RAF to get up to 10 MQ9 Reapers

[Lazer-Hound]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.32350382.1199471078.n5NP6X8AAAEAAHNzP8 wAAAAD&modele=jdc_34

[CrazyMonkey]

Should be a v useful platform for the RAF. Does anybody have an idea of when the delivery date will be and how long we can expect to wait to see it in an operational theatre?

[HaveQuick2]

Does anybody have an idea of when the delivery date will be and how long we can expect to wait to see it in an operational theatre?


Thought the first ones had already been delivered, and deployed east.

[Jimlad1]

Which budget is this coming out off too? Is it considered a UOR (how we got the first 3 IIRC) or is this from the main procurement budget? Given how stretched that budget is, what has been cut or delayed to pay for it?

Great news if its all coming in, just hope the money's all there.

[Guzlin Adnams]

Will they operate them from a base here or keep using Creech etc.
I assume that they have to be flown on exercises here as well as in action in hot and sandy places so where to fly them? They don't mix very well with civil aircraft as yet as far as I'm aware. Please excuse my ignorance but I can imagin the health and safety implications in this litigeous world that we now live in. You can see it in the Sun; "RAF Drone misses light aircraft by inches" or "persons horse scared fartless by drone thingy with no human on board".
Still, it's good news for once, 39 will provide a real boost to our forces where it's needed most. Now bring on more helicopters and another couple of C17's, without loosing any other capabilities.:D

[diginagain]

Now bring on more helicopters and another couple of C17's
I hope that people spend a second or two more than I did when they read this in the morning. I thought it said;Now bring on model helicopters and another couple of C172's
Might give The Broons the wrong idea.

[kiwi grey]

Maybe someone's getting ready for the Nimrod MR2 to get its OSD brought a l-o-n-g way forward? :ooh:

Being a foreign civilian, I don't know much about the details of the capability of either MR2/EO or Reaper, but I would expect that there would be little or nothing that the Reaper can't do that the MR2 can. And it wouldn't need AAR.

[Magic Mushroom]

Being a foreign civilian, I don't know much about the details of the capability of either MR2/EO or Reaper, but I would expect that there would be little or nothing that the Reaper can't do that the MR2 can. And it wouldn't need AAR.

Kiwi,

Actually, there are several important MR2 overland capabilities lacking in a Reaper. However, this and some other capabilities recently obtained should go some way to easing the burden on the Nimrod guys.

Regards,
MM

[roush]

MM

Like what?

[Magic Mushroom]

Like if you need to ask, you don't need to know.

[L J R]

Firstly - It is not a Drone, it is an uninhabited aircraft.

It carries GBU-12, (a pair of 500lb Laser Guided Bombs) as well as 4 Hellfire missiles and flies at 250TAS. It is not a chuck and throw away item.

It is not an MQ-1 PREDATOR, but don't belittle what the MQ-1 does - they are working very hard providing a fantastic role for the lads sandy-side.

The MQ-9 flies in Civil airspace in the USA including by RAF crews..

The aircraft are currencly operated by 39 Sqn at Creech (indian springs). It IS in theatre. Has been there since October.

The Prior - you sir are mis informed.

[sense1]

Greetings all.


Could anyone clarify the number that we will end up with..... are these 10 planned Reapers in addition to the 3 already being operated/acquired or are we getting 10 altogether? I must admit I was a little surprised but VERY pleased to hear about this purchase - I thought the UK Forces would have had to manage with just the original 3 for a long time to come. So top marks - its nice to hear some positive news for UK Forces what with all the rumours and speculation of cuts flying around over the last few months! :ok:


sense1

[EdSet100]

Where does it say that the RAF will be getting them? The article mentions, "the UK", not any specific arm of the MoD. In these Joint Service times, it wouldn't surprise me if the army are the ultimate recipients, with RAF aircrew embedded.

[Razor61]

Hmm, an airfield within SPTA springs to mind :rolleyes: ... then perhaps go elsewhere?
I remember visiting Creech once, back when it was called Indian Springs AAF.
Lots of hangars around made out of the same type of material as Tarpaulins. Or were they giant tarpaulins? I can't remember seeing any Predators though.... although they were there cause i was told so, all i remember is the Thunderbirds practicing everyday!

[roush]

MM

You're right, I don't need to ask.

And you obviously don't know enough about the Reaper.

[whowhenwhy]

Methinks Razor61 has the idea :ok:

[downsizer]

Are we going to arm ours? A little birdie told me that we hadn't bothered with the armament capabilty.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

With regards to who eventually own this capability my only concern with giving it to the Army is how long it will be before the GOC wants one for his own personal transport :eek:

[Winco]

MM
I'll own up to being ignorant about Reapers' capabilities, and probably the current MR2's also, so, unless it's highly hush-hush, could you enlighten those of us who don't know please?? Thanks
The Winco

[Kitbag]

The Government of the United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of 10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support.

This looks like a fairly comprehensive package, (to use your analogy-HDTV, Cameras, Lights, Studio and Broadcast Capability), only requires humans to direct, operate and act in it.

[akula]

Sense1,

I believe it is 10 in total, to be manned by RAF Aircrew, given the US's attrition rate and an expectation that ours will approximate it, 3 would just not last that long so the prudent man got some extras. As for the funding, I believe MM may well be able to give some idea as to where the MOD is saving a load in the ISTAR world.

ALWAYS assume NEVER check

[Warmtoast]

Fascinating stuff - but MOD's November press release about use of Reaper mentions it will be operated by 39 Sqn.
However if one reads the official Royal Air Force AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE Web page there is no mention of 39 Sqn at all in the listing of current RAF squadrons.

Weird or what?

[Magic Mushroom]

MM

You're right, I don't need to ask.

And you obviously don't know enough about the Reaper.

Dear me roush, bad day was it?!! I'm not a Reaper specialist but have seen them on ops at first hand and worked with the tasking of a variety of UAVs and manned ISTAR assets. As I said, they are a superb addition and will be able to do a considerable amount of what the MR2 does right now, but not all.

However, UAVs, like any system do have pros and cons. They are more weather limited than most manned assets and, significantly, they are slower. Although this is not such a problem for the MQ-9, manned assets like the MR can reposition around the battlespace a lot more efficiently than most medium UAVs.

Winco,

The additional capabilities are not massively hush hush but I don't believe that there is a particular need to elaborate on a forum such as this. I'm not attempting to sound superior, just applying a little tact.

Edset,

Let's not start an inter-service pi$$ing competition again. However, I believe the current lead service has been correctly allocated. 39 Sqn has light and dark blue guys from a variety of backgrounds. The Army have recently started operating the Hermes 450 TUAV but land ownership of UAVs is subject to massive inter cap badge politics. Right now the RA have them as they previously owned the Phoenix. I think this is a significant mistake.

Personally, I think the AAC should take ownership of all Land UAVs above Phoenix type size with the RA and Int Corps taking the lead on sensor ops. Why do I say this? I just don't think an RA gunner has sufficient air mindedness to operate something like a TUAV in busy airspace. I was recently asked by an RA TUAV pilot what QNH stood for. I think they've increased the trg their operators get now but I still think the AAC would be better off owning them; indeed, DAAvn were forced to assume airworthiness ownership from DRA because of their lack of understanding of the issues involved.

No particular hit on the RA, but operating a Phoenix in a relatively small area is very different to operating a TUAV up to FL100-150 in busy operational airspace. Finally, I can't see the CAA allowing non pilot qualified guys to operate in anything but segregated airspace.

Regards,
MM

[Agaricus bisporus]

it is an uninhabited aircraft.

Bwahahahaha!!!

That is the funniest, daftest bit of nonce-speak I've ever heard! Brilliant!

Uninhabited my @rse! Its not a f*ck!ng caravan pal, its an unmanned aircraft!!

[L J R]

Unmanned hints at autonomous. The Global Hawk is unmanned

Uninhabited hints that a man is in full control at all times, he just doesnt get to sit inside it.

In the UCAV world There is a difference. Part of their problem is educating the old school about military aviation as it exists in 2008. UCAVS are a part of military aviation today.

[Gainesy]

That is the funniest, daftest bit of nonce-speak I've ever heard! Brilliant!

Nearly as good as "Naval Strike Wing".:)

[BEagle]

'Uninhabited aircraft'. Indeed, AB, utter bolleaux. What wanquerre thought that one up?

Weren't these things once called 'Remotely Piloted Vehicles'?

[roush]

The plan, as I understand it, is that the UOR was for three airframes plus ground control stations and communications links. The decision to buy additional aircraft will probably rest on when and if the RAF takes it into core.

BE, you are quite correct; the term of choice at the moment is RPA (remotely Piloted Aircraft). This is designed to separate those aircraft such as Reaper and Predator from other fully autonomous "unmanned" aircraft.

39 Sqn (RAF) and 42 Attack Sqn (USAF) currently fly them operationally, and have done so for a few months now. 39 Sqn is made up of two main strands, the first being the Predator flights supporting the USAF as part of the Combined Joint Predator Task Force. They were originally 1115Flt which were then subsumed into 39 Sqn. The UK personnel are still embedded into the USAF Sqn and fly the USAF owned MQ-1 Predator. This flight is made up of Tri-service personnel in all roles except the Pilot role which is all RAF Pilots.

The other flight is the MQ-9 Reaper flight. This flight operates the UK owned Reaper aircraft and was the part brought about as a UOR (from UOR to flying in theatre was about 10 months). The Reaper flight is also Tri-service, however the Pilot’s are all RAF and the Sensor Operators are all RAF WSO/WSOP’s. (Mostly ex-maritime or fast jet)

As can be found from several open source documents, they fly at 250kts, up to 50,000ft (if not armed) can carry 3000lbs of ordinance (GBU-12, Hellfire and more to come), and can stay airborne for a long time. The sensor ball is second to none http://www.raytheon.com/products/mts_b/ it has a couple of day TV cameras, IR, Low Light, can fuse them together, has a laser marker, laser designator for the weapons or any other assets laser guided munitions. It also regularly uses Rover, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROVER.

The Reaper also has a very capable Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI), so even if the target is covered by cloud it can do some good work.

The plan for additional equipment to put on this aircraft is only limited by peoples imagination.

The best thing about it….its ours.

The bad things:

It doesn’t like flying in cloud. Although not nearly as bad as the Predator in this respect. It can penetrate cloud but they really try and avoid it.
We only have a few and they take a while to be build and be delivered.
More crews would be good.
There seems to be a lot of talk about attrition rates, from what I’ve seen this is more of a Predator issue. Maybe because the Reaper is the size of an A-10 it seems to like flying more.



Finally, as someone who lost a good friend on the Nimrod, I for one hope it helps out the MR2 guys however it can.



MM, certainly not a bad day, it’s always good out in Vegas.

[Ivan Rogov]

Thanks for the update Roush, are you sure it was 10 months from UOR to operations?
MQ-9 certainly looks good on paper, although it will be much harder to operate/intergrate into the battlespace at higher altitude, is the GCS an improvement the Preds?
It still has flexibility and payload issues compared to a manned platform but the persistance and sensor fit should more than compensate. No weapons in the order though, so still not fufilling it's potential?.
Re MR2, I believe there were plenty of things that could have been fitted/improved which weren't due to funding, head in the sand short sightedness and politics.

P.S. Sorry Roush I edited out the, All on Black or Red? It's back so the old guys don't get confussed.

[John Farley]

BEages et al

Unmanned indeed. It has to be uninhabited because the girls demand the right not to be there as well.

JF

[roush]

Ivan
Black, always Black
The usual playground for the Reaper is 15,000 - 30,000ft. The major issue is it hasn't got a sense and avoid capability so flying it anywhere except ranges and warzones is a real issue. It carries all IFF modes and Links so easily joins in with manned aircraft in theatre. As you can fly it from anywhere (KU band sats) they could always move 39 Sqn back to the UK but keep training out in the USA. All these issue I am sure are being discussed.

As for the GCS, they are all being converted to a universal fit, so with a quick change of software you could fly Reaper or Pred from the same GCS.As you probably know, the USAF aircraft are armed, as for ours....we will have to wait and see what is being decided.

Without meaning to sound confrontational, I struggle to see how this airframe is less flexible than others? Do you mean it’s weather restrictions and/or it’s numbers in theatre?

[BEagle]

Indeed, JF, I did wonder whether the silly term was a sop to the PC-police so as not to discriminate between male/female/don't know/don't care genders.....:hmm:

Since when did squadrons have 'strands'? Surely A, B and C flight if you must?

So it blunders around at 250KIAS and doesn't like flying in cloud? One hopes, then, that its enemies won't have anything more sophisticated than a few old Strikemasters to blow the wretched things away when they're carrying weapons? All very well when you're only up against the folk of Umboto gorge with their sharpened guava halves - but against a more capable foe.....??

[roush]

BE

Totally Agree. It's not a fighter, it's an armed ISAR platform. For present Ops its great.

[Ivan Rogov]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/MQ-1_Predator_controls_2007-08-07.jpg

Wouldn't desert CS95 be more comfortable or are the all you can eat buffets beating the belt lines?

[roush]

Vegas isn't famous for it's salads But then nor is Kinloss

[BEagle]

As if it mattered.....

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that your 'unpeopled air veehickles' do indeed have their place, but the beancounters who see them as some sort of an universal panacea would be well advised to exercise caution.

[L J R]

The thing is Beagle, is that the time and place happens to exist at the moment. You are right, there is no self defence from the Strikemaster, but I seem to recall that the Taliban do not fly anything at the moment.

[Ivan Rogov]

Hi Roush, don't worry I'm thick skinned. I know it sounds like a cop out but I always try and steer clear of discussing specifics on here. If your ex maritime this might work, MQ-9 is good for AO but not prefered for DS, hence the King Air order, OTOH for AS either are good, Also I think it is easier to rapidly fit/intergrate to a manned platform for a host of reasons ie: payload, power supply, space, control/operation of equipment etc. and you never know what is required tomorrow. It should excell in the role it has been purchased for, due mostly to it's persistance , but it's hardly flexible. For example the MR2 can do ASW, ASUW, SAR, AT (V. limited granted), ISR and more 1000nm? from it's operating base in any weather, it can change roles instantly while airborne and carry out more than one role at once (true multi role) If it's not in the right place it can get there at 500kts? or self deploy immediatly in 4000nm? hops untill it gets where it is needed.
Hope the GCS is better than Pred GCS, from what I have heard it is not the best man/machine interface ever built, designed by engineers without much operator input?
Don't mention the S word!

[Magic Mushroom]

So it blunders around at 250KIAS and doesn't like flying in cloud? One hopes, then, that its enemies won't have anything more sophisticated than a few old Strikemasters to blow the wretched things away when they're carrying weapons? All very well when you're only up against the folk of Umboto gorge with their sharpened guava halves - but against a more capable foe.....??

Beagle, I think I may have mentioned this to you before but did your ancestors ever utter the immortal words that 'aircraft will never replace the horse'?

RQ-1 Pred As operated extensively over both Serbia during OAF and Iraq during the NFZ days. None were lost to Serb Fulcrums or Fishbeds in 99 and, whilst the Iraqis were a little more sucessful, statistics don't reinforce your concerns.

Obviously, an MQ-9 won't be able to operate in a significantly high threat area, but the same could be said for many of our ISTAR assets. It's certainly more survivable than an MR2.

In short, get with it old timer...

Roush,

The best thing about it….its ours.

Mmm, not quite true. We're tied into the US procurement of MQ-9 as I understand it which limits us significantly regarding our development roadmap. Basically, we can only have what the US wants. This will be more of a problem than some realise.

As far as Creech and Vegas, I've been to both and you're welcome to it for a full tour!

Regards,
MM

[Backwards PLT]

Isn't the point about survivability that if we lose a Nimrod then that is 12ish people (lives, human) lost, if we lose a Predator/Reaper then the pilot goes home, has dinner with the wife and gets a new one in the morning (and the unit cost of the air vehicle is at least an order of magnitude less, btw?) So who cares about "high risk"?

[Magic Mushroom]

BPLT,
That is one aspect. However, UAVs such as Reaper are highly advanced and pretty high value in their own right. The loss of one or 2 can significantly impact ops, especially at a key moment. We're probably not far off seeing defensive systems being placed on MALE UAVs.
MM

[BEagle]

Yes, it's no longer the case that the Unpersonned Aircraft is just sent where it is too dangerous to use normal aircraft.....

They should not be thought of as 'cheap, dsiposable' systems. Which augment but do not replace conventional aircraft.

During a meeting we had not long agao, the increasing sophistication and cost of the Unpersonned Aircraft was raised - because by becoming too sophisticated and HVAA in nature, they were in some danger of becoming too valuable to risk in certain scenarios. Rather defeating their purpose.

[sangiovese.]

Pardon me for asking, I think it's excellent that you chaps are getting more of the required kit..........but how are you go to find the presonnel to run it?

I thought you were desperately short ......so will you drop a capability, especially with more C17s on their way too? So who's going to operate it? Not sure you've increased your throughput in pilot and engineer training have you?

[Chris Kebab]

So if we have bought the system does that mean we actually have our own satellites to provide the US - theatre link?

Or has that bit been forgotten? Or are we 100% dependent on the US?

I don't know - but I suspect it is that latter which may be interesting when we want to do something on our own.

[Ivan Rogov]

The rules for an Urgent Operational Requirement were something like "lasts for 6 months, no training, support, extra manning etc." I'm pretty sure they have changed the time frames and support now as we rely on them so much. Anyone more informed feel free to correct me :ok:
Basically we have brought them to provide/improve a capability in theatre ASAP; they are not necessarily a long term solution.

[Biggus]

My previous experience of UORs is that 'kit' bought under a UOR stays on an aircraft for 5-6 years, maybe longer, before the money is found to catch up with the 'training, support, manpower, etc' to support it in the long term!

Items purchased under UORs are often long term requirements, but the UOR approach is a way of finding the money for them and getting them into service quickly.

Whether any/all of this applies in this particular case (Reaper) I am not in a position to say!

[Ivan Rogov]

Biggus my experience is the same, however I think this is being addressed. AFAIK UORs now have 2 years grace before they either get removed or fully incorporated (outside my expertise) on to some platforms.
I also agree that UORs are used to get equipment that is needed long term, this has been going on for many years now and masks issues like under funding and failures in procurement. It's probably a result of great money saving ideas like "just in time" and "fitted for, not with". Unfortunately many of the items purchased by this method could have been brought into service and trained with years ago, but we are skint :{ and have been for sometime. For example MALE UAV (girly RPVs?) have been in use for a few years with other countries we would traditionally rank below our forces.
The reason I expanded on the UOR nature of Reaper was in response to Chris's post re: satellite links and doing something on our own. These are not an issue as it was purchased for the current situation as an UOR.

[Chris Kebab]

So just to clarify, all 10 are being bought as a UOR?

I thought it was only the first couple.

[Ivan Rogov]

My apologies Chris, there is no info on how the new buy has been funded :ouch:

A couple of articles, the second is interesting mentions weapons and Reapers over London in 2012?

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/idr/idr071119_1_n.shtml

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/16/219624/raf-reapers-to-be-armed-from-december.html

[Lima Juliet]

Magic Mushroom

On the subject of survivability I do believe you are a little economical with the truth. The Serbians were sh!t scared to launch anything let alone against an unarmed Predator and your comment whilst the Iraqis were a little more sucessful is grossly underestimated as even our own side were bringing them down.

I can remember a day over Iraq when the Eagles were mightily distressed because a couple of ANG Vipers were vectored by a USAF AWACS onto a wayward Predator (no Magics on NFZ duties then, so you probably never saw this) - needless to say the Predator didn't last long!

Predators and Reapers are great when there is no air threat or we have Air Superiority, Air Supremacy or even Air Dominance. Still according to all the 2Gp warriors we don't need FJs anymore do we? I will laugh my c@ck off when we lose all our 2Gp assets in the first week of a proper air war and you'll know who I am as I'll be wearing a "told you so" t-shirt and a very smug grin. By the way, if I have to fly close escort on a Predator/Reaper then you may as well put a recce pod on my jet and I'll look after myself!

I agree with Beagle - I had a Jindivik in Cardigan Bay once and UAVs and RPVs are my kind of target:ok:
LJ

[Ivan Rogov]

Leon,
I will laugh my c@ck off when we lose all our 2Gp assets in the first week of a proper air war and you'll know who I am as I'll be wearing a "told you so" t-shirt and a very smug grin.
Care to put the T-shirt on now?
Predators and Reapers are great when there is no air threat or we have Air Superiority, Air Supremacy or even Air Dominance.
Could also apply to the F3, has it ever been over the start line?

[XV277]

here's what the first one looks like for those who don't know:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3611BAE3-F96A-473C-BD8C-48F61D416828/0/CAC99PDI.jpg

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ReaperTakesToTheAirInAfghanistan.htm

[muppetofthenorth]

How long will the US serial stay on the fin for?

[Magic Mushroom]

leon,

I was aware of the Iraqi incident although I'm a little taken aback by your comment regarding the Serbs. They launched more fixed wing than has been acknowledged and fired off an impressive amount of SAMs and AAA (albeit much of the former was ballistic). However, numerous Pred As operated for extended periods deep inside Serbia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting MQ-9s are going to survive against a decent unhindered air threat. Just that they do have applications in an environment with a conventional threat.

Still according to all the 2Gp warriors we don't need FJs anymore do we?

Err, I don't know who's said that matey. Although it could be suggested that current expenditure could be a little more equitably allocated between 1 and 2 Gps, I've not heard anyone suggesting we don't need FJ apart from the Army. Don't worry though, I also used to be paranoid until I realised people hated me anyway!!:}

Could also apply to the F3, has it ever been over the start line?

Ivan,

Many, many times and in it's current form it's actually quite a capable asset.

Regards,
MM

[Ivan Rogov]

MM I know and I would hope it is capable after 20 years of development, it was a lame dig at Leon due to the poor coments in his post, he doesn't seem to be much of a team player!
Apologies to all F3 fans.

[Magic Mushroom]

Ivan,
Banter acknowledged!!:ok: