• 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
SR-71Bx
 

Attachments

  • Supercruise Pg 1.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 1.JPG
    492.7 KB · Views: 342
  • Supercruise Pg 10.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 10.JPG
    160.7 KB · Views: 244
  • Supercruise Pg 9.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 9.JPG
    168.3 KB · Views: 218
  • Supercruise Pg 8.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 8.JPG
    170.5 KB · Views: 179
  • Supercruise Pg 7.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 7.JPG
    95.5 KB · Views: 111
  • Supercruise Pg 6.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 6.JPG
    220.6 KB · Views: 107
  • Supercruise Pg 5.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 5.JPG
    218.9 KB · Views: 103
  • Supercruise Pg 4.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 4.JPG
    267.5 KB · Views: 253
  • Supercruise Pg 3.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 3.JPG
    232.3 KB · Views: 262
  • Supercruise Pg 2.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 2.JPG
    74.2 KB · Views: 287

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
SR-71Bx part 2
 

Attachments

  • Supercruise Pg 16.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 16.JPG
    247.8 KB · Views: 204
  • Supercruise Pg 15.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 15.JPG
    176.5 KB · Views: 211
  • Supercruise Pg 14.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 14.JPG
    155.2 KB · Views: 180
  • Supercruise Pg 13.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 13.JPG
    213.9 KB · Views: 144
  • Supercruise Pg 12.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 12.JPG
    144.6 KB · Views: 150
  • Supercruise Pg 11.JPG
    Supercruise Pg 11.JPG
    164.8 KB · Views: 146

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
SR-71I proposal 1
 

Attachments

  • Pg 11.JPG
    Pg 11.JPG
    147.2 KB · Views: 165
  • Pg 10.JPG
    Pg 10.JPG
    87 KB · Views: 143
  • Pg 9.JPG
    Pg 9.JPG
    47.9 KB · Views: 128
  • Pg 8.JPG
    Pg 8.JPG
    86.9 KB · Views: 115
  • Pg 7.JPG
    Pg 7.JPG
    92 KB · Views: 107
  • Pg 6.JPG
    Pg 6.JPG
    150.7 KB · Views: 114
  • Pg 5.JPG
    Pg 5.JPG
    153.6 KB · Views: 140
  • Pg 4.JPG
    Pg 4.JPG
    113 KB · Views: 139
  • Pg 3.JPG
    Pg 3.JPG
    77.6 KB · Views: 122
  • Pg 2.JPG
    Pg 2.JPG
    81.1 KB · Views: 121

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
SR-71I proposal 1 part 2
 

Attachments

  • Pg 18.JPG
    Pg 18.JPG
    134.2 KB · Views: 150
  • Pg 19.JPG
    Pg 19.JPG
    139.7 KB · Views: 136
  • Pg 20.JPG
    Pg 20.JPG
    135.6 KB · Views: 113
  • Pg 21.JPG
    Pg 21.JPG
    119.4 KB · Views: 123
  • Pg 17.JPG
    Pg 17.JPG
    372.4 KB · Views: 142
  • Pg 16.JPG
    Pg 16.JPG
    201.7 KB · Views: 148
  • Pg 15.JPG
    Pg 15.JPG
    136 KB · Views: 136
  • Pg 14.JPG
    Pg 14.JPG
    155.8 KB · Views: 139
  • Pg 13.JPG
    Pg 13.JPG
    125.5 KB · Views: 151
  • Pg 12.JPG
    Pg 12.JPG
    101.6 KB · Views: 148

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
SR-71I proposal 1 part 3
 

Attachments

  • Pg 28.JPG
    Pg 28.JPG
    123.5 KB · Views: 124
  • Pg 29.JPG
    Pg 29.JPG
    131.4 KB · Views: 108
  • Pg 30.JPG
    Pg 30.JPG
    142.9 KB · Views: 106
  • Pg 31.JPG
    Pg 31.JPG
    144.2 KB · Views: 111
  • Pg 27.JPG
    Pg 27.JPG
    126.2 KB · Views: 107
  • Pg 26.JPG
    Pg 26.JPG
    116.9 KB · Views: 110
  • Pg 25.JPG
    Pg 25.JPG
    213.4 KB · Views: 104
  • Pg 24.JPG
    Pg 24.JPG
    147.8 KB · Views: 106
  • Pg 23.JPG
    Pg 23.JPG
    142.9 KB · Views: 130
  • Pg 22.JPG
    Pg 22.JPG
    168.6 KB · Views: 140

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
SR-71I proposal 1 part 4
 

Attachments

  • Pg 34.JPG
    Pg 34.JPG
    101.8 KB · Views: 187
  • Pg 33.JPG
    Pg 33.JPG
    130.8 KB · Views: 115
  • Pg 32.JPG
    Pg 32.JPG
    138.8 KB · Views: 172

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
The second SR-71I proposal should still be available at the bottom of page 2 as a PDF (image files for that one are TIFs).
 
I

Ian33

Guest
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

The one that was flying way higher and and far faster than the SR71 as it was doing a sprint run across the USA would be my guess.

The crew mused iver the fact that their last high speed flight was indeed a cover for a classified airframe test.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,336
Reaction score
1,367
Ian33 said:
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

The one that was flying way higher and and far faster than the SR71 as it was doing a sprint run across the USA would be my guess.

The crew mused iver the fact that their last high speed flight was indeed a cover for a classified airframe test.

What? :eek: Do you have anymore details on this? Which crew? Book? Interview?
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
795
Reaction score
119
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

Pretty sure it's just there for comparison purposes.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
776
Reaction score
54
George Allegrezza said:
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

Pretty sure it's just there for comparison purposes.

I doubt its notional of Ben Rich fantasy. He was definitely in a position to know otherwise.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,178
Reaction score
1,145
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

Probably just notional.

But there were some studies. Anyone know what projects these models belong to?

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/1251_Models_M-P#Mach_6_Bomber
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
24
Figure 1 is almost certainly a notional concept intended to show a performance regime capable of entirely ignoring the ground-based SAM/AAA threat.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
776
Reaction score
54
TomS said:
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

Probably just notional.

But not if the whole point of the presentation was an attempt to keep the SR71 platform relevant in the wake of the new Mach 6 program.
 
I

Ian33

Guest
sferrin said:
Ian33 said:
sublight is back said:
What is the aircraft in figure 1 that goes Mach 6 @ 120k feet?

The one that was flying way higher and and far faster than the SR71 as it was doing a sprint run across the USA would be my guess.

The crew mused iver the fact that their last high speed flight was indeed a cover for a classified airframe test.

What? :eek: Do you have anymore details on this? Which crew? Book? Interview?

In a nutshell, the crew were doing a sprint across the USA, down to the South West. The crew were in contact with a ground control team for the effort. When they asked for altitude and airspeed, the controller replied with a mach 4+ airspeed and 20,000 feet above them. When they queried the height and speed they got a flustered response with tbe Blackbirds correct details. They basically then said 'our last run, our bow out, was just a cover for a covert high speed test going on high over the tops of us.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
118
Ben Rich would argue a case forcefully for or against an idea, but I never heard him promote anything based on consecutive miracles. I would conclude that when he wrote that memo, he did so with a reasonable level of confidence that M=6.0/120 kft was attainable.

Some years later (1983) he felt able to talk publicly about some of the concepts discussed in the paper, notably the "high-fast sanctuary" and the long potential standoff range, but he talked in terms of a lost opportunity - "giving up the high ground". By that time, the B-1B/B-2 bomber plan was under way and ATF was already moving in a different direction from the high-Mach battlecruisers.

Whether everything really stopped there is another question altogether.
 

danwild6

F-14 Fan
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
I seem to remember a post around here that detailed air force proposal to develop an SR-71 variant that was faster with longer range and more maneuverable. Lockheed came back saying that faster and longer range were feasible but more maneuverability would be very difficult.
 

damurphy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi! F-12B.


And YF-12A 1/12 scale wind tunnel test model.

Thanks to Blackkite for posting the SR-71 or R-12. F-12B and YF-12A.jpg.

In looking at this, the top image appears to be the A-12 as it only appears to have One Seat.

Does anybody know of higher resolution images that were used in this composite?

Thanks in Advance
 

Attachments

  • SR-71 or R-12, F-12B and YF-12A.jpg
    SR-71 or R-12, F-12B and YF-12A.jpg
    397.3 KB · Views: 253

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,327
Reaction score
2,458
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • Blackbird_3View.jpg
    Blackbird_3View.jpg
    426.8 KB · Views: 202

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,327
Reaction score
2,458

Attachments

  • FB-12.JPG
    FB-12.JPG
    92.5 KB · Views: 164
  • AF-12.JPG
    AF-12.JPG
    83.9 KB · Views: 145
  • 51-k6JCQHUL__SX384_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    51-k6JCQHUL__SX384_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    32.3 KB · Views: 142
  • A-12CB.JPG
    A-12CB.JPG
    50.6 KB · Views: 213
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,327
Reaction score
2,458

Attachments

  • (U)%20YF-12A%20Radar%2001.jpg
    (U)%20YF-12A%20Radar%2001.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 162
  • (U)%20YF-12A%20935%20At%20Test%20Site.jpg
    (U)%20YF-12A%20935%20At%20Test%20Site.jpg
    366.4 KB · Views: 150
  • (U)%20YF-12A%20936%20From%20Tanker%2001.jpg
    (U)%20YF-12A%20936%20From%20Tanker%2001.jpg
    954.4 KB · Views: 150
  • (U)%20YF-12A%20936%20In%20Flight%20Btm%2001.jpg
    (U)%20YF-12A%20936%20In%20Flight%20Btm%2001.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 138
  • (U)%20YF-12A%20936%20With%20AIM-47%2001.jpg
    (U)%20YF-12A%20936%20With%20AIM-47%2001.jpg
    637.6 KB · Views: 166

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
1,596

(was quietly perusing that thread, and then...)


OLBC.PNG

Whaaaaaaaaaaat da fraaaack ? are you freakkin' kidding me ?

This blew my mind and made my day. You know what ?

Everybody knows about those videos of U-2s landing on a carrier.

Every time I watched them, I thought "easy, the U-2 is a subsonic, straight-wing, glider look alike. Imagine, if they tried the same trick with a Blackbird: a carrierborne SR-71, ha ha ha..."

Well... they proposed it.

Damn you, Lockheed ! o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,327
Reaction score
2,458
Hi!
https://modernwartech.blog.hu/2015/...a_kepes_elfogovadaszunk_3_lepesben_2_resz_146
"Excellent but complex weapon system for complex interceptors
The AN/ASG-18 was the first coherent pulse-Doppler radar in the United States. According to the specifications, the carrier, which flew 21 km, was able to conduct missiles from zero to 30.5 km, i.e. it had a full downward view. (It is much more difficult to detect targets flying against the background of the earth's surface, as radio waves reflecting from the ground are quite disruptive to the radar.) It detected a B-47 target from 185 km and was able to track one target at a time according to the computing capacity of the time (i.e. its trajectory is constantly calculated so that it can be launched with a rocket). The 41-unit radar was 950 kg and naturally reached a high range with high radiated energy, so it was cooled liquid. The infrared sensors were parallel to it. The antenna was 101.6 cm in diameter, so it was huge in size. Navigation and fire control were provided by a digital computer, while the manoeuvres needed to get into the firing position were provided by an analog computer. It was a huge step forward for the radar to be able to self-check both on the ground, both in the air and in the air, and to detect inappropriate components. This was a very important feature compared to the previous MX-1179. In principle, during the last pre-missile test, if the radar is dropped by an error signal, it will be sent to SAGE's command centres as an encrypted message and therefore immediate action can be taken to replace the fighter jet. According to the statistics from experience, the delicate electronic units were exchanged individually before their expected time of failure, so that the fighter on the take-off had to always be in working order at all times. This, of course, meant a warehouse-like component base for the fleet of hundreds of machines in every municipal location."
 

Attachments

  • qi91l7urzja02.jpg
    qi91l7urzja02.jpg
    124.5 KB · Views: 106
  • o-radar-hughes-asg-18-antes-de-ser-instalado-no-nariz-do-snoopy-i-hughes-aircraft-600x441.jpg
    o-radar-hughes-asg-18-antes-de-ser-instalado-no-nariz-do-snoopy-i-hughes-aircraft-600x441.jpg
    163.8 KB · Views: 107
Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,581
Reaction score
1,183
Back in the 1960s the American Toy Company Bachmann produced this 2 in long plastic toy YF12A..It even has missiles in the bay under the fuselage but Ebay did not show them
 

Attachments

  • s-l225.jpg
    s-l225.jpg
    11 KB · Views: 82
  • images (2).jpeg
    images (2).jpeg
    10.8 KB · Views: 67

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,581
Reaction score
1,183
could you show us the missiles? I had one years ago, but the tailfins broke
 

Nick Sumner

Live! From the Belly of the Beast!
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
519
Reaction score
130
Whaaaaaaaaaaat da fraaaack ? are you freakkin' kidding me ?

Well... they proposed it.

Damn you, Lockheed ! o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O

Yeeeeaaaaahhh, this has got "Sure we can make the F104 an efficient ground attack aircraft" written all over it.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
1,596
I would think it is far worse. Sticking iron bombs on an interceptor was pretty straightforward business - add some bomb racks here and there, tweak the sight a little, and here yah go. As long as there are 30 mm guns of course, to straff and anihilate anything standing...
The Israelis who were not rich enough to get Mirage III-E (and were screwed of their Mirage V later) did exactly that with their Mirage III-C - and we all know how well that worked against the Arabs a day of June 1967.

But throwing a SR-71 off a carrier with JATO bottles... ??!! really ?
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
301
Reaction score
129
But throwing a SR-71 off a carrier with JATO bottles... ??!! really ?
I could see it as a special purpose application, like the WHALE TAIL U-2Gs, to get an A-12 into position for a sortie that wouldn't be otherwise possible.As a routinely embarked naval aircraft, in any role, not so much. It would be interesting to know exactly what Lockheed were proposing.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
1,596
I agree with this. As suggested upthread, closer from the JATO-Neptune-nuclear bombers. A one-shot, silver bullet but jury-rigged contraption.
But really, risking an A-12 and a supercarrier this way... :eek:
 

Similar threads

Top