General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper/Protector (UCAV) (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by marktigger »

wonder how long the russians will continue to tolerate them over syria. Be interesting to see them try and operate in a proper ADA with EW capability. The shortage of pilots will not be an issue with the shortage of drones.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

They wouldn't work under those conditions, and its far from what they're designed to do.

Clearly they would be sitting sucks against any hard kill solutions, and they are extremely vulnerable to soft kill tactics. The Reaper in particular has been highly susceptible to electronic attack, part of its 90's tech legacy, and the US air force we're particularly unhappy with its performance. I believe General Atomics have made many improvement in this area that will appear on the protector version for us, and are also retrofitted to the American aircraft.

Some advanced decoys are very small, would it be worth integrating those? They're certainly working to improve its resistance, but by nature its never going to be great against those kind of threats.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by Gabriele »

A relatively big lump of money is going into the "Common Jamming Pod" (aka updated Skyshadow with Typhoon DASS commonality and towed radar decoys) for Tornado. It would be a pity to lose all that within 3 years. I've been wondering if the pod couldn't find its way on the new Protector to give it at least a bit of protection. Having more wing hardpoints, the Protector should be able to take pods without losing too much in terms of weapon carriage capability.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by marktigger »

given how active it is its a bit pointless putting a EW pod on it. Goes to show how limited they really are.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

The RAF is also considering using the CPB in a maritime patrol role to complement its ordered fleet of manned Boeing P-8 Poseidons.

Although General Atomics is developing a sonobuoy capability for the CPB, Gale says it will not pursue this option at present: “Today we see value in its radar doing maritime patrol alongside the [P-8]."

He says that it is too early to determine operational specifics, but collaboration between the Poseidon and CPB is a possibility.

Overland testing of the sonobuoy datalink is expected to take place this month, General Atomics says, from the company’s Gray Butte flight operations centre in California, using an MQ-9 Reaper owned by the manufacturer.
Interesting, its been proposed by GA in the past, but i believe this is the first time the RAF have confirmed they plan to use Protector as an MPA.

Not yet interested in Protector with sonobuoys, but they are interested in Protector with a Radar, I assume that is the Seaspray radar that was trialed on reaper a while ago?

Good news. All sounds sensible, but 20 to cover land and maritime, is that enough?

Coming back around to the discussion we we're having the other day, it seems like a much more reasonable direction than acquiring the MQ-4C Triton for extra MPA coverage.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by marktigger »

the 20 for over sea use should be fine. If we are looking at higher end conflicts again then they are just air defence targets.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by RetroSicotte »

US approves Certifiable Predator B sale to UK

http://www.janes.com/article/65567/us-a ... sale-to-uk
The US State Department has approved the sale of the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) Certifiable Predator B (CPB) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to the United Kingdom, the Defense Security and Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 16 November.

The approval covers the sale of 16 of the medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) vehicles, with options for a further 10. Along with equipment, training, and support, the sale is valued at USD1 billion.

According to the notification, the proposed sale includes: 26 UAVs; 12 ground control stations (GCSs) (four, plus options for eight); four launch-and-recovery GCSs; four upgrades to existing Block 15 launch-and-recovery GCSs (two plus options for two); 25 multispectral targeting systems (12 plus two spares, with options for an additional 10 plus 1 spare); 25 AN/APY-8 Lynx IIe Block 20A synthetic aperture radar and ground moving target indicators (SAR/GMTI) (12 plus 2 spares, with option for additional 10 plus 1 spare); as well as navigation and weapons installation equipment.
So...RAF is only getting 16 then, not 20.

Sigh.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by Gabriele »

The DSCA announcement of the approval of the possible purchase. Not all is lost, but saying "at least 20" and then ask for 16 plus 10 options" is a bit suspect. We'll see, i guess...

https://t.co/nDtv1kkiNn
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by bobp »

At the moment its just a notification of a possible sale. Final details have yet to be worked out. No contract has been actually signed yet. Overall bearing in mind the current exchange rate that's possibly why the numbers have dropped.

User avatar
The Other Chris
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:29

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by The Other Chris »

No sign of equipment integrations yet, from Brimstone 2 and Paveway IV to the "Seaspray Pod".

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Gabriele wrote:The DSCA announcement of the approval of the possible purchase. Not all is lost, but saying "at least 20" and then ask for 16 plus 10 options" is a bit suspect. We'll see, i guess...

https://t.co/nDtv1kkiNn
It's basically so they can put "more than 20" in the SDSR to look great and talk it up, but then not have to actually commit and using the "option of" to delay the amount until a future government who will cut it short.

I should start renaming "Checkbox Military" to "Speech Friendly Military". Because every decision seems aimed to just give them good PMQ and announcement soundbites and literally no other purpose. Every major decision has had this prioritised above actual capability or even cost effectiveness.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

reserving judgement on this one until we see the agreement from the UK. 26 would be a great result...... 16 not so much.
@LandSharkUK

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by cky7 »

RetroSicotte wrote: I should start renaming "Checkbox Military" to "Speech Friendly Military". Because every decision seems aimed to just give them good PMQ and announcement soundbites and literally no other purpose. Every major decision has had this prioritised above actual capability or even cost effectiveness.
Lol. What are the bets press releases will be issued that bang on about rising defence budget and meeting our 2% nato commitment. This govt comes out with so much spin and outright bullshit they actually sound like they believe they've been brilliant for our armed forces rather than dismembering them and not giving a shit about defence. The scary thing is much of the media and joe public actually believe their spin.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by RetroSicotte »

cky7 wrote:Lol. What are the bets press releases will be issued that bang on about rising defence budget and meeting our 2% nato commitment. This govt comes out with so much spin and outright bullshit they actually sound like they believe they've been brilliant for our armed forces rather than dismembering them and not giving a shit about defence. The scary thing is much of the media and joe public actually believe their spin.
I am quite certain we only know this as much because we study defence spending programs.

There are those out there in the police world I'm certain say the same things we do. Or in the NHS, or in green energy circles.

In the end, that's just politics in the UK. Blunder, bluster, polish up the externals to keep up appearances, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by Caribbean »

RetroSicotte wrote:pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.
Or the Lions and Tigers and Bears..........
Oh my!!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:reserving judgement on this one until we see the agreement from the UK. 26 would be a great result...... 16 not so much.
I dont think the 16 plus then 10 structure is a coincidence. Looks like there will be some concurrency with both the new ones and Reapers in service (quote from UKDJ)
"According to the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Royal Air Force will operate at least 20 Protector systems by 2025, replacing all of its current 10 MQ-9 Reapers."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by AndyC »

A bit more news here, see https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... uk-431587/

The firm order of sixteen rather than the twenty announced in the SDSR 2015 may well reflect the 20% slump in the value of the Pound since the EU Referendum. The option for ten more probably depends on the successful development of a Sea Protector version. Good news that they'll be armed with British weapons, so increasing their capabilitiy and the prospect of sales to other countries.

To read more go to my article "Air Command to 2030" under General Discussion.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AndyC wrote:The option for ten more probably depends on the successful development of a Sea Protector version.
That is also plausible. The Ph.D (not as an individual, but standing for some prgrm) giving evidence to the Defence Committee on the alternatives, before the P8 order went ahead was hell bent in favour of unmanned - and the order proceeded with the very minimum number to make it feasible to operate a new type at all.
- as discussed on TD over many years, surveillance you need (in numbers) but then you also need the ability to prosecute (ASW being the most demanding game in the town).
- so a mix of both types of assets is probably the best outcome
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by bobp »

Flight testing of the new Protector taking place in the US, will take two years to complete.
http://www.janes.com/article/65842/ga-a ... rst-flight

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

is 2020 still the target date for Protector to enter service?
@LandSharkUK

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by bobp »

Sounds about right if General Atomics are doing flight trials for two years. Then I guess the RAF will need a couple of years to get a squadron up to speed.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

Image

Current and next gen reaper. Spot the difference? No points for tailless design :lol:
@LandSharkUK

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by bobp »

Front end looks fatter.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

Yes, I was trying to work out its its bigger or just perspective. There's a lot of extra stuff in there, it has to go somewhere.
@LandSharkUK

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (UCAV) (RAF)

Post by bobp »

Maybe some kind of Antenna for detecting other traffic. Also the Engine Air intake looks larger.

Post Reply