Thread

Former SR-71 engineer talks NASA's Blackbird revival program

113 points · 76 comments · rkagerer

gaigalas · 1791086277 · focus · HN ↗
When I see this, I can only think of modern high-altitude balloons. My gut tells me the SR-71 would be an ideal interceptor for that new threat (despite not being an interceptor itself).
The balloon issue cannot be addressed by any modern US aircraft, and spending expensive missiles on low cost balloons seems like wasting money and resources.
We'll know soon.
1. nradov · 1791092151 · focus · HN ↗
  The SR-71 was never designed as an interceptor, and would require extensive modifications to carry and employ weapons. Not going to happen. There was an earlier YF-12 interceptor program but it never proceeded beyond the prototype stage.
  High-altitude balloons are hardly a new threat. They have been used for decades, although some recent Chinese models are more capable than before. Regular tactical aircraft already in the US inventory are perfectly capable of shooting them down.
  <a href="https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3288579/f-22-safely-shoots-down-chinese-spy-balloon-off-south-carolina-coast/" rel="nofollow">https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3288579/f-22...
  1. gaigalas · 1791093268 · focus · HN ↗
    Current aircraft is not capable of reaching those balloons, read my other commentary. Your link points to a Chinese balloon that dropped way below its operational range.
    SR-71 or not, there are already contracts for filling this niche:
    <a href="https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4613098/contracts-for-sept-28-2026/" rel="nofollow">https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4613098/... (search for "swamp gas").
    If money is flowing to counter/develop high-altitude balloons and declared as urgent, it's likely it's flowing in more than one vein.
    The frame modifications you mentioned are already specified and tested, part of the YF-12 programme. It can easily carry air-to-air missiles instead of reconnaissance equipment, and the frame has flown with that configuration.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
    walrus01 · 1791097446 · focus · HN ↗
    > Current aircraft is not capable of reaching those balloons
    Is a missile a form of aircraft? Because there's variants of the Standard Missile which can hit a low earth orbit satellite, with the right timing, fired from effectively zero velocity and at sea level from a frigate.
    gaigalas · 1791098089 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, it's not reusable. You're wasting a resource destined for hypersonic deterrence on some sheets of mylar that float around.
    I mean, you can do that, but it would be a tremendous embarrassment.
    numpad0 · 1791114013 · focus · HN ↗
    missiles shot from fighter jets aren't reusable either, and ships that fire those missiles are as reusable as jets
    gaigalas · 1791116443 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know which weapon would be used. A laser or a machine gun can take out a balloon if you're close enough. Even if missiles are used, closer range air-to-air are cheaper.
    Also, approaching the balloon in stealth with a plane that has its own radar system is considerably less paraphernalia than ships chasing balloons.
    I could be wrong about how the SR-71 will be used, but I'm very sure using expensive missiles designed for much more advanced threats to take out balloons is insanity.
    nradov · 1791123062 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem to be confused about basic aerodynamics. At those altitudes, attempting to shoot a balloon with a machine gun would be insanity. The high wing loading limits maneuverability so severely that the shooting platform would risk running into target debris.
    As of today it's not possible to mount a laser on a tactical aircraft (or SR-71) capable of destroying a balloon. There isn't enough space or power available. Perhaps that will change soon but for now it remains science fiction.
    gaigalas · 1791125897 · focus · HN ↗
    The conversation goes as follows:
    - Reusable/non-reusable
    - Cost/range
    The machine gun and laser are illustrative examples. I offered a cheaper short range missile as an option too, if those two bother you.
    At some point, I believed you got carried away by specific details about aerodynamics and laser payload (you are probably right!), but are ultimately irrelevant for the progression of the conversation: if you are closer, you can use a cheaper weapon.
    It's normal to get carried away (I do it all the time), and I'm fine with having my comments broken down and dissected. However, there are aspects of what I said that weren't answered, so they still stand.
    nradov · 1791135170 · focus · HN ↗
    When regular F-22s were already used to shoot down Chinese spy balloons they employed AIM-9 missiles, which are cheaper than AIM-120. But there's no need to get particularly close: in fact for safety they want to remain well separated from the target and never get on a collision course.
    But in general all of your comments here have been deeply uninformed about how this stuff actually works.
    gaigalas · 1791136446 · focus · HN ↗
    I appreciate the heads up.
    This is a low stakes brainstorming conversation, I presented my ideas as hypotheticals and shared my sources.
    Honestly, I was hoping someone more knowledgeable would share any better insight on what the recently work on the SR-71 frame would be used for in practice. That hasn't happened so far, but that's fine.
    "Your guess is bad because using the SR-71 for _____ in missions such as ______ would make more sense" would be stellar brainstorming about this beloved fan favorite.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.