The program, is however, a bit controversial as many people don’t seem to think we need them anymore.
Tuckerfan , you gotta re-read that article.
It asserts that the theory about the alleged “Aurora” spyplane program is a proven fact, & a given. :rolleyes:
What, you don’t think it exists? Next you’ll be trying to tell me that they only launch weather balloons from Area 51. 
I can’t be lifted off my ass to click the link and read the article.
Is this that “cold plasma” thing again?
Oh crap! Dr. Forrester suceeded! We’ll all be forced to watch Manos for all eternity!
No mention of cold plasma in the article (or plasma at all).
Yeah, but the sound of rainfall pitta-patting on the tinfoil hat the author was wearing is clearly audible.
I skimmed the article (and did a search) but couldnt find anything about the Aurora program.
Are you saying that there wasn’t (isn’t) an Aurora program?
because it seems that there were plans which were blackballed (at least under that name):
Reading between the lines that reads to me that the Aurora project did exist until some moron let it slip into budgeting, when it became whatever the B2 Bombers project is now known as (i think it is Spirit, but that could just be like the Phantom, Tomcat etc).
You’d have to be pretty naieve to think that there are no black budget planes in development (hell how long was the F-115 or JSF in black budget?) one of them might be the successor to the SR-71 but there is no way in hell we’ll know about it until the next one is in development (ie like the Raptor) or the US needs another PR victory like with the F-115s.
One must wonder why the SR-71 was retired.
Clinton killed the program, claiming that the U2 and Satellites were more equipped to do what the SR-71 was doing in its current role as a recon plane (after being retired originally in the early 90’s for the same reason).
cite
whilst Clinton is correct that in peace time it is easier to use the U2 and Sat. recon, it fails to recognise the need for the speedy gathering of intelligence, during war time.
A sat. takes time to task over to a designated spot, and the U2 has a top speed of Mach .5, instead of Mach 3 that the SR-71 can do.
The SR-71 is coming up to 50 years old now, and a high speed recon plane is most definately needed the SR-71 would be fine as a stop-gap measure (assuming that there isn’t a black budgeted replacement we dont know about)
*gah cant edit my post, that’ll teach me not to proof read :smack: *
that should’ve read:
whilst Clinton is correct that in peace time it is easier and cheaper to use a combination of U2 and Sat. recon, it fails to recognise the need for the speedy gathering of intelligence, during war time, and whilst its a nice thought to say well why dont we stop preparing for war, and maybe peace will win out, the second you do those who arent as altruistic as yourself will attack you.
A sat. takes time to task over to a designated spot, and the U2 has a top speed of Mach .5, instead of Mach 3 that the SR-71 can do, which means that as a stop gap* whilst your Sat. is tasking to the combat field and the U2 is getting there, you can have near real time imaging of it.
*The SR-71 is coming up to 50 years old now, and a high speed recon plane is most definately needed (imo), and the SR-71 would be fine as a stop-gap measure (assuming that there isn’t a black budgeted replacement we dont know about) if it was updated to take advantage of the tech. currently available.
I just googled that site looking for the FY12A.
Nice pics.
Thanks
[nitpick]The top speed of the SR-71 is Mach 3**+**, what it’s real top speed is, we have no idea.[/nitpick]
And IMHO, we should keep the SR-71s flying because they’re about the coolest looking planes ever built.
While I’ve got you here…
Where was the YF12 going to shoot down Russkies with nuclear missiles? Even at mach 3, it would be over Canada wouldn’t it?
True, but technically the U2s top is about Mach .4998 or something like that.
Yep totally agree, Im very tempted to use the pic of the YF12 in mid-air refuelling as a wallpaper.
Got a linky to the pic? I’ve never seen it. (BTW, the donuts on a rope that all the nutbags were saying was produced by ubersecret aircraft were most likely “burps” from the SR-71s engines.)
I had a tape where a pilot was describing a flight. “We actually dive to attain our maxium speed. We climb to…I can’t tell you that…and dive to accelerate to…I can’t tell you that…”
It is said that you would burn your fingers on the windows heated by friction with air.
Here is your link:
http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/yf12~1.htm
We can do better with unmanned drones, launched locally or from subs.
“Superplanes” aren’t needed, any more than battleships are. :rolleyes:
I’d like to offer an opposing viewpoint.
First off, the SR-71 remains almost impossible to intercept. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe the US has any AAW assets that can target and take out an SR-71 at operational speed and altitude. In a high threat environment, that’s pretty important.
Secondly, most of the current smart drones (Global Hawk, Predator and the other remote recon assets) used for intel, recon and attack, are susceptible to jamming interference. Having an autonomous pilot aboard the platform offers more flexibility and survivability in a high EW environment.
Third, we don’t have, AFAIK, any sub launched drones at the moment in deployable inventory. A platform we have is worth at least three in the works.
Until something is deployable that matches the first points I’d raised about the SR-71, I think it is foolish to take an effective and working asset out of use because other potential assets may be able to be developed with superior abilities.
An additional point - the U2 is a very good plane, don’t get me wrong, but - it’s even older than the SR-71.
None of your points are relevant.
[ol]
[li]It is not important if the SR-71 can be taken out or not, unless one is taken out. With drones, you get no Gary Powers situations. Let them kill all the drones they want, who care? :rolleyes: [/li][li]Jamming is irrelavant. Global Hawk can fly itsself, robotically, & store its data internally.[/li][li]Several short-range Marine Corps drones can be launched from any ship, subs included. And if you can launch Cruise Missiles from subs, drones are not a high hurdle. We may well a a functioning system right now, just not advertised.[/li][li]Drones are smaller, lighter, easier to transport, cheaper, & pose no risk to human pilots in entering extremely high risk combat environments.[/li][/ol]