Destabilizing.
SR-72
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: SR-72
#12So given Lockheed's track record on the F-35, we'll see this finally cancelled around 2040 (the first $1 trillion aircraft program) when everyone else has built similar planes better, faster, and more reliably.
How many other planes have they built? Saying other companies have built equivalent planes is incorrect.
Trying to build one plane for everyone was probably not the wisest thing to do.
Re: SR-72
#13Part of what made the SR-71 incredible was Kelly Johnson's ability to keep the team small, fast, and focused in designing it. Not sure if that's the case here.
[deleted]
Re: SR-72
#14I'm not that familiar with military aircraft development timelines, but this stuck out as my favorite part: A hypersonic plane does not have to be an expensive, distant possibility. In fact, an SR-72 could be operational by 2030.
By comparison, the SR-71 was first proposed around 1960 and operational by 1966. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird
Re: SR-72
#15“At this speed, the aircraft would be so fast, an adversary would have no time to react or hide.” “Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour” … sounds lovely.
They expect delivery 'by 2030'. I wonder if satellites and newer weapons wouldn't be able to intercept its flight path by then. You probably wouldn't have to match its speed to bring it down, just throw up a cloud of junk in its way.
Or heat its skin.
A laser defense weapon, coupled with the black titanium skin, likely already close to its thermal limits, might produce results of interest to a defender.
Re: SR-72
#16The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned with slide rules and paper. It wasn’t managed by millions of lines of software code. And it wasn’t powered by computer chips. All that changes with the SR-72. Oh oh.
Aye.
Complexity isn't your friend.
Re: SR-72
#17SR-71 was built for one mission only: Fly-over the Soviet Union and take pictures. At the speeds that it operates, you can't really do much else. And recon satellites do this much more effectively now, and are extremely hard to take down.
Proponents of hypersonic aircraft research have been fighting an uphill battle for this very reason.
Re: SR-72
#18The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned with slide rules and paper. It wasn’t managed by millions of lines of software code. And it wasn’t powered by computer chips. All that changes with the SR-72. Oh oh.
Oh dear. Thought you were spoofing them, until I clicked through.
Re: SR-72
#19>>> The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned with slide rules and paper. It wasn’t managed by millions of lines of software code. And it wasn’t powered by computer chips. All that changes with the SR-72.
Errr, replacing slide rules with millions of lines of software is not always progress. HN is probably the most fertile ground for finding counter examples around
Re: SR-72
#20What's the deal with all the SR-71 posts in the past few days? They're a cool relic of the cold war age but what has happened recently with them that's warranted all the attention?
Also if you're really enamored with them you should definitely check out the national airforce museum in Dayton, OH: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ You can see one up close, along with all kinds of other planes, jets, and missiles. Admission is free, and expect to spend at least a full day walking around the place.