Comments on: Inside Global Hawk

By: Rod

Rod — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:08:08 +0000

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?

By: NyCalKid

NyCalKid — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:42:39 +0000

Why are there 4 Iron Crosses on each side of the tail of this US Air force aircraft?

By: John

John — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 05:07:16 +0000

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?

By: vaughn nebeker

vaughn nebeker — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:22:16 +0000

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.

By: charles b

charles b — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:38:03 +0000

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

By: SMFC

SMFC — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:09:16 +0000

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.

By: Mater Like TaMater without the Ta

Mater Like TaMater without the Ta — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:56:28 +0000

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.

By: Eric Hundman

Eric Hundman — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:41:24 +0000

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?

By: Carroll Lam

Carroll Lam — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:26:49 +0000

“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

By: David Axe

David Axe — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:26:51 +0000

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.