stall. Almost
invariably this produced a flameout and a significant loss in altitude.
Hopefully the pilot could get a restart around 35000 ft, though this
was not always the case.
If this data is incorrect, please let me know.
PS I am temporarily using a friend's account, if anyone was wondering about
my address.
--Matt Kreutzmannstuart@rennet.cs.wisc.edu (Stuart Friedberg) (10/31/89)
From: stuart@rennet.cs.wisc.edu (Stuart Friedberg) Christopher K Davis writes: >Robert Heinlein [...] noted that a shootdown from full U-2 altitude, >at full U-2 speeds, would most likely turn the aircraft into Christmas >tree tinsel (E = mv**2, and all that). Since I haven't seen an authorative statement about the incident yet, I'd like to add a few (nonauthorative) notes to this. First, the U-2 is neither a fast nor an especially maneuverable aircraft (at altitude). Its virtue is long endurance at high altitudes. I would very roughly estimate that a U-2 mission flies at about 350 to 400 knots. Don't confuse U-2's with SR-71's. Second, the SA-2, like most if not all surface-to-air missiles of its vintage, is not intended to make a direct hit. The warhead is designed to generate a great deal of shrapnel, and is fused by radar proximity or altitude (timer). This means that there is a large volume in which an aircraft may be fatally damaged, but not shredded. All it takes is one chunk of scrap metal through hydraulic or fuel lines. Third, although I can't find my sources right now, Powers' U-2 had definitely suffered some kind of mechanical failure. He was forced to reduce altitude significantly. (I believe it was to restart engines.) His aircraft was additionally (and terminally) incapacitated by an U-2 burst. Fourth, although the SA-2 is a marginal weapon system, and U-2 missions over the Soviet Union flew well above the *effective* range (altitude) of the system, the aircraft were definitely within the *maximum* range of the missile. Even if Powers had not reduce altitude, there was still a definite possibility that the Soviets could have hit him if they had fired enough missiles in his general direction. (Note that at least one, and I think two, U-2's were shot down over Cuba by SA-2's. However, I think they were operating at lower altitudes.) The U-2 is barely capable of out-maneuvering an SA-2 at that altitude, but that assumes that the course of the missile could be accurately predicted and the pilot had nothing better to do (like get on with the mission). Stu Friedberg (stuart@cs.wisc.edu)
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/31/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) It seems most likely that Power's shootdown was a lucky near-miss: From his description of what happened, some bit(s) of the AA missile probably knocked out one or more major systems on the U2, leaving him without power or most controllability. He bailed out, and either didn't set the self-destruct charge or it failed. Unfortunately, he can't be questioned on this subject any more. seh ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
mjt@mcnc.org (Michael Tighe) (11/04/89)
From: Michael Tighe <mjt@mcnc.org> From: ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) An additional point or two: > Robert Heinlein disbelieved this one, too. (See _Expanded Universe_ > for details--"PRAVDA means TRUTH" is the portion in question, I > believe.) He noted that a shootdown from full U-2 altitude, at full > U-2 speeds, would most likely turn the aircraft into Christmas tree > tinsel (E = mv**2, and all that). Certainly there would be no > surviving radio gear (or pilot!). > Can anyone speak to this? Not knowing the speeds involved, etc, I > can't do the calculation (and this is a late-night response with the > library already closed). Bill? Mary? Some more points to ponder: I do not think the aircraft was not actually hit by fragments of a missile's warhead. It failed structurally as a result of the shock waves surrounding it as SA-2 SAM's were detonating all around it. (No less that a dozen SA-2's were fired to bring it down. Also, I am pretty sure a MiG-19 sent up to intercept it was also shot down in the fireworks.) This opinion is also shared by both Kelly Johnson and Gary Powers. Whether this constitutes being "shot down" or not, is up to each reader to decide. Although it may not have actually taken a direct hit, I would still consider this being "shot down". Also, I have seen the wreckage of the aircraft and it is still easily identifiable as a U-2. I could not find any evidence that parts of it were hit by warhead fragments (not that I am an expert on these matters). However, all of the wreckage is not on display. Some parts are missing. Even if it was actually hit: Many planes that are shot down do not break up into tinsel. Look at KAL 007. It took 12 minutes to tumble down after being hit. I am sure there are some big chunks of 747 out their in the sea. I imagine many of the passengers survived the initial explosion. Look at Challenger. In its own way it took a direct hit, yet it did not break up into tinsel. It too had some big parts recovered. Does anybody have numbers for its speed and altitude at breakup? Unfortunately, I missed the show you spoke of. I would be interested to know what Robert Heinlein claimed, "full U-2 altitude, at full > U- 2 speeds", were. Officially the top speed of a U-2 is listed at around 525 mph. This is often slower than a commercial airliner. So it was not as if it was cruising at Mach 3+. Those really interested in this tale should check books by Gary Powers ("Operation Overflight"), Kelly Johnson ("Kelly: More than my share"), and another author whose name eludes me at this moment but the title is "Mayday". ------------- Michael Tighe Internet: mjt@ncsc.org
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) (11/08/89)
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) In article <11124@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Michael Tighe said: > Those really interested in this tale should check books by Gary Powers > ("Operation Overflight"), Kelly Johnson ("Kelly: More than my share"), and > another author whose name eludes me at this moment but the title is > "Mayday". It's "Mayday: Eisenhower, Khrushchev and the U-2 Affair," by Michael R. Beschloss (Harper & Row, New York, 1986). Not a bad book -- it was invaluable when I had to write a paper on the affair for my American Presidency class last term -- but of interest more for its view of the political events than the military or technical details of the U-2 itself or of the shoot-down. It does mention that there was a switch in the cockpit that the pilot of a doomed U-2 was supposed to throw before bailing out. Allegedly, the switch would start a seventy-second countdown to the detonation of a self-destruct charge that would reduce the plane to tinsel, to coin a phrase (it was Eisenhower's certainty -- based on CIA assurances based on the self-destruct switch -- that there was no identifiable wreckage in Russia that led him to screw up the handling of the affair so badly). Unfortunately, the CIA pilots to a man believed that the switch would actually start a *zero*-second countdown, and, despite the fact that the CIA offered to allow them to watch while the timer mechanism was installed and set by mechanics of their (the pilots') choice, there wasn't a one of them, Powers included, who would have thrown that switch for all the tea in China. (Powers, incidentally, claimed that centrifugal force in the spinning fuselage threw him out of the cockpit after he popped the canopy and unstrapped but before he could throw the switch. Belief of this claim was not universal. . .)