One of the armed Reapers operated by the UK Royal Air Force, were over Afghanistan, now over Iraq and Syria.
---
Approximate position of Reaper/Predator bases in region with greatest concentration now on Iraq-Syria. Note other drones are deployed: high altitude Global Hawks and high altitude, stealthy Sentinels. Map courtesy of http://dronewars.net/2014/05/07/analysis-where-are-british-reaper-drones-heading-after-afghanistan/ which also lists the drone bases.
---
Several
Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel are now being trained in the US to operate
Reaper armed drones. This only became public in the last few days. From just a
few Australians in training Australia may ramp up to a squadron sized
capability of three to five Reapers over the next few years.
Reaper drones are more technically known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and by militaries as remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs).
Australia
has operated unarmed 1,150 kg Heron drones in Afghanistan for a few years in
surveillance roles. Senior Australian officers have expressed interest inacquiring armed drones since at least 2012 . The Australian
Army has worked closely with US armed drones in Afghanistan since 2012, if not
before. The
war against Islamic State in Iraq has made training remote aircrew for drones
and acquisition of armed drones themselves a high priority for the RAAF. It is
also a high priority for the Australian Army who will most probably be unofficially
fighting on the ground before 2016.
In
a Media Release of February 23, 2015 Australian Parliamentary Secretary for
Defence, Darren Chester, announced: “…that the Royal Australian Air Force
(RAAF) has commenced training aircrew and support staff on [Reaper] operations in
the United States.
Mr
Chester said that the training program provides a cost effective method to
increase the ADF’s understanding of complex [drone] operations and how this
capability can be best used to protect Australian troops on future operations.
“Unmanned
aerial systems are an advancing technology with a proven record of providing
‘eyes in the sky’ in the Middle East region,” Mr Chester said.
“It
would be remiss of Australia not to continue to develop our knowledge of this
technology to ensure we are able to gain the greatest benefit from unmanned
aerial systems and the best protection for our troops on future operations.”
“For
this reason, the RAAF is training personnel in USAF MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial
system operations in the United States.”
[The
RAAF] currently has five personnel training to be [Reaper remote pilots and
weapons and sensor] operators at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, and a
communication systems engineer at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada.”
The
UK and the US have operated armed Reapers since 2007. The US has also operated
the closely related, but much smaller, Predator since 1995. The 4,780 kg Reapers
can carry 1,760 kgs of weapons including Hellfire missiles, GPS programmed bombs
or laser guided bombs. When carrying a couple of weapons a Reaper can loiter
for around 20 hours. Scroll a third way down http://dronewars.net/2014/05/07/analysis-where-are-british-reaper-drones-heading-after-afghanistan/ for a useful map and list of drone air bases that can send drones over Syria and Iraq.
Unmanned drones and manned aircraft are limited by their pilot-equipment-network
mix. Australia is operating several Super Hornets in the bombing role over
Iraq. Pilots of those aircraft may only have a quick glimpse or no direct view
of their target before they destroy it while Reapers drones can silently loiter
for hours to be sure of their target.
One
role for the eagle eyed Reaper is to detect if potential enemy are digging in improved
explosive devices (IEDs) in front of an advancing allied patrol. Another role
is detecting the enemy setting up ambushes against that patrol. That Reaper
could fire Hellfire missiles at the enemy.
Reapers
have advantages over fast jets like the RAAF Super Hornets currently over Iraq
including longer loiter times, many lower operating costs, no vulnerable pilots
who can be killed or captured, no jet engine wear, no mid-air refuelling needed.
Reapers, unlike jets, also have the ability to silently protect patrols or
convoys as these ground elements slowly move.
Reapers
will complement the Super Hornets rather than replace them. One advantage of
Super Hornets is that they can move, during the one mission, over long
distances to trouble spots in Iraq much more quickly than Reapers. A particular
problem with the Super Hornets though is that they frequently spend more time
in transit (4 hours all up) from their base in the United Arab Emirates then the
3 hours at work over Iraq. Super Hornets can
last longer than 7 hours with mid-air refuelling, but pilots suffer significant
fatigue during these long missions while one Reaper crew can handover to a
fresh crew every few hours over a 20 hour Reaper mission.
The
RAAF may be asking for $300 million to buy several Reapers ($20 million per
Reaper plus all the training, simulators and other network costs) . Judging from
the UK Royal Air Force precedent Australia may buy 3 to 5 Reapers
in the next 2 to 3 years. After piloting US Reapers in training Australian
pilots at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, might possibly graduate to flying US
Reapers operationally. This may be prior to moving onto Australian Reapers within
2 to 3 years.
Pete
Good article Pete. I think the moral issues are more political than martial. Mistakes will always be made. The problem with drone strikes currently is the Presidential kill list which allows the execution of American citizens and others without due process. Another issue is cultural. Afghans carry their weapons with them. So, you have a large tribal gathering for a wedding and a drone is above and suddenly the wedding turns into a mass funeral due to misidentification due to the assumption that any massing of armed people equals insurgents.
ReplyDeleteHi jbmoore
ReplyDeleteYes the very nature of the US's political leader (President) signing a kill list (called a "Finding"?) makes it political. Also the US military or CIA drone operators killing US citizens with or without the President's order doesn't seem right or legal.
The increasingly used measure ratio of "civilian casualties" for every intentionally killed "target" is problematic because (as you indicate) the drone operators rarely know whether people carrying guns are extra body guards or just happen to be carrying weapons in the same village as the target.
Another statistical or life and death issue comes up from double-triple counting of ratios. There may be 40 operators in a network operating to one drone sometimes. This may cause the target person and civilian casualties to be counted multiple times in studies - thus distorting human rights.
An interesting article on multiple operators and other realities is http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/drone-warfare-life-on-the-new-frontline .
Pete
Your blog's name is VERY GOOD and it also provides good info.
ReplyDeleteThanks and keep it up.
Thanks Anonymous for the encouragement.
ReplyDeleteSome extra info:
Only drones like the Reaper allow:
- "Both the pilot and operator [to fall] asleep on the job." for hours - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/drone-warfare-life-on-the-new-frontline
- and play computer games on the job: pilot vs operators and wider games between Reaper teams - see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/drone-warfare-life-on-the-new-frontline again:
"Most controversially, some operators have described how simple digital games were sometimes smuggled onto the [drone piloting] operating systems at work. The software for Predators and Reapers was supposed to run on closed military systems – but at some point, it was realised that games created using Microsoft Excel could be imported.
“One of my friends, he was brilliant when it came to breaking the rules. He created battleship games, chess games that you could play with another crew,” one former airman said. “You’d pull them up on your headset and you’d be playing against one member of the other crew while the other would typically be the referee.”
Regards
Pete