posted on May, 3 2004 @ 07:26 PM
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?