Talk:Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk

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.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 ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.ais.org/~schnars/aero/tier.htm#tier2p 78.151.47.158 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear power
I've removed the nuclear power section, because the reliable sources that discuss this, or  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  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)

Lack of Criticism?
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)

Defensive Systems
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)