Source Interesting little glitch there. I have to wonder if the U-2 might not be a cover story. Certainly it's plausible, both the Air Force and NASA fly U-2s out of California and the aircraft is capable of the altitudes in question, but I can't help wondering if it's not a cover story for some other aircraft that we're not supposed to know about. In his Book Hunt for Zero Point, Janes Defense Weekly correspondent Nick Cook described the particular feeling you get when you bump into a piece of the classified, or black, world. This story has that kind of feel to it. If it were a routine Air Force or NASA flight it seems like the agency involved would be more forthcoming. After all, if they were cruising along at 60,000 feet on a filed flight plan thehn they would be doing nothing wrong. It's not their fault the Air Traffic Control computer threw a hissy fit, after all. The fact that no one has said, "yeah, that was ours" really makes me wonder. Also, these aircraft have been flying for over 60 years, they have to have flown over southern California airspace before. What was different about this flight that it threw a wrench in the works? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...plan-was-like-malware-to-faa-computer-system/ So the explanation is actually boring.
U-2s, and the more modern variants, are still used quite a bit for high altitude research. I kind of wonder if the media is using the moniker 'U-2 spy plane' the same way it calls every non-handgun an 'assault rifle'. Throw out 'U-2 spy plane' and 'Defense Department flight plan' and you've got yourself a juicy story! As to why they would still use them, well, I can only look to the NASA-owned WB-57s that are always screaming over my backyard. I guess they're still reliable enough to serve their purpose.
Now that the A-12 / SR71s are all in museums, the U-2 and it's derivatives are the only things in the west that can reach 60-70,000 feet. NASA uses them for high altitude atmospheric research and the Air Force finds them to still be good recon birds for use in low-threat environments. Predator drones are fine for low altitude tactical surveillance, but when you want to photograph half a country at once from your own side of the border, then it's U-2 time!
Tangent: Q: What's the difference between Bono and God? A: God doesn't wander around Belfast thinking he's Bono. Yeah I know, you've heard it before.
The WB-57s are wicked cool - but they're used not because they're reliable but because they have the legs and altitude for their job. They soak up a fair few maintenance man hours as far as I'm aware (you could probably find out more ) They're also one of the platforms used to carry the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) that allows various operational platforms across military services to link up with each other, another coo bit of tech. Also, most of the drones, even the high tech ones, are yet to operate any of the awesome ISR payloads that the U-2s have been flying with for years. It's part of the reason there's been such a kerfuffle at the DoD in recent months. They want to retire older aircraft like the U-2 and A-10 in favour of newer types (manned and unmanned) that have yet to integrate the full range of weapons and sensors that have made these old birds useful. The USAF even admitted that retiring the Warthog and U-2 would open up capability gaps that would require further funding to plug, meaning the retirements aren't as cost-effective anyway. Fun times.
You're probably right about the maintenance required to keep them flying. I've heard a few people around the office express similar ideas.
Keep in mind the WB57 is basically a Canberra bomber with longer wings. You don't just ring up Martin or English Electric and order parts, you have to make them yourself.
