What if we took 100 MQ-9 Reaper drones, put half a dozen AMRAAM

>>34607389
it would be expensive is what. What if 50% get shot down.

>>34607389
Surface to air missiles.

"Missile boats" with long range radar support are an idea being batted around, but this would be really inefficient.

-Reapers are designed for ground attack. They can equip small Air to air missiles but not AMRAAMS.
-They're also slooooow, like 200mph fully loaded. An E-3 would need its flaps down to stay afloat at the speed.
-Reapers can loiter a while but they can't aerial refuel. You'd need a constant rotation of new drones.

It'd certainly confuse an enemy why there's a cloud of giant locusts coming their way, but it's not viable

>>34609311
More pressing is that Reapers are highly vulnerable to AAMs due to their very low speed, slow enough to have extreme trouble intercepting a strike on the E-3 they're supposed to be escorting, and have no stealth.
They'd get picked off effortlessly by anyone with anything that has more range than the dinky things a Reaper could mount, which is everyone who matters.

>>34607389
I think you'll overload satellite uplink with that amount of UAVs.

File: X-47B.jpg (57KB, 800x490px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x490px

>>34609311
>>34609372
>>34609800
A solution to all your problems.

>>34610362
Why is that boat flying? Is the operator too busy having six dicks rammed into his anus to do his job?

The other problem is the slow reaction time of the reapers. For the MCE crew on the other side of the world, there is a 2-3 second delay between what is happening and what they are seeing, then there is a 2-3 second delay for whatever commands they give the aircraft to happen, then another 2-3 seconds for them to see the effect of their command.

Reapers have no AI radar
There isn't a way for the GCS to see whatever radar is coming off the AWACS

So in other words, fucking retarded idea from a fucking retarded OP who didn't take five seconds to think about his fucking retarded thought to determine how fucking retarded it was before hitting the post button.

>>34611728
>2-3 seconds
how

>>34611748

Going from earth to geostationary orbit and back a couple of times takes a while even at the speed of light.

>>34611728
Your time figures are exaggerated somewhat.

Also, the capability issues are fixable with different GCS software and mission payloads designed for that purpose. It's still a dumb idea; the much faster (and higher-payload) Avengers would be better suited, at the very least.

>>34611760
that still sounds like too long. don't they have pilots in theatre?

Quantity has a quality all its own. What if we made 50,000 World War Two era mustangs? You could shoot down a lot but not all.

>>34607389
Could the radar on an existing AWACS plane perform initial guidance for an AMRAAM through a data link? I feel like the answer is "no"

Be pretty cool if it could, tho.

File: because fuck you that's why.jpg (61KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1024x768px

Another issue is the low speed of the reaper means that the missile isn't going very fast when it leaves the rail. An opposing force in fast movers can sling missiles with equivalent performance at the drones from a range the reapers' missiles won't be able to reach.
Fuck it, let's just stuff B1s full of AMRAAMS and Patriots

>>34611771
The pilots in theater are just there for take off and landing, the whole time they're in the air they're being controlled by someone state side in a metal box

>>34611771
They have ones in theater for takeoff and landing but a lot of the actual weapons employment is done by guys in Vegas.

>>34611771
The speed of light dictates that, processing delays absent, it would take about half a second at minimum for commands inputted at the GCS to be visible on the operator's camera view screen. With signal processing delays, flight computer processing time, avionics delays, video encoding time, and the mechanical speed of the servos that control the plane (not to mention control processing done by the autopilot systems), that latency quickly increases. The full command-feedback path really is about 2 seconds in typical conditions but can be less or more depending on various factors.

It could be improved a lot, but latency is not really a high priority with drones; they're not designed for the situations that snappy pilot response is required for.

>>34611818
Do they currently have this feature? Doubtful. Could a system be designed with these features? Of course.

>>34607389
> amerilard intellectuals
your country is going down the shitter, mates
you lot are gonna probably be the the major power with shortest lifespan of all time, with mongrelized retards like this

>>34612549
I've wondered why no hang two phalanx on a c-130 radar plane and also equip it with longer range missiles and bombs.

>>34612549
>political correctness and inability to commit genocide is destroying us
We know

>>34611796
Pilots are more valuable than planes.