I I

'..;11 ...

I--~--~-r~~-'--'-----""",,-:,,~----.-'----,--:--_-:--__ ...:..-___ --,--_ . ____ .. _ ..

\ \

\

1\

\ \

1]$°·

l-

'"

i CREW"

TIlAAISFER TUNNEL

1812FT

- 160 FT -.

~ I

'''''''''A'A'

A-I

'j . ,l.j, I .{WOAPS - _

~.

• AR

,- :::32~88 TY~VII • 22RT, 240

'"

9-'

.CRIIIT L".\

i C1;ll'O ;

~ . .(.) , ~~~ ~~6 TYff VI

Z·~ 32 Ill: e:. PSI

,---------' -6~Wt-Q..., I "'A~TlN IAA~'ET fA eo',So."

~~,' ,~.

"'\' .

""l~ E~It£S (2~ ~K."~/J5()

,t3~,

•• ~ ..

~. " ~T & IlEE~TRY / APS

:-AFT

r

268'

, ~

r~ y "il -", '

'I ~

&> ',1 :: ,"tr·" ' ~ , "~,~~~ :.J : 2

~~, ° \~iJ:,

e"'-S£ ~.:!: n'

, STAGE TIE POINT-"

,,~'; '~~',.

;5'

-10'-

f

30' '5~ ! 5S·

_ L

34' - 0,, __

- , \'

N

TWO'ST':'GE: FLLlY'lE:uS,",BLE SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYS TEM

'STAGE Dc ORBITAL V::HICLE 15FTDIA.'60 & ZZ FT.D<A'30FT ?AYLOAOS

SCALE 1/120 11-1'09

t-Ci I ' ,...

\.11

-c m z o o o m N

III U!!£ Z 2521A+*=;.'. (At:;:; 47 ...... L4 .ecM. _____ ~ __ ... -------,-----------'.,--......,.......,.-

• t, -',

'.', ;

-' I. , '" ,,":"~, •• ;',:;~,r'~'~:t::~::::~~>~ .~.;':,:.~ :;,,·<-;;~';\f::{.:., :,,; :"~«" ", ' .. ' , ":@,\,,v '~2'AASriii;M;fAA~~i.":';;&¥~'{'>F'~',:;.;i!i.':~;I\t. . ~ ~,

:.~.:~ SUBSONIC TRlM RANGE: 00 to 20 0 f ')' .'; MAXIMUM LID = 8. 0 t, \ ' , :-1 ~ :. '. ..~ '" , .. ¥lV,iit*\fi¥.I!\:&%#!"~~·~~~'#~~·ili!~l@"'''il''~P', f' '~'ii·::~~i=i:SX!~::f,:i'?;~:~;;~;~?,!jf~fi0i%t:t~:.;?~t;·,,~<,:; ':'"

. "-\"::',:'

:'1 ( .~ •

LANDING SPEED: 180 knots

~JJf.:bi·· ·'~~~~::::,!!~~,,~~f

.. \ \

., "

\.~ .. "

SINGLE BODY BOOSTER OPTIONS - AERODYNAMIC SHAPE

VARIABLE GEOMETRY

(Qj .. "

LIFTING BODY

OlEN 066232·02 (8-68)

...... ... 'I

...,. -"

""i!l~:i:\1"

~.- fd\ I

STRAIGHT WING

"

FIXED GEOMETRY I

,

crou DELTA

0dlJ DOUBLE DELTA

U ""~??" TAPERED WING WITH CANARDS

H H I

Vt

I I I

r"

t

./

T

/

'--"~

! -,

, ".": " dt ", ... ,.,-:.,,)~,,:'

I

~fl. -<\1 - :--:r

-...::!:! ~(-,

~"'l

, /

;,' ,1-.. ·-__ . 'I

1\, .-......,

", 7~

I : ...

~jE~~~~~: I

1 ..... 1;·~T·~·n.r-JET FLAP .. ~~ .. !-!.! ...... J

---l---- 87' ; . I <-~LELEO ---'--'-20' _-'-I T c <AN ENGINES ,el

". ·C.-·-Z$8$FT

~-~-'

\' CRUSE FUEL ACCUV

~,---=~ 33'0._.

'1.0< FEED LfOES

) .1

._-'---' ---""~-LOIC 30,3$0 Fr;- '-'. ~ .=. - -. ... --1 .. -. --.. -.- LH, 9$,300 FT'

32810

$.~

I 1--- _______ . __ .. ~">l -250Fl·

/

-7.>' ,

EOCiPUl(.( HI

\., MT GEAR(2)

(2)~~~,~~

~'-El£~

j I$6FT

f

.~'!'

'~~

WARTIN 1oIAA:£TTA g.;~:

.",""O~TS •

>- MIl Sl.f'I'ORr

..... Et«;IN£S (13) 4001<, ,.50

TWO-STAGE. FULLY RElJSA8LE SPACE TRANSPORTATIOO SYSTEM AlTERN. ,STAGE I, SINGLE BODY

SCAl:E Ilia> 11-1'69 t..L.,~

.. ~

-~-­\ .\

tf) t­o. UJ u z o u

-u. Z o .<.)

~. ~ o o UJ X -La.

" .

..

:-

•

--' w Cl o ~ u -~ t-. w

~ o ••• c..~,

''''''''-

.. . -'

.~

•

•

. /-

I~ <, .. , .

\;

~' ,.

. . ,~ ,

.. "': c c ~,

. ,

.,i r

. '

',I' -,'.

. '

.1 . ~'

....

., .'

"

.. :

. ...

"

. , ,,' ....

"

,.~

; .

"

..

• ,

.' ,'.

,.

',. '

.,' .

r ... fume IV

"

i

._ I

UJ -.J U :x: UJ > - (1) z= -0-f5ct .o"C ........ -(13

1-0 LL.-g o­M ..... I .> 5

I I I

,. ,

/

. ::~ . .~l~te. gr. a.l ... tL. au~c .. 1.1 and. I

~ OOeentry Wehlcle ~ystkm

, I

• j

I

-lid' -

....&-_--.- . -,. -- ., .. -

RJ-:POH'f XO • MDe EOO·19

NOVEM13EH 1969

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY

I t-

T j ,

i. i

., .... - .. -_.-. L : ,~~< .' I j ,-'------"' i:

>,

An' ~ntegral [Launch and

... ~~centry·Wehicle g)ystem

r ~I I . I f-c( I . J

"

HEPonT NO. MDe EOO-l9

NOVI<~MBER 1969

.~ .

NlCDONNE(;.L DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS CONIPANY

'-"-' ,

, .

Dlume IV

I

.\ , _. -1

! /

Ilntegral ll,aullch alld

. L;\~cntry Vl chicf!J/~)ystcnl ,//

MDC EOO \\1 NOVE\\BEH lIHH)

WEIGHT SUMMARY - LANDING CO~JFIGURATION Conventional Propellant Distribution -130 Ft Vehicle

.\ '

"

. , . -------~.-'-----~. .

-.-~-~. .

"

LANDING INITIATION (FULL RETURN CARGO)

• V.G. Vt1NG DEPLOYED WEIGHT (LB) 265;709 PLAN LQ,ADING(PSF) 44

V.G. WING STOWED PLAN LOADING(PSF) 50

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS COMPANY

l i f· t

f .. ~ _ ~ _____ ~. __ ._ ... ____ -- __ -------.------:--" .. - .. 4--_---

--,

,'\

"

'"/,,--------- - -----.

.-' /".

~""~~~i'W"~'~"'>'.W-fO:t~~< ..... ", ... ~:I. "Ij~~", .~~~~..,;,...:..~ .• ~. ~ ~,~.,i ~.W"·"'1"'~'''''''' __ ''lol·_''~''

.~,# r

~ c.n

I

, ... ',., .... , :;.'

REI MATERIAL CLASS

REI - S JLlCA

REI - MULLITE

REI - ZIRCON IA

'-,--

, ,

':,

REUSABLE EXTERNAL INSULATION FOR NR ORB ITER

:' :.~ '.'

:,

o ,

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM USE TEMPERA TURE, OK (OR

1365 (2000)

1700 (2000)

2035 (3200)

Slide 1

1590(2~~~5(2000) 1645 (2500) 1615(2500) .

APPROXIMATE ORB ITER AREA COVERED, %

85-90

95 - 100

100

",

..

'N ~ Co:)

I'

t

. ,IBOOSTER TPS AREAS

-\ '

\

,.... 2 • Surface Area 3251. 5 m • Staging Velocity 4754. 88 m/sec

2 • Entry W/C lS 350 kg 1m

• Model 14

",

.'

Figure 5

TOP BonOM

\.: ..

N -l en

f1

\\ !!

---~ II '.'" " ....... "" .• ,. ...... , ..... ' '.1 •• OM;" ..... ' ,j. '". __ ,

/

DELTA-BODY ORBITER CONFIGURATION ..

lliilliliill· ACTIVELY COOLED SURFACE 414 m 2(4455 FT2) -

Figure 2

. ; , ,i -

I

1 ! I ; l

z ... ----" o .... cd: a: ::> (!)

u.. Z o u a: w .... CO a: .' / o ..J <! u Q.

> ....

,

'J

,,-,! ,-"

" ~ / \ !II

I ill : I , 'I I I '

I I

I

\ A \. /' , ....... ... ~--...".

/' , I \ I I I I I I I I

\\,--./~ .•... '~ ,~~

, . 2 w C!)

> X C

(I)

::.::: 2 c:x: .... 2-w c.!J o a: c > :z:

,. " I , , I

I I I

. \ I , ,., ,.,~,

I , I I

I I I I

\ 1 .

I I

'\ \ ' \ . \ \

"~I \"\ \ 345 Ii ' ,\

\ '\ \

, I

~, , I \

\ \

.. \ \

Cot)

ex> ~

;::

, ,

.. ..:. ,;." ."

',~ .,

. /

.,

LANGlEY SHUTTLE STRUCTURAL DESIGN ACTIVITY

PROGRAM DEVELO PMENT - . -• FUSELAGE TYPE GEOMETRY -_ .. - . - - _... - .

• ADDITIONAL TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION ',., .. ". IMPROVED AERODYNAMIC CAPABILITY

__ . ___ . __ ...• MULTI PLE ... LOAD COND ITIONS ~

.: ~

SHUTTLE APPLI CATIONS

.. ' . • OPTIMUM DES I GN OF MAJOR STRUCTURAL COMPoNENTS • ALTERNATE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEEDED MASS REDUCTION ·

. • EXPLORE THERMAL AND DYNAM I C EFfECTS

,. ,--:-- ~ ....

Slide 16

• , '''-..-

JlDVIINCED IN'Z'EBCEP'Z'OB IIIBCBIIFT LEON H. DULBERGER, Associate Editor

Although it could handle present enemy bombers, the YF-12A, like the evolving F-111B, would serve largely as a missile-launching platform. A loiter-class of aircraft may even emerge to counter a Russian military SST. But any "pure" follow-on-interceptor might well need a hypersonic-speed potential.

"The high-speed interceptor is dead and no one went to the funeraL" So states one aircraft expert­and he is not alone in his opinion.

If he is correct, then the deceased was "done in" by its own missiles, and by a shift in the weaponry of strategic offense. Air-to-air missiles have reached a point of sophistication which suggests to some that the aircraft carrying them no longer needs capabilities once considered basic to the interceptor mission. Meanwhile, the weapon the interceptor was designed to counter-the manned bomber­has effectively been assigned a minor 'role in the enemy's strategic arsenal.

Yet air-to-air missiles have their limitations, and there certainly is no consensus that Russia would not count on bombers in an all-out nuclear attack.

Our current force of aging interceptors would face bombers-some supersonic-armed with 650-mi standoff missiles. Upgraded F-4s, perhaps an F-111 variant, would help, but if Russia's commer­cial SST turns out military we'll need something like the YF-12A, now stalled in development. And if a Soviet hypersonic bombing vehicle appears in the 19BOs-a distinct possibility-then we might have to seek a Mach B-12 interceptor to meet it.

Right now Russia still has in service substantial numbers of the huge Tu-20 Bear bombers, with top speed of Mach 0.B3 at altitude and unrefueled range of BOOO mi. A major threat to the U. S. before the advent of ICBMs, the Bear's service life has been extended by equipping the "B" model with nuclear standoff missiles of up to 650-mi range. Still in service, too, is the Tu-16 Badger bomber, with an unrefueled range of about 4250 mi and a top speed of Mach 0.B7. Latest versions are equipped with 450-mi range nuclear standoff missiles (see table of bombers, p. 63).

Among the latest Soviet bombers known to be in inventory is the supersonic Blinder. A vivid Soviet effort to enter the same league commanded by our B-5B, it exhibits a similar clean-lined aerodynamic design. The Blinder has a dash capability of about 1.B and a cruise speed of about Mach 0.95, both at altitude, and an approximate range of 3000 mi on internal fuel, which can be extended with inflight refueling. Blinder is equipped with a standoff mis­sile semisubmerged in the fuselage. Operating in the same mode the B-58 was designed for-refueling on the way in and, after a strike, continuing on to a base near its target-Blinder is capable of striking at continental U. S. targets from Russia.

54

But the greatest concern is the military potential of Russia's SST, the Tupolev Tu-144, now in halting development. AI though den igrated by critics as vulnerable to ground radar surveillance and missile attack, a high-altitude supersonic aircraft-cruising at 70,000 ft to 100,000 ft-is a tough target to bring down even today. As for supersonic and subsonic penetrators flying at very low altitudes with the aid of terrain-avoidance/terrain-following radar and hid­ing in radar ground clutter, detection and intercept become extremely difficult. Those who believe Rus­sia's 286,OOO-lb SST (which looks somewhat like the Concorde) will axiomatically become a bomber point to the routine way she draws off commercial versions of military aircraft. There's a chance that the 4040-mi-range Tu-144, slated for prototype tests in 196B, will evolve into a vehicle with a higher cruise speed than the presently disclosed Mach 2.35 goal. Experts note that, with a largely titanium air­frame, it may have the same Mach 2.7+ potential at its cruise altitude of 65,000-70,000 ft as our own titanium SST. They are not put off by the reported 26,BOO-lb specific thrust for each of the four turbo­fans; higher-thrust engines are expected in the 1970 to 1971 period.

Penetrators hard to stop Whether these or follow-on Soviet bombers will ever be used in this age of ICBMs and SLBMs is a fiercely debated point (see Space/Aeronautics for June 1966, p. 62, and September 1966, p. 62). But if they are used-strategically, in an all-out nuclear effort, or, tactically, in a high-intensity limited war­they will be hard to stop. Imagine an attack by appreciable numbers of Mach 2.35-cruise (or may­be Mach 3+) aircraft, able to carry a heavy penaid load and equipped with air-to-surface standoff mis­siles (follow-ons to present rocket-propelled weap­ons, with smaller radar crossections, hypersonic flight speeds, ranges of over 650 mi and terminal target seekers, including precise optical types).

Many feel only the most sophisticated, balanced, layered defense has a chance against these odds: terminal missiles to counter the bombers' standoff missiles, long-range SAM of the Bomarc and Her­cules types, and manned interceptors to meet the enemy as far out as possible.

The Air Defense Command's present inventory of supersonic interceptors-ranging, in order of devel­opment, from the F-102A Delta Dagger to the Mach 2.3 (max) F-106A Delta Dart-was conceived and developed when the enemy bomber threat con­sisted of subsonic aircraft dropping gravity bombs (see table of interceptors, p. 58-59). Now these ag-ing Century-series interceptors may have to handle _____ _ a bomber force which includes supersonic Blinders equipped with standoff missiles. But what really plagues military planners, as they review our pro-

THE HYPBRSONIC BRA

It is possible that we have already slipped quietly into the hypersonic era. For there are signs that the emergence of an experimental Soviet hypersonic vehicle in the mid- or late 1970s is being viewed as a serious possibility.

The latest sign was the announcement last month that the Air Force had contracted with three companies-Lockheed-California, McDonnell and North American-to study hypersonic "scramjet" vehicles. The Air Force has been funding R&D on the "building blocks" of a scramjet (the semi-acronym for "supersonic-combustion ramjet") for a number of years. The new contracts, though, are the strongest evidence to date that such work has reached a point that warrants detailed studies of total system configuration and tradeoffs for a military vehicle. It is logical to surmise that the vehicle will be a hypersonic interceptor-one way, and perhaps the best way, to stop a hypersonic attack vehicle.

There is no question that we could build a more efficient hypersonic vehicle if we could find better solutions to some of the problems-particularly fuels and structural materials-than we have now. Plenty of research in these and other areas remains to be done. But there do not now appear to be any serious technological barriers to a first-generation hypersonic interceptor.

It is the obvious technical problems that have convinced many that, requirement or no, an operational hypersonic vehicle is at least as far away as the mid-1980s. BuUu_ch-estimates-have a way of hangingon-straightline __ ~-~-.. ==

extrapolations of the current level of effort. If we assume an intensive Soviet effort in this area, a lot of thinking has to change.

Such an assumption does not seem far-fetched. The seemingly ambivalent Soviet attitude toward the role of the bomber should not be misconstrued; from a similar lack of emphasis after World War" came the massive ICBM surprise. Since then it has been clear that the USSR concentrates its resources, with benefit of tight secrecy, on those projects where it stands to gain most. A hypersonic weapons platform may well be such a project.

For the threat to our defenses posed by the supersonic penetrator continues to diminish. Look-down radar coupled with a long-range supersonic interceptor such as the F-12 could close the gate to a Mach 3 missile platform. But were the Soviets to deploy a Mach 7-8 aerial weapons carrier, they would enormously complicate our problem of defense-at home and abroad. Moreover, its hypersonic cruise speed and the flexibility inherent in a manned system would give the Soviets a way to bring controlled pressure or graduated response to bear almost instantaneously in any part of the world.

The fact that we are not yet committed to a hypersonic AMSA is no guarantee that the USSR is not. And the more you examine how such a vehicle could be stopped, the more attractive a manned hypersonic interceptor looks. That's why it seems a fair deduction that the Air Force will try to have a scramjet testbed-aimed at refining engine and airframe concepts-flying within, say, three years. And, if events do not force a faster pace, we may well see an operational hypersonic interceptor by the early 1980s.

John B. Campbell

pOLYCRYSTALLINE GLASS (PYROCERAM) RADOME

ABLATIVE COATING

FUSED SILICA LAYER

I=-----------------~~~~~====~~~

VARIABLE INLET DUCTED.FAN

HIGH.MUZZLE.VELOCITY CANNON TURBORAMJET ENGINE

OONm"", 'i'''·-"",R..L..<...JF=::::~========J=======----=:::===friJllrf::::===;;~?r::S;::==~8~==:::j~

TV SENSORS

HYDROGEN. FUELED ENGINES

/ CONVERTIBLE SUB·TO·SUPERSONIC

COMBUSTION RAMJET

COMBUSTOR

L_ _ _____ ~~--------

HYPERSONIC INTERCEPTOR TESTBED

g4000~~~~~~+-----------~--------------~

By extrapolating presently evolving technology, a hypersonic­cruise interceptor-testbed configuration may be postulated, and could be constructed and tested by the late 1970s. Nominal cruise speed at 140,000 ft would be Mach 12, al­though actual intercept would depend on long-range man­euverable air-to-air missiles. To provide firepower within missile minimum-range limitations, the aircraft, built of steel with a nickel' alloy skin, would be stressed for close-in maneuverability in the supersonic regime and outfitted with cannon firing high-speed projectiles. Target identification might be augmented by a laser target-delineator at high al­titudes or in clear weather. Forward vision for the pilot, with droop-nose up in hypersonic forward flight, is afforded by a tv camera system, Two engines, each capable of dual­mode operation, are aboard: a turbo-ramjet for flight Mach numbers from zero to about Mach 6, equipped wllh a shut­ter to close off its inlet above Mach 3; and a convertible sub-to-supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) operating from Mach 3 to 12+. Redundant capability of one of the engines in the Mach 3 to 6 range would be abrogated in an operational version. Liquid hydrogen fuel, used with both engines,could provide regenerative cooling of the scramjet's combustors, a heat exchange which preheats the -423 F fuel for more efficient burning. The fuel might also be cir­culated to cool the wing leading-edges and nose surface which may reach 1800-2400 F. As an alternate, an ablative coating might be used. The low-density of liquid hydrogen militates for a large aircraft weighing at least 200,000 Ib with a length of over 100 ft. Use of integrated microwave circuit modules could permit design' of a conformal array-radar wrapped around the nose for target search-a_nd-track and missile guidance. A speed-brake for deceleration is required, due to the aircraft's low-drag configuration.

l!!.

1000

o

/" SUBSONIC COMBUSTION RAMJET AT 80,000 FT

SUPERSONIC COMBUSTION RAMJET AT 150,000 FT

I TRANSITION, TURBOJET

TO RAMJET

...--NWINAL TRANSITION SUB·TO·SUPERSONIC

COMBUSTION

3 6 MACH NUMBER 12

jected interceptor aircraft forces for the late 1970s and early 19BOs, is the prospect of "a Mach 3 Soviet bomber with a Mach 2 fighter to face it."

Thus in planning a next-generation interceptor to follow the F-106A, the Air Force set Mach 3 capa­bility as necessary, along with longer range arma­ment and autonomous operation. For a time the improved manned interceptor (lMI) effort was focused on the development of the F-10BA Rapier; but this was terminated in 1959. Now the YF-12A, though based on a reconnaissance aircraft design, offers most of the attributes desired in a next­generation interceptor: D Speed. The YF-12A can cruise at Mach 3.1 to 3.5, the optimum level for most efficient use of its addi­tive-loaded, kerosene-based fuel. Because it can fly subsonically for a longer period than it can fly supersonically, it could be used to loiter on-station off our coasts. Ideally, speed of an interceptor is not simply a maximum dash capability, but sus­tained cruise over long distances, and thus is tied in tightly to range and radius of intercept. Century­series aircraft flying on afterburner nearly deplete their fuel supply in attempting more than a brief dash at top supersonic speed. D Altitude. Officially, the YF-12A operates at over BO,OOO ft. Some suggest, however, a ceiling of 100,000 ft. Optimum cruise altitude is about 70,000 ft, the best compromise for minimum drag and en­gine air requirements. Efficient operation over a range of altitudes is achieved in part by equipping the pair of Pratt & Whitney afterburner-equipped turbojets, which develop over 42,000-lb thrust with reheat, with variable inlets and variable-area nozzles. The YF-1iA can launch missiles at very-low-altitude targets while at optimum cruise altitude. D Range. From the airc:raft's lineage, an outgrowth of the A-11 and U-2, a 4000-mi un refueled range is likely. However, the YF-12A like most modern military craft employs in flight refueling to extend its range. Without refueling its radius of operation is about 1200+ mi. D Autonomous operation. Unlike the F-106A, which depends completely on Sage and Buic control to acquire the target and vector aircraft to within mis­sile-intercept range, the YF-12A can operate auto­nomously. It can employ onboard, search-and-track radar with long ranges-estimated at over 350 mi­to acquire targets. With an onboard inertial naviga­tion system it can cruise at will in a degraded radio/­radar environment when command and control will not function, as during nuclear-blast-induced elec­tromagnetic blackout. D Airframe. The aerodynamic design of the YF-12A uses a basic 60-deg delta wing, with small lifting surfaces extended forward along most of the fuse­lage. Similar lifting surfaces are brought forward along the outside edge of the engine nacelles. The effect is to distribute total lift along the aircraft's full length, helping to lower the wave drag due to

56

shock waves. To retain structural strength at the temperature extremes encountered, most of the air­craft is built of titanium and its alloys. D Fire control/armament. Here the YF-12A is opti­mized with great care for the Mach 3 intercept role. It uses the ASG-1B pulsed-Dopplerfire control radar, begun for the F-10B and continued after the aircraft program ended. Able to operate against high- or low-altitude targets, the ASG-1B mates with the 75+-mi-range AIM-47 A missile, itself an outgrowth of the AIM-4E used on the Delta Dart. Highly maneuverable, powered by a storable-liquid (or solid) propellant, the BOO-Ib missile attacks at Mach 6 and carries a nuclear or high-explosive warhead.

Attacking low-altitude penetrators Perhaps the most important feature of the YF-12A's fire control radar is its ability to look down into ground clutter and detect and track aircraft flying nap-of-the-earth runs. The method used is termed coherent-an-receive Doppler system (CORDS). It uses noncoherent pulses from the radar, and pro­cesses them to permit their correlation with re­turned target echos so that fixed-position (ground clutter) echos relative to the interceptor are sup­pressed in a display that highlights the moving target.

The YF-12A's radar fire control system is aug­mented=-by-=a=pair=oHFSensors-on-the' aircraft~fuse'=~- --"-------,­lage's forward-delta extensions. A pair of sensors makes it possible to obtain range information on targets, to permit operation in the presence of ECM and to aid in low-level attack.

Should the two-man YF-12A be ordered into pro­duction by DOD, it will have the larger airframe of the SR-71, the operational strategic reconnaissance version of the A-11. Several changes have been made in the SR-71's airframe, such as deleting the lower ventral fin used on the YF-12A (which folds aside for takeoff and landing) and extending fuse­lage lifting surfaces to the nose. This would put the longer-range operational version, to be called F-12B, at a gross weight of about 170,000 Ib, making it the heaviest interceptor in the U. S. force. Such outsized interceptors, almost as large and heavy as the bombers they must intercept, will be common and necessary in the future because of the large payloads required, providing, for example, fuel for a wide radius of action and avionics gear to cope with bombers packed with penetration aids. Eight AIM-47 A, advanced-Falcon missiles would be car­ried internally in the F-12B. The missiles are fired downward by charges to clear the airframe before powered missile flight is begun.

Flying the YF-12A is not exotic at all, according to USAF Col. Robert L. Stephens, director of the YF-' 12A test program, who, with Lt. Col. Daniel Andre, reclaimed the absolute speed record for the U. S. by flying 2062 mph with the YF-12A. In spite of its March 3+ speeds, the aircraft handles with a "very

o

DISTANCE FLOWN IN 3~MIN

F-12B, MACH 3+ CRUISE III I (BO,OOO- FT) ''''..:.'11/ RADAR RANGE

J ',"~I (SEARCH/TRACK)

IIIII/!. 350+ MI

AIM-47A MISSILE, ~ " '/////I/;////}"

RANGE 75+ MI fiRES UP OR DOWN /~~~~2.7 -,

• 3°f1N _---.- / \\\\\\\ t 4000+ MI t UN REFUELED

F-lllINTERCEPTOR VERSION, MACH 2 CRUISE I~tril\\\\\\\\\ \\m\ii\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ I RANGE (70,OOO-FT) I

(65,000 FT) I I t

I

30 rlN I I

• L+~ RADAR RANGE

I F-106A III (SEARCH/TRACK)

I

MACH 0.9-1.9 (60,000 FT) 50+ MI / ,,-".

AIM-4E fALCON MISSILE, /

RANGE 11 MI --- ---,-----

TARGET " .... ~ sTAN~a";; ~~~EI ~5~~~ ;A~~: -- o COMBAT RADIUS,

..L.I. La ..- INTE~NAL FUEL /

200 400 600 800 MILES

Dashing out to intercept an enemy supersonic bomber places a premium on un refueled combat radius as well as speed, both of which permit engaging the penetrator before it approaches within launch range of its standoff weapon, Assuming 30 min available flight time, to permit comparing the three interceptors, the F-106A would cover perhaps 400 mi flying predominantly subsonic and partly supersonic (on afterburner)_ Both the F-12B, a projected, operational version of the YF-12A, and the F-111, in a possible new interceptor configuration, are longer-legged

conventional delta feel:' much like that of the B-58. Some argue the extreme speed of the ~-12 isn't

needed for continental defense, since our present ground-based radar warning systems, complemented by satellite surveillance (and trenchcoat intelligence inputs), are certain to give warning of Soviet long­range bomber attack at takeoff; flying alongside cruising next-generation supersonic bombers may not be mandatory, either_

However, many military planners insist we need to be able to pace and examine any aircraft flying, just as the F-106 Delta Darts of the ADC now do with commercial (or recon) versions of the Soviet's Tu-20 Bears that pass along much of our east coast in flying from Moscow to Cuba-photographing them at will, and keeping a close eye on bomb-bay doors_ Another argument for Mach 3_5 speed and extreme range is reattack ability, important if a "blockfl of several bombers are to be countered, or if a second (or third) chance at a lone bomber is needed.

One might question the maneuverability intrinsic in an essentially high-altitude reconnaissance air­frame whose wings are stressed to perhaps 3 g's rather than an interceptor's traditional 6 t6 7_5 g's_ In fact, any such interceptor perforce gives up ma­neuverability in order to operate in the dynamic range from ground zero to Mach 3 at extreme alti-

1000 1200 1400 1600

and faster_ Th F-12B would achieve some 1000 mi In

the same time, flying Mach 3+ all the way and could operate above or below enemy's altitude based on its six missiles' fire-up fire-down ability_ The F-111 postulated here uses the same armament, though another possible F-111A configuration would employ a semi­loitering mode and would be 'armed with the "multishot" Phoenix missile system now in development Without such capability, high-Mach speeds are important to re­attacking a missed target, or to attacking multiple targets_

tudes_ In answer, Air Force feels that the F-12's missile capability gives it as much maneuverability as might be hoped for at 2000+ mph_

Beyond continental defense, Air Force envisions a tactical use for the F-12: extremely rapid deploy­ment to world trouble spots of a fleet of perhaps a few dozen interceptors supported by maintenance aircraft of the 300,OOO-lb grossweight class_

Air Force's desire to add some 70-odd operational versions of the YF-12A interceptor to the interceptor inventory has House and Senate backing - both voted an additional $55 million, to continue devel­opment, .over funds requested by 000_ This is sure to provide further encouragement to critics of De­fense Secretary McNamara's reluctance to field the long-desired Improved Manned Interceptor. Yet the Secretary has not said he will not provide a follow-on interceptor if he sees a clear need; in­deed, he seems at least equally interested in a ver­sion of the biservice F-111 which would be con­figured for the Air Force's intercept role and use the same ASG-18/AIM-47 fire control and armament

Even proponents of the F-111 for the role of fol­low-on to the F-106, though, don't advertise the air­craft as a match for the YF-12A in speed or range_ The F-111A will dash at Mach 2_5 clean; fully loaded with the same number (eight) of advanced-Falcon air-to-air missiles as the F-12, it would perhaps

SPACE/AERONAUTICS November 1956 57

AIRCRAFT FOR THE INTERCEPTOR MISSION'

Military Mach No. Cei Ii ng (ttl/ Combat Service/ Mission- (max. at Propulsion Time to Radius Status altitude)f Climb (miles)

F·102A USAF Air Defense 1.25 Single turbojet, 54,000 Over 500 First flight 1953; Command (0.8 cruise) 11,700 Ib thrust dry, (initial rate entered interceptor. 17,200 Ib on reheat. 13,000 fpm) inventory 1956.

.. f.8E Navy Carrier-based 1.9 Single turbojet, 59,000 600 First flight interceptor 10,700 Ib thrust dry, (to 57,000 (F-8A), 1955. (limited all· 18,000 Ib on reheat. in 6 min) F·8E entered weather. attack inventory 1961. capability).

F-104 USAF ADC 2.2 Single turbojet, 55,000 Over 450 F·104A first (day /night) 14,000 Ib thrust , flight 1954; interceptor on reheat.

I inventory 1958.

Military Allies MAP nations 2.35 Single turbojet, 60,000 580 F·104G multi· strike-fighter! 0.0+ at 10,000 Ib thrust dry, (52,000 in mission 1962. interceptor. 300 ttl 15,800 Ib on reheat. 6.5 min) +010 USAF Air Defense 1.85 Two turbojets, each 51,000 About 700 First flight 1954; Command (0.95 12,000 Ib thrust dry, (initial rate entered interceptor. sea level) 14,900 on reheat. 17,000 fpm) inventory 1959.

F·1 USAF Air Defense 2.3 Single turbojet, 57,000 600 First flight 1956; Command 0.9 sta· 17,200 Ib thrust dry, (zoom to entered interceptor. bilized, 24,500 Ib on reheat. 70,000) inventory 1959. 0.9 cruise)

F·48 Navy Carrier-based 62,000 .. cc. Over 450._" -':"":''':~''::'':::::~

+- First flight 1958; interceptor (initial rate entered (with attack 28,000 fpm) inventory 1960. capability).

USAF Experimental 3.5 Two turbOjets, about 42,000 100,000 About 1200+ Development and interceptor. (3.1 cruise, Ib thrust with afterburning. (F-128 would test. First flight (Sought 1.0 Titanium engine components, have 1800+) 1962. No by USI\F for sea level) air cooled turbine blades, deployment continental variable intake, variable area planned. defense). nozzle; fuel additives.

F·1118 Navy Carrier-based 2.5 Two turbofans, each 11,500 Ib 65,000 loiter 150 to Development and combat air (2.0+ with thrust dry, 19,000 Ib on reo 200 mi from test. First flight patrol max. fuel, heat. Uses modulated after· perimeter of 1965. Planned interceptor. missiles) burners, variable inlet and fleet, for 2-4 deployment 0.0+ nozzle. Uprated engine, 7% hours with 6 1970. sea level) more thrust, planned. missiles

VFAX/FXcd VFAX Carrier·based 2-2.5 Two bypass turbofans or Iift/ 80,000 500 to Navy fighter-attack (0.9-1.3 cruise type turbojets; high over 600 Advanced experimental. sea level) T/W ratio, to 10:1. After· planning, burner equipped. prototype 1970.

FX Multimission· 2.5-3+ Two high thrust/weight 85,000 USAF fighter (0.9-1.3 turbojets or turbofans, Ongoing studies; experimental. sea level) equipped with afterburners. prototype 1972. lift/cruise types attractive.

US/FRGcd USAF and Advanced 1.5-3.0 Vectored-thrust turbojet, Over 350-500

~ Federal V/STOL (0.9 augmented by direct-lift en· 70,000 Republic of strike·fighter / sealevel) gines with 20:1 T/W. Germany. Studies; interceptor. prototype 1970.

_Sketches to approximate scale. bEstimated performance. cEstimated performance goals.

58

Airframe

Armament/Fire Control Dimensions Loaded Remarks (air-to-air unless noted) (ft, approx.! WeightObl

Six Super Falcon missiles AIM-4E Wingspan 38; Max. 32,000 First operational supersonic delta designed to exceed Mach} in level flight. semi-active radar homing, 11 mi length68 Transonic drag problems led to initial use of area-rule design formula to re-range, AIM-4F-ir homing 7 mi range. duce high-speed drag by varying total aircraft cross section to conform with SAGE-linked M-10 radar fire-control ideal streamlined shape. Continued updating of armament and fire control pilot-operated. system now equips F-102A with data-link to Sage, latest missiles and advanced

fire control.

Four Sidewinder ir-homing missiles, Wingspan 35; Over 28,000 First deck-launched aircraft to exceed Mach 1 in level flight. Earliest version, 2 mi range; four 20-mm cannon. (In length 54 F-8A, was day-fighter. Follow·on versions successively increased capability in attack role, various air-to·ground weather. F-8E, last Navy production version achieves limited all·weather capa· weapons, including Bullpup, Zuni, bility. Employs variable incidence wing for low carrier-approach speed with bombs.! fuselage at angle for good pilot visibility.

Two to four ir-homing Sidewinders, 2 Wingspan 22; 23,600 Limited number of F-104A's now in ADC inventory, returned after transfer to mi range; one 20-mm rotary cannon. length 55 Air National Guard. F-104G multimission strike·fighter with strengthened

structure and extensive all·weather avionics gear arms MAP nations. New versions of F·104 under study include: CL·901 air superiority fighter with

Four Sidewinder AIM-9B ir-homing, 2 27,000 max 17,900 Ib thrust engine; CL-98} fighter with Mach 2.4+ ability, uprated engine, and 25 percent more wing area, may be offered as interim·FX multi·

mi range; optional 20-mm rotary mission fighter. cannon.

Two Super Falcon AI MAE semi·active Wingspan 39; 40,000 Originally developed as a very-Iong·range escort fighter, and, following reo radar homing, 11 mi range or AIM-4F length67 quirements change, groomed as a fighter-bomber and interceptor. In this last ir-homing, 7 mi range; two Genie configuration, equipped with an M-13 armament conrol system it uses Sage AIR-2A nuclear warhead rockets, 6 mi data-link target-vectoring command signals to provide analog displays for range. Automatic radar search, lock· target lock-on by the pilot; then M-13 maintains heading for pilot initiated on and launch, with M-13 fire control. attack.

Four Super Falcons, AIM-4E semiac· Wingspan 38; 35,000 Latest interceptor in· ADC's inventory. Begun as a redesign of F-I02 using tive radar homing 11 mi range or length 70 area-rule principles at outset, became new design with near twice the speed. AIM·4F ir-homing, 7 mi range; and Very nearly a pilotless weapon system; pilot retains systems override and one Genie AIR-2A nuclear warhead flies takeoff/landing portions of mission. Electronic armament and naviga· rocket, 6 mi range. Advanced MA-1 tion system computes Sage target vectoring data, flies aircraft to target, locks guidance and fire control system. aircraft radar on target, automatically fires missiles.

Four to six Sparrow 3 missiles (AlM- Wingspan 38; 44,600 Developed as a shipboard interceptor, F-4 is produced in a range of versions. 7E) semi·active radar homing, 13 mi Length58 Latest Navy F-4J will be equipped with 17,900-Ib-thrust engines, pulse·Dop· range; four Sidewinder AIM-9 ir hom· pier radar fire-control. Air Force's latest F-4E tactical fighter will use same ing, 2 mi range; various air-to-ground engines, include built-in 20-mm rotary cannon. Proposed variable·geometry weapons. APQ-72 radar fire control, wing variant, with advanced Soarrow 3 missiles, offered as a contender for and ir sensor system for low altitude. Navy's Fleet Air Defense, VFAX and FX roles.

Eight Falcon AIM-47A long-range (75 Wingspan 52; 150,000 Developed version of A·n, groomed for interceptor service; construction 98 plus mi,) maneuverable missiles, can length97 (F-12S, pecent titanium. Long-range navigator/radar system permits operation with· attack low·altitude targets in clutter; (F-12B I70,000l out ground control. Operational version, F-12S would use 'cleaned-up, larger ASG-18 pulse-Doppler radar fire can· about SR-71 airframe. Extreme speed and range permit stopping standoff-weapon· trol augmented by ir detection/ 105 ftl. equipped bomber before it reaches attack range, and also permit reattack or tracking system. Radar search to attack of a block of bombers. ADC seeks F-I2S as follow·on to F·106A. 350+ mi.

Six Phoenix AIM-54A missiles with Variable· 70,000 to Navy's variant of original TFX multi mission design. F·111B breaks with tradi· over 100 mi range and advanced wing, max 73,000+ tional fleet air defense modes assigning intercept to very·long-range, high· radar/fire control AWG-9, with solid span 70 ft, (depends on speed missiles controlled by "multi·shot" fire-control system able to track state, general purpose digital com· swept 34; Super Weight and attack multiple targets. Aircra,ft speed less important than time-on-sta· puter and planar array radar, with ir length 67. Improve· tion. Possible new variant of F-111 in continental air defense interceptor augmentation. mentl version, using F-lllA fighter-bomber airframe and Phoenix missiles, studied.

High firing-rate cannon. Advanced air- Variable- 35 -40,000 VFAX evolving as advanced fighter-attack configuration but will have better to-air missiles; e.g., follow-ons to geometry close·in fighter capability than current Navy aircraft. FX continues as range Sparrow and Sidewinder. Possible new wing, max of studies inspecting air·to·air through air·to-ground configurations; no de· short-range unguided rocket. Various wingspan 50 cision yet on which to favor. If air superiority will have fallout interceptor air·to·ground weapons. Multi·mission ft, fully ability. Each service faces possibility of accepting counterpart's design, or radar. swept 30;

43 - 45,000 a single aircraft-dubbed FAX-which may evolve for both.

length 55.

USAF air-to-air and air-to-ground wea· Variable 45,000 Seeks to define advanced V/STOL strike·fighter, possible follow-on to F·}04G. pons; e.g., advanced versions of geometry Constitutes part of USAF effort to determine tradeoffs for true vertical take· Falcon, ARM, Walleye, perhaps SRAM. wing off design where fighter must face enemy aircraft not similarly hampered Also possible European-built wea· nominal max by penalty of lift systems. lift engines with high thrust/weight ratios, used pons. Cannon likely. span 45; with lift/cruise vectored·thrust turbofan (or jetl, show promise. Maintenance

length 52. problems of remotely dispersed V /STOLs must be considered.

~Configuration concept only. _AII·weather capability unless noted. fOash speed, with afterburnlng.

SPACE/AERONAUTICS November 1966 59

.-----------,---il-------,-------,-------,------------r------, 70.000

FLEET

/ -­/

200 250 RANGE (NM)

The F-111 8 Navy interceptor in flight test does not rely on speed;' rather it loiters at the fleet's perimeter on combat air patrol station to destroy high-performance aircraft be fore they penetrate to within standoff-missile launch range. Armed with six Phoenix long-range missiles and 1'1 pulse-Doppler radar/infrared fire control system, presently in test and development, it will have the capability to track 18 air craft. Using a general purpose computer, it will select the six most menacing for simultaneous attack with missiles while continuing surveillance. In tests so far, a self-guided missile launched from an A-3 Skywarrior downed a target drone ,aLover_20_mi ....... '" -- ..

cruise at Mach 2 since it would carry some missiles externally on wing store stations, thus increasing drag. And while continental defense intercepts are normally head-on and do not require that the inter­ceptor have the same speed as the attacker, reattack at high speed is necessary if the missile system is good for but one shot at a time. A "multi-shot" sys­tem, such as the Phoenix now being developed for the Navy's F-111 B, might eventually be.used.

F-111 proliferates

Thus a new interceptor configuration of the vari­able-geometry-wing F-111 may be in the offing. The basic F-111A is an Air Force fighter-bomber pow­ered by a pair of 11,500-lb thrust (dry) turbofans equipped with modulated afterburners - the first military application of TFs with reheat - which de­velop a combined 38,OOO-lb specific thrust for both engines with afterburners full on. It is configured for the air-to-ground role primarily, a long-legged strike aircraft able to fly at high subsonic speeds, and dash supersonically, at very low altitudes to penetrate under enemy radar coverage. It will have an air-to­air weapons complement of Sidewinders, and per­haps a 20-mm high-fire-rate rotary cannon of the Vulcan type. But though it will have air-superiority capability, the F-111A is not an interceptor. If it should meet a Mig-21, it's best tactic would be to go down on-the-deck-at high speed and avoid combat.

The Navy's F-111 B is solely an interceptor. Evolved in part from the earlier Missileer long-duration air-

60

craft, the F-111B is configured to cope with a so­phisticated airborne threat: large numbers of high­performance aircraft seeking to penetrate fleet air defenses. Weight requirements of the F-111B, set by airframe size, fuel and missile load, preclude its be­ing an extremely maneuverable fighter. Like the YF-12A (but without its speed), the F-111B relies on its air-to-air missile system, primarily Phoenix AIM-54s, plus a mix of other missiles, possibly including the advanced-Sparrow and Sidewinder. Fire-control for the (AIM-54A) Phoenix uses a planar-array high­power radar with a large broadband, circular an­tenna to achieve very long range. Data from the radar is handled by a general purpose digital com­puter, the combination being able to track 18 targets simultaneously and engage six of the most threaten­ing ones at a time with Phoenix missiles.

The F-111B, which has longer wings with greater area than the F-111A, is intended for loiter duty about 150 mi from its launching carrier; with a load of six Phoenix missiles, it may have a loiter time of perhaps 2-4 hr. Results of the ongoing Super Weight Improvement Program to strip excess weight will determine final loiter time. Final gross weight with all systems aboard is expected to be of -the-order-of 70,000-75,000 lb.

Test firing of a self-guided Phoenix missile (an outgrowth of the AIM-47) was successfully made from an A-3 Skywarrior last May, destroying a target drone at over 20 mi. Testing of operational weapons should start early next year.

LU 35.000 g

§ <

The missile itself, able to achieve Mach-6 flight, is a 15-ft-long, two-stage, solid-fuel design weighing over 900 Ib, with a range variously estimated at about 100 mi. Guidance is both by radar and ir, and the concepts it employs are similar to some evolved for the since-cancelled Eagle missile.

Navy is grooming the F-111B for the combat air patrol defense mission, and this means a tactical radius of perhaps 200 mi for the aircraft. Since a carrier task force is often 400-600 mi from its target, chances of it being directly attacked by aircraft are slim, but the fleet must be able to deal with stand­off weapons such as the series of "anti-shipping missiles" Russia has developed.

True, the Navy's attack role usually requires long­range aircraft and, in the early stages of a war, maneuverable fighters flying escort to battle their way in to air-defended targets. But task force pro­tection is the prime need, and less attention is being paid to developing a pure escort fighter. In fact, the Navy's ongoing effort to create a fighter-attack aircraft (V FAX) would eliminate requirements for escort fighters since the design effort is aimed at an aircraft that will be "better than the best fighter or attack aircraft the Navy has today," with both capa­bilities married in the one aircraft (Spacel Aero­nautics, April 1966, p. 80). A design requirement has been formulated for the roughly 40,000-lb gross weight, variable-geometry-wing VFAX, which may use two afterburning turbofan engines, and have ability to cruise near Mach 2 and dash at Mach 2.5 or better. It will use Navy's arsenal of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, including Sparrow follow-ons.

Phantom follow-on

A contending aircraft for Navy's role of combat air patrol, and perhaps that of fighter escort, is a pos­sible variable-geometry-wing version of the Phan­tom which has undergone wind tunnel testing by McDonnell and which the firm has offered to de­liver should the Navy finally prefer it to the F-111B.

Powered in its basic Navy (the service that developed it) F-4B intercepter-version by a pair of turbojets that develops a combined 34,000-lb static thrust with afterburning and drives it to Mach 2.4 at 48,000 ft, the aircraft has proved in many ways to be a true multiservice vehicle. Over 1500 F-4s have been fabricated; the roughly 45,000-lb (c1ean­loaded), swept-wing design is now serving as a fighter-bomber (F-4C) and reconnaissance aircraft (RF-4C) with Tactical Air Command, and as a recon aircraft (RF-4B) with the Marine Corps. In addition, there is an F-4D Air Force version (leading to the upcoming F-4E) with a pulsed-Doppler radar for im­proved air-to-ground weapon delivery.

The F-4E will feature a CORDS pulsed-Doppler radar for better low altitude air-to-air performance and improved ECM resistance. It will also have slightly higher thrust engines, each developing 17,900-lb static thrust with reheat. Navy is also

- -------- ----

studying a Phantom FV, which features increases in speed and payload as well as ferry range, and would be a contender, with the F-111 B, for a follow-on fleet air defense role.

There's a chance ADC will be provided with F-4 Phantom 2s in an interceptor version, perhaps using a CORDS fire control and Falcon missiles. But ADC avows that the F-4, though an outstanding per­former, is from the same generation of aircraft as the F-106, and wants a true, next-generation design able to do Mach 3 and better, and with greater range. A more likely possibility to many observers is that ADC will be offered a version of the basic F-111A-with the shorter wings and longer nose of Air Force's fighter-bomber, but equipped with the Phoenix missile and fire control system.

FX tradeoffs studied

To further complicate the range of contenders for a follow-on continental defense interceptor, a de­veloped version of the F-104 has been undergoing wind tunnel tests by Lockheed, based on the idea that the basic airframe has continued growth poten­tial. (Fuel, and thus range, limitations would appear a problem except for the NATO role.) Another de­veloped version of the F-104, dubbed the CL-981, is being offered as an interim aircraft for the Air Force's continuing FX (fighter-experimental) re­quirement, which in many ways resembles Navy's VFAX effort.

FX work, while not intended to evolve an air­craft with the primary role of intercrept, may lead finally to a high-Mach aircraft with capability as an interceptor, although this would require a sudden change in planning. FX presently consists of a range of computer studies that look at energy manuver­ability tradeoffs for various possible configurations and is more apt to beget either a next-generation tactical fighter-bomber with air superiority capa­bility, or a close-support fighter. The studies to date have looked at all possible capabilities, from optimization purely for air-to-air operations, through air-to-ground. Precise goals remain unfixed, with the program's thrust aimed roughly at a 45,OOO-lb gross weight aircraft and a design combin­ing excellent air superiority capability with air-to­ground ability. This may well call for a Mach 2.5 to 3 (or even higher) aircraft, but not for what is being thought of as a "pure" interceptor able to stop SST-type bombers.

In any case, when VfAX and FX are finally de­fined, it may be that one service will be asked to forgo its own design and a single aircraft may be configured for both Navy and Air Force. Such an aircraft, dubbed FAX, may be a "little-TFX" fighter­attack design, and would be even less likely to exhibit outstanding interceptor capability.

For the NATO intercept role, as well as possible USAF service, interest continues in the US/FRG (combined u.s. and Federal Republic of Germany)

SPACE/AERONAUTICS November 1966 61

studies begun in 1964. They seek to define an advanced VTOL (or V/STOL) fighter which might become a follow-on for the F-104G Starfighter that serves West Germany today. (The G version of the F-104 interceptor is equipped for all-weather fighter­bomber service and reconnaissance missions.) Al­though plans for the US/FRG craft variously en­visioned upper-limit speeds from Mach 0.85 to Mach 2.5 at altitude, with high-subsonic speed on-the­deck as well, it appears the higher end of the speed range is now being favored. Studies in both na­tions by teams of contractors aim at contract defini­tion in 1967.

Essentially, the US/FRG needs ability to strike at targets throughout East Europe with nuclear wea­pons, suggesting a combat radius of up to 500 mi, plus all-weather intercept capability. Making a VTOL interceptor work depends on outfitting it with a propulsion system for vertical takeoff which imposes minimum penalty on air-to-air combat performance. Most promising, if the aircraft is to reach Mach 2+, appears to be a vectored-thrust cruise engine, probably a turbofan, used with direct­lift engines that have a thrust-to-weight ratio better than 20 to 1 as a goal.

Missiles overrated?

An interesting sidebar comment on the quest for ever more sophisticated and effective missile sys­tems is the current feeling among some pilots that missiles have bought them little operationally.

Take, for example, air-to-air missiles that employ ir heat sensors for target homing, often preferred since it is cheaper and simpler than radar. Infrared performance, though, is degraded in rain or fog and there is a limited aspect angle behind an enemy jet aircraft within which a pilot can fire his heat­seeking missile. If a pilot can get one off early in an air battle the weapons are useful, but once the battle is underway a cannon is preferred by pilots since they can fire it at any angle. Moreover, the average heat-seeking missile cannot cope with a violently maneuvering aircraft. The problem is com­pounded by the relatively high minimum-range of present ir air-to-air missiles, as well as by the diffi­culty of identifying a target before launch even at the roughly 2-3-mi ranges of the ir types. Finally, when the pilot must fire an ir missile at low altitude against the background ir of earth's heat radiation, he may fail to hit a target powered by low-thrust­and therefore limited-heat-emission-engines.

Radar-guided air-to-air missiles have a longer range than ir-guided weapons, especially if semiac­tive homing is used; the aircraft can carry a higher­power target-illuminating radar than the missile can, and only a torrential downpour affects radar guid­ance. However, the launching aircraft must keep the target in its illumination beam in a semiactive system, preventing breakaway right after launch. And it sometimes proves difficult to generate a

62

powerful-enough radar return from small target air­craft to achieve rei iable lock-on for intercept.

Of course, in evaluating air-to-air missiles, it must be remembered that they would be armed with nuclear warheads for defense against an attack on the U. S. An unguided Genie, tipped with a 1.5-kiloton warhead, can miss a target by 1000 ft and still score a kill.

Return of the gun

Realization of the limitations of air-to-air missiles has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in guns-weapons which have demonstrated their usefulness in Vietnam. Compared to missiles, guns are the best weapon for dealing with a wide range of targets though they are not the best weapon for anyone target. An example of a modern high-firing­rate cannon is the Gatling-type 20-mm Vulcan gun which employs six barrels and achieves a firing of 6000 rounds/min.

Part of the gun's appeal stems from the severity of the air-to-air identification problem facing combat pilots today. There is a happy marriage of the can­non's over-one-mile range with the roughly one-mile limit of unaided eyeball identification possible in clear weather. Beyond this distance, and in poor weather, the identification problem is multiplied. Another element in the gun's favor is the fact that dogfights are occurring at all;tHey were allbu~ ruled out at the high speeds of today's jets.

Building guns into aircraft from scratch is highly desirable since hanging them in weapons pods from store stations on the wing or fuselage adds drag which is unacceptable under combat conditions and may introduce yaw or pitch instabilities. By hanging pods symmetrically on both wings, or hanging a pod under the fuselage only, yaw may be overcome; but pitching remains as a source of aim error. Be­sides, the underfuselage store station is a desirable one (e.g., for fuel pods) and planners would rather not give it up to a gun pod. Vividly underscoring the need for guns which do not degrade air-to-air performance is the decision to include a built-in GE 20-mm Gatling cannon with a 6000-round/min firing rate in new production of Air Force F-4E Phantoms, replacing less-accurate pod-mounted additions. The internal gun will also reduce drag and equalize firepower in combat with Migs.

Since any gun system has aiming errors, some of which are operators' errors, made worse if the gun is mounted on an unstable pod-for which there is no correction today-gun designers try to com­pensate with increased firing rate. To increase kill probability once a hit is scored, they seek to pro­vide a larger warhead within weight limitations.

The prospect of enemy aircraft armored to an extent where cannon fire no longer is effective seems unlikely in view of the weight restrictions of high-performance aircraft. Even the new lightweight armor being developed is too bulky and lacks suffi-

Status

Badger Tu-16 Medium Bomber

Operational 1954 Some 3000 produced; about 1500 in service, including recon ver­sions.

Bear Tu-20 long Range Bomber

Operational 1955 About 300 built; 125 in service, some for recon.

SOVIET BOMBERS

Bison Mya-4 Long Range Bomber

Operational 1955 Developed in parallel with Bear; relegated to recon and tanker serv­ice; 200 plus built.

Bounder·be

Supersonic Research Bomber

First versions 1960

Blinder> Supersonic

Medium Bomber

t Operational 1961-62 Over 25 in service (re­con variant exists).

Mach number Max 0.87; cruise, 0.75 Max 0.83; cruise, 0.75 Max 0.85 Max 2.0 Max 1.5-1.8; cruise, 0.95 at altitude

Ceiling (ft) 40,000 45,000 45,000 Over 50,000 Over 60,000

Range, inter- 4?50; equipped for in­nal fuel (mil flight refuel.

8000; equipped for in­flight refuel.

7000, with 10,000-lb bombs.

1700 3000; inflight refuel ex­tends range to strategic distances.

Dimensions Wingspan 110 (ft) Length 120

Weight, 165,000 loaded (lb)

Wingspan 163 Length 154

Over 340,000

Wingspan 170 Length 162

350,000

Wingspan 90 Length 180

280-300,000

Wingspan 85 Length 110

185,000

Propulsion Two turbojets; 20,500-Ib thrust.

Four turboprops; 14,795 eshp.

Four turbojets; 19,180-Ib thrust.

Four turbOjets; probably 28,660-lb thrust; in­board engines with afterburners.

Two turbojets; each 26,500-28,660-lb thrust with afterburning.

Armament Badger-C has Kipper standoff missile of about 450·mi range; Badger B, two Kennel shorter­range antishipping mis­siles. Defensive arma­ment: 23·mm cannon in nose, and in dorsal, ventral and tail turrets. Bomb load: to 20,000 lb.

Latest Bear-B has Kan­garoo standoff missile of up to 650-mi range, turbojet-powered. De­fensive armament: 23-mm cannon in nose, dorsal and ventral tur­rets, tail barbette. Bomb load: over 25,000 lb.

Bison-B has Kangaroo standoff missile (see left). Defensive arma­ment: 23-mm cannon in dorsal, ventral and tail turrets. Bomb load: up to 40,000 lb.

One version fitted with up to 15 short-range standoff missiles. De­fensive armament: 23-mm cannon, one fixed, pair in tail. large wea­pons bay.

Medium-range Kitchen standoff missile of ad­vanced design, possibly rocket-propelled, and semisubmerged in fuse· lage. large weapons bay (40 ft),

.Estimated performance. b[stlmated dimensions. cVarious configurations, some with all engines under wing,

cient strength to contribute to airframe structures. It seems likely that cannon rounds of the order of

20 mm, presently a favored caliber, will remain popular for some time to come. Using to day's tech­nology, 20 mm is the smallest caliber that can be made with a high explosive charge. In addition, it appears the multiple-barrel system-typified by the Vulcan Gatling-gun-will be retained as well since heat dissipation is the limiting factor in firing rate today. Some form of multiple barrel system may even be used for the next 5-10 yr.

For higher flight speeds-Mach 3 and beyond­than those of today's operational jets, new guns with higher muzzle velocities, and projectiles with decreased aerodynamic drag, will be required to achieve shortened flight-time for the round.

All operational air-to-air missiles today, both ir and radar types, suffer from a minimum-range problem, in a sense because of identification limits. For c1ose-

in combat a pilot must get near enough to "eyeball" his potential target, and once he does this he's often less than a mile away and often under the mini­mum-range capability of his missiles-of the order of 3000 ft for some. Building in lower minimum­range capability requires that the missiles must be more maneuverable if they are to score hits in close, tight-turning combat. Seeking to improve identifi­cation ability instead is considered more fruitful because you can tackle your target further out and thus avoid a dogfight.

Oddly enough, the identification problem mayac­tually get simpler when the threat is represented by a Mach 2.7 bomber. By the time SSTs of all nations operate commercially, it's expected an effective global air-traffic-control system, including a thor­ough-going identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) system, will be in use. In a war which has escalated for a period of days, any SST which enters the conflict

SPACE/AERONAUTICS November 1966 63

area unannounced may invite the easy solution of taking him out of the sky, though geopolitical re­straints could prevent such a simplistic approach in less than all-out war.

Aircraft identification systems today are in the main not unlike the World War II (IFF) systems for in­terrogating airborne transponders carried by friendly aircraft from a ground or airborne system, using pulse-coded signals for query and return. A cor­rectly coded reply is displayed as positive identifica­tion. The airborne transponder signal is linked to air traffic control systems at ground control centers. Intense effort is underway to develop foolproof IFF systems, using new security codes and modes, for tight link-up with DOD and FAA air-tr<iffic-control systems. Other techniques being explored .by the military include use of stabilized telescopes to ex-

SOVIET INTERCEPTORS

Russian prowess in developing interceptors has given their designs headline notoriety. Yet the design we read most about - the Mig 21 (NATO-coded Fishbed) - is not, as newspapers claim so often, the Soviets' best nor latest. The Soviets willingly supply Mig-27 s to their allies and reserve, for the most part, higher-performance interceptors to defend their homeland.

The l\1ig-27, first seen in prototype form during 7956, is a short-range aircraft with a combat radius of only 370 mi. It is a delta-wing, 78,500-lb aircraft powered by a turbojet with 72,500-lb thrust on afterburning, and carries a

/'1/62/ FlSHB£D -r::3 LP "

pair of unsophisticated Atoll ir-homing, air-to-air missiles, plus one, or a pair of, 30-mm cannon. The "C" model can reach a maximum Mach 2 clean, and l\1ach 7.5 armed and with fuel tanks, and climbs at 30,000 fpm.

An all-weather variant, the l\1ig-21 Fishbed-D, using the same engine, has a somewhat lower combat radius, 350 mi, and a lower climb rate, 25,000 fpm. But the cleaned-up canopy and air intake variation (which houses a double-shock intake-body containing the radar), contribute to a maximum speed of l\1ach 2.3 clean, and

F/SHPOT

'{j 1ffErl

l\1ach 2 with Atoll ir-homing missiles only. A heavier contemporary of the l\1ig-21 is the

all-weather Fishpot-B, armed with a quartet of Alkali radar-guided missiles and believed to have considerably greater combat radius. Powered

'-----_." .. " .. " ... " ... , .. , .. " .... 64

tend visual range, along with specialized tv camera systems that freeze an unknown aircraft's image on a head-up display.

It seems, though, that we ought to find an answer in the laser, often heralded for its potential con­tribution to precision target delineation. But a laser identification system would have severe limitations, the most damning of which is' weather. A laser target profiler might use an optical scanning technique to form a precisely limned outlil"!e of the target by dis­secting it optically with a finely focused, spatially­coherent laser beam. A pattern recognition system that stores a catalog of aIrcraft images for rapid automatic comparison could complete the system. But a laser would afford only supplementary use since fog, rain, snow and hail would knock it out. Even such air changes as clear air turbulence (CAT)

by a single turbojet of 22,050-lb thrust with afterbwner on, Fishpot can do to Mach 7.8+ and climb to 40,000 ft of its 55,000-ft-plus ceiling in under 5 min.

A higher-performance, heavier delta-wing

fUPPERfN'G'id ~ C j I I! I

i,

follow~on.to_the_Mig:,21,_NATO-codedJ:ljpper_"_·~==-

and unofficially dubbed the Mig-23, is designed i for the all-weather role. Fielded in 1967, it carries a high-power, air-to-air radar. A pair of turbojets, developing about 25,000-lb combined thrust on afterburning, gives Flipper a maximum speed of slightly over Mach 2.4 and a ceiling of 60,000 ft. A pair of Awl ir-guided missiles makes up primary armament. The 600-mi-range inter­ceptor is the hottest short-range Soviet design in service, able to climb to 55,000 ft in under 5 min.

The Fiddler is a 7960 vintage Russian inter­cf!ptor with a considerably longer combat radius - approaching 7000 mi on internal fuel. Similar in appearance to the Blinder, it has a sophis­ticated aerodynamic design, with starkly-swept wing, and is configured for the all-weather

:(2 F"JDDLER

<JEt' S5\ I intercept (and attack) roles. A pair of turbojets develops about 24,000 Ib of combined thrust with reheat, for a maximum speed of Mach 1.7. It can climb to 40,000 of its 60,000-ft ceiling in about 5 min. A long-range search radar (said to be able to distinguish targets from ground clutter), plus long-range navigation aids, permits operation well beyond the range of ground-based radar control. Armament includes Ash radar­homing and other air-to-air missiles.

would limit reliability. While weather problems are abrogated at 100,000 ft, it's assumed future bombers will prefer penetration at very low altitudes.

There is a lot of effort to close up this attack cor­ridor-tightly and for good. Though the YF-12A can operate without ground control, it will benefit by the development and deployment of an Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS). An exten­sion of today's ground-operated detection, tracking and interceptor vectoring system, but more surviv­able in caSe of attack, AWACS would overcome the line-of-sight restrictions of ground-based systems.

Essentially a huge computer-operated command and control center fed by communications links and a long-range radar, the entire AWACS system would be carried in a loitering aircraft. The radar, a multi­function phased-array type now in research, possess­ing very long range, superclutter rejection and high' power to insure detection of small targets, would "Iook-down" with ability to reject ground clutter by use of coherent pulsed-Doppler techniques.

Lumbering interceptor studied

There are military analysts who question the entire idea of "dashing out" to meet enemy bombers as a means of continental defense. They form the "other-ways committee," and one of their concepts involves being out there all the time-with remote­

ly-based interceptors able to tackle bombers soon after their "Iaunch phase." The idea has taken a new turn and is loosely linked with Air Force's desire to get the most out of its forthcoming C-SA transport. Under consideration for a variety of tasks-from bomber to command post-in addition to logistics, the C-SA might serve as an orbiting missile-plat­form, armed with long-range missiles and, much less likely, supplemented by small manned interceptors.

To use the giant C-SA would entail outfitting the aircraft with high-power, long-range search radar and communications, plus opting for a long-range fire control and air-to-air missile system. Critics of the idea note that the expense of maintaining loiter­ing C-SA launch platforms would be inordinate, and if the idea of missiles only is pursued, the range of presently evolving airborne missiles would have to be extended. And its huge radar cross-section would make it an easy target at it loiters at altitude.

Improbable as it first appears, thought is also being given to use of dirigibles in the loitering interceptor role. In many ways very attractive, such an airship can carry a heavy payload with greater economy then aircraft and could remain on-station for ex­tremely long periods with extensive communications and command gear, armed with missiles and even able to deploy fighter aircraft. Apart from the limi­tations imposed by weather, airships are not very survivable in nuclear war, since only 0.5 psi of over­pressure will destroy one, while a"ircraft are vulner­able at 4 psi. For the near term, then, stopping bombers remains a task for fixed-wing aircraft.

The YF-12A may be considered as sufficient ad­vanced effort for the Mach 3 to Mach 3.5 range. But if the military should decide to create a follow-on " pure" interceptor, it might be wise to skip the Mach 3.1 to Mach 3.5 range and attempt to de­velop an aircraft in the Mach 4 to 5 range, perhaps with Mach 4.5, the limit of hydrocarbon fuels, as a nominal cruise speed. Speed constraints in the Mach 3 regime seem to indicate it is an awkward one to concentrate on. Once you reach Mach 3.2, you must requalify so many subsystems on an air­craft (such as cables) due to temperature, that it's felt the Mach. 4.5 limit would be no more difficult to achieve.

Another argument for aiming at high Mach num­bers is the inability of most U. S. fighter planes to carry out a mission calling for extensive air ma­neuverability at their "stated" speed. For example, Century-series aircraft designed to attain Mach 1+ speeds have only subsonic capability for some mis­sions when full loads are required.

Looking ahead, military planners see the distinct possibility of Russia developing a hypersonic bomber in the 1980s, and suggest we might well begin work on a hypersonic manned interceptor in view of the awful lead time required to develop an advanced aircraft. There is little doubt that a hypersonic trans­port able to cruise at Mach 12 would be credible before 25 yr, and military applications can doubt­less precede commercial ones.

Attack from 360 deg

Currently the Soviets are carrying out research on air breathing propulsion systems for the Mach 4.5 to Mach 7 regime and higher, using supersonic­combustion ramjet technology. The prospect of hypersonic speeds in a next-generation bomber may be attractive to their planners, even as a hypersonic­AMSA is to many of our military engineers. A vehi­cle flying at Mach 12 imparts enough kinetic energy to a standoff missile so that it either need not have a rocket motor or, alternately, may gain in range for a given motor size.

A hypersonic bomber with a cruising speed of Mach 12 would bring most of the globe within its operational purview in 11/2 hr. Unlike an ICBM, which is directed along predictable "threat tubes" or "ICBM alleys", it could select any attack path once airborne, and could be recalled at will. Cruis­ing at 140,000 ft, equipped with nuclear standoff weapons, it could attack at standoff ranges of a least 650 mi from any heading in 360 deg. How would it be countered?

A long-range surface-to-air missile - one might think of a hypersonic super-Bomarc-would require one-shot use and throwaway of an inordinately expensive weapon. If we defend only against the bomber's standoff missiles, targeting requirements multiply once several have been launched. More­over, in a balanced, in-depth defense, short-range

SPACE/AERONAUTICS November 1966 65

antimissile SAMs form theo inside layer only. It is interesting to consider what might be achieved

if a manned hypersonic interceptor design were to be attempted. Such an interceptor might cover the speed range of zero to Mach 15, and be stressed for maneuvers at low Mach numbers to augment the low-altitude capability of its missiles. Mission trade­off studies are necessary before the most desirable cruise speed can be determined. If we assume that it is Mach 12, then the interceptor might use a con­ventional augmented turbdjet for propulsion from zero through Mach 3 at altitudes of up to 70,000 ft, a subsonic-combustion ramjet for the Mach 3 to Mach 6 regime at altitudes of 80,000 to perhaps 100,000 ft, and, for Mach 6 to Mach 12 and beyond, a supersonic-combustion ramjet for altitudes of 110,000 to 150,000 ft. All engines would burn hydro­gen fuel. (It is also possible to design for Mach 18 cruise-but few intercept missions are apt to permit reaching that speed before the engine would require shutoff in preparation for deceleration.)

Convertible scramjet sought

Alternately, the turbojet might be replaced by a turboramjet, essentially a convertible turbojet con­figured to permit Mach speeds up to 6 by oper­ating it as a ramjet for the Mach 3 to 6 range, using the same inlet, combustor and nozzle, perhaps with the turbine stopped or rotating.

More likely, perhaps, the supersonic-burning ram­jet would be a convertible (dual-mode) design able to operate as a subsonic-combustion ramjet in the Mach 3 to 6 range with efficiency. It's wrong, how­ever, to minimize the design problems engineers face in achieving operational supersonic-combus­tion ramjets and, in particular, a convertible ramjet. The latter requires that a single fixed inlet design and a single fixed nozzle design be developed to keep complexity down.

Air Force Systems Command is doing extensive research on hypersonic fJlght propulsion techniques, with particular attention to supersonic combustion ramjets. This is not to be construed as an active interest in an interceptor aircraft. Rather AFSC is anxious to explore hypersonic flight technology and is extending ongoing lab efforts to the construction of a scramjet test vehicle with a one-foot capture area for a first flight in about one year. The work aims at mating the inlet, combustor and nozzle de­signs explored both by Air Force and NASA.

A hypersonic aircraft, which in testbed form might fly in the mid-to-Iate 1970s, would most probably use liquid hydrogen as fuel, militating for at least a 200,OOO-lb-plus gross weight aircraft over 100 ft in length. There is intense effort to develop a more manageable fuel with higher density to permit re­ducing storage tank volume and thus aircraft size, and to avoid the temperature problems of raising a -423 C fuel to combustion temperature in a super­sonic combustor. Ideally a fuel as easy to handle as

66

JP-4 is sought, but hydrocarbons, because of low flame speed, kinetic energy and storage temperature limitations, are presently unattractive.

The aircraft configuration, using a nickel-alloy skin and a steel airframe, might be conceived as a long slender body using a double-delta wing prob­ably cooled by radiation, though the liquid hydro­gen fuel might be used to cool leading-edge sur­faces and as a heat sink for various subsystems. Alternately, a lifting-body configuration, and even variable-geometry wing designs are practical.

Hot skin in thin air However, very long acceleration and deceleration times are needed at hypersonic speeds, and a clean aerodynamic configuration compounds the decele-ration problem. A necessary technique to slow the .aircraft would seem to be something like a fighter's speed-brake board, coated with an ablating material, or other energy management system. Forward flight at Mach 10-12 and an operational cruise altitude of 120,000-150,000 ft, where the air is thin but speed gives lift, wifJ result in aircraft skin temperatures of 1800-2400 F and may demand a tv system for vision unless visor materials are improved, with droop-nose for landing and perhaps use during subsonic flight. At these speeds, radome materials may prove to be a problem, too. The YF-12A uses a fiberglass nose"'raaotne to protect its 39~n. ra(far msn;nigH=-="--"-'-­

temperature polycrystafJine glass materials (such as Pyroceram) seem attractive for higher-speed aircraft.

For primary armament, very-long-range, highly­maneuverable air-to-air-missiles would be provided and, as for the YF-12A, would permit intercepts with­out maneuvering the aircraft. Armament might in­clude a turret-mounted VJlcan-type cannon (or a short-range missife system) for close-in, low-alti­tude (and speed) combat. At hypersonic speeds the demands on missife-target identification will multi­ply, perhaps in the end even make such a design impractical. We should remember, though, that no new manned, supersonic interceptor is being de­veloped for the continental defense role, much less a Mach 12 design. For while there is continuing test and evaluation effort of three YF-12A interceptors, with ongoing development of the aircraft's missile and fire control system right now, the manned inter­ceptor ranks below an anti-ICBM system, such as Nike-X, and a national fallout shelter program on OSD's fist of possible additions to strategic defenses.

In the event a Soviet follow-on bomber is devel­oped, planners feeJ'the Air Defense Command will get the F-12B. If the high-speed interceptor does reemerge as a necessity in the 1970s to counter high­Mach bombers, it will in a sense be a throwback from the past, the same past which labored to de­velop the air-to-air missife as a replacement for the aerial cannon. Today, the gun is required armament on Mach 2.4 aircraft. As for the manned interceptor, the death notices may have been premature. m

SPJlCE/JIBBONJIUTICS U. S. AEROSPACE PROGRAM © 1970 Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. Major Projects and Studies -January 1,1970

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974-79 1980-90

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 19]4"-79 1980-90

i962

HV'H 1() • ': I' 1, \..1 ! ,l

NAA 1967

SUBSCALE PROTOTYPE AIRPLANES

C()[\j\j f\ I R 1962

MACH 12

MCDONNELL .. 1967

MACH I?

.\ . . I··

.• 1 ..

1

• I

REPUBLIC 1965

MACH 12

LOCKHEED 1968

• ".,. I, '

';: :

I I I

I > "

LTV 1968

tv'IACH 8

RESEARCH PLATFORM

NAA 1971

MACH 3.5 to 6 +

< i" I" ' i I" I I '

I I

I

I

I> I

LEW I S 1968

"I. CAPABILITY TO TEST MANY ENGI~JES AND :RESEARCH PODS. '

2. LIMITED INTEGRAIlONOFJHE RESEARCH9NGINES.>WJTH I

THE A I RFRAME. ' >" ' >" ". ~. 1

06

I

3. TOTAL PROGHAM COST AND MANPOWER IS LI KELY TO : - !

LIMIT THE NUi\lBER OF ENGINES AND PODS.

I I '

UNi\\ANNED VEH I CLES:

·'::?,?-::::-::::::;:;:;it '<>'....).~ -....y" -<

"'-~..,- ....

. .

J:,;;CH 6 to 10

ROCKET BOOSTER

LTV f968

MACH'g' ,

!

i

, ., i 1

. I

I

1

·1 I· FRC

1971

MACH 8 FY 12 BOOS1ED.",

l. LITTLE WEI CHT OR COST ADVANTAGE OVER MANNED VEHICLES. I

I, I' I

,-I

I I

. I

CONFIGURATION BUILDUW i I

'BASIC CONFIGURATION RESE~RCH SCRAM ADDED {, "

"., • ":1 '

'I: '

i

I

WINGED CONFIGURATION ; , \

I . -". -~., ...... ~ .' ~.""

I

! I' !:

TECHKOLOGY DEMONSTRATqRS

FHC

r

MCDONNELL (HYFAC)

MACH 6

MACH 12

~, D[S \ C\ D TO DEt"iO:,JSTRATE CR !TICAL TECHNOLdGY AREAS. I

I

I I '

i

CONFiGURATION BUILD-UP

'BAS1C CONFIGURATION

i

WINGED CONFIGURATION i

. WING LOAD ING AND LID : REPRESENTATIVE OF

HST

I I

LIFTING BODY WITH RESEARCH ENGINE I I

I

j 1 •

°E:Oll1iLIC h I "L .'

IV\ = 10+

., .,1

i

SUBSCALE PROTOTYPE HESEf\RCi['1 AIRPLANES I

N\C DC'i[\j;\JEI_L M 0= 12

! ! '

• i

, I 1 '

I

I I

I"

'. , .'

NORTH AMER I CAN M ;: to

~~~-;:;.----- ,

~-r()i&T

r

i 1

." te'-

'" "

REPUBLIC M· 10+

'. " " .. \ .,

, ' '.". ", ..

SUBSCALE PROTOTYPE ~ESEARCH AIRPLANES

• >;" "

.. MCDONNELL . ,

I

M • 1'2

.. ,,~

.~ . ., '.' '

·1 •

I ..

NORTH AMER I CA M • 10

•

88 Fl

.. . ., ~ ~ ,,.--- "~"'-""'~""''''''-.,I''- .. ;. .,.,'> ... '---... " .... -•.• ~ ... " .• -"

c

:. ! •

-. . .

. . ;

SUPERSONIC/HYPERSONIC FLOW ANALYSIS FOR I

i

ARBITRARY CONFIGURATIONS

, .

'. -.

\".

. ,~ ... . . . " o·

.' INVISCID SURFACE PROPERTIES

" "; " • ' .• _;' r .'::

L ,_ .. ,

- I

• COlt, P l £.T E FLO W ~ I E L D : .",

•

I I I

I . .. ,

I

:":"':<:."<'C"~" cl ...... : ".".-" "" .. " ....... , ...... " ":--"'" "".:........:' .... " ........... , ....... I i

.- i , "" , I " .. .. I

TYPICAL HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEM INSTALLATION

.. , -,". '. ,

PROBLEM AREAS .. I ../ I . ..

• JE!T EFFECTS ON AIRCRAFTAERO:-i •

D'11NAM/CS AT TRANSONiC SPEEDS I '.

A~D ABOVE·" .... I . . .

• SqRAMJET NOZZLE PERFOl?MANCE AT; H,(PER50NIC5PfEDS

I

I I

j" •

,O/U V/I/I? 1'/62.

MATERIAL

TOLERANCE ON DIMENSIONS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE

ANGULAR :!:

SURFACE FINISH IN' MICROINCHES,RMS

SCALE

X.X (1 OtCiMAL Puct) :!:.1 X.XX (2 O[CIMAL PLACES) :t .02 X.XXX (3 OtCIMAL PLACES) :!: .005

EST. FIN. WEIGHT

UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE

DR. STRESS

DES. APPD.

CHK. APPD.

~I •... I • . :

I

NATIONAL i AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTR TION I LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER I

LANGLEY SlATION HAMPTON. VIR INIA

PROJECT

TITLE

DRAWING

TITLE

PROJECT

. NO.

JOB ORDER NO

!

BLDG. NO •

SHEET NO.

LA-DRAWING NO.

'.,

! i

,

I.

I .j

1 1

1

1

- 1

1

1

1

f 1

'1 '1

1

1

1

1

:.1 ,1:.

1

1

1

,I

\ \ \

.,~

!"I '

/l/\ ~'j)/) - - I

- "',

. . .-• - .-------.~"_: ~ __ .___r_-- -- --....... -.-!... __ . ....:...; .• __ --:.--;. ___ ..:. _______ ~_ .. _ __=

'.'

1. I! \ .

, ----- ----\.r..\

J\./ ;1 \ //\ li \... l

t\\ \ I ~: '. \ I

r·~\. Ii; \\ \\ "' . \ I

\ \1\ \\.; \ "f ".,_ \. l \ , '. \/ '. I ...... \ '\ i ',-> •• ~

j '\ \ !

\ I

·1 \ . /-~ /~\:-.\\ \ / \y \

I '\ \

r/ \ \ \

~ \ \ \ . ; '\ . \ ..,

I '. '\

I ' .. ', \\ \ :;', \

\ \\ --- "" ~\ \\ \ -1 ___ ,--

- - .~~. " ; ~ I I . '- -~--~-' ~\~~\,~ \\:. '\ ' . \

. \

" -'<.

\\ \ \ \,

.. \\ ~~ \.

\

\

\ \ \

-, ~"$ ' .... '~ ".

:' •• l~' ", ' ',':

-,'., ~'-,

" , ' .. ,' , ,

.... '.

,; '.

" ' . ~ ~".' . . ', ..

. . '.

:' .

", ';' .

", .

~' \. . .

'". ,

; :

~. "

",';.

.'

".' .