Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Lockheed unveils SR-72 hypersonic Mach 6 scramjet spy plane http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170463-lockheed-unveils-sr-72-hypersonic-mach-6-scramjet-spy-plane Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works has confirmed that it is developing the SR-72 spy plane. The successor to the SR-71 Blackbird, which was capable of Mach 3.5, the SR-72 will be a hypersonic unmanned aircraft capable of Mach 6, or just over 4,500 mph. At hypersonic speeds, the SR-72 will be able to traverse any continent in around an hour — meaning, if they’re strategically positioned around the world on aircraft carriers, the US military can strike or surveil any location on Earth in about an hour. It is also suspected that the SR-72′s hypersonic engine tech — some kind of hybrid scramjet — will find its way into the US military’s High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW), a missile that can theoretically strike anywhere on Earth in just a few minutes. More info at link. ********************************* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Probably more a ruse than something we will ever see built ... Lockheed has done such an awesome job on the F-35, it's bordering on criminal that we give them another project, even if it's just to create graphic art for teenage boys' bedroom walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 id like to have sex in or with that thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Comparing the SR-72 to the SR-71 is like comparing Godfather III to Godfather I or II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Ugh. Another project to piss away taxpayer money. The F16 is just fine, we don't need the F35. The B1 bomber is just fine for bombing or surveillance. We don't need this either. Upgrade the motors, thats fine. We just don't need another $50B "oops, it doesnt work" right now. Reference Ground Combat Vehicle and anything the Marines have wanted for the last 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2013 Author Share Posted November 20, 2013 Its not about needs and hasn't been for a long time with the DoD/NSA/CIA/NRO etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Ugh. Another project to piss away taxpayer money. The F16 is just fine, we don't need the F35. The B1 bomber is just fine for bombing or surveillance. We don't need this either. Upgrade the motors, thats fine. We just don't need another $50B "oops, it doesnt work" right now. Reference Ground Combat Vehicle and anything the Marines have wanted for the last 30 years. F-16s don't land on carriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Probably more a ruse than something we will ever see built ... Lockheed has done such an awesome job on the F-35, it's bordering on criminal that we give them another project, even if it's just to create graphic art for teenage boys' bedroom walls. I'm sure it seems like Lockheed is some kind of screw up to you, but the reality is that every advanced jet of every generation has gone through growing pains. The F35 is an advanced-advanced concept that has never been attempted before. One airframe that can serve the air force, the navy on carriers, and the marines with VTOL is one hell of a challenge. If anything it may be the concept that the military itself wanted that is flawed. Lockheed has a long, respected history of producing amazing, successful aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 You have to admit, scramjet is fun to say. Scramjet! Scramjet! Scramjet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Can't wait for the next world war. We're going to rock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I'm sure it seems like Lockheed is some kind of screw up to you, but the reality is that every advanced jet of every generation has gone through growing pains. The F35 is an advanced-advanced concept that has never been attempted before. One airframe that can serve the air force, the navy on carriers, and the marines with VTOL is one hell of a challenge. If anything it may be the concept that the military itself wanted that is flawed. Lockheed has a long, respected history of producing amazing, successful aircraft. Even the general in charge admits it's a cluster****. There have been documented terrible failures in project management. Until they fix that they shouldn't be trusted with anything so ambitious in scope. Funnily enough, I was at a talk by the head of DARPA yesterday who commented that the F-35 is a brilliant vindication of Norman Augustine's predictions from back in 1982 regarding exponential rises in system costs. Weapon systems will become so complex that even the USA can only afford one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Ugh. Another project to piss away taxpayer money. The F16 is just fine, we don't need the F35. The B1 bomber is just fine for bombing or surveillance. We don't need this either. Upgrade the motors, thats fine. We just don't need another $50B "oops, it doesnt work" right now. Reference Ground Combat Vehicle and anything the Marines have wanted for the last 30 years. We certainly do a fine enough job at it, but IMO this appears worthwhile. We need as many ace's up our sleeve as we can get. The Chinese (it appears and I believe as much) to have stolen a lot of 'top' secret technology from us over the past couple of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Even the general in charge admits it's a cluster****. There have been documented terrible failures in project management. Until they fix that they shouldn't be trusted with anything so ambitious in scope. Funnily enough, I was at a talk by the head of DARPA yesterday who commented that the F-35 is a brilliant vindication of Norman Augustine's predictions from back in 1982 regarding exponential rises in system costs. Weapon systems will become so complex that even the USA can only afford one of them. Nothing you said changes my point. In fact you helped make it for me. Augustine's predictions were based on the trends of the military defense planners. Any task can be completed in only one-third more time than is currently estimated.(Law XXIII) The last 10% of the performance sought generates one-third of the cost and two-thirds of the problems.(Law VII) Those laws aren't about one company. They are about *any* company. The military sets outrageous goals and tells companies to summit proposals for design, cost, and delivery time. Then these companies who's existence is based upon getting the contract ALL promise the most amazing technology at the lowest cost and promising turn arounds that no one on earth can deliver. Because if they don't, they have ZERO chance of getting the contract. It's not Lockheed I'm worried about. It's the defense planners unrealistic expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'm going to name ny new band after that bad boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Reference Ground Combat Vehicle and anything the Marines have wanted for the last 30 years. like a stryker? LAV? Although the Intermediate Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV) was supposed to be an “off the shelf” design the Stryker has undergone an extensive and expensive program of modification and redesign. Manufacturers General Dynamics regard it as a separate generation from the Mowag Piranha and USMC LAV-25s on which it is based. While a LAV-25 costs $880,000 each Stryker costs $2,800,000. he Marine Corps accounts for around six percent of the military budget of the United States. The cost per Marine is $20,000 less than the cost of a serviceman from the other services, and the entire force can be used for both hybrid and major combat operations,[90] enabling it to carry out full scale military action, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid – the entire Three Block War. Note that these per capita costs do not account for support provided by the Navy and other branches, such as the Navy's amphibious warfare ships and long-range air transport by the USAF.[91] However given expected defense budget cuts, the Marines are well positioned for "fielding cheap options for an uncertain world."[92] The Marine Corps budget is comparably well handled with a tiny fraction of the Anti-Deficiency Act violations of any of the other three major branches.[93] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- taxpayer waste? i got all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Mike ... the F-35 costs, overruns and failures to perform are a combination of factors, including incredible complexity and poor decisions by the DoD planners, but Lockheed Martin, and the government program management ****ed up big time on program oversight. GAO has highlighted problems and DCMA withdrawn certification of compliance of their EVMS. The general in charge has stated openly that he can't change the mistakes of the past, he can only move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Why don't these things ever come up in congressional budget debates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Why don't these things ever come up in congressional budget debates? Because the lobbyists don't place 'Corporate welfare' on the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Why don't these things ever come up in congressional budget debates? they do, they just ain't as pimped as killing Big Bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 like a stryker? LAV? taxpayer waste? i got all day. No offense intended to anyone - please don't take my comments that way. Moreover - I have nothing but the utmost respect for our Marine brothers and sisters. Someone has to take the beach while us Army guys play spades, lol. It's no secret that I work for a defense contracting firm. One responsible for some....budget overruns (to put it lightly). The biggest failure IMO in the last 30 years was the GCV (army funded) and the new amphib vehicle (marines funded). The services kept changing their minds about what they wanted 2 minutes past deadlines and the firm had already met previous obligations. It is a RIDICULOUS amount of money to change what lightbulb goes into what slot. It's mindboggling. On one hand, as long as the DoD stays inept, I have longevity. On the other, as a taxpayer, it is enfuriating to see. I was unaware that the F16s could not land on a carrier. Bad assumption on my part (seriously....F16s were angels on our shoulders in serious times of need and my love for them is out of intense gratefulness) FWIW, I strive not to take shots at people/beliefs on here. I state my opinion and I try to keep it bland, but get enough point across to show where I stand. If I EVER offend anyone, public execution is fine with me. That is not my intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 No offense intended to anyone - please don't take my comments that way. Moreover - I have nothing but the utmost respect for our Marine brothers and sisters. i actually feel likewise. i dont get into the service vs service silliness. still, its odd when someone talks about taxpayer waste and the next thing mentioned is the marine corps spending habits. the corps has been a bargain for about as long as it has existed. 'do more with less' is practically the reason for its existence. old, cheap av8b harrier technology that been around for 50 years now, old, late 80's tech LAV's (which i personally know a thing or two about) vs the armys, navys and air forces toys..... why you single out the marines with the other services spending habits is strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.