DARPA want to launch/recover mutiple UAVs in flight - ideas anyone?
Thread Starter
DARPA want to launch/recover mutiple UAVs in flight - ideas anyone?
2014/11/09 Wanted: Ideas for Transforming Planes into ?Aircraft Carriers in the Sky?
Sounds like they want to carry more than just a couple of Firebees.
Carried externally, the UAV may limit the cruise speed of the carrier aircraft. Internally, well...
How would you do it?
Military air operations typically rely on large, manned, robust aircraft, but such missions put these expensive assets—and their pilots—at risk. While small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) can reduce or eliminate such risks, they lack the speed, range and endurance of larger aircraft. These complementary traits suggest potential benefits in a blended approach—one in which larger aircraft would carry, launch and recover multiple small UAS. Such an approach could greatly extend the range of UAS operations, enhance overall safety, and cost-effectively enable groundbreaking capabilities for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and other missions.
Carried externally, the UAV may limit the cruise speed of the carrier aircraft. Internally, well...
How would you do it?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a proposal/idea put forth many years ago by Douglas folks to turn the C-17 into such a carrier. It included the ability to launch and recover multiple UAVs while in flight.
My first reaction to this story was
"So, some of the guys at DARPA play StarCraft, and they want to build a Protoss carrier, eh?"
Well, I am not the only one who thinks this.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...trict&start=30
FWIW, back in the 1990's, some of the professors at the US Air Force Academy used the Blizzard game StarCraft to teach cadets some of the applications of the principles of war (IIRC there are 9) as codified in US Joint Doctrine. As a teaching tool, SC does a decent job of providing lessons for that. It's also a fun game.
"So, some of the guys at DARPA play StarCraft, and they want to build a Protoss carrier, eh?"
Well, I am not the only one who thinks this.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...trict&start=30
FWIW, back in the 1990's, some of the professors at the US Air Force Academy used the Blizzard game StarCraft to teach cadets some of the applications of the principles of war (IIRC there are 9) as codified in US Joint Doctrine. As a teaching tool, SC does a decent job of providing lessons for that. It's also a fun game.
Thread Starter
"So, some of the guys at DARPA play StarCraft, and they want to build a Protoss carrier, eh?"
Courtney Mils idea isn't far from one of my own; lobbing quadcopters out the back by the dozen with a coal shovel. Not sure I would want to be in a C-130 as they are bringing the net in though. May need a few old trawlermen to show how its done.
Last edited by Mechta; 14th Nov 2014 at 18:07.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,913 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Tow a dart board behind it.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney, Re your #2
Been done quite a while back. (2001 ish) MMIST dropped a thing called Snow Goose. used a floppy wing (2200 sq ft Ram Air Parachute) but was powered with a Rotax motor with a pusher prop. IIRC the useful payload was only 200 lbs. It flew autonomously (Not RPAS).
It could also take off from the back of a truck. seen this myself quite a few times at YPG. Seen the video of the air launch not sure if it is on their web page.
They did develop a Gyrocopter version for the USN.
One solution could be this Cardington Air lander machine. I felt certain there was some schemes on the MDBA web site dropping winged bombs. Open the door and these things could fly back in for refuelling/re arming. A bit like an aircraft carrier in the sky!
I am serious about Snow Goose but not too sure about the air lander concept.
Been done quite a while back. (2001 ish) MMIST dropped a thing called Snow Goose. used a floppy wing (2200 sq ft Ram Air Parachute) but was powered with a Rotax motor with a pusher prop. IIRC the useful payload was only 200 lbs. It flew autonomously (Not RPAS).
It could also take off from the back of a truck. seen this myself quite a few times at YPG. Seen the video of the air launch not sure if it is on their web page.
They did develop a Gyrocopter version for the USN.
One solution could be this Cardington Air lander machine. I felt certain there was some schemes on the MDBA web site dropping winged bombs. Open the door and these things could fly back in for refuelling/re arming. A bit like an aircraft carrier in the sky!
I am serious about Snow Goose but not too sure about the air lander concept.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBDA idea was more along the lines of having modular stealthy cruise missile launch from C-17 as part of the FOAS force mix. I can't remember in flight recoverable UAVs as being high on the trl. 
No really a new idea as the Airships had aircraft that they released and I believe recaptured with a hook.
What is probably really needed is a tractor Beam to bring the aircraft back on board...............beam em in Scotty.
If we can send unmanned space vehicles to Space Station then in air recovery is probably not going to be that difficult, once the software is written.
What is probably really needed is a tractor Beam to bring the aircraft back on board...............beam em in Scotty.
If we can send unmanned space vehicles to Space Station then in air recovery is probably not going to be that difficult, once the software is written.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Since we are going for the wild and irresponsible approaches here's another:
Not multiple, simultaneous capture, but with the increasingly fine control achievable in UAV's, and judging by the flexibility and control that could be obtained with the shuttle telescopic arm or an over-extended refuelling probe, terminating in a flown platform controlled by stub wings might be a "flyer". The platform would need to have some type of quick grab/release mechanism. (Obviously the thang would need to be promptly evicted if it went berserk)
This all assumes that a comparable intercept speed could be achieved and maintained, and with the UAV wings folding as it is extended or retracted on the platform arm.
On the other hand, I could be smoking my socks and you would be quite right to say so.
Imagegear.
Not multiple, simultaneous capture, but with the increasingly fine control achievable in UAV's, and judging by the flexibility and control that could be obtained with the shuttle telescopic arm or an over-extended refuelling probe, terminating in a flown platform controlled by stub wings might be a "flyer". The platform would need to have some type of quick grab/release mechanism. (Obviously the thang would need to be promptly evicted if it went berserk)
This all assumes that a comparable intercept speed could be achieved and maintained, and with the UAV wings folding as it is extended or retracted on the platform arm.
On the other hand, I could be smoking my socks and you would be quite right to say so.
Imagegear.
Vulcan
Avro proposed the Vulcan to carry and launch three Gnat single seaters in the 60s.
cheers
cheers
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ImageGear - been done a long time ago: FICON project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For B-36 read C-17, for manned jet fighter read small UAV, and for one of the bomb bays read cargo compartment (with the trapeze fitted at the rear door). The smaller size of the UAVs will allow the trapeze arm to retract, bringing the UAV inside the cargo compartment. If the trapeze arm is mounted to one side then the UAV can then be moved forward, and another moved back to the arm.
For B-36 read C-17, for manned jet fighter read small UAV, and for one of the bomb bays read cargo compartment (with the trapeze fitted at the rear door). The smaller size of the UAVs will allow the trapeze arm to retract, bringing the UAV inside the cargo compartment. If the trapeze arm is mounted to one side then the UAV can then be moved forward, and another moved back to the arm.
A production RB-36F-1-CF Peacemaker (serial number 49-2707) was modified with a special trapeze mechanism in its bomb bay and designated GRB-36F, and a production F-84E Thunderjet (serial number 49-2115) was fitted with a retractable hook in the nose in front of the cockpit. The hook would link the fighter to the trapeze which would hold the aircraft in the bomb bay during flight, lower it for deployment, and raise it back in after the mission. Due to the size of the fighter, only the cockpit, the fuselage spine, and the tailfin actually fit inside the GRB-36, which considerably increased the drag and reduced the big bomber's range by 5-10%. On a positive note, the fighter pilot was able to leave his aircraft while attached to the carrier, making the 10-hour flights to-and-from the target much more bearable.
The initial FICON trials were performed in 1952. First hookup took place on 9 January 1952, with first retrieval into the bomb bay on 23 April, and first flight of the complete system from takeoff to landing on 14 May. In 1953, the GRB-36/F-84E was sent to Eglin Air Force Base where 170 airborne launches and retrievals were subsequently performed. In May 1953, the F-84E was replaced by the faster Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, with the original YRF-84F (briefly called YF-96A) prototype (serial number 49-2430) modified for the role and briefly designated GRF-84F. When the RF-84F Thunderflash tactical reconnaissance fighter began entering service, the FICON role was changed from attack to reconnaissance.
As with the F-84, the RF-84 was supposed to utilize its smaller size and superior agility to overfly heavily defended targets and gather intelligence while the bomber loitered outside the range of enemy defenses. The scheme was found to be "tactically sound" and USAF ordered 10 production RB-36D to be converted to GRB-36D carriers with a complement of 25 RF-84K tactical reconnaissance fighters. The RF-84K differed from RF-84F in having retractable hookup equipment and anhedral tailplanes to better fit inside the GRB-36. Since it retained an armament of 4x 0.50 in. machine guns, it could also act as an escort fighter. The RF-84K could be deployed at altitudes of up to 25,000 ft (7,550 m) and added 1,180 mi (1,900 km) to GRB-36D's already impressive 2,800 mi (4,500 km) combat range.
The initial FICON trials were performed in 1952. First hookup took place on 9 January 1952, with first retrieval into the bomb bay on 23 April, and first flight of the complete system from takeoff to landing on 14 May. In 1953, the GRB-36/F-84E was sent to Eglin Air Force Base where 170 airborne launches and retrievals were subsequently performed. In May 1953, the F-84E was replaced by the faster Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, with the original YRF-84F (briefly called YF-96A) prototype (serial number 49-2430) modified for the role and briefly designated GRF-84F. When the RF-84F Thunderflash tactical reconnaissance fighter began entering service, the FICON role was changed from attack to reconnaissance.
As with the F-84, the RF-84 was supposed to utilize its smaller size and superior agility to overfly heavily defended targets and gather intelligence while the bomber loitered outside the range of enemy defenses. The scheme was found to be "tactically sound" and USAF ordered 10 production RB-36D to be converted to GRB-36D carriers with a complement of 25 RF-84K tactical reconnaissance fighters. The RF-84K differed from RF-84F in having retractable hookup equipment and anhedral tailplanes to better fit inside the GRB-36. Since it retained an armament of 4x 0.50 in. machine guns, it could also act as an escort fighter. The RF-84K could be deployed at altitudes of up to 25,000 ft (7,550 m) and added 1,180 mi (1,900 km) to GRB-36D's already impressive 2,800 mi (4,500 km) combat range.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have DARPA's rules requiring recovery been thought through? If a UAS requires a large multi-crewed aircraft to remain on station for the duration of the mission doesn't that rather defeat the object?
RE: Protoss carriers & StarCraft
It's extremely interesting to hear that someone thought of using Starcraft (1) as training. It's a bit chess-like in that everything you try to do leaves you exposed in some other way and the key to winning is to have the right strategy that counters your opponent's. It's like an elaborate version of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" because you have to commit to a plan with no information other than what you know about the psychology of your opponent and past battles. Your choice wins if you execute it perfectly and if your initial guess was right.
It was also interesting to see that it's very difficult to play outside one's own personality. e.g. if you're defensive like me, you get wasted every time by an aggressive player. But by playing counter to my instincts (very discomforting) I once or twice turned the tables. I think it's clear that some people have a very predictable emotional setup and therefore are at great risk of losing again and again without really learning.
The best tactic played against me was very early small attacks which put me in a defensive mindset - seeing dangers everywhere and wanting to move conservatively. Meanwhile my opponent ran around grabbing resources without being able to defend them but he didn't need to because my "head was in my shell".
I'm sorry to go far offtopic but I loved playing the Protoss and carriers with their drones were wonderful - a bit stand-off and able to handle lots of targets and providing many distractions for the enemy to track and attack while other units could strike.. :-)
It's extremely interesting to hear that someone thought of using Starcraft (1) as training. It's a bit chess-like in that everything you try to do leaves you exposed in some other way and the key to winning is to have the right strategy that counters your opponent's. It's like an elaborate version of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" because you have to commit to a plan with no information other than what you know about the psychology of your opponent and past battles. Your choice wins if you execute it perfectly and if your initial guess was right.
It was also interesting to see that it's very difficult to play outside one's own personality. e.g. if you're defensive like me, you get wasted every time by an aggressive player. But by playing counter to my instincts (very discomforting) I once or twice turned the tables. I think it's clear that some people have a very predictable emotional setup and therefore are at great risk of losing again and again without really learning.
The best tactic played against me was very early small attacks which put me in a defensive mindset - seeing dangers everywhere and wanting to move conservatively. Meanwhile my opponent ran around grabbing resources without being able to defend them but he didn't need to because my "head was in my shell".
I'm sorry to go far offtopic but I loved playing the Protoss and carriers with their drones were wonderful - a bit stand-off and able to handle lots of targets and providing many distractions for the enemy to track and attack while other units could strike.. :-)
Last edited by t43562; 16th Nov 2014 at 12:49. Reason: add analogy
t43462:
It was an article in Defense News, circa 1998 or 1999, that alerted me to its use as a training tool. When I read the article, I had just taken a look into StarCraft at the time.
So, being a staff college graduate, I went back, put StarCraft back on the PC, got out my "principles of war" flash card, and began to mess about with the game as Terran. I think the USAF instructors made an excellent choice for a teaching tool, truth be told.
The Rock Paper Scissors model was a great success, eh?
A bit off topic, but I preferred at the time the Warcraft II model for illustrating to my young son some of the problems of joint warfare.
In that game, using more or less the same game engine, you had land, air, sea, and undersea as well as resource issues to balance as you tried to put together a plan and counter whatever you were up against. You also had to, depending on the map, often use amphibious assault as a means to achieve one's ends. The addition of oil patches in various parts of water on the game maps, and the need to defend one's oil patch if one wanted to build all of the right naval vessels really brought the resources fight to the fore.
Blizzard returned to their simpler game model in Warcraft III. It was more like StarCraft in that the maritime element was removed from the game. They added other stuff to increase the importance of leadership/generals/personalities/ and you can still see that influence in games like Defense of the Ancients and League of Legends. (The latter of which I have been talked into playing with my son ... that's a fun little diversion, but beware! It eats time like a hungry bear.)
It was an article in Defense News, circa 1998 or 1999, that alerted me to its use as a training tool. When I read the article, I had just taken a look into StarCraft at the time.
So, being a staff college graduate, I went back, put StarCraft back on the PC, got out my "principles of war" flash card, and began to mess about with the game as Terran. I think the USAF instructors made an excellent choice for a teaching tool, truth be told.
The Rock Paper Scissors model was a great success, eh?
A bit off topic, but I preferred at the time the Warcraft II model for illustrating to my young son some of the problems of joint warfare.
In that game, using more or less the same game engine, you had land, air, sea, and undersea as well as resource issues to balance as you tried to put together a plan and counter whatever you were up against. You also had to, depending on the map, often use amphibious assault as a means to achieve one's ends. The addition of oil patches in various parts of water on the game maps, and the need to defend one's oil patch if one wanted to build all of the right naval vessels really brought the resources fight to the fore.
Blizzard returned to their simpler game model in Warcraft III. It was more like StarCraft in that the maritime element was removed from the game. They added other stuff to increase the importance of leadership/generals/personalities/ and you can still see that influence in games like Defense of the Ancients and League of Legends. (The latter of which I have been talked into playing with my son ... that's a fun little diversion, but beware! It eats time like a hungry bear.)
