Posted on 03/09/2010 7:39:00 AM PST by decimon
1. DARPA's is seeksing purpose-built unmanned systems for close air support, as well as unmanned versions of manned fighters, including the "QF-4, QF-16 and UA-10". The QF-4 and QF-16 designates target drone versions of the original F-4 and F16 fighters, while the UA-10 is presumably a reference to an unmanned version of the A-10.
>
2. DARPA is planning an April test flight for a prototype of a hypersonic weapon
>
(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...
Drones are great for near-realtime ISR, but the commander will want to have manned assets avail. to him for the forseeable next decade or two.
Sure, I was being overdramatic.
An ancient 727 filled with fuel and a couple cannon barrels filled with C-4 sitting where the seats used to be would work too, I bet.
Get rid of the SAMS and have those puppies dive bomb the target.
“Only real problem is that people will be trying to interfere with the uplink system.”
Or blowing up the C&C.
Bad idea, the good un-manned fighter aircraft are so inherently unstable and designed for hi-gee maneuvers that taking a low-gee aircraft and converting it would just be wasting time, because the OTHER side will have the faster more nimble drones.They may not be as high tech but they just might have more, quatity has its own quality.
Bad idea, the good un-manned fighter aircraft are so inherently unstable and designed for hi-gee maneuvers that taking a low-gee aircraft and converting it would just be wasting time, because the OTHER side will have the faster more nimble drones.They may not be as high tech but they just might have more, quantity has its own quality.
Well, if they’re removing the pilot, I hope they remove the dog...unless the dog is there just to pee on the computer when it screws up.
Not sure I follow you? “head-to-head,” like a dogfight? Like engaged in air-to-air and air-to-ground engagements?
What “competitions” are you referring? Really would like to know, as I am unaware of any head-to-head comparison to validate that statement. BTW, Predator's are very g-limited and slow, much more so than any fielded fighter, and are extremely limited in the type and amount of ordnance they can carry. And BTW, times two, you do know that not all RPVs are "Predators," that there are many different types, correct.
UAVs, PRVs, or UAS (take your pick), they are capable in a permissive environment but not so much in contested airspace. They are also very, very limited in their ability to “sense and avoid” threats like other aircraft or missiles.
“There will always be a need for some manned aircraft, but UAVs can remain on station far longer than manned aircraft, are cheaper to construct, and are the future.”
In a permissive environment. I was at a talk by Gen Deptula (USAF A2), and he is a big advocate for RPVs and even he sees no near-or mid-term obsolescence for manned fighters. Once we see unmanned tanks and armored vehciles operating on a battlefield, then maybe we are getting somewhere to talk about unmanned fighters being replaced by RPVs. We need to crawl before we can run, and a 1-G, 20 knot, 2-dimensional environment is tough to crack using armored vehicles, let alone jumping right to a multi-G, over-the-mach, 360 degrees operating system.
” Only real problem is that people will be trying to interfere with the uplink system.”
A BIG threat, for sure, and one they are working on very diligently.
It’s not actually “flying”; it’s falling at the same rate as the earth’s curvature...;)
BTTT!
;-]
I did like the reference to Star Trek (original version) in the Captain Dunsel post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.