The Lockheed SR-71 'Blackbird' was designed from scratch by the fabled Skunk Works.

It was designed purely as a recon bird. As such, only KH-11 ReconSats can fly higher and it has never been bettered.

As far as using the Blackbird to create a sonic boom a la Firefox, the practicalities circumvent this.

The fuel the SR-71 uses leaks from the bird while it sits on the ground. Only when she is flying at Mach whatever in space at max speed does
the airframe expand to seal the gaps.

At low altitude, the friction and heat generated as she flies in low-low-low mode, would be insufficient to help the airframe expand.

There is little to be gained militarily from using this very expensive aircraft as a noise generator especially as Harriers, Tornados and F-16s have shown in Afghanistan, they are more than capable of doing the job.

Originally posted by punkinworks09
the sr-71 started out as the a-12 a supersonic nuclear armed interceptor, it was designed to carry the genie nuclear anti aircraft missle.

Mach 14 is bs

Not Quite.

The A-12 was a single seat recce aircraft purpose built for the CIA as a notational replacement for the U-2. It was the succesor to the ill fated SUNTAN project which looked at hydrogen as a fuel source.

The YF-12 was a variant of which 3 were built which was designed as an interceptor. It is easily identifed by the modified front chines to accamodate the radar. It also had stabalizers below the engine nacels to compensate for the the modified chines. It did success in launching AAM's from FL80 and at Mach 3 during test. The missile used was the AIM-47 Falcon. AT no point was it nuclear armed

A notational YB-12 was proposed which was a bomber variant and such novel items as kinetic enery rounds were explored as possible weapons to be carried but never went beyond the design board.

The SR-71 was a different animal built for SAC and the AF for recce and post strike work.

Getting back to the OP's post,

It is unlikely that the SR-71 would be used in such a manner. For starters the airframe is not stressed like a fighter esp. at speed. Thats why it has such a huge turning radius. Its fram cannot handle the stress.

Also the heat generated by the friction of the passing air was at the limit of its airframe. At lower altitude even if the turbines could generate enough thrust to propel the airframe at Mach 3 at sea level it would melt well before that.

At one point during the Vietnam war 3 Habu flights intersected over the Hanoi Hilton generating 3 near simultanous sonic booms. It is unknow why they did this, but it was on pourpose.

---

The OP question does have merit. Project Pluto which would have used a nuclear ramjet to power an unmanned UAV at Mach 3 at sea level. As it progressed about its mission, the sonic bomb at such a low altitude would be fatal in close proximity and cause damage. As a bonus the nuclear exhaust was unifomly fatal if the boom did not get you. After it dropped its 10-20 hydrogen bomb the vehicle would then crash into its final target with nasty results

Originally posted by fritz
The Lockheed SR-71 'Blackbird' was designed from scratch by the fabled Skunk Works.

It was designed purely as a recon bird. As such, only KH-11 ReconSats can fly higher and it has never been bettered.

The SR-71 was a development of the A-12 airframe and YF-12A demonstrator, it was not 'designed from scratch'.

It also does not hold the highest altitude record for a manned air-breathing jet aircraft - that is held by the MiG-25M during a flight in 1977.

The fuel the SR-71 uses leaks from the bird while it sits on the ground. Only when she is flying at Mach whatever in space at max speed does
the airframe expand to seal the gaps.

At low altitude, the friction and heat generated as she flies in low-low-low mode, would be insufficient to help the airframe expand.

Actually, high speed at low altitude will have a greater heating effect on the airframe, as there is more friction due to the greater density atmosphere at low altitudes.

Also, the SR-71 did not fly in 'space', ever.

The only instance of the Blackbird being used possibly as a psychological weapon was in Vietnam - as mentioned in "Skunk Works".

3 of them were tasked to fly over the infamous Hanoi Hilton, at differing altitudes, at exactly the same time to create three booms in rapid succession. No one seems to know what the purpose was for the mission - either it was a signal, or it was for psychological purposes.

You could also argue that the daily run along the DMZ in Korea was a psychological effort to keep reminding the NK's that their positions were being observed at will, and they had nothing to counter the SR-71's capabilites of looking into their country.

Where is IntelGurl when she is needed, I know she would have a means of adding something to the techical aspect of this question.

When I was serving at RAF Biggin-Hill during the late 70's, we had a fly over by an SR 71. It was tracked over the Atlantic by the UKWMO / BMEWS sites at Saxa Vord, Fylingdale and Neatishead.

The thing is the Blackbird was going so fast, that it missed Biggin-Hill and most of the south-eastern portion of the UK. Apparently (so the story goes) in order to overfly our site, the SR-71 had to complete a 180 turn over Holland to get back on the correct flight path.

When you think this through to a natural conclusion, it would be almost impossible to use the Blackbird as a high speed, high altitude bomber.

The concept of a high altitude, supersonic long range strategic bomber is not new. You only have to look at the Blackjack and the B1-B to see that.

I can see the Blackbird being used as some type of long range cruise missile platform - a 'shoot & scoot' type of bomber but using it as a conventional bomber?

I don't think it could be done.

Aside from the shockwave effect, I still think the F-12B would have made for an amazing strike capability.

Imagine an aircraft essentially immune to interception, cruising at Mach 3, each able to launch four Mach 4 PGM's at 100nm range, from the other side of an ocean. Imagine having 93 (the original number budgeted) of these things, that could also serve as interceptors with the same amazing performance.

That's a capability our military planners no doubt would love to have now - 40 years later!

I grew up with sonic booms in the 1950s, directed close air support in Vietnam in 1968 and 69 and saw the SR-71 take off and land twice..... Seeing a SR-71 blast down a runway and be out of site in seconds, will totally redefine what your perception of speed is..... It was years before I had any idea what they called the thing, it was so hush hush back then.... It was over 40 years ago that I first saw it fly and it is still supposed to be the fastest aircraft that ever flew..... 40 years before I saw it fly ,the military only had biplanes. That makes me wonder how we progressed so much so soon, and I can't even imagine what The Skunk Works has created that is faster, if they have.