hogg@csri.toronto.edu (John Hogg) (01/16/90)
In article <480ea6a7.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >In article <5430@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: >>There is a secret $3 million Air Force study going on to study the >>design for a unmanned hypersonic drone that can fly to any continent >>in under an hour to perform recon. or strikes. >... >Why do we need this albatross? What does it buy that present or improved >satellite recon couldn't? Three things: fast results, unpredictability, and potentially better resolution. The last point is the most obvious one: the same optics will give better results at a low altitude (small numbers of kilometres) than at orbital altitudes (small hundreds of kilometres). The improvement is nothing like linear, because most of the atmosphere is down low. Furthermore, a drone is unlikely to carry the same instruments as a satellite. However, the principle holds. The other two problems with satellites follow from their predictable orbits. It may take considerable time and/or fuel to move a ground track over a point of interest. Normally, an orbit is chosen that will cover all points of interest eventually, which means that the locals have ample warning of when to cover up anything they don't want seen. These difficulties can be partly overcome by putting up a large number of birds, but that's expensive, and is not the approach that the US has taken; they go for a very small number of very high quality satellites. A good question, however, is, ``What does this drone buy that Open Skies doesn't?'' Canada has recently completed the first ``open skies'' reconnaissance flight over Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and the Hercules aircraft used was indisputably cheaper than any hypersonic drone. An overflight of this country by a Warsaw Pact nation will follow later this year. This was a ``proof-of-concept'' flight, but while the details of a treaty must still be worked out, it seems certain to be signed eventually. US historical practice has been to freely violate sovereignty of airspace, except for those countries able to shoot its aircraft down. Forbidden territory has effectively been the Soviet Union, and thus its Warsaw Pact allies, only. (Cuban Missile Crisis objectors, send email.) By continuing this policy in tandem with Open Skies, the US could in future inspect all countries on short notice, without introducing any new systems. I don't know how the SR-71 retirement fits into all this. I suspect that we're not being told something. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (01/17/90)
In article <1990Jan16.105348.15772@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> hogg@csri.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >>> [info on mach 20 recon platform deleted] >>Why do we need this albatross? What does it buy that present or improved >>satellite recon couldn't? >A good question, however, is, ``What does this drone buy that Open >Skies doesn't?'' Not a thing. The problem wiht open skies is that it only works when you don't really need it. For the other times, it is nice to have a recon capability which is safe, fast, and effective. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Is the local cluster the result | | aws@iti.org | of gerrymandering? | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/17/90)
In article <1990Jan16.105348.15772@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> hogg@csri.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >A good question, however, is, ``What does this drone buy that Open >Skies doesn't?'' ... Continued access to reconnaissance data even if the Open Skies close again. Recent events in Eastern Europe are encouraging, but the political backing for them in a certain large country is fragile. Five minutes after an unfavorable change of leadership, the Open Skies could close with a bang. Or several bangs, depending on how many aircraft were within range of SAM batteries at the time. (The Soviet Union has the densest air defences on Earth, and is most unlikely to dismantle any of them any time soon.) Not everyone in high places in the USSR approves of Gorbachev's policies. It is folly to assume that they will automatically prevail. Hopes should not be confused with plans; hedging of bets is still in order. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (01/19/90)
In article <480ea6a7.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: }In article <5430@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: }>The following summarizes an article which appeared in Defense Week; }>Jan. 8, 1990; Pg 1. }> }>There is a secret $3 million Air Force study going on to study the }>design for a unmanned hypersonic drone that can fly to any continent }>in under an hour to perform recon. or strikes. }> }[ stuff deleted ] }> }>Some sources say that such a drone could be built for as little }>as 150 million, and be rolled out by the end of 1991. } }Right. Translate from mil-contractor speak and we get "each costs $150M, }after an unspecified expenditure on R&D for the program." Why do we need }this albatross? What does it buy that present or improved satellite recon }couldn't? (No, I didn't ignore the "strike capability"; I chose to }disbelieve the final product would have it. Budget constraints in mid- }stream, don'tcha know...) First, you cannot sneak a satellite anywhere. Their paths are VERY well known. Second, have you thought what a vessel going at 14,000 mph with fuel tanks with a lot of hydrogen in them would do? Why bother with a warhead? (most of the damage to Naval ships hit by cruise missiles recently has been due to the fuel burning up, not the puny warhead) note: a bullet has NO warhead. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone. jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET