UCAVs(x-47/x-45)

[knightz33]

Do you guys think that the x-47 Pegasus(from northrop grumman) would be a better choice for the United states air force??? OR Would the x-45(boeing) would be a better choice...

Hope all of you would kindly state the reasons...

These links would be helpful if you're not familiar with these planes.

X-45---->http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

x-47---->http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/

 

[rjmaz1]

I believe that the F-35 with no pilot sitting in the seat is the best option by far.

*taps nose*

It will be interesting in 20 years time when a country goes to buy an F-35... "sir do you want it with a canopy?"

 

[Tasman]

I believe that the F-35 with no pilot sitting in the seat is the best option by far.

*taps nose*

It will be interesting in 20 years time when a country goes to buy an F-35... "sir do you want it with a canopy?"

I agree with you that the unmanned F-35 may provide an excellent option as an unmanned air combat aircraft. In fact Lockheed have suggested that it could operate in dual roles - manned for some missions and unmanned for others.

The Washington Post contained an article about this in August 2006:
:

The idea has been in the works for two years, Lockheed Vice President Frank Mauro said at a briefing yesterday. He provided few details but said the plane could be built as an interchangeable hybrid -- manned by a pilot for some missions and operated remotely for others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html

However at this stage the unmanned F-35 is only a concept whereas the two X planes are under development.

At this stage in the development program I think it is far too early to make any rational comments regarding which looks like being the better choice.

Cheers

 

[Magoo]

Do you guys think that the x-47 Pegasus(from northrop grumman) would be a better choice for the United states air force??? OR Would the x-45(boeing) would be a better choice...

Hope all of you would kindly state the reasons...

These links would be helpful if you're not familiar with these planes.

X-45---->http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

x-47---->http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/

How could you seriously expect any of us to know which of these two would be better. The Pegasus only flew a few times as a concept demonstrator, and the two X-45As, although they flew and achieved more, are also demonstrators.

If you're talking about the X-47B and X-45C, then neither of these jets have flown and very little about their capabilities has been revealed publicly. The UCAS-D downselect was originally due in July/August, but I believe this has slipped and a flyoff may be held late next year.

Ask us again in a few years.

Magoo

 

[ELP]

Funds were indeed pulled from UCAS-D in the latest budget. Expect it to be a very long time with our money woes before this thing sees service.

Some good reading here on UCAS-D potential...(PDF file)

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...anned_Comba/B.20070510.The_Unmanned_Comba.pdf

 

[rjmaz1]

I really think the US should consider cutting a few more programs from the budget.

They should be concentrating on the following in no particalur order.

F-22
Refueling tankers
F-35
DDX destroyers
Litoral combat ships
Future Combat system

It seems all of these programs are having funding issues, alot of things should be cancelled to provide the funds.

For the Air Force they should halve the A-10C upgrades, cancel upgrades on the F-16 and F-15 fleet. Retire some F-16's and A-10's, Retire all of the F-15C's and F-117 ASAP. That may potentially eliminate up to 1000 aircraft and the money saved could kick start the tanker program, keep F-22 production open and provide funds towards F-35 procurement.

For the Navy.. Retire alot of older ships, maybe including an aircraft carrier. Replace these older ships with highly automated DDX destroyers with fewer cruise. This dramatically reduces the running costs and recruitment levels required. Then buy the smaller LCS to make up the numbers.

Boy did i get way off topic.

Personally i doubt the X-47 or X-45 will even make it into service.

 

[AGRA]

I believe that the F-35 with no pilot sitting in the seat is the best option by far.

*taps nose*

It will be interesting in 20 years time when a country goes to buy an F-35... "sir do you want it with a canopy?"

Mmm... If so then all they will be doing is filling Lockheed's coffers at the detriment of capability.

The thing about a UCAV is it frees you from the pilot's limitations in many areas including physical endurance. Therefore it is a good idea to design a UCAV air vehicle that can fly beyond the pilot. An unmanned or optionally manned F-35 would still have the same air vehicle as the manned version and would not have the endurance of an X-45/47. The difference is staggering.

Funds are being pulled from many US projects and as UCAS proves the uselessness of pilots expect the knives to come out big time from the Air Force and Naval Aviation leadership. However the genie is out of the bottle and it’s only a matter of time.

Air shows may get less exciting but air power will take a quantum leap, probably the most significant in its history: from the Cavalry like time in combat zone limited concept of operations – patrols, raids, etc – to a permanent occupation of air space, Infantry like, concept of operations – size, hold, control…

 

[knightz33]

I really think the US should consider cutting a few more programs from the budget.


Personally i doubt the X-47 or X-45 will even make it into service.

Well, what makes you so sure that the x-47 or the x-45 will not make it into service? Well, the USAF has always been looking forward to having some unmanned aircrafts that can deliver precision weaponry...I think that its possible for the x-45 or x-47 to go into service...

 

[spectre]

Right now, I would pick neither. UAVs have not yet proven themselves. You still need a human to kill the target. The Predator sure is unmanned on the aircraft but is limited to the same pilot type skills on the ground...minus all the situational awareness that a piloted aircraft has.


I have a HUGE problem with the armed UAVs at the moment (and sure, they will get better) but right now, they are still more of a novelty. The Predator crashes more than any other aircraft not because it is a horrible aircraft but because the person flying it has such a limited field of view and a massive lack of situational awareness...he/she can not feel the aircraft vibrate, can not hear the engine...can not smell the smoke...sure, they might have dummy lights but nothing can compare to the actual thing.

 

[Tasman]

I have a HUGE problem with the armed UAVs at the moment (and sure, they will get better) but right now, they are still more of a novelty. The Predator crashes more than any other aircraft not because it is a horrible aircraft but because the person flying it has such a limited field of view and a massive lack of situational awareness...he/she can not feel the aircraft vibrate, can not hear the engine...can not smell the smoke...sure, they might have dummy lights but nothing can compare to the actual thing.

Interesting point spectre and one I had not considered. You are right about the limited view and lack of situational awareness. Even when driving a car you tune into strange noises, sloppy steering, etc, and you can see things ahead that look out of the ordinary.

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

Mmm... If so then all they will be doing is filling Lockheed's coffers at the detriment of capability.

The thing about a UCAV is it frees you from the pilot's limitations in many areas including physical endurance. Therefore it is a good idea to design a UCAV air vehicle that can fly beyond the pilot. An unmanned or optionally manned F-35 would still have the same air vehicle as the manned version and would not have the endurance of an X-45/47. The difference is staggering.

I disagree. The doctrine of the manned aircraft is the biggest limitation. The fact that the pilots life could be in danger serverly restricts the use of combat aircraft. This will include both the F-22 and F-35.

Once the pilot is removed from an F-35 its doctrine will be changed significantly. It will be able to enter airspace that even a manned F-22 would not enter, let alone a manned F-35. This will be the biggest improvement that the F-35 will receive when operating unmanned.

Current situational awareness of unmanned aircraft is pathetic. They dont know whats happening around them as they lack advanced radar, optical sensors and radar receivers. The situational awareness that an unmanned F-35 could provide to the flight controller on the ground would be a huge step up. The Optical sensors on the F-35 could provide the flight controller on the ground with a 360 degree view of the aircrafts surroundings. The advanced AESA can provide 3d mapping that could be overlayed onto the images providing situational awareness that would rival having a pilot in the plane itself.

Unmanned F-35's could engage enemy fighters at Beyond visual range something other unmanned aircraft could not do due to avionic and sensor defeciencies. The X-45/47 wont be carrying AMRAAM missiles and will only have a very basic sensor package, nor will they have afterburners and supersonic performance to make the terms of an engagement.

Manned aircraft also must include loitor time and reserve fuel. Unmanned aircraft will be able to get extra range out of the same design. If Lockheed martin completely removed the cockpit once the programming has matured it could then add an additional 1000kg of internal fuel. Increasing range again allow carrier based F-35's to take out any target in china for example.

Also previous UAV's have had exceptional endurance because they fly extremely slow. You can fly 1000kms in 3 hours or you could fly 1000kms in 1 hour. I would prefer to use an F-35 and fly that 1000kms in 1 hour opposed to a Predator that would take 3 hours. A slow flying UCAV will not be able to engage in air to air combat, nor will it be able to move out of the no escape zone of missiles. The F-35's ability to rapidly accelerate to supersonic speeds will allow it to be more survivable than the X-45/47 designs.

The unammned F-35 is exactly what the US wants.

 

[AGRA]

I have a HUGE problem with the armed UAVs at the moment (and sure, they will get better) but right now, they are still more of a novelty. The Predator crashes more than any other aircraft not because it is a horrible aircraft but because the person flying it has such a limited field of view and a massive lack of situational awareness...he/she can not feel the aircraft vibrate, can not hear the engine...can not smell the smoke...sure, they might have dummy lights but nothing can compare to the actual thing.

You’re basically taking attributes of what is the UCAS equivalent of the Sopwith Camel and comparing it to the X-45/X-47 which are the UCAS equivalents of an F-16. The UAV pilot of a Predator has a lot of problems flying it in difficult situations but so what? The X-45/X-47 doesn’t have a pilot. It flies autonomously. And its autonomous flight control system has flown 30,000 hours on the ground before its ever loaded onto the first aircraft. How many pilots does anyone know with 30,000 hours in command in their log book. It doesn’t just feel the aircraft, it knows the aircraft and understands direct inputs from the system. It doesn’t just have two eyes to look with but complete awareness of all sensors. Its not like a crappy Predator with a little camera pointing forward that wouldn’t look out of place on the back of your mobile/cell phone but has a complete suite of sensors… You’re comparing unripe apples to apple pie here…

Unmanned F-35's could engage enemy fighters at Beyond visual range something other unmanned aircraft could not do due to avionic and sensor defeciencies. The X-45/47 wont be carrying AMRAAM missiles and will only have a very basic sensor package, nor will they have afterburners and supersonic performance to make the terms of an engagement.

Crap. Sure UCAS-D won’t have AMRAAM but the Block II will… And the sensors to use it. The payload is there and it will be used for sensors, weapons and others. As for supersonic performance it will have a total different concept of operations. UCAS will hold in orbits in over the area of interest with a high degree of discretion (ie stealth).

As was more point above its different to the manned fighter ‘cavalry’ type operations of raid and penetration where kinematic performance and lobbing of missiles is important. The UCAS will be more like a hidden infantry bunker waiting for the enemy to pass it by before setting off the claymores in your face or shooting a RPG into your rear.

Also previous UAV's have had exceptional endurance because they fly extremely slow. You can fly 1000kms in 3 hours or you could fly 1000kms in 1 hour. I would prefer to use an F-35 and fly that 1000kms in 1 hour opposed to a Predator that would take 3 hours. A slow flying UCAV will not be able to engage in air to air combat, nor will it be able to move out of the no escape zone of missiles. The F-35's ability to rapidly accelerate to supersonic speeds will allow it to be more survivable than the X-45/47 designs.

The fastest speed is to be their first. You are so totally confined by your tactical fighter thinking you can’t see the advantages of persistence and how that will change the way air battles are fought.

 

[rjmaz1]

you can’t see the advantages of persistence and how that will change the way air battles are fought.

The USAF cant see the advantages either. They pulled out funding ages ago...

Also this year the UCAS-D programed had over 200 million cut from its budget.

The F-35 can fly at full afterburner and travel 500 miles in half an hour. Or it could throttle back and travel 2000 miles in 6 hours. Thats more than enough endurance. Endurance is directly related to speed. The F-35's range figures include high subsonic speeds to increase survivability of the pilot on board. Slow the speed down and range and endurance increases.

If the F-35 throttled right back and just loitered over a certain waypoint i dont see why it couldn't stay in the air for 10+ hours without refueling..

The X-45C's combat radius is only 1200 miles.

With a pair of external tanks an unmanned F-35 will fly just as far, get there just as quick and carry twice as many weapons. It will also shares all the parts from the biggest defence program in history.

Manned aircraft have redundancy on alot of systems. Usually they are over engineer'd to make them safe as possible. This is a blanket statement but an aircraft designed to be unmanned will cut alot of corners to reduce costs.

 

[Falstaff]

Well, everyone who thinks UAVs won't be the future of air strike, I recommend reading this and that for a start.
And even if the US cancelled the UCAS program to some degree they are still working together with the UK on 'Project Churchill'," which focuses on the "the joint, airborne command and control of pilotless combat air vehicles from 2015 onwards".

The USAF cant see the advantages either.

Wrong again, Mr. Self-made-aerodynamics-pro-first-world's-greatest-F-35-cheerleader-now. They see the advantages but they decided to alter their priorities. Big difference.

BTW: One part of the UAV vision is the fighter in a box concept. Goal is that you store them in a box, look for them every 5-10 years, leave'em there until you need them for combat. That's what makes operation cheap. Wanna do that with a F-35?

The F-35 can fly at full afterburner and travel 500 miles in half an hour. Or it could throttle back and travel 2000 miles in 6 hours. Thats more than enough endurance. Endurance is directly related to speed.

Dear rimjaz, you show me just 1 fighter that's able to fly for 30 minutes on full afterburner and I swear I won't come to you and do nasty things to you because you're annoying me with high-school pieces of wisdom like "Endurance is directly related to speed".

I'll stick to AGRA for the rest...

 

[AGRA]

The USAF cant see the advantages either. They pulled out funding ages ago...

Also this year the UCAS-D programed had over 200 million cut from its budget.

They pulled out of J-UCAS to put their money into the new Long Range Strike system which is UCAS doubled-in-size... Sure their may be a cockpit inside it but that is more to have an ACO on hand at certain times in certain missions (and to conduct post maintenance checkout flights and fly inside US FAA airspace) - they will probably sleep most of the time - pilotage will be most definitely optional.

BTW as of October last year Brig. Gen. Davis told Defence in Australia that the unmanned F-35 was NOT part of the project and Lockheed Martin say its just a concept study.

 

[rjmaz1]

Dear rimjaz, you show me just 1 fighter that's able to fly for 30 minutes on full afterburner

Woah lets really misquote me. That would be similar to saying the F-35 top speed is only Mach 0.8 as it hit full afterburners in a test flight yet the maximum speed reached was only Mach 0.8.

Assumption is the mother of all..

I dont see how the F-35 cant hit full afterburner and travel 500 miles in 30 minutes. Thats Mach 1.5 which is its operational max speed. Will it have full afterburners the whole time? Probably not.

A interesting fact is the F-35 can sustain maximum afterburner for longer periods than any other fighter aircraft made.

you're annoying me with high-school pieces of wisdom like "Endurance is directly related to speed".

Of course endurance is related to speed.

A bugatti Veyron at full throttle tops out at 407km/h and runs out of fuel in 12 minutes. Bugatti mention that this will allow the car to travel only 80 kms on a full 100 litre tank of fuel.

At a constant 100km/h Bugatti specs allow the veyron to travel a whopping 500kms off the same 100litre tank. Thats over 6 times the distance just because it travels slower..

Only a moron would deny that endurance is related to speed.

They pulled out of J-UCAS to put their money into the new Long Range Strike system which is UCAS doubled-in-size...

Yep the USAF realised that the original UCAV design wont be any better than the F-35. You cant make an aircraft half the size and expect it to travel further UNLESS you signifcantly reduce performance in other area's e.g global hawk/predator.

If you want good agility and high subsonic speed then any unmanned design will be quite similar to the F-35. Its all about compromise, If you want to build an unmanned aircraft with no speed or agility but with long range and endurance then start off with a Global hawk design. As soon as you add extra speed to the requirements the wings sweep back, as soon as u add some sort of agility to the requirement the wings get shorter. Range and endurance then reduces as a direct result of the extra speed and agility. Guess what happens then, the aircraft has to now be bigger to increase range and endurance back up to the original requirement... Thats exactly why the USAF pulled out and are putting money towards a UCAS thats twice the size.

You cant compare the endurance of a Global hawk UCAV to a unmanned version of the F-35, its apples and oranges. The USAF for first day of war regional strike would much prefer a F-35 ucav design for its added speed and agility which increases survivability. For 24 hour close air support that loitors over the battlefield a Global hawk with small precesion weapons would be much better.

 

[Falstaff]

Woah lets really misquote me. That would be similar to saying the F-35 top speed is only Mach 0.8 as it hit full afterburners in a test flight yet the maximum speed reached was only Mach 0.8.

???

You said:

The F-35 can fly at full afterburner and travel 500 miles in half an hour.

I said:

Dear rimjaz, you show me just 1 fighter that's able to fly for 30 minutes on full afterburner

I can't see any misinterpretation or assumption here. I just wanted you to show me a single fighter that can fly at full AB for half an hour, which I wrote to gently say I don't believe the F-35 can do that either.

I dont see how the F-35 cant hit full afterburner and travel 500 miles in 30 minutes. Thats Mach 1.5 which is its operational max speed. Will it have full afterburners the whole time? Probably not.

Assumption is the mother of all...

A interesting fact is the F-35 can sustain maximum afterburner for longer periods than any other fighter aircraft made.

As I'm really interested in this matter I'd really like to see some figures and/ or sources here.

Of course endurance is related to speed.

Of course it is!!! But this is so bloody obvious you don't have to mention it!
This is like saying "life expectancy is directly related to age" or "shoe size is related to foot size".

Yep the USAF realised that the original UCAV design wont be any better than the F-35. You cant make an aircraft half the size and expect it to travel further UNLESS you signifcantly reduce performance in other area's e.g global hawk/predator.

As I try to say above a UAV does indeed have advantages that make it favourable to a manned fighter in some cases and there are certain aspects a manned fighter or a derived unmanned fighter won't be able to reach.
Sure in terms of performance the F-35 might be equal or better, but that's not the point. The UCAS candidates weren't meant to be "better" but to show the specific advantages of an UAV in the F-16 class.

The new program is meant to replace the strategic strike fleet of the US.

 

[swerve]

...A interesting fact is the F-35 can sustain maximum afterburner for longer periods than any other fighter aircraft made.
....

I wish people wouldn't keep making claims for what the F-35 "can" do. Let's remember that so far, only technology demonstrators & prototypes have flown. The production aircraft doesn't exist yet. Let's say "will be able to", or "is expected to be able to", unless it's a capability which has been demonstrated by the prototypes. Has that capability been demonstrated?

 

[rjmaz1]

Has that capability been demonstrated?

You can calculate it use specific fuel consumption figures of the F135 and then use the internal fuel capacity.

The only reason though, is because it has nearly 20,000lb of fuel with 40,000lb of thrust. Thats coming close to 50%. No other fighter has such a high ratio. This isn't a good thing though, it just means the F-35 is underpowered. An F-22 at dry thrust has greater total thrust than the F-35 at full afterburner yet the F-22's total fuel consumption is half that of the F-35. So the F-22 will be able to fly at Mach 1.5 for twice the time period of the F-35.

Thats why i laugh at the SU-30's attacking Australia with superior kinetic performance. The SU-30's wont have enough fuel to even light their afterburners yet out F-35's will be able to sustain full afterburners for minutes on end and will fly much quicker than the SU-30's.