Forgive me for sounding... rash... but why all the concern about supersonic spy aircraft? Yes, they are impressive to look at, but for plain military need, why have them at all?

Looking back at the history of spy aircraft, the U-2 and SR-71 were cancelled because satilite technology was considered more cost effective, safer to the pilots... with todays standard on satilite imagery, doesn't it surpass anything that could be housed in an aircraft?

Granted, a supersonic craft can rapidly reach and over-shoot troublesome hotspots, taking lord knows how many photographs... but how does this differ from a satelite in syncronized orbit? A satelite can provide steady, up to the minute photographic updates... as long as weather permits.

Which then allows for these high tech speed toys... but then again, couldn't a drone be used just as effectively?

We produce planes that can reach the highest limits of the atmosphere to avoid a majority of enemy aircraft... we design supersonic planes to avoid SAMs and related anti aircraft technology... the SR-71 held this role for how many decades... yet it became vulnerable to Russian aircraft specifically designed to take it out.

Anything we can build, someone will eventually build something to stop it... so we push harder to design something to over come that, and so on...

So with all that in mind, why do we still have the need to build a supersonic spy aircraft?

as much as ud like to love sattelites there not always there when u need them. if u held 1 static over russia it would not last long. i think the 2 sides usa and ussr only agreed to satelite spying cos they knew that they wouldnt be overhead for very long. going back to the spy jets if u need somthing and you need it fast u gotta have somthing to send out there even if u got a sat

i think weather conditions pervent satetlites from takign a clear picture, and also by making these places, the U.S could show millitary supieroirity

To stationary satilites not being able to sustain its orbit (as I think masmartinez was trying to say)... aren't weather or communication systems in a syncro orbit?

And in response to 'supremacy'... doesn't our F-22 already do just that?

-Satellites must revolve around the Earth and thus are not always where you want them. Spyplanes can go exactly where you want them exactly when you want them there. They also have better resolution and can fly beneath clouds.
-Military superiority and air superiority are two different things. The latter just means we control the skies in a certain area and enemy planes have a difficult time getting through. The former means we have a better military than someone else.

sattelites can remain where u want them (e.g look at sky tv and stuff) but if u want to take pics of anywhere in the world uve gotta have them already in place over that country, so u could move a sat that u got near to get it to where u want it with a fair bit of effort. or just send a jet and have ur info within hours.

so it pissin about in space or go straight to area wid jet.i know what i would choose

Yes, but you need to have them in a location so precise that it perfectly balances the Earth and Moon's gravitational pull, and completely stop 2D movement.

Plus the rumurs were that the Aurora could reach mach 7+, where as the SR-71 could only go mach 3

I can see what everyone is saying... I'm just 'budget conscious', and trying to justify things in my head...

The only reason I could see in having such a quick plane would be for transport.

or to get into space.

a plane is closer to the ground, takes color pictures, can stay over the target longer, has higher details (closer to ground) and provides information directly to units in the area. Hypersonic planes out run sams, fighters, and can fly halfway around the world to any destination