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

[Patroklos]

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 roll.

Yes, I understand you are going to read it as that because you need it to be contorted that way to service your denial.

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

Ah, I see, we are back to proving negatives. It also didn't say it does not carry Tomahaws, but lets not rule it out. I mean they are only the Air Force, what do they know?

[MOBIUS]

Will Patty recover from these latest setbacks?

Stay tuned, fight fans!

[Asher]

Patty, are you saying that Janes and the dozens of other sites saying the Reaper can carry Sidewinders are wrong?

Just let us know that YOU are more authoritative than dozens of military websites and sites like Janes. I want to hear it from your mouth that your unsubstantiated claims are more correct than authoritative sources.

[Patroklos]

Speaking of embarrassing, I already quoted that article and it's from five years ago.

Really, they seem to have an uncanny ability to know what was going to be in the GAO report for 2008 if it had been written in 2004. From the same article...

The USAF responded to the GAO's 2008 assessment, stating that it was forced into a nontraditional acquisition path to rapidly meet the demands of the Global War on Terrorism

Explain your lying.

[Asher]

Really, they seem to have an uncanny ability to know what was going to be in the GAO report for 2008 if it had been written in 2004. From the same article...



Explain your lying.

Sorry, I misspoke. The DATA you were citing was 5 years old.

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.

The fact that later, in an unrelated context, it discusses a 2008 report is not at all relevant and blatantly disingenuous when the relevant data you are citing is circa 2003 and 2005...

Notice the dates given in there (2003, 2005) and the use of past-tense. This is not current information.

Also, answer the question: Are Janes et. al wrong here?

[Patroklos]

Patty, are you saying that Janes and the dozens of other sites saying the Reaper can carry Sidewinders are wrong?

You understand that your Jane's article is form the 2002 (seven years ago) defense review. I will let you mull over what that means for that two paragraph blurb for a minute. I suggest you read up on the Predator program.

I will help you out, the first production Predator left the factory in late 2002. Full production wasn't reached until 2004. Apply.

Again, I point you to the cessna example. It still devestates you.

[Patroklos]

The fact that later, in an unrelated context, it discusses a 2008 report is not at all relevant and blatantly disingenuous when the relevant data you are citing is circa 2003 and 2005...

No, what it means is that the article was reviewd and updated in at least late 2008. And the data available then was that Stingers (as if that even matters) were tested and evaluated in 2003, and that Sidewinders and AMRAAMs could be evaluated (no year given).

So please reconcile the discrepencies.

[Asher]

You understand that your Jane's article is form the 2002 (seven years ago) defense review. I will let you mull over what that means for that two paragraph blurb for a minute.

It still jives with dozens of other sources.

Again, I point you to the cessna example. It still devestates you.

What cessna example? This?

I can add a laser pod and a JADAM to a cessna and it could carry out a ground attack mission in theory, that does not make it optimal.

It's utterly irrelevant. You said, VERY SIMPLY, the Reaper/Avenger DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO FIRE AT AIR TARGETS. There is no wiggle room here for optimal, etc.

****ing pathetic.

I'm going to take this as a tacit admission on your part that the UAVs ARE CAPABLE of AAM missiles, even if you think they are NOT OPTIMAL.

[Asher]

No, what it means is that the article was reviewd and updated in at least late 2008. And the data available then was that Stingers (as if that even matters) were tested and evaluated in 2003, and that Sidewinders and AMRAAMs could be evaluated (no year given).

Uh, it doesn't matter if it was reviewed and updated if all the article was saying is WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT TESTING IN 2003 AND 2005. That does not change 5 years later!

[Asher]

I go back to this source, which is the most up to date of any so far:

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

05-Feb-2009 15:35 EST

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.

[Asher]

Since the realm of common sense doesn't work for you, Patty, how about the technical? I may lose you here with big words.

The MQ-9 Reaper and Avenger use the MIL STD 1760 communication bus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1760

This bus is compatible with weapon store management for Sidewinders (AIM-9X variant: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-9.htm). Which is to say the Reaper and Avenger are capable of launching Sidewinders.

[Patroklos]

It still jives with dozens of other sources.

Thank you for being sane enough to not attempt to defend your source. You are apparently not all bad.

It's utterly irrelevant. You said, VERY SIMPLY, the Reaper/Avenger DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO FIRE AT AIR TARGETS. There is no wiggle room here for optimal, etc.

It does matter, because it shows that just because something is possible or even tested does not mean it is a reality. Simple stuff.

I'm going to take this as a tacit admission on your part that the UAVs ARE CAPABLE of AAM missiles, even if you think they are NOT OPTIMAL.

They certainly CAN be capable, of course no UAV at the moment could be as capable of it as the F-22 which is what you had to prove to justify your original arguement.

Perhaps you missed the dozen times when us rational types in this thread agreed that UAVs are the future of air superiority warfare. The question is not whether UAVs could conduct such warfare, but rather when they will have a relevant capability to choose them over manned aircraft.

I go back to this source, which is the most up to date of any so far:

Global Security and the Air Force more that crush your second rate internet publication. Well that and the OP

Uh, it doesn't matter if it was reviewed and updated if all the article was saying is WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT TESTING IN 2003 AND 2005. That does not change 5 years later!

So I suppose they just forgot to mention the revolutionary development of an operational in use UAV air to air platform? Is this what you are going with?

BTW, reviewing and looking at /= fully developed into an operational capability.

Since the realm of common sense doesn't work for you, Patty, how about the technical? I may lose you here with big words.

The MQ-9 Reaper and Avenger use the MIL STD 1760 communication bus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1760

This bus is compatible with weapon store management for Sidewinders (AIM-9X variant: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-9.htm). Which is to say the Reaper and Avenger are capable of launching Sidewinders.

So is everything that uses that bus now in pocession of an air to air capability? Is this your position?

[Asher]

They certainly CAN be capable, of course no UAV at the moment could be as capable of it as the F-22 which is what you had to prove to justify your original arguement.

Thanks. You admit defeat, this thread can rest.

I didn't have to prove the Reaper was as capable as the F-22, which is a patently ridiculous statement considering the cost differential!

You asked which capabilities did it have, not anything about the effectiveness of each one.

I replied it had AAM capability. You said it didn't. Hilarity ensued while you tried to pretend I self-destructed until about a hundred posts later where you finally subtly admit it can fire AAM, but is probably not very effective. Which is to say you were wrong in your correction saying it can't.

Moving along now...

[Asher]

Praise be to Allah, this thread has concluded.

[Serb]

Yes, Serb. UAVs can do air to air, they just haven't had to be deployed as such yet due to the nature of the Iraqi and Afghani conflicts.

Did you not read that properly?

A remotely controled WWI biplane can do air to air. And a swarm of hundred such aircrafts will still be cheaper that a single modern jet fighter. Does it make it a cost-effective solution for air superiority task?