SR-72?

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,303
Reaction score
1,880
From May 2009 Skunk Works presentation. HTV-3X/BlackSwift heritage is obvious, as the fact that SR-72 name is truly generic and doesn't belong to specific design
 

Attachments

  • 'SR-72' May 2009.png
    'SR-72' May 2009.png
    379.2 KB · Views: 196

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
575
Reaction score
384
Woody said:
I know it's not popular to mention this but once an ballistic missile is exo-atmospheric it can launch hundreds of decoys (aluminized balloons as there's no air resistance up there) and on the descent phase they've got MIRVs (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles) - it's a bit like having a gun to shoot down your enemie's buckshot :), but it's damn good business for the defense contractors since it will never be put to the real test.

So Wrong.

On MIRVs:

Stuart Slade said:
Multiple Independently-Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs)

Why they exist Although MIRVs are often regarded as a development of MRVs, in fact they come from a totally different logic. In a ballistic missile site, the missile itself represents only a small proportion of the cost of the system (usually 10 - 20 percent). The bulk of that cost is represented by the silo and the command control system that goes with it. That cost is dorectly related to the number of missiles, not the number of warheads on each missile. Therefore, it is much less expensive to built 100 missiles with ten warheads each that 1,000 missiles with one warhead each. All the money saved can be invested in making the silos much harder and thus more difficult to destroy (meaning the enemy must fire more missiles at them to guarantee their destruction).

How it works The missile bus containing the warheads is designed so that it can make changes in its attitude and pitch between discharging warheads. It is then programmed so that, at the appropriate time, it can make those changes before discharging a warhead and can, thus, aim each warhead at a separate target. In theory it can aim all its warheads at different targets, in reality things are much more complex.

The problem is that the system has to discharge its warheads one at a time. It cannot discharge the whole lot at once. This puts a limit on how many it can discharge in the time available. Also, the degree of manoeuvering is strictly limited. So, the targets engaged by a single MIRV missile are limited toa relatively restricted footprint. Also, there are a lot more variable, many random and unpredictable, in aiming and discharging the MIRV bus which mean that MIRV missile-delivered RVs are a LOT less accurate than unitary RVs. So much so that if the launch distance is too far back from the target, the MIRVs are likely to miss by so much that they will be useless. So the distance at which the MIRV can discharge is severely limited. It should also be noted that the MIRV bus is very complex and very sensitive.

Effects on ABM MIRVs are also often promoted as a way of beating an ABM defense by "swamping it", apparently on the assumption that each descending RV would have to be destroyed individually. In fact, this is, again, not the case. Using nuclear-tipped ABMs, the relatively tightly clustered MIRVs would be taken out by a single shot. However, the simplest technique of eliminating MIRVs is, once again, to kill the bus before it discharges its warheads. This needs some extended range - the effect of MIRVs on the Nike-Zeus program was to upgrade the Zeus interceptor so that it had the range necessary to kill the MIRV bus before it discharged its warheads. That's why the range was increased from 250km (more than adequate to kill an MRV bus) to 740km (way more than adequate to kill any projected MIRV bus. Also, as a bonus, it needed only tiny amounts of damage or disturbance to render the MIRV bus ineffective. Far from being a way of beating an ABM defense, MIRVs were only credible in the absence of ABMs of adequate range.

and

Stuart Slade said:
Put in a nutshell, decoys don't work. That's about as simple as it gets. There are more than three dozen technologies available to distinguise decoys from real warheads. The decoy question was throughly investigated in the early 1960s and all the practical forms of decoy were discounted. By 1964, the decoy problem was essentially solved. Since that time, decoy developers have been trying to produce better decoys and the counter-decoy people have been devising ways of distinguising between the decoys and the real thing. At the moment, the filtration techniques are so far ahead that decoys have been discounted as a viable technique.

To work, a decoy would have to be exactly the same size, shape, weight, weight distribution, appearance, thermal characteristics and thermal distribution as a real warhead; if one's going to do that, why not just use a real warhead? By the way, before anybody repeats the old line "don't make the decoy look like a warhead, make the warhead look like a decoy", that was one of the earliest ideas that was tested. It doesn't work.

The British based an entire Polaris update around the use of decoys (it was called Chevaline). Chevaline ran years late and was horribly over-cost, the problems with the decoys being the primary and largest single cause of the problems. In fact, those problems were never solved. By the way, even using decoys from a ballistic missile is not as easy as it sounds; there's quite a few problems there that have never been solved either. Mostly because it wasn't worth spending money solving those problems when the decoys wouldn't work anyway.
A bit off topic but where did you found that?
 

Conspirator

CLEARANCE: L5
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
232
Reaction score
86
has anyone thought about the compression and air friction heat problem? how would they deal with that? an object traveling at mach 5 would create surface temps of over 1000 deg Celcius....... how would they achieve mach 6.6?? it would practically look like a meteor flying at that speed. if they were able to make it survive. i was thinking like... the bottom material used on the shuttle but lighter and better placed. would that work?
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
363
Reaction score
230
has anyone thought about the compression and air friction heat problem? how would they deal with that? an object traveling at mach 5 would create surface temps of over 1000 deg Celcius....... how would they achieve mach 6.6?? it would practically look like a meteor flying at that speed. if they were able to make it survive. i was thinking like... the bottom material used on the shuttle but lighter and better placed. would that work?

Fly faster where there's less air friction.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
It doesn't quite work that way. The same max temperature will eventually be reached for a given shape and velocity. The altitude simply changes the rate of heat transfer. Which is fine and dandy if you are on a terminal flight, or a short duration rocket trip. Quite another when you want to go cruising some distance at Mach 5.
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
1,061
has anyone thought about the compression and air friction heat problem?
Off and on for the last 70 years. It's called the thermal thicket. That's one of the many reasons it hasn't been done. Oh, and the air doesn't work as advertised above Mach 4.5.

Chris
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
It doesn't quite work that way. The same max temperature will eventually be reached for a given shape and velocity. The altitude simply changes the rate of heat transfer. Which is fine and dandy if you are on a terminal flight, or a short duration rocket trip. Quite another when you want to go cruising some distance at Mach 5.

What's more: whatever the speed, above 100 000 feet there is no longer enough air to produce any lift. Airbreathing is not possible above that limit. This is known since the 60's, with the subsonic U-2s, RB-57s and the Ryan drones (COMPASS ARROW); and all the Mach 3+ bombers and SR aircraft and proposals.
The highest numbers I've ever seen are Convair ISINGLASS: 110 000 feet and Mach 4.5 - above this, it's "rocket thrust or nothing".

Note that even the faster scramjet proposals - beyond Mach 6 - have difficulties flying at 100 000 feet or above without some kind of rocket boost, small or large.
Horizontal airbreathing flight upper limit still stands at 100 000 ft whatever the vehicle speed.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
632
A joke so bad it should be against the rules of the forum…..
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
What's more: whatever the speed, above 100 000 feet there is no longer enough air to produce any lift. Airbreathing is not possible above that limit.
Mostly, it's a problem of air for combustion. Because of the great speeds potentially involved, transatmospheric flight at well above that is at least theoretically possible.
Lift increases as the square of velocity. So if we double the velocity from Mach 3 to 6, we get four times at much lift from the wing. The tiny X-43 lofted it up to 110,000 feet. The X-15 used aerodynamic controls up to 150,000 feet, if I remember correctly. The X-30 was aiming for 150,000-200,000 at one point.

Mostly it's thermal management. Both for airframe and engine.
 

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
472
Reaction score
829

L-M announces its being developed,front cover of their official Skunk Works book published few years back shows something similar then L-M retracts the statement they are devloping SR-72. There has been sightings of subscale unmanned demonstrator inbound to Palmdale around the same time with T-38 Talon chase plane.

This coupled with N-G recent video of mystery airframe....

Me thinks there is something even more interesting in development and the likes of the B-21, RQ-180 and seceretive next generation fighter that are being slolwy teased to us will be small fry.

Cheers
 

Similar threads

Top