Sanemthe recent theft of the UK/French UAV documents does suggest there are interested parties to be kept away. was it the Chinese? Russians? US? Eads (I would think them to have the most to win from that info)? BAe (finding out how far Dassault is willing to go)?
the Mantis flight was relatively public though, while there was not much coverage, the info was released relatively quickly, unlike the earlier, smaller projects
Sanem@Lindermyer, you’re thinking BAe Mantis (the names confuse me all the time too ;)).
The similarity with the Taranis name does make me suspect that they’re greatly related even though they’re very different design (in terms of engine, stealth…).
A related control and mission system would certainly demonstrate the exportability and flexibility of UAS. Like NG did when they copied over 90% of the MQ-8B into the MQ-8C, even though the new design is twice as big in weight alone.
On the joint UCAV question, I think they’re just waiting for both designs to have made their flights, proving to their respective governments and each other that they work.
I don’t think the Taranis already flew, I don’t see much point in BAe doing it in secret. Discreet yes, as they did with their other UAV programs, but not secret.
Sanemwhy Syria might not be as easy to overthrow as Lybia
– Syria has been focussed on Israeli air attacks since 2007, so they probably invested more into their air defence than any country in the region
– the Lybia operation probably caused Syria to focus even more on air defence, as well as giving it excellent intel on how to fight NATO (hide your tanks, use pick ups…)
– Syria might also be more offensive than Lybia, probably attacking Israel
– Syria will also have more support from Russia, China, Iran, and possibly Turkey. especially Russian ships in Syria would make NATO think twice about risking hostilities. also, its supporters probably learned a lot from “losing” Lybia, and would put more effort into protecting Syria, for example equiping it with more advanced weapons and systems, like whatever Iran supposedly used to down the RQ-170, such advanced EW capabilities would be a danger to any aircraft or guided weapon
Sanemon the future uses of this UCAV: I do believe it will take over all roles from the Typhoon/Rafale. at the speed technology is starting to evolve, we’ll have full AI in about 20 years. even without that, improved communications and computer capacities will mean UAVs will increasingly take over from manned aircraft, for reasons of both cost and capability
on budgets: the main reason for EU countries to work together is cost sharing. it means you need to get along and all that, but when you’re short on money it’s a French aircraft with English systems or none at all, so to speak (you hear that, Royal Navy?)
the US is an alternative, but with the way economies and budgets are going, I think the US will soon go into isolation, while the EU countries won’t be politically capable of buying anything that’s not domestically (or EU) made
on project succes, it’ll be a relatively simpel and inexpensive aircraft, with both stealth and UAV technology having matured greatly this last decade, which generally increases its chances
I just hope they make a non-stealthy version, basically the same engine, frame and systems, but with (a bit) less stealth and maybe an afterburner, that would give a very cheap aircraft with plenty of commonality (you know, what the F-35 was aiming for once) to the stealthy one, but also the ability to intercept aircraft and operate over safe areas as a cheap jet UAV (sort of like the Predator C Avenger)
Sanemthe articles suggest it will be a “fighter jet” and replace the Rafale and Typhoon. I wonder if this something different from the ground attack UCAV we’ve been seeing (nEuron and Taranis), or if that UCAV will fulfil all fighter roles, including air-to-air and such
what does bother me is that this is a UK/France project, what about Spain, Italy and Germany, who’ll also need to replace their Typhoons and Tornadoes?
Sanemthe 70mm APKWS missiles; a Hellfire alternative?
new video
Wiki
BAE site
Globalsecurity article
I think this is huge, for manned aircraft, but especially for UAVs and UCAVs
Hellfire (Wiki):
– $68,000
– 50 kg
– range 8 km
APKWS
– $10,000
– 8 kg (estimate)
– range 6 km
against most modern targets (insurgents, truck mounted regular army, speed boats; anything but tanks or bunkers) you get six times the hitting power for the same cost and with equal performance to the Hellfire
especailly for UAVs and UCAVs this is vital, as they have a much longer loiter time and often engage “soft” targets, so the increased munitions are a huge advantage
in the future I would also see them making it air-to-air compatible, giving manned and unmanned aircraft the ability to launch a large number of missiles at short range, Gundam style
Sanemlol
a) Norway, Danemark, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands are all reasonably respectable countries, and they all used prices that later turned out to be… “off mark”
if they can be “off mark”, then the Italian government, which is known to be a bit more “creative” when it comes to worldly afairs, might be expected to be an even less reliable source of information
b) Italy is about to get hit by some really serious budget cuts. when they get the real bill for the F-35, I doubt they’ll be willing to pay for it. unless they’re dumb enough to write a blanco check (actually they might be)
c) none of this matters much, very soon Italy won’t have the money to even keep its Typhoons, nor will the rest of Europe. and there won’t be an F-35 program anymore; it’ll be the age of the UAV, maybe some UCAVs if they can find the money
SanemExcellent stuff BlauerMax, I can’t wait to see it in the air.
Edit:
I also like this article:
http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/02/bae-demonstrates-uav-recovery-capability/
Basically a UAV that can land on any unprepared airfield. Pretty big, and also very interesting for any manned aircraft.
Sanemthat MQM-107D Streaker sounds very interesting: costs about $30,000, has a range of 2000 km, can fly up to 900 km/hour, maximum altitude 40,000 feet and can carry a payload, including flares and chaff
with some basic sensors it would make a decent scout, its small size and high-g turns making it a hard target
or give it a basic INS or GPS, an explosive warhead and use it as a cruise missile
or put some (fake) air-to-air missiles on it and use it to swarm enemy air defences
SanemIntriguing, i reckon first units to put it to use is SWAT & SF,
it takes something with better endurance for regular forces,
i believe battery tech will improve substantially in 10 years
about that
these days you can buy a remote controlled, camera equiped car for like $20, and plenty of battery power (or easy to put in new ones)
even without putting a remotely detonated grenade on it, that little things alone will change the face of urban combat, at basically no cost. no more putting your head through a door and hoping you don’t get ambushed or set off an IED
yet they insist on building these things at prices of atleast $100.000, when you expect them to get blown up. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry :confused:
One thing that has puzzled me for a long time is why all operational and planned UCAVs in existence are restricted to the air-to-ground role. Given they have radars, optical sensors and precision targeting(autonomous and remote-controlled) systems, what’s stopping designers from putting AAMs on them?:confused:
So long as UCAVs remain limited to air-to-ground the fears of them replacing manned fighters will remain ungrounded.
on UCAV air combat
search for my previous posts, I’ve done quite a bit of thinking/ranting on the subject
in my opinion its technically perfectly feasable to use a UCAV or even a UAV for air combat (the Predator has actually fired a Stinger at an Iraqi Mig in 2003, and the Predator is qualified to use the AIM-9X)
an AMRAAM for example uses its Link-16 datalink to receive the target location, INS to close in, and its own radar to actually hit the target. it does not care if its launched from the ground, an F-22 or a RC aircraft. and the targets location can come from the launch aircraft’s sensors, but just as well from a satellite or an AWACS
in this age of missile warfare, aircraft are no longer weapons themselves, they’re little more than sensors and cargo aircraft (which explains why the F-35 has an optional gun, and is more focussed on sensors and load capacity than on things like turn rate, speed or climb rate)
my belief is that the air forces block the idea, because then fighter pilots would become obsolete. why risk a $300 million aircraft and a human life trained to perfection, when a $1 million overgrown toy aircraft controlled by an 18 year old with a few weeks of video gaming practice can achieve pretty much the same result?
as always, change will not come through foresight, but through necessity. I just hope if we ever go to war with China, they don’t think of it first, because no amount of F-22s or F-35s are going to help much when the aircraft they face cost less than the missiles used to shoot them down. and then when you’ve run out of missiles, you realise J-20s have snuck past and are attacking your AWACS/tanker/air base/aircraft carrier, so your 5th generation fighter probably won’t even make it back home, without the enemy having fired a single shot at them. rant rant rant…
Sanema fascinating video on micro-UAVs flying in crazy formations (and sounding extremely scary)
http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-in-formation/
I see this video as vital to UCAVs, as it shows what a UCAV formation would look like in air combat: a single hive swarms, flying in perfect coordination, constantly maneurvring so they cover each other and setting up cross fires, instantly adapting to a changing situation
equip a single stealthy UCAV with F-35 grade sensors and communications, and it can sit nearby, overlooking the situation, feeding data to human controllers in the air or on the ground, who can guide them on a tactical and strategic level
on the Rafale win in India, does this make it more likely for France to steer away from the UK for future UAV and other defence programs, as it has proven that going solo has its advantages? or will Dassault be sick of the risks it brings?
going solo would fit with France’s independant political course, but teaming up stresses their desire for a unified Europe (under French leadership ofcourse), especially if they can ally with the UK at the cost of US and German influence (we can already see EADS’ frustration at losing the UK’s and France’s support for their UAV programs)
Sanemheavy Italian budget cuts expected
the way things are going expect the F-35 to lose a lot of EU customers, very fast. Spain is already broke, the UK has the F-35C problems, and the Dutch/Scandinavian countries have yet to start cutting their defence budgets, which they will
with the F-35’s prices and problems increasing, they’ll be the first to get cut, or at least postponed for years. this while large countries will offer suprlus Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens at reduced prices
SanemI made a U-2 specific thread, as this is getting too much off topic
SanemU-2 has been flying with a high bandwidth satellite link for 15 years. The Satcom antenna and coms gear is housed in the dorsal pod.
U-2 sensor systems when through a major upgrade from 2001-2005 and an advanced signals intelligence package was added in the past 24 months. It provides more and higher quality data than Global Hawk.
excellent, that’s what I’m all for: take a paid for, proven airframe and put proven, affordable technology in it. plus the U-2 can be refuelled in the air and land on aircraft carriers, that make it a very flexible aircraft
this does mean the U-2’s biggest disatvantage is its pilot, who can only stay up for 12 hours at the most extreme, needs oxygen, has in the past been shot down and captured…
how much would it cost to transfer the RQ-170’s architecture to the U-2? a few million? that’s about the cost of a human pilot
Sounds like the test got some “help” to actually work.
NG has succesfully made a system that allows jets to land on an aircraft carrier, one of the hardest things to do in aviation. I doubt they needed “help” for air refueling, which is kid’s stuff by comparison
10 years from now both manned and unmanned aircraft will refuel in the air and land on aircraft carriers using automated systems, because they’re simply much better at it. letting a human do it will be dangerous by comparison
SanemU2 to be kept flying for a lot longer.
well they do have Bono going for them :p
seriously, does this mean they’ll upgrade the U-2s? give them satellite links, make them unmanned perhaps?
does the U-2 come even close to the Global Hawk’s JSTAR like abilities?
here’s decade old proposal for unmanned U-2’s
Sign In
