USAF cancels Global Hawks in favour of extended U-2 service.

[stratofreighter]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... EM20120124

Exclusive: U.S. Air Force terminating Northrop unmanned plane

http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/24/penta ... lobal-hawk

Taken from
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/what- ... a=1&c=1171

The U-2 has similar features, including sophisticated sensors that in some circumstances can outperform those on the Global Hawk.
But it lacks the "legs" of Global Hawk, a feature that had been thought critical as the joint force shifts its focus to the Asia-Pacific region.
U-2 is now expected to remain active in the joint fleet until at least 2023

[smokejumper]

I know a retired USAF pilot that has 12+ years in the U-2; some of his stories are really eye opening, especially as to where he flew it.

His biggest complaint was 12 hour missions - long and intense.

He has told me many times that it is the most difficult plane to fly as it has a flight envelope of only plus or minus 3 knots at altitude. You have to carefully monitor speed and either climb (to loose speed) or descend (to gain speed) to maintain the peg speed. 3 knots over the peg speed and structural failure will occur (the wings fall off) and 3 knots under peg speed and you stall and probably not recover due the disintegrating aircraft.

There was a lot of stress flying it. He had a chance to fly SR-71's but after a few flights found it too boring (all you did was look at instruments). He once said "if you are an excellent pilot,, you want the U-2, if you are mediocre,you want the SR-71,

[earthman]

And his hobby was line balancing?

[regi]

He has told me many times that it is the most difficult plane to fly as it has a flight envelope of only plus or minus 3 knots at altitude. You have to carefully monitor speed and either climb (to loose speed) or descend (to gain speed) to maintain the peg speed. 3 knots over the peg speed and structural failure will occur (the wings fall off) and 3 knots under peg speed and you stall and probably not recover due the disintegrating aircraft.

sounds so strange, just a 3 knots +- tolerance. And what about turbulence, did that not make the wings brake off?
Anyway, always interesting to read inside stories , how strange they might sound for an outsider as me.

[regi]

The articles mention budget cuts, as if a U-2 pilot comes for free.
I realize that the GH also needs a remote pilot/controller ( or how would we call a person behind a computer thousands of miles away who directs a GH ?) But the difference is that a cell of GH controllers can handle more airplanes than 1/1. And many features are automised.

So now comes - as usual dear Luchtzak members - my typical reaction: would this decision not been influenced by the Sentinel hijacking above Iran?
Imagine a radio call to the U-2 pilot " You are in Iranian airspace. Land immediately at our airbase XYZ"
U-2 reply " FXXX off" and full throttle.

Secondly, the USAF cancels the GH , but many features have been taken over by satelites. And the question remains how many U-2's they will keep operative, and in which areas.

[regi]

maybe the tanker deal might turn in an economic nightmare as well !

[smokejumper]

He has told me many times that it is the most difficult plane to fly as it has a flight envelope of only plus or minus 3 knots at altitude. You have to carefully monitor speed and either climb (to loose speed) or descend (to gain speed) to maintain the peg speed. 3 knots over the peg speed and structural failure will occur (the wings fall off) and 3 knots under peg speed and you stall and probably not recover due the disintegrating aircraft.

sounds so strange, just a 3 knots +- tolerance. And what about turbulence, did that not make the wings brake off?
Anyway, always interesting to read inside stories , how strange they might sound for an outsider as me.

Regi- at 70,000+ feet, there is no turbulence. and, at that altitude, the air is so thin that the engine (J-75 when Warren flew it and F404 now), only produces about 700-750 pounds of thrust. The plane cruises at about 470 knots and at that speed, the wings just don't produce the lift for a larger margin.

Warren also said that you have to make very slow turns at altitude. If you make a tight turn, one wing could exceed the max speed and the other wing could simultaneously be below the threshold (due the tho long wingspan) - makes for exciting flying! He flew nan Sr-71 when he was considering transferring into the SR squadron, but said it was just too boring and any mediocre pilot could fly it.

[smokejumper]

The articles mention budget cuts, as if a U-2 pilot comes for free.
I realize that the GH also needs a remote pilot/controller ( or how would we call a person behind a computer thousands of miles away who directs a GH ?) But the difference is that a cell of GH controllers can handle more airplanes than 1/1. And many features are automised.

So now comes - as usual dear Luchtzak members - my typical reaction: would this decision not been influenced by the Sentinel hijacking above Iran?
Imagine a radio call to the U-2 pilot " You are in Iranian airspace. Land immediately at our airbase XYZ"
U-2 reply " FXXX off" and full throttle.

Secondly, the USAF cancels the GH , but many features have been taken over by satelites. And the question remains how many U-2's they will keep operative, and in which areas.

Reggi - the U-2 is a very simple plane to maintain. It is the only combat aircraft in the US military (and probably the world) that still uses cables (and not hydraulic) operated controls. They are lighter, don't leak, only require adjustment by turning a turn-buckle and generally fool-proof. Since there are no high-G maneuvers, no hydraulic boost is needed.