wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is really
a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
capable of extra-atmosphere flight.

It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due to
the expense.

I guess the satellite guys won again.

Planes provide more timely information and you don't have to recalculate
the life of the plane's fuel load like you do with a satellite every
time it is moved.

Humint is much better than Elint.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is really
a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
capable of extra-atmosphere flight.

It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due
to the expense.


Man, that has got to be a ride and a half.



What, a contract actually cancelled because of expense? Is that allowed?

What galls me as a taxpayer is that the government is willing, no,
eager, to spends hundreds of billions of dollars and unlimited amounts
of manpower on military hardware, but is unwilling to pursue diplomacy
until there is absolutely no hope of diplomacy working.

"Jaw, jar is better than war, war," a quote attributed to Churchill, has
more meaning today than ever.


You seem to constantly forget that a strong military helps tremendously
with the talking part of diplomacy.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:05:19 -0000, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is really
a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
capable of extra-atmosphere flight.

It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due to
the expense.

That's what they want you to think. :)

There is some interesting speculation about "Aurora" in that it may
not be the classic high speed fighter style airplane, but a hybrid
zepplin with some very ineresting capabilities.

I have a hard time believing that they would dump the whole spy plane
concept due to cost. Satellites are nice, but even the most clued in
speculators admit that spy satellites are limited in time and space.
Real time data is paramount in times of crisis and that means spy
planes.

--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things,
to win glorious triumphs even though
checkered by failure, than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor
suffer much because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor
defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the job?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:54:24 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:05:19 -0000, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is really
a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
capable of extra-atmosphere flight.

It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due to
the expense.

That's what they want you to think. :)

There is some interesting speculation about "Aurora" in that it may
not be the classic high speed fighter style airplane, but a hybrid
zepplin with some very ineresting capabilities.

I have a hard time believing that they would dump the whole spy plane
concept due to cost. Satellites are nice, but even the most clued in
speculators admit that spy satellites are limited in time and space.
Real time data is paramount in times of crisis and that means spy
planes.

What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the job?

Believe it or not, you have to move them. Everytime you move them, you
have to recalculate the orbits and the remaining fuel load. You just
can't move one from covering, say Moscow to St. Pertersburg without a
whole bunch of work.

And the constellation isn't that large - those spy sats are huge, cost
a ton of money and not easy to deal with. Spy planes are better
deployable assets.

Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more
efficient and practical.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:54:24 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:05:19 -0000, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:47:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


There has been some speculation that the oft rumored "Aurora" is
really
a revamped, updated SR-71 design with a hybrid jet/scram jet engine
capable of extra-atmosphere flight.

It's also been rumored that the Aurora was canceled in the '90s, due to
the expense.

That's what they want you to think. :)

There is some interesting speculation about "Aurora" in that it may
not be the classic high speed fighter style airplane, but a hybrid
zepplin with some very ineresting capabilities.

I have a hard time believing that they would dump the whole spy plane
concept due to cost. Satellites are nice, but even the most clued in
speculators admit that spy satellites are limited in time and space.
Real time data is paramount in times of crisis and that means spy
planes.

What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the
job?

Believe it or not, you have to move them. Everytime you move them, you
have to recalculate the orbits and the remaining fuel load. You just
can't move one from covering, say Moscow to St. Pertersburg without a
whole bunch of work.

And the constellation isn't that large - those spy sats are huge, cost
a ton of money and not easy to deal with. Spy planes are better
deployable assets.

Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more
efficient and practical.

I know, you're just lobbying for a job. You could take your Hasselblad up
there. 8-)

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:00:02 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more efficient
and practical.

And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:07 -0000, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:00:02 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



Secondly, humint is much more reliable than elint in this instance.
Putting a crew in a cockpit and having them effectively scout, or make
decision based on what they see or even what happens, is more efficient
and practical.

And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.

Safer? Certainly because it's not manned if that's what you mean by
"safer". Cheaper - perhaps.

Effective? Not really. Low speed, low altitude unmanned aircraft are
spottable and effective counter measures against them are effective -
if you notice they are there. In Iraq, you are dealing with a what
are essentially low-tech guerrillas - and fairly stupid if you watch
some of the war porn movies on YouTube. You aren't going to use one
of those beasties over flying a missile base in Moscow.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:28:18 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


And using low altitude stealthy drones is safer, and cheaper. In Iraq
and Afghanistan, drones seem to be carrying the bulk of aerial intell.

Safer? Certainly because it's not manned if that's what you mean by
"safer". Cheaper - perhaps.

Effective? Not really. Low speed, low altitude unmanned aircraft are
spottable and effective counter measures against them are effective - if
you notice they are there. In Iraq, you are dealing with a what are
essentially low-tech guerrillas - and fairly stupid if you watch some of
the war porn movies on YouTube. You aren't going to use one of those
beasties over flying a missile base in Moscow.

Yeah, but ... you are talking about the drones we know of, the Predator
and the Global Hawk. Just speculating here, but if you were tasked with
aerial spying, would you go for an Aurora type, or a *stealthy drone*, a
F-117 type, if you will. Me, I'm thinking stealthy.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...



What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the
job?


Geosynchronous satellites are in orbits at altitudes of over 22,000 miles.
Even the best of optics will take more detailed pictures at 100,000 feet or
less.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

What about geosynchronous satellites. or aren't todays optics up to the
job?


Geosynchronous satellites are in orbits at altitudes of over 22,000 miles.
Even the best of optics will take more detailed pictures at 100,000 feet or
less.

22,300 miles to be exact. Comsat, before it was bought by Lockheed
Martin, was located at 22300 Satellite Drive.