Talk:Lockheed U-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fatalities?[edit]

This article said that there have been 33 fatalities. There's info on the ROC fatalities, but nothing on the US fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.11.218 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Taiwan pilot losses web page[1] actually listed 6 pilots, but the last one may not be lost over mainland China. I have a Chinese book about the Black Cat Squadron operation, the book listed 5 pilot losses during operations over mainland China. 3 were killed and two were captured. Their stories are easily available on the net, but most web pages are in Chinese. JW19335762743 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAF use of the U-2[edit]

This section and the contention that the RAF operated the U-2 needs discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty straightforward to me:
  • The British held title to the U-2s they used
  • The Prime Minister's authority alone was sufficient for British pilots' overflights, including over the USSR
  • Eisenhower described the British and American programs as separate
  • The British mostly did missions they were interested in, in the Middle East (the US was interested in the resulting intelligence, of course, but the Eastern Bloc was the CIA's priority)
  • According to Pocock, the British pilots had their own mission planner and flight surgeon. Since when do exchange officers bring their own service's doctor along?
Compare that to the Taiwanese program:
  • Both US and ROC approval needed for flights
  • The Chinese missions mostly hit targets US was more interested in than ROC, notably the nuclear program (PRC's nukes mattered to Taiwan, of course, but on a geopolitical level they mattered to the US more)
  • CIA from the start used one of the ROC U-2s for its own non-mainland China missions
Yet there seems no doubt that the ROC was a separate U-2 operator. Ylee (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains: did the RAF ever employ the U-2 as an operational aircraft or was it merely RAF pilots flying a U.S. aircraft. Unless the RAF actually took the aircraft on strength, then they did not fly for the RAF but flew missions that were tacitly U.S. controlled and directed. The note above clearly states: "British crews join the program." That refers to the U.S. overflights. The RAF did not operate the U-2 as an operational aircraft; the RAF pilots flew U-2 missions that were part of the deployment of the aircraft to Europe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: The British owned the aircraft, had the final say on targets (the CIA history explicitly notes that at least one of the British USSR overflights occurred during a period when Eisenhower refused to allow them for the CIA), and visited targets they, not the Americans, were interested in.
Remember, the active period of the program only lasted for two years before Powers' shootdown; it's entirely possible that had it lasted longer and the RAF/MI6 acquired more aircraft and pilots the unit would have decamped to a British airbase in Germany, Cyprus, and/or Singapore. Ylee (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the aircraft fly with RAF insignia, markings? How were they obtained? I cannot verify the ownership (was it not a loan?). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA history does not say but presumably the aircraft were unmarked, as the CIA U-2s were. And as I keep repeating, yes, the British owned them. The history states that they received the title on the planes. This was important; it helped spread out the risk of exposure. Ylee (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I accept that the RAF might have been an operator, although I still remain skeptical of the exact nature of the arrangement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The North American B-45 Tornados in similar circumstances carried British markings but as far as I know the U-2 operation just used British crews, the rest was just smoke and mirrors so the USA could deny involvement. I cant see anything in the sources that the aircraft were legally transferred to the United Kingdom which seems unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read pages 153-157 in the CIA history ("arrangements had been made for the title to the aircraft they would be using to be transferred on paper to the British Government"). It's less than four pages. Yes, as the article already states, plausible deniability was part of the US rationale for getting the British involved, but there was more to it than this. Ylee (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2013 ( reporUTC)
Have you a link to that, in the referecne linked in the article 154 and 156 have beed redacted. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? There are only minor redactions in the pages in question. Ylee (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK thats not the same as the "CIA" document linked in the article which is https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/index.htm" ! that said your quote "arrangements had been made for the title to the aircraft they would be using to be transferred on paper to the British Government" does not support the idea of the British owning or operating individual aircraft and certainly not a basis for adding Royal Air Force as an organisation to the operators list. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cite in the article does not lead to that external link, but to the newly released version of the history that is hosted at George Washington University. The EL itself is nowhere cited in the article; I'll remove it to prevent further confusion, but there is no reason for anyone debating in Talk to be reading the wrong version of the CIA publication.
The quote clearly says that the "title", or ownership, of the aircraft was formally transferred to the British. The whole point of the chapter the quote is from is that the aircraft being British in every way possible was important to the CIA, both for plausible deniability and to establish a separate, parallel line of authorization for flights. Again, as I note above, the British program was more independent from the US one than the Taiwanese's, but no one questions the ROC as being a separate operator of the U-2. Ylee (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but "arrangements had been made" doesnt indicate it was done and may only have been done if they aircraft was lost, and it clearly doesnt prove they were operated by the RAF. Nobody questions the ROC as it is not difficult to find images and information on ROC aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of where I am at with this topic, it appears that it would take a lot of interpolation to get to the point where the RAF could be considered an operator of the U-2. At best, it appears to be RAF pilots assigned to Detachment B, but not necessarily flying their own aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me the point is it would be impossible to prove. Sheepdipping. It's interesting that the RB-57F Canberra was largely a British design that probably bested the U-2 and had more than a little operational overlap. I have to wonder if Britain shared any secret operation of Canberra's.

-fieldlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.18.209 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A TV clip on YouTube about Operation Ju-Jitsu with a bit at the end about the RAF U-2 flights here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.47 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original engine...[edit]

AFAIK Johnston's original design, if it called for the engine from an F-104 that would have been a J-79 not a J-73. The final choice was a J-75 which I don't believe Johnston used in any other designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.18.209 (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After another IP also questioned this info (with an in-article comment, since reverted), I'm adding a citation needed tag. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text that mentions the J73 engine is about the initial CL-282 design before switching to the J57 engine. Johnson used the XF-104 in designing the initial CL-282 starting in 1953 per the Jenkins U-2 warbird tech book. This text has now been rewritten and cited. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U-2 is not based on the F-104[edit]

The second paragraph of the "Lockheed Proposal" section perpetuates the common myth that the U-2 "was based on the XF-104." Not true. My source? Kelly Johnson, the guy who led the design team. In his autobiography "Kelly: More Than My Share of It All," on page 120 Kelly writes, "My first thought was to explore the proven F-104 design for possible application to [the U-2] mission....It soon became obvious that the only equipment we might retain from the F-104 might be the rudder pedals. We initiated an entirely new design."173.62.39.116 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article is referring to the initial CL-282 design. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that. You're absolutely right.173.62.39.116 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Test flights[edit]

Under the "Test Flight" section, some statements don't make sense.

1. "a U-2 suffered a flameout over Tennessee". 2. Kirkland AFB near Albuquerque was named as the landing site. 3. "The U-2 successfully landed after having glided more than 300 miles"

Memphis is located at the Western Tennessee state line. From there to Albuquerque is 940 air miles [2]. "More than 300 miles" seems about right for the maximum U-2 gliding range: a 23:1 glide ratio gives about 305 miles starting from a 70,000 ft altitude with no wind. Realistically, the prevailing winds would almost always be against the course from MEM to ABQ.

Perhaps someone with access to the book referenced in the "Test Flight" section will be kind enough to edit the section to clarify what actually happened.

Pedlow, Gregory W. & Donald E Welzenbach. The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and Oxcart Programs, 1954–1974. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 1992. ISBN 0-7881-8326-5. pp. 76–79.

Yonian (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "U-2 page: Pilot Losses." Taiwan Air Power. Retrieved: 11 September 2014.
  2. ^ http://www.airportdistance.com/calculate.php
I came over to the Talk page because this contradiction jumped out like a sore thumb. Something's wrong, but I certainly don't know enough to correct it.
Paleolith (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the referenced source mangled the actual story. What happened is the pilot suffered a flameout over Memphis, and was able to restart the engine, which then suffered a second flameout over western Arkansas. The glide distance from there to Kirtland was slightly over 300 miles. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/docs/U2%20-%20Chapter%202.pdf (note that since that document was not declassified until 2015, the authors of the cited book may not have had access to it).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:ca70:ed92:f25c:bf27:6380 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 11 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing when I read the article and started my wiki account to try and correct it. I'm surprised that no one with access to the book or even with access to a map, has bothered to correct, since you raised the issue in march 2015. As a newb, I didn't realize that each article had an individual talk page for this type of discussion, so I tried to insert it into the main page. My misguided edit is included for completeness.

→This is inconsistent with google maps, which suggests that the farthest western portions of Tennessee are over 900 miles from Kirtland Air Force Base, outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The google maps link showing Kirtland AFB is included here for reference.) and its strange, glider-like appearance and the space-suited pilot startled the base commander and other witnesses.[1]← Awkpeng (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pedlow and Welzenbach 1992, pp. 76–79.

Another surprising quote from this section is: "... its strange, glider-like appearance and the space-suited pilot startled the base commander and other witnesses."
Space suits weren't yet around in January 1956, right? 85.141.129.87 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space suits weren't in use yet but they were still something new and strange then, more like from a sci-fi movie. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original source puts "space" in quotes. Space suits certainly weren't a new idea in 1956, they'd been a standard part of science fiction for 20-odd years. To actually see one would definately be a surprise, tho.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:ca70:ed92:f25c:bf27:6380 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 11 2023 (UTC)

Operating cost of U-2 vs Global Hawk[edit]

The wiki article cites flightglobal : Unmanned Global Hawk : Block 30s cost $6,710 hourly, while manned U-2's cost $2,380, according to the air force's total ownership cost database [1]

However, there seems to be a large disconnect : [The cost per flying hour across all Global hawk variants is] about $24,000 in fiscal 2013. The U-2’s cost per flying hour has “remained fairly stable” at about $32,000, according to the Air Force. [2]

The latter numbers seem more credible and in the right order of magnitude, given various cites of SR71 cost from ~50000/flying hr (blackbirds.net) to $85000/hr (cheney) (1980s/1990s). There is also the point that the air force times may perhaps be taken as more credible than flightglobal

Finally a lower cost for the global hawk better explains the push to phase out the U-2 Barath s (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (article from 2014 https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysts-predict-a-10-u-2-retirements-in-fy15-395693/)
  2. ^ http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140305/NEWS04/303050029/Why-Air-Force-wants-keep-Global-Hawks-retire-U-2s

Flit wasn't a Shell product[edit]

Under "Manufacture," the story of Shell Oil making the U-2's special fuel is recounted, and it accurately says that Shell used an ingredient that was part of the popular insecticide Flit. However, Flit was not a Shell product; Shell merely supplied that one ingredient to the manufacturer of Flit, which was Socony, later to become Esso. I'll let you people find a source to cite, but that's the fact. Says so on the can.173.62.11.254 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see references to the JP-7 production by Shell impacting supply of the insecticide "Flit". Really? Flit was a product of Esso. There is a crossed wire here.

Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjcanno (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet copy of U-2?[edit]

A History Channel program included an interview with a historian who said that the Russians had analyzed the pieces of the U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers and shot down in 1962, and had flown a cruder copy by 1961. The program said the Soviet copy was heavier than the U-2 and could not match the U-2's high altitude performance, so the project was cancelled. If corroborated, it would make a nice addition to this article as well as an article of its own.Raryel (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be somewhat commonly known for it to be truly notable to the U-2, imo. It might be worth an article if sources with sufficient details can be found. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that the Beriev S-13 was actually completed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Book US Aircraft in the soviet union and russia from Yefim Gordon, Sergey and Dmitriy Komissarov ISBN 978-1-85780-308-2 on page 244 - to page 246 is about the S-13 but there is just that they build a full metall one but the program was cancelled before a flyable aircraft was finished.. the goverment was more for long time recon with satelits and fast ad hoc recon with MiG-25R. But still a notable part for the U-2 page. FFA P-16 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacture section (JP-7 fuel use)[edit]

The source article for JP-7 is incorrect (the U2 J57-P-31A engine doesn't use JP-7 MIL-T 38219 which was made by Shell) so the Shell/Flit is also questionable as it was an Esso brand. The U2 actually uses JP-TS MIL-F-25524 fuel which it looks like Exxon (Esso parent) holds a related 1957 patent, so the link could be U2 - JP-TS - Esso - Flit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbaumhardt (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The U2 "fuel became known as JP-7" has a valid citation [15] Pedlow and Welzenbach 1992 (The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974) pp 62, but that source article contains an error. It refers correctly to JP-TS MIL-F-25524 and incorrectly to JP-7 MIL-T 38219 as they are totally different specifications.

The Lockheed U2 with P&W J57-P-31A engine used specially developed JPTS (Jet Propellant Thermally Stable) Fuel Grade MIL-F-25524. Source: 1959 Lockheed U2 Flight Manual PDF PDF Page 33 (Manual 1-3) J57-P-31A engine PDF Page 47 (Manual 1-17) Fuel Grade MIL-F-25524

For completeness The Lockheed A-12 / SR-71 fitted with P&W J58 JT11D-20 used PF-1 fuel specially developed by P&W + Shell which was improved to be less caustic as JP-7 (MIL-T 38219). This needs triethylborane (TEB) for ignition, a system the U2 is not known to carry (see U2 flight manual).

Suggested edit: replace "the fuel became known as JP-7." with "JPTS (Jet Propellant Thermally Stable) Fuel Grade MIL-F-25524." Hbaumhardt (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed U-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly moved the TR-X/RQ-180 paragraph[edit]

Sorry folks, but these infos don't really belong to the development of the U2 and the jump from the 1960s to 2015 was very confusing. Thus, I moved this to "variants", where it at least makes some sense. But ultimately, this stuff should go into an article of its own, me thinks. It exceeds the scope of this article, which already is too long and bloated. Gray62 (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the proposed TR-X is a successor to the U-2 not a variant of it. So I moved the paragraph back to Development with "Possible successor" as the subsection label. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable camera resolution[edit]

The "sensors" subsection under "design" states that the later 910mm focal length, f/10 "B" camera lens resolved 100 lines/mm. I find this impossible, as at f/10 the diffraction spot diameter (Rayleigh criterion) is 13.7 micron, which makes for 73 lines/mm. Even according to the more forgiving (and probably less applicable) Dawes criterion the diffraction spot is 11.2 micron, or 89 lines/mm, and that is an upper limit, assuming perfect optics. To have 100 lines/mm the lens must be f/8.9 or larger according to the Dawes criterion, or more realistically f/7.3 or larger according to the Rayleigh criterion.

There are no such issues with the "A" camera lens: at f/8 perfect optics yield 91 lines/mm (Rayleigh) against the claimed 60. --GV27 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of active Aircraft[edit]

Below the number built in the info box would it be appropriate to add the number active - 30. I have 2 sources -Wikipedia List of active USAF aircraft and Air Forces magazine USAF Inventory 2021 Wfoj3 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no field for in service numbers in the Infobox; it does not belong there. The in service total is usually placed at the top of the Operators section. See Saab JAS 39 Gripen#Operators for an example. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post war radar develoment[edit]

"The Soviet Union, unlike the United States and Britain, had improved radar technology after the war,"

Odd that, given that both countries maintained radar research establishments for things like Nike and DEW. Nike worked at 150000 ft in 1958. What a load of cobblers. Greglocock (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, but it is in the cited source, almost word for word. The time reference is the late 40s/early 50s, which is before 1958. BilCat (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_U-2&oldid=1208550288"