Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America's Fastest Spy Plane May Be Back -- And Hypersonic (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fact-or-fiction dept.

A Lockheed Skunk Works executive implied last week at an aerospace conference that the successor to one of the fastest aircraft the world has seen, the SR-71 Blackbird, might already exist. Previously, Lockheed officials have said the successor, the SR-72, could fly by 2030. Bloomberg reports: Referring to detailed specifics of company design and manufacturing, Jack O'Banion, a Lockheed vice president, said a "digital transformation" arising from recent computing capabilities and design tools had made hypersonic development possible. Then -- assuming O'Banion chose his verb tense purposely -- came the surprise. "Without the digital transformation, the aircraft you see there could not have been made," O'Banion said, standing by an artist's rendering of the hypersonic aircraft. "In fact, five years ago, it could not have been made." Hypersonic applies to speeds above Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound. The SR-71 cruised at Mach 3.2, more than 2,000 mph, around 85,000 feet.

"We couldn't have made the engine itself -- it would have melted down into slag if we had tried to produce it five years ago," O'Banion said. "But now we can digitally print that engine with an incredibly sophisticated cooling system integral into the material of the engine itself and have that engine survive for multiple firings for routine operation." The aircraft is also agile at hypersonic speeds, with reliable engine starts, he said. A half-decade before, he added, developers "could not have even built it even if we conceived of it."

22 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The programme was killed because they were a pain to maintain. Advancing needs meant that they would have on top of that had to spend money on a tech upgrade (such as adding a realtime data link). Meanwhile, there were programmes hungry for its budget, including stealth aircraft (B2) and drones (Global Hawk).

    That said, in today's threat environment, I'm sure mach 5 would be appreciated ;)

    --
    Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
    1. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought that they were superseded by satellite imaging

    2. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      In part. Satellites are conveniently cheap(when amortized across the amount of area they cover; and how long they cover it; they are not 'cheap' in terms of sticker price); but don't fly any lower than earth orbit and are predictable against any vaguely competent adversary(tracking satellite launches is a hobbyist thing; and downloading their conclusions to know when you are being over-flown is easier still); and continuous coverage requires either lots of satellites to blanket one of the lower orbits; or satellites in geostationary orbits which are quite distant and have the accompanying challenges to getting good image quality.

      If you really need a surprise inspection of a specific place at a specific time the gap isn't really filled; but having satellite sensors to work with keeps you from being in the dark; and you can use drones or less capable aircraft in places where adversary air defenses aren't all that interesting.

      Nothing quite fills the niche; but filling the niche is an expensive specialty operation; and one that might become quite risky if anyone is capable of pumping out SAMs of similar tech level; since they don't have to support a pilot or a bunch of cameras; just have to hit you; which makes outrunning them without being substantially more advanced a bit nerve-wracking.

    3. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That doesn't take into account technologies which penetrate cloud cover, like infrared and high resolution terrain mapping radar. Your argument about "chunky" images may have been true a few decades ago, but I'd be willing to bet that modern military spy sats have excellent optics, given how good even civilian ones are these days. And since when do military services need to bribe each other with a briefcase full of cash to get up-to-date satellite intelligence? You just need to have enough stars on your uniform, or be placed highly enough in the government.

      That being said, I think you hit on the correct answer, if not via the correct line of reasoning. The dominant feature of a spyplane is its flexibility in deployment. Any competent enemy will know exactly when spy satellites are passing overhead, being easily observed and predictable in motion. A spyplane can provide very focused reconnaissance whenever and however military planners want.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by Camaro · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe you're thinking of the U-2, which was shot down twice. On 1 May, 1960, over the Soviet Union, and 14 October, 1062, over Cuba.

      No SR-71s were ever lost to enemy fire, although they were certainly shot at. The North Vietnamese shot over 800 missiles at it, without scoring a hit.

    5. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      In part. Satellites are conveniently cheap(when amortized across the amount of area they cover; and how long they cover it; they are not 'cheap' in terms of sticker price); but don't fly any lower than earth orbit and are predictable against any vaguely competent adversary(tracking satellite launches is a hobbyist thing; and downloading their conclusions to know when you are being over-flown is easier still); and continuous coverage requires either lots of satellites to blanket one of the lower orbits; or satellites in geostationary orbits which are quite distant and have the accompanying challenges to getting good image quality.

      Satellites were also hard to detect and shoot down. ASAT weapons are relatively expensive.

      The SR-72 was not undetectable, quite the contrary, anything travelling at Mach 5 will show up on weather radar (even if it's just the wake turbulence). Its main defence was that it flew so fast that by the time you've targeted and launched your fastest missile at it, the SR-72 was out of range. This can be countered in the same way they've countered stealth bombers, by launching missiles into its flight path in advance. Any modern integrated defence system can do this with ground or air based missiles.

      Manoeuvring whilst travelling at 1,500m/s isn't easy either.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

      over the Soviet Union, and 14 October, 1062, over Cuba

      And just like that, four years later, the Battle Of Hastings.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re: Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a story from one of the SR-71 crews about being shot at with a Russian SAM. It missed, but came close. If the SR-71 hadn't been retired one would have been shot down eventually.

    8. Re:Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Satellites were also hard to detect and shoot down. ASAT weapons are relatively expensive.

      Now that the work on satellite-to-satellite communications has been done, that's not true any more, since the difference between a satellite with that technology and a satellite-killing satellite is one of laser power. Now it's relatively inexpensive to kill satellites, as long as you can afford to launch satellites. I'd bet money that at least the US and Russia already have satellite-killing satellites in orbit, masquerading as something else. It would be frankly irresponsible not to.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Speed wasn't SR-71's problem. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but not even KH11s can violate the laws of physics. The theoretical diffraction limit for a KH-11-sized primary mirror at ~200 km is around 5 cm. Count optic imperfections, diagonal instead of horizontal separation, and atmospheric disturbances into this ideal and you're in practice at the point of reading only fairly large characters on billboards. (Unless US billboards are way bigger than ours.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. No need for it any more by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The SR-71 was developed (like all military programs) to serve a specific need: the Communist nations were closed off to the world and their secret police did an enthusiastic and effective job catching traitors. America was simply cut off from intelligence on the ground. Hence, the super-fast spy plane was developed, capable of violating borders guaranteed by international law, racing in to take photos, and racing back out again before the outraged victim country could defend itself. Moreover this was when the space program was in its infancy, satellite photography was unreliable and took a long time from photo to print. There's simply no need today for a spy plane like this.

    The Communists never developed a similar plane because if they wanted intelligence, they just sent out a man from their embassy with a camera and a pencil. There was also no shortage of Americans who either believed in Communism or who were easily bought off. At one point, the head of the FBI's counterintelligence agency was a foreign spy.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re: No need for it any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe if America stopped being such a global dick, it wouldn't have to worry about hostile nations. Maybe try not being a dick? Not bombing the shit out of countries? You'd be surprised how angry and hostile people get when American drones are killing innocent civilians in the pursuit of terrorists that American policies created in the first place. I'm just saying, maybe give it a try.

    2. Re:No need for it any more by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With anti-satellite weapons as demonstrated by china a few years back a threat, possibly they're thinking that the days of LEO spy satellites may be numbered in a war scenario.

    3. Re: No need for it any more by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe if America stopped being such a global dick, it wouldn't have to worry about hostile nations. Maybe try not being a dick? Not bombing the shit out of countries? You'd be surprised how angry and hostile people get when American drones are killing innocent civilians in the pursuit of terrorists that American policies created in the first place. I'm just saying, maybe give it a try.

      So Syria and Russia aren't an issue? Plus they don't break down which countries in the international coalition actually did the killing. The US leads to coalition but other countries are involved.

      http://www.iamsyria.org/syrian...

      So ISIS wasn't an issue.

      ISIS was forced out of Syria by Russian involvement. The correct choice was not choosing a side in that conflict because we had the choice between supporting Assad's despotic but somewhat stable regime and ISIS's unstable and completely batshit insane desire for an Islamic state.

      Unfortunately Trump couldn't keep his limp dick out of it.

      The Russians are also prime examples of not sticking your dick in when it's not wanted. Because of Syria, Russia is facing a much increased risk of terrorist attacks (and it's not like they had a shortage of pissed off extremist enemies before Syria either).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re: No need for it any more by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3

      I am pretty hard pressed to come up with any country that is not somewhat dickish to at least a couple other countries. Even Sweden and Switzerland have a few dickish things about them, but generally more in commerce.

    5. Re: No need for it any more by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Poor Uncle Sam , the global cop that's damned if he does, or does not...
      Of course US gets a lot of well-deserved stick for fuckups like Iraq and Vietnam, but don't forget that in most of these operations he was accompanied by more-or-less enthusiastic allies such as Canada, UK, Australia...and for Iraq 1 nearly everybody...
      Also, how is the USA less of a dick that Russia and China? Do you really think that Putin would not be laying Europe to waste right now if he had the military might of the USA? What about Syria? You think it was Father Xmas bombing the hospitals and the aid convoys?
      Face it, AC, a large section of the world is going to hate "The West" (and especially the USA), always, forever, and whatever they do...
      Of course, that does not excuse illegal "police" actions or extrajudicial killings, but the USA is by no means the only - or worse - offender in this. (Yeah, I know, a liberal western democracy should be held to a high standard, but life ain't fair...)

       

    6. Re: No need for it any more by tsqr · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Don't be a dick" is a good strategy for getting along, certainly. It doesn't really eliminate the need for having powerful armed forces, though, because your decision not to be a dick doesn't mean others won't be dicks. Having a powerful military is a good way to ensure they don't decide to be a dick to you, and being willing to use your military to stop them from being dicks to others is a good way to reduce global dickishness (actions, at least, not attitudes), which increases global stability and aids global economic development.

      Obligatory Team America: Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes - assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only an inch-and-a-half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we are going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.

  3. Re:What's the point? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point is that "let's spend more on the military" always gets you votes, and hypersonic spy planes are extra cool. Whereas if you tried to spend it on dirty ungrateful poor people you'd get booted out of office.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  4. Re:What's the point? by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The days of spy satellites in low earth orbit may be numbered. Shooting down a plane a 2000+mph that has anti missile defenses and can do active avoidance may be somewhat harder.

  5. Much more interested to know... by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... whatever happened or is happening with the Lockheedâ(TM)s nuclear fusion project?

    For those of you who didnâ(TM)t hear, 3 years ago (2014) they claimed theyâ(TM)d be able to make a nuclear fusion power plant capable of fitting in a box car/shipping container IN FIVE YEARS. I presume they mean a power plant that generates substantially more amount of electricity than it requires (Iâ(TM)ve heard that you can âoeeasilyâ make nuclear fusion happen, getting more energy out than in is the trick).

    https://lppfusion.com/lockheed...

    Anyway whatever happened to this game changing (civilization changing?) technology? The only reason why I didnâ(TM)t dismiss it out of hand was because it was supposedly being developed by their âoeSkunk Worksâ, makers of the F-117, SR-71 amongst other things.

    So where is it?

    1. Re:Much more interested to know... by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is with all the "â(TM)t"... is my Firefox broken?

      Welcome to Slashdot. Where unicode support is slated to arrive *after* we get nuclear fusion power plants and flying cars.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  6. Re:Agile at hypersonic speeds? by oobayly · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not quite, but it's still quite a lot. At 85,000ft the speed of sound is about 300m/s (690mph) which is about 88% of that at sea level (340m/s). So at 85,000ft and Mach 5 it'll be travelling at about 1,500m/s (3,450mph). Depending on how many g the pilot wants to feel the turn radius might be as high as 343km (213mi) at 1.2g and as low as 47km (29mi) if the airframe can survive a 5g turn (the SR-71 had a limit of about 3g).

    Because I like speadsheets, for a given g-force that the pilot feels, the turn radius & time to do a u-turn.
    g(pilot) - radius(km) - radius(mi) - time
    1.2 - 343 - 213 - 12:02
    1.5 - 204 - 127 - 07:08
    2.0 - 132 - 82 - 04:36
    2.5 - 99 - 62 - 03:29
    3.0 - 81 - 50 - 02:49
    3.5 - 68 - 42 - 02:23
    4.0 - 59 - 37 - 02:04
    4.5 - 52 - 32 - 01:49
    5.0 - 47 - 29 - 01:38