Author Topic: U-2 Flight (Read 997 times)

funkedup · « **on:** February 18, 2003, 01:00:22 PM »

And the Iraqis didn't shoot at it!
This is a very encouraging sign.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:23:26 PM »

And to think this was going to be a thread about Bono getting nominated for the Nobel Political Peace Price.

Hortlund · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:33:48 PM »

Speaking of U-2's can someone fill me in on the logic please?

A typical WMD is roughly the size of a refrigerator. A pretty safe bet is that Saddam has hidden these somewhere in Iraq...presumably indoors or underground.

How will the U2s aid in finding those?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:47:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Speaking of U-2's can someone fill me in on the logic please?

A typical WMD is roughly the size of a refrigerator. A pretty safe bet is that Saddam has hidden these somewhere in Iraq...presumably indoors or underground.

How will the U2s aid in finding those?

Infra-red? X-ray? They can tell if stuff is underground these days, can't they? Or would a "lead-lined" bunker defeat that?

muckmaw · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:50:19 PM »

Hey...who paid for that U-2? What as the nationality of the pilot who flew it? Who paid for the fuel? How about the film? Who built that bird?

Hmmmmm.......

bounder · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:50:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Speaking of U-2's can someone fill me in on the logic please?

A typical WMD is roughly the size of a refrigerator. A pretty safe bet is that Saddam has hidden these somewhere in Iraq...presumably indoors or underground.

How will the U2s aid in finding those?

Do they still use U2s? I thought they had been superceded by the TR-1.

As for how useful they may be, I expect that's a closely guarded secret. Remote sensing equipment has come a long way since Gary Powers, and even if they can't find the WMD they can read documents pertaining to them from 30,000ft....

Intelligence is a much more nebulous weapon of war than simply looking for something and finding it. You gather as much as you can without targetting your search too directly. Then the really tedious process of collating and cross referencing your information begins.

You never know what you may uncover, completely by chance. Sending in the TR1 too look for refridgerator sized objects would be, as you say, largely futile. But to be able to distinguish between tracks of different vehicles, or spot heat exchangers or air con outlets in odd places, or identify individuals etc. is a vital part of the intelligence effort, whether it comes to war or not.

In a way, I think the spyplanes and the satellites are the most crucial systems of all in this conflict.

bounder · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:52:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
Hey...who paid for that U-2? What as the nationality of the pilot who flew it? Who paid for the fuel? How about the film? Who built that bird?

Hmmmmm.......

Jeez. Why don't you tell us.

funkedup · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:54:59 PM »

U-2's can carry a LOT of sensors. Optical, IR, radar, radiation detection, chemical detection, so on and so forth. U-2's were DESIGNED to find WMD sites in the USSR.

Hortlund · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2003, 01:59:26 PM »

Only nuclear WMD:s. It wont do any good looking for B&C WMD:s.

I have no doubt the U2 has excellent sensors etc, I seriously doubt it is able to look into every basement in Baghdad to see if there is a refrigerator sized crate hidden underneath a bed or something like that.

C-WMDs would give off some chemicals that could be detected if you are close with a sniffer, not if you're cruising along at 40 000 feet though.

B-WMDs doesnt give off any signature at all. Unless its "detonating".

Sorry, I am of the opinion that these U2s are just a red herring. They might be good if Saddam is moving stuff around, but I doubt he's doing that right now.

Chairboy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2003, 02:51:09 PM »

Someone asked about the TR-1. In 1992, the TR-1 was redesignated the U-2R, which is kinda confusing because there was an earlier U-2R designation given to an upgraded U-2 design in the 1960s (the TR-1 first flew in 1981), but the TR-1 is essentially identical to the U-2R and nobody was fooled, so they named it the U-2R.

Of interest, the original reason they called it the TR-1 (for tactical recon) was apparently to appease the British (who built many of the TR-1 subsystems and were the original primary customer) who thought the name U-2 had a spotty history.

Toad · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:14:07 PM »

I'm suprised they agreed to it.

It may help the inspectors but I can just imagine the delight of commanders preparing to invade when they get the "take" from these sorties.

If the sortie rate jumps up... watch out.

Hortlund · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:17:23 PM »

Toad, are the U2s really that much better than the Keyholes?

I mean, from my layman view those seem good enough...

Dowding · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:17:48 PM »

That's an interesting observation, Toad, because the amount weapons expended on Iraq since March 2002 has increased. I'm not sure whether this is entirely down increased Iraqi fly-zone infringements - no info on that.

Toad · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:19:24 PM »

Better is a relative term.

They can do some things a satellite cannot and vice versa.

Let's just say why would we bother to build, maintain and fly them (it is an expensive program) if we didn't think we were getting our money's worth?

midnight Target · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:25:38 PM »

It would seem that the advantager the U-2 has over the Keyhole would be its flexibility.

A U-2 can linger over a suspected site, or map a gid. A satellite is tough to fly in a circle.