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.

 

Americas UAV's

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
www.air-attack.com...
www.air-attack.com...
www.air-attack.com...

How many UAV's does america need that perform the medium-long range medium-high altitude reconnaissance mission. Surely there are better ways form america to spend its millitary budget such as new tankers or a long range, high speed, stealth bomber either manned or unmanned.

Justin




posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
From what I understand this new KillerBee UAV is designed for providing real-time reconnaissance information. It flies at low altitude, the Predator is a medium altitude aircraft, and very slow and thus vulnerable. Also it's not an ideal platform for real-time reconnaissance, it's camara's aren't that sophisticated.

What's new about this UAV is that it's "network-capable" (a popular term in the Pentagon) so more of them can be controlled, and they can also "relay voice and data across great distances".

And this isn't the only new UAV that's being tested, there are quite a lot of UAV programs underway, by the Navy, Army and Air Force: www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
From what I understand this new KillerBee UAV is designed for providing real-time reconnaissance information. It flies at low altitude, the Predator is a medium altitude aircraft, and very slow and thus vulnerable. Also it's not an ideal platform for real-time reconnaissance, it's camara's aren't that sophisticated.

What's new about this UAV is that it's "network-capable" (a popular term in the Pentagon) so more of them can be controlled, and they can also "relay voice and data across great distances".


If the only problem with the predator is its cameras and speed then upgrade its cameras and its engine and surely it isnt that hard for the worlds only current super power to network the predators. far cheaper than a compleatly new design. Can the KillerBee UAV carry any weapons?

Justin



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Just a little side irony here:

Justin, you understand that Airattack.com is Zion's website right? So the man you are communicating with is also the source you quoted for your post.

I just though the "neato" factor was high here and wanted to point that out.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Justin, in adition to the UAV programs you mention there are numerous other ones being funded by the US government. Recce UAVs are critical force-multipliers just like tankers etc.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
that KillerBee UAV looks WELLLLL nice from your link


is there any closer up pictures of it??



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
No, I wasn't able to find other images of the KillerBee.

Northrop released a high resolution image for the media only, you need a press account to be able to watch it.

But if you simply change the URL of the medium size image, media.primezone.com... into media.primezone.com... anyone van download the 5MB (4200 x 2850) image, but don't tell anyone



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
lol nice,

so thats why theres soooo many UFO sightings!!
- if i never visited these forums and saw that thing in the sky i would think it would be some sort of alien craft



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
if i never visited these forums and saw that thing in the sky i would think it would be some sort of alien craft


Theres a very good chance many UFO sighting are a direct result of people sighting "black" military aircraft. I know if I saw a F-117 before it went public I could easily think UFO if I saw that thing.

This KillerBee does remind me alittle of the Infamous Baby B-2 many reported seeing outside Groom Lake.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Justin_Barton3,

>>
How many UAV's does america need that perform the medium-long range medium-high altitude reconnaissance mission.
>>

MQ-1/9 goes 400-500nm and stays 17-24hrs at 25,000+ft. Scanning an area the size of a small township or county and potentially employing weapons against targets therein.

RQ-4 goes 2,500nm and stays for 36-42 at 60,000+ft. Scanning an area the size of a large state, and as a 'national asset' absent any weaponization.

Would you compare an OV-1 Mohawk to a U-2S and ask 'what's up wi'that?' so incredulously?

The simple fact of the matter is that manned aviation is plateau'd out technologically, for the what the base configurational penalties create in the way of an _evolutionary dead end_.

OTOH, UAV's are just beginning to be seen as the vastly superior platforms they are and this 'newness' (military can't keep stepping on their neck in the wake of no-Cold-Warrior justification) in the public eye is also sponsoring a degree of engineering innovation not unlike that of the 20's. Because, relative to manned jets, they are /cheap/ and _simple_ technology platforms and their fashion popularity makes them 'fun and profittable' to experiment with.

>>
Surely there are better ways for America to spend its millitary budget such as new tankers or a long range, high speed, stealth bomber either manned or unmanned.
>>

Actually, no. The real problem which the AF probably is using this sudden 'affinity' with UAVs to cover for is that our force /structure/ is massively out dated (conceptual paradigm obsolescence). Such that the real question is not why not fewer UAVs. But rather 'why not more UCAVs'.

Because you see, over short ranges, a UCAV can fly the recce mission with similarly stunning (compared to manned stupidity as represented by the F-16/35/A-10) platforms. At 200nm, 10-15hrs should be possible _without_ air to air refueling.

At the same time, a decently designed UCAV can do something not even the MQ-9B (proposed turbofan Predator B variant) can achieve. Namely, sustain a 450-500 knot ingress in raids against targets 750-1,000nm away.

THESE being the inventory considerations by which you 'size' your followon tanker force to the tactical ability to quickly reduce a threat target set. THESE are the force metric by which you look at the extreme risk of a 'lone penetrator' model for giving away VLO technology base. And decide that it's better to go in with a horde of 500-700 airframes on a 7hr sortie cycle instead of 20-50 'every 36hrs' instead.

Having said that, the KB, is a specious little toy.

While I applaud the use of blended wing:body efficiencies and monolithic construction (something I advocated as long as 5 years ago), the fact remains that it is little more than a half-scale RQM-105 Aquila with gull wing aerodynamics.

And with a 6.5 wingpan long, it's /never/ going to be 'dropped' from anything moving at fast mover speeds. Anymore than it would be useful if it was (100-200 knots into a target area 100 miles distant is still an 30 minutes to an hour or more worth of transit while a fast jet is lucky to stay in the area for more than 40 minutes).

At the same time, 8lbs of payload is laughable. And 20lbs not much better (Aquila itself was destroyed by weight overages related to 'more payload!' requirements).

30hrs is an okay figure but the Hunter was recently upgraded with wing tanks for it's heavy fuel engine and is now routinely exceeding 21hrs worth of airtime. The difference being that it doesn't sacrifice 12lbs of payload to get there.

www.swiftengineering.com...

In general, the whole concept of killer bee is baseless since base and installational defense doesn't require an excess of mobility and the lack of an ability to /do anything/ (BUET tubes for instance) with what your surveillance spots still prevents you from engaging a threat at anything but point blank distances.

Again, there is no reason for a 'fast mover' reference if the recce platform (BIA etc.) doesn't /support/ the fast mover operational ethic. For which role we have been doing 'experiments' since the mid 60's using conventional (BQM-34) target drones launched from DC-130 aircraft. Indeed, the last time they played-it-again-Sam with such a concept was with project Argus I think it was called (AvLeak, early 90s), in which they showed bent-pipe ability to relay BIA in real time.

While systems like Finder-

www.ga.com...

And Silent Eyes-

silent_eyes_micro_unmanned_aerial_ vehicle_testing_successful

All showed a superior means of integrating micro-UAV + BP optics technologies within pylon or expendable countermeasure container volumes appropriate to fast mover use.

CONCLUSION:
As usual the USAF is completely fracked in admitting what it SHOULD (by mission mandate) be investigating. For the good of the nation in lowering the cost of their own existence while increasing our capability to strike deep for extended periods. With UCAVs.

Instead, they are capitalizing on what I would call Small UAV technologies in the hopes of 'cornering the market' on ISR platforms with a homegrown platform to replace various Israeli RC airplane derivative platforms. Just as they have 'gifted' the Army with ERMP Predator. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with this, given how the Army have displayed their own technologic and doctrinal incompetence in spending billions of dollars on the Divisional/Maneuver systems like Shadow and Hunter for basically only a microforce and cancellation (largely to protect the defunct-anyway Comanche from the obvious threat of AMUST and other like programs).

But advertising a 'killer bee' under the premises given is just short of misinformational deception covering for commercial fraud and mission statement negligence. i.e. SNAFU a$ u$ual.


KPl.


LINK-
Battlefield UAVs
www.vectorsite.net...

[edit on 15-3-2006 by ch1466]

Mod Edit: Truncated Link Of Great Length

[edit on 15/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
i think the b-2 spirit looks ^A LOT^ more alien than the f-117.

public.andrews.amc.af.mil...

sunsite.tus.ac.jp...

www.wallpaper.net.au...

id love to see it close up on the ground (in person).





Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by st3ve_o
if i never visited these forums and saw that thing in the sky i would think it would be some sort of alien craft


Theres a very good chance many UFO sighting are a direct result of people sighting "black" military aircraft. I know if I saw a F-117 before it went public I could easily think UFO if I saw that thing.

This KillerBee does remind me alittle of the Infamous Baby B-2 many reported seeing outside Groom Lake.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The B-2 is weird looking especially when seen head on. The Flying wing design itself is pretty old though going back decades in both the US and Germany. So I wouldnt be shocked seeing something like that fly after seeing Jack Northrops early work.

The F-117 on the other hand doesn't really look like it should be able to fly.

www.math.univ-montp2.fr...
If I caught a glimpse of this in a hanger though



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
the man you are communicating with is also the source you quoted for your post.


So! your point is??? So long as the source is accurate and the guy knows what he's talking about, what does it matter.



Justin, in adition to the UAV programs you mention there are numerous other ones being funded by the US government. Recce UAVs are critical force-multipliers just like tankers etc


I understand that there are numerous recce UAV's being funded by the us government but my point was why do they need such a large number of UAV's. All the recce UAV's fulfill 2 roles. Low level and high level recce. So surely 2 recce UAV's could fullfil these roles.



so thats why theres soooo many UFO sightings!! - if i never visited these forums and saw that thing in the sky i would think it would be some sort of alien craft


I read it somewhere recently that 50% of ufo sightings in america in i think the 50's and 60's could be attributed to the U2 alone.



MQ-1/9 goes 400-500nm and stays 17-24hrs at 25,000+ft.


Thats the statistics for the original predator. If u read the link i posted originally then you would know that. Read the third paragraph of this link.
www.globalsecurity.org...



over short ranges, a UCAV can fly the recce mission with similarly stunning (compared to manned stupidity as represented by the F-16/35/A-10) platforms. At 200nm, 10-15hrs should be possible _without_ air to air refueling.

At the same time, a decently designed UCAV can do something not even the MQ-9B (proposed turbofan Predator B variant) can achieve. Namely, sustain a 450-500 knot ingress in raids against targets 750-1,000nm away.


How does this relate to the topic

I understand the difference's between UAV's and UCAV's. Although i have to admit that using UCAV's as short range high speed UAV's is an idea i havent heard of before. so long as the UCAV's sensors are good enough i like it


Justin



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i think the b-2 spirit looks ^A LOT^ more alien than the f-117.
id love to see it close up on the ground (in person).


As would i but i also live in England so theres not much chance of it happening unfortunatly.


Justin

[edit on 15-3-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

I understand that there are numerous recce UAV's being funded by the us government but my point was why do they need such a large number of UAV's. All the recce UAV's fulfill 2 roles. Low level and high level recce. So surely 2 recce UAV's could fullfil these roles.


Good question. The answer isn't as simple as you might think - basically different UAVs provide different capabilities. US spending on UAV pograms can be divided among these roles:

1. micro-UAVs for soldiers to use in their immediate vicinity. These have to be cheap, easy to carry, reasonably expendable and easy to operate.

2. Tactical low-level UAVs (TUAVs) like the Killer Bee. These are used at a local level. They are not useful for strategic operations. Different ones are needed for different units - i.e. naval ones must be VTOL whereas Army ones can be truck launched etc.

3. Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs (MALE) like the Predator. These can fulfillstrategic or tactical missions. They are expensive and require greater infrastucture to operate so cannot be on-call to individual Army units etc (thus the army needs the TUAVs)

4. High Altitude Long Endurance UAVS (HALE) like the Global Hawk. These are the most capable but also the most expensive recce UAVs. They are strategic assets so only do the highest priority missions.

5. Weaponized UAVs. These are UCAVs designed to provide fire support to troops - different ones are required by Navy, Airforce and Army.

6. Strike UCAVs. These are much more likea strike fighter without the pilot.

7. Scientific/experimental UAVs.

There certainly is some cross-over, but it is easy to see why there are so many programs.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Justin
How many UAV's does america need that perform the medium-long range medium-high altitude reconnaissance mission. Surely there are better ways form america to spend its millitary budget such as new tankers or a long range, high speed, stealth bomber either manned or unmanned.

We spend money on all those things, but I do believe that currently there is an excessive amount of different UAV's being built.

One a read about the other day is a VTOL thats man-portable...well, kinda...I wouldn't wanna be the one to have to lugg it around.


Weaponised, man-transportable Micro UAVs




[edit on 15-3-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Murcielago,

I am generally against the development of small and micro UAV technology for two reasons:

1. It is subject to capture and exploitation in ways that medium systems are not (specifically including flight controls). Ways that could implicate as much as further jeopardize U.S. forces in actions for which they are not responsible.

2. It is a system whose use is specifically optimized to if not /intended for/ employment by police states as a means of making Orwell's world real.

The obvious answer as to why these systems are being pursued is simply that, among the powers that be in our military, 'nobody cares' so long as a new weapon doesn't involve the obsolescence of their precious manned strike systems. And the chain of command and support ($$$$) that derives therefrom.

And so long as UAV technology does not migrate to weaponized 'full scale' platforms, there will never be any option to deploying THAT warfighter level of system accountability (i.e. something that cannot be done covertly, by a paramilitary government agency but which _has_ to be done as a function of a serial numbered, ground-crew maintained, platform authorization), to conditions where unmanned systems /might/ be useful. So long as their existence was carefully controlled and acknowledged.

MUAVs as a whole will thus be more dangerous than useful in the kinds of things they allow a government to do to it's own people because the customer list for short range systems is more or less restricted to those able to already operate freely, with impunity, in a _safe_ environment.

Having said that, TAG's approach is a joke.

Ignoring the 120-190lbs of the man's backpack UAV is impossible. Why not /fly it in/ or even airdrop with an extended range one of these-

www.fas.org...

Your typical 2.75"/70mm rocket is going to weigh between 20 and 30lbs.

No man or /men/ are going to willingly haul eight of the damn things (160-240lbs) 'just far enough' to launch a helicopter which then moves forward to do their dirty work. Most especially not the SOF.

_Because the combination of their egos and their mission_ puts them at direct risk of capture or killing from the moment they step over the line of whatever encampment or vehicle is delivering them. And they can't afford the added weight. Or the heightened chance of technology compromise if caught. 'Just to give all the glory to an unmanned asset.'

At the same time that the aircraft's payload radius is so short compared to a real air asset's (probably a few tens of miles) that it is non-penetrating on it's own.

Of course by /marketing to the black world/ and 'suggesting a scenario'-

Urban ops, in a densely populated city, whereby remote control allows you to do things 'no missile could' (because the missile would be military controlled); you generate an artificial expectation of both user agency (someone too covert to acknowledge their inventoried abilities to the white world until it's too late to prevent their misuse) and their mission statement. Which is most assuredly one more applicable to a weapon against you and I (vehicle born logistics, standoff black-helicopter control agency) than any 'terrorist' lurking in Timbuktu.

Such is the danger of making UAVs fad-popular while /restricted/ from use as they truly should be: as dominant (restricted to) weapons of declared war and non-export.

Because toys in the hands of despots are dangerous on the same notion as Bush' "I am de-law!" use of wiretaps. There being no way for U.S. to save ourselves from 'them' when our real protectors are themselves not responsible to U.S. so much as The Constitution under which muzzle mutts are subservient to 'they' who define the law by their own convenience of rule.

And all this because nobody wants to acknowledge that an A-45 with EOTS fairing and a bellyful of Finder or Silent Eyes systems is _just as capable_ as a Predator. While 'also being a truly good bomber' in higher intensity level campaigns.

Selfish Morons.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
ch1446

Do you actually like anything in the US air force/army/navy at the moment??? You seem to have a major downer on everything.

Justin



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
1. It is subject to capture and exploitation in ways that medium systems are not (specifically including flight controls). Ways that could implicate as much as further jeopardize U.S. forces in actions for which they are not responsible.

2. It is a system whose use is specifically optimized to if not /intended for/ employment by police states as a means of making Orwell's world real.


I don't think either of those arguments are tenable. Whilst they are liable to capture to a greater extent than larger systems, their intended (and applied) combat use is not requiring of the key technologies that would make their capture unacceptable – and capture risk is something which no doubt the serious manufacturers are factoring in. The encrypted communications required for that mode of operation is not actually something that other countries cannot produce anyway. There can be no serious doubt that the operation of micro-UAVs at the tactical level will not increase the situational awareness which is generally considered to be a significant factor in saving lives.

To me at least, micro-UAVs are not sexy enough to get much interest, but from an operational viewpoint the advantages and logic are quite clear and compelling: they increase both survivability and flexibility of UAVs whilst massively increasing localized situational awareness and decreasing risk to soldiers on reconnaissance and related patrol missions.

Your second point is also somewhat misplaced. The Micro-UAVs being funded by the US government are battlefield surveillance systems. They are no more likely to be used to spy on the general population that… um… your microwave oven. Some Micro-UAVs have been used by police departments on routine (and legitimate) surveillance missions where they offer obvious cost savings relative to having a manned helicopter or light aircraft airborne.

The main limiting factor for civilian (i.e. Police) use of Micro-UAVs, and this goes to larger UAVs also, is the practicality and cost of collision avoidance systems. This is a major topic within the UAV world and means that Micro-UAVs are unlikely to be widespread because the FAA won’t allow it.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
ch1446

Do you actually like anything in the US air force/army/navy at the moment??? You seem to have a major downer on everything.

Justin

No he doesn't. He basically hates everything that has wings



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join