[kabar]

That is the BIG QUESTION. Why wasn't it armed? The other drone had run out of gas and had to return. But by that time they knew an attack was underway. What is the downside of arming it? Perhaps they believed that the Libyan government, which had the responsibility of protecting our diplomatic personnel and facilities and didn't do it, would be upset if they found out it had been armed. Or was it not armed because the decision had already been made not to intervene militarily regardless.

There was no legitimate reason for not arming it, even as just a contingency or option. You would not have to use the weapons, but given the fact they knew an attack was underway, it only seems prudent to have that option available. So who made that decision? It had to come from the WH.

[gaijin]

Exactly. That’s like someone phoning to police dispatch that 7-11 is being robbed and you radio to the nearest police station to ONLY sent cars driven by cops with NO GUNS.

It sounds like a faculty lounge lizard is controlling operational particulars.

It’s way beyond President Johnson and it brings us right back to the crazy, “botched prisoner swap” theory.

[TankerKC]

What is the downside of arming it?

Range and time over station (TOS).

Predators don't hold a lot of gas. Hanging a couple of weapons significantly decreases range.

I'm not say that why this sortie was without weapons...just offering one option.

[Former Proud Canadian]

I have a better question. Why didn't they send F-18's. They could have made it to Benghazi a lot quicker than the drone.

The answer to both questions is simple. Obama.

[leakinInTheBlueSea]

Anyone know the range/endurance penalty for arming with hellfires? Was the aircraft from Sicily a version that could be armed (MQ-1 or MQ-9)? Not that they couldn’t send in armed manned aircraft, but it may not have been an option for the closest UAV.