USAF Developing New "SR-72" Supersonic Spy? 428
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
A few comments... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to state the obvious, but the article is pretty sensational... I can summarize:
Did anyone really believe the Airforce's line? (Score:2, Insightful)
there's a good reason they dont use the SR71 (Score:1, Insightful)
Incorrect according to wiki (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Name
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.
I think the AC's point was retaliation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:there's a good reason they dont use the SR71 (Score:2, Insightful)
Second its not enough to just detect the plane to shoot it down, you have to have a weapon that can engage it. The Soviets had known that planes (probaby US) were penetrating their airspace for some time, they just didn't have a weapon that could engage them yet. The higher and faster the plane flies the smaller the envelope of engagment (both in space and time). Altitude and speed don't make a plane invulnerable but they make them harder to hit and possibly invulnerable to _current_ air defence systems. Of course if there is a next-generation plane that can evade current missles then people will start work on next-generation missles (or laser, HPM,
It's a never ending game of cat and mouse.
Re:better hope it's real stealthy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Pilot not required? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what the C4/Thermite is for. Debris isn't worth much when all that's left won't even fill a teaspoon.
No joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 everything else around it].
Badder than the Wright Bros' biplane, badder than Lindbergh's Spirit of St Louis, badder than Apollo 11, badder than the Space Shuttle.
Just one great big Samuel Jackson Pulp Fiction Bad Mofo of an airplane.
probably exists now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ok, so... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're confusing the hovering McDonnell Douglas DC-X [wikipedia.org] (which was a successful test vehicle until NASA got ahold of it) and the Shuttle replacement Lockheed Martin X-33 [wikipedia.org] (which was a diaster).
Re:better hope it's real stealthy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:better hope it's real stealthy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think the AC's point was retaliation (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The unanswered question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think the AC's point was retaliation (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortunately, the major nuclear powers have reached a point where they are all pretty against having war with each other. Unfortunately, we have guys like Ahmahdinejad in Iran, steadfastly denying the Holocaust while at the same time working their butts off to make deliverable nuclear weapons as part of their planning for the next Holocaust.
While that is unlikely to trigger a confrontation between the major nuclear powers, it is likely to trigger an Iranian attempt to nuke Israel, and
whether it's successful or not, retaliation in kind by the Israelis. I think there is no doubt that the Israel response would be successful and devastating. Sometime between now and when Iran can actually build nuclear weapons, that building needs to be prevented. By peaceful means if possible, but by any means necessary if peaceful means don't work.
Re:A few comments... (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about high speed is that you don't turn very quickly. So when a radar site sees you, they notify the SAM battery 400 miles downrange of your track, and the missiles are on the way up to meet you when you get there.
And the missiles are fast enough now to catch you, too.
This is why the SR-71 was retired from reconnaissance missions. When the Soviets developed and fielded hypersonic SAMs (hypersonic == 5 times the speed of sound), they suddenly had missiles fast enough to catch up to an SR-71 from behind. Before that, the SR-71 pilots would barely even notice that they'd been fired upon, because the missiles couldn't catch them. And when they did notice, they laughed, because they knew the missiles were ineffective.
The US had enough of a problem when the U-2 was shot down... they didn't want an SR-71 shot down also.
Stealth matters.
Other than that... correct, the article is pretty sensational.
Anyone remember the Aurora aircraft that was talked about when the SR-71 was retired? I remember comments then that "The Air Force would never retire an aircraft unless they had a replacement already available" and other statements like that. Haven't heard anything about that in the last 5 years. Maybe we will in another 25 years, assuming it exists at all, when it gets declassified.
Re:I think the AC's point was retaliation (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not it would be allowed to happen is another question altogether. But if it did happen, China would come out on the worst end of it. They have enough nuclear capacity to act as an effective deterrent, but not enough to make an offensive attack and succeed.
Kudos for that argument. I made it for the EU awhile back when some EU tool stated that they could "atomic-bitchslap" the US and Russia and nobody wanted to listen to it. Russia and the United States are the only two nations that can play offensive nuclear war with any chance of success (albeit, "success" in nuclear war probably implies millions of deaths on your side and total genocide for whomever you were going after).
Unfortunately, we have guys like Ahmahdinejad in Iran, steadfastly denying the Holocaust while at the same time working their butts off to make deliverable nuclear weapons as part of their planning for the next Holocaust.
That guy scares me more then Kim Jong ever will. At least Kim's motives are obvious and somewhat understandable (survival of his regime). Ahmahdinejad's goals remain a mystery.
it is likely to trigger an Iranian attempt to nuke Israel, and whether it's successful or not, retaliation in kind by the Israelis
The Israelis have a couple hundred missiles that can be nuclear tipped and reach any point of Iran. They can completely destroy Iran if they choose to do so. One can only hope that it doesn't come to that....