The SR-71 was cool, but the SR-72 is cooler

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#1
This is kind of old (a few months), but i have not seen it on here and it didn't come up in a search.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_sr72_070617/



An SR-72 in the works?

By Vago Muradian - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jun 21, 2007 14:31:17 EDT

Ten years after the Air Force retired the SR-71 spy plane, Lockheed Martin’s legendary Skunk Works appears to be back at work developing a new Mach-6 reconnaissance plane, sources said.

The Air Force has awarded Lockheed’s Advanced Development Projects arm a top-secret contract to develop a stealthy 4,000-mph plane capable of flying to altitudes of about 100,000 feet, with transcontinental range. The plan is to debut the craft around 2020.

The new jet — being referred to by some as the SR-72 — is likely to be unmanned and, while intended for reconnaissance, could eventually trade its sensors for weapons.

The new aircraft would offer a combination of speed, altitude and stealth that could make it virtually impervious to ground-based missiles, sources said. Even the SR-71 is said to have evaded hundreds of missiles fired at it during its long career, although some aircraft sustained minor damage.

But experts say enormous challenges remain. First, the SR-71’s top speed was about 2,200 mph. Pushing a plane at twice that speed in the thin air of the upper stratosphere would require exceptionally powerful engines. Second, friction at high speeds could reduce stealth.

“An aircraft with these characteristics could prove a potent response to anti-satellite weapons,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “If U.S. reconnaissance satellites were lost, an SR-72 could get to areas of interest quickly and provide persistent surveillance in place of the satellite.”

And don’t bother asking the Air Force or Skunk Works executives about their work. None is commenting.

“As a matter of policy, we don’t talk about classified programs — whether or not they exist,” Lockheed’s Tom Jurkowsky said.
Got to love the black-budget.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#4
I'll bet they already have these made. I once read about secret projects, that once you hear about it, it's been out for 10 years.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#6
I doubt that it's a hoax. And that image you posted doesn't mean shit.
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
#7
Ever notice how Phallic planes are becoming? No Homo
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
#9
I doubt that it's a hoax. And that image you posted doesn't mean shit.
I could not find any images in my little knowledge of the internet (read google) that matched your images....that was what came up.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#11
It's scary that you only live a few hours away from me.
 

AngryPest

Registered User
#13

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
#14
FWIW....

The F-117 was in service for years before its official release by the gov't.

as far as putting weapons on a supersonic craft.... it's problematic. You could do bombing for when it slows down but AA or a cannon would just force it to be too complex to safely rely on remotely. Also, the SR-71 was a fuel drinking bastard. It would have to refuel often because the engine literally pumped fuel out like there was a leak. Though the airframe was always the weakspot. The engine could never truly be pushed all the way as it'd probably rip the engine clean off the frame and desintegrate.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#15
FWIW....

The F-117 was in service for years before its official release by the gov't.

as far as putting weapons on a supersonic craft.... it's problematic. You could do bombing for when it slows down but AA or a cannon would just force it to be too complex to safely rely on remotely. Also, the SR-71 was a fuel drinking bastard. It would have to refuel often because the engine literally pumped fuel out like there was a leak. Though the airframe was always the weakspot. The engine could never truly be pushed all the way as it'd probably rip the engine clean off the frame and desintegrate.
I believe that the F-117 was in service for 10 years before the official release.


Also, you talk about the fuel the SR-71 used. Biased on the photo of what this jet could or does look like, it appears to use scram-jet technology. In which case it shouldn't be as much of a fuel hog.
 
#16
Although as you go faster drag increases exponentially. So doing 4000 instead of 2000 wouldn't double drag, it could increase it 50 times for all we know. If anyone here knows calculus I can look up the exact equation.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#17
Although as you go faster drag increases exponentially. So doing 4000 instead of 2000 wouldn't double drag, it could increase it 50 times for all we know. If anyone here knows calculus I can look up the exact equation.
That math is biased on older tech. Every time they come out with a newer design they decrease drag.
 
#18
They decrease the drag coefficient - a mostly linear part of the equation. There is still the exponential part of the equation.

Let's say going from 2000 to 4000 increases the exponential part of the equation by a factor of 10. But new technology reduced the drag coefficient by a factor of 3. What you are left with is still 3.33 times the energy needed. And most likely they couldn't reduce the drag coefficient by 3, the 71 was already amazing.

Even with new dynamics and scram it will probably be more expensive than the 71 was to fly. This certainly won't be a routinly flown aircraft.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#19
They decrease the drag coefficient - a mostly linear part of the equation. There is still the exponential part of the equation.

Let's say going from 2000 to 4000 increases the exponential part of the equation by a factor of 10. But new technology reduced the drag coefficient by a factor of 3. What you are left with is still 3.33 times the energy needed. And most likely they couldn't reduce the drag coefficient by 3, the 71 was already amazing.
For new technology to decrease drag by 'x', you need to know what the new technology does. You can't know that 'x' is 3.
 
#20
For new technology to decrease drag by 'x', you need to know what the new technology does. You can't know that 'x' is 3.
Of course we don't know what the new drag coefficient is, that's top secret. :action-sm

But if you look at increases in technology and at how the 71 was already optimized, I really doubt you will even see it reduced 3 times. I was giving the thing the benefit of the doubt throwing out that 3.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#21
I've read about technology that can break-up the air in front of a jet, so that it can have far less drag. Not sure if it's true, but it is an interesting idea.
 
#22
That's true, I think some space launch vehicles already do that to an extent.

Here is the drag of a few aircraft, of course the 71 isn't available:

wikipedia said:
0.027 Cessna 172/182
0.027 Cessna 310
0.022 Learjet 24
0.048 F-104 Starfighter
0.021 F-4 Phantom II (subsonic)
0.044 F-4 Phantom II (supersonic)
0.031 Boeing 747
0.095 X-15
Another thing to note with high speed objects like aircraft is the drag coefficient changes based on the speed they are going. I think these values listed are at their normal operating speeds.
 
#23
calculis is for queers.


meh, I still liked the SR-71 and the fact that real men in the day, say like Joe Kittinger ** said in a manly voice** flew them, unlike these new pussy jets that are unmanned.
Oh sure, they may save lives or health risks from real people but isn't that what the whole thrill of flying to these new heights are all about? Pushing the envelope to new limits?

More men in jets, I say
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
#24
calculis is for queers.


meh, I still liked the SR-71 and the fact that real men in the day, say like Joe Kittinger ** said in a manly voice** flew them, unlike these new pussy jets that are unmanned.
Oh sure, they may save lives or health risks from real people but isn't that what the whole thrill of flying to these new heights are all about? Pushing the envelope to new limits?

More men in jets, I say
Men in jets sounds good. But in reality, how many men ever even got a chance to fly an SR-71?
 
#25
Someone mentioned the Aurora and I'm too lazy to find them for the quote.

The Aurora was the test platform for the scramjet engine, and as Martian noted it looks like this supposed SR-72 is shaped in a way to facilitate a scramjet.

Also, the nature of the scramjet greatly reduces the effects of drag, and (from what little info I've been able to find about the technology) greater speed also increases the power of the engine.

As far as weapons go, from 100,000 feet you could easily design a weapons system that works similarly to an ICBM, basically a guided free fall weapon that's released from an internal bomb bay or something that arms/activates after a certain altitude is reached, something like that.
 
Top