MQ-1C Sky Warrior
MQ-9 Reaper
The U.S. Army Aviation should also use manned CAS aircraft, like the:
Air Tractor AT-802U
Boeing OV-10X Bronco
Hawker Beechcraft / Raytheon AT-6 Texan II
Posted on 04/04/2010 9:30:34 PM PDT by myknowledge
Last year, the U.S. Army received the first production models of its Sky Warrior MQ-1C UAVs. Two years ago, two of the prototypes were sent to Iraq for testing. That was a success, and four MQ-1Cs are now operating in Iraq, supplanting the smaller Shadow 200s. Four MQ-1Cs will go to Afghanistan in a few months. Currently, the MQ-1Cs cost $8 million each, but this will go down to $6 million as more are manufactured.
The MQ-1Cs are slightly larger Predators, and are being used for missions formerly performed by Shadow 200, and other large army UAVs. The big difference is that Sky Warrior can carry weapons (like Hellfire missiles.) Thus the army will be using missile firing, fixed wing combat aircraft, something it has not been able to do for many decades (since the U.S. Air Force was created out of the old U.S. Army Air Force in the late 1940s). The air force has accepted, for the moment, that unmanned aircraft are not the sole preserve of the air force, and the army is taking that and building a new air force for itself.
The air force is not happy about the army having a large force of armed UAVs. Many air force generals believe the army should not have the MQ-1C, or at least not use them with weapons. That has already caused some spats in the Pentagon over the issue, but a recent purge and reshuffle of the senior air force leadership, by the Secretary of Defense, makes it appear that the army will be left alone to build its new robotic air force. At least for the moment.
Back in the 1950s, after a decade of bickering, the Department of Defense ordered the army to stick with helicopters, while the air force got all the fixed wing aircraft. But UAVs have no pilots in them and the army does not consider them part of the half century old deal. So the army is again flying armed aircraft, in addition to the armed helicopters it has always had. The army argument is that these larger UAVs work better for them if they are under the direct control of combat brigades. The air force sees that as inefficient, and would prefer to have one large pool of larger UAVs, that could be deployed as needed. This difference of opinion reflects basic differences in how the army and air force deploy and use their combat forces. The army has found that a critical factor in battlefield success is teamwork among members of a unit, and subordinate units in a brigade. While the air force accepts this as a critical performance issue for their aircraft squadrons, they deem it irrelevant for army use of UAVs. Seeing army MQ-1Cs doing visual and electronic reconnaissance and firing missiles at ground targets, the air force sees itself losing control of missions it has dominated since its founding in 1948.
Currently, the army has about 200 of these larger UAVs, most of them 350 pound Shadow 200s. These carry day and night cameras, and laser designators, but usually no weapons. Most of the new army heavy UAVs delivered over the next five years will carry missiles, and by 2015, the army will have over 500 of them. The army currently has thousands of much smaller micro-UAVs. The air force does not bother too much with these, as they fly too low to bother air force aircraft, and are not armed.
The army has been quietly building its new "army air force" for a while. Four years ago, the army quietly bought twenty Predator type UAVs (called Sky Warrior Alpha) from the same firm that manufactures the Predator and Sky Warrior. These were in Iraq for over two years, mainly for counter-IED work with Task Force Odin. The one ton Sky Warrior Alpha can carry 450 pounds of sensors and 300 pounds of weapons, and a few of them have fired Hellfire missiles. Sky Warrior Alpha is, officially, the I-Gnat ER, which is based on a predecessor design of the Predator, the Gnat-750, and an improved model, the I-Gnat (which has been in use since 1989). The I-Gnat ER/ Sky Warrior Alpha looks like a Predator, but isn't. In terms of design and capabilities, they are cousins.
The MQ-1C Sky Warrior weighs 1.5 tons, carries 300 pounds of sensors internally, and up to 500 pounds of sensors or weapons externally. It has an endurance of up to 36 hours and a top speed of 270 kilometers an hour. Sky Warrior has a wingspan 56 feet and is 28 feet long. The Sky Warrior can land and take off automatically, and carry four Hellfire missiles (compared to two on the Predator), or a dozen smaller 70mm guided missiles. The original MQ-1 Predator is a one ton aircraft that is 27 feet long with a wingspan of 49 feet. It has two hard points, which usually carry one (107 pound) Hellfire each. Max speed of the Predator is 215 kilometers an hour, max cruising speed is 160 kilometers an hour. Max altitude is 25,000 feet. Typical sorties are 12-20 hours each. A Sky Warrior company has 115 troops, 12 Sky Warrior UAVs and five ground stations. The army plans to equip each combat brigade with a Sky Warrior company.
As its model number (MQ-1C) indicates, Sky Warrior is a Predator (MQ-1) replacement. The U.S. Air Force had planned to replace its MQ-1s with MQ-1Cs, but later choose to buy only larger Reapers. The Sky Warrior was developed by the army, which wants at least 500 of them.
The third member of the Predator family is the MQ-9 Reaper. This is a 4.7 ton, 36 foot long aircraft with a 66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry 1,500 pounds of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, or two 500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours. The Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, to replace F-16s or A-10s.
MQ-1C Sky Warrior
MQ-9 Reaper
The U.S. Army Aviation should also use manned CAS aircraft, like the:
Air Tractor AT-802U
Boeing OV-10X Bronco
Hawker Beechcraft / Raytheon AT-6 Texan II
There is an element in the USAF that has always resented the A-10 “Warthog” because it’s not fast and sexy. I will advocate turning the A-10s over to the Army, training Army pilots for close-in air support to be at the call of Army ground commanders and for the benefit of the grunts on the ground, as the USMC does.
I’m an Army guy...but I am a little perplexed about the Army controlling these aircraft. It seems that the Air Force controllers have a much better command of airspace issues than Army folks. However, I can also see the merit of having these things controlled by the Army, to be more responsive to unit needs.
If I were a USAF general, I wouldn’t give a stuff if the A-10 is a slow and ugly beast, it can stir a helluva lot of fear on enemy tank crews, because when its GAU-8/A 30mm cannon whirrs, they’re toast.
These squabblings will end when the UAVs can fly themselves. Someday very soon there will be 500lb(and smaller) autonomous UAVs that do what the army grunt tells it to do. No airforce or army air corps will have anything to do with it.
The Air Tractor (a modified spray plane) might work out better. Besides which it just looks more like an attack aircraft. :)
The air force should be under the operational control of the army.
I wonder whether the rules of war really can apply to someone who is operating the guns of some UAV from several time zones away. If that’s the case, does that person even need to be military? Just wondering what other folks think.
That question has already been raised and discussed since some Predator "pilots" are CIA civilians...do they qualify as non-uniformed combatants? The general legal consensus is that the UAV itself is the instrument of war, and as long as it's clearly marked as a U.S. aircraft it's in compliance with international treaties and conventions.
Fit it with a turbo-prop, and it would be good to go. Oh wait.
Already been done, meet the A2D Skyshark.
Put a modern turbo prop in there (they had problems with the reduction gears) and it woudl be hard to beat.
Why? The USAF has always been separate since July 26, 1947.
Because (essentially) the sole purpose of the AF is to support the Army.
The French tried that, and so did we until after the early part of the North African campaigns of WW-II. It didn't work out so well. Violates the "Concentration of force" principal, as scarce assets are put out in penny lots all over the battlespace.
But like artillery, you can put smaller aircraft, like helicopters or very light fixed wing birds, at lower levels, because you can have more of them. And you often must, just because they have relatively short legs. You don't have Pallidans at company or battalion level, and you wouldn't have these drones at that level either.
And what would you do with the BUFFs, the Bones, and the B-2s, not to mention the KCs, AWACS, C-17s and C-5s.
The Air Force does a lot more than shoot at stuff on the ground.
US troops have not had to face hostile air power since the creation of the US Air Force. There's a reason for that. :)
How long till obama turns these against American citizens?I am only half kidding.
“US troops have not had to face hostile air power since the creation of the US Air Force. There’s a reason for that. :)”
Yup. USAF should be — and mostly wants to be — concerned with control of the air space. They seriously kick @ss in that arena.
Ground support should be a Marine and/or Army matter. Let’s be honest, the USAF really doesn’t care about the warthogs, they’re just stuck with them because they are such an effective platform, and even our dumbed-down populace knows it.
The division should be on mission lines: Air superiority? Give the USAF their toys and training, and they’ll own the air. Ground support? That’s a ground-pounder job once the USAF does theirs.
I suspect ignorance, but please let us in on your plans.
Wrong.
The sole purpose of the Army is go in and clean up after the Air Force. ;)
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.