Home » Air » Drones Join Fighter Jets in Striking Targets in Iraq

Drones Join Fighter Jets in Striking Targets in Iraq

by Brendan McGarry on August 11, 2014

Predator_Reaper_June_2014

The U.S. military has turned to drones to help launch airstrikes against Islamic militants in northern Iraq.

The Defense Department acknowledged early on that aerial drones, known as remotely piloted aircraft in military speak, would be part of the effort to gather intelligence on and, if necessary, bomb militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the al-Qaeda inspired Islamic group that controls much of the northern part of the country.

President Obama last week cited as reasons for authorizing the airstrikes in the country the group’s advances in the northern Kurdistan region. Militants had reportedly overwhelmed Kurdish fighters and threatened to attack U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in Irbil in the northeast and Yazidi minorities on Mount Sinjar in the northwest.

On Friday, a drone officially identified as an MQ-1 Predator armed with Hellfire missiles struck a mortar position near Irbil and killed several militants. On Saturday, a mix of fighter and drone aircraft destroyed military combat vehicles, including armored personnel carriers and an armed truck. (Ironically, some of the damaged vehicles were reportedly American-made Humvees the militants had captured from Iraqi forces.)

We’re interested in learning more about how the manned and unmanned aircraft are apparently working in tandem to conduct the strikes — and where they’re based. The Navy has released photographs of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets flying from the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf to conduct operations in Iraq. But what about the drones, as well as the C-17 and C-130 cargo aircraft that airdropped food and water to the stranded civilians?

We’re also curious why the military seems to be using the MQ-1 Predator — the workhorse of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — rather than the bigger MQ-9 Reaper, which can loiter over an area for longer periods of time, carry more payload and, over the next few decades, is slated to replace the Predator in the Air Force’s drone inventory. (Perhaps all the Reapers are being used in Afghanistan?)

Both unmanned aircraft are made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., which last month unveiled an enhanced drone cockpit station for operators.

Share |

{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }

Andy August 11, 2014 at 5:28 pm

For this kind of war, Drone still cheaper than an F16 and f18 and it can be in the air more than 24 hrs at the time….

Reply

ronaldo August 11, 2014 at 10:52 pm

Couldn't agree more.

Reply

xXTomcatXx August 12, 2014 at 10:34 am

Except for the logistics tail behind the UAVs. The carrier brings it's own logistics (save for maybe a tanker which is already in theater). The Predators require Satellite time, maintenance crews to be setup, a secure airfield, and a weapons cache. Which if not in place already would take at least a few days to setup. And if you think about it, the logistics and some of flight time would already be paid for by the preplanned day-to-day operations of the carrier.

Reply

Kim August 12, 2014 at 11:39 am

The logistics tail behind an UAV vs. the one behind an F-16 are probably very different. My guess the F-16 is the more expensive one, too, in part because the pilot is way more expensive to educate and 'maintain', than his/her equivalent commandeering a UAV. Add to this the risk and mess of a pilot being captured on enemy territory.

Reply

blight_asdf August 12, 2014 at 12:26 pm

The UAV is a low performance aircraft with logistics primarily those of teleoperation, which leave a smallish footprint at the airport they are flown from, and a more dispersed footprint elsewhere associated with satellite communications. Then there's the spart partstrain that extends from the airbase back to suppliers in the US, and the simpler aircraft, manned or unmanned, has a reduced parts demand.

The F-16 needs no SATCOM (though in practice some degree of remote command and control is required, we do not send aircraft into the blue yonder without micromanagement). High performance jet requires expensive high performance parts. Jet engine has greater fuel demands and is more expensive than a turboprop UAV.

When we switch to jet UAV's then we'll see the logistical costs match those of the modern high-performance fighter jets.

Reply

Guest August 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm

Probably not going to match that of manned fighter jets. The UAS will be less expensive over the long run due to a smaller operational foot print. Won't need the pilots on station, reducing all the logistics tail associated with supporting the pilots (barracks, food, medical care, sanitation) and the systems in the aircraft supporting the pilot (oxygen, pressurization, video displays, ejection seat).

xXTomcatXx August 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm

These aren't F'16s they're F-18s and therefore operating off of an Aircraft Carrier. The pilot's have been paid for in both the F-18 and UAV cases so that should not factor into this equation. These F-18 and there logistics tails would otherwise be costing money no matter where they were stationed. The only additional cost incurred here is fuel and an uptick in flight hours. Still less than setting up from scratch a UAV facility.

Reply

Guest August 12, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Expense depends on how long the operation goes on and the nature of the operation. The longer the operation goes on, the more advantageous the UAS becomes. But we all hope the operation is short.

majr0d August 13, 2014 at 1:43 pm

Drones are not necessarily cheaper.

Everyone fixates on the pilot and forgets drones often have more than one operator as well as everyone involved in getting the signal from the operator to the drone. They also require ground crews to arm, fuel and maintain them. Crews that are much closer to the enemy than the comparative longer range of manned aircraft.

Everyone seems to be forgetting the puny weapons load of drones vs, manned aircraft. More sorties cost more money.

Then there's the comparative short range and lack of refueling capability. Airbases in close proximity have logistics and security requirements/costs.

Reply

Andy August 13, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Drones are not necessarily cheaper.?
1=diesel vs jet fuel
2=alot less fuel per fly than F18.
3=maintenance alot less than F18.
4=stay on the targets alot longer without notice.
Again this is a difference war.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 1:16 am

Andy –

5 – what does a satellite cost to bounce signals off of
6 – the telecommunications equipment and round the clock personnel to man and maintain it. to control the drone…
7 – the multiple crewmembers and shifts needed to operate a drone

Reply

Guest August 13, 2014 at 6:18 pm

Depends on the mission set. But generally, the logistics tail favors the drones. Manned fighters need ground crews for their operations as well as drones, and they need MORE people than drones because drones have fewer and less complex systems than manned fighters.

F-16s and other air-to-ground manned aircraft are good for going out and killing things we know about, not so much for hanging around taking out targets of opportunity. Consider that the F-16s tactical radius is around 360nm, with 6x 500lb bombs. Goes out, drops 6 weapons, hits six targets, comes back. But for the missions going on out there, 500lb may be overkill. So the Reaper with 2x 500lb and 4x Hellfires can hit the same number of targets, AND hang around for 8-10 hours longer than the F-16.

As to range, the F-16 has a tactical range around 400nm, depending on loadout. For the MQ-9, if cruising at 180kgs, and endurance 16 hours, range gets out to 2800nm. Heck, the F-16s ferry range is around 2000nm with external tanks. Also, both the manned fighters and drones are operating out of the same bases and cover all of Afghanistan, but the drones can do it without refueling, so I don't think range is much of an argument.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 1:13 am

Tweak your scenario and the drones can't fulfill the mission. Sure in a low intensity or target poor environment drones have some advantages. They go away when there's a multitude of targets, response time s need to be quicker because of fleeting targets and more types of munitions are required.

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. I just chafe at the drone fandom enamored with technology instead of tactical realities.

Reply

Guest August 14, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Low intensity and target poor environment is exactly the point the original poster made. "For this kind of war", thank you for seeing it our way.

Libya was neither a low intensity or target poor environment yet drones were key players in the air war. Drones that can loiter on station to take advantage of TST or cross-cue targets to inbound strikers that don't have the on station loiter time empowers all assets.

The tactical realities of the conflicts we are currently involved with fits well with how we are employing drones thusfar. I agree though, that drones should not be seen as the hammer to drive every nail.

jamesb August 11, 2014 at 11:01 pm

And the Air Force finally gets into the fight, eh?

Reply

oblatt22 August 12, 2014 at 1:55 am

Really is an all American show – Americans paying for the bombers the bombs and the targets too.

Reply

Matthew UK August 12, 2014 at 5:20 am

“Mostly” an American show. Don’t forget us Brits. Our C130s are there dropping aid and our always-in-the-fight Tornados are doing intel missions. Go RAF!

Reply

spurr August 14, 2014 at 12:48 am

Well, actually it's mostly a "City of London interests" show, as the numbskulls in Washington DC (by this I include those numbskulls of the CFR and other neo con so-called shitn tanks) take instructions from the international financial masters, who are mostly headquartered in London.

Who with a sound mind and education would actually believe that Obama or US Cuntgressmen are running the show?!

Reply

rtsy August 12, 2014 at 3:34 am

"We’re also curious why the military seems to be using the MQ-1 Predator — the workhorse of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — rather than the bigger MQ-9 Reaper."

Perhaps the generals are looking to get rid of the older model Predators by putting some extra miles on them. One of the original selling points for UAV systems was that they were essential disposable. Now that the next gen UCAVs are coming online the Predators may look like old tech.

Reply

xXTomcatXx August 12, 2014 at 10:35 am

It's a smart move. Get as much life out of the used car you have before buying knew.

Reply

retired462 August 12, 2014 at 7:05 am

For this situation: A-10's &drones!

Reply

Super Tomcat August 12, 2014 at 9:15 am

Where are the A-10s going to land??? The F-18 Super Hornets could fly 2 missions by the time the A-10s get there.
Go Navy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply

blight_asdf August 12, 2014 at 9:44 am

Between the lines, it sounds like the Turks won't let us fly missions against ISIS?

Reply

retired462 August 12, 2014 at 11:03 am

Don't write off Turkey! Strafing with the GAU-8 is the way to go! Been there – done that!

Reply

Tiger August 13, 2014 at 4:38 pm

Kevin Bacon please note; Joe Carroll has adopted the A-10 cult. Hunt down these Followers…..

Reply

ronaldo August 12, 2014 at 1:06 pm

Good sir, you're quite blind to the facts.

!. Most of the sorti's flown are AF tankers in support of whatever aircraft are on site.

2. The A-10 is refuelable from the air.

2. F-16's and F-15E's are also in this fight.

If you were real Navy you would have already known this.

Reply

xXTomcatXx August 12, 2014 at 4:35 pm

Huh? Where have you seen that there have been 15E's and 16's involved in these attacks?

Additionally, regardless of a refueling capability, an A-10 still needs to refuel more frequently than an 18.

Reply

majr0d August 13, 2014 at 2:23 pm

"an A-10 still needs to refuel more frequently than an 18."

Not necessarily true Goose. A lot of things impact refueling like how much fuel/ordnance a plane takes off with. That's especially important taking off from a carrier.

The A10 also carries a greater payload especially in the CAS role as well as having longer range in certain profiles.

majr0d August 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm

The A10s will land at the same place the drones will land and the A10 will actually have a higher sortie rate. They'll be closer and actually cheaper.

I'm all for carrier based airpower (comes in handy when there isn't an airfield) but sometimes the "Rah Rah" is just propaganda.

Reply

Tiger August 13, 2014 at 4:41 pm

Point is, we do not need them. Other planes can do the task.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 12:24 am

A pick up can move a tractor trailer load given enough trips/time. It's hardly the best tool for the job.

Juramentado August 12, 2014 at 9:47 am

A-10s tactics occur at lower altitudes, which will expose them to more of the MANPAD envelope. The Hornet's FLIR data is masked out; under the redact would be airspeed and altitude – it's probably high enough to stay out of shoulder fired range.

Reply

majr0d August 13, 2014 at 2:25 pm

You can use the same weapons that keep the F18 out of MANPADS range on an A10.

If the F18 tried A10 tactics it would be much less survivable.

Many detractors of the A10 use double standards to make their case.

Reply

Riceball August 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Yup, and the A-10 can carry more of them, hang around for longer, and fly slow enough to make accurate targeting and ID easier.

Reply

ronaldo August 13, 2014 at 4:06 pm

Interesting article here on why F-18 F's were chosen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/

Reply

Tiger August 13, 2014 at 4:44 pm

They where chosen, Because they are there.

Reply

ronaldo August 13, 2014 at 5:23 pm

That's a troll answer.

The article seemed to be pointing out an advantage to the two seat F model.

Guest August 14, 2014 at 1:06 am

Ronaldo,
Good point that hadn't been brought up. Having a second seater there to ID targets, especially in a very dynamic situation, is key in these situations. Probably why the drones are en route, to act as SCAR-C assets, or at least as hunter-killers for targets.

Reply

Joe August 12, 2014 at 11:56 am

Air power to defeat organized insurgents backed by proper nation states. Worked so well in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam.

American willful misunderstanding of getting involved in a land war in asia. Next we will be going in against sicilians where death is involved.

Reply

Will August 12, 2014 at 12:32 pm

ISIL/ISIS has progressed beyond insurgency in Iraq & is fighting a conventional war there. It is using vehicles, artillery & units big enough to be detected & attacked from the air. It has never had a safe haven behind an international border. What it does have in both Iraq & in Syria are sizable populations who are willing to support it because of maltreatment by the national governments.
Avoiding land wars in Asia has always been a platitude. More than half the population of the world is in Asia, along with key natural resources inc. the oil & gas that the global economy inc. the USA still depends on. Civilian deaths has always been a part of war. The exception that proved the rule was the North African desert during WW2, and even that was a small part of a bigger conflict where millions of civilians died.

Reply

majr0d August 13, 2014 at 2:30 pm

As ISIS is being attacked from the air they are melting into the populace as we type.

We have fought many nations that used artillery and vehicles and were not able to degrade their capabilities to the point that ground troops were not required. This is the canard airpower enthusiasts since Douhet have espoused and have yet to show it's true.

Love airpower but there are limits no matter how hard one wishes differently.

Reply

Tiger August 13, 2014 at 4:48 pm

Limited force. Limited goals. Winning is not the goal. Linebacker 2 2.0 is not the goal. Stop bleeding, regime change, & food aid are the goals.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 1:23 am

"Stop bleeding, regime change, & food aid are the goals."

Where has that been stated? (Ans: They haven't)

It'd be nice to have goals or a strategy. Right now the admin is just putting a wet finger in the air until the next scandal.

Tiger August 13, 2014 at 4:44 pm

We are not trying to defeat ISIS.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 1:06 pm

Tiger – CONCUR!!! and few are noticing…

Reply

Tom August 12, 2014 at 1:03 pm

The 4 cylinder Rotax engine on the MQ-1′s sips fuel in comparison to the turbo prop on the MQ-9 granted it takes longer and the weapon load is smaller a MQ-1 with 6 Griffin missiles is probably the lowest cost way to conduct ISR and ground attack. The only thing is I don’t know how many drones can fly within a specified geographical area before they run into bandwidth issues.

Reply

Lance August 12, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Well Iraq is a friendly environment for drones and a hovering drone may be helpful fighting a lower air threat foe like ISIS. How ever if we needed to fight in Syria or the South China sea drones would be out and you have to go with manned aircraft.

Reply

Guest August 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm

Brendan,
Correction is required for the following section
"We’re also curious why the military seems to be using the MQ-1 Predator — the workhorse of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — rather than the bigger MQ-9 Reaper, which can loiter over an area for longer periods of time,"

The MQ-1 has a longer endurance than the MQ-9.

Reply

mhpr262 August 12, 2014 at 4:33 pm

I guess the drones are used to reconnoiter and constantly scan for targets which are then taken out by the F-18s. That way the Predators can preserve their weapon load for targets of opportunity when no manned jets are available.

Reply

IronV August 12, 2014 at 6:00 pm

The Predator has certain advantages over the Reaper. It can be "packaged" quickly and loaded into a C-17 or C-130 for rapid deployment anywhere necessary. Reaper's too big for that. Not saying that's what happened here…

Reply

Guest August 13, 2014 at 1:31 am
IronV August 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm

Not quickly it ain't!

Reply

Guest August 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm

If the Predator "can be 'packaged' quickly and loaded into a C-17 or C-130 for rapid deployment anywhere necessary,' then the same is applicable for the Reaper.

Additionally, a unit of Predators & Reapers can be deployed quicker than a squadron of fighters and need more aircraft to do it. One C-17 could move a unit of drones with stop in Europe for a gas and crew change and keep moving. The fighters would need two tankers and a C-17plus a stop for crew rest.

Reply

IronV August 15, 2014 at 12:29 pm

The Reaper is a much, much larger and more complex aircraft and in fact will not routinely fit in a C-130. It is not as easily broken down and transported as the Predator.

CPTCHUCK August 13, 2014 at 9:00 am

With out eyes on the ground the CAS is not very effective.

Reply

Tiger August 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm

That is what you have 300+ advisers for.

Reply

anthony August 14, 2014 at 6:55 am

I agree should have been done months ago!!

Reply

Tom August 14, 2014 at 8:36 am

Didn’t the Iraqi’s receive a bunch of SU-25 Frogfoots? Why aren’t we seeing more of those in the fight?

Reply

Ravi August 14, 2014 at 9:40 pm

Media's attention has shifted to US strikes

Reply

guest August 15, 2014 at 8:07 am

"We’re interested in learning more about where they’re (drones) based.

Erbil…

Oddgeir

Reply

Pansy September 12, 2014 at 10:21 pm

My relatives always say that I am killing my time here at net, but I know I am getting experience all the time
by reading such good content.

Reply

xXTomcatXx August 12, 2014 at 3:15 pm

Which I think is why we're seeing Predators taking part in the action now. I think ultimately, while the tempo will certainly die down, the presence will have to remain for quite some time. As a means of providing that as cheaply as possible we'll probably see a nearby Reaper airfield established. Someplace between Irbil and Turkey's border, closer to Iran perhaps?

Reply

xXTomcatXx August 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm

A-10 combat radius is 250nm with full armament load (CAS or anti armor). An F/A-18E has about 400nm range with the same amount of ordnance (About 17,000 lbs) and launched from a carrier. Are you saying that since the carrier is further from the action it eats more fuel? You've got me all confused, so what am I missing, Chief?

Now I agree that the A-10 has more ordnance options for CAS, but from what I've read so far, laser guided bombs have been the ordnance du jour in Erbil.

Reply

@GreensboroVet August 13, 2014 at 10:02 pm

Sounds like one pilot flying and back seat scanning for targets.

Reply

Tiger August 14, 2014 at 5:52 am

No, just common sense. We keep a 5th fleet & a CVN in the region for a reason. A full air wing, armed & ready needing only a phone call to hit any point in the region.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 12:22 am

The Super Hornet is NOT carrying the same ordnance. It's carrying all of FOUR 1k lb bombs and external fuel tanks. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

The A10 is carrying six.1k lb bombs without tanks and is flying 800 miles according to FAS (a much better source than wiki). http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

What hey are using vic Erbil is what the Navy can deliver not necessarily what's best for the job.

Reply

Tiger August 14, 2014 at 5:59 am

Look at our actions & The Golfer in chief's statements. Regime change? check. Feed the poor SOB's? Check. Enough bomb drops to band aid the problem near Irbil? Check. We have no sign of diving in the pool. Just a few splashes.

Reply

majr0d August 14, 2014 at 1:05 pm

I think we are talking past each other.

I don't deny the administration has said Maliki must leave but they have not used the term "regime change" which in the past has often meant a complete rebuilding of how a nation is governed. Again though, regime change isn't a goal (or better yet, strategy), it's a tactic to get to a regime that supports US interests.

Feeding is againjust an act unless we are putting in place a food relief program to create a population that's pro US (THAT's a startegy).

Bandaid the problem near Erbil. Again, to what end? No reports of US evacuating American State personnel. It's been stated we are conducting strikes to protect Embassy personnel but the military has said it's not enough. ISIS momentum has not been stopped. So we haven't stopped the bleeding and haven't explained the desired end state.

This is my point. Actions so we can look like we're doing something but we really aren't. It's like driving to waste gas and not get anywhere.

Reply

Guest August 16, 2014 at 11:34 pm

Not routinely fit in a C-130?

"For rapid C-130 deployment capability, a retractable caster system was developed so that the container could roll onto a C-130 then, subsequently, since the container is narrow enough for a walkway along the side, the casters could be retracted to either set the container on blocks or lower the container directly onto the floor of the aircraft." http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsh

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: