CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Stealth" the movie meet Stealth the reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Stealth" the movie meet Stealth the reality

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
Predator 2.0: The Reaper!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/...q_air_surge_ii

Robot air attack squadron bound for Iraq By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 41 minutes ago


BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles.

The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada.

The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill.

That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview.

The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it.

"With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said.

The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to Reapers.

It's another sign that the Air Force is planning for an extended stay in Iraq, supporting Iraqi government forces in any continuing conflict, even if U.S. ground troops are drawn down in the coming years.

The estimated two dozen or more unmanned MQ-1 Predators now doing surveillance over Iraq, as the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, have become mainstays of the U.S. war effort, offering round-the-clock airborne "eyes" watching over road convoys, tracking nighttime insurgent movements via infrared sensors, and occasionally unleashing one of their two Hellfire missiles on a target.

From about 36,000 flying hours in 2005, the Predators are expected to log 66,000 hours this year over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The MQ-9 Reaper, when compared with the 1995-vintage Predator, represents a major evolution of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV.

At five tons gross weight, the Reaper is four times heavier than the Predator. Its size — 36 feet long, with a 66-foot wingspan — is comparable to the profile of the Air Force's workhorse A-10 attack plane. It can fly twice as fast and twice as high as the Predator. Most significantly, it carries many more weapons.

While the Predator is armed with two Hellfire missiles, the Reaper can carry 14 of the air-to-ground weapons — or four Hellfires and two 500-pound bombs.

"It's not a recon squadron," Col. Joe Guasella, operations chief for the Central Command's air component, said of the Reapers. "It's an attack squadron, with a lot more kinetic ability."

"Kinetic" — Pentagon argot for destructive power — is what the Air Force had in mind when it christened its newest robot plane with a name associated with death.

"The name Reaper captures the lethal nature of this new weapon system," Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, said in announcing the name last September.

General Atomics of San Diego has built at least nine of the MQ-9s thus far, at a cost of $69 million per set of four aircraft, with ground equipment.

The Air Force's 432nd Wing, a UAV unit formally established on May 1, is to eventually fly 60 Reapers and 160 Predators. The numbers to be assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan will be classified.

The Reaper is expected to be flown as the Predator is — by a two-member team of pilot and sensor operator who work at computer control stations and video screens that display what the UAV "sees." Teams at Balad, housed in a hangar beside the runways, perform the takeoffs and landings, and similar teams at Nevada's Creech Air Force Base, linked to the aircraft via satellite, take over for the long hours of overflying the Iraqi landscape.

American ground troops, equipped with laptops that can download real-time video from UAVs overhead, "want more and more of it," said Maj. Chris Snodgrass, the Predator squadron commander here.

The Reaper's speed will help. "Our problem is speed," Snodgrass said of the 140-mph Predator. "If there are troops in contact, we may not get there fast enough. The Reaper will be faster and fly farther."

The new robot plane is expected to be able to stay aloft for 14 hours fully armed, watching an area and waiting for targets to emerge.

"It's going to bring us flexibility, range, speed and persistence," said regional commander North, "such that I will be able to work lots of areas for a long, long time."

The British also are impressed with the Reaper, and are buying three for deployment in Afghanistan later this year. The Royal Air Force version will stick to the "recon" mission, however — no weapons on board.
post #2 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smilin' Jack Ruby
"With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said.
Lou Dobbs will not be happy.
post #3 of 19
And somewhere Gary Busey has been right all along.
post #4 of 19
Neat stuff. I don't think we're suffering too many casualties in the air though. The Army needs to be working on B.A.T.s.

post #5 of 19
They actually copied the "Hunter-Killer" moniker off the Terminator?
post #6 of 19
Sadly, the philosophical implications were addressed in the movie, but everyone was too busy oogling Jessica Biel. What hath that ass wrought?
post #7 of 19
I just hope it comes with a "crash Jamie Foxx into mountain" button.
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
They actually copied the "Hunter-Killer" moniker off the Terminator?
I think that the term "Hunter-Killer" comes from German infantry tactics against the Russians in WWII. But it's been a pretty common term in the US military for the last twenty years or more.
post #9 of 19
I'm just glad Jeff Goldblum's on our side.
post #10 of 19
so, pretty much, we're all doomed. yay
post #11 of 19
Great compromise. We bring the troops home, but leave the weapons to do the dirty work.

I am curious about the lag time for the pilot's control of the Reaper. Clearly they're not meant for dogfighting.

That they'll leave to the next-gen of drones that will have some kind of advanced programming to take over in circumstances such as engagement by fighter aircraft...
post #12 of 19
I usually bring this example up to my students to try to help them understand connectionist "hidden node" models of neural mechanisms for learning, and it ties in nicely here:

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/braindish.htm
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
Great compromise. We bring the troops home, but leave the weapons to do the dirty work.

I am curious about the lag time for the pilot's control of the Reaper. Clearly they're not meant for dogfighting.

That they'll leave to the next-gen of drones that will have some kind of advanced programming to take over in circumstances such as engagement by fighter aircraft...
There is no such thing as dog-fighting in todays airforce warfare. Nowadays, the kind of wars weapons are developed for, and concepts get financed, are wars of 1st World Nations against Guerilla tactics, disorganized 3rd World nations, surgical strikes against strategic or tactical targets, or politically motivated intervention.
There is just very little reason to expect an airforce vs. airforce war in the near future, since all nations capable of such a conflict are either allied, or possess such vast arrays of Anti-Air capability that no fighter would really need to engage enemy fights at a range where maneuverability and the ability to dodge enemy fire is going to play much of a role.

One major advantage to the construction of military airplanes without human pilots is that you can ignore a lot of physical problems like gravity, the insane pressures of tight curves and turns, basically the red-out, black-out, white-out problem. By that alone you pretty much can simply create a vastly superior air-to-air fighter should the need arise on relatively short notice.

Once both sides in a war have access to this kind of technology on a broad base, things change of course. Until then, I am certain (and most of my comrades + the brass I heard talking about this stuff recently agree) that dog-fighting in the sense of Top Gun is a thing of the past in a serious war.

One big factor that this craft can partially solve is that air strikes today are mainly limited by 2 factors: Intelligence, and Target Acquisiton in the narrow time windows you get when, for example, patrolling or attacking an area like the middle-eastern mountainranges or rocky plains. By cramming in a lot of recon hardware and software into the same frame that fires and controls the ordnance, you can eliminate a lot of human error on the way.
post #14 of 19
So, then, how long exactly until Skynet becomes self-aware?
post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli
So, then, how long exactly until Skynet becomes self-aware?
It's already too late.

I think the F22 is likely the last manned fighter. It appears that all the R and D is aimed at the unmanned drones.

How long before we go that route with tanks and naval craft?

Anyone want to play a game of Ogre?
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
I think the F22 is likely the last manned fighter. It appears that all the R and D is aimed at the unmanned drones.
While I don't the the F-22 will be the last manned fighter, I do think that combat UAVs will outnumber manned combat aricraft in the next 100 years.

Drones are cheaper to build and fly, because they don't need life support systems or the multiple redundant systems that humans require. They're cheaper to operate because you can do things like keep (expensive) pilots at home and only have maintainers at bases abroad. And they are not limited by human physiology - they can fly for days (it's easy to switch out pilots in the control trailer) or pull G-loads that would kill a man.

It's not the UAVs I'm worried about. It's the actual SkyNet.
post #17 of 19
If all these things are working by remote control, can it be long before the opposition figures out how to hack them?
post #18 of 19
This war won't end until we get some fucking Gundams on the ground.

This is a start, but it isn't extreme enough.
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cow Puncher
This war won't end until we get some fucking Gundams on the ground.

This is a start, but it isn't extreme enough.
Sounds good in theory, but those Gundam wars seem to go on forever.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Stealth" the movie meet Stealth the reality