General Atomics Avenger UAV. Looks cool, but I still harbor a preference for manned fighters, thank you.
What do you think?
Posted on 07/29/2009 6:37:03 PM PDT by myknowledge
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has released the first public images and the new name of its Predator C "Avenger" unmanned air vehicle.
The pictures reveal a stealthy design powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B; the same engine that powers the Cessna Citation XLS business jet. The UAV's 20m (66ft) wingspan is swept at 17°, allowing a maximum speed of over 400kt (740km/h), General Atomics says. Operating altitude can exceed 60,000ft, the company adds.
Further details about specifications and performance are not being released. But company officials acknowledge that a second aircraft is already in production with a 0.61m fuselage extension, raising overall length to just over 13.1m.
The first Avenger has completed at least three test flights, with the first flight recorded on 4 April at the Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility in Palmdale, California.
The UAV is designed to operate in the same hunter-killer role as General Atomics' Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper, but with a significantly faster response time. The manufacturer confirms it is also developing a new full motion video sensor for the aircraft.
The Avenger could also carry General Atomics' Lynx synthetic aperture radar and a forward-looking infrared sensor adapted from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
General Atomics Avenger UAV. Looks cool, but I still harbor a preference for manned fighters, thank you.
What do you think?
I think I want one.
General Atomics? Wasn’t that a fictitious company in the Fallout series? Didn’t they make the Mr. Handy and all the pre-nuclear war robotics and military hardware?
I think GA has again built an aircraft that the military did not know it needed and will make another fortune selling them to the Air Force.
It’s becoming more interesting what technical devices are incorporated into these systems. While the unit is unmanned and thus less problematic when shot down as it relates to loss of life, the technology lost might be quite significant.
Manned fighters against manned targets, especially others in jets. UAVs for the cowards that hide behind children and womens’ skirts.
And IRON MAN!
Everyone knows General Atomics is a front for Stark Industries.
Cessna O-1 Bird Dog.
It’s the same company that manufactures the Predator and Reaper UAVs.
And IRON MAN!
Would it been interesting if the troops had that armor?
>>Why do you think so? UAVs can be just as expensive as manned fighters.<<
Because manned fighters can hurt the MAN/MEN in the cockpit. We need them dudes to do stuff that requires a human in the seat at the moment.
Passive hunts for cowards can be regulated to robots.
A single pilot who gets hit by flak or a lucky SAM is too high a price to pay for simple Search and Destroy Weinies.
That is awesome.... no more props!
The technology lost to the enemy? It's manned, they could destroy it. Or, there would be a self-destruct button upon impact?
Not much left after a 60,000 foot drop and a self detonator. The other thing you can have when there is not life aboard.
Swarms of UAVs instead of F22s are a great idea — until it’s dogfight time.
What do you think?
Fighter? I don't think it's a fighter so to speak.
But can they be built by the ten thousands?
The A.I. systems for UAVs have not even sufficiently matured yet. Also, how would they fare against Flankers?
The UAVs would be blown away at BVR, then at WVR with heatseekers and cannon. A UAV dogfighting against a Flanker is a crazy idea.
A manned fighter has one set of eyes. An unammed can have 6 to 8, all with 100/1 zoom lenses and sensing into the IR sector.
An unmanned fighter has no pressurization, ejection seat, etc. It can also have a “crew” of 3 to 4 to operate sensors, keep situational analysis, etc.
Unmanned fighters do not create widows.
It’s a big sucker!
I think we have more enemies now within our borders which makes buying a lot of these a waste of money. We are being undermined from within.
Making it a stealthy jet will mean shorter flight times than the propeller driven UAV’s in service now won’t it?
Thanks!
Not on their own team, anyway.
I like the way you think!
Of course they can. And you get some serious economy of scale.
Not only do they not make widows on our side, they don't make POWs either.
They don't get tired, and if they want to kill you you are in deep doo-doo.
The UAVs would be blown away at BVR, then at WVR with heatseekers and cannon. A UAV dogfighting against a Flanker is a crazy idea.
BVR encounters rely on sensors other than the human eye. Exactly why cant we put these same sensors on an UAV? Why can't UAVs carry BVR missiles?
I would trade our entire fleet of F-22s, for 10,000 UAVs and we would be a lot stronger for it.
Thanks for the alternate reality on that. As long as the vehicle did maintain contact with base and or the automated self-detonator wasn’t damaged, I believe you both have a point.
Looks like that armor would be just the ticket in very hot climates — for instant heat prostation.
or evading anti-access weapons...
Not to mention they will be hugely susceptible to ground and air anti-acess weapons.
They are not for air-to-air. They are for observation.... for now.
Steve Ritchie says the F-22 / F-35 will probably be the last generation of manned fighters.
The next generation of weaspons systems (or the generation after that) of air-to-air will not be missiles. They will be lasers.
the last generation of US manned fighters, if deadheads continue to believe that jamming is a lost art and the Chinese and Russians were shooting down satellites as a modern equivalent of a fireworks display...
“The next generation of weaspons systems (or the generation after that) of air-to-air will not be missiles. They will be lasers.”
The next generation of US weapons systems manufactured sometime in or near the next century will only work if there is adequate training with swords.
Steve Ritchie ummh sure - he would know from all his recent motivational speaking... what is or isn't a viable future air combat system.
You can use computers. When they drone detects an intruder, the computer can follow a predetermined set of instructions to shoot it down with an AA missile from long range.
You put 3 drones in the area. Two drones are protecting the main drone. The fighters fly a figure 8 until they detect a bogey. They intercept it and kill it. Meanwhile the other drone does its job.
The Ruskies have some really neat jamming equipment.
Any serious war scenario will see the satellites become orbiting junk, and the controllers’ signals go no further than line of sight.
Meanwhile, the Flankers and PACs will rule the sky while those woop-de-do drones spiral into the ground. So much for trying to achieve air-superiority on the cheap.
Nano-UAVs are going to be a big improvement over sending troops (or as a supplement to sending in troops to do the mopping up), eventually; delivered by plane, missile (like plastic paratroopers on the 4th of July), or larger UAV, they’ll collect and beam back mountains of surveillance, be basically impossible to shoot down, and in time will even be weaponized to basically annihilate opposing forces (particularly guerrila forces) in the field.
“Nano-UAVs are going to be a big improvement...”
“Going to be” is the operative phrase - and when the Obama/Gates/Dems see any chance those thing might work as you advertize, there will suddenly be homeless to feed first, just like the F22, and soon the F35, and then NASA’s manned space program.
This is not a march toward effective weapons - cheap or otherwise - it is about uniltaerally disarming the US by removing one effective weapon at a time, while promising something better which has yet to be produced - like the F35 and your beloved Nano-UAVs.
You’re correct there.
I’d take manned Gen 5 fighters like the Raptor over a UAV any day.
That’s because you cannot jam a human pilot in a jet fighter whereas you can jam the datalink systems in UAVs.
You don’t need a datalink to launch an AMRAAM against a bogey
I meant the datalink connection between the GCS and the UAV.
It can be jammed or have the satellites destroyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
