New containers will allow American MQ-9 Reaper drones to become anti-submarine aircraft

The United States will begin to use drones to combat submarines. Recently, the US Navy successfully tested General Atomics' MQ-9A Reaper drone with a container used to mount sonar buoys.

This innovation is for the MQ-9B SeaGuardian drone, which is being developed for the US Navy. New containers will allow the American MQ-9 Reaper drones to become anti-submarine aviation.

The tests took place over the Pacific waters. The drone dropped 10 sonar buoys into the water, with the help of which it detected an underwater target and transmitted information about it to the ground operations center.

The new MQ-9B drone is capable of carrying four containers on board, each containing 10-20 sonar buoys. The military believes that the use of drones to combat submarines will partially replace the Boeing P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, the cost of an hour of flight of which is significantly higher than that of drones.

The company also says the new containers can be used to launch precision-guided munitions and mini-drones.

The MQ-9 Reaper reconnaissance and strike unmanned aerial vehicle has been used by the US military since 2001. Such drones are also in service with the British Air Force.

Comments

[OgnennyiKotik]

The company also says the new containers can be used to launch precision-guided munitions and mini-drones.

Current armament options for the MQ-9

From the installation that fires the buoys, you can release kamikaze drones, such as:

[Aleksandr21]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

From the installation that fires the buoys, you can release kamikaze drones, such as:

Hmm, it looks like drone wars are coming soon ... China, by the way, is also not lagging behind:





And for UAVs and containers, that's a great idea. We would definitely not hurt such).

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Aleksandr21

Hmm, it looks like drone wars are coming soon ...

Why soon? Already. It is impossible to wage modern wars without UAVs. So far, they are mainly engaged in reconnaissance, but they are gradually taking over strike missions.

[Vadim237]

Russia for kamikaze drones - Grad launchers have just 40 122 mm guides

[svp67]

New containers will allow American MQ-9 Reaper drones to become anti-submarine aircraft

A good idea that can be developed. Buoys can be installed not only from UAVs, but also from aircraft, but the UAV has the ability to fly in the area for almost a day to collect and relay this information to the PLO forces.

[Eldorado]

They are already being installed from planes.

[svp67]

Quote: El Dorado

They are already being installed from planes.

Yes, this is known, but only for days in one area they cannot constantly barge, and UAVs can

[Bez 310]

Quote: svp67

The UAV has the ability to fly in the area for almost a day to collect and relay this information to the PLO forces

The buoy (RSL) has a lifetime, it is not eternal.
This time is measured in hours.

[dmmyak40]

How long do buoys live?

[Bez 310]

Quote: dmmyak40

How long do buoys live?

I don't want to say specific numbers
but, as I said, hours, not tens
hours. Look for data on the Internet.

[Zementbomber]

Even 50 years ago, even the Soviet RSL could function in standby mode for hours ...

[Zementbomber]

How long do buoys live?

Even 50 years ago, even the Soviet RSL could function in standby mode in hours.

[Bez 310]

Quote: Zementbomber

was already calculated in hours ..

So what?
So it is now.

[Zementbomber]

Actually, no. max the ARGB standby time for the S-3A in the mid-1980s was already up to about a day.

[Bez 310]

Quote: Zementbomber

Actually, no.

We are talking about our buoys, not yours.

[Zementbomber]

Why should we take Russian buoys as a landmark?
USSR / RF - have never been leaders in this area.

[Bez 310]

Quote: Zementbomber

Why should we take Russian buoys as a landmark?

So you don't take the "Russian" buoys as a landmark.
It is indecent to interfere in a conversation like this, not
grasping the meaning.

[Zementbomber]

Comrade - asked about the timing of ARGB functionality (regardless of "nationality" of these).
You didn't want to answer him. I answered. What's wrong?

[Bez 310]

Quote: Zementbomber

What's wrong?

Sorry, I'll stop this, no one
unnecessary conversation.

[Zementbomber]

OK as you wish.

[Eldorado]

The news for our submarine is very bad ...

[Bez 310]

Where are our such drones?

[Aleksandr1971]

We do not have drones for PLO missions.

[askort154]

Against "buoys" Russia already has a "left-handed bolt"!
"Burak - M" - a complex on submarines .. Suppresses radio exchange between "buoys" and anti-submarine aircraft.

[Bez 310]

Quote: askort154

Against "buoys" Russia already has a "left-handed bolt"!

The very fact of the lack of communication "buoy-plane"
indicates the presence of a protester submarine in the area.
In general, that still unmasking sign.
It is most advisable to apply for
evasion of tracking, but the very fact of this
the tracking still needs to be installed.

[askort154]

Bez 310 ..The very fact of the lack of communication "buoy-plane"
indicates the presence of a protester submarine in the area.
In general, that still unmasking sign.
It is most advisable to apply for
evasion of tracking, but the very fact of this
tracking still needs to be installed.

Yes, apparently the designers did not know - "Burak-M".
And I just briefly voiced the information from the site "MNSH-Army".
Under the title - "Novelty of electronic warfare funds for the IMF - buoy" Burak-M "
Read at your leisure, and criticize not me, but the designers.
I have nothing to do with this.

[Bez 310]

Quote: askort154

criticize not me, but the designers.

I'm not interested in constructors, what are they
ordered, then they did. And you me too
you are not interested, since you do not know the tactics of the submarine.

[timokhin-aa]

Burak-M is scrap metal. With him, the SP's stealth is worse than without him. I would cite here quotes from one Rear Admiral about this system, but they will slap me a warning for it right away.

[rocket757]

The United States will begin to use drones to combat submarines

Sea expanses, minke whales, do not want to yield to anyone. This is logical, but not endless.

[Dmitry V.]

In this simple chain of transition to UAV patrols, a second vulnerable element appears - since the decision-making center is taken out (UAV command post):

- the first vulnerable element this is a buoy / UAV communication channel (it is also vulnerable for manned patrol aircraft) - it can be pressed locally by floating electronic warfare buoys - it should not be too powerful and expensive - it is enough to block it within a radius of 10-15 miles.

- the second vulnerable element of the system - UAV-KP communication channel - here the power of the incoming electronic warfare must be sufficient to suppress the data transmission channel from the UAV and push it out of the patrol area.
Blocking the control and data transmission channels of the BLA-KP is a completely solvable task.
Similar pop-up electronic warfare can be performed in the form factor:
- mini torpedoes (it is enough to push out of the TA with compressed air and move away from the submarine for several miles
or
- pop-up buoy (unmasking method).
Of course, due to the one-time use - it should not serve as a carrier of critical technologies, be extremely simple - conditionally "press" the maximum possible range with a high-frequency knockout signal.
The operating time of the source is sufficient so that the submarine could secretly leave the area of ​​its detection.

Such a number will not work with a manned patrol aircraft - it will put up barriers of buoys in the probable directions of the submarine's exit, here only to press the local channel of the buoy-LA.

But for the UAV, there will be no sense if the area of ​​communication suppression exceeds the search area (limited by the supply of buoys) - it will be forced to leave the search area to restore communication and the search will be disrupted.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

the first vulnerable element is the buoy / UAV communication channel (it is also vulnerable for manned patrol aircraft) - it can be crushed locally by floating electronic warfare buoys

Which automatically confirms the presence of a submarine in the area. The buoys' task is completed.

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

the second vulnerable element of the system is the UAV-KP communication channel - here the power of the floating electronic warfare must be sufficient to suppress the data transmission channel from the UAV

Will not help. The communication channel goes via satellite or directly with Poseidon. The REP buoy will not have enough power to block these channels.

[Dmitry V.]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Which automatically confirms the presence of a submarine in the area. The buoys' task is completed.

The buoy will already confirm the location of the pl in the area - these funds are used to disrupt the task, tracking - catch the difference.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Will not help. The communication channel goes via satellite or directly with Poseidon. The REP buoy will not have enough power to block these channels.

Come on?
It always helped, suddenly there is none :))
Secretly - the transmission channel to the aircraft / UAV to the satellite will always be no more powerful than the ground / surface one, well, and the ranges are for reconnaissance :)

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

these means are used to disrupt the task of tracking

I am writing - the task of the buoys has been completed, the submarine has been found, then other means of anti-submarine weapons operate.

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

Come on?
It always helped, suddenly there is none :))

Can you give an example of a buoy or a torpedo REP? What theoretical power will there be?

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

Secretly, the transmission channel to the aircraft / UAV to the satellite will always be no more powerful than the ground / surface one,

Of course, devices on the surface can afford a more powerful source of energy. Will the torpedo or buoy have this power source?
But not only power plays a role. The UAV / aircraft communication channel is a directional satellite, it is at an altitude, the frequency is from 1,5 GHz, it can change its parameters, the communication equipment has high signal selection parameters. Therefore, the output power of the signal from the land / sea REB is not so important. It is important what it will be at the right point in space, and this is extremely difficult to achieve, sometimes it is simply impossible physically.

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

well, and ranges are already for exploration

This is the task of electronic warfare. The electronic intelligence system identifies and monitors the parameters of the transmitting signal and sends the data to the electronic suppression system.

[Dmitry V.]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Can you give an example of a buoy or a torpedo REP? What theoretical power will there be?

Well, an electronic warfare projectile in the 152 mm form factor is quite capable of paralyzing a battalion / regiment / division's wireless communications. It triangulates quickly, but if you throw more cluster antipersonnel mines into the area of ​​its fall - several hours to eliminate, comparable to the operating time of the power source.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Can you give an example of a buoy or a torpedo REP? What theoretical power will there be?

In the volume of the anti-torpedo 324 mm, theoretically up to a megawat can be provided with a power source (a turbine powered by chemical fuel), for an hour or two.
Another thing is that an antenna device for realizing such power will not fit in this form factor.
But in my opinion, 150-250 kW looks more optimal for 3-4 hours with a drop-down non-directional antenna, but submersible or remote - here you need ROC, not radio electronics, antenna complexes are not my profile.

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

The UAV / aircraft communication channel is a directional satellite, it is at an altitude, the frequency is from 1,5 GHz, it can change its parameters, the communication equipment has high signal selection parameters. Therefore, the output power of the signal from the land / sea REB is not so important.

And how does the UAV provide a DIRECTED communication channel to the satellite? First, it is necessary to determine the direction to the communication satellite / repeater, for this to catch the signal - relatively weak and distant, compared to the source of interference.
Select a signal from an overwhelming or knocking out source of interference in an intact form and decipher - how to hear a whisper in a tank, which is pounded with sledgehammers ...
On the accepted principle of transferring compressed packet data - this is impossible, the question of "sledgehammer size".
Simultaneously suppress the radio altimeter channels, GPS - in fact, only the barometric altimeter and the INS will be responsible for the UAV navigation with an increasing wind drift error.
The main ground-based electronic warfare systems operate from 100-300 kW diesel generator sets. - of course, the restrictions on the dimensions of the antenna complexes are not so strict. 100-300 kW is more than enough to interrupt a communication session with an aircraft at hundreds of kilometers of range.

(I didn't minus you)

[OgnennyiKotik]

Modern channels are extremely difficult to detect and suppress. Communication equipment is developing, advances in microelectronics and software help in this. There are a great many ways of organizing communication when using the sounded REB means.
Not to mention the fact that the MALE / HALE UAVs, which need constant communication from the command center, have been removed from service by the US forces. Predators are already history, like the first generations of rippers.

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

how to hear a whisper in a tank being pounded with sledgehammers

This task is very simple. You just need good active headphones with suppression of "loud" noise and amplification of "weak" ones. By the way, the Armenians actively used them for earlier detection of kamikaze drones.

Electronic warfare systems are simply vital. But it is not necessary to endow them with properties that they do not have. Moreover, the terrestrial ones are very limited in their capabilities.

Submarines have long needed air defense missiles and their own UAVs for armament. This is what can really save you from air threats. Physical destruction of weapons carriers, the best remedy for their means of destruction and reconnaissance.

[Dmitry V.]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Modern channels are extremely difficult to detect and suppress. Communication equipment is developing, advances in microelectronics and software help in this. There are a great many ways of organizing communication when using the sounded REB means.

Only the frequency range cannot be physically expanded. No matter how short burst pulses the transmitter works, they will be suppressed, the question is only in a narrow selective range, tunable or in a wide range.

[Zementbomber]

Submarines have long needed air defense missiles and their own UAVs for armament.

They already have long been. Incl. - and underwater launch missiles.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

First, you have to determine the direction to the communication satellite / repeater, for this to catch the signal

The direction to the satellite is well calculated.

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

the signal is relatively weak and distant compared to the source of interference.

This signal is picked up by a directional antenna.

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

100-300 kW is more than enough to interrupt a communication session with an aircraft at hundreds of kilometers of range.

Does this also apply to civil communications (including communications of civil aviation)? Because if this were true, we would have had dozens of cases of vandalism and even terrorism.

[Dmitry V.]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Can you give an example of a buoy or a torpedo REP? What theoretical power will there be?

A compact TNA on two-component chemical fuel develops 180 megawatts in a few minutes - not much is required.
The maximum turbine power achieved on the 53-65 torpedo was 1070 kW (one megawatt) - but it's expensive.
A cheap compact TNA with a reactor based on chemical components (one of which is sea water or two-component) with a fuel supply in a case of the size of an anti-torpedo is cheap and enough to generate 250-300 kW for 2-3 hours.
That is, to provide the energy potential is quite possible in the dimension of a small torpedo or counter-torpedo.
It's just that no one thought to merge two directions - electronic warfare and torpedo corps.

[Zementbomber]

Well - here you can briefly: GOOD NEWS!

[Intruder]

The military believes that the use of drones to combat submarines will partially replace the Boeing P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, the cost of an hour of flight of which is significantly higher than that of drones.

Duc, soon and on PLO, so look they will pass successfully and P8A will be sent to retire !? :) And if then they attach to the side nodes of external suspensions, "something" small with a CCH of 254 mm. caliber and briskly diving under the submarine propellers ...