Blackbird Safety Record

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 3

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

10-10-2009 | 03:31 PM

#11

dojetdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,732

Likes: 0

From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV

I'm not military, so forgive the ignorance. But what was the reason for the pilots being Christians In Action instead of pure Air Force on the surveillance platforms?

10-10-2009 | 03:53 PM

#12

navigatro

Permanent Reserve

Joined: Aug 2007

Posts: 1,721

Likes: 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by dojetdriver

I'm not military, so forgive the ignorance. But what was the reason for the pilots being Christians In Action instead of pure Air Force on the surveillance platforms?

political (e.g Gary Powers)

10-10-2009 | 03:58 PM

#13

dojetdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,732

Likes: 0

From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV

Quote:

Originally Posted by navigatro

political (e.g Gary Powers)

Yeah, familiar with that, hence the question. LIke I said, sorry for the ignorance, but I'm slow today. But could it not be more complex to have a person that's part of an intelligence service (spy) get captured vs. a person that is just military?

10-10-2009 | 05:12 PM

#14

USMCFLYR

Thread Starter

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 13,843

Likes: 1

From: FAA 'Flight Check'

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman49

Saw an SR that had beem flipped on its back with one main gear extended over at Kadena in the mid 70s, never heard what happened to the aircraft or crew.

Check out that second link I posted above. It might have the mishap that you saw listed with some info about what happened and the fate of the crew.

USMCFLYR

10-10-2009 | 06:02 PM

#15

hotshot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Aug 2007

Posts: 642

Likes: 0

From: C172 Left

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmaviator

On a side note, what is the max mach and/or altitude a pilot could eject out of that plane. I watched the same show USMCFLYR.

From what I've read the crew could apparently bailout at maximum speed at maximum altitude because the air pressure at that height is so low that it is the equivalent of a much lower speed at lower altitude. Any of that make sense?

10-10-2009 | 06:35 PM

#16

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotshot

You are correct. Max normal operating altitude was about 85,000 feet. At that altitude, its normal cruise mach of 3.2 equates to an equivalent airspeed of about 310 knots. That dynamic pressure is very survivable in a normal flight suit. But since the SR-71 guys all wore a full pressure suit (space suit), there was really no concern about the speed. The concern was when one of the engines coughed (unstarted) at speed. That sometimes led to an inflight breakup, and the resulting lateral G forces could be more than a human could tolerate.

Carl

10-10-2009 | 06:38 PM

#17

rickair7777

Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006

Posts: 44,908

Likes: 694

From: Engines Turn or People Swim

Quote:

Originally Posted by dojetdriver

I'm not military, so forgive the ignorance. But what was the reason for the pilots being Christians In Action instead of pure Air Force on the surveillance platforms?

Political and Turf considerations. Theoretically, a "civilian" CIA pilot had more plausible deniability if captured. That might work for low-key clandestine work, but there obviously wasn't any deniability with something like the SR-71.

It didn't work for Gary Powers. Actually a military officer might be afforded protection under the geneva convention in some circumstances, while a civilian could be easily shot for spying.

10-10-2009 | 06:51 PM

#18

dojetdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,732

Likes: 0

From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Well, that's the entire point I'm getting at Rick. If an operative gets captured somewhere in a foreign land under the guise of a business man or something else, the deniability is relatively easy. If a guy survives the ejection or forced landing in a multi million dollar/sophisticated spy plane that takes a huge support system just to get going is another thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777

It didn't work for Gary Powers. Actually a military officer might be afforded protection under the geneva convention in some circumstances, while a civilian could be easily shot for spying.

That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. Like the USSR (or other adversary) would ACTUALLY have believed that the pilot of an above scenario is a "civilian" employed by a well know intelligence entity and therefore could really be denied?

10-10-2009 | 08:16 PM

#19

LivingInMEM

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Dec 2007

Posts: 829

Likes: 0

We still split ops. There are greater concerns than deniability, they were not so ignorant back then that they thought a guy bailing out of an SR-71 could pass himself off as a lost businessman - the concern was actually cold war vs hot war. Having CIA officers conduct ops was expected in the surveillance/counter-surveillance game, the only repercussions for those ops being exposed were nasty letters and embassy staffers being expelled. Conducting military ops over a sovereign nation could be considered an act of war.

10-10-2009 | 08:28 PM

#20

dojetdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,732

Likes: 0

From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivingInMEM

Gotcha, thanks. Interesting to think about what was done for the sake of what you said during that time (and currently) just to skew the perception of what is really going on.