how do we weaponise the sr71 why didn't they put weapons

>>31580278
Because the explosives would leak out of the panel gaps in the bombs.

>how do we weaponize an aircraft whose fuel is no longer made
anon pls

File: aim47-2.jpg (91KB, 447x273px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 447x273px

>>31580278
already done

File: Blackbird.jpg (2MB, 2678x3267px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2678x3267px

>>31580278

OPs faggotry aside, the SR-71 was almost fully obsolete while it was in service, hugely impractical and yet also insanely cool.

>>31580278
Put some mutants inside.

>>31580278
We tried using the airframe as an interceptor (see YF-12), but found that the engine startup time just took too long.
It could still have made a decent air superiority missile truck of sorts, but there are better, cheaper options to accomplish the same objectives.

We did.
http://area51specialprojects.com/yf-12.html

>>31580352
900% sure the SR-71 eats Jp-4/8. Like everything else in the military.

>>31580278
shit interceptor since it can't get off the ground fast at the sound of the alert.

also not very useful for missile lugging because aerodynamics n shiet and also there are/were much cheaper alternatives

>>31580397
>almost fully obsolete

Nah, wasn't really all the way obsolete until drones became a bit more usable\ satellites kept proliferating a bit, there's still capabilities that aren't filled, but also aren't worth the tremendous cost of the program.

In terms of weaponizing it, it was looked at and successfully tested, but it was way too costly and fragile for use in combat. The program to use it as an interceptor was mostly to provide cover for the reconnaissance mission.

>>31580446
JP-7

>>31580446
Nah you 100% wrong boss, JP-7, which is still used for some scramjet testers, just not in supply chain because no more blackbird.

They dropped an engine, took off the wings, added a nuclear payload and called it an ICBM.

File: YF-12A.jpg (22KB, 300x359px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x359px

>>31580278
As others have said, they did - the Blackbird's direct predecessor, also the largest (and fastest, naturally) interceptor ever built

File: YF-12 AIM-47.jpg (262KB, 1800x1345px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1800x1345px

>>31581831
I think it only had a two or three missiles though.
Which had a nuclear warhead option, naturally

>>31580352
I think NASA recently did something with JP-7.

>>31582096

Crash it into an asteroid?

>>31580278
Because you can't drop bombs or release missiles from a supersonic aircraft in the 20th century.

>>31583153
also i should clarify before retards appear. You can't do these things from a plane going supersonic.

File: Figure 12.gif (34KB, 733x556px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 733x556px

>>31583153
>>31583175
Yes you can.

>>31583179
>using hypothetical images from the 60's as proof.

>>31580278
>how do we weaponise the sr71

By putting weapons on it.

>why didn't they put weapons on the sr71

Because a plane that takes hours to get airborne and headed towards its target, and flies so fast that it needs an area the equivalent of the US midwest to turn around, is not a great weapons platform.

You want things that can get in the air quickly and stay in a general area for a long time.

>>31583206
You're right, I should have used the multiple actual launches from a YF-12 of a AIM-47 while traveling Mach 3+, because I should have known a dumb motherfucker like you would refuse to admit they're wrong.

>>31580278

It flies faster than bullets, so any attempt to shoot bullets or missiles from it would end up in it shooting itself.

>>31583431

Yes, the gun fires and the bullet immediately falls through the back of the aircraft.

Because that's how physics works.

File: SR71 GUN.jpg (47KB, 1092x605px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1092x605px

>>31583506

Guns back then couldn't shoot their bullets as fast.

Obviously a modern plane would be able to shoot their bullets faster than the plane, but it just didn't work like that back then. That's why they used prop planes in WWI, because the bullets were even SLOWER then.

File: what-the-fuck-am-i-reading-spiderman-DW2ZDe.jpg (27KB, 500x339px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x339px

>>31583705

/v/ tier thread

>>31583431
>>31583705
Woah dude!
A bait that made me reply.

>>31580278

Because it flys so fast if it fired it's cannon it'll shoot itself down

>>31580424
underrated post

>>31583431
>>31583506
>>31583705
>>31586682
I dont know which of these are trolling and which is just a painfull showing of why homeschooling is bad, but anyways:
There have been cases of jet fighters firing their cannons, only to enter a shallow dive and thus flying into the ballistic path of their own shots thus shooting themself down.

>>31589997
homeschooling is actually widely more succesful than the public education system.

>>31583237
PREACH

>>31589997
>why homeschooling is bad
Anecdotal but the dumbest motherfuckers I have met were while I was in public school and thanks to my state's Post Secondary Enrollment Option I attend college with a number of kids who were homeschooled growing up. Seeing how smart and social they all are is making me want to homeschool my kids too. Public school made me dumber and lazier, my parents could see the difference in a few years after I switched from a Catholic school to public.