Slashdot Mirror
Aging U-2 Will Fight On Into the Next Decade
Hugh Pickens writes "For more than half a century, the CIA and US military have relied on a skinny, sinister-looking black jet, first designed during the Eisenhower administration at Lockheed's famed Skunk Works in Burbank, headed by legendary chief engineer Clarence L. 'Kelly' Johnson, to penetrate deep behind enemy lines for vital intelligence-gathering missions. Although the plane is perhaps best known for being shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960 with the subsequent capture of pilot Francis Gary Powers, the U-2 continues to play a critical role in national security today, hunting Al Qaeda forces in the Middle East. The fleet of 33 U-2s was supposed to be replaced in the next few years with RQ-4 Global Hawks, but the Pentagon now proposes delaying the U-2's retirement as part of Defense Department cutbacks." (Read on, below.)
Hugh Pickens continues: "The Global Hawk drone, costing an estimated cost of $176 million each, has 'priced itself out of the niche (PDF), in terms of taking pictures in the air,' says Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. 'That's a disappointment for us, but that's the fate of things that become too expensive in a resource-constrained environment.' The Pentagon has determined that operating the U-2 will be cheaper for the foreseeable future but it won't disclose how much operating the U-2s will cost for security reasons. 'It's incredible to think that these planes are flying,' says Francis Gary Powers Jr., Powers' son and founder of the Cold War Museum in Warrenton, Va. 'You'd think another spy plane, or satellite or drone would come along by now to replace it.'"
The Department of Defense is making cutbacks? I can't believe what I'm hearing!
Now why are buying cheap crap for chain the falls apart real fast in other areas?
So I'm always surprised when Space Nutters think there are magical materials and fantasy technologies out there...
In the communities just outside of edwards air force base I see a U-2 flying over at least once a week. Heck saw a B-1 flying a couple of weeks ago but they are becoming rarer, B-2 at least once a month. Sadly though the F-117 has become much much rarer probably due to the newer fighters.
When I first saw the headline, I thought they were referring to the band.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Sure, they don't have any replacement for the U-2, that's all they have, and the cameras aren't getting any better.
Nope, no surveillance to worry about, no Aurora, no Panopticon, nothing to worry about at all.
XYZ.
this doesn't mean they still can't put on a good show. "Aging U-2 Will Fight On Into the Next Decade" is just an inflammatory headline. Bono and The Edge may have a few wrinkles now but they got...
what?
oh, never mind
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For a minute there I thought the article was referring to that awful group from Ireland.
... in his first job as an engineer. He retired yesterday.
But he's still just #2
I flew it during the cold war and the first Gulf war. It's mission has changed dramatically and it's become very relevant to today's mission in Afghanistan. I don't see it going away for a long time!
Bono and the boys are no longer relevant. Pseudo pop-rock garbage for the past few albums. I can't imagine another 10+ years of this.
It's a shame cause RQ-4 Global Hawks are sexy. But yeah, the days of spending crazy money on cool toys are over, at least for now. I'm all for strong national defense but I'm sure that our military can do the same job with a lot less money if they really put their mind to it.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Must not confuse Lockheed U-2 with the band from Dublin, Ireland.
Nice to see that the United States is still using some of its older aircraft. I thought I saw one in a museum once. U2 is a nice plane.
Wow, I thought the SR-71 replaced the U-2 decades ago; and the SR-71 has been retired for years. Why can't the government just use Google Earth, Maps, etc? It would be a kudo for the 'do no evil' company. Serge could hire Bono to declare, "U-2 replaced by YouTube."
latency.
-- Terry
I was once taken to a secret testing facility in a place Where the Streets Have No Name, to examine the current state of the U2. I was not impressed with its performance. At first it had a Rattle and Hum, and after extensive testing exploded in an Unforgettable Fire. There'll be Helter Skelter if they don't get this under control.
I asked the official who was giving me the tour what they planned on doing about it. He said "we plan to replace it, but we Still Haven't Found What We're Looking For". However, he continued to show Pride in the current model.
I didn't like doing this on a Sunday, Bloody Sunday, so I told him I was leaving for a Discotheque. With or Without You.
I know the US military is being cut back substantially; but, given that so much military activity this past decade was off-budget (e.g cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), I wonder how much the cutbacks will impact the official US debt, if at all?
I realize debt is debt, whether it's officially acknowledged or not; but since this seems to be primarily sold as budget reduction I'm curious to see how it's being handled.
#DeleteChrome
They were re-classifed as TR-1(x) models in the mid-80s.
The U-2 is not longer a "traditional" spy-plane (i.e. photoreconnaissance of fixed points of interest). It had all the high-res photography equipment replaced with side-band IR and wide-angle low-light cameras. Bascially, they turned it from a "oooh, look at that neat weapons complex" single-frame photographer into a massive photo Hoover (or Vax, for our Brit friends).
Turns out, the U-2 is massively useful here: incredibly high service ceiling, newer semi-stealth improvements in materials, and a batshit crazy loiter time. It outlived the SR-71 because it turns out point-recon is better done by LEO satellites, and the SR-71 can't loiter. Or go slow enough to photograph a wide area well.
I'm kinda surprised that the Global Hawks are more expensive than the TR-1, though, given that the TR-1 now required non-trivial maintenance, and human costs to fly. Then again, this is 1950s technology, and the B-52 shows that if you can figure out where it works, well, high-tech doesn't always mean better mission success.
Now, if only they'd cancel those stupid Littoral Combat Ship programs (yeah, we're building 2 production versions, cause we couldn't decide which sucked less), we could look at some significant savings...
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
If I remember correctly, the U-2 some years ago swapped out the original engines for essentially modified B-2 bomber engines (the F-118), which cut the fuel consumption and allowed for longer flights at altitudes above 70,000 feet. I believe that with the J57 and J75 engines, the U-2 maxed out at around 73,000 feet; the F118 could probably take it to over 76,000 feet.
Expanding skin and dripping fuel? Sounds more like the SR-71...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
I really enjoyed Ben Rich's book on Skunk Works. One thing that stood out to me is that the real reason we're still flying the U-2 is that Dick Chaney killed the SR-71 program, which was kind of an evolution of the U-2 program. Chaney argued that spy satellites replaced the need for airplanes to do surveillance. Turns out the reason he said that was because he was associated with companies that were into spy satellites and he didn't want the SR-71 to compete for that market. Such a shame that politics played such a large role in the neutering of America's capabilities. Most sad of all was that McNamara ordered the destruction of all plans and tooling for the SR-71. Even if the SR-71 was too expensive to fly, that's still a real crime that much of what was learned in that program has been lost.
The U-2 is probably much much cheaper to operate than the SR-71, so it's possible the SR-71 would have died anyway. But certainly politics played a huge role in its demise.
Sadly, in the current political climate it's doubtful Skunk Works would ever produce anything like the U-2, the SR-71, and the stealth fighter. Maybe it's a blessing though. The government seems hell bent on spying on even American citizens. I dunno.
http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/fallblackbird.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=Skunk+Works%3A+A+Personal+Memoir+of+My+Years+of+Lockheed
Pretty sure that's the SR71 you're thinking of; the U2 is subsonic and probably doesn't have the same expansion issues.
Aging U-2 Will Rock On Into the Next Decade
.. don't fix it. ;)
The U2 is still flying for much the same reason that the B-52 is still flying: both platforms work, and there's been no reason to improve either of them. (The B-52 is planned to stay in inventory until 2050, and there may well be 100 year old planes still in service at that point.)
It does really make you wonder why the SR-71 is retired and these flying bricks are still flying. The SR-71 can fly higher, faster, longer, stealthier, has better instrumentation, and lets face it, it's just a heck of a lot cooler as it's standard practice to avoid surface to air missile was just fly faster... The SR-71 was and still is a engineering marvel compared to everything around including this hunk of crap.
This could easily be replaced by a UAV or even standard aircraft. I can only imagine the only reason it being around is the airforce is playing favorites with contracts.
Well, if it's still relevant, why decommission it ?
After all, the Russian Air Force has decided to maintain their own 1950's bombers, Tupolev Tu-95 "Bears", at least till 2040. Because they're fast, cheap to fly, and fuel-efficient.
In a time where oil is scarce and budgets are tight, I'd be happy as a citizen if my own country were to make such a sensible choice. Instead of paying billions for outdated, non-stealthy, gas-guzzling Rafales that no other country wants to buy...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
The Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks' SR-71 Blackbird was *the* aircraft designed to replace the U-2. It's sad that it can't fill that role now because of how it was used as a political bargaining chip. If Gary Powers had flown one of those, he'd be alive today because the missile simply never would have caught up with him before it ran out of fuel. If you're flying an aircraft that can't be shot down by any missile, isn't that even better than an unmanned UAV that can be shot down? Pilot or no, if the aircraft is shot down it's still a complete loss that costs big money to replace.
Who says the cameras aren't getting better?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Oh fuck off, you're talking about the SR-71, and we all know that you (like the rest of us) would jump at the chance to joyride that baby. STFU with the sour grapes.
If you haven't already watched this special then I urge you to do so at once. James May is given the opportunity to take a ride in a U-2 and films the entire thing. The video is incredible. They are flying on the edge of the atmosphere and when he looks up its just black space. Looking out you can see the curvature of the earth and its blue atmosphere. The sight is so awe inspiring that James starts to get emotional.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If they were going to keep the U-2 around that long, they should have commissioned teh SR-71 and we could have had a much more effective machine for the last 30 years.
The A-10 Warthog (Thunderbolt) was designed in the 70's and is supposed to remain in service until 2028! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Replacement
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I just spent 90 minutes reading about aircraft on wikipedia!
Aging U-2 Will Fight On Into the Next Decade
... in mysterious ways.
Every end has half a stick.
U2s have none of these problems. Its tricky to land, but otherwise a very docile craft with a pretty good safety record.
Even Gary Power's UT was not at max altitude when shot down, because the S-75 missile can't get that high, its ceiling at that time was 20,000 m (66,000 ft).
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Well, they clearly are, and that's the point.
There are no publicly announced replacements for the U2, it's the best we've got that everyone knows about.
No, we definitely don't have anything better.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
the entire buildup of aerospace in the United States in the 20th century was due to one, and only one, factor. The Cold War. Without the Soviet Union, there would be no Apollo Mission, there would be no Mercury program, there would be no Space Shuttle. The entire thing was a gigantic nuclear brinksmanship contest between two gigantic countries who narrowly missed blowing each other to bits in a holocaust.
And what of the Soviets? If they had no Cold War they wouldn't have been into space either. Korolev would never have gotten funding from the Politburo unless he had claimed (dubiously) that he could stick nukes on top of his space rockets (err.. i mean missiles comrade, of course).
I suspect they haven't. The Blackbird was excellent at its job, and of course there were top secret developments going on, but it's possible that they found that there's a better ROI on satellites and U2 for the lower risk surveillance.
Better cameras make the TR-1 platform able to remain viable. Increased airframe performance isn't necessary.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
NASA and NOAA fly the U2 under the name of ER-2 out of Dryden and the Mojave. Oddly enough they are doing the real research that was the originally disclosed cover mission of the U2. Life imitates propaganda. More info: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html
That's 10 minutes I'll never get back, you bastards!
Have gnu, will travel.
You are talking about the SR-71 / A-12 / YF-12, which were completely different animals (although designed by the same guy as the U-2). The fuel has a high flashpoint, so it pissing out of the airframe when the plane is cold is not particularly a safety problem. An engine "unstart" would probably be the most likely think to kill you in one.
Also, regarding the U-2, why because something is a 50 year old design (with many, many upgrades, it has to be said), do you think it must be inferior? I'd rather have a very refined 50+ year-old design than a totally unrefined 5 year old design. The 5 year old design is the one that is going to kill you.
The U-2 is a fascinating aircraft. Its wingspan is so large that it can't take of or land the way normal jets do. When it takes of it has little "training wheels" that fall away when it lifts off, and landing it needs two chase vehicles to guide the pilot down. After which it sort of tips over and skits on its wings (on specially designed replaceable skid plates.)
there are planes flying around (if you don't know which then you probably aren't allowed to know) that carry equipment worth multiples of the airframes that carry them. the cameras aren't just getting better, also the racks that carry them (with some pretty fancy stabilization). conventional innocent-looking aircraft make better surveillance platforms than something that looks like its out of star trek, simply because they don't arouse suspicion. slow aircraft are also better because less correction for movement is required by the tracking systems.
The other reason, which I didn't see in the article, is the U-2 can carry a heavier sensor package than the Global Hawk. When they speced out the RQ-4 I don't think they envisioned the kinds of sensor packages in regular use today.
On the other hand drones have a big persistence advantage. Pilots can only last so long, and at the altitudes the U-2 guys are flying they're on almost pure oxygen, which for some reason I don't understand is supposed to be much more exhausting than breathing a more normal mixture at more normal pressures.
"Aging U-2 Will Fight On Into the Next Decade" Well, Bono has to be getting up there but compared to the Stones, they still got a ways to go. Good for them ! lol
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Ozzy is 60 something, Steven Tyler is 63, Mick Jagger is 68 and still going strong. I'd say U2 has at least another 20 years of good touring and music making. What the hell do people know?
"Is that real poncho or a Sears poncho?" ~~FZ
that awful group from Ireland
Hey, they weren't always so awful! I recently went to a party where Golden State was playing - their sound reminds me of U2 back in the day.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Does anyone really think a U2 looks "sinister"? Antiquated or fragile seem more appropriate.
Why don't take an U2 an equip it to make a drone out of it? It will take the limits of human crew out, and the price would be cheaper than a new plane. If the engineers are smart enough the same U2 could be converted between man an unmanned operation in short time, depending on the mission requirements.
one thing to consider is that it works. the mission hasn't changed much and the threat environment over camels isn't too worrisome. the taliban sure as hell isn't going to shoot one down, though they may kill a woman or two for looking at one in public!
if the airframe (with likely upgrades), power plant and avionics are useful, what incremental good are we going to get from a $176 million dollar replacement? Drones are cheap, pilotless. Satellites are sort of real time, but predictable so avoidable for certain things. There weren't space-based assets in 1960 so now we have wide coverage from multiple observation platforms and this would be one to keep if it's good enough for the job.
if we keep letting OUR military have all the toys it wants, our society will turn into a support arm for warriors and their bureaucrats. not much human progress there. in the guns v. butter choice, we have chosen guns for 60 years. time to choose butter for a while. scale the military to meet the threat.
having written lots and lots of aerospace proposal parts, and obviously having worked in the industry some, from my observations the pricing of a project is 'what will the customer bear and what will the funders find convincing' . there are few, if any, sanctions for overruns and project management is insane. a zoo, in fact. apologies to my zoo friends.
rock on, U2. I hope you're up there 50 years from now.
The future plan is already designed, but not scheduled for 30+
Its the bat wing design, it holds more people and uses less fuel.
So most people wont have a window seat, big deal.... little change to now.
The only thing slowing down humanity is excess regulation and govt control and hippie greenies complaining of anything about nuclear.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The wars have also changed, we won't be going up against Russia anytime soon. Further China is more of an economic threat than a military threat. Their military expanse is more a response to worldwide US presence, they are not as quick as US to invade a country.
So U-2 would do just fine against Taliban and even Iran. Why spend more money when the needs have changed, hell a bi-plane from WWI will do just fine against Taliban.
And Lockheed is Badass Now. Good engineering.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
> a very docile craft
They are extremely difficult to fly at high altitude. The stalling speed increases with height due to decreasing air density while the limiting buffet speed decreases. At operational altitude the difference between the two may be as low as 20 knots. This can rapidly disappear in a mild turn or even if the air temperature changes. This creates the need to fly the aircraft _very_ accurately and reduces its maneuverability to almost none.
It is only "docile" because it _has_ to be flown that way.
When the RAF was looking for a replacement for the Canberra PR.9 they evaluated the U-2 and found that it did not match their operational needs because the handling was so critical that it could not be diverted from its planned route.
The nearly 50 year old PR.9s were retired without an adequate replacement being found mainly because they ran out of pilots that could fly them. The aircraft had been on the retirement list so long that no new pilots had been trained and the certified ones ran out.
They are extremely difficult to fly at high altitude.
True, but the pilot doesn't fly the plane at altitude...he mostly sits there and tries not to fall asleep.
If that was the reason the RAF rejected the U2, they made a stupid mistake.The only critical part about diverting one is getting a ground crew there...it's been done many times.