Article

2007-07-15 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-15 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11126 views ] Top

#1 Since Predators are cheap compared to planes or wounded ground troops why isn't the Air Force covering all of Iraq with 100 or 200 of these a day?

21 is FOR SHAME!

Posted by 3dc 2007-07-15 02:00|| 2007-07-15 02:00|| Front Page Top

#2 Bottleneck is probably satellite communications since they are controlled from Nevada.

Posted by ed 2007-07-15 02:11|| 2007-07-15 02:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Nice article and nice advertisement. Relatively inexpensive and easy to manufacture, Unmanned Aeriel Vehicles (UAV) have not caught on in the past in the USAF for some very obvious reasons. Current requirements in the GWOT and successes achieved by the military have brought the Air Force around and they are beginning to see business development opportunities. Yes, it is all about ~~oil~~ money, and like Rust-Oleum paint, the advertising campaign is key. As far as why the US isn't blanketing Iraq with these UAV's; the airborne platform is one component, the substantial ground support piece is the other, available airspace is yet another. There is no "Easy Button" with regard to Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C3ISR). It's a superb tool, resource, and combat multiplier, but it ain't penicllin.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-15 03:13|| 2007-07-15 03:13|| Front Page Top

#4 Perhaps a combination of UAVs with higher altitude station-keeping LTA (Lighter Than Air) observation blimps might avoid airspace conflicts and provide wide-field observation capabilities that could augment the Predator fleet's more localized missions.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-15 04:45|| 2007-07-15 04:45|| Front Page Top

#5 A Predator by itself isn't much What makes it effective are the personnel operating it and the communications net to move the data and integrate it into combat operations. Even the Reaper needs trained operators. We are not at the point where we are willing to send armed Reapers out without a human finger on the trigger. Also, a CAP is exactly what it says, a Combat Air Patrol, not a reon mission. The services have a stable full of other birds for recce. The Raven comes to mind.

Posted by RWV 2007-07-15 08:53|| 2007-07-15 08:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Raven is for sub-tactical and tactical ops, i.e. at the squad level. Fits well with the Marine tactics & is their platform altho I understand Army uses it where available. Predator's a battalion-level asset. Wholly 'nuther sensor package, flies at a higher altitude and requires airspace management.

Army's plans for the Future Combat System included 4 types of UAVs, from a Raven style microUAV to a 'flying trashcan' fan/induction vehicle at the company level, a Predator-class fixed wing for the battalion and an unmanned helo at the brigade level IIRC.

The company level Type II is on hold for budgetary reasons, but also because there is some reason to question whether it would really provide a lot of mission enhancement for the bucks, vs. additional fixed wings to be shared. The micro and the helo are under contract.

Which leaves the Predator class replacement. The existing Predators are pretty limited in various ways. I've heard that a lot of operator training goes into working around its limitations.

There is also the USAF issue re: owning air space management. USAF has traditionally owned that responsibility, Army wants it for battlefield assets and it's both a turf war and a matter that has significant operational impact. Or so I'm told by people on both sides of that issue ... ;-)

Posted by lotp 2007-07-15 09:47|| 2007-07-15 09:47|| Front Page Top

#7 Raven-style ~~micro~~UAV

Made that "miniUAV". The micros are much smaller. Raven is backpackable, has a 5' wingspan. The micros in development are much smaller than that and are likely to be deployed in self-organizing swarms rather than under direct human operator control.

Huge amount of work going on both in unmanned technical development and - of equal importance - in working the tactics and doctrine for their use.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-15 09:53|| 2007-07-15 09:53|| Front Page Top

#8 Didn't that system we read about 2 weeks ago rely on UAVs to take pictures several times a day ?
Remember it can determine the smallest change in any location so it's used to locate planted IRDs and such. Or was that using a maned platform ?

Posted by wxjames 2007-07-15 11:26|| 2007-07-15 11:26|| Front Page Top

#9 There is also the USAF issue re: owning air space management. USAF has traditionally owned that responsibility, Army wants it for battlefield assets and it's both a turf war and a matter that has significant operational impact. Or so I'm told by people on both sides of that issue ... ;-)
Posted by lotp 2007-07-15 09:47|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top

You were informed correctly lotp.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-15 12:11|| 2007-07-15 12:11|| Front Page Top

#10 Thanks for the confirmation, Besoeker. Although some of the folks I work with have recent operational experience, there's always the danger of being caught in a program echo chamber .....

wxjames, I didn't find the RB post in question but I think you're referring to the Army's Buckeye system. It's airborne, can fly on manned or unmanned aircraft.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-15 12:35|| 2007-07-15 12:35|| Front Page Top

#11 There's one more major problem with increasing the number of Predators and other platforms, from smallest to largest (Global Hawk?). The schools at Goodfellow and Fort Huachuka can only turn out so many qualified interpreters a year. The class sizes at both have been increased, but there's still a shortfall. Lots of former military are working as contractors to span the gap, and there's still a shortfall. The Air Force is considering increasing its total reconnaissance force by 35-50% in the next year. Already the number of people required to support reconnaissance has almost doubled. That's a major change since the draw-down following the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-07-15 16:38|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-07-15 16:38|| Front Page Top

#12 OP - my son's class at Ft. Huachuca graduated 147 (from 220 at the start) in June - they are pumping out as many as possible

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-07-15 17:07|| 2007-07-15 17:07|| Front Page Top

#13 Right, lotp. The Buckeye system. We own the sky. We own the view from the sky.
It kinda makes me happy to pay taxes....well almost.

Posted by wxjames 2007-07-15 19:06|| 2007-07-15 19:06|| Front Page Top

23:55 Sigmund Freud
23:52 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:45 Sigmund Freud
23:33 Alistaire Sleating4235
23:31 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:27 Zenster
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:16 Zenster
23:13 Zenster
23:13 Abu do you love
23:12 Abu do you love
23:11 KBK
23:09 Zenster
23:07 KBK
23:05 anymouse
22:58 OldSpook
22:54 John Frum
22:52 Abu do you love
22:50 Zenster
22:46 OldSpook
22:45 Abu do you love
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:42 Ho Chi Spomosh2247
22:37 DMFD
Merry-Go-Blog