SR-71

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news
The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
Congress
offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's
not
forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71
retirement
on Clinton.

Why not?

It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.


"Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".
PS: IIRC

Ah yes, Bill Clinton, the Republican Party's favorite scapegoat. Well, if
you read the 1996 book "SR-71 Revealed" by former 9th Strategic
Reconnaissance Wing Commander Rich Graham, you'll find out that the demise
of the SR-71 was already being planned as early as 1986 if not before. He
writes on page 196 "The head of SAC intelligence favored satellites over the
SR-71 and wouldn't stand in the way of his boss, General Chain, who wanted
to terminate the program entirely."
On page 198: "A vocal DoD official who expressed displeasure with the
SR-71 was the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Command, Control and
Communications, Mr Duane Andrews. As his Pentagon title would suggest, he
was an avid supporter of increased reliance on satellites to gather
intelligence and used his Pentagon influence to keep the SR-71 from being
a viable reconnaissance aircraft. Whenever funding support for needed
upgrades to the aircraft were sought, he used his connections on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (where he once served as a
staff member) to disapprove the request. Lieutenant Colonel "Geno" Quist
remembers briefing Mr Andrews when he was a Congressional staffer:
'One day in 1985, I was summoned over to the "Hill" to talk to some
Congressional staffers on the SR-71 program. The two that I talked to
eventually became"somebody" in the Bush administration.- Mr. Duane
Andrews and Mr. Marty Faga. In a closed room, these two advocates of
space-based assets tried to give me their solution to all of the problems
of military reconnaissance. Their idea was to "mothball" the entire SR-71
fleet but have it ready to respond to any needs the nation may see in the
future. I tried to explain in vain that you needed the SR-71 support,
aircrews, and infrastructure in existence before you could fly the
aircraft. The fact that I had experience flying the SR had no effect on
their ideas, and it soon became obvious that their only answer to future
reconnaissance systems was going to be space-based. It was just a matter
of time before they were in a position to make things happen. Mr. Faga
went on to become an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (in fact he was
the head of the National Reconnaissance Office) and Mr. Andrews worked in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.' "
"Two key Air Force players instrumental in retiring the SR-71 were
Generals Larry Welch and John Chain."... "When asked during a 12
September 1990 interview with ABC News about why he terminated the SR-71
program, General Welch stated it was "too expensive, vulnerable to enemy
air defenses, and duplicated overhead systems." Colonel Graham says all
of those charges were simply not true. Colonel Graham was removed from
command by General John Chain, who was commander of the Strategic Air
Command, in November of 1988 "because the SR-71 program phase-out was
proceeding too slowly and met resistance to SAC Headquarters plans every
step of the way."
So the program was closed down in 1990. Ten aircraft were given to
museums that year. Colonel Graham notes that when 61-7972 set four world
speed records while being delivered to the Smithsonian on March 6, 1990,
no senior USAF officers attended the event. General Welch had canceled
the record flight at least once before, "presumably because he didn't
want ANY favorable publicity concerning the SR-71. The flight was finally
pushed through by certain Lockheed executives, politicians supporting the
SR-71, and a small cadre of lower ranking but influential officers. Had
it not been for the initiative of those officers, the media would not
have been informed about the record breaking event, much to the wishes of
those who wanted no more publicity for the SR-71."
In September 1994 Congress put $72.5 million in the defense bill to
bring back three SR-71s. Rich Graham wrote on page 217: "The Air Force
wants nothing to do with the return of the SR-71s and consequently has
not budgeted for the aircraft. It will be up to congress to fund the
program each year, making it difficult to plan for the future." This
book was written before the final retirement of the aircraft, but it is
apparent that if Clinton did indeed kill the program off for good with a
line item veto, he had the wholehearted support of the USAF command
staff. I'd bet he did it at the urging of the command staff, though I
don't know if we'll ever know that for sure.
Col. Graham also describes the animosity the USAF had for the people
connected to the SR-71 program at the end. In 1989 ten Habu crew members
were up for promotion, but only one was promoted, the other nine were
passed over! Anyone who knows about the Blackbird program knows that
every officer chosen to be part of the program was an exceptional
performer, and it's obvious there was discrimination against the men
connected to the SR-71. Getting passed over for promotion is a very black
mark on an officer's record. It was outrageous, and there was nothing
anyone could do about it.
So scapegoat Mr Clinton if you must, but know it was a Republican
administration and the USAF command staff that really killed the
Blackbird.
Scott Wilson

On Oct 29, 6:09 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message

news
The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
Congress
offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's
not
forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71 retirement
on Clinton.

Why not?

It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.

-c

I think it's pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
replacement that was even better. They don't generally give up
capabilities unless they can be replaced by something just as good or
better. Why stick with 60s technology when you can bring it up 20
years and take advantage of newer technology? They just haven't
decided to publicize it yet.

Phil wrote:
I think it's pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
replacement that was even better.

I was under the impression that improvements in recon by satellite made use
of the SR-71 obsolete.

Big John writes:

Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
return with four inflight refuelings.

I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
as I recall. It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
understated.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Big John writes:

Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
return with four inflight refuelings.

I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
as I recall. It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
understated.

As could be your understanding of anything that deals with real flight.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Big John writes:

Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the
runway in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato
Iraqand return with four inflight refuelings.

I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a
mile or so, as I recall.

How the **** would you know, idiot boi?


It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero
visibility. Of course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be
(dramatically) understated.



Ya think?


Bertie

Big John wrote in
:

drone it had
just launched.) No enemy was ever able to touch it.

SecDef Robert McNamara ordered all the SR-71 manufacturing tools
destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
really need that airplane today for reconnaissance over places like
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea:country-region, China, Russia, etc. If it
were not for Clinton, SR-71 would still be performing that
reconnaissance today.


Does he know that Kingfish isn't?


Bertie