Ok. But then, skyhawk is not the most efficient way of doing it.
Time-on-station is probably the most important metric of such
strike UAVs. Having a longer time-on-station allows much better
tactical flexibility in when to drop your payload (e.g. when the
enemy leaves his trench to take a piss). A C-130 does better in
this respect, not to mention that it can carry a much heavier
payload. (turboprops are much more efficient that turbofans/
turbojets on long endurance flights).
The global hawk has an endurance of > 40 hours and
time-on-station of 24 hours! I don't think the skyhawk can match
those kind of numbers (aerodynamically). One of the reason why this
can be acheived, not to mention the 40+ years of improvement in
aerodynamic design, but also because a lot of "man-rated" stuff has
been removed. If you're dealing with a skyhawk chassis, it's not
going to be cost effective ripping/modding those parts off.
When it's time to let go, let go...
