SanemBeing this an AVIATION FORUM one would instead expect to discuss how happened that the fabled western air dominance and all the PGW used has failed.
agreed, that’s why I deleted my first and lengthy point by point reply and only focussed on the possibility that the West might have some motive not to break ISIS from the air
because I don’t buy the “we can’t tell if the tank waving an ISIS flag and shooting at Iraqi forces is really an ISIS vehicle”
I’d also like the stress how useful UAVs would be here
the US has a huge number operating in Afghanistan. I figure with the stand down at least some of those could be redirected to fight the much more relevant threat of ISIS, rather than chase goat herders on the Pakistani border to keep hold over an area which has never been succesfully controlled by an outside force, and which has no real strategic value
the Reapers and Predators could sit on ISIS controlled area’s, giving much needed intel as apparantly the West with all its intel power is blind on that front (also pretty absurd)
you sit a UAV on a city, and you’ll figure out quickly enough who’s who, especially the USAF and its impressive experience at COIN. then you can destroy them with minimal collateral damage
same goes for sitting on entry ways into the city, taking out incoming reserves, day and night
cargo trucks can be tricky to identify, you don’t know if they’re carrying baby food or weapons (isn’t that right Kiev? ;))
but tanks, military jeeps and artillery are slow, obvious targets that are easy to identify and target. and without them any battle becomes a completely different story
and then there’s actual battle. I understand Iranian troops won’t fight with allied aircraft in the air, but that’s just a detail
if you watch forces from the ISIS area grouping and moving on known Iraqi lines, it’s really just a turkey shoot
on the offense you just sit and wait for ISIS to shoot at attacking troops, and then take them out, like instant overhead artillery support
there’s also no reason why the US couldn’t have SF or air strike coordinators on the ground. unless Iraq isn’t really an ally anymore
it also stresses, once again, the value of miniature ammunitions. a UAV with DAGR or APKWS could attack way more targets than with the current Hellfires, with the same effectiveness and a fraction of the cost per shot ($30,000 vs $100k)
Iraq actually ordered these in November: http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/2014-global-news-worldwide-world-international-air-force-aviation/november-2014-global-news-worldwide-world-international-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-defence-military-industry-/1285-iraq-orders-2000-bae-systems-advanced-precision-kill-weapon-systems-for-its-air-force.html
and the introduction of radio guided grenades, which would allow UAVs to saturate enemy infantry/insurgents with minimal cost and collateral damage, similar to attack helicopters and their high explosive rounds firing machine guns
Sanemthe US are currently openly stating that they are training 15,000 Syrian rebels in Turkey to be involved against ISIS and the regime and that they will provide them with air support.
your arguments are rather confusing
on the one hand you fully aknowledge that the US government has a history of building up proxy armies, which do horrible things, including against US civilians, and will lie about it to the public
yet you refute the idea of ISIS being such a proxy army serving US interests out of hand, even though it fits the profile perfectly, and would explain why the Allied air campaign isn’t stopping ISIS
you have to admit that there is at least the possibility that ISIS could be a US proxy army
and that the goal could be to simply keep this countries in a state of conflict, destroying their infrastructure and sapping resources
which would explain why the US military expects this campaign to last years (by comparison the US took the major Afghanistan area’s in just 2 months without many boots on the ground, and Iraq also in 2 months)
SanemPlease, not this conspiracy garbage
what conspiracy garbage would you prefere then?
the one where the US trains and supports psychopatic terrorist groups and/or dictators who rape, murder and enslave their own people, from South America to the Middle East?
the one where the West supports the “rebel uprising” in Lybia and Syria, which later turn out to be mercenaries and Western special forces (the UK denied SAS troops were present in Lybia until after the conflict)
or the one where US generals propose to the US president for the CIA to execute terrorist attacks on US civilian targets as an excuse to invade another country
and before you tell me I’m crazy, you might want to read up on your Congress-declassified secret documents, you might learn a thing or two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
it is an established fact that the US has used proxies to fight its wars for it, including “terrorist” organisations (Taliban during the 1980’s, anyone?)
it is an established fact that the US will publicly lie about its operations (“yes, we’re 100% sure Iraq has WMDs and wants to give them to Al-Qaeda”)
ISIS was considered an “ally” of sorts until they invaded Iraq. even today they’re still exclusively fighting the US’s enemies
odd for an organisation that focusses most of its PR on showing how much they hate the West, that doesn’t make sense. if they hadn’t done that, the West might not have found the support to attack them with air raids in the first place
and then the West executes a huge air campaign, yet somehow this seems to have no effect on ISIS’s war capabilities
at the end of the day ISIS is completing the US’s goals, namely overthrowing Assad (or at least taking his country out of the global equation) and fighting Iran and its Iraqi allies
even if US isn’t controlling ISIS, strategically speaking it has no interest in stopping it
Sanem
I’m sure those tanks moving from ISIS controlled irea’s towards friendly controlled area’s could be confused for friendlies
I mean, who doesn’t have a tank or 2 in their garage? then again, waving that ISIS flag when you’re not actually ISIS is asking for it
notice the ISIS symbols added onto the hoods and front windows. very confusing for sure
Sanemthis article questions the “10,000 killed” report
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/06/team-obama-s-b-s-isis-body-count.html
it is my impression that the West doesn’t want to attack ISIS. which is logical, because it’s an ally
ISIS is fighting all of the West’s enemies:
– Assad
– Iran
– Hezbollah
– a pro-Iran Iraqi government that kicked out American troops
General Wesley Clark reported years ago that the Pentagon planned to take out 7 countries back in 2001
“Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”
since then war has come to most of these countries. some by direction Western invasion, others via rebel/local armies with Western SF/air power support
most of them also ended up being US friendly after the conflict
with the exception of Syria, where Western governments did not find the support for air attacks (possibly because of Russian resistance) and in Iraq, where the government turned pro-Iranian
if this “7 country” plan exists, then ISIS is being a suspiciously convenient mercenary army for the US’s goals
it has broken Assad’s grip on the country, besieging him in the capital, as happened in Lybia
and then it invaded Iraq, conquering many oil fields from an Iranian-friendly government, just as oil saw its biggest drop in prices since 2008, greatly reducing Iraq’s (and Iran’s) income from two directions
just as a rebel uprising pulls Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence. that’s opening a second front, distracting Putin from what’s going on in the Middle East
the Pentagon says it has trouble targetting ISIS because they can’t identify them. which is absurd, the USAF is the world leader in tracking and identifying insurgents, they’ve had 14 years of practice in Afghanistan
if you fly a UAV or a jet with a SNIPER pod over an ISIS controlled area, and you see a group of heavily armed men and their vehicles, you can be pretty damn sure those are bad guys. never mind a long column of heavily armed vehicles moving between ISIS controlled area’s
this becomes even more obvious in area’s where there is fighting going on, if you see units attacking known Iraqi positions, it’s pretty obvious who’s the bad guy
Sanemyup
why send in your €80+ million Rafale/Typhoon when you can send in a €25 million UCAV (Dassault’s price estimate for the final product), which can get closer without being detected thanks to its superior stealth and non-active sensors
while the manned aircraft use their radars and ECM at full power to find targets at maximum range and block their sensors
that way you can use the UCAVs to visually confirm the target. that’s a good thing, you don’t want to get within BVR of the latest Russian jets and their weapons, even a Typhoon (which I consider superior to the Raptor in a WVR dogfight) is going to have its work cut out for it in that scenario
a UCAV wouldn’t care, it doesn’t get scared or nervous, it just detects, relays the data and attacks or flees on command, dodging missiles with nerves of digital high-G resistant steel and its stealth
although I doubt the F-35 has any budget room to integrate UCAV control into its system at this time
another interesting question, will Rafale/Gripen NG/Typhoon (if nEuron fuses with Taranis) users also be able to buy a compatible nEuron/Taranis derivative?
that’s quickly becoming a huge market, including many countries which have experienced trouble buying (UAVs) from the US but have experienced first hand the value of UAVs
– Rafale: France, Egypt, India, Qatar, UAE, possibly Kuwait
– Gripen E: Sweden, Brazil
– Typhoon: UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Oman
SanemSo what happens when you merge?
How do.you not run into other planes turning and burning, if the operator is sitting in a trailer in creech, looking at the fight through a straw?
actually they’re working full time on sense and avoid technology and making great progress
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/alenia-claims-success-in-uav-sense-and-avoid-tests-413108/
which suggests that UCAVs would actually be better at this than manned fighters
1) they’d act as a swarm, so they’d always move in perfect synchronisation with each other. they know where they are, and they’ll never hesitate when flying at each other on who should fly in what direction, that can be pre-programmed or would take a mili-second to decide
compared to human pilots who use audio commands (“break left!”) to communicate, which is way less precise or fast
I believe it was last year that two Rafales flew into each on a routine mission. humans make way more mistakes than computers
2) with this sense and avoid system (which will quickly become a cheap and off the shelf system), UCAVs will make excellent dogfighters, having a 360 degree situational awareness of friends, enemies and missiles
they will constantly track all this actors, calculate their position and trajectory (something the F-35 can do), and possible movements (you could program it with the flight characteristics of every know aircraft), like a chess game. this allows them to always move in an optimal position
while constantly coordinating with other UCAVs. this is a huge factor, just watch an online first person shooter game where one team coordinates and the other doesn’t
humans suck at teamwork, because we’re inefficient and ineffective communicators (“your left or my left?”)
for UCAVs it would be their greatest strength, especially when fighting human opponents
The large vehicle UCAV swarm is not cheap to develop, procure or operate and would have comparable cost to manned aircraft (i.e. F-35). And a sophisticated (read expensive) SATCOM system is needed.
there I don’t agree. Boeing predicted the X-45 offspring could be as cheap $25, really little more than an oversized cruise missile with landing gear, 3D printed
GA’s Avenger stealthy jet UAV is said to cost $15
also the biggest part is the software. once you develop that, you can just install it onto any platform, including manned ones. similar with how they just bolt SNIPER pods onto any legacy aircraft to give it the latest in sensors
Boeing designed the J-UCAS operational software, and then complained when NG got to use it for free
NG installed easily and cheaply installed its operating software developped for the RQ-8B onto the bigger RQ-8C, I believe they achieved 85% commonality
SATCOMs might also not be needed, any nearby manned asset (fighter, AWACS) can watch target info and give the attack order. or maybe one “lead” UCAV who’ll relay satcom commands via short ranged communications
Sanemjet engine does not mean supersonic.
so you agree that jet engined subsonic stealthy UAVs exist
this is very limited capability at very high cost.
compared to what? asuming $50 million for a UCAV, that’s cheaper than most advanced manned 4th generation aircraft, none of which have stealth
and it’s laughable compared to $150+ million 5th generation aircraft, which are simply too valuable to be lost
not to mention the value oof the pilot’s life (Jordan’s pilot fighting against ISIS), cost of training…
UCAVs will be advanced, stealthy, reusable cruise missiles. not what you need when your goal is to fly a racecar in the sky, but when you’re fighting a war, it’s a priceless
it is being caputured with country in embargo for decades. the other is I said very limited thing. its not even good for fighting rebels let alone proper force.
more likely it was an engine failure (like what happens to the F-22, the F-15, the F-16…). the fact that the US only lost one of these speaks for itself
if that had been a manned aircraft, the pilot could have been captured and tortured
one lost overgrown RC aircraft in exchange for the ability to spy on Iran’s nuclear program, I don’t think you can argue with those economics
these things are not cheap relative to capability.
sure they are, it’s a sunken cost, once you develop it you can install it onto any UAV, like installing a program onto a computer or an app onto a phone
then over time you can fine tune the program, expand on it, upload specific mission modules (surveilance, attack…)
so over time the program becomes more capable for a limited cost. this compared to pilots which need constant training, and you can lose to a crash, a car accident or better job opportunities
there is neither bomber nor fighter UCAV in prototypes and by time it enter service jamming technology will progress enough that it will be even more useless.
by the time UCAVs become mainstream, it won’t need human guidance anymore
which doesn’t matter, since it’s absurdly difficult to jam or trace focussed satellite communications, since you have to position the jammer between the satellite and the UCAV. good luck with that
it does not mean it can do anything practical. can it launc 300km range antiship/anti radiation missile.?
and how often are those missiles fired? 3 every decade? so they can be shot down by (robotic) CIWS defences?
you’ll be better off with flying the stealthy UCAV over the ship and then saturating it with SDBs. why get into a tank duel with a Tiger when you can sneak up with infantry and Molotov cocktail it?
its very light weight and short range. 21st century battlefield mean big bombers with longest range sensors and missile that enable to destroy fighters on the ground.
you wanted an example of a high performance UCAV that can dogfight
a missile proves that the technology exists to make such aircraft, what is more it can autonomously detect, track and attack aircraft
a high performance UCAV would be an upscaled missile, just as a bomber UCAV is an upscaled cruise missile
now you want a long range bomber to attack ground targets, which is what most UCAV designs (nEuron, Taranis, X-47b, Skat) are about
Sanemits small UAV. not some giant nothing that difficult to hide.
so you agree that stealthy, jet engined UAVs do exist
it’s said to have a bigger wingspan than the nEuron, but shorter
so a modified model should be able to carry some SDBs at least
and there’s talk of bigger versions, like the RQ-180, said to have double the wingspan. those certainly should be big enough to carry some ordnance
attack and recognize target by themselves?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_target_recognition
try to fly a UCAV over peer competitors airspace
the RQ-170 is said to have flown over Korea, Pakistan, and certainly Iran
The only civilian engine Europe can afford is to put in an airline and sell to Middleast airlines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn#Specifications
you cant make it off the shelt. starting with long lines of software for autonomous operations.
you mean the kind of mission software which Boeing developed back in 2005?
or the kind of that NG used to upgrade the MQ-8B into the MQ-8C with little effort?
its not that adanced as FBW developed for 3D tvc aero structures.
you’re confusing bomber UCAVs (no TVC) with fighter UCAVs (optional TVC)
those things are going to museum.
you mean these groundbreaking aircraft that can land on aircraft carriers and refuel in-flight?
they unstable and unreliable. show me a single high performance UCAV.
an unmanned, TVC aircraft that can autonomously detect and engage enemy aircraft? no problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXxsntm_N10
SanemThe UCAV you are talking about does not exist.
until a while ago the RQ 170 didn’t exist
the F-117 and B-2 didn’t exist for a long time, although they targets they bombed with impunity might disagree
who’s to say the USAF doesn’t already have such aircraft in use?
There is the very problem with bandwith and lag when controling these UCAV.
On top of that there is the jamming and Hacking threat.
oh please, we’re not talking about live streaming oversized RC model airplane Predators half the planet away that can’t even land on their own
we’re talking about state of the art, semi-autonomous UCAVs that can detect, recognize, prioritise and attack targets pretty much by themselves
if you want to keep things “legal” (because drone strikes aren’t attacked in court as it is :p) all you need is to send an image back of the target to get a weapons release
manned assets also need confirmation from ground controllers today, if they don’t get it they don’t go llive
as far as hacking goes, who says you can’t hack an F-35, which is a manned UCAV as it is. or satellites, cruise missiles, a2a missiles…
any opponent that can hack a UCAV (which is absurdly difficult as it is, as is jamming), can hack pretty much any advanced military asset on the planet
ever thought where B-2 is used untill now.
didn’t know Europe had B-2s
from where the price coming from?. you can barely built Gripen NG (with mass produced F414 engine) for that price let alone internal carriage UCAV. EU willl be facing high energy and labor rates with slow production. every thing will be much more expensive.
lol, it won’t use an F414, it’ll use a civilian engine
like most of its parts, it’ll be off the shelf stuff
they re-use trainer engines and wheels
the nEuron uses the Dassault Falcon FBW tech
all dirt cheap. compared to a Gripen NG where they need to reinvent most equipment, and then make it all work together to form a race car
compared to that the UCAV is a Renault: cheap and it works
as for price $50 million is what NG expects for the X-47b
Boeing projected $25 million for the X-45, because they’re just reusable cruise missiles, not fighter jets
B-2 is 40 year old airframe technology. nothing spectacular about its payload and performance.
again, Europe doesn’t have B-2s, nor would it ever build such an aircraft
and do you honestly believe the NGB will be that much cheaper or more effective than the B-2?
that i agree but where B-2 cant operate this UCAV will not operate either as SAM technology is progressing much faster.
that is a good point, with optical missiles already available today and lasers coming soon, the advantage is shifting to the defenders
which is why UCAVs are the best option, they offer the best balance between cost, expendability and capability. they’re range quantifiers for manned assets
UCAV are highly unreliable. they have very high crash rates.
as haavarla pointed out, UCAVs don’t technically exist
UAVs do have a high crash rate, because the USAF for example refused to give them auto-landing capabilities
but then so do F-22s. and when they crash you lose a lot more money, and pilot lives
so I’d say any UCAV crashes (if they happen) would be acceptable. unless you think human lives are expendable
i am not sure why your comparing with B-2 which is nealry obsolete for 21st century. also the range of cruise missile increaing along with introduction of hypersonic missiles. anything short range will be destroyed at its airbase. thats why planes like Tu-160M are needed. fly faster and from further airbases.
oh yes, long range anti-ship missiles means the USN can’t even operate the F-35 from its carriers if they want to face China
or any of the advanced, but short legged and mission time blather-limited Eurojets when facing advanced long range Russian Scuds and SAMs
again, the reason you want UCAVs
not a single UCAV has managed to dog fight. when will be supercruising TVC engine going to installed in UCAV.
that’s because Air Forces are terrified of matching their manned fighters against UAVs, so they have never funded any programs that do
load up a Reaper with a2a missiles and you’ve got a fearless flying SAM battery, cheap dirt
but a stealthy, cheap and optionally fast UCAV, now that is the true terror to any manned fighter pilot
SanemThis UCAV is subsonic joke with limited payload and engine power. infact high speed and high altitude figther will give the longest range to missiles.
1. it doesn’t have to dogfight, it’s a mini B-2. ever seen a B-2 with a2a missiles?
except that it can do the B-2s job much better
– a UCAV would cost about $50 million, compared to $737 million for a B-2, so you can have almost 15 UCAVs for the price of one B-2
– that’s 15 x 2000 kg = 30.000 kg, compared to 18.000 kg on the B-2
– a B-2s price and human crew makes it more risky to deploy, especially in first days of war. one lucky SAM, AAA or Mig pilot and that’s a HUGE loss. compared to 15 UCAVs that can spread out, vary their approach paths and timing, attack multiple targets at the same time…
– UCAVs would also be more survivable/expendable. an egine failure isn’t as bad as say on an F-35, not to mention the lack of a pilot to be captured/rescued. its small size, high G tollerance and lack of fear also make it an excellent candidate to fly into the heaviest defensive fire without even flinching
– UCAVs will also demand way less maintenance time than a B-2, meaning more attack runs in a short time
– the one advantage of a B-2 is its range. however because it’s so valuable it also usually flies much longer distances to its target, making that advantage irrelevant
2. there’s no reason to assume a UCAV can’t dogfight. there are already plans to use for example the F-35 as a c&c unit, guiding forward flying UCAVs to their targets
while a manned fighter/AWACs/satellite/ground radar can use its radar and other sensors at full power, UCAVs can sneak in close, relaying LoS data back for target confirmation, and then attacking from different angles, catching the target off guard, and fleeing before the target can retaliate, possibly drawing counter-attackers into the fire fields of other UCAVs. they’re like snipers, shooting you unseen and unexpected, and if you try to give chase their friends are waiting for you to run into their crosshairs. sure a supersonic super-stealthy UCAV could do this job even better, but the USAF command will eat its own shoes before admitting its gold plated 5th generation fighters are tactically and economically outdated
Sanem1. Europe has not been invaded in over 50 years
it would be economic and military suicide for Russia, China is too far, and I’m not going to dignify Iran with an answer, Israel can probably take out most of their military within 24 hours
2. Europe has, after the US, the most powerful and advanced air defence on the planet, including many US units
including soon the (flying fiasco to be) F-35
3. who says you need a 5th generation EU aircraft?
stealth is of little use on the defensive, as you’re more likely to use your radar to find any invaders
on the offensive it’s useful, but the USN has shown that a good ECM program works just as well
and there are radars that detect stealth, these will become only more capable over time
electronic hardware and software do make a difference, but the F-18E has proven that you can install advanced electronics onto an old platform
by 2020 any old platform will be upgraded with off the shelf F-35 level capabilities, at a fraction of the price but with less bugs and more recent (and thus far more capable) processors
4. the main use for stealth is on the offensive, and there most of Europe is working on UCAVs
if anything the EU might in the early 2020’s have the world’s most effective offensive air force, as they can bomb targets at long range, with long loiter, cheap and expendable UCAVs, while the USAF can’t be seen risking its extremely expensive and likely buggy F-35s for fear of losing pilots to Russian and Chinese stealth fighters or optical SAM systems that laugh at their stealth
5. personally I think 5th generation fighters have been nothing but a money drain so far, making little or no tactical or strategic difference in today’s air power world
Europe has been smart not to waste money on it (we do that enough already), going for more potential and cost-effective UAV tech instead
Sanemexactly
and if you give them 360 degree laser communications relay, any controller aircraft within can send info to them with little or no possibility of jamming or giving away these communications
you could have these UCAVs fly as a swarm around the controller aircraft, using its targetting data and human guidance to choose and engage targets, and what strategies to employ
an F-35 would be great for this, with its powerful radar and 360 degree camera’s and powerful communcations, it’s kind of like a miniature AWACS
it can trace all friendly and enemy aircraft, and relay the data to the UCAVs to execute. with its advanced computers the pilot needs to do little more than confirm targets as hostiles and let the microchips take care of the rest
and its stealth will keep it safe from enemy attacks
unfortunally it’s a short ranged one seater that won’t be combat ready for another decade
so I’d rather go with two seater F-18 or F-15, with the latest sensors, computers and jamming technology added on, Growler style
Sanemwhy governments don’t want too many drones flying around: you could start to see a lot of these video’s… :highly_amused:
Sanema mald can be expected to cost 30k to buy and next to zilch maintenance,
it doesnt matter what it cost to convert a MiG-21, it cost many times more in every way
lol, good point 😀
then let’s say a MALD is a cheap QF-16/QMig
the difference being that a MALD is air launched and is smaller than a full sized jet, making it easier for an opponent to differentiate (didn’t take off, visual detection, certain radar signatures I’m sure)
I’d expect the West to be able to differentiate Eastern MALDs from full sized fighters, certainly the F-35 with its long range optics and advanced computers
no one knows how much these QMigs might really cost, they’re sunken cost and might also be used for target practice by China
either way they’ll be extremely hard to differentiate from a full sized fighter at any but short visual range
and if they’re armed, they’ll have to be shot down, which would be a huge drain on Western missile reserves
while manned fighters use them as a screen to execute their own attacks. a scary prospect in massed BVR combat
a QF-16 takes this a step further, since there is still a cockpit you could put a dummy in there. at that point it becomes absurdly difficult to differentiate the manned from the unmanned ones (and thus which to give target priority)
Sign In
