Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: Beyond the SR-71

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    223
    Likes (Given)
    95
    Likes (Received)
    129

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Wanttaja View Post
    Frankly, one needs a mix of tactical and strategic reconnaissance assets. No one expects a single type of airplane to fill the Air Forces needs (e.g., they're not using C-17s as interceptors), and the country needs a mix of platforms to fill intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance needs.
    <cough>F35<cough>

  2. Likes BJC liked this post
  3. #32
    Registered User Aerowerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Marion, Ohio
    Posts
    3,152
    Likes (Given)
    446
    Likes (Received)
    818

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Swampyankee View Post
    The U-2 could cruise in that neighborhood, albeit with something like a 2 knot distance between stall and buffet.
    This was after the U-2 had been replaced by the SR-71.
    ___________________________
    Optimist: The bottle is half full.
    Pessimist: The bottle is half empty.
    Engineer: The bottle has a Factor of Safety of 2.0

  4. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Earth USA East Coast
    Posts
    779
    Likes (Given)
    259
    Likes (Received)
    187

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerowerx View Post
    This was after the U-2 had been replaced by the SR-71.
    That never quite happened: the U-2 has remained in USAF, NRO, and NASA service consistently since the 1950s.

  5. Likes bmcj, mcrae0104 liked this post
  6. #34
    Registered User Toobuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mojave, Ca
    Posts
    2,909
    Likes (Given)
    238
    Likes (Received)
    1663

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Swampyankee View Post
    That never quite happened: the U-2 has remained in USAF, NRO, and NASA service consistently since the 1950s.
    Yep. The Deuce has certainly seen her share of "replacements" fly to the boneyard over the years.

    A minor point however, the earlier, short span versions were the ones with the highly critical "coffin corner". Those last flew in the 1980's with NASA and have been superceeded with the larger, more capable and more forgiving U-2R/TR-1 (now U-2S).

    The U-2 is as highly tasked today as it ever has been in history and continues to soldier on as one of those aviation "greats" that just flat out works. It will be replaced, of course, but I suspect that it will be political will that dooms the Program, not operational need or value. The Global Hawk for example puts up a great advertising campaign as a replacement, but those of us in the know can see clearly that their "value proposition" is highly flawed, bordering on criminal deception. Such is the world of Government procurement today. The Global Chicken has merit, but it's no replacement for the Dragon Lady - no matter how much money the taxpayer continues to throw at it.

    As for the replacement for the Sled, I'd like to point out that Lockheed has recently publicly proclaimed that "speed is the new stealth". We may never see the days of covert, paper bags full of cash government procurement again, but hypersonics are the new "thing", and I suspect that the vehicles we will see in the future will boggle the mind. The SR-71 will indeed look like an "ox cart" in comparison.

  7. Likes bmcj, BJC, mcrae0104, Swampyankee, delta and 1 others liked this post
  8. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Clugnat, France
    Posts
    21
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Aerowerkx,
    Yes, much above FL 600 :

    http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/appendix/a5-3.php

  9. #36
    Registered User Victor Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    Posts
    2,443
    Likes (Given)
    511
    Likes (Received)
    2111

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Toobuilder View Post

    As for the replacement for the Sled, I'd like to point out that Lockheed has recently publicly proclaimed that "speed is the new stealth".
    But... but... I thought that speed is the old stealth. A pointy nosed airplane that flew so fast you couldn't catch it with an interceptor or most missiles, such that it didn't really matter whether you knew it was there or not. Not sure how Lockheed can claim how this is a new concept? Or did you just get a recently FOIA'ed press release that was written in 1964 ?
    "Everything in this book may be wrong."
    Richard Bach, Illusions


  10. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Clugnat, France
    Posts
    21
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Swampyankee View Post
    The U-2 could cruise in that neighborhood, albeit with something like a 2 knot distance between stall and buffet.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...1-Mar-1959.pdf

    Section 6 page 7
    At these altitudes, 1 kt IAS means about 4 kt TAS

  11. #38
    Moderator autoreply's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Posts
    10,569
    Likes (Given)
    243
    Likes (Received)
    2209

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by Toobuilder View Post
    Yep. The Deuce has certainly seen her share of "replacements" fly to the boneyard over the years.

    A minor point however, the earlier, short span versions were the ones with the highly critical "coffin corner". Those last flew in the 1980's with NASA and have been superceeded with the larger, more capable and more forgiving U-2R/TR-1 (now U-2S).

    The U-2 is as highly tasked today as it ever has been in history and continues to soldier on as one of those aviation "greats" that just flat out works. It will be replaced, of course, but I suspect that it will be political will that dooms the Program, not operational need or value. The Global Hawk for example puts up a great advertising campaign as a replacement, but those of us in the know can see clearly that their "value proposition" is highly flawed, bordering on criminal deception. Such is the world of Government procurement today. The Global Chicken has merit, but it's no replacement for the Dragon Lady - no matter how much money the taxpayer continues to throw at it.

    As for the replacement for the Sled, I'd like to point out that Lockheed has recently publicly proclaimed that "speed is the new stealth". We may never see the days of covert, paper bags full of cash government procurement again, but hypersonics are the new "thing", and I suspect that the vehicles we will see in the future will boggle the mind. The SR-71 will indeed look like an "ox cart" in comparison.
    How's that. Having a capable, intelligent human in the loop, or mostly the logistics and cost of remote-control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Bravo View Post
    But... but... I thought that speed is the old stealth. A pointy nosed airplane that flew so fast you couldn't catch it with an interceptor or most missiles, such that it didn't really matter whether you knew it was there or not. Not sure how Lockheed can claim how this is a new concept? Or did you just get a recently FOIA'ed press release that was written in 1964 ?
    I get the pun... but. (t?)

    Having seen some cutting-edge astronomy research, interferometry is going to put stealth to bed in way under a decade. Making the hardware (antennas) yourself is do-able, the code is just a matter of clever thinking and reading the scientists.

    So I agree. Hell of a lot harder to have your opposition (even if it's a country) come up with a Mach>4 interceptor rocket.
    Kennis vermenigvuldig je door het te delen.
    (You multiply knowledge by dividing it)

  12. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Earth USA East Coast
    Posts
    779
    Likes (Given)
    259
    Likes (Received)
    187

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by autoreply View Post
    So I agree. Hell of a lot harder to have your opposition (even if it's a country) come up with a Mach>4 interceptor rocket.
    Lasers and other beam weapons.

  13. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Earth USA East Coast
    Posts
    779
    Likes (Given)
    259
    Likes (Received)
    187

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by autoreply View Post
    So I agree. Hell of a lot harder to have your opposition (even if it's a country) come up with a Mach>4 interceptor rocket.
    Lasers and other beam weapons.

  14. #41
    Registered User Toobuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mojave, Ca
    Posts
    2,909
    Likes (Given)
    238
    Likes (Received)
    1663

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by autoreply View Post
    How's that. Having a capable, intelligent human in the loop, or mostly the logistics and cost of remote-control?...
    The analysis is not nearly that sophisticated.

    The current fight for survival comes down to an oversimplified comparison between the two platforms:

    Cost per flying hour.

    You total up the complete O&M cost for each program and divide by the number of flying hours. Seems pretty simple and in that light the U-2 is slightly more expensive. That might be a fair comparison if the platforms were equally matched, but they are not even close. The U-2 hauls far more payload, has much greater electrical generating capacity, cruises faster, and gets higher in far less time. And it is true that the Global Hawk team is making strides to carry many of the sensors that have been on the U-2 for years, but their airframe will never be able to support multiple sensors on a single mission like we can. Their airframe is essentially a one trick pony, while we are the swiss army knife of airborne reconnaissance.

    And yes, they make a big deal about their ability to stay airborne for 30 hours, but they dont brag about burning almost half of their mission time just getting to the target, staggering to altitude, and coming home. All of that time transiting to/from the target is worthless from a mission perspective, yet they take "credit" for those flight hours in their cost calculations. The U-2 on the other hand climbs from sea level to FL700 and is on the job in about an hour.

    The bottom line is that the U-2 is in a different league than the Global Hawk. We have a more capable platform and processes far more information per flight hour than the Global Hawk, but it is hard to sell "beeps and squeaks per hour" as a metric the taxpayer will understand. Cost per hour is much easier to sell, but in this case makes about as much sense as a major airline procuring Cessna 172's instead of B-737's because one has a lower operating cost.

    The GH team does great PR - so much so that they have convinced some in Congress that they can eventually match the capability of the U-2. Of course there is a price tag for that increase in capability, and the number that is floating on the street today is $3B. That's Billion, with a B.

    Think about that. We need to throw $3billion of taxpayer money at Global Hawk to get it to parity with the existing U-2, so that U-2 can then go to the boneyard.

    How's that for a value proposition?
    Last edited by Toobuilder; January 4th, 2017 at 10:04 AM.

  15. Likes BJC, mcrae0104, bmcj, autoreply, Topaz liked this post
  16. #42
    Registered User mcrae0104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado / USA
    Posts
    1,644
    Likes (Given)
    1256
    Likes (Received)
    1068

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    ​simplify.

  17. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    330
    Likes (Given)
    211
    Likes (Received)
    43

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    Quote Originally Posted by autoreply View Post
    How's that. Having a capable, intelligent human in the loop, or mostly the logistics and cost of remote-control?
    It's a lot simpler than the logistics... most spy equipment at the moment is built with remote pyrotechnic defence systems... meaning it can explode and they get nothing.... High speed satellites streaming 1GB/s (capital B) is capable of sending real time video (1,5 min delay) of any part of the globe... and if there is no pilot, if it's taken down it does not hit the diplomacy to return the prisoner/body and it could well be denied... All the technology is there... but it's the value of removing the human factor of the equation that makes it so valuable.

    As for what it's used, LEO satellites are sent to space once every 6 months now, and have been for the lat 10 year... there could be as many as 10-12 at the moment on orbit doing all the old work of the spy planes... only when there is a low recon mission need to the take out the fancy secret stuff... like getting confirmation of any movement that the LEO satellite can't capture... mostly because of weather... and the other guys have catch one... so they wait, for the weather... then they do their dirty deeds... we send the fast/secret stuff to keep that mostly from happening or at least knowing about it.

    Scary stuff is that knowing what the others are doing... to counter...

  18. #44
    Registered User Nemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hartford, Wisconsin
    Posts
    27
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    How far is the range on these lasers? Or are there no such limitations when it comes to focused energy like this?

  19. #45
    Registered User Battler Britton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Montpellier,LFNG most of the time and Fontainebleau(shop) France
    Posts
    285
    Likes (Given)
    1605
    Likes (Received)
    175

    Re: Beyond the SR-71

    I just find that...worth it , I love !

    http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinatin...ium=socialflow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •