Talk:General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper/Archive 1

Empty Weight?
What is the empty weight? 1400 kg (=~ 3100 lb) or 5400 lb (= 2450 kg)?


 * Corrected the weight values. --Limbo socrates 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cost?
How much is one unit?--Nemissimo 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good question. A bit of googling for "Predator B" cost reveals some sources. I guess it depends on who orders, how many, what ground support equipment you want, and what spare parts and other miscellanea are included. Around $8 million USD gets mentioned. Homeland Security paid $14M but they only bought one plane and had it customized. Weregerbil 09:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Or if that's too much, there's probably some New & Used ones on Amazon for much less. ¬_¬ --Wunderbear 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * on the other hand, the article says the saudis paid $205M for 5 of them and the necessary goodies to make them work. that's a cool $41M each.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * but wait! if you order in the next 10 minutes, we'll double your order free! that's right, not one but two 'reapers' for the low, low price of only 41 million dollars! so call the number at the bottom of the screen now. have your credit card ready. must be eighteen or older to call. offer void in some countries.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wingspan
The Specification box at top right cites a wingspan of 66' for the MW-9 Reaper. However, the article goes on to say that the wingspan of the Predator B-003 is 84' and that the USAF bought 2 of these and renamed them the MQ-9 Reaper.

So which is it? 66' of 84'?

The wingspan is 66'. 84' is only for the high-altitude variant, Altair. Only 1 Altair airframe exists. DaveJes1979 (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Renamed when?
Does anyone have a reference for when the name was changed from Predator B to Reaper? The article doesn't seem to say. - Occasional Reader 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I was the guy who renamed this article on 14 September 2006, I'll answer that with this link: 'Reaper' moniker given to MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle. Perhaps it should be used as a reference in the article. --Pmsyyz 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Navy Version
The section on the Mariner variant of the Predator B is just plain wrong. The reference, an article by a Greg Goebel, incorrectly states that it was intended for carrier operations. I worked on the airframe design for the proposal, and there were no carrier-friendly features like folding wings in the design. The BAMS program called for land-based operations, not carrier-based. The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk variant, which actually won the BAMS competition, likewise is *grossly* unfit for carrier operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJes1979 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, but no aircraft is ever Grossly unfit for carrier service. Almost any plane can be used on a carrier, the exceptions being only those way to big to land, i.e. B-1, B-2, 767's, etc.  Any normal sized jet (Eagle, F-16) etc can be made carrier capable by strengthening the gear and adding a tailhook.  Lack of folding wings just means it takes up more space on the flattop, it doesn't mean it is not carrier capable.  In summary, if the gigantic Tomcat can be made carrier capable, any smaller sized plan can, if the funding is available.  I mean no offense by this, just want to add to the discussion.  Thank you. -- Gamma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.206.208 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Global Hawk's wingspan is 118 feet, while the Mariner's was to be over 80 feet, far too long for carrier operations (for comparison the F-14's span was 38' when swept). And even if you beefed up the landing gear (you'd have to abandon Pred B's composite spring-strut design for a metal one w/ hydraulic shock struts) this doesn't help since the rest of the airframe couldn't handle the landing loads.  You'd have to add significant structure to attach a tailhook to, as well, since there are no suitable hard points with suitable load paths in the fuselage (the BAMS radar pod takes up the centerline hard point).  In other words, it would require a total structural redesign.  The only thing you'd save is the OML tooling.  DaveJes1979 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The cited site, which appears to meet reliability and verifiability criteria, indeed makes this claim, so it is backed up with a source. I am not saying you are wrong DaveJes, but this meets the criteria for inclusion. You are also incorrect about the wingspan, though not in the way you might envision. A wingspan of a "mere" 80 feet is certainly do-able as 132-foot wingspan C-130s have made landings and takeoffs on carriers...without arresting gear and without a catapult. On one attempt they even landed, stopped, got out, briefed, and without moving the plane got back in and took off; no arresting gear, no catapult. As for strengthening, dual leaf springs might do the trick, I don't know, but there are options other than hydraulics. Again, not saying you are wrong, but there are other options.


 * As for the IP's claim, no, it is not as simple as "almost any plane can be made carrier capable". The mass of these aircraft is sufficient to warrant significant internal aircraft structural redesign. The vertical and longitudinal G-loads experienced by making a high-speed trap are far too high for most USAF fighters. Note that many USAF fighters already have a tailhook, like the F-15, F-16, A-10, T-38, F-5, etc, but these are for runway operations where the brakes fail or are otherwise needed. Aerobraking can dissipate a lot of energy before an arresting wire would be encountered, whereas a carrier trap stops an aircraft at full power. In short, IMHO, you are both wrong and both right in many ways.  — BQZip01 —  talk 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. All it would take to make the Eagle carrier-capable would be to strenghten the internal load bearing structures where appropriate, widen the diameter of the landing gear, and strengthening the tail hook and attaching structure. If they can make the Tomcat carrier capable, then they could do it for the eagle as well. It would probably require each Eagle to spend some time in the shop for replacement of a few structures -- and it would be expensive -- but it would not be that hard. Building the Eagle in the first place would probably be harder than strengthening the necessary struts. The US Navy would have been much better off getting F-15's in the first place; the Tomcat was too expensive, and the Eagle is still better than the Hornets the navy is stuck with. -- Gamma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.97.251 (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do realize that the claims regarding Mariner are backed up by a source, and it may indeed meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability. It still should be changed, because it is false. Even a *basic* review of the BAMS program confirms that it is a land-based program, with operations out of 5 Navy bases throughout the world, not aircraft carriers. For example:

The BAMS UAS is envisioned as providing 24-hour coverage over an on-station range of 2,000 nautical miles. BAMS bases in five locations—Kaneohe, Hawaii; Jacksonville, Fla.; Sigonella, Italy; Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, and Kadena, Okinawa—would permit worldwide maritime surveillance. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/surveillance.htm

If one reviews the BAMS winner, the RQ-4N, you will likewise find that it is a land-based aircraft, without any features that would allow it to land on a carrier.

This isn't even a close call, guys. A basic familiarity with the program and systems *outside of the single source used to make the false claims* is enough to show that the Goebel article was in error. Accurate information on the Mariner can be found at GA's web site - http://www.ga-asi.com/products/pdf/Mariner.pdf. You will not find carrier hooks or folding wings there.

Also, a C-130 landing on a carrier does not disprove my statement. There is a big difference between operational carrier service and a one-time stunt. Even though the C-130 proved that it could physically take off and land on a carrier, the Navy rejected it for service because it was still too risky and problematic. The wingtip clears the control tower by only 15 feet, you have a much harder time getting into the air without the 40-50 knot wind that helped the test flights, etc. Notice anything else? The flight deck is desserted. Not exactly realistic operating conditions. Want to bring it down the aircraft elevators? Sorry, not an option with a big beast like that. My point was not that large-span airplanes couldn't physically takeoff or land on carriers, but that it is not fit for carrier *service*. Because something is in the realm of physical possibility does not make it fit for service. DaveJes1979 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DaveJes, perhaps you misunderstand me. You are probably 100% correct, but your assertion doesn't have a source (stating that a future program will be based from land does not necessarily translate to the configuration of an aircraft). If you find a source that states as such, then it should be immediately replaced. Omission in a 4-page pamphlet does not mean it never existed.
 * As for the C-130 program, the C-130 was never intended to fit below decks, so folding wings weren't needed. Testing it with only a test pilot is the prudent thing to do. It doesn't mean it can't be done with others on board. Moreover, it wasn't a one-time stunt, but a series of tests involving many different configurations (including maximum payload). The flight deck was deserted fr safety during tests. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done on a "regular" operation.
 * In an effort to better explain this, I have rewritten it more as a footnote. Since neither design ever flew, both are only proposed designs and it has been annotated accordingly. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you cannot expect to find documentation telling you all the features an airplane does NOT have. I find common sense being thrown out the window as more demands are being made to disprove an obviously erroneous section of this article. The assumption seems to be that any material that is *allowed* to be on wikipedia (according to certain criteria) also has a *right* to be here until proven false. It does not, and we all need to use common sense in editing these articles so that they are as accurate as possible.

There is no documentation - official or unofficial - which corroborates these claims from the Vectorsite article. And the article is demonstrably inaccurate with regard to Mariner in other details regarding configuration (it claims there is a saddle tank for increased fuel - look at GA's images on the actual proposed airframe, there is no saddle tank. That tank appeared as a "hump" in the fuselage, but the idea was abandoned early in the studies we did for our proposal). This tells me that the Vectorsite article is confusing and mixing in earlier pre-BAMS concepts (navalized versions of Predator B that never made it beyond computer-generated cartoons that went under the 'Mariner' label) with the actual fleshed-out BAMS proposal submitted to the Navy from last year. DaveJes1979 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SI Units
I know, it's difficult.... (from time to time I am still thinking in HP for myself), but this article is a terrible mess, when you look at the Numbers/Units. I suggest to wipe out the non-SI-part or _at least_ make them the first information and set all non-standard units in Brackets.


 * "from 48 feet (14.6 m) to 66 feet (20 m). The B-001 had a speed of 220 kts (390 km/h) and could carry
 * a payload of 750 pounds (340 kilograms) to an altitude of 50,000 feet (15.2 kilometers) with an endurance of 30 hours."

I still wonder if one could dig up a seperate Unit für time, too. :-)  greets 88.68.250.21 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Scale
It would be nice to have here a picture of the aircraft next to a human being so one can estimate the size. 192.114.175.2 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Operating System
Does anyone know what the operating system is on this UAV? My best guess is that it would be a variant of the Unix kernel, but that is only an educated guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lan Di (talk • contribs)
 * I believe Predator and Reaper use VxWorks65.170.234.10 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
This kind of aircraft only makes the enemy stronger, he can hack the controls away and turn the robo-plane against you. In a piloted plane you first have to brainwash the human, before it changes sides. That is hard to do. I think all allahist are now learning to become l44t hackers and radio specialists, instead of AK-47and RPG excellence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Standard encryption and authentication algorithms make plans for hijacking F-16 more realistic. As for making someone stronger, watch videos on youtube.com - like [] or []. You can find a lot of other similar videos. A lot of "allahist" die without realizing they got spotted. It is actually fun to watch how some of them try to run and/or hide and end up plain dead. So technology is working. It actually saves lives. It definitely need to be used more extensively. Sure it have it own limitations, but what is already archived is impressive.  TestPilot  07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To 82.131.210.162, you honestly have no frickin' clue as to what your talking about don't you? Don't sweat it, this world would be a really boring place without morons like you. ;)

You cannot "hack" an a/c like the Reaper, because it uses a satellite link via a unidirectional, gimbaled antenna. Unless, of course, you find a way to hack a military satellite, in which case the DoD will have much larger problems than a single errant 10,000 lbs. airplane. DaveJes1979 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone at Wikipedia please remove the statement " It is actually fun to watch how some of them try to run and/or hide and end up plain dead.", attributed to the author Testpilot. This may be an opinion piece, but it is highly offensive to read someone describing watching the killing of others as "fun". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.133.147 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cruise Speed
Could someone please verify the value for cruise speed? The citation is restricted. The article states it's 85kts, a value which I can't find anywhere else.

Flight globalseems to think its 220kts, though other sources say this is max speed, Airforce Linksays 200kts [34],Global Security thinks max is 260kts and cruise is 170-190kts. I tend to agree with the 170-190 figure as I swear I've seen it on a NASA fact sheet somewhere. I understand that cruise speeds can vary but the 85kts seems much lower than all the rest, any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.43 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it may be an issue of what is meant by "cruise speed". Keep in mind, the point of this aircraft is to get on station as fast as possible, and then throttle back and loiter for hours. If by "cruise speed" the manual means the typical best fuel burn speed that you'd want in a loiter, 85 kts seems quite reasonable.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 85 knot number is the MQ-1 cruise speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.234.10 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Representation in the Media
Has anyone else noticed that the jet powered version of this aircraft has made appearances in a heck of alot of big budget sci-fi / action films? Do you think this is a sort of commercial product placement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argantael (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no... the manufacturer (GA) doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a jet-powered version (the rumoured Predator-C) 65.170.234.10 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They may not officially acknowledge it, but a medium sized jet powered UCAV with an airframe that looks just like Predator B sure is in a lot of movies! The only other thing it could be is a Scaled Composites Model 396. And jet powered or not, that Predator airframe is in a lot of movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argantael (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Movies like to be at least one step ahead of the status quo in technology, so jet-powered UAVs would be a good next-step in drone evolution. Perhaps the fact that there is no "real" jet-powerd version means producers don't have to pay any royalties or rental fees or what not to use such craft. WIth modern special effects and computers, the UAVs don't have to actually exist, or even be models. - BillCJ (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's now public. The Pred C "Avenger" recently made its first flight: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/AVENGER041709.xml&headline=Predator%20C%20Avenger%20Makes%20First%20Flights&channel=defense 65.170.234.10 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Use in the 2009 North Dakota floods
It's been reported that the Predator drone deployed to monitor the rivers during the flood was a Predator B(MQ-9 Reaper) drone belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Should this use of the drone be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.230 (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. rkmlai (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Number built
This article states 28, when the citation merely states that the US Air Force operates 28 Reapers. Given that Reapers are also operated by the UK, US Navy, and Homeland Security Department, shouldn't a more reliable source be found? Failing that, it should merely state that that is the number in operation by the USAF. Roche-Kerr (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are human operators located so far away, isn't the lag time of 1.2 seconds a long time while flying?
If the drone is subject to a "1.2 seconds to reach the drone via a satellite link" lag time, wouldn't it be beneficial to locate the "pilots" in the theatre of operations rather than at Creech AFB in US? That seems like a significant lag, for an aircraft, especially an armed aircraft. 159.247.36.120 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)DNW


 * The route The MIC is taking is to build in more complex behaviors, such as refueling

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Scientists_Test_Unmanned_Aerial_Systems_Refueling_999.html

into the aircraft so that a single "pilot" can control many aircraft at once. The final goal of a totally robotic force capable of exterminating all humanity without any human control should be reached in a few decades. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A serious answer: Modern UAVs are capable of flying themselves for the most part, and the human pilots are used more to monitor the aircraft than to actually fly them directly as with traditional "drones". - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excessive manual control of the Reaper has caused aircraft losses. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/29/young_usaf_predator_pilot_officer_slam/page2.html Hcobb (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to ask questions, try WP:RD/H. However it would seem likely it would be the norm to always use satellite communication as being the most reliable way to ensure constant contact rather then needing to build large transmission towers all over the place. Locating the controller closer to the drones is therefore not going to help much Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Excessive manual control of the Reaper has caused aircraft losses" isn't quite accurate. While human errors have caused crashes (as in any aircraft), the plane flies perfectly well under direct human control.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikedriver (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese Air Force
There is no source about MQ-9 at Portuguese Air Force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.13.177 (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)  |

SO WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PICTURE THEN. It still has Portugal shaded Mike Young (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

UAV/Predator/Reaper Hacked
I read this article in the WSJ this morning. A little searching suggests that not only have the video feeds of the UAVs been hacked, but that the hacking is fairly common. I was unaware of this, and wonder whether any editors would care to add information relating to this phenomenon. Nightmote (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

can a reaper with all its multi spectral sensors be used in a densely forested terrain?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.240.27 (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Crew
Listing "Crew: None" is misleading and inaccurate. The plane cannnot takeoff, land or fly anything other than a preprogrammed route, and readers wishing to learn how they are operated or interested in becoming an operator will be left without an answer. Recommend: change to "Crew:  Onboard - none, Ground Control Station - pilot, sensor operator"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikedriver (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RPV vs. UAV
While many people use the terms Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and Unmanned Aerial System (UAS), the more accurate term is Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) as there is always a pilot and sensor operator in control of or monitoring the aircraft. "Unmanned" gives the erroneous impression that the aircraft autonomously flies around, finding and attacking targets in robot fashion - nothing can be further from the truth.

I'm in the MQ-9 community - we use the term RPV. I've also provided a link to an article where the Creech AFB Wing Commander (the "big cheese") only refers to them as RPVs. One cannot get better source material that that, and I'd really appreciate if, despite what the "aviation press" has used before (because we ALL know the press never gets it wrong /sarcasm), my edits would stop being changed. The additional information on the subject I keep trying to add keeps getting erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikedriver (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One, this is not a USAF website - we aren't bound by its conventions. Two, we have no way of knowing who you actually are, so claims that you know better don't mean much. Three, you've been asked to stop making these changes, and discuss them, and reach a consensus first. Up to know, UAV is the preferred term in the WP:AIR aircraft project, and is what needes to be used. You are free to try to change that, but making unilateral changes is disruptive, and can result in your being blocked by an admin (I'm not one). Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One, this is supposed to be a repository of the most accurate, up-to-date information. If the actual operators of the system, whether it be the USAF, private companies, or whoever, use certain nomenclature, it should be represented on the site.  Two, it's not just my word, I provided a source reference to back up my additions.  I would think the MQ-9 WING COMMANDER'S words would be pretty definitive.  Three, you are not the "watchdog" of this site - Wikipedia works when EVERYBODY makes contributions.  I did put a post in the discussions, as you suggested.  As for the "aircraft project", are you implying inaccurate information should be posted just to fit a template?  That's ridiculous.  I'm trying to expand the information on Wiki and provide a fuller explanation of how the MQ-9 is operationally used and helps clear up popular misconceptions.  I'm being far from disruptive.  You unilaterally deleting user contributions is contrary to Wiki's philosophy and keeps useful information from other users.  Please stop deleting others' contributions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikedriver (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I well know how WIkipedia works, and trust me, you showing up and demanding changes be made to fit some officer's views ain't it. One source doesn't overriede the perponderance of others - it only proves that one CO uses the term, that's all. I have no problem including the fact that he does so, but there's no need to toss out words that are based on reliable sources. If you were just adding that, then that would be a contribution. Instead, you are removing other's contribuitions to include yours, contributions that are also based on reliables sources, and more of them. and to call the term "UAV" inaccurate is just your point of view. You may not like the term, for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the term's legitimacy. So, in your own words, "Please stop deleting others' contributions." - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As regards UAV vs. RPV, they are both accurate. RPV was the original term until the USAF introduced UAV as a more modern term.  When that became the generally accepted term, UAS was introduced in 2004 by the USAF to briefly mean the same thing, although it has since evolved to mean the whole system – (unmanned) air vehicle plus the (usually ground) control station.   Over the last few years, Col. Pete Gersten, the CO of the 432nd AEW at Creech AFB, and others have been pushing a return to the use of RPV because “remotely piloted vehicle” emphasizes that there is still a pilot in the loop as opposed to a fully robotic system.
 * Some of this is also driven by a USAF culture that is wrestling with the issue of just what qualifications an RPV pilot must have – one fully trained to fly manned combat aircraft or one trained to a lesser degree, and whether this necessitates an officer pilot or, like with the Army, an NCO or even an enlisted soldier.
 * In any case, when the 49th Fighter Wing stood up at Holloman back in late October, the announcements I saw all referred to its three operational squadrons as “RPV squadrons” (formally, these units are an attack, a reconnaissance, and a training squadron).
 * Strikedriver is correct that USAF operators refer to their craft as RPVs, but I would note that non-USAF operators of the MQ-1/9 refer to them as UAVs as well – as does DoD procurement budget documentation for these systems. The term UAV also has the merit of its being more widely recognized by an average reader.
 * My suggestion would be to encourage articles on USAF units operating such aircraft employ the RPV terminology when referring to them; however, when describing the aircraft itself, either is acceptable and as a general term, UAV is probably preferable. In no wise should it be edit-warred over. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the final advice, Mark - Point taken. - BilCat (talk)


 * Agreed. My point wasn't to say "UAV" was wrong or shouldn't be used, but to present current trends "from the field" and to ensure readers didn't get the wrong impression from the term "Unmanned".  I've seen far too many misleading news reports lately.  LOL  UAV is definitely more widely used, but as stated there's good reasons RPV is more accurate.  I'll re-edit to incorporate both terms - I think that's most instructive.  V/R Cheers!

Please stop deleting "RPV/RPA" - this point was settled. It is not an "editorial" to include how the Air Force, the largest operator of MQ-9s, refers to its aircraft. Citation is posted to support the RPV nomenclature, including it better informs the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikedriver (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has deleted the basic RPV/RPA wording recently, only extra details. The Lead/Intro is not the place for details or to introduce facts not covered later.  Details can be covered later in the article with appropriate references. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur. There's no consensus here for adding the detail to the Lead. Please stop. - BilCat (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. That detail has been in the lead on this article since December (when consensus reached on how RPV should be included) until BilCat unilaterally took it out in June.  The fact the Reaper is human-controlled is no different than pointing out it is unmanned - it is a critical, factual descriptor of the system.  I've reworded to take out any semblance of an "opinion" pitch and it is properly cited, I respectfully ask an end to the edit war over such a small edit.  Continuing to remove the reference keeps important information from the reader and only feeds popular misconceptions on how the MQ-9 is operated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikedriver (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The only consensus agreement here is to use/mention RPV/RPA in the article. Again the Lead is a summary per Wikipedia policy.  A more detailed version can be listed later in the article. -fnlayson (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparent error: Mexico as operator of MQ-9
The map included with the article, indicates that Mexico operates MQ-9 vehicles. This appears to be an error. It even contradicts the list of operators included with the article, which currently excludes Mexico. 140.192.67.248 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)EC
 * Correct. Mexico has never been an operator, so that map is incorrect.BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Open source software in predator's imaging systems
Shouldn't something be mentioned about the fact that the UAV employs open-source software that the US government now calls proprietary in its image capturing systems? Or maybe the fact that it's been hacked using $30 software to get a live image stream? I'm not an expert, but that's a pretty big flaw in the system. And in common decency. 76.25.160.48 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS? Buffs (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

MQ-9 Reaper: Amount of carriable Hellfire Missiles
I just modified again the article because it previously said the MQ-9 reaper carry up to 14 Hellfires missiles.

This is mostly an info available here : http://defense-update.com/products/p/predatorB.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrilator (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

this data is wrong, the MQ-9 Reaper is equipped with 4 armed hardpoints, each of them can receive one M299 Pylon launcher for Hellfire missile. Each of these M299 pylon can carry two Hellfire missiles. just make the calculation, it makes a total of 8 Hellfire. not more.

I would like to see evidences that Reaper can really be equipped with 14 Hellfires missiles.

Amount of Carried Missiles doesn't depend of the maximum weight payload, but the maximum available hardpoints.

for the moment the trustworthy sources says 8 Hellfires maxiumum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrilator (talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this M299s can carry up to 4 missiles, not just 2. This is similar to the legacy M272 pylons. I would suspect that weight is a factor in the number of weapons they intend to carry and, while they can carry 14 (I'm guessing they cannot carry 16 due to the weight or the ability to control all 16), they usually don't. As such, the claim seems to be valid on the surface. Buffs (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the aircraft has up to 6 hardpoints (usually only 4 are used), so 14 is reasonable. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

the M299 pylon mounted on the MQ-9 Reaper is only used with the twin rail version.

MQ-9 Reaper has never been observed using M299 Pylon with quadruple rails. I still wait for evidences showing the contrary.

Quadruple rail version are only Mounted on helicopter such as, AH64 Apache, AH-1 Cobra, Eurocopter Tiger or UH60 Blackhawk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.187.156.163 (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a significant difference between "capable of" and a "standard" or "observed loadout". Given that they weigh merely 100 pounds, it is quite plausible that the aircraft are indeed "capable" of carrying probably up 14 missiles (maybe even 16). The exact maximum is really pointless as it would likely never be placed into that configuration. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's suppose 14 Hellfires is the theoretic maximum amount, with two M299 pylon quadruple rail mounted on inner hardpoints, two twin rail launcher on outer hardpoints and another one under the main fuselage. it makes a total of 14 missiles. Cyrilator (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC +1)


 * Theoretical is misleading and inaccurate. What the MQ-9 *does* carry is up to 4 AGM-114 on two dual-rail M299P launchers on stations 2 and 6. Ajspades (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Methane
http://www.dailytech.com/China+Rolls+Out+UAVs+That+Look+Similar+to+US+Counterparts/article29279.htm

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/121114/china-unveils-new-drones-developing-economies

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49867676/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/pakistan-struggles-race-develop-armed-drones/

Why isn't the cheap Chinese knockoff worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there has to be an actual article on WP to list it in the "See also" section (or on DAB pages too), not a link to a DAB page where you added your poor attempts at humor. Is it worth mentioning in the main text? Perhaps, but that's not where you put it, and there was nothing to keep. - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not belong in the See also section as there is no Wiki article on the Chinese UAV. CH4 is a disambiguation page that does not mention it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was on the CH4 page for a brief time, but since it didn't link to an existing article either, it was removed. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And the Chinese UAV program is blown off at Unmanned aerial vehicle. This is looking like a coordinated effort to muffle the Chinese Methane. Hcobb (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that really stinks. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So what wording would be acceptable for this article? Something like say:

The Chinese have offered to build a cheap knockoff of the Reaper for the Pakistani government so they can continue the war of terror against their population after the Americans are routed from Afghanistan.

Right? Hcobb (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Too POV, as Chinese knock-offs are getting much better now, so they aren't really "cheap" anymore, often better than the originals, since the Chinese send the US the fake chips they make for us and keep the real ones for themselves. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with range
The Reaper is said to have a range of 3,682 miles, which is reflected by the source, the USAF's National Museum. But this is well, well ahead of any other drone I have researched. Then I found this: according to the USAF (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405) it has a range of 1,150 miles. This appears to be the correct version, but I don't know where to confirm this, considering it is nearly the same source giving two contradicting numbers. Gabbahead (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article uses 3,682 under Design and 1,150 under Specifications. Design should mention Specification's range and vice versa. Or simply a definitive answer should be sought instead of this confusing BS. Marc Bago (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Marc Bago (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If the range were really 1,000 nmi (as currently stated in the Design section) it would only be able to cruise for about 6 hours at 160 knots. This would make a nonsense of the long-endurance claims. 3,682 miles sounds much more likely and is almost exactly the same as the 5900km figure in the UN report on drones (see paragraph 27 at the bottom of page 6 of http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/478/77/PDF/N1347877.pdf). - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect differences may arise from difference sources identifying ferry range (1-way trip) versus combat range (roundtrip). Regarding range based on endurance... these type of aircraft tend not to travel a long way and then just come back -- their range is usually much shorter with a long loiter in the mission area. SidewinderX (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

CBP's MQ-9s
BilCat,

I saw your edit on this page where you question the importance of a particular article's inclusion and the identification of the UAV that was reference in that article. I can tell you that the article highlighting an unprecedented legal decision that allowed footage of a UAV to be used as evidence in a U.S. court on a domestic legal issue; this has never been done before and is groundbreaking in its own write. Plus, it's a U.S. News & World Report article, not some blog. Additionally, having been involved in CBP's UAV program, I can tell you that CBP refers to their MQ-9s by the manufacturer's name, Predator-B 1 2 3. Although the Air Force calls them Reapers, this is not General Atomics' name for their aircraft. --The same goes for the MQ-1C, which General Atomics' calls the Predator-C but the Army calls the Gray Eagle.-- Also, CBP has never had MQ-1s; prior to Congress funding CBP's MQ-9 fleet, CBP leased some Israeli UAVs to evaluate how helpful large UAVs could be to CBP's operations. After proving the worth of large UAVs, CBP went straight to the MQ-9; this choice in aircraft was dictated by Congress and since they were paying for them, no argument was made for a different platform.

With all that said, do you still object to this paragraph's inclusion on the MQ-9 page? If so, please let me, and the rest of Wikipedia, know why.

Respectfully, McChizzle (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dont think that the legal issue is notable to the MQ-9 for inclusion or particularly notable as the judge said the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here". MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * - The US News article used to cite the ranch text only states 'Predators', not Predator-B or -C or Reaper. Also, the UAV did not seem to have a significant role here. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can get in line with MilborneOne's argument for removing the paragraph. However Fnlayson's argument is trivial since DHS, specifically CBP, only have MQ-9s and the department (DHS) always refers to them as Predators.  Given MilborneOne's comment I'll "stand down."  --McChizzle (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Trival or not 'Predator' is by the most common name for the MQ-1 UAV. There needs to be another source for that lists Predator-B, Reaper, or MQ-9 for the arrest of the rancher, if that's significant use. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090503154817/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/manitoba/story/2009/02/16/drones-border.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/02/16/drones-border.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060510041526/http://www.uav.com/products/mariner.html to http://www.uav.com/products/mariner.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080213224707/http://www.honeywell.com:80/sites/aero/technology/aerotechmagazine3_C6CF7D843-6C1D-21B4-CBF6-0D99E3E4E24B_HF8A538A2-2693-3848-73E8-75B1DAD39AC8.htm to http://honeywell.com/sites/aero/technology/aerotechmagazine3_C6CF7D843-6C1D-21B4-CBF6-0D99E3E4E24B_HF8A538A2-2693-3848-73E8-75B1DAD39AC8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120715000057/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080803/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryair_080803175617 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080803/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryair_080803175617

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)