Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Wikipedia and Universe]

He was talking about the use of satellites as a reconnaissance tool...not as a way to track or destroy an aircraft. Also, a good, modern SAM will be faster than a SR-71.

A SR-71 can travel at nearly Mach-3. And i know what you meant about the satellites.

Yes, and the RIM-162 ESSM (a modern ship-launched SAM) can travel at Mach 4+.

[Licana]

A SR-71 can travel at nearly Mach-3. And i know what you meant about the satellites.

Yes, and the RIM-162 ESSM (a modern ship-launched SAM) can travel at Mach 4+.

And the S-400 is claimed to travel at MACH 12

[The Kievan People]

Rockets go fast. Hardly news.

But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.

[The Corparation]

Rockets go fast. Hardly news.

But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.

But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.

[Rusikstan]

Rockets go fast. Hardly news.

But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.

But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.

The rest whatever idk idc. Not so sure about the bolded part though. A satellite isn't some unreachable god object in space. Its fairly delicate comparatively and can be reached at taken out of commission in relativly simple ways.

[Transnapastain]

Rockets go fast. Hardly news.

But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.

Huge fan of the SR-71 here.

However, ...any advantages you are going to mention...are a moot point when the thing is downed by missile.


As much as I don't want to believe it, or accept it, I'm positive that the SR-71, even traveling at Mach 3+, even at 85,000ft (cite me, thats its height isn't it?) is no longer invulnerable to surface to air missiles. It has stealth characteristics, but none of them do it a damn bit of good, as, during the Cold War, it was reportedly spotted by civilian ATC radar in India during flyovers of the USSR (Source: Wikipedia). They even laced the fuel with cesium, or some such, to reduce its thermal plume...didn't help, that bastard is fat and hot, and, sadly, outdated.

However, I'm going to refute that the role of a recon plane has gone by the wayside.

Satellites are amazing...they can give you a birds eye view of a given location from the relative safety of space.....and they can only be in so many places. Also, NS seems to fail to realize just how hard it can be to locate something like a fleet in the ocean. Thats a lot of blank territory to cover. Recon planes can be useful when Intel is needed, right the hell now, and no orbital assets have been tasked, or are currently being redeployed. You can only watch so much, and even I, with my MASSIVE SATINT network, routinely miss things. SATINT is awesome at strategic recon, but...the role of tactical recon is not diminished.

Now...I don't think the SR-71 is the way to do it...I'd think that stealth aircraft, like a recon version of the B-2 (Good god the price tag!) or, better, small, stealthy UAV's, is the way to obtain tactical recon.

That being said...yeah, we still deploy SR-71's in a recon role...cause we're old school, and love tradition...and one day I'm going to send those SR-71's to recon the wrong nation...and its going to get blasted, and, as I write the post of the Blackbird going down in flames, I will shed tears.

[Transnapastain]

Rockets go fast. Hardly news.

But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.

But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble

But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.

The rest whatever idk idc. Not so sure about the bolded part though. A satellite isn't some unreachable god object in space. Its fairly delicate comparatively and can be reached at taken out of commission in relativly simple ways.

ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done with wank, er, NS tech

[The Corparation]

But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble

Hubble is completely different from a recon sattelite. Recon sattelite don't need massive mirrors grinded to the tiniest fraction of an inch to work right.

[Transnapastain]

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble

Hubble is completely different from a recon sattelite. Recon sattelite don't need massive mirrors grinded to the tiniest fraction of an inch to work right.

Its still going to require maintenance or replacement, brother. I'm sorry, nothing lasts for ever.

Is it LESS maintenance intensive than a recon plane? Sure is, you're dead on if you phrase it that way.

[Rusikstan]

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble

Hubble is completely different from a recon sattelite. Recon sattelite don't need massive mirrors grinded to the tiniest fraction of an inch to work right.

It does however require the right orbit and say being intact. This is impossible when you have a ballsistic missile being launched at you b/c if you move your done, and if your hit your done. Poof your high tech expensive satellite is now gone.

Not that I'm defending the idea of a SR-71 just saying...

[The Corparation]

But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble

The rest whatever idk idc. Not so sure about the bolded part though. A satellite isn't some unreachable god object in space. Its fairly delicate comparatively and can be reached at taken out of commission in relativly simple ways.

ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done with wank, er, NS tech

Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.

[Transnapastain]

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble




ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done with wank, er, NS tech

Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.

It is definitely technology that, due to lack of need and budget cuts, hasn't really gotten out of its infancy. That does make it glitchy, and expensive, for sure. I'm sure, however, that the bugs can be worked out, or worked around, for viable NS use.

[Rusikstan]

Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble




ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done with wank, er, NS tech

Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.

Use RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 or similar like US used to down that one satellite. OR use an Air-launched missile from a high up plane to launch an ASAT-esque missile.

[Transnapastain]

Huge fan of the SR-71 here.

However, ...any advantages you are going to mention...are a moot point when the thing is downed by missile.


As much as I don't want to believe it, or accept it, I'm positive that the SR-71, even traveling at Mach 3+, even at 85,000ft (cite me, thats its height isn't it?) is no longer invulnerable to surface to air missiles. It has stealth characteristics, but none of them do it a damn bit of good, as, during the Cold War, it was reportedly spotted by civilian ATC radar in India during flyovers of the USSR (Source: Wikipedia). They even laced the fuel with cesium, or some such, to reduce its thermal plume...didn't help, that bastard is fat and hot, and, sadly, outdated.

However, I'm going to refute that the role of a recon plane has gone by the wayside.

Satellites are amazing...they can give you a birds eye view of a given location from the relative safety of space.....and they can only be in so many places. Also, NS seems to fail to realize just how hard it can be to locate something like a fleet in the ocean. Thats a lot of blank territory to cover. Recon planes can be useful when Intel is needed, right the hell now, and no orbital assets have been tasked, or are currently being redeployed. You can only watch so much, and even I, with my MASSIVE SATINT network, routinely miss things. SATINT is awesome at strategic recon, but...the role of tactical recon is not diminished.

Now...I don't think the SR-71 is the way to do it...I'd think that stealth aircraft, like a recon version of the B-2 (Good god the price tag!) or, better, small, stealthy UAV's, is the way to obtain tactical recon.

That being said...yeah, we still deploy SR-71's in a recon role...cause we're old school, and love tradition...and one day I'm going to send those SR-71's to recon the wrong nation...and its going to get blasted, and, as I write the post of the Blackbird going down in flames, I will shed tears.

IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?

You do have a valid point, sir.

I made mine go faster, thats about all. I think you could dot he same thing the USAF did to add to the B-52's survivability and give it ECM ability. Thats an idea. An SR-71, at 85,000ft, going Mach 3.2+, with the ability to jam or confuse enemy radar guided missiles,, may well increase its survivability. No way to make it stealth of course, its too damn fast and hot. The hull gets up to something like 500 degrees F, and I've read the cockpit windscreen can get to 200 degrees F...they supposedly bleed heat from the cabin into the rapidly emptying fuel tanks using heat exchangers.

Not a lot you can do about heat-seekers, but a lot of craft will have trouble getting high enough to get a good missile lock with an IR guided missile. Licana, you check me on that?

[The Corparation]

Huge fan of the SR-71 here.

However, ...any advantages you are going to mention...are a moot point when the thing is downed by missile.


As much as I don't want to believe it, or accept it, I'm positive that the SR-71, even traveling at Mach 3+, even at 85,000ft (cite me, thats its height isn't it?) is no longer invulnerable to surface to air missiles. It has stealth characteristics, but none of them do it a damn bit of good, as, during the Cold War, it was reportedly spotted by civilian ATC radar in India during flyovers of the USSR (Source: Wikipedia). They even laced the fuel with cesium, or some such, to reduce its thermal plume...didn't help, that bastard is fat and hot, and, sadly, outdated.

However, I'm going to refute that the role of a recon plane has gone by the wayside.

Satellites are amazing...they can give you a birds eye view of a given location from the relative safety of space.....and they can only be in so many places. Also, NS seems to fail to realize just how hard it can be to locate something like a fleet in the ocean. Thats a lot of blank territory to cover. Recon planes can be useful when Intel is needed, right the hell now, and no orbital assets have been tasked, or are currently being redeployed. You can only watch so much, and even I, with my MASSIVE SATINT network, routinely miss things. SATINT is awesome at strategic recon, but...the role of tactical recon is not diminished.

Now...I don't think the SR-71 is the way to do it...I'd think that stealth aircraft, like a recon version of the B-2 (Good god the price tag!) or, better, small, stealthy UAV's, is the way to obtain tactical recon.

That being said...yeah, we still deploy SR-71's in a recon role...cause we're old school, and love tradition...and one day I'm going to send those SR-71's to recon the wrong nation...and its going to get blasted, and, as I write the post of the Blackbird going down in flames, I will shed tears.

IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?

Because they replaced it in its strategic recon role with:
A)Spy sattelites
or
B) Auroa or black star or some other black project.

[Transnapastain]

Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.

Use RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 or similar like US used to down that one satellite. OR use an Air-launched missile from a high up plane to launch an ASAT-esque missile.

What about simply putting a satellite in space that acts as its on KE kill device. Point it at the satellite, and have it maneuver into it....I suppose that would be expensive, but ti seems effective.

IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?

Because they replaced it in its strategic recon role with:
A)Spy sattelites
or
B) Auroa or black star or some other black project.

....and those pesky little UAV's

[Licana]

IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?

You do have a valid point, sir.

I made mine go faster, thats about all. I think you could dot he same thing the USAF did to add to the B-52's survivability and give it ECM ability. Thats an idea. An SR-71, at 85,000ft, going Mach 3.2+, with the ability to jam or confuse enemy radar guided missiles,, may well increase its survivability. No way to make it stealth of course, its too damn fast and hot. The hull gets up to something like 500 degrees F, and I've read the cockpit windscreen can get to 200 degrees F...they supposedly bleed heat from the cabin into the rapidly emptying fuel tanks using heat exchangers.

Not a lot you can do about heat-seekers, but a lot of craft will have trouble getting high enough to get a good missile lock with an IR guided missile. Licana, you check me on that?

I don't find the concept bad, but the stress from going MACH 3.2+ is enormous. You'll have to make sure the airframe can handle the heat without the canopy melting and the aircraft burning up. Although most aircraft would have trouble getting in range (MiG-25 and 31s could, if I remember correctly) for an IR guided missile, it's definitely far from impossible (not that you're saying it was), and if an IR guided missile is fired against such an aircraft...well, it's fucked.

My thing would be, why not make a purpose built, stealth UAV to do the same job. It wouldn't be as fast, sure, but it would also be fairly hard to detect.

[The Corparation]

You do have a valid point, sir.

I made mine go faster, thats about all. I think you could dot he same thing the USAF did to add to the B-52's survivability and give it ECM ability. Thats an idea. An SR-71, at 85,000ft, going Mach 3.2+, with the ability to jam or confuse enemy radar guided missiles,, may well increase its survivability. No way to make it stealth of course, its too damn fast and hot. The hull gets up to something like 500 degrees F, and I've read the cockpit windscreen can get to 200 degrees F...they supposedly bleed heat from the cabin into the rapidly emptying fuel tanks using heat exchangers.

Not a lot you can do about heat-seekers, but a lot of craft will have trouble getting high enough to get a good missile lock with an IR guided missile. Licana, you check me on that?

I don't find the concept bad, but the stress from going MACH 3.2+ is enormous. You'll have to make sure the airframe can handle the heat without the canopy melting and the aircraft burning up. Although most aircraft would have trouble getting in range (MiG-25 and 31s could, if I remember correctly) for an IR guided missile, it's definitely far from impossible (not that you're saying it was), and if an IR guided missile is fired against such an aircraft...well, it's fucked.

My thing would be, why not make a purpose built, stealth UAV to do the same job. It wouldn't be as fast, sure, but it would also be fairly hard to detect.

Like say the RQ-170 Sentinal?

[The Kievan People]

Sensors on aircraft easily trump the ones on satellites, more payload and closer to the ground. Satellites are also among the easiest things to shoot down.

The speed advantage can be summed in these nice slides:





High Speed+Altitude reduces the effective envelope of SAM's, frustrates fighter interception and VASTLY increases the range of your own weapons. A Super SR-71 with modern ECM, air-to-ground missiles and sensors would be a formidable weapon indeed.

The only irony is that for the reconnaissance overflight mission it's both cheaper and more effective to use a stealth drone.

[Licana]

I don't find the concept bad, but the stress from going MACH 3.2+ is enormous. You'll have to make sure the airframe can handle the heat without the canopy melting and the aircraft burning up. Although most aircraft would have trouble getting in range (MiG-25 and 31s could, if I remember correctly) for an IR guided missile, it's definitely far from impossible (not that you're saying it was), and if an IR guided missile is fired against such an aircraft...well, it's fucked.

My thing would be, why not make a purpose built, stealth UAV to do the same job. It wouldn't be as fast, sure, but it would also be fairly hard to detect.

Like say the RQ-170 Sentinal?

Pretty much...

[Rusikstan]

Use RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 or similar like US used to down that one satellite. OR use an Air-launched missile from a high up plane to launch an ASAT-esque missile.

What about simply putting a satellite in space that acts as its on KE kill device. Point it at the satellite, and have it maneuver into it....I suppose that would be expensive, but ti seems effective.

It works as an idea, but I think the cost would be prohibitive. I've not compared any prices or anything as its been a non-issue until now. We'd have to look it up. Though, I want to say that the 9.5 million ship launched missile would be cheaper than the development of, construction of, and placement of a KE/Killer satellite, but again I'm not really sure.

[Transnapastain]

What about simply putting a satellite in space that acts as its on KE kill device. Point it at the satellite, and have it maneuver into it....I suppose that would be expensive, but ti seems effective.

It works as an idea, but I think the cost would be prohibitive. I've not compared any prices or anything as its been a non-issue until now. We'd have to look it up. Though, I want to say that the 9.5 million ship launched missile would be cheaper than the development of, construction of, and placement of a KE/Killer satellite, but again I'm not really sure.

Well, it might be expensive, but only the best for our enemies!

When you care to send the very best...

[No endorse]

IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?

The aging fighters are actually useful and still solid concepts. The A-12 (and its progeny) isn't in this day and age.

Stealth? No, it wasn't very stealth to begin with. The exhaust stream has a lolzy RCS.

Hard to find on IR? ROFL. There's supposedly a Russian IRST that can see the heat generated at the leading edge of a subsonic aircraft's wings. This thing shows up like a space shuttle.

Able to do low altitude penetration? No, the A-12 and its derivatives were tuned for a very specific operating condition. These aircraft can do their interesting speeds at high altitude, in full view of any radar you please. Note the Israel/Lebanon war; low altitude penetration is the name of the game in hiding from radar.

Electronics? Surprisingly, there's a limited number of things that really work that well at those speeds and under those thermal stresses. Remember, those antennas need to withstand the heat. And even then, what are you going to use? You can't overfly your target, so you're looking at things sideways with your cameras and such. At that point, you're no better than a Sat, in fact you're much worse.

Nothing faster will give any added benefits over Sats, the aircraft itself doesn't make sense, and slower aircraft (U-2) are still of limited use in this day and age. The game has changed, there are different needs. The aircraft is unquestionably the best ever produced for its specific role. However, how many piston engined fighters do you see nowadays?



On a side note, it's worth pointing out that many of our aging aircraft are specifically being replaced.

[The Kievan People]

The proper insulation and sensor windows needed to put advanced sensors and electronics on high speed aircraft has existed for decades. A hypersonic antenna window looks something like this:


The SR-71 had a high RCS, from the rear. Which is also by far the least useful angle for anyone trying to kill it.

[Senestrum]

(Image)

THE POWER

(this would be the Lockheed M5 Penetrator. It's exactly what is says on the tin.)

GOD DAMN YOU

NOW I HAVE TO DO GLORIOUS LINEART OF THAT

FROM ALL ANGLES

WITH SHADING

FFFFFFFFFFFFFF