# Has Lockheed Martin finished building the unmanned SR-72



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 10, 2018)

Lockheed Martin's  Skunk Works unit may have already finished making the radical hypersonic update of the long-retired Mach 3 SR-71 Blackbird spy plane. 

Jack O’Banion, Vice President of Strategy and Customer Requirements, Advanced Development Programs for Lockheed Martin, let slip at a conference the unmanned aircraft has already been made. 

Speaking at The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SciTech Forum, he showed a slide of a digital mockup of the craft, and said 'Without the digital transformation, the aircraft you see there could not have been made.'








'In fact, five years ago, it could not have been made.'

O’Banion also said the aircraft will have a 'digital twin' that knows every part on the aircraft.

'Talking about speed, you're talking about hypersoncs, aircraft that operate above mach 5,' he added.

According to Aviation Week late last year, a technology demonstrator, believed to be an unmanned subscale aircraft, was observed flying into the U.S. Air Force's Plant 42 at Palmdale, where Skunk Works is headquartered, in July.  

The SR-72 hypersonic plane will be a strike and reconnaissance aircraft that tops Mach 6, and the firm has been working on the project since the early 2000s.






Lockheed Martin and Aerojet Rocketdyne have been working together since 2006 on work to integrate an off-the-shelf turbine with a scramjet to power an aircraft with a combined cycle propulsion system from standstill to Mach 6


vid in this link
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheed-martin-may-be-closer-to-completing-the-hyperso-1821894586


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 10, 2018)

the HTV-2 was an impressively fast Mach 15-20 , dual stage is impressive.

I've actually heard some odd sonic boom's, followed by "unusual" sounds over the past several months. I can't say what the reason is, but we do have several AFB and ARB bases in the area. i spoke with a friend who does some USAF turbine engine contract work, & he had mentioned this , but only from the turbine aspect, since thats what is manufactured where he is employed. Cool as hell though. I wonder if like in the past, Lockhead does the aircraft , and P&W does the engine, like with the F-35


----------



## bonehead123 (Jan 10, 2018)

To answer the OP's question:

There are 33 of them, they can travel at Warp 3 not Mach 3, and the best part:  

They are circling at 666 miles above your house right now, just waiting for you to get home, so they can either vaporize you off the planet, or perhaps beam you up for further examination...

How do I know this you may ask?

Because* I am the one* who is controlling them, hahahaha


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 10, 2018)

A new high speed chem trail dispenser ?  j/k


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 10, 2018)

Reminds me of this :>


----------



## StrayKAT (Jan 11, 2018)

To this day, the SR-71 is the most kickass plane in existence to me (well, equal to the A-10).

I'm not exactly sure why a bomber needs be that damn fast though.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 11, 2018)

Outrun the missiles.  It's practically untouchable.


----------



## Bones (Jan 11, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> To this day, the SR-71 is the most kickass plane in existence to me (well, equal to the A-10).
> 
> I'm not exactly sure why a bomber needs be that damn fast though.



Simple - In and out before you know it..... And to outrun the missiles that follow.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 11, 2018)

Bones said:


> Simple



Nothing about what human beings will do to avoid being watched when they don't want to be watched is "simple ", same goes for when they dont want to be bombed. if a intercepting aircraft were to chase this craft, at mach speeds, and launch a missile, that missile would be moving fast AF, better safe than smokey

The DPRk wont be happy with a couple of these flying over kim dong dings palace


----------



## Xzibit (Jan 11, 2018)




----------



## Bones (Jan 11, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> Nothing about what human beings will do to avoid being watched when they don't want to be watched is "simple ", same goes for when they dont want to be bombed.
> 
> The DPRk wont be happy with a couple of these flying over kim dong dings palace



I know what you're getting at and yes, they are always watching. 
It's when the deal goes down is when it matters, even if you know it's coming there are ways to befuddle or confuse the watcher until it's too late.


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 11, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Outrun the missiles.  It's practically untouchable.


Good luck outrunning lasers, though.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 11, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Outrun the missiles.  It's practically untouchable.



Well most of the time. Just because it is capable of outrunning missiles doesn't necessarily mean it can't be hit by them. Or that there aren't any other methods of taking it down.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 11, 2018)

China appears to be in the lead with hypersonic weapons technology, at least as far as a battlefield-ready implementation is concerned. In November, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force conducted the first flight tests of a new missile known as the DF-17.

The DF-17 is the first missile system anywhere that uses a hypersonic glide vehicle as its payload and is intended for operational deployment. While the United States and Russia have both conducted developmental tests, neither country is known to have taken concrete steps towards deploying these systems.

 U.S. intelligence is expecting the DF-17 to enter service around 2020






https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/intr...armed-with-a-hypersonic-glide-vehicle.535791/


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Jan 11, 2018)

Does this machine spreads "freedom" at will?!


----------



## bonehead123 (Jan 11, 2018)

_JP_ said:


> Good luck outrunning lasers, though.



Yes but Lasers are straight line of fire weapons, so avoiding being detected and identified as a target is the key, which is much more likely when the aircraft traveling at mach3+ at 80,000 ft+ altitude


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 11, 2018)

_JP_ said:


> Good luck outrunning lasers, though.



You can still get them with missiles too if the target is coming towards you, you then just need to improve your detection systems and intercept, far cheaper than trying to develop a missile that travels so much faster.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 11, 2018)

keep in mind that if a faster ship can outrun a a slower (intercepting) ship by 1000mph, and the chasing ship has missiles/rockets/mainguns that fire at anything up to or Above that speed advantage, the faster ship is in significant danger, since the projectiles speed + the aircrafts speed= what the projectile will in essence be traveling to a body that is separate from them (until the atmosphere begins to slow it down a bit).

  if you were on the front of a train, that was traveling 1000MPH, and you fired a gun that shot a projectile at 1000MPH, that projectile would be traveling 2000MPH from any give standing body's point of reference.

building a weapon ,or device to outperform significantly is never a bad idea when in military terms. Ask japan WWII , the massive advantage the US had over them in air deployed explosives ( little boy) made quick work of any question to weather or not the US needed to invade japanese soil, or resolve the matter in one (or a few ) bomb strikes. superiority is a great thing, especially when that superiority if often mostly used as a deterrent. M.A.D functions based off of these perceived superiorities, or likeliness of mutual destruction based on the massively overpowered weapons.

overkill works well to itimidate too, imagine what germany saw.... on June 6, 1944 . frankly, if it wasnt for the fact that Rommel was a amazingly formidable, and genius military minded field marshal, it would have been much worse for the Germans that day.


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 11, 2018)

bonehead123 said:


> Yes but Lasers are straight line of fire weapons, so avoiding being detected and identified as a target is the key, which is much more likely when the aircraft traveling at mach3+ at 80,000 ft+ altitude





Tatty_One said:


> You can still get them with missiles too if the target is coming towards you, you then just need to improve your detection systems and intercept, far cheaper than trying to develop a missile that travels so much faster.


If missiles fail, we need an augmented 88 flak  just spam the air


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 11, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> keep in mind that if a faster ship can outrun a a slower (intercepting) ship by 1000mph, and the chasing ship has missiles/rockets/mainguns that fire at anything up to or Above that speed advantage, the faster ship is in significant danger, since the projectiles speed + the aircrafts speed= what the projectile will in essence be traveling to a body that is separate from them (until the atmosphere begins to slow it down a bit).
> 
> if you were on the front of a train, that was traveling 1000MPH, and you fired a gun that shot a projectile at 1000MPH, that projectile would be traveling 2000MPH from any give standing body's point of reference.
> 
> ...



But surely, given your example, if the enemy was travelling at 3000mph, you were travelling at 1600mph, your missile travels at 1600mph you would be right, at the point of firing the missile would travel at 3200mph but immediately upon firing it would slow, eventually to 1600mph so unless the enemy was very close your missile is never going to reach him in any case, and he will never be close simply because he is travelling almost twice your speed.


----------



## jaggerwild (Jan 11, 2018)

Northrop Grumman has the first unmanned to land on a carrier X-47B


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 11, 2018)

Tatty_One said:


> But surely, given your example, if the enemy was travelling at 3000mph, you were travelling at 1600mph, your missile travels at 1600mph you would be right, at the point of firing the missile would travel at 3200mph but immediately upon firing it would slow, eventually to 1600mph so unless the enemy was very close your missile is never going to reach him in any case, and he will never be close simply because he is travelling almost twice your speed.



Missiles or rockets are propelled continuously until impact in some cases. At least the FFAR, or even FAF . unlike in movies don't chase down their targets, What you generally will have is upon firing of the rocket ,a massive boost of speed (which is generally twice the speed of the craft it's being fired at + the speed of the craft its fired from).  Some ("smart weapons") will use the climb tactic ,where the missile will climb to a very high  altitude until the rocket fuel is expended, At which point it will use that stored altitude to acquire  it's target by dropping at that acquired speed, while using gravity. The same can be said for a continually propelled rocket device. It's going to be propelled to the point of impact, which means it's going to maintain the majority of its speed until impact. Its not a matter of , once the projectile is fired, the speed advantage from being fired from a fast moving body is lost. This is why, when a missile or rocket it "locked on", you wont try to outrun it in most cases, but instead, a Sharp G turn will be implemented (or a combination of turns and Chaff), hoping for the rocket to miss its target. keep in mind, that a Jet, or aircraft, is a powerful engine, but it has a Ton of weight. A missile on the other hand, is a Ton of Rocket, or Jet booster, with a smaller payload (just enough to impair an aircraft) and some guidance, and other structural weight, but still it has a VERY high Boost/weight ratio, which a traditional jet  aircraft has Zero hope of matching. Take the AASRAM *commonly referred to as a heatseeker*  (the F-35 uses them along with MANY other jet fighter ships) It will travel at speeds Above 2300MPH (aka Mach3+) to intercept its target, it flies up to a rating of 50KM (31 miles), and it keeps its speed, until target impact, or malfunction, or fuel exhaustion.

in short, the only factors in the "fired from a moving target" (in respect to it slowing down pre impact) question are, atmosphere, and gravity. the combination of those two are what is slowing down the projectile, the only way for that missile or bullet to lose that speed "boost" , is for the observer to be moving at an equal speed, but from the ground, its advantage continues after firing, AFAIK minus any Schrödinger's cat type parallel physics craziness, or BS that is escaping me 

i Could be very wrong, but i think this exact situation in an important factor to the success of the GAU-8 (the main gun used by the airship commonly known as the tank buster, warthog, or A-10) at destroying armor plated Tanks so well. Speaking only from the kinetic, AP style round OFC, i would think that is why they use the depleted Uranium style round , with its ability to withstand the impact of a hardened "impact proof" tanks shell.  I know A-10's travel relatively Slow during a strafing run, but it has to help the situation to have that added kinetic energy when hitting a tank.

incidentally, GOD i love the sound of that GAU when it fires........ i like the secondary sound wave the most. you can see the exact point of fire in the video, where that little white cloud line is, it just takes a second or two for the sound to hit the cam.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 11, 2018)

Still not convinced there is anything that can catch a plane accelerating away from you at a distance moving at warp 3 though


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 11, 2018)

Tatty_One said:


> Still not convinced there is anything that can catch a plane accelerating away from you at a distance moving at warp 3 though



oh, i wasn't saying it could catch this new SR-72. I wasn't saying that at all, just speaking about the speed of the projectile fired from a moving target. its one of those "scratch your head" subjects, or at least for me it is 

as a matter of fact, just in case anyone was also interested, here is a video clip, wit hexactly what we were speaking about. you can invision more easily in the video, what happens, as the missile is released from the crafts speed, then engages its own engines to add its own speed to that initial speed, then KABOOM!!!



Spoiler: video for anyone curious


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 11, 2018)

Do they really go at Warp 3 though?  I googled that and it is faster than the speed of light, unless one of them is called the USS Enterprise I would have my doubts   Mach 3 is 2250 mph or 1km per second.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 11, 2018)

_JP_ said:


> Good luck outrunning lasers, though.


Only satellite-based lasers can pose a threat to it (atmosphere wrecks lasers) and, my guess is that DoD is probably designing air-to-space missiles to intercept those satellites should they ever be built.  Also, only USA has laser weapons right now and that's likely to remain the case for several decades.




CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> China appears to be in the lead with hypersonic weapons technology, at least as far as a battlefield-ready implementation is concerned. In November, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force conducted the first flight tests of a new missile known as the DF-17.





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The DF-17 is the first missile system anywhere that uses a hypersonic glide vehicle as its payload and is intended for operational deployment. While the United States and Russia have both conducted developmental tests, neither country is known to have taken concrete steps towards deploying these systems.
> 
> U.S. intelligence is expecting the DF-17 to enter service around 2020
> 
> ...


Looks like the poor man's ICBM.  USA/Russia have no need for that, especially with a massive fleet of strategic bombers.

The test vehicles that lead to the SR-72 were fundamentally the same but they had research payloads instead of weaponized payloads.




bonehead123 said:


> Yes but Lasers are straight line of fire weapons, so avoiding being detected and identified as a target is the key, which is much more likely when the aircraft traveling at mach3+ at 80,000 ft+ altitude


It's mach 5+ (mach 6 is often estimated) at ~80,000 feet.





Tatty_One said:


> You can still get them with missiles too if the target is coming towards you, you then just need to improve your detection systems and intercept, far cheaper than trying to develop a missile that travels so much faster.



Except that the SR-72 is described as "agile," it can likely just tip one wing slightly to deviate from the missile path a second before impact to miss it by a dozens of feet.  Flak is really the only way...and a lot of it.  Hitting the SR-72 with anything is harder than shooting a bullet at another bullet in flight.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 11, 2018)

Tatty_One said:


> Do they really go at Warp 3 though?  I googled that and it is faster than the speed of light, unless one of them is called the USS Enterprise I would have my doubts   Mach 3 is 2250 mph or 1km per second.



Did I write warp three?  Typo.  If they did go W 3, we would have to measure their speed in parsecs.  How quickly they could do the Kessel run


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 11, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> if you were on the front of a train, that was traveling 1000MPH, and you fired a gun that shot a projectile at 1000MPH, that projectile would be traveling 2000MPH from any give standing body's point of reference.


Except that the drag on the projectile is exponentially stronger than the drag of it stationary on the train.  You have to have exponentially more power to achieve the same velocity.  In your example, the actual projectile velocity is likely to be closer to 1200-1250 MPH than 2000 MPH.

The GAU-8 is so effective because because it's aircraft velocity + round velocity + gravity - drag.  When trying to engage SR-72, gravity is also a negative because very, very little can fly that high in the first place.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 12, 2018)

Tatty_One said:


> Still not convinced there is anything that can catch a plane accelerating away from you at a distance moving at warp 3 though


Wow. When a member of Staff chimes in to poke fun, you know what you've said is silly beyond all reason. Fricken Hilarious..


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 12, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> projectile velocity is likely to be closer to 1200-1250 MPH than 2000 MPH.



yes , i know lift & drag quadruple(iirc) as velocity increases, i wasnt really getting super accurate as much as explaining the point as best as i can in text. but , yes, drag (as well as lift) increase heavily as speed does (newtons law (2nd i think) cover this to some degree).  but thats too technical a nut for me to crack being as lazy as i am 


FordGT90Concept said:


> The GAU-8 is so effective because because it's aircraft velocity + round velocity + gravity - drag.


yup, the crafts speed most definitely figure in to the effectiveness....even though its speed in straff is so fairly low in relation to aircraft speeds.


FordGT90Concept said:


> When trying to engage SR-72, gravity is also a negative


a point i was also making, as some claim the higher speeds of the craft would be FAR too much, but i disagree, as advantage is a huge factor in successful air mission.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 12, 2018)

When will it be introduced to warthunder?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 12, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Wow. When a member of Staff chimes in to poke fun, you know what you've said is silly beyond all reason. Fricken Hilarious..


Poke fun?  I thought you were the expert at that!   I am a member too so have similar weaknesses at times, however you selected one of my posts that was not poking fun actually.  Warp 3 was mentioned as a fact in post #3.  The really sad thing is that I thought it was tangible until I googled it said something like 27 times the speed of light


----------



## Irony (Jan 12, 2018)

You know, I have one simple request. To have sharks with FRICKEN LASER BEAMS attached to their heads! 

Germany is getting some decent lasers now, getting close to operational. Wikipedia says China and Russia are working on some too, seems to be the cool thing to do these days. I'm sure there's more interesting things happening than average me can find, heck the soviet union was launching 1Mw lasers on satellites in 1987, I'm sure we're all far beyond that by now.

But still, no matter how fast your weapons are, its all for nought if you can't apply it to a target. Anything moving mach 6, that's more than double average bullet speed, I imagine is going to be nearly impossible to track, let alone target by any conventional means


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jan 12, 2018)

Too lazy as if this second so, is it the same airframe size or a scale of it .


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 12, 2018)

I think it is about the size of the F-117 but don't quote me on that.  It's not very big because surface area (which leads to friction which leads to heat) is the enemy at those speeds.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 12, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> (which leads to friction which leads to heat) is the enemy at those speeds.



Its all you need to get you to the danger zone


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 13, 2018)

Tatty_One said:


> Poke fun?  I thought you were the expert at that!   I am a member too so have similar weaknesses at times, however you selected one of my posts that was not poking fun actually.  Warp 3 was mentioned as a fact in post #3.  The really sad thing is that I thought it was tangible until I googled it said something like 27 times the speed of light


Ok, not to laugh AT you, however, the fact that you had look up the term "Warp 3" is freaken hilarious! Read your post thinking you were being a total smartass. This is even funnier!  Seriously, no offense intended.


----------



## 64K (Jan 13, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ok, not to laugh AT you, however, the fact that you had look up the term "Warp 3" is freaken hilarious! Read your post thinking you were being a total smartass. This is even funnier!  Seriously, no offense intended.



He lives in the UK. They are on the Metric System there so Star Trek is different there.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 13, 2018)

64K said:


> He lives in the UK. They are on the Metric System there so Star Trek is different there.


What are you talking about?!? We use the metric system HERE.. ;-)


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 13, 2018)

64K said:


> He lives in the UK. They are on the Metric System there so Star Trek is different there.


No I am old school, I still run in miles, certainly not kilometres although at Xmas I seemed to not only put on pounds in weight but Kilo's too


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 13, 2018)

a good friend who worked on the SR-71 was just over dropping off a computer desk, and he mentioned some stuff about "SCRAM" jets in regards to the 72.. iirc... in regard's to this project. I asked him if he had any info on the matter, but he said that wasnt possible. hopefully when it IS finished, he will be willing to hook me up with some cool engineering pics etc. He brought over some pretty cool "insider" stuff on the F-35 years back, obviously nothing top secret, but cool none the less.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 13, 2018)

It is a SCRAM jet.  In the OP, look at the cut away picture.  The traditional compression engine is higher up in the body, the SCRAM jet is along the bottom.  Basically...all they are is in an inlet that tightens, then an outlet that slowly expands out the back.  At the beginning of the inlet, they inject jet fuel and then ignite it a little ways towards the exhaust.  The expanding gases propel it forward increasing the volume of air at the inlet continuing the cycle.  It's a jet engine with no moving parts that only works at hypersonic speeds where the force is so great through the inlet that the expanding gases can't back blast.  The traditional jet engine has to get the SR-72 up high enough and fast enough for the SCRAM jet to work.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 13, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It is a SCRAM jet.  In the OP, look at the cut away picture.  The traditional compression engine is higher up in the body, the SCRAM jet is along the bottom.  Basically...all they are is in an inlet that tightens, then an outlet that slowly expands out the back.  At the beginning of the inlet, they inject jet fuel and then ignite it a little ways towards the exhaust.  The expanding gases propel it forward increasing the volume of air at the inlet continuing the cycle.  It's a jet engine with no moving parts that only works at hypersonic speeds where the force is so great through the inlet that the expanding gases can't back blast.



Yeah my friend explained it ,I just wasnt sure of the name of it, scram didnt seem right, & I assumed i had remembered it wrong. He builds the engines that go into jets & other  cool stuff for P&W.  I could see his eyes light up the second I asked a question about the 72. Then he began rambling on and on about technical stuff, & lost me.I just wanted to get my new computer desk into place


----------



## agent_x007 (Jan 13, 2018)

I like in SR-72 that there never be a casualty* (ie. pilot), if ever one was down.
*I assume they don't want human on board, because of environment (and We need few things to live).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 13, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only satellite-based lasers can pose a threat to it (atmosphere wrecks lasers) and, my guess is that DoD is probably designing air-to-space missiles to intercept those satellites should they ever be built.  Also, only USA has laser weapons right now and that's likely to remain the case for several decades.
> 
> 
> Looks like the poor man's ICBM.  USA/Russia have no need for that, especially with a massive fleet of strategic bombers.
> ...



Sr-71 could just outrun the projectiles.

Who called the SR-72 a bomber before @CAPSLOCKSTUCK posted this article is mistaken


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 14, 2018)

agent_x007 said:


> I like in SR-72 that there never be a casualty* (ie. pilot), if ever one was down.
> *I assume they don't want human on board, because of environment (and We need few things to live).


Cockpits are structurally compromising and the requirements to keep the environment safe for humans (air, cooling) means adding a lot of wasteful systems that aren't necessary in this day and age where aircraft can generally fly themselves.



eidairaman1 said:


> Sr-71 could just outrun the projectiles.
> 
> Who called the SR-72 a bomber before @CAPSLOCKSTUCK posted this article is mistaken


Took me a while to figure out what you meant but, yes, for clarity, SR-72 is strictly a reconnaissance aircraft.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Cockpits are structurally compromising and the requirements to keep the environment safe for humans (air, cooling) means adding a lot of wasteful systems that aren't necessary in this day and age where aircraft can generally fly themselves.
> 
> 
> Took me a while to figure out what you meant but, yes, for clarity, SR-72 is strictly a reconnaissance aircraft.



Theres a reason my avatar is what it is and my screen name too


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 14, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Theres a reason my avatar is what it is and my screen name too



i thought you were going for EclairMan1


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 15, 2018)

Boeing has finally unveiled a concept for the potential successor to the legendary Blackbird SR-71 spy plane - and it is set to travel at more than five times the speed of sound.

It is designed to carry out spy missions in the same way as the Blackbird SR-71, which was the world's fastest and highest-flying operational manned aircraft throughout its career.

In 1976 it set an absolute speed record of 2,193.2mph (3,529kmh) - a record it still holds today.







The concept was unveiled at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SciTech forum and is the direct competitor to Lockheed Martin's design which could be in the skies late in the 2020s.

The speed of sound, Mach 1, is around 767mph (1,235kmh). Hitting Mach 5 would mean the new craft would travel at  3,836mph (6,174kmh).







The company is planning a two-step process. First it plans to being test flights with an F-16, single-engine design and then test flights with a twin-engine, full-scale operational vehicle that would be around 107 foot long (33 metres).


http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...g-hypersonic-concept-replace-sr-71-blackbird/


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 15, 2018)

"Son of Blackbird" ? reminds me of this


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 15, 2018)

Lockheed Martin owns the trademarks to Blackbird which makes the SR-72 the "Son of Blackbird."  It's good that someone is giving Lockheed Martin competition though.  This could be the beginning of the path that leads to hypersonic long range passenger jets (e.g. USA to China).


----------

