The SR-72 is REAL - And we can prove it

[@BravoCheesecake]

Baiting a Chinese spy satellite to irreversibly change it's orbit to above a movie site is next level trolling.

[@kenjifox4264]

What interests me about that is that the US knew that the satellite was turning and in which direction as soon as China started doing it.

[@dewlittle1211]

@@kenjifox4264satellites aren’t hard to track. US adversaries can just as easily track ours as we can track their’s. There are websites dedicated to observing satellites military and non-military alike. Even you could do it yourself. All satellites have to be able to be tracked by all space-faring nations in order to make sure they can be readjusted so that no satellite collisions happen.

[@brimfire]

@@kenjifox4264 Doubling down on @dewlittle1211's comment; tracking satellites in space is basic defense protocol, especially if it has energy-collecting wings. It gets a lot more complex and difficult if they're smaller, radiological powered satellites that don't have giant solar reflectors but AFAIK those give off a bunch of heat so you just need to point an IR-capable telescope at the sky to see those.

[@michaelt1775]

well, I'm sure their are at least a dozen unknown spy satellites mixed in with starlink made to look identical to them. Plus a few more beasts that are not as easily tracked

[@shashankmalik2164]

i think that darkstar is the real sr72 chinese satellite caught the glimpse of it thats why they made a movie around it to prove it was just a movie prop yeah i know this sounds foolish but suddenly dropping a sequel to movie made in 1986 just seems a little weird

[@justandy333]

A former F117 pilot put it very well. "What I'm allowed to talk about today is typically 20 - 30 year old tech" Puts it into perspective!

[@SomewhereInTheSolarSystem]

The SR72 was destroyed when Tom Cruise got faster than 10.1 Mach.

[@johnhullard5188]

Russians beat their chests and spout vodka soaked threats while bloviating every hypersonic threat. Americans just keep silent till the moment of action.

[@freskoclipz2733]

@@SomewhereInTheSolarSystembro ejected at Mach 10 n walked it off 💀💀😭

[@SomewhereInTheSolarSystem]

@@freskoclipz2733 😂

[@andrewbaskett8581]

all of this UFO sightings by US military pilots in military ranges off shore always makes me think, if you showed some pilots at the of the 70s or early 80s the have blue or Northrop Tacit Blue and then the f117, they would think it was a UFO with it giving no radar signature and its looks. So when these pilots say these planes were so wild looking and acted insane, didnt leave normal instrument readings, etc.... thats what I truly think it is....

[@petergerdes1094]

The problem is that a genuine program is hard to distinguish from an attempt to mislead the enemy.

[@hazonku]

That's what all the UAP nonsense is for.

[@uku4171]

​@@hazonkuI think the reason the government paying attention to the UAP stuff is because the public won't shut up about it. The UFO community is annoying.

[@kathrynck]

@@uku4171 I agree.

[@donaldduck830]

If there is no genuine program to replace Blackbird... then a lot of people need to be tried for a) sedition and b) fraud, theft and corruption.

[@marcd1981]

Not a problem for the military, that's how they want it to be.

[@MrDangerUXO]

I talked to a USAF boom operator at an air show a couple of years ago and asked him what are the most amazing planes he has refueled, he mentioned F-22, B-2, and another he couldn't talk about.

[@gunlzone]

Realistically it was probably B-21 lol

[@sartainja]

Typical response.

[@davemccombs]

No, he didn't.

[@wicked1172]

​@@sartainja Correct however, he shouldn't have made any mention of anything secret, even hinting is not allowed. Boom Operator, USAF 22+yrs.

[@ElonMuckX]

It was an A-10 and he couldn’t talk about it, because enemies don’t believe it can fly that fast 😂

[@BinauralBae]

"You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?" is a quote that lives rent free in my head constantly

[@ArticWolfv]

the only technology I wish they make is the ability to make ICBM based nukes a mute issue at will.

[@elijahpalmer6323]

You can easily do this you just need to disrupt the compression cycle of the warhead.

[@robertkubrick3738]

@@elijahpalmer6323 Many thousands of times within a few minutes. Very simple. Also several months later when the second strike comes in.

[@marcofransowitz4773]

@@ArticWolfvyoull get your wish in the worst way possible

[@MrJay-kb8xj]

I got it🇺🇸🫡

[@scottsmith7051]

I always say, if this tech is allowed (maybe encouraged) to be published, imagine what USAF is working on behind closed doors!

[@CarloEnrico532]

Some anti gravitational quantum-sonic flying triangles

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

Which to be honest, the SR-72 might be the SR-91 Aurora in disguise.

[@Runefrag]

Not gonna happen. US is very crybaby secrecy when it comes to the composition of their airplane alloys + their radar absorbent rubber paint job combos despite most other nations on the planet not having the funds to burn on such overkill "muh stealth" applications anyways.

[@Expedient_Mensch]

Imagination suggest aliens. LOL.

[@SHVRWK]

They really need to keep the security as tight as if it's non-existent and even then there's still risks of Chinese espionage. The US has huge problem of traitors, spoiled little brats leaking secrets, hacking and spies that still hasn't been solved.

[@pdexBigTeacher]

Last year I attended the Edwards AFB airshow, where the Darkstar was on static display. I know it was a movie, but damn that movie prop made too much aerodynamic sense. I still got the 'hiding in plain site' vibe from that so-called movie prop.

[@alexanderkareh6832]

I think that same thing. I don’t think Lockheed would just build an entire aircraft just for a movie.

[@vladyvhv9579]

Take into consideration that the Making Of featurettes, they state that they wanted Lockheed to build it as if they were actually going to make a flying version of it...

[@davemccombs]

God fucking damnit, please go on google, it works It's a prop BASED ON SEVERAL REAL-LIFE P.O.C DESIGNS Fucking A guys, come on@@alexanderkareh6832

[@davemccombs]

Means nothing@@vladyvhv9579

[@BionicBurke]

@@vladyvhv9579 It's not just credited to Lockheed. If it was, I'd believe it was just a prop.. It's credited to Skunkworks. You don't get that branch of said company that runs Area-51 to just make you a movie prop when the government is shoving billions their way in black budgets. Also, why did it need engine covers? What were they hiding? I don't believe it was an operational aircraft that they were parading around but very likely a radar demonstrator.

[@onerimeuse]

This entire video is impressive so far, but the bit about the hermes using an entire engine as a blocking body is so sooooo cool. I'm floored by the fact that, one, someone came up with that, and two, that we can make materials that can survive that. Ah man, science and engineering are dooooope.

[@kathrynck]

I dunno. It's not that big of a leap from how an afterburner works. Good idea? yes. Crazy genius idea? nah. ;)

[@mintoc8853]

Suuuuure an afterburner is a glorified propane torch, not nearly as complicated as supersonic airflows that need to be rerouted around a vulnerable engine@@kathrynck

[@kathrynck]

@@mintoc8853 I think you're oversimplifying an afterburner. But I don't mean to imply that it's "simple" to have a supersonic airflow going around an engine into another engine. I'm just saying that the core idea of doing it that way is fairly intuitive. Mullti-cycle engines aren't a new concept. Not that it's easy or simple to pull off what they're attempting.

[@mintoc8853]

@@kathrynck well besides the throat varying, afterburners are essentially gas torches, a crude way of increasing energy output. Imo ideas like this one are often deceptively evident after the fact. Just like the forst iterations of normal jet engines back in the day. But either way I think we can agree it's a pretty cool way of doing it

[@extragoogleaccount6061]

Im just amazed at the thermal properties of whatever they are using. Sounds like that engine would have been melted 30 years ago

[@actionjksn]

I've seen an SR71 Blackbird in person and it is an incredible sight to behold. It's hard to believe that it is so old. Actually I've seen two different Blackbirds, one in Ohio and also the one in Arizona. I go to a lot of military airplane museums.

[@Thepeanutgallery666]

I saw an SR-71 at an air show in Boise Idaho when I was a kid. It had to have been mid-to-late 80s. Of course, I didn't know what I was looking at at the time, but I remember that signature shape. I remember seeing it fly. I remember people calling it a blackbird. And I remember that nobody could get close or they would get shot, and it leaked fuel all over the ground underneath it. It's my understanding that there is one in Hill Air Force Museum south of Ogden utah, and I keep meaning to get over and look at it. Such a beautiful aircraft. Dark and mysterious, sleek and fast.

[@NightKnight347]

I'm just going to put Hutchinson, KS on the list here

[@richardmeyeroff7397]

@@Thepeanutgallery666 their is one in NYC on the Intepid ACand another at the smithsonian museum at Dulles airport, been to both a # of times. They are incredible!

[@TexanUSMC8089]

I saw a couple landing on Okinawa in the 80's. They landed at Kadena AFB. People used to line up at the fences with their cameras, hoping an SR-71 would land.

[@Mr.T.MBA.]

There is one in Utah at the Roy Air Force Museum, plus a B1 Bomber and a ton of other planes. You should check it out.

[@monkeybarmonkeyman]

What impressed me the most in this video was the reference to 3D material printing. Indeed - being able to integrate cooling (and likely heating) passageways into an engine smacks of building engines like a living body. Imagine what might trickle down to consumer level technology. Wow.

[@tomcoon9038]

I have seen firsthand the capabilities of 3D printing of aerospace parts in metals that are difficult to manufacture previously in conventional ways. It is nothing short of astounding. I have seen those aforementioned cooling passageways and other unadvertised critical details myself. So, yes. Not only possible but has been done for over a decade already.

[@jeremyc74]

I've worked with some 3D printed parts in combustion applications, and it really does bring new capabilities to the table. I know they're doing a lot of it for gas turbines used for power generation, and it's allowed for improvements in emissions and efficiency.

[@James-zk1ib]

This reminds me of that "conspiracy theorist" guy that said he worked at Area 51 and came forward about the aliens, i think his name is Bob Lazar. But he said the alien craft wasnt bolted together, it was all one piece of metal, the wires were part of the ship body themselves. Makes perfect sense, he said this before this technology was even around. But could just be a dude who wanted attention lying out his ass. Who knows, id like to believe though.

[@Trojan0304]

Asked a relative who works at Skunk Works, he just smiled. My dad worked on F-117, after it went public , said it works

[@mattywanders]

My grandma worked for Lockheed Martin for 30 years and was part of the SW team in the 70s and 80s. She was a metal fabricator and while we don't know exactly what she did, she likely had a hand in building the F117s. She passed years ago and we'll never know, but I think it's awesome she was involved with that stuff. She wasn't a clerk or a secretary. She was on the floor building badass jets!

[@sundhaug92]

ofc he smiled, they can't confirm or deny

[@Inyourbox-kr5uf]

Replying with a smile is so badass

[@sneakerset]

Very cool. Lived in Trent tract (years ago), and my neighbor would leave town on JANET airlines - heading over to Groom Lake. He had every single cutting bit I needed for my metal projects. Nowadays, composite lay-up tech is getting done by Antelope Valley College student candidates. P42 is Class D airspace,too. A Cessna requested an emergency landing once ,and went in without clearance - base security hustled the pilot right outta there. A Lancaster vet had pictures of his clients at his office gallery - the fur missiles from Dagger squadron.

[@johnserrano9689]

I am aware what I sound like here, but last year late summer beautiful day without anything more than 1 small fluff of clouds, I was outside raking out gravel....all of a sudden I hear a strange very powerful jet I assumed to be an f15 or f22 so I excitedly look skyward all over as I could hear it directly above but couldn't see anything, then I hear a VERY LOUD SPOOL UP of some sort I honestly don't know how to convey it but it sounded like the biggest turbo spooling ones ever heard...no bullshit less than a couple milliseconds all that very odd jet sounds was gone to silence....no trails in the sky either, and whatever it truely was I've seen all known fighter jets take off and fly first hand and nothing. I've ever heard sounds anything like that, but the strangest thing ever how in the fck does a jet on an almost completely clear summer day go unseen?????? That altitude should be impossible, admittedly I know nothing about fighter jets and their engineering but man I've never heard any fighter or bomber come along with its thunderous sound, THEN SPOOL UP THE ENGINES? Really what in the fck could do that? I short after watching this video, I honestly believe this explains it entirely....you can hear it, and it sounds like nothing else ever before, but you can only dream of seeing the fckn thing lol hats off to all those engineers and guys in charge (obviously idk wth I heard but never saw) if this videos accurate, we're all proud of ya 👍🇺🇸

[@robertandrew880]

Mu Uncle just retired from Lockheed Martin, he has always said, the average person cannot handle what we can actually do.

[@radiofreealbemuth8540]

Is he worried about the Chinese threat?

[@lilman227]

@@radiofreealbemuth8540 Shouldn’t be. They’re just as out of there element as us. Been working USAF rapid experiment projects for years. Super neat stuff, but nothing is really impressive anymore. Lockheed Martin. They’re beyond the USAF for sure though. All internal. Won’t even let us know what they have, so I assume it’s cool.

[@robertandrew880]

@radiofreealbemuth8540 the chineese threat is semi real. Numbers yes, ability no. But having a threat is good for the Defense Industry.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

​@@robertandrew880 Yup ... War is a racket !

[@jarigustafsson7620]

Makes sense as Dump was voted to presidency.

[@DAAllan82]

Fantastic reporting, Alex! A possible Mach 10 reconnaissance aircraft with the capability to carry conventional or even nuclear weapons is an absolute game changer!

[@j.f.fisher5318]

It would be one answer to why we are upgrading our nuke gravity bombs

[@johndoh5182]

@@j.f.fisher5318 Interesting issue because if you launched a nuke from a plane traveling this speed you'd already have it moving at a speed necessary for a scramjet to kick in. This would allow the elimination of the motor to get the missile up to speed so the missile would be simpler and you could have a larger payload. Of course you also have the issue of ICBMs which can get a missile up to these speeds too. Huh. The US is upgrading pretty much all of its nuclear arsenal and the picture becomes a little more clear. If they could get a projectile up around mach 10 that would be a bit of a challenge to intercept especially if it could do a couple course corrections even if it would lose some speed. The first Alex mentioned of this plane probably existing and that it would be multi role it sounded like a winning idea right away and having a much better arsenal to go with it takes the US military out another 2 - 4 decades, maybe more, AFTER these platforms get rolled out to the military.

[@DAAllan82]

@@johndoh5182 the only reason I doubt we would launch hypersonic missiles from it is cost. Why spend all that money when you can have the plane drop a cheap gravity bomb, and the bomb itself would already be going Mach 10? Just seems too expensive and complex with too many moving parts, and wouldn’t save much time to impact.

[@actionjksn]

If we make a mach 10 aircraft to carry weapons, they would definitely be nuclear, probably exclusively nuclear. They wouldn't hold enough conventional bombs to be worth using, but you only need 1 nuke.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

It wouldn’t even need to carry weapons…

[@MrJest2]

As a USAF veteran and decades-long worker in the DOD contracting community, I said when the SR-71 was officially decommissioned, that there was _no way_ they would do that without a replacement aircraft already at least being in the works. Sats can't do it all, and can't be "real-time" in all circumstances at any particular place. At the time, the project was rumored to be called "Aurora" (and even this vehicle may well have been) but regardless of the project moniker, it was absolutely going to have existed.

[@fakecubed]

Aurora certainly did/does exist, we know that from the budget, but the USAF also often "decommissions" aircraft and then continues flying them in secret. We know for a fact that F-117 is still flying today, as the most famous example. They shut down a unit that used to fly a particular airframe, transfer it to a new unit, and then keep flying it in that new unit. A lot of this is probably either CIA/recon stuff, or in support of special operations missions. The special operations guys have every tool in the arsenal available to them. Any aircraft with unique capabilities, they're going to keep around a few of just in case they're needed for a particular mission. The F-117 may be useful for air support missions deep behind enemy lines, and it's also clearly being used as a platform to test out new stealth coatings and probably unmanned conversions and drone swarm technology.

[@vahe2391]

@@fakecubed Aurora was actually a Pentagon codename in a February 4, 1985 budget document for requested funds for a number of activities related to the forthcoming B-2 program, such as program support/logistics (e.g. test support infrastructure such as AIRSAR development), for FY 1986 and FY 1987. Even though the submitted budget document omitted the name Aurora, Colonel Adelbert "Buz" Carpenter made clear to Ben Rich and himself that Aurora had nothing to do with hypersonic aircraft and instead was related to a handful of B-2 related activities, and his justification for applying the name Aurora to requested funding for a few B-2 related activities in FY 1986 and FY 1987 was due to the fact that the total cost of the B-2 program was increasingly difficult to conceal. The CIA and NRO had a program in the 1980s and early 1990s for an unmanned SR-71 replacement, codenamed Quartz, which only got as far a handful of subscale tech demonstrators (including a Lockheed UAV similar in appearance to the X-56) before it was canceled in 1992. After the cancelation of Quartz, the US Air Force in 1993 issued the Tier III requirement for the kind of unmanned stealthy replacement for the SR-71 which the Quartz program had aimed to create, but a very long range stealthy reconnaissance UAV was still deemed too expensive, and Tier III was split into the long-range, non-stealthy Tier II Plus requirement and the stealthy yet medium-range Tier III Minus requirement, the latter for which the RQ-3 Darkstar would be built. Today, the SR-71's P-ISR role is now being fulfilled by a classified Northrop Grumman unmanned flying wing (informally called "RQ-180").

[@thatguyb-rad8201]

I grew up in Lancaster, CA - which is 9 miles from Palmdale. They're basically considered sister cities. My 2nd job was at a Boston Market at the Palmdale Mall in the late 90s. My 3rd was at a Chili's just across the street. Needless to say, I drove back and forth in that area quite often. What's not being said in this video is that there is a fairly major highway that goes right passed this Lockheed facility and Plant 42 is literally right next door. There's a railroad track between the highway and those facilities. Quite often there would be a long train of cars parked on those tracks for days or weeks at a time. But honestly they only obscured so much. For reference they revealed the B2 and the B21 at this location to the public. Possibly the F117 too, but I can't remember for sure. Point being, this location is way too public for Top Secret projects. You do see a fair amount of aircraft most of the public isn't familiar with, but they're not secret. My step-dad was the Crew Chief for NASAs B52 program where they drop a lot of stuff off the wings for testing. As a kid I knew he was working on something called "Project Pegasus". He never really spoke of it, but I'm pretty sure that was the early versions of the ramjet/scramjet.

[@Vagabond_Etranger]

It's misdirection, like a magician. The secret stuff, only comes out of the hangar at night, guarded by security 24/7 all around the hangar, far away from civilization.

[@fakecubed]

The secret stuff gets sent in parts to the desert on a cargo plane.

[@OneKauz]

Fellow Sierra Highway citizen, hello

[@mburgnon]

Excellent work on this one, Alex! This is a great summary of all the facts up to today. Thanks for all the hard work you put into your reporting.

[@jkull173]

I interpreted the project needing to go through “rescoping” as likely a reduction in the demanded capabilities. Most likely of them being that they had to forego the “Strike” role of the project and focus on producing a functional ISR platform. Another possibility is rescoping the project from a manned platform to an unmanned platform.

[@onetruehitman7623]

Personally I think they want an unmanned platform (I don’t think they would change the speed, which will probably be Mach 10). Considering they likely had the Global Strike capability in mind perhaps since nearly the beginning, I’m not sure if they’d be willing to remove that so late in the game, especially considering an SR-72 with Global Strike capabilities would make it have a far more versatile role in the Pacific than the SR-71 ever could.

[@Soucka74]

You only rescope a project to obtain higher goals than required not lower expectations or goals. Those are already covered under the current program or set of parameters.

[@appa609]

That would require an altitude of at least 150,000 ft and a 2g turn circle the size of the east coast.

[@alexdunphy3716]

​@@Soucka74this is not the case, programs get toned down all the time

[@Soucka74]

@@alexdunphy3716 I worked this stuff as an OSI Special Agent. Yes, things get downgraded but, when done there is no need for reclassification or rescoping. Parameters are set to include everything up to a specific set of goals. Therefore, anything below those goals does not need to rescoped down since the original parameters already included those. Rescoping is done if you need to meet higher goals or thresholds.

[@misterjones7248]

I would be very, very surprised if there aren't several next generation aircraft in operational service that remain unknown to the public. USAF have been good at doing this over the years.

[@fredfredburger5150]

Yep. The F-117 and the B-2 were unveiled to the public at the same time despite the former being designed, built and flown almost several years earlier...

[@rylian21]

The NGAD has already had its first flights. Sounds extremely promising.

[@dester3275]

Its 2023, everyone has a handheld camera that auto focuses. Its a lot harder to hide tech now which is why its super unlikely. Its also why we saw footage of the supposed first b-21 flight.

[@misterjones7248]

It doesn't work like that@@dester3275

[@misplacedstarman5455]

​@@dester3275- There's a lot of technology out there still that the public hasn't seen,some that would thrill you, and then some that would absolutely scare the hell out of you...

[@DeanIllinger]

Alex, had I not seen dozens of your episodes where you cleanly divide Fact from Speculation and humbly confess when there's insufficient evidence to conclude something, I'd have just smiled to myself and thought 'yes, would be nice if it were true'. Thanks for all your efforts to be an honest broker and laying the SR-72's case out so straightforward (including all of LM's nuanced hints) that we can trust the US isn't bringing up the rear in the superpower hypersonic arms race. Deano

[@michaelj.beglinjr.2804]

I think the SR-71 is the most beautiful plane ever put into production.

[@tobyw9573]

I saw a video of a large model of Habu flown at a meet and the model appeared to handle extremely well. Worth investigating.

[@vladyvhv9579]

I've had the fortune to see 2 of them in different aerospace museums. I'd advise anyone who hasn't, to do so. Epic experience.

[@pauldutcher9105]

I love the blackbird family. But the first large plane I ever saw was the XB-70 which think is the most beautiful.

[@pauldutcher9105]

We talked about SR72 follow on back in 85. But the places I'm seeing as possible replacements. Ok they might have faster engines now ( I doubt as heat issues) um if you go that fast you're going to need more feul ( larger fuel tank). So you're going to need a larger plane or more powerful fuel.

[@armadillotoe]

@@pauldutcher9105 Or much more efficient engines.

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

I remember hearing about the Aurora high speed spy plane back in the early 90's. I wonder if the SR-72 is an offshoot?

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

The SR-72 might be the SR-91 Aurora in disguise.

[@mastercc4509]

art bell in the 90s intensifies

[@BattleBrotherCasten]

didnt a lockheed head say we can travel the stars,but only an act of god can uncover it aka ufos.what we see is artificial progress.@@mastercc4509

[@amazin7006]

Anything moving this fast would be way too high to be visible, plus it would leave a massive trail behind it

[@wbaldwin666]

​@@amazin7006 this same thing happened the last time I took magic mushrooms

[@orbitalrocketmechaniccain3150]

There is a lot to consider, especially if these will be manned aircraft. There are so many dangers for a pilot at that speed and also human reaction may be too slow. But also you don’t want a computer alone to fly some of the most essential missions in the most sensitive areas. I feel like the biggest challenge will be to have an AI system that can give pilots info far enough in advance for them to make decisions at human speed.

[@RANGER73CPT]

The reality, I fear, is that humans are already outdated and no longer relevant. That is scary to think about and to hear that so many of the developers are already warning about the difficulties of keeping AI "in check" AS WELL AS anytime you look at what "humans" do to the planet we are exactly as it was said in the Matrix. We are a PARASITE on this planet and we are NOT moving in the correct direction to fix it any time soon.... I hope that AI doesn't figure out how to take over the world......

[@greenyoshi777]

Especially with all of the different types of jammers being developed to counter UAV's of all sorts. You don't want a $100 billion dollar prototype that you poured decades worth of work into landing on an enemy airfield after it got hacked into oblivion.

[@jerrywatson1958]

@orbitalrocketmechaniccain3150 you forget that the Space Shuttle regularly did MACH 25 during reentry. They had to maneuver to bleed off speed to land. So flying at those speeds is a known factor. The computers of the day could fly it. The Astronauts trained to manually fly it in case of failure of all flight computer systems main, backup, then the astronaut.

[@SonoftheBread]

Controlled manned flight at hypersonic speeds because it's exclusive to extreme high altitude. If you go by the Darkstar as a rough estimate of actual demonstration performance then you need to be at around 100k feet for Mach 10. A skilled and qualified military aviator on par with astronauts, test pilots, etc would be fine. Maneuvering at those altitudes means you just have huge turn circles. You can read about Blackbird pilots describing how many states theyd fly over completing a full turn.

[@sjsomething4936]

@@SonoftheBread one of my favourite stories was of the SR-71 pilot speaking with ATC about where they were… “control we’re over Kansas, ope now Nebraska, no make that now South Dakota…” 😂

[@falkenlaser]

Just imagine if the Darkstar from Top Gun, which was designed by Lockheed and had Lockheed and Shunkworks logos all over it, is a literal mockup of the real SR-72?

[@MichaelSmith-bn2kz]

The movie could have been the actual cover-up... To say "hey it was a movie prop."

[@infinitespace2520]

Lockheed Martin basically stated that the SR-72 Darkstar is a fictional piloted spyplane with the same name and based on the SR-72 design, the movie even mentions a rival drone program, strongly implying that it is the drone SR-72 program. The actual plane in the movie was definitely just a prop but probably the same exact design albeit with a cockpit, remove it and you pretty much have the actual SR-72.

[@Doc_Boots]

Professional level trolling

[@blvck.8197]

I wouldn't be suprised if its literally the exact aircraft or extremely close to it. When we do eventually see it I will laugh my ass off if it ends up being the same thing we saw in Top Gun.

[@louisbabycos106]

@@blvck.8197 Honda ,"just for the record we had our stealth bomber first " que picture of both Honda civic SI and remarkably accurate mock up of the B2 stealth bomber.

[@patrickm4566]

Great video. I had never seen the clip at the end, with the U2 and SR71 flying together. Very cool.

[@SoCalMike2]

Outstanding work. Great script and supporting footage. Clearly, you put some time into this. Well produced and very enjoyable!!!!!

[@bradcolby1]

Alex,this piece was absolutely outstanding! Keep up the magnificent work! 👏🇺🇸

[@TheRenaissanceBuilder]

I find it interesting that the project went dark. Kindof like the railgun project got “cancelled” but now the japanese are making solid progress on it. Any chance you could dig up some recent news on the railgun project?

[@Iamthelolrus]

There is another top gun interview where they said if they wanted to use the hangar, the air force would have to move something. They originally were told they couldnt use that specific hangar. I think the spy satellite may have been trying to see what was in the hangar before the movie crew moved in. Just a guess.

[@zach11241]

It was the beta version of Half-Life 3

[@peckfamily995]

My ex father in law had worked at the skunk works in Burbank then transfered to Skunks Works in Palmdale. He accidently overheard engineers discussing the Aoura and this was about 25 years ago. Also I liive about an hour west of Edwards AFB, and typically on Sundays I can hear some sort of milititary jet that sounds much lower than it is. I can never see and there's never any contrail.

[@wahidtrynaheghugh260]

How do you know it’s lower than it is if you don’t know how low it is

[@jeromezingueur6366]

Because he didn’t see it so he think it’s higher

[@marknewellmusic]

I've witnessed Aurora (SR-72?) over the Midlands here in the UK one summer maybe 2014 or 2015. Can't tell you what it looked like as it was too quick to spot the shape but this person is correct on it sounding lower (read that as louder) than it flew... I believe what I witnessed was the Aurora flying very high up and the noise it made were literal detonations, it flew approx from South to North over approx Birmingham during a very sunny afternoon. There was some high cloud in the sky but where it was clear I saw the following just before the cloud... What it left in the sky was literally line of contrail with ring donuts about 4 or 5 of them along the contrail line. This made me realise at that moment that pulse detonation engines were real and that the Aurora project airframe is stationed here in the UK somewhere. I've never really spoke to anyone about what I saw but can honestly say PDE aircraft are very much real and in use and have been for at least a decade. I feel privileged to have seen what I did back then, and always wondered what it was doing making that racket and drawing attention to itself over England, I guess it was in a hurry to land or refuel somewhere before setting off again over towards the East, middle East, or far East.

[@jeromezingueur6366]

@@marknewellmusic at Mach 15 it takes few minutes to go from US west coast to England … there are some satellite pictures of dotted lines trails extending across continents. But yes I’m sure* UK could do this kind of things.

[@marknewellmusic]

@@jeromezingueur6366 I am very confident that we UK don't have anything that advanced - I'm pretty sure this was USA military based here in UK. I say this as I can't imagine they would want to keep launching from USA when here in UK the USA military is very much based here for recon duties over the East/Middle East/Far East. I say this as I know the SR71 was stationed here in UK in the 90s due to a chat with a US Airman at an airshow here in England when I was lucky enough to get to see one do a flyby along with a Stealth Fighter. I've also seen something very unexplainable late at night once that flew very low overhead making zero sound and being angled like a Toblerone bar as I could see the moon reflecting on the side nearest me - I still don't know what to make of that as it was late at night and passed over the house when I was looking out the window staring at the sky and the moon reflecting perfectly off its angled side caught my eye. I never reported it to anywhere but it always left me puzzled as to what exactly I had seen. Moral of the story is, it pays to look up long and often :o)

[@killman369547]

So the part where he mentions engine restarts. That implies that the aircraft is stable at those speeds even if an engine were to fail which is quite an accomplishment in aerodynamics on it's own.

[@Hythe01]

I took that to mean the restarting of the jet engines, as the speed came back down from the hypersonic range?

[@Condor1970]

One thing to remember is that since the new B-21 Raider is not a supersonic platform, it is rumored to have a tuned F-135 engine for ultra high altitude operation in excess of 80,000ft. For standard combat operations, it cannot necessarily fly that high, nor would the pilots want to be on board, as pressure suits are needed. Piloted combat ops are rumored to be around 60,000ft. However, you don't need pilots when you remove the combat payload, and install a large fuel pod in the bomb bay, and lighter weight reconn equipment in the side missile bays.

[@uku4171]

Good point. Makes sense they wanted it to be remotely operable.

[@Condor1970]

@@uku4171 ...Yes. My point, is that it turns every B-21 in the fleet into an advanced RQ-180 reconnaissance type aircraft, and can be used anywhere in the world the B-21 may be stationed. So, gathering intelligence on a foreign adversary will be much easier and much more available when time sensitivity is a major factor. The other capability, is the side missile bays will also allow it to be an ultra high altitude on station missile platform/arsenal ship to be networked and assist Air Dominance aircraft in an aerial denial scenario. With exception to super maneuverability and supersonic performance, it will in fact be the technically capable "Jack of all Trades" the Air Force has been wanting for a very long time.

[@onetruehitman7623]

@@Condor1970100%, you get the feeling that the B-21 is basically what old school B-2 engineers always wished the B-2 could have been and mucho more (like the possible addition of the B-21 having air to air missiles)

[@mphRagnarok]

It's pretty clear you're misinterpreting the Vago quote about re scoping. He clearly means it had to be scoped down to progress and that was due to challenges encountered. I have no idea why you just assumed that meant up scoping. Why would you describe unexpected out performance as a challenge?

[@leelandas701]

Thanks!

[@stephenbryce]

Thanks

[@brysonfitzgerald5238]

Excited for this one! Thanks, Alex and team!

[@kingjsolomon]

My aunt lives on acreage in the foothills out by Beale AFB in NorCal, I’ve seen countless U2 and other interestingly shaped craft always flying at night or early morning. Can’t wait to lay outside under the skies the next few summers and witness some cool fly byes. I hope so at lest.

[@lewiskemp5893]

Hell yeah 👍

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

Some of these shaped aircraft are SR-91 Auroras(or one of them in general). There are also fastmovers that are like the Aurora but are less advanced.

[@SgtSkrog]

These aircraft are amazing to witness in person. Glad we have some on our side.

[@joe-gu8ms]

While I was in the USAF, I was in conversation with an engineer concerning the sr71 and the a/f12. The conversation led to the fact that while flying at 80k and mach 3, the performance of the look down shoot down capabilities was 86% kill rate. One item slipped out that the airframe was rated alot higher than the stated one, and the vehicles were heat treated and toughened with each and every flight. Sr 71 was and is one of my top 10 aircraft. The a-10, f-15, p-38, p-51 mustang h model, a-4, f-14, da buf, Messerschmitt me109, all iderations of the sr-71, and the av 8b harrier. Honorable mentions are the mv 22, ah64, ac130, my version of the ac22, and new replacement for the a-10, built in my mind of a p-38/a-10, but with a new 76mm high speed , 25, 20, 40mm cannon and fifties in the wings, hey, it could happen...

[@davemccombs]

ok

[@bjornodin]

Here's hoping this project will be just as impressive as the SR-71 was when it launched! I know it's impressive still today, but it's not around anymore and it wouldn't dominate the skies today like it did 50 years ago 😊

[@kathrynck]

I dunno, the YF-12 would still be just about the most formidable plane to ever fly to date. Mach 3.4, over 3000miles range, very low RCS, with three air to air missiles which have a range of over 100 miles and a warhead with a kill-radius of several miles ;)

[@TesterAnimal1]

Hope it doesn’t leak fuel all over the taxiway!

[@kathrynck]

@@TesterAnimal1 It may. SR-71 is using fuel as coolant... so they didn't want to isolate the fuel from the fuselage skin (which expands/contracts). SR-72 may have to as well. Hard to say.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

@@kathrynck- A SR-71 did Mach 3.5 at least once, and that was in 1987. The A-12 might have flown a bit faster & higher. The SR-72 apparently can do Mach 10 at an altitude of 33+ km.

[@kathrynck]

@@TraditionalAnglican I'm aware of the mach 3.56 quote referencing a flight over Libya. I've had some discussions recently which make me somewhat question it though. I'd be happy to say that the blackbird's top speed is "somewhere from mach 3.3 to mach 3.56". And the YF-12 was about mach 0.1 faster. I do think the archangel 12 series oxcart planes flew higher than is officially reported, but it's hard to say exactly how high. I'd just leave it at "certainly higher than the U-2's 80,000 ft". As for the SR-72, 33km (or 100,000 ft) or possibly higher, sounds very plausible to me. Mach 10, though? Nah. Based on the popular science spread of the plane, it looks like somewhere from mach 6 to mach 7. I mean, in terms of the speed capacity of that shape, as an object moving at supersonic speed... it has features in it's shape which betray it's intended speed, from an aerodynamics standpoint. I'll grant that is assuming those drawings are accurate though. I tend to think they are, because that was a lockheed martin pet project at that time, not a government contract. So they were under no secrecy agreements then. The design may have changed though. Mach 10 would require a very skinny fuselage... I think that would be somewhat impractical. A missile which goes mach 10+ "once" sure. A spacecraft which costs 11 figures and goes mach 10+++ on reentry, and then needs months of turn-around time? Sure. A 9 figures cost plane which goes mach 10 several times a week though? I don't see it. Mach 6 or 7 though, yeah.

[@angelosasso1653]

Given the current objective to field hypersonic weaponry, it´s almost a guarantee, this program is at least very mature. Lockheed Martin often had a head-start over many competitors. Now remember, even Boeing (which is often considered a poor performing company, a sentiment I do not share btw) had quite the success in a technology demonstrator 20 years ago, reaching almost Mach 10 and set official records with their ramjet-testbeds. Also consider, many reports about very fast and high flying aircraft for decades now, it can be assumed there was and still is a lot of development in this area. Since the SR-71 was always considered as an option shows, that it was still useful at that time. Which shows a clear need for speed. And where there is need there shall be government money. I would love to see some interviews with eye-witnesses or some people who claim to have photographed interesting stuff. Given how open Skunk Works was about the program I would be somewhat surprised if there wasn´t a tech demonstrator or even a few of them already in service. It´s very difficult engineering but so are most high-end programs and the only show stopper is money, which we know is spent on black projects such as this one.

[@MikeOxlong-]

This story (and program if true) also does a lot towards explaining ‘some’ of the reasons why the US DoD has decided to keep gravity bombs of the spicy kind around (believing that delivering them is still going to be viable) and why they’re doing more than just life extension programs on them - like building new variants with super low and high yield effects. Mind you, they’ve not produced any new PU pits for the past 30+ years either (though they’re starting now) which is definitely the primary influencer behind refurbishment, but in developing these recently announced new(ish) types - not so much…

[@greengoblin876]

​@@MikeOxlong-Gravity Bombs?

[@misplacedstarman5455]

​@@greengoblin876- conventionally dropped bombs...i.e..no rocket motor add-ons.

[@greengoblin876]

@@misplacedstarman5455 ahh right , that's what I thought. I saw Some clip where a youtuber had thought " Gravity " bombs were some kind of star trek world ending nuke like one of the grenades in Thor that suck everything into it like a black hole 😂. Was quite amusing tbh .

[@kathrynck]

@@MikeOxlong- I think the "spicy" gravity bombs are mainly being kept for the B-2 and eventually B-21.

[@darvinclement8404]

If it’s “agile” at hypersonic speeds, I would guess that it rules out being a manned aircraft. That would be some serious g forces. It would be really interesting to know what kind of material they would make an aircraft that can go that fast in the atmosphere reapeatedly.

[@everettstormy]

If it's high enough it may be above the atmophere mostly

[@jschnyt]

@@everettstormy

[@everettstormy]

@@jschnyt ¿

[@warmonger2500]

That image of the SR-71 and U2 is hilarious. One was practically at stall speed and the other in a shallow dive. 😂

[@charlessaunders6209]

Good work, as always, Alex. Thanks for delivering this premium grade fuel for our hypersonic day-dreams.👍

[@MrSatnavatron]

typical blocked replies , trying to share a patent system for the US , but YT refuses to let me post it

[@Taffeyboy]

Good job Alex! I hope they move up that delivery date of the SR 72 because I’ll be 90 yrs old by 2030.😢

[@TurboHappyCar]

I, a random guy on the internet, hope you get to see it. 👍

[@jeffreyholdeman3042]

How cool is it that Alex as an 83 year old subscriber!

[@lewiskemp5893]

Hope you make it. I'll be in my 60s then

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

We'll likely see the first flight next year or in 2025.

[@danieltaylor8556]

My uncle worked for TI building missiles and he was talking about a Mach 7 plus “Dark Star” in the 90s.

[@WigSplitters]

Cos he's a looney

[@danieltaylor8556]

@@WigSplitters also just as valid 🤷‍♂️

[@PegasusTenma1]

Probably would've been the Aurora technology demonstrator, it was probably a real prototype

[@gregHames-u6n]

You are the best, period. Nobody comes close. I appreciate what you do and can only imagine how much hard work you put in to provide us with real info about what's going on in the defence world. Thank you Alex, for what you provided us.

[@Triple_J.1]

Love the Busemann inlet designs. A lot of people have been trying to make them work at off-design conditions for a long time.

[@liamodhomnallain4326]

Awesome content!! Best around. Please keep doing what you are doing. Thanks, Liam.

[@flightscapeaviationphoto]

Usual solid and worthy content Alex. Thanks 🤙

[@greg.peepeeface]

I agree

[@bmannepalli]

What an incredible video. Great job as always, Alex.

[@RANGER73CPT]

Man, you do such a great job putting these stories together and getting them out to us, THANK YOU!!!! This is very interesting and probably more than we should honestly know but it is just so damn cool!!! Keep up the better than great work!!!

[@machdaddy6451]

I think that the technology that keeps this plane from melting is as interesting as the technology that makes it go fast.

[@vladyvhv9579]

Indeed. I have to feel a bit sorry for all of those who can't divulge to much about stuff that gets developed, due to the need for secrecy. I'm sure there's lots of stuff that these people would love to be able to geek out telling us about, and that we'd love to geek out hearing about. But the nature of the world means that some things just need to be left in the dark.

[@corneliusblackwood9014]

Can you imagine going Mach 9.4? Not that it’s going to be manned, I’m just a casual fan of all this, maybe it’s unnamed. Either way, the thought of being strapped into something like this sounds amazing. I’d do just about anything to go for a ride. (one can dream!)

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

It's possible to make it manned. You need cockpit force field technology, like the SR-91 Aurora and all the other Aurora aircraft have.

[@dynestis2875]

​@@AURORAREVEALNOWwhat, like intertia dampeners? Isn't that just science fiction?

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

@@dynestis2875 No it's real.

[@bald_agent_smith]

you can fly manned aircraft at Mach 10,20 or any speed. It is not speed that kills but forces when some object accelerating.

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

@@bald_agent_smith Aircraft that are capable of mach 10 and over are SR-91 Aurora and the TR series craft(ig. the TR-3B Astra).

[@mtmadigan82]

Internally funded almost 2 decades of cutting edge aviation R&D, including test articles. The bill for that has to just be eyewatering😂

[@lucasokeefe7935]

Worth every cent for reliable intel within an hour or two

[@jeffreyholdeman3042]

And yet was 50-70% less expensive than had the US taxpayer funded the research. Obviously LM will make it up on the backend when sales of this platform happen.

[@Strype13]

Well, the Pentagon did just fail its sixth audit in a row. Once again, trillions are unaccounted for...

[@erikswanson6687]

I promise LM didn’t “internally fund” anything. I worked in partnership with LM 9 years ago. They don’t do ANYTHING without getting paid. I was a test pilot for a new mini sub for the SEALs. LM was eyeballing swallowing our company to provide a replacement for the minehunting drone that was SO BAD that Congress scrapped it. They wouldn’t support training dives b/c the DOD hadn’t paid us to do training dives, even though all it would cost above the overhead we were already burning was the cost of 6 hrs of gas for the support boats. LM builds what the govt pays them to build. Period. If the govt actually wants it to work well, or be improved, they’ve got to pay extra for that.

[@exmcairgunner]

That’s awesome, I’m so glad that someone was on the ball and pulled that information. I’m gonna go out on a limb a say I hope they doubled down on it also.

[@denonpmb]

New Subscriber here, thanks for breaking the monotony of so many other aircraft channels with their AI voices and utilization of the same short clips over and over ad infinitum. Great content and video quality!

[@frederickweinstein452]

Excellent!! Thank you for all the hard work you put into this post. This is an amazing chapter in the history of flight.

[@cygmoid]

When you sayed "re-scoped" I assumed it was bacause maybe the aircraft was having issues.Guess I was wrong and Skunks Works is breaking records and limits. Amazing research and video Mr Hollings , really love your work

[@Knights_Oath]

Rescopped means the government is changing what they require from the project. Typically either adding a required capability or changing the whole project.

[@ritchschut1997]

Some food for thought here. I will be bringing up some points that Ben Rich ( Kelly Johnsons successor at the Skunk Works ) also brought up at different times. #1 Coming up with materials to build the plane out of is incredibly difficult and expensive. Even at the time the SR71 was retired, we had not yet found very many replacement materials that can handle the heat generated by even the speeds the SR71 hit, let alone significantly faster. One also needs to keep weight in mind here. The Skunk works went thru an incredibly rough time getting rid of ounces of weight let alone pounds worth to build the A12 and SR71. #2 Then there is the whole fuel issue. They had a miserable time creating the fuel for the SR71. What is out there to replace that now? It is a neat idea but much harder in practice than people think.

[@uku4171]

Hermeus doesn't seem to have an issue with fuel

[@Triple_J.1]

Space Shuttle went Mach-25 sustained above M12 for over an hour on reentry. It was made of aluminum, covered in ceramic. They now have Ceramic composites, not just tiles. You can make the whole airframe out of ceramics. And in the late 1950s they were developing a Nuclear ramjet powered bomber with a cruise speed of mach 3.0... at sea level. And a range of 15 years. They halted the program, because unshielded reactors make atmospheric pollution that would become detrimental. And because they didn't want Russia to copy that tech, as they were liable to actually use it. And they didn't want such a powerful weapon, because the world would not see them as virtuous if they ever used it to merc the USSR. True stories. The nuclear ramjet program dayes back to 1946 plenty of NACA discussions on it available online.

[@lepermessiyah5823]

Technology has advanced significantly since the 60s

[@JC130676]

@@Triple_J.1 Well maybe not the entire airframe, a heat shield for the directly exposed parts would be enough. 3D printing techniques would allow those parts to have integral fuel ducts for cooling / fuel pre-heating. Something like aluminum oxide or boron carbide is able to withstand extreme heat while being lighter than titanium. They're brittle materials but maybe they've found a way to overcome that. There have been only two major obstacles for hypersonic flight: one is the airframe material, the other the powerplant. The aerodynamics of hypersonic flight have been fairly well known for many years now. We already know there are engines capable of working at those speeds so I'm fairly confident the required advanced materials are available as well.

[@andyharman3022]

#3. Ben Rich also wrote in his book that life support for crew in an aircraft going significantly above Mach 3 would be impossible.

[@WasabiSniffer]

with the way you've added up the press releases, briefs, sightings, and all manner of information, it seems like Lockheed is just aching to show off the new bird. great work on this one. you indeed brought the receipts for an exciting time for aviation. It’s like the explanation for SIGINT in Midway, no invitations have gone out yet but the caterers are booked, the hottest band has a gig, all the flowers are getting bought up.

[@ChasWG]

Amazing!!!! Great research Alex and Sandbox team!

[@echo53226]

Your videos are absolutely terrific!!! Keep up the good work!

[@mattmcc72]

TG: Maverick hilariously may not the first time that China has been fooled by a prop. Back in '94/'95 the short lived TV show Space: Above and Beyond, also had a life sized prop of the shows "SA-43 Hammerhead - Endo/Exo-Atmospheric Attack Jet" This life size prop was shipped to Australia for the filming of the shows pilot, and was (allegedly) spotted by a Chinese spy at the port. The story goes that, as a result China put a lot of time, money and effort to gain access to get photographs and access to this craft.

[@ronjon7942]

Laf. Good story. That was a great series - I have it on my computer somewhere, I need to dig it up and watch it again. Thanks for the reminder!

[@Ashes2New]

Your efforts in this video truly shows throughout. Thank you for your continued focus on delivering quality content such as this one on the SR-72. Please keep up the outstanding job!

[@John117-BlueTeam]

Last year, I saw and took pictures of 4 B-2 Spirits flying very high above the city in a line formation in Cheyenne Wyoming. A B-2 is the only flying wing with two engines that I'm aware of, whether it's a drone or manned. The picture is clearly of a B-2 because of the points (Apex nozzles) in the back. It's extremely rare, especially in such large numbers, so it was an amazing sight for sure.

[@bradparker9664]

I just found your channel with this video, and I'm very glad I did. Outstanding job!

[@claytonmonish2265]

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do." - Ben Rich , 2nd Director of Lockheed Skunkworks (Stated during 1993, Alumni speech at UCLA)

[@njgrplr2007]

It will be interesting to see how they launch weapons from a hypersonic plane without tearing off the doors to the weapons compartment or incinerating the plane.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

if they were to do this (love you Alex but the 72 is still just overblown fiction) they would probably take design cues from the a-12 for weapons employment

[@SwordOfApollo]

Yeah, I think it could perhaps be done by putting the bay doors behind a step-back in the fuselage that creates a near-vacuum at hypersonic speeds. This could perhaps shield the doors from the brunt of the ferocious wind.

[@jacobwilbers9852]

It's a giant dick measuring contest. If it had practical use, they would not keep it secret because they would want to make lots of them and deploy them all over its not 1962. Everyone has a camera.

[@Hythe01]

The issue for weapons deployment would probably not be opening the bomb bay - a Canberra/Buccaneer-style rotary door with suitable deflection could be engineered, but rather safe separation of the weapon into the airstream, without it just bouncing back up into the aircraft. Can’t help but think that the linear bomb bay, a la A3J/A-5 Vigilante, would be better. Also solves the challenge of finding space between the engines, if those are mounted beneath the body.

[@appa609]

common misconception. All fadt aircraft are limited to a similar dynamic pressure. Hypersonic planes can only go fast at very hogh altitudes where the aerodynamic forces they experience are similar to just above mach-1 at sea level

[@nobody687]

When they showed the 71, the 72 was flying. That's how it works

[@gr8crash]

Not really no. By that logic the 72 "which it won't be called" would have been flying since the 60s and we know it wasnt

[@Ilyak1986]

Squeeeeeeeeeee. The SR-72 is just a wonderful idea. Take the Blackbird, make it 2-3x as fast, add stealth. The question being is if it looks like that goofy single-tailed drone, or if it looks like LMT's more recent renderings that look more like Dark Star, which looks absolutely BADASS. Also, I do wonder why Dark Star has the front of its cockpit sealed off instead of clear. But the idea that the SR-71 will finally have a real successor is wonderful. Let's hope that jet is every bit as iconic as the blackbird.

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

Which to be honest, the SR-72 might be the SR-91 Aurora in disguise.

[@nj1255]

"I do wonder why Dark Star has the front of its cockpit sealed off instead of clear". At 23:25 you can see the front being full of instruments. You still have a good line of sight in front of the plane even if there's no window right in the center of the cockpit. It could also simply be a structural thing. I could only imagine what crazy physics problems you need to solve to design a reusable airframe capable of Mach 10. However, the Dark Star is just a movie prop. If the renders of the real SR-72 prototype shown in the video is anything to go by, it seems like it will have no windows at all.

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

@@nj1255 There is a design of the SR-91 Aurora in a retro Lockheed Martin black aircraft timeline that is similar to the Darkstar. The design in that retro timeline, might be the manned SR-72.

[@Ilyak1986]

@@nj1255 that might be for the drone variant. How would the pilot *SEE*? Ace Combat like COFFIN type visuals with cameras all over the plane?

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

​@@Ilyak1986 In the future, yes we will need real life COFFIN(COnnection For Flight INterface) systems. In the 2022 chinese aerospace expo, they showed their spacefighter mock up that has a COFFIN system.

[@kathrynck]

I seriously doubt Mach 9.6. You can't have the fuselage in contact with it's own supersonic shockwave (apart from leading edges where that's unavoidable). SS shockwaves travel out to the sides from a supersonic object at exactly mach 1. If you're going mach 1 forward, then because the plane is moving, the shockwave propagates out at 45 degrees (relative to the plane). Basically at mach 1, the plane moves forward 1 meter, for every meter the shockwave moves outward = 45 degrees. At mach 2, the angle is 2-to-1, at mach 3, 3-to-1, etc. At mach 10, the SS shockwave would propagate outwards at 1/10th the forward speed of the plane. So you would need a plane with a needle shape which is skinnier than a 10-to-1 angle to avoid having the shockwave pressing on the fuselage. That would just be impractically skinny. As to why you don't want the shockwave ON the fuselage skin... it's an enormous amount of drag, and it causes plasma. You're gonna get plasma on the nose tip and wing leading edges anyway, but you'd definitely want to avoid getting plasma all over the whole forward fuselage. The space shuttle used heat tiles to go up to mach 25 on reentry... but it only did it for like a minute, and it was encrusted in heat tiles, and needed to cool off for hours upon landing, and then received 10,000+ labor hours of upkeep (per flight) just for heat shielding maintenance. So yes, you "can" go fast enough to push the SS shockwave against the fuselage, but not in a "frequent use" nor "affordable" platform. Basically a plane which just totally bathes itself in SS shockwave pressure and plasma would add two zeros to the cost, and make it a twice-a-year vehicle to operate. And it would need exponentially more thrust as well. That would be wildly impractical. I'm sure the air force wants a 9-figure$ highly reusable platform, not an 11-figure$ platform with months of turnaround time. Looking at the SR-72 layout in pop-sci... I'm pretty sure the nose shockwave is intended to be fairly close to the fuselage, and is meant to intersect the wing roots at that thick wing root extension. The vertical stabilizer is designed to stay tucked under the shockwave, so that it doesn't become a super-exotic part, a source of heavy maintenance, and a source of greatly increased drag. That kinda paints the picture of a minimum and maximum cruising speed. Shockwave has to intersect the robust wing roots, while the vertical stab is clearly meant to tuck under the shockwave, and the geometry of the forward fuselage also has to stay inside the shockwave. At that point, you can deduce it's intended cruising speed with just a common desktop protractor. I'd take "2 to 3 times the speed of the SR-71" as _marketing spin_ basically. How you phrase things when you're trying to sell them. That 41.1 inch tv? it's a "42 inch class tv", you get the idea. My protractor says mach 6-7, maybe a tad more (which does extend a little over "two times an SR-71", but far from "three times"). But this does assume that the drawings are accurate. Kinda nice when a project is started by the contractor, and then pitched to the DoD. Means the early stages of the program aren't top secret, as the company is really trying to generate "buzz/hype" rather than secrecy. I would regard the pop-sci presentation of the SR-72 as being very straightforward, since it's just LM talking about something they were working on 'off contract' in their free time, and trying to generate interest. It wasn't (at that time) classified, as it wasn't yet a govt program.

[@armadillotoe]

An unmanned drone flew for 3 minutes at Mach 20 before crashing into the ocean. That was in 2011. Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2), I am just pointing out research has been going on with flying at ludicrous speeds for a while.

[@kathrynck]

@@armadillotoe Yeah, but nothing you re-use "often" would go mach 20. HVT-2 was a glide vehicle stuck on top of a ballistic missile. It was a research vehicle. HVT-3 (unfunded) was to be a follow-on reusable vehicle which would take off from a runway, and actually carry payloads. But HVT-3 would have gone just under mach 7. I '_think_' the SR-72 replaced HVT-3. They're a bit redundant. The research goes back further than that. Remember the "Space Plane" program from the late 80's early 90's? NASA & DARPA have been researching hypersonics for a very long time. X-43A, X-60A, X-37... The X-51A is pretty much the prototypical hypersonic cruise missile. There's been a lot of research between mach 5 and mach 25. But... if you wanna go "above" mach 6-7 or so, you either need A) an incredibly expensive vehicle which will have extremely high upkeep costs and very long turn-around time between flights. (example: space shuttle). Or B) a single-use vehicle (like a test vehicle or missile). Single use vehicles can afford to melt, as long as they melt slowly enough to do their thing, one time. I suppose a reusable vehicle could go mach 10. But it would need a taper of steeper angle than 1 to 10, which means a very skinny craft. And the problem with very skinny vehicles is that they end up weighing much more per cubic meter of internal volume. Which in turn is a fuel and/or payload issue. The alternative is to accept 'detonation wave' pressures on the surface (which is really what you're subjecting an airframe to if it touches its own supersonic shockwave). And use a 'thick/blunt' design, with heat tiles applied to it. But heat tiles only protect for a pretty brief period of time (single-digit minutes), are very costly, and need to be replaced & maintained very often, which is labor intensive and expensive. Anything the USAF wants to fly on a Tuesday, and then fly again on a Thursday, (and cost south of a billion per plane), will be single-digit mach. So it won't have to deal with that.

[@afro7679]

As always, great content and very informative !!! Thanks

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I would _love_ it if you would cover Reaction Engines, SABRE and their HTX project. I've read everything obvious but it'd be fascinating to see what else you could dig up. No combined cycle, just an engine that's going to run from Mach 0.0 to _checks notes_ Mach 25. Yes really. (It's for a space plane)

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

The Aurora is one of these aircraft(it's getting upgraded constantly).

[@Hythe01]

Seconded! Alex, please do something on SABRE! As I recall, Boeing invested in the company/project, alongside the British government, in the past few years.

[@ArmyDoc]

Alex I always get excited when I see notifications from you. I'm 60 now I hope I live long enough to see your predictions prove out. BTW thank you for your service. Doc US Army Combat Medic

[@RagsHSC-7]

As the largest war machine in the world, the US or for any nation for that matter will never release the true speed or weight or technical matters of any aircraft, including the SR71. I'm quite sure when they stated 2 times the speed to maybe? 3 times the speed was a general Mach 3, 6 or 9. Mach 10 obviously is the goal. Quite sure they have met most of the parameters. For the SR-72. Just trying to put it in a frame that could withstand that type of speed boggles the mind 🤔 enjoyed it very much. Please keep them coming. Happy Thanksgiving to you! Hope you had a great day. Take care 🕊️

[@dananorth895]

I heard a highly compressed quad sonic boom ever E Texas in the early 80's. Pretty certain that was the sr-71, all that tells me is it was moving between mach 4 and 5. And that was on it's way to nicarougra.

[@RagsHSC-7]

@@dananorth895 😱👊😎 when I was younger I seen over the Atlantic in the ceiling was unlimited. Little little round contrails I don't know how to explain it like it was as of today as an Old Navy rotor head and have matured at 55 years old. It was a weird thing to hear but it was so far away and when I looked up that's all I seen was the little donuts way up in the atmosphere and it wasn't falling. That was for sure the trail was not so I can only imagine what made. It was not either. Other time I heard it, it was kind of like a silent boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom kind of thing. Hard to express in the words. I think that's awesome though

[@randyscorner9434]

There have been rumors of the "pulse engine" for some time that would give the "donuts on a rope" contrail. No one has ever owned up to those. As research this would be very cool, but in practice the variable velocity and constant shocks would be a nightmare.

[@JageeAgain]

Great reporting Alex. keep on that trail.

[@appa609]

This is an idiotic, conspiratorial no-physics perspective. Its intake cone has a 13⁰ half-angle (which you can measure in person if you want) which gives it maximum mach no of 4.45 because shock cone angle = arcsin(1/M). Practically it's lower because you want the normal shock to be outside the inlet area.

[@gregswank4912]

The X-15 was a hypersonic rocket plane that broke records in the 1960's. The biggest obstacles were keeping the leading edges from ablating away in the heat, and preventing that material from depositing on the windows, blocking the pilots view. As an avid follower of rocket tech, I know that creating a vehicle that survives hypersonic flight without wearing away the heat shield has been one of the big challenges for reusable boosters. In the recent launch of the x-37b on Falcon Heavy, the side boosters detached at about 3500 MPH before turning around and returning to the launch site. While the boosters have to endure enormous heat for a few minutes, a hypersonic plane would have to keep its pilot, fuel, and payload from absorbing the massive amount of heat generated by ramming though air molecules faster than they can get out of the way for a lot longer. I wonder what type of material would survive air molecules sandblasting the surface without having to be replaced after every flight.

[@prjndigo]

LM's video with a computer generated plane in it is not a viable flight airframe even at Mach 2. A lot of people, apparently even bleeding lexan edge skunk works employed engineers, don't understand that the SR71 didn't actually fly using airflow lift, it flew in a pocket of low pressure turbulence behind the leading shock. It _created a lifting body form_ with its bisinusoid shockwave and pushed that mathematical construct through the air. The reason for the retirement of the SR71 is simple: if it was pushed any faster during actual imaging sessions its actual aerodynamic heating of the air would reduce its capacity for detail. With live update capacity and the ability to penetrate airspace with a half dozen stealth objects we've simply not needed the capacity the 71 gave us and likely still don't need it now. We can literally lob small self-destructive recon ICBM-like pods into airspace to open parachutes and transmit back images of much higher detail using off-the-shelf civilian tech for 1/50th the cost of flying a new high speed plane that simply cannot fly low enough to be useful in ground warfare. If we're at the point that we're retiring the B-1, we certainly don't need an SR72. Don't let the Ace Tomato Company fool you with its advertising.

[@IstintoX-Soldato]

When will the world learn that challenging the US to a technology race will never go well for them

[@Inkling777]

Speed isn't the only high-priority capability required. Much of the cost of operating the SR-71 came from the necessity of having specially equipped refueling aircraft and much of the complexity of missions lay in it having to slow down and meet with refueling aircraft. A craft that could leave a U.S. base, fly at perhaps Mach 9 over any location on the planet, and return to that U.S. base _without refueling_ would be incredibly valuable.

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

And we have multiple airframes of that type of aircraft. It's the SR-91 Aurora which to be honest, the SR-91 Aurora might be the SR-72 in disguise.

[@appa609]

That is basically impossible. L/D ratios get worse as mach number increases. The best case at Mach 9 is about 5.3. You're never going to get intercontinental range with hydrocarbon fuel.

[@AURORAREVEALNOW]

@@appa609 With LOX type of fuel, it'll be possible.

[@dynestis2875]

​@@AURORAREVEALNOWshut up fool.

[@crawkn]

The RQ-180 needing to be rescoped doesn't sound to me like bragging, it sounds like the limitations required it to be down-scoped from original intent. It says original intent was beyond current technical capabilities. What that says about the leap represented by the remaining scope is unclear. There have been projects for which rescoping has lead to abandonment.

[@kh-zg6xj]

The SR-71 is daddy of all planes! I wish I could have seen one in the air. Its probably one of the greatest aeronautical engineering achievements ever.

[@mndlessdrwer]

Lockheed Martin really does know how to tease the public properly. Say we can get one made by 2030 all the way back in 2018, then casually mention that they had been developing the engine for four years prior to that publicity announcement and the technology is considered mature enough for test frames to be built. Madlads, I love it.

[@Opusss]

Great video. LM and Skunk Works has always had a great sense of humor and a penchant for feigning loose lips just enough to make adversaries question themselves. Which is most certainly in coordination with the US gov.

[@michellepopkov940]

I’ll concede the possibility of hyper sonic aircraft (with a few grains of salt). But how do you make an aperture (either optical/IR or a SAR) that can work with shock waves on the surface of the aircraft? This problem has been present for all reconnaissance aircraft since the discovery of fire! People ignore the integration risks for the sensor payloads.

[@oosyboosy3549]

low frequency radio waves can pass threw plasma in shockwaves.

[@aviatorlewski9310]

"throw enough money at Lockheed martin or Grumman and physics won't matter"

[@Bones-uu6zp]

Ah ! Good point- but, my curious fellow, there indeed is a team of scientists whose job is SPECIFICALLY REMOTE SENSORS INTEGRATION INTO VARIOUS AIRCRAFT, THAT INCLUDES SPACE CRAFTS, my dear curious person. (they are inserted into orbit by rocket engine) 😉 Buddy, we're on it.

[@michellepopkov940]

@@aviatorlewski9310 Program management, schedule, and cost controls have not been Lockheed’s strong suit! Look at F-22 and F-35. Soaking the taxpayers.

[@aviatorlewski9310]

@@michellepopkov940 i was just making a joke. I don't want to speak on a subject i don't research. I like taking airframe aerodynamics.....i guess that *kinda* applies here? Idk.

[@nhorvath74]

I can't imagine how you would be able to deliver a payload from an aircraft at those speeds.

[@BattleBrotherCasten]

radar and targeting sensors are advanced enough aswell as the missile having its own navigation system.

[@WilliamCollins-sh6lm]

Doors opening inward instead of outward and out of the airflow....

[@lafeeshmeister]

Directed energy weapons

[@Hythe01]

⁠A linear bomb bay might work well. Eject the weapon rearward, into the slipstream of the aircraft. Genius bit of overkill tech from the 1950s…!

[@bald_agent_smith]

they flight at the high altitude when air pressure is generally speaking the same as Mach 1 at sea level bro

[@Fanfan30303]

This guy sounds like ALF and I just love picturing ALF describing military tech

[@AnthonyWilson247]

Great article Alex! Thanks for your hard work.

[@IndigoSierra]

Could you please make a video about the new helicopters for the us military.

[@castlebravocrypto1615]

I saw a purple dot fly across the Kansas sky about 5 years ago in the middle of the night. At first, I thought it was a meteorite or the like, but it didn't flash out. It crossed the sky, horizon to horizon in about 5 or 6 seconds and it was gone. It went through a few clouds, so it was in our atmosphere and moving REALLY FAST

[@mattt525]

Thats wild

[@TheIcanMan706]

Absolutely love you investment in educating me. You do all the hard work to allow me to make an informed decision on the things I've wondered about. And admittedly the u.s. capabilities I've often fantasized about. I take comfort in been 98% sure that block 2 of the sr72 will be here (if not already), sooner than later. And Alax, thats👆 AIRPOWER!

[@sergiom9958]

One of your best videos wver, if not the best. Thanks and congratulations!

[@tonyromano4341]

I loved this one Alex. I know it's a "pia", but the longer episodes are really appreciated. Keep at bro.

[@Condor1970]

There's a legit reason why China diverted a satellite when Top Gun: Maverick was filming. The scuttlebutt is, the Dark Star scene is sort of a wink & nod documentary as to how far they've actually gotten in recent years of R&D.

[@castlecircle7612]

17:08 Jack OBanion Quote, i read this myself a couple years ago and found the printing technology INCREDIBLE, the cooling system is printed into the actual blades themselves. I did equate it with stealth or hyper-sonic but at that time i used that information for investment purposes. Can you imagine the uses of this 3D printing method of cooling systems embedded in the structural material of a component outside of secret programs? the global use implications are limitless.

[@appa609]

Starlink could very easily double as a spy satellite network with complete and very frequent coverage. I'd honestly be surprised if SpaceX didn't do that and get big DoD funding

[@TheOneWhoMightBe]

The hardware isn't on the Gen2 birds, but I guess there's no reason it couldn't be added in Gen3 or Gen4. When Starship-Superheavy becomes operational current mass and size constraints go out the window.

[@zacharywiedner327]

A reliable, high speed, global data network that is entirely air gapped from existing terrestrial data transmission networks was more than valuable enough to alone get DoD dollars.

[@nobodynoone2500]

@@zacharywiedner327 Reliable up until they trigger kessler syndrome.

[@CharlieBass5]

Stay in the groove Alex, keep bring that GOOD STUFF!!!

[@antonioduenas8342]

Alex, you did it again! The best SR72 video of real and true information. I hope it could not be stolen by China. It goes to law!

[@coreyjacobs2718]

A SR-72 would make the JDAM a powerful long range hypersonic weapon

[@WigSplitters]

It would decelerate to sub hypersonic speeds

[@dynestis2875]

That's not how that works😅

[@struanmcgrath1619]

Its tru i fly the SR 73, but only drunk.

[@AtomicAerials]

Try applying any of this logic or reasoning to the stealth Blackhawks used in the Bin Laden raid - no modern black project would be this careless, nor would they wink at the public this much. The most important question is one you did not ask: Who benefits from teasing or being this public about a supposedly black project? It is very probably misdirection. Nothing about this video has convinced me that the SR-72 is anything but clever marketing that plays to a jingoist mindset. Using your own example of the RQ-170, can you honestly imagine that Lockheed or the US government would be super jazzed to share their designs with the producers of the movie "Stealth" and be cheerfully discussing how their mockup of a secret design was even seen by foreign satellites??