You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Why U-2s Must Lose Their Pilots
2006-10-26
October 26, 2006: The U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its 33 U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue), and some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2.

Ever resourceful, the air force has decided to make the most of it by turning the U-2s into UAVs. This is not cutting edge technology, the air force has been turning warplanes into UAVs for over half a century, mainly for use as target aircraft (usually for missile tests, which require very realistic targets if you want to be really sure the missile works.) Replacing the U-2 pilot with software and automated controls also solves several other problems. Since the U-2 only carries a single pilot, the aircraft cannot safely stay in the air as long as it could, because the pilot would be come too fatigued. Currently, the max endurance for a U-2 is twelve hours. But without a pilot, and all the gear required by a pilot, you could carry more fuel, and keep a U-2 UAV in the air for up to 18 hours. Moreover, the U-2 can fly higher than the Global Hawk, and carry more sensors. So, in theory, a U-2 UAV is superior to Global Hawk.

The key unanswered question is how much will it cost to develop the software for flying the U-2 remotely, and how long will it take. That issue will be clarified in the next year, along with cost comparisons between a U-2 UAV and new Global Hawks.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#11  The first house I lived in here in San jose was on the approach for Moffett Naval Air Station. I never got tired of watching one of those graceful machines glide in for a landing.

So, Cyber Sarge, are you still in California? I'm thinking it's about time to set up a West Coast Rantburg get together.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-26 23:43  

#10  Zenster, I used to work in that program (non pilot) and I live bout 10 miles from Beale AFB where they are based. I still get a chill watching and listening to them launch. Very distingtive sound and they look almost majestic as they climb out of sight.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-10-26 22:31  

#9  Parabellum, no ... it was outside of DC a little way. ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-26 21:26  

#8  Anything that keeps one of my alltime favorite birds in the sky is just fine by me. They should still keep several in pilot control mode for those special missions that require human judgement.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-26 20:49  

#7  I'll launch a U2 off of a carrier, but I'll be damned if you could pay me enough to try to land one on a carrier!

Hey, lotp, was that party in Palmdale, CA by any chance?
Posted by: Parabellum   2006-10-26 19:50  

#6  CS: I am not thinking about weapons, but rather a tried and true design for the pilot replacement systems (flight controls / navigation),and not a complete wheel reinvention. Logic says the airframe is old and will not last forever, so there is no reason to go with 'notinvnetedyet' stuff if the goal is weapon systems improvement now. incremental improvement after the UAV-ed U2 is operational is always an option. I have no problem with stuffing better weapons into the old girl, and a laser designator would be a good choice, especially since that a/c can loiter wa-a-ay up there.
U-2 trivia: the CIA tried to make the bird carrier capable, 6 a/c were fitted w/ folding wingtips and a hook, but the deck handling restrictions as well as the very narrow flight envelope when recovering doomed the idea.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-10-26 18:30  

#5  Wierdest and most interesting holiday party I've ever attended:

1/2 the people there had PhDs in esoteric techical and scientific disciplines, some of them had multiple such degrees

the other 1/2 were past or present U2 pilots

Got REALLY interesting when the punch bowl was nearly empty. Friendly challenges, what-ifs and some things drawn/calculated on napkins late into the evening.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-26 16:51  

#4  USN, you take out that pilot and all the associated gear and you have a lot of wight, space, and power for the "Gold Plated" toys the Air Force likes. I am all for a laser designator which would make the platform very valuble.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-10-26 16:28  

#3  Those Kelley Johnson designs are remarkably durable, lol.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-26 14:38  

#2  As long as the USAF didn't apply their (typical) gold plating to the system requirements, this could actually be done fairly quickly, since the basic airframe and flight control systems haven't changed since the mid -50's (gawd, has that airplane been around THAT long?). a simple computer and servos integrated into the control system should do it. The big ?? is that I would fully expect the AF TO apply their magic 'gotta-have'all-the-latest-toys" wand and then when the cost estimates explode use that to justify killing off the U-2 and go after the GH.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-10-26 14:36  

#1  I remember when the Global Hawk was announced and I donÂ’t remember too many pilots cheering. That being said the pilot is useless for most of the flight because the sensors, cameras, and guidance are controlled by a computer. The U-2 does carry more bells and whistles than the Global Hawk and having that long loiter time would be a definite plus.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-10-26 14:15  

00:00