Hypersonic Spyplanes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Hypersonic Spyplanes
(22-11-2013 03:10 PM)Julius Wrote:  It looks like the SR-72 is just the target for which the Russian S-400 has been waiting.

Mach 6 SR-72, let me introduce you to the Mach 12 S-400 Missile System:








What I find really strange about this missile launch that is demonstrated in the video is that the Russian Operators launch 2 S-400 missiles at a single ballistic target. This is an utter waste of expensive missiles.

Only in an actual battle would you really need to launch 2 missiles at a target (a jet in this case). The first missile is to either hit the target, or miss in the event that the jet makes a hard turn and deploys chaff/flare. The second missile - which is launched behind the first with a slight delay - is to hit the unlucky jet that has just made a hard manuever and lost a lot of kinetic energy as a result.

The SA-5 Missile System with Entry-into-Service of 1967 marked the beginning of the end for the SR-71. As soon as the Soviets let the SA-5 be available to its friends, the SR-71 had no real purpose to fulfill...except in backwards places like Libya or wherever else the Soviets wouldn't sell the SA-5 System. Thus, by the mid-and-late 1970s, the numbers of countries the SR-71 could overfly were rapidly approaching zero.

If the SR-72 were developed, it would be already obsolete for most places that really matter. For example, there would be no overflights of Cuba (well...not unless you just wanted to have a funeral for an SR-72 pilot). And places like China or Russia....Hah!

BTW, the newest generation of missiles (some cruise missiles and some air-to-air) incorporate IR/UV/Visible image recognition via CCD arrays and, as a result, are absolutely immune to chaff, flare or electronic jamming. Sooner or later - probably sooner - I expect to see this technology incorporated on Surface-to-Air Missiles and this will be a bad time to be a fighter pilot in a war zone.

The comparison is not as simple as that and it's easier to understand when you consider the physics of the shootdown.

An aircraft such as the SR-72 would be doing Mach 6-7 (roughly 4000 mph/6400 kmh) at an altitude of approx 100,000-120,000 feet (20-24 miles) in cruise, meaning this is a steady state the aircraft can maintain until it runs out of gas. The specs would be classified, but let's assume that the jet can cruise at these speeds for at least 1 hour before it has to decelerate to either land or seek out a tanker to refuel.

The principle problems here for a missile to shoot down the jet is

1) energy
2) probability of detection
3) time from detection to launch and tracking.

First, let's start with energy. In order for the missile to down the jet, it needs to be at the same position, same altitude, and the same, or greater, speed as the jet to hit it. This requires a tremendous amount of energy from the fuel in the missile's rocket booster be converted to both potential energy in terms of altitude gain as well as kinetic energy (speed) and this conversion and subsequent gain of altitude and speed has to happen very, very fast. At 4000mph, the jet will travel approx 1.1 miles EVERY SECOND! Given a maximum range of 250 miles for the missile, the jet will be in and out of the missiles ballistic envelope within 7.6 minutes! This gives the missile a maximum of 3.8 minutes to climb over 20 miles above the earth and accelerate to over 4000mph and still match position with an intercept course to hit the airplane.

But can't the missile do Mach 12? Well yes and no. The manufacturer quotes the speed of the weapon at Mach 12, meaning that at it's optimum altitude and in straight and level flight the missile will achieve a maximum speed of Mach 12. This does not mean that the missile can cruise at Mach 12 and in fact it never spends more than a couple of seconds at those speeds. The reason is that the engine burns out within about 15-20 seconds after launch and the weapon goes ballistic, its kinetic energy slowly winding down by conversion into potential energy (altitude gain) and losses due to parasite drag traveling through the atmosphere.

In addition, the missile's quoted range is misleading. The 250 mile range is the maximum ballistic range of the missile, meaning this is as far as the rocket engine can lob the airframe on an optimal flight trajectory and perfect atmospheric conditions. It does not account for variable such as boresight angle, target range, azimuth, etc. In fact, when dealing with missiles, warfighters tend not to think in terms of maximum range but rather in terms of a 'lethal envelope' where a missile can both reach the target and has the necessary 'smash' - the kinetic energy to maneuver with a target attempting to evade it. I'm making an educated guess here but I'd say that for an S-400 pitted against a Mach 6 jet, it has a maximum lethal envelope of approx 80 miles for a head on shot and about 40 miles for a tail shot. So calculated in this fashion, this reduces the SR-72's maximum exposure time from 7.2 minutes to about 1.8 minutes, assuming the jet cuts directly through the missile's lethal envelope with its flight path. This is unlikely, as I will explain shortly.

Next is probability of detection. Using low observable shaping as well as radar absorbant materials, the SR-72 would have a very low radar cross section from a head on profile, which greatly decreases the position and time that the S-400's fire control radar can acquire and track the jet. Similar small RCS profiles are achieved for a side view of the jet as well. From the tail the jet's RCS is going to be very large as well as it will have a massive infra-red signature from the engines, which would quickly give away the position of the aircraft. But as we discussed before with a 40 mile effective range for a tail shot, the aircraft is clear of the danger area in just 36 seconds.

In addition there is a serious danger for the S-400 crew to be scanning the airspace intensely using their fire control radar since it acts like a beacon on a radar warning receiver in the jet saying 'here I am'. If the jet is equipped with an anti radiation missile eg HARM, ARM, ALARM, etc, the pilot, using a combination of stealth and position, can simply lauch said missile at the radar site, destroying it before anyone on the ground knew they were in danger.

Also, the position of IADS threats can be mapped and generally known before the mission begins and advanced sensors such as Sideways Looking Airborne Radar can be used for reconnaissance deep into enemy territory long before the jet need tread into the threat ranges of enemy IADS.

As for missile countermeasures, flares and chaff may be rapidly supplanted by a laser based defense on the jet, which can destroy the seeker head on an enemy missile as it approaches, rendering it unguided.

So it's possible to use said defenses against a jet like this but most likely it would be fruitless. This was much the case with the SR-71 for the reasons listed above. Cold War era SA-5 SAM systems could, in theory take out a Blackbird but it would have required they be tipped with a nuclear warhead to knock it out either by blast or EMP damage to their electronics. To this day neither the USAF nor the CIA will confirm or deny overflights of the Soviet Union by SR-71s or earlier A-12s (it may have happened) but they did plenty of overflights of Cuba, Vietnam, China, Egypt, Israel, Iran and Lybia - all had advanced Warsaw Pact SAM systems and none could touch the Lady in a Black Dress.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Hypersonic Spyplanes
I can hardly contain my excitement for the progression of new and unique ways of human beings to kill other human beings through advanced and classified tech.

Angry

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
24-11-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: Hypersonic Spyplanes
(23-11-2013 11:13 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  To this day neither the USAF nor the CIA will confirm or deny overflights of the Soviet Union by SR-71s or earlier A-12s (it may have happened) but they did plenty of overflights of Cuba, Vietnam, China, Egypt, Israel, Iran and Lybia - all had advanced Warsaw Pact SAM systems and none could touch the Lady in a Black Dress.

Wow...just WOW.

Here, we got a 50-year-old technology whose performance won't be substantiated by the people who operated it even though the enemy (i.e., the Soviet Union) no longer exists and the ability to build an SR-71 is possessed by dozens of countries.

Ever wonder why the CIA and USAF never says anything about the SR-71 mission or performance? Ever wondered why Mcnamara had the A-12 and SR-71 tooling destroyed back in the 1960's?

Could it be...because the SR-71 sucked? Could it be...that it was incapable of reasonably overflying the territories it was designed to surveil (i.e., Soviet Union and China) and so it NEVER DID? Probably so.

Want to know how far the BS goes? O.K...here's a photo of a Top Secret Invisible Aircraft the US denied was flying over Iranian airspace:

[Image: abc_iran_drone_nt_111208_wg.jpg]


Or, how about the U-2....whose wreckage is still on display in Moscow?

[Image: Moscow-173-Francis-Gary-Powers-Wreckage-1024x768.jpg]


Of course...no one can shoot down a Stealth Aircraft, huh? The one brought down by Iran must have been an accident, except....Serbia got them a Stealth Aircraft, too!

[Image: f_117_nn7.jpg?m=1289694141]


The SR-71, the SR-72 and all the other products discussed in this post are brought to you by the Lockheed Skunkworks - the people who claim their Bull Shit don't stink.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: Hypersonic Spyplanes
(24-11-2013 08:17 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 11:13 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  To this day neither the USAF nor the CIA will confirm or deny overflights of the Soviet Union by SR-71s or earlier A-12s (it may have happened) but they did plenty of overflights of Cuba, Vietnam, China, Egypt, Israel, Iran and Lybia - all had advanced Warsaw Pact SAM systems and none could touch the Lady in a Black Dress.

Wow...just WOW.

Here, we got a 50-year-old technology whose performance won't be substantiated by the people who operated it even though the enemy (i.e., the Soviet Union) no longer exists and the ability to build an SR-71 is possessed by dozens of countries.

Ever wonder why the CIA and USAF never says anything about the SR-71 mission or performance? Ever wondered why Mcnamara had the A-12 and SR-71 tooling destroyed back in the 1960's?

Could it be...because the SR-71 sucked? Could it be...that it was incapable of reasonably overflying the territories it was designed to surveil (i.e., Soviet Union and China) and so it NEVER DID? Probably so.

Want to know how far the BS goes? O.K...here's a photo of a Top Secret Invisible Aircraft the US denied was flying over Iranian airspace:

[Image: abc_iran_drone_nt_111208_wg.jpg]


Or, how about the U-2....whose wreckage is still on display in Moscow?

[Image: Moscow-173-Francis-Gary-Powers-Wreckage-1024x768.jpg]


Of course...no one can shoot down a Stealth Aircraft, huh? The one brought down by Iran must have been an accident, except....Serbia got them a Stealth Aircraft, too!

[Image: f_117_nn7.jpg?m=1289694141]


The SR-71, the SR-72 and all the other products discussed in this post are brought to you by the Lockheed Skunkworks - the people who claim their Bull Shit don't stink.

Show me the remains of a Blackbird downed by enemy fire and I'll concede.

All A-12 and SR-71 airframes have been accounted for, including the ones lost in peacetime accidents.

I'd suggest you pose that theory to Maj Brian Shul or any number of other A-12 and SR-71 pilots. They will tell you that you are full of crap. They flew the Sled into harm's way and were shot at plenty of times. All attempts to shoot it down were fruitless.

The U-2 was a slow aircraft and, though it could fly at extreme altitudes, was an easy mark for IADS.

Your comments about stealth show you fundamentally misunderstand how stealth works. Any stealth aircraft can be detected and tracked. The deal is, the ranges at which this is possible are greatly reduced, creating holes in IADS networks, allowing the jet to work undetected much more often. Wile we did lose an F-117 over the Balkans, please feel free to talk with pilots who flew the Nighthawk over Baghdad in 1991, hitting their targets with precision while the Iraqis could no nothing to stop the jet, save firing blindly into the night sky at invisible phantoms.

Also, the Skunk Works have won the Collier Trophy (aviation's highest award) no less than five times for products they built, including the SR-71 and F-117 aircraft. Not bad for a group of fuck ups.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: