Does anyone know anything about the mysterious RQ-4 Global Hawk crash that occurred downrange — possibly just inside Pakistan close to the Afghan city of Jalalabad — last August?
The Air Force’s crash report database doesn’t allow you to open up the accident investigation board’s report on the incident which received surprisingly little media coverage. I say this because the Global Hawk is a big, jet-powered strategic intelligence plane, packed with some very advanced and expensive spy gear as opposed to the smaller and much cheaper low-flying MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper drones that crash on a regular basis. The last time a Global Hawk was lost was 2002 (another might have crashed in 2009, according to these Air Force stats but I can’t find a record of it in the crash report database).
(The Northrop Grumman-issued picture above gives a good sense of just how big the plane is. It shows the jet at a the Seoul Air Show in South Korea.)
If a U-2, the plane that the Block 30 and 40 versions of the Global Hawk will eventually replace (when it gets over its teething issues and enters full production), went down, it would be a big deal.
I’ve asked the Air Force for comment but mum’s the word from the boys in blue so far.
The only thing resembling a news report that a quick Google search turned up is this crowdsourced article from Pakistan, and the article’s date doesn’t quite match up with the Aug. 20, 2011 crash date listed by the Air Force. The Google search did however, bring up plenty about the crash of China’s Global Hawk rival that happened two days later on Aug. 22., an incident that seems to have out-shined the RQ-4 crash.
Sound off in the comments if you’ve heard any more about the crash.
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
I don't know anything about the incident, but I just wanted to add that the front part of that aircraft looks kinda like the head from one of the aliens from those 'Aliens' films long ago.
Kinda creepy.
What a limp d comment. No one wants to hear your verbal diarrhea, happy Friday.
Your unnecessary need to trash someone elses comment with unprovoked insult is for want of a better word, pathetic. Do to others as you would have them do to you. You may not agree with the guys rather bizarre observation but it doesn't justify your retort. Suprise me; step up and move on, or take offense (which is not intended) and throw some trash talk my way.
Ha! Indeed, indeed. So you're saying perhaps just clicking on the downward pointy thumb next to his comment would have sufficed? Why don't we all just agree to 'step up' and Bring It in the future. Maybe these incidents can be avoided ;)
We can downvote on this site?
I want to hear his verbal diarrhea!
You're trying too hard.
It's about time that the Roswell incident started delivering results.
I like your comment, Michael, and I thought the same thing!
that is creepy….i bet the targets of said drone haven't seen the movie though
I sincerely hope this was not another hacking incident. The Iranians wouldn't have by any chance exported their knowledge on the RQ-170 and what they did to get to Pakistan?
If our spec forces didn't get it, then this means more tech for China… or Russia… or both.
You presume there was a hacking event in the first place. And there is no evidence of that whatsoever…
I never knew how BIG the Global Hawk was…..
Now I understand how the thing stays up for so long….
That's why we need manned recon planes they have better track not to crash and can give threw a pilot or black box why it crashed drones don't.
ye, only its not at all that easy for pilots to stay up in the air, awake for 36 hours straight. it is for drones tho.
*I’d* rather not fly over Chinese border defenses or enemy missile fields, if it’s all the same to you. Let the drones do it.
I'd rather not fly over the Chinese border either. But, if we HAVE to, and our COMLINK is vulnerable, what options do we have? We need to keep manned planes. If you have to be at war, you need to have weapons that work.
What makes you assume that drones don't have a black box? If anything, I'd think they would need one for saving ISR data and instrument telemetry when they're not networked with their ground station.
Yes, and when they bring down this manned aircraft, you're on the hook to leave no man behind. We can walk away from a drone, even an old one. But when you abandon your pilots to rot in Evin prison…then what?
Heh, i remember basing one of my school projects on Global Hawk. This machine is really unparalleled. I doubt they will seriously cancel the program. It had entered the service rather hastily, rushed into Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, so the high failure rates are not at all unexpected i think.
…If a U-2, the plane that the Block 30 and 40 versions of the Global Hawk will eventually replace (when it gets over its teething issues and enters full production), went down, it would be a big deal….
Well, it DID go down back in 1960, 3 years after its introduction. Calling what happened afterwards a big deal is a big understatement. And just like today, CIA tried to cover it up the best they could.
But yeah, i can imagine these ships do need a lot of love and care. I hope they will resolve these issues somehow.
NATO’s initial press release suggesting possible “mechanical issues”
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-joint-command-morning-operational-update-august-21-2011.html
With some new wings I bet you could hang a boatload of munitions off this platform. A super reaper? I think you could really load up on the sdb's maybe even make it internal?
I'm all for a drone, but what is our back up if the enemy hacks our comm links? If the Iranians can do it, then plenty of other countries could do the same just when we need to do some recon. Maybe we should not be replacing U-2s just yet
Everything uses comm links these days. While the concern over comm link hacking is valid, it should not be confined to RPAs / UAVs.
Seems the original comment have been changed, in that case:
there are several way one can theoretically safeguard a command signal from being hijacked by the enemy, aside of encrypting the signal they can for instance set the drone to only respond to change in order if the signal matches certain criteria that follows time sensitive pre determined pattern known only to the control center.
alternatively they can apply the same system not just to order change signal but to the overall comm signal to the drone, changing the pattern every pre determined time cycle.
The methods to secure the link are plentiful, the problem is more that the US forces are still new at this (so is everyone else) and as we can probably surmise from the previous instance where apparently they did not secure the video feed signal for some of their vehicles, security is still new for them as well and relatively shaky.
Given enough time it will eventually be as secure as anything else once proper method and system are in place.
I thought the theory was that it was conceivable to hijack the aircraft or force it down by washing out the GPS signal, not hijacking the command signals.
If the GPS signal is gone or otherwise unreliable, then inertial based navigation should have taken over (and u can't fool that one unless u do some serious physics defying action to the drone)
Given we've used inertial based navigation for decades, the system should've fall back to it cleanly once GPS gone fubar.
INS has margins of error that aren't great for precision, but are sufficient to get an AC across the border. So it's unlikely the attack solely consists of GPS jamming. Wouldn't be surprised if they simply predicted the drone's flight path (if it had been a pretty predictable one) and simply shot it down visually.
Sure, in theory. I'm sure that the USMIL has been using the best available COMLINKS on its super stealthy drone, but the Iranians still hacked it. Having a pilot in the seat, on the plane, is the best available option.
that's where you are wrong, a while back we found out that the US forces weren't even using secure transmission for the video feeds from the drones and vehicles and some of the insurgents were tapping into the feed.
this is a new field for even the US forces,
the tech and method is there, they just simply haven't utilized them thoroughly as they should be.
why exactly they haven't do so is open to debate, are they underestimating the enemy capability too much? are they simply pushed for deadlines to field it on the field? who knows, but they most certainly haven't been doing the best they could've.
OK, so I might be wrong, since we don't actually know what the US was using for the drone that went down in Iran. In any event, the idea of a completely secure link is something that works in theory but there always seems to be someone who can prove them wrong.
The backup was retired in 1990 from the Air Force and retired from NASA's research fleet in 1997 / 98. It was called the SR-71. Should never have been retired. Leaked like a siv?…yep. Had quirks?…..yep. Could have been updated with new electronics in the RSO's suite?…One did have in the mid 90's just in case…..Untouchable?…..damn straight. With a man ( or woman ) behind the controls, you don't have to worry about the system being hacked either.
The ISAF report twice mentions “forced landing” and only once “crash.”
Which is it? An important distinction: A “crash” *could,* (if you stretch the definition a bit), be considered a forced landing, but many, many “forced landings” do not result in a crash.
I now wonder if the vehicle augered in, pranged or landed reasonably intact.
Actually, it does look a bit like the Alien alien. Ironically, a Predator doesn’t look anything like the predator in Predator.
Hehe… Witty :-)
No dreadlocks for aircraft?
Stupid Yankees you should have bought tthe Eurofighter.
Not sure if you’re just "trying" to be funny, but the Eurofighter and Global Hawk are two Entirely different platforms! If you are being serious, you need to read the difference!
Eurofighter? Really, that was your comment? Buy it when it has absolutely no mission aspect realitive to the Globalhawk's?…..I'll tell you what, we'll buy the Eurofighter if you ask Lockheed to start up the F-22 assembly line again and you buy about 100 of them. OK?
@JWCook: Idiot.
Global Hawk is only as good as it's comms link. Making these UAVs more autonomous (intelligent, if you like) will make them more survivable maybe but a faster, more secure comms link – in particular faster upload – will ensure that the equivalent of black box information will be delivered prior to any terminal incident.
Who is the author of this article? I don't see a name….What "Air Force crash database" are you referring too?, AFSAS? If so, that system is not meant for a reporting tool for the media….
Stasi lulz
http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/indexFY11.html
We should have kept the SR-71 (or designed a newer version) which could fly anywhere and had never been shot down due to speed and altitude. Both would have complemented each other for different missions.
The SR-71 was very expensive to maintain (that came from an ex SR-71 squadron 1st sergeant) & would be vulnerable to current SAMSs like the S-300 if it was still around.
It was a severe hail damage incident where the aircraft successfully returned to base despite major impacts to the vehicles aerodynamics and associated flight dynamics. It did not crash.
The A/C received temporary repairs along with an engine replacement and has since flown back in the states and is undergoing permanent repairs. It is a testament to the robustness of the unmanned system not evidence of a weakness as you suggest.
that's what i thought too, but the weird part is that the drone seems to be relatively intact with just minor damage in the display by iran (unless they patched it up).
which strikes me as odd.
complete security on a data transmission is ultimately very difficult especially when it's done through radio signal, but there are ways to mitigate the risk and reduce potential breach.
there is an entire branch of science dedicated to the pursuit of the field.
but ultimately encryption does not need to make the line impervious to cracking, it simply needs to make any attempt to discern it's content (and duplicate or alter it) infeasibly long.
standard security protocol then changes the pattern again on the next pre determined cycle which will then force anyone attempting to snoop the signal to start over.
either way, the US forces obviously did not place much weight on attempts to secure them previously, but their failure to secure the feed doesn't mean the system is inherently insecure or cannot be secured… it simply means they've yet to do so.
much in the same way as radio usage eventually spawned methods and procedures to secure the commands for delivery on the field, the US will eventually learn to do the same with the drone signals.