User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

An SR-72 In The Works?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:49 am

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/
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:05 am

This is probably in response to China's anti-satellite weapon.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:27 am

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'!
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:58 am

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.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5216
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:19 am

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
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:29 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:03 am

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.
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:56 am

"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.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:06 pm

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.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:48 am

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.
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: An SR-72 In The Works?

Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:35 am

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.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests