Do we need the SR-71?

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.

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 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.

"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
____________________

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?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:eNJnc.63251$kh4.3830904@attbi_s52...

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.

You're incorrect on this one. The U-2 is being heavily used for recon.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:50:06 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:eNJnc.63251$kh4.3830904@attbi_s52...

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.

You're incorrect on this one. The U-2 is being heavily used for recon.

Jonh T assures me that only TR-1s are being used. He even took me to task
to make sure I didn't forget it. So, which is it?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, ....

When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.

The oblique camera angles shot from a Blackbird were a lot more "sideways"
than the Keyhole photos taken from geosynchronous orbit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:tOXnc.67372$Ik.5023508@attbi_s53...
When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.

The oblique camera angles shot from a Blackbird were a lot more "sideways"
than the Keyhole photos taken from geosynchronous orbit.

A Keyhole satellite on a geosynchronous orbit? Jay, you might really, _really_
want to check your sources.

Jay Honeck

Dima