Combatant Commanders Want Tougher Drones

An MQ-9 Reaper drone

While the U.S. Air Force’s unclassified effort to field a next generation UAV, dubbed MQ-X, has been on hold for nearly a year now, the service’s top requirements officer weighed in this morning on what he thinks the plane should be capable of.

“We need to look at bridging from the permissive environment” today’s drones like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper fly in over places like Afghanistan and “contested airspace” where something like a Reaper would make easy prey, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Air Force’s chief of operations, plans and requirements for the U.S. Air Force said during a breakfast with reporters here in DC. “We need a capability in that area and I think MQ-X is a good place to have that conversation.”

In fact, combatant commanders around the world are already starting to ask for something more survivable that our existing drones, according to Breedlove.

From his perspective, the plane wouldn’t necessarily be high-end stealth, but it would be more survivable than the current crop of propeller-driven UAVs prowling the skies of the Middle East.

The Air Force is already working on capabilities that can go into extremely heavily defended regions, but needs something  that can handle less heavily-defended but still dangerous airspace, according to Breedlove.

While he didn’t elaborate on what he meant by more survivable, I’ve heard senior Air Force officials talk about the need to make next-gen UAVs such as MQ-X faster, more maneuverable and equipped with countermeasures or maybe air-to-air weapons.

Sadly, the general did not give a timeline for when he thought the service will have hashed out what it wants the drone to look like.

This makes me wonder, what about all those next-generation Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles being designed?

The Navy is already looking to capitalize on that type of design for its Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike UAV which it hopes to have in limited service by the end of this decade. Is such a plane too expensive for MQ-X style missions?

Also, I’m curious, what category of survivability does the stealthy-looking RQ-170 actually fall under?

— John Reed

14 Comments on "Combatant Commanders Want Tougher Drones"

  1. Add a jet engine, increase payload speed and range…keep most everything the same as the current predator/reaper, except for a redesigned wing surface to take advantage of the new engine. nope that'd be too simple…

  2. Just make them cost less than a SAM and no matter what you'll come out ahead. At that price, even vs. an F-22 getting a 100:1 Kill:Loss ratio it'll still be a "win" for the drones. This is the future of air warfare and the leap ahead technology our adversaries will be pursuing to destroy our billion dollar, gold plated, flying toys.

  3. tribulationtime | November 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Reply

    From my pointview, they want more flexibility on fly-plan to avoid a "tunnel" in the air so much time prohibited fly zone for others. Need "get-in get-out" faster without made a traffic jam because the drone spend too much time in the target vecinity, means target distance and altitude variations. So more power, and harder structural features, aerodinamics tune up and guess better command stuff. I scrap any stealth improvement. RQ-170 stealthy-looking can be that looking, fly-wing class aircrafts have own advantages.

  4. To be fair, most manned aircraft aren't too survivable either, asides from specialized CAS-intended aircraft like the A-10 and helicopter gunships.

  5. The real problem is that drones are too cheap – there just aren't the golden goose that manned aircraft are. Hence the need to gold plate them until they can barely get off the ground.

    The next generation of UAVs need to be at least as expensive as the f35, and preferably more expensive. The long development time and extensive software required have all the makings of an R&D bonanza if managed correctly.

    And the biggest plus is that they obsolete the existing fleet. It's a contractors dream scenario.

  6. "While he didn’t elaborate on what he meant by more survivable, I’ve heard senior Air Force officials talk about the need to make next-gen UAVs such as MQ-X faster, more maneuverable and equipped with countermeasures or maybe air-to-air weapons."

    OK not again. Faster maybe but not to fast it also needs a good loiter time and a low stall speed. Manuverable, yes. Air-to-air? No. Counter messures yes. Screw stealth.

    Basically take a A-10 figure out how to make it nearly as survivable. While keeping whats needed. We dont need another damn strike fighter. We need a heavy CAS drone.

  7. Just use the mq-1c avenger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Aven…. Then you can use existing infrastructure and have a better RoI and a lower TCO. No need to completely retrain, and already fits the bill.

  8. survivability is going to have to mean passive or automatic defense systems for the most part. With a 1 second each direction delay between do to the satellite up-link between airframe and controller there is very little hope in a dog fight or trying to dodge SAMs. Two seconds is a long time to lag out in combat. I am sure in the near future automated systems will be able to handle everything the pilot could handle and more with better accuracy but until then I suspect they are talking about lower IR, more speed, more EM stealth, and countermeasure dispensers, lights and lasers.

  9. What if by "survivability" he meant "less malfunctions"? I read somewhere that we loose a lot of drones due to technical malfunctions as opposed to enemy fire. But then…I dont really know the statistics.

    What they should come up with is a super drone that can dock with a blimp up in the sky or be carried by a blimp to increase its loiter time. Imagine that huh .. a CAS drone attached to blimp so it can follow troops on patrol and upon encountering enemy it can just unattach and swoosh down like a hawk, kill everything in sight and then fly back to the nearest base on its remaining fuel – or even dock with the blimp again. huh? Now that wouldnt that be sweet?

  10. does the Air Force really know what it needs?
    they "needed" 700 F-22s to fight off the Soviets
    they "needed" the F-35 to replace all those light fighters: if it wasn't for the CIA putting rockets on drones, they might still be bombing the Taliban using B-2s
    the UK "needed" two big aircraft carriers, turns out they can't really afford them, never mind if they'll ever really need them

    what they "need" is an effective anti-SAM system, like 70 mm guided rockets. shot per shot cheaper than SAMs, they would make drones untouchable until the laser becomes usable

  11. Hmmm, we need a stealthy drone (MQ-X) that is able to operate in contested airspace. We can spend mucho $$$ and 10+ years in R&D or we can dust off the plans for the RQ-3 Darkstar. Need flying prototypes to update the avionics? No problem. I know of three airframes collecting dust now in museums. Just a thought if you want to save time and $$$$.

  12. The advantage of UCAVs are they expendable and persistent. Who cares if hundreds are lost. That means they need to be cheap. 150m per plane doesn't make sense. Modern air defenses make manned aircraft obsolete. Stealth is obsolete too. That said, the US does need a high altitude unmanned jet powered aircraft. Long range hypersonic cruise missiles might be the way to go, too.

  13. Do what the Russians have done in countless ways in the past: Make 'em cheap, but make a lot of 'em. I recall some footage of a drone facing down a fighter sometime back. Anyone recall?

  14. yes, there was a shootout in the starting days of OIF between an iraqi MIG (29 or a su maybe) and a predator (or similar) drone, armed with stinger. the mig won.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*