Started By
Message
re: Does Aurora exist?
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:00 am to Pavoloco83
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:00 am to Pavoloco83
I actually stood very near, thanks to a pilot buddy of mine back in the day, an SR-71.
In that respect yes, there are some advantages to the SR-72 concept in-so-much as it is maneuverable, fast, and thus highly elusive.
Back in the day the SR-71 could outrun most A-A systems, but these days probably not-so-much.
Mach 6 is gettin'-it but still, you're not going to outrun modern A-A.
The key to today's combat aircraft, of all flavors, is stealth.
In that respect yes, there are some advantages to the SR-72 concept in-so-much as it is maneuverable, fast, and thus highly elusive.
Back in the day the SR-71 could outrun most A-A systems, but these days probably not-so-much.
Mach 6 is gettin'-it but still, you're not going to outrun modern A-A.
The key to today's combat aircraft, of all flavors, is stealth.
3
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:14 am to sms151t
The real game changing military technology our government has won't be seen publicly for another decade or so. There's no telling what all they have. I'd be willing to bet we don't know half of what our military is really capable of.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:30 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
The real game changing military technology our government has won't be seen publicly for another decade or so. There's no telling what all they have. I'd be willing to bet we don't know half of what our military is really capable of.
The game-changer is going to be laser systems and the delivery platforms on which they are mounted. Unmanned delivery systems, sub-orbital, capable of taking out surface, air and space targets. High capacity, self-recharging and easily refueled, probably combo nuclear/solar powered lasers systems and platforms that can fly indefinitely, possesses some sort of infallible counter measures, and can act autonomously after initial commands are inputted.
Additionally, cloaking devices that get us as near to invisibility, in terms of our enemies' detecting technologies, as possible. Invisible not only to modern sonar and radar, but to sight and sound as well.
And finally robotic combat soldiers ... Terminators if you will. Self explanatory.
Those are the three holy grails out there right now.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:40 am to scrooster
quote:
I actually stood very near, thanks to a pilot buddy of mine back in the day, an SR-71.
Josh Hopkins's (Cougartown actor) dad got to fly in one.
quote:
Back in the day the SR-71 could outrun most A-A systems, but these days probably not-so-much.
Ack Ack (bullets, flak, and older methods) and interceptors probably don't as speed negates ability when dealing with super fast flight (imagine a cop starting at 0 catching a speeder doing 250 or 300 past the speed trap catching the speeder). This probably leave just missiles which may have limited speed or range. Sustaining a missile at Mach 6 over specific airspace may be a daunting issue indeed. Outside of huge countries like Russia and China how long would it take for a vehicle traveling Mach 6 take to go from end to end of a country like Serbia or Bosnia?
quote:
The key to today's combat aircraft, of all flavors, is stealth.
I would say stealth and size. Drones are smaller and cheaper when you take out all the stuff that protects the human part of the equation. remove all the deadweight of human needs and replace it with things affecting speed and range and SAM's would have to get bigger and faster to.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:42 am to sms151t
quote:
logistics and upkeep of launch and recovery, what base do you use? Groom Lake no, maybe in the Rockies or in California?
You use the base that no one knows about. Duh
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:48 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
The F16 was our interceptor in the 1980's. It was designed and built via the Skunkworks 10 - 20 years earlier.
So much wrong. Let's see where I start.
No, the F-16 was not our interceptor. It was built to be the "Low" in a high/low mix of tactical USAF jets with the F-15 being the "high".
In keeping with that tradition, the original F-16 couldn't use the USAF's long range air to air weapon of the 1980s (the radar guided AIM-7 Sparrow). They were limited to short ranged AIM-9 Sidewinders. Aside from a few specially modified Air National Guard F-16s (called the ADF), the F-16 didn't gain a beyond visual range weapon - which is a must for a modern interceptor - until the AIM-120 AMRAAAM was introduced in the early to mid 1990s.
The F-16 also wasn't a skunkworks secret project. It was developed by Lockheed, who also ran the skunk works, but it was part of the lightweight fighter competition where it was publicly evaluated against the other finalist (the YF-17). It was a very quick moving project, with requirements being released in 71/72, first flights of the prototypes in 1974, and service entry for the winning F-16 in 1979.
Incidentally, both were very good airplanes and despite losing the USAF competition, the YF-17 went on to become the Navy's F-18 Hornet.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 8:57 am to scrooster
quote:
Back in the day the SR-71 could outrun most A-A systems, but these days probably not-so-much.
Mach 6 is gettin'-it but still, you're not going to outrun modern A-A.
Yes you are. Gun systems have 0 chance. They can't reach the cruising height of the Blackbird.
Missiles aren't any faster today than they were back then, but the guidance systems are much better so SAM systems have the potential, but in the practical terms they still could't do it.
We're able to shoot down satellites because they follow predictable flight patterns so the launching platform can be positioned to put a SAM on an interception path. A blackbird can turn. The very second a tracking radar lit up, it would just need to make a ever-so-slight course adjustment and the intercept solution's out the window - and that SAM still isn't catching a Blackbird from behind.
It would be a mission kill, and thus a successful defense but not a shoot down.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:08 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
So much wrong. Let's see where I start
Yes and no
quote:
The F-16 also wasn't a skunkworks secret project. It was developed by Lockheed, who also ran the skunk works, but it was part of the lightweight fighter competition where it was publicly evaluated against the other finalist (the YF-17). It was a very quick moving project, with requirements being released in 71/72, first flights of the prototypes in 1974, and service entry for the winning F-16 in 1979.
I agree with this
Where the no part comes in is the "speed" of the public vs private part. Say you have a window from 71 - 79 for the "public" part but how much of the project had actually be done in the decade preceding? Are there parts that were already developed and researched in the 60's that made it into the F16? I am going to say the answer is yes.
We both agree it was a good plane tho.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:29 am to Cheese Grits
The F-16 was developed and built by General Dynamics. It first flew in 1972 as part of the USAF lightweight fighter competition.
Lockheed later bought GD, so I suppose thats where the Lockheed link comes in.
Lockheed later bought GD, so I suppose thats where the Lockheed link comes in.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:37 am to Pavoloco83
quote:
Lockheed later bought GD
They pretty much have all been rolled into LMT. I am trying to remember if GD was the part of Chrysler that got spun off after the stock collapse in the 70's. Seems like ages ago when this occupied much more brain space.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:44 am to scrooster
quote:
I actually stood very near, thanks to a pilot buddy of mine back in the day, an SR-71.
Well Scrooster this will probably make you jelly. I used to work in Palmdale when I was active duty and was there when the Air Force brought 4 SR-71s out of mothballs and back into service. I would go outside my office and watch them do touch & goes and low approaches. It would set off everyone car alarm. I was literally less than 50 yards away.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:45 am to sms151t
quote:
Does Aurora exist?
If the insanity of the F-35 production is any indicator of our current abilities to design aircraft, for the Aurora to exist in any capability, it would basically bankrupt our air force.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:54 am to cokebottleag
quote:
for the Aurora to exist in any capability, it would basically bankrupt our air force.
You don't understand the theory behind Government spending do you? Yes I'm being sarcastic but as long as the Treasury has a printing press, there's money.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 9:57 am to Wtodd
quote:
You don't understand the theory behind Government spending do you? Yes I'm being sarcastic but as long as the Treasury has a printing press, there's money.
I am not so sure you even have to use sarcasm. It is unreal what the US government spends. When you pass budget bills that have not even been written yet it boggles the mind what can wind upon them.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 10:09 am to Cheese Grits
Valid point.....I'm a federal contractor in the acquisition field & there's always money.
BTW, the Fed budget doesn't even add in the black programs which is where the Aurora would be.
BTW, the Fed budget doesn't even add in the black programs which is where the Aurora would be.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 10:55 am to sms151t
I would think our focus is on a potential future threat from China, so our research is probably centered on autonomous drones. China is rapidly developing their military and incorporating technologies we thought were beyond their capability.
While we can easily stay ahead of them in technology, we are inferior when it comes to their main asset, soldiers on the ground. With 1.2 billion people, China can command a vast army that would put their immediate neighbors in peril of invasion.
I'm sure we're developing aircraft, probably autonomous drones, that can take out many thousands of troops quickly. That would be the only effective counter we could deploy against Chinese land soldiers.
While we can easily stay ahead of them in technology, we are inferior when it comes to their main asset, soldiers on the ground. With 1.2 billion people, China can command a vast army that would put their immediate neighbors in peril of invasion.
I'm sure we're developing aircraft, probably autonomous drones, that can take out many thousands of troops quickly. That would be the only effective counter we could deploy against Chinese land soldiers.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 11:23 am to vengeanceofrain
quote:
Aurora snow the porn star? yeah she's pretty hot. she takes up the butt too
She has a scene where she takes 2 in the butt and one in Vag. Triple Penetration
Posted on 6/3/15 at 1:45 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Well Scrooster this will probably make you jelly. I used to work in Palmdale when I was active duty and was there when the Air Force brought 4 SR-71s out of mothballs and back into service. I would go outside my office and watch them do touch & goes and low approaches. It would set off everyone car alarm. I was literally less than 50 yards away.
Ahhh, the SR-71.
What a bad arse mofo.
Pilot - "Blackbird one-one, requesting flight level 650."
ATC - "Well, Blackbird one-one, if you can get up that high, you are cleared for flight level 650, sir."
Pilot - "Roger, Blackbird one-one, descending to flight level 650 from 700."
Watching a target move across a radar display that fast is a thing of beauty.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 1:47 pm to Cheese Grits
General Dynamics Fort Worth is whats left of Convair. Convair was once Consolidated Vultee.
Posted on 6/3/15 at 3:33 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
it would basically bankrupt our air force.
Black works are not factored into publicly available budgets, or really the regular budget at all.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News