Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Inside Global Hawk

The 18th Reconnaissance Squadron -- newest operators of the spiffy Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk drone -- offered me total access during a visit last week. I was impressed with the bird before my visit; I left even more so.

gh1.jpgNearly a decade after its inception, the Air Force is finally migrating the Global Hawk drone from demonstration to production; the 18th standing up at Beale Air Force Base in northern California in May is just one aspect of this transition. Co-located 12th RS flies operational missions while the 18th trains pilots, sensor operators and maintainers. Now the Reserve 13th RS and the California Air National Guard have begun contributing crews to the active-duty squadrons. All this represents the "regularization" of Global Hawk ops.

Meanwhile, Global Hawk production is ramping up at Northrop Grumman's Palmdale, California, plant, with around 17 aircraft worth $70 mil apiece under assembly for the Air Force. These are in addition to the seven (cheaper) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration aircraft delivered from 1998, three of which were lost in accidents. The Navy has taken delivery of two RQ-4As to explore its Broad Area Maritime Surveillance concept. One A model flown by the 12th RS is deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A maintenance trainer A model is permanently parked in the 18th RS hangar on the same ramp space occupied by the 9th RW's Lockheed Martin U-2S Dragon Ladies. Finally, the first RQ-4Bs with longer wings and more payload capability begin rolling off the production line in late August. The Air Force plans to field more than 50 Global Hawks by 2015.

gh3.jpgThe seemingly modest size of the projected RQ-4 fleet belies its enormous potential. The aircraft can orbit at up to 65,000 feet for as many as 30 hours while simultaneously carrying an Electro-Optical camera, an Infra-Red camera and a Synthetic Aperture Radar with Moving Target Indicator. Sensor data is relayed via satellite to a ground station (see pic at left) for processing and dissemination, giving theater commanders a multi-spectral bird's-eye view of the battlefield.

The aircraft's endurance means it can do the work of many older (manned) aircraft such as the U-2, according to 18th RS commander Colonel Christopher Jella. Due to the limited endurances of the human body and traditional life-support systems, a U-2 force would need at least three aircraft and as many as 10 pilots to maintain a 24-hour orbit -- and it would do so at greater cost while risking those pilots' lives. Two Global Hawks could provide indefinite constant surveillance of a battlefield while risking no lives. While there are no cost savings in personnel (the Global Hawk community maintains a high pilot-to-aircraft ration in order to limit its crews to four-hour shifts), by cutting back on take-offs and landings (where most wear and tear occurs) Global Hawk operations reduce maintenance costs by over a given period versus manned aircraft.

gh2.jpgA rough calculus indicates that 50 Global Hawks might do the work of more than 100 U-2s. Considering that today's U-2 force numbers slightly more than 30 aircraft, this means a tremendous leap in the U.S. Air Force's surveillance capability. With the U.S. Navy, Australia, Germany and the U.K., among others, considering RQ-4 purchases, one imagines a robust future surveillance constellation for democratic nations.

During my visit, I got to poke around the containerized Mission Control Element, where pilots and sensor operators crew (via Ku-band satellite datalink; see pic at right) aircraft that might be flying on the other side of the globe. I also checked out the similar Launch and Recovery Element, which takes off and lands the bird from its deployed location using a line-of-sight datalink. Plus there was a visit to the 18th RS hangar, where maintainers toiled on the squadron's RQ-4A. To call this remote-controlled plane BIG is an understatement.

There has been a lot of Congressional waffling on the Air Force's recent request to retire the U-2 in favor of the Global Hawk. I was skeptical of the proposal myself until my visit. The U-2 is an impressive aircraft in its own right, but with Global Hawks rolling off the production line and proving themselves overseas, the old Dragon Lady's days are numbered.

Check out some sweet pics at my Flickr!

--David Axe

Comments

Its intresting to see that in your article you left out an entire squadron of those who maintain that plane itself and all the required communications equipment. Once again focus placed on the pilots and not the people that make it happen everyday.

Posted by: SMFC at August 26, 2008 10:09 PM


nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 02:00 AM


Even if you had 50 Global Hawks right now they still can't match the U-2 collection cabability right now. I'm speaking across the board SIGINT, etc. You can't replace something if you can't at least match it.

Posted by: Mater Like TaMater without the Ta at August 16, 2006 09:56 PM


Hi David, re: the comparison between U-2s and Global Hawk:

Your calculus is eminently reasonable, but I'm wondering how the personnel requirements for Global Hawk compare to those of the U-2. Safety issues aside (the Global Hawk has an overwhelming advantage over the U-2 in that respect), I'm interested in your response to Carroll; if the Hawks are operated hands-on for most of the flight time, how large of a "crew" are we talking about? Do you see the AF's desired hands-on time decreasing as the Hawk enters wider use, or staying the same?

Posted by: Eric Hundman at August 8, 2006 08:41 AM


"the folks in the MCE stay in the loop most of the time."

David,

Of course the do. Otherwise there might be fewer USAF pilots needed. 8-)

I didn't mean to indicate that there wasn't a rated pilot "on-station" and tracking the progress of "howgozit" I was just differentiating the Hawk from those UAVs that actually have a pilot in the loop except when on auto-pilot.

The fundamental concept for Global Hawk was that, except for contigencies, it could take off, fly to multiple waypoints, and return to landing without human intervention. Obviously, that theoretical situation is never achieved practically because of real world flight space considerations and mission requirements.

During development flights the totally hands off flight regime was demonstrated many times. That doesn't mean there weren't controller/pilots anxiously watching things in the MCE.

Even in the event of all external communications the Hawk is designed to find its way to its designated landing point.

As an interesting aside, independent what may be the USAF "pilot" requirements, the early requirements coordinated with the FAA was that the controller be an instrument-rated Commercial pilot. This was because the communications between the ground "controller" and the FAA was essentially that of an IFR flight even though the controller had no conventional flight control capability.

Carroll Lam

Posted by: Carroll Lam at August 7, 2006 09:26 PM


Carroll,

Thanks for the note. Current practice with Global Hawk is for "hands-on" operation for 20 hours of a 24-hour flight. Yes, the thing can operate autonomously, without any human intervention, but to keep manned aircrews in the vicinity of the RQ-4 comfortable, the folks in the MCE stay in the loop most of the time. This is what the folks at the 18th RS told me.

Cheers.

Posted by: David Axe at August 7, 2006 03:26 PM


Good Morning David,

Good article. You may like to check out an article in yesterdays Los Angeles Times in the Business Section (H) titled: "Filling the Space above the Navy's fleet' by Bruce Bigelow.

The story deals with the Global Hawk, The predators "Mariner and the new UAV on the block the "Polecat" for Lockheed Martin. It's a good read on where each of these platforms sit as far as development and cost are going.

The Mariner may have the inside track because of cost, $20Million vs. $130Million for the Global Hawk and the ability of taking off from a Carrier (a "B Model" of the Preditor has already made a rolling take off from a Carriers several times) and Landings (TRAPS). The "C Model" is also roumered to be able to be refuled in flight from a CH-53 "Tanker".

The article confirms what my "mole" said after Presidental Canidate Cheney visited Southern Kaleefornia a while back and spoke with the players in the UAV industry, General Atomic, Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin, they all had smiles on there faces afterwards even larger then that on the face of Sec. of State Rice after a three day weekend at the Ranch in Crawford.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 7, 2006 01:36 PM


As a government contractor employee I was in on the conception and development of Global Hawk.

I would offer a small expansion to your excellent article, David.

The Hawk is not a "remote-controlled" plane. It is actually flies autonomously based on a flight plan loaded before takeoff. The MCE can change or update that plan during flight and there is a capability for the "pilot" to command an unplanned turn or climb - i.e. "go-around" should an FAA controller ask for it but as you saw, there's no "control stick" in the MCE.

Even takeoffs and landings are totally "hands off" with GPS and the autonomous flight control system bringing the bird in.

The "pilot" in the MCE gets less workout in controlling the "flight" of the Hawk than someone using Microsoft Flight Simulator. But he does perform the function of talking to the FAA controllers as if he was actually in the bird.

Carroll Lam
Retired in Tucson

Posted by: Carroll Lam at August 7, 2006 01:23 PM


Haninah,

Good question re: bandwidth. I'm chasing that question right now.

Posted by: David Axe at August 7, 2006 11:33 AM


Eric,

The calculus is my own. It goes like this: it takes three U-2s to provide a 24-hour orbit, but only two Global Hawks. Plus, over a long period, the drones require less maintenance per aircraft per given period of time because they suffer through fewer take-offs and landings. So fewer are tied up in deep maintenance. So, I estimate that each Global Hawk can do the work of two U-2s over a long period.

Of course, that's assuming that both birds have sensors with the same capabilities. The A model drone has inferior sensors, but the B model that will account for the majority of the fleet apparently has sensor parity with the U-2.

What do you think?

Posted by: David Axe at August 7, 2006 11:31 AM


Great article!
Is there (will there be) enough satellite bandwidth available to the US military to actually run 50 Global Hawks in just a few years, or is this scenario dependent on the success of T-SAT or its gapfiller?

Posted by: Haninah at August 7, 2006 09:37 AM


Hi David,

Interesting article. Can you elaborate on the "rough calculus" you mention that "50 Global Hawks might do the work of more than 100 U-2s"? I'd be interested to see where those numbers came from.

Posted by: Eric Hundman at August 7, 2006 09:30 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.