Do we need the SR-71?

But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
any in the first place.

Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very
effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of
weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't
"see" that kind of stuff.

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
one over a hostile nation in many years.

Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:50:12 +0100, John Harper wrote:

Strange that nobody in this thread has mentioned the U2, which
*is* still flying, for all the satellites-not-good-enough reasons
that are mentioned. Surely all the good reasons pro-SR71 are
just as valid for the U2 (except raw speed, but the U2 uses
altitude to avoid being shot down).

But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
any in the first place.

John

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
mobile Scuds, etc.

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.




I thought that the CIA still had one or two SR-71's flying and NASA, I
think, still has one (for sure) or two for high atmospheric research
projects. I think you're right, that the general burden was shifted back
to U2s.

Then again, there are always rumors of the Aurora project. High
altitude blimps may (or already are) soon find themselves geosynchronisely
in position. I know that these blimps will be used in
general telecommunications, deployable military field communications, and
rumors exist for low orbit ease dropping and spying.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because the SR-71 isn't commonly flying,
doesn't have to mean that other mechanisms are not already in place. It's
just that we, the common man, may not currently know about it.

Cheers!

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:34:34 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
any in the first place.

Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very
effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of
weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't
"see" that kind of stuff.

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
one over a hostile nation in many years.

Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment.

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. From what
I understand, they are fairly cheap to operate and very reliable. That's
hard to argue with.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:15:41 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Tim Broche writes:

Teacherjh wrote:


Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant
all the difference in the world.


I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
going to change it.

I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello.

Really hot jello.

The difference between these views is that there's a lot of evidence
confirming the first one, and no evidence against it. Whereas there's
quite a lot of evidence *against* the second theory, and little
evidence supporting it.


Worth noting that it's doubtful we will ever know for sure unless someone
takes us by the hand and presents a WMD site to us. It's pretty much
impossible to prove a negative and there is no proof that their WMD were
actually destroyed. Worth mentioning, several months after the force on
force engagements where over, a friendly Iraqi took some soldiers to where
very modern migs (plus many older planes) were burried in the ground. We
would of never found these planes otherwise. When they were dug up, it
seems Russia had provided their latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These
were considered to be an intelligence coo as it provided first hand
samples of Russia's latest reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices.

Simple fact remains, chances are high that anything barried in the desert
will likely remain so unless someone points it out to us. No amount
of spy photos are going to discover these items unless they are caught
actually digging the sand up.

On Sat, 8 May 2004 20:05:29 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is relatively
cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it would
be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are in
pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were when
first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

What do you mean by relatively CJ? My understanding is that every
single aspect of the SR-71 is horrendously expensive: It requires
special fuel, needs to be refueled all the time in air, has unique
engines, requires all kinds of backup and planning for each mission
and doesn't have enough fuel for loiter time.

The U-2 on the other hand, can stay over the target for a long while
and uses normal jet fuel and can be serviced anywhere. They are for
sure a lot less expensive than the SR-71, and a whole lot less
dangerous to fly.

Corky Scott

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their
latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an
intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest
reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices.

"Latest and greatest" Foxbat?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"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.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

I don't know what you hope to accomplish in the war on terrorism with better
overhead recon. We know where all the training camps were located. It is
very difficult to determine what a couple of people are planning to do by
taking their picture. The new unmanned systems are better in every way.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
mobile Scuds, etc.

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird pilots.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:CYonc.57309$kh4.3397705@attbi_s52...

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.


There are still intact Blackbirds around. The Air Force has the optical
packages in storage somewhere, too.

The same political forces that killed the SR-71 would also have killed the
Aurora -- they would have hated it for the same reason they hated the
Blackbirds.

The SR-71 was assigned to SAC, which never wanted it. It competed for
tanker
resources, did not carry any ordnance, and stole all the glory at
airshows.
When it was retired, no high-ranking members of the military or Pentagon
were present at the ceremony.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:33:35 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their
latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an
intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest
reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices.

"Latest and greatest" Foxbat?

Equipment gets upgraded over time. You can use phrases like that about
F-16's and F-14's too. Just because they are old doesn't mean they are
not being upgraded. Just the same, I do understand that I'm talking about
an oxymoron here.

Cheers.