Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird question Message-ID: <1990Oct4.012354.11544@cbnews.att.com> Date: 4 Oct 90 01:23:54 GMT References: <1990Sep27.031756.7889@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep29.155328.7880@cbnews.att.com>, Sender: military-request@att.att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 40 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Allan Bourdius >From Michael Lanham: The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still the fastest plane made. The SR-71's first flight was made on 26 April, 1962. That means that the design is from the 1950's not the '70's. I have a theory about why the USAF was so quick to discard the SR-71 with so little resistance. When the design competition for the stealth fighter began in the early 1970's, Lockheed originally wasn't in the running. If memory serves, the original competition was between McDonnell Douglass and either Northrop or General Dynamics. When Lockheed entered their own design independently, it was accepted by the USAF in a very short period of time, i.e. in weeks. That suggests to me that the F-117A uses construction methods, equipment, and materials common to another aircraft that Lockheed was building. Hence, I think it is a fair possibility that the SR-71's successor might have been flying since the late '70's or the early '80's--well before the introduction of the F-117A. Besides, what was the Skunk Works doing between the time they finished building SR-71's in the mid-'60's and when they started building F-117A's in the early '80's? --Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!