This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
There is a sleeper in the race for fielding more unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capability worldwide — General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is already flying a reduced-signature Predator C and the company is looking to bank its existing gains.
“They already have the ground stations and infrastructure in place. Predator C plugs right into that,” says General Atomics chief Tom Cassidy. “Right now there is no prohibition about selling Predator C overseas to NATO countries, Japan or Australia. The entire Predator family is in Missile Technology Control Regime category one.“
The new Predator C has a turbojet engine with hidden exhaust and recessed air intakes, swept wings and V-tail for redirecting radar reflections, and some shaping. Depending on how much a customer wants to spend, the signature can be reduced to the point that by using standoff weapons and cooperative tactics with other aircraft, even advanced air defenses can be finessed and avoided.
The capability is making it interesting to the U.S. Navy, Britain and Italy, and widespread interest in what could be a cheaper, modular, alternative to other stealth designs begs the question of how many different missions the new aircraft could address.
The issue would turn around increasing capabilities without the design becoming too large, slow, expensive and vulnerable.
“Ballistic missile defense is another area we’re looking hard at,” Cassidy tells Aviation Week. “Boost-phase intercept [would be possible] by carrying an interceptor missile that would be cued by other detection devices, as well as an onboard sensor. Or the UAV sensors could cue ground-based or shipboard interceptor missiles. It could go both ways.“
An Aegis-based Standard Missile-3 already has destroyed an ailing U.S. intelligence satellite in orbit. Raytheon is being eyed as the source of an air-launched interceptor missile — a longer-range, faster variant of its AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.
“We’re looking at Predator C as a player in that,” Cassidy says. In addition, “We could do a lot of the signals intelligence and electronic attack mission from the Predator C since the EA-6Bs are going away. We’re putting 45 KVA [kilovolt-ampere] generators on the Predator B. That’s plenty of electric power to hang jammers on the wings. Predator C would be a natural for that too. We have not decided what level of electric power we will have on the Predator C. We’ll see what kind of new jammer capabilities are out there.”
Read the rest of this story, see the STOVL JSF sucking gas, look at what it’s like behind the wheel of a JLTV and listen to a podcast from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
“We’re putting 45 KVA [kilovolt-ampere] generators on the Predator B. That’s plenty of electric power to hang jammers on the wings.”
Hanging anything on the wings means you are sacraficing low observability (lo).
Looks like a nice platform though.
General Atomics seems to have a great track record. They’re producing high tech weapons with as much value as consumer oriented products. I think we’ll probably be seeing this being bought in huge numbers in the next few years. An air-launched PAC-3 platform is a great idea and makes much more sense than the sidewinder missiles they equip the reapers with right now. These guys are really leading the defense industry.
This is what I am talking about. More of this, less of the big expensive manned fighters. If you can put 100/500/1000/5000 airframes with air to air missles, gound attach weapons, sensors and jamers running on a grid network into a battle space, why do you need a supper faster super expensive manned ‘dog fighter’?
For every f-22 we buy, we could fly 25+ Predators. Or around 5000 of them for the same cost as the current fleet of f-22s.
One thing to bear in mind is that the Predator family requires generally two men sitting in a Ground Control Station (GCS) to fly the UAV and operate the payload. So buying hundreds of them requires a LOT of trained pilots and sensor operators.
Perhaps the Pred C doesn’t require quite as much manhours to fly and operate the sensors (hopefully).
Either way, General Atomics does it right and quick for less money than the big contractors like NG, LM, Boeing, etc. Funny that the way NG and Boeing had to enter the market was by buying up smaller companies…..
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” – Richard Feynman
And General Atomcis seems to get Feynman.
The Cenobyte
grid network
Your single point of fail.
And remember the US Armed forces already need to buy private satellite time so to fly their UAV fleet.
lts def an interesting development. ln regards to operating them I’m sure we are going to see further development and redundant systems to deal with a loss of sattelite throughput. For those that think that is a deal breaker loss of sattelites cripples us across the board not juts in regards to UAVs. Developing backup systems is a good notion. Not to mention few likely adversaries will have the ability in interfere with sattelite connectivity at all. These sort of systems forward deployed with localalized redundant control will hold a great many potential adversariees at risk.
Produce this Predator C & the D model should go supersonic?
Or VSTOL Predator E model.
Expand the line.
Use over US Mex border alone.
STreamline the ground control system for EZ use.
“grid network. Your single point of fail”
Grid networks don’t have a single point of fail, that’s the idea. That’s why it’s a grid network not a linear network. The internet is built on this concept which is why even with major service outages some traffic still flows. However a true grid network would allow any node to talk to any other node that is in range of it.
As to man hours, the savings in man hours on the ground it over the top. These aircraft are simple and easy to maintain. Beyond that the 2nd man in the box operating the UAV is not a pilot he is a payload operator, something you could learn to do in a few hours (Although it would take longer than that to get good at it). Beyond that, there is no reason that these aircraft need a pilot at all most of the time. (Global Hawk never has a pilot) plus for those that ‘need’ a pilot, There are plans now to operate some “piloted” UAVs with one pilot taking controls of more than one airframe using simple autopilots.
For those of you that prefer UAV’s for supporting the guys on the ground or a UAV lobbing AMRAM’s down range, you haven’t been there to voice your opnion. UAV’s have there place and use but not in our generation. Something called mutual support is key to success in aviation.
The future of military aviation is in UAV’s. I see a future where all craft is controlled by pilots on the ground, if not by computers. Or maybe a mix where the craft flies itself with a pilot in the seat observing and able to take control at any second.
If we get rid of pilots all together, just imagine the amount of money we’ll save. Personnel is the most expensive component of the armed forces (and most vulnerable).
You need a man in the air. How would a 20 plane UAV LFE work out, how would you keep sight in BFM? You need a pair of eyeballs to see that manpad coming up at you, or that SA-6 smokeplume coming at your wingman, the bandit on the vis cap rolling behind you, whose going to tell dash-2 he has bullet holes in his wings. Would you want a UAV strafing 40 meters away from you. On the ground I guaruntee you’d want a human behind that gun when your calling for “Danger Close”. UAV’s have their value butvare not the answer to everything
I for one don’t think UAVs are the answer to every air warfare need. I do think they provide a capability we do need. The X-47 sounds as though it is on time and budget. A 1500nm combat radius stealthy strike option from carriers is an undeniable leap frog in capability for carrier groups.
Versions of that or this Predator C deployed from land bases in theatre would also provide an undeniable capability. The potential for long range strike and SEADs is unquestionablly worth pursuing these systems. They will not only be as good or perhaps even better than manned options, they will be cheaper, easier to deploy in a dispersed fashion, and most importantly when we lose one there is no one to bury.
The way the Air Force is going with it’s future UAS air plan, I doubt they will remain cheap in the long run. What I see are Tier 2 and up multi-million dollar UAVs that are going to end up being just as expensive to lose as a fighter(minus the cost of the pilot). Germany recently rejected buying Predator Bs in favor of a possible lease deal for the cheaper Heron.
Global Hawk’s price is already way up there and Predator’s is rising as well, so the Air Force is ALREADY on a trajectory to more costly, and prohibitively more expensive to lose UASs.
The Cenobyte
If I the enemy infiltrate the network.
The UAV that can do everthing without a pilot isnt there yet. All UAVs need manpower, which needs an link to the UAV which can be jammed and is alreay in need of more bandwide, more Satellites and so.
And just saying, if you make an UAV that is as good or superior to an REAL FIGHTER can that thing cost as much if not more then said REAL MANNED FIGHTER.
I will not deny that UAVs are the future but the UAV that can do what an F22 or f35 can do or better, wel lwe will not see that before I guess 2035.
STemplar
The level of persistence and time on station
LOL you know why that is?
look that their means of propulsion!
compare that to a REAL MANNED FIGHTER and think again.
and cheap? well an REAL UNMANNED FIGHTEr that can do what a REAL MANNED FIGHTER can do needs a AI like brain. I will not even guess what that will cost like.
Using an argument like they’ll be just expensive to lose as a manned fighter is really no argument at all. Ultimately you don’t want to lose any aircraft manned or otherwise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All I’m saying is that the old mission creep dynamics plaguing conventional platforms have already started to work their magic on unmanned systems.
I’m sure it’s because Heron and Predator have different niches to fill. I suppose a Heron vs Predator discussion may be something worth looking into.
Since satellite communications came up a couple times in the discussion, I think you guys may find this interesting.
Schriever 5- Interesting Lessons About War in Space
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae0c9033f-8c04-4124-8203-b935a3e4c0ac&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
The dependents on Satalites is a problem, but there are other things we can use. We have the technology to put relay stations all over the place. (Balloons, fixed wing, quick launch low orbit sats, towers, ships, ground vehicals, etc)
Beyond that as I said before grid networking allows for you to have every single unit be a relay for every other unit in the field.
As to having human eyeballs, as opposed to guys looking at screens. Well ask the next partol you go out with, would they rather have 3 or 4 UAVs covering them 24/7 while they are outside the wire, or would they rather be able to call in one f-18 every once in awhile if they think they really need it?