Lockheed could soon be making a plane that can reach Mach 6

[NAC4EV]

http://www.ibtimes.com/lockheed-mar...-built-under-1b-likely-be-ready-2030s-2337383

Lockheed Martin Corp is on the verge of a major breakthrough in making a warplane that can fly at six times the speed of sound, [4608 mph] Chief Executive Officer Marillyn Hewson said on Tuesday
Speaking to reporters at the Lockheed‘s annual media day, Hewson said the company had already made progress on hypersonic programs and was producing an “aerodynamic configuration” which could reach Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound–enabling it to respond to security threats much more quickly than current fighter jets.

 

[Vdubchaos]

They won't, BUT they will pretend that they will to get your tax money.

Then again, why shouldn't they? This has been working for few centuries now.......how was the railroad build?

Rich guys getting the government to sponsor their investment to get even richer.

 

[TheVrolok]

Pretty awesome from an engineering standpoint.. but what's the purpose?

 

[NAC4EV]

Pretty awesome from an engineering standpoint.. but what's the purpose?

I could be wrong: the SR-72 is unmaned.
The Sr-71 was maned

 

[sandorski]

Pretty awesome from an engineering standpoint.. but what's the purpose?

To make America great again!

Rebuild the tattered Military!

To defend America from increasing threats!


etc etc etc. Mostly because it can be done and there's $billions, perhaps even $trillions available in doing it.

 

[z1ggy]

Pretty awesome from an engineering standpoint.. but what's the purpose?

Yeah I don't get it. We have carriers all over the world for this exact reason - to quickly mobilize and hit a target fast. Unless it can get to targets much faster, it kind of sounds like a waste of money. Half the time I feel like we keep building things like this because we as humans are just flat out bored.

 

[TheVrolok]

Yeah I don't get it. We have carriers all over the world for this exact reason - to quickly mobilize and hit a target fast. Unless it can get to targets much faster, it kind of sounds like a waste of money. Half the time I feel like we keep building things like this because we as humans are just flat out bored.

Exactly. Is there something that this can do better than our current CBG's, drones, or satellites?

 

[freeskier93]

If some of you guys could look past your nose, research and development of things like this eventually trickle down into the commercial space (think SST). Most people can see this in NASA, but the second you start talking about a private company all of a sudden its just a bunch of greedy fat cats who want tax payer's money.

 

[maddogchen]

mach 6 for 10 seconds, then run out of fuel and crash.

 

[Rakehellion]

I could be wrong: the SR-72 is unmaned.
The Sr-71 was maned

That's one sexy plane then.

 

[NoTine42]

I have few doubts that faster engines can be developed.

I am very sceptical that an airframe can be built to reliably And repeatedly stand up to the temp and stress of hypersonic flight.

The SR-71 maxed out what titanium and the cockpit "Windows" could handle.

(I know the shuttle enters the earth faster, but it's not running daily or weekly flights at those speeds)

 

[NAC4EV]

The SR-71 maxed out what titanium and the cockpit "Windows" could handle.

I believe the SR-72 has no windows and is un-maned.

 

[NoTine42]

I believe the SR-72 has no windows and is un-maned.

That going to make "Sled Driver 2" the world's most boring book

 

[pauldun170]

I have few doubts that faster engines can be developed.

I am very sceptical that an airframe can be built to reliably And repeatedly stand up to the temp and stress of hypersonic flight.

The SR-71 maxed out what titanium and the cockpit "Windows" could handle.

(I know the shuttle enters the earth faster, but it's not running daily or weekly flights at those speeds)

SR-71 was developed more than half a century ago.
Space Shuttle is a child of the 1970's.

 

[Brovane]

I have few doubts that faster engines can be developed.

I am very sceptical that an airframe can be built to reliably And repeatedly stand up to the temp and stress of hypersonic flight.

The SR-71 maxed out what titanium and the cockpit "Windows" could handle.

(I know the shuttle enters the earth faster, but it's not running daily or weekly flights at those speeds)

The higher you go the less aerodynamic stress on the air-frame. You have less heating on the air-frame if you fly Mach-6 at 150,000 feet than Mach-6 at 100,000 feet. The X-15 at around 100,000 feet almost destroyed itself flying at Mach 6.7.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Just make it so it can fly to the international space station already. And finally get travel to & from there streamlined for once.

 

[Brian Stirling]

This is almost certainly a dedicated recon AC and the SR-72 designation more or less confirms that. While sats are great for aerial recon they are predictable so having a airborne recon platform has always been a good idea.

I'm not sure why it would need to be hypersonic, however, and there are plenty of drones like Global Hawk that have extreme loiter times and cost a crap ton less. The only place where hypersonic makes any sense is if we planned overflights of Russia and China and maybe North Korea. But, that would be a risky gamble no matter how you slice it...


Brian

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Meanwhile the Air Force is looking for slow planes. Lower cost & increased loiter times. They started testing Vietnam era Broncos against ISIS they seem just as effective and a fraction of the cost per mission.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/decades-old-planes-used-against-isis/index.html

 

[tynopik]

Exactly. Is there something that this can do better than our current CBG's, drones, or satellites?

penetrate contested airspace

 

[Ruptga]

penetrate contested airspace

:hmm: There's an impotence joke in there somewhere, but I just can't quite get it to come to me.

 

[Imp]

What speed does a satellite orbit at?

Kill that whole no-weapons in space agreement and everything will look pretty poverty.

 

[RampantAndroid]

mach 6 for 10 seconds, then run out of fuel and crash.

And why do you think that? The SR-71's fuel problems were two fold:
- The first fuel choice was rather slippery; as a result of the fuel tank design, it leaked fuel at sea level, expanding to a proper seal higher up.
- The burn to 40,000 feet consumed a bit of fuel. They'd refuel at altitude, then dive to gain enough speed to let the ramjet engines take over - once the ramjet engines were running, the plane was rather fuel efficient - especially given the era it was designed in.

I mean...the X-43, which was pretty small, reached mach 9 with a 10 second burn...and it was designed for a 10 second burn...

 

[Brovane]

What speed does a satellite orbit at?

Kill that whole no-weapons in space agreement and everything will look pretty poverty.

The only prohibition is against WMD in space.

 

[Charmonium]

Hypersonic speeds aren't an issue. The problem has always been the fact that you need different types of propulsion to get there. Scramjets work fine at supersonic speeds but don't do jack at subsonic. So you either need a booster rocket or other propulsion system to get there. My guess is that the SR71 was probably a compromise design in order to work at subsonic. I think it topped out at about mach 3.

But prototypes like the X43 have gone to Mach 9. It needed a booster to get up to speed. It only did it for 10 seconds but it worked. The X51 got to mach 5 but again, with a booster. But it flew for over 3 minutes. So from 2004 to 2010, they made some progress.

I remember reading long ago about external combustion engines like the supposed Aurora project where the fuel was injected into the shock wave for compression and then ignition. But I don't know if that was ever verified.

 

[sdifox]

The only prohibition is against WMD in space.

Does that include orbital bombardment?