SR-72 in the works?

I saw this article about an SR72 possibly being in the works if it's not alreay

www.airforcetimes.com...

Ten years after the Air Force retired the SR-71 spy plane, Lockheed Martin’s legendary Skunk Works appears to be 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.

Could this be the outcome of Aurora project or have anything to do with it?


I know I've heard that satellites and UAVs have supposedly taken over for the SR71 and it just isn't needed anymore. If thats the case then why is there even talk of a SR72? If there is a need for an high speed reconnaissance plane and the SR71 was retired in 1990, and the SR72 isn't supposed to debute until 2020 then what is being flown now

Mod Edit: Trimmed quoted amterial down

[edit on 6/22/07 by FredT]

Wow. Nearly verbatim from Here

Do you normally plagiarize, or just not use the ATS search function ?

Lex

plagiarize what the article itself? I didn't see anything in the aircraft thread except the SR72 darkbird thread which has completely different pics etc.. I also searched for SR72 but without the hyphen which is why I didn't see the other one. Are you normally a condescending prick to people?

Originally posted by Lexion
Wow. Nearly verbatim from Here

Do you normally plagiarize, or just not use the ATS search function ?

Lex

This is not necessary. If you see a dup thread PLEASE use the complaint function to alert staff rather that posting something similar to the above quote in the thread.

Originally posted by warpboost

Are you normally a condescending prick to people?

To those that don't use the search function and post a thread "revealing"
information already posted by others ? Yes, yes I am.

Maybe I'll add that remark into my avatar quote.

Thanks !

Lex

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by Lexion
Wow. Nearly verbatim from Here

Do you normally plagiarize, or just not use the ATS search function ?

Lex

This is not necessary. If you see a dup thread PLEASE use the complaint function to alert staff rather that posting something similar to the above quote in the thread.

I agree. No class. I can forgive a same-topic post. Life goes on. It can be deleted. But calling the guy a plagiarizer? He linked TO the source article, which the other guy didn't. That was just mean. Mean people suck...the life outta people who try their best to contribute. I can understand his reaction as well. Go ahead and paste that into your sig so we have an excuse for the next time.

Now, go ahead and rip me to shreds too if you gotta. I can take it.

Class first,
Cuhail

Well I havent seen the other thread so thank you for posting this. This is very interesting. It seems that something is needed now with other nations researching how to destroy satellites.

Something has been needed since the SR-71 was retired. The retirement of the SR-71 was done because someone thought satellites were sexier, but the truth is that satellites can't give us half the information that an SR could give. Satellites are predictable and very inflexible, whereas a manned platform can go over pretty much when it wants to, and if they decide to change targets, they can without wasting so much fuel they fall out of orbit.

Out of curiosity,
Can UAV's be the next step, after the SR-71 ?

Or, do they not have enough range to be viable ?

Curious,
Lex

Sure they do, and they are. There are quite a few that only recently came out of the shadows. But you really do get more flexibility with a manned aircraft.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sure they do, and they are. There are quite a few that only recently came out of the shadows. But you really do get more flexibility with a manned aircraft.

Im interested Zaph what flexibility are you talking about? mission updates? last minutes disicons and the like. Alot of mission updates are actually easier at times to do on a UAV.

Mission updates are, but if a recon pilot is flying along and suddenly sees a new target that he thinks is interesting, he can change his flight path easier. And if it's a UAV with real time control inputs, you're facing the possibility of losing comms with them, or jamming, or other problems. Whereas with a manned aircraft you already have someone on the spot to make decisions, and don't have to worry about that.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Mission updates are, but if a recon pilot is flying along and suddenly sees a new target that he thinks is interesting, he can change his flight path easier.

I agree with you. Their are still things a pilot can do that a remote or preprogrammed UAV can not.

Also the British just put a system in a Tornado fighter that the pilot of the Tornado can control multiple UAVs. So he can fly out of danger but still close enough to control the UAVs to do different missions.

(The system can also be used to take control of hijacked aircraft)

[edit on 23-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

It's always possible that these tales are just disinformation, of course.

In the much more likely low-tech conflict scenarios of the next few decades why on earth would anyone 'need' to be hosing public money around on high-tech 'white elephants' like this, just what for?

There's nothing this imagined SR72 could do that an F15 or even F22 couldn't do over Iraq or Afghanistan or Sudan or Somalia etc etc (especially with so many aircraft permanently based abroad.....it's not as if flying time from the USA is the key factor).

.....and those troops engaged in such conflicts might appreciate that kind of 'wall of money' being spent on things of much more immediate, practical and applicable 'value' to their situation than such a flying PR exercise.

In fact in some respects the ultra high speed (if it turns out to be capable of it) might even be a disadvantage.......cos altering course to go spot new targets at mach 6 or whatever is not going to be as easy an exercise as some seem to imagine (never mind the fuel burn calculations etc etc).

I can see little or nothing in this kind of design that either cannot be done cheaper and probably more effectively by either existing lower tech aircraft or additional satellites and what little might be credible doesn't seem to me to justify the vast cost necessarily embodied in such a project.


[edit on 24-6-2007 by sminkeypinkey]