Tiberius Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/01/this-is-the-successor-to-the-sr-71-blackbird-and-it-is-gorgeous/?tid=pm_pop So it's only natural that the Blackbird's successor might inspire similar appeal. More than a decade after the last SR-71 was decommissioned, Lockheed Martin has unveiled the gorgeous-looking SR-72. It flies just as far and twice as fast as its predecessor — and, in a twist, it's now lethal, according to Aviationweek: Yes, it will create jobs, but couldn't they create other jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 http://www.washingto...ous/?tid=pm_pop Yes, it will create jobs, but couldn't they create other jobs? Shovel-ready jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it” A physician called into a radio show and said: "That's the definition of a stool sample". That pretty well sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Speed is the new Stealth. You can't hit what you can't see...... and you can't hit what you can't catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 Speed is the new Stealth. You can't hit what you can't see...... and you can't hit what you can't catch. But a smaller throw away drone is also invisable and so much cheaper . This thing looks like a product of Cold War thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) B.O. is so good at killing people there's little wonder that he would be enamored of this stunning new killing technology. It also gives him an excellent new accounts payable engagement to funnel hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer's money that will quickly get in to the hands of some very, very grateful contributors. A significant amount of that cash will find its way back in B. O.'s personal fortune when he speaks to the company's conclave in Hawaii after he retires from office. Hillary just got a cool $400,000 for two such speeches in front of Goldman Sachs executives. Of course that was just the honorarium from the corporation. You can bet she probably doubled that take in personal contributions from the billionaires that we're present. It stands to reason that B.O. would get more than that. So don't begrudge the President getting a shinny new very expensive killing machine. Think of it as the part of his retirement portfolio that it is. Edited November 5, 2013 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 But a smaller throw away drone is also invisable and so much cheaper . how do you know that it isn't intended to be a drone? it has no windows. granted, it may not need a window, but the article suggests the possibility that it may be, or may lead to, an unmanned version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 how do you know that it isn't intended to be a drone? it has no windows. granted, it may not need a window, but the article suggests the possibility that it may be, or may lead to, an unmanned version. Good point. Let's assume it is unmanned, what can it do flaying that fast, that a small radar invisible drone can't do? And it'll bet it costs thousands of times more. Or a tomahawk cruise missile for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Good point. Let's assume it is unmanned, what can it do flaying that fast, that a small radar invisible drone can't do? And it'll bet it costs thousands of times more. Or a tomahawk cruise missile for that matter Rapid reaction. If there is a target of opportunity without any deployed assets in the area, it can get ordinance on scene in a hurry. It also looks to be addressing the idea that radar technology is evolving and 5th generation aircraft like the F-35 and the B-2 may not always have the access that they currently do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 Rapid reaction. If there is a target of opportunity without any deployed assets in the area, it can get ordinance on scene in a hurry. It also looks to be addressing the idea that radar technology is evolving and 5th generation aircraft like the F-35 and the B-2 may not always have the access that they currently do. Totally agree that those planes are obsolete now, but if you were going before Congress and had to explain to them a situation that might arise where we had to attack immediatly and we need to spend several billion to buy this thing, what would you say?? Can't cruise missiles just do the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Good point. Let's assume it is unmanned, what can it do flaying that fast, that a small radar invisible drone can't do? And it'll bet it costs thousands of times more. Or a tomahawk cruise missile for that matter not being an expert in aviation technology, I can't say exactly what the benefit of such an aircraft might be. I suspect a major advantage may be that the speed attainable from such an aircraft would help to offset the advancements made in stealth detection technology. any aircraft designed with the intent to replace the SR-71 would have the same purpose as the Blackbird: espionage. just imagine for a moment what our level of technological advancement must be to gather visual intelligence while flying at the edge of space at a speed exceeding 4,000 mph. this thing will apparently also be used as a bomber, and according to this article, is indeed intended to be unmanned, essentially making it a type of 'super drone'. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/01/skunk_works_unveils_blackbird_replacement_capable_of_mach_6_flight/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Totally agree that those planes are obsolete now, but if you were going before Congress and had to explain to them a situation that might arise where we had to attack immediatly and we need to spend several billion to buy this thing, what would you say?? Can't cruise missiles just do the job? Cruise Missiles are subsonic but they do have good range (1000-1500 miles) depending on the block used.... and I would imagine there would be a launch platform be it an Arleigh Burke or a sub within strike range. The problem is, if you are attacking a target that is already denying F-35 or B2 penetration, then a cruise missile will likely not get through either. Just like a plane, a cruise missile can be shot down. If you are talking about a hardened target, then the 1000 lb warhead on a cruise missile will only scratch the surface as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts