Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
It certainly is! With what looks like two vertical thrust ducts on the wings just ahead of the landing gear.
You can imagine an Advent engine with the spool driving a pair of RR LiftFans on that thing.
Edit: And “Various” projects in the pipeline to boot.
(Incidentally, had trouble with the embedded player loading above, had to skip to YouTube directly for the video.)
Tubby
Is anyone else having problems loading the video in this posting?
The Other Chris
@Tubby
Try the link in my comment in the meantime.
Tubby
Thank’s Other Chris,
I had tried finding the video on YouTube myself, but got sidetracked – I was having a great time looking at video’s of FRES SV, then other armoured vehicles, ending with the BAE Alligator.
The VTOL UCAV appears to be the Lockhead Martin VARIOUS UCAV which I think is still in the on paper only stage.
Thought they were Shermans myself. Nice idea on the VTOL UCAV, but a little ambitious. Vid works fine for me through YouTube.
The Other Chris
It’s this kind of ambition that the UK should be looking towards BAE and Dassault to achieve, not leaving us with buying in an LM system.
Given that we’ll be operating F-35B’s for the next few decades, consider the amount of experience with VTOL, STOVL and SRVL deck operations that the RN have the opportunity to continue building.
Also consider the rapidly narrowing performance gap of VTOL and CTOL aircraft over the years. Soon they’ll achieve complete parity, or near enough to it to not matter.
martin
VTOL UCAV seems like it could have great export potential given the difficulty in replicating it and the ability to fly of the back of anyones ship. It could be extremley useful for troops in the front line not having to catapult something or having a landing strip.
I agree with the other Chris that our UCAV work should focus on this.
Tubby
Personally I wished we had kept our Harriers and used the airframes as a basis of VTOL UCAV demonstrator programme – if we can turn Gazelle’s into UAV’s (albeit using the in control systems of Firescout) I cannot see why we could not have turned our Harrier’s into UCAV’s
Waddi
The thing with UAVs is that once the first generation has been developed or more specifically once the software has been written then they can evolve very quickly. The hardware is almost a “parts-bin” job as engines, landing gear, sensors, lift fans etc. can be taken almost off the shelf and fitted into a custom airframe. It is the software, flight control, anti avoidance, comms that are the current barriers. But once the first UCAVs have proven the software there is no reason for the floodgates not to open. This concept is more than feasible, it looks small, could easily use a Pegasus. Qinetic is already working on automated landing for F35B using a Harrier testbed,just takes the will and a market. In my view BAE should move rapidly on from Taranis to something like this, then we could fly it off the carriers or even a Bay/T45.
Swimming Trunks
@ Tubby – I thought the same thing myself, at least use some for development prototypes, etc.
@ TD – Romney’s campaign team keep mentioning the Soviet threat… perhaps its not Nazis from space we should be worried about but Stalin returning from the dead?
Mike
Harrier VTOL UAV? Dont get too excited, a bit beyond our tech for now… and you forget how complicated it was even for a human to pilot, these are just graphics.
But I agree with the ‘its worth our attention’ tag, the UK even more so…
Hannay
What does an unmanned VTOL vehicle give us over JSF? What would such a vehicle actually do?
The two major roles postulated for UCAS are strike and persistent ISR. To offer any advantage of JSF in the strike role, the RF and IR signatures need to be very small – leading to a vehicle shape that’s pretty much completely incompatible with VTOL. For persistent ISR, the mass and volume of the VTOL system makes this impossible.
Why pour money into something that JSF can already do? Sure, the whole life costs will be higher per unit for JSF, but that’s got to be compared against the billions we’d have to spend on R&D for a VTOL UCAS.
mmoomin
@Mike. It’s the complete opposite. It was and is difficult for a human being because of the sheer amount of input that has to be managed and reacted to. DSP’s are made for this sort of application.
A computer can react way way quicker than a human being interacting with a mechanical system and then having to convert that to electrical impulses. As it is the F35B landing software will be doing most of if not all of the work for the pilot. He moves the joystick then the plane’s systems will monitor what’s actually happening to acheive what the pilot wants. Instead of the pilot having to monitor everything in XYZ and micro manage the whole thing a CPU will be doing it. It’s actually the next logical step.
Mark
A VTOL uav never! There were those on another thread adamant we needed converted ships cause these would never interest the US and therefore exist
Now the reality check posted this elsewhere but interesting
If its me the KMAX uav tech is were id be investing my money
mmoomin
Why oh why oh why do UK and US defense contractors (more accurately the expensive overpaid marketing consultants) have to score promotional videos with thumping techno or screaming electric guitars. At this point I reckon Ride of the Valkries or I don’t know the Dam Busters would be a nice change.
The Other Chris
“What does an unmanned VTOL vehicle give us over JSF?”
Quite literally, Range and Endurance.
Taranis, although CTOL, is an inter-continental concept for instance. You save a huge amount of weight in life support and cockpit equipment, plus you can think in terms of multi-hour missions well beyond the effective alertness of a flesh and blood pilot when designing your bird.
Just look at the murmurs from the the time of the unveiling. It was certainly a statement of intent: Black Buck style reach with GPS enhanced TLAM style precision.
Was the nuclear option for Storm Shadow ever dropped?
Mark
The other Chris
Between now and the end of time a Uav will never carry a nuke.
It has to carry enough weapons or the multi hour missions become recon only after the first few hours.
As for crew you’ll prob need more for a Uav than manned jet. The airframe will be more expensive than a manned jet so the cost saving is buy fewer train less.
x
Can’t we just put a floatation device into a missile? If it fails to engage into the ogin it goes. And off goes the rotary UAV to recover it.
The Other Chris
The airframe will be, and are currently, considerably cheaper than peer aircraft, pilots pose a considerable design challenge.
Multiple aerial refuelling’s will occur on a long range mission.
Yes, more crew will be involved. That is an advantage as not only can you rotate your remote pilots, you can bring in fresh specialists for the different stages of the mission.
You also only need quality pilots. You don’t need quality pilots that also need to pass a G strain breathing test. Veterans, experienced pilots who failed a medical. All available.
Also consider software capability. General avoidance will be built in (Reference: anti-ship missiles on terminal approach, civil airspace avoidance) however dogfighting is a long way off. Initial designs will be Strike Packages, we’re not talking about 9G frames here.
As for nuclear weapons on a drone? I’ll raise a hopeful eyebrow and hope my 4 month old son can look back in his old age and say you were right.
The Other Chris
@x
Heh heh, another reason for SAR helicopters hangared on board!
Mark
The other Chris
I would disagree on the cost. Manned a/c are available at considerably cheaper cost than uavs doing effectively the same mission above tactical desert hawk level. I would also suggest airframe cost is only an element of Uav cost in order to fly a mission.
If your doing strike missions in contested airspace then a level of AI will be required.
the ucav price the mod were quoting a couple of years ago was in the order of 200m each.
The Other Chris
I can well imagine, that will be the full amortisation cost of each complete unit to cover the development and build costs of the encompassing system with support network.
Simon
Mark,
Why would a UAV (which should be smaller with less equipment) cost more than an F35, for example?
I can only really think of the satellite infrastructure that is really needed for long-range operation that would be expensive?
mmoomin
@Mark why would there be more crew? At most wouldn’t you have the ‘pilot’(and do you really need to have an expensive pilot instead of an SNCO?)/operator and a weapons officer. Why would you need all the other people that a surveillance UAV requires? Not sure I understand why the airframe is more expensive either. I can see that the software/firmware/sensor (not platform sensors) costs potentially are higher because the software and firmware potentially becomes an order of magnitude more complex. Even then surely that comes down to how complex your ground flight control computer is and the corresponding systems on board the aircraft, what if the operator issues a flight command which is effectively go to this coordinate, instead of actually flying it there. So you don’t have a really complex set of commands constantly going over a datalink, thus actually simplifying things?
But the airframe itself I don’t see why that is more expensive in comparison to an equivalent manned jet?
Topman
@ mmoomin
‘why would there be more crew?’
Because of the time they are in the air. Some can stay up for 24 hours that means a lot of crew.
‘Why would you need all the other people that a surveillance UAV requires?’
Who are you thinking of?
mmoomin
What I meant was I don’t see why the ground crew (as in the actual ground crew) would be any different for a UCAV or manned combat aircraft.
My understanding of MALE’s etc is that depending upon the sensors available you have your various specialists that do various things and the command level aspect of what the aircraft is doing/being used for. Why would a UCAV be doing those sort of tasks, surely it’s a strike asset not a persistent endurance vehicle thus why does it need those extra bums?
Topman
‘What I meant was I don’t see why the ground crew would be any different for a UCAV or manned combat aircraft. ‘
You mean different in terms of numbers? Not the g/crew per se, but you do need more support manpower on a Sqn than for manned aircraft. Mostly in the sat comms/data link stuff. It’s a lot more than most people think.
‘My understanding of MALE’s..’
All that sort of thing is still on the drawing. Near impossible to work out how it’s used and manned operationally.
Mark
Reaper is roughly the same size as modern jet fighter. Global hawk is getting on for civil regional a/c size. The propulsion system,Avionics and software are the most expensive part of any a/c. To look at a uav of fighter capability for anti access all weather capability then you will need several orders of magnitude above what we have now in software coding and sensor integration. On top of that is totally secure redundant data link capability which is jam resistant that will all be very expensive.
As for the crew adding to topmans points for the satellite controlled jet you need ground stations and crews to land the uav and another crew at a different location to fly the mission. The only real benefit of UAVs is endurance which in certain missions is important.
As for paying pilots well if as at present they require CAA pilot qualifications to fly a uav then you either pay the pilot regardless of rank the going rate or they quickly leave and join a civil airline and actually go flying.
mmoomin
But that was sort of one of my points, If you’re actually ‘flying’ the UAV then I can see why you would need a pilot, another bloke to land it and so on. But if you were ‘operating’ it instead of flying it then why do you need the training burden of a qualified actual pilot twiddling his thumbs? Do UAV’s have to operate in mixed airspace? Will they always need a CAA certified pilot? I’m not convinced that will always be the case.
Taking it further do you really need to have pilot to land it. Given that we are discussing a VTOL uav and in effect s/w already exists to control the landing with the pilot another step removed why not go the whole hog and have the operator sat in your ground station say ‘land’ here and have the UAV sort itself out?
In other words eventually it becomes less about the pilot flying the big fast pointy stick and more about delivering the ordinance accurately to where it needs to go. I mean the weaponry is ‘smart’ now anyway.
Mark
mmoonin if its civil airspace then for some time to come yes. Were is not mixed airspace? uav operations in afghan has uavs operating with fix winged planes and heliocpters and a few have even crashed into said manned aircraft. Again less pilot input the more artificial intelligence required which drives the cost of the air vehicle up.
Yes on landing it could be automated but then thats more software and electronics both at the airfield and in the plane.
Global hawk is the closest to what you describe currently flying and nato are paying 3.7b dollars to buy 5 air vehicles and operate them for 20 years.
Topman
@ mmommin
I’m not sure what you class as the difference between ‘flying’ and ‘operating’ ?
‘Will they always need a CAA certified pilot?’
As they become more complex and expensive, I’d say it’s hard to to see anything else.
‘ Given that we are discussing a VTOL uav and in effect s/w already exists to control the landing with the pilot another step removed why not go the whole hog and have the operator sat in your ground station say ‘land’ here and have the UAV sort itself out?’
It might well happen but it’s systems like this that adds cost on which goes back to the original point about them costing more.
mmoomin
All that being said I can see the point of tactical UAVs, MALE UAVs and something like Global Hawk for maritime patrol/surveillance. I’m just not convinced about UCAV’s.
mmoomin
@Topman. Flying as in flying, Operating as in instructing a UAV to go to way point a, b and so on, eg it flying a route autonomously.
Topman
Well a/c have autopilots… but I’m not sure the line is so defined, and without getting further into it, or that it could be. It can also be different between countries with things like terminology.
Simon
Five GlobalHawk for £2.5b? £500m each!
I’m in the wrong job! What does that buy? Satellite comms bandwidth for 20 years? I hope so!
It’s not even close to being worth it.
Aussie Johnno
Mmoomin, the problem with all UAV’s is that they are fancy radio controlled aircraft. The weak point with current and likely UAV’s is that they can either carry out a limited preplanned sortie on auto pilot or you have to have to have a two way datalink which effectively ties the UAV to the capacity and capability of the data link.
It is very noticable that UAV’s are never seen operating in numbers. Simply because of the bandwidth required to handle video and control and it will take a quantum advance in software to change this.
UAV’s are a worthwile specialist asset but a lot of big aerospace companies are trying to make a meal out of them.
It is interesting that the current successful UAV’s have all come from smaller companies not the aerospace majors. Maybe the big companies cannot think cheap and expendable.
Simon
Looks like $1.7b for five Global-Hawks so I can relax a little.
Was that a typo Mark or is there something to add on to the project?
Simon
Aussie Johnno,
Agreed. Bandwidth is always going to be a problem. Especially with radar telemetry. Humans have this knack of looking at a picture and saying “hey, I think they’re amassing a couple of tank battalions at grid reference blah”. That can be coded into a tweet or SMS packet. The radar image would be orders of magnitude larger.
This creates an interesting split between requirement and practicality. On one hand you have the ability to launch a UAV, collect data, come back, dock/download, and post-analyse terabytes of info. This requires speed to station and lots of UAVs to provide a conveyor belt of intel. On the other hand you have the ability to launch a UAV, collect data, transmit only a fraction of what you could actually see if you were up there, loiter for days and have a small squadron of these things.
Nether are much use on their own, but both together is probably enough. Interesting that the first option is not being explored. Perhaps the data latency is too high?
The Other Chris
@Simon
$1.7b over 20 years is $85m per year for the whole fleet.
Looked at that way, it’s not that expensive!
Mark
No typo 1.7b to purchase a/c. 2b for 20 year operation.
@ Ali – Very interesting. Doesn’t the same go for the F-35? It is designed to use its stealth and ISTAR sensors to detect and engage enemy planes before they can engage it?
Mycoman
Where, I think, UAVs will appeal to bean counters is that they don’t need to fly at all, until they’re actually used operationally. A few will be needed, to keep ground crews up to scratch but most can be mothballed, while the operators practice on computers.
NASA’s Curiosity rover is giving loads of food for thought on the possibilities and advantages of unmanned operations….
Ali
@ ST
That’s exactly what I thought about when I was reading the article. An interesting point was made about a busy air space and how that can affect BVR missiles.
Now this can be open to anyone but would saying the concentration on long-range warfare within air power has similarities with the systems being used around the time of Vietnam. I seem to remember the USAF were concentrating on longer-ranged missiles but the experiences in Vietnam showed that skills in dog fighting and having the aircraft equipped for this was very dependent on its survival?
Waddi
One of the key advantages of future UCAVs will be that they don’t carry the soft pink squashy thing up front. Any fighter is ultimately restricted by how much G the pilot can take, essentially modern fighters can turn faster and sharper than the human body can take. Future (I must stress that we are not there yet and wont be for a while) UCAVs will ultimately win dog-fighting battles as well. They will be smaller and lighter than 5G fighters and cheaper as well, no ejector seat etc. Bandwidth wont be a restriction as whilst current UAVs are just large remote control planes future ones will be self-flying with the base controller a monitor rather than a pilot. Massive investment globally is being made into the flight control software. Unlike building a 5G fighter all this development needs is a nerd with a PC barriers to entry to this high profit margin business are very low. The Israelis will probably get there first. The bandwidth will be needed for live video but that will be the same with an F35. This is all 20 years off but if you remember what your mobile phone was like 20 years ago?
SomewhatInvolved
I don’t like the design. If we’re going to build unmanned VTOL UCAV’s, lets do it properly and build this one!!
It certainly is! With what looks like two vertical thrust ducts on the wings just ahead of the landing gear.
You can imagine an Advent engine with the spool driving a pair of RR LiftFans on that thing.
Edit: And “Various” projects in the pipeline to boot.
(Incidentally, had trouble with the embedded player loading above, had to skip to YouTube directly for the video.)
Is anyone else having problems loading the video in this posting?
@Tubby
Try the link in my comment in the meantime.
Thank’s Other Chris,
I had tried finding the video on YouTube myself, but got sidetracked – I was having a great time looking at video’s of FRES SV, then other armoured vehicles, ending with the BAE Alligator.
The VTOL UCAV appears to be the Lockhead Martin VARIOUS UCAV which I think is still in the on paper only stage.
http://defense-update.com/products/v/various_ucav.htm
EDIT: Also on YouTube as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1fxDIIBRjE
Have updated the post, should be visible now
Do those enemy tanks look like T34′s to anyone?
Thought they were Shermans myself. Nice idea on the VTOL UCAV, but a little ambitious. Vid works fine for me through YouTube.
It’s this kind of ambition that the UK should be looking towards BAE and Dassault to achieve, not leaving us with buying in an LM system.
Given that we’ll be operating F-35B’s for the next few decades, consider the amount of experience with VTOL, STOVL and SRVL deck operations that the RN have the opportunity to continue building.
Also consider the rapidly narrowing performance gap of VTOL and CTOL aircraft over the years. Soon they’ll achieve complete parity, or near enough to it to not matter.
VTOL UCAV seems like it could have great export potential given the difficulty in replicating it and the ability to fly of the back of anyones ship. It could be extremley useful for troops in the front line not having to catapult something or having a landing strip.
I agree with the other Chris that our UCAV work should focus on this.
Personally I wished we had kept our Harriers and used the airframes as a basis of VTOL UCAV demonstrator programme – if we can turn Gazelle’s into UAV’s (albeit using the in control systems of Firescout) I cannot see why we could not have turned our Harrier’s into UCAV’s
The thing with UAVs is that once the first generation has been developed or more specifically once the software has been written then they can evolve very quickly. The hardware is almost a “parts-bin” job as engines, landing gear, sensors, lift fans etc. can be taken almost off the shelf and fitted into a custom airframe. It is the software, flight control, anti avoidance, comms that are the current barriers. But once the first UCAVs have proven the software there is no reason for the floodgates not to open. This concept is more than feasible, it looks small, could easily use a Pegasus. Qinetic is already working on automated landing for F35B using a Harrier testbed,just takes the will and a market. In my view BAE should move rapidly on from Taranis to something like this, then we could fly it off the carriers or even a Bay/T45.
@ Tubby – I thought the same thing myself, at least use some for development prototypes, etc.
@ TD – Romney’s campaign team keep mentioning the Soviet threat… perhaps its not Nazis from space we should be worried about but Stalin returning from the dead?
Harrier VTOL UAV? Dont get too excited, a bit beyond our tech for now… and you forget how complicated it was even for a human to pilot, these are just graphics.
But I agree with the ‘its worth our attention’ tag, the UK even more so…
What does an unmanned VTOL vehicle give us over JSF? What would such a vehicle actually do?
The two major roles postulated for UCAS are strike and persistent ISR. To offer any advantage of JSF in the strike role, the RF and IR signatures need to be very small – leading to a vehicle shape that’s pretty much completely incompatible with VTOL. For persistent ISR, the mass and volume of the VTOL system makes this impossible.
Why pour money into something that JSF can already do? Sure, the whole life costs will be higher per unit for JSF, but that’s got to be compared against the billions we’d have to spend on R&D for a VTOL UCAS.
@Mike. It’s the complete opposite. It was and is difficult for a human being because of the sheer amount of input that has to be managed and reacted to. DSP’s are made for this sort of application.
A computer can react way way quicker than a human being interacting with a mechanical system and then having to convert that to electrical impulses. As it is the F35B landing software will be doing most of if not all of the work for the pilot. He moves the joystick then the plane’s systems will monitor what’s actually happening to acheive what the pilot wants. Instead of the pilot having to monitor everything in XYZ and micro manage the whole thing a CPU will be doing it. It’s actually the next logical step.
A VTOL uav never! There were those on another thread adamant we needed converted ships cause these would never interest the US and therefore exist
Now the reality check posted this elsewhere but interesting
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/anti-accessarea-denial-challenges-give-manned-aircraft-edge-over-uavs-374745/
If its me the KMAX uav tech is were id be investing my money
Why oh why oh why do UK and US defense contractors (more accurately the expensive overpaid marketing consultants) have to score promotional videos with thumping techno or screaming electric guitars. At this point I reckon Ride of the Valkries or I don’t know the Dam Busters would be a nice change.
“What does an unmanned VTOL vehicle give us over JSF?”
Quite literally, Range and Endurance.
Taranis, although CTOL, is an inter-continental concept for instance. You save a huge amount of weight in life support and cockpit equipment, plus you can think in terms of multi-hour missions well beyond the effective alertness of a flesh and blood pilot when designing your bird.
Just look at the murmurs from the the time of the unveiling. It was certainly a statement of intent: Black Buck style reach with GPS enhanced TLAM style precision.
Was the nuclear option for Storm Shadow ever dropped?
The other Chris
Between now and the end of time a Uav will never carry a nuke.
It has to carry enough weapons or the multi hour missions become recon only after the first few hours.
As for crew you’ll prob need more for a Uav than manned jet. The airframe will be more expensive than a manned jet so the cost saving is buy fewer train less.
Can’t we just put a floatation device into a missile? If it fails to engage into the ogin it goes. And off goes the rotary UAV to recover it.
The airframe will be, and are currently, considerably cheaper than peer aircraft, pilots pose a considerable design challenge.
Multiple aerial refuelling’s will occur on a long range mission.
Yes, more crew will be involved. That is an advantage as not only can you rotate your remote pilots, you can bring in fresh specialists for the different stages of the mission.
You also only need quality pilots. You don’t need quality pilots that also need to pass a G strain breathing test. Veterans, experienced pilots who failed a medical. All available.
Also consider software capability. General avoidance will be built in (Reference: anti-ship missiles on terminal approach, civil airspace avoidance) however dogfighting is a long way off. Initial designs will be Strike Packages, we’re not talking about 9G frames here.
As for nuclear weapons on a drone? I’ll raise a hopeful eyebrow and hope my 4 month old son can look back in his old age and say you were right.
@x
Heh heh, another reason for SAR helicopters hangared on board!
The other Chris
I would disagree on the cost. Manned a/c are available at considerably cheaper cost than uavs doing effectively the same mission above tactical desert hawk level. I would also suggest airframe cost is only an element of Uav cost in order to fly a mission.
If your doing strike missions in contested airspace then a level of AI will be required.
the ucav price the mod were quoting a couple of years ago was in the order of 200m each.
I can well imagine, that will be the full amortisation cost of each complete unit to cover the development and build costs of the encompassing system with support network.
Mark,
Why would a UAV (which should be smaller with less equipment) cost more than an F35, for example?
I can only really think of the satellite infrastructure that is really needed for long-range operation that would be expensive?
@Mark why would there be more crew? At most wouldn’t you have the ‘pilot’(and do you really need to have an expensive pilot instead of an SNCO?)/operator and a weapons officer. Why would you need all the other people that a surveillance UAV requires? Not sure I understand why the airframe is more expensive either. I can see that the software/firmware/sensor (not platform sensors) costs potentially are higher because the software and firmware potentially becomes an order of magnitude more complex. Even then surely that comes down to how complex your ground flight control computer is and the corresponding systems on board the aircraft, what if the operator issues a flight command which is effectively go to this coordinate, instead of actually flying it there. So you don’t have a really complex set of commands constantly going over a datalink, thus actually simplifying things?
But the airframe itself I don’t see why that is more expensive in comparison to an equivalent manned jet?
@ mmoomin
‘why would there be more crew?’
Because of the time they are in the air. Some can stay up for 24 hours that means a lot of crew.
‘Why would you need all the other people that a surveillance UAV requires?’
Who are you thinking of?
What I meant was I don’t see why the ground crew (as in the actual ground crew) would be any different for a UCAV or manned combat aircraft.
My understanding of MALE’s etc is that depending upon the sensors available you have your various specialists that do various things and the command level aspect of what the aircraft is doing/being used for. Why would a UCAV be doing those sort of tasks, surely it’s a strike asset not a persistent endurance vehicle thus why does it need those extra bums?
‘What I meant was I don’t see why the ground crew would be any different for a UCAV or manned combat aircraft. ‘
You mean different in terms of numbers? Not the g/crew per se, but you do need more support manpower on a Sqn than for manned aircraft. Mostly in the sat comms/data link stuff. It’s a lot more than most people think.
‘My understanding of MALE’s..’
All that sort of thing is still on the drawing. Near impossible to work out how it’s used and manned operationally.
Reaper is roughly the same size as modern jet fighter. Global hawk is getting on for civil regional a/c size. The propulsion system,Avionics and software are the most expensive part of any a/c. To look at a uav of fighter capability for anti access all weather capability then you will need several orders of magnitude above what we have now in software coding and sensor integration. On top of that is totally secure redundant data link capability which is jam resistant that will all be very expensive.
As for the crew adding to topmans points for the satellite controlled jet you need ground stations and crews to land the uav and another crew at a different location to fly the mission. The only real benefit of UAVs is endurance which in certain missions is important.
As for paying pilots well if as at present they require CAA pilot qualifications to fly a uav then you either pay the pilot regardless of rank the going rate or they quickly leave and join a civil airline and actually go flying.
But that was sort of one of my points, If you’re actually ‘flying’ the UAV then I can see why you would need a pilot, another bloke to land it and so on. But if you were ‘operating’ it instead of flying it then why do you need the training burden of a qualified actual pilot twiddling his thumbs? Do UAV’s have to operate in mixed airspace? Will they always need a CAA certified pilot? I’m not convinced that will always be the case.
Taking it further do you really need to have pilot to land it. Given that we are discussing a VTOL uav and in effect s/w already exists to control the landing with the pilot another step removed why not go the whole hog and have the operator sat in your ground station say ‘land’ here and have the UAV sort itself out?
In other words eventually it becomes less about the pilot flying the big fast pointy stick and more about delivering the ordinance accurately to where it needs to go. I mean the weaponry is ‘smart’ now anyway.
mmoonin if its civil airspace then for some time to come yes. Were is not mixed airspace? uav operations in afghan has uavs operating with fix winged planes and heliocpters and a few have even crashed into said manned aircraft. Again less pilot input the more artificial intelligence required which drives the cost of the air vehicle up.
Yes on landing it could be automated but then thats more software and electronics both at the airfield and in the plane.
Global hawk is the closest to what you describe currently flying and nato are paying 3.7b dollars to buy 5 air vehicles and operate them for 20 years.
@ mmommin
I’m not sure what you class as the difference between ‘flying’ and ‘operating’ ?
‘Will they always need a CAA certified pilot?’
As they become more complex and expensive, I’d say it’s hard to to see anything else.
‘ Given that we are discussing a VTOL uav and in effect s/w already exists to control the landing with the pilot another step removed why not go the whole hog and have the operator sat in your ground station say ‘land’ here and have the UAV sort itself out?’
It might well happen but it’s systems like this that adds cost on which goes back to the original point about them costing more.
All that being said I can see the point of tactical UAVs, MALE UAVs and something like Global Hawk for maritime patrol/surveillance. I’m just not convinced about UCAV’s.
@Topman. Flying as in flying, Operating as in instructing a UAV to go to way point a, b and so on, eg it flying a route autonomously.
Well a/c have autopilots… but I’m not sure the line is so defined, and without getting further into it, or that it could be. It can also be different between countries with things like terminology.
Five GlobalHawk for £2.5b? £500m each!
I’m in the wrong job! What does that buy? Satellite comms bandwidth for 20 years? I hope so!
It’s not even close to being worth it.
Mmoomin, the problem with all UAV’s is that they are fancy radio controlled aircraft. The weak point with current and likely UAV’s is that they can either carry out a limited preplanned sortie on auto pilot or you have to have to have a two way datalink which effectively ties the UAV to the capacity and capability of the data link.
It is very noticable that UAV’s are never seen operating in numbers. Simply because of the bandwidth required to handle video and control and it will take a quantum advance in software to change this.
UAV’s are a worthwile specialist asset but a lot of big aerospace companies are trying to make a meal out of them.
It is interesting that the current successful UAV’s have all come from smaller companies not the aerospace majors. Maybe the big companies cannot think cheap and expendable.
Looks like $1.7b for five Global-Hawks so I can relax a little.
Was that a typo Mark or is there something to add on to the project?
Aussie Johnno,
Agreed. Bandwidth is always going to be a problem. Especially with radar telemetry. Humans have this knack of looking at a picture and saying “hey, I think they’re amassing a couple of tank battalions at grid reference blah”. That can be coded into a tweet or SMS packet. The radar image would be orders of magnitude larger.
This creates an interesting split between requirement and practicality. On one hand you have the ability to launch a UAV, collect data, come back, dock/download, and post-analyse terabytes of info. This requires speed to station and lots of UAVs to provide a conveyor belt of intel. On the other hand you have the ability to launch a UAV, collect data, transmit only a fraction of what you could actually see if you were up there, loiter for days and have a small squadron of these things.
Nether are much use on their own, but both together is probably enough. Interesting that the first option is not being explored. Perhaps the data latency is too high?
@Simon
$1.7b over 20 years is $85m per year for the whole fleet.
Looked at that way, it’s not that expensive!
No typo 1.7b to purchase a/c. 2b for 20 year operation.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120521/DEFREG02/305210001/NATO-Signs-1-7B-Global-Hawk-Contract
$3.7b over 20 years is $185m per year.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/
An interesting article.
@ Ali – Very interesting. Doesn’t the same go for the F-35? It is designed to use its stealth and ISTAR sensors to detect and engage enemy planes before they can engage it?
Where, I think, UAVs will appeal to bean counters is that they don’t need to fly at all, until they’re actually used operationally. A few will be needed, to keep ground crews up to scratch but most can be mothballed, while the operators practice on computers.
NASA’s Curiosity rover is giving loads of food for thought on the possibilities and advantages of unmanned operations….
@ ST
That’s exactly what I thought about when I was reading the article. An interesting point was made about a busy air space and how that can affect BVR missiles.
Now this can be open to anyone but would saying the concentration on long-range warfare within air power has similarities with the systems being used around the time of Vietnam. I seem to remember the USAF were concentrating on longer-ranged missiles but the experiences in Vietnam showed that skills in dog fighting and having the aircraft equipped for this was very dependent on its survival?
One of the key advantages of future UCAVs will be that they don’t carry the soft pink squashy thing up front. Any fighter is ultimately restricted by how much G the pilot can take, essentially modern fighters can turn faster and sharper than the human body can take. Future (I must stress that we are not there yet and wont be for a while) UCAVs will ultimately win dog-fighting battles as well. They will be smaller and lighter than 5G fighters and cheaper as well, no ejector seat etc. Bandwidth wont be a restriction as whilst current UAVs are just large remote control planes future ones will be self-flying with the base controller a monitor rather than a pilot. Massive investment globally is being made into the flight control software. Unlike building a 5G fighter all this development needs is a nerd with a PC barriers to entry to this high profit margin business are very low. The Israelis will probably get there first. The bandwidth will be needed for live video but that will be the same with an F35. This is all 20 years off but if you remember what your mobile phone was like 20 years ago?
I don’t like the design. If we’re going to build unmanned VTOL UCAV’s, lets do it properly and build this one!!
http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/HK-Aerial