new use for RAF reaper post stan?

[cyrilranch]

GA-ASI, UK Partners Validate New Open Payload Architecture During Sovereign Payload Capability Demo

A GA-ASI Predator B/MQ-9 UAS fitted with a SELEX Galileo Seaspray 7500E surveillance radar. (Photo: GA-ASI)
Demonstration Supports Independent Upgrade of Future Sovereign Payloads on Predator B

07:10 GMT, May 18, 2012 SAN DIEGO | General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and electro-optic surveillance systems, along with SELEX Galileo (a Finmeccanica company) and Cobham Aviation Services (Cobham), on Wednesday, May 16, demonstrated a new open payload architecture during the Sovereign Payload Capability Demonstration (SPCD) held at GA-ASI’s Gray Butte Flight Operations Facilities in Palmdale, Calif.

The event included a live flight demonstration over the Pacific Ocean of a GA-ASI Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper UAS fitted with a SELEX Galileo Seaspray 7500E surveillance radar and showcased the radar’s ability to track targets on land, in the littoral and maritime environments, and from air-to-air. An international audience was in attendance, including officials from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Ministries of Defense of the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and The Netherlands.

“Today’s demonstration represents a significant step toward the goal of operational independence for Predator B,” said Frank W. Pace, president, Aircraft Systems Group, GA-ASI. “Our open payload architecture greatly reduces integration complexity by allowing payload providers and mission systems integrators to develop their own payload control software and ultimately integrate their own payloads.”

The SPCD is part of a joint Independent Research and Development (IRAD) effort between GA-ASI and SELEX Galileo to prove the concept and architecture for a fully certified Predator B incorporating a separate mission management system that supports the independent and cost-effective upgrade of future sovereign payloads. GA-ASI performed the software and hardware modifications to the Predator B system to implement the open payload architecture, while SELEX Galileo delivered the radar and supported the integration work.

defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35534/?SID=a9600391efe3d75387beafb390a2d1f2)
Cobham provides support to UK airworthiness procedures and through-life support as GA-ASI’s teammate in the UK responsible for whole life support arrangements for the Royal Air Force’s (RAF’s) MQ-9 Reaper UAS.

“We’re thrilled to be partnering with GA-ASI and Cobham on such a forward thinking programme. Customers don’t want to be locked into particular payloads, they want the flexibility to integrate their own capabilities and sovereign control over the missions they fly,” said Fabrizio Giulianini, CEO of SELEX Galileo, adding, “Today’s demonstration was the first step in proving the concept of our platform and sensor-agnostic skyISTAR mission management system which will be flexible enough to meet the needs of any UAS programme going forward. To meet the demanding sensor requirements of these future UAS, our Seaspray radar exemplifies the foundation of advanced AESA technology that will allow us to provide high-resolution, multimode, multi-domain, and very wide-area coverage surveillance to users."

“Cobham is delighted to partner with GA-ASI and support this initiative by providing expertise to the airworthiness certification and sensor integration portions of this exciting program,” said Peter Nottage, president of Cobham Aviation Services.

Initial testing of the new architecture was completed in September 2011, demonstrating the ability to host third party-developed payload control software on existing airborne and Ground Control Station (GCS) processors. Today’s SPCD is the first phase in the flight demonstration process, with future phases envisioned to demonstrate systems integration independent of GA-ASI’s involvement.

[ratty1]

new use for RAF reaper post stan?

I've heard that they will be used to photograph naked women sunbathing.

[Backwards PLT]

post stan


When do you think that will be for Reaper?!

And why post Stan? What has he done to you? Maybe he is happy where he is?

[Whitehall]

Has anybody heard any announcements WRT the future of REAPER within PR12?

The link below fails to mention:

UK MoD confirms future C4ISR projects - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/uk-mod-confirms-future-c4isr-projects/)

[langleybaston]

like 2 and 4 sqn at Guetersloh: plenty of nekkid wimmin snapped from the air then ..................

[Lima Juliet]

I would expect REAPER to remain an UOR and continue supporting the Afghan mission for a few years yet - otherwise, the Afghan National Security Forces will suffer from a lack of ISTAR and CAS platforms.

Don't forget that Project SCAVENGER is still on the table and the REAPER UOR could always win that. In fact, in these fiscally challenged times, we would be mad to consider anything else.

IMHO, of course :E

LJ

[Just This Once...]

I'd expect REAPER to come into core and SCAVENGER to be forgotten.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

More importantly, why does Reaper seem to get capitalised when people mention it? We don't talk about TYPHOON or VOYAGER, so why REAPER?

[iRaven]

UORs should be capitalised...

REAPER
TALISMAN
SHADOW
MASTIFF
etc...

as are Projects/Programs...

HELIX
SCAVENGER
CROWSNEST
etc...

It's only when it becomes Hawk T1, Tornado GR4, Sentry AEW1, etc... that the caps are lost.

Make sense?

[Red Line Entry]

YES...sorry, yes.

[St Johns Wort]

I didn’t understand a word of Cyrilranch’s post but a perfect use for the reaper would be to cruise the motorways and eradicate all vehicles, and drivers, who hog the middle lane doing 60mph!

[Corporal Clott]

...a perect use for the reaper...

Why is it that people use lower case letters for Reaper of the REAPER UOR? :E

CPL Clott

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Thank you iRaven, learning has taken place...! But what do you put it in your logbook as....?

[iRaven]

MQ-9 Reaper

By the way, another one is RIVET JOINT which is capitalised as it is a Project of the BIG SAFARI Program. Now the MQ-1 Predator started in BIG SAFARI and was PREDATOR for a while, but is now plain old MQ-1 Predator as it is now standalone.

http://www.bigsafariassociation.org/Big_Safari_Transparent.gif

[L J R]

But what do you put it in your logbook as....?

MQ-9. Works for me. :ok:

[Whitehall]

REAPER to remain a UOR and support AFG Security Forces and be funded by NATO would seem to be a winner for the budget managers! WRT to SCAVENGER then yes, REAPER may well be a winner again as it would be a quick win as I am not sure what will come of the Anglo/French joint development vision for a future MALE UAV. One would assume, there will be subtle differences to what each country would wish deliver from any new designate aircraft and potentially this would not be deliverable.

I again assume that further development for the MQ-9 by GA is essential to make this an asset that could deploy and be utilised in "worldwide" environments?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

They're continuing to upgrade it. Why don't we buy some of these?

http://defense-update.com/images_large2/avenger2.jpg

400kts, same weapons (including development for GBU-38 and GBU-49; bet they could even integrate PWIV and DMS if we asked nicely), same ground station, same instrumentation, same radar, adds the JSF EOTS, similar endurance.

We could have our existing REAPER (thanks iRaven!) aircrew flying them on missions pretty much immediately, I imagine.

[Backwards PLT]

5F6B

I see your point but the problem is probably a lot more cash just for the speed. Plenty of other weapons/sensors can be integrated on Reaper (sorry), if they aren't already, you just need to pay. And speed isn't an issue in the current theatre - you can pretty much guarantee that a Reaper will be on task long before Tornado (or Typhoon :}), simply because it is already there. Persistence has a quality all of its own!

There are exceptions, of course, and plenty of other theatres but are they worth the RISK and cost? IMHO going down an anglo-french route when we already have such a capable platform would have been madness (or politics, which amounts to the same thing).

[5 Forward 6 Back]

It's surprisingly cheap, but mainly it shows that there's an upgrade path. Buy Reaper now, adopt it into core, and you don't need to worry about what its replacement will be as there are already options that fit into the same system.

Predator-C might just be a Reaper with a jet engine, but maybe Predator-D will have double the weapons capacity, and Predator-E will have stealth? Plus there are already plans to fit expanded wings and more fuel tanks to Reaper. Makes sense to stay with ours and buy into these upgrades as we can.

The Predator family's getting so many developments we'd be a bit insane to look at jumping out from a mature, existing capability that we already have in order to build our own.

[Backwards PLT]

5F6B - Completely agree. Someone's bound to screw it up!!

[St Johns Wort]

Good spot mate, fancy me putting an 'f' in perect! How stupid do I feel?:ugh:

Also, thanks for giving me an idea for another target for the reaper.

[Lonewolf_50]

The massive advantage of Pred and Reaper is dewll time ... being there in an area of interest. You really don't need a jet engine for that, fuel consumption.

Now, if you wanted to put together a small squadron of "dash and dump" sorts like the jet model pictured, that's a different role and a different mission. Not a bad thing, of course, but a different mission that need not be a requirement for the armed ISR assets.

Then again, if you want deep strike quickly, why not use ATACMS? :}

[Chris Kebab]

apols for a spot of drift but am intrigued in the logging of UAV/UAS/RPAS hours with regards civvy recognition. What's the CAA's take on, say, 2000 Hrs of logged Reaper Captaincy? Do they actually count outside the military, does Easyjet, for example, recognise them?

[Willard Whyte]

Quoted endurance for Pred-C/Avenger is 20 hrs with 'standard' fuel, compared to 14-28 for Pred-B/Reaper depending on loadout.

Avenger has a ~$15M per copy pricetag, compared to, supposedly, ~$30M for Reaper.

Lack of a prop, as well as designed-in stealth features and a higher operating altitude, makes it harder to detect.

One might suppose that improved production techniques and maybe greater component commonality (with other a/c types) accounts for the cost saving?

Still, as long as the raf are locked into their usual timid attitude of go-with-what-you-know, that's just dandy.

[Lima Juliet]

WW

Avenger has a ~$15M per copy pricetag, compared to, supposedly, ~$30M for Reaper

That would be arse about face to me - an MQ-9 costs about $15M each depending on the spec of the sensors and weapons and I would expect Pred-C to be twice the price. But don't forget that a system is more than just the air vehicle; there's ground control stations, comms infrastructure and maintenance support. That said, compared to manned CAS/ISTAR, it's still cheap as chips as the more you fly the cheaper it becomes per flying hour.

On the endurance side it is very dependant on weapons load-out on MQ-9. That is no surpise though, I remember the drag index on the Hawk carrying 2x AIM9 and a gun pod and the Hawk T1A would be running out of gas inside 45mins compared to a clean jet doing 75mins.

DK

Don't know, but as it is logged in a normal RAF log book (as actual) then I can't see how they differentiate? That said, it wouldn't do much good for multi time for an ATPL! Maybe there is up side to BAES' Mantis after all!!

LJ

[Willard Whyte]

Aware of the ground control system stuff, should be the same for both really. On checking the Avenger is stated to be 'fully compatible' with the Reaper's GCSs

Avenger price from here:

More drones, smaller Navy | UTSanDiego.com (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/may/04/more-drones-smaller-navy/)

Air Force buys Avenger drone from General Atomics | Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700211356/Air-Force-buys-Avenger-drone-from-General-Atomics.html)

Reaper price from here: Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request | COSTOFWAR.COM (http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/analysis-fiscal-year-2012-pentagon-spending-request/)

However, Factsheets : MQ-9 Reaper (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405) suggests $54M for 4 a/c including ground systems, albeit at 2006 prices.

Bottom line is there is no hard and fast info on accurate, up to date figures; well, not that is necessarily independently verifiable.

Not trying to state any of the above as the absolutely irrefutable, happy to accept more accurate figures if available.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Possibly a stupid question.....
but could these UAVs be launched from one of the new carriers without a catapult?
What about landing it?

[ratty1]

Think very carefully milo because.........................

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0910/every-time-you-ask-a-stupid-question-don-t-ask-stupid-questi-demotivational-poster-1254962052.jpg

[Backwards PLT]

Chris - Last I heard, RPA hours cannot be counted towards civilian licensing hours in the UK (CAA rules), I would assume the same with the new european rules. I have heard that some can be counted in the US, though. I think it will take some time for licensing authorities to understand RPAs/UAVs, just look at the startled rabbit, "just say no" approach to them flying at all!

Cost wise, I think the point is that there is no single number. It varies on whether you talk about the airframe, the system or the system with support. In addition who is buying it and how will make a difference. Iirc the announced price for the next lot of UK Reapers was about £100 million and that was 5 airframes, plus sensors, the rest of the sytem and some support. Certainly if you just wanted the basic airframe from GA it would cost you nowhere near the £20 mil that some might calculate from that contract.

Last, flying Reaper/Avenger off the QE class would be a little tricky (ok impossible) but the USN is heavily into both fixed and rotary wing UAV research and testing. One example is the Firescout mentioned in the linked article in Willard's post. You could happily fly these off any FF/DD. I believe the RN have even briefly looked at them, but widespread adoption would surely mean the end of the FAA so don't expect to see it soon!

[Tourist]

"You could happily fly these off any FF/DD"


Yes, you could.

You could not, however operate them off any FF/DD in a manner comparable to a lynx for example.

There is a very very long way to go in competing against naval rotary aviation with a uav

[glojo]

possibly a stupid question.....
but could these UAVs be launched from one of the new carriers without a catapult?
What about landing it? Are the Americans already testing the X-47B which is a blooming great big hunk of metal and although that might need a catapult to launch, it will still be a pilotless aircraft and it will also be capable of deck landings.

With a carrier that lacks any type of arrester wire then we might need a different method of recovery but silly question it most certainly is not.

[Backwards PLT]

I agree with your fly/operate point but disagree with the "very very long way to go". There are certainly issues but I would be surprised if the USN aren't doing it to some degree within 10 years. Entirely replacing the manned helo is some distance away but one of each so that you can exploit their respective strengths seems like a good plan. You need room for 2 helos though!