US spy plane crashes in SW Asia!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Medicine Bear

Banned
Feb 28, 2005
1,818
1
0
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.
They must have crashed two of them then. I also remember seeing a pic of 3 NASA SR's where they were painted white with yellow stripes on the wings. One was a normal SR, the other 2 were the training models that had the "hump" behind the pilot's seat like the one in the middle of my linked photo.

 

Kindjal

Senior member
Mar 30, 2001
750
1
81
/Q]
I don't know about the politics, but they were phenomenally expensive to fly & maintain - even by Air Force standards.[/quote]

I always was amazed that the SR-71 was designed to leak fuel on the ground. Eventually, at supersonic speeds the skin would heat up and seal the gaps preventing leakage.

 

Monoman

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2001
2,163
0
76
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



lol, you mean these two sr 71's? It's at Edwards AFB
 

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
Originally posted by: 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

High Res :shocked:
 

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
Originally posted by: Monoman
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



lol, you mean these two sr 71's? It's at Edwards AFB

OWNAGE!!!! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
 

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Monoman
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



lol, you mean these two sr 71's? It's at Edwards AFB

OWNAGE!!!! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Man, that is one freaking large base, they have runways and taxiways everywhere, and alot of jets and heli's on the ground. Cool! I love google maps!
 

eLiu

Diamond Member
Jun 4, 2001
6,407
1
0
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?

The SR-71 costs A LOT of money. A LOT. The U-2 is comparatively free (actually, it's probably a TR-1 now...think of it as a modified/upgraded U-2).

Sadly, the SR-71 has been cut from the budget and is now more or less a museum piece. When it flew, it was way ahead of its time--among other things, fastest & stealthiest. It is still a very advanced aircraft. Although nothing can beat the 'instant' photography that can be delivered by a craft like the SR-71, most of the money managers in Congress decided that satellites (and upcoming unmanned, short-range surveillance) would more than fit the bill for military photography intel.
 

loic2003

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2003
3,844
0
0
The SR-71's weren't that reliable. The engines had a habit of flaming out at max chat which is never a good thing. Also, because of the speed they flew at, the noses would take a pounding and would need to be reshaped and repainted after each sortie. Turnaround time and running costs were large compared with other aircraft. Most supersonic aircraft really get a beating and take a fair amount of time to get back up in the air.

Yet another reason why concorde is one of man's finest achievements, ever.

I'd imagine the U2 to be a lot cheaper to run and possibly more reliable since it is significantly slower.
 

Monoman

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2001
2,163
0
76
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: 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

High Res :shocked:


is it just me or does this seem like a photo chop on the jet?

http://img129.echo.cx/img129/4218/cutout6yd.jpg

within the red circle
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: 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

What are you trying to say? There are no photographs. The OP is correct.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Let's not forget that when the SR-71 was retired, the world was a much more stable place. It seems in only the last few years, countries like North Korea, Iran, and a bunch of other countries have begun acting up.

It was originally retired in 1990. At that time the Soviet Union had just dissolved and there weren't really any high-threat environments that needed it when a U-2 could have done the job cheaper. They brought the SR-71 back temporarily, but retired it for good in 1998.

There's always something going on in the world so we'd always need spy planes. But if the country isn't being very aggressive and threat isn't high, they'll just use U-2's instead.



 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Originally posted by: 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..

I remember seeing that in a movie... but how do they know what the orbit of our satellites are?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

I remember seeing that in a movie... but how do they know what the orbit of our satellites are?

You can easily track them on radar. Since they have to follow the same orbit 100% of the time, they follow the same path at the same time, every day. Satellites only have a small amount of fuel on them for stabilization and giving them a tiny boost to overcome the minute amount of drag that's up there. They can't change directions or anything like that.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
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?

the SR-71 is no longer operational.

It was so incredibly complicated that it outlived its usefulness. I think the U2 is a fairly normal aircraft, just with really long wings an a high-altitude engine.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,703
10,439
136
At first I read SE Asia and was thinking OMG North Korea!!!!

But likely it was over Iran or Pakistan.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Probably flying over Pakistan to look for Bin Laden, or possibly Iran to keep track of their nuclear progress.
 

Armitage

Banned
Feb 23, 2001
8,086
0
0
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Originally posted by: 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..

I remember seeing that in a movie... but how do they know what the orbit of our satellites are?

Go outside and look up :p
Seriously - there is a whole amateur observer community that get's their kicks attempting to determine the orbits of objects that aren't, shall we say, "in the public catalog" ;)
They do it mostly by optical observation - often just with naked eye or binoculars and a stop watch.

Of course, if you have the right kind of friends, you just go ask countries like Russia where they are. They have full blown space surveillance capabilities.

I doubt that they get all of them all of the time. But they probably have a pretty good idea about most of them most of the time.
 

wfbberzerker

Lifer
Apr 12, 2001
10,423
0
0
why would they use a spy plane from the 60's when they could easily (and probably much more cheaply), use one of those unmanned spy planes that are tiny?
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,879
3,306
136
Originally posted by: Monoman
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: 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

High Res :shocked:


is it just me or does this seem like a photo chop on the jet?

http://img129.echo.cx/img129/4218/cutout6yd.jpg

within the red circle

thats not photochopped. that is the two seat trainer.

SR-71B Two-seat trainer with a separate raised cockpit for an instructor pilot; 2 built (1 lost)
SR-71C Two-seat trainer rebuilt from a YF-12A structural test model and incorporating parts from other crashed airframes, built to replace one of the SR-71B trainers that was lost, later used by NASA; 1 converted

link
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
why would they use a spy plane from the 60's when they could easily (and probably much more cheaply), use one of those unmanned spy planes that are tiny?


Do you really think a tiny, unmanned spy plane has a range of thousands of miles like the real spy planes do?

 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Originally posted by: alien42
thats not photochopped. that is the two seat trainer.

SR-71B Two-seat trainer with a separate raised cockpit for an instructor pilot; 2 built (1 lost)
SR-71C Two-seat trainer rebuilt from a YF-12A structural test model and incorporating parts from other crashed airframes, built to replace one of the SR-71B trainers that was lost, later used by NASA; 1 converted

link

I think he was talking about the hole behind the second cockpit, where the IFR probe goes.

FYI (not directed at alien, but at others that mentioned the YF-12) the only one that was made, was converted to SR-71C, won and still holds the speed record, and is on display at the R&D Hangar of the Air Force Museum, located at WPAFB in Dayton, OH. It is actually displayed with its trophy.