The SR-72 Is Probably Already Flying and Here’s Why

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Thanks for checking out the video! Head over to www.maxafterburner.co if you’d like to grab some Merch and support the channel.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

...And this vid is a total load of crap simply because satellites and camera technology makes ANY need for air born surveillance totally obsolete

[@Rekuzan]

Considering the number of 'flying triangle' UFO's that have been filmed lately...

[@douglascampbell9809]

I knew a crew chief who was stationed in Texas when an SR 71 had to land at his airfield because of a mechanical issue. Way back when it was still a secret aircraft. Besides the fuel tanks leaking you has to drain the hydraulic system upon landing because at non operational temperatures the stuff was like tar. Yet another little know issue with SR 71 operations.

[@JeremyKilroy]

I saw one in Orlando Florida, near Lockheed Martin. I though it was a drone at first, or a small personal jet but then noiced the two small slanted vertical fins.

[@JeremyKilroy]

It was a greyish color though.

[@rael5469]

One time at our air base in the early 80s we got a call over the radio to ready the base for the arrival of an SR-71. They said it could not hook up to it's tanker (turbulence ?) and needed to divert into Carswell. The next day they brought it's tanker into Carswell and it sat next to the SR and they ran a hose from it's special tanker over to the SR. The SR took off and the entire city of Forth Worth was watching. The SR-71 actually did a circuit of the field and made a low pass over the runway for all the viewers watching from the nearby freeway. Then he climbed at a steep angle with his afterburners lit and climbed out of sight. It was a sight you never forget.

[@gr8crash]

Had to have been in 83? Think that's the only time it was there.

[@teddy.d174]

That’s amazing, a once in a lifetime sight for sure.

[@ripley7t429]

Used to watch them take off at Kadena in Okinawa, quite the show.

[@rael5469]

@@gr8crash OK, I'll buy that. Remember it taxied straight into that nose dock by Base Ops? They had us do an emergency FOD walk and sweep inside the hangar.(I made up the term emergency FOD walk LOL) One other time the guys spotted a Piper Enforcer prototype in that same hangar. Nobody guarding it. It was just parked in there and we checked it out. The turbo-prop version of the P-51 offered as a ground attack aircraft. We saw a LOT pass through Carswell. The Space Shuttle Discovery. The Prototype F-14D model. The F-20 Tigershark. I remember the F-20 warming up to take off and right beside it was an F-16 in another transient parking spot. The F-20 booted up in ten minutes while the F-16 was sitting there MUCH longer trying to get out of the chocks. Pretty impressive. It's a shame no one ever bought the F-20.

[@rael5469]

@@teddy.d174 Sure was. Carswell was a dream assignment for sure.

[@theflyer4916]

I have no doubt it is flying now. I too work for the airlines and in the evenings between the hours of approximately 1900 to about 2230 Eastern Time, I’ve seen unusual light patterns on about a 290 to 310 degree heading approximately 20 to 30 degrees above the horizon. A sight similar to satellite passage but a very different flight pattern confined to that immediate area. They are moving vertically as well as horizontally. In addition , over the course of the last 2.5 years, I’ve seen more of them airborne at the same time. I’m very confident it’s some type of ultra high speed, high altitude program.

[@thehobo00]

Can you tell how fast it was going? I.e. supersonic or higher? Or was it too far/dark to tell?

[@AutomationDnD]

whatever we _THINK_ we "know" there is something even *Better* actually flyinig (and *HAS BEEN* flying all along) Because _it's Secret_ at best we might see the "Lights" of _Something_ I have no doubts there is "something" super cool out there flying / orbiting or WHATEVER it's inherent capabilities are ----- I actually DID see a "UFO" one winter night in 2012, I did not get hysterical in the slightest, because I *EXPECT* we have some really _Really_ "good tech" out there And, as with many who see a UFO, it was fast, and it was *_SILENT_* it went from horizon to horizon (right over my head) and if I had blinked I would not have Seen it. it was quite low, & I could see it clearly , it was more than merely "Lights" ................... so _Yeah_ we do have some Super Cool "stuff" flying around (the one I saw is of the "Cigar" type UFO) I just figure it is *us Out there flying secret stuff*

[@jtjames79]

​@@thehobo00If it's tracking like a satellite, I believe the technical term is "stupid fast".

[@theflyer4916]

@@thehobo00 it is difficult to tell but if I could see such rapid movement that far away, I’d imagine it’s moving fast.

[@david7384]

did you get it on radar? if not you have no idea how fast it was going

[@russcobb6990]

It wasn't the leaking fuel that resulted in low fuel takeoffs for the SR-71. Most of the flights my father made were with full tanks. The problem was upon rotation the weight transferred to the rear wheels caused them to crack. The solution was to take off with less fuel and meet the tanker before the rest of the mission. BTW, my dad said he had the record for the fastest ground to altitude and speed. We said, " . . but Dad, surely someone has broken your record by now." He laughed and said, "They would have but right after I set that record we stopped taking off with full tanks, so I think my record is safe."

[@slahous]

What was the speed? Ive heard some theories about it being much faster than officially admitted.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

I remember the excitement when the F-15 could reach altitude on engine thrust alone. That was the first production aircraft that achieved this as I recall the unclassified aviation world saying. Successful designs tend to stay around provided they do a job as good as any "new"design would do. But I never thought we'd be seeing the B-52s flying in 2024, much less getting an upgrade program to extend service to 2050(?).

[@Knowbody42]

@@LuvBorderCollies There are some aircraft that don't really need to be replaced. It just depends what they are being used for. C-130 Hercules variants have been a workhorse for a long time.

[@davemi00]

Great but, when do we start escalating peaceful initiatives?

[@icomsltd]

I wonder if they could 3D print a fuel tank in one piece? Fewer sealents needed, if any are needed.

[@sdfswords]

This bird is no doubt flying. I was at Edwards AFB, 30 YEARS AGO, heard a strange popping sound overhead, looked up, saw nothing, but then a connected doughnut hole con trail appeared. That was the acoustic and visual signature of Aurora, as by the time you heard it, the plane was already far down range well out of visual. What's really funny, the USAF was flying it out in the open, on a clear, blue sky day, confident that nobody would actually see it. Of course, Lockheed's super secret Plant 42 is located in nearby Palmdale.

[@Gman41750]

These goes a long way towards explaining my “UFO” sighting one late night in the rice fields in NorCal several years ago. Being aware Beale AFB wasn’t far, I’ve always accounted this unexplainable sighting to have been a product of our military. I’ve never been an Alien UFO believer but couldn’t reconcile my own observations to any other explanation. Your description explains to a “T” what me and my brother saw. The speed of the aircraft we observed deified anything I’ve ever seen (I was an active duty Navy Air guy way back when, so I’ve seen many many jets doing crazy ass shit). So thank you My Alien UFO experience is now 100% debunked. Phew!

[@Noah-u2z]

@@Gman41750seem crazy things in SoCal

[@Nobody19011]

China: "We have hypersonic weapons now." USA: "Every weapon is hypersonic if when we launch it from hypersonic speeds."

[@kwonekstrom2138]

US - complete lack of hypersonic weapons... Russia/China - We have hypersonics!!!! US - immediately has a hypersonic glide body that performs perfectly but fails multiple launches from a B-52... something we've been testing high speed aircraft from for almost a century.

[@Sion_Revan]

They've had Hypersonic missiles since the late 60's, look up the SPRINT missile, went from 0 to mach 10 in five seconds.

[@kwonekstrom2138]

@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145 Well... it's not really that difficult. You just need the area to be outside of the laminar air flow. No doors... no change in the skin at all... just eject the missile behind the aircraft. The funny thing about experiments... failing one doesn't mean an idea is impossible... just that your implementation is bad.

[@TheOneAndOnlySatan]

So there is hope for the hypersonic .22 😍

[@radiotests]

​@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145 I can think of a dozen different composites developed for aerospace requirements and re‐entry as well as stuff we had back in the 80s with my job in a Fire Control Electronics capacity. Guidance and control for projectiles in excess of 4000 fps. We have long since surpassed what you claim to be the limit of the state of the art in material science. We have carbon ceramic compounds that are being 3d printed that can perform inside the thrust chamber and exterior exhaust stream. They dont get red hot or undergo any standard thermodynamic stress you identified. We have those being made in internal combustion engines even. Nope, I believe your misinformed.

[@olanderdecastro52]

"Do you want speed or stealth?" YES

[@cylentone]

The SR-71 never got up to hypersonic speeds as you mentioned, but according to SR-71 pilots did get up to Mach 3.5 and slightly above (escaping missiles over Libya). The SR-72 is almost certainly flying already, developed by LM with Skunk Works starting in 2006. LM was funding the program itself. Their challenge at the time was "marrying" turbofan and scramjet to fly at low speeds. They already had a design for the aircraft itself. In 2013, they disclosed it and hypersonic program manager Brad Leland gave several interviews about it. He stated that a small, single-engine flying demonstrator (F-22 size) could be ready in 2018-2019, a twin-engine SR-72 operational by 2030. In 2017 the program finally got government funding. Rob Weiss said in 2017 the single-engine demonstrator would be flying in the "early 2020's". That was probably a lie, because later in 2017 eyewitnesses reported that they saw an aircraft identical to the SR-72 concept images flying over Palmdale = Skunk Works HQ. When confronted about the sightings, LM VP Carvalho just said "we are doubling down on out commitment to speed" and the platforms "will be operating at 2-3x that of the SR-71". For security reasons, he could only say at speeds "greater than Mach 5". In 2018 LM VP O'Banion said "The aircraft is agile at hypersonic speeds with reliable engine starts". LM also put out a promotional video of the SR-72 concept which you showed with the caption "global strike" meaning it will definitely be carrying weapons. LM actually had a page on their website about the program until Putin announced in 2018 the (now debunked) "invincible" Kinzhal hypersonic missile, when they scrubbed the internet of any mention of the SR-72. The Air Force put out a promotional video in 2021 with a scene showing an unpiloted aircraft in a hangar which looks like the SR-72 rendering. If you tweak the lighting of the scene, you can see "SR-72" on the aircraft. * Shoutout to Alex Hollings who has been following the SR-72 program and sharing all these cool details.

[@Bladeworkssystems]

Incorrect. It has gone as fast as Mach 3.47. there is no veritable claim of it ever going faster.

[@RealMrStoofus]

Given one of the sources of the Mach 3.5 number was one of the SR71 pilots, I think I'll go with their assessment over yours.

[@Bladeworkssystems]

@@RealMrStoofus that speed was taken at a different altitude. That was 3.47. I'll take Linda Sheffield's word over his

[@MattH-wg7ou]

​​@@Bladeworkssystems if you go mach 1.0 at sea level or 50k ft you've still gone Mach 1.0. Of course it will be a different IAS, EAS, or CAS, but... What does a different altitude have to do with invalidating a claim by a pilot of Mach 3.5? Also 3.47 = 3.5 for practical discussions. You're splitting hairs, regardless of who is actually right. I mean...if you want to be pedantic about it: "aaacchhttuallly..."

[@nedkelly9688]

Alex Hollings is a awful journalist unless you just want pro USA propaganda on technology lol. if want truth ignore him.'Doubt SR72 even works yet. close maybe. can follow all USA hypersonics in HIFIRE and now SCIFIRE joint USA, Australia hypersonic tests, can see when research HACM and HAWC scramjet missiles were developed throught these.. saids it developed through SCIFIRE and HAWC through previous HIFIRE programmes. Alex never mentions Australia even blabbering on Herneus will be world first hypersonic drone to beat SR71.. Let me tell you Australia has world fastest scramjet at mach 12 even most journalists record on it and earlier version of the scramjet engine were used in Australia part of HIFIRE and Australia will test a scramjet powered drone in less then 300 days, they did have a timer up on their website but now seems pulled down and only have time lines of first flight in year quarters.. Australian company won a USA DUI HYCAT award to build USA hypersonic vehicles. Hypersonixs is the name and won it over 63 other companies including the famous Hermeus Alex go on about... Inventor of the scramjet Dr Michael Smart worked at NASA and all he did was design scramjet engines. Australian Ray Stalker is said to be first to get essence of flight from scramjets. no other produced more thrust then drag before him he even invented world fastest hypersonic wind tunnels called Stalker tubes, China stole this design and now claim they have world fastest wind tunnels.. all found on internet if search. During AUSMIN the highest official meeting between Australia and USA officials USA defense secretary and Australian defense secretary discuss hypersonics and because HIFIRE 4 2017 successful mach 8 HGV hypersonic glide vehicle test was watched closely by Chinese and Russian's they said they would now put a blanket ban on hypersonic tests and programmes including to USA congress, and yes they went black on it, confirming your story of SR72 going dark. Australian company with world fastest scramjet say theirs has been tested 11 times in real atmosphere tests during HIFIRE but is only one on record to see and that was over Norway. sensors failed even though scramjet worked. Kratos is joining Hypersonixs and helping build the launch system of the rocket boosters for the Aussie drone and Kratos said they worked with Dr Michael Smart in HIFIRE and already preordered 200 of Hypersonixs drones to sell in USA. Is said Ray Stalker invented the oval inlet design of scramjets, keeps engine running cooler and was a issue in the X43A as was rectangular and cause severe overheating and even though it flew it is said it slowed down after rocket boosters stopped and did not get essence of flight as did not produce more thrust then drag....

[@byronking9573]

Old Navy guy here... I like your videos, in general. This one is among your absolute best. Top of your game. Great work.

[@tadfoster6014]

My grandfather was a peer and friend of Kelly Johnson, head of Skunk Works back in the early Blackbird days. He never spoke in detail of the Blackbird, but before it was ever really public, he did mention to my mom and Grandmother, “Kelly has a really fast jet.” Coincidentally, my Wing King up at Ellsworth EAFB (Brig. Gen. Harold B. “Buck” Adams - He was a Col. back then) was a Blackbird pilot and we got to know each other a little bit and exchange stories about them. Finally, during my enlistment with the 28th OMS, a Blackbird had an IFE into Ellsworth at night during my shift. They taxi’d right into one of the B-1B hangers and we got to go get a good look at it before the SPs locked it all up. I was an amazed by the low tech instrumentation, tiny wheels and fuel dripping out of it all over.

[@jasonwooden]

LOL, the SR-71 even LOOKS like the "ultimate middle finger" when it flies over!

[@bofwappy]

Almost every aircraft was flying 5 years before it was acknowledged. Love the videos!!!

[@ypw510]

Not necessarily. Remember there were very public competitions over the years like the Lightweight Fighter Program between the YF-17 and YF-16 or the Advanced Tactical Fighter program between the YF-23 and the YF-22. And recently the Joint Strike Fighter program between the YF-32 and YF-35. The participants were very public and weren't trying to hide that they were working on the aircraft.

[@tobiaswillson5900]

more like 20 years , .

[@shardovl586]

And has been replaced when they do

[@shardovl586]

It wouldn't make any tactical sense to release information on a spy plane or stealth plane, unless it had been replaced

[@ypw510]

@@shardovl586 Since when? The US had the F-22 and F-35 programs as a result of a very public flyoff competition. They obviously held back a lot of classified information on their capabilities, but the public absolutely knew about them before they went into production.

[@chrisrossi5176]

Remember earlier this year a flight was caught on radar flying over the Atlantic, across the UK, over France and down the west coast of Italy. It was recorded at 90,000ft and speed was mach 14.

[@AnthonyDDean]

Mach 14 under 120K ft is excessive dynamic pressure and temps of 6,500°F. Don’t think this is plausible. Mach 4 would be just right.

[@cujet]

I am a pilot, aircraft owner and live in West Jupiter, FL. A few years back while driving my convertible late at night, heading West of civilization on Indiantown Rd, I heard, then noticed silhouetted against the illuminated clouds, a large and sharp-wedge shaped plane, estimated to be about a 60 degree acute angle with two vertical stabs, twin engines and visible flight controls on the back. Possibly maneuvering on approach to nearby Gwinn airport (a restricted airport). Searching the internet for pics, I have not found an exact match. I don't know if it was manned or a remotely piloted drone. The "Have Blue" prototype is closest in appearance to what I saw, but I'd say the Have Blue is crude and blocky by comparison. The wedge shape was consistent front to back and the flight controls, elevons probably, looked busy. This was no F117 or other well known plane. It looked like some of the hypersonic wind-tunnel test models we learned about in school decades ago.

[@cylentone]

In 2018 alleged Google Earth photos were published of an aircraft parked at a site in Florida with a wedge shape, with the claim it was an SR-72. The photos were never confirmed by experts - you can find them with a search of "secret aircraft Florida Tyler Glockner". Skunk Works VPs did say that the first single engine SR-72 tech demonstrator would be flying "early 2020's" and be the size of an F-22. Other aircraft that might fit your description: TR3-A or TR3-B (rumored), SR-91 Aurora (rumored), THAP (rumored), X-24, X-48, and 3 different secret X-plane NGAD / F/A-XX demonstrators have been flying for at least 5 years - although most experts assume they will not have vertical stabs.

[@AnthonyDDean]

Private airport - UTC/Sikorsky

[@wallyw4965]

If they put it in the latest top gun movie a couple years ago, then its been operational for decades...im sure they started building the sr71 successor as soon as the 71 set its records

[@charleskiplinger9904]

Another great video. Got the pleasure way back to listen to air traffic on an SR71 taking off from Homestead AFB and 19 minutes later was asking for final into Beale. Basic math shows it was screaming.

[@AnthonyDDean]

No, that would be Mach 9-11 with basic math. Impossible. 90 minutes is more realistic, equivalent to Mach 2.43 at 85,000 feet - perfect cruise for max range.

[@charleskiplinger9904]

@@AnthonyDDean never say never to a classified project. This was the plane that was going so fast when it passed over London that it made it to Paris before it could get turned.

[@AnthonyDDean]

@@charleskiplinger9904 The SR aerostructure experienced shock impingement by Mach 3.3, and would need extensive mod to get to Mach 4-5 cruise with a rocket engine. Mach 9 would be achievable in a Falcon 9 like trajectory, but the engines don’t have balanced air/dynamic pressure past a certain altitude, and we know from X-15 that flight controls are useless above 140K ft. The aerostructure would potentially suffer catastrophic failure and break up past a certain Mach number - either with the loads from the required trajectory or the thermal loads from too high of a speed at lower altitude, or worse, a combination of both. Factor of safety! The engine inlet temp limited the speed more than any other factor. The LASRE experiment put a linear aerospike rocket engine on the plane, but NASA is so boring they never fired it in flight.

[@jonathanrobertson3406]

Thanks!

[@T1625-w7d]

Heck yeah spy satellites have gotten better. Chris Knight used spy satellites to target his evil professor Jerry Hathaway’s house. He shot a laser from another satellite through a window and filled the house with popcorn. That was back in 1985. Chris was A Real Genius.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

Heh. LOL.

[@GreySectoid]

I remember this anecdote from some SR-71 documentary, a new pilot was brought in the hangar and upon seeing the plane for the first time he thought "oh my god, they have a space ship".

[@robstanton9215]

The tech is always out before they admit it. As a kid of the 60’s and 70’s, I remember well T-38’s flying from Reece AFB in Lubbock over our farm 30 miles away and hearing those jets go in and out of the sound barrier rattling pictures on the walls and knocking things off of shelves. The catch is the Air Force claimed that jet to be subsonic for years when its top speed is well over 800mph.

[@miskatonic6210]

Well, they won't admit it's out in case it's useless junk that kills its pilots. Any negative publicity would kill the project

[@rockym2931]

Good country, West Texas. They also had the Stealth planes out in Nevada for at least a decade before they stopped trying to keep that an open secret.

[@dougerrohmer]

Exactly the opposite to the Russians. "We've got hyper this and super that" but after a long war, their wunderwaffen still haven't been used.

[@davideverett1863]

Greetings from another Lubbock 70's kid!

[@robstanton9215]

@@davideverett1863 Hey there! Good to hear from you!! Small world for sure!!

[@Charly_Dont_Surf]

I met a SR pilot back in the mid eighties at a family gathering. Being a teenager at the time I asked him how fast does it go, he stated that he was at full speed over North Dakota, pulled back the throttles, and coasted into Texas.

[@ursirius4878]

My father did contract work for skunk works and the Apollo missions as an engineer and composite specialist. When the F-117 nighthawk came out i asked him if he knew about it, he told me he knew about it 10yrs before. Then he said if you hear about it, it's already been around for a while. The Money for the "AURORA" project was already in the budget in the early 80s. The last thing he said was that's what they tell you about, you wouldn't even believe what they don't tell you about. I'm sure it's out there and I'm also sure they already have a replacement in the works.

[@nickvogel-xd6fb]

seen this bird in 1967 leemore california

[@RobertStewart-vr2rg]

f-117 nighthawk.

[@davidbrewer1846]

The sr71 was an amazing airplane. Even the tires on it were unlike any tire ever made. A regular aircraft tire would actually melt. BF Goodrich was the sole provider. I worked for them and saw these tires built.

[@billmilosz]

Well, the Space Shuttle was the fastest manned aircraft ever flown. X15 was also much faster than the SR-71. Of course, these were both rocket planes and not air-breathing jets like the SR-71. So the SR-71 was the fastest JET aircraft so far.

[@photony]

That we know of...

[@AnthonyDDean]

No, the A-12 was faster.

[@JohnTovar-ks8dp]

It's by we call them rockets and rocket planes, and not aircraft. Contrary to jokesters sayings, something that looks like a duck, is not necessarily a duck.

[@ChrisMcCarty-yk9hi]

The space shuttle was not an aircraft-it had zero self propulsion. It’s a glider at best… technically it’s truly a brick with wheels and a couple of air-deflectors for control.

[@ChrisMcCarty-yk9hi]

The a12 did not go 17k mph

[@JBReefer45]

I ❤ the fact that the SR-71 Blackbird used Buick V-8 engines running near redline to get those jet engines started.

[@johna7661]

It used to be my favorite part of the day, listening to those things start up in the very early mornings on the flight line as I was doing preflights. I was Crew chief on a KC135 Q tanker that refueled SR71’s . Then I watched as they took off. We pre positioned tankers depending on the mission.

[@ndg49]

I saw one at the Dayton Air Show once, back in the 70's. Incredible aircraft, even at slow speed over the airport. It did a couple of passes and then very quickly disappeared. "By the time you hear them, they're already long gone..."

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

I think you are spot on about the IR vulnerabilities of such a platform. A stealth platform the is just under the speed where plasma begins to form might be the golden goose.

[@GregKrsak]

IR stealth is a tricky thing... Slower aircraft like the B-2 Spirit are already pretty visible in IR.

[@TallyPatka-dz2cz]

@@GregKrsak imagine if the r33t original concept comes to life with the r37m, it could use datalink to provide information as to where the plane is and then use a IR seeker to finally lock it

[@recoil53]

@@GregKrsak That's why the B-21 and NGAD have a cool down area for the exhaust before it exits the internal and also have greater dispersal of the exhaust.

[@matthewdavies2057]

I think the IR problem is why we keep designing great planes but don't end up building more than a couple. Too easy to shoot down.

[@SanBrunoBeacon]

The sleeper in the US Space Force and/or US Air Force inventory is the Boeing X-37B. If armed with next-generation surveillance equipment and weapons, the X-37B would be a powerful tag team partner for the SR-72.

[@miskatonic6210]

We all know how great modern Boeings work 😂

[@SanBrunoBeacon]

@@miskatonic6210 Boeing's military division is much different and less problematic than its problem plagued commercial division.

[@RedBud315]

It's also impressive that it was designed with a slide rule and not a computer. I think it took about 4 or 5 states to make a u-turn when at speed.

[@gr8crash]

It definitely didn't take that long to make a u-turn. Unless it was like New England where the states are really small.

[@beaudidlyno1]

On a record run over the Atlantic to the UK, Farnborough 1974 it did overshoot the country and had to make a U turn over Holland..

[@gr8crash]

​@@beaudidlyno1lol no. That's not how it works, nor is that what happened.

[@psibet900]

From meeting SR-71 pilots some time ago I learned that the aircraft top passed was above Mach 3.2, possibly as high as Mach 5 and that its operational ceiling was slightly over 90,000 feet. My feelings about the alleged SR-72 is that it was acknowledged as disinformation in order to make our adversaries think we do not have any functional supersonic or hypersonic recon aircraft anymore. Best evidence suggests that Lockheed Martin Skunkworks had developed a real SR-71 successor called the SR-91, that sort of resembles the SR-72 and the Dark Star models we've seen. That it was capable of flying well over Mach 6, possibly as high as Mach 12-15 at 130,000 feet and was indeed powered by a combined cycle engine you discuss here. As Clint Eastwood said in Firefox, "What a machine".

[@charlescouncill]

After I put epoxy sealer on my hanger floor, the small spots made from my SR-71.5 wipe right up, with no stains.

[@We_all_are_different]

your hanger or your hangar?

[@mrpj1390]

Topgun Maverick was the best advertisement ever for anything the military has ever used.

[@lloydboyette4815]

@ 0:42 That's not accurate. The North American X-15 is the fastest manned aircraft ever made. Granted, we're not comparing apples to apples... but it still holds the world's record for the fastest manned aircraft ever made. Just saying...

[@Reynard_11]

I was surprised by that non factual statement too. He forgot to qualify it by saying fastest that didn't need a taxi to get airborne. 😉

[@RobertStewart-vr2rg]

Space shuttle flew 5 times faster than X-15, just saying

[@Bob-b7x6v]

I remember an old X-Files episode where Mulder and Scully ended up around a prototype scramjet in the 90s. Chris Carter loved crazy tech as a showrunner.

[@jonshellmusic]

3:27 Max, to the best of my knowledge the reason that the SR-71 takes off with just enough fuel to get to the tanker and the intentionally leaky fuel tanks are unrelated. The SR-71 took off with minimum fuel to stop from bursting the extremely expensive tires that the Blackbird used (because mach 3 is HOT, rubber melts, and gear doors aren’t magic). And the leakiness of the fuel tanks has gone into legend as much exaggerated from the truth. It dripped more than it full on leaked. And there was a tolerance limit for the amount of weeping/dripping which would abort a mission. One last thing to note, the special fuel the SR used was almost impossible to ignite at ambient pressure/temp with an ordinary flame. Again, so the fuel didn’t spontaneously combust in the tanks at the absurd temps the skin reached at Mach 3. Love the channel, Max! Keep up the good work!

[@gr8crash]

All I'd add is that it didn't take off with minimal fuel. Typical fuel load was 40k lbs.

[@kiwidiesel]

That fuel was the hydraulic fluid also.

[@gr8crash]

​@kiwidiesel for some engine components yes, but not the aircraft overall.

[@kiwidiesel]

@@gr8crash Appreciate the clarification.

[@gr8crash]

@@kiwidiesel no worries. It's gets said a lot, and I've had people assume it was for the whole aircraft, so I just clarify it. Have a great night.

[@briankrasne3518]

The Lockheed A-12, also known as the Oxcart, flew from 1963 to 1968 and was retired in June 1968. The aircraft was the precursor to the SR-71 Blackbird, the YF-12 prototype interceptor, and the M-21 launcher for the D-21 drone. The A-12's final mission was in May 1968, when it flew over North Korea after the country seized the USS Pueblo. The program was kept secret until 1981, and the surviving A-12s were stored in secret. The SR-71 in my opinion was a detuned version of the A-12.

[@Tom-ej8eg]

A friend of mine was a USAF air traffic controller in the 1980's. Her airspace included the Sea of Japan. KAL flight 007 was shot down on her watch. She said SR-71 aircraft routinely crossed her airspace, but could not be seen on her scope. SR-71's reported their position using Morris code. She said they always crossed her airspace at 3,000 MPH.

[@Bladeworkssystems]

The fastest the SR-71 has ever been clocked was mach 3.47. Im not saying that wasnt. but that is interesting.

[@lensmith4192]

Morse code. (Correct spelling)

[@cdstoc]

I was working on a then-new radar in Germany in the mid-1980's and clearly saw an SR-71 flight from the UK, over the North Sea, then south over W. Germany along the border with E. Germany, turn around and go back. Our radar indicated Mach 3 at over 80,000 feet, so it couldn't have been anything else.

[@radiotests]

​@@cdstocMy job with track and search radar in the USN might confirm as much but would risk prosecution to agree with you. The scuttlebutt in the Navy always featured low key talk about things we observed on our systems.

[@AnthonyDDean]

The SR-71 airframe shape in a wind tunnel - could definitely be pushed past Mach 4. NASA LASRE program souped up the spiked P&W J58 turboramjet engines.

[@CTPlaneSpotters]

I know that the version from Top Gun was only a concept, but it could be the model that's flying. I mean just look at how it flies in MSFS. Everything is so thought out and the process of getting to Mach 10 is pretty realistic.

[@alankeeling2946]

My friend worked as part of the maintenance crew for the U2 and the SR71.... he told me, he knows for a fact, the SR72 exists :)

[@gr8crash]

He was definitely messing with you

[@DannyArcher762]

He's 100% trying to sound cool. Zero chance he'd say anything IF he was involved. The men on these projects are HEAVILY monitored to make sure they don't talk.

[@bushgreen260]

*How can he work as maintenance crew for the sr71 when it doesn't even fly anymore? It was retired in the 90s*

[@alankeeling2946]

@@bushgreen260 HE'S RETIRED

[@bushgreen260]

@@alankeeling2946 did he mean sr71 had a successor at the time it retired? Do you know the performance figures?

[@DJF1985]

I looked out of my barracks back door while in Okinawa during very early morning and saw an SR 71 coming back to Kadena for a landing. Really really cool.

[@CheekyMenace]

Regarding how many missiles have been fired at it, you said over 800 but I found this statement. Either way, it's amazing! 💪🇺🇲 "No Blackbird has ever been lost or damaged due to hostile action: in fact, even though according to Airman Magazine over 4,000 missiles have been fired at the SR-71 during its service life, none of them hit.".

[@gr8crash]

That 4k number is often given. But it's greatly exaggerated. Closer 1k is more realistic.

[@CheekyMenace]

@@gr8crash I kinda thought it might be myself. Sounds a bit excessive.

[@gr8crash]

​@CheekyMenace yea that's been a popular number for sure. But when you break down the missions vs that number of SAMs the math simply doesn't add up. Even Kelly Johnson said it was closer to 1k.

[@hughmarloweverest1684]

I live several miles away from a general aviation airport. I have a transponder app on my phone and love checking on what’s coming in and going out. One time a NASA 747 carrying some kind of telescope (?) was at altitude headed out over the Pacific off San Diego. Fighters flying out of Mira Mar will switch off their transponders when safely away from general aviation.

[@harryc1971]

Always suspect whatever is disclosed is usually obsolete, in the 1990's there was a program rumored to be called Aurora - this was theorized not only to be a replacement for the SR-71 but a series of aircraft in similar role. I would imagine this would be along the lines of the F117 and B2, perhaps an interceptor variant of the Blackbird? I have heard about how it leaked fuel but had no idea how little time they had to refuel

[@Bob-b7x6v]

I loved the Testors Project Aurora kits. I liked the XR-7 Thunder Dart pulse detonation jet.

[@jprisque8753]

A model maker I worked for would build parts for models of what people called aurora, but no one company except lockheed woiuld have all. they were going ti announce it but then gulf war 1 started so it was kept classified. it wasnt one vehicle but a system of vehicles. it never landed it was air launched and picked up. it became to prone to failure and satellites took over. other programs like the x-30 were done as publically seen projects testing hypersonics with that leading to the x-43a which reached mach 10 then the x-51 which was also mach 10 capable but it burned longer bc it "cracked" jet fuel instead of having to stoichiometrically mix h with o. then hypersonics were cancelled. by then the real advanced stuff we've already been shown was operational. even with the advanced tech shown to our adversaries youd think that would get them to knock off all the crap but sadly they still have nukes that dont need to be airborne.

[@Pwj579]

@3:10 the SR-71 was NOT designed to leak jet fuel "on purpose". It was a result of using new uncontained wing fuel tank system and using a sealant at seams to allow for expansion and contraction of titanuium wing panels at high Mach numbers. Lockheed engineers had to develop acceptable loss rates after the sealant began degrading and requiring replacement after many mission cycles. It's better to learn and share the actual explanation, than perpetuate "hearsay" myths in the Aviation world. Great explanation here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5K2kKmaaqqUl5I

[@gr8crash]

At least someone else understands that.

[@vladpootin5973]

America has technology and equipment in its arsenals that most people could not even imagine much less begin to fathom.

[@kaltkalt2083]

That’s what they want you to think. But no, no we really don’t. And whatever UAP artifacts we may have are so far ahead of our time it’s like giving an iPhone to Isaac Newton and telling him to figure out how it works and reverse engineer it. Plus it’s so compartmentalized, it’s basically collecting dust in some underground base. The best scientists never get near it because of the secrecy. We don’t even have functional nuclear weapons anymore. But don’t tell Putin.

[@johns1625]

When I was saying that in the early 2000's, it was the F-22. 🤣

[@debbies3763]

ALL SMOKE AN MIRRIORS, ALL HOLLYWEIRD,

[@AutomationDnD]

I 100% agree. I think the entire "SR72 / Aurora" thing is actually all *_OLD Tech_* of COURSE there has been a SR71 successor , _that's a GIVEN_ to assume otherwise is foolish. wasn't it Ben Rich who said (long ago) "We can take ET home now" ??? we probably CAN "we" (average folks) just don't know it, and we WON'T KNOW what's actually "out there" flying around until it lands next to us .................. _I figure that's where all the dang "UFO" stories are coming from_

[@kaltkalt2083]

@@johns1625 which is still the most advanced fighter we have. We are using nuclear missiles from the 60s that had a 10 year projected/intended lifespan. Running on floppy disks! We have some nice drones, that’s it.

[@edwardj.7007]

Satellites & drones became so advanced that it eliminated the need for the SR-71.

[@cruisinguy6024]

This perception that the SR-71 leaked heavily and that’s why they had to immediately hit the tanker is false. In actuality the leaking fuel was an insignificant amount it was safer and easier from a maintenance perspective to take off with enough fuel to hit the tanker and then fill up. This allowed for safer recovery in the event of an engine failure as well as extended the brake and tire life. We used to all think that it leaked like a sieve but thanks to multiple blackbird pilots we now know that wasn’t the case.

[@jonathanj8303]

It also has the side benefit of reducing take off weight and consequently speed. Which increases safety margins and reduces pilot workload.

[@milespalmer-mt9rx]

The aircraft had three liquid nitrogen Dewar flasks containing 260 liters of liquid nitrogen, located in the nose wheel well. The only way to ensure 100 percent inert atmosphere in each fuel tank was to refuel the plane inflight completely full of JP-7, allowing ambient air in each fuel tank to vent overboard. Once full of fuel, gaseous nitrogen would now dominate each fuel tank’s empty space above as it burned off JP-7. The nitrogen gas pressurized each fuel tank to 1.5 psi above ambient pressure and inerts the space above the heated fuel to prevent autogenous ignition. This is why we refueled after takeoff.

[@radiotests]

​@@milespalmer-mt9rxIm surpised he didn't mention the fuelvwas an important development of the Blackbird an another interesting story with impressive new hydrocrabon technology.

[@rayjay848]

SR-71 wasn’t nimble enough to out turn a missile.

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@rayjay848 you’re right, but it didn’t need to be. Its turning radius at speed was measured by hundreds of miles as opposed to hundreds of feet a fighter would have at subsonic speed. That being said it didn’t NEED to try to out turn a missile, they just kept flying their mission profile but I do believe there were times they bumped up the speed. Nowadays we have missiles that can easily intercept a fast moving target like the SR-71/A-12 but at the time it was performing flights over hostile territory the technology didn’t yet exist to be a threat because the physics of not only hitting a target at that speed but also a) acquiring it in time and b) firing a missile before it was too late are pretty insane when you look at the math at how little reaction time missile defense crews had.

[@kevinmccarthy8746]

UK, developtment of a cooling system for Hypersonic single stage to orbit air craft called the Skylon. Fuel gets to hot for combustion this cools the fuel in less than a second by hundreds of degrees and no ice from the cooling.

[@grantjones522]

look up the SR-91 Aurora, was during 90s and the evidence is very convincing

[@Shadow__133]

It was even featured in Janes video games.

[@matthewdavies2057]

Because Aviation Leak said so.

[@MisterMisanthropeEsquire]

The heat produced at those speeds, even at 90k altitude, has to be one heck of a thing to overcome. The leading edges of the SR-71 had to be red hot at its speed. Something even faster than that is going to be hotter by default.

[@cyberherbalist]

The fuel leakage of the SR-71 before takeoff was by deliberate design. This is because the heat of high-speed travel would cause the fuel tanks to expand, and they had to allow for it. It wasn't a mistake.

[@gr8crash]

Most of your comment is completely inaccurate

[@Shadow__133]

@@gr8crashYour comment almost added relevant information to this discussion.

[@brad270472]

The SR-71 didn't have fuel tanks....the wing/body itself was the fuel tank.

[@Shadow__133]

@@brad270472 You just confirmed it had a fuel tank.

[@gr8crash]

​@brad270472 that is literally a fuel tank. It's called a "wet wing" which is a type of fuel tank. Been in use for a century now.

[@104thDIVTimberwolf]

We were hearing rumors of these planes when I was still in the Air Force in the late 1980s. Based on the nature and sources I heard them from, I think there's a good chance that they were correct. The SR-72 Aurora they were talking about then was a very different bird from what you're describing here.

[@gr8crash]

Obviously since the "aurora" was the B2

[@flyingrichfirearms]

You have so much of this wrong! I've spoken with SR-71 pilots. I was told on the ground it leaks less than a shot glass of fuel. It takes off with a low fuel load because single engine performance is much better without full fuel.

[@rollingreene1220]

But once it cools down...

[@milespalmer-mt9rx]

The aircraft had three liquid nitrogen Dewar flasks containing 260 liters of liquid nitrogen, located in the nose wheel well. The only way to ensure 100 percent inert atmosphere in each fuel tank was to refuel the plane inflight completely full of JP-7, allowing ambient air in each fuel tank to vent overboard. Once full of fuel, gaseous nitrogen would now dominate each fuel tank’s empty space above as it burned off JP-7. The nitrogen gas pressurized each fuel tank to 1.5 psi above ambient pressure and inerts the space above the heated fuel to prevent autogenous ignition. This is why we refueled after takeoff.

[@perwestermark8920]

​@@milespalmer-mt9rx They stopped taking off with full fuel tanks because it resulted in too much mechanical stress. So no - no full fuel tanks quickly draining from leaks or engine consumption at take off.

[@perwestermark8920]

Exactly - they measured the leaks in drops per minute to decide when the seals needed replacement. So no quick draining from leaks. Photos of SR-71 on the ground shows very small puddles on the ground. Tiny puddles if we consider that the plane consumed about 20 ton fuel/hour during a mission so a leak actually draining the tanks would have left lakes on the ground. 100 litres of fuel on the ground would be huuuuuuuge. I don't think this is a real ex-military pilot. At 9 minutes into the video he twice tells how "his F-15" had to fight to reach mach 1.3. And then how the SR-72 would have to continue up to mach 2.3 in turbine mode. And then bridge yet another speed window before it could start using ram-jet mode. No F-15 pilot would claim his plane had a top speed of only mach 1.3. And then continue in a way that makes this impossible to be a slip of the tongue.

[@tooitchy]

I forgot how cool the SR-71 was. I know these planes aren't designed for visual appeal, but it's also not a coincidence the highest tech aircraft, look so cool. They're definitely building these things to be posters on kids walls. There's gotta be a "cool" budget allocation, with limiting factor being impact to performance.

[@NathanDean79]

The F-15’s top speed is Mach 2.5. And the Blackbird didn’t travel at hypersonic speeds but just super sonic. I feel like an idiot telling this to a former fighter pilot but in every description I have ever seen the top speed of the F-15 is listed as Mach 2.5 and I read an article about the new F-15 EX because of its never engines that in testing a stripped down version without any weapons on board and without even paint reached Mach 2.9.

[@AndrewMcFarlane_1]

Blackbird pilots called fighter pilots toy jet pilots

[@teddy.d174]

He most likely misspoke when calling the SR-71 hypersonic.

[@renerosales3629]

Boeing walked back the 2.9 claim. The EX’s top speed is no more than M2.5 even with the newer PW-220 motors. The 2.9 came from a figure of “M2.5 +\- 10%” so the original claim took liberties with that margin of error. Chances are it will never hit M2.5 in an operational setting much like the normal F-15C’s. EX has some nice tricks but top end speed isn’t one of them.

[@richpryor9650]

@@renerosales3629 Isn't Mach 2.9 in an aluminum-skinned aircraft not possible because of the compression heating?

[@credera]

I also was a litte bit worried 🤷🏻‍♂ Has this guy any content of him flying a jet?

[@caseycatob5069]

I’m 90% certain that I saw the rumored SR-72 or Aurora aircraft, whichever name you like I supposed, it was about 3 months ago now, I saw an aircraft coming off the western horizon, I got on radarbox, and the radar was dead, I had no aircraft on my radar at all, so, I got my binoculars and admired a Delta Wing, Twin Ram Jet Aircraft pierce through the sky at an insane altitude and insane speed, I saw this aircraft for a total of 4 minutes even through the binoculars. And before someone asks “how do you know it was a ram jet?” I know those flames

[@gr8crash]

Well the "aurora" is subsonic, and when there is an aircraft, it won't be called the SR72.

[@caseycatob5069]

@@gr8crash Aurora was it’s original name in the pentagon budget, just added it for the people who know it by that, but I know there already is an aircraft, that sound, it was like the pulsating sound of an SR-71 (I watched the one in Udvar Hazy tear across the sky on it’s final flight, flight path was right over my area) but it was muffled, like, really muffled. I remember that SR-71, it rattled my bones, whatever I observed that night emitted like a light thumping sound, like hearing your neighbor’s car door shut from in your basement or something. The SR-71’s successor, whatever it may be called, is 100% already flying, weather that’s test flights or missions, we as the public won’t actually know for years

[@gr8crash]

@caseycatob5069 the "aurora" was the name of the program that covered the ATB program and eventually created the B2. Nothing to do with an SR71 type aircraft. People have been mentioning the pulsing sound for decades along with the "donuts on a rope" theory, except pulse jets aren't even remotely at a level for that type of performance. COULD there be an aircraft in testing? Perhaps, but unlikely. And we absolutely no there isn't an SR71 type replacement aircraft operational.

[@caseycatob5069]

@@gr8crash I know what I saw man, the last aircraft I saw move that fast and develop rings off it’s flames was the SR-71, and last I checked, they’re all grounded due to the inability to further produce JP8

[@gr8crash]

​@caseycatob5069 the SR71 used JP7 not JP8, and you can buy JP7 today. As of 7/1/2024 it costs $5.18/gal. You can't distinguish and engine type just by the flame/rings or whatever else you're trying to say. That's simply not how it works. Not to mention even a commercial aircraft at cruise speed/altitude can go horizon to horizon in about 4 minutes.

[@Raptorman0909]

I highly doubt that the minimum airspeed will be much less than the SR-71 -- I can see it being a little less, but you do NOT want more wing than necessary when at high Mach and a swing wing is out of the question for many reasons. Also, because there is a substantial weight/mass penalty with people onboard it would be wise to make it a UAV as that should save about 2500 pounds or more such that the plane could carry 2500 pounds more fuel and thus substantially increase the range. Another benefit of designing it as a UAV is that the plane can be more aerodynamic by not needing a cockpit with forward facing windows. Eliminating these feature will also make handing heat easier. And the final benefit of making it a UAV is that we do not risk the life of the pilot as the pilot(s) are not on the plane. What a plane like this needs is a suite of sensors that can be swapped out based on mission requirements. LIDAR, MM Wave Radar, High resolution IR, signals intercept receivers possibly with some jamming capabilities, high bandwidth comm links and high resolution visual imagery and video. The other thing this plane needs is stealth -- it doesn't need to be as stealthy as full on stealth, but minimizing the RCS to the extent possible has to be a significant design requirement. I could also see the inclusion of a couple internal mounted standoff weapons to take out high valued targets if discovered.

[@sheldonbromen2603]

yf 12 will be the greatest interceptor never used of all time nothing will change my mind

[@Retroscoop]

I was somewhat surprised to see how "ordinairy" the cockpit of the SR 71 looked, it looked very much like that of let's say a Phantom. Somehow, with such a special shape and titanium the CIA got from the USSR somehow, you would have expected it would have been a little bit more SF-esque, and yet, no....

[@mehlcarelse4319]

I stay here in the Kalahari desert near Verneukpan in South Africa with my five wives and two pet lions. Every saturday evening at about 19:00 we see these contrails materialising very quickly about eight times faster than passenger jets flying over our huts/rondawels. And then we hear a boom boom. I think these aircaft must be making the rain god very angry with their boom booms. They always fly in the direction of Upington.

[@mehlcarelse4319]

Chemtrails in the middle of nowhere?

[@jefreagan]

😂 “Boom boom.” Me in the bathroom every morning. 😂

[@BmanNL1]

Verneukpan, is that next to ik geloof er niks van?

[@mehlcarelse4319]

@@BmanNL1 Nee dis in die woestyn. Dorre wereld daai.

[@YouTubeOdyssey]

Yours is the first comment I have read that is not a poor attempt at fiction.

[@camillebrenes]

Let's not forget about the YF-12 that had weapons capability :).

[@morganpittkin6867]

Love the Austin Powers chest hair!

[@vcupiano]

I just can’t imagine creating a “manned” hypersonic bomber with the advent and progress of UAV technology there’s no reason to spend the amount of time and money around a cockpit when you could just eliminate it making it exponentially easier to create such a plane.

How do you get internally carried ordnance safely out of an aircraft doing mach 5--6?

[@Chimpyboi]

I would say you'd have to eject them out the rear of the aircraft, basically inline with the airflow.

[@DougPoulton]

At mach 5 over the Atlantic flying at 90K feet you'd have to release your ordnance at the Rock of Gibraltar to hit targets in Syria. LOL

[@RobertStewart-vr2rg]

Why not airborne lasers

@@RobertStewart-vr2rg Power generation capability or lack there of.

[@fixpacifica]

The ability to keep a plane secret for very long is going to be nearly impossible these days. It's just too easy to monitor airstrips and plane movements anywhere in the world. My impression is that that we're still in the design stage for the successor to the SR-71, but nothing beyond that. Also, I was based at Beale AFB in the late '70s-early'80s when they had SRs there. They were a maintenance nightmare. Out of maybe 10 on base, only 1 or 2 would be capable of flying at any one time. So along with satellite coverage, that was another reason the SRs were discontinued.

[@randyjohnson5426]

Im sure the SR72 is equipped with warp drive powered by dilithium crystals.

[@machdaddy6451]

That's right Scotty!

[@Shadow__133]

Nah, they got Nibbler producing dark matter droppings.

[@jefreagan]

Coolant leak! Coolant leak!

[@rockypalmquist7288]

Better hope the tribbles don't take over

[@martinkasper197]

It has the Quiller Drive...🤣🤣🤣

[@wadewingfield4606]

Look for the video " curator on the loose M-21" In the video you will see the mach gauge on the plane is calibrated to Mach 6.6 . The spec for the SR-71 was to fly 12,000 feet higher than the U-2. I met an ex military controller who stated that a U-2 circled in their air space up to 90,000 feet when he left their flight control. So capability is still far greater than stated.

[@michaelwalsh7846]

Ok here we go. The SR72 in the recent film was probably a lower scale mock up of the Aurora from 35+ yrs ago, why do I say this, because it would cost a lot of money to make SR72 just for a film, its probably been lying around whith a cover over it somewhere. The Aurora did exist, how do I know? Its contrail was tracked one time on weather sat departing from Groom lake area towards Europe at mach 5 +, It would stage at Machrihanish Scotland, then the longest runway in Europe which was set up to take the shuttle at the time if needed. An airfield worker I knew there said he saw it there 4 times, one time coming over the field for a near supersonic flyby, the afterburners were impressive! Another chap I worked alongside was a mil radar op in the UK, who would be briefed before it would show on the scope in UK air space. Another chap saw it many times in Germany. All this was 35+ yrs ago, it appears it may not have worked as planned because all is quiet! Designed to be the follow on aircraft from the SR71 even the SR71 pilots had no idea that it existed at the time.But these aircraft are not needed with the likes of the TR3B , TR6Telos or similiar ground to space craft.

[@nedkelly9688]

Doubt it Australia and USA been struggling with scramjets and can follow their tests in HIFIRE and SCIFIRE is new one under AUKUS that developed HACM scramjet missile that Australia and USA will both use. Is a Australian company with world fastest scramjet at mach 12 and the Aussie developed it worked at NASA and helped in HIFIRE. Also you can not fly a hypersonic vehicle over land because of the sonic boom.. maybe it is ramjet powered but will not be scramjet as Ray Stalker was first to get essence of flight from scramjets, he is AUSSIE....

[@cylentone]

@@nedkelly9688 All known US hypersonic projects in development (SR-72, Mayhem and Quarterhorse) have combined-cycle engines with turbines for speeds up to Mac 2.5 - 3 and RAM or SCRAM jets above that.

[@cylentone]

The Dark Star film prop was designed and built by LM & Skunk Works who also built the SR-72 hypersonic demonstrator already flying. The Aurora UK sightings are well documented, the German ones not. Thinking logically, it seems highly unlikely that Aurora was in service as a hypersonic aircraft. There is no budget trail (actually the Skunk Works CEO said Aurora was the code name for the B2 development competition) and it makes no sense that the DoD is still pumping billions into hypersonic propulsion for aircraft if they had fielded one in the 1980's, especially considering Skunk Works statements saying that the development of the SR-72 hypersonic demonstrator engine was only recently possible because of the possibilities of integrating cooling into engine designs with 3D printing. Was an Aurora tech demonstrator flying around the world in the 1980's? Possible, but surprising if it happened. Flying your one-off top secret tech demonstrator across the globe is a huge risk. Important to note: Sweden and other countries along the Baltic were constantly trying to track the SR-71 flying the Baltic Express weekly. When one had an engine failure close to Sweden, it was escorted by Swedish Viggens to Germany in 1987. SR-71 were regularly deployed to England in the 1970's and early 80's, then permanently stationed at Mildenhall, England from 1983 - 1990 to replace the U2's there. The US DoD has a different opinion on hypersonic aircraft - SR-72, Mayhem and Dark Horse are all in development.

[@milespalmer-mt9rx]

well thats not true because Brize norton has the longest runway

[@michaelwalsh7846]

@@milespalmer-mt9rx 35yrs ago

[@kw19193]

Back in the day the SR-71 was modified/adapted to also function as a fighter. My brother was recruited in to work as a ground crew mechanic on the SR-71 and while it seemed incredible he assured me that it did indeed happen. Cheers!

[@gr8crash]

That was before the SR71. That was the YF12, which was a variation of the A12 platform.

[@danfreeman9079]

It would be a different category. The "SR-72" would be an Unmanned Drone or UAV. You have to consider all the systems required for keeping a manned crew alive. The technology exist to eliminate a manned crew and humans do not have the response time to control and aircraft moving that fast. The fuel tanks did NOT seal themselves. I've worked on every part of the SR-71s and supported dozens of launches of the SR-71. Upon acceleration, gallons of fuel fall out of the air-frame where it had collected inside skin panels as it rolls down the runway. The fuel loss is minimal compared to the amount used. A sealant is used in areas to limit fuel drip rates although it's just going to leak somewhere else making it more or less a futile effort. It's more about keeping fuel off the shelter floor. The tanks are pressurized with nitrogen so its going to push fuel out wherever it can escape. The fuel being directly on the skin panels is a purposeful design that helps keep the aircraft cooler, that is if you consider 600 degrees cool. The fuel is what caused the demise of the SR-71. It could not comply with environmental laws. Look it up and know that it contained a toxic additive code named Panther Piss.

[@bigearl3867]

Ah yes! That old style drink from the days gone by.

[@michaelcurtis2778]

I agree with the SR-72 (or whatever it will be called) being a drone. Sending a pilot to extreme speeds as discussed, is pretty much asking a pilot to sign his death certificate. I am also curious how they will create a propulsion system that will need 3 different forms of propulsion. Turbine for take-off, up to mach 2.5. Ramjet, for mach 2.5 up to mach 4(ish}. finally scramjet, for hypersonic. I would think a whole new fuel will need to be created. Kelly Johnson, where are you, when we need you?

[@TallyPatka-dz2cz]

the plasma sheath exists which is a issue of most hypersonic weapons, you cant provide it with anymore information

[@spacedcowboy11]

Minor correction: it’s “dual cycle engine,” not “cycle engine.” Additionally, there’s some really cool new engine technology that you should check out, that will absolutely bridge the gap between supersonic and hypersonic, and make dual cycle engines possible. These include adaptive/variable cycle engines and rotating detonation engines, which is the real game changer for dual cycle engines (IMO).

[@therealfearsome]

what about plasma stealth? At hypersonic speeds plasma is part of the "problem", why not use that plasma as a radar evading feature?

[@TallyPatka-dz2cz]

yeah but you gotta realise when something gets a plasma sheath, it is insanely hot, fast and cannot get anymore information

[@craigmackay4909]

🛸 non-human craft enveloped in plasma 🤔

[@NoFL88]

Hice work! Subbed. From Moscow with love and respect.

[@saabysaabinsky2785]

Can an airplane flying at hypersonic speeds, release a bomb or rocket? I remember seeing video of weapons releases that were unstable and crashed into the airplane. Can't imagine internal weapons stores doors being opened at those speeds.

[@sdcoinshooter]

That is correct. I think it was attempted with the B58 Hustler, they actually tried some kind of ejection system, but from what I remember the weapon was actually caught in the shock wave of the aircraft and “kept flying with it.” That would not be a good feeling if the bomb you just dropped followed your aircraft! I am sure they could come up with some solution.

[@kwonekstrom2138]

They'll probably eject it into the low pressure area behind the aircraft. This would prevent the aircraft's surfaces from interacting with the air stream and prevent the weapon from impacting the aircraft when it interacts with the high pressure boundary.

[@matthewdavies2057]

Didn't the D-21 have a very similar issue? That's why they ended the program.

[@kwonekstrom2138]

I think there were other reasons for that accident. They didn't launch that one in a loop and it had an engine failure. A B-52 has proven to be a much safer and cheaper to operate platform for those types of launches and is still used to this day. ARRW

[@brandonbarr2784]

It sounds sooo good! What about some of that Roswell tech package added too

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Haha Roswell ludicrous mode

[@rocketmanVA703]

The -71 was originally going to be designated the "RS-71" - as opposed to popular myth, President Johnson did not accidentally transpose the letters - the USAF did that. "RS" stood for "Reconnaissance Strike", and the # -71 was the next number in line as a bomber. The USAF decided they did not want to advertise the strike ability. Recall the YF-12 was the same platform... and it had a weapons bay. It makes perfect sense that the -71 had a weapons bay as well... at least had the capability to use its bay for weapons. It makes perfect sense that whatever comes next will have a weapons bay.

[@OrionsKelt]

The powers that be would absolutely take advantage of saying this plane is still in development when it’s out there flying. That’s the most logical option when there’s been so much leaked about it already. IMO it’s either already flying or it will never fly.

[@michaeldelaney7271]

Maybe i'm confused but wasn't the SR-71 equipped with hybrid cycle engines. That is, engines that operated as turbojets up to a certain Mach number and then as ramjets above that? One of the Blackbird's long distance records involved an average speed above Mach 3, including refueling inflight twice (at subsonic speed). All that was done in the 1960's. You know, about the same time that the USA put men on the moon. Now Lockheed can't even get the F-35 software "finished" and NASA has trouble getting astronauts into low-earth orbit. "Great progress" in the last sixty years.

[@VolkerHett]

Back in the 60's we had cars with hundreds of horses and drum brakes. Seatbelts where unknown and the steering columns was designed too spear you in case you needed a seat belt. Society got risk adverse in the past 60 years :)

[@pegcity4eva]

Also F1 drivers had a 1 in 8 chance of dying during a season.

[@CR67]

DEI issues. The pipeline for minority engineers isn't big, so companies have to lower their standards. CrowdStrike just gave us an example of what unqualified employees can accomplish but at least they aren't white or Asian.

[@michaeldelaney7271]

@@VolkerHett "Risk averse" or maybe "a little smarter." Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. I agree with you, but a couple little reminisces. In 1961, I put seat belts into my parent's 1959 and 1961 Oldsmobiles, at my expense. I was 16, working part-time at a shoe store while attending high school. My step-dad "knew" that it was safer to be "thrown clear" in an accident than to be "trapped" in you seat belt. He also "knew" that aluminum engines like our F-85's didn't need any special coolant as required by the owner's manual (which he hadn't read). Tap water out of the garden hose was all that was "necessary." Of course, that wrecked the engine in a few months. And, you're right about the drum brakes, although Chrysler did use some BIG drums and Buick had beautiful finned big drums of their own (often re-used on Hot Rods). Chevy offered sintered-metallic segmented brake shoes for their high performance cars. And, Pontiac had their beautiful 8-lug wheel/brake drums units. Ford had tried to "sell safety" in the 1950's (deep-dish steering wheels, padded dashes, captive door latches). The public, of course, was more interested in HORSEPOWER and STYLING. FYI, those "horses" in the 1960's were more mythical than actual. Guesstimate maybe 2/3 of the advertised number. They were using an approximate version of SAE Gross hp numbers (as adjusted by the marketing departments). Today we use SAE Net hp, which is more like what the engine is actually capable of producing.

[@michaeldelaney7271]

@@pegcity4eva Very true, sadly. Many F1 drivers, probably most, would have survived in cars with even minimal safety equipment. Seat belts (i.e. harness), effective helmets, real roll bars and rubber bladder lined fuel tanks. Gurney and Stewart were criticized for trying to make racing safer. Even simple track improvements like getting rid of trees next to circuit were not done. The early requirements for roll bars were a joke. 1960's "roll bars" didn't come anywhere near the top of the drivers' helmets and could easily be bent over if a mechanic lean on one. We think of F1 as being so sophisticated, but Indy Cars had real roll bars, safety harnesses, disc brakes, fuel injection and mag wheels long before GP cars. Now, Indycar is a one-design series designed to be "cheap."

[@SumbluddyIdiut]

Sweet update, cheers! The J-58 engines on the SR-71 definitely weren't scramjets, they were ramjets.. or more specifically, turbo-ramjets. The aircraft operating at supersonic speeds is not what makes its ramjet engines scramjets, it refers to the speed of the air flowing into the engine's combustion chamber/s, hence the "sc" in scramjet, standing for "supersonic combustion" ramjet. The J-58 combustion chamber was incapable of receiving and utilising incoming supersonic airflow, which would have immediately blown its candle out and possibly destroyed the engine. The inlet and spike geometries converted the incoming air's speed into pressure by slowing it to subsonic speeds, even at Mach 3.2+. This is the whole premise behind ramjets, and is why the J-58 was most efficient cruising at Mach 3.2, as at higher flight speeds there was more speed available to convert to pressure, and higher combustion chamber pressure equals more power more efficiently. For a ramjet to be a scramjet, the intake air, whilst still very much slowed as it traverses the engine inlet, in order to increase the air's pressure via the ram effect, it remains supersonic throughout its entire journey through the engine, therefore the combustion chamber must be specifically designed to deal with this supersonic flow, reliably and efficiently utilising it for combustion whilst maintaining and containing this combustion process within the combustion chamber. This is substantially more difficult to achieve (imagine having to keep a fire blazing in wind exceeding 1000km/h), limited to aircraft operating at speeds close to or exceeding hypersonic speed, in order to allow a sufficient velocity difference between oncoming airspeed and airspeed entering the combustion chamber for enough speed to be converted to pressure via the inlet ram effects without decreasing air flow to subsonic levels.

[@steveeisenburger6011]

When you talk about "Nefarious forces" American forces just have to look up to the pentagon

[@mr.x1406]

Never mind the Sr-72 look up the TR3b ;)

[@paulkaiser8834]

Never mind the TR3b look up the Millenium Falcon. It did the Kassel run in 12 Parsecs.

[@craigmackay4909]

Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, the gatekeepers of non FOIA able secrets of non-human craft.

[@gitupmechavvy2569]

@@craigmackay4909they aren’t non human, just exotic craft/test beds with some bat shit crazy ideas behind them with the R&D being highly classified

[@oxcart4172]

One thing i do know. The '72 couldn't possibly be as awesome looking as the '71!

[@fastmamajama]

tons of dragon ufos around the air show. you should try to catch a few and post them. you need a camera with fast shutter speed. check out custodian file. i use ai to catch em but my script needs work

[@LukeTunkel]

In the 80's an engineer from skunkworks moved to our church. My friends and I would listen for hours to stories about his work on the u-2, the sr71, the f-117, and he also talked about the Darkstar drone. That was like 1989.

[@gr8crash]

Yea, that drone was cool, just crashed and was never used.

[@hotdogwater-j9m]

Well-presented detailed show! Do you have any shows on the autonomous or remotely controlled jet fighters?

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Will make one soon! Thanks for the idea

[@Loneranger670]

Considering the F117stealth bomber was flying in the 80’s but was only revealed for the first time April 1990, four months after its combat debut in the Panama invasion of 1989, I would not be surprised if the SR72 is currently up and running.

[@gr8crash]

The F117 was revealed before the gulf war

[@Loneranger670]

@@gr8crash Thanks, you are correct, it was revealed in April 1990, four months after its combat debut in the Panama invasion of 1989. I will correct my statement.

[@gr8crash]

​@Loneranger670 no worries. I had to verify that not to recently actually as well. Yea just after Panama it was on static display at Nellis for the airshow. Would have been wild to see for the first time.

[@JohnMarston1876]

Biggest advantage I’d see is simply aerial refueling. Doesn’t matter if it leaks on the runway as long as you can keep refueling in the air.

[@MaxAfterburnerusa]

Interesting point thanks

[@ypw510]

The SR-71 did have mid-air refueling, and likely required several of them. There are several videos them being refueled inflight. It was a pretty unique tanking mission given the specialized fuel.

[@Pub2k4]

Can you imagine having to take stimulants and be awake for 3 days for a 3 hour mission?

[@Orozco_PNW]

IR imaging is probably so advanced now that even mach 1 jets would be visible via its heat signature? Speed would still be king if even lower speed aircrafts become detectable, right? At least if they can high-tail it, even a hypersonic missile could struggle to make contact, theoretically.

[@smallpeople172]

13:40 doesnt mean it doesn't have pilots. It makes more sense to have a single piece over the cockpit and use cameras and a VR headset to see outside

[@Bob-b7x6v]

Metal Gear Solid taught me that black budgets get you crazy super weapons.

[@RedBud315]

That is why toilet seats cost the government $500

[@JakeHunter2010]

Metal Gear Solid and Hideo Kojima was ahead of its/his time lol.

[@Kenny-yl9pc]

To my knowledge the adaptive cycle engine you mentioned uses a combination of turbo fan engine and ram jet engine where the air is slowed down before igniting it with the fuel air mixture, the engine can reach up to Mach 4+. As I understand it, they are not using a scram jet engine which doesn't slow the air and thereby is much more difficult to ignite the fuel air mixture but on the upside is able to reach much higher speeds of over Mach 5 i.e. hypersonic speeds. The scram jet seems to be the "holy grail" and it is rumored that we have some working models. But I don't know how reliably they can get the ignition going, which is the main difficulty holding back everyone who is developing the scram jet engine.

[@jimbo92107]

I heard from an anonymous source that a prototype of SR-71 flew in 1959. If it was retired in 1999, then its replacement probably was flying at least five years before that, around 1994-5. They do keep secrets fairly well...

[@gr8crash]

The A12 first flew in 1962. The SR71 wasn't even requested until 1962 and first flew in 1964.

[@TheStickyChicken]

First time to visit your channel. Man you look like Jim Carrey married a mustache! 😮😮😮 End the video by saying ALLRIGHTTTTYYYY 😏😏😏😏 Subscribed! ❤

[@hamster8449]

If it turns out to be impossible to open the bomb tubes down at hypersonic speed, then you need to open the bomb tubes back to the rear of the tail so that the outlet is between the engines. Like a bird pooping in flight. The rocket is ejected back through the tail and then the engines turn on. Who knows, maybe it will work?

[@eskieman3948]

Dropping missiles and bombs at high speeds can be done, and is already being done with the F-22 Raptor. "Rotisserie" type doors, and the weapons drop out of the bay. As for your idea of dropping bombs out of the rear of an aircraft, it has already been done. The A-5 Vigilante bomber was the first nuclear-capable carrier-based bomber used by the Navy. It was designed to drop (eject) a nuclear bomb at supersonic speeds from a rear bay between it's two jet engines. The aircraft had a lot of issues and was high maintenance - I don't know of any other aircraft that used a similar bomb ejection technique.

[@gregfredrick283]

Of course they have been flying it. Maverick took it to Mach 9.5

[@cdgncgn]

Task n Purpose saw Bigfoot. extraterrestrials , E.T. I am sure, trust me, so probably said T n' P.

[@computationalcinematographer]

I could be wrong, however the I'm under the impression that the SR-71 didn't capture "video" as an electronic signal- it shot celluloid film - so what you mentioned about it being able to transmit images would be incorrect. The film it captured had to get back to base to be processed/developed and only then could you look at the photographic material it captured. There are some links out there if you search for SR-71 cameras that detail cameras as 70mm stereographic cameras. I'm sure there were many photographic systems in use, although modern digital photography was still in it's infancy even in 1999 when comparing with the quality you'd be expecting from essentially iMAX level film quality.

[@piekielrl]

Love these videos, and many of the other aviation videos here on YT. There are quite a few videos done by SR71 pilots (Brian Shul, Richard Graham, Terry Pappas, Maury Rosenberg, just to name a few). I'm surprised that some of the many SR71 pilots don't comment directly here on these vids.

[@gjfwang]

If they admit it exists, it means other countries already got pictures of it flying over them

[@RicBergstrom]

You used to be able to visit Richmonds SR71 at the RIchmond Virginia Airport. Now it hangs inside the Science Museum of Virginia. A few minutes off I95. GO visit it next time you got through RIchmond on I 95..... There is a great video about taking it apart and hanging it in the museum....it doesn't actaully fit unless it is in position slightly angled!!