Sanemand I nearly forgot the best example, the F-35’s 360 degree optical suit that allows it to fire AMRAAMs even in a rearward direction
it’s why I believe the F-35 actually has the advantage over the F-22 (which doesn’t even have Helmet Mounted Sights) in a dogfight, if equiped with something like the Python 5 missiles
Sanemfunny how fast that went
– training: it took 2 months to train the pilots; imagine how this will go in the future, when UCAVs pretty much fly themselves, training would take days to weeks
– procurement: France got 2 of the most advanced UAVs in the world and employed them operationally within 6 months
– production slots: the USAF and USArmy are both big buyers of the Predator/Reaper line, with high front line demand, yet the French got to cut in line, where the Netherlands will have to wait another 2 years. this suggests the US gave priority to the French deployment, yet wouldn’t deploy the UAVs themselves (although I asume they’re already giving the French UAV support in Mali?)
the price bothers me a bit, $1.5 billion for 16, althoug that includes spare engines and stuff
http://www.suasnews.com/2013/07/23626/france-requests-1-5b-general-atomics-reaper-uav-sale/
yet French companies have been offering what I’m guessing are cheaper alternatives for years, like the Patroller and the Harfang
this will certainly boost interest within the European armed forces for the potential of UAVs and UCAVs
Sanemthe 68 ft was “one of the designs”
also those specifications aren’t far off from an Su-30
it will need two engines or the F135
maybe something similar to the NG RQ-180?
I would prefer the smaller design, cheap and simpel, more numbers
although it would be easy enough to scale up
AMRAAMs should be easy enough, they suggested doing it with the B-1, and the larger UCLASS design will have the bay size needed
I’ve been predicting this capability from the start, the USN wouldn’t openly suggest it until the last moment as a serious possibility for fear of antagonising the fighter mafia. if the USN proves you can use UCAVs in air combat, a lot of fighter jocks will be reduced to desktop flying nerds…
Sanem“We’re talking about a 70,000- to 80,000-pound airplane,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare said in a 20 December interview. “We’re talking [Grumman F-14] Tomcat size.”
thanks for the link, this is pretty huge
the description of the tanker role reminds me of the A-6, which was 60,000 lb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#Specifications_.28A-6E.29
guess which other aircraft is slated as 80,000 lb 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II
this will be tricky for the suppliers, as most designs are about 40,000 lb, and the GA Avenger is 18,000 lb, calling for a radical redesign
it’ll also boost costs considerably
or maybe this is so they can get both the lighter Avenger for Reaper-style missions and the UCLASS for truck missions
“Maybe we put a whole bunch of AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) on it and that thing is the truck,”
as I’ve been suggesting for years, use the expensive manned aircraft with the big radar as the spotter, and the stealthy, “expendable” stealthy missile truck as the shooter
or the other way around, use this beast of a UAV as a mini-awacs, letting super-cruising manned stealth aircraft jump in and out of missile range, at full kinetic power
SanemI like the VTOL X-Plane concept, I’ve been arguing for tailsitter UAVs and UCAVs for years now
put some more wheels under it and you get an optionally CTOL/STOL/CTOVL/STOVL aircraft, depending on how much weight you need for a given mission
use a jet engine and you get STOVL jet fighter UCAV, easily with stealth. think any Harrier (or other powerful) jet engine with some wings and extra wheels
Sanema nice Chinese UAV overview:
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.be/p/uav.html
Sanemnews on the NG RQ-180
http://defensetech.org/2013/12/06/northrop-secretly-builds-rq-180-spy-drone/
some interesting points:
– it’s been suggested that the RQ-180 would reduce the Air Force’s need for the RQ-4 Global Hawk. if this really is a stealthy version of a Global Hawk, such an aircraft would be superior for many missions, even at an increased cost
that said I find it odd that NG would push to sell the RQ-4 if they’re also building the replacement
– apparantly they’ve started with initial production and they’d be operational in 2015. considering the secrecy factor, I’d guess even sooner
that would suggest that NG already has a fully operational, stealthy ISR UAV, which means many of the systems and software on the X-47B could simply be copied from the RQ-180, offering huge commonality advantages in cost, maturity and speed
seeing how LMT (and to a degree GA and I’m guessing Boeing) also have extensive experience with stealth UAV systems and software, this suggests that a 2018 IOC for UCLASS is perfectly feasable, and more limited by the new aircraft design and the complexity of carrier landing than by system or software maturity
Sanempolice helicopter crashes into pub:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/people-still-trapped-in-pub-after-glasgow-helicopter-crash-1.1612551
for all the talk about the risks and moral issues of UAVs, I’ve long considered the use of large, manned aircraft an inherent danger to the public, the crew and budgets
UAVs can execute many (police) missions not only much cheaper but certainly much safer, as especially the lighter models are much less likely to cause serious damage if they go down
history of helicopter crashes:
http://www.helis.com/database/accidents/
SanemI really like the idea of using UAVs domestically
in the case of Italy, they can install data links on existing radar sites and link it to the UAV pilot via land line, giving you a relatively cheap system with a lot of redundancy, and reducing the satellite link to a back-up or even leaving it out completely
Sanemthe Hammerhead sure looks great, I also like how
– they converted an existing civilian aircraft into a UAV, skipping a lot of certification time
– it’s mainly empty inside, giving plenty of room for equipment, fuel or even cargo if you want
in other news the Netherlands are buying Reapers
someone should tell them they can have about 5 for the cost of a single F-35
it’ll certainly be interesting to see how this buy will affect military budgets and requirements in the coming years
and the USN talks JDAMS on the UCLASS
I like how they keep stressing in the article how it’s purely ment as ISR and not to replace the F-35
yet ordnance seems to be an inherent requirement for the system, and with equpiment like a fifth-generation AESA radar, one has to wonder what they’ll need the F-35 for
Sanem…that the opposition do not employ any counter measures of any sort whatsoever…
also the fact that the F-35 won’t likely see air combat until 2020 at the earliest
meaning that those Migs might be equiped with technology that they haven’t even begun to develop yet
7 years is starting to make a huge difference technologically. by comparison, 7 years ago iPhones didn’t exist
7 years from now a 50 year old Mig design might be equiped with stealth-defeating L-band radars, computers and AI superior to the F-35’s, a 360 degree optical sensor system, and long range optical missiles that’ll completely ignore stealth
Russia is already working on all of this technology. it’s not unreasonable to think it’ll be finished in 7 years
it’s less likely that they might put it onto a Mig-21, but that’s beside the point, a 1980’s Su-27 frame upgraded with that tech can carry a lot more fuel and missiles than a Mig-21
SanemJapan had a mothership concept were manned aircraft would directly control multiple UCAVs
depending on cost and capabilities Boeing could convert any F-16 into such a slaved UCAV
China possibly did the same with old Migs
the UCAV wouldn’t need much capabilities, it’d be little more than a missile platform, guided by the manned aircraft
the manned aircraft would use its sensors to look for targets, track the UCAV and control it directly, as well as to make sure it doesn’t fly into other aircraft
most importantly the UCAV would take its target coordinates directly from the mothership aircraft, like the F-35 and Typhoon can
a stealth UCAV would be even better in this role, but such a brand new design would be a lot more expensive to develop, and in a world of AESA and optical sensors one has to ask how long stealth will remain viable
SanemThis is not a UCAV as far as I know, the mission system and the control area cannot launch weapons and or use targeting sensors.
good point, so if they had left in the original F-16 mission system, control area and sensors, it would have been capable of firing air-to-air missiles at targets?
although I figure if you slave a few to an F-35, it’s advanced long range 360 degree sensors should be able to provide targetting information for all the F-16s, allowing them to operate without active sensors
anyone know if they have automated take-off and landing systems? waypoint autopilot?
considering Boeing’s advanced work with UAVs it would seem odd if they had left that out
SanemUCAV porn! :p :love-struck:
typicial porn script too: “…and a cockpit cooling system blowing…”
just imagine slaving a bunch of these to an F-35, the F-35 acting as a sensor and C&C node, the QF-16s wouldn’t even need good hardware or software, the F-35 computers could do the calculations and control them directly
SanemAre you looking to pick a fight? Because all you seem to be doing is accusing me and not trying to understand what I am trying to say!
I’m making a point: in earlier discussions you often mentioned that the USN has no intention whatsoever in changing its plans, for example on the F-35 acquisitions
yet in this post you agree that the USN does change it’s mind, and that changing necessities, budget constraints and internal/external pressure do have an effect on USN policies
Sign In
