hopsalotUAV is not an easy target at all: small, low RCS, low IR, able to fly very close to terrain…
Above all they are not the type of targets actual AD systems are designed to engage.
This same aximetrical character of their use, leave me however quite dubios that they would a real substitute of conventional planes: as soon as they would became a major part of an aerial fleet, adversaries would structurate themselves to specifically counteract them.
Advanced version of systems like Tunguska,Tor, Pantsir but above all something like our Otomatic/Strales, able to engage also in ground combat, would be an obvious solution.
I am not referring to the sort of prop driven UAVs that lead Amiga to humiliate himself… UTAP-22 and MALD are both jet powered and are capable of flying fairly high and fast. (or low and fast) The point is that while they remain cheap, in many cases cheaper than the weapons that would be used to engage them, they would still be pretty challenging targets.
Of course it is possible to build low-cost SAM systems that could help balance things out, but you have certainly complicated things for your adversary. (especially given the challenges associated with telling one type of target from another)
hopsalotI think that Flight’s Uncle Roger once made that suggestion in his much-missed ‘Straight and Level’ column. (As the Book of Genesis says, there were giants in the earth in those days.)
There is actually some merit to a variant of this idea. With missile costs as high as they are, and inventories correspondingly lower, there could be a place for swarms of very low cost drones/cruise missiles. You could see them coming, but could you, would you, shoot million dollar missiles at them? That is obviously the thinking behind something like the UTAP-22. The trick would be to create a drone with sufficient performance to be challenging to shoot down, but remain cheap enough to keep the cost advantage.
hopsalot1,000 and Counting – The F-35B’s Journey to the 1000th Vertical Landing
It wasn’t long ago that critics, including many around here, were calling for the B to be cancelled completely. The impossible has since become routine it seems.
hopsalotHow can one miss is sufficent to draw the conclusion that probability of kill doesn’t matter or manufacturers are lying about them? A 99% Pk would still mean at least some missiles will miss their targets. As for shooting drones, if my memory serves right, even a MiG-25 shot down a drone in the past. So the low/slow flying ability is not exactly a necessity IMHO.
You are probably thinking of this:
Of course this couldn’t actually have happened… Amiga has successfully proven that missiles don’t work. :stupid:
hopsalot.
Ah yes, this thing again…. :rolleyes:
As always, it is amusing to note that this is the same study that points out that canards and “articulated forebody strakes” are associated with RCS penalties.
(see figure 3.1-6)
hopsalotThe problem with that is that the F-35 with a FACO is likely to be much more expensive and even more unaffordable not to mention hard to nail down politically.
I doubt it will be offered, but at least an F-35 line would catch them up with current technology… it would make a heck of a lot more sense than buying a 4th generation design on the edge of going out of production.
hopsalotHowever, after getting clearances from the Obama administration on what information can be provided to India by the two aerospace companies, Lockheed Martin is expected to offer F-35 for the Indian Air Force and Boeing might offer making more parts that could be fitted on board the F-18s.
It will be interesting to see whether an offer actually materializes this time around.
hopsalotThe scorpion isn’t fighting in the ‘ need a fighter, can’t afford the expensive ones‘ space but the ‘ have a fighter, need a cheaper, yet suffeciently capable aircraft for low-threat environments‘ space. At $20 Million and $3000 per flight hour cost to operate [design goal] it gives you range and loiter capability and a bunch of sensors with a bunch of weapons. Their performance advantage is a 5 hr loiter between 250 and 300 km from base in the maritime context or 3 hr of loiter at 180km from base in the CAS role. I wouldnt be surprised if their design goals also involve a very rapid TAT when it comes to integrating new capability and pushing it out operationally. If you need a JF-17 then you don’t really look at the Scorpion as an alternative.
It will be interesting to see whether the Scorpion’s internal bay can accommodate a high energy laser similar to the one being developed for the Predator-C. That would give the Scorpion a more or less limitless magazine against low-end threats. It could serve almost like an AC-130, only at a small fraction of the cost.
hopsalotsince they are anyway late: why not GaN aesa to nullify moderate levels of stealth ?
Because that doesn’t even make sense?
hopsalotEurofighter gmbh don’t want to end with a whimper, so what could they do to the Typhoon to keep it relevant for decades to come?
I ask the question because Airbus reference an enhanced Typhoon in their FCAS planning and BAE are now talking about how you can apply lessons learned during the testing of Taranis to Typhoon.
Lets assume the systems are pretty advanced anyway, so you are talking about sharing development of sensors and communications equipment between Typhoon and UCAVS, engines and critically structure.
I think you are on the right track. You could incrementally improve the Typhoon’s kinematic performance… improved engines, the aerodynamic tweaks that have already been demoed, etc, but that won’t make much of a difference if you assume the Typhoon is fighting high-end threats in the 2020+ timeframe.
On the other hand… enhanced coms, sensors, etc, could allow a Typhoon to act in a supporting role to UCAVs or 5th generation fighters.
hopsalotWhat facts? That’s it’s an ancient attack aircraft with slightly warmed up avionics from a slightly less ancient F-16A? Yes, these facts, indeed, don’t weigh heavily in my considerations..
As per the usual, embarrassing ignorance…
No, the A-4 is not a cutting edge threat, far from it. These are training aids.
That said, they are actually representative of a very real threat. There are a number of nations that operate relatively old fighters with an assortment of upgrades, often including new jammers. (as is the case for these A-4s) In previous exercises pilots have found that similarly venerable airframes with such upgrades can be a real threat. Even if that weren’t the case, for a pilot new to an aircraft flying against a highly experienced pilot in an older aircraft is no sure thing.
So what are the takeaways here? The F-35 handily beat the A-4s, as expected perhaps, but an outcome that is hardly guaranteed. The F-35 pilot reported that his sensors/networking/sensor fusion worked well and made his job as a pilot much easier. Again, this should be expected, but this is a brand new aircraft that hasn’t yet declared IOC… it is a good news story.
hopsalotGeneral Atomics Readies Improved Avenger UAS For Flight
Looks like General Atomics is keeping the Predator-C moving along nicely.
It would be great to have a full comparison between it and the Global Hawk.
hopsalotFARNBOROUGH, England — As the F-35 makes its debut in the UK, an Italian think tank has claimed that if Italy had used the fighter in its 2011 air campaign against Libya it would have saved €100 million (US $110 million).
In a report issued on the eve of the Farnborough air show, the Rome-based ICSA think tank issued a report analyzing the cost benefits of the F-35 for the Italian Air Force, which is due to order 90 of the jets.
The report takes Italy’s role in the 2011 NATO air campaign against Libya as a test case, analyzing the number and type of aircraft used.
The Italian Air Force participated in the international operation using Tornado aircraft, which deployed the Storm Shadow missile for the first time, and AMX aircraft, also for bombing runs.
…
The report pointed to the need for Tornado and other aircraft to be re-based to Trapani in Sicily to reduce flying distances to Libya, due to their limited range, adding that both 767 and C-130J tanking flights were still required.
If the F-35 had already been delivered to the Amendola air base in Italy, where it is due to be based, no re-basing would have been required for the aircraft, the report argued. The F-35B STOVL design, due to be ordered by Italy alongside the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, would have been able to fly from land, doing away with the need to involve the Garibaldi, the report added.
Using the F-35 would also have reduced the need for so many types of jet and cut down on the need for airborne early-warning missions, ISTAR missions and tanking missions, the report said.
The end result would have been a saving of two-thirds on the €150 million cost of the mission, the report stated.
hopsalotFARNBOROUGH, England — As it continues development of its Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) design, General Electric is not being shy about its target: the massive F-35 joint strike fighter fleet.
The F-35 is powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 design. Like GE, Pratt was awarded a roughly $1 billion contract June 30 to work on the AETP project, which seeks to demonstrate 25 percent improved fuel efficiency, 10 percent increased thrust and significantly improved thermal management.
Work on that program expires in September 2021, at which point the Air Force is expected to pick one of the designs to power future fighter aircraft.
…
If there were any questions about GE’s eventual goal for the AETP program, they were erased Monday when Jean-Lydon Rodgers, the company’s head of military engines, told reporters at the Farnborough International Airshow that the company was designing the engine specifically to fit into the F-35.
…
Speaking last week, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, wasn’t shy about his interest in AETP as a potential F-35 upgrade, noting “the short answer is that part of the reason we’re doing those technology programs is for the possibility of an upgrade to the F-35.”
Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the US Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, noted there is also an industrial-base benefit to having the two engine companies competing over future designs.
“We need to continue to advance our industrial base and those areas around technology in the propulsion systems,” Bunch said. “This has been a dedicated, thought-out investment for what the future would be for the Air Force in multiple different areas. So there’s an option for the F-35, but it also advances technology so that we can continue to morph it for whatever else we need for our Air Force.”
He added that there is a “possibility” the ATEP program could power the service’s next-generation air dominance concept, often labeled the F-X program.
hopsalotDid you actually read the article or do any research?
These aren’t your grandpappies scooter, these are seriously modified, ex RNZAF, A-4K agressors; they use F-16 radars, modern avionics, upgraded engines, upgraded air frames ect.
Facts don’t weight real heavily in his considerations.
Sign In
