Why America Still Has Spy Planes
Satellites are great... until you actually need to see something
I have to start by saying thank you to all of my Substack subscribers. It’s because of you that I’m able to eat. This video is not going to get a million videos on YouTube because it’s not sexy or sensational - just an explanation of all of the ISR tools in the toolkit. So if you aren’t a paid subscriber, think about becoming one. It’s just $5.
If you are a paid subscriber, I appreciate you allowing me to bring you these less sensational videos.
Spy satellites are fantastic tools, but they do not have "persistence" or the ability to dwell over a battlefield for days or hours. Geostationary satellites are too far away for detailed analysis and Non-Geostationary Orbit satellites are moving so fast that they can only monitor a section of the earth for about 10 minutes every 1-3 days.
Spy and surveillance planes are needed to create persistence on the battlefield. This, combined with various terrestrial, signals and human intelligence strategies paint a complete picture of the battlefield.
1) Hubble Space Telescope is supposed to be a KH-11 looking up instead of down
2) As an old Armored Cav Troop commander, nothing will ever replace a guy with binoculars, map and radio.
I recently saw a supposed UK AF base “plane stalker channel”, video on YT. which supposedly shared a video montage of a posse of B1Bs flying into that base, AS WELL AS A SUPPOSED U2?? My understanding was the U2 dates back to the days even before the Cuban Missile Crisis?
1) why would the U2 still be used if it’s faster and higher-flying successor was already retired?
2) surely, w/ advances in autonomous “rocket-powered drone” capabilities and w/ RT data capture and transmission capabilities, there must be a lot of non-disclosed capabilities that have been/are being developed, to improve the capabilities and the economics of, super-sonic and super-high drone capabilities?