A return to the Air Force for the sleek Blackbird?

reply to post by GermanShep


1 pilot lost his life and 12 SR-71's were lost during its service career. It actually had a pretty good safety record compared to the hours it flew (something like 53,000)

In order to achieve capabilities similar to what was available with the A-12 and SR-71, something new will have to be developed. All of the surviving Blackbirds are in museums and all but a few have had their wing spars cut, rendering them unflyable. All of the tooling for building the aircraft has long since been destroyed. All spare parts and support equipment not in museums were scrapped several years ago. The most qualified personnel for operating the SR-71 are all retired or dead. Sadly, the Blackbirds are history.

Any new ISR platform will need to be survivable and will most likely be remotely piloted. It will probably be expensive, which will present additional challenges in the current fiscal climate.

I should also add that overall 5 pilots lost their lives piloting the SR-71. Only one during service though.

reply to post by Shadowhawk


From what I read in my thread about UAVs and the A2/AD threat, a UAV would be difficult with the current technology. One of the complaints about the Pacific switch is that the current UAV fleet becomes irrelevant, and until we can develop an autonomous system it will be extremely difficult for a UAV to survive longer than a few minutes in a high or even medium threat environment.

Well, they've got "something". Whatever I saw that night was def. not a satellite, as they can't do 90-degree turns in LEO on a dime like that.

TR-3B might be what we are moving to?

That scene in "Avengers" when the flying aircraft carrier goes "invisible" struck me. Some govermnent contractor claims they've created an optical stealth blanket. So we know optical stealth technology is actively being researched. Who's to say we aren't using optical stealth technology with some of our aircraft as well?

If they've figured out how to bend light around an object, they probably can bend electromagnetic radiation and sound frequencies as well.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Now thats a intresting thought.

What if this is just a way to go public with something "new".

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Why don't they put spy satellites into Geo-Sync orbits?

A KH-11 spy satellite orbits at between 250km-1,000km. A geosynchronous orbit is about 42,000km. So the optics in a geosynchronous spy satellite would have to be a lot lot lot better, as it is about 42 times further away.

However the long range 'telescopic cameras' are only effective at longer distances and not shorter distances especially with the clarity and resolution from what I've heard and read.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


They're not "bending light" around them with visual stealth. They're using chromatic panels to project the background on the bottom of the plane, so that it appears that there is nothing there.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

They're not "bending light" around them with visual stealth. They're using chromatic panels to project the background on the bottom of the plane, so that it appears that there is nothing there.

I understand if you cant give a yes or no. But you know if this system is on any working aircraft or prototypes?

If you dont reply I will take that as a "I cant comment"

I know this is about asking the "right" queations.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Hey Boomer, you have background in all this. Your piece mentions satellites and their limits for lack of time on station and timing as predictable as the math used to figure orbits can make it. Why don't they put spy satellites into Geo-Sync orbits?

I understand the altitude/distances are radical in difference but it's space, right? No air...no matter, so no worries, isn't it? Stronger cameras should see the same thing, in theory...shouldn't they?

What do you mean by "Stronger" camera? You would need a much larger primary mirror when further away. The mirrors on current state of the art imaging satellites are immense, and the satellites orbit as close as feasible to get the best pictures. We can't boost a much bigger one to geostationary.

Let's put it this way: It's working. And conversely, some of the stuff you "see" isn't really there.

reply to post by crazyewok


Around 2005/06 the University of Kentucky had it on a 2 meter UAV doing test flights. Interestingly the article talked about all kinds of stealth that was under development, but now it's gone. There are papers talking about visual stealth from around that time frame, but not the article that I know I read that mentioned specific frequencies being worked on.

Other than that, no comment.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

They're not "bending light" around them with visual stealth. They're using chromatic panels to project the background on the bottom of the plane, so that it appears that there is nothing there.

I thought also it is possibly also used to try to confuse optical imaging seekers on SAM and AA missiles? It doesn't have to look "invisible" to a trained human, just "not close enough what's programmed in to get a good lock".

If the optical seeker is giving a "no lock" and it relies on the traditional infrared (which has much less angular resolution and imaging) then flares would work better again.

The general idea has been around for many decades. Just the paint color gives away the intended altitude. Highest altitude = nearly black, because most of the atmospheric scattering is below you. Hence SR-71 and U2 and the early B2's. Medium altitude = grey. Low altitude = cream or white. Witness the light-color RQ-170 captured by Iran. Why was it so surprisingly light colored when traditional military aircraft are all medium grey? Because it was intended for a pretty low altitude risky mission (I bet it could have had nuclear detection sensors or nucleotide sniffers to try to calibrate uranium enrichment.) And I wonder if a light cream colored aircraft would be more amenable to having LED colored projectors change its surface color.

Just think about your experience with non-stealth commercial aircraft. When they are low, they obscure brighter sky, they look dark. Because the total air above them is brighter than their reflection. When they are flying high, they are light compared to the sky, because they reflect more than the amount of air which is above them at that altitude.

Active lighting = more flexibility and low observability. Low observability, not invisible. Radar stealth is also low observability, not invisible----such craft are detectable but at shorter ranges than conventional craft, and missions are designed with these quantitative parameters in mind.

reply to post by mbkennel


The newer aircraft have IR suppression systems it's believed. So if you can confuse the optical system into thinking that the aircraft isn't there, and you have an IR suppression system that keeps it from locking on at any kind of range, then you don't need to use flares as often as in the past.

This is why I love this game. It's better than chess with the move and countermove.

reply to post by Zaphod58


reply to post by schuyler



Thanks

BTW unrelated Zaphod you USAF? Just wondering were all the good info comes from?

reply to post by Zaphod58


reply to post by schuyler



Thanks

BTW unrelated Zaphod you USAF? Just wondering were all the good info comes from?

reply to post by crazyewok


I grew up on an Air Force ramp, and live and breathe this stuff. I've managed to make a few contacts over the years, that have come to trust me, and are willing to share a few things with me that most people don't have access to. As well as the fact that the first websites I check every day after ATS are aviation related.

reply to post by Zaphod58


But they do however "redirect" radar in a quite ingenious way.

EDIT: They've been doing it for years with the shape, paint, ect ... but I think we are well beyond just materials and shape/design now.

Maybe I give these guys to much credit...

Just jumping in on the end of this thread.....In my opinion surelt the SR-71 will and can provide information in a more secure way than an exposed satellite in orbit, (if that satellite because of increase solar activity might be more exposed than before..??)


Anyway aren't all SR-71's Transformers in Disguise...??

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Oh we're getting into some really interesting fields now. Unfortunately the most interesting articles from a few years ago are offline now and can't be found.