Article

2007-10-17 Science & Technology

The HK (hunter-killer) from Terminator is finally here!

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-17 13:51|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 14:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 14:52|| Front Page Top

#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">M. Murcek 2007-10-17 15:04|| 2007-10-17 15:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 15:25|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 15:52|| Front Page Top

#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">frank martin 2007-10-17 17:25|| www.varifrank.com]">[www.varifrank.com] 2007-10-17 17:25|| Front Page Top

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

/including WaZoo Land!

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-10-17 17:37|| 2007-10-17 17:37|| Front Page Top

#8 Frank where are you getting your figures from? Just wondering.

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2007-10-17 17:47|| 2007-10-17 17:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 18:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 19:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 19:27|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 20:17|| Front Page Top

#13 Duh ... it's more involved

Posted by lotp 2007-10-17 20:18|| 2007-10-17 20:18|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 20:30|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 20:41|| Front Page Top

#16 Thanks. Party on.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-17 20:43|| 2007-10-17 20:43|| Front Page Top

#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">frank martin 2007-10-17 21:23|| www.varifrank.com]">[www.varifrank.com] 2007-10-17 21:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 21:32|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-17 21:35|| Front Page Top

23:32 Zenster
23:28 Zenster
23:20 Zenster
23:18 Unutle McGurque8861
23:06 Bright Pebbles
22:46 Unutle McGurque8861
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:30 Alaska Paul
22:24 Alaska Paul
22:22 trailing wife
22:17 Alaska Paul
22:15 Unutle McGurque8861
22:14 trailing wife
21:57 Redneck Jim
21:39 trailing wife
21:35 lotp
21:32 lotp
21:31 Unutle McGurque8861
21:30 whitecollar redneck
21:28 Broadhead6
21:27 Redneck Jim
21:24 Broadhead6