WT Forums

After reading through the b-2 thread have a question. how much more cost are added to a manned airframe by life support and other necessary equipment for the pilot versus a unmanned aircraft. In terms of cost per airframe do you will is it realistic to field an unmanned reusable combat aircraft with moderate stealth in the 10 to 15 million dollar range. the reason I say moderate stealth is because if the unmanned craft has a data link for command this is a possible source of dection correct.

Being a leader in Autonomy Designs,and having managed several programs I will tell you the answer you hope to find by this comparison is unrealistic.

To be simple, I would not forsee the removal of lifesuport and the bulkhead room required for a "Human" related electronics, etc to be a justification in controling costs in an unmanned fighter designs. The truth is, it requires a great deal more avaiable footprint to setup an unmannned system that only performs in "Past tense" from a monitoring objective.

Their is still a human involved in the loop, and now your required to get that data to him in realtime. in a trailer in a country so far far away...

Much of the autonomy systems are getting better today, but a great deal of automation. Any Fighter jock can fly around with the Autopilot on taking him from Steerpoint to steerpoint. With Aeronautical navigation laws we are still required to be in command of the said aircraft for safe negotiation of airways and other traffic. The UAV systems are all required to have a "RADIO" on board to spec with the local ATC people. This is all datalinked through the current forum of satelite communications.

We are just not there. in Technology to get to a Unmmanned Airforce.

IF we begin to discuss Liabilities and mission performance The UAV fall very short in its Accountability to do the mission effictively, efficiently, and be dynamic in the battlspace.

Like the F117 and the B-2 and the Tommahawk cruise missile. These systems are for High threat open day events. they do not carry the war, They only open windows of opportunity for the gladiators to take over the battle.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

actually that was the answer I was hoping to see. I keep hearing about cost but it does seem like there is much bang for the buck yet in UAV

sorry meant doesn't in above post

without geting too technical or classified. How can you be realtime? I mean if you have plane moving 200 ft per sec, and it takes the data 1/10 a second to transmit, half a second for the pilot in the trailer to interpret the data, and 1/10 second to send the data back doesnt this piont to a critical limitation of high performance UAV flight since the plane is not in the same position as when the pilot imputs the manuver commands. It seems to me that the UAV pilot is behind where the aircraft is from the get go, and is further hampered by loosing his sense of motion. Mudd i know pilots must trust their instruments, but lack of a feel for the stress on aircraft during manuvering doesnt further limit high performance manuvering in UAV craft.

It was a serious Issue during the Balkans. Add in the atmospheric effects of high altitude and Icing.

one Specific Unnamed Major dead sticked a Predator to an abandoned airfield in the balkans and had to fly it in a past tense.

So yes and not specificly answering to any given time of delay. Todays systems are not even the same breed of animal as they were 10 years ago.


Typically the Pilot operated the aircraft manually on take off and landing/recovery. After that point it is pretty much using the Navigational computer and telling it where to go, climb schedules etc. Now the pilot can fly a manual mission, buttheir is so many other things to do, that it is not necearily to fly it remotely, only in the sense of emergency situations and so forth.

These systems today are typically Photo reconaisance and others have the a2G capability. But today they are operated through a digital satelite network and are much more effective. Think of it as comparing amatuer radio to Broadband Internet. the communications end of UAVS is the quantum leep at the moment.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

I run a telemedicine start up company and everything we do has to fit into a bandwidth cap. The best I can afford here is t-1 and be competitive 1.5 megs each way. This only gives me 30 frames per sec high quality both ways. now in korea dsls run at 15 meg per sec each way and some part of europe are shooting for 100 meg. but all these technologies are wired.

Our next step up in our sector would be free space optical fsona ect, basically lasers for point to point communications to bridge the customer to in ground fiber.

I dont see how in the hell you guys do broadband wirelessly to the UAV. but then again the government can print money. I look foreward to the day this technology trickles into the civilian world it will have great uses.

I concur with Mudd on all his statements, especially that it is hard to substitute for a real pilot in the aircraft, but I have no experience in those matters. As far as the effect on cost goes, removing the pilot, escape system, life support system and canopy would decrease the empty weight about 700 lbs. Let's say the extra stuff for remote piloting adds back 200 lbs for a net change of 500 lbs. Assuming a "growth factor" of 2.0, we could see a gross weight decrease of about 1000 lbs. If you buy airplanes by the pound, that's not a huge savings for a vehicle that weighs >10000 lbs gross. This would be more than compensated for by the ground station and comm link costs, so I wouldn't think there is any cost advantage to an unmanned system. The big advantage is that the political risk of a manned shootdown is gone.
On the other hand, the stealth stuff is easier so I would think a UAV would give up nothing, and probably could gain a few dbsm's in the RCS area. Since the maneuvering air combat task is presumably gone, optimum propulsion integration for IR and RCS is a better possibility. The canopy is another nasty RCS problem child that is gone. I also think they can do a good job on keeping the comm links and sensors from being detected.
What I am describing is not exactly an expendable drone, it's very sophistcated and deserves defensive systems to protect the investment, not a Predator kind of thing, and much bigger than X-45. I don't see moderate stealth getting the job done either. It aint cheap.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I run a telemedicine start up company and everything we do has to fit into a bandwidth cap. The best I can afford here is t-1 and be competitive 1.5 megs each way. This only gives me 30 frames per sec high quality both ways. now in korea dsls run at 15 meg per sec each way and some part of europe are shooting for 100 meg. but all these technologies are wired.

Our next step up in our sector would be free space optical fsona ect, basically lasers for point to point communications to bridge the customer to in ground fiber.

I dont see how in the hell you guys do broadband wirelessly to the UAV. but then again the government can print money. I look foreward to the day this technology trickles into the civilian world it will have great uses.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Matt the WISP network stuff you buy at the local computer retailer witha 21 DB antenae will transmit 10 Miles with 6Mbit Speeds. Wireless ISPS are allready pushing 100MB 50 NM.

W are beyond this in Defense Satelite Communications.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader