Slashdot Mirror


Skunk Works Reveals Proposed SR-71 Successor: the Hypersonic SR-72

cold fjord writes "Aviation Week reports, 'Ever since Lockheed's unsurpassed SR-71 Blackbird was retired ... almost two decades ago, the perennial question has been: Will it ever be succeeded by a new-generation, higher-speed aircraft and, if so, when? That is, until now. After years of silence on the subject, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has revealed exclusively to AW&ST details of long-running plans for what it describes as an affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform that could enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018. Dubbed the SR-72, the twin-engine aircraft is designed for a Mach 6 cruise, around twice the speed of its forebear, and will have the optional capability to strike targets. Guided by the U.S. Air Force's long-term hypersonic road map, the SR-72 is designed to fill what are perceived by defense planners as growing gaps in coverage of fast-reaction intelligence by the plethora of satellites, subsonic manned and unmanned platforms meant to replace the SR-71.'"

9 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Broken window fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    An arms race is not a viable long-term strategy for keeping the economy going, especially when there's no one to run against.

    1. Re:Broken window fallacy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It worked fine in practice for the entire second half of the 20th century.

      Except for the inflation and economic stagnation of the 1970s, caused by excessive deficit spending on the Vietnam War. Or the recessions in 1961, 1979, 1991, 2008, etc.

      Sorry that it doesn't work in theory.

      Military spending can promote economic growth if there is insufficient aggregate demand (e.g. Germany in the 1930s). But economically, it is better to spend that money on something else, such as infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports), because in the end, you will still have the infrastructure. With military spending, you end up with either a war, or unused weapons.

  2. Please by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This country can't build a web site. How the fuck are we going to build an SR-72?

  3. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They retired the SR-71 like fifteen years ago. It cost too much to operate and used a special fuel, JP-7, that no other plane used.

    It still has the speed record for manned air-breathing aircraft. (And, from the looks of the SR-72, will continue to hold it -- I don't see a cockpit in the SR-72 in the picture in Aviation Week)

  4. Re:More defence pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More defence pork, more hopelessly expensive boondoggles of dubious usefulness for an already outrageously overpowered military.

    Totally misconceived as well; something moving that fast is going be as noisy as hell, not to mention the fact that it'll stand out like dog's balls on IR. Undoubtedly, everyone else will be scrambling to develop lots of nasty defensive weapons to counter it.

    Guess the spoilt brats in the military industrial complex need another cash cow; God knows they know how to milk them dry.

    Terrible comment:

    a) Mach 6 is an extremely useful engineering feat. If nothing else, having a vehicle that's going Mach 6 advances the state of the art in engineering for flight. You will probably eventually see some of that technology filtering into the general aviation fleet.

    b) Have you ever even read the Wikipedia articles on the U-2 and SR-71 spyplanes? The U-2 was shot down once. The SR-71 was *never* shot down. No regime in existence today probably cares enough about an SR-72 to build weapons to counter it. Additionally, planes that fly at Mach 6 fly at very high altitudes, so even if you can see it on IR (and the precursors to today's stealth technology to HIDE IR were on the original SR-71), you probably wouldn't hear much if anything at all: there's that whole pesky energy dropoff as a function of R^2 and actually having to have more than a handful of molecules for atmosphere to actually conduct sound.

    This is not necessarily a bad project. Not nearly as bad as, say, the B-2 or the F-35.

  5. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by Antipater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody's using a ballistic missile to shoot anything down. Ballistic missiles are used to deliver (sometimes nuclear) warheads to a land-based target, and are the things that interceptor missiles are designed to try to shoot down. GP's point is that if an interceptor missile can shoot down a ballistic missile and/or a satellite, then it can shoot down an SR-72. Whether the SR-72 is more maneuverable than an interceptor missile is unknown, but doubtful.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  6. No. "war on poverty" 50 years old, zero results by raymorris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The war on poverty began over 50 years ago and we've spent trillions of dollars, your dollars. The poverty rate is higher today than it was when the federal government started spending money on it 50 years ago.

    So the answer is "no". The government should leave your money with you. You'll spend it, and the stores where you spend it will hire people. More jobs = less poverty.

    1. Re:No. "war on poverty" 50 years old, zero results by cusco · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Shame on you, confusing a poor teabagger with facts!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  7. Re:Mo money, mo money by deadweight · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You see the Tea Party as rational actors. Many of us see them as deluded fools - or "usefull idiots" - stirred up by puppet masters who have NO intention of actually bringing about TeaHadi Paradise.