History of UAS Research: Comparing and Contrasting the Firebee Target Drone/Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug to the Predator/Reaper

The introduction and significant development of the Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug over the course of its lifecycle proved to be one of the most successful programs prior to 1970. The scope of the drone’s employment in wartime operational missions, testing and experiments, and variety of payloads it carried has a parallel to how the U.S. military employs its current fleet of Predators and Reapers.

                          

The BQM-34A Firebee target drones, and the more advanced Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug, were one of the “most successful and versatile unmanned aircraft developed so far” (Parsch, 2003). The history of its used spanned 50 years of service and 28 different variants that ranged from subsonic and supersonic target drones, to reconnaissance aircraft capable of electronic, imagery, signals and measurement signals intelligence, to attack and multi mission remotely piloted vehicles (Blom, 2010; Parsch, 2003 & Bie, 2106).

 

The Predator and Reaper are two such systems from GA-ASI that have resembled the same maturity and growth. They are both remotely controlled aircraft that can carry weapons, perform multiple mission sets and have long-endurance capabilities at medium-altitudes (USAF, 2015a & USAF, 2015b). Their history combined spans a mere two decades with three variants being employed in two different branches of the U.S. military (Air Force and Army). In those two decades, they have grown to be some of the most advanced UAS known to date.

The two systems are alike because they use some of the same sensor and weapon payload concepts. Both use signals, photographic and real-time imagery (electro-optical, infrared, low light television), and radar payloads to provide intelligence and targeting information (Blom, 2010). In addition, the Model 147 was the first real remotely piloted vehicle tested for a tactical combat role (Blom, 2010). It successfully demonstrated the use of air-to-ground missiles, bombs and a laser designator that is very much similar to how the Predator/Reaper employs weapons today (Blom, 2010). As the Model 147 program progressed, datalinks were developed to relay real-time information back to the parent DC-130 aircraft (Blom, 2010). This is striking similar to how the current Predator/Reaper operate. Although today, it can be done much faster and farther away with satellite communications. (Blom, 2010).

Some of the major differences between the Firebee/Model 147 and the Predator/Reaper are navigation/guidance, propulsion, aircraft control, communications, and take-off/landing systems. The Firebee/Model 147 used gyroscopes, doppler radar, radar altimeter control, barometric altitude control, and LORAN navigation systems (Parsch, 2003; Blom, 2010; Goebel, 2004). The Predator/Reaper on the other hand, uses triple redundant/fault tolerate global positioning, inertial navigation and autopilot control systems (USAF, 2015a & USAF, 2015b). There is a big difference in the types of propulsion systems used. The Firebee/Model 147 strictly used turbojet engines, while the Predator uses turbocharged four cylinder engine and the Reaper uses a turbine engine (Parsch, 2003; Blom, 2010; USAF, 2015a & USAF, 2015b). The difference in speed is very apparent as well as the range at which they can stay aloft with these types of propulsion systems. The lower power and lower fuel consumption engines in the Predator/Reaper were designed with max endurance in mind, whereas the Firebee was designed for quick penetration and recovery. The Firebee/Model 147 was mainly executed with autonomous preplanned missions that would terminate at safe recovery points (Parsch, 2003). The Model 147NQ demonstrated the first use of line of sight (LOS) radio frequency control from an airborne DC-130 (Goebel, 2004). The airborne control station was beneficial because it allowed control from greater ranges. The Predator/Reaper are remotely piloted from a ground control stations and routinely use LOS links for take-off/landing and satellite communication links for transits to the mission area (Parsch, 2003; Blom, 2010; USAF, 2015a & USAF, 2015b). Once the mission is completed the process is executed in reverse. There were some subtle differences in payload as well. Electronic countermeasures and measurement/signals intelligence were additional payloads for the Model 147 that the Predator/Reaper does not carry (Parsch, 2003). The Predator/Reaper can take-off and land at a traditional airfield, while the Firebee/Model 147 relied on a DC-130 for launching and a helicopter for recovery. The Navy operated the Model 147SK slightly different than the Air Force by utilizing rockets to launch it from a ship. After launch, the aircraft would be controlled via LOS links from a nearby E-2A Hawkeye for initial flight before being turned over to autonomous navigation for mission execution (Goebel, 2004).

Several differences exist between these two UASs that were representative of the technology available at the time and the missions for which they were built to perform. The Model 147 evolved into different variants and sometimes included a mix of more powerful engines, longer/shorter wings, longer fuselages, and different payloads (Blom, 2010; Bie, 2016; Parsch, 2003; Goebel, 2004). It was truly a multi-mission aircraft that saw new variants with new payloads. The Reaper is a direct descendant of the Predator. It was designed with increased weapon capacity and a more powerful engine compensate for Predator’s limited ability to perform expanding strike roles.

Although these systems did not come directly from each other, the Predator/Reaper most certainly benefited from the research, testing and development that occurred with the Model 147 program. Future UAS will benefit from the successes of the X-47B, which saw the development of algorithms capable of performing harder tasks such as: carrier landings and airborne refueling. The next era of UAS will focus on automation in air-to-air engagements. The outcome of that project, combined with previous achievements, will pave the way forward for a UAS that is capable of the highest form of automation.

References:

Bie, Rob de. (2016). Teledyne-Ryan AQM-34 Firebee RPV. Retrieved from https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/aqm34.htm
Blom, J.D. (2010). Unmanned aerial systems: a historical perspective (Occasional Paper 37). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center. Retrieved from http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/OP37.pdf

Goebel, Greg. (2004). The Lightning Bug Reconnaissance Drones. Retrieved from http://craymond.no-ip.info/awk/index.html

Parsch, Andreas. (2003). Teledyne Ryan Q-2/KDA/xQM-34/BGM-34 Firebee. Retrieved from http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-34.html

USAF. (2015a). MQ-1B Predator Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104469/mq-1b-predator.aspx  

USAF. (2015b). MQ-9 Reaper Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper.aspx