Introduced in the early 1950s, the Bell X-5 was instrumental in exploring the aerodynamic implications of variable-sweep wing designs. The primary aim was to assess how different wing configurations affected performance during various phases of flight, such as takeoff, cruise, and landing. The X-5 had a range of sweep from 20 degrees to 60 degrees. This adjustability showcased a significant advancement in aviation technology, suggesting that aircraft could be designed to perform optimally at both high speeds and slow speeds without compromising on stability or control.

The X-5 was powered by an Allison J35 turbojet engine, which provided the necessary thrust to explore high-speed performance. Measuring just over 33 feet in length and with a wingspan that varied depending on the sweep of its wings, the X-5 was relatively compact. Its design included a traditional tailplane and a bubble canopy that offered pilots excellent visibility.

During its operational lifetime, the Bell X-5 provided invaluable data that informed the development of several later aircraft with variable geometry wings, most notably the General Dynamics F-111 and the Grumman F-14 Tomcat. Both of these aircraft utilized technology that had been directly evolved from the experiments conducted with the X-5. The ability to alter wing sweep in flight allowed these aircraft to excel at high-speed intercepts and provide considerable fuel efficiency during longer, slower missions.

However, the X-5 was not without challenges. It demonstrated the complexity and potential dangers of variable-sweep wing technology. On several occasions, issues with the wing sweep mechanism led to accidents, including one fatal crash. These incidents underscored the importance of rigorous testing and refinement of the technology.

Despite these challenges, the Bell X-5 marks a significant chapter in aviation history. It was a critical step forward in the exploration of wing geometries and their effects on aircraft performance. The lessons learned from the X-5’s testing phase have echoed throughout aircraft design principles for decades, proving that its contributions to aerospace engineering and technology were both profound and enduring. The Bell X-5 not only tested the boundaries of aviation technology but also set the stage for future innovations that continue to influence the aerospace industry today.

Document Archive

 The Bell X-5 Research Plane, Date Unknown [65 Pages, 23MB] – My father, John Greenewald, Sr., got these documents from Edwards AFB. My grandfather, R.E. Greenewald, worked on the Bell X-5. Also included in this PDF is an article entitled “Swing Wing, The Bell X-5” from 1993.

 Flight Test, Research Airplane, Rocket Propelled, High Speed – Report No. 58-947-010 [67 Pages, 23MB] – My father, John Greenewald, Sr., got these documents (also included is a document on the Bell X-1) from Edwards AFB. My grandfather, R.E. Greenewald, worked on both aircraft.

 The Bell X-5 Research Aircraft, 27 July 1989 [67 Pages, 42MB]

The post Bell X-5 first appeared on The Black Vault.

1. To delineate Air Force space requirements
2. To define the systems under development or being considered to meet these requirements and
3. To promote the recognition and advancement of the technology needed to achieve the systems.

This initial report, which is very preliminary, is designed to serve as the framework for continuing study. It is to be modified periodically as the need arises.

This document is intended as a tool to assist in coordinating and ordering the Air Force space program definition and development, and is for the use of using commands in defining operational requirements, and centers and laboratories in analyzing development requirements. With the assistance of interested commands and agencies, the study ultimately should define and provide an. analysis of each of the required systems in sufficient detail to show the inter-relationship of the various technical requirements. The results of this analysis will indicate critical areas in which technological advancements are required to permit timely development of systems to accomplish the space-age missions.

Document Archive

Air Force Space Systems Program – October 20, 1959 [137 Pages, 5.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [5.36 MB]

The post Air Force Space Systems Program – October 20, 1959 first appeared on The Black Vault.

“Supporting the IC’s efforts to assess unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), following up on the work of the UAP Task Force.”

When reading the bill that has just passed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which does have a long road to being passed by the House, Senate, then signed into law by President Joe Biden; Section 345 has extensive detail about UAPs, the UAP Task Force, and the data they will receive.

SEC. 345. SUPPORT FOR AND OVERSIGHT OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA 
              TASK FORCE.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
        ``appropriate committees of Congress'' includes:
                    (A) The congressional intelligence committees.
                    (B) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
                    (C) The Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
                Representatives.
            (2) Unidentified aerial phenomena task force.--The term 
        ``Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force'' means the task 
        force established by the Department of Defense on August 4, 
        2020, to be led by the Department of the Navy, under the Office 
        of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and 
        Security.
    (b) Availability of Data on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.--The 
Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall 
each, in coordination with each other, require each element of the 
intelligence community and the Department of Defense with data relating 
to unidentified aerial phenomena to make such data available 
immediately to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force and to the 
National Air and Space Intelligence Center.
    (c) Quarterly Reports to Congress.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than 
        quarterly thereafter, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task 
        Force, or such other entity as the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
        may designate to be responsible for matters relating to 
        unidentified aerial phenomena, shall submit to the appropriate 
        committees of Congress quarterly reports on the findings of the 
        Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, or such other 
        designated entity as the case may be.
            (2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
        shall include, at a minimum, the following:
                    (A) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-
                related events that occurred during the previous 90 
                days.
                    (B) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-
                related events that occurred during a time period other 
                than the previous 90 days but were not included in an 
                earlier report.
            (3) Form.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
        be submitted in classified form.

Arguably, one of the most interesting aspects to the above language, is the inclusion of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC). Appearing right along side the UAP Task Force, they are both set to receive UAP data from the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense (DoD).

In a coincidence, The Black Vault was fishing around NASIC via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) just a couple months ago and NASIC said in a request asking for UAP and UFO related information, they they had “no records.”

In addition, they tried to pass on the decades-old explanation that although the USAF investigated UFOs with Project Blue Book, they cancelled it and haven’t done so since.

Despite the inaccuracies, the bill will provide FOIA fodder for The Black Vault (and likely many others) for years to come.

The post U.S. Air Force Set To Enter The UFO Research Arena… Again? first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Black Vault has digitally preserved online his MANY years worth of work collecting this historical collection. It is now available in its entirety below.

Here is a breakdown of what you will find in this collection, as written by the researcher:

1) My AFHRA microfilm roll collection.

Please note some of my files are broken up into several “parts”. This because I received a paper copy and scanned it, but my scanner only can scan a limited number of pages as a PDF such as 50 or 150 pages of a 500+ page document.  

2) My ADC Historical Studies collection

3) My RAND Studies collection (much downloaded from the RAND website before they took them down).

4) My information on the May 22, 1958 Nike site NY-53 missile explosion that killed 10 people.

5) My NORAD historical summaries FOIA releases

6) My NARA RG 342 AFHRA microfilm roll collection references. Many are not listed on the Air Force History Index website.

The information that is archived here totals 468,170 pages, and stretches more than 100GB in size.

Each folder below will open in a new window, and allow for file browsing. In the future, there will be a larger effort to categorize and index this collection. Please, CONTACT ME, if you’d like to take part in that effort.

But until then, the collection is below.

Document Archive

The begin exploring the collection, the links below are the “top level” domains. Once you click on them, a new window will open with the contents of that particular directory. To return here, simply close that window.

• ADC Command Historical Studies (Select 1-40)/

• AFHRA Microfilm Roll Research Collection/

• NORAD FOIA releases/

• Nike Site NY-53 Middletown NJ May 22 1958 explosion/

• RAND studies/

• RG 342 NARA FOIA Releases (AFHRA Microfilm Roll References)/

The post The AFHRA Collection: A 468,170 Page Air Force History Archive first appeared on The Black Vault.

Air Force Histories

Continental Air Command Histories

NORAD / CORAD Histories

 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jan – Jun Vol IX.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jul – Dec Vol X.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jan-Jun Vol VII.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jan-Jun Vol IX.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jul-Dec Vol X.pdf
 (U) 1955 CONAD History Jul-Dec Vol XI.pdf
 (U) 1956 CONAD-ADC History Jan-Jun Vol VII.pdf
 (U) 1957 ADC History Jan – Jun.pdf
 (U) 1957 ADC History Jan – Jun Vol III.pdf
 (U) 1956 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57 Vol I.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57 Vol II.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 CONAD History Jul 56 – Jun 57 Vol III.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec Vol II.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec Vol III.pdf
 (U) 1957 CONAD-NORAD History Jul-Dec Vol IV.pdf
 (U) 1956-1957 NORAD CONAD History.pdf
 (U) 1957 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1958 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1958 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1959 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1959 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1960 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1960 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1961 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1962 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1962 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1963 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1963 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1964 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1965 NORAD CONAD History Jan-Jun.pdf
 (U) 1965 NORAD CONAD History Jul-Dec.pdf
 (U) 1966 NORAD-CONAD History.pdf
 1967 – 1972 NORAD CONAD History [1,375 Pages, 328MB] – These records were donated to The Black Vault by FOIA researcher Cory Newman, and are used here with permission. Special thanks to Mr. Newman for his research and allowing The Black Vault to share it!

1940s

 Class Rosters of Various Air Force Schools – Including Roswell Field, 1942 – 1945 [1,617 Pages, 473MB]

 United States Strategic Air Forces In Europe History, Chapter 2, Jan 1942 through January 1945 [95 Pages, 13.9MB]

History of the 22nd Bombardment Group – May 1944 [68 Pages, 24.7MB]

History of the 25th Bombardment Group Aug Sep 1944 [80 Pages, 34MB]

History of the 5th Air Disarmament Group (Provisional) 1944 [96 Pages, 15MB]

History of the 161st Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron 29 August 1944 – April 1945 [93 Pages, 32MB]

The Inception, Organization and Functions of Headquarters, U.S. Strategic Air Forces in Europe, 28 May 1945 [111 Pages, 14.10MB]

 1950s

History of the Air Flight Service Center, March Air Force Base, 1 April 1952 – 30 June 1952 [15 Pages, 3MB]

History of the Directorate of Intelligence June 1 – December 31 1952 [13 Pages, 3MB]

History of the 20th Air Division (Defense), 1 July 1957 – 31 December 1957 [96 Pages, 49MB]

History of the 34th Air Division, 1 July – 31 December 1952, & – 30 January 1953  [254 Pages, 60MB]

History of the 34th Air Division, 31 December – 30 June 1953  [187 Pages, 44.1MB]

History of the 36th Air Base Group, 1 March to 30 April 1951 [102 Pages, 18.58MB]

History of the 36th Air Base Group, 1 May to 30 June 1951 [102 Pages, 16.1MB]

History of the 57th Fighter Interceptor Wing, Elmendorf Air Force Base, May – June 1950 [107 Pages, 30MB]

History of the 456th Troop Carrier Wing, Operations Summary and Analysis, 1954-1956 [326 Pages, 75.8MB]

History of the 1909th Airways and Air Communications Squadron, 1 July 1952 – 30 November 1952 [43 Pages, 13MB]

History of the 2143rd Air Weather Wing, 1 July – 31 December 1952 [144 Pages, 32MB]

History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 Jan to 30 June 1955 [74 Pages, 3.76MB]

 History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 July to 31 December 1955 [387 Pages, 103MB]

History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 January 1956 – 30 June 1956 [29 Pages, 10MB]

History of the 5001st Composite Wing, Ladd Air Force Base, Alaska – 1 January 1957 – 7 April 1957 [409 Pages, 103MB]

1960s

History of the Directorate of Administrative Services, 1 July 1960 – 31 December 1960 [905 Pages, 163MB]

History of the Air Force Flight Test Center, 1 January – 30 June 1961 [170 Pages, 16.84MB] – Only the first 167 pages of this document were obtained. The rest is available for purchase, but I was unable to afford the complete document.

History of the 31st Air Division (ADC) April 1 – June 30, 1967 [21 Pages, 3MB]

 History of the 62nd Military Airlift Wing July 1 – December 31, 1969 [224 Pages, 50.8MB]

History of the 78th Fighter Wing (ADC), 1 October 1964 – 31 December 1964 [322 Pages, 101MB]

History of the 4245th Strategic Wing, 1-31 March 1962 [202 Pages, 34.19MB]

History of the 313th Air Division, July-December 1962 [501 Pages, 61.5MB] – These documents detail the Okinawa Incident, October 28, 1962.

History of the 304th Air Rescue Squadron, 1 January – 30 June 1963 [1,984 Pages, 497MB] – UPON ACTIVATION 68/01/26, BECAME AN ACTIVE OPERATING UNIT IN LIEU OF A RESERVE TRAINING SQUADRON. THE CALL TO ACTIVE DUTY WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE SEIZURE OF THE NAVY INTELLIGENCE SHIP PUEBLO BY NORTH KOREA. PUEBLO CRISIS, RESERVE CALL-UP.

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 31 March 1967 [19 Pages, 6MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending June 1967 [22 Pages, 6MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 1966 [106 Pages, 31MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 31 December 1965 [115 Pages, 30MB]

History of the 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing, for the period ending 30 June 1961 [23 Pages, 6MB]

Lessons Learned, Headquarters, 52d Combat Aviation Battalion, 22 September 1969 [54 Pages, 3MB]

1970s

Air Force Museum Semi-Annual History, 1 January 1970 – 30 June 1970 [31 Pages, 12.76mb]

History of the 92nd Bombardment Wing and 92nd Combat Support Group, September 1976 [62 Pages, 12.98mb]

1980s

1. History of the 320th Bombardment Wing, October – December 198f1 [266 Pages, 46.82mb]

Oral History Interviews

Oral History Interview with Lt. Col. William Miller [72 Pages, 6.99mb]

Oral History Interview with Maj. Gen. William C. Garland [112 Pages, 15.28mb]

Other Related Documents

Aerial Interdiction: Air Power and the Land Battle in Three American Wars [444 Pages]

An Aerospace Bibliography [340 Pages]

Air Force Bases Vol. I: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 [651 Pages, 95 megabytes]

Vol. II: Air Bases Outside of the United States of America [241 Pages]

Air Force Combat Medals, Streamers, and Campaigns [358 Pages]

Air Force Combat Wings: Lineage and Honors Histories, 1947-1977 [366 Pages, 33 Megabytes]

The Air Force Integrates, 1945-1964 [366 Pages, 35 Megabytes]

Air Force Officers: Personnel Policy Development, 1944-1974 [503 Pages, 29 Megabytes]

Air Force Roles and Missions: A History [345 Pages, 27 Megabytes] – This history traces the usage of- and meaning given to- the terms “roles and missions” relating to the armed forces and particularly to the United States Air Force from 1903 to the mid-1990s.

Air Interdiction in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam: An Interview with General Earle E. Partridge, General Jacob E. Smart, and General John W. Vogt, Jr. [114 Pages, 9 Megabytes] – Air leaders relate their war experiences in major interdiction campaigns designed to disrupt the flow of men and supplies to enemy armies. As American officers flying in World War II, the interviewees fought in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and Northern France. In Korea and Vietnam, they faced the challenge of limited warfare, in which air power was restrained by national policy.

Air Leadership [168 Pages, 14 Megabytes] – This book contains the published proceedings of a conference on air leadership held at Bolling AFB in 1984.

Air Power and Warfare : the proceedings of the 8th Military History Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, 18-20 October 1978 [475 Pages, 25 Megabytes]

Air Power in Three Wars (World War II, Korea, Vietnam) [372 Pages, 44 Megabytes] – These are the memoirs of General Momyer, whose 35-year military career spanned three conflicts -World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Momyer reflects on his diverse experience, covering the development of tactical air strategy, command and control of air power, air superiority, interdiction, and close air support of ground forces.

Air Superiority in World War II and Korea: An Interview with General James Ferguson, General Robert M. Lee, General William Momyer, and Lt. Gen. Elwood R. Quesada [125 Pages] – The four generals participate in a group oral history on how American air forces achieved air superiority in World War II and Korea. Extensive notes and a bibliography supplement the lively and informative discussion.

Air Warfare and Air Base Defense, 1917-1973 [426 Pages, 8 megabytes]

Airpower Advantage: Planning the Gulf War Air Campaign 1989 – 1991 [497 Pages, 8 megabytes]

The American military and the Far East : proceedings of the Ninth Military History Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, 1-3 October, 1980 [426 Pages, 19 megabytes]

The American military on the frontier : the proceedings of the 7th Military History Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, 30 September-1 October 1976 [206 Pages, 19 megabytes]

Anatomy of a Reform : The Expeditionary Aerospace Force [111 Pages]

Anything, Anywhere, Anytime: Combat Cargo in the Korean War [42 Pages]

Attempts at Codification of Aerial Warfare [7 Pages, 1.23mb]

The 31 Initiatives: A Study in Air Force-Army Cooperation [177 Pages]

From the History of the Creation of Jet Aviation [20 Pages, 3.4mb]

Pathfinder Operations in the Khmer Republic (1973) [92 Pages, 7.22mb]

Shelters for Civilian Personnel, 10 September 1935 [31 Pages, 4.9mb]

United States Air Force History. An Annotated Bibliography [110 Pages, 7.64mb] – Reports of American aircraft events at Fort Myer, Virginia, in 1908 and published extensively in the United States and Europe, marked the beginning of an immense flood of literature about military aviation and aviators, and air deeds in war and peace. This annotated bibliography on U. S. Air Force history is a sampling of that literature, prepared primarily for the student and scholar.

Winged Shield, Winged Sword: A History of the United States Air Force. Volume 1, 1907-1950 [524 Pages, 7.55mb] – Throughout its first century, military aviation helped advance the interests of the United States. From a curiosity, fragile and of uncertain value, the warplane has become a devastating weapon. Moreover, ballistic missiles and surveillance satellites have joined aircraft in this aerial array. In these two volumes, the authors try to describe and analyze, in the context of national policy and international rivalries, the evolution of land-based air power since the United States Army in 1907 established an Aeronautical Division responsible to the Chief Signal Officer. This work, in addition to commemorating the Air Force’s 50th anniversary, also commemorates almost 100 years of progress in the design and use of aerial weaponry. By placing airmen and their machines in an appropriate context, it provides a clearer understanding of the central role of the Air Force in current American defense policy. Volume I, containing the first 12 chapters, begins with balloons and the earliest heavier-than-air machines. It carries the story through World War II to the establishment of the United States Air Force as a service separate from, but equal to, the Army and the Navy. Volume II picks up the narrative at the Korean War, takes it through the War in Southeast Asia, the Gulf War, to the drawdown following the end of the Cold War. Part I: The Early and Interwar Years, 1907-1939, contains The Roots of U.S. Military Aviation, The Air Service in the Great War, From Air Service to Air Corps — The Era of Billy Mitchell, The Coming of the GHQ Air Force, 1925-1935, and The Heyday of the GHQ Air Force, 1935-1939. Part II: World War II, 1939-1945, contains Reaction to the War in Europe, The Army Air Forces in Desperate Battle, 1941-1942, Building Air Power, The Defeat of Italy and Germany, and Victory over Japan. Part III: Building the Air Force, 1945-1950, contains The Quest for Independence and Framing Air Force Missions.

USAF Withdrawal from Southeast Asia, 1 JANUARY 1970 – 30 JUNE 1971 [102 Pages, 13.84MB] – The evaluations in this document represent the efforts of working groups and critique panels of USAF officers who were knowledgeable in the subjects addressed. They were based on reports, letters, messages, etc. written during the course of the war without benefit of a long term perspective.

Video Archive

The post Air Force History Collection first appeared on The Black Vault.

Objective

The objective of this evaluation was to determine whether Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) officials complied with the Air Force Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide (NECG) when certifying the launch system designs for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL)‑class (formerly known as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle‑class) SpaceX Falcon family of launch vehicles. Additionally, during the evaluation we expanded the objective to also determine whether SMC officials applied the design validation approach in the NECG to three other space launch providers’ new entrant launch vehicles that were in development: Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, United Launch Alliance, and Blue Origin, LLC. During the evaluation, these three launch providers’ certification processes were still in progress.

Background

The NECG is a technical guide that provides a risk‑based approach that the SMC uses to certify the capabilities of prospective new entrant launch service providers, as well as new launch vehicle configurations proposed by existing launch services providers, to launch safe and reliable national security space missions. The Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) was the first launch service provider to have a launch vehicle certified by the SMC in accordance with NECG criteria. Following SpaceX, three other prospective launch service providers submitted proposed launch vehicles for certification by the SMC in accordance with the NECG—Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, United Launch Alliance, and Blue Origin, LLC.

SMC implements the NECG through Launch Enterprise Directorate Operating Instruction 17‑001, “Air Force Launch Systems Maturity Assessment Process.” According to SMC Operating Instruction 17‑001, SMC officials may certify a new launch vehicle configuration based on a risk assessment. SMC Operating Instruction 17‑001 also states that the NECG‑required design validation assessments should be completed 12 months before the first launch of an operational payload.

Finding

SMC officials generally complied with the Air Force’s Launch Services NECG and its implementing instruction, SMC Operating Instruction 17‑001, when certifying the capabilities of SpaceX and its Falcon family of launch vehicles. Additionally, in preparation for future launch vehicle contract competitions, SMC officials generally complied with the NECG to accomplish the design validation assessments of the three other potential launch vehicle providers’ new entrant launch vehicles that were still in development. Those three additional providers were Northrop Grumman, ULA, and Blue Origin.

In May 2015 and June 2018, SMC officials certified two SpaceX Falcon family launch vehicles for NSSL missions. As a result, SpaceX is currently an approved launch vehicle provider. However, based on SMC’s experience with SpaceX, we identified two areas where SMC officials could improve their oversight of future, potential launch vehicle providers and their assessment of launch vehicles with reused components.

Limiting the time to conduct independent verification and validation of a provider’s launch vehicle could constrain SMC in determining whether a launch vehicle can reliably launch NSSL payloads at acceptable risk. Such constraints remain a concern for the SMC’s independent verification and validation of other new launch vehicle configurations that have not yet been certified.

Second, SMC officials did not assess the risk of allowing the use of previously used launch vehicle components on subsequent space launches with SpaceX’s Falcon family of launch vehicles. This occurred because the SMC and SpaceX did not agree to reuse launch vehicle components on any NSSL missions to date although SpaceX’s Falcon family of launch vehicles are designed for reuse. Additionally, SMC officials did not establish standards for assessing the reliability of reusable launch vehicle components until March 2019. If the Air Force intends to authorize SpaceX to include reused launch vehicle components on any future Air Force launch missions, the SMC should be proactive and perform the necessary NRDV assessments in accordance with the SMC launch vehicle reusability standards.

Management Comments and Our Response

In response to the draft report, the Director provided a copy of an Air Force Space Command Instruction that solidified the conditions upon which the SMC Commander makes a certification decision.

Deleted Recommendations

In a draft report provided to the Air Force for management comments, we made two recommendations to the Director of the SMC Launch Enterprise Directorate: 1) develop a plan to review the impact of a potential launch vehicle provider’s noncompliance with negotiated timelines for the delivery of technical data to the SMC in support of flight worthiness certifications for NSSL missions; and 2) develop procedures to complete the mission assurance activities necessary to fully assess the risk of authorizing launch vehicle providers to reuse launch vehicle components on NSSL missions. In addition to his response to the draft report, the SMC Director also provided documentation that was not provided to us during the evaluation. We reviewed the documentation and concluded that, had we received and reviewed the documents during the evaluation, we would not have made these two recommendations in the draft report. Therefore, we deleted the recommendations.

This report is the result of Proj. No. D2019-D000PT-0059.000

Document Archive

Evaluation of the Air Force’s Certification of Space Launch Vehicles (DODIG-2020-126) [48 Pages, 3.89MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.90 MB]

The post Evaluation of the Air Force’s Certification of Space Launch Vehicles (DODIG-2020-126) first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Air Force Historical Research Agency is the repository for Air Force historical documents. The Agency’s collection, begun in Washington, DC, during World War II, moved in 1949 to Maxwell Air Force Base, the site of Air University, to provide research facilities for professional military education students, the faculty, visiting scholars, and the general public. It consists today of over 70,000,000 pages devoted to the history of the service, and represents the world’s largest and most valuable organized collection of documents on US military aviation.

Within their archive, they have preserved an unknown number of records onto Microfilm, then converted those to .PDF digitized collections. This page, is an archive of ONLY SOME of these digitized microfilm reels that have been collected by or donated to The Black Vault

** Special thanks to FOIA researcher Cory Newman, who has contributed much of his own collection, that is encompassed into the below list. With his help, and the help of others who have donated their private collections; an archive like this would not be possible in its current form. CONTACT The Black Vault if you have other full reels you’d like to donate to the below.

Document Archive

Below, you will find a full index of records by microfilm reel number. Film reels can consist of THOUSANDS of pages, and contain various topics and documents, sometimes, unrelated to each other. Although this seems like a somewhat rough method of archiving, the below records can be cross-referenced with “AirForceHistoryIndex.org“, a website which has painstakingly taken a database (as of 2001) of AFHRA records, and made a searchable index. This resource is not affiliated with The Black Vault, but links are integrated below to get a quick index to what is on the film reel archived here.

Note: Some reels are marked “partial” as only a partial number of pages from the reel has been released. Since automatic page numbering machines are often inaccurate, it is likely that not all partial reels are labeled as such. If you feel you found a partial reel that is not complete, feel free to contact The Black Vault. Keep in mind, the total number of pages numbered, due to page numbers being skipped, may not reflect the ACTUAL number of pages on any given reel. 

Digitized Microfilm Reels by Number

47214 (partial reel) (Download Reel [309 Pages, 65MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

49775 (Download Reel [1,572 Pages, 421MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

49776 (Download Reel [1,860 Pages, 589MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4012 (Download Reel [1,610 Pages, 343MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4013 (Download Reel [2,185 Pages, 505MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4014 (Download Reel [2,386 Pages, 436MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4015 (Download Reel [1,519 Pages, 284MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4016 (Download Reel [1,981 Pages, 370MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4017 (Download Reel [2,010 Pages, 531MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4018 (Download Reel [1,881 Pages, 402MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4019 (Download Reel [1,455 Pages, 315MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4020 (Download Reel [1,831 Pages, 436MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4021 (Download Reel [1,575 Pages, 371MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4028 (Download Reel [1,641 Pages, 490MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4029 (Download Reel [1,346 Pages, 358MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4030 (Download Reel [1,599 Pages, 500MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4031 (Download Reel [1,448 Pages, 364MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4032 (Download Reel [2,049 Pages, 640MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4033 (Download Reel [2,297 Pages, 769MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4034 (Download Reel [1,909 Pages, 564MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4035 (Download Reel [1,117 Pages, 367MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4036 (Download Reel [1,818 Pages, 675MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A4037 (Download Reel [1,639 Pages, 460MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5830 (Download Reel [2,019 Pages, 440MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5831 (Download Reel [2,344 Pages, 818MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5832 (Download Reel [1,922 Pages, 478MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5836 (Download Reel [1,764 Pages, 464MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5850 (Download Reel [1,928 Pages, 565MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5851 (Download Reel [1,732 Pages, 545MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

A5852 (Download Reel [2,026 Pages, 507MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

B0605 (Download Reel [2,215 Pages, 522MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

B2415 (Download Reel [1,569 Pages, 401MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K0611 (Download Reel [1,652 Pages, 343MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K1054 (Download Reel [1,492 Pages, 452MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K1141 (Download Reel [1,492 Pages, 452MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K1262 (Download Reel [1,306 Pages, 223MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K1264 (partial reel) (Download Reel [52 Pages, 9.9MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K3623 (Download Reel [1,121 Pages, 230MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4002 (Download Reel [1,542 Pages, 470MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4003 (Download Reel [1,400 Pages, 370MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4004 (Download Reel [1,728 Pages, 370MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4006 (Download Reel [1,451 Pages, 358MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4007 (Download Reel [876 Pages, 277MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4008 (Download Reel [1,835 Pages, 752MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4009 (Download Reel [856 Pages, 178MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4010 (Download Reel [762 Pages, 187MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4011 (Download Reel [907 Pages, 200MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

K4012 (Download Reel [1,568 Pages, 383MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0190 (Download Reel [2,233 Pages, 535MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0196 (Download Reel [1,726 Pages, 396MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0245 (partial reel)  (Download Reel [519 Pages, 98.7MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0325 (Download Reel [963 Pages, 238MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0326 (Download Reel [1,780 Pages, 354MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0463 (partial reel)  (Download Reel [209 Pages, 61.5MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0538 (Download Reel [2,539 Pages, 664MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0539 (Download Reel [1,871 Pages, 513MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0558 (Download Reel [1,854 Pages, 387MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0559 (Download Reel [2,327 Pages, 572MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0576 (Download Reel [2,493 Pages, 579MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0577 (Download Reel [2,422 Pages, 622MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0598 (Download Reel [2,162 Pages, 387MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0644 (Download Reel [1,642 Pages, 327MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0645 (partial reel) (Download Reel [905 Pages, 185MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0657 (Download Reel [2,452 Pages, 457MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0659 (Download Reel [1,743 Pages, 383MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0660 (Download Reel [1,573 Pages, 413MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0682 (Download Reel [1,929 Pages, 388MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0710 (Download Reel [2,205 Pages, 490MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0723 (partial reel) (Download Reel [918 Pages, 188MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0833 (Download Reel [1,594 Pages, 336MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0834 (Download Reel [1,688 Pages, 392MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0836 (partial reel) (Download Reel [1,371 Pages, 319MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0865 (partial reel) (Download Reel [232 Pages, 68.9MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0929 (Download Reel [1,511 Pages, 313MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0932 (Download Reel [1,774 Pages, 368MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0933 (Download Reel [1,704 Pages, 315MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0984 (Download Reel [2,032 Pages, 438MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

M0986 (Download Reel [1,827 Pages, 360MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0179 (partial reel) (Download Reel [825 Pages, 173MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0180 (partial reel) (Download Reel [433 Pages, 180MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0197 (Download Reel [1,647 Pages, 343MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0198 (partial reel) (Download Reel [691 Pages, 131MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0216 (partial reel) (Download Reel [1,159 Pages, 261MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0238 (partial reel) (Download Reel [1,050 Pages, 234MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0267 (Download Reel [1,602 Pages, 330MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0268 (partial reel) (Download Reel [750 Pages, 163MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0269 (partial reel) (Download Reel [1,145 Pages, 252MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0285 (Download Reel [1,629 Pages, 318MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0288 (Download Reel [1,520 Pages, 303MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0305 (Download Reel [1,786 Pages, 361MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0306 (Download Reel [1,731 Pages, 349MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0307 (partial reel) (Download Reel [802 Pages, 185MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0366 (Download Reel [1,731 Pages, 363MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0424 (Download Reel [1,948 Pages, 461MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0503 (Download Reel [1,695 Pages, 313MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0504 (partial reel) (Download Reel [754 Pages, 154MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

N0622 (Download Reel [1,980 Pages, 497MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0163 (Download Reel [1,727 Pages, 361MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0379 (Download Reel [1,409 Pages, 311MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0408 (Download Reel [2,152 Pages, 413MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0409 (partial reel) (Download Reel [436 Pages, 92.7MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0410 (Download Reel [1,714 Pages, 338MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0438 (Download Reel [1,674 Pages, 406MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0461 (Download Reel [1,453 Pages, 291MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0462 (Download Reel [1,849 Pages, 379MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0536 (Download Reel [593 Pages, 142MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0537 (Download Reel [2,184 Pages, 464MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0538 (Download Reel [2,107 Pages, 427MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0563 (Download Reel [1,482 Pages, 282MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0577 (Download Reel [1,743 Pages, 451MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0602 (Download Reel [1,436 Pages, 276MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

P0733 (Download Reel [1,513 Pages, 331MB] | Index of Microfilm Reel [external link])

The post Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) Document Collection first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Strategic Air Command (SAC) was both a Major Command (MAJCOM) of the United States Air Force and a “specified command” of the United States Department of Defense. SAC was the operational establishment in charge of America’s land-based strategic bomber aircraft and land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) strategic nuclear arsenal from 1946 to 1992. SAC also controlled the infrastructure necessary to support the strategic bomber and ICBM operations, such as aerial refueling tanker aircraft to refuel the bombers in flight, strategic reconnaissance aircraft, command post aircraft, and, until 1957, fighter escorts.

Document Archive

Strategic Air Command (SAC) Histories

These histories are organized by entire microfilm reels, and in addition to the histories, there are many other SAC related records. Following each entry, is a brief breakdown of what’s inside the PDFs.

Strategic Air Command – 1946 [1,609 Pages, 343MB]

Reel Notes:

Includes biographical sketch of Maj. Gen Clements McMullen, staff memoranda, correspondence, general orders, station organizational plans, comments and recommendations on Hobson plan, information on reduced manning level and minutes of commanders’ meeting in Washington DC 20 Mar 47.

Strategic air command (SAC) headquarters reorganized; SAC organizational thinking reshaped; and subcommands, stations, and units reorganized. Hobson plan instituted retraining wing as designation of unit occupying station with wing headquarters highest echelon on station. Efforts made to overcome personnel problems and manning shortages. Cross training program instituted for SAC personnel. Arctic and polar operations begun in projects Eardrum and Snowman; Polaris considered feasibility of regularly scheduled air transport command flights between Iceland and Greenland; goodwill flights made to Europe; operation parkway (later sunfast) planned to provide very heavy bomber group for Europe; groundwork laid for rotation of very heavy bomber squadron to japan; and Barken project to test bombs against concrete facilities started. Other operations included combine, test of navy against bombers; sea search and antisubmarine; maximum effort missions; Wendover maneuvers; south American and Caribbean; and operational readiness tests.

Contains statistical summaries and charts.

Includes information on atomic bombing with b-29 aircraft and operation crossroads and research and development of atomic weapons.

Includes correspondence pertaining to reorganization of continental air forces and creation of strategic air command (sac) as well as general organization of air force; activations, inactivations, redesignations, and transfers of various units; organization charts; future plans for army air forces; personnel and training.

Recounts development of strategic air command (SAC) beginning with redesignation of Continental Air Forces to SAC. States organization and mission of sac giving background information on concept of strategic operations in World War II. Details planning for Air Force and SAC. 2 Air Force reassigned from Continental Air Forces (CAF) to SAC then inactivated 21 Mar 46 and assigned to defense command in inactive status. 15th Air Force (AF) activated at Colorado springs, CO under command of Brig Gen Charles born. 8th bomber command assigned to 15 AF. Includes information on 8th AF, 58th Bombardment Wing (BW), 311 Reconnaissance Wing (RW), and bases under SAC jurisdiction. Gives appraisal of training activities in sac as well as personnel problems and shortages.

Strategic Air Command – 1947 [2,184 Pages, 505MB]

Reel Notes:

Contains data on the Strategic Air Command (SAC) increased bombing strength with the introduction of b-50 aircraft and b-36 aircraft, program to provide air to air refueling of bomber aircraft in calendar year 1948, changes in wing/base plan of organization, succession of Generals Curtis E. Lemay and Thomas S. Power to command and deputy command positions, personnel problems, increases in operational flying training, priority system of aircraft maintenance/supply support, priority 1a as well as other units assigned unique missions, overseas duty of airmen, mission in the atomic energy program, elimination of undesirable or substandard personnel, uses of Women in the Air Force (WAF), association with aviation cadet program, use of black personnel, safety programs, around the world flights, alert of Jun 48, rotational policies for personnel, Operation Sandstone, Caribbean area operations, reconnaissance operations, operational readiness tests, ground and airborne strategic training programs, aircraft maintenance, inspections, procedures for critical engine repair, supply actions to validate B-36 aircraft/B-50 aircraft parts requirements, food service, clothing required for special strategic missions, base construction, housing, movement of SAC headquarters to Offutt Air Force Base NE, and a listing of supporting documents by volume and title.

Contains additional data on Strategic Air Command statistical summaries pertaining to organization, personnel, aircraft maintenance, supply, air base functions, training, and operations.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command statistical summaries pertaining to organization, personnel, aircraft maintenance, supply, air base functions, training, and operations.

Contains Strategic Air Command data on key personnel, and organization. Mentions Generals Curtis E. Lemay, George C. Kenney, Thomas S. Power, August W. Kissner, David W. Hutchison, John B. Montgomery, and Walter c. Sweeney, jr.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command operations. Includes trip reports, mission summaries, reconnaissance reports, and other aviation centered data.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command training.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command supply, maintenance, and facilities.

Strategic Air Command – 1947-1950 (Various Records) [1,830 Pages, 436MB]

Reel Notes:

Supplements were prepared monthly for purpose of presenting newly compiled data augmenting and/or changing that information contained in basic report.

This document is intelligence summary based upon analysis and evaluation of monitored transmissions from strategic air command point to point and air/ground radio circuits.

Contains summaries of miscellaneous research studies.

Intelligence brief: Soviet long/range guided missile

Discusses air bases in Greenland, Iceland, and Canada.

Contains listing and description of airfields.

Intelligence brief: soviet B-29 aircraft airfields

Discusses Soviet imports from United States and American imports from Soviet Union.

Discusses Eastleigh Airdrome in Nairobi, Kenya.

Includes historical and current information concerning Anglo/Egyptian Sudan as well as description of airfield facilities.

Provides historical and current information about Ceylon as well as description of Negombo airfield, Ceylon.

Intelligence brief: soviet petroleum situation.

Intelligence brief: weather of northern hemisphere.

Contains description of Moscow, capital of Soviet Union.

Discusses soviet aggression in eastern Europe.

Intelligence brief: capabilities of soviet antiaircraft for defense against very heavy bombardment operations.

Intelligence brief: capabilities of soviet air force to defend western Russia against air bombardment.

Intelligence brief: significance of Spitzbergen (Svalbard) as strategic air base.

Intelligence brief: significance of Iceland as strategic air base.

Intelligence brief: implications of Arab/Jewish conflict in Palestine.

Discusses history and current status of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia as well as airfield facilities at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Discusses possible soviet attempts to obtain economic foothold in western Europe before marshal plan would have time to become effective.

Intelligence brief: indications of atomic energy facilities in union of soviet socialist republics.

Intelligence brief: American foreign policy.

Intelligence brief: Russia, colossus of Eurasia.

Target folder: bombing competition.

Medical history of continental air forces and strategic air command.

Regulation concerns Strategic Air Command and Continental Air Command fighter bomber interception program.

Topics include crew syllabus, aircraft commander syllabus, radar operator syllabus, navigator syllabus, bombardier syllabus, flight engineer syllabus, radio operator syllabus, gunner syllabus, briefing and critique procedures, grading and evaluation, mission requirements and routes, and lesson plans.

Supplement number five to intelligence summary from communications of strategic air command.

Strategic Air Command – 1948 [2,385 Pages, 437MB]

Reel Notes:

Contains Strategic Air Command statistical summaries.

Contains Strategic Air Command general orders 1 through 90.

Contains supporting documents, exhibit 1 through 70 of chapter iv , exhibit 1 through 6 of chapter v, and exhibit 1 through 7 of chapter vi.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command operations and training.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command personnel administration.

Strategic Air Command – 1949 [1,518 Pages, 284MB]

Reel Notes:

Contains information pertaining to operational readiness tests, aircrew training, proposals for long range missions, and other operational items.

Goal of three Air Forces as subcommands realized when 311th Air Division redesignated 2^nd Air Force, giving Strategic Air Command (SAC) 2nd, 8th and 15th Air Forces. Major personnel problem was that of manning units with personnel possessing required skills; SAC development program began end of 1948. Reserve officers on flying status converted to regular component or separated during year. United states Air Force (USAF) undertook development of career program for airmen in Apr 48 involving reclassification and reassignment of airmen during 1949. Women in the Air Force (WAF) personnel restricted to three subcommand headquarters in SAC. SAC involved in transition from B-29 aircraft to B-36 and B-50 bomber aircraft. Lucky lady II, B-50 aircraft, circled globe nonstop using inflight refuelings. Flight tests on B-36 aircraft continued as controversy raged in Washington DC. Continued arctic operations, participated in continental maneuvers and operational readiness tests. Contains biographical sketches on Generals Curtis e. Lemay and Walter Sweeney.

Contains supporting documents pertaining to maintenance. Includes report on conference on B-36 aircraft.

Contains correspondence and other papers pertaining to operational readiness test.

Contains information on operations and training.

Includes Strategic Air Command (SAC) regulations and correspondence pertaining to organization of subordinate units and staff officers and personnel.

Strategic Air Command – 1949 [1,980 Pages, 370MB]

Reel Notes:

Contains Strategic Air Command data on bombing effectiveness and combat crew training.

Has data on Strategic Air Command reorganization, comptroller, reconnaissance, and air to air refueling.

Contains data on reorganization of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), controller activities, reconnaissance actions, refueling sorties, bombing effectiveness, lead and combat crew training, key personnel, and photographs.

Contains Strategic Air Command statistical summaries.

Contains general orders 1 through 78.

Supporting documents, exhibits 194 through 212 (supply), exhibits 213 through 218 (facilities). Includes the Strategic Air Command mobility and supply plan.

Strategic Air Command – 1950 [2,009 Pages, 531MB]

Reel Notes:

Data on reassignment of units and attachment of units.

General orders no. 13 through 47

Preparation of histories, Strategic Air Command manual 200-20-1

Study describes the details surrounding the 26 Jan 49 call to the president from Nebraska’s governor to assist in humanitarian rescue and support of snowbound citizens of the western states of Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Nebraska. Includes photographs and statistics.

Contains organization and functions list of the strategic air command.

Contains Strategic Air Command general orders 1 through 38, station/unit listing, and photographic supplement.

Contains roster of Strategic Air Command officers.

Contains data on Strategic Air Command operations.

Summary of Strategic Air Command operational data

Data on assignment of aviation squadrons.

Data on staff assignments, inactivation of reserve corollary units, and assignment of aviation squadrons.

Data on reorganization of the 509th aviation squadron, bombardment, medium.

Data on reorganization, reassignment, redesignation of regular air force units, and redesignation of reserve units of Strategic Air Command units.

Data on reorganization of Strategic Air Command units.

Data on reorganization and inactivation of Strategic Air Command units.

Data on reorganization of Strategic Air Command units.

Data on redesignation of 27th fighter wing and reorganization of 306 bombardment group, medium.

Data on assignment of the 509th aviation squadron, bombardment, medium.

Data on reorganization of 924th engineer aviation group and assignment of United States Air Force Reserve Corollary units.

General order 76.

Strategic Air Command – 1950 [1,880 Pages, 402MB]

Reel Notes: 

Summary of Strategic Air Command operational data

Strategic Air Command – 1950 [1,454 Pages, 315MB]

Reel Notes:

Organization and functions.

Describes Astrocator compass, designed as means of simplifying polar navigation.

Strategic Air Command bombing competition.

Contains information on procedures for determining recurring radar difficulties, summary of radar performance/46 reconnaissance squadron, difficulties in b-29 aircraft operations due to weather, and standard operating procedures for b-29 aircraft with Curtiss electric props and fuel injection engines in extremely cold weather.

Contains report covering experience of 46 reconnaissance squadron, Fairbanks AK, in field of radar operations and maintenance; material extracted from mission reports submitted to strategic air command.

Presents some details and suggestions not considered in standard operating procedure pertaining to polar operations, survival and rescue. Discusses emergency procedures for crash landing and bailout over polar region and living in arctic area.

States purpose of radar bomb scoring detachment assigned to operation crossroads, details equipment used, discusses personnel and operations, and makes recommendations.

Contains report on polar navigation explaining methods in use and attendant problems.

Title supplied; cover shows 21 Nov 49.

Station and unit listing.

Roster of officers

SAC (Srategic Air Command) supply plan

B-36 (aircraft) radio operators s.o.p. (standard operating procedure)

B-36 (aircraft) pilots s.o.p. (standard operating procedure)

Chart showing stations and units of strategic air command.

Organization chart, statistical control office

Contains information pertaining to use of booklet, basic radio propagation predictions, wd technical bulletin 11-499; advantages and limitations of using projections in bulletin for arctic and polar regions.

Strategic Air Command – 1950 [1,575 Pages, 371MB]

Reel Notes:

Contains supporting documents to section two: personnel; chapter i, personnel in formative period; chapter ii, supply of personnel.

Includes adjutant general letter establishing air defense, strategic air and tactical air commands and redesignation of continental air forces and certain other army air forces units as well as activation, inactivation and assignment of certain army air forces units; organization plan of tactical air command (tac); status of tac units; report of board appointed to study unit personnel sections of bases and organizations within tac; proposed plan for 3 air force; contemplated move to Langley field VA; assignment of stations; disposal of surplus property and transfer of jurisdiction of certain fields; tac staff conference notes; and future operational plans of army air forces to include information on weapon systems.

Includes information on aircraft maintenance, maintenance organization, training, flying safety, and biographical sketches on Maj Gen Elwood R. (Pete) Quesada, Brig Gen Robert M. Lee, Brig Gen Glenn O. Barcus, and Brig Gen Warren R. Carter.

Activated Mar 46. Composed of 3rd, 9th and 12th Air Forces. 9th and 3^rd Air Forces merged 1 Nov 46 with designation of 9^th Air Force with headquarters at Greenville SC. Considers amount of control to be given to numbered air forces. Tactical air command (TAC) headquarters moved to Langley field VA from Tampa FL during May 46. Deals with acquisition, loss, utilization, and disposal of inactive and surplus bases. Contains information on organization of command and key personnel. Maj Gen Elwood R. Quesada assumed command of TAC 26 Mar 46. Includes section on acquisition, losses and sources of officer, airmen and civilian personnel.

Presents brief comprehensive picture of ground-controlled approach (GCA) operations, with primary emphasis on duties of operating team.

Radar operator’s report, strategic air command form number 66-20

Radar maintenance log, strategic air command form number 66-19

Contains operating instructions for radio and other types of communications within strategic air command.

Contains information based on flight test by 8^th air force operational engineering section to determine changes in performance characteristics caused by change in configuration of aircraft.

Includes tactical air command aircraft accident prevention data bulletins, prepared by flying safety section and information on base commanders conference held at headquarters, tactical air command, Langley field VA, 11 Jul 46.

Contains report of major aircraft accident involving b-36b aircraft number 44- 92079. Aircraft crashed on takeoff at Carswell Air Force Base TX 15 Sep 49.

The post The Strategic Air Command (SAC) Histories first appeared on The Black Vault.

Continental Air Command (ConAC) (1948–1968) was a Major Command of the United States Air Force (USAF) responsible primarily for administering the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. During the Korean War, ConAC provided the necessary augmentation to the regular Air Force while it rebuilt itself under wartime conditions. Later, during the 1950s, it was a training force for reservists with no prior military service. ConAC provided peacetime airlift missions for the Air Force. It was mobilized twice in 1961 and 1962 by president Kennedy for the Berlin and Cuban Missile Crisis. Lastly, it was used by president Lyndon B. Johnson for airlift operations into the Dominican Republic and South Vietnam. It was inactivated in 1968 and replaced by Headquarters, Air Force Reserve (AFRES).

Below, you will find numerous histories pertaining to ConAC.

The Black Vault wishes to thank Cory Newman, a FOIA researcher, investigator, and collector of these records. He has graciously donated them to The Black Vault for preservation and online distribution.

Document Archive

 The Continental Air Command and the Korean War, June to December 1950 [147 Pages, 37.1MB] –

 REEL A4028 [1,640 Pages, 490MB] – Continental Air Command History, December 1948 – December 1949 (Vol. 1 – Page 594) | Continental Air Command History, December 1948 – December 1949
 REEL A4037 [1,638 Pages, 460MB] – Continental Air Command, August 1949 – October 1949
 REEL A4029 [1,346 Pages, 358MB] – Continental Air Command History, December 1948 – December 1949, (Volumes 2-5)
 REEL A4030 [1,599 Pages, 500MB] – Continental Air Command History, December 1948 – December 1949 (Page 3, Volumes 5-7) | Continental Air Command History, January 1950 – June 1950 (Volume 1, Page 1,270)
 REEL A4031 [1,448 Pages, 364MB] – Continental Air Command History, January 1950 – June 1950 (Volumes 2-5)
 REEL A4032 [2,048 Pages, 640MB] – Continental Air Command History, January 1950 – June 1950 (Volumes 6-7)
 REEL A4033 [2,297 Pages, 769MB] – Continental Air Command History, June 1949
| Continental Air Command History, March 1950
 REEL A4034 [1,909 Pages, 564MB] – Various CONAC Training Histories, Circa 1949-1950
 REEL A4035 [1,117 Pages, 367MB] – Sweet Briar, 1950
 REEL A4036 [1,818 Pages, 675MB] – Exercise Swarmer History, March 1950 | ORT Conference, April 1950 | Air Reserve Officers, March 1949 – February 1950 | Air Force ROTC, 1948-1949 | Air Science 2, April 1949 | Air Armament, May 1949 – June 1949 | AF Communications, April 1949 | Radiological Defense Course, September 1949 | Criminal Investigation, April 1949

The post Continental Air Command (ConAC) Histories first appeared on The Black Vault.

This document is a study on the effects of the allied bombardment campaign on the German air force. It starts by giving the original composition of the German air force (mostly bombers and dive bombers). The battle of Britain and the Russian front taught them that bombers without fighter protection are very vulnerable. Item discusses fighter production, aircraft production in general, and the effects of USAAF (united states army air forces) attacks on: German tank production; the bearing industry; oil and the synthetic oil and gasoline plants (big USASF problem, as there were some 81 plants dispersed); and armament factories, motor transportation, and chemicals. Discusses the German forces committed to static defense. There are statistics on German gasoline production by month from April 1944 through January 1945.

Document Archive

American Bombardment and the German Air Force, Circa 1945 [37 Pages, 15MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [14.79 MB]

The post American Bombardment and the German Air Force, Circa 1945 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Signaling a major leap forward for national defense in the digital age, the Air Force flew with artificial intelligence as a working aircrew member onboard a military aircraft for the first time Dec. 15.

The AI algorithm, known as ARTUµ, flew with the pilot, U.S. Air Force Maj. “Vudu”, on a U-2 Dragon Lady assigned to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base. Air Combat Command’s U-2 Federal Laboratory researchers developed ARTUµ and trained it to execute specific in-flight tasks that otherwise would be done by the pilot.

The test flight was the result of years of concerted effort within the Air Force to apply cutting-edge technology to military operations as it competes with other world powers in the digital age.

“ARTUµ’s groundbreaking flight culminates our three-year journey to becoming a digital force,” said Dr. William Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics. “Putting AI safely in command of a U.S. military system for the first time ushers in a new age of human-machine teaming and algorithmic competition. Failing to realize AI’s full potential will mean ceding decision advantage to our adversaries.”

During this flight, ARTUµ was responsible for sensor employment and tactical navigation, while the pilot flew the aircraft and coordinated with the AI on sensor operation. Together, they flew a reconnaissance mission during a simulated missile strike. ARTUµ’s primary responsibility was finding enemy launchers while the pilot was on the lookout for threatening aircraft, both sharing the U-2’s radar.

The flight was part of a precisely constructed scenario which pitted the AI against another dynamic computer algorithm in order to prove the new technology.

“We know that in order to fight and win in a future conflict with a peer adversary, we must have a decisive digital advantage,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr. “AI will play a critical role in achieving that edge, so I’m incredibly proud of what the team accomplished. We must accelerate change and that only happens when our Airmen push the limits of what we thought was possible.”

After takeoff, the sensor control was positively handed-off to ARTUµ who then manipulated the sensor, based on insight previously learned from over a half-million computer simulated training iterations. The pilot and AI successfully teamed to share the sensor and achieve the mission objectives.

The U-2 Federal Laboratory designed this AI technology to be easily transferable to other systems and plan to further refine the technology. Today’s flight provided invaluable data for not only the team to learn from, but also ARTUµ.

“Blending expertise of a pilot with capabilities of machine learning, this historic flight directly answers the National Defense Strategy’s call to invest in autonomous systems,” said Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett. “Innovations in artificial intelligence will transform both the air and space domains.”

The U-2 Federal Laboratory is a 15 U.S.C. compliant organization established to bring together a “confluence of warfighter, developer, and acquirer” vertically-integrated under the same operational roof. The lab has developed and been approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish the 20th Laboratory Accreditation Program in the federal government. It promotes “edge development” – a concept to develop new software integration on operational systems in a bounded, safe environment.

The historic flight with AI comes just two months after the U-2 Federal Laboratory team updated inflight software for the first time during a U-2 training mission. The team leveraged the open-source container-orchestration software Kubernetes, another military first.

The post AI Copilot: Air Force Achieves First Military Flight with Artificial Intelligence first appeared on The Black Vault.

The purposes of this guidance document is to, “Provide commanders and public affairs offices with guidance to ensure operational security is practiced in the various public engagements in which the Air Force participates, whether through public affairs or not. The following guidance will apply to all organizations until operational security training and certification has been completed.”

Document Archive

Public Affairs Guidance OPSEC and Public Engagement, 2018 (March and July 2018 documents) [11 Pages, 1MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.03 MB]

The post Public Affairs Guidance OPSEC and Public Engagement, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault.

From the report’s abstract:

“With the current interest in and potential for hypersonic flight, there is a need to determine the Air Force and for the nation the RD approaches required to realize the opportunities offered by flight in this regime. The committee 1 determined possible military uses of hypersonic flight, 2 drew on the developing hypersonic technology base, including the evolving results of NASP Phase II, to assess the technical feasibility of meeting the potential applications, 3 identified the technological needs for hypersonic flight, 4 assessed the RD support requirements including availability of expertise, data bases, and test facilities, 5 provided technical advice to the command level on the RD strategy of the NASP. Hypersonic aircraft, National aerospace plane.”

Document Archive

Hypersonic Technology for Military Application, July 1998 [113 Pages, 7.44MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [7.44 MB]

The post Hypersonic Technology for Military Application, July 1998 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was a massive statistical analysis undertaken by the U.S. Air Force and the Battelle Memorial Institute to study UFO sightings. This report is significant as it represents the largest such study ever undertaken, with a total of 3,200 cases analyzed by the time the report was completed in 1954. The goal was to make the UFO study more scientific, and the approach involved devising a standardized reporting form and analyzing the existing sighting reports based on about 30 report characteristics​​.

The analysts classified the cases into “knowns”, “unknowns”, and a third category of “insufficient information”. They further broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. Notably, for a case to be classified as an “unknown”, all four analysts had to agree, making the criterion quite stringent. Sightings were also analyzed based on six different characteristics—color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed. These characteristics were then compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically significant difference​.

The main findings of the statistical analysis were as follows:

• About 69% of the cases were judged as known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still “doubtfully” explained), about 9% had insufficient information, and about 22% were deemed “unknown”.
• In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations. Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or “crackpot” cases. A “miscellaneous” category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.
• The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified as unknown. 35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, as opposed to only 18% of the poorest cases​⁴​.

Despite these findings, the summary section of the Battelle Institute’s final report declared it was “highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects … represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge.” This conclusion was criticized by some researchers, who noted that the conclusions of the analysts were usually at odds with their own statistical results, displayed in 240 charts, tables, graphs, and maps​⁵​.

When the Air Force made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. However, critics noted that the report actually proved that the “unknowns” were distinctly different from the “knowns” at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%​​.

The results of the monumental study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report, which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation. When GEPAN’s successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5,800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%​.

Below, you will find a copy of the entire report, as archived by the CIA. This is the cleanest copy that I have seen, and complete.

Document Archive

Project Blue Book Special Report #14 – May 5, 1955 [312 Pages, 25MB]

The post Project Blue Book Special Report #14 – May 5, 1955 first appeared on The Black Vault.

News this week excited UFO enthusiasts, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Senator Marco Rubio, issued their report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021. Within it was a small, but detailed section on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs. Although better known to the general public as simply UFOs, the report detailed how data held by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI); information gathered by geospatial, human and signals intelligence; and case files from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would all be utilized for an unclassified report delivered to the Senate within 180 days of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2021.  But mysteriously missing yet again from the UAP conversation within this document? The United States Air Force. Recently released internal communications from the Air Force may reveal just why that is.

‘Off the Record’

The internal e-mailed communication received by The Black Vault on June 24, 2020, via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), revealed an “off the record” set of comments given from Major Malinda Singleton, spokesperson for the Air Force, to Susan Gough, spokesperson for the Pentagon. As Singleton was tasked to respond to a set of specific media-submitted questions on UAPs, she gave two extra lines of information for Gough’s consideration, but they were not meant public consumption.

When the e-mailed conversation dealt with UAP reporting guidelines by the Air Force, Singleton wrote:

“Currently the Air Force is not working any specific guidelines for reporting UAPs. **Side note and off the record – we do have reporting instructions for Unauthorized Air Vehicles/Military Installation Airspace Violation, but that is more in the C-UAS realm. That information is provided via OPREPs on SIPR.”

The OPREP-3 Reporting System

Although some may not catch the connection at first glance, the reference Singleton added ties into a theory first proposed by Australian researcher Paul Dean. That is, that UFO cases, those that are likely not just  misidentified drones or balloons, are made within what is called the Operational Reporting (OPREP) system. Specifically, Dean points out OPREP-3 reports, including subcategories 9F and 9B, as being the most significant.

“Briefly, the OPREP–3’s system is used by authorized military personnel to report urgent, serious or ongoing situations or dire events up the chain–of–command,” Dean said in a blog entry he wrote in June of 2019. He then broke down numerous publications from the Air Force that although did not outline UAP reporting procedures, they would likely be included the way the Air Force Instructions were written.

Singleton also added in her comment that OPREP’s would be located on SIPR, or Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. SIPR is a secure system within the Department of Defense (DOD) wherein the data on it is considered classified up to SECRET. In other words, the OPREP’s stored within SIPR are all considered sensitive information and not meant to be released to the public.

However, even Dean showed trepidation about connecting his proposed theory about UAP encounters with OPREP-3 reports. He stated, “The ‘Unauthorized Air Vehicle / Military Installation Airspace Violation / Intrusion’ sub–class of OPREP–3 is by no means a significant UFO reporting channel for, well, ‘our’ sort of UFO’s,” he wrote. “Maybe one day we will find out exactly what has been reported in the last few years,” he concluded, since no OPREP-3 reports were found in response to numerous FOIA requests that he has filed.

Yet, the internal communication from USAF sent to the Pentagon, may actually show Dean is on to something, and his reservations about what he proposed may not be warranted.

Although Singleton references the “C-UAS [Counter-Unmanned Aerial System] realm,” which meant she felt the reports would likely pertain to unidentified drones flying within unauthorized airspace; she did tie the public statement about UAP reporting procedures to the ‘off the record’ similar OPREP procedures, possibly connecting the two, just as Dean proposed. He was excited at the find.

“Here we see an admission that the vital OPREP-3 channel is being used by the USAF to report unidentifiable objects up the chain of command,” he told The Black Vault. “While its true that they are leaning towards unmanned aerial systems, drones, etc., I would argue that in the heat of the moment, anything in the air, no matter how drone-like or otherwise, could be reported!”

UAP Awareness is Widespread

Another statement Singleton gave to Gough was about the actual definition for “UAP.”  Her ‘off the record’ comment for this note, shed light on how widespread knowledge about UAPs was within the Air Force.

“How do we define UAPs, it (sic) would say it is similar to the definition that DoD is already using. ** Side note and off the record – most people I talked to were aware of this term, but again we don’t have the official reporting instruction for it.”

There is no way to tell how many people Singleton talked to while researching the media questions she was assigned to answer. However, it would likely be key players within the Air Force structure for safety, policy and procedure, and it appears that at least in September of 2019, the upper echelon of those areas within the Air Force were well aware of UAPs.

With the seeming wide-spread knowledge about UAPs within the Air Force structure, and the reference to a reporting system theorized to include UAP reports, the Air Force may be wrapped up in UAP investigations as well, but it may just be cleverly hidden within covertly named projects and reports that exist within the shadows. It is an odd juxtaposition with that of the Navy, which openly admits a UAP connection between their branch and investigations of the unknown, but that disparity between how the two agencies deal with it all remains unexplained.

Despite that, Dean is encouraged by the document The Black Vault just revealed, as he continues his hunt for OPREP-3 / UAP reports.

“The overall situation is that the USAF here has mentioned the OPREP-3 network and unknown objects in the same packet of information. I’ve been screaming about this for years,” he said. “It’s an important acknowledgement, even if they do generally mean man-made UAS and the like.”

###

Unedited Comments

The following are unedited comments that were utilized for this article. They are archived here for reference.

Paul Dean

“Here we see an admission that the vital OPREP-3 channel is being used by the USAF to report unidentifiable objects up the chain of command. While its true that they are leaning towards unmanned aerial systems, drones, etc, I would argue that, in the heat of the moment, anything in the air, no matter how drone-like or otherwise, could be reported! Actually, there are two subcategories of USAF reporting OPREP-3s that we found that could generate true UFO reports, aside from just pesky drone sightings. And one of them is near identically worded as the old CIRVIS UFO reporting lay out of old! The overall situation is that the USAF here has mentioned the OPREP-3 network and unknown objects in the same packet of information. Ive been screaming about this for years. It’s an important acknowledgement, even if they do generally mean man-made UAS and the like”

The post ‘Off the Record’ E-mail May Shed Light on Handling of Air Force UFO Cases first appeared on The Black Vault.

The effects of hypnosis on thermoregulatory responses were studied in nonacclimatized acutely cold-exposed men. Forty exposures (4.5 @#X2013;5.0 C) were conducted in an environmental chamber under both hypnosis and nonhypnosis conditions. Five subjects, wearing 1 clo insulation, were cold exposed for 1 hr, four times for each condition, and each subject served as his own control. Variables monitored included mean skin and rectal temperatures, heart and shivering rates, basal skin resistance, and vigilance task performance. In hypnosis, shivering was suppressed, heart rate lowered, and vigilance task performance improved. Basal skin resistance differed in terms of pattern and level, being generally higher under hypnotic conditions. Rectal temperatures were lower despite maintaining skin temperature at the same level as during nonhypnosis conditions. These findings indicate that with the thermal stress imposed and levels of trance achieved, there is a general amelioration of the psychophysiological effects of the stress. The mechanism responsible for this form of “adaptation” remains speculative but is consistent with generalized suppression of sympathetic activity.

Document Archive

Modification Of Thermoregulatory Responses To Cold By Hypnosis, Final Report, September 1962 – April 1963 [14 Pages, 8.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [8.44 MB]

The post Modification Of Thermoregulatory Responses To Cold By Hypnosis, Final Report, September 1962 – April 1963 first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Lunex Project was a US Air Force 1958 plan for a crewed lunar landing prior to the Apollo Program. The final lunar expedition plan in 1961 was for a 21-person underground Air Force base on the Moon by 1968 at a total cost of $7.5 billion. The primary distinction between the later Apollo missions and Lunex was the orbital rendezvous maneuver. The Lunex vehicle, composed of a landing module and a lifting body return/re-entry module, would land the entire vehicle and all astronauts on the surface, whereas the final Apollo mission involved a separate ascent module leaving the command module and service module connected in lunar orbit with a single astronaut. The original plan for Apollo was for direct ascent, similar to Lunex.

Document Archive

Lunar Expedition Plan, LUNEX, May 1961 [227 Pages, 9.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [9.38 MB]

The post The Lunex Project, Air Force Lunar Landing Project, 1958-1961 first appeared on The Black Vault.

“Storm Area 51, They Can’t Stop All of Us”, commonly referred to as Raid Area 51 or Storm Area 51, was an American Facebook event that took place on September 20, 2019, at Area 51, a United States Air Force (USAF) facility within the Nevada Test and Training Range, to raid the site in a search for extraterrestrial life. More than 2 million people responded “going” and 1.5 million “interested” on the event’s page, which subsequently attracted widespread media reaction and made the event become an Internet meme.

USAF was fielding e-mails and phone calls from journalists (and others) about the event. On September 5, 2019, I filed a FOIA request for all e-mails sent to/from USAF Spokeswoman Laura Mcandrews that contained the keyword “Area 51.”

On October 24, 2019, I received the below documents.

Document Archive – Highlights

(Full Release is below)

Document Archive

Storm Area 51: Air Force Public Affairs Office E-Mails  [28 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [616.32 KB]

The post Storm Area 51: Air Force Public Affairs Office E-Mails first appeared on The Black Vault.

Just last month, the U.S. Navy went on the record stating that three videos that have circulated the mainstream media in the last two years were, in fact, considered “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or UAPs.  Now, recently obtained e-mails from the Navy and the Air Force reveal that ranking members of both branches express different views on what they refer to as a “phenomena,” along with showing disagreement with how the overall story is being reported by the mainstream media.

The series of documents were provided to The Black Vault through two different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Navy and to the Air Force.  Records were released for both requests in June and October respectively.

Navy E-Mails Outline Different UAP Narrative

The Navy released to The Black Vault in late June nearly one hundred pages of correspondence relating to the “UFO Guidelines” first reported by Politico in April. The emails consist primarily of correspondence from outside journalists and media agencies all looking to cover the news about the “UFO Guidelines” that Politico broke, but also within those messages, were internal communications by Navy personnel not yet seen by the general public, until their release to The Black Vault.

One such message offers much more detail about the “UFO Guidelines” than previously reported. However, what it outlines is a much different narrative than the one published largely by the mainstream media. Nowhere in the three hundred and sixty nine word statement does “unidentified” appear; nor is there anything about any “phenomena.” On the contrary, the statement offered a much more nuts-and-bolts, identifiable definition, but a threat to the Navy none-the-less.

“The wide proliferation and availability of inexpensive unmanned aerial systems (UAS) such as commercially available quadcopters has increasingly made airspace de‐confliction an issue for our aviators,” said John “Jay” Stratton, an Office of Naval Intelligence Senior Analyst from the Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center. “Based on this increased airspace complexity, US Navy aircrew were provided with reporting instructions in order to determine the frequency and location of any UAS operating in our training areas.”

Some of Stratton’s wording should sound familiar to those with a sharp memory. Although it is unclear if Stratton’s version of the Navy statement was truly the original to be crafted (the e-mail in the release is dated after the Politico article), it is likely that it was. Joseph Gradisher, spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, was the one responsible for issuing shorter, but similar statement that was later published by Politico, and repeated throughout multiple media outlets in the days that followed.

Stratton was never quoted or was responsible for issuing any statements to the media. His take, was internal only.

Gradisher refers to Stratton in an internal e-mail dated May 7, 2019, as having “provided most of the info” that he used to craft the “UFO Guideline” statements that he had sent to Politico. (The date discrepancy on Stratton’s e-mail could be explained by the fact it may have been a copy and paste from another e-mail thread, however that cannot be verified as the Pentagon did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.) However, in the final statements that  Gradisher sent to Politico, he inserted “unidentified aircraft” within the wording, as they related to UAS’, however, there was still no reference to “UFOs,” “UAPs,” or any “phenomena.”  Once that two-word phrase was issued, it was then morphed into “UFO” by the mainstream media.

Classified Briefing Details Revealed

The e-mails also reveal that Stratton was the one who conducted at least one of the classified briefing on UAPs, a fact not yet reported by the mainstream media.

“OLA [Office of Legislative Affairs] is responding to interest from staff members of both chambers of Congress, led by the national security advisors to Senators McConnell (majority leader) and Schumer (minority leader) and will also likely include House staff, as well as staff from the Armed Services Committees,” one e-mail stated sent from a sender whose name was redacted. “With N2N6 concurrence, Mr. Jay Stratton (DISL, ONI NIMITZ) will brief Congressional staff in a classified session on Tues 7 May on the Navy’s efforts in this area.”  N2N6 refers to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance.

The e-mail seemingly contradicts the widespread claim that To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA), the organization largely credited for leaking the three UAP videos known as “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast,” played a role in the classified briefings. Nowhere in the internal communications are they referred to; listed as taken part in; nor are they credited for organizing the closed-door meetings.

TTSA has not responded to repeated attempts for comment from The Black Vault.

The U.S. Air Force and UAPs

The second batch of e-mails obtained by The Black Vault were released by the Air Force on October 3, 2019. Since the Navy has gone on the record about UAPs and UFOs earlier this year, the Air Force has stayed mysteriously quiet. Arguably, the military branch that should have the most interest of unidentified objects in the sky, has shown little to no interest, and has not issued any detailed statements on UAPs or UFOs in recent months. However, their internal e-mails reveal details on how they view the UAP topic along with the UFO phenomena.

On April 26, 2019, Air Force spokesperson Laura Mcandrews sent an e-mail to the Deputy Director of [Air Force] Public Affairs, Mr. Jerry Renne. This message came just days after Politico broke the story about the “UFO Guidelines,” and her interpretation of the story was a bit different than the final statements issued by the Navy to Politico.

“They mentioned the Air Force by saying ‘For safety and security concerns, the Navy and the USAF take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report.’ (Which is true.),” said Mcandrews. “What the Navy was trying to talk about was unmanned aerial systems… that got turned into UFOs and aliens.”

The e-mail by Mcandrews reflects that of what appears to be the Navy’s original statement by Stratton, which got truncated and altered before submission to Politico. It appears that the Air Force focus on this threat surrounds unmanned aerial systems, and not “[unidentified flying objects]” as asserted by Politico.

When asked if the Air Force had any “UFO Guideline”-like protocols; the Air Force has not commented publicly as of the writing of this article, and the Pentagon did not respond for comment after multiple attempts.  However, the e-mails offer insight into that very question.

Josh Aycock, Chief of the Public Affairs division for the Air Force Safety Center (AFSC) was enlisted by the Air Force main public affairs office for guidance on answering that question, as submitted by one journalist. He was tasked to look into whether Air Force encounters with UAPs had occurred, along with being asked to provide evidence, if any, that the Air Force had a similar “UFO Guideline” similar to the Navy’s.

“Gut reaction is that we would not track these unless the pilot almost crashed into one or something like that,” Aycock responded almost immediately. Two days later, he offered the official answer. “The flight folks do not believe we have anything in our system regarding unexplained phenomenon,” Aycock sent to the main public affairs office. “I also checked with my FOIA team to see if they have encountered anything like this. They said they typically send those requests to the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. I could see that as a potential repository for those types of events.”

The FAA did not comment on questions sent from The Black Vault relating to their stance on UAPs; specific guidelines or protocols for commercial pilots to report encounters; or the Air Force forwarding requests to their agency. Rather, the FAA only issued the following statement: “The FAA does not track UFOs. Please contact The National UFO Reporting Center: http://www.nuforc.org/.”

Navy Response to Query (RTQ)

Another key document revealed by the Air Force FOIA release, was actually a Navy one. This is called a “response to query” or RTQ record and is used internally by public affairs offices to help coordinate responses to various questions on a certain topic. In this case, this was the RTQ for all “unidentified aerial phenomena” related queries to the Navy. This particular document was shared with the Air Force.

Designated “For Official Use Only” and listed as an “internal working document,” the RTQ offers a detailed breakdown at how the Navy handled “UFO Guideline” related questions. “The Washington Post and other outlets queried following a Politico article on the Navy changing its reporting procedures for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” the document began.

What followed were familiar “talking points,” with one considerable difference. In the days that followed the original article by Politico, the Navy removed reference to the Air Force, and their statement was changed to, “For safety and security concerns, the Navy takes these reports very seriously and investigates each and every report.” It remains unclear why the Navy removed the reference after the initial statements were given.

After the two “talking points,” the internal Navy RTQ lists eight questions breaking down various responses to each. One addressed the topic of “UFO Guidelines” within other branches of the military, like the Air Force. The Navy was set to respond with, “Military and civilian aviation have always had channels for reporting airspace violations and hazards to aviation safety authorities.”

Another asked about the type of analysis that would be done on UAP related questions. The Navy had that ready to go as well. “Navy, Department of Defense, and other government agencies will analyze all reports, to include any eyewitness statements, flight profiles, any video, and any other materials to support the safety and security of our aircrew and operations.”

Throughout most of the answers generated internally by the Navy, one theme remained consistent: UAS’.

The Drone Question

Despite the similarity between UAS’ and drones, there is a difference between the two. A ‘drone’ is often used to refer to the craft itself, wherein a ‘UAS’ refers to the craft and the remote operator. UAS’ are a common thread between the internal Navy e-mails, Air Force communications and other key records that surfaced via a FOIA response to The Black Vault in mid-August.

The mid-August document release by the Department of Defense (DOD) to The Black Vault, revealed all internal communications between Mr. Luis Elizondo and the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). Elizondo, a former government employee who now works for TTSA, is largely credited as bringing the “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast,” videos to the public, but this release of records created more questions, than revealed answers.

Not only does it show the three videos were not cleared for public release, it revealed that Elizondo referred to them also as UAS’, nearly identically worded to most other internal documents now revealed from the Navy and Air Force.

In Elizondo’s own words, the three videos that the Navy admits to designating as “UAPs,” were described as, “UAV, Balloons, and other UAS,” on the official paperwork and written in his e-mails. There is no mention of “phenomena” by Elizondo behind-the-scenes, contradicting his public statements on various media interviews and connected with press releases by TTSA. However, his wording confirms internal stances of the Air Force and some members of the Navy about what the threat actually is.

This is where confusion reigns for many. Despite recent statements by the Navy about their “UAP” designation for the three videos in question, where does the widespread talk about UAS’ come from? Three agencies which include the Navy, Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) within the Pentagon all refer to this phenomenon depicted within the videos as being about UAS’. One of the questions sent to the Pentagon for comment, was asking if the Air Force would test their technology on another branch of the military without their knowledge, like the Navy.  There were no official statement given by the Pentagon for any questions submitted.

There is also no evidence, yet, that these “unmanned aerial systems” is a new code-word for “unidentified flying objects” or other related “phenomena” as some have suggested.

Change in Response Policy Regarding UAPs

The internal communications and documents produce more questions that have yet to adequately be addressed. However, the e-mails also shed light on a recent change of policy regarding the DOD and the UAP topic.

In the last six months since Politico broke the “UFO Guideline” story, the Navy has been issuing their own statements about UAPs. That has now changed.

In an e-mail dated September 20, 2019, sent from Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough; she informed the Air Force that, “Navy has requested that OSD take the lead from now on for these queries, so please continue to work any USAF-specific responses through me.” The Navy is not the only agency to now be silent on the UAP issue and referring enquiries elsewhere.

While researching information for this article (and others yet to be published), questions were sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), USAF, Navy and OSD, all with different questions, but surrounding the topic of UAPs and programs rumored to have investigated them.  Each agency referred those lines of questioning to Gough at the Pentagon, as she is now the point contact on the topic, DOD-wide.

It remains unclear why the change for all agencies has taken place.

Navy RTQ on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [550.50 KB]

Full Release

Note: Orange redactions are added by The Black Vault as a courtesy to shield some personal, private sector, information. Also the Navy RTQ document above is within the .pdf below, but you need to check the “attachments” tab.

Download Full Release (with Attachment) [0.3MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [515.89 KB]

To ensure it was ok to public, I did verify with USAF about the release. They confirmed; it was all releasable.

The post Internal Air Force/Navy E-Mails on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Revealed first appeared on The Black Vault.

On October 25, 2013, Business Insider reported the following:

Cadets at the United States Air Force Academy now have the option as to whether to say “so help me God,” when they take their oaths, according to a new report by Air Force Times. 

The Air Force Academy, the premier academic institution for creating Air Force officers, located just north of Colorado Springs, Colo., requires their students to take an oath.

It reads “We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and live honorably, so help me God.”

That same month, I went after records regarding this change, and requested all records pertaining to this change of the oath.  In the response, I received quite a few emails and conversations pertaining to this change, and as the evidence shows, it was quite controversial, and did not sit well with many who wrote in about it.

Document Archive

 Air Force Cadets No Longer Required to say “… so help me God” at the end of their Oath [336 Pages, 52.4MB]

The post Air Force Cadets No Longer Required to say “… so help me God” at the end of their Oath first appeared on The Black Vault.

The primary goal of this program was to design, develop, construct and operate a continuous in-reactor hydrazine production loop using the fissiochemical process. Direct support for the development of the loop and its components included studies in decontamination, purification, fuel cycle, materials, chemical and energy deposition analysis, and reactor physics. Basic radiation and chemistry studies were undertaken to further elucidate reaction mechanisms and to extend the application of this process.

This final report fully describes the Hydrazine Process Development Program including the developmental phase from contract inception (April 1961) through the installation of the completely assembled experimental equipment into the reactor facility (November 1963), the operational phase (through April 1964), and the post-operational inspection and data reduction phase.

Section l of the report summarizes all program activities, results, and conclusions; Sections 2 through 8 discuss development~! details in depth, including the design, construct~on and initial testing of all experimental equipment; Section 9 presents loop operation experimental data, product processing experience, and post-operational equipment inspection observations. All Hydrazine Process Development Program efforts through January 1964, were funded by the U. s. Air Force under Contract AF 33(600)-42996, ASD Project 7-840a. At that time, on the basis of an agreement between the Air Force and the United States Atomic Energy Commission, the latter agency assumed cognizance and funding responsibility for the remainder of the program.

Declassified Documents

CONTINUOUSLY CIRCULATING FISSIOCHEMICAL PROCESS DEVELOPMENT APPLICABLE TO HYDRAZINE SYNTHESIS. VOLUME 1: PROGRAM SURVEY, PROCESSING, AND MATERIALS  [244 Pages, 11.8MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download

The post CONTINUOUSLY CIRCULATING FISSIOCHEMICAL PROCESS DEVELOPMENT APPLICABLE TO HYDRAZINE SYNTHESIS. VOLUME 1: PROGRAM SURVEY, PROCESSING, AND MATERIALS first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Tybee Island B-47 crash was an incident on February 5, 1958, in which the United States Air Force lost a 7,600-pound (3,400 kg) Mark 15 nuclear bomb in the waters off Tybee Island near Savannah, Georgia, United States.

During a practice exercise, an F-86 fighter plane collided with the B-47 bomber carrying the bomb. To protect the aircrew from a possible detonation in the event of a crash, the bomb was jettisoned. Following several unsuccessful searches, the bomb was presumed lost somewhere in Wassaw Sound off the shores of Tybee Island.

The B-47 bomber was on a simulated combat mission from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. It was carrying a single 7,600-pound (3,400 kg) bomb. At about 2:00 AM, an F-86 fighter collided with the B-47. The F-86 crashed, after the pilot ejected from the plane. The damaged B-47 remained airborne, plummeting 18,000 feet (5,500 m) from flight level 380 (38,000 feet (12,000 m)) when Major Richardson regained flight control.

The crew requested permission to jettison the bomb, in order to reduce weight and prevent the bomb from exploding during an emergency landing. Permission was granted, and the bomb was jettisoned at 7,200 feet (2,200 m) while the bomber was traveling at about 200 knots (370 km/h). The crew did not see an explosion when the bomb struck the sea. They managed to land the B-47 safely at the nearest base, Hunter Air Force Base. The pilot, Colonel Howard Richardson, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross after this incident.

Declassified Documents

 B-47B/F-86L Aircraft Mishap Report, 5 February 1958 2000 Release [154 Pages, 64.7MB]

 B-47B/F-86L Aircraft Mishap Report, 5 February 1958 2017 Release [142 Pages, 65.3MB] – Originally I requested a Mandatory Declassified Review (MDR) on this document, and they asked if I would submit a FOIA instead. I agreed, with the stipulation the record would be reviewed in its entirety for release.  In February of 2017, I received the documents with the exemptions properly cited this time, however, I received a document MORE redacted than originally released in 2000!

The post B-47B/F-86L Aircraft Mishap Report, 5 February 1958 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Remarks on dissent in the Armed Forces in relation to dissent in American Society.

In Armed Forces, dissent takes on a different garb because of the code of conduct expected of personnel.  Dissent has primarily manifested itself in the following areas: Underground newspapers, Off-post gathering places, servicemen’s Organizations; on and Off post demonstration and grievances.

DOD has provided adequate guidance for coping with dissent once identified.

Dissent Within the Armed Forces, December 1970

 [14 Pages, 1.7MB]

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/dtic/DissentWithintheArmedForces.pdf

The post Dissent Within the Armed Forces, December 1970 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Background

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an unpiloted aircraft. UAVs come in two varieties: some are controlled from a remote location, and others fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans using more complex dynamic automation systems.

Currently, UAVs perform reconnaissance as well as attack missions. They are also used in a small but growing number of civil applications, such as firefighting. UAVs are often preferred for missions that are too “dull, dirty, or dangerous” for manned aircraft.

Declassified Documents

Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), April 1994[170 Pages, 19.2MB]

Counter UAV Optical Detection, Location, and Negation Feasibility Study, 24 March 2004 [63 Pages, 7.5MB] – The BAE Systems approach identifies the key DARPA hard technology development required in order to realize the Counter UA V mission vision. This Concept Development study developed several CONOPS and engagement scenarios that serve to define the preliminary systems requirements analysis. From this analysis, we developed several simulations to help analyze system concept approaches and performance issues. We then performed technology trades to determine the applicability and maturity of current sensor technologies to the problem. A field test was performed where actual data was collected and analyzed. Finally, directed energy countermeasures were investigated as a means to defeat these threats at standoff ranges.

The Development of a Hands-On Unmanned Aerial Vehicle/Remotely Piloted Vehicle Flight Test and Evaluation, November 2004 [9 Pages, 0.8 MB] – The United States Air Force (USAF) Test Pilot School, the Engineering Directorate, and the 452nd Flight Test Squadron all within the 412th Test Wing of the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, have teamed together to develop an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) flight test training course. This paper briefly describes the development of the course and presents the major elements of the course.

Global Hawk Accident Report, 1999 [510 Pages, 17MB]

Iraqi L-29 UAV Conversion, 23 January 2001 [82 Pages, 1.52MB]

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle End-to-End Support Considerations, 2005 [141 Pages, 1.01 MB] – Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been used in combat operations since the mid-1900s (Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2002). More recently, both Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have employed UAVs for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well as time-critical targeting. These successes have confirmed the military utility of UAVs and portend that a greater number of such vehicles may become part of the DoD’s future force posture. However, because of the acquisition strategy employed to field UAVs as quickly as possible, the implications for their long-term support needs are unclear.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Test Approval Process and Its Implications: A Methodological Approach to Capture and Evaluate Hidden Costs and Value in the Overall Process, 22 Mar 2012 [115 Pages, 3.67 MB] – The advancement in small unmanned aerial vehicle (SUAV) technology has brought a new revolution in the military domain. Their uses have become more synonymous with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Concerns over their flight test safety and accountability have been addressed in multiple policies to mitigate mishaps and increase proper accountability. However, current DoD and FAA mandated regulations and policies concerning UAV flight tests are sometimes considered slow and time-consuming, which may lead to delays in UAV research and development. This study explores the quantitative and qualitative measure of benefits associated with an abbreviated flight test process for SUAVs. Specifically, it examines the current agreement between two major USAF research centers regarding the SUAV flight test approval process. This research utilized high-level multidisciplinary approaches and techniques including qualitative costbenefit analysis, interviews, value stream mapping (VSM) analysis, and heuristic risk analysis to evaluate the current-state process. The findings conclude that there is a slight economic cost and schedule savings in an abbreviated process. Additionally, this research finds no correlation between SUAV flight mishaps and system maturity. This research proposes using a streamlined process for additional safety reviews to eliminate non-value added process steps considered unnecessary due to the nature of the SUAV complexity. Furthermore, this study recommends using a decision rule matrix based on the total cost of the SUAV and its weight and energy at impact for choosing an abbreviated flight test safety review process.

U.S. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Combat, 1991-2003, 09 Jun 2003 [19 Pages, 150 kb] – Between 1991 and 2003, the United States used a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in combat operations. These included the Pioneer, the Pointer, the Hunter, the Predator, the Global Hawk, the Dragon Eye, the Desert Hawk, and the Shadow. During those 13 years the role of UAVs expanded from mere reconnaissance to target designation and attack. Advantages of UAVs over manned aircraft systems include eliminating pilot risk, saving money, providing long-term real-time video reconnaissance, and reducing the time between target identification and destruction. UAVs are especially useful for extremely long reconnaissance missions and for missions in areas of extreme danger. The percentage of unmanned aircraft sorties should continue to grow as UAV capabilities increase. This paper elaborates on the lessons the military has learned about UAVs over the last 13 years, the advantages of UAVs, and their vulnerabilities. The lessons learned are as follows: (1) UAV flights should be carefully synchronized with each other and with the flights of other systems; (2) UAVs should be improved to reduce their vulnerability to weather, enemy air defenses, and mechanical and communication failures; (3) UAVs should be specialized and used for a greater variety of missions; and (4) the Air Force should develop countermeasures to enemy UAVs.

The post Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) first appeared on The Black Vault.

Project Pluto was a United States government program to develop nuclear powered ramjet engines for use in cruise missiles. Two experimental engines were tested at the United States Department of Energy Nevada Test Site (NTS) in 1961 and 1964.

Below, you will find the declassified documents available thus far. More requests are open, and when documents are received, they will be added here.

Declassified Documents

 The Impact of the High Development Cost of Advanced Flight Propulsion Systems on Development Policy, October 1965 [75 Pages, 3.7MB] – A discussion of techniques for handling R and D funds to reduce the investment risk in implementing programs for new propulsion systems, particularly systems which are novel and advanced. To guide the funding management, relevant R and D activities are described in detail, followed by a discussion of criteria to be met before an engine qualifies for consideration.

 Nuclear Ramjet Propulsion System Applied Research and Advanced Technology (Project Pluto). Volume V. Propulsion System Test Planning and Ground Test Facility Studies, 15 February 1963 [92 Pages, 24.8MB] – Test planning studies in this report present the concept of test programs, their scope, test objectives, probable testing schedule, estimated number of test weeks and test runs, existing facilities which can be utilized, and test conditions. The schedule and test plans presented are based upon the program outlined in the Air Force Development/Plan for Pluto. Flight engine ground test facility criteria are updated to reflect the latest facility studies and test planning. The site selection core drilling program and underground air storage experiment are described.

 Nuclear Ramjet Propulsion System Applies Research and Advanced Technology (Project Pluto). Volume VI. Structural Materials Investigations, 15 February 1963 [163 Pages, 5.8MB] – This is the “best copy available.”  Although hard to read, I would recommend downloading it, and zooming in on the document with Adobe Acrobat, to get a bit of an easier reading experience.

 Nuclear Ramjet Propulsion System Applied Research and Advanced Technology (Project Pluto). Volume VII. Propulsion System Design and Structural Analysis, 15 February 1963 [163 Pages, 39MB] – This volume contains the results of design, structures, and materials studies and structures component testing of a nuclear propulsion system in support of the Pluto reactor program. These studies include design concepts, structural analysis of steady state and dynamic loads, material evaluation, and recommended dynamic and structural test programs. The methods of analysis used have been outlined in each case for reference.

 Nuclear Ramjet Propulsion System Project Pluto, 30 January 1962 [382 Pages, 37.9MB] – Contents: Propulsion System Design and Analysis — Tory IIC design data, Performance analysis, Engine performance summary, Heat transfer and thermal stress analysis, Mechanical and structural design, Neutronics, Radiation analysis and shielding, Aerodynamic experiments, Structural experiments, and Materials investigations; Propulsion System Controls — General status, Control system analysis, Control system components, and Radiation effects Testing; Flight Engine Facility and Test Planning — Facility design studies, and Underground air storage experiment.

 Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Systems. Project Pluto, 15 November 1959 [165 Pages, 123MB] – To provide accurate and reliable control of a nuclear ramjet, it is necessary to provide materials and components for the control system which will operate in an environment dictated by the nuclear characteristics of the system. A similar problem is encountered in providing nuclear propulsion for manned aircraft. Much work has been done on establishing reliable components for this purpose; however, the environment to be encountered in missile applications is more severe. Thus, it was necessary to accumulate as much available data as possible on radiation effects and then extend the data experimentally to cover the particular problems encountered with PLUTO.

Additional Information

On January 1, 1957, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission selected the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) predecessor, the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, to study the feasibility of applying heat from nuclear reactors to ramjet engines. This research became known as “Project Pluto“. The work was directed by Dr. Ted Merkle, leader of the laboratory’s R-Division.

Originally carried out at Livermore, California, the work was moved to new facilities constructed for $1.2 million on 8 square miles (21 km²) of Jackass Flats at the NTS, known as Site 401. The complex consisted of 6 miles (10 km) of roads, critical assembly building, control building, assembly and shop buildings, and utilities. Also required for the construction was 25 miles (40 km) of oil well casing which was necessary to store the approximately 1,000,000 pounds (450,000 kg) of pressurized air used to simulate ramjet flight conditions for Pluto.

The principle behind the nuclear ramjet was relatively simple: motion of the vehicle pushed air in through the front of the vehicle (ram effect), a nuclear reactor heated the air, and then the hot air expanded at high speed out through a nozzle at the back, providing thrust.

The notion of using a nuclear reactor to heat the air was fundamentally new. Unlike commercial reactors, which are surrounded by concrete, the Pluto reactor had to be small and compact enough to fly, but durable enough to survive a 7,000-mile (11,000 km) trip to a potential target. The nuclear engine could, in principle, operate for months, so a Pluto cruise missile could be left airborne for a prolonged time before being directed to carry out its attack.

The success of this project would depend upon a series of technological advances in metallurgy and materials science. Pneumatic motors necessary to control the reactor in flight had to operate while red-hot and in the presence of intense radiation. The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant the reactor, code named “Tory”, had to survive high temperatures and conditions that would melt the metals used in most jet and rocket engines. Ceramic fuel elements would have to be used; the contract to manufacture the 500,000 pencil-sized elements was given to the Coors Porcelain Company.

The proposed use for nuclear-powered ramjets would be to power a cruise missile, called SLAM, for Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. In order to reach ramjet speed, it would be launched from the ground by a cluster of conventional rocket boosters. Once it reached cruising altitude and was far away from populated areas, the nuclear reactor would be made critical. Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered “down to the deck” for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union. The SLAM as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come.

On May 14, 1961, the world’s first nuclear ramjet engine, “Tory-IIA”, mounted on a railroad car, roared to life for a few seconds. Three years later, “Tory-IIC” was run for five minutes at full power. Despite these and other successful tests the Pentagon, sponsor of the “Pluto project”, had second thoughts. The weapon was considered “too provocative”, and it was believed that it would compel the Soviets to construct a similar device, against which there was no known defense. Intercontinental ballistic missile technology had proven to be more easily developed than previously thought, reducing the need for such highly capable cruise missiles. On July 1, 1964, seven years and six months after it was started, “Project Pluto” was canceled.

The above was provided by Wikipedia.

The post Project Pluto – Nuclear RAMJET Engines first appeared on The Black Vault.