USAF Orders Predator C

[ORAC]

One of them, that is.......

DefenseNews: U.S. Air Force Orders Single Predator C Avenger (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8550880&c=AME&s=AIR)

The U.S. Air Force is buying a single General Atomics Predator C Avenger jet-powered unmanned combat aircraft, the service said in a document posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website on Dec. 9. According to the heavily redacted document, Lt. Gen. Thomas Owen, commander of the service's Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, approved the procurement. The value of the sole-source contract was redacted.

The document states that the partially stealthy aircraft will be used in Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The Predator C is faster, has better sensor capacity and carries a greater payload than the existing MQ-9 Reaper unmanned combat aircraft. The Predator C also has an internal weapons bay and four external hard points, and it is capable of carrying 2,000-pound weapons. The aircraft is compatible with the Reaper's ground control station, the document said.

"This aircraft will act as the test vehicle to develop those next generation UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] sensors, weapons, and Tactics, Techniques & Procedures (TTPs) ensuring a quick, smooth and efficient fielding of these advanced capabilities to the area of operations," the document said. "Currently, the combatant commanders, with the SECDEF's concurrence, have determined there are insufficient assets in-theater today to gather the necessary information and to fully engage the present threat."

Buying General Atomics' privately funded Predator C aircraft will help the Air Force prepare for current and next generation threats, the document said. "This effort is an exceptional circumstance not only due to the need outlined by the SAF/AQ [Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)] but because it fulfills a multi-agency role by providing a test platform for both Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) and customers under an ongoing, classified SECDEF directed program," the document stated.

The aircraft is being procured for classified "customer" who needs the jet urgently. The Predator C was apparently the only aircraft that could fill the Defense Department's needs on such short notice.

Flight International first reported the procurement on Dec. 12.

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/predator-c-drone.jpg

[cokecan]

i'm as thick as a whale omlette - i thought 'Reaper' was a larger, more capable version of 'Predator' (in the same war as a F/A-18E SuperHornet is the same but different to a F/A-18A Hornet) - so can someone explain to me why GA/USAF are using the 'Predator' name again, instead of 'Reaper 2.0'?

am i wrong, are there two related and concurrently used and developed systems - Reaper and Predator - that have similar ancestors, but are now completely different and still evolving animals?

cheers.

[Archimedes]

Cokecan - it's because the Predator, Reaper and now this UAV/UAS/RPAS/RPV/OAAA [Other Acronyms Are Available], the Avenger, are from the Predator family by GA. So:

Predator = Predator A
Reaper = Predator B
Avenger = Predator C

It's akin (but not exactly so) to different variants of the King Air family being known in military service under different names (e.g. King Air, Pegasus [the T-44] and the Ute [the U-21]) All from the same family tree, but different manufacturer's model numbers and known by different names by the operators.

[Willard Whyte]

Think of Predator as the 'family' name or an indication of the type of vehicle to what it refers, Reaper and Avenger as the actual names.

[jamesdevice]

its all to confuse the Iranians when the first one crashes there
They won't be able to hold another press event as the won't know what to call it

[Corporal Clott]

My rumour sources say that the UK was offered Pred C Avenger on an almost 'sale or return' basis and the jokers on the future UK RPAS/UAS procurement program declined and carried on farting about with the UK/FR piece of crap called 'telemos' when there was a low risk option offered!:ugh::ugh:

Makes me want to :yuk:

Thank God Dave is no longer best of 'amis' with Sarko! Who knows, sense may prevail after all?

CPL Clott

[500N]

Cpl Clott

We seem to suffer the same fate over here in Aus.

It does amaze me what Gov't's do when it comes to procurement,
always wanting to re invent the wheel or design something from scratch
when a 90%er could be purchased off the shelf or at least built by the same
people who build for the main players.

[Lima Juliet]

500N

Yes, I agree and then we pay through the nose for late and underperforming equipment that is lucky if it meets that 90% at FOC. We then find our budgets squeezed that means Servicemen being made redundant in order to protect less jobs in our own defence industry! :ugh:

LJ

[500N]

Leon,

We are even worse, being a small military. We come up with "required criteria" that no one else / no other Defence forces seem to come up with which then means we either decide to develop and build it ourselves or do some convoluted modifications that satisfy them.

But when we buy off the shelf or near as can be off the shelf - FA18, C17, Chinook, things seem to go better - and we seem to get fast delivery !

I am no expert but with the battle space being even more networked nowadays, I would have thought seamless integration would be more beneficial than some 5% item - ie Link 16 ?

Especially when Australia operates mostly with the US.
.

[jamesdevice]

500N
So how come you got in at the early stages with Global hawk? The Aussies paid for much of the USA development costs on that.
Always struck me as a strange deal

[500N]

jamesdevice

I was talking generally, not specifically UAV's. Apologise for the mis understanding.

I thought we had something called the Heron or such like ? I'll have to look back.



Edit
That might have been for the Maritime use testing.

[jamesdevice]

yeah, I realsie that, but I wondered what made that deal the exception. Someone or something in oz-land was different with Global Hawk compared to other military purchases

[500N]

I have no idea. Our Gov'ts are pretty close and I wouldn't be surprised if deals within deals are done. In addition, with the fact that we have a number of "joint" bases here of high value to the US, you never know.