(DONE..FINALLY, sheesh! LOL) F/U-2 H.A.W.K., Vietnam era warbird (Pics page 14)

TheChronicOne · October 12, 2016, 01:59:59 PM

This one here, I'm pretty amped about. I want this one to be my best of either 3 or possibly 4 builds for this GB.

The kit I'm using is the 1962 release of the U-2A Spyplane by Hawk.

Ratty box but the kit was complete aside from the windscreen. I'm going to order the Falcon set with 5 or 6 or 7 (whatever) sets of glass that include the canopy and windscreen for this bad boy.

Snowtrooper dug me up some water slide transfer decals that will look good on this. It's going to be painted up in SEA camo and MY home made make pretend story is that this is a high altitude air to air platform/recon.

I settled on HAWK for the name as it is a Hawk kit and I also made up a fancy acronym for it: H.A.W.K. or High Altitude Warfare - Kinetic and I'm going to make my own scratch built make-pretend weapons that are basically a small guidance pack, weight, and rocket fuel. Basically, the plane will loiter at 80,000 feet and provide an umbrealla of coverage of a large part of the region utilizing altitude as an advantage to "reach out" and touch the enemy. The kinetic missiles can be fired and use their rocket fuel to get on course then simply arc toward the plane and even after the fuel is spent the trajectory and guidance will guide it into enemy air where the missile will simply smash into the plane.

Cool idea or garbage? What kind gizmos on my plane and on the missiles themselve would make this plausible? Or, would there be a way for some other AWACS type thing to guide the missiles somehow?

Oh well, I thought it was a neat idea. Story may be a pile of crock and the markings not precise and the name is all wrong but it will LOOK, cool, I promise. LOL

Heck, my Mig/Vulture came to be through TIME TRAVEL and alternate universe stuff in order to escape mutliple accuracy issues but this here is supposed to be more in line with history. Certainly, "what if," though, so I'm not going to break my brain trying to get everything right. "What if we stacked some missiles on it and let it shoot down airplanes from 80,000 feet?!" This is my answer.

EDIT: With help and research, I've opted for a more historically accurate "WHIF" and will substitute kinetic missiles with Aim-7 Sparrow! The name shall henceforth be F/U-2 HAWK (High Altitude War Kite)

sandiego89 · October 12, 2016, 03:00:48 PM

No it is a reasonable WHIF idea, and I have such an idea for a Genie armed variant in my notebook, and the have been a few armed U-2's on this forum.

Your altitude is a bit optimistic, tone it down a bit perhaps to ~65,000+ feet. Weight is absolutely critical to altitude on the U-2 and your are going to add weight with a couple of missiles and a guidance system.

To keep it realistic for the time period, some sort of radar and guidance system would likely be needed to be on the U-2 itself. Remote guidance would be OK for air to ground, but not good enough for air to air. Beam or radar guidance from another platform would be pushing it technology wise.

I might suggest a pair of Sparrows as armament, with a F-4 nose grafted on for detection and semi-guidance. Perhaps add a center section to the Sparrows for extra rocket fuel. Again weight is critical, so don't overload it with too many missiles. Looks cool perhaps, but not realistic.

Hope that helps- Dave

TheChronicOne · October 12, 2016, 04:28:21 PM

Quote from: sandiego89 on October 12, 2016, 03:00:48 PM
No it is a reasonable WHIF idea, and I have such an idea for a Genie armed variant in my notebook, and the have been a few armed U-2's on this forum.

Your altitude is a bit optimistic, tone it down a bit perhaps to ~65,000+ feet. Weight is absolutely critical to altitude on the U-2 and your are going to add weight with a couple of missiles and a guidance system.

To keep it realistic for the time period, some sort of radar and guidance system would likely be needed to be on the U-2 itself. Remote guidance would be OK for air to ground, but not good enough for air to air. Beam or radar guidance from another platform would be pushing it technology wise.

I might suggest a pair of Sparrows as armament, with a F-4 nose grafted on for detection and semi-guidance. Perhaps add a center section to the Sparrows for extra rocket fuel. Again weight is critical, so don't overload it with too many missiles. Looks cool perhaps, but not realistic.

Hope that helps- Dave

It does, help, indeed, thank you millions!! This is all preliminary brain storming and nothing is set in stone as of yet... I'll sit down eventually and work out the story further; input such as yours is invaluable.

Weight is definitely something I was wondering about... at first I wanted to just stack tons missiles on it but then I got to thinking that I'd have to modify all kinds of crap and I'd like to avoid that.

One reason I went with the kinetic stuff other than for the acronym is I figure such a basic set up won't have lots of extra weight in the missiles themselves and also being simple "dumb missiles" the associate necessary systems would be simpler, too. I just want fuel, a tiny guidance thing (RF and tiny computer for input from radar from the plane itself? I realize that you're right, and relying on outside input would be bunk, thank you for that... it will be a self contained platform) to keep weight down. I figure gravity and energy itself can do all the work, no need for explosives (light as they may be, but then we need fuses and stuff) or fancy optics and the like. Just the missile body and the stuff inside should provide enough weight to make an impact do a lot of damage.

Also, I don't want to stress the air-frame by stacking lots of weight on the wings. At first I was going to stick about 12 Phoenixes on it. LOL

I figure my made up kinetic stuff won't weigh more than 200 lbs per and if I stick 12 of 'em on there that's just 2400 pounds. I don't know if that's reasonable or not. I figure maybe another 1200 pounds for the pylons and associate wiring and crap for a total of 3600-4000 pounds above "stock." Without doing real deal technical research I would hope that falls into the bounds of reasonable weight not only structurally but in not screwing up the overall performance too bad. Also, I figure ditching a lot of the recon stuff that normally accounts for weight will help? I still want it to have a general camera or two anyway, though, to retain the Utility designation and that it makes sense that "if you're already up there, may as well snap some photos."

I will bear in mind the added weight and keep around 65,000 as you suggest.

I like the sparrow idea but I'm having to scratch build these missiles and I am NO GOOD at scratch build. I'm basically going to cut lengths of sprue, sand 'em up, and cut fins out of like.. old credit cards or something and slap them together.

I'm a novice, amateur, builder so I have to keep within my building means. Not a rookie, really, but I'm my skills are garbage compared to everyone around here.

Also, I want the thing to have around 10-12 rounds of missile instead of just a couple. I don't know how reasonable that is or if my 200 lb. weight figures are realistic or not... probably not.. like I said, I'm still brain storming everything and seeking advice from more knowledgeable folk such as yourself. I just think that if the USAF took the time to make the thing then have it loiter up at a great height that it would carry more than 2 or 4 or 6 weapons.

I like the idea of grafting a Phantom nose on. I think, even with my meager skills, I could do it and even make it look alright, I just don't have one. I'd have to break up one of me childhood kits to get it. LOL It's junk but looks pretty neat for something 12 year old me built a quarter century ago... I just can't bring myself to cannibalize it.

THAT SAID, I might be able to dig through some old toys and such I have out in the garage.. might be able to find SOMETHING in there to create a good ol' adequate radome..

THANK YOU, Dave, for giving me good advice, correcting some of my flawed ideas, and offering me a sounding board to "talk at" about my ideas.. this stuff is important for me.. sometimes I just can't "get it together" and I need help from others to realize my ideas and try to get them to "make sense."

Regards,
Brad (2)

P.S. a lot of this probably reads as nonsense, etc, but I tried. I can talk a LOT sometimes and never really say much..

kerick · October 12, 2016, 06:12:37 PM

The time frame here is important. If you go with a 60's era then you have electronics that may still have vacuum tubes. Electronics from that era were heavy and not very capable. If you go into the 80's things get much better. Also, shooting from altitude like that you run into the "look down, shoot down" environment. Lots of ground clutter for a radar to sort out. 60's era would be pretty much a no go. Now the idea of having one aircraft carry missiles and some other source control them has been around awhile. You can check out this article to see some of the problems faced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

I've read articles that moved this idea up to B-1 bombers as the missile carrier and F-22s as the search aircraft.

Since the U-2 has been around so long you could move this idea up to almost the present day. Present technology might actually be possible.

TheChronicOne · October 12, 2016, 06:44:57 PM

Glorious.. thank you... it's so nice having people come help me with all this stuff!

My end game scenario has me using SEA camo, always... I just have to see an armed, SEA camo U2. With that in mind, how close to the 80's can I go? If I can I move my time frame from from what I was planning on (late 60s early 70s) to an era were the tech would make sense and still maintain the livery I'm all on board. Good thinking on the heavy donkey tubes with their unreliable nature... yet another thing I failed to consider.

"I've read articles that moved this idea up to B-1 bombers as the missile carrier and F-22s as the search aircraft." That is so cool.... The whole idea is just cool... like an infrantyman honing a lazer on a target so an A-10 or something can move in with paveways or whatever.. that would work great for me if I can pull it off in an era of SEA camo. Making it into an air to air thing... wow. Neat!

Maybe what I ought to do is dispense with trying to be accurate and turn this into wholesale whif-world and build me an F 105 with magic technology that finds targets for my magic F/U-2...

As always, some of this is just me thinking out loud as I tend to ramble on.

Thank you so much, Kerick.. I'm glad you took the time to help me.

kerick · October 12, 2016, 08:12:22 PM

No problem, glad to help.
F-4s wore SEA for a long time until some went to Euro I or three tone grey. Strike squadrons used SEA into the 80's.
You could say an upgrade with F-15 or F-16 radar made it workable. And you could say they were integrated with AWACS for guidance.

When launching missiles from high altitude I don't think you would need extra rocket motors as the altitude would give you quite a range boost. Standard Sparrows should work. Late model Sparrows were far more reliable than the Vietnam era ones.

TheChronicOne · October 12, 2016, 08:51:59 PM

No problem, glad to help.
F-4s wore SEA for a long time until some went to Euro I or three tone grey. Strike squadrons used SEA into the 80's.
You could say an upgrade with F-15 or F-16 radar made it workable. And you could say they were integrated with AWACS for guidance.

I like the way you think.... and yeah, I had planned on the missiles, whatever they may be, as being simple single stage things that really only expense fuel to come to a correct bearing, then, let gravity do the rest. Falling from such a height they can just "fall" into the target with guidance. Like a propelled, guided brick. lol

JayBee · October 13, 2016, 12:50:11 AM

The U-2 ~~fighter~~ armed version was a real proposal by Lockheed. As far as I know the armament would have been two IR guided missiles, most probably derivatives of the AIM-9 Sidewinder family. The only drawing that I have seen showed what looked like an IR sensor ball mounted just in front of the windscreen similar to that fitted to the F-102.

zenrat · October 13, 2016, 03:03:16 AM

Just don't shorten the wings or Kit will never forgive you...

PR19_Kit · October 13, 2016, 05:45:21 AM

Quote from: zenrat on October 13, 2016, 03:03:16 AM
Just don't shorten the wings or Kit will never forgive you...

DAMN right there!

TheChronicOne · October 13, 2016, 08:41:34 AM

Quote from: JayBee on October 13, 2016, 12:50:11 AM
The U-2 ~~fighter~~ armed version was a real proposal by Lockheed. As far as I know the armament would have been two IR guided missiles, most probably derivatives of the AIM-9 Sidewinder family. The only drawing that I have seen showed what looked like an IR sensor ball mounted just in front of the windscreen similar to that fitted to the F-102.

Sweet. I bet I could scratch build something that simple! Thank you!

TheChronicOne · October 13, 2016, 08:42:48 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 13, 2016, 05:45:21 AM
Quote from: zenrat on October 13, 2016, 03:03:16 AM
Just don't shorten the wings or Kit will never forgive you...

DAMN right there!

No worries, there!! I love long legged...err.. winged beauties myself. lol

TheChronicOne · October 13, 2016, 08:57:33 AM

OK, having slept on the armament conundrum, I think you people are much more knowledgeable than I so I will be reducing the number of missiles from 10-12 to 2-6. In my mind it seems a little odd to only have two missiles on it but... hey.... there must have been a good reason for that. So.... No more big arsed rack of missiles.

Also, I think I will dispense with "kinetic" weapons and just go with the Aim-7 sparrow, also as suggested by the friendly helpers above. I really like my ACRONYMS BUT................. I'll just make a swift change to it.... High Altitude War Kite. BAM!! problem solved.

Also, this may save me from doing some scratch build because I'm pretty sure I can scrounge up some Sparrows from my other kits.

MAN, I'm glad I have you all around to help me save me from myself..

Cheers
Brad(2)

Edit: Storing this here for later use.

JayBee · October 13, 2016, 09:05:40 AM

I rather suspect Brad that the somewhat lack of missiles would be to do with it being not exactly "a target rich environment" up there.

"target rich environment", a term that I learned from a USAF F-4G WSO at the last, original, Scottish Airshow at Prestwick. He was talking about a certain area of the Middle East where they had been operating recently. To begin with they did not even bother with carrying overload tanks as they did not have far to go to find enough targets to use up all their ordnance.

TheChronicOne · October 13, 2016, 09:21:40 AM

That's why I wanted to use long range missiles at first. I figured coming from such a height that the parabolic arc could increase the range quite a bit. Sure, the thing may be out of fuel after 5 miles but it can still FALL and ARC.

I don't know the math or anything but I was thinking that the fuel in the missile could have it fly out straight and level in the direction of the target for about 5 miles, then, once the fuel is spent, use good ol' gravity and arc to get the last 10-15-20 -etc miles out of it. You know how it goes... an airplane that runs out of fuel at 40,000 feet can "glide" a hundred miles or better... or whatever?? Same principle. Somewhere there is a math equation that tells me how many more miles the thing can go in an arc. Of course, some of this is lost with course correction and depending on the altitude and heading of the target. But, the idea is that my FU-2 is flying so high and out of sight that the target is completely un aware as they fly straight and level. Much easier to hit a target that isn't in the midst of evasive maneuvers.

I was trying to have a longer-ish range missile and have it not be heavy, that's why I "made up" my kinetic missiles. The range comes from the U-2s ability to fly high and old fashioned balistic trajectory and gravity. No weight from tons of fuel or fancy electronics.

Honestly, I don't see why something like this couldn't work, come to think of it. It's all "made up" but doesn't it make sense? I might re-visit this idea after all...