• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed A-12 and SR-71 projects

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
SENIOR CITIZEN is supposed to be some sort of stealthy transport for special ops stuff.

Here's some info on a few unbuilt SENIOR CROWN variations:

SR-71I

30 September 1980 iteration:
-AWG-9 radar
-four AIM-54 missiles
-anti-AWACS tasked

1 November 1982 iteration:
-APG-65 radar
-four AIM-120 missiles (80 nm range when fired at Mach 3.1 and 80,000 feet)
-anti-AWACS tasked
-secondary anti-bomber tasking

SR-71(Bx) (1976)

-nuclear strike aircraft
-four AGM-69 missiles (514 nm downrange/200 nm crossrange range when fired at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet)

I've got declassified project documents for all three of these. Interesting stuff, to say the least.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,011
Reaction score
804
Would you like to share images of these? Of course, one shouldn't be Einstein to imagine how all that stuff can be implanted into SR-71, but...
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
I'm working on resizing them (the scans are like 500kb each) and getting them into Photobucket as we speak, it just takes a while!
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24










































 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
There's the SR-71I 1980 proposal, and the SR-71(Bx) proposal. The 1982 SR-71I proposal is going to take a little longer since I'll have to manually re-save the images into a format accepted by Photobucket!
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
640
Hi folks,

while cleaning up my attachments in another forum, I found these pictures and information about planned bomber versions of the A-12 and the SR-71. Please notice, that this version had free-falling bombs in the fuselage. Later planned versions had SRAM’s in the chines.

Page 122 and 123:

Concurrent to the activity on the AF-12, a bomber version of the A-12, referred to as the RB-12, also was being studied. A forward fuselage full-scale mock-up had been completed and on July 5, along with the AF-12 mockup, was reviewed by Generals Curtis LeMay
and Thomas Power. The two found the mockups of considerable interest and asked if either configuration could be modified to carry a terminal radar or an air-to-ground missile. Johnson responded favorably, by stating, "we could do this within the aerodynamic configuration of the A-12 and, for the job that they outlined to do, which was to place a missile within 200 feet of a target, one could not argue about the use of a guided missile rather than our simpler approach in the RB-12 report." The latter referred to the use of conventional free-falling bombs. The RB-12 study had in fact resulted from the recent development of small, high-yield nuclear warheads. Johnson, in an RB-12 proposal, had noted that the aircraft could result in a "very powerful striking force...with little or no weight or space penalty..." to the aircraft. Four hypothetical 400 pound bombs based on the new warheads, or a single Polaris-sized warhead could be accommodated in a fuselage bomb bay while retaining the same fuel load as the reconnaissance A-12. No aerodynamic changes were required and the radar attenuating
features of the aircraft could be retained. The latter, coupled with the aircraft's extraordinary performance, almost certainly would make chances of detection close to non-existent. In addition to these queries, it was noted by Johnson that, "While Hughes was giving a presentation on a simplified air-to-ground weapon system, LeMay took me by the arm and we went to another office. He told me that he wasn't very sure that the RB-12 would become a model, but he felt sure 'we would get some fighters'. I asked him, 'what about reconnaissance airplanes like the A-12?' and he seemed surprised that the Air Force were not getting any. He made a note on a yellow paper and asked me how soon we would have to know about A-12s to continue our production. I told him within two to three months." In fact, the RB-12 program would not reach the hardware stage. This was not as a result of lack of capability, but rather because it was a threat to the on-going North American XB-70A Valkyrie...a program with considerable political clout and one on which the Air Force had hung its hat for a Boeing B-52 replacement. Surprisingly, as noted on October 26, 1961, Johnson discovered the Department of Defense found the RB-12 more interesting than the AF-12. He noted, however, "The Air Force, from LeMay down, do want the AF-12."
Four years later:
Page 146

As a perturbation of the now seemingly defunct RS-12, Johnson and the rest of the Skunk Works engineering team had continued to pursue an armed version of the A-12 configuration... in the form of a bomber SR-71. Referred to in-house at Lockheed as the B-71, on April 21, 1965, it was presented by Johnson to a small contingent of Air Force generals. Johnson had seen an opportunity in the form of the demise of the North American XB-70 and its proposed replacement with a bomber version of the still-experimental and highly controversial F-111. As Johnson so modestly described it, "I wanted them to know about our studies so they would not go too fast on the FB-111".
Source:
• Jay Miller - Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, ISBN: 1-85780-037-0

Dear mods, before starting this topic, I did use the search machine,
Your memory is anyway the best index, so feel free to move this post to a suitable topic.
 

Attachments

  • RB-12.jpg
    RB-12.jpg
    8.8 KB · Views: 580
  • RB-12_bomb.jpg
    RB-12_bomb.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 775

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
596
i found this internet (homepage is death now)

Picture called Yf12
but is this a Fighter with missile ?
or
a Bomber with freefall nuclear bombs type B61 ?
 

Attachments

  • SR-71(Bx).jpg
    SR-71(Bx).jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 806

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,011
Reaction score
804
Merged topics with similar subjects.

Please stop posting stuff from Jay Miller book - it's readily available for purchasing on the net, or, at least, post it in lower resolution/size.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
640
Michel, that cutaway is featured on the last pages of Paul F. Crickmore book "Lockheed SR-71 The secret missions exposed". I also saw that scan at the french site Prototypes.com, actually here . Coach @ Flugzeugforum.de has that in a larger size, but in 3 pieces. You can read the text, which tells us that the later bomber version of the A-12 had 4 Boeing AGM-69's "SRAM" in the chines. The fins were modified "for Mach 3.2 launch".

At the end all bomber versions were cancelled by Mc Namara, because ICBM's and SLBM's were in his mind the better first strike strategic weapons. Also at that time (1961) the A-12 was still Top Secret, so now control through the US Congress.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
596
flateric said:
Merged topics with similar subjects.

Please stop posting stuff from Jay Miller book - it's readily available for purchasing on the net, or, at least, post it in lower resolution/size.

i sorry for that
the image was without info
had i knew that from Miller book had didn't post it

thanks for the info's
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
26
The SR-71 to my knowledge from the get-go could be modified to carry AGM-69 SRAM's... that's what its original function was. Assess damage following nuclear strike and if necessary take out remaining targets with SRAM's.

How were they able to make such proposals after 1968. All the major assembly jigs and tooling was destroyed then?


KJ_Lesnick
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
All of the post-1968 proposals involved modifying existing airframes.
 

Madoc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
115
Reaction score
5
SOC,

Wow. Interesting to see what applications Kelly Johnson and crew would come up with for their CIA special. I recall one proposal for the A-12/SR-71 was to use the thing in an anti-ship capacity. The rounds for the task simply being big rods of titanium with some guidance equipment attached. The reasoning being that the kinetic energy imparted unto the target vessel by a few thousand pound projectile after it'd been fired/dropped by the Blackbird going at Mach 3+ would suffice to vaporize a goodly chunk of the enemy ship.

As to the uses you cite, I find the anti-AWACS tasking to be fascinating. It seems a goodly match. I can only wonder though at the cost and effort of keeping an A-12 force online. Those machines were truly unique cutting edge designs and their operating environment called for extremely specialized materials, practices and care. For instance, at the internal temps the Blackbirds ran at, normal hydraulic fluid would boil and burn away. The specialized mixture of the stuff that worked at those temps was such that it would solidify at room temperature. Thus, in order to charge up a Blackbird for its flight you essentially had to boil its hydraulic fluid first. That took many an hour as you didn't want to heat it so much it burned.

Sure, there were ways around this or to accommodate it but Blackbirds would still have been very expensive to field in sufficiently large numbers to result in enough of them being on alert status at any one time.

They would've been very fascinating had they been so however.

Madoc
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
445
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Hi folks,

Apart from the Jay Miller books (which I have) and some Wings/Airpower articles, are there any other good books etc which cover the bomber/interceptor proposals derived from the A-12/SR-71 series?

Regards,

Greg
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
11
Website
www.io.com
fightingirish said:
At the end all bomber versions were cancelled by Mc Namara, because ICBM's and SLBM's were in his mind the better first strike strategic weapons.

...That, and the fact that McNamara was an idiot. But I think most of us already knew this. :p
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
596
OM said:
...That, and the fact that McNamara was an idiot. But I think most of us already knew this. :p

i say, he was not a idiot,
just a manager in Car manufacture how got the post of sectary of Defence
and how U.S. Carindustry made is downfall...
We are lucky that same not happend with U.S. defence

one of McNamara famous victim was the USAF YF-12 (A-12 as Mach 3 Interceptor)
the other was the B-71 (SR-71 as Bomber)
but there today allot dispute about this project was real
 

Wembley

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Madoc said:
Wow. Interesting to see what applications Kelly Johnson and crew would come up with for their CIA special. I recall one proposal for the A-12/SR-71 was to use the thing in an anti-ship capacity. The rounds for the task simply being big rods of titanium with some guidance equipment attached. The reasoning being that the kinetic energy imparted unto the target vessel by a few thousand pound projectile after it'd been fired/dropped by the Blackbird going at Mach 3+ would suffice to vaporize a goodly chunk of the enemy ship.

I can't see that working - titanium is very low density for a penetrator (tungsten would be much better) and it would lose velocity after launch, and mach 3 is not that fast by the standard of naval projectiles. It would be like getting hit by a dud 16" naval round at worst. Something like a Harpoon missile would be far more deadly.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
GTX said:
Apart from the Jay Miller books (which I have) and some Wings/Airpower articles, are there any other good books etc which cover the bomber/interceptor proposals derived from the A-12/SR-71 series?

Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, Steve Pace, 2004 Try that one, it has a good section on armed Blackbirds.
 

Lauge

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
435
Reaction score
7
Wembley said:
Madoc said:
Wow. Interesting to see what applications Kelly Johnson and crew would come up with for their CIA special. I recall one proposal for the A-12/SR-71 was to use the thing in an anti-ship capacity. The rounds for the task simply being big rods of titanium with some guidance equipment attached. The reasoning being that the kinetic energy imparted unto the target vessel by a few thousand pound projectile after it'd been fired/dropped by the Blackbird going at Mach 3+ would suffice to vaporize a goodly chunk of the enemy ship.

I can't see that working - titanium is very low density for a penetrator (tungsten would be much better) and it would lose velocity after launch, and mach 3 is not that fast by the standard of naval projectiles. It would be like getting hit by a dud 16" naval round at worst. Something like a Harpoon missile would be far more deadly.

A good rule-of-thumb for situations like this is Rick Robinson's First Law of Space Combat: "An object impacting at 3 km/sec [approx 2 miles/sec] delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT." (see e.g. http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#kinetic).

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
 

mz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
8
Mach 3 is about 1 km/s, so about one tenth of the energy of TNT in that case...
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
11
Website
www.io.com
Michel Van said:
i say, he was not a idiot,
just a manager in Car manufacture how got the post of sectary of Defence

...Sorry I missed this reply for over a month, but two points I'll address are here:

1) McNamara was but one of a long line of idiots who we've had the sad fortune to have as our DoD chief. The only one who exceeded him in pure stupidity when it came to recognizing and using advanced technologies was Dick Cheney. This may be something we'll eternally disagree on, but McNamara was, is, and always be an idiot.

2) Yes, and his involvement with the Edsel should have been a clear sign he was someone to be avoided.
 

AL

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
159
Reaction score
6
BTW, McNamara was against the Edsel and promoted the Falcon, which Lee Iacocca took the platform and gave us the Mustang.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
26
The SR-71 (Bx) seems redundant. From what I remember the RS-71 (which was later re-designated SR-71) was designed to deliver nukes from the beginning. It's role was to assess damage after a nuclear-strike and then take out remaining targets with nukes, right?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
1,124
I don't know of any reputable accounts that indicate that the RS-71/SR-71 was intended to have a strike role. Strike variants were always proposed (as shown in this thread), but the Blackbird as built was a pure reconnaissance aircraft with no weapon delivery capability (except the YF-12s, of course). The SR-71 might have been used for post-strike reconnaissance, but the chances of the necessary infrastructure to support its operations surviving a full scale nuclear exchange seem pretty slim.
 

duibuqi

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
As far as I know, there was only the RB-12 project, which theoretically would have carried four 400 pound small nuclear warheads, or a single Polaris-sized warhead (see Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, by Jay Miller, page 122). But this project never reached the hardware stage, mainly because of the rivalry of the XB-70A Valkyrie (idem, page 123).

Duibuqi
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
Looking back at the original SR-71I proposal, it appears that the RCS for the SR-71 has been revealed. Some of the pages contain a box with the text "SUAWACS detects 2M2 SR-71", implying that the SR-71's RCS was 2 square meters.

Perhaps tonight I'll actually post the second SR-71I proposal, which featured an APG-65/AIM-120 combination.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
Here's the November 1982 iteration of the proposal. I turned the whole thing into a PDF.
 

Attachments

  • SR-71I 1982 Proposal.pdf
    360 KB · Views: 357

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
11
Website
www.io.com
SOC said:
Here's the November 1982 iteration of the proposal. I turned the whole thing into a PDF.

...Excellent work, sir. You have my thanks at the very least!
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,247
Reaction score
3,127
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?57790-STUDY-SUMMARY-quot-Feasibility-of-A-12-(SR-71)-for-Air-Launched-Reconnaissance-System-quot


STUDY SUMMARY- "Feasibility Report: Modification of A-12 Vehicle for Air Launched Orbital Reconnaissance System"
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 7 September, 1962


RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION-
1. Launch Vehicle- The basic A-12 proved satisfactory as a launch vehicle configuration. Modifications will
enable the full altitude and speed capability of the A-12 to be used in launching the booster and payload. Using
the maximum A-12 performance at launch minimizes the requirements for booster size. Changes required for
the A-12 are provision for a second crewmember and the structural attachment of rails to the underside of the
A-12 fuselage. This permits structural attachment, checkout, in flight traverse, and separation of the booster
and payload. The existing A-12 or AF-12 subsystems possess the necessary power, cooling, and support
functions required by the booster and payload.

2. Booster system- The booster system selected is based on mods of the Polaris A3 and is described under
Configuration C in LMSC Report SP 2-374. The mods consist of addition of a third booster stage and payload
section, with recovery capsule similar to the current Agena/Discoverer. This system had been designed for
injecting a payload in orbit from a submarine. With careful design, this booster can be attached to the
underside of the A-12 with reasonable mods.


LAUNCH VEHICLE PERFORMANCE- The important performance parameters for the launch system are: radius to
launch area, velocity at booster separation, altitude and attitude at booster separation. The attitude of the
booster is a function of the launch vehicle attitude at separation, the booster system stabilization, and the
time delay between separation and ignition. Normal range of values are:
Cruise out to 3.2M (2 refuels)......................................2,340 n. mi.
Cruise out to 0.8M.......................................................2,340 n. mi.
Attitude at booster separation.....................................20 degrees nose-up
Velocity at booster separation......................................2.5M to 3.0M
Time from Separation to Ignition..................................5 seconds


DESCRIPTION- LAUNCH VEHICLE
The performance factors required for the subject mission required imparting the missile an initial condition
velocity vector, range for the required mission, and navigation and guidance systems which, in conjunction
with the missile systems, provided satisfactory launch parameter accuracy. Studies showed that the cruise
drag of the combined missile/A-12 arrangement allowed adequate range with IFR and provided the required
performance margin for launch. The two configurations studied were: a) missile carried on top of the fuselage
b) missile carried beneath the fuselage.

Considerations affecting the location of the missile stowage (over vs. under) were:
a. Delivery-
1. Performance (velocity vector) at first stage ignition.
2. Safety
b. Take-off Performance-
1. Ground clearance.
2. Nose gear unstick.
c. Cruise Performance-
1. Drag
2. Stability and Control
d. Ground Handling.

OVER-STOWAGE
Stowage on the upper fuselage (fig. 1) is performed by sliding the missile onto a track. Separation
is accomplished by extending a drag chute and pulling the missile aft. Assymetric fuselage loads
require a severe structural beefup to support this concept. Separation safety is considered much
more critical, and additional separation pre-ignition timing degrades performance, compared to
belly launch. The vehicle affects upper surface flow and reduces the predictability of the directional
stability compared to the underside installation. A study was made of the aircraft response during
the launching of a Polaris missile from the track atop the A-12. It was assumed that the missile was
launched by being pulled aft along the rails from atop the A-12. A parachute deployed from the
missile provided the pull. As the missile slides aft, it moves the CG of the A-12 aft until, at
disengagement, the A-12 CG is at 63%. This large instability, about 30% MAC, results in very rapid
pitch motion in response to any pitch disturbance. These motions result in positive or negative load
factors on the A-12 sufficient to break the airplane. Ideally this type of launch could be made at a
zero gee load factor except that this manuever cannot be made precisely enough to eliminate
disturbances that would cause the airplane to diverge. These studies were made using the A-12
simulator and a typical response is attached for a cruise condition launch with the airplane in a
pitch over to 0.25 g. It is apparent this launch procedure is not practical.

PREFERRED ARRANGEMENT- UNDER STOWAGE
The proposed installation is shown in figure 2, General Arrangement- AP-12. The missile is secured
on a track running along the bottom of the fuselage. The 421.6 inch length and 54 inch diameter
permits one foot clearance with the gear and ground plane. Some modifications to the landing gear
will be required to allow full extension length with limited oleo compression during the taxi and
takeoff condition and nose-wheel liftoff rotation. The takeoff CG and gross weight are met by loading
50% fuel, and sequencing this to counterbalance the forward missile position required for takeoff and
gear retraction. The missile tail fairing is aft of the main gear for the takeoff position, with the same
ground clearance angle used as on the A-12. The nose gear retracts forward of the missile, and the
main gear and doors close between the missile and tail fairing, as shown. The tail fairing is moved
aft to cruise position along the fuselage track, and locked. The missile is shifted aft, while the fuel
transfer and stability augment compensate for trim change. The aft position is selected for optimum
cruise longitudinal and directional stability condition. The missile snugs into the fuselage/missile
fairing and the boat tail is positioned into the tail fairing. The above operation is reversible and can
be checked out on the ground by removing the landing gear inner doors. All functions will then be
validated in the cruise position, including seal adjustments, before returning to the takeoff position.
The underneath stowage arrangement allows for ready mating and ground checkout, safe separation
and improved cruise configuration. Performance parameters from the launch to missile ignition are
minimized with the stabilized missile drop procedure.

DESIGN DATA-
The aircraft/missile combination at takeoff weighs 117,000 pounds, or the same as the A-12. 70,000 pounds
of fuel are available after in-flight refueling, at a maximum flight weight of 141,500 pounds. Landing weight
is 52,000 pounds. Weight and balance of the aircraft plus missile, showing the missile shift, indicate an 8%
aft movement with the missile traverse. The airplane is designed for a 2 g normal load factor, which will
account for the mission design conditions.


MISSILE STOWAGE AND LAUNCH PROVISIONS-
a. A group of hooks for missile support (three stations) and integral release to free fall.
b. Fairings for the aircraft/missile fillet and an aerodynamic fairing for the missile boat tail.
c. A track for missile traverse from the ground position to the cruise/launch position. Traverse power is
supplied by a rack and pinion arrangement.
d. A seperable, expendable cooling jacket for missile case cooling under high speed cruise conditions.
e. An extendable leaf tail flare for missile stabilization. This is jettisoned at ignition.
f. Cooling and electrical connections are stowed within the joint fairing lines.
A base plate is attached to the aft end of the basic missile, which engages the tail fairing section mounted aft of the launch vehicle landing gear by means of spring loaded hooks. The flaring mechanism (inverted umbrella) contained in the tail fairing section is spring loaded in the faired or retracted position. A fraction of a second after separation, an electrical signal from the missile is programmed to initiate a pyrotechnic device to deploy the umbrella. Electrical connection is made through the missile base plate. At first motor ignition, the entire tail assembly is jettisoned, including the attached base plate, by means of a pyrotechnic device.


LAUNCH-
1. Launch Parameters- The best target launch condition is a compromise between the carrier aircraft capability in terms of flight path angle, load factor, and Mach number, and missile performance in terms of altitude and payload to orbit. One basic cutoff point is the minimum orbit altitude of 80 nautical miles. Below this altitude, the orbit vehicle performance is degraded by the atmosphere. A second cutoff point is the maximum flight path angle that can be achieved by the carrier at the launch point. This angle decreases with increasing Mach number and is limited by the 2.0 g load factor capability of the aircraft and missile. For example, the maximum flight path angle at Mach 3.2 is about 15 degrees, increasing to more than 20 degrees at Mach 2.5. Conversely, orbit altitude decreases with decreasing flight path angle at launch. A study of conditions based on one post-ignition missile guidance program indicates that, within these limitations, a payload of 900 to 1000 pounds can be placed in an 80 n. mi. orbit for carrier launch speeds between Mach 2.5 and 3.0. These studies are being continued to determine the best post-launch missile guidance program to place the maximum payload into orbit. It is apparent from the analysis which has been done that there is a substantial array of parameters acceptable to both the carrier and the missile which will place payloads of 900 pounds or more into orbits 80 n. mi. or higher.

2. Carrier Manuever and Escape- The launch manuever is primarily a 2 g pullup from a high speed level flight condition. The objective is to obtain the highest flight path angle consistent with normal piloting techniques and flight safety. The escape maneuver after launch is a 2 g rollout from the pullup to increase lateral separation as well as vertical separation between the missile and aircraft. At ignition, the vertical and lateral separation will each be in excess of 500 feet.

3. Separation- Studies of means for stabilizing the aerodynamically unstable Polaris during the launch phase to ignition indicate that a skirt attached to the tail fairing can be expanded upon launch to provide positive static margin of one diameter. This device is seen in figure 3. Alternates considered to provide compensating moment to balance the two caliber unstable vehicle included fins and a drag chute. The necessary drag chute would be approximately 16 feet in diameter and provide 1 g of drag force in order to generate the stabilizing moment. This method degrades launch performance in that 160 feet/second velocity is lost in five seconds of free fall and a three degree flight path angle. This is equivalent to approximately 70 pounds of payload in the design launch regime. Tail fin stabilizing devices, although representing a low drag contribution for balancing moment obtained, introduced stowage problems for the cruise condition and more complex mechanization, assuming fins stowed within the tail fairing. The extendable tail flare results in a decelerative force of 0.3 g during launch and would result in a speed loss during the 5 second missile free fall of 50 feet/second. This is equivalent to 0.05 Mach. The tail fairing and skirt are separated at missile ignition. Vertical separation between the missle and aircraft at ignition will be greater than 500 feet. The flight path angle of the missile at ignition will be 1.5 degree less than the time of launch.


B. Cruise Performance- The AP-12 performance is based directly on an A-12 performance capability corrected for additional weight and drag of the external missile. Missile drag increments are taken from the Polaris wind tunnel data. Mach 3.2 and subsonic mission are shown on figures 4 and 5. Both missions are based on takeoff from a secure inland US base and a missile launch point several hundred miles east of Hawaii. Initial takeoff is with a partial fuel load to keep airplane taxi and takeoff loads at a reasonable level. The airplane climbs to 25,000 feet and is refueled to 141,500 pounds. The second refuel operation occurs over the mid Pacific. Following this operation, the airplane cruises to the launch point and launches the missile at 80,000 feet and Mach 3.1. Fuel allowance is made for a 360 degree turn at the launch altitude and speed. Following launch, the airplane descends toward the alternate field in Hawaii to a rendezvous with a tanker. The return leg to the takeoff point is by supersonic high altitude cruise for both missions. Fuel reserves at mid-ocean refueling point are about 8,000 pounds, and the fuel aboard at the post launch refuel point is sufficient to make an alternate field in Hawaii with a 3,000 pound reserve.


MISSION SUMMARIES
Mach= 3.2 Cruise Out Weight Range Altitude Range Time Increment


Takeoff and climb to start 100,000 4,500- 25,000 ---
refueling over base


Climbout, Cruise, and Descend 141,500- 93,700 25,000-78,000 59 minutes
to Refuel


Climb and Cruise to Launch Point 141,500- 97,500 25,000-80,000 46 minutes


Climb, Cruise, and Descend to 118,000- 74,100 25,000-90,000 95 minutes
to Home Base


Reserve Fuel at home base--- 24,700 pounds
Reserve Fuel at Alternate base-- 3,000 pounds


MACH 0.8 Cruise Out-
Takeoff and Climb to Start 100,000 4,500-25,000 ---
Refueling over Base


Cruise Out to 2nd Refueling 141,500- 94,600 25,000-35,000 158 minutes
Reserve Fuel--- 8,500 lbs.


Cruise to Climb to Launch 141,500- 97,500 25,000- 80,000 107 minutes


Climb, Cruise at M= 3.2 and 118,000- 74,100 25,000- 80,000 95 minutes
Descend to Home Base


Reserve Fuel at Home Base-----24,700 lbs.
Reserve Fuel at Alternate Base---3,000 lbs.
 

Attachments

  • sr71missilelauncherai.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherai.JPG
    62.3 KB · Views: 154
  • sr71missilelauncherag.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherag.JPG
    140.8 KB · Views: 127
  • sr71missilelauncheraf.JPG
    sr71missilelauncheraf.JPG
    122.4 KB · Views: 1,662
  • sr71missilelauncherae.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherae.JPG
    29.7 KB · Views: 1,689
  • sr71missilelauncherad.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherad.JPG
    3.5 KB · Views: 2,450
  • sr71missilelauncherac.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherac.JPG
    100.3 KB · Views: 1,733
  • sr71missilelauncherab.jpg
    sr71missilelauncherab.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 1,744
  • sr71missilelauncheraa.JPG
    sr71missilelauncheraa.JPG
    64 KB · Views: 1,785

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,247
Reaction score
3,127
more
 

Attachments

  • sr71missilelauncherar.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherar.JPG
    43.6 KB · Views: 156
  • sr71missilelauncheraq.jpg
    sr71missilelauncheraq.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 151
  • sr71missilelauncherap.jpg
    sr71missilelauncherap.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 164
  • sr71missilelauncherao.jpg
    sr71missilelauncherao.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 156
  • sr71missilelauncheran.JPG
    sr71missilelauncheran.JPG
    16.3 KB · Views: 138
  • sr71missilelauncheram.jpg
    sr71missilelauncheram.jpg
    40.7 KB · Views: 159
  • sr71missilelauncheral.jpg
    sr71missilelauncheral.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 157
  • sr71missilelauncherak.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherak.JPG
    159.3 KB · Views: 91

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,247
Reaction score
3,127
last
 

Attachments

  • sr71missilelauncherax.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherax.JPG
    111.6 KB · Views: 155
  • sr71missilelauncheraw.jpg
    sr71missilelauncheraw.jpg
    50.7 KB · Views: 115
  • sr71missilelauncherav.jpg
    sr71missilelauncherav.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 133
  • sr71missilelauncherau.jpg
    sr71missilelauncherau.jpg
    52.1 KB · Views: 140
  • sr71missilelauncherat.JPG
    sr71missilelauncherat.JPG
    44.6 KB · Views: 128
  • sr71missilelauncheras.JPG
    sr71missilelauncheras.JPG
    157.3 KB · Views: 130

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,489
Reaction score
3,354
Great find my dear Paul;


and here is the SR-71 as engine testbed,and some variants of F-12 from
top view.


Source, Warbird Tech; Lockheed Blackbirds.
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    58.7 KB · Views: 370
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    32.6 KB · Views: 560

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,489
Reaction score
3,354
From the report;


Mach 3 + NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research 1969-1979.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    132.2 KB · Views: 413

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
640
See also another picture of that NASA hypersonic research drone on page 22 in this softcover book:
James Goodall - SR-71 Blackbird - Specials series 6067, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995, ISBN: 0897473388
;)
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,489
Reaction score
3,354
fightingirish said:
See also another picture of that NASA hypersonic research drone on page 22 in this softcover book:
James Goodall - SR-71 Blackbird - Specials series 6067, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995, ISBN: 0897473388
;)


Thank you my dear Rolf,


and here is what you mentioned,from the same source.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    207.4 KB · Views: 374

Similar threads

Top