The unit recently returned from Iraq where they flew their last manned missions. I’m sure that some will miss the F-16s but the MQ-9 offers many advantages:
Strafing and “intimidation” (coming in low and fast) attacks have been very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the Reaper is not going to put the F-16s out of business right away. But the 19 ton F-16 costs three times as much as a Reaper, and is much more expensive to operate. The F-16 uses over a hundred times more fuel, per hour in the air, and with the price of oil rapidly rising, that itself means a lot. Put simply, It’s cheaper, more effective, and safer (for pilots) to use Reapers (or similar aircraft) for a lot of the ground support work. Fighters are still needed to keep the skies clear of enemy aircraft, although Reapers are better suited for the dangerous work of destroying enemy air defenses. But for fighting irregulars, the Reaper is king.
…The 4.7 ton Reaper has a wingspan of 66 feet and a payload of 1.5 tons. Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, because it can carry everything from the hundred pound Hellfire missile, to the 500 pound laser or GPS guided smart bomb. Reaper has a laser designator, as well as day and night (infrared) cameras. Reaper can stay in the air for over 14 hours and operate at up to 50,000 feet. It’s sensors have excellent resolution, and are effective at high altitudes. It’s been noted that most of what F-16s (and F-18s) are doing these days is dropping smart bombs, and using their targeting pods to do recon for the ground troops. Reaper does both of these jobs better and cheaper.
