SPOTTED! 2007 ST in Air Force desert pic

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
They still use the U2, but not the blackbird? Something is wrong with that....didn't the U2 come out at the beginning of the cold war? Flying that thing seems akin to driving a 50s car with fins around.



To the man in the orange--I don't know your name, but if you keep flying that U2 over hostile territory, I will....going down in history a la Gary Powers....



 
They still use the U2, but not the blackbird? Something is wrong with that....didn't the U2 come out at the beginning of the cold war? Flying that thing seems akin to driving a 50s car with fins around.
Click to expand...



The Air Force's flying inventory isn't exactly young. Most of the older C-130 E and H models have 1962 and up serial numbers. They just had an RC-135 (based on the Boeing dash-80, PROTOTYPE design to the 707) pass 50,000 flying hours, and most of the KC-135 tanker fleet just turned 50. The C-5 fleet is from the mid 70's, and don't get me started on the B-52 fleet.
 
The U2 actually leaks fuel badly just sitting there. It's designed that way, so at higher altitudes, where it expands, it seals.
 
Dingo,



I think that's the SR-71 Blackbird you're thinking of. You may be correct, but I've never heard that about the U2.



I've always heard the expansion was due to high temperatures caused by air friction moving at Mach 3+.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard it about the U2 due to lack of pressure at altitude. I could be wrong.



I also heard what you did about the SR-71.
 
Didn't they reactivate a couple of the blackbird's. I thought I heard that on some news or show a few months ago.
 
The SR-71 has been completly retired. NASA was using two of them for a little while but I think they have stopped using them as well by this point. Also the U2 that is being used now has been upgraded since they were first used and add to that the fact that they are alot cheaper to operate then a SR-71 with similar results.



What bothers me is that the US just gave a contract to build new tankers. The aircraft that is going to be our (the US) new in flight refuler is a Airbus A-330 a forgin made aircraft. Looking at the stats between the Boeing 767 and the A-330 the Airbus beats the 767 in the amount of fuel it can carry and the length of time it can stay aloft. However we just put our entire taker fleet needed for our defense in the hands of a forign group of countries. Not that we would ever attack the EU but how often have they disagreed with what our military has done.
 
What bothers me is that the US just gave a contract to build new tankers. The aircraft that is going to be our (the US) new in flight refuler is a Airbus A-330 a forgin made aircraft. Looking at the stats between the Boeing 767 and the A-330 the Airbus beats the 767 in the amount of fuel it can carry and the length of time it can stay aloft. However we just put our entire taker fleet needed for our defense in the hands of a forign group of countries. Not that we would ever attack the EU but how often have they disagreed with what our military has done.
Click to expand...



Airbus/EADS won't get any US defense information or technology from the KC-45 project. They are building the basic airframe, but the modification responsibities fall on Northrop Grumman, a US based firm. That's how they got around that problem.
 

Latest posts

Top