US spy plane crashes in SW Asia!

[Analog]

The crash occurred at 2330 GMT on Tuesday, according to a short written statement from US Central Command.

A military spokesman told Associated Press that the location of the crash would not be released because of "host nation sensitivity".

The U-2 is a high-altitude surveillance aircraft first developed in the Cold War and manned by a single pilot.

Regional sensitivities

Central Command gave no details of the plane's mission, and said the cause of the crash and the condition of the pilot were currently unknown.

"The specific location is not releasable due to host nation sensitivities," US Air Force Capt David W Small, a Central Command spokesman, told the agency.

AP says south-west Asia is a phrase often used by the US military to refer to the Middle East.

The long thin plane, with a wing-span of 100 feet (30.5 metres), is able to cruise at 90,000 ft (27,430 m) - more than 17 miles (27 km) up - so high that the pilot has to wear a spacesuit.

The U-2 was an invaluable US surveillance tool during the Cold War, able to photograph Soviet military facilities and operating in great secrecy out of Adana in Turkey - later renamed the Incirlik airbase.

In 1960 a U-2 was shot down by a volley of Soviet surface-to-air missiles. The pilot, Gary Powers, ejected but was captured and held for two years on spying charges.

It was also a U-2 that took the photographs of Soviet missiles being put into Cuba in October 1962. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4119344.stm

 

[Rallispec]

i just read this on the washington posts' site.

didnt even realize we were still using U2's.


hopefully the pilot is okay and is recoverdes safely.

 

[GoingUp]

probably over iran.

why are these things still flying around when we can use satellites and not put pilots at risk?

 

[Rallispec]

i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

 

[m2kewl]

doh! should of used the Aurora spyplane instead.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: m2kewl
doh! should of used the Aurora spyplane instead.

any known photos of that thing?

thats the one with the scramjet engine IIRC

 

[Medicine Bear]

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

71 was retired some years ago. NASA uses the leftover fleet of 71's for high speed/high altitude research. Not sure if any of the YF-12's are still flying or not. "Oficially" there were only a few of those ever built.

Also....the U2 that crashed was likey a TR-1 variant.

 

[Rallispec]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: m2kewl
doh! should of used the Aurora spyplane instead.

any known photos of that thing?

thats the one with the scramjet engine IIRC

no known photographs. THe government still denying that it exists. All we know about it today is based on educated guesses.

 

[Monoman]

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

$$

it was costing us SOOOO much in gas costs that it wasn't even close to reasonable to fly that plane anymore. It's still my favorite jet second to F15.

I have talked to 2 SR71 pilots and they both had great stories. They would get up to full speed getting ready for a spy run over seas somewhere and they would pass over several SAM sites that were launching missiles at them. The jets would just keep on going as they were outrunning the missiles. Freaking awesome..

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
In 1960 a U-2 was shot down by a volley of Soviet surface-to-air missiles. The pilot, Gary Powers, ejected...

well .. not exactly :evil:

 

[JasonSix78]

I thought they used the Global Hawk for spying these days?

-Jason

 

[Cruise51]

$$$ the U-2 is great bang for your spying buck.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Monoman

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

$$

it was costing us SOOOO much in gas costs that it wasn't even close to reasonable to fly that plane anymore. It's still my favorite jet second to F15.

I have talked to 2 SR71 pilots and they both had great stories. They would get up to full speed getting ready for a spy run over seas somewhere and they would pass over several SAM sites that were launching missiles at them. The jets would just keep on going as they were outrunning the missiles. Freaking awesome..

Did that thing fly from NY to LA in under an hour?

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
$$$ the U-2 is great bang for your spying buck.

What are you talking about? :roll:

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

A military spokesman told Associated Press that the location of the crash would not be released because of "host nation sensitivity".
[/L]

That's another phrase for 'avoiding embarrassment'.

 

[Schadenfroh]

they still use the u2?

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
they still use the u2?

I guess they still haven't found what they're looking for.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

They never should have retired the SR-71 in favor of this piece of sh1t. I know the Electrical Systems Engineer for the SR (who's now one of the managers of the U2), and he says that the retirement of SR-71 in favor of U2 was PURELY political. In every way the SR-71 is a superior aircraft.

Maybe this will wake up the politicians who make such stupid decisions.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

71 was retired some years ago. NASA uses the leftover fleet of 71's for high speed/high altitude research. Not sure if any of the YF-12's are still flying or not. "Oficially" there were only a few of those ever built.

Also....the U2 that crashed was likey a TR-1 variant.

The "leftover fleet" consists of ONE SR-71. There are at least 9 disassembled and stored, 2 of which could be flight-ready in 72 hours. There were a total of 30 and one half SR-71's built (half of one burned up during a landing where the front tires caught on fire, and that half of the plane had to be rebuilt). I'm told that *not one* SR-71 has ever been shot down, and that only two have ever crashed.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Monoman

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

$$

it was costing us SOOOO much in gas costs that it wasn't even close to reasonable to fly that plane anymore. It's still my favorite jet second to F15.

I have talked to 2 SR71 pilots and they both had great stories. They would get up to full speed getting ready for a spy run over seas somewhere and they would pass over several SAM sites that were launching missiles at them. The jets would just keep on going as they were outrunning the missiles. Freaking awesome..

The SR-71's retirement had everything to do with politics and NOTHING to do with *gas*.

Jason

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

One problem with satellite surveillance is that it is very predictable. The bad guys almost certainly know the orbits of most of our assets. Unless you're going to burn ALOT of gas (and severely impact the mission life of the satellite), they can know to within a few minutes when the satellites are overhead, and go hide their sh|t..

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: Rallispec

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: m2kewl
doh! should of used the Aurora spyplane instead.

any known photos of that thing?

thats the one with the scramjet engine IIRC

no known photographs. THe government still denying that it exists. All we know about it today is based on educated guesses.

Specious... Scientific American had a lengthy article earlier this year on this project.

Metron

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Monoman

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

$$

it was costing us SOOOO much in gas costs that it wasn't even close to reasonable to fly that plane anymore. It's still my favorite jet second to F15.

I have talked to 2 SR71 pilots and they both had great stories. They would get up to full speed getting ready for a spy run over seas somewhere and they would pass over several SAM sites that were launching missiles at them. The jets would just keep on going as they were outrunning the missiles. Freaking awesome..

The SR-71's retirement had everything to do with politics and NOTHING to do with *gas*.

Jason

I don't know about the politics, but they were phenomenally expensive to fly & maintain - even by Air Force standards.

 

[Monoman]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Monoman

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

$$

it was costing us SOOOO much in gas costs that it wasn't even close to reasonable to fly that plane anymore. It's still my favorite jet second to F15.

I have talked to 2 SR71 pilots and they both had great stories. They would get up to full speed getting ready for a spy run over seas somewhere and they would pass over several SAM sites that were launching missiles at them. The jets would just keep on going as they were outrunning the missiles. Freaking awesome..

The SR-71's retirement had everything to do with politics and NOTHING to do with *gas*.

Jason

hrm.... well a 2 star general is where I got my info from. He was the LAST pilot to fly the Sr 71's before they were (for a lack of a better work at this moment) grounded. He showed us some pics taken from the bird that were just declassified. It was awesome.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: Rallispec
i suppose satellite photography cant match aerial photography, especially when it takes so long to get a satellite into position. WHen a plane can be in the air and taking higher resolution pictures sooner.

Now why are they using the U2 instead of the sr-71?

71 was retired some years ago. NASA uses the leftover fleet of 71's for high speed/high altitude research. Not sure if any of the YF-12's are still flying or not. "Oficially" there were only a few of those ever built.

Also....the U2 that crashed was likey a TR-1 variant.

The "leftover fleet" consists of ONE SR-71. There are at least 9 disassembled and stored, 2 of which could be flight-ready in 72 hours. There were a total of 30 and one half SR-71's built (half of one burned up during a landing where the front tires caught on fire, and that half of the plane had to be rebuilt). I'm told that *not one* SR-71 has ever been shot down, and that only two have ever crashed.

Jason

NASA has 3 SR-71s, not 1. Link