Hey, Warbirdians!

Or you can just send me all your money and save time.
 
Will NASA take some of them?
 
NASA has a couple of ER-2, which are custom U-2R's. BTW... it takes at least a half dozen people, and a custom hot rod to launch and recover a U-2, along with needed a 10,000' runway.
 
The article says that Congress could delay the retirement. Hopefully they’ll be smart and let the Air Force decide what aircraft is best for the mission.

No doubt the forums and social media groups will be exploding with comments from people who’ve never flown the aircraft nor the mission, but have strong emotions about it and will want the U-2 to stay in service forever.
 
ateamer said:
The article says that Congress could delay the retirement. Hopefully they’ll be smart and let the Air Force decide what aircraft is best for the mission.
Click to expand...

hopefully the USAF doesn't play games with the decision (e.g., zero fund something they know some congresscritter will fund anyway so that the USAF can pay for something they need but congress doesn't want)
 
Craig said:
NASA has a couple of ER-2, which are custom U-2R's. BTW... it takes at least a half dozen people, and a custom hot rod to launch and recover a U-2, along with needed a 10,000' runway.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the huffer with the twin Buick V-8 engines.
 
wilkersk said:
Not to mention the huffer with the twin Buick V-8 engines.
Click to expand...
U-2 only needs a regular -60 for engine start. For mission flights, it also needs a power bunny and an air conditioner for a start. It was the SR-71 that needed the twin engined huffer.

A little hot rod fun:
 
ateamer said:
The article says that Congress could delay the retirement. Hopefully they’ll be smart and let the Air Force decide what aircraft is best for the mission.

No doubt the forums and social media groups will be exploding with comments from people who’ve never flown the aircraft nor the mission, but have strong emotions about it and will want the U-2 to stay in service forever.
Click to expand...
Yeah you're right, the Air Force has never tried to retire an aircraft well before a viable replacement was operational, leading to such comments and sentiment.
 
I do not have an opinion on the U-2 retirement, except to say I saw a low pass over Klamath Falls (KLMT) once. When the pilot hit the throttle to climb, the windows at the FBO shook and I was somewhat closer on the ramp and could feel the rumble in my chest.

The U-2 is 1980s tech. The B-52 is 1950s tech, yet they are kept flying. What's the difference in maintenance and support?
 
Domenick said:
I do not have an opinion on the U-2 retirement, except to say I saw a low pass over Klamath Falls (KLMT) once. When the pilot hit the throttle to climb, the windows at the FBO shook and I was somewhat closer on the ramp and could feel the rumble in my chest.

The U-2 is 1980s tech. The B-52 is 1950s tech, yet they are kept flying. What's the difference in maintenance and support?
Click to expand...
The u2 was designed and first flown in the 50s. How do you get 80s tech from that?
 
Salty said:
The u2 was designed and first flown in the 50s. How do you get 80s tech from that?
Click to expand...
The U-2s flying today were new builds from the early 80s with modern engines and further modernization since then. The only thing left from the 50s is the overall shape/design.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
The U-2s flying today were new builds from the early 80s with modern engines and further modernization since then. The only thing left from the 50s is the overall shape/design.
Click to expand...
Can’t the same be said of b52s?
 
Salty said:
Can’t the same be said of b52s?
Click to expand...

No. The last B-52 rolled out of the Wichita production facility in 1962.

The U-2S is a bit different. U-2Rs started production in 1967. These airframes were larger than the previous model. There were also TR-1s than started production in 1981. The last U-2Rs and TR-1s were delivered in 1989. When they got re-engined in the 90s, all were redesignated as the U-2S.
 
The b52 hasn’t had any modifications or engine and avionics upgrades? That doesn’t sound right.
 
The B-52's got major upgrades when American Airlines phased out all their 707's in 1980. The engines, pylons and air pacs were all pulled and shipped to contractors for refurbishment and installation on B-52's. All of those 707's were stripped and scrapped at TSTI in Waco at that time.
 
Salty said:
The b52 hasn’t had any modifications or engine and avionics upgrades? That doesn’t sound right.
Click to expand...
The H model is still rocking the smoky TF-33s, yes some avionics potato have been added through the years. Nothing transformative, from a contested modern combat airspace anyways. The bulk of the improvements was the internal bay connectivity for modern standoff weapons. Mostly a money food fight, never a technical limitation for the airframe. Currently, the more transformative upgrade on the avionics front will be the radar. Of course, that merely gives it parity with 4th gen fighter aviation, which is to say, bringing it to 20-30 years late. But that's ok, it's not a frontline asset.

The real techincal limitation for the airframe is the re-engine effort. They had to stick with the form and weight factor of the 8 engine setup; the aerodynamics/stability+control of the buff are just goober. The idea of mega-bypass 4x setup is just not supportable by the floppy wing planform, and tiny (yes tiny) rudder and elevator. The RR engines sip gas on the same thrust, but most importantly keep the thrust-split count the same, so assymetrics control remain intact. That significant fuel savings will make it a better oceanliner and "half-court" shooter, which is its geriatric mission in the 21st century.

IMO where the usaf dropped the ball with the buff was cancelling the EB-52 programme, and giving up that mission set wholy away to the Navy. In my perfect world, what they need to do is chuck the navs out already, modernize the EW suite, give the pilots AESA + jammer pods so loud it'd send the Growlers to the unemployement office, and slap some AIM 260s to the outer hardpoints. Combine that with a belly full of JASSM or SDBs with the leaner fuel profile of the RR engine, and you got yourself the first time in history that thing can legitimately be called a "fortress" of any kind. In present circumstances that thing is just a blind goose you got to shepperd everywhere; all they do is get in the way of training for the adults during LFEs/Red Flag.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
The b52 hasn’t had any modifications or engine and avionics upgrades? That doesn’t sound right.
Click to expand...

Avionics, yes. Engines, not yet. Still the original airframes.
 
Craig said:
NASA has a couple of ER-2, which are custom U-2R's. BTW... it takes at least a half dozen people, and a custom hot rod to launch and recover a U-2, along with needed a 10,000' runway.
Click to expand...
So ya gotta have friends to fly it? Crap! I guess it won’t be me!:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top