Lockheed Martin
Task & Purpose: Report: The SR-71 Blackbird’s Ultra-Secret Successor May Scream Across The Sky Sooner Than Expected
The successor to Lockheed Martin’s SR-71 Blackbird, the Mach 3 long-range recon aircraft that once tore across the skies like a Cold-War era arrowhead before its retirement in 1999, may be inching closer toward reality.
According to Aviation Week, a handful of visitors to the SAE International Aerotech Congress and Exhibition at Fort Worth, Texas, this week reported catching glimpses of a “demonstrator vehicle” believed to be linked to the proposed replacement: the SR-72.
Though the SR-72’s development is (understandably) a tightly-kept secret, Aviation Week reports that: In the early hours of July, an “unmanned subscale aircraft” was seen flying into the Air Force’s Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, where Lockheed Martin’s legendary Skunk Works division is headquartered.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Do we really need a mach 6 spy-plane? .... Just Because Lockheed Says They Can Build A Mach 6 Spy Plane Doesn't Mean We Need One (Tyler Rogoway, FoxTrot Alpha).
6 comments:
"Do we really need a mach 6 spy-plane?"
Let's talk about interception. Can you intercept such a plane?
People tell us that we cannot intercept North Korean missiles, because the interceptor missiles would have to be based in Russia due to the trajectory, speeds and what not. The window of engagement is too small.
Same holds true for planes. If whoever does not acquire it on their radar soon enough, they cannot launch quick enough to intercept it.
I do not know what photography/ radio intercepts that the plane could do that a satellite could not.
The SR, or any spyplane for that matter, would soon find itself being put into the same category as carriers. Because carriers are not future proof - and questions have already been asked on their future practicability.
So one must ask the same question concerning these planes. Are they needed in the digital age when we have satellites and other means to conduct surveillance?
I think not.
To my understanding, the problem with satellites is multifold:
1. They are on a known trajectory and you know at which times you cannot be seen by them. Means the enemy moves in those hours you can see them, then optionally obscures any movement is happening (in case the movement takes longer than one cycle) and then repeats
2. Satellites (and planes) can sometimes be compromised and shot down. Being blinded can come at extreme costs. We need something like a triad for observation just like we need a triad for reliable nuclear deterrence. For visual observation we might add personnel observation.
3. It can take a day or more until you have adjusted your current observational target to the next for a satellite. If there's multiple targets and they are not in the right trajectory they might miss it. Or you need multiple targets over the country, or you need really good resolution in the visual receptor ("telescope/camera ") to get the entire country at once lol
4. Weather. While we have satellites that can look through clouds, they can't do so at all spectra and resolutions
5. Upgradeability. Cameras were upgraded all the time in the SR-71. Expect the same thing to happen for the SR-72. And yes, the hubble space telescope's camera was also famously upgraded and the satellite was built modularity for that purpose- but at really high costs and planning involvements every time. It still is harder in space.
"To my understanding, the problem with satellites is multifold" - Anon
A great post by whatever Anon this is.
Much faster and easier to get real time intel then retasking satellites. But the SR-71 cost just about $100K per hour to operate. Who knows the overall cost of this thing.
Let do this stuff and we shall see if that's good or not. My only worry is the thermal problem to be sustained.
Post a Comment