Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCAV/UAV/UAS News and discussion 2015

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by matt View Post
    i have not found a purpose build UAV for CAS. Could you give a example? I don't mean the types of drones troops would carry for close surveillance but the kind that could do something a gunship, or an A-10 or su25
    What does CAS stand for, Close Air Support. CAS doesn't stand for ground attack only delivered by a gunship or A-10 or Su-25. The guys on the ground don't care where the bomb or rocket or shell or bullet comes from. They care that it is there. As for purpose built CAS UAVs, any armed UAV has the potential to do that.

    As an example "The MQ-9 carries a variety of weapons including the GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder,[16] and the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition)."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...cs_MQ-9_Reaper

    That is more than enough to support ground troops and also given that the MQ-9 can be available for CAS for extremely long durations these are perfect platforms.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Ozair View Post
      What does CAS stand for, Close Air Support. CAS doesn't stand for ground attack only delivered by a gunship or A-10 or Su-25. The guys on the ground don't care where the bomb or rocket or shell or bullet comes from. They care that it is there. As for purpose built CAS UAVs, any armed UAV has the potential to do that.

      As an example "The MQ-9 carries a variety of weapons including the GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder,[16] and the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition)."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...cs_MQ-9_Reaper

      That is more than enough to support ground troops and also given that the MQ-9 can be available for CAS for extremely long durations these are perfect platforms.
      Things are a bit more complex. Yes, Time on station is a great advantage for CAS. However, time to station is a huge problem. When you have a TIC, as JTAC, you expect a quick reaction from air assets. Another problem is versatility. Hard, eg., to ask for a show of force from a UCAV. I do not know any UCAV capable of strifing a place. Finally, there are a lot of disambiguation (visual generally) work to do in intricated situations. So if UCAV can be an interesting asset, it still lacks many capabilities to make of them an "ideal" CAS platform.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Ozair View Post
        What does CAS stand for, Close Air Support. CAS doesn't stand for ground attack only delivered by a gunship or A-10 or Su-25. The guys on the ground don't care where the bomb or rocket or shell or bullet comes from. They care that it is there. As for purpose built CAS UAVs, any armed UAV has the potential to do that.

        As an example "The MQ-9 carries a variety of weapons including the GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder,[16] and the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition)."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...cs_MQ-9_Reaper

        That is more than enough to support ground troops and also given that the MQ-9 can be available for CAS for extremely long durations these are perfect platforms.
        MQ-9 may be able to play a role for CAS but that's not the same as a CAS UCAV and that is still only 1 UCAV.
        Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

        Comment


          Originally posted by halloweene View Post
          Things are a bit more complex. Yes, Time on station is a great advantage for CAS. However, time to station is a huge problem. When you have a TIC, as JTAC, you expect a quick reaction from air assets. Another problem is versatility. Hard, eg., to ask for a show of force from a UCAV. I do not know any UCAV capable of strifing a place. Finally, there are a lot of disambiguation (visual generally) work to do in intricated situations. So if UCAV can be an interesting asset, it still lacks many capabilities to make of them an "ideal" CAS platform.
          Send good points thank you very much. Differentiating friend or foe for ground troops would be very important.
          Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

          Comment


            time to station is dealt with Ucav relying on their far greater endurance to fly orbits that puts them at short range of any zone of operation allowing them to be in sight in minutes. Several orbits are usually flown 24/24 covering most of expected needs in theater. Those orbits are specifically what structures the OP requirements and not directly the nbr of airframe.
            CAS is now a combination of resources (drones, fast jet, helo, orbiting bomber, gunship). The show of force and gun passes do great but defining your response around that would cut you off of many possibilities of response with only minutes of air support available per day. There are now no centralized point of op like it would have been in a cold war conflict. Resources are disseminated all over the globe and you can't simply sustain aerial coverage just with flights of fast jet patrolling in the vicinity of the FLOT waiting to be called. Forward basing proved also to be insufficient or more strictly inadequate with the expected sustainable losses by the public (you can see here that there are rooms for variability in response and not all countries will sustain the same effort).
            So no dedicated ucav for cas as the needs are covered with a variety of platforms but a variety of CAS effort in many drone design: from pure ISR (Shadow) to engagement of target of opportunity (predatoa/ShadowII) or TiC situation (Reaper) for example.
            Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th January 2017, 21:47.

            Comment


              For the second time, Tehran AAA opens fire after small drone

              “There is nothing to worry about,” Alireza Elhami, the deputy commander of Iran’s air defense organization, told the semiofficial Fars news agency. “A very light camera drone entered the no-fly zone. It left after the first shot.”
              Also

              "We do not know yet who it belonged to," he added.

              A commander in Iran's air defense forces, Alireza Elhami, told Tasnim news that the drone was a quadcopter that left the area after the warning shots.

              Quadcopter are non-military drones, usually used for filming.
              Source:
              The NewYork Times

              Reuters.com via Yahoo.com
              Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th January 2017, 22:28.

              Comment


                Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                time to station is dealt with Ucav relying on their far greater endurance to fly orbits that puts them at short range of any zone of operation allowing them to be in sight in minutes. Several orbits are usually flown 24/24 covering most of expected needs in theater. Those orbits are specifically what structures the OP requirements and not directly the nbr of airframe.
                CAS is now a combination of resources (drones, fast jet, helo, orbiting bomber, gunship). The show of force and gun passes do great but defining your response around that would cut you off of many possibilities of response with only minutes of air support available per day. There are now no centralized point of op like it would have been in a cold war conflict. Resources are disseminated all over the globe and you can't simply sustain aerial coverage just with flights of fast jet patrolling in the vicinity of the FLOT waiting to be called. Forward basing proved also to be insufficient or more strictly inadequate with the expected sustainable losses by the public (you can see here that there are rooms for variability in response and not all countries will sustain the same effort).
                So no dedicated ucav for cas as the needs are covered with a variety of platforms but a variety of CAS effort in many drone design: from pure ISR (Shadow) to engagement of target of opportunity (predatoa/ShadowII) or TiC situation (Reaper) for example.
                I did not say drones were useless. I just pointed they were not silver bullets. bCAS is a subject i know fairly well

                Comment


                  Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                  Things are a bit more complex. Yes, Time on station is a great advantage for CAS. However, time to station is a huge problem. When you have a TIC, as JTAC, you expect a quick reaction from air assets. Another problem is versatility. Hard, eg., to ask for a show of force from a UCAV. I do not know any UCAV capable of strifing a place. Finally, there are a lot of disambiguation (visual generally) work to do in intricated situations. So if UCAV can be an interesting asset, it still lacks many capabilities to make of them an "ideal" CAS platform.
                  TICs require support in different ways and frankly every TIC is different. The question was not whether the UAV is an ideal CAS platform but whether one was available that was designed for CAS. MY argument is there is no ideal CAS UAV, just like there is no ideal CAS aircraft. All have strengths and weaknesses. A good ATO will planner will ensure that various assets with different capabilities are available for support. We also get coloured by CAS experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. CAS support at the end of Vietnam showed clearly the type of aircraft that were required in an environment where the AAA threat was significant enough that CAS aircraft stopped going below 10kft.

                  A significant UAV limitation for CAS is weather, UAVs do not function in adverse weather well at all, they long thin wings are not designed for high wind for instance.

                  Correspondingly UAVs are great for situational awareness and identifying enemy and friendly troops. The UAV is controlled by a pilot but also has a payload operator and in most western nations has intelligence/imagery analysts present as well. A manned CAS aircraft does not have that expertise to call upon.

                  Originally posted by matt View Post
                  MQ-9 may be able to play a role for CAS but that's not the same as a CAS UCAV and that is still only 1 UCAV.
                  I’m not claiming that the MQ-9 is the best or only UAV capable of CAS, what I am claiming is that it can conduct CAS, simple as that, as can pretty much any armed UAV with a decent sensor. There is no “designed for CAS” UAV because there is no requirement for it.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                    TICs require support in different ways and frankly every TIC is different. The question was not whether the UAV is an ideal CAS platform but whether one was available that was designed for CAS. MY argument is there is no ideal CAS UAV, just like there is no ideal CAS aircraft. All have strengths and weaknesses. A good ATO will planner will ensure that various assets with different capabilities are available for support. We also get coloured by CAS experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. CAS support at the end of Vietnam showed clearly the type of aircraft that were required in an environment where the AAA threat was significant enough that CAS aircraft stopped going below 10kft.

                    A significant UAV limitation for CAS is weather, UAVs do not function in adverse weather well at all, they long thin wings are not designed for high wind for instance.

                    Correspondingly UAVs are great for situational awareness and identifying enemy and friendly troops. The UAV is controlled by a pilot but also has a payload operator and in most western nations has intelligence/imagery analysts present as well. A manned CAS aircraft does not have that expertise to call upon.


                    Im not claiming that the MQ-9 is the best or only UAV capable of CAS, what I am claiming is that it can conduct CAS, simple as that, as can pretty much any armed UAV with a decent sensor. There is no designed for CAS UAV because there is no requirement for it.
                    I understand your points, and also understand that CAS UCAV means different things depending on the battlefield and need of the day/time. The MQ9 is great for loitering over deserts and open terrain providing support through hellfires as needed. I was merely asking if people were developing UCAV specifically for CAS which does not mean I don't think the mQ9 can do CAS just that I think it was a role it was asked to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. UCAVs don't need to have thin wings etc. etc. Those are a remnant of their original roles. The terranis, nueron and x47 all are delta tailless aircraft. The mq8 fires scout is a helicopter. None of those were designed for close air support from outset.
                    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

                    Comment


                      I generally agree with you, but.

                      Correspondingly UAVs are great for situational awareness and identifying enemy and friendly troops. The UAV is controlled by a pilot but also has a payload operator and in most western nations has intelligence/imagery analysts present as well. A manned CAS aircraft does not have that expertise to call upon.
                      (i) Quite often JTACs (or NATO FACs for instance) prefer two seaters for the very reasons you gave. Backseater is of great help in awareness.
                      (ii) New generation pods (at least some have a dedicated datalink allowing real time image transmissions.

                      PS it is nice to have a civil constructive discussion here!

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                        I generally agree with you, but.


                        (i) Quite often JTACs (or NATO FACs for instance) prefer two seaters for the very reasons you gave. Backseater is of great help in awareness.
                        If we look at the tactical fleets of most air forces there are a far smaller number of two seaters available though.


                        Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                        (ii) New generation pods (at least some have a dedicated datalink allowing real time image transmissions.
                        Agree although most of the UAVS used in IRQ/AFG also have the capability to stream data to troops directly as well as home base. For example even a small unit like Scan Eagle was capable of this in 2004.
                        Enabled by Harris Corporation's National Security Agency-approved Type 1 classified SecNet-11Plus technology in ScanEagle's avionics bay, streaming video and voice-over IP communication was sent from a ground control station over a secure high-bandwidth network to ScanEagle 18 miles away. The data was then instantaneously relayed to ground personnel six miles from the UAV.
                        http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2004-12-...ess-Technology

                        Comment


                          Yes, drones, aircrafts, boots integration for CAS is somewhere a model for integrated battlenet. One of the fastest moving areas.

                          Comment


                            Virginia start-up sets endurance record for small UAV

                            Comment


                              Turkey’s First Armed Anka Drone To Be Delivered in 2017

                              Comment


                                The US Army Wants a Missile Filled With Drones

                                Comment


                                  The Army wants to use this giant drone to resupply soldiers

                                  Comment


                                    Hero 30 on target for June live-fire test

                                    Comment


                                      ISIS Propaganda Video Shows Predator-Like Drone Dropping Bombs

                                      Comment


                                        Except it looks nothing like a Predator and is unlikely to be capable of carrying a weapon, but yes otherwise a totally valid story.

                                        Comment


                                          ISIS Advancing Fast in Trojan Horse Use of Low-Tech Drones

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X