Lockheed Martin SR-72?

CJGibson said:
"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
Click to expand...
Before I joined SPF I was in the "With a $40B to $50B annual black budget there HAS to be something" as well. The knowledge of the members here dispelled those notions, albeit slowly. I to am in the "Show me a picture sitting on the tarmac" camp now :D
 
bobbymike said:
CJGibson said:
"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
Click to expand...
Before I joined SPF I was in the "With a $40B to $50B annual black budget there HAS to be something" as well. The knowledge of the members here dispelled those notions, albeit slowly. I to am in the "Show me a picture sitting on the tarmac" camp now :D
Click to expand...

A good saying in the industry is "those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know." I would hope that our Aerospace Manufacture's have done some advanced research and prototyping on hypersonic craft in secret, so that we don't encounter a FOGBANK scenario.
 
Hello,

After seeing blackkite's posts, I couldn't resist giving a shot at an SR-72 blueprint. I was unable to find a front view, so it is currently missing that, I apologize.

I hope you like it! :D


Regards,

BlastWave
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed Martin SR-72 Blueprint Finish.png
    Lockheed Martin SR-72 Blueprint Finish.png
    45.2 KB · Views: 968
themadgenius said:
CJGibson said:
"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
Click to expand...
Before I joined SPF I was in the "With a $40B to $50B annual black budget there HAS to be something" as well. The knowledge of the members here dispelled those notions, albeit slowly. I to am in the "Show me a picture sitting on the tarmac" camp now :D
Click to expand...

A good saying in the industry is "those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know." I would hope that our Aerospace Manufacture's have done some advanced research and prototyping on hypersonic craft in secret, so that we don't encounter a FOGBANK scenario.
[/quote]

Why hope when the best collection of information on hypersonic research I've ever seen is right here on this forum?

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.0.html
 
Thanks a lot BlastWave-san. :D
My guess is so-so? ;D
 

Attachments

  • SR-72.jpg
    SR-72.jpg
    94.5 KB · Views: 919
  • 2016-03-30_0636.jpg
    2016-03-30_0636.jpg
    70.6 KB · Views: 733
Whole world different to their patent!

As an aside, a very interesting quote I.side the patent itself.

Existing hypersonic vehicles have two dimensional arrayed RAM/SCRAMjet engines which integrate poorly with high performance waverider vehicles, have marginal performance, and are historically heavy. Typical hypersonic vehicles attempted to overcome the poor integration and heavy engine weight by scaling up the vehicle to unrealistic sizes. The inherent performance and design issues of these vary large vehicles have never been solved.

It is therefore desirable to provide a low-weight, high-performance hypersonic vehicle.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • US07866599-20110111-D00001-1.png
    US07866599-20110111-D00001-1.png
    49.6 KB · Views: 820
patent image is full-scale HCV
 
Ian33 said:
Whole world different to their patent!

As an aside, a very interesting quote I.side the patent itself.

Existing hypersonic vehicles have two dimensional arrayed RAM/SCRAMjet engines which integrate poorly with high performance waverider vehicles, have marginal performance, and are historically heavy. Typical hypersonic vehicles attempted to overcome the poor integration and heavy engine weight by scaling up the vehicle to unrealistic sizes. The inherent performance and design issues of these vary large vehicles have never been solved.

It is therefore desirable to provide a low-weight, high-performance hypersonic vehicle.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Most of the Ramjet/Scramjet powered concepts that we have seen so far have indeed been at least the size of a B-1. I'd caution against reading too much into the "existing hypersonic vehicles" quote.
 
blackkite said:
Thanks a lot BlastWave-san. :D
My guess is so-so? ;D
Click to expand...
I think yours is very close to it! :D

I found an image of the SR-72 while searching for a front view so I can complete the blueprint, it is different to the Turbosquid model, I think.

www.ainonline.com

Hypersonic Aircraft Are Ongoing Allure for Lockheed Martin | AIN

The defense contractor is advancing multiple platforms that would travel at or beyond Mach 5.
www.ainonline.com www.ainonline.com


It says on the site "(Image: Lockheed Martin)", so this is a Lockheed illustration, right?

Edit: I also noticed now, the tail/tailboom(?) seems a lot pointier and large compared to the TS version.

OyBocpz.png
 

Attachments

  • sr-72copy.jpg
    sr-72copy.jpg
    274.1 KB · Views: 273
xstatic3000 said:
themadgenius said:
CJGibson said:
"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
Click to expand...
Before I joined SPF I was in the "With a $40B to $50B annual black budget there HAS to be something" as well. The knowledge of the members here dispelled those notions, albeit slowly. I to am in the "Show me a picture sitting on the tarmac" camp now :D
Click to expand...

A good saying in the industry is "those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know." I would hope that our Aerospace Manufacture's have done some advanced research and prototyping on hypersonic craft in secret, so that we don't encounter a FOGBANK scenario.
Click to expand...

Why hope when the best collection of information on hypersonic research I've ever seen is right here on this forum?

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.0.html
Click to expand...

Agree. But still many facets are missing to piece things up correctly. I do makes mistakes as time goes by and as I move away from the aerospace field, but in this specific case, I know I am pretty right. So…
1 - Nasa's General Hypersonics program (late 1980s) sometimes referred to as GHP.
2 - Nasa's High-Mach Turbine-Engine (HiMaTE) component technology program.

are also nice "places" to start looking at…

From what I can remember, in both space (location) and time (chronology), Nasa's "General Hypersonics" kick off meeting / conference was interesting. Either Dryden or Edwards… Dryden, most likely. I couldn't find much about GHP anyway but it has an importance. It renewed R&D in the field of hypersonics, shifting perspective and viewpoints. It significance may have been overlooked. GHP was subsequently associated with NDVs and a whole bunch of interesting "waverider" shapes, very sketchy at the time. From what I can remember, GHP was used to explore more seriously than before the concept of waverider (in the US) even though the concept originated in the UK in the 1950s (T. Nonweiler, 1952). Soon after GHP, Services would actively explore academic-like waverider shapes in Nasp-related high-speed wind tunnels.

Please note that:
- HiMaTE should not be confused in any manner with HiMAT, Rockwell's modular experimental RPV. This is very different.
- GHP was explorary - kinda. Don't expect any large piece of hardware there.

A.
 
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
AFRL Seeks Reusable Hypersonic Test Bed
Apr 8, 2016 Graham Warwick | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
EMAIL
INSHARE



COMMENTS 0
The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is planning a program called Hypersonic Routine and Affordable Experimentation (HyRAX) that would build and operate a reusable hypersonic testbed vehicle to mature a range of technologies including materials, structures, controls and ...

THIS CONTENT REQUIRES SUBSCRIPTION ACCESS
You must be a paid subscriber to access "AFRL Seeks Reusable Hypersonic Test Bed".

Current Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) enterprise and individual members: please go to http://awin.aviationweek.com for access.

Not currently a subscriber? Click on the "Learn More" button below to view subscription offers.
 
Skunk Works discussing SR-72 demonstrator progress, F-22 sized, potentially DARPA funded:

Skunk Works Hints At SR-72 Demonstrator Progress | Aviation Week Network

Lockheed Martin says hypersonic technologies are now sufficiently mature to enable progress towards a demonstrator for its Mach 6-capable follow-on to the SR-71.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

I'm going to go full sferrin and say I'll believe it when we see it fly at the Paris Air Show.
 
George Allegrezza said:
Skunk Works discussing SR-72 demonstrator progress, F-22 sized, potentially DARPA funded:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/skunk-works-hints-sr-72-demonstrator-progress

I'm going to go full sferrin and say I'll believe it when we see it fly at the Paris Air Show.
Click to expand...

I consider Scott a friend here at SPF but he is more pessimistic than I am on these issues - for my own overly enthusiastic self's benefit in many cases as his knowledge is well beyond mine - but stories like these give me hope that the reason DOD seems not too alarmed at Chinese and Russia hypersonic tech advances is because we are really close to 'something'.
 
I now have some specific technical information on at least the official art coming out of the project through AVW and others.

Mostly to do with Propulsion and leading edges.

First off, anyone has an official rear view concept I'd be interested, the conical thrust is interesting.

UofQ SCRAM work says that going from sloped/scoop intakes to conical output is plausible, so a common thrust port with an intake for the advanced turbines and is possible. It will likely operate as an advanced RAM to SCRAM with variable inlet and compression chamber geometry as RAM won't get you the speed and altitude you need for the figures posted. Likely a shockwave induced form of ignition system once in SCRAM mode.

I also have calculations to do, but the apparent preference for JP fuel won't cut it at current specs. You don't have to go cryo, but it won't share a common fuel for the SCRAM and possibly RAM portion of the flight profilebas advertised.

The non linear heat functions at the end of the combustion and burn in a ram/scram engine dictate that a near perfect adiabatic burn and absolute optimal fuel air mix at appx. 2300k. With all the normal losses, including going from an x-43/51 intake to conical exhaust and standard thermodynamic losses I can't see mach 6 with standard jp-8, theoretical maximums let you get to Mach 5 or something close with 100% conversion from fuel to thrust which you simply can't achieve.

I have the correct formulas now and need to run numbers, the jp-8 specs would be useful if anyone has them my their optional highest temp burn, calorific content. I can also take a gander at losses resulting from the required variable intake to conical thrust for a common thrust port(s) as the artwork suggests. Also might be able to find out if they are planning on using shockwave intersection as a fuel ignition source, I have good data on how that works in variable geometry inlets and in dual mode RAM/SCRAM engines theoretically now and a tested proven model.

At least I can rule a few things in and out now. A Mach 5 cruiser wouldn't require Cryo fuels, but that changes inlet size and geometry, especially if they are going to use shockwave ignition. I dare say they have a good idea about how to decelerate and loose altitude to restart RAM to get into the correct flight mode for SCRAM resrtart though.

Also will have figures for leading edge heating at a couple altitudes. Active thermal management of fuel then pumped into the engines at pressure adds some great and power to thrust if you aren't using the compressors any more, but the added complexities and advances in heat shielding make that less likely.

I ddiscussed with someone use of quiet spike like technology, both as signature reduction and to manage shockwave and compression to where you want it in the shielded parts of the airframe, but that's where the lift will come from for the ramp up to speed and for landing, though the effects at those speeds are much less. Just thinking about the RAM coatings and IR reduction requirements on such an extreme aircraft are starting to boggle my mind given the thermodynamics I'm coming to understand are involved.

Only analysis of the basic concept, AV week et Al specs and concept art, but the more you rule out, the more we get to do what we love and speculate.

Still try could be working on something wholly different then we are seeing and we all know it's mostly marketing. Still even given that it's worth trying as a case study to pull apart. Updates as I have time to run some hypersonic figures on paper for the first time.
 
You'll have to bear with me while I collect the shockwave geometry, heating and thermodynamics and thermochemistry...

But I have the right text books and I know where to look, just need to get it all together and get the figures for the retains me equations I now have.
 
phrenzy said:
I can't see mach 6 with standard jp-8, theoretical maximums let you get to Mach 5 or something close with 100% conversion from fuel to thrust which you simply can't achieve.
Click to expand...

Who has suggested standard JP-8 as suitable fuel for this flight regime?
 
www.dailymail.co.uk

Blackbird set for hypersonic overhaul as Lockheed Martin reveals SR-72

The firm has been working on the project since the early 2000s, but has now revealed progress on the project is gaining pace - and a demonstrator could take off as early as next year.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Testing of an 'optionally piloted' flight research vehicle (FRV) could happen as early as next year. It is expected to be around the same size as an F-22 and powered by a full-scale, combined cycle engine.
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4665696/The-Blackbird-set-hypersonic-overhaul.html

Testing of an 'optionally piloted' flight research vehicle (FRV) could happen as early as next year. It is expected to be around the same size as an F-22 and powered by a full-scale, combined cycle engine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is highly interesting bobbymike, the words 'optionally piloted' are even more interesting. B)
 
The DM story is taken directly from Aviation Week, and and the quote about the test vehicle is wrong. Norris said development of an FRV could start next year, not testing.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/amid-sr-72-rumors-skunk-works-ramps-hypersonics

"skunk Works is believed to be planning the start of FRV development next year, with first flight targeted for 2020. The FRV will be around the same size as an F-22 and powered by a full-scale, combined-cycle engine. However, in the run-up to the demonstrator development, Lockheed is thought to be testing several discrete technologies in a series of ground and flight tests.

According to information provided to Aviation Week, one such 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. The vehicle, which was noted landing in the early hours at an unspecified date in late July, was seen with two T-38 escorts. Lockheed Martin declined to comment directly on the sighting".

what technology might be tested in an unmanned subscale aircraft? I think we can eliminate the full combined cycle propulsion at this stage. (Or am I wrong?)
 
Is it subscale to the proposed aircraft or to the demonstrator (which would be sub-sub scale)? The term could mean either couldn't it?
 
It could, however for me the key phrases in the article are:-

"Lockheed is thought to be testing several discrete technologies in a series of ground and flight tests.

one such technology demonstrator, believed to be an unmanned subscale aircraft"

The implication being this is a method of flight testing discreet technologies in preparation to building a flight research vehicle (the hyper sonic sub scale demonstrator)
 
With regards to the kind of technologies this demonstrator could be flight testing may I suggest, low speed handling of the configuration (take off and landing).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2799.msg220843.html#msg220843

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-sr-71-successor-plan

Despite never progressing to what Leland describes as a planned HTV-3X follow-on demonstrator that “never was,” called the Blackswift, the conceptual design work led to “several key accomplishments which we didn't advertise too much,” he notes. “It produced an aircraft configuration that could controllably take off, accelerate through subsonic, supersonic, transonic and hypersonic speeds. It was controllable and kept the pointy end forward,” adds Leland.

Fundamental lessons were learned, particularly about flight control systems that could maintain stability through the transonic speed regime. Lockheed Martin's work proved the configuration could “take off without departing,” Leland notes. “We were able to drive down the takeoff speed and keep it stable and controllable. We proved all that in a whole series of wind-tunnel tests.”
Click to expand...
 
Mat Parry said:
It could, however for me the key phrases in the article are:-

"Lockheed is thought to be testing several discrete technologies in a series of ground and flight tests.

one such technology demonstrator, believed to be an unmanned subscale aircraft"

The implication being this is a method of flight testing discreet technologies in preparation to building a flight research vehicle (the hyper sonic sub scale demonstrator
Click to expand...

Discrete for discretisation, no? They would have several test airframe with each to cover one aspect of the search program (landing&TO, transonic, supersonic acceleration...).
 
With regards to the possible manned demonstrator, I wouldn't be surprised if it looks like the single engine rendering we've already seen of the SR-72's applicable technologies.
 

Attachments

  • Rescaled.jpg
    Rescaled.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 606
  • SR-71B.jpg
    SR-71B.jpg
    157.1 KB · Views: 590
Arjen said:
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
Note how distorted (smashed) the picture is.
Click to expand...

Note hoe *old* the picture is. It dates from +/- 2000.
Click to expand...
Image width reduced + the image it was adapted from at https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/SR-71/Large/EC96-43862-4.jpg:
Click to expand...

Great find Arjen. Now all Lockheed has to do is take the half-scale prototype (if that is it) keep the manned part of it and then redesign it into the full-scale SR-72, then I would be happy.
 
FighterJock said:
Arjen said:
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
Note how distorted (smashed) the picture is.
Click to expand...

Note hoe *old* the picture is. It dates from +/- 2000.
Click to expand...
Image width reduced + the image it was adapted from at https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/SR-71/Large/EC96-43862-4.jpg:
Click to expand...

Great find Arjen. Now all Lockheed has to do is take the half-scale prototype (if that is it) keep the manned part of it and then redesign it into the full-scale SR-72, then I would be happy.
Click to expand...

LM has told us a couple of times that the FRV will be F-22 size, manned and I am assuming at that scale it will be single engined. Some of the articles have referred to the vehicle that was seen as if it was the FRV, which it clearly isn’t. Even that tweet makes it sound like that, but guessing that was for humour.
 
Flyaway said:
LM has told us a couple of times that the FRV will be F-22 size, manned and I am assuming at that scale it will be single engined. Some of the articles have referred to the vehicle that was seen as if it was the FRV, which it clearly isn’t.
Click to expand...
FRV was always told as of 'optionally piloted'.
Why do you think that the thing flying is not FRV testbed - yet still powered by classic turbojet for low-speed envelope tests?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom