LimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10565 times:
Apologies to all the "must have a human on-site" folks: according to Aviation Week, the Predator C (jet-powered, stealth, 20-hour loiiter time, ...) had its first flight recently!
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3249 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 10298 times:
Looks like a mini Global Hawk.
I always thought one of the primary advantages of the Predators was they were cheap enough that you afford to lose one to do the mission. This new variant (and it really looks like an all new frame to me) looks to be pricey.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10260 times:
Why even bother calling it a Predator? It clearly has no parts from the Predator B/Predator A/I-GNAT series of UAS. I suspect it will be a good UAS, but really, the only reason General Atomics stuck with the Predator name was likely marketing, which IMO is disgusting.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10243 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1): I always thought one of the primary advantages of the Predators was they were cheap enough that you afford to lose one to do the mission. This new variant (and it really looks like an all new frame to me) looks to be pricey.
Well, it retains the main advantage of not putting a pilot in harm's way. Besides not risking a life, it costs a lot to train a USAF or Naval aviatior.
While these are neat toys and indeed do their job well, I still think it'll be a looooong time before we see a completely unmanned force.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10227 times:
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 2): I suspect it will be a good UAS, but really, the only reason General Atomics stuck with the Predator name was likely marketing, which IMO is disgusting.
Can you explain what is so disgusting about an aircraft manufacturer choosing a product's name for favorable marketing? What General Atomics has done in naming this aircraft the Predator C is no different than Boeing using the 7#7 series or Airbus using the A3##. It's recognizable and implies the aircraft comes form a heritage of other successful aircraft.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 10128 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4): Can you explain what is so disgusting about an aircraft manufacturer choosing a product's name for favorable marketing? What General Atomics has done in naming this aircraft the Predator C is no different than Boeing using the 7#7 series or Airbus using the A3##. It's recognizable and implies the aircraft comes form a heritage of other successful aircraft.
Honestly, if you tune into CNN, and there is a story on about a UAS, the first thing everyone thinks of is "Predator". They know this, and will use it to jack the price up to the US Government. It might be a great system, which I don't doubt it is, but is it worth them making the price 2-3x more because the put the Predator name on it. I doubt it.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 10113 times:
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 6): It might be a great system, which I don't doubt it is, but is it worth them making the price 2-3x more because the put the Predator name on it. I doubt it.
Do you have any sources for this figure? It sounds to me like you're pulling those numbers, to be nice, out of thin air.
This is a conpany-funded aircraft, meaning the US can buy it or not if they choose. A much better way of doing it than all the money sunk into "Development costs" for the Comanche, A-12, ARH....
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10085 times:
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 2): Why even bother calling it a Predator? It clearly has no parts from the Predator B/Predator A/I-GNAT series of UAS.
For the same reason that a larger, heavier, almost completely re-designed aircraft was called the F/A18E Super Hornet - it's easier to get an upgraded weapon system approved, rather than a completely new one.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9991 times:
I'm currently in a basic survey class of UAS/UAV. And, we were tasked with collecting information on a UAV of our choosing, and doing a short presentation on it. Some of them called and explained the situation they were trying to use a UAV in and who would be operating it. When the numbers came back, those that would be using it in the military enviroment typically came back with 2-3x the cost on the same UAV than those who would be using it for a simple civil platform. Seemed kind of funny to me, that it would work like that.
I've got no problem with the company building this platform. Its going to be great, I'm sure. But really, I seem to think that every contractor builds some, "hey its the government" tack on to their costs. They aren't stupid. Look at Boeing, they did it, and got caught.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9847 times:
Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 5): True, but I wouldn't call UAV's (UAS's) "toys".
Yeah, probably not, but I used to be way into RC planes a long time ago and they were fairly expensive toys. This is essentially just a bigger, more expensive RC plane.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, 
B4e-Forever New Frontiers 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
