Article

2007-05-21 Iraq

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 Steve White 2007-05-21 01:45|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 I'm fed up with the bullshit excuses for not having more Predators in the sky. There are 3-4 of them airborne at one time over the entire country of Iraq, about 1% of what it would it take to really suppress IED emplacement.
The usual suspects squawk about the cost. Bullshit! A Predator flight (4-5 drones and their ground equipment) costs about $20 million to equip, 1/10 of what the war is costing every day. At present there are only 12 operating units in the entire Air Force, after 8 years of successful combat service.
Personally, I suspect the Silk Scarf Lobby, the loose fraternity of glory hounds and Right Stuff poseurs who reflexively resent anything that does not take its pilot along for the ride. Rumsfeld, a one-time Navy airedale, was a made member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2007-05-21 06:56|| 2007-05-21 06:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Predators are not the only UAVs around. Nor likely the most appropriate for urban surveillance (I do suspect a significant element of truth in AC's criticism however.) One problem with Predator in an urban environment is coordination of assets and prioritization of mission - units arguing over access time or Predators running into each other.) Ideally (IMNSHO) what you want are ultra-light ('disposable') UAVs controlled locally at the company level. I bet I could come up with a functional design that would cost under $10,000 a copy with parts from the local hobby shops (except for an explosive 'kamikaze' attachment for use on urgent high-value targets).

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-05-21 07:30|| 2007-05-21 07:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Glenmore - I thought I'd seen hand-launched UAV's. Maybe I'm getting them confused with the flying model of a B-52?

Posted by Bobby 2007-05-21 08:28|| 2007-05-21 08:28|| Front Page Top

#4 For a high profile area like Baghdad, there is no reason not to at least experiment with high altitude blimps. Just videotaping the entire city 24/7 would allow you to follow vehicles back to their place of origin.

The Aerostat Joint Program Office has had its budget doubled to almost half a billion dollars, even though the missile spotting high altitude blimp was canceled.

Even the Goodyear blimp could have a major impact.

This is known technology and not that expensive by military standards.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-21 09:24|| 2007-05-21 09:24|| Front Page Top

#5 Bobby, you have seen such UAVs. They pack up into a nice little container. Very popular for quick looks over the horizon in the battlefield. As I understand it, they don't have the loiter time for sustained surveillance though. Not sure if they have multi-wavelength sensors or not (need to.) I am pretty sure there is a lot of stuff 'in the pipeline' regarding UAVs, etc., but like most government projects it will drag on forever and get all sorts of expensive add-ons to provide contracts to every participating politician's favorite lobbying group.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-05-21 09:35|| 2007-05-21 09:35|| Front Page Top

#6 There have been one or two of those aerostat blimps at Baghdad airport for a couple years now. Not sure what their sensors or capabilities are.

The primary tactic against IEDs needs to be killing (not enticing into some political arrangement, not hiring away, not persuading) the organizers, builders, and emplacers (yes, incl. the guys paid by the day - ya kill those guys and people will find other ways to turn a dinar). The other main element needs to be disrupting (not maintaining) normal life as much as needed to mitigate the threat. Should have been standard practice to bulldoze the nearest buildings to any IED site. Much wailing and bad photos, and probably fewer IEDs over time, probably pretty quickly.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-05-21 11:00|| 2007-05-21 11:00|| Front Page Top

#7 Verlaine -- what a concept.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-05-21 11:39|| 2007-05-21 11:39|| Front Page Top

#8 The price of acquiring and operating the Predators is just part of the problem. You also have to train people to interpret what they see on the screen in front of them. It takes anywhere from six months to two years to get someone adequately trained to do that. Its also something that not everyone can do. The Air Force has about 1500 people trained to do that, total. Those 1500 people also man about eight stateside and overseas bases. It also takes from three to six months to become acclimated to your duty area of responsibility - to know the difference between a common, everyday activity and something suspicious. The good news is that you can data-link the imagery from the predators to anywhere in the world for the readout and reporting back, so you don't have constant turnover and a constant learning curve. We need more drones, I agree. We also need more people to interpret what those drones see, and a more timely link between the imaging system, the interpreter, and the unit receiving the report to act on it.

When I was in Vietnam, it usually took 12 to 18 hours to respond to an intelligence "find". I think the turn-around in Iraq is more on the line of two to three hours. It needs to be reduced to less than 30 minutes.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-05-21 15:32|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-05-21 15:32|| Front Page Top

#9 OP is absolutely right re: the manpower / training issue.

Other UAVs in theater or in progress:

Army Shadow 200s, similar to Predators. Battalion-level controlled. Some deployed, others in the pipeline.

Future Combat Systems planned UAVs are at 4 levels, from Type 1 for squads to Type 4 for brigade level. Contracts for Type 1 & 4 have been already awarded and they are being finalized for manufacturing now; type 1 is similar to the Raven and type 4 is a helo.

Contracts for Type 2 (company level) and type 3 (battalion level) are on hold as of February 2007. Designs for these 2 had not been decided, although the Type 2 will probably be a VTOL ducted fan "flying trashcan" model launched from a Humvee or Stryker, 2 airframes with one control station. Alternate design that DARPA evaluated was a rotor wing. Type 3 designs were likely to be an evolved version of the Shadow.

I just got back last night from a tech meeting that discussed some of the issues re: deploying and using these for recon, surveillance and targetting. The USAF's setup for Predator operation is, to quote one attendee, "designed by someone who never flew a plane". I.e. okay for the R/S/T mission in Iraq where there is little effective opposition, but inadequate for UCAV (i.e. offensive) operations. LOTS of work going into making this viable for pilots to operate remotely, since we are not yet at the point where these things can (or would be trusted yet to) operate fully autonomously.

RE: payloads, the manpackable miniUAVs are okay for e.g. short visual recons during ops. Cannot provide the power needed for longer surveillance flights and/or more sophisticated sensor packages. Lots of work going on to optimize this.

Finally, as we move to autonomously enabled unmanned vehicles (air, land, sea), a key factor becomes the software algorithms that allow joint / shared mission planning and execution. For example, one UAV picks up on a hostile in a truck, tracks it through the plane's area of operations, does a handoff to the next UAV automatically while also vectoring in ground forces (manned or unmanned). Again, a lot of progress on this but not ready for theater deployment.

A few years from now this stuff will be pretty amazing and transformational. The existing Predators are, frankly, old stuff with some significant flight time and other limitations. But we'll use them as long as we can while getting ready to field the real thing.

Posted by occasional observer 2007-05-21 16:40|| 2007-05-21 16:40|| Front Page Top

#10 "But we'll use them as long as we can while getting ready to field the real thing."

More, faster, please!

Posted by DanNY 2007-05-21 16:46|| 2007-05-21 16:46|| Front Page Top

#11 I share the urgency, DanNY. So does every commander in theater, from what I can tell. But OP's right about the manpower bottleneck. We've currently got pilots doing 12 hr missions as it is.

Posted by occasional observer 2007-05-21 16:52|| 2007-05-21 16:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Thank you for what you and the others are doing, occasional observer. In the meantime, I suspect our wonderful troops will muddle through magnificently.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-21 17:00|| 2007-05-21 17:00|| Front Page Top

#13 This sounds like a situation where some older guys (40s & 50s) who have no previous military experience, but do have some flight training and computer experience and are physically fit would come in useful.

I fit those characteristics and I am ready and willing to serve! Please let someone get some sense and use ALL of our national resources in this war!

Posted by DanNY 2007-05-21 17:05|| 2007-05-21 17:05|| Front Page Top

23:43 Mac
23:30 Zenster
23:20 Zenster
23:15 Anonymoose
23:10 M. Murcek
22:56 trailing wife
22:55 John Frum
22:53 trailing wife
22:50 anymouse
22:48 JohnQC
22:36 Pappy
22:36 JohnQC
22:35 Pappy
22:22 gromgoru
22:22 JohnQC
22:20 Eric Jablow
22:19 Atomic Conspiracy
22:19 Seafarious
22:16 JohnQC
22:10 ptah
22:09 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:08 Procopius2k
22:05 Spolusing and Tenille6935
22:05 Barbara Skolaut