Posted on 02/21/2010 8:16:56 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Army's newest and most advanced Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose (ER/MP) UAS, has successfully completed a series of tests with the HELLFIRE® II UAS --- a missile specially engineered to fire from a UAV with a 360-degree targeting ability, service officials said.
The tests, involving nine perfect or near-perfect missile firings, took place at the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, Calif., and demonstrated the missile's ability to engage a wider target envelope than a typical Hellfire missile, said Tim Owings, Deputy Project Manager, Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
"The significance to this is this is the first missile designed specifically for a UAV. The HELLFIRE UAS missile can take advantage of a 360 look around angle. The ball on the UAV can swivel 360 degrees -- and with this missile you can engage targets that are below you, behind you and well off-axis from what a typical HELLFIRE can do," said Owings. "There were nine successful shots. The big point is the laser designation system, the weapons system and the UAV all performed as designed and as expected. It was a really clean test."
The testing began Nov. 22, 2009, with the unmanned system first performing dry runs against a target with an inert test missile on the inboard rail of the right wing. After confirming data was transmitting properly between the missile and aircraft and to the China Lake Range Control Center, a successful "cold" pass using a live powered missile took place, allowing the test to continue with an actual firing.
"The cold pass is assuring you have the missile locked on to the target. The hot pass is when you go all the way to a weapons release," said Owings.
(Excerpt) Read more at army.mil ...
I thought the AF wasn’t going to let the Army have armed UAVs.
In August 2005 the Army was awarded a $214-million contract for development of an Extended-Range Multi-Purpose unmanned aerial vehicle named the “Warrior.”
I hope they’ll confer a similar enhancement to the various guided 70mm missiles they’ve finally come out with —each hardpoint previously for a helfire can instead haul FOUR of those babies.
For a Predator that would mean 16 x 4 = SIXTY-FOUR different guided missiles.
One factor driving the radical off-bore axis shoots is “squirters” —no porno there, the term refers to bad dudes (of kill interest) who suddenly scatter from a strike. They want to hit those guys w/follow-up shots without changing direction of travel.
They’re also coming out with new imagining tech called, “Gordion stare” —provides ways of observing different bad dudes spread out, but using the same optical sensor. Like you’re tightly zooming in, and after the boom, they all scatter out of your zoom, right? Well this way other observers using your same sensor would STILL be able to follow those others guys.
There was a hugh, series fight about it, and Army won, and the AF was pretty pissed about it --that all went down like....3 years ago. Another stupid AF tizzy fit was that any UAV be controlled only by "real" pilots (they've since dropped that also).
Army now has bought a whole mess of "Sky Warriors", which are smaller than Reaper, but considerably more powerful than Predator (but with a third ventral stablizer).
SW has four hard-points, like Predator, only the payload is less.
I want all UAV's (heavier than, say, Raven) to have air2air refuel and be capable of being armed. I would also be interested in something small, quiet and highlllly persistent to carry some kind of small .50 cal.
NOT Predator. Look carefully --the tail features THREE surfaces, not two, as with Predator, right? At least 3 other easily recognized differences.
I think UAV is like the tank in the early 1930’s. Not too many countries are experimenting with it at the scale the US DoD is doing. The war in Iraq yielded experienced small units leaders and fighters across all skills (combat arms to cook/clerk had to pull patrols) who have experienced combat. That probably saved more lives in Afghanistan. Now new technologies, and battle management experience is being gained by the US military in Afghanistan. The only regret is the US is financially broke as we attain this experience and skill.
Excellent. I have recently become more of a fan of UAVs due to their cost and flexibility — and obviously because the loss of an aircraft does not mean the loss of the controller.
I could also see why the Air Force hates them with a passion.
Not that I think Navy carrier pilots like them much either. And for the same obvious reasons.
I am glad to see the Army getting them. And I am glad to see that they will be armed. Frankly, although they have been better about it in recent years, the Air Force made their own bed when they low-prioritized close air support in favor of sexy fighters and manned bombers.
When do these things get AI and become autonomous?
It is based on the Predator airframe with similar dimensions, rather than the Reaper. It has a diesel motor and more advance avionics package. The wing was redesigned to carry more ordnance and the electrical system had to be beefed up. It also is capable of swapping out mission packages, based on the situation.
Unlike the Predator the the Reaper, the ground control has no control of the flight control surfaces. The operator can change flight path, but with only limited control. The aircraft’s controllability is more similar to the Global Hawk.
I recall the only tizzy the AF got into with the Warrior was whether or not it would be a theater asset (meaning the AF got to control allocation). The Army wanted it to be a battalion asset.
The AF is having their fleet upgraded with much of the Warrior packages, if I recall correctly.
Makes a person wonder what is the really nasty stuff being held back for if and when.
“I could also see why the Air Force hates them with a passion.”
The AF doesn’t hate them. They are building up Predator and Reaper squadrons right an left. The Reserves are even getting into the game.
I suspect that is more because they can see which way the wind is blowing and are climbing on board out of necessity more than desire, but I won’t argue the point.
All of the services are going to have to get used to the idea that UAVs are a big part of the future of military aviation.
In retrospect I probably used the wrong word, there.
Tizzy is never an inappropriate word when the Air Force is involved. :-)
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.