Great article - SR-71 Blackbird...

"D.Duck" <Don.DeleteThis@ald.duck> wrote in message
news:frmdnXwylYk4HkjanZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@giganews.com...
>

>
> What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the
> job?
>

Geosynchronous satellites are in orbits at altitudes of over 22,000 miles.
Even the best of optics will take more detailed pictures at 100,000 feet or
less.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

Eisboch wrote:
> "D.Duck" <Don RemoveThis @ald.duck> wrote in message
> news:frmdnXwylYk4HkjanZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the
>> job?
>>
>
> Geosynchronous satellites are in orbits at altitudes of over 22,000 miles.
> Even the best of optics will take more detailed pictures at 100,000 feet or
> less.

22,300 miles to be exact. Comsat, before it was bought by Lockheed
Martin, was located at 22300 Satellite Drive.
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:54:24 -0400, "D.Duck" <Don DeleteThis @ald.duck> wrote:

>
>"Short Wave Sportfishing" <email DeleteThis @swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
>news:a8lat3ts8oorukgdcdabjfofscfdrm9pco@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:05:19 -0000, thunder DeleteThis @TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is really
>>>> a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
>>>> capable of extra-atmosphere flight.
>>>
>>>It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due to
>>>the expense.
>>
>> That's what they want you to think. :>)
>>
>> There is some interesting speculation about "Aurora" in that it may
>> not be the classic high speed fighter style airplane, but a hybrid
>> zepplin with some very ineresting capabilities.
>>
>> I have a hard time believing that they would dump the whole spy plane
>> concept due to cost. Satellites are nice, but even the most clued in
>> speculators admit that spy satellites are limited in time and space.
>> Real time data is paramount in times of crisis and that means spy
>> planes.
>
>What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the job?

Believe it or not, you have to move them. Everytime you move them, you
have to recalculate the orbits and the remaining fuel load. You just
can't move one from covering, say Moscow to St. Pertersburg without a
whole bunch of work.

And the constellation isn't that large - those spy sats are huge, cost
a ton of money and not easy to deal with. Spy planes are better
deployable assets.

Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more
efficient and practical.
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
news:p21bt3l1aulr6spec4h91go2ie3k1tuvjg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:54:24 -0400, "D.Duck" <Don.RemoveThis@ald.duck> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
>>news:a8lat3ts8oorukgdcdabjfofscfdrm9pco@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:05:19 -0000, thunder.RemoveThis@TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is
>>>>> really
>>>>> a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
>>>>> capable of extra-atmosphere flight.
>>>>
>>>>It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due to
>>>>the expense.
>>>
>>> That's what they want you to think. :>)
>>>
>>> There is some interesting speculation about "Aurora" in that it may
>>> not be the classic high speed fighter style airplane, but a hybrid
>>> zepplin with some very ineresting capabilities.
>>>
>>> I have a hard time believing that they would dump the whole spy plane
>>> concept due to cost. Satellites are nice, but even the most clued in
>>> speculators admit that spy satellites are limited in time and space.
>>> Real time data is paramount in times of crisis and that means spy
>>> planes.
>>
>>What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the
>>job?
>
> Believe it or not, you have to move them. Everytime you move them, you
> have to recalculate the orbits and the remaining fuel load. You just
> can't move one from covering, say Moscow to St. Pertersburg without a
> whole bunch of work.
>
> And the constellation isn't that large - those spy sats are huge, cost
> a ton of money and not easy to deal with. Spy planes are better
> deployable assets.
>
> Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
> Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
> decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more
> efficient and practical.

I know, you're just lobbying for a job. You could take your Hasselblad up
there.
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:00:02 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



> Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
> Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
> decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more efficient
> and practical.

And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:07 -0000, thunder DeleteThis @TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:00:02 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>
>
>
>> Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
>> Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
>> decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more efficient
>> and practical.
>
>And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
>and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.

Safer? Certainly because it's not manned if that's what you mean by
"safer". Cheaper - perhaps.

Effective? Not really. Low speed, low altitude unmanned aircraft are
spottable and effective counter measures against them are effective -
if you notice they are there. In Iraq, you are dealing with a what
are essentially low-tech guerrillas - and fairly stupid if you watch
some of the war porn movies on YouTube. You aren't going to use one
of those beasties over flying a missile base in Moscow.
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:28:18 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


>>And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
>>and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.
>
> Safer? Certainly because it's not manned if that's what you mean by
> "safer". Cheaper - perhaps.
>
> Effective? Not really. Low speed, low altitude unmanned aircraft are
> spottable and effective counter measures against them are effective - if
> you notice they are there. In Iraq, you are dealing with a what are
> essentially low-tech guerrillas - and fairly stupid if you watch some of
> the war porn movies on YouTube. You aren't going to use one of those
> beasties over flying a missile base in Moscow.

Yeah, but ... you are talking about the drones we know of, the Predator
and the Global Hawk. Just speculating here, but if you were tasked with
aerial spying, would you go for an Aurora type, or a *stealthy drone*, a
F-117 type, if you will. Me, I'm thinking stealthy.
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird... 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:44:11 -0000, thunder RemoveThis @TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:28:18 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>
>
>>>And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
>>>and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.
>>
>> Safer? Certainly because it's not manned if that's what you mean by
>> "safer". Cheaper - perhaps.
>>
>> Effective? Not really. Low speed, low altitude unmanned aircraft are
>> spottable and effective counter measures against them are effective - if
>> you notice they are there. In Iraq, you are dealing with a what are
>> essentially low-tech guerrillas - and fairly stupid if you watch some of
>> the war porn movies on YouTube. You aren't going to use one of those
>> beasties over flying a missile base in Moscow.
>
>Yeah, but ... you are talking about the drones we know of, the Predator
>and the Global Hawk. Just speculating here, but if you were tasked with
>aerial spying, would you go for an Aurora type, or a *stealthy drone*, a
>F-117 type, if you will. Me, I'm thinking stealthy.

You are missing an imporant point - communications. These things
don't fly themselves and they have to use digital communications which
means FM which means a whole host of complications dealing with the
nature of the communications not to mention range which is limited.
For an umnanned drone to fly deep into national territory, you will
need support aircraft and that's suspicious all by it'self.

Which reminds me of a funny story I heard a reliable source which is
supposedly true.

The Isralies have been on the cutting edge of unmanned drone
surveillance and have been developing drones that look, and sometimes
act, like large birds. They contracted out to a US SFx firm to build
the bird body around the airframe. The Isralies wanted a buzzard.

So they got a buzzard. And it was immediately spotted on it's first
surveillance flight by those who were being spied on.

Turns out the body was modeled after a Turkey Vulture which does not
exist in the Middle East. :>)
 >> Stay informed about: Great article - SR-71 Blackbird...