Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
An SR-72 In The Works?  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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.

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

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4026 times:

This is probably in response to China's anti-satellite weapon.

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2421 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3975 times:

Already exists. Known as "Aurora".

Big version: Width: 550 Height: 392 File size: 26kb


Be right back, forgot my tin foil hat!



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3946 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 2):
exists. Known as "Aurora".

Word on the street is that the Aurora program has been halted because of problems with the pulse jet. No one really knows, but the Aurora talk that has been around since the 80's has died down in recent years.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

How does this tie in with the VULTURE program?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-stay-airborne-for-five-years.html

This sounds like the unmanned, but subsonic long range vehicle.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...subsonic-long-range-strike-so.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

I reported it this 10 days ago:

Lockheed Martin To Build Mach 6 Aircarft (by 474218 Jun 11 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
I reported it this 10 days ago:

Lockheed Martin To Build Mach 6 Aircarft (by 474218 Jun 11 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Yes, you did.

This is old news.


User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

"And this has nothing to do with the B-3 bomber"


I am sure the government has a secret division somewhere that is in charge of cooking up rumors to keep people talking about fake crap while they work on other things.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

What exactly is this plane categorized under? If it is a bomber or recon, might as well be a rocket plane with a projectile flightpath, doesn't have to be scramjet powered. What's the point for stealth? Seriously, at those speeds, few missles can catch up to it, if any.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 2):
Already exists. Known as "Aurora".

Aurora was mothballed in between Dec 94 and Feb 95, only two examples flew, to my knowledge.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 3):
Word on the street is that the Aurora program has been halted because of problems with the pulse jet.

I know the pulse system worked, it did fly afterall, its the only way to make hypersonic flight realitively feasible. Having said that, it costed too much to operate from the government's standpoint, close to the Space Shuttle's $1 billion per flight. Liquid methane fuel isn't cheap and Aurora was filled with 118,000 lbs of it. Her pulse engines gave it a range of over 5000 nmi. A simple ramjet would use it up in under 1000 miles.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
Liquid methane fuel isn't cheap and Aurora was filled with 118,000 lbs of it.

Ignoring the almost certain non-existence of any aircraft like Aurora, what makes you think that "liquid methane" is expensive?

LNG costs about 10% than the gaseous stuff, and is typically considerably less expensive on a unit-energy basis than refined kerosene. Not only that, but it's shipped around the world in quite large quantities. If you wanted near pure methane, you'll have to refine the natural gas a bit (NG being only about 90% methane), which would certainly increase costs some, but it's not hard. In fact, you can do it as a byproduct of the liquification process (at least for moderate purity levels, past about E2.5 - about 99.5% - you’ll have to go to a two stage process). But I can't possibly see costs of "liquid methane" being a meaningful issue for a small number of special purpose military aircraft.


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
I know the pulse system worked, it did fly afterall, its the only way to make hypersonic flight realitively feasible. Having said that, it costed too much to operate from the government's standpoint, close to the Space Shuttle's $1 billion per flight. Liquid methane fuel isn't cheap and Aurora was filled with 118,000 lbs of it. Her pulse engines gave it a range of over 5000 nmi. A simple ramjet would use it up in under 1000 miles.

You are right, it did fly.

Although I have no trust in the source, the latest source that I read stated that the pulse accelarations could never be properly controlled. IN other words, the pulses were great for acceleration but the creation could not create a controlled and continuous power supply. In other words, stability and handling sucked and the program was scratched.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic An SR-72 In The Works?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Foreign Air Bases In The USA posted Mon Mar 19 2007 13:58:09 by BHXDTW
Anybody In The Air Training Corps? posted Sat Mar 10 2007 23:02:44 by A320ajm
How Many Military 707s In The World? posted Thu Mar 1 2007 09:39:12 by Kaitak744
F16's In The Navy? posted Mon Jan 15 2007 20:03:34 by Blackbird1331
The RAF In The South Atlantic - Great Pics posted Sun Jan 14 2007 20:30:33 by GDB
It Sure Is Different In The Air Force posted Thu Jan 11 2007 14:08:28 by Army15P
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by SkidMarque
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes
Air Superiority Over Europe In The Early 1980s posted Mon Aug 28 2006 15:58:34 by AislepathLight
Video - RAF In The Gulf In 1990/91 posted Mon Aug 21 2006 19:13:33 by GDB

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format