Did the US peak with the SR-71?

[Juice Box]

:music: She Clings to me like celophane.....big plastic submarine.....not feelin quite the same but now thats over.......
Whyyyyyy? Why do you always kick me when im....hiiiigghhhhh, knock me down till we see eye to eeyyyyeeeeee:music:

wow what a terrible song

 

[otispunkmeyer]

gotta love the 60's, 70's and 80's.....everyone was just power mad

i mean look at the cars, Ferrari F40 V8 twin turbos....i know theres better, faster ferraris, but of all of them the F40 is the one id have.
the Jag XJ220, had the little V6 from the Metro 6R4 group B rally car....they whacked two barn door turbos on it and 550bhp odd was the result....and this car can still out acclerate the likes of the pagani Zonda. the Mclaren F1 is another car concieved in the 80's and its still the official fastest car in the world....koenigsegg havent got anything validated yet.

the best styling definately came from the 60's 70's cars, planes, all look much much sexier than what they churn out now.

ok some cars have insanely low drag coeff's but some are butt ugly, 60's and 70's vettes etc my cleave the air like a wardrobe, but they look 10x better

big thumbsup for that era

 

[DnetMHZ]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: veloc1ty
penguins are the new future

STOP BREATHING

fixed

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Dude this is my forte. There's (apparently) a new plane called the Aurora. It uses a new form of propulsion called pulse detonation wave engine. It sets off a sound wave, and then the plane rides the edge of that wave (or something like that).

and this is your forte'?

I thought from an aficianado there would be a few more details.

:/

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: alien42
i would still bet money that scramjets will become a viable reality within my lifetime. the x43a set a new world speed record of for jet-powered aircraft of mach 9.6 less then a year ago.


comparing the x43 to the sr71:

"In March 2004, the X-43A set the previous record of Mach 6.8 (nearly 5,000 mph). The fastest air-breathing, manned vehicle, the U.S. Air Force SR-71, achieved slightly more than Mach 3.2. The X-43A more than doubled, then tripled, the top speed of the jet-powered SR-71."

Scramjet is not known to be fuel efficient.

Neither was the SR-71, that thing weeped hundreds of lbs of fuel just sitting on the runway.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: wafflesandsyrup
why couldnt they just work with the sr-71 to make it more efficient like the old school f-14 keeps doing?

All you can do is fit better engines (like in some passenger liners, they change the engines and voila, more efficient.
However, you won't gain too much even by changing engines, especially considering they don't fly too often, and new engines would cost alot themselves (and maybe even more in research)

 

[walkur]

Did the US peak with the SR-71?

Absolutely, you just can't make anything that better than the Blackbird, oh you can something that goes faster, is invisible, cloaked, has forcefield etc. etc. but you can make it look any better.

period.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: alien42
i would still bet money that scramjets will become a viable reality within my lifetime. the x43a set a new world speed record of for jet-powered aircraft of mach 9.6 less then a year ago.


comparing the x43 to the sr71:

"In March 2004, the X-43A set the previous record of Mach 6.8 (nearly 5,000 mph). The fastest air-breathing, manned vehicle, the U.S. Air Force SR-71, achieved slightly more than Mach 3.2. The X-43A more than doubled, then tripled, the top speed of the jet-powered SR-71."

Yes, the X-43A set a speed record. Its scramjet engine worked around 10 seconds, and the craft was accelerated to very high speed by a rocket.
Such a speed will empty the fuel tanks in too little time, leaving the plane with too small a range.
Also, I think photography missions forced the plane to fly slower during the photography phase (photos weren't taken at 3 mach, 3 mach was used only to escape enemies)

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Dude this is my forte. There's (apparently) a new plane called the Aurora. It uses a new form of propulsion called pulse detonation wave engine. It sets off a sound wave, and then the plane rides the edge of that wave (or something like that).

and this is your forte'?

I thought from an aficianado there would be a few more details.

:/

Look, you shouldn't read this thread. It's soo full of misinformation that its-- well, it's not even funny.

AFAICT, the only information that anyone has on the 'Aurora' project is a single line on a congressional budget form from the late 1980s. Everything else is PURE speculation.

Also, if Pulse detonation engines are already in flight (highly unlikely), why is the government spending milloins of (disclosed) dollars to try to develop a prototype of one?

Yes, it's definitely possible that the 'Aroura' project is a high secrecy spy plane, but to speculate on its method of propulsion is just that: speculation.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: raildogg
they have technology which ordinary humans cannot even dream of. Lockheed Martin and others military conglomerates are testing out of this world technologies. I believe the ex-Lockheed CEO said they have technologies which are 40 or 50 years in advance. but we won't see it. it is a big secret

just like area-51

we know its there, but they won't tell us about it.

there is more to avionic advancements than we can see

also, the future fighter jets and bombers will likely be pilot-less

If you are referring to transsonic or supersonic/highly supersonic speed avionics, you are certainly right. Not much is known about those very high speed conditions (unlike low speed conditions - I mean 0.9Mach and below, where the basis was known since the WW2, and there was great progress since then)

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Jamie571

91TTZ is correct currently Lockheed Martin is building 30 planes a year at a price of around 97 millon each. I believe the current fleet is over 50 planes ( 3 squads at Tyndall AFB) and it's likely to see it in the next US conflict. Currently 46 states provide parts for the plane. The most under-rated feature is the computer system. Its targeting system scans targets, chooses the right weapons and can also auto pilot the attack plan. During a test between one F22 and 5 F15's, all the F15's were shot down with out even seeing the F22. Since it is completely invisible to radar, your basically screwed because you dont have any indication on where to visually look for the plane.

The F22 is superior to the Joint Strike Fighter or F35. The F35 is much cheaper to build (single engine, small frame, and about half the computing power of the F22) and will be offered for sale to any Nato country willing to pay for it. The F22 will not be offered to other countries. I believe the F35 cost about half of the price of the F22.

The problem with developing new technologies, is the extremely high cost that continues to rise every year. The F22 program will cost the US about 64 billon dollars!

F22 is not invisible to radar. However, it has a very low radar profile, and it might not appear on enemy fighter radars at the range he can successfully launch missiles against them.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: wafflesandsyrup
why couldnt they just work with the sr-71 to make it more efficient like the old school f-14 keeps doing?

The "old school" F14 is now officially on its deathbed too. The last squadron is due to be retired this year (or is it next..?) Either way, they are woefully aged now. Still look cool, but their main mission (Fleet Defense) is no longer such a requirement. All it's secondary missions which were pasted onto it over the years (A/G especially) and it became a jack of all trades and master of none. The Super Hornet is replacing most of it's squadrons and is a superior aircraft in almost every respect compared to the 'Tom.

But, damn, the Tomcat was a great looking aircraft. Just damn tough looking.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: Jamie571

The F22 is superior to the Joint Strike Fighter or F35. The F35 is much cheaper to build (single engine, small frame, and about half the computing power of the F22) and will be offered for sale to any Nato country willing to pay for it. The F22 will not be offered to other countries. I believe the F35 cost about half of the price of the F22.

Bullsh!t. Israel will have an F-22 within a few years, I'd be willing to bet on it.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: Jamie571
91TTZ is correct currently Lockheed Martin is building 30 planes a year at a price of around 97 millon each. I believe the current fleet is over 50 planes ( 3 squads at Tyndall AFB) and it's likely to see it in the next US conflict. Currently 46 states provide parts for the plane. The most under-rated feature is the computer system. Its targeting system scans targets, chooses the right weapons and can also auto pilot the attack plan. During a test between one F22 and 5 F15's, all the F15's were shot down with out even seeing the F22. Since it is completely invisible to radar, your basically screwed because you dont have any indication on where to visually look for the plane.

The F22 is *not* invisible to radar by any stretch. It has stealth/low observable technologies incorporated into it, but a powerful enough radar (like the Russians have) have a good chance of seeing it. Once external hardware gets tacked on (like oh, I dunno, extra BOMBS and MISSLES) the radar signature climbs up like a 16 year old pecker in a whorehouse.

The F22 is superior to the Joint Strike Fighter or F35. The F35 is much cheaper to build (single engine, small frame, and about half the computing power of the F22) and will be offered for sale to any Nato country willing to pay for it. The F22 will not be offered to other countries. I believe the F35 cost about half of the price of the F22.

F22 is "superior" to the F35 in what way? Air superiority? I'd likely agree with you. But what about A/G? Cost/perfomance ratio? Take off/landing requirements? Slow speed handling characteristics? Variety of munitions? Which F35 in particlar are you comparing it to?

F22 will not be offered to other countries? Yeah.. right. Give it time. I would not be surprised in the slightest if they make an export version that the state dept would approve of export to friendly enough countries. There was talk of the F15 not being for export either before it was operational. As long as the country was friendly enough and had the $$$ to spend on defence, (RE: Japan, Israel) they made export versions. It would be foolish to think it couldn't happen with the F22 in time.

 

[91TTZ]

I bet that Israel (or Japan) will be the first country that gets the F-22.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I bet that Israel (or Japan) will be the first country that gets the F-22.

Perhaps we'll buy two to replace our entire fleet of CF-18's.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: veloc1ty
penguins are the new future

STOP POSTING

:thumbsup:

 

[91TTZ]

By the way, I went into detail in this post about the F-22's cost.

When you hear people quote the price for it, it's usually far from the actual cost. But the way military budgets are laid out, they always divide the R&D costs by the number of units bought.

The program to design the Dodge Neon cost Chrysler about $3 billion. But when the first 100 Neons rolled off the assembly line, you didn't hear anyone calling them $3 million cars. But that's what they do with jets/tanks/military stuff. The more you make, the cheaper the unit cost. The actual cost is probably more in line with $30 or $40 million, not $130 million.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
By the way, I went into detail in this post about the F-22's cost.

When you hear people quote the price for it, it's usually far from the actual cost. But the way military budgets are laid out, they always divide the R&D costs by the number of units bought.

The program to design the Dodge Neon cost Chrysler about $3 billion. But when the first 100 Neons rolled off the assembly line, you didn't hear anyone calling them $3 million cars. But that's what they do with jets/tanks/military stuff.

Looks like they should have spent 4 billion and designed a better car, is what I thought.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Kenazo


Looks like they should have spent 4 billion and designed a better car, is what I thought.

lol

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
It's the only plane where a valid SAM evasion technique is 'go faster'.

Hehehe :thumbsup:

 

[sonz70]

Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Dude this is my forte. There's (apparently) a new plane called the Aurora. It uses a new form of propulsion called pulse detonation wave engine. It sets off a sound wave, and then the plane rides the edge of that wave (or something like that).

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: bernse
The F22 is *not* invisible to radar by any stretch. It has stealth/low observable technologies incorporated into it, but a powerful enough radar (like the Russians have) have a good chance of seeing it. Once external hardware gets tacked on (like oh, I dunno, extra BOMBS and MISSLES) the radar signature climbs up like a 16 year old pecker in a whorehouse.

The radar part is correct. But last I heard the F-22 could carry a decent amt of ordinance in an internal weapons bay (including air-to-air missiles).

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: bernse
The "old school" F14 is now officially on its deathbed too. The last squadron is due to be retired this year (or is it next..?) Either way, they are woefully aged now. Still look cool, but their main mission (Fleet Defense) is no longer such a requirement. All it's secondary missions which were pasted onto it over the years (A/G especially) and it became a jack of all trades and master of none. The Super Hornet is replacing most of it's squadrons and is a superior aircraft in almost every respect compared to the 'Tom.

But, damn, the Tomcat was a great looking aircraft. Just damn tough looking.

Awww, I'll miss you Tomcat

"I feel the need......FOR SPEED" :laugh:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: sonz70

Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Dude this is my forte. There's (apparently) a new plane called the Aurora. It uses a new form of propulsion called pulse detonation wave engine. It sets off a sound wave, and then the plane rides the edge of that wave (or something like that).

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html

Conspiracy theorist sites have no credibility. They're run by the "tinfoil hat" crowd.