Predator C Avenger Makes First Flights 304
stoolpigeon writes "General Atomics' new unmanned combat aerial vehicle, the Predator C Avenger, has been making test flights. This new Predator has a stealthy design, 20-hour endurance, is jet powered and has an internal weapons bay. A number of photos have just become available. 'The aircraft was designed so the wings can be folded for storage in hangars or aircraft carrier operations if a naval customer is found. Cassidy, a retired admiral, has talked about a possible Navy role for Predator C since 2002. The Navy was interested in the Predator B's capabilities, but didn't want to introduce any new propeller-driven aircraft onto carrier decks. The UAV also comes with a tailhook, suggesting that carrier-related trials are planned. The inner section of the cranked wing is deep, providing structural strength for carrier landings and generous fuel volume while maintaining a dry, folding outer wing. Right now, the US Air Force and Royal Air Force are considered the most likely users.'"
Re:F-22 (Score:2, Informative)
The reason we want to cancel the F-22 is that we can't get anyone in the world to fly against our F-15's. We just don't need the F-22, and can probably skip it entirely in favor of cheaper solutions like these UAV's. We need manned aircraft right now, and the F-15 is not only good enough, it's far far more than good enough.
The issue with the F22 is that it's trying to be everything at once. It's incredibly fast, incredible maneuverable, and it's stealth. A fighter really only needs 2/3 to be superior, the third has diminished returns for a HUGE investment. Honestly, the 160 we've bought already are plenty.
Of course, we have the F35 Joint Strike Fighter coming down the pipeline. This is a plane that's designed to be the new workhorse. Configurable, with versions meant for airfields, aircraft carriers, and V/STOL. The biggest benefit is that it uses many parts with similar capabilities to the F22, but more cost effective and building off the lessons learned from the F22. UAVs are a huge part of air superiority and surveillance, especially due to their extended flight times, but they won't be replacing manned fighters yet. Maybe eventually, but limitations in sensor technology will prevent them from being equal to a manned jet for at least a few more decades.
Direct links to gallery pictures (Score:5, Informative)
The site hosting TFA seems to be very aggressive when it comes to adverts and tracking their patrons, and like most intelligent people I object to this. It was a pain to find the right combination of allowed and untrusted domains in NoScript, whilst making sure any remaining crud was blocked by Adblock and actually getting the content. So here are the direct links to the pictures from their crappy gallery:
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/1/06e0624b-9398-40e1-91d1-7888e231a908.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/7/fa4dc8b7-1aa5-477e-a704-f382762640d5.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/14/fdd0ed47-fef0-4b46-8efb-b34ca575e10e.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/7/8e19f57b-2014-4d26-b750-4b4dd75658f3.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/10/662e6b77-27fd-47f4-8a46-52966d559815.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/2/f6e9c29d-bcec-4e91-a294-cc6aeaa95774.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/8/bc1c25b1-56c6-4a7a-98a2-81f852033db5.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/5/039b7c83-f88f-4bf2-a5e1-31be92d9e69c.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/10/4f1a1b4b-c92f-4aff-aaef-a797d63e0e6d.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/7/8bef05bc-b09a-458c-9741-e0d0803e8a41.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/6/f1b8a1ef-febc-4c85-b6fe-7c70f6055898.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/9/b09c4b87-cd0d-4171-89b0-55c2bd0e1690.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/11/499ec512-084a-425f-ab9a-2112fb724ce8.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/7/69f21636-ee3e-4524-a72c-e3833cc84f4f.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/5/039b7c83-f88f-4bf2-a5e1-31be92d9e69c.Large.jpg [aviationweek.com]
Re:F-22 (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the F-14's are in Iran's airforce because they used to be a US client state before the Islamic Revolution.
The reason they were a US client state before the revolution is because the US and Great Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosadeq in 1953 because he was getting too friendly with the Soviets. In his place, the Pahlevi Shah was installed, and he ruled with with a somewhat undemocratic fist (see SAVAK) till 1979, when the people of Iran had had enough and decided to toss the fucker out. Sadly, they got more than they bargained for, and one shitty regime replaced another.
American interventionist blowback fucking up everything for another nation and ourselves; just add them to the list with Afghanistan, Iraq, and a gigantic chunk of South and Central America.
Re:F-22 (Score:5, Informative)
The Ravens were retired a decade ago, and were not capable of taking out radars, but instead just blinding them. The Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler now provides most of those duties for the entire military. Unlike the Raven, the Prowler is capable of carrying anti-radiation missiles and actually striking radar sources. The Prowler is to be replaced by the EA-18 Growler (an off-shoot of the F/A-18F Super Hornet) beginning this year.
Re:Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage. (Score:3, Informative)
A man in the loop makes the kill shot decision. Did you watch the ending of Syriana? Yeah. Like that. These drones are not flying around doing their own thing.
Re:No more parades? (Score:4, Informative)
You're thinking of Stanley Milgrams experiment. The Stanford prison experiment was something entirely different (group setting, ran several days, etc.).
Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org]
Stanford prison experiment [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do you work on weapons systems? (Score:4, Informative)
I lose no sleep over it.
However I could not work for the auto industry, which is responsible for 102 deaths per day in the USA.(2008)
On average, automobiles have been responsible [wikipedia.org] for 44,000 deaths per year for the past 34 years for a total of 1,491,922 deaths since 1974 in the USA.
One and a half million.
That's more than twice the number of USA citizens killed than all of the wars/conflicts we have been in since joining into World War 1.
In one third the time[34 years], automobiles have killed twice as many USA citizens as 92** years of war.
If you think I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass, I did check. You can do your own research if you care, but here is the bulk of numbers(they are all US deaths for that conflict, not just soldiers, but includes civilians):
WW1= 117,465
WW2= 418,500
Korea= 35,516
Vietnam= 58,159
Gulf War= 279(half-134 were accidents)
Afghanistan= 636
Iraq War= 4,522(includes 249 contractors?)
Total= 635,437
(I did not bother with our little field trips to Panama and Grenada)
Skip the argument that cars were not deliberately designed as weapons platforms like the Predator C is. It does not change the facts that cars easily kill more Americans than wars do. The numbers don't lie: 34 years of cars= 1,491,922 dead Americans, versus 635,437 from 92 years of war.
**Today is the anniversary of US Congress' voting in Declaration of War- April 17, 1917
Re:So Long Tailhookers... (Score:3, Informative)
There's going to be a whole lot of pissed off Navy pilots if they make a UAV that can land on a carrier deck at night in crap weather. Their main reason for superiority over all other pilots will be shot to hell.
I'm the senior Landing Signal Officer for the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet, and we've actually had fully automated landing systems on carrier aircraft for a long while. The first test of any Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) was in August 1957 [about.com], and after extensive development the system was regularly used in Vietnam. The current AN/SPN-46 [janes.com] is the latest iteration, but essentially it's just a glorified missile tracking radar that feeds into the airplane's autopilot via a simple UHF datalink. It's all old tech.
While not all aircraft since Vietnam have done it well (my old F-14B Tomcat was actually worse at "Mode I" (fully coupled) ACLS approaches than the F-4 Phantom it replaced) today's Hornets and Super Hornets are very smooth when coupled up -- much smoother than the typical manual landing.
The problem comes when the system fails (something that can happen in any large automated system - in the air or on the ground). Pilots regularly practice landing by hand, because they never know when the ACLS might not be there for them. They could perform coupled approaches every pass, but they wouldn't have the skills to confidently get aboard if the system ever went away. Those skills require lots of practice to stay sharp, and landing at sea is really hard. I've been doing it for ten years, and it's still just as challenging as ever.
Sometime in the next decade the N-UCAS [northropgrumman.com] is supposed to demonstrate truly autonomous UAV operations in a carrier environment. It will rely on a draft version of our next-generation GPS-based replacement for the SPN-46: JPALS [wikipedia.org]. It's stated goal is to fully integrate with our normal manned carrier air traffic procedures. Having seen highly trained aviators struggle with the challenges of operating around the boat, I'll be impressed if it lives up to its goals.
Re:Following the money... (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.
Which nobody would be able to attend without armed protection because the Taliban shut down any non-religuous schools that they come across (only Madrassas that teach koran + jihad are allowed to continue operating) and kill people who send their daughters to any school. Nobody will attend school if they believe that they will be shot and killed for doing so.
So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?
Your'e being naive, its not that simple. As long as the Taliban and the tribesmen are running around the countryside blowing up schools, shooting people who cooperate with us, and then escaping back across the border into Pakistan (the border is a line drawn by long dead white men really, it has little or no meaning to the Pashtun tribesmen who inhabit the region) nothing much is going to change and progress will be extremely slow if it comes at all. The Taliban are not reasonable people; they will never negotiate in good faith with the United States or anyone else from the west (they even stab their fellow Pakistani muslims in the back when they think the tables have turned and peace no longer suits them) not now and not ever and it is a waste of time to try and negotiate with them.
Re:F-22 (Score:3, Informative)
The F-35 is the "mainstay" aircraft of the new generation. The F-22 is the "Air superiority" fighter.
The equivalent comparison is between an economy car and a sports car.
Re:F-22 (Score:4, Informative)
But I doubt you'll find a modern military in the world that uses horses now.
Er.... how about the US Special Forces? - http://www.conunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/specialforces-on-horse-300x230.jpg [conunderground.com]. Or do you not consider your own SF to be part of a modern military? A sensible force will use whatever is best for the task at hand - not ignore some option simply because it isn't high tech enough. Otherwise, knives and bayonets would have disappeared many years ago, but they haven't.