Harry Andreas wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. If your recce a/c cannot get close enough because
of missile
defense, then you're pushed too far away from the target for good resolution.

Well, that's what happened to the Blackbird. But my point was that a
recon plane will always have an edge over a satellite, provided, of
course, they are both within their effective range from the target.

Not true at all. The fast movers used for recce duty (other than the U-2)
are very limited in space and weight carrying

Well, to respond to this one would need to know the payload of a recon
satellite. The gross weight of the KH-11, for example, is over 13,000
kg. However, it's payload, of course, is considerably less. Even a very
general schematic of the KH-9, for example, shows that, just as with a
recon plane, the payload constitutes a relatively small fraction of the
gross weight of the craft.
(http://www2.janes.com/janesdata/yb/j...s/g0003433.jpg)

One would also need to take into the account the extra weight of the
actual recon equipment carried by the satellite to compensate for its
greater distance from the target, as compared to a recon plane. Thus, we
can't compare the payloads of a recon plane and a recon satellite pound
for pound even if the two are designed for identical types of missions.

Not necessarily. Spaceborne recce assets come from a different bucket of money
and usually does not compete with tactical assets. The satellite may be
of a newer generation than the aircraft SPO can afford.

As you pointed out, equipment of a recon plane is certainly easier and
cheaper to upgrade, even if we assume that a spy satellite can be
upgraded at all. That's what I meant by "more up to date". The financial
aspect of you argument is out of place he I am comparing technical
points - not budgetary.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse