Sanemall these cruise missiles and B-2s seem absurd to me, paying $1-2 million dollar per shot or using the world’s most advanced, most expensive bomber to attack some soviet-era installations
this goes to show how much of a game-changer UCAVs would be: at $50 million a piece, using SDBs, these could fly in from their home bases in Europe or from nearby carriers, bomb and loiter all you want, and than fly back home for a quick re-armament. stealthy, cheap and with no risk of crashed pilots, this will be the ultimate bomb delivery system
and even after they’ve bombed all the static targets, the UCAVs can be used for intelligence gathering for days on end. if they spot a moving target, the pilot can give control to an in-field operator (like AWACS, 2-seater fighter or a nearby base or ship using a relay aircraft) to execute the attack without any time delays
Sanemon the AC-130:
the AC-130 fire power is very handy against a large enemy target, with no risk of collateral damage or air defences. modern insurgent combat rarely complies with all these conditions
UAVs on the other hand are good for precision, surpise attacks, observation, recon, air cover…
the AC-130 is a sledge hammer, the UAV is a whip, the A-10 is a tank. when fighting mice you want the whip, when fighting dragons you want the tank
cost comparison:
– AC-130 $190 million, operating cost $12,000/hour (C-130J figure) ref
– MQ-9 $10 million, operating cost $300/hour ref
– A-10 $11 million (1994 price), UAV upgrade $5 million? operating cost $10,000?
add to this the current effort to develop UAV specific weapons, and UAVs offer a serious cost advantage over the AC-130 at least. they can’t go low and use multiple cannons, but that sounds more like something from a Trans-IlovetheDoD-formers movie than the actual reality of a little thing called budget at a time of war and economic crisis
on the A-10 replacement:
low, slow and dirty, cheap and expendable, there is no beating the AQ-10. it combines the best in CAS that came out of the last few decades with the advantages of 21th century technology
Sanem– on the AC-130 vs the UAV: the gun ship offers fire power, while the UAV offers numbers, persistence and pressence. an AC-130 can only be at one place at a time, for the same cost you can have 10? UAVs covering multiple units, giving instant visual and missile cover
– against a serious adversary (one with air defences, like SAM and AAA), the AC-130 cannot be employed, it’s a huge, expensive target full of people. UAVs on the other hand are small, expendable and don’t risk any lives
but when facing actual counter-attacks from the ground, the UAV is too fragile. an UAV version of the A-10 could risk enemy air defences and live long enough to deliver a punch. especially in situations where long range air attack weapons are not an option for some reason, this would combine the survivability and firepower of an A-10 with the endurance and expendability of a UAV
Sanemthe A-10 could very well replace itself; all hail the AQ-10!
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/airforce_closeair_073110/
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/11/338278/darpa-launches-search-for-unmanned-a-10-replacement.html
– limited aircraft cost: existing aircraft can be converted and upgraded, no billions of dollars for new air frames in a role where they are likely to get shot down
– limited development cost: using an existing and proven design, avoiding the risk of another F-35 fiasco
– excellent performance: the battle proven sturdyness and hitting power of the A-10, combined with the excellent loiter time of a UAV
– saving pilot lives: by not sending them into range of a lucky AK-47-wielding farmer
– air cover revolution: the men on the ground can control their own air power, maximizing the effectiveness of attack and minimizing friendly fire
SanemUSAF exercises has also shown that something with F22 level of RCS reduction would be able to get close enough to an enemy AWACS without being detected to get a shot off.
Which is why I think aircraft like AWACS and UAVs should have sidewinders or Stingers, purely for missile defence. Navies have done so for decades, why can’t the Air Force?
Because these would allow you to trade shot per shot with aircraft that have a limited number of shots, and whose risk of being detected and thus destroyed rises with every shot.
Never mind when lasers become usable, these will completely change the effectiveness of missiles and bombs, giving back the advantage to ground units
but back on topic, this does raise the issue of stealth vs sensors: stealthy aircraft are used for decades, with their design changing little, moreso with the integrated package F-35, for whom it might be harder to change and upgrade
sensors on the other hand are cheap, easy to get and get better year by year
my point being that a stealthy aircraft has to face off against sensors decades younger, and I highly doubt the F-35 (or even super-stealth UCAVs) will still be stealthy against 2040 sensors (at least the UCAVs will stay stealthy longer, be cheaper and more expendable)
Sanemwith the F-35 a financial disaster and the F-22 shut down and getting dated, will the UCAVs be the West’s answer to the T-50 and the J-20?
– superb stealth
– excellent range and endurance
– good payload
– low unit cost, $30-50 million
– reduced operating cost (less pilot training, less training flights, less refuels, longer time on-station)
– large numbers combined with passive targetting information for cross fire tactics, reducing useful enemy stealth and IR angles
and in the attack role UCAVs make for a cheaper cruise missile (aka J-20 lunch) alternative, sneaking past enemy lines and targetting enemy infrastructure and units with their long range, waiting for the perfect moment with their long endurance, and doing so without risking human lives or very expensive/valuable aircraft
SanemSorry, today’s Fighter Pilot does not operate down in the dirt. Unless the threat level is extremely low. If it is the risk is minimum….
my point exactly, he operates at extreme altitude for maximum safety against SAMs, using high quality camera systems to actually look at the ground. but this seriously reduces the usefulness of the human eyes, as it matters little if the controller is looking at a screen in his cockpit or one on the ground. there’s a use to having a human onboard, ofcourse, but we’re getting to the point where it becomes more interesting not having one on board
Attack Helocopters and UCAV’s are more useful because they’re much slower and more agile at such slow speeds. Yet, the carry much smaller payloads.
actually, the Predator carries as much as an F-16, not exactly what I’d call “much smaller payloads”
and being slow and agile is actually the best quality for an air support aircraft, you want to be able to take your time to get a good shot in, that’s hard to do when you’re flying at jet speeds
The USN/USMC will have there own UCAV’s plus the USAF is not always available. Remember, Carriers don’t like to operate near shore and landbases are far away!
the days of the USMC going in alone are over. in this age of missile technology and a total fear of heavy human losses, no president in his right mind is going to risk it. they send in the Air Force, cruise missiles and drones, but they no longer risks their “boys” if there’s an alternative
which means the chance of the USMC operating on its own, without Navy or Air Force support is extremely small. especially because something like an X-47B or Phantom Ray can fly across the globe with enough air refulings, meaning it’ll always be in time to provide the Marines with air support, they simply make the Navy’s and Air Force’s strike arm that much longer, no need to wait for a carrier or to have an air field nearby
which means the USMC doesn’t really need its own air cover, especially such an expensive one. and if they do insist on having their own air cover, there are much cheaper alternatives that can do the job just as well
but I can be mistaken ofcourse. tell me, when was the last time the USMC Harriers’s STOVL abilities made the difference between life and death?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/av-8-ops.htm gives an interesting overview. the only example of forward basing I found was in 1991, deploying near the Kuweit border, but I doubt their STOVL ability “won the war” here
the only case of STOVL really making a difference was during the Falklands war, but somehow I doubt the USMC is going to replace the Navy as the main executer of carrier operations any time soon
BTW During War you will always have threats and its often dirty. Plus, what Air Fields don’t have birds!
yes, and this poses serious problems for aircraft. the Russians fix this with titanium air inlet shields and top side air inlets. western aircraft have no such provisions, and are for this reason much harder to use from unprepared air bases
Sorry, Reapers wouldn’t last a second vs a High Threat. So, unless you are fighting the Taliban they’re not of much use except as targets.
odd, I was under the impression that the US has been fighting the Taliban non-stop for the last decade, and will continue to do so for a very long time, while fighting pretty much no one else. and somehow I doubt the US will risk invading China, NKorea or Iran, not unless it wants to provoke nulcear war
the last time the West operated in High Threat was in 1999 over Kosovo. drones were lost then because they flew very low to get the best view. but manned aircraft suffered not a single loss, mostly because they operated at high altitude, which is what UAVs like the Predator are good at
ofcourse the Reaper can’t go up safely against something like the S-300, but than neither can anything else that doesn’t have stealth
Big Guns since WWII have been very accurate. Yet, in the real world have done little. So, don’t count on you Rail Gun to putting Air Support out of Business anytime soon!
not if you consider the cruise missile to be a “big gun”, they’ve pretty much changed the way the US fights wars
the rail gun is basically a cruise missile delivery system, except it can hit targets much faster and much cheaper
The F-35 will be far easier to support than many fighters from the last 30 years. So, how can they operate in that enviroment effectively. Yet, the more supportable and capable F-35 cannot. Sorry, your argument hardly holds water.
yet the Navy declared a while back that the F-35 will actually be more expensive to operate and maintain than their legacy F-18s
as far as UAVs go, these cost less than a $1000/hour to operate. aircraft like the F-35 cost 10s of 1000s of dollars to operate, in fuel costs alone
UCAV’s, Attack Helocopters, and Tactical Fighters all have a place on the Modern Battlefield.
lol, funny you’d say that, until a decade ago the UCAV didn’t even fit in that list, it was considered to be “science fiction”. isn’t it odd how that changes?
like how systems start taking over each others role. UAVs were ment to be purely recon, yet today they carry a serious weapon load, replacing bombers in many situation
my point is that the F-35 is a sweet aircraft, but it’s hardly irreplacable
It’s worth noting that no current UCAV’s has faced a real serious threat. So, there survival rates in a high threat enviroment is suspect at best. As a matter of fact. The odds our that they’re much lower than any Manned Aircraft. (of course it has no human cost)
who says the RQ-170 hasn’t flown over Iran or China, both of which have considerable air defence capabilities? who says the Reaper would get shot down if operating over say the Serbia of 1999, if it were to operate at high altitude?
Sorry, UCAV’s have a very long ways to go. Before they start replacing anything on the scale of the F-35 or any other Tactical Fighter. Really, they are very good in low threat enviroment or support roles. Yet, don’t expect to see the skys full of them for a very very long time to come!
the Reaper started replacing the F-16 a few years back, an aircraft which is the prime example when you talk about “Tactical Figthers”
LOL the X-47B may one day prove to be useful. Yet, even then in a support role like a Tanker, Recon, Electronic Warefare, etc. etc.
lol, that’s sounds like what they said about the Predator: “it’s just for recon, we’ll never buy more than a few… put weapons on it? don’t be absurd!”
Sorry, you are making arguments that have been proven wrong time and time again for the last 60 years. As a matter of fact all of the experts disagree with most of what you have claimed.
the same “experts” that said arming UAVs would never work? that the F-16 and the A-10 were a waste of money? that the F-35 would cost $30 million a piece?
the UAV is at the top of every military’s wishing list, so it looks like 60 years of experience agrees with me
not to worry, the F-35 will crash and burn. if you wish to waste your money and national security on it, than be my guest, I’m sure the Chinese and the Taliban will be all the happier for it. because what they fear are F-22s and Reapers, not some fat kid with a debt problem
SanemMogadishu. Karbala March ’03. Kosovo 99. Choppers are trashfire fodder anywhere there are buildings or mountains that cant be adequately suppressed prior to ingress by REAL tacair. Fulda Gap or over open desert in a near-zero threat environment they are ok though!!!.
if you use them in this mission, yes, flying low and slow in the enemy’s face, the best position to hit them without hitting your own. traditionally this was also the idea behind Marine tacair, their pilots being known for taking the most risks to get their job done
something like an F-35 can’t do this. it can fly high and at speed, dropping bombs and sharing intel, but it can never get low and dirty, where the real action is. its price alone makes this impossible
UCAV helicopters completely turns this whole concept on its heads. on the one hand they can fly high, above manpad range (A160 goes up to 30,000 ft), giving fire support cheap and effectively, with long endurance (A160 has 20+ hours, vital in the city fighting scenario you mentioned, where you need to take your time) and a burst of speed if needed (A160 gets 160+ mph, which is very fast if you consider its mobility)
yet they can also get low and dirty, because they are cheap and mobile, and land just about anywhere, where you can have trucks bring in extra weapons and fuel for a quick turn around
if you want something like an F-35 flying overhead, the Air Force will be happy to provide them, or some MQ-9 Reapers, or whatever advanced, long range UCAVs they might get in the near future, or the Army’s new Grey Eagle. tacair 24/7
….so hideously vulnerable AND still need development money poured in to get them into service. Good job they will be ‘cheap’ really isnt it?.
interesting that you mentioned vulnerable: you are honestly suggesting that the Marines operate a $150+ milion aircraft from dirt roads, with birds flying around and insurgents in the bushes? the same F-35 that is so fragile even some bullet hits will keep it grounded? the same F-35 that so far cost $382 billion in development money and counting, and is yet to finish its test flights?
in the mean while, UAV helicopters are being developed from every corner, we now have the Fire-X flying, so maybe its not quite as expensive to develop as you suggest
No it isnt. What happens when they expend their ordnance and the replacement drone is still 4hrs away…or what happens if you need to crack a bunker and your drones are only carrying SDB’s and Viper Strikes?. You scramble a drone with appropriate ordnance and wait 4hrs for it to arrive onscene do you?. Alternately I guess you could have half a dozen armed up UAV’s pootling around just in case….but how expensive does that get?. Its idiocy you’d end up with half a dozen drones circling uselessly just in case one’s needed?. The solution is already developed put surviveable and flexible tacair close to the troops and stop trying to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of doing it!.
strangest thing, a Reaper drone carries about as much bombs as an F-35 usually does. except you can get 10+ Reapers for every F-35. and even flying all of them at the same time will cost less than flying even one F-35. I would guess every soldier would rather have 10 Reapers flying overhead than 1 F-35
RAIL GUNS???. Land arty is needed in conjunction with CAS not in place of it. Do not confuse the effects of a 3lb mortar shell or 6″ artillery shell with the effects deliverable from an aircraft. You are talking completely different leagues here. Land arty is limited in range and by the laws of ballistics…it is not flexible or capable enough on its own to replace tacair.
rail guns are expected to become available from 2020, about the same time as the F-35. they’ll be about as accurate and effective as cruise missile, except it won’t cost $1 million dollar per shot, and it’ll take less time. for example a building or bunker filled with enemy troops is but a gps coordinate away of being obliterated within a minute. put some drones in the area, and you can have a stream of gps target data comming in. much more efficient and easier than using F-35s for sure. it won’t have extreme long range, but than neither does an F-35B flying off a carrier without a ski jump
Its biggest advantage is the human brain behind the human eye and the situational awareness of that brain when it comes to the selection and placing of ordnance. Why does the F-35B need to loiter if there is an ISTAR drone doing the loitering already?. By forward basing the F-35B can be in theatre very much more persistently than anything alse….sitting on the ground or on a ‘small deck’ inshore. Deploying close to the FEBA means it doesnt need to be airborne!. Its running costs are therefore mitigated by the fact that it doesnt need to be flying hours-long missions achieving nothing but boring the pants off a highly skilled pilot and clicking through airframe fatigue hours.
its operating costs are actually increased by needing a forward air base, one that has to be supplied with all manner of expensive equipment, spare parts, and highly trained crews, not to mention huge amounts of fuel. if anything, Afghanistan has shown how expensive and difficult fuel logistics can be, plus the fragility of these transports to insurgent tactics, not to mention the vulnerability of the planes themselves, I wouldn’t expect aircraft bunkers available at forward bases. not a good thing in this age of long range precision artillery and cheap demolitions (not to mention UAVs used as a poor man’s cruise missile)
speaking of which, how vulnerable is the F-35 to having small object destroy its engines? the Harrier had less of a problem here thanks to its top mounted air slits, but what did LMT to solve this problem?
You are suggesting that the USMC adopt all-UCAV tacair. The USAF is not about to dispense with manned tacair strike is it – that is the point I was making.
I’m suggesting UCAVs are a viable and superior alternative to manned aircraft, and that for this reason all services are buying more of them, and less manned platforms
So the USAF is cancelling its F-35A purchase in favour of UCAV’s is it?. When did that happen again?.
it already seriously reduced its order, and history teaches us that it’ll probably reduce it even further. what do you think the Air Force will use instead? the even older F-22 design? obsolete F-16s and F-15s? or cheaper and stealthier UCAVs, that don’t place a pilot’s life in danger, and have already proven their worth as attack and recon craft, which is what the F-35 is supposed to be good at
better yet, why is the Navy investing so much money and effort into the X-47B, when it just spent so much developing the F-35 and will spend more on buying them? might it be because they remember the F-111, and want an alternative to the F-35? preferebly something with better stealth and at 50% or less of the cost, and even lower operating costs? Boeing is certainly betting on it, developing its Phantom Ray, which if succesful, and that seems extremely likely, will be a superb alternative to the F-35
btw, the X-47B is set to fly in the next few weeks, about half a year after the F-35C, at this rate I wonder if the F-35C will ever actually take off from a carrier
all in all, if you want air cover, you have the Air Force or Navy, without which Marine operations are way to vulnerable in today’s world of highly capable missile technology. and if you want close in support, you’re better off buying cheaper UAVs, like helicopters, taking off without the need for an air field and being expendable enough to be in the heat of battle where it counts, or capable enough to give cover from high above
Sanemgood point, we don’t really know what the Sentinel can or can’t do
but I asume a high flying, VLO aircraft would look like a Sentinel (and about every other UCAV being developed, lol)
the alternative is something like QinetiQ’s Zephyr, superb endurance, light build so probably pretty stealthy, and its lack of speed is of no importance when observing for example an airbase, while its much lower per unit cost means you can fill the sky with them
but I imagine they have a very limited payload, making high quality sensor and satellite communications difficult to field
SanemI’d like to stress the value of something like an RQ-170 for air combat
give it some advanced optical sensors and steer it over important area’s of operation, like say an enemy air base or the best attack route to a nuclear reactor, for extended periods of time, at extreme altitude and in complete stealth
it’ll be able to, completely by itself and completely passive, identify any jets, for example as they take off, or when they are moving at high altitude
then they could pass on this information by satellite, without getting detected or jammed, reducing enemy fighters to target coordinates for any ground or air unit with missile range. no friendly fire risks, and potential terminal guidance from the RQ-170 (using the satellite or HALEs outside the area as a medium) so missiles can come in undetected
Sanemsome interesting arguments, allow me to respond:
There is an alternative solution to the issue of how to deliver tacair in support of Marine forces that meets the USMC’s requirement for deployability from short-field/austere sites and thru-deck amphibious vessels?.
a) helicopters. these can be deployed even closer from the action, reducing response times
helicopter UAVs like the A160 and Fire Scout are currently being tested extensively, and are expected to be armed in the future. they are fast, cheap, expendable, and give front line troops a bird’s eye view, as well as the ability to control their own tacair directly
b) larger UAVs, like the Reaper and the more advanced X-45C and X-47B. these things have loiter ability of minimum a day, also providing invaluable video feeds to ground units and acting as communication relays. the only thing better than having tacair at an airfield short by is having it overhead 24/7
c) gps mortars and rail guns. these will be operational at around the same time as the F-35 and can provide similar cover, only at a fraction of the price
d) the F-35 sucks at tacair: it can fly high and drop its bombs, like other aircraft, except is costs A LOT MORE to do so, with much higher operating costs. but it has lousy loiter time, and it’s biggest advantage, a human eye, is useless because its much too fragile and expensive to operate at low altitude
One that is within a few years of squadron service and wouldn’t involve profligate wasteage of the money sunk into F-35B to be then compounded by the need to pour yet MORE development money in?.
well, I just mentioned the A160, Fire Scout, Reaper, X-47B and X-45C, and the funny thing is their development is already being paid for
No service is, as yet, ready to go all-UCAV for its combat air for very good reason. They aren’t mature systems yet and have to fly a LOT of MISSION hours before they could be considered so. The surface has been scratched with MQ-9 and the RQ-170, but, we are still a VERY long way off a manned platform, like F-35B, losing out to a drone.
rofl, I heard this argument so many times, yet it keeps making me laugh
“no service”? go ask the Air Force and the Army how many UAVs they operate, and how many they plan on buying in the comming years, compared to the number of manned aircraft. go ask the soldiers on the ground if they’d rather wait half an hour for a manned bomber, or have a UAV overhead 24/7, giving them video feeds of what’s around the courner, finding IEDs and blasting any would-be ambushers before they get a chance to attack. go ask congress if they’d rather pay for 1 F-35 or 10 Predators
the truth is the F-35 has already lost to the UAVs, it just doesn’t know it yet. the Marines getting shot at in 2020+ certainly will, wondering why they wasted all that money on such a useless aircraft
and please don’t suggest the F-35 is a “mature” system, that’s offensive to aircraft that were developed on time and without a 300% cost increase
SanemI just read an interesting article on several Marine corps unaffordable projects (Osprey, a new landing vehicle and the F-35B).
yes, the Marines are putting all their money into these super-expensive toys, yet what the guys on ground need right now (and probably in the future) are stuff like UAVs and XM-25 and something better than the M4. that’s what really makes the difference today, and very likely tomorrow
Maybe we should hope that te F-35b is being cancelled to lift a heavy burden from the overall f-35 prpogramme, giving it a better chance to succeed (or save what is left).
the F-35 will go the F-22 way, cancelling the F-35B isn’t likely to change much about that. I still think they should cut their losses and drop the whole thing, rather than do another F-111: great plane, but simply not cost-effective, especially when there are so many alternatives out there
More importantly, it might lead to the writing of more realistic requirements by the military , and a more carefull assessment of those requirements by industry, in the future.
and speaking of alternatives, I just watched the Boeing Phantom Ray UCAV take its first baby steps (heart warming :)). like the NG X-47B, this program was initially funded by the government, dropped, and picked up again by the company itself, resulting in an aircraft that’s on time and on budget at a minimum risk
it seems they learned a lot from General Atomics (Predator series): build good stuff at a good price and than sell it, rather than promise the world and get fat after marriage (especially in todays digital world, where an aircraft is outdated and too costly to use by the time it becomes operational, aka what the F-35 will be when it’s released several years after the S-500 SAM system /edit:/ and the T-50)
Sanemnot to worry about the F-35: chances are it’ll get more expensive still, because that’s what military programs usually do, and the F-35 hasn’t exactly been the exception to the rule so far 😀
at which point there are loads of alternatives, from 4.5 generation aircraft to UCAVs, both for air forces and navies around the world
the F-35B is actually the only version for which there is no real alternative (for launching off small carriers at least, I feel the front line concept is outdated in this day and age). if it does get cancelled the Marines will switch to F-18s/F-35s, and with the RN already decided on this course, there aren’t many countries capable of developing a STOVL aircraft
that said, UCAVs have to potential to change all this, just about every EU and US company has some to a lot of experience with this, and UCAVs are great for STOVL (less weight, easier to land)
on a practical note, I’d suggest Italy and Spain buying the UK Harriers; when the F-35B does go down in flames, their price is going to go up fast
SanemI’ve been reading up on helicopter UAVs and their potential as a replacement for manned helicopters
which made me think of something: you can use for example a Fire Scout as a recon for say an Apache; the Fire Scout is small, hard to detect and expendable, while the Apache has advanced long range detection equipment, a potential dedicated UAV controller (gunner) and the power to carry plenty of weapons
this scenario is basically what Matej posted (thank you very much for that btw, very cool image): use manned and unmanned craft to complement each other, maximising the best qualitites of both; the UCAV gives greater stealth, endurance and expandability, while the manned aircraft brings AESA, jamming and human initiative
that said, I still believe UCAVs can replace manned fighters in most if not all roles, with the main argument being cost. especially in the role of air defence, where the UCAV operates over or at short ranges from home and communication is not an issue, a UCAV can be both a more effective and more efficient alternative to a manned aircraft, especially compared to the omni-role, gold plated and overqualified 4.5 and 5th generation manned aircraft (and the absurdity of F-22s with minimalized stealth intercepting 60 year old Russian recon aircraft)
for this reason I believe that in case of a manned + unmanned combo, we’d be talking multiple UCAVs for every manned fighter/control station (like AWACS, ground station), especially as they become more independant, because they can be built in larger numbers, can get closer to the enemy to attack (something an F-35 has a hard time doing since it’s not that stealthy), and are (more) expendable
and in many scenario’s manned aircraft will not be needed at all: for example for protecting aircraft carriers, UCAVs will be a cheaper, safer and more effective alternative, while the ability of the carrier and its AWACS to control the UCAVs operating at a relatively short range means there’s no need to have manned fighters in the air. basically the UCAVs are little more than flying SAM batteries, although a dedicated HALE or super stealthy and fast UCAV would also give serious added value for visually identifying potential targets, or spotting hard to detect targets before they get within range of the carrier
Sanem@ PLA-MKII, thanks for the links. Unfortunately they’re either out-dated, unavailable to me, or add little to the discussion of air superiority UCAVs.
@ ActionJackson, some interesting ideas.
– On AWACS: I would advise against the B-2 radar. While interesting, a big radar kind of defeats the point of being stealthy. Also, a large stealth aircraft is expensive and a juicy target. I do like the idea of UCAV AWACS: they can stay on location longer, can take more fuel instead of crew and heavy monitoring stations, and radar data demands little bandwidth. The Lockheed radar blimp would be interesting in this role, or maybe a modified Global Hawk or that unmanned cargo plane the USAF is looking into. Also, can you use AMRAAMs to shoot down enemy air-to-air missiles? Because that would make AWACS a lot harder to take down.
– Multiple small UCAVs flying around is a very nice idea, kind of what Boeing was thinking with the X-45A? Having them all over the place allows you to execute deadly multi-angle crossfires, as well as attacking any ground units or air bases that might present themselves as targets. It’s hard to fight in air combat when you can’t even get off the ground in one piece!
– The ground sensor drone is also a very nice idea, the army is looking into it to locate and attack ground units, but it could also be used to detect air and sea targets.
On the topic of UCAVs launching AMRAAMs: I read about how the Eurofighter Typhoon can use radar data from a different Typhoon to launch and guide its AMRAAMs. So a UCAV doesn’t even need a radar of its own to fire missiles, it just needs a good communication system (which every UCAV has by design) and target location input (from UAVs, AWACS, ground sensors…).
Sign In
