Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!mailrus!ames!pacbell!att!cbnews!military
From: patterso%deimos@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71
Message-ID: <13848@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Feb 90 03:03:09 GMT
References: <13764@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: patterso%deimos@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson)


>
>From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)
>
>I see in Saturday's paper that the Air Force has decided to ground the SR-71
>fleet.  The rationale is that it costs too much ($200-$300 million/year for
>the fleet) and that the KH-12 satellites being sent up now will replace the
>planes admirably.  Any thoughts?  
>
>Chris
>

I was disappointed by the idea of grounding the SR's but a colleage
passed on a rumor (how's that for an unreliable source?) that the air
force was in favor of the idea because they are already flying a
replacement which is a "hotter" bird than the 71.

	
	Tim