Posted on 05/24/2010 10:56:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Boeing recently revealed that it has built a new, jet propelled, combat UAV, the Phantom Ray. It looks remarkably like the X-45C that Boeing was developing for the air force, before that project was cancelled four years ago. Boeing admitted that Phantom Ray is, in effect, an upgraded X-45C. Since the X-45 was cancelled, enthusiasm for such aircraft has grown in the air force and navy. So Boeing, using its own money, went ahead and built the X-45C/Phantom Ray, and plans to have it make its first flight before the end of the year. After that, who knows?
Boeing is not alone. Last year, General Atomics (manufacturer of the Predator) revealed its Avenger (Predator C), which is 14.2 meters (44 feet) long, and was built to be stealthy. The V shaped tail and smooth lines of the swept wing aircraft will make it difficult to detect by radar. There is a humpbacked structure on top of the aircraft, for the engine air intake. There is an internal bomb bay that hold up to 1.4 tons of weapons, or additional fuel to provide another two hours of flying time, in addition to the standard 20 hours endurance. The 4,800 pound thrust engine appears to be built to minimize the heat signature sensors. General Atomics, has a division devoted to building stealth features into aircraft. This includes the world's largest indoor radar cross section testing facility. Avenger looks very similar to Phantom Ray, and the navy plans to check it out. Boeing sees General Atomics as a formidable competitor in the UAV market, and wants to get back in the running for big combat UAV contracts.
The Phantom Ray is a flying wing design, similar to the X-45s and X-47s built as development aircraft for the U.S. Air Force and Navy. These UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles) were built to carry weapons. The U.S. Air Force's X-45A combat UAV (UCAV) dropped its first smart bomb in 2004. Two years ago, the U.S. Navy rolled out its first combat UAV. This was part of a six year long, $636 million contract to build and test two X-47B aircraft. The test program calls for first flight this year and first carrier landing in two years. The 15 ton X-47B has a wingspan of 20 meter/62 feet (whose outer 5 meter/15 foot portions fold up to save space on the carrier). It carries a two ton payload and will be able to stay in the air for twelve hours.
Seven years ago, the X-47A UCAV made its first flight. Development of this aircraft began in 2001. The Air Force was also testing the X-45 UCAV, which also had a naval version (the X-46). The X-45 program began in 1999, and the eight ton (max takeoff weight, with two ton payload) aircraft was ready for operational tests in 2006. The X-46 has a different wing layout, and a range of 1,100 kilometers, carrying a payload of two tons. The X-47A also has a two ton payload and a range of 1,600 kilometers. Unlike the X-45, which was built to be stored for long periods, the X-47A was built for sustained use aboard a carrier. All of these aircraft are very stealthy and can operate completely on their own (including landing and takeoff, under software control). The UCAVs would be used for dangerous missions, like destroying enemy air defenses, and reconnaissance.
The X-45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing missions, early on, when enemy air defenses have to be destroyed. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X-45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.)
The X-45A also passed tests with formation flying. The X-45C was designed to carry eight SDB (250 pound small diameter bombs), or up to two tons of other JDAMs. The planned X-45C would weigh in at about 19 tons, have a 2.2 ton payload and be 12.6 meters/39 feet long (with a 15.8 meter/49 foot wingspan.) The X-45A, built for development only, is 8.7 meters/27 feet long, has a wingspan of 11 meters/34 feet and has a payload of 1.2 tons. The X-45C was designed to hit targets 2,300 kilometers away. Each X-45C was to cost about $30 million, depending on how extensive, and expensive, its electronic equipment was. Believing they could do better, the U.S. Air Force cancelled its X-45 program three years ago, and is now looking into different UCAV designs. But it looks like Boeing believes the air force will come back to the X-45/ Phantom Ray.
Meanwhile, many UCAV designers want to equip the UCAVs with sensors (various types of video cams) to give the aircraft the same kind of "situational awareness" that piloted aircraft have. But for this to work, the UCAV would need software that would enable it to think like a fighter pilot. The techies say this can be done. But the fighter pilots that run the air force and naval aviation are not so sure. There is also some worry about job security and pilots being replaced by robotic aircraft. All this is headed for some mock combat exercise between manned and unmanned fighters. Such tests will be a competition between pilots and programmers. But the programmer community contains fighter pilots as well, and the smart money is on the geeks to outsmart, or at least outfly, the human pilots. No one thinks it will be a lopsided battle, but the robotic aircraft are so much cheaper, that even a dead even finish favors the pilotless aircraft. The U.S. Navy has invested several billion dollars, so far, in developing combat UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) that can operate from aircraft carriers, and replace some of the manned aircraft on carriers.
There are other problems with the combat UAVs, and these concern just how they will be used. Currently, the thinking is that they will be sort of like cruise missiles that return, and will be most useful for reconnaissance and dangerous missions like taking out enemy air defenses. But many UAV engineers, and some fighter pilots, believe that combat UAVs could revolutionize air warfare. Combat UAVs can perform maneuvers that a manned aircraft cannot (because there are limits to the g-forces a human body can tolerate.) In theory, software and sensors would make a combat UAV much quicker to sort out a combat situation, and make the right move. For the moment, this aspect of UAV development is officially off the table. But once combat UAVs start operating, and that will be by the end of the decade, there will be much pressure to let combat UAVs rule the skies, in addition to scouting and bombing.
Meanwhile, a jet powered UAV, similar in shape to several tailless flying wing designs already out there (like the Phantom Ace), showed up in Afghanistan and South Korea late last year. The U.S. Air Force admitted that this was the RQ-170, a high altitude reconnaissance UAV developed in secret by Lockheed-Martin. It appears to have a 21 meter wingspan. The RQ-170 is believed to be a replacement for the U-2, and a supplemental aircraft for the larger Global Hawk (which has a 42 meter wingspan.)
It is not, however, unlikely that the sensor operator flies the craft while the pilot gets some coffee.
I remember a UAV that Boeing was developing that at the time claimed the ability to increase a carrier’s fire power 4x+ what it currently is.
I don’t know if this is the same plane. But it folded up inside these mini containers that looked like flattened freight containers. The idea was that you could stack them to the ceiling in the ships hanger.
Unpackaging the plan and preparing it for a mission was said to take less then 15 mins.
I was stunned, but manned pilot lobby killed the plane.
I would love if this plane is the same one that I saw before. A carrier already by itself carries firepower in excess of most countries on earth. This can only make it better.
Anyone concerned that Obama would use these against the domestic population? Posse Comitatus probably doesn’t cover drones.
Given the opportunity and the a sufficient crisis to take advantage of, I wouldn’t put anything past him.
Still think we need to develop these. We have a national debt problem and can’t afford manned aircraft in sufficient numbers to protect us any longer.
My biggest nightmare is someone takes control of these (terrorists) and turns them on a domestic population rather than Obama.
I am aware of the significant effort that has gone into sigsec, but the episodes of terrorists intercepting video feeds from drones in Afghanistan aren’t that reassuring.
The Army has enlisted men fly its unmanned aircraft. The Air Force did too, until the Union objected.
Only 4x? Pikers.
They even talked about prepositioning these so resupply would be as simple as an unrep.
While the F-22 is an amazing piece of engineering, I’m actually glad that we’re not pushing much more money down that route, since (speaking as someone who works on advanced control systems) it is clear that they will soon be obsolete.
“they will soon be obsolete”
Yes and no. It depends on the war. Aircraft carriers are obsolete in a full out war, but man are they ever useful for the policing wars.
Great post keep em comming
I don’t see the attraction as a fighter or a bomber at this time.
For $30MM, you can buy more than 50 cruise missiles. The price comparison becomes even more lopsided when maintenance costs are included.
An F-22 would mop the floor with one of these. They are subsonic and have a ceiling of 40,000 feet. The Raptor has a 60,000 foot ceiling and supercruise capabilities.
Maybe this is why they want to fight it now. The pilots know they would win.
The F-22 was designed subject to very specific criteria: to attain air dominance at any cost. This means it can easily be priced out of policing wars if much cheaper options are sufficient.
This doesn’t mean the F-22 was a waste. It was designed in the 1980s for an adversary that never really materialized. This is, in a sense, the ideal scenario and we should reinvest this dividend into engineering the next generation (for then it might then be needed) versus rolling out hundreds of unnecessary planes now.
I doubt 4X. Unless the darn things are launched from a vertical cell... You'd still have to fuel, arm and launch the thing, not to mention recover. Sortie rate, IOW's.
It wouldn't be anywhere near a 1v1 engagement. More likely to be 1v20 or 1v50. Heck, the USAF already worries that the limited number of F22's carry far too few missiles to mount an adequate defense.
The f-22 can simply fly away. It has a full Mach 2.35 speed advantage (3.2M vs. 0.85M). A sidewinder has a top speed of Mach 2.5. That means that the closing speed is about 100 miles and hour. Your UAV shooting at an F-22 at a range of fifty miles would have to have a sidewinder with 30 minutes of fuel to close the gap. Each successive missile would have it worse because the range would increase rapidly. The F-22 missiles would be traveling with a closing speed of about 2000 mph. It would take 90 seconds to arrive on target. This is a scenario where the two planes fire at 50 miles, turn tail and run at top speed.
You misunderstood my comment, and I can see why. When I gave the matchup ratios it led you to believe that the mission was an aerial engagement with UAV’s attempting to shoot down defending F22’s. Not what I was thinking, but I can see how you could get that from the way I wrote it.
These UAV’s are on a strike mission. They are flooding the zone of a given air defense sector looking for Patriot batteries and such. Now you’ve got a pair of F22’s trolling around at 60K ft. How many missles do they have between them relative to the number of UAV ‘targets’? See what I’m getting at.
There’s another problem that I didn’t even mention because I don’t know the answer. Could be a big one, or a small one. The problem is detection time. Can the F22’s ASEA radar pickout these individual UAV’s at sufficient range to engage BVR? BVR is what the F22 was designed for.
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.