You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
The HK (hunter-killer) from Terminator is finally here!
2007-10-17
Low risk environment?

VIDEO

The HK (hunter-killer) from Terminator is finally here! Thank goodness it’s still human controlled – at the moment. The MQ-9 Reaper, when compared with the 1995-vintage Predator, represents a major upgrade. At five tons, the Reaper is four times heavier than the Predator. Its size - 36 feet long, with a 66-foot wingspan - is comparable to the profile of the awesome A-10 Thunderbolt II. It can fly twice as fast and twice as high as the Predator. Most significantly, it carries many more weapons. While the Predator is armed with two Hellfire missiles, the Reaper can carry 14 of the air-to-ground weapons - or four Hellfires and two 500-pound bombs (holy cow!). It is able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada. The US Air Force is building a 400,000 sq ft expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for Predator drones at Balad, the biggest air base in Iraq, 50 miles north of Baghdad. General Atomics of San Diego has built at least nine of the MQ-9s thus far, at a cost of $69 million per set of four aircraft, with ground equipment. The Air Force's 432nd Wing, a UAV unit formally established on May 1, is to eventually fly 60 Reapers and 160 Predators. The Reaper is expected to be flown as the Predator is - by a two-member team of pilot and sensor operator who work at computer control stations and video screens that display what the UAV ‘sees’.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#19  OTOH, your (Frank's) desire for UAVs that fly a grid pattern themselves is close to fruition. Currently most of these systems get programmed with a set of way points and navigate themselves to them according to the sequence specified. Operators man the sensor packages and weapons systems and handle certain other pilot actions but for recon/surveil operations the bulk of the navigation is already automatic.
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-17 21:35  

#18  Frank, your wish list was considered but rejected/modified by the army in the Future Combat Systems plans.

Type 1 UAV - backpackable mini similar to the USMC Raven. In development, on track for deployment.

Type 2 UAV - ducted fan (flying trashcan), company level asset launchable from Bradleys/HMMVEEs. On hold, may not be built. Some analyses suggest little recon value to adding this vs. additional fixed wing battalion Predator class UAVs sharable across areas of operation. But those analyses of necessity made assumptions about sensor load etc. that might not obtain. For now, not gonna be built.

Type 3 UAV - battalion asset, upgraded Predator class.

Type 4 UAV - helo. Approved.

Re: sensor packages, it will be a while before they are field swappable. There's a long tail of logistics support & more importantly data feed analysis behind them when they're used.
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-17 21:32  

#17  Remember kids, this generation has a pilot in Nellis. The next will be autonomous and will be driven from battlefield directives given by the local RC-135 orbiting the region. Same platform, different electronics package. I can see this thing in the sky for a good long time.

"fly to grid sector such and such, fly a normal orbit pattern at this altitude, and await commands from the ground until you are at "x" fuel and then fly back to base"

and off it goes.

I suspect that "the next generation" is not that far off. I also suspect that we will see these deployed via carriers in the not too far future.

My 'wish list' would be a smaller version that can be carried via bradley command vehicle, and another smaller more stealthy version that can be tube launched from subs.

I'd also like to see payload area left up to the ground teams, so that in a pinch they could also fly logistics missions for backcountry operations where helicopters would be an "attention getter" but a Reaper might be able to get in and out and drop off a few helpful packages without being as noticed.

Posted by: frank martin   2007-10-17 21:23  

#16  Thanks. Party on.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-17 20:43  

#15  Re: drones, no. Predators and the Predator B/Reaper are deployed in sets of 4 airframe plus 1 ground system in theater. Usual practice is to launch one before bringing down the prior one, with 2 in reserve being fueled, doing maintenance and readying it on the runway.

Re: non pilots, IIUC the only guys flying for real (as opposed to in studies) are all pilots with substantial air time in a variety of planes. At least that was true when I had some peripheral involvement in an analysis study about them.
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-17 20:41  

#14  Partier,

Do they always pilot the same drone? Do the operators who are not trained pilots have the same problems?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-17 20:30  

#13  Duh ... it's more involved
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-17 20:18  

#12  Re: pilots, the ones I've spoken to with Predator & Reaper experience (test pilot for the latter) don't describe the job as kicking back on the sofa for a little video gaming.

It's actually mentally draining, from what I've heard, in part because of the lack of kinesthetic body experience to match the visuals. Brain has to work harder to interpret and respond quickly, plus the body keeps tensing up for movement that doesn't happen.

I heard some b*tching that the control setup for the Reaper wasn't redesigned from that of the Predator.

Re: satellite bandwidth vs. costs of deploying teams, there's a more involved than that. Consider that the humans may not be the *only* consumers of the sensor data streaming in ....
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-17 20:17  

#11  The MQ-9 Reaper ... can carry 14 of the air-to-ground weapons - or four Hellfires and two 500-pound bombs

But no cowbell.
Posted by: DMFD   2007-10-17 19:27  

#10  The Reaper flies above groundfire. While it is nice to operate it from Nellis, I would like to see a cost comparison of the satellite bandwidth vs. deploying the pilots and sensor operators.

Frank where are you getting your figures from?
Reaper fuel burn: 260 lbs/hour
Warthog @ cruise: 1600 lbs/hour
Ratio 1:6
Posted by: ed   2007-10-17 19:02  

#9  Lest we fergit, the USDOD was planning to give the HELLFIRE new air-to-air capabilities, i.e. UAV vs UAV/Fixed-Wing/Helo air combat. Air-to-air ZUNI types also.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-17 18:56  

#8  Frank where are you getting your figures from? Just wondering.
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-10-17 17:47  

#7  ahhhh... The MQ-9 Reaper.. Making Miscreants quiver everywhere.

/including WaZoo Land!
Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-10-17 17:37  

#6  Think out of the box for just a second.

For the cost of a single sortie of 2 A-10's, You could have 10 Reapers fly ovals in a sort of old "lufbery circle" fashion over a part of the battlefield day and night 7 days a week, and still rotate individual Reapers out for replenishing(think of 15 as the standard "squadron", 1 down for maintenance, with 10 on station, and 4 in perpetual rotation). On station Reapers would be guided to their targets (with laser like precision )by ground pounders on the battlefield as they need the firepower.

So, you get the "high ground", you get super accurate artillery from the sky and since they cost so little by comparison to traditional aircraft, you can get a whole lot of them and you can base them close to the action.

The big expensive to make and hard to replace pilot gets to work a standard 8 hour shift in air conditioned comfort and still gets to home at the end of the day to watch spongebob with the kids at Nellis base housing.

So, whats not to like?
Posted by: frank martin   2007-10-17 17:25  

#5  I read an article elsewhere that the F-16 is now more accurate at strafing than the A-10 because of the electro-optical fire control system it now uses. But it is not clear how low it can fly and take the groundfire.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-17 15:52  

#4  It's a machine. We're still good at making machines. We're really good at making lots of machines.

We also have vastly more "operators" with video game experience, than pilots who meet flight training requirements.
Posted by: Omomorong Bourbon8318   2007-10-17 15:25  

#3  Guns are a bad bet vs. bombs / missiles for these birds. The gun itself is heavy, and it's dead weight when out of rounds to fire. The ammo is heavy too, limiting how much can be carried.
Maybe something caseless like the Metalstorm would be better, but it's still experimental.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2007-10-17 15:04  

#2  Yes, though the greater contrast is in how the two vehicles are used. The A-10 is providing close air support to Marines while the Reaper is hardly going to be expected to do strafing runs.

Strap an AN/GAU-8a 30mm Avenger seven-barrel gatling gun to one of those suckers and then we can talk about armoring up...
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-10-17 14:52  

#1  When they say "comparable" to the A-10, they are being very selective as to what they mean. Other than its impressive lethality, the A-10 is known for its survivability. That plane will still fly when blown to bits. But it has to have a pilot to guide it in--a damaged A-10 must have a pilot.

While Reaper may be good, if they have been lost due to heavy enemy fire, they are gone.

To me this implies that later editions of the Reaper are going to need high tech advanced armor to overcome this disadvantage. And as any combat pilot will tell you, more weapons are always better.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-10-17 14:39  

00:00