military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (08/23/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) >Does anyone have any information on the F-12 project? What was >the performance of this airplane supposed to be? What kind of >armament was it supposed to have mounted? The project was supposed >to produce a strategic bomber interceptor, and instead spawned the >SR-71. It's hard to tell how seriously the F-12 was undertaken. There certainly was interest, in some quarters, in a new interceptor, but given the obvious shift of the threat from bombers to ballistic missiles, it was unlikely even then that real money would be spent on it. The other plausible explanation for the F-12 is that it was largely intended to divert attention from the more secret Blackbirds. One standard photo shows a YF-12 under construction at Lockheed, in a modest work area at Lockheed... another photo that *wasn't* released at the time shows what's on the other side of the partitions around that area: the production line for the A-12 (the original, highly secret, Blackbird built for the CIA). Performance of the YF-12 was roughly comparable to the other Blackbirds, circa Mach 3 at circa 75,000 ft. Armament was four big Hughes missiles that were descendants of the big Eagle (meant to arm the Navy's Missileer, cancelled in favor of the F-111B) and precursors of the Phoenix. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Scott.Johnson@gatech.edu (Scott Johnson) (08/28/90)
From: gatech!p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org!Scott.Johnson@gatech.edu (Scott Johnson)
UN> It's hard to tell how seriously the F-12 was undertaken. There
UN> certainly was interest,
Two prototypes (maybe 3) were built, and one flys as a high
speed test bed for NASA, and I think the other is in the Smithsonian.
UN> but given the obvious shift of the threat from bombers to
UN> ballistic missiles, it was unlikely even then that real money
Nope, the Airforce finally realized that ultimate speed would
not yeild the ultimate interceptor. Sure it was fast, but if you missed
on the first target run it took an entire CONTINENT to turn around and
try again, by which time the smart money has already bombed his target
and gone home. Also, the mechanics of converting a lightly built reccon
bird into a high-g fighter were beyond even Mr. Johnson.
UN> F-12 is that it was largely intended to divert attention from
UN> the more secret Blackbirds.
Hmmmm, never heard of this one, but they spent an AWFUL lot of
money creating a distraction.
Henry Spencer at U of
Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
(God, I love flaming him)wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (08/28/90)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) >It's hard to tell how seriously the F-12 was undertaken. There certainly >was interest, in some quarters, in a new interceptor, but given the obvious >shift of the threat from bombers to ballistic missiles, it was unlikely >even then that real money would be spent on it. The other plausible Henry, some of the stuff I have read on the subject (including Crickmore and Jay Miller) has indicated that the missles vs. bombers argument hit it right on the head. In a sense, the YF12 was a parallel of the Soviets building the MiG-25 to counter the XB-70. The divergence comes because the Soviets went forward with the MiG-25 while we canned the YF-12. I think that "let's muck it up" McNamara also had his fingers into this pie. I have often wondered if he ever got kickbacks from somebody at General Dynamics. Why? The YF-12 was a Lockheed project - cancelled. The XB-70 was a North American project - cancelled. Hmmmmmm....sorry 'bout the politics there, guys... >explanation for the F-12 is that it was largely intended to divert attention >from the more secret Blackbirds. One standard photo shows a YF-12 under >construction at Lockheed, in a modest work area at Lockheed... another >photo that *wasn't* released at the time shows what's on the other side of >the partitions around that area: the production line for the A-12 (the >original, highly secret, Blackbird built for the CIA). Well said - there were some A12's built during and I think, slightly *after* the YF12's, so it isn't like there was a direct line from A12 to YF12 to SR71. >Performance of the YF-12 was roughly comparable to the other Blackbirds, >circa Mach 3 at circa 75,000 ft. Armament was four big Hughes missiles >that were descendants of the big Eagle (meant to arm the Navy's Missileer, >cancelled in favor of the F-111B) and precursors of the Phoenix. Jay Miller's Aerofax on the Blackbirds states that the A12 was capable of Mach 3.6, with the YF12 capable of something like Mach 3.5. Suposedly the SR71 was good for Mach 3.25 due to its being rather heavier than either of the other two, but I still have doubts about all three of those figures. For instance - the SR71 has interchangeable noses and (apparently) palletized packages for the chine bays. One of the noses is the so-called "ballast nose" which contains enough weight to keep the CG right and that is about it. If you strip out all of the recon. goodies how much weight does it actually remove and how much affect could it have on top speed? Hmm...... BTW, I think the missile specified for the YF-12 was the Hughes XAIM-47. The Phoenix is the AIM-54(a,b,c,d....whatever). Crickmore has an interesting photo of a crewman with an XAIM-47 on one side and an XAIM-54 on the other (gosh, I sure HOPE AIM-54 is the right number.....) for size comparisons. The YF-12's systems were actually tested against target drones, quite possibly QB-47's, and worked very nicely. I seem to recall mention of a shoot down from some 125 or 150 miles away! I think *that* is pretty impressive, even today. Duane
johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) (08/30/90)
From: gatech!srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) > >Performance of the YF-12 was roughly comparable to the other Blackbirds, >circa Mach 3 at circa 75,000 ft. Armament was four big Hughes missiles >that were descendants of the big Eagle (meant to arm the Navy's Missileer, Has anyone else seen this film short, or am I just misremembering it? :-) It was some early footage of YF-12 test flights... the camera was obviously mounted in a chase plane, and the YF-12 test-fired one of its missiles. The missile came off a hardpoint on the underside of the fuselage, forward of the wings... it dipped a little (presumably to clear the ship), got just a little forward of the aircraft's nose, and then lazily drifted back until it was well behind the YF-12. It then chased the mothercraft for a while until the YF-12 had thoroughly outrun it and the missile ran out of fuel! -- John T. Baldwin | johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu Search Technology, Inc. | | "... I had an infinite loop, My opinions; not my employers'. | but it was only for a little while..."