| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| No Rest for a Cold Warrior |
| 2007-09-26 |
| The legendary U-2 spy planes are busier than ever as they head toward a phaseout |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #15 Definitely dinner parties. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-26 22:34 |
| #14 The USDOD is moving towards UAVS and space planes wid telescopic/"transformation" capability - the CVN21 IMO will be the last dedic manned, fixed-wing aircraft, through-deck carrier class, to be replaced by MULTI-ASSET/ARMED [robo?]ARSENAL SHIPS + LOW-ORBIT BATTLE STATIONS. The Navy is already in debate about to begin perm basing of UAVS units aboard the NIMITZ-class instead of waiting for CVN21's. *GLOBAL PROMPT STRIKE > USA can attack anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes = half/quarter-hours or less, FROM CONUS PER SE. GLOBAL DEFENSE/PROTECT > SAFEGUARD= SENTINEL > ditto but thru GMD. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-26 20:53 |
| #13 Any reason an AI couldn't be put in existing U2 to replace the pilot? According to legend, the U-2 has one of the narrowest flight envelopes of any aircraft. From what I can gather, original configurations had a 7 MPH window in the stall/buffet corner of the safe-flight envelope that was finally expanded to 23 MPH in later versions. U-2 pilots routinely operate in the coffin-corner of the craft's performance envelope. Both the U-2 and SR-71 remain two of my most favorite "birds" aloft. Only the Convair B-58 Hustler can give them a run for the money. The Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star, F-104 Starfighter and P-38 Lightning ("two airplanes and one pilot") trail behind them. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-26 20:09 |
| #12 We were able to build the U-2 50 years ago and the SR-71 40 years ago. We are retiring all of them. We must be replacing their capability with something - something a generation or two more advanced. Think Boeing 707 vs Dreamliner. F-101 vs F-35. Nash Rambler vs. Honda Accord. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-26 19:49 |
| #11 I still got my coin from supporting the Dragon Lady. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-26 19:44 |
| #10 The TR-1 is a great bird. We had a dozen of them at RAF Alconbury during the 80's. The photos are great, and the camera system can reach out a long way. It's still slow, takes forever to land (we had an inflight at Alconbury - pilot flamed out and couldn't restart. Took three hours to land), and is extremely vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles and air-to-air attacks. Global Hawk can do most of the same mission with less possibility of hostile fire, and no risk of a live pilot. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-09-26 19:26 |
| #9 Whoops. You are right tu3031. Thanks for the additional info USN, Ret. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2007-09-26 18:59 |
| #8 FR and tu: the A-12 was originally a mach 3 bomber, that evolved into the YF-12, an escort for the XB-70. both were sigle seaters; the SR-71 was the two seater. yes there was a 2 seat a-12/f-12 trainer. back to the u2: there were even shipboard versions (4 i think) built for the cia; tailhooks and folding wings included. tests aboard the uss america proved the concept but it was unworkable in a real operational enviornment, owing mainly to the need to strike belowdeck ( nautical term to mean taks downstairs) to prevent observation by the bad guys. they were converted to landbased standards. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-26 17:56 |
| #7 I've watched a film of a C-130 launch from carrier, but an A-12 from an Essex! Now that would be a winner. Yeah I know, display. etc. still.... 30 kts, into a 30 kt wind with cats..... |
| Posted by: HalfEmpty 2007-09-26 17:42 |
| #6 The A-12 was the prototype version of the SR-71. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-26 17:09 |
| #5 Any reason an AI couldn't be put in existing U2 to replace the pilot? They require a pretty high level of expertise from the pilots, 3dc. And they lack lot of the sensors (and perhaps the type of control systems) that an AI would use to good advantage. Bottom line up front: this is an analog airframe, not a digital one. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-26 17:05 |
| #4 USN, Ret.- I *think* the CIA version was the A-12. What you said- to disguise its mission. There is an A-12 on the deck of the Intrepid, I think it holds the record for fastest flight from LA TO NYC (45 minutes.) |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2007-09-26 16:59 |
| #3 Any reason an AI couldn't be put in existing U2 to replace the pilot? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-09-26 15:33 |
| #2 U-2 / TR-1, same basic aircraft; the TR -1 designation was, I believe, coined when NASA wanted to buy some new build a/c for weather recon. the original U-2 designation was Lockheed and the CIA's attempt to disguise the aircraft's mission when buying / fabricating parts. a little disinformation to congress also at budget time. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-26 14:08 |
| #1 I think they mean the TR-1. They'll be replaced by UAVs. |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-09-26 13:48 |