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.
Nearly 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.
The 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.
A 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
Inside Global Hawk
Previous post: Could Compass put the US (and Europe) in a jam?
Next post: Rapid Fire 8/7/06
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
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?
There is insufficient bandwidth for the US to do ALL the things they want to do with SATCOM. But by scheduling requirements smarter you can "do more with less". And there are ways to do missions without needing so much SATCOM time. Also – there is/was never a plan to fly 50 Global hawks at the same time…realistically the requirement was for 6 combat orbits…at max that woudl be 12 jets airborne – 1 on station…1 going or coming from that orbit.
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.
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?
Haninah,
Good question re: bandwidth. I’m chasing that question right now.
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
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.
“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
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?
The "hands-on" is required because the nature of today's fight is fluid – the static intelligence gathering of the Cold War died with 9-11. Today's fight changes by the hour and mIRC is the priamry means of tasking systems like the RQ-4. Real time intelligence needs are piped to the pilots flying and those requirements can be executed very quickly. Not that the U-2 can't do pretty much the same thing.
Crew size for a typical RQ-4 mission depends. Crew duty day is 12 hours…so techincally two pilots can handle a 24-hour mission…but try staring at a computer screen for more than about 8 hours and your eyes will stop working. Optimally pilots would see 4-6 hour mission events every day to every other day. The rest of the duty period is spent on additional training or in oversight roles supporting the mission but not logging flight time.
You're kidding…mIRC?!
Well, it beats adobe connect. /shudder
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.
While true – it's also irrelivant since the USAF is making decisions purely off the pocket book not off actual capability. Adding SIGINT to the RQ-4 has always been in the plans but it planned in a phased manner. Now that SIGINT is being fielded on the RQ-4 the system is being cut out to prevent the eventual shut down of a manned system by an unmanned system. Too bad though – keeping a SIGINT system on station for 24-28 hours would be a boon to the spooks…but hell on the guys doing the listening.
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.
it is most likely the rq-4 or a BAE or french made equivalent that slammed into the pentagon,and most likely did have depleted uranium(titanium)in engine(thus the cleanup efforts after the 911 incident. this plane most likely has an engine whose nacelle unit most describes the jtd-8. it was most likely flown from high altitude into the other side of the triple ring of the pentagon and pieces exited the outer part of the ring camera side. light poles and bldg pieces blown outward.
If this is the case this drone was controlled from either the pentagon as nsa does for its operations in iraq,israel and elsewhere,or from building number-7 for its accurate descent from the plane it was mounted on…into the pentagon.
the why of 911 is even more important as is the money trail(none of which was followed properly by the commisions)
the buildings contained evidence of the wrongs of the american-british side in killings and oil manipulations and the gulf war syndrome of the first gulf war,as well as the evidence for ongoing fraud cases on wall st.involveing i am sure the treasury and the SEC. this attack set the precedent for globalist entry into the second gulf war as well as allowing all the fraud to be continued to 2008 and our financial debacle on wall st. whats next? something related to afghanistan pakistan and iraq I am sure in another attack from the air in the usa blamed on those peoples possibly.
charles,auburn,wa
Charlie, you the same nutjob who used to send me conspiracy stuff when I worked for the paper in Illinois? You moved from California, huh?
Bet the Internet is a godsend for folks like you. Still got that microchip in your butt?
there should be 8 atmophic senitive comuter chip's. each chip set for a defreant alatued.
one swich 8 derent deration's 8 defrent alatueds. question : do you need the unit self powering.
Any thoughts on the operational problems of the Global Hawk, ie weather problems, time to altitude, and sensor scope just to name the most problematic?
Weather is an issue – becuase the system is unmanned there is no way to monitor how fast ice melts off the wing with a climb in altitude so there are restrictions against flight in icing conditions and to add a deicing system means less fuel…which means less range/time on station.
Time to altitude is not a problem – the jet climbs through 18,000 feet inside of 10nm from the launch base (5-7 minutes)…within 30 minutes it is above 45,000 feet (and above MOST commerical/civil aircraft)…within an hour it's above 50,000 feet.
Sensor scope is a tough one to answer – the sensor does fine for what it was designed to do. it was never designed to be as good as the U-2's cameras – basics physics can't allow a 10-12" mirror to bring in as much light as a 14-16" mirror…there is no getting around that. The camera does very well for its size but comparing it to the U-2 optics is like racing a V4 against a V6.
Why are there 4 Iron Crosses on each side of the tail of this US Air force aircraft?
The 4 Iron Crosses are historic to the 9th Reconnaisance Wing – they represent campaigns the 9th has participated in.
Someone is going to whine that Iron Crosses were used by Nazi Germany (but are still in use by the Heer today, and if aren't considered a Nazi symbol in Germany, they probably shouldn't be elsewhere).
The Iron Cross symbol actually goes way back to the Middle Ages; the Nazis were just one group in a very long line that used it. That's why it's still used in Germany today – it's a tradition of hundreds of years.
If anything, the Iron Cross is more Germany than Third Reich.
That said, it's also a relative of the Templar Cross.
(Posted 47 weeks ago?!?)