
SR-72 - electic
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2013/sr-72.html
======
subb
_The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned with
slide rules and paper. It wasn’t managed by millions of lines of software
code. And it wasn’t powered by computer chips. All that changes with the
SR-72._

Oh oh.

~~~
callesgg
When I read that I was not so sure what the person who wrote that actually
wanted to say.

Cause it sounds a bit like:

The SR-71 was built with solid engineering and hard work, this on the other
hand is a pice of shit.

~~~
dublinclontarf
You only think that because you're(I assume) a programmer, which is how most
programmers feel about their code.

~~~
Crito
I think it is not an unreasonable observation that when a project encompases
the state of the art of a wide variety of engineering disciplines, code is not
given the same treatment or respect that hardware is. On one hand you have
every single metal part being x-rayed to verify internal consistency; on the
other hand the software development is a shitshow that needs to be whipped
into shape in order to be done on time, let alone work well.

Look at the history of the development of the AGC as an example. And which
part of the LEM gave Armstrong and Aldrin trouble during the descent? And
_that_ is a success story, in the end it mostly worked.

------
tdicola
What's the deal with all the SR-71 posts in the past few days? They're a cool
relic of the cold war age but what has happened recently with them that's
warranted all the attention?

Also if you're really enamored with them you should definitely check out the
national airforce museum in Dayton, OH:
[http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/](http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/) You can
see one up close, along with all kinds of other planes, jets, and missiles.
Admission is free, and expect to spend at least a full day walking around the
place.

~~~
Blahah
I'm amazed there are so many people interested in military equipment. Is this
a USA thing? Would love someone to explain the appeal.

~~~
rbanffy
I wouldn't call the fastest airplane ever built to be just "military
equipment". It's probably one of the greatest engineering achievements ever
and it's still unsurpassed.

It's also a beautiful machine.

~~~
Blahah
Didn't realise it was the fastest airplane ever built, that sheds some light
on it. It is really a greater engineering feat than anything in the space
program?

~~~
Crito
It depends on if you count the X-15 or the Shuttle, but neither of those were
air-breathing.

~~~
rbanffy
The shuttle should be considered a glider (a lousy one) when landing. The X-15
is a rocket with wings and should be called a spaceplane - it crossed the 100
Km border twice after all, and couldn't take off by itself.

~~~
Crito
Agreed. The X-15 even had a RCS for when control surfaces no longer had enough
air to bite into.

~~~
rbanffy
The coolest thing is the analog computer that seamlessly went between control
surfaces and RCS as if it were flying using surfaces within an atmosphere. It
may not be a "real" plane, but that doesn't make it any less amazing.

I'd love to see the X-15 progress into the X-20 and onwards.

------
RK
I'm not that familiar with military aircraft development timelines, but this
stuck out as my favorite part:

 _A hypersonic plane does not have to be an expensive, distant possibility. In
fact, an SR-72 could be operational by 2030._

~~~
andrewfong
By comparison, the SR-71 was first proposed around 1960 and operational by
1966.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird)

~~~
javajosh
This is one of the most perplexing things about our modern world - the
seemingly exponential increase in the length of time it takes to get anything
done, especially large, technically complex projects. This is true for the
Saturn V, for the World Trade Center, dams, highways, high speed rail, etc. It
makes me wonder where these "productivity improvements" really are, especially
the ones that computers presumably give us. Perhaps AutoCAD and MS Word and
email make us _feel_ more productive, but are actually slowing us down. Or
perhaps all of it just increases the velocity of money through the economy,
which particularly helps those whose income is proportional to transaction
rate (banks, brokers, and governments).

~~~
blakesterz
That's a good question, I think, thought I'm not sure, the answer is people
are now far more expensive, adding more people means less money is made. Let's
use your dams example. They built a bunch of big dams in the 50s and 60s and
each one had more than 10,000 people working on it. They were mostly publicly
financed, so more or less not built to make money. They didn't worry about
adding a few more (or a few hundred more) people to the job because they were
cheap. Now, the people that do this work are really expensive, and adding a
few more means the people in charge make less money. Another big thing is
probably rules and regulations and laws, far fewer back then. Good? Bad? I
dunno.

~~~
andrewfong
I don't think it's the cost of people. Technology has done a pretty good job
of reducing the cost of simple labor. But technology hasn't done a great job
of managing complexity. See, for example, the above jab at the "millions of
lines of software code" managing the SR-72. That stands in stark contrast to
the "keep it simple stupid" motto attributed to Kelly Johnson, the SR-71's
designer.

------
jameskilton
So given Lockheed's track record on the F-35, we'll see this finally cancelled
around 2040 (the first $1 trillion aircraft program) when everyone else has
built similar planes better, faster, and more reliably.

~~~
melling
How many other planes have they built? Saying other companies have built
equivalent planes is incorrect.

Trying to build one plane for everyone was probably not the wisest thing to
do.

~~~
michaelfeathers
Almost like the story of commercial operating systems.

------
andrewfong
Part of what made the SR-71 incredible was Kelly Johnson's ability to keep the
team small, fast, and focused in designing it. Not sure if that's the case
here.

------
thearn4
SR-71 was built for one mission only: Fly-over the Soviet Union and take
pictures. At the speeds that it operates, you can't really do much else. And
recon satellites do this much more effectively now, and are extremely hard to
take down.

Proponents of hypersonic aircraft research have been fighting an uphill battle
for this very reason.

~~~
robotresearcher
The other thing you can do at that speed is intercept enemy planes. The SR-71
was developed from an interceptor project:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12)

~~~
avar
That's not an accurate description at all. Both the SR-71 and the YF-12 were
developed from the A-12, which was purely a reconnaissance aircraft:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12)

The whole concept of using the "Blackbird" family of planes as interceptors
was an experimental offshoot that was quickly cancelled, the SR-71 certainly
wasn't developed as some byproduct of an interceptor, it it was the other way
around, the interceptor was a failed offshoot of the reconnaissance aircraft.

~~~
robotresearcher
You are right. I read the first paragraph of that page too quickly, and got
the order wrong.

The main point was that interceptor is the other role for very fast plane,
including the active service MiG-31 (around Mach 2.8).

------
lifeisstillgood
>>> The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned
with slide rules and paper. It wasn’t managed by millions of lines of software
code. And it wasn’t powered by computer chips. All that changes with the
SR-72.

Errr, replacing slide rules with millions of lines of software is not always
progress. HN is probably the most fertile ground for finding counter examples
around

------
rbanffy
What would be the key advantage of a Mach 6 drone? At that speed, it's hardly
stealth (it'll be _very_ hot) and its payload is not exactly remarkable. At
best, it's a reusable missile booster stage.

I get there are political problems on putting conventional precision warheads
on top of ICBMs (a conventional attack would look exactly like a nuclear one)
but I can't see what this drone brings to the table compared to a missile
launch. An adversary would still have little to no time to react before being
hit. The only difference is that with an ICBM, if you know about the launch,
you know about the arrival time and, with this plane, you'll have to see its
IR signature (shouldn't be hard if you can already detect an ICBM launch) and
guess it's about to attack (which isn't hard either because I doubt the SR-72
can maintain Mach 6 for long periods).

It would, perhaps, be smarter to use B-52's to launch sub-orbital missiles
with precision conventional warheads. They should be far less conspicuous than
a drone doing Mach 6.

------
paulannesley
“At this speed, the aircraft would be so fast, an adversary would have no time
to react or hide.”

“Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied
airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an
hour”

… sounds lovely.

~~~
jswanson
They expect delivery 'by 2030'.

I wonder if satellites and newer weapons wouldn't be able to intercept its
flight path by then.

You probably wouldn't have to match its speed to bring it down, just throw up
a cloud of junk in its way.

~~~
dredmorbius
Or heat its skin.

A laser defense weapon, coupled with the black titanium skin, likely already
close to its thermal limits, might produce results of interest to a defender.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
In the meantime, its going to take a lot of time and money to develop _those_
weapons as well. I mean, you're talking about hypothetical countermeasures
that don't even exist as a solid concept yet.

~~~
dredmorbius
Not entirely true. LAWS has been in active tests and is, I believe, being
deployed now:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBDF0Tm0kuY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBDF0Tm0kuY)

------
javajosh
I mean hey if we're going to be throwing away huge sums of money on useless
military gear, it may as well look cool. OTOH maybe we'd be better served by
underwriting all college tuition?

~~~
cinquemb
Or both? I mean, that's what government boondoggles are for, right? Maybe if
we send the under/unemployed grads with all the expensive military gear to
war, we'd solve more problems?

------
afhsfsfdsss88
I am genuinely curious. Didn't satellites and drones make this obsolete as a
concept?

~~~
amiramir
It _is_ a drone: "Envisioned as an unmanned aircraft, the SR-72 would fly at
speeds up to Mach 6 ..."

------
danielweber
Could this be used for space launch?

~~~
callesgg
No more than any other air breathing engine driven plane.

------
ChristianMarks
Destabilizing.

------
Hoozt
'MURICA! Let's make a metal projectile move realy fucking fast through the
air!! So fucking amazing angineering shit stuff thing! Fuck yeah!!

------
nraynaud
"We're committed to bombing more weddings, quicker, farther away"

