if you're interested in the mechanics of flying a u-2 and the protocols usaf pilots used (at least in the 50s and 60s), i transcribed a series of letters my grandfather wrote about it after his career ended.

https://hyperstition.al/u2-james-black/

Amazing stuff.

Vernier is correct, hands off should have been handed off.

Very interesting, thanks for posting the link.

I saw a minor typo, but couldn't find an email address for you, so posting here in the hope you see it. In the first paragraph of the addendum you have an "Out contact" that should be "Our contact".

appreciated!

In the spirit of "thanks so much for recording this, but minor edits", assuming the below should be "every".

"From there you reduced the indicated by 2.5K for over one-thousand feet"

thank you!

Fantastic transcription - really interesting! These early U-2 pilots had a lot of courage and love for flying.

Thank You for posting this.

If you liked this James May did a documentary called James May at the edge of space for the bbc a few years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_at_the_Edge_of_Space and a companion about the moon landings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_on_the_Moon

There's also a very good late-season episode of Mythbusters that almost entirely dispenses with their format because Adam Savage had the chance to ride in a U-2.

Fascinating history. The original intention of the planes was for the purpose of breaking international law (violating airspace in a way believed to be undetectable) until flights, in practice, showed that other countries were in fact able to detect them. Rather than retract the program, the US doubled down on stealth technologies so that it would be able to continue.

Also, the history (70 year old plane) has a great look into military and intelligence collaboration with American industrial design firms, like Lockheed Martin.

The "grown up versions" of this are probably all classified at this point. The declassified modern capabilities give some hint to what the CIA is able to do. The ARGUS-IS is able to surveil, in high definition, in real time, entire cities while tracking thousands of targets, identifying them as people by their shadows, synthesize data with other sensors (cellular, wireless surveillance, etc), all without being detected.

Note that overflights of the USSR started well before the U-2. As early as 1946, the US was flying reconnaissance planes (usually modified strategic bombers) over the Soviet Union. The U-2 came about because the Soviets began to gain the ability to intercept and possibly shoot down those flights.

That's not really accurate.

It was never intended to be undetectable, just unhittable, because it flew so high that missles and guns didn't have enough velocity to even reach that high.

And it was introduced before the SR-71, and is still in service (the SR-71 was retired in '98/'99). If you compare the price differences, one U-2 costs ~3% of a SR-71, though that's excluding maintenance.

I hope all the film from over the decades has been kept and one day it can be declassified and digitized. It would be amazing history.

The details about the camera equipment seems to be newly declassified. Super interesting.

If you enjoyed this video definitely check out Skunk Works by Ben Rich. He ran the experimental R&D wing that developed the U2, SR-71 and the F-117. It has really interesting information about the development and operation of all these planes. Some of which I was shocked as allowed to be printed.

Second this. Skunk Works by Ben Rich is basically a real life Tom Clancy novel

It was gifted to me by @davidu when I worked for him, and I finally started reading it last night!

The U2 pilots typically don't even know what sensor equipment they're using either - it's all super hush-hush. They basically go up, fly their routes, and land without knowing what's going on underneath.

No - that's not true. Pilots are fully aware of the sensor configuration. There are a number of sensor controls and circuit breakers in the cockpit that are checklist and operator items. Pilots must be able to help troubleshoot some types of sensor failures.

The pilots don't usually see raw product because it's really not in their lane - but they are the aircraft commander and pretty much know quite a bit of detail about stuff mounted to the aircraft.

I've been there! Friends/family of U2 pilots sometimes get to ride in the chase cars, which follow the jets as they land.

You basically go from 0 to 95 in a few seconds to catch up with the landing U2. It's definitely worth the trip to the base, which is north of Sacramento - they're amazing aircraft.

https://youtu.be/hJtrZrPCUuY is a full episode on U2 from Smithsonian channel and has lots more details.

Does anyone know why the U-2 is still flying but the SR-71 was retired from service? At least on paper the SR-71 seems like a clearly superior aircraft in a very similar role.

What happened to the SR-71? Is it still flying? If not, why did the U-2 last longer in service?

Cost. SR-71 was very expensive to operate.

LA Times article from 1989 when it was discussed (the first time; the SR-71 was retired twice):

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-09/opinion/op-1582_1_air...

This might be of interest too: https://www.academia.edu/5901305/Undetected_Media_Intelligen...

wow, they still use analog film

When what you’re after is very high resolution, film still scales better than digital; the largest (somewhat common) film format is 8x10».

A sheet of slow (fine grain) film at this size can capture detail way beyond what any digital sensor I know of - surely it can be scanned with the equivalent of multi-gigapixel resolution - and if one were to develop such a monster sensor, it would have a hard time competing with the film in all but a few edge cases. (Most notably the ability to transmit imagery to the ground immediately, provided the necessary bandwidth is available.)

Film alone doesn't determine performance - the whole instrument must be considered. The OBC trades "resolution" for area coverage rate. The digital electro-optical imagery from the U-2 is produced using an instrument (SYERS-2) with a different optical design. Intelligence Imagery (IMINT) is rated on the NIIRS scale and the OBC imagery is most-likely unclassified now due to it being at the mid-range of the NIIRS scale.

You make a good point about the scanning. Any wet film product these days must generally be scanned to allow for further production in our "soft-copy" world.

-Film definitely is only part of the equation, and I have to admit I have no idea how optics scale (that is - is it easier or harder to make a lens with a large image circle with excellent resolving power, as opposed to a smaller image circle?)

My (attempted!) point was that fine-grain film* creates a negative which will be a challenge to match for most sensors out there - it is my understanding sensor yield drops drastically as it increases in size, so if you need a huge sensor, film is still the most cost-effective solution for a lot of applications. Then again, 'cost-effective' and 'national security' are two phrases which do not often come up in the same sentence!

*) My favourite - ADOX CMS20, has a resolving power which easily outperforms even a Summicron 50 at a sensible (not diffraction-restricted) aperture - more than 500lp/mm; the manufacturer claim up to 800lp/mm are resolvable (!)

That translates into some 12,500 line pairs/inch of film/sensor, as long as the optics are holding up their part of the bargain - or somewhere just short of 1 gigapixel from a 24x36mm frame, if scanned using -cough- sufficiently expensive equipment.

Very interesting. I would suggest you tag this as video.

And a simple Bic disposable pencil to write with.

What is the benefit vs satellite imagery?

Flexibility of mission and sensor.