Avenger -- Why UAVs are great and F-22s suck

[Patroklos]

Patty, I'm not in the minority. In fact there's one very vocal person talking this morning as well about it, very clearly not in agreement with you.

Ah, appealing to MOBIUS of all people, who has not said one word on topic in this thread. Your decent into insanity is complete.

The simple fact is the Avenger's predecessors can carry AAM, have been photographed with AAM, and underwent testing for AAM. They've not been deployed in the theatre with AAM payloads because there's no operational need currently. Fact is, they are CAPABLE OF AAM MISSILE LOADOUTS.

Except that none of the sources given in this thread actually say that. What they say is that the ARE BIENG TESTED. Now, you can continue to willfully misunderstand what that means, but it will yeild the same reaction you got ealier by multiple intelligent posters.

Everyone here agrees with that but you. Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and despite being blindingly obvious courtesy of common sense, you still wish to argue the matter. It's tragic.

Your self destuction in this thread is truly epic. This thread should be linked at every instance of you harrassing BK, its your own personal glass house.

[Patroklos]

To be fair, I don't think that we can know that. Maybe that's just not the capability that GA is selling (assuming the sales features in the AV Week are as presented to the military by GA).

We can only go off what we know, specifications by the manufacturer were given and they did not include air to air (I am curious as to why you think the manufacture might keep a capability hidden for marketing purposes). Asher is free to speculate about anything he wants, but he is not couching his comments in the reference of speculation.

UAVs are the future, develope away. The future /= the present. This is intuitive to most people, but I figured I spell it out for our special little buddy Asher.

[Asher]

Ah, appealing to MOBIUS of all people, who has not said one word on topic in this thread. Your decent into insanity is complete.



Except that none of the sources given in this thread actually say that. What they say is that the ARE BIENG TESTED.

How can you test something if it's not capable of being on there in the first place?

Think about it for a while. Do you think they are spending years "testing" to see if it's possible to mount a Sidewinder or Stinger on a UAV and firing it? Or, more likely, they are testing to see how effective it is?

Either way, it is capable.

Epic is indeed an accurate word for this thread. You "corrected" my statement with something that turned out to be false, but rather than be a man and admit it you've spent dozens of posts in this thread squirming and trying to find fine print, and that's when you're not constructing strawmen.

Until YOU prove otherwise, it is reasonable to assume the Avenger is just as capable as its predecessors in carrying and firing AAM missiles.

[Asher]

http://www.janes.com/articles/International-Defence-Review-2002/Predator-B-UAV-packs-a-substantial-punch.html

The turboprop-powered Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has developed from the baseline piston-engined Predator can carry an external weapon load of up to 1,360kg on six stations. The two inboard hardpoints are each rated at 680kg, with the mid stations being cleared for 160kg and the outboard positions for 68kg. This allows the vehicle to be armed with up to 14 Hellfire anti-armor missiles, or (smaller numbers of) other weapons such as the HARM anti-radar missile, Maverick air-to-surface weapon, and AMRAAM or Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

Or is Jane's not a reliable source?

[DanS]

(I am curious as to why you think the manufacture might keep a capability hidden for marketing purposes).

Pretty simple really. They may not want to piss off the pilots who are entrenched in the upper echelons of the Air Force. They also may have another product in mind that they will try to sell for this capability.

[Patroklos]

How can you test something if it's not capable of being on there in the first place?

Seriously, how stupid can you be.

Think about it for a while. Do you think they are spending years "testing" to see if it's possible to mount a Sidewinder or Stinger on a UAV and firing it? Or, more likely, they are testing to see how effective it is?

Oh I see. Well I guess the US has a solid state anti ballistic missile capability too? Hell, apparently they have a miniturized tactical capability as well. Its a good thing the USN has an electromagnetic catapult capability! Not to mention a rail cun capability! I am SOOOOO happy about that Camache/Palidin capability too!

You understand why testing is required right?

[Asher]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090126.aspx

The MQ-9 Reaper is a 4.7 ton, 36 foot long aircraft with a 66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry 1,500 pounds of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, two 500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours.

[Asher]

Own up, Patty. You were wrong.

[Asher]

Do you need more?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/MQ-9-Reaper-The-First-Operational-UCAV-05021/

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. The MQ-9 Reaper, once called “Predator B,” is somewhat similar to the Predator. Until you look at the tail. Or its size. Or its weapons. It’s called “Reaper” for a reason – while it packs the same surveillance gear, it’s much more of a hunter-killer design. The Reaper is 36 feet long, with a 66 foot wingspan. Its maximum gross takeoff weight is a whopping 10,500 pounds, carrying up to 4,000 pounds of fuel, 850 pounds of internal/ sensor payload, and another 3,000 pounds on its wings. Its 6 pylons can carry GPS-guided JDAM family bombs, Paveway laser-guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles for air-air self defense, and other MIL STD 1760 compatible weapons, in addition to the Hellfire anti-armor missiles carried by the Predator.

[Patroklos]

Pretty simple really. They may not want to piss off the pilots who are entrenched in the upper echelons of the Air Force. They also may have another product in mind that they will try to sell for this capability.

UAVs are the new toy for all of the services, there isn't a "gun club" mentality to any equivalent degree. All the professional publications within the services are raving about the future UAV forces. I stress "future" for Asher, since he gets excited when deliberately misunderstanding things.

It is possible that they will use the basic Avenger airframe for future air to air varients, sort of the reverse of the F-15E.

[MOBIUS]

Patty, Asher is pwning you all over the shop - are you just going to let him do this to you!? Fight back!

[Patroklos]

Weapons planned the MQ-9A Predator B included the AGM-114 HELLFIRE II laser-guided air-to-surface missile to attack stationary ground targets. By the end of 2003 the Air Force intended to evaluate Raytheon's FIM-92 Stinger missile in the air-to-air role. By 2005 the Air Force planned to add the GBU-38/B 500 lb Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). The service then intended to integrate the 500 lb GBU-12/B laser-guided bomb with the air vehicle. Other direct-attack weapons such as Raytheon's AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile remained options, while air-to-air weapons like Raytheon's AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile could also be evaluated.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mq-9.htm

You won't have these embarrasing problems if you just go to the authoritative sources in the first place.

Just for some more pile on Asher fun (its hard to beat that little "testing" hilarity of yours above, but we can try).

Primary Function Unmanned hunter/killer weapon system
Contractor General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
Power Plant Allied Signal TPE331-10GD turboprop engine, producing 900 shaft horsepower
Length 36 feet (11 meters)
Height 12.5 feet (3.8 meters)
Weight 3,700 pounds (1,676 kilograms) empty
Maximum takeoff weight 10,500 pounds (4,760 kilograms)
Wingspan 66 feet (20.1 meters)
Combat Radius 1,655 nautical miles (1,878 miles)
Ceiling Up to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters)
Fuel Capacity 4,000 pounds (602 gallons)
Payload 3,750 pounds (1,701 kilograms)
Armament Combination of AGM-114 HELLFIRE missiles, GBU-12 and GBU-38 JDAM
Crew (remote) Two (pilot and sensor operator)
System Cost $69.1 million (includes four aircraft with sensors) (fiscal 2006 dollars)

So we are back to the submarine or cessna analogy I used ealier. Just as apt and devestating to your crack pot arguement as it was before.

The worst part about this is that even if you were entirely correct and the Predator was using every air to air weapon in existance, it still isn't anything close to a capability equivalent to the F-22 in any way. There is nothing in the UAV world that justifies not currently fielding weapons that can fullfill mission requirements today. There really is no point to anything you have said.

[Patroklos]

I wonder what the Air Force has to say about it...

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=6405

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Unmanned hunter/killer weapon system
Contractor: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
Power Plant: Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine
Thrust: 900 shaft horsepower maximum
Wingspan: 66 feet (20.1 meters)
Length: 36 feet (11 meters)
Height: 12.5 feet (3.8 meters)
Weight: 4,900 pounds (2,223 kilograms) empty
Maximum takeoff weight: 10,500 pounds (4,760 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: 4,000 pounds (602 gallons)
Payload: 3,750 pounds (1,701 kilograms)
Speed: cruise speed around 230 miles per hour, (200 knots)
Range: 3,682 miles (3,200 nautical miles)
Ceiling: up to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters)
Armament: Combination of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions.
Crew (remote): Two (pilot and sensor operator)
Unit Cost: $53.5 million (includes four aircraft with sensors) (fiscal 2006 dollars)
Initial operating capability: October 2007
Inventory: Active force, 10; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0

But again, they are just the primary user and funded the development of the project. What do they know?

Asher, I suggest you call up the Air Force and inform them that they are totally missinformed about their own airframes. Here you go...

Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007

[Asher]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/mq-9.htm

You won't have these embarrasing problems if you just go to the authoritative sources in the first place.

Speaking of embarrassing, I already quoted that article and it's from five years ago. More up to date sources indicating they WERE evaluated, and sites like Janes (which is authoritative), indicates otherwise.

A quick google shows MANY sites indicating the Reaper can carry Sidewinders and Stingers at the very least.

Just for some more pile on Asher fun (its hard to beat that little "testing" hilarity of yours above, but we can try).

This is you being delusional again.

ALL signs point to the Reaper being capable of Sidewinders and Stingers. The Avenger has identical weapon loadouts to the Reaper. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

GIVE IT UP, Patty, for christ sakes. There's no way out of this.

[Asher]

I wonder what the Air Force has to say about it...

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=6405

But again, they are just the primary user and funded the development of the project. What do they know?

Asher, I suggest you call up the Air Force and inform them that they are totally missinformed about their own airframes. Here you go...

Those are the "general characteristics", did you even read it? That is to say, the GENERAL loadout because all it is used for right now in sorties is for a ground attack role.

That does NOT say it is not CAPABLE of Sidewinders and Stingers, which other sites which indicate CAPABILITIES rather than GENERAL CHARACTERISTICs back up.

In simpleton sailor speak, just because the Air Force is not using it for air-to-air defense does not mean it is not CAPABLE of it.