USAF proposes shifting entire Predator fleet to Army

Flight International ^ | 17 Oct 08 | Stephen Trimble

[Yo-Yo]

Senior US Department of Defense officials are considering an air force proposal to transfer the entire fleet of General Atomics Aeronautical System Inc (GA-ASI) MQ-1B Predators to the army’s control.

The proposed inventory transfer, if approved, would enable the USAF to afford shifting to an all-MQ-9 Reaper fleet, also made by GA-ASI, said Kevin Meiners, assistant deputy under secretary for portfolio, programmes and resources.

The issue is still being debated by senior defence officials as they prepare for the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a congressionally-mandated planning exercise that shapes the Pentagon’s spending priorities every four years.

The chief advocate for the air force’s proposal is Lt Gen David Deptula, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

“I know Deptula would love to see that” win approval, said Meiners, addressing the C4ISR Integration Conference.

It was not immediately clear how shifting the MQ-1B fleet to the army’s plans to acquire the more capable MQ-1C Sky Warrior for the extended-range/multi-purpose (ER/MP) requirement.

The USAF currently plans to deploy enough MQ-1Bs to operate 31 combat air patrols by the end of 2009. At the same time, USAF officials also want to shift to an all MQ-9 fleet providing 50 combat air patrols by 2015. But it appears unlikely that the service can afford to operate both fleets.

“The question is, everyone loves the Predator, so do you leave the [combat air patrols sized] at 31 or do you begin drawing down?” Meiners asked.

The USAF instead hopes their alternative proposal will allow them to build up their MQ-9 “hunter-killer” capability while continuing to support the army’s need for a medium-altitude, long-endurance ISR system.

The army still plans to buy 120 MQ-1Cs, which feature a Thielert heavy fuel engine and a tactical common data link (TCDL).

“We continue to develop the program of record successfully,” said a spokeswoman for army aviation. “We’ve demonstrated some of the most technically challenging capabilities, such as automatic takeoff and landing and the tactical common data link.”

[Yo-Yo]

Transfering the Predators to the Army also conveniently lessens the Air Force's requrements to provide qualified Rated Officers as operators.

[SeeSharp]

Good Idea. And while we’re at it, why not xfer the A-10 fleet to the Army also since the AF has been trying to ditch then ever since they were first deployed.

[Rodentking]

Close Air Support (CAS) has always been the red headed stepchild of the Air Force. When the AF was run by the Bomber Generals, it was the B-47, then the B-52. When the Air Superiority Generals took over, it was the F-15 A/C and then the F-22, the aircraft without a mission. Now, the Special Operations Generals take over and they want the biggest and best UAV. They floated the idea of giving the A-10 to the Army, until someone pointed out the money went with it.

When will the AF get a grip on their mission?

The answer, when they promote warriors and throw out desk clerks.

The real answer is likely never.

[boomop1]

The service feuds, and the possessive traits of their resources and operations is fierce, there is more to it than meets the eye.

[JaguarXKE]

Interesting. My son (a KC-135AC) just moved to NV to begin training to fly the Predator.

[Ronin]

Translation: Our classy fighter jocks are much too good to handle these gadgets. We need more spiffy manned fighters and these predators are eating our budget.

[SampleMan]

Isn’t fast. Doesn’t have a pointy nose. Doesn’t have an “F” in the designation.

Of course the USAF doesn’t want it.

[magellan]

Perhaps this makes sense.

The Predator is primarily an tactical reconnaissance aircraft for ground troops, which fits the Army better. The Reaper is more of an armed reconnaissance (what they called reconnaissance-strike in the 1960s) aircraft, which is more suited to the Air Force CAS mission.

[MrNatural]

ping

[tanknetter]

The Predator is primarily an tactical reconnaissance aircraft for ground troops, which fits the Army better. The Reaper is more of an armed reconnaissance (what they called reconnaissance-strike in the 1960s) aircraft, which is more suited to the Air Force CAS mission.

IIRC the Predator was a rapid prototype/concept effort that was pressed into service because it had a very unique capability that was required at the time. I understand it isn't an easy UAV to fly (relative to others, including Reaper and Global Hawk), and has a number of issues that you'd expect from a concept vehicle (including wing icing issues, which weren't considered important to look at under the original Predator concept).

[LiberConservative]

Good idea. Let our pilots fly. Leave the video games to the infantry.

[gaijin]

I don’t know about this. The Army just committed to buying a WHOLE LOT of Sky-Warriors, which are Predators on steroids, although perhaps not to the extent that Reaper is.

Also, Reaper is like 300% more expensive than Predator, twice as fast, and has twice as many ordinance pylons.

I’m not sure if I like this.

[saminfl]

Good Idea. And while we’re at it, why not xfer the A-10 fleet to the Army also since the AF has been trying to ditch then ever since they were first deployed.

I work with A-10 pilots all the time. We have one in our squadron. They are a special breed and love their airplane. I think the story about the AF wanting to get rid of the Hogs is old now and everything has changed with the A-10 Charlie. Read the June issue of Air Force magazine.

[saminfl]

Isn’t fast. Doesn’t have a pointy nose. Doesn’t have an “F” in the designation. Of course the USAF doesn’t want it.

See my earlier post. You guys are wrong. The main mission the AF has now is CAS.

[redstateconfidential]

Yep.

[quadrant]

If you want CAS, you go the the Marine Corps.

[Yo-Yo]

Do you think that on average an AV-8B or an F/A-18C is a more effective close air support platform than an A-10C?

[tanknetter]

Do you think that on average an AV-8B or an F/A-18C is a more effective close air support platform than an A-10C?

From an airframe perspective, it depends on the combat and threat environment, doesn't it? If you need to work a CAS scenario where only a CVN or LHA/LHD can get aircraft close enough to the battle, then yes ... and AV-8B or F/A-18 IS going to be more effective. Because the A-10C won't be able to get there.

From an aircrew perspective, Marine fixed-wing air lives and breathes CAS. It's a fully integrated part of their organizational culture, to the point where (iirc) EVERY Marine fighter/attack pilot first serves as a Platoon Leader. I have nothing but respect for the A-10 guys, but the Marines make a hell of a good argument that their pilots know the CAS mission better because their pilots are first trained as the folks who will be calling in the CAS mission.

[SampleMan]

I have no doubt that A-10 pilots embrace CAS. What I doubt is the USAF commitment to CAS.

What do I base this on? Allotment of assets. What is the replacement for the A-10, which is 30+ years old? There is none. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, which does CAS, but is not optimized for it.

What new aircraft have been funded in the last 30 years? F-117, B-2, F-35, F-22, F-15E. The F-15E is certainly a F/A aircraft, but it is optimized for strike missions, not CAS in the FEBA.

Fighting a foe without defense's allows any aircraft that can carry a JDAM to perform CAS, but that all changes when the enemy shoots back. In such an environment UAVs are being looked at to take a bigger and bigger role. So where is the USAF’s priority? It appears to be in moving those assets to the Army.

That's why I question the Air Forces commitment to CAS.

[saminfl]

That's why I question the Air Forces commitment to CAS.

The A-10 C is going to give them many times more capability. Read the June issue of AF magazine. It has a story on the A-10C and part of the title is something about "not going away." The "Charlie" is really something. It can carry smart weapons now.