- 1 April 2006
- Reaction score
Wonder - wasn't Blackbird patented by Lockheed and Kelly/Ben?
It discusses both the development of the specifications for the aircraft, including the geo-political analysis leading to the system, and the development of the. resulting design. The ATFB design reflects the recent major changes in world political conditions. Rather than confronting one very large threat, it is expected that, in the near future, threats to peace will come from widely separated locations. Instead of a defense posture based on forces stationed at widely distributed bases, the ATFB weapon system concept is based on rapid responses, to widely distributed locations...
pometablava said:...well in fact which are the Manufacturer Number for B-2, YF-23?
Well, I do know the number for the B-2, but I'm not sure I can share it. I'm not at all certain what's been declassified.
pometablava said:How much time has to be classified an aerospace program: 20-30 years?
Orionblamblam said:I've had to work to get reports from 1954 declassified. They do not necessarily automatically get declassified over time.
Stargazer2006 said:I've also redrawn the first picture from this topic for improved lisibility:
jjnodice said:1) There was an emphasis on RCS reductions. Is this design relatively "better" than the SR-71? The vertical tail seems like a big no,no. The canted SR-71 tails seemed better for RCS reduction.
jjnodice said:2) Even though advertised to be an interceptor, there is no discussion of the fire control radar. Integrating the radar in the F-12 proved to be a big driver on the shape of the nose chine. Would a 1990's era radar be easier to integrate with less impact on the nose chine?
jjnodice said:3) The deceleration and descent to 45k feet and Mach 1.5 for weapons release seems to have a high "pucker factor" just when you are likely entering an area defended with SAMs. I would rather have stayed high and fast...
jjnodice said:Thanks for cleaning up that graphic! Much better to look at.
SOC said:One nitpick: the two "windows" you've got on the left-hand fuselage side behind "US Air Force"...those are supposed to be part of the USAF star-and-bar insignia in the drawing from the AIAA report ;D
SOC said:The production F-12B would've re-added nose chines to eliminate the need for some or all of the ventral fins characteristic to the YF-12A. Currently the Su-34 (FULLBACK) uses a chined nose without problems. The F-23A would've as well.
SOC said:Don't know why they'd want to bother decending. The YF-12A had no issues with Mach 3+/75K+ ft. weapons release. Regardless of how accurate it was or wasn't, the MiG-25RB showed that you can carry and drop bombs from Mach 2+/65K+ ft. as well. Additionally, staying at speed and altitude gives you a much greater launch range for your weapons. Lockheed's SR-71B(x) proposal predicted a launch range for the AGM-69 somewhere around 500 miles when fired at Mach 3+ at cruising altitude.
famvburg said:Wouldn't it most likely have had "USAF" on the right wing as opposed to "U S AIR FORCE"?