Submit your comments on this article |
Science & Technology |
ArmyÂ’s RQ-7 Shadow UAVs to be armed with 81mm mortars |
2009-01-16 |
![]() The difference between the Army’s RQ-7 Shadow UAVs and their brethren like the USAF’s MQ-1A Predator, or the Army’s new MQ-1C Sky Warriors, is that the Shadow has been too small and light to be armed. Larger RQ-5 Hunters have been tested with Viper Strike mini-bombs, and RQ-7s will certainly be eligible for NAVAIR’s 5-6 pound Spike missile project. Meanwhile, as “CENTCOM Looks to Boost ISR Capabilities in 2008-2009” explained, UAVs can still pack a punch without weapons. UAVs can provide targeting data to M30 GPS-guided MLRS rockets, long-range ATACMS MLRS missiles, or GPS-guided 155mm Excalibur artillery shells – as long as those weapons are (a) appropriate and (b) within range. Using an ATACMS missile to take out an enemy machine gun position seems a bit silly, but that’s exactly the sort of help that could really make a difference to troops on the ground. Precision weapons can also be dropped by fighters or bombers, but their $10,000 – $25,000 cost per flight hour is prohibitive, they require extensive planning processes to use, and their declining numbers affect their potential coverage and response times. With NAVAIR’s mini-missile still in development, and missions in Afghanistan occurring beyond artillery support range, arming the Army’s Shadow UAVs has become an even more important objective. So important, in fact, that it spawned a bright idea: what if smaller UAVs could carry and drop the Army’s 81mm mortar ammunition, which weighs just 9-10 pounds? Enter General Dynamics’ RCFC kit…. Contracts and Key Events General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems announces that it has successfully demonstrated the ability to maneuver and guide 81mm air-dropped mortars to a stationary ground target after release from an aircraft. These test results build on previous pre-programmed maneuver flight tests successfully conducted by General Dynamics in 2007, and use the company’s patented Roll Controlled Fixed Canard (RCFC) flight control and guidance system. RCFC is an integrated fuze and guidance-and-flight control kit that uses GPS/INS navigation, and clips on by replacing current fuze hardware in existing mortars. Application of RCFC technology to 81mm air-dropped mortar s was sponsored by the U.S. Army’s Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, in order to provide “Tactical Class Unmanned Aircraft Systems (TCUAS)” with a low-cost weapon option for rapid fielding. The Army’s 81mm mortars, for instance, weigh just 9-10 pounds each. |
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
#16 Glenmore and Dick of Oregon are on to something - how far are we from smallish UAVs equipped with small guns/small magazines? Put a few dozen of these up each with a few dozen rounds, and you're shooting at one guy in a crowd. Only nearby bystanders are in real danger, unlike shrapnel or artillery or simply explosive side effects. It cannot be far off. |
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-01-16 20:40 |
#15 This seems the lastest in a push to inflict casulties on enemies embedded in civilians. It requires a high degree of finessing to achieve it's goal with acceptable collatoral damage. It gathers little intelligence. How about turning it upside down? Have drones patrolling equipped with paintball-type ordinance? It doesn't kill anyone but everyone in the area gets tagged. Then have a patrol sweep the area. It would give more precise kills, plus valuable info on where the safe houses and other info was. A lot of different materials could be used to do the tagging. I prefer radioactive dust, myself. That would be an Easy Trace material. It seems like something like this would be useful in Gaza. |
Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-01-16 12:37 |
#14 Definitely should be done. I don't know the cost of these little guys, but miniscule compared to JDAMS, even with upgraded optics and receive/transmit control upgrades. In many ways more effective than JDAMS because they can be launched locally and controlled locally. They can orbit, wait for the rats to crawl out of their holes, then dive as kamikaze right into target. Suppose you put 2, 3, or 9 pounds of C4 on board. You've got one hell of a bang there for a very low outlay. If Israel had these today, it would scare the shit out of HamAss. They would go down 3 or 4 more levels in the bunker. |
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2009-01-16 11:06 |
#13 And God forbid civilian contractor be permitted to execute a fire mission. So long as the conflict is one in which uniformed US forces are active, God forbid it indeed. But if he doesn't I'm pretty damned sure the generals will, and for good reason. |
Posted by: lotp 2009-01-16 11:01 |
#12 TCUAS Pronounced: Tuck U Ass |
Posted by: KBK 2009-01-16 10:50 |
#11 I love the idea. Fly over a target and drop a small guided bomb on it. BRILLIANT! |
Posted by: DarthVader 2009-01-16 10:44 |
#10 Can dive bombing sirens be installed? |
Posted by: ed 2009-01-16 10:27 |
#9 I love this idea. I'd also like to note that besides have several different kinds of HE rounds, they also make an 81mm WP round. Strictly for smoke, however. Not to be used to majorly ignite any munitions on the ground. Or those sitting on top of them. |
Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-01-16 10:19 |
#8 To sum up their thoughts, the enlisted operators would prefer a warrant or full officer to be the one to make the shoot/no shoot decision. And God forbid civilian contractor be permitted to execute a fire mission. Of course with the new SOFA it might be difficult to find one. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2009-01-16 09:10 |
#7 when I deployed with my Guard unit back in 2005, I worked with the MI guys who were driving the RQ-7's. Among other things, we discussed the idea of an armed version, and what they( the operators) thought. To a man, they were not happy with the idea, because of the responsiblity, and the poor resolution of the IR camera. To sum up their thoughts, the enlisted operators would prefer a warrant or full officer to be the one to make the shoot/no shoot decision. I wonder how they greeted this news? |
Posted by: N guard 2009-01-16 08:48 |
#6 Back around 1965 I had a flying model airplane (string controlled though, not radio). A Stuka dive bomber. It could actually dive and release a 'bomb'. Convert the model to radio control and replace the plastic bomb with a plastique bomb and you have an armed UAV for about $500. Of course at that price you don't even need a deployable bomb - just make the model plane a kamikaze. Didn't we see something like that in an Iranian press release a few years ago? |
Posted by: Glenmore 2009-01-16 08:04 |
#5 Here it is, scroll down to Cardoen PJ-1 Bomb model PJ-1 Classification Aviation Bomb Description manually released Physical data: Length 0.5 m diameter 85 mm weight 3 kg Warhead 0.8 kg HE Status: in service |
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2009-01-16 07:32 |
#4 For a number of years, the Chilean munitions company Cardoen marketed a 3 KG (6.6 lb.) hand-thrown bomb. This came in a cardboard tube, the "bombardier" pulled a safety pin similar to that of a hand grenade to arm it and pull off the nose cover, then tossed it over the side by gripping the tube and hurling the bomb out the open end. The empty tube was then discarded. This was meant for use from helicopters but could be (and was) used from light planes and even transports. |
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2009-01-16 07:04 |
#3 Not weird. The launching from a tube uses the parabolic arc. What they describe is nothing more then turning a very small dumb bomb (mortar round) into a mini smart bomb (guidance kit). The author confuses the reader by reffering to the ammunition as a mortar. |
Posted by: ArmyLife 2009-01-16 05:53 |
#2 Shades of the early WWI hand dropped bombs (with a modern twist). |
Posted by: tipover 2009-01-16 04:03 |
#1 Weird, considering that everything about mortars is about parabolic arcs. Are they going to bring tubes along on the airframe? |
Posted by: gromky 2009-01-16 03:14 |