SanemAnother excellent read is “Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century”, also to be found on the net.
SanemFor anyone interested on the subject, search Google for “Unmmand Aircraft System By Reg Austin.pdf”, it’s a jaw dropping read and free.
SanemIsrael does have the culture to be the leader in drone technology: it’s constantly at war, but lacks the stealthy aircraft and sheer power of the USAF. as such it has learned to use UAVs as force multipliers, a lesson the US military only learned when forced into a war of insurgency. if the Iraq or Afghanistan wars had been over instantly, would we have seen so many drones today?
using obsolete aircraft to lead the attack against Iran would be an excellent tactic. Israel has done this before with succes with prop aircraft but these lack the speed to get to Iran fast. now with the USAF out of Iraq, I imagine Israel has a real oppotunity to strike Iran. that’s probably why Iraq wants those F-16s as fast as possible
not that that would be a good idea politically speaking, I believe it would have serious consequences, possibly another oil crisis as in 1973
a prop UAV for guarding a AWACS is a bad idea from a kinetics point of view. but from a cost point of view it would be great, because it costs extremely little, its missiles can do most of the work, and you can use the drones to take any missile impacts
a cheap, jet engine UAV could do the job better, but it would require much more fuel to stay in the air for so long, and it too would rely mostly on missiles. a combination of the two would probably work best, maybe the props will stay close while the jet UAVs will keep a perimeter. combine with manned aircraft and you the best of all three types at the lowest cost
and thank you for your work and spirit of mind, it’s a pleasure to see someone thinking beyond traditional limits 😉
SanemPLA-MKII, my compliments no your attitude and the quality of your work, I’m really impressed by it. I hope my replies can provide you with some inspiration.
On the WVR debate, I would suggest going for the SAM angle: any infantry or armour unit with an IR missile can shoot it at an air target, many such systems can do so independantly. You’re not so much as developing a completely new technology, but rather locating an existing one at a higher altitude.
On the cultural controversy, I would suggest approaching the Army, rather than the Air Force about this, as they are less biased about unmanned missile systems, a trend that one can clearly see with the US Army. And as with the US military services, the PAF will probably respond to this by pulling it towards itself, not wanting to lose potential budgets to a rival service.
As an addition to a comprehensive IADS, your MLUCAV would have value, as would greatly reduce interception time and dependability on air bases. I’d also strongly suggest motorway launched fighters, both manned and unmanned, the Swedish are especially apt at this. The UCAV being a store-until-needed system would also make it very apt for this strategy, as you don’t need to keep a trained pilot near them, just some basic mechanics and ordnance personel.
Also, be careful not to let your project get sidelined: they don’t want UAV’s competing with manned aircraft, so they let you compete with SAMs instead, a discussion that’ll be even harder to win. It could be a way in, but I’m just saying pick your battles and watch your allies closely.
On semi-recessed missiles, a weapons bay would be cleaner in terms of stealth, aerodynamics, weapons safety… If the cost isn’t much higher (I’m guessing it’s not), it could work. I’d also advise wingtip missiles: clean, easy, effective.
On laser communications, I don’t know anything about it, just that it exists and that it has a few important advantages. Here’s what I’m thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_communications
Space based SAR is the future, super-high altitude AWACS, although they too will be targetted in a conflict.
I see great potential with optical/IR sensors: completely passive, cheap, and they’re starting to get really good, detecting targets in any weather at huge ranges. Computers are also getting capable of detecting aircraft types, an ability the F-35 is said to have. These sensors can be used to spot aircraft, or guide missiles to them, unaffected by stealth, EW or flares. Blinding lasers could be a problem though, but I imagine they can find away around that with filters.
China will be a big help to your proposals, as they too are looking into UAVs as a way to break the US/Japanese military advantage.
On radars, a SAM type radar would be very interesting, I imagine they’re designed to be expendable and hard to jam. The UAV wouldn’t need to be able to track many aircraft or ground targets, just one or two aircraft with possibly some degree of stealth.
I hear your limitations on airfields. I would suggest trying to give the UAV more range and loiter time over a SAM, that would be added value that would make it competitive.
On parachutes, if they carry the UAV then it would be a good idea. Maybe put some expandable “feet” under the aircraft that can soften the blow, maybe inflatable cussions of some sort (I believe USN Blackhawks have those, for emergency landings on water).
I would disadvise a net of sort, as it increases the logistics needed, better to make the aircraft able to land without much help. But that could work, maybe use cussions as well. I would advise looking at the A-4 Skyhawk: very light, simple, designed to land on its fuel tanks if its wheels won’t come down.
PAK-FA will be excellent, modern technology and stealth combined with Russian practicallity. Western aircraft need perfect conditions to work, which you rarely get.
Also don’t forget the Typhoon (I doubt it’ll be the Rafale, India likes to spread its investments, as they should), Western quality.
More later, gotta go watch the Kremlin blow up.
SanemWhy a longer range classical sam system (maybe even energy directed) not more effective ? Any combat aircraft unmaned or maned cannot survive without complex self protection system, detection systems, weapon system etc that cost lots of money.
It may be useful for long range, dangerous strike mission assuming it could be autonomous enough, essentially been a cruise missile that comes back home, but even then why not just use cruise missiles ?
I asked the same question in my conclusion: what value does the UAV add over a classic SAM system, at what cost?
being vertically launched, the UAV will lack payload capacity, greatly limiting its range or the number of missiles it can carry. it would be useful if you need to intercept an enemy really fast (for example if you visually spot a stealth aircraft flying overhead, on its way to shoot down an AWACS), or if your air bases are too far away or too fragile (and there are no usable roads in the area from which you might launch the aircraft), or perhaps if you launch from a ship
but even then a SAM would achieve similar results at a much lower cost. you would also need to invest a lot of money, logistics and effort to recover, re-arm and re-launch the UAV. that’s hard to do in difficult terrain, a problem we clearly see in the Western occup… I mean liberation of Afghanistan
I would disagree on the more complex system a UAV would need:
– self protection: flares would be interesting, but if it has no radar and such, it would not need an extensive EW capability because it doesn’t have sensors that can be jammed/fried. it also already has a degree of manouverability that is much greater than manned aircraft, giving it a natural defence against enemy missiles
– detection systems: these could actually be relatively cheap, if all you need is something to detect the enemy aircraft, a basic IR or even optical sensor would do. when the aircraft is launched at the enemy, the people launching it can tell the UAV to target everything in a certain area, so the UAV doesn’t need super-advanced technology that can detect and avoid friend and foe, it just shoots at anything that moves, like any SAM would
also, external input can be used to guide the UAV to its target and even launch its missiles (AMRAAMs for example don’t care where the target location comes from). this can come from AWACS, satellites, ground-based IR or even a guy with binoculars who spots an enemy flying overhead
it bascially would be a re-usable cruise missile, but one ment for air combat rather than ground attack. when the enemy aircraft cost $100-200 million each, that becomes an interesting way to counter them, as you can lose loads of them for every enemy aircraft you shoot down and still be winning
Sanemhttp://www.grandestrategy.com/2011/08/9348282-missile-launched-ucavs.html
I’m very impressed by the article, it’s well constructed, researched and written. Most importantly it dares to look beyond the traditional, which is the sort of attitude that allows one to overcome challenges where others would falter. I’ll try to add some idea’s that might be constructive.
A Simplified & Yet Useful Missile-Launched UCAV (ML-UCAV)
I like the concept very much. You could deploy these along a border, hiding them in terrain, moving them constantly, like you would any mobile SAM systems.
When an enemy comes near, you launch them like you would a SAM, but these would carry missiles themselves, giving you a bigger chance of hitting the enemy aircraft. Their qualities as an aircraft will also allow them to move into position first, hold off the attack if needed, flee, pursue, engage multiple targets, and ofcourse be recovered and re-used afterwards.
The picture of one mounted on a truck-mounted missile is the design I have in my mind as well: basically a small Mirage, with the airlet on top (for better stealth, but leaving the airlets on the side would work equally well).
Small size is a big plus, making it harder to detect and thus attack, and lighter so less effort is needed for it to reach altitude. It’ll carry less fuel, but again that reduces its weight and thus the fuel needed.
Key Requirements
I have to disagree on the internal bay as being a necessity, I would advise semi-recessed missiles instead: it’s cheaper, less prone to mechancial failure, takes up less space, and still gives considerable stealth and aerodynamic advantages.
The main reason I see to use weapon bays would be to avoid ground impact of the missiles when the aircraft lands by parachute.
Human Input
I’d strongly suggest lasers for control. Install lasers on controlling aircraft or ground station, and optical sensors on the UAV. This way human controllers can exchange data without being detected or jammed. Especially on jet fighters that fly in the same formation and control the UAVs this would be a huge advantage, and a strong laser would also be unaffected by any bad weather at not too great a range.
BVR Focus
I agree that BVR would be the best tactic: it allows for a faster attack, at longer range, reducing enemy escape routes and return fire. Target data could be provided by external ground, air or space based sensors for the initial launch. The missile then uses inertial guidance to close in with the target, and a radar, IR or optical sensor for the final attack. This is how the AMRAAM works anyway, I imagine Pakistan would be able to design and build a similar missile.
That said, WVR missiles are also an option, all the UAV would need is a good IR sensor and a link to a ground operator who can launch the missiles. This is how a Predator engaged an Iraqi Mig back in the 2003, technically speaking its quite simple. If there are no friendly/civilian aircraft around you can even let the UAV fire on its own initiative, assuming it’s advanced enough to avoid flares and other defence systems. WVR missiles also have the advantage of being lighter and cheaper, so the UAV will be able to carry and fire more of them. It would also reduce the cost of the whole system, as there’s no need for BVR missile integration.
Also, a remotely controlled UAV would actually be pretty good in a dogfighting scenario. As I’ve mentioned before, he USAF did tests back in the ‘70s, pitching manned against unmanned F-4’s. Once the UAV pilots got the hang of it they could outfly their manned opponents easily, because they could turn that much sharper.
A modern UAV could replicate that effect, even without human input or advanced electronics. All it would need are some IR sensors (with 360 degree line of sight if possible) and the target tracking system you find on any air-to-air missile. This would allow the UAV to detect a target’s position, launch off-bore WVR missiles at it, perform an automatic (if random) sharp manouver that puts the target in front of it and again fire its missiles, or even crash into the enemy aircraft if the UAV is out of missiles.
Human initiative and reflexes help little against an aircraft that can detect you and shoot at you from any angle, or that can aim its nose at you in seconds. And that doesn’t fear death, that will scare the hell out of any human pilot.
Asymmetric Sensor Payload & Practical Stealth
I would not advise radars on this aircraft, because of weight, energy consumption, cost and detectability. Better to use light, passive and cheap IR sensors, or external target data for long range engagements.
I’d also suggest an ejectable pod for any valuable electronics and sensors. As with ejection seats in manned aircraft, this allows you to save valuable “parts” and re-use them later.
Conclusion
In the end I have to ask what advantage this ML-UCAV brings over regular SAM systems. Its vertical launch systems makes it an excellent weapon to launch surprise attacks on nearby targets, but limits its fuel and weapons payload. You might as well equip a SAM with multiple WVR/BVR missiles and fire that at the enemy. The SAM will have the range and speed to get within missile range and it too can be recovered. It would deliver about the same effect at a much lower cost.
I see more use in launching such UAVs from a regular air strip, so they can carry more fuel. This way they can use their cheap and expendable numbers to swarm an enemy, supported by manned aircraft for tactical control. You can convert absolete F-7’s, Mirages and F-16’s for this, mixing them with cheaper, unarmed T-37’s, J-5’s to absorb enemy missile attacks.
Your suggestion to use parachutes for recovery does interest me greatly, as the UAVs wouldn’t necessarily need to fly back home and can thus stay in the fight until they run out of fuel.
On the PAKFA
The PAKFA will be Pakistan’s biggest worry. But what is has in power, it will lack in (operational) numbers (and ammunition).
Offensively, a good strategy no one ever mentions would be to use target drones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone
Take any basic aircraft, be it a prop-engine UAV, a 50 year old Mig-21, or a 30 year old F-16. Put a basic autoflight control system in it, and send it at the enemy. These aircraft don’t need to be reliable, or even have enough fuel to fly back, they’re really just there to die.
Send your manned fighters and aircraft amongst them, guiding this wave of aircraft, using them as shields, and a hiding place from where they can shoot their own weapons.
The Indians will shoot plenty of missiles at these waves, but they will only be hitting the drones most of the time. At one point units will start to run out of ammunition or fuel, and have to return home. Then your wave can breach the enemy lines, allowing your armed aircraft to engage the enemy on the ground where he’s fragile, or his supporting AWACS and tanker aircraft.
Defensively, UAVs would also work great to protect things like AWACS, radar stations or airfields.
You’d need something of Predator size, Reaper size would work better. Line of sight remote controls would be fine, they wouldn’t need satellite links or even very good optical sensors. Arm them with WVR or BVR missiles, the more the better.
Send these UAVs up and have them accompany your AWACS (they’d need to be fast enough to keep up with it) or fly overhead your ground installations (speed is irrelevant here). In this role the UAVs would work like flying SAM systems, shooting their missiles at enemy aircraft or missiles that come close. They could also protect the AWACS by flying into the enemy missiles or aircraft (if they get close enough).
Manned fighters would also work in this role, but they’d only be able to stay in the air for a few hours before they have to return, so you’d need a lot more pilots and aircraft to fulfil the same role. The UAVs would be able to stay up for 12 to 24 hours, and their constant airborne position would allow them to respond instantly to any surprise attacks.
Sanemseems the Avenger C has had its first sale 🙂
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-orders-general-atomics-avenger-365902/
Saneman interesting read on UAV self destruction systems
Saneman interesting read on UAV self destruction systems
SanemChinese and Russian have hard currency and assets in this region that will keep watch on ISAF drones and communications for years and they may extent this favor to Iran.
No you are over estimating their intelligence.
I agree that one should never underestimate one’s opponent
that said, the Russians and Chinese are facing a huge challenge, as it’s much harder to break a code than it is to write a new one
it’s like developing a language from scratch, and then the other party has to decypher it. this is possible, given enough source material to decode
the problem is that with modern technology, that code can change every nano-second. this means the code-breakers never have enough material to find the cypher, because it changes every time it’s used, so there’s simply no pattern to recognise
SanemImagine that in the middle of an air operation our entire fleet of combat UAVs suddenly turns around and heads back to base because of a loss of contact with their controllers.
as has been said several times, such an event would have minimal effect in real terms: future, advanced UAVs would continue their mission on their own as far as possible, would attempt to fly out of jammer range or would at worst fly back home
the second point is that it’s extremely difficult to cut off the UAVs from outside commands
– you can only block satellite links if the jammer is located between the UAV and the satellite, an extremely difficult task
– certainly in the future, pretty much any nearby transmitter will be able to guide the UAVs, be they ground units, AWACS, Apache helicopters or fighter jets, potentially using communication systems that are utterly unaffected by jamming, like optical lasers
SanemWould be hillarious if it was a hack, imagine the impact of this event in all the USAF-Euro UAV programs…pure gold
as well as satellites, cruise missiles, long range air-to-air missiles like the AMRAAM and guided bombs like the SDB, all of which use data links for mission updates
hell, every Western aircraft today relies heavily on Link-16 systems for communication, which the Sentinel probably used. does this mean they can hack the Link-16 system? if so, can they pass on viruses?
Sanem3 very interesting articles from Popular Mechanics on UCAVs:
how-robot-planes-will-land-on-aircraft-carriers
SanemIf some ignorant people don’t understand what it means & get it wrong, we should point at them & laugh, not go along with their foolishness. Also, your ‘most’ people is wrong. On fora frequented by those who have any knowledge of the subject, rather than those populated by ignorant teenage fanboys, the misunderstanding you describe is not common.
I couldn’t agree more
but then I have to ask, what kind of forum is this one?
if it’s the first, shouldn’t we use more informed definitions? like RPV, as this is the official term used by the most qualified U(C)AV user in the world, the USAF. but do we also adopt their Tier system, which they have changed themselves over the years and conflicts with the definitions used by another big U(C)AV user, the USArmy? or do we use the old Pentagon term, UAS? or should we refer to them in Israeli terms, as they are the fathers of modern UAV warfare?
SanemThen they’re wrong.
A UAV can be jet, advanced, & stealthy, but not armed or capable of being armed, & therefore not a UCAV, & none of those, but armed, & therefore a UCAV.
I agree on that:
– the Global Hawk is clearly a jet aircraft, and the Predator C/Avenger is an advanced jet with stealth, so should be defined as a UCAV, but they are generally put under the UAV term
– and as said before, both the Mantis and the Eitan are often described as UCAVs, because they are so advanced
– majorities are not always known for their scientific correctness, religion to name but one example
but there’s no single authority on what the difference is between a UAV and UCAV: the masses, Wikipedia, the Services and the media all use their own definitions
but when you’re discussing on a popular internet forum, the accepted rule of thumb is that UAV = propeller, UCAV = jet/stealth/advanced, because that’s the definition used by most of the people you’re talking to
to look at it another way:
by the armed/not armed definition, if you disarm any UCAV, it becomes a UAV, and if you arm any UAV (which is pretty much all of them if you want to) it becomes a UCAV. at that point the definition becomes irrelevant as it no longers refers to a certain group of aircraft but rather their equipment, and you’re better off using the term armed/unarmed
to look at it historically: the difference between UAV and UCAV is the word “combat”. this does not refer to weapons, but rather to design, which is aimed at recon (all aircraft currently in use) or combat (new aircraft, like the Mantis, Eitan and flying wings being worked on)
Sign In
