nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:35 am

After decades of rumors, Lockheed confirms serious design work on a potential SR-71 successor. They've come up with a way to use an existing fighter engine and transition it in flight in a way that will cover the gap between turbojet and ramjet/scramjet for mach 6 operation. Not a bad article from Guy Norris.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_11_01_2013_p0-632731.xml&p=1
Anon
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:15 pm

I'll go anal retentive here. Here's hoping that when/if it's picked up by DOD and given an official designation it's just the R-1. What's the point of having a designation/nomenclature system if it's just being ignored?
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1427
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:03 pm

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 1):
I'll go anal retentive here. Here's hoping that when/if it's picked up by DOD and given an official designation it's just the R-1. What's the point of having a designation/nomenclature system if it's just being ignored?

Agreed, but it will probably be the SR-2 since TR-1 already exists. Unless of it is going to be RQ-19.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
Slcpilot
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:45 am

Wow! What a timeline! The article is nothing more than a Lockheed Martin advertisement in my opinion. They MIGHT have a demonstrator in ten years!?!? I'm not impressed! And a system by 2030?

If they want to show the real SR-72 (or whatever it was called), de-classify the two stage system that didn't work, not some "plan" that's no where near being funded! !

SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:59 am

Interesting article. Funny thing about 6 or 7 years ago I was out in Mojave with a friend scrapping some airplanes. We kept hearing a sonic boom about every 2 hours. Being down the street from Edwards AFB we didn't pay it much mind. After about the forth time we watched as something would come down from a very high alt. make a wide sweeping turn while its chase play would play catch up. Then this aircraft would make another run back towards the north east and go back up to a high alt and very high speed. We never saw anything but vapor trails. Even with a telephoto lens it was nothing but a dark dot in the sky. This was after the SR-71's had been "officially" retired.

Maybe it is like the stealth fighters and they already have it, they just are now teasing the public with it.

David

PS> and no I wasn't out in the heat or sun to much this day.
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
dtw9
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:09 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:02 am

Sure smells like the long denied AURORA to me.
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:39 pm

A pretty cool presentation of the contrast between the proposed engine and the SR-71s.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/...dia/hyperengines/hyperengines.html
And a different article from Parabolic Arc.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/11/...rsonic-mach-6-aircraft/#more-50544

[Edited 2013-11-02 06:41:13]
Anon
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:16 am

So will this aircraft be manned or flown by remote ?
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:42 pm

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 4):
Interesting article. Funny thing about 6 or 7 years ago I was out in Mojave with a friend scrapping some airplanes. We kept hearing a sonic boom about every 2 hours. Being down the street from Edwards AFB we didn't pay it much mind. After about the forth time we watched as something would come down from a very high alt. make a wide sweeping turn while its chase play would play catch up. Then this aircraft would make another run back towards the north east and go back up to a high alt and very high speed. We never saw anything but vapor trails. Even with a telephoto lens it was nothing but a dark dot in the sky. This was after the SR-71's had been "officially" retired.

If I can recall correctly, NASA operated theirs until the late '90s.
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13760
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:49 pm

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 1):
I'll go anal retentive here. Here's hoping that when/if it's picked up by DOD and given an official designation it's just the R-1.

You said it, not me... I don't give a monkey's bosom (cf: Astuteman) what they call it...

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 3):
Wow! What a timeline! The article is nothing more than a Lockheed Martin advertisement in my opinion.

Hoping you read the article, which said:

Quote:

“The next step would be to put it through a series of tests or critical demonstrations,” Leland says. “We are ready for those critical demonstrations, and we could be ready to do such a demonstration aircraft in 2018. That would be the beginning of building and running complete critical demonstrations. As of now, there are no technologies to be invented. We are ready to proceed—the only thing holding us back is the perception that [hypersonics] is always expensive, large and exotic.”

The 2018 time line is determined by the potential schedule for the high-speed strike weapon (HSSW), a U.S. hypersonic missile program taking shape under the Air Force and Darpa (see page 36). “We can do critical demonstrations between now and then, but we don’t believe it will be until HSSW flies and puts to bed any questions about this technology, and whether we can we truly make these, that the confidence will be there.” In spite of the recent success of demonstration efforts, such as the X-51A Waverider, Leland observes that “hypersonics still has a bit of a giggle factor.”

The timing also dovetails with the Air Force hypersonic road map, which calls for efforts to support development of a hypersonic strike weapon by 2020 and a penetrating, regional ISR aircraft by 2030 (AW&ST Nov. 26, 2012, p. 40).

So, if you care to write some checks it could be happening a lot sooner, but in the real world, one can't just charge ahead on their own timelines.

Besides,

Quote:

“We have been continuing to invest company funds, and we are kind of at a point where the next steps would require large-scale testing, which would significantly increase the level of investment we’ve had to make to-date. Between Darpa and the Air Force, it would be highly likely they’d have to fund the next steps,” Leland says.

Perhaps it is an 'advertisement' but not exactly on the timeline you suggest.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:00 pm

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 8):
Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 4):Interesting article. Funny thing about 6 or 7 years ago I was out in Mojave with a friend scrapping some airplanes. We kept hearing a sonic boom about every 2 hours. Being down the street from Edwards AFB we didn't pay it much mind. After about the forth time we watched as something would come down from a very high alt. make a wide sweeping turn while its chase play would play catch up. Then this aircraft would make another run back towards the north east and go back up to a high alt and very high speed. We never saw anything but vapor trails. Even with a telephoto lens it was nothing but a dark dot in the sky. This was after the SR-71's had been "officially" retired.
If I can recall correctly, NASA operated theirs until the late '90s.

It was around 2005 so I don't think it was a NASA SR-71
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:46 am

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 5):
Sure smells like the long denied AURORA to me.

According to former Skunk Work's head Ben Rich, AURORA was the budgetary code name for the fly-off demonstrators for the Stealth Bomber program (won by Northrop Grumman with the B-2 Spirit).
 
757gb
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:11 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:23 pm

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 3):
Wow! What a timeline! The article is nothing more than a Lockheed Martin advertisement in my opinion. They MIGHT have a demonstrator in ten years!?!? I'm not impressed! And a system by 2030?

As much as I'd like it to be real, that's the thought that crossed my mind as well. For me it all sounds very much out of pattern. This type of project is usually surrounded in secrecy and we don't find out about it until it's already operational (F-117 and the SR-71 come to mind). Why announce something so far in advance? Especially if there is some kind of breakthrough involved.
God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
 
dtw9
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:09 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
According to former Skunk Work's head Ben Rich, AURORA was the budgetary code name for the fly-off demonstrators for the Stealth Bomber program (won by Northrop Grumman with the B-2 Spirit).

This is the one I'm referring to.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/06/sr-91-aurora-aircraft.html
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:23 pm

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 13):
This is the one I'm referring to.

I assumed as much.  

However, the basis for that plane was the budget line item titled AURORA. Because it was a black project and it had a catchy high-alrtiude name, folks latched on to it as a theoretical replacement for the SR-71. In response to all that speculation, Mr. Rich came forward with what he claims is the real aircraft that line item covered - the Advanced Technology Bomber / B-2.


I am of the opinion that there is no air-breathing replacement for the SR-71 in development, much less in service. I believe the Boeing X-37 reusable unmanned spacecraft is probably the platform being developed for that purpose and that the three orbital flights so far have been in support of testing for that purpose.
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:29 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I am of the opinion that there is no air-breathing replacement for the SR-71 in development, much less in service. I believe the Boeing X-37 reusable unmanned spacecraft is probably the platform being developed for that purpose and that the three orbital flights so far have been in support of testing for that purpose.

Orbital ops are a completely different animal than what a mach 6 craft would be for. Once you launch anything into orbit it's path is pretty much destined and predictable. And particular orbits require narrow launch windows with brief opportunities for observation of a target.
The proposed craft would be much more versatile than any orbital asset. It could be launched at any target any where at any time, unlike an orbital platform. The only real advantage of an X-37 type craft would be it's crossrange capability if used in an attack, since it could fly a few thousand miles or so after re-entry.
Anon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:22 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 15):
Orbital ops are a completely different animal than what a mach 6 craft would be for. Once you launch anything into orbit it's path is pretty much destined and predictable. And particular orbits require narrow launch windows with brief opportunities for observation of a target.

But unlike a satellite that is already in an established orbit, the X-37 can be launched and placed into an orbit necessary to provide the necessary coverage. You can also launch multiple X-37s to provide staggered coverage.

The main draw-back to the X-37 for rapid-response surveillance is the launcher - it needs an Atlas V, which is not something one can quickly whip-up. SSTO would be optimum, but that would require a much larger vehicle in order to house the necessary engines and fuel.
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:39 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The main draw-back to the X-37 for rapid-response surveillance is the launcher - it needs an Atlas V, which is not something one can quickly whip-up. SSTO would be optimum, but that would require a much larger vehicle in order to house the necessary engines and fuel.

Could be another opportunity for Musk. The Air Force is paying close to $400 million for an Atlas V now. A fast response $60 million F9 would be a whole different story.
Anon
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
But unlike a satellite that is already in an established orbit, the X-37 can be launched and placed into an orbit necessary to provide the necessary coverage. You can also launch multiple X-37s to provide staggered coverage.

You can also launch multiple satellites into different orbits. If you limited yourself to what you could fit into the payload bay of an X-37, you could launch it on a much less expensive booster. You'd just need to stock some ready to launch (plus boosters*, etc.), and then you can do it approximately on demand.

The question is returning your payload to Earth after a few months worth the cost of launching four times the mass to orbit?


*Also an issue for an X-37 based system.
 
googles
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:22 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:19 pm

 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:32 pm

By the time such a plane is developed, wouldn't hypersonic SAMs be of concern ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:04 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
By the time such a plane is developed, wouldn't hypersonic SAMs be of concern?

Perhaps not. Evidently supersonic SAMs were of little concern to the SR-71.
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:29 pm

The problem with the SAMs was that the control surfaces were useless above 80,000 feet or so. The same with the MIG-25s. The engines could get them up to U-2 level but they couldn't control the missiles or the planes. They only got Powers by sending dozens of SAMs on ballistic lobs and getting lucky, mostly because idiots in Washington insisted he fly the same exact route they'd flown before.
They might come up with a missile that could theoretically catch a mach 6 plane but it wouldn't be easy in practice.
Anon
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:38 am

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 22):
They might come up with a missile that could theoretically catch a mach 6 plane but it wouldn't be easy in practice.

People fundamentally misunderstand this fact because of the narrative surrounding bombers and ICBM's when the B-70 was cancelled and aircraft tried to go low for a while. Everything thinks that because a U-2 got hit that SAM's have an easy time with fast and high targets. They don't.

Such things largely died because the aircraft were going to be quite expensive and the capabilities were pretty much pointless in the context of the times where both sides had 10,000 plus nuclear warheads targeted at one another. No one wanted to spend the money for ABM defenses so pretty much everything else was considered kind of pointless.

There actually is a point to doing such a thing in today's context where you want to deliver precise ordinance against highly defended targets. In that respect it is really not all that different from stealth. It is wholly about changing the ability of enemy defenses to engage you.

People would do really well to remember that if this thing was operating at 80,000 feet that is 15 miles straight up. At 2,000 miles per hour, which is about the speed of some pretty fast missiles (some are fast, some are slower but few sustain that speed for long going straight up) you are taking 18 seconds to just get to altitude. During that 18 seconds something traveling Mach 4 would move about 15 miles.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:46 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
By the time such a plane is developed, wouldn't hypersonic SAMs be of concern ?

The problem becomes that at these speeds, you need insane range and/overtake speed to just get the missile into the area of the target. Then you need a substantial payload if you can't ensure a collision. Worse your time of response means a high speed target has already moved huge distances. Unless you are a nation the size of Russia, intercepting a Mach 3+ target that doesn't want to be caught is going to be near impossible.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:53 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
By the time such a plane is developed, wouldn't hypersonic SAMs be of concern ?


In order to have a realistic intercept chance against a Mach 6 plane, you are going to have to have SAMs that are significantly faster.

You pretty much have to pre-launch the SAMs before the plane gets to the SAM's position which gives the aircraft significant notice of the launch. For the SR71, the standard practice was to initiate a turn in that case which meant that now the SAMs not only needed to get to altitude, they also needed enough velocity to chase on overtake the SR71. And by the time the SAMs could even get to altitude, the SR71 has completed its turn and is accelerating away at max thrust.

For a Mach 6 vehicle, there exists only 1 missile with the potential to be viable and that is the 40N6 used by the S-400 system, though the 40N6 is as designed an ultra long range missile with a hypersonic parabolic ballistic trajectory designed to engage slower moving support craft (AWACS et al) at extreme range (240 nm+) and would likely fair poorly against an 80kft plane traveling at Mach 6. The entire rest of the Russian arsenal of surface to air missiles lack the speed to even have a chance against a Mach 6 strike aircraft. A slight divert in flight path is all that is required to evade pretty much any other SAM when you are going Mach 6, the SAMs will run out of fuel before they get within miles of the aircraft.

In order to build a SAM that could engage a Mach 6 aircraft, you have to get into booster stages that resemble ICBM/MRBM stages in order to boost an interceptor missile fast enough and with enough velocity to have a chance. The Interceptor missile needs to be boosted to altitude at a minimum of Mach 6 and then have the capability to zoom to mach 8-10+ for a reasonable period of time to catch up with the Mach 6 aircraft. Meanwhile in the strike role, the Mach 6 aircraft is going to be releasing Air-to-Ground missiles with a starting speed of Mach 6 and then getting boosted to an even higher velocity by their propulsion systems giving them a significant speed boost to mach 7-8+. This means that the speed and range of the Mach 6 aircraft's missiles are going to be significant, several hundreds of NM.

In short, intercepting a Mach 6 aircraft will be extremely difficult and expensive and if that aircraft has hypersonic missiles itself, it is unlikely that it will even be within SAM range long enough to make intercept possible. Its a significantly harder problem to solve than intercepting a ballistic missile. Esp since it is likely than any Mach 6 strike aircraft will also be employing a wide variety of active jamming technologies and passive scanning technologies that make target acquisition harder and allow the Mach 6 aircraft to skirt around major SAM site edges. Esp when you consider the size of the SAMs that would be required to even have a chance at intercepting a Mach 6 aircraft. Again, we're talking about SAMs and launchers that would be closer in size to ICBM launchers than any conventional SAM launcher.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:27 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 22):
They only got Powers by sending dozens of SAMs on ballistic lobs and getting lucky, mostly because idiots in Washington insisted he fly the same exact route they'd flown before.

Ok, how do you account for the other 5 U-2s shot down by China? Some of them were on routes never flown before...
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:07 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 26):
Ok, how do you account for the other 5 U-2s shot down by China? Some of them were on routes never flown before...

Same way. They knew when they were coming and where, and had batteries of 50 SA-2s waiting. There was no terminal guidance unless the U-2s were below 60,000 feet, but those old SAMs had large warheads and the U-2 was about the flimsiest aircraft ever built. Their light weight was their biggest secret and the skins were about as thick as cooking foil. Two dozen SA-2s with 500 pound warheads could put up a pretty good flak curtain. What they couldn't do was lock on and chase ta target past 60,000 feet. They had to aim from 50,000 and hope to be effective. Same with MIGs.
There were also rumors of Chinese pilots taking the planes to 40,000 feet because problems made use at 70,000 a little iffy, but just rumors as far as I know.

[Edited 2013-11-13 09:11:01]
Anon
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Tue Dec 23, 2014 10:34 pm

Anon
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:30 pm

Is it just me or does it seem like another F-19 hoax again?

Certainly they would not tell if they already had such a plane flying or operational.
 
ssteve
Posts: 1133
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:45 pm

If they called it the X-57 or even X-72 it would not be misleading in that light. SR-72 is just a means of getting attention for what strikes me as an X plane.
 
FSXJunkie
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:30 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:57 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Thread starter):
They've come up with a way to use an existing fighter engine and transition it in flight in a way that will cover the gap between turbojet and ramjet/scramjet for mach 6 operation.

Sounds like the Pratt F119, it's got some similarities with the GE J93.

Thinking they looked up the J93 specs bundled with the Valkyrie/Rapier archives, saw the similarities and turned the F119 into an improvised J93...taking advantage of 40 years of aviation advancement to crank out a couple more mach factors (though the full production J93 was supposed to "super-cruise" at mach 3.8.)
 
dlednicer
Crew
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:14 am

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 22):
They only got Powers by sending dozens of SAMs on ballistic lobs and getting lucky, mostly because idiots in Washington insisted he fly the same exact route they'd flown before.

Nonsense. Powers was conducting the first overflight ever of Chelyabinsk-65 when he was shot down. As Chelyabinsk-65 was the Soviet Union's Plutonium production facility, it had air defense missile sites. The SA-2 that got him exploded very close to his aircraft. From what I have uncovered, Powers was flying at the edge of the SA-2's engagement envelope, but a left turn he had just completed kept him within the envelope.
 
nomadd22
Topic Author
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 32):
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 22):
They only got Powers by sending dozens of SAMs on ballistic lobs and getting lucky, mostly because idiots in Washington insisted he fly the same exact route they'd flown before.

Nonsense. Powers was conducting the first overflight ever of Chelyabinsk-65 when he was shot down. As Chelyabinsk-65 was the Soviet Union's Plutonium production facility, it had air defense missile sites. The SA-2 that got him exploded very close to his aircraft. From what I have uncovered, Powers was flying at the edge of the SA-2's engagement envelope, but a left turn he had just completed kept him within the envelope.

Try reading "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich before you pronounce "nonsense" You people delete posts like that all the time and it's a little hypocritical to make them yourselves.

[Edited 2015-01-01 06:53:43]
Anon
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:39 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 33):

Yeah, nothing like an obviously biased book to sort things out, eh?
 
Alfons
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:51 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 26):
In order to have a realistic intercept chance against a Mach 6 plane, you are going to have to have SAMs that are significantly faster.

You pretty much have to pre-launch the SAMs before the plane gets to the SAM's position which gives the aircraft significant notice of the launch. For the SR71, the standard practice was to initiate a turn in that case which meant that now the SAMs not only needed to get to altitude, they also needed enough velocity to chase on overtake the SR71. And by the time the SAMs could even get to altitude, the SR71 has completed its turn and is accelerating away at max thrust.

For a Mach 6 vehicle, there exists only 1 missile with the potential to be viable and that is the 40N6 used by the S-400 system, though the 40N6 is as designed an ultra long range missile with a hypersonic parabolic ballistic trajectory designed to engage slower moving support craft (AWACS et al) at extreme range (240 nm+) and would likely fair poorly against an 80kft plane traveling at Mach 6. The entire rest of the Russian arsenal of surface to air missiles lack the speed to even have a chance against a Mach 6 strike aircraft. A slight divert in flight path is all that is required to evade pretty much any other SAM when you are going Mach 6, the SAMs will run out of fuel before they get within miles of the aircraft.

In order to build a SAM that could engage a Mach 6 aircraft, you have to get into booster stages that resemble ICBM/MRBM stages in order to boost an interceptor missile fast enough and with enough velocity to have a chance. The Interceptor missile needs to be boosted to altitude at a minimum of Mach 6 and then have the capability to zoom to mach 8-10+ for a reasonable period of time to catch up with the Mach 6 aircraft. Meanwhile in the strike role, the Mach 6 aircraft is going to be releasing Air-to-Ground missiles with a starting speed of Mach 6 and then getting boosted to an even higher velocity by their propulsion systems giving them a significant speed boost to mach 7-8+. This means that the speed and range of the Mach 6 aircraft's missiles are going to be significant, several hundreds of NM.

In short, intercepting a Mach 6 aircraft will be extremely difficult and expensive and if that aircraft has hypersonic missiles itself, it is unlikely that it will even be within SAM range long enough to make intercept possible. Its a significantly harder problem to solve than intercepting a ballistic missile. Esp since it is likely than any Mach 6 strike aircraft will also be employing a wide variety of active jamming technologies and passive scanning technologies that make target acquisition harder and allow the Mach 6 aircraft to skirt around major SAM site edges. Esp when you consider the size of the SAMs that would be required to even have a chance at intercepting a Mach 6 aircraft. Again, we're talking about SAMs and launchers that would be closer in size to ICBM launchers than any conventional SAM launcher.

Who says the solution to destroy a SR-72 needs to fly?

Alfons.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:13 pm

Quoting spink (Reply 25):
For the SR71, the standard practice was to initiate a turn in that case which meant that now the SAMs not only needed to get to altitude, they also needed enough velocity to chase on overtake the SR71.

How much of a turn do you think a Mach 6 aircraft will do? Even if it can pull 9g (haha) a 90° turn would take half a minute, at 3g almost one and a half. And even a 3g turn at that altitude is a ridiculous idea. With proper C4I any system capable of engaging ballistic missiles should be able to hit a Mach 6 aircraft unless they are entirely useless against any evasion capabilities on a ballistic missile. Warheads can pull some g's too, some maybe more than an aircraft can realistically survive.

Best regards
Thomas
 
dlednicer
Crew
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:49 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 33):
Try reading "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich before you pronounce "nonsense" You people delete posts like that all the time and it's a little hypocritical to make them yourselves.

Read Chris Pocock's books on the U-2. His books aren't constrained by security clearances, unlike Ben Rich's book. I've helped Chris with research and can say that his books are the result of much deeper research than others. The "barrage of SA-2" story came from Oleg Penkovsky's reports to MI6, who was relying on hearsay.

BTW: I am a database editor, not a forum moderator. My posts get deleted, just like yours. If you are so hostile to the volunteers who keep this site running, why are you here?
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Skunk Works SR-72 In The Works

Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:52 am

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 22):
The problem with the SAMs was that the control surfaces were useless above 80,000 feet or so. The same with the MIG-25s. The engines could get them up to U-2 level but they couldn't control the missiles or the planes.

That should not be a issue for next generation SAM's missiles. A S-400 System with a gas dynamic-steering(like 9M330) or thrust vectoring would solve the problem.
“Faliure is not an option.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests