Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

why was SR-71 retired?

F-16.net Sponsor

$$$ to operate and maintain and more and better satellites to do the job.

$$$ (agreed) Many say to support the B-2 program.

The more/better satellites is a ruse, why else would they have developed the Global Hawk and upgraded the U-2 with new engines and glass cockpits?

Aircraft based recon is the way to go. Not predictable and can be reconfigured or retasked at will based on conditions/needs.

Try that with a fancy satellite...

Maybe the ramp guys just got fed up with moppin' up the seepage and finally said, "ENOUGH ALREADY!!"? Wink

HA HA! thanks guys.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

SR-71s better or satellite or RPV or U-2?; that is debatable; the way I look at it they all have their own niche. Though they both serve the same fundamental purpose reconnaissance; their strengths and weaknesses are considerably different.

The SR-71 hemorrhages money. Satellites can be vulnerable in a major war against a technologically advanced adversary. Satellites are predictable; thusly sometimes an adversary can hide their movements or material using tactics. The SR-71 and other atmosphere bound reconnaissance aircraft are a wildcard, since they are unpredictable and the enemy never knows when or where there is going to be an overflight, and keep the enemy guessing thusly many of the tactics that work against satellites can be defeated with the SR-71 and other conventional reconnaissance aircraft.

The SR-71 and satellites are technologically advanced; therefore they are a security risk if they fall into enemy hands. RPV aircraft like the global Hawk are more off the commercial shelf; thusly they are more expendable and less of a security risk if they are lost. RPV aircraft like the global Hawk also have the advantage of being able to come in under the weather.

The demand on the satellites resources is very heavy in wartime, they tend to be better at scanning large areas. There are also different restrictions on each type of reconnaissance information; so therefore if we are sharing information with an ally or putting our cards on the table to an adversary we tend to show only the cards that we have to show to make a point and that are pertinent.

Sometimes different types of aircraft/satellites are easier to control due to the bureaucracy. It may take a lot of paperwork and time to schedule a satellite; whereas it might be possible to make some last-minute changes to the flight plan of an SR-71, U-2, ect… Under some conditions it can be easier to interact with humans or computers. Satellites tend to be more vulnerable to EMP and first strike hostilities; whereas manned reconnaissance aircraft might be more survivable and flexible under some conditions.

Though an SR-71 mission has some degree of advantages of mission flexibility; there are as many weaknesses; it is not an aircraft that you just hop in and fly. It takes many hours if not days of preparation for a flight; it takes an hour or more just for a pilot to suit up and dissipate the nitrogen.

Sometimes some aircraft can be more intimidating and or provocative. Some are fairly low key.

If there was a shooting war that took out most satellites or if there was a natural disaster like a solar flare or a meteor strike that took out the satellites; reconnaissance aircraft like the SR-71, U-2 might be the only aircraft capable of valuable reconnaissance or in the case of a global disaster; they might be the only resources to assess the damage to better manage the survival of the species. Under these conditions GPS would likely be unavailable/useless.

(In 2029 and 2036 the astroid 99942 Apophis is going to make a dangerously close pass on earth; it is thought that a direct impact is unlikely, however it might pass low enough that it could disrupt or hit satellites in orbit. The consequences could/might be very significant even if it is not a direct impact. It might pass close enough that it might take out all our satellites and might cause earthquakes, atmosphere anomalies, disrupt orbits, etc… a remote possibility; but a possibility. )

Each type of reconnaissance aircraft class; has its own strengths and weaknesses under varying conditions and scenarios. I feel there are several niches that need to be filled by many types of craft (in some cases a human needs to be in the loop).

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

$$$ (agreed) Many say to support the B-2 program.

The more/better satellites is a ruse, why else would they have developed the Global Hawk and upgraded the U-2 with new engines and glass cockpits?

Aircraft based recon is the way to go. Not predictable and can be reconfigured or retasked at will based on conditions/needs.

Try that with a fancy satellite...

I thought that the Blackbird was mainly a photo recon platform while the modern U-2 is more of a signals/radar platform as is Global Hawk. The re tasking of satellites issue would apply if there were 1 satellite that would need to be physically shifted in orbit, but when you're talking about constellations of several different types of recon sats, that really wouldn't apply, would it? You wouldn't waste fuel moving one, you're simply wait for the next available bird that passes in view of the target to be reconned. It would still be quicker than planning and executing a blackbird mission for time sensitive targets.

And for the tin hat wearing crowd out there... who's to say they haven't replaced it with something more exotic, thus rendering it obsolete?

It was also the dollars of operating it's own fleet of K135Q tankers. On some sorties you had to have several tankers prepositioned in different parts of the world. A 135 crew sometimes would be gone for days to support one sortie.

There was also the cost of hauling around and storing JP7.

ATFS_Crash wrote:

RPV aircraft like the global Hawk are more off the commercial shelf; thusly they are more expendable and less of a security risk if they are lost. RPV aircraft like the global Hawk also have the advantage of being able to come in under the weather.

Not true.
Global Hawk's planned recon systems are certainly not "off-the-shelf". The IMINT and SIGINT gear found on today's airbreathing recon platforms is pretty high end stuff.
Global Hawk does not operate "under the weather". It's operational altitude puts it above the weather.

I've often heard it in the press that Global Hawk is a great platform for going into an extremely high threat area. Ridiculous. That presumes that the policy makers are saying "if it gets shot down, that's ok,... we don't mind losing a $200M platform." (No need to correct me on GH costs: I'm talking about a Block 20 or later platform with a full sensor suite. I don't know what it's worth, but certainly well above what N-G says it costs).

Another poster mentioned the U-2 being a SIGINT platform: partially true. In reality, it is a Multi-INT platform that does both IMINT and SIGINT on most of its missions. The SR was primariy a wet film platform. Processing wet film takes time. And in this day and age of Near Real Time Recon and the associated exploitation, the Combatant Commanders want their recon products in minutes,... preferably seconds. A platform like the U-2 can utilize electro-optical or radar to provide the imagery, which is digital and can be sent via data link to the Intel Ground Unit. The SR was not an easy platform to upgrade to a digital image platform. And SIGINT for the SR? I don't know how you'd hang antennas off an airframe designed to go Mach 3. I'm guessing they would burn off.

huggy wrote:

SIGINT for the SR? I don't know how you'd hang antennas off an airframe designed to go Mach 3. I'm guessing they would burn off.

Yeah, I don't think the "Polish Drop Tank" would work very well on the SR... Laughing

I don't see a problem with SIGINT on the Blackbird family myself aside from cost. Check out the YF-12A with the thermal sensors on the front of the chines right next to the nose. IIRC, they were cooled with liquid argon. There were also camera pods under the engines on the same aircraft which were also cryogenically cooled. Failing that solution, you could put the sensors in side the plane instead of cameras, right?

One other thought - If A-12s could be modified (in production) to carry a D-21 on top of the fuselage and the "Big Tail" flew OK, why not put the sensors in the tail with a dorsal pod for the satellite communications? Thrust was not the limiting factor in the Blackbird family - inlet temperature was. Like I said, if the D-21, YF-21A, and "Big Tail" did OK, why not this?

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

huggy wrote:

Not true.
Global Hawk's planned recon systems are certainly not "off-the-shelf". The IMINT and SIGINT gear found on today's airbreathing recon platforms is pretty high end stuff.
Global Hawk does not operate "under the weather". It's operational altitude puts it above the weather.

I stand corrected apparently. I have no first hand knowledge And I’m not well versed on it I was just going by what I heard from documentaries. Perhaps the documentary was referring to another type of RPV such as the predator.

I was under the impression and still am under the impression that most of the stuff on the newer RPV aircraft are less of a security risk then the SR-71.

I like where you're going with this one Parrothead. Perhaps they could've installed a dorsal spine with SIGINT and SatLink packages, designed similar to the dorsal spines in the B-1A and the Blk.60/62 Vipers. Or, have a modulated Q bay, ala, the U-2, connected to a dorsal SatLink antenna.

Loiter time over the target was also a huge limiting factor with the SR. Like Huggy said, we need intel, and we need it 5 minutes ago. Sure, the SR could fly fast, but it's here and then it's gone. U-2s, Global Hawks, and Predators can loiter, and provide much more real time Intel that is necessary to the mission. Photograph a Soviet MiG or Sub base in the 1970s or 80s? Give me an SR any day! Provide me real time intel on Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistani border? I want a Predator or a U-2.

TC & Parrothead: good comments, and I need to build on them.
Interesting thoughts on the cooled antenna idea. I am ignorant as to how what really can be done, but suffice to say we've come a LOOONNNGGG way in 40 years with respect to SIGINT. It's amazing what we can do. If just don't know if its technically,... or financially,... possible to do in an SR.

Also, SIGINT isn't a "fly by and take a snapshot" type of recce. It's about loiter time and persistance. Your platform has to stay in the area for a significant amount of time. Blowing through at Mach 3 gets you a very small intel take.

And even with the IMINT sensors we have now, realize a U-2/Global Hawk/et al... can image without flying directly over the target,... i.e. they can stay out of the threat ring, or stay in international airspace and "look in". The SR could have been outfitted with digital sensors that did this, but if you don't need to fly directly over the threat, then why have the SR in the first place?

The "unblinking eye" is where ISR is going: we want the bad guy to be able to be concerned that we see EVERYTHING, 24/7,... and that takes presence, loiter time, and persistance.

Great stuff here - lots of fun, interesting, and no violations of OPSEC Thumb

!!!

The more I think on it, I have to lean towards Huggy and TC here with the thought that speed ain't exactly where it's at. I'm still convinced that there's a place for the Blackbirds in the SIGINT arena. Keep one or two in "condition one" (to use a firearms term) - ready to go at a moment's notice. I do know what went into planning and executing the Blackshield ops and other operational missions for the Blackbirds. If you can keep a couple of them on alert, you have a very quick reaction force, especially if you can get to the target without aerial refueling. I'm not thinking that Mach 3+ would be great for the collecting part of the mission, but I think it would be advantageous if the enemy had no idea when the asset might appear, from what direction, or how long it might be overhead. Just thinkin' out loud Wink

Of course, if I go Off Topic

just a bit, there's another vehicle that sounds interesting - the stealth blimp I've read about in magazines. I don't know if it exists, but just imagine having a slow moving, very low observable blimp up at around 100K feet or higher just sucking in signals Smile

Back

I'd have to say that I'm truly sad that I've had the chance to sit in an SR-71 that's permanently parked at a museum instead of tearing a hole in the sky. Great experience, but I'd rather have 'em flying.

I'm just glad some goofball hasn't up and retired the U-2 Very Happy