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.

 

Canada giving serious thought to replacing it's F-18s with UCAVs

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

September 15, 2005

Canada, which will have to replace its fleet of 122 American built F-18 fighters by 2017, is seriously considering buying combat UAVs (UCAVs).



But if Canada expresses interest in buying the X-45C, but only if it can handle air-to-air combat,


Entire article


I know that Lockheed is working on a afterburn capable UCAV that they claim will be able to carry out air-to-air missions.




posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I would be a bit worried about replacing ALL of my fighters with UCAV's. The technology, IMO, is not proven to be reliable.

If I were Canada, I'd be looking to get a mix of both...Maybe some F-35's to compliment a backbone of X45's.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
As a Canadian I have to agree with the idea of mixing them in. Completely replacing the CF-18 is a BAD idea. UCAV's are still experimental and I don't trust their targeting systems. If there is a targeting error, a human pilot could say"That's a friendly and I don't wanna shoot him", and then go after the REAL enemy with the gun or unguided thing that won't be friendly fire. But UCAV's do have their advantages and I would like to see a few coming into the country's military. If only the X-43 could be cheaply turned into a working interceptor UCAV I think it would be great.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
We're a passive country with a paltry Defense Budget this UCAV program could quite literally leapfrog us into the 21st Century in Aircraft Technology. If anything it could provide even more jobs to maintain these things as we will be able to afford many more unmanned systems then manned. I just hope we look into an Aerostat "mothership" UAAC(Unmanned Airborn Aircraft Carrier). Yes I know that doesn't really exist in the non-classified world yet(i've seen "concepts" nothing more) but it would be ideal for a country with a low population and a huge amount of Land Area to defend.

Yes I do agree that is unproven but there is plenty of time to watch the UCAV program develop (of which I'm sure our Generals are getting a front row seat so to speak)



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
I know that Lockheed is working on a afterburn capable UCAV that they claim will be able to carry out air-to-air missions.


- Really? Whats it called?

sardion2000 - ? - Huh? that sounds a bit odd, any links of concept pics? I've never heard of an UAAC. Sounds cool though. I'm assuming it will be an Airship....But obviously a very very big one.(?)



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I think in the future UCAV's are going to better in Air-to-Air combat then any human could dream of being. Machines can take much higher G forces then us water bags. Computers are getting faster all the time and at a much greater rate then humans are getting smarter. Robots are evolving something on the order of a million times faster then humans.

We are not there yet but its only a matter of time before all pilots are obsolete.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Tis a dream of DARPA. I'm more intrested in it's civilian uses versus it's military uses but it's a rather neat concept. Here is a lengthly article that I just found that talks about this very thing. sort of.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

It's the only reference I've been able to find in a quick search, something's posted on ATS about this I'm sure of it.

EDIT:


This is the Walrus.

www.aerosml.com...

[edit on 22-9-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 22-9-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I’m really surprised that there hasn't been an air to air UAS’ yet, what is so difficult about putting a powerful radar and targeting system in an UAS and calling it a fighter?

Now, as for Canada, I don't think it would be a wise decision to replace all of their fighter with UAS’, to many unknowns about them at this point.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Canada is considering such a move to all UCAV's because it knows that they fall under the defense umbrella of the US.
It is a move to save money and take the human pilot fatality out of the combat equation. Its cleaner and less of a political risk [ie: the cost of a Canadian life] in making such a move. After all, it is the next future step in air-to-air combat evolution.






seekerof

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
They also aren't planning this for like 12. By 2017 I should HOPE the UCAV is a proven concept, or at least a lot farther along than it is now.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’m really surprised that there hasn't been an air to air UAS’ yet, what is so difficult about putting a powerful radar and targeting system in an UAS and calling it a fighter?

Now, as for Canada, I don't think it would be a wise decision to replace all of their fighter with UAS’, to many unknowns about them at this point.


SWEET JESUS! An Eagles avatar?!?!?!

Where do I get my own?



I think we will start to see UCAVs equiped for A2A in the future. I talked to my friends older who is a former Hornet jockey, and from what he tells me fighting A2A requires a lot more then dropping some bombs. I think the politics play into it as well. It's a lot easier to be certain of a ground target that you can get a visual on then, say, an aircraft flying 50 miles away.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Well, once they said to Britain not to develop any aircraft because missiles were the way of the future, perhaps they are doing the same to Canada?

IMO bad news...


Unless we have some serious AI's on those aircraft (or online pilots that are availabe 24/7).



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The limitations of AI's, and the threat of jamming an RPV's control signal, means that UAV's will be the "weapon of the future" for a long time to come. I am sure they will have their uses, but I don't expect to see them replace manned combat aircraft in my lifetime.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
- Really? Whats it called?


Sabre Warrior



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I talked to my friends older who is a former Hornet jockey, and from what he tells me fighting A2A requires a lot more then dropping some bombs. I think the politics play into it as well. It's a lot easier to be certain of a ground target that you can get a visual on then, say, an aircraft flying 50 miles away.



Either that or there already are A2A UAS’ and they just aren't telling us about them



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Speaking of UCAVs for the A2A mission, am I the only one who feels that making it based around a fighter would be a waste of time?

I mean, I don't think we will get to the point where the will be able to dogfight with manned aircraft for a LOOOONNNGGG time, just because there is no replacement for actually being in the cockpit.

Thus, UCAVs would most likely be thrust into the BVR realm of A2A combat. If this is the case, wouldn't a platform that has a very high endurance along with a large missle capacity be more usefull?



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I don't think you will see UCAV's in an actual furball anytime soon. My bet is on BVR engagements directed by an AWACS type aircraft. You send say 10 of the buggers head of the strike package, a few for CAP, a few for SEAD, etc and clear a corridor for the attack aircraft.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

AMM
SWEET JESUS! An Eagles avatar?!?!?!
Where do I get my own?

I would put my fav team on...but there not doing so hot.
*cough*[size=0]Vikings*cough*


NWguy83 - huh? Thats a cool video and all...but did you read what I said correctly?

Sardion...Were you talking about the Walrus???
I was thinking of...well, basically this sucker, only updated of course.



[edit on 23-9-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

NWguy83 - huh? Thats a cool video and all...but did you read what I said correctly?


"Really? Whats it called?" - Murcielago



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
"Well, once they said to Britain not to develop any aircraft because missiles were the way of the future, perhaps they are doing the same to Canada?"
GZ

First our Canadian Gov has to work out the budget to be able to work out the cost figures. The the Candian Military has to work out the budget to work out their cost to analyse the feasability. Then if it works out and is approved it go's to the present Governments Defence Minister who has to have his staff work out the dollars of cost. Then if the defence Minister approves the intial outlay, it go's up to the Prime Minister who send's it down to his feasability people who do a cost and time principle study and send it back to the Canadian Prime Ministers Office. If the Candian Prime Minister still approves the feasability study he/she sends it back down to the Defence Minister. If the Defence Minister is still alive and remembers and approves of it, it becomes abill for the Canadian House of Parlament to have the first of, I believe three readings.. To cut a short story long it will when and if majority vted in the positive, go back to the Defence Minister, if his ticker is still ticking for his/her signature. Then it's sent to the Canadian Prime Minister's Office again for his staff to review and if O.K. forwarded to the Prime Minister for a signature. If the Prime MInister agrees and signs, he hands the Bill back down to his staff who forwards it to the Defence Minister assuming he/she' still kicking. Who then send's it down to the head of military purchases -- usually a General who must sign it too. Shall I go on or are we getting bored yet?..

Dallas




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join