new use for RAF reaper post stan?
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
WW
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
Avenger has a ~$15M per copy pricetag, compared to, supposedly, ~$30M for Reaper
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
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 26th May 2012 at 20:26.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Air Force buys Avenger drone from General Atomics | Deseret News
Reaper price from here: Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request | COSTOFWAR.COM
However, Factsheets : MQ-9 Reaper 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.
Avenger price from here:
More drones, smaller Navy | UTSanDiego.com
Air Force buys Avenger drone from General Atomics | Deseret News
Reaper price from here: Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request | COSTOFWAR.COM
However, Factsheets : MQ-9 Reaper 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.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 26th May 2012 at 21:32.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Milo
possibly a stupid question.....
but could these UAVs be launched from one of the new carriers without a catapult?
What about landing it?
but could these UAVs be launched from one of the new carriers without a catapult?
What about landing it?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
