| Tango01 | 12 Aug 2016 10:47 p.m. PST |
"The U.S. Air Force has quietly offered a rare glimpse of one of the more secretive warplanes involved in the war on ISIS. On Aug. 6, Air Forces Central Command—the flying branch's headquarters overseeing operations in the Middle East—released a video of a black-painted U-2 spy plane taking off and landing at what the command described as an "undisclosed location" on July 14. The iconic spy plane's mission, according to command, was to "support of Operation Inherent Resolve," America's campaign against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria…"
More here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Lion in the Stars | 13 Aug 2016 4:21 a.m. PST |
Yeah, apparently the U2s have been fitted with an overgrown digital switchboard that allows different units and systems to talk to each other. One of these days the US will make radios that will all talk to each other… |
| Dynaman8789 | 13 Aug 2016 6:14 a.m. PST |
the U2 is like Energizer Bunny, just keeps going and going. |
| Tango01 | 13 Aug 2016 10:25 a.m. PST |
|
| Mardaddy | 13 Aug 2016 10:52 a.m. PST |
So what exactly can the U2 do that drones cannot? (and that is coming from a fan of the U2's design as a spy plane, how it fulfilled its mission when it was in its prime, and admirer of its record overall) |
| Rabbit 3 | 13 Aug 2016 11:36 a.m. PST |
Fly at very high altitude, the reason it was designed for in the first place!
There are still very few types around that can match the U2`s ceiling. |
| Mako11 | 13 Aug 2016 12:37 p.m. PST |
Better there than spying on me in my back yard, I guess. U2s are probably much better at mapping, for the recon intel guys to review, afterwards. Yep, much higher ceiling, so less chance getting shot at by insurgents or Russian jets. |
| Lion in the Stars | 14 Aug 2016 4:21 a.m. PST |
They essentially act like a comms satellite and relay between different systems, only this comsat doesn't cost $3 USDb per and is essentially constantly overhead. |
| Dynaman8789 | 14 Aug 2016 5:59 a.m. PST |
Interesting take on the U2 vs a drone. The only thing really keeping a U2 from being a drone is replacing the pilot. I'm assuming the flight controls have been modernized to the point where that is possible – not having any kind of clearance I don't know that as a fact of course. |
| Lion in the Stars | 15 Aug 2016 10:52 a.m. PST |
I'm sure we could park the same comms-relay system into a Global Hawk, but the U2s are long-since paid for. As far as autopilot systems go, don't have a clue. It's definitely possible, though the various diaries indicate that the U2s liked to fly in the "Coffin Corner" of the flight envelope: Where slowing down ANY would put you into a pre-stall buffet, and speeding up ANY would put you into trans-sonic buffet. Basically, so high up that the air was so thin that stall speed was right at the speed of sound. Makes it very difficult to program an autopilot to respond correctly. |
| Mardaddy | 15 Aug 2016 2:04 p.m. PST |
I am logically seeing the only difference as being the altitude, and even then, the Soviets shot down Powers back in the 1960's… Even with our advances, their advances for high-altitude AA have to parallel. And if recon while avoiding AA was the case, are not satellites already parked there for the same purpose? Or have we gone all this time to date WITHOUT parking a recon satellite there? Who is in charge of this goat-rope anyways? |
| Lion in the Stars | 15 Aug 2016 4:20 p.m. PST |
Recon satellites aren't constantly over the scene, they're overhead about once every 30 minutes or so for about one day a week (if I understand the orbital motions relative to the ground correctly). You need LOTS of satellites to have near-constant coverage: the Iridium satphone network has 77 working sats and a dozen or more in-orbit spares. Planes let you keep something overhead continuously. |
is back from Council of Five Nations.