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.

 

UCAVs - Air to Air Capability

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Are there any UCAVs operational or in developmental stages that can engage aerial targets?

I think that drones with this capability could be more lethal than the F22 as you could buy more and they may be stealthier




posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
as of right now no there are no ucavs with this ability but we dont know what they are working on also what kind of an airforce is that sitting in a room with a joystick when you could be out there in the rush



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
what kind of an airforce is that sitting in a room with a joystick when you could be out there in the rush


Thats what people are always trying to do. Get as far away from the person they are killing. From Swords to cruise missiles.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
i still think the future of the airforce is a combination of pilots and drones.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
i still think the future of the airforce is a combination of pilots and drones.


I'd have to agree. I see the AF shaping up into one where you have your maned planes protected by a few different UCAV's. One would take "the point" and fly ahead of the rest as a probe/skermisher. The rest would serve to protect the conventional air craft.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
My leanings on UCAV's, in respect to air-to-air capabilities, is that they are the first or second step(s) towards a pilotless fighter aircraft. UCAV's are like DARPA's program for robotic vehicles....were the future will be to oneday have a manless robotic tank/armored vehicles. Both scenerio's would have a 'human' controlling from a safe distance, as in current UCAV's (Predators) that can be flown over Iraq or Afghanistan and be 'piloted' from the States.


seekerof



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I would say that UCAVs (remote opperated ones not computer controled ones) are the future of air-to-ground and air-to-air combat in ucavs there could be no human G limit on it in a dog fight imagine a UCAV taking a 25 G turn you could out fly any human in close combat.They would also be cheaper to make than manned aircraft .What I see as the biggest problem for UCAVs becoming more of the future of air power is the pilots flying planes now. Pilots heads are getting to big to fit in there own airplanes. They need to get behind UCAVs now or there going to get schooled by nerds behind computer screens



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
its much harder I think to control a ucav in a dogfight then to be a pilot in one the person who is controlling it will have to do a lot of things and he wont have a 360degree view of the scene also there will be more than one jet so the ucav wont have that much of an advantage.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
A ucav doesnt have to be flown from a single computer screen you can make a wrap around screen by linking a bunch of moniters toghter It wouldnt be hard to do. Saying there would be more than on jet i dont really understand because for money to plane cost a ucav is cheaper so you would have more ucavs than you would have jets. Also it wont cost the 2 million to train pilots as the airforce does now it would cost alot less so you could make even more ucavs for your money.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Would they even bother putting guns on UCAVs?

They could have the sole purpose of firing missiles from Beyond Visual Range.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
how would that look for our country we have a 15 foot ucav that fires a missile and thats it and our best pilots are people who do nothing but play video games all day yeah real scary airfoce i hope that never happens maybe a mix of both ucavs and jets but not just ucavs.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
how would that look for our country we have a 15 foot ucav that fires a missile and thats it and our best pilots are people who do nothing but play video games all day yeah real scary airfoce i hope that never happens maybe a mix of both ucavs and jets but not just ucavs.


I would disagree with you to a point. How would you feel as an enemy pilot going up against much more advance, much more stealthy aircraft. When you get shot, you die (or eject if you are lucky). Meanwhile, since these UCAVs are so cheap, you shoot one down, but you haven't killed that pilot - then suddenly he engages with another UCAV. Each American "pilot" could sit back controling a few different planes. He could use 1 to attack, with 1 or more other ones liotering beyond range, ready to attack if the first one gets shot down.

I do however agree that we need a MIX of both - there will always be a need to have a human in the area of conflict.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
In response to the question no ther arent any air-toair drones that we know, but I bet the Predator could be easily modified to carry stingers but wouldnt attack high performance planes. When they do arrive a-a drones would work with a raptor, ussing a low probability intercept link to exchange data. the drones would provide sensor info and cover fire with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles while the Raptor could dogfight or ingage at medium range. drones would act as a force multiplier to maximise the efectiveness of the Raptor force and act as an invaluable complement like the f-16 is to the f-25 rather than as a competitor.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
how would that look for our country we have a 15 foot ucav that fires a missile and thats it and our best pilots are people who do nothing but play video games all day yeah real scary airfoce i hope that never happens maybe a mix of both ucavs and jets but not just ucavs.


I think fighting ucavs could be very demoralizing to the other side they would lose pilots that take a long time and money to train and and we lose a robot. they may think we are wussies but most lower tech countries think we hide behind the long arm of technology already we just be making the arm longer

I love the idea ronniii259 put out about the drones connected to a manned plane with data link. the drones could fly out in a far formation around the plane with there own radars to give the manned craft a larger radar range then could have by its self. Even though I think ucavs can be better than any manned planes it will prob. not happen that way at least not for a while pilots are going to be around for awhile longer.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
so you want a four star general in the airforce who has never had any flying hours on a real plane who dosent even know how to fly a plane because he spent his life as a computer nerd that is just ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   
We are not currently developing UCAVs with air-to-air capability because the technology is immature. Air-to-air combat requires a high level of situational awareness. This includes understanding the combat environment, selectivity in choosing targets and how to engage them, and the skill of outthinking an opponent. These skills can only be attained by having a pilot in the cockpit, and that is not likely to change any time soon. Unmanned planes are good at monotonous tasks like patrol and reconnaissance, but missions that require an understanding of rapidly changing events and quick decision making are still best left to a human pilot.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
i still think the future of the airforce is a combination of pilots and drones.


I agree, but UCAVs will present the US with so much more offensive capacity its mind boggling. Can you imagine a flight of stealth UCAV's armed with directed energy weapons flying ahead of a strike package comprised of FB-22's. Make it a 2 seater, and have the RIO instead be the Offensive UCAV officer. Assign 1 UCAV to each plane, have it controlled by the backseater to clear out threats to the plane. That way you would have standoff protection, but better command and controll with a human pilot at the front



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Mr. Brown is a retired Air Force officer who writes military fiction novels. If you want to see the wave of the future in air warfare read one of his novels.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by flycatch
Mr. Brown is a retired Air Force officer who writes military fiction novels. If you want to see the wave of the future in air warfare read one of his novels.


Dale did not retire from the AF, he quit. Recently he pled guilty to tax evasion and is now a convicted felon. Hopefully that won't prevent more books out of him.

LINK

Kind of ironic that a guy who supports law enforcement gets busted for tax evasion.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
As mentioned above, the weakest link in any modern combat aircraft is the aircrew. Human Physiology is the major limiting factor in the design of any new airframe and will be phased out as soon as possible.

The erradication of aircrew from aircraft is seen as a priority by many leading aircraft designers as it allows a lower radar profile, higher rates of manouverability and the ability to stay in the air continuously thru air to air re-fuelling.

Single seat piloting will become a recreational pastime, such as horse riding is now. My suspicion is that the only area where pilots will still be needed is in the civil aviation arena, and then merely as a failsafe to the compters that will fly the aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join