Lockheed Martin SR-72?

bobbymike said:
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QlMX6TYdU7I
Click to expand...

Throughout weeks of research and interviews
Click to expand...

Weeks...?

I've compiled the most complete and extensive timeline of the SR 72 development ever published online.
Click to expand...

Most complete and extensive?
*Re-reads this thread*
Yeah I don't know about that.

In the video the author has a strange preoccupation with scramjets. Even in the material he shows in the video the *ramjet* is clearly labelled. The "SR-72" was studied with a number of different TBCC propulsion systems, though (IIRC) none of them were scramjets other than one of the NASA propulsion studies that used a dual mode scramjet. They were variations on turbojet + dual mode ramjet. Again, that is illustrated in the video itself as it shows illustrations from various documents.

The video also states:
During this event, O'Banion projected an artist's rendering of the SR 72 on the screen behind him and then discussed the aircraft as though it not only already existed, but had already been seeing successes in testing.
Click to expand...

While ignoring that shortly after that event, Lockheed refuted the idea that an SR-72 had been built:

from https://www.flightglobal.com/singapore-lockheeds-carvalho-kiboshes-sr-72-idea/127007.article
The head of Lockheed Martin’s aeronautics division has dismissed recent media reports that it has
developed the SR-72, a successor to the iconic SR-71 Black Bird.
“I can tell you unequivocally that it has not been built,” says Orlando Carvalho, executive vice- president of aeronautics at Lockheed Martin.
In early January, several media reports indicated that a successor to the SR-71, the so-called SR-72, might actually have been developed. The reports followed a presentation by Lockheed vice-president Jack O’Banion, in which he discussed advanced design and manufacturing techniques.
Click to expand...

“I think Jack’s comments were taken a little bit out of context,” says Carvalho. “What Jack was trying to express was that with the technology we have available to us today, including the fidelity of the
analysis tools we use and the design capabilities – really the whole digital revolution that we all benefit from... and how that applies to aircraft designs.”
“What Jack was trying to communicate was how that enables us to have confidence that if a reusable hypersonic vehicle were desired, then we can have confidence in its design, its capabilities and performance....it was not to imply that there is one that has been built and it’s sitting in a base somewhere. I can assure you that’s not the case.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[...] throughout weeks of research and interviews [...]
Click to expand...
The interviewee:
Sock-puppet-008.jpg


I seriously missed the part where he interviewed anyone.
Or the one where he conducted any research at all for that matter.

Reading press releases and articles written by other people and stitching them back together without any critical analysis going into it can hardly be considered research.
This is a school essay for people with 5 minutes attention span, not research.
 
By September 2017, eyewitness accounts of this Flight Research Vehicle flying over Palmdale, California, where Skunk Works is headquartered, began to surface.
Click to expand...

That was a sighting of the “Darkstar” mock-up on the ground while being assembled.
 
Flyaway said:
This compiles different sources rather than the one above.

https://www.businessinsider.com/loc...oping-sr72-hypersonic-spy-plane-secret-2024-8
Click to expand...

This really just talks about reported Lockheed loses on classified programs, then repeats the Sandboxx material. There is nothing that actually connects the financial losses with a single program, much less the "SR-72". Lockheed has definitely incurred substantial "pre-contract" losses by investing in production infrastructure for a hypersonic missile program that has not materialized as a production contract. Which missile? I have no idea, there are so many hypersonic missile programs in such a sad state of affairs I can't keep them all straight.

They also incurred (some) losses in setting up their new facility in Palmdale, at least part of which is to support production of the Speed Racer.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/202...-at-the-Skunk-Works-R-in-Palmdale,-California
 
Last edited:
Ninja said:
Sandboxx can't seem to not make a "new" SR-72 article every 3 months.
Click to expand...

Alex Hollings has a new SR-72 video out:


Lockheed Martin’s mysterious hypersonic aircraft known as the SR-72 appears to be continuing its march toward service, and in fact, may have even already entered low-rate initial production.
Click to expand...
Want to learn more about hypersonic aircraft and how they work? Check out these videos!
Click to expand...
- The race to field America's first hypersonic aircraft
- Figuring out GE Aerospace's hypersonic aircraft engine breakthrough
- Could HERMEUS turn the hypersonic arms race on its head?
Click to expand...
 
4decaa said:
I am always impressed with these youtubers turning nothing into 25 minutes of video + 5 minutes of advertisement.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind many of these slick videos and websites are created not by "journalists" but by marketing companies. Marking companies that are funded by investors, often private equity groups/funds.

For example, company X owns a popular site "CoolAirplanes.com". Company X has a market valuation of $300m and investment from private equity of $Ym - and less than 100 employees. Because these private equity investors are pulling the strings the content on "CoolAirplanes.com" has to not only make the other companies the private equity entities invest in look good, they also can't make those companies or the other interests of the private equity look bad.

To maximize performance company X wants to spend as little as possible making content while still putting out as much content as possible. And so the content they produce may be .... less than original. And they may have developed relationships with government entities that provide them with content (for free!) , effectively acting as a marking outlet for the government.

Of course, if company X were to find itself in a copyright lawsuit, DMCA takedowns, or other legal liability their value would decrease and the investors would have second thoughts. Like if they published satellite photography they did not have a license for, or if the Department of Defense found they were publishing photos of "sensitive" facilities or aircraft (which would result in all of their papers, computers, cellphones etc. being seized for 5 years while DoD and FBI claim an investigation is ongoing without actually prosecuting anyone).

You never know! It's a crazy world, full of lawyers and potential injured parties. Companies will crank out 25 minute videos of nothing until they realize the cost of defending those actions in court outweighs the value of producing the content.
 
Pershing 2 was interesting in how it had contingency modes for errant flight paths. Prototypes were remotely rapidly disasssmbled when errant. Live rounds would seek an alternative pre-designated target if it failed to see its target fingerprint.
 
@Archibald Unless a summary of the video's salient points is presented - I don't watch it. With most 25 minute videos, that saves me from wasting 25 minutes of my life.
Naked links without a summary - same deal. Unless it's The Bar's Furry Avatars Of Doom thread.
 
Forest Green said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siWEaLnRPdA
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Hypersonic aircraft releasing munitions.

Let's take an aircraft in a flight environment we know very little about, and have another, smaller aircraft emerge from it. What could go wrong?

In the 1980s the Air Force was on a path to develop a hypersonic vehicle that was to launch missiles. It did not turn out well for anyone and set all of DoD's hypersonic programs back years.
 
quellish said:
Ah yes. Hypersonic aircraft releasing munitions.

Let's take an aircraft in a flight environment we know very little about, and have another, smaller aircraft emerge from it. What could go wrong?

In the 1980s the Air Force was on a path to develop a hypersonic vehicle that was to launch missiles. It did not turn out well for anyone and set all of DoD's hypersonic programs back years.
Click to expand...
I’m not into these hyped Youtube video’s made by amateurs, but hypersonics might be an excellent example of technology finally catching up with ambitious goals set by programs decades ago.
 
quellish said:
Ah yes. Hypersonic aircraft releasing munitions.

Let's take an aircraft in a flight environment we know very little about, and have another, smaller aircraft emerge from it. What could go wrong?

In the 1980s the Air Force was on a path to develop a hypersonic vehicle that was to launch missiles. It did not turn out well for anyone and set all of DoD's hypersonic programs back years.
Click to expand...
I suspect that whatever I 'think' will turn out to be nothing more than a five second punt from the 200 yard line, but, this...

1. The most realistic form of weapon release would be from the rear of the aircraft, as in the rearwards launched self defence missiles mooted some time ago, and...

2. The biggest result in terms of actual product, would in the case of any other weapon release - be in the seats of any crew members.

Clean up on aisle five please......
 
Someone posted a patent for rear-dropping missile tubes for a hypersonic aircraft, I think it was posted in the NGAD thread.

Rear of the tube pops out from the OML and shoves the item to be dropped out backwards.
 
I would have thought that the SR-72 would have entered service sooner than that considering that the Lockheed Skunk Works is the best prototyping aerospace company in the world, look at how long it took the U-2, SR-71 and F-117A to get designed and ultimately built?
 
Which doesn't mean that there is already one in the Skunk Works that has dissapeared into the black world now. At least that is what I am currently thinking TomS. Ultimately hidden from prying eyes at Palmdale.
 
armyrecognition.com seems to be headed the same direction as bul(shit)garian.military (shudders).
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Someone posted a patent for rear-dropping missile tubes for a hypersonic aircraft, I think it was posted in the NGAD thread.

Rear of the tube pops out from the OML and shoves the item to be dropped out backwards.
Click to expand...
Sort of like the A-5 Vigilante's nuclear delivery option. There's also this concept from a 1990 issue of Aviation Week that's popped up in the Theoretical and Speculative section. The "flaming pumpkinseed" with external burning (aerospike?) engines Mark McCandlish has envisioned a few times remains speculative as ever, but the munitions ejector system on the left side very much seems like a workable concept to me. Maybe using a compressed-gas piston or something instead of what looks like a...giant spring in the illustration, but it eliminates the problem of bay doors at hypersonic speeds.
AWST 24-DEC-1990 p41.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom