Sanemmore on air-to-air UCAVs from the Navy, and I quote “This is not beyond the state-of-the-art,”
he’s talking about using manned aircraft as sensors and UCAVs as shooters, as I’ve been suggesting for years (and people telling me it couldn’t be done)
http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-uclass-air-air-fighter
Sanemvideo on the thrust vectoring Demon UAV test model
I was wondering when they’d use that technology
the 2D thrust vector tail also makes sense, BAe has been talking about how it would improve flight characteristics but also fuel consumption on the Typhoon
it would also help a lot when landing a STOBAR carrier UCAV, but I guess they killed that possiblity
Sanemon tail sitters, stovl aircraft also take a lot of wind at any angle
a tail sitter could just keep the wind on its side, reducing its effect
especially a flying wing design would be very slim, catching little wind from the side
a video on the Taranis, thanks to Orion for pointing this out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10619378/Successful-test-flight-for-Taranis-stealth-drone.html
edit: beat me to it mupp 😉
I really like the sleek lines
some thoughts:
program cost is said to be £185 million or €222 million
compared to €405 million for the nEuron
and $813 million or €600 million for the X-47b
doesn’t say much, but it’s interesting for comparison
I also noticed the nEuron unit cost is estimated to cost €25 million, which is a pittance!
“But bosses today said that although the aircraft could fly itself autonomously, it would not be used in that way – and would not be able to set its own missions.”
this is interesting: the Taranis is already a pretty secret program, not unlike the RQ-170
so if you have a semi-secret stealthy, relatively expendable (€25 million range?) aircraft, why bother not using automated attack sequences if you have that ability, since no one can prove you used either the aircraft or the autonomus abilities in the first place?
also, if you have no intention of using such autonomous abilities, why program them in the first place?
hell, why not just classify the abilities, so you can use them and still have full deniability? the average civilian probably cannot imagine or believe the level autonomy that modern day UCAVs are capable of anyway
Sanem1) It wasn’t to Hawaii, it was westwards from Hawaii, over the International date line.
2) It had no problems with time zones, but couldn’t cope with the date going backwards.
3) The problem was fixed.
thanks for the correction, that’s even worse 😀
so if they screwed up such a little thing, imagine what could go wrong with the much more complex F-35. a glitch in the helmet software and you lose your HUD, a glitch in the fusion software and your displays shut down…
SanemWhich leads me to a question: why would you spend $300 billion developing an all aspect RCS aircraft, buy it en masse and hang SDBs on it if you can spend $14 billion developing a long range (300-500 km) stand-off munition like TAURUS KEPD, buy these en masse and hang them on Gripens or Typhoons?
you choose neither and go for UCAVs instead
in terms of stealth and cost these are way more effective, at least in the ground attack role, and probably in air combat as well
which is why most European countries, China, Japan, USN… are all focusing on UCAVs. the USAF is one of the few not to do so (openly), which is ironic considering their unmatched use of UAVs
That’s the job of AWACS and other force multipliers, not fighters, if you ask me. An idea of every single aircraft in the fleet being equipped with such comprehensive identification suite aboard looks like great waste of money to me. If at all, I would make some podded version, instead, or a version in a container hanged in a weapon bay..
UCAVs for one will have those sensors standard to allow them to fly effectively and for example land on a carrier
the most advanced fighters like the F-35 and T-50 both use extensive all round sensors
basically it turns every jet into a mini-awacs
The F-35 at Block 3 would have a field date over today’s China.
the first time they flew the F-22 to Hawai their navigation system shut down because it was not programmed to fly in a different time zone
the F-35, being the most advanced but also experimental jet out there, with its billions lines of code, is a lot more likely to fail when used in combat
also it doesn’t have the range to effectively attack China
nor does the US ever want to go to war with China, as China can destroy the US economy overnight by dumping its enormous Dollar reserves
oh and all those nukes, and its neighbours Russia and India and ally Pakistan (all with nukes) might also have a thing or two to say about the US attacking China directly
or China could just use the internet to virus the rest of the planet back to the stone age
Look back at NATO’s 1999 air operations against the Serbians in Kosovo. Mighty NATO wasted thousands of munitions on decoys, yet when the Serbs withdrew, their armored forces were intact. It was an abject failure by NATO after claiming hundreds of Serbian assets destroyed.
which is why you need UCAVs: assets that can sit on a target for days instead of hours, so you have the time you need to confirm the target, but with enough stealth to avoid enemy defences
S-300PMU-2 + VHF radars + various passive detection means + advanced anti-PGM SHORAD = dead F-35s or failed mission.
not to mention the offensive weapons the Chinese have to take out airfields, aircraft carriers, AWACS, tankers…
even if they couldn’t stop the F-35s, they could still hit their support system
we tend to underestimate the Chinese, yet their stealth aircraft have proven they are much further along than most gave them credit for
imagine what other tricks they might have up their sleave to surprise the F-35
Given the number of advanced long-wavelength systems appearing and their ability to interface directly with SAM units, the F-35 is a hilarious waste of time. The T-50, not so much, as the US has never really put much effort into VHF-band systems. You need big-ass transmitters for one, making them unsuitable for airborne or naval use.”
which is why I like the T-50, it’s basically a stealthy Su-37
most of its systems have been tested and can be used on legacy platforms
imagine the F-35s radar, DAS, EW… being installed on the F-15 first. if the F-35 failed, you could just upgrade the F-15 instead, with little R&D costs lost
SanemIn my opinion ARH missiles will have quite a hard work in modern environment will all different jammers around. At the end new 5th gen fighters will be equipped witj all ESM equipment, including jammers, DIRCM and smaller AAMs to shot down incoming AAMs or SAMs, so at the end PAK FA, Su-35, F-22 and F-35 will fight with each other with gun fire, where agility of fighter will become important (F-35???).
as far as jamming missiles go, I’d like to mention the Python series again: optical seekers should make most forms of stealth pretty much useless and they’d ignore a lot of IR jammers
atlernatively you could add audio seekers: modern jets can be heard from miles away, maybe a computer can even recognize specific engine types?
as far as dogfighting goes, an F-35 will run out of missiles a lot sooner than a T-50
they say pilot training is an essential part of dogfights, but with the T-50 said to get an advanced AI, I’d hate to against a target that is more manouverable, doesn’t mind its pilot blacking out, and has super-human reflexes
SanemA HTK launched from an egressing plane at, let’s say, M1.6 will require a tremendous data linking capability as well as an enormous sensor agility for the launched missile.
well, isn’t the F-35 a tremendous increase in data linking capability over the F-22? and doesn’t it have an enormous sensor agility compared to the F-22?
as I said, it’s a matter of computing speed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we already are at the level were you can indeed hit multi-Mach targets with multi-Mach bullets
The missiles, facing forward, will still have to turn 180 degrees if the incoming threat comes from behind. Don’t they?
sure, but at what point?
in F-35 video’s you see missiles being fired forwards and than having to turn 180 degrees
but why not mount the missiles in a swivel pod?
or make the missile spin as it is released, allowing it to point in the right direction before igniting its rocket engine
another solution is to carry some missiles rearward facing
for example if you carry 70 mm pods for this role, you could carry one pod forward facing and one pod rearward facing
edit:
to compare the Hydra 70/APKWS to the AIM-9 (the RIM-116 is very similar to the AIM-9) in the role of anti-missile missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70#Precision_guided_Hydra_70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
I would suggest using a Hydra 70/APKWS variant in the anti-missile role
first of all you’d have change the seeker
the APKWS has an expensive laser guided seeker, I think it would be no more expensive to give it a data-link and a proximity fuse instead, maybe give it a wide blast explosive
the missile would rely heavily on this data link to get it within target range, but seeing how modern fighters all have excellent sensors and data links and these will ony increase in quality in the coming years and decades, this should not be a problem
on cost/weight, an APKWS costs $28,000 (we’ll use that price as a reference) compared to $664,933 for a Sidewinder, and weighs less than 10 kg compared to 85 kg
so you can bring between 8 and 20 APKWS for the cost/weight of one AIM-9
the APKWS only has a 10 km range compared to 30+ km for the Sidewinder, but in a defensive role I figure this is enough: a Hydra 70 flies at 2000 km/h, so if the enemy missile comes in from further away you can calculate when it’ll arrive in the 10 km range and fire the Hydra 70 accordingly
10 km at 4900 km/h (AMRAAM speed, although the AIM-9 only does Mach 2.5) is about 7 seconds, so if you can hit the enemy missile at maximum range and you still see it coming you’ll have at least 5 seconds to fire another missile
such a light anti-missile missile would also be useful in dogfights, especially if they’re in a swivel pod or some are rearwards facing, as it allows you to fire a spread of them at a target at most angles
they’ll lack the speed and range of an AMRAAM or the seeker independance and manouverability of a Sidewinder, but if you fire a spread at a nearby target it’s chances of escape drop greatly because no matter were it flies it’ll run into a missile
SanemThe RIM116 is interesting, but one has to remember that the incoming missile will travel at ca mach 4 (from any direction), RIM116 may be excellent for incoming attack aircraft or cruise missiles. But the mach 4 ones?
good point, but if you realize a Phalanx fires bullets from a moving platform to hit a missile going at extreme speeds above sea level, that is no small feat either
in the same way I don’t think hitting a missile going Mach 4 is that much harder for a computer, it’s a matter of computing speed and data input
Also, the targeting systems havent been good enough in all aspect. For instance, how many fighters have good enough rear visibility to target a missile behind them?
Today with more advanced MAWS (like DAS, PAWS-2 etc) it may be done. Also, the missile will have to be able to perform a 180 degree turn at any speed up to mach 2/3 in a reasonable time (ie, pull many Gs). I think that the IRIS-T is the first to potentially have the capability… and it hasnt been proven yet.
I figure fighters have had the ability to track incoming missiles for some decades, in a forward arc at least
but yes, with modern day sensors tracking missiles at any angle can certainly be achieved
and then we’re talking about passive missiles, active sensor missiles should be much easier to hit
on turning and speed, I’m not sure about that: I imagine most missiles would fly directly at their target, making their path predictable to a computer, and thus relatively easy to hit
@FBW: The laser currently has some clear disadvantages and will have for some time. A self defense missile OTOH will have better capability to beat multiple incoming threats and it wont be as sensitive to atmospheric conditions as well as stabilisers.
I don’t know about lasers, especially on a jet they lack range and rate of fire, seriously limiting the number of incoming missiles you can shoot down. missiles give you range and thus time
Using a hit to kill system will make the probability of a hit very small since the target is so tiny and fast, a shape charge will produce a kill cone that is more likely to actually hit the target. Think of the charge as being similar to a claymore.
agreed, I figure a blast should damage any incoming missile enough to knock it out
If we are talking short range ir missiles, really only an autonomous system would have the reaction time. The defensive system ThNDR to be fitted to the F-35 is not meant to destroy the missile, just confuse the ir seeker.
in that regard I’m interested in the active defence systems being introduced to tanks, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyiRQsEroSc
Sanem@ Sanem, a Phalanx turret weighs over 6 tons alone… add the weight of supporting structure, ammunition, and you get an aircraft that would have to be bigger than a 747 to carry it
I’m not suggesting putting those systems onto fighter, I’m saying it can’t be that hard for jet fighters to detect and thus shoot down incoming missiles
most fighters already have a big gun, and the Gripen does in fact have an automatic radar-guided aiming mode. and AESA is more advanced than the one used on the Phalanx
and the missiles used on the RIM-116 are about AIM-9/IRIS-T specs
so in theory it can be done
SanemThe capability hasnt really been there before. IRIS-T is the first missile that actually might be up to the task. Also, sensors havent been good enough before.
Preferably we will see even smaller smaller and cheaper IR-missiles for self defense. So maybe 10-15 years down the road this may be a reality?
I disagree there
Phalanx has been shooting missile out of the sky for over 30 years
RIM-116 has been in use for over 25 years
and I imagine aircraft sensors are perfectly capable of detecting incoming missiles at a reasonable range, especially active-seeker models, or when equiped with DAS like optical detection systems
so the capability does certainly exist, it’s more of a question of putting it onto an aircraft
the fighter community certainly wouldn’t like it because it reduces their heroic dogfighting capabilities to trucking missiles
Add systems like Nebo-M into the S-400 equation, and I wouldn’t want to be enforcing a no-fly zone in F-35s, F-22s, or T-50s either.
that’s the other thing, economics
it doesn’t matter how good your offensive capabilities are, the day you get a S-400 style system with good range and passive sensors you’ll always fighting uphill, and at $150 million + pilot it’ll get difficult
or scuds, Saddam never managed to use them effectively, but when something like the Russian cargo missiles were to get profilerated, you’ll have untraceble/undetected SAMs all over the place, and any nation will be firing chemical missiles into major cities as poor man nukes’, making any open conflict a political impossibility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUU_9bOcnM
Sanem@Sanem: rail gun and littoral ship 🙂
ah right, I was discussing it here:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?128354-will-stealth-become-irrelevant&p=2107316#post2107316
to shift the topic, here’s my suggestion for a fighter UCAV:
– small and light, F-16 size and weight at most, preferebly A-4 sized
– big sweeping delta win, think Mirage 2000 mixed with X-47A. this gives a lot of room for fuels and other stuff, as well as a natural stealth
– vertical tail optional, for stealth
– air intake on top, like most flying wing UCAV designs, for stealth
– afterburner engine, F-22 or X-31 style TVC, for extreme manouverability and superior landing characteristics
– preferebly no radar, relying on ISR and optical DAS like systems. this reduces nose cone dimensions, as well as energy and payload requirements. it also focusses the UCAV on stealth attacks, using external radar transmitters (like manned aircraft or ground stations) for target guidance. it also reduces cost and complexity
– missiles would be recessed, Typhoon style, possibly with a cover or weapon pods. alternatively the air intake could be place on the bottom and the missiles could be attached below openly, but during flight the aircraft would usually fly on its back
– heavy reliance on optical communication systems to ensure stealthy squadron and controller contact
– alternatively if the engine is strong enough compared to the weight this could be worked in a tailsitter, allowing for STOVL operations
what you would get is a small, light, cheap, fast, extremely manouverable aircraft with impressive natural stealth that doesn’t greatly increas cost and complexity
it would operate mostly as an air superiority role, acting as numerous mobile and stealthy assets that act as recon for heavier, manned assets to sneak up on a target and engage in hit-and-run tactics
Sanem@Sanem do you have some good links concerning the ship you hve mentioned ?
what ship are you referring to?
SanemYep. Continued attempts to extend SH production on the one hand, big UCAV plans on the other .. it’s almost as if they don’t like F-35 very much. /snicker
naaaah, there is no such thing as politics in military purchases
I mean, why would the USN prefer Boeing and NG, who’ve been providing their aircraft exclusively for the last decades, over USAF favorite LMT? :rolleyes:
SanemNavy still cannot decide what it wants UCLASS to be. Navy only has funds to develop a small UAV with marginal capability, yet they desire a large, expensive, uber-capable UAV.
smells like a political battle to me
as I’ve said before, a larger UCAV would take away missions, and thus budget, from the F-35, something it can’t survive politically. the only way for the F-35 to seem efficient and/or effective is if there’s nothing to compare it to :applause:
there’s no real reason the Navy can’t have both: the Avenger is estimated to cost about $15 million, small change compared to a larger UCAV design or the F-35. and it’ll be able fulfill a lot of mission, especially because it’s easier to risk with its low cost (imagine an F-35 crashing over Iran…)
looks like the Army is dropping its Kiowas in favour of UAVs:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/budgets-betrayal-national-guard-fights-to-keep-apache-gunships/
“So the Army decided on a radical measure: replace Kiowas altogether with a mix of the most advanced Apache model, the AH-6E Guardian, coordinating via wireless networks with Grey Eagle drones. In fact, a 2010 Army study said this “manned-unmanned teaming” was the best way to do reconnaissance without building an all-new scout helicopter: Apache plus drones meets 80 percent of the requirements, Mangum said, while an upgraded Kiowa meets only 50 percent and the current Kiowa less than 20 percent.”
it’s a move I’ve long awaited, the more expendable UAVs are clearly superior in the dangerous recon role
although I’m surprised they didn’t go for the Fire Scout, I guess this suggests aircraft are a superior design for most missions, being able to fly higher and further
also interesting is that the major argument against this move seems to be one of jobs, with pilots getting forced to retrain or leave
Sanem“Is stealth really that cost-effective”.
+1
to clarify my original post, I was actually thinking of modern day stealth aircraft: F-22, F-35, B-2, RQ-170, T-50, J-20, UCAVs…
and the fact that most of them are based on 2000-2010 era stealth technology that is likely to become outdated as sensor technology catches up, for example optical sensors like the Argus which shows mind numbing results
But this has nothing to do with the topic. Topic is if stealth will be irrelevant in the future. I believe it wont because you always want to get a tactical advantage over your enemy. However, future fighters will be less optimised in RCS reduction because…
and I agree with you, “stealth” in any form will always be useful, regardless of the spectrum or wave length it operates at
Another way of development is the usage of short range self defense missiles like IRIS-T as a hard kill countermeasure. IR missiles typically cost about 1/3rd of BVR missiles.
my thoughts exactly, ship defence systems have used guns and missiles for missile interception for decades, I don’t get why aircraft don’t employ such tactics
especially as 70mm missiles are being reintroduced, using these for defence would be a very intersting strategy, allowing you to trade BVR missiles at very high rates
but I think stealth will also become irrelevant as long range weapons mature. a prime example of this is the rail gun
considering most conflicts take place somewhere near water, ships with long range rail guns able to devestate entire city blocks or airfields at $25,000 per shot would make aircraft irrelevant in both effectiveness and efficiency, in the same way that artillery, machine guns, tanks and aircraft made massed infantry battles a thing to avoid
such a rail shot would only require a spotter to be on place, meaning cheap and expendable (stealth) UAVs, satellite images, ground intel…
plus such a shot could not be blocked, be it by missiles, lasers or armour, there is simply no defence
not very interesting for counter-insurgency, but in the opening stages of a war in say Iraq, Lybia, Syria… a 300 km range rail gun armed ship would be a nightmare for any defender
Sign In
