U-2 Dragonlady info

[wannabeflyer]

Thanks Spoo,

I'm looking at applying for the U-2 this summer! So I'm guessing the 60 on 90 off is standard for the first couple years, then maybe lessens as you get wing job, instructor job, etc? Also curious what the non flying duties are like. Obviously every Air Force gig has it share of queep and office work, but I can say in the C-17 community it seems to be the biggest source of griping. We have lost almost all of our civilian support staff, and seem to have more than our share of paper pushing. I know everyone's situation is different, but how is the lifestyle when you're home?

[HuggyU2]

You should plan on 60-70 on, 60-70 off. It might end up being less than that, but do not count on it. Expect that pace for your first 18 months on the line (which starts about 10 months after you arrive).

Thanks Spoo,

I'm looking at applying for the U-2 this summer! So I'm guessing...

1. If you are applying soon, have you called to speak to the Recruiting branch at Beale? If not, why not? DSN 368-4447/8464.

2. "I'm guessing... ". Why guess? You have an opportunity to go to an assignment that minimizes AFPC's control over your life. For once, you have control over the decision. Make sure it is what you want. Don't guess. Take leave and fly to Beale for a few days and visit the squadron and local area. Talk with the pilots that are AT Beale NOW, and flying the line.

if you end up getting hired to the U-2, and after a year or two you wish you hadn't done it, you have no one to blame but yourself. AFPC didn't force you to come here. It is all-volunteer.

Choose carefully.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Huggyu2

[stract]

Huggy's back!

[matmacwc]

Have you figured out how to go reserve U-2 Huggy and fly that thing till your 60?

[Fuzz]

U-2 carrier take off and landings (I don't if its my computer but there is no sound)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E

[Milchstrasse]

U-2 carrier take off and landings (I don't if its my computer but there is no sound)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E

From what I understand, you don't really have a direct view of the ground below you when landing, and have to rely on various cues or help from below. How was this addressed with carrier landings?

[Swanee]

From what I understand, you don't really have a direct view of the ground below you when landing, and have to rely on various cues or help from below. How was this addressed with carrier landings?

Probably the same way it has been addressed in any CV based airplane since we've been landing on boats- with LSOs. Those dudes can get you aboard when you can't see anything - including the entire boat.

This is a pass to a waveoff but you get the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNup2SLicHU

Edited December 30, 2013 by Swanee

[Spoo]

You should plan on 60-70 on, 60-70 off. It might end up being less than that, but do not count on it. Expect that pace for your first 18 months on the line (which starts about 10 months after you arrive).

1. If you are applying soon, have you called to speak to the Recruiting branch at Beale? If not, why not? DSN 368-4447/8464.

2. "I'm guessing... ". Why guess? You have an opportunity to go to an assignment that minimizes AFPC's control over your life. For once, you have control over the decision. Make sure it is what you want. Don't guess. Take leave and fly to Beale for a few days and visit the squadron and local area. Talk with the pilots that are AT Beale NOW, and flying the line.

if you end up getting hired to the U-2, and after a year or two you wish you hadn't done it, you have no one to blame but yourself. AFPC didn't force you to come here. It is all-volunteer.

Choose carefully.

He's right on all counts. I knew I could get Huggy to post if I relayed some info that was a little off. I'm going to quit posting answers to "What's it like?" questions. Instead, PM me. I'll give you Huggy's personal cell number, address, dimensions, and secret callsign.

[wannabeflyer]

He's right on all counts. I knew I could get Huggy to post if I relayed some info that was a little off. I'm going to quit posting answers to "What's it like?" questions. Instead, PM me. I'll give you Huggy's personal cell number, address, dimensions, and secret callsign.

I was trying to get some basic info to make sure it was something I was interested in before taking leave and heading down for a visit. Sorry for the vague general questions, I'll shoot you guys a PM next time. I'm Still trying to get more info about options for next assignment so I'm still figuring out if I'm going to apply, the timing, etc. Huggy you make a great point though, if I end up applying I will definitely come down and check out the program, no point wasting everyone's time without having a clear idea of what you guys do. Also do you guys still do carrier qual? Would I get that before or after the astronaut badge? Does the spacesuit make your hips look big? Do selfies from space get a lot of social media clout?

[HiFlyer]

No, No, Yes, No.

Edited January 3, 2014 by HiFlyer

[AEWingsMN]

No, No, Yes, No.

isn't there supposed to be a picture of chicks to go along with that post....

[HiFlyer]

isn't there supposed to be a picture of chicks to go along with that post....

no, no, maybe, no

[Spoo]

Well done.

[Kuma]

If I'm remembering the right picture, I thought it was 0,1,0,1

[Spoo]

I know the genesis and the outcome of this "experiment", but seriously, WTF thought this was a good idea?

Pretty sure the second shot is from a KC-97.

[kubarque]

I know the genesis and the outcome of this "experiment", but seriously, WTF thought this was a good idea?

Pretty sure the second shot is from a KC-97.

In-flight refueling feature was used in 1962 and 1963 for several Takhli to Tibet missions by CIA drivers. Distance was too great for the 8.5 hour endurance of the un-refueled U-2C. No doubt, pilot endurance in the old partial pressure suits was pushed toward the limit in the 11+ hour missions. Max endurance of the U-2F (U-2C with IFR) was about 14 hours.

[pcola]

Are you guys in the 1st/99th hearing any new rumors of retiring the U-2 with all the latest budget woes?

[Spoo]

In-flight refueling feature was used in 1962 and 1963 for several Takhli to Tibet missions by CIA drivers. Distance was too great for the 8.5 hour endurance of the un-refueled U-2C. No doubt, pilot endurance in the old partial pressure suits was pushed toward the limit in the 11+ hour missions. Max endurance of the U-2F (U-2C with IFR) was about 14 hours.

Doesn't really answer my question.

[kubarque]

Doesn't really answer my question.

BGen Jack Ledford, director of CIA's U-2 project, James A Cunningham, Ledford's deputy and C. L. (Kelly) Johnson thought it a good idea. (And maybe John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who wanted those and other such missions flown.)

Edit>> Or maybe I don't understand the question.

Edited January 27, 2014 by kubarque

[Spoo]

It was a rhetorical question, meant to be humorous. Thanks for the history lesson though (that's sarcasm).

[jice]

Are you guys in the 1st/99th hearing any new rumors of retiring the U-2 with all the latest budget woes?

Also somewhat concerned about pcola's question in light of this:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140126/DEFREG02/301260027/Global-Hawk-Wins-2015-Request-Sources-Say?odyssey=nav%7Chead

WASHINGTON — The Global Hawk UAV looks to be a big winner in the US Air Force’s fiscal 2015 budget submission, an impressive turn of events for a program the service has spent years attempting to kill.

The Global Hawk Block 30 will be funded when President Barack Obama’s budget arrives March 4, said two sources with knowledge of budget discussions. The sources confirmed that funding will come at the expense of the U-2 spy plane, which the Air Force had promoted as a cheaper alternative to the unmanned system. The news was first reported by Aviation Week.

Does good news for the Global Hawk by nature mean bad news for the Deuce?

[HuggyU2]

Gen Hostage, ACC Commander:

“It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk,” the Air Combat Command leader said. “What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment.”

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. .

Edited February 11, 2014 by Huggyu2

[Right Seat Driver]

I know the genesis and the outcome of this "experiment", but seriously, WTF thought this was a good idea?

Pretty sure the second shot is from a KC-97.

The second shot is from a KC-97.

[Spoo]

That's what I thought.

[El-Fist]

Gen Hostage, ACC Commander:

“It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk,” the Air Combat Command leader said. “What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment.”

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. .

Good on General Hostage for calling out his elected bosses on a ridiculous decision. You don't see that too much. He stops short of saying that "Northrop Grumman has deep pockets and a lot of influence on Capitol Hill, so the ISR world and combat readiness will suffer."

As a taxpayer, this makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't pass any sanity check.

Hopefully, someone with power on The Hill will say "this is stupid," but I doubt it. After all, spending tons of money on crap that under performs over budget seems to be the right answer these days. Unreal...