SanemThere is plenty of intelligence of the future outlook for IADS proliferation, available to the US Intelligence both in the DOD and outside, certainly a lot more then you and i possess. Even a gulf war like scenario in 2030, would be very very tough to engage, for the technology catches up. Even the chinese scenario is something the US must prepare against, in fact both China and the US are developing weapons to counter each other, this is the beginning of a cold war. The US did not actually get into a war with the SU, do you suggest that the military preperation and build up was a stupid thing since we did not actually need the weapons in war? No US president is going to support not developing a basic capability to counter the chinese build up of technology ranging from stealth, to A2AD structure and a blue water navy.
1) would this be the same “US intelligence” that told us Sadam had WMDs and has nothing better to do than spy on its own civilians? the people who get paid to predict situations that will result in the military getting more funds?
2) who knows what’ll happen by 2030. most likely the US will be long bankrupt by then, but either way our current advanced technology will be obsolete, which defeats the whole point of building super-expensive and advanced aircraft like the F-35
3) I’m not talking about 2030, I’m talking about right now. I’m talking about the need in Asia for long range reconnaissance, the need in the Middle East to hunt guerilla fighters, the need to execute another Libya air campaign over Syria… all operations with an urgent need for today or tomorrow. all operations where high power manned aircraft are used, but where low cost UAVs could do the job instead, often better and always at a fraction of the cost
Saudi-Arabia has long seen this need but is only now getting the Predator XP, while France is rushing to get Reapers as soon as possible
the US is investing plenty in UAVs, but at the same time has to ground entire units of expensive aircraft and pilots to meet budgets
Europe is probably the biggest example of this whole mess, limiting itself mostly to foreign and unarmed UAVs, while any industry attempts to launch capable alternatives has time and again been pushed back. and this while bankrupt countries like Italy are paying a fortune to get the F-35, when UAVs would be a capable but much cheaper alternative
UCAS’s have a role, and that role is changing and expanding, but we are perhaps a generation or two away before we start to do away totally with certain manned strike weapons systems, whether you like it or not !
I never said to get rid of all manned jets. you keep repeating that, but NO ONE is suggesting such a thing
I’m saying hard times have arrived, and wasting money on a gold plated F-35 is military suicide
but no one wants to hear that. and that’s ok by me, it’s because of that kind of thinking that I’ll end up on top in the end 😀
Sanembtw I think the X-47b third landing glitch was not an accident, but rather a demonstration of its safety systems
I mean they’ve flown these aircraft a lot, why would the system glitch at exactly this moment, right before landing?
and why on the third and last landing, when such an event on the first landing would ruin the whole experiment?
this event is certainly a strong argument for UCAV proponents, because while something might go wrong, this shows the UCAV will be abe to detect and solve the problem independantly, like a human pilot would
SanemHowever what if the enemy actually has the ability to defend itself?
like who? the only non-allies that might pose a challenge to the US military are Russia and China, and the US would never go to war with either, end of discussion
and anyone with some advanced defences (S-500 or T-50 equivalents) would pose a serious threat even to stealth aircraft, but they’d run out of ammo long before the US would run out of UAVs to throw at them
SanemYou do realize that the Drone operations in Afghanistan and iraq, represent a very small fraction of the tactical fighter strike mission? In order to seriously start replacing all missions of tactical fighters with drones the current ones wont suffice. The cost argument is also out of the window, since a drone that can do 100% of what a tactical fighter can with the same amount of effectiveness (or better) has not been designed or even conceived yet, and certainly a graphic from Stavatti isnt going to change things :)..
I’d disagree
here’s a list of all USAF operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force#Conflicts
I’d guess the USAF has had pretty much total air dominance for the last 20 years, meaning the current generation of UAVs would have been very useful, able to carry the weapons load of an F-16 at a fraction of the price, staying on station days instead of hours, and being expendable in a way that a $150 million F-35 will never be
the Predator UAV for one has been used since 1995, that is in all of the last 8 USAF operations, with great succes I might add
including in Libya, where they were first not employed because the risk was too great. but eventually they were brought in because of their superior effectiveness and efficiency. and somehow the Libyan air force did not instantly shoot them down, will you look at that 😉
I’m not saying go all UAVs. I’m saying that if I’m going into Bosnia/Iraq/Yugoslavia/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria/Iran/North Korea and can choose between 50 F-35’s or 40 F-16E/F’s and 300 Reapers, I’ll know what I’ll want…
SanemNo one would take this vehicle as a pressure on the F-35C, if at all the requirements actually help the F-35C and F-18E/F, in that these air craft can perform much better..
seems some people in the USN have been thinking about it since 2011:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20110911.aspx
the USN:
– leaked info about the F-35 costing more than legacy fighters
– keeps buying F-18 updates
– is putting a lot of money and effort into the UCLASS program
– hasn’t even flown a single F-35C off a carrier
meanwhile the USAF has killed all F-35 alternatives, including the MQ-X
the MQ-9 has replaced the F-16 in many ways. for all the F-16’s power, the Reaper is simply a much cheaper alternative for many missions
if you honestly think a cheap, stealthy, long range, jet UCAV is no threat to the F-35 procurement, never mind the F-18, you’re missing the point :very_drunk:
SanemI wonder if they “leaked” this to put pressure on the F-35C; such a cheap and capable alternative on the table will certainly complicate future budget debates. why buy an extra F-35 when you can have 3-4 UAVs for the same cost?
these specs would make the Avenger the favorite, more of a stealthy jet Reaper than an unmanned A-12. it certainly would take pressure off the F-35C, clearly dividing the roles between heavy and light contested air space roles
but we’ll see. budget and testing troubles could as yet complicate life for the F-35, giving the stealthier designs a better chance in the near future, although if they pick a design in 2014 things would have to move fast
I think both light and heavy stealth designs would be attractive: the Avenger is cheaper, and the last time the US faced a peer opponent was in Vietnam. but a stealthier design would better allow for (recon) missions into area’s like Iran/China airspace
SanemBy the way, DEWs, laser based have been operarltional in afghanistan by US helicopters and aircraft against the manpad threat. Should not be too far a stretch to fighter use. I have heard the f35 may field this capability…
Also, the second operator will not be overwhelmed because the idea is to not directly control them but to assign waypoints, so to speak…
yeah the DIRCM, jamming IR sensors, very interesting stuff. I wonder if you could integrate it into the sensor ball usually carried by UAVs and manned aircraft these days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter_Measures
also I found this very interesting information, where it’s suggested that manpads are very hard to detect because they lack a radar signature
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Countering-MANPADS_75571.html#.UdaK-G1R3Ns
Another overlooked aspect of this using UCAV’s for A-A combat it the human factor.
A human fighter pilot uses tactics (obviously) and selects which tactic to use based upon a number of parameters such as speed, distance and bearing but in the process they also (often subconcously) use their thoughts and emotions regarding the situation unfolding around him. How would an autonomous UCAV perceive the events unfolding around it with the same human-like qualities which made certain fighter pilots into Aces.
How would computer controlled UCAV’s match that same level of cunning as say ‘The Red Baron’ or Erich Hartmann? In all probability the answer is that they never will because until computers and the software that run them can truly understand fear, suprise, rage, hope and a whole host of other emotions including those good old ‘gut feelings’ they are simply not as good as humans in making the sort of decisions that are needed in combat situations. The software and hardware of the present and near future just isn’t ready for that kind of decision making.
a very good question
a) dog fighting: must be extremely difficult to do. until the 1980’s you always had to put your nose on a target, but since then helmet mounted cuing sights mean any target in range that is detected can be instantly engaged
in practice that means dog fighting has become a nightmare, because as soon as you come within 50 km of another aircraft, regardless of heading, you can be engaged. so if you’re facing multiple enemies, that’s multiple launch vectors beyond visual range, it gets worse when they have stealth/jamming which will prevent you from even knowing they’re there until its too late
LMT has taken this concept to new levels with the F-35, its DAS allows it to detect any target in range visually, identify and track it, and thus the pilot can engage it pretty much instantly and with little or no effort. I imagine this technology will be standard on every modern fighter within a decade
a human, for all his skill, talent and tactics, would have a very short life expectancy in such a situation. in the same way that marching at the enemy across open ground has become synonymous with suicide
which is why I think dogfighting is dead, in the same way that hand-to-hand combat is pretty much dead amongst ground infantry. except for rare instances, on the ground because of difficult terrain, in the air because of stealth. but until they develop a form of visual stealth, systems like DAS (and long range optical sensors) and in the near future lasers are quickly making short ranged air combat as likely to happen as aircraft carriers engaging each other with their defensive weapons :highly_amused:
b) long range combat: is an entirely different beast. it is one of stealth, sensors, range, missile reserves, speed, altitude, counter-measures… more like an artillery duel than a gun fight
c) C&C: is the new standard of air combat as I see it. where before pilots used to fight alone in the first place and as a team in the second place, modern communication systems are reversing this situation. pilots have now become chess pieces, and succes relies on them to follow the greater strategy, not to Maverick it. AWACS will choose optimum target and firing vector, and pilots execute this as well as possible, micro-managing if need be. strategy, not tactics, become the deciding factor in air combat
in this scenario, automation and data relays are quickly reducing the necessity for human pilots to be at the forefront, while UAVs and UCAVs offer important advantages, like a lack of fear, superior performance, expendability that translates into lower unit cost…
and while I don’t they’re yet at the point where they can decide on strategy, I do believe they are becoming capable enough to maybe choose and certainly execute tactics. because where humans use to their gut feeling to guess, computers are getting to the point where they can use data to know
SanemSanem
Not really an accurate picture is it though?. Werent the Armenians knocking down Hermes drones with missile-armed L-39’s in their last little skirmish with the Azeri’s?. I believe L-39’s are commercially available for US$300,000 in the States presently?. Theoretically a fourship of even a very modest fastjet, say legacy MiG-21’s with a clutch of ‘cheap’ R-60’s, would be able to massacre a squadron of your ‘airborne SAM sites’ for a fraction of the cost of a single Su-35!.
thank you, that’s actually a really good argument that undercuts my concept of armed UAVs
it’s the Tiger vs T-35 discussion: sure the Tiger is worth 10 T-35s, but the Russians could field 20 for each Tiger. and in Kursk both tank lines rushed at each other, the short range negating the Tiger’s superior power
it’s Allied forces vs Taliban fight: if the Taliban form traditional armies and attack the Allies head on, they’ll loose 10 times out of 10. but if they resort to guerilla warfare, using very cheap weapons and tactics like IEDs, and the Allies respond with trucks costing $1+ million, you’re winning the war in material terms. in this case the Allies best response is to train local forces to do their fighting for them, much cheaper and Western media don’t shed a tear about local forces getting slaughtered
it’s the same with UAVs vs Su-35s: the Su-35 is better no doubt, but is it that much better that it can make good on its much greater cost? wouldn’t a cheaper L-39 offer 80% effectiveness at 10% of the cost?
or when the USAF went for UAVs to operate over Afghanistan and Iraq instead of their manned assets. those manned aircraft could do the job just as well, in some cases better (greater speed, more advanced avionics, eyes on target etc), but UAVs can do the job simply so much more efficient that there’s no discussion
all examples where gold plating becomes a disatvantage, what you want is efficiency
I’m not saying AA UAVs will work perfectly, I can guarantee you that manned, gold-plated jets will do it better
but odds are UAVs can do it much more efficient, in the same way that a $30 million F-16 can intercept a lost airliner just as well as a $150 million F-35, even if the F-16 doesn’t have AESA, EOTS, stealth…
That is a completely different premise to what you were talking about with AIM-9/Predators though. You are now talking about expensive UAV’s in an expensive multi-sensor covered C3 environment. With the directed-energy weapon option for Avenger maybe you have an ability to soak inbound AAM’s and form an air-air barrier. Fully tooled up though the UAV is going to be costing a good ways north of $15mn a throw, will in NO way be expendable, and will be reliant on that, even more expensive, surveillance and management back-end. Hell of an expensive way to ‘just’ provide point air defence of a discrete location.
a good point
personally I wouldn’t use fully kitted Avengers. I’d equip a few with advanced sensors, to act as mini-AWACS and SIGINT. in front of them you deploy Avengers with maximised stealth, sneaking into range and engaging the enemy by surprise. or unstealthy cheap UAVs or MALD, acting as a screen and decoys
sure you could use manned assets in any of these roles, and a two-seater with AESA would be great to use for C&C, way back in the formation. but you don’t risk your expensive manned sensor up front, when you can send expendable drones
on direct energy weapons, I’m a believer, but these I don’t see working in the air just yet
so my question: is there a way to shoot down incoming enemy missiles?
I’ve put up a thread: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?125148-anti-AAM-missiles
but I’m sure DavidSubishi will point out that anti-AA missiles don’t exist and thus can’t work (except RAM, but those are ship based and couldn’t possibly be mounted on an aircraft, weighing an amazing 6 kg per missile… :p)
Myself I probably go with layered SAM’s with mobile and dispersed, passive IR queued, active/passive SAM batteries. Something like mobile VL MICA or FLAADS-G batteries augmented with dispersed Mistral ALBI and with S-300’s forming the area envelope. Hell of a lot cheaper to deploy and every bit the distraction for the other side!.
I appreciate you are very sold on the promise UAV’s hold out. For some things, ISTAR, AEW, Commo Relay etc so am I. The idea of air-air UAV’s as you predict above though is at best an answer to a problem that already has a solution.
ofcourse, there is no need for AA UAVs, the west has all the air superiority it needs
my worry is efficiency, because in a real conflict, cost does matter, sooner or later
or would anyone suggest the US actually made money by invading Afghanistan? other than the military-industrial complex, and the thousands who got jobs as soldiers (where I come from a government directly hiring large numbers of people is called socialism btw) and are now returning to a broken economy
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Sanem, your posts are inspirational. Keep up the good work. I agree with you and find it strange that there are so many nay-sayers without much more than “it can’t be done because otherwise it would already be so”.
thanks 😀
I must say, I do differ with you regarding slow movers with WVRs. I think its more effective to have fast UCAVs with BVRs.
no doubt, I’d go for a UCAV with stealth, super-cruise, EOTS and TCV. it would be fast, sneaky and so incredibly manouverable it would be near impossible to hit with missiles. and EOTS would give it 360 degree target locating ability. get in range, launch all your missiles and then run away, F-22 style :highly_amused:
a manned version could do this 80% as well btw
But perhaps in such a new and emerging area, there is room for diversity.
change does not happen because people want it, but because they need it. I fear we’ll have little choice
Between I did talk about the mother ship concept myself before. Interestingly, there are rumors that the two seater JF-17 is being built with the intention of also being used as a mother ship for UAVs. There are even rumors now from Pakdef that Argentina wants its two seater JF-17s to be used as UAV motherships.
that would be great, like I said that would make them into a mini AWACS/SIGINT/C&C/data relay aircraft
although then they’d need a serious electronic suit, with good sensor (radar) and communications (or they’ll get jammed too easily)
and you need to automate the UAVs so they don’t need constant control, the JF-17 operator will have his hands full
SanemSorry Sanem but thats still nonsense. These UAV’s that are capable of gaining position on a manned fighter and employing a dogfight AAM are not going to be expendable. You are talking about a system like GA’s Avenger.
that depends
high tier aircraft, like an F-22, a Su-35, a Typhoon… they have great range and speed, meaning they can fly into range, fire off their missiles, and run out of range before the UAV can react
the problem here is cost. if the UAV costs as little as $5 million each, or your using decoy UAVs or MALD, or you shoot down the incoming missiles (is that possible?), then these advanced jets will need to fly back home to re-arm long before they make even a dent in the UAV numbers for their own cost. if the mission is purely air combat then this is no problem, but if you’re defending say ground forces, then falling back means a mission failure because your ground forces now don’t have air cover
the Avenger would be a gamebreaker (asuming it can carry missiles internally) because it’ll reduce the enemy’s detection range and thus be able to shoot back
GA estimates it’ll cost $15 million. if it’s facing off against manned jets between 3 or 10 times that cost, the manned jets have a serious problem
France is, just now, paying over a billion for little more than a dozen Reapers…any one of which would be outmatched by the most basic jet trainer out there. The price for a similar number of more advanced drones would be such that a loss would be lamentable at very least.
yes, billions to buy foreign hardware, including spares and ground stations and all that, that is entirely designed and equiped for complex ground attack and surveilance missions
the US on the other hand is paying what, less than $15 million per copy? they paid $5 million per copy for the Predator, and that includes satellite grade sensors that you don’t really need in air combat
I’m saying strip down a Predator to the bare essential, hang some missiles on it, and use it as a flying SAM site. for area denial, it would be unmatched in cost
and if you start throwing in stealthy UCAVs the game is totally over, because that’s $50 million that’ll sneak up on any manned jet and ambush it. and then run away while the human pilot is distracted by the missiles heading his way
a good radar would detect them, but then you’re down to long range missile duels. does an AIM-120 even work against stealth targets?
stealth fighters like the F-22 or F-35 will have a better chance against a UCAV, but as soon as they open fire or turn on their radar they’ll give away their own position, which is not good when you’re triple the cost
Quite true, swoop on in behind the UCAV and gun kill it without even being seen. They have so very little SA comapred to a pilot in the chair. And if that Iraqi Mig-25 had been shot down over Iraq you can bet the next Migs to intercept a drone wouldn’t approach it head on, they’d simply come in fromt the flank or rear.
a) getting behind the target is a good tactic. one that would work against EVERY advanced jet that doesn’t have rear-facing sensors (so that includes an F-22). but Western jets and UAVs unfortunally have coverage from ground radar or AWACS
b) the Iraqi’s had been using the Mig to shoot down several UAVs, running away every time a manned jet was sent in. which means that in this situation, a UAV was the only way of getting a missile within range. and even though the UAV lost the fight, the Iraqi’s stopped their attacks afterwards, which means it won the war. it seems the idea of a single air combat UAV was enough to ground an entire manned fleet
Why then is there no fully autonomous A-A UCAV in test or operation? Answer; becasue it’s not that simple in the real world and nobody yet trusts the technology. Computers and their associated technology are really great and exciting but you need to be realisitc when thinking what can be done with them.
I’m not talking about fully autonomous. modern fighters engaging in long range missile combat rely heavily on external data input to confirm targets. or they rely heavily on non-visual data to identify a target. or they only engage if the target engages them. these are all relatively easy algoritms to program into a computer
on top of that, who’s to say a computer can’t tell the difference between an F-16 and a Mig-21? the F-35 seems to be able to visually identify friend and foe
Yes modern fighters have datalinks that can be exploited but the big difference is that the datalinks on those are not used for control of the aircraft, hack the link and you can ****** with the systems but not the flight controls. The same can’t be said for a UAV. I really would have thought you woul have realised that. The information carried to a UAV for flight control is essential to the aircraft to survive, the information sent to a manned fighter jet is not.
I don’t know what a hacker could do to a manned jet. but I doubt it’ll pretty
even asuming the damage is limited, you just ignored 4 out of 5 examples, all which are essentially UAVs
so please, explain to me, why would hackers be able to hack UAVs, but not
satellites
nuclear missiles
air-to-ground weapons
air-to-air weapons
That idea is the equivalent of adding a cheap IR trigger to an assault rifle, call it Terminator, and expect it to down things on its own, it can work but has the word fail written all over it.
I can guarantee you they said the same thing about adding a cell phone to some fertilizer
SanemWhat examples can you give me of a UCAV being good at A-A combat? I’d like you to show me some real world examples and not fictional stories or speculation about what the oh-so groovy future might bring. In 50 or even 25 years from now there may be unmanned A-A fighters but for now they are no good for A-A combat. Far too little SA and far too much lag.
there has been a single AA battle involving a UAV, an RQ-1 shooting a Stinger at an Iraqi Mig-25
the Stinger missed, and the UAV got shot down. but here the fault lies with the missile, not the concept. arm any advanced jet with a single Stinger and chances are it won’t do much better
now arm UAVs and UCAVs with anything from AIM-9 to AIM-120 to cannons, and they will shoot stuff down, that’s really not that hard to. and contrary to advanced aircraft, they can win through sheer expendable numbers
And no, I do not assume humans need to oversee a robot or more accurately a collection of computers but computer software is not yet up to the point where you could let completely autonomous killing machines roam the skies with no human oversight, and in all likelyhood won’t be for a very very long time. Computers and the software that runs on them are smart, very smart and better than any of us at maths (and balancing wine glasses) but there are many things computers cannot do, such as trusting their instincts and listening to their ‘gut feeling’ , which as bizarre as it sounds is essential in war.
computers are good at math. compared to them, humans suck at math. which is why computers beat humans at chess
but chess is easy, because you have a limited number of actors, with a limited number of moves, on a limited playing field
what humans are good at is guessing, and adapting. that makes us superior in complex situations, like air combat
but what most people don’t understand is the speed of evolution computers are going through. humans don’t get smarter, computers do. and they do at exponential speeds, meaning us humans (who think linear) completely underestimate the speed or the level of evolution computers will go through in the next decade, and every decade after that. you think there might be an unmanned fighter 25 years from, I think computers will be doing your job by then
all of this means soon, computers will also get good at guessing, and adapting. and they’ll keep getting better at it, faster than you’d expect
but that’s for tomorrow. even today, UAVs already are superior in air combat to advanced manned fighters, if through cost alone
modern air combat is about sensing and shooting. a UAV carrying good missiles and the right sensors, or using external sensor information, can engage a target as easily as any manned jet, be it with human input or automated. but it can do so without fear of death and at a much lower cost than the target aircraft, giving it a huge advantage
And don’t forget there’s big trouble if someone hacks your datalinks and decides to vent all the fuel, crash them into buildings or attack the home team. And don’t say they’d make it unhackable becasue even quantum cryptography has proven its vulnerable. I’m willing to bet that risk assesments have been carried out that show that whilst its okay to have a A-G UCAV ‘stolen’ in flight it’s not ok to have a UCAV with A-A weapons stolen in flight becasue you then have the problem of shooting it down before it shoots you down. You can’t send up another A-A drone to kill it either unless you’re sure that to won’t be stolen and turned against you.
lol, I love that argument 😀
satellites
nuclear missiles
air-to-ground weapons
air-to-air weapons
every modern jet
what have all these in common?
they’re all computer-controlled, and they all have a data link. most of them are also remotely controlled
if your argument is correct, then hacking a UAV is possibly the least of our worries, because they’re relatively cheap and easy to shoot down
so, please, explain to me why all of these can’t be hacked, and a UAV/UCAV can?
because, as you said yourself, even quantum cryptography can be hacked. where does that leave the super-integrated F-35? (which LMT itself suggested could be made into a UAV)
Really i’m not trying to sh*t on your ideas here but I am saying there is alot more to it and we’re not technologically advanced enough for a long while. Not in this ‘white world’ civilians view anyway.
I don’t know what the F-35 can do. but I’m betting we wouldn’t believe it if they told us, which explains why it’s a secret. so I wouldn’t say too loudly what we can’t do
but I do know you don’t need AI to be good at air combat. you need to detect a target, identify it, track it and engage it. and I know computers can do that already today
SanemWhich UCAV is any good at A-A combat then?
Until it happens and UCAV’s start beating Flankers, Typhoons, F-22’s etc in A-A he is dead right.
actually the author pointed out that UCAVs are good at air combat
in his imaginary story human pilots mainly focused on their short comings, until they realised their potential and admitted their mistake
if you’d actually try to use UAVs and UCAVs in air combat, you’d see they actually are very good at it
ofcourse no one has actually tried it because, like you, they say that they’ll be bad at it
ah yes, the old “it won’t work so I won’t try it” argument, a shame men like Copernicus or Einstein didn’t agree, I would have loved to live in the middle ages :p
And how do you get around your control lag in a dogfight – the ping rate must be very high. At the moment it’d be like trying to play an online first person shooter with a 56k modem and expecting to beat the guy hosting the game!
once again, bayonet-charge-across-no-man’s-land-thinking: you asume robots need humans to do their job
the day humans can balance a stick or a filled wine glass on their heads while jumping wildly around the room, we’ll talk again 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ
SanemBtw, article based on a 13 years old PDF..;
it would seem so, on page 49 it actually calls the UCAV “X-45A” instead of “F-40A”
as always I was most annoyed by the author’s respect for dumb misconceptions, like that UCAVs can’t be good at air-to-air combat or that they can’t replace manned aircraft in the near future. that’s bayonet-charge-across-no-man’s-land-thinking, i.e. tactically outdated and wasteful in money and lives
at least the author does take a shot at it, it’s one of the first time I’ve seen anyone even suggest using air-to-air missiles on UCAVs, even if it’s just in a flying weapon bay fashion
I especially like the idea of flying Air Force UCAVs off carriers. I’ve suggested before that the USAF buy the UCLASS, that would allow the US military to operate huge numbers off carriers during operations, using them as forward bases as needed
Sanempolitical pressure + a share EADS would accept?
the dream would be to have single consortium including Dassault, EADS, BAe, Saab…
between them they could cover anything from handheld UAVs to medium Reaper class to full UCAV
there would be plenty of commonality, especially in software, hardware, sensors, etc
they would own the European market, giving large sales which push down the costs, and could export to a lot of countries (Middle East would be a big costumer)
because they waited so long the US is now moving in with the (export) Predator and Reaper
edit:
A really out of the box and revolutionary system would be one that is VTOL…The nations have to decide what type of war they want to build this thing for….Monitoring EU airspace? Libya like campaign? etc etc …If its the latter a VTOL would be highly suited that can operate from naval assets as well as make shift air bases.
for land and coast line patrol a CTOL would suffice, that keeps things nice and simpel (and cheap)
for sea patrol a sea plane would be super, as you can support them with ships and they can make emergency landings
VTOL and STOVL UAVs would be great for ships/carriers. tailsitters offer huge potential here, because you can cut out all the complex aditional systems normally used in VTOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7el9tAQEP4
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/tailsitter/tail_sitter.html
SanemIts only logical to expect SAAB now working closely with other partnering nations/companies in a post cold war, and given the future market outlook. The market would be primarily European (unless SAAB wants to sell to china 😉 ) so it makes absolute economic sense for the to get as much of the work share as they can. I expect UCAS’s over the next decades to be more indigenous then tactical fighters so there should be more designs compared to fighters…India and china have long term programs in place, the US has a huge amount of investment in place, Europe also has solid plans…
certainly, but what is the extent of Temelos? will it be a Reaper alternative or a stealth jet UCAV? it seems Dassault and Bae will work together exclusively on this one, if they persist it would shut out Saab, Augusta, etc. Eads is an alternative but they seem to lack any political support
SanemBefore you laugh too hard did you actually read the sentence I worte that followed the one that you quoted?
I did, I’d hardly call 25% “some” input. I thought that point was clear enough without having me point it out
building a UCAV is a risky and expensive investment, considering Saab is only half the size of Dassault, it’s a logical choice for Saab to share the workload this way
Saab will be getting a lot of experience out of this in building advanced (stealth) UCAVs. once you get the UCAV system worked out it’s relatively easy because you can transplant the technology and the concepts to basically any platform you want. especially something like an Avenger because it’s less exotic and cheaper than a flying wing
with military budgets shrinking and Eurojets competing with each other, it’s in Saab and Sweden’s interest to work together with the rest of Europe on this one
but seeing how Dassault and Bae seem to be exclusive UCAV partners now, Saab might be forced to go alone yet again
Sign In
