USN's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Contract

The system would need to be tested .

If the UK wants only 25% capabilty of the USN BAMS and that which would not benefit from the future USN upgrades and block versions then by all accounts they can choose the reaper . I dont know if the AESA radar is going to be able to be mounted on the Reaper withouth a re-design and restructure but if UK is willing to pay for everything that is their choice , i bet that the US authorities wont really have any problem .

It would be interesting to see why the US didnt choose the reaper , from my sources i am getting rumours that the GH block 20 was found to be more survivable , more upgradable and faster with higher Loiter time .

The system would not need testing to the tune of $1.5bn though!. You talk as if Mariner hadnt actually seen service before and wasnt developed from a well-proven air vehicle!.

25% of the USN BAMS system capability may actually exceed UK requirements!. If all we intend to do is put in a high-endurance chokepoint patrol on the Gibraltar Straits and the GUIK/North Sea approaches plus limited Atlantic patrolling and forward deployments, i.e Falklands as and when necessary, is there any abiding need for Global Hawk/USN BAMS?. I’d say no.

Likewise on Distillers point about platform growth – we’re not, ever, going to be in the business of surveilling the whole western side of the north atlantic so the UK maritime recce tasking isnt going to evolve in any dramatic fashion. We need a system that can economically cover the atlantic entry chokeponts and, probably, the western med. Likewise we could find use for the system patrolling the north and western approaches to the Falklands. Little else springs to mind that we would need to use such a system for.

Mariner is, by all accounts, sufficient to that task and it will be cheaper, in whole-life terms, than Global Hawk when you consider joint support benefits sharing with the RAF Reaper force.

Northrop Receives $79.4 Million Contract for Global Hawk MP-RTIP Sensors

SAN DIEGO, April 22, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) — Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has received a $79.4 million contract for Global Hawk Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) sensors as the first element of the lot 7 production contract. An initial $33.89 million has been obligated to begin procurement of three MP-RTIP sensors.

The sensors will be carried on the RQ-4 Block 40 Global Hawk high-altitude long-endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial system (UAS) currently in production. The first flight with the MP-RTIP sensor is scheduled in early 2009. The Block 40 Global Hawk is also being considered to provide NATO with an organic capability through the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance program.

“This is an important milestone in our effort to bring this new capability to our men and women in uniform,” said Jerry Madigan, Northrop Grumman vice president of HALE systems. “It further demonstrates the flexibility of the Global Hawk platform to accommodate a wide variety of sensors, meeting the warfighter’s requirements with air systems that are reliable, affordable and maintainable.”

The Global Hawk system celebrated the 10th anniversary of its first flight last month and has logged more than 21,000 total program flight hours, of which more than 16,000 hours were flown in support of the global war on terrorism. The Global Hawk’s range, endurance and multi-sensor technology capabilities make it an ideal system to support a variety of customers.

As the world’s first fully autonomous HALE UAS providing persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to warfighters, the Global Hawk can fly up to 65,000 feet for more than 35 hours and see through any inclement weather at any time.

The MP-RTIP sensor is a modular active electronically scanned array radar system that can be scaled in size for integration into various airborne platforms.

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for the MP-RTIP and Global Hawk programs and continues to move these technologies forward under the stewardship of the Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and the Electronic Systems Center, located at Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass. Northrop Grumman’s Norwalk, Conn., facility is the principal MP-RTIP radar developer along with principal subcontractor, Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, El Segundo, Calif.

The Global Hawk industry team is comprised of world-class companies: Aurora Flight Sciences, Bridgeport, West Va. (V-tail assembly and other composite structures); L-3 Communications, Salt Lake City (communication system); Raytheon Intelligence and Information Systems, Falls Church, Va. (ground station); Rolls-Royce Corporation, Indianapolis, Ind. (engine); and Vought Aircraft Industries, Dallas (wing).

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $32 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3149/Northrop-Receives-794-Million-Contract-for-Global-Hawk-MP-RTIP-Sensors.html

The navy times article I posted seems to suggest that JAPAN is one of the candiates to which the GH is being pitched . The pacific Navies will surely like this platform since it seems to be made for that region . Their is a video on youtube where a Pacific command col. talks about how the GH will effect the SO over the pacific , Guam is getting a squadron of 7 BAMS platforms and i bet South Korea will be home to many USAF versions (with Bigger AESA radar for AEW work (mini JSTARS and E-3 combi in one mission thx to AESA) , Areas which are vast to patrol and require extended loiter times is where the GH will always excel and the Pacific is one such theater .

I wonder if Japan is interested in the type???

A twice enlarged Predator is still not a strategic platform. BAMS will have quite high electrical power requirements, a turboprop makes avionics growth more difficult. Another thing you really don’t need on such a platform is vibrations from a propeller.

Growth capability , survivability are something which my source close to the program sited aswell .

The predator C is out their , but GA would do better to go in for the REAPER++ market which surely exists worldwide and offer a cheap/safe BOMBS – on target type of UCAV for which the Predator is beutifully designed. GA is a neat company and they basically spend their own dollars on R and D upfront and rely on having the right technology ready and mature (more so then their competitor ) when the RFP is sent out so in a way they are limited to the extend of research and development. I guess right now they are neck deep in work in producing the reaper orders and making it better . The Predator is going to be a cheap little CAS type aircraft (between 10-20 million depending upon sensors) and the GH is 10 times that cost currently (block 30 and 40) however they are different aircraft . The GH with AESA and EO suite is more akin to a Flying 737 AEW aircraft or a MINI-JSTARS type of setup with much much greater loiter time and lower maintaince and running expenditure (cost of ownership) . It is designed for that , the predator is designed to be int he dirt and deliver cheap unmanned combat vehicle to persist more so then helos , fighters etc and carry a limited weapons load . Sure the B version can go upto 50K feet but with weapons it will most likely operate much lower . For expensive payload , greater survivabiiltiy and higher altitude the predator is at a disadvantage – It is very good for what it is designed to be (tactical Uav/Ucav) but so is the GH (Strategic BAMS , BDA , Recce platform) .

THIS NEWS STORY IS FROM 2006 AND SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THE C WAS INSTALLED WITH ENGINE AND BASICALLY READY –

Speaking with Flight Unmanned at GA-ASI’s Gray Butte flight operations facility in Southern California, Cassidy said “the first one is built but we haven’t flown it yet. We are doing integration right.”

The aircraft has received its jet power plant – “it has an engine on it” says Cassidy and “it will fly in 2007”. Landing gear has also been fitted.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/11/06/210376/new-general-atomics-predator-c-uav-reaches-fit-out-and-integration.html

I am unaware as to wether the Predator C has flown or not , but I beleive that GA offered the Reaper as the vehicle for the BAMS suggesting that they couldnt have delivered a thouroughly tested platform in the timeframe the navy was looking for . Maybe it was the same reason the NG team didnt offer the Block 30 GH which is ready now but has backlog of USAF orders to go through .

MORE ON GA’s policy –

At a recent congressional hearing, the U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff was asked how many Predator unmanned aerial vehicles his service would need in the upcoming fiscal year.

“We’re going to tell General Atomics to build every Predator they can possibly build,” replied Gen. John P. Jumper, referring to the small San Diego company that developed the aircraft.

Tom Cassidy isn’t waiting for the paperwork to go through. Cassidy, the president and CEO of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, is expanding the Predator production line, even building eight additional Predator Bs–a more capable version of the aircraft–without orders. “They’ll procrastinate for three years,” he says of his military customers. “Then when they want to buy, they think it’s like going down to the Ford dealership and picking one off the lot.”

Such blunt talk has won him his share of critics, but the 72-year-old retired rear admiral and veteran fighter pilot from The Bronx doesn’t seem to care. The Predator, initially shunned by the military services, has won wide acclaim as a simple, adaptable aircraft that can provide crucial reconnaissance and strike capability for the bargain price of less than $5 million a copy, sensors included.

The remotely piloted aircraft, which carries two Hellfire missiles and can stay aloft for more than a day at a time, stunned the world with its ability to hunt down and kill Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Afghanistan and the Middle East. It also provides crucial support to U.S. military commanders in Iraq and played an important role during last year’s bloody battle for Fallujah. Five Predators are often in the air over Iraq, linked via satellite to pilots sitting at consoles halfway around the world at Nellis AFB, Nev.

The Predator has even made Congress look farsighted. Year after year, powerful lawmakers such as Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and C.W. (Bill) Young (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) added money for Predators to the defense appropriations bill, ensuring the program’s survival when Air Force support was tepid at best.

BUT IT WAS CASSIDY’S risky “build it and they will come” strategy–developing and building aircraft ahead of orders–that proved decisive following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. When U.S. forces were unexpectedly and very suddenly ordered to rout guerilla-like forces from mountainous Afghanistan, Hellfire-equipped Predators weren’t just a concept on the drawing board. They were in production.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems “did Predator pretty much on their own nickel,” says a congressional aide who oversees defense budgets. “They were building them in advance of need.”

Cassidy is now working to evolve the low-budget Predators into more capable aircraft, posing an increased challenge to bigger UAV producers such as Northrop Grumman and Israel Aircraft Industries.

The Air Force has taken delivery of six Predator Bs, a follow-on hunter-killer UAV that is bigger, faster, flies higher and carries more weapons. The Predator Bs are designed to carry 16 Hellfires, six GBU-12 laser-guided 500-lb. bombs or four 500-lb. GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition smart weapons and fly as high as 50,000 ft., twice the altitude of the Predator. One of the aircraft already has been deployed to the Iraq/Afghanistan theater, though details remain secret.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GAAS) also has embarked on development of Predator C, a jet-powered UAV. Though not stealthy, the aircraft’s radar and infrared signature will be considerably reduced, making it harder to shoot down than its turboprop predecessors. That should make it useful for reconnaissance flights over nations with integrated air defense systems, such as Iran, whose nuclear program is being spied upon by U.S. intelligence. The company hopes to unveil the first Predator C by the end of the year.

Cassidy’s approach stands out in an industry where companies typically respond to requirements set by the Pentagon and are then paid handsomely to conduct research and development under the watchful eye of procurement officials. His goal has always been to sidestep the regular procurement process, which he and other critics believe burdens programs with too many new requirements and regulations, ballooning costs and dragging out development for years or even decades.

GAAS DIDN’T EVEN consult with the Air Force when it initiated development of the Predator B in 1999, choosing instead to invest its own $25 million. The first look the Air Force brass got was when Cassidy showed up in early 2001 at the office of Jumper, a UAV proponent who had just become Air Combat Commander, with a videotape of a Predator B test flight over California’s Mojave Desert.

“I showed him the video and I said, ‘Hey look, no view graphs, here’s the thing flying,'” Cassidy recalls. “He was very enthused about it, and shortly after that the government bought the first two Predator Bs.”

Today, the company is investing another $20 million in Predator C, which it says is also being developed without government funding.

To be sure, the Predator has its limitations. “They’re well-suited to go after the Taliban, but nobody is going to fly a Predator over central China,” says Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank.

Northrop Grumman contends that at least 14 and as many as 21 Predator Bs would be needed to perform the wide-area theater surveillance work of a single Global Hawk, the unarmed, U-2-like UAV it has developed for the Air Force. Northrop Grumman also says the jet-powered Global Hawk can provide electro-optical coverage over a swath of 37,600 sq. naut. mi., compared with just 2,811 sq. naut. mi. for the lower-flying Predator B.

But General Atomics executives dismiss those figures as outlandish. They maintain a single Predator B could perform 90% of a Global Hawk’s mission. And a Predator B carrying the same camera as a Global Hawk would have a coverage area of 25,000 sq. naut. mi., Cassidy says.

Then there’s the issue of price. The Air Force initially planned to spend $6.6 billion to develop and purchase 51 Global Hawks–about $125 million a plane. Last month, the service informed Congress that unit costs had risen 18%, due to requirements for a more powerful aircraft capable of carrying heavier payloads (AW&ST Apr. 25, p. 23).

Cassidy’s advertised price tag for the Predator B: $10 million a copy, with sensors.

Cassidy’s piloting skills are on display as he effortlessly weaves his black BMW through dense traffic on San Diego’s freeways at 75 mph.–roughly the Predator’s hovering speed–much to the dismay of the reporter struggling to follow him in a rented Hyundai. The license plate on his car reads “UAVs.”

In the Navy, Cassidy’s abilities as an ace fighter pilot were so renowned that he was selected for a highly classified program in the 1960s to test fly Soviet MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighter jets that had been secretly “acquired” by the U.S. He evaluated the MiGs’ performance and flying qualities and flew the MiG-21 against all tactical U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft, developing tactics that vastly improved U.S. kill ratios over enemy MiGs. During the Vietnam War, he commanded a fighter squadron on board an aircraft carrier in the Coral Sea.

“He had a reputation of being one of the premiere tactical fighter guys in the world,” says Rear Adm. (ret.) William V. Cross, who flew as Cassidy’s wingman on patrol missions off the coast of North Vietnam.

Cassidy went on to command the Pacific Fleet Airborne Early Warning Sqdn. before spending time at the Pentagon, including a stint as a liaison to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Near the end of his military career, when he was commander of the Naval Air Station at Miramar, Calif., he served as an advisor on “Top Gun,” the 1986 hit movie in which actor Tom Cruise plays a hotshot Naval aviator.

Cassidy’s fondness for military traditions is evident at GAAS. The airplane hangar at the company’s Mojave Desert flight test facility near Palmdale, Calif., is so spotless it could be a display area at the Smithsonian Institution. “I insist everything stay clean and shipshape–all the time,” he says.

At one of the company’s San Diego production facilities, employees scramble to don smocks when Cassidy unexpectedly strides in. “There’s going to be a couple of heads knocked together,” grouses Cassidy, who was known to be a pretty good boxer during his school days. “These guys are not wearing their smocks until they see me walking in.”

Cassidy says the company’s small size is crucial to its ability to develop new aircraft so quickly. Like affiliate General Atomics, from which it was spun off in 1993, it is privately owned by entrepreneur Neal Blue. With just 1,300 employees and no shareholders to answer to, Cassidy can move swiftly and with a certain measure of impunity. Moreover, he does not face the layers of bureaucracy and overhead costs that burden larger UAV developers.

“If a bolt falls out, the guy is down here explaining to me why it fell out,” he says. “This is a hands-on operation.”

Steven C. Grundman, a former Pentagon procurement official who now heads the aerospace consulting practice at Charles River Associates in Boston, says other small aerospace companies such as Spectrum Astro–a satellite company recently acquired by General Dynamics–have seeded their own R&D. But GAAS stands out because Predator has become such a high-profile product.

Meanwhile, the great aerospace industry consolidation of the 1990s has created a group of mega-contractors that is more risk-averse for fear of angering stockholders. “Over the last 10-15 years companies have been a lot more careful with what they do with their free cash flow in consideration of shareholder sensitivities,” says Grundman.

The Predator’s success has generated speculation about whether GAAS will be gobbled up by a larger aerospace company. Cassidy’s operation “is probably the most widely eyed acquisition candidate in the entire defense sector,” says Thompson. “Everybody would like to figure out some way of acquiring them.”

Cassidy, who does not hold an ownership stake in the company, says Blue has told him it is not for sale. He also believes the company’s magic formula would be lost if it were absorbed into a larger contactor. “It would become just like a big company with a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of nonsense,” he says. “We’re pretty lean and mean. I have good relationships with the people in the Pentagon and the Congress. We get things done that way.”

Cassidy learned a thing or two about Inside-the-Beltway politics when he was in the Navy, and he still flies to Washington about twice a month to lobby. Not surprisingly, his strategy of lobbying Congress to force USAF to fund the Predator has won him more admirers in the Capitol than at the Pentagon.

The Predator “represented a breakthrough in this ‘test forever’ field we had fallen into,” says House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). “It basically brought us to the threshold of a new age of unmanned aircraft.”

But Cassidy also has his share of critics in the services, which typically resent congressional intervention in military affairs. “He threatens general officers with congressional action if they don’t pay attention to him,” claims a former Air Force officer, now an aerospace industry executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Even Jumper, who has worked closely with Cassidy and played a leading role in getting the Predators armed and integrated into the military chain of command, has clashed with him on how fast the Air Force should move on the Predator B.

The new aircraft “is an outstanding machine and we are going to insist that it be built to a high standard,” the Air Force chief says, likening the evolution to going from a disposable razor to an electric one. “We’re not going to let it be fielded without the right kind of oversight, without the right kind of quality control. . . .Sometimes that comes into conflict with the company’s desire to get into maximum production as quickly as you can.”

Jumper also bristles at–but does not directly dispute–the company’s claim that it funded initial development of the Predator B without military money. “Quite frankly, we’ve put a lot of dollars into Predator B, so I would argue with the [notion] that they funded it themselves,” he says.

A decade ago, Cassidy was living in VIP style–if that’s what you could call the nicest tent on a decrepit air base in Albania. The brutal civil war in Yugoslavia’s breakaway republics was underway, and the fledgling Predator was getting its first big test as a reconnaissance vehicle for the U.S. intelligence community. Cassidy had to pull his shoes up on his bunk every night because the tent would be flooded with water from a nearby river.

Eight years earlier, he had joined General Atomics, which was founded by General Dynamics in 1955 to help harness nuclear technologies and sold to the Blue family in 1986. Having devoted his career to fighter aircraft, UAVs were about the farthest thing from Cassidy’s mind. It was Blue who pushed him to look into the business.

The Israelis already had gained notice for their use of UAVs during combat in Lebanon in the early 1980s. But U.S. programs to develop unmanned aircraft, such as the Army’s Aquila, were loaded down with requirements and collapsed of their own weight.

General Atomics’ first effort to develop a low-cost, lethal UAV–Cassidy calls it a “poor man’s cruise missile”–failed. Then, in 1990, the company acquired Leading Systems Inc., a bankrupt company that had worked on “Amber,” a secret Navy program to design a UAV that could be launched out of a torpedo tube.

Five engineers from Leading Systems joined Cassidy, and General Atomics UAV business was off and running with a staff of six.

The company’s first aircraft, the Gnat-750, won orders from the CIA–the wary Cassidy still refuses to refer to the agency by name–and the Turkish government. In 1992, it became the first UAV to be flown remotely via satellite.

In 1993, GAAS was spun off as a separate company. Cassidy invested millions in a new production facility for the Predator–then sweated it out until the company won a $34-million technology demonstration contract from the Pentagon. But progress was painfully slow. The main U.S. interest in the Predator still came from the intelligence community, not the Air Force.

“When we would go to the services and ask if they were interested in the Predator, the answer we would get was ‘no,'” recalls Kevin Roper, who recently stepped down as majority staff director of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense after 10 years. “Largely because it wasn’t invented by a service, it didn’t show up in their budgets.”

The military’s lack of interest was acutely apparent in 1999, when U.S. forces initiated a bombing campaign to halt an ethnic-cleansing campaign in Kosovo orchestrated by Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. While Predators were flying over the region and providing round-the-clock streaming video, the data was going into the classified intelligence pipeline. That meant that when a Predator spotted an enemy target, information was not being relayed in real time to Air Force attack jets that were only a few miles away.

Jumper, who was then commander of Allied Air Forces in Central Europe, moved to integrate the aircraft into the military chain of command. He ordered a laser designator installed so the Predator could lock on targets, guiding weapons fired from other aircraft.

“Jumper and Cassidy hit it off real well,” recalls Cross, Cassidy’s former wingman, who served as director of operations at U.S. European Command from 1996-98. “They wanted to move this thing from a surveillance platform to something that could be used by guys in the cockpit.”

After Jumper returned to the U.S. as Air Combat Commander, he ordered that the Predators be armed with Hellfire missiles. Cassidy got the job done in two months. But despite support from Jumper and congressional advocates such as Lewis, interest in Predators was waning again by 2001. Cassidy even made plans to cut production in half, to just one aircraft a month. And then the Sept. 11 attacks stunned the nation.

“One of the best things that ever happened to them, frankly, was Sept. 11,” says the congressional aide who oversees defense budgets. “Suddenly everybody wanted one.”

GAAS has built 123 Predators for the Air Force to date. Ongoing facility expansions should allow the company to produce four Predators and two Predator Bs a month by the end of the year. A modified Predator B also is being used by NASA for science experiments.

The company also is competing to sell UAVs to the Army, Navy and the Homeland Security Dept. But that means a whole new group of government bureaucrats who must be sold on the merits of Predators for applications such as border security.

With more than a thousand employees under his watch and business booming, the nights spent in that flooded tent in Albania have paid off for Cassidy. “We put this company together from nothing,” he marvels. But he’s not about to turn down the heat on the Pentagon.

“The Air Force has said they’re going to buy all we can make,” he says with a glint in his eye, recalling Jumper’s recent pledge to Congress. “But I haven’t seen the contracts yet.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/05305p01.xml

A twice enlarged Predator is still not a strategic platform. BAMS will have quite high electrical power requirements, a turboprop makes avionics growth more difficult. Another thing you really don’t need on such a platform is vibrations from a propeller. General Atomic should just come up with something new it they want to expand their tactical/theatre business. Aren’t they working on a jet-powered Predator C?

Why would it need this testing?.

The system would need to be tested .

Against that GH is a system that is a larger, more complex, and is one we will have to start from scratch with the infrstructure to support and deploy. For 15 airframes who’s primary advantage is a capability jump we have little realistic need of.

If the UK wants only 25% capabilty of the USN BAMS and that which would not benefit from the future USN upgrades and block versions then by all accounts they can choose the reaper . I dont know if the AESA radar is going to be able to be mounted on the Reaper withouth a re-design and restructure but if UK is willing to pay for everything that is their choice , i bet that the US authorities wont really have any problem .

It would be interesting to see why the US didnt choose the reaper , from my sources i am getting rumours that the GH block 20 was found to be more survivable , more upgradable and faster with higher Loiter time .

The Mariner would need 1.5 billion in duplicate development and integration , testing approval etc etc.

Why would it need this testing?. The flight control system is essentially that of Reaper. The airframe is fully tested – there may be small changes swapping SeaVue for Searchwater 2000MR perhaps but little of major significance to an airframe capable of carrying impressive external loads already. The C3 backend would have to be developed of course but our needs are far, far simpler than the US BAMS setup and thats if we went far beyond a simple sensor relay back to, presumably, Waddington and Northwood. Hard to see where $1.5bn in development would come from when thats 75%, IIRC, of the far more intricate US BAMS job.

Against that GH is a system that is a larger, more complex, and is one we will have to start from scratch with the infrstructure to support and deploy. For 15 airframes who’s primary advantage is a capability jump we have little realistic need of.

but, Global Hawk would still bring ‘start-up’ expenses that Mariner wouldnt

The Mariner would need 1.5 billion in duplicate development and integration , testing approval etc etc . The GH BAMS as it stands will be a developed product funded mainly by the USN . If the RN goes for 15 aircrafts , the development cost of the mariner alone would be close to 100 million a peice . Whereas in the case of the GH this would be devided by close to 100 aircrafts therefore 15 million a peice . The Math is pretty clear here , why go in for a product that no one else is going to use ?? And foot the entire bill for funding etc yourself when a two nation team has found the GH to be much better suited as HALE AEW type setup .

Also if new UCAV/UAV integration or training , maintaince was such an issue the MOD would choose the basic predator and not look @ the HERMES for the army .

I suspect you may be right to some extent, but, Global Hawk would still bring ‘start-up’ expenses that Mariner wouldnt. For Mariner the RAF will be able to joint-base, probably, and use the same techs with the same pool of spares, same pilots etc, etc to support both. That is going to make it attractive in a way that Global Hawk cant compete with – however much Global Hawk’s capabilities exceed Mariners.

The questions will be asked if Mariner can do the same job within reasonable parameters as Global Hawk and when that answer comes back positive the cheaper, whole-life, solution is going to win!.

especially not a $55mn a throw without support and infrastructure costs.

By the time they end up ordering (if they ever do) the price would have decreased quite a bit . By the time the USN starts LRIP for block 20’s the USAF would have started buying the block 40’s in greater number (Starting 2008 end) so the price of block 20’s would come down for the air vehicle to roughly half that number . I dont know how much an AESA radar costs but i guess the cost for that and the EO sensor would pretty much be similar to that of it being put on any other manned platform so it hardly makes a difference . The USAF version ( radar) costs around 13 – 15 million dollar for the MP-RTIP AESA radar (minus the EO sensor) in LRIP (contracts of 2 sets and threes and not representative of full rate orders) so i dont see this as a real hinderance . Even if the LRIP cost of Air vehicle plus sensor package reaches 50-60 million per head they are many times cheaper then equiping an AESA radar on say a 737 type setup and using a manned crew for patrol. i believe 2 MP-RTIP can provide 24 hour surveilance for a 2000 mn radius and that is quite a capability to have specially given the cost concerned . I can see why Australia , japan , South Korea are interested in it considering that australia and SK also have the Wedgetail .

The RAF already operate Reaper so a Mariner version with UK mission equipment would seem much more likely in order to maximise operational efficiencies were a ‘UK BAMS’ requirement to be drawn up.

The Mariner was a propsed BAMS mission aircraft (my sources tell me that it failed to meet the “survivability” reqiurment of the USN) , the suite , its integration and testing would cost roughly 1.5 billion dollars to develop according to the USN (without any cost escalation) so i really doubt that UK would spend that much on choosing a loosing platform and going alone in a direction when the alternative exists and its cost is being subsidized by a 68 aircraft order by the US alone (not to mention the USAF orders , Australian orders etc etc etc) . The total cost of developing and aquiring the mariner would make the 55 million GH BAMS cost look like a walk in the park .

The U.K., Canada, Singapore and Japan are already considered potential buyers for the Navy version of the aircraft, said sea service officials.

Dont see the UK as having great potential as a buyer for GlobalHawk – especially not a $55mn a throw without support and infrastructure costs.

The RAF already operate Reaper so a Mariner version with UK mission equipment would seem much more likely in order to maximise operational efficiencies were a ‘UK BAMS’ requirement to be drawn up. I think Nimrod MRA4 would have to completely fold before such a requirement was even considered to be honest though!

Edit: Its just dawned on me that there is one country conspiciously NOT on that list of potentially interested customers – especially considering the nascent P-8 deal in the offing. India may already operate Israeli Heron’s, but, this maritime Global Hawk would seem to offer a whole new level of strategic surveillance capability – especially as adjuncts to the P-8’s?. Its one system I’m suprised India aren’t keener in pursuing given their current, reasonably advanced, level of UAV marpat focus?.

Global Hawk is first UAV to cross Pacific

The RQ-4A Global Hawk completed on Wednesday the first nonstop crossing of the Pacific Ocean by an unmanned aerial vehicle, the Air Force announced.

The drone flew about 7,500 miles from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., to Edinburgh, Australia, in about 23 hours, according to an Air Force press release.

“The flight demonstrated the potential of the world’s most advanced high-altitude, long-range, remotely operated aircraft,” the press release said.

Global Hawks will become an increasingly common sight in the Pacific in the coming years. A squadron of seven will be permanently assigned to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, with the first arriving in 2009 or 2010.

Pacific Air Forces leaders have touted Global Hawk as the ideal intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform in the vast Pacific region because of its extraordinary range and endurance.

The Air Force is buying five Global Hawks in fiscal 2008 and has requested funding for five more in 2009.

The Navy is buying them, too, announcing a $1.16 billion developmental contract for Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drones awarded to Northrop.

Northrop’s Global Hawk beat out a highly modified unmanned Gulfstream G550 offered by Boeing and the Predator-based Mariner UAV offered by the Lockheed-General Atomics team.

The Navy drones — which will be expected to remain in the air for long periods of time and monitor a 2,000-nautical-mile radius — will collect information on enemies, do battle-damage assessments, conduct port surveillance and provide support to Navy forces at sea. Each aircraft is expected to serve for 20 years.

At 68 aircraft, the BAMS fleet will be the world’s largest purchase of long-endurance marinized UAVs.

It also opens the door for international Global Hawk sales. The Australian government — which invested $15 million in BAMS development in an agreement with the U.S. Navy — is expected to be first in line to buy. The U.K., Canada, Singapore and Japan are already considered potential buyers for the Navy version of the aircraft, said sea service officials. The U.S. Air Force also plans to host 11 Pacific Rim friends and allies, including the Australians, in Hawaii this spring to pitch the idea of a Global Hawk consortium in the region.

Global Hawk is expected to eventually replace the U-2 manned spy plane. The air service’s drone costs $27.6 million per copy, compared to an expected $55 million per BAMS UAV, including its sensors and communications suite, Balderson said.

The Navy will run the BAMS program independently from the air service’s efforts, with a separate mission and program office, although Balderson foresaw “an awful lot of communication and cooperation between the two programs.”

Minor modifications will be made to the baseline Block 20 RQ-4N Global Hawk to meet Navy requirements for surviving hail and bird collisions. Northrop will provide the airframe and its Multi-Function Active Sensor radar system. Subcontractors include Raytheon, which will provide a turreted targeting system; L-3 Communications, the communications suite integrator; and Rolls-Royce, which will make the AE 30007-H turbofan engine. Raytheon’s Intelligence and Information Systems division will design and develop the mission control system segment and the flight management system, which provides command-and-control functions.
The 68 UAVs will include six developmental aircraft: three test birds, three low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft to be used for operational evaluation, Balderson said.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/04/airforce_global_hawk_042308w/

The Aussies tagging along with this purchase would also be consistent with their other recent actions in purchasing Super Hornets and Growlers. They seem to be connected at the hip with the USN….it seems as if they value high connectivity and the way to gain it is buy as much of the same stuff as possible.

Even if they go and look elsewhere , their isnt a system (unmanned) anywhere that is going to have Guaranteed funding for research and development and major procurment (probably over 100 produced between USAF , USN , European , Aussies , civil) so it kind of leaves not much competition other then internal US competition and as it is it is quite useless to develop another varient for BAMS missions when the USN is spending the big $$ anyways .

The Aussies tagging along with this purchase would also be consistent with their other recent actions in purchasing Super Hornets and Growlers. They seem to be connected at the hip with the USN….it seems as if they value high connectivity and the way to gain it is buy as much of the same stuff as possible.

It would make sence for the Aussies to tag along with the USN because choosing a second platform would be wasteful research and development on a platform which will see little useage elsewhere. A combined USN . RAN order will be close to 100 aircrafts which will absorb the development cost (1.5-3 billion) aswell as bring down Aquisition and future R and D cost .

Moreoever if australia goes for the GH they (RAF) can in the future also opt for the GH Mp2RIC for AEW which will expand (considerably) the reach of its wedgetail fleet (not much different from BAMSC , other then bigger AESA radar) .

All future versions of the GH might be the EW varient for long persistant Jamming aswell a weaponized version which can carry the larger 2000 pound bombs which again will be a good asset to have (replace 2000 bombs with long range anti-ship missiles) .

Australia likely to follow USN

Australia seems almost certain to follow the USN decision and order a mix of Global Hawks and P-8A Poseidons to replace its AP-3C Orion fleet. The P-8A has already been identified as the preferred fixed wing component (although numbers have not yet been revealed) and whatever won the USN BAMS competition was considered likely to be chosen by the RAAF as well.

Tas

Good!

This is how the bird will look like with AESA and EO suite

ALSO WITH THE EURO HAWK , and possible foreign sales of the BAMS and Euro Hawk version plus the M2RCA version the GH is all set to become the benchmark for unmanned surveilance , AEW and SIGNIT platforms anywhere in the world .

EURO HAWK –

Northrop Beats Boeing, Lockheed for Spy-Plane Award

April 22 (Bloomberg) — Northrop Grumman Corp., the surprise winner over Boeing Co. for a U.S. Air Force tanker program, defeated its larger rival for the second time in two months by winning a Navy unmanned spy-plane contest valued at as much as $3.74 billion.

Northrop’s Global Hawk drone, which is already flown by the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, beat Boeing and a third offer from Lockheed Martin Corp. The order is for as many as 68 aircraft, Captain Robert Dishman, the Navy’s program manager, said at a briefing in the Pentagon today. The initial $1.16 billion development contract runs through September 2014.

The victory extends Northrop’s lead in unpiloted planes over Lockheed and Boeing, which dominate the manned military aircraft market. Northrop’s $5.7 billion Global Hawk order from the Air Force is already the U.S. military’s largest drone program. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the aircraft supplied 55 percent of the target data used to destroy air defenses, while flying only 5 percent of the surveillance missions.

“It looked to be pretty clear Northrop had the best offer to match requirements,” Myles Walton, an Oppenheimer & Co. analyst in Boston, said in an interview today. “Global Hawk had the most proven operational capability. This solidifies their presence in the unmanned market.”

Surveillance Missions

The Navy contract may increase Los Angeles-based Northrop’s earnings per share by 10 cents, or 1.4 percent, in 2011 from the $7.22 predicted without the contract, Walton said. He rates Northrop’s shares “outperform” and doesn’t own any.

Prior to the announcement, Walton had predicted Northrop had “a better than 50 percent chance” of winning the order. The win may also lift the shares by $1, he said.

The Navy’s unmanned Broad Area Maritime Surveillance plane will detect and track threats to the fleet. The aircraft will operate around the clock from five bases worldwide, traveling as many as 2,000 miles and loitering for extended surveillance missions. The new drone would work with manned Navy planes such as Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon, which is replacing Lockheed-built P-3 Orion aircraft used since 1962.

As part of the development contract, Northrop will provide two unmanned aircraft with payloads and communication suites, two mission control systems and an integration laboratory. The Navy wants the new planes in service by 2015 and to be used at five locations by 2019, Dishman said. The Navy plans to keep the planes in service for about 20 years, he said.

“It’s a highly capable air vehicle,” the Navy’s Dishman said of Global Hawk. He declined to compare the bids.

Australia’s Interest

Australia also included its requirements for a surveillance aircraft as part of the Navy contest and will have to decide by the end of this year whether it wants to proceed with buying Northrop’s plane, Dishman said.

Global Hawk has recorded more than 15,700 combat hours in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a wingspan of 131 feet, it can fly to a height of more than 60,000 feet for a maximum duration of as much as 36 hours.

The aircraft holds the record for an unmanned flight of 33 hours, set on March 22. Powered by a single Rolls-Royce Group Plc engine, it has an average cruising speed of 310 knots.

Northrop is the third-largest U.S. defense contractor, after Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, and Chicago-based Boeing. Northrop fell $1.52, or 2.1 percent, to $69.56 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, before the announcement. Lockheed dropped $2.78, or 2.6 percent, to $103.79, while Boeing declined 53 cents to $78.56.

Boeing’s Offer

Boeing’s offer with partner General Dynamics Corp. was a modified Gulfstream G550 business jet. Powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce engines, it was the fastest aircraft offered in the contest at 440 knots, and had the advantage of 75 percent shared parts with mission systems on the Navy’s P-8A, Boeing said.

It was the only one of the three without combat experience in Iraq, and also offered the shortest amount of surveillance time at more than 16 hours over a target. The aircraft had a 94- foot wingspan, and a maximum altitude of 51,000 feet.

Boeing’s loss is its second recent defeat by Northrop after a February Air Force competition for refueling tankers. Northrop, which had never built a refueling aircraft, faced a Boeing team which supplied them for more than half a century. Northrop won that $35 billion program by offering a larger jet with more fuel capacity than Boeing.

Boeing is protesting that decision to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Boeing, Lockheed Responses

Boeing still believes its proposal best fit the Navy’s needs, spokesman Chick Ramey said in a statement.

“After we have reviewed the details behind the award, we will make a decision concerning possible options,” Ramey said.

For its Navy bid, Lockheed had joined with closely held General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego to modify the Predator drone, which has recorded more than 296,000 combat hours. The modified version offered to the Navy was called the Mariner, and featured an 88-foot wingspan and a maximum altitude of 50,000 feet.

Powered by a Honeywell International Inc. turboprop engine, Mariner was the only bid not using a jet engine, and the slowest of the three at 230 knots. It offered the longest proposed mission time of 48 hours.

Lockheed is “very disappointed with the U.S. Navy’s decision” spokeswoman Tierney Helmers said. “We will wait for the formal customer debrief to better understand the decision and criteria used to select” the winner, she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajXADCbKkXqY&refer=home