HuggyU2

I've never flown the BUFF, so I couldn't tell you. This is about the U-2.

In the 90's, the U-2 fleet replaced the very old J-75 engine with the GE F-118.
Then, about 11 years ago, we began upgrading the cockpit, since you couldn't find 1970's instruments anymore.

But, as for the airframe, there hasn't been a SLEP (service life extension program) done on the U-2. No need to. You may not believe it... fine if you don't... but we baby the airframes.

Yes, UAS technology will "eventually get there". However, spending BILLIONS on a program that, from the get-go, was a technology demonstrator that should have gone through the acquisition process, but was forced into production due to "politics", and went through 2 (coming up on 3) Nunn-McCurdy breaches, is, to put it lightly, wasteful. Have you been to Beale? If so, you'd see the big air conditioning hoses that pour cold air on the wings of the RQ-4 while sitting in the hangar in the summer. Why? You figure it out.
Oh... and since they are based at Ellsworth in South Dakota, how good is their ability to fly in icing?
Take a guess, and tell me if that's part of the "learning curve".
But you are correct: someday, a UAS will be better than the U-2. But it isn't today,... and it isn't the RQ-4.

Huh?? So what if it's "50 more years". THAT isn't part of the litmus test. What IS valid is
- cost
- capabilities.
How does the RQ-4 stack up there? And no,... you cannot prove your point using RQ-4 slides that have U-2 data on them to prove their point (FYI: they were busted during the Pentagon briefing when a U-2 staffer in the meeting called them out).

As for the question of "people in harm's way", it's a ridiculous, straw man argument that is often pushed by some:
- what puts people in "harm's way" is the lack of a capable ISR platform. One that is proven, cheaper, and one that can do MULTI-INT.
If you are referring to the pilot being in harm's way, spare me. There is personal risk in the military.
No one is sweating the fact we have F-22's in an restricted area, that some 20 year old Security Forces troop is supposed to give his life to defend that piece of equipment.
"People in harm's way"? Please.
Are you going to stop flying whatever it is that you fly because you are "concerned" about being in harm's way?

My neighbor's 1933 Ford is in great shape, and gets driven. I guess his periodic, continual, and basic maintenance is the difference. And you know what? He only replaces a few, basic parts every now and then. It's the original frame. In fact, it's the original wheels.

I do hope, however, that the RQ-4 fleet gets based near the sea,... somewhere near where your truck rusted to the ground.


You may not agree with any of the points I've made... but at least admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

HuggyU2

............

crewdawg

I would like to see his justification for making this decision. I'm sure we can all guess that it has nothing to do with capes and what it provides to the fight...

HuggyU2

Justification?
I comes down to this:
It is easier to tell Generals what they WILL do...
rather than trying to get Congressmen to agree on something that will cost a business in their district jobs.

Hobbit64

Current thread contents remind me of a quote by Pete Blaber in "The Men, The Mission, and Me":

“Always listen to the guy on the ground"

Good review of the book. A good book to read that tangentially fits into this topic.

Book Review: The Mission, The Men, and Me | Small Wars Journal

Fluglehrer

You must have just finished reading "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell.

Fluglehrer

Huggy, I think there used to be a brevity code for this. Not sure what number it was, but it went something like: "Eff You -- strong message to follow"

HuggyU2

Bad on me... and I apologize... for my tone. But some of the posts that doubt/refute what folks know to be true need to be addressed.

When there are multiple Flag officers telling congress they want the U-2 and are willing to kill the GH, one really has to pay attention to that. Especially when they say it gives them mores capes at a better price.

But the situation is not about capabilities. It is about lobbying to save a program that N-G relies heavily on for profit. It is about politics.

Lockheed is more "diversified" (F-22, F-35, F-16, C-130, etc) and hasn't worked near as hard to push the U-2. That may be changing.

The question is "is it too late?"

Is that guy on the ground a politician, staffer, or lobbyist?
Or is it a Soldier, Intel Officer, or leader?

Ftrooppilot

[QUOTE=HuggyU2;1589264 . . . The question is "is it too late?" . . . .
Is that guy on the ground a politician, staffer, or lobbyist?
Or is it a Soldier, Intel Officer, or leader?[/QUOTE]

Huggy is right. Too often we loose capability because senior military officers "are told" what the priorities are (often based on politics) and then the politicians "patronize them" by thanking then for their help in determining the "new capabilities."

We live in a democracy where generals and admirals report to a civilian commander in chief - and I would not change that. It does not make it less painful when you know that many dedicated and experienced career military officers/NCOs are "grinding their teeth."

That includes many of us who are retired military.

Hobbit64

I do hope you caught my attempt at humor. The 'Guy on the ground' in this example (50 years of operation debate) are you and FTroop or anyone else that has the 'Done That/Been There' t-shirt.

Here is an excerpt from the professional reviewer:

"His treatise on command and control is on point: Many leaders hear, but do not listen to the guy on the ground. “The guy on the ground” is a metaphor for an individual who is physically interacting with their environment. They are the best source of information about the reality of the situation on the ground."(David Abel,Book Review: The Mission, The Men, and Me | Small Wars Journal)

The tangential application is the tremendous loss of strategic capability caused by people who will not directly encounter the consequences, making a decision opposite to expert opinion. They will only benefit politically. While the people closest to the consequences pay the most.

Great book. Many scale-able lessons. And if memory serves me, he highlights that UAVs are not a panacea. It was brought up in Blabers book or 'Not A Good Day to Die' (also good).

Cheers