28 Jun 2025, 00:56 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71?  Posted: 14 Nov 2022, 22:28 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 9435
Post Likes: +16119
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think there is always a benefit from having the ability to "take a peek" at unexpected times.
Whether you need speed, stealth, or both to accomplish that is another issue. With the advent of improved sensors, it might be that a hypersonic recon aircraft would be trackable by IR sensing satellites, rendering the aircraft less effective than it might be otherwise. These days, it could be tracked and shot down much more easily. Meanwhile, satellites and drones are cheaper and more capable.
_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 15 Nov 2022, 20:45 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 35097
Post Likes: +13585
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think there is always a benefit from having the ability to "take a peek" at unexpected times.
Whether you need speed, stealth, or both to accomplish that is another issue. With the advent of improved sensors, it might be that a hypersonic recon aircraft would be trackable by IR sensing satellites, rendering the aircraft less effective than it might be otherwise. These days, it could be tracked and shot down much more easily. Meanwhile, satellites and drones are cheaper and more capable.
But very predictable.
_________________
-lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 16 Nov 2022, 08:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 9435
Post Likes: +16119
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
|
|
Username Protected wrote: But very predictable. The 1970’s were a long time ago. Drones are not at all predictable, and satellites are smaller, cheaper, and more numerous.
_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 16 Nov 2022, 21:43 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 9175
Post Likes: +6921
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The replacement for the SR-71 was already flying before it was retired. We just don't know what it was. Sure we do. In fact, half of it was flying before the SR-71 was. The Open Skies Treaty was signed in 1992, and meant those flights could be conducted without threat of being shot down. So we do those flights with U-2s and satellites. Despite the fact that it's expensive to steer a satellite where it's needed, it is done when necessary. In the last 2 years both the US and Russia have withdrawn from the treaty, so there may be a future need for the SR-72 after all.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 21 Nov 2022, 04:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/03/15
Posts: 117
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: King Air
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Open Skies Treaty was signed in 1992, and meant those flights could be conducted without threat of being shot down. So we do those flights with U-2s...
What flights are or were being done by the U-2? Specifically where?
A "new" SR-71 would not be much of a reconnaissance platform. The days of blasting over a target for a photo has very little relevance to what is being done today in reconnaissance.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 21 Nov 2022, 10:01 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13185
Post Likes: +21095
Company: Summerland Key Airport
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’m gonna say replacing the celestial navigation computer with gps Maybe. But it is hard to jam celestial bodies.
It's hard to jam a GPS receiver that's at 90k', too, and I'm sure the GPS would be used more as an update to an INS like most fighters are these days.
My Top Gun conspiracy theory: The movie release was delayed for 2+ years because they had to make sure the Dark Star "prop" actually worked before releasing it. It sure would be cool if Skunk Works just decided to out their hypersonic airplane using a movie because all the best things are hidden in plain sight.
_________________
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
— Heinlein
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 21 Nov 2022, 10:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/12
Posts: 2141
Post Likes: +540
|
|
During the early 90's there was considerable talk among academics of a secret program referred to as "Aurora Project". Shortly after the SR-71 was retired. The Aurora Project was thought to be the XB-37. Username Protected wrote:
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 25 Nov 2022, 21:46 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/03/15
Posts: 117
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: King Air
|
|
|
Although "Aurora" piqued everyone's interest, the numbers don't work for a lot of reconnaissance environments.
For example, if it is capable of doing the mission at Mach 5, that's about 3,300 knots. At 15 degrees of bank, the turn rate is 1 degree every 11.3 seconds... which gives 67.8 minutes to make a single 360 degree turn.
And the turn radius would be 595 nm.
And how much fuel would it burn in a 360 degree turn? A... lot.
That doesn't seem effective in an air-breathing recon platform, at least as I'm seeing it.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 25 Nov 2022, 21:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13185
Post Likes: +21095
Company: Summerland Key Airport
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Although "Aurora" piqued everyone's interest, the numbers don't work for a lot of reconnaissance environments.
For example, if it is capable of doing the mission at Mach 5, that's about 3,300 knots. At 15 degrees of bank, the turn rate is 1 degree every 11.3 seconds... which gives 67.8 minutes to make a single 360 degree turn.
And the turn radius would be 595 nm.
And how much fuel would it burn in a 360 degree turn? A... lot.
That doesn't seem effective in an air-breathing recon platform, at least as I'm seeing it. Who said anything about being limited to 15 deg AOB? Who said anything about being limited to reconnaissance?
_________________
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
— Heinlein
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/f19-631-feb08.jpg)
