It is my understanding that spy planes are meant to fly at altitudes that can't be reached by surface to air missles. But wasn't Power's U2 shot down by a sam. Are modern spy planes or AWACs able to fly higher than missles can reach?

At the time the U2 was shot down, it was believed that the Russian Air Defense Command did not have the capability to bring down an aircraft at that height. But it turned out the Russians were better than we thought.

An E-3 AWACS (there are other types) is essentially a 707, (OK, not exactly but close enough) so it is certainly not capable of flying above the envelope of modern SAMs. I'm not certain but I don't think there are any aircraft which can fly higher than the most sophisticate SAMs


Tom

It didn't help that Powers' U2 flew the same route each time, making it easier for the Soviets to plan their missile ambush.

IIRC Powers lost control when the U2 was shaken by blast rather than from any damage, though I might be wrong there.

There's an interesting section regarding Francis Gary Powers loss in "Skunkworks" by Ben Rich. There were several theories as to how Powers was shot down. One was that the Soviets had developed an anti-aircraft missle that could reach those altitudes. Another was that the missle exploded and the fragments traveled upwards from the blast and took off the tail of the U-2. Finally, someone even speculated that the Soviet missle hit a pursuing MIG at the lower altitude and that the fragments from the missle and MIG took out the U-2.

The book as a whole is a fascinating read about the Lockheed military and CIA aircraft development.

-Charlie

It wasn't shot down!

What?


I am pretty sure multiple aircraft were sent to intercept it and guide the SA-2s in. As mentioned one was shot down on accident. The missile that shot down Power's aircraft hit something like 50 feet below the aircraft and fragments hit the tail, severing it.

The only currently operational true "spy plane" is still the U-2. The AWACS types can gather information but are also high fyling air traffic control centers and operate much lower than the max altitude of the top end modern fighters and at much lower sub-sonic speeds. The last aircraft to be able to outrun and outfly SAM's were the SR-71 series

I am taking a history class at IU (ack, Purdue man here) and the prof was in the USAF when Powers went down. He said he had engine problems and had to come down to an alitude where they could have shot him down.

Found this Googling:

"When the plane went down, its signals faded and it was lost from tracking radar. The engine had stopped, and Powers was gliding the plane down from its extreme altitude, which was so high that the air's oxygen content was insufficient to support combustion. The normal combustion of the jet engine at that altitude had to be assisted by the infusion of a trace of raw hydrogen from a small liquid hydrogen cryogenic storage bottle. If by some chance the engine either coughed itself out, or if something happened to this slight hydrogen supply and the engine flamed out, it could not be restarted at that altitude. The pilot would have had no recourse other than to let down and see if he could restart the engine at some lower altitude. The evidence that the engine would not restart even at thirty thousand feet indicates that the trouble was most likely hydrogen deficiency and not a normal fuel flameout. Had it been a simple flameout and had there been plenty of hydrogen, the engine should have restarted, as others had in similar circumstances.

When the plane did not restart, Powers was forced to let it continue to spiral toward the earth, and then at a safer altitude either bail out (a high altitude bailout is dangerous and violent) or continue on down to the ground. Actually, some of the early pictures of the U-2 showed an aircraft that was relatively undamaged, when one considers that the Russian story was that it was hit by a rocket in the air and then crashed into the ground. We may never really know whether Powers parachuted because he was hit by Russian rockets or gunfire or whether he parachuted simply to leave a plane that was doomed to crash anyhow. The elaborate pictures of the plane, which the Soviets released at the trial, show neither bullet damage nor rocket fragment damage, although at that point neither would be important; the plane was going to come down. If it had not been on the way down, neither rockets nor bullets would have been able to bring it down in those days."

Cannot of course verify any of this but it is interesting.

Shaun

Mark perhaps you can elaborate on this? Are you expressing surprise that there are claims it really wasn't shot down, or are you saying your conviction that it really wasn't. If it's the latter maybe you could give us some information on what you're basing that on?

During the Cuban Missile crisis an U-2 was shot down by a SA-2. This stoped U-2 over flights of Cuba.
The U-2 is currently used primely as a standoff reconnaissance asset. Direct over flights are only made in special circumstances.

David

Put it this way the downing of that U-2 come as no suprise! In fact I'am sure the powers to be would have been more suprised if it didn't come down.
At the time it come down all U-2 flights were surposed to be cancelled.