and even better, sometimes we do. ;) besides, nobody likes to admit, esp. tinpot dictators, that they CAN'T do anything about it.

Pop quiz: does anyone know (besides me, of course) why it's SR-72? You know there was an SR-71, but was there an SR-70? How about SR-1?

HOW THE SR-71 CAME TO BE
USAF Col. (ret.) Richard Graham might want to check the White House telephone and visitor logs (AW&ST Feb. 12, p. 25).
I was part of a USAF System Command task force in 1962-63 that prepared a report on the configuration of the RS-70 weapons suite. At that stage, it was to be an untasked penetration bomber that could perform its own reconnaissance and then strike at targets of opportunity.
The final report was assembled and briefed to a large group of officers, includ- ing Gen. Curtis LeMay. During the briefing, LeMay became more and more uncomfortable hearing his new toy called the RS-70. Before the day was out, he ordered that all copies of the report and working papers be collected and forwarded to his office. The intent was to quash the report and close out the name RS-70 in favor of his more aggressive preference, SR-70.
The scuttlebutt was that LeMay went to great lengths to be sure the designation never again saw the light of day. When President Johnson's speech writers prepared their material surfacing the RS-71, they apparently spoke with System Command. Reportedly, when LeMay saw this version, he lobbied Johnson to get the "delivery text" changed. What LeMay did not know was that several of us had shipped the classified report to our home stations. I had a copy with the RS-70 cover until I left the civil service some years later. James T. Fulton
Newport Beach, Calif.

that really wasn't an answer, but it was kinda cool.

No the spy planes never died in the presence of satellites. They got even more important. The satellite's orbit is predictable and things on the ground can be moved when a satellite is know to be overhead. A spy plane can take off and hover over any area for a much longer period of time

The new SR72 can fly at 100,000ft altitude and at 4000 mph. Don't have to be very stealty at that altitude and speed. And it's said to be capable of taking care of the Chinese antsatellite weapons. Humm. So any satellite that can detect this bird may be a target of this bird, not the other way around.

You can bet that if this plane is being talked about in the open now that's it's been around and operational for a long time now. You don't retire a SR71 that is successful without having a replacement ready to go.

Yes it was.:sunny:

The 'RS' and 'SR' designations are an extension of the old bomber designators. 'RS-70' was the XB-70 Valkerie when tested as a photo plane. So I guess the SR-72 should properly be an extension of the new designator system, and should probably be the SR-3.

Of course I still haven't found out exactly where F-117 came from.

Most likly has something to do with the F(B)-111. Since both were ground attack jets given a 'F' letter to stroke the egos of their pilots who didn't want people to think they were really flying bombers. :doh:

The problem is the old designator ended in 1962, and it ended with that very F-111. There's nothing in between 111 and 117, and given the date it should actually have one of the newer designators, which at this time are somewhere between 35 and 45, depending on what contracts congress has awarded so far.

I hate it when they cheat.

And what ever happened to F-19? It got skipped.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. F-112 through F-116 were used to designate Soviet planes used for evaluation after they were received from Egypt following the signing of the Camp David Accords. F-117 was the next number in the sequence and was used to hide the true nature of the aircraft.

As far as the designator F-19 goes, it was skipped, as Northrop requested that the F-5E successor, the F-20, be given the number 20 to represent a "new generation" of fighter planes.

I think the F designation was just a misdirection attempt.
it is after all a shortlegged bomber with a fairly limited payload.
M

That's interesting. I have a couple of books on the development of fighters and they never mention that. Can you show me which planes got which numbers?

I completely agree. Even a bomber designator would have been too much. I would have used an A-for-attack designator. But then, I'm not very sneaky - I like my numbers all lined up nice and neat.

Most of the reports are fairly unspecific...here's one site:

http://www.designation-systems.net/u...ignations.html

Fascinating! Thanks for that. I've read books which suggest call signs ("project 117") and such. It looks like he's done plenty of research, so, even though he himself admits it's mostly rumor, it's still a better start than any I've seen.

[quote=moose1am]
You don't retire a SR71 that is successful without having a replacement ready to go.[/quote=moose1am]

Actually they've hauled one out of retirement a few times.

After Desert Storm there was a renewed debate on the progress of R&D regarding potential SR-71 replacements, because apparently most of the contracts to date failed to meet certain specifications....mostly budget specifications.

So there were a handful of contracts issued yet again, to the same companies, in the 1990's for potential SR-71 replacements, only one was completed before the Clinton Administration and it was Lockheed's, susposedly it had more or less the same airframe, but then again the signature SR-71 airframe was kicked around since 1960 in one way or another.

Anyways things changed in the midst of the early ninties, and I'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion but it will probably end up that way so I'll just try to state some semi-factual observations.

Bill Clinton believed that the Cold War was over, as many others did, few people forsaw the problems that would happen with 'rogue state scenarios' and crackpot dictatorships rising from the ashes of the Warsaw, and even fewer people cared.

Military spending went from a 'global deterrent' to a 'global pain in the ass' overnight, everything that was deemed unnecessary was cut, immediately and in some cases without informing people.

There was a mass exodus of personnel from all levels in all fields, and as they went into the private sector they inadvertantly and vastly expanded on the situation of military based contracting...which in a twisted irony costs the government more today then ever before.

I left once and resigned...mainly because the USAF came out of the blue and threw a $90,000 resign package at me when I was particularly having a hard time finding stable employment because no one was then (1998) willing to accepet the notion of Information Security as a job field...lol. I left again more recently in 05 after being totally fedup with the entire process but thats another story.

SS- one cool thread, with some really cool posts.

Damn, I love this place. :)