Do we need the SR-71?

They indeed flew at 80k' and above but the highest credible altitude I have
heard (in level flight) is 86k' That was from a Blackbird pilot at Beale.

Mike
MU-2


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:53:22 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:

Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the
Blackbird
is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later
one
would be shot down. The solution is a plane that you are willing to
lose,
like a UAV.

Mike
MU-2



I thought these things flew at 80k+. I've heard rumors of 100k plus.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:10:17 -0400, Dima Volodin wrote:

"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

Good point. Last I heard, most (none?) of our spy sats were in a
geosynchronous orbit because the orbit would place them too high to be of
intelligence value. Thusly, we have sats in lower orbit which is why the
sat pass duration and frequency is generally known, making it far easier
to hide from the spy sats.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:19:03 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:21:20 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news .


We
would of never found these planes otherwise.

Why not? The tail of one of these airplanes was sticking out of the sand
when it was found. Why didn't the Aurora, the U-2, the satellites, the
drones, the reconnaissance Piper Cub, or anyone on the ground see it?

Never heard that detail offered before. Just the same, it's doubtful that
a tail barely sticking up is going to show up on anyone's "radar". Having
said that, the soldiers that were there were quoted as saying
(paraphrasing here), "we never would of found it if it had not been
pointed out." Of course, those statements could of been politicized
to support the why-no-WMD arguments. Where did you get the information
saying that the fins were sticking out of the ground? The pictures I'm
looking at *appear* to show, that the top of fins would be at least equal
to ground level.

Correction here. I found a picture which did show the tail of a plane
above ground. It was covered with cammo netting.

Cheers!

David CL Francis wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

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."

I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
to try what it might sound like.)

You need to watch more Hollywood movies to learn how to affect a
British accent! g

This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

"alexy" wrote:
This affectation is brought to you by the same people
who use "y'all" in the singular when trying to imitate an
accent from the US South.

Yup, it's a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood never gets it right.

It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not,
it's a friggen U-2.

No, it's a TR-1. Do you call a Skylane a Skyhawk? Same basic airframe,
perhaps, but different capabilities. Calling a TR-1 a U-2 only perpetuates
and reinforces media ignorance - something we all seem to rail against on a
somewhat regular basis.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:14:02 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not,
it's a friggen U-2.

No, it's a TR-1. Do you call a Skylane a Skyhawk? Same basic airframe,
perhaps, but different capabilities. Calling a TR-1 a U-2 only perpetuates
and reinforces media ignorance - something we all seem to rail against on a
somewhat regular basis.

Ya, I can see the news bench breaking their neck for that correction.

"This just in! It seems that even though it doesn't change the story at
all and the plane looks the same, what we previously put forth as a U-2 is
really a TR-1. We realize many of you will have to restart life from
scratch again because of this mistake. We, are, sorry."

The point? No one really cares in this case unless you are a plane buff
or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
Powers for that.

Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".

In a previous article, Greg Copeland said:
or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
Powers for that.

Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".

Speaking of pedantic - it's "Francis Gary Powers" or sometimes "Frank
Powers". He hated being called "Gary".


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
-- Steven M. Haflich

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:28:25 +0000, Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Greg Copeland said:
or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
Powers for that.

Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".

Speaking of pedantic - it's "Francis Gary Powers" or sometimes "Frank
Powers". He hated being called "Gary".

Hehe. I didn't know that. I just couldn't remember his first name and
too lazy to do a quick search. I guess he was stuck with "Gary" because he
didn't take his pill as instructed. :O ;-)

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

"This just in! It seems that even though it doesn't change the story
at all and the plane looks the same, what we previously put forth as
a U-2 is really a TR-1. We realize many of you will have to restart
life from scratch again because of this mistake. We, are, sorry."

You can exercise your privilege to be a smart-ass, if you'd like, but they
are different planes. The TR-1 has equipment pods under the wings and an
elongated nose cone. This isn't quite the same thing as arguing over the
difference between a 737-100 vs a 737-400. The military calls it a TR-1.
The manufacturer calls it a TR-1.

No one really cares in this case unless you are a plane buff...

I thought that was why we were all here. Oh, and plane buffs call it a
TR-1, too.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________