by HABU » Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:18 pm
"After all it doesn't matter what the platform is - a photo of the target from 80,000 feet is the same. "
Not entirely true. If you needed to overfly a technologically advanced country, the SR71 was a more survivable platform. Even though times have changed bear in mind that Gary Powers was shot down around 40 years ago, and the low tech countries of the time have bought newer technology since then. One of the only reasons the U2 isn't shot down these days overflying war zones is that the US has control of the skies.
In contrast, the U2 is and has been continually updated over the years often in areas where the SR lacked spending (Digital realtime datalink comes to mind), and therefore became more cost effective to the top brass, rendering the SR pretty obsolete.
At the end it was more of a vendetta by certain Pentagon officials who looked to satellites as the future of aerial recon. The cost of maintaining the SR was high, but what price for peace? It has been said that the true contribution to global peace during the cold war cannot be underestimated for both these platforms.
Personally I like the idea of bringing old aircraft up to date.
Shame the SR was retired 14 years ago. (or is it 7 years ago...?!!)
