By: tsz52
- 2nd April 2011 at 17:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only a couple of minor quibbles with your post:-
... pilots reduced to a supervisor role, checking the stats on multiple UCAVs at the same time, only intervening if something goes wrong or to give mission updates or tactical advice.
Wouldn't it be mandated that each UCAV carrying live ordnance would need an individual controller? I would really hope so....
My point being, it takes decades to develop a stealthy, proven aircraft, but it takes only years to upgrade a SAM system with more capable radars, never mind the generation of optical sensors we can expect for the near future (if the F-35 can detect and track targets visually, why couldn't your basic SAM with 2020 technology?).
But there's still the attacker's advantage: cheaper to procure a new class of LO penetrator than it is for the target to upgrade its entire AD network (cf B-2 vs SU).
OTH, I wouldn't be surprised if some cheap, light and easy CM to most LO turns up fairly soon that laughs in the face of most LO=survivability (one of my big gripes against the hubristic '5th Gen' thing - we'll see...).
By: MadRat
- 2nd April 2011 at 18:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UCAV will most certainly use enlisted controllers subordinate to the local commander, an officer. The officer sitting next to the group of controllers will probably play some role in transferring formal command of his crew when the situation arises. No robot warriors in the near future.
By: Sanem
- 2nd April 2011 at 18:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
on UCAV control: I was talking about the actual flying, I would assume that for the actual attack, a human confirms the target via video
is this not how cruise missiles work? they fly to the target by themselves, and only in the end stage does a human operator confirm the target data?
the vital part for me is that the commute between base and target area no longer requires so much man power (3 at this time), especially when this part can cover as much as half of the mission time, while for the actual operation a single operator can be used, one who has enough training to tell the aircraft what to look at/bomb, without the need for him/her (you suddenly can use a lot of people who can be very good in this job but not so much at the actual flying, like women, people with a physical handicap...) to know how to actually fly the plane
interesting point on local controllers: today, the Air Force has people going in on the ground, coördinating attacks, but in the future I imagine them taking direct control of say an X-47B or an AQ-10
a) they have a better "feel" of situation on the ground, rather than purely a top-down view
b) they'll actually be closer to the aircraft than an operator back home, meaning less lag or interference
c) such a direct link between ground and air assets also gives the people on the ground direct access to invaluable information and instant heavy fire power. it'll probably be even too much, taking away power from commanders back home as well as the Air Force itself (no organisation likes to give over power and control to someone else, ask the Marines :D)
By: swerve
- 2nd April 2011 at 20:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UCAVs being 'cheap' comment wasn't aimed at you specifically at all:) - but they've always been peddled as such generally... my head nearly fell off when I first came across the Global Hawk's price!...:eek:
Yes, but Global Hawk is a pecuilar beast. It's a sort of uber unmanned U-2, which does things no manned aircraft can. Other UAVs aren't scarily expensive.
The below was said by someone using the label Red Admiral, on another forum. I don't think he'll object to me quoting it -
Whilst I agree with your criticism of the UCAS designs likely to be pursued (e.g. 40-50deg tailless deltas) I think it's very much missing the point. Manoeuverability and high SEP aren't being designed into these platforms as they are counter-intuitive to the characteristics being pursued. If you want a decent level of manoeuverability you've essentially got to have a tail which ups the signature and makes it less survivable. (There's an interesting point to look at if these things need to get out of the way of nun-carrying airliners whilst operating in civil aerospace). High SEP for good climb and acceleration means reheat or a big engine. Reheat trashes the IR signature and hurts RF a lot as well. The big engine for more dry power increases vehicle size a lot and hurts range/endurance.
What would we want to do with UCAS? For high end you're looking at taking down very good IADS for which VLO is pretty much necessary. For low end you're looking at doing things like enforcing no fly zones or intelligence gathering, where having a lot more endurance than current FJs is pretty useful.
Whilst it is fairly necessary to have the sensors and payload of FJs, the need for kinematic performance just isn't there. Instead you've got better performance for the mission at hand, i.e. VLO and long range/endurance. You end up with a lot smaller platform than FJs.
I would disagree with the argument that they'll cost as much as FJs in the end. The indications are for significantly reduced whole life costs. Unit costs won't be so much different for something with similar capability; the cost is in the mission systems rather than the platform. Running costs are dramatically lower due to the lack of need for pilot currency although a few other issues arise out of that. TD's comments with regards to communications bandwidth are closer to one of the issues, but this also affects manned platforms with the extensive sensor fusion now necessary.
By: ppp
- 3rd April 2011 at 02:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's FJs ?
Fast Jets?
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 3rd April 2011 at 03:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, ok.
Anyway disagree with his assessment it takes high end to take down IADS,
why not make expendable Harpy like UAV swarms, and if you want to spice it up, make Meteor-ARM part of the system. http://defense-update.com/directory/harpy.htm
Anyways UCAV is fundamentally a re-usable cruise missile, pre-planned targets makes up for 90% of all targets, so it would make sense that if it is re-used enough times without being lost, it would eventually start to profit vs non-reusable missiles, but what is the likelihood that a country is going to bomb so much that it finally makes economic sense ?
By: ppp
- 3rd April 2011 at 07:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, ok.
Anyway disagree with his assessment it takes high end to take down IADS,
why not make expendable Harpy like UAV swarms, and if you want to spice it up, make Meteor-ARM part of the system. http://defense-update.com/directory/harpy.htm
Anyways UCAV is fundamentally a re-usable cruise missile, pre-planned targets makes up for 90% of all targets, so it would make sense that if it is re-used enough times without being lost, it would eventually start to profit vs non-reusable missiles, but what is the likelihood that a country is going to bomb so much that it finally makes economic sense ?
Fire Shadow?
New
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan
- 3rd April 2011 at 08:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So far as I understand it the F-15E is not currently scheduled to be replaced in USAF service by the F-35A, which begs the question of what it will eventually be replaced by. As I see it the plausible possibilities are these:
Thoughts? My instinct is that they'll hang around till F/A-XX/NGAD. Funding for a clean sheet aircraft will likely be tight, but faced with a requirement to replace three platforms (F-15E, F/A-18E/F, F-22A) I can see a JSF-esque program emerging. Minus STOVL tagging along to spoil the party. :rolleyes:
They can stretch a bit with an evolved F-15 (based on Silent Eagle, which is to only have the level of stealth allowed for export by the US government, implying that they can take this idea further still)
By: Sign
- 3rd April 2011 at 11:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wouldnt it be better to make a cheap version of the f-22 frame?
cheaper RAM, incorp. a "lighter" F35 avionics, no or cheaper thustvectoring etc.
This will also be what f-22 should have been in numbers..
F-15 in general is still extremly old platform and isnt a step forward...Silent Eagle exist only because F-22 didnt become bigger in numbers, exportrestricted and expensive..
By: haavarla
- 3rd April 2011 at 14:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How can the F-15SE exsist if it has no future in USAF:confused:
I have yet to see ANY reports that the SE will be procured by USAF..
'F-15 in general is still extremly old platform and isnt a step forward'
Poor choice of words.. as plans for 'Golden eagle' upgrade are in progress as we speak.:rolleyes:
Pls drop your sorry feelings for the F-22 prod end.
Any upgrade on exsisting aircraft like F-15C and F-15E is money well spend, and turning an otherwise good fighter into an even better fighter.
By: J Boyle
- 3rd April 2011 at 14:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My guess that the F-15E replacement will be more F-15s of some advanced variant. Perhaps a SE with even greater enhancements (remembering that the SE is a company funded effort with a USAF contract I'm sure they could do much more with the concept).
In response to Haavarla's question on how the SE can exist w/o USAF support, perhaps part of the answer is that it's also a subtle reminder to the USAF that the basic design has lots of life left in it. Of course the main potential customers are current F-15 operators that might want an advanced stealth-ish strike aircraft. I don't know if the Typhoon and Rafale can fit the bill, and unless/until China becomes the Toyota of military avaiation (exporting anywhere with good products at good prices :) ) I'm not sure where smaller countries will get their strike ac.
The USAF won't have the money for an all-new stike aircraft, and the Americans love to stretch out existing designs reather than develop new ones.
By: haavarla
- 3rd April 2011 at 16:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, my point was that 'Evolution' is not as bad as Sign 'Revolution'(new design) aircraft.
Why design new aircraft with an obsurd and unrealistic price tag, when you can upgrade existing aircraft.
This goes around for many other airforces as well, just look at RuAF.
Look at Europe too..
Evolution and streching current operational Fighters service is not something that is only a USAF phenomen..
If the USAF fighter shortage becomes critical, can't they order an small number of F-15C/E with the latest EW and radar?
I'm not talking about an Uber SE version for $100mil+..
The SH was an solution to Navys fighter shortage, not that they had any other choice but still..
By: ppp
- 3rd April 2011 at 18:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wouldnt it be better to make a cheap version of the f-22 frame?
cheaper RAM, incorp. a "lighter" F35 avionics, no or cheaper thustvectoring etc.
This will also be what f-22 should have been in numbers..
F-15 in general is still extremly old platform and isnt a step forward...Silent Eagle exist only because F-22 didnt become bigger in numbers, exportrestricted and expensive..
The cost of the F22 is due to small numbers for the most part. Whatever way it goes, someone will have to foot the development bill. Changing the coating or fitting different avionics will make the cost of the aircraft go into rehead :cool:
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 3rd April 2011 at 18:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The cost of the F22 is due to small numbers for the most part.
Unit cost was going back up at the time the program was terminated. I think it was a bad idea to cut the program at <250 units, but let's not kid ourselves: it's an expensive aircraft.
By: ppp
- 3rd April 2011 at 20:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unit cost was going back up at the time the program was terminated. I think it was a bad idea to cut the program at <250 units, but let's not kid ourselves: it's an expensive aircraft.
Oh I certainly agree it's expensive, I just don't think modifying it with cheaper components will make it cheaper as there is the cost of integration to consider, which on aircraft is fairly large.
Posts: 523
By: F-111buff26 - 2nd April 2011 at 15:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
honestly the best and cheapest F-15E replacement is...new F-15Es or SEs.
the F-22s and F-35s are the pointy end, after that the Strike eagles mission will be much the same
why spend billions on designing a new platform to do the same job?
Posts: 97
By: tsz52 - 2nd April 2011 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only a couple of minor quibbles with your post:-
Wouldn't it be mandated that each UCAV carrying live ordnance would need an individual controller? I would really hope so....
But there's still the attacker's advantage: cheaper to procure a new class of LO penetrator than it is for the target to upgrade its entire AD network (cf B-2 vs SU).
OTH, I wouldn't be surprised if some cheap, light and easy CM to most LO turns up fairly soon that laughs in the face of most LO=survivability (one of my big gripes against the hubristic '5th Gen' thing - we'll see...).
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 2nd April 2011 at 18:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
UCAV will most certainly use enlisted controllers subordinate to the local commander, an officer. The officer sitting next to the group of controllers will probably play some role in transferring formal command of his crew when the situation arises. No robot warriors in the near future.
Posts: 593
By: Sanem - 2nd April 2011 at 18:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
on UCAV control: I was talking about the actual flying, I would assume that for the actual attack, a human confirms the target via video
is this not how cruise missiles work? they fly to the target by themselves, and only in the end stage does a human operator confirm the target data?
the vital part for me is that the commute between base and target area no longer requires so much man power (3 at this time), especially when this part can cover as much as half of the mission time, while for the actual operation a single operator can be used, one who has enough training to tell the aircraft what to look at/bomb, without the need for him/her (you suddenly can use a lot of people who can be very good in this job but not so much at the actual flying, like women, people with a physical handicap...) to know how to actually fly the plane
interesting point on local controllers: today, the Air Force has people going in on the ground, coördinating attacks, but in the future I imagine them taking direct control of say an X-47B or an AQ-10
a) they have a better "feel" of situation on the ground, rather than purely a top-down view
b) they'll actually be closer to the aircraft than an operator back home, meaning less lag or interference
c) such a direct link between ground and air assets also gives the people on the ground direct access to invaluable information and instant heavy fire power. it'll probably be even too much, taking away power from commanders back home as well as the Air Force itself (no organisation likes to give over power and control to someone else, ask the Marines :D)
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 2nd April 2011 at 20:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why? As long as a human is required to fire the weapons. When a UCAV is in transit, why does it need a human being sitting watching it all the time?
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 2nd April 2011 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, but Global Hawk is a pecuilar beast. It's a sort of uber unmanned U-2, which does things no manned aircraft can. Other UAVs aren't scarily expensive.
The below was said by someone using the label Red Admiral, on another forum. I don't think he'll object to me quoting it -
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 2nd April 2011 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seconded, haha.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 3rd April 2011 at 01:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's FJs ?Posts: 1,320
By: ppp - 3rd April 2011 at 02:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fast Jets?
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 3rd April 2011 at 03:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, ok.
Anyway disagree with his assessment it takes high end to take down IADS,
why not make expendable Harpy like UAV swarms, and if you want to spice it up, make Meteor-ARM part of the system.
http://defense-update.com/directory/harpy.htm
Anyways UCAV is fundamentally a re-usable cruise missile, pre-planned targets makes up for 90% of all targets, so it would make sense that if it is re-used enough times without being lost, it would eventually start to profit vs non-reusable missiles, but what is the likelihood that a country is going to bomb so much that it finally makes economic sense ?
Posts: 1,320
By: ppp - 3rd April 2011 at 07:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fire Shadow?
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan - 3rd April 2011 at 08:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They can stretch a bit with an evolved F-15 (based on Silent Eagle, which is to only have the level of stealth allowed for export by the US government, implying that they can take this idea further still)
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 3rd April 2011 at 09:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-23_Baltimore
Posts: 1,577
By: Sign - 3rd April 2011 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wouldnt it be better to make a cheap version of the f-22 frame?
cheaper RAM, incorp. a "lighter" F35 avionics, no or cheaper thustvectoring etc.
This will also be what f-22 should have been in numbers..
F-15 in general is still extremly old platform and isnt a step forward...Silent Eagle exist only because F-22 didnt become bigger in numbers, exportrestricted and expensive..
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 3rd April 2011 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How can the F-15SE exsist if it has no future in USAF:confused:
I have yet to see ANY reports that the SE will be procured by USAF..
Poor choice of words.. as plans for 'Golden eagle' upgrade are in progress as we speak.:rolleyes:
Pls drop your sorry feelings for the F-22 prod end.
Any upgrade on exsisting aircraft like F-15C and F-15E is money well spend, and turning an otherwise good fighter into an even better fighter.
Posts: 9,823
By: J Boyle - 3rd April 2011 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My guess that the F-15E replacement will be more F-15s of some advanced variant. Perhaps a SE with even greater enhancements (remembering that the SE is a company funded effort with a USAF contract I'm sure they could do much more with the concept).
In response to Haavarla's question on how the SE can exist w/o USAF support, perhaps part of the answer is that it's also a subtle reminder to the USAF that the basic design has lots of life left in it. Of course the main potential customers are current F-15 operators that might want an advanced stealth-ish strike aircraft. I don't know if the Typhoon and Rafale can fit the bill, and unless/until China becomes the Toyota of military avaiation (exporting anywhere with good products at good prices :) ) I'm not sure where smaller countries will get their strike ac.
The USAF won't have the money for an all-new stike aircraft, and the Americans love to stretch out existing designs reather than develop new ones.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 3rd April 2011 at 16:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, my point was that 'Evolution' is not as bad as Sign 'Revolution'(new design) aircraft.
Why design new aircraft with an obsurd and unrealistic price tag, when you can upgrade existing aircraft.
This goes around for many other airforces as well, just look at RuAF.
Look at Europe too..
Evolution and streching current operational Fighters service is not something that is only a USAF phenomen..
If the USAF fighter shortage becomes critical, can't they order an small number of F-15C/E with the latest EW and radar?
I'm not talking about an Uber SE version for $100mil+..
The SH was an solution to Navys fighter shortage, not that they had any other choice but still..
Posts: 1,320
By: ppp - 3rd April 2011 at 18:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The cost of the F22 is due to small numbers for the most part. Whatever way it goes, someone will have to foot the development bill. Changing the coating or fitting different avionics will make the cost of the aircraft go into rehead :cool:
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 3rd April 2011 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unit cost was going back up at the time the program was terminated. I think it was a bad idea to cut the program at <250 units, but let's not kid ourselves: it's an expensive aircraft.
Posts: 1,320
By: ppp - 3rd April 2011 at 20:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh I certainly agree it's expensive, I just don't think modifying it with cheaper components will make it cheaper as there is the cost of integration to consider, which on aircraft is fairly large.