Sanemhere’s some interesting material from one “Lop_Eared_Galoot”, from the reply posts on this page:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/06/robot-top-gun-navy-x-47b-drone-rehearses-to-land-on-aircraft-carrier-video/
text in bold is mine
From Greenert’s perspective, the value of the X-47B isn’t just that
it’s cool technology. It’s a proto-prototype for a larger, heavily armed
drone called the UCLASS (Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne
Surveillance and Strike System) that will provide a long-range bomber
capability that carrier-based aircraft currently flying, like the
F/A-18E/F and F-35C, do not have.>
here he seemed to have misread, thinking the author was argumenting that the F-18 and F-35 are fighters rather than bombers. but he certainly makes a point, these aircraft are poor fighters compared to the F-15 or Su-27 in a performance sense
This is important since it is essentially a lie. However many pirouette maneuvers it does, the F/A-18E/F is not a fighter since it lacks the Ps to do the principle -intercept- (Remember that folks? As goes the intercept, so goes the fight?) management of the fight geometry, which is all supersonic at height in being what drives the BVR capability to put missiles in the other guys face, first.
The F-35C certainly has the power to do this but is likely going to be Q as drag limited (since it’s concept of a ‘supersonic’ is Mach 1.14…) on that massive wing and certainly shotcount restricted in it’s look-shoot-look ability to gambit SSPK vs. pole length.
As such, both these aircraft _are bombers_ in the most applicable sense.
They have AAMs the same way an Avenger had a rear gun turret.
The only thing that saves these aircraft in the modern A2A environment is likely going to be broadcast sharing of datalink tactical picture as a means to shoot long-burn AIM-120D with someone else’ target designation and midcourse updating using a variant of post hole tactics to stay out of sensor cone on the inbound threats.
which is why I’m suggesting that they act as back line sensors to forward UCAV shooters, making the most of the active sensors, data links and jamming sensors. but that gives your location away, and than there’s little point in the F-35 stealth, and an upgraded F-18 should be able to fulfil the role equally well (and better because it can more easily integrate new hardware and software, where the F-35 will long be stuck with its 2000 era stuff
Having said that, the nature of air warfare has vastly changed with the arrival of miniature glide and boosted munitions like GBU-53B and AASM. Both of which have to have some ability to auto-acquire targets underneath a GPS coordinate footprint using self-classifying seeker recognition. There is no other alternative when the threat is anything up to 60nm off your nose.
This is important for two reasons:
1. You don’t have to approach the target to manually designate it with onboard sensor systems and WSO ID. Which means you don’t have to dedicate huge packages to enroute suppression of air defenses in getting that close.
2. You can engage multiple aimpoints in the same target matrix -or- multiple targets at disparate locations, without having to worry so much about ordnance, frag settle and IP/SCAR cycling as general effects upon FUEL. Which means that you can expand the classes of targets which you hit on Day-1 to achieve shooter vs. command and control nullification of the primary IADS threat.
If UCAVs are to be useful, they have to remain cheap as the equivalent of the MQ-9 Reaper with jet speed transit and reliable power around the boat. They do _not_ need to become ‘bombers’. Because miniature munitions and the ability to tool about the target area, sanitizing great wide nothings with spotlight mode sensor footprints (as DAS-like situational awareness and threat warning system may eventually be made to function like ARGUS/Gorgon Stare but will never designate targets from 20+nm like Sniper/EOTS) means that you can afford to have multiple coverage of exposed friendly as well as uncertain enemy positions in the Day-2+ environment.
All because your manned assets are acting like SCARs to designate aimpoints and your tactical ground teams have ROVER to do the same once the UCAVs are released to their control.
The original DARPA UDS/UOS (UCAV Demo and Operational System) decision points were all pointed towards a network SEAD mission which used AN/ALR-11 as a small precision direction finding suite to generate synthetic long baseline triangulation for either rapid set-on (multibearing strobelines into the sidelobes) jamming or ARM/IAM direct attack. As such, they were highly exposed themselves and considered semi-sacrificial which mean that they were also -small as cheap-.
This is what the X-45A was before it became ‘J-UCAS’ under USAF asserted program leadership. The J-UCAS as X-45C was then cancelled because, get this, _it was too expensive_.
What changed?
Well, the X-45A had a 6,300lbst civil engine pushing a 12,000lb gross weight airframe. The X-45C had a 10,000lbst milspec engine driving a 36,000lb airframe. It also had XTRA conformal AESA radar and EOTS like onboard sensor systems.
The USN was at least more honest when they stated that their UCAV-N desire was for a something closer to a CSA replacement mission for the S-3. Doing everything from buddy tanking to data relay and some ferret work with the possibility of eventual replacement for the E-2 and EA-6B.
Which of course requires a -big- airframe (Viking grosses out at around 40,000lbs).
But the E-2E and EA-18 have both succeeded the CSA mission requirements with the retirement without replacement of the Viking itself proving how ‘seriously’ the USN now takes the ASW, ASST and Tanking missions.
The point I’m trying to make here is that UCAVs can and probably should remain simple mission range extenders as ‘auxilliary bomb pylons’ in the strike warfare role and as rapidly shiftable ISR overwatch in the COIN mission. Some money should be invested in their signature management but massive payload:range or system variables are not fiscally wise nor necessary so long as someone is along to hold their hands (or you attack prebriefed targets with satellite coordinates).
If I was to make a direct comparison it would be to the A-4, not the A-6 and I would specifically envision a tactical model where the biggest weapons I would be carrying would be a pair of AGM-88E (1,650lbs) or AIM-120D (800lbs) as hounds before the hunters of F-35s which cannot carry the HARM internally and would have to sacrifice A2G munitions to load up another pair of AMRAAM.
Best to risk only the least valuable asset using the ASQ-239 and APG-81 of the trailing jet to designate the munitions which are well out ahead on much shorter poles.
Sequestration of budget funding and the need to pay for the new Reagan classes also need to be a part of the equation here.
If the USN is serious about bringing unmanned aviation to their airpower capability set, they should not bloat the system spec in Gen-1 because the airframe will become hugely unaffordable. Literally.
If they are just looking for a way to avoid competition with their manned systems by deliberately asking for what they do not intend to buy, then they should be honest and not waste billions with a B only to justify cancellation later. That’s fiduciary fraud of the taxpayer’s trust.
In this, it is worth noting that the DARPA UDS->UOS program exit as decision point was originally to be in 2006. Which would have made it competitive with the F-35 SDD->Production Ramp as an alternative, low cost, system.
The USAF got the DARPA program manager ‘transferred’ and took over the program in early 2001, just in time to cancel it as being too expensive while they fought the GWOT after 9/11. And now we are stuck with a 388 billion dollar monster JSF program for which there are NO manned alternatives to cheaply fill out the force structure.
Keep very tight control over the UCLASS system cost setpoints as program purse strings gentlemen. Because it’s no longer a matter of core-aviator to unmanned jet preservation of ‘union jobs’. It’s now about whether you will have the decks to deploy with at all.
UCAVs do what F-teens and even F-20/30 series jets do in 90% of combat flight: move from base to target area at 1G, wings level, Mach .65-.85 and 30-40,000ft altitudes, just like an airliner, for the same reasons: fuel efficiency and safety at height (‘air under wings’ = time to resolve problems, avoid other traffic and birds, plus prep for a worst case ejection).
What UCAVs do that other jets don’t is threefold:
A. Achieve better range.
The original J-UCAS program had a requirement for 1,100nm and 2hrs on station, nearly twice that of the F-35. This is because jets which mix missions (fighter and strike) carry dead 10,000lbs of dead weight and aerodynamic drag that they do not have to. Namely half their engine length as afterburner ducting and a cockpit+airborne intercept radar which greatly ‘bulge’ the frontal area of the jet. In a world where the mission is one of finding targets that don’t agreeably show up when you do, range + loiter translates to more targets serviced, per sortie, rather than per airframe (where a manned airframe has to be replaced on-station, twice as often).
B. Are more stealthy/have more weapons options.
Lacking conventional Empennage as tails as well as the aforementioned inlet/canopy/hog’s-nose radar of a conventional fighter which trades stability margin in extreme maneuvering for vastly larger radar and optical signatures, the X-47B is much more stealthy, both optically, by infrared and at radar wavelengths.
Of course the inverse also applies in the X-47 is explicitly unable to ‘dogfight’ or evade surface to air missile fire. Which means it has to rely ‘more on the bullet than the rifle’, Standoff and precision rather than direct delivery of weapons. Thus it has been seen with AGM-88 HARM in it’s weapons bays. This is something no other LO platform can manage, not the F-22, not the F-35, not even the B-2. It is equally adroit at carrying GBU-39 which the Raptor and Lightning struggle with. If you are more stealthy, by configuration, you are not as worried about exposure to threat fires during the **extended** times of flight that modern U.S. ballistic/glide IAMs require to reach a target. GBU-31/32 are good to between 10-12nm which outranges only the most basic (SA-2/3/6/8/11) of heavy SAM platforms. GBU-39 is good to anything up to 57nm. But the key variable is that they are subsonic, 200-250knot, ingress weapons which means that they are in the air a LONG time before the threat goes down. If it goes down. Which is not assured as both terminal defense escorts (SA-15/19/22) and increasingly effective APS systems may well render subsonic munitions undeliverable as DEAD (Destruction Of Enemy AIr Defenses) kill effectors. HARM, which runs at anywhere from Mach 3.5 at low level to Mach 5+ at high, is not so limited. Bullet makes Rifle, if the Rifle has the magazine for it.
3. Minimum Training.
This is where I think the real ‘next admission of inferiority’ on the part of the air power services must be made. UCAVs as Armed UAVs are already showing they can-do the conventional battlefield mission set, far better, due to loiter in the kill box. Which means you don’t have to cripple a nation’s industrial (Serbia) as civilian (Iraq/AfG) infrastructure by bombing static targets. You can hit the tanks, technicals and the like which form the -actual- combatant capacity of the enemy. Because they have no window of rear area maneuver when airpower is not present.
More importantly, though, what you fly in combat tends to come out of the backside of the ops accounts as training and readiness dollars. Deploying units get plussed up flight hours. Everyone else suffer desk-flight syndrome as home station hours get chopped to keep the deployed forces in the combat theater fully stocked with spares and gas.
Where this is NOT going to change as we go into at least a decade of severe Sequestration of funds to pay down our massive debt, we cannot afford the perishability of human combat skills. Pilots who don’t fly for 2-3 days can feel a noticeable diminishment in the ‘edge’ of hand eye coordination and G-soak endurance when they go back. Do this for a week and you lose maybe 25% of your abilities. Do it for a month and you are lucky if you have 25% of your abilities /left/. Simulators and centrifuges cannot but approximate this and they have their own dollars-per-hour costs.
OTOH, a UCAV has the ability to take a tactical tape as a flight program and ‘by quarterly updates’ keep the entire fleet equally competent. What is more is that a UCAV can have it’s wings flown off at one of the big ranges in the Southwest or up in Alaska -developing- those tactics and so you don’t really lose innovation in the way airpower is employed so much as take the next step in integrating an Edwards AFB + Nellis AFB type ‘development meets fighter weapons school’ curriculum which greatly supports technical mod improvements in clearing for combat use key ‘robot’ mission systems like communications security/bandwidth and sensor modes/munitions using highly complex exercises involving 60-100 aircraft. Those jets being still significantly less expensive to run all day, every day, 365 days a year, than the other 1,200 or so aircraft in the inventory which are kept in ramp-ready status but flown only perhaps 1 time per month to validate maintenance checks.
i.e. UCAV forces don’t complain and/or quit for the airlines when training funds dry up.
Having said all this, UCAVs are limited because they presently do not constitute a common force for purchasing economics (despite the fact that the F-4 Phantom could and was flown, as a carrier capable jet, from USAF land bases, virtually unmodified…). And increasingly, even the UCAV may not have the reach to get into Anti-Access/Area Denied zones without risking the even more monumentally expensive basing asset to which it is tied. Be that nukes falling on Taegu or a Ford class Carrier at the bottom of the Formosa strait.
For that level of threat, the next escalation step is most assuredly up a hypersonic option which can come from bases some 4-5,000 miles out on the counterstrike lane instead of 700-1,100. Only to drop weapons which are then ‘skipped’, like stones over water, another 500+ more. I am serious when I say that a Mach 10-12 platform has the ability to strike from half a time zone away.
The difference of course being that a hypersonic asset is really only defendable against using space borne or perhaps HAEUAV mounted weapons which deliver directed energy strikes. Thus you don’t have to split (say) a carrier air wing into SEAD/DEAD, A2A and Strike components. Rather -everything- goes into lofting strike weapons which, as they exit the airframe, are moving at anything up to 6,000mph and so don’t need to worry about ‘standoff’.
The rifle is now (going the speed of) the bullet.
How we would apply these capabilities, in terms of theater operational needs is not altogether important. They would certainly inspire new methods as required countermeasure investment which is half of what fighting an opponent with your wallet rather than your spear is about.
But equally important is what they mean in a world where shrinking U.S. influence and general aversion to more ‘global wars on terror’ proxy coalitions is that we will have to be able to bomb from increasingly distant points (Sigonella, Diego, Guam, Eilsen) as remaining base-in accessibility to whole regions is denied through lease renewal denial elsewhere.
Such is actually **a good thing** because it means that paying for foreign garrisoning as Status Of Forces agreements is no longer an issue. And even if it means the loss of cheap manufactured goods from Korea, Taiwan and Japan, it also means we can pull back and reinvest, locally, in home industry. Industry which has been allowed to wander offshore because of FALSE beliefs in the profitability of biotech and robots as ‘the next big revolution’ in American profit margin as much as science.
American stability at home is based on the lowest common denominator by which large segments of the population can remain producers of exportable goods rather than consumers in a service driven market. In this I would quote Eisenhower:
“The government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. … (Leading to a) …. Technocratic state” where military requirements and purchasing have usurped the natural processes of R&D.
We risk swinging the other way now because Big Business has become so ruthless in it’s unsupported Darwinianism that they have no national loyalties.
But the fact remains that if you can dedicate funds to very high end enablers (hypersonic strike) of very prosaic and established (carrier battlegroups), extending the latter’s survivability with the massive standoff of the former; you have the ability to ALSO shift resources towards more typically civilian mitigating technology as socio-cultural stress relief outcomes. As with ‘free’ electricty (25 year mortgage X12 months at 200 dollars per month in utility bills = 60,000 dollars of winnable currency) inherent to a green economy.
i.e. We can do a lot more to buy-in our people than simply justifying nationalist mercantilism as the opposite to liberal Wimbledon Effect as the balance of militarism vs. debt fear.
With, by far and away, the largest chunk of unallocated budget, year after year, the Military is going to take the hit, regardless. The only alternative being the chock-a-block abandonment of socialist welfare for the retireds and disableds which would lead to universal increases in crime and reductions in consumer spending, further crippling the U.S. economic indexes.
UCAVs plus H-PGS is a way forward that guts current conventional force structures and invents tactics around the size and location as well as perceived threat need of the high tech followon.
SanemThink of it this way, what capability is the USN really looking for ? A UCAS that can provide Light strike at 2000nm (Un refueled) range would look a different from one that is tasked with the role of Light strike (SDB’s) @ 2000nm and Medium strike (1000lb, 2000lb LGB’s etc) at 1000nm and heavy strike at 500nm…Add the VLO Requirement and you get a different bird altogether…
that’s the heart of the discussion I guess, what does the USN want, want compromises will it ask for, what compromises will the industry offer, and what will the USN actually end up needing? if the next war is another Afghanistan, you’ll want something cheap and with the greatest endurance. if it’s nuclear war, you want something that can carry nukes and AMRAAMs (to defend the carrier against incomming attacks)
we do know that the Avenger is a completely different bird from the others, closer to a prop UAV than a UCAV. I honnestly believe they should pick this one AND a “full” UCAV
The amount of crafts you can physically park on a deck is limited and you have to get max out of them. a 50 million UCLASS can be ditched in favour of around 5 Ten Million dollar Cheaper UCAS’s, and around 10 of those can be procured per f-35…However you cannot park 200+ of these UCAV’s on a carrier…and even with 200 you’d still need plenty to do the strike plus combat patrol duties…:)
space is certainly limited, but so are budgets 🙂
once defence spending really starts getting cut, it’ll be the choice between 20 F-35s or 60 UCLASS/some F-18s (and that’s after junking several carriers to save money)
which is why I’m all for at least some of the cheaper Avengers, to bulk up the numbers and take over low-intensity roles (sea patrol, ISR…). often sending a $50 million UCAV is going to be a waste on those missions
and I’m all for a carrier based prop engine UAV, although the conversions needed would probably make it as expensive as an Avengar (if they really can keep the cost under $15 million)
and for god sake a STOVL UCAV, so the Marines and RN will have something the fill in for the F-35B
Ofcourse the mission gap that the UCLASS fills is long range tactical strike with high loiter time..This is a unique mission which will never be a true naval tactical fighter mission anyhow….This is what is truely revolutionary about the concept and what it brings to the Navy..But for regular naval tactical fighter missions the UCLASS cannot replace the F-18, F-18E/F or the F-35C..The best bet for that would be to make an unmanned version of these crafts which Lockheed martin has hinted it is studying for the future.
the USN had this role covered in the past with its prop aircraft and A-6, they’re the ones who chose to go for the short legged F-18 and F-35
some things the UCLASS will do worse, some things it will do better, that’s just the way it goes
the F-18 and F-35 also do some things better and some things worse than the F-14 in the fighter role, again that’s the way it is
the question is, what’s the trade off between the UCLASS and the F-18/F-35 in the fighter role?
if it could carry and fire A2A missiles, could it be made to work? until we actually test this, we’ll never know, but if it does, it offers huge savings and tactical advantages
3 UCLASS’s can carry such weapons (times 3) ??
a single F-35 can internally carry as much and similar weapons as 3 UCLASS, at the same price
but the UCLASS can cover three different areas, with greater loiter and a greater degree of expendability
externally the F-35 can carry more and more specialised weapons
but than it loses its stealth, and you might as well send an F-18 or cruise missiles
This is hardly how the F-35 would perform, the F-35 would be relying on offboard sensors for cues, would be in passive (or LPI) modes scanning airspace while maintaing LO…This is how stealth fighter
sure, then you’re flying $150 million worth of useless radar to carry 4, hopefully 6 missiles
if you’re doing it that way you might as well send 3 UCAVs, who should be able to carry at least 4 missiles each, flying pre-programmed patrol paths (just an F-35), completely passively and waiting for target coordinates and kill orders. except the UCAVs can be at 3 different places where the F-35 can only be at one place, and the UCAVs can stay in the air for way longer, meaning you don’t need to replace them as often
SanemI have to say that it is an interesting approach to get the thing onto the decks and then upgrade it with super stealth and computers as they become practical.
I think that’s the way to go: the F-35 and F-22 are all-in-one approaches, kind of when you buy a really expensive car and it has GPS and what not already installed
the problem is that after a few years that GPS etc become outdated, still functional, but we live in a world where people buy a new phone every 18 months
I believe this is worse for aircraft, where the airframes last decades but we’re seeing the same explosion in technological evolution
it’s also why I’m a big fan of things like SNIPER pods, they allow you to bolt on the neccesary hardware. open source archicture also allows for easier integration from whatever hardware and software you’d like
the Su-27 seems like the ultimate example of this, a superb airframe that is continually upgraded and improved on. if you don’t bother with stealth (which I believe is reaching its limits, especially as optical sensors start to come into play), the aircraft design itself is at its peak and its matter of instaling new engines, sensors, computers, weapons…
while closed aircraft it’s very hard to add things like a second pilot seat, weapons, sensors, computers, software… and who knows what new technology we might see in a few years (EOTS looks like the next step), maybe all aircraft will start flying with an unstealthy laser weapon that allows it to shoot down enemy missiles, making it near impossible to shoot down at range. but that would be hard to mount if you want to maintain stealth
I wonder if the UK (and France?) will take a similar approach. It looks to me as if, with Taranis being such a totemic project that they are looking for a super system from day one and just delaying when that day comes….
hard to say, it’s not even carrier launched, so I’m guessing it’s the Mantis architecture in a stealthy air frame. beyond Israel and the US, few countries have large experience with developing UAVs. although BAe does have the Peacekeeper, and has had an impressive number of test UAVs, as has France with its nEuron program, not unsimilar to the UCAS program really
We had all assumed that Son of Taranis would replace Tornado directly but indications point to a date more in line with 2030 than 2020. But then, as far as the internet is concerned, Taranis is now a supersonic programme.
the article that mentioned supersonic made a large number of errors, if there’s no other source :p
time frames are a difficult thing, budget woes will be a serious head ache for all military industries in the coming years as the economic crisis comes into full effect
although this might actually push UAVs and UCAVs forward as a cheaper alternative to older aircraft. especially at the rate that they plan to phase out Eurofighters, UCAVs could fulfil a large number of missions cheaper and better in today’s wars
Also, what is the range requirement of UCLASS? Is it “intercontinental” in the same way that UK MOD claim Taranis to be.
if you tank in air and fly at about 800+ km/h, it would probably be feasable for the average UCAV, considering their range and endurance
This discussion thread is a good place to talk enthusiastically of UCAV capabilities without the usual “it hasn’t flown/been paid for yet so you can’t talk about it” naysayers jumping on the debate.
yet……
:eagerness:
B-2 as a matter of tactics exercises EMCON while operating in phase 1 campaigns..
sure, when you’re attacking Russia or China, but at that point we’re talking nuclear war and the world is f-ed either way
when bombing a non-nuclear Iran or Syria I’d rather send a few relatively expendable UCAVs and risk it than the world most expensive aircraft and the US’s main nucle
In phase 1 you do not have the B-2’s attack targets with freindlies…B-2’s are used for Command and control targets and high priority targets….
which are usually static and easily recognisable targets, and can thus be targetted with automated weapons like cruise missiles and UCAVs. there’d be little use in sending the much more expensive B-2 or F-35
From what i know, the X-47 and original UCLASS plans was to design the Weapon bays around the 1000 lb JDAM and obviously the SDB…From what rumours that are coming forth that capability may be reduced to just the SDB with a proportional increase in ISR capability. HARM would have always looked tough, and in the future the USAF/USN wants to do away with it in favour of the NGM, which the F-35 would be able to carry 4 of (Internally)..
certainly, but I’m assuming the UCLASS will also be able to carry the NGM, and it’s already widely accepted that it’ll be the first choice for such missions. at that point you might as well have a Growler flying in behind, using its capacities to further locate the radar systems and jam them, and use the forward flying UCLASS to attack them. also because at the moment of attack the launch aircraft will expose itself as it opens its weapons bays, better to risk a cheaper UCAV for that
How many bombs on target can your hypothetical UCLASS deliver per target in phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 of an aerial campaign? SDB’s are very good, but the USAF/USN aer not throwing OUT the 1000lb, 2000lb class bombs from the tactical strike mission…Not to mention the heavier SO weapons and future weapons that are likely to be larger..
sure, but if you look at the numbers, lets say you can have 3 UCLASS for the cost of an F-35 (which is a lower estimate, if you consider maintenance cost, pilot training, the pilot life, pilot rescue missions, the need for in air tanking, loiter time…)
in any mission that requires the aircraft to loiter UCAVs will be highly superior, even with a lesser payload, because a single aircraft can stay on target much longer before having to return to the ship for R&R. and with 3 UCLASS, you can cover 3 missions at the same time, or keep a single aircraft on target much easier
if you’re talking bomb bus, I’m guessing 3 UCLASS would be more efficient than a single F-35, even though the F-35 can carry 4 times as much internally, as they don’t have to carry the A2A missiles (neither does the B-2 or F-117 and they did pretty well) and can cover 3 different targets, or cover more targets in a single mission because they so much greater endurance
the best use for the F-35 I think would be using its sensors and ECM, equiped with A2A missiles, and flying overwatch and C&C for the UCLASS. but there a) you don’t need stealth if you’re using your radar and are jamming at full power, b) it lacks a second pilot. at which point, again, a Prowler offers an interesting and proven alternative
Currently the GH cannot do itself (autonomy) what many people sitting in the P8 can, and beaming data back to C2C on the ground is too slow and would be so for long long time (not to mention a huge bandwidth hog)
unless you use a relay aircraft to relay the data to a nearby US base
although I can see the use for a single manned aircraft acting as queen to a number of drones, I think the numbers should reflect this
SanemActually its nothing like that, Many believe that the USAF has merely shifted their UCAS design efforts to the black as opposed to the USN. The UCAS program being spoken about has nothing to do with the strategic LRS-B but is different. The USAF decided to get out of the X-45/X-47 program because they wanted something bigger, it appears that a secret program is addressing this need (X47C)…RQ-170 and LMA are not rumoured to be this program, Flightglobal seems to think its NG which has the lead here…
an X-47C seems like a good idea, if you’ve got the air field, bigger is cheaper, and also gives you extreme range and endurance
but bigger means more expensive (you could get 50 UCAVs for the price of one B-2) and thus lower numbers. a UCAV type with some SDBs and good endurance is a general’s best friend, able to stay on overwatch until the enemy moves and strike when and where he’s most exposed, while being cheap enough to buy and field them in good numbers
Because the USN is relying on USAF’s VLO Fleet of bombers to take care of FDOW stuff….A VLO WS On a carrier be it the UCLASS and the f-35, WILL GIVE the USN the ability to do many of such things themselves adding to the capability which already exists with the USAF.
well the French sent the Rafale into Lybia first thing, and I doubt it’s a lot more stealthier than an F/A-18E/F
but so you’ll agree that the UCLASS can be used for FDOW stuff 😉
so the question is, how much % of the F-35 missions could it take over, to what extent, and how much can you leave to the USAF and cruise missiles?
and more importantly, at what cost does the USN need the F-35?
for example the F-35, for all its technology and payload, can’t carry the AGM-88 internally
for FDOW, that’s the first thing you’d want to bring, and supposedly the X-47B is designed to carry it
Last i checked the B-2 seizes SAT Communication when it comes to exteme EMCON enviroments…
has it actually operated in exteme EMCON enviroments?
and that would also depend on the mission, for target saturation bombing a UCAV wouldn’t need a data link either, just the GPS coordinates and some target recognition software
but for ISR/tactical bombing and close support of ground troops, you need that data link, if only so you don’t shoot friendlies or cilvians
Making it smaller would take it away and away from what little F-35 mission it fills in the first place….Having SDB as your weapons of choice replaces NONE of the F-35’s primary capability as a VLO attack aircraft…
why so?
“SDB is designed to destroy a variety of targets, penetrate over 1.20 meters of steel reinforced concrete while inflicting minimum collateral damage”
“Two variants are being developed. One version of the SDB is equipped with a GPS-aided inertial navigation system to attack fixed/stationary targets such as fuel depots, bunkers etc. The second variant (Boeing’s GBU-40 or Raytheon’s GBU-53 (SDB II)) will include a thermal seeker and radar with automatic target recognition features for striking mobile targets such as tanks, vehicles, and mobile command posts.”
exactly what weapons does the F-35 carry that makes it so unearthly important? it can’t carry HARM missiles externally at which point you might as well send an F-18 (or possibly an X-47B), and if you’re targetting bunkers you’ll probably be better of with cruise missiles and USAF aircract, it’ll be faster and/or cheaper
opposed to a completely tested UCLASS.
the RQ-170 has been operational for years, I’d say that makes it pretty tested
I doubt it’d be so difficult to transplant the technology into a UCLASS contender, NG says it used 85% of the MQ-8B architecture and design in the MQ-8C
the Avenger is being flown over Afghanistan as we speak, and has been designed from scratch with carrier landings in mind
so the system concept and many of the aircraft designs have been extensively tested, in combat operation or in surrogates, not unlike the F-35 sensor suit was tested on the CATbird
UCLASS won’t have untested super-computers, sensors, or billions of lines of codes. it’ll be relatively simple, most of that stuff will be off the shelf one way or the other. the hardest thing will be to prove new concepts, like carrier landings and air-to-air tanking (stuff they could have tested years ago btw if they wanted to, which they didn’t). beyond that it’ll be as complex and thus difficult as you want it to be, but it simply doesn’t have to be in order to be effective
What i am saying is to get out of the falacy that the UCLASS would solve all your woes against IADS, or the F-35 for that matter…What the US DOD plans on using is a mix of all available systems…This is not opposite to what others plan on doing as well. But i guess you are smarter then everyone else in the world!
ofcourse it’s a system, the UCLASS would be useless without satellites, and things like manned controller aircraft, F-22’s flying air patrols and AWACS would be force multipliers
I’m just saying UCAVs make something like the F-35 a wasted investment. not because it won’t be effective (eventually, after many years and lost of money to fix the bugs), but because the cost makes it horribly ineffecient
it can detect and attack a target with minimal human input. when you’re a stealthy and relatively cheap asset, that’s all you need
Sure thats all you need for A2A Combat….:)
it works for SAM sites on the ground. why wouldn’t it work for a SAM site in the air, where it close by and has the enemy at a favorable angle?
SanemThis is what Sanem and I can rejoice in
yes sir 😉
apart from the fact that they should have bought more of them instead of the P-8’s, maybe weaponise them
there’s certainly a benefit to having a pilot in a stealthy jet that needs to execute split-second decisions and brings a humans eye view and spatial awareness to the game
but for sea patrol, ELINT and ASW, most missions are flying around for extended periods of time, scanning the area, relaying the data back to the mainland, waiting for confirmation, on a rare occasion flying at low altitude to get a visual confirmation but that’s extremely dangerous in a world of manpads and small AAA. and if you do fly low enough to get a good human view, the aircraft is still moving too fast to take in much detail
not to mention all those operators that are basically risking their lives (remember the RC-12 crash the other week, these things just happen, and that’s risky when you have no ejection seets and are flying over water), who can only operate effectively for a limited period of time, and who’ll spend a lot of time in transit
SanemTo think that the USAF getting out of the UCAS competition is because they do not want such a system is to be a bit naive…Many suggest that the USAF UCAV effort has simply gone BLACK, and then there is the MASSIVE R&D push towards the more strategic asset. The Navy has no ALTERNATIVE for the F-35, other then the F-18E/F.
I think we can take that as a fact, considering the RQ-170, as well the lack of LMT effort in the UCAV field where all other companies (Boeing, NG, BAe, Dassault) are actively working on them, and LMT’s ability to answer the UCLASS request with a design at considerable speed
there is a massive effort on a strategic effort, because that is what the USAF likes, big manned strategic bombers and manned dogfighters. they’re making them optionally manned so the current pilots can still have their cake and eat it, it’ll be the next generation that gets to fly them from behind a desk
what the USAF hates are unmanned assets that actually make a difference on the ground, as they have been doing in Afghanistan for the last 10 years. the USAF did not intend to field these UAVs, just as they never intented to keep the A-10. but these are the kind of aircraft that really make a difference, without breaking the bank. they should be using the funding to develop low cost technology that will improve UAV performance, like automated flight and landing, increased endurance, sense and avoid systems… instead they worry about nuclear war with the US’s biggest trade partner, talk about moronic
and there is always an alternative, if there weren’t, how has the USN been able to operate for these last few years without any super-advanced stealth aircraft in its invetory?
if anything there is no alternative for the UCLASS, giving the US a stealthy, ranged asset that can reach pretty much anywhere in the world in record time, and not be worried about pilots getting captured or killed
But that UCAV (UCLASS @ Supposedly the 50 million price tag you keep claiming as if it is set in stone) is not going to replace 100% Of the capability of the F-18 or F-35C. So the point and comparison is a bit reduntant.
UCAVs use mostly proven technology, for UCLASS there will be 4 competitors meaning they’ll do their best to keep prices low, and the USN doesn’t count on thousands of aircraft to keep costs low
on the other hand the F-35 was a closed competition between two designs, the worst LMT has had to answer for the program problems is losing a few million in bonuses (out of billions, oh my, that must have really hurt :sleeping: ), it gets more expensive as numbers are cut year after year, allies drop out, new problems are yet to be discovered and will be moreso as time goes by, and we’re not even talking about the cost of recalling the ones already built
the UCAV will do some things worse, some things it will do better
but I’d prefer a low-risk, long range, stealthy and expendable UCLASS over a short legged unstealthy F-18 or a completely untested and super-expensive F-35 any day of the year
Depends upon the definition of “RUN FOR THE MONEY” , Go speak to F-15C drivers who go up agains the raptor….Unless raptor’s BVR ability is restricted due to the structuring of the training the F-15C’s have no CHANCE..Ditto with F-16 vs F-22 training…
ofcourse, because those F-15’s use radars that the F-22 was designed to defeat
if you have an advanced AESA like on the F-35 or a Russian S-Band radar you’ll be able to detect the F-22 and thus engage it at range, regardless of what aircraft it’s installed on. then it comes down to missiles and range, but if you were to put an optical sensor or an S-band radar on a high speed/long range missile like the Meteor, the F-22 would find itself running for its life. compared to that, the F-35 is a sitting duck
now if you put passive sensors and passively-guided missiles on a UCAV, use its stealth to get close to a target and make a surprise attack, even an F-22 would have no chance whatsoever, despite fighting an unmanned aircraft that’s a fraction of its cost
If you are claiming that the UCLASS is a far more MATURE program even before vendor / design selection you are very much mistaken. IOC planned is for 2020 (And not for 2018) and that is a few birds with limited capability. There are already articles talking about the navy thinking of limiting the size to smaller then X-47B and limiting its strike capability to further reduce risk. The F-35 is flying at the momeny with all major hardware, its going through testing which is by definition far more intense for a FIGHTER compared to a non-manuevering strike UCAV. Had the UCLASS done what the F-35 DOES, it would have a similar extensive testing program.
I am saying that the UCLASS program is relatively mature, because most of its technology is, or is low risk and being proven by the X-47B as we speak
1) stealth, has been around for decades now, as has the flying wing design that maximises stealth
2) undetectable satellite communications is also common hardware these days, allowing a UCAV to maintain a direct link with the home base. we’ve seen pictures showing them on the X-47B, and NG is putting some new ones on the B-2 as we speak
3) automated flight and landing system, has been around for decades, NG uses it on the Global Hawk, and who knows what LMT uses on the RQ-170
4) autonomous detection and engagement software, Boeing proved this concept back in 2005 with the X-45A, LMT is marketing it on the F-35 for air and ground attack, BAe says the software on the Mantis is ground breaking as well. and this is mostly a matter of computing power and programming, over time this will only improve, and be as simple as testing and upgrading the software on existing aircraft
making it smaller would be certainly feasable, that was the original intent of the UCAS program, which explains the small sizes of the X-45A and X-47A as opposed to the latest versions
then you basically get a jet powered, stealthy Reaper UAV, which is why GA is offering with its $15 million Avenger. I think that’s a great idea for light ISR, although I think the cost UAVs have proven the virtues of low cost endurance over Afghanistan
the F-35 is still an absurdly expensive and untested aircraft, and there are plenty indications that the USN has a serious interest in cancelling it altogether
You mean the sort of IADS its designed to operate in? The answer to Future IADS is not in a SYSTEM be it UCLASS or F-35, its in an integrated approach that involves multiple platforms, weapons and technologies.
so you’re saying the F-35 is not relevant, it’s the system? then why pay $150+ million for a single aircraft, when you can have 3 UCAVs for the same price and use the system to let them do the annoying work of actually risking enemy defences? it seems a lot more logical to have an EA-18G using its assets to full power (which reveals its location, which is why the F-35 would suck at this task, aside from not having a second operator) and act as a forward control and mini-AWACS for the UCAVs
So the F-35 performs complex aerial combat maneuvering against other fighters autonomously without the pilot’s input…News to me !
it can detect and attack a target with minimal human input. when you’re a stealthy and relatively cheap asset, that’s all you need
The LRS-B, and the 6th gen jets (of the one’s we know about officially)…Both are talking about OPTIONALLY MANNED but not to begin with. This SEEMS to suggest that such complex autonomy even for A2G missions that are currently not within the realm of autonomous operations (With planned programs such as legacy UCAS’s and UCLASS) are not easily acquirable even for ultra expensive programs.
A. the LRS-B and 6th gen jets will indeed be ultra expensive programs. now call me crazy, but after the B-2, F-22, F-35, D-1000, LCS, A-12… basically every “advanced” program promising the world at bottom cost and than underperforming and overcosting, I’d rather we start with developing the tech first, testing it as upgrades on exisisting aircraft, and only than using it in new designs. it’s what the USN is doing with the X-47B, its what the Russians did before moving on to the Su-50, it’s what the Europeans are doing before starting on the “real” Taranis and nEuron, it’s what the Chinese seem to be doing as well
B. I’m not asking for a super expensive test program. I’m asking for a two cheap aircraft to fly at each other, autonomously aquire a target lock and fire a virtual missile. concept tested and validated. it’s been proven over Iraq that a UAV with air-to-air missiles controlled directly by a human can aquire and fire upon an enemy aircraft. yet this has NEVER, before or since, been tried or tested. don’t kid yourself, that’s not because it can’t be done, it’s because they don’t WANT to
Like i said, the US could be DUMB, have an incompetent defence industry that is incapable of innovation, but what about the rest of the world? Why are they working on Expensive, cumbersome, time consuming manned fighter jets for future aerial combat needs?
I don’t think the US military is dumb, nor its defence industry incompetent. on the contrary, the F-35 is the biggest paycheck and career maker in history, even if its a huge cost on the American tax payer and the generals that get to put their name on it will be retired long before it proves to be unpayable (usually making some nice money on the side advising the companies that make the stuff that the generals said they needed)
the UK has done the same thing with its super carriers, the generals that said they needed it are now retiring, the politicans that decided to buy them have moved to Europe government where they don’t have to explain their mistake, and in the meantime costs have exploded and the UK isn’t sure it can afford the aircraft to equip even one of them
Russia and China don’t seem to be making such dumb and wasteful decissions. but then again they’re buying all the gold they can get, while Bernanke tries to convince us that there’s no inflation, but actually deflation (I’d like to know where he’s shopping). so I’d say it’s us civilians that are dumb enough to pay for all this and swallow their lies until we prefer it over the truth
SanemFrom the “Chinese stealth UCAV start roll” thread:
Says who? Have we built one yet? Lets see COST Vs CAPABILITY when everything is said and done..I for one think its gonna be tough to get a VLO platform similar in RCS to F-35 with everything (ISR, Mission computers, Strike capability, Refueling ) and more under 75-100 million. Lets wait for the detailed RFP’s to see what the navy seems to want in the first place….Many are wanting a LESSER system that is CHEAP to aquire and that can be built up over time..By 2015-16 picture on development, complexity, and cost should be clearer..
well it’s actually a lot easier to build a stealth UCAV, because it doesn’t need a cockpit, radar dome, high G capability… all requirements that greatly increase RCS
it’s like with the A-4: if you don’t need a big aircraft, than you don’t need a big engine, which means you need less fuel, which means you can a smaller aircraft…
as for capability, today this is no longer a matter of air frame, but rather one of upgrades
an old Mig-21 is dirt cheap but stand little chance against modern adversaries. but equip it with the latest sensors, computers and missiles, and it’ll give even an F-22 a run for its money
if the UCAV airframe can give stealth, range and payload within budget, everything else is optional, and with open architecture becoming the standard you can plug and play any sensors and weapons that fit. and with everything becomming smaller and cheaper, that’s getting easier every day
Can this 50 Million dollar UCLASS Perform all of the F-35’s Missions?
can the F-35? I’d love to see it face off against S-500s, Su-50s or waves of Chinese (stealth) (un)manned jets and missiles
and I don’t think those guys will accept the “but you’re not in my mission parameter specifications!” argument. that’s a gold-plated turkey shoot
Ground targets my freind! When you are faced with a 9G Maneuvering target, your decision in a split second has to be based upon his , thats where instinct also comes in…That type of Decision making by a UCAV has not been demonstrated…Taking out ground targets of opportunity etc are far easier and the challenge is with ROE’s not with software…For more complex aerial combat its quite a bit different, not to mention designing a UCAV that can turn for aerial combat…
the ground attack scenario was digital, which is ironic because ground attack is a lot harder for a computer than air combat. what that exercise proved was that a computer can, autonomously, determine a course of action to attack a target. the biggest difficulty lies in detecting and recognising a target. and the F-35 has proven that this is feasable with today’s technology
beyond that, missiles do the hard work. it’d be a lot more interesting to sneak up on an F-22 than it would be to come in with your radar at full power, giving away your position, that’s when the F-22 has the advantage, using its superb performance and stealth to hit and run at extreme range
But you seemed to take the ABSENCE of Information as PROOF of its existance !
incorrect, the F-35 is the biggest proof of what modern computers, and thus UCAVs, are capable of
Yet the path to develop these capabilities is linear and is challenging…We will one day reach this capability, but today we have to work on getting there…One step at a time…Focus on autonomous landing Stealth UCAV’s, autonomous Aerial refueling, Greater Autonomy in Ground targeting etc etc etc … Lets be 100% Autonomous in the easier missions….6th gen programs, or Expensive SECRET Developmental efforts many times the program size and cost of current programs, despite of being the most CUTTING EDGE are not comfortable enough to completely have an UNMANNED system and are aiming for an OPTIONALLY MANNED system and that too not initially…Thats a pretty good indicator of what to expect for the future…If the LRS-B Cannot carry out its complex A2G Missions and support missions 100% Unmanned with autonomy in A2AD environs, do not expect lesser programs to be capable of this… Simply put no PROOF OF SUCH TECHNOLOGY BEING READY IS AVAILABLE IN THE US. Maybe china’s different, in that case prove me wrong…
I’m not a CEO at NG, and I don’t work for Skunk Works, so I can’t really comment
I do know that when you have trillions to spend and no public morals to worry about, black technology tends to be slightly more advanced and far-reaching than the public stuff. especially with today’s technology, it’s a Pandora’s box that can’t be unopened
I agree, BUT we have to be REALISTIC and not turn a BLIND EYE to REALITY , study the WORK BEING done NOW and the work PROPOSED for the FUTURE and draw capability assesments from that, not from our own SCIENCE FICTION fantasy 🙂 , Lets assume for 1 sec that Designing A2A UCAV’s is MUCH EASIER..So the US is foolish and its defence contractors, designers, DARPA everybody are DUMB and STUPID…What about Europe? Russia? China? Why are they investing in Ultra expensive Stealthy Manned jets when a cheap UCLASS type vehicle can solve all their NEEDS?
you’re asking for examples of military stupidity. seriously…? :eagerness:
– Ancient Greece, goat herders defeat professional Phalanx using light throwing weapons
– 218 BC, Hannibal crosses the Alps, leaving Rome completely exposed because the Romans thought they could not be crossed
– the unsophisticated Huns conquer everything from Russia to China simply by combiningg cavalry with bows
– WWI, generals on both sides send millions of soldiers marching to their death because they believe that’s that way you win battles. tanks are ignored despite impressive results
– after WWI, an English officer named Hart tries to convince his superiors of the concept of a concentrated tank assault. he his ignored, but the Germans do listen, and call it Blitzkrieg
– WWII, the German advance through the Ardennes completely outflanks the Allied efforts because they believed it could not be crossed by eliphants… I mean, tanks
– WWII, the Germans stop their advance just short of Dunkerk, allowing the heart of the English army to escape, essentially keeping England in the war
– WWII, Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, the US defences utterly fail to see the attack comming
to give but a few of the best known examples. history is filled with instances of short sighted generals and thinkers who failed to see the potential use for new tactics and innovations, and where so set in their ways that they overestimated their own ability and knowledge and underestimated the enemy’s. and if you think today’s military commanders and thinkers won’t make such blatant and obvious mistakes, they’re breaking all the records: it’s called the F-35 Lightning II and they’re not sure it can survive being hit by lightning… :highly_amused:
SanemFrom the USN UCLASS FLYOFF thread:
Funding plans are provided for , for the F-35C…And it has proved resiliant to budget cuts.
it has, but where the USAF has eliminitated all advanced alternatives (including UCAS and the F-22) the USN has not
FA-XX is not a money hog, nor is it going to be for some time.
that’s kind of my problem, we all know it’s going to be a relatively advanced, risky, expensive and delayed program
where the UCLASS has the potential to prove that a succesful weapons program doesn’t have to be, and still be highly effective
The UCLASS has not even been DESIGNED yet… the contractor has not even been selected and won’t be for some time to come. It has not flown yet, nor has its systems been developed…As far as maturity is concerned the F-35C is FLYING with sensors, has the latest software under testing and a clear path towards IOC…The UCLASS program is yet to release full RFP’s after which the initial phases of the development would begin. So its NOT PROVEN, only ability to design a UCAV and have it take off and land on a carrier is VERIFIED…You still have to develop a WEAPONS SYSTEM out of this concept…. And the UCLASS is for only a small FRACTION of the VLO STRIKE mission, 2 x 1000 lb and or SDB for Long range missions, or Long persistance ISR….To have a vehicle of the size of the UCLASS perform a role that encompasses the entire spectrum of VLO Strike for the Navy is IMPOSSIBLE…
I stressed the words “under testing”, because that’s all the F-35 is at for the moment, test phase. considering the time, money and complexity of the program, it is still at a relatively poor stage of the testing. and as the F-22 has shown, a lot can go wrong long after “testing” has finished
the UCLASS on the other hand will be based off technology that has been tested and/or used operationally with succes for over 10 years, the cost, risks and complexity are low compared to the F-35. which is why it’s perfectly feasable for the UCLASS to reach a 2018 IOC date, while the F-35 is likely to miss that date
Using Qualified pilots to fly UAV’s seems strange to me, especially when you have to retrain them for UAV Flying any how..
the USAF’s argument was that experienced pilots had an edge, the experience of operating from the air, a situational insight
but the facts since have long shown that such idea’s are antiquated and that computers can do many tasks better and in the end cheaper
which also applies to the whole UCLASS/F-35 comparison: even if the UCLASS can’t do everything the F-35 does, it has other qualities that still allow it to replace the F-35 and thus begs the question why the F-35 is needed at all
Sanemthanks for the pictures, BlauerMax, that’s the sort of application of innovative technologies that I’m waiting for
any more detail on this equipment? especially the introduction of a sense and avoid system would qualify UAVs to operate in civilian air space
SanemInvestment into Unamnned vehicles of all kinds has been substantial since quite a while now. Like every emerging defense technology it takes time to gain acceptance and then gain momentum. The steady increase in funding is not a very recent phenomenon..its been going on for many many years…
ofcourse, every program, technology and design has to fight for its survival and succes
the problems come to life when outdated, bloated and wasteful programs (yes I’m talking about the F-35) keep money from more effective and efficient programs (like the Global Hawk, UCAS, UCLASS, the score of ultra-long endurance UAVs that have been scrapped of late…)
There is what is known, and then there is what is not known. Many think (including Bill sweetsman) that the USAF has a UCAV in place and testing at Groom lake…and many believe that current UCAV efforts of the USAF are secret…
so a stealthy, long range unmanned aircraft that can do ISR, ground attack, air combat… probably costs around $50 million
then why do they need the F-35?
It is one thing to discrimnate between targets when launched, its another to co-ordinate with blue force and execute an aerial intercept all through autonomus means…Whether you beleive it or not such capability is not yet possible…If the USAF are too blind to get this, some one else should have done it already if its only as easy as using the systems on WVR missiles like you have claimed…
a computer detecting, recognising and tracking targets is possible, the F-35 can do this
and computers deciding on tactics and strategy has been done, back in 2005: two X-45A’s flew in formation, attacked a pre-determined target, came across a surprise target and AUTONOMOUSLY decided which of them was in the best position and had the sufficient fuel/weapons left. they then engaged the unforseen target using tactics they decided amongst themselves, with no human input
by comparison ground attack is difficult, because of the variety of targets and the clutter
air combat is easy, because there is a limited number of variables:
– enemy combat aircraft, there only exist a limited number in the world, so it should be easy enough to learn a comput to tell them apart, even recognise markings
– friendly aircraft, again few and thus easy to learn to a computer, and not to attack these
– civilian aircraft, again few and thus easy to learn to a computer, and not to attack these
– missiles, small objects coming straight at you at high speed (usually Mach 2+), again easy to learn to a computer, avoid these or shoot them down
UCAV might lack the ability to take initiative in unforseen situation, like being suddenly attack by a Chinese stealth fighter in peace time. however, manned aircraft don’t have that much more options, they need to ask for attack clearance from home base first, because no one wants to start WW3 because they got trigger happy. UCAVs have the advantage here in that they don’t need to get back home their families, they won’t think twice about giving their “life” for the cause. the perfect soldiers
and that’s what the future looks like, stealthy UAVs flying into frenemy territory and having a snoop around, and the defender doing his best to shoot them down and parade them around like Iran did with the RQ-170
because today’s banking elites that rule the world don’t want serious conflicts, that’s bad for business when pretty much every country is interlinked, the worst they’ll accept is a regime change (too bad for Assad and the like). but they’ll always be happy to lend the money to buy a lot of useless military hardware
We’re less than a decade away from self-driving cars as a technical and commercially scalable reality — the legal issues are likely to take longer to sort out — and these tasks are rather more challenging than most UCAV scenarios.
The relatively anemic progress being made in military aerospace field is largely down to ossified institutional practice. Of course it doesn’t matter so much just now, but in the long run… well, let’s just hope China is as bad or worse at this as the west.
my thoughts exactly 😉
although I don’t fear a US/China conflict, the Cold War lasted 45 years without open conflict, and China is the US biggest economic partner, war would be catastrophic for both, before the first (public) bullet is fired both countries would be in total economic, social and technological anarchy, the Chinese especially have a history of bloody domestic conflicts which they wish to avoid at all cost
The level of autonomy required for tactical fighter operations is not possible, This is a FACT, its quite a bit out, this is ALSO A FACT.
is it? because earlier you admitted that we don’t really know what the US military is doing with its covert UCAV programs. I doubt anyone knows what the Chinese are really capable of, but it’s probably a lot better than what we give them credit for. and who knows what the F-35 and Su-50 AI’s can do, but I don’t doubt that we wouldn’t believe it if they told us
you mention two FACTS, I’ll respond in kind
– FACT, we don’t know what military computers are capable of, not unless you work for some covert program, in which case you can’t talk about it
– FACT, computers are getting smarter every day, and are quickly nearing human levels of intelligence, will soon surpass us, and in many fields have long done so
so in the end we can discuss this as much as we like, the reality is that technology will eventually overtake us all, and much sooner than we would believe possible, in ways we cannot even imagine 😉
But Navy only has about $65M to fund multiple contractors — a tiny fraction of the money required.
This means the four contractors, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman will have to self-fund the development effort, with little hope of recouping their investment.
Boeing Phantom Ray, has flown
GA Avenger C, on mission over Afghanistan
LMT Sea Ghost, probably a derivative of the RQ-170 which has had extensive operational experience for several years now
NG X-47B will soon land on a carrier
from where I’m sitting most of the UCLASS contenders have already been tested extensively in one form or another
if they transplant the X-47B landing system, it’s purely a matter of who has most efficient and effective design, a 2018 IOC date seems perfectly feasable and easily inside the budget
the UCLASS is a way for these companies to sell the technology they already have, it’s not the starting point for developing that technology
SanemThat has already been decided…They are procuring F-35C’s as we speak, only question is the number.
unless there is no money for the F-35C or a much more expensive and even riskier FA-XX
at which point a much cheaper, proven and longer-ranged UCLASS is going to start looking extremely interesting, why bother introducing the unproven, too expensive to risk in combat F-35C (which hasn’t even set foot on a carrier btw)
X-47B Heads For Final Tests
Of course, the Navy hasn’t been forced to divert a large number of qualified pilots into UAVs, as the USAF has been (Predators and Reapers are the USAF’s second-largest pilot force after the F-16), and will not have to do so for a long time.
funny that, the US army has diverted almost no qualified pilots to its UAVs, and they probably fly more UAVs than the USAF and with less accidents 😉
Sanemlooks very interesting, I’ll give it a read 😉
SanemThe problem lies in the fact that imagination is far far ahead of reality and current development status…Look at autonomous capability here..The current status is very limited…
yes, because the military made the explicit choice not to pursue such technology explicitly. only now are they starting to look into it, and are independant companies starting to develop such abilities using their own funding
The Most modern Global Hawk for instance does not yet have Autonomous collision avoidance system…It involves human effort/input…So the day’n’age of autonomous execution of complex Maneuvering especially one that is adaptive and not based on simple set of pre-fed profiles is quite a way out.
the F-22 doesn’t have a helmet-mounted aiming system, although the technology has been around since the 1980’s
most USAF fighters today have rather limited radars, even though AESA is quickly becoming the standard
USAF Predators and Reapers need constant human control, where the Global Hawk can pretty much fly itself
they also don’t have an automated landing systems, although the Belgian Air Force has used it on its B-Hunters since the 1990’s
so you see, all these aircraft lack certain advanced, or even off the shelf, hardware and software that could save a lot of money or prove to be a major asset on missions. but in all cases, the military made the explicit choice not to install these systems, usually to save money, although in the case of automated landing and flying on UAVs this has probably cost a lot more than it has saved
an automated collision avoidance system is not difficult to design, it is a question of cost. the MK1 eyeball is cheap, but pretty useless if a civilian aircraft flying at night or in fog, or when the object is moving too fast or outside of line of sight
optical sensors are getting to the point where they can rival or even exceed human eye sight, while computers are getting cheap and capable enough to detect and thus avoid other aircraft. the main need right now is for UAVs, but eventually these systems will become mandatory for manned aircraft too because they minimise accidents, in the same way that an automated landing system like on the X-47B will probably be used on manned aircraft as well, simply because it is safer and cheap enough to justify the investment
The degree of autonomous ops is directly proportional to cost, complexity and R&D Money…and so the existing line up of UAV’s and UCAS’s have to wait for future programs to mature that technology…Such as the existing systems are waiting for the UCLASS to advance autonomous ability when it comes to refueling, anti-collision and smart maneuvering (Self generated way points etc etc).
exactly, and if the USAF had invested in automated flying and landing and de-icing over a decade ago for its Reapers and Predators, it would have saved millions
in the same way the fact that the USAF has waited so long to start researching for example in-flight UAV refueling, something that could have been developed and installed relatively cheap, has probably cost more than it saved. it is not just a matter of maturity, it is also a matter of timing and prioritising resources
Boeing showed great promise with its automated UCAS architecture back in 2005, yet 8 years later none of the USAF UAVs have anything that comes even near such abilities. not because such a system is beyond reach technologically or too expensive, but because the USAF decided not to invest in it
To require autonomous aerial discrimination, targeting, engaging in tough “split” second maneuvering, targeting, and blue force interoperability in aerial combat is FAR FAR out of current capability…
then how do A2A missiles discriminate, target and engage targets in split seconds? how do you explain LOAL, or the ability of the AIM-9X and Python 5 to target specific aircraft parts like the engines or the cockpit?
why does LMT show videos of the F-35 telling its pilots which are the good guys and which are the bad guys? if there’s even the slightest margin of error in that system, an F-35 could fire upon an allied aircraft, or mistake an enemy aircraft for a friendly one and get shot down himself
the “split second” argument is also relative. in modern air combat targets are engaged at range with missiles that need not even be launched in the direction of the target, giving a lot more time to make strategic decisions
Swarming is not something NEW as a tactic, almost every forward thinking force has planned and is planning against such a tactics..Swarming with the type of system as this is going to be counter productive when all you need is a Bigger version of the JASSM or something like that to do the job…
you’re thinking of target saturation, where I was talking about the hive mind concept, where multiple aircraft act as a single entity, regardless if we’re talking 2 or a 100 aircraft. humans do not have this inate ability, computers do. which I believe is why it hasn’t been used or even developed to the full yet, because we humans have a hard time seeing the potential of something that we don’t understand
Sanemseeing how none of the Chinese stealth aircraft have LO tails, I guess this means they’re still working on that
or maybe they figured that it’s not worth the cost/effort to put one in (which seems odd though, it can’t be that difficult)
Maybe it’s some sort of fighter UCAV (an idea i’ve always had fun with in my head , if you can make one of these little UCAVs cheap enough, that can turn 12 or 15G, have good flying characteristic, have 2 or 4 good missiles and a gun, and good enough radar, optical and self defence systems-passive especially , you just press the “kill” button and you have the thing going berzerk, eating at anything withing it’s reach, crashing into the opponent if necessary; send a swarm of these against an F-22 and F-35 strike coming to “liberate” you and boy, you’re gonna make their day crap or what) Maybe the production version will have a WS-13. We’ll see hopefully.
my thoughts exactly, I’ve written extensively on the subject in the two other UCAV threads on this forum, but none in the military community seem to even want to consider the concept
high turn Gs would make it superb at dodging enemy (Allied) missiles and cannon fire, making it extremely hard to shoot down
and with a computer at the controls, it would be able to track a large number of enemies and incomming missiles at the same time, allowing it to calculate the best possible escape vector and timing in microseconds
but what makes it most dangerous is the UCAVs ability to act as a swarm, allowing each aircraft to act in concert with the others, constantly moving into positions where it will draw the enemy into the gun sights of another UCAV
especially in dogfights this becomes deadly, because humans tend to focus on a limited number of targets, usually in front of them, UCAVs would constantly track every friendly and enemy aircraft, 360 degrees and regardless of altitude or orientation
stealth will add an extra layer of resilience to AMRAAMs, meaning the F-35 for one is going to very quickly run out of missiles
and these UCAVs wouldn’t need radar or radar guided missiles, they could just go soley for optical sensors, maximising their stealth and keeping costs low, and optically guided missiles, which are immune to stealth, chaff, flares…
and if you use such lighter, cheaper and more numerous missiles to shoot down high value enemy missiles (like the AMRAAM which the F-35 will only carry a few off), this will quickly deplete enemy missile reserves. when fighting over extended area’s like the Pacific, every missile will count before a manned aircraft has to make the long haul back home, where a UCAV can just kamikaze if you want it to (if you can exchange a $30 million UCAV for a $150 million F-22 or F-35 this way, that certainly seems like a serious option)
SanemOne place money could be siphoned off from is the USN’s Lockheed F-35C variant, Aboulafia says. The navy has always been tepid in its enthusiasm for the carrier-borne stealth fighter. “There might be a choice between the F-35C and this, and there are people in the navy who would prefer that this does indeed force some sort of crisis there,” he says. “[It’s] more than a hedge, but actually a wedge.”
as I’ve been saying for some time now, at some point the USN is going to have decide in what numbers, if any, it wants the F-35C
when it can have the cheaper, proven and in many ways more capable (upgraded) F-18 and/or UCLASS, that’s going to be a tough sale in these times of falling budgets
Sign In
