Quote:
I've never flown the BUFF, so I couldn't tell you. This is about the U-2. Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Because I suspect massive amounts of money go into things like the B52s to keep them flying.
Quote:
In the 90's, the U-2 fleet replaced the very old J-75 engine with the GE F-118. Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
... I'd imagine that most... ...U2s have had major overhauls and upgrades, making the cost huge over the years.
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.
Quote:
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. Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
I've got to think that UAV technology will keep pushing on and it won't be long until something easily surpasses the U2, if the GH doesn't quite fill it's shoes right now.
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.
Quote:
Huh?? So what if it's "50 more years". THAT isn't part of the litmus test. What IS valid isOriginally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
It's probably the right time to invest in that, rather than expect to push something for 50 more years that will put people in harm's way and require vast amounts of money.
- 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?
Quote:
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. Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
I live next to the sea, so that 1955 truck would be red dust now.
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.