Lockheed Martin SR-72?

Would be nice, such an SR-72...
but I guess it is another dream, a project that will never be realised, even with LM's claims hypersonics should not be regarded as hyperexotic anymore.
... A-12/F-12, XB-70, XF-108, ... , F-15SE, SR-72 ?



Btw, ISR, I suppose that includes tapping phones... It will never get overflight clearance in Europe :p
 
SOC said:
F-14D said:
Persistence is unnecessary and may actually work against you because 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


The satellites that "loiter" are really the ones at the higher orbits and are good for SIGINT and COMIINT, especially, along with trend analysis. The ones that get the really good imagery, among other things, are the ones in lower orbit and they get their stuff during the minutes they are above the horizon of the target and as you say, most of them are known (there's even an amateur site in the UK that tracks their launches and orbits).


In fact, if you look at overheads of Groom Lake you'll see around midfield a building constructed some years back on one of the taxiways. Speculation is that it's there if one of the things they're working on gets disabled and can't get back to its normal hangar in time, it gets towed there to keep it out of sight when satellites are overhead. Wouldn't be as effective against a SR-72ovitch (which Putin would fly himself, barechested).

Or Google may be using it as a luxury sales center for VVIP clients. :)
 
F-14D said:
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.
Click to expand...

That assumes they are able to tell the asset is present. That may not be the case.
The systems that were to replace the SR in the strategic reconnaissance role were chosen because of their ability to penetrate and persist. The SR was not a good platform for finding mobile targets inside denied airspace. Neither were other national platforms available at the time.
One of the problems with these solutions though was that they were *slow*. They would not get to the strike area much faster than the bombers. This is why we have concepts like RAPID EYE and PERSISTOR. Get to the area of interest quickly, and then persist. Persistence generates the information the intelligence communities need.

A multi-spectrum snapshot would require Swift Star to slow down quite a bit or leave the atmosphere. Physics limits what payloads are practical.

SOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Imaging and radar satellites have very limited dwell time. The only way to get any kind of persistence from them is to have a large number of them.
The aircraft at Groom have "scoot n hide" shelters to hide from satellites. The satellite passes are measured in minutes, not hours or days. You get a finite number of passes each day (less than 20). That isn't loitering. It's more like a patrol.

Launch warning satellites like DSP, on the other hand, do have persistence. They also have very limited value for ISR.
 
:eek:

Obviously imaging satellites do not have long dwell times or "loiter" above fixed regions on the ground, nor do they have anything close to persistence. The point was merely to include them with the mentioned loitering objects such as drones insofar as both systems, the drones and the satellites, can be tracked and monitored in order to hide activity from their sensors. I.E. neither method is immune to deception, whereas the high-speed spyplane can theoretically use the element of surprise to catch someone off guard.

Clearly I need to refrain from using colloquialisms or inferences and stick to using scientific and technical terminology. On the other hand, this supports my point that scientific fact is indisputably better than unfounded opinion :-X

Launch warning satellites like DSP, on the other hand, do have persistence. They also have very limited value for ISR.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but enough sensitivity and there might be a way to get one to act as an EW or tracking system watching your Mach 6-8 airframe's heat signature shoot across the sky.
 
SOC said:
Obviously imaging satellites do not have long dwell times or "loiter" above fixed regions on the ground, nor do they have anything close to persistence. The point was merely to include them with the mentioned loitering objects such as drones insofar as both systems, the drones and the satellites, can be tracked and monitored in order to hide activity from their sensors. I.E. neither method is immune to deception, whereas the high-speed spyplane can theoretically use the element of surprise to catch someone off guard.
Click to expand...

Drones and satellites can use surprise and deception as well. For example, satellites can maneuver, they be camouflaged, they can observe from extreme angles.

Surprise implies that the observee knows they are being observed. Which as you pointed out earlier, can allow them to alter their behavior. If they never know they are being observed it's not much of a surprise.

SOC said:
Yeah, but enough sensitivity and there might be a way to get one to act as an EW or tracking system watching your Mach 6-8 airframe's heat signature shoot across the sky.
Click to expand...

Yes, DSP would be able to see a mach 6 aircraft. So would many radars.
 
quellish said:
F-14D said:
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.
Click to expand...

That assumes they are able to tell the asset is present. That may not be the case.
The systems that were to replace the SR in the strategic reconnaissance role were chosen because of their ability to penetrate and persist. The SR was not a good platform for finding mobile targets inside denied airspace. Neither were other national platforms available at the time.
One of the problems with these solutions though was that they were *slow*. They would not get to the strike area much faster than the bombers. This is why we have concepts like RAPID EYE and PERSISTOR. Get to the area of interest quickly, and then persist. Persistence generates the information the intelligence communities need.
Click to expand...

The systems that were to replace the SR never got into service. This can be inferred from the reasons the SR was brought back as well as the lack of data they would have supposedly provided. Although we haven't seen the classified testimony, we can see the results of how many times we were surprised . Regarding finding mobile targets, that's hard for anyone; look how we tried to find the mobile Scuds in Gulf War I. That was one of the things the return of the SR and its increased tactical focus was intended to address, through the sheer volume of what it could gather and how fast it could do it.
 
Byeman said:
quellish said:
For example, satellites can maneuver
Click to expand...

Not enough to really matter
Click to expand...

The more you want to change a satellite's orbit, especially out of plane, the more propellant you must expend, and if you want to return it to its previous operation, even more. That propellant is also used for stationkeeping/ orientation. the amount aboard is finite, when its gone, it's gone and your satellite rapidly becomes useless. Given the infrequency with which we can put them up and the hideous cost of both the satellite and getting it up there, that's why it takes such high level authorization to retask them.
 
F-14D said:
The more you want to change a satellite's orbit, especially out of plane, the more propellant you must expend, and if you want to return it to its previous operation, even more. That propellant is also used for stationkeeping/ orientation. the amount aboard is finite, when its gone, it's gone and your satellite rapidly becomes useless. Given the infrequency with which we can put them up and the hideous cost of both the satellite and getting it up there, that's why it takes such high level authorization to retask them.
Click to expand...
That's why you have something like the X-37B with skip entry maneuvering.
 
I really don't know enough about current and projected threat levels of potential targets for this iSr bird (bolding mine). So I am hoping more informed forum members can comment. I've tried to express myself clearly here but even I'm struggling to understand myself (please bear with me)

Penetration of the most advanced IADS of the future?
  • If at some point the US was hurling this thing over Russia or China then the world would likely be in a very bad place. An overflight by this would be extremely visible & provocative.
  • So on the one hand we are being told that speed is the way to go to penetrate top line IADS, on the other, it seems to me that the Intel gathering abilities of this platform could only be used against these targets under extreme circumstances (i.e. to gather Intel in order to try and prevent the outbreak of WW3).
  • But wouldn't an overflight have the opposite effect due to the previously discussed provocative nature of flinging what could rightly be perceived as a MACH 6 robot bomber over military targets.
  • So, against top line IADS is this thing primarily a strike platform?
  • An unobserved, stealthy, loitering, Intel only platform would be much less provocative (even if it was observed and shot down) and for reasons discussed (persistence), provide more valuable Intel. If the slow stealthy approach is deemed to be insufficient, then what is the LRS-B for?
Penetration of lower tier IADS
  • thinking more of an "Iran of the future" type target here. An overflight by this mach 6 beast would be equally provocative however as the repercussions would be lower. It would be a fantastic "BIG STICK" to wave.... But would an Iran type target of the future really require this extreme financial investment to gain access?
  • Surely slow and stealthy is the way to go here?
If the projected efficiency of stealth is so low (bi-static radars, quantum computing processors etc) then how long would a mach 6 bird have an advantage? If maneuvering re-entry vehicles from ballistic missiles can be shot down why is a mach 6 plane any harder to hit?

I wonder how much geosynchronous IMINT satelites with huge (20m) etched diffraction membrane optics and a gorgon stare type capability would cost in comparison.... but now it seems I have moved into Sci Fi too.
 
While I am all for exploration of high(er) mach technologies I have to wonder at the applicability of the technology in the mid-century with pervasive information technologies. With civil ISR platforms already giving us access to overhead information that twenty years ago was very classified data, I have to wonder what the commercial world will give us in twenty years (real time google earth anyone?). Certainly cyber ISR will continue to grow over the time period as well.


I agree with Mat Parry that overflying other global powers would likely present more political issues than they are worth. I can see that unfettered overflight of the likes of North Korea, Syria, African states, and other less developed polities could be beneficial. However as more of the state sponsored and non-state actors move into the electronic-urban jungle to hide and go about their efforts I have to wonder if this sort of technology will have the pay-off we expect. Certainly looking at rocket gantry's and weapon sites will still be valid, but in a ever increasing information dominated world I am undesided if there is still a need for this sort of capability.
 
Could a rail gun be used as a form of suppression against these aircraft? I thought the rail gun projectiles flew at mach 7, without a booster. If you would place your radars and other intelligence systems a way away of the rail guns, maybe you could shoot them down, because there aren't built for great agility and there unmanned...
 
malipa said:
Could a rail gun be used as a form of suppression against these aircraft? I thought the rail gun projectiles flew at mach 7, without a booster. If you would place your radars and other intelligence systems a way away of the rail guns, maybe you could shoot them down, because there aren't built for great agility and there unmanned...
Click to expand...
You don't need great agility, as a small change in heading at these speeds can force an interceptor to have to change it's course by miles.
 
Byeman said:
cubit said:
That's why you have something like the X-37B with skip entry maneuvering.
Click to expand...

X-37 hasn't done that and its payload fraction is very poor.
Click to expand...


A long time ago, "skip entry maneuvering" was known as "synergetic plan change".
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3231.html
The concept was explored (studies) for winged entry vehicles in the late 1970s / early 1980s in the USA for a project vehicle either termed ERV (Entry Researtch Vehicle) or MRRV (%aneuverable Re-entry Research Vehicle)
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.62294?journalCode=jsr
A.
 
antigravite said:
The concept was explored (studies) for winged entry vehicles in the late 1970s / early 1980s
Click to expand...

Quite a bit earlier than that. Boeing showed drawings of an X-20 Dyna Soar with a massively modified transstage that added wing area so the whole thing could do synergetic plane changes
 
Orionblamblam said:
antigravite said:
The concept was explored (studies) for winged entry vehicles in the late 1970s / early 1980s
Click to expand...

Quite a bit earlier than that. Boeing showed drawings of an X-20 Dyna Soar with a massively modified transstage that added wing area so the whole thing could do synergetic plane changes
Click to expand...


Boeing engineers were super smart, then ;)


A.
 
... might realise the SR-72 is not as new as it seems.

Aerojet has shown this aircraft (see picture 1 below) as the TriJet concept (Link here)
in the summer of 2011. The main difference to the SR-72 is the engine, which then consisted of three instead of two components: a turbine, an ejector ramjet and a dual-mode ramjet (see picture 2 and 3).

Perhaps this is the reason why the engine nacelles seem so huge!
 

Attachments

  • d3cc2635-83a8-48ab-a4b8-dd88d8a393d4_Full.jpg
    d3cc2635-83a8-48ab-a4b8-dd88d8a393d4_Full.jpg
    538.7 KB · Views: 1,456
  • ccda8d3a-3e95-48f3-97f6-e49a99e88c59_Full.jpg
    ccda8d3a-3e95-48f3-97f6-e49a99e88c59_Full.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 1,292
  • ce43f2ab-dc05-4d26-b1cd-c46f469c8325_Full.jpg
    ce43f2ab-dc05-4d26-b1cd-c46f469c8325_Full.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 1,261
The first picture you attached has the Skunk Works logo clearly visible on the tail, so presumably it is an LM design.
I notice that this picture shows up alongside the engine diagrams you also posted in Aviation Week (and specifically the Ares blog). It's not clear from the text whether the LM vehicle design is actually linked to the Aeojet TriJet engine. If it is, Aerojet would presumably be doing the engines while LM works on the rest of the design. I don't see Aerojet having the wherewithal to design the whole aircraft these days.
 
I s there possible that Boeing have the same kind of plane in this Phantom Works because they are in hypersonic works with X-51?
 
dark sidius said:
I s there possible that Boeing have the same kind of plane in this Phantom Works because they are in hypersonic works with X-51?
Click to expand...

Yes, Boeing has a similar aircraft concept but it is not related to X-51.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4164.0.html
 
Ive been lurking on this forum for years, I'm not quite sure why I never joined but I had to tell someone. For my final research paper in intelligence and security after the cold war I looked at open source intelligence using the suppossed hypersonic SR-71 follow on as an example. Not much in the way of new reports for 20 odd years and then this comes out 16 hours after I hand up my paper. Just my luck. Anyhow its gotten me to finally join up.

Fascinating work but I agree its an obvious pander...
 
Air Force commentary

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1330&RootFolder=%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts
 
phrenzy said:
Not much in the way of new reports for 20 odd years and then this comes out 16 hours after I hand up my paper. Just my luck.
Click to expand...

There's been a lot of new information on AARS in the open literature in the last 5 years, so that is surprising.
 
quellish said:
phrenzy said:
Not much in the way of new reports for 20 odd years and then this comes out 16 hours after I hand up my paper. Just my luck.
Click to expand...

There's been a lot of new information on AARS in the open literature in the last 5 years, so that is surprising.
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken, I know and talked a little about quartz and other UAV systems than spun offof AARS but my focus was on the reporting and research people have done on evidence for an Aurora type air breathing hypersonic aircraft. Although as you rightly point out there is a little of that in the reporting on AARS and related efforts.

I wonder if this will proove to be the way forward engine wise versus the precooled reaction engines work?
 
Off topic I know but as persistent ISR assets go, this could be hard to beat... If it can be made to work
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/12/05.aspx
"From GEO, it is believed, a satellite using MOIRE optics could see approximately 40 percent of the earth’s surface at once. The satellite would be able to focus on a 10 km-by-10 km area at 1-meter resolution, and provide real-time video at 1 frame per second."

Couple this with a WAAS type capability.... Pray for clouds

http://aviationintel.com/skynet-coming-to-a-city-near-you-wide-area-airborne-surveillance-will-be-a-game-changer-over-the-war-zone-and-the-home-front/
 
DSE said:
F-14D said:
Air Force commentary

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1330&RootFolder=%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts
Click to expand...


Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Nov 14, 2013
SPEED LIMITS: U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh is disavowing any knowledge of Lockheed Martin’s
hypersonic concept, the SR-72, recently revealed by Aviation Week (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 4). “I don’t know anything
about the SR-72,” ... “I saw an article about it. That’s all I know.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I know nothing about the SR-72 cause that's not what it is called wink wink ;)
 
...
 

Attachments

  • SR-72 March 2010.jpg
    SR-72 March 2010.jpg
    554.8 KB · Views: 642
LM released these SR-72 artist concepts awhile back. -SP
 

Attachments

  • SR72-1.jpg
    SR72-1.jpg
    211.1 KB · Views: 309
  • SR72-2.jpg
    SR72-2.jpg
    220.1 KB · Views: 307
More info:

NASA Contract Award
On 8 December 2014 NASA released a task order which stated “Task Order No. NNC15TA03T provides for a parametric design study to establish the viability of a Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) propulsive system consisting of integrating several combinations of near-term turbine engine solutions and a very low Mach ignition Dual Mode Ramjet (DMRJ) in the SR-72 vehicle concept. Task Order NNC15TA03T is issued under Contract NNC10BA08B on a firm fixed price basis. The firm fixed price is $892,292.00 U.S. dollars.”
 
DSE said:
Steve Pace said:
More info:

NASA Contract Award
On 8 December 2014 NASA released a task order which stated “Task Order No. NNC15TA03T provides for a parametric design study to establish the viability of a Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) propulsive system consisting of integrating several combinations of near-term turbine engine solutions and a very low Mach ignition Dual Mode Ramjet (DMRJ) in the SR-72 vehicle concept. Task Order NNC15TA03T is issued under Contract NNC10BA08B on a firm fixed price basis. The firm fixed price is $892,292.00 U.S. dollars.”
Click to expand...
To L-Mart. Another award was to UTRC for direct-connect testing in the JBTS.
Click to expand...
UTRC and JBTS?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom