Lockheed M-5 Penetrator & Supersonic Stealth STOVL projects (unrelated)

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
4 May 2008
Messages
1,177
Reaction score
536
New AIAA book examines fundamentals of aircraft design
June 28, 2010 – Reston, Va. – The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) announces the publication of a new book, "Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design: Volume 1: Aircraft Design." Written by Leland M. Nicolai and Grant E. Carichner, the work is part of AIAA's Education Series.

The new work revises the 1975 edition of the text, considered a standard in aircraft design classes around the world, and highlights the latest industry processes and techniques. The updated material in the book covers designing aircraft for survivability (stealth), solar and human power aircraft systems, and very high altitude aircraft operation with air breathing propulsion systems. The book also includes a completely new chapter on material selection and structural arrangement, with a complete wing design example included in the text. Intended for graduate students and upper level undergraduate students, as well as for practicing engineers, the book is a complete reference aid, addressing the conceptual design phase for civil and military aircraft, from initial consideration of user needs to the decision to iterate the design one more time. The authors present aircraft design in a step-by-step process as it would occur in the actual industrial design process, reminding readers that while there is no "right" answer when it comes to design, there is always a "best" answer for designers to use.

Dr. Leland M. Nicolai is a Lockheed Martin Fellow in the Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs ("Skunk Works") facility, Palmdale, Calif. He holds a doctorate in aerospace engineering from Michigan University, and a Master of Business Administration degree from Auburn University. He has more than 40 years experience in the design of advanced aircraft, including the AGM-129/Advanced Cruise Missile, F-20 Tigershark, T-46A Next Generation Trainer, and the F-22 Raptor. Grant E. Carichner holds a Master of Science degree in engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles. His extensive career includes work at the Lockheed Martin "Skunk Works" for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA on the SR-71 Blackbird; the M-5 Methane Penetrator, a suspersonic stealth Short-Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) fighter; the JASSM Missile; Aerocraft, and the Quiet Supersonic Platform (QSP) Program. In 1999 he received the "Inventor of the Year" Award for his work on the JASSM Missile.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/aioa-nab062810.php
 
The following probably gives an idea of what that M-5 aircraft was about:

LOCKHEED OFFERS LIFT FAN

Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Allison and its new owner, Rolls-Royce, are teamed to offer an aircraft with a shaft-driven lift-fan system in its ASTOVL configuration.

"In 1986, we weren't even looking at shaft-driven lift fans. We had RALS [remote augmented lift system], tandem fan and lift-plus-lift/cruise, etc, but NASA Ames came to the Skunk Works and said that it would prefer to look at a low signature VTOL vehicle," says Lockheed Martin "Skunk Works" advanced-development programme manager Grant Carichner. This was for the then-classified USMC Thunder Cat project.

"Paul Bevilaqua [Skunk Works ASTOVL programme manager] and I spent three weeks in a room going over every propulsion system ever used, to get STOVL performance. Out of that came the idea to use a shaft-driven fan."

The size, wing loading and sweep were derived from the design-mission objectives. "The requirement for a Mach 1.4 super-cruise meant we had to look for something different than direct lift. With the big fan you need for V/STOL this simply prevents super-cruise. Now we've learned to spell ASTOVL and the fact that the 'V' is further back means less is required of the engine [because the V now refers to vertical landing rather than vertical take-off]," says Carichner.
Source: Short take-off, low funding, Flight International, 29/03/95
 
I think the OP is interpreting the text as the Methane eater and the STOVL are the same aircraft.... I think they are talking about two separate beasts.....
 
It would make sense. I based this on the fact that various projects are separated by a semi-colon in the list, while here there was only a comma, leading me to believe the latter part was merely a description of the former... But of course, it could be a typo.

And so we may have the first confirmation here of something related to the famed "Aurora"... right?
 
Probably this is the M5 Penetrator referenced:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1967.msg16750.html#msg16750
 
mr_london_247 said:
Probably this is the M5 Penetrator referenced:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1967.msg16750.html#msg16750

Makes sense. Thanks!
 
Stargazer2006 said:
LOCKHEED OFFERS LIFT FAN

Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Allison and its new owner, Rolls-Royce, are teamed to offer an aircraft with a shaft-driven lift-fan system in its ASTOVL configuration.

"In 1986, we weren't even looking at shaft-driven lift fans. We had RALS [remote augmented lift system], tandem fan and lift-plus-lift/cruise, etc, but NASA Ames came to the Skunk Works and said that it would prefer to look at a low signature VTOL vehicle," says Lockheed Martin "Skunk Works" advanced-development programme manager Grant Carichner. This was for the then-classified USMC Thunder Cat project.

"Paul Bevilaqua [Skunk Works ASTOVL programme manager] and I spent three weeks in a room going over every propulsion system ever used, to get STOVL performance. Out of that came the idea to use a shaft-driven fan."

The size, wing loading and sweep were derived from the design-mission objectives. "The requirement for a Mach 1.4 super-cruise meant we had to look for something different than direct lift. With the big fan you need for V/STOL this simply prevents super-cruise. Now we've learned to spell ASTOVL and the fact that the 'V' is further back means less is required of the engine [because the V now refers to vertical landing rather than vertical take-off]," says Carichner.
Source: Short take-off, low funding, Flight International, 29/03/95

Now we know that M-5 and supersonic STOVL were two different things. My previous quote (repeated here) may not be related to the former, but it still applies for the latter.
 
Ah...the Mach 5 Penetrator...one of my favorite "never built" designs.
 

Attachments

  • HypersonicJet.png
    HypersonicJet.png
    650.6 KB · Views: 1,229
Coming to think of it, the development of a real-life M-5 could account for the Blackbird being retired from service if ever a recce version was considered... Except I doubt a bird of such proportions and power would have gone unnoticed for so long...
 
<<Except I doubt a bird of such proportions and power would have gone unnoticed for so long...>>

Exactly. Covering up the sonic booms over Southern California on recovery would have been difficult, and there's always the chance that when you think you've taken every precaution against a visual compromise, you fly straight over a trained observer.

However, one thing you might like to do (taking a cue from the recently disclosed use of Project Blue Book) is to fake documents and other sources that whip up a whole load of hysteria about Area 51 being the base for reverse-engineered alien craft. That would probably put a lot of the media off the scent.
 
In 1993 communication monitoring enthusiast Steve Douglas was monitoring the comms at Holoman AFB next to white sands. At 2 in the morning a mystery craft showed up.
On final the aircraft radioed to a chase plane "powers coming back, throttle to 220 knots, you've seen one of these before, haven't you Steve"?
Reply from the chase plane "That's affirm".

At about 2:45 in the morning after the mystery aircraft landed the following was overheard on the security channel:
"Be advised we need to secure the aircraft. Don't let anyone walk around out there, please!"

On the maintenance channel the crews referred to the crafts number as 806 and the abbreviation "STF". They also mentioned "removing the screws from the heat shield" and "under the sawtooth on the front of the canopy, it looks like its going to peel up"....

Before anyone calls "BS", Steve has recordings of all of this.....
 
I hope that the M-5 Methane Penetrator IS a supersonic STOVL type, and Mach 5 to boot. Nothing wrong with ambition.

BTW, who came up with that name? Sounds like something dodgy that the artist here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10332.msg97229/topicseen.html#msg97229

would like to explore!
 
harrier said:
I hope that the M-5 Methane Penetrator IS a supersonic STOVL type, and Mach 5 to boot. Nothing wrong with ambition.
BTW, who came up with that name? Sounds like something dodgy that the artist here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10332.msg97229/topicseen.html#msg97229
would like to explore!

ROTFL!!! You bet! Combining both sources of inspiration into one... ;D

As for the name... well, I think that what must have been described initially as "a Mach 5 methane-powered stratospheric penetrator" ended up as "the M-5 Methane Penetrator" in the words of some scoop-thirsty reporter...
 
I very much doubt that the crew would have used something as obvious as the program's DoD code or the company-given program name... Ground crew and radio operators for black programs use call names that cannot be identified that easily. "STF" could mean anything from "Supersonic Total Freak" to "Sonovabitch Tarmac Fathead" or whatever the guys who fly it came up with...
 
Searching the forums I see there are a STF 354A-20 turbofan, and an STF 561-C2. Could the ground crew be talking about engines with the same STF prefix? Anybody know what the prefix means?
 
sublight said:
Searching the forums I see there are a STF 354A-20 turbofan, and an STF 561-C2. Could the ground crew be talking about engines with the same STF prefix? Anybody know what the prefix means?

Supersonic TurboFan, methinks.
 
sublight said:
Before anyone calls "BS", Steve has recordings of all of this....

Sounds like a pretty good prank. Airmen do that sort of thing from time to time. Fifteen or so years ago, the archive at the USAF Museum had a photocopy stapled to the wall of a photograph of a crappy "flying saucer" built by some airmen out of plywood and sheet metal, and left *just* visible around a hangar door when a group of VIPs were hustled through on a tour. As the VIPs got there, a "sleeping" guard woke up, kinda freaked out and slammed the hangar door shut... but not before the "flying saucer" was seen and photographed.

Oh yes, did they laugh.

Until the base commander found out...
 
Two things,
it would be a ridiculously elaborate prank, starting at two AM and lasting well into the next day.
It is also a matter of record that Colin Powell was visiting Ft Bliss and may have gone to Holoman to see the mystery bird for himself.
 
sublight said:
None of you guys have heard of any projects with the "STF" acronym?

I don't see what that has to do with this thread.
 
sublight said:
Two things,
it would be a ridiculously elaborate prank, starting at two AM and lasting well into the next day.
It is also a matter of record that Colin Powell was visiting Ft Bliss and may have gone to Holoman to see the mystery bird for himself.
Sub, two things:
As a prank you need to recall that you're probably talking about HIGHLY trained, HIGHLY educated, and probably 90% of the time HIGHLY bored ramp-rats with radio's and not much traffic monitoring. (Well the OFFICIAL kind at any rate :) )

Ft Bliss is in Texas and Holoman is in New Mexico, that's quite the "hop" just to see an airplane.

I'm not SAYING it's not REAL information, I'm just noting that "I" personally have seen, heard, and even particpated in some on-air hi-jinks that in a couple cases went on for a couple of DAYS. (I sometimes look back and wonder what actually posessed us to take the time to "call" into a Domino's in Texas from 40,000ft and discuss the possiblty of getting some pizza's delivered to the middle of I-40 for a "touch-and-go" pick up while on-board an AWACS flight... That we "confrenced" the pilot onto the line to discuss the idea STILL floors me... That he discussed it SERIOUSLY with the manager of the Domino's still has me laughing-out-loud at odd moments) I'd probably have to hear the whole capture but even then it wouldn't be all that easy to prove or disprove.

Randy
 
sublight said:
None of you guys have heard of any projects with the "STF" acronym?

Only the ones developed under series U. ;)

sublight said:
In 1993 communication monitoring enthusiast Steve Douglas was monitoring the comms at Holoman AFB next to white sands. At 2 in the morning a mystery craft showed up.
On final the aircraft radioed to a chase plane "powers coming back, throttle to 220 knots, you've seen one of these before, haven't you Steve"?
Reply from the chase plane "That's affirm".

At about 2:45 in the morning after the mystery aircraft landed the following was overheard on the security channel:
"Be advised we need to secure the aircraft. Don't let anyone walk around out there, please!"

On the maintenance channel the crews referred to the crafts number as 806 and the abbreviation "STF". They also mentioned "removing the screws from the heat shield" and "under the sawtooth on the front of the canopy, it looks like its going to peel up"....

Before anyone calls "BS", Steve has recordings of all of this.....

That'd almost have to be an F-117A. Heat shield-that'd be the platypus. Sawtooth on the front-that'd be the serrated cnaopy edge. They probably needed to secure it due to some sort of in-flight incident.
 
sublight said:
On the maintenance channel the crews referred to the crafts number as 806 and the abbreviation "STF". They also mentioned "removing the screws from the

F-117 #806 was based at Holloman at the time. 220 kts would be consistent with an F-117.
Again, I do not see what this has to do with the topic of this thread. It seems like quite the non sequitor.
 
quellish said:
sublight said:
On the maintenance channel the crews referred to the crafts number as 806 and the abbreviation "STF". They also mentioned "removing the screws from the

F-117 #806 was based at Holloman at the time. 220 kts would be consistent with an F-117.
Again, I do not see what this has to do with the topic of this thread. It seems like quite the non sequitor.
I've asked Steve to post the audio in question and he is going to dig it up. I am suggesting the craft he monitored might be the fabled "penetrator"... Just a thought....
Quellish, where did you find the links on the F-117 tail numbers?
 
Well, as the Penetrator was a design study its unlikely to have landed anywhere.
 
RanulfC said:
I'm not SAYING it's not REAL information, I'm just noting that "I" personally have seen, heard, and even particpated in some on-air hi-jinks that in a couple cases went on for a couple of DAYS. (I sometimes look back and wonder what actually posessed us to take the time to "call" into a Domino's in Texas from 40,000ft and discuss the possiblty of getting some pizza's delivered to the middle of I-40 for a "touch-and-go" pick up while on-board an AWACS flight... That we "confrenced" the pilot onto the line to discuss the idea STILL floors me... That he discussed it SERIOUSLY with the manager of the Domino's still has me laughing-out-loud at odd moments) I'd probably have to hear the whole capture but even then it wouldn't be all that easy to prove or disprove.

During my time in the French Air Force (until recently every young man owed the nation one year under the flag) I was a language instructor for pilots, student pilots, officers, warrant officers, squadron leaders as well as radar operators... you name it, we had them all. During that period I was fortunate to meet some really interesting people who told me really interesting personal stories. But what impressed me the most was not how a former French president would send for the mistress of some African presidents on the French taxpayer's money, nor how the presidential pilot was sent in emergency to some African country to retrieve the president and his family because "there was going to be a coup the next day"...

No, what impressed me the most was how gullible some people can get when faced with the most zany and unbelievable stories. We had an instructor who was a master of the telephone prank. Not that I particularly appreciated it (especially when the joke once happened to be on me as he insulted a warrant officer pretending to be me), but I must admit the guy was good (but then, again, I guess it helps when you're friends with a high ranking colonel on the base who can cover up your silly pranks...). Anyway, I watched twice in disbelief as he 1°) pretended to be a farmer with a special arrangement asking for a rear entrance to the base to be opened for his tractor and got the gate actually opened 2°) pretended to be a lieutenant from a firefighting unit asking for the swimming pool rooftop to be opened in order to fill up his Canadair and got it done too. In both cases the poor soldiers were gullible (and afraid) enough to obey these crazy orders, and in both cases I heard they were told off harshly by their superiors, which of course wasn't very nice at all. But man! Taking a shortcut across an Air Force base with an agricultural tractor? Filling up a Canadair in a swimming pool with a high-low-high maneuver?!? Yet the guys went for it in both cases...
 
sublight said:
Quellish, where did you find the links on the F-117 tail numbers?

http://www.f-117a.com/Serial.html
806 is pretty famous.
 
Stargazer:
Rather than "gulliable" I've noted it far more often comes down to simply not KNOWING better :)

"Internally" militaries in particular have a bad habit of the majority of your people not really knowing much about things beyond their particular career. So people often find it fairly easy to "scam" others by claiming knowledge or authority they PROBABLY don't have, but to err on the side of "caution" it often makes more "sense" to take the heat for doing something "stupid" than to end up NOT doing something you were supposed to have done :)

On the other hand NOT knowing certain things can set chains of events in motion that end up being funny, scary, and informative in ways that would NEVER have been found out if not for a particular set of circumstances :)

(The specified "incident" I recall of a Sercurity person calling his flight chief concerning a "special-item" under his guard with a question of {over the open security net radio mind you} "What does it mean when the indicator says ARMED?" Quite educational to see an entire Air Wing and Air Base slam to a halt as several thousand people with radio access and the proper knowledge suddenly start dropping, {in my supervisor at the times words} "diamonds from the pucker factor" until we find out that the guard in question not only doesn't know what he's talking about but isn't even guarding a "special item" at all! :) )

I've more often than not had people come up to me at various times to have me confirm, deny, or explain questions, disscussions, or information simply because my general interests are NOT the "standard" ones most of my co-workers have. I have become somewhat of a "go-to" (and now in no small part due to being a member of these forums... Thanks all! :) ) person even though my actual job-description would seem to indicate being a relativly "minor" part of the overall whole. Not that I let anything like that go to my head or anything ;)

Overscan: You DO know of course that one can never actually "shoot-down" (or for that matter even seriously hinder) "super-project" discussions or conspiricy theories don't you? Any attempts usually end up sprouting new threads, a dozen for each one "explained" and so on.... :)

Randy
 
blackstar said:
RanulfC said:
So people often find it fairly easy to "scam" others by claiming knowledge or authority they PROBABLY don't have, but to err on the side of "caution" it often makes more "sense" to take the heat for doing something "stupid" than to end up NOT doing something you were supposed to have done :)

I've encountered that attitude a number of times. People imply that they know more than they are telling, and then try to use that to get you to be quiet (or to win an argument). It's a tactic, and a rather annoying one. Way too often I've learned that the person actually doesn't know anything and they were simply using that to act superior. I've come to the conclusion that the people who _really know_ never even let you know it. It's like a skillful poker player.
Hmmm, probably yes-and-no I suspect ;D

I've OFTEN found that I can't keep my mouth shut when claiming knowledge they don't really have. "Professionally" I have a particulalry hard time NOT injecting my quarter-credit piece when someone claimes knowledge of things I've worked on or with and doesn't really have the knowledge. Even "worse" from that perspective, (and that of a security monitor or manager I suppose :) ) I have a habit of asking the "wrong" questions, which show a deeper understanding than my "job-description/paygrade" should have on subjects that don't neccessarly apply to my job.
(My "spousal-unit" thinks I'm rather 'weird' for being proud I've been investigated so many times over my military and civilian career but, hey I'm also proud of the fact that I AM "rather-weird" so I'm going to guess it works out ;D )

Having dealt with varied and assorted "interesting-people" over the years I'm of the opinion that one sure-fire way to ensure no one "bothers" you too much with questions is to take some "truth" and push it WAY over the top and out-loud to anyone who will listen. Thereby ensuring no one will every take you seriously anyway.

Each method has some drawbacks and some advantages depending on the situation and the "interested-parties" involved :)

Randy
 
mr_london_247 said:
Probably this is the M5 Penetrator referenced:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1967.msg16750.html#msg16750

Indeed it is, but flateric left out the wierd bib. that had several refs to
classified papers. Wierd bib!! Title of refs were (U), but added refs were (S).
Why are they even there !!

I called NASA on related M5 Penetrator Study papers, to see if I could get copies.
Librarian freaked when she told me they should not even be in the paper. So I don't
know what's going on. No I wasn't able to get copies. Seemed I found a problem though.
 
shockonlip said:
Indeed it is, but flateric left out the wierd bib. that had several refs to
classified papers. Wierd bib!! Title of refs were (U), but added refs were (S).
Why are they even there !!

I called NASA on related M5 Penetrator Study papers, to see if I could get copies.
Librarian freaked when she told me they should not even be in the paper. So I don't
know what's going on. No I wasn't able to get copies. Seemed I found a problem though.

Very Interesting, I don't have this Paper (and couldn't find it online), might you post the text of the actual Ref's please?

BTW: I had no idea you were Larry Smith - I doff my cap to you sir! B)
 
shockonlip said:
mr_london_247 said:
Probably this is the M5 Penetrator referenced:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1967.msg16750.html#msg16750

Indeed it is, but flateric left out the wierd bib. that had several refs to
classified papers. Wierd bib!! Title of refs were (U), but added refs were (S).
Why are they even there !!

I called NASA on related M5 Penetrator Study papers, to see if I could get copies.
Librarian freaked when she told me they should not even be in the paper. So I don't
know what's going on. No I wasn't able to get copies. Seemed I found a problem though.

So any more information with that ?

From flightglobal :

I would suggest contacting NASA public affairs for further information."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/06/skunk-works-slips-out-evidence.html
 
mr_london_247 said:
shockonlip said:
Indeed it is, but flateric left out the wierd bib. that had several refs to
classified papers. Wierd bib!! Title of refs were (U), but added refs were (S).
Why are they even there !!

I called NASA on related M5 Penetrator Study papers, to see if I could get copies.
Librarian freaked when she told me they should not even be in the paper. So I don't
know what's going on. No I wasn't able to get copies. Seemed I found a problem though.

Very Interesting, I don't have this Paper (and couldn't find it online), might you post the text of the actual Ref's please?

...

Hello.

The AIAA paper is: 90-2151 - "Airframe/Propulsion Integration of Supersonic Cruise Vehicles".
The References at the end cite only 2 items. Both as described earlier.

I don't want to cite such items, but they are there in this publically available paper.
Who knows.

Regards.

Larry
 
seruriermarshal said:
shockonlip said:
mr_london_247 said:
Probably this is the M5 Penetrator referenced:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1967.msg16750.html#msg16750

Indeed it is, but flateric left out the wierd bib. that had several refs to
classified papers. Wierd bib!! Title of refs were (U), but added refs were (S).
Why are they even there !!

I called NASA on related M5 Penetrator Study papers, to see if I could get copies.
Librarian freaked when she told me they should not even be in the paper. So I don't
know what's going on. No I wasn't able to get copies. Seemed I found a problem though.

So any more information with that ?

From flightglobal :

I would suggest contacting NASA public affairs for further information."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/06/skunk-works-slips-out-evidence.html

Thanks for the flightglobal tidbit.
Perhaps it is time to try again.

This was just a past study that was/is interesting to me.

AW&ST also had a picture of one of the inlets for this study on one of its past covers,
alonhg with an article. From what I recall, it was one of the 2-D inlets. By the way,
the axisymmetric inlets in the paper did better than the 2-D inlets. This was rather
as expected because if you read John Anderson's books on Aero, he basically says
the same thing when discussing shock losses on 2-D versus cones for example. So
when I read this AW&ST article I said to myself - hmmm, very much as expected. Why
was this study done? This whole thing is a little puzzling. But I love this hypersonic
stuff anyway.
 
Here ya go folks.

The author [J. Thomas Anderson of Lockheed Advanced Development Projects] would like to acknowledge the following groups of people:

-Marv. Stibich and his group at the Air Force Aero Propulsion and Power Laboratory and Gary Reeves and the Pratt & Whitney Government Engine Business Team for their work on the Enhanced Flow Compressor contract.

-Steve Kirkham and his group at NASA Langley and Mell Cassidy and the Lockheed team for their work in developing the Mach 5, methane fueled vehicle design.

The author would also like to express special appreciation to David H. Campbell of the Lockheed "Skunk Works" for his outstanding competence and patience and to Steven Wurth of the Lockheed "Skunk Works" for his able assistance in publishing this paper.

References
1. Cassidy, M. D., "Performance Sensitivities of a High Altitude Mach 5 Penetrator Aircraft Concept (U)," NASA CR-3932, Sept. 1985. SECRET

2. Anderson, J. T. and Hoatson, B. M., "Inlet/Turbojet Engine Study in a Mach 4.2 Penetrator Aircraft (U)," Lockheed Report SP-6559, Nov. 1987. SECRET
 
aero-engineer said:
Here ya go folks.

The author [J. Thomas Anderson of Lockheed Advanced Development Projects] would like to acknowledge the following groups of people:

-Marv. Stibich and his group at the Air Force Aero Propulsion and Power Laboratory and Gary Reeves and the Pratt & Whitney Government Engine Business Team for their work on the Enhanced Flow Compressor contract.

-Steve Kirkham and his group at NASA Langley and Mell Cassidy and the Lockheed team for their work in developing the Mach 5, methane fueled vehicle design.

The author would also like to express special appreciation to David H. Campbell of the Lockheed "Skunk Works" for his outstanding competence and patience and to Steven Wurth of the Lockheed "Skunk Works" for his able assistance in publishing this paper.

References
1. Cassidy, M. D., "Performance Sensitivities of a High Altitude Mach 5 Penetrator Aircraft Concept (U)," NASA CR-3932, Sept. 1985. SECRET

2. Anderson, J. T. and Hoatson, B. M., "Inlet/Turbojet Engine Study in a Mach 4.2 Penetrator Aircraft (U)," Lockheed Report SP-6559, Nov. 1987. SECRET

So still Classified for that ?
 
Yes, what that says is that both documents are classified Secret, but their titles are Unclassified. Hence why they can be published.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom