
The SR-71 Spy Plane Was So Fast, It Outran Every Missile Fired at It - jrs235
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sr-71-spy-plane-was-so-fast-it-outran-every-missile-fired-it-49202
======
andy_adams
I don't know much about aviation, but I know there's a plane that was faster
than the SR-71: The X-15 [1].

I know because my great uncle died flying the X-15 on an experimental flight
[2], so it's always been an interesting story for my family.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15)
[2] [https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-mike-adams-
the-...](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-mike-adams-the-only-
pilot-to-lose-his-life-during-the-x-15-flight-test-program/)

~~~
mr_overalls
I find it absolutely incredible that the piloted speed record set by this
aircraft - set in October 1967 when William J. Knight flew Mach 6.7 - hasn't
been broken in 50+ years.

~~~
aristophenes
Maybe because once you start going faster than that there isn't much point
staying inside the atmosphere? If you want to count spacecraft that record has
been shattered.

~~~
siffland
It is like the land speed record. As soon as you get over a couple hundred
miles per hour you might as well fly.

So when you get to mach 6 you might as well be in space....

~~~
zik
And when you get to about mach 33 you might as well leave orbit.

------
areoform
Is there any single piece of technology that's more retro-futuristic than the
SR-71? It is undefinably iconic especially if you understand what happened
behind the scenes. Lockheed's Skunk Works managed to not only look into the
future, but they managed to make it manifest in the past.

The first one took flight over fifty years ago and we still talk about it as
if they represent the promise of the future. As a culture and community, we
rarely view Project Apollo in the same way. To me, in contrast to the
Blackbird, our first step outside our cradle looks dated. The Saturn V is an
ode to the sheer force of will required to send human beings to another
heavenly body. It certainly looks the part. The Blackbirds, on the other hand,
were precise, surgical instruments designed to cut borders and they look the
part. Every element of the plane ends in that sharp-looking edge. There are no
blunt surfaces on it. It’s one complex curve wrapped around itself and
stretched into that timeless shape.

And that's before you pull back on the curtain. I don't have online sources
for this, but I have read books about the project that explained how every
single part within the Blackbirds - from the engines to the paint - was
brought into being for this project. They set out to do something so daring
and so pioneering that they had to invent new alloys to do it. And then they
had to build the machines to work that alloy: new machines - tape-based robots
- to precisely carve it into shape, new procedures to put it together, and new
philosophies to let it fly. These planes were designed to fly so fast that
ordinary Titanium-based alloys would melt or weaken over time leading to
rapid, unplanned disassembly. They didn’t have more advanced ceramics which
could do the job, so Kelly Johnson’s team came up with a new alloy that was
annealed - or re-tempered - in flight, so that it became stronger and stronger
over time. Theoretically above some classified altitude the Blackbird can go
much faster than Mach 3 and keep on going until the airframe melts away at
some crazy high, theoretical speed no one has bothered to check.

They did all of that in a past where the most sophisticated engineering tool
in common use was a slide rule and the first scientific pocket calculator was
nearly a decade into the future.

Do you ever wonder when we'll build something so daring that it will finally
eclipse this project? I do. Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future?
We were promised Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead."

~~~
blattimwind
> Paraphrasing Thiel, "what happened to the future? We were promised
> Blackbirds and got the F-35 instead."

It's kinda weird how the F-35 just looks somehow dated and like a slob
compared to e.g. the older (and cooler looking) F-22. Though perhaps "cool
looks" is maybe not the prime factor in fighter jet selection...

~~~
frou_dh
> Though perhaps "cool looks" is maybe not the prime factor in fighter jet
> selection...

The urban legend about why the X-32 lost out to what become the F-35 is it
having a stooopid looking mouth on it:
[https://i.imgur.com/1GW21we.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1GW21we.jpg)

~~~
huffmsa
The x-32 was just happy to be there. Like a big metal basking shark.

------
SEJeff
There is an unbelievably good interview with Brian Shul, one of the only SR-71
pilots to take a bunch of pictures _of_ the plane[1]. He tells the story about
when his commander asks him to fly right up to the soviet border to get their
anti-air radars to light the blackbird up. He asked what he should do if they
shot missiles at it and his commander said to just turn around and outrun it.
He was quite skeptical of this and very amusingly describes this real life
encounter. He's a really funny speaker.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRP1q1PGUk&t=33m0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRP1q1PGUk&t=33m0s)

UPDATE: Video with better sound thanks to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505767)
I found the specific story I was referring to at 33m

~~~
WestCoastJustin
+∞. I watch this anytime I need motivation. This guy is the epitome of not
letting anything get in his way. Such a good public speaker and amazing
career! Cannot upvote that video enough.

Here's one with better sound:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRP1q1PGUk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRP1q1PGUk)

~~~
SEJeff
Thanks updated! (33m0s is the story I was referring to)

------
rootbear
A friend of mine served in the Air Force on the refueling planes that serviced
the SR-71s. He said that it was hard for the refueling plane to go as fast as
the SR-71's _slowest_ speed! So they did the refueling in a shallow dive, to
give the refueling plane a boost.

------
jclay
The SR-71 flight manual can also be found here [0].

I was surprised to find the plane can be flown solo [1], and with no pressure
suit below 50,000 feet [2].

There is also a section on "Tactical Limits" describing scenarios where
exceeding normal operating limits is advised to exit a hostile area [3]

0\.
[https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/](https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/)

1\.
[https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/5/5-23.php](https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/5/5-23.php)

2\.
[https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/5/5-23.php](https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/5/5-23.php)

3\.
[https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/3/3-135.php](https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/3/3-135.php)

~~~
CompelTechnic
Link [3] is hilarious in how banal it is- the same of the manual describes
both how to defog your windows and how to GTFO if under hostile missile fire.

------
petschge
There is a few really great stories about the SR-71 on the internet, many out
of the book "Sled Driver". I would not (as it is customary on other parts of
the internet) leave the full copy-pasta here, but I do recommend the "air
speed check) story (to be found e.g. at
[https://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-
sr-71-story-10791270...](https://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-
sr-71-story-1079127041) ) and the low fly-by (e.g. at
[https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-sr-71-blackbirds-
most-...](https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-sr-71-blackbirds-most-
spectacular-flyover-was-also-1719654907)).

~~~
JustSomeNobody
I re-read the "air speed check" story every time it's posted. It never gets
old.

~~~
plainOldText
Same here!

I first came across the story here on HN, and every time someone mentions it I
re-read it. It truly never gets old; only now I just got goosebumps. I think
it's the people _bonding_ part that gets me.

------
combatentropy
I think there is a lesson here that applies to more than just planes. Speed
often can solve a problem in a simple way.

The enemy will fire missiles at us. What shall we do? (1) Invent missile-proof
armor, (2) Build computer-guided anti-missile lasers, (3) Just fly really
fast.

I guess all of those are hard to do. Making the SR-71 fly at Mach 3 wasn't
easy. But to me it seems more elegant.

In the early 2000s, Google made a big deal about speed in web apps. I think it
still does, but I don't hear about it anymore. And everybody knows that GMail
is slower. But I appreciated it while it lasted.

~~~
guhidalg
This resonates with how I like to solve problems. Instead of thinking about
how we can fix it or mitigate it, how can we make it impossible for a certain
kind of problem to occur? Maybe it's just my procrastination speaking but I
find it easier to just wipe out entire kinds of issues.

------
misthop
To me the most interesting part of this article is that I missed there was a
contract awarded for a Mach 6 SR-72, that may or may not already have a
sighted test platform.

------
libertyhouse
I wish more SR-71 stories focused on the sensors and defensive systems.
Although not a sexy as the aircraft, in some ways the SR-71 could be
considered a "sensor truck." Post-mission processing and analysis of raw data
was a huge part of the total SR-71 program. The system and sensor
manufacturers were on the cutting edge of airborne reconnaissance and remote
sensing. Good page on some of the sensors here:
[http://www.sr71.us/sr_sensors_pg3.htm](http://www.sr71.us/sr_sensors_pg3.htm)

------
UI_at_80x24
My favorite story about the Blackbird is how it was designed with heat and
expansion in mind.

On the ground to leaked fuel like a sieve[1][2], it was only once it reached
operational speed that the joints & frame heated up and sealed it, (thus
requiring a refueling shortly after take-off). [1]
[https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/](https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/)
[2] [http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2011/02/betrayed-by-
he...](http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2011/02/betrayed-by-heat-
sr-71-blackbird.html)

~~~
rootbear
The ground crews, I'm told, hated this plane because it leaked toxic fuel
everywhere while on the ground and was otherwise a pain to deal with.

These sorts of stories are what impress me about programs like this. No
commercial product could ever be so expensive, so difficult, so wildly
impractical. The military are practically the only ones who can do things like
this, because the need is so great it justifies all the craziness. I work at
NASA and we do crazy things like sending robots to Mars, but that seems tame
compared to the insanity of something like the SR-71.

------
vermontdevil
Y’all should really go to the National Museum of the US Air Force. You’ll see
almost all of the planes mentioned here there. And it’s free. Nothing like
seeing Blackbird in person as well as all the other planes. Plan on a full day
at the place.

------
adolph
One of the authors, David Cenciotti, also has a nice aviation (primarily
military) weblog [1] and made some interesting speculation about that stealth
Blackhawk [2].

1\. [https://theaviationist.com/](https://theaviationist.com/)

2\. [https://theaviationist.com/tag/stealth-black-
hawk/](https://theaviationist.com/tag/stealth-black-hawk/)

------
rident
There's a Lockheed A-12 on the USS Intrepid that you can get very close to
with a guided tour. One of the facts the tour guides tell you about it is the
titanium for the planes, as well as that of the SR-71s, was mostly sourced
from Russia via shell companies for all kinds of bullshit reasons. So, America
flew spy planes over Russia that were made from materials mostly of Russian
origin.

------
deepnotderp
I don't know the full veracity of this piece, but IIRC the Foxbat once
acquired a lock on it: [https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-
mig-31/](https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/)

~~~
ceejayoz
Plenty of things acquired a lock on it, including ground-based SAM sites.
That's the easy part.

~~~
adolph
The USSR pilot claims:

 _“Had the spy plane violated Soviet airspace, a live missile launch would
have been carried out. There was no practically chance the aircraft could
avoid an R-33 missile.”_

~~~
ceejayoz
The pilot also claims the lock was from 120km, which is the maximum range of
the R-33 at the time, so I'm a bit dubious of the idea without a practical
demonstration.

I do suspect the "surround from all directions" approach detailed later
would've worked, but that's why we moved off to stealth and satellites.

------
ablekh
Here are some relevant and IMO very interesting videos for your viewing
pleasure:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reytu0y5efs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reytu0y5efs)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5nSKLyrM1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5nSKLyrM1s)
(long talk by SR-71 pilot Maury Rosenberg mentioned in the first video)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeBu6mRDaro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeBu6mRDaro)
(an even longer talk by another SR-71 pilot Richard Graham)

------
djyaz1200
If you're into this kind of stuff the book Skunk Works by Ben R Rich is REALLY
good! IMO it carries a lot of lessons into software development and startups
also. Like they did random startup type things where for example the external
starter motor for the planes engines was made from a couple Buick motors. They
spent lavishly where they had to but were frugal and kept it simple where they
could. Fun + interesting read.

------
modzu
apparently "no Blackbird of any variety has ever flown over the landmass of
Russia or China", according to former SR71 pilot Col. RH Graham.

so we don't really know if they have the capability, but after they downed the
U2 in 1960, seems the US didn't want to find out empirically.

that said, you have to love this plane. it's a spaceship.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I recall reading a story of flying an SR71 through the cloud from a Chinese
nuclear test. We wanted to know if it was a fusion weapon or not.

The Chinese sent up a fighter after it, and, well, it wasn't fast enough. It
also had too low of a ceiling.

Can't cite a source (I read about this, what, four decades ago?) so I can't
prove it happened.

------
linsomniac
If you haven't heard the "SR-71 Speed Check" story, it's pretty amusing. As
told by the pilot:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyHH9G9et0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyHH9G9et0)

------
Latteland
Remember the U2, the predecessor that _was_ shot down famously.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers).

------
godelmachine
A bit unrelated , but would someone please explain how come missiles fired
from Stinger MANPADS are so fast?

~~~
Armisael16
They really aren’t. They can only get up to ~750 m/s.

You want fast, take a look at the Sprint missiles. The damn things had 100g of
acceleration and could hit 3400 m/s.

~~~
dexen
Did you say Sprint missiles?

[https://youtu.be/xZTjA44T6tY?t=93](https://youtu.be/xZTjA44T6tY?t=93)

~~~
Armisael16
I do actually follow him, but I hadn’t seen that yet.

------
amriksohata
On paper it would out run any missle with prior warning. But in reality in a
dog fight at close range its unlikely it would be at top speed to do so
quickly enough.

~~~
ben7799
There is no such thing as "dogfight at close range" with an aircraft that
travels at Mach 3+ when cruising into enemy territory.

Even the slightest turn at those speeds moves the airplane by 10s of miles.

Any attempt to intercept or shoot down planes that fast happens at great
distances and is totally dependent on computers, radar, and missiles.

~~~
amriksohata
It wouldn't get much time to spy at that speed, it has to slow down at its
destination and it's fuel limits won't allow great distances without speed
changes. Top speed is different from real speed

~~~
ceejayoz
You're badly misinformed on the SR-71.

> It wouldn't get much time to spy at that speed

That's why you take photos and do the spying part back on base. The SR-71's
weapon was its sophisticated camera setup.

> it's fuel limits won't allow great distances without speed changes

When it set its speed record, it crossed from LA to DC on one tank of fuel.
(It tanked up immediately after takeoff and immediately before landing, but
the cross-country flying part didn't involve a tanker.)

------
sandworm101
Opinion: SR-71 does not deserve its records.

There are many faster objects, including the X-15 and Shuttle. Both are faster
than the Blackbird but do not count. Shuttle is a spacecraft but even during
reentry, shuttle could not hit such speeds unaided by other aircraft that
departed from it along the way (the boosters etx). Nor could the X-15 which
was dropped from a larger carrier aircraft. Both could not get to their
records speed unaided.

Neither could the SR-71/YF-12. They burnt so much fuel getting off the ground
that, to preform a run to top speed and get home, they needed to refuel. So
how is that fundamentally different than Shuttle or the X-15? For an aircraft
to qualify as an aircraft it should be able to get up and down without help.
Therefore it is the Mig-25/31 that deserves the praise of "fastest aircraft".

~~~
avar
This is an urban legend. Landing it when it was almost empty was gentler on
the landing gear, so they took off with relatively little fuel in case the
mission was scrubbed.

They could have taken off and accelerated to record-breaking speeds if that's
_all_ they wanted to do, but the typical mission profile was to fly to far
away locations to conduct surveillance, so in-air refueling was always part of
the mission profile.

~~~
sandworm101
That's not the information I've seen. From what I've read a fully-loaded
takeoff and climb would burn so much fuel, far more than a typical profile,
that it would still not have been able to break records set by the migs.

~~~
jandrese
That sounds dubious to me. The SR-71 had some massive tanks and the idea that
it couldn't accelerate to full speed on one tank seems unlikely. Even if you
account for the burn in climbing to 50k feet ASL it seems like it has to be
underselling the Blackbird quite a lot.

