| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| The Predator 'C', 'The Avenger' |
| 2009-07-30 |
| General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has released the first public images and the new name of its Predator C "Avenger" unmanned air vehicle. The pictures reveal a stealthy design powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B; the same engine that powers the Cessna Citation XLS business jet. The UAV's 20m (66ft) wingspan is swept at 17°, allowing a maximum speed of over 400kt (740km/h), General Atomics says. Operating altitude can exceed 60,000ft, the company adds. Further details about specifications and performance are not being released. But company officials acknowledge that a second aircraft is already in production with a 0.61m fuselage extension, raising overall length to just over 13.1m. The first Avenger has completed at least three test flights, with the first flight recorded on 4 April at the Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility in Palmdale, California. The UAV is designed to operate in the same hunter-killer role as General Atomics' Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper, but with a significantly faster response time. The manufacturer confirms it is also developing a new full motion video sensor for the aircraft. The Avenger could also carry General Atomics' Lynx synthetic aperture radar and a forward-looking infrared sensor adapted from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (with pictures) |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #12 Avenger is also the name of the GAU-8 that the A-10 was built around. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-30 21:46 |
| #11 The previous aircraft given the name 'Avenger' was the WWII torpedo bomber that George Bush (the elder) flew - and crashed. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-07-30 16:25 |
| #10 I believe the Army is now calling them UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) vs UAV. Not certain when when the name change began. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-07-30 15:47 |
| #9 The comm gear alone on drones is expensive ed, get the government out of the bid specs ("made of #3 gray type C plastic at plant in Cong. Dist F etc.), and just define performance needs (deliver shotgun blast at X square foot target Z% of the time, deployed and controlled from Y meters.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-07-30 10:58 |
| #8 'Zactly, Anonymoose. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-07-30 10:53 |
| #7 Comms gear is expensive because the development costs are amortised over only a few units. The build cost should be really low. Think of the power in a 3g mobile. Mine has 5MP camera, GPS, compass, accelerometer, TCP/IP & HTTP(S), VOIP, a flat touch screen and weighs 100grams. The expensive bit is the touch-screen, so you should easily be able to write a flight program on a platform that costs <500dollars. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-07-30 10:51 |
| #6 Glenmore: I'm projecting two classes of UAVs, the high quality, even turning supersonic, yet still being very maneuverable; and the "expendable item" UAVs, that are built in sheer numbers for air armadas. Of the latter group, the smallest would be a "flying shotgun", with a light plastic, one use barrel, and a cheapie camera. Alternatively, it could fire a penetrating HE round against a suspected IED. In either case it would destroy the aircraft. The next largest would be something like a model aircraft, carrying one pound of C-4 surrounded with another pound of ball bearings, and a cheapie camera to guide it in to the target. Next largest would carry a light machine gun with a thousand rounds, likely 5.56mm, purely for strafing an enemy in the open. Several more models doing various things, and the largest model, about as expensive as a small, used car, and likely with a prop engine, that could carry several different loads, like twin .50 cal MG, a couple of 250 lb Small Diameter Bombs, etc. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-07-30 10:21 |
| #5 The comm gear alone on drones is expensive. Spike is better than suicide. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-07-30 09:09 |
| #4 I still like my idea of 'disposable' drones - glorified Radio Shack planes air-deployed over target area in launch pods, which can then be flown right into windows or cars or even people as kamikazes. Swarms of big, mad, explosive hornets silencing snipers in minarets (or even just those annoying screechers.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-07-30 08:29 |
| #3 With an aerial refueling capability it could stay aloft as long as it has ordinance and only come home for maintenance/reload. You could literally loiter over an area for a week. They would need a serious engine overhaul facility, though, if they pushed those things that hard. Overhaul interval is 10,000 hours. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-07-30 01:15 |
| #2 Stealthy? Perhaps but I don't know about those ruddervators. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-07-30 00:43 |
| #1 Beautiful! It looks a bit Stealthy... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-07-30 00:16 |