Just saw this on the MQ-9 reaper, now I'm assuming its more theoretical than anything but what is with the AIM9's?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pdf/20090601drone.pdf

Giving the "fighter-mafia" a scare, perhaps?

I am reminded of that Georgian (?) UAV that got shot down by a MiG. It'll be more for self-defense rather than ACM - until more advanced UCAVs arrive.

I'm pretty sure a USAF Predator pre OIF tried a defensive AIM-9 shot outside of launch parameters before itself being taken out by an attacking Mig.

That was just a Stinger actually, not AIM-9, I think...

You're correct (as usual)

A recent AW&ST article about USAF plans for a dedicated new development of a medium altitude UAV (like Predator/Reaper) noted some of the operational deficiencies in those designs, which were not developed for a specific USAF requirement but were private or DARPA type projects adopted off the shelf. One issue it mentioned was control latency, I believe referring just to the drone system itself not including latency if you are transmitting the controls from the other side of the planet. That apparently limits capability even in engaging moving targets on the ground, let alone air combat. Another problem is the high landing accident rate, though that's not directly related to air combat. But I also wonder what the capabilities of the optics system in rate of slew and field of vision. Altogether I'd tend to doubt the current generation General Atomics UAV's have a lot of air combat potential, though anti-air missiles might be hung on them. It would seem that practical air combat UAV's would probably require a high degree of AI for the drone to do at least a good deal of the thinking and situational awareness for itself, then be aided by a man in the loop, rather than push back and forth all the information a fighter pilot needs through the control loop in absolute real time.

Joe

Apart from the input latency it should make sense. AIM-9X could be slewed to the optical sensor turret and considering the small IR signature of the drone, could be able to lock-on before the fighter achieves a lock-on. Would make attacking a drone much more risky for an enemy fighter. Now consider the jet powered version of Predator and it starts to make more sense.

The UAV would probably be in range of radar guided missiles before enemy fighters got in the range of it's Sidewinders. In fact does any UCAV under development (including the Navy's X-47B) include a capability to fire AMRAAMs?

UCAVs in general will certainly be very useful at supplementing manned aircraft. However Defense Secretary "death to the USAF" Gates idea that we should not buy new manned aircraft because of these is crazy in my opinion. A high capability UCAV may be cheaper than a similar manned aircraft, but not that cheap.

I'd just send in anti-UCAV UCAVs, then go in with manned a/c or strike UCAVs. The problem of course when you start doing this kind of thing is that you make office buildings in CONUS legitmate tatical targets.

I've often wondered about the potential to mount rear-firing stingers (not AIM9's) for a scenario like the Georgian UAV the Russians shot down .

I would envisage the future of aerial warfare to see strike duties largely taken over by UAV's but A2A being manned for at least another two decades. I'd be wagering that we'll still be seeing fighter aircraft in 30 years.

At the end of the day UAV's simply aren't that cheap anymore to be expendable (Global hawk is $30 mil approx) so you start having to work the utility maths of is a UAV like reaper at $10ish million more or less that 20% as effective as an F16? and so on and so forth...

The current Reaper versions with the prop at the end, most likely yes. More stealthly UAVs maybe not. And then it would still depend on the opposition fighter. In places like Africa or so, where the enemy Air Force is limited in numbers and capability the AIM-9X would change the game.

How is this new?

The more complex and capable the UAV, the larger the cost to manufacture and maintain. Wonder how much it would cost to make a larger single engine UAV airframe, able to fly high sub-sonic, in a A-4 like format, with the ability to use recycled components from other aircraft to save component costs?

The most complex equipment to research would be a the computer software that knows how to perform with a certain configuration of engine and loading.

Airframe, control equipment, master fire control, plumbing, etc able to except older engines, radars from decommisioned F-18, F-16 or other aircraft to be used in a attack, decoy, recon role of a high intensity warfare situation.

To compare to computers. The airframe and avionics would be equivalent to a computer case and motherboard.
The radar and engine equivalent to a GPU and CPU.

The reason for the radar and associated equipment to be able to use older AMRAAM(or even Sparrow) missles for self defence. Since the aircraft would be sub-sonc, would not have the power of the "bow" to go with the "arrow." The aircraft would a reusable cruise missle(or not), with self-defence capabilty, able to deliver a payload against a target.

Cost of R@D, new airframe and equipment, and component integration\testing would be the major costs. Old engines, radar, landings gears, older sniper pods, etc from old airframes already in the bone yard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think if Israel had such and aircraft for a Iran strike. You have ADA and home team fighters to contend with. So send in the lower tech drones folowed by higher tech manned assets. Israeli drones either kill or be killed by Iranian assets. Manned cleans up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What would be the flaws of this so we don't enter Sparky territory?

The WTC was perhaps a legitimate target, if you accept the terrorists' worldview. But if you don't, then it isn't.

If you're directing tactical a/c from an office building or trailer at Nellis, there's no worldview that says the enemy can't legitimately attack that site, no matter how limitted you claim your war to be.

Any combatant in uniform is a legitimate target for attack under western laws of war. He could be a clerk washing underpants on a 10 man outpost on a rock smack in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean- as long as he is a member of the armed forces, he is a legitimate target. Unless you're concerned about USAF operating UCAVs from pre-school in Las Vegas, I fail to see how doing it from Nellis somehow introduces a new class of targets.

Up until now, the West has proceeded as if only its troops in the designated theater of operations were legitimate targets. You can argue about the artificiality of this convention, and I might even agree with you. As long as our enemies could inflict human pain on us and attrit our skilled operators by shooting at planes and tanks, it was respected, because they just didn't want to do total war with the US, GB, or France. We're changing those rules. (Really, right now; not in theory, not in the future.) I would expect our enemies, especially those with no territory to lose and no population to be responsible for, to react appropriately.

As for the threat this poses to civilians in the US, a successful attack on Nellis could very easily involve pre-schoolers, and not necessarily just those on base. If a UAV was being piloted from say Fort Monmouth in New Jersey--not at all far fetched, considering some of the tenant commands--living in Eatontown might be a bit of a dangerous thing. Or say Naval UAVs are being piloted from Naval Base San Diego or (more likely) Naval Air Station North Island? Plenty of civilian stuff happening right next door that could easily get in the way of a determined attempt (involving guns, bombs, maybe even primitive WMD like gas) by enemy operatives.

That selfsame logic was in operation during the cold war - even an explicitly counter-force strike by the Soviets would've killed millions of Americans living around military bases. Living in San Diego was pretty dangerous, as was living in Long Beach, etc. etc. Same for any Soviet town near a military base. Nothing new there, Tony. Also, terrorists of the ilk we're fighting don't really need justification to attack pre-schools. Oh sure, given opportunity they'll wrap themselves in rhetoric of revenge for a particular slight, but the current operations have already given them enough for the next 100 years - UCAVs or no.

I'm having issues getting the .pdf to open for me. So I can't see or read and have to rely only in the comments here.

What are the chances that this isn't a Sidewinder, but a SideARM-style capability? HARMS, I would imagine, are too big to hang on a Predator or Reaper. Not in terms of weight, but in physical size. Putting an anti-radiation capability onto drones makes very good sense.

PDF seems to be a spread on some magazine. It shows a Predator with various weapons on the wings (actually an artist's drawing, not an actual photo). Each weapon has labels (e.g., Hellfire, Sidewinder, and IIRC a Paveway or two....)

Well, making enemy shoot radar guided missiles at any UAV they encounter is victory by itself, specialy if that IR-seeking missile did hit when you used it for the first time.

Making UAV fire AMRAAM shouldn't be too difficult and doesn't require a radar in the UAV. Either modify IR-sensor to track air targets (there is laser range finder onboard already, right?) or install link-16 in that UAV.

110% AIM9 Sidewinder.

1. We're not talking about total war, nuclear or otherwise.

2. The terrorists don't need reasons, but we can't call operations against UCAV control assets terrorism.

3. We will one day fight somebody that can attack the US in a more conventional manner. Remoting UCAV control to CONUS gives them reason to. So what if its perfectly legitimate? Future North Vietnams and Serbias are going to attack the US when the 20th Century ones didn't. That's a significant change in my book.