4 ms·
> The only nations that can probably deny us satellite coverage, at least politically, are China and Russia It's pretty easy to deny satellite coverage. It's
by ZoFreX 13y ago
> The only nations that can probably deny us satellite coverage, at least politically, are China and Russia
It's pretty easy to deny satellite coverage. It's trivial to track satellite locations, and they pass over on a very regular schedule (they can't just up and change orbit on a whim). All you have to do is cover everything sensitive with a tarp at the time they fly over. Anyone can do this, and it was one of the main tactics used by the USSR and China against spy satellites during the cold war.
> and are we really going to start flying hypersonic jets over their airspace anyway?
If you can make it stealthy enough they won't even know ;) And you can also collect a lot of useful intel by flying a plane just outside the border (you can scan inside the border with radar, you can learn about their radar systems by recording all radar frequencies you see, you can record all radio chatter, and so on).
Atmospheric flights definitely still have a role to play in espionage.
- mikeash 13y agoAtmospheric? Sure. Hypersonic? Why? The SR-71's high speed and altitude was useful, and worth its high cost, for two reasons: 1. It was impossible to shoot down. 2. You could go check something out on short notice. #1 doesn't really matter with drones, especially if you're not going to overfly the target country. #2 is easily solved by keeping a bunch of slow drones in the air all over the place at all times, rather than keeping fast aircraft ready to fly.
- TwoFactor 13y ago>Atmospheric? Sure. Hypersonic? Why? These are to augment current capabilities, especially if there's escalation of hostilities. If there's a conflict in the Pacific, we cant rely on having our forward air bases. Most likely these will be launched from domestic locations and ingress/egress time will have a large impact on total coverage time.
- ZoFreX 13y agoI agree completely, I didn't intend to argue that this particular plane or one like it is necessary (especially as I haven't managed to read the linked article yet!), but that satellites alone are not sufficient and some form of atmospheric craft still has value at the moment. Interestingly they were already experimenting with drones back when they were flying the Blackbird - I wonder how good they are now?
- toomuchtodo 13y agoHypersonic aircraft serve only one purpose now that drones and satellites exist: highly mobile weapons platform.
- ZoFreX 13y agoI agree completely, I didn't intend to argue that this particular plane or one like it is necessary (especially as I haven't managed to read the linked article yet!), but that satellites alone are not sufficient and some form of atmospheric craft still has value at the moment. Interestingly they were already experimenting with drones back when they were flying the Blackbird - I wonder how good they are now?
- mpweiher 13y ago>Atmospheric? Sure. Hypersonic? Why? From the fine article: at Mach 3, the target can still be notified, at Mach 6 it's unavoidable. Don't know if that's true, but it does answer the question.
- mikeash 13y agoThat's for use as a weapon, while I'm discussing its merits as a reconnaissance platform compared to drones and satellites.
- mpweiher 13y agoSure, I saw that, but it seemed to apply pretty much the same to photography. After all, that's one of the reasons satellites don't work with a reasonably smart target. So moving things out of the way {of the lens|of the bomb} doesn't look like that much of a difference .
- rbanffy 13y ago> If you can make it stealthy enough Unless it flies at a very high altitude with engines off, making it stealthy is next to impossible. The thermal output of the engines is enough to make it stand out from the background from half a planet away.