not a chance the ucav cant match the performance of the jsf or any other fighter in service they are strictly for survalance and can mabey carry a payload of 2 jdam bombs but they are mabeey 20-30 years away from posing a threat to modern fighters.

Yes, the current UCAVS are not a match for things like the F-35, F-22, or F-15...

But why would a UCAV that was developed as a bona fide fighter not match any of these vehicles? If it was equipped with the same radar and long-range missiles, then it seems like you'd have a match...

and at closer range (during a dogfight) ucavs would be able to pull more Gs than a manned fighter, and might have quicker reaction times.. meaning victory for the robot.

My point was not that current UCAVs could beat a flight of F-35s (or MiG-29s, as it were)... what I was trying to say was that it might have made more sense to develop a full-fledged robotic fighter instead of the JSF. When you sit back and think about it, cultural biases within the military are the only things that have prevented such investments.

how would a ucav have better reaction during a dog fight and i would count on a good pilot rather than a computer in a dog fight anyday.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

That article you provided was wrong. The mistake is corrected in this article released by Lockheed:

LOCKHEED MARTIN CLARIFIES WIRE SERVICE STORY ON JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Bethesda, Md., June 18, 2004 -- A Reuters wire service story on June 17 mischaracterized a previously reported delay in the Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.


Schedule information that was reported in the misleading article had been previously addressed several months ago. There are no new schedule developments in the JSF program. Since the President's budget was announced in February, Lockheed Martin and JSF program officials have stated -- and it has been widely reported -- that the first flight of the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft was moving from the fall of 2005 to August 2006. This allows the first aircraft to take advantage of the design refinement efforts being made on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft. The STOVL version is expected to fly in 2007.

The financial impact of the JSF schedule change as described above was fully reflected in the estimates of earnings per share and operating cash flow released on April 27, 2004, the date Lockheed Martin released its first quarter financial results. The System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the JSF is under a cost-plus award fee contract.


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 130,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2003 sales of $31.8 billion.

To answer a number of you in this topic, when was the last dogfight? mid 1980s, thats when. Todays air to air combat consists of standoff missile battles at anything from 30 miles to 100 miles.

An UCAV doesnt have to be manoeuverable (tho they can be built with less Gforce constraints in mind, due to having no pilot who has to maintain conciousness), it just has to be stealthy and carry a long range missile selection.

UCAVs can have longer range, better reactions and riskier manouevering. What they currently dont have are brains, but neither do missiles, and they seem to do a good task of hitting targets, especially targets that are trying to evade you.

UCAVs currently in development can be and in my opinion, are a direct match for the f-15, f-22 et al. And in a stand off missile war, unmanned is better (give it instructions to kill anything that comes within 100 miles of it, and tell its buddies to stay the hell away, you just got yourself an airborne sentry that wont tire).

if a umav got in a dogfight, it could lock on to the enemy and like a aimbot in the game Counter Strike, or Mohaa, it auto aims and shoots.

The dogfight is dead, the dogfight is dead, the dogfight is dead...

Or fer chrissakes, they've been saying this for decades now. The only reason there haven't been any dogfights since the '80s (in the case of NATO countries anyway) is that there haven't been any equally matched air wars. End of story.

It is my opinion that the UCAV is being designed for both offence and defensive mission profiles. It will become part of air battle group that will enhance the capabilities of an air amada.
The UCAV will be carried aloft by a momber and would be employed once airborned launched to protect its' host. In addition to this task it could also be used to attack ground targets that could possibily inhibit the bomber to perform its attack profile.
It is not the intent of the UCAV to replaced manned aircraft but to only enhance the capability of the total package.

If you want a good UCAV fighter just make unmanned JSF!
It is easy just cut down the cockpit, add computer and sensors, make stronger airframe and design it so it can withstand 40 G.

but the UCAV are not as fast as our current fighters i dont want something going 600mph trying to intercept a target flying at mach 2

It wouldn't require any special/new technology to design supersonic ucavs.

in fact a robotic drone was once used in onjuction with the SR-71. I forget its designation.

its not hard all you need is a delta wing concept with a fused body and a ramjet engine it will go supersonic trust me but its not needed most ucavs are for surveillance why would you be going mach 1 when you are trying to take photos and video.