christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) (02/06/90)
From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71 fleet. The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the planes admirably. Any thoughts? Chris --
patterso%deimos@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) (02/10/90)
From: patterso%deimos@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) > >From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) > >I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71 >fleet. The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for >the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the >planes admirably. Any thoughts? > >Chris > I was disappointed by the idea of grounding the SR's but a colleage passed on a rumor (how's that for an unreliable source?) that the air force was in favor of the idea because they are already flying a replacement which is a "hotter" bird than the 71. Tim
mclean@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent D McLean) (02/12/90)
From: mclean@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent D McLean) > From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) > > I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71 > fleet. The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for > the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the > planes admirably. Any thoughts? > > Chris I believe the Air Force has a successor to the SR-71 and the cost rationale is just a cover up for this successor. Apparently, this aircraft is code named Project Aurora. This aircraft is capable of at least mach 5 flight at over 100,000 ft and has already been flown, although I don't know how much farther the program has gone from that. This knowledge is not a very well kept secret as Av Week had a blurb about it and Popular Science did a whole article on the plane. Of course, in these days of budget cuts the Aurora could get cut too. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Brent D. McLean (mclean@gn.ecn.purdue.edu) Purdue University * * Aerospace Engineering W. Lafayette, IN * * - 1.35 yrs and counting * *---------------------------------------------------------------------------* * 'I can just barely make it out. It's in Russian. It says 'This face * * towards enem...'" * -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (OFV) (02/12/90)
From: Mary Shafer (OFV) <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> Chris Thompson (christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu) writes: >I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71 >fleet. The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for >the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the >planes admirably. Any thoughts? I have really mixed emotions about this. I think it's dumb as a rock to get rid of something as flexible as the SR-71, but Dryden's getting three of the retired SR-71s. Objectively, I have to say that orbital mechanics will limit the availability of KH-12 surveillance compared to the SR-71. Aviation Week (and others) think that the cost of operating the SR-71 is somewhat exaggerated by the Air Force. But, they're not cheap to operate. We're all hoping for a three-ship flyover here. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (02/12/90)
From: texbell!asuvax.eas.asu.edu!anasaz!john
In article <13764@cbnews.ATT.COM> christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) writes:
]From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)
]
]I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71
]fleet. The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for
]the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the
]planes admirably. Any thoughts?
Hmm... The KH-12's are pretty predictable in their orbit paths, expensive
to maneuver over wide orbital variations (all satellites are), and
subject to A-sat devices early in a war. Sounds like a lousy choice
as the ONLY photo-recon system.
One would like to have:
-Rapid deployment to any target world-wide
-Unscheduled visits (i.e. the bad guys don't know when the recon
is coming)
-Survivability
Two possibilities come to mind:
(1) The decision was made by a non-warrior official on some silly grounds;
-or-
(2) There is something else that fulfills the SR-71 mission. Perhaps
the stealth fighter?
--
John Moore (NJ7E) mcdphx!anasaz!john asuvax!anasaz!john
(602) 951-9326 (day or eve) long palladium, short petroleum
7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!wbates%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu.edu (William Bates) (02/13/90)
From: wbates%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu.edu (William Bates) The only problem with satellites is that they are predictable in their orbits and can be shot down, where the SR71 goes all over the place before anyone even knows it's gone. At very least, I think that we should keep the Blackbird as The Air Force Federal Express- We can get it from New York to London in 1hr 56 min :-) BCB
G_AHRENDT@uunet.UU.NET (03/03/90)
From: munnari!vaxa.uwa.OZ.au!G_AHRENDT@uunet.UU.NET >> The YF-12C was an SR-71A (64-17951). It was "detuned" for NASA use. Since >> it was an SR-71A it did not have a dual cockpit, I doubt it was used as a >> trainer. >The YF-12C was indeed 60-6937, BUT, it was also an SR-71A (64-17951). That >was my point. No doubt modifications were made as it was switched between >the two configurations. True, but your statement 'The YF-12C was an SR-71A' implied the wrong order :-) >No. As I said, 64-17951 was converted to a YF-12C, not an SR-71B. There may >have been another SR-71A converted to an SR-71B, namely 64-17957. However >this plane crashed on approach to Beale AFB on 12-Jan-68, and as far as I >know, this information (that it was indeed an SR-71B) has not been made >publicly available. Sorry, but the YF-12C was the prototype SR-71A, thus it had it's YF-12C designation before it's SR-71A redesignation, and further conversion to an SR-71B. >> You are also incorrect in saying that 60-6927 was a A-12 as it >> was an A-11. >It was an A-12, I do not know what it was before it was an A-12. The only 'A-12's' or YF-12A's were 60-6934,60-6935 & 60-6936. >> And again in saying that the SR-71C was constructed from the >> original YF-12A 60-6934, as it was a converted and electronically updated >> SR-71A 64-17981. >But it was. It was constructed from the rear half of 60-6934, which had a >"rough landing". The front half came from 64-17957, lending credence to the >fact that 64-17957 may have been an SR-71B. My information which is taken from 'The World's Greatest Aircraft Series: Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird' by Peter Allez-Fernandez which states that the SR-71C was a converted SR-71A 64-17981, your information in this instance seems to be more precise, but i would like to hear a third party's voice on this :-(). [mod.note: So would I. - Bill ]
wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (08/14/90)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) >>From: raven!tobin@ncar.ucar.edu (Mike Tobin) >Anybody have any thoughts (or better yet, knowledge) on whether or not >the absence of the SR-71 has made any difference in what we've known about >Iraq's activities? Mike, there are seven or eight SR71 airframes that are currently *unnaccounted for*. That is, they are NOT on display anywhere, and they were in existance at the time of the so-called retirement. The Public Affairs office of the 9th Strategic reconnaissance wing refuses to divulge their whereabouts. While the forward detachment at RAF Mildenhall, England, seems to have shut down (emphasis on SEEMS...), SR71's have apparently flown out of the base at Incirclik, Turkey in past years. I should add that this "unnaccounting" was as of the end of June of this year. I have no newer info. than that. My suspicion? Aurora isn't quite operational yet, so a number of SR's were help back from retirement.....that's a SWAG. (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) :-) Duane
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) (08/23/90)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) > My suspicion? Aurora isn't quite operational yet, so a number of > SR's were help back from retirement.....that's a SWAG. > (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) :-) There has been an ogoing battle between the Nevada Congressional Delegation and the Air Force about transfering the Stealth Fighter Wing to Holloman AFB in N.M. They're argument is that Tonopah, current home of the Stealth is not an operational fighter base, merely a testing base. Might this transfer be part of a plan to get Aurora testing underway? Afterall Tonopah is where the U-2 and SR-71 were also developed. -- "I speak only for myself, until they take my semi-auto rifle from my cold, dead hands." Brian Douglass uunet!edat!brian