Boeing « Big Bird » ICBM Launcher Aircraft (MX Airborne Carrier)

ChuckAnderson

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
188
Reaction score
22
Hi Everyone!

I'm looking for information (3-views, artists conceptions, etc.) of a certain aircraft design I recall seeing in Aviation Week in the late 70's to early 80's.

I believe it was a design for an ICBM (MX) airborne launcher.

It was a large, propeller-driven aircraft, with a wingspan of maybe three hundred (300) feet, and four diesel engines, each driving a large 2-bladed propeller.

Any information anyone has on this unbuilt aircraft will be most welcome!

Chuck
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,358
Reaction score
2,200
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
You're likely thinking of the "Big Bird," shown in this thread:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1958.0/highlight,big%20bird.html
 

ChuckAnderson

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
188
Reaction score
22
Hi!

Thank you so much!

Do you think that a good three-view of the Boeing Big Bird might appear in Aerospace Projects Review?


Chuck
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,347
Reaction score
313
I am going through boxes of aviation week from 1979-1980, and came across this MX carrier. I have the complete article, Apparently this was Weinberger's preferred solution, but he went over the Airforce's heads. The service preferred C-5s as the carrier platform. It was calculated that the C-5 would have little margin for scrambling and that their endurance was only 8-9 hrs.
 

Attachments

  • Long endurance MX carrier1.jpg
    Long endurance MX carrier1.jpg
    216.4 KB · Views: 1,165
  • Long endurance MX carrier2.jpg
    Long endurance MX carrier2.jpg
    218.5 KB · Views: 1,071
  • Long endurance MX carrier3.jpg
    Long endurance MX carrier3.jpg
    159 KB · Views: 1,050

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
480
According to the caption the aircraft would 'cruise at 5,000ft and 100kts' and launch the missile at '10-20,000ft, and 120 to 180 kts'.
Wouldn't the time taken to climb taken to climb to missile launch altitude and speed significantly increase the reaction time of the
system?


cheers,
Robin.


P.S. Thanks to AeroFranz for turning up all this good stuff...........
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
280
robunos said:
According to the caption the aircraft would 'cruise at 5,000ft and 100kts' and launch the missile at '10-20,000ft, and 120 to 180 kts'.
Wouldn't the time taken to climb taken to climb to missile launch altitude and speed significantly increase the reaction time of the
system?

Well that depends on the rate of climb of the aircraft which judging by those very big high aspect ratio wings is probably very high. So it could climb and accelerate from the loiter to launch position in a few minutes. On receiving a launch signal it would take a few minutes to warm up the missiles, check the authentications and so on to launch the weapons. This of course would be done concurrently with the climb and accelerate to launch.

dragon72 said:
5,000 ft seems awfully low to be loitering

It depends on why they are loitering. The only reason they are in the air is to provide a secure and untraceable launch position. There is no operational need for altitude as in a fighter or surveillance aircraft. You could argue that lower is safer as you can take advantage of curvature of the earth to reduce the radar horizon.

However I tend to agree that high altitude is more normal for loitering because it provides less drag resistance, is above the weather (a good storm will mess up your loiter), etc. However it would appear this aircraft is designed for the low altitude loiter. It needs the thicker air to stay aloft 48 hours. Perhaps because of the diesel engines requiring a lot of oxygen to operate to reduce the required fuel burn.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,947
Reaction score
5,520
Any information available about the 6,000 shp aviation diesel engine that was being considered?
 

royabulgaf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
531
Reaction score
119
Abe, I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote that the low altitude loiter is for hiding behind the curvature of the earth. At 100 kts or so, there wouldn't be excessive drag. Remember, the point wasn't to get from point A to point B, but to just be somewhere in the square states.
 

Gerard

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
How would they find the runway / taxiway space for it ? A B-52 is small in comparison.


Regards,
Gerard
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,125
Reaction score
5,638
Hi,

did we speak about this subject before ?.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?exactphrase=true&QueryTerm=cx-4&start=40&rows=20&DocType=Article&Sort=&SortOrder=&startdate=1916-08-01&enddate=2018-09-03&LastViewIssueKey=&LastViewPage=
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    472.6 KB · Views: 204
  • 2.png
    2.png
    453.4 KB · Views: 163

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
4,453
The entire "mobile MX" affair was rather bizarre... MX on giant aircrafts, MX on railways, MX on superhardened silos, and finally... MX on Minuteman, vulnerable silos. And Midgetman. An entire decade of studies, studies, more studies, Congressional debate.
All this for what ?
MX developed for billion of dollars, deployed in the wrong silos, then withdrawn. :eek: And nowadays, U.S land-based deterrent assumed by old, cranky Minuteman IIIs.

When you think about it, had the Saturn V not been scrapped, it could have launched Midgetman into orbit...
 

Similar threads

Top