| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Pilots Surrender to UAVs |
| 2006-01-17 |
| January 17, 2006: The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft. The Department of Defense also wants the new aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule. At the same time, the current combat UAV program (J-UCAS, run by the air force and navy) is to be changed as well. The current X45 project will be split up, with the air force and navy allowed to develop a shorter range combat aircraft to suit their particular needs. These will be bombers, with some air-to-air capabilities. The X45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing missions, early on, when enemy air defenses have to be destroyed. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the J-UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.) The X45 program started out, two years ago, as a DARPA research project. But last Fall, it was taken from DARPA and given to the air force, with orders to move as quickly as possible. At that time, the plan was to build the X45C version and get it through all the tests needed to certify it for combat. At the time, it was thought another four years would be needed to do that. Now, no one is sure it will take that long. The X45A has passed tests with formation flying, and dropping a JDAM (actually the new 250 pound SDB version). The X45C will carry eight SDB (250 pound small diameter bombs), or up to 4500 pounds of other JDAMs. The X45A has already shown it can fly in formation and refuel in the air. The X45C will weigh in at about 19 tons, have a 2.2 ton payload and be 39 feet long (with a 49 foot wingspan.) The X-45A, built for development only, is 27 feet long, has a wingspan of 34 feet and has a payload of 1.2 tons. The X-45C will be able to hit targets 2,300 kilometers away and be used for bombing and reconnaissance missions. Each X-45C will probably cost about $30 million, depending on how extensive, and expensive, its electronic equipment will be. The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air. This appears to be the last job left for pilots of combat aircraft. (cough) close-air-support (cough) The geeks believe they have this one licked, and are giving the pilot generals the, âbring it onâ look. The generals are not keen to test their manned aircraft against a UAV, but this will change the minute another country, like China or Russia, demonstrates that they are seriously moving in that direction. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #18 Zenster, something along these lines? |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-17 21:50 |
| #17 Instead of attempting deep penetration with the "rods of god", many projectiles could be used like a gigantic cluster bomb over a wide area, resulting in something like a dense meteorite shower of grapefruit sized objects obliterating most targets over perhaps a ten square mile area. ♪ make those grapefruits robotic and I think you're on to somrthing Moose. ♪ »;-) |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2006-01-17 19:17 |
| #16 Rail guns are good. A Los Alamos scientist described using a rail gun to move a cannonball sized chunk of ferrous metal at speeds that "made it seem to simply rematerialize at the other side of the room." |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-17 19:08 |
| #15 It might be far more practical to have launched sub-orbital vehicles to deploy "space based weapons", than to have orbital platforms to do so. The idea being that from a sub-orbital altitude, they would first maneuver into a very steep attitude, then use their engines to rapidly descend towards the target area. Then, with minor attitude adjustments, they could aim at multiple targets and fire solid projectiles with a rail gun. This would get the projectiles up to speed while reducing atmospheric friction on them, so less would burn off before impact. Instead of attempting deep penetration with the "rods of god", many projectiles could be used like a gigantic cluster bomb over a wide area, resulting in something like a dense meteorite shower of grapefruit sized objects obliterating most targets over perhaps a ten square mile area. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-17 18:59 |
| #14 I'd prefer a drone with the speed of an SR-71 with an ability to hover like a huey and at the same time be a fierce moot court competitor. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-01-17 17:13 |
| #13 Although the original purpose of the UAV bomber (i.e., softening up inbound anti-aircraft defenses) is laudable, one also needs to consider the use of hypersonic missiles that will be able to address global targets within a few hours. While not able to loiter, their cost of assembly and operation is significantly less. I especially like the idea of a bunker busting conventional warhead impacting at several times the speed of sound. Such a missile should be able to burrow quite a distance, as in Iranian underground facilities. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-17 16:16 |
| #12 Well, there's the SkyTote prototype in development and test - more recent comments on this family of UAVs here. And this student paper describes the tradeoffs one might make re: certain system elements for cargo UAVs. LOTS is going on in this field. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-17 15:32 |
| #11 t zero and zenster: both good points. The design and use of aircraft without pilots really opens up the imagination. So much more is possible. Planes with almost ballistic missile trajectories. Very small, very fast, very maneuverable. But since most flying is done for logistics rather than combat, imagine also a drone, much like a Huey in size/cargo, that could perform similar missions. Something similar to a Jolly Green Giant, for bus-sized cargoes, etc. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-17 15:19 |
| #10 While dirigibles might not provide optimum static launch characteristics, catapults certainly could. Given reinforced airframes and high-G hardened avionics, our new generation of electromagnetic catapults could slingshot these puppies into the air at accelerations that would make most pilots black out. With the catapult doing most of the heavy lifting, critical jet fuel is saved and deployment happens even more quickly. I smell a major win-win. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-17 14:19 |
| #9 Also consider the size of the dirigible. Likely would need to be roughly 29 times the size of the Hindenburg. That number is off the top of my head, but it feels right. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-01-17 14:15 |
| #8 So if there's no rush for a heavy bomber launch, why not hoist it up with a dirigible? That is, lift it high up, then start its engines, and it flies away, at altitude, on its own power. It is speed who keeps a plane flying. Your bomber would be at zero speed and it would immediately go unto a vertical dive, possibly in a spinning vertical dive. It would be tricky to regain control with a fighter, impossible in a bomber who are quite simply not designed for taking the required Gs for trasiting to horizontal flight before hitting ground. Notice that the above assumes the plane is going down nose first. Chances are high it would go on a flat spin or in a tail first dive and then even an F16 would crash |
| Posted by: t zero 2006-01-17 13:36 |
| #7 The Army is already in the process of moving operational control/flying of tactical UAVs to Aviation branch from Military Intel. There will be plenty of UAVs to go around, some armed, some not, some tactical some (like Global Hawk) for longer-mission surveillance. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-01-17 13:31 |
| #6 I think the pilots should embrace UAV's in an air to air role, as a supplement. Without the life support systems, etc, the UAV's are a lot cheaper, therefore they could be allotted say, two air to air capable UAV's. Send them in first, let the bad guys use up their missiles and break their formations, then tallyho! Almost none of our fighters engage in ONLY air to air missions, so this would let the manned aircraft preserve missiles and fuel to head to the kind of targets (say an office complex in a built up area) that require human judgement on the spot. One question though, for the geeks, do we have enough satellite bandwidth available to support a whole bunch of these? Seems I recall some trouble with that during the late unpleasantness in Iraq. |
| Posted by: colin macdougall 2006-01-17 13:20 |
| #5 The X45 program started out, two years ago, as a DARPA research project. But last Fall, it was taken from DARPA and given to the air force, with orders to move as quickly as possible. At that time, the plan was to build the X45C version and get it through all the tests needed to certify it for combat. At the time, it was thought another four years would be needed to do that. Now, no one is sure it will take that long. Good move getting it out of DARPA. Bad move not setting a schedule or timeline i.e., orders to move as quickly as possible. I can hear blue-suiter chuckles and yawns from the "back 9." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-17 12:17 |
| #4 Without pilots, all sorts of weird possibilities come to mind about heavy bombers. For example, a B-52 was notorious for using almost half its fuel just to get off the ground. So if there's no rush for a heavy bomber launch, why not hoist it up with a dirigible? That is, lift it high up, then start its engines, and it flies away, at altitude, on its own power. Sounds silly, I know, until you calculate out the greater range before it needs refueling. Right now, bombers are restricted in their use by the availability of refueling aircraft in the vicintity. So maybe it isn't such a ludicrous idea after all. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-17 11:34 |
| #3 Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell is smiling in his perch in heaven. |
| Posted by: The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2006-01-17 10:11 |
| #2 Will they be able to do an arclight like the BUFFs? |
| Posted by: Eason Jordan. 2006-01-17 10:04 |
| #1 (cough)Army Air Corps(cough) |
| Posted by: Slavilet Sleamp2798 2006-01-17 09:58 |