Do we need the SR-71?

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:34:34 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
any in the first place.

Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very
effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of
weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't
"see" that kind of stuff.

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
one over a hostile nation in many years.

Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment.

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to the
UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use. From what
I understand, they are fairly cheap to operate and very reliable. That's
hard to argue with.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
sucker?

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
sucker?


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...s/u-2_pics.htm

And some good info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2.htm

On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:27:56 +0000, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
sucker?


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...s/u-2_pics.htm

And some good info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2.htm

Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not, it's a
friggen U-2.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not,
it's a friggen U-2.

No, it's a TR-1. Do you call a Skylane a Skyhawk? Same basic airframe,
perhaps, but different capabilities. Calling a TR-1 a U-2 only perpetuates
and reinforces media ignorance - something we all seem to rail against on a
somewhat regular basis.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:14:02 +0000, John T wrote:

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not,
it's a friggen U-2.

No, it's a TR-1. Do you call a Skylane a Skyhawk? Same basic airframe,
perhaps, but different capabilities. Calling a TR-1 a U-2 only perpetuates
and reinforces media ignorance - something we all seem to rail against on a
somewhat regular basis.

Ya, I can see the news bench breaking their neck for that correction.

"This just in! It seems that even though it doesn't change the story at
all and the plane looks the same, what we previously put forth as a U-2 is
really a TR-1. We realize many of you will have to restart life from
scratch again because of this mistake. We, are, sorry."

The point? No one really cares in this case unless you are a plane buff
or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
Powers for that.

Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".

Greg Copeland wrote in
news
Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of
that sucker?

I was fortunate enough to have a NASA negative enlarged into a 30x40
picture of a TR-1 which is prominently displayed in my home. Sometime
ago, NASA allowed enlargments to be purchased through NASA contractors;
dunno if they still do that.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)