One of the retro futurist napkin drawings actually got made in real life, besides pic. Satellites and drones are unironically better solution though.
The had sealant back then, or bladder fuel tanks. Its not like it matters people didn't really give a shit about dumping fuel straight into the environment back then.
>Satellites and drones are unironically better solution though.
satellites only have a small window to take a picture of something
geosynchronous satellites cant see anything except the spot they hover over
there is no spy drone out there thats close to what the blackbird could do
the current high-altitude drone used by the US, the global hawk, is still subsonic and iran even claims to have shot one down
the blackbird would have simply outran the same missile
Not that guy, but you're wrong. Drones are much better than the blackbird. There's no situation where you need what is essentially a satellite photo except from fifteen degrees off axis for "perspective". If you need a photo now, then you can get a drone to snap that photo for you. If it is something deep in enemy territory and you need that photo now then you just assign priority satellite surveillance on that spot constantly over the course of several days and parse the images. 99% of the time drones will do the job better cause really you just need something around the area constantly but we all know that it's a low threat area.
nah. The blackbird was special for a few reasons, none of which drones can replicate. First was the fact it could outrun era missiles. Drones are more or less worthless against an enemy with an actual IADS, and no, the retarded slavs reenacting world war 1 in ukraine don't count. Second, was the fact you could get intel FAST. A blackbird could take off from Japan, and be over Vietnam or whatever in a matter of hours. Good luck doing that with a drone which could take 12 hours to get on station. Oh wait it'd get shot down first anyways because they're sitting ducks.
the blackbird was retired not because it because it was less useful, but because it was too expensive. There is still a very real niche for spy planes to this day, evident by the fact we still fly U-2s
A hypersonic spy plane that could outrun today's missiles would be incredibly useful, and word has it lockheed is developing such a thing, though we probably won't know about it for a long time, if they are indeed doing so
Not that guy, but you're wrong. Drones are much better than the blackbird. There's no situation where you need what is essentially a satellite photo except from fifteen degrees off axis for "perspective". If you need a photo now, then you can get a drone to snap that photo for you. If it is something deep in enemy territory and you need that photo now then you just assign priority satellite surveillance on that spot constantly over the course of several days and parse the images. 99% of the time drones will do the job better cause really you just need something around the area constantly but we all know that it's a low threat area.
I'm still rooting for the stratospheric spy balloon. US could shoot down the Chinese one, but how many other countries have missiles with such a high service ceiling?
Just spam out a bunch of cheapo balloons with cameras to hover perpetually over unfriendly nations.
>sealant
Tell me, which sealant can operate at +300 ºC (if you need a margin), low pressure, exposed to fuel and don't mess with the expanding airframe.
Kapton is a 1960s invention (idk if it's chemically compatible at high temperature), teflon (temperature) or silicone (temperature and chemical compatibility) aren't good enough
>Satellites and drones are unironically better solution though. >1966 >satellites and drones
Not that guy, but you're wrong. Drones are much better than the blackbird. There's no situation where you need what is essentially a satellite photo except from fifteen degrees off axis for "perspective". If you need a photo now, then you can get a drone to snap that photo for you. If it is something deep in enemy territory and you need that photo now then you just assign priority satellite surveillance on that spot constantly over the course of several days and parse the images. 99% of the time drones will do the job better cause really you just need something around the area constantly but we all know that it's a low threat area.
>Drones are much better than the blackbird >lmao gets shot down 2 minutes after entering the airspace 800 miles from the target zone >deep in enemy territory and you need that photo now then you just assign priority satellite surveillance on that spot constantly over the course of several days and parse the images >several days >need it now >several days
The 71 never got a datalink and took a day to prep, you're not getting anything 'now'.
We lost a third of our blackbird fleet to accidents. They cost $300 million an piece in todays money + pilots. Plus they were regularly intercepted by Swedes. I really wish we knew what it actually did, so we knew it was a good investment.
>They cost $300 million an piece
lmao no they didn't. The entire fleet was about $250 million adjusted, which is significantly cheaper than the F-35. $300 million is the estimated yearly upkeep for the entire fleet.
>When the Saab JA-37 Viggen entered service, suddenly the mix was right; the aircraft’s performance and avionics capabilities combined with the eagerness of its pilots and a high degree of teamwork with the air command and control centres, including the radar tracker (a conscript), the intercept controller and the pilots.
For everything to work, the pilot needed to reach the speed and altitude that corresponded with information derived from the data tracker system in the Air Operator Centre (AOC). This data determined exactly where and when the pilot needed to initiate a pull-up from cruising altitude to acquire a radar contact. If the pilot failed to lock his radar on first time that was it, the opportunity was gone – at least for another week
So if the conditions are exactly right and the US pilots don't give a fuck (they didn't) then the swedes had a shot, maybe, of getting a radar lock, wow!
Drop tanks and a pump. The main internal tanks are empty at take off. You commence your journey on a small internal tank. Once you are at temperature and well on your way you pump the external stores into your internal tanks and drop the tanks over the ocean.
Most of the planes weight was fuel. It could not take off with a full load.
Since it needs to refuel anyway the tiny amount of full leaking from a mostly empty tank was not an issue.
> Once you are at temperature and well
It gets hot when it goes at Mach 3, you can't refuel supersonic... And as
Most of the planes weight was fuel. It could not take off with a full load.
Since it needs to refuel anyway the tiny amount of full leaking from a mostly empty tank was not an issue.
said, it already did that for another reason.
The SR-71 used fluorosilicone as sealant but even so they could make a reliable way to completely seal the tanks or use flat sheets in the airframe.
they refueled after takeoff because they didn't take off with a full tank because a full tank would be too heavy to takeoff. The tires were already something fucking absurd like 400 psi. The leaks were minor
>he doesn't understand that a plane traveling that fast generates so much heat the metal expands to a point where if it wasn't leaking the tanks would crack
the real shit is that they've had autonomous drones since the mid 60s and this was a great red herring to present to our enemies before drones became widely known in the late 90s/00s
And more importantly it go as high as 85,000 feet. No plane or even missile could go that high at the time. So even if an enemy plane just happened to luck into being within missile range, and lucky enough to get a lock, the missile would get into the upper, upper atmosphere and just go retarded and not be able to track.
>only slightly less vulnerable to missiles than U2.
Over the course of its reconnaissance missions during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese fired approximately 800 SAMs at SR-71s, none of which managed to score a hit. They had mostly SA-2 (the missile that intercepted the U-2 and british equivalent) with a ceiling of +25km...
It's sort of like 2 planes in one air frame. One plane has to get up to altitude and speed and then another plane has to fly at that altitude and speed. Compromises have to be made. The Concorde is similar
It was so cutting edge that almost everything about it was fundamentally wrong and much smarter people than you and I could not keep them from failing.
Oh and, their entire purpose was nullified during their before their service so it was literally over before it even started.
They were obsoleted because it's unironically cheaper to just put satellites into space. With modern signals systems there's a niche for a spyplane you can't shoot down again, but it's not necessarily for taking pictures but for being an active data link and targeting computer in hot areas. You can't really get a firing solution from a satellite.
Don't be sad that it's over smile because it happened. Never again will a machine as complex (mechanically) and beautiful as the SR-71 be made. Aerial surveillance has become so fucking soulless since satellites and dr*nes took over. Even the U-2 is on the chopping block come 2026, it's officially joever for manned surveillance aircraft.
At least the glownaggers allowed most of them to remain as museum pieces instead of getting shredded/left to rot in Arizona.
>At least the glownaggers allowed most of them to remain as museum pieces instead of getting shredded/left to rot in Arizona.
The Smithsonian should be given a division for keeping historic aircraft flightworthy. I don't care how much tax money it takes.
>At least the glownaggers allowed most of them to remain as museum pieces instead of getting shredded/left to rot in Arizona.
The Smithsonian should be given a division for keeping historic aircraft flightworthy. I don't care how much tax money it takes.
That reminds me, I wonder if NASA could have found a use for them chasing rocket launches like they do with the WB-57s.
Basically everything. The SR-71 was technically beyond our technological capacity of the time as the engineers had to develop entirely new technology to get the SR-71 flying. We didn't even know how to work Titanium and had to develop new fabrication methods while making the prototype. The engines remain unique turbojet-scramjet hybrids and even those beasts couldn't get the plane off the ground if it was topped up with fuel.
This was back when corporations were run by Patriotic men who cared about winning the cold war. Now they are concerned with stock returns. These men knew combat and what would work, and told the branches as much.
Now they don't care if they make a shitty plane as long as it gets them a contract order for 350
that shit about having to refuel right after takeoff because the metal needs to get hot enough expand to seal the fuel tank is pretty retarded tho
May we see your solution?
One of the retro futurist napkin drawings actually got made in real life, besides pic. Satellites and drones are unironically better solution though.
The had sealant back then, or bladder fuel tanks. Its not like it matters people didn't really give a shit about dumping fuel straight into the environment back then.
>Satellites and drones are unironically better solution though.
satellites only have a small window to take a picture of something
geosynchronous satellites cant see anything except the spot they hover over
there is no spy drone out there thats close to what the blackbird could do
the current high-altitude drone used by the US, the global hawk, is still subsonic and iran even claims to have shot one down
the blackbird would have simply outran the same missile
Not that guy, but you're wrong. Drones are much better than the blackbird. There's no situation where you need what is essentially a satellite photo except from fifteen degrees off axis for "perspective". If you need a photo now, then you can get a drone to snap that photo for you. If it is something deep in enemy territory and you need that photo now then you just assign priority satellite surveillance on that spot constantly over the course of several days and parse the images. 99% of the time drones will do the job better cause really you just need something around the area constantly but we all know that it's a low threat area.
>Drones are much better than the blackbird.
even the successor to the global hawk would be far easier to shoot down than the blackbird
Not an argument.
nah. The blackbird was special for a few reasons, none of which drones can replicate. First was the fact it could outrun era missiles. Drones are more or less worthless against an enemy with an actual IADS, and no, the retarded slavs reenacting world war 1 in ukraine don't count. Second, was the fact you could get intel FAST. A blackbird could take off from Japan, and be over Vietnam or whatever in a matter of hours. Good luck doing that with a drone which could take 12 hours to get on station. Oh wait it'd get shot down first anyways because they're sitting ducks.
the blackbird was retired not because it because it was less useful, but because it was too expensive. There is still a very real niche for spy planes to this day, evident by the fact we still fly U-2s
A hypersonic spy plane that could outrun today's missiles would be incredibly useful, and word has it lockheed is developing such a thing, though we probably won't know about it for a long time, if they are indeed doing so
I'm still rooting for the stratospheric spy balloon. US could shoot down the Chinese one, but how many other countries have missiles with such a high service ceiling?
Just spam out a bunch of cheapo balloons with cameras to hover perpetually over unfriendly nations.
>there is no spy drone out there thats close to what the blackbird could do
*that you know of
>sealant
Tell me, which sealant can operate at +300 ºC (if you need a margin), low pressure, exposed to fuel and don't mess with the expanding airframe.
Kapton is a 1960s invention (idk if it's chemically compatible at high temperature), teflon (temperature) or silicone (temperature and chemical compatibility) aren't good enough
>Satellites and drones are unironically better solution though.
>1966
>satellites and drones
>Drones are much better than the blackbird
>lmao gets shot down 2 minutes after entering the airspace 800 miles from the target zone
>deep in enemy territory and you need that photo now then you just assign priority satellite surveillance on that spot constantly over the course of several days and parse the images
>several days
>need it now
>several days
The 71 never got a datalink and took a day to prep, you're not getting anything 'now'.
We lost a third of our blackbird fleet to accidents. They cost $300 million an piece in todays money + pilots. Plus they were regularly intercepted by Swedes. I really wish we knew what it actually did, so we knew it was a good investment.
>They cost $300 million an piece
lmao no they didn't. The entire fleet was about $250 million adjusted, which is significantly cheaper than the F-35. $300 million is the estimated yearly upkeep for the entire fleet.
>intercepted by the swedes
>When the Saab JA-37 Viggen entered service, suddenly the mix was right; the aircraft’s performance and avionics capabilities combined with the eagerness of its pilots and a high degree of teamwork with the air command and control centres, including the radar tracker (a conscript), the intercept controller and the pilots.
For everything to work, the pilot needed to reach the speed and altitude that corresponded with information derived from the data tracker system in the Air Operator Centre (AOC). This data determined exactly where and when the pilot needed to initiate a pull-up from cruising altitude to acquire a radar contact. If the pilot failed to lock his radar on first time that was it, the opportunity was gone – at least for another week
So if the conditions are exactly right and the US pilots don't give a fuck (they didn't) then the swedes had a shot, maybe, of getting a radar lock, wow!
>>1966
and drones
pre 71 airframe A21 was tested with a deployable drone retard
Drop tanks and a pump. The main internal tanks are empty at take off. You commence your journey on a small internal tank. Once you are at temperature and well on your way you pump the external stores into your internal tanks and drop the tanks over the ocean.
Most of the planes weight was fuel. It could not take off with a full load.
Since it needs to refuel anyway the tiny amount of full leaking from a mostly empty tank was not an issue.
> Once you are at temperature and well
It gets hot when it goes at Mach 3, you can't refuel supersonic... And as
said, it already did that for another reason.
The SR-71 used fluorosilicone as sealant but even so they could make a reliable way to completely seal the tanks or use flat sheets in the airframe.
>immediately getting defensive
a sattelite
they refueled after takeoff because they didn't take off with a full tank because a full tank would be too heavy to takeoff. The tires were already something fucking absurd like 400 psi. The leaks were minor
Pretty fucking badass.
>he doesn't understand that a plane traveling that fast generates so much heat the metal expands to a point where if it wasn't leaking the tanks would crack
>Le
I don't think France had an SR-71.
No, but we CHASED THEM
the real shit is that they've had autonomous drones since the mid 60s and this was a great red herring to present to our enemies before drones became widely known in the late 90s/00s
Speed is the main thing. It was able to outrun jets, missiles, radar waves, inflation.
And more importantly it go as high as 85,000 feet. No plane or even missile could go that high at the time. So even if an enemy plane just happened to luck into being within missile range, and lucky enough to get a lock, the missile would get into the upper, upper atmosphere and just go retarded and not be able to track.
>What went so, so incredibly right?
No one ever tried to shoot it down so it's seen as safe when in reality it was only slightly less vulnerable to missiles than U2.
>No one ever tried to shoot it down
>only slightly less vulnerable to missiles than U2.
Over the course of its reconnaissance missions during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese fired approximately 800 SAMs at SR-71s, none of which managed to score a hit. They had mostly SA-2 (the missile that intercepted the U-2 and british equivalent) with a ceiling of +25km...
It's sort of like 2 planes in one air frame. One plane has to get up to altitude and speed and then another plane has to fly at that altitude and speed. Compromises have to be made. The Concorde is similar
It was so cutting edge that almost everything about it was fundamentally wrong and much smarter people than you and I could not keep them from failing.
Oh and, their entire purpose was nullified during their before their service so it was literally over before it even started.
Skunkworks. Simple as.
They were obsoleted because it's unironically cheaper to just put satellites into space. With modern signals systems there's a niche for a spyplane you can't shoot down again, but it's not necessarily for taking pictures but for being an active data link and targeting computer in hot areas. You can't really get a firing solution from a satellite.
Kelly Johnson, one of the greatest Americans of all time
Don't be sad that it's over smile because it happened. Never again will a machine as complex (mechanically) and beautiful as the SR-71 be made. Aerial surveillance has become so fucking soulless since satellites and dr*nes took over. Even the U-2 is on the chopping block come 2026, it's officially joever for manned surveillance aircraft.
At least the glownaggers allowed most of them to remain as museum pieces instead of getting shredded/left to rot in Arizona.
>At least the glownaggers allowed most of them to remain as museum pieces instead of getting shredded/left to rot in Arizona.
The Smithsonian should be given a division for keeping historic aircraft flightworthy. I don't care how much tax money it takes.
That reminds me, I wonder if NASA could have found a use for them chasing rocket launches like they do with the WB-57s.
Basically everything. The SR-71 was technically beyond our technological capacity of the time as the engineers had to develop entirely new technology to get the SR-71 flying. We didn't even know how to work Titanium and had to develop new fabrication methods while making the prototype. The engines remain unique turbojet-scramjet hybrids and even those beasts couldn't get the plane off the ground if it was topped up with fuel.
This was back when corporations were run by Patriotic men who cared about winning the cold war. Now they are concerned with stock returns. These men knew combat and what would work, and told the branches as much.
Now they don't care if they make a shitty plane as long as it gets them a contract order for 350