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.

 

This is the amazing Lockheed Martin SR-72—the space Blackbird

page: 21
38
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I can't help but notice the SR designation on this proposed craft. So this is a recon platform??? Doesn't make sense to me, when we have satellites, and cheaper drones that could get the job done.

What could the USAF have the need to surveil that would require such height and speed?

Seems like a craft of this type would get the X designation, but what do I know?

ETA the designation system for the USAF for aircraft for those that might be unfamiliar:


Status prefix[edit]
These optional prefixes are attached to aircraft not conducting normal operations, such as research, testing and development. The prefixes are:
G: Permanently grounded
J: Special test, temporary
N: Special test, permanent
X: Experimental
Y: Prototype
Z: Planning
...
A: Attack (i.e. air-to-surface)
C: Transport
D: Drone director
E: Special electronic mission
F: Fighter
H: Search and rescue, MEDEVAC
K: Tanker
L: Equipped for cold weather operations
M: Missile carrier (1962 – c.1972), Mine countermeasures (c.1973–1976), Multi-mission (1977 onwards)
O: Observation
P: Maritime patrol
Q: Unmanned drone
R: Reconnaissance
S: Antisubmarine warfare
T: Trainer
U: Utility
V: Staff transport
W: Weather reconnaissance


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4-11-2013 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2013 by majesticgent because: formatting




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I'd guess they could do an awacs or EC for communication outside theatre for the unmanned relay, and to lessen lag further, they could set the pilot in the awacs at a station in air. As any avid gamer will tell you, lag kills



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


Because satellites are predictable, and UAVs don't survive well in contested airspace. Right now, there isn't a single UAV that could survive, get to a target, and hit it that is known. This would do all of that, and is unpredictable.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I see, so this thing could be equipped with the same cameras that are on satellites, get sensitive intelligence anywhere on the globe, and be back withiin a few hours. Interesting... Never thought about it like that.

Nothing, that we know of, could intercept or even detect it.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


On top of that they've discussed weaponizing the 72! so surveil/recon/bomber



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


I know that they are calling it unmanned, which regardless of mission, makes it a "Q" designation.

Q72...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


Exactly. It used to be, back in the 80s, all the bases that had sensitive equipment had schedules written down of when the Soviet satellites would be over., so they could hide their equipment before they came over..



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Astr0


This is from an old Nat Geo video - looks beautiful. Looks very familiar.



Do you know the name of the Nat Geo video or show this was on? I would like to see it. Thanks



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


just like the original SR71 A-12 attack variant...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by drphilxr
 


The A-12 wasn't an attack variant, at least not the one related to the Blackbird. The A-12 Oxcart was the precursor to the SR-71. It was a single seat, lighter version, but was unarmed. The only armed member of the SR-71 family was the YF-12.

The A-12 Avenger was the first attempt by the Navy to have a stealth fighter on ships, and was not related to the SR-71 or Oxcart program.
edit on 11/4/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


that's what i meant. your info is more precise.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

kingofyo1
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


kk thats better... But now that we're talking m20, obviously a plane going that fast would not be able to be anywhere near lower than 85k feet, and when you get near LEO, you need an oxidizer in the fuel to compensate for the lack of oxygen Would that be a problem?


Hydrogen peroxide as fuel comes to mind for the ramjet as well as the turbine



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Well, if this is a USAF program ... It's not really meant to go into "space". That's what the Navy's for



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


I did read that story too. Here is the video of the accident:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Even the ones launched from the B-52 ended up failing. One landed in the target area, and was run over by the destroyer meant to pick it up. One didn't make the turn and may have come down in China, two failed in flight IIRC. I believe those were the only four that were attempted to be used operationally.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Yeah, I have a wee bit of a problem understanding why the AIR force wouldnt be space able but the Navy that deals in WATER would???



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Believe it or not, in all honestly, the Navy really is the better service for space. They have crews that are already used to being away for long periods of time, the submarine is one of the best designs for a space craft, their crews are used to being in tight quarters, they're used to operating large ships, etc.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I've seen the one at the Boeing museum of flight several times up-close. The original bad - arse drone.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Oh just wait. I'm working on a book, I mean thread, that will open some eyes.

And just because I'm pretty sure most of you have never seen one, here is the DC-130.
edit on 11/4/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I've gotta say...that's not exactly a looker of a plane


Oh well, the A-10 is pretty ugly, but it kicks so much butt that it totally makes up for it.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join