If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't any in the first place. Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't "see" that kind of stuff. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent one over a hostile nation in many years. Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:50:12 +0100, John Harper wrote:
Strange that nobody in this thread has mentioned the U2, which *is* still flying, for all the satellites-not-good-enough reasons that are mentioned. Surely all the good reasons pro-SR71 are just as valid for the U2 (except raw speed, but the U2 uses altitude to avoid being shot down). But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't any in the first place. John "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. -- 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. I thought that the CIA still had one or two SR-71's flying and NASA, I think, still has one (for sure) or two for high atmospheric research projects. I think you're right, that the general burden was shifted back to U2s. Then again, there are always rumors of the Aurora project. High altitude blimps may (or already are) soon find themselves geosynchronisely in position. I know that these blimps will be used in general telecommunications, deployable military field communications, and rumors exist for low orbit ease dropping and spying. I guess what I'm saying is, just because the SR-71 isn't commonly flying, doesn't have to mean that other mechanisms are not already in place. It's just that we, the common man, may not currently know about it. Cheers! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:34:34 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:
But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't any in the first place. Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't "see" that kind of stuff. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent one over a hostile nation in many years. Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment. I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars, cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use. From what I understand, they are fairly cheap to operate and very reliable. That's hard to argue with. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:15:41 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Tim Broche writes: Teacherjh wrote: Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a couple of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't going to change it. I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello. Really hot jello. The difference between these views is that there's a lot of evidence confirming the first one, and no evidence against it. Whereas there's quite a lot of evidence *against* the second theory, and little evidence supporting it. Worth noting that it's doubtful we will ever know for sure unless someone takes us by the hand and presents a WMD site to us. It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative and there is no proof that their WMD were actually destroyed. Worth mentioning, several months after the force on force engagements where over, a friendly Iraqi took some soldiers to where very modern migs (plus many older planes) were burried in the ground. We would of never found these planes otherwise. When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices. Simple fact remains, chances are high that anything barried in the desert will likely remain so unless someone points it out to us. No amount of spy photos are going to discover these items unless they are caught actually digging the sand up. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 8 May 2004 20:05:29 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote: 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. What do you mean by relatively CJ? My understanding is that every single aspect of the SR-71 is horrendously expensive: It requires special fuel, needs to be refueled all the time in air, has unique engines, requires all kinds of backup and planning for each mission and doesn't have enough fuel for loiter time. The U-2 on the other hand, can stay over the target for a long while and uses normal jet fuel and can be serviced anywhere. They are for sure a lot less expensive than the SR-71, and a whole lot less dangerous to fly. Corky Scott |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices. "Latest and greatest" Foxbat? -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars, cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use. I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest variant, the TR-1. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know what you hope to accomplish in the war on terrorism with better
overhead recon. We know where all the training camps were located. It is very difficult to determine what a couple of people are planning to do by taking their picture. The new unmanned systems are better in every way. Mike MU-2 "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. -- 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird pilots.
Mike MU-2 "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:CYonc.57309$kh4.3397705@attbi_s52... According to Bill Fox, Lockheed Skunkworks project coordinator for over 30 years (and the guy who donated all the stuff for our Blackbird Suite), the final nail in the coffin was politics, pure and simple. There are still intact Blackbirds around. The Air Force has the optical packages in storage somewhere, too. The same political forces that killed the SR-71 would also have killed the Aurora -- they would have hated it for the same reason they hated the Blackbirds. The SR-71 was assigned to SAC, which never wanted it. It competed for tanker resources, did not carry any ordnance, and stole all the glory at airshows. When it was retired, no high-ranking members of the military or Pentagon were present at the ceremony. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:33:35 +0000, John T wrote:
"Greg Copeland" wrote in message news When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices. "Latest and greatest" Foxbat? Equipment gets upgraded over time. You can use phrases like that about F-16's and F-14's too. Just because they are old doesn't mean they are not being upgraded. Just the same, I do understand that I'm talking about an oxymoron here. Cheers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|