Posted on 02/08/2020 6:51:49 AM PST by DUMBGRUNT
ARCHANGEL:
CIA’s SUPERSONIC A-12
RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT
DAVID ROBARGE
CIA CHIEF HISTORIAN
Even if they did, I really doubt that they EVER had a B-70 bomber. We had two and were ready for production, and probably would have put an end to the Cold War.
...and then JFK was elected.
” You need the will and determination to do it, both requiring an overarching framework of a government/economy substructure to make it happen.”
Like the space program. The Soviets never reall had one. When you look at what America invested in going into space, you realize that the Soviets really only had a series of death-defying stunts. They finally stopped, only when they could no longer defy it.
Uh...hate to tell you, but the XB-70 came to being AFTER Kennedy was elected. (First flight Sept. 21, 1964)
Had multiple problems which seemed to get worked out. It could do as advertised and hit Mach 3. What truly killed it was the mid-air accident that killed a chase plane pilot and one of the Valkyrie pilots.
Lol.
I walked upstairs to the kitchen twice to get something to eat.
does that count as exercise?
Nice try, but guess who was still Defense Secretary in 1964...and if Nixon had been elected, I seriously doubt that guy would have been in a position to kill it.
does that count as exercise?
YES, YES!
Walking good, stairs good!
They say exercise is like Jello, always room for more.
There was a lot wrong with Soviet decision making regarding technology. Rejecting microelectronics and computer science in 1950s is a great example of that.
I am not sure about Sr-71 equivalent and related bomber programs. Spacecraft are outright more practical for Sr-71 kind of missions.
Soviet space program was by far advanced and more intensive than that of NASA. The only things impressive in NASA program during the Cold War are Apollo and Viking.
Cool!
I think now, they certainly are. But back in the Sixties and Seventies, they weren’t.
When you needed an asset over an area for surveillance...you were dependent on the timing and orbits of satellites. Only the very high end satellites had any maneuver capability that could have been considered for non-emergent use.
Of course today, it is different. Satellite coverage is nearly ubiquitous today, so that likely explains why we retired ours.
Exactly. There is no denying that the Soviets had very good scientists, but their government as a tool for focusing their efforts left a lot to be desired, and that is putting it lightly.
Honesty, it is a vignette of the entire collectivism vs. capitalism argument.
I don’t like jello!!!
And you should hear the Italian curse words I’m calling you for exercising so much and making me feel guilty.
What did I ever do to you?!?!
:)
Just remember, if it wasn’t for us out of shape people no one would know you are in good shape!
I’ve gotta go drive to New Jersey. Suddenly I want a cannoli.
Let’s say Mig-25 and especially Mig-31 weren’t near that expensive and not near as dangerous to fly but really close in specs. The latter is the reason why SR-71 missions were scaled down. And they build thousands of them.
The Soviets had practical ion engines allowing the light spacecraft traverse the orbit the way they wanted by 1972.
Well, in a way that is correct- if one is thinking only about delivering a nuclear weapon....
On the other hand, being able to zip over unfriendly territory at will, unhindered by AD of any sort, to snap a photo/image of a critical site ( unlike most SAT sensors even today- they zoom around a predetermined orbit, needing NCA authorization to change position) in the here and now was invaluable.
Finally, having the technology ability and will to use such a platform was a tremendous asset to the cold war effort on the part of the US and NATO.
The Russians tout the hypersonic missiles they claim to have/had (oops they blew up the whole facility) while we are keeping such stuff rather quiet.
Some dogs don’t hunt.
The Russians knew nuclear ramjet since 1950s, just like regular ramjet. This technology is being revived not for the reason they are behind in technology.
“Soviet space program was by far advanced and more intensive than that of NASA.”
I honestly don’t see in what way. They had a series of stunts. Sputnik was brilliant, as a stunt. Having it fly over, chirping out a signal any American Ham operator could tweak his equipment to receive was brilliant, politically. (Except, possibly, for how it helped spur America into action).
The first man into space and into orbit were achievements, of course, but also stunts. The first woman into space highlights how much more of the latter.
I’d sure like to hear how the Soviet space program was more “intensive” and “advanced” than Apollo, or even what lead to it. When the Soviets finally had a booster, which, on paper at least, was as capable as the Saturn, they couldn’t make it work, even to just launch.
Once past the “stunt” phase, the real “intensive” development was too much for them.
I don’t think that the NASA of today could do Apollo again, either, for what it’s worth.
They don't have an impetus for going all-out like they used to have. Back then, it was the scary thought of a 'Red Moon' and the possibility (however far-fetched) of eventual world control by the Soviets.
IF the NASA scientists of today had that driving force (or deep-seated fear) behind them, they could pull off amazing things. BUT...the country would have to be behind them, and the people coming into the industry would need to be smart, capable of thinking outside the box...and American.
McNamara. Forgot about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.