Register here

Author Topic: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft  (Read 13157 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8616
Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« on: June 10, 2006, 04:24:03 am »
Lockheed 1982 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 12:59:41 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2006, 06:28:05 am »
Funny I was thinking of a design very much like that less than two minutes ago when I was reading the Lockheed nuclear aircraft thread.  There was an airborn aircraft carrier that sported something like 24 fighter aircraft beneath it's wings and looked a LOT like that design.  There was a drawing of it in the book Future Combat Aircraft by Gunston IIRC.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7153
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2006, 05:43:11 pm »
Lockheed CL-1201-1
Span: 1,120 feet
Gross weight: 11.85 million pounds
Endurance: 41 days:
Reactor output: 1830 megawatts
Crew: 845
Tactical fighters carried: 24
Lift engines for VTOL: 182

Knowledge that we *could* build this: priceless.


Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8616
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2006, 08:05:52 pm »
Significant economy leap: just 54 engines for VTOL on Logistic Support Aircraft version)))
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 01:00:39 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7153
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2006, 06:12:07 am »
The attack version weighed more, and was intended for VTOL landings of vast numbers of troops and equipment, along with the airplanes under the wing; the transport version was intended for STOL operations (for an airplane this big, "STOL" probably meant "runway less than 10km long.")
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2006, 12:27:23 pm »
A question on the reactor output - is that thermal megawatts or shaft power megawatts?

And a general statement: OMFG.

RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7153
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2006, 12:34:31 pm »
A question on the reactor output - is that thermal megawatts or shaft power megawatts?

*Appears* to be total thermal output. The total thrust of the engines is claimed to be 500,000 pounds... which seems pretty damned weak. Possible that 500,000 pounds *per* *engine.*

Quote
And a general statement: OMFG.

Indeed!
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2006, 12:43:44 pm »
Quote
The attack version weighed more 

:o ???
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8616
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2006, 02:12:23 pm »
From Bill Gunston's 'An Illistrated Guide To Future Fighters...'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 679
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2014, 06:13:07 am »
Lockheed 1982 Logistic Support Aircraft

Why do you say 1982, I thought this was designed in the 50's?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8616
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2014, 06:45:51 am »
And why do you think it was back then?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2014, 09:22:50 am »
Why do you say 1982, I thought this was designed in the 50's?

Neither. CL-1201 studies date back to the 1969-70 period. But of course it's not so unusual to see them appear in a report that's only a little over a decade later.

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2014, 10:44:17 am »
It's a Star Destroyer...  :o

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 679
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2014, 11:47:46 am »
Why do you say 1982, I thought this was designed in the 50's?

Neither. CL-1201 studies date back to the 1969-70 period. But of course it's not so unusual to see them appear in a report that's only a little over a decade later.

Could you point me to that report please? :)

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2014, 12:05:24 pm »
Could you point me to that report please? :)

It's flateric who posted pics with a 1982 date on them, so you'll have to ask him...