4 ms·

Are you sure? A more-reasonable comparison would be the Global Hawk, which is the U2's successor, and costs (220,000,000. I agree a 10 million seems reasonable

• Retric 8y ago
  Global Hawk does 34 hours without refueling. That's well beyond the U2's performance and the core issue. The military wants to push the envelope on what's possible which get's expensive. Also, be careful comparing just the name. Today's U2 were built in the 1980s and are about 40% larger than the original design. They also include a lot more electronics where the orional needed to land and get film developed.
  • wallace_f 8y ago
    Yea they garnered a lot differences over the years. Even different engines, cockpits became partially pressurized, etc. But that doesn't mean the comparison between what could be built in the 1950s and today is invalid. And then of course, the GH is an unmanned drone, with a little lower ceiling, etc. These would reduce costs. Obviously it's a far-more advanced project, but it's also had outrageous cost overruns. I think it's crazy when you think one of our military's highest-performing planes, even if not as exotic as an SR71, has some kind of reasonable cost comparison to an air conditioning service that a high schooler built in their spare time. Remember, a lot of that inflation is devaluation (this is debated) from Fed printing money and playing games with Wall St, but not all of it.