great article Distiller
it fits in well with the critique on UAVs’ “lack of usefuleness” in a Pacific scenario

I’m in no way worried for the future of UAVs however
the USAF has tried to kill the A-10 for decades, and now they’re planning on making it unmanned with infantry able to take direct control of it
the USAF killed the J-UCAS program, and now it looks like the X-47b will take off from a carrier sooner than the F-35C
in 2001 the US military went into Afghanistan with just a handful of UAVs. today it is their most numerous and valued asset
in 1918 many generals considered tanks to be an abomination, an infantry support tool at best. 21 years later the completely outnumbered and outclassed German army destroyed all opponents in impossible time because it saw the potential
the USAF will come to regret its aversion from UAVs, I just hope it doesn’t come at too great a cost

speaking of cost, the F-35 fairy tale is starting to unravel, with Canada having a “competition” (that said, if Norway can make the F-35 look cheaper than the Gripen NG, I guess pigs really can fly), when that Dodo is finally dead UAVs will be the logical answer, especially UCAVs
and the global economic reality is starting to filter through this QE induced coma of ignorance, so expect massive defence cuts in the coming years

as for UAV usability over the Pacific, I am sure many will crash, as they do over Afghanistan and everywhere else. but manned aircraft will crash too, and no pilot wants to jump into a storm, enemy territory or days away from the nearest rescue team
the USAF and many others have been using UAVs in the Pacific region for years now, with great succes. such aircraft are great for this role because they cover huge areas at a relatively low cost and they don’t risk human lives, especially compared to typical sea patrol aircaft like the crew heavy P-3 or new P-8

which its makers claim is far cheaper than its Israeli and American analogs at less than $1 million.

very nice
but while technology is cheap, quality is expensive 😉

AMRAAM with no mid-course guidance requires a co-operative target, or short-range shots only.
You’ll therefore need either to get your UAV close to the target, or keep tracking it & sending the missile course changes.

AWACS, ground radar, satellite, nearby stealth aircraft… there are a variety of different ways to track targets at long and middle range without needing to have an aircraft in close or exposed. that target data can then be sent directly to the AMRAAM missile, or via the UAV

in any case, only the UAV needs to expose itself, and can run off as soon as it has launched the missile. even if the missile doesn’t find the target, the simple process of firing it in the general direction of the enemy may be enough to scare off any attackers. there a big difference between shooting down toy aircraft and engaging a combat capable aircraft that outranges you with bigger guns and does not fear for its own safety

Sanem:
cheap prop-driven aircraft can only survive in benign environments. How long would they last on either side in a war between India & Pakistan, for example?

An interesting discussion; I’d say it depends on the situation. Let’s look at some examples:

For example over Kosovo, if an aircraft flew above a certain altitude, chances of getting hit or even shot at at all where very slim. This was regardless of the aircraft being manned or unmanned. Many UAVs where shot down by the Serbs, exactly because they were operated a much lower altitude, because the superior intel they provided was considered to be worth the risk.

We saw the thing over Iraq in 2003, where no allied aircraft was shot down, because they simply flew too high and the enemy did not dare risk turning on its radars for fear of becomming a target.

Over Lybia, again no aircraft was shot down if they stayed above a certain altitude. The only exception, that I belive proved the rule, was a Fire Scout Navy Drone, that was shot down not because it was flying in a non-benign environment, but because its operators used a lot more risks. If it had been an manned aircraft the result would have been the same, but the cost would have been much higher. Predator/Reaper UAVs also operated over Lybia at that time where not shot down.

So no, if a cheap prop-driven aircraft operates in the same or similar manner as a manned aircraft against an enemy that lacks high altitude guided weapons, they don’t seem to be much more likely to get shot down. On top of that the risk of getting shot down is greatly weighed down by the much lower cost in both price and human lives, making cheap prop-driven aircraft simply much more attractive to operate, even over non-benign environment, compared to manned aircraft.

Another aspect is the cost of the enemy effort to shoot down said cheap prop-driven aircraft. From the enemy perspective one has to actually weigh the cost of the missile used, as well as exposing the launch site or aircraft to potential enemy counter attacks. As well as the potential cost of the target UAV, which could be $100 million Global Hawk, or maybe a $50k stripped down Shadow (a poor example considering the difference in size and performance between these two aircraft, but my point stands: the enemy is forced to consider these factors, making it much harder for the to calculate their cost/profit ratios).

A third aspect is that cheap prop-driven aircraft don’t have to be invulnerable in non-benign environments, their expendability is their greatest asset.
For example if an F-35, an F-22, or even an F-16 was shot down over hostile grounds, this would be something of a disaster, because now the enemy has a) high tech wreckage, and b) potentially a pilot in captivity.
If a low cost UAV is shot down on the other hand, it’ll hardly make the news.

Which is why I’d suggest to swarm even a non-benign environment with a mix of low cost and high cost UAVs, overwhelming the enemy air defences, forcing them to expose themselves to counter-attacks.

A fourth aspect is the question if manned aircraft are so much safer over non-benign environments than cheap prop-driven aircraft. Once optical guided missiles start to come into the market, any aircraft, including super expensive stealth variants, will be engaged with great effectiveness, low cost and little or no chance of retaliation. I mean if Iran really does have the capacity to take control of an advanced UAV aircraft like an RQ-170, than one has to wonder what it can do against the much older and more plagued F-22, and if the F-22 or any manned aircraft can actually be risked.

From the VTOL thread:

Perhaps like this (and its not an LM project so sorry to disappoint the bulk of you:)) and apologies if I am getting predictable:

http://www.hightech-edge.com/new-stealth-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-uav-great-britian-royal-air-force/5387/

“A reusable uninhabited air system with a radius of action of 1000km and able to survive defended air space. Capable of being launched and recovered from land, sea and air with the emphasis on ship based operations. The vehicle is to be able to operate within the urban canyons inherent in the major city landscape.”

I’d say they’re well on their way :):
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-taranis-demonstrator-tested-as-first-flight-slips-into-2013-373226/

Lasers will be put on combat aircraft, in less than a decade by my guess, but they’ll be put on anything, be it manned, unmanned, AWACS, tankers, ships, tanks… The point is that they’ll shoot down targets at short/medium range, but also completely nullify the threat of missiles, making them a game changing defensive weapon, with excellent offensive capabilities.

The Grey Eagle also is more automated: it can take off and land by itself and I’d guess also has a better autopilot.

As a result, the Army, using NCOs actually has less accidents with its UAVs than the Air Force, which insists on using qualified pilots.

One might argument that auto-landing and autopilot software are expensive. Except that you can get both off the shelf, as it has been used succesfully in civilian aircraft for decades.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-raises-the-spectre-of-abandoning-lockheeds-f-35-369577/

“Webb also says the Canadian government should have considered investing in the development of a domestically designed unmanned aircraft for patrolling the north.”

something I’ve been argumenting for years:
– Predator and Global Hawk class UAVs with plenty of sensors to patrolling air, ground and sea
– UCAVs with a basic jet engine, big delta wing for lots of fuel and basic stealth, they’ll provide cheap and effective air power over huge ranges

I don’t think so. I think Mantis is meant as the basis of a different type of UAV from Taranis, a Predator-style (but bigger) recce UAV.

as Snow Monkey pointed out, with UAVs it’s no longer so much about the hardware, but the software (and the hardware that runs the software)

once you write/teach a computer program to do a certain thing, you can copy/paste that into pretty much any airframe, be it a Cesna or an F-22, so to speak

the software needs to adapt to the airframe specifics, like differences in performance, stealth, sensors…

but as far as mission execution goes, there’s relatively little difference. like what does it do when it loses contact with ground control? with AWACS? what’s the difference between an airliner and a T-50? is that an S-300, or a schoolbus?

my only concern is that you don’t want advanced equipment to fall into enemy hands. but as both UAVs and UCAVs are likely to get shot down, the risk is relatively spreaking the same, so you can make the UAVs hardware/software a little more advanced, and the UCAVs’ a little less advanced. which means they use a lot of the same, expendable systems, greatly reducing costs (which, if you look at the F-35, is what a lot of modern aircraft design costs go into, moreso for UAVs)