Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCAV/UAV/UAS News and discussion 2015

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    What regulations?

    Flying here is very restricted, but AFAIK there's no regulation preventing them from being brought here.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

    Comment


      #22
      the other thing is that by putting the UCLASS with ISR, you're saying its an ISR asset, completely different from the F-35
      if you put it with the attack wings, you're saying active combat pilots will be reduced to playing Hawx, and more importantly you're saying it might take over roles from the F-35. then you're suddenly getting in the way of a $300 billion program
      by hiding with the ISR wing, the UCLASS is a wolf in sheep's skin. and probably the only way for it to reach operational status alive
      The USN is still debating whether to up_arm the UCLASS and seek a more technically challenging vehicle. While it is frustrating, for I myself agree with some of what Bob Work has said on the matter, I cannot fault the USN for sticking to a long range ISR vehicle with light strike for starters. Given that the X_47 vehicle had a 3-4 year delay in accomplishing its testing and the fact that USN has already lost about a year from its planned IOC one would be sympathetic to them if they seek a relatively low risk solution for their 6- Billion dollar program. In fact, if one took the RQ-180 news stories seriously one could really come up with why the USN is insisting on the UCLASS for ISR since much of that capability form a sensor and integration point of view is/was most likely validated with that program anyhow. They could then in the post 2020's begin to work on version 2 and version 3 of the program just as the USAF went about upsizing their Unmanned aircraft in capability. Putting the UCLASS in the ISR net along with the E-2 is a strong indication that the USN would successfully hold on to its own plans of fielding a primarily ISR driven vehicle with light strike.

      There is no one other than you that thinks that the USN can replace the F-35C with the UCLASS therefore the UCLASS is absolutely no threat to the F-35 acquisition program given that they need a minimum number of new fighters to replace the outgoing F/A-18's by a certain point in time. What the USN seems to be avoiding is to go crazy with the UCLASS requirement and enter into a 10-15 billion dollar program, only to have it go out of control (which high risk programs have a tendency to do) and jeopardize their FA-XX program which they also need by a certain point in time to replace the Super Hornet, unless they volunteer to remain an F-35 only force well into the 2050's (which they won't agree to). Put that with their ship building plans, which suggest a gap between their goal and their funds - one can easily understand why they do not want to spend a whole lot of money on the UCLASS in a relatively short amount of time through sequestration in order to get a mini - unmanned B-2. A time for that vehicle would no doubt come, but not through a program that sees a bulk of its investments/development in a sequestered budget where the Navy is trying desperately to meet its shipbuilding targets.
      Last edited by bring_it_on; 17th January 2015, 14:16.
      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

      Comment


        #23
        The German military intends to revive its controversial Euro Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle program after it was canceled in 2013 due to spiraling costs and airworthiness issues.

        http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...uas-/21799109/

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
          There is no one other than you that thinks that the USN can replace the F-35C with the UCLASS therefore the UCLASS is absolutely no threat to the F-35 acquisition program given that they need a minimum number of new fighters to replace the outgoing F/A-18's by a certain point in time.
          there are plenty of people who believe this, many high ranking within the USN, who've had the F-35 forced upon them and know it will not satisfy their needs

          this bureaucratic battle between the services has been going on for ages, and many a good idea and more Dollars have been wasted because of it. as with its predecessors, the F-35 is here to promise all and deliver little, at much inflated cost and in much lower numbers (F-111, F-22, F-35, B-2... to name but a few recent examples)

          the UCLASS will have the potential to fly out, detect and kill stuff, and as such it is a direct threat to the F-35's budgets. for most realistic missions you don't need the F-35, and you don't want the F-35, when you'll be able to field multiple long range expendable UCLASS's with the latest plug-in sensors that were not designed 20 years before

          the forces at play here know this, which is why the USN is struggling to get requirements for the UCLASS right. the F-35s defenders want to keep it small, so it can't carry as much weapons as the F-35 (a moot point in today's world of miniature weapons) or make it too big and complicated so it'll fail (I'm guessing that's what the USN did to the F-35)

          so the USN has to balance off actual capability with perceived capability, in an effort to keep the program alive and able to replace the F-35 when and if needed, without being perceived to do so

          Comment


            #25
            I wonder to what extent the UCLASS could fill some of the roles of the hawkeye. The hawkeye is not stealthy at all so it would be detected from very far and would give away the approximate location of the carrier group.

            A stealthy UCLASS would also have the capability of entering enemy airspace with a strike package and give 360 degrees situational awareness during the attack.

            Wouldn't it make sense for the USN to reduce the number of E-2s and focus more on a stealthy design for the UCLASS?

            Comment


              #26
              makes no difference, what is seen first of the E-2 is the emission, long, long before E-2 is seen,
              stealth means nothing if you have to emit.

              Comment


                #27
                I have noted that the UK is talking up the reconnaissance potential of the F35B, so this is a similar approach I suppose.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                  makes no difference, what is seen first of the E-2 is the emission, long, long before E-2 is seen,
                  stealth means nothing if you have to emit.
                  Well, that's the question, can the EASA radar use LPI modes to detect targets at long range.

                  The E-2 has a very large RCS, so probably it will be detected by any large surface active radar in LOS.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                    makes no difference, what is seen first of the E-2 is the emission, long, long before E-2 is seen,
                    stealth means nothing if you have to emit.
                    As DJC mentioned, one big role of the E-2 is to listen, and this is only possibly in certain areas if you practice EMCON or do not emit at all. You do not emit irresponsibly and give away the likely location of a CVN.
                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                    Comment


                      #30
                      for listening, low rcs UAV makes perfect sense,
                      anyway not having the aew active is also risky biz,
                      once within striking range, i'd rather have the E-2 active

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Airbus thinks Tanan is good for the UK:

                        http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ential-408126/

                        Comment


                          #32
                          A bit bigger than the Camcopter S-100 or SAAB Skeldar, but in the same class.
                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                          Justinian

                          Comment


                            #33
                            The UK’s primary air traffic management provider has signed a safety agreement with an unmanned air vehicle trade association to promote the safe use of small UAVs in UK airspace.

                            http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ership-408314/

                            Comment


                              #34
                              The Secret Service is working on measures to neutralize future drone endeavors on the White House grounds. Currently, the agency has shown it cannot deal with small flying objects penetrating into the secured territory.

                              http://sputniknews.com/military/2015...017411533.html

                              Comment


                                #35
                                The French government and its ANR national research agency are looking for technology that would be used to prevent unmanned air vehicles flying over nuclear facilities, bids for which need to be submitted by 2 February.

                                http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-sites-408434/

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Photographs emerged on social media websites on 27 January showing a CASC CH-3 (or improved CH-3A) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that had purportedly crashed in the northeastern Nigerian state of Borno.

                                  http://www.janes.com/article/48373/s...-3-uav-crashes

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    So, do we think UCLASS as we know it is dead?

                                    http://news.usni.org/2015/02/02/navy...quest-proposal

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by mrmalaya View Post
                                      So, do we think UCLASS as we know it is dead?

                                      http://news.usni.org/2015/02/02/navy...quest-proposal
                                      I got this feeling as well, but after speaking to a few folks who are following it very very closely I got the impression that neither side is willing to give in so they have decided to duel it out some more. Obviously the Navy wants something that it can afford to develop and procure without jeopardizing other programs while others (including Bob Work) want it to be a broader player in overall force projection.
                                      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        USN is throwing money at too many projects: LCS, P-8, F-35, MH-53K, DDG-1000, and a new missile sub. Something has to fall off the table, budget-wise.

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          Not only that, if this thing begins to compete with R&D funding for things like EMRG, lasers etc the USN is likely to support those over the UCLASS. This may be important if the larger, more capable and stealthy vehicle comes out of the review. You could very easily double the project cost form 6 to 12 Billion if you keep adding capability. They may just keep delaying it until the next administration and have it decide on the increase in spending.
                                          Last edited by bring_it_on; 3rd February 2015, 16:32.
                                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X