anti-ship missile armed U-2's

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

other than the minimal lift from her slender body the entire aircraft is lifter into the air by the wings and when they land the wingtips are used when its allow enough.


i don't think your giving the wings enough credit.


the only real problem i could see is when the if only one missile is launched the extremally thin operating envelope of the U2 is disturbed/unbalanced might case some flight issues, they would have to lock up all targets and fire at once.

originally posted by: noscopebacon
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

other than the minimal lift from her slender body the entire aircraft is lifter into the air by the wings and when they land the wingtips are used when its allow enough.


i don't think your giving the wings enough credit.


the only real problem i could see is when the if only one missile is launched the extremally thin operating envelope of the U2 is disturbed/unbalanced might case some flight issues, they would have to lock up all targets and fire at once.

Empty weight: 16,000 lb

Max takeoff weight: 40,000 lb

Fuel capacity: 2,950 US gal (24,600 lb)


I suppose it might be possible if they carried only enough fuel for half the range.

There isn't any other way to add 4,500+ lbs on a 16,000 lb airframe (nothing left to strip at that weight)

Or the max takeoff weight is intentionally inaccurate.



My concern about these particular wings is how much 'droop' they had on the ground. I was surprised they could add that much weight and still taxi without throwing sparks.

I've never seen one in person though, just my assumptions from videos.

originally posted by: noscopebacon
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

other than the minimal lift from her slender body the entire aircraft is lifter into the air by the wings and when they land the wingtips are used when its allow enough.


i don't think your giving the wings enough credit.


the only real problem i could see is when the if only one missile is launched the extremally thin operating envelope of the U2 is disturbed/unbalanced might case some flight issues, they would have to lock up all targets and fire at once.

They could be dropped long before firing, but even just suddenly dropping that much weight would be an engineering challenge.

I can think of a couple potential solutions though, so I'm sure he could too.

originally posted by: noscopebacon
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

i think one of the older high speed bomber even ejected the whole cabin and even cocoon the people in the seats with a metal shutter system that comes down over you and you seat.

so even if you had to punch out at very high altitude and speed you would have a better chance.


i want to say the super hustler or maybe oven the XB-70

but i could very well be wrong

We've built every kind crazy thing you could ever imagine to protect flight crews, but I really have no idea which, if any, were ever actually used on a flyable airframe.

Zaphod would know.

Pretty sure the U2 had near zero crew protection though, every ounce seemed to matter even more than crew survival, which is part of why this seems so incredible, even as a concept.

a reply to: JIMC5499


"As far as anti-shipping missiles on a U-2 goes, somebody must have been on good drugs to come up with that."

Folks used to say the same thing about some of Reagan's ideas to shoot down missiles.

But I had the same first reaction on this one.


Maybe we were just playing head games with russians again?

a reply to: Shadowhawk

I'm not denying that. It was a concept of a Naval variant. It was NOT a standard U-2. It would have been a new construct, using existing parts and jigs for some of it.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The B-58 used "crew capsules" for ejection and the F-111 ejected the entire crew cabin.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It's called "brain storming". As I mentioned before a navalized aircraft could have been built. It could have been equipped with anti-ship missiles, the wings could have been strengthened and it could have done away with the camera gear. Would it still be a U-2?

a reply to: JIMC5499

The wing structure would have undoubtedly had to have been beefed up, but the essential configuration and planform would not have changed. Just look at the pictures of the concept and wind tunnel models. It would definitely still be a U-2.

The armed U-2 configuration certainly sounds a bit dodgy from an engineering standpoint, but Kelly Johnson and his team were never shy about offering innovative ideas. I have seen dozens (scores?) of Lockheed concepts that never went beyond the "paper airplane" phase. It makes the fact that so many actually went to hardware all that much more miraculous.

Weight would be the biggest drawback.The U2 has a fine line as is between flying and stalling..

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It's called "brain storming". As I mentioned before a navalized aircraft could have been built. It could have been equipped with anti-ship missiles, the wings could have been strengthened and it could have done away with the camera gear. Would it still be a U-2?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I love how crazy the idea was, and do see a way to do this with roughly half the mission range, assuming that it doesn't add more than a few hundred pounds to keep the wings off the ground.

I LOVE Customs.

a reply to: Shadowhawk

Probably something written recently like "Area 51 - Black Jets: A History of the Aircraft Developed at Groom Lake".
60 years ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
CIA quiz question "what is a photobomber?"

a reply to: JIMC5499

ahhhh okay i always forget but now i can see the ren canopy coming down in the F111

originally posted by: noscopebacon
a reply to: scrounger

i will take this opportunity to say in the most friendly way 'told ya so'

lol

i understand why it seems crazy but this was before drones had real-time video feeds(as far as i know)

(i was just kidding with the i told ya so, it was in the spirt of humor and not an insult, hard to tell the difference via text)

I didnt say someone would suggest that.

i said ANYONE who knowing the structure of the aircraft alone suggesting it is a MORON or had a moron moment.

along with only one book claimed KELLY suggested it.

i find that hard to believe the guy that made an aircraft AS LIGHT AS POSSIBLE putting missiles or bombs on it.

I do know he would look at something and if it didnt work off the drawing board or even in theory cancel it immediately
he did this with wing tanks on the sr 71.

lets put this another way

a two man glider COULD have the weight requirement to mount say two AT 4 anti tank missiles or a hellfire missile.

it MAY be able to fly with it.

but fire the thing and the glider becomes falling pieces if not blasted out of existence
no one in their right mind would suggest it much less try to make it work

the U 2 is the same thing.

yes i suspect they put MOCKUP missiles on it to try to win support for the crazy idea.

but common damn sense says it is not feasable.

now if you gonna continue to say "well the military tried it" as proof it was even a chance of working
i can make a list of "ideas" that should have been known to be failures out of the gate but "the tried"


BTW care to provide any tests that they did with LIVE WEAPONS

scrounger

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Shadowhawk

I'm not denying that. It was a concept of a Naval variant. It was NOT a standard U-2. It would have been a new construct, using existing parts and jigs for some of it.

EXACTLY

just because it looked like a U 2 doesnt make it so.

again for those who keep pushing this as a feasible idea

the top speed where the wings would come off and the stall speed where it would fall out of the sky was was 5 KNOTS.

That alone made it a very demanding and precise plane to fly

now you gonna fire a missile or drop a bomb that can mess with airspeeds due to just dropping the weight alone (let alone firing a missile)...

common might as well tell the pilot have a nice afterlife.

again to those in the back

just because someone thought of it, someone was gonna try it does not mean a person who uses damn common sense to look at the makeup/characteristics/ect see its a MORONIC THING to do, destine for failure.

again notice no one ever did a practical attempt at it.

hmmmmmm

scrounger

a reply to: Shadowhawk

with respect once you beef up the wings/adding weight to the aircraft , along with other things that would have to be beefed up..

you no longer have a U2 HIGH ALTITUDE surveillance aircraft.

you have a U2 VARIENT that looks outwardly like a U2 (maybe) but is not.

technically a c -130 gunship is a c-130 cargo plane... but in reality it isnt
its a c 130 variant that is NOT a cargo plane with guns... its a gunship.

even then the plane had the beef (with some modifications) to do the job

the U 2 in reality as it was does not.

not even with reinforcement or they would have at least had a practical test now wouldnt they.
not just a "mockup" or plane with mockup weapons

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

We are arguing semantics. A variant of a U-2 is still a U-2. Even a TR-1 is a U-2; it was even re-designated as U-2R. A variant of a C-130 is still a C-130 even if it has a different prefix or suffix letter in the designation.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: scrounger

We are arguing semantics. A variant of a U-2 is still a U-2. Even a TR-1 is a U-2; it was even re-designated as U-2R. A variant of a C-130 is still a C-130 even if it has a different prefix or suffix letter in the designation.

No, you aren't arguing semantics. An example would be the F/A-18. You have the original F/A-18 and you have the F/A-18 Super Hornet. They are two separate aircraft. An AC-130 is a C-130 that has been modified into an attack gunship. It started life as a C-130. The Super Hornet was manufactured as a Super Hornet. You can't take an F/A-18 A and modify it to be a Super Hornet.

A U-2 couldn't be modified to carry anti-ship missiles. It would take completely a new aircraft based on the U-2. With it not having the same mission as the original U-2 it's designation would probably change (maybe A-2).

a reply to: JIMC5499

Well, no. Your argument is patently absurd.

This exchange has become tiresome, and is clearly derailing the thread. I'm done with it.


[Fires blaster at comm panel and mutters, "Boring conversation anyway."]

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: JIMC5499

Well, no. Your argument is patently absurd.

This exchange has become tiresome, and is clearly derailing the thread. I'm done with it.


[Fires blaster at comm panel and mutters, "Boring conversation anyway."]

I understand

your point was disproven with FACTS by two people and instead of "i was wrong, it happens" and retire with grace

you resort to "says you" and then "take your ball and go home"

with respect i left that kind of comments and thinking back in grade school.

scrounger