Lockheed Martin SR-72?

[sferrin]

Hi Sferrin,

Which is going to turn sharper, an F-104 at Mach 2 or an F-16 at Mach .8? Now take the wings off the F-104. How sharp is it going to turn now? Now take it to 100,000 feet where there's hardly any air. How sharp will it turn now? See the problem? Missiles work to get around it by going really fast and using body lift (and they aren't pulling those 40 or 50 Gs at anywhere NEAR 100,000ft BTW). Nike Hercules and the SA-5 are the two best examples of SAMs designed with fast, high altitude aircraft in mind and they have/had huge wings for exactly that reason. By the time Patriot, SA-10, and SA-12 came on the scene Mach 3 aircraft were an oddity rather than the perceived future of things.

I think Greg's beaten me to it but the unlike Patriot, S-300P (SA-10) and S-300V (SA-12) etc. feature gas dynamic control and are not limited to aerodynamic maneouvering so potentially could still pull those high G turns.

Nope, the only ones with gas dynamic control are the small missiles in the S-300PMU/S-400 system. And gas dynamic systems help you point the airframe faster but you're still relying on body lift to actually change direction. And again, high G and sharp turn are not necessarily synonamous.

And what relevance does a Mach 0.8 F-16 have to our hypersonic mystery plane?

Sounds like you should go back and read it again and let it sink in.

I know it's hard to shoot down a high flying fast object but the old Gary Powers experience would still appear to hold true, that it's cheaper to improve missile systems than planes to out fly them. This new S-400 just makes it that much harder.

Cheers, Woody

The S-400s high altitude capacity is against MISSILES. Also this mysterious large missile someone mentioned is like THAAD and SM-3 (in theory) in that it's pretty much worthless against aircraft.

 

[flateric]

So then SR-72 flight will look like a zigzag...you are talking of high Gs here, maneuvers...it's not gonna be a fighter, it's a recce plane - and what, if one of 48N96 will miss this doesn't mean other will do the same. Ideology behind A-12/SR-71 is push the envelope beyond reach of Soviet SAMs, not making daredevil moves among SAMs fireblasts.

 

[Sundog]

I think people here are confusing what kind of turns a hypersonic plane has to make to force a missile to miss it. It isn't like a fighter "jinking." Just a slight turn of one degree changes the missiles intercept course by miles. As such, they wouldn't need to perform "high G" maneuvers to avoid missiles. Not to mention, I'm sure it would possess some very sophisticated ECM/IRCM systems on board.

 

[sferrin]

I think people here are confusing what kind of turns a hypersonic plane has to make to force a missile to miss it. It isn't like a fighter "jinking." Just a slight turn of one degree changes the missiles intercept course by miles. As such, they wouldn't need to perform "high G" maneuvers to avoid missiles. Not to mention, I'm sure it would possess some very sophisticated ECM/IRCM systems on board.

That's exactly the point. At a mile a second you don't have to make much of a turn to put you way out of the kill envelope. Something like a scramjet powered Bomarc or D-21 (not those specific airframes but you get my meaning) might have a chance but the current and near-future generation of SAMs can forget it unless the pilots are dumb enough to try a direct over flight of the site.

 

[Trident]

But doesn't that work both ways? I find the views of "RV maneuvers are not sufficient to evade an interceptor" and "a hypersonic aircraft will only need a gentle maneuver to mess up the intercept geometry" impossible to reconcile, to be frank. Especially considering the much higher G-tolerance of an unmanned RV.

With RVs, the whole problem can be avoided by performing a mid course or boost phase intercept, as pointed out already, however I consider that a somewhat moot point when discussing the capabilities of current SAMs against an endo-atmospheric hypersonic aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

But doesn't that work both ways? I find the views of "RV maneuvers are not sufficient to evade an interceptor" and "a hypersonic aircraft will only need a gentle maneuver to mess up the intercept geometry" impossible to reconcile, to be frank. Especially considering the much higher G-tolerance of an unmanned RV.

What's difficult about it? Missile vs RVs it's apples to apples comparison. Missiles vs aircraft is not. Think about it. An RV is relatively dense compared to an ABM if you're talking terminal phase stuff so the ABM will have greater turning ability because of it's better "wingloading" so to speak. An RV vs a KKV is no contest because atmosphere is not involved at all and it's strictly thrust to weight that's going to determine your manueverability. Again an RV is relatively heavy and won't have much divert capacity compared to a KKV which is pretty much a rocket motor with a fuel tank and seeker stuck on it.

 

[Trident]

Fine, so we've established that it is perfectly feasible to intercept a RV. Now explain how a manned aircraft is going to accomplish what a much lighter RV cannot do? Of course, the catch is that this intercept would be endo-atmospheric and would likely not involve a KKV, so my point still stands that the two statements are mutually exclusive for such a situation. Are S400, S300PM/V and Patriot PAC-3 all completely ineffective against maneuvering RVs?

 

[sferrin]

Fine, so we've established that it is perfectly feasible to intercept a RV. Now explain how a manned aircraft is going to accomplish what a much lighter RV cannot do?

Wing loading. 'nuff said.

Of course, the catch is that this intercept would be endo-atmospheric and would likely not involve a KKV, so my point still stands that the two statements are mutually exclusive for such a situation. Are S400, S300PM/V and Patriot PAC-3 all completely ineffective against maneuvering RVs?

You need to take a big breath and slow down. I've already written the explanation to this question and your first one. It's all there.

 

[RyanC]

I know it's hard to shoot down a high flying fast object but the old Gary Powers experience would still appear to hold true, that it's cheaper to improve missile systems than planes to out fly them. This new S-400 just makes it that much harder.

Not really. The Russians make a lot of claims about the S-400; and they're under a lot of pressure from irate customers who find out that the reality of the S-400 doesn't match up with the claims.

As for the old Gary Powers experience... you DO realize that Powers flamed out his engine, stalled, and had to descend quite a lot to a much lower altitude for an engine restart; and EVEN THEN it took the soviets tons and tons of SAMs, plus shooting down their own MiGs to get him.

And really, the U-2 is not a very good choice; it has very little excess power (constantly being on the edge of a stall), and very little ECM gear (so it can fly high).

We have cases of SA-5s (significantly bigger and faster and improved) completely failing to make intercepts with the SR-71s, which only had to change course by a few degrees or speed up by 100 MPH to make them miss.

Please note, that the B-52 Altitudes are from Linebacker II. In a full bore SAC scenario armed with nukes headed for the USSR, the BUFFs would be flying at around 60,000 feet and approaching near 700 MPH.

 

[RyanC]

Some pretty pictures for all to enjoy (Courtesy of Stuart)

-------------------

A HAWK missile shooting down an IRBM (IIRC Date 1959) Note this is a proximity-fuzed hit, see the HAWK fly under the target and shred it

A ZEUS Shooting Down a Herc in 1961 (Herc was a good RV simulator since it came in at the right speed and was cheap). Note, this is a direct hit, skin to skin. You can tell that from the blast pattern in the top central picture - a prox hit would be elliptical. The middle-center shows the target beginning to break up, the bottom one shows it fragmenting.

 

[sferrin]

got a few to add. Notice in the Hercules vs Corporal shootdown the Hercules misses but it's warhead (all thousand pounds of it) is large enough to cause it to explode anyway. Any guesses as to why it had a thousand pound warhead (or a nuke)? Because the air is thin way up there and blast effects are reduced as a result. (Threw in the Nike painting because I'd never seen it before and thought I'd pass it on).

Oh, and Corporal is NOT an IRBM. It's was a 75 mile range battlefield rocket. Think ATACMS with a 20kt warhead.

 

[flateric]

Anyone know if the story with GOES satellite donuts-on-a-rope contrail photos 'from Area 51 across Atlantic' 2004 get any explanation?

 

[sferrin]

Given that those little puffs are miles apart (and not actually little) I'd say the trail was made by an Orion with megaton nukes out the back.

 

[flateric]

OK, it was just too many Nick Cook documentaries watched tonight awaiting 787 roll-out (roll-in, actually)

 

[Woody]

Hi guys - sorry I've been busy but I couldn't resist this one:-

Just a slight turn of one degree changes the missiles intercept course by miles. As such, they wouldn't need to perform "high G" maneuvers to avoid missiles.

Wouldn't this also cause the reconnaissance aircraft to also miss it's objective by miles or are we forgetting the whole point of air defence now.

While I'm on, here's what FAS has to say about the S-400 SAM:-

a gas-dynamic control system enables the 9M96 missile to maneuver at altitudes of up to 35 km at forces of over 20g

Are you sure, Sferrin, that the S-400 only uses aerodynamics to maneuver? Do you have any details? There are other ways - like how your ABM Hit To Kill vehicles do it. Either way 20g would be pretty good at altitude with a 120 km kill radius (for the small one).

Today's combat aircraft have never been tested against equal SAM defenses. Ten years ago in the Balkans a F-117 got shot down alegedly without the use of radar!

Does anyone (Greg - Andreas?) want to start an S-400 thread on the Missiles page? This a fantastic, little know about device that actually (probably) exists -personally I'd love to know more.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Simon666]

Anyone know if the story with GOES satellite donuts-on-a-rope contrail photos 'from Area 51 across Atlantic' 2004 get any explanation?

Just came across a non donut version:

Reminded me of this thread. I guess it's a pure fabrication.

 

[sferrin]

Hi guys - sorry I've been busy but I couldn't resist this one:-

Just a slight turn of one degree changes the missiles intercept course by miles. As such, they wouldn't need to perform "high G" maneuvers to avoid missiles.

Wouldn't this also cause the reconnaissance aircraft to also miss it's objective by miles or are we forgetting the whole point of air defence now.

I guess it would depend on the location of the missiles it was trying to avoid in relation to the target it was trying to image. How often did SAMs keep the SR-71 from performing it's mission?

While I'm on, here's what FAS has to say about the S-400 SAM:-

a gas-dynamic control system enables the 9M96 missile to maneuver at altitudes of up to 35 km at forces of over 20g

Are you sure, Sferrin, that the S-400 only uses aerodynamics to maneuver? Do you have any details? There are other ways - like how your ABM Hit To Kill vehicles do it. Either way 20g would be pretty good at altitude with a 120 km kill radius (for the small one).

Today's combat aircraft have never been tested against equal SAM defenses. Ten years ago in the Balkans a F-117 got shot down alegedly without the use of radar!

Does anyone (Greg - Andreas?) want to start an S-400 thread on the Missiles page? This a fantastic, little know about device that actually (probably) exists -personally I'd love to know more.

Cheers, Woody

It goes back to the "high Gs doesn't always equate to tight turn". How fast is the missile going when it's performing those 20Gs? What's the kill radius of the warhead at high altitude (remember it goes down the higher you go).

 

[Arjen]

Not sure where to post this.
From Aviation Week: Skunk Works Reveals SR-71 Successor Plan, SR-71 and SR-72 Engine Cycle Comparison, Meet the SR-72

 

[dark sidius]

Great news, awesome plane , there is a lot of news this last week, the first Boeing and Lockheed on the LRS-B, a success of a hypersonic warhead test and now the SR-72 the SR-71 son, disclose in white world, surely more advanced in the black world, great week.

 

[sferrin]

Yeah and I'm going to build me a cyborg #8 over the weekend. :

 

[Steve Pace]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

 

[yasotay]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

Can't outrun the speed of light. In twenty years or less that will be a common problem.

 

[Sundog]

So, basically LM have just somewhat declassified their HTV-X design.
If they release some good three views with cross sections, I can make it fly in FSX.

 

[F-14D]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

What the SR offerd was a platform that could penetrate defended airspace and deliver a large multi-spectral payload for tactical and strategic taskings. It couldn't loiter without tankers somewhere in range (which made it essentially a point collector) , but it could achieve surprise and rapidly collect data in minutes that would take other systems hours or days. Barring something super-black we don't know about, we haven't had that capability since 1997.

The question we have to decide is do we want that capability and how much we're willing to pay to get it back.

 

[F-14D]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

Can't outrun the speed of light. In twenty years or less that will be a common problem.

And that's going to be a factor for all aircraft. Would depend on how fast you can bring the weapon to bear and what countermeasures habve been developed in the interim. The Navy has an advantage with their programs for directed energy defense wepaons (if they're allowed to proceed) because they will usually know what the target is going to be, i.e. them.

 

[antigravite]

Another illlustration. SR-72!

 

[antigravite]

Another one.

 

[antigravite]

Foreign Policy just issued an article recalling the "Aurora" affair


http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/01/this_stealthy_hypersonic_drone_could_be_the_most_insane_plane_ever_built


A.

 

[bobbymike]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

Can't outrun the speed of light. In twenty years or less that will be a common problem.

And that's going to be a factor for all aircraft. Would depend on how fast you can bring the weapon to bear and what countermeasures habve been developed in the interim. The Navy has an advantage with their programs for directed energy defense wepaons (if they're allowed to proceed) because they will usually know what the target is going to be, i.e. them.

My guess would be that DEW for anything other than self defense against AAM's will not happen for decades although the pace of tech can surprise. E.g. here is a Defensetech.org story.

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/30/contracts-awarded-to-develop-laser-pods-that-shoot-down-missiles/

 

[sferrin]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

Can't outrun the speed of light. In twenty years or less that will be a common problem.

And that's going to be a factor for all aircraft. Would depend on how fast you can bring the weapon to bear and what countermeasures habve been developed in the interim. The Navy has an advantage with their programs for directed energy defense wepaons (if they're allowed to proceed) because they will usually know what the target is going to be, i.e. them.

My guess would be that DEW for anything other than self defense against AAM's will not happen for decades although the pace of tech can surprise. E.g. here is a Defensetech.org story.

Yep. Ask yourself why interest in a megawatt class laser on an aircraft for long range attack fell right off the radar after ABLs few tests against targets.

 

[F-14D]

There's really no need for a SR-71 replacement in my eyes at least. -SP

Can't outrun the speed of light. In twenty years or less that will be a common problem.

And that's going to be a factor for all aircraft. Would depend on how fast you can bring the weapon to bear and what countermeasures habve been developed in the interim. The Navy has an advantage with their programs for directed energy defense wepaons (if they're allowed to proceed) because they will usually know what the target is going to be, i.e. them.

My guess would be that DEW for anything other than self defense against AAM's will not happen for decades although the pace of tech can surprise. E.g. here is a Defensetech.org story.

Yep. Ask yourself why interest in a megawatt class laser on an aircraft for long range attack fell right off the radar after ABLs few tests against targets.

I suspect it's more Administration philosophy and budget than technology or problems.

 

[quellish]

My guess would be that DEW for anything other than self defense against AAM's will not happen for decades although the pace of tech can surprise. E.g. here is a Defensetech.org story.

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/30/contracts-awarded-to-develop-laser-pods-that-shoot-down-missiles/

Keep in mind that DEW is more than just lasers.

The Lockheed PR bird makes sense as a compliment to high speed strike, but otherwise would have limited utility as an ISR platform today. It would have no persistence.
That said, the vehicle described is a demonstrator, and they do describe a strike mission in addition to ISR.
Gosh, some of the comments about configurations were interesting. Poor LoFlyte.

 

[Mat Parry]

Another one.

I was always intrigued by reply #91 in this thread
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8846.msg100605.html#msg100605

Scott's find looks a lot closer to "SR 72" than the traditional blackswift placeholder image.

Agree with the comments that Lockheed are looking for money here..... I hope they get it. I doubt they will

"Speed is the new stealth" potentially a very interesting phrase from the article. I imagine Lockheed are aware of /involved in the state of the art for counter low observables.

Are the square nozzles (lots of urban legends about that) a consequence of 2 powerplants 1 exhaust?

 

[Arjen]

Crowd magnet: The Day A Spy Plane Broke Aviation Week

Background information on SR-72 piece: Fast Friday

HSSW?

 

[fightingirish]

Yes, Lockheed Martin's Mach 6 high-speed strike-weapon (HSSW) demonstrator, air-launched with a booster from a F-15.
Source: AW&ST, November 4th 2013, "Stealthy Strike" by Guy Noris, page 36-38.
More info will follow later in this topic or in a separate topic.

Dear mods,
in the latest AW&ST, November 4th 2013, there are 2 separate articles about LM's high speed concepts.
I suggest, we should split the discussion about LM's HSSW from the topic about the "SR-72" concept.
Since these two concepts are different, like the engine and how they are launched. Of course, some parts and techniques will be used for both systems.

 

[jjnodice]

Besides the hypersonics challenges, are there issues with making this unmanned? If the point of the system is to provide a capability to operate "on a day without space" wouldn't you like to have a pilot on board? How would you control the vehicle? Would it be totally autonomous? How would it respond to "pop up" defenses/threats?

It would be fantastic project to work on. I hope they get the chance.

 

[SOC]

I'd imagine it's autonomous, with a pre-programmed flight profile and a sensor suite programmed with on/off times.

 

[Sundog]

I don't have the article yet. It probably won't show up for a week. But I guess if they're are proposing it as a drone, that's different from their original HVT-X design, since it was manned.

 

[F-14D]

My guess would be that DEW for anything other than self defense against AAM's will not happen for decades although the pace of tech can surprise. E.g. here is a Defensetech.org story.

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/30/contracts-awarded-to-develop-laser-pods-that-shoot-down-missiles/

Keep in mind that DEW is more than just lasers.

The Lockheed PR bird makes sense as a compliment to high speed strike, but otherwise would have limited utility as an ISR platform today. It would have no persistence.

Depends on what you need to do. For many objectives, persistence is not necessary. For example, let's say Putin had one of these. His intel folks get word that the US military is working on a laser powered method of orbiting payloads. Then the word comes that a test firing is forthcoming of this super-secret system. A SR-72ovitch is dispatched. By the time we figure out it's coming (and satellites aren't that good on something like this- they've got to be in place and know where to look and then we still have to react) and what its objective is, it'll already be here--and there's nothing we could do about it.

Or, we want to catch (insert name of Middle Eastern nation here) in the act of (insert nefarious activity or preparation here). Launch out of Aviano and Boom!, you've got it.

Or, unnamed Far Eastern Nation's new super sub that has been built under cover may be launched or test its electronics soon, and there may be only a period of hours to snoop. Sr-72 into the fray.

Or, a military operation is under way , covert or overt. It's been stood up in fairly short time. What are the other guys doing right now? There might not be time to go through all you have to go through and get all the permissions involved to retask a satellite that may not be in the right inclination anyway.

Point is this would be a multi-spectrum snapshot, and maybe that's all you need and all you can do if you want to catch 'em by surprise, especially quickly. Persitence is unecessary and may actually work against you becaue as long as your loitering thingy is hanging around, whomever is going to do what it is you want to find out if they're doing won't do it.

 

[SOC]

Persitence is unecessary and may actually work against you becaue as long as your loitering thingy is hanging around, whomever is going to do what it is you want to find out if they're doing won't do it.

Also, you can count satellites as loitering thingys as their orbits are tracked and known in most cases by the people likely to be doing the sneaky stuff you want to catch them doing. We've been doing that since there have been satellites with cameras. The Steaming Pile had a recollection about flight test activity at Area 51 being affected by Soviet overflight times.