Jump to content

Talk:Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Delete bot notices as advised
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|class=B|Aircraft-project=yes
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
{{WikiProject Aviation|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
|B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
|Aircraft=yes}}
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
{{WikiProject Military history|class= C
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-2=no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|Aviation= yes |US= yes}}
}}
}}

{{WikiProject Military History
|class= B
|Aviation-task-force= yes
|US-task-force= yes
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
}}

==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? --[[User:Robert Merkel|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. [[User:Tannin|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.[[User:Dawright12|Dawright12]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Aduthie|Aduthie]] ([[User talk:Aduthie|talk]]) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

== Navigation ==

I added information pertaining to the inertial navigation systems, of which there are two.

[[User:PanzerVamp|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? -[[User:N328KF|Joseph]] 14:17, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
:Nevermind. I figured it out. We ought to integrate an explanation into the article though. -[[User:N328KF|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. [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/hafnium.htm] -[[User:N328KF|Joseph]] [[User talk:N328KF|(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. [[User:Akradecki|Akradecki]] 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::Late reply, but that's much clearer, thanks [[User:Nkedel|Nate]] 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.172.162.156|67.172.162.156]] ([[User talk:67.172.162.156|talk]]) 05:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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.
[[User:DMTate|DMTate]] ([[User talk:DMTate|talk]]) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

$218M (introduction, development included), $200M (full system), $178M(aircraft): which one? [[Special:Contributions/79.6.240.241|79.6.240.241]] ([[User talk:79.6.240.241|talk]]) 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

== satellite photography ==

two different points here...

# 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

# 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. [[Special:Contributions/98.196.164.63|98.196.164.63]] ([[User talk:98.196.164.63|talk]]) 04:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

:# The Synthetic Aperture Radar provides a capability that satellites don't currently offer.

:# The loiter time (in excess of 24 hours by some accounts) exceeds that of any polar-orbiting satellite.
<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/24.26.204.228|24.26.204.228]] ([[User talk:24.26.204.228|talk]]) 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Re the EDW image...yes, that's were the flight test group parks them. There's usually one or two sitting out there. [[User:Akradecki|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. &mdash;[[User:N328KF|Joseph/N328KF]] [[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/74.180.79.68|74.180.79.68]] ([[User talk: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 [[Special:Contributions/83.104.138.141|83.104.138.141]] ([[User talk: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"? -[[User:SidewinderX|SidewinderX]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.172.162.156|67.172.162.156]] ([[User talk:67.172.162.156|talk]]) 05:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.83.112.61|68.83.112.61]] ([[User talk:68.83.112.61|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->

: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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/04/27/180870/evolutionary-flight-plan-for-global-hawk.html 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. -[[User:SidewinderX|SidewinderX]] ([[User talk:SidewinderX|talk]]) 21:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Speed ==

Why is the cruise speed (404 mph), faster then the maximum speed (400)? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.241.102.32|99.241.102.32]] ([[User talk:99.241.102.32|talk]]) 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.210.82.50|141.210.82.50]] ([[User talk:141.210.82.50|talk]]) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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

[[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Not until a source is provided refuting it. Yours does not. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
==File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg Nominated for Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]]
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg|File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg]], has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] in the following category: ''Deletion requests December 2011''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used.

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 02:04, 8 December 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.182.160.144|67.182.160.144]] ([[User talk:67.182.160.144|talk]]) 09:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Still very preliminary and no official announcements on cancellation yet. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk: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

[[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-cuts-rq-4-blk-30-spares-other-uavs-367461/ FG article], the number of Block 30 to be procured is being cut. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk: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 [[:File:MQ-1 Predator controls 2007-08-07.jpg|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. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]&#124;[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


== Block 30 vs. 40 vs. ?? ==
== Block 30 vs. 40 vs. ?? ==
As a layman reading about the RQ-4 Global Hawk, I believe it my responsibility to suggest to more capable editors that they define, or at least explain, what Block 30/Block 40 means in the context of this article, and ensure that its use with this subject is appropriately-tailored to non-specialists as well as those w/ a background in defense contracting/UAV's/spying/procurement. It reads like [[jargon]] otherwise.[[User:Joep01|Joep01]] ([[User talk:Joep01|talk]]) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


: My thought too on reading here that block 30 was expensive to operate and block 40 was much cheaper. What are the differences that make this so ? - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
As a layman reading about the RQ-4 Global Hawk, I believe it my responsibility to suggest to more capable editors that they define, or at least explain, what Block 30/Block 40 means in the context of this article, and ensure that its use with this subject is appropriately-tailored to non-specialists as well as those w/ a background in defense contracting/UAV's/spying/procurement. It reads like [[jargon]] otherwise.[[User:Joep01|Joep01]] ([[User talk:Joep01|talk]]) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:http://www.ais.org/~schnars/aero/tier.htm#tier2p [[Special:Contributions/78.151.47.158|78.151.47.158]] ([[User talk:78.151.47.158|talk]]) 06:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


== Nuclear power ==
== Whitewashing the Euro Hawk disaster ==
I've removed the nuclear power section, because the reliable sources that discuss this [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us-developed-but-shelved-nuclear-powered-drones/], [https://www.wired.com/2012/03/secret-nuclear-drone/] or [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/02/us-plans-nuclear-drones] actually state that the mysterious " ultra-persistent propulsion and power system" was to be fitted to the Global Hawk, and in fact, they point out that the original Sandia report which the whole story appears to have been based [https://fas.org/irp/eprint/sand-uav.pdf] doesn't mention nuclear power at all. While the Spyflight source does mention the Global Hawk, it is not a reliable source.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 21:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
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.


== Lack of Criticism? ==
Now user [[User:Fnlayson|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.
I find it odd that a good deal of criticism over the Global Hawk and how it is intended to replace the U-2 Dragon Lady is not present in the article in its current form. While the Global Hawk can indeed remain aloft far longer than the U-2 Dragon Lady, it still does not favor well when compared to the U-2S; the Dragon Lady has more payload capacity (5,000lbs vs 3,000 lbs), a greater service ceiling (70,000ft vs 60,000ft), and supposedly twice the amount of available on-board power for the payload to make use of.


Source here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/20/u-2-vs-global-hawk-why-drones-arent-the-answer-to-every-military-need/
So, please, Fnlayson, explain your reasons - why should I not revert this blatant attempt of whitewashing? [[User:Wefa|Wefa]] ([[User talk:Wefa|talk]]) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


Granted, the article is quite old by now, but the only bit that I have not been able to verify as being valid at this point in time is the power supply. Even without that, handicaps in the payload and service ceiling are valid concerns, particularly in a system that is still proving to be more expensive to operate in the long run.
: 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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 14:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


If you desire more recent criticism, however, The Hill has an article published in November of 2019 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/18/china-pentagon-global-hawk-drone/) highlighting the shortcomings of the Global Hawk - particularly how the aircraft has a large radar cross section for its size, and how Iran was able to shoot down a Global Hawk. [[User:BlackAeronaut|BlackAeronaut]] ([[User talk:BlackAeronaut|talk]]) 13:23, 22 December 2020 (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. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk: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!!/ [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


== Defensive Systems ==
::* 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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


There are none installed on the Global Hawk; many internet sources are circular references right back to the Wikipedia page; all are non-authoritative in nature. The "ALR-89" is a brochure capability that was never developed or purchased <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.249.80.215|24.249.80.215]] ([[User talk:24.249.80.215#top|talk]]) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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. [[User:Wefa|Wefa]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wefa|Wefa]] ([[User talk:Wefa|talk]]) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:57, 10 May 2024

Block 30 vs. 40 vs. ??

[edit]

As a layman reading about the RQ-4 Global Hawk, I believe it my responsibility to suggest to more capable editors that they define, or at least explain, what Block 30/Block 40 means in the context of this article, and ensure that its use with this subject is appropriately-tailored to non-specialists as well as those w/ a background in defense contracting/UAV's/spying/procurement. It reads like jargon otherwise.Joep01 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought too on reading here that block 30 was expensive to operate and block 40 was much cheaper. What are the differences that make this so ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ais.org/~schnars/aero/tier.htm#tier2p 78.151.47.158 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power

[edit]

I've removed the nuclear power section, because the reliable sources that discuss this [1], [2] or [3] actually state that the mysterious " ultra-persistent propulsion and power system" was to be fitted to the Global Hawk, and in fact, they point out that the original Sandia report which the whole story appears to have been based [4] doesn't mention nuclear power at all. While the Spyflight source does mention the Global Hawk, it is not a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Criticism?

[edit]

I find it odd that a good deal of criticism over the Global Hawk and how it is intended to replace the U-2 Dragon Lady is not present in the article in its current form. While the Global Hawk can indeed remain aloft far longer than the U-2 Dragon Lady, it still does not favor well when compared to the U-2S; the Dragon Lady has more payload capacity (5,000lbs vs 3,000 lbs), a greater service ceiling (70,000ft vs 60,000ft), and supposedly twice the amount of available on-board power for the payload to make use of.

Source here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/20/u-2-vs-global-hawk-why-drones-arent-the-answer-to-every-military-need/

Granted, the article is quite old by now, but the only bit that I have not been able to verify as being valid at this point in time is the power supply. Even without that, handicaps in the payload and service ceiling are valid concerns, particularly in a system that is still proving to be more expensive to operate in the long run.

If you desire more recent criticism, however, The Hill has an article published in November of 2019 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/18/china-pentagon-global-hawk-drone/) highlighting the shortcomings of the Global Hawk - particularly how the aircraft has a large radar cross section for its size, and how Iran was able to shoot down a Global Hawk. BlackAeronaut (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive Systems

[edit]

There are none installed on the Global Hawk; many internet sources are circular references right back to the Wikipedia page; all are non-authoritative in nature. The "ALR-89" is a brochure capability that was never developed or purchased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.80.215 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk&oldid=1223200702"