You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Army records first UAV kills
2007-09-16
When Army scouts in Iraq spotted two men planting a roadside bomb Sept. 1, they called in a nearby Hunter unmanned aircraft, which dropped a laser-guided bomb and killed the two men. “We had the first confirmed use of an Army weaponized UAV,” said Col. Don Hazelwood, project manager for Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems at Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

The Army is mounting precision-guided weapons on hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hazelwood said. The MQ-5B Hunter will carry the laser-guided GBU-44/B Viper Strike, a 42-pound glide bomb with a one-yard wingspan that can strike within one meter of its aim point.

The Army intends to increase the number of Viper Strike bombs it intends to buy, but declined to give specific numbers, said Tim Owings, the ArmyÂ’s deputy project manager for UAVs.

AGM-114 Hellfire missiles are going on the Warrior AlphaUAV, a prototype version of the MQ-1C Warrior Extended-Range Multi-purpose UAV to be ready by 2009. Eventually, the Warrior may also carry Viper Strikes. Both UAV types will carry laser designators that can be used to guide munitions dropped from UAVs or manned aircraft, said Owings.

He said the Army has a human in the loop who decides when to fire a UAV’s weapons. “The ground control stations are like a cockpit which does not need to be in the aircraft. The video goes into the brigade TOC [tactical operations center], so the same rules of engagement that any of our pilots would follow is followed by our pilots in the TOC,” Owings said.

The number of UAVs in combat is rising, from about 1,000 last year to 1,350 expected by the end of this year. Flight hours have soared from 60,000 last year to 140,000 so far this year, Hazelwood said. The number of video terminals that display live imagery beamed from UAVs has jumped to 1,000, up from 200 six months ago, he said. They are installed in Stryker vehicles on their way to Iraq, and should be in Apache cockpits by next summer, said Kim Henry, a spokeswoman at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal, Ala. “These terminals receive video from any of our platforms. You can see where you are located and see what UAV operators are seeing as well. Now the Apache pilot is able to see before he gets to a target,” Owings said.

The terminals allow soldiers to see around corners, over hills and buildings, and into neighboring areas during combat, said one senior Army leader who recently returned from Iraq.

He said more surveillance, communications and reconnaissance technologies are changing things. “Now all of our [avionics and sensor] payloads are digital, and that has opened up a whole new bunch of capability,” Hazelwood said. UAVs beam voice communications to convoys as far as 100 kilometers away, Hazelwood said.

The Hunter has been improved several times since it made the combat debut for Army UAVs in Kosovo in 1999. The latest model, the 1,940-pound, $2 million MQ-5B, has a bigger fuel tank so it can fly for 21 hours at altitudes up to 15,000 ft, diesel engines, and a modern avionics suite. “Now we have an EOIR [electro-optical infrared] sensor on a ball sitting below the middle of the airplane, that allows soldiers to identify things with great clarity from a great distance away,” said Northrop Grumman engineer Mike Howell.

“Right now, they are at 53,000 hours of operation, 20,000 hours of combat in OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom]. They are easy to maintain and they stay in the air,” said David Apt, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman Technical Services.

The Army is upgrading its A-model Hunters to the B specification, said Henry, who declined to say how many of each type the Army owns.

The Army plans to buy 132 MQ-1C Warriors in the first batch, taking delivery of the first prototype in December and beginning testing in May. Initial production is scheduled for July, with delivery of operational Warriors to the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky., in August 2009, the senior Army official said. The Warrior, which will fly 36-hour missions at altitudes up to 25,000 feet, will carry an 800-pound payload, which includes four Hellfire missiles, Hazelwood said. “We like the Hellfire, but we don’t like using it downtown or in built-up areas. It can blow out windows. We are there to not disrupt the population and we are very sensitive to it, so we have to be very sensitive to the munitions we use,” Hazelwood said. “The Viper Strike can still take out the same type of targets but does not have the same explosive effects.”
Posted by:

#17  Currently is cost about $5,000,000 for every kill in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's no way to win a war, but a good way to lose one via bankruptcy. We will win when goals and tactics change to drive the cost down to $5,000/kill. The muslims will no longer be able to sustain their losses.

The way I read this is that either we reduce the cost-per-kill by three orders of magnitude or find a way to kill one thousand terrorists at a time. I prefer the second alternative.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-16 23:35  

#16  RJ:
Back in WWII, the Germans and Russians did have a few diesel-engined airplanes. I don't remember the German, but the Russian was a variant of the Yer-2ACh long-range 2-engine bomber.
Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds   2007-09-16 21:11  

#15  Diesel engines in an aircraft?

Thar's interesting.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-09-16 20:50  

#14  I think they are saying this is the first 'Army" kill - The USAF have been at it for a while ...
(don't now about you but I was confused at first ... doh!)
Posted by: Linker   2007-09-16 20:27  

#13  UAVs are very cost effective, even with their $50-70,000 munitions. Currently is cost about $5,000,000 for every kill in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's no way to win a war, but a good way to lose one via bankruptcy. We will win when goals and tactics change to drive the cost down to $5,000/kill. The muslims will no longer be able to sustain their losses.
Posted by: ed   2007-09-16 18:09  

#12  I'd think "death from the sky" unseen/unheard would put a twist in the Jihadis panties.
Posted by: Frank G   2007-09-16 17:28  

#11  OK, more detail.

First, the UAVs can kill from the air without subjecting patrols to other attacks as they move to/through the IED location. So when you add up costs, include the cost of an uparmoured HMMWVs that might get blown up, fuel, medical care for the patrol members who might be hurt. Per mission.

Second, the UAVs can cross airspace where we might not have patrols close at hand or where we might not be able to move / kill fast enough to keep the enemy from fleeing.

Third, there is a huge deterrent effect from these things on the bomb placers who are doing it for money or are very low in the status chain for their insurgent group.

Fourth ... well, there are a lot of 'fourth's, but that gives the general idea.

Gotta say, the 03s - O5s and O6s I've talked to / heard talk who are back from theater rave about the impact of tactical UAVs for both recon and now for offensive use. These technologies are going to allow us to draw down troop strength a bit and rest some of our incredibly dedicated soldiers and marines who've been pulling 3, 4 or even 5 tours while their families try to keep things together at home.

Too expensive? I don't think so ....
Posted by: lotp   2007-09-16 17:04  

#10  As an eye in the sky it has great value, but as a shooting platform, limited duty at best.

That's not what I've heard from company and battalion leaders who've commanded there.
Posted by: lotp   2007-09-16 16:59  

#9  #2 g*rom
I notice that the article carefully omits saying where this UAV comes from.


hummm... you musta slept in a Cracker Jack Box last nite...


~:)

Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-09-16 14:04  

#8  #5: "Only thing they found were the guys tennis shoes."

Answer your question, #7?

Cockles. Heart. Warm. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-09-16 13:32  

#7  I wonder if the cost is worth the few kills. As an eye in the sky it has great value, but as a shooting platform, limited duty at best.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-09-16 13:24  

#6  The Hunter's the older UAV, first designed in the late 80s/early 90s. Built on an Israel air frame with some US electronics mods.

The Warrior is the updated Predator, more maneuverable and with longer air endurance, easier to fly than the Predator. (But I've heard pilots who are still not happy with the whole operator setup ....)

The Hunter can carry a couple Hellfires, but as one of our other esteemed commenters mentioned a while ago the Viper is better suited to the Hunter missions and it can carry more of them.
Posted by: lotp   2007-09-16 10:42  

#5  That was a CIA Predator UAV, this is it's baby brother. I heard from someone you saw the video, the viper strike set off the IED. Only thing they found were the guys tennis shoes.
Posted by: Steve   2007-09-16 10:31  

#4  First in Iraq, maybe, but didn't a UAV blow up a carload of terrorists in Yemen a few years back?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-09-16 10:22  

#3  Teamwork works. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-16 10:20  

#2  I notice that the article carefully omits saying where this UAV comes from.
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-09-16 09:30  

#1  Can it turn inside a Predator? If so I can see it's 2nd kill.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-09-16 04:52  

00:00