The SR-71 did have a replacement You dont retire a plane that was basically invincible it was shot at thousands of times and was never hit. That type of plane still has a role just look at the U2 it is still flown. Amazingly no one made a stink when they retired the SR-71

They built a plane that was not only flies high and fast but is also use stealth. So now not only cant you shoot it down but you dont even know its there now.

When we find out about this plane it will most likely be replaced with something better. Perhaps a space plane.

Originally posted by bios

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies


There were 5 models, 4 of them Lockheed and 1 made by Sweetman.


That should clear alot of things up on about the Aurora.

It was cancelled.

Shattered OUT...

Sweetman?
The way you have this worded it sounds like you think Sweetman made an aircraft... please tell me I am mistakened... surely you aren't that misinformed.

My source was FAS, that source has never failed me or anyone else in the past has it?

And the SweetMan design looks the most similar to all of the sitings of the Aurora so far.

Hey you never know do you?

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They built a plane that was not only flies high and fast but is also use stealth. So now not only cant you shoot it down but you dont even know its there now.

I can see radar stealth, but a Mach6 plane would leave a heat signature that even Ray Charles would see. I think that the spaceplane is more like it. THe VentureStar in all likelyhood had a black counterpart. This seems more likely IMHO. Im not saying Aurora does not exist, we just may be thinking in the wrong direction about it.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by bios

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies


There were 5 models, 4 of them Lockheed and 1 made by Sweetman.


That should clear alot of things up on about the Aurora.

It was cancelled.

Shattered OUT...

Sweetman?
The way you have this worded it sounds like you think Sweetman made an aircraft... please tell me I am mistakened... surely you aren't that misinformed.

My source was FAS, that source has never failed me or anyone else in the past has it?

And the SweetMan design looks the most similar to all of the sitings of the Aurora so far.

Hey you never know do you?

Shattered OUT...

Ok Shattered, You do know that Bill Sweetman isn't a Aircraft designer right? He's a writer for Popular Science. He's a very good one, but by no means is he an aircraft engineer.

Why build a rreplacement when you could update the SR_71's with modern equipment and put them back in service. They meet most of the needs stated (with only direct energy weapons not there) Many people fforget that there was a mother plane to the SR-71 called the A-12 Oxcart that was bothe stealthy (for the time) and just as fast as the Blackbird. With new technologies the Blackbird could become really stealth and with new engines based off the advances made by the ATF and JSf it would probably have more powerful and eficient engines.

Now with the fuel of the Blackbird I have read that its burning point is so high that once one of the start up carts spilled some diesel that caught fire and the technician only swept some jp-7 on the fire and put it out.

Also after one of the planes crash landed the fire department tried to destroy it by pouring jet fuel all over the frame and burn ed it. After they were done the airframe was hardly affected at all, and it was determined that the plane experienced more heat in flight than in that fire!

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
My source was FAS, that source has never failed me or anyone else in the past has it?

And the SweetMan design looks the most similar to all of the sitings of the Aurora so far.

Hey you never know do you?

Shattered OUT...

I think you may have misinterpretted what the FAS web site says.
The "Sweetman design" is the result of individual sighting descriptions compiled by Bill Sweetman who is a journalist for Janes Defense Weekly.
There is no "SweetMan" version of an Aurora, Bill Sweetman is not an aerospace engineer, nor is "SweetMan" an aerospace company.

2 Less than a year after the record flight it became apparent that it was a big mistake. When Desert Shield began, Gen. Schwarzkopf was reported to have asked for the SR-71 very early on. It is known that very soon after Saddam moved into Kuwait, USAF approached Lockheed and asked how long it would take to restore SR-71 operations. Lockheed's response was that depending on the priority and if USAF could supply the sensor packages (USAF had them and even Lockheed didn't know where they were), the first one could be operational in 14 days and the next one around thirty days after that (remember, they hadn't been out of service that long at this point). There was no response for a number of weeks and then Lockheed was directed to forget the whole thing.

If the SR-71 was retired because it's replacement superceeded it, why the balls up as above? Surely Storming Norman would have just requested that the Aurora do it's thing, whether that be taking pics, or the other fantastic attributes that it supposedly has. Or more probably if it existed, the intell would have just turned up on Big Norms battle screen.

Originally posted by bios

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
My source was FAS, that source has never failed me or anyone else in the past has it?

And the SweetMan design looks the most similar to all of the sitings of the Aurora so far.

Hey you never know do you?

Shattered OUT...

I think you may have misinterpretted what the FAS web site says.
The "Sweetman design" is the result of individual sighting descriptions compiled by Bill Sweetman who is a journalist for Janes Defense Weekly.
There is no "SweetMan" version of an Aurora, Bill Sweetman is not an aerospace engineer, nor is "SweetMan" an aerospace company.

Ok yeah I have misinterpretted the document but the other designs were completely different from one another and were all from aircraft designers.

So naturally I had assumed SweetMan had also designed an aircraft.

My apologies for the misleading information.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by roniii259
Why build a rreplacement when you could update the SR_71's with modern equipment and put them back in service. They meet most of the needs stated (with only direct energy weapons not there) Many people fforget that there was a mother plane to the SR-71 called the A-12

You are correct. The A-12 was developed for the CIA before the SR-71 was. It had a one man crew and was a tiny bit faster than the SR-71. You are also correct about the fuel. You could throw a match on it and it would not ignite. It would shoot a substance called Tri-Ethy-Borane into the fuel mix to ignite it.

Very few SR-71 and 1 A-12 could ever be retuned to flight status. Most have been tranfered to museums. As part of that process, most had thier wings cut for shipment. You can't put them back togther. The exceptions to this as far as I know is the SR-71 at the Pima air museum. The M-12 at the seattle museum of flight, and the SR-71 at the AF Museum at Wright Patterson. The SR-71 and A-12 at the Blackbird Museum may also be okay. I have no idea about the ones that NASA flew one was a YF-12 derivative and the other was the 2 seat "titanium goose" trainer that had the slower J-78 (I think) engines.

Don't expect that information to come out in this lifetime.

And I highly doubt they have a successor to the SR-71, although it is an amazing aircaft, it has been the end of its technology branch, but from that branch will emerge an entirely new type of aircraft.

If your 85 years old then you should not expect to see the replacement of the BlackBird. For the rest of Us who are below 85 which is 90+% of ATS should expect to see a replacement in their lifetime The Technology might be new but the concept and role of the plane will still be the same.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
The heat caused by the high supersonic speeds cause the aircraft to expand (I believe by more than an inch).
So during take-off, it leaks leaks fuel, thats why it always took-off with almost empty fuel tanks. It refueled shortly after take-off and then accelerated to its cruise speed and altitude.
When it reached the required speed, all leaks were sealed due to the heat.
So they deliberately designed the fuel tank to leak.

Acually it expanded several inches.

Also I wouldn't really say that it's tanks were almost empty when it took off, its tanks held 80,000 and when it took off there were usually 45,000 to 65,000. They did that just so it would take as long refueling it in the air.