Originally Posted By: soldirman
I've yet to ever see one in person. May never see one. But I'd guess I was about 12 when I learned of all its glory. I'm guessing it HAS been replaced with something undisclosed. Several have said no use for a replacement as satellites can do it all now. EH... I still feel there's an odd job here and there that can't be done without a plane.
It's not that satellites can do it all. They are good for strategic purposes but tactical recon needs something fast, available on demand, and unpredictable by the enemy. The SR-71 fits that profile perfectly, and there have certainly been moments when we could have benefitted from it. The reason is that those moments are few and far between, and almost all (if not all) of them can be served by "lesser" aircraft that are FAR less expensive and impractical to run.
My favorite example of how impractical the SR-71 is: It leaks fuel like a sieve when cold. No available sealing method or material for the fuel system could stand the thermal expansion generated by high speed flight, so it had to be made with gaps that would close as the airframe heats up. It has to do a short sprint right after take-off to warm up the airframe, followed very quickly by an in-flight refueling, all within something like 30 minutes of take-off, or it will run out of fuel.
Plus, all the tooling for the plane was destroyed years ago. That makes spare parts a bit of a pain.
A major factor in the SR-71's design (and all the attendant impracticalities) is that it's supposed to be able to avoid enemy fire by flying so high and so fast that missiles can't hit it. As I understand, most (if not all) of our potential recon targets pose no real threat to air superiority anyway. A conventional high altitude reconnaissance plane or UAV could do the same job for a LOT less money and risk.
Besides, Lockheed's Skunk Works is rumored to be working on a replacement anyway, just in case the need arises...
I've yet to ever see one in person. May never see one. But I'd guess I was about 12 when I learned of all its glory. I'm guessing it HAS been replaced with something undisclosed. Several have said no use for a replacement as satellites can do it all now. EH... I still feel there's an odd job here and there that can't be done without a plane.
It's not that satellites can do it all. They are good for strategic purposes but tactical recon needs something fast, available on demand, and unpredictable by the enemy. The SR-71 fits that profile perfectly, and there have certainly been moments when we could have benefitted from it. The reason is that those moments are few and far between, and almost all (if not all) of them can be served by "lesser" aircraft that are FAR less expensive and impractical to run.
My favorite example of how impractical the SR-71 is: It leaks fuel like a sieve when cold. No available sealing method or material for the fuel system could stand the thermal expansion generated by high speed flight, so it had to be made with gaps that would close as the airframe heats up. It has to do a short sprint right after take-off to warm up the airframe, followed very quickly by an in-flight refueling, all within something like 30 minutes of take-off, or it will run out of fuel.
Plus, all the tooling for the plane was destroyed years ago. That makes spare parts a bit of a pain.
A major factor in the SR-71's design (and all the attendant impracticalities) is that it's supposed to be able to avoid enemy fire by flying so high and so fast that missiles can't hit it. As I understand, most (if not all) of our potential recon targets pose no real threat to air superiority anyway. A conventional high altitude reconnaissance plane or UAV could do the same job for a LOT less money and risk.
Besides, Lockheed's Skunk Works is rumored to be working on a replacement anyway, just in case the need arises...
)))
