SENIOR PROM and ACM - precursors and alternatives to the AGM-129

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
8 January 2006
Messages
1,605
Reaction score
670
SOC said:
SENIOR PROM:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/senior-prom.html

I'm pretty certain that SENIOR PROM was a competitor to the Northrop Program that became TSSAM (AGM-137A/BGM-137B). Whereas SENIOR PROM clearly builds on SENIOR TREND experience, TSSAM (under various code names) clearly builds on TACIT BLUE experience. Beyond that, I'd rather not comment.
 
SENIOR PROM predated TSSAM by a good deal. It was the original stealthy cruise missile design, but was dropped in favor of the AGM-129 when they realized it wouldn't fit inside of a B-1B, which was the next bomber on the books at the time. The program that produced the TSSAM was SENIOR PENNANT.
 
I did a little photo interpretation this afternoon...SENIOR PROM should be about 14 and a half feet long.

Also, I'm not sure it wasn't actually rocket powered...that'd mean that Lockheed put the air intake in precisely the spot they purposely DIDN'T put it on HAVE BLUE. You know, the place Northrop put their intake on their pole model!
 
SOC said:
SENIOR PROM predated TSSAM by a good deal. It was the original stealthy cruise missile design, but was dropped in favor of the AGM-129 when they realized it wouldn't fit inside of a B-1B, which was the next bomber on the books at the time. The program that produced the TSSAM was SENIOR PENNANT.

I can neither confirm or denay that code name, but, to the best of my knowledge, the prototype program that TSSAM derived from dates to the late-70s, early 80s timeframe, essentially quite close to TACIT BLUE's time frame, and did win a competition against a Lockheed design. I was told that one drawback to the Lockheed design was a plethora of moving parts that had to be opened up for the missile to fly correctly while the Northrop design needed far fewer explosively actuated operations to be flight ready. The length of SENIOR PROM wouldn't be that far from TSSAM's length, either.
 
elmayerle said:
I was told that one drawback to the Lockheed design was a plethora of moving parts that had to be opened up for the missile to fly correctly while the Northrop design needed far fewer explosively actuated operations to be flight ready.

Interesting...but the only moving parts on SENIOR PROM appear to be the control surfaces. Nothing unfolds, the missile was carried "as-is". That was part of the reason it was dropped-no good for internal carriage, even if they couldn't find it on radar!
 
Okay, then something like it was Lockheed's entry against what became TSSAM. Given that pyrotechnic actuators are a pain to deal with (among other things, everyone who has to deal, even in passing with them, has to pass ESD and EED (Electro-Sensitive Devices and Electro-Explosive Devices) safety training each year), the fewer that a missile requires, the better. *smile* I think I could still give a count for both versions of TSSAM.
 
SOC said:
SENIOR PROM predated TSSAM by a good deal. It was the original stealthy cruise missile design, but was dropped in favor of the AGM-129 when they realized it wouldn't fit inside of a B-1B, which was the next bomber on the books at the time. The program that produced the TSSAM was SENIOR PENNANT.

Actually, according to Aronstein and Piccirillo, the TSSAM programs started much earlier than I had though. This would put them about in parallel with SENIOR PROM (1981).

This is news to me, as I was under the impression TSSAM started *after* Darpa's part of TEAL DAWN had ended.
 
This is amusing, found it while doing some research:


Any possible truth to the assertion that SENIOR PROM may have birthed a reconnaissance variant or derivative?
 
SOC said:
This is amusing, found it while doing some research:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/10/202311.shtml

Any possible truth to the assertion that SENIOR PROM may have birthed a reconnaissance variant or derivative?

I think this was an assumption made because SENIOR PROM was flown from a DC-130 pylon like a Firebee. I have never seen any indications that it was equipped for ISR. For SENIOR PROM and SENIOR PENNANT, the DC-130 was used because it was the easiest platform to fly odd shapes from, and the crews were already set up to fly shady missions in sunny places.
 
It's an interesting theory. Lockheed did make some of the test articles recoverable, and an object with cruise-missile range and a VLO signature would be an interesting ISR platform. I haven't found any more supporting evidence either, but the interesting bit is the part about useing it over Baghdad in 1991. Might make some sense out of the tales of an F-117 style aircraft in the area. Definitely a huge reach, but about the only way you can piece this together right now and get anything close to an ISR drone out of SENIOR PROM.
 
My other Advanced Cruise Missile story is a little more involved. I was working for Lockheed in the mid-1980s and assigned to a project working in an unassuming looking warehouse-style building in Marietta, Georgia. Inside, the building was a warren of cypher-locked "project" rooms, each dedicated to its own program. I had a technical question on a part I was designing for the program I was assigned to and a senior "old hand" was helping me. Back then, there was a lot more paper and hard-copy reference documents involved in design engineering. It was still the early days of CAD, and those CAD systems were just digital drafting boards with almost no engineering algorithms built in. So, engineers had personal free-standing four-drawer file cabinets to store documents. Being a sensitive facility, those file cabinets were individually locked lightweight safes. The gray-beard had a reference document to loan me that would solve my problem. He spun the combination lock on his cabinet, eventually got it to unlock, and then pulled open drawers one-by-one looking for the right file folder. At one point, he pulled open one of the lower drawers, saw the contents, and then quickly shut the drawer with that "move along, nothing to see here look". I saw the contents, but we didn't say a word to each other about it. He opened another drawer and found the reference report he was looking for.

What I glimpsed for just a second or two in the drawer before he could close it was a desk-top display model, maybe a foot long, of a design iteration of the Lockheed proposal to the Advanced Cruise Missile RFP. I knew, being an airplane geek myself, that it was something that should have been destroyed a few years earlier when Lockheed lost that competition... but I also knew it was probably a cherished memento of a project that this engineer had poured his soul into, probably working 80-hour weeks in the heat of the battle.

The mid-1980s was a transitional time for Lockheed. LO techniques were rapidly advancing. Lockheed's first-generation ECHO design analysis software that was used to optimize the flat facets of the HAVE BLUE and F-117 was becoming obsolete. The Lockheed Advanced Cruise Missile submission was probably about the last design to suffer the aesthetics-assaulting electrical engineer's LO facet tyranny. The display model I glimpsed that day, however, was not the SENIOR PROM mini F-117. It was indeed a faceted shape, but much more like what we now think of as a cruise missile. I don't for a minute believe that it wasn't designed to be carried internally, wings and empennage surfaces folded, on a rotary launcher for the then Advanced Technology Bomber (later the B-2), the B-1, and the B-52. That was undoubtedly a design requirement in the RFP for the Advanced Cruise Missile. My faint impression of that display model doesn't change my mind on that issue.

The rumors at the time floating around Lockheed were that the Lockheed ACM lost to the General Dynamics Convair AGM-129 not because of LO performance or some rejection of facets, and certainly not due to the incorrect guess that it wouldn't fit internally in bombers, but because the shape of the folded Lockheed ACM (compressed for internal carriage) was inherently unstable. For safe separation when dropping from the weapons bay, the rumor was that Lockheed's ACM design had to have the turbofan engine running to power the flight control system before it left the bay. That complication (cartridge engine starts inside a bomber) was a safety issue that raised eyebrows. The AGM-129 certainly was an interesting design, but its early retirement speaks volumes to its faults (initial cost, manufacturing defects, high sustainment and maintenance costs...). Had the Lockheed design won, would those Lockheed missiles still be flying today instead of the pedestrian Boeing AGM-86? Would the US be scrambling in the 2020s to design and field another LO strategic cruise missile?
 
...I also remember an interaction one day with the guy in charge of security on the project I was assigned. Again, the mid-1980s was a transitional time for LO design. I don't remember the exact context, but the gist was that he was on a little rant about the irony of program guidelines. Essentially he complained that on our current project the guide required all major components being moved about the facility, where they would be outside for any time, had to be completely covered and that cover be supported by framing that obscured the object's shape. The framing was to make the object appear flat with angular creases. He pointed out that up until then, prior projects also had to be completely covered, but their covers were required to be supported by framing that made the object appear curved without flat portions! ;-)

On the plus side, it's much easier to fabricate cheap wooden beams to prop up canvas to look flat.
 

Attachments

  • 11143099_10206844245295723_8770564762017595409_o.jpg
    11143099_10206844245295723_8770564762017595409_o.jpg
    549.3 KB · Views: 102
  • senior-prom-1.jpg
    senior-prom-1.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 95
  • senior-prom-2.jpg
    senior-prom-2.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 92
  • senior-prom-3.jpg
    senior-prom-3.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 83
  • senior-prom-4.jpg
    senior-prom-4.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 84
  • 242792296_10226246196692382_5202392535014324731_n.jpg
    242792296_10226246196692382_5202392535014324731_n.jpg
    721.3 KB · Views: 87
  • 10999569_10206843093906939_6365098296407710440_o.jpg
    10999569_10206843093906939_6365098296407710440_o.jpg
    89.5 KB · Views: 92
  • 11430147_10206843538718059_5154786516445782793_o.jpg
    11430147_10206843538718059_5154786516445782793_o.jpg
    327.1 KB · Views: 94
  • AWST-SeniorPromModel3.png
    AWST-SeniorPromModel3.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 360
  • AWST-SeniorPromModel2.png
    AWST-SeniorPromModel2.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 353
  • AWST-SeniorPromModel.png
    AWST-SeniorPromModel.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 354
THE FIRST, SENIOR PROM, is an F-117- like design that has been identified both as a stealthy cruise missile prototype and an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, roles that aren’t mutually exclusive and show the Air Force’s interest 25 years ago— even before the F-117 flew— in stealthy, unmanned aircraft that could penetrate even the most sophisticated air defenses.

The Senior Prom design was flight tested as part of a competition that was won by the General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas (now Raytheon/Boeing) AGM-129 advanced cruise missile.

A series of Senior Prom pictures shows the design’s evolution. Early in the flight-testing phase, it appeared with high-visibility orange stripes and a large ventral fin. Later pictures have the ventral fin removed and the aircraft painted black.

The wings look like they are designed to fold against the wide, flat body for compressed carriage. Little information is available on the Senior Peg demonstrator, but according to one account the photo is a model that did not fly. There are some indications, based on a number of sightings in the Western U.S., that the design may have served as the basis for other, still-classified aircraft.

Thirteen Senior Prom launches were made from DC-130 drone carriers and all were considered successful, according to one researcher. Some were allowed to deliberately hit the ground, while others were recovered by parachute. First flight was in late 1979 or early 1980 and the test program was over by the time of the first YF-117 flight in 1981. The sorties were flown from the secret Groom Lake air base located on the Nevada Test Ranges northwest of Las Vegas.

awst-seniorprommodel-png.665523

Horizontal view of early Senior Prom stealth design shows a large ventral fin for stability and winglets that later gave way to a V-tail.


awst-seniorprommodel2-png.665522

Underside of Senior Prom unmanned aircraft shows flat lifting body, deployed folding wings for compressed carriage and a V-tail. The test vehicles were dropped from a DC-130 drone-launch aircraft.


awst-seniorprommodel3-png.665521

A late version of Senior Prom sports a black, low-observability finish. The photograph also gives a good view of the DC-130 mother ship and the sensor ball on its nose that allowed close observation of the launch sequence.

AWST 14 February 2005 (not 12 February as Wikipedia )
 
Last edited:
So, my opinion.

SENIOR PROM predates ACM.

It was a single source test program to demonstrate that the XST stealth principles could be applied to a smaller airframe suitable for a cruise missile or UAV.

Subsequently, Lockheed competed with General Dynamics for the ACM stealth cruise missile program. Lockheed's design was not SENIOR PROM, but a newer design which fitted in the Boeing common rotary launcher, and must therefore have been broadly similar in dimensions to the AGM-129.
 
Last edited:
Peter Westwick cites the Ben Rich papers above but says nothing at all about SENIOR PROM (other than it existed) in his book "Stealth - The Secret Race to Invent an Invisible Airplane".


USAF Selects Missile Builder

General Dynamics
has been selected to build the Air Force advanced cruise missile (ACM) incorporating stealth technologies with increased range and improved targeting capabilities. Boeing Aerospace Co. and Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. also were competing for the contract. About 1,300 ACMs will be built.

The Air Force also plans to buy up to 240 more Boeing air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM-B) beyond the 1,499 that have been delivered or ordered through Fiscal 1983. Force structure projections now call for about 3,000 USAF cruise missiles—1,700 ALCM-Bs plus the 1,300 ACMs—down from a total earlier projection of 4,348. The service has no plans to go beyond Fiscal 1984 funding for ALCM-B procurement, an Air Force officer said.

The Air Force also has awarded Rockwell International a $178.5-million contract increase for wiring, cooling and flight testing for air-launched cruise missile carriages on the B-1B manned bomber. USAF’s decision to procure “no more" than 240 additional air-launched cruise missiles to ease the transition to the new advanced cruise missile will extend production of the USAF/Boeing AGM-86B into 1986.Procurement of the additional ALCM-Bs in Fiscal 1984 was announced at the same time USAF said it had selected General Dynamics over Boeing and Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. to develop the ACM.

A Lockheed official said the approximately 250 persons working on the ACM effort at its Sunnyvale, Calif, facility would be absorbed on other programs.

At Boeing Aerospace, an official said that until USAF’s decision to procure additional AGM-86Bs, the company had expected to produce 1,499 missiles, which would carry production well into 1985. The new decision will extend production at the company's $48- million facility in Kent, Wash. (AW&ST Jan. 17, p. 101) into 1986, but how far into that year will depend on the rate USAF wants. About 500 missiles have been produced thus far, and the current rate is 40 per month. This will drop slightly a year from now when Boeing begins work on the Fiscal 1982 buy, which is 440 rather than 480 missiles. Boeing has been anticipating a gradual reduction in ALCM employment, with a drop to about 900 from the current 1,400 by mid-1984. The impact of the additional procurement has not yet been assessed.

At the time Boeing built the ALCM facility, it anticipated a total buy of more than 4,000 missiles. After deciding to develop the ACM, however, USAF had planned to end ALCM-B production after the Fiscal 1983 buy. USAF said it is planning that the ACM “will join the current-generation ALCM-B in a mix of about 3,000 strategic ALCMs deployed on [Boeing] 8-52 and [Rockwell International] B-1 aircraft.”

The Boeing official said the ALCM facility will be utilized to produce AGM-86Bs for at least two years and probably longer. In addition,
he said, “we hoped to be called upon to make substantial improvements in out years" to the approximately 1,700 missiles it now
expects to produce.

Aviation Week, April 25 1983
 
Last edited:
Post-HAVE BLUE the Air Force set up an organization, SENIOR HIGH, looking for new applications for stealth technology. Sort of an incubator. At the same time Lockheed saw the potential for applying VLO stealth to cruise missiles and began an internal IRAD effort. Lockheed proposed a demonstration program to the Air Force under SENIOR HIGH, this was called the Advanced Tactical Cruise Missile. This program became SENIOR PROM. The intent was to (eventually) produce a production version.

Engine was provided by Williams, guidance by Honeywell, navigation was a radiometric correlation system from LMSC. SENIOR PROM test flights occurred 1980-1981.

In 1979 preliminary FSD began, with the Skunk Works handing the FSD contract to LMSC (yes, before the test flight program had begun). By late 1982 DoD saw that there were several cruise missile programs going on at the same time and it was decided to force consolidation into one program. Instead of proceeding with production of SENIOR PROM, the Advanced Technology Cruise Missile competition was begun. GD won, resulting in the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile.
 
In 1976 DARPA started the TEAL DAWN program to develop technology for cruise missiles to survive against emerging Soviet air defenses (ground and air based). This included guidance systems, sensors, engines, and airframes. Initial airframe conceptual design contracts were given to Boeing, Northrop, and McDD. GD was invited to participate but declined. Boeing won the down select in 1977. In 1978 GD approached DARPA after reconsidering their decision to decline and was allowed to participate against Boeing. GD then won the FSD contract in 1980, beating Boeing, and the program began to transition from DARPA to USAF. At this point DoD realized there were several cruise missile programs going on, stopped TEAL DAWN and SENIOR PROM and started the Advanced Technology Cruise Missile competition, which GD won, resulting the the AGM-129.
 
This is very interesting if true!!! Ben Rich's hand written notes on Senior Prom. The navigation system is really interesting a infrared ground matching sensor. So it gives off no emissions.

 
Very interesting read. Looks like program names were originally SENIOR HIGH I, which became SENIOR PROM, and SENIOR HIGH II, which became SENIOR TREND. The timeline is also interesting, definitely predates ACM and TSSAM.
 
Very interesting read. Looks like program names were originally SENIOR HIGH I, which became SENIOR PROM, and SENIOR HIGH II, which became SENIOR TREND. The timeline is also interesting, definitely predates ACM and TSSAM.
SENIOR HIGH was the larger project to apply stealth and became something of an incubator spinning off new projects.
 
He mentions that it was a sort of overall program/project name in there somewhere. I may type this all up in an easier to read format so it's saved. Certainly seems to be legit, I wonder how someone found it in the first place.
 
He mentions that it was a sort of overall program/project name in there somewhere. I may type this all up in an easier to read format so it's saved. Certainly seems to be legit, I wonder how someone found it in the first place.
There is also a typed, formal SENIOR PROM program history that describes this.
 
He mentions that it was a sort of overall program/project name in there somewhere. I may type this all up in an easier to read format so it's saved. Certainly seems to be legit, I wonder how someone found it in the first place.
There is also a typed, formal SENIOR PROM program history that describes this.
Is the typed formal history report on here quellish?
 
This is very interesting if true!!! Ben Rich's hand written notes on Senior Prom. The navigation system is really interesting a infrared ground matching sensor. So it gives off no emissions.

I wonder if that's what's in the nose of JASSM:

1000w_q95-min-min.jpg
 
He mentions that it was a sort of overall program/project name in there somewhere. I may type this all up in an easier to read format so it's saved. Certainly seems to be legit, I wonder how someone found it in the first place.
There is also a typed, formal SENIOR PROM program history that describes this.
Is the typed formal history report on here quellish?


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...alternatives-to-the-agm-129.38041/post-498905
 
This is very interesting if true!!! Ben Rich's hand written notes on Senior Prom. The navigation system is really interesting a infrared ground matching sensor. So it gives off no emissions.

I wonder if that's what's in the nose of JASSM:

View attachment 677375
Rich states in his notes that the nav system was used on the TASM missile so definitely could have made its way into JASSM. TASM never made it operationally JASSM being a Lockheed product did so ya very good chance thats what is in the nose.

AGM-137 TSSAM I think Rich means when he writes TASM.​

 
Last edited:
He mentions that it was a sort of overall program/project name in there somewhere. I may type this all up in an easier to read format so it's saved. Certainly seems to be legit, I wonder how someone found it in the first place.
There is also a typed, formal SENIOR PROM program history that describes this.
Is the typed formal history report on here quellish?


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...alternatives-to-the-agm-129.38041/post-498905
thank you!!
 
This is very interesting if true!!! Ben Rich's hand written notes on Senior Prom. The navigation system is really interesting a infrared ground matching sensor. So it gives off no emissions.

Here's the text from the notes, as-is (i.e. I typed it exactly as it was written, as far as I could tell).

Senior Prom

Advanced Tactical Cruise Missile (ATCM)

In early 1976, the Sk Wks began to look at the application of stealth to different vehicles and missions. One of the most attractive program was a stealthy Air Launch Cruise Missile (ALCM). We looked at small or short range and ALCM sized or long range cruise missiles. In Aug 76 Willis Hawkins was attending an AF Scientific Advisory Board meeting in San Diego, and one of their main topics was the improvement of the standard ALCM. That same week I had briefed Maj. Gen. Leaf of TAC on Have Blue who also discussed ALCM. Maj Gen Tom Stafford, who at that time was head of Edwards Flight Test Center, and would later become DCS for R+D at USAF Hdqts in Pentagon also thought we should look at stealthy ALCM. So we aggressively looked at various designs, all using the same faceted approach we used on Have Blue. We narrowed our design to one that would give about 2000 miles of range and weigh about 2500 lbs. In Nov. 1976, Tony Batista, staff director of the House Armed Services Committee visit the Sk. Wks for a HB briefing. He asked if we had looked at a cruise missile and I showed him our Stealthy ALCM.

He asked if I had shown this to National Security Council. I answered negative. I had been cautioned by Lt. Gen Al Slay, the DCS for R+D at USAF Hqts., not to do anything to jeopardize the B-1A program. I did not tell Batista this. Batista suggested I definitely talk to Gen Dave Jones, USAF Ch. Of Staff, and Lt Gen Al Slay about our stealthy ALCM.

In the mean time at the direction of Dr. Bill Perry and Gen Slay, the AF set up a group in the Air Staff at the Pentagon to handle all the Low Observable work under the program security umbrella called Senior High. The group would report to Maj. Gen Bobby Bond. This group of “tigers” consisted of Col. Dave Williams, Maj. Ken Staten, Maj. Joe Ralston, Maj. Jerry Baber, and Maj. Bob Swarts. Every one of them an aggressive “do-er”.

In late 1976, I called Dan Tellep, who at the time was the head of LMSC’s Aquila program for which they had a production contract. Aquila was an Army short range ground launched drone that would do low altitude reconnaissance and return to be retrieved in a net. Tellep (he is the current Charman + CEO of Lockheed) came down to Sk Wks and in a one day mtg. with Passon and myself laid out a cruise missile plan. The plan proposed a 30 month test program using 8 test vehicles for an estimated cost of $50 M in FY77 dollars, excluding engines, passive guidance systems and carrier aircraft. Gen Bond came to visit the Sk Wks on 14 Dec. 76 for a HB update and I showed him stealthy ALCM. He got very excited. In mean time I assigned Milt Jantzen to worth LMSC on a more detailed plan for an unsolicited proposal and presentation and have Passon cost. On 19 Dec. 76 I got an urgent call from Gen Bond to come to Wash DC with our cruise missile plan. I arrived in Wash on 21 Dec and briefed Slay and Bond on our ATCM, which I called Sr. High I. They were both impressed. Once again Jantzen + I met with Tellep and his troops to update our plan and quote. In Feb. Gen Bond + Col Tom Jones we given our updated material. Bond said he wanted to give us a study contract by May 15, 1977, but to keep my quote under $2 M so he wouldn’t have to go to Congress to get $’s. So on June 22, 1977 I received a study contract for Phase I for an ATCM (Senior High I) for $1.9 M. Phase I was to refine the requirements and vehicle configurations, conduct wind tunnel and RCS tests and prepare a plan to build a few prototypes. Phase II would build and test the prototypes. Phase III to be the Full scale development and finally full scale production. The ATCM would be air launched from either a B-52 or a B-1A bomber. The B-1A was later deleted as the program was cancelled in Aug 1977. I believe our ATCM influenced that decision. It coincided with a briefing I made to Dr. Bill Perry, and a group of National Security Advisors for Brezinski’s staff. Perry was impressed by our independent Hughes Co. Threat analysis showing the high survivability of our ATCM. He asked that we vary the altitude to see its sensitivity to vulnerability, and requested we then present it to him and his staff.

On 15th Oct. ’77 we got the go ahead for Phase II for the ATCM (Senior High I). It was not till Oct 1978 when program was transferred from Wright Field to the Low Observable Special Project Office (SPO) did the name change to Senior Prom. This coincided with Lt. Gen Slay’s promotion + transfer to command Air Force Sys. Command as a 4 star. He took the program + transferred it to Wright Field and set up to Wright Field Low Observable SPO to lead up all future stealth programs.

Phase II was tasked to design, develop and test a prototype configuration of an ATCM. A total of nine vehicle systems were to be produced, seven flyable ad two for ground test. A flight test program was set up with a goal of ten successive successful flights as the criteria. Since we were only building seven flyable system, it was necessary to build a parachute recovery system, so that the vehicle could be reused. (Some of the vehicle were reused 3 times during program) The overall objective of this phase was to ascertain the readiness of the ATCM for production (Phase III).

At the end of Phase One we came up with a vehicle design that look like an arrowhead that had a launch weight of 2420 lbs, including 1000 lbs of fuel, and had a range of 2000 miles at M=0.7. The vehicle fuselage looked like our Hopeless Diamond calibration except it had folding swept wing that folded underneath the fuselage during “carry out” and would unfold after launch. The vertical surface for rudder control were located at the wing tips, canted outboard 30⁰ from the vertical. The vehicle was about 18 feet long and 2 feet tall, and a wing span with wing unfolded of about 12 feet. The fuselage had a forward facet which held a trapezoidal gridded inlet to feed air to the turfan engine followed by a two dimensional vaned exit at the trailing edge. The engine was modified Williams F-107 turfan. The entire periphery of the leading edge of the vehicle utilized a fiberglass coated wedged honey comb step loaded with ferrites to a depth of 4 inches. The latter for low frequency absorption. The entire surface was then coated with a .0020 to .0040 in thick high frequency absorber. We froze the configuration was frozen on 1 Mar. 1978.

In addition the supply the vehicle, we had to develop + supply a guidance system, a passive navigation system and modify the turbofan engine for installation and flight profile.

We ran a mini competition for a guidance system and selected the St. Petersburg div of Minn. Honey. to develop and deliver prototype system. It was necessary for M-H to design a passive miniaturized precision guidance. We called the system PRECISE. We cleared only the top mgt + prog. mgr. of each subcontractor and briefed them on Sr. Prom program. Minn Hon completed successfully the develop of PRECISE on $10.5 M cost and schedule.

For the navigation system we first looked at the nav. system on the Boeing ALCM and G.D. Tomahawk cruise missiles. Unfortunately all these cruise missiles used a radar or active type system to generate their map matching system (very similar to terrain follower) and it emitted a signal, we could not use it. The only system or concept at the time was a passive laboratory research program using Radiometric Area Correlation being developed by Lockheed Missiles + Space Co. (LMSC). We therefore gave LMSC a contract to design, develop and demonstrate a prototype radiometric system. The system used a radiometer which would measure the surface temperature gradient of ¼⁰ F and generate a map that could be correlated to a map generated by the Defense Mapping Agency acquired by satellites. In this manner a “fix” could be attained throughout the route planned and navigation toward a target could be accurately made. To check the system out it was necessary to have a modified NASA Convair CV-990, operated by the Sk Wks, to flight test the prototype RAC system. The test flights began on 31 Aug 79 through 30 Apr. 1980. A total of 51 flights over continental U.S. and Canada. IT was necessary to fly the RAC system of all types of terrain, all types of weather, all times of day over land and water and all seasons of the year, since the generated maps dependant on the accurate measurement of temperature gradients. LMSC produced 4 RAC systems at a cost of $8 M. The system was late by about 6-9 months, however it did overcome a majority if its problems. The system was later used in the TASM program at Northrop after the Sr. Prom program was terminated.

As part of the test program, we had to acquire a DC-130H, used to launch Teledyne drones. With help of Sperry-Univac we located a C-130 at Hill AFB at Wendover, Utah. It was necessary to redesign the launch station in the aircraft to meet the instrumentation and launch parameters needed to monitor our ATCM. It was necessary to modify the pylon and launch rack, since our requirement was to launch from a B-52 or B-1A aircraft. The purpose of the C-130 was to check out the launch, monitor the cruise and then execute the recovery system. As a backup it was necessary to duplicate a ground system in a van, that would duplicate all the systems in the C-130, collect all the telemetry data throughout the flight and act as a backup should the C-130 and the ATCM lose data link contact.

The launch rack had to be designed to handle our vehicle. It had to provide adequate clearance for our configuration, fit our attachments and structure, withstand our unique loads and yet had to be B-52 compatible, the ultimate goal of our vehicle, but the attachments had to be unique since those that were on our ATCM had to be retractable and covered over after launch to achieve our stealth requirements.

We contracted with Sperry-Phoenix to design our remote piloting data link and flight control system. We ordered 9 flight control systems.

We started out with 18 people in Phase I, 15 engrs. and 3 shop personnel. Senior Prom was the first vehicle to ever utilize Computer Aided Design (CAD) system. We had to be sure that our design system was compatible with Lockheed Georgia so that when we ever went to production, we could produce the airframe in Ga. I planned to use the Burbank facility for Senior High II, the fighter program later called Senior Trend. As we completed the design by the end of 1978, we had 193 on the program (86 engrs + 107 shop; by the end of 1979 as we produced the 9 vehicles (7 flight and 2 ground test) we reached our max. head count of 217 (103 engr. and 168 shop) The engineers included, designers, wind tunnel testors, dynamic ground test and flight test

We began Phase II in 15 Oct 1977, planning our first flight for July 1979.

As we continued aerodynamic wind tunnel tests and RCS model test, we achieved a fairly neat configuration. We were achieved L/D greater than 11, which allowed us to get our range and our RCS was lowest we had seen. The vehicle had its rudder control surface at the wing tips. We started to manufacture this configuration having frozen the design in Mar 78 based on W.T. and RCS tests. We developed a ground simulation testor at Rye Canyon which would simulate the entire flight profile from launch, cruise and recovery; we were able to take a ground test vehicle, put on this CARCO table. At the same time, we completed the redesign on the DC-130 launch vehicle and put the second vehicle on the pylon beneath the wing and exercise the flight control system in a capture mode. We developed a parachute recovery system so that at the end of cruise recover safely land land the vehicle to be refurbished for reuse. Since our contract stated we had to achieve 10 successive launch, cruise, flights before we got our Phase III (production contract) and we had only built 7 flight vehicles. The parachute design and stowage was not part of the production configuration, but it was one of the most difficult and would give us a lot of problems. The design required a large parachute to retrieve the 1500 lb empty ATCM. This large parachute had to packed very compactly and stowed in the main fuel tank. Then design a pyrotechnic system that would cut a large hole in fuselage below the tank, so that chute could be ejected and the drogue and main chute could be unfurled and deploy allowing the vehicle to land softly on ground. We ran into numerous pyrotechnic design problems, mainly reliability and repeatability. We had be sure pyrotechnics were safe and reliable and would not damage the vehicle other than replacing the large hole in the outer skin. After many months of test and redesign, we achieve a a design. It was a shame we put so much effort in this because the production ATCM did not require recovery.

As we proceeded with our ground base simulator, we ran into a major problem, which delay the program. Between May-June 1979 we ran into a structural coupling control surface problem. As much as we tried, we failed to find a solution to this problem with our rudder wing tip configuration. In mean time we were running wind tunnel tests and RCS tests to find a new acceptable tail location. On Aug 12, 1979 we stopped the vehicle production of wing rudder controls, and made a major decision to redesign the basic config. and moved the ruddertail to the trailing edge of the fuselage. This gave us much better stability and resolved our structural coupling problem. The results in aerodynamic performance of new config. was negligible and our RCS signature increased less than 1 db. Our launch weight for the new design increased 100 lbs or 2600 lbs, with 1000 lbs of fuel and maintained our 2000 mi. range. Since the change came pretty late in Phase II, we had to modify most of the vehicles and reduced our flight test prog from 10 to 6, however this was again reversed back to 10 because early tests on new config. were so successful.

We had planned in 1977 to have our first jettisoned vehicle in early 1979. We began our flight test program with mounted vehicle under C-130, to check out the flow characteristics surrounding vehicle and all the attendant loads from takeoff through the point of launch. These were dummy vehicles. We then began a series of flights to check out the launch cycle as well as the recovery. Unfortunately our first four launches were failures. All of these were with our old configuration. Three of the failures were chute failures, the basic vehicle deployed correctly; the first failure resulted from the explosive cord failing to cut open the fuselage panel, so parachute was unable to deploy.

We then had 3 successful jettison flights, the last two with the revised configuration. The last successful jettison launch was in Dec. 79.

As mentioned earlier when we began to program we planned a July 1979 first flight, but due to launch+recovery problems and the redesign of the configuration we moved the launch date to 15 Feb 80, which still was pretty good since it was only 24 months from go ahead. We achieved our first successful launch on 1 Mar 1980 and it did all it was planned to achieve. However we failed to recover vehicle due to a parachute failure. Our 2nd launch was a failure. However our third flight in June 1980 was a total success everything from launch to recovery. We then followed with 9 more successive successful flights – which met the contractual obligation and goal. The overall span of ATCM prototype program was to be 34 months for phases I and II. We actually completed it in 38 months in spite of all our early problems. The entire program including the the development of Precise, RACG, Williams engine + flight vehicles was $103 M. The met the contractual objective of development + flight test of 10 successful + successive flights, a precision flight control system, a radiometric area correlation guidance system, a modified engine and a production plan for full scale production.

During Phase II, it became evident that the Sr. Prom production program would be more than the Sk. Wks could handle, as we had already began the Sr. High II program. So in consultation and coordination with AF and Lockheed Senior Management, a transition plan was formulated to turn the overall management to Lockheed Missiles+Space Co, the airframe manufacture to Lockheed Georgia, and retain the stealth responsibility at the Sk Wks. So in mid 79, Howard Barnette of LMSC was made Program Mgr. replacing Milt Jantzen at Sk. Wks. Barnette moved temporarily to Burbank, bringing with him a team of about a dozen LMSC personnel to achieve the transition; similarly Ga. design personnel came to Burbank to transfer the design and manufacture of the hardware as well as assist in the flight test program. Therefore on May 8, 1981, the prime contract for Phase IIIA, the full scale development (FSD) was assumed by LMSC; the Sk. Wks acting as technical advisors for low observables and would supply all the specials absorbers and coatings required for the entire program.

There were 10 successful launches cruise flight and retrievals between June 80 and Mar. 81. The first successful stealth test flight occurred on 3 Oct. 1980. During this and subsequent stealth flights, Sr Prom’s RCS either met or favorably exceeded the predicted test. These tests were flown over the dynamic radar test range as well as against threat ground radars, F-15 fighters and AWACS radar system. None of these systems were able t track Sr Prom. The last flight of a Sr. Prom vehicle was made of 13 Mar 81. The new and refurbished vehicle were put into storage. Many proposals were later made to use these vehicles to test the capability of our latest ground tracking radars or the Navy’s Aegis system. However, due to politics and bureaucracy nothing happened.

Phase IIIA began in May 81 with LMSC now running the Sr Prom program’s full scale development from Sunnyvale. Turning the program over to LMSC was one of my biggest mistakes in my Sk Wks tenure. Because once it went North, even though it was a black program, LMSC staffed and ran it like a full blown “white world” program. The staff grew by hundreds, an integration program to launch the ATCM from the B-52 was given to Boeing, and a full blown hardware program was set up in Georgia. The program cost grew to a billion dollar program and the unit cost of the missile more than doubled. As a result in late 82 or 83, Dick Delauer, head of ODRE decided to consolidate the various cruise missile programs and decided it couldn’t afford the current Sr. Prom and terminated the FSD program. The Wright Field Low Observable SPO was directed to run a competition to design and develop a low-cost advanced Strategic Stealthy Cruise Missile. LMSC, Northrop and Gen Dynamics bid the program. G.D. in San Diego won the competition. Another competition was again setup but this time for a Tactical stealthy missile. The same competitors bid. LMSC with the Sr. Prom looked like they had an advantage, but their costs were too high. Northrop won this contract. We may have been lucky to lose. This program was called TASM. LMSC won contract to build the passive guidance system, also on a fixed price basis. Northrop failed to meet performance, cost or schedule and has lost about $200 M so far and is still not operational. LMSC has also lost money on their portion. The DOD has come numerous times come close to cancelling the program.

In summary, the prototype phase of Sr. Prom performed by Sk. Wks was very successful. We got numerous commendations from the Air Force for our performance. We achieved all our 4 basic objectives. We developed a configuration, which met its aerodynamic and RCS signature predictions, and developed all the subsystems. We completed our part of the program within four months of the original plan set nearly three years previously. Cost growth of less than 19% which was considered very modest considering the state of the art advances achieved and the technical difficulty of the task. Security was maintained throughout the program, even to this date, which involved several major subcontractors, the use of diverse and complex Govt resources and testing at a remote location. The level of RCS were some of the best ever achieved by any program to date.

(See Passon’s comments on Sr. Prom also)
 
He mentions that it was a sort of overall program/project name in there somewhere. I may type this all up in an easier to read format so it's saved. Certainly seems to be legit, I wonder how someone found it in the first place.

Its from the Ben R. Rich papers at the Huntingdon Library I would imagine. As linked by me uptopic.



Ben R. Rich Papers: Finding Aid
Finding aid prepared by Peter J. Westwick, November 11, 2009.
The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department

Folder 5 Engineering—Senior Prom

I turned the pics into a PDF and attached for reference.
 

Attachments

  • SeniorProm.pdf
    4.2 MB · Views: 137
Last edited:
Ben Rich's summary says it was Lockheed vs Northrop vs General Dynamics on the ACM contract. Don't think I've seen that before.

N-370 was the designation for what became TACMS then JTACMS then AGM-137A TSSAM. There are earlier n- series designations that are yet unknown.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if that's what's in the nose of JASSM:

It's possible that the aperture has dual functionality, but I suspect that's simply an IIR terminal seeker as on KEPD-350 & SCALP-EG/StormShadow (hidden behind ejectable cap on the latter).
 
From Leonard Nicolai, "Lessons Learned: A Guide to Improved Aircraft Design"
Author was TEAL DAWN program manager


It Ain’t Over ‘til the Fat Lady Sings
People ask me why there isn’t an 11th Lessons Learned. I reply that I don’t really have an answer...but if I had an 11th Lessons Learned it would be the title of this factoid. I could not close out this book without telling the story of the slickest piece of entrepreneurship that I encountered during my career. It had to do with how General Dynamics, Convair Division in San Diego became the producer of the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM).
DARPA started the black ACM program (code word TEAL DAWN) in 1976 with a selected source MS 0 conceptual design study, The contractors in the conceptual design study were Boeing, Northrop, and McDonnell. General Dynamics, Convair Division was invited to partici- pate but declined saying they were too busy with the development of the Tomahawk. Boeing won the down select in mid-1977 and was awarded a three-year $36M MS 1 validation contract. I had just finished the GBU- 15 Analysis of Alternatives in AF/Studies and Analysis and was asked to join DARPA as the TEAL DAWN Program Manager. I had strongly rec- ommended to DARPA that they carry two contractors into the validation phase as competition was a good thing. DARPA agreed, but money was tight and so we proceeded with a single contractor – Boeing.
In mid-1978 I got a visit request from Jim Beggs, General Manager of GD/Convair, to discuss a proposition. Jim Beggs said that their decision not to participate in TEAL DAWN was a poor one and so he offered the following proposition:
GD/Convair would agree to do the same tasks, schedule, and deliver- ables (an MS 2 validated design ready for FSD) as Boeing for $6M. Convair would spend $30M of company funds (5 to 1 funding split) and provide DARPA with competition and access to the Tomahawk experi- ence. Beggs realized that his company was a year behind Boeing in a three-year race, but his people were anxious for the challenge.
I ran the proposition through DARPA security and legal. We offered the same deal to Northrop and McDonnell, but they were not interested. We accepted Convair’s proposal and overnight we had a competitive program. I watched the activity in the Boeing and Convair camps. The passion and zeal at Convair was impressive and they made up a one-year late start in four months. Boeing felt confident, after all they had a one- year head start. The MS 2 FSD down select was in mid-1980 with Convair selected as the winner.
TEAL DAWN transitioned to the USAF in 1982 as the AGM-129. Convair went on to produce 460 AGM-129As for the USAF.
So don’t ever count yourself out of anything. There is always a way to get back into the race. Convair put together an innovative but risky plan, Jim Beggs sold it to DARPA and the Air Force...the fat lady sang...and Convair went to Disney Land.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom