Reaper Replacement

[ORAC]

So, PM has stated that the RAF Reaper fleet is to be replaced by 20 more advanced models with increased range and payload.

What are looking at here? Predator C?

(I am disregarding the name "Protector", the only type I can find with that name is an Israeli unmanned boat (USV). I assume a slip of the tongue - but just as the USAF changed fron RS-71 to SR-71 after a ,presidential gaffe, I presume whatever we get will be renamed appropriately.)


UK drone fleet to double in fight against IS, says PM - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34436917)

[Kitbag]

I think they're about to rename Watchkeeper :O

[Daysleeper]

I suspect if the journalist had listened very carefully he'd have heard "by 2020, subject to delays, overspends, etc etc, don't expect to see them by 2025""

Scavenger's output is supposed to replace Reaper in about that timeframe.

[Lima Juliet]

I suspect this is MQ-9 Reaper Block 5 ER - from the GA website:

Predator B continues to improve and evolve, making it more relevant for its customers' emerging needs. A new variant, Predator B ER, has been designed with field-retrofittable capabilities such as wing-borne fuel pods and a new reinforced landing gear that extends the aircraft's already impressive endurance from 27 hours to 34 hours while further increasing its operational flexibility. In 2016, the aircraft will evolve again when its wingspan will grow from 66 feet to 79 feet to hold the fuel that was previously stored in the fuel pods. This configuration will deliver 42 hours of endurance.

At the same time, they are working on getting MQ-9 fully certified for European airspace (don't forget that France and Italy also operate MQ-9). Here is a link explaining this: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/25/general-atomics-readies-drone-for-european-skies/

So now that UK Reaper can fire dual-mode Brimstone as well (MQ-9 Reaper Fires Brimstone Missiles (http://brimstonemissile.com/dual-mode-brimstone-achieves-direct-hits-mq-9-reaper-testing/)) then I suspect that MQ-9 Block 5+ ER that is certified is going to be SCAVENGER and that is what the PM is talking about.

LJ

PS. Delivery date is expected from 2019 according to the DoDBuzz link above.

[barnstormer1968]

Kitbag.
That's very naughty, but was my first thought too.
I can just imagine the prime minister boasting how the new watchkeeper has better boundary control etc etc, and hoping that no one picked up on the boundary control in question being in a marginal seat the government of the time want to win/keep with the jobs watchkeeper would bring. :)

[ShotOne]

Is it reallly so terrible if it turns out the "made in Britain" tag has carried some weight in this decision? There's going to be a huge market in RPAS; surely giving UK industry a toe hold is an all-too-rare act of responsible far-sighted government?

[Willard Whyte]

What are looking at here? Predator C?

Avenger would make sense, given our involvement in the series of products thus far.

So probably not.

[Rosevidney1]

As 'Avenger' is the (inappropriate) name of the Beech King Air in use for FAA Observer training, perhaps not.

[iRaven]

Predator C is a generation behind Taranis and oher UCAVs. Hopefully, we will get son of Taranis as well as the latest MQ-9s. Here is a hi-res piccy of the ER variant with drop tanks and winglets - http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MQ-9-Reaper-4.jpg

Here are the airframe changes (there are also lots of gadgetry changes as well)
http://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Enhanced-Endurance-PredB_Opt2_ISR-1.jpg

With a couple of sqns of Taranis replacing part of the GR4s role (with F35 and Typhoon doing the rest) and MQ-9 B5 ER doing the Medium-High Alt Long Endurance recce role that was done by the PR9 then we might have a half decent capability to offer for Combat Air once again.

http://content5.video.news.com.au/NDM_-_news.com.au/275/461/2435265443_promo215993488_648x365_2435265530-hero.jpg
BAESYSTEMS TARANIS

[downsizer]

Thing is Pred-C exists. Taranis is only a tech demonstrator.

[camelspyyder]

Thing is Pred-C exists. Taranis is only a tech demonstrator.
... from a company with, lets be honest, a fairly rubbish track record at military aircraft in the last 40 years.

[ORAC]

Indeed. Who can fail to remember the "Bugger-off"....

Phoenix (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/phoenix.htm)

[Willard Whyte]

Predator C is a generation behind Taranis and oher UCAVs.

At some point one has to put a broom stick in the merry-go-round of development and make a decision to buy something, else one ends up with a 20+ yr development period. Can't THINK where that's happened before...

[barnstormer1968]

Can I just pose the question as to whether 20 new aircraft will be enough?
Is this a replacement for what we have now to carry on the same role, or something else?
I'm asking as it seems we will soon have a fleet of AH64E helicopters and we may want some UAVs to go with those.

[Lima Juliet]

Thing is Pred-C exists. Taranis is only a tech demonstrator.

Slow down old stick, I believe that Pred C Avenger has yet to find a customer and is still a 'developmental' aircraft. I'm no big fan of t'bungling baron but I don't believe that Pred C is much further ahead and the UK product is up there with the more advanced ones like X47 and nEUROn.

Anyway, Reaper Block 5+ ER makes much more sense for now...

http://jamesdrewjournalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PredB_FuelPods_2014_mockup-672x372.jpg

LJ

[Mechta]

At some point one has to put a broom stick in the merry-go-round of development and make a decision to buy something, else one ends up with a 20+ yr development period. Can't THINK where that's happened before...

No you don't. You get companies to provide you with the service you require with the best they can offer at the time. As and when they can provide a better service (more operational hours within a given time window or better functionality), they get paid more for doing so. That way you don't get stuck with half-baked equipment which is obsolete by the time you get it. The supplier is always striving to improve the product, get more hours on station, and capability in a wider range of conditions, as that earns them more.

You are only tied to the supplier for as long as they have the best product on the market, so they have to keep upping their game.

[Willard Whyte]

Don't be so bloody boring.

[ShotOne]

You seem to be suggesting air combat capability be leased in, Mechta? Radical step..might work. Can't see it getting by all the vested interests tho

[Sandy Parts]

"pay per slew", sorry - old EO joke! :O

[Mechta]

ShotOne, the reaper is hardly an air combat aircraft, certainly not offensive air-to-air in its current form. A strike aircraft might be a more apt description, and there is no reason why a strike aircraft could not be leased*. At the rate things are changing with UAVs it would not be wise to tie oneself to one system for too long.

The only stage at which military personnel might be required is when making the decision to engage a target. Even then, there are precedents in Iraq of contractors making those decisions (Blackwater perhaps?).

*The French provision of Super Etendards to Iraq being a case in point.

[teeteringhead]

As 'Avenger' is the (inappropriate) name of the Beech King Air in use for FAA Observer training, perhaps not.

Or even .....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Hillman_Avenger_GL_1970.jpg/220px-Hillman_Avenger_GL_1970.jpg

..... but perhaps not (again)

[JFZ90]

whats the story with the name?

was it actually changed by the pm at the last minute?

[NorthernKestrel]

More details on the 'Protector' here...


Based on NATO airworthiness standard certified Predator B it seems...


Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | RAeS helps set the drone agenda (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3698/RAeS-helps-set-the-drone-agenda)

[theonewhoknows]

So the RAeS refers to UAV/UCAV/RPAV as drones. A very lazy term, which immediately tells me that whoever is opining doesn't really understand the significance of these systems.

[Haraka]

Agreed, this verbal erosion of specific terminology adopted for good reason regarding the "Unmanned/Uninhabited" family over the years will lead to traps for the unwary.
Note also that tethered aerostats are now merely often called "aerostats", in sublime ignorance of what the "stat" part of the term actually refers to.
To be honest it all started with the nonsensical term " airplane" , in ignorance of the etymological origination of the correct "aeroplane".

And when was the redefinition of "Strike" ordained?

[Bigbux]

Agreed, this verbal erosion of specific terminology adopted for good reason regarding the "Unmanned/Uninhabited" family over the years will lead to traps for the unwary.
Note also that tethered aerostats are now merely often called "aerostats", in sublime ignorance of what the "stat" part of the term actually refers to.
To be honest it all started with the nonsensical term " airplane" , in ignorance of the etymological origination of the correct "aeroplane".

And when was the redefinition of "Strike" ordained?

Ok, you got me. Why isn't the more recent "aerostat" a better description than "tethered aerostat"? The latter phrase seems tautologous. And, I can see no problem with "airplane". It's American English; a direct translation. Just interested in an explanation, not picking an argument.

[Easy Street]

I heard that the PM detests the names 'Reaper' and 'Scavenger' and personally directed that both the programme and whatever platform gets selected be named 'Protector'. Something about being on-message....

Must admit that I hadn't heard about any prime ministerial directives relating to Airseeker / Rivet Joint nomenclature, as suggested at the RAeS link. Seems to me as if most have settled on the latter.

As regards 'drones', there comes a point when we have to accept that the term has become so widely adopted that instead of doggedly persisting with unmanned / remotely-piloted / uninhabited (and changing our mind over that every few months), we roll with it. Public and journalistic eyes glaze over when the military is perceived as descending into jargon, whether fairly or not (witness all the recent fuss over 'deconfliction'). We've tried for long enough to embed the precise terminology; it hasn't worked so we should concentrate on getting over the key points that we really want the press and public to understand. Which are, in my view:

1) There is nothing unethical about using a platform which takes the operator away from the point of danger. Drones are simply the latest step in the search for a technological advantage, a process which has given us the spear, the sling (think David and Goliath), the longbow (think Agincourt), the rifle, the howitzer, the cruise missile. Warfare is not a duel; unfair does not mean unethical.

2) There is a person in the loop for all weapon aiming and release. Our drones are not autonomous killers.

Our political masters know how to get the public onside to their arguments. We should follow their example: key messages. Not a boring debate over terminology.

[Surplus]

I heard that the PM detests the names 'Reaper' and 'Scavenger' and personally directed that both the programme and whatever platform gets selected both be named 'Protector'. Something about being on-message....


Excellent, Reaper it is then, anything to annoy the PM and the spin doctors.

[Haraka]

. Why isn't the more recent "aerostat" a better description than "tethered aerostat"? The latter phrase seems tautologous.Bigbux. I think it's a reasonable question.
"Aerostat" is by no means a recent term, only its incorrect adoption.
You have to look at the family of aircraft, which, by convention, is broadly divided into two main classes: " aerodynes" and "aerostats".
Aerodynes are heavier-than-air craft that need to maintain themselves airborne in the atmosphere by self-generated aerodynamic force (i.e. sourced from a power plant). This category includes aeroplanes ( fixed wing) and rotorplanes (including helicopters and gyroplanes) .

In contrast, aerostats are lighter-than-air craft which are normally buoyant in the atmosphere. These can also be broadly divided into two classes. Those that lack a propulsion system ( "balloons") and those that are capable of being guided or steered," dirigibles" or airships. All these "blimps", "Zeppelins" et al are still also correctly defined as aerostats.

The "stat" part of aerostat therefore does not refer to it being static over the ground because it is on a tether. The confusion arises when other forms of aerostat need to be compared or contrasted. For example, free-flying balloons have been used in fairly recent times for reconnaissance and even long range bombing. Dirigible aerostats are still being built or proposed for a number of purposes, from surveillance to air transport.
Thus I do not consider it being pedantic to continue to try to use these definitions correctly.

[Haraka]

There is a person in the loop for all weapon aiming and release. Our drones are not autonomous killers.

Easy Street , I suggest that this statement underlines the very reason for using precise definitions, demonstrating the confusion that occurs when they are misapplied.

The evolved established distinction between a "drone" and a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System was to clearly underline the dissimilar operational concepts, and thus possible implications and consequences of employment, of these significantly different categories of UAV.
The Royal Artillery operated the USD 501 "Midge" in a "Drone Troop" . This was a totally autonomous vehicle which, once launched, was on it own. The flight profile was conducted internally on a system of mechanical air logs and heading changes, with no further external involvement until just before recovery.
Because of the implications of the lack of human in-flight control or input, particularly regarding a weapon system, the conceptual differentiation between a "drone" and a "Remotely Piloted Vehicle" has been deliberately stressed in the past, for good reasons.
By now tacitly accepting the blurring of these definitions, popular misunderstandings (particularly those purveyed in the open press), have arisen; if not actually being encouraged and fostered by interests promoting particular agendas.

Had these misapprehensions been effectively countered, by correction and education in the first place, then defensive statements such as that above about "our drones" not being "autonomous killers" would have been rendered largely unnecessary.

[Easy Street]

Haraka,

FWIW I totally understand and agree with your point. The trouble is we've been trying for so long to explain this, and with so little apparent success, that the time has come to accept defeat. Others were taking control of the debate while we talked technicalities; I agree that it's suboptimal that we are forced to use our opponents' language but it is still a debate we can win. Embracing the word 'drone' and turning it into a word that is understood in a way that suits us is a perfectly valid approach.

[Haraka]

Easy Street
Indeed. Instead of going from definition to definition: "Unmanned/Uninhabited, Air vehicle/Air system" etc. and spewing acronyms, the basic concepts should have been better elucidated in a consistent manner.
As you know the term "drone" was used by many in the past to mean unmanned target, even though these systems were frequently ground ( or air) controlled.
The usage of the term has thus been in confusion for 80 years plus, however in the early 70's it seemed to be getting sorted. Then popular usage smothered the distinction with RPV, and thus we are fighting an uphill battle to address a nation largely getting its opinions on the subject from so called Hollywood SF movies, a seemingly left-wing public broadcaster and the tabloid press.
I agree its pointless barking like a dog after a departing bus, but at least we can still air our unfettered opinions in some fora, such as this, and get some audience exposure.

[theonewhoknows]

Easy Street,

It's still lazy terminology. You can give up if you want, I won't. UCAV/UCAS will have a high level of automation. 'Drones' - really!

[wokkamate]

Perhaps we could buy some Shadow UAS and fly them with AH64E like the U.S. cav do right now. Seems like a reasonable capability...