Lockheed Martin Developing Successor To the SR-71 Blackbird 160
Zothecula writes "When the last SR-71 Blackbird was grounded in 1998 it was a double blow. Not only did aviation lose one of the most advanced aircraft ever built, but also one of the most beautiful. Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has now revealed that it is building a successor to the Blackbird: the SR-72. Using a new hypersonic engine design that combines turbines and ramjets, the company says that the unmanned SR-72 will be twice as fast as its predecessor with a cruising speed of Mach 6."
Granted, it's a cool plane... (Score:4, Insightful)
... but how many successors does it need? [slashdot.org]
Re:this possibly means one of two things.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, I wish they would just take the military budget for Air Conditioning and give it directly to NASA. it would triple our space research funding.
As a former soldier, I don't want them to cut funding for air conditioning. Operating in climates with 120 F for months at a time is pretty hard, and the computers and equipment starts failing.
But I get your point.
Re:this possibly means one of two things.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting anything just to cut is stupid. DO you think just random cutting will get rid of pork? It will not, pork is always the last to go.
What we need is targeted and precise cuts on a project basis.
But no, lets just leave all our allies dangling, and leave our defense wide open. Cause that's what happens when you just slash and burn.
Re:this possibly means one of two things.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe our allies should start picking up their portion of their defense tab rather than relying on the U.S. taxpayer to constantly foot the bill.
and leave our defense wide open.
Like what, goatse? The danger now is rarely military in nature but electronic. The military industrial complex even admits this. They are more worried about state-sponsored electronic infiltration than they are about some nation developing jets or missiles.
Take a look at the 2011 proposed budget [nytimes.com] and how much national defense gets. You mean to tell me we couldn't cut that budget by 10% and still be secure?
Considering that is 20% of our total expenditure, and is nothing but a money sink since we get almost nothing in return, I think we can cut the fat a bit and still have a juicy steak.
Re: this possibly means one of two things.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe the United States could fuck off and stop terrorising the world.
Re:this possibly means one of two things.. (Score:4, Insightful)
the correct response is to end overseas wars of foreign aggression and let the Middle East rot.
Are you a parent? Many parents intervene to stop their kids from squabbling, and think they are reducing conflict. But if they just stay out of it, the kids will figure out how to resolve the conflicts on their own. Their resolution may not be what you, as a parent, would have imposed, but it is still an end to the conflict.
The same would likely happen in the Middle East. If we were no longer there to impose our will, the squabbling would likely stop as the countries in the region realized that they really had to deal directly with each other, and had to live with the consequences of their actions.
American power is not the solution to the Middle East's problems. To a large extent, it is the cause of the problems.