Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

I do not know why the SR-71 was retired, however for whatever reason the USAF disagrees that such a platform is no longer needed. According to my source, and I have no reason not to believe her given the credentials, the USAF it is currently proceeding with the SR-72 under a SAP. The white world disinformation coming from DARPA that this program is simply in the conceptual stage is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Lockheed is apparently in the process of building this aircraft with a first flight date sometime around late 2009 or 2010. The new (and large) hanger and earth berm from that hanger to the main runway under construction at Groom Lake are supposedly being built to support flight testing.

If her information is correct, then we're in for an exiting new decade in manned reconnaissance.

F-16.net Sponsor

parrothead wrote:

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.

The only problem that I could forsee, is you'd have to develop a "stage" area from which to launch your missions. BIOT is about the closest base to the AOR where it would be feasible, and even at that, it would require at least 2 AR legs to get the job done properly. Neither of the -135 stage bases, nor the KC-10 stage are anywhere near close enough to support that kind of mission, and still be time or cost effective.

Huggy and I can both tell you just how difficult it is to generate a mission in the AOR, let alone coordinate with a tanker, which may break, or cancel for myriad reasons. I can also tell you that in my plane (C-17), ARs anywhere in AFCENT aren't really necessary, in fact doing an AR usually slows us down. We can get to wherever we need to go, and 9 times out of 10, gas on the ground, or at the next stop. However, as in the Blackbird's case, if the plane needs the tanker to successfully accomplish the mission, and the tanker breaks, your mission just got cancelled as well. Oh yeah, and never mind whatever you were going to recon. They're history as well (Ho Chi Minh trail, anyone?).

For the type of threat we have to monitor, the low speed, high altitude type of recon aircraft is what we need. I would, however, like to see at least one active Blackbird, which could monitor a more militaristic type threat, such as North Korea.

Remember when the SR's flew across Nicaragua back in the 80's, just to "make a statement" to Ortega? I don't know if they even had sensors on board: I think their primary mission was to put a sonic boom on Ortega, and remind him we could fly over with impunity.
Love it!

Yeah, we also ticked off Khaddafi pretty good too Thumb

Well, the F-111s played the biggest part in ticking him off there. Thumb

F-111F: Libyan Urban Renewal

huggy wrote:

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.

Actually, as far as the IMINT goes, ATFS_Crash was correct. Global Hawk was built as a proof-of-concept demonstrator. As such, it was built as cheaply as possible. The camera suite on board was pretty good but nowhere close to state-of-the-art. Trust me on this one. My last active duty job I was the one who drafted USAF export policy for UAVs and had to know exactly what they were capable of.

The SIGINT package was developed after the USAF was handed over the bird from DARPA. Problem was, the original design didn't have enough electrical power to drive a fully functional SIGINT package. Hence the Block 20. Bigger wing, bigger generators, more payload.

TC wrote:

Well, the F-111s played the biggest part in ticking him off there. Thumb

F-111F: Libyan Urban Renewal

Yeah, I'd agree with that Smile

It still had to be pretty frustrating not to be able to get at Brian Shul and his RSO Wink

parrothead wrote:

It still had to be pretty frustrating not to be able to get at Brian Shul and his RSO Wink

Funny you mention him! I just ran into him in June. He's completely moved away from aviation photography, and is now into nature photos. The photos he showed me were very vibrant. He also just opened a gallery in Marysville.

Roscoe wrote:

Global Hawk was built as a proof-of-concept demonstrator. As such, it was built as cheaply as possible.

Well, if their metric was to produce something cheaply, they sure failed. Granted, it probably was not intended to go right to production,... but that's what it did.
Roscoe: I didn't think that the Block 20 added significanly more electrical power, but don't know the numbers. But bigger wing, more weight, same thrust = less performance.

Russians say it was because of MIG-31 ...Which is ridiculous if you ask me..

MiG-31!?! Killed the Blackbird program without firing a shot!?! LMAO

No, the only thing that EVER had the means of downing the SR-71 was it's own budget.

From what I've read the MiG-31 isn't the easiest MiG to fly either... Shrug

Besides, wasn't the MiG-31 a low-level interceptor designed to get cruise missiles and Bones skirting the trees of the Motherland?

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

I just finished reading a book by Rich Graham called flying the SR-71 (came out this year). He's a SR-71 pilot and previous Wing Commander of the 9th SRW. Anyway, he basically comes out saying that the SR-71 was cancelled due to the fact that Strategic Air Command wanted to spend money on bombers (B-1) and ICBMs. It also didn't help that the SR-71 community lost a lot of support when previous SR-71 members who held very high ranking positions in the USAF left the USAF (think of fighter mafia for SR-71s) with no one to replace them. Without any influential supporters of the program, the SR-71 slowly died. Sad, since the SR-71 is a great reconnaissance platform that has yet to be replaced. I highly suggest reading this book and his other 2 books on the SR-71.

It also didn't help that Gen. Welch, the AFCoS at the time, was a SAC guy who was turned down for the SR program. But that's all speculative. It was just a matter of time no matter what. 3 years later, Clinton came along, and drastically cut defense spending. BTW, it was Clinton who actually hammered the final nail into the SR's coffin.

So basically what I'm hearing is that it was cancelled because of operational costs? (In a nutshell)

Tim wrote:

So basically what I'm hearing is that it was cancelled because of operational costs? (In a nutshell)

That would be correct. And that was at a time JP-7 was cheap, all relative of course!

While it was expensive, the SR-71 program ran in the single digits of a percent of what the USAF spent on satellites at the time. It was a political decision from everything I've heard.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

why was SR-71 retired?