Sanemit seems landings are for july or august:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/drone-carrier/
I’ve been studying Chinese culture and geopolitical strategies these last few months
and my impression is that China isn’t as imperialistic as say Japan or the US, they like to keep their surroundings safe, but beyond that they have little interest in occupation and such
if this is true, Chinese efforts are perhaps another Star Wars program, aimed at deliberatly provoking its adversaries into a spending frenzy on defence (which is, unless you’re actually at war or can sell it to other countries, a wasteful industry, the absurd prices for the F-2 and F-35 are prime examples of this)
if China avoids a military conflict but instead invests its resources into its economy, it would end up owning the rest of the world (which it in truth already does ;))
Sanemgreat stuff bring_it_on 😉
edit: anyone know when they’ll attempt the first carrier landing? that would be the real break through
and I’m now wondering if the release of the Chinese UCAV pics might be linked to the carrier launch, a Chinese PR effort to show that they’re also in the UCAV game?
Sanemtrue, software, data links etc are actually more important for UCAVs than the actual aircraft design
these can and probably have been tested on other (non stealthy) UAVs. the same can be said for its stealth coating (J-20)
although the flying wing design could be a new thing for them
while I don’t expect one of these to fly off a Chinese carrier any time soon, they would be game changers
because they would give China
1) an RQ-170 type aircraft, allowing them to execute stealthy ISR missions at range, giving them a good view of any allied operations, maybe even track allied carriers and such
2) a stealth attack bomber, able to sneak past allied lines and hit sensitive targets (radar, air ports…) and sneak back, while being expendable enough to risk losing them (which is very probable)
3) an air combat aircraft. equiped with A2A missiles, these could be stealthy and expendable enough to get close to allied air assets (fighters, AWACS, tankers, bombers…) and execute hit and run missions (fire all missiles and make a run for it back home, maybe even some Kamikaze missions). with the right sensors and programming such aircraft would be extremely dangerous in the air
Sanemfrom the UCLASS thread, to keep things on topic
Sanem, have followed your work for quite a while. I see two main problems that I would love to hear an answer for:
1. Problems of maintaining communication with a UAV in supersonic speeds.
2. The kinematic performance of a missile launched from a slow carrier is significantly less than that launched from something faster and higher.
3. Combined, I think this is the main bottleneck for UAVs.The best way forward perhaps (and I don’t know if it solves the communication problem) is to go for twin seater manned planes supported by UCAVs. There was a rumor by PShamim of Pakdef that PAF may be headed exactly there with the block III of the JF-17… twin-seater UCAV control (or as best I gleaned from what he wrote)
hi PLA-MKII, how’s the VTOL UCAV project going?
1. an interesting question, it would be interesting to look at how manned supersonic jets handle communications at that speed, does this give known problems?
the X-51 could be an interesting if extreme reference, as every modern missile is basically a kind of UAV these days (in the sense that is controllable after launch). did it maintain radio contact at its extreme speeds?
2. that didn’t stop slow Harriers from shooting down much faster and higher flying Mirages over the Falklands 😉
LMT is also promoting the tactic for the F-35 to fire its missile at targets that are behind it, “letting the missile do the turning”. I doubt a 180 degree turn will do much good for the kinetics of the missile, but if it has good range and angle of attack the effect on performance should be limited enough to still pose a serious danger
for a slow (prop type) UCAV, this is a serious problem when engaging in long range missile fights, because a faster enemy could indeed give its missile extra range and speed
that said, for Western aircraft the rules of engagements often require visual confirmation to avoid friendly fire, and history has a way of letting no plan survive first contact with the enemy. so we can assume that sooner or later even a slow UCAV would have sufficient range to fire at a target (hiding behind a civilian aircraft comes to mind)
for a stealth UCAV, even a slower model, the rules would be different, because its stealth reduces the enemy stand off range or nullifies it completely. if it can get close enough to a target and launch enough missiles before running off, the target will be in trouble, even if it is flying higher and faster
I’m thinking of the new Chinese stealth UCAV here, in the right situation and with the right programming these could sneak past Allied lines and sneak attack valuable but vulnerable targets like AWACS, tankers… certainly with the latest generation Russian missiles these would stand very little chance of surviving such an attack as their counter-measures would be outclassed
as for the mothership concept, this will certainly be the next step, already AWACS and Apache helicopters have succesfully tested the concept, and they’re now working to give ground troops direct control over a UCAV A-10
especially for a stealth mission something like an F-35 could have an escort of UCAVs, and use its hard to detect communications system to update their orders and strategies as the missions requires. which is my beef with the F-35, it’s a relatively short ranged single seater, something like a B-2 would be much more effective in this role. especially once UCAVs are equiped with weapons like HARM and A2A missiles they would provide something like B-2 with a long range, flexible and relatively expendable escort
either way manned aircraft will certainly act as communication nodes, relaying data back and from the UCAVs. light communications are the holy grail here btw, allowing manned and unmanned aircarft to exchange large amounts of data very fast and with complete stealth
Sanemone of my favorites, probably the cure to the “my carrier is bigger than yours” disease
SanemMost would consider it a good proposition to trade $0.75 million missiles for $4 million UAVs.
that would depend
an S-300 missile cost $1 million, compared to $100,000 or less for a stripped down UAV
while a cold war missile probably has a negligible cost, compared to up to $100 for a Global Hawk
which is why you don’t lead with Global Hawks, or send F-22s into gun fights, that’s the sort of thing that gets generals fired 😉
the other point is missile reserves and strategic value; an attacker’s losses are irrelevant if they succeed in their mission
for example a Chinese Chengdu J-7 might as well be scrapped, so paying a generous $100,000 per aircraft to upgrade it to a single-use UAV should be feasable (Boeing aims at $3.5 million per QF-16, which has probably much more stringent specifications for safety reasons alone, where a J-7 drone would need to be little more than a guided missile)
even if Taiwan could shoot them down at half the cost, it’s still expending a lot of amunition in doing so, also because at long range they can’t tell the difference between an advanced Su-27 variant and a throwaway J-7 drone, and probably won’t risk it. plus Taiwanese air defences would also be exposing themselves to Chinese counter-attacks when they enagage the drones, allowing the Chinese to take them out at a relatively low cost
the same goes for any US aircraft that might intervene in a China/Taiwan conflict, even if they score perfect missile kills with zero losses, those F-18s and F-22s only carry a limited amount of missiles before they need to return for reload and refuel. if they wasted these missiles at long range on drones (again, I doubt they can tell them apart from a J-10 or J-11) this will cost valuable time, amunition and fuel, not to mention the high workload on the pilots, while the drone losses would be utterly irrelevant to China
SanemI agree with most of what you’ve said, although i would caution that as the US gets out of Afghanistan the capability of the UAV/UCAV fleet must be re-assessed vis-a-vis potential future conflicts against Iran, North Korea etc where the dynamics at play would be quite a few different from the previous 2 campaigns. I agree with the Loss of UAV’s over Bosnia, and we must remember that tactics, Operations and capability has advanced quite a bit since then.
well, against both Iran and North Korea UAVs would be of huge value
1) conventional warfare, having large numbers of expendable aircraft is great on the offensive, they can keep a constant watch on vital areas (airfields, army bases, bridges…), searching for targets and engaging them instantly (before the enemy can take off/fire their weapons/cross). for example over Bosnia UAVs were in huge demand for the target intel they could provide, often the reason why they were sent into enemy gun range. with manned jets on overwatch the enemy would also be hard pressed to engage them, be it from the air or from the ground, because any units attacking them would instantly be destroyed. and if UAVs were to operate in groups and be equiped with the right weapons (A2A, HARM missiles) like manned aircraft, they could easily defend themselves without need for mann
2) nuclear warfare, with both Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons, you want to find those hidden missile sites/Scud launchers before they can fire their deadly cargoes. having hundreds of fearless aircraft that can watch an area for 20+ hours is a huge asset here. the important element here is speed, you’d have to fly into enemy defences in the very first hours of the conflict. stealthy aircraft can also fulfil this role to an extent, but they’re few in numbers and for example F-22s are not designed for finding ground targets. going in unsupported also greatly increases the chance of stealth aircraft going down. 4th gen aircraft have the numbers, but they’d suffer serious losses if they have to fly into a fully active air defence. UAVs offer expendable numbers, making them an excellent first or second wave
3) unconventional warfare, both Iran and North Korea are training their armed forces with guerilla tactics in mind. if you look at the damage militias have caused against Allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, just imagine what a well equiped, trained and motivated professional force could do. UAVs have long proven their worth against such opponents, where manned jet aircraft are near to useless, except maybe the A-10
If you take General Atomic’s marketing seriously, they claim you can darken the skies with their cheap UAVs causing the enemy to run out of missiles before you run out of UAVs. :highly_amused:
I hope the Taiwanese find the concept as funny as you do, because that’s exactly what the Chinese are doing :p
http://aviationintel.com/2013/01/16/as-highlighted-on-this-site-as-a-threat-for-years-chinas-converted-surplus-fighter-drone-force-eyeballed-from-space/
sure many would consider it an “unconventional tactic”, but so were the mounted archer or concentrated tank charge until someone actually tried it and wiped the floor with the enemy
you’d have to be an idiot to send a $10 million MQ-9, or a $100 million Global Hawk, but a stripped down RQ-1 could cost as little as $100,000, and something like a stripped down Shadow would cost even less
There were reports that the Serbs used machinegun armed Mi-8s to shoot down RQ-1s.
the Mi-8 has a ceiling of 4,500 m, compared goes to the Predator’s 7,620 m, so that’d be the operator’s fault for using dumb tactics. that’s like going in close with an F-22 to use its machine gun, not a good idea with a $150 million stealth aircraft
Sanema UAV certainly can’t match an F-15 for speed, or a B-52 for payload
other than that, the whole argument is hogwash
1) the US military says it won’t need UAVs as much after it withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan. yet it has been present in both countries much longer than anyone had expected, and is already planning on keeping UAVs operating there long after the ground troops have left
2) France has shown in Mali the great need for UAV type capacity in modern conflicts, both in recon and ground attack UAVs are greatly superior to manned jet aircraft in both performance and cost. such light conflicts have become the norm in the last few decades for Western forces, the last time peer opponent was Vietnam
if the USAF insists on scaling down its UAV force, countries like France, Germany, UK, Saudi-Arabia, South-Korea… will be happy to take them off their hands. although I doubt that would be a good idea, remember when the Canada sold their Chinook helicopters, and then had to buy new ones when they went to Afghanistan
3) the US military likes to stress that UAVs can’t operate in US air space, but many countries do allow operating UAVs in domestic air space, Israel is working on it, and the EU wants to allow it by 2016. on top of that it’s not actually proven that UAVs are dangerous to fly in civilian air space, for one thing the bigger ones tend to operate at high altitude. most (near) collisions with UAVs involve manned aircraft who were at fault (not to mention the many accidents with only manned aircraft that take place regularily)
4) then there are the many uses UAVs have beyond Iraq/Afghanistan, from Africa to South America, to border patrol and sea patrol, UAVs offer many important advantages over manned aircraft, from cost to endurance to the fact that human lives are not at risk (as many accidents in these roles have shown over the years, not to mention the MC-12 that crashed last week). for tasks closer to home such aircraft also offer a huge help to police, SAR and firemen, helping them solve crimes and save lives
5) it’s often said that UAVs are more vulnerable against regular armed forces, and while true to an extent, in overal this is incorrect. for example over Bosnia many UAVs were shot down, but this was because they were operated at much lower altitudes than manned aircraft, which were forbidden to do so. the logic was that UAVs were an expendable asset, that could be risked to get superior intel. this same logic resulted over Lybia in the loss of the MQ-8B, while the Predators/Reapers operating at high altitude and with fighter cover were not shot down, despite them operating against regular armed forces. on the other hand, many helicopters and their crews and passengers have been lost over Afghanistan to enemy fire, while little or no UAVs were lost to enemy fire. I for one would rather lose 10 UAVs than 10 human lives
any opponent that can threaten a UAV operating at high altitude also poses a relatively high danger to any manned jets (which have been shot down over Bosnia, namely two AH-64s, an F-117 and an F-16, which together probably cost more than the 47 UAVs that were lost) and considering that these jets are much more expensive and also cost pilot lives these losses are relatively speaking much heavier
also, UAVs are not equiped to face peer opponents. if equiped with ECM, HARM and and advanced air-to-air weapons, even slow moving UAVs could form a serious danger to peer opponents, offering a relatively cheap and low risk system to take out valuable enemy assets, while the enemy has to expose himself further to counter these assets
6) strategypage mentions prices for up to $25 million for a Reaper UAV (while it says the much more advanced Avenger costs only $15 million), but this includes inflation, upgrades and development costs (and who knows what other costs). if the same cost calculation where used an F-22 would cost over $300 million, while an F-35 could cost over $500 million, meaning you could buy 10-20 UAVs for a single F-22 or F-35 (the first one which has been shown to be hangar queen that is a serious threat to its own pilots, while the second one is 10 years late, massively over budget and hasn’t even finished the hardest parts of its testing yet)
SanemAny 2 fighters with LOS DL’s or Link-16’s like set up can do this, so F-35 and EF are hardly unique. A Block 50 F-16 and F-35 , or a F-35 and F-18E/F can also do this provided both have bi-directional Dl’s installed.
thanks, I didn’t know all those types could do that
but that’s my point, there is no need for the launch aircraft to carry the sensors anymore
in Vietnam an F-4 launching a Sparrow missile needed to a) have a radar target lock and b) needed to maintain that target lock until missile impact
today, AMRAAM does not care where the target data comes from or who sends it target updates, it just needs to get close enough to use its own radar to execute the final impact phase
in that sense, a UCAV carrying A2A missiles would not need a radar to use them, it could use its own optical sensors to locate the target, or use targetting data from another source (be it AWACS, a manned fighter with radar, or another UCAV with optical sensors closer to the target)
so even a UCLASS without radar would be perfectly capable of engaging a target in air combat
You assume that there is a need to EXPERIMENT with such a set up. I do not see a need to EXPERIMENT at all.
X-47B Unmanned Aerial Refueling Demo Victim Of Cuts
neither do you need to EXPERIMENT with UAV to UAV refueling, but you’ll agree that that’s a huge loss of extremely useful research? 😉
not to mention concept validation: as long as they don’t try it, it’s not proven and thus can not be further developed. which is great until the day when such abilities could have had a game changing effect on a mission outcome
No need to test something that is already known. We know what issues are to come up with air to air specific UCAV’s, you cannot test those issues on existing systems as that requires development of software, ROE’s and ovreall boost to the infrastructure to handle such bandwidth for secure data. You also want ZERO emmissions so no SATCOMS , NO Link 16 so you need AUTONOMY which will come in the coming decades. Infact expect some chunk of the 6+ billion being spent on the LRS-B to go into developing such things (Between now and 2017) …
so you agree that UCLASS could be used for A2A combat?
and many would disagree with you on that, they will argue that UCAVs cannot fight in air combat, because of limited bandwith, software, ROE’s, emmissions… but those are all theoretical arguments, which can be counter-argued:
– bandwith is no problem: in long range missile engagements all you need is the radar data or a limited number of optical images, which are relatively low size data bundles. modern fighter pilots spend most of their time in combat staring at their screens too because the enemy is too far away for a visual confirmation (and if they’re closer then that, even an F-22 is likely to get killed by the latest Sukhoi jets)
– software, at long range this is relatively easy to program, automated missile launch sequences and combat tactics, with optional human operator input. the F-35 is perfectly capable of detecting, targetting and engaging targets on its own, it just needs the pilots approval. that’s easy enough to give via satellite or other data link types, if you insist on not letting the UCAVs fight for themselves (which they probably could)
– ROE’s are also programmable. modern fighter pilots too ask mission clearance from home base first for engaging
– zero emmissions is a nice capability, except that no modern fighter actually has zero emmission, the F-35 is all about stealthy communications. like I said pilots ask mission clearance before engaging, otherwise you could just as well send cruise missiles or UCAVs to do the job. also many modern weapons like the AMRAAM and guided ammunitions use Link-16 and SATCOMS, so what’s the point then?
In theory, some of these limitations ought to erode as unmanned technology develops.
…automated target recognition…
but that technology won’t develop itself if the military refuses to fund research (like the UAV refueling getting cancelled) or refuses to research it altogether (as with the UCAS program which showed great promise until the USAF pulled the plug, or possibly moved it to covert research)
to give one example, automated target recognition for air combat is already a proven ability, like on the Python 5
It is widely known in DOD and industry circles that the next generation of Air warfare would be unmanned or optionally manned, there’s no surprise there, and the industry along with the DOD is working on that. The UCLASS is something different, it is a USN effort to get its NEED for ISR and Light Strike met within a relativly quick timeline.
and if along the way it turns out this platform can also be used for heavy strike, A2A combat and what else at the expense of the F-35, then I’m sure no one in the Navy leadership ever foresaw this… :rolleyes:
You have no idea what you are talking about. They are buying the aircraft which would IOC in the 2017-2019 time frame. Even the F-22’s bought prior to IOC Could NOT WORK technically. They are buying it because they have developed a capability to do so, and they are sticking to the plan that they themselves have approved. Whats wrong in that?
because when things go wrong, they go double wrong if you already bought the aircraft. when I buy a car I like to make sure it works first, “should” and “work” are words I don’t want to hear in the same sentence when I’m paying a lot of money for a vehicle that carries me and my family at over 100 km/h between a lot of other heavy metal vehicles doing similar speeds
Thats your opinion, the USN and LMA would say that the F-35 is built around the JSF requirement and not around the A-6 design requirement which was created for that product.
The F-35 also does not compare favourably to the F-14 in BARCAP mission, but is that the fault of the fighter or its developer?
my point exactly, so where does LMT get the idea to compare the X-47b to the A-6?
btw in government they have this tendency to choose the winner first and than write out the requirements
that’s what they did so Boeing could win the tanker competition, and when the F-35 failed to meet its initial requirements, you just lower the bar
which is why I’m all for companies creating a good aircraft at a good price, regardless of requirements, then the buyers will come
it’s what McD did with the A-4, not what the USN asked for, but still an excellent aircraft
and it’s what many companies are now doing with their own funds, researching UAV technology even when governments are not funding them directly as they usually did during the Cold War
X-47B Unmanned Aerial Refueling Demo Victim Of Cuts
which is what you get when you waste billions on gold-plated programs like LCS or F-35, when relatively cheap programs like these could result in serious force multipliers (especially for the Navy, F-18’s are inefficient for in-air refueling missions to give but one example)
SanemYou’d have to have a UCAV for that purpose in the first place, before you start procuring it by the hoards..You’d also need to have a network in place that can potentially accomodate hundreds of UCAV’s. The UCLASS is a ISR + Light STRIKE craft, as given in the meaning of UCLASS 🙂 … If the USN or the USAF is ready to demand a UCAV for air combat, i am sure the industry can come up with a product, but rest assured such a product would be a lot different from the UCLASS.
not neccesairly
in every engagement you need a sensor and a shooter
modern fighter jets combine the two, for pratical reasons, and try to make them stealth as well
the F-35 and Eurofighter, to give two examples, deviate from this norm in that one aircraft can be the sensor and the other the shooter, thus maintaining shooter stealth. a very interesting tactic for the F-35 with its long range radar, allowing one to hang back and spot the target while a second F-35 sneaks into missile range and opens fire before the enemy realises what’s happening
UAVs have the potential to expand this concept. UCLASS for example are probably stealthier than the F-35 (concidering the flying wing design is naturally more stealthy, there’s no cockpit or big tail end, and LMT for one suggested using the same stealth coating as on the F-35), yet at (let’s assume) a third of the price. meaning you’ll have the (relatively speaking expendable) numbers to sneak close to the enemy and even past him, and engage him from unexpected angles, using targetting data from any source (ground radar, AWACS, manned fighter jets, other UAVs…) so it can engage the target completely passively and sneak away before the enemy can pin down its location. or if the enemy does locate it, it can fly into the kill zone of other UCLASS and repeat the strategy
low cost UAVs would complement this strategy well, forming a defensive line of bait that the enemy can focus on
I agree with the “UNTIL WE TRY” part. The problem i see is not that you have to try it on a UCLASS. No need for that. The challenges that the X-47B will overcome :
yes, but my question is why stop there? how much would it cost to experiment with arming it with A2A missiles? testing its ability to avoid incomming enemy missiles? certainly ones the carrier tests have been done, and maybe some ground attack runs, they’ll be excellent test beds to execute such further experiments
You do not need to test anything on a UCLASS, you can get a pretty good idea of how the technology matures and evolves…
we do? isn’t the big selling point of the F-35 that no one knows what it’s capable of? we do know it’s capable of detecting, identifying, tracking and engaging any nearby friends and enemies. if this is the unclassified part of its tech, who knows what else it’s capable of in terms of autonomous capabilities?
But the Navy does not agree with you on this. They are going to be putting an increasing amount of faith in Unmanned systems, but eventually most in the Navy and AF would agree that the entire REPLACING MANNED FIGHTER is a solution that is perhaps a generation or two away still.
actually I’m not for replacing the whole manned fleet, I consider human pilots to be another mission asset, like radar or bunker-busting bombs. they have their uses, but they’re not always necesairy and certainly not always an efficient capacity
They are ordering the next LOTS because that is the SCHEDULE .. You cannot postpone ordering future LOTS without compromising future deliveries…
my point exactly, they’re buying something which in all likelyhood doesn’t work, because not buying it could result in its cancellation, because that’s what you do when something doesn’t work, you don’t buy it. especially at $150 million a piece
Who was comparing them??
LMT was comparing the UCLASS to the A-6, when they should have been comparing it to their own F-35, which in terms of certainly efficiency and possibly effectiveness doesn’t come anywhere near the A-6
SanemYeah, i am also in favour of sending a bunch of Predator’s armed with Aim-120’s vs the Pakfa’s of the future..
superior numbers worked for the P-51s facing the Me-262s. why would it not work for UAVs?
Being ABLE to CARRY WEIGHT is not the same as BEING OPTIMIZED TO CARRY…
You seriously believe that the UCLASS designs on offer will be able to perform inhuman acrobatics when compared to manned fighters?
we don’t know, that’s my whole argument
I doubt the UCLASS is optimised for either A2A or acrobatics
but until we try, we won’t know, so you can’t say they can’t
I don’t know exactly what dimensions they’ll use, but I know a large JDAM is bigger than an AMRAAM, and certainly a lot heavier. and if you can drop a JDAM, there’s no reason why you couldn’t drop an A2A missile and launch it in the air
and we don’t know about acrobatics, but we know there will not be a pilot on board. meaning that if it has fired all missiles, you can for example simply order it to kamikaze into a Su-50, that’s a 3:1 win in money and a 0:1 win in killed pilots
this is a whole different type of combat aircraft, and to understand its potential you need to stop thinking of it like a manned aircraft
In the future we will see a lot of what you are talking about, but its rediculous to accept all this from a UCLASS which is designed for a specific mission set (and air combat is not that mission). The UCLASS cannot replace evrything from a light striker, to ISR, to a C-130, C5, B-2, E-3, Jstar, Triton, M1 Abram , F-22, F-35..So much as you may want it to 🙂
I’m saying an F-18E/F + UCLASS mix is a lot more interesting than an F-35 + UCLASS mix
for example when France bombed Mali, they sent Rafales (range 3,700 km) armed with up to 6 ASSMs (3,000 lb) or two GBU-24s (4,000 lb)
for less money you can have an X-47b (range 3,900 km) with either of those outfits (max 4,500 lb) and with superior loiter, meaning that as long as it doesn’t drop its bombs it can remain on station with in-air refueling. and it’ll certainly cost a lot less in fuel
I doubt the average F-18 sortie carries much more bombs than that. the F-35 might, but then you’re paying 3 times the price, so you could send 3 X-47b instead which probably will carry more bombs and certainly can cover a lot more terrain and targets at the same time
First, we do not know how much these things cost. Second they would not be in the sort of numbers you are talking about.
Maybe in your DREAM WORLD, but in reality they are working on ordering the next Lot …
and you know how much the F-35 will end up costing? the only reason the price is stabalizing is because they cut out potentially vital systems and lowered the desired results. if the F-22 and B-2 are anything to go on, the costs will only go up
and they are ordering the next lot, why do you think they’d do that with an aircraft that hasn’t even finished flight tests? because it’s such a perfect aircraft? no, because then it’ll be harder to cancel, even if chances are they’ll have to fix them by the time they become operational
I don’t know much about aircraft, but I do know a thing or two about how governments and institutions do things. and believe me, this is more about money and jobs than it is about getting good value for the money. that’s the way it always is, so I don’t mind, but in times when budgets are going down fast the whole F-35 fiasco will end up being VERY costly
ISR is something UAV’s really excel at…and UCLASS would also do extremely well here…as designed..
and why wait half an hour when your UAV detects a target for manned assets to move in, when you can just arm the UAV and let it execute an immediate attack? certainly when the enemy is about to launch a missile or take off from an airfield, that is a much better solution
I’m all for (optionally) manned bombers and manned jets for ground attack if they can do it more effective or efficient, but when it comes to the finding targets and attacking it quickly there is simply no beating the economics of a UCAV
Leaving your CANNING The F-35 FANTASY aside, Lockheed claims they have a design that they can develop if funding is provided…
the same LMT that promised the F-35 would cost about $30 million each, that LMT? 😀
Lockheed unveils more information on UCLASS programme
the A-6 was a brilliant aircraft, excellent range and weapons load at a low cost, the F-35 has half the range at 3 times the cost, to compare it is offensive to the A-6
today weapons load is no longer determining, this isn’t WWII. neither the F-18 nor the Rafale tend to carry much more than a UCLASS could, and I doubt the F-35 would. that’s what smart weapons, cruise missiles and numbers are for
UCLASS will be the A-6 of our days, range at a low cost, with smarts over weapons load, the way it should be
SanemThere is a difference being TECHNICALLY able to do something, and BE DESIGNED to do something or REQUIRED to do something. The USN wants the UCLASS for ISR,Light Strike and Refuel role…Its not optimized for Air combat and i would think that its Weapon bays, payload would be designed for the USN A2G ordinance which may or may not be best suited for A2A missile carriage….
– the Predator wasn’t designed for air-to-air, yet it has fired a missile in air combat
– the F-117 was a bomber, yet capable of carrying air-to-air missiles
– the B-1 is a bomber, yet there are plans to equip it with AMRAAMs
– for all LMT’s PR, the F-35 will be a sitting duck in dogfights, yet they still intend to use it for air combat
– when they sent the Harriers to the Falklands no one gave it a chance because Argentinian Mirages where so much faster and had better climb rate. yet the Harriers completely dominated air combat because they played to their strengths. if they had tried to fight like the Mirages they would have had their asses handed to them
the UCLASS will certainly be able to carry the weight of air-to-air missiles, and their weapon bays will probably be big enough too
such aircraft would have their strength in sneaking up on the enemy, using superior numbers compared to the F-35 to cover areas. a team of F-35s will have better sensors and speed, but for the same money you’ll have 6 UCLASS which won’t require to be fielded in teams (because they don’t fear death), they’ll be stealthy sentinels flying picket for much longer than any manned aircraft, allowing you to cover a much bigger field, waiting for a prey to come to them, rather than a fat fuel guzzling kid chasing his own tail
another factor we know nothing about is how UCAVs will fight in air combat. the fact that they’re utterly fearless makes them fearsome enemies to any manned aircraft, what pilot wants to face an enemy that simply does not fear death? and the potential for inhuman acrobatics, who knows what a UCAV will be able to do in a dogfight
As you can well imagine, a UCLASS specifically designed to include Air to Air would look a lot different. It would need to be fast , couple that with the same 1000-1200 nm requirment and weapons carriage + ISR role , and you would get a craft which looks significantly different, larger in size and more complex. Such an aircraft would need to have specific Air to Air sensors such as a full fledged Fighter like radar opposed to a belly mounted SAR tailored radar (which it would still require to carry for its other roles)…
a fighter UCAV would have to be faster for sure and thus more expensive
but I’d rather have more numerous slower UCLASS, with a number of F-18s flying overwatch. more like a picket line rather than a response team. a lot more effective
sensors are also not a big problem, as mentioned there’s a lot of interest in putting a DAS style system on the UCLASS. even a single sensor in the right place could cover a large area optically, passively detecting any intruders and engaging them before they realise what’s happening
combined with a system of AWACS and high altitude UAVs, this could give a resilient detection network at a cost comparable to the F-35 but with a much greater reach and resilience
The US Is yet to envision or fund an A2A UCAV, so i do not see where the confidence that the UCLASS will replace (effectively) the F-35 comes from…
there is no UCAV A2A program, that’s true
but why not?
the US military is looking at unmanned submarines, unmanned ships, unmanned bombers, unmanned recon, unmanned space ships, unmanned tanks… but no unmanned fighters
even though that would be easy enough to do, Boeing is already making QF-16s. especially as most air combats today are fought out with missiles at range, you could at worst just tail it with a manned fighter for a reliable data link and use them as a range extension, a forward flying SAM site if you will. it certainly beats flying your F-35s into combat with something like a Su-50 who’ll eat them alive
yet no one is even touching the concept of UCAV A2A, and it’s because no air force wants to admit their last territory of unchallenged dominance can be done better by a computer. back in WWI they sent men in their thousands to their deaths across no man’s land because they believed a bayonet charge was the glorious way to win battles. the machine gun disagreed and won the argument. not even researching UCAV A2A is like denying the existence of the machine gun
So we should cancel the F-35, and Retire the F-22’s because we have not used them in Afganistan or iraq. Great, because Afganistan and Iran had no AIR Force (Or one which showed up to fight) we should Retire all tactical fighters from the USAF/USN since the enemy is unlikely to ever (no matter whoever the enemy is) use his air force….
the F-22’s are a silver bullet but pretty much paid for. sure now and then a pilot dies because of intoxication but let’s not let the loss of human life stop us
the F-35 should and will be canned, just a matter of time 🙂
the US military has not faced a peer air force in decades. and the day they fight Russian or Chinese jets, there will be bigger worries than a few destroyed fighter jets
And neither are what the USN would call High Digit IADS that they are planning for…There is a difference between sending a few stealthy ISR assets as opposed to wartime heavy, high frequency tactical strike , SEAD/DEAD… With proper planning and intel, you could probably fly a couple of U-2 Missions over Iran and not be shot down, does that mean you should cancel the RQ-`170… Do you seriously believe that the Pakistan AF would shoot at a US drone , and that we do not have a secret hand shake with them on Drone usage?
yet they didn’t fly U-2s, or F-16’s or F-18’s or F-15’s or F-22’s… they chose the RQ-170. that pretty much says it all
I do not think the Navy intends to GET RID OF TACTICAL FIGHTERS post 2030, if you do then you must be privy to certain information that i do not have, and that is contradictory to established and well laid out USN requirements.
if you had told USAF pilots 10 years ago that they would be flying UAVs in 10 years, they would have laughed. today the USAF is grounding pilots because it lacks the budget to keep them in the air, yet UAVs and their pilots stay up because they are simply too valuable, and do it at a fraction of the price
I don’t know how or when it’ll happen, but I do know that it will happen
my biggest fear is that the whole financial crisis we’re currently in will force militaries around the world to do it much faster than anyone would believe
Otherwise might as well cancel all of the other aircrafts and buy a few thousand RQ-170’s…
I’d keep some manned assets… but yes, that’s what I’m suggesting 🙂
arm them with bombs and A2A missiles and swarm them into the enemy air space. a stealthy wave of death, a combination of stealth, ISR and killing power at a relatively cheap price, it’d be unstoppable (and no, jamming and hacking wouldn’t work)
This argument has been dealth to death..If LO and Stealth were redundant, why would non US players which are always given a gazzilion times more wisdom then the US developing and fielding it???
because it is an asset, just like speed, ECM, range, manouverability, sensors… Russia uses it to get its Su-50 closer but at the same time installs big ass radars to negate enemy stealth and probably give away the Su-50’s own location. China uses it on the J-20 so it can get close enough to launch its anti-ship missiles. NG, Boeing, LMT, BAe, Dassault… use it on small aircraft that are cheap enough to risk on the enemy guns. but the F-35 intends to use stealth against outdated enemies at a price that simply makes it unaffordable
There is going to be a clear need for the RN to operate UCAVs off of their CVFs (once they have got their heads round actually operating the F35).
yes I was really bummed when they switched back to the STOVL concept
although I believe it was done on purpose: they switched to the F-35C, giving them an excuse to sell the carrier and Harriers, only “then” to realise it would be too expensive (as if it takes that long to figure that out), and then switched back to the F-35B. I imagine the US pushed the RN into sticking with the F-35B, this was an excellent way to get rid of alternative solutions
either way the whole thing is a disaster, the RN wanted it’s big ass ships (or rather BAe sold them on it, I hope those now retired admirals and politicians got their envelopes), now they don’t even have the money to buy aircraft for them. they should have stuck with small STOVL carriers
I don’t understand why RN did not choose CATOBAR for its new aircraft carrier? In term of interoperability with US Navy or the french Marine it would have been a great benefit. :confused:
CATOBAR would have been great to fly UCLASS or a European alternative off UK and French carriers, but there simply won’t be money for such a thing in the near future
the good news is that by the time they kill the F-35B (although if anyone can keep that Frankenstein monster alive it’s the Marines), UCAVs will have matured enough to build a STOVL version
the LMT Sabre Warrior seems like a disaster though, I like the idea of recycling the F-22 weapons bay, but the wing turboprops are an inefficient solution
tailsitters are the way to go, because you need very little to make it STOVL, just a powerful enough engine and the right landing design, KISS. but we humans are too stuck on the idea that aircraft should take off horizontally, because we’re used to it. computers don’t care though
Lockheed is unlikely due to the F-35 disaster, and General Atomic has no prior experience with a naval jet.
GA is run by a former USN officier, I thrust they know what they’re doing (unlike LMT and the F-35C scrue up)
SanemThey may not do it as good as the F-14 (Again something debatable) but they can still DO IT. The UCLASS cannot do those missions AT ALL.
the F-22 was designed as a pure air combat fighter. today they’re upgrading it to carry bombs. there’s no technical reason why the UCLASS won’t be able to carry and launch air-to-air missiles
Outperform for range/loiter surely. However neither the USAF nor the USN is yet to place FULL Faith in UCAV’s to replace entire mission sets of modern 4.5 – 5th generation fighters. That type of Autonomous capability is yet to be Fathomed let alone demonstrated. The UCLASS is supposed to be semi-autonomous, whereas to really operate in High threat enviroments with the same level of confidence, you’d need total autonomy rather then a pre fixed mission execution.
the USAF has never used its sole 5th generation fighter in any combat mission, while UAVs are performing a huge number of the missions
on top of that it has employed the RQ-170 over Iran, Pakistan and possibly North Korea, none of which are exactly safe air spaces. if 4.5 and 5th gen aircraft are so superior to UAVs, why didn’t they send them?
It does not work like that. The type of ISR capability being sought for the UCLASS is unpresedented, infact its like a Mini TRITON + a MINI F-35 combo, and nothing in US arsenal currently is similar. This is akin of saying that since the US knows what an F-16 costs, they can predict with accuracy what an FA-XX would cost.
We do not know how much Of the shelf technology it uses. I am not privy to the details of the submissions by various contractors. ALthough the architecture is going to be COTS, the sensors, and airframe will likely be spanking new.
– airframe: X-47b and Phantom Ray have been flying for some time now, the Sea Avenger has been in the air for years, and who knows what LMT has built and flown. so not exactly “spanking new”
– architecture: between the Global Hawk, the Fire Bird and whatever Boeing designed for the UCAS program this should be pretty mature
– engine: COTS
– sensors: this could be the only thing not COTS, although there should be plenty of systems out there today that will go a far way in satisfying the USN’s need. for more advanced systems the open architecture of the UCLASS should allow easy integration of future systems, considering the speed at which these are improving that would be a wise choice. contrary to the fixed/dead end approach chosen for the F-35 (which will be outdated by the time it becomes operational)
so most if not all aspects of this program will be COTS, or matured using the X-47b, so it should be pretty easy to keep prices low
The reason the USN is aiming low as far as procurement is concerned, is because they have NEVER operated a UCAV from a carrier before. The first generation will probably be a TEST case and the Navy will likely only operate 4-6 crafts per carrier just to refine tactics and test out the various capabiliies. As this matures, we can expect greater usage of these crafts in 5.5-6th generation timeframes (fighter timeframes). Infact the Boeing FA-XX proposals reflects a level of Autonomous unmanned capability.
in 2000, the US military operated just a handful of UAVs
today they have over 7,000
the USN is playing this one safe, trying not to sell the UCLASS as a possible threat for the F-35 budgets. but in the end they’ll dump the F-35 and go for an F-18/UCLASS mix
and don’t hold your breath on those 6th gen aircraft, we all remember the A-12 disaster, the F-22 and F-35 aren’t exactly poster children for the gold-plated aircraft concept, and the way the budgets are going I seriously doubt the US military will go anywhere but the way of the USSR military
meanwhile the X-47b is landing on a carrier next month, and chances are it’ll go swimmingly. they gave the F-35C a new hook and hope to perform the first carrier landings by the end of the year, not too shabby 13 years into the program
The major use of the UCLASS would be as a ISR platform given the increase in capability over the Pacific , LIGHT STRIKE would probably come a second as the USN needs 24×7 ISR more at this tme.
that was the idea behind the Predator. today the Reaper is the US military’s most used strike asset, capable of carrying as much as an F-16
The UCLASS is envisioned to be a 24×7 ISR for a carrier that complements the Strike fighter force in the Light attack role. How on earth does it substitute for either the F-35C or the F-18E/F is beyond me, especially when the USN itself is treading slowly when it comes to operating semi-autonomous crafts from a carrier.
that’s how they’ll sell it I’m sure: “just a few for recon, you’ll hardly notice it’s there, we love the F-35, even though we’ve released projections that it’ll cost more than legacy aircraft to operate and are putting a lot of money into buying new F-18s and funding the UCLASS program where the USAF refused to consider any alternatives or distractions…” :rolleyes:
In high IADS enviroments the DOD pictures an aircraft without Link-16, Without SATCOM and at the most with IFDL that is more secure and hard to detect/jam. For that the DOD envisions a fully autonomous craft, the UCLASS would be a first of many steps towards that. It would probably take an entire generation of operation, development and refinement before the Navy is confident of replacing its tactical strike fighters with larger equally or more capable UCAV’s.
yet the USAF has operated the RQ-170 with great succes over “contested” air space
and refuses to field the F-22, probably because it fears having one crash and get into Chinese/Russian hands
but I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to send in the F-35, being much more advanced and expensive
btw no aircraft operates alone these days, pilots send target data back home and wait for clearance to engage
and the F-35 for one won’t be able to face the S-400 without its ECM pod. so I don’t understand how you can fly into enemy defences without any electronic leakage while jamming the enemy, that’s like sneaking in the dark while shouting to cover the sound of your footsteps
meanwhile Russia is planning to field the S-500 and Su-50 within a few years, and with technology always improving even China and Iran will have the systems to detect the F-35 by the time it becomes operational
SanemThis is where LMA has some room as they have claimed that they could possibly use aspects of the F-35 (Software, Sensors) which would reduce integration,testing etc..GA is also believed to be considering the EOTS and its related paraphernalia…
I forgot NG actually made EOTS, DAS and what not on the F-35, so they might have access to the same tech, they certainly have the people
but LM does still have the vital experience from the RQ-170
EOTS etc will be very interesting for any UAV, moreso than manned aircraft, as it gives them a 360 degree vision to avoid other aircraft, detect targets and land
The UCLASS cannot take over the F-35 Strike mission.
neither can the F-35 (or F-18) perform air defence missions like the F-14 did. that’s a disatvantage, but it doesn’t make the aircraft useless, it just requires different strategies and solutions
[/QUOTE]First, The UCLASS may be a 1/3 of the price, but it probably covers less then a 1/3 of the missions of the F-35. Second, the price of 40-50 million is very optimistic. The USN is paying 200 Mill + for its Triton’s which it intends to procure in twice the amount when compared to the UCLASS. Third, The US Did not kill the UCAV because it would have been a threat to the F-35, but did so because they wanted their FUNDING EFFORTS to concentrate on a more STRATEGIC asset rather then a tactical 1000-1200 nm strike asset.[/QUOTE]
on the missions, which ones would that be exactly? with superior range and numbers UCAVs would probably outperform F-35s in pretty much any mission, except for when raw speed is needed. with their superior endurance and expendability, a UCAV will probably do them even better compared 1:1, especially if they get similar or future hardware and software
on the price, the US military knows how much an RQ-170 costs, so they probably have a pretty good guess of what a UCAV will cost. the UCLASS program also uses mostly off the shelf technology, greatly reducing risk and thus cost. and also the USN is looking for less than 100 aircraft, so their calculations probably don’t hope for much savings in numbers
I’m not privy to US military decision making, but I doubt the people pushing the F-35 where actively supporting the UCAS program (also note how only Boeing and NG participated here, not LM). seeing how UCAVs are closer to fighters in class the F-35 certainly had more to fear from them than the bomber cartel
SanemFrom what i have read , all the technology and Know how accumulated with the carrier trials of the X-47 would be shared by all contractors as it was funded by the navy…
Boeing will be glad to hear this, they always said they had a superior computer control design which they where forced to share with NG in the UCAS program
this does raise a question for me, if all competitors start from the same template, and 3 out of 4 designs are pretty much the same (flying wing with with engine on top), how are they going to differentiate? price and performance? it’ll be a close call, especially since prototypes tend to differ heavily from production models, and follow up development is also becoming a vital factor
so I’m saying that performance and cost will be very similar, and many important factors, like technology, are very hard to predict in advance, moreso than before
The problems which the Sea Avenger would have to overcome vis-a-vis other competitors would be SIGNATURE, SPEED and perhaps weapons load…It would most probably be ahead in Range and loiter time, which would be quite important for 24×7 ISR…I do think that NG is the “one to beat” here, they have allready lead a strong X-47 program and I would not be surprised if their offer is slightly different from the X-47 given the new set of requirements (ISR,Light-Attack,Refuel etc) …
NG does have the edge, but LMT has a huge advantage because it can export the F-35 technology, giving it easy access to $30 billion worth of RD on stealth, computers, sensors… with production lines already set up and commonality with the US military’s (suposedly) main future fighter
but US Air Command just grounded many air units to pay for operations. this is only going to get worse, so price will be a vital factor in future purchases (all the more reason to kill the F-35)
the Avenger is a different beast from the others, more of an upgraded Reaper where the others are basically unmanned F-117s. for many missions a Reaper is all you need
I do not think the UCLASS would be a RUN AWAY success in the export market…I seriously doubt that it would challenge the F-35 for sales ..
until recently many people didn’t believe a UCAV was anywhere close to possible. yet next month they’ll be flying one off a carrier
no one saw the UAV comming either, now they’re all the rage. who knows what UCAVs will be able to offer, France will certainly try to push a European program that’ll compete with the F-35
and at a third of the price, many governments low on cash will look twice, the USN certainly will. why else would they push so hard for a design that’ll directly compete with the F-35, and within the same time frame, when the USAF killed the concept probably to protect the F-35?
Sign In
