Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
OK, not he easiest read, but some interesting statements and assumptions from MoD.
The increasing capability and importance of UAVs
“in 1998 a UAV crossed the Atlantic for the first time, covering 3270 kilometres in 26 hours and 45 minutes using a gallon and a half of fuel…. boundaries around aircraft effectiveness and efficiency had been shattered by this exciting new technology, which offered the potential to greatly reduce the exposure of aircrew to risk and to greatly expand military ISTAR capabilities”—Intellect.18
“Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) have a major contribution to make to the aerial surveillance component of…. (ISTAR) capability…. Have performance characteristics unmatched, or not matched cost effectively, by manned aircraft including persistence…. agility, and the ability to operate from rudimentary take off and landing sites”—Thales UK.19
“UAVs are transforming the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. Future conflicts will see their role expanded dramatically. In war-fighting situations, they offer shortened target engagement timescales compared to conventional platforms. For peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, they offer vital persistent ISTAR capabilities”—Northrop Grumman.20
“a UA can climb, dive and turn faster and more tightly than manned aircraft…. giving them superior aerobatic capabilities. This has led to the US Air Force to call for Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (UCAS), which are confidently predicted to outperform future manned combat aircraft in the next decade or two”—Royal Aeronautical Society.21
“over 39 countries have developed or are developing UAVs of varying sizes and with varying levels of technical sophistication. A 2005 census revealed some 400 UAV programmes in existence or under development”—Royal Aeronautical Society
... a gallon and a half of fuel for 26 hours and 45 minutes flying ...
Anybody else, apart from me, find that quite remarkable. As the statement originated in the House of Commons, an establishment not normally noted for its grasp of facts, is it right ?
I know that it was a UAV but it's still quite a size. Is this sort of miserly fuel use representative of the type ?
Maynard Hill, did it on a shoestring, in 2003 with a 6ft span model plane
Quote:
Strict rules set by the Switzerland-based Fedration Aronautique Internationale demand that a model weigh no more than 11 pounds. So Hill and his 12-man team spent five years developing a miniature satellite-guided autopilot capable of navigating the Atlantic. Even more daunting was how to fly 1,888 miles on less than a gallon of fuel, which was all Spirit's tank could hold and still make weight.
But I can't imagine any project with a budget less than a million or two registers with HMG.
Next you will tell me that you can arm these things and fly them remotely from miles away and make a difference to the guys on the ground....A UAV can't do that can it?
House of Commons = Politicians = facts out of context.
YES, a UAV has crossed the Pond on next to no fuel, but how relevant is that to modern or future combat? Hardly worth reporting.
According to the report, a UAV can fly across the pond on nearly no fuel, carry weapons for any purpose, kill insurgents, shoot down other aircraft, out-manoeuvre a manned ac etc etc. Nothing about the required trade-offs to achieve these feats of modern aviation and that a single UAV will always be as compromised as a single manned ac (and probably as expensive).
Thanks for the links. I (mistakenly) assumed that the statement referred to an earlier Atlantic crossing by a Global Hawk (Nordholz - Germany to Edwards Air Force Base -USA). That was why I was so surpised at the fuel useage quoted.
How do you match the SA conferred by having a human brain and eyes on scene, with a wider field of regard than any sensor turret, and with a peripheral vision capability that allows easy detection of unplanned, unbriefed targets.
Even if you ignore the limitations of a datalinked sensor picture displayed on a video screen, and assuming that you can solve all of the problems with bandwidth, susceptability to jamming, etc.
Still think that there a UAV is superior than a manned platform for the majority of roles?
How do you match the SA conferred by having a human brain and eyes on scene, with a wider field of regard than any sensor turret, and with a peripheral vision capability that allows easy detection of unplanned, unbriefed targets.
Even if you ignore the limitations of a datalinked sensor picture displayed on a video screen, and assuming that you can solve all of the problems with bandwidth, susceptability to jamming, etc.
The eyes having a wider field of view than a 360 degree radar/optical/IR sensor ? I don't think so.
If we solve bandwidth, jamming etc then it can be controlled from ground and then there is a brain doing the SA so it matches what you have plus the UAV advantages
But of course you are right we cannot provide 100% solution for that (yet?). However, for most roles/missions you do not need that better SA. I don't wish to get into analysing individual roles but most of the time the pilot is not utilising his superior brain. On those occasions where it is needed, if the other advantages that the UAV are not enough then it gets shot down or fails to complete mission. At least we didn't lose a life. So we send another UAV or a manned aircraft (I never said we can do without them at all). That is simplistic I know - limitation of forum
Perhaps the chaps doing the "Policing" in Afghanistan would appreciate some simple, cheap, disposable, widely available intelligence asset (Other than themselves) which would give 'em the opportunity at platoon or company level to evaluate, before the event, whether its worth while taking, at great risk to life and limb, the same mud fort for the upteenth time. And to have an asset which wouldn't telegraph its presence on its approach causing the opposition to head for the hills.
I wouldn't have thought that they don't need something which can circumnavigate the World backwards and cost several arms and legs of tax dollars for corporate land to produce.
In this scenario, I wouldn't have thought it likely that the opposition had access to sophisticated jammers ? Anyway, as most RC bods would tell you, there's no better remedy to that than changing channel.
a UA can climb, dive and turn faster and more tightly than manned aircraft…. giving them superior aerobatic capabilities.
Yeah, I know a radio controlled aircraft can turn very tight, but is there any actual UAV's flying right now, that can do surveillance and then deliver weapons as required, that can climb faster than a bulk standard manned F-16 (or even a GR4) ??
.....no, but is there a fighter that can deliver a pair of GBU-12s after patiently waiting and looking at the same location for 10 hours (by itself) for a door in a building to open, and someone of note is spotted - and then put said GBU-12 onto it, and use 1800 pound of fuel doing so?..and then wait around to see what else happens....
can climb faster than a bulk standard manned F-16 (or even a GR4)
Loaded Reaper probably about the same climb/turn performance as a loaded GR4! Above 200 almost certainly better. But that is irrelevant. When was the last time an F16 had to pull 9g in the stan?
Personally I think a lot of confusion comes from different people talking about different roles. I think the high performance UAV for something like A-A is still a long way off and when it does come it will fly itself, with a WSO-type on the ground allocating targets and consenting to weapons release. The next generation seems to be aimed at the traditional strategic attack role, operating autonomously, which they will do much better than a manned aircraft, just so long as you don't want them to be flexible/clever when they get to the target and it has moved/already hit/etc.
What current FJ such as F16 are very good at is flexibility - totally outclassing any UAV current or planned (that I know of). What current UAVs are very good at is the type of task required in current theatres - persistent ISTAR and attack. As we like to say, Reaper is the kill chain!
In summary, if the Russians decide to keep going and roll across the central European plain, get your FJs, the UAVs won't be that useful. If you want to support the troops on the ground in Afghanistan, get a Reaper (or 10).
I haven't trawled through the whole thread, but has anbody mentioned the major limitation of current UAVs?....the weather. Pred/Reaper don't have anti-icing and generally don't fly through cloud. I think GH has, but they cost mega-bucks. It is easy to look at current ops and see UAVs as the panacea for all problems, but the current theatres tend to be cloudless and dry, I wouldn't like to have to rely on Reaper/Pred for ops in Northern Europe. The weather limits aren't just confined to the operating area of course, as you require an LRE to take off/land a Pred/Reaper - they can't just divert as required! The weather could be superb over the operating area, but if the weather at base is pants it either won't get airborne at all, or have to RTB to land before the cloud arrives!
Satellites don't come cheap and aren't that easy to move around to meet an unforeseen challenge from any where in the world. It might be great to have a UAV on station for hours, or even days at a time, but if the sat isn't in the right place it will have to be repositioned and that will burn fuel and hence life. UAVs are an extremely valuable tool, but they are just that, a tool that a commander can use as part of the far larger intelligence collection piece.
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
