SR-72...Deathbird?

Olgar Shiverstone said:

Ever hear of the A-12? The original Project Oxcart, pre-SR-71?

Click to expand...

Yeah- a real beauty, similar to the SR-71 in appearance, as I recall. What abut it?

Dannyalcatraz said:

Yeah- a real beauty, similar to the SR-71 in appearance, as I recall. What abut it?

Click to expand...

It had a variant (one of which is now hanging in Seattle's Museum of Flight which is why I remember it) which lauched a drone. It was a recon drone but certainly indicated strike capabilities for an SR-71 if it was wanted. I suspect this SR72 would not be nearly as much about recon as about rapid global strike possibilities. The SR-71 was retired because it was replaced by satellite capabilities so I don't think the usefulness of an SR-72 would be because satellites stopped being good enough. Of course, it might just be intended to get a live feed over a hot spot NOW and keep it there rather than have to re-task satellites which won't be able to look at the same spot continuously. But I think, yeah, it's also attractive to the military to be able to strike globally, "instantly", without an ICBM - which as suggested could cause certain people to panic when they see it.

Dannyalcatraz said:

Yeah- a real beauty, similar to the SR-71 in appearance, as I recall. What abut it?

Click to expand...

It was designed to be armed via a subsequent variant, the AF-12 (subsequently YF-12), firing the Falcon missile (in addition to the D21 drone referenced above). USAF never got the funds for full-scale production due to Vietnam War funding. Could have had Mach 3+ fighter/interceptors to go with a Mach 3+ bomber (B-70 Valkyrie) but for that pesky money problem.

The advantage of an un/manned reconnaissance aircraft is the ability to dynamically retask and provide extended time over a target, neither of which satellites are particularly good at -- which is why the U-2s were retained when the SR-71 was retired. U-2 can't function in a high-threat environment, though, and neither can current unmanned recon aircraft, which is why I suspect the SR-72 might be attractive.

Well, there's also the human problem. Military pilots can take very high Levels of stress- even in WW2 era planes, you could pull 6Gs- but we're talking high Mach for sustained flight...

How many could do it?

Mach =/= G.

One is speed, the other is acceleration. Sustained high speed is not an issue until you start to maneuver violently. To protect the pilot, a manned SR-72 would have a very wide turn radius, but the actual speed really isn't the issue (aside from melting the whole thing into a puddle). (F-16 pilots handle 9 Gs for short durations; their G-suits and reclined seating position help in this regard.)

That said, you're right that deleting the pilot makes for a lot of maneuverability improvements, because you don't have to worry about the computer blacking out.

Olgar Shiverstone said:

Mach =/= G.

One is speed, the other is acceleration. Sustained high speed is not an issue until you start to maneuver violently. To protect the pilot, a manned SR-72 would have a very wide turn radius, but the actual speed really isn't the issue (aside from melting the whole thing into a puddle). (F-16 pilots handle 9 Gs for short durations; their G-suits and reclined seating position help in this regard.)

That said, you're right that deleting the pilot makes for a lot of maneuverability improvements, because you don't have to worry about the computer blacking out.

Click to expand...

I know, and you've actually hit on part of what I'm getting at. A vehicle that travels that fast is only going to be hindered by the meat inside.

But there are stresses that high-speed travel puts on the human body...and mind. Imagine controlling a Mach 6 vehicle in the relatively tight confines of our atmosphere...the fatigue, the perceptual "tunnel vision", keeping your head on a swivel- my guess is that a lot of that gets alleviated doing all of that via remote control. Seeing through monitors that keep the entirety of space around the vehicle in front of you.

That just has to be easier, physically & mentally.

But I would still worry about the hack threat and data lag.

Comms is one of the things the USAF in particular has been concerned about with unmanned aircraft (aside from the institutional culture thing that still favors manned aircraft). Bandwidth isn't the problem so much as the risk that someone will jam or otherwise deny your comms. That goes double for an aircraft with global reach which relies on satellite rather than line-of-sight comms, particularly given that a certain nation recently demonstrated anti-satellite capability.

Ultimately manned v. unmanned will come down to mission. For a purely ISR platform, unmanned makes the most sense provided link integrity is assured. For a strike platform, though, I'd expect it to remain manned unless it has very limited strike capability (like today's Reapers, which are very highly focused but lack the employment flexibility of multi-role manned aircraft). There's simply too much situational awareness loss from a long-distance soda straw view to favor a flexible strike aircraft.

Anyway, very interesting technology to watch develop, regardless of final use. My personal prediction is that they'll have more success sooner with the hypersonic missile program (which had a successful flight on its third attempt, recently) than the larger aircraft program, just due to scaling complexity and the costs involved. Unless this SR-72 becomes the basis for the Long Range Strike Bomber (doubtful since LRSB movement seems to be more in the direction of an advanced subsonic aircraft more along B2 lines), I don't see the USAF being able to fund both a highly advanced large LO ISR platform and an advanced LO bomber program in today's budget environment, and they've made it pretty clear the bomber is in their top 3 priorities with the KC-46 and F-35.