It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SR-71 Facts

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Hi everyone. I have two videos I bought from the History Channel. One is about Area 51 and the other is strictly about the SR-71. The video about Area 51 says the Blackbird was built and tested at Groomlake. The other video about the SR-71 makes no mention of Groomlake. Instead it says the Blackbird was built at Lockheed Skunkworks and tested in California. What are the facts of the Blackbird? I know Area 51 exists and aircraft are and were being tested there. Aircraft like the U2, A-12 and I thought the SR-71.




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
It was tested at Groom Lake for sure, no speculation there. If you get a chance, read the book Skunkworks by Ben Rich. It'll tell you all about the SR-71 and the testing programs of many other aircraft at Groom.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by JP_8]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I actually did A report on Lockheed. Both the SR-71 Blackbird and the F117-A Nighthawk were built at the Lockheed Skunkworks, ALTHOUGH. Both were tested at Groom lake, in the report lights seen close to the groom lake are was the Blackbird. Interesting enough it is now being painted to resemble F-19s. Also what is interesting is that the SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of operation, it cost 200 to 300 Hundred Million dollars a year. Although that is not the reason. Reason? The Aurora.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

as posted by mrmulder
What are the facts of the Blackbird?


Perhaps this topic from 6/28/05 might be of some assistance?
The SR-71 and US Spyplanes

IMHO, not understanding why you did not just post what you have for a topic in that thread.

Then there is always the ATS archives on the SR-71, A-12, and the U-2:
SR-71

A-12

U-2







seekerof

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AeroQuake
I actually did A report on Lockheed. Both the SR-71 Blackbird and the F117-A Nighthawk were built at the Lockheed Skunkworks, ALTHOUGH. Both were tested at Groom lake, in the report lights seen close to the groom lake are was the Blackbird. Interesting enough it is now being painted to resemble F-19s. Also what is interesting is that the SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of operation, it cost 200 to 300 Hundred Million dollars a year. Although that is not the reason. Reason? The Aurora.


I don't know if Aurora is the reason but I do think that advanced air defense missiles and radar nets put the SR-71 flights in jeopardy. I read that we hadn't had a significant overflight of a foriegn power in that aircraft since the strikes on Libya in the early 80's. Even though we still use the U-2 we don't send it over areas where it is at risk of a shootdown, Saddam gave the U.N. permission to allow the US to fly one over pre-invasion to verify that his chem/bio weapons claims were true. The US would not have risked a manned mission in any non-stealth aircraft, even SR-71, without being pretty damned sure the aircraft was at no risk. A downed American spyplane pilot would put alot of pressure on the US.

I hope Aurora was the reason the SR-71 was taken out of service. The tech that has been claimed to be in Aurora sounds awesome. But right now there just isn't any way to verify it even exists. The only evidence is one line in a congressional budget, some eyewitness accounts of a triangle aircraft, and a large hanger built at Groom Lake in the 1990's (which could be for nearly anything).



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Well, the "Blackbird" was made (tested) in Area 51...



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The A-12, YF-12A's and the M12/D-21 combination were all flown from Groom Lake.

The SR-71's were flown/ tested at Palmdale.

Checkout the Roadrunners Internationale web site for info on the first three Blackbird programmes. This web site is by the people who were there at Groom Lake.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Actually, the ONLY reason that the SR-71 was retired was because Congress was convinced that it was too expensive to operate, and sattelites could do the mission better. There was an agreement reached with most countries to not do overflights after Gary Powers was shot down, because of how close we came to war several times. There were several planes shot down by the Soviets, and China that didn't come out until a few years ago. Unless there was an attack, in the case of Libya and they needed a post strike assesment they had other ways to get the information they needed. The new cameras on the U-2 and that could be put into the SR could see several hundred miles "sideways" from the altitude that they flew at.

As far as SAMs go, by the time they knew for sure where the SR was going, and could fire a missile up at it, it was way too late. Don't believe the Mach 3.2 top speed that is the official speed. It was a LOT faster. Most radar guided SAM systems, have to have an initial track provided by the radar of the site before the missile can be fired, otherwise it goes straight up and won't track. By the time they had the SR on the radar screen, there was no way that the missile could get even remotely close to the thing.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as SAMs go, by the time they knew for sure where the SR was going, and could fire a missile up at it, it was way too late. Don't believe the Mach 3.2 top speed that is the official speed.


Mach 3.35. Several people have done the math and the Titianium structure/fuel heat sink could not have handled much more. There is serveal reports of on A-12 hitting Mach 3.4 or 3.5 due to an air speed indicator problem. When it landed most of its wiring was nice and crispy and almost caused an accident. The plane in theory could fly faster, but was limited by heat. ALso, if you cranked it up much faster, your fuel consumption would also go up and that would limit its range.

There is a possibility that an SR-71 was hit by a piece of schrapnel during a Habu mission (S/A-2) but thats as close as it got. And they knew the plane was coming but still could not down one.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Oh yeah, everybody anywhere NEAR where the blackbird was flying knew they were coming. Between the sonic booms, and the radar return it was pretty obvious they were coming. That's the only one that I have heard of even possibly taking damage by a SAM, and there were many opportunities. It was a sad sad day when they shut that program down.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Very SAD day indeed , Beutiful palne, But then again I bias



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Kelly Johnson was a freaking GENIUS. We'll never see another airplane like the Blackbird. He is probably the only person I've ever heard of to go from first design to production in 18 months (U-2A).



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Ran across one hellva' nice and indepth site(s) on the SR-71....most excellent:
Dedicated to the SR-71




seekerof



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Some beautiful pics on that page. I love this one of an unstart. could be bad news, but common in this bird.

www.habus.org...



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Another SR-71 Blackbird site this time by Leland Haynes , ex 9th SRW Crew Chief

[url=http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/sr-71~1.htm]

If it isnt here it is not worth knowing.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
NASA SR-71 tests

Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload


search.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I have several contemporary ('60's and '70's) sources which refer to the variants of Blackbird as being the A-11, YF-12 and SR-71.

However several modern day sources have changed the A-11 to the A-12. Why would this be? Has someone lately made an error that just keeps getting repeated or is there another reason? The 'error' explanation makes sense to me as there was also the A-12 Avenger II which was obviously a different aircraft altogether.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The designs went through from A-1 to A-12

The A-11 was the near defintive configuration. Single vertical tail, ventral engines under the wings, and no chines.

The A-12 was the twelth design. twin tails. pointed wing tips. Very much the final design. Some minor changes made . Tails outward canted




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Speaking of errors, did you know that it was supposed to be the RS-71, not the SR? It was supposed to be "Reconnaissance, Strategic" IIRC, but when the President announced that it existed in a speech, he called it the SR-71 instead. Since they didn't want to contradict the President, they changed it to Strategic Reconnaissance instead.

Another thing, I heard and read from Brian Shul, the estimated top speed was wrong too. When they went over Libya in 86 he said they were going a LOT faster than any SR ever had before, or that they thought it could go. He gives the speed in the books, but I don't have a copy of them to look in. IIRC it was 4 or just over 4 when they crossed over Tripoli.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
The RS stood for Recnn/Strike.

In Brian's book THE UNTOUCHABLES he quotes entering Libian airspace at 3.24 , increasing to 3.31, 3.45 , 3.5 and to a speed not seen before which had not been seen by them and it was falt out scary.

Other numbers quoted

ANS true airspeed of above 1900 knots and the Mach number going somewhere passed 3.5 also Crusing home at 2100mph.

Know a SR-71 pilot who when I sked him what height he took one to, he said 89.800. Would love to see his flight log book.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join