The Lockheed YF-12A; Ultimate Interceptor

[@connclark2154]

The YF-12A did have a few problems. Most notably it takes over 20 minutes to start the engines. This does present problems for an interceptor.

[@koc988]

imagine doing defensive counter air with it though

[@king_br0k]

Also needs lots of tanking

[@buggerlugz6753]

Need a can of that quick start spray....

[@bigblue6917]

I knew of this aircraft but not much on the detail. So thanks for that.

[@anthroderick5383]

Same here! I read something about it more than 30 years ago, but now this is like something completely new!

[@Jester-Riddle]

Same here ...

[@bigblue6917]

@@anthroderick5383 That would have been the time when I read about it as well.

[@orneryokinawan4529]

Seeing how huge they are in person is indescribable. Let alone the fact it can go mach three.

[@donjones4719]

One can get quite close to the SR-71 at the Smithsonian annex. The complexity of curves upon curves is so beautiful - and impressive, given the engineering technology of the time.

[@trespire]

@@donjones4719 The engineers at Lockheed were at one stage, litrally pulling their hair out with fustration. Working with titanium alloys is very difficult, the material refuses to bend, resists milling and turning, almost impossible to drill or punch a hole. Horrible to work with.

[@donjones4719]

@@trespire Still horrible, with 5+ decades of technology advancement. The F9 grid fins are so expensive a few sets have to be shared among the boosters. The raw material cost is high, but I have to believe the cost of working it is still high.

[@Ushio01]

When I saw the SR-71 in the UK I was surprised how small it was but then it was right next to a B-52.

[@borntoclimb7116]

True

[@johndavey72]

Hi Ed. Another gem. I have the book and the technology required to achieve production was jaw dropping .....and so was the cost ! As much you have to admire Kelly Johnson , you do wonder if the money could have been more wisely used. I 've seen the SR71 at Duxford and it is breath taking . I was also fortunate to chat with a retired pilot ! Thanks Ed.

[@MrGeoffHilton]

Great channel, I love your ability to find obscure but ultimately interesting topics that most people have never heard of.

[@iatsd]

There's a cockpit assembly of a SR 71 on display in a museum in Seattle. The aircraft is huge, but the cockpits are absolutely tiny. There's simply no room in them. Sitting in that and the cockpit for a Spitfire, the Spitfire felt roomy by comparison. Whomever was flying those things would have to be tiny - well under 6 feet.

[@h.cedric8157]

Note that Blackbird crew would have to wear pressure suits similar to those used on the Space Shuttle.

[@SeannoG1]

I recently read a book about Skunkworks, there were tentative plans to have interceptor and bomber versions of the Blackbird.

[@mikepette4422]

well this IS the interceptor so thats 1 down not sure a bomber was what they wanted when the B-70 was so cheap and easy to make

[@SeannoG1]

@@mikepette4422 the air force ( i think Curtis LeMay) insisted on the B-70 instead of the Blackbird Bomber

[@stejer211]

If only someone made a video about the interceptor...

[@shaunhouse8469]

@@SeannoG1 but the B70 never got beyond the XB70 & into service either. I imagine had a strategic bomber version of the Archangels gone further it would have been the XB-71, which also reflects a competition with the XB70, then the B-71 in service.

[@shaunhouse8469]

The role a long range mach 3 bomber would have filled was superseded by ICBMs by the mid 60s

[@gwaters8067]

Absolute gem a channel Ed 👍

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The only variant of the A-12 that never got off the drawing board was the bomber.

[@johnross6314]

YF-12 is real. They are sitting in the National Air Force Museum today. The A-12, over a dozen were made and used by CIA for years.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@johnross6314 yes, but the bomber version remained unrealised.

[@Jester-Riddle]

Thanks for that ... I was definitely lacking in information about this aircraft, although basically aware of it. I remain enthralled by the SR71 ... which stunned me the first time I saw a picture of it. Suddenly we were in aerospace Science Fiction by the appearance and performance.

[@trespire]

For the same reason, Oxcart were never fitted with guns.

[@robbabcock_]

Fascinating! Even today there's nothing that compares to it.

[@pastorrich7436]

...and the Pratt & Whitney F119, found on the F-22 Raptor, delivers 35,000 lbs (each) of thrust today. Jaw-dropping performance in the line of the J58, yet a completely different engine for a different mission. Then again, the MIM-104 and Standard Missile fill another facet of air defence that was fiction in the day of the YF-12A. Yes, another gem, Ed!

[@stansbornak8116]

My, this channel is growing quickly!

[@skidplate4150]

To see the B-70 and the SR-71 in the same hangar awesome

[@benwelch4076]

One of the absolute most bad ass planes ever built. Super cool video, thanks.

[@matttaylor2009]

Excellent production. Love the channel

[@XLA-zg1nn]

brilliant vid lots of footage i didnt know existed! great work

[@MisterOcclusion]

Didn’t it take a substantial amount of time to prep an SR-71 for flight? Just how effective would these have been as an interceptor given that, I wonder. Or the costs of keeping them warm and on standby 24/7 until they had to rotate for maintenance.

[@gabrielbennett5162]

My grandfather, Victor Horton, was one of the men who flew the YF-12A after the prototypes were transferred to NASA in 1969. 60-6935, which now resides at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH was his plane. You can see him about 24 minutes in on this video, being wired for sound: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGKpfXiYdsefarM He usually flew as a team with Fitz Fulton, but also made flights with Don Mallick, Tom McMurtry, William Dana (the X-15 pilot) and others. I have many stories about his adventures with the Blackbirds. Having flown both, Grandpa actually liked the YF-12 better than the SR-71 and said it was the better plane, being more ruggedly built and slightly faster than its more famous sibling.

[@johnnyparatrooper1326]

I remember watching a fantastic documentary about the construction of this aircraft. One of the engineers said they had to design, and build, the entire tooling and factory from the ground up. As well as several failed titanium alloys being used. It took a LONG time to get the recipe right on this bird. It’s amazing to think that THIS is the best… come on. There’s no way they hit a home run. I’m sure they built some MUCH better stuff right after. The interview with the engine engineer is hilarious. The damn engine grows two inches wider and 6 inches longer when hot! That’s wild!!!

[@dystopianlucidity4448]

Got to see one of these beauties at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton Ohio back in March! Thanks for an awesome video! Cheers.

[@leighrate]

It would have made a phenomenal ABM interceptor platform.

[@RedXlV]

I've seen artwork suggesting that the F-12B would've better optimized the internal layout so that there would no longer be a need to use the 4th weapon bay for avionics. But instead of a 4th AIM-47 Falcon, they intended to use that bay for an M61 Vulcan. Yes, they were going to put a gun in the Mach 3.5 interceptor, just in case it needed to dogfight.

[@petedraper5185]

Back in the late 60's - early 70's, my mate had a Revell 1/72 plastic kit of the YF-12A, together with it's missiles. I was really rather envious of him, but for some reason never got around to purchasing one myself.

[@kwongsenglee9524]

I bought mine in the 70s too. Still in the storeroom in mint condition and unfixed.

[@scottturcotte1860]

Imagine something like this with modern day electronic technology lobbing the latest hypersonic missiles.... lol

[@Mugdorna]

Ive visited the Udvar-Hazy museum a few times. The SR-71 still looks like its from the future

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, Ed.

[@ryanmurphy4834]

Awesome video you should consider a video on xf-85 and the uss akron and uss macon

[@mateostaplez7497]

Great commentary - included much information that I didn't know about and I'm an old USAF aerophile...

[@ronjon7942]

And yeah, Ed, I’d watch your work on the F-108…multiple times! It would be something to see what you’d come up with in the way of pictures, documentation , manuals, etc. Like the Blackbird, my eyes can’t see enough ofmthe Rapier. And, btw, the Arrow and TSR2.

[@SoloRenegade]

my Favorite A-12/SR-71 variant, yet most ignore it.

[@anthroderick5383]

Amazing video, thank you!

[@rickb1973]

Seems strange that an aircraft has a radar that is effective out to over 200 miles....But can detect a bomber bomber-sized targets out to 100 miles.... Then what the hell was it detecting out at 200 miles that's bigger than a bomber? ....A blimp?......Earth? Published historical statistics can be weird, sometimes...a pain in the ass for researchers. You've got my sympathies and respect, Ed. I've been loving your stuff.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

I think it was "...think there is something out there..." at 200 to 300 miles. With this sort of radar in its infancy, bet it depended mainly on how good the operator was.

[@rickb1973]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Its pretty amazing thinking about the velocities and vectors....I mean, you screw up an approach or have a weapon release issue...Well, you've got about a 500 mile turn radius!

[@Activated_Complex]

A bomber formation, possibly? Kind of like a flock of birds or a school of fish. Not that a close formation of bombers was very likely in a Cold War setting. But in testing, I suppose it could’ve picked up a refueling B-52, or a string of them being shuffled cross-country for a deployment overseas.

[@h.cedric8157]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters true, as filtering and signal clutter processing is solely reliant on the skill of the WSO. only when Solid State microprocessors were invented, did signal processing allow multiple tracking and detection at greater ranges.

[@jamesharrison6201]

Saw this plane at the airshow at McConnell AFB Wichita in 67-68. Couldn't get closer than 30-50ft but it was there along with the T-BIRDS in their Super Sabers.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Many thanks Mr. Nash. Another "Blue Ribbon" Vid. Be safe🦊

[@borntoclimb7116]

Very interesting, those planes are so beautiful

[@killingfields1424]

It took one week to prepare per flight. I still prefer the Mig-31 though slightly slower but still a mach 3, where you just hop in, seat belt lock then start the engine, and fly.

[@docnele]

Mig-25 actually had better raw performance then Mig-31 (except the range) . If throttle is unmanaged, it will accelerate itself up to thermal destruction of the airfame and was run over M3 in testings and over Sinai. It is often missed that its engines, unlike regular turbojet/ turbofan, get a lot of high altitude thrust due to the ram effect. It has low static compression, but can swallow a lot of ram pressure. Kinda "it works well enough until it is fast and high enough to work quite well". SR-71 has a much more expensive solution with dual-cycle engine, turbojet and ramjet, and MiG-31 has its propulsion pinned at the limit of cca. M 2.83.

[@karlheinzkoter6596]

Hallochen Das waren noch Zeiten. Sie war schon ein Spitzen Produkt in der Militär Luftfahrt.!!!!

[@Justanotherconsumer]

My understanding was that the YF-12 was simply a cover story for the reconnaissance versions. Probably provided a decent disincentive for the development of the T-4 (“Su-100”). Would love to see a video on that plane, the (failed) Soviet answer to the XB-70.

[@hoghogwild]

USAF ordered 96 F-12B aircraft, but McNamara intervened and blocked the order.

[@timothybrummer8476]

ERROR at 5:00. The A-12 only had the "Q" camera bay behind the pilot. In the YF-12, the RIO was seated in that bay area. The YF-12 missiles were actually placed in the chine area on sides of the fuselage. On the A-12 that area was filled with "radar traps", triangles of titanium filled with radar absorbing material. YF-12 did not need radar traps, so the missiles bays replaced them.

[@josephsechler2335]

Years ago, I heard from a former DOD accountant 250 YF-12s had been built and in service, with the cost in part hidden as C-5 Galaxy program and other program cost overruns. Being skeptical, I asked a former NORAD SAGE air defense complex commander I knew if he knew anything about that. This was years after both men had retired. He said it was true, with pilots of the YF-12 typically reporting to others they were B-57 Canberra pilots--which they flew when not deployed to the few bases the YF-12 flew out of. Interesting if true.

[@johndavey72]

Hi . I live over the pond and an absolutely fan of all things Tex Johnson and "skunkworks" . However , the idea that 250 of these hideously expensive virtual spacecraft were built is fantasy world . For no other reason than finding and training pilots to fly these magnificent aircraft. Over here we call this "village gossip" .

[@josephsechler2335]

Yes, could easily be, especially after all these years later have not heard anything else on it.

[@adamrmc100]

This would certainly be true since Operation Sky Shield I, 1960 and Op Sky Shield II,1961 showed that RAF Vulcan bombers were consistently able to penetrate NORAD defences to make successful nuclear strikes. All references to the successful strikes and to the Vulcans were removed and classified. US political leaders would certainly be aware of these grave vulnerabilities and would certainly be willing to authorize the spending and mask it's source. As for the titanium, sourcing it was not a problem for the RCAF/Avro as they intended to build (not including potential exports) 700 CF-105 Arrow interceptors, which were both large and titanium like the YF-12. Did you get any indication of where the F-12s may have been operated from aside from Area 51? Alaska perhaps? I heard the USAF had a secret base in Northern Canada... perhaps there? I heard from a RCAF IFR controller that he once saw on his scope an an SR-71 (possibly F-12 since flying over Canada) registering Mach 5 and 125,000'. Can you speak to any of these things? I would be interested to hear if there was anything else those two individuals said that you haven't mentioned above.

[@josephsechler2335]

Nothing on locations other than they were only at a few isolated (and presumably hangared) locations in the US/Canada. My impression was at least one base was a not publicly known base in northern Canada.

[@Kickback-dm7zt]

I have heard it said the recon version of the Mig-25 Foxbat could fly HIGHER and FASTER than the SR-71 but couldn't maintain its max speed or max altitude for as long as the blackbird could.

[@Kickback-dm7zt]

@dimapez that's also very true. 👍

[@ronjon7942]

Yes, please o please, do one on the XF-108!

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

There is 2 YF-12's still remaining just that the 2,nd is only half as it was the one that done an emergency landing and caught fire and so burned the front area and cockpit, the rear was mostly saved and intact. Then Lockheed added a ground static SR-71B nose to it to become the lone SR-71C. Then the sole remaining one at the USAF Museum at Dayton. The SR-71C and A-12 are the only ones from the blackbird family I have not seen in person. The YF-12A, SR-71 A and B I have through the same museum and Kalamazoo Air Zoo in Michigan for the SR-71B

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this 👍✈️

[@venners4288]

Fantastic vid. So little info available anywhere else about this unicorn. Thanks.

[@christophereadgbe2976]

Clint Eastwood 1982 film - Firefox. I don't know if it occurred to many that saw the movie, not me anyway: USSR never had a Firefox fighter, it was pure fantasy, but the USA...

[@That_Freedom_Guy]

I loved watching this! Thanks.

[@stejer211]

You couldn't be bothered to watch the video?

[@shannonchurchill4556]

One misrepresentation; the A-12 had narrower chines that carried no payload bays like the SR and YF. The A-12 had a single centerline mounted camera, and according to CIA A-12 pilot Frank Murray “nothing but wind” in the chines.

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

Amazing

[@Los-Angeles_AttackSubmarine]

love the comedy... keep it up!

[@cowboybob7093]

The first clip I watched today was the Dundee "knife scene." I had a major flash of deja-vu for a few seconds, thought YT was broken for a while.

[@Phoenix-xn3sf]

Great vid, I've always wondered about that *other* Blackbird. Still a question though: what is that rocketlike pod in the very last picture? I've seen the occasional photograph with it attached to the plane. Is it a heavy missile, or a test craft of some kind?

[@ericstromberg9608]

That's a D-21 spy drone. They built an A-12 variant called the M-21 to carry it. It didn't work very well. Anyway, the only remaining M/D-21 combo is at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.

[@Phoenix-xn3sf]

Thanks, man!

[@ronjon7942]

Would the YF-12s initial flight profile even work as an interceptor? I’ve no idea and had always pined for a fleet of these, but I never learned exactly how rapidlly they can make it to Mach3 or to altitude, given the engines are in turbojet mode at lower speeds. Maybe it’d be a phenomenal interceptor, but it would be interesting to learn the time-to-climb specs. Also, as MarkD asks, would they be capable of instantaneous availability? I mean, didn’t reconnaissance missions take about as much preparation as a space flight? And if it’s on patrol at low speeds, wasn’t that an inefficient envelope for the craft? Maybe that’d all been worked out, who knows. But can you imagine seeing a fleet of these guarding our gates? Heaven.

[@Mugdorna]

I really want to get to the USAF museum. I've visited the A-12 on the USS Intrepid in NY, as well as the SR-71 located in Udvar-Hazy and the M-21 in Seattle Museum of Flight at Boeing Field, which also has an D-21 drone mounted on it. (Also saw one of the two YF-23 protoypes, the other one is in Dayton)

[@Zoydian]

The missiles had to be mach four, otherwise the 12A would out-fly its own missiles.

[@thephantom2man]

"Fox 2" "Its already 12 miles behind us"

[@stejer211]

An on-board gun was only feasible if the A-12 slowed down strongly after firing.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Are you jesting? Doesn't the speed of the launch platform get added to the velocity of the missile?

[@brentdallyn8459]

These planes were moved indoors away from Soviet satellites as they passed overhead, but the heat signature the planes left on the tarmac were captured by infrared sensors on those satellites giving the Soviets a pretty good idea of what they were looking at, the purpose, and potential performance.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

And they still couldn’t do anything about it tbh

[@rigormortis6481]

@@petersouthernboy6327 over US airspace, ofc not. Over Sov airspace, thats another matter. Apart from flying at high altitudes which was detected by Sov ground based radars, both the engines and the airframe itself generated so much heat that IRST's on Sov interceptors could and did pick up the heat signature at a 100 kms plus. If you do a bit of digging, then you will find that the SR 71 didn't fly right over the USSR like the U 2's and even Canberras of yore. It would fly along the Sov border/ airspace and then try to do a quick dash in and out, if at that even. And a missile is faster. Would certainly be a difficult intercept, but certainly not impossible.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@rigormortis6481 the Libyans launched hundreds of SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air missiles capable of Mach 5 at SR-71’s flying BDA and couldn’t touch them in the 1980’s.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@rigormortis6481 you’re not digging deep enough - the SAM had to launch, accelerate, climb, and track to the plane. Over 4,000 SAMs were launched at SR-71’s during its career (Airman Magazine) and no hostile action ever brought down an SR-71. It wasn’t for a lack of trying.

[@rigormortis6481]

@@petersouthernboy6327 Libyan air defences were not the Soviet air defence though, or more specifically the PVO, I think it was. You mention Sa 2 and Sa 4? Sa 2 was a vietnam era missile system and was/is at best a medium altitude missile by then. And Libya did not have SA 4's ? SA 2's had a poor hit rate even in Vietnam. I haven't read that particular article which mention the 2000 launches. Does it specify which country launched them ? Also Sovs had some pretty capable interceptors by then, primarily the Tu 128's, slowish but could loiter, Mig 25 's and later the 31 ofc. The main thing to consider here, I suspect would be the very short times the SR 71 would actually be in Soviet air space. Shooting a plane, even a spy plane over international waters wouLd have resulted in a diplomatic kerfuffle. You seem to have taken a bit of offence with the ' dig a bit ' part. That was not my intent though. Just discussing. Edit: 4000 launches.

[@ericvantassell6809]

The primary purpose of the airframe was to keep those magnificent engines in close proximity to the fuel tanks.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Good lord what a beast!

[@tomsmith2209]

This time period is so interesting, boundaries were constantly being pushed.

[@Tidebo1]

Almost at 30k!

[@kevinferguson7936]

My dad helped with the radar system. I met Kelly Johnson. And Ben Rich . And knew the engineers personally. Dads folks.

[@ronjon7942]

That is cool - heroes of mine.

[@kevinferguson7936]

@@ronjon7942 I met them. They were my family and friends. Habu bratt.

[@mikeday62]

When sections of an aircraft are opened up, and one sees the sheer multitude of small and large wires and plumbing filling every available space and gap, one hopes and prays everything will be okay inside there whilst ripping along faster than a bullet, at the edge of space.

[@FullSemiAuto357]

Was wondering what this was when I went to the museum recently, but didn't really have time to stop and look at it.

[@Mugdorna]

Please tell me you can go back? Getting to the USAF museum is one of my bottom list items. (Ive been to all the air/space museums in LA, NY and Seattle)

[@FullSemiAuto357]

@@Mugdorna yea I live about 2 hours away so try to go once a year or so. It's an awesome place for sure, if you ever get the chance to go you can easily spend an entire day looking at everything.

[@Mugdorna]

@@FullSemiAuto357 I'm in Ireland but travel to the US a lot for work. I try to carve out an extra day to visit certain places when I am close. Would need 2-3 days to get to Drayton from my nearest location.

[@vincentSD1]

Lockheed has literal tech wizards.

[@Moredread25]

I think I got to see this at the USAF museum.

[@danielmaguire3010]

Nice

[@rvail136]

What's hysterical, this thing is far faster than either the Tu-160 or the original Backfire bomber of the USSR (which was in development at the time). It is currently the only interceptor that could realistically intercept a transonic bomber like the xb-70 Valkyrie. It's almost a thousand miles per hour faster than the Mig25 or Mig30! The fastest Soviet interceptors.

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

The "ultimate boom and zoom monster". That is like someone descending upon you and smite you out of the sky like they're God.

[@Katy_Jones]

Just don't let it get into a turning fight..

[@thephantom2man]

@@Katy_Jones itll just zoom back around the whole planet at ya lol

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

I don't know what K.J. was smoking when he proposed the YF-12A but it must have been something quite nasty. Seeing the preparations that need to be taken for an SR-71 flight reaches that of a spacelaunch rocket an interceptor version would've been highly impractical.

[@vortexgen1]

The SR-71 is a hyper-sonic aircraft. The US government just won't tell you about the true facts of that aircraft. The SR-71 was retired because the US government had the replacement in service which flies higher and faster and we won't really know about it for sometime.

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Radar picks up vertical lines like tails really easily. I wonder if thats why those ones are at a weird angle? If you look at a f22 there will be no vertical lines on it in level flight. Cheers for the upload.

[@Dezzasheep]

Im imagining Kev from the show Derek narrating this.

[@jonathankerr4859]

Love the start of the video. 👍👍😂

[@rtarouca]

Thanks for speaking metric but you can put that information in the video in writing. This may help to keep the video at a good pace. Nice channel.

[@briancavanagh7048]

I believe another reason that the YF12 would not have been the best choice for an interceptor id the fact that the SR71 took 24 hours preparation before a flight. I would assume the YF12 would be the same. This would be a challenge for an interceptor. I believe the reason for this is to purge the aircraft of oxygen so things don’t become combustionable at the very high operating temperatures during flight.

[@hoghogwild]

purging the tanks of atmospheric oxygen was accomplished during fueling. The tanks are filled to the brim with JP7 fuel, then are drained of fuel to whatever level was required while at the same time replacing the fuel space with gaseous nitrogen. this was called a Yo-Yo fill IIRC.

[@camrsr5463]

I got to touch this aircraft at the WPAFB.

[@gavindavies793]

12:20 WHAT is that pigmy Blackbird on the left?! future video topic right there

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

A D-21 recon drone. Was launched from the original A-12 for getting into REALLY well defended areas.

[@markmullins7990]

What a formidable interceptor it should have been much like the Avro Arrow

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The Arrow was more a comparison to the F-106. Later proposed versions of the Arrow might have been closer but they would have required massive redesign as anything traveling at that speed has serious heat management issues.

[@emjackson2289]

I see you've played Mach-3-Interceptor-Spooney before . . . . .

[@russkinter3000]

Gotta wonder if Revell really made the appropriate modifications to their 1/72 scale SR-71 for their later YF-12, or did they just re-lable the box.

[@KVL325]

@Russ Kinter....They did modify. I had both kits. The YF-12 kit was from circa 1968-69, and the SR-71 kit was circa 1970-71. SR was longer and quite different in the cockpit/nose section. There were other minor differences too. Great kits, great memories.

[@russkinter3000]

@@KVL325 Thanks for replying! Great memories indeed!

[@andrewbowles9753]

Interceptor faster than the missiles it fires?

[@Ushio01]

Should have started with the F-103 the first aircraft to be .a very short range Mach 3 interceptor using a variant of the engine used in Concorde and a ramjet that carried as much armament as an F-102 but due to it's projected short range of less than 8 minutes of flight time at Mach 3 it was cancelled at the mock up stage. Next the F-108 using two engines of the same type used in the XB-70 bomber and carrying 3 new long range AiM-47 Falcon missiles it was cancelled when both it's missions one of escorting B-70 bombers and the other replacing the F-106 in shooting down USSR nuclear bombers ended one with the cancellation of the B-70 the other with the introduction of ICBM and SLBM's which made using bombers to deliver nuclear weapons obsolete. It's armament and radar then were added to the YF-12 which was a pure F-106 replacement seen as cheaper than the F-108 as first it's adapting an existing proven airframe and engines and second it's reusing an already developed radar and missile package. But alas between the costs of the Vietnam war and the massive shift of the USSR to ballistic missile submarines meant the threat of attack on the USA by aircraft was seen as minimal. Still the radar and missile package in updated form did finally get used somewhere a long range interceptor was needed the USN and so the F-14 got the upgraded radar and missile package upgraded from what was originally going to be used on the F-108 in the late 1950's early 1960's in the 1970's.

[@blackmark7165]

Believe it or not, first time i get to know about this plane is from Japan PS2 game Warship Gunner 2 Of course its the fastest plane in the Interceptor category (there's no soviet or russian plane in the game, even though you'll encounter soviet cold war ship later)

[@rojaunjames747]

Wow

[@TheWalterKurtz]

This I did not know. Could see Slim Pickns' character from "Dr Strangeglove" fly'n one of these if he'd a been a fighter 🏇 jockey.

[@jensen6735]

what a bird!

[@casinodelonge]

I always fancied they'd have a special passenger version that could carry VIP's or a Special Ops Team places in a hurry.

[@alanmoss3603]

They did - Storm used it to fly Wolverine around!

[@thephantom2man]

@@alanmoss3603 and it was vtol somehow

[@michaelwright2986]

Stunning machine, but I wonder about what a combat situation would have been like. Three missiles, so if you sent five targets against it, one would be bound to get survive. How many could have been on alert at a time, and how many nuclear bombers and decoys could the Soviet Union sent off? And then there's the increasing reliability of ballistic missiles. I guess lots of reasons why this family of aircraft only entered service for reconnaissance.

[@stansenter2660]

Scrambling the YF-12A would take so much time before wheels up, they'd have to sit at the ready in the cockpits four hours on end...

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Yeah, uh… having to refuel in midair before heading off to an intercept would have been… undesirable. Cool plane on paper, not very practical.

[@johnnyblood2]

I wonder if the real reason these planes were retired was because they could easily recycle the titanium and reuse it on a new aircraft.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Satellites & "drones" killed off the birds.

[@johnnyblood2]

@@michaelgautreaux3168 I understand. But satellites and drones can be shot down. A SR-71 couldn't be shot down. AND there are many who say there is a SR-72 out there somewhere.

[@TooTallDean]

NONE of the Blackbirds were scrapped when they ended service. All of the remaining fleet are on display at various museums. Of the 30 Blackbirds on display, I have seen 15.

[@johnnyblood2]

@@TooTallDean I didn't know that. Thanks for that update. Question answered.

[@mathewkelly9968]

I thought gee what a good airplane then you mentioned the Falcon missile and my opinion changed

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

Wasn't one of the concerns with the YF-12 its ability to retain structural integrity if it had to perform a sharp turn after releasing a missile? As a child I built the Revell 1/72 model of this aircraft when it was released in 1967 (now $167.41 on eBay!!!), and I distinctly remember reading this in the model's documentation (which I don't have anymore, sadly nor the model). I could be wrong, I couldn't find any such structural concerns with the YF-12 documented anywhere else, so if anyone still has the 1967 Revell model doc for this aircraft I'd really appreciate it if they could check it. I loved how Libyan SAMs could push the airframe to Mach 3.5 if necessary. Thanks!

[@donjones4719]

It strikes me that the YF-12 would fly to the intercept point at Mach 3+ but slow down to acquire the target and shoot. The targeting radar had a range of only 125 miles - at 2200 mph the WSO wouldn't have enough time to line up the target and release the weapon. The sharp turn sounds like a requirement if a nuclear-tipped missile was used, which was probably contemplated, but Ed said only conventional warheads ended up being deployed. Perhaps that's what the Revell included. I did enjoy building a few Revell models at the same time, but I was pretty fumble fingered and got glue marks all over. Damn, those fumes!

[@AvengerII]

The Blackbird wasn't designed to be a dogfighter. It has a 2-3 G limit and takes very leisurely, long turns. Also, the angle of attack is restricted to below 15 degrees. The plane does NOT pitch fast or you would crack the neck of the plane off of the rear fuselage (wings and engines)! The basic radar and missile design migrated among 4 different aircraft designs and ultimately ended up being incorporated into the F-14 Tomcat.

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

@@donjones4719 Thanks for the insight! This is very interesting info! BTW, I must have been strange because I really liked the smell of model glue...

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

@@AvengerII Wow... thanks for the insight and the clarification! It's interesting how various aircraft components often live on in other aircraft when the original aircraft is abandoned. It makes me think of the Olympus engines in the TSR-2 living on in the Concorde.

[@AvengerII]

@@victorkrawchuk9141 Closer to 6 designs featured radar and missile components that were similar to or were ancestors of the AWG-9/AIM-54 Phoenix system. I think they were the Douglas Missileer F6D, the XF-103, the XF-108, the YF-12A, the F-111B, and ultimately the F-14A. There might be another design somewhere between the Missileeer and the F-14A but that's what I'm aware of reading.

[@FusionAero]

Greatest warplane never built. Became a handful of spy planes, instead of a fleet of interceptors, because we didn't have the metal make more of them. We're lucky we never lost one over Russia, they're sitting on enough "unobtanium" to make submarines out of the stuff, would have been like the movie Firefox IRL. (Even though Eastwood's character accomplished his mission, we would have still been screwed when the analysts found out what it was made of.)

[@marmite8959]

Iirc the CIA sourced the titanium used to build the SR-71s from the Soviet Union. Such a cool family of aircraft and an awesome history

[@Archie2c]

Those look like AiM 54 Phoenix at 6ft long not the much Smaller Aim 4 Falcon at 4 ft based on the handlers

[@Idahoguy10157]

Given the heat build up of flying mach 3 can I be forgiven for doubting an interceptor would work? Neither the radar and the missiles could even theoretically work without an effective and reliable way of keeping them cool. The radar would melt and the missile motors would cook off. I’m betting a nuclear armed air too air missile would have been carried.

[@papalegba6759]

yeah there's a lot of dubious specs around this thing. mainly a propaganda tool imo.

[@adamrmc100]

There are cooling methods for spinning engine turbine blades, so cooling something flat and stationary will be possible also.

[@krystalbrooks6869]

You didn't talk about why the program was shut down. The biggest problem with the YF-12, is during 1 missile launch the aircraft flew faster then the missile when released. Causing the missile to hit the plane. No survivors.

[@stejer211]

BS.

[@pierredecine1936]

When I saw the "Falcon" - I thought of the "Phoenix" - did one ever get a Combat Kill ?

[@hoghogwild]

No, out of three US attempts, no hits. 2 shots during Iraq no fly zone operations simply fell to the desert floor. the 2 jet section had the AIm-54C on each jet and the same crew member armed the Phoenix incorrectly. They fell off the rail but the rocket motors didnt ignite. Nicknamed Phoeeny bombs.

[@pierredecine1936]

@@hoghogwild Meant to be Bad-ASS, Just Bad like the Sheridan Missle.

[@christopherneufelt8971]

Nice aircraft design in materials, avionics, countermeasures and co, but the pilot (in both variants of interceptor or recon) would spend most of the time on setting the aircraft instead on Mission Focus. Sorry guys, this is not what a sane pilot will look forward to fly (not to mention the preparation for the suit, and the long distances of combat). A more intended (among other) aircraft of the time would be Viggen (Saab anyone?). Thanks for Mr. Nash for the great content. In the past you would sweat to find videos of this aircraft (books I got from Osprey).

[@waveydaveyav8r442]

What always kills me is that the A-12 was a SINGLE PILOT aircraft... Can you imagine the workload on those CIA pilots to fly that miraculous machine, AND operate the reconnaissance equipment and defensive systems? Admittedly, the defensive system consisted almost exclusivity of bumping the throttles forward into "plaid" mode, but I mean damn!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Plaid mode! Love it 🤣

[@hoghogwild]

The A-12 pilots had to choose between dark or light conditions and turn the camera on.

[@justanaverageguy1351]

The A-12 was a less capable reconnaissance aircraft?! That's incorrect. The full story is that the CIA needed a replacement for the U2. Lockheed developed the A-12 Archangel under the codename Oxcart. When the USAF general, Curtis Le May, found out about it, he told the president that all fixed-wing military aircraft belonged to the air force. They both developed their own versions with the final variant to be decided by the president. Curtis LeMay won. The CIA version, the A-12, was purely intended as a reconnaissance aircraft so it was only crewed by one person. Because of this, it was lighter and was able to carry better cameras and spy gear. It could also fly slightly higher and faster. So, the A-12 was the superior reconnaissance aircraft. The trade-off was that the SR71 was operated by the USAF with USAF pilots for the CIA so that if it was ever shot down, the CIA could deny any accusations of them spying.

[@russkinter3000]

Ultimate interceptor? It's not worthy to kiss the Supermarine Nighthawk's dual rudders.