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.

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.

U-2 vulnerability question
 

The second thing to do would be to ensure the USAF never got their hands on the EE/BAC Lightning.

That guided rocket could zoom climb up there...

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.

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.

Nice little glider wing. Think it could ride the thermal? 1.5KT warhead.

AIR-2 Genie

More like create a massive expanding thermal... shockwave.

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.

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.

Post 6
 

Good heavens! One of those dudes is smoking! Doesn't he know how dangerous that is?

After an excellent landing etc...

Reckon they any odd looking children in later years?:E

'Don't worry, fallout is safe as snow' they told us.

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.

Canberra chaseplane too! Great video.

US Defences: Wasn't Nike called the 'Forget and fire' system?

SA-2 unsophisticated perhaps, but still capable of knocking us down in GW1 IIRC?

OK I know now't about the subject but I would have thought that a nuclear weapon going bang two miles above you head should at least knock you over or is it a case that all the bang went sideways?

The yield was tiny and the tests were at a greater altitude than stated.

Thanks All for your answers.

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.

Not by air-to-air missile standards it wasn't. Your average AAM is a big handgranade with some fragmentation and, sometimes, a pyrophoric component. Nothing like that big bang, I assure you. By nuke standards, yes it was small, which I'm sure is what you mean. In terms of only needing to get close to your target, it was very different to your average AIM-120, etc.