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

[ArmChairCivvy]

Which works out to be £25.5 Million

Now you can divide by 4 and use same rate for ccy conversion (from DID of today):
"The State Department has given the green light to Spain acquiring four MQ-9 Reaper Block 5 UAVs, through a potential acquisition valued at $243 million along with auxiliary equipment and services. The Spanish Defence Ministry set aside money in its 2016 budget for the four UAVs, which it reportedly opted to sole-source from manufacturer General Atomics. The Reapers will be used exclusively for ISR, with the United Kingdom the only nation currently operating armed Reapers outside of the US"
- so these might come unarmed, and definitely w/o sonobuoyos (but those would be optional extras for ours as well, using our own Brimstone/ new&small Atlas Eletronik sonobuoyos

[shark bait]

Now you can divide by 4 and use same rate for ccy conversion (from DID of today):

So that's £39 million a unit for the Spanish then. Demonstrates the Americans economy's of scale and the cost to buy into a program then.

We can then probably assume the UK price is some where in between those figures, let's say £32M which put protector at the £650M. Perhaps there is some room left in the original plan to upgrade the current 10.

If they include the maritime patrol variant the protector will be a very valuable system.

I once suggested it would be a good idea to replace two P8's with eight C295's for local MPA, gun ship and transport. Perhaps instead eight protectors could fulfill that role, all without the fuss of operating another aircraft type. That would be a pretty sweet system. Admittedly you aren't doing to be transporting much on a protector but I can overlook that!

[bobp]

Don't forget the Spanish purchase will have included the cost of spares, ground equipment and the base station(s) as well as the four airframes. There may also be a cost of using Satellite Communications/Data Relay Service to talk to the airframe from the base station.
So you cant just divide the purchase price by 4 to give an accurate cost of each airframe. Also the uk will be purchasing the ER version.

[ArmChairCivvy]

So, has the Scavanger budget line now been spent?

[shark bait]

Don't forget the Spanish purchase will have included the cost of spares, ground equipment and the base station(s) as well as the four airframes. There may also be a cost of using Satellite Communications/Data Relay Service to talk to the airframe from the base station.
So you cant just divide the purchase price by 4 to give an accurate cost of each airframe. Also the uk will be purchasing the ER version.

Indeed you cant. But its not the cost of the airframe that matters, it is the cost of the system. The UK will need more ground stations, spares and bandwidth if it is potentially tripling its number of airframes.

Airframe probably costs around £15M, but it cant fly with just that.

[Gabriele]

So, has the Scavanger budget line now been spent?

It will be spent to procure the "minimun 20" Protector and whatever modification and addition they can fund from the list of requirements that, probably, is longer than the cheque as often happens.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

So i take it no-one actually, as of yet, has much of an idea about what this new 'Protector' standard of Reaper will either look like or be capalbe of relative to our current version?

I gather the CAD picture posted by Gabby is probably the thing closest to the mark appearance wise that we have to go on so far but it doesn't seem to be all that radically different from the existing Reaper which leads me on to my second query about what additional capability it promises to offer - obvious endurance enhancements aside? In particular do we know of any differences in the payload carriage capacity, be it either greater carriage weight potential on the existing pylons or even, preferably IMO, additional hardpoints???

[shark bait]

In particular do we know of any differences in the payload carriage capacity, be it either greater carriage weight potential on the existing pylons or even, preferably IMO, additional hardpoints???

Compared to the MQ-9 Reaper Block 1 models, the Reaper Block 5 has increased electrical power, secure communications, auto land, increased gross takeoff weight, weapons growth, and streamlined payload integration capabilities.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

In particular do we know of any differences in the payload carriage capacity, be it either greater carriage weight potential on the existing pylons or even, preferably IMO, additional hardpoints???

Compared to the MQ-9 Reaper Block 1 models, the Reaper Block 5 has increased electrical power, secure communications, auto land, increased gross takeoff weight, weapons growth, and streamlined payload integration capabilities.

Define 'weapons growth' in the context of my original question?

[shark bait]

Define 'weapons growth' in the context of my original question?

There is potential for a 3rd hard point on each wing, but I dot think thats standard.

Weapons growth refers to increased power and payload, opening the reaper up to new systems such as the common weapon launcher or podded systems such as electronic weapons or signals intelligence.

[Gabriele]

Define 'weapons growth' in the context of my original question?

There is potential for a 3rd hard point on each wing, but I dot think thats standard.

Weapons growth refers to increased power and payload, opening the reaper up to new systems such as the common weapon launcher or podded systems such as electronic weapons or signals intelligence.

The outermost pylon is not commonly used probably because it is rated for just 70 kg. The middle one is 300, and the innermost up to 680.
Don't know if the long wing comes with a stronger outermost pylon, but it would be nice if it did, since the innermost pylons are those used by the ER's variant fuel tanks. A more useful carrying capability on the third pylon would allow the carriage of fuel and an unchanged weapons payload.
The third pylon has been more than once offered for carrying Stinger or Sidewinder. In at least one photo of the ER with fuel tanks variant, a Reaper has one of the third pylons installed and carrying a pod of some kind.



Then there is a centreline station which is also not normally employed, but that has been exploited to integrate the Seaspray 7500E radar, for example.

It should be possible to carry a Common Weapon Launcher with 2x Paveway IV on the innermost pylons; and it is certainly possible to carry a triple Brimstone 2 rack (instead of the twin Hellfire rack) on the central pylon under the wing. The outer pylon, unless it is strenghtened, has less uses.

[Ianmb17]

If protector based on this 9 stores stations

http://www.ga-asi.com/certifiable-predator-b

[shark bait]

If protector based on this 9 stores stations

http://www.ga-asi.com/certifiable-predator-b

hmmmmm thats interesting. I think that is what protector will be.

Normal predator has 7 stations, 3 on each wing and one center line.
That link does suggest protector may have more stations, potentially 4 on each wing and one center line

A more useful carrying capability on the third pylon would allow the carriage of fuel and an unchanged weapons payload.

Indeed that is needed, increased payload isnt so useful if you have no where to put it. It seams reasonable that longer wings with de-ice, will be stronger to enabling more kit to be loaded. Do you think the link above suggests an additional point has been added specifically for external tanks?

[Gabriele]

Do you think the link above suggests an additional point has been added specifically for external tanks?

One would think so. For that and for greater payload flexibility in general.

One of the Scavenger features, which apparently is something the RAF still would like to pursue, was the use of standard pods that could be used to host different sensors and payloads without needing new aerodynamic certifications all the time. But such pods, if they ever come, need to be attached somewhere, so a new arrangement of pylons would not be a bad thing.

[The Armchair Soldier]

If protector based on this 9 stores stations

http://www.ga-asi.com/certifiable-predator-b

That seems to match what was shown at RPAS 2015 the other day:

[Ron5]

Airframes will cost about $15million each, so $300 million for 20. Throw in a bit more for spares, say $350 million. The unknown factor will be additional ground stations and/or upgrades to existing. I would think the RAF could handle its own training by now but may need to buy time on somebodyelse's ranges. I'd say the mythical billion pound budget will be more than adequate.

[arfah]

............

[GibMariner]

USA: Unmanned Air Vehicles:Written question - 29194

Asked by Mr David Anderson(Blaydon)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 16 February 2016 to Question 26409, what the role and location is of each of the six Reaper Force personnel embedded with the US Armed Forces; and with which units they are embedded.

Answered by: Penny Mordaunt

The six embedded personnel are undertaking various training, test and evaluation duties at Holloman Air Force Base and Creech Air Force Base.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -01/29194/

[GibMariner]

Unmanned Air Vehicles:Written question - 29195

Asked by Mr David Anderson(Blaydon)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 16 February 2016 to Question 26409, what squadrons or elements other than Reaper Squadrons 39 and 13 make up the Reaper force as a whole.

Answered by: Penny Mordaunt

No other squadrons or elements make up the Reaper Force. However, individuals in Reaper Force posts who are to be embedded with other countries' armed forces are usually allocated to 54(Reserve) Squadron, for administrative reasons.

[arfah]

............

[The Armchair Soldier]

Further to the news of upcoming integration testing of Brimstone for the UK's next apaches.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-423282/

Flight Global.

Also confirmation there that Protector will be a Reaper derivative?

[Jdam]

Surely Protector will use Brimstone!

Any update on Paveway IV for our Reapers?

[downsizer]

Our munitions are provided by the usaf as per the support contract on a pay as you drop basis, unless they adopt IVs or brimstone, we won't be using them.

[Gabriele]

Both Hellfire and GBU-12? Because while i effectively never saw a british FMS purchase for them, despite them being used (in Afghanistan at least), there have been at least a couple big FMS purchases of High Altitude Hellfire, which can only have been meant for the Reaper.

[GibMariner]

Just seen this article retweeted by ThinkDefence:

UK To Buy “Certifiable Predator B”

The UK MOD has announced in a low key contracts notice that they intend to meet the PROTECTOR Unmanned Aerial System requirement to replace the RAF Reaper MQ-9A fleet, through a £415 million Government-Government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract with the US Department of Defence (US DoD).
The contract announcement states the MOD has conducted a “thorough Assessment Phase (AP) which has concluded that the Certifiable Predator B (CPB) is the only system capable of achieving UK [MAA] Military Type Certification (MTC) and delivering the PROTECTOR requirement within the required timescales”. This suggests, as expected, that that integration in non-segregated civil airspace is a key factor (the earlier Reapers are limited to ‘in theatre’ operations).

http://aerossurance.com/news/uk-certifiable-predator-b/

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov ... d7b1828f1b