Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

Accounting for my edit on the Baltic Express

Five years ago, Ninjalectual (talk · contribs) tagged the second paragraph of the European flights section with {{clarify}}, apparently due to unsatisfactory phrasing and link rot. In repairing the dead link, I encountered information which prompted a rewrite of the second paragraph, and the inclusion of a map and a quite relevant image. The clarification prompted two new sections, one on the route and the geography of the Baltic sea, and the other on Soviet intercepts. It was also natural to either mention or include links to the Cold War relations of Sweden/USA/USSR, scrambling, the nature of intercepting foreign military aircraft and simulated shoot-downs, as well as adding a source (ref name=rbth2012) from the MiG-25 article, and also a new one I found (ref name=AGCViggen).

I included the map of the Baltic sea in order to illustrate the Baltic express route. However, it has some problems. It's a modern map, which means that it doesn't show the Soviet union. It doesn't show airspace borders. It doesn't highlight the key corridors (DDR/Malmö & Gotland/Öland). And it doesn't show the Baltic express route. Despite all this, I would argue that the map still provides clarifying information to the reader about the Baltic operations mentioned in this section. (Some more locations for a custom map: "Codan", Finow-Eberswalde, Stockholm (and possibly other capitals), Ä,R,N,V,P,H,T)

Lastly, I added a photo with dual significance to the final paragraph. Not only is the photographed event mentioned in the text, but the nested operational photo that's displayed at the event is reportedly the only time an SR-71 has been photographed during an intercept. (It's a commons file. And the original copyright for both appears to have belonged to the Swedish government. So the nesting shouldn't be a problem.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting contribution – however, the picture in front on the Air Medal photo is clearly a painting. Might the photo be the one in the back? --Zac67 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't catch that. Just assumed that one of the reinforcing fighters had taken a photo, and that they displayed it for the occasion. Yes, the intercept photo that the sources mention might be the one displayed on the screen in the back. The caption should be changed. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Factual errors needing correction in future

1. The SR-71 was based off the YF-12 interceptor, not the A-12. The SR-71 has the same weapons bays and nose bay, while the A-12 has a large central bay. The YF-12 and SR-71 are so similar that a damaged SR-71 was repaired by cutting a YF-12 in half and joining them. This is not possible with the A-12.

2. The SR-71 was not retired for political reasons, it was retired after a CIA report found that it was causing extremely excessive attrition of ground crews, who were pulled from other squadrons in large numbers. The additional training was so excessive that enlisted personnel only had 18 months remaining on their contracts by the time training was complete, requiring several times the number of crews for a given amount of contracts. It also was an extreme burden to maintain, causing nearly all enlisted personnel to refuse to reenlist. The turbines also had a terrible TBO of only a few hundred hours.

3. The engines reached maximum temperature at Mach 2.4, requiring gradual reduction of turbine rpms to maintain temperature as intake temperature increased above mach 2.4. The article says the overheating is caused by fuel flow, but it is not. The manual clearly shows maximum fuel flow available to Mach 3.2 as long as rpms are not exceeded. 2600:1008:B062:697C:E0:241C:CEE6:ED14 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in trying to correct anything (usually engine) if I am able. I'm stuck with para 3 though as I cannot find in the manual where it says max fuel is used up to M3.2. What page says this? Thanks. Pieter1963 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction of Factual Error about Acquisition of Titanium

Arg. For the umpteenth time, I see a very misinformed quote about the rarity of titanium ORE as the reason Lockheed needed to get titanium METAL from the Soviet Union. OMG, people, what do you think is used as the white base for all of the paint on your house, after lead oxide was banned? Titanium Dioxide is super common, found everywhere, and is dirt cheap to produce. 95% of all titanium is found naturally as titanium dioxide. Rutile, mentioned in the now deleted quote, is just one of many, many minerals that contain commercial quantities of titanium dioxide.

It was the labor and expense of reducing the titanium metal out of the oxide that made it so much less available in the U.S. This stuff required guvmint support and subsidies, and the Soviet Union was just willing to pump far more money into that support than the U.S. guvmint during the 1950s and 1960s. Titanium dioxide can't be reacted with carbon, unlike iron oxide ore, because that will just get you titanium carbide. Heck, look up the Wikipedia entry for Titanium. It explains all that.

So, factually incorrect quote deleted. Real facts inserted, including a quote from somebody at Lockheed who worked on the project.

And, please, self-styled editors of Wikipedia, leave in the beginning comment about "a commonly repeated misconception", because I really do see that EVERYWHERE, and it drives me nuts every time I see it. Yea, I even saw it here on Wikipedia, that's how commonly repeated this misconception is. And that's why I made the correction, and why you need to leave that comment in. DarthRad (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, titanium oxide is common and therefore titanium atoms are common. However, when we say titanium we mean the extracted titanium in reasonably pure metallic form, not titanium atoms in some chemical compound form. We make the same grammatical distinction with many other oxides. The reasonably pure metallic form is what all the so-called erroneous references mean. However, if you want to make it clear, we can restore the original text but replace the single word "titanium" with the phrase "metallic titanium", "titanium in metallic form" or similar. Some of your info about the USSR being the major refiner is useful but much of it belongs in the titanium article, not here. As per WP:BRD, I am going to revert your change. At the end of the discussion we will make the article agree with the result of the discussion.  Stepho  talk  11:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you even bother to READ my correction? Did you bother to compare my correction with the original version?

The original version I deleted SPECIFICALLY included a quote that stated a lack of rutile ore as the reason for Lockheed to go to the Soviet Union.

Lockheed NEVER NEEDED RUTILE. It needed titanium METAL. I included a factual quote from somebody that actually WORKED AT LOCKHEED. With the reference. The other quote is from somebody who wasn't involved with the production of the SR-71, just talking out of the end of his butthole.

And the reason for the shortage of titanium metal was that it was just very expensive to produce from the very commonly available titanium dioxide.

So, the old version that you INSIST (like so many absurd and infuriating self-styled editors of wikipedia) on reverting to is just totally, 100% FALSE.

What, do you like to fuck up other people's research and time spent to correct a factual error on Wikipedia just to satisfy your own ego?

I am reverting YOU. You have NO idea what you are doing. You are just committing VANDALISM

DarthRad (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Or we could have a civilised discussion instead of assuming everyone else is a self-styled, egotistical idiot. Also read WP:BRD, which says that we restore the original version (even if it has some wrong points), have a discussion and then change the article according to the discussion. Note that I have not rejected your points outright, I am saying that it needs more work. Happy to discuss this.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:DarthRad received a two-day timeout earlier this morning. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for wielding your Power as Supreme Being Wikipedia Editor by blocking me from Wikipedia for several days. I hope that really gave you the sense of importance and ego boost that you needed. Do you feel a lot better and more important now?

Who gave you that appointment anyways? Do I get to vote you out at the next wikipedia editor elections or is this a lifetime/hereditary appointment of some sort?

What exactly do you know about the SR-71 or military history of any kind? What are YOUR credentials for just willy nilly deleting a perfectly referenced and authentic correction to an egregiously FALSE section of this wikipedia entry?

Military history happens to be my personal hobby, I have a gazillion books on various aspects, and about 70% of the current M26 Pershing wikipedia page is the result of extensive edits I made to correct similar EGREGIOUSLY FALSE statements others had put in. Yeah, that one took forever to slug through similar self-styled "wikipedia editors" who refused to even bother to READ what I wrote and check the references and just willy nilly reverted my edits.

I am going to re-insert my edit, for the simple fact that my edit about this difference between Lockheed needing titanium METAL as opposed to the titanium ore Rutile was EXTENSIVELY RESEARCHED, and has the backing of several references, the key one of which was from somebody who had actually worked at Lockheed instead of a "Colonel Rich Graham, SR-71 pilot". And, it is an important difference because I so often see this mistake repeated, over and over and over again all over the internet.

Let me explain this to you once again on a more grade school level - Lockheed is an aircraft company and is in the business of turning titanium METAL into aircraft. It is NOT in the business of turning titanium dioxide ORE (of which rutile is just one of many much more common types) into titanium METAL. I explain why this process of turning titanium dioxide into titanium METAL is so expensive and why a country like the Soviet Union was willing to spend far more state money subsidizing its production than the USA was. And that, bottom line, is why the Soviet Union had lots more titanium METAL compared to the USA.

You clearly did not even bother to READ my edit, nor even bothered to click on any of the several references I put in, which much better document the history of titanium METAL and its development in the Cold War in the Soviet Union vs. the USA. DarthRad (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@DarthRad: Admittedly, I'm not too knowledgeable about titanium, but that is not the point. You do need to catch up on WP:RS and WP:CIVIL or you might get blocked again soon. Please understand that no one here doubts your personal expertise, but it's about WP:V. And no threats from me, just a kind warning – I'm just a vanilla editor being around a few years. --Zac67 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you know why wikipedia has a reputation for inaccuracy?

Because it's SO HARD TO GET EVEN A SIMPLE FACTUAL ERROR CORRECTED.

The worst part is when these self important and self-appointed "editors" just VANDALIZE a perfectly well written and SCIENTIFICALLY OBVIOUS correction and revert it with absolutely no justification, without having even read the edit or clicked on the references and read those references.

This is why people stop writing for wikipedia.

This is why wikipedia continues to contain STUPID FACTUAL ERRORS.

There just aren't enough people out there who have both the knowledge to spot an error, and the determination to slug through all these Vandals pretending to be Editors.

The difference between a shortage of titanium METAL versus the massively plentiful titanium dioxide from which it is produced should be patently obvious to anybody who took Science in high school and actually knows what is in common house paint and sunblocks.

I can only imagine that this self-styled "wikipedia editor" Stepho simply didn't bother to read my edit and check the references in the edit, which is what he/she/they should have done if he/she/they were behaving like A Real Editor instead of behaving like a Vandal, reverting a perfectly referenced edit just because he/she/they has the power to be an All Powerful Wikipedia Gatekeeper Editor.

[Note bene: Google the definition of "editor". Then Google the definition of "vandalism"] DarthRad (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on a number of principles. High on the list is that it is a community effort. Which means we discuss things civilly. Part of this is WP:BRD. Somebody makes a bold edit but others disagree with part of it. So we revert to the original (regardless of whether it is right or wrong), discuss it, then correct the article according to the consensus reached in the discussion. The revert isn't saying that everything in the edit was wrong - only that there was some points of disagreement. It may not even mean that any point was factually wrong but possibly that some points are not relevant. In any case, the key point here is that we discuss and then correct the article after the discussion. We are not INSISTING that the previous version is correct, we are just setting a start point for the discussion knowing full well that it will probably be corrected at the end. This is standard procedure for reconciling differences and correcting errors in an amicable manner. Coming in saying that you are an expert, that everybody else are self-styled vandals and that everybody else knows nothing does not help your cause and your incivility is the reason you got a 2 day ban.

I can't speak for others but I have maintained an interest in the SR-71, the U-2 and the mechanics and history of aviation in general for 40+ years. I have a modest aviation library of about 100 books. Been to many aviation museums around the world and was taught how to do a barrel roll in a Boeing 777 in Cathay Pacific's 6-axis flight simulator (the one that they train real pilots in). Not claiming to be an expert, but still considerably more knowledgeable than the average person. I'm assuming your knowledge is similar or even better.

Now, let's discuss the actual points:

1. When we say titanium in normal discussion (ie, not as chemists) then it is taken for granted that we are talking about the metal and that we are not talking about the atoms bound up in compounds such as TiO
   ₂. Therefore the parts about titanium not really being so rare and its extraction process are not needed. However, we recognise that you have a point that some people might not understand that we are not talking about titanium in all its compound forms. So, we can replace "titanium" with "metallic titanium", "purified titanium" or some similar term.
2. We agree that the part about rutile ore is irrelevant (ie, Lockheed did not use rutile ore in any form). According to https://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/doclib/hom/rutile.pdf, the US did have large bodies of rutile ore - but they did not process it at the time. We agree that we can delete any mention of rutile ore.
3. It is important to say that at the time the USSR was the only major producer of refined metallic titanium at the time. We do not need to go into the refining process - that belongs in the titanium article.
4. SR-71 pilots had a reputation for being intelligent and knowledgeable (not just stick jockeys) and generally their quotes are accurate. Graham's quote is mostly accurate but he got mixed up between the rutile ore and the extracted product. I think we can drop his quote.
5. The Ben Rich quote is a perfectly fine quote to replace the Graham quote. Naturally, I have that book. The reference tag needs a little formatting via the {{cite book}} template but that's a small detail.

Happy to discuss any of these points and any more that I have forgotten.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, Stepho-wrs – approve all the above. --Zac67 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

WOW. Thanks for finally actually reading my original edit. Instead of just vandalizing it because you have the Power to do so. See how much more good you can do as an alleged Wikipedia editor when you actually do the work of EDITING instead of VANDALISM?

Do you now understand the difference between Editing and Vandalism?

Unfortunately, you persist in not reading ALL of what I wrote, nor do you understand why ALL of it, as I wrote it, needs to stay in the article in order to stamp out the widespread non-Science ignorance out there about the difference between titanium dioxide and titanium Metal, which is the underlying cause of why this totally false tale about a lack of Rutile and titanium Ore being the reason for Lockheed needing to get titanium Metal from the USSR ended up in this wikipedia article in the first place.

It's this very ignorance, this simple and widespread lack of understanding of the difference between what is in common house paint and sunblock versus what went into the fuselage of the SR-71 that caused the original version of this article to say what it did. This is such a widespread misconception that somebody actually found and referenced another published article quoting an alleged SR-71 pilot repeating this falsehood and then stuck it into this wikipedia article.

Yeah, that is why Wikipedia needs to hold up its standard and explain, in a way that even somebody who never paid attention to their high school Science classes can understand, the difference between titanium dioxide and titanium Metal.

Your statement #3: "It is important to say that at the time the USSR was the only major producer of refined metallic titanium at the time. We do not need to go into the refining process" totally ignores the very necessary factual components needed to understand what led to that situation of Lockheed needing to get titanium from the USSR during the Cold War in the first place.

Is it not important to ask, WHY, when titanium METAL should have been recognized as a strategic material, when it was already becoming a crucial component in aerospace manufacturing, WHY did the US NOT develop the capacity to manufacture titanium?

And I put two references in my edit that say that yes, the US government did recognize the importance of titanium Metal, did subsidize its production, and the US did have its own stocks of titanium Metal, just not enough of it, because titanium Metal (and not titanium dioxide) is just very, very expensive to produce.

It's the fundamental DIFFERENCE between the very common titanium dioxide and the very expensive nature of producing titanium Metal that led to the lack of enough titanium Metal in the US for the production of the SR-71 during the Cold War.

This HAS to be laid out in a step by step process for the common lay person to understand. That's why a brief explanation of the Kroll process belongs in this article. The vast majority of people stumbling upon this article simply have no clue just what is required to produce titanium Metal. Instead, this is probably what they think:

The US spent billions to build the atomic bomb, billions to build the B-29, and would spend billions more to land men on the moon.

Surely the production of titanium should have been no problem! We produce aluminum, iron, copper, all the other metals! Surely titanium Metal shouldn't be that hard to produce, right?

So surely it must have been a shortage of a Magical Titanium Ore needed for the production of titanium Metal that caused the mighty United States to not be able to produce titanium Metal! Right?

No, it was simply that producing titanium Metal from the very common titanium dioxide is expensive and laborious and requires government support.

Period.

That's why some mention of the Kroll process and the economics that require government subsidy for sustained production should remain in this article.

Because it is super important for lay people stumbling upon this article to understand WHY the US did not (and still does not) produce large amounts of titanium.

Mention of the fact that the US government did in fact have programs in place to start and support the production of titanium within the US should remain in this article.

This is why I included the two references that both describe the extent of that US government support for titanium Metal production during the Cold War, plus the CIA document that very specifically state that the USSR supported five times the amount of titanium production that the US government did.

Those details about the ECONOMICS of titanium metal production belong in this article because they are key to once and for all understanding the ENTIRE story of Lockheed needing to get titanium Metal from the USSR for the SR-71, not titanium Ore.

The opening statement about it being a common misconception that it was the lack of titanium ore in the US that caused Lockheed to get titanium Metal from the USSR should be left in.

Because, WOW, that statement was what was in the Original version of this SR-71 article that somebody had actually found a published reference stating exactly just that.

So yeah, it's such a common misconception and this misinformation persists so widely that even somebody claiming to be a former SR-71 pilot is quoted as repeating that misconception, so common that it snuck into a Wikipedia article, so common that a self-styled Wikipedia Editor just willy nilly deleted my effort to correct this VERY SIMPLE and PATENTLY FALSE misconception without even bothering to read it.

So, just leave my edit alone as is. Every word I put into is was put in for a reason. Every word I wrote was meant to explain, once and for all, to anybody with the bare minimum level of education, what was really going on that led Lockheed to get titanium Metal from the USSR.

Titanium dioxide is super common and cheap. It's what goes into your house paint. Titanium Metal is expensive and difficult to produce and requires government subsidies. The USSR was willing to subsidize more of its production than the US government.

Yeah, all of that needs to stay in this corrective edit. To prevent some of the widespread references that are still floating out there about this Magical Titanium Ore from re-appearing, ever again. DarthRad (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, I read through it all the first time you wrote it and have read it all again. As I said above, many parts of it I agree with. The reversion was because I do not agree that all of it was relevant. This is standard procedure for handling disagreements, as per WP:BRD. Can you confirm for me whether you have read WP:BRD? Your consistent complaint that I have rejected every point of your edit outright does not agree with the application of BRD, nor does it agree with my making 5 comment points above where I agreed with many of your points.

The main thrust of your latest reply seems to be that you want this article to have all the details of the production of titanium metal from rutile ore, including the chemical method, the location of ores, the political background, the economic background and lengthy commentary on the woes of "common misconception".

We agree that the Graham quote exacerbated the misunderstanding between titanium metal and the ores from which is is extracted. We also agree that the Ben Rich quote was better. It's sad that this bad quote lasted so long in the article but we can fix that now - better late than never. I thank you for pointing it out.

If this were a standalone book or magazine article then I would agree with you about explaining the details of titanium production. Luckily for us, this article is part of a bigger thing. We can put all that information into the titanium article, where it can be linked to from many articles instead of each article separately having to repeat it. As you yourself said, Lockheed did not need rutile ore - they just needed the finished metal product. Lockheed did not care whether it was a US government priority to produce or not produce titanium metal. Lockheed did not care about the cost of the process,or the complexity of the process or the difficulty of the process. Lockheed only cared that titanium metal was available and at a cost within their budget. The same applies to us, we only care that Lockheed got the metal. But there was a certain irony in that the primary source was from the USSR - the SR-71's primary target.

The lengthy commentary about misconceptions is not needed. We deal with the misconception by being a bit more careful in our wording by saying "metallic titanium" or "refined titanium metal" or a similar phrase. Just like Lockheed didn't need the ore, our readers don't need a long explanation of why somebody else said it wrong. It's just a distraction to the readers. If the reader is interested in the chemical/political/economical background of extracting the metal from the ore then they can read it in the titanium article.

I'd like to offer my condolences on the failure of your [optirectomy] operation. It would have made this conversation more productive.

On a more serious note, if you call me a vandal one more time then I will report you to the administrators for violating our WP:CIVIL policy. Acting like a spoilt 2-year old is not how you will convince us.  Stepho  talk  04:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Whatever.

It's editors like you that make wikipedia the Repository of Patently False Mistakes rather than the best public encyclopedia it could be.

If you're such an expert on this topic, why didn't YOU correct what should have been an easy to spot mistake? How the heck did YOU (and all the other self-appointed Editors of this article) let such a patently false statement like that into this article?

Did you ever bother to look up what it takes to make titanium metal (and yes, the Kroll process is right here on wikipedia) and why that is so much harder and more expensive than making metals like aluminum or steel?

Did you ever wonder what replaced lead oxide in paints after lead was banned for use in house paints? That lead ban happened a long time ago, almost certainly before you were born, but I'm old enough to remember it and later looking up the ingredient list on cans and tubes of paints to see that titanium dioxide had replaced lead oxide.

Did you ever look at the ingredient list for sunblocks?

Did you ever make the connection between those facts and wonder why Lockheed had to go to the USSR to get the titanium Metal it needed when titanium dioxide is so cheap and readily available?

Did you ever wonder if the US government ever even tried to get the production of titanium Metal going in the US during the Cold War?

Yeah, all of that is part of the story behind why Lockheed had to get its titanium Metal from the USSR for the SR-71, and obviously you couldn't give a dead rubber rat's a$$ about that story, since you and all the other self-appointed Editors and Guardians of this SR-71 article MISSED THIS PATENTLY OBVIOUS MISTAKE and so a BIG part of why you think it is unnecessary to put all of that in is that you don't want to admit that you missed this simple mistake.

I think putting in all of that paints the full picture of what happened with that story about Lockheed getting the titanium Metal for the SR-71 from the USSR, which is by now actually a pretty well known story, but invariably somebody gets the story twisted in the wrong way into a lack of titanium ORE rather than the METAL.

Have a nice day. May you live in interesting times. And do Google the definition of "Vandal". DarthRad (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wish granted, you have been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_behaviour_by_DarthRad.  Stepho  talk  08:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

NONE of the walls of text that DarthRad posted addresses the point about civility. Therefore, the user has been blocked. Nothing more to see here, move on. 172.56.232.212 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Cockpit glass

can someone sort out this misinformation...the cockpit glass was triglass... multiple layers with air cooling running between them, it was also sealed using a 3m sealant. Took 70 hrs to replace as each layer of sealant has to cure between the layers, that's the red you see round the windows. The quartz fused glass was used for the ANS window so it could see the stars for navigation without distortion. Don't know how people still get this wrong despite all the crews and engineers correcting this fact. SpeedySr71 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean the canopy substrate? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Addition to the infobox

In most wikipedia articles there is a Developed into even if the project gets canceled.

Should a developed into be added into this infobox for the SR-72? Jjoonnii (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be two different aircraft and are not directly related designs. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)