4 ms·
Name one plane that flies at more than 60,000 feet, I'll wait.
by angry_octet 4y ago
Name one plane that flies at more than 60,000 feet, I'll wait.
- bitcurious 4y agoIf you believe the Chinese officials, they had lost control of the balloon. Things that go up must famously go down, though that's not their department said Wernher Von Braun.
- jacquesm 4y agoIt's a bit strange how they are simultaneously upset that their balloon got shot down and claiming they had lost control of it.
- ddalex 4y agoThe "upset" part is a defensive attack, they expect to avoid rebuffs of violating airspace by being very upset in the first place.
- dragonelite 4y agoWell it gives a good excuse to shoot down US spy balloons or planes. The precedence has been set, and the snowball continue to roll downwards.
- toss1 4y agoThat precedence was set way back in the late 1950s when the Soviet Union started shooting at US U-2 spy planes, and especially in 1960 when they finally succeeded in shooting down the US U-2 spy plane with pilot Gary Powers. This overflight was termed by the Soviets as an "Act of aggression". This Chinese incident is no less an act of aggression, and merely continues the precedent. If the Chinese really wanted it considered otherwise because they had actually lost control of the device, they could have easily warned us of the problem and requested coordinated assistance in recovering their device (which would of course allow us to examine it). The PRC govt did no such thing. And the critics complaining about not shooting it down sooner are ignoring two key things. First, the payload was 2-4 school-busses in length, and dropping such a thing from 12+ miles up in a random location even in sparsely populated areas is a ridiculous hazard. Second, we can be quite confident that the US military could neutralize any data collection or transmission during the transit, and the shoot-down over our waters eliminated the possibility of PRC recovering any stored data.
- tjpnz 4y agoThe only thing I find strange is that they didn't throw in something about hurting the feelings of the Chinese people[0] for good measure. They like to call this Wolf Warrior diplomacy; but it really comes across more as crying wolf diplomacy. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurting_the_feelings_of_the_Chinese_people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurting_the_feelings_of_the_...
- vuln 4y agoThe U-2 can fly at 70,000 typical missions are 60-65,000ft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
- angry_octet 4y agoAre the U-2s still flying in any numbers? The SR-71s? If they were, would a few balloons be a serious risk to their navigation?
- sandworm101 4y agoYes. Here is where you apply if you want to fly them. https://www.beale.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/279960/u-2-pilot-application/ https://www.beale.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article...
- rjsw 4y agoConcorde did [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
- KennyBlanken 4y agoAn aircraft that last flew decades ago is not relevant here. The comment you replied to says "no commercial aircraft flies at that altitude" and the concorde hasn't flown in decades.
- Tor3 4y agoWell.. November 2003, so only after that can you claim "decades", plural.. it's a while yes, but clearly shows that at least it's in the realm of commercial aircraft, and may happen again, in principle. Edit: By the way, that comment said, and I quote, "Name one plane that flies at more than 60,000 feet, I'll wait." No word "commercial" there. So, aside from the Concorde, there were/are several others, some already mentioned.
- angry_octet 4y agoNo Concordes any more I'm afraid. There are no military or civilian planes that fly that high -- unless the CIA dusts off a U-2. There is no navigation risk. In contrast, every orbital launch has to deal with 10s of thousands of pieces of space debris.
- emkemp 4y agoUm, the Air Force still uses the U-2. As does NASA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2#Operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2#Operators
- Tor3 4y agoSeveral military airplanes, including fighters, can and do fly that high and more. I never said anything about navigation risks - that was from other posters. Obviously space debris is a much higher daily risk, for satellites.
- ridgeguy 4y agoU-2 (TR-1), SR-71, WB-57
- eterm 4y agoDon't forget the beautiful XB-70
- arthurcolle 4y agoThe original design is something out of Macross: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie#/media/File:WS-110_original_proposal.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie#...
- speed_spread 4y agoAll that's missing is it shooting out its missiles in Itano Circus swarms.
- arthurcolle 4y agoHaha yesss! I remember that post from a couple days ago. Really cool. I don't watch anime myself but the Itano missile effect is pretty sweet to behold
- angry_octet 4y agoNo longer in active service.
- sandworm101 4y agoThe U-2 is very much in service. Apply here if you want to fly it. https://www.beale.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/279960/u-2-pilot-application/ https://www.beale.af.mil/Library/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article...
- Kim_Bruning 4y agoPossibly apocryphal SR-71 story ;-) SR-71: "QQ requesting clearance to flight level 600" ATC: "QQ, climb and maintain flight level 600... if you can get there." SR-71: "Roger, descending to flight level 600"