Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

Bye Bye Global Hawk

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-01-2012, 12:00 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpcliff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Default

The GH has a wingspan about that of a 727, and flies up to 65,000', with a mission time of a couple of days.

I was recently reading about a new UAV, with the wingspan of about a 747, that flies up to about 85,000', and has a mission time of about 12 days. Trying to find more info now, but so far no luck....read about it some months ago.

cliff
HSV
atpcliff is offline  
Old 02-01-2012, 07:04 PM
  #32  
Line Holder
 
HueyHerc's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: L-382, Left/Right
Posts: 36
Default

Originally Posted by atpcliff View Post
The GH has a wingspan about that of a 727, and flies up to 65,000', with a mission time of a couple of days.

...and half the mission payload of a U-2.

HH
HueyHerc is offline  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:30 PM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ftrooppilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Body at sea level; heart at 70,000+
Posts: 1,349
Default

Originally Posted by HueyHerc View Post
...and half the mission payload of a U-2.

HH
Which is half the mission payload of a WB-57F (RB-57F) with a systems operator to run all of it. Actually the "F" has a 1,000 lb higher payload but the cubic space available in the "bomb bay" is "big." In the 1960s we carrier a camera that was the size of a VW.

Ftrooppilot is offline  
Old 02-02-2012, 08:03 PM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Default

That's an impressive payload (sts), but it's not always about the size of the sensor. These aren't bombs, these are intelligence platforms. Bigger and better cameras (especially film cameras) were the sensor of choice during the cold war when strategic intelligence reigned supreme, but tactical intelligence is a whole different animal.

Sometimes what the COCOMs need is persistent SA that may or may not be imint. There is usually value in the traditional imagery analysis after the flight's over, but in today's wars the decision-makers more often need to know what's going on right now for days on end. They all have their place, but it's usually about the right tool at the right time, not the biggest tool for a short duration of time.
LivingInMEM is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 12:07 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 291
Default

Originally Posted by Ftrooppilot View Post
In the 1960s we carrier a camera that was the size of a VW.
...which can now be handled with a camera the size of a VW...carburetor.
...then transmit the image across the globe with a 3 second delay.

wait, what were we talking about again?
BFMthisA10 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:00 AM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,199
Default

Originally Posted by BFMthisA10 View Post
...which can now be handled with a camera the size of a VW...carburetor.
...then transmit the image across the globe with a 3 second delay.

wait, what were we talking about again?
Whats a carburetor???
Grumble is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:06 PM
  #37  
Line Holder
 
HueyHerc's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: L-382, Left/Right
Posts: 36
Default

Originally Posted by LivingInMEM View Post
Sometimes what the COCOMs need is persistent SA that may or may not be imint. There is usually value in the traditional imagery analysis after the flight's over, but in today's wars the decision-makers more often need to know what's going on right now for days on end. They all have their place, but it's usually about the right tool at the right time, not the biggest tool for a short duration of time.
U-2 does both imint and sigint, simultaneously, real time...and has for 35+ years. GH killed itself by over-promising and under-delivering for over a decade. It never reached parity with the U-2 and that's why it was chopped.

HH
HueyHerc is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:56 PM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Default

Huey, read the posts. My post was clearly a reference to ftroop and his picture of an imint payload.

As for the rest of my post, you missed the days on end part. The U-2 has great sensors, but not the persistence that the commanders need in today's counter-insurgency limited boots on the ground conflict. Virtual presence beats no presence. Simultaneous, persistent, re-taskable near real-time SAR, IMINT, and SIGINT can be invaluable to a COCOM.

I am not a fan of the GH, it is a mis-managed under-performing asset. However, if BAMS can do what they intend to, most of those limitations will be eliminated. Regardless, my posts have never been a my plane vs your plane argument; it's effects and deliverables. Given time, engineers can make an RPA that approaches U-2 fidelity with RPA endurance and range. They will nevet make a U-2 approach RPA endurance or range. That's not advocacy, it's realism.
LivingInMEM is offline  
Old 02-05-2012, 09:30 PM
  #39  
Get me outta here...
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
Default

Originally Posted by exerauflyboy5 View Post
...but how many U-2 pilots are flying GH's for Northrop now?
Only 3 that I can think of (out of over 900 U-2 pilots in the history of The Program).
One is Ed Walby. He retired back in the 90's, is the GH's Director of Business Development, and is often the guy you see in media interviews.
Of the other two pilots, one is a contractor and one is active duty military.
HuggyU2 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WAFP
Military
28
01-24-2010 04:42 AM
Winged Wheeler
Hangar Talk
17
06-21-2008 03:23 PM
Spaceman Spliff
Hangar Talk
48
06-18-2008 08:35 AM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
4
12-26-2007 08:50 AM
Linebacker35
Hangar Talk
88
02-18-2007 07:48 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices