These SR-71 Blackbirds
Discussion
UAVs like Global Hawk might be excellent in uncontested airspace (afghan, etc) but over China or Russia?
The X-37 might be a better replacement for the SR71. However if the latter's mission were 'like' a space flight, the X-37's ARE a space flight, with all the complexity that brings.
Google Earth? Great for very old out of date pictures of some fixed installations. Not great for anything else.
The X-37 might be a better replacement for the SR71. However if the latter's mission were 'like' a space flight, the X-37's ARE a space flight, with all the complexity that brings.
Google Earth? Great for very old out of date pictures of some fixed installations. Not great for anything else.
Ayahuasca said:
UAVs like Global Hawk might be excellent in uncontested airspace (afghan, etc) but over China or Russia?
The X-37 might be a better replacement for the SR71. However if the latter's mission were 'like' a space flight, the X-37's ARE a space flight, with all the complexity that brings.
Google Earth? Great for very old out of date pictures of some fixed installations. Not great for anything else.
The beauty of the X-37 (and the unmanned drones) is that they are unmanned - and therefore in the modern combat environment, relatively expendable. We haven't quite got to the point where an aircraft as fast as the SR-71 can be flown unmanned.The X-37 might be a better replacement for the SR71. However if the latter's mission were 'like' a space flight, the X-37's ARE a space flight, with all the complexity that brings.
Google Earth? Great for very old out of date pictures of some fixed installations. Not great for anything else.
Eric Mc said:
We haven't quite got to the point where an aircraft as fast as the SR-71 can be flown unmanned.
Why not? I would have thought that autonomous sensors and flight control would have got to a point where an SR-71 could be flown unmanned if not totally autonomously. Most of the challenges flying it were in managing the systems, which is well suited to autonomy. AER said:
I'd imagine that these days it'd be relatively easy to take down an SR71 in "contested airspace" even when it's flying at Mach 3.0+
Nope - 'cos there's been no demand to develop a missile capable of shooting down an aircraft travelling at Mach 3+ at 85,000 feet since the SR-71 was withdrawnMave said:
Eric Mc said:
We haven't quite got to the point where an aircraft as fast as the SR-71 can be flown unmanned.
Why not? I would have thought that autonomous sensors and flight control would have got to a point where an SR-71 could be flown unmanned if not totally autonomously. Most of the challenges flying it were in managing the systems, which is well suited to autonomy. There is a programme which may result in a hypersonic atmospheric recce aircraft (the X-43 programme) but that is progressing slowly and may not result in a production vehicle.
And as mentioned by me an others, the orbital X-37 programme is also under development.
I would say that the US has MORE reconnaissance capability now than it did in the heyday of the SR-71.
Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 12th October 08:39
MartG said:
AER said:
I'd imagine that these days it'd be relatively easy to take down an SR71 in "contested airspace" even when it's flying at Mach 3.0+
Nope - 'cos there's been no demand to develop a missile capable of shooting down an aircraft travelling at Mach 3+ at 85,000 feet since the SR-71 was withdrawnEric Mc said:
I would say that the US has MORE reconnaissance capability now than it did in the heyday of the SR-71.
Yeah, the NSA has probably already hacked the Chinese and Russian satellites to supplement their own surveillance capability...Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 12th October 08:39
Eric Mc said:
Mave said:
Eric Mc said:
We haven't quite got to the point where an aircraft as fast as the SR-71 can be flown unmanned.
Why not? I would have thought that autonomous sensors and flight control would have got to a point where an SR-71 could be flown unmanned if not totally autonomously. Most of the challenges flying it were in managing the systems, which is well suited to autonomy. There is a programme which may result in a hypersonic atmospheric recce aircraft (the X-43 programme) but that is progressing slowly and may not result in a production vehicle.
And as mentioned by me an others, the orbital X-37 programme is also under development.
I would say that the US has MORE reconnaissance capability now than it did in the heyday of the SR-71.
Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 12th October 08:39
Mave said:
Just because the resources have gone elsewhere, doens't mean the capability isn't there. The level of autonomous capability we have about us today is huge compared to when the SR-71 was designed. What is the pilot doing that a remote / autonomous system couldn't do?
cool stuff on the radio, showing up other pilots 
Mave said:
Just because the resources have gone elsewhere, doens't mean the capability isn't there. The level of autonomous capability we have about us today is huge compared to when the SR-71 was designed. What is the pilot doing that a remote / autonomous system couldn't do?
The capability isn't there if it hasn't been built.The SR-71 is late 50s/early 60s technology. Of course we (or the US, at least) could build an identical capability aircraft today with similar abilities - probably in an unmanned version.
However, this has not been done and the reasons are because there is no pressing need for such a design. Other resources and technologies that simply did not exist when design work on the SR-71 and its brethren began - which was way back in 1957/1958 - are being used in its place.
If you have read "Skunk Works" you will has got an insight into how much Lockheed were pushing the electronics and controls envelop with unmanned drones in the mid 1960's. Their D21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21) was an air launched high mach pilotless drone, that flew deep into someone elses airspace, took some pics, turned around, and when back over international waters, ejected the datafilm for recovery. And in four operational flights, a total of zero were recovered! (creating an interesting Russian back story some 30 years later!)
Today, with cheap GPS, and multiDOF INU's, you can easily make autonomous devices that can navigate to a high degree of precision, and many school kids and university students do just that!
The Achilles heal of pilotless devices was that once there task was set, they couldn't change it, but these days with high bandwidth real time air-ground secure telemetry a team of "pilots" on the ground can respond just like a pilot in the actual vehicle could.
Today, with cheap GPS, and multiDOF INU's, you can easily make autonomous devices that can navigate to a high degree of precision, and many school kids and university students do just that!
The Achilles heal of pilotless devices was that once there task was set, they couldn't change it, but these days with high bandwidth real time air-ground secure telemetry a team of "pilots" on the ground can respond just like a pilot in the actual vehicle could.
This might be of interest - USAF/NASA film about the YF-12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1FLEbAbl4Q
Eric Mc said:
Mave said:
Just because the resources have gone elsewhere, doens't mean the capability isn't there. The level of autonomous capability we have about us today is huge compared to when the SR-71 was designed. What is the pilot doing that a remote / autonomous system couldn't do?
The capability isn't there if it hasn't been built.Just because something hasn't been done in exactly the same way doesn't mean we don't have the capability!
Eric Mc said:
The SR-71 is late 50s/early 60s technology. Of course we (or the US, at least) could build an identical capability aircraft today with similar abilities - probably in an unmanned version.
So do you, or don't you, think an aircraft as fast as the SR-71 could be flown unmanned; and if not, which technologies are lacking?Max_Torque said:
The Achilles heal of pilotless devices was that once there task was set, they couldn't change it, but these days with high bandwidth real time air-ground secure telemetry a team of "pilots" on the ground can respond just like a pilot in the actual vehicle could.
Take a look at ASTREA - you don't need high bandwidth; let the aircraft sense, prioritise and respond to threats autonomously....Dr JonboyG said:
This might be of interest - USAF/NASA film about the YF-12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1FLEbAbl4Q
Very interesting film The X-43 is extremely experimental. It is purely a research aircraft and has failed as often as it has succeeded.
The X-43 project, at the moment, is proving just how difficult it is to fly an unmanned drone at hypersonic speeds. And it's main contribution to such technology may be proving that it isn't feasible.
The X-43 project, at the moment, is proving just how difficult it is to fly an unmanned drone at hypersonic speeds. And it's main contribution to such technology may be proving that it isn't feasible.
The point is moot really, because even the manned high mach vehicles (SR-71 etc) the lump of lard up front was only "directing" the computer, and the computer was actually flying! (this is because the control bandwidth required and non-linearities experienced across such a large range of speeds make actually controlling the plane virtually impossible for a puny human! Yes, once established in a trimmed and stable M3 cruise, the AutoStab could be turned off and the plane still controlled, but any unexpected disturbance was extremely likely to end in a dynamic situation from which the pilot could not recover. #952 was lost in just such an incident and that had the Autostab enabled! (although had a poor trim at the time of the incident)
Once you move towards true hypersonic flight, the issues are ones of maintaining positive stability margin and general aerothermodynamics, not ones of having a bloke up front moving a lever........ ;-)
(At Mach 5 the air stagnation temperature of an ideal atmosphere is about 1320K!!!)
Once you move towards true hypersonic flight, the issues are ones of maintaining positive stability margin and general aerothermodynamics, not ones of having a bloke up front moving a lever........ ;-)
(At Mach 5 the air stagnation temperature of an ideal atmosphere is about 1320K!!!)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff