There are people who believe this 1950s technology plane is still the fastest manned air breathing plane ever

You are like little baby

ISS travels at 17200 mph, 27600 kmh. Prove something else can beat 7.67 km per second

Attached: 800px-International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg (800x510, 138K)

It wasn't even the best plane in the competition.

so you're a faggot, got it

Funnily enough being hundreds of miles closer is better for photographs

They saw a F-117, shit for brains.

Well they use littler mans so you have to scale it up.

That's a photo of Apollo 10, friend. Fastest speed a manned vehicle ever reached, at 39,897 km/h or 11.08 km/s.

Zero of the things in that pic look like an F-117 at all.

Thing looks fucking amazing though

>Durr the delta v for LEO is higher than that of going to the moon...

Moron

Bottom left is a B-2
Bottom right is an F-117

That doesn't look like a B-2 at all.

Attached: mysteryjet.jpg (1527x691, 1020K)

you do realise that for something to go into a higher orbit it necessarily must have a higher velocity right? and you realise that the moon is further away from earth than the ISS right?

...

mig 31 stripped down for recon is faster.

How can a black project be public knowledge. You can't have it both ways zipper head cock sucker.

Care to back that up Sirgay?

Chinks can’t design anything worth shit and i highly doubt they’ve stolen designs like that.

If you believe the Slavs.
theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/

While all countries produce propaganda, the Russians seem to be especially bad about exaggeration. So I really don't.

That is exactly the opposite of how it works. The moons is moving at 2,300 mph and the ISS at 17,000...

It also destroys itself in the process.

Attached: f40ph.jpg (664x923, 126K)

Might have a thing or two to do with satellites outperforming the shit out of this piece of useless obsolete junk.

It has much more to do with satellites being much cheaper to operate. And when we are talking about the Air Force and their defense budget that should tell you how much the SR-71 cost to operate.

Am I witnessing a rare /n/ meme?

Being cheaper and offering better service does mean outperforming.

>SR-71 doesn't cross into USSR airspace
>Gets the job done anyway
>Soviets claim MiG-31 chased them off

This is hilariously retarded even by slavtard standards.

As I understand it

Satellites

>have a consistent pattern, if the other guy figures out what that is, they can hide stuff during satellite overflights (this may be mitigated by stealth satellites like the Misty program)
>take a while to set up because space launches are expensive and finicky
>can't legally be shot down because space is international territory

Planes

>can be deployed anywhere on relatively short notice (good for dealing with geopolitical flare-ups)
>can be exactly where you need them, when you need them, consistently
>can be unpredictable (albeit they get detected by radar if they aren't VLO)
>are more physically vulnerable because AA is easier than ASAT
>using them over a country without their consent constitutes a violation of their territorial integrity, which will probably inflame tensions and may result in your plane being shot down
>may be able to see diagonally into other countries while flying close to their airspace but not within it

So the general rule is to use satellites for places like Russia and China, planes for permissive environments like Afghanistan, and stealth drones for places like Iran and North Korea

Driving back and forth between Las Vegas and Reno for work all the time back between 1996 and 1999, I encountered some weird shit around the Tonopah Test Range I could not explain. Saw the donut-shaped contrails of what I later figured was probably the Aurora or something similar. Heard weird engine noises coming from craft I could not visually locate. Sonic booms echoing through the hills...shit was pretty strange.

>he thinks that after 50 years of satellite launches, we still don't have constant coverage of every inch on the earth.

-678 81-463

It was obviously the MiG-31 that chased them off, and definitely not the SAM's that made it too risky for the Blackbird to fly over Russia...

NASA used a few as testbeds for high-speed, high-altitude aeronautical research and science camera platform. Satellites wouldn't fit what NASA was doing with these planes at that time.

>on relatively short notice
Relatively to what? Sure not relatively to satellites which happen to move over 6 times faster than SR-71.

This is a really clever impersonation of an smooth brained, drooling retard user. Good work!

>space launches are expensive
Compared to what? One Proton launch costs around $65 million. SR-71 costed like $250 million.
>and finicky
Not if even fucking Kenya managed to buy one. I'm pretty motherfucking sure that after over 1700 Soyuz rocket launches alone it is god damn well safe to say space rockets in general have vastly more polished infrastructure behind them than a 60s relic recon aircraft 12 of which crashed out of 32 ever built.

Attached: LaunchersScorecard-100.jpg (901x472, 47K)

It's service as a NASA testbed has nothing to do with it's military service as a reconnaissance aircraft, which is what being discussed relative to reconnaissance satellites.
Since satellites are well and dandy nowadays while this obsolete junk with pre-takeoff urinary incontinence is long scrapped, I'd say you're an underage fanboy who needs to keep his fucking trap shut.

Attached: tu-144ll (6).jpg (3030x2299, 968K)

>Its ... its
Fxd.

>Since satellites are well and dandy nowadays while this obsolete junk with pre-takeoff urinary incontinence is long scrapped
If you'd actually bothered to read the post that you were replying to, he wasn't talking about the SR-71, but spyplanes in general, you braindead sack of shit.

And If you bothered to read my post, you'd get that I was referring to the nothing that recon aircraft "can be deployed anywhere on relatively short notice". Which is sure absolutely fucking false even when you compare the fastest recon plane ever built to a satellite.

It gets better. Yefim Gordon, who wrote some really fucking great monographies and is one of the top experts on russian aviation - but is also unsahamed propagandist , claims that Blackbirds entered USSR airspace few times and every time were succesfully intercepted, but pilots received no poermission to fire on them and instead just chased them out.

Yes, he is talking about the same soviet union that had no problem with shooting down two airliners full of civilians for violating their airspace.

>w-we totaly could do it, guise , we just decided n-not to, but we totally could.

Looks like the a12 avenger

>can be deployed anywhere on relatively short notice
Yes, it's easier to deploy a U-2 or a global hawk to a zone of interest, than hope that your adversary doesn't know where your satellites are, and then wait 90 minutes until it shows up. That's why they're still used.

Attached: Supercruise Pg 14.jpg (1634x1255, 155K)

Attached: m6 intercept.jpg (806x609, 58K)

I'm not sure that every spot on the earth gets visited by friendly Mr Spy Satellite.

If you don't have something in orbit over the target area, you're stuck with planes until you get something in orbit.

Attached: ISINGLASS_Flight.jpg (2946x2023, 728K)

Compared to O&M costs for the U-2 fleet.

Attached: 2000 rads is still a successful mission.png (906x640, 121K)

The SR-71 service record says different to your obsolete junk accusation. It was retired because of the enormous cost of operations and Pentagon politics. I guess Norman Schwarzkopf talking about missing the planes on the spot reconnaissance during Desert Storm is him just talking out his ass, Correct?

Attached: Ejection Seat.jpg (1732x1109, 279K)

In said 90 minutes U-2 is only capable of covering ~1000 km distance. Again, "can be deployed anywhere on relatively short notice", as in relatively to what? Sure as hell not relatively to the bloody satellites.

Satellites take time to change orbit and get into position. This isn't hard to grasp.

>Sure as hell not relatively to the bloody satellites.

You cant just change the orbit of a satellite to make it go over the target you want to look at

those photos are clearly a b2 and f117. I mean, come the fuck on.

As I understand it, it started to be more and more vulnerable to interception and ground based AA, so the decision was made to retire it and just use the U-2, because if you're going to have a plane that can't fly in hostile environments, it may as well be something that's cheap and can't fly in hostile environments.

So it was obsolete insofar as it is no longer physically possible for air breathing jet aircraft to evade modern AA systems by flying really high and really fast.

This is something that the US realized during the B-58 program back in the sixties, so if anything it's amazing that it took so long for the same thing to become true for spy satellites.

I was referring to the months it takes to get a satellite launched and into orbit in the first place, as compared to the days or weeks it takes to relocate a U-2 squadron to a specific theater.

>This is something that the US realized during the B-58

You mean the xb-70

no you just wait 40 mins to 2h

that second photo user posted here is clearly different than the one in the first image. The fucking back of it isn't a straight line in the first image.

If you have a target you want to look at and there isn't a satellite in its orbit you'd have to change the orbit of one of your existing satellites, or launch another.
It's a closer up of the same aircraft

you have zero clue how orbits works do you ?
what the fuck

It was both.

From the B-58 wiki

>The introduction of highly-accurate Soviet surface-to-air missiles forced the B-58 into a low-level-penetration role that severely limited its range and strategic value

Can you not change orbits for an already launched satellite?

Orbital adjustments require fuel.

There are no gas stations in space.

So you can do it, but it will eventually require a manned space mission to physically change out the fuel tanks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Propulsion_of_steel_plate_cap

>at a speed of more than 66 km/s

The primary assistant engineer to Kelly Johnson. Was quoted once. If you can imagine it, we have built it and progressed past that. The general idea and way.

Except no.
Just like the Afro Arrow, the Rapier would have probably made an excellent interceptor or possibly long range tactical bomber.
It is not a dog fighter.
It is not an air superiority fighter.
It is not stealth.
It is not at all comparable to a modern fighter.

>manned

This is going to sound stupid, but why aren’t NIRTSats a thing? Or are they?

If you don’t know, NIRTSats are a thing in Dale Brown’s books (I highly recommend not reading them. Ever) The way I understand them, you take a bunch (well, like six or so) small, ultra low duration satellites of whatever type you need, mate them up to a rocket and launch the rocket on a suborbital or otherwise not great trajectory over your target from a carrier aircraft.

We really don't know the real capabilities of this plane. It broke altitude and speed records on its last flights.

Why can't they just use a digital camera?

Well, you'd lose them after one sortie.

This seems less than ideal, particularly given that a MIRV fired at a suborbital trajectory might be mistaken for a nuclear warhead.

Probably because stealth drones and regular spy satellites exist user.

Call in the TR-3B.

I mean, isn’t the fastest naturally aspirated car 20 years old?
Point is, it costs resources to push limits and some limits don’t really have much demand for pushing so no funding.

Now them I'm thinking about this, this resembles a real program.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21

It was for a really long time and then Bugatti built the Veyron

The XB-70 could go close to as fast, same with the MiG-31.

They could have had a plane better than the F22 called the YF23 as well

you listed a turbo car senpai.

Veyron isnt naturally aspirated

Even though they did try putting drones and shit on SR-71s, that looks like it could be a B-2

USed to live in reno, had a buddy whos dad flew for American. Got told multiple times that traffic in his visual range does not exist.

That's Texas though

>That's Texas though
What did he mean by this?

If I were as much of a mental derelict as you I'd kill myself. Maybe you should consider it as an option.

Attached: 1532256706252.png (1457x1080, 729K)

>DURR THE AIR FORS NEBBER MADE A SECRET AIRCRAFT BEFORR

Attached: 1527277773424.jpg (645x671, 81K)

>F40PH
>/n/ meme

no one else is actually reading the other posts in this thread, why start now?