Jump to content

Talk:Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unanswered questions

Is the RQ-4 now a "production" aircraft or just a prototype? If it's a prototype, how far into development is it, and when will it enter service? If it's a production plane, when did it enter service? How many of them are there? --Robert Merkel 12:43, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good questions, Robert. As I understand it, yes it is still a prototype, but no it has already entered service on a limited basis. They certainly used one for the invasion of Iraq, where it was (according to my source) very useful indeed. In recent years, the USAF seems to be quite prepared to do lengthy developmemt programs, easing gently from prototype to full-on production aircraft, and to use the quasi-prototypes in anger. They did the same with the first Gulf War and the ... er ... I forget the acronym - something-STARS, the (so to speak) "AWACS for tanks" 707 that is stuffed full of side-looking radar and communications gear. Tannin

Joint STARS or JSTARS

As of today, April 3 it goes into full time production. The USAF started the 18th Recon Squad headed by Lt Col Christopher B. Jella, replacing the 9th Operations Group as the operator of RQ-4A's in the USAF. Grunnamn is still sticking close to the project's devlopment however, seeing as the only qualified trainers are theirs.

Fuselage material conflict

Is there any conflict between the following?

Main article: Design: The fuselage is mostly of conventional aluminum airframe construction, while the wings are made of carbon composite.

Picture caption: The Global Hawk's wings, fuselage, fairings, nacelles, and tails are manufactured from high strength-to-weight composites.Dawright12 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a definite conflict. I found the answer on Northrup Grumman's site and edited the article accordingly. (It's aluminum like the article said, not composite like the photo caption said.)
This opens the question of whether the wings et al are carbon composite, though. Northrup Grumman just says "composite." Aduthie (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added information pertaining to the inertial navigation systems, of which there are two. PanzerVamp 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

QNR

What exactly is this bit about a quantum nucleonic reactor? What is the purpose? Produce gamma rays, but to what end? -Joseph 14:17, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. We ought to integrate an explanation into the article though. -Joseph 04:48, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, the QNR thing looks like tabloid science. Thus illustrating the dangers of relying upon Popular Science as a news source. [1] -Joseph (Talk) 18:14, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

"Unmanned"

Does anyone else read this line as an oxymoron: This potentially paves the way for a revolution in unmanned flight, including that of unmanned civil passenger airliners. Wouldn't a passenger airliner be by definition "manned" in the sense of having humans aboard? Do they mean "pilotless"? "crewless"? Or should the phrase "passenger airliners" rather be "transports"?

Just changed this to "automatically piloted". Hope that helps. Akradecki 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Late reply, but that's much clearer, thanks Nate 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

satellite photography

two different points here...

  1. Google earth's best resolution of Edwards AFB shows what I am almost positive to be a global hawk park on the southernmost apron (in addition to 2 B-1B Lancers and a B-52 Stratofortress). This isn't too terribly relevant, I just thought some might find it interesting...

http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&z=18&ll=34.898999,-117.874283&spn=0.0033,0.004989&t=k&om=1

  1. The aurora project was, by most reasonable estimates, scrapped, due to high costs and lower necessity due to the increased coverage of satellite imagery. Why, then, does this same logic negate the need for the Global Hawk?? I have a few theories, but invite disccussion...
Globalhawk is more than likely designed to give battefield intelligence, stuff that you need right now, and you need detail. Much like how the predator and reaper are designed to do, except global hawk is supposed to loiter longer or travel farther. 98.196.164.63 (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The Synthetic Aperture Radar provides a capability that satellites don't currently offer.
  1. The loiter time (in excess of 24 hours by some accounts) exceeds that of any polar-orbiting satellite.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.204.228 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Re the EDW image...yes, that's were the flight test group parks them. There's usually one or two sitting out there. Akradecki 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

EuroHawk

I merged in the EuroHawk article. It's just an RQ-4B with an EADS avionics package. Those avionics packages are interchangable anyhow; it seemed pointless to a separate article, when a paragraph in the main article would suffice. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the opening be changed to reflect a more global perspective? The "used by the USAF" should be changed or taken out, right? 74.180.79.68 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, now that its been revealed and has a "distinctivley different" appearance. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/First_Euro_Hawk_Unmanned_Reconnaissance_Aircraft_Unveiled_999.html 83.104.138.141 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Right now the US is still only country that uses them... the EuroHawk still has several months of flight testing before headint to Germany. I agree that the lead should be changed, but I'm not quite sure how to do it... "The Global Hawk is used by the USAF and is being considered for use by NATO and the German Air Force"? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As of 5/10/10, the Luftwaffe has not yet agreed to purchase the Global Hawk. They, however, have sent an engineering team to Beale AFB, California, to experiance the aircraft first hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

COA

Removed the statement: "The Global Hawk is the first UAV to be certified by the FAA to file its own flight plans and use civilian air corridors in the United States with no advance notice." This statement is completely untrue. The reference clearly states the approval of a Certificate of Authorization (COA). This COA, by definition, gives advance notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.112.61 (talk)

The source is dated 2004. What exactly are you objecting to here? Why is it untrue, based on the date? Please discuss this without removing the entry, and allow a decision to be reached on the matter by the editors of this page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I missed this for so long -- the IP editor is correct, that cited statement is wrong. I have deleted it. There is more detail in this Flight Global article. The punch line is that, while it's easier for the Global Hawk to get permission to fly than it had been in the past, it still requires at least 5 days advance notice and still greatly restricts where exactly the GH is allowed to fly. Furthermore, the GH cannot fly within civil air corridiors, merely transit them as it climbs or descends to/from its cruising altitude. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Speed

Why is the cruise speed (404 mph), faster then the maximum speed (400)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.102.32 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Worth mentioning Fukushima?

There have been many reports that a Global Hawk is scheduled to do a flyover of the Fukushima Reactor on Thursday. Would it be worth mentioning that once the flyover has been completed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.82.50 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unit cost?

What is the cost per unit ? I heared they are quitte expencive ?

The estimated cost per airframe is $30 Million to $45 Million. The addition of survellence equiptment adds an estimated $20 Million to $25 Million. Thus the total for each complete aircraft is between $50 Million and $70 Million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently published Budget Justification Exhibits (for the FY12 Budget, Air Force Procurement of Aircraft) give the unit cost of future Global Hawks (Blocks 30 and 40) as more than $100 million each. DMTate (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

$218M (introduction, development included), $200M (full system), $178M(aircraft): which one? 79.6.240.241 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Australia

This article says canceled, but recent news story says not:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/drop-the-pilot-in-new-world-of-warcraft/story-e6frg8yo-1226167097396

Hcobb (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All that aticle says is the ADI is considering buying ... likely to be the US-built Global Hawk, two key words considering and likely give a clue that this is speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The current article here says that the project has already been canceled. Shouldn't we walk that claim back? Hcobb (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Not until a source is provided refuting it. Yours does not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

End of the Global Hawk ?

This just popped up on Yahoo. Thought someone might be interested. http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-air-force-halt-northrop-unmanned-plane-013134585.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.160.144 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Still very preliminary and no official announcements on cancellation yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And the Navy is still going for it.

http://www.stripes.com/news/analyst-drone-no-longer-in-air-force-plans-to-replace-u-2-spy-plane-1.166693 Hcobb (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Air Force ordered some RQ-4 Block 40s, which are not being affected. According to this FG article, the number of Block 30 to be procured is being cut. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Human command/control?

There's nothing in the article about how the RQ-4 is operated. Is this like the remote controlled aircraft used by hobbyists where a person operates the engine and control surfaces for takeoff and landings or is the RQ-4 capable of autonomous operation? I assume it would have an auto-pilot to handle cruise and perhaps the entire flight after takeoff and before landing.

The Predator drone article has a picture that shows what looks like a standard aircraft cockpit layout. The thing that caught my attention is the chairs are the same as what are in aircraft and designed for long term use implying at least the RQ-1 was not autonomous. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Euro Hawk disaster and German cancellation

The Euro Hawk is probably going to be scrapped. The hard truth here is that Northrop knowingly delivered a piece of crap that is entirely unsuited to the mission at hand, to a degree that it can not even be operated at all - and the Germans knowingly bought it. It is so bad that the purchase is considered a total loss. This is not one of the usual cancellations - we have a collusion between arms-buying bureaucrats and a military vendor transferring roughly a billion euros in taxpayer money to said vendor for no apparent reasons.

Now user Fnlayson choose to whitewash the inclusion of this (sourced) affair into this article. Instead of total loss he inserted "cancellation"(which sound much nicer and makes it sound like a regular course of business), and he also added wording that suggests it would be possible to save the program by just adding some equipment - a claim for which there is no source whatsoever.

So, please, Fnlayson, explain your reasons - why should I not revert this blatant attempt of whitewashing? Wefa (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing, please. Everything reported has been unofficial and unconfirmed. There's no reason to imply it is a done deal until there's something official. An article on Defense Daily today states Northrop Grumman has not yet had any discussions with Germany about canceling the order. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Check all the sources about the added equipment (collision avoidance system). That is the main reason for the extra €600+ million cost (now mentioned in article text). The loss is a little over €500 million if the last 4 are EuroHawks canceled. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia seems to be challenged by the fact that the official statements regarding the cancellation are all in German. This includes today's statement from the German ministry of defense, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/euro-hawk-hohe-kosten-trotz-gescheiterten-kaufs-12182675.html
Todays debate in Germany already refers to the cancellation in the past tense, and is instead concerned with what consequences this will have for the minister of defence.
Naturally, the producer of the Euro Hawk has no reason to report immediately on the loss of the sole foreign customer.
So to all non-German reading wikipedians: Please do not revert edits that are quoting German sources, since the German sources will be the first (and possibly only) to report accurately on this end to Germany's participation in the project. Lklundin (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
With the cancellation also appearing on the official web-page of the German Air Force, we should go ahead and update the article accordingly, http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP3I5EyrpHK9nHK98sS0NL3E0rTsHL3U0oxE_YJsR0UACwjUTQ!!/ Lklundin (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to add those sources if you like. Looks like they still have to complete negotiations on canceling the contract to finalize things. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If that is your attitude, I would for my part say that you are welcome to start improving the article by describing Germany's involvement in the past tense and with the proper date information. The phrase 'The German Air Force (Luftwaffe) has ordered' should for example be modified to 'On $DATE the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) ordered'. Thank you for your interest in improving this article. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Before I even start with the content: Fnlayson, what rule of Wikipedia entitles you to edit MY words on a talk page; thus putting YOUR weasel words into MY mouth? Please undo that edit immediately, and in the future please keep your edits on talk pages to your own text. Wefa (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You must mean the section label, since I did not edit your post. Section labels are not part of posts and are considered shared community property. See WP:TALK. Stop with the invalid accusations. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
From the text you pointed to: "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial". You might want to read your own advice. Beyond that, everybody here can draw his own conclusions. I continue to question both tone and motive of your edits. Wefa (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Campaign contributions notable?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/07/16/12969/huge-drone-could-not-be-grounded The letter, whose authors – Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. -- received a total of $135,100 from Northrop Grumman’s political action committee and employees for their election campaigns and leadership PACs since the beginning of 2009, is emblematic of the political forces that helped stoke a 117 percent jump in the Defense Department’s procurement budget from fiscal year 2001 through its peak in fiscal year 2010.

Add that in? Hcobb (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No ties specifically to the Global Hawk. The Northrop Grumman article is the better place. And several company articles already have sections on political contributions/lobbying. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Entire article is about the Global Hawk. Hcobb (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


First UAV to cross the Pacific?

What about the WWII Japanese balloons with bombs/incendiary devices attached? Launched from Japan, some 300 of these were observed in the US. Perhaps, rephrasing the text to read “[...]the first heavier-than-air pilotless aircraft[...]” would improve it. 93.180.63.252 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Max

They were not controlled by any means, and therefore were not UAVs. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Very well, but the article actually refers to the Global Hawk as “the first pilotless aircraft to cross the Pacific Ocean”. Meanwhile, balloons are a subset of aircraft, if the Wikipedia article on aircraft is anything to go by. Additionally, fire balloons actually had something of a control system that kept them in the air for three days by adjusting buoyancy and then triggered the release of the payload. 93.180.63.252 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Max
The reason it is considered "pilotless" is because you can tell the UAV to takeoff flew to a certain point,then tell it to land. With a Ballon you can only hope it goes where you want it to you can be certain it is going to a certain point nor can you manually take control like you can with the RQ-4.Simmons123456 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

'Universal Payload Adaptor' and U-2 Sensors Being Tested on RQ-4B

NG is funding an 'universal payload adaptor', essentially a grid that attaches to RQ-4's underside, allowing it to carry the Optical Bar Camera and Senior Year Electro-Optical Reconnaissance System-2b/C. source Twobellst@lk 10:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk/Archive_1&oldid=1257835795"