Talk:Lockheed U-2/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2

Fatalities?

This article said that there have been 33 fatalities. There's info on the ROC fatalities, but nothing on the US fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.11.218 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The Taiwan pilot losses web page[1] actually listed 6 pilots, but the last one may not be lost over mainland China. I have a Chinese book about the Black Cat Squadron operation, the book listed 5 pilot losses during operations over mainland China. 3 were killed and two were captured. Their stories are easily available on the net, but most web pages are in Chinese. JW19335762743 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RAF use of the U-2

This section and the contention that the RAF operated the U-2 needs discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward to me:
  • The British held title to the U-2s they used
  • The Prime Minister's authority alone was sufficient for British pilots' overflights, including over the USSR
  • Eisenhower described the British and American programs as separate
  • The British mostly did missions they were interested in, in the Middle East (the US was interested in the resulting intelligence, of course, but the Eastern Bloc was the CIA's priority)
  • According to Pocock, the British pilots had their own mission planner and flight surgeon. Since when do exchange officers bring their own service's doctor along?
Compare that to the Taiwanese program:
  • Both US and ROC approval needed for flights
  • The Chinese missions mostly hit targets US was more interested in than ROC, notably the nuclear program (PRC's nukes mattered to Taiwan, of course, but on a geopolitical level they mattered to the US more)
  • CIA from the start used one of the ROC U-2s for its own non-mainland China missions
Yet there seems no doubt that the ROC was a separate U-2 operator. Ylee (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The question remains: did the RAF ever employ the U-2 as an operational aircraft or was it merely RAF pilots flying a U.S. aircraft. Unless the RAF actually took the aircraft on strength, then they did not fly for the RAF but flew missions that were tacitly U.S. controlled and directed. The note above clearly states: "British crews join the program." That refers to the U.S. overflights. The RAF did not operate the U-2 as an operational aircraft; the RAF pilots flew U-2 missions that were part of the deployment of the aircraft to Europe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat: The British owned the aircraft, had the final say on targets (the CIA history explicitly notes that at least one of the British USSR overflights occurred during a period when Eisenhower refused to allow them for the CIA), and visited targets they, not the Americans, were interested in.
Remember, the active period of the program only lasted for two years before Powers' shootdown; it's entirely possible that had it lasted longer and the RAF/MI6 acquired more aircraft and pilots the unit would have decamped to a British airbase in Germany, Cyprus, and/or Singapore. Ylee (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Did the aircraft fly with RAF insignia, markings? How were they obtained? I cannot verify the ownership (was it not a loan?). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The CIA history does not say but presumably the aircraft were unmarked, as the CIA U-2s were. And as I keep repeating, yes, the British owned them. The history states that they received the title on the planes. This was important; it helped spread out the risk of exposure. Ylee (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I accept that the RAF might have been an operator, although I still remain skeptical of the exact nature of the arrangement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The North American B-45 Tornados in similar circumstances carried British markings but as far as I know the U-2 operation just used British crews, the rest was just smoke and mirrors so the USA could deny involvement. I cant see anything in the sources that the aircraft were legally transferred to the United Kingdom which seems unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read pages 153-157 in the CIA history ("arrangements had been made for the title to the aircraft they would be using to be transferred on paper to the British Government"). It's less than four pages. Yes, as the article already states, plausible deniability was part of the US rationale for getting the British involved, but there was more to it than this. Ylee (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2013 ( reporUTC)
Have you a link to that, in the referecne linked in the article 154 and 156 have beed redacted. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There are only minor redactions in the pages in question. Ylee (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
OK thats not the same as the "CIA" document linked in the article which is https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/index.htm" ! that said your quote "arrangements had been made for the title to the aircraft they would be using to be transferred on paper to the British Government" does not support the idea of the British owning or operating individual aircraft and certainly not a basis for adding Royal Air Force as an organisation to the operators list. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The cite in the article does not lead to that external link, but to the newly released version of the history that is hosted at George Washington University. The EL itself is nowhere cited in the article; I'll remove it to prevent further confusion, but there is no reason for anyone debating in Talk to be reading the wrong version of the CIA publication.
The quote clearly says that the "title", or ownership, of the aircraft was formally transferred to the British. The whole point of the chapter the quote is from is that the aircraft being British in every way possible was important to the CIA, both for plausible deniability and to establish a separate, parallel line of authorization for flights. Again, as I note above, the British program was more independent from the US one than the Taiwanese's, but no one questions the ROC as being a separate operator of the U-2. Ylee (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but "arrangements had been made" doesnt indicate it was done and may only have been done if they aircraft was lost, and it clearly doesnt prove they were operated by the RAF. Nobody questions the ROC as it is not difficult to find images and information on ROC aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Kind of where I am at with this topic, it appears that it would take a lot of interpolation to get to the point where the RAF could be considered an operator of the U-2. At best, it appears to be RAF pilots assigned to Detachment B, but not necessarily flying their own aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me the point is it would be impossible to prove. Sheepdipping. It's interesting that the RB-57F Canberra was largely a British design that probably bested the U-2 and had more than a little operational overlap. I have to wonder if Britain shared any secret operation of Canberra's.

-fieldlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.18.209 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A TV clip on YouTube about Operation Ju-Jitsu with a bit at the end about the RAF U-2 flights here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.47 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Original engine...

AFAIK Johnston's original design, if it called for the engine from an F-104 that would have been a J-79 not a J-73. The final choice was a J-75 which I don't believe Johnston used in any other designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.18.209 (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

After another IP also questioned this info (with an in-article comment, since reverted), I'm adding a citation needed tag. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The text that mentions the J73 engine is about the initial CL-282 design before switching to the J57 engine. Johnson used the XF-104 in designing the initial CL-282 starting in 1953 per the Jenkins U-2 warbird tech book. This text has now been rewritten and cited. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

U-2 is not based on the F-104

The second paragraph of the "Lockheed Proposal" section perpetuates the common myth that the U-2 "was based on the XF-104." Not true. My source? Kelly Johnson, the guy who led the design team. In his autobiography "Kelly: More Than My Share of It All," on page 120 Kelly writes, "My first thought was to explore the proven F-104 design for possible application to [the U-2] mission....It soon became obvious that the only equipment we might retain from the F-104 might be the rudder pedals. We initiated an entirely new design."173.62.39.116 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The text in the article is referring to the initial CL-282 design. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that. You're absolutely right.173.62.39.116 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Test flights

Operating cost of U-2 vs Global Hawk

Flit wasn't a Shell product

Soviet copy of U-2?

Manufacture section (JP-7 fuel use)

I boldly moved the TR-X/RQ-180 paragraph

Questionable camera resolution

Number of active Aircraft

Post war radar develoment

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI