Jump to content

Global Hawk fleet to be mothballed.


Recommended Posts

Not quite what I expected :blink:

Courtesy of http://www.defense-aerospace.com/

What Pacific Strategy? Pentagon Plans to Mothball Longest-Range Surveillance Drones

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued January 24, 2012)

(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

In a move that seems to contradict the Obama Administration's recently announced Asia-Pacific strategy, the Pentagon has decided to mothball its longest-range surveillance drones and rely instead on shorter-range U-2 spy planes. The move is a victory for U-2 maker Lockheed Martin, which argues the U-2 has many more years of operational life remaining on its airframes and offers superior sensor performance due to a higher flight altitude. However, the Global Hawk far surpasses U-2 and other airborne surveillance systems in a facet of performance deemed crucial to the vast distances of the Pacific: endurance.

When the president and his defense team unveiled the new Asia-Pacific strategy on January 3rd, they emphasized the role of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems in policing the vast ocean that covers half the Earth's surface. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has also repeatedly underscored the importance of unmanned aircraft in future military plans. Nonetheless, the Air Force offered up the most common variant of the Global Hawk -- the so-called Block 30 -- as a bill-payer in preparing the fiscal 2013 defense budget request, and senior officials have embraced that recommendation. The plan is to retire the Block 30s already in the force and terminate further production.

The decision may be couched in a proposal to equip the Air Force with a naval version of the Global Hawk being separately developed at some later date, but insiders say that idea is unlikely to be implemented in the current fiscal environment. Terminating the Air Force version now would also cause a big increase in the unit cost of the Navy variant, due to the loss of economies of scale. Insiders say the Air Force's main motivation for killing Global Hawk is to save money, but that the service failed to conduct an "apples-to-apples" comparison of alternatives including all costs, and also did not credit Global Hawk with being more cost-effective due to its greater productivity.

Global Hawk is equipped with a variety of sensors that can collect optical, infrared and radio-frequency intelligence, including video of moving ground targets. Although it only recently achieved formal operational status, it has actually been in use in Southwest Asia supporting U.S. forces since 2001. The long endurance of the air vehicle allows it to monitor vast areas or stay airborne above targets of interest for over a day, beaming vital intelligence to friendly forces via a digital datalink.

The U-2 has similar features, including sophisticated sensors that in some circumstances can outperform those on the Global Hawk. But it lacks the "legs" of Global Hawk, a feature that had been thought critical as the joint force shifts its focus to the Asia-Pacific region. U-2 is now expected to remain active in the joint fleet until at least 2023.

-ends-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see programs that don't make the grade being cut. Plus, watching the U-2 (and SR-71) over the Northern California skies was awesome growing up.

Hmm you brought up the SR-71, got an idea to get it back in the air. Sell the a seat ride to the ultra rich and charge them to fly on missions......with a security check first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll see more of this. The railroad tracks that Europe took are the same that America is rolling on. The decline of America, as Europe had declined, is as inevitable as the cycle of life. Humankind rarely learns from the mistakes of others.

Edited by Rank11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the cost per flight hour for a U-2 would be far higher than for a Global Hawk, wouldn't it?

That was my first thought as well.

It would HAVE to be. Most of the U-2/TR-1 fleet is much older than the Global Hawk fleet.

This doesn't make any sense at first glance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that the Global Hawk program has been encountering major problem and costs were escalating rapidly. That being said, I really though the GH was going to be the cornerstone of the USAF's surveillance network. I'm surprised that all of a sudden, the obsolescent U-2 (which the AF said needed to be replaced by the GH) has now been determined to be a superior platform.

I'm wondering if the AF may have other systems (space-based maybe) that have come on line recently and made this an easier decision?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 Blocks of RQ-4B:

Block 20 - same sensors as the RQ-4A or Block 10 which had the shorter wing.

Block 30 - unknown sensors but probably ELINT

Block 40 - SAR radar

Last year they announced that the BLK 40 order was being cut from 22 to 11. Now we have termination of Blk 30. That still leaves all the aircraft that have been made to date. Seems to me even with the elimination of the Blk 30 you will still have the BLKs 10, 20 and 40 aircraft. Has anything been said about their fate?

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the cost per flight hour for a U-2 would be far higher than for a Global Hawk, wouldn't it?

I don't see why the U-2 costs would be far higher. Both aircraft are powered by a single relatively modern jet engine, so engine maintenance costs and fuel costs will be comparable. The maintenance costs for the on board electronics will probably also be comparable, the U-2 will have flight instruments, where is the Global Hawk will have more datalink. The datalink uses a lot more satellite bandwidth (which is very expensive, but probably not factored into the equation). Depending on the sensor load, the maintenance costs for those is also comparable I'm sure. I really don't see a stand out area where the per flight hour costs for either aircraft would be vastly divergent from the other. There are areas in each where you have to spend some money where you wouldn't on the other, and the big costs are going to be comparable.

After a brief search: Defense News Article

"According to the Air Force's Total Ownership Cost database, the U-2 cost $31,000 per flight hour while the RQ-4 sits at $35,000."

Hoops

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why the U-2 costs would be far higher. Both aircraft are powered by a single relatively modern jet engine, so engine maintenance costs and fuel costs will be comparable. The maintenance costs for the on board electronics will probably also be comparable, the U-2 will have flight instruments, where is the Global Hawk will have more datalink. The datalink uses a lot more satellite bandwidth (which is very expensive, but probably not factored into the equation). Depending on the sensor load, the maintenance costs for those is also comparable I'm sure. I really don't see a stand out area where the per flight hour costs for either aircraft would be vastly divergent from the other. There are areas in each where you have to spend some money where you wouldn't on the other, and the big costs are going to be comparable.

After a brief search: Defense News Article

"According to the Air Force's Total Ownership Cost database, the U-2 cost $31,000 per flight hour while the RQ-4 sits at $35,000."

Hoops

There's also "zero" capability to "hack" a human pilot, whereas UAVs are completely open to cyber attacks; that data link being the "achilles heel". And why I still see the U-2 as the superior aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also "zero" capability to "hack" a human pilot, whereas UAVs are completely open to cyber attacks; that data link being the "achilles heel". And why I still see the U-2 as the superior aircraft.

I believe that in many of it's applications, the U-2 also uses a data link to download it's take in real time. That would be just as vulnerable to disruption as the one on the GH.

You are correct about a pilot being "unhackable" but conversely, a shot-down drone, even one as expensive as a GH, will not have the same political impact as would a captured pilot being displayed to the world.

U-2's were being easily shot down 50 years ago, I doubt that their survivability has improved much since then.

I still have to wonder if the AF has another system up it's sleeve that can perform some / all of the GH's mission and that this was a factor in the decision to suddenly retire the platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that in many of it's applications, the U-2 also uses a data link to download it's take in real time. That would be just as vulnerable to disruption as the one on the GH.

You are correct about a pilot being "unhackable" but conversely, a shot-down drone, even one as expensive as a GH, will not have the same political impact as would a captured pilot being displayed to the world.

U-2's were being easily shot down 50 years ago, I doubt that their survivability has improved much since then.

Quite true, but as for the reference to the data link; I was talking with respect to the ability to take physical control of the aircraft, not the information it was taking in. That's not something that can be as easily done with a U-2 (and what makes it more reliable over "unfriendly territory").

As to your second paragraph, I disagree. An entire, intact airframe that's classified, with classified equipment has just as much political impact, if not more than a mere pilot. A pilot can't say much, whereas equipment speak volumes; giving the enemy insight into our technological secrets. A pilot merely works out to be a political pawn, eventually winding up back in friendly hands; the equipment will never be seen again (on friendly terms anyway). The topic of the most recent drone loss is still a viable topic in many places - which, in no doubt is having lasting ramifications on Air Force drone TTP's (and could very well have been an influencing factor in this particular decision we are now discussing).

Though, I also agree that the survivability of the U-2 hasn't improved much (that we know of).

I think the U-2 is still a better alternative because the only option the enemy has to get their hands on it, is to shoot it down - leaving a much smaller intelligence footprint. Whereas the footprint from this recent loss is... Quite large....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also "zero" capability to "hack" a human pilot, whereas UAVs are completely open to cyber attacks; that data link being the "achilles heel". And why I still see the U-2 as the superior aircraft.

Exactly! I was thinking the exact thing. Given the Iran drone take down last month well as you said the hacker ain't gonna be able to take out a U-2/TR-1.

As for pilot safety, after Gary Powers incident I don't ever recall another U-2/TR-1 being shot down. I know an SR-71 has never been shot down... Too bad those wonderful SR-71's are gone from service now. IMO still nothing can match the capabilities of the SR-71.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for pilot safety, after Gary Powers incident I don't ever recall another U-2/TR-1 being shot down.

Cuba shot down a U-2 during the missile crisis using an SA-2. Pilot was killed. Lots of systems out there these days that are much more capable than a 50 year old SA-2. I highly doubt that even with the most advanced ECM we have, one could use a U-2 in anything but 100% secure airspace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speechless....you risk a human life in the U2, the only injury a drone pilot will get is spilling hot coffee in their lap or tripping on the stairs....

Risk from what? U-2s fly outside the 12 mile limit of threat countries. So if one gets shot down, we are talking international incident (the Russians didn't try that and I doubt the Chinese would as long as the plane does no direct overflight). The pilots are well trained and the systems are very mature and understood. They typically can't penetrate threat airspace, but there are other assets for that if the need is out there.

I have to wonder if NOT going with Global Hawk could possibly be related to what happened to the RQ-170. Global Hawk is designed to be most autonomous, so there is no pilot typically flying it remotely unlike a Predator or Reaper. A man in the cockpit means somebody can't necessarily override the GPS signal and bring the plane down. Plus, if the worst case scenario were to take place and combat operations started with a major power, kiss the GPS constellation good bye if such a nation started launching ASATs to take them out or comm satellites. A drone can become more or less useless at that point. I think the USAF is realizing it needs contingencies for the worst case scenario because it won't have them if they go too much for the "high tech" approach.

Edited by Jay Chladek
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the argument SAM vulnerability of the U-2 vs. the RQ-4 is a rather moot one. In current use, neither of which are intended to be used over denied territory, at most a slant look into such an area from high altitude near the border. I'm sure that the Global Hawk has a smaller radar cross section than the U-2, it is not particularly stealthy. For a modern air defense network, I think it would be just as easy to shoot down a Global Hawk as a U-2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better ECM and tactics?

I'm sure we learned a lot about defeating/avoiding SAMs along the way.

I'm sure the current U-2 has better ECM than the versions shot down in the 60's but this is a very non-stealthy, non-manuverable platform with minimal payload / space for extensive self-protection systems. I really doubt that any improvements in tactics / ECM would allow a U-2 to operate against a current SAM, such as an S-300 for example. The only way to survive in those situations is to place a few hundred miles of airspace between you and the bad guys.

Anyway, lets all stop hyperventilating to avoid upsetting some of our fellow ARC members. I guess this thread is closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuba shot down a U-2 during the missile crisis using an SA-2. Pilot was killed. Lots of systems out there these days that are much more capable than a 50 year old SA-2. I highly doubt that even with the most advanced ECM we have, one could use a U-2 in anything but 100% secure airspace.

Thanks for the info, everyone recalls Gary Powers but others ??? As per modern usage and ECM well I don't know if and how well said planes will fair. I suspect the USAF will understand the threats when employing them. Speaks more about the SR-71 though. Yes, the SR-71 was an expensive bird to keep flying but flying at 80,0000+ft @ mach 3 pretty well protects the crew from any credible threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the current U-2 has better ECM than the versions shot down in the 60's but this is a very non-stealthy, non-manuverable platform with minimal payload / space for extensive self-protection systems. I really doubt that any improvements in tactics / ECM would allow a U-2 to operate against a current SAM, such as an S-300 for example. The only way to survive in those situations is to place a few hundred miles of airspace between you and the bad guys.

Anyway, lets all stop hyperventilating to avoid upsetting some of our fellow ARC members. I guess this thread is closed.

It is? I didn't leave the keys to the PanzerPorschen laying aboot again, did I?

:)

Alvis 3.1

ARC Moderation Team UAV Monitoring Team Leader and Window Washer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...