The SR-71 was never designed as an interceptor, and would require extensive modifications to carry and employ weapons. Not going to happen. There was an earlier YF-12 interceptor program but it never proceeded beyond the prototype stage.

High-altitude balloons are hardly a new threat. They have been used for decades, although some recent Chinese models are more capable than before. Regular tactical aircraft already in the US inventory are perfectly capable of shooting them down.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3288579/f-22...

▲

gaigalas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Current aircraft is not capable of reaching those balloons, read my other commentary. Your link points to a Chinese balloon that dropped way below its operational range.

SR-71 or not, there are already contracts for filling this niche:

https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4613098/... (search for "swamp gas").

If money is flowing to counter/develop high-altitude balloons and declared as urgent, it's likely it's flowing in more than one vein.

The frame modifications you mentioned are already specified and tested, part of the YF-12 programme. It can easily carry air-to-air missiles instead of reconnaissance equipment, and the frame has flown with that configuration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

▲

nradov 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

AIM-120 range and altitude upgrades have been in the works for many years, and balloon defense is a relatively low priority mission. It will also be supplemented by the new AIM-260 which has greater capabilities. The primary goal of those programs is to achieve greater stand-off range versus near-peer adversary aircraft.

The YF-12 prototypes looked superficially similar to the SR-71 but had substantially different airframes. There is simply no place in an SR-71 to mount the necessary weapons, sensors, and avionics without completely rebuilding the entire aircraft. That would be a stupid waste of resources when existing platforms can already accomplish the mission well enough.

	▲	gaigalas 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What are you talking about? The YF-12C was a converted SR-71. It flew exactly as I'm describing. All of this has already been done before. You might be confusing the YF-12 with the A-12, which is related but a significantly different airframe. I won't engage in discussing whether balloons are high priority or not. Let the 2023 events and the funding towards those areas speak for themselves.

▲

walrus01 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Current aircraft is not capable of reaching those balloons

Is a missile a form of aircraft? Because there's variants of the Standard Missile which can hit a low earth orbit satellite, with the right timing, fired from effectively zero velocity and at sea level from a frigate.

▲

gaigalas an hour ago | parent [-]

Well, it's not reusable. You're wasting a resource destined for hypersonic deterrence on some sheets of mylar that float around.

I mean, you can do that, but it would be a tremendous embarrassment.

	▲	walrus01 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Well, it's not reusable No it's not. And it's indeed very costly. But on the grand scale of things of what the US DoD spends per day as a fully loaded lifetime cost to operate a single SSN, SSBN or aircraft carrier, it's a drop in the bucket. They spend absurd amounts of funds on all sorts of things.