It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U-2 Spy Plane down in SW Asia

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Thanks for the link AceOfBase.
According to your link, the U-2 that went down was part of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing which is based ar Al Dhafra AB, UAE


380th Air Expeditionary Wing
This would explain why the pilot was attempting to land in UEA.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown
Forgive me for sounding stoopid, but wasnt the U-2 retired decades ago?

And if it is still in use then why isnt the SR-71 which is a hell of alot better than it?



And the BBC says that a pilot of the 380th Expeditionary Wing was lost in the crash!



[edit on 22/6/2005 by Identity_Unknown]


Just researched it and i was wrong, but of the 35 still in service 6 have crashed so isnt this just another crash?

But my question still stands, why are they still using the U-2 when the SR-71 was amde as its replacement?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Im no expert but i would imagine money had a lot to do with it. The reason the U2 is still operational is because its a proven platform that has worked time and again. Using the U2 means that it can sometimes see what an orbital satalite cannot, i.e. fly under cloud cover etc. But again im no expert. You would be better off asking someone like Waynos about why its still in service.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus
Routine recon over Afganistan. Still looking for Osama in Afganistan then.
Dont know about you guys but something dont ring true about this.
If it turns out he took fire that damaged his plane then it sure as hell didnt happen over Afganistan. And why didnt he bail as soon as he was over friendly territory?
Im still going with mechanical faliure tho until someone comes up with proof of a shoot down.



Do they usually release the name of the pilot sortly after this? And if by chance they do not, wouldn't that be suspicious?

Peace



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
As far as i know they will not release the pilots name until after his next of kin are notified, as it should be.
The U2 operations are secret so no i wouldnt find it suspisious if they didnt release his name.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus
Im no expert but i would imagine money had a lot to do with it. The reason the U2 is still operational is because its a proven platform that has worked time and again. Using the U2 means that it can sometimes see what an orbital satalite cannot, i.e. fly under cloud cover etc. But again im no expert. You would be better off asking someone like Waynos about why its still in service.


But the SR-71 Blackbird is a proven platform also! This is the reason it has been brought out of retirement once before!

The Blackbird was made as the follow-on from the U-2 so why was it retired before the U-2!

It doesnt make sense!




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
So much for them no longer using the U-2 or SR-71, hehe....




But my question still stands, why are they still using the U-2 when the SR-71 was amde as its replacement?


Cause it's cheap...


Of course, maybe sending a half-century old spyplane out into service isn't the brightest idea in the world....
Folks, we are being led by the blind...

Yet another in a long line of Bush administration screw ups (approving that antique for such a mission)....and no doubt hardly the last... We've still got almost 4 more years to go folks! Better strap in, cause it's going to be a bumpy ride....




The Blackbird was made as the follow-on from the U-2 so why was it retired before the U-2!


Neither of them were "truly" retired... There are still missions that planes can do that satellites cannot. We usually use drones for that though, so in this case, drones or satellite weren't deemed the right tool for the job. Still, the Blackbird seems to be the only choice to me, but it is pretty picky about the facilities it needs to take off and land. The U-2, as an older, slower plane, is much more forgiving as I recall, and can make better use of conventional airstrips.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Janus, that is correct. They will not release the name of the pilot until the family is notified first. This requirement I wholeheartedly support because I would hate to be one of the pilot's family who hears about this on the news and learns it is their family that is affected by a news reporter. That would be a killer feeling.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
pending thoeries that will surely come out of this unfortunate accident. an accident that aparently occured during LANDING, so ceilings and missiles need not be researched.

it was a HAARP blast

they greys don't like nosy spy planes

pilot is part of NWO, took a dive to create an international incident to provoke iran or N korea into a strike so we can respond


we have already started a war with Iran (for souljah)

it was a time travelling plane that was from the past (old plane) and when it came back to the future, it crashed



[edit on 22-6-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

Of course, maybe sending a half-century old spyplane out into service isn't the brightest idea in the world....
Folks, we are being led by the blind...

maybe its a smart idea since we still use the B-52 aka BUFFs which is half a century old as well. in anicase its better to use something that is still good and that has served well.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
There's a difference between a workhorse bomber, and advanced stealth needs...


Especially when there is a replacement that is far and above in capability....


You can play video games on an Atari 2600, but who's going to choose it over the PS-2?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
So much for them no longer using the U-2 or SR-71, hehe....


Nobody said they werent using the U-2 anymore!

Infact the USAF still recognise there being 36 in service and five two seat training planes. There are also the 2 (i believe) ER-2's that NASA operate!

USAF U-2s Fact Sheet!

They do however say that the SR-71 is not in operation, which i think is total rubbish!

Mic


[edit on 22/6/2005 by MickeyDee]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
There's a difference between a workhorse bomber, and advanced stealth needs...


Especially when there is a replacement that is far and above in capability....


You can play video games on an Atari 2600, but who's going to choose it over the PS-2?


we are using these planes in Afghanistan not in Russia or China. in anicase thats just my view.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
we have already started a war with Iran (for souljah)

I belive that if Only a small un-armed Drone as much as looked at the American Airspace, your president would soon Launch just about everything it his ARSenal upon that country that launched that drone.

But HEY - thats Fine, because HE CAN.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
But HEY - thats Fine, because HE CAN.



Of course its fine, after all he is George W Bush!!!




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
A main reason for taking the 71 out of the usaf inventory was its high operating cost and guess what!?!? it wouldn't surprise me that they did seeing as it was a declassified airplane and they already have cut huge amounts of current projects as is. goverments can be stupdi when they have something good on there hands that they can use. just look at canada and the arrow. thats my 2 cents on the 71's being retired. as for the U-2 it shouldn't of retired long ago if they have stuff like mach-8 bombers or spy planes anyways?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
we have already started a war with Iran (for souljah)

I belive that if Only a small un-armed Drone as much as looked at the American Airspace, your president would soon Launch just about everything it his ARSenal upon that country that launched that drone.

But HEY - thats Fine, because HE CAN.




actually, I'd expect him to use it as leverage to gain a concession from the country responsible, maybe some coke and hookers or something. I don't expect he'd use it to go to war unless it was a country already on the hit list, like iran or syria.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The SR-71 was NOT built as a replacement for the U-2. It was built to COMPLEMENT the U-2 and to go areas where the U-2 wasn't safe to take, as in over Russia, or over places that hard large numbers of SA-2 SAM launchers. The U-2 was modified with side scan cameras so that it could skirt areas, and the -71 would overfly them at speeds too fast to be caught.

The U-2 is an EXTREMELY difficult plane to land. The pilot can't see down due to the canopy design and the space suit helmet he's wearing. They have to have another pilot drive along next to the runway and talk him down because the last 50 feet or so he can't tell how high he is over the runway. The difference between a safe flight, stalling, and breaking up is about 15 knots either way.

There are many reason to use the U-2s over Afghanistan. The cameras in them are much more sensetive, and have a much wider angle than the cameras in a drone, and sattelites have a known schedule. As far as landing in the UAE, our bases in countries around Afghanistan probably aren't secure enough to put something like the U-2 into. We haven't had a long relationship with those countries as they were part of the USSR until recently. Don't forget that during one of the Israel-Egypt-Syria wars, they launched SR-71s from the US, flew them over the Middile East and recovered them in the US again.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   


The U-2 is an EXTREMELY difficult plane to land. The pilot can't see down due to the canopy design and the space suit helmet he's wearing. They have to have another pilot drive along next to the runway and talk him down because the last 50 feet or so he can't tell how high he is over the runway. The difference between a safe flight, stalling, and breaking up is about 15 knots either way.


Thanks for the info, im not an expert on planes and didnt even know he wore a Spacesuit. But that would make sense due to the altitude they fly.
Are you suggesting that the crash was pilot error? Do you perhaps know if there have been other crashes from pilot error?
I think your explanation is as good as any, if he had a mechanical error for instance and decided that he could land the bird but due to the inherent difficulties you described in landing the U2 coupled with a possible mechanical faliure the plane came down. Sounds a more plausible explanation than enemy fire imho.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
It's very easy to put a U-2 onto the runway too hard, bounce back up into the air, and when you are trying to recover put it into Pilot Induced Ocillations, where the plane would rapidly porpoise up and down. At that point the chances of being able to recover aren't very good. There are several mechanical conditions that have cropped up that caused several U-2 crashes. However when I was reading a site that listed the U-2s in the Inventory and crashes over the year, pilot error seems to be the leading cause. There was one in California, where a wing caught fire, several that were shot down, and at least one that suffered a tail seperation on take off, but the majority were caused by clipping something like high tension lines, hitting the runway too hard, etc....

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zaphod58]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join