MQ-9 Guardian Gets New Maritime Capability

[Sub_Guy]

Then I dare ask why countries like the US and China are investing in new manned MPAs?

Even the UK recognized the strategic gap and is scrambling to get back in the MPA game.

It has also been pointed out that there is nothing that can replace it out there for ASW, nothing.

The P3 airframe is old, but there are many nations still flying it, I don't think we will see our parts supply chain dry up any time soon. 

Almost 2,000 hours on a CP-140, time spent on useless fisheries patrols 0. 

 

[dimsum]

Cost of airplanes are going up, and there's really only two real competitors at this time to replace the Aurora (which isnt being replaced any time soon). Spare parts aren't something we have a luxury of.

The role of the MPA, which as Dimsum pointed out is now LRP, is changing has changed. There's nothing we're doing TODAY in real-world ops that couldnt be done better and more efficient with a UAV. Sensors, UAVs have us beat. Endurance and Range, beat. Weaponized? Beat. Sure the Aurora is fun to do fishing patrols with, but a UAV could do it cheaper.

I'll have to disagree.  Right now, there is no UAV that has an anti-ice/de-ice system, therefore no UAV is really cleared for IFR flight - even in the article itself, the Guardian (and presumably Triton as well) are in the process of getting those things, but not yet.  The sensors may be as good as an Aurora (I'm on the fence as to whether they're better, and probably bordering on OPSEC anyway) but satellite datalink, which you would definitely need in any fleet we'd use up north, etc. is definitely not cheap.  Same with crews - UAVs still need crews and the massive Intelligence Analyst "tail" to actually do their job properly thanks to the terabytes (or more?) of FMV and other sensor data that need to be processed near-real time, and there are articles about how the amount of people required is much more than what the USAF, etc originally envisioned.

In case anyone is thinking I'm waffling between whether manned or UAV is the way of the future, I'm not.  I believe that UAVs will, in time, replace manned aircraft in most respects (I'm on the fence about airliners).  However, as far as LRPA are concerned, UAVs just aren't there yet technically, specifically $ involved in their ops and all-weather capability, and I don't think an USN equivalent of an AESOP on a P-8 really has to worry about his/her job prospects until their 20 years are up.

 

[DonaldMcL]

The P3 airframe is old, but there are many nations still flying it, I don't think we will see our parts supply chain dry up any time soon. 

Tell that to the supply system.

 

[Baz]

I have to agree with the others.

The  Libya role is a stop gap for ISR (better done with a UAV; anytime you have backhand you're better off we a UAV).  However, the "SCAR" role is interesting.

CP-140s don't do fishpats. .. better done (and is done) by a contracted company for DFO.  They also do a great job of general maritime surveillance.  But they aren't deployable.

Long range Naval surveillance... better off with a UAV, hence Triton.

The future of MH (especially in the American context, as they do tie to the ship a lot)... UAV.  Still need a manned platform for some things like littoral maneuver and lift.  And yes, more than just me think we may have bought the wrong platform for 10-20 years out... but MH UAVS aren't there yet.

But as soon as you want to do battle management in a larger platform... manned.  And have them control other UAVs to remove risk and cover more area.  That was the original idea of NATO AGS  (well to be precise, middle idea... the original was just get JSTARS).

What I think MPA should evolve into is a multi-role battle management platform, high altitude, Air, surface, sub-surface, and ground, controlling UAVs for specific roles ( like a throwaway MAD and torpedo sled that can be released for the kill).  Sort of MPA, AWACS, and JSTARS all in one... which makes the P-8 my choice and add the wedge tail radar.

Edited for Samsung 's autocorrect. ..

 

[Sub_Guy]

For those folks who like MAD

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/bae-subhunting-drone.html

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I never said its not capable of finding it... and anything the "mighty" CP140 is capable of carrying could easily be adapted to any larger UAV. A torp that requires nothing more than a release point isn't exactly outside the realm of UAVs.

Getting that 'release point' isn't such an easy thing to do.  It's not "oh I think there is a sub there, drop the weapon and let's see what happens". 

Cost of airplanes are going up, and there's really only two real competitors at this time to replace the Aurora (which isnt being replaced any time soon). Spare parts aren't something we have a luxury of.

This the road the RAF went down, and is now trying to do a 3-point turn and reverse their direction on.  Note the original article, the RPA is being looked at as a add-on not the main platform.  It seems even the vendor doesn't believe it can provide the total solution for the RAF.  :2c:

The role of the MPA, which as Dimsum pointed out is now LRP, is changing has changed. There's nothing we're doing TODAY in real-world ops that couldnt be done better and more efficient with a UAV. Sensors, UAVs have us beat. Endurance and Range, beat. Weaponized? Beat.

I am not familiar with your experience, or what you'd base a statement like this on but I have to respectfully say you are very, very incorrect.  Even in a '140, the BEST sensor on certain tasks is a body in the window with a pair of standard army-issued binos (during daylight).   

I am talking about the Reaper here, and I've spent some time talking with Reaper folks on their own turf, in their GCS and their ramp and talking caps and lims.  I've worked the same airspace as them. 

Sure the Aurora is fun to do fishing patrols with

DISAGREE.  And you just confirmed you've never flown on the SGOD before  >

BTW, outside of OP IMPACT the 140 is doing 'more than FISHPATs'.  I don't mean this to sound like an arse, but I don't think you know what jobs are being done as much as you think you do.  You say "we" a lot when talking about the LRP community, but if you were embedded in the 'crew room' knowledge of our community, I think you'd have a much different opinion. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

For those folks who like MAD

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/bae-subhunting-drone.html

I am firmly a believer in a MAD.  I was before actually using it, but after actually using it I am sold.  If MAD can help you get A-C faster, and it can, why not?  Better to have and not need, than need and not have.  Wet and dry working together makes sense to me.

So, after all the "the P8 doesn't need MAD!" articles and comments I've read, they are now getting a MAD cap back.  ;D  They could have spent $8 mill on new MADs for the P8 and always had it with them  ^-^.  The MAD instrument-equipped HAAWC ALA drone will add to the new P-8A's ASW capabilities.

Side note - I wonder what they are doing to get buoy drops close at those higher altitudes.

 

[Sub_Guy]

MAD works for us, a P8 will burn through gas much quicker at 300 feet.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good sensor.  I always feel there's doubt in tube when we are tracking and there hasn't been a MAD call, it gives the crew that warm and fuzzy.