Robot Attack Squadron Bound for Iraq

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

See here and details of the drone here and here.

Damn nice. The thing is almost as big as an A-10. If this is the future, then its time to pull shares from ejection seat companies.

Only thing that I see wrong with these things is stealth - they might work well in Iraq and Afghanistan where the only anti-air weapon is the SA-7, but what about places like Iran, where advanced anti-aircraft missiles are deployed?

And why oh why do they use turbo-prop engines. Bleh.

So now my big question is, when do we get to see these in PR?

[LekyIRL]

hurrah!! No more crazy jet suicides!!!(did I spell that right?)
About the turbo prop engines;doesn't the A-10 use them because they increase low level manoverbility?

[daranz]

A-10 uses normal turbofan jet engines.... Unless I missed its propellers somewhere.

Turboprops are efficient at low speeds, so it makes sense to put them on a recon UAV that is designed for realtime recon of the battlefield.

What's interesting is that the propeller is mounted behind the engine...

[N.Kuntze]

Thats because the landingm they need net to land them.

[[R-MOD]dunehunter]

These things look cool I'm thinking that they'll be a big help for the coalition.

[Viper5]

Ho-ly crap. The thing carries 14 Hellfires... 14 tanks or buildings or cars... Great to see some new technology to aid our troops and ease the burden on CAS pilots.

[swiftdraw]

I've talked to some Air Force guys about that (looking to join), and the main complaint is that they're sllllloooooooooooooooowwwww even by turbo prop standards. I forget the top speed when fully loaded, but the analogy used was that it flies 'like a pig in mud.' Once spotted, AAA would have little trouble popping these buggers. The up side is that they carry a lot of ordnance (for it's size) and doesn't put a pilot at risk.

[El_Vikingo]

Originally Posted by N.Kuntze

Thats because the landingm they need net to land them.

They need a runway, and a large one by the looks of it!

[[R-MOD]Wasteland]

Originally Posted by [-=IDSF=-]SykloAG

Only thing that I see wrong with these things is stealth - they might work well in Iraq and Afghanistan where the only anti-air weapon is the SA-7, but what about places like Iran, where advanced anti-aircraft missiles are deployed?

I think that given the overwhelming force commanded by NATO countries, we've got conventional warfare pretty much covered. What's important now is that we look increasingly to counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, and peacemaking (when the enemy has limited technological capabilities).

So while these may not be so effective in certain scenarios, no weapon system is designed for every circumstance.

The thing that I can't figure out is why they'd want to use Hellfires. Seems to me you'd be more interested in something smaller, so you could take out targets in cities with less collateral risk.

[Viper5]

Originally Posted by JP*wasteland.soldier

I think that given the overwhelming force commanded by NATO countries, we've got conventional warfare pretty much covered. What's important now is that we look increasingly to counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, and peacemaking (when the enemy has limited technological capabilities).

So while these may not be so effective in certain scenarios, no weapon system is designed for every circumstance.

The thing that I can't figure out is why they'd want to use Hellfires. Seems to me you'd be more interested in something smaller, so you could take out targets in cities with less collateral risk.

Hellfires are smallest laser guided munition in US Arsenal I believe. Explosion is pretty contained to a house or car or BRDM. Perhaps you're thinking of a Maverick?