Is the U-2 the single greatest military aircraft of all time

File: ja3fzLr.jpg (245KB, 1200x838px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1200x838px

http://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1070623/u-2-breaks-30000-hour-barrier-in-fight-against-isil/

File: 6QaYF.jpg (755KB, 3547x2093px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 3547x2093px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48Swb2ATww

Maybe. Others will probably say the sr-71 blackbird desu

File: E3qkrGd.jpg (111KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x683px

>>33438816
The U-2 has been more valuable and more useful in every way

File: 1455301265085.jpg (33KB, 550x339px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 550x339px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ML2A1SHeo

>>33438757
>Is the U-2 the single greatest military aircraft of all time?

Right behind the SR71

>>33439034
last I checked the SR-71 was retired because it was too expensive and had no real use

The U-2 is spying on ISIS and North Korea as we speak

>>33439073
https://www.blackbirds.net/u2/c_bennett/bbird-08.html

>>33439073
the SR-71 was retired because of bureaucratic pentagon nonsense. both should still be in service as both serve different roles.

>>33439103
The SR-71 was a great plane, but it's capability for cost was just not worth it. Like your article says, 15 times more expensive to operate than the U-2.

When getting shot down is a serious concern, modern drones can fill in for the Blackbird, but nothing can do what the U-2 can do in terms of raw spying.

>>33439073
The -71 was retired because something better, and as yet unreveiled, has been developed and put into operation.

>>33440220
probably true

>>33438757
Honestly how the fuck do aircraft last so much time??

A fucking laptop lasts a year if I"m lucky...

>>33440372
I'm only entering the field, but from what I gather...the U-2 has fairly low loads on the airframe; not pulling high g's in flight and not undergoing hard landings like planes that have to land on carriers (we have to design the landing gears for like 3x the load if it's for a navy plane that's going on a carrier).

>>33440372
It's a glider with a jet engine. Not that difficult

>>33438850
except not getting shot down m8

>>33439034
Aw yeah

>>33440458
A surprisingly large jet engine.
The thrust-weight ratio on the U-2 is much higher than most would suspect from it's glider-like appearance.

>greatest military aircraft
>gets shot down by ancient SA-2
How is it great at anything if it can't even do reconnaissance against a half competent air defense?

File: IMG_3266.jpg (22KB, 520x288px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 520x288px

Leaving this here.

Threadly reminder that the very first SAM shotdown of the world was against an U-2 flying over China, shot down by malnourished Chinese SA-2 operators.

This shows that the U-2 is shit.

>>33443318
checkmate Atheists

>Repeatedly shot down
>Great

Meriboos are stupid as fuck.

File: U-2-6AGBeijing1965_zpsce6b974a.jpg (154KB, 1023x851px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1023x851px

>>33443372
>Beijing, 1965 – display of the wrecks of all four U-2s shot down over mainland China until than. Three of them had been downed by Yue Zenhua’s unit.

>>33443372
Actually the first SAM kill in history was friendly fire against an SU-9 Fishpot followed 10-15 seconds later by a U-2C piloted by major Gary Powers over Sverdlosk USSR. May 4th, 1960.

How the fuck do you not know about the U-2 incident?

Can anyone bother explaining what makes it so great in this day and age? It's survivability is questionable, is the sensor package larger or better than what a global hawk carries? What does it do that is so special?

>>33443458
J U S T

>>33443843
Nothing. It is outmatched in every way by satellites.
It is like the A10, obsolete decades ago but kept alive by demands of sentimental morons like OP

>>33443863
Explain how satellite imagery is more quickly exploited and disseminated than U-2 imagery.

>>33443932
>continuous instant downlink ability vs having to pull shitty camera footage out of a plane
gee

inb4 "hurr what if the satellite is on the opposite side of earth"

>>33443951
>pull shitty camera footage out of a plane
You don't know anything about U-2s.

>>33438757
Very likely we have replaced it, civilians really wouldn't know about it. That's what I think

>>33438757
it's a meme aircraft favored by reddit

File: film-reel-df997.jpg (54KB, 1210x912px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1210x912px

>>33443951
>>33443951
>>33443951
>>33443951

>pull shitty camera footage
>U2


Yeah they just pull one of these out of them and then they have to develop the footage.


Why do you even post if you don't know what you are talking about?

>>33443951
>hurr what if the satellite is on the opposite side of earth
And how is that not a real issue? Sattelites in LEO have a window of less than 30 minutes during which there's line of sight with a target - and that's not even considering the view angles it'd need to give useful images. After that window, you've got to wait several orbits for the sattelite to be back in position again, which can take hours or days. Higher sattelites may provide better coverage times, but at the cost of longer periods they have to wait between coverage times and lower resolution.

Reconnaissance aircraft are still necessary, because it's not feasible to flood the skies with enough satellites to provide 100% coverage of the world at all times.

>>33443951
https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/syers.htm

educate yourself pls.

>>33444026
>And how is that not a real issue?
what is space-to-space communication? I can't believe people this dumb exist.

>>33444117
>space-to-space communication
What about it? You can't have sattelites covering an area 100% of the time, and orbital maneuvers are too expensive to warrant use for putting a sattelite over a target whenever you need it.