LA Speed Test: SR-71 follies (fun with ATC and the Navy)

[Dr Mordrid]

This is the short version of a true story from the book 'Sled Driver: Flying The World's Fastest Jet' by the narrator: Maj. Brian Shul, USAF (Ret)

At 89,000 feet and 2,000 knots/hr (2,300 mph/3,700 kph) they were doing about Mach 3.49.

[Jammrock]

I love that story. I can't wait to see what the air speed of the SR-71 replacement is.

[MultimediaMan]

The SR-71 was replaced decades ago: The direct replacement in 1992 was the KH-11 Block III Satellite...KH-11 birds are basically Hubbles which point at the earth and have different focusing gear. They have since been replaced by the "KH-12" IKON-series KH-11 satellite: These satellites are Optical Imaging.

Rhyolites and NORS/ Intruders handle SigInt and RORSAT Duties.

These are the ones they talk about semi-publicly/ anecdotally.

The really secret stuff we'll probably never see or hear about unless something goes wrong or someone squeals: Stealth Satellites, Active Background matching (the genesis of which dates all the way back to WWII).

[Dr Mordrid]

The SR-71 was replaced decades ago: The direct replacement in 1992 was the KH-11 Block III Satellite...
>

The Lockheed Martin Skunk Works confirmed to Aviation Week that the SR-72 is a go. Combined cycle dual engines, Mach 6 strike-recon with the optionally manned flight research vehicle (FRV) the size of an F-22 flying in the early 2020's. Aerojet Rocketdyne is said to be pretty much done with the engine.

10+ years to the full size bird, unless you believe in them sandbagging. I do.

[Jammrock]

I can't even imagine the material science needed to fly at MACH 6, let alone the engine tech. That's going to be an amazing bird.

[VJ]

Doc: Is there any point in making it manned (even optionally)? I mean, it adds weight, puts restrictions on shape and limits maneuverability...

Jammrock:
I started googling... The Nasa X-43 reached Mach 9! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43
But yes, the science behind this must be crazy... particularly as there is no test-bed (wind-tunnel, etc) that could help with simulations/experiments...

[Jammrock]

They've had unmanned rocket based "planes" hitting the higher MACH speeds, like the X-43. MACH 6 and manned is pretty amazing.

Though I'm still waiting for someone to figure out single stage to orbit (SSO). That's when solar exploration will get interesting. Right now it's barely feasible to go to Mars because of the difficulties of getting back off Mars. But if we can make a vehicle capable of atmospheric escape without boosters... that makes exploration a bit more plausible.

[Greebe]

Hmmm the SR can go a wee bit faster than published records state. Take your 2300 divide in half add that result to the original and you'll get a better idea.

The pulse engines used on the replacement caused excessive stress for the airframe which was why the SR's were recommissioned and are still flying. Mach 6, polease, we were doing that back in the mid 1960's!

[Jammrock]

Mach 6, polease, we were doing that back in the mid 1960's!

SHHHHHHH!!! We're not supposed to know that. I did have an Air Force friend that said MACH 6 was a more accurate speed for the SR-71. Something about doing a recon flight to South America in the middle of the world record run from LA to London.

But since those are unofficial numbers I generally don't use them.

[VJ]

MACH 6 and manned is pretty amazing.

True.... but what is the point? I mean, it just makes everything much more expensive, while automated flight systems combined with remote control should be no issues at the altitudes those planes fly at those speeds...

So, from I technical point I think it is great that they are working on it, and the only practical thing could be developments for faster civil planes... But for just military use, I am missing the point of making it manned... )

[UtwigMU]

1904 <------> 1964 <-----·> Today
Wright Brothers, SR-71 (fastest plane), still nothing faster

Similar timeline can be made for Apollo. According to GW Bush in 2003 we should have gone back next year. Instead of flying cars and Moon Base we have fidget spinners and transgender bathrooms.

[VJ]

Yup... it is depressing... The sheer visible technological developments in those days were mind boggling.

If you add a few years, you can even add the moon landing and Concorde to the list (first flight in 1969).
Adding a few more years: there have been no manned moon landings in my lifetime. Space Shuttle came and went...

I know there are a lot of developments happening still, but somehow they are just more and better iterations of the same...

[Dr Mordrid]

USAF, Lockheed, Reaction Engines and RR may stir things up with the fighter-class Skylon air breathing rocket engine that's heading for the test stand.

[VJ]

There is a very nice article on the history and technical challenges related to supersonic and hypersonic flight on NewAtlas (formerly Gizmag):

http://newatlas.com/hypersonic-flight/50801/

[Wulfman]

you guys don't think that the whole electronics things that happened between 64 and 17 doesn't count at 'very visible' tech development?