GoogleEarth aircraft at Palmdale

Richard Lamb wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

-snip-

Given that we have no equivalent replacement I would expect them to be
used.

Of course there's an equivalent replacement - they're orbiting several
hundreds of kilometers up and go by names like KH-12, Improved
Chrystal, Indigo, LaCrosse, Vega, and likely a half a dozen other
names still classified.

The SR-71 was retired because there's no need for its capabilities any
longer. Everything the SR-71 could do can now be done cheaper and
better (and more safely) by satellites.

Balderdash.
It was retired on pure economic reasons.

Like I mentioned - "can now be done cheaper".

The satellites may give good picture, but what you want is a picture
while the other guy has his pants down.

We ain't gonna be flying spy missions over the Soviet Union. For one
thing, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

For the rest of the world, the U-2Rs and U-2Ss and the Global Hawk UAVs
are perfectly adequate to catch folks with their pants down at much less
cost and considerably less risk.

And they're gonna be phasing the U-2s out starting this year.
As soon as adequate numbers of the UAVs and RPVs are in service, the
U-2s will not needed any more either.

A satellite is as predictable in its path as the stars in the heavens.

Satellites generally don't carry enough fuel for the huge delta-V's
required to work the bird on an irregular schedule.

That's the one thing the Blackbirds could do that nothing else could.

Mach 3 and 80,000 feet is no longer required. The satellites and
UAVs/RPVs are more than adequate.

Peace and justice,

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:53:42 -0700, Bill Shatzer
wrote:

Peace and justice,

War and oppression,

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

Mach 3 and 80,000 feet is no longer required. The satellites and UAVs/RPVs
are more than adequate.

Theoretically a UAV/RPV could fly within those parameters if it was built to
do so, and you wouldn't have to muck with the weight and duration issues of
human life support. Altitude isn't necessary but the speed at which an
aircraft can get to a target must have tactical value.

I can't imagine that such an aircraft isn't being developed already.

-c

gatt wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

Mach 3 and 80,000 feet is no longer required. The satellites and UAVs/RPVs
are more than adequate.

Theoretically a UAV/RPV could fly within those parameters if it was built to
do so, and you wouldn't have to muck with the weight and duration issues of
human life support. Altitude isn't necessary but the speed at which an
aircraft can get to a target must have tactical value.

Whatever "tactical value" might be confered by the SR-71's speed was
negated by the time required to prepare it for operations - nearly 24
hours if I recall correctly.

Those things weren't sitting on the runway on 15-minute alert.

If you're trying to do reconnaissance of time-sensitive targets, better
a Mach 0.8 vehicle which can be launched with an hour's notice rather
than a Mach 3.0 vehicle which takes a full day to prepare for launch.

I can't imagine that such an aircraft isn't being developed already.

Well, perhaps newer technology can do better with the launch time
problem but there really doesn't seem any need at all for Mach 3.0 and
lots of reasons to avoid the costs and engineering pitfalls associated
with designing such a thing.

And -if- such thing is being developed, it's gonna be a subsonic UAV
similar to DarkStar rather than a manned Mach 3.0 aircraft like the SR-71.

Peace and justice,

If you're trying to do reconnaissance of time-sensitive targets, better a Mach 0.8 vehicle which can be launched with an hour's notice rather than a Mach 3.0 vehicle which takes a full day to prepare for launch.

....unless it's always ready for launch. Your tax dollars at work.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

If you're trying to do reconnaissance of time-sensitive targets,
better a Mach 0.8 vehicle which can be launched with an hour's
notice rather than a Mach 3.0 vehicle which takes a full day to
prepare for launch.

...unless it's always ready for launch. Your tax dollars at work.

That's Bill's point. (And one of th things that scuttled the YF-12
Interceptor Blackbird) It's not a matter of topping up the fuel
tanks, cocking the airplane, and hooking up the start carts.
You've got to deal with stuff like keeping the TEB (Tri-Ethyl Borane -
spontaneously combusts in air, required to light off the low
volatility fuel in the engines & afterburners, and Really Nasty
Stuff) under control, and the hydraulic fluid heated (It ranges from
being a powder to something agin to Jello at normal temperatures)
Not to mention having the crew pre-breathed, suited up (Space Suits)
and ready.

Oh, yeah - you've also got to get the tankers to their rendeavous
points. The Blackbird may do its thing at Mach 3, but the tankers
get there a Mach 0.85, just like anybody else.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.