Forum: Drones

So now the buy of more block30 is over and block40 was cut in half.
There have been cost rumblings for quite some time between NG and the customer but it is often hard to tell who is blowing smoke.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/25/penta ... obal-hawk/

I read elsewhere that some of the workload would be rolled into the navy version of the global hawk (BAMS).

I have only read about relatively minor landing gear change and the more advanced radar being the difference between the block30 and block40.

So a question...what exactly is the difference between the Block 30 and BAMS?

F-16.net Sponsor

Shame, the RQ-4 is one of the few UAVs I actually like and see a real place for Sad

BAMS is primarily a maritime patrol platform. Global Hawk had a lot of issues with it's sensors just not being that good compared to other assets. Someone else might have some insight on why better sensors weren't specified originally. There were other issues with Global Hawk as well and with all the budget issues it seemed better to kill it then spend the money fixing all the issues especially when other existing assets already to a better job.

"Pentagon rumored to can block30 Global Hawk using U2 instead"

Read into this.

Human score +1
Drone score -1

Cheers

TEG

lb wrote:

..Global Hawk had a lot of issues with it's sensors just not being that good compared to other assets. Someone else might have some insight on why better sensors weren't specified originally. There were other issues with Global Hawk as well and with all the budget issues it seemed better to kill it then spend the money fixing all the issues especially when other existing assets already to a better job.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/page ... l?d=243908

"In contrast, the aging U-2 program, first introduced in the 1950s, places pilots in danger, has limited flight duration, and provides limited sensor capacity. Extending the U-2's service life also represents additional investment requirements for that program."

lb wrote:

BAMS is primarily a maritime patrol platform. Global Hawk had a lot of issues with it's sensors just not being that good compared to other assets. Someone else might have some insight on why better sensors weren't specified originally.

Recall that the Global Hawk, then designed and built by Ryan (remember the Spirit of St Louis"?) started as a technology demonstrator and was intentionally built on the cheap. It used an off the shelf Raytheon sensor. To put in a better sensor when it went to production was not possible under the then-mandated cost and payload size constraints.

You are correct about BAMS...it's primary payload will be most likely an ISAR radar with a small EO/IR system for visual confirmation (just guessing though).

I don't really see the point in citing a press release by NG in response to it's aircraft being cancelled? In any case it's factually incorrect stating the RQ-4 has better sensors than the U-2 and calling an aircraft flying up to 14 hour missions "limited flight duration" is ridiculous. The issue is in fact NG let us down with RQ-4 and does not seem prepared to accept it's own failures.

neptune wrote:

lb wrote:

..Global Hawk had a lot of issues with it's sensors just not being that good compared to other assets. Someone else might have some insight on why better sensors weren't specified originally. There were other issues with Global Hawk as well and with all the budget issues it seemed better to kill it then spend the money fixing all the issues especially when other existing assets already to a better job.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/page ... l?d=243908

"In contrast, the aging U-2 program, first introduced in the 1950s, places pilots in danger, has limited flight duration, and provides limited sensor capacity. Extending the U-2's service life also represents additional investment requirements for that program."

[quote="That_Engine_Guy"]"Pentagon rumored to can block30 Global Hawk using U2 instead"

Read into this.

Human score +1
Drone score -1

Cheers

TEG[/quote

True. Manned aircraft won't stop until they've eliminated the FSM threat once and for all!!

Global Hawk is a nightmare to repair. If you can't fix it you can't use it. A fleet of "Hangar [Link pending approval]; Check out the GH Operational Test & Evaluation report, which states "The RQ-4B Global Hawk Block 30 air vehicle fault detection and indication system ... is not effective for post-flight maintenance fault isolation. Air Force maintenance personnel are unable to evaluate the large number of presented fault codes to identify specific system [Link pending approval]; The recommended redesign was "Resolve deficiencies in air vehicle and ASIP integrated diagnostic and health monitoring systems" Kind of obvious but not to the contractor. When it works it's great, but Effective TIme On Station was found to be 27% . Contractor now claims it has miraculously improved.

I read excerpts of the unclassified portion of the report to congress on the progress of the block 40 testing. So sorry but I don't have the link. There were several systems that were problem areas. One of those systems was related to the collection of communication activity. Apparently the system is designed to detect, classify and record the specific details of up to 400 (if memory serves) concurrent communications events (including cell phone activity). The system was reported to repeatedly fail to work correctly over the test range where it wasn't being taxed nearly at the level it would in a combat environment.