Air University Review, November-December 1967

The Test Track

Brigadier General Leo A. Kiley

The goal of the Test Track Directorate at the Air Force Missile Development Center is perfection in meeting project objectives. Success in meeting the goal results in savings of personnel, time, and money. These savings are possible at the test track because of the track’s unique testing capability. A guidance system, for example, despite rigorous quality control at the factory and thorough engineering and testing in the laboratory, still needs a shakedown to prove its worth. Track testing subjects the system to the dynamic loads of actual operation, then allows its repeated recovery for further evaluation and analysis. If such testing finds but one flaw that could cost the country an R&D or operational missile, millions of dollars will have been saved. Several such flaws have been found in the numerous systems tested. A similar case can be made for ejection system testing. No doubt many lives have been saved because track testing proved the reliability of an escape system, but there is no way to compute that kind of savings.

evolution of the track

Construction of the track facilities had a rather inauspicious start. The Air Force needed a special launch facility to conduct tests on two missile projects; Holloman had available land and a well-instrumented range. Conceived about 1948, the initially accepted specifications for the track called for a precision test facility. An era of economy justified a track of only 3550 feet. Accepted on 15 June 1950, the track saw its first sled test eight days later and operated for six years and 230 tests. (Table 1)

Table 1

Tests on original 3550-foot Track
23 June 1950-29 March 1956

Periodically―from around 1953 on―there were requests to lengthen the track. It simply was not long enough to accommodate all the work proposed. Construction of a 1521-foot addition was completed in 1956, and the 5071-foot track remained in operation for a little over two years and 117 tests. (Table 2)

Table 2

Runs on 5000-foot Track
19 May 1956-2 August 1957

Just as 3550 feet became inadequate, so did 5000 feet as further uses of the track became evident. Then the potential value of track testing of inertial guidance systems for intercontinental ballistic missiles looked promising. For that matter, there was a test potential for aerodynamic work, controlled acceleration/ deceleration experiments, instrumented impacts of warheads and fuzes, and, if the track were extended to 90,000 feet or more (the ultimate concept), for testing complete major structures (e.g., Atlas).

The resultant new 35,000-foot track saw its historic first run on 23 August 1957.

While various efforts have been made to realize the desired 90,000-foot track, there has been but one other addition to the length. In July 1966 a 500-foot section, designed specifically for blast testing, was completed. This addition brought the track to its present length, slightly over 35,588 feet.

Since the first test in August 1950, which was the launching of a Snark missile at the speed of 149 feet per second, the track has accommodated over 3000 test runs in a variety of projects, some vehicles reaching about 7000 feet per second! (Table 3) On 5 May1967 a slim, aerodynamically shaped monorail vehicle set a new land speed record for a recoverable vehicle by reaching a velocity of 6750 feet per second (4600 miles per hour) during a 30,000-foot run down the track.

the facility

The track is made of crane rail weighing 171 pounds per yard, spaced seven feet apart. The mill workers cut the track in 39-foot lengths and marked the segments to indicate the sequence. At the site the segments were butt-welded together, first to form 10,000-foot lengths and finally into a continuous rail almost seven miles long.

The rails are tied down under tension and normally remain so. This tends to straighten the rails and maintain alignment. Compressive stresses are possible only when the rail temperature exceeds 120^oF. Adjustable tie-downs are spaced at 52-inch intervals to hold the rail in precise alignment and to prevent buckling at temperatures above 120^oF. The adjustable mounts make it possible to align the west or master rail to a tolerance of ±.005 inch throughout its entire length, referred to a first order reference line. The east rail is aligned to the master rail to within ±.010 inch. The criterion for alignment is that the minimum radius of curvature must be at least one million feet.

Rail alignment operations are performed at night with special optical tooling and alignment equipment. Night operations are necessary to avoid heat turbulence and shimmer, which affect the use of precision optical equipment. Also, working at night precludes interference with daytime sled activity. (A somewhat unusual difficulty encountered as a consequence of night operation in the Tularosa Basin is posed by the rattlesnakes, which seek the warmth of the rails. The track crews have learned to cope with these unwanted guests and have suffered no casualties—seldom even a bite anymore. But the trophy room is full of rattles from the fallen foe.)

For braking purposes, a water trough 60 by 14 inches lies between the rails, with a holding fixture every 10 feet 10 inches for the entire track length. The fixtures hold frangible dams, so that level and still pools of water can be kept at any height desired for water braking. The scoop or brake on the sled picks up the water and ejects it, transferring kinetic energy from the sled to the water and bringing the sled to a stop.

The track runs north-south, and there are four blockhouses on the west side—a large one at each end of the track, one at the center, and an auxiliary at track station 2970. A complex of administrative, shop, laboratory, and maintenance buildings lies near the south breech.

The data collection center for track operations is in a large concrete building called “Midway.” It is equipped to handle sled information on Frequency Modulated (FM/FM), Pulse Code Modulated (PCM), and Pulse Duration Modulated (PDM) telemetry channels. Presently the track has a capability to transmit and receive, in real time, 84 channels of FM/FM, 90 channels of PDM. PCM can be transmitted at any rate from 200 to 1,000,000 bits per second. Reception and recording means go beyond this. Some information (e.g., sled velocity) is transmitted by land lines.

Initially data on sled velocity came from metric optical instrumentation and by wires tied across the rails. The cutting of the wires started and stopped time/interval counters. Finally, the Track Directorate developed the measurement methods now in use. Today, at 13-foot intervals along the track are small light-beam interrupters. A small sled-borne sensing head, containing a light source and a photosensitive pickup, passes over the interrupters and interrupts the light beam, producing a voltage pulse. The pulse is sent from the sled to the ground receiving station and recorded on magnetic tape. The old method of cutting wires to trigger time intervals is still in use but only where great accuracy is not needed.

The track still makes use of photographic coverage too. The permanent metric photographic system consists of 72 data cameras spaced at 500-foot intervals on a line parallel to and 1040 feet east of the track, so as to provide photographic space-time coverage over the entire track. Cameras for trackside data purposes vary from 16-mm through 5½ -inch film. Slow-motion studies and other methods of data recording are used, among them image motion cameras and shadowgraph recording systems. Complete trackside photographic instrumentation gives close-up magnified observations of programmed events, such as ignition, flame pattern, engine shutdown, operation of internal units, impact studies, etc.

track versatility

A sled run is the closet simulation of a missile flight that can be achieved on the ground. Because the Holloman track can closely simulate missile free-flight environment and allow close observation of test items during and after a run, it is an ideal development facility for use between laboratory and free-flight tests. Further, the track permits nondestructive testing. Thus the engineer can “debug” new equipment while testing and calibrating it, as, for example, in guidance systems. He finds out what happens to the parts under acceleration/deceleration, what happens during wind loading, how much flutter an airfoil can stand, and whether the product will stand up under rain. There is a specially designed 6000-foot section of track built just to answer this last question. The track achieved a measure of fame in past years with its capability for research into aeromedical problems. How much vibration, windblast, g-loading, etc., could a man survive? And where else would you find chimpanzees banging at a psychomotor panel as they moved downtrack? This type of work is rarely done on the long track anymore, but it stands ready for further testing of this sort when the need develops. The performance of guidance systems can be repeatedly tested and calibrated, with full recovery of undamaged hardware and instrumentation. Such tests are performed under realistic and varying combinations of conditions of programmed acceleration, shock, vibration, and temperatures.

The track offers an ideal test environment for ejection systems, and it has served this purpose for the T-33, F-102, F-104, F-106, and F-111, to mention a few. Our Canadian neighbors brought their RCAF escape systems to the Holloman track for test, too. In these tests the engineer can evaluate such aspects as man/ seat separation and parachute deployment.

Test requirements levied on the track through the years have varied from a simple determination of the structural integrity of a missile or aircraft component to the complex test objectives of evaluating inertial guidance systems destined for the nation’s missile arsenal. Between the two extremes are any number of additional uses, such as the evaluation of new or improved aircraft escape systems, materials, warhead fuzes. Using the specially equipped rain section, track people can determine the effects of rain on almost any material. Also, we are finding a valuable use of the track in blast-vulnerability testing. The track tests the blast effects on missile forward sections by passing them through a high-pressure wave generated by detonating large quantities of TNT at a trackside station.

testing on the track

The major test categories that have comprised the workload on the track since testing began in 1950 are shown in Table 3. Dispensing tests, for the purpose of this illustration, include all track tests in which test items are ejected from a moving sled. Firing of spin rockets from a sled, at a predetermined sled velocity, is an example. Development tests include all track tests conducted to improve the track testing capability; for instance, checkout of new test vehicles and certain propulsion techniques, testing of instrumentation under development, testing of new braking devices.

Table 3

Types of Tests

Many tests conducted on the track do not individually represent a large enough workload to be designated under a major test category. Such testing varies from structural and aerodynamic tests of airfoils to contractor propulsion systems. Frequently these tests are one of a kind. One typical question answered at the track was, “What happens to the internal structure of a 155-mm shell as the result of firing it?” Normally, once a shell is fired, it simply is destroyed at impact. But the track engineers set up a mattress-equipped sled, programmed it to match the projectile’s speed, and made a soft recovery just as the missile trajectory and sled path coincided. Results of the test were sent to the U.S. Army’s Picatinny Arsenal for analysis and evaluation. How much flutter can an airfoil stand? This question too was answered at the track and was instrumental in the successful development of the B-58 bomber.

It may be of interest to describe in more detail some of the major testing categories:

Impact testing. During impact, a missile warhead must operate within an environment of severe stresses. This environment consists of hundreds of g’s and causes rapid deformation of the missile’s warhead and nose cone. The warhead must be designed so that this deformation does not prevent detonation at expected impact velocities. The warhead fuze often must work in time intervals measured in nanoseconds before it is destroyed by impact.

The primary aim of impact tests is to determine the operating sequence of components in the fuzing circuit and warhead. The missile is strapped to the sled and “launched” off the end of the track into prepared barriers, or else prepared barriers are run into the nose cone while it hangs suspended off the end of the track. Some kind of data-collection system is required, depending upon the individual test item. System operation may be monitored in several ways: by telemetry carried on the impact vehicle; by using colored strobe lights on the test item, with high-speed trackside optical instrumentation to observe operating sequence; by direct recording of signals from the test item while it is being hit by a target sled; or by combinations of these or other methods.

Inertial guidance system testing. Sled testing complements laboratory testing of guidance components and systems. Generally, guidance components—principally accelerometers with their associated electronics-are sled-tested after preliminary laboratory tests have been completed. These laboratory tests show the accuracy limits of performance of the accelerometer as well as its error trends in the simulated ballistic missile environment. In addition, a main aim is to determine if the component hardware validly represents the manufacturer’s claimed theoretical performance model. After component tests, sled tests are run to evaluate the entire inertial measurement unit, with associated electronics and other system equipment, including computers. These tests are performed to determine the functional integrity of the system and to evaluate it while operating in a dynamic sled environment.

The environment to which a system is subjected during a sled run can be tailored for acceleration and deceleration as dictated by the system design specifications. One large-scale system, weighing approximately 1200 pounds, was subjected to an acceleration of 8g’s for three seconds and deceleration of 10 g’s for two seconds. Future sled tests of guidance systems are expected to involve decelerations at levels of 100 to 150 g’s.

Escape system testing. A variety of performance requirements and payloads is encompassed in the testing of escape systems, including static tests as well as a large range in dynamic performance, with test velocities up to around 1100 miles per hour. Single- and double-seat systems have been tested, as well as modules weighing up to 3000 pounds.

Typical instrumentation in escape system testing includes both telemetry and optical coverage. Optical coverage is available for systems having trajectory envelopes of up to 8000 feet longitudinally, 1200 feet laterally, and about 2000 feet altitude. Specific data gained in a typical program are module trajectory, dynamic pressure, attitude, position, component velocity, total velocity, angle of attack, flight path angle, and acceleration (of both component and total system). In dual-seat ejection systems, a frequent requirement is to evaluate blast, burning, and acoustic effects, and debris damage on the remaining occupant after one seat ejects. Other tests demonstrate canopy ejection capability, seat ejections through canopies, and the effects of birds striking aircraft windshields. Sled-borne telemetry provides velocity, acceleration, temperature, and pressure, while the telemetry units on anthropomorphic dummies provide data that can be related to human subjects.

Rain erosion testing. In 1961 the track acquired a 6000-foot section of rainmaking equipment. Addition of this equipment gave the track one of the longest facilities of this type and an entirely new potential. The rain erosion area starts 8867 feet from the north end of the track and has adjustable spray heads at four-foot intervals. The distance allows enough track for vehicle acceleration before entering the rain area and also provides about 20,700 feet of track for free run and braking after leaving the rain area.

The rain system can produce raindrops of about 1.5 millimeters in mean diameter, which is, statistically, the drop size often found in a natural rain condition of one-half inch per hour; or it can produce any selected concentration up to ten times that. In the latter case a test item that travels 1000 feet in the rain erosion environment has been subjected to the equivalent of 10,000 feet through natural rain. Studies of the test methods by Sandia Corporation indicate that the raindrops, even in a concentration ten times that of natural rain, are far enough apart that the drops do not bunch at impact. Each impact is complete before the next drop hits the test item on the same spot.

The rain spray from the nozzle system is concentrated to fall on the west side of the track. Rain erosion tests customarily use monorail vehicles, with the missile nose cone, radome, or other test item mounted on a stinger or gooseneck in front of the vehicle. Most rain erosion tests, to date, have been performed at velocities of mach 2 to mach 4; future tests are programmed up to mach 5. Rain erosion tests are conducted generally under early morning “no wind” conditions between March and mid-December when the ambient temperatures do not fall below freezing.

Blast-vulnerability testing. A recent test effort is aimed at determining the vulnerability of re-entry vehicles. Re-entry environments have been simulated by passing the test vehicle through shock tubes filled with heavy gas, such as Freon, or through a high-pressure wave generated by detonating large quantities of TNT at a trackside station. Also planned are free-flight impacts at velocities between mach 3 and mach 6. The test vehicle will leave the north end of the track and subsequently pass through a blast field.

Special facilities have been constructed for the testing of blast effects: (1) A captive site, 13,000 feet from the south end, provides protection for the test track and gives a clean blast wave over the recoverable re-entry vehicle. (2) The north breech area has been hardened to withstand four to six pounds per square inch (PSI) overpressures. (3) A 500-foot extension at the north end allows for free-flight and impact of the test items.

Blast tests require special efforts because the sled/blast encounter must be precisely timed to occur at a specified track station. In one of these tests, it is planned to accelerate a two-ton sled to mach 3 and have it meet the blast wave at the captive blast site.

A more detailed view of the vehicles using the track will better explain how the tests are performed.

track vehicles

Holloman keeps over 100 sled test vehicles in its inventory of both dual-rail and single or monorail design. They range in size from a vehicle of 15 pounds to a 15-ton giant. It is quite a change from the day when the sleds in use were little more than a missile cradle with a booster rack for solid-propellant motors.

Today the track boasts vehicles for virtually any use. And if the sled needed is not in stock, it can be designed. Dual-rail vehicles are used where the need is for large payload capacity, space for extensive instrumentation, and precise acceleration, deceleration, and velocity profiles. In comparison to the dual-rail sled, a monorail vehicle has a smaller payload capacity; but its advantages of high velocity potential, light weight, minimum propulsion requirements, and ease of handling make it an excellent vehicle for various applications, such as the impact testing of missile nose cones and warheads. On the other hand, most testing of guidance systems currently requires use of dual-rail vehicles.

Both solid and liquid propellants are used, and just as in the choice of sleds, each offers advantages as well as disadvantages. Solid-propellant motors are readily available in assembled form, relatively easy to store and handle, and require only simple hardware to adapt them for track testing. On the other hand, there is a relatively high cost per unit for some of the high-performance motors, and they lack precise thrust control for individual units during burning. For pushing very large payloads to moderate test velocities, liquid propellants are more economical, and their controllable thrust over a long thrust period is a definite advantage required in some tests. The low rate of acceleration onset and the ability to vary thrust profiles accurately make liquids particularly well suited for use in testing guidance systems and guidance system components.

An interesting problem that might not occur to all is that caused by the local bird population. Birds can be sled wreckers. This might seem highly improbable: a few ounces of bird versus a 200-pound sled. But at supersonic speeds the laws of physics still prevail, and strange things do result. Hitting a bird can leave a jagged hole in the test vehicle. Half-inch steel sheathing is torn almost like paper, prows are dented, and slippers have been knocked loose. The track lures birds because the braking water makes an ideal birdbath and a good place to satisfy their thirst in the arid desert area. The rails make a good perch, but they also serve as death traps: the sleds travel faster than sound so that the population of “avian heaven” is increased before the birds can fly away. Numerous devices have been tried to correct the situation. Track engineers finally decided upon sending a small monorail sled ahead of the primary test vehicle to disperse the squatters. And currently Primacord is set off just prior to a run, which quite effectively scatters the birds.

current test efforts

A visit to the track reveals one obvious fact: there is no set hour for test programs. Testing may begin in the early hours of the morning or late at night.

One of the current early morning tests is that conducted for the Army’s Frankfort Arsenal on 20-mm point-detonating fuzes. The weapon, a Mann gun, is mounted on one rail of the track and fired into a rain curtain. At a predetermined distance, the fired ammunition is caught in a sand-filled hopper. The test answers a very simple but important question: “Are the fuzes sensitive to rain?”

The normal rain erosion test, however, makes use of a sled. For example, we recently completed a series sponsored jointly by the Air Force Materials Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and the Naval Air Development Center at Johnsville, Pennsylvania. The project aimed to determine the effects of rain on various materials while traveling at supersonic velocities. Stainless steel wedges capable of holding 80 samples were furnished by the U.S. Navy. The fixture, mounted on a gooseneck in front of a sled, presented the materials to the rain field at five different impact angles: 15,30 45, 60, and 90 degrees. The series was quite successful and provided useful data.

A continuing effort at the track has been concerned with the testing of various dispensers. These projects generally had as their aim the development of better methods for delivering bomblets or agents such as that used for defoliation. Somewhat in the same category is the series of track tests designed to fire the 2.75-inch folding fin aerial rocket (FFAR) from an SUU-20/A dispenser. The aim, as in most launch projects, is to determine the actual rocket trajectory and compare it with the theoretical. The ultimate goal, of course, is to determine whether or not the rocket and launcher can be used on an aircraft.

As noted earlier, a portion of the track’s effort is devoted to blast testing. As part of a program sponsored by the Defense Atomic Support Agency, TNT charges are being detonated close to the track to measure structural loading and dynamic response of supersonic sleds during blast wave intercept.

A continuing series at the track involves the F-111 crew escape module. This two-man cockpit section separates from the parent aircraft by explosive charges, is propelled away from the sled by a rocket motor, and finally is recovered by a 70-foot-diameter main parachute. The module has been tested more than 50 times since September 1964.

The F-111 escape system is by no means the only one under test. The track completed a test series for Lockheed Aircraft Corporation to evaluate an improved seat ejection system for the F-l04. Similarly a program is under way to test an all-purpose system designed by the Douglas Aircraft Company. The RCAF’s Central Experimental and Proving Establishment located at Ottawa, Ontario, is using the track to evaluate the escape mechanisms of the Tutor and T-33 trainers and CF-5 tactical aircraft.

The work on guidance systems is progressing, with sled tests being conducted to provide data on the suitability of a strapped-down inertial measurement unit for both boost and space guidance applications. One test unit is a modified lunar excursion module (LEM) abort sensor assembly (ASA). Another program aims to evaluate an improved accelerometer; it was no accident that the instrument returned to the track, the scene of earlier evaluations in the Minuteman guidance programs.

No less important in a day’s activity are the tests to determine the effects of impact on a test specimen. For example, Ballistic Systems Division of Air Force Systems Command is sponsoring a series to determine the performance of a contact fuze system and the structural response of the payload to impact.

With the advent of operations in Southeast Asia, the track has played its part in qualifying weaponry for that area. Tests have been conducted to qualify 20-mm ammunition, to check out various dispensing systems, and to evaluate the rain erosion characteristics of numerous materials.

While this survey of the track activity gives only a sample of the 31 separate projects now in progress, it does indicate the broad spectrum of test capability. As one former track commander said of the track: “Its uses... are limited only by the engineer’s imagination.”

future goals

The Track Directorate is a complete operating entity, providing the facility itself, the test vehicles, propulsion, electronic and optical instrumentation, engineering services, and project officers. This facility at Holloman AFB is the major test track in the Air Force today. Backed by over fifteen years’ experience, track personnel are constantly exploring new avenues for sled testing and ways to extend the range of test environments that can be offered to users.

The tendency in track testing—for many programs—is toward even higher sled velocities. One goal is a hypersonic mission capability, at velocities up to 8500 feet per second, with recovery of the sled and its payload. Another goal is to achieve velocities of 10,000 feet per second for impact work. To meet these demands, track engineers and scientists are constantly evaluating numerous means. For example, the conventional solid-propellant rocket motors used on monorail sleds reach a practical limit when the air drag approaches the thrust level of the motor. To achieve high-sustain velocities, track people are looking at the application of air-augmented rocket systems. These ducted rockets promise an increase in propulsion efficiency by providing a higher specific impulse (e.g., existing motors, 200 pound-seconds per pound; ducted motors, 600 pound-seconds per pound). Further, there is the possibility of reuse of the hardware with the ducted system.

As to dual-rail vehicles, efforts are under way to develop a sled whose performance will significantly surpass the mach number range currently available. Tentative performance goals call for a mach number range to five and above, carrying payloads weighing from 1000 to 3000 pounds, with a capability of recovery using the existing track length.

Another future goal of the track is to attain the capability to operate sleds for a part of their trajectory in both lower- and higher-density atmospheres using polyethylene bags fixed to the rails and filled with various gases, such as Freon. The aim of the operation in a low-density atmosphere is to reduce drag, impact pressures, and stagnation temperatures at hypersonic speeds. Through high-density gases the sleds will experience aerodynamic environments nearly equivalent to those of a higher mach number in ambient air.

To conduct tests at velocities in the realm of mach 6 and above, we shall have to develop instrumentation equipment capable of withstanding the more severe environments. Higher velocities dictate, for example, reductions in sled volume and wetted area, thus reducing the space available in the vehicle for instrumentation. Thus increased use of miniaturization of instruments will become a necessity, besides improved tolerance of the instruments to stronger vibrations. The successful use of high-speed sleds as research tools depends further on improved data-retrieval techniques. Currently, sleds moving at 6000-7000 feet per second are operating on the threshold of radio frequency (RF) blackout due to ionization similar to that experienced in re-entry. Frequencies fitting atmospheric transmission windows or delayed data transmission may solve this problem. Yet another demand caused by the increased velocities for such tests as impact and free-flight blast is better motion picture coverage. Track operators are now working toward rates of 100,000 frames per second and beyond.

As to other goals, there are many. Improvement of the velocity measuring system is one. One aim is to obtain a passive system (e.g., a laser) with an accuracy goal of .01 foot per second. Yet another is improvement of the rain simulation facility. Rain erosion experiments on the track are the only known means for realistic ground testing of the destructive effects of rain on warheads, radomes, etc., during supersonic or hypersonic flight. We hope to improve the rain facility so that it can simulate real rain intensities ranging from a light mist to a thunderstorm cell. Dust and sand testing are also currently being considered.

Continuing research and development in all areas of track performance capability, concurrent with actual testing, have resulted in an outstanding track facility. I believe that the facility will continue to improve and expand its already diverse and proven worth to the nation’s aerospace test programs.

Air Force Missile Development Center

*Dispensing tests include all track tests in which test items are ejected from a moving sled.

**Development tests include all track tests conducted to improve the track capability.

***Detecting tests include tests on miss distance indicators and target detector devices.

Contributor

Brigadier General Leo A. Kiley (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Director of Science and Technology, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, Hq USAF. Commissioned in the Air Corps Reserve in 1941, he served in various weather assignments until accepting a regular commission in 1946. Subsequent assignments have been as Commander, 15^th Weather Squadron, Philippine Islands and Okinawa; Commander, Hickam Weather Central, Hawaii; student, Air Command and Staff School; Chief, Plans and Operations Division, 2059^th Air Weather Wing, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; USAFIT student, Ohio State University; Chief, Programs Branch, later Deputy Director, Atomic Warfare Directorate, Air Force Cambridge Research Center; Deputy Chief,   then Chief, Biophysic Division, Air Force Special Weapons Center; Assistant DCS, later DCS, Weapons Effects Tests, Field Command, Defense Atomic Support Agency, also Military Deputy Test Manager, Nevada Test Site, and Commander, Joint Task Unit 8.1.3 of Joint Task Force Eight, pacific Proving Ground; Vice Commander, later Commander, Air Force Cambridge Research laboratories; and Commander, Air Force Missile Development Center, Holloman AFB, New Mexico, until his present assignment on 1 July 1967.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor