Originally posted by centurion1211
Really? How about these responses to your questions - just for starters?
- no filtering down of material knowledge. - to the public, but to others?
- no fundamental aerodynamic research has ever been kept secret before (see x-1 etc). - except for the F-117 and B-2.
- why the super expensive NASA hypersonics program. - smokescreen?
- no mention of plasma use for stealth (in US), so why would I believe the US has it for hypersonic aerodynamics. - good reasons that haven't
been disclosed to the public?
- why the study to see if the performance envelope of the SR-71 could be improved, the conclusion it could, but the expense was not worth it. - on
that particular aircraft?
- how can the USAF justify the expense on such a program when they have been cutting back drastically. - USAF needs the $ for Aurora?
- Satellites offer a global response, I seriously doubt Aurora can respond as quick to tasking as satellites. - satellites offer a regularly timed
overflight capability which gives the 'enemy' the opportunity to hide. The orbits are also difficult and expensive to change. Interesting items
can be more quickly and easily targeted with aircraft
[edit on 1/30/2006 by centurion1211]
- No, the F-22 uses commerically available materials for the engine, if high temperature materials were available, they would have been used. And if
high temperature resistant RAM was developed umpteen years ago, there would have been absolutely no talk of speed limiting by thermal
- Point out the fundamental aerodynamic research on the B-2 and F-117... it'll be news to me.
- Very expensive "smokescreen", considering its also disclosing the fact the USA will have hypersonic craft shortly - so its giving the "secret"
away in a sense.
- No, look, its widely known the use of plasma can reduce RCS, now, if you can do one, you can do the other - if the plasma tech is available, why is
it not being used on the JSF/F-22 etc.
- Thats my point - the USAF doesn't
need the Aurora, whats the point knowing what the baddies are up to if you can do jack s__t about it?
- Quickly and more easily targetted? Take, say a location in the middle east, thats what? 7-8000 miles from a US home airbase, say 7500 - ok, so the
Aurora is good for Mach 5, thats 5 x 760 mph (for groundspeed) = 3800 mph.
Now, you can be sure the Aurora cannot make that trip without refuelling at least once on the way to and once on the way from the target, so its
around 2 hours travel + refuelling time + flight preperation time (again, such a machine will not be a case of turn the key and away you go). So it
could reasonably be expected the response time of an Aurora is 4 hours+ - hardly the tactical response time many would seem to think/like.
I know some will not like the idea that the Aurora doesn't exist, and that the USAF are not 100+ years ahead of the rest of the world etc etc, but I
still see no reason for the existence of Aurora as a serviceable, hypersonic, recon aircraft.