Do we need the SR-71?

On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
sucker?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird
pilots.


Or maybe looking at too many of their web sites. Still, they seemed to make
some sense.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
sucker?


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...s/u-2_pics.htm

And some good info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2.htm

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird
pilots.


Or maybe looking at too many of their web sites. Still, they seemed to
make
some sense.

I don't know. The Blackbird was incredibly expensive to operate, something
like $200k/hr 15 years ago. The recon systems are dated and there is no
need to go M3 if the enemy doesn't have any airplanes. It seems to me that
systems like Global Hawk or Preditor, with their ability to loiter over an
area of interest and even to carry weapons, are far superior to an airplane
that flys by a 2000mph and then has to have its film developed after
returning to one of a very few bases capable of supporting it. Then, the
next day (at the earliest) something can be done about what was seen.

Chemical weapons need to be used in large quantities to be effective in the
open. An effective chemical arsenal would involve thousands or tons of
material. We have had access to the country and the people for a year. A
few guys didn't carry off and bury a million pounds of chemical weapons
unobserved.

Lets face it, we were duped into believing Iraq had WMD by Saddam's bravado
and our own over-willingness to believe. The issue now is how are we going
to extract ourselves from Iraq without looking like we were beaten off (ala
Somalia) or leaving a goverment as brutal as Saddam's to maintain order.
Ultimately, Iraq like Yugoslavia is not a natural country and perhaps only
force can keep it together.

Mike
MU-2

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news ..


We
would of never found these planes otherwise.

Why not? The tail of one of these airplanes was sticking out of the sand
when it was found. Why didn't the Aurora, the U-2, the satellites, the
drones, the reconnaissance Piper Cub, or anyone on the ground see it?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news

Lets face it, we were duped into believing Iraq had WMD by Saddam's
bravado
and our own over-willingness to believe. The issue now is how are we
going
to extract ourselves from Iraq without looking like we were beaten off
(ala
Somalia) or leaving a goverment as brutal as Saddam's to maintain order.
Ultimately, Iraq like Yugoslavia is not a natural country and perhaps only
force can keep it together.


The issue is also how to bring some sense into how we are doing things
there. Lessee: these clerics are inciting people to throw bombs and missiles
at contractors who are bringing food and medical supplies into the area. The
clerics are so influential that they have enormous private armies that shoot
at anything that moves and whose people are willing to blow themselves up
and who do so on a regular basis. But we don't want to enter Najaf because
it might **** 'em off?

What, they are only a mite irritated right now and we don't want to get them
really mad?

Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the Blackbird
is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later one
would be shot down. The solution is a plane that you are willing to lose,
like a UAV.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:CYonc.57309$kh4.3397705@attbi_s52...
I believe that the final nail in the SR71s coffin, after the program
costs
and maintenence and all of that stuff, was simply that the information
coming out of the SR71 took too long to get a hold of, and was limited
in
scope.

According to Bill Fox, Lockheed Skunkworks project coordinator for over 30
years (and the guy who donated all the stuff for our Blackbird Suite), the
final nail in the coffin was politics, pure and simple.

Clinton was having trouble cashing the mythic post-Cold War "Peace
Dividend" -- and the system that had over-flown the Soviet Union, China,
and
every other hot spot on the planet with complete impunity was viewed as
"war
surplus." It was thought that satellites alone could do the job, in a
"safer world."

Although the Air Force and CIA lost 15 (of 31?) Blackbirds, none were lost
to hostile fire. It was an incredibly dangerous plane to fly, but -- when
everything was working properly -- it was completely invulnerable. Even
the vaunted Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat, with all of it's Mach 3.3 muscle, simply
couldn't catch it.

I spent some time talking with Bill about the possibility of resurrecting
the Blackbird, and he sadly shook his head. The incredibly expensive
infrastructure -- a special fuel refinery; special ground and aerial
tankers; special support; special training; special EVERYTHING -- is all
gone. Worse, many of the SR-71s and YF-12s were actually cut up
internally
in order to more cheaply transport them to museums.

Thus, although they may *look* intact, many, in fact, are not airworthy.
(One notable exception is the YF-12A at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton.
This plane was flown in to that little-bitty strip alongside the museum.
I've got a great picture of this, thanks to Bill.)

No, the Blackbird is gone forever -- and, from what I've read, so is
Aurora,
although Bill would skillfully change the subject whenever asked. As
always, who really knows what's going on out in the desert?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


What, they are only a mite irritated right now and we don't want to get
them
really mad?



Maybe those guys at Abu Ghraib had it right. If Rumsfeld had any guts at
all, he would have told Congress, "Hey, if you mess with the United States
of America, this is what's going to happen to you."

Actually, the whole situation is so contrived, you have to wonder if that is
not exactly what is being said.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news

Lets face it, we were duped into believing Iraq had WMD by Saddam's
bravado
and our own over-willingness to believe.

Either that or Saddam dumped it ALL on the Kurds...and those hundreds of
trucks running into Syria were carrying pomogranites.

The issue now is how are we going
to extract ourselves from Iraq without looking like we were beaten off
(ala
Somalia) or leaving a goverment as brutal as Saddam's to maintain order.

Are we?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the
Blackbird
is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later one
would be shot down.

Yet it never happened.