Well, if you remove/reduce the primary justification for the GH Blk 30 by cutting the number of high-altitude ISR orbits, then you undercut it's reason for existing in the first place. It seems strange and counter-intuitive given what would seem to be an insatiable appetite for all sorts of intelligence but as the article speculates maybe,part of the motivation is the advent of the Avenger and the promise of a more cost-effective and versatile platform?
U-2, Global Hawk Advocates Square Off in Budget Battle
Less than a year ago, Air Force officials certified in writing to Congress that the Global Hawk was essential and that no other platform could perform its mission. The memo stated that it costs $220 million more per year to operate the U-2 than the Global Hawk.
But Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Schwartz were back before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March telling a different story: The U-2 was more capable, and the Global Hawk was too expensive.
The secretary and the chief defended their amended assessment before senators, some of whom appeared baffled. The switch in opinion resulted from a change in requirements, Donley and Schwartz said.
The Air Force decreased the number of orbits required for high-altitude surveillance. Officials would not go into specific numbers on the record, but the fewer orbits meant that the less persistent U-2 could continue to perform the high-altitude ISR mission at a lower cost, Donley explained.
The aforementioned certification of the Global Hawk’s superiority was based on higher persistence levels that would have been more expensive to provide with the U-2. But the change in activity level, along with less capable sensors on the Global Hawk, flipped the scenario around. The need for improved sensors on the unmanned aircraft would add cost to the Block 30 program throughout the decade, Donley said.
“When you put the costs of the two programs together on paper, it’s cheaper for us to continue with the U-2 program,” he said.
