Aging U-2 Will Fight On Into the Next Decade 266
Posted
by
timothy
from the as-long-as-bono's-hearing-aid-lasts dept.
from the as-long-as-bono's-hearing-aid-lasts dept.
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.'"
Oh thank God (Score:4, Insightful)
It's time to give it up (Score:0, Insightful)
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.
Why not google Earth? (Score:5, Insightful)
latency.
-- Terry
Re:There's nothing to change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's nothing to change (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics and technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [blackbirds.net]
https://www.google.com/search?q=Skunk+Works%3A+A+Personal+Memoir+of+My+Years+of+Lockheed [google.com]
Re:Cuts (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually wanted to read what you wrote there, but it really needs some line breaks.
Either put in <br> or post as Plain Old Text (in the Options button below the text-entry box) and you'll make it a lot easier for people to read.
Re:SR-71 (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and the SR-71 was engineered for somewhere around Mach 5 or 6.
Nonsense. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Around Mach 3, the increased heating from the shock cone compression, plus the heating from the compressor fans, was enough to get the core air to high temperatures, and little fuel could be added in the combustion chamber without melting the turbine blades. This meant the whole compressor-combustor-turbine set-up in the core of the engine provided less power, and the Blackbird flew predominantly on air bypassed straight to the afterburners, forming a large ramjet effect. The maximum speed was limited by the specific maximum temperature for the compressor inlet of 800 F (427 C).
The SR-71 had enough problems coping with the temperatures generated at Mach 3, it was never designed for anything much above Mach 3.5.
lots of planes can do Mach 3
Really? Name three. MiG-25/31 don't count since they had a more than 50% chance of burning out both engines if they went over Mach 2.8 or so.
And, I talked to a retired traffic controller who once saw a '71 light up a civilian transponder so traffic could be vectored around it (it had an emergency apparently), they clocked it around 4000mph.
I'm glad that traffic controller is retired, because if he clocked an SR-71 at 4000mph, he was drinking on the job.
Re:There's nothing to change (Score:3, Insightful)
DC10? Try the deHavilland Comet. DC10s flew for years after their crises. The Comet, that killed the company.
Re:There's nothing to change (Score:0, Insightful)
So, where are the new chemical elements and materials and particles and fundamental forces? Oh that's right, there aren't any. The future is in single-digit percentages, not revolutions. Sorry, the human adventure is gonna continue on Earth.
Fermi's Paradox? There isn't one. The laws of physics are the same everywhere, the aliens can't get here and we can't get there. It's that simple.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"DoD cutbacks" also do not involve spending less money at the present or at any time in the future, and virtually always involve spending even more. The word "cutback" merely implies that the estimate of how much more money will be spent *might* be less than a previous estimate. It is also of note that all estimates are lower than what is actually spent, sometimes by a mere 5%-10%, often by an order of magnitude or more.
When the military talks of cutbacks, it is akin to a 4-pack a day smoker promising that they will only smoke 4.5 packs per day next year rather than their originally intended 5, and that if they do smoke 5 packs a day they'll look into light or ultra-light variants, and that if they actually smoke 6 packs a day they will seriously consider smoking a cheaper or generic brand at least 5% of the time.
Or, to use a car metaphor, military cutbacks are the equivalent of taking a job that is 1 mile closer to home to save on gas, then buying a Hummer and moving 10 miles farther away. The savings from the commute to the new job compared to the new job are, technically, an improvement over the situation you would have had otherwise, but the net effect is still that you spend a lot more money on your commute.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping U2 pilots, which are saving us from terrorism, under the despicable conditions of low pay and consequential low morale is an easier way to lobby for increases in military spending. Drones don't have wives who can complain to a camera.