USAF Developing New "SR-72" Supersonic Spy?

Kadin2048 writes "According to an Air Force Times article, the famed Lockheed Martin 'Skunk Works' may be hard at work on a new supersonic spy plane (with 'artist concept') for the U.S. military, to replace the SR-71 'Blackbird' retired a decade ago. Dubbed by some the SR-72, the jet would be unmanned and travel at about 4,000 MPH at as much as 100,000 feet, with 'transcontinental' range. Some have speculated that new high-speed spy planes could be a U.S. response to anti-satellite weapons deployed by China, in order to preserve reconnaissance capabilities in the event of a loss of satellite coverage. Neither the Air Force nor Lockheed Martin would comment on the program, or lack thereof."

better hope it's real stealthy

Given the size of the thing, and the speed and height it flies at, that's going to look a lot like a missile. Might not be the best thing for an already paranoid enemy to see.

Re:better hope it's real stealthy

If it's anything like the SR-71, it won't be an issue whether they see it or not, they'll just accelerate. The Blackbird was a horribly un-stealthy plane, seen from hundreds of miles away by radar. However, while they were shot at quite frequently, they were never destroyed by enemy fire because of their speed and altitude. If a new version is in the works and this isn't just the same rumor that's been passed around for years, then it could easily incorporate the same defense mechanism.

I think the AC's point was retaliation

As in Mutually Assured Destruction, if the SR-72 were falsely interpreted as a nuclear missile. I doubt that would happen, but I believe that was the point of the "first post".

Re:I think the AC's point was retaliation

That was the point (although China Vs. the US or Russia in a nuclear shootout would not result in MAD, it would results in the US or Russia being mauled and China being utterly destroyed), but the AC was a complete tool, and so were those who modded him Insightful. The only kind of missile with a similar flight trajectory would be operating at a much lower altitude - say, 50 - 100 feet - and at subsonic speeds.

An ICBM, unlike a cruise missile or an SR-71, has a very steep angle of ascent, and comes down pretty steeply, too, doesn't have much of a heat signature on the way down, and since most (or all?) of those held by the US and Russia have MIRV warheads, the things coming down will also be far, far smaller than an aircraft. A spy plane looks nothing like a missile on radar.

Re:

What about laser weapons, though? They weren't nearly as advanced back when the 71 was flying, but (iirc) they can destroy satellites with them now. Wouldn't targeting a high-flying plane like the 72 be similar to hitting a satellite? I can't imagine the m

Re:better hope it's real stealthy

Assuming such lasers exist, shooting down a satellite is much, much harder than hitting any airplane. The satellite has a known trajectory that doesn't change much over the course of weeks, making it very easy to plan exactly how to fire the laser. Also, a satellite will change a few degrees per second at most.

On the other hand you have an aircraft traveling at mach 6. This requires you to accurately plot the trajectory, get the laser in place and aimed and firing for however long it needs to be concentrated on the same spot, all in a matter of minutes. Assuming the laser needs to be concentrated on the same spot for 1 second, the aircraft will have traveled nearly a mile. Not an easy task.

Re:

Um, actually, the SR-71, for its time, was quite stealthy. The chines were constructed to reduce radar signature and it was coated with an early RAM material. About the only time you could see it well on radar was during a turn as the underside was poorl

Re:

According to the wikipedia article, it would have been stealthy if it weren't for the fact that it was going so darn fast and so hot that they could see it from hundreds of miles away and it appeared to be the largest thing in the sky. While it had some st

Re:

As this is slashdot, I'll throw out what I've heard without siting a source. I hear the USSR shot plenty of missiles at the blackbird, but at that altitude, the missiles turned into flying bricks, unable to turn effectively. Designed for that altitude, t

Re:

One. It is not the SR-72. It is not even the SR-75 or the 79. Those designations are already being used for other vehicles. Nor is it likely called the AM-11 or the A-17, nor even the 'Stealth Triangle.' To the rest of us, its designation is unknown.

Two. I

Re:

Now I'm all for conspiracy theories and the intrigue of a good old spy thriller, but here's the rub. I spent a decade in the military, then a bit more working as a civilian for the department of defense, the entire time I held a TS security clearance and h

Re:

Google has been flying this thing for photo recon already. How the hell do you think they get those shots of women with those ever lovely thong handles?

Re:fsdf 53tgvzxcreahb fg agasgdgu nbcxfharefdawsgg

Gentlemen, this may be the very first sighting of this new spyplane on Slashdot. Observe the shape made by the bold text under a resolution of 640*480 @ 60Hz.

A few comments...

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.

I'd be interested to see what kind of weapon they're planning to pop out the bottom of this thing @ Mach 6. Doesn't seem like a terribly bright idea...

Second, friction at high speeds could reduce stealth.

At some point, you don't need the stealth, because by the time anyone realizes you're coming and gets some sort of weapon 100k ft into the air, you'll probably have already landed.

I hate to state the obvious, but the article is pretty sensational... I can summarize:

Cower before our unmanned 6000mph stealthy black aircraft! If the Mach 6 shockwave doesn't get you, the nuclear handgrenades it carries will!

Re:

Eh, I suppose it could have a hatch situated between the engines on the rear of the plane, but anything it would drop would be extremely small an realatively very light as they wouldn't want to weigh down the plane any more than necessary. All in all, a ve

Re:

There's work being done on lasers that are eventually intended for mounting under the F-35, so it may not be that much of a stretch to see one or two of those mounted in something like this. I don't know how badly 20 miles of atmosphere would attenuate th

Re:

You've still got to worry about dwell time. It's not enough just to hit the target for a fraction of a second, you have to hold on target long enough to pump enough joules into it to do damage.

Re:

I would think the plane would probably smack its self into any payload it carried.

This happened with the M-21 drone delivery version of the A-12, which was the predecessor type to the SR-71 Blackbird. While practicing the drone release, the drone bounced o

Re:

Valkyrie was worth it just to make the most beautiful airplane of all time. If you've ever seen it in person at WPAFB you'd know what I mean.

Already got one of these

I already have an SR-72.

http://www.apogeerockets.com/SR72_Darkbird_Kit.asp [apogeerockets.com]

It doesn't go 4,000mph, though. It just sits there. I think I was ripped off.

RS-71

I'm sure a lot of you guys already know this, but for those that don't...

The SR-71 Blackbird was originally named the RS-71, but it was renamed when Lyndon Johnson accidentally rearranged the letters during his 1964 announcement of the existence of the SR-71 (which he was supposed to call RS-71). Anyway... airplane history for ya'll.

Re:RS-71

Not quite...

"Conventional" wisdom now says that then president Lyndon B. Johnson messed up the designation in his public announcement and called it the SR-71 - and nobody wanted to correct the president. Because the strike mission had been cancelled anyway, "SR" was quickly reinterpreted as "Strategic Reconnaissance". However, a first-hand witness of those events recently revealed in Aviation Week & Space Technology, that LBJ did not misread anything. In fact, then USAF Chief of Staff LeMay simply didn't like the "RS" designator - he already objected it when the RS-70 was discussed, preferring "SR-70". When the RS-71 was to be announced, he wanted to make sure it would be called SR-71 instead. He managed to have LBJ's speech script altered to show "SR-71" in all places. Using archived copies of LBJ's speech, it can actually be verified that it reads SR-71 both in the script and on the tape recording. However, the official transcript of the speech, created from the stenographic records and handed to the press afterwards, shows "RS-71" in three places. It seems that not the president but a stenographer did accidentally switch the letters, and thus create a famous aviation "urban legend".

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstan dard-mds.html#_MDS_SR71 [designation-systems.net]

Re:RS-71

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

Name and designation

The USAF had planned to redesignate the A-12 aircraft as the B-71 as the successor to the B-70 Valkyrie. The B-71 would have a nuclear capability of 3 first-generation SRAM's (Short-Range Attack Missiles). The next designation was RS-71 (Reconnaissance-Strike) when the strike capability became an option. However, then USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaisance) designation and wanted the RS-71 to be named SR-71. Before the Blackbird was to be announced by President Johnson on 29 February 1964, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the plane's designation.[1][2]

Incorrect according to wiki

Sorry, no dyslexia for LBJ :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Name _ and_designation [wikipedia.org]

USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaisance) designation and wanted the RS-71 to be named SR-71. Before the Blackbird was

New Name

I was wondering when they'd have an official designation for Aurora [abovetopsecret.com].

Will never be as *cool* as SR-71

(My previous post had bad links. Sorry.)

http://www.cnw.mk.ua/weapons/airforce/razv/sr71/im age/sr71ff.jpg [cnw.mk.ua]

http://perso.orange.fr/romain.g/sr71-1.jpg [orange.fr]

No joke.

Seriously.

The SR-71 is easily the baddest mofo of any item in either the Smithsonian's downtown Air & Space or Air & Space II in the big hangar out by the airport [which is where the SR-71 sits, right smack in the middle of the floor, dominating

Re:

I personally think the Enterprise trumps the SR-71, but there is no denying the bad assness of the last flight of that SR-71.

According to the Smithsonian - http://www.nasm.si.edu/aircraft/lockheed_sr71.htm [si.edu]

"On March 6, 1990, the service career of one Loc

Concept sounds a lot like "Aurora"

Except there was never any suggestion that Aurora [wikipedia.org] was "crew optional". Nothing solid provided by the article, but no one should be surprised if it turns out to be true.

That's no plane...

... its SeaQuest DSV!

remember kids...

If the headline ends in a question mark, it's not news.

Ok, so...

They are probably building a waverider [aerodyn.org] that uses a ramjet [onera.fr] (4,000 MPH is way way too slow for a scramjet) with some sort of launch [alt-accel.com] assist [sci-toys.com] mechanism - there are several they can choose. Though they could also use a turbine-assisted ramjet [nii.ac.jp] or variant. Again, there are several.

Does it matter? Well, the first to build a working waverider aircraft was a Scottish amateur rocketry group. Story has it that when NASA and Boeing engineers saw footage of the vehicle flying, they were staring at the screen in sheer envy. They'd got no further than theory. We also all know the story of the New Zealander who has jet-propelled go-karts and his own low-cost cruise missile. And the Gauss Rifle linked to above didn't look too complex, either.

Although amateurs are very unlikely to be building supersonic or hypersonic spy planes in the near future, none of this looks so complex that it could not be done by other nations in comparable time. Don't think it won't happen - too many potential benefits. Variants will also inevitably be adopted by commercial space planes, as it's so much cheaper than using vanilla rocketry and should be much more reliable.

To me, the only question I think worth asking at this point is who will be there first? Lockheed-Martin, China or Rutan? (And after Lockheed's disastrous hovering shuttle replacement in the late 1990s, it's not wise to just assume they'll automatically win such a race.)

probably exists now

the SR-71 is a famous example of something very advanced remaining classified for a long time. By the time the public saw them, they were practically retired. I'd guess that this vehicle exists now in classified form, and by 2020 we'll "officially" know they've built and flown them.

I don't care...

I don't care if there are better solutions or if it's expensive or bad for the environment or whatever. The engineer in me just thinks that the SR-71 was too cool to be taken out of service. I look forward to the SR-72.

Classified

FTFA:

"As a matter of policy, we don't talk about classified programs -- whether or not they exist," Lockheed's Tom Jurkowsky said.

If the program doesn't exist, how can it be classified? Or has the military classified everything that doesn't exist?

I'm confused.

Obligatory linguistic correction

from the next-comes-high-altitude-flak-cannons dept.

Redundant. Flak is a German-style contraction for Flugabwehrkanone, anti-aircraft cannon.

Guess that makes me a German Nazi...

rj

Re:Obligatory linguistic correction

Guess that makes me a German Nazi...

You just Godwinned yourself. I've never seen that before.

Those who forget their history...

From the article...

A new Mach-6 reconnaissance jet being developed for the Air Force would offer a combination of speed, altitude and stealth that could make it virtually impervious to ground-based missiles, sources said.

My response? Francis Gary Powers. Goodnight Folks, you've been a wonderful crowd.

Sounds like D-21 redux.

I wonder does anyone remember Project Tagboard, the Lockheed D-21 unmanned drone that could fly at around 2,700 mph to fly a pre-programmed course before ejecting its camera pack? While the idea worked it was not a paragon of reliability and the project was cancelled in 1971.

However, thanks to technology improvements since then, this new drone could probably work, thanks to better materials, fly-by-wire systems, and GPS navigation for more precise control of flight path. It would probably be launched off modified B-52 bombers like the D-21 drone.

Re:

The D-21 had problems being launched from A-12 aircraft at supersonic speed, Kelly Johnson was quoted as saying it was "the most dangerous maneuver we have ever been involved in, in any airplane I have ever worked on."

Launching from a B-52 using a booste

Stealth heat signature

In the excellent "Skunk Works" about Lockheed Martin's special projects division, Ben Rich discusses the problem of masking the heat signature from air friction against the airframe of a plane flying Mach 6, saying it would show up like a meteor to a thermal detector. At that speed you can't shoot it down, but the observed can detect it thermally. I recall that he said they put additives in the SR-71's fuel to reduce the heat signature of its exhaust.
It seems that the U2 and SR-71 overflights may have had a calming effect on US military actions, as they allowed the US to better understand the USSR's level of alert, and prevented overreaction to a false belief that the USSR may have been massing for an attack.

SA-12 aka S-300

I'm not so sure that this craft will be invulnerable to surface to air missiles such as the S-300V (SA-12b) [wikipedia.org] fielded by Russia, China and India. The SA-12b has a range of between 100 and 200 km and a speed of 2.4km/s (Mach 7.24) and is known to have a limited anti-ballistic missile capability. Any craft travelling at mach 6 is not going to be very manoeuvrable (less than a missile in any case) and if it were to come in range of the SAMs would very likey be shot down. It is also an interesting coincidence that the SR-71 was slowly retired as later variants of the S-300 became operational as it would have made intercepts possible even over international waters where the SR-71 usually operated (The limits of view at 80 000 feet altitude is about 640km so there good information could be gathered without endangering the crew and craft, and satellites could actually get closer to the target than the SR-71 could), but you can be sure that the SR-71 was never operated over any area where there were active and hostile S-300s.

That said, tracking a target at mach 6 is no easy task. If the plane deploys some stealth or good ecm it will be no easy target. But invulnerable I seriously doubt. In the same manner that Russia upgraded its S-27 Topol M ICBM to manoeuvre in order to make targeting by the US ABM interceptor missiles, I am pretty sure that both China and Russia would be able to develop a counter to the SR-72 relatively cheaply, probably by improving the S-300 system.

I think the real use of a system such as this would be against countries like Iran, which the US fears is going to threaten Israel.

Re:Particle beam weapon

It's also vulnerable to psionic telekinetic mutants who could pull the thing to Earth and then disassemble it with their minds.

Re:

I hope you get modded up to at least Insightful +3.

Re:Particle beam weapon

I, for one, welcome our new psionic telekinetic mutant overlords.

Re:

"Laser defenses" are hardly worth losing much sleep over. In order to hit a target moving the speeds this thing moves and at the height it travels, you will not only need one very powerful laser, but a damn good targeting system. Even then, the laser can

Re:

That does highlight the one area in which you'd want a pilot, though, and that's to make sure that no real technology falls into the enemy's hands.

That's what the C4/Thermite is for. Debris isn't worth much when all that's left won't even fill a teaspo

Re:

That's what the C4/Thermite is for. Debris isn't worth much when all that's left won't even fill a teaspoon.

You know, at 4000mph I really don't think C4 or Thermite would be needed. I think friction would do the trick if there were to be any unplanned aerodynamic manipulations.

Re:

Have a look at the Russian S-300 family of SAMs (NATO SA-10 GRUMBLE/SA-12 GLADIATOR and successors). Max engagement altitude is ~100k ft, and top speed is in excess of Mach 6. The SR-71 lives near the edge of the S-300's engagement envelope, but it's clo

Re:

From the tone, UID and nick, I assume you're about 16 years old, so not necessarily trollish, just misinformed. Here's a free geopolitics lesson, kiddo: if the US embargoes China, Walmart goes titsup. Last I checked, that's the largest employer in the coun