Lockheed Martin U-2 / TR-1 / ER-2

[old news but] Tesla Model S chase U-2 now:

1501530482-u2tesla-626x382.jpeg


www.caranddriver.com

Why the Tesla Model S Is the Chase Car for the Air Force’s U-2 Spy Plane [Video]

The USAF uses the Tesla Model S to escort spy planes on the runway. Read more and see video at Car and Driver.
www.caranddriver.com www.caranddriver.com

If you are a nostalgic, you can now buy their old ride, a Pontiac G8
 
From this book.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    583.1 KB · Views: 115
  • 2.png
    2.png
    571.7 KB · Views: 108
  • 3.png
    3.png
    601.3 KB · Views: 100
  • 4.png
    4.png
    597.6 KB · Views: 96
  • 5.png
    5.png
    657.3 KB · Views: 99
  • 6.png
    6.png
    610.4 KB · Views: 98
  • 7.png
    7.png
    607.4 KB · Views: 102
  • 8.png
    8.png
    596.8 KB · Views: 102
  • 9.png
    9.png
    613.6 KB · Views: 109
  • 10.png
    10.png
    375.7 KB · Views: 112
  • 11.png
    11.png
    599.6 KB · Views: 113
  • 12.png
    12.png
    2.8 MB · Views: 132
Tired to drink too much and move your hips on Saturday night? Let's get high watching a movie:

View: https://youtu.be/A2daO5MCGTU

Remark:
If you haven't seen it yet, don't miss the inspiring 2nd document with Hollywood actor Gary Sinise
 
Last edited:
hesham said:
What was this ?,

Scheme of anti-radar coating "Trapeze"
Click to expand...
It's just what it says: wires strung with ferrite beads. This was one of two anti-radar methods applied during the Project RAINBOW trails in the late 1950s. The second approach was a blanket of Salisbury Screen (a conductive grid pattern printed on a sheet of non-conductive material) applied over honeycomb and glued to the underside of the fuselage. The wires method was nicknamed Trapeze and the other was called Thermos. Both techniques added a lot of parasitic drag, which reduced mission altitude capability.
 
Has anyone come close to figuring out what companion aircraft was used in tandem with the U-2? It has been alluded to possibly being still classified airframe.
 
Hansblix said:
Has anyone come close to figuring out what companion aircraft was used in tandem with the U-2? It has been alluded to possibly being still classified airframe.
Click to expand...

From what time period?
 
www.dvidshub.net

U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States

A U.S. Air Force pilot looked down at the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon as it hovered over the Central Continental United States February 3, 2023. Recovery efforts began shortly after the balloon was downed. (Photo courtesy of the Department of Defense)
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net
www.airandspaceforces.com

Pentagon Releases Selfie of U-2 Pilot With Chinese Spy Balloon | Air & Space Forces Magazine

U-2s were able to fly above a high-altitude Chinese spy balloon and collected valuable imagery. One of the pilots took a selfie to prove it.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States.jpg
 
Extra points for anyone who can identify the exact area over which the picture was taken.

(There are distinctive landmarks on the ground that should be identifiable on Google Earth.)
 
aonestudio said:
www.thedrive.com

U-2 Dragon Lady Spy Planes Are Facing The Axe Again: Report

Plans to cut both the U-2 and RQ-4 Global Hawk fleets continue to point to a secret high-flying stealth drone being readied to take over.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...

This is like saying that because the SR-71 was retired there must be an SR-72

It is entirely possible that USAF is just getting out of the ISR business. After all, they can't give the RQ-170 crews enough flying hours to be proficient.
 
quellish said:
aonestudio said:
www.thedrive.com

U-2 Dragon Lady Spy Planes Are Facing The Axe Again: Report

Plans to cut both the U-2 and RQ-4 Global Hawk fleets continue to point to a secret high-flying stealth drone being readied to take over.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...

This is like saying that because the SR-71 was retired there must be an SR-72

It is entirely possible that USAF is just getting out of the ISR business. After all, they can't give the RQ-170 crews enough flying hours to be proficient.
Click to expand...
I suppose you’re one of those people who thinks that satellites can do everything. History has shown this kind of attitude is actually detrimental to good intelligence gathering as you’re always going to need a mix of sources including human intelligence.
 
Flyaway said:
I suppose you’re one of those people who thinks that satellites can do everything.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Satellites have their place, as do other collection methods.

The point I was making is that retiring systems does not mean there is a plan for a replacement, and that USAF may be reducing its involvement in airborne ISR. In fact, it has a long history of not wanting to be in that business, but let's look at the recent history.

USAF wanted to get rid of the U-2 as the RQ-4 became operational. As it turned out, the RQ-4 could not replicate the capabilities of the U-2 and did not offer the substantial reductions in costs the USAF hoped for. So they ended up keeping both, though at various points in the last 20 years they have tried to get rid of one, the other, or both.

USAF is getting rid of the JSTARS platform. It's intended replacement is the Block 40 RQ-4 with MR-RTIP. USAF has already retired the other RQ-4 versions and is down to less than a dozen Block 40. They are now trying to get rid of those. There is no JSTARS replacement if that happens. Space Force is looking at a classified space system and ways to use civilian space assets to replace JSTARS, but at best those solutions would not be available for 5 years or more.

USAF has done this many times in the past - retire an ISR collection system with no replacement. At the end of the day ISR isn't something USAF as an institution wants to do.

If there is a super secret stealth drone that is going to replace all of these retiring systems it must be very impressive - performing all of these different missions in a single survivable airframe would be very difficult and expensive. Having enough of them to maintain orbits over several place would be very expensive as well.

There is already a penetrating ISR platform, the RQ-170, and they can't get enough flight hours out of the fleet to keep their pilots proficient. A new super-drone would not make a lot of sense. Again, it does seem like USAF is just getting out of ISR, again.
 
FINAL EXAMINATION - Multiple Choice

Future Historians Class​

1. At the end of the day _________ isn't something the USAF as an institution wants to do.

A. ISR
B. CSAR
C. CAS
D. BAI
E. Spectrum Dominance (minus points if you call it EW)
F. Anything involving playing bus driver for the Army
G. C4I with manned platforms
H. Your suggestion
I. All of the above


/sarcasm. I think.
 
aim9xray said:
FINAL EXAMINATION - Multiple Choice

Future Historians Class​

1. At the end of the day _________ isn't something the USAF as an institution wants to do.

A. ISR
B. CSAR
C. CAS
D. BAI
E. Spectrum Dominance (minus points if you call it EW)
F. Anything involving playing bus driver for the Army
G. C4I with manned platforms
H. Your suggestion
I. All of the above


/sarcasm. I think.
Click to expand...

J. None of the above
 
The GH was supposed to have replaced the U-2 but now it seams that the U-2 will soldier on until the USAF finds a proper replacement and that maybe some time off.
 
FighterJock said:
The GH was supposed to have replaced the U-2 but now it seams that the U-2 will soldier on until the USAF finds a proper replacement and that maybe some time off.
Click to expand...
The U2 is an impressively well-optimized aircraft, even the ones that have been highly modified from Kelly's original design.

Have you ever seen one take off? "Climbs like a homesick angel" must have been written for them!
 
I have not seen a U-2 take off Scott Kenny, though that would be one of the things that I would like to see before they get retired.
 
FighterJock said:
I have not seen a U-2 take off Scott Kenny, though that would be one of the things that I would like to see before they get retired.
Click to expand...
60-70 degree climb, it's like nothing I've ever seen. There's videos on YT, but they're usually cut too short or don't really show just how fast the climb is.
 
How is that possible with a full fuel load?! I know it generates a lot of lift, but that seems like a ridiculous angle.
 
Anyone know what this Feb '68 CIA meeting with Kelly Johnson was (more specifically) referring to?

Some highlights:
  • Arrangements 'for *redacted* to visit the propulsion facility.. ..and witness some rocket motors in actual operation using OTTO II fuel.' (LPC initially quoted for engine/pumps)
  • 'LAC existing plastics facility and specialists in plastics frabrication from the OXCART program will be used to fabricate the wings and tail surfaces'
  • Wind tunnel tests not 'believed to be required for separation'
  • 'The construction was dictated by minimum radar cross section which led to a metal fuselage and a plastic wing and tail'
  • Tank insulation will maintain fuel at a useable temperature prior to ignition for eight hours
  • 200 watts to be made available by 'additional batteries in the payload area'
  • U-2R modification include 'trapeze, pylon etc.' and include 'a built-in checkout capability for pre-launch confidence'
  • program intended to take advantage of existing U-2R test operation at Edwards AFB. 'Specific government support limited to fuel and spares for the U-2R and the drones'
Apologies if it's already been discussed and I've missed it
 
Last edited:
Dew said:
Anyone know what this Feb '68 CIA meeting with Kelly Johnson was (more specifically) referring to?

Some highlights:
  • Arrangements 'for *redacted* to visit the propulsion facility.. ..and witness some rocket motors in actual operation using OTTO II fuel.' (LPC initially quoted for engine/pumps)
  • 'LAC existing plastics facility and specialists in platics frabrication from the OXCART program will be used to fabricate the wings and tail surfaces'
  • Wind tunnel tests not 'believed to be required for separation'
  • 'The construction was dictated by minimum radar cross section which led to a metal fuselage and a plastic wing and tail'
  • Tank insulation will maintain fuel at a useable temperature prior to ignition for eight hours
  • 200 watts to be made available by 'additional batteries in the payload area'
  • U-2R modification include 'trapeze, pylon etc.' and include 'a built-in checkout capability for pre-launch confidence'
  • program intended to take advantage of existing U-2R test operation at Edwards AFB. 'Specific government support limited to fuel and spares for the U-2R and the drones'
Apologies if it's already been discussed and I've missed it
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like TAGBOARD
 
Can't be Tagboard, too big & heavy for launch from U-2R.

Interesting tidbits -
- Plastic wings and tail
- Otto II fuel is US Navy torpedo monopropellant.
- Rocket motor. (?)
- Trapeze launch - U-2R fuselage top or wing super pod station.
- Max mission time to launch - 8 hours (cold soak requirement)

Is this Aquiline related (competitor?)
 
aim9xray said:
- Otto II fuel is US Navy torpedo monopropellant.
Click to expand...
..and used by Aerojet in a mod'd AQM-37 in the early '80's !:
A84-17862#
SYNTHESIS AND PERFORMANCE OF AN AIR-TURBORAMJET-PROPELLED SUPERSONIC TARGET VEHICLE
(AIAA PAPER 84-0075)
A modified version of the AQM-37 target vehicle was used in this study in expectation that integrating an Air-TurboRamjet (ATR) propulsion subsystem would provide safety and performance benefits relative to the existing AQM-37A target. The ATR propulsion subsystem allows utilization of relatively benign fuel (OTTO II) in place of the inhibited red fuming nitric acid/mixed amine fuel NO. 4 (IRFNA/MAF no. 4) bipropellant combination used in the current version of the AQM-37. Otto II provides more than twice the currently delivered specific impulse. Performance evaluations of the ATR-propelled target vehicle designs show capability for sustained low-altitude flight at Mach 1.5 and a powered flight range of more than 200 NM cruising at Mach 3.0, 80,000 ft. altitude when launched at Mach 1.5. 50,000 ft. altitude.​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LPC == Lockheed Propulsion Company (formerly Grand Central Rocket Company).
 
Josh_TN said:
How is that possible with a full fuel load?! I know it generates a lot of lift, but that seems like a ridiculous angle.
Click to expand...
I don't know. But every takeoff has the U2 make a huge up angle and climb at an outrageous rate.

I mean, the U2 is basically a powered sailplane and makes so much lift that even with spoilers and airbrakes it doesn't want to land.
 
Dew said:
aim9xray said:
- Otto II fuel is US Navy torpedo monopropellant.
Click to expand...
..and used by Aerojet in a mod'd AQM-37 in the early '80's !:

A84-17862#
SYNTHESIS AND PERFORMANCE OF AN
AIR-TURBORAMJET-PROPELLED SUPERSONIC TARGET
VEHICLE
(AIAA PAPER 84-0075)
A modified version of the AQM-37 target vehicle was used in
this study in expectation that integrating an Air-TurboRamjet (ATR)
propulsion subsystem would provide safety and performance
benefits relative to the existing AQM-37A target. The ATR
propulsion subsystem allows utilization of relatively benign fuel
(OTTO II) in place of the inhibited red fuming nitric acid/mixed
amine fuel NO. 4 (IRFNA/MAF no. 4) bipropellant combination
used in the current version of the AQM-37. Otto II provides more
than twice the currently delivered specific impulse. Performance
evaluations of the ATR-propelled target vehicle designs show
capability for sustained low-altitude flight at Mach 1.5 and a
powered flight range of more than 200 NM cruising at Mach 3.0,
80,000 ft. altitude when launched at Mach 1.5. 50,000 ft. altitude.
Click to expand...
Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...

OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
 
Supporting manpower: 1 for 25 items and one airframe(U2R).
This gives us information regarding the extend of U2R modifications: slight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...

OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Click to expand...
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."

Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:

"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."

- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."

I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.

(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
 
Mugs914 said:
Scott Kenny said:
Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...

OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Click to expand...
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."

Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:

"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."

- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."

I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.

(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
Click to expand...

Otto II fuel is more like a nitro based explosive in liquid form. Forgot the exact chemistry but it is completely unrelated to peroxide reactions.
 
Mugs914 said:
Scott Kenny said:
Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...

OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Click to expand...
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."

Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:

"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."

- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."

I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.

(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
Click to expand...
OTTO II is a liquid monopropellant. Means it will burn even in deep space. Also means that most conventional firefighting methods will fail if a fuel spill catches fire.

Otto fuel II is a distinct-smelling (described by submariners as being similar in smell to wintergreen oil; i.e. sweet, fruity and minty),[citation needed] reddish-orange, oily liquid that is a mixture of three synthetic substances: propylene glycol dinitrate (the major component), 2-nitrodiphenylamine, and dibutyl sebacate.[4]
Click to expand...
Quote from wiki.

Combustion products include fun things like cyanide gas and other toxic chemicals that I don't remember exactly.

If we had a hot run (torpedo engine started inside the tube), all hands on watch don EABs, everyone else evacuates the compartment. Then we send two guys wearing their forced air respirators in with the OTTO Fuel detector. It's an extra fancy Draeger glass-tube system that would heat the air. If it tested positive you needed to pop the tube off the source end of the box, if it continued to show positive it is reacting to the cooks having deep-fried something. If it stops showing positive when disconnected from the heated air, you have OTTO fuel combustion products in the atmosphere and you need to spend the next several hours ventilating the ship.

Guess who was on the OTTO Fuel detector team?
 
Mugs914 said:
Scott Kenny said:
Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...

OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Click to expand...
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."

Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:

"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."

- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."

I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.

(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
Click to expand...

Try fluorine. Or boron fuels. Beryllium too. IRFNA is peanut butter, compared to that trio.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom