The
General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial system (UAS) is used primarily in
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions by the U.S Air
Force (USAF). The aircraft’s ISR
capabilities have also prompted the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to
procure the UAS to patrol the borders of the continental U.S. The Reaper is fully capable of performing the
military and civic missions. However,
the aircraft’s design also inherently brings strengths and weaknesses to its
missions.
The
MQ-9 is well suited to perform military ISR missions. The aircraft has a maximum speed of 240
knots, a service ceiling of 50,000 feet, and an endurance of 27 hours. The payload is highly modular and available
sensors include electro-optical imaging systems, multi-mode ground and maritime
radars, electronic support measures, and laser designators (General Atomics,
2016). These features provide a highly
capable high altitude, long endurance (HALE) ISR asset to support military
forces. However, the Reaper was designed
primarily for carrying aloft a sizeable sensor payload for long durations. The relatively slow top speed is a
shortcoming of the UAS. The high service
ceiling provides a good vantage point to mitigate the speed deficiency. However, mission planning must account for
the time needed for the aircraft to climb to that altitude.
The
CBP has acquired MQ-9s for patrol and ISR missions primarily along the southern
frontier of the U.S. The aircraft’s
endurance, operating altitude, and sensor suite provide useful capabilities for
border ISR missions (Booth, 2011).
However, the Reaper was also designed to carry munitions aloft. The airframe and powerplant of the UAS was
designed for this task and is probably far more than what is required for CBP’s
mission. Avionics such as the laser
designator is unnecessary since the CBP aircraft are unarmed. CBP UAS pilots also require significant
training to operate the MQ-9. As the
primary and most experienced operators of this platform, USAF units and defense
contractors have furnished the CBP’s instruction (Gunderson, 2015).
A
request for proposal for a UAS optimized for CBP’s specific ISR requirements
would probably yield a smaller and easier to operate platform. A smaller UAS, such as the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle,
would also have a much smaller logistical footprint. The Reaper requires an airfield while the
ScanEagle uses a catapult and arresting system for recovery (Insitu, 2016). CBP Reaper operations are restricted at
certain airfields due to runway approaches that pass over populated areas
(Booth, 2011). The capability to operate
from mobile locations versus fixed airfields also reduces vulnerability to
human intelligence sources watching for CBP operations. A less complicated and easier to fly UAS
would also reduce the time and expenses required for CBP pilots’ training and
travel.
A
single platform capable of both the military and civil ISR missions would be
ideal. However, the former requires the
carriage and delivery of munitions while the latter does not. These requirements would produce a UAS design
that is fitting for one mission while being “overkill” for the other
mission. One agency would be funding
features that are unnecessary to its mission.
A cost benefit analysis would be necessary to determine whether
resources are best allocated to developing a single platform for both military
and civil missions or developing two separate UAS to perform each agency’s
mission.
References:
Booth, W.
(2011, December 21). More
Predator Drones Fly U.S.-Mexico Border. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/more-predator-drones-fly-us-mexico-border/2011/12/01/gIQANSZz8O_story.html
General Atomics.
(2016). Predator B RPA [Fact Sheet].
Retrieved from http://www.ga-asi.com/predator-b
Gunderson, D.
(2015, February 19). Drone Patrol:
Unmanned Craft Find Key Role in U.S. Border Security. Minnesota
Public Radio News. Retrieved from https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/19/predator-drone
Insitu.
(2016). ScanEagle [Fact Sheet].
Retrieved from https://insitu.com/information-delivery/unmanned-systems/scaneagle
Great blog! I really like the topic you talked about because I actually used to work with the CBP down in Fort Huachuca AZ when I was stationed there. They used to share the same airfield we would fly MQ-1Cs on. They had some really awesome MQ-9s.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that you think the MQ-9 may be overkill for the CBP mission, but they used its heavy payload capability for a very advanced ISR system called VADER (Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar). I worked with the system on the DOD side of the house downrange in Afghanistan, but it’s a beast not only in capability, but in size as well. The VADER system would not fit on a smaller UAS like the MQ-1C. Additionally, just like military ISR, the need to be high in the sky to prevent the targets from hearing or seeing you is something to consider in boarder protection. Larger systems like the MQ-9 can carry more powerful ISR payloads that can achieve longer standoff distances. Smaller systems like the Scan eagle or Shadow are much more visible and louder at their typical cruising altitudes. I have attached an article about the VADER system which you will find very interesting.
In terms of the laser designator, I do agree it may be superfluous for a CBP mission, but they still do target hand off with ground units and IR sparkling or dazzling is still a relevant and non-lethal method of target handoff that could benefit coordinated missions.
I do see how making a more specialized system could save money, resources, and training requirements, but we both know how the federal acquisition process works. How long do you think it would take to get something actually fielded for a CBP specific mission? Again Great post!
Link to VADER Article:
http://www.latintimes.com/border-patrol-vader-4-things-know-about-new-drone-surveillance-radar-system-128584