U-2 Dragonlady info

[Blue]

If... and that's a big if... they continue down the path to retire the U-2, the plan appears to be that the FTU shuts down 1 Oct 2015, and the rest of the U-2 program will end 1 Oct 2016. .

So, basically what you're saying is, sometime around 2020 a U-2 pilot is going to take some nice high-res photos of Southern Arizona while out on an FTU training mission. Photos where, if you zoom in enough, you'll be able to see the row of Global Hawks sitting out at AMARC.

[WheelzUp]

So, basically what you're saying is, sometime around 2020 a U-2 pilot is going to take some nice high-res photos of Southern Arizona while out on an FTU training mission. Photos where, if you zoom in enough, you'll be able to see the row of Global Hawks sitting out at AMARC.

That pretty much captures it...yes. And that pilot will likely be Huggy ;)

[Spoo]

From Forbes.

U-2 Vs. Global Hawk: Why Drones Aren't The Answer To Every Military Need

By Loren Thompson, contributor

Earlier this month, four of Washington’s most respected public-policy “think tanks” offered their views on how the U.S. military posture should be organized. They differed on many issues, but one place where they all agreed was on the desirability of retiring the venerable U-2 spy plane in favor of an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft called Global Hawk. The think tanks thus sided with the fashionable consensus that the future of warfare belongs to drones rather than manned aircraft.

However, this may be an instance where fashion trumped functionality. When the Air Force had to make a choice between the two aircraft in 2012, it decided the U-2S Dragon Lady was a better fit for its future needs than the RQ-4 Global Hawk — despite the fact that the Global Hawk was conceived to replace the U-2 and despite the fact that it could remain aloft much longer. That decision did not sit well with key members of Congress, and now there are reports the service has given up on its efforts to get rid of Global Hawk. But the Air Force’s reasons for favoring the older plane before politics intervened provide useful insight into why drones aren’t necessarily the best solution for every military mission requiring an airborne system.

(Disclosure: Companies engaged in building both the U-2 spy plane and the Global Hawk reconnaissance drone have contributed to my think tank; some are consulting clients.)

Global Hawk is what Pentagon managers call a “high-altitude, long-endurance” unmanned aerial system, meaning a drone that can cover vast areas in a single flight with sensors capable of seeing many miles from their lofty vantage point. Prime contractor Northrop Grumman says the most common version of the drone can fly 2,000 nautical miles from its base and then loiter above areas of interest for up to 19 hours, which is something no manned aircraft could do without repeated refuelings. The drone’s long reach would seem to make it well-suited to conducting reconnaissance in the Western Pacific – the main geographical focus of the Obama administration’s post-Afghanistan defense posture.

The Air Force recognizes the value of long endurance in sustaining continuous surveillance of potential aggressors, but when it evaluated U-2 and Global Hawk in light of its shrinking budget and the needs of regional combatant commanders, it came to the surprising conclusion that the vintage spy plane was a better bargain than the futuristic drone. Once the comparisons got beyond range, the U-2 tended to have superior performance characteristics.

For starters, U-2 could fly much higher — at 70,000 feet versus 55,000 feet — which meant sensors carried on the spy plane could see considerably farther. The U-2 could also carry 67% more payload (5,000 pounds versus 3,000 pounds), and had over twice as much space as Global Hawk in which to arrange its mission equipment. In addition, the U-2′s on-board power generation capacity was nearly twice that of Global Hawk, meaning its diverse sensors could be operated simultaneously to collect many types of intelligence.

These differences help explain why U-2 has a much higher mission-success rate in the Pacific theater than Global Hawk does — 96% versus 55% — and is selected for missions much more frequently. When an aircraft operates at 50,000-55,000 feet as Global Hawk does, it can’t fly above some of the storms encountered in the Pacific the way U-2 can. Global Hawk’s weather limitations are compounded by the absence of a de-icing system, which means it cannot fly through clouds for prolonged periods and thus is confined to operating in fair weather — unlike all the manned aircraft in the Air Force fleet.

De-icing isn’t the only feature left out of the Global Hawk design to save money or weight. The drone also lacks an on-board “sense and avoid” system that would enable it to steer clear of other aircraft, whether they be commercial jetliners or enemy fighters. That means ground operators piloting the drone need a radar picture of the areas where it is flying to assure safety. If tracks from nearby ground radars are not available, then Global Hawk will require support from radar planes or other aircraft — an expense that typically isn’t included in comparisons of what it costs to fly the two planes.

Another key difference between U-2 and Global Hawk is that the drone is much more dependent on its satellite uplink to sustain flight than the manned plane. Without a continuous connection to pilots thousands of miles away, Global Hawk’s ability to do anything, including simply staying aloft, is hobbled. That might not be much of a problem in peacetime, but in wartime enemies like China will be using electronic jamming, cyber attacks and anti-satellite warfare to disrupt such links, and that could severely compromise drone operations.

In general, aircraft that are manned tend to be more responsive to unexpected threats than those that are remotely piloted. So some of the drawbacks associated with relying on Global Hawk for reconnaissance are traceable to the very feature that drone proponents find most appealing — the fact that it is unmanned. Global Hawk may not have a human on board, but it is still dependent on remote pilots to conduct operations, and the fact that they are so far away from the operating environment degrades situational awareness. Some of these limitations could be corrected by developing a bigger, more capable drone, but Global Hawks already cost over $100 million each.

The superior performance of U-2 sensors compared to those carried on Global Hawk has generated pressure in Congress to figure out how said systems might be carried on the drone, but no such initiative is likely to solve the problem of how to stuff a 5,000 pound payload into a 3,000 pound bag. The head of the Air Combat Command is quoted in Defense News this week complaining bitterly about having to spend “buckets of money to get the Global Hawk to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has” — and ending up with a recon fleet “that is not very useful in a contested environment.”

Much of the rationale for making this investment seems to reside in the misconception that because the U-2 debuted in the 1950s, it is antiquated. In reality, the planes flying today were built in the 1980s and are much bigger than the original aircraft. Their sensors, datalinks, displays, engines and structural features have been repeatedly upgraded — so much so that the airframes on average still have 50 years of service life remaining. It cost the Air Force billions of dollars to make these improvements, so the service is understandably reluctant to part with the enhanced performance the upgrades have delivered. What Air Force leaders didn’t anticipate was that the political culture would be more responsive to fashionable ideas than the intelligence requirements of combatant commanders.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/20/u-2-vs-global-hawk-why-drones-arent-the-answer-to-every-military-need/

Edited February 21, 2014 by Spoo

[MichaelBuckle]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/02/u-2-retires-again-pay-and-benefits-slimmed-down-cruisers-cut-2015-budget-preview-by-hagel/

In addition to the A-10, the Air Force will also retire the 50-year-old U-2 in favor of the unmanned Global Hawk system. This decision was a close call, as DoD had previously recommended retaining the U-2 over the Global Hawk because of cost issues. But over the last several years, DoD has been able to reduce the Global Hawk’s operating costs. With its greater range and endurance, the Global Hawk makes a better high-altitude reconnaissance platform for the future.

[SurelySerious]

the Global Hawk makes a better high-altitude reconnaissance platform for the future.

If you ignore that it doesn't make a better recon platform than the U-2.

[pcola]

Should somebody tell Hagel all the 50-year-old U2s were retired years ago? The current ones were built in the '80s...

[HuggyU2]

Should somebody tell Hagel all the 50-year-old U2s were retired years ago? The current ones were built in the '80s...

Almost correct: 28 of the 32 remaining airframes were built in the 80's (the last being delivered in 1989).

The other four were built in the 1968 build.

In any case, it's irrelevant:

- the airframes have 50,000 more hours of life on them.

- the "stuff" that does the ISR mission is somewhat "modular"... i.e. there is a ton of "new stuff" on the jet, in the from of MULTI-INT "stuff".

-- yes, it's true! The sensors on the U-2 are from the 21st century! Stop focusing on the airframe as the only piece of the equation!!

Oh... and no need to do a bunch of flight testing and integration with said sensors: we've already proven they work on the U-2.

Good luck with the RQ-4!

And watch out for the icing.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Huggyu2

[chim richalds]

I sincerely hope your jobs don't get taken by uavs. This has been the most boring phase of my life in what was supposed to be the prime flying years of my life.

[pcola]

Almost correct: 28 of the 32 remaining airframes were built in the 80's (the last being delivered in 1989).

The other four were built in the 1968 build.

In any case, it's irrelevant:

- the airframes have 50,000 more hours of life on them.

- the "stuff" that does the ISR mission is somewhat "modular"... i.e. there is a ton of "new stuff" on the jet, in the from of MULTI-INT "stuff".

-- yes, it's true! The sensors on the U-2 are from the 21st century! Stop focusing on the airframe as the only piece of the equation!!

Oh... and no need to do a bunch of flight testing and integration with said sensors: we've already proven they work on the U-2.

Good luck with the RQ-4!

I stand corrected!

Huggy, any chance you want to head out to DC and talk some sense into these knuckleheads in Congress/the pentagon before they make yet another horrible decision?

And whereTF is Garamendi? He was all over it at the first hint of retiring the KC-10. He's already met with Gen Selva (AMC/CC), toured the KC-10, and has made several public statements about what a bad decision it would be. I haven't heard a peep from him about them possibly decimating Beale's purpose for existing (3/4 airframes gone by 2016!)

[Majestik Møøse]

And whereTF is Garamendi? He was all over it at the first hint of retiring the KC-10. He's already met with Gen Selva (AMC/CC), toured the KC-10, and has made several public statements about what a bad decision it would be. I haven't heard a peep from him about them possibly decimating Beale's purpose for existing (3/4 airframes gone by 2016!)

Well, he's been taking money from Northrop Grumman and staying quiet. The U-2 isn't competing with the inferior-in-every-way Global Hawk; Lockheed is competing with Northrop. Luckily, Lockheed still likes the U-2 program and the millions of dollars of sensors they build for it. Hopefully they are pulling the right strings.

And this is why I think the U-2 stands a better chance of survival than the A-10 and KC-10, two jets whose replacements are being sold by the same company that owns them. Boeing wants the KC-10 gone (try searching for the KC-10 factsheet on Boeings website) just like Lockheed wants the A-10 gone (Lockheed's A-10 page just mentions avionics upgrades and the brochure link is broken). The only thing keeping A-10s and KC-10s around is their mission effectiveness.

[panchbarnes]

It's really the battle of Plant 42. Winner gets all the engineers in the hi-desert.

Edited February 25, 2014 by PanchBarnes

[Smitty3187]

Gen Hostage, ACC Commander:

“It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase F-35s, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the A-10 and the F-35,” the Air Combat Command leader said. “What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the F-35 up to some semblance of capability that the A-10 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money and it is going to take time, and as I lose the A-10 fleet, I now have a fleet that won't be operationally capable for many years that is not a very useful CAS platform in a contested environment.”

It appears if you swap in A-10 and F-35 into this statement you also see the reality of that situation that no one at the top will acknowledge.

[Royal]

The only thing keeping A-10s and KC-10s around is their mission effectiveness.

And that's no reason to keep any war-fighting product in the DoD's inventory.

Good links in the post, Moose.

[HuggyU2]

Here's a letter a retiree wrote. I'd recommend changing some of it (and shrinking it down). It's not perfect, but it's a good start.

For example, the RQ-4 is out of electrical power. You can't plug any more into it. (Correct me if I'm incorrect, RQ-4 drivers on here).

Oh... and be sure to mention the fact that they just announced the RQ-4 will require $1,900,000,000 in upgrades to match the U-2 capes. Of course, you KNOW that figure is probably way high, and the contractors will come in under budget... just like the RQ-4 did.

Oh wait!!! Hi Mr Nunn! Hi Mr McCurdy!

Subject: DO NOT LET THE AIR FORCE RETIRE THE U-2

Last year, the US Air Force received congressional direction to reverse their decision to de-fund the remaining three Global Hawk Block 30’s and put almost $500,000,000.00 into the Global Hawk account and killing the U-2 program in the process. The United States, the Combatant Commands, the warfighter, and the taxpayer cannot afford the loss of the venerable U-2!

The Global Hawk unmanned system has served this country well. Its capability, in terms of autonomy and endurance are very noteworthy. It has provided valuable intelligence data for use by decisionmakers. But…at best, the Global Hawk is merely complementary to the U-2.

While it's understandable to view the Global Hawk and U-2 as interchangeable reconnaissance aircraft, they are not! It does appear that the congress has received and acted upon information on the Global Hawk that is false!

The U-2's multi-INT reconnaissance sensors are far superior. The U-2 operates in all whether conditions at altitudes ten to fifteen thousand feet higher than the Global Hawk and carries a robust defensive system that allows for operations in more challenging environments. The Global Hawk doesn't have any self-protection equipment and is limited to operating in clear skies since it doesn't have an anti-ice capability.

That said, the Global Hawk does not possess the aggregate capabilities of the U-2. The Global Hawk does not fly as high as the U-2, it does not “see” or “hear” as far as the U-2. While the U-2 soars through 65,000 feet in less than 30 minutes and operates between 65k and 70+k feet, the Global Hawk takes many hours to pass through 50,000 and takes 15+ hours to climb to its maximum ops altitude of 57,000 feet. And much more…

The U-2 does so much more. The U-2 has the ability for Multi-Int (IMINT & SIGINT) cross-cueing that can be dynamically re-tasked. The Global Hawk does not. The U-2 is modular in design and can “plug-in-play” its sensors. The Global Hawk does not. The U-2 has a defensive system. The Global Hawk does not. The Global Hawk requires dedicated, and expensive, AWACS for DUE REGARD in the PACOM AOR, the U-2 does not. The U-2 is also communications node for 5th to 5th and 5th to 4th fighters and US Navy combat ships. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the U-2s have been modernized, been re-engined, have glass cockpits, and have a service life well past 2050.

With the incredible budget challenges facing the United States, we cannot afford to fund a partially capable system of the Global Hawk and force the USAF to ramp down the U-2. Just ask the Combatant Commanders!!

Therefore, I request action: Provide congressional direction to Defense Department and USAF to continue to fund, sustain, and improve the U-2 program until such time as an adequate system is developed to replace it.

Signed,

US Citizen & Taxpayer

Edited March 22, 2014 by Huggyu2

[Danger41]

Any updates on the retirement/non-retirement?

[HuggyU2]

No big (public) news.

But it appears to be getting intense.

Interesting times.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Huggyu2

[Majestik Møøse]

Where is this currently being debated?

[Blue]

Read this in Aviation Week awhile back, and thought it was interesting. LockMart appears to be upping their efforts to promote the U-2.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/are-gloves-finally-dragon-lady

For the first time in as long as I can remember going to defense shows (nearly 15 years), Lockheed Martin is holding a briefing next week on the U-2S, the latest model of the high-flying spy aircraft, at the annual Air Force Association conference in Orlando.

The company has predominantly put its stock and talent at air shows and defense symposiums into handling the ongoing questions related to its controversial and multinational F-35 program. The issue there is to continue a drum beat of messaging to support the F-35, which is constantly being hit by detractors -- foreign and domestic.

The U-2 business, exclusive to the U.S., has long been viewed by many in the company as being on cruise control. Even in the height of the Air Force's support for the rival Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk, Lockheed generally sat quietly in the public arena while media buzz compared the younger, less capable unmanned aerial system (UAS) to the venerable U-2.

[Disregard]

Spy Plane Fries Air Traffic Control Computers, Shuts Down LAX

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/spy-plane-fries-air-traffic-control-computers-shuts-down-lax-n95886

A relic from the Cold War appears to have triggered a software glitch at a major air traffic control center in California Wednesday that led to delays and cancellations of hundreds of flights across the country, sources familiar with the incident told NBC News.

[Naviguesser]

Spy Plane Fries Air Traffic Control Computers, Shuts Down LAX

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/spy-plane-fries-air-traffic-control-computers-shuts-down-lax-n95886

A relic from the Cold War appears to have triggered a software glitch at a major air traffic control center in California Wednesday that led to delays and cancellations of hundreds of flights across the country, sources familiar with the incident told NBC News.

A horribly written article that does nothing to explain what actually happened.

[SurelySerious]

WSJ Opinion by Michael Auslin

Don't Slay the 'Dragon Lady' The U-2 spy plane has unparalleled capabilities, but it's endangered by Pentagon cost-cutting.

[Fuzz]

A U-2 caused the shutdown of LAX's ATC the other day.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/spy-plane-fries-air-traffic-control-computers-shuts-down-lax-n95886

[HuggyU2]

Just

A U-2 caused the shutdown of LAX's ATC the other day.

Just a reminder....

bitchez..

[BDJ238]

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/did-a-u2-spy-plane-shut-down-socals-atc-center-1571273790/+ballaban

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Majestik Møøse]