USAF Predators Come of Age in Iraq and Afghanistan as Reaper Waits in the Wings

[onedomino]

This technology has fundamental long-range implications for the future of the Air Force. For example, how long before onboard USAF pilots are mostly history? 10 years? 20 years? It may be sooner than we guess:

USAF Predators come of age in Iraq and Afghanistan as Reaper waits in the wings

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/idr/idr061026_2_n.shtml

The General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) Predator has already become the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to be adopted on a large scale by the US Air Force (USAF), the first operational UAV to be armed and the first to fire weapons in combat, and the first system to permit precision strike missions to be controlled from anywhere on the planet.

From July 2005 to June 2006, the USAF's Predators participated in more than 242 separate raids; engaged 132 troops in contact-force protection actions; fired 59 Hellfire missiles; surveyed 18,490 targets; escorted four convoys; and flew 2,073 sorties for more than 33,833 flying hours.

Meanwhile, the MQ-9A Reaper (formerly known as Predator B) is well under way. It is not just a bigger Predator. It is not only a different aircraft but does a different job. It is aimed directly against time-sensitive, fleeting targets, and Reaper squadrons will be attack squadrons. In short, the USAF wants an aircraft that can perform all the steps in its attack doctrine - find, fix, track, target, engage and assess - with no outside support except its datalink, and to move through those steps with a speed that matches that of the target.

Currently, the USAF plans to acquire nine Reaper systems, each with four combat-coded aircraft, and will acquire 60 air vehicles including spares. Under existing plans, the Reaper squadrons will be designated as attack squadrons, tasked with close air support, interdiction and special-operations support rather than intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Prim Reaper

The Reaper is nobody's toy aeroplane: at close quarters it is readily apparent that it is about as large as a Raytheon King Air business aircraft. It is four times heavier than the Predator and has almost nine times more installed power at take-off. It flies faster and twice as high, and it has more than twice the wing loading, translating into higher take-off and landing speeds. The structure is stiffer and the laminar-flow wing section is different; and the tail moment arm is relatively shorter, requiring much larger V-tails. The Reaper's V-tails are upright rather than inverted, because they would otherwise be too large to provide adequate ground clearance.

As with the Predator, the Reaper is largely made from carbon fibre composite material. Most of the skins are sandwich-type, with two carbon fibre face sheets bonded to a core of Rohacell foam or Nomex honeycomb, and are inherently rigid enough that the internal structure of carbon fibre spars and ribs can be very simple.

Some Reapers have already been assigned to other users, some of them sensitive. The US Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) ordered one MQ-9 on 1 September 2005. According to the CBP, it had detected almost 1,900 targets and had been instrumental in 1,246 arrests, including the seizure of seven tons of marijuana. CBP has gone on to take delivery of a second aircraft, at the end of September 2006, and has ordered two more aircraft for delivery in late 2007.

The UK is preparing to order two Reaper air vehicles and a ground control station for operations in Afghanistan. The USD77 million order was submitted for Congressional approval in September and the aircraft are expected in service in 2007

 

[akiboy]

This technology has fundamental long-range implications for the future of the Air Force. For example, how long before onboard USAF pilots are mostly history? 10 years? 20 years? It may be sooner than we guess:

nothing to beat the Stealth's!!!



Akshay

 

[onedomino]

nothing to beat the Stealth's!!!
Akshay

The Reaper has stealth characteristics. Anyway, I am referring to the fact that in the future no onboard pilots will be necessary for attack aircraft. As these machines develop, their capabilities will soon (a few years) exceed the limits of even the most expensive manned fighters. For example, in the future such aircraft will be more maneuverable than the most expensive manned aircraft because they will no longer be limited by the physiological constraints of an onboard pilot. Further, they will be able to routinely fly into very high threat areas without the fear of losing an onboard pilot. Remote piloted aircraft will be comparatively less expensive than manned aircraft of similar capability because no subsystems will be necessary to carry and sustain the pilot. Compared to manned aircraft, remote piloted aircraft will become faster, more maneuverable, have greater range, fly higher risk missions, carry more weapons, and be less expensive. Remote piloted aircraft will fundamentally change aerial combat.

If remote piloted aircraft are possible, why cannot battlefield tanks and some naval surface units be remotely operated?

-
The Reaper MQ-9 is an attack aircraft.

 

[CSM]

If remote piloted aircraft are possible, why cannot battlefield tanks and some naval surface units be remotely operated?

-
The Reaper MQ-9 is an attack aircraft.

They can and are; there are a bunch of unmanned/robotic groound vehicles that carry anything ffrom remote sensors to weapons. They just dont get the glory that the UAVs get.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ugv.htm

 

[NATO AIR]

A good ? is when the Navy will have carrier-based UAVS. To be honest, I think the age of the aircraft carrier is coming to a close with perhaps 10-15 years left. After that, UAVs on small ships will be the wave of the future.

 

[MtnBiker]

If remote piloted aircraft are possible, why cannot battlefield tanks and some naval surface units be remotely operated?

I did see a tv program on an autonamous unmanned small submarine, mostly for reconnaissance, but will certain carry weapons systems in the future.

 

[onedomino]

Please excuse the bad MQ-9 photo I put up previously. There is a different one in place now.

 

[manu1959]

last night i was watching the military channel....cool program on un manned vehicles...

they showed this new one (dominator?) that hunts in packs of 100 or more...3feet long, carries three bombs plus it is a kamikaze bomb and can stay in position for days....

too cool

 

[onedomino]

They can and are; there are a bunch of unmanned/robotic groound vehicles that carry anything ffrom remote sensors to weapons. They just dont get the glory that the UAVs get.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ugv.htm

Very interesting article, CSM. Thanks for the link. Below is a photo of one of the heavier vehicles discussed in the link that you supplied. You know, it is one thing to operate military combat devices remotely, but something else entirely to equip them with the artificial intelligence, pattern recognition, and other components, that might allow autonomous battlespace decisions. I imagine that research is being conducted on such A.I. devices. There may be a future where autonomous devices roam the battlespace predating on enemy units.

 

[onedomino]

I did see a tv program on an autonamous unmanned small submarine, mostly for reconnaissance, but will certain carry weapons systems in the future.

Interesting. Given the degree of difficulty communicating with submarines, unmanned subs might by nature be autonomous and possess at least some A.I. Why could not thousands of such devices be seeded and loiter in the oceans threatening multi-billion dollar ballistic missile submarines, their crews, and the nuclear deterrent they carry?

 

[NATO AIR]

Interesting. Given the degree of difficulty communicating with submarines, unmanned subs might by nature be autonomous and possess at least some A.I. Why could not thousands of such devices be seeded and loiter in the oceans threatening multi-billion dollar ballistic missile submarines, their crews, and the nuclear deterrent they carry?

We are studying UUV's with swarm AI.

 

[CSM]

Very interesting article, CSM. Thanks for the link. Below is a photo of one of the heavier vehicles discussed in the link that you supplied. You know, it is one thing to operate military combat devices remotely, but something else entirely to equip them with the artificial intelligence, pattern recognition, and other components, that might allow autonomous battlespace decisions. I imagine that research is being conducted on such A.I. devices. There may be a future where autonomous devices roam the battlespace predating on enemy units.

Just the tip of the iceberg...there are things called "intelligent munitions systems" for example. Either artillery or rockets tied to sensors which can detect, identify, and decide to engage based on desired criteria (like commander's guidance) without human intervention. All types of robotic vehicles from ground, maritime, air breathing and space are either already deployed or are being developed with varying levels of AI/remote control. The stuff of science fiction some decades ago is the reality of today.