# Does the USA still fly U-2s? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 16, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589 "2015-12-16T02:06:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/41 "2015-12-17T21:47:23Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > The English Electric Lightning would like a word. The Concorde fleet even more so! šŸ˜‰ Quite right. I was thinking only of fighters. My error. IIRC Concordeā€™s ability to cruise without reheat was a bit marginal. Theyā€™d use it to get to speed and altitude and then hang there at near max dry thrust. Turbulence or unusually hot temps at altitude would have them tapping reheat every few minutes to reboost speed. As the Lightning, it did have reheat and used it. I donā€™t know whether it or couldnā€™t could break the Mach with dry thrust. In level flight of course. Even the lowly T-38 could exceed the Mach in dry thrust if you point it downhill a bit. ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/42 "2015-12-17T22:04:50Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > James May (of Top Gear fame) flew in a U2 a few years ago. Adam Savage of the Mythbusters went up in one during an episode that ran a few months back. Not so much mythbusting (officially, the myth was that the U-2 is the hardest plane to land) as ā€œHoly \*\*#( this is so cool that the USAF is letting us do this.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/43 "2015-12-17T22:20:57Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > IIRC Concordeā€™s ability to cruise without reheat was a bit marginal. Theyā€™d use it to get to speed and altitude and then hang there at near max dry thrust. Turbulence or unusually hot temps at altitude would have them tapping reheat every few minutes to reboost speed. You may well be right, Iā€™m no pilot. Is there much turbulence at the typical cruising height of a Concorde? > [@](#): > > As the Lightning, it did have reheat and used it. I donā€™t know whether it or couldnā€™t could break the Mach with dry thrust. In level flight of course. It could - the first prototype managed it in 1954. It was a mad thing in general though - shoot off on a crazy fast intercept course, attempt to fire something at incoming Russian bombers and presumably try to ram one as thereā€™s no more fuel left to get back to Blighty. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/44 "2015-12-17T22:38:09Z")
At Concorde altitudes both turbulence and odd temps were rare. But when they occurred, it really hit 'em in the 'nads. The airplane was a remarkable achievement. Which also means it was pushed against the edge of what it could do rather more than more prosaic designs were/are. Lightning: The late 50s and early 60s were a magic time in aviation. And I was a wide-eyed gradeschooler. An awful lot of amazing records were set. The Lightning was definitely a world leader in several performance categories. A side effect of the pell-mell race to the future was that an awful lot of one-trick ponies got built. By everybody. The design byword of the day was ā€œSacrifice everything to achieve maximum Xā€ for whatever X. The 70s were a time of realizing that as between blazing speed and crappy radar or awesome radar and pretty slow, the actual tactically best aircraft was mediocre at both. Machines with balanced capabilities are the real winner. Then stealth was invented and the F-117 was back to ā€œSacrifice everything to achieve maximum Xā€ for X=low RCS. And what weā€™re seeing now is them driving back towards balance as advancing tech lets you get by with lesser collateral sacrifices (except of development time and taxpayer money). ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/45 "2015-12-17T23:11:15Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Still wish they were flying, if for no other reason than, _ā€œCause they look so damn cool!!ā€_ šŸ˜ƒ Written by a wise, wise, wise person! ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/46 "2015-12-17T23:20:56Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > The SR-71 was an enormous resource even during the early days of spy satellites. Satellites had limited coverage for the first few decades in terms of ā€˜real timeā€™ crises. During one of the Mid-East conflicts, the Suez Crisis I think, Brezhnev reportedly (and drunkenly) telexed Nixon telling him that if the US were to intervene he would have no choice but to start WWIII. The Nixon administration used nearly real time, reliable intel (photographs from SR-71 flyovers) to prove that the US was not preparing to invade, and that in fact the Arabs & Israelis were winding down their engagements. > > However, SR-71s were several orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain and operate than U2s. And U2s fly high enough that they are still effective against third world military defenses. And when the SR-71s were finally retired, it was because spy satellites had increased their coverage to the point that the ā€˜back-upā€™ capability that the Blackbirds provided was no longer cost effective. > > Still wish they were flying, if for no other reason than, _ā€œCause they look so damn cool!!ā€_ šŸ˜ƒ It couldnā€™t have been Suez - most likely the [Yom Kippur War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War): > [@](#): > > On October 13 and 15, Egyptian air defense radars detected an aircraft at an altitude of 25,000 metres (82,000 ft) and a speed of Mach 3, making it impossible to intercept either by fighter or SAM missiles. The aircraft proceeded to cross the whole of the canal zone, the naval ports of the Red Sea (Hurghada and Safaga), flew over the airbases and air defenses in the Nile delta, and finally disappeared from radar screens over the Mediterranean Sea. The speed and altitude were those of the U.S. SR-71 Blackbird, a long-range strategic-reconnaissance aircraft. According to Egyptian commanders, the intelligence provided by the reconnaissance flights helped the Israelis prepare for the Egyptian attack on October 14 and assisted it in conducting Operation Stouthearted Men. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/47 "2015-12-18T00:42:53Z")
Adam Savage from Mythbusters took a ride aboard one. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXnJF5MnHQ) ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/48 "2015-12-18T00:53:52Z")
Hereā€™s the first part of the James May U2 flight. The second part is in the sidebar. https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x9ojwi Itā€™s a bit more, err, thoughtful than the Mythbusters one. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/49 "2015-12-18T00:58:07Z")
I canā€™t remember where I read it but I saw an analysis comparing the U2 and the SR-71 and showed that due to the SR-71ā€™s speed and capabilities compared to the U2 saying that the blackbird was too expensive was sort of misleading. It could cover so much more land so much faster that it really was the less expensive option. Also have you ever seen how hard a plane the U2 is to fly on MythBusters? After seeing that I seriously doubt youā€™d ever have landed one on a carrier. You canā€™t even land it without a chase car telling you how. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/50 "2015-12-18T01:38:56Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > You canā€™t even land it without a chase car telling you how. I would like a cite, not because I disbelieve you, but because it would be so damn cool to read about it. šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/51 "2015-12-18T01:43:26Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Depending on what you can, or choose to, believeā€¦ > > Donā€™t let the sled fanboys fool you that the SR-71 was invulnerable. In at least one book I have read, there was mention of missile fragments leaving minor damage on an SR - the SAMs were getting pretty close. There were also reports of a procedure attempted by the Soviets using a head on climbing approach from a MIG to launch an AAM at an SR. While they never were successful, the tactic was not unsound. With a few more attempts, they might have perfected it. > > If you count any member of the Blackbird family, A12s were routinely flown over North Viet Nam during the war. And D21 drones (the SR-based unmanned reconnaissance drone) (launched from B52s, not the M21 Blackbird) were flown over mainland China several times. They didnā€™t work for shit, though. Proving that not everything Kelly Johnson touched turned to gold. A bit of a nit pick but the M21 was an A-12 derivative. Not the SR-71. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589/52 "2016-01-21T18:28:18Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I would like a cite, not because I disbelieve you, but because it would be so damn cool to read about it. šŸ™‚ They showed it on the mythbusters episode. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-usa-still-fly-u-2s/740589.md?page=2)