SR-72 Darkbird

Hmm interesting... links for this information?

I would be interested to find out more about the SR-72.

Shattered OUT...

The SR-72 is purely the unofficial name it's being called right now apparently.

blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Sounds like some bored individual made it up as a joke. I could say... What about the Sr-73 Whitebird? Sr-70 Purplebird?

To me, it's only fake, nothing more..... meaning more? fantasy!
The engine doesn't adapt to hypersonic, USAF won't be such fool to admit a spy aircraft that no advanced than SR-71 entry service.

The SR-72 that was the original point of the thread is almost definitely fake, however there's a new plane apparently being developed that's unofficially being called the SR-72 by the Lockheed crew developing it. Whether THAT is true or not is anyone's guess.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
. . . however there's a new plane apparently being developed that's unofficially being called the SR-72 by the Lockheed crew developing it.

Zaphod58,

Are you saying there is a Real SR-72 out there? I wonder if this might be the true sucessor to the SR-71 Blackbird. If this plane exists I would venture to guess that it might be a Blackbird type aircraft. Having studied aircraft for many years now, I would venture to guess that it might look simular to the Blackbird that we are familiar are.

Tim

If you read the link I posted, and the last couple posts on the previous page, then you would see that there is a rumor that Lockheed's Skunk Works is developing a Mach 6 reconnaissance platform that they are UNOFFICIALLY calling the SR-72. I have no idea if they truly are, or WHAT the OFFICIAL name is going to be in the end however.

Mach 6 spy plane, eh? No offense but I have my suspicions of this whole Mach 6 spy plane idea. There were rumors of this mystery craft having been developed and flown under the Top Secret Aurora Project back in a 1994 issue of Popular Science. It was a clever rumor with almost no evidence to support it.

This sounds a lot like the Aurora Rumor Part 2!

Tim

I found this on a different forum:

Ares
A Defense Technology Blog

Reportitem as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other Comment: (optional) SR-72?
SR-72?
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 6/11/2007 2:31 PM

Our competitors Defense News report that the Air Force has handed Lockheed's Skunk Works a contract to develop "a stealthy 4,000-mph plane capable of flying to altitudes of about 100,000 feet, with transcontinental range." The rest of the story is subscription-only.

If this sounds to you a lot like the "Aurora" stories of the early 1990s, you're right. However, early last year I had a conversation with a senior Skunk in which he talked about the company's proposal for a new high-speed, high-altitude X-plane.




The X-plane would be the size of a fighter and would be designed for a speed of Mach 6.5 -- 4300 mph -- at 100,000 feet. (The SR-71 Blackbird, retired in 1990, could manage up to Mach 3.3 in sprints at 85,000 feet). It would be powered by two jet engines -- bigger versions of the engine used on the Skunk Works' RATTLRS (Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike) cruise missile -- integrated into ramjets.

The speed -- less than DARPA'S Falcon Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle project or the USAF's X-51 scramjet demonstrator -- is important. At Mach 6.5, the vehicle can be powered by ramjets, rather than having to incorporate a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) mode into the system. It would take off from a runway and land under power, not as a high-speed glider. It can burn near-standard hydrocarbon fuel, not hydrogen or a similarly exotic propellant. It could be made from conventional materials -- even composites -- with heat-resistant materials confined to the leading edges.

This is important because the idea of the X-plane is not to prove that such an airplane can fly at 4,300 mph but that it is "doable, practical and will work like a regular airplane." (Conspiracy theorists may choose to speculate about why the Skunks regard Mach 6.5, in itself, as No Big Deal.)

And why? The senior Skunk explains that high-fast stresses the defenses in a completely different direction from a stealthy airplane. Stealth aircraft are hard to detect -- but they tend to be slow and easy to hit. A high-fast aircraft may be easy to detect but it is a bugger to hit. Any missile has to lead the target -- or it will never have the energy to catch it -- and it has to lead the target by a long way because the target is covering more than a mile every second as the missile ascends. And at the same time, even a wide turn by the target causes the predicted impact point to move by miles.

In the present budget environment it's unlikely that the Skunk Works has been handed a blank check to build an X-plane, let alone an operational aircraft -- but its seems that the Mach 6 proposal is gaining traction.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

In theory, the idea combination would be a high speed stealth plane. By combining speed and stealth you could shrink an enemy's engagement envelope to an almost impossible size. The stealth would dramatically shrink the the range at which the aircraft can be detected and tracked by defensive systems. The high speed would dramatically cut the amount of time that the aircraft would stay in the defensive system's engagement zone.

The difference is like going from having 10 minutes to hit a turkey with a shot gun, to having 2 minutes to hit a quail.

Tim

From the mouth of a high ranking former Air Force pilot. We now have the Son Of The Blackbird flying today. Its the SR-72 and it is smaller than the 71 and has a top speed of Mach 5-6. We do also have the Aurora witch is a lot bigger than the 71 and is in the Mach 7-8 category.

Sky watcher, can you please support your claims. I'd love for them to be true, but I don't believe things until I see them. In my opinion, I do believe that we have a hypersonic aircraft flying right now, but of course it is still a secret. Something so valuable wouldn't be retired without a replacement. If we could design a plane like the Blackbird in the 60's, there should definitely be a way to design a faster aircraft now. Come on, the SR was developed with a slide rule. We have computers now and much better materials.

Originally posted by bdn12
In my opinion, I do believe that we have a hypersonic aircraft flying right now, but of course it is still a secret. Something so valuable wouldn't be retired without a replacement.

I agree and disagree. I believe that is possible that we have planes that push to the extreme of the super supersonic envelope but I'm still not sure about hypersonic. As you said though it would be black and if the goverment doesn't want you to know about it the only way you would find out is if they made a big mistake an where unable to cover it with lies.

Aso for retireing it without a replacement I disagree. It is extremely likely that there was none. Look at the Avro Arrow the TSR-2 perfect cold war examples of cancelled projects that weren't truly replaced with anything in the same tech relm and capability. The USAF probably did truly believe that they could work with out the SR-71 and use the space aids but they found differentl hence the reactivation of the planes 5 ish years after they stepped down. Sure some could argue that it was all cover ups and preplanned but to that I would respond Well if the goverment can do that good of a cover up job I'm the queen of england.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
The USAF probably did truly believe that they could work with out the SR-71 and use the space aids but they found differentl hence the reactivation of the planes 5 ish years after they stepped down. Sure some could argue that it was all cover ups and preplanned but to that I would respond Well if the goverment can do that good of a cover up job I'm the queen of england.

I'll agree with you there! More often them not, the government has a history of bungling the cover-up. The reason cover-ups are so easy to screw up is that they are built on lies. It's a proven fact that almost no one can remember the details of a lie perfectly.

If you ask the Air Force a few times, you will pick up subtlie changes in the story over time until you stumble onto a contrdiction. Also, as I have pointed out with other things, the Pentagon has made a lot of foolish mistakes in recient years. The only thing really being covered up here is that US "Intelligence" has again made a really dumb mistake!

Tim

(P.S. Canada_EH, seeing as you're Canadian, how did you become English royalty, and a Queen no less!:lol

reply to post by Hunting Veritas


The aircraft in this photo is, as the photo indicates, the A-12. Its relationship to the SR-71 is simple. It is the same plane. Or should I say they are the SAME airframes. Once they got this thing in the air, they quickly realized the skin was not able to handle the temperatures. As you can see in the photo, the A-12 had only key areas protected with the high temp skin, but, it became clear, in short order, the entire aircraft was subject to extremely high temperatures. Thus, the aircraft were re-skinned and, from then on, were known as the SR-71. This would be why the A-12 disappeared years before anybody even knew they existed.

IMHO (I'm not an expert by any means) any craft developed from here on out ...especially if it exceeds top speed of Mach 5 or better would have to incorporate som sort of stealth and friction reducing technology, which isn't that far-fetched. My only concern is that if this "recon" bird was truly ONLY a recon bird it would need to slow down considerably over the target area in order to get a proper picture. Now I could be thinking in strictly analog, because I have a feeling that multiple sensors are used nowadays to render a more complete picture of a target, but excessive speeds would distort standard photos. Am I off base here?

Originally posted by djvexd
but excessive speeds would distort standard photos. Am I off base here?

Current spy satellites travel much faster than any discussed hypersonic aircraft would be traveling.

Originally posted by djvexd
My only concern is that if this "recon" bird was truly ONLY a recon bird it would need to slow down considerably over the target area in order to get a proper picture. Now I could be thinking in strictly analog, because I have a feeling that multiple sensors are used nowadays to render a more complete picture of a target, but excessive speeds would distort standard photos. Am I off base here?

Modern ISR assets generally use SAR (synthetic aperture radar ) and Electro-Optical sensors - the best resolution that is admitted to is 1.8 meter (6 ft) resolution over ten square kilometers (3.8 square miles)... needless to say resolutions get better than that however.

The speed of the vehicle from a high altitude is inconsequential.



~Natalie

[edit on 5-19-2008 by intelgurl]

wasn't Aurora designated the TRB3? also interestingly its supposed to be triangular in shape which could explain the rise in sightings of triangular shaped 'ufo's'

reply to post by Neilc1972


Even though I've never seen the Aurora referred to the TR3-B, we don't really know, at this point everything is speculation.

Shattered OUT...