What Interceptor or Fighter Can Stop the SR-71?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Wembley, you keep mentioning the upgrades and advances in missile technology over the previous 4 decades, but you forget to mention that the SR-71 received essentially no upgrades throughout its service life. If the SR-71 was required, absolutely had to fly over the SA-2 missile sites and had to fly over intercept courses, then im sure it would have been upgraded with appropriate anti-SAM technology along with huge upgrades with jamming and other electronic countermeasures. Put all of todays current technology into the SR-71, then it is truley unstoppable.

Rebuild the airframe with todays advances in metulurgy, manufacturing, stealth, electronics, upgraded heat reducing elements, brand new ramjets, more eefficient, dude, we are talking possibly about above mach 4, higher than 120,000 feet, with todays tech, the SR-71-2005 would be literally unstoppable.

Train




posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Ah, welcome back Big Train. I can see your messages now. Yes, I was being sarcastic, sorry. Us Brits find sarcasm funny but I know not everyone else does.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
What do you guys think about the Blackbird if it was rebuilt completely with todays tech?

Train



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Frankly madam I don't give a damn. The spitfire mkII EVO 7 strapped to a ballistic missile. SIlly question really. Bit like asking what tortoise could catch a leopard. Your point is?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
If the proposal to retrofit todays technology were to be used on the SR-71, it would not happen. The U.S. Air Force classified the SR-71 and the A-12 as 1960s technology. There is the possibility that some nation has developed a SAM that could intercept the SR-71.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
So your saying it would be pointless to rebuild the sr-71 ariframe with todays tech because come country might have a SAM to blow it out, so then whats the point of creating any aircraft?

Train



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
"Rebuild the airframe with todays advances in metulurgy, manufacturing, stealth, electronics, upgraded heat reducing elements, brand new ramjets, more eefficient, dude, we are talking possibly about above mach 4, higher than 120,000 feet, with todays tech, the SR-71-2005 would be literally unstoppable. "

If you're talking about rebuilding to moden spec, then no doubt you'd be looking at scramjets etc and mach 8 or something.

But the missiles they're thowing at you would be that much faster..


Of course, you could simply fly a space shuttle over Russia - mach 20 and all the altitude you want...

But the SR-71 we know was eventually outmatched by missiles - I've seen sugestions that the SA-5 was specifically built to knock it down. Not a bad exchange though, 32 planes forcing the Soviets to invest a whole heap in developing a whole missile system.

But speed an altitude on their own simply won't cut it any more. Stealth and ECM will be more important for survival, and other approaches, eg swarms of mini UAVs are likely to be much more survivable.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Wembley, the hypersonic missiles you refer to are of very short range, and lack high speed maneuverability. I doubt they would be able to attack a hypersonic vehicle at 200,000 feet. The only way to shoot down a hypersonic vehicle that flies at extreme altitudes is to use another hypersonic vehicle equipped with even faster hypersonic missiles that can catch the other hypersonic vehicle or use hypersonic missiles in satellites to fire from above. Dam, thats alot of hypersonic words.

Anyways, just think how hard it is to fire a SAM at a mach 3 aircraft at 120,000 feet let alone firing at a mach 8+ vehicle twice as high. By the time the missile got to altitude, the plane is so freaking gone. Come on dude, shooting down hypersonic planes with SAM's, dude, youd need a long burning mach 20 SAM to get it done. Not yet developed.

Train



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I'm not sure if it would be possible to deploy a missile at hypersonic speeds



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Sure it would, at a high enough altitude. Or "punch" ot out of the airframe like the f-22 raptor does.

Train



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
>Anyways, just think how hard it is to fire a SAM at a mach 3 aircraft at 120,000 feet let alone firing at a mach 8+ vehicle twice as high. By the time the missile got to altitude, the plane is so freaking gone. <

You're still thinking 60's. These days you get a lot more warning: it's all networks. And where is the plane going exactly? Nowhere to hide at 120,000 feet, and no way to steer.

The hypersonic bomber is an interesting project and (if they go for it) should be safe for a while, but the countermeasures are quite obvious. And there will be DE weapons around in a few years which might make it obsolete before it gets to the runway.
Hey, maybe we could convert it to a subsonic ground-hugger like we did with the B-1....

>Come on dude, shooting down hypersonic planes with SAM's, dude, youd need a long burning mach 20 SAM to get it done. Not yet developed. <

Neither is the plane, and which do you think takes longer?




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Wembley, am I right in assumming that you believe planes are now obsolete due to SAM technology? This seems to be what you are saying in every post. I understand SAM's are becoming very advanced in terms of altitude and speed, but this all does nothing if the missile cannot tract and engage its target. Do todays SAM's have the ability to acutally "lock-in" and chase a modified sr-71 or new hypersonic vehicle with full stealth. Hell, id like to know if any SAM's can even tract an F-22 Raptor for that matter let alone a super high flying, hypersonic aircraft using full stealth features.

As far as we know, foreign SAM technology, mainly Russian, does not have, or has ever been shown to be able to tract or stealth planes. They do not even have the capacity to detect the incoming planes, So, how can these SAMS shoot down a hypersonic aircraft if they cannot even detect it.

I guess what i'm really trying to say here Wembley is that your not wrong in assumming that a real threat exists in SAM's, but I think you are over-estimating the SAM's ability to actually shoot down such fast and high flying stealth craft. Upgrade the SR-71 with today's tech, do you really think it would still be threatened, I dont.

Train



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
"Wembley, am I right in assumming that you believe planes are now obsolete due to SAM technology? This seems to be what you are saying in every post. "

No, not at all. But I have repeatedly suggested that speed and altitude are not the answer, as became apparent in the 1970's.
Stealth and ECM (and defence suppression) are far more important to survivability, and having relatively 'expendable' unmanned aircraft is important in the current environment.
And this is why we see the type of planes under development that we do.
Whatever the current black reconnaisance plane is, it is almost certainly slow, unmanned and very stealthy, not fast and high, because that's what works now.

Again, tremendous speed (mach 6+) and altitude will give protection from current threats, so states like Iraq, Iran,Syria etc could be treated with relative impunity, but this would not last long. Seems like a verrrry expensive gamble.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Stealth does not have to be slow and low. Whats to say that they havent developed a stealth hypersonic aircraft. The im sure they could develop a way to make a hypersonic plane stealthy, almost invisible.

Train



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
If the Aurora is actual, it would fit the bill, so to speak, BigTrain.






seekerof

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
There is one warning system out there that all the U.S. military aircraft use. That would just happen to be the AWACS aircraft. AWACS stands for the Advanced Warning And Control System.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I think you'll find its Airborne Warning And Control Sytem.

Speaking of stealth, it has taken until now to develop a supersonic aircraft with stealth attributes, Hypersonic is a long way off, if it is even possible. Stealth isn't a 'thing' like an afterburner or a canard that is installed on an aeroplane, it is merely a characteristic and there are certain things needed to maintain that characteristic, one major one which allowed the F/A-22 to be stealthy is the ability to fly supersonically without the use of afterburner. How would you propose to get a plane to above Mach 3 without one?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Waynos, thats the same exact attitude and question that they used to say, how could you get an aircraft above the speed of sound without the use of afterburner. They have now done it. Whats to say they couldnt supercruise at mach 3. Engine technology is growing by leeps and bounds.

And we all associate thrust with heat. One major problem is heat expelled from engines at such high speeds, hell at almost any speed. Changes in propulsion technology could create a could burning thrust. Maybe the B-2 uses a system like this already?

Train



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Its nothing to do with attitude, its common sense. The first supersonic plane to fly without afterburners wasn't the F/A-22 as you might think, but the English Electric P.1 in 1954. It took half a century for technology to reach a level where the F/A-22 is one of the first group of fighters capable of the feat in normal operations.

If hypersonic stealth was at all possible then the F/A-22 and B-2 would be it, surely? If such ability has been developed. Otherwise whats the point?



[edit on 26-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Just because it hasnt been developed, doesn't mean that it never will. Technology takes time, inventions take time, research takes time, technology builds on itself. As engines become more advanced, so will other aspects. Eventually, hypersonic stealth will be acheived, just think, some type of propulsion, maybe anti-gravity, with the craft circling the globe, no heat friction, no thrust to lock onto, no wind turbulence to track, see my point, one day it will be possible.

Train





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join