MQ-9 Guardian Gets New Maritime Capability

[dimsum]

Interesting.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has introduced a new sonobuoy capability for its MQ-9 Guardian maritime UAV which, alongside a number of other developing technologies, could make it a contender to help fill the UK’s maritime patrol gap.

http://www.uasvision.com/2015/09/28/mq-9-guardian-gets-new-maritime-capability/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

"While a requirement for a maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) acquisition has yet to be released from the UK government, the developments that General Atomics is incorporating into the MQ-9 suggests that it will look to offer a modified Guardian to complement a manned MPA that is expected to be procured."

Very interesting actually.  My mind is already thinking about how a RPA (Maritime) could be used...oh the possibilities...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree with EITS here: As a complementary airframe working with a manned MPA, you would get avery nice increase in capability.

But on its own, I don't think a MQ-9 could carry too many of those sonobuoys.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There are smaller size ones than the ones the 140 carry;  not sure what the capability is for that specific airframe but a sono load gets heavy pretty quick, more so if you are loading active.

If you traded off fuel for sono's, of course you'd be cutting your on-sta time;  I am sure they'd find a decent balance.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Torps?  SAR (SKAD)? 


I am not sold on an UAV doing ASW, I'd rather have more manned aircraft.  All the UAV is good for is dropping sonobuoys.  No weapons = ******* useless.

So you find a sub?  Then what?

I doubt a mixed UAV, fixed wing fleet for ASW would be cheaper in the long run.  UAVs have a purpose, hunting subs is not one of them, not now.    Sure a UAV can remain onsta for a while, but how long did it take to get to that point?

 

[dimsum]

I doubt a mixed UAV, fixed wing fleet for ASW would be cheaper in the long run.  UAVs have a purpose, hunting subs is not one of them, not now.    Sure a UAV can remain onsta for a while, but how long did it take to get to that point?

Were you referring to the speed?  Open source info says that a Reaper, since it's a turboprop, has a max speed of 260kt and cruise at 169kt for ~14 hours. 

 

[Kirkhill]

[/color]

Were you referring to the speed?  Open source info says that a Reaper, since it's a turboprop, has a max speed of 260kt and cruise at 169kt for ~14 hours.

Would that mean that a good place for a launch and recovery site would be close to the surveillance area? 

Say, for example, you wanted to keep the Grand Banks, the Labrador Sea, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait, the Labrador Sea and the approaches to the Eastern Arctic generally, under surveillance, then some place like,  oh....I don't know.... Happy Valley would make a good station?

Too bad Canada isn't Australia. But at least we're not bothered with spiders.

 

[dimsum]

Would that mean that a good place for a launch and recovery site would be close to the surveillance area? 

Say, for example, you wanted to keep the Grand Banks, the Labrador Sea, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait, the Labrador Sea and the approaches to the Eastern Arctic generally, under surveillance, then some place like,  oh....I don't know.... Happy Valley would make a good station?

Too bad Canada isn't Australia. But at least we're not bothered with spiders.

I'd propose St. John's, preferably in an annex of the Crowsnest.  >

But yes, with the mission crews and Int analysis somewhere central, near a joint HQ of some sort *nudge nudge wink wink Ottawa/Leitrim*

 

[Kirkhill]

How about move the Analysis to the Crowsnest and phone in the Int?

 

[dimsum]

How about move the Analysis to the Crowsnest and phone in the Int?

I like where your head's at! 

 

[Sub_Guy]

[/color]

Were you referring to the speed?  Open source info says that a Reaper, since it's a turboprop, has a max speed of 260kt and cruise at 169kt for ~14 hours.

I am not convinced a loaded Reaper would come close to these specs.  I get it, a Reaper used in conjunction with a MPA for ASW does sound sexy and there are probably a few people "pounding it" to that thought.  I just don't think an UAV is suitable for ASW.  Not yet. 

 

[DonaldMcL]

So you find a sub?  Then what?

Id ask the same of the CP140

 

[Sub_Guy]

Id ask the same of the CP140

Set condition 1 rig for MAD, crew this will be an attack run.

Let's not forget what our mission is when it comes to ASW. 
Send those pieces of crap to the bottom.

 

[DonaldMcL]

Set condition 1 rig for MAD, crew this will be an attack run.

Let's not forget what our mission is when it comes to ASW.  Send those pieces of crap to the bottom.

I think we need new/better torpedoes for that, no?

 

[Sub_Guy]

Depends.  As long as the sub doesn't achieve his mission, then that's good.

We can disable most submarines out there and we would damage the larger boats to point they'd be so loud that it would only be a matter of time before someone finished them off.

 

[Baz]

Let's not forget what our mission is when it comes to ASW. 
Send those pieces of crap to the bottom.

Although they've changed the wording, doctrinally "the aim of ASW is to deny the enemy effective use of his submarines."  If that can easily achieved with localize and avoid so much the better.

The best place to destroy a sub is alongside with 500 lbs 'o lovin'.

The best ASW weapon at sea is another sub... if you can cue them so much the better.

However, I agree that a long range land based weapons delivery platform is also part of the mix.  Doesn't necessarily look like an MBA of old though.

 

[dimsum]

I am not convinced a loaded Reaper would come close to these specs.  I get it, a Reaper used in conjunction with a MPA for ASW does sound sexy and there are probably a few people "pounding it" to that thought.  I just don't think an UAV is suitable for ASW.  Not yet.

Exactly.  But, as I say whenever someone says "UAVs are unsuitable for xyz", UAVs/RPAs really have only been used widely from the late 90s onwards - folks are still coming up with new roles for them as the technology is evolving. 

Folks who are complete dinosaurs about this (not saying you are) sound, to me, like Marshal Foch in 1911:  "Les avions sont des jouets intéressants mais n'ont aucune utilité militaire."  (Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value.)

 

[Kirkhill]

....
However, I agree that a long range land based weapons delivery platform is also part of the mix.  Doesn't necessarily look like an MBA of old though.

I knew those things were weapons of mass destruction!  > (Sorry - Go back to your discussion)

 

[Kirkhill]

Exactly.  But, as I say whenever someone says "UAVs are unsuitable for xyz", UAVs/RPAs really have only been used widely from the late 90s onwards - folks are still coming up with new roles for them as the technology is evolving. 

Folks who are complete dinosaurs about this (not saying you are) sound, to me, like Marshal Foch in 1911:  "Les avions sont des jouets intéressants mais n'ont aucune utilité militaire."  (Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value.)

How fast could a CF-18 hustle a pair of Mk 46s out to a target if they were co-based with the UAVs?  Could it manage a Mk 48 on the centre line?

 

[Baz]

Could it manage a Mk 48 on the centre line?

Best of my knowledge, there's no air drop kit for a 48...

I was in a 3rd year poli-sci cure on maritime strategy at Dal and one of the normal (there were two actual serving maritime guys there) suggested loading up 52s with buckets of sunshine (nuclear depth charges) a d carpet bombing them.  One way to get 'error done...