Lockheed pushing optionally manned U-2

a reply to: aholic

The Global Hawk. It beats the -180 in some things, but overall the -180 is in a different field.

Wasn't there a design study done not too long ago for an algorithm to reduce drag and add more efficiency to existing airframes and engine types?

a reply to: Blackfinger

For large transports and tankers yes. Not for a U-2 style airframe.

For large transports and tankers yes. Not for a U-2 style airframe.

Yet !!!!! I think in time when the airframes start confirming the numbers I,m wondering it will expand onto other airframes as well..Its a fine line :New tech unproven vs :Known tech redrawn and updated for cost efficiency.

a reply to: Blackfinger

The problem with something like that on a U-2 is that it's an extremely delicate balancing act. That's the reason its still flown with no assistance.

A system like that helps with aerodynamics and fuel consumption. But it adds weight. The U-2 doesn't really need the help in those two categories, but extra weight will hurt a lot more then help.

For sure Maybe a dip into newer tech with lighter stronger materials will help.Aerodynamics at height means bigger wing spans,less drag other than huge power.Kurt Tank found that out with the Ta152 from the Fw190D series.

So what is the "green" thing that may be flying around, not surveillance?

Why do you need the U2 unmanned and life extended when there might be some kickass aircraft out there.

a reply to: TheCrowMan

To cover the books.

a reply to: TheCrowMan

The same reason you needed it when the SR-71 was around. One aircraft can't do it all, and sometimes a less valuable resource is better for the target you're looking at.

a reply to: TheCrowMan

It's all about the "knowing". Knowledge is power in the modern day geopolitical scene.
We can send a U-2 or equivalent platform to peer into hostile territory from just inside international airspace or over the country if they have no air defenses to counter.
If we see something that need a closer inspection we can send the "Green Lady" or equivalent. Too fast and too high for air defenses to counter, both parties know it is us but they can't prove it and we won't admit it.
If they really need a close, close look at something they can send a RQ-180 type platform during day or night at lower altitudes to really get eyes on target.
All of this is to supplement the satellites that we operate as well but with satellites you don't get that unpredictability and "at a moments notice" quality that an airframe brings you.

The U-2 is just another tool in the inventory. One that fits a specific set of needs that the other tools don't.

I personally think it's a silly idea. One that won't ever come to manufacturing. The Air Force and The Hill are trying to can as many older airframes as they can and imagine the maintenance on mechanically articulated flight controls. The U2s take as much of a beating as it is. Not to mention if they lose a single bird in testing, that's it, game over. It's quite a bit different than plugging into a fly-by-wire QF-16 type deal.

I have a theory why they are pushing this at the moment but I don't think it's because they actually intend for this to go through. But time will tell if I'm wrong.

a reply to: aholic

Actually I can see it happening with the resistance to the Global Hawk.