In fact, the idea of a mass order of A-12’s in their various versions and adaptions, caused a good but of concern among the Skunkworks management. The U-2 project had been their largest amount of work yet, and they were looking at building ten times the number of a airplane ten times as complex.

The role that interests me more, however, is as a nuclear bomber and cruise missle carrier. I wonder how far you could loft a gravity nuke from eighty thousand feet and mach three? :diablo:

Anyhow, one of the overlooked bottlenecks to a large Blackbird fleet is a lack of suitable types and numbers of tanker aircraft. IIRC, each squadron of Blackbirds required a tanker unit to support normal training and operations, I hate to think how much $$$ in planes, men, and oil would be needed for a full on surge.

More when I get home.

Matt

OK, how is this for an idea. If you want a fast jet with long range and that is affordable, you cant beat a bizjet! The Bombardier Global Express XRS and the Gulfstream G550 are both jets that have 6500nm range and a mach .85 cruise speed. And both these jets are very cheap compared to military aircraft, I believe they cost around $20 million or so, cheaper than a freakin Hawk 200. On long patrol missions the pilot can rest back in the cabin area, it would be great for fatique reduction.

The Global Express

The G550

And if you could take care of all your problems with some Mavericks and Sidewinders, I’d agree. I somehow doubt, however, that Gulfstream put battle durability on the top of thier design attribute sheet. I think if you had to get close enough to do a visual ID, I’d rather do it from a F-5 or Gripen.

The corrosion proofed Frogfoot is a VERY interesting idea, though… What kind of A2A intercetion range would it have, with a couple SRM’s and no tanks???

Matt

why it was felt neccessary to accomodate the weapon?

Two guess’s: #1, we have it, it’s a known quanity, and it’s reasonable effective. #2, it’s a distinctively British design, a little national hubris can be allowed 😉

Matt

I’ve only seen claims it was tested as was the Maverick, but none of the claims come with details. If it had agm-88 compatibility then it had pretty much everything it needed for aim-9, because to do first one you have what it takes to do the latter. Its not always true in reverse.

I’d say that while the Nighthawk might be able to fire the Sidewinder, actually using it would be something entirely different. Unless it was vectored in by AWACS, I’m not sure how else the ‘Hawk would find it’s target, unless it was Mark 1 eyeball during daylight, and I REALLY doubt a Nighhawk would be called in to do a high noon shootout.:dev2:

Matt

I was unaware that a P-51 Mustang shot down a Mig-15 during the Korean Conflict? Does anyone have details……..:confused:

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0107/yingling.shtml brief overview.

That would leave the B-58, how were they supposed to survive their own nukes when dropped from low altitude?

Engage ludicris speed:confused:

😉

Matt

Notice: The above post has no technical content whatsoever, nor is it intended as a serious answer to a serious question, IE, it is HUMOR (HUMOUR???) and should be taken as such. Have a good day.

“If it looks right, it flies right” Kelly Johnson :rolleyes:

Of course, he also said the C-130 would bankrupt Lockheed :confused:

I dunno why, but it’s not just airplanes we judge like that. Try women- the hardware might be there, but the software??? That’s a crap shoot, and the main reason you need to test flight before purchase:diablo:

Matt

Sounds like a plan, let meet back here in 20 years 😀

Like I said, just get everyone playing by the same rules, one way or the other, and I’m happy.

Matt