SR-71 Blackbird follow-up: A new TERRIFYING Mach 6 spy-drone bomber The famous SR-71 Blackbird was put out to pasture over a decade ago – but the legendary Skunk Works aviation wizards that built it have been showing off a replacement that can travel twice as fast and it could be in the skies within a decade. The SR-72 will be unmanned, saving a lot of the weight needed to keep the two fleshy …
The SR71 though may well have helped turn the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
"On October 13 and 15, Egyptian air defense radars detected an aircraft at an altitude of 25,000 metres (82,000 ft) and a speed of Mach 3, making it impossible to intercept either by fighter or SAM missiles. The aircraft proceeded to cross the whole of the canal zone, the naval ports of the Red Sea (Hurghada and Safaga), flew over the airbases and air defenses in the Nile delta, and finally disappeared from radar screens over the Mediterranean Sea. The speed and altitude were those of the US SR-71 Blackbird, a long-range strategic-reconnaissance aircraft (yeah as if this sentence is necessary, what else could it be in 1973). According to Egyptian commanders, the intelligence provided by the reconnaissance flights helped the Israelis prepare for the Egyptian attack on October 14 and assisted it in conducting Operation Stouthearted Men"
No, it almost didn't. The same relative who I referenced above was involved in that. Apparently when it mated with the tanker there was no measurable fuel left in the Aircraft, it was literally running on fumes, or at least that's how the story goes.
With programs like that though its like playing the telephone game, an anecdote takes on a life of its own and turns into a legend as more people hear it and pass it on, making it sound more fantastic than it really was.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Air Force had 32 SR-71s, and three armed YF-12 interceptors, one of which was remanufactured into an SR-71 IIRC. The CIA also had 13 A-12 OXCARTs and two M-21 supersonic drone launching aircraft.
They're all virtually the same design, the major difference between the SR-71 and A-12 was that the camera from the A-12 was taken out and a seat for an RSO (reconnaissance systems operator/officer) was installed where it had been. Also the A-12 used a less powerful engine, though they were upgraded as the more powerful engine became available. I know it was a Pratt & Whitney, but I forget the model number. I have a relative who worked on the A-12 and SR-71 programs for CIA and what's now called the Air Force Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency.
> they were upgraded as the more powerful engine became available. I know it was a Pratt & Whitney
Yeah to me the most impressive part of the SR71 was the power plant. Hell that damn thing is mostly engine with a tiny bit of aircraft wrapped around them and the cockpit. The J58 was an engine the US government somehow in the late 1950s used the Area 51 alien ship to go ten years into the future to bring back. Just kidding but it was seriously ahead of its time. Hell early in the decade we could barely do Mach 1.
"Yeah to me the most impressive part of the SR71 was the power plant. "
The J58 was (IIRC) originally chosen for a navy fighter that got cancelled.
Not that technically the ramjet part is not part of the engine but is part of the nacelle, as are the inlet and outlet.
The whole package working together is what gave the SR71 its performance.
BTW the only other country that flew turbo ramjet aircraft in the 50s was France.
Military laser tech may well threaten this bird but I would also keep an eye on missile development. After all "too fast to shoot down" was what the CIA thought about the U2 until Soviet air defence shoved a SAM up Gary Powers when the plane was (for the time) at very high speed and altitude.
The U2 was never considered to be particularly fast. It was subsonic, and flew at an altitude where the difference between stalling and the mechanical limit of the airframe was only 10 knots (and having large, glider like wings this upper limit wasn't going to be close to Mach 1). It was the altitude that was considered to be its defense, and improved SAM missiles that could reach that high that proved them wrong.
.... its best defence are of course quite right and I stand corrected. The incident still (as I am sure you would agree) stands as an example of the fact that no tech (military or otherwise) is truly future proof and it is wise to assume that your potential enemies will, sooner rather than later, develop effective counter-measures.
@cortland: You are correct. Powers U2 was known to be subject to mechanical problems. There is also the unproven possibility a small bomb damaged the plane in flight. Skunkworks management were already thinking of replacements for U2 because they knew it was only a matter of time before the Russians would get to 60,000 feet in a controlled manner. See Skunkworks, by Ben Rich, the SR71 engine designer.
The most significant question is what use is the SR72 ? Big boys toys ? What sort of wars are being considered that require high speed reconn ? Yes, satellites have problems, but the two possible big nation states likely to exist in near future would have the resources to hide most of their interesting activities well underground or underwater. Military involvement in recent hell holes has demonstrated decent heavy lift helicopters, long loiter gunships and heavy lifter cargo aircraft were more use supporting the grunts and occasionally, strategy. See ElReg articles on the loss of British troops due to IE because there were not given the promised heavy lift helicopters.
As for the SR72 donks, IMHO the recent successful hydrocarbon hypersonic fuel tests demonstrate how the scramjets and turbojet engines probably use the same fuel. Keeping electronics coping with heat may also be repurposed shuttle insulation. When scramjests are hitting Mach15 then they might be useful for cheap launch. Better yet mach18, straight to orbit. <quote> Once you are in orbit, you are halfway to anywhere</quote> Robert Heinlein
This post has been deleted by its author
What, you think that today's 'super weapon' won't be nearly instantly neutralized, possibly by the same company who makes the 'super weapon'? That's where the money is. Just like there's no big money in curing most common diseases, there's no big money in a weapon that can't be neutralized.
The trick is to be sure you provide both the weapon and the defense system. That way you're guaranteed the sales of both to your primary customer and the 'neutralization' tech to everybody else. That's just good business.
Regardless of that though, the plane is cool! I would like to see it get built.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think the Israeli Air Force has a lot of combat experience? The Israeli armed services spend a lot of time within their own borders and manning roadblocks/check points, but they really don't have a lot of experience against organized & armed opponents.
Well, since 1947 they've destroyed ~600 enemy aircraft in air to air combat, and been in 5 major wars/conflicts i.e. the War of Independence, Sinai Conflict, Six Day War, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War. Not to mention the Entebbe hostage rescue and taking out Iraq's nuclear programme in an air raid.
I'm unaware of another air force that's been as busy since WW2.
Well, I think the US might well dispute that, what with Vietnam ( 200+) and Korea (700+), and a few others since then. I would think the Gulf War was the last serious air to air fight, and that was 20+ aircraft for the coalition forces as a whole.
More importantly, most genuine experianced air to air combat pilots, even Israeli will have retired from front line service since they were last needed, which I think was the Gulf War.
"More importantly, most genuine experianced air to air combat pilots, even Israeli will have retired from front line service since they were last needed"
It doesn't stop the basic maxims of combat being true though, who do you think writes the manuals?
Nothing's really changed since WW1 apart from the speed and range of the combatants. Something the US had to relearn during Vietnam, although I grant you they may have more kills than the Israelis. At the same time in terms of relative numbers I'd argue the Israelis have more experience, which comes from the majority of neighbouring countries wanting your destruction. Apparently even this century they've been busy bombing Syrian reactors and shooting down various drones.
".....Nothing's really changed since WW1 apart from the speed and range of the combatants....." Er, not quite. Apart from the fact the turning dogfight of WW1 evolved into the vertical fighting of WW2 (maybe in the Spanish Civil War if you consider the Polikarpov I-16 and Bf109 tactics).
"....Something the US had to relearn during Vietnam...." The problems for the US fighter jocks in Vietnam was the political limitations put upon them - no BVR (beyond visual range) action. In short, the US had developed missile-armed interceptors like the F-4B, not dogfighters, on the basis that they could shoot down a dogfighter at long range with missiles before it got to a turning dogfight. Their training and equipment was designed for shooting down Russian nuke bombers over Europe or Alaska. In Vietnam, they were told they had to visually confirm a target as a hostile North Vietnamese aircraft (no-one wanted to shoot down a Chinese jet by mistake and start WW3), which meant they then had to close to a range where the North Vietnamese jets could dogfight, and the Vietnamese were largely using old MiG-17s and MiG-19s - poor BVR interceptors but good dogfighters. The US pilots also had a problem that their missiles had a minimum range and the F-4B jocks had no cannon! So the US Army and Navy pilots had to "relearn" how to dogfight, and the US manufacturers had to modify their jets into dogfighters (the F-4E got dogtooth leading edge extensions for better turnrate, more power for zeroing out whilst going vertical, and a Vulcan 20mm cannon).
The one thing that has not changed since WW1 is that the pilot that "sees" their opponent first is usually the one that wins, but even this is different nowadays as the "seeing" is often done by long-range radar, IR sensors or long-range TV. During the Iraq wars, AWACs over the Persian Gulf could watch Iraqi MiGs taking off from their bases and guide F-15s for a quick dashes into position for perfect missile solutions, no need for turning dogfights. The much maligned Tornado F4 won many NATO exercises by "shooting down" opponents at long range.
"the turning dogfight of WW1 evolved into the vertical fighting of WW2"
I was thinking more of the basic employment of the fighter, which the RAF had to relearn during the Battle of Britain having come up with a range of frankly barking tactics during the 20s and 30s.
" Their training and equipment was designed for shooting down Russian nuke bombers over Europe or Alaska."
So yes, they had to relearn basic fighter manoeuvre , hence Top Gun and the USAF Aggressor program.
" but even this is different nowadays as the "seeing" is often done by long-range radar, IR sensors or long-range TV."
Thanks I did wonder what all that equipment hanging of the front of my helicopter was for, who knew it was for long range "seeing". As I said, the basics are the same it's the speed and range that's increased, including the detection range.
Going back to the US kills in Vietnam, they may have claimed ~200 kills but they did lose almost 10 times that, whereas the Israelis have lost 18 aircraft in air to air combat since 1948.
"....I was thinking more of the basic employment of the fighter, which the RAF had to relearn during the Battle of Britain having come up with a range of frankly barking tactics during the 20s and 30s....." Again, wrong. The Fighting Area attack tactics had been designed as part of the RAF's groundbreaking interceptor premise - in the requirement F.9/26 of 1926 the RAF were the first airforce to envision a fast-climbing fighter under ground control, courtesy of radio, as the means of intercepting unescorted bombers, rather than the wasteful practice of fighter patrols. The British built the best aerial defence system of its day, especially when the integrated control and observer system had radar added to it, but it was designed for attacking unescorted bombers. The problem was no-one anticipated that the Frogs would fold faster than week-old lettuce and let the Germans put fighter bases within escorting range of the UK mainland, so interceptor tactics were still designed for shooting down bombers. When the German bombers weren't around the RAF still managed to shoot down plenty of German fighters because the RAF pilots still practiced plenty of dogfighting. Indeed, historians have sifted the records and put the BoB score as 1,887 German aircraft destroyed for 1,547 RAF aircraft (including RAF bombers), so it looks like the RAF did better, despite the Area Attack tactics. You should try reading beyond the headlines.
"......So yes, they had to relearn basic fighter manoeuvre , hence Top Gun and the USAF Aggressor program....." Headlines again. The USAF's F-100 Super Sabres had no problems dogfighting MiGs (scored 3-0 in the first USAF engagement with MiGs) because they had plenty of practice, it was only the Phantom jocks whose training had neglected dogfighting. The USAF had not "forgotten" dogfighting, they simply had not trained all their pilots thoroughly in it. Similarly, the USN's F-8 Crusader jocks had no problems, having the best kill ratio of any Yank fighter in the War (19:3). The only US pilots that needed retraining were the F-4 interceptor pilots that had been trained intensively on SAR Sparrow missile intercepts. A lot of the fuss around Top Gun is marketing as it is used as a revenue generator by the USN selling training to foreign airforces, just as the RAF sells their training program.
".....Thanks I did wonder what all that equipment hanging of the front of my helicopter was for.....". Ah, a slow-moving groundhugging blenderdriver, no wonder you got it wrong.
".....As I said, the basics are the same it's the speed and range that's increased, including the detection range....." Still very, very wrong. The WW1 pilot had to relie on the Eyeball Mk1, and had only very limited communication with even his wingman (hand signals only) and virtually none with the ground (AA pointer shells at best). When he engaged he usually fired a single or pair of rifle-calibre machineguns at 50-100m. The F-15s over Iraq sometimes never even saw the Iraqi MiGs they shot down. Now imagine a pilotless drone, guided into position by a remote AWACs, not having to do any tight turning because it can pop a target with an AMRAAM over the horizon in cloud in the middle of the night. The ability to dash into the target zone at Mach 6 will only lessen the chances of the enemy even being able to think of avoiding the drone. Bit of a change since WW1.
".....Going back to the US kills in Vietnam, they may have claimed ~200 kills but they did lose almost 10 times that....." The majority of US aircraft lost in Vietnam were to SAMs, AAA and ground fire. Even with the initial problems of being trained primarily for missile intercept, and with the constraint of no BVR engagements, the Phantom still managed a 3:1 kill ratio in air combat over Vietnam (and that includes bomb-laden F-4s jumped by MiGs). The Israelis managed between 5:1 and 15:1 with Phantoms throughout their use as a frontline fighter, but mainly because they had a much more favourable tactical environment and also because they did not have any BVR restrictions. See how a little research before tryping helps?
Matt, I'll try and ignore the ad hominem attacks in my response.
Did the UK have the best air defence network in the world at the start of the BoB? Yes, however my point was that their plan for the use of the fighter once the intercept was coordinated was poor, i.e. having a section of fighters take it in turns to line up behind the enemy bomber and engage it while the tail gunner had a perfect shot. Never mind the original concept of use for the turret fighter. My point was that they had to rapidly relearn the basics such as operating as a number of two ships rather than having a whole squadron try and manoeuvre its way around the sky in formation.
Similarly in Vietnam the aircraft that performed best in air to air combat were the older ones as they'd been taught it, whereas it had been assumed the Phantom would never need to under the new concept of operations. Hence the response of setting up Top Gun et al as a response to the poor performance of the F-4 in the air to air arena, or are you saying it was set up for different reasons? It's a particularly literal reading of my post to assume I meant the entire USAF had forgotten about dog fighting. My point was they'd had to do something to address the lack of ACM training for a large part of their fleet as they'd thought it was no longer relevant to the next generation of aircraft.
I'm not sure how you prove I'm very wrong to say " it's the speed and range that's increased, including the detection range" and then go on to say how the range of various sensors and weapons has increased, like I said it had.
Regarding kill ratios there are various ways of reading the results in South East Asia, and it's hard to know the true story. For instance after the engagement where Cunningham and Driscoll became the USN's only F-4 aces they had to eject due to damage sustained in combat. The US don't count that as a kill for the NVAF as it happened after the encounter, whereas they'd be quite happy to count a NVAF aircraft that crashed on landing as a kill for anyone who'd fired shots at it.
"....I'll try and ignore the ad hominem attacks in my response...." Maybe you should concentrate on the ad hominems seeing as you're still struggling on the facts.
".....having a section of fighters take it in turns to line up behind the enemy bomber and engage it while the tail gunner had a perfect shot....." That was Fighter Attack No.1, for attack of a single enemy bomber from astern and co-height. There we six Fighter Attacks in all, many designed around the idea of a vic of three RAF fighters attacking a kette of three bombers at once, therefore splitting the defensive fire. The tight vic was seen as the best way to maintain formation and avoid a collission in the cloudy skies over the UK. But frontline squadrons were already trying other formations before the BoB, an example being Stanford Tuck leading the Spitfires of 92 Squadron in pairs over Dunkirk in May 1940. You might want to know the Luftwaffe tactics for attacking RAF bombers were even less technical and many 109s were shot down taking turns attacking Blenheims and even the Fairy Battles over France. The Jadgwaffe didn't put serious thought into formation daylight fighter-vs-bomber attacks until 1942 and the advent of the first 8th Air Force raids. They then found out how far behind the RAF they had fallen.
".....Never mind the original concept of use for the turret fighter....." Again, you've been too busy reading the headlines, you need to read a bit more indepth. When the Defiant was repurposed as nightfighter it had the highest kill-per-contact ratio of all the RAF nightfighters right up until the late model Mosquitos. When the Defiant met unescorted day bombers in 1940 it was just as effective as the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was only when it tangled with the 109s that the design had serious trouble. But then the turret fighter concept was intended for the daylight interception of unescorted bombers, not dogfighting.
"....My point was that they had to rapidly relearn the basics such as operating as a number of two ships rather than having a whole squadron try and manoeuvre its way around the sky in formation....." Er, what? Even after switching to pairs and even the finger four formation, the RAF still often operated in squadrons or even whole wings. They didn't just wander about the sky in unco-ordinated pairs.
".....Similarly in Vietnam the aircraft that performed best in air to air combat were the older ones as they'd been taught it....." Nope. The Super Sabre and Crusader carried cannon and short-range Sidewinder AAMs only, so they concentrated on training for using those weapons. The F-4 jocks had been trained mainly on Sparrow BVR engagements, but they still had training some training in dogfighting with Sidewinders.
"....whereas it had been assumed the Phantom would never need to under the new concept of operations......" Correct in that both the USN and USAF thought they would be allowed to engage at range with SAR Sparrows.
".....Hence the response of setting up Top Gun et al as a response to the poor performance of the F-4 in the air to air arena, or are you saying it was set up for different reasons?....." The "poor performance" of the F-4 has been ridiculously over-hyped. Even at their worst the F-4Bs and Cs were scoring a 2:1 kill ratio before Top Gun or modifications. The units in the field simply switched tactics and it was NEW pilots being trained for F-4s in the States that got training with more emphasis on dogfighting. USN ace Randy Cunningham shot down MiG ace Nguyen Van Coc in a prolonged dogfight whilst flying an F-4J (basically an upgraded F-4B) without attending Top Gun. And the whole problem only started because of the restriction on BVR engagements, another example of political meddling. The difference between the USN's F-4 jocks and the F-8 drivers was the latter had all been trained under the old FAGU regime which was recycled to produce Top Gun.
".....For instance after the engagement where Cunningham and Driscoll became the USN's only F-4 aces they had to eject due to damage sustained in combat....." Cunningham's F-4 was hit by a SAM on the return from the engagement, Van Coc didn't land a single hit on the F-4. Once again, try a little research.
"'Speed is Life' - The Israeli Air Force"
All pilots say that. Stop moving and you stop flying as your wings stop generating lift (*)
The second part of the saying is " and Altitude is life insurance". Since you can convert height to speed by diving (i.e. gliding if the engine stops).
That isn't to say it doesn't also hold true for avoiding the missiles of course as if you are high and fast then the interceptor has to go a long way both vertically and laterally in order to close with you.
However, as radars operate line of sight if you cruise along at 100,000 feet you are making it very easy for the enemy to spot you coming from a long long way. So they have plenty of time to get their missile to the same altitude.
The U-2 incident was a nasty shock as no-one thought the Soviets had updated their WWII lend-lease radar units to see above 60,000 feet. Turns out they had and in fact, today you can't get high enough to avoid detection. Hence the old idea of hugging the ground to use the "line of sight" limitation on the radar - it can't see round the curvature of the earth. But an AWACS can. As can a satellite if you are hoofing along at Mach 6 leaving a thermal trail visible from space. In fact, this aircraft would almost certainly be bright enough to trip ICBM launch detection satellites.
So unfortunately there is no altitude at which the aircraft can avoid being detected from several hundred miles away.
That means you only hope is to be travelling so fast there isn't time to put a missile in the air.
Unfortunately there are already claimed Mach-12 missiles out there (The S-400, http://www.dtig.org/docs/S-300_Familie.pdf).
Since space launch requires around Mach 25, a Mach 12 SAM is not unreasonable even if its performance has been slightly exaggerated. More importantly with 20 years to get ready, taking a Mach 25 ICBM and converting it to a SAM is not going to be a huge stretch.
So we have an aircraft which is visible around half an hour before it arrives overhead and is flying at about between one half to one quarter the speed of any intercepting missile.
I wouldn't bank on gaining any useful intelligence from it ...
(*) Unless the wings themselves are doing the moving, i.e. a helicopter
Planners are always fighting the last major battle. Fisher hadn't realised that line of battle ships could now fight at extreme range, meaning that arriving shells were at very high angles and what armour there was, was in the wrong place. The question here is, what current developments in technology have the SR-72 planners failed to anticipate being used in a military scenario?
Umm, the TR-3 Triumph auto is not as fast, you're right. I was referring to the USAF Black Triangle craft which has actually been around since the 90's or maybe even earlier. It can make the SR-72 eat it "dust"; which is why I said this talk about a mach 6 plane is laughable. The USAF (and probably Britain, France, and Russia too) has craft that can move like lightning.
Watch the Disclosure videos with testimony from high-ranking ex-military, NASA, and government officials if you doubt it. Only the dunces who stick their heads in the sand and insist that it has to be swamp gas still believe otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming. All you have to do is start looking instead of hiding.
"Officially". That must be why essentially the same car today costs 10 times what it cost 40 years ago. (OK, accounting for new features, call it 5 times.) And why my purchasing power is about the same - house prices, rents, food, etc. - today as it was in 1978, even though I now make about 7 times what I made then. And why my salary today is about 1.5 times what it was in 1999, but I have _less_ purchasing power.
Yes, this is a mix of approximate statistical data and anecdotal evidence. :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
