Lockheed Martin SR-72?

Oh this one! Thanks a lot.
I thought that the first flight of SR-72 will be 2018. ;D

"The development of the SR-72 hypersonic aircraft in demonstrator form is expected to commence in 2018. It will be an optionally piloted flight research vehicle (FRV) with a length of approximately 60ft. It will be equipped with a single, full-scale engine to manoeuvre for several minutes at a speed of Mach 6.

The SR-72 aircraft will have the capability to perform high speed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike operations. The first flight of the SR-72 demonstrator is anticipated in 2023, while the full scale aircraft is expected to enter into service by 2030."

FRV does not need long range, it can use small wing?
The outward form of SR-72 will probably change one after another from now on.
 

Attachments

  • sr72b.jpg
    sr72b.jpg
    950.9 KB · Views: 197
  • SR-72 planform.jpg
    SR-72 planform.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 190
  • Almost same scale.jpg
    Almost same scale.jpg
    158 KB · Views: 90

Attachments

  • 2015-07-05_1158.jpg
    2015-07-05_1158.jpg
    102.5 KB · Views: 81
  • 2015-07-05_1159.jpg
    2015-07-05_1159.jpg
    72.6 KB · Views: 104
  • SR-72 and FRV.jpg
    SR-72 and FRV.jpg
    153.7 KB · Views: 116
Wow thanks a lot. This 3d model wing shape is little different from other artistic impressions?
 
"The path to the SR-72 would begin with an optionally piloted flight research vehicle (FRV), measuring around 60 ft. long and powered by a __single, but full-scale, propulsion flowpath__. “The demonstrator is about the size of the F-22, single-engined and could fly for several minutes at Mach 6,” says Leland. "
 
Supersonic Turbine Stepping To Hypersonics
Aviation Week & Space Technology Sep 18, 2015 , p. 46
Guy Norris, Graham Warwick Los Angeles and Washington
High Mach

Graham Warwick/AW&ST
Developers hope to ground test a turbine engine at Mach 3.2 in the coming months, paving the way for long-range supersonic cruise missiles as well as potentially laying the foundation for a viable combined-cycle hypersonic propulsion system.
Testing of high-speed engines is being conducted separately by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International under the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (Stelr) program. A follow-on effort to the joint AFRL and Darpa (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) high-speed turbine engine demonstration (Histed) program, Stelr is targeted at the development of Mach 3-plus weapons and vehicles. These include long-range standoff missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles and advanced cruise missiles capable of sustaining flight at maximum Mach number for 1 hr.

NASA’s combined cycle test later this year will focus on turbine engine compatibility and begin to characterize the inlet at lower Mach numbers. Tests in 2016 will focus on mode transition schedules and operation at lower Mach numbers. Credit: NASA

Rolls-Royce’s Stelr engine has already operated for “more than two hours at Mach 2-2.5, and will run up to Mach 3.2 in the next few months,” says John Kusnierek, director of business development and strategy for the company’s Liberty Works unit. Although Rolls has applied lessons learned on its Histed engine, the YJ102R, to the Stelr project, Kusnierek emphasizes the newest development “is not the same engine.”
Speaking to Aviation Week at the Air Force Association convention in Washington, Kusnierek explained that although the Stelr engine is designed for a lower Mach number than the YJ102R, it has longer endurance. The engine has been developed to “run at Mach 2-3.2 continuously.” The design mission is to operate for 1 hr. at speeds up to Mach 3.2, or sufficient to provide a range of more than 2,000 mi. The same system would also, therefore, have the ability to fly 1,000 mi. in 30 min., which is a “capability of interest,” he adds.
Displayed in mockup form at AFA, the engine is similar in size to the YJ102R, which was earmarked for the canceled Lockheed Martin revolutionary approach to time-critical long-range strike (Rattlrs) missile flight demonstrator. Just like YJ102R, the Stelr is nonafterburning, providing longer range at supersonic speed. “At Mach 3.2 the inlet air temperature is 800F, so there is a lot of materials technology in the engine,” says Kusnierek.
Although designed for expendable weapons, the engine’s baseline durability could make it useful for wider, reusable roles. “The need to have enough life to qualify the engine means it can be reusable, so it could probably do 50 missions in an ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] role,” he adds.

Rolls-Royce aims to test the Stelr, seen at AFA in mock-up form, to Mach 3.2 in coming months. Credit: Graham Warwick/AW&ST

Beyond supersonic missiles, Stelr also offers new hope for developers of hypersonic engines. Stelr technology could provide the missing piece of the puzzle for engine-makers looking to close the gap between turbines and high-speed dual-mode supersonic combustion ramjets/scramjets for hypersonic flight. “It fills the niche between subsonic and hypersonic propulsion. There is no companion vehicle program. It is a chicken and egg situation, no one can design a missile until there is an engine, so first we have to demonstrate the engine,” Kusnierek says.
Stelr is one of three active Air Force and NASA high-speed propulsion efforts underway to support development of reusable turbine-based combined-
cycle (TBCC) engines. In these propulsion systems a turbine engine would provide the power from takeoff to Mach 4, with a ramjet/scramjet taking over for higher-speed flight. Speaking at the AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference in July, Darpa deputy director Steven Walker says Stelr “would enable state-of-the-art ramjet takeover.” The program has “identified four turbine engine options and completed vehicle synthesis for each,” he adds.
Companion efforts include AFRL’s medium-scale critical components (MSCC) program, which is exploring first generation, larger-scale scramjet engine characteristics beyond those of the pioneering X-51A hypersonic demonstrator, which last flew in 2013. Designed to evaluate engines with 10 times the airflow rate, performance, operability and thermal management capabilities of the X-51, the MSCC “will test takeover, acceleration and cruise conditions,” says Walker. The Air Force’s Aerodynamic and Propulsion Test Unit at the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee, has been modified to conduct the first direct connect tests of these larger scramjet engines, and calibration testing began in July. Combustor testing will begin at the site in February 2016.
NASA, supported by funding from AFRL and Darpa, has meanwhile been testing a large-model TBCC under the combined-cycle large-scale inlet mode transition (CCE-LIMX) program. Conducted in the 10 X 10-ft. wind tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center in Ohio, the test unit consists of a high-Mach turbine simulator or engine paired with a scramjet simulator. A modified Williams WJ38-15 turbojet, similar in size to the company’s XTE88 Histed engine, was made available for the tests, though it was limited to Mach 3. Flow to the engines, depending on the operating speed and mode, is controlled via a set of low- and high-speed ramps and flowpaths.
The initial phases of the program focused on inlet performance and stability at Mach 4, which took up 95% of the early testing. Mode transition schedules were developed during tests in 2011-12, and a Mach 3 bleed configuration was created to help solve a high steady state distortion that was discovered at Mach 3. The goal of the latest phase was to focus on smooth and stable mode transition at Mach 3 and test a closed-loop inlet control system in the process. Walker says the program completed system identification of inlet dynamics for development of controls algorithms and “successfully demonstrated a fully autonomous mode transition with no unstarts.” This latest phase of testing was completed in May.
Stelr is also one of the propulsion options included in a NASA-funded Lockheed Martin study in support of the proposed SR-72 hypersonic, ISR strike aircraft. The study has been looking into the viability of a TBCC propulsion system with several combinations of “near-term turbine engine solutions” and a very-low-Mach ignition dual mode ramjet. Unlike the Mach 4 takeover range of most ramjets conceived to date, this study, together with another similar contract recently awarded by NASA to Aerojet Rocketdyne, is evaluating take-over velocity to be reduced to Mach 2.5 and below.
 
liaomh said:
Supersonic Turbine Stepping To Hypersonics
Aviation Week & Space Technology Sep 18, 2015 , p. 46
Guy Norris, Graham Warwick Los Angeles and Washington
High Mach

Graham Warwick/AW&ST
Developers hope to ground test a turbine engine at Mach 3.2 in the coming months, paving the way for long-range supersonic cruise missiles as well as potentially laying the foundation for a viable combined-cycle hypersonic propulsion system.
Testing of high-speed engines is being conducted separately by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International under the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (Stelr) program. A follow-on effort to the joint AFRL and Darpa (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) high-speed turbine engine demonstration (Histed) program, Stelr is targeted at the development of Mach 3-plus weapons and vehicles. These include long-range standoff missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles and advanced cruise missiles capable of sustaining flight at maximum Mach number for 1 hr.

Nice to see they're still working on that. Maybe we'll eventually see a RATTLRS after all.
 
If I'm reading this correctly, is this the supersonic through flow engine they've been working on?
 
I wondered what had happened to that NASA study in relation to the SR-72.
 
After having completed A-11, Lockheed Corp. announced the existence.
I think that it's useless entirely now about such a forward and radical project.
They're quite good at making a plausible image picture such as Venture star, SAI QSBJ, QSP, Quiet SST, Blackswift, SR-72(?). ;D
 
Picture from above AW&ST article:

DF-FAST2_NASA.jpg
 
I found this patent that might be pertinent to the engine air inlets on the SR-72. -SP
 

Attachments

  • SR-72 engine air inlet patent.pdf
    540 KB · Views: 109
" . . . typical ramjets don’t work below Mach 4.0"? Huh?
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-pushing-1-billion-mach-6-airbreather-423198/

If I were DOD I'd tell LM...

Why don't you get with you partners and build it. We'd be interested in what you come up with.

As far as getting a billion from us, frankly, we've got a full plate.
 
" . . . typical ramjets don’t work below Mach 4.0"? Huh?

I think they mean 'above'.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
" . . . typical ramjets don’t work below Mach 4.0"? Huh?

I think they mean 'above'.

Chris

They'd still be wrong.
 
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-pushing-1-billion-mach-6-airbreather-423198/

If I were DOD I'd tell LM...

Why don't you get with you partners and build it. We'd be interested in what you come up with.

As far as getting a billion from us, frankly, we've got a full plate.

Name a company on the planet that would outlay a billion of their own money in hopes that their single potential customer might buy something. Any company that did that would have shareholders screaming for the heads of the board and rightfully so.
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-pushing-1-billion-mach-6-airbreather-423198/

If I were DOD I'd tell LM...

Why don't you get with you partners and build it. We'd be interested in what you come up with.

As far as getting a billion from us, frankly, we've got a full plate.

Name a company on the planet that would outlay a billion of their own money in hopes that their single potential customer might buy something. Any company that did that would have shareholders screaming for the heads of the board and rightfully so.

I didn't read that there was a single potential customer.

"Hewson says the company’s long-term ambition is to “enable hypersonic passenger flights and easier access to space”.
 
Hewson's comments are nothing more than a restatement of Lockheed Martin's ambitions to build the HTV-3X/Blackswift/SR-72 TBCC-powered unmanned hypersonic aircraft. There is little government money going into the project, although DARPA plans to start a program in 2017 to demonstrate the turbojet-to-ramjet/scramjet mode transition. This would pick up where DARPA's Mode Transition (MoTr) program left off after it was terminated before demoing anything. The only apparent difference is that the new program would use an off-the-shelf small turbojet and not one of the high-Mach turbojets from AFRL's HiSTED program, which was the plan for MoTr.

What is new is that Lockheed and other bidders are responding to solicitations from DARPA to build and fly the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) and Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) demonstrations - both planned for flight-test around 2018. Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon received contracts for the earlier phases of TBG and HAWC. Lockheed's HAWC would use an Aerojet Rocketdyne scramjet, similar to that planned for the TBCC-powered reusable hypersonic vehicle.

And FlightGlobal's reference to Mach 4 is explained by the industry's tendency to refer one minute to "scramjet" and the other to "dual-mode ramjet", when they mean the same engine - the only difference being the airflow speed in the combustion chamber and whether combustion is subsonic, supersonic, or a mix. The key question they actually asked was was what is the takeover speed from turbojet to ramjet mode. Lockheed and the rest of industry are trying to push that down from Mach 3 to avoid needing a high-Mach turbojet. Rob Weiss of the Skunk Works suggested they have got it to around Mach 1.5-2, which would allow use of a conventional turbojet.
 
NeilChapman said:
I didn't read that there was a single potential customer.

"Hewson says the company’s long-term ambition is to “enable hypersonic passenger flights and easier access to space”.

"If I were DOD I'd tell LM..."
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
I didn't read that there was a single potential customer.

"Hewson says the company’s long-term ambition is to “enable hypersonic passenger flights and easier access to space”.

"If I were DOD I'd tell LM..."

Ahhh, well...I guess since the LM event was in DC and Marillyn Hewson, "while displaying an artist’s rendering of the SR-72, said it would cost “less than $1 billion” to develop and fly a demonstrator aircraft the size of an F-22 Raptor", it led me to believe they were wanting money from DoD.

My point probably wasn't clear...
1. LM wants money from DoD
2. DoD is interested but they've got enough on their plate with F-35, Virginia-class, Carriers, an Ohio-Class replacement, B-21, etc etc etc
3. LM has a long-term goal to commercialize the technology, where they'd revolutionize air travel - making mucho dinero.
so...
4. DoD should tell them to go build it (if they want to for the commercial potential - and the mucho dinero)
5. If they do, come back and show DoD, they'd be interested in what LM comes up with.
 
I remember a child's book about aircraft from 1999 which I had for a birthday of mine, which stated that we would fly hypersonic in 2015. That never happened, the technology was/is no were near enough where it should have been, but furthermore the amount of money each ticket would cost would make this type of travelling unaffordable... I don't see this happening soon any time near from now, and yet to be honest, in this century.
 
No company would invest a billion dollars into a single basket that might not return in profit. You would see stocks tanking within hours. Same with commercial airplanes, research are shared between the aircraft manufacturer and multiple airlines. There's a reason companies like Boeing keeps popping out once in a while some nice concept that gradually fade away - no airliner picks up the cost/risk sharing.
 
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/03/21/lockheed-hypersonic-sr-72-spy-plane.aspx
 
NASA Glenn to test Aerojet's TBCC DMRJ (excerpt below along with the full task order which is an interesting read in its entirety).
 

Attachments

  • Task_Order_NNC16TA03T_Justification_for_Exception_to_Fair_Opportunity_(JEFO).pdf
    122 KB · Views: 26
  • aerojet-tbcc.png
    aerojet-tbcc.png
    76.2 KB · Views: 615
There is something sitting out in the hangars in the desert....why not just roll it out and stop double taxing us taxpayers! The swissmountainbat saw something awesome and so did Chuck Clark!
 
Assuming 'Aurora' was built and flew, there could be any number or combination of reasons why the SR-72 is being proposed now. It could be a hangar queen - very likely with radical technology. It may be prohibitively expensive with each mission as costly as a Space Shuttle mission. It may be a logistical nightmare - handling liquid methane and refuelling air to air may be to difficult to be practical ... and so on.

According to some reports, it had pulse detonation wave engines - well, we don't hear much about them now and my guess is that despite their mechanical simplicity, acoustic damage to the engines and airframe may make them impractical.

It may have simply fallen short of requirements in performance. Sustained air-breathing hypersonic flight has not been demonstrated in the white world yet. Maybe it never achieved the range or reliability required.

It's been pointed out often that a Mach 6 spyplane is actually more difficult to operate than a shuttle. While the shuttle entered at Mach 25, it was decelerating quickly and was hot for a short time. A sustained Mach 6 cruiser is going to be soaking in heat for an extended period, cooking almost every part of itself. If it was real, it may well have required almost a complete rebuild after each mission. The shuttles did.
 
Another possibility is that the institutional memory necessary to not only manufacture such a hypersonic airbreather, but also to even merely maintain it, has long been lost, similar to the case of the FOGBANK fiasco.
 
There is all sorts of rumors floating around. When one pieces together small facts such as timelines, sightings, and sources, a logical conclusion can be drawn that hypersonic technology has been worked on and is continuing to be worked on in secret. People will say Satellites is why we don't need this technology and I say if thats the case why do we need the RQ-170, because it offers something that satellites can't provide.

If these companies don't use proper scientific documentatio than we're really in trouble! As I guess is the case with FOGBANK.

Something that is bugging me lately, is can all the J58 engines be accounted for? We know there were follow-on programs...they either used the J58 engines or entirely new engine based off what was learned from using the J58 for decades. Thoughts?
 
themadgenius said:
There is all sorts of rumors floating around. When one pieces together small facts such as timelines, sightings, and sources, a logical conclusion can be drawn that hypersonic technology has been worked on and is continuing to be worked on in secret. People will say Satellites is why we don't need this technology and I say if thats the case why do we need the RQ-170, because it offers something that satellites can't provide.

If these companies don't use proper scientific documentatio than we're really in trouble! As I guess is the case with FOGBANK.

Something that is bugging me lately, is can all the J58 engines be accounted for? We know there were follow-on programs...they either used the J58 engines or entirely new engine based off what was learned from using the J58 for decades. Thoughts?

This discussion is starting to drift away from Lockheed's concept.

We already have a lengthy topic for "Aurora" speculation here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7886.0.html
 
Lockheed Martin has a program with the nickname "Green Lady" which is suppose to be a high-flying fast mover. Green because of the fuel additive it uses. To bring the topic back on track, if Lockheed already has technology why just not make it white and bring it out of the black?
 
themadgenius said:
We know there were follow-on programs...they either used the J58 engines or entirely new engine based off what was learned from using the J58 for decades.

Such as? Name one.
 
Careful please, this is moving into "abovetopsecret.com" territory. The evidence is overwhelmingly against a Lockheed Martin 'fast mover' existing at this point - and the SR-72 program is one of the best pieces of evidence to prove that.
 
themadgenius said:
Lockheed Martin has a program with the nickname "Green Lady" which is suppose to be a high-flying fast mover.

Lockheed Martin allegedly (according to an anonymous poster on abovetopsecret.com) has a program with the nickname "Green Lady" which is supposed to be a high-flying fast mover.

Slight difference.
 
"Careful please, this is moving into "abovetopsecret.com" territory. The evidence is overwhelmingly against a Lockheed Martin 'fast mover' existing at this point - and the SR-72 program is one of the best pieces of evidence to prove that."

Indeed. Old wine in new bottles. Wake me when I can kick tyres.

Chris
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom