Pentagon rumored to can block30 Global Hawk using U2 instead

Sub-scale and Full-Scale Aerial Targets and RPAs - Remotely-Piloted Aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post26 Jan 2012, 05:35

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?
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post26 Jan 2012, 13:29

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

lb

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 04:30
  • Location: USA

Unread post26 Jan 2012, 16:41

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.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post27 Jan 2012, 02:09

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

Read into this.

Human score +1
Drone score -1

:cheers: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post27 Jan 2012, 17:27

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."
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1308
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post29 Jan 2012, 21:48

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).
Roscoe

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Offline

lb

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 04:30
  • Location: USA

Unread post30 Jan 2012, 16:59

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."
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post31 Jan 2012, 23:11

[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!!
Offline

xenian

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012, 06:48

Unread post10 Feb 2012, 07:05

Global Hawk is a nightmare to repair. If you can't fix it you can't use it. A fleet of "Hangar Queens." 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 failures." 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.
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post13 Feb 2012, 04:22

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.

Return to Drones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests