HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Missile types (was Re: TR-3a)
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:59:40 GMT
	<lg5a4eINNrsf@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

In article <lg5a4eINNrsf@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

   What's a "semi-active" missile?  Does this mean that it's controlled from
   the aircraft that fired it?

Active missiles use active sensors eg. radar, which actively attempts to
illuminate a target with radio signals.  Passive missiles use passive sensors,
which passively listen for signals emitted by a target, eg. IR radiation.

Semi-active missiles are a hybrid, I think they use radar to acquire a 
target and then use IR homing for the terminal phase (or the other way 
round). 
--
Eighteen Plus - THE NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ORGANISATION FOR YOUNG ADULTS
		For your nearest group ring 0531 821210 (UK)
This message the sole responsibility of Neil Youngman
nyo@uk.ac.ex.dcs		nyo@ex-dcs.uucp
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: SR-71 Blackbird
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

BB> .I'm looking for some info on the SR-71 Blackbird. Generally data like
  > .when it was designed, when it was built, it's performance spec's
  > .(speed, altitude, climb-rate, manouverability etc. etc.), how many
  > .were made.....

BB> .I also wan't to know if they have been totally shut down or if they
  > .still fly once in a while. (When did they fly their last mission ?)

NASA still has at least one operational, which is used sporadically on
various research programs.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: AC-130U (was: Two Tidbits)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:16:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <195@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org 
(John A. Weeks III) writes:

>- I had a chance to walk through the new AC-130U gunship.


Are these newly manufactured airframes, or modified AC-130A/Hs?



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:58:23 GMT

  Having just completed a model of the TB-58, I can tell you that it was
the instructor in the 2nd seat that was offset, so they could see over the
shoulder of the student.  The A/C seat was still centered.

--Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------

Elevate those guns a little lower...

                                       Andrew Jackson

   mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>Geoff
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
>geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: OV10A BRONCO
Date: 8 Nov 1992 08:54:42 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Nov6.075452.90518@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger) writes:
>> Derek H Cedillo (cid@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>> : glt@rigel.genrad.com (Geoff L. Templeton) writes:
>> : >I am looking for information on the 0V10A Bronco.  I saw one

The OV-10A was also exported to at least two countries.
Both Thailand and South Korea recieved the COIN versions of this
plane. I can't tell you how many were exported, cause I don't
have the books with me, right now.

Ken



-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You know your having a bad day when the fifth
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    inning rolls around and they drag the warning
 Major: Political Science  track." -Mike Flanagan, pitcher Baltimore Orioles
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:04:55 GMT

In article <prm.721574033@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu> prm@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu (Philip R. Moyer) writes:
>pug@cs.curtin.edu.au (Greg Barron) writes:
>>I always thought the 25 was designed to shoot down the B-70
>>Valkyrie {sp}. It was supposed to be an intercpetor. I see your
>>point now, The SR was also designed to be an interceptor. 
>
>This is not accurate.  The Blackbird lineage follows these lines:
>
>		A-11		(design, never built)
>		 |
>		A-12		CIA project OXCART, recon only
>		 /\
>	        /  \
>	       /  YF-12		USAF spinoff project from OXCART, interceptor
>	      /
>	   SR-71		USAF spinoff project from OXCART, recon only
>
>The above paragraph implies the SR was in the line between A-12 and YF-12.
>
>Cheers,
>Phil

	The name SR-71 was a miss spoken name for the plane by President
	Johnson. It was supposed to be RS-71 for Recon Strike. It was realy
	the B-71. It carried a wepons pod much like the B-58. This was
	probibly a large contributor to the cancelation of the B-70 (once
	refered to as the RS-70). After the president miss spoke the
	Air Force decided to keep it secret that the aircraft was
	at least in part a bomber.
	Cheers
	Earl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: buffalo@wam.umd.edu (Duncan D. Sterling)
Subject: Re: B-58 Hustler
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:31:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.191757.23087@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> madine@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.) writes:
>
>Just out of curiosity.  Do any readers know how
>the B-58 weapon(s?)/fuel pod worked?  The reason I ask is
>that close inspection of the B-58 at Pima shows the
>pod to be kind of strange.  It looks like a reasonably
>large underbelly pod nested inside a ridiculoulsly large pod.
>
>The larger pod is so big, I couldn't see how the nose gear
>retracted.  The front point of the large pod underhung the
>wheel well.
>
>I thought the larger pod was some sort of
>non-flying dummy.  But I have since seen pictures of other
>B-58s with the ridiculoulsly large pod and B-58s with the
>reasonably large pod.
>
>Gary E. Madine, Allentown, PA
>gem@aloft.att.com
>
 An old Air Force buddy of mine (who's since retired) used to work on these
things.  He says the main complaint among the maintenance guys was the
fact that: 1) the electronics were pretty complicated compared to other
machines of the time, and 2) to do anything with the underbelly pod, the
plane had to be tilted back on its tail.  As for the big pod/small pod, it
was probabably some kind of mid life redesign (typical Air Force).  I'm no
weapons expert, but considering the size of a typical small nuke, and the
fact that underwing tanks are little more than hollow shells to hold JP4,
a pod holding both fuel and a nuke shouldn't be too complicated; use up
the fuel on your way to the target, and dump the pod containg both the
weapon and the empty tank when you get there.

Regards,
 


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Sterling          buffalo@wam.umd.edu   GT750L, KH500A8, CA175K3
University of Maryland    "Yeeehaaa!" - Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove"   
College Park, Md.         "2 strokes are quicker than 4" - anonymous
From: s925609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (KSC - Firefox)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Vulnerability of B-70
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:12:27 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.055911.13886@usl.edu>, cs386122@ucs.usl.edu (Mejia Pablo J.) writes:

>> Boy, did Northrop get screwed on that one.  No wonder they are using
>> the B-1 as economic revenge against DoD      :)


>Correction:  The B-2 is built by Northrop.  The B-1B is built by Rockwell (main contractors).

>And if it is economic revenge, it is truly an epic one.  (A billion dollars a plane?)

There's nothing like doing revenge on a grand scale and on serving it as a
cold dish.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:56:08 GMT


viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson) writes:

 >> Then there are the still-classified reconnaissance aircraft such
 >> as the Northrop TR-3A Black Manta, and various "Aurora" vehicles.
 >What's the TR-3A and what do you mean by 'various' Aurora vehicles?

Check the June 10, 1991 AW&ST for the basic TR-3A "primer".
This issue contains two articles, with just about everything 
known to date on the TR-3A.

Also, there are at least two types of "Aurora" vehicles currently thought 
to be flying.  One is the "Pulser" that has been discussed for quite some 
time, and the other is the more recently observed "Concorde-sized" aircraft.
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:13:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <194@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org 
(John A. Weeks III) writes:

>The Streak Eagle itself sits in front of the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio,
>flanked by a B-1A and a Warthog (not bad company, but it would be nice 
>if they had room inside for this historic aircraft).


Given their cost and the presumed need for them in squadron service, it
surprises me that so many examples of current frontline aircraft are in
museums.  The B-1A is a test article, of course, and was probably not easily
modifiable to the operational B-1B configuration.  But the A-10 mentioned
above is an example of an airframe that I'd have thought would be needed
out in the field, as is the USAF Museum's F-117A.  Sounds like a waste
of assets to put such aircraft on display while the types they represent
are still in active service.

Until I read this, I'd always assumed that the Streak Eagle was returned 
to a standard configuration and passed along anonymously to a squadron
as just another F-15.  After all, I take it that this wasn't an extra 
airframe built for the sole purpose of breaking performance records, but 
an airplane diverted from the regular production run.


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: OV10A BRONCO
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:45:21 GMT

The OV-10 commonly operated as a FAC in South VN with only one crew member. 
Seemed the crews felt it worked better that way once they had experience.  The
strangest thing about the OV-10 was the cargo compartment in the rear designed to
carry a fire team of paratroops.  Check out "A Lonely Kind of War" written by an
OV-10 FAC pilot who operated in SVN as well as Laos/Cambodia.  You'll be sick of
OV-10s by the time your done...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:12:39 GMT


nelsonis@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Ian S. Nelson) writes:

 >>Sure, sats can be changed but they are still limited.
 >last I heard, geostationary satalites were pretty popular for spying.

Actually, that is not quite the case... There ARE "spysats" in GEO orbit,
but they are not of the variety typically associated with the SR-71.
Photo and imaging radar reconnaissance satellites are in a much lower
POLAR orbit, which regularly take them directly over every region on 
Earth (within the limits of their orbital inclination).  The satellites
used for spying in GEO orbit are of the SIGINT/ELINT and DSP missile
early warning variety.  GEO is the perfect place to deploy very large
antenna arrays to "ferret" out all sorts of interesting signals, and
also for watching large blocks of territory for missile launches or
nuclear detonations...

 >Anymore satalite technology is so advanced, that you can have a gs sat 
 >up there that can easily see drills that troops do on an army base.

Not from a GEO orbit.  KH-11 satellites are placed into polar orbits
generally in the 300 - 1000 km altitude range, and Lacrosse radar imaging
satellites have been at about 700 km.  That is a very long way from the 
22,500 km altitude of geostationary orbit.

 >I have heard, but don't know how much to believe, that some of them 
 >can even read a license plate!  

Estimates of KH-11 resolution has been in the 6-inch or better range.
Not quite license plates or newspaper headlines, but then who needs
to read a newspaper that way?  :-)

 >I have always been a little intrigued with the SR-71 and its various cousins.
 >The aircraft is made of a design that is over 30 years old.  No matter how 
 >you look at that, it is an old plane.  As well, with stealth technology, 
 >why do you need to go fast?  

For one thing, the SR-71 *was* a "stealth" plane for the most part.

 >Take your time and take as many pictures as you like.

If I was going to be penetrating foreign airspace on a recce mission,
there is *NO* other (known) aircraft that I would want to be in more 
than the Blackbird.  It takes you through such a region high and FAST.
These days most airborne recce is done by "border skirting", but the
advantage was still there...

 >Also, we don't really have a need to spy on any big countries anymore 
Phew... well, I don't touch that one.  :->

 >(but I'd bet anything that we still do a lot of spying)
Fortunately.

 >I'm sure that a lot of the aircraft we have are almost as fast as the 
 >sr-71, it just might not be public info (the government "gives" a lot 
 >of information on f-16s and f-18s and such, but these are still used in 
 >battle and I'm sure there are still secrets on them)

Well... if the F-16 and F-18 are capable of Mach 3 flight, then it is 
so big a secret that not even the people who built them (or the pilots) 
know about it!  :-)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:14:00 GMT

In article <1drv7uINNd4h@aludra.usc.edu>, augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Nov11.160806.27240@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
|> 
|> >The FAA has a list of "certifiable" warbirds.  It's one of those strange
|> >things that are "carved in stone."  If your aircraft isn't on it, you
|> >won't fly it.  Period, end of statement.
|> 
|> Maybe not as a certified type, but can't you still register it in the
|> "limited" or the "experimental" category and fly it that way?  Granted,
|> there are limitations on how you can then fly it ...

I'm working COMPLETELY from faulty memory, but the answer is going to be
"no."

When we rebuilt our B-25, we had to initially put it into Experimental
category for FAA required flight tests.  Following successful completion
of those tests, we applied for, and received, a Limited certificate. 

Before we could even get the Experimental category, we had to "restore"
the designation of the aircraft to it's original.  However, I believe that
was not for the Experimental needs, but rather the Limited.  While I'm
not sure about Experimental, I'm quite sure on all others.

By the way, there are practically no warbirds flying with anything better
than a Limited certificate.

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@stat.umn.edu                                     University of Minnesota
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: colangel@rebecca.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: B-58 in restoration in Galveston, TX?
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:38:37 GMT

With regard to that B-58 in Galveston, it has it's wings on but has the fin and rudder
 removed.  The plane is located at Scholes Field in Galveston, Texas (south of Houston) 
and is in back of the Lone Star Flight Museum (cool place, you should check it out - 
lotsa neat warbirds ... and they fly most of them, too).  I will be flying out there this 
weekend if the weather permits and will make a note of the serial number.

Overall, the plane appears to be in good condition.  It still has it's SAC markings.  There 
is a TX ANG F-100 (San Antonio? ...let's not start another one...) that has it's wings removed.
Maybe that's what your friend was thinking of.  It is parked not too far from the B-58.  
The F-100 needs some work, but I think it's the sexiest plane ever built - I sport a woody
every time I see one!

Later,
      Mike
From: nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Spitfires
Date: 10 Nov 92 09:05:08 GMT
	<1992Nov6.211258.7498@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <BxG2rD.4x3@cen.ex.ac.uk>
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

In article <BxG2rD.4x3@cen.ex.ac.uk> nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman) writes:

   In article <1992Nov6.211258.7498@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

      One I recall which was real interesting was "Song of a Merlin", sorry
      don't remember the author.  Jeffrey Quill by the way was the
      Supermarine chief test pilot and got to fly every single variation. 

   I think this is probably "Sigh For A Merlin". Sorry I can't remember
   the author's name either.

"Sigh for a Merlin" was by Alex Henshaw. I believe he was chief test pilot for
Supermarine's Castle Bromwich factory.

Neil Youngman
--
Eighteen Plus - THE NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ORGANISATION FOR YOUNG ADULTS
		For your nearest group ring 0531 821210 (UK)
This message the sole responsibility of Neil Youngman
nyo@uk.ac.ex.dcs		nyo@ex-dcs.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: nelsonis@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Ian S. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:47:09 GMT

cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:



>I was wondering about putting the SR-71 on the shelf.
>Seems to me it is one of the most fantastic aircraft of
>all time.  I realize it may be a bit obsolete with
>sattelite recon, but sat's are limited by the ability
>to come around orbit every so often.  So even though
>the sats can do the same job, they seem much more
>limited.  For instance, the "spyee" may know when 
>the sats come by, so they can alter things or 
>whatever for the recon photos.  Sure, sats can be changed
>but they are still limited.

Well, last I heard, geostationary satalites were pretty popular for spying.
Anymore satalite technology is so advanced, that you can have a gs sat up there
that can easily see drills that troops do on an army base.  I have heard, but
don't know how much to believe, that some of them can even read a license 
plate!  

>Shouldn't the SR-71 be kept for these reasons?
>Is it much to expensive?  I find it hard to accept it being
>out of date, its still a hell of a soph aircraft for
>its age.  Can any one shed some light on this?
>Maybe I'm just naive, or not well enough informed.
>Thanks in advance.

I have always been a little intrigued with the SR-71 and its various cousins.
I have been especially interested in how it goes over mach 3 and many other
planes today, relativly new stuff even, doesn't get close to it.  When they
decided to retire it, I didn't for a second think it was a bad thing.  The 
aircraft is made of a design that is over 30 years old.  No matter how you look
at that, it is an old plane.  As well, with stealth technology, why do you need
to go fast?  Take your time and take as many pictures as you like.  Also, we 
don't really have a need to spy on any big countries anymore (but I'd bet 
anything that we still do a lot of spying)  I'm sure that a lot of the aircraft
we have are almost as fast as the sr-71, it just might not be public info 
(the government "gives" a lot of information on f-16s and f-18s and such, but
these are still used in battle and I'm sure there are still secrets on them)
As well, with the current levels of technology, I think it would be easy to
build a plane that is faster and more manuverable if we need it.
-- 
Ian S. Nelson			I speak for only my self, not my school.
Finger for a PGP public key.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 13:53:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.140503.2784@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:

(deleted)

|> 
|> The 9th SRW still has the TR-1/U-2R operating to supplement satellite
|> coverage.  Then there are the still-classified reconnaissance aircraft
|> such as the Northrop TR-3A Black Manta, and various "Aurora" vehicles.
|> 
|> -dean
|> 

What's the TR-3A and what do you mean by 'various' Aurora vehicles?
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:05:03 GMT


cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
 >I was wondering about putting the SR-71 on the shelf.
 >Seems to me it is one of the most fantastic aircraft of all time.

Absolutely!

 >I realize it may be a bit obsolete with sattelite recon,

Even though the design is nearly 30 years old, it was really more 
*expensive* than "obsolete".  Congress and the Air Force decided
they could save a lot of money by grounding the Blackbird.  

 >but sat's are limited by the ability to come around orbit every so often.

That factor is lessened somewhat by having multible KH-11s and 
Advanced KH-11s operating in staggered orbits...

 >So even though the sats can do the same job, they seem much more limited.
 >For instance, the "spyee" may know when the sats come by, so they can 
 >alter things or whatever for the recon photos.  Sure, sats can be changed
 >but they are still limited.
 >Shouldn't the SR-71 be kept for these reasons?

The 9th SRW still has the TR-1/U-2R operating to supplement satellite
coverage.  Then there are the still-classified reconnaissance aircraft
such as the Northrop TR-3A Black Manta, and various "Aurora" vehicles.

-dean

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: Two Tidbits
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:33:26 GMT

Gee, presurrization (sp?) of a gunship sounds like a really bad idea.  You have to
expect them to get shot up -- what happens then?
			(Hideous sucking sound)