Author Topic: U-2 Flight (Read 1000 times)

john9001 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:27:40 PM »

the iraq's were moving things around btween satellite passes, they needed the U2 to fill in the blanks

heard on TV the french and russians may use spy planes to over fly iraq. then i thought , what if some iraq missile operator shoots down a french spy plane?

straffo · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:36:47 PM »

I know that the Mirage IV can be used for strategic reco.
But I have no idea of the performance of this plane (build in the 60's)

Chairboy · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:40:43 PM »

Keyhole orbits are well known, so it switches from a technology issue to merely a logistics issue of doing stuff you want hidden between passes. Iraq can download a schedule off the internet as easily as I can, so they know when it is safe to move their strategic assets (of the kind that they must hide) without being spied on.

Like other posters imply, there are no U-2 schedules that they can download. A U-2 could be around anytime.

The photographic resolution of the cameras on modern U-2Rs has got to exceed what the KH-12 family can do, just by virtue of being X-hundred miles closer to the target then the satellites. Without adaptive optics (which put out an active EM signature (laser light)) there are real limits to what a spy sat can see from orbit due to atmospheric distortion. I'd bet that physical limits were reached in the 1980s as to the max resolution, and that advances since then have been mainly in terms of tracking moving objects (using national technical means to look at satellites and things moving real real fast) and in digital image storage and recall.

Chairboy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:43:30 PM »

Mirage IV:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir4.html

Hortlund · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2003, 03:45:59 PM »

Yeah, but at the same time, the Keyholes can reposition too...or change angle, to throw the Iraqis off. Would cost precious fuel though...

Chairboy · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2003, 04:15:10 PM »

Don't believe the movies.

Keyhole sats can NOT change their orbits like they do in the movies. They can, at best, change which direction they are pointing, meaning that the swath of possible coverage can be a few hundred miles wide. They change which direction they point without using fuel, they have CMGs that spin up and spin down to change orientation, just like the Hubble. You do not want to expel gas (eg, fire a rocket) near a mirror that's polished as highly as theirs are.

Just because someone in "Enemy of the State" or "The Peacemaker" says 'I've retasked a KH-12 to follow the target' doesn't mean that's how it works.

Hortlund · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2003, 04:16:50 PM »

No but what I meant was look the other way or how to put it.

Habu · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2003, 06:16:30 PM »

The MiG-25RB is capable of carrying eight heat-resistant FAB 500 bombs at speeds up to mach 2.85. Despite seeing service in several middle eastern wars, it is doubtful this system has been used in the strike capacity. Bombing accuracy from the high altitudes and speeds the FOXBAT is capable of, make anything other than a nuclear payload useless against a point target. The MiG-25RB has been used extensively by former Soviet client states, most notably Egypt, in its reconnaissance role. A MiG-25Rb was clocked by the Israelis at mach 3.1 while overflying Israel.

I think you could shoot one down much easier than an SR-71 (which by the way is called the Habu by its pilots and not the Blackbird)

Chairboy · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2003, 06:40:52 PM »

Of interest, I read somewhere (probably here) that a Mig-25 doing a Mach 3+ run can expect to need a new engine when it is done.

Toad · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2003, 10:49:07 PM »

I know they tried to use Mig-25's to shoot down SR-71's without result.

Fishu · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2003, 11:22:26 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.......

Russians will be doing flights too from what I heard

...other countries will be as well...

So hmmmhmmhmmm.

Ike 2K# · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2003, 12:25:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Well, of interest, the Mig-25R's (not RB) that overflew Israel were Soviet in Egyptian colors. The Mig-25 would need its engines overhauled after a Mach 3 flight. Both the SR-71 and the Mig-25RM cruise above 80.000 feet at speeds close to Mach 3 or more. To say that it's easier to shoot down one or the other is just silly.

The only Iraqi fighter that managed to shoot down a US jet during the Gulf War was a Mig-25E. Using its speed it dashed south launched its missiles downing an F-18C. By tapping the throttle a little he then dashed back north, avoiding the F-15 escorts. The fate of the F-18 pilot is still unknown. The Iraqis claim he died in the crash, but the ejection seat was found at a distance from the crash site.

where did you get that mig-25 picture?

what does the last sentence mean after MiG-25R?

-------------------------------------------------------

does BnZ still exist in modern dogfight?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2003, 12:43:32 AM »

I heard that the UN gave the Iraqis a 48 hour warning of the U2 flight. That makes them an even more effective recon platform. I am sure the found tremendous amounts of intel.

Angus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2003, 04:32:42 AM »

GSCHOLZ: "ACM is just B&Z these days. Boom within missile range, launch, and Zoom out before the enemy can retaliate with his own missiles."

Not so sure about that, - when the going gets tough, good ACM capabilities will help. Anyway, you might need them to get a proper missile lock.
Initial steps of dogfight: Avionics, speed, armament and tactical situation is vital.
But once your missiles are gone, it may well develop into the old dogfight.
Rolling, looping, turning and slashing it out with cannons really.
Look at engagements like those in Vietnam, where US fighters had to be hastily refitted with cannons.
Well, the missiles got better. Look at the Falklands then. Argentinians sporting 10 aircraft to 1 of the British, including the Mirage III, being twice as fast as the Harriers, scored NO air-to-air victory (well, they claimed a lot, hehe) against the slower, better equipped and much more agile Harriers.
All depends really. An F15 pilot told me that the opponents he would worry about were the SU37's (think I have the right series) because of their maneuverability as well as speed.
Just my 2 cents

Angus · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2003, 05:49:58 AM »

So....Simple ACM's. Hit and run, the faster plane with more missiles and avionics and back support wins.
Brings one to something else, - do we still need pilots? A remote controlled pilotless RAMjet, relatively cheap could be used to eliminate much more expensive enemy hardware in a sophisticated conflict that is.
But what about countermeasures? Missile jammings, flares, chaff, planes that don't appear on radar? A small conflict, say 2 vs 2 could easily get into "out of missiles" situation, right?