Forum: Drones

Quote:

Two points:

One - The price of the UCAV is going to be exceptionally high. Maybe even along the lines if not more than the F-35.

Two - You almost have to count on a UCAV not being flown from the ground like the Predator. Any RF signal is going to be jamable to some degree at least. Programming the SA that a pilot provides into a UCAV is going to take a while to do. I'm not saying it isn't going to happen, but it is not going to happen in the near future. I'll take a patch wearer in a Raptor (I'd say Viper, but that wouldn't stand a chance BVR) over any UCAV for the next 15 years at least. The dynamics of a BFM or ACM engagement are so complex that it is going to take a leap in computer technology to beat a human, even with a 15G UCAV. The Viper can pull 9G, but most fights don't happen at 9Gs, and it's not b/c the pilot can't take it.

I disagree completely. Im not sure why you feel UCAVs will be expensive. They will be smaller, require less material than standard a/c and overall, a lot is saved by just not sticking a pilot in the thing. For example, the UCAV will not need life support systems or a cockpit or a computer interface to wire all the cockpit controls since that will all be remote. Because it will be smaller it will also need less fuel, also making it smaller. And the engine will not need to be as big either. Since the UAV will be smaller, that also meens less moving parts which meens easier maitanance which meens less operational cost.

The point of making a UCAV that can pull 15Gs or even as much as 25Gs has nothing to do with doing that in a fight. In Vietnam a rule of thumb for pilots was to evade a missile one would need to make a turn pulling 1/3 as many G's as the missile was capable of. 99% of the time this would work. That was fine when missiles were only capable of 12-18 Gs, but now missiles are capable up to as many as 75Gs. Turning more G's means that an A/C can change direction faster. Additionally a UCAV will not be limited to the axis of its turn. Right now pilots are mainly limited to pulling up on the stick since negative G's are a terrible thing to feel. However without any feeling a UCAV will be able to turn on any axis easily.

Also, I dont know why people keep thinking UCAVs are gonna be mindless controlled AI robots...... Plans for UAVs will be piloted by PC user using a camera and a joystick. They will not need advanced AI computers to make decisions for them. Research at Wright Patt concluded that computers are faster than humans at thinking in all proccesses but one.......... patterns. Computers cannot recognize patterns.... This is why humans will always be needed to make decisions. I dont think there is any expsive AI planned...

-Aaron

F-16.net Sponsor

To be a viable replacement for manned a/c, UAVs have to be able to perform at a level at least equal to them. A Viper flying CAS is not going to be replaced by a UAV, regardless of the threat, unless it can do at least as good of a job. That's the commitment that the AF makes to the ground troops - we'll be there, period. So the UCAV is going to need to be able to carry the same amount of ordinance for the same amount of time as a Viper at a very minimum (this is ignoring what an A-10 or F-15E can carry). That means an aircraft at a minimum in the 20,000lb weight class when empty.

You'll save money and weight on the egress and life-support systems. An ACES II seat is about a million dollars and around 300lbs or so (life support guys out there, correct me if I'm wrong here), and the associated life support systems - cabin pressure, oxygen, anti-g equipment - and the pilot with control inputs might be another couple hundred thousand bucks and 400-500 lbs. Even if you round way up and say you'll save 2,000lbs of weight and 2 million dollars, on a jet with a max takeoff of around 40,000+ pounds and a cost of around 20-30 million (based on size and stealth), it's not much. It's something, but not much.

Now you're going to need to develop the avionics software and hardware to fly this thing without a pilot. It's going to need to be able to air refuel to have any kind of loiter time the way we would need it to, unless you make it much bigger and therefore more expensive. One of the major, and I mean major, costs of the F-22/F-35 is the avionics and all of the software that goes with it. It is not cheap to develop this programming, along with the necessary code to maintain a secure communications line. If that line gets severed, the UCAV could be a 20 million + dollar sitting duck. Unless of course you build a sophisticated hierarchy for it fly autonomously... - which is years and millions of dollars down the road.

Add to that the airframe stealth requirements on a jet the size of the JSF with all of the associated avionics and software needs, and you have one damn expensive airplane.

The AFA had a great article in their magazine about this:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2005/0605bomber.asp

As far as the maneuverability issue, if they have missiles that will pull 75Gs, a UCAV will need to pull at least 25G to defeat it kinematically. It wouldn't be a huge engineering feat to make that possible, but it would need to do it repeatedly to defeat following missiles. The thrust required to pull a maneuver like that more than once would be almost impossible without some new engine technology.

I'm not saying it can't be done, what I'm saying is that it isn't going to be this great, cheap, fully capable aircraft that is going to keep pilots from ever going into harms' way while saving money and lives. I think it can do one side of that or the other - it will be cheap and capable about like a predator, with slight improvements; or it will be about the same if not more than the current costs of a new fighter and will be able to do nearly all that a manned fighter can.

I think we're going to keep getting some very basic capability out of a/c like the predator, and will get some "top end" UCAVs that can penetrate the extremely heavily defended areas with F-22s and F-35s close behind to clean up.

Whenever I really start dreaming, I think about hundreds of small, autonomous a/c capable of firing missiles or dropping a few bombs, kicking a$$ all over the world without a single guy sweating in a cockpit. That thought works for about the first few days of a major war, and then we'd need the bigger a/c with the longer loiter time for conflicts like we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ok, wow, sorry for the long rant. Just my Two Cents

2sBlind, im still not following your weight figures. The prototype UCAV created by Boeing on display at WPAF Museum is only about the size of 3 cows standing side by side. It is not very large at all. As for software development, well, any research and development not particular to a UAV should be void in the cost figures. New software is needed for the development of any new air craft, just as stealth features are (as of this day in age anyways) and stuff like that...

No, the UCAV prolly wont regain the energy fast enough to evade following missiles. But it evaded the first one. Something manned fighters dont have the capability to do.

I understand the AF's promise to the ground troops but IMO if you can build 10 UAVs that do the job of 1 Viper for 1/10 the cost of the Viper than that promise is equally fufilled as long as you build 10 times as many UAVs as there are Vipers.

Im also not following the articles pricing figures but I need to give it a better read when its not 4 am in the morning. To me it seems like if I'm removing stuff from an air plane then I should already have room to put the extra fuel the A/F wants to make this plane loiter longer than what we already have any plane loitering...

-Aaron

[quote="2sBlind"]To be a viable replacement for manned a/c, UAVs have to be able to perform at a level at least equal to them. A Viper flying CAS is not going to be replaced by a UAV, regardless of the threat, unless it can do at least as good of a job. That's the commitment that the AF makes to the ground troops - we'll be there, period. So the UCAV is going to need to be able to carry the same amount of ordinance for the same amount of time as a Viper at a very minimum (this is ignoring what an A-10 or F-15E can carry).[quote="2sBlind"]

1. The current Predator is already flying CAS.
2. The next generation of Predator carries more than a Block 30 Viper.
3. The loiter time and range of the next generation Predator exceed that of the Viper.
4. UCAV's will exceed performance of current manned platforms.

TenquNoHi, are you talking about the X-45 demonstrator that Boeing built? It is very small, but it is also not capable of a large payload and long range/loiter. The newer proposals out there have a jet more the size of a Hornet on the drawing boards

You're absolutely right about building 10 UCAVs for the price of 1 Viper etc.. etc.. - I'm just not convinced that the current UCAVs meet the price to capability ratio. The next gen. predator probably will, but I haven't seen any cost or hard performance figures for that yet.

As for the fuel issue. If you remove the pilot and related systems in a D-model Viper and replace it with fuel, the difference is about 1,300 lbs. The problem is that 1,300lbs of fuel doesn't do significantly more for you. It makes a difference, but not a huge one.

falconfixer, all valid points, but I still don't think the next generation predator is going to be able to replace a Viper overhead for a few reasons:

1. Response time - we don't have the assets to keep a jet overhead everywhere, the faster someone can go to get to a point, the sooner we have bombs on target. Very important for the guys getting shot at.

2. That being said - you can just have more of them up there. But how much is this new Predator going to cost? Will it be survivable in an environment with any kind of a threat? What if the comm links go down, or the satellite relay is lost - I guarantee there are people out there figuring out how to do just that.

3. I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the range and loiter time you talk about is compared to a Viper that doesn't do any aerial refueling. The loiter time of a two ship of Vipers, with taking turns heading to a tanker is going to be whatever pilot endurance limits you have - so about 12 hours.

4. I don't doubt whatsoever that eventually UCAVs are going to exceed the capabilities of a manned a/c. There are inherent advantages to not having the weight and space of a pilot and life support system on-board.

But many of the things UAVs are supposed to be capable of are dependent on technology that either has been developed in the last 5-10 years or has yet to be developed - a better comparison would be talking about what the cost of a JSF without a pilot and related systems would be. It would be really really close to what it costs now. The cost to develop the link back to a pilot on the ground and the avionics to display all of the information to him would have to be added in as well. UCAVs seem like they're going to be so cheap b/c we've already sunk alot of the R+D costs for stealth and software/weapons systems into current projects like the Raptor and JSF. The main advantage then isn't so much cost as it is keeping our guys out of harm's way as much as possible. It's going to happen, I just think it's farther down the road and more expensive than most people realize.

Predators are great, and are a cheap way to keep some ordnance overhead or keep some ISR overhead. I don't think it's anywhere near a replacement for a Viper or manned fighter though.

2sblind, it seems like you are looking in short term (15 years) while I am looking further down the road (30-40 years). I agree that the cost and development in the immediate future of UCAVs will be expensive and underpowered if we try and focus on that research now. But from what I understand the life of the F-22 is intended to bridge that gap over the next 30 years. And 30 years from now when the F-22 is outdated then by that time hopefully the technology we researched into UCAVs will have built up enough to mass produce them economically. Also what I understood is that the initial UCAVs were not going to be fighters but bombers. The idea of a fighter that turns at 15-25 Gs and out accelerates any human ever is still just in the minds of air force brass and skunk works designers, etc... Right now the only plans are to build a capable craft with a long loider time to drop bombs on places. That seems like a reasonable first step...

Also... I pretty much wrapped up that article above. It seems that the UCAVs have the potential to be really cheap but because there is no man inside of them the Air Force is requiring Boeing to make it better than any manned craft is in the world right now. Somewhere in that article Boeing said their original UAV design would have been cheap and small but the Air Force wanted a large one with a longer loiter time and that Boeing would have to convince the AF to understand that if you want all that its going to affect the price tag too!

-Aaron

2sBlind wrote:

falconfixer, all valid points, but I still don't think the next generation predator is going to be able to replace a Viper overhead for a few reasons:

1. Response time - we don't have the assets to keep a jet overhead everywhere, the faster someone can go to get to a point, the sooner we have bombs on target. Very important for the guys getting shot at.

2. That being said - you can just have more of them up there. But how much is this new Predator going to cost? Will it be survivable in an environment with any kind of a threat? What if the comm links go down, or the satellite relay is lost - I guarantee there are people out there figuring out how to do just that.

3. I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the range and loiter time you talk about is compared to a Viper that doesn't do any aerial refueling. The loiter time of a two ship of Vipers, with taking turns heading to a tanker is going to be whatever pilot endurance limits you have - so about 12 hours.

4. I don't doubt whatsoever that eventually UCAVs are going to exceed the capabilities of a manned a/c. There are inherent advantages to not having the weight and space of a pilot and life support system on-board.

But many of the things UAVs are supposed to be capable of are dependent on technology that either has been developed in the last 5-10 years or has yet to be developed - a better comparison would be talking about what the cost of a JSF without a pilot and related systems would be. It would be really really close to what it costs now. The cost to develop the link back to a pilot on the ground and the avionics to display all of the information to him would have to be added in as well. UCAVs seem like they're going to be so cheap b/c we've already sunk alot of the R+D costs for stealth and software/weapons systems into current projects like the Raptor and JSF. The main advantage then isn't so much cost as it is keeping our guys out of harm's way as much as possible. It's going to happen, I just think it's farther down the road and more expensive than most people realize.

I didn't mean the NG Predator could replace the Viper. My point being that it can perform CAS, carries more bomb load, and after 12 hours a Viper pilot is wasted (even flying straight and level) where after a few hours a Predator pilot can be swapped out at the console.

1. Due to airfield requirements Predators can be located closer than a Viper. UCAV will be like the Viper but will have the higher cruise speed to counter the distance.

2. I'm more interested in UCAV than Predator for this discussion. UCAV will be survivable in a modern threat arena. Technology is in use today that is jam resistant and uses multiple data links.

3. NG Predator has longer loiter than 12 hours. I don't know what is proposed for UCAV.

4. Agreed - but it's not just weight and space. It's also physiological and vehicle performance.

My point is just that it's coming and will be here quicker than what people think. Cost? Well we could start a whole other discussion on that, but it will be expensive.

Sounds dead on...

I think what the AF is moving towards is that if they are going to spent the extra money to buy a UAV that is stealthy like the J-UCAV proposals that are out there as opposed to a worke-horse design like the Predator, then they want it to be able to do deep penetration missions since that is likely where the high threat is. Unfortunately, long range and loiter means a large and expensive aircraft.

In the time being they are planning on cruise missiles to go in first, with F-22s and JSFs behind and then legacy fighters and Predator-type UCAVs cleaning up and hanging overhead for ground support. Once the "bomber" UCAVs come online, they'll probably replace the cruise missiles and do much more damage.

I agree that in 30-40 years the best anti-air craft are going to be unmanned. Even contemplating the detection systems that will be available then are mind boggling, let alone what is going to be needed to defeat them.

Imagine a stealthy cruise missile loaded with an anti-aircraft equivalent of the Sensor Fuzed Munition that looks for IFF, aircraft size, speed, composition, etc. Doesn't arm and start looking until it passes the go-no go line, etc, etc.....

Or we could all just see the movie Stealth when it comes out Smile

But I dont feel like slitting my wrist open!

-Aaron

They are no longer going to call them UCAVs, they are going to UCAS (unmanned combat aerial system) designation. And they are the future, whether you like it or not.

Huh? What?? We lose another one? OK. Shrug

What's for lunch?

UCAVs present a HUGE cultural problem for the USAF. Manned vs. un-manned isn't a new debate. In 1957, during congressional hearings held in response to Sputnik's launch, General Thomas Powers defended manned bombers by stating that it would be impossible to maintain a top-notch deterrent force based solely around guys "polishing the a$$-end of a missile all day."

As appealing as UCAVs are to the bean counters, one should still consider the probability that it will be difficult for the USAF to continue recruiting the nation's best and brightest with the prospect of piloting drones from cubicals somewhere in Nevada. They might even have to consider the possibility of (gasp) enlisted personnel flying the things like they do in the Army.

You're only a couple of years behind the times folks. Allow me to explain:

1) "UCAV" is as dead as T-Rex and the USSR. The terminology is now "RPA" or Remotely-Piloted Aircraft.

2) Enlisted are trained and currently serve as Sensor Operators on the existing USAF RPAs. They wear green bags and wings, and draw flight pay just as their 1A AFSC counterparts. The main difference, however, is that they wear a different set of wings than traditional Enlisted Aircrew (i.e., FE's, ABM'ers, Boomers, Loadies, Gunners, etc.)

3) Within the next 20 years, approx. 60% of the USAF fleet is projected to be remotely-piloted, with an emphasis on the ACC fleet. The CSAF, SECAF, and Pentagon have all been strong supporters of the RPA fleet, and only want to buy more. More planes, means a need for more crews to operate them. Pilots will have to volunteer to go, or simply be "VolunTold". Simple as that.

4) Potential recruits deciding on whether to go to a particular branch of service to have a greater chance of going to a traditional manned asset needn't bother. The USN, USMC, and USA all either currently have, or are in the process of procuring their own RPAs. This is the future of military flying folks. The days of making movies with Maverick and Goose in their F-14 are over.

TC wrote:

You're only a couple of years behind the times folks. Allow me to explain:

1) "UCAV" is as dead as T-Rex and the USSR. The terminology is now "RPA" or Remotely-Piloted Aircraft.

2) Enlisted are trained and currently serve as Sensor Operators on the existing USAF RPAs. They wear green bags and wings, and draw flight pay just as their 1A AFSC counterparts. The main difference, however, is that they wear a different set of wings than traditional Enlisted Aircrew (i.e., FE's, ABM'ers, Boomers, Loadies, Gunners, etc.)

3) Within the next 20 years, approx. 60% of the USAF fleet is projected to be remotely-piloted, with an emphasis on the ACC fleet. The CSAF, SECAF, and Pentagon have all been strong supporters of the RPA fleet, and only want to buy more. More planes, means a need for more crews to operate them. Pilots will have to volunteer to go, or simply be "VolunTold". Simple as that.

4) Potential recruits deciding on whether to go to a particular branch of service to have a greater chance of going to a traditional manned asset needn't bother. The USN, USMC, and USA all either currently have, or are in the process of procuring their own RPAs. This is the future of military flying folks. The days of making movies with Maverick and Goose in their F-14 are over.

1) Being pedantic about nomenclature doesn't change what the thing is.

2) The USAF is still treating RPAs like regular aircraft, meaning they are still only flown by qualified officer pilots. Enlisted still serve when needed as aircrew. [http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-06/us-air-force-adds-undergrad-uav-training-makes-drone-pilot-career-choice] And even if they receive flight pay, that doesn't change the fact that they are still flying from a cubical.

3) It doesn't matter how much support RPAs and their community receive from the pentagon; someone will still have to convince suitable 19 year-olds to choose military career paths, which will be more difficult when opportunities to pilot real aircraft (and get promoted) aren't there.

4) Maverick and Goose are over, true. So why bother joining any branch to fly? Without the offer of any real excitement, the best young people will probably just find something else to do in civilian life. Those who still want a piece of so-called "glory" will probably just join the infantry. It may all sound silly, but be honest with yourself and think about some of your own motivations for joining the military. In an all volunteer force, psychology like this matters. If you want to pull the trigger and kill bad guys, then yes, you'll fly the Reaper; but it won't help you pick up any women at the club. And stuff like that matters to a teenager with high grades who's trying to decide if he should go to Air Force Academy or Stanford business school.

Forum: Drones

Wussie UAV's