RAF to get up to 10 MQ9 Reapers
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
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM
You're right, I don't need to ask.
And you obviously don't know enough about the Reaper.
You're right, I don't need to ask.
And you obviously don't know enough about the Reaper.
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is an uninhabited aircraft.
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!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
'Uninhabited aircraft'. Indeed, AB, utter bolleaux. What wanquerre thought that one up?
Weren't these things once called 'Remotely Piloted Vehicles'?
Weren't these things once called 'Remotely Piloted Vehicles'?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where The Sun Sets
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Ivan Rogov; 5th Jan 2008 at 18:28.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where The Sun Sets
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by roush; 5th Jan 2008 at 18:46.
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.....
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.....??
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.....??
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2007-08-07.jpg
Wouldn't desert CS95 be more comfortable or are the all you can eat buffets beating the belt lines?
Wouldn't desert CS95 be more comfortable or are the all you can eat buffets beating the belt lines?
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....??
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.
As far as Creech and Vegas, I've been to both and you're welcome to it for a full tour!
Regards,
MM
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 5th Jan 2008 at 22:46.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?