Sanemso much for the F-35 🙂
what did the USN chairman say, “we’re all for the F-35 but we’re looking for the best solution”? that’s bureacratese for “we’ll drop it first chance we get”
the four contenders:
NG has the advantage as the X-47b, while only a concept validator for the USN, makes them the only ones to have succesfully operated a UCAV off a carrier
LMT does have the only operational stealth UAV experience with the RQ-170
Boeing on the other hand is the sole fighter provider of the USN
GA is going for the low cost solution ($20 million compared to $50 million for the others). and while I believe the USN will prefer a single high tier aircraft approach as with the F-18, I do believe the lower cost will be very tempting in the future of seriously reduced budgets (if any)
either way the cat is out of the bag, first aircraft are expected by 2018, it’ll certainly get a lot of attention from all those Western air forces currently looking to replace their F-16’s
SanemSpanish Atlante UAV makes first flight:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/atlante-uav/
More info:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/atlante-uav/
I was a bit surprised until I realised how much they’ve done on UAVs, and through EADS CASA on the nEuron program:
http://www.cassidian.com/web/guest/unmanned-air-systems5
It is rather unusual with the front end propellor and what looks like a top mounted radar. Still, with 20h endurance it should be effective enough, and its said to be designed by civilian air space standards, maybe hinting that it’ll be allowed to fly in civilian air space?
Sanemah yes, the swarms are coming…
never saw these in Terminator though :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2la4pIyXOEQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPWEMwGJVQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI760jcFV2s
now add 10 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RV_tz95Qc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwY82HmBscg
Sanemnot to mention the Hero TP with 52 hours endurance 😀
it’s a typical problem for new UAV builders, like Russia, to get any decent endurance. maybe its a engine quality thing or so, but it’s odd that they can’t build a decent overgrown model air plane with off the shelf technology that’s decades old
refueling is looking good with the Global Hawk. looks like things are really picking up in 2013 with stuff like the X-47b, go NG!
I guess the advantage of manned Sig/Elint is that they’re easier to produce and no need for a satellite link, just take a civilian aircraft, plug in sensors and other equipment and load them up with people. the waiting time for a Reaper is 2 years (still very little)
@ Twinblade, interesting stuff, but seems a little outdated, the F-18 for example is probably the one NG used to test the X-47b’s
this video does show the F-35 landing using optical cues:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-18/pentagons-doubts-on-joint-strike-fighter/4524962
would that work on a carrier as well?
but I do believe computers can land safer than humans, if only for human error
for example on the F-22 wiki page, you can read how a pilot nearly flew into threes and didn’t even remember doing so, possibly because of the oxygen problem. what if there’s such a problem with the F-35, and it has to land on a carrier?
SanemSorry I was not looking at using UAV’s in the A2A role just in the role it has at this time I.E recon and CAS in an area without air superiority can they still give 24/7 cover in such high threat combat zone
please shorten your quotes
as for your question, you’re asking about the survivability of unprotected UAVs in a contested air space? they’re probably similar to that of a B-52 I guess, or even a B-1 or any other unarmed ground attack craft, moreso becasue they’re slower and don’t have defence systems, yet much less so because they’ve proven to be expendable and don’t risk pilot lives
UAVs operating over Iraq early 2000 did get shot down by Iraqi fighters. until they put a Stinger on a Predator; the Stinger failed to hit and the Predator was shot down by a Mig-23, but after that no more UAVs where engaged by Iraqi fighters, suggesting that the Stinger shot scared them off (a win in my book)
we also sort of have data of UCAVs in contested air space, namely the RQ-170 over Iran and I guess Pakistan. we know it’s been operating there for some time, and the fact that none were ever shot down even though it provides streaming video imaging suggests that a UCAV can operate in a contested air space with succes, even while maintaining direct contact with the home base. otherwise the Iranians with their Mig-29s and Tomcats would have engaged it long ago and told us all about it, there’s certainly no way a subsonic recon craft could outrun such fighter jets
I think we are headed towards the 6th generation fighter configurations here..Where one possible option could be a small (compared to 5th gen fighters) VVLO unmanned air dominance fighter (essentially a BVR Missile carrier) …
my thoughts exactly, a stealthy flying SAM site if you will
I dislike the idea of 6th generation fighters though, especially after the 5th generation fiasco the US has demonstrated
I prefer the Russian approach: first mature the technology on known platforms, then tier them into a new platform
technology is starting to develop so fast that even military tech becomes outdated in a matter of years. I don’t think it’s worth the cost, you’re better off with lots of cheap and proven designs that you can upgrade as the tech becomes available over a few faulty silver bullets that’ll be outdated by the time you can fix all the bugs
SanemTwo thing I would like to know are how many time have UAV’s been put into red flag in an exercise where they do not have total air superiority and what was the out come
And when the operator is looking though his TV set transfixed on the ground what is he missing from the bigger picture and all the time there is a little thing called morale on the ground and if the troops on the ground feel that someone is there for them and not 100/1000 miles behind them its good for morale
they never have, and for good reason I think
for example if you were to install Predator type UAVs with AMRAAM missiles and use an external radar (anything with an AESA for example) flying behind them for target guidance, they would be murder in long range engagements, combining cheap and expendable numbers with advanced killing power. for example they’d outnumber an F-22 by 15 to 1 in cost, at the very least
not to mention what happens if they were to develop a UAV specifically for air combat, it would be stealthy, fast, extremely manouverable, like an X-31 on crack. although I think they’d best adopt F-22 style tactics, sneaking up on enemies unnoticed and running after they fire their missiles
as for ground morale, UAVs usually give 24/7 overwatch on ground units, checking for ambushes and IEDs, they probably know squad mates by name… contrary to manned pilots who usually only stay for half an hour before they have to go and refuel. I’d personally prefer the UAV, kind of like a personal guardian angel with missiles. but that’s my preference, I’m sure some people would love to wait 15 to 60 minutes for air support when they’re getting shot at
They are already equipped with such features. Rafale, SH already have automated landing.
I didn’t know that; does it help and advise the pilot or does it do all the work while the pilot simply keep his hand on the abort switch? what are the succes and accident rates? does it use GPS or optical systems?
Sanemcertainly if it can land a UAV it can land a manned jet. if that’s workable, it saves alot of CTOL training.
that’s just the tip of the ice berg, the reduced number of accidents alone would save lives and hundreds of millions of dollars
the best solution for manned aircraft (for now) would be a combined approach, where the automated system does most of the heavy lifting but the pilot keeps his hands on the controls in case something goes wrong
my point is the F-35 does not have an automated landing system, despite being the most expensive fighter aircraft in history. that’s like paying through the nose to go from cassettes to cd’s when everyone else is going for digital
Sanem-The Northrop Grumman X-47B is on schedule to fly to the USS George HW Bush, becoming the first conventional UAV to take off and land on an aircraft carrier,
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-uav-programmes-near-major-milestones-382320/
first landing by April or May 2013 😮
soooo cool 😀
this is really huge, if only because automated systems are less likely to fail carrier landings. if that proves to be true, how long before they install such systems on manned aircraft? it would seem absurd and outdated to risk human error on something like a $150 million F-35
can they launch the X-47B as well? I understand there was a problem with the current steam catapults being too powerful?
Sanemdjcross, excellent comparison, two considerations:
1) modern day combat aircraft usually require confirmation from a commander (usually on the ground) before weapons release, usually via satellite link
2) in an air defence role, UAVs could probably use the same domestic radio system as manned aircraft use today to relay information and orders
SanemF-35 $300 million? Come off it! One doesn’t have to fall for the $65 million nonsense to know that $300 mn is hugely overstated.
Agree with the bolt-on plug-in stuff, though.
which is my point, if you look at the entire investment cost, a plug in system is a relatively low all-in cost, usually without R&D costs to be paid by the end user
with the F-35 you get the wonderful EOTS system, but it required about $400 billion to develop for its main users, imagine the plug in stuff you could develop and install on every legacy aircraft for such a cost (and extra F-22’s, maybe with some new rebreather system ;))
and the $300 million for the EOTS + platform includes R&D, because that’d be included in the price of bolt on sensors as well, which would be combined with a much cheaper legacy/UAV/UCAV platform that would still not be anywhere near $100 million even including R&D costs
the all in cost for the F-35 would be lower if they sell thousands of them, but the way budgets are looking around the planet, I doubt even the USAF will buy them. I mean hell, my country doesn’t have the money, does yours? a plug in system on an aircraft paid for decades ago or a cheap UAV on the other hand seems very affordable
When you can programme it to automatically find all the Toyota pickup trucks.
what makes you think it can’t? 🙂
Sanemmy point was that if you can detect a bird at 3 km with optics, just imagine at what distance can you detect a war ship? even with a single camera, you can just scan area after area in a smooth movement, covering a huge area very fast
it also demonstrates very well the ability for automated tracking, anything from cars to even humans. I imagine a sea in motion will greatly complicate this process, but as I’ve said earlier ships with their straight lines should be easy for a computer to recognise, even at large distances, and thus track
I’m sure the F-35 can do this as well, but my beef is at what cost, $300 million for an aircraft with limited range and endurance? and the F-35 won’t see IOC until 2018 at the very best (if ever), by then ARGUS will be a bolt on plug in option for any legacy aircraft at a cheap cost. and a few years later you just replace it with the next generation system, with the latest off the shelf sensors and processors, where the F-35 is supposed to last decades with 2010 technology. good luck with that, but by my count it’ll be outdated by 2020
which is why I’m all for plug in technology, like the archetecture NG is using on its Firebird UAV, that way you can design a working platform that’ll last for decades and just add the right sensors as the technology becomes available and the mission requires. kind of like putting the latest optics on a gun, no matter how old it is it’ll greatly increase the potential if it just has a rail installed. better than a built in sighting system that allows for no other (AR-15, Steyr AUG) and quickly becomes outdated (especially in todays age where optics get better every year)
Sanema video on ARGUS, spotting a bird from 17,000 feet up, WTH? 😮
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8
Sanem3) As I said earlier the UK – France and Italy can or will be able to send carrier groups and if Europe had the foresight it could build and operate 1 maybe 2 carriers with each country supplying 1 warship to the European carrier group also once the said MRTT’s and A400m’s are on line troop movement and supply would be essayer
The biggest problem for Europe is its politicians it has the capability and the power but not the unity.
good post 😉
but I’d consider the biggest problem to be Europe’s financial situation
the UK can’t afford its carriers, Italy and Spain are in serious trouble, France will be next, and the US really isn’t doing much better
not that you need a lot of money to have an effective military: stack up on UAVs and Europe will own any third world (African) country
SanemYou did not try to count the number of times the European countries attacked Russia and Russia several times to attack Europe? If you know the story and draw the correct conclusions, it will help you get rid of paranoia 😉
you mean like Napoleon, Hitler, the US (1918)… ? 🙂
fair point, but no one is going to believe it more likely that Europe would attack Russia sooner than Russia would attack Europe
that’s like saying Canada is more warlike than the US 😀
not counting ofcourse the EU’s operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Mali, Syria?… hang on… 😮
He said Germany.
Not Europe.
feel free to correct me if you disagree
but if you just look at the air force fighters for example, Germany has 85 Typhoons, against 250 Su-27s, 220 Mig-29s, 180 Mig-31s and another 10 Su-30s and 15 Su-35s
while these numbers seem huge, Germany would have the advantages of both quality and home front
– quality: like Israel had in its wars, Typhoons would be greatly superior over most Russian fighters, equiped with better offensive and defensive systems, were most Russian aircraft are cold war relics
the Typhoons would be able to engage them at long range with their very capable AMRAAMs, while Russian missiles would have a hard time hitting the Typhoons. in dogfights the Russian numbers would be a huge advantage, but with super cruise I don’t see why the Typhoon would let themselves be drawn into such a situation
also German pilots are highly trained to the highest standards, an import advantage against the Russian pilots who struggle to get enough flight hours
only the Su-35s and maybe Su-30s would be advanced enough to stand against the Typhoons
– home front: as Russia showed many times when defending against foreign invaders (as paralay pointed out ;)), the sheer distance between Russia and Germany is an important factor, meaning Russian fighters would be operating from forward bases at best, probably with limited radar and tanker coverage, in hostile territory (I understand the Polish have a history of not enjoying Russian “visits”) and outside their own SAM coverage
Russia also has the trouble of having to defend a huge area, neighbouring the US, China… so they can’t focus all of their power on Germany, where Germany can focus all its power in a concentrated area, even from their home bases
Germany also has a frightfull potential, Russian (or any other country) hostility would likely provoke a fast political and social response that would see its industrial and technical powers focused on war. I can easily image Merkel going all Tacher on Putin’s ass 😀
in todays world, Russia might be able to somehow defeat Germany if it didn’t have to fight its way through Eastern Europe and could deploy and motivate enough of its military to actually risk their lives, but even then it would suffer such losses that it would lack the power to occupy Germany, never mind face off against the rest of Europe. Russia simply lacks the military, political and social power to invade Europe (no more than Europe could invade Russia I think)
probably the greatest power Russia has would be to turn off their gas lines, but then who’ll pay for all those new toys Putin has promised his generals? 🙂 (which is planned on the energy market prices of this last few decade, and completely ignores the global recession that’s supposedly not happening :rolleyes: )
Sanemthe way I see it Germany and Eastern Europe want the US to stay in Europe to deter Russia
but since the demise of the USSR there’s little need for this, as its military lacks the ability to launch a serious military offensive, and any provocation will lead to a swift deployment of European and US forces, which Russia can never hope to compete with conventionally
not that Russia has much real interest in starting a war it can’t win with its biggest export partners. even Germany alone would probably break a Russian attack today
the US wants to stay in Europe in order to divide the EU, because if it were to truly unify it would be the single greatest power in the world. so one has to divide and conquer. by threatening to pull out of Europe they’ve forced German political positions for decades
today it seems the US military presence in Europe is mainly a transit station to war in the Middle East (notice how almost all major US operations since Vietnam seem to center around Iran? ;))
Europe has aligned interests, and the Middle East is their back yard, moreso when Turkey joins the Union, so their influence their (and as we’ve seen more recently in Africa) is only natural
now the Pacific is a lot further for Europe, other than the English I don’t think anyone has a serious military presence there, or reason to do so
although I do believe China will not provoke a war in the East, not with Japan or Taiwan, not unless it’s certain it’ll win (like in Tibet). as with Russia and Europe, China going to war with its two biggest export partners would simply not be in their own interests
plus a few years from now China will be able to simply buy most of the rest of the planet 😉
Sign In
