SR-72

[Humpy]

The trickle down could lead to faster commercial air travel or other things. That is one thing about the military funding for stuff like this. Theres always the potential to have it come to the civilian markets in some form.

It's sooooo worth it because Tang! And Velcro!

 

[sao123]

maybe this version wont have to take off completely empty and have to be refueld in mid air within 4 minutes before it runs out of fuel.

 

[who?]

If this one goes faster will there be more of a heat expansion problem?

 

[H54]

maybe this version wont have to take off completely empty and have to be refueld in mid air within 4 minutes before it runs out of fuel.

A bit of an exaggeration. They never took off empty and even for an SR-71, it would be impossible to rendezvous with a tanker within 4 minutes. Fully fuelled, the aircraft would leak without a high enough total air temperature to heat the sections of the fuselage. They had plenty of time and fuel to depart and hit a tanker.

 

[OutHouse]

So? If you're talking about mach 6 in the most efficient configuration you can add a whole lot of ordnance and still have a faster strike aircraft than anything else ever. WTF cares if adding bombs reduces speed to Mach 4 when the fastest attack plane in the current inventory would be a Mach 2 fighter with a tiny payload.

please list your credentials with aeronautical engineering and training in supersonic aircraft.

 

[sao123]

A bit of an exaggeration. They never took off empty and even for an SR-71, it would be impossible to rendezvous with a tanker within 4 minutes. Fully fuelled, the aircraft would leak without a high enough total air temperature to heat the sections of the fuselage. They had plenty of time and fuel to depart and hit a tanker.

Ok a small exaduration...

According to SR71.org, they took off with an initial 45,000 pounds of fuel, after a 25minute preflight check (with engines running) and always met the refuel tanker at about the 7 minute mark. Another reason for the early refuel, is the SR71 supposedly used different fuels for takeoff and flight.

The test Sr71 was able to take off with a max 80,000 pounds of fuel on rare occasion when a refule tanker was not available, but this did tremendous wear on tires and landing gear.

 

[mikeford]

The main issue I see with aircraft is that technology is going into a period where missiles are going to be cheaper and cheaper with very high levels of performance and intelligence. The ancient stingers lost in the fiasco of Benghazi already jeopardizes all of middle east manned air operations.

 

[H54]

The main issue I see with aircraft is that technology is going into a period where missiles are going to be cheaper and cheaper with very high levels of performance and intelligence. The ancient stingers lost in the fiasco of Benghazi already jeopardizes all of middle east manned air operations.

The problem with missiles since the beginning is that once fired, thats it. ICBMs were forecast to be the future and that large strategic bomber forces of SAC and the Soviet Union were obsolete. It is true that an ICBM can be fired and hit a target anywhere in the world within an hour with considerable accuracy but they cannot be recalled. Politicians used SAC's bombers in their game of brinkmanship very well by ordering sorties with their nuclear payloads, flying them to the brink, and recalling them.

 

[BUTCH1]

If they just want the fast intel that the '71 provided would it nor be cheaper just to pull them out of mothball status rather that design a completely new version that will (as usual) come with billions in cost overruns and get here 10 years from now??.

 

[H54]

If they just want the fast intel that the '71 provided would it nor be cheaper just to pull them out of mothball status rather that design a completely new version that will (as usual) come with billions in cost overruns and get here 10 years from now??.

Indeed. I'd question the aircraft's survivability considering today's radar and missile technology.

 

[BUTCH1]

Indeed. I'd question the aircraft's survivability considering today's radar and missile technology.

The '71 was shot at many times during it's use, the pilot would see an incoming and just slap on the afterburner's and just outrun it..

 

[H54]

The '71 was shot at many times during it's use, the pilot would see an incoming and just slap on the afterburner's and just outrun it..

That is very true but in the context of today's missile technology, I wonder how it would fare.

 

[BUTCH1]

That is very true but in the context of today's missile technology, I wonder how it would fare.

Well guidance has to have improved but IDK about propellant or range and endurance, interceptor missiles have always been propelled by a solid type of rocket, once it's spent, game over..

 

[H54]

Well guidance has to have improved but IDK about propellant or range and endurance, interceptor missiles have always been propelled by a solid type of rocket, once it's spent, game over..

Guidance was the largest weakspot. Defence analysts were worried when the Soviet Defence Net was first equipped with SA-5 as it was capable of reaching altitudes of 110,000 ft+. The problem was guidance. As you said, a course change and increase in speed virtually assured evasion.

When the US armed forces first deployed the AIM-9 Sidewinder, it was terrible. If you compare that to the AIM-9X of today, it is a much better missile by several orders of magnitude due mostly in part to its amazing guidance package.

 

[BUTCH1]

Guidance was the largest weakspot. Defence analysts were worried when the Soviet Defence Net was first equipped with SA-5 as it was capable of reaching altitudes of 110,000 ft+. The problem was guidance. As you said, a course change and increase in speed virtually assured evasion.

When the US armed forces first deployed the AIM-9 Sidewinder, it was terrible. If you compare that to the AIM-9X of today, it is a much better missile by several orders of magnitude due mostly in part to its amazing guidance package.

Well, who knows, we used to think way back when that the Russians were not capable of shooting down a U-2 because it flew so high, we found out the hard way we were wrong..

 

[UnklSnappy]

Are these types of planes even needed now with all the satellites we now have monitoring every square inch of the earth.

 

[TerryMathews]

Are these types of planes even needed now with all the satellites we now have monitoring every square inch of the earth.

Yes. Satellites are only capable of photographing perpendicular to ground.

Spy planes can photograph at an angle.

Look at a top-down picture of your house, like your county GIS or Google maps. Now imagine trying to see what is going on through a window. You can't. You can with a spy plane though because it photographs at a 30-60o angle.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So? If you're talking about mach 6 in the most efficient configuration you can add a whole lot of ordnance and still have a faster strike aircraft than anything else ever. WTF cares if adding bombs reduces speed to Mach 4 when the fastest attack plane in the current inventory would be a Mach 2 fighter with a tiny payload.

Good luck in dropping bombs at Mach speeds:hmm:

Speed may get you there faster; the amount of payload will be small.
The B1 is a good example.

 

[TerryMathews]

Good luck in dropping bombs at Mach speeds:hmm:

Speed may get you there faster; the amount of payload will be small.
The B1 is a good example.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20071128.aspx

 

[EagleKeeper]

Good luck in dropping bombs at Mach speeds:hmm:

Speed may get you there faster; the amount of payload will be small.
The B1 is a good example.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20071128.aspx

1) I was unaware of such

2) I still have concerns

The test, using a rocket sled on the ground, going at about 2,000 kilometers an hour

a) This is only at Mach 2 - Current fighters can exceed Mach 2; Air-Air missiles will go even faster
b) Is this currently deployed on the B1 - our only inbay supersonic

 

[Scotteq]

Are these types of planes even needed now with all the satellites we now have monitoring every square inch of the earth.

Yes. Satellites are only capable of photographing perpendicular to ground.

Spy planes can photograph at an angle.

Look at a top-down picture of your house, like your county GIS or Google maps. Now imagine trying to see what is going on through a window. You can't. You can with a spy plane though because it photographs at a 30-60o angle.

I think the larger need - at least as far as surveillance - is Time: Satellites orbits being what they are, there isn't always a view available for a given target within a given timeframe. Also, a reasonably sophisticated opponent would be familiar with the satellite schedule and hide things they don't want to be seen. Certainly the Soviet Union used to adjust operations to do things when US satellites weren't around. With an aircraft, one may fly over and have a look pretty much whenever. The limitation, of course, is the risk of being shot down.

Another aspect is Types of Sensors: The package carried by an aircraft can be changed between flights. Or the Government may send multiple aircraft at the same time - each looking at different aspects - the resulting data could provide a much deeper view. Can't do that with Satellites.

Being a technical forum: Let's apply Moore's Law, presume the satellite is a few years old and flying around with the spy equivalent of an Intel Core 2. Does it's job, sure, but hardly the latest thing. With an Aircraft, they could do a Haswell rig just as soon as they can put it together and go fly. Also, the Core 2 in Space may be good enough to figure out what we want to take a special look at. Then we can follow up with something more powerful, as needed.

 

[H54]

Well, who knows, we used to think way back when that the Russians were not capable of shooting down a U-2 because it flew so high, we found out the hard way we were wrong..

I agree. However, the U-2 maintained high altitudes through efficiency on the ragged edge of its operating envelope. Relative to interceptors and SAMs, the U-2 was barely moving. It is still not known what brought down Gary Powers' U-2 but he did recall seeing another parachute on the way down.

On the other hand, the SR-71 employed the elegant, brute-force method. Short wings and gigantic afterburning turbojets employing ram recovery allowed for a much higher speed and altitude.

 

[gophertron]

The details on costs from Lockheed are pretty funny - that this is all existing technology and costs can be contained. All recent high-technology aerospace projects seem to go way over budget, Lockheed or others. The mission also seems pretty dubious, I wonder why existing or future high-altitude UAVs can't just loiter in friendly airspace outside a target country and take pictures at an angle from the extremely high vantage point. Even though existing UAVs are slow, having them loiter around still has to be faster than sending something from American soil at Mach 6 half way around the world.

 

[Gibsons]

The '71 was shot at many times during it's use, the pilot would see an incoming and just slap on the afterburner's and just outrun it..

Well, indeed, supposedly all they ever did to avoid was accelerate. But the afterburners would already be on.

 

[biostud]

It's not that I don't like new weapons technology, but who is this intended to be used against?