Not quite an SR-71

[Manonthestreet]

But almost and its capable to execute more mission sets than the 71 and at a much lower cost. If it is as advertised we should buy a bunch of em

Breaking News: U.S. firm Anduril enters autonomous air combat with presentation of Fury drone

Anduril Fury drone, autonomous air combat UAV, AI-enabled combat drone, Paris Air Show 2025 debut, Lattice OS drone autonomy, long-endurance UAV USA, multi-role

www.armyrecognition.com

 

[MarathonMike]

Sweet! Appears way smaller than an SR-71 probably why it has longer range.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Sweet! Appears way smaller than an SR-71 probably why it has longer range.

Don't think it quite has 71 range but its probably greater than most platforms its size

 

[Concerned American]

Sweet! Appears way smaller than an SR-71 probably why it has longer range.

It does appear smaller, but I was amazed at how small the SR-71 was as well.

 

[The Duke]

Oh good Googly Moogly
Do You Want To Play a Game?

 

[toobfreak]

But almost and its capable to execute more mission sets than the 71 and at a much lower cost. If it is as advertised we should buy a bunch of em

What I wonder is if these things are so good, then why do we need to buy a bunch of them? I mean, why are they even being made if we have not already bought them all?

Put another way, what if we weren't buying them, then who else might?

Not worth buying unless they are the best and we have exclusive rights to them.

As to the SR-71, keep in mind that the 71 had never been done before, and it was being done in the 1960s.

 

[Mushroom]

But almost and its capable to execute more mission sets than the 71

Well, of course it does more missions than the SR-71. That was only a recon aircraft, that was the only mission it could do. This is a combat drone.

Kinda like comparing a T-6 Texan with a B-52.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, of course it does more missions than the SR-71. That was only a recon aircraft, that was the only mission it could do. This is a combat drone.

And 60 years newer.

 

[Mushroom]

And 60 years newer.

Which does not matter in the slightest, as they were designed with very different missions.

Tell me, which can haul more cargo? A 1953 REO Speed Wagon, or a 2025 Toyota HiLux?

 

[Manonthestreet]

What I wonder is if these things are so good, then why do we need to buy a bunch of them? I mean, why are they even being made if we have not already bought them all?

Put another way, what if we weren't buying them, then who else might?

Not worth buying unless they are the best and we have exclusive rights to them.

As to the SR-71, keep in mind that the 71 had never been done before, and it was being done in the 1960s.

Brand new platform, that's why we don't have any

 

[The Duke]

I do not like the talk of all this AI OS stuff.

 

[toobfreak]

Which does not matter in the slightest,

So, you DISAGREE that the SR71 was designed around 60 year older technology? Interesting.

 

[toobfreak]

Brand new platform, that's why we don't have any

Yes, but if it is so good, I'd rather they not be on the open market for just anyone, including the Iranians and Chinese to buy. Private companies should not be developing cutting edge technology which could be used against us unless it is under contract with our military.

 

[Mushroom]

So, you DISAGREE that the SR71 was designed around 60 year older technology? Interesting.

I disagree because they are completely different aircraft with completely different missions. The age has nothing to do with that.

The SR-71 was a "One trick pony". It was designed to do a single thing, and nothing else. This is a multi-role craft, a completely different beast. Why you think the increased capability has anything to do with age, I have absolutely no idea.

As I find myself saying all the damned time in here, "Apples and oranges". It is like comparing a modern Destroyer to an Iowa class Battleship. Or a modern America class Amphibious Assault ship to an Essex class carrier. None of those are the same in any way, because they all have completely different missions. And trying to compare a multi-role drone to a dedicated recon aircraft is just as much of a failure.

Especially trying to proclaim it is better because it can do more things. And in the military, there is an old saying when it comes to comparing any multi-role equipment when compared to their single role counterparts. "Jack of all trades - master of none".

Now if you want to actually have a serious discussion with me, do not use Strawman tactics. Respond to what I say, do not twist around what I say in order to demand I respond to that. That is dishonest, and the actions of a complete choad.

Because for some damned reason, in order to try and attack my statement you cut half of it off.

Which does not matter in the slightest, as they were designed with very different missions.

 

[toobfreak]

I disagree because they are completely different aircraft with completely different missions. The age has nothing to do with that.

Mush--- you've again missed my point. I was not disagreeing with any of the points you've made at all, I was just adding the fact of their great differences in ages as well.

When the 71 was built, no one knew how to work with titanium yet, it was a new metal to most people presenting a whole host of challenges, and technology of that era limited what the plane design mission could even be given other factors! What is a miracle, is that the 71 was built at all, it was fantastically ahead of its time. I mean, when the 71 was on the drawing board, NASA was still flying Gemini space capsules and the Apollo program was just getting under way.

 

[Mushroom]

Mush--- you've again missed my point.

I have not missed it, it is being discarded as not applicable.

To make a "point", it has to be logical. Not an illogical leap and trying to connect things that are of no actual comparison. And in your case, it is failing.

Know what else uses a lot of titanium? The A-10. But nobody is trying to compare the SR-71, A-10 and this as anything even remotely close to being the same thing. Different aircraft, different missions.

 

[toobfreak]

I have not missed it, it is being discarded as not applicable.

How can it be "applicable" when it was said in ADDITION to the point you already made?

You obviously don't know anything about engineering.