Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th June 2007 at 02:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's plausible. There are a few problems with the article though. First off, only one Blackbird ever suffered anything close to battle damage. That was a CIA A-12 that landed with a piece of an SA-2 missile body lodged in the lower wing surface. A bunch of them had been fired but none of them came close enough for the warhead to score a hit, but apaprently pieces of the missile can fly pretty far! :D Also, very high speed and stealth are mutually exclusive. You're going to be one of the world's biggest IR targets, for one, and secondly afterburner plumes are radar reflective, as Lockheed discovered during the Blackbird tests. You can get around that to an extent by injecting cesium into the exhaust stream, though.
By: - 12th June 2007 at 03:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That was a CIA A-12 that landed with a piece of an SA-2 missile body lodged in the lower wing surface. A bunch of them had been fired but none of them came close enough for the warhead to score a hit, but apaprently pieces of the missile can fly pretty far!
On 31 Aug 1981 C. L. "Kelly" Johnson announced that the SR-71 (class) has had over 1000 missiles launches against it, but none successful :D
Source: http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/timeline.html
By: - 12th June 2007 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.... Also, very high speed and stealth are mutually exclusive. ...
AURORA is back - at last! :cool:
As it never existed – officially – many names have been given to it, and none of them might be the correct one. Names really mean nothing. But the few hard numbers in the article, like speed of Mach 6, altitudes of about 100,000 feet and transcontinental range all point in the direction where Aurora was called to be.
These figures also seem to be quite close to what Falcon should be able to, perhaps even a bite less ambitious (M6 instead of M10+).
Contrary to SOC, I do not think that high speed and stealth are mutually exclusive, just a very big challenge to find the compromise between the two. But the even bigger problem to solve could be propulsion.
I personally think FALCON is something like the “white world AURORA”
By: - 12th June 2007 at 18:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On 31 Aug 1981 C. L. "Kelly" Johnson announced that the SR-71 (class) has had over 1000 missiles launches against it, but none successful :D
Source: http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/timeline.html
No **** ? I`am curious who counted the missiles ? Was it the pilot ? :diablo:
By: - 12th June 2007 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last year
October 18, 2006
Falcon Fills Blackbird's Shoes
A decade after the final retirement of Lockheed Martin's Mach-3 SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, the Air Force is preparing to test a plane that flies more than three times as fast. Two Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicles, built by Lockheed Martin with input from NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), will take to the air in 2008. The $100-million program aims to field a Mach-10 unmanned aircraft that can spy on foreign powers, drop bombs or even lob satellites into orbit.
Carter concept 2.jpgThe Blackbird, which was first retired in 1990 then briefly resurrected between 1995 and 1997, reached its Mach-3 top speed by way of its hybrid Pratt & Whitney J-58 engines, which featured a conventional turbojet engine installed inside a ramjet optimized for supersonic flight. At low speeds, the turbojet did most of the work; at high speed the turbojet throttled back and the ramjet took over.
Engineers are improving on this so-called "combined cycle" to propel the Falcon, using a more powerful "scramjet" in place of the ramjet. "We need propulsion that transitions seamlessly from Mach 0 to Mach 9 or 10," says Lockheed Martin's Bob Baumgartner.
"For low speed, we're looking at turbine engines that can perform at speeds from Mach 0 to Mach 4, then a scramjet ... that takes over anywhere between Mach 2 and Mach 4 and goes up to higher Mach numbers -- depending on the fuel, up to Mach 10," says Steven Walker, a Darpa researcher. "For sure, we know how turbines work, but we don't have turbines that work at Mach 4."
"The scramjets are still at a low-technology readiness level," he adds. "Combining both flow-paths and looking at how you transition from one to the other and the transition back ... that's all new, break-through technology."
"Thermal protection ... is the next major enabling technology," Baumgartner says, referring to ways of coping with the high temperatures that Mach-10 flight generates. "We're looking at durable metallic thermal protection panels to withstand heat and keep it away from structure. We're also looking at ceramic panels."
Foil insulation is an option too, he continues. And for the engines, developers are looking at new ceramic or metal-alloy coatings that can withstand temperatures reaching thousands of degrees.
Lockheed Martin's Craig Johnston, who works on a hypersonic engine project, sees many applications for Falcon and similar vehicles. "I can easily envision this technology eventually making its way into advanced aircraft ... something like long-range strike aircraft, supersonic bombers or future fighters."
Darpa also foresees using Falcon to cheaply launch small satellites. "Falcon will develop a low cost, responsive Small Launch Vehicle that can be launched for $5 million or less," an agency statement reads. "The SLV will be capable of launching small satellites into sun-synchronous orbits and will provide the nation a new, small-payload access to space capability."
--David Axe
October 18, 2006
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_space.html
Second test fires for hybrid motors for Falcon 2005
Links
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=16347&rsbci=15260&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400
http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/html/press-releasesandletters/pr050616.html
By: - 12th June 2007 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On 31 Aug 1981 C. L. "Kelly" Johnson announced that the SR-71 (class) has had over 1000 missiles launches against it, but none successful :D
Source: http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/timeline.html
1. The SA-2 wasn't successful, it wasn't even a warhead fragment that hit the plane and the pilot didn't even notice anything until he found it after landing.
2. In 1981 details of CIA OXCART operations were still classified :D
I do not think that high speed and stealth are mutually exclusive
Stealth does not imply radar signature alone. How is a Mach 6+ jet going to hide what will be a massive IR signature?
By: - 12th June 2007 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stealth does not imply radar signature alone. How is a Mach 6+ jet going to hide what will be a massive IR signature?
And what IR sensors do you have in mind?
What sort of ground based or aircraft based IR sensor would be able to detect such a beast? To what maximum range can the most sensitive IR sensor work out to? Do you think the IRST system on a MiG-31BM would be effective against a target flying at Mach 6 and 100,000 ft, and after detection what would it use to shoot it down? It's debatable whether the SR-71 was ever threatened by the MiG-31 so I don't see anything flying at twice the speed of the SR-71 feeling any more threatened.
What are the capabilities of existing ground based sensors, what ranges do they work out to?:confused:
By: - 13th June 2007 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stealth does not imply radar signature alone. How is a Mach 6+ jet going to hide what will be a massive IR signature?
I do not mean it will be able to hide its IR signature (completely), but that the frictional heating will make a thermal management system - to cool the airframe – mandatory. This would reduce IR emission at least for the airframe.
The exhaust plume is another issue, don’t know if injecting cesium will do the job sufficiently.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 13:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. The SA-2 wasn't successful, it wasn't even a warhead fragment that hit the plane and the pilot didn't even notice anything until he found it after landing.
I hardly consider the SA-2 a failure. The SA-3 was a pared down SA-2. The SA-3 took down a wobbly goblin. SA-2 took down, percentage-wise, as many U.S. aircraft per flight as enemy MiG's in any war. Not per attempt, but per flight.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I hardly consider the SA-2 a failure. The SA-3 was a pared down SA-2. The SA-3 took down a wobbly goblin.
Considering the conditions of the shot a Nike Ajax could have done it. :rolleyes: Oh, and nobody calls it a "wobbly goblin" except Clancy in a piece of fiction.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is if anything a study worth some millions, most likely less. I trust the American House Of Representatives and the senat in Stopping such non-sense projects if it comes to anything like prototyping or full-scale development. Even the Blackbird was on the edge when it came to cost versus results. Fortunately nobody asked the Senat or Congress those days.
Strangely, for the Blackbird, nobody ever asked if it made sense after all, while you can have a lively discussion when you ask if the Blackbird made M3.4 or M3.5.
Many misunderstandings come from the disability of some media (and euphoric people) to separate between a low-scale study and a full rate production or at least test program. I would only start talking of an aircraft if the approved budget is at least 8-digit (in 2007 USD), if the term "supersonic" appears somewhere add a digit.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 15:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And what IR sensors do you have in mind?What sort of ground based or aircraft based IR sensor would be able to detect such a beast? To what maximum range can the most sensitive IR sensor work out to? Do you think the IRST system on a MiG-31BM would be effective against a target flying at Mach 6 and 100,000 ft, and after detection what would it use to shoot it down? It's debatable whether the SR-71 was ever threatened by the MiG-31 so I don't see anything flying at twice the speed of the SR-71 feeling any more threatened.
What are the capabilities of existing ground based sensors, what ranges do they work out to?
Funny that the "new" MiG-31 upgrade is said to be capable of bringing down targets flying at Mach 6+.
Coincidence???
You be the judge...:D
Perhaps now they'll reconsider replacing foxhound with something newer...(was it MiG-7.01?)
By: - 13th June 2007 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The funny thing is that ELP cry in every thread how short the weapon budget is,and now they are developing M6 plane.
Many misunderstandings come from the disability of some media (and euphoric people) to separate between a low-scale study and a full rate production or at least test program. I would only start talking of an aircraft if the approved budget is at least 8-digit (in 2007 USD), if the term "supersonic" appears somewhere add a digit.
Second that.
On 31 Aug 1981 C. L. "Kelly" Johnson announced that the SR-71 (class) has had over 1000 missiles launches against it, but none successful
Noise for the public.Considering the fact that the plane was never against something from the S-300 family.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 16:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even the Blackbird was on the edge when it came to cost versus results. Fortunately nobody asked the Senat or Congress those days.
I believe the initial Blackbird family program was part of a classified "black" or covert budget...the same as recon satellites. The budgets, of course, were approved by the House and Senate, but most members were not given exact details on classified programs.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Funny that the "new" MiG-31 upgrade is said to be capable of bringing down targets flying at Mach 6+.
Coincidence???
You be the judge...:DPerhaps now they'll reconsider replacing foxhound with something newer...(was it MiG-7.01?)
And how do you foresee a modernized MiG-31 going about doing that?
The R-37 missile is said to be good for Mach 6 if that’s fast enough to catch the future 'SR-72', but I don’t see that happening – is the R-37 available with IR homing (R-37T)?
We don’t here much about the IRST on the FOXHOUND, do we? Using it’s main radar the MiG-31 is almost a mini AWACS in range and processing power, but on IRST alone were talking about capability being reduced... ooh, let's say for argument’s sake, down to the same capability as a MiG-29A – who knows.
But the main question is, who’s going to vector (gci) this ‘emasculated’ FOXHOUND towards such a Mach-6 stealth plane - without the use of radar? :confused: :rolleyes:
By: - 13th June 2007 at 20:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Noise for the public.Considering the fact that the plane was never against something from the S-300 family.
Which didn't exist at that time, anyways.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 21:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And how do you foresee a modernized MiG-31 going about doing that?The R-37 missile is said to be good for Mach 6 if that’s fast enough to catch the future 'SR-72', but I don’t see that happening – is the R-37 available with IR homing (R-37T)?
We don’t here much about the IRST on the FOXHOUND, do we? Using it’s main radar the MiG-31 is almost a mini AWACS in range and processing power, but on IRST alone were talking about capability being reduced... ooh, let's say for argument’s sake, down to the same capability as a MiG-29A – who knows.
But the main question is, who’s going to vector (gci) this ‘emasculated’ FOXHOUND towards such a Mach-6 stealth plane - without the use of radar? :confused: :rolleyes:
The IRST ;)
By: - 13th June 2007 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Strangely, for the Blackbird, nobody ever asked if it made sense after all, while you can have a lively discussion when you ask if the Blackbird made M3.4 or M3.5.Many misunderstandings come from the disability of some media (and euphoric people) to separate between a low-scale study and a full rate production or at least test program. I would only start talking of an aircraft if the approved budget is at least 8-digit (in 2007 USD), if the term "supersonic" appears somewhere add a digit.
Actually the only time that the A12 approachd Mn 3.3, it was so badly damaged it took eight weeks to get it airworthy.
By: - 13th June 2007 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The IRST ;)
The IRST will have only a limited range of the detection even at such a high altitude and against such a 'hot' target. The MiG-31 crew need to know in which part of the sky to search for the 'SR-72' - they need to be guided to the general predicted location for the target by a ground based centralised radar network system as is the traditional manner of the Soviet/Russian 'PVO' air defence system. But if the ground based radars can't detect such a stealthy target, who's going to guide the MiG-31 to the target?
By: - 13th June 2007 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do not mean it will be able to hide its IR signature (completely), but that the frictional heating will make a thermal management system - to cool the airframe – mandatory. This would reduce IR emission at least for the airframe.The exhaust plume is another issue, don’t know if injecting cesium will do the job sufficiently.
Thermal management will be interesting, seeing as how they apparently won't be using something like liquid hydrogen for fuel, which could have been pumped through airframe bits to cool them off.
Cesium will help with the RCS but not the IR signature, by the way.
I hardly consider the SA-2 a failure.
Neither do I, that's not what I meant (or said, for that matter).
The SA-3 was a pared down SA-2.
Not so much, the S-125 was designed to meet a different set of requirements. They were both Fakel missiles, but the S-75 and S-125 were quite different.
Noise for the public.Considering the fact that the plane was never against something from the S-300 family.
It did operate within range of MiG-25s, MiG-31s, and S-200s, though.
I believe the initial Blackbird family program was part of a classified "black" or covert budget...
That would be the OXCART program initiated in '58 or '59.
But the main question is, who’s going to vector (gci) this ‘emasculated’ FOXHOUND towards such a Mach-6 stealth plane - without the use of radar?
Nothing, because this won't be a stealth plane :D
Actually the only time that the A12 approachd Mn 3.3, it was so badly damaged it took eight weeks to get it airworthy.
Where did you hear that? I know it hit Mach 3.29 during a test flight, but I've never heard of it being badly damaged. The first jet was pretty screwed up after the maiden flight, but that's because a lot of the inserts in the chines decided to no longer be a part of the program :D
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 12th June 2007 at 02:36
An SR-72? Lockheed Martin’s New Mach-6 Spy Plane
By VAGO MURADIAN
Ten years after the U.S. Air Force retired the SR-71 spy plane, Lockheed Martin’s legendary Skunk Works appears back at work developing a new Mach-6 reconnaissance plane, sources said.
The Air Force has awarded Lockheed’s Advanced Development Projects arm a top-secret contract to develop a stealthy 4,000-mph plane capable of flying to altitudes of about 100,000 feet, with transcontinental range. The plan is to debut the craft around 2020.
The new jet — being referred to by some as the SR-72 — is likely to be unmanned and, while intended for reconnaissance, it could eventually trade its sensors for weapons.
The Air Force is working on several programs to improve its global intelligence-gathering. Satellites offer global coverage, but the ones with the highest resolution operate on largely predictable orbits, and many countries have mastered the art of hiding from them. Moreover, China’s successful anti-satellite missile test in January hinted that U.S. satellites might become vulnerable.
The new aircraft would offer a combination of speed, altitude and stealth that could make it virtually impervious to ground-based missiles, sources said. Even the SR-71 is said to have evaded hundreds of missiles fired at it during its long career, although some aircraft sustained minor damage. But experts say enormous challenges remain. First, the SR-71’s top speed was about 2,200 mph. Pushing a plane at twice the speed in the thin air of the upper stratosphere would require exceptionally powerful engines. Second, friction at high speeds could reduce stealth.
“An aircraft with these characteristics could prove a potent response to anti-satellite weapons,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “If U.S. reconnaissance satellites were lost, an SR-72 could get to areas of interest quickly and provide persistent surveillance in place of the satellite.”
And don’t bother asking the Air Force or Skunk Works execs about their work. Neither is commenting and Skunk Works is skipping next week’s Paris Air Show.
“As a matter of policy, we don’t talk about classified programs — whether or not they exist,” said Lockheed’s Tom Jurkowsky. •
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2824311&C=america
Anybody know if they're just mixing this up with Falcon?