It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disposable Plywood Glider Drones

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Did I see duct tape holding that thing together? Looks like someone in my lab built it!!








posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Did I see duct tape holding that thing together? Looks like someone in my lab built it!!







posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: anzha


Logistics Gliders Inc just completed testing for the USMC of drone gliders made from plywood. These are intended to be disposable UAVs to drop supplies to troops. They can be dropped from helicopters or even from cargo planes. The most expensive bit about them is probably the electronics and even those are pretty cheap: they're cheaper than the JPADS or CDS systems currently used and the plan is to get the gliders down to less than $1k each.

LGI is working on two versions, one to carry 300 kg and another to carry 700 kg. Their range is about 110 km (about 68 miles).

Pretty basic and pretty cool at the same time.

Not exactly a hypersonic or stealthy or cylon bird, but could have some great potential for logistics out in less than friendly areas.

spectrum.ieee.org...


I'm going to play Office Space here

So what do you do? Well I get dropped out of a cargo plane and take cargo to the troops... Why can't the cargo plane take cargo to the troops?


Well, it's sometimes rathsr dangerous, even to do something like a LAPES drop is the first reason given. And then if you want to send humanitarian aid to Venezuela or aid to rebels in Syria, you can do that without crossing the border (technically). But flying the cargo in is a lot more efficient.
Have learned that the cargo ramp on the MV-22 can only hold 2500lbs, so two of these stacked need to be under 2500lbs for the MV-22. Limited to four a trip by volume and weight. In theory, you can drop daily rations to four separate teams in a lot less time (in the air for the MV-22) using the gliders. Saves fuel burn.
Makes more sense deployed from fixed-wing, in my opinion because you have more volume, and higher altitudes and speed mean longer range for the gliders. Also means the cargo plane doesn't have to get as close to the threat area or doesn't have to stay inside it as long.
And at a couple thousand a pop, if they are actually intercepted by air defenses, we're on the winning side of the $ equation, in theory.
I'm skeptical that this team wins, because someone else has done what was suggested above and has a sturdier (more expensive) flying box that has an optional prop and power package which makes it, in theory reusable if you have the sort of clear terrain to fly it back out.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Well, it's sometimes rathsr dangerous, even to do something like a LAPES drop is the first reason given. And then if you want to send humanitarian aid to Venezuela or aid to rebels in Syria, you can do that without crossing the border (technically). But flying the cargo in is a lot more efficient.


First I want to tell you I was a C-141 and C-130 crew member starting in the earily 1980s and since mid 2000s I been in the drone business. We deemed LAPES as too dangerous and the army didn't like it anyways, but still even in LAPES we could drop a crap out of poundage unlike what we would think with a drone.



Have learned that the cargo ramp on the MV-22 can only hold 2500lbs, so two of these stacked need to be under 2500lbs for the MV-22. Limited to four a trip by volume and weight. In theory, you can drop daily rations to four separate teams in a lot less time (in the air for the MV-22) using the gliders. Saves fuel burn.


MC-22s can carry 20,000 internally or 15,000 externally, but a C-130 can drop 40,000 lbs



Makes more sense deployed from fixed-wing, in my opinion because you have more volume, and higher altitudes and speed mean longer range for the gliders. Also means the cargo plane doesn't have to get as close to the threat area or doesn't have to stay inside it as long.


Some what true, but what is the threat? Drones as you suggest would be used in limited limited situations. Just what are you going to drop these out of? A C-5... they are still big with wingspan..



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

First I want to tell you I was a C-141 and C-130 crew member starting in the earily 1980s and since mid 2000s I been in the drone business. We deemed LAPES as too dangerous and the army didn't like it anyways, but still even in LAPES we could drop a crap out of poundage unlike what we would think with a drone.


Absolutely. Payload by fixed wing delivery gets you "the mostest, the fastest". There will be times when this is not viable. Such as after an amphibious assault. They are looking for ship-to-shore capability. I'm not sure it's going to be viable on any large scale, but ...




MC-22s can carry 20,000 internally or 15,000 externally, but a C-130 can drop 40,000 lbs 

The MV-22B with full internal fuel and VTO requirement is limited to 5600 lbs payload. Neither the Osprey or glider can be loaded at full weight for payload. Cargo ramp is limited to 2500lbs for airdrop, which means if they stack them two tall to get four inside an Osprey, each is limited to 700lb payload + ~400lb glider empty weight (+stack structure).
So, again this is going to be a niche capability involving the Osprey. They also think they can load 8 in a CH-53K for ship-to-shore. By comparison, the marine KC-130's can fit 18 stacking them three tall. C-17 fits 42!

What is threat? Well any modern IADS and/or a situation where complete air dominance is not established. The Marines interest right now is ship-to-shore to supplement supplies in an amphibious assault and deliver cargo directly to the front, diminishing the log jam on the beach and having to truck or otherwise haul it (rotary-wing) from beach to forward units.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert


What is threat? Well any modern IADS and/or a situation where complete air dominance is not established. The Marines interest right now is ship-to-shore to supplement supplies in an amphibious assault and deliver cargo directly to the front, diminishing the log jam on the beach and having to truck or otherwise haul it (rotary-wing) from beach to forward units.


PAD drops are very good, but I can agree drones might have a narrow capability over actual manned air drop missions. When we look at manned drops above 5,000 is safe from small arms and above 20,000 is most MANPADS, so unless we are talking the big boys there isn't much out there as a threat.


edit on 1-4-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

There has been a shift away from planning/procuring for the regional conflicts we've been in for nearly 20 years towards looking at the bigger picture. While we were pissing away ~$5,000,000,000,000.00 in the middle east the last decade and more, other near-peer countries were playing catchup. There is a lot of head-scratching about "what if we ever really have to do this?" Because right now, we're stretched pretty thin.

Beyond that, it doesn't have to be a near-peer to pose a threat to cargo aircraft. A Vietnam-era SA-2 would be more than capable of plugging any of our cargo aircraft. More modern systems are pretty mobile and have a good range (couple hundred miles even for the older Gammon). If we're talking about an amphibious landing at the edge of our ability to project power, things look dicey quick.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join