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
I didn't vote because I couldn't choose just one answer.

Yes, they could build one, but depending on who is in office, it may be way too expensive. But then again, being too expensive hasn't really stopped us from building weapons systems too much before.
 
It'd be incredibly expensive and 20 years late, but sure, they could build it.
 
I think they could probably do it economically, if they stuck to the original mission: Fly high and fast and take good pictures. The problem would come when they add abilities like stealth, defense systems, offensive capability, carrier landing abilities, longer flight duration etc. But if they just stuck to high, fast and good pics, they could do better than the SR71.
 
FormerHangie said:
Could one of the defense contractors build a "better" SR-71? Sure, technology has improved. Will it happen? No, there's no need, satellites do that job now.
Click to expand...
How quickly can a satellite be maneuvered into an obscure position these days? That used to be a huge issue and often required Presidential approval. I suspect it isn't nearly the issue it used to be.
 
It can be done again....but keep in mind the gummint doesn't build anything....contractors do. And contractors have a framework to work in...and that determines the kind of product the gummint gets.

Fast paced technology development does and can happen today....but, you won't know about it.

And yes....I "believe" we have something that replaced the SR-71....but, it's unmanned. :D
 
Of course. Materials, engines, systems, aerodynamics, and stealth are all areas that have seen marked improvement since when the A-12/SR series was designed circa 1960. The engineering and capabilities are there.

Today's problems would be that:

A) Instead of setting requirements and a budget and letting the contractor take care of it, there would be a thousand design reviews, the military would mandate a thousand little changes "No, the air freshener system needs to be Mountain Breeze, not Cherry Blossom", and that would drive design and manufacturing costs through the roof.

B) The military hasn't built a single purpose (go fast, go high, take pictures) platform in decades. So this new airplane would be contracted as a recon/transport/tanker/VTOL platform with a large in-law suite, and therefore would never be as good as a single purpose platform.

C) The test flight program would last for decades because they would be pushing the state of the art and a crash would push the program back years, not days or weeks (as with the original A-12/SR program with all of the crashes during its development).
 
JOhnH said:
How quickly can a satellite be maneuvered into an obscure position these days? That used to be a huge issue and often required Presidential approval. I suspect it isn't nearly the issue it used to be.
Click to expand...

Hours. They are in low earth polar orbits and there are several.
 
If "they" did build a follow on or better version of the SR-71 there would be no reason to put a man inside it what with current technology. Think about it....
 
I'm sure we have the tech to make something go much faster on less fuel than the SR-71. However, we don't have the need to do so because of satellites that can be re-positioned within hours to take pictures of just about any spot on Earth. Why deal with a very expensive aircraft and the skyrocketing cost of ongoing support in order to do what satellites already can? I'm sure if we had a need to drop a bomb/fire a missile from an aircraft at Mach 3+, we could do it. It just isn't needed.
 
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.
 
If they wanted to they could. They may or may not have a requirement for it. They may have already done so. Aurora? Satellites, better and better. U2s still flying too.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Or Ben Rich.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention him. Just read the book skunk works. One of the things he mentioned during his tenure in Skunkworks was the ability to meet federal EEOC requirements in regards to recruiting top engineers, even though it was a top secret project. I'm sure the long list of requirements for bidding and contracting a project like that are magnitudes worse now. It's hard to fly under the radar of federal requirements no matter what the project is. We're better off letting some other country build it and buy it from them.
 
No they couldn't. They cannot even build a simple fighter plane(F35) or decide if the A-10 is a good plane these days.

Should they have retired the blackbird? in time yes but what it could do cannot ever be replaced by satellites. They could fly her over anywhere in the world in a few hours to take as many pictures as they needed in less time than it would take to reprogram the trajectory of a satellite. The bad guys know when and where our satellites are at all times and conduct business accordingly.
Ben Rich made some staggering accusations on how the defense business is run these days and every single one of them turned out to be true. The cost to build anything close these days would be a game stopper. The simple hub and spoke way Kelly Johnson did business was a masterpiece and he even gave money back when he was underbudget. Those things now would get you black balled and thrown into prison.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
No they couldn't. They cannot even build a simple fighter plane(F35) or decide if the A-10 is a good plane these days.
Click to expand...
I have never heard the words "simple" and "F35" used in the same sentence without a negative qualifier being involved. That plane is the epitome of complexity and trying to be all things to all people.
 
JOhnH said:
I have never heard the words "simple" and "F35" used in the same sentence without a negative qualifier being involved. That plane is the epitome of complexity and trying to be all things to all people.
Click to expand...
I believe Ben Rich had something to say about that very thing as well. About how the planes themselves will stay relatively simple but the electronics and instrumentation would be the straw that broke the camels back.
The F35 can be summed up in one phrase: Jack of all trades, Master of none.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
I believe Ben Rich had something to say about that very thing as well. About how the planes themselves will stay relatively simple but the electronics and instrumentation would be the straw that broke the camels back.
The F35 can be summed up in one phrase: Jack of all trades, Master of none.
Click to expand...
and that's what happens when the requirements grow into a Swiss army knife....:confused:

It does everything....but not well.
 
Col Boyd of the Air Force always pushed for a light fighter. Finally the F-16 was built, what he had in mind, but by the time requirements and changes were made to it, different missions added, it wasn't what Col Boyd envisioned.
 
mscard88 said:
Col Boyd of the Air Force always pushed for a light fighter. Finally the F-16 was built, what he had in mind, but by the time requirements and changes were made to it, different missions added, it wasn't what Col Boyd envisioned.
Click to expand...
So.....it ended up being what Sen Byrd wanted....:lol:
 
SoonerAviator said:
However, we don't have the need to do so because of satellites that can be re-positioned within hours to take pictures of just about any spot on Earth. Why deal with a very expensive aircraft and the skyrocketing cost of ongoing support in order to do what satellites already can? I'm sure if we had a need to drop a bomb/fire a missile from an aircraft at Mach 3+, we could do it. It just isn't needed.
Click to expand...

You don't reposition the intelligence satellites. They stay in their respective sun-synchronous orbits. What you can do is retask where on the ground they are looking at any given time. Even so, they have their limitations. The real problem is that the SR's (and the U-2's) to some extent were primarily designed for looking down over a large enemy territory (Russia, China). While the SR did get used a bit in Viet Nam, that really wasn't the model. Now in the modern warfare, it's easy to through a relatively "disposable" UAV at the problem rather than trying to catch things at an "uninterceptalbe" stratospheric altitude.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
They could fly her over anywhere in the world [a dedicated tanker could drag her] in a few hours...
Click to expand...
FTFY. SR-71 deployment was neither instantaneous nor simple. Does anyone think we currently lack intel that they could provide? Today's problem is largely sifting through all the intel "we" have, not getting more.

Nauga,
data mining in a trash heap
 
nauga said:
FTFY. SR-71 deployment was neither instantaneous nor simple. Does anyone think we currently lack intel that they could provide? Today's problem is largely sifting through all the intel "we" have, not getting more.

Nauga,
data mining in a trash heap
Click to expand...
Actually, when you consider what they had to do to design her, in today's world it was "instantaneous" and very cost effective.
 
flyingron said:
You don't reposition the intelligence satellites. They stay in their respective sun-synchronous orbits. What you can do is retask where on the ground they are looking at any given time. Even so, they have their limitations. The real problem is that the SR's (and the U-2's) to some extent were primarily designed for looking down over a large enemy territory (Russia, China). While the SR did get used a bit in Viet Nam, that really wasn't the model. Now in the modern warfare, it's easy to through a relatively "disposable" UAV at the problem rather than trying to catch things at an "uninterceptalbe" stratospheric altitude.
Click to expand...

Correct, I didn't mean to imply they would be re-positioning the satellites, physically, in relation to their orbit. I just meant adjusting the position of the cameras to a new point on the ground. I agree that no option is without its limitations, just like the SR-71. Having to keep the support staff and equipment available for an aircraft like that is quite an expensive endeavor, compared to adjusting the focus of a satellite or throwing up a drone when dealing with time-sensitive recon.
 
There currently are sensors and cameras that are the same or better flying in the RPV aircraft that we build... they stay aloft a lot longer, and at a much lower cost. and Pilots with their sensor operators are safely in a Conex box somewhere out in the desert. Not getting shot at..... Fun "little" airplanes!...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top