If today's Military needed to build a better SR-71 Blackbird do you think they can pull it off?

If today's Military needed to build a better SR-71 Blackbird do you think they can pull it off?

  • Yes, they would build a better Air frame than Skunk Works back in 1966

    Votes: 19 27.9%

  • No, The SR-71 is a classic and can NEVER be duplicated. It's a legend!

    Votes: 7 10.3%

  • Maybe, but it would probably be too expensive.

    Votes: 33 48.5%

  • Yes, depending on who is in office

    Votes: 8 11.8%

  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    68
Acrodustertoo said:
Actually, when you consider what they had to do to design her, in today's world it was "instantaneous" and very cost effective.
Click to expand...
Cost effective?

Really?

If that were true, why was the SR-71 decommissioned, while the U-2 wasn't?

NASA extended the SR-71 mission by a few years, running two of them out of Dryden. And that Center quickly discovered they weren't cost effective, too. Their mission has been replaced by the two ER-2s, balloons, and sounding rockets.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Meet the SR-72, the proposed replacement for the SR-71. Lockheed SR-72
Click to expand...
"Give me 40 acres and I'll turn this thing around..." :)
They might not be able to catch you, but they're sure gonna know where you're going. :D

Nauga,
with the subtle maneuverability of a bullet
 
On a cold war budget, where the developers are left alone, sure.
 
The U-2 keeps outliving its replacements.
 
MAKG1 said:
Their mission has been replaced by the two ER-2s, balloons, and sounding rockets.
Click to expand...

You don't know what, if anything has replaced the SR-71's mission. Neither do I.
 
Last edited:
A while back the Navy replaced UAV/RPV with a U-2 for a mission; the manned aircraft did the job more "effectively". I imagine it was cheaper to operate, of course, but perhaps they also needed some on-scene judgement that was difficult to inform within the limitations of sensor technology.

I have an acquaintance in the industry - he has a different take on the "last fighter pilot has already been born"; he thinks "the last drone/RPV pilot has already been born", that AI and autonomous platforms will replace the remotely piloted kind; the AI birds will work in concert with a reduced number of manned fighters/attack aircraft. And we'll always have some need for manned combat aircraft . . .
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
So you know what has replaced the SR-71? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

NASA wasn't doing anything magic with the SR. They ran a few high speed tests and ran out of stuff to do. A lady named Mary Schafer (IIRC) who posted to Rec.Aviation.Military had a role in the program and used to post about it there.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
cause spacecraft are very expensive....and labor intensive....and can't be everywhere.

wonder how much mission life is robbed each time a bird is repositioned?....lots. IIRC there is a limit to repositioning a LEO bird....it does eat energy (fuel) rather quickly.
Click to expand...
Imagine how many disposable satellites could be put up for the cost of a raptor.
 
kyleb said:
NASA wasn't doing anything magic with the SR.
Click to expand...
They also weren't using it for the mission it was designed for, and towards the end they were footing the entire supply chain bill for a fleet of, what, two?

Nauga,
who used to visit Mary from time to time
 
If the "military" were truly in charge and not the "wizz kids" of MacNamara and their descendants in the bureaucracy of Fort Fumble who make decision driven by stupid ideas like build one basic design for everybody so it will cost less, it could be done. Been there, suffered thru it from the F-111 to the F-22 to the F-35 and got the scars to prove it.

As far as another SR-71, sure it could be done, given the A******* in Fort Fumble are locked up, but there's no reason to.

Cheers
 
No, because the development would get hung up in the DoD design and procurement process. In the end it wouldn't be able to take photos or collect sigint, the left engine would be from GE the right from Williams and it wouldn"t be stealthy because someone forgot to write it into the requirements. Oh, and they would be a billion a piece and there would be a protest from the losing bidder.

The SR71 is what it is because the development team had the freedom to develop what was necessary.

Regardless, with UAV and low-orbit satellites, I don't see anyone looking for a new SR71.
 
From what I understand they are still trying to figure out how to install an AOA indicator on one. It has made it cost prohibitive.
 
mulligan said:
From what I understand they are still trying to figure out how to install an AOA indicator on one. It has made it cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...

No thread complete without an AOA or cirrus chute joke.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
cause spacecraft are very expensive....and labor intensive....and can't be everywhere.

wonder how much mission life is robbed each time a bird is repositioned?....lots. IIRC there is a limit to repositioning a LEO bird....it does eat energy (fuel) rather quickly.
Click to expand...
...and plane changes are limited and eat into the fuel budget at a cost to mission life.
 
nauga said:
They also weren't using it for the mission it was designed for, and towards the end they were footing the entire supply chain bill for a fleet of, what, two?

Nauga,
who used to visit Mary from time to time
Click to expand...
There were only ever 17, and once the Air Force scrapped 15 of them, there were plenty of spare parts around. Much of NASA's fleet is obsolete or unique aircraft, and they manage their supply chains rather frequently by procuring used parts.
 
ifly4fun said:
Imagine how many disposable satellites could be put up for the cost of a raptor.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's the way things are going. Cubesats are hot, now, with the ability to build multiple vehicles for not much money. The day of "Battlestar Galactica" military space programs is over. People are launching 5" cubes with GoPro equivalent cameras, and it's only going to get better.

And it's a real knee-slapper to see how many people think the only intelligence mission for aircraft/spacecraft is taking pictures.

Ron "More things in heaven and Earth, Horatio" Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Actually, that's the way things are going. Cubesats are hot, now, with the ability to build multiple vehicles for not much money. The day of "Battlestar Galactica" military space programs is over. People are launching 5" cubes with GoPro equivalent cameras, and it's only going to get better. Launch survivability is ~50%, but if you kick out a dozen at a time, some of them are going to work.

And it's a real knee-slapper to see how many people think the only intelligence mission for aircraft/spacecraft is taking pictures.

Ron "More things in heaven and Earth, Horatio" Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
wanttaja said:
Actually, that's the way things are going. Cubesats are hot, now, with the ability to build multiple vehicles for not much money. The day of "Battlestar Galactica" military space programs is over.
Click to expand...

Battlestar Galactica, loved that show. It's not totally over, just sleeping. When we colonize Mars it should pick up again, (Whenever that will be but IT WILL happen).
 
Easy to do. Make it unmanned. people in planes require a lot more engineering and weight to support life.
 
MAKG1 said:
Cost effective?

Really?

If that were true, why was the SR-71 decommissioned, while the U-2 wasn't?

NASA extended the SR-71 mission by a few years, running two of them out of Dryden. And that Center quickly discovered they weren't cost effective, too. Their mission has been replaced by the two ER-2s, balloons, and sounding rockets.
Click to expand...
Yes, look at the initial cost to produce them and then get back to us with how out of line it was. Compare that to what it would cost today to even think about building one.
 
Didn't any of you watch the SpaceX launch last week? Our science and technology is way past the planes of the '60s. The only thing missing is desire. People would rather spend their resources marching in the streets or bitching about the marches on the internet. The state of science is fine. The American people are what's eff'd up.
 
Last edited:
ifly4fun said:
Imagine how many disposable satellites could be put up for the cost of a raptor.
Click to expand...

Why am I thinking about the movie Gravity. How much stuff can be put up there before we have to worry about them running into each other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top