Thread

1. Centigonal · 1790730865 · focus · HN ↗

   This feels like the steam catapault kerfuffle from earlier this year. Maybe I'm missing some vital reason these retired technologies must be revived, but it's not inspiring when our military doctrine is "let's go back to what worked 60 years ago"

   1. UberFly · 1790745134 · focus · HN ↗

      My speculation level is at full but the SR-71 program was the gold standard and I think it's good to tap those responsible for it. They were doing some incredible stuff 60 short years ago and dismissing it as "old" is folly.

      1. elil17 · 1790764756 · focus · HN ↗

         The SR-71 wasn't randomly retired, though. The tactical need to go really fast at a high altitude disappeared because you can now get the same intel from satellites and stealth aircraft. The real question is why do you suddenly need that capability again?

         1. fragmede · 1790773861 · focus · HN ↗

            Planning for the possibility that access to space may become denied, and wanting a backup option. If the enemy takes out your spy satellite, how else are you going to get photos of the warzone?

            1. andruby · 1790878126 · focus · HN ↗

               Even in that case, cheap and unmanned would be much more cost efficient.

               The SR-71 was uncontested in the 70'ies, but it wouldn't be today. Today it would be vulnerable. Missiles reach higher and fly faster. There are missiles that are designed to intercept ICBM's, which come in faster than a Mach-3 SR-71.

               Radar detection, tracking and firing has also become much more effective in the last 60 years.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.