Do we need the SR-71?

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.

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" said:
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 Predators and Global Hawks would do a better job on almost all of
those jobs.

But what the US really needs is spies on the ground. The biggest problem
in the lead-up to Iraq is that they put too much emphasis on the tales of
one guy, who lied through his teeth trying to get the US to depose Saddam
so he could take over.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
OTOH, the general theme is that lusers should not be allowed to have
computers, cars, guns or genitalia.
-- Anthony DeBoer

"C J Campbell" wrote in message I believe these planes should be
re-activated.

Perhaps there is already a newer model plying the upper flight levels.

D. (que music with Rod Sterling's voice)

One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly.

From "The Simpsons" episode where the FBI enlists Homer as a spy to find a
trillion dollar bill:

"Agent Johnson: We believe Burns still has the bill hidden somewhere in his
house, but all we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on
the roof."

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message I believe these planes should be
re-activated.

Perhaps there is already a newer model plying the upper flight levels.



If there is such an airplane it is doing a terrible job.

In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

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.

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

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.

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
hostile country. Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the
difference between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North Korea
actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even terrorists can
shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things from satellites. The
satellites' orbits are known. One reason we were led to believe that Iraq
had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles and people scurrying around to hide
things whenever a satellite came over the horizon.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
said:
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 Predators and Global Hawks would do a better job on almost all of
those jobs.

But what the US really needs is spies on the ground. The biggest problem
in the lead-up to Iraq is that they put too much emphasis on the tales of
one guy, who lied through his teeth trying to get the US to depose Saddam
so he could take over.

Maybe he did do that, but Saddam's actions in the period leading up to the
war seem to indicate that Saddam himself believed he had weapons of mass
destruction. He may have been deceived by his own people. Certainly there is
a very lawless element in Iraqi culture. Every two-bit cleric seems willing
to submit to no law but his own, and every one of them seems willing to back
up his threats with force. They out-gun both the Iraqi military and the
police. It is as if we allowed Jesse Jackson or Jerry Fallwell to maintain
their own private armies while declaring the holy cities of New York and
Birmingham off-limits to law enforcement personnel. To paraphrase the quote
attributed to T.E. Lawrence: "So long as the Islamic nations submit to no
law but that of local clerics, they will remain a little people, a silly
people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel."

If there is such an airplane it is doing a terrible job.

It wouldn't be the airplane's fault. The blame would go to the intelligence
interpreters.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"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.


I believe that the final nail in the SR71s coffin, after the program costs
and maintenence and all of that stuff, was simply that the information
coming out of the SR71 took too long to get a hold of, and was limited in
scope. It was optical only, so an overcast would ruin a mission, and, the
primary problem, it was not real-time. So it took almost a day or more to
unpack the film, get it developed and scanned, then distribute and analyze
it before it finally got to the decision makers.

In today's everything-real-time battle environment (and especially in the
future) a day may as well be a year. Nobody wants to wait that long. So the
SR71 was seen as simply out of pace with the new way information was
gathered and used.

I suppose that a new sensor package could be designed for it, with a
synthetic apeture radar system, digital optical cameras and a real-time
datalink, but nobody at the Pentagon is going to be willing to spend the
money on it; especially as they are trying to make every penny scream as it
is.

It's a shame though; high speed recon and the ability to be anywhere,
anytime, with no prior notice is a tool that we should definately keep in
our toolbox.

Unless, of course, there already is such a system, and we just don't know
about it.