http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /72304782/

Interesting. I didn't realize the U-2 was in service for another 4 years.

I hope we build it. As a test pilot for Lockheed, I wish they'd run more of these ideas by me!

As probably most folks are terribly interested in the machinations of DC Defense budget battles (not), I'll try and give some background to the Lockheed initiative.

This is a primarily a funding battle between the U-2 and Global Hawk UAV. The GH was originally a DARPA project to provide the battlefield commanders with more intelligence. There were just not enough U-2 airframes to go around, so the idea was to have a low cost high altitude UAV pick up the slack. It didn't turn out to be low cost and didn't have the capability of the U-2 and its sensors. It did, however, have a considerable advantage in Time on Station (TOS) as it primarily carried gas and did not have a pilot to restrict how long it could fly.

To achieve the low cost, its engine only provides 7K lbs of thrust. As a contrast, the U-2's engine is a 19K lb thrust engine derated to 17K (so we can land and not have too much thrust with it in idle). With this small engine it could initially eventually get up to around 60K in altitude after burning off some fuel. It was then enlarged with longer wings and longer nose to carry more sensors, but this in turn restricted its maximum altitude to a bit over 50K. This restricts the range of its sensors a significant amount.

The U-2 in contrast has 45 KVA of electrical power available (sensor payload capability is more than just a weight issue), has pretty much all fiber optic cabling, new airframes who have only used about 18% of its airframe life (takes the airframe beyond 2050), a new engine (same one used on B-2), a modern glass cockpit, and just recently completed cockpit strengthening upgrade that lowers the cockpit altitude from 29K to 15K (a great reduction and benefit to the pilots flying) and flies above 70K. In essence, we have the newest airplanes in the AF fleet. The U-2's capability allows it to carry a wide variety of Signals and Communications Intel sensors, plus a imaging sensor (ASARS II side looking radar, SYERS multispectral camera, or wet film camera). The GH is much more restricted in payload due to power and weight limitations. The field commanders want the intel the U-2 provides, but there is no longer money in the budget for both. The current budget provides funds for the U-2 until 2019. The one before had zero'd out the U-2 this fiscal year, and one before that zero'd out the Global Hawk. Basically a food fight in congress as to who gains and who loses jobs (not necessarily on what is best for the country- what a surprise!)

The Global Hawk has a definite advantage in gathering info for a long time per sortie without any danger of losing a pilot. This is not an insignificant capability. But as I noted above, it comes with a loss in the total amount of intel gathered per sortie.

The Lockheed proposal is an attempt to weld the advantages to the U-2 and Global Hawk together.

Here's a more succinct and better description of the Lockheed U-2 replacement proposal:
From Wired:

THE U-2 SPY plane, aka the “Dragon Lady,” has been spying on America’s enemies for nearly 60 years. The single-jet reconnaissance plane is completely badass, flying at 70,000 feet and playing a role in some of the most famous—and infamous—incidents of the Cold War.

It’s one of the great successes of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works operation, along with the SR-71 Blackbird and the F-117 Nighthawk. But six decades is a long time in service, even for a plane this sweet.

That’s why Lockheed wants to add another plane to that illustrious roster, a replacement for the spy plane, to be called the TR-X.

It’s strange that we’re hearing about the project, given Lockheed’s longstanding reluctance to talk about products it’s developing, and even some already in operation.

Except that the TR-X doesn’t quite exist yet. It’s not much more than bullet points on a whiteboard. Lockheed’s actually talking about its vision for the future of ISR, military jargon for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. In other words, it’s a spy plane designed to look at stuff that our enemies (and allies!) would rather we not see.

That vision is centered around the TR-X, and there’s a good chance the company is opening up so it can put pressure on the purse-holders in Congress to fund the thing. Lockheed thinks the current U-2 and Global Hawk spy planes (the prior is manned, the latter unmanned) will begin to be outmatched by our enemies in about 15 years or so, so now is the time to begin building the next generation of spy aircraft.

“Skunk Works has a series of roadmaps,” says Scott Winstead, U-2 strategic business manager for Lockheed Martin and a retired U-2 pilot. “As technology changes, we evolve those roadmaps.”

For the TR-X, Lockheed plans to repackage a bunch of existing technology, including the GE F118 engine used in the current U-2, and a modular payload setup that allows the Air Force to adapt the plane based on the current mission profile. Lockheed compares it to an iPhone, with different apps based on what you need it for. Historically, military planes have been single-purpose, designed to do one thing really well.

That’s not cost effective anymore, so the TR-X is designed from the ground up for multiple missions, whether it’s looking for moving columns of tanks or taking infrared pictures of underground weapons facilities.

Lockheed imagines the TR-X is as a next-gen combination of today’s spy planes. It would be able to fly as high as the manned U-2, but with the time-on-station abilities of the unmanned Global Hawk. It would have more powerful engines than the Global Hawk too, for heavier and more power-hungry payloads like cameras and sensors.

“A future concept, a completely clean sheet of paper [versus improving existing products] is probably the most cost effective way to prosecute the ISR mission in the future,” says Winstead. “We are looking at no earlier than 10 years” for the TR-X to deploy. So, if we want to keep the US at the forefront of ISR, Lockheed says, we need to get moving now.

The TR-X could be designed to fly to around 70,000 feet—higher than the Global Hawk and similar to the U-2’s ceiling. That height makes it easier to hide from those on the ground and allows cameras to see much farther away.

This is especially important in peacetime, when you might not want to actually fly into enemy airspace. Instead, you can fly along a border at 70,000 feet and see much further inland than you would be able to at 50,000 feet. In wartime, the higher altitude allows a plane to provide imagery support to troops on the ground from a much further distance away. And you don’t need as many planes to cover a particular geographic area.

1. Isn't 70,000 easily accessible to current SAM design?
2. What would this do that a satellite would not?

Shooting at a plane outside your airspace is an act of war.

70k vs 50k is good for about another 50nm sensor range.

Satellite orbits are very predictable and hard to change to where you need it now.

1. Isn't 70,000 easily accessible to current SAM design?
Yes, Gary Powers was shot down over Russia in 1960 and we lost Rudolph Anderson over Cuba in 1962 plus 4 more over China (flown by Taiwanese pilots). So current SAMs are capable. But if you are not over denied territory or standing off sufficiently, the chances of being shot down are reduced. All of our airplanes (including recce) are within range of modern SAMs. Doesn't mean they'll hit us. There are countermeasures.

2. What would this do that a satellite would not?

Satellites have inherent advantages and inherent disadvantages. One of their problems is dwell time and predictability. Adversaries know when a reconnaissance satellite is coming overhead and can take measures to hide things of interest. India and Pakistan did this when developing their nuclear weapons and we did not know of their presence until way late in their development. They also can not dwell over a area (most of our reconnaissance satellites are polar orbits so they cover the whole earth as the earth rotates during a day). Geosynchronous are over the equator and 23K miles up. Hard to have much resolution and that far away. The further North or South of the equator, squint angle start to cause problems. Still valuable but darn expensive! They also have a large customer base that all have intel needs to be filled which makes getting all the intel a particular commander needs and wants is quite problematic. Not very responsive to quick taskings.

Satellites fill a particular niche but are not an end all be all for intel. We wouldn't be flying all these missions all over the world if satellites already had the data. Every system has its drawbacks, including manned reconnaissance. But they also fill needs that can't be met by other systems.

I'm just a lowly MC-12 weenie. Stephen has put what I was getting at in a much clearer form.

Youngest son spent a year flying MC-12's out of Bagram. Important job that is filled with good aviators! You did a difficult job and folks appreciate your work. I know I do! Thanks!

I love reconnaissance chatter from the pros..............

> Satellites ... Still valuable but darn expensive!

Yessir! http://spacenews.com/37021leaked-docume ... -activity/

... And impossible to repair in-orbit.

The Q-bay in the U-2 offers a LOT of mission & payload flexibility not available in the existing UAS's.

TR-X. Pilotless? I'm guessing probably.

Optional Equip: Pilot