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.'"

18 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Finally by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was feeling naked with all this NSA spying and no air surveillance.

    I'm glad things are back and track and I can be monitored in my backyard and abroad, for my safety.

    Thanks for looking out for me, big brother!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Finally by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Informative

      The U-2 spy plane is still flying and it can carry a 5,000-pound payload of surveillance equipment. So there is plenty of air surveillance; you just didn't know about it.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Finally by JeffOwl · · Score: 3

      When the equipment gets smaller, they just put more of it on. One reason the U2 is still in use is because it actually costs less to operate than the Global Hawk, for example.

  2. The X-Men ... by c0d3g33k · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... can finally replace their old beater with something a little more hip and modern. Party at the mansion!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    http://marvel.wikia.com/X-Men_Blackbird

  3. Mo money, mo money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A defense contractor, a tea partier, and a teacher sit down to a plate of 10 cookies. The defense contractor takes 9, leans over to the tea partier, and says "psst, the teacher is trying to steal your cookie"

    1. Re:Mo money, mo money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      incompitence

      oh, the ironing is delicious!

    2. Re:Mo money, mo money by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Tea Party, like any political group, is a mix of people with a varied political mindsets. You have many very reasonable Tea Party members, a few "far right" (shutdown the gov, defund everything, etc) and a few "far left" (support the unions, regulate everything, etc). The same can be said of any political group. There is no doubt that the Republicans have tried to co-opt them as a wing of their party, but every Tea Party rally I've ever seen (admittedly only a few) has been equally disappointed in both mainstream political parties. The Tea Party in and of itself is probably never going to bring about meaningful change, but the fact that they have shook up the political landscape a little, forcing some of D.C.s issues (debt, waste, pork, political favors, etc) out into the open I feel is a very good thing and hopefully will continue for many years to come.

  4. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which, ironically, is probably why they didn't bother upgrading the spy plane until now. Countries that could shoot it down could shoot it and any successors down, and those that couldn't couldn't.

    The idea of a new plane to fill the gap, not from earlier planes, but from satellites being shot down, or just not being in the correct spot when you need extremely fresh data, is interesting.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. 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.

  6. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by bob_super · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What makes you think that they can't shoot an SR72 down?
    Ballistic missiles and satellites are less maneuverable, but faster. And it doesn't take a lot of damage for a Mach-6 bird to disintegrate.

    On the same topic, I'd really like to see a Mach-6 weapon deployment.

  7. 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?

  8. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I assume that a plane flying Mach 6 would turn a human pilot into chunky salsa with any kind of maneuvering. Generally, an aircraft can be a lot smaller and cheaper if you don't have to worry about keeping a person alive inside of it. Same thing with spacecraft.

  9. 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.
  10. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by jandrese · · Score: 5, Informative

    The SR-71 wasn't maneuver limited by the pilot, but by the airframe. The turning radius on the SR-71 was the size of some states!

    That said, I wouldn't put too much stock in the artists rendition. That looks an awful lot like the cover of Popular Mechanics, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was made in a similar way (mostly with bullshit).

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  11. Re:SR-71 needed replacing by weiserfireman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shooting down a Mach 6 aircraft is extremely difficult.

    Lets say an SR-72 was going to go the full length of Iran, and Iran had recently deployed S-300 missiles from Russia. The S-300 is considered a world-class air defense weapon (despite having never been fired in combat). It has a 5 minute deployment time and a 24 mile range.

    Mach 6 is roughly 4,567 Miles/hour or 1.26 miles every second.

    It will cover the 48 mile engagement envelope of an S-300 (24 miles each way), in 38 seconds. What this means is a missile site can't detect and engage the target. Someone has to detect and transmit targeting information to air defense sights in the path of the plane, so they can be ready to lauch, when it gets within range.

    Just some moderate maneuvering and route planning, keeps the SR-72 out of range most of the time.

    There was rumor that the SR-71 was detectable with long range radars, but stealthy to weapons guidance radars. Add in stealth characteristics and the task becomes even more difficult.

    From looking at a map, the absolute longest flight path over Iran appears to be about 2000 miles. Meaning the SR-72, worst case, would only be over Iranian airspace for less than 30 minutes. If a plane came in over the Caspian Sea, crossed over Tehran, then turned for the nearest border, they could be in and out of Iran in less than 5 minutes.

    All in all, a very challenging exercise.

  12. Re:I wish by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm cautiously optimistic that hypersonic flight will eventually make it to passenger airlines. It would be really nice to travel to Japan or Australia in 3 hours instead of 15. There are enough oceans over which to fly without worrying about the sonic boom. Reaction Engines is working on an interesting hypersonic engine prototype. That one looks even better than this military scramjet: higher thrust-to-weight ratio and ability to function as a rocket engine. This engine would enable travel by ballistic trajectory .. even faster and way cooler. People would pay crazy money just to ride it for the thrill of it. Maybe these are just dreams.

  13. NASA R&D made this possible by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll add something since I've been following this stuff from 1986 when I first saw a scramjet test.
    It wasn't the DoD spending money all over the world with whoever was interested in scramjets since the 1980s - that was NASA. Trickle down had nothing to do with this. It was about direct funding and then the DoD getting interested some time in the last five or ten years - more than thirty years after successful scramjet model tests in shock tunnels.

  14. Re:Affordable? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm more impressed that all of WWII cost the US only 300 BN. That's $3.7T in today's dollars, which happens to be equal to the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars put together:

    The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.

    Of course the cost of WWII to the US was very small compared to the costs to nations where it was actually fought.