Article

2009-04-27 Home Front: WoT

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 tu3031 2009-04-27 12:39|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 "Commanders have come to value unmanned aircraft's ability to loiter over targets."

Yeah, it is a lot easier for a pilot of a UAV to switch off with someone else so he can take a crap or get a meal than it would be with a manned craft. I couldn't imagine sitting for 22hours in one spot and being comfortable afterward.

Posted by crosspatch 2009-04-27 13:37|| 2009-04-27 13:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, what the hell does it have to be fast for? So it can hurry up and loiter? It spends its time in racetrack patterns in the sky at the most fuel-efficient setting.

PS "Gorgon Stare" cool name!

Posted by gromky 2009-04-27 14:02|| 2009-04-27 14:02|| Front Page Top

#3 The Avenger requires a caveat as the possible successor, though, because the Air Force hasn't yet signed a contract for a next-generation unmanned aircraft.

In a statement, Air Force officials commended General Atomics for building the Avenger. But Capt. Stacy Orlowsky, a service spokeswoman, said it wasn't a done deal to expect the Avenger to join the Air Force fleet."If the Air Force establishes new UAS requirements, we anticipate an open competition to select the best material solution," she said.

This isn't the first time General Atomics has taken this approach. It developed the Reaper and Predator the same way -- not waiting for contracts from any of the services.

Ph brother - where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, maybe when the Wright Broters had to go to France while the War Department was waiting for Langley to invent the airplane.

I wonder if the "open competition" will include allowing General Atomics squadron to blow the others out of the sky?

I wonder if the IDF has an order in for rush delivery, say - next week?

How far away are we from the Blackwater Navy acquiring a CCV to accomodate an air wing of these?

Posted by Phineth the Anonymous8743 2009-04-27 14:22|| 2009-04-27 14:22|| Front Page Top

#4 Sorry for the typos - impatience and disgust don't mix well.

Posted by Phineth the Anonymous8743 2009-04-27 14:23|| 2009-04-27 14:23|| Front Page Top

#5 The old "spad" was loved by a lot of commanders on the ground because it could loiter over a target with a lot of ordinance.

This is great stuff and is to me a variation on the old Ranger motto "We own the night"

Posted by James Carville 2009-04-27 14:39|| 2009-04-27 14:39|| Front Page Top

#6 We need something like this to replace or compliment the tomahawk missions. Instead of a tomahawk smashing into a target and then going to heaven, the avenger can hit more than one target and then come home to moma.

Posted by Wild Indian 2009-04-27 16:32|| 2009-04-27 16:32|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah, what the hell does it have to be fast for? So it can hurry up and loiter?

Yes. Makes UAV asset availability and redeployment better.

Posted by Pappy 2009-04-27 16:33|| 2009-04-27 16:33|| Front Page Top

#8 A small turbofan is also easier to shield from radar than the prop on a turboprop.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-27 16:56|| 2009-04-27 16:56|| Front Page Top

#9 Why not tow the plane up-to altitude like a glider does?

Surely that would massively increase the range?

Also could you increase the loiter time by basically getting as high as possible then gliding down with the engines off(/ lowest).

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-04-27 17:24|| 2009-04-27 17:24|| Front Page Top

#10 the avenger can hit more than one target and then come home to moma.

Damn... we've got a secret headquarters on top of a MUSEUM? (Lots of loiter time over nearby Turtle Bay-cool.)
Sorry, WI- couldn't resist.

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2009-04-27 17:24|| 2009-04-27 17:24|| Front Page Top

#11 It would be the most beautiful exhibit by far.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-04-27 17:27|| 2009-04-27 17:27|| Front Page Top

#12 #2 Yeah, what the hell does it have to be fast for?

Although not anywhere in the league of top speed for a fighter, it's (listed) 460 mph (assumably top) speed is approximately 60% of a fast B-2 Spirit (as advertised) at 70-degrees F.

In addition to loiter abilities, it is a nice and cheap (as compared to a manned a/c) little radar engager/fooler to allow our future Right Wing Extremists the opportunity to light up and destroy "enemy combatant" ground radars.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2009-04-27 17:43|| 2009-04-27 17:43|| Front Page Top

#13 For the missions the MQ-9 Reaper performs, the additional speed and "stealth" of the Predator C aren't really necessary. There may be a need for it down the road, but it will be for different missions. For the time being, the AF is flat out building MQ-9s.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in February that the Air Force should maximize production of the MQ-9 Reaper with the intent of fielding 50 Predator / Reaper Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) by 2011. A CAP typically involves 4 MQ-9s to provide 24 / 7 coverage in the designated area. The AF plan is to eventually replace all MQ-1B Predators with Reapers. Between the Air Force production of MQ-9s and MQ-1Bs and the Army program for MQ-1C Sky Warriors, General Atomics, the manufacturer is running full tilt in its recently expanded new production facilities. The Air Force is buying them as fast as GA can build them.

Posted by rwv 2009-04-27 18:01|| 2009-04-27 18:01|| Front Page Top

#14 This isn't for CAS but deep attack missions like the F-117 used to perform. Notice no surveillance/targeting turret on the underside. Stealth isn't needed to plink cavemen and props will always give longer loiter time than jets.

Posted by ed 2009-04-27 18:24|| 2009-04-27 18:24|| Front Page Top

#15 I'd be VERY careful of making sure the Russians don't think this is a "knock-out first strike" nuclear UAV...

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-04-27 18:44|| 2009-04-27 18:44|| Front Page Top

#16 Why not tow the plane up-to altitude like a glider does?

I believe that is where some UAV research is going. Combine with solar arrays on the wings and it will fly (slowly) higher during the day then drift slowly lower at night. Loiter times of weeks or months. Although payload will be small.

Posted by phil_b 2009-04-27 20:29|| 2009-04-27 20:29|| Front Page Top

#17 TOT on Iran via Avengers?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-04-27 20:50|| 2009-04-27 20:50|| Front Page Top

#18 Say...400 mph*20 hours @60000 ft with a self-guided 3000lb weapon? It's a two stage launch platform not subject to ICBM rules.

Posted by Skidmark 2009-04-27 22:59|| 2009-04-27 22:59|| Front Page Top

23:34 OldSpook
23:31 OldSpook
23:19 Phil_B
22:59 Skidmark
22:59 Fred
22:29 Glising Pelosi4893
22:29 Besoeker
22:22 Seafarious
22:21 Procopius2k
22:20 Procopius2k
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:06 trailing wife
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:56 trailing wife
21:50 JosephMendiola
21:47 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:44 JosephMendiola
21:43 Shieldwolf
21:41 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:39 Nimble Spemble
21:38 Nimble Spemble
21:37 JosephMendiola
21:35 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:34 JosephMendiola