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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[moderatorrater]

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

[benhocking]

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

[gujo-odori]

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:

[Shakrai]

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 o

Re:

[cayenne8]

"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...."

Hmm...if that happened, all that oil over there would be A). Radio active B). Up for grabs?

Just was wondering if that happened, if we could somehow use radioactive oil in some kind of combo internal combustion/nuclear engine....talk about efficient,eh?

:-)

Re:

[MadUndergrad]

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 maneuverability would be very good at those speeds.

Re:better hope it's real stealthy

[moderatorrater]

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:

[Carbonite]

Assuming such lasers exist, shooting down a satellite is much, much harder than hitting any airplane.

From the rest of your argument, I think you meant that shooting down a plane (with a laser) is much harder than hitting a satellite.

Re:

[moderatorrater]

yes, yes I did. *hangs head in shame*

They meaning China

[ascendant]

but (iirc) they can destroy satellites with them now.

You don't remember correctly.

They used the lasers to light up the satellite, and smacked it down with a missile [slashdot.org] (kinetic).

They also have the ability to blind some satellites cameras [defensetech.org] with lasers.

They do not have the ability to destroy [wikipedia.org] satellites with lasers.

Re:

[rsmoody]

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 poorly designed with regards to radar signature and would reflect a massive radar signature. Several of its accidentally stealthy characteristics are what brought on the interest in the creation of Have Blue, the predecessor to the F-117. They correctly deduc

Re:

[moderatorrater]

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 stealthy parts, it was horrible at it in practice.

Re:

[smilindog2000]

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, the blackbird simply had to make a slight turn to avoid a missile.

Re:

[icegreentea]

apparently its almost impossible to make something that fast stealthy, as the gas shooting out of it is superheated to the point where it actually reflects radar. thus, they're going to detect a couple hundred mile long radar contact moving at speeds lower than a ballistic missle, and in a non ballistic path.

Re:

[rogerborn]

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. It does not generate heat through the atmosphere, nor does it require 'fuel' in the normal sense.

Three. It is not exactly stealthy, since it 'glows' somewhat at night. However, due to its tremedous speed and its operating silence, it still maintains an elem

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[WED Fan]

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

[CommunistHamster]

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...

[Valdez]

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:

[ravenshrike]

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 very inefficient way to go dropping ordinance on people.

Re:

[Fishead]

Seems like an efficient way to intercept an ICBM. Shouldn't be a problem mounting a 50 calibre machine gun on the belly.

Re:

[cheater512]

Bullets dont go at Mach 6 last time I checked.

Re:

[Martin Blank]

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 the beam, but if it's for surgical strikes against soft targets (where a soft target could even be relatively heavily armored, but not under 30 feet of reinforced concrete), such a pinpoint ability could be exceedingly valuable in hitting targets in urban ar

Re:

[sconeu]

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.

No Weapon

[reallocate]

No weapon. It's a reconnaissance craft.

At 4000 mph, it would be able to outrun any anti-aircraft missile.

Re:

[magarity]

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...

A metal dart like a large version of a tank sabot round. The kinetic energy at that speed is nuts - the explosive power is like a small nuclear explosion. This is what was proposed for a bomber version of the SR71 back in the 60's but the generals at the time wanted 'real' explosives from a 'real' bomber so the taxpayers got fine worthwhile program

Re:

[afidel]

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.

Re:

[TFloore]

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.

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

Re:

[Rakishi]

Well I hope no one tells the rest of the world about all the spy sats taking pictures all the time.

Re:

[vought]

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 off of the shock wave (despite the prodigious thrust of its ramjet) and impacted the M-21, essentially ceaving the jet in half.

Any payload released at these speeds or altitudes has to get past the shock wave first - and that's a problem so intractable that

Already got one of these

[Skreech]

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.

Already got one?

[benhocking]

ARTHUR [sacred-texts.com]: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.
GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen... Uh, he's already got one, you see?

Re:

[feronti]

Heh. I've got that one too... need to get around to flying it though. And I don't think Tim Van Milligan was ever expecting a slashdotting:) Reminds me I need to get back to building and flying... been working too hard.

RS-71

[narced]

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

[Napoleon The Pig]

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:

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

"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...

Can we call it the SR-Marisa Tomei? [snopes.com]

Re:RS-71

[boster]

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

[Blahbooboo3]

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 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 tha

Did anyone really believe the Airforce's line?

[InsidiousDarkLord]

When they SR-71 was retired, they claimed it was no longer necessary as satellites could do the job. I assumed they had a replacement aircraft in place.

Re:

[evil agent]

If they really thought that satellites were good enough, they probably changed their thinking once China starting shooting them down [slashdot.org].

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

When they SR-71 was retired, they claimed it was no longer necessary as satellites could do the job. I assumed they had a replacement aircraft in place.

Naaw, c'mon, the Air Force stopped designing secret planes after the F117A was unveiled. That makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it? ;)

(BTW, it's about time, guys, to juice up some airshows with some new hotness!)

erm if you look at the picture

[Anonymous Coward]

that's clearly a submarine. And at 4000MPH, a flaming fast submarine too!

New Name

[El Torico]

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

Necessary?

[T-Bucket]

Is this really even necessary? Un-mothball a couple SR-71s. Is there even anything that can bring one of those down?

Re:

[vertinox]

Is there even anything that can bring one of those down?

Energy based weapons?

I mean, if they can knock a MIRV out of orbit then they can knock a SR-71 out of the sky.

Of course that would depend if the Russians or Chinese had such a system.

Re:

[siddesu]

how bout software bugs? the same kind that put the brakes on the F22 as discussed here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/25/203 8217 [slashdot.org]

Re:

[dixie_flatline_000]

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 close enough to be a real hazard, and the S-300s are pretty widely deployed. It's at least as much of a threat as the SA-2 GUIDELINE represented to the U-2.

Will never be as *cool* as SR-71

[DoofusOfDeath]

(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.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

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.

Re:

[jjk3]

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 Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird ended with a record-setting flight. This special airplane bore Air Force serial number 64-17972. Lt. Col. Ed Yeilding and his RSO, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Vida, flew this aircraft from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. in 1 hour, 4 mi

Concept sounds a lot like "Aurora"

[DragonWriter]

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...

[popo]

... its SeaQuest DSV!

USAF + Skunkworks + Google

[meccaneko]

*I* heard it was going to be used by Gooogle to do the next run of Street views...

1. supersonic stealth spy plane
2. Google Streets
3. ???
4. Profit!

remember kids...

[Thaelon]

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

Ok, so...

[jd]

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.)

Re:

[drgould]

(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.)

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:

[AK Marc]

I imagine it would be hard (everything at those speeds is hard) but what about a convertible engine? All a turbojet is is a ramjet with a compressor on the front. All a scramjet is is a ramjet where the internal air speeds never drop below supersonic. So, come up with a design where the turbine blades turn completely perpendicular to the flow of air and the turbine stops and the thing becomes a ramjet. Or have smaller turbojet engines that retract and a scramjet engine that kicks in at supersonic speeds

News, but not really

[DynaSoar]

We've known it's been in the works for a while. Several interim projects were specifically to test portions of the technology, such as the pure evil on the wing looking Bird of Prey (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_0 2 1018m.html). The SR 72 design (often called Darkbird, though that's not official) is pretty much frozen. Air Force Times has an artists' rendering which is probably pretty close to the final result (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforc e_sr72_070617/)

Corrected links

[Oswald]

There are spaces in OP's URLs, so they don't work (not to mention they're not links). I'm a kindly soul with time to kill, so here [boeing.com] is the Boeing link, and here [airforcetimes.com] is the Air Force Times link.

probably exists now

[192939495969798999]

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.

Re:

[geekoid]

Funny how you could get mattel model of them for years before the public 'knew about them'.
Same with the stealth fighter.

I suspect mattel pays someone to spy no the military...or someone in the military is using mattel as their road path.

I don't care...

[serviscope_minor]

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.

But wait...

[__aailrp9629]

If it's intended as a satellite-replacement in case of reconnaissance satellites being destroyed by ASAT weaponry, wouldn't there be some issues in remotely controlling an aircraft with "transcontinental" range without relying on communications satellites that would also presumably be destroyed by the point this aircraft is needed?

Classified

[R3d M3rcury]

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

[Deadstick]

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

[CaseyB]

Guess that makes me a German Nazi...

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

Those who forget their history...

[gorehog]

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.

[MtViewGuy]

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:

[Richard Elmore]

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 booster rocket to accelerate to the speed needed to start the drone's ramjet engine was another option. One problem there was that the radar signature of a D-21 launch looked a very similar to the launch of a Hound Dog missle so there was concern that somebody

Stealth heat signature

[cojsl]

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

[theolein]

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.

Clarification of "Classified"

[rehtonAesoohC]

A lot of people in comments are claiming conspiracy about the Air Force and Lockheed Martin denying comment on the plane's existence or lack thereof. When someone says information is classified, it is not a confirmation or a denial of its existence... It simply means that any information someone might have about the possible existence of a theoretical super-plane is on a need-to-know basis. If the general public has a need to know (wouldn't happen unless it was something like Armageddon) then the general public will be informed.

There's no need to immediately jump to "It's classified so it must exist." If that was the case, then ask any Air Force officer privy to classified information for info on that information. If you asked "Are there aliens at Area 51?" I guarantee you they'd respond with "That's classified." Same thing with "Is the Air Force testing prototype beam weapons?" Classified. I know that in this case, they simply denied comment, but the same principle applies. Saying nothing on the issue is not a confirmation of a person's suspicions.

Re:

[iamhassi]

"I'd assume they wouldn't want or need a pilot, but that's not mentioned."

what do you mean it's not mentioned??

FTFA:
"The new jet -- being referred to by some as the SR-72 -- is likely to be unmanned"

looks like it was mentioned to me...

Re:

[HaeMaker]

I agree, especially since most of our satellites are unmanned. /I just couldn't pass that up. //I say most, because of the ISS.

Re:

[Lord Crc]

And, I guess, if they're shot down, there's no pilot captured by the baddies, which is a tad harder to explain away than a bunch of debris.

Re:

[The Great Pretender]

They'd probably just find a piece with "Made in China" stamped on it.

Re:

[moderatorrater]

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. If there's one thing that can't go wrong, it's the contingency of having one get captured.

To the person with the "clever" moral compass comment, just because the US is performing reconnaissance doesn't make them the bad guy. Or are you saying that all through both world wars and the cold war the US was morally wrong to perform flyovers?

Re:

[Ironsides]

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 teaspoon.

Re:

[greenbird]

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:

[moderatorrater]

While I agree that it was wrong of the US and USSR to play chess with the world, would it have been any better if the US hadn't played at all? If the US hadn't opposed the USSR, what would have stopped them from raping the world as they saw fit?

Re:

[JPribe]

http://blackbirds.net/u2/blackcats/u2deployedpics. html [blackbirds.net]

http://blackbirds.net/u2/blackcats/blackcats.html [blackbirds.net]

Re:

[Original Replica]

Add to that other bonuses of not having a human on board, like not worrying about g-forces and being able to self destruct if need be.

Re:Particle beam weapon

[MrNaz]

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

Re:

[Kagura]

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

Re:Particle beam weapon

[ffoiii]

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

Re:

[sconeu]

It's not just a matter of hitting it. You've got to deal with dwell time. That is, keep your DE weapon on-target long enough to pump sufficient joules to do damage.

Re:

[still cynical]

You don't need anything that fancy or high-tech. The ability to shoot down a few high-altitude, high-speed targets has been around for quite a while. Sophisticated anti-missile defenses are required for hundreds, if not thousands, of VERY high-altitude, VERY high-speed targets, of which you can't afford to miss a single one because of the destruction it would cause.

Shooting down a high-mach atmospheric drone only requires decent radar and a few dozen surface-to-air missiles. You pop up a bunch directly i

Re:

[BCW2]

Lasers through the atmosphere don't work. Patrticulate in the atmosphere heats and causes the beam to spread, not remain concentrated. Tracking would be very hard and without tracking you can't aim. Speed plus stealth will be very hard to beat.

Re:

[LWATCDR]

They might have a chance at detecting it how do you use IR to guide the weapon? Kind of hard since the weapons own IR will probably blind it's sensors. Then add in that it will take a big missile to intercept a mach 6 vehicle at 100,000 that can maneuver.

Re:

[sn00ker]

how do you use IR to guide the weapon?

Could you even use IR for this kind of intercept? Surely the IR tracking would be confused by the huge, and very hot, plume of air behind the aircraft? The suggestion in another post that you don't need to be faster than the "plane" to intercept doesn't work very well when the missile is guided on IR, since it will be chasing the aircraft. If it's not significantly (at least one more multiple of the speed of sound) faster than that which it's pursuing, it cannot po

Re:

[LWATCDR]

The THAAD makes it's interception at a much higher altitude than 100,000 feet. Take a look at the THAAD and you will see that the seeker window is protected by a shroud during the boost phase. To intercept a Mach 6 vehicle the missile will need to to fly at around Mach 8. Just think about how hot the seeker window will get at that speed and that low of an altitude. And yes at Mach 6-8 100k feet is low altitude.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever thought the U-2 was immune to missles, they knew that it flew outside the engagment envelope of _current_ Soviet SAM systems but the CIA estimated that by sometime around 1960 Soviet SAM technology would advance far enough to make them vulnerable. When Powers was shot down in 1960 his flight was supposed to have been one of the last to go into Soviet airspace. Simply put they took a chance that they could pull it off one more time and lost.

Second its not enough to just detect the plane to shoo

Re:

[Shihar]

"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 only hit what is in its horizon, with stuff on the horizon being extremely difficult to hit and taking even more power. Any such laser would be pretty damn big, pretty damn obvious, consume a very noticeable amount of juice, and be a big fat plump target

Re:

[c6gunner]

You can't find a link because it's nonsense. Most military electronics are hardened against EMP, but you expect the Howard Stern Show to knock them out of the air? Not likely.

Re:

[harrkev]

You underestimate the sheer destructive power of Howard Stern's stupidity.

My guess is the helicopters commited suicide rather than listen to him.

Re:

[c6gunner]

An article written in 1989 which says "the service has begun a $175 million program to shield the Black Hawk's flight control computers from such radiation"? WTF? I mean, thanks for the interesting reading, but let's not be silly here...

Re:

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

That's just what they want you to think. Much cheaper than actually building one.

Re:

[TubeSteak]

But when the computer develops a mind of its own, after being hit by a lightning bolt that scrambles its programming, it's the humans who are charged with stopping it before it incites a war

Fixed that plot summary for you.

Even the most 'intelligent' AI software is going to be constrained by whatever its programming is, so that really isn't anything to worry about. Especially since something as expensive as a long range recon aircraft is going to have 3 or 4 redundant systems.

Re:

[Magada]

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 country. Dig?