I think it’s also a matter of what goals you’re aiming at

for example, there’s a large need for a cheap and light fighter with the sole role of air defence, intercepting intruders (usually Russian recon and lost civilians). small countries don’t want and often can’t afford big toys like the latest $70 million Eurocanards/F-16C Block 50+ and certainly not the $120+ million F-35

you could build an interceptor UCAV for a less than 20 million a piece; keep it small and light, A4 style, little more than a turbofan engine and a big delta wing. add a few missiles and some passive sensors, and these babies will intercept anything fast and dirt cheap compared to say a Typhoon

and the best thing is that once you’ve developed the control software for other advanced UAVs and UCAVs, you can transplant that software into this interceptor. this means little or no need for pilot flight training, cutting a huge part of the life time costs. the fact that they’ll serve purely for air space defence also means you don’t need a satellite connection

modern technology has aided air power much more than it has ground/sea power
why send ground troops when you can send an aircraft?

in modern wars, ground troops still run a very high risk, they get close to the enemy and so can be easily attacked. they also tend to be slow and have long supply chaines, making them easy targets. at the end of the day, the modern foot soldier/tank has changed very little in 50 years

aircraft on the other hand have gone through huge evolutions: they can get anywhere fast, and at a very low cost and low risk, especially in the case of UAVs. they give an excellent overview of any situation, can stay on station for a very long time, and strike immediately and precisely

ground troops have their use ofcourse, but advanced air power means you need a lot less of it to achieve your goals. with a sky filled with UAVs that can locate and attack enemies at will, you only need a limited number of troops to perform precision attacks, or you can use local troops instead

I think this is a vital evolution, but one that has not yet been taken seriously enough. UAVs should be the center point of military operations, rather than being supporting assets. the USAF has made this transition because they have the budget, but the EU forces have not. in a time of economic crisis and a multitude of low-intensity conflicts, the need is for cheap and numerous unmanned systems over rare, expensive and overpowered manned aircraft

depends on how much development money you put into it/you can afford it/someone wants to sell it to you

the US hasn’t made anti-stealth radars or super-SAMs because they don’t face strong resistance/stealth in the air, while the USSR/Russia has

a favorite potential for me are optical sensors, already the F-35’s computers can track, identify and aim at any target within visual range without human help, making stealth useless during WVR engagements (asuming you would put said optical sensors on missiles)

I’d say the US/Europe can already make good anti-stealth radars, but they simply didn’t need to (until the T-50 and J-20 flew). but as has been pointed out, stealth is no super solution, it’s rather an edge. the question is if that edge is worth the cost. other edges are speed, or air-to-air combat ability, yet these are almost useless in most modern conflicts, while the much cheaper UAVs with their longer endurance are worth their weight in gold

@ sanem

it’s Moore’s law that states that average computing power doubles every 18 months, which pretty much illustrates the exponential nature of technological progress. basically, if today you are at “1”, in 18 months you’re at 2, then 18 months later 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64… needless to say that, as signals analysis is made by computers, the more the time passes, the more effective they’ll be… matched potentially only by computing power facing them in return. that’s why I say that “shape stealth” is a dead end (or a big waste of money if you prefer) today

lol, I love to ask people to guess what number you get when you multiply 1 a hundred times by 2, they usually guess about a million 😀 (it’s actually something like 10 billion to the third power)

big wastes of money is what makes the world go around…

but like you said, that same Moore’s law (helped by some nano-bots) suggests that future ECM, RAM, shaping and whatever else will make radar detection harder. the question is by what degree, perhaps shaping will still be worth the investment, perhaps not. but it will certainly be cheaper and less constricting for the aircraft to avoid shaping and add better ECM later on

not that it matters, I believe in a few decades laser weapons will make combat aircraft useless, because ground units will always be able to field lasers in greater numbers and with greater power/range. unless the aircraft flies at extreme altitude and uses laser weapons to shoot down SAMs, but even then it’s own attacks would be seriously limited since those too would be shot down by lasers before hitting their targets

interesting read, some thoughts:

– stealth = hard to detect, but big and expensive
– stealth fighters have yet to make an entrance in AA combat, yet the West have not lost a single aircraft in AA for 2 decades
– while one of the two operational stealth bombers, the F-117, has been shot down

personally I believe that technology will make stealth harder and harder to achieve: the F-35 radar can spot the F-22, perhaps so will the next Typhoon radar? meaning they’ll spot each other, but the non-stealthy Typhoon will have the advantage in numbers and in newer technology, an important advantage, against the F-22 and performance against the less stealthy F-35

not to mention what technology we might expect in a decade or two, it’s a lot easier to make better detector systems than a new, stealthy aircraft

UCAVs still have an advantage because they’ll combine low, off the shelf cost with maximised stealth shaping

just to clarify:
– UAV: Predator, Reaper, Heron… usually $10 million a piece, propeller engine, widely in use, mainly with Israel and the US
– UCAV: Phantom Ray, X-47b, nEuron, Taranis… estimated at $50 million, stealthy, turbo fan engine

the UK and France agreed to work together on a UAV, and are currently in the first design phase
they have not yet agreed if they want to cooperate on a UCAV

the UK (BAe) already has a lot of experience building UAVs (cumulating in Mantis) and UCAVs (cumulating in Taranis)

France less so: for UAVs, they’re working closely with Israel’s IAI to make a French version of the Heron. for UCAVs, they’re working together with other EU partners on the nEuron

so as was posted earlier, France hasn’t done that much work on the UAVs, and so they’ll be eager to jump on the Mantis project. working together on a UCAV however is much more complicated technically (stealth, turbo fan) and politcally (other EU partners)

After sinking $800M into that black hole, NAVAIR has openly stated that X-47 is only a demonstrator and will never be more than a demonstrator. Evidently, the USN’s internal analysis has shown that a UCAV with F-35-like capabilities will also share F-35’s complexity and cost. USAF reached the same conclusion 5 years ago and abandoned the program.

this is the same USN that let it slip that the F-35C would cost more than legacy platforms to operate. even if the info is not true/accurate, this still says a lot about the service’s willingness to argument against the F-35. the Navy has a really bad record of accepting Air Force aircraft, which is what the F-35 is

this is also the same USN that ordered the MQ-8, cancelled it, the Army picked it up, the Navy picked it up again, the Army cancelled it, the Navy now wants a bigger version… seriously, nothing is certain until 5 years or so after IOC (point and case F-22 :diablo: )

the X-47b is huge, even if it’s just a demonstration project, because it proves that it can be done, something many aviators swore would not happen for decades at least

add to that the spiral develoment schedule, where concepts are tested and proven before going to the next phase. unlike the F-35, where LMT told us that nothing could go wrong and where the price has quadrupled, it’s years behind schedule, and it has only completed a portion of the testing

meaning that if NG says the X-47b can roll off production lines by 2018, then they’re basing that on experience, not power point slides and the USMC’s belief that they’ll fly IOC F-35Bs by 2016 😉

is the ‘Phantom Ray’ competing with NG’s X-47B, or will the US procure both types (as opposed to ‘land-i-fying’ the X-47B)?

I much prefer the X-47B, looks more the part.

it’s very likely that at least one of the types will be bought, considering they’ll cost less than half an F-35, but have better stealth and range. for bombing fixed targets at least, they’ll act as miniature B-2s/re-usable cruise missiles, something an F-35 can never do

the X-47b does get a lot of support from the Navy so it’s likely to be chosen, and the existing production lines and proven aircraft will make it likely that the Air Force will buy them as well, with greater numbers reducing costs and also increasing USAF and USN commonality. can you imagine USAF X-47Bs operating from USN carriers?

that said the USAF will prefer to buy more F-35s (but I don’t expect that to happen), or get their own UCAV model at least, leaving the Phantom Ray as the only option, go Boeing! (although few would be surpised if LMT Skunk Works is working on something, after all they built the F-117 which is the basis for all modern UCAV designs)

it’s faster than I had expected

the plug-and-play feature seems great, reducing the testing time for new application from months to days is huge

anyone know how fast they can switch to non-piloted mode? does it replace the cockpit? if not, where does the satellite dish go?

at any rate a pilot would allow air forces to operate it manned if needed, kind of a new mission-specific payload option 🙂 it would certainly help bridge the time until technology and experience makes it easier to operate UAVs in civil air space

price will be very important, both for the air frame as the operating costs and the equipment costs, an important part of any UAV purchase