US plans 6,000mph bomber to hit rogue regimes from edge of space

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

Large SNIP


Did we ask for overflight rights for the SR71?

I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. I do recall, however, reading
newspaper articles asserting that certain nations, including North Korea and
the USSR, had complained to the US about SR-71s violating their respective
airspaces; that NK had fired (an exercise in futility) SAMS at SR-71s; and
that the USSR was so miffed by such alleged intrusions that it had dusted
off one of its early IRBMs (which would have the range and could develop the
speed to run down even an SR-71) and fitted it with SAM-type tracking gear
in order to demonstrate their determination to see such alleged overflights
come to an end. Does anyone on the ng have any info as to whether the above
claims were true? Thanks.

From: (The Enlightenment)
m

It's value as a reconaisance platform must be significant as well.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the plan is to ramp up technologies
that have already proven themselves in the recon role into a bomb carrying
platform.

I base my guess on the fact that the SR-71 has been retired, but that mission
profile still exists. There has to be something that has replaced it that isn't
public knowledge yet.
Dave

I base my guess on the fact that the SR-71 has been retired, but that mission
profile still exists. There has to be something that has replaced it that
isn't
public knowledge yet.

During Balkan campaign some of US military-technological capabilities were not
even known to top military leadership and they were not allowed to use them
during the conflict as they were not supposed to know them.(need to know rule))
This policy was the reason of some resentments in military circles after balkan
conflict.

"Denyav" wrote

During Balkan campaign some of US military-technological capabilities were not
even known to top military leadership and they were not allowed to use them

Right... I believe you!

I would probably say that anything sub-orbital or orbital will be out of
soverign airspace. Nobody asks for overflight rights for the space shuttle
or sattelites.

Orbital, yes, according to some 1950's treaty, sattelites in *orbit* are
considered in international territory. However *sub-orbital* may not be
covered, the space shuttle does not use sub-orbital dynamics (I don't think,
why would it?), thus it utilizes international territory. So the question
remains, if we're not going to put this thing into the international territory
of "space", we'll still require foreign nation overflight permission, which us
back where we are now.

And, militarially speaking, we pretty much own space anyway.

According to international law, no one owns space no matter how much stuff they
put up there. If sheer numbers were the governing factor numerous
telecommunications companies would be vying for ownership of space, not the US
government.




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"