Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I thought Bono was already a drone.
1 posted on 06/03/2009 7:42:27 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: decimon

These were formerly based in Japan, among other locations.


2 posted on 06/03/2009 7:46:57 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: decimon
Looking at the four and five year old pictures taken by Russian satellites, one has to wonder if you cannot count the hairs exposed on the beach with the current American ones.
3 posted on 06/03/2009 7:48:01 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: decimon

I didn’t even know they still flew those things.


4 posted on 06/03/2009 7:50:58 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: decimon
unbelievable that we were still using them.
5 posted on 06/03/2009 7:52:30 AM PDT by ReformedBeckite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: decimon
From the article: "The U-2, designed in the 1950s for the requirements of the Cold War, is a single-seat plane that can fly at extremely high altitudes and speeds and go without refueling for long missions, making it highly suitable for spy missions."

It's true that the U-2s can go pretty high, but they are definitely not a high speed aircraft. One of the limitations, at least in the earlier models, was what was known as the "coffin corner", the airspeed/altitude situation where the mach limit and the stall speed coincided.

There used to be one of the first series on display at the SAC museum in Omaha, and it was obviously constructed with basic glider technology of the 50s, with flaps and ailerons connected to the wings by piano hinge. The later U-2s still in operation are more sophisticated and powerful, but still have similar airframe speed limitations.

7 posted on 06/03/2009 8:01:21 AM PDT by 19th LA Inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: decimon

The Global Hawk has more capable surveillance systems and longer loiter time. It’s potential vulnerability is its stated maximum altitude of 65,000 feet. I doubt that is its true maximum altitude, since being unmanned, it shouldn’t have human systems/life support concerns.


10 posted on 06/03/2009 8:13:27 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (Life's not fair, people are mean. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: decimon

I got to work with this bird a little bit about 10 years ago. Amazing seeing them cracked open at just how ... simple they were. Granted, I am not an aero engineer or anything.


11 posted on 06/03/2009 8:13:32 AM PDT by MatD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson