It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

page: 17
124
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Does the USAF intend this to be a UAV/UCAV or will it be manned?


The OP clearly says UCAV.


How many pilots you know that can stand Mach 10




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
[

How many pilots you know that can stand Mach 10


Mach 10 is cake. Shuttle crews encounter Mach 10 all the time... even higher than that.

Now... G forces are a different thing altogether....



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


Wow thanks for the info and news.

-Eric
Gosh I miss flying but now onto a new glass etching hobby.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
...the SR-71 still has classified data on its absolute top speed and altitude.


First post here so, hello!

Ah yes, top speed and altitude. Well, as someone else pointed out, Mr Shul and Mr Watson got M3.5(ish) due to particularly favourable atmospheric conditions. As you go past that, the Mach cone (shock wave) from the nose becomes more acute. Eventually, somewhere between M3.6 and 3.8, it impinges on the inlets and boths donks unstart. Thats why hypersonic vehicles don't have bits (like wings and engines) sticking out.


Your mission will require you to be at certain places at certain times, due to RV's, payload operation (click click click), sun angles, enemy response times, etc. So flying higher means flying faster to cover the same ground. There you go.


S



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

How many pilots you know that can stand Mach 10


Hello Zorgon. Have enjoyed reading your posts while lurking. Top stuff.

But, speed doesn't matter (unless you have to step outside). It's rate of acceleration that worries our little pink bodies. Newtons laws and all that.

Regards.

S



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Does anybody know what this thing sounds like in flight? Is there maybe a sound clip somewhere i can get?

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The Aurora is old news. It's already been built and works great.
It uses ramjet engines and goes Mach 6.


I'm pretty sure the Aurora utilized Pulse Detonation Engines. PDE's can get it up to Mach 6 from 0...



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titus7

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The Aurora is old news. It's already been built and works great.
It uses ramjet engines and goes Mach 6.


I'm pretty sure the Aurora utilized Pulse Detonation Engines. PDE's can get it up to Mach 6 from 0...


There is no solid evidence that the Aurora (the top secret mach 6 capable aircraft) actually existed. But, that's beside the point. If there is a mach 6 capable (or faster) plane being developed, it probably wouldn't use PDE's as they are one of the most inefficient types of engines out there. And if you do your research (especially on military aircraft) half the battle is about making them as efficient as possible.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sealteamsix
 


Hi sealteamsix,

I agree with you in that I don't believe that the Aurora existed, I also believe that any short term hypersonic aircraft will be using combined cycle engines, as Intelgurl has pointed out with the P&W press release (nice one Intelgurl).

However, where do you get your data about PDE's? I think you are confusing PDE's with pulsejet engines? PDE are amongst the most efficient engines due to their mechanical simplicity and thermodynamic efficiency.
Whilst pulsejets use a similar principle, they work via deflagration (burning) of fuel, whereas Pulse Detonation Engines........PDE's......actually detonate the mixture.
It's a bit like comparing gun powder to plastic explosive, one burns very fast, the other detonates via a shockwave and releases much more energy for a given mass.
I would say that should PDE's ever be developed to run smoothly and reliably, then they will be more efficient than combined cycle engines, and much cheaper to produce. (but bloody loud!)

Cheers

Robbie



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by stratsys-sws
 


Ah, you're correct stratsys-sws. I was referring to Pulsjet engines, not PDE's! I will have to read more carefully next time.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 


The second photo looks like the new Space shuttle from NASA... Go on their website and look it up...

New Space Shuttle To be in use by 2013

or the old design

Classic Space Shuttle



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
at the speed this project is capable, what would the duraton of flight time be, if this plane took off from groom lake, and had to get to mosscow russia or australia?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apollospeed
at the speed this project is capable, what would the duraton of flight time be, if this plane took off from groom lake, and had to get to mosscow russia or australia?


Sorry, I wouldn't know the answer to that.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by howie82788
 


I agree, they do look very similar. I also saw that second "model" on the military channel's "dogfights" as a design for a suboribital but exoatmospheric fighter "jet".



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
i love how everyone in these threads boasts about us russian tech and whos better but when it comes down to it no one will ever know because the us will never engage russia for fear of nuclear retaliation not in our lifetime or the next russia curently is the most nuclear country int he world with more then 52 thousand nuclear weapons they might be kida cold war still with their tech but russia is a formidable apponent with very good military equipment just look at how they absaloutly crushed georgia in like 5 days that was a spanking and georgia had american weapons provided buy the unitedstates bushh administration when it comes down to brass tax even if the us was to engage russia they would have northkorea india china and iran right on their heels helping defend the mother land against the west now thats a formidable war machine



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
4000 MPH and max alt of 100000 ft. Will initially be equipped with sensor but they may be replaced with weapons. The Aircraft will be unmanned. Impervious to ground based missles and a great response to sattelite based weapons ssystems. Friction at such high speed will reduce stealth capabilities.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
4000 MPH and max alt of 100000 ft. Will initially be equipped with sensor but they may be replaced with weapons. The Aircraft will be unmanned. Impervious to ground based missles and a great response to sattelite based weapons ssystems. Friction at such high speed will reduce stealth capabilities.



Oh?

Your reasoning here is?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I know that the technology in the field for energy production is much more advanced than is publicly realized. If we have something equivalent to a nuclear powered electric power source the size of a conventional 50kw gen set that doesn't use radioactive fuel then you can realize energy weapons. I am certain that any high speed object moving on earth could be tracked roughly using passive RF techniques. I have seen examples of receivers that use capacitors as the antenna element to register movement in a wide area.

I would think that mach 6 objects even if they had reduced radar and thermal signatures would have tell tales that would make them stand out from all the non mach 6 stuff out there.

If the SR72 is coolest # we have behind the cloak of black skunk-works projects I would be really disappointed.

But I am thinking its all about the generators stupid.
Obviously Electric aircraft have it all over every thing but balloons when it comes to altitude and duration of flight when combined with solar tech.
And this is only with wisp of an aircraft using simple propeller technology.

If you start off with a small power source in say the 10 MW range then I would think that all sorts of possibilities open up.
For starters you could build a fairly conventional air craft only using an electric motor in place of the petrol turbine or piston engine that power todays commercial aircraft. The resulting craft could easily have jet fighter type performance and eclipse any thing publicly revealed for duration of flight and altitude.

NASA's tether experiment really makes me suspect electric propulsion might be able to get you into orbit or sling you in to space also.

Suffice it to say there is a growing body of super tech out there shrouded by black projects of countries like Germany, Japan, Russia, US, UK, India. But at the heart of most all this technology will be compact lightweight non radioactive plentiful electric power. And from what I have heard through the rumor mill that tech exists and is in the field in combat now. So I suspect any thing we are seeing using air-breathing engines is so last year that it really doesn't deserve consideration as a black super tech project. Its just the small potatoes.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Being a UCAV kind of takes the excitement out of it.


It would also seem to add another layer of a security problem....(how do you ensure one doesn't interrupt the controlling signal to either make it crash, or steal it?) For example... (I suppose it could be pre-programmed maybe...at least that would be my preference if a drone)

I'd much rather have a flesh and blood pilot at the controls, especially if it is armed and a malfunction could result in a war-starting event. (and respond to the need to concentrate on new information/observations)

I cannot imagine that we haven't already been using some kind of replacement for the SR-71... Obviously something must be currently fitting that mission profile, and it's NOT just satellites....

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Gazrok]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I would like to bring this link to your attention - it is very worthwhile and could possibly shed light on what is happening with the Sr-72 and its brethren.

www.flightglobal.com...

Page 37 & 38.

Mach 6 RBCC ISR system - 5000 miles range and 2000lb payload. Sounds ideal, and considering the amount of exploratory work in the RBCC propulsion field it seems almost inevitable that some day soon we will see just such a system in operational use.



new topics

top topics



 
124
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join