UFO's and the SR-71
Jun 11, 2022 13:09:35 #
[quote=MrBossHK][quote=therwol]I'm going to guess. Someone who knows can correct me if I'm wrong. The SR-71 was likely using high resolution film cameras. When we see those blurry images taken by today's fighter jets, we're looking at much lower resolution video images. You don't need to see acne on an enemy pilot's face to target a plane. Okay, now someone who knows can chime in.[/quote
I spent many years as a photo analyst preparing tactical targeting graphics for Navy Strike missions and Marine Corps Strike/Amphibious units from photos derived from the SR-71 and many other assorted exotic assets. Due to still being under the constraint of a 30 years long NDA, and as the somewhat trite old saying goes, "I can neither confirm nor deny" the existence of specific programs, my ability to comment is limited to only broad generalizations such as the "wow" factor of the focal lengths utilized and an image quality far beyond most folks' wildest dreams. Of course, by now, the goodies that I used in my analysis during the "pre-digital" age are most likely considered to be "old school". (Think touch tone home phone versus today's smart phone). I shudder to think of what are the actual advancements in technology which have occurred since I left the Navy 26 years ago. I, like most others, will never know but can only imagine. By the way, I really got an "informed" chuckle from reading your analogy about the enemy pilot's face. Well Done.[/quote]
I left the Navy nearly 50 years ago (only a couple months shy of that anniversary) and I recall using my Petri FT with a 400mm 6.3 prime and a 2X TC to take photos of two Russian ships high lining supplies in the Mediterranean. I never saw the photos so do not know if they were clear or even usable. I think that is beyond any limitation for a NDA that I do not recall seeing or signing.
I spent many years as a photo analyst preparing tactical targeting graphics for Navy Strike missions and Marine Corps Strike/Amphibious units from photos derived from the SR-71 and many other assorted exotic assets. Due to still being under the constraint of a 30 years long NDA, and as the somewhat trite old saying goes, "I can neither confirm nor deny" the existence of specific programs, my ability to comment is limited to only broad generalizations such as the "wow" factor of the focal lengths utilized and an image quality far beyond most folks' wildest dreams. Of course, by now, the goodies that I used in my analysis during the "pre-digital" age are most likely considered to be "old school". (Think touch tone home phone versus today's smart phone). I shudder to think of what are the actual advancements in technology which have occurred since I left the Navy 26 years ago. I, like most others, will never know but can only imagine. By the way, I really got an "informed" chuckle from reading your analogy about the enemy pilot's face. Well Done.[/quote]
I left the Navy nearly 50 years ago (only a couple months shy of that anniversary) and I recall using my Petri FT with a 400mm 6.3 prime and a 2X TC to take photos of two Russian ships high lining supplies in the Mediterranean. I never saw the photos so do not know if they were clear or even usable. I think that is beyond any limitation for a NDA that I do not recall seeing or signing.
Jun 11, 2022 14:48:50 #
Jun 11, 2022 14:50:12 #
[quote=MrBossHK][quote=therwol]I'm going to guess. Someone who knows can correct me if I'm wrong. The SR-71 was likely using high resolution film cameras. When we see those blurry images taken by today's fighter jets, we're looking at much lower resolution video images. You don't need to see acne on an enemy pilot's face to target a plane. Okay, now someone who knows can chime in.[/quote
I spent many years as a photo analyst preparing tactical targeting graphics for Navy Strike missions and Marine Corps Strike/Amphibious units from photos derived from the SR-71 and many other assorted exotic assets. Due to still being under the constraint of a 30 years long NDA, and as the somewhat trite old saying goes, "I can neither confirm nor deny" the existence of specific programs, my ability to comment is limited to only broad generalizations such as the "wow" factor of the focal lengths utilized and an image quality far beyond most folks' wildest dreams. Of course, by now, the goodies that I used in my analysis during the "pre-digital" age are most likely considered to be "old school". (Think touch tone home phone versus today's smart phone). I shudder to think of what are the actual advancements in technology which have occurred since I left the Navy 26 years ago. I, like most others, will never know but can only imagine. By the way, I really got an "informed" chuckle from reading your analogy about the enemy pilot's face. Well Done.[/quote]
Well Said.
It is amazing how those of us who worked in this arena can sit around and have great conversations about what we saw and did without ever really saying anything, yet we all know exactly what we are all talking about.
I spent many years as a photo analyst preparing tactical targeting graphics for Navy Strike missions and Marine Corps Strike/Amphibious units from photos derived from the SR-71 and many other assorted exotic assets. Due to still being under the constraint of a 30 years long NDA, and as the somewhat trite old saying goes, "I can neither confirm nor deny" the existence of specific programs, my ability to comment is limited to only broad generalizations such as the "wow" factor of the focal lengths utilized and an image quality far beyond most folks' wildest dreams. Of course, by now, the goodies that I used in my analysis during the "pre-digital" age are most likely considered to be "old school". (Think touch tone home phone versus today's smart phone). I shudder to think of what are the actual advancements in technology which have occurred since I left the Navy 26 years ago. I, like most others, will never know but can only imagine. By the way, I really got an "informed" chuckle from reading your analogy about the enemy pilot's face. Well Done.[/quote]
Well Said.
It is amazing how those of us who worked in this arena can sit around and have great conversations about what we saw and did without ever really saying anything, yet we all know exactly what we are all talking about.
Jun 11, 2022 19:23:49 #
JeffL wrote:
From my limited knowledge, I seem to recall that reconnaissance aircraft cameras are designed to accurately film what is beneath them, or at a downward angle. They are not meant for air-to-air photos. The blurry photos of UFOs are from targeting systems, which just need to “lock-on” to a target.
Bingo!
I've read somewhere that the SR-71's sensors were pointed sideways so they can fly outside a nations border and look in. But most probably it can rotate into many directions.
Jun 11, 2022 20:00:00 #
therwol wrote:
I'm going to guess. Someone who knows can correct me if I'm wrong. The SR-71 was likely using high resolution film cameras. When we see those blurry images taken by today's fighter jets, we're looking at much lower resolution video images. You don't need to see acne on an enemy pilot's face to target a plane. Okay, now someone who knows can chime in.
You’re right on. Different planes, different camera systems, different missions. I personally strongly suspect that the SR-71 has been replaced by a higher faster stealthier aircraft because despite the improved systems in satellites…their orbit is still pretty predictable and the bad guys can stay inside when one is passing overhead…and they also usually need to be moved to cover a specific target right now. Aircraft are a much quicker response. Yes…they’re expensive to fly and you need to spend even more for tanker support…but they’re still cheaper than a satellite with limited fuel and no way to be refueled…so the long time Intel guy in me thinks the likelihood of aircraft recon is still a good idea. Could even be unmanned autonomous drones or remotely piloted vehicles…if properly stealth Ed they can still do things in certain situations quicker than a satellite can be reprogrammed…especially as the satellite has a lot of demands on it’s time and limited fuel for orbit changes…and sometimes the sat operators just have to say…can’t do that today but day after tomorrow it will be in the right spot…how’s that work for ya?
Jun 11, 2022 20:37:33 #
JeffL
Loc: New Jersey
A sort of related observation: when I was stationed at Eielson AFB outside of Fairbanks, AK in the early 60’s, we had a squadron of U-2’s that flew out of there. The wings of that aircraft were so long that had these outrigger gear to hold the wings level during taxi and takeoff. They would jettison them off the end of the runway. Unfortunately, the snow during the winter was so deep that these outriggers would not be found until snow melt. So, we attached emergency strobes to them in order to find them. BTW, some of the U-2’s came back damaged from missions, and one pilot landed and was immediately loaded into a C-130 and flown out of there.
Jun 11, 2022 20:52:02 #
JeffL wrote:
A sort of related observation: when I was statione... (show quote)
I spent time a little farther west at Erickson at the end of the Earth.
You all might enjoy reading the extensive info at RC135.COM
Jun 11, 2022 21:25:45 #
smiller999
Loc: Corpus Christi
Fredrick wrote:
Back in the 60’s - 70’s Russia had cameras in satellites far superior to ours. If a quarter was on the ground they could tell you if it was heads or tail.
This is complete nonsense. Cameras in both aircraft and satellite platforms are diffraction limited, although things were even worse back in the 70s, even in Russia. The diffraction limit is an angular resolution and depends on the wavelength of the light, the aperature of the camera, and distance to the target. For a satellite at the altitudes used, that limit is larger than a quarter. And atmospheric conditions make sure that the actual limit is even larger. No one has ever been able to read a license plate from space - it would violate the laws of physics. As for Russia, I doubt theirs were any better than ours. Ours have always been far more advanced than the civilian state of the art. And yes, I did work in this area for many years, but I can't say when or where.
Jun 11, 2022 21:50:04 #
Wallen wrote:
Bingo!
I've read somewhere that the SR-71's sensors were pointed sideways so they can fly outside a nations border and look in. But most probably it can rotate into many directions.
I've read somewhere that the SR-71's sensors were pointed sideways so they can fly outside a nations border and look in. But most probably it can rotate into many directions.
Here's a good site to get the information on the cameras on the sr71 .
https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/Aircraft/Sensors/sr-71-cameras
Jun 11, 2022 22:27:44 #
Jun 11, 2022 22:46:43 #
smiller999 wrote:
This is complete nonsense. Cameras in both aircraf... (show quote)
It’s not nonsense, it doesn’t violate the laws of physics, the Russians did have better optics than us back then. I know this for a fact. That’s all I’ll say on the topic, and I really don’t care what you think.
Jun 12, 2022 00:33:30 #
bikinkawboy
Loc: north central Missouri
And you know where the Russians got their optical expertise: Germany. After WWII ended, the Russians did a house cleaning of German industries of all sorts, hauling it all back to Russia, along with many of their researchers, scientists and especially aviation designers. That’s why Russian planes have been and are still really good. As for the theft of just about anything that wasn’t connected to bedrock, Stalin told the rest of the world that he considered it as reparations for the Russian stuff the Germans destroyed.
Jun 12, 2022 08:14:45 #
Jun 12, 2022 08:27:22 #
Perhaps not quite on topic, but I have seen several UFO's over my 74 years, the first as a child in Chicago in broad daylight. Other's at night and usually for only a short time. Perhaps that's why the photos tend to be poor quality? Most of us don't have a camera always at the ready and these things can move very fast.
Jun 12, 2022 09:31:38 #
rustfarmer wrote:
Perhaps not quite on topic, but I have seen several UFO's over my 74 years, the first as a child in Chicago in broad daylight. Other's at night and usually for only a short time. Perhaps that's why the photos tend to be poor quality? Most of us don't have a camera always at the ready and these things can move very fast.
Chicago is a little bit of a hot spot for UFO activity.
My theory is due to the lake since it seems that so many sightings happen near large bodies of water.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.