[Milsurplus] CLASSIFIED: U-2 Cockpit Photo!

[mikea]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:40:50AM -0800, Joe Foley wrote:
> Would someone please explain to me why we use an early
> '50's airplane for this mission instead of the '60's
> version, the SR-71's?
> 
> Was it TOO good?  Did it give us too much of an
> advantage?

The SR-71 is too much buck for the bang, to build _and_ to run.
I remember a pilot talking about the "monkey-on-back" feeling of
"driving a noticeable fraction of the defense budget around". It
is a pricey bird, and an acquaintance at the NASA Dryden Flight 
Research Center tells me they are un$DEITYly expensive to operate
and maintain -- not to mention the special (and pricey) fuel. 

The U-2 and its younger, bigger brother the TR-2(?) are plenty
good enough for most anything we need to do; it's _hard_ to get a
SAM up that high. Look how long it took Ivan to get a U-2. They
must have been frustrated beyond endurance, seeing those radar 
targets and _KNOWING_ they couldn't reach them. 

For the stuff that can wait a bit, a Keyhole will be along soon
enough. 

Besides, I suspect we have something that bores bigger, better, 
_faster_ holes through the upper atmosphere for those 3 AM wakeup
calls -- even if it isn't called "Aurora" this week. 

The only reason I'm allowed to suspect it is that I don't _know_ 
that we do. 

-- 
Mike Andrews
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin since 1964