UAVs

[hoover]

Just heard an interesting story on NPR about UAVs in Iraq. Apparently their usage is becoming becoming more and more common. Apparently it would have been a UAV that took out the number two guy just recently, but there was some kind of technical glitch and they had to call in an F16 to do it.

So what do you think? Will UAVs replace fighters and bombers eventually? Or will they just be used in certain situations.

 

[NewmanF16]

Yes, unfortunately. The JSF is probably the last manned fighter...if it IS manned...

 

[tomgoodman]

UAV encroachment

So what do you think? Will UAVs replace fighters and bombers eventually? Or will they just be used in certain situations.

"Eventually" could be a long time, but my guess is recon missions first, then bombing, then air defense, and finally close air support (but the ground troops will want some kind of local control for that one). And you would still need some manned aircraft for "contingencies".

 

[mzaharis]

A Predator popping off a Hellfire (probably the mission you are discussing) is a pretty simple start. Here are a couple of things that are being worked on right now . . .

The X-45 and X-47 were the USAF's candidates for their Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems project, which was cancelled last year. The USN then picked up the X-47 as a Carrier-based demonstrator in their UCAS-D project (they've been doing hands-off approaches with an F/A-18Fto develop the techniques), and the press is reporting that the X-45 project is "going black". The USAF's status is that they dumped the J-UCAS to do a manned bomber instead, but many industry watchers don't believe that they've given up altogether.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/08/us-air-force-ucavs---fade-to-black.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2007/08/the-x45n-is-dead-long-live-the.html
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/index.html

X-45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-45

X-47
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/systems/nucasx47b.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/UCAS08027.xml#
A bit dated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-47

F/A-18F Autonomous Carrier Landings
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...nstrates Unpiloted Approaches&channel=defense

 

[bssthound]

It's probably in the cards for my squadron's mission, Hurricane Reconnaissance, to be taken over by UAVs. I've not seen anything on the near horizon but more than a few of us think it's inevitable.

 

[AC560]

I heard it was happening right after they get rid of all the NDB's in the US....

 

[mzaharis]

It's probably in the cards for my squadron's mission, Hurricane Reconnaissance, to be taken over by UAVs. I've not seen anything on the near horizon but more than a few of us think it's inevitable.

What would they replace the WC-130s with? I suspect the Global Hawks are not rugged enough, and have too low a wing loading. An X-45/47 probably wouldn't have enough payload capability, and wouldn't be a good loiterer. You might be spared by the fact that noone is developing a UAV for a role that provides comparable capabilities to your WC-130 (yet, anyway, in the non-secret world).

 

[dtfl]

What would they replace the WC-130s with? I suspect the Global Hawks are not rugged enough, and have too low a wing loading. An X-45/47 probably wouldn't have enough payload capability, and wouldn't be a good loiterer. You might be spared by the fact that noone is developing a UAV for a role that provides comparable capabilities to your WC-130 (yet, anyway, in the non-secret world).

With these?

http://uas.noaa.gov/

or

http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_tropical_storm.htm

 

[mzaharis]

With these?

http://uas.noaa.gov/

or

http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_tropical_storm.htm

The first one looks like an Altair (a civilian MQ-9 Reaper) - I wonder how one would fare in the eye wall of a hurricane with those long, low-loaded wings (wing loading about 1/5 that of a WC-130). The next one, using micro-UAVs, is an interesting paradigm shift (a large number of small UAVs instead of one or a few large aircraft). It appears that they've already been flown into tropical storms according to the link, so they should be rugged enough. I wonder if those UAVs would replace the WC-130 and WP-3, or be complementary to them. They are 20-30lb aircraft, though, so there are many types of instrumentation they wouldn't be able to carry.

Actually, there is a potential UAV that might be large enough to serve as a nearly direct replacement - an unmanned Gulfstream G550. Boeing is developing an "optionally manned" G550 for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) project. That would be able to carry payloads in the thousands of pounds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/18/214658/picture-boeing-unveils-bams-g550.html

From the blog of one of "Flight International's" reporters:

http://thedewline.typepad.com/stephen_trimble/2007/06/paul_richfields.html

 

[bssthound]

From dtfl's 2nd link:

The Aerosonde UAV provided the first-ever detailed observations of the near-surface, high wind hurricane environment, an area often too dangerous for NOAA and U.S. Air Force Reserve manned aircraft to observe directly.

As a general rule, we fly hurricanes at 10,000', and Tropical Storms at 5,000'. Both are millibar levels. We release dropsondes that gather data between the acft and the surface. The Hurricane Center is most concerned with surface data because that's what affects the folks where the storm landfalls. UAVs could collect a lot more low level data since they fly much lower than we. We're also limited to a 16 hr duty day. If the storm moves differently than forecast, or we pick up and go to the spare acft, the back end of our mission is usually impacted. Not good, especially if we're flying a landfalling hurricane. Much mo' better to have a UAV that can stay aloft a lot longer and that doesn't have to land to disgorge/engulf crewdogs. Speaking of crewdogs, it'll probably require 2, rather than the 5 on the WC-130. Probably a LOT less MX required, also. I have no doubt it's only a matter of time, if it ain't already happened, before there's a WX UAV that can stay aloft a lot longer than the 13.5 or so we can get at our upper limit, gets better data, and costs a lot less to operate. Just my $.02.

 

[pkober]

I never liked being beak to beak (or in my aiplanes case, round bulbus (sp.) nose) with those armed Predators on the taxiways in Afghanistan.

It's the wave of the future and it's gonna happen.

 

[hoover]

What kind of endurance does a UAV have? I assume you can't air refuel a remote flown vehicle.

 

[mzaharis]

Actually, people are working on autonomous aerial refuelling for UAVs.

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123013012
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA455631
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMGNC05_1089/PV2005_5866.pdf

Still, a Global Hawk's listed endurance is 35 hours, an MQ-1 Predator is over 24 hours, and an MQ-9 Reaper (previously referred to as the Predator B) is 30+.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=175
http://www.ga-asi.com/products/predator_b.php
http://www.ga-asi.com/products/predator.php

 

[anotherF16pilot]

I can't wait to fly UAVs. That's going to be SO awesome! The on station time is unbelievable and the turn radius is phenominal. But I'll still use piddle packs 'cause that's just plain fun right there.

 

[AlbieF15]

I'd fly the darn things as a TG. My back won't let me fly F-15s, but if an over 40 O-5 can still help the war effort by training folks, monitoring the AOR, or schwacking the occasional vehicle then I'd be proud to serve.

Kill a raghead terrorist then stop and pick the kids up a barbie from Walmart on the way home from work. Yeah...I'd rather do BFM...but those days are gone. So how can I help?

 

[dtfl]

From dtfl's 2nd link:

As a general rule, we fly hurricanes at 10,000', and Tropical Storms at 5,000'. Both are millibar levels. We release dropsondes that gather data between the acft and the surface. The Hurricane Center is most concerned with surface data because that's what affects the folks where the storm landfalls. UAVs could collect a lot more low level data since they fly much lower than we. We're also limited to a 16 hr duty day. If the storm moves differently than forecast, or we pick up and go to the spare acft, the back end of our mission is usually impacted. Not good, especially if we're flying a landfalling hurricane. Much mo' better to have a UAV that can stay aloft a lot longer and that doesn't have to land to disgorge/engulf crewdogs. Speaking of crewdogs, it'll probably require 2, rather than the 5 on the WC-130. Probably a LOT less MX required, also. I have no doubt it's only a matter of time, if it ain't already happened, before there's a WX UAV that can stay aloft a lot longer than the 13.5 or so we can get at our upper limit, gets better data, and costs a lot less to operate. Just my $.02.

The only problem with a UAV WX bird is...there goes the good looking ARWO.....well..all 2 or 3 of them.

 

[Gorilla]

:bawling:

I never thought I'd see it. It makes me sad. An era is passing into history.

 

[mzaharis]

:bawling:

I never thought I'd see it. It makes me sad. An era is passing into history.

Don't shed tears just yet!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:8a4530dd-5363-4c56-b3ba-166bee04ab59


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

UAVs are not the final answer, says the officer. "The problem is high persistence and small loads. They carry four weapons and will use the first four in 30 minutes in response to troops in contact. What do you do in the next 22 hours?" An aircraft like the Su-25, he points out, "can carry a shedload, get back on the ground and rearm in no time flat."

[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]By the way, isn't an A-10 like that ([FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]carry a shedload, get back on the ground and rearm in no time flat[/FONT][/FONT])?[/FONT][/FONT]