SanemI repeat, the UCAV in question has neither a radar nor an EOTS, and is useless without a supporting AEW&C.
right, so you agree that if it has support from an AEW&C (as I’ve been explicitly suggesting for the last two pages), then it doesn’t need radar or EOTS to launch the missile at a target
that’s all I wanted to prove, that you don’t need a $100+ million 5th generation aircraft with AESA and EOTS and stealth to engage another aircraft, all you really need are a missile, target location data and a platform to launch it from
so it’s proven then: an aircraft without a pilot in it, commonly known as a UAV (or UCAV), can engage another aircraft in air to air combat
As far as ‘generally accepted‘ goes, sources don’t come anymore general than this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_air_vehicle
See if you can spot the Predator and Reaper in there.
lol
google image the the word UCAV. then do the same with the word UAV
you’ll see that over 90% of the people would stick the following definitions to these aircraft:
UCAV: jet, advanced, stealthy
UAV: prop
everyone (you, me, Wikipedia, the services, the industry, the media, the politicians) uses different terms to define UAVs, often depending on their knowledge of the subject (for example the USAF uses the term RPV, but hates the term Drones, because to them that defines the UAVs used for target practice). that I agree on, and I respect everyone’s opinion to do so
but if you’re discussing this, 90% of the people use the jet/advanced/stealth vs prop definition, not the weapons/no weapons definition. if you deviate from this definition, you’re in the large minority, and should at least realise that
SanemAir and space combat is ever evolving. If an adversary has AWACs or datalinks, anti AWACs missiles, electronic warfare, tactics etc will be developed to negate that advantage.
not to mention lasers, those would completely change the dynamics of warfare
a very interesting update on the USN’s UAV programs: Unmanned Combat Aircraft Tests Move Quickly
and an article on lasers as a way of stealthy communicatons, something I’ve suggested for a long time
SanemSo your aircraft combat value depends solely on tracking data being available via a datalink.
that’s what I’ve been saying since day 1
before you get confused again, I’m talking about UAVs here, not UCAVs
What gave you the idea that the SL-AMRAAM or analogous systems don’t employ a radar?
don’t need a radar you mean
to answer your question:
a) F 35 Distributed Aperture System EO DAS
at 2:22 and again at 3:38 the F-35 fires a missiles at a enemy that’s behind it. so unless the F-35 has a radar in its tail (like the T-50), it’s firing missiles without the use of radar
b) Wikipedia
“AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft’s radar, although it could come from an infrared search and tracking system (IRST), from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.”
you were saying?
Now you’re simply quibbling over semantics. And yes the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper are both unmanned combat air vehicles, as is the IAI Eitan.
this was discussed a few posts back; the generally accepted idea is that
– UAV: prop aircraft
– UCAV: jet engine, stealth, state of the art autonomous capabilities
but as I posted in that discussion, the BAe Mantis and I would agree IAI Eitan could be considered UCAVs because they do have state of the art autonomous capabilities (like detecting and targetting enemies by itself), but because they still lack a jet engine or stealth, they’re still generally classed as UAVs
Good. Atleast now we’ve mutually determined that a UCAV is useless at air combat without an AEW&C aircraft.
I’m assuming you’re talking about “$1 million UCAVs” which pretty much everyone else on the net, in the services and in the industry referes to as UAVs
– without state of the art autonomous capabilities, yes
– with state of the art autonomous capabilities, still yes, because it lacks the ability to detect on its own
– if it has something like radar, EOTS or Elint sensors it might be able to detect the T-50 or the T-50’s radar. combined with state of the art autonomous capabilities that would allow it to shoot missiles at the T-50 without human intervention, assuming it’s in range, than no, it doesn’t need an AWACS or even a human controller to be effective
Unless the older fighter jets are backed by an AEW&C aircraft of their own.
I missed Gadhafi flying around in a sports prop aircraft, looking around with binoculars and yelling orders at his pilots through a walki-talki, but yes an AEW&C aircraft would help against UAVs. and UCAVs (= stealth and jet engine). and F-16s. and F-15s. and F-35s. and F-22s
Who says that tactic would necessarily work against the F-35? The F-35 may still be able to outrun or outmaneuver the missile before it goes active. It could try to ‘spoil’ the PAK-FA’s shot by shooting in turn (forcing the PAK-FA to take evasive action). It could employ its AESA to try an jam or otherwise disrupt the missile’s seeker.
the F-35 will be better at avoiding that tactic ofcourse. that’s why it costs 15000% as much as the UAV I’m suggesting
but if it fails to avoid the missiles, than you just lost $150 million, were a bait UAV would cost $500.000, or a air-to-air UAV would cost $1 million
you could argue that the T-35 can exchange losses against the T-50, but the whole argument behind 5th generation fighters is that you avoid said losses (and they’ll be great, if only because the T-50 clearly outclasses the F-35 in air combat), because these go down very hard with the public opinion
UAVs the other hand are completely expendable to the public opinion
All a drone pilot can really do is loiter and hope to get lucky.
that was the general tactic of most manned missions over Lybia; the difference is that they need to go home after a few hours, while UAVs and UCAVs can stay on mission for days, greatly reducing the number of aircraft needed to execute such a mission
None of them have fallen out of the sky for no reason. Every problem is fixable. Aircraft aren’t going to tumble out simply because of lady luck or the force of prayer.
F-22 Raptors Fly Again, But Breathing Problem Still Not Solved
I suggest you call the USAF and tell them that, they’ll be most grateful
The attrition rate due to mishaps for most modern airforces is usually less than 1.5 per 10,000 hours. Not something that makes a discernible difference in wartime.
an F-15E crashed in the early days of the Lybia air war. engine failure, or perhaps someone prayed very hard to lady luck. anyway, it’s a 40 year old design, worth $50 million by my guess, and the pilots were saved, so it wasn’t a big deal
but what if 10 years from now this is an F-22 or an F-35? the world’s most advanced aircraft in enemy hands, the pilot possibly dead or tortured
you might say that this doesn’t happen to modern aircraft, but the F-22 has crashed several times in just a few years, and the F-35 isn’t anywhere near combat ready, so I’m not sure that’s a risk the USAF will be willing to take
And both UCAVs and working 5th generation aircraft are very much in existence.
you mean UAVs with weapons, yes those do exist
a stealthy jet engine UAV with weapons, commonly known as a UCAV, doesn’t exist
a working F-22 or F-35 or T-50 or J-20 doesn’t exist. the only one not still in testing is the F-22, and it was grounded for most of the last year, has never been in combat and they still haven’t fixed the problem. so flying, sort of, working, maybe
A Predator for $100,000!! Where are you getting these utterly outlandish figures from? Forget the Predator, you couldn’t get a Stinger for $100K today.
that’s an estimate of mine, based on Wikipedia
Wikipedia sets the cost at about $4.5 million
but that includes satellite grade sensors and communication systems, worth millions by themselves
the Predator frame, which I’m talking about, consists of a snow mobile engine worth $28.315. that leaves $78.000 for wings, wheels, the main body and some very basic computers and control systems. seems reasonably
if you have data on the matter that says differently I’ll be most eager to read it, I’m very interested in the matter
And why not simply use these aircraft (that apparently can match an AEW&C aircraft’s radar range) to fire those missiles in the first place? They were susceptible to the enemy before and they are susceptible to it now.
that’s certainly an option, the F-22 would be great in this role, using the UAV wave as bait and its speed, stealth and technology to hunt
but then you’re again sending in and thus risking an aircraft worth hundreds of millions when the UAVs can do the same job, not as well, but still effectively and much more efficiently
SanemNo I did not answer that question myself.
you said “An RQ-7 type aircraft won’t be able to mimic a F-35” and then asked “why follow that up with another group of UAVs instead of regular fighters?”
answer = because “An RQ-7 type aircraft won’t be able to mimic a F-35” but an average sized UAV can mimic another average sized UAV
Coming to the AMRAAM idea – fighters can employ an AMRAAM, UCAVs can’t. Not without a radar.
ah yes, you’re referring to the common misconception that you need a radar to fire an AMRAAM
the F-35 can fire an AMRAAM at a target by using target data received from
a) its own radar
b) its own optical sensors
c) another F-35’s radar
d) another F-35’s optical sensors
in 2 of those cases, no radar is involved. in 2 of those cases, the F-35 uses external target data. the Typhoon can do this as well
you see, you do not need a radar or even sensors on the aircraft launching the AMRAAM. you don’t even need an aircraft as AMRAAMs are often used in SAM systems
what you need to fire an AMRAAM are
a) an AMRAAM
b) launch rails
c) target location
The utility of the F-35 aside, a Reaper type UCAV still remains useless in that scenario.
again, you’re mistaking UAVs for UCAVs. there’s no such thing as a Reaper UCAV
and again, you’re mistaken. a $1 million Reaper, equiped with AMRAAMs, using AWACS guidance and UAV bait aircraft, would
a) outshoot any older fighter jets that don’t have long range weapons, just like any advanced fighter jet would
b) get into a shooting match with anything more advanced. sure, a T-50 could use its speed to fire missiles at maximum range and run before you can return fire, but that tactic would work just as well against an F-35 (whose stealth is apparantly useless against the T-50’s radars)
the difference with a drone wave of death is that they can take the hits, and just keep on going to their target, where the accompanying bombers can then attack ground targets (like parked T-50’s)
Well a lot of the money has and is being spent on it is to ensure it doesn’t fall of the sky for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:
you mean like they did with the F-22? :rolleyes:
There is no such thing as a UCAV that’s cheap and capable of air combat.
technically there’s no such thing as a UCAV. or a working 5th generation fighter :p
now a stripped down Predator UAV costs about $100.000 and can launch Stingers at ’70s era aircraft. while not the most effective one, it’s certainly cheap and certainly capable of air combat
So the prerequisite to employing UCAVs in the manner you propose is a presence of a supporting AEW&C aircraft. At what range do you suppose the AEW&C aircraft will detect and/or track the PAKFA? Within or beyond K-100 range?
Also, what happens if the AEW&C aircraft gets shot down or has to bail out of the sector after being engaged? All linked UAVs/UCAVs effectively become useless.
good question, at what range can an AWACS or an AESA detect a T-50? I hope really far, because if it gets within missile range of an AWACS or an F-35, I wouldn’t give either much of a fighting chance against a salvo of missiles
as for the UAV swarm loosing AWACS guidance, any nearby manned aircraft with the right software could take over control, and use its sensors to guide UAV launched missiles (the F-35 actually being very good in this role with its strong communication and sensor abilities and stealth)
SanemIts efficacy is still unknown given that AESA radars have effective NCTR modes (especially against non-stealthy aircraft). An RQ-7 type aircraft won’t be able to mimic a F-35 or J-20, quite as well as one may hope. You can design it to have the profile, speed and range of a cruise missile but you’ll end up with similar price tag as well.
But the question here is why follow that up with another group of UAVs instead of regular fighters? Getting a UAV within Hellfire (:eek:) or Stinger range of a T-50 is a very unlikely prospect. It simply doesn’t have the juice to outmaneuver it for a lock.
well, you answered your own question here: the reason to follow up bait UAVs with regular UAVs is because even AESA radar can’t tell the difference between a stripped down Predator and a fully armed Reaper. that and because in this case you’re using a $1 million aircraft to engage a $150 million aircraft, so in theory you can lose 149 to 1 and still come out on top. which is how the P-51’s defeated the Me 262, or the Shermans and T-34’s the Tigers and Panthers: through sheer numbers
the UAVs wouldn’t use Hellfire or Stinger missiles, they’d use AMRAAM missiles. ofcourse, no one knows if a UAV can carry and fire an AMRAAM, but considering that Reapers are qualified for Sidewinders, I don’t see why not
Actually I was referring to the unit (four aircraft) cost and yes that includes ground stations, something that UCAVs of the type you propose can’t get around either. The F-35 does cost much more but then its not intended to be an expendable asset.
right, so a full system of Reaper UAVs gives you 4 fully operational Reapers for $100 million. while a fully operational F-35 costs what, $200+ million?
so for the price of one F-35, you’re operating 8 Reapers. in Afghanistan or in Africa or Lybia that’s 8 24h missions that can be executed, at the same time. if you want to achieve the same mission time with F-35s (8h mission times), that’ll take about 24 F-35s
the only reason to take an F-35 over a Reaper is when you face a peer opponent, or you want to shoot down enemy aircraft
against peer enemies you’ll be facing off against advanced SAM systems (which LMT itself has declared it can’t survive against) and AESA equiped Su-30’s and T-50’s and what else; what if all those LMT powerpoint slides turn out to be hot air and they lose those fights?
against weaker enemies, with 70’s era fighters the F-35 will probably have the advantage. but what if one simply crashes, which seems very likely (as it happens to every other aircraft out there, especially to very complex ones like the F-22), then you just lost the most advanced and expensive fighter aircraft in history (and its pilot) to some third rate development country, who’ll sell it to the Chinese or the Russians or the French within 24 hours
so I say no, it’s not worth the risk, better to send in $1 million Reapers with AMRAAMs. you might lose a bunch, but they’ll defeat the enemy air defences through sheer numbers, and it’ll still be cheaper and strategically more sane then sending in the F-35, which isn’t just “not expendable”, it’s too valuable to lose
Huh? You want to strip it of high grade equipment and expect to shoot down a fifth generation aircraft? In an aircraft that doesn’t have a bare basics for modern combat – radar, datalink and associated control systems?
Also, how do you get an expendable UCAV for $1 million, when a single AMRAAM costs more that (support included).
Who’s going to provide that firing solution? A regular manned fighter? Can it track the T-50 beyond missile range? Isn’t it vulnerable against the T-50’s sensors?
two possibilities:
a) the T-50 uses its radar to engage the UAVs at maximum range, staying out of AMRAAM range itself. if it does so, every ELINT aircraft at long range will know its location, and thus it can be engaged
b) the T-50 uses its passive sensors. but can its stealth survive AWACS and AESA radars? if not, its location can be passed on to the UAVs, who can then launch their AMRAAMs. or even if does remain stealthy, it’ll reveal itself as soon as it opens fire, and once again be targetted by every UAV in range
asuming it got within dogfighting range, it has 8 missiles and a cannon, giving it about 10 kills against UAVs. even if you asume a cost of $10 million per UAV it can only kill $100 million worth at best in a single run. the T-50 however costs $150 million + the pilot, so a single hit (or kamikaze impact) from the drones means they just destroyed $150 million worth vs $100 million lost
So this $1 million UCAV will have a degree of stealth rivaling the $2 billion B-2.
you’re confused: here we were discussing UCAVs, not UAVs
And will be able to engage both ground and airborne targets (the latter without a radar).
the F-35’s computers can detect and target ground and airborne enemies without radar, using just its (stealthy) optical sensors. why can’t that same technology be used by a UCAV?
Sanemhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204770404577078160095550518.html
Iran claims to have shot down a US drone – allegedly a RQ-170 stealthy drone to be exact.
Iran makes a lot of claims :p most likely another pr stunt (remember their fake missile launch images?)
it’s possible ofcourse. but I doubt an RQ-170 would a) crash/get shot down, b) survive a crash from high altitude intact and c) not have a failsafe detonation device exactly to preven it from being captured. but I’d love to see some images (for what those are worth these days)
why it does not need speed and altitude?. Speed & altitude gives energy to weopons for longest shot along with flexibility of hitting moving target on time.
otherwise just built thousands of ground lunched & sublunched cruise missiles that can funciton as antiship missiles against naval and ground targets. that UCAV will be destroyed on ground along with its big infrastructure.
SAM systems don’t have speed or altitude, yet they’re perfectly capable of shooting down a target. it would be nice to have, but it’s not a necessity
cruise missiles are certainly an option, and the discussion is ongoing. for me the main argument is loiter and economies: a cruis missile, even advanced models, have limited loiter time, even if they allow for it. future UCAVs will be able to loiter for days on end, meaning you don’t have to send replacement aircraft, seriously cutting down the transit times, and meaning the UCAV will always be ready to strike when the enemy moves e.g. his fighters from their bomb-resistant bunkers. patience is the trademark of a great hunter
F-117 is too old for modern airdefence network. You need high powered jammers that can defeat incoming missiles and radars and for that you need big engines along with large airframe like 5th generation fighters. Not to mention longest range AAM/AR/AS missiles. Just mere the threat of long range strike against critical assets like AWACS/JSTAR/Ships can off balance the whole planning of rival. 5G fighters are simply irreplaceble.
you seem to have misread my post, I said F-117 style tactics, as in get in unseen, hit and run back home, without the enemy knowing you were there. this is how any modern stealth aircraft operates, but I mentioned the F-117 as the most proven user of this tactic
and I’m glad you mentioned long ranged strike assets: the Chinese will probably soon have the ability to take out US carriers at extreme ranges, meaning the F-35 will lack the endurance to be of much use. the USN knows this, and it’s why they’re betting heavily on the UCAV which its extreme range, where the USAF is dragging its feet
If Sneaking is the only tactics left than your in big trouble. I am not against cheap UAV for survellence and diversionary tactics but anything more expensive like UCAV is simply non starter.
hm, Boeing, LMT, NG, BAe, Dassault, Mig and many Asian aircraft builders seem to disagree with you on that. but perhaps you know better than 90% of the planet’s military aircraft builders
why not just send cruise missile instead of these UCAVs. latest cruise missiles have 5000km range. deployed from mulitple platforms. and i wouldnot be surprized by that time UCAV technology matures. Cruise missiles will have 10000km range. they are lighter, faster, expandable.
actually, modern cruise missiles cost about $2 million each, with costs rising. so to hit 25 targets, that’ll cost you $50 million, and any misses cost another $2 million
a UCAV on the other hand is expected to cost about $50 million, and will cary by my guess 8 SDBs per sortie. so it needs to do only about 3 missions to earn back its cost when compared to cruise missiles. and on top of that it can loiter for extreme time, adapting to situations as needed, and if it misses it can just attack again
don’t get me wrong, cruise missiles are an excellent weapon, but they’re still extremely expensive, and best used against static high value targets. for anything else you’re better off with fighters or bombers, and in this role too the UCAV offers serious advantages in cost and capacity compared to older (manned) aircraft
Certain things are unreasonable to develop. so better not even start it. as end consumer may not even afford to buy in decent numbers.
hm, you seem to be mistaken, this is the UAV/UCAV thread, the F-35 thread is the other one
SanemI meant those pesky types who insist that a UCAV is a Predator style UAV..
in all fairness, that is a though discussion, comparable to the 5th vs 4th vs 4.5th generation fighters
the BAe Mantis is an interesting example: while close to the Reaper in looks and performance, it’s said to have amazing levels of autonomy, capable of executing missions with minimal human intervention. that degree of capability is to me a determining factor as to what defines a UCAV. other than that, its only difference with for example the X-47b or Phantom Ray would be, by my guess, the degree of stealth and the jet engine. if this is true, than the Mantis is a basic UCAV, while the Phantom Ray would be a stealthy jet UCAV
this discussion continues with the Predator C Avenger: it’s probably very autonomous, it has a jet engine, and it has stealth, yet people aren’t as fast as to define is as a UCAV. or with the RQ-170 Sentinel, which is generally considered a UAV because it’s used exclusively (suposedly) for recon. but if it is weapons-capable, does that mean we such call it a UCAV?
Sanemwe are back to this confusion about what constitutes a UCAV again I see….:eek:
We aren’t talking about 1990s era UAVs like PRedator when we discuss A2A capable UCAVs.
lol, the thread title does say UCAV/UAV discussion 😀
How? The way I see it playing out is – a T-50 will detect UAVs at 100km+, sprint to a supersonic speed and supercruise thereafter, start tracking and launch at 75km, get as many kills as possible and then hightail for home on afterburners.
sure, an excellent tactic, which would work equally well against say an F-35 on it’s way to bomb a nuclear installation
the advantage the UAVs have is that at 75 km, a T-50 radar can’t tell the difference between a fully armed, state of the art Reaper or a stripped down, $100,000 Predator equiped with dummy weapons (or an even cheaper stripped-down RQ-7). both Israel and the US have used such aircraft with great succes to bait enemy air defences and fighters
I say send up a mix of these, using the bait UAVs as a missile screen. have the enemy waste missile after missile against them, until he runs out of ammunition or flight-ready aircraft. than the UAVs reach their target (reactor/radar/air base) and the ones equiped with bombs and hellfires rip apart the enemy aircraft, using sheer numbers to defeat superior enemy defences. this is the way the Allies defeated the Me 262, but it would work equally well against the T-50
The UAV on other hand – will never come for $1 million (what does a single Aim-120D cost), will need a powerful radar (and affiliated avionics) to track the T-50 and decent engine(s) (or the T-50 will always sit 30kft above the UAV).
You could arguably send up an AEW&C aircraft with a ‘flock’ of UAVs, but the RQ-7 Shadow variety doesn’t have the requisite endurance while the Predator doesn’t have the range. Use a MQ-9 Reaper (estimated at over $100 million each) or the HALE Global Hawk type (which aren’t cheap either) and it’ll still be a beacon for the T-50’s X band and L band sensors (external munitions load).
actually, Italy recently bought MQ-9 Reapers for about $8 million each. now if you buy a system, consisting of multiple aircraft, control stations, training, maintenance etc, then yes the cost is about $100 million. but if you include that, a single F-35 costs several times that much
now if you strip the MQ-9 of any high grade equipment (satellite link, satellite grade sensors…) the cost of the airframe itself is probably less than $500,000, but that’s my guess, based on the fact that it has a very simple engine and frame
now add on a line of sight data link, that can be controlled by say an AWACS (this has been tested succesfully with even smaller UAVs), nearby fighters, ground stations or by using data relays, and a fire system for AMRAAMs, and the cost per aircraft is probably less than $1 million each
it doesn’t need a radar itself, it just needs a firing solution to give to the AMRAAM, and off it goes (the Typhoon and the F-35 have this ability, using targetting data from sister aircraft to aim their missiles)
how can you compare X-47B to fighter. It is high subsonic speed, only 4500 lbs weopon load, only 40K altitude.
There is no evidence it can take external fuel tanks or do high altitude super cruise let alone engage in air to air combat. No EW suite.
And this for size that is 87% of F-18.
it doesn’t need speed, weapons load or altitude; it has range and stealth
it’ll use F-117 style tactics: it’ll sneak past the enemy lines, engage it’s target, and sneak off again, without ever being detected or shot at
sneak this baby past enemy lines before you launch the main assault. preferibly place it near an enemy air base. use its satellite link (the same as the B-2 I believe, which is extremely hard to detect) to provide situation updates. then when the enemy launches fighters, they spring into action, firing AMRAAMs as the enemy takes off, or using SDBs to hit them while they’re still on the ground
alternatively you can deploy them between the enemy air base and the Allied aircraft, waiting for enemy fighters to fly by or open fire, giving away their position. the UCAVs can than counter-attack, and sneak off again before the enemy knows what hit them
Look at slow development despite NG huge experiance in previous UAVs. how many built in past 5 years?. and no one knows the production costs yet.
As i said space shuttle become unaffordable pretty soon. moving from UAV to UCAV that can do cave busting strike or air to air fight against competitive adversary is simply beyond finanacial and technical means.
BAE/Dassualt cannot even attempt anything close to X-47B let alone fighter replacement UCAV. and that X-47B will take atleast 2020 assuming full scale production is funded.
how many T-50s have been built? yet they’re expected to be in introduced by 2016. that seems unlikely, but than a few years ago few believed the Russians even had a working prototype of a 5th gen aircraft
that’s because the Russians don’t develop aircraft like the US does. they don’t go all in from scratch. they test systems one by one, using different programs and aircraft
the X-47b is being built using that concept (as are European UCAVs). it’s control software has been worked on for a decade now, based on work by Boeing and experience from the Global Hawk, probably the most advanced UAV in the world. its design and frame has been worked on for a decade, tiering up from the X-47a, and using many existing parts and engine. it’s carrier landing system is being fully tested on F-18 aircraft, meaning it’ll have proven itself by the the time the X-47b actually uses it. it’s stealth or wing shape are no problem, considering NG built the B-2
this is not a completely new aircraft (uses existing bits, engine, wheels, software, hardware, communication gear) or even concept (UAVs have been around for 50 years, stealth UAVs for a while too if you consider the RQ-170). it has way less unknown factors than say the F-35, so it’ll be mature that much faster (the USN expects it to be production ready by 2018, which is probably sooner than the F-35 :D)
Sanema2a ucavs would cost a lot. just the engine would cost 5-8 million dollars. Radar and various other sensors would cost at least another 10 million. Software development for something like such a plane? a lot. airframe another 10 million, 20-30 million if specially designed and made to be LO. Various other systems would easely make the whole thing cost at least 50 million dollars, if not more. In today’s economy, at least.
both Boeing and NG have/are developing the aircraft you describe. both are estimated to cost about $50 million per aircraft, and that’s with superior stealth and range compared to a $120+ million F-35. and proven carrier compatible for the NG one, the X-47b
If one wanted to strip down the whole concept to simpler engines, simple airframe, very little or no sensors and basically get a jet Reaper, it’d still cost 15-20 million dollars and it’d be more or less defenceless as it wouldn’t even know when to evade an incoming attack. and such an attack would be cheaper for the attacker as the other side would adapt to the new situation.
a strippe version is exactly what I’d want for, for air defence at least. the worst air threat the US and Western countries have to worry about are 40 year old Russian recon and lost airliners. yet the USAF plans to buy F-35’s to intercept those, which is absurd, considering the cost
a “jet Reaper” would cost about $20 million, have F-16 performance, and would be able to execute the air interception mission as well or better than most manned aircraft, and at a fraction of the cost. they’d be re-usable SAM’s, and they’d be great at the job
as for evading attacks: the F-35’s computers can detect missiles and aircraft and avoid these, without human input. they plan to put this technology on every UAV and UCAV, as it’s relatively cheap, and it’ll be a lot better and cheaper 10 years from now
a2a ucavs may eventually come, but before that we’ll see a2g ucavs that are being demonstrated around the world.
indeed, which is probably why the USAF killed the J-UCAS program, they wouldn’t want to have to explain why they actually need the F-35 when they could buy UCAVs instead…
Nope. F-22 costs less than $200 million per aircraft, fully equipped – excluding development costs. F-35 will be cheaper. Total programme cost per F-22 is over $300 million, because a fairly small number were built. F-35 programme cost per unit will be much lower, because of much larger numbers. T-50 programme cost will depend on numbers built, & you don’t know yet what it will be.
I am talking about total program cost. You could argument that it’s unfair, but from an economic point of view aircraft like the F-16 have more than earned back their R&D costs, which makes them a “succesful” aircraft. spending an average $300 million on a hangar queen which spent the last few months grounded is not an efficient investment of money, from a military nor economic point of view
as for the F-35: the F-22, B-2, B-1, Typhoon, Rafale… are all the latest generation aircraft, and none have come close to their minimal expected production numbers
which means that, looking at history, the F-35 chances are horrible. and what’s worse, it’s about to be bought at a time of possibly the greatest US defence budget reductions since WW2
These days, close range fighter performance depends very heavily on missile performance & HMS, & with everyone & his dog having short-range missiles which will kill anything that gets within sight of the pilot, I’d hesitate to claim that any particular aircraft is superior in that environment.
exactly: people keep pointing out that supposedly can’t survive dogfights, yet as you just pointed out, no aircraft can against the average modern opponent, the ability to kill just has become greater than the ability not to be killed
SanemMIG-23 is 1970s era fighter. with no self protection and well integrated sensors.
the Mig-23 is an old aircraft. but if you’re shooting with for example AMRAAM missiles, there’s little difference if the aircraft they’re launched from is a stripped down Predator or an F-35
except that when facing a superior enemy, like probably the T-50, the F-35 will be at a disatvantage for an equal cost
UAVs on the other hand can swamp a T-50. in a stripped down version (no sat links, no super-expensive sensors) they’d be as cheap as $1 million versus $150 million for a T-50
this is a purely theoretical exercise ofcourse, not accounting for AWACS, tactics and such, but the point is valid: a UAV equiped for air combat is superior to any advanced fighter through sheer numbers
UCAV with heavy loads and fighter performance is well beyond financial means.
an F-22 costs about $300 millon total. an F-35 probably more, and its performance is worse than an F-16 (regardless of what LMT powerpoint warriors would want us to believe; I know a fat kid when I see one). so I’m not sure that a manned fighter with heavy loads and fighter performance is well within financial means
the upcomming generation of UCAVs is expected to cost around $50 million each (and those are not fate-inspired estimates, but based on actual cost experiences). give them AMRAAMs and external target data (from say an AWACS or AESA fighter hanging back) and they’ll be able to ambush even T-50s
What you save in the airframe, you spend twice in secure data links, satellites, software…
actually, modern aircraft like the F-35 use those (exact) same secure data links, satellites, software… so that part of the cost would be equal
the question is, why would a UCAV need the same characteristics as a manned fighter? artillery pieces don’t have the same armour as tanks, but they don’t need it either, if used correctly. in the same way, UCAVs would rely mostly on stealth, relatively low cost and long endurance to complete missions
which is the concept behind the F-35 too btw, to quote the “let the missiles do the turning” thing, the F-35 is ment NOT to go dogfighting, but to outsmart the enemy. it’s like bringing guns to a knife fight: sure, the enemy has the advantage if he gets close enough, but if he does that means you’re letting him. insurgents complain that the West fights without honour because they use (unmanned) aircraft, but if you respond to that by not using them anymore and going in with nothing but ground troops against a dug in guerilla enemy, than you’re being nothing short of an idiot
the T-50 is superior to the F-22 and F-35 and Eurodelta’s and J-20 and anything else in development, at short range, because it specialises in it. and it’s easy to defeat, by not getting into short ranged battles. in that same way, UAVs and UCAVs would give a tactical and strategic advantage over any manned aircraft, if you use them the right way. why bring a gun to a completely open battlefield when you could bring a sniper rifle for a lower cost?
What happen to an air force that operates only drones, when they no longer have access to their satellites? How can you guarantee no collateral damage? Can you trust AI with that issue yet?
The limiting factor won’t be so much technological, but ethical. Rules of engagement require human in the loop. Human eyes need to ID a target before it can be shot down. So while I see drones been used as a cheap alternative for counter insurgency, reconnaissance, ELINT, supply, etc. I see manned fighter a/c having a bright future even if their numbers will be greatly diminished.
actually, modern jet fighters engage their targets beyond visual range (losing a $300 million aircraft to a 40 year old enemy one because you let him get too close would be embarasing, to say the least). so there’s no visual (human) confirmation there either. and modern fighters also need confirmation from the ground before shooting, so there’d be absolutely no difference with UCAVs
satellites are a weak spot for UCAVs, but there are ways around that (direct data links to manned tailing aircraft, to name but one). and losing those would a) effect modern manned aircraft almost just as hard, and b) if the enemy has the ability to take out satellites, I’d be more worried about what else he can do (anti-carrier missiles, nukes, terrorist attacks on domestic soil) than about those satellites…
SanemAn excellent collection of UAV/UCAV news
The old air superiority UCAV thread
On Air superiority:
– it can be done: today’s air combat isn’t about heroes in open-topped prop planes fireing machine guns at each other. It’s about sensors, missiles and stealth, a human pilot on board is no longer needed, and even a disatvantage.
– it has been done: in 2003, a stripped down US Predator engaged an Iraqi Mig 23 with a Stinger. The Predator lost the fight, not because the concept is flawed, but because the Stinger missed. An F-22 armed with a single Stinger would not have done any better.
On the other hand a $500,000 UAV armed with AMRAAMs would be a nightmare for any enemy fighter pilots, for how do you fight an enemy that costs less than the missiles you fire at it, and is utterly fearless?
– it will be done, possibly sooner than most people would expect: either because one day one of their $100,000,000 million aircraft gets shot down and its pilot is killed, and they’ll have to explain why they didn’t send a drone instead. Or because air forces run out of money, and that’s looking more likely with every passing day.
– but Air Forces don’t want it to be done. It’s the last sacred area of large egos, even if it costs that much more money and human lives.
SanemAs for the original F-35 question:
– Because Europe doesn’t have $60 billion to develop them, never mind the money to buy them, even assuming every country would share in the costs.
– Because Europe already has lots of freshly built, world-class aircraft, and more being built. Unlike the US, where only the USN is buying new aircraft. Also they’re already short on budget to keep buying the planned aircraft.
– Because these new, world-class aircraft can fulfil most missions (or will when they mature), such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Bosnia… Against bigger threats, like a solid air defence or a peer opponent (Russia), other strategies can be used initially (like cruise missiles, ECM), and an F-35 type aircraft would also not guarantee greater succes (ref. F-117 being shot down, or the T-50’s S-band radars).
– Because Europe is already developing comparable aircraft, but they skipped a step and went for UCAV’s. These will cost up to 70% less to buy and operate, have better (natural) stealth and range, and their lower weapons load isn’t a problem if you don’t insist on carrying air-to-air missiles, and use smart munitions.
– An argument often used against UCAV’s is their lack of air-to-air combat ability, but I’m sure that 10 years from now these UCAV’s will be able to carry multiple missiles and use external targetting data to launch them (Typhoons can already use each other’s radar data to launch missiles). The existence of undetectable, unjammable, high capacity data links has greatly reduced the need for human operators, sensors or even software to be inside the aircraft executing the mission.
– But most of all, European countries (and the US) are facing their biggest financial crisis in almost a century. The money needed simply won’t be there.
SanemI understand Israel is building an AEW G550 platform that is optionally unmanned. certainly interesting for longer flights and to keep the highly trained operators safely on the ground
another problem might be the communicaton link, that’s a lot of data, but in a defensive role you don’t need satellites so it could work
and the US has plans for a mega-blimp with built in-radar
an alternative I’m personally interested in is optical detection: get a large number of cheap, high flying drones with long range IR sensors. in the future these could have a decent range, even in bad weather, and give extra advantages like low cost, expendability, system durability (not all the eggs in one basket), immediate visual confirmation of the target (allowing for long range missile attack RoE), and immunity to stealth
Sanemfair point, lasers are the future, they’ve got the potential to make missiles and dog fights a thing of the past, or even air power as a whole because ground forces will be able to deflect any and all air attacks. unless Congress pulls the plug for whatever moronic reason, probably letting the Chinese take the lead
although I expect it’ll take at least another decade before we see laser weapons on fighter aircraft, while defence missiles are already a reality with the IRIS-T
all of which is a moot point however, because the West has such overwhelming air power, which it only employs against relatively weak opponents, most of which are many decades away from fielding something like lasers or S-500 SAMs. so there is simply little need for a missile defence system (or a 100%, super-expensive stealth force for that matter)
Sanemintersting replies, a few points:
the reason I’m interested in anti-missile systems is because I’m a UAV buff: I believe they’re the future, but they’re slow and vulnerable to enemy fighters and missiles. if you could trade missiles efficiently ($10,000 Hydra’s vs $1,000,000ish AMRAAMs and S-20s for example), UAVs would dominate the skies through sheer cheap numbers and their expendable nature
I can see that Hydra missile would be much more expensive if built for high G trajectories. however
a) I don’t agree that this will always be the case. most missile would fly by a pretty straight and predictable path, at a steady speed, not trying to avoid other aircraft or missiles, making it easy to calculate a point of interception
b) why not install the missile launchers facing the rear? combined with a forward facing pod, this would give a constant front and rear coverage
Sign In
