US UAV and UCAV Technology

AeroFranz said:
Jsport, you seem to be using the terms "BWB" and a blended fuselage/wing interchangeably. BWB has a very distinct connotation.

jsport said:
enough said.
Click to expand...

sorry i'm wasting your time.
Click to expand...
This subject was previously argued over for days w/ nothing but confusing dogma, corporate spin and opinions being presented. Yes best to stop.
 
Not super sexy, but it looks like an air vehicle that does not need school trained maintainers constantly working on the guts. If it can get the troops what they need it might be worth consideration. Devil remains in the details though.
 
IMOHO the only problems are the load size restricted by the biplan layout with an enclosing aerodynamic shell and the pull up manoeuvre they have to do right in the last mile alerting everyone where you hide with a nice ear shattering buzzing noise (high loaded prop).

The good point are - as mentionnd above - dependability and being scalable.

They should use the concept as a vertically launched towing bird for a plywood/cartboard cargo glider.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

Funding for naval drones in the NDAA will encourage innovation

Fielding unmanned maritime systems will ensure continued U.S. naval dominance and support the industrial base. Unfortunately, Congress is considering disrupting funding to the research and development of this technology.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

AUVSI is also taking issue with Congress’ misunderstanding of UMS operations, focusing on the reliability of individual components rather than that of the system as a whole, ignoring the operational context in which the UMS will be used. Unmanned systems have well-documented reliability in the commercial sector performing in a range of demanding and complex environments, including deep-water exploration. If Congress attempts to apply unique reliability requirements to UMS use by the U.S. Navy, it will only serve to drive up cost, decrease competition and significantly delay fielding of the systems to the war fighters that need them.
While Congress has previously demonstrated its support for the growth and integration of unmanned systems in the future Navy fleet architecture, its reliability concerns and proposed funding cuts in this instance are misplaced. Industry has determined that the wholeness of autonomy is critical to mission duration and success, and the emphasis on testing reliability should be on that wholeness rather than focusing on individual components. What’s more, the Navy’s R&D effort is already working to field systems that can prove reliability in a realistic operational context.
 
bobbymike said:
www.army.mil

Army advances learning capabilities of drone swarms

Army researchers develop a reinforcement learning approach for swarms of unmanned aerial and ground vehicles
www.army.mil www.army.mil
Click to expand...
Where is the logistics for hundreds of unreliable, one shot wonders which dont even shoot and crowd the ISR space. No matter what, they are going to demand manning more than they are worth. A cloud of garbage into a field of garbage.
 
Although I do agree that this is plausible, Reaper drones are succeptible to collide given they have no sense and avoid system. Idlib being a tight battle space and SA being a critical resource for drone pilots, IMOHO the odds of a simple loss of situational awareness are too great to dismiss that explanation (fighter jets do also collide).
 
Yes, I always found that omission to be strange at the very least. I believe at least one effort to retrofit such a capability to the Reaper fleet got canned to free up funds to shore up another project (possibly the infamous TBMCS).
 
Last edited:
IMOHO given the commercial sensitivity of sense&avoid systems, it would be foolish to have them embedded in airframe flying daily above conflict zones.
At least untill manpower needs to sustain them in flight has not seen any drastic reduction.
 
This topic, originally about unbuilt projects, has been thoroughly hijacked as a "Drones" news topic. Moved to Aviation & Space.
 
Last edited:
That would be perfect with the infamous flying weapons pylon.
Anybody knows where they are with that?
 
AeroFranz said:
Longshot? haven't heard about it in a while. The DARPA PM is probably trying to secure funding.
Click to expand...

They asked for FY21 money.

DARPA Eyes New Weapon Concepts In 2021 Program Plans | Aviation Week Network

A multi-target air-to-air weapon and gun-armed close-support missile are among new projects DARPA plans to launch in fiscal 2021. New approaches to communicating in contested environments, attacking signals and countering laser weapons are also on the list.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
bobbymike said:

Northrop Grumman Unveils SG-2 Vision For Replacing MQ-9 | Aviation Week Network

In Northrop Grumman vision, next hunter-killer aircraft could operate very differently from the MQ-9, as USAF ponders future operations.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Lockheed Martin Unveils Details Of MQ-9 Replacement Offer | Aviation Week Network

The company is offering a family of UAS that includes advanced and inexpensive systems.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
The first one looks like the supposed RQ-180 & the other like a enlarged Sea Ghost.
 
ANG's 'Ghost' Reaper aims to transform hunter-killer RPA for JADC2 operations
The Air National Guard's MQ-9 enterprise has been quietly fighting under the radar to show the remotely piloted aircraft has utility in future operations by transforming its hunter-killer counterinsurgency capabilities to better enable joint all-domain command and control under a little-known initiative called the "Ghost Reaper," multiple sources tell Inside Defense
______________________________________
Isn’t that the name of the next Tom Cruise movie, Mission Impossible 7: Ghost Reaper;)
 
USAF testers perform first MQ-9A Reaper flight with eight Hellfire missiles
By Sara Sirota / September 29, 2020 5:05 PM

The Air Force has conducted the first flight test of the MQ-9A Reaper carrying eight live AGM-114 Hellfire missiles -- twice the number it can currently hold -- to show the remotely piloted aircraft's ability to perform "persistent attack" operations in future conflicts. The 556th Test and Evaluation Squadron, which is part of the service's 53rd Wing, demonstrated the new capability at Creech Air Force Base, NV, on Sept. 10, according to an Air Force news release
 
I would like to ask a question on early UAVs from the 60s through to the 90s.

Why did so many UAVs continue to rely on parachute/airbag/mid-air recovery schemes?

All of Ryan's little tactical drones - Firebee, Lightning Bug, BQM-34C (the improved post-Vietnam Lightning Bug), and even Scarab and Peregrine (early 90s, MR-UAV) went with parachutes and mid-air recovery/airbags/saltwater dunking (the latter for Peregrine).

Landing gear is heavy and not easy to integrate with airframes (or so I've heard), and navigation/drone control/TV datalinking was super-hard in ancient times, but the various recovery schemes greatly worsened UAV attrition, wear and tear, cost, certain types of operational flexibility, and turnaround time. Guidance for runway landings would seem to be a matter of setting up a very short range man-in-the-loop RC system at the airfield, and a dedicated landing pilot looking out the window of the control trailer (maybe that sort of thing has high attrition too and is incompatible with the DC-130? Is the handoff difficult?).

Had drone operations been expanded through the 70s and 80s (say, in conjunction with bigger communications satellites or something to help ameliorate the many, many other technological limitations that restricted the scope of drone operations), would runway landings have been more cost-effective? Were airbags competitive with runways (and was that why they eventually pivoted towards airbags for Scarab)?

www.thedrive.com

The U.S. Sold This Unique Stealth Drone Called 'Scarab' To Egypt In The 1980s

The Egyptians never even unboxed most of the unmanned aircraft, which were state-of-the-art for their time, but they may still be flying some of them.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
message-editor%2F1542417921909-mission.jpg
message-editor%2F1542473488279-chinook.jpg
 
Last edited:
chimeric oncogene said:
Guidance for runway landings would seem to be a matter of setting up very short range man-in-the-loop RC system at the airfield, and a dedicated landing pilot looking out the window of the control trailer
Click to expand...
Mhhh. At the very minimum you'd need some sort of runway to land on, wouldn't you?
Erm, why were they using JATO truck launches in the first place? maybe because there wasn't necessarily a rwy where you need this kind of recce. Think of Laotian border or such places.


As to why Egypt wanted it, I can help thinking of Israel's very successful use of the Mabat and Shadmit. (drones made by... Teledyne Ryan :cool: )
Add to this the then-stunning success of operation Artzav-19 when Syrian air defenses in the Bekaa were wiped out by IDF/AF drones on 1982-06-09.

Mix with a normal dose of penis envy, and you get "bwaaa! I want one too!". So they got one too, even though they could not really use it. (As the article say, 50 out of the 59 Scarabs delivered were never even unboxed).
 
and how much more capable and stealth are X-58As?
 
Probably greater (unrestricted tech, 30 years of Stealth improvement, Internal wb...). And if you are concerned about Ryan heritage being lost, I am pretty sure Kratos has a good understanding of what Ryan achieved. ;)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom