STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 10246 posts, RR: 41 Posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3131 times:
Regarding US response to the Georgian crisis;
Quote: According to defense officials, it took until Wednesday afternoon for the U.S. to have what they called more robust intelligence on Russian movements around Gori. With the military's eyes and ears focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, intelligence-gathering was hampered through the weekend until the Pentagon authorized the repositioning of some satellites and was able to meld that data with reports from the ground, the officials said.
Russia (as well as China, Iran etc..) knows exactly where the US reconnaissance satellites are, and when they fly over. They can plan their movements and exercises accordingly, a SR-71 could have been dispatched within hours of news of Russia's invasion. Now the U-2s are also being retired, leaving the US totally dependent on a technology who's scheduled snooping are well known by adversaries. Absolutely never going to have the element of surprise when your every move is scheduled.
High Speed, High Altitude, low radar signature reconnaissance aircraft are desperately needed in the US inventory.
Based in the UK and Japan would allow them to be on station within hours of a crisis anywhere in the World.
"makes much more sense to live in the present tense"
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1437 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3117 times:
Quoting STT757 (Thread starter): Now the U-2s are also being retired, leaving the US totally dependent on a technology who's scheduled snooping are well known by adversaries.
I wonder what the ultimate objective of this bird is...
Wvsuperhornet From United States, joined Aug 2007, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
Dont bet money that they dont already have a replacement. The US retired the SR-71 and now the U-2 and there is no Generals kicking and screaming in the halls of the Pentagon. There is probably a reason. You dont really think the pentagon is stupid enough to pay $600.00 for a toilet seat or $500.00 for a hammer do you. That money is going someplace.
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1437 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2556 times:
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 6): Dont bet money that they dont already have a replacement.
Yes, bigger and better reconnaissance satellites. When SR-71 was designed, recon satellites were in their infancy, with Corona and limited film-return capsules. As spy satellites got better with digital downlinks and then relay satellites for continuous contact, up through KH-11s and Lacrosse radar satellites, the cost of maintaining SR-71 got harder and harder to justify. It seems unlikely that some Mach 6 Super SR-71 is going to be any cheaper or easier to maintain.
Occam's Razor at work. Which is the simplest explanation...
a) the Pentagon is flying Mach 6, 150,000 ft. Super SR-71 spyplanes which no one has ever seen except for dubious claims of mysterious "knotted contrails" (which many others say they see coming from 737s and A320s) even while public programs in hypersonic research have encountered major technical problems, or...
b) the Pentagon and NRO are using spy satellites instead.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 12622 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 5): Why send a stealth UAV over Iraq, there's no Radar guided SAM threat.
Same reason we sent the E-8 JSTARS prototypes to the Persian Gulf during the 1991 conflict - gain "real world" operational data in a "safe" environment.
Being able to fly "Dark Star II" in combat without risk of enemy engagement would be very valuable to the program's future development.
Quoting Thorny (Reply 1): I wonder what the ultimate objective of this bird (the X-37) is...
It sounds unlikely to be used for immediate reconnaissance since it requires a launch vehicle which would mean even longer delays. And no way they will put men in it since the Atlas is not a "man-certified" launch platform.
Frankly, I'd prefer something like Dale Brown's(?) "NIRTS" - Need It Right This Second - micro-satellite "swarm" that can easily launched from a small booster rocket (like the Pegasus) from a manned platform (be it an L-1011 or B-52). Said swarm can be in place within hours (likely faster then even a hypersonic manned platform) and loiter for a few days or weeks and then safely de-orbit and burn-up.
Thorny From United States, joined Jul 2005, 1437 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2523 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): It sounds unlikely to be used for immediate reconnaissance since it requires a launch vehicle which would mean even longer delays. And no way they will put men in it since the Atlas is not a "man-certified" launch platform.
1, No need for a pilot. KH-11's don't have pilots. Shuttles can land themselves except for needing someone to lower the landing gear on final.
2. The Air Force has been making a lot of noise about fast reaction launches lately (see SpaceX's Falcon.) This might explain why the Air Force so readily gave SpaceX the old Titan pad at Cape Canaveral for Falcon 9, even though it already has two equivalent launch vehicles in service.
3. Private industry is quietly working to man-rate Atlas to use it to launch passengers to Bigelow's space hotel. Delta IV advocates say man-rating it would not be difficult and NASA should do that instead of spending a fortune on Ares I.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): Frankly, I'd prefer something like Dale Brown's(?) "NIRTS" - Need It Right This Second - micro-satellite "swarm" that can easily launched from a small booster rocket (like the Pegasus)
You reach the point of diminishing returns fairly quickly the smaller you go with satellites, though. There's only so small you can make optics, and any smaller and the microsatellite won't be of much use. Meanwhile, X-37's payload bay is roughly the same size as an SR-71 or U-2 equipment bay. Coincidence?
HaveBlue From United States, joined Jan 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 7): claims of mysterious "knotted contrails" (which many others say they see coming from 737s and A320s)
A few years ago I saw the famous 'donuts on a rope' contrail. My jaw almost dropped. That was until I followed the contrail to its origin, which indeed was a 737.
I'd love to believe there's an SR-71 successor, but at least the contrails themselves were answered for me that day.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1058 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 months 12 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10): A few years ago I saw the famous 'donuts on a rope' contrail. My jaw almost dropped. That was until I followed the contrail to its origin, which indeed was a 737.
I'd love to believe there's an SR-71 successor, but at least the contrails themselves were answered for me that day.
I can't help but believe there is a manned successor to the SR-71 but also believe it's a very black project.
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4207 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
One common misconception is that the U-2 is being retired. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aircraft was scheduled to be retired but was taken off the list. It is currently in high demand.
As for spy satellites, they are great but predicatble. They are the answer to some of our problems but not the be and end all for reconaissance.
While the U-2, E-8, RC-135, Global Hawk, Predator and satellites currently serve our nation very well. Our need for rapid response over hostile areas though has diminished since the retirement of the SR-71. That could be just one of the reasons why the USAF and Skunk works have been formulating this.
Well, I'm skeptical of needing both Mach 6 and stealth. Seems kinda pointless to me. (At Mach 6, by the time your enemy sees the thing, it will be too late to do anything about it.)
Res From United States, joined Jul 2000, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1984 times:
The new HUGE hangar that was recently built at Area 51 - now THERE's something you can see with your own eyes. It's not just there for looks......but for purpose. So, maybe for purpose of the "SR-72" or something else that smells funny
UH60FtRucker From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2005, 2635 posts, RR: 71 Reply 15, posted (2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1954 times:
Why spend millions of dollars on a new aircraft, when we are already fielding the world's largest fleet of UAVs?
You know who finds my targets in central Asia? UAVs. Not supersonic, multi-billion dollar project aircraft, with expensively trained pilots.
They go where ever we want them to go, and they not only provide real time imagery, they provide real time strike capability. And if you think UAVs are not already secretly flying over our enemies, you're wrong.
The only reason people like ST7757, want shiny new SR-71 type aircraft, is because they can't see beyond the artificial glamour -- and look at military needs from a strategic level.
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4207 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
To begin with, I would like to thank UH-60 for his service on behalf of our country. God speed, and get back home safe to your wife and sons.
Strategic reconnaissance is of vital importance to our nation or any other. We should have a tool bag full of goodies capable of handling any and all situations. We have spent the better part of 15+ years without a full tool bag. What we do not have is the ability to look anywhere we want, at any time and in any weather. That capability was retired in the early 1990s and brought back for a year in the mid 1990s. It's name was the SR-71 and what it could do on a daily basis has not been replaced.
The U-2 and Global Hawk can take the same pictures as the SR-71 but can't go over the same places without being in danger of getting shot down. Spy satellites can look at the same area as the SR-71 but take a long time to be repositioned and can't be pulled off Iraq and Afghanistan for one off missions. Predator and Reaper UAVs are the latest fad but don't fly any faster than Beech King Airs.
A SR-72 would once again give us the capability of launching a reconnaissance mission over Russia and catch what we are looking for out in the open. We could once again operate over Tehran in the middle of day taking pictures of whatever we wanted without warning. Instead of having to wait days to see what is happening in Georgia, you could fire up a SR-72 based in Beale/Diego Garcia/Mildenhall/Kadena and have valuable, up to date information in only a few hours.
We need tools that get down and dirty (Predator/Reaper), we need tools that can give us a good overlook in most places (U-2/Global Hawk) and we need a 24hr a day photo lense to look at places all over the globe (satellites). What we also need is the ability to operate an information gathering device in any environment and against any threat. A fleet of 15-20 "SR-72" would give us that abililty.
UH60FtRucker From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2005, 2635 posts, RR: 71 Reply 17, posted (2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 16): That capability was retired in the early 1990s and brought back for a year in the mid 1990s. It's name was the SR-71 and what it could do on a daily basis has not been replaced.
Well not really. The SR-71 did not have stellar range, and could never penetrate deep over Russia or China. So to say that it could go anywhere, anytime, is not accurate.
Quoting CX747 (Reply 16): A SR-72 would once again give us the capability of launching a reconnaissance mission over Russia and catch what we are looking for out in the open. We could once again operate over Tehran in the middle of day taking pictures of whatever we wanted without warning. Instead of having to wait days to see what is happening in Georgia, you could fire up a SR-72 based in Beale/Diego Garcia/Mildenhall/Kadena and have valuable, up to date information in only a few hours.
But why does it have to be manned? We've already proven the vast reaching ability of UAVs. If you're going to look for another fast moving recon bird, why not build a fleet of smaller, cheaper, less politically risky UAVs?
Alien From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2008, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17): Well not really. The SR-71 did not have stellar range, and could never penetrate deep over Russia or China. So to say that it could go anywhere, anytime, is not accurate.
Aerial refueling. KC-135Q. Range was never an issue. Politics dictated that the SR-71 not overfly USSR. No one wanted another Gary Francis Powers.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15): The only reason people like ST7757, want shiny new SR-71 type aircraft, is because they can't see beyond the artificial glamour -- and look at military needs from a strategic level.
I think you are missing the point. Two types of reconnaissance. Strategic and tactical.
Want to know how close they are to finishing that nuclear reactor or how far along that new submarine is. That's strategic and while satellites can do most of it there still are cases where you need an aircraft to do it. This is something that flies very high, very fast and is stealthy. It is also very expensive and probably already very secretly flying.
Need to know what rock your favorite Taliban is hiding under or how many enemy tanks are moving up the road. Thats tactical and for that I think you hit the nail on the head. Use UCAVs. Preferably one that is slow, quiet and stealthy. Better yet if it can carry a Hellfire or two just in case it's operator finds something really special.
I think both are legitimate missions but they require two different types of platforms.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2000, 10246 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, 
From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2005, 2635 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2008, 362 posts,