Tow Tripod said:
Any AUV that does not have the capability to launch missiles is a waste of tax payers cas$. This is JUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Typical Canadian doctrine. Bring a knife to a gunfight. When are we going to learn to play in the bigs for real. Pathetic actually.
As one who has a little more direct experience with these things, I shall disagree.
We would very much like to have the ability to zap targets of opportunity directly, but...
Carriage of weapons comes at a real cost: endurance. There is a trade-off between fuel (endurance) and weaponry, as weight is a major factor for anything that flies.
One of the strengths of UAVs is that very endurance, which generally far exceeds that of manned aircraft. Another is economy, and not just in terms of cost. Fuel has to be trucked in to KAF through a limited number of difficult routes, for example. This is challenge enough for geographical reasons, on top of which are frequent successful attacks on convoys. Nothing gets to KAF easily or cheaply or completely reliably.
Arming Predators and Reapers reduces their endurance dramatically, and neither carries a heavy weapon load. Once the single weapon or very small number of weapons have been employed, the launching UAV reverts to a pure ISTAR platform or goes home prematurely, leaving a gap in coverage.
Size of UAVs varies greatly. Many are too small to carry any form of weaponry, but those employing them (often front-line troops) do not think of them as "a waste of tax payers cas$" or "JUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - and that includes forces other than Canadian. The ability of troops in contact to see over a wall or on the roof of a building with their own hand-launched UAV can be of great value.
The US Armed Forces - "bigs" - employ a variety of UAVs that cannot be armed.
Unarmed UAVs, even small ones, can be and are used to direct and/or assist artillery, armed helicopters, and manned seized-wing aircraft quite effectively.
UAVs are not, today, replacements for existing platforms and weapons and should not be thought of as such. They are there to compliment them.
Everything and everyone has strengths and weaknesses, which is why we employ complimentary systems of all descriptions.
