Re: Aurora Spy Plane


Message posted by RoadKill on January 16, 2012 at 20:03:13 PST:

Wow. The two most recent major issues discussed in this chain are not trivial nor easy.
First, assailing folks for not giving up "evidence" seems "out of line" to me. Folks do what they're comfortable with...if you haven't walked in their shoes, it's hard to criticize them. Heck yes! We all want photos and video and all the specifications of the latest and greatest, but some people (including some who are very active on this site) have a belief that they should not jeopardize national security with "leaking" sensitive data. It's an individual choice, and is very subjective - each person has their own yardstick. I know things that I don't share, but most of that is from work I've done and access that was granted, and the requisite oath of secrecy. Now, if I see something on the ranges, or find data on the internet - I'm not so shy sharing. So, I think it's inappropriate to chastise those who say they have stuff but won't share it. Frustrating? Yep...we'd all like to have the info, but we have to respect others and their sensibilities. It's akin to any emotional topic - religion, politics, whatever. Would we be better off if those who don't share their data just kept their mouths shut? Hard to say until we solve the riddle. Maybe it's all a hoax. Time will tell.

Second, assuming we have something to "bridge the gap" in any arena is naïve. Let's look first at the F-117a. Do we really have another system to bridge the gap left by that airframe? The 117 played a crucial role in many conflicts and engagements, especially in the first phases when early warning and search radars were in play. We have not had another "stealth" penetrator since then. The F-22 certainly didn't play that role. We reverted back to pre-stealth tactics using jammers and HARM missiles and the like. Sure, the B-2 has done some penetrator type work, but it's not nearly the same kind of platform. Some said the F22 wasn't used in Libya because of the high unit cost. Baloney. Effective combat use is the best advocate for continuing a platform. Witness the B-2 being used in the initial strikes on Iraq. Talk about high unit cost! Back to the SR71. We also tried to phase out the U2...but somehow it's still flying missions. I think the SR71 went the way of the F117 for similar reasons - mainly high cost of operation and maintenance. We decided that we'd be able to do the mission for less cost with acceptable results without needing to use those airframes. Whether it is shifting missions to another airframe that wasn't designed for that role, or using new platforms that have better capability, but less flexibility, or whatever. There had to be an alternative or the things would still be flying. It's inconceivable that the United States would terminate a program without having some other way of doing that program's mission. Although these days, in times of economic turmoil, anything is possible. Witness the end of manned space flight from a US platform.

Lastly, hypersonic flight is still in infancy. The waverider had several seconds of controlled flight, and that was a success? We're certainly closer to having unmanned hypersonic vehicles, but manned flight may never happen.

Just my two cents.
RoadKill


In Reply to: Re: Aurora Spy Plane posted by greatguess on January 16, 2012 at 11:56:09 PST:

Replies:



[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]