NORAD ~ SAGE ~ Seeds of modern tech via military and industry interact ....

[Stryder50]

The most important computer you’ve never heard of​

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.​

......
It’s not unusual to hear that a particular military technology has found its way into other applications, which then revolutionized our lives. From the imaging sensors that were refined to fly on spy satellites to advanced aerodynamics used on every modern jetliner, many of these ideas initially sounded like bad science fiction.

So did this one.

Consider the following scenario:

To defend the United States and Canada, a massive array of interconnected radars would be set up across the two nations. Connected by high-speed links to a distributed network of computers and radar scopes, Air Force personnel scan the skies for unexpected activity. One day, an unidentified aircraft is discovered, flying over the Arctic and heading toward the United States. A quick check of all known commercial flights rules out a planeload of holiday travelers lost over the Northern Canadian tundra. At headquarters, the flight is designated as a bogey, as all attempts to contact it have failed. A routine and usually uneventful intercept will therefore fly alongside to identify the aircraft and record registration information.

Before the intercept can be completed, more aircraft appear over the Arctic; an attack is originating from Russia. Readiness is raised to DEFCON 2, one step below that of nuclear war. Controllers across the country begin to get a high-level picture of the attack, which is projected on a large screen for senior military leaders. At a console, the intercept director clicks a few icons on his screen, assigning a fighter to its target. All the essential information is radioed directly to the aircraft’s computer, without talking to the pilot.

By the time the pilot is buckled into his seat and taxiing to the runway, all the data needed to destroy the intruder is loaded onboard. A callout of “Dolly Sweet” from the pilot acknowledges that the data load is good. Lifting off the runway and raising the gear, a flip of a switch in the cockpit turns the flight over to the computers on the ground and the radar controllers watching the bogey. A large screen in the cockpit provides a map of the area and supplies key situational awareness of the target.

The entire intercept is flown hands-off, with the pilot only adjusting the throttle. The aircraft, updated with the latest data from ground controllers, adjusts its course to intercept the enemy bomber. Only when the target is within the fighter’s radar range does the pilot assume control—then selects a weapon and fires. After a quick evasive maneuver, control returns to the autopilot, which flies the fighter back to base.

This isn't an excerpt from a dystopian graphic novel or a cut-and-paste from a current aerospace magazine. In truth, it’s all ancient history. The system described above was called SAGE—and it was implemented in 1958.

SAGE, the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment, was the solution to the problem of defending North America from Soviet bombers during the Cold War. Air defense was largely ignored after World War II, as post-war demilitarization gave way to the explosion of the consumer economy. The test of the first Soviet atomic bomb changed that sense of complacency, and the US felt a new urgency to implement a centralized defense strategy. The expected attack scenario was waves of fast-moving bombers, but in the early 1950’s, air defense was regionally fragmented and lacked a central coordinating authority. Countless studies tried to come up with a solution, but the technology of the time simply wasn’t able to meet expectations.
....

The most important computer you’ve never heard of

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.

arstechnica.com

 

[Stryder50]

For the youngsters here born long after the fact and ignorant of recent history ...
....
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD /ˈnɔːræd/), known until March 1981 as the North American Air Defense Command, is a combined organization of the United States and Canada that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and protection for Northern America.[5] Headquarters for NORAD and the NORAD/United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) center are located at Peterson Space Force Base in El Paso County, near Colorado Springs, Colorado. The nearby Cheyenne Mountain Complex has the Alternate Command Center. The NORAD commander and deputy commander (CINCNORAD) are, respectively, a United States four-star general or equivalent and a Canadian three-star general or equivalent.
....

NORAD - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[HenryBHough]

I wouldn't entirely abandon the thought that America might be attacked by external force.

However it seems more likely that any actual threat will come through two means AT THE SAME TIME!!

1. Cyber attack directed at public utilities of all sorts (electrical, water distribution, sewage disposal, transportation controls right down to many local traffic signals.

2. Internal agitation. You think blm could cause chaos? Think of it as a prototype at best. Lots of groups angry for different reasons. When they're fighting each other they can do a lot of harm. But when they set their eyes on a common goal and get tactical advice and funding from "outside"........

Who needs nukes when the seeds of destruction need only a little fertilizer?

 

[Mushroom]

Air defense was largely ignored after World War II, as post-war demilitarization gave way to the explosion of the consumer economy.

Oh, air defense was hardly "ignored". But it did change.

The main air defense weapon before and during WWII was ground based cannons. However, by the end of the war service ceilings had risen so high that ground fire was no longer effective. And with nuclear bombs accuracy was nowhere near as important as with conventional munitions.

The US was very aware of that, and actually started Project Nike back in 1944. That was to develop rockets capable of hitting high altitude bombers.

First fielded in 1953 with Nike Ajax, which had over 300 installations by 1962. But this was a liquid fueled hit to kill missile, and took at least 30 minutes to prepare to fire.

And there was the M51 Skysweeper, a 75mm cannon that combined RADAR and could fire 75 rpm. However, its limit was 30,000 feet, so that was the pinnacle of air defense artillery capability.

But at the same time Ajax was being deployed, testing was ongoing with Nike Hercules. Which started to deploy in 1958, and by 1964 had replaced all of the earlier Ajax installations. This was even more effective as it used a solid rocket motor, and it is estimated that half came with a 2.5-28kt nuclear warhead. This was because the Soviets to counter the threat from missiles started to operate in groups of 4-12 bombers to ensure that at least some reached their target. So targeting those groups with nukes was the most effective way to destroy them.

There were other programs, including Nike Zeus and Nike II, but the advent of ICBMs largely rendered the bombers obsolete so they were cancelled.

But air defense was hardly "ignored" at all. And the very article you quoted opening with those lines shows that the writer really did not know what they were talking about. There are still hundreds of decommissioned Nike sites all over the US, and at least 2 of them are open for public tours. And if anybody had ever played Fallout 4, the "Sentinel" site is actually based on the real world Safeguard Program, which actually had a single location in operation in 1976 with the Spartan missile (mostly an improvement of the cancelled Nike Zeus program).

Sorry, I largely reject this because it starts with a completely incorrect assumption, which tells me the writer is not writing from a position of actual knowledge, but to try and push an agenda. And I largely reject "articles" written as such. Especially after reading though the author's other "articles", and there is not a defense related one among them. In other words, a complete amateur that does not even know about the subject they are trying to sound authoritative about.

 

[Stryder50]

Oh, air defense was hardly "ignored". But it did change.

The main air defense weapon before and during WWII was ground based cannons. However, by the end of the war service ceilings had risen so high that ground fire was no longer effective. And with nuclear bombs accuracy was nowhere near as important as with conventional munitions.

The US was very aware of that, and actually started Project Nike back in 1944. That was to develop rockets capable of hitting high altitude bombers.

First fielded in 1953 with Nike Ajax, which had over 300 installations by 1962. But this was a liquid fueled hit to kill missile, and took at least 30 minutes to prepare to fire.

And there was the M51 Skysweeper, a 75mm cannon that combined RADAR and could fire 75 rpm. However, its limit was 30,000 feet, so that was the pinnacle of air defense artillery capability.

But at the same time Ajax was being deployed, testing was ongoing with Nike Hercules. Which started to deploy in 1958, and by 1964 had replaced all of the earlier Ajax installations. This was even more effective as it used a solid rocket motor, and it is estimated that half came with a 2.5-28kt nuclear warhead. This was because the Soviets to counter the threat from missiles started to operate in groups of 4-12 bombers to ensure that at least some reached their target. So targeting those groups with nukes was the most effective way to destroy them.

There were other programs, including Nike Zeus and Nike II, but the advent of ICBMs largely rendered the bombers obsolete so they were cancelled.

But air defense was hardly "ignored" at all. And the very article you quoted opening with those lines shows that the writer really did not know what they were talking about. There are still hundreds of decommissioned Nike sites all over the US, and at least 2 of them are open for public tours. And if anybody had ever played Fallout 4, the "Sentinel" site is actually based on the real world Safeguard Program, which actually had a single location in operation in 1976 with the Spartan missile (mostly an improvement of the cancelled Nike Zeus program).

Sorry, I largely reject this because it starts with a completely incorrect assumption, which tells me the writer is not writing from a position of actual knowledge, but to try and push an agenda. And I largely reject "articles" written as such. Especially after reading though the author's other "articles", and there is not a defense related one among them. In other words, a complete amateur that does not even know about the subject they are trying to sound authoritative about.

1) Writer's hyperbole in play, note the "largely" rather than "completely". During the first few years post WWII, i.e. late 1940s there was significant reduction in size of the military and it's budgets and I think this is what the writer is referencing. A few years after the war and with the "Iron Curtain" descending upon Eastern Europe as Churchill put it, and resulting formation of NATO, then it became more clear to USA the potential of attack from the USSR and the need for an organized and integrated system of National air defense for CONUS.

2) It wasn't until a few years after the end of WWII that the USSR had the means for aerial attack upon the USA, and that thanks to unintended "Lend Lease" of sorts;
....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Tupolev Tu-4 (Russian: Туполев Ту-4; NATO reporting name: Bull) is a piston-engined Soviet strategic bomber that served the Soviet Air Force from the late 1940s to mid-1960s. It was reverse-engineered from the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress.
...
The Tu-4 first flew on 19 May 1947 and was flown by test pilot Nikolai Rybko.[19] Serial production started immediately, and the type entered large-scale service in 1949. Entry into service of the Tu-4 threw the USAF into a panic since the Tu-4 possessed sufficient range to attack Chicago or Los Angeles on a one-way mission, and that may have informed the maneuvers and air combat practice conducted by US and British air forces in 1948 involving fleets of B-29s.[20] The tests were conducted by the RAF Central Fighter Establishment and co-operative US B-29 groups and involved demonstration of recommended methods of attack against B-29/Tu 4-type bombers using RAF Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Vampire jet fighters. The Soviets developed four different midair refueling systems to extend the bomber's range, but these were fitted to only a few aircraft, and only a small number of the final design were installed on operational aircraft before the Tu-4 was superseded by the Tu-16.[21]

First public appearance​

The aircraft was first displayed during a flyover on 3 August 1947 at the Tushino Aviation Day parade. At first three aircraft flew over and the Western observers assumed that they were merely the three B-29 bombers which they knew had been diverted to the Soviet Union during World War II. Minutes later a fourth aircraft appeared. Western analysts realized that the Soviets must have reverse-engineered the B-29.[22]
....

Tupolev Tu-4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3) The main focus of the article and this thread was the influence of SAGE and seeding the computer industry, IBM, and later developments, such as PCs. Military history and national defense were just a backdrop for reference.

4) I didn't have much luck on a quick effort to chase down the author's CV or history of articles, if you have a link or two, would be appreciated.

5) Feel free to contribute more on the origins and evolution of computers, which is the main focus here. Or any other related material and links.

 

[Mushroom]

1) Writer's hyperbole in play, note the "largely" rather than "completely". During the first few years post WWII, i.e. late 1940s there was significant reduction in size of the military and it's budgets and I think this is what the writer is referencing. A few years after the war and with the "Iron Curtain" descending upon Eastern Europe as Churchill put it, and resulting formation of NATO, then it became more clear to USA the potential of attack from the USSR and the need for an organized and integrated system of National air defense for CONUS.

2) It wasn't until a few years after the end of WWII that the USSR had the means for aerial attack upon the USA, and that thanks to unintended "Lend Lease" of sorts;

5) Feel free to contribute more on the origins and evolution of computers, which is the main focus here. Or any other related material and links.

When their opening statement is that false, it throws the entire credibility of the article in question. A real "journalist" strives to be neutral and impartial, unless they are targeting an article for other purposes.

And I know all about the development of the Tu-4, even the strange quirks because it was designed and built using "Standard English" measurements, then rebuilt using Metric. And places for mounting commemorative plates and test instruments that served them no purpose as one of the aircraft they obtained was an early test unit and another was a presentation unit.

But it is not that they did not have long range heavy bombers even before WWII. The TB-3, the experimental TU-12, and others. They had a lot of bombers with ranges exceeding 1,000 miles that could be used against the US even as WWII drew to a close. And as I showed, the US was already developing anti-air missiles even before the war ended. A line of missiles they would use for the next 3 decades.

And if the main focus is computers, then that is maybe where you should have posted this. You posted it in a military thread, which makes it open to comment on the pure military aspects of the article.

But in reality, almost all development of computers from the early 1940's to the 1960's was based on and for the military. As was almost all of the communications we use today. Including how we are posting these very messages.

 

[Stryder50]

At the end of WWII the USSR did not appear to have any significant strategic reach or attack capabilities that would threaten continental USA. Within a couple years the detonation of the Soviets first atomic bomb and the appearance of modern long range bombers changed that equation.

That modern long range bomber was an unintended form of "Lend Lease" one might say and as much as the Boeing B-29 was an exceptional 'great leap forward' in aviation technology, the Soviet reverse engineer effort was also as remarkable. Hence this would be an essential piece of the subject here.
~~~~~~~~~
EXCERPTS;
...

Design and development​

Toward the end of World War II, the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined "heavy" in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. The U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan, from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses. Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber.

The U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease.[1][2] However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out.[3] In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and so the bombers were interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, the U.S. demanded the return of the bombers, but were refused.[4] Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third was left as a standard for cross-reference.[5] The aircraft included one Boeing-Wichita −5-BW, two Boeing-Wichita −15-BWs and the wreckage of one Boeing-Renton −1-BN, comprising three different models from two different production lines, at Wichita and Renton. Only one of the four had deicing boots, as would be used on the Tu-4.[6] The fourth B-29 was returned to the US along with its crew with the end of the Soviet-Japanese peace. The Soviets declared war on Japan two days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, in accordance with the Yalta Agreement.[7]

Stalin told Tupolev to duplicate the Superfortress in as short a time as possible instead of continuing with his own comparable ANT-64/Tu-10.[8] The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, which finished the design work during the first year, and 105,000 drawings were made.[9] By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft, ready for state acceptance trials.[10]

The Soviet Union used the metric system and so sheet aluminium in thicknesses matching the B-29's imperial measurements were unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was of different thicknesses. Alloys and other materials new to the Soviet Union had to be brought into production. Extensive re-engineering had to take place to compensate for the differences, and Soviet official strength margins had to be decreased to avoid further redesign.[11] However despite those challenges, the prototype Tu-4 weighed only 340 kg (750 lb) more than the B-29, a difference of less than 1%.[12]

The engineers and suppliers of components were under pressure from Tupolev, Stalin, and the government to create an exact clone of the original B-29 to facilitate production. Tupolev had to overcome substantial resistance to use equipment that was not only already in production but also sometimes better than the American version.[13] Each alteration and every component made was scrutinized and was subject to a lengthy bureaucratic decision process. Kerber, then Tupolev's deputy, recalled in his memoirs that engineers needed authorization from a high-ranking general to use Soviet-made parachutes.[5] Differences were limited to the engines, the defensive weapons, the radio (a later model used in lend-lease B-25s was used in place of the radio in the interned B-29s) and the identification friend or foe (IFF) system since the American IFF was unsuitable.[14] The Soviet Shvetsov ASh-73 engine was a development of the Wright R-1820 but was not otherwise related to the B-29's Wright R-3350[15] The ASh-73 also powered some of Aeroflot's remaining obsolescent Petlyakov Pe-8 airframes, a much-earlier Soviet four-engined heavy bomber, whose production was curtailed by higher-priority programs. The B-29's remote-controlled gun turrets were redesigned to accommodate the Soviet Nudelman NS-23, a harder hitting and longer ranged 23 mm (0.91 in) cannon.[16] Additional changes were made as a result of problems encountered during testing related to engine and propeller failures,[17] and equipment changes were made throughout the aircraft's service life.[18]

The Tu-4 first flew on 19 May 1947 and was flown by test pilot Nikolai Rybko.[19] Serial production started immediately, and the type entered large-scale service in 1949. Entry into service of the Tu-4 threw the USAF into a panic since the Tu-4 possessed sufficient range to attack Chicago or Los Angeles on a one-way mission, and that may have informed the maneuvers and air combat practice conducted by US and British air forces in 1948 involving fleets of B-29s.[20] The tests were conducted by the RAF Central Fighter Establishment and co-operative US B-29 groups and involved demonstration of recommended methods of attack against B-29/Tu 4-type bombers using RAF Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Vampire jet fighters. The Soviets developed four different midair refueling systems to extend the bomber's range, but these were fitted to only a few aircraft, and only a small number of the final design were installed on operational aircraft before the Tu-4 was superseded by the Tu-16.[21]

First public appearance​

The aircraft was first displayed during a flyover on 3 August 1947 at the Tushino Aviation Day parade. At first three aircraft flew over and the Western observers assumed that they were merely the three B-29 bombers which they knew had been diverted to the Soviet Union during World War II. Minutes later a fourth aircraft appeared. Western analysts realized that the Soviets must have reverse-engineered the B-29.[22]

Operational history​

A total of 847 Tu-4s had been built when production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, some of which went to China during the later 1950s. Many experimental variants were built and the experience launched the Soviet strategic bomber program. Tu-4s were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956). By the beginning of the 1960s, the only Tu-4s still operated by the Soviets were used for transport or airborne laboratory purposes. A Tu-4A was the first Soviet aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon, the RDS-3.[23]
....

Tupolev Tu-4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...
Images of Tu-4 Bull; note the AWACS version;

Tu-4 Bull at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Stryder50]

When their opening statement is that false, it throws the entire credibility of the article in question. A real "journalist" strives to be neutral and impartial, unless they are targeting an article for other purposes.

And I know all about the development of the Tu-4, even the strange quirks because it was designed and built using "Standard English" measurements, then rebuilt using Metric. And places for mounting commemorative plates and test instruments that served them no purpose as one of the aircraft they obtained was an early test unit and another was a presentation unit.

But it is not that they did not have long range heavy bombers even before WWII. The TB-3, the experimental TU-12, and others. They had a lot of bombers with ranges exceeding 1,000 miles that could be used against the US even as WWII drew to a close. And as I showed, the US was already developing anti-air missiles even before the war ended. A line of missiles they would use for the next 3 decades.

And if the main focus is computers, then that is maybe where you should have posted this. You posted it in a military thread, which makes it open to comment on the pure military aspects of the article.

But in reality, almost all development of computers from the early 1940's to the 1960's was based on and for the military. As was almost all of the communications we use today. Including how we are posting these very messages.

Nothing new to me, but may be of help to others reading here.

If you have a comparable and competitive article by someone you consider better qualified to comment on the military aspect of the thread subject, than please present such and article/link.

While I'm personally aware of and familiar with the material of your posts as presented, you've failed to document or provide any url/links so to other's this would seem to be more one person's opinion rather than facts.

As you know, "Real 'journalist' ", especially neutral and impartial, are rare these days. The article isn't exactly "latest, breaking news", and the nit you are picking is rather minor and partly your subjective perspective/interpretation.

Main focus is the integration of computers and radar systems in co-ordinating and organizing the air defense of the North American continent. Did you miss the part of the role of the F-106 as part of that system?

I'd hesitate to say the USSR had "a lot of bombers" in the form of tens of thousands like the USA and UK, may a couple hundred at most, if that, and the only contender before they got some B-29s in their hands were;
...
The Petlyakov Pe-8 (Russian: Петляков Пе-8) was a Soviet heavy bomber designed before World War II, and the only four-engine bomber the USSR built during the war. Produced in limited numbers, it was used to bomb Berlin in August 1941. It was also used for so-called "morale raids" designed to raise the spirit of the Soviet people by exposing Axis vulnerabilities. Its primary mission, however, was to attack German airfields, rail yards and other rear-area facilities at night, although one was used to fly the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs (Foreign Minister) Vyacheslav Molotov from Moscow to the United States in 1942.

Originally designated the TB-7, the aircraft was renamed the Pe-8 after its primary designer, Vladimir Petlyakov, died in a plane crash in 1942. Supply problems complicated the aircraft's production and the Pe-8s also had engine problems. As Soviet morale boosters, they were also high-value targets for the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots. The loss rate of these aircraft, whether from mechanical failure, friendly fire, or combat, doubled between 1942 and 1944.

By the end of the war, most of the surviving aircraft had been withdrawn from combat units. After the war, some were modified as transports for important officials, and a few others were used in various Soviet testing programs. Some supported the Soviet Arctic operations until the late 1950s.
...

Petlyakov Pe-8 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mushroom]

If you have a comparable and competitive article by someone you consider better qualified to comment on the military aspect of the thread subject, than please present such and article/link.

Well, for the parts I have actually been talking about, how about me?

Over 5 years actually serving in the Army Air Defense Artillery Branch. If you look at the image I use, that was taken at the White Sands Missile Range, where I spent a considerable amount of time working in this very area. Also talking quite a lot with people who actually worked on those and other programs.

Which is an interest of mine, as I actually grew up with an Nike battery almost in my back yard during the 1960's and 1970's. And visiting many sites, including the SF-88 missile site, now a museum open to the public.

What, you did not notice all the various things I talked about quite clearly? I actually am an expert in the "military aspect of the thread subject". But if you want to discuss more about computers, I can do that as well as for the last decade before I retired I was an IT specialist in the Army.

 

[Stryder50]

Well, for the parts I have actually been talking about, how about me?

Over 5 years actually serving in the Army Air Defense Artillery Branch. If you look at the image I use, that was taken at the White Sands Missile Range, where I spent a considerable amount of time working in this very area. Also talking quite a lot with people who actually worked on those and other programs.

Which is an interest of mine, as I actually grew up with an Nike battery almost in my back yard during the 1960's and 1970's. And visiting many sites, including the SF-88 missile site, now a museum open to the public.

What, you did not notice all the various things I talked about quite clearly? I actually am an expert in the "military aspect of the thread subject". But if you want to discuss more about computers, I can do that as well as for the last decade before I retired I was an IT specialist in the Army.

That's great, but I think you miss the point here. While I'll take your word on this, that is all we have to work with. Readers here might start by searching links to the terms you use, but so far we have you, unknown person, making claims about your background and complaints against an author's expertise, but no documentations.

 

[Mushroom]

That's great, but I think you miss the point here. While I'll take your word on this, that is all we have to work with. Readers here might start by searching links to the terms you use, but so far we have you, unknown person, making claims about your background and complaints against an author's expertise, but no documentations.

Who has been constantly discussing such issues in here for a decade. It is not like I have made any kind of a secret in here of my background.

Especially here in the military section, a lot of us participate because we really are "subject matter experts" in the things we are discussing.

But tell you what, how many can quickly discuss the various types of missiles that the PATRIOT system fires, and which launchers they can be fired from? Or things like CEP, BMOA, and RSOP which I have a great many times in the past decade. Or that in other forums you can find me as "Oozlefinch", a rather obscure term unless you actually work in ADA. Oh, and with the exact same avatar.

But fine, believe what you want. I really do not care, but if you think somebody who is actually the VP of an insurance association and has never written a defense related article before, fine. But he has discussed several other things. Like auto repair, pediatric dialysis, and one that is something about accusing "snowbirds" from Canada as being COVID carriers.

Yes, real "subject matter expert" there. Then again, searching the credentials and past writing of somebody is something that most should do, in order to determine if they are credible in the first place. So I guess somehow the "vice president of state government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association" has the background to discuss all those things he writes about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The most important computer you’ve never heard of​

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.​

......
It’s not unusual to hear that a particular military technology has found its way into other applications, which then revolutionized our lives. From the imaging sensors that were refined to fly on spy satellites to advanced aerodynamics used on every modern jetliner, many of these ideas initially sounded like bad science fiction.

So did this one.

Consider the following scenario:

To defend the United States and Canada, a massive array of interconnected radars would be set up across the two nations. Connected by high-speed links to a distributed network of computers and radar scopes, Air Force personnel scan the skies for unexpected activity. One day, an unidentified aircraft is discovered, flying over the Arctic and heading toward the United States. A quick check of all known commercial flights rules out a planeload of holiday travelers lost over the Northern Canadian tundra. At headquarters, the flight is designated as a bogey, as all attempts to contact it have failed. A routine and usually uneventful intercept will therefore fly alongside to identify the aircraft and record registration information.

Before the intercept can be completed, more aircraft appear over the Arctic; an attack is originating from Russia. Readiness is raised to DEFCON 2, one step below that of nuclear war. Controllers across the country begin to get a high-level picture of the attack, which is projected on a large screen for senior military leaders. At a console, the intercept director clicks a few icons on his screen, assigning a fighter to its target. All the essential information is radioed directly to the aircraft’s computer, without talking to the pilot.

By the time the pilot is buckled into his seat and taxiing to the runway, all the data needed to destroy the intruder is loaded onboard. A callout of “Dolly Sweet” from the pilot acknowledges that the data load is good. Lifting off the runway and raising the gear, a flip of a switch in the cockpit turns the flight over to the computers on the ground and the radar controllers watching the bogey. A large screen in the cockpit provides a map of the area and supplies key situational awareness of the target.

The entire intercept is flown hands-off, with the pilot only adjusting the throttle. The aircraft, updated with the latest data from ground controllers, adjusts its course to intercept the enemy bomber. Only when the target is within the fighter’s radar range does the pilot assume control—then selects a weapon and fires. After a quick evasive maneuver, control returns to the autopilot, which flies the fighter back to base.

This isn't an excerpt from a dystopian graphic novel or a cut-and-paste from a current aerospace magazine. In truth, it’s all ancient history. The system described above was called SAGE—and it was implemented in 1958.

SAGE, the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment, was the solution to the problem of defending North America from Soviet bombers during the Cold War. Air defense was largely ignored after World War II, as post-war demilitarization gave way to the explosion of the consumer economy. The test of the first Soviet atomic bomb changed that sense of complacency, and the US felt a new urgency to implement a centralized defense strategy. The expected attack scenario was waves of fast-moving bombers, but in the early 1950’s, air defense was regionally fragmented and lacked a central coordinating authority. Countless studies tried to come up with a solution, but the technology of the time simply wasn’t able to meet expectations.
....

The most important computer you’ve never heard of

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.

arstechnica.com

Nice science fiction story!

 

[Mushroom]

Nice science fiction story!

Especially as IBM had been a "powerhouse" decades before that. Yet one more area where the "author" shows they know little to nothing about the subjects they are trying to write about.

By that time IBM was already almost 60 years old, and the world leader in business machines (the actual company core was founded in 1885). The 80 column punch card they had developed back in the 1920's was already long established as the "industry standard", and was the standard all companies followed (including the definition of what the holes punched into them represented).

They were the "Gold Standard" internationally for Business Machines, everything from large calculation machines, tabulating machines, and even time clocks that would tie into the tabulation machines. The Harvard Mark I (ASCC) was designed and built by them in 1944 and was the most advanced electromechanical computer of the time. By 1956 they had already developed the first "working AI", a program that could play checkers.

The only company that was even close to IBM in this era was probably Bell Labs. But the thing was, they were not a computer company. They were pushing the technology to automate the phone system, and while they made some large advances, they never "commercialized it" as IBM did. And it was highly specialized.

Oh, and I can go on quite a bit about this because when I first started programming in the 1970's, it was on an IBM Series 360 mainframe, using the same keypunch cards that had been invented by IBM over 50 years earlier. And of course my typing class was conducted using IBM Selectric typewriters. My absolute boredom and hatred of programming is one of the reasons I joined the military and took a field as far away from computers as I could get.

But once again, it shows that the author knows little of the technologies he is trying to discuss, or even the timeline of advances. It is almost the ultimate in a "fluff piece", written by an outsider for outsiders that know nothing about what is being discussed. And sadly, the Internet is full of coprolite like this.

 

[Stryder50]

Well, for the parts I have actually been talking about, how about me?

Over 5 years actually serving in the Army Air Defense Artillery Branch. If you look at the image I use, that was taken at the White Sands Missile Range, where I spent a considerable amount of time working in this very area. Also talking quite a lot with people who actually worked on those and other programs.

Which is an interest of mine, as I actually grew up with an Nike battery almost in my back yard during the 1960's and 1970's. And visiting many sites, including the SF-88 missile site, now a museum open to the public.

What, you did not notice all the various things I talked about quite clearly? I actually am an expert in the "military aspect of the thread subject". But if you want to discuss more about computers, I can do that as well as for the last decade before I retired I was an IT specialist in the Army.

Well I started here about 9+ years after you and didn't have time to go through all your back posts, so ....

Rereading through this thread I realize I maybe should have included more excerpts, but being a bit of a newbie still when starting this thread, I expected that people would go to the link and read through it. So I'll make a couple more posts here to show that some of the respondents here didn't bother to read the full article linked.

 

[Stryder50]

First excerpt;
....

Whirlwind I​

In the waning days of World War II, MIT researchers tried to design a facility for the Navy that would simulate an arbitrary aircraft design in order to study its handling characteristics. Originally conceived as an analog computer, the approach was abandoned when it became clear that the device would not be fast or accurate enough for such a range of simulations.


Attention then turned to Whirlwind I, a sophisticated digital system at MIT, with a 32-bit word length, 16 “math units,” and 2,048 words of memory made from mercury delay lines. Importantly, Whirlwind I had a sophisticated I/O system; it introduced the concept of cycle stealing during I/O operations, where the CPU is halted during data transfer.


After a few years, the Navy lost interest in the project due to its high cost, but the Air Force evaluated the system for air defense. After modifying several radars in the Northeast United States to send digital coordinates of targets they were tracking, Whirlwind I proved that coordinating intercepts of bombers was practical. Key to this practicality were high-reliability vacuum tubes and the development of the first core memory. These two advances reduced the machine’s otherwise considerable downtime and increased processing soon made Whirlwind I four times faster than the original design.

SAGE architecture​

The United Staes was divided into 20+ SAGE sectors, each with its own Direction Center.
Buoyed by the promising results, MIT, IBM, and the Air Force conceived what would become SAGE. North America would be divided into 23 sectors, each with its own “direction center,” several of which would feed into a “Combat Direction Central” system. Each direction center would be connected to a number of radars and have several fighter squadrons available to launch interceptors. If a direction center was destroyed in an attack, redundant communications links would be rerouted to a surviving center that would continue the air defense effort. To simplify the problem of redundancy, all centers used a technique called “cross-telling,” a synchronization protocol that exchanged data on tracking, aircraft, and bogeys.



Creating such a system was a massive undertaking. Stoked by Cold War fears of a nuclear attack, the Air Force developed an air defense architecture that was far beyond the current state of the art. Much of the size and complexity came from the requirement to defend the United States and Canada, an area nearly the size of the Soviet Union itself. The resulting effort became far larger than the Manhattan Project of World War II.
...

The most important computer you’ve never heard of

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.

arstechnica.com

 

[Stryder50]

1st point and click;

....
SAGE was the name of the overall system, which included not only the centers that housed the computers but the architecture of processing, the interceptors, the radars, and the ground-to-air missiles. The main computer itself, known as the AN/FSQ-7 in military parlance, was (and still is) the largest computer ever built. Consisting of two processors, one always active and the other operating in a standby mode, the AN/FSQ-7 required 49,000 vacuum tubes and 68K of 32-bit core memory. It operated at about 75,000 instructions per second. As moving-head disk drives were only just coming into commercial use, drum memory was used for permanent storage. Each of the 26 drums held about 150K, had an access time of 20 milliseconds, and was shared between processors and displays. Since any computer is blind and deaf without data flowing in and out, the processors also had a sophisticated I/O system connecting radars, displays, and other direction centers. Critically, the AN/FSQ-7 was a true real-time
commercial batch-oriented system that came before and for many years afterward.










A typical SAGE blockhouse, in Stewart, N.Y.
This required a huge physical plant. Each of the 23 centers was housed in four-story blockhouses. (These were not hardened against nuclear blasts, but the two-meter thick walls offered significant protection from potential attacks.) One 2,000-square-meter floor was dedicated to the 250-ton processors and their support electronics. Diesel generators supplied the 3 MW of power needed to keep each complex running.

About 90 consoles were manned in each direction center, each tasked with a different part of the air defense problem. One group was for general air surveillance. Similar to what might be found in a modern air traffic control center, this group tracked all flights in a particular sector. If a controller confirmed an aircraft as an unknown, the data was forwarded to the weapons director. After evaluating the threat, the weapons director could order intercept missions or send targeting information to missile batteries around major cities.


The intercept director accepted the handoff from the weapons director and assigned individual aircraft to particular targets. By clicking on the fighter and the bogey, an optimal intercept course and altitude were calculated and radioed to the fighter. If radar detected a change in the target’s course, the system would automatically recalculate the intercept and send updated data to the fighter. No verbal communication with the pilot was necessary.

...

The most important computer you’ve never heard of

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.

arstechnica.com

 

[Stryder50]

Another excerpt;
....
Selecting a specific radar track on a screen full of blips would be completely impractical without some form of “point and click” interface for identifying a target. With the invention of the computer mouse still a decade away, Whirlwind engineers developed the “Light Gun,” a pistol-shaped pointing device that allowed controllers to select a target on the screen. Once the target was selected, the operator could assign a track identifier, order an intercept, or select a target for a ground-to-air missile.


The computer itself did not drive the displays directly. As the position and height of an aircraft were fed from radars into the processor, the tracking data was computed and written onto drums. Each console read from these drums, extracting only the data it was responsible for. The radar operator display was mostly decoupled from the processor, and its image was generated locally. A bank of switches on the console changed the display or changed the focus to a particular aircraft. With the processor freed from the duties of managing a large number of consoles, its limited horsepower was available to process incoming radar data.
....

The pointy end of the spear​

The F-106 was armed with the Genie, a nuclear-tipped air-to-air missile.


The F-106 was operational for nearly 30 years, with its last deployment in the New Jersey Air National Guard.

SAGE was the ground-based component of air defense, and it required an equally capable fighter to intercept the bombers. Early plans were to use the popular but marginally performing F-102 as the frontline aircraft. After extensive redesigns of the F-102, Convair delivered a reimagined aircraft in the F-106, introducing it as the “Ultimate Interceptor.” The moniker was hardly hyperbole. Finely tuned aerodynamics exploited the latest NACA area rule concepts that gave the F-106 its distinctive “coke bottle” fuselage and exceptional performance. It remains the holder of the world speed record—Mach 2.3—for a single-engine aircraft. Its low wing loading and large engine made it very maneuverable, especially at high altitudes.

The F-106 was equipped with electronics that were far beyond the capabilities of any other aircraft of its day. The heart of the aircraft was the Hughes MA-1 system, which integrated all navigation, radar, communications, and autopilot functions in a 2,500 pound (1,140 kg) collection of boxes at the front of the aircraft. At the center of the MA-1 was the Hughes Digitair, the first digital airborne computer, an 18-bit, one's-complement vacuum tube system with 2K words of core memory. Impressively, mission data was recorded to onboard drum storage, which could hold 13,000 words. All intercept data was stored on the drum, as was target information and radio and navigation data.









The F-106 was the most advanced interceptor in its day. The Tactical Situation Display is behind the stick.
With such an automated system, the pilot needed a way to maintain situational awareness of the intercept. A large screen in the cockpit displayed a map of the area, projecting the positions and tracks of the fighter and its target in real time. This screen, known as the Tactical Situation Display, was updated with data from the direction center, giving the pilot “the big picture” of the attack, an essential feature when voice communication was not possible.
...

The most important computer you’ve never heard of

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.

arstechnica.com

 

[Stryder50]

Excerpt;

Operation Sky Shield​

The nationwide two-day air-traffic shutdown after September 11, 2001, was unprecedented, but it was hardly the first time the FAA grounded all commercial traffic in the United States. Starting in 1960, three annual exercises called Sky Shield had the Air Force work with the FAA to ground all commercial and private flights for several hours during the drill. These international exercises were intended to test the capabilities of SAGE. Large groups of bombers were assigned targets to “attack” in the United States, with the SAGE units controlling the response with fighters and ground-to-air missiles.


The UK’s Royal Air Force, flying their new Vulcan bombers, got orders for the exercise, but the plucky Brits ignored some of the details. Flying their own attack profiles (essentially cheating) and using highly effective radar jammers, the Brits exposed wide gaps in SAGE capabilities. Despite a generally high success rate claimed for the fighters in “destroying” their targets, the best estimates were that only a quarter of the bombers were intercepted.

IBM’s benefits from SAGE​

IBM had recently entered the computing realm in the early 1950s, and it was already dominant in punch-card tabulating. With its emphasis on research and development and customer support, IBM was chosen by the Air Force in 1953 to design and construct the AN/FSQ-7 systems. While the project contributed about 10 percent to IBM’s bottom line for several years, the real benefit to IBM was access to the advanced designs at MIT and to revolutionary technologies such as core memory. As the SAGE project wound down, IBM engineers used their accumulated skills and applied them to the newer commercial offerings for years afterward.
.....

The most important computer you’ve never heard of

How SAGE jumpstarted today’s technology and built IBM into a powerhouse.

arstechnica.com

BTW, the FAA developed and built a similar system in the 1960s, using much same to similar hardware and systems for the Air Traffic Control Center across the nation (and world).

 

[Mushroom]

I expected that people would go to the link and read through it. So I'll make a couple more posts here to show that some of the respondents here didn't bother to read the full article linked.

The funny thing is, did you not notice that at least two of us did? Not only reading them, but then quoting on them and what was discussed? Or that one of them was full of multiple errors, and written by somebody that knows nothing about the subject itself?

This is the funny thing, as this and your claims crossed into two areas where I am indeed an expert and professional. And you simply dismiss them simply because somebody who had written an article about auto repair and Canadian COVID carriers is now presenting themselves as some sort of "Defense expert"?

This is why I encourage people over and over to "vette their sources". Not to simply believe something that somebody wrote, but actually look into their background to determine if they are actually knowledgeable about what they are saying, or if they are simply another bloviating idiot that has no credibility discussing what they are trying to claim and therefore to be ignored.

And here, this should give you an idea. Look at just some of the articles that Frank O'Brien has written.

https://muckrack.com/frank-obrien-1

Well, looks like he has not actually written anything in over 2 years. But oh boy, what a grab bag.

Detecting prostate cancer, issues in Vancouver, Canada. Pediatric dialysis, and a significant amount of their articles are the one about Canadian's spreading COVID being reposted everywhere. Then rent to own property, Apollo 14, and several on construction in Canada.

In other words, not a damned thing to indicate they are any kind of "subject matter expert" in the very thing they wrote. And with the multiple factual errors in it, it should in fact be discarded as "junk journalism".

Of course, the guy has apparently had nothing posted in over 2 years, so I am willing to bet his short journalism career came to an end shortly after he posted the article that you keep spamming over and over again.

I already read it. Admiral Rockwell also read it. We both more or less tore it to shreds because of the multiple errors and omissions. So do not even try to make the pathetic claim that nobody read it. I read it, and dismissed it as "junk journalism".

 

[Stryder50]

The funny thing is, did you not notice that at least two of us did? Not only reading them, but then quoting on them and what was discussed? Or that one of them was full of multiple errors, and written by somebody that knows nothing about the subject itself?

This is the funny thing, as this and your claims crossed into two areas where I am indeed an expert and professional. And you simply dismiss them simply because somebody who had written an article about auto repair and Canadian COVID carriers is now presenting themselves as some sort of "Defense expert"?

This is why I encourage people over and over to "vette their sources". Not to simply believe something that somebody wrote, but actually look into their background to determine if they are actually knowledgeable about what they are saying, or if they are simply another bloviating idiot that has no credibility discussing what they are trying to claim and therefore to be ignored.

And here, this should give you an idea. Look at just some of the articles that Frank O'Brien has written.

https://muckrack.com/frank-obrien-1

Well, looks like he has not actually written anything in over 2 years. But oh boy, what a grab bag.

Detecting prostate cancer, issues in Vancouver, Canada. Pediatric dialysis, and a significant amount of their articles are the one about Canadian's spreading COVID being reposted everywhere. Then rent to own property, Apollo 14, and several on construction in Canada.

In other words, not a damned thing to indicate they are any kind of "subject matter expert" in the very thing they wrote. And with the multiple factual errors in it, it should in fact be discarded as "junk journalism".

Of course, the guy has apparently had nothing posted in over 2 years, so I am willing to bet his short journalism career came to an end shortly after he posted the article that you keep spamming over and over again.

I already read it. Admiral Rockwell also read it. We both more or less tore it to shreds because of the multiple errors and omissions. So do not even try to make the pathetic claim that nobody read it. I read it, and dismissed it as "junk journalism".

OMG!

You really can be a petulant little child at times.

In your first post on this thread, #4, you get your knickers in knot because of this sentence;
"Air defense was largely ignored after World War II, as post-war demilitarization gave way to the explosion of the consumer economy."
Which being in the sixth paragraph down is hardly the author's opening statement. The preceding paragraphs (real opening statements) gave a general outline of what the article would be about.

This is the only reference you present from the article so there is scant proof you read it through, and no evidence of any other part of the article excerpted and presented to substantiate your peeves.

Your remainder of that post (and later ones) is puffery about your experience and all the missiles you were involved with. (BTW, we have to take your word on that background) Well the balance of the OP link goes on to explain how you would have known what to shoot those missiles at had the need arisen. It explains the basics of how detection and combat direction was systematized for the post WW2 age. Also in that first post here of yours you fail to mention how fighters/interceptor aircraft were also a major and key factor in air defense, during and after WW2.

BTW, that sentence you object to was rather vague wording I'll agree. "Air Defense" is actually a system with components that start with detecting the "target", then identify if 'Friend or Foe', then allocate a weapons system (fighter interceptor, SAM-missile, flak, etc.), all of this under direction of control, communication, and command (CCC) systems.

All you discuss are weapons systems, but not the other essential components involved.

FWIW, I'm use to encountering errors in military articles and books. If it's a one or two item event I won't flush it just for that. I've lost count how many times I've seen say a Me-109G called a Me-109E, or a M-10 tank destroyer called an M-4 Sherman tank, or a destroyer(DD) called a battleship(BB), just as some examples.

If you would have gotten past that faux-pa on "air defense" you would have found some interesting content. I'm certain many with far less military experience than what you claim certain would have found it informative and interesting.

Well I've wasted enough time and typing on you. I should have remembered you usually are only here to puff your hubris and flash that chip on your shoulder.

As for "admiral rockbottom", a short one sentence snarkery is hardly a learned comment. The guy often lacks credibility in my book anyway.

As for IBM, the article didn't claim this was the start of IBM, only that IBM, along with MIT and others in this project developed some of the essential tech that would get computing beyond the analog and punch-card methods. (BTW, I first learned programing back in the early 70's where the school computer was an IBM 360 and we had to keypunch a stack of those cards to run our programs.