Leaderboard

A valid question; here's my opinion based on my involvement as an AF O-6 at NSA working airborne programs for the Asst Dep Director for Operations, Military Affairs and post- retirement as a civilian in OSD (DARO, OUSD/ISR, and NIMA/NGA)at the time The answer is that in the very early 90s, Bill Lynn, the Director of DARPA (actually named "ARPA" at that point but returned to its original title of "DARPA" later in the 90s), and Bill Perry, the DepSecDef (not sure if they were in those exact positions in the very beginning, but by mid-90s they were) believed that unmanned aircraft had the potential to revolutionize airborne operations, starting with ISR, by reducing personal exposure to threats, enabling extended ISR (long duration ops) and save money by reducing the manpower costs in the systems. Additionally, they believed that a new acquisition concept called the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) could speed up the introduction of new systems from the current (in the 90s) and painful 15-20 years. The idea was to marry up the contractor side and the government side early in the development cycle to better work out operational issues while designing the vehicles (sounds good...didn't work!). They married the two ideas and DARPA initiated the High Altitude Endurance (HAE) and Medium Altitude Endurance (MAE) programs in 1994. The HAE program envisioned two platforms; a high altitude "U-2-like" vehicle and a smaller low observable, craft for better penetration of highly defended areas, referred to as "tier 2+ and "Tier 3-" in their concept terminology. The MAE program started with an existing much less capable unmanned RPA called the "Gnat", built by General Atomics for another purpose. You'll note here that this effort was a DARPA technology development effort, not an acquisition effort responding to an approved DoD mission need. In fact, the Air Force was not particularly enamored with the idea of unmanned mission aircraft and did not support the effort; there was no AF money or manning in the POM to support it. In fact the HAE program plan itself says there is only one required outcome...and let me quote from the ARPA 6 Oct 1994 ver 1.0 HAE CONOP..."A dominant objective of the HAE UAV program is to obtain the maximum capability possible for a set, non-waiverable Unit Flyaway Price (UFP); accordingly, while there are performance objectives, the only requirement that must be met is the UFP." In other words, it doesn't have to do anything except fly, hold a camera, and cost less that $10 million a copy; no operational needs have to be satisfied. To many in the system, the real effort was for DARPA to develop the new acquisition concept, using the HAE and MAE as exemplars. The AF eventually got the aircraft because the outcome of an ACTD was to be either: 1) a failed program, so cancel it, 2) showed promise, so move on and correct issues, or 3) Provide program residuals to the eventual user (AF in this case) for them to decide to either keep and operate or dump. The ARPA and SECDEF seniors decided it flew, collected something, and (sort of) met the UFP goal (at about $15.5 each), so they chose option 3 and passed it all to the AF (both HAE and MAE, although the DarkStar segment of HAE was cancelled after it crashed on flight 2. Why they kept it was the usual case of political and industrial influence, I guess. Some of us suggested the best course of action was to dump the Global Hawk because it met few operational needs, would cost too much to upgrade (if it could ever be upgraded...too little space, too little power, too little payload), and met few of the original desired capabilities, We felt it would be cheaper to take the money and start with a clean sheet design, using the knowledge gained to drive the new (unmanned) platform (which we referred to as "Global Truck"). The estimated $200-400 million extra was consider too much money by leadership, so we stay on the "cheap" track...which I suspect has cost us an extra $5-8 Billion by now (just my guess). As for the ACTD experiment, it hit a few bumps, too. When the Predator program was turned over to the AF and told to operate it, they found the DARPA program provided no money or manpower in the DoD budget to do so, no tech data was ever developed for the Service (it was all contractor proprietary) so they couldn't fix it, no ground control systems built except the contractor's test stuff so they couldn't deploy or fly it fly, No additional money was provided by DoD or Congress to the AF so the AF started a program called "Predator 911" to find money (to operate and buy support) and manpower, and facilities, "robbing" it from the current and future years budgets, causing major disruptions for years. As for GH, the idea of killing the U-2 and replacing it with the GH didn't float either, because the GH had practically no operational capability as delivered and it took a decade to develop the RQ-4B with more capability and slightly better sensors. So, that's why we have it! BTW, as far as Perry and Lynn were concerned, the success of unmanned systems since then probably indicates their vision was a success, and I can't really argue that they'd be wrong. Its all in your perspective.

BWAA! Hahaha!!!

You should probably spend some time with some knowledgeable tactics and/or intel folks at your unit. They might be able to straighten out a few of your misperceptions. Do us all a favor and do that in a vault or SCIF and keep it off an internet forum please. Thanks.

I'm going to start this discussion with please stfu unless you know what you are talking about. Its asshats like you that make our community look like a bunch of idiots who dont know wtf we are doing. Educate yourself before coming onto a forum where our peers talk and start blabbering about shit you barely understand. Your my bro in the Global Hawk but if we don't police shit like this, we continue to look like fools instead of what we really are, which is a new and capable platform that is eager to become integrated into the CAF. Let me stop you there. You clearly havent been to any LFE's. We have demonstrated multiple times what we can bring to the fight and the great stuff we can do. The actual issue is that fact that we are still building our reputation in the CAF to have them actually trust us and wait for our intel before getting the party started. This is a disconnect at different levels but they are not something we can directly affect as Pilots...right now. I think I need to clarify, that's only at RF. When we are dealing with WS guys or literally ANY other exercise or military branch there are zero issues. Again your ignorance is making you look foolish. You are a Global Hawk Pilot and you don't know what your peers bring to the fight and how you integrate with them? Also you don't call yourself a pilot in your framework? You fly an aircraft, you calculate fuels, you monitor and avoid weather, you take off and land, you do everything a pilot does with exception to physically being there and moving the control surfaces. Man up and own your shit and stop acting like a child. I'm not here to attack you but its bullshit like this that makes people look at our community as a whole as broken children. https://bfy.tw/7M3w As far as clearly surpasses the U2? It doesn't. To keep it super simple, it being unmanned kind settles it at the lowest level. The aircraft can fly longer and farther without crew limitations. There is no danger to the crew. We buy them in packs of 12 so honestly, shoot it down I DGAF. I have plenty more where that came from. To be completely honest, the biggest thing the U-2 has over the RQ-4 is 43 years. Its established and their place is known to the Air Force. There are no secrets here between the two. In 30 years, after the U-2 has passed, the RQ-4 will be in the same boat as the U-2.(Obviously speculation, but you get the point). Edit: We have demonstrated multiple times in the last year where the RQ-4 was more reliable and capable than the U-2. All upper level shit but if you want meat and potatoes this is the best its going to get at this level. It's not a secret that we can replace the U-2 in what it does. The aircraft really shouldn't be the full discussion here. I can go out and put a camera on any aircraft with some duct tape. /sarcasm The discussion needs to be the bigger picture. How we get what we get to where it needs to go smoothly and correctly.

They should already be using FE's...to make sure the pilots run their checklists!

Kilo, Totally agree, there will be no 2A repeal in our lifetime, if ever. I guess the big-picture hypothetical question is, since our oath is to the constitution (whatever it may be amended to read, not just as we like it), at what point would changes to said document reach a tipping point where those who took the oath refuse to continue to support and defend? Obviously it's probably at different points for different folks, but it's an interesting question.

Agreed - the crazies from both sides would come out of the woodwork with the probability of unforeseen forays into lunacy high I would like to see reform but without the Constitution put at risk, for all its quirks and problems it is still the best house of cards to keep a large and diverse nation together.

LOL. I'm just quoting this in case Iowa decides to delete it so other people can enjoy.

When do you expect this "sensor parity" to occur? And please explain why it will "clearly surpass the U2 in capability," especially after you just said you're a "mission manager" who doesn't fly anything. Who is flying it, and what do they do when the mission requires a little old-fashioned pilotage? If you think that is a pointless question, then I'd venture to say that you really have very little knowledge of the U2's capability as compared to the Global Chicken's.

Except for the fact that there are AGRs resigning to go to the airlines. Seen it multiple times in the last year.

So, each situation you listed would certainly be challenged in court, and many would probably eventually lead to a SCOTUS ruling to determine the constitutionality of such laws, and possibly force SCOTUS to issue a more comprehensive interpretation of 2A. If that interpretation were to significantly change gun ownership rights, it would, despite anyone's personal opinions of the subject matter, be a lawful action by SCOTUS under the constitution. The other, far less likely (IMO) situation would be a repeal or textual amendment of 2A. Again, regardless of anyone's position on the issue, it would be a legal action (no amendment is above repeal despite strong feelings about some) if the amendment was ratified IAW the constitution. My question is, since both situations would involve a legal action under the constitution, is what would you do? Nothing in the constitution puts any amendment above repeal. The Bill of Rights don't have any legal status above the other amendments (not a lawyer so if I'm wrong please let me know). I've asked some friends of mine what they would do if 2A was repealed, and it's a pretty interesting point to ponder.

Great post, but I have one minor correction - Lincoln didn't free shit. And he sure as hell didn't free any slaves during the US Civil War. He did make a political speech where he stated that slaves in a different sovereign nation, which happened to be at war with the USA, were "free." But after his speech, the result was the same - no slaves were freed anywhere, not in the Confederacy, not in the Union (Delaware), not in those in between states (Kentucky), and not even in the rebellious states or areas the Union had control of at the time of the speech (Tennessee, New Orleans, etc). I kind of equate this to if Obama were to give an emancipation proclamation that all slaves held by terrorist organizations in open conflict with the US, namely ISIS and the Taliban, are hereby freed. Not a single person in the Middle East or Afghanistan would really be affected. The 13th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified a few months after the war, officially outlawed slavery and "freed" the remaining slaves in states that had not previously banned slavery. But I digress.

...And next year's UPT drops (please).

Yeah, but did you know that SURF means Single Unit Retrieval Format?

Sorry to get your blood pressure up man, but the short story fix to that is your Sq CC, group CC, and probably wing CV having some semblance of balls and telling the MSG or LRG CC (whatever your setup is) to unfornicate their processes to make deployments happen. I know... That's asking for a lot these days especially when dealing with BPZers just looking to not rock the boat and move on to the next thing.

And it was my first student sortie...

I enjoy it. It is not a pilot's aircraft, you don't fly anything, you are a mission manager. That mission is way more important and valuable than what I did in the Herk, and for me that satisfies my pilot machismo. Any unhappy global hawk pilot either misses being in the air or is frustrated by the air frame's newness and lack of standards and doesn't enjoy getting to establish the future of high altitude ISR. I start defensive because I recognize it is unpopular to not love flying here. For anyone who is tired of the grind deploying to CENTCOM, the RQ-4 won't be giving the good deals to the e's for another year or so so get in while you still can. And to answer a standard follow on question, the -4 doesn't have sensor parity with the U2 yet but when it does it will clearly surpass the U2 in capability and the spooks can ride into the sunset having served faithfully. I only hope they will let me take joy rides in the -38s and Dodge Chargers before they get rid of them or send them to the bored -35 pilots.