View Full Version : Global Hawk Crash
The LA times reported today (11th July) that a second Global Hawk has crashed in Afghanistan/Pakistan (the first crashed on 30th Dec on approach to Al Dhafra in the UAE on recovery). Add this to UAV-2 which crashed in March 99 and that makes 3 out of the original purchase of 5 airframes destroyed within 3 years.
The loss rate of UAVs is now around 100 that of manned aircraft such as the U-2. They are also now almost as expensive to buy as manned aircraft with the price of the Hawk airframe escalating through $25 million and the full system price being between $70-90 million, including sensors, depending how calculate it. The original target price was $16-20 million each.
There is an increasing USAF and congressional block who want to go slow down purchases of unmanned aircraft and argue it would be cheaper and safer to build new U-2s. Within the UAV lobby, there is increasing support for the new turboprop-powered Predator B, of which 10 could be purchased, with sensors, for the price of a single Global Hawk.
The main advantages of the Global Hawk are it's operating height, endurance and un-refuelled range.
The main Global Hawk program is still in the EMD phase with the first two production airframes to be delivered in 2003 and with the OTE phase and Milestone 3 decision in 2004.
ChristopherRobin
11th Jul 2002, 21:58
Sure that's right? Global Hawk hasn't crashed before - that first one was a Predator was it not?
WE Branch Fanatic
11th Jul 2002, 22:18
Well you all know my views on UAVs, particulary armed ones - ! wouldn't go near them with a barge pole. Much better to have a pilot to take control when things go awry....... as I said on the "Will a UAV make us redundant thread?".
I feel slightly vindicated now.
As for the Global Hawk, sorry for being rude but it looks like a giant "woman's buzzing toy" with wings stuck on:D
1.
Los Angeles Times January 1, 2002
Global Hawk Crashes in Afghanistan in a Setback for High-Tech Drones
By PAUL RICHTER
WASHINGTON -- An unmanned U.S. spy aircraft has crashed in Afghanistan, U.S. military officials said Monday, in a reminder that one of the most important new technologies in the war against terrorism is fragile and only partially developed.
The RQ-4A Global Hawk that crashed during a routine flight Sunday was rushed into the theater in November to help U.S. forces track enemy fighters. Pentagon officials say the Global Hawk and the older, lower-flying RQ-1 Predator drone will be central to their effort to track down Islamic militants in South Asia and around the world.
But the crash, which occurred for reasons that were still unclear Monday, means U.S. forces have already lost one of two Global Hawks they had in the theater. Several Predators have also crashed in surveillance missions in Afghanistan and Iraq since the war began, analysts say. The losses come at a time when Pentagon officials have already expressed concern that their worldwide anti-terror campaign will be crimped by the limited availability of the surveillance aircraft.
U.S. military officials at Central Command in Tampa, Fla., which is overseeing the war, said the Global Hawk crashed about midday Sunday as it was returning from a routine patrol in or around Afghanistan. They said the crash was not the result of enemy fire, but declined to provide other details.
2.
Wednesday July 10, 2002 5:00 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - An unmanned U.S. spy plane crashed in Pakistan on Wednesday, U.S. officials said.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the cause appeared to be engine failure rather than hostile fire.
It was the second Global Hawk aircraft to crash since the war in Afghanistan began last October. The first, in late December, went down in an undisclosed country near Afghanistan. The Air Force said last week that an accident investigation pinpointed structural failure as the cause of that crash. The investigators traced the problem to an improperly installed bolt that caused a control rod to fail.
The officials said U.S. troops had been dispatched to the crash site in Pakistan to examine the wreckage.
MadsDad
12th Jul 2002, 06:00
For anyone who is interested the 'Doonesbury' cartoon strip in the Guardian for the last few days (haven't seen todays, Fridays, yet, but Tuesday - Thursday definitely) has been featuring the use of unmanned drones in Afghanistan. And could even provide an explanation of the crashes. Although would probably be regarded an subversive reading.
:D
Fox3snapshot
23rd Jul 2002, 23:22
Whilst twiddling my thumbs on a luvly sunny afternoon (cause they always are here in the sandpit), I was distracted by a target entering the airspace at FL640, on the airway, westbound to points unknown. After a little rub of the eyes and a check with Indian Air Trafffic, my interest and suspicions were confirmed. It was callsign ##### an RQ4A Global Hawk enroute from RAAF Edinburgh in Australia to Abu Dhabi Military airfield in the UAE, Middle East. At the boundary, a radio call from the "unmannned" aircraft and subsequent identification....saw him on his way and in my mind started a chapter (or at least added to chapter 1) of an amazing aviation development.
The pilot was talking and flying from the other side of the planet, conducting pucker ATC procedures through civil airspace, and all this time no human form was physically present at the control column of this modern marvel.
Engineering issues caused the crash of the first frame, quite basic ones it might be noted. Remember these little puppies were prototypes and considering what was achieved....you have got to be impressed,I know I am. Especially when the second one came through with an on-board radio failure and we recieved a telephone call from ....well somewhere...giving us a position report, intentions and a request for an airways clearance!!!
This is the start, we aint seen nuffin yet!!!
:cool:
I'd be interested to know if all FIRs/ATC en-route knew it was unmanned and had authority and procedures in place to allow/authorise such a movement in civil airspace.
I believe, for example, that in most EuropeanFIRs any such UAV is only allowed to fly in sterile airspace. Certainly that is the case in the UK.
UAV operations in the UK FIR are very strict (See particularly section 13.3.2. (c))
UAV operations in the UK FIR (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_UAVS.pdf)
Fox3snapshot
25th Jul 2002, 10:37
ORAC,
Unfortunately what we see here on a daily....no make that an hourly basis will make your eyes fall out, and the general public too I might add! With the extensive military ops going on all those nice theories of notification, civil FIR compliance and international procedures are not only ignored but dangerously so. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it outside a nations teritorial limits and in International airspace choas reigns. The US military, as a primary example, operate under a very unique (to them of course!) system known as "Due Regard". This loosely means....they will do whatever they want, and they do. Some examples, travelling on/across air-routes at non-standard levels (at the high flight levels)and travelling through the busiest sections of controlled airspace without any communications. Their idea of de-conflicting with Commercial traffic (QFA, MAS, GFA, SIA, BA, PIA, AIC, SVA, etc. etc. etc.) is to operate at a VFR level so it is not unrealistic to have a KC135 NO-Comm (not talking to anyone!) east bound at FL285 (conformal levels are eastbound odds, westbound evens in this FIR) with a westbound B747 at FL280 and a B737 on a crossing track at FL290....mmm yes well that's safe!!!! Note this is not RVSM airspace and a 500'split with civil traffic at FL345 and an old non-TCAS equipped C5 Galaxy is not safe, this example is derived from an actual case last week.
So, the long and the short of it is, a UAV is quite insignificant in the scheme of things as far as "compliance", "authority" and "conformity" are concerned. It is a little fairy tale idea that the aviation community (I once again mention US military) comply to international conventions and protocols. With aviation measurements that use; Height measured in feet..and metres, Altimetry settings in Mb...and inches, speed in knots....and KM/h, we are only destined to witness more accidents and incidents, are we ever going to learn????!
:o :o :o
madasacow
25th Jul 2002, 20:38
Fox3snapshot
I'm sorry I must have missed something about confliction here. I thought to have confliction between manned aircraft and UAVs they had to be close together :(
Apart from our space-suited U2 bretheren is there anyone else claiming FL 640 as their own?? ;)
FOMere2eternity
25th Jul 2002, 21:56
The main advantages of the Global Hawk are it's operating height, endurance and un-refuelled range
...and it's lack of need for a MQ, LSSA, LOA, wages, travel allowances, BSA, uniform, air conditioned transport and ops clerk to give it weather...
I can see it's potential :)
Madasacow,
A little bird named Concorde, if you wouldn't mind keeping out of the North Atlantic with your toys.. :D
Long ago, back in the mid-seventies, A U-2 hit was hit by the shock wave from Concorde en-route Bahrain-UK (Mach 2+). The pilot only just got it back on the ground and it had to be shipped home for repair. As he mournfully said afterwards. "Bigger than me, that I can live with; faster than me, that I can live with; Bast**d was above me, that hurts".
On a more sober note, the ones he is worried about are the one's below FL350, not the UAVs.
Fox3snapshot
26th Jul 2002, 01:59
OK, FL640 is right up there, but it has to get up there. In its current middle east theatre the Global Hawk is thankfully able to climb up to its operating altitude within a Military Zone, though this will not always be the case. The U2 is doing likewise but busted airspace horribly a month or so ago with an ill informed U2 pilot who had a good look at a Royal Jordanian Flight and one or two others in the area at the time. Whilst operating in the big sky's of the US restricted areas they are stars.....but employed out in the theatres they were designed to operate from, with adjacent FIR's, civil traffic and camel farms, true ability is really on show.
The big sky theory is shrinking.....
:rolleyes:
PS Through a very credible source an airmiss today with a Malaysian Airlines jet and a "US military" unidentified jet No Comm(tanker or Buff) between the Pakistan Tactical entry point and Diego Garcia in the VABB FIR, military traffic crossed the civil airway same level (FL370) as the MAS aircraft, the military traffic "due regard" (with regard to what?????) not talking to anyone....This is one little happy story, there are many more...trust me!
:o :mad: :o