Documents / FOIA release

/specialCollection/MissileGap/1992/1992-04-01.pdf

Central Intelligence Agency · 406 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is a CIA History Staff monograph by Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, published in Washington in 1992 and approved for release in 2011. It covers the CIA's manned overhead reconnaissance program from 1954 to 1974, which developed and flew the U-2 and the A-12 OXCART. It traces the U-2's development, the overflights of the Soviet Union, the downing of Francis Gary Powers on 1 May 1960, and later operations. One section is titled U-2s, UFOs, and Operation BLUE BOOK.

  • p. 4 …Scientists and Overhead Reconnaissance 17 The BEACON HILL Report 17 Concern About the Danger of a…
  • p. 14 …view of the "other side of the hill." With the advent of dry film, it became…
  • p. 30 …of this new advisory body." The BEACON HILL Report In 1951 the Air Force sought even…
  • p. 31 …Their head- quarters was located over a secretarial school on Beacon Hill, which soon became the…
  • p. 32 …to implement the ideas of the BEACON HILL Report until the summer of 1953. By this…
  • p. 34 …Created in July 1953, the Intelligence Systems Panel (ISP) included several experts from the BEACON HILL…
  • p. 37 …reconnais- sance needs expressed in the BEACON HILL Report. Theoretically, he explained to the panel, any…
  • p. 41 …H. T. Friis R. Mettler A. G. Hill E. Purcell W. H. Radford E. H. Plesset…
  • p. 44 …6(dli1i>10<25Yrs since the BEACON HILL and Intelligence Systems Panel meetings. (Si James Baker…
  • p. 45 …Having participated in the BEACON HILL Study and the Intelligence Systems Panel, several Project Three members…
  • p. 344 …He headed the Beacon Hill Panel in 1952 and later became director of Lincoln Laboratories. PARANGOSKY…
  • p. 345 …of several advisory panels, including the BEACON HILL project. He helped Baker decide what cameras to…
  • p. 364 …BEACON HILL Report: Problems of Air Force Intelligence and Reconnaissance. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 15 June…
QEPN
Chapter 1
35
005653421 UNCLASSIFIED
over DCI Dulles, but a project of this magnitude also required the
support of the Air Force. Some Air Force officials, however, feared
that a decision to build the CL-282 might jeopardize the Air Force's
own RB-57 and X-16 projects. Just one month earlier, in October
1954, the Wright Air Development Command had appealed to the Air
Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Development, U. Gen. Donald L.
Putt, to oppose the adoption of the Lockheed design. The officials ar-
gued that the Bell X-16 was a better design because it was more air-
worthy than the CL-282 and could be used throughout the Air Force
in different types of missions because it had two engines, wheels, and
an armor-plated, pressurized pilot's compartment. If J57 engines were
diverted to the CL-282, the appeal to General Putt warned, there
would not be enough of these popular powerplants to meet the needs
of the X-16 program.62
Having heard of the Wright Air Development Command attack
on the CL-282, Allen Donovan of the Intelligence Systems Panel met
with General Putt on 19 October to argue in favor of the Lockheed
design. This discussion led General Putt to meet with 15 scientists
from the Technological Capabilities Panel on 18 November 1954 to
discuss the merits of the four proposed reconnaissance aircraft. Also
present as a briefer was Maj. John Seaberg from the Wright Air
Development Command, who later recalled:
What 1 did was present the results of my comparative analysis of
all four designs. 1 showed the relative high altitude petfortnance
capabilities of all four 1 pointed out that aerodynamically the
Bell, Fairchild, and Lockheed designs were close. Martin's B-57,
being a modification, was not quite as capable. I stated that, in
my opinion, the J73 [General Electric engine] would not be
good enough to do the job in Johnson's airplane. And further, 1
overlaid a curve showing that with the J57 [Pratt & Whitney en-
gine] installed, it would then be competitive with the Bell and
Fairchild designs."
This meeting—along with the knowledge that President
Eisenhower also supported the CL-282—helped win over the Air
Force. To be on the safe side, however, the Air Force did not abandon
the X- 16 program until the Lockheed aircraft had begun flying.
Donovan interview (S).
" Quoted in Miller, Lockheed U-2, p. 13.
et
UNCLASSIFIED

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 406 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.