Mini fighter UCAV with miniature missiles more cost effective?

Any BVR engagement would rely on the sensors for identification, the pilot takes the decision to launch based on that. A UCAV would do the same.

All armed UAVs require a human operator to provide consent to launch a weapon. The human operator must have positive identification of the target to engage.

This was the primary reason the Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS) mini-missile was cancelled. It had the ability to attack targets without human consent. It basically zig-zagged within a defined kill box and destroyed anything which fit an automated target recognition profile, but couldn’t tell the difference between civilian, friendly or foe.

I can imagine that far fewer innocent airliners will get taken out by drones than trigger happy SAM operators.

My thought is limited warfare may actually become commonplace

Yes missiles have gotten far smaller and far more capable as a result of advancing technology. For example the Cuda concept called for a missile half the size of an AMRAAM and yet with greater range. (The AMRAAM meanwhile is far smaller and longer ranged than the Sparrow it replaced.)

If you want a rough idea of what current technology allows in the realm of miniature missiles look at MANPADS as they are the smallest anti-air missiles anyone has actually brought into service. They may not be BVR weapons, but is that important?

If you embraced the swarm of relatively small inexpensive drones concept do they need a BVR capability?

The catch here is cost. The more capable you make the drone and its sensors and weapons the more expensive it gets. If you want a supersonic stealth drone with a capable radar, IRST, EW system, decent range/endurance, etc… well it won’t be much cheaper than a traditional fighter with those same things.

What are you willing to give up?

In terms of miniaturization the MHTK is already in development and is amazingly small, 2.2 kg, 61cm long, with a datalink.

Perhaps they could use such a small missile with an small IIR seeker mounted on a booster with larger diameter to give it a BVR range.

If a radar is needed for a HTK, a larger diameter is probably needed, so perhaps a 70mm mini missile, 5kg 80cm long or something like that, with a miniaturized radar, mounted on a booster.

The drones need to have the ability to talk to each other, so a directional datalink is needed, no wway around that. As for its size and the sensors capability, it might be better to have something that can engage in BVR, maybe with a radar range of up to 50km. Making it capable of high subsonic and stealthy could be a good trade-off in terms of capabilities, stealth and cost.

Pehaps even the missile could have a larger booster to have up to 100km range, say around 50kg ( 5kg mini HTK missile mounted on a 50kg booster ). That would compensate for the subsonic speed and allow for coordinated attacks from several drones at long range thanks to the datalink.

With the miniatization of sensors, electronics and batteries, it might be possible in the future to manufacture very small hit to kill missiles with BVR range. So would it make sense to use small mini drones, like 5 times smaller than a fighter and arm them with those? The mini UCAV would have a shorter sensor range so it would take more of them to cover the same airspace but they would be cheaper, especially compared to manned fighters. I’m not sure the UCAV would have to be supersonic if the missile’s motor is powerful enough.

The drawback I can see is that HTK missiles would probably be ineffective against enemy cruise missiles because they’re to small to get a direct hit.

Yep then you could blame fratricide, or murder of civilians on the computer, BRILLIANT!

Since the T3 Triple Target Terminator A2A missile was axed by Obama, USAF has been pushing the Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM). The SACM envelope is 6 feet in length and 6 inches in diameter with some allowance for folding control fins. SACM is moving towards a contract competition between the usual suspects (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon). LM’s Cuda in its present form probably will not be competitive because it is only 5 inches in diameter and giving away an inch of diameter means giving away performance with respect to a larger diameter missile, such as occurs with the smaller AIM-9X vs larger diameter ASRAAM.

Need thinner, not shorter AAMs. And physics limits you drastically as you do, hence CUDA was short and fat.

I think the Delta shape drone with paddle TVC, for at maximum about 15° deflection, would be physically far superior in a turning fight than a human. Keep it simple. Producible. But most importantly, make it work.

Would a Hellfire sized missile be adequate?

Hellfire & CUDA are relatively the same size, about 6/7 inches in diameter and 6ft long.

Would a Hellfire sized missile be adequate?

For what?

Would a Hellfire sized missile be adequate?

The CUDA is even too large. I’m thinking of something maybe 3 times smaller. Such a missile may possibly be manufacturable in 10-20 years. I think what would be important is that the aircraft sends frequent target update in the last kms, because the missile would acquire its target relatively close due to its small sensor.

Yes missiles have gotten far smaller and far more capable as a result of advancing technology. For example the Cuda concept called for a missile half the size of an AMRAAM and yet with greater range. (The AMRAAM meanwhile is far smaller and longer ranged than the Sparrow it replaced.)

If you want a rough idea of what current technology allows in the realm of miniature missiles look at MANPADS as they are the smallest anti-air missiles anyone has actually brought into service. They may not be BVR weapons, but is that important?

If you embraced the swarm of relatively small inexpensive drones concept do they need a BVR capability?

The catch here is cost. The more capable you make the drone and its sensors and weapons the more expensive it gets. If you want a supersonic stealth drone with a capable radar, IRST, EW system, decent range/endurance, etc… well it won’t be much cheaper than a traditional fighter with those same things.

What are you willing to give up?

The CUDA is even too large. I’m thinking of something maybe 3 times smaller. Such a missile may possibly be manufacturable in 10-20 years. I think what would be important is that the aircraft sends frequent target update in the last kms, because the missile would acquire its target relatively close due to its small sensor.

miniaturization only gets you so far

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?120971-LM-Cuda-AAM