U-2 vulnerability question
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Ontario
U-2 vulnerability question
Does anyone have any thoughts on how a U-2 would have fared against the US inventory of air defence measures in the same period it roamed with impunity over the USSR (1956-April 1960)?
eg would a Soviet "U-2" operating from Nicaragua have got away with it?
This question came to me after reading "eyes in the sky" by D. Brugioni.
Thanks.
eg would a Soviet "U-2" operating from Nicaragua have got away with it?
This question came to me after reading "eyes in the sky" by D. Brugioni.
Thanks.
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 2
From: have I forgotten or am I lost?
well the first thing you'd need to do is remove all copies of 'Janes all the world's aircraft' from circulation.
evidently the russkies were puzzled as to what it was and found the necessary intel by scanning a copy of Janes for any mention of an aircraft that could fly that high.
evidently the russkies were puzzled as to what it was and found the necessary intel by scanning a copy of Janes for any mention of an aircraft that could fly that high.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: New England
The zoom climb was not the be-all and end-all. The Chicoms' MiG-21 could and did zoom up to fly past the U-2s but never managed a shoot-down. (Their SA-2s got 5 U-birds however between 1962-1967). USAF F-102s and - I believe F-104s - were practicing intercepts of CIA U-2s in 1958-59 with poor results. They could get up there but the pop-up point had to be carefully planned in order to get the fighter in the correct parameters for a missile or gun attack. If Soviet high altitude intruders were coming over regularly, I'd expect USAF would have honed their tactics. (This assumes US radars were at least as good as Soviet ones at detecting high altitude intruders. The U-2 program in 1955-56ish assumed incorrectly that Soviet radars would only intermittently track the U-2. Someone else would have to comment on the high altitude capability of the Nike ground to air missiles which were ubiquitous in the States at that time.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
They tested against the F104 which was a potent interceptor. The defense of the U2 pilot against a zoom-climb of an interceptor was to do a 90° turn. The interceptor could not follow. All this information and much more from the pilots, techs, etc, who wrote their memories in 'Remembering the Dragon Lady', available as a Kindle book from the usual sources.
Last edited by dirkdj; 22nd September 2013 at 07:46.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,695
Likes: 7,377
From: Peripatetic
Last edited by ORAC; 22nd September 2013 at 08:10.
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
From: Planet Claire
Cracking vid ORAC. Haven't attitudes changed over the years? I like these guy's!
As for the U-2. Frank Powers was most likely the first victim of an SA-2 on Mayday 1960.
It's not the most advanced SAM by a long way, so I think U-2 flight over defended territory nowadays, must be a no-no.
As for the U-2. Frank Powers was most likely the first victim of an SA-2 on Mayday 1960.
It's not the most advanced SAM by a long way, so I think U-2 flight over defended territory nowadays, must be a no-no.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 16,700
Likes: 54
From: Lincolnshire
The F102 was an interceptor not a fighter and was not very effective against a Vulcan which was a little faster than the U2 albeit not flying as high. The F102 could not turn with the Vulcan, neither for that matter could a Javelin.
Even an F4 had difficulties in a turning fight and had to use more performance to splash a Vulcan.
However a Genie would have evened up the score very easily had it been authorised.
Even an F4 had difficulties in a turning fight and had to use more performance to splash a Vulcan.
However a Genie would have evened up the score very easily had it been authorised.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 3
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
The five men at ground zero.
•Col. Sidney C. Bruce — died in 2005 (age 86)
•Lt. Col. Frank P. Ball — died in 2003 (age 83)
•Maj. John Hughes — very common name, but I'm guessing he is Maj. John W. Hughes II (born 1919, same as the above) — died in 1990 (age 71)
•Maj. Norman Bodinger — unclear (not listed in the database), he may still be alive?
•Don Lutrel — I think this is a misspelling of "Luttrell." There is a Donald D. Luttrell in the DVA database, US Army CPL, born 1924, died 1987 (age 63). Seems like a possibility.
•Col. Sidney C. Bruce — died in 2005 (age 86)
•Lt. Col. Frank P. Ball — died in 2003 (age 83)
•Maj. John Hughes — very common name, but I'm guessing he is Maj. John W. Hughes II (born 1919, same as the above) — died in 1990 (age 71)
•Maj. Norman Bodinger — unclear (not listed in the database), he may still be alive?
•Don Lutrel — I think this is a misspelling of "Luttrell." There is a Donald D. Luttrell in the DVA database, US Army CPL, born 1924, died 1987 (age 63). Seems like a possibility.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 16,700
Likes: 54
From: Lincolnshire
The Bomarc would probably have had a significant edge over the SA2 as the latter were likened to a telegraph pole with a smoke trail. As the Bomarc, like Bloodhound and Thunderbolt, used ramjet propulsion after the initial launch it would have been less noticeable. It may have had contrails however.
The Nike Ajax was probably very similar in capability to the SA2 but the later Nike Hercules would probably have had the same advantages as Bomarc.
While AR1 was right to respect the 1991 version of the SA2, this was a quite different beast from the 1960 model. The latter, set up in clutches of 6 on single rail launchers was a relatively unsophisticated SAM. Once it was upgraded to counter low level penetration and mounted on quad launchers to counter the mass bomber raids in Vietnam, you are talking a different missile.
The Nike Ajax was probably very similar in capability to the SA2 but the later Nike Hercules would probably have had the same advantages as Bomarc.
While AR1 was right to respect the 1991 version of the SA2, this was a quite different beast from the 1960 model. The latter, set up in clutches of 6 on single rail launchers was a relatively unsophisticated SAM. Once it was upgraded to counter low level penetration and mounted on quad launchers to counter the mass bomber raids in Vietnam, you are talking a different missile.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,307
Likes: 18
From: Southern Europe
Originally Posted by Rosevidney1
The yield was tiny
