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

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Ianmb17
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 01 May 2015, 21:33
United Kingdom

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

Post by Ianmb17 »

new guy wrote: 05 May 2023, 17:14 Any thoughts on where this is? I know it is in the UK ; house, trees, posts for airfield fence.
RAF Waddington

You can see Barn in background on Google maps

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ne ... is-summer/
These users liked the author Ianmb17 for the post:
Jensy

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1448
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

The combined incompetence of the MoD and Treasury strikes again, FT saying 40% jump in programme costs to £1.76 billion

https://www.ft.com/content/75e704e9-7d0 ... 404e89e1dd

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

NickC wrote: 20 Sep 2023, 13:15 The combined incompetence of the MoD and Treasury strikes again, FT saying 40% jump in programme costs to £1.76 billion

https://www.ft.com/content/75e704e9-7d0 ... 404e89e1dd


The aircraft are very cheap. we should buy some more (we do have a need) for MPA, more for the RAF, and some for the RN, to justify our investment.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

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

Post by Dahedd »

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-n ... n-uk-soil/

This is good news. What's the plan for the Reapers though? Are they to be scrapped? That seems a waste. Would they not be better kept say for ops closer to home, the Baltics, Gibraltar, central London?

Could they serve as a base airframe for the Mojave assuming it works as hoped?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

Dahedd wrote: 01 Oct 2023, 10:59 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-n ... n-uk-soil/

This is good news. What's the plan for the Reapers though? Are they to be scrapped? That seems a waste. Would they not be better kept say for ops closer to home, the Baltics, Gibraltar, central London?

Could they serve as a base airframe for the Mojave assuming it works as hoped?
a) why do you think we are replacing the reapers if not because they are outdated nor airframe hours close to passing?
b) Reaper can't fly over the UK, one of the benifits of the Protector.
c) I believe only MQ-9B is capable for the mojave system.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

A) So what is it's outdated, do we just scrap everything the second something more up to date comes along? The CVRT has been outdated for at least 30 years now yet it's still in service.
B) Why does it need to be able to fly all over the UK to remain in service?
C) Again not a reason to scrap the reapers.

The real reason I suspect is there will be no one available to crew and service them as everyone will be transferred to operate the new kit. Heaven forbid we actually increase the number of units available for anything.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post (total 2):
Daheddabc123

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

BB85 wrote: 02 Oct 2023, 16:10 A) So what is it's outdated, do we just scrap everything the second something more up to date comes along? The CVRT has been outdated for at least 30 years now yet it's still in service.
B) Why does it need to be able to fly all over the UK to remain in service?
C) Again not a reason to scrap the reapers.

The real reason I suspect is there will be no one available to crew and service them as everyone will be transferred to operate the new kit. Heaven forbid we actually increase the number of units available for anything.
Did you read the post I was replying to at all? like seriously?
So what is it's outdated, do we just scrap everything the second something more up to date comes along?
That is literally what the RAF is doing. Like literally. you point in null.
you also completely ignore airframe lifetime.

Why does it need to be able to fly all over the UK to remain in service?
I responded with " Reaper can't fly over the UK, one of the benifits of the Protector." to dahedds post of:
Would they not be better kept say for ops closer to home, the Baltics, Gibraltar, central London?
dahedd: Could they serve as a base airframe for the Mojave assuming it works as hoped?
me: I believe only MQ-9B is capable for the mojave system.
BB85: Again not a reason to scrap the reapers.
You do see how you don't make sense right? It terms of just MQ-STOL, if reaper does not fit the bill then why whould we keep?

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

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

Post by Dahedd »

FYI Central London was most certainly tongue in cheek but given recent events, perhaps not.

Jackstar
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 19 Jun 2023, 17:02
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jackstar »

These users liked the author Jackstar for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Jackstar
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 19 Jun 2023, 17:02
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jackstar »

These users liked the author Jackstar for the post:
wargame_insomniac

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacJackstar

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1448
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Nov 8, Houthis Shoot Down U.S. MQ-9 Reaper Over Red Sea

If the Houthis are able to take down a Reaper its battleworthiness looks very limited if not non-existent.

https://news.usni.org/2023/11/08/houthi ... ore-106846
These users liked the author NickC for the post (total 2):
Clive FJensy

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

Notable:


Look at this graph for the Mojave demonstrator aircraft on takeoff distance per mission load.


Obviously, this isn't MQ-9B STOL / MQ-9B with Mojave STOL kit, but it can give some ideas to the eventual system and even more so the tests on PoW.


https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... P07263.pdf


assuming majority of runway + ramp = 1,000ft long, we get either

a) 20hr endurance for unloaded ISR
b) 2.5 hr endurance for loaded 12 hellfire / brimestone / JAGM.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

Don't forget that their is wind over deck to be factored in. Even in still air a ship generated 20-25 knot wind over deck will make quite a difference to take off performance.
These users liked the author whitelancer for the post:
new guy

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

Somebody got overshadowed 🫣


Post Reply