The SR-72 "Spacebird"

[Tiberion]

It seems that the Skunkworks finally let slip a little bit of info about what they have been up to - They're working on a successor to the long-retired SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest airplane in the world.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_01_2013_p0-632731.xml&p=1

Mach6 cruise, tech based on the HTV-3x test platform, but seemingly with a solution for the high-speed turbine issue it faced. Pretty cool to see Rocketdyne involved too.

The concept art seems to suggest drone. I wonder if there isn't some issues with connectivity at those speeds.

Also: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-is-the-lockheed-martin-sr-72-the-spaceage-heir-of-1456730707

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tiberion

[Scotius]

Pretty Now, let's put SABRE engines on this bad boy, and go to space

[Moon Goddess]

The concept art seems to suggest drone. I wonder if there isn't some issues with connectivity at those speeds.

I imagine you give it occasional commands of what you want it to do, and it takes care of the details, you don't fly every aspect of it remotely.

It's probably smart enough to carry out, takeoff, flight, and landing without ever contacting the ground.

[Jordanpumah]

I still don't think drones are better than a human pilot.

I wan't to be an Air-Force pilot, not a geek behind a computer (which I currently am)

[qeveren]

Is there really a point to this aircraft, though? Most all the surveillance it could do is being done by satellites, arming it seems pointless since it's completely unnecessary for any foreseeable conflicts (the US will never fight a peer nation directly)...

It is pretty sexy, though.

[Scotius]

Not everything can be spied with a satellite, that's why we have Global Hawk, and all his siblings. Also, think about this plane as super-fast cruise missile, that can fire smaller missiles at its target(s). If there is a crisis somewhere, this plane can deliver its payload to bad guys in an hour or two. Deploying ships or conventional planes armed with Tomahawks takes much longer.

[meve12]

It'd have to be very autonomous, with built in navigation(i.e no GPS, not fast enough).

Maybe it has a map of the Earth so it can use cameras to pinpoint landmarks, and thus it's location?

[meve12]

Also: Could it be armed?

Give it a one bomb bay for a 500 pound bomb and that's a bomb anywhere within a few hours.

[Nibb31]

As a weapons platform it doesn't make sense. Military action is usually a last resort that occurs after months of diplomatic escalation. You have plenty of time to send a carrier naval group or to deploy Predator drones from a friendly air base, which can then strike in a matter of hours when the order is given.

[Surefoot]

Is there really a point to this aircraft, though? Most all the surveillance it could do is being done by satellites,

Actually, for most cases today the people you'd want to spy with satellites are perfectly aware of the times at which the said satellites are above them. So they hide whatever they have to hide, until the satellite goes off the area, and resume their activities. This is why they extended the SR-71 back then as much as possible, and also why they now are using drones for that purpose. Also you cant have a satellite above a specific area at a specific time, you have to wait until it does as many orbits as necessary to pass over the area again (which you'd know from playing KSP )

@Tiberion: thanks for posting this. The new bird design is really interesting, if the drawings are acurate.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Surefoot

[meve12]

As a weapons platform it doesn't make sense. Military action is usually a last resort that occurs after months of diplomatic escalation. You have plenty of time to send a carrier naval group or to deploy Predator drones from a friendly air base, which can then strike in a matter of hours when the order is given.

Maybe, but that assumes you can actually get them close enough to do some good.

Besides, that also assumes there's no such thing as surprise attacks or covert action. The Cuba Missile Crises started, escalated, and deflated within two weeks, and nearly started WW3 right then and there.

[Lohan2008]

I don't understand the talk about using it as a cruise missile. Currently Marc 6 is one of those "we do not know what happens" area of research due to the intense heat and changes in airflow pressures. Any craft moving above march 5 is pretty much useless for a combat role due to restricted maneuverability; after decades of cold war tactics, I doubt anyone of us has to worry about is another fast missile.

Besides Australia is years ahead of any research USA has ...

Edited November 2, 2013 by Lohan2008

[Tiberion]

Not so much a cruise missile as a mobile cruise missile launching platform, that can fast-respond across a continent VERY quickly and then linger (high above and virtually untouchable since they could just go back to mach6 and run away from pretty much anything that might try to stop them.) and then fire a precision strike with almost no lead time based on the intel it gathered.

This is all "in theory" for now, but its just the next logical step of how our air-force works now, pretty much.

[NGTOne]

I imagine it being in a reconnaissance role, honestly - weapons DEPLOYMENT is impractical at hypersonic (what are you going to do? Carry the weapon outside? Open a hatch? Either way, too much drag, which means you either end up slowing WAY down or spinning out of control and disintegrating). But it can carry a massive load of camera gear, take off from a base or boat, snap some pics, then be gone before the enemy/not-an-enemy knows they were even spied on. Satellites are predictable, really freakin' fast planes aren't.

[Tiberion]

they don't have to stay at Hypersonic to fire, and if you're firing a weapon at them, stealth is sort of going out the window. Even if they DO see the plane, they can't touch it at that altitude, not before it gets back to speed and runs out of reach.

[rpayne88]

I still don't think drones are better than a human pilot.

I wan't to be an Air-Force pilot, not a geek behind a computer (which I currently am)

Same here.

[dharak1]

I don't like the idea of remote drones. If someone is flying it remotely entirely then they are more likely to crash it. If it's given commands and gets destroyed blame it on the coding. Let's take Jaegers from Pacific Rim for example. If we actually made one or managed to we would probably put people in them. Why? We could probably completely remote control them. But if people are in them and they legitimately can die and injured then you put survival instinct in them. Not that machines have adrenaline in them but people usually fight better when they think they will die. This means if they are in it they are less likely to break or destroy anything. The same goes for planes in combat or spying.

[jwenting]

As a weapons platform it doesn't make sense. Military action is usually a last resort that occurs after months of diplomatic escalation. You have plenty of time to send a carrier naval group or to deploy Predator drones from a friendly air base, which can then strike in a matter of hours when the order is given.

hmm, there's drone strikes on people around the world each and every day, usually ordered directly from the white house without any diplomatic or parliamentary oversight, and in other cases triggered by field commanders based on standing orders to "take out" specific categories of targets.

Having a far faster drone with far longer range than the current crop would make that even more practical.

A good idea? Depends on who's ordering the strikes, whether he or she can be trusted not to make rash decisions and not abuse the power to target political or personal opponents, say the presidential candidate for the next elections, or someone who's known for making large campaign contributions to the opposing candidate.

[jwenting]

they don't have to stay at Hypersonic to fire, and if you're firing a weapon at them, stealth is sort of going out the window. Even if they DO see the plane, they can't touch it at that altitude, not before it gets back to speed and runs out of reach.

At that speed, stealth is no longer needed. At that altitude, ditto as very few countries have air search radars reaching that high.

So you have something that's invisible on radar for most of its flight, overflying all but ballistic missile warning systems, pop up for a few seconds while it launches a stealthy cruise missile or other weapon that's too small to see at that distance, then disappear again.

Radar operators, if they see it at all, will think they had a glitch in their systems.

And from (near) orbit the flight path of whatever it launches can go pretty much anywhere so it could launch its weapon over say Saudi Arabia and have it hit in Pakistan.

[Nuke]

at that altitude and speed a simple gravity bomb could land two countries away from where it was launched. but why use that when you can use a million dollar missile and hit your target in the nuts with it.

i figure the best way to launch a missile at that speed is tail launch it, that is have a missile tube with a tail hatch. instead of being fired out the front, it is released out the back. when ready to fire take some bleed air and use it to shoot the ordinance out the back of the tube or perhaps use some kind of drag inducing device. then bring its propulsion and guidance on line as it departs the plane's wake. plane never makes a stop. its an engineering problem im sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

[magnemoe]

As a weapons platform it doesn't make sense. Military action is usually a last resort that occurs after months of diplomatic escalation. You have plenty of time to send a carrier naval group or to deploy Predator drones from a friendly air base, which can then strike in a matter of hours when the order is given.

However the air force has been testing scramjets for years, their main purpose was an fast cruise missile.

You are right that you tend to have time on the strategical level. Not on the tactical. Plenty of situations where you have an narrow window of opportunity.

You spot an enemy leader a ship or a force but are unable to follow them. Air support for someone in trouble is always a hurry.

[Moon Goddess]

I still don't think drones are better than a human pilot.

I wan't to be an Air-Force pilot, not a geek behind a computer (which I currently am)

Unfortunately reality doesn't care what you want. I'm sure there were people who wanted to be calvery swordsmen not gunners... technology made that impractical, it's rapidly making combat pilots impractical.

As a weapons platform it doesn't make sense. Military action is usually a last resort that occurs after months of diplomatic escalation. You have plenty of time to send a carrier naval group or to deploy Predator drones from a friendly air base, which can then strike in a matter of hours when the order is given.

Parking a carrier battle group off the coast during negotiations can be seen as a escalation, makes diplomacy harder. When you can have a hidden flock of these things from hanger to target in a couple hours, you can present a better face for diplomacy. We are not changing any military assets toward your nation. All our forces are in the same state they were yesterday you can verify that with your satellites.

I don't like the idea of remote drones. If someone is flying it remotely entirely then they are more likely to crash it. If it's given commands and gets destroyed blame it on the coding. Let's take Jaegers from Pacific Rim for example. If we actually made one or managed to we would probably put people in them. Why? We could probably completely remote control them. But if people are in them and they legitimately can die and injured then you put survival instinct in them. Not that machines have adrenaline in them but people usually fight better when they think they will die. This means if they are in it they are less likely to break or destroy anything. The same goes for planes in combat or spying.

We're back into the it doesn't matter what you like territory. Makes me as uncomfortable as all hell, but if they can build it they are going to. Because in reality, if they don't someone else will. Basically we're talking about the difference between a highly advanced computer attached to avionics and an engine, vs. a highly advanced computer, attached to avionics and an engine, with life support trying to keep this squishy thing aboard. No matter the crash risk (remember these are highly trained military operators) it's simply not a useful economic trade off to put the squishy thing on board.

These things as hypersonic weapons platforms have been predicted by military experts for years. I first heard about them in 2009 but to the people talking it was old news then.

[Canopus]

I still don't think drones are better than a human pilot.

I wan't to be an Air-Force pilot, not a geek behind a computer (which I currently am)

This thing is surely not a fighter aircraft, so no need for a pilot

Edit: i really don't get why they come up with that thing now, seems to me that they are 20 or even 30 years to late.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Canopus

[Winter Man]

I say strap a railgun to it.

i really don't get why they come up with that thing now, seems to me that they are 20 or even 30 years to late.

It's not like they only just came up with the concept, it's just only now the technology exists to make it.

[Jordanpumah]

Unfortunately reality doesn't care what you want. I'm sure there were people who wanted to be calvalry swordsmen not gunners... technology made that impractical, it's rapidly making combat pilots impractical.

I doubt combat pilots will ever become impractical, maybe recon, but in a combat situation, the human brain is more powerful than any computer you can put into the cockpit.

I can solve problems, an autonomous system will just go offline and self destruct so as not to let the tech fall into enemy hands.

I can set targets by priority on the fly, no connection lag at all, I can (probably) evade an aa missile using that one thing machines will never have;

creativity, or imagination, whatever floats your boat.

but we're getting a wee but off-track here.

as sexy as that plane looks, there just might not be any useful applications for it anymore, or yet.

maybe have some in constant development for whenever China, or whoever (probably America) decides it's time for all out war.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Jordanpumah